Visual and radar confirmed ufo sightings

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, May 24, 2016.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    Here's a thread for the discussion of these cases. There are quite a few we could study here. I'm going to start with the famous Tehran incident of 1976. It is remarkable for it's visual confirmations, it's radar returns, and it's evasion of pursuing jets. Note also the peculiar characteristics of the object itself, entailing a technology we didn't have in 1976.

     
    Last edited: May 24, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Criteria first: Can we agree that visual confirmation of a high performance radar contact would be compelling evidence?

    That means someone seeing something on radar at the same time he (better) or someone else (not as good, but ok) sees it visually. And it must display high performance to preclude conventional explanation.

    Agreed?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    Yes..see the video I posted. The object is seen by ground observers, by pilots, and confirmed on radar at the same time. Both the pilots even experience control panel shutdown when they attempt to lock onto the target.

    I happened to read over a skeptic's version of this account. As usual I see a complete glossing over of the visual details of the object. The explanation the skeptic suggests is that they saw the planet Jupiter! lol! Not only does that NOT fit what was seen of the object, but it doesn't match the object being seen to move and tracked on radar. This is an example of the absurdity of skeptics' constant attempts to debunk, cherrypicking details to the neglect of all the others.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Great! So since we are agreed on the criteria for "compelling" and you have dropped the Belgian wave from the discussion, that must be because we agree that the Belgian event was not compelling because there was never a simultaneous radar and visual sighting of a high performance contact, right?
     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    No.."compelling" also includes multiple eyewitness accounts of the same object at different locations. It also includes behavior on radar that exceeds any craft known to man. All these are documented details of the Belgium ufo wave, making it incredibly compelling.
     
  9. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Wait, what? How can you be sure it's the same object if you don't see it visually when you see it on radar? That's the entire point we've been discussing! You aren't seriously suggesting that radars never track things that aren't objects or things that aren't there, are you?
     
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    I already confirmed that one of the objects disappeared to ground observers when the jets flew in. The other rose up quickly into the sky. Both of these observed events correlate to what the pilots observed on their radar. The ufo obviously went dark after it disappeared but was still tracked on radar. That explains everything. What are you suggesting? That in addition to the 2 triangular craft there was a third unseeable craft that was picked up on radar? Fine. So what? That does nothing to debunk either the sightings or the radar contact. BTW, why aren't you addressing the case given in the OP? Haven't found a skeptical article about it yet? lol! Keep looking..
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2016
  11. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    [edit: unsure of a point - will repost]
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2016
  12. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    By the way, I found a better version of the F-16 radar tape:



    What the pilot "locks on" to at about 30 seconds in is pretty clearly one dot in a splatter of static. The plane's computer reports some gibberish, then recognizes it is gibberish and drops the contact.
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    LOL! So what? What else would a radar target be other than a dot?
     
  14. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Huh? Targets are dots. Lots of dots splattered onto the screen for a few seconds is noise. You are aware that sometimes radars display noise, are you not?

    I'm replying to this from the other thread:
    That's from the wiki article. The word "broadly" there means vaguely. In other words, not very well. Most notably, while the people on the ground saw the objects change and move, the pilots never saw them at all. And then there's this, from your other source:
    In other words -- the other times, the ground observers didn't notice a change and this source doesn't say anything about maneuvering. And yet the F-16 pilots never saw the objects, even though they should have.

    The bottom line here is that objects that were present for hours and easily seen visually by many people on the ground should not have been difficult for pilots in aircraft to intercept. Their failure calls into question the veracity of the sightings. And the contradictions between the accounts is part of why stories about stories about stories - instead of the actual testimony - make for bad evidence.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2016
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    No it doesn't mean "vaguely". There is no dictionary definition supporting that. "Broadly" means "widely", meaning the movements of the ufos were confirmed by many ground observers.

    Right..The triangles are only lighted from underneath. Hence they would not be seen by the pilots from above. Try again?

    So because the pilots couldn't get a visual on the now disappeared triangle craft but did have a radar return for it, that invalidates the sightings of all the ground observers? lol! No..I'm afraid not.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2016
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    The radar clearly displays a target that the jet's computer locked onto. Are you disputing the trained observations of the pilots now?
     
  17. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    How do you know that? Did someone see them from above and see that they had no lights on top? You don't get to make assumptions about things that no one saw. Otherwise, I could equally claim there is an invisible unicorn in my garage.
    I said no such thing. What it invalidates is the your claim that there was simultaneous visual and radar contact with an object maneuvering in a way impossible for human craft. You've acknowledged this is an important criteria and acknowledged it didn't happen and then tried to weasel out of it.
    You are weaseling. I ask you again: are you aware that radars sometimes display noise?
    What trained pilot observations? I haven't seen/heard any connected with this event. In any case; yes, sometimes pilots get fooled by radar noise.
     
  18. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    It totally explains why the pilots couldn't see them. Your explanation? That the craft didn't exist? I don't know what the hell you're claiming.

    It's only one criteria. My other criteria was radar tracking of an object that moves in ways exceeding any technology we have. Which is exactly what the targets did.


    Noise doesn't move across the screen when pursued by a jet. So no, the "noise" you claim was on the screen wasn't the target.



    I quoted the official airforce report on this sighting. The pilots back up what was seen on radar. To deny it now is clearly disengenous.
     
  19. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    You are not entitled to invent evidence to fit your preconceived conclusions! That's not how human thinking works!
    I neither have nor need an explanation. You're the one trying to prove something here, not me. All we have is "not proven".
    Only if they were real targets, which can only be confirmed if they are tracked on radar an seen at the same time. You know this - you've been dancing back and forth over the issue of the observations being simultaneous for something like two weeks.
    Well, of course it can! Especially when it is only on the screen for a few seconds, it can do damn near anything.

    Anyway, since there are something like a dozen "objects" on the radar screen, what is your explanation for why the people on the ground didn't see a dozen alien spaceships? You can't have it both ways, MR: you can't claim that one contact in a cluster of noise was real when the rest were not. Either way, it is inconsistent.
    What you quoted is labeled as a summary of the report, which doesn't say whether it was a summary written by the person who wrote the report or by someone else. And it doesn't contain the words of the pilots.
     
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    I can offer any plausible explanation that fits the facts. That's the power of reasoning.

    Right..you're not seeking any explanation. You are only trying to debunk mine. Which you have totally failed to do.

    No..two jets locking on the same target is confirmation of the existence of the object. Which is what we have. Also the eyewitness accounts collaborating what the pilots saw on radar is confirmation too.

    The pilot's radar detected a target and it was evaded by the target when it locked onto it.

    The noise didn't move like the target did. It just flashed on and off. Pilots are probably used to this and overlook it.

    Oh so you claim the report is made up now? lol! What about this report?

    http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc408.htm
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2016
  21. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    You could, but you choose not to. You offer only implausible explanations and fantasies to fill in the gaps in the facts. By similar reasoning to what you have shown, I just looked outside and saw nothing in the sky. So there must have been an invisible alien spaceship there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I'm trying to evaluate the evidence objectively.
    Not necessarily, nor is it confirmation that what they locked-on to was the same object that the people were seeing.
    Or the pilots manually locked-on to noise and then the noise disappeared. Which is more plausible? We know which you choose.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It most certainly did. the noise and the "target" stayed stationary near the middle of the screen until blinking away -- an indication that it was nothing. Note, that the "lock" once it is locked becomes artificial. You no longer see the previous target, you see the computer's track of it. When the track gets squirrly, the computer tries to fill in the gaps. This incident has the look of a computer that tried and failed to maintain a lock on noise.
    I made no such claim. What I'd like is to see the actual unfiltered report so I don't have to sift through the interpretations of True Believer nuts to figure out what was actually seen.
    Assuming that's a full report of what was only summarized in your previous link, that contains a problematic feature for you: it contains timestamps. You cannot plausibly claim events were simultaneous when they had different timestamps. Specifically, there are no simultaneous descriptions of visual sightings and radar locks. There is, however, a description of planes circling around an area where sightings are happening and not seeing anything.

    Still, this report doesn't contain the words of any of the witnesses or pilots. It is still way too thin to be of much value -- except of course for people who choose to make up fantasies about alien spaceships to fit the vague descriptions.
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,822
    UFOlogists claim that after residents reported a "bright light in the sky", Iranian pilots encountered a UFO that was supposedly able to disable their electronic navigation, communications and weapon systems. Journalist Philip J. Klass wrote that it was likely the witnesses initially saw an astronomical body, probably Jupiter, an explanation also cited by aerospace researcher James Oberg. Klass wrote that pilot incompetence and equipment malfunction likely accounted for the reported equipment failures.[1]

    According to Klass, the Westinghouse technician at Shahrokhi airbase stated that only the first F-4 reported failing equipment, and that this F-4 was known for equipment failures with a long history of electrical outages, having been repaired only a month before the incident. Klass cites a McDonnell Douglas repair supervisor's opinion that the F-4's radar could have been in "manual track" mode, causing a wrong interpretation of the radar lock.[1]

    Regarding pilot reports of "bright objects" falling to the ground and "leaving a bright trail", author Brian Dunning observes that September 19, the day of the incident, was the height of two annual meteorite showers, the Gamma Piscids and the Southern Piscids and the tail of the Eta Draconids shower, so observation of falling objects or odd lights would not have been unusual. At the site where the falling light supposedly crashed, a beeping transponder from a C-141 aircraft was found according to investigating Col. Mooy.[2]

    According to Dunning:[2]

    Once we look at all the story's elements without the presumption of an alien spaceship, the only thing unusual about the Tehran 1976 UFO case is that planes were chasing celestial objects and had equipment failures. There have been many cases where planes had equipment failures, and there have been many cases where planes misidentified celestial objects. Once in a while, both will happen on the same flight.

    Dunning criticized UFOlogists and UFO-themed television programs like Sightings for describing all the events related to the incident "from the context of a presumption that the light was a hostile and intelligently guided alien spacecraft".[2]

    [Source]
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    Ahh yes. Klass's famous Jupiter theory! I already read that bullshit earlier. Here's the problems with it:

    "In his book UFOs: The Public Deceived, debunker Philip J. Klass claimed the witnesses initially saw an astronomical body, probably Jupiter, and pilot incompetence and equipment malfunction accounted for the rest.

    Although Jupiter was by far then the brightest astronomical object in the sky (except for a rising crescent moon), it is not possible for it to have been the object that the F-4's were directed to or chased. The bright object was first noticed by witnesses in Shemiran, the northernmost district of Tehran. One of the witnesses in the northeastern part of Tehran was Gen. Yousefi himself, who ordered the jet interceptions. The jets were scrambled from Shahrokhi AFB in Hamadan, about 175 miles (282 km) west-southwest of Tehran, and vectored to a point 40 miles (64 km) north of central Tehran. However, Jupiter was in the east. Thus the UFO was approximately 90 degrees away from Jupiter at the time. In addition, the second F-4 chased the UFO from northern to southern Tehran. Again, Jupiter would be at nearly 90 degrees to the pursuit trajectory.


    Furthermore, both F-4's picked up and tracked something on their radar, impossible for an astronomical object like a star or planet. Many more details of the encounter do not match Klass' proposed explanation, such as both F-4's and the control tower losing their electronics with close approach to the UFO and a third civilian plane in the region also losing communications.

    Jerome Clark commented, "Klass's theory presumes a remarkable lack of even rudimentary observing and technical skills on the parts of the Iranian participants. In some ways it would be easier to credit the notion, for which no evidence exists either, that the witnesses consciously fabricated the sighting. Both Gen. Azerbarzin and air controller Perouzi considered the incident thoroughly puzzling. So, as the documents indicate, did American analysts familiar with it." [13]====http://www.thelivingmoon.com/49ufo_files/03files2/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident.html
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2016

Share This Page