Visual and radar confirmed ufo sightings

[Russ_Watters]

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

...

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.

You and the writer of that misunderstand the simple logic: the planes were vectored to the north of Tehran because that's where the sighting came from. Jupiter is really far away, so it appears to the east in both locations.

A more thorough treatment:
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4315

Again, though, all that one is is just stories about stories -- there is no actual evidence presented.

 

[Magical Realist]

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.

I just gave you a plausible explanation for why the craft were not seen by pilots. The craft was likely only illuminated from below, and then the craft disappeared, correlating to the time the pilots were pursuing. It's a perfectly reasonable explanation that fits the facts of the case.

I'm trying to evaluate the evidence objectively.

No..you're just whining about the targets not being visually seen by the pilots. I already gave a simple explanation for it: it went dark. This is the only explanation that fits the facts of the account.

Not necessarily, nor is it confirmation that what they locked-on to was the same object that the people were seeing.

Yes...multiple radar contact with the same object is confirmation of the object. Always!

Or the pilots manually locked-on to noise and then the noise disappeared. Which is more plausible? We know which you choose.

They both locked on to the same noise as the noise evaded their pursuit? lol! No..I'm afraid not. And noise doesn't register speed on radar like the target did. It's just noise ya know.

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.

No..the target was there before the flash of the noise. It also was tracked moving by the radar and evading pursuit at a measurable speed. Noise doesn't do that.

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.

"You can't always get what you want."--- Mick Jagger

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.

The witnesses confirm the behavior of the craft as the pilots were engaging. This is backed up by eyewitnesses. Who cares if the airforce didn't time the sightings? Didn't mean they didn't happen.

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.

The video itself contains pilot accounts of the ufos. Suddenly now that's not good enough? lol! Goalpost moving as usual.

 

[Magical Realist]

You and the writer of that misunderstand the simple logic: the planes were vectored to the north because that's where the sighting came from. Jupiter is really far away, so it appears to the east in both locations.

A more thorough treatment:
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4315

Again, though, all that one is is just stories about stories -- there is no actual evidence presented.

That's the article I already went over. It's simply repeating the inane Jupiter theory of Klass. Which in no way remotely explains why the object was witnessed moving across the sky by the tower, was detected on both ground and jet radar, eluded pursuit by the jets, shut down the equipment of the jets and the tower, and took on various shapes from a cylinder to a starfish to a horseshoe all the while displaying several bright multicolored lights. Furthermore there's even confirmation of an infrared target over Tehran at that time that was captured from satellite. There's simply no way it could have been Jupiter. The eyewitness accounts alone debunk that theory.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I just gave you a plausible explanation for why the craft were not seen by pilots. The craft was likely only illuminated from below, and then the craft disappeared, correlating to the time the pilots were pursuing. It's a perfectly reasonable explanation that fits the facts of the case.

It's a fabricated piece of data, whether it fits or not.

Yes...multiple radar contact with the same object is confirmation of the object. Always!

Since you can very well see from the radar display video that there were a dozen "contacts" and they appeared briefly and then disappeared again, it is impossible to say that any two "locks" were on the same object.

They both locked on to the same noise as the noise...

I'm not sure you recognize what "noise" is. Noise is faulty returns. Yes, the same faulty return could register on both planes.

...evaded their pursuit? lol! No..I'm afraid not. And noise doesn't register speed on radar like the target did.

You're making that up because you don't know it isn't true. Because you've never operated a radar. You are guessing in a way consistent with your fantasy.

No..the target was there before the flash of the noise.

No, that's wrong. On the video clip, the first fleks of noise show up at 34 seconds. Several more appear and disappear before the "lock" is established at 41 seconds. And you'll note, the "lock" isn't even actually attached to any of the blips seen.

But hey - at least you are now acknowledging that most of what was on the screen was noise!

It also was tracked moving by the radar and evading pursuit at a measurable speed. Noise doesn't do that.

So you guess because you do not understand how radar works.

The witnesses confirm the behavior of the craft as the pilots were engaging. This is backed up by eyewitnesses. Who cares if the airforce didn't time the sightings? Didn't mean they didn't happen.

So you guess because the evidence you yourself provided contradicts your fantasy. Who cares? You should care because you are claiming the sightings were simultaneous when your own evidence says they weren't.

The video itself contains pilot accounts of the ufos.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Russ_Watters]

That's the article I already went over. It's simply repeating the inane Jupiter theory of Klass. Which in no way remotely explains why the object was witnessed moving across the sky by the tower, was detected on both ground and jet radar, eluded pursuit by the jets, shut down the equipment of the jets and the tower, and took on various shapes from a cylinder to a starfish to a horseshoe all the while displaying several bright multicolored lights. Furthermore there's even confirmation of an infrared target over Tehran at that time that was captured from satellite. There's simply no way it could have been Jupiter. The eyewitness accounts alone debunk that theory.

This is just your same tactic of jumbling together a bunch of non-simultaneous events as if they are the same event. There is no evidence that those are all a single event because the sightings were not simultaneous. Again. Taken separately - because they happened separately - none are particularly unusual.

 

[Magical Realist]

This is just your same tactic of jumbling together a bunch of non-simultaneous events as if they are the same event. There is no evidence that those are all a single event because the sightings were not simultaneous. Again. Taken separately - because they happened separately - none are particularly unusual.

The whole incident took place over a period of hours. It was not separate incidents. One incident and one object backed up by multiple radars, ground eyewitnesses, tower eyewitnesses, and pilot eyewitnesses. You have absolutely nothing to debunk this with. Hence your resorting to that ridiculous old Jupiter theory.

 

[Magical Realist]

It's a fabricated piece of data, whether it fits or not.

Since you can very well see from the radar display video that there were a dozen "contacts" and they appeared briefly and then disappeared again, it is impossible to say that any two "locks" were on the same object.

I'm not sure you recognize what "noise" is. Noise is faulty returns. Yes, the same faulty return could register on both planes.

You're making that up because you don't know it isn't true. Because you've never operated a radar. You are guessing in a way consistent with your fantasy.

No, that's wrong. On the video clip, the first fleks of noise show up at 34 seconds. Several more appear and disappear before the "lock" is established at 41 seconds. And you'll note, the "lock" isn't even actually attached to any of the blips seen.

But hey - at least you are now acknowledging that most of what was on the screen was noise!

So you guess because you do not understand how radar works.

So you guess because the evidence you yourself provided contradicts your fantasy. Who cares? You should care because you are claiming the sightings were simultaneous when your own evidence says they weren't.

No, it doesn't.

Here's a full examination of the radar data examined by an expert. This wasn't noise.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/61600529/Mark-Cashman-An-Analysis-of-the-Belgian-Radar-Data

 

[Russ_Watters]

A primer on radar clutter:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~justin/radar_project/clearair.htm

 

[Russ_Watters]

The whole incident took place over a period of hours. It was not separate incidents. One incident and one object backed up by multiple radars, ground eyewitnesses, tower eyewitnesses, and pilot eyewitnesses. You have absolutely nothing to debunk this with. Hence your resorting to that ridiculous old Jupiter theory.

We both know that you know that that's BS. Why even try to fake pretending not to know that's BS? Simultaneous means at the same time. Hours apart is not at the same time. You aren't stupid, MR - stop pretending to be.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Here's a full examination of the radar data examined by an expert. This wasn't noise.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/61600529/Mark-Cashman-An-Analysis-of-the-Belgian-Radar-Data

That link does not contain an examination of the radar display's data that we are discussing. It only contains analysis of the reported tracks, assuming without any analysis that the tracks are real. And no, I won't take your word for it that the guy is a radar expert. As far as I can tell, he's just some anonymous guy on the internet.

 

[Magical Realist]

That link does not contain an examination of the radar display's data that we are discussing. It only contains analysis of the reported tracks, assuming without any analysis that the tracks are real. And no, I won't take your word for it that the guy is a radar expert. As far as I can tell, he's just some anonymous guy on the internet.

There's no way noise is going to show such consistency of maneuvers with changes of speed and bearing and elevation all recorded on radar. Clearly the object was a 3 dimensional craft performing evasive maneuvers in response to pursuit by the jets. You've been refuted.

 

[Russ_Watters]

There's no way noise is going to show such consistency of maneuvers with changes of speed and bearing and elevation all recorded on radar. Clearly the object was a 3 dimensional craft performing evasive maneuvers in response to pursuit by the jets. You've been refuted.

You're just making crap up again. It's a fantasy you are spinning. Hell, the whole problem with the example track is that it is anything but consistent. The erratic nature is what has been claimed to indicate it's an alien spaceship. But it's that very erratic nature that implies it isn't a real object.

 

[Magical Realist]

We both know that you know that that's BS. Why even try to fake pretending not to know that's BS? Simultaneous means at the same time. Hours apart is not at the same time. You aren't stupid, MR - stop pretending to be.

Stop pretending it was different incidents then. Or was that big ole planet Jupiter all along jumping around in the sky and getting detected on radar? It's all so confusing when you cherry pick the data isn't it? lol!

 

[Russ_Watters]

Stop pretending it was different incidents then. Or was that big ole planet Jupiter....

If I go outside and see Jupiter (it's out there now) and then go outside 3 hours or 3 days or 3 years later and see it again, those are different sightings. You aren't stupid -- you know that's true.

 

[Magical Realist]

If I go outside and see Jupiter (it's out there now) and then go outside 3 hours or 3 days or 3 years later and see it again, those are different sightings. You aren't stupid -- you know that's true.

It's the same planet. Sightings of the same thing. You can't be this stupid can you? lol!

 

[Russ_Watters]

It's the same planet. Sightings of the same thing.

Yes - sightings of the same thing at different times. And we know this how? Because any random bright light seen in the sky must be an alien spaceship Jupiter? No, we know it because Jupiter can be positively identified, each separate time. Your alien spaceships can't. So the simultaneous sightings are necessary to help identify them.

And you accidentally just agreed with me....by this logic you're on now, my going to my window and seeing Jupiter proves the Iranian UFO sightings were Jupiter!

 

[Magical Realist]

You're just making crap up again. It's a fantasy you are spinning. Hell, the whole problem with the example track is that it is anything but consistent. The erratic nature is what has been claimed to indicate it's an alien spaceship. But it's that very erratic nature that implies it isn't a real object.

You show me radar data of noise changing speed and altitude and bearing in perfect response to jet pursuit and then I'll believe it was noise. But that's not gonna happen is it? Because it wasn't noise.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yes - sightings of the same thing at different times. And we know this how? Because any random bright light seen in the sky must be an alien spaceship Jupiter? No, we know it because Jupiter can be positively identified, each separate time. Your alien spaceships can't. So the simultaneous sightings are necessary to help identify them.

The object was positively identified moving thru the sky, changing shape, and being tracked on radar while being seen by pilots. It was one object, not multiple ones. Come on! You can't be this stupid can you?

 

[Russ_Watters]

You show me radar data of noise changing speed and altitude and bearing in perfect response to jet pursuit and then I'll believe it was noise. But that's not gonna happen is it?

It's not gonna happen because it's a stupid request and you know it. "changing speed and altitude in perfect response to jet pursuit"? You know how an object should behave to evade pursuit? Right.

Hell, the people claiming this was a UFO aren't even claiming the object evaded pursuit -- it just disappeared. It wasn't going fast enough or high enough (or low enough) to evade the radar. Musta turned on stealth mode I guess.

 

[Russ_Watters]

The object was positively identified moving thru the sky, changing shape, and being tracked on radar while being seen by pilots.

Well then clearly it wasn't the same object reported over the phone to the airport. Because that bears no resemblance to the sightings described. Heck, since you agree that we can positively identify Jupiter at different times, you must agree it is possible that those sightings which exactly match what Jupiter should look like were probably Jupiter.