The 1976 Tehran, F-4 Phantom Chases UFO Case

page: 2
64
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
I found quite a good video covering this case. Let's consider it 'Tehran 1976 for dummies'
Quite a good simulation I might add, additional commentary from Stanton Friedman as well.



Cheers




posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Nice thread and nice input by Internos as always!


Mufon as a great page about this incident too! Have a look here..I always love the classic cases..Thank you Oz



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
The Tehran Case is a very interesting one.

What I would do first, though, is look at what we had flying on or before that time period.

For instance, the first A-12 (Mach 3 SR-71 prototype) was flying in the early 1960s.
Lockheed A-12

# December 1957: Lockheed begins designing subsonic stealthy aircraft under what will become Project GUSTO.
# 24 December 1957: First J-58 engine run.
# 21 April 1958: Kelly Johnson makes first notes on a Mach 3 aircraft, initially called the U-3, but eventually evolving into Archangel I.
# November 1958: The Land panel provisionally selects Convair FISH (B-58-launched parasite) over Lockheed's A-3.
# June 1959: The Land panel provisionally selects Lockheed A-11 over Convair FISH. Both companies instructed to re-design their aircraft.
# 14 September 1959: CIA awards antiradar study, aerodynamic structural tests, and engineering designs, selecting Lockheed's A-12 over rival Convair's KINGFISH. Project OXCART established.


We already had radar jamming capabilities and we may have had other technology.

(Note I'm not saying this was US technology, just that it's important to rule out or rule in).

If you take the report at face value, I doubt we had anything that could stop dead, but, if there were counter measures similar to what we had in the 1980s where the returns made it look like the craft was elsewhere, then it could have been a case of radar deflection.

Also, what troubles me a little is the idea that a conventional radar system could get a 'lock' on a non-conventional craft using advanced propulsion technology 'not of this Earth'.

If you imagine a battle between a small submarine and a 16th Century Spanish Galleon, you can imagine the reports. 'The ship was there, then it disappeared!'. It would not even be a case of one technology being able to keep up with the other, let alone playing a game of cat-and-mouse.

So despite the high strangeness, there were elements of the case where it appeared that the Iranians were being toyed with for motives similar to those of military objectives. Would advanced propulsion craft even be able to be detected? We have craft now that they couldn't have even detected back then, including UAVs and probably one man stealth craft considerably smaller than the F-117a.

Just a thought.

(nice discussion, guys!)



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 




So despite the high strangeness, there were elements of the case where it appeared that the Iranians were being toyed with for motives similar to those of military objectives.


Hey Badge,

I have a rebuttal for ya


The Iranian pilot was NOT necessarily being toyed with(militarily or otherwise) especially because they had strong relations with the U.S back then. The jet going in to a 'no go' and then functioning again doesn't necessarily mean that the UFO was intentionally doing this.. although I agree about there being elements of toying around...I think it's quite a leap to conclude so.

A possible explanation could be that in the vicinity of this craft, the jet went haywire due to electromagnetic interference or some similar phenomenon. Some people believe that these UFOs operate on Anti-Gravity technology.

Just wanted to make that point clear.

Happy New Year everyone!

Majorion



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 
Good point.

Here's what I try to do in cases like this.

I look at the motives or the overall aspect of the case and try to think about it in a systems management point of view.

So let's listen in on the Alien Commander.
 
Alien Commander: OK, guys, what did you do today?

Alien sub-commander 1: Well we flew over the place across where the pyramids were and scared this guy in a funny craft that really doesn't fly that fast.

Alien Fleet Commander: That's good but did you abduct anyone, did you bring back any hot Earth babes? Any rectal probes?

ASC: Uh, no, but we did have a lot of yucks.

Alien Fleet Commander: I notice you used up all your dilithium. You think that stuff grows on trees? You're grounded!

ASC: (Antennae drooping) But Boss...!

FC: No strawberry ice cream for you tonight.
 
See what I'm getting at? There seems to be no point to an exercise like this. But from a Military standpoint, there's an inkling of a motive in that this is how you test someone's defenses or readiness or ability to react under pressure and handle the 'unknown'.

I fail to see any 'alien motivation' and in a many of these kinds of encounters , where craft fly along side airliners or zip in and out of formations of military jets, but there's no discernible outcome, rhyme or reason.

Now, admittedly we don't understand the motivations of something 'alien', which is by nature, is 'different'. but you gotta wonder.

However, if there's something that has a hint of human motivation, then it can sometimes give an inkling at least.

Even though we were friendlies, note that the Military and the gov't use their own civilian populace for nefarious purposes. I wouldn't put it past them in this case.

Did we have such capabilities in 1976? Except for the dead stop part, maybe we probably did. Remember before they have a full roll out they frequently have a test bed.

If you look at the DARPA proposals they're full of weird stuff like this, electronic counter measures, use of holograms (I think it was discussed as a potential ploy on the part of the Israelis to scare the Egyptians during one of their wars back in the 60s.)

Anyway, nothing firm, this was a good sighting and it had the lock on so there probably was a physical craft involved.

Just trying to think out of the box a little.


[edit on 1/2/2009 by Badge01]



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Thanks for this post. I have known about this case for a few months, since it was reported on UFO hunters in the history channel, where they interviewed the pilot of the second plane, Lt. Parviz Jafari.

Before this case, I always believed that UFO reports had to be misidentification, maybe because I can be very cynical, and I think I am smarter than most people. Nevertheless, this is the case that ended my skeptic status. It also led me to become more humble and respectful of the validity of subjective experience, even when I don't believe it. This has opened a lot of research possibilities for me.

After that I researched Bob Lazar's story, the disclosure project, and countless UFO reports. I have learned to become better at filtering out junk reports and junk UFO mythology, while keeping some good information. And although the reports that remain do not qualify as concrete hard evidence, only circumstantial, they have convinced me of the reality of a cover up of the technologies that lead to these reports, whether they are extraterrestrial or not. And the impending possibility of major change regarding the entire panorama regarding this situation, in light of the change in reporting tone and the increasing rate of alleged leaks as well as government sanctioned releases of UFO information.

Lately, I have started researching the history of UFO and abduction cases in Puerto Rico, in particular claims of underground bases and a long history of sightings in particular hot spots as well as unexplained but well documented US military and NASA interventions in key areas of the island. But that is subject for another thread.

Thanks again,

-rrr



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


OzWeatherman you just keep on surprising me with your UFO reports. I like ho you present the more 'old' reports to a new light and providing the most spot on information!
Keep it up!



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by danx
 


"There’s also the accounts of people whose cars stopped when UFOs flew over, or were near. And then there are numerous other accounts where no such effects occurred.

For example, and if I’m not mistaken, no one reported any interferences in Phoenix in March 1997 (aka Phoenix Lights), where allegedly a massive triangular or boomerang shaped craft flew over the city at a low altitude.

One thing I’ve learned and came to accept long ago regarding the UFO field and phenomena: nothing is clear-cut. Which most likely translates in: there’s not one single explanation or reason."

I Have a pretty good idea (in theory of course) that the UFO's have their own weapons systems, and when they are around the humans hostile aircraft (fighter jets) they flip a switch and disorient the ship or disable some functionality just for defence. and when near an airliner, they would disable their defensive weapons because it wouldnt be a threat.

But thats just me, ur open to your opinion.



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by danx
 


For example, and if I’m not mistaken, no one reported any interferences in Phoenix in March 1997 (aka Phoenix Lights), where allegedly a massive triangular or boomerang shaped craft flew over the city at a low altitude.


The phoenix light sighting didn't do anything that a very large lighter than air craft could not do. What if it was a ginormous military blimp with a funny shape? It's in the realm of possibility.

Another possibility is that it was in fact an alien or anti-gravity type craft, but that it produced no detectable interference. As you realize the time between 1976 and 1997 has plenty of room for technological change, alien or not. Maybe the aliens decided to "quiet down" their craft because they never intended to have adverse effects on our equipment (and/or for stealth reasons)

-rrr



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
I Have a pretty good idea (in theory of course) that the UFO's have their own weapons systems, and when they are around the humans hostile aircraft (fighter jets) they flip a switch and disorient the ship or disable some functionality just for defence. and when near an airliner, they would disable their defensive weapons because it wouldnt be a threat.
But thats just me, ur open to your opinion.

I understand your perspective and consider it to be valid as any other opinion and theory. I don’t reject it, it’s quite possible, and logical, that their craft would have defensive measures.

However, what I was pointing out was that, it seems to have happened to people and situations where there was no threat to the craft.



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
OzWeatherman, what a fantastic thread on one of the BEST cases in Ufology.


Internos, that is a SPECTACULAR post! Should be mandatory reading for everyone interested in the topic.


This case like the ICBM site case(s) have always intrigued me for a different reason than most... The fact these systems (navigation and weapons in the F-4 and the entire control system at the ICBM sites) were brought back online is simply astounding to me. Typically when something gets shut down "hot" (instantly just turned off rather than "properly" shut down) the reintroduction of electrical current doesn't return them to fully operational status, much less operational with the exact same, specific settings selected and functioning!

Think about that for a moment. The implication is HUGE in my mind.


Springer...

[edit on 1-2-2009 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
OzWeatherman, what a fantastic thread on one of the BEST cases in Ufology.


Internos, that is a SPECTACULAR post! Should be mandatory reading for everyone interested in the topic.


This case like the ICBM site case(s) have always intrigued me for a different reason than most... The fact these systems (navigation and weapons in the F-4 and the entire control system at the ICBM sites) were brought back online is simply astounding to me. Typically when something gets shut down "hot" (instantly just turned off rather than "properly" shut down) the reintroduction of electrical current doesn't return them to fully operational status, much less operational with the exact same, specific settings selected and functioning!

Think about that for a moment. The implication is HUGE in my mind.


Springer...

[edit on 1-2-2009 by Springer]


Hi Springer.

Can you elucidate the implication of the scenario you've described, please.

I don't understand its significance.

Thanks

[edit on 2/1/09 by The Quiet Earth]

[edit on 2/1/09 by The Quiet Earth]



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by The Quiet Earth
 

What Springer is talking about is the unusual fact that apparently the power was shut down, but when the event stopped, everything came back online as if nothing had happened.

It would be like, the power went out and you were on your desktop computer (that doesn’t have any backup battery, or an UPS for example). And after a while the power came back up and everything you had open, all your windows, work, etc were exactly like they were before the power went out.

Basically, if computers go down abruptly (the power being cut off, etc) without shutting down correctly, you will lose information and it’s highly probable that some data might even get corrupted.

Now imagine the number of electronic and computer systems a base like that, and a system that manages ICBMs has, and everything came back up like nothing happened.

I believe this is what Springer was alluding to. Correct me if I’m wrong here Springer.




[edit on 2-1-2009 by danx]



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I always found this case interesting and I think there were others that mirrored this kind of behavior.

Youtube Mexican Air Force UFO chase.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
This case like the ICBM site case(s) have always intrigued me for a different reason than most... The fact these systems (navigation and weapons in the F-4 and the entire control system at the ICBM sites) were brought back online is simply astounding to me. [edit on 1-2-2009 by Springer]


Quite right there

Its as if the systems were simply frozen rather than being completely shut off. I also find it strange that the pilots still had engine power and their consoles were still lit up despite losing navigation instruments. Its as if the alleged UFO just wanted to loes them rather then harm the F-4.

Thanks for everyones input and Internos, great stuff......I knew you would have some extra input



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
If you wanna findout more about this incident and see the video of new UFO in Iran (which is somehow similar to this UFO), read the first two post of page 2 of the following topic (and previous posts of mine on that topic):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was the witness of the new UFO and one of my relatives was the witness of 1976 incident



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 




If you take the report at face value, I doubt we had anything that could stop dead, but, if there were counter measures similar to what we had in the 1980s where the returns made it look like the craft was elsewhere, then it could have been a case of radar deflection.


Even if you consider the possibility of radar deflection technogloy, that does not explain the sightings of a hovering craft with the naked eye.

I have thought long and hard about this case. It seems I have been beat to the punch on making a good thread devoted soley to this case.


To me, it appears this UFO generates some sort of EM field which affects nearby electronics (the airport, the civilian airliner, the F4's). The question is whether the F4's sidewinder missile was disabled due to intelligent action (on the part of the UFO) or just coincidence/proximity.

The F4 (like other planes) are designed with more than one radar system. The radar used for missiles to lock onto targets is a different one than the one the F4 uses to navigate around during normal flight.

We must remember in our analysis that the radar used for sidewinders is likely a "narrower signal cone" which can only be used at certain distances. By narrowing the effective 3D space to which this radiation pulse is directed the F4 can send out faster pulses (which are better for tracking another flying object). It is very conceivable the UFO detected the change in frequency radiation pulses and acted accordingly (in an intelligent manner). However there is no 100% proof of this.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Bumping a great thread on a GREAT case. Excellent job at making this report OzWeatherman and internos for your further contributions..


[edit on 9/1/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Hi there Badge01! Nice to see you!



Originally posted by Badge01
Also, what troubles me a little is the idea that a conventional radar system could get a 'lock' on a non-conventional craft using advanced propulsion technology 'not of this Earth'.


This caught my attention as well, and so I thought that I'd do some researching. I found within the Condon Report (circa 1967) the following:

Source: ncas.org...

"a. Dozens of targets were seen. Speed ranged from 0 to 80 k. with rapid changes in altitudes. The radars would lose their tracking "locks" on the objects, and then re-engage. "

The above quote indicates that altitude was the primary reason for loosing a radar lock, at least a decade before, and that losing a lock on moving targets was already an identified problem at the time.

I couldn't really identify the definition of 'lock' as used in Radar terminology, however, as I understand it, radar works like this:
"Calculations about an object's speed and direction are made from the results of transmitter and receiver data."

Source: www.wisegeek.com...

A Radar 'lock' as I understand it, would be the Radar Operator's computer's ability to accurately predict the object tracked on Radar's movements, extrapolating from data already acquired...

It's a subject I'd like to learn more about, and a very interesting point Badge01. I'm assuming though, that regardless of an object's origin/make, as long as it's solid (from a radio wave's perspective) it should be trackable on Radar, and reflect a signature of some sort...

Thoughts?

-WFA



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Tifozi has proven to be some guy who knows this type of stuff: i'm going to alert him, i wonder what's his take on this case.

[edit on 1/9/2009 by internos]





top topics
 
64
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join