It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The 1976 Tehran, F-4 Phantom Chases UFO Case

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 03:33 PM

Originally posted by internos
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]

Excellent Internos! Tifozi's first hand pilot experience should surely have great bearing on this case

Thanks for bumping it up to ATS's attention once more, I hadn't had a chance to study this case in depth, until now. Congrats to OzWeatherman for such an interesting thread!


posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:14 PM

Originally posted by peacejet
The problems are mainly due to the anti-gravity devices, which will cause a huge magnetic field around the ship and if any plane goes nearby, the magnetic field starts to act on the plane, causing the instruments to malfunction.

You are half way correct.

Magnetic disruptions cause the instruments to go bezerk(Bermudas triangle), give wrong readings and all of the things that can make a pilots day go very wrong, but I don't know of any case where they actually shut down, or go completly offline, like a major system like the weapon system.

Originally posted by danx
There are numerous accounts and cases where UFOs flew next to planes and nothing happened to them. In fact, I would say the majority of the cases involving UFOs and airliners, the airliners suffered no interference whatsoever.

Although I agree with you in your point, I must say that the interferences are not that rare as you may think.

Actually, that's why we must report any UFO (ufo, being something possibly alien or not) the second we touch the ground. If there is something up in the air that can cause a plane to come down, it's taken very seriously by everyone, being alien or not. Passenger safety before "wow" factor, anytime.

Imagine that you are flying at night, without Moon. A UFO makes your instruments go wild and then they appear to be back to normal. If you actually ignore that and don't contact a ATC, or if you are crossing the Atlantic, your instruments can tell you that you have the correct flight path, and you don't. You end up with a rate of descent that will bring you to the ground and you can't tell it when maybe it's too late, and you hear the plane saying what every pilot hates: "Don't think! PULL UP!".

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Very true

Im wondering if they use it as some sort of defense. Assuming that it was an alien craft, maybe sending out some kind of impulse to an aircraft that is considered a threat is a weapon they use?

The technology exists mainstream since the Eagle F-15. They can actually prevent you from contacting anyone, and when anyone on the ground realizes whats going on, a squad is on the ground burning, A.K.A. Air superiority fighters (win the fight before it starts).

Air jamming is "banned" (at least from being used) on some european airspaces.

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'.

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.

It is true that skunk works projects are keep in secret way before they are made public. Like the F-117, they are made public when their porpuse was already been completed... After that it's just a plane to show off and use in some missions, but if you think of that, it's like you do all the BIG and important work in secret, and then you give your toy to the normal special forces and military staff so they can use it a little bit, justifying the money spent on those projects.

BUT, and this is a serious "but", you don't show your game untill you have to. None of the governaments (specially during the 70's) would be interested that the other side would know that you have some type of weapon/technology. We are not talking about "war of fear and intimidation" that happened all through the Cold War. We are talking about me knowing everything about you without you even realizing it.

As for the radars, people tend to think too high of the radars.

People assume (personaficating a radar) that they are like a smart guy with nice vision. "Oh, I'm seeing a 747 at a distance of 5Km's.".

Well, it's not. It's more like a retard waving his hands around and then hiting something and saying "here's something hard". The computer behind the radar tells the operator "this is provably a 747, and according to the feedback is at a distance of around 5Km's".

It doesn't matter if it's a alien ship or a Cessna. If it has mass, if it has reflective properties (the minimum) it'll show up on radar.

Stealth planes aren't invisible to radars. They simply use the computer that helps the operator against himself. Stealth planes dissipate the radar waves in such a effective way that the radar dismisses them automaticly because it thinks it's some type of natural feedback.

And stealth planes aren't radar proof at all. They have radar detectors that tell them what route they must take in order to minimize exposure and provability of being detected.

Originally posted by Springer

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.


Well... 50/50 on that.

If ALL the systems were shut down COMPLETLY, then it is a shock and you must really start thinking even more seriously about this subject, because, for example, RAM memory is cleaned out when it loses power.


[edit on 6/9/09 by Tifozi]

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:27 PM
But if the primary systems were shut down, then it's possible that the backup systems kept functioning and when the primary systems were online, they simply picked up the information from the backups. That happens naturally on any airplane.

And in some cases you can shut down a lot of instruments and go almost blind to keep the plane flying, and if you are able to bring them back on (after the problem is solved, for example) they start normally. It's important to know if that happened or not.

In my opinion, the primary instruments just went bezerk, because in a jet fighter, all systems going "oh no", at Mach 2, means that the plane would have found a new piece of ground pretty fast. But back then the airplanes were hardcore, so, I must look into more detail about that part of the case.

A thing that I would like to dismiss right now are the prototypes in the air at that time.

The RS-71 Blackbird was mentioned. But it wasn't the RS-71.

First of all, the RS-71 doesn't divide in multiple ships (if that happened). That would only be explained by the Aurora project, with the 2 plane version.

But that's a small drop in the ocean, because what makes me marvell at this case are the speeds.

Planes like the RS-71 are built to take off, go high and in a straight line, pretty fast, photograph everything and head back home. Period. Some adaptations have been made, but they are spy planes. They fly above and faster everything else so they can watch and get away with it.

The F-4 is one of my favorite jet fighters, and it was fast and very agile.

A F-4 beats the hell out of a RS-71 in the turning point. A RS-71 flying at full speed, couldn't turn faster than the F-4 and get back first.

If a RS-71 even tried to make such a turn, we would be debating the "Tehran RS-71 Blackbird crash in 1976". It would break into pieces in mid-air.

Any plane with "mundane" technology at that time, flying that fast, to make that turn would required him to SLOW DOWN, make the turn and then SPEED UP. That doesn't fit in the "pekaboo" reports, doesn't it?

When the RS-71 was slowing down and making the turn, the F-4 was already landing.

This case is amazing, and because of this thread I'm going to look into it closer.


posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Tifozi
A thing that I would like to dismiss right now are the prototypes in the air at that time.

Now that's what I'm talking about! Good on you Tifozi!
Mods this guy is a fantastic contributor to ATS!


posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:58 PM
One thing that popped into my mind while reading this thread . Somebody was wondering why those objects(not all of them but alot of them) change shapes and colors so rapidly . I remembered the movie Flatland where it was explained how a 3d object would look to the inhabitants of a 2D plane while crossing that 2D plane.

Now I wonder maybe the explanation is as simple as that , some/most of the UFO's are from the 4th dimension and while they move on their plane and sometimes cross over to our 3D we perceive only a portion of them (a shadow?) , and that is why they appear to be morphing in front of our eyes.

That could also explain the rapid maneuvers that seem to defy the laws of our 3D physics.

Sorry to jump into the conversation with a bit OT but it just struck me and I had to share it

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 09:20 PM
reply to post by Thill

Personally, I'm not a big fan of multi-dimensional aliens and that type of technology. Not saying they don't exist, because I don't know anything about that, but it's not something that makes me wonder.

In my opinion, adding up all the things that I've seen through my life, this wasn't alien, although it's very possible that it had alien technology (R.E.)...

What makes me think of this is the follow:

Assuming that aliens visit us and at some point humans got a hold of that technology, we would need time (a lot...not just some decades) to have a functional ship. It's like jumping from a burning stick to stadium lighting.

One thing that I consider plausible is that someone has a alien technology based ship, and they are trying to make it work, and that actually explains some of the "evolution" of the types of sighting through out the years.

That would also explain the problems.

The magnetic noise that this things do, to me, aren't normal. For example, my plane has two main batteries. They have a minimum security level of 24v. Below that and we can't take off without complete checkups.

But it's ok if one is 23,5v and the other 24,5v, for example... Meaning that a basic airliner can minimize the waste or lack of energy.

I find it very HARD to believe that aliens can't figure out how to fly around without making everything go wild. But it's not hard to think humans can't...

I met people that know things, and I have seen things, that honestly makes me believe that someone out there has some serious toys.

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:11 PM
I have been researching on this case, and I have something I would like to add:

Point 1.

The F-4 that Iran had was the F-4 version E. That plane was equiped with a Westinghouse AN/APQ-120 radar.

Why is this important? Is one of the first radars to actually study the target. It had a Doppler system based radar (which was the "inspiration" for all the radar technology we use today) that had a advanced digital computer system that helped the plane/pilot to figure out how and when to fire the weapon.

(The "equations" that a pilot makes before firing in old planes are calculations of our brain that are something like this: "if I press the trigger now, the bullet will fall THAT much, and the plane turning will head into the bullet and it'll be a hit". What this computer does is to calculate all that, plus the actuall speed from your plane and from the target, mix it with all the other variables and make a fire solution for you. This is the precedent for all targeting systems that we have today. Hi-tech sh** my friends)

The plane no longer searched for something on that small portion of space and tried to lock it down. Now they actually searched and acquired targets.

Since the military have all the good stuff WAY before civil aviation does, you can tell that this radar was smart, and it wasn't easy to fool him, since there are counter-measures, and a military craft HAS to be able to ignore them.

If the UFO was locked, even for a second, it means that it was a solid and very credible target, specially for the computer that doesn't have any feeling about aliens.


Point 2

Maneuvers with the F-4E were amazing. Even today you have to marvell at this fighter since it was the real prototype for all the advanced fighters we have today.

It was considered a brick with wings, and it had terrible problems with hard turns.

After the F-4B the Phantom was improved with new designs, including a wing and tail section improvement. This improved its agility.

This was a very agile plane, with a eagle-like vision. This was one of the first planes to acquire targets further than what the pilot could see.

It also had multifunction panels, and although it was a very sophisticated fighter, the flight controls weren't the main focus on it's development, meaning, that could explain why it didn't came down afther the magnetic disruptions occured.

Point 3

The weaknesses of the F-4E are actually what proves that this wasn't a ordinary UFO.

The weapon technology and radars were advanced, but there still was a lack of development in the relation "eyes"-"hand" of those weapons.

Because of that, this fighter always confronted its opponents (in Vietnam) at subsonic speeds, because pilots and engeniers claimed that dogfights at sonic speeds were impossible.

Now, a attack fighter made under the "air superiority" theory wasn't able to fight in sonic speeds, but a plane made for spying, without engaging any targets whatsoever was? No.

At that time, neither the Soviet planes, nor the American made planes could make such high speed turns.

Important note: The F4-E was amazing, but not because it was super-agile. It wasn't. What the fighter could do, is get in and out of the dogfight as he pleased because of the powerfull thrust.

Yes, the F4-E was like a Ferrari speeding away from a location. Does that add up with the "I'm going to turn around and head to base.... OH! The UFO is at the base now!" report? No... At all.

Another important detail is that the F-4 made a lot (I mean a LOT) of black smoke from his engines, what was bad since you could spot him easily. Pilots solved this by putting one engine on afterburner and the other almost in iddle (remember that "waste of energy" thing? Thats it). This didn't affect the fuel efficiency because although one was spending too much, the other was iddle, and none producing smoke.

For a F-4E to run out of fuel(mind you that it was a long range fighter), the pilot was making Mach2 ALL THE WAY.

Whatever was on the air that day wasn't mundane in the way that none of the *official* advanced planes at the time were able to make such a performance.

Point 4

The attacks on the fighters.

This was and intelligent attack, and not some natural phenomena. Why:

Like I said before, you can't have it "your way" when it comes to failures. The instruments either fail on a superfecial way and you got you backups running, or you have catastrophic failures and you could end up in the ground.

To my knowledge you can't have it mixed. You can't have total failure of that instrument and still be able to operate the rest, on TWO different fighters. It simply doesn't happen.

It was a selected instrument jamming aimed to scare the pilot and make him disengage the target. Natural phenomena doesn't choose where to hit you, and hit you where you can recover, and actually, the most important and lethal instruments failure are the ones that natural phenomena can affect.

Point 5

Nothing that I'm aware of can explain how a bigger object divides into two objects, and the small portion follows a plane at Mach2, and then stops and merges again with the bigger object.

If it was an airplane, maybe it fired something against the F-4, but, if it was a missile, why did it got back to the aircraft who fired it? Looks like a comedy movie.

I think that the reports that claim the pilot trying to firing a AIM-9 missile are false (if not, I would like to see them).

The F-4 used mainly his cannon when in subsonic speeds. But if he tried to use the missile (could be a AIM-9 or a sparrow) and he didn't fire, maybe it was his own radar saying "no no" to something weird about the object.

If the pilot could get an accurate reading to tell it was the size of a 707, then he could see the target on the radar, but not to fire, means that at the radar eyes there was something about the feedback that didn't added up.


It was a genuine UFO, possibly alien, since everyone was "shocked" and affected by this.

As for the SOS signal, I think it was some type of disruption. Like when your cellphone receives signals when close to a speaker.

(I'll add up something later)

[edit on 10/9/09 by Tifozi]

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Tifozi
Point 4

The attacks on the fighters.

This was and intelligent attack, and not some natural phenomena. Why:

Like I said before, you can't have it "your way" when it comes to failures. The instruments either fail on a superfecial way and you got you backups running, or you have catastrophic failures and you could end up in the ground.

To my knowledge you can't have it mixed. You can't have total failure of that instrument and still be able to operate the rest, on TWO different fighters. It simply doesn't happen.

It was a selected instrument jamming aimed to scare the pilot and make him disengage the target. Natural phenomena doesn't choose where to hit you, and hit you where you can recover, and actually, the most important and lethal instruments failure are the ones that natural phenomena can affect.

Thanks so much Tifozi for that analysis! The above quoted section (IMHO) needs to be highlighted, because it represents a little thing I like to call Science!

The two fighters having the same issues in my view rules out an internal systems failure within either fighter.

Fantastic work here Tifozi! Star from me


posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:01 AM
Richard Dolan makes some very interesting comments about the Tehran case towards the end of this this presentation given at an English University - he also mentions that the object could have been tracked on DSP satellite.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:06 PM
Just found out about this video. Might give an indication of how the palnes were manouvering

Thanks to mcrom901 for finding this one

Here's a link to where he originally posted it

Ooops I guess this is considered a "bump" too

[edit on 24/10/2009 by OzWeatherman]

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:16 PM
reply to post by OzWeatherman

cheers buddy..... thanks

the tehran incident is one of the best cases out there.....

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 01:43 AM

Originally posted by internos
One of the most interesting cases ever, for sure: thanks for sharing

I just found this great thread and this is fascinating. Thank you for the information and this does indeed seam like one of the better cases out there in terms of credibility and the fact that it is still without explanation. Hopefully more people get a chance to read about this that missed it.

Here is some information from the interview and articles very interesting:

"In his evaluation of the Tehran case, filed October 12, 1976, and approved by a civilian superior, Clifford J. Souther, Major Evans stated:

"An outstanding report! This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon:

"(a) The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e. Shemiran, Mehrabad, and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both) airborne and from the ground.

"(b) The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an air force general, qualified aircrews and experienced tower operators)

"(c) Visual sightings were confirmed by radar.

"(d) Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft.

"(e) There were physiological effects in some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object).

"(f) An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs.”

The UFO's ability to jam several systems simultaneously greatly impressed Major Evans, who said this was the only UFO case he had evaluated in his four years with the DIA. "

Source linked in the OP and quoted

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Smell The Roses]

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 05:31 AM

Originally posted by easynow
Great post OzWeatherman,

This incident is definitely one of the best UFO events of all time and is very strong evidence that something strange is flying around our sky's. in my opinion there is only a couple possible explanations of what the object could have been. i seriously doubt it was somekind of atmospheric anomaly. it may have been a secret military craft and this was a test to see what would happen when engaged or it was something from an Alien intelligence.

Easynow, I do agree with you there mate -this case is a very intriguing one and the resulting 'debunker explanation' by Philip Klass is as weak as it is predictable.

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."

Originally posted by easynow
what i want to know is, where are the photos of the object ? i would be willing to bet that they got this on camera somehow since it was seen up to 70 miles away. does anyone know if there are pictures of the object ?

Thats a very good question and unless the F4's gun cameras were disrupted by the reported electromagnetic interference effects there should exist some photographic evidence somewhere.

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 05:47 PM
Any debunkers want to chime in and try to explain this case? Seams like this thread doesn't get any attention because there is no photo to critique...or no video to pick apart and instantly claim as a hoax...

I am curious as to how people relate this pilot's sighting specifically with being confused with a plane we currently have in use and in the sky? As that is what seams to be a common answer for pilot sightings as of late and pretty much always.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:27 AM
Great interview with John Greenewald Junior discussing the Tehran incident:

Part 2

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:05 PM
Bumping an older thread, because it's a sad thing to me, that many utterly ridiculous threads get dozes of pages (the umbrella in the backyard ufo e.g.), while these pertinent, important cases get forgotten quickly after a few pages, or even less.

This case I always felt was very important. For one, I think it proves that eyewitness testimony combined with multiple verification sources makes for a very strong case, in lieu of photos and video, which imo, gets invalidated within 3 pages by negative comments. It's not nearly as easy to dismiss something like this with the old Chinese Lanterns comments. Eyewitnesses, radar, pilots.. this object was certainly there.

Also, I think it's very important for another reason. People get so hung up on the dozens of hoaxes, blurry dots and ridiculous, unsubstantiated stories, that they feel that UFOs cannot exist. I know some folks come here as believers, and actually become disillusioned due to all the fake or weak UFO cases that drift through daily. Keep in mind: Only ONE UFO case has to be true to validate UFOs in their entirety. ONE substantiated, foolproof UFO case, and it doesn't matter how many hoaxes you've suffered through.

I'd love to hear from some of the current skeptics on this case. I hope any attempts at debunking are better than the ludicrous theory from Klass, that two pilots chased Jupiter, all the witnesses on the ground were mistaken, and it coincided perfectly with equipment failures in the jets.

Here is another decent synopsis of the event from UFO Evidence:

The Pentagon's 'Classic' UFO Case

And their main page for this, which contains further links for information:

F-4 Jet Chase over Iran 1976

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:23 PM
reply to post by fleabit

Thanks for bumping this

Unfortunantly it will get buried under all the usual stuff on the boards these days, but it was fun researching and none of the skeptics have anything to actually disprove this event.

Nice to see Im still appreciated

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:10 PM
It's just disappointing that those folks who supposedly have the answer for everything, never have an answer for the cases like this.

Since they can't debunk it, what is there take on it? Do they just ignore these cases? Or does this in any way, perhaps make them think there is substance to UFOs beyond Chinese lanterns and mistaken identity and hoaxes?

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:32 AM
This case has always fascinated me. Why was it hovering over Iran anyway? Was it observing history? Looking at Iran before the revolution and the overthrow of the Shah and before the war with Iraq. After all Iran is a major Middle Eastern country. Could they be interdimesional time travellers?

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:24 AM
The behaviour of the object was baffling - someone earlier in the thread, said they thought it seemed ridiculous that aliens would behave this way, so it was probably humans. To which I would have replied: and it makes more sense that humans would react this way? Not for a moment would I even think we'd be testing cutting edge technology over a country like Iran, nor if we were, would we be behaving in the manner those objects were.

I don't think it was any technology humans had however - we don't currently have aircraft that can do the things this object did, let alone in 1976.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in