UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[FlexGunship]

You have a list of proofs of alien pilots ?

Sure. In order to prove that a craft is piloted by an alien the following requirements should be met (as a minimum):

• the craft should be inspectable
• determiniation of origin should be carried out by no less than three independent groups
• the pilot must be positively identified alive, as having an intelligence greater than or equal to humans but must not be a human (i.e. social interaction, rational response to stimuli)
• the pilot should at least claim he is not from Earth and should indicate the location of his origin
• independent corroboration of the flight worthiness of his craft should be carried out in public view
• an attempt to reconstruct the craft independently should be carried out in earnest in public
• James Randi should be there

EDIT: by the way, a few of those bullet points are based on the process for determining foreign aircraft and defector's claims. I added "public" a lot. And obviously, the air force doesn't want much to do with Randi.

 

[alt]

Sure. In order to prove that a craft is piloted by an alien the following requirements should be met (as a minimum):

• the craft should be inspectable
• determiniation of origin should be carried out by no less than three independent groups
• the pilot must be positively identified alive, as having an intelligence greater than or equal to humans but must not be a human (i.e. social interaction, rational response to stimuli)
• the pilot should at least claim he is not from Earth and should indicate the location of his origin
• independent corroboration of the flight worthiness of his craft should be carried out in public view
• an attempt to reconstruct the craft independently should be carried out in earnest in public
• James Randi should be there

EDIT: by the way, a few of those bullet points are based on the process for determining foreign aircraft and defector's claims. I added "public" a lot. And obviously, the air force doesn't want much to do with Randi.

Oh, sorry - I thought you said you had a list of actual proofs - as in 'here is proof that aliens exist'. My bad.

I'll try to get to your other post soon.

 

[alt]

The project was secretive, but the technology wasn't. The public knew about the concept of "splitting" the atom. Stealth technology was talked about earnestly as soon as radar was invented.

And Dick Tracy spoke into his watch, even as radio existed. Can you not see my point here ?

To simply say: "we don't know what technology exists" is a personal limitation.

It may be, but it would be true, nonetheless. What's wrong with recognising ones limitations in any case ? And isn't that a more appropriate attitude than the obverse ?

I have a great idea of what technology exists. I don't understand it all, but I can usually identify it. The Large Hadron Collider is a good example. That's what real cutting-edge technology looks like.

No doubt - and your idea of what technology exists, seems to be quite superior to mine. You must allow then, that there may be ideas superior to yours, that you are not aware of, particularly as you go on to say that you don't undserstand it all.

You've used the word 'secret' yourself, in relation to military technology on several occassions. QED !

My point was that even secret military test planes (for which there is plenty of precedent) are built from reality. They aren't comprised of dream-parts.

Agree. I never said otherwise.

Why would we assume that, all of a sudden, the military has access to something entirely incomprehensible? If you see a craft make a high speed perfect 90-degree turn (for example), that should be an instant indication that you're not really seeing an aircraft. You can just remove that idea from your mind an start looking for other explanations.

Did I say all of a sudden ? But isn't warfare often the art of launching the 'incomprehensible' upon ones foe and thus gain great supremacy ? I'll bet ancient China's foes thought it incomprehensible - thought it a bad dream when they heard the retort and smelt the burning black powder as a piece of lead lodged into their chest .. "spooky action at a distance" they would have called it !

But we're getting bogged down here.

I think you agreed that the UFO sightings may well be secret military aircraft. The fact that you and I both used the word secret, says to me, that we cannot know the extent of those secrets .. they're secret, see ?

PS; I should add here, I'm not agin' them having secrets, and hope they don't start a dossier on me, or something .. (the military, I mean - not the aliens)

 

[FlexGunship]

I think you agreed that the UFO sightings may well be secret military aircraft. The fact that you and I both used the word secret, says to me, that we cannot know the extent of those secrets .. they're secret, see ?

My complaint isn't with attributing UFOs to military secrets, I'll repeat again, that is often the case. But it isn't some fantastical secret. It's just a regular secret. An SR-71 secret. An F-117 secret. A B-2 secret. Instead though, we get reports of lights doing "impossible" (to quote the observer) maneuvers and those are attributed to physical object.

A light that appears to be moving quickly, then turns 90-degrees without slowing down is not any type of physical craft (alien or otherwise). A hovering disc that accelerates to infinity-1 miles per hour instantly is not any type of physical craft (alien or otherwise).

These "sightings" are best explained as hallucinations, illusions, confusions, or hoaxes. Hallucinations are not a sign that you are losing your mind. When I wake up in the morning, I routinely hallucinate objects in my room because portions of my brain are not fully awake. If I eat bad food or drink too much, I hallucinate. It's not necessarily an indication that you are "losing your mind," but rather an honest attempt at explanation.

Keep in mind... if you are actually hallucinating you wouldn't know it.

 

[alt]

My complaint isn't with attributing UFOs to military secrets, I'll repeat again, that is often the case. But it isn't some fantastical secret. It's just a regular secret. An SR-71 secret. An F-117 secret. A B-2 secret. Instead though, we get reports of lights doing "impossible" (to quote the observer) maneuvers and those are attributed to physical object.

A light that appears to be moving quickly, then turns 90-degrees without slowing down is not any type of physical craft (alien or otherwise). A hovering disc that accelerates to infinity-1 miles per hour instantly is not any type of physical craft (alien or otherwise).

These "sightings" are best explained as hallucinations, illusions, confusions, or hoaxes. Hallucinations are not a sign that you are losing your mind. When I wake up in the morning, I routinely hallucinate objects in my room because portions of my brain are not fully awake. If I eat bad food or drink too much, I hallucinate. It's not necessarily an indication that you are "losing your mind," but rather an honest attempt at explanation.

Keep in mind... if you are actually hallucinating you wouldn't know it.

OK - your 2nd last paragraph now clears up my understanding of what you are saying. I agree.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

These "sightings" are best explained as hallucinations, illusions, confusions, or hoaxes. Hallucinations are not a sign that you are losing your mind. When I wake up in the morning, I routinely hallucinate objects in my room because portions of my brain are not fully awake. If I eat bad food or drink too much, I hallucinate. It's not necessarily an indication that you are "losing your mind," but rather an honest attempt at explanation.

Keep in mind... if you are actually hallucinating you wouldn't know it.

Your statement is nothing but a leap of faith. And most of what you've posted in previous posts wouldn't be considered here in the first place. It is not credible to debunk case B by implication, as per case A. I can find plenty of crackpot physics claims, but those don't invalidate all of physics.

Explain the Iran '76 case. That is the best starting point for the uniformed. Consider it day one of UFOs 101. Also, since Kean addresses this case in her book, it would be appropriate for this thread, unlike some of your posts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, Podesta isn't as impartial as you might believe... he has a conspiracy fetish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Podesta#Recent_years).

That is a crackpot claim. Urging declassification of official documents does not constitute a conspiracy theory.

 

[FlexGunship]

Your statement is nothing but a leap of faith. And most of what you've posted in previous posts wouldn't be considered here in the first place. It is not credible to debunk case B by implication as per case A.

Explain the Iran '76 case. That is the best starting point for the uniformed.

Hallucinations, illusions, confusion, and hoaxes are proven to explain at least some UFO cases. ETs/Aliens have been proven to explain no cases so far.

Wouldn't it be safe to say that the "leap of faith" would have to be in the other direction? That it would be a leap of faith to assume any of these reports are alien spacecraft ?

1976 Iran case? Is that the best example? In 35 years nothing better has come up? Okay, I'll do my best to explain it (even though it isn't my responsibility... it could be a fun game).

I've done my best to read it quickly, and here is my first guess at the explanation. You tell me what's wrong with it and I'll do my best to revise.

1) Someone saw a helicopter or bird at 12:30 in the morning. Reported it.
2) Yousefi, not a trained astronomical observer saw Jupiter and noted that it was not round and much brighter than any star.
3) At 1:30AM some F4s were scrambled under the impression that they were trying to find an airborne object (whether or not there actually was one).
4) A radar glitch (cloud? it was night, so you can't really see clouds very easily) in the first generation equipment (remember, Iran was relatively new to radar technology) showed up, and the equipment operator wasn't familiar with the type of echo he was seeing. Rather than disagree with a freakin' general, he says "Yup, it's over here."
5) The pilot, unwilling to admit failure, reports that he sees "something" (can't find the initial report, only later one which, as we all know, are always unreliable and usually embellished). Most likely, whatever he saw was due to eye strain of looking for something in the dark (common; try it).
6) The targeting computer in the F-4, being very sophisticated, could find nothing to lock-on to and went into "safe mode." I'm not familiar with the F-4 specifically, but I think it's the same package as the F-8, so accidental arming would've canceled target acquisition.
7) After the whole embarrassing incident, the very proud people involved went into "cover-your-butt-mode" and the story that we all know today was spun and elaborated upon.

You don't need aliens to explain it. Just normal humans and normal technology.

EDIT: In general, I feel like this type of report usually comes from some coincidence. 2 or 3 normal things that are not usually associated with each other happen at once. Someone spins a story to tie them all together.

 

[FlexGunship]

That is a crackpot claim. Urging declassification of official documents does not constitute a conspiracy theory.

Eh, okay. I don't think Podesta is a crackpot.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hallucinations, illusions, confusion, and hoaxes are proven to explain at least some UFO cases. ETs/Aliens have been proven to explain no cases so far.

Wouldn't it be safe to say that the "leap of faith" would have to be in the other direction? That it would be a leap of faith to assume any of these reports are alien spacecraft ?

Who said anything about alien spacecraft s?

1976 Iran case? Is that the best example? In 35 years nothing better has come up? Okay, I'll do my best to explain it (even though it isn't my responsibility... it could be a fun game).

I've done my best to read it quickly, and here is my first guess at the explanation. You tell me what's wrong with it and I'll do my best to revise.

1) Someone saw a helicopter or bird at 12:30 in the morning. Reported it.
2) Yousefi, not a trained astronomical observer saw Jupiter and noted that it was not round and much brighter than any star.
3) At 1:30AM some F4s were scrambled under the impression that they were trying to find an airborne object (whether or not there actually was one).
4) A radar glitch (cloud? it was night, so you can't really see clouds very easily) in the first generation equipment (remember, Iran was relatively new to radar technology) showed up, and the equipment operator wasn't familiar with the type of echo he was seeing. Rather than disagree with a freakin' general, he says "Yup, it's over here."
5) The pilot, unwilling to admit failure, reports that he sees "something" (can't find the initial report, only later one which, as we all know, are always unreliable and usually embellished). Most likely, whatever he saw was due to eye strain of looking for something in the dark (common; try it).
6) The targeting computer in the F-4, being very sophisticated, could find nothing to lock-on to and went into "safe mode." I'm not familiar with the F-4 specifically, but I think it's the same package as the F-8, so accidental arming would've canceled target acquisition.
7) After the whole embarrassing incident, the very proud people involved went into "cover-your-butt-mode" and the story that we all know today was spun and elaborated upon.

You don't need aliens to explain it. Just normal humans and normal technology.

Of course, you can back this up with facts and official information? Or are you just making nonsensical claims that have no supporting evidence?

Yours is precisely the same logic that leads people to leap to the conclusion that ET is here - it is more emotion than logic. Beyond that, you have no basis for your claims, whereas the true believers can at least point to anecdotal evidence.

 

[FlexGunship]

Of course, you can back this up with facts and official information?

Burden of proof isn't on me. I'm claiming nothing really weird happened. Can you prove any of that is wrong?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Burden of proof isn't on me. I'm claiming nothing really weird happened. Can you prove any of that is wrong?

You offered the explanation. The burden of proof is on you.

So again, do you have one bit of evidence to support your claims, or was your explanation nothing but your imagination at work?

 

[FlexGunship]

You offered the explanation. The burden of proof is on you.

So again, do you have one bit of evidence to support your claims, or was your explanation nothing but your imagination at work?

Okay, I retract it. Nothing happened. Do you disagree?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, I retract it. Nothing happened. Do you disagree?

I read an official report that US intelligence rated as highly credible, that went all the way to the White House. That is all that I know for sure.

You will understand if your thirty seconds of thought given this, carry no weight or crediblity.

 

[FlexGunship]

I read an official report that US intelligence rated as highly credible, that went all the way to the White House. That is all that I know for sure.

You will understand if your thirty seconds of thought given this, carry no weight or crediblity.

Link?

1972 is when Iran started getting military hardware from the U.S. as apportioned by Nixon. 1976 was their first major shipment of anti-air hardware. This was just prior to the fall of the Shah.

I'm sure they were pros with it, though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Link?

1972 is when Iran started getting military hardware from the U.S. as apportioned by Nixon. 1976 was their first major shipment of anti-air hardware. This was just prior to the fall of the Shah.

I'm sure they were pros with it, though.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that you don't know anything about this most famous case. And apparently you don't know where to even find the information. Sorry again. It can be found at the National Security Agency.
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf

 

[FlexGunship]

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that you don't know anything about this most famous case. And apparently you don't know where to even find the information. Sorry again. It can be found at the National Security Agency.
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf

Sorry, I had assumed you had something better. Did you read it? The very first line of the text is: "This report forwards information concerning..." It doesn't even offer independent corroboration. It also ends with a disclosure of where the information came from "information within this report was obtained from a source in conversation with a sub-source, and [one of the pilots]." Would an insurance company even take that kind of information on a minor vehicle accident?

Also, I'm sorry if I seem so disrespectful, it's just that this isn't even a good UFO case. I don't know why everyone harps on it so much. There's no evidence left over, just the claims of some people.

EDIT: and I should clarify something. Maybe I'm being overly cautious in accepting evidence, but simply writing down a testimony doesn't really count as evidence. It's still just someone saying what they thought happened. Putting it in writing and on letterhead doesn't really increase the authenticity.

 

[jreelawg]

You don't have to be sure of something to investigate it. If a girl walked into a police station and said she had been beaten by her husband a month ago, and he is threatening to kill her if she tells. She has no bruises left over by this time. Do you investigate?

In the case of UFO's you can take the stance that you are either 100% sure something exotic happened, or 100% sure nothing exotic happened. And require a list of evidence next to impossible to obtain regardless of the truth. Which is fine for your personal belief system. But if you are a police officer, and apply this type of logic to the abused woman example, blood is going to be on your hands.

When you have a long list of eye witness accounts. You can make a decision to either decide they are lying, hallucinated, or are telling the truth. Or you can just consider all 3 possible without making up your mind.

 

[FlexGunship]

You don't have to be sure of something to investigate it. If a girl walked into a police station and said she had been beaten by her husband a month ago, and he is threatening to kill her if she tells. She has no bruises left over by this time. Do you investigate?

Eh, not quite the same. This is a reasonable event that happens often (sadly). There are no extraordinary claims being made. Given that there hasn't really been any proof of alien's visiting Earth, I think it's okay to be skeptical of every claim.

EDIT: I removed a line for the purpose of clarity.

 

[FlexGunship]

In the case of UFO's wether it is a secret human made craft, or ET craft, by the standards some people set, it would next to impossible to confirm anything exotic ever happened. By these standards where, you either are 100% sure something exotic happened, or 100% nothing exotic happened.

I disagree. Maybe by a minority of people, but I know I allow for incredible things to happen. It's just that some people make claims that are so exotic on the basis of not-much that it's really difficult to take serious in an intellectually-honest manner.

Realistically, light refracting off of a temperature inversion is pretty exotic! But it's much less exotic than alien visitation.

 

[jreelawg]

The project was secretive, but the technology wasn't. The public knew about the concept of "splitting" the atom. Stealth technology was talked about earnestly as soon as radar was invented.

To simply say: "we don't know what technology exists" is a personal limitation. I have a great idea of what technology exists. I don't understand it all, but I can usually identify it. The Large Hadron Collider is a good example. That's what real cutting-edge technology looks like.

My point was that even secret military test planes (for which there is plenty of precedent) are built from reality. They aren't comprised of dream-parts. Why would we assume that, all of a sudden, the military has access to something entirely incomprehensible? If you see a craft make a high speed perfect 90-degree turn (for example), that should be an instant indication that you're not really seeing an aircraft. You can just remove that idea from your mind an start looking for other explanations.

That is a personal unsubstantiated and, in my opinion ridiculous belief. It's like your saying if you don't know about it, it doesn't exist.

I can say that there are very strict measures taken to keep military secrets/technological secrets held by the government. Sure the companies which produce secret equipment or what not, are private, however they are in contract with government agencies who provide the funding. Anything discovered, or invented, under contract with the government can be government property, and there are strict laws which enforce this.

Aside from this, there is a history of the government recruiting the nations best physicists, and uniting them towards a common military cause. Some of the best minds of the 20th century had worked for the military under extremely strict measures. The very structure of scientific workings in this country had been formed specifically with the ability to keep technological secrets as a priority.

On top of this, the structure works on a need to know basis. So even the vast majority of people who work at, say a secret government research facility, may not know what exactly they are developing, how it works, or even confirmation something was made of it. Only a select few recruited scientific minds overseeing projects may know the full scope, and consequences could be very bad if contracts are violated.

You can't expect mainstream physicists to know the full extent of possible technology based on general knowledge of mainstream physics theories. It actually takes research to really make use of what we know. It is not unthinkable as well, that research may yield results which would not have been imagined through knowledge of theory or mathematics. It may be the case that results of exotic research may be usable in the creation of technology, while the underlying physical theory behind the phenomena remains unexplained.

When it comes to things of certain natures, research can be expensive. You cannot expect a private company to develop something of certain exotic natures except under the condition that they intend to make money off of it which requires selling it to a government. Under these circumstances, law may inhibit public disclosure of the research, or discoveries, which are behind the technology.

 

[FlexGunship]

That is a personal unsubstantiated and, in my opinion ridiculous belief. It's like your saying if you don't know about it, it doesn't exist.

I can say that their are very strict measures taken to keep military secrets/technological secrets held by the government. Sure the companies which produce secret equipment or what not, are private, however they are in contract with government agencies who provide the funding. Anything discovered, or invented, under contract with the government can be government property, and there are strict laws which enforce this.

Aside from this, their is a history of the government recruiting the nations best physicists, and uniting them towards a common military cause. Some of the best minds of the 20th century had worked for the military under the extremely strict measures. The very structure of scientific workings in this country had been formed specifically with the ability to keep technological secrets as a priority.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't think we were discussing incremental advances in technology. And I wasn't saying that "if I don't know about it, it doesn't exist." I'm saying that we could probably use a rule of "implied secret advancement."

Secret_military_tech = current_known_tech + 10%

The military isn't going to suddenly invent anti-gravity (for example).

 

[jreelawg]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't think we were discussing incremental advances in technology. And I wasn't saying that "if I don't know about it, it doesn't exist." I'm saying that we could probably use a rule of "implied secret advancement."

Secret_military_tech = current_known_tech + 10%

The military isn't going to suddenly invent anti-gravity (for example).

"The Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) was an agency of the United States federal government created to coordinate scientific research for military purposes during World War II. Arrangements were made for its creation during May 1941, and it was created formally by Executive Order 8807 on June 28, 1941. It superseded the work of the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC), was given almost unlimited access to funding and resources, and was directed by Vannevar Bush, who reported only to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Scientific_Research_and_Development

"At one time, two-thirds of all the nation’s physicists were working under Bush’s direction."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush

A lot of money, and the cooperation of many of the best scientific minds in the country can speed up the process a little.

I would also point out that in the realm of secret research, how do you know how suddenly something may have been invented? The underlying phenomena could have been discovered long ago, and the development of technology making use of it could have gone on in secret for years.

Add to this the fact that the boom of technology in recent history has been extremely rapid.

 

[FlexGunship]

jreelawg, I think we're going to have to disagree here. In my personal experience, physical discoveries lead to theories in 5 years, development in 10 years, limited deployment in 20, and practical use in 50.

Perhaps someday evidence will show that your anti-gravity generator has been around for a while, but I don't think blinking and moving lights are a good way to come to the conclusion that it exists now.

 

[FlexGunship]

You experienced sleep paralysis. I agree with you, it's terrifying. When I was paralyzed the ceiling of my room turned into a giant head and was yelling at me. This was also when I was a kid, but it was so vivid I remember it even today. Your experience was VERY real, Cave-Man, but your interpretation of it might be a over-dramatic. (Please don't take that as disrespectful.)

If you're going to go by the "number" of unexplained things, then it doesn't make much sense to start with aliens. Perhaps angels, or secret military craft? Maybe a new species of bioluminescent bird?

Non-terrestrial isotope ratios can be attributed to more mundane things. Example: meteorites. In your video, the man is described as "having a passion for the paranormal." This will skew any results to begin with.

Lastly, it's too easy to just "say" all of this stuff. Where's the fragment and why isn't it in labs right now? Isn't this the evidence everyone is looking for? Let's see it! Pull it out! Let's test it!

EDIT: Roger Leir is an idiot, by the way. He's a foot doctor. Sorry if that's too much opinion and not enough fact, but he makes a living off of performing unnecessary surgery by removing fatty tissue and claiming that it's alien tracking devices (disregard that, can't find a link to back it up... but it's true). He then tells us that the material gets hotter than its surrounding environment. Dip it in tea water and it conducts heat? That's not surprising. He seems to insinuate it's too hot to explain.

Lastly, he says things like "supposed motorcycle accident." The guy died in a motorcycle accident! It happens! How can you take him seriously?

 

[jreelawg]

jreelawg, I think we're going to have to disagree here. In my personal experience, physical discoveries lead to theories in 5 years, development in 10 years, limited deployment in 20, and practical use in 50.

Perhaps someday evidence will show that your anti-gravity generator has been around for a while, but I don't think blinking and moving lights are a good way to come to the conclusion that it exists now.

I agree with everything you say. In your experience... But I would not limit what I find possible to, what you think based on your experience. The point I made ultimately, is that you, or I or anyone else doesn't know everything, and enough credible evidence does not exist within the realm of your or my experiences to justify coming to such absolute convictions about what does or does not exist.

I also have not used blinking or moving lights to come to conclusions that anti-gravity technology exists. I simply never came to the conclusion that exotic technology perhaps "anti-gravity" can't exist. I actually am inclined to doubt it, I just can't cross it off of my list because from my perspective something like that might exist for all I know.

So basically I am saying that I have not yet become decisive on the issue of wether or not a flying object could make sudden 90 degree turns at high speed, hover without making noise etc.

 

[jreelawg]

Well you are clearly ignoring the fact that it has ALREADY been tested by as reputable labs as you could ask for and the only thing you can say is that maybe it was made up and you could, like i said, easily just call up those labs and ask for a copy of the results.

Also NO you cannot explain that through mundane things, show me a meteorite that contains a sample that large of 99.9% pure silicon then you might have some credibility otherwise you are just trying too hard to explain something this is OBVIOUSLY proof of something that is manufactured in another solar system, simple as that.

Nobody is going to collect meteorites and process them just to come up with a sample like that, also how could they, 99.9% pure would require manufacturing techniques that are either not available today or would be so expensive that info of it would be available.

Also pure silicon has some pretty strange properties (like explained in that video thermal conductivity is greatly increased with a highly pure silicon)

Seems to me people are bending over backwards to try and disprove something like this, you could have a little green dude land a craft in your back yard and come shoot your dog with a ray gun and you would still be denying alien life.

I suggest you go take a look at google sky then come back and tell me we are the only multicellular life in galaxy capable of producing exponential technological advancement.

I just want to point out that we cannot be 100% certain. For example, if interstellar travel, is achievable then it is possible man has this technology. If man has this technology, they could have went to another solar system to manufacture something. A little green creature with a ray gun, could be a man made, alien looking robot, or genetically engineered creature, and I see no reason why the ray gun would necessarily imply alien.

 

[alt]

Who said anything about alien spacecraft s?



Of course, you can back this up with facts and official information? Or are you just making nonsensical claims that have no supporting evidence?

Yours is precisely the same logic that leads people to leap to the conclusion that ET is here - it is more emotion than logic. Beyond that, you have no basis for your claims, whereas the true believers can at least point to anecdotal evidence.

Ivan, do you have a view or a possible explanation ?

I (and I guess many others) are genuinely interested to hear what you think. No alien spacecraft s, no hallucinations .. do you then support the 'secret military craft' theory ? Or what ?

 

[FlexGunship]

Ivan, do you have a view or a possible explanation ?

I guess that's what I was waiting for.

 

[Hattattack]

I guess that's what I was waiting for.

Give him a bit. I am sure he has irons in the fire in all directions... Ivan does not typically disappoint.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry, I had assumed you had something better. Did you read it? The very first line of the text is: "This report forwards information concerning..." It doesn't even offer independent corroboration. It also ends with a disclosure of where the information came from "information within this report was obtained from a source in conversation with a sub-source, and [one of the pilots]." Would an insurance company even take that kind of information on a minor vehicle accident?.

So then your position is that while US intel rated the report as highly credible, it isn't, according to you? Nevermind that the pilots and general involved still speak publically about their experience.

I'm sorry, but I have an official document that says otherwise. Unless you can produce some evidence that justifies downgrading the intelligence rating, your comments are nothing but wild speculation over thirty years after the fact. If your logic justifies rejecting military intelligence for yours, assuming that you have zero training in such matters, and certainly no direct exposure or experience, then how do you justify your position?

What qualifies you as an expert?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, do you have a view or a possible explanation?

No.

I do know the report was rated as highly credible and has stood the test of time. It is also reasonable to assume that US intelligence did not think there was any chance that this was a military craft - some secret Soviet or Chinese aircraft - or, by definition, the report wouldn't have been declassified six years later. It also seems clear that neither we or the Soviets had any technology consistent with that described. If it was something of ours, then again, why was the report declassified? This would still be highly classified information today.

One can reject the report based on faith, if that makes one feel better, but it is not logically justified according the best evidence we have. Nor are any conclusions justified otherwise. It is a UFO report. If I could explain it away to my own satisfaction, I wouldn't be interested.

I have some guesses about the potential for a natural phenomenon that might explain some military reports, but is also wild speculation that cannot be supported with any good evidence at this time. Nor could this explain the entirety of the Iran report.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Of course, the real point has been missed. If the report is in any way accurate, this wasn't a balloon, or Venus, or swamp gas from the Mississippi Delta. While one might reject the report through faith [having no direct knowledge of the events], it shows how silly the claims from the skeptics can be. The UFO enigma has persisted for over 60 years now [or 6000 years, depending on how we choose to define things] because we do find compelling, seemingly inexplicable reports, from time to time, that involve highly credible witnesses; and sometimes a good number of them. Keep in mind also that officially, this was tracked by several different RADAR systems.

There is nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know".

Flexgunship, your answers seem to be all over the board. First you represented the whole UFO businesses as trivial. When confronted with a real case - as an example that the interesting cases are not trivial - first you claimed the pilot was chasing Venus and then lied about his encounter [or some wild idea like that]. Then you claimed it never happened. Then you challenged the authenticity of my reference to the report, and then rejected its conclusions based on your own expert analysis...and all within a few posts! I find the UFO enigma to be more consistent than your position on this!

 

[mugaliens]

Hallucinations, illusions, confusion, and hoaxes are proven to explain at least some UFO cases. ETs/Aliens have been proven to explain no cases so far.

I concur, though I would ratchet that up a few notches to say "most, if not all."

I'll give the folks here one such event, as happened to myself. I'd just moved to Las Vegas, and was driving just after sunset along Craig Rd., when I saw a flying saucer lift off the ground in the distance! Or at least that's what it looked like, and had me fooled for 10 to 15 seconds until I got a better look at it.

Turns out it was one of the blimps based at North Las Vegas airport. In addition to giving aerial tours of downtown, they also carry camera crews for various events. One of the blimps had lifted off at a steep angle, and was backlit by the glow in the evening sky, so it was totally dark, and given the cigar shape, looked exactly like a "flying saucer" seen on edge.

As a military aviator with thousands of hours, I never jumped to the conclusion it was ET. I simply didn't know what in the world I was looking at and pulled over to the side of the road until I could figure out what it was I was looking at.

Turns out blimps were a regular feature at that airport, a fact of which I wasn't aware when I moved there.

(shrugs)

I felt a touch sheepish at not being able to identify it within a few seconds, but oh well - you live and you learn.

What I learned is that things aren't always as they appear. Just because we can't explain something we or others see doesn't mean they're unexplainable. Several "rapidly-darting" UFOs available on YouTube, for example, have been explained as nothing more than the aftereffect of image stabilzation software, as trained on a point source of light, which simply shifted as it reached the boundary of the inner square boundary of the out square visual field.

The reason I linked to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xkHt6br1Q4"[/I].

Armed with this info, I went looking for any sort of tell-tale of such activity immediately preceeding the acceleration of the "UFO" in the video.

Well, I found it, at 0:22 into the video, a brief, one-frame illumination (not the circle added later at 0:32) directly behind the aircraft, followed by a few seconds of slight variation in the background immediately behind it, precisely what one might expect from a heat plume.

As with virtually 99.99% of all UFO videos, the poor quality of the film makes it difficult, though fortunately not impossible, to see these effects.

I also ran a few rough acceleration equations and if it was the 107'5" SR-71, the video's claimed "10 second Mach 1 to Mach 3" acceleration is totally out to lunch. At best I came up with about 100 kts acceleration in about 6 seconds, and that's both based on what measurements I could make from the video, as well as being commensurate with what's simply seen on the video and what I see in real life.

Thus, my conclusion is that it's just widly exaggerated statements by UFO-afficionados hiding behind voice and video obfuscation techniques using voice morphing, dark rooms, and grainy film as a means of eliciting some sort of reverse cloak and dagger "authenticity" vs any genuine, open, honest look at the original video, which was probably far more clear and detailed than what's plastered all over the Internet.

Well, for what it's worth, that's my take on it.

 

[Andre]

I have no idea what happened there but I wanted to point to something.

We read in the narration in wikipedia:

The second F-4 pilot, General Parviz Jafari, said that after trying to fire a missile and failing, they feared for their lives and tried to eject, but the eject button also malfunctioned.[7]

claimed source:"Good (1986) p290" which is likely "Timothy Good, Above Top Secret, 1988, William Morrow and Co., ISBN 978-0688092023"

The problem with that statement is that there is no "ejection button" on any http://www.martin-baker.com/products/Ejection-Seats/Mk--1-to-Mk--9.aspx.

more details

It has several handles to pull with different functions and the mechanisms are entirely mechanical in nature, there is no electricity involved.

The point is that an ejection seat failure cannot logically be attributed to anything that causes electronic failure. But the narration does not attempt to take away a possible suggestion in that direction.

Ejection seats have been known to fail due to safety pin still installed, inproper strap in of the pilot, or simply finger trouble, pulling wrong handles due to regression in a state of high stress; for instance with drill memories for other types of seats.

Hence the failure of the ejection seat cannot normally be attributed to an external cause

 

[mugaliens]

The problem with that statement is that there is no "ejection button" on any Martin Baker seat version, which were in all F4.

Lol, I'm glad you caught this. :) The last time I saw an "eject button" in real life was in my DVD player. Of course there's one in James Bond's Aston Martin, as well, circa the mid-60s, but...

In every USAF aircraft I ever flew which had an ejection system, it was either in the form of ejection handles (located at the end of either armrest and either one would work, but you'd better have your other arm in a safe place or you might loose it), or a trigger ring, also operable by one hand. I flew a couple other systems where one's "ejection system" was manual bailout via the nearest open hatch, but that's neither here nor there.

Ejection seats have been known to fail due to safety pin still installed, inproper strap in of the pilot, or simply finger trouble, pulling wrong handles due to regression in a state of high stress; for instance with drill memories for other types of seats.

Hence the failure of the ejection seat cannot normally be attributed to an external cause

Improper strap-in of the pilot may cause a malfunction in the overall safe operation of the ejection seat, but not a failure of the firing mechanism. So long as the safety pins are pulled, the seat will fire, whether the pilot is strapped in or not. Admittedly my experience in only with three different seats, but I recall several stories from life support describing how seats fired due to either improper life support procedures or operator procedures.

Ejection seat safety inspection was a critical part of our checklist. If the seat didn't check out, we didn't fly. All the seats I ever flew were highly reliable. The trigger mechanism fired a simply, highly-reliable pyrotechnic charge which rapid found its way through the system. There were several interlocks, but when the pins were removed, the interlocks were removed, as well. These interlocks included both safety interlocks to prevent inadvertent firing of the main seat ejection charge (equivalent to a stick of dynamite for the older seats or an even more powerful rocket motor for the newer ones), as well as physical interlocks to allow for the seat being allowed to be removed prior to the firing of the main charge.

From what I recall, it involved three cases:

1. The sequence could not be initiated without a rather decisive pull on the triggers/ring by the occupant.

2. The sequence first progressed until all of the physical pin locations had allowed the system to know that it was safe to fire.

3. The sequence then progressed until all of the physical interlocks locking the seat in place had been removed by the firing sequence.

4. The firing charge resulted in the seat's main ejection charge being ignited.

Seemingly complex? Yes. But remarkably simple. There were conflicting goals: 1) Never allow any malfunction of the seat to initiate an ejection, even if a bullet struck a critical node. 2) Never prevent the ejection sequence from taking place if the operator (occupant) pulled the handles/ring.

Obviously these two goals can, at times, be in conflict, so if that had ever happened, we had training out the, er, well, backside of our brains, for something called "manual bailout," which involved releasing a couple of clips hold us to the seat, allowing ourselves and our parachutes to race to the nearest open hole, and dive out in accordance with prescribed procedures. Not as safe or as assured as an ejection, but it's been used with decent results in years past.

How in the world do I know all of this? For the same reason I instantly recognized Andre's comment about "the problem with that statement is that there is no "ejection button" on any Martin Baker seat version, which were in all F4."

Been there, done that. Questions? I'm not going to supply unit information, so please don't ask.

But can we please stop all of this gross-ill-informed (what appears to me to be wild-*** speculation) regarding x, y, z, and the other thing but which actually has little (usually no) basis in reality?

Seriously, folks, if we're going to talk about UFOs, let's drop the ridiculously regenerated Internet crap and focus on something more substantial.

Personally, I don't believe they exist, for a variety of reasons, the least of which is, like insects, they'd either be everywhere, or if they couldn't exist, they'd be nowhere. Call it Mug's Razor, until we have a better term.

I do believe, however, they could exist. I just don't think they would ever be so stupid as to allow themselves to be seen! If they ever did exist, I think they'd be totally behind the scenes.

Personally, I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever of any ET existence on Earth, save for a few bacteria which may (by no means certain) have bounced back and forth to and from Mars in meteor impacts.

 

[FlexGunship]

So then your position is that while US intel rated the report as highly credible, it isn't, according to you?

Firstly, this is not an intelligence report. If you think it is, that means you've never seen an intelligence report. This is a memo that forwards information. In the same way that you might forward an e-mail. It doesn't mean the person forwarding it has somehow verified the content. This happens routinely.

Besides, even if this was an intel report, US intelligence isn't exactly the be-all/end-all of foreign intelligence. Still waiting for those Iraqi WMDs.

It is also reasonable to assume that US intelligence did not think there was any chance that this was a military craft - some secret Soviet or Chinese aircraft - or, by definition, the report wouldn't have been declassified six years later. It also seems clear that neither we or the Soviets had any technology consistent with that described.

I don't understand why it's "reasonable to assume" any of this stuff. Furthermore, you're operating on the assumption that the report is still about a single phenomenon.

One can reject the report based on faith, if that makes one feel better, but it is not logically justified according the best evidence we have. Nor are any conclusions justified otherwise. It is a UFO report. If I could explain it away to my own satisfaction, I wouldn't be interested.

You mean accept it base don faith? History has shown that there has always been a reasonable explanation (usually coincidence of unlikely or unfamiliar events), why would we take it on faith that this is any different?

Flexgunship, your answers seem to be all over the board. First you represented the whole UFO businesses as trivial. When confronted with a real case - as an example that the interesting cases are not trivial - first you claimed the pilot was chasing Venus and then lied about his encounter [or some wild idea like that]. Then you claimed it never happened. Then you challenged the authenticity of my reference to the report, and then rejected its conclusions based on your own expert analysis...and all within a few posts! I find the UFO enigma to be more consistent than your position on this!

Well you're artificially lumping a series of experiences together with a body of shoddy evidence and calling it a "UFO story". Deal with it once piece at a time. The UFO phenomenon is most definitely trivial (it is the very definition of trivial), but the human experience that it carries with it is not.

My position is simple, it just manifests itself in many ways: there is not now, and never has been evidence to support the idea that UFOs are anything but hallucinations, illusions, confusion, and hoaxes. Reports are fueled by an uneducated public armed with magical thinking and an unwillingness to accept their own fallibility.

 

[FlexGunship]

I do believe, however, they could exist. I just don't think they would ever be so stupid as to allow themselves to be seen! If they ever did exist, I think they'd be totally behind the scenes.

You ignore the most plausible scenario: aliens might be out there, but just too far away to get to us.

Right now, there is no human research that suggests hat practical superluminal travel is possible. There are hypotheses, conjectures, and math supporting the concept, but, unlike electricity, there's no research that suggests it's a physical possibility.

Couple this fact with the incredible distances involved in interplanetary travel, and there's a perfectly good explanation for why we don't see aliens here around Earth. It's the exact same reason that aliens are never likely to see humans around their planets.

 

[FlexGunship]

Personally, I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever of any ET existence on Earth, save for a few bacteria which may (by no means certain) have bounced back and forth to and from Mars in meteor impacts.

Sadly, I think the research on this hasn't yielded anything in a long time. The problem is that you have to avoid wishful thinking, and everyone would love to find out that there was once life on Mars.

The truth is, however, that it would take mountains of evidence to show that the little "nano-tubes" are really bacterial fossils, but it would only take one piece of information to ruin the whole thing. "Bacterial life on Mars" is an amazing and extraordinary claim, I'm saddened by the fact that it looks like that meteorite isn't extraordinary enough to constitute viable evidence.

Maybe we'll find better evidence soon!

 

[Andre]

Improper strap-in of the pilot may cause a malfunction in the overall safe operation of the ejection seat, but not a failure of the firing mechanism. So long as the safety pins are pulled, the seat will fire, whether the pilot is strapped in or not.

True, but I know of two fatalities in my environment due to that problem, so I was a bit biased to add it.

Ejection seat safety inspection was a critical part of our checklist. If the seat didn't check out, we didn't fly.

Post QRA scramble checklist (especially for a life 'Alpha scramble'), after getting airborne within the two minutes, be sure to finish strap in, recheck this, that and that and seat - "armed..." - OOPS

Edit: And those guys were on an 'alpha scramble'

But can we please stop all of this gross-ill-informed (what appears to me to be wild-*** speculation) regarding x, y, z, and the other thing but which actually has little (usually no) basis in reality?

The first essence of the 'ejection button' is accuracy of reporting and a hue of inserting wrong suggestions. Could it be that there more problems with that?

The second essence is that the failure of the ejection could have been pilot error, this would indicate that this particular pilot likely made an error in that stress situation in the first place. Now can it be excluded that he made more errors?

 

[FlexGunship]

OH, I ALMOST FORGOT! I GOT MY BOOK LAST NIGHT!

Heh, I almost totally forgot that was what this thread was about. I haven't read much into it, but it plays out like most other UFO books, but leans heavily on the "conspiratorial" nature of things. Twice now, when a high ranking military officer ordered a subordinate to "knock it off" the author plays it out like a conspiracy to keep the guy quiet.

I'm reserving judgement until I finish.

 

[mugaliens]

True, but I know of two fatalities in my environment due to that problem, so I was a bit biased to add it.

I feel for you. I've lost two friends in ejection seat malfunctions, and three more in flight training accidents. It's always been difficult. One was my Sunday school teacher; the other was my squadron commander. The other three were my friends, one of whom I signed up with.

Yes, it's hard. I'd love to be able to say, "life goes on," but that's rather hard-***, and I'm not as apt to write them off as others.

Post QRA scramble checklist (especially for a life 'Alpha scramble'), after getting airborne within the two minutes, be sure to finish strap in, recheck this, that and that and seat - "armed..." - OOPS

Edit: And those guys were on an 'alpha scramble'

Really! Makes sense, though. Chances of something going that bad on T/O, even on a scramble, are slim. Try 12-sec interval MITO takeoff, though... eek! Couple of times we lost lift down to about 150 feet, below ejection altitude! Gulp and pray...

The first essence of the 'ejection button' is accuracy of reporting and a hue of inserting wrong suggestions. Could it be that there more problems with that?

Ahem, I think it's someone who made up a bunch of horsehockey.

The second essence is that the failure of the ejection could have been pilot error, this would indicate that this particular pilot likely made an error in that stress situation in the first place. Now can it be excluded that he made more errors?

Could be pilot error. We did have our checks, but I do recall one guy on post-flight looked up somberly, pointing at a safety pin he'd left in place. I clapped him on the shoulder and said something like, "Well, you made it this time - next time you'll be sure to pull the pin!"

You, at some point, the feeling for our lost brethren must subside. It'll never stop. But it might slow to a trickle so we can get on with our lives.

 

[Andre]

...Really! Makes sense, though. Chances of something going that bad on T/O, even on a scramble, are slim.

Well, you know how it goes on a scramble especially in the old days, "Kick the tyres, lite the fires, first airborne is lead, briefing on guard" In other words, it was a mess.

Combine that with the additional stress of highly disorienting night flying over a city where above you are lights and below you are lights. Now, the usual gravity pointing downwards as last resort for orientation, is highly modified by aircraft g-forces, generating middle ear desorientation.

You can take it from me (well not you, but anybody who'd not been there, not done that), that's by far the most challenging situation to be in as a fighter pilot, night air combat maneouvring, and it needs a very intense training, just to be able to generate some situational awareness about what is going on in the first place.

But what was their training status?

Now picture a total electrical failure, no instruments, no lights, cockpit completely dark, no artificial horizon, and up looks like down and no gravity senses to rely on, only desorientation. And yet they manage a 180 degrees turn and fly away. Wow.

Then try and do all the drills to get an AIM9 fired, chances are not exactly zero that the 'master arm switch' was still guarded, since you never touch that in a training situation and moreover, their have been discussions about that in the past, since the master arm switch was not lighted, because of the guard over it, you don't see it at night, which makes it a tad more likely to forget about it in stress.

So maybe it shows that I'm not really convinced about the accuracy of the debriefing and indeed, as suggested, it would not be the first time in any armed force that the general decided what has happened and take away any notion that there may be a military error in the loop.

Edit: to clarify, I have still no idea what happened and what was the nature of that object, but I do have reservations about the real actions and explanations thereof. I see enough reasons to believe that the total electrical failure, the failure to fire a missile and the ejection failure were not necesarily generated by that object.

 

[FlexGunship]

Well, as a discussion group, could we choose to discount the testimony of the pilot(s) in this case? Ivan Seeking, are you okay with that?

I'd still like to propose Venus as an explanation. I found a really neat website that deals almost exclusively in UFO reports that were later explained as Venus (http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Venusufo.htm ). Including cases where Naval officers were fooled and some where USAF pilots were trying to shoot it down.

Btw, it's very difficult to shoot down Venus, so this might account for some reports of the UFO being impervious to bullets. Furthermore, it's almost impossible to get a missile-lock on Venus, so this might explain why pilots have a hard time getting a lock on UFOs.

EDIT: keep in mind that there are only two options when you realize your air force made a huge mistake, you either (1) lie about it and cover it up; UFOs being a great scapegoat, or (2) you come out and say "Yes, we were easily fooled by Venus (or something else). It's perfectly reasonable for a national military force to lie about it. Otherwise, all we would need for an invasion is to wait for opposition of Venus.

 

[FlexGunship]

I thought I would also introduce into the discussion, some more interesting information. Has anyone noticed that there are very few reports of UFOs from astronomers? These are people who dedicate their lives to looking at the sky, and yet they see so few UFOs.

Here's a list of cases reported to the megalithic UFO Evidence website: (http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView.asp?section=Astronomer)

Only three?! One was from an amateur astronomer (i.e. regular Joe). Another one was Halley, who is a great observer, but the record is just so old, it's hard to corroborate anything. And lastly, the third one is from a guy that mistook Pluto for a planet, so I think it's safe to discount pretty much anything this guy says.

Lastly, Phil Plait has something to say on the subject: (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/01/why-astronomers-dont-report-ufos/).

 

[russ_watters]

Yes I have and that's one of the most compelling pices of evidence I know of. A quick browse of an astronomy forum shows that UFOs are just treated differently than in other contexts - by which I mean they are treated scientifically. And yes I do mean to imply that the so-called scientists of UFOs, "UFOologists", aren't.

 

[FlexGunship]

Yes I have and that's one of the most compelling pices of evidence I know of. A quick browse of an astronomy forum shows that UFOs are just treated differently than in other contexts - by which I mean they are treated scientifically. And yes I do mean to imply that the so-called scientists of UFOs, "UFOologists", aren't.

WHAT?! Honest intellectual inquiry on the topic of UFOs?! Impossible. Pic or it didn't happen.

 

[mugaliens]

Now picture a total electrical failure, no instruments, no lights, cockpit completely dark, no artificial horizon, and up looks like down and no gravity senses to rely on, only desorientation. And yet they manage a 180 degrees turn and fly away. Wow.

...

So maybe it shows that I'm not really convinced about the accuracy of the debriefing and indeed, as suggested, it would not be the first time in any armed force that the general decided what has happened and take away any notion that there may be a military error in the loop.

I can certainly understand why. :) Yours is by far the more plausible explanation than a UFO somehow jammed an ejection seat.

Lastly, Phil Plait has something to say on the subject: (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/01/why-astronomers-dont-report-ufos/).

Even people with a lot of experience in aviation can encounter something new or different. After I'd been flying for about ten years, I looked up one evening (it was still dusk) and saw a string of lights just hanging there in the sky. They didn't appear to be moving, so I pulled over to observe them.

At first they didn't appear to be moving, but after watching them for several minutes I noticed they were a bit lower and to the right than they were before.

What was new and different is that this is the first time I'd had the opportunity to witness landing traffing in the the desert, where the visibility is good for hundreds of miles. I was about two miles north and a mile west of the airport, and the landing traffic was on a straight-in descent beginning about 100 miles out. The reason behind the clustering is simple - it was a regional airport, hub to but one airline, and airlines schedule arrivals and departures clustered around a a few key times each day. Thus, there's a way of aircraft landing before that time, and some ground loiter to allow passengers to get to their gates before taking off again. FAA rules require landing lights to be on in high-density traffic areas (Class B, C, and D areas around airports), but they also strongly suggest keeping them on throughout climbs and descents as a means of improving visibility. Most airlines are only too happy to do so, as any airline accident can spell the death of the airline as well, as their profit margins are quite slender as it is.

My point is that by then, between training and experience, I'd become an expert in the eyes of my superiors, to the point where I'd become an instructor and the assistant chief of academics at a well-known and prestigious military school at Nellis. Even so, I could not readily identify that string of lights! But neither did I jump to the conclusion they were ETs, either. I simply said, "Oh, here's some UFOs! Let's wait and see if I can turn them into IFOs" and simply observed them until it became clear as to what they were.

I can certainly understand how something like this might have remained an IFO is the lights had simply winked out, or if they'd descended below an intervening mountain ridge before they were positively identified as airliners in descent, visible via their landing lights, but way to distant to see their red and gree anticollision lights or their their position strobes, much less any outline ofthe planes themselves.

 

[russ_watters]

My point is that by then, between training and experience, I'd become an expert in the eyes of my superiors, to the point where I'd become an instructor and the assistant chief of academics at a well-known and prestigious military school at Nellis. Even so, I could not readily identify that string of lights! But neither did I jump to the conclusion they were ETs, either. I simply said, "Oh, here's some UFOs! Let's wait and see if I can turn them into IFOs" and simply observed them until it became clear as to what they were.

Pilots are often seen as "experts" by UFO advocates, but experts in what? It isn't like flight training includes courses in astronomy - pilots are not necessarily qualified to identify objects in the sky (does "in the sky" imply "in the atmosphere"...?). UFO reports from pilots are often chock-full of obvious false conclusions about what is being seen, just like reports from laypeople. They talk about distance, altitude, speed, size - all things they can't possibly know from what they see. These are conclusions/illusions generated in their heads, not observations. One thing astronomers are good at that others are not necessarily good at is understanding what they are actually seeing and overriding the brain's attempts to assign distance/altitude/speed/size to what they see. For example, when yous eee an object moving in the night sky, odds are good it is either a plane or a satellite. But while either may cover the same chunk of your field of view in the same time (and that time can be highly variable), the satellite is traveling 20x higher and faster.

If anything, I get the impression that the training pilots get conditions them to attempt to assess distance, altitude, speed, and size even without the information required to do that. That can make them worse even than laypeople when it comes to UFO sightings.

 

[Andre]

About observation and imagination and the mix thereof, Phil Plait links to a great story; make sure not to miss part 2.

The essential part:

As the objects passed overhead, the drama of the incident evaporated in an instant. Both of us made a positive identification and uttered the same word at the same time: “Pigeons!”

In an instant, four UFOs had been replaced by four pigeons flying overhead. So what was going on in our minds to turn pigeons into UFOs? This is a classic case of “Seeing What You Are Believing.” I tend to think of information from our senses as passing through filters —or being assembled onto templates by our brains — as we are trying to make sense of what is happening around us. This means that the same sensory information can be interpreted quite differently by our brains on different occasions, depending on what filters or templates may be in operation at any given moment. In the case of our pigeons, light from the street lamps below was being reflected back to us much better from their round white bellies than from the rest of the pigeon, making the bellies stand out much more against the black sky. Essentially, as soon as we saw the four round white objects, a UFO filter popped up in our brains. It is absolutely amazing how effectively the UFO filter filtered out the rest of the pigeons.

Credit John Woolley, Highly recommended to read the last paragraph.

Anyway, I concur about that filter, I have been looking at things using the wrong filters and definitely not recognizing what I saw. Once there was an impossible crazy brilliant glowing square sky scraper at the horizon. I did not realize what I saw until much later I learned about http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/basics/phenomena/superior_mirage.html. It was the rising moon, partly covered by its inverted image, making it seem square. Something like this (scroll down half way to the pic with caption

A good example of a Superior Mirage, CD North drill rig.

Now, concerning the failed ejection of the Iranese pilot. During my career I never ever heard of any colleague in combat situations (Balkan, Afghanistan) who had any inclination to eject -upon facing direct imminent treaths from incoming missiles and such -rather than try an evading 'last ditch manoeuvre' (with a 100% success rate in reality). It's just not done.

The mere fact that the crew attempted to eject suggests that their decisions were likely based on subjective fear generated by the UFO filter or template, aggravated by desoriention, seeing lights everywhere, and a lack of situational awareness. Hence, I would not take this story for granted.

Another thing. The event took place after midnight. Venus is either visible around sunrise or sunset. Hence it could not have been Venus.