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

[russ_watters]

If you wish to artificially limit the possibilities, that's your leap of faith, not hers or mine.

That's what logic dictates, Ivan. What other possibilities do you see?

The general consensus, according to her, according to the officials involved, is precisely what I've been saying for years: No one really knows what is going on.

The problem is that many people cannot simply accept the facts, according to the best information available,

The facts are not of scientific quality - that's why they are not accepted. Your position, dismissing reasonable skepticism, is anti-science.

...without drawing conclusions.

The purpose of scientific inquiry is to get answers - to draw conclusions. There is no other reason to do it. Furthermore, humans are hard-wired to draw conclusions. It's our nature and is essentially impossible to avoid, even if it were desirable, which it isn't. It is unscientific and disingenuous to claim that one can do decades of research and not even come up with potential/tentative conclusions. It's also counterproductive since failure to properly apply scientific thought to these sightings can result in incorrect conclusions being drawn.

 

[russ_watters]

Is it being argued that highly credible and well supported reports, including those coming from official government sources, such as the FAA, the DOD, the NSA, or the CIA, should be accepted, or rejected, based on the expectations of the investigator?

No. Heck, I won't even stipulate to the premise of the question! I have *never* seen a UFO report that made me stand up and say "Wow, I think that's an alien spacecraft !" like proponents of the Mexican Air Force sighting said I should. And in cases like that one, my skepticism has served me well, whereas the wishful thinking/grasping at straws of the UFO crowd has served them poorly.

Should language and descriptions that might be suggestive of an ET presense be deleted for the sake of comfort?

No, it is being suggested that language suggestive of ET is being deleted/not used for the sake of comfort by the author. The impression given is leading us toward a conclusion, then not explicitly stating what that conclusion is. It is argument by inuendo and you did something similar above when you said my conclusions were limited without explaining what the alternatives are.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps you could pick one of the most "convincing UFO sightings", and explain your theory that it could have been whatever.

According to many, the Mexican Air Force UFO sighting of a few years ago was an extremely convincing sighting of alien spacecraft ...which turned out to be oil rigs. The conclusion a skeptic must draw from that is that in the absence of convincing proof of a mundane explanation, many UFO advocates jump to the alien spacecraft conclusion.

 

[Andre]

Does her book mention the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xkHt6br1Q4"?

It's pretty clear in the video that the object doesn't accelerate away from the Mig as is claimed but rather the mig slows its rate of turn. Watch the clouds. ..

Good catch, but there is more. Mind that you're observing in two dimensions on the film an apparent object moving in three dimensions from a position that moves in three dimensions as well. Notice also that the size of the object is not really diminishing as it 'accellerates' away. You would see something similar if you'd just passed it and actually getting closer, maybe with a vertical movement component that suggest moving away.

Apparantly the slowing of the turn rate creates the suggestion that the object accellerates suddenly, if the turn rate had been constant then the apparent acceleration, due to passing the object would have been somewhat smoother.

I've seen something similar once, couldn't believe our eyes, a big metallic colored cigar, albeit vertical oriented that time. So we approached it and passed it several times, which looks from the aircraft much the same as on that video, albeit that this cigar was only ascending slowly, with no horizontal movement. On the third pass much closer in, we could read the name of a well know tyre brand on it.

 

[FlexGunship]

I actually thought the same thing as you before, but I saw some crazy ####. I wouldn't expect anyone to take my one person observation seriously. Like you said the mind can play tricks. What I saw, was beyond what can be explained as something mundane, and in order to agree it was my mind playing tricks on me, I would have to assume I am completely losing my mind.

I put the I'm losing my mind hypothesis last, just after alien craft. The order I have in likeliness according to me

1: high tech hoax
2: high tech craft
3: high tech alien craft
4: losing my mind

People simply assume that they are immune to trickery, confusion, and illusion; they assume that they are the only bastion of reason and rational thought so 'surely, i cannot be fooled.'

It doesn't have to be a hoax, just honest misunderstanding. I would be baffled too if I saw lights hovering over a barn that suddenly disappeared. But i would ask myself: "which is more rational: that I, alone or with a group, have become the sole recipient of final proof that intelligences beyond Earth have discovered humans and are performing elaborate investigations by flying complex craft from their homeworld to a barn in the middle of nowhere... or that I just saw whatever?"

Why are those the only 4 options? What about "hallucination?" What about "illusion?" What about something even more complex? Or just misunderstanding? Perhaps a Chinese lantern in the wind? You have four options, none of which cover the most reasonable explanations. It's a false dichotomy. "If it wasn't an alien/gov't craft then it had to be <insert ridiculous thing>."

The point I was trying to make with my "long list post" is that the phenomenon being described are not the same at all. There is no consistent pattern. People simply declare by fiat that "this was not a bird." Or they make claims like "I'm a scientifically minded person." If you were a scientifically minded person, then you wouldn't start by dismissing the most reasonable options.

Furthermore, no one has put forth a theory with any weight. Make predictions! "If it's an alien craft, it will have 3 blue lights." At least then we know which ones to ignore! There's a real starting point. No one would ever accept "the long list" in any serious area of investigation.

 

[FlexGunship]

And how can I ascribe the likely hood of this "thing it is trying to prove"?

Okay, for future discussion, I will reiterate my qualifying statement about evidence:

Evidence must be such that's its fabrication is less likely than that which it is trying to prove.

EDIT: I deleted my examples because I'm sure they would only cause confusion.

 

[alt]

My opinion ? Highly advanced military aircraft.

It seems absurd that a civilisation as advanced as to be able to send entities and equipment over some inane distance to reach us, would then frig around buzzing some planes, and generally behave in mishcievous ways. If they were here, they'd have subjugated us by now. It is whimsical anthropocentric nonsence to assume they would share our sentiments of benevolance, shaking hands with our leader on the White House lawn, etc.

Where and how to hide advanced military technology that's going to be inadvertently spotted ? In plain sight - just wrap it up in some alien UFO mythology to keep the masses (those interested, anyway) gasping and clutching at straws.

Here we are thinking that any day now, we're going to hit the TOE jackpot. In that light, what's difficult to believe about the likelyhood that mankind has reached a level of technology far beyond that which is revealed to the common man ?

 

[FlexGunship]

Where and how to hide advanced military technology that's going to be inadvertently spotted ? In plain sight - just wrap it up in some alien UFO mythology to keep the masses (those interested, anyway) gasping and clutching at straws.

... [so] what's difficult to believe about the likelyhood that mankind has reached a level of technology far beyond that which is revealed to the common man ?

Yes, I'm sure plenty of UFO reports can be adequately explained by military test aircraft. It's actually one of the better explanations. But, are you suggesting that there's something exotic here? That the military is operating flying saucers, or anti-gravity drives, or something crazy like that?

Why would we suspect that there is technology advanced far beyond what we already know about? The most secretive machine ever built (SR-71) was just an application of then-current technology done incredibly cleverly. Knowledge is pretty hard to keep secret since most physicists, scientists, and engineers are private citizens and they (and their companies) love publicity.

I would say Wi-Fi on airplanes and the Nintendo 3DS are probably the peaks of current technology.

 

[jreelawg]

Why are those the only 4 options? What about "hallucination?" What about "illusion?" What about something even more complex? Or just misunderstanding? Perhaps a Chinese lantern in the wind? You have four options, none of which cover the most reasonable explanations. It's a false dichotomy. "If it wasn't an alien/gov't craft then it had to be <insert ridiculous thing>."

The point I was trying to make with my "long list post" is that the phenomenon being described are not the same at all. There is no consistent pattern. People simply declare by fiat that "this was not a bird." Or they make claims like "I'm a scientifically minded person." If you were a scientifically minded person, then you wouldn't start by dismissing the most reasonable options.

Furthermore, no one has put forth a theory with any weight. Make predictions! "If it's an alien craft, it will have 3 blue lights." At least then we know which ones to ignore! There's a real starting point. No one would ever accept "the long list" in any serious area of investigation.

I included hallucinations as part of the I'm losing my mind possibility which is #4.

I put high tech hoax first, because it is the most physically possible explanation I can think of.

If birds, or chinese lanterns were rational explanations I would include them, but it's not the case.

Here is a repost of why I consider #1 most likely.

I actually would like to include more possible explanations, so if you can think of any good ones let me know.

"If you took, two beams or more, and directed them, so that they cross paths, perhaps depending on the nature of the whole thing. Maybe you could get the effect of a light shining at the point where they meet. Then you control both of them just right, and you can move that light around in the sky? Maybe you can make 3 or more appear and with the help of CPU's make them look fixed and move them around real fast.

I don't really know, to be honest this is my most convincing explanation I have to myself for a UFO I saw, which consisted of three lights in a triangle which moved across the night sky in "impossible ways. Crazy as it sounds? The things which motivate this idea for me are

1: This way the laws of physics as we know them were not violated
2: There was what I decided sounded a lot like a 747 flying overhead just prior to the sighting both times I observed this.
3: Both times I observed this, there were specific atmospheric conditions, which in my head may be a key factor.
4: The second sighting, the 3 lights behaved in a seemingly reckless manner, in my mind if it was an object it should have crashed and burned, hit a tree, or the ground."

 

[jreelawg]

Why are those the only 4 options? What about "hallucination?" What about "illusion?" What about something even more complex? Or just misunderstanding? Perhaps a Chinese lantern in the wind? You have four options, none of which cover the most reasonable explanations. It's a false dichotomy. "If it wasn't an alien/gov't craft then it had to be <insert ridiculous thing>."

Your only setting up straw man sightings to debunk. Which works well for you because you weren't there.

 

[FlexGunship]

Your only setting up straw man sightings to debunk. Which works well for you because you weren't there.

Nope. Not setting up anything at all. You haven't even made a claim yet. You've never told me about your experience, you've only told me what it "obviously wasn't."

 

[jreelawg]

Nope. Not setting up anything at all. You haven't even made a claim yet. You've never told me about your experience, you've only told me what it "obviously wasn't."

Then how is it you know which is an unreasonable explanation and which ones are reasonable?

 

[FlexGunship]

Then how is it you know which is an unreasonable explanation and which ones are reasonable?

Hmm, I didn't think I had made such a judgement except to exclude aliens and magically high-tech craft except in a (clearly stated) case of adequate evidence.

 

[Chronos]

Allowing for all reasonable explantions, I would say UFO sightings are enigmatic. Many posibilities remain before we need invoke the 'intelligent alien pilot' hypothesis.

 

[FlexGunship]

Allowing for all reasonable explantions, I would say UFO sightings are enigmatic. Many posibilities remain before we need invoke the 'intelligent alien pilot' hypothesis.

That's a nice little quote. What would you accept as proof of an "intelligent alien pilot?" I have my own little list. Just curious about others.

 

[mugaliens]

Is it being argued that highly credible and well supported reports, including those coming from official government sources, such as the FAA, the DOD, the NSA, or the CIA, should be accepted, or rejected, based on the expectations of the investigator?

Not exactly. If anything, I'd argue that while the experience of the source is a factor, people from all the sources you mentioned are still people, and are subject to the same perceptive gyrations as any human. Yes, the education levels tend to be higher, along with the experience levels. Judging by the prolific list of sightings from these folks, however, a few of which are laughable, it's clear we're (I'm among the group) not immune to such human perceptions.

It should never be argued that the reports be accepted or rejected on the basis of the investigator. Certainly on the details of the investigator's methods, procedures, attention to detail, accuracy, and objectivity... but on the investigator himself? No. The former are included in the investigator's credentials, but the latter is rather subjective.

Should language and descriptions that might be suggestive of an ET presense be deleted for the sake of comfort?

I'm not sure what you mean by "comfort." Do you mean for the sake of investigative expediency? To prevent "embarrassment" of some kind to the investigative agencies?

If so, I really don't think this thought has much merit. In fact, it sounds somewhat conspiratorial. My impression over the years has been that efforts were extended to accommodate the questions, but nothing of substance was found, so the matters were closed. I've little doubt that some ears might still be pressed to the ground, but I've also little doubt that anything I've seen can't be explained six ways to Sunday, and not just "explained away," but simply explained.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Is any such evidence contained in a mere book? Seriously - if a clear picture speaks a thousand words, a clear video speaks 10,000. Even a 70,000 word book only speaks a couple of pictures, and the way I see it, it's still secondhand information.

 

[alt]

Yes, I'm sure plenty of UFO reports can be adequately explained by military test aircraft. It's actually one of the better explanations. But, are you suggesting that there's something exotic here? That the military is operating flying saucers, or anti-gravity drives, or something crazy like that?

All I can say is that it isn't that unreasonable to assume they may well have something well beyond what the common man thinks is the present limits of technology. Nor would I call it crazy. Todays magic (or crazy) is tomorrows science - we hear that often, here.

Why would we suspect that there is technology advanced far beyond what we already know about? The most secretive machine ever built (SR-71) was just an application of then-current technology done incredibly cleverly.

So why do you call it secretive ? What was secretive about it ? A non question, I suppose, because you wouldn't know Lockheeds or that crafts secret .. would you ? (if you do, I don't want to know).

Knowledge is pretty hard to keep secret since most physicists, scientists, and engineers are private citizens and they (and their companies) love publicity.

Was the Manhattan project 'cause célèbre' for the years it was worked on prior to dropping the bomb ? I would assume there was a great number of folk working on it - both public and private citizens. I feel sure that the state can enforce keeping of it's secrets if they are important enough.

I would say Wi-Fi on airplanes and the Nintendo 3DS are probably the peaks of current technology.

Dunno about the first - I sleep on planes. Haven't a clue about the second, either, but I'll consult the 10 year old :-)

 

[FlexGunship]

If anything, I'd argue that while the experience of the source is a factor, people from all the sources you mentioned are still people, and are subject to the same perceptive gyrations as any human. Yes, the education levels tend to be higher, along with the experience levels.

Furthermore, intelligence and education often clouds the issue. As James Randi is so fond of showing us (the human species), even the best of us can easily be tricked. And it's simple for us, on the outside, to say "I wouldn't have been fooled by that... those physicists are morons." But people are often lulled into a feeling of "I can't be fooled" and then they miss it when they are.

If you don't know it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha

 

[FlexGunship]

Was the Manhattan project 'cause célèbre' for the years it was worked on prior to dropping the bomb ? I would assume there was a great number of folk working on it - both public and private citizens. I feel sure that the state can enforce keeping of it's secrets if they are important enough.

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.

 

[alt]

That's a nice little quote. What would you accept as proof of an "intelligent alien pilot?" I have my own little list. Just curious about others.

You have a list of proofs of alien pilots ?

 

[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.