UFO/CIA drones over Iran

[XP67_Moonbat]

Wrong again.

 

[sublight_]

Wrong again.

How? It says so right there on the CIA's web site.

As relayed by John Parongosky, 26 July 1994. Parongosky oversaw the day-to-day affairs of the OXCART program.

 

[Foxglove]

I got a different impression...

Why? What did I say that, in your mind, translated into "I deny the possibility of aliens visiting"?

There are lots of unlikely events or things that people have proposed. "X" might or might have happened. But without evidence that approaches proof, the only honest explanation is that "X might have happened, with a probability that is low/medium/high." And if the probability of X is low, your evidence had better be damned good before reasonable people will give your claims credence. But "doubt" is not the same as "denial." If you do in fact see expressions of doubt as expressions of denial... the problem is in *your* worldview. Those who are incapable of tolerating or comprehending doubters and nonbelievers are generally known as "fanatics" and worse, and if they are at all self aware, they should work to improve themselves rather than demanding that their beliefs be accepted by others.

Orion, charming as ever, but I can see a serious flaw in your logic: if you don't deny the possibility of aliens visiting, why do you doubt, to use your phrasing, the evidence supplied in verbal/ written reports from people of all walks of life from all over the world? Naturally, Ockham's razor is always a good thing and certainly a vast majority of the reports might be attributed to misinterpretation, hoax, LSD abuse, etc. But a handful of the incidents reported would be hard to explain away even with black projects- I will be happy to provide examples if you are interested.
Who would you trust more when hearing tales of the unknown? My favourite choice is pilots, astronauts, air traffic controllers, army officials, astronomers, people who tend to be more competent on identifying aerial vehicles than the average Joe. Here are a few quotes from such sources that you might find of interest:
http://http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1743.htm
Now, I don't keep a piece of alien technology in my basement to get you the evidence you require, but how about this:
http://http://www.nicap.org/reports/ubatubatd.htm
Do you think this evidence is damn good enough? I understand you think yourself reasonable, would you give the above claims credence then?
I don't have a problem with my world view and accept the fact that some people will resort to most absurd explanations (my favourite swamp gas) only to keep their paradigm from shattering into pieces. As a matter of fact, intolerance and lack of understanding, often accompanied by aggression and insults, as exemplified in your post, are characteristic of the 'non-believers', to stick to your terminology again.
Working to improve oneself is always beneficial, and it applies to everybody, whether you believe in God, aliens or common sense.
Last but not least, you see I'm also getting tired of this debate, which as sublight put it, isn't productive. Stick to your convictions and let me stick to mine and perhaps one day you'll realize that you should take your words back, which, of course, knowing you from your posts, you won't do.

 

[quellish]

you doubt, to use your phrasing, the evidence supplied in verbal/ written reports from people of all walks of life from all over the world?

That is someone's account of what they perceived. It is not physical evidence.

 

[Lauge]

You believers are all wrong. There are no UFO's.

Err..wrong. There are plenty of UFO's. A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. Something that flies, and cannot be readily identified.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[bobbymike]

You believers are all wrong. There are no UFO's.

Err..wrong. There are plenty of UFO's. A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. Something that flies, and cannot be readily identified.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Since UFO has become synonymous with 'alien' I think that was the point he was making.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Unfortunately, "verbal or written reports" prove nothing but what the people concerned say they saw. If written or verbal reports constituted "proof", we would have to concede that every religion is proven true.

People believe many things that are either provably false or unproven. My mother-in-law is convinced that cold air causes colds, despite all scientific evidence about viruses. She can personally testify to many occasions when she got a cold after being exposed to cold moving air. This doesn't mean that she is right. Correlation is not causation. Another friend takes alternative medicine when she gets a cold and within a few days feels better. Oddly enough, I don't take anything, and generally within a few days I feel better too. However, she is convinced that the medicine worked for her.

Memories are also very unreliable. My sister and I have completely contradicting memories of a specific event when I was 16 years old. Naturally, I am certain my recollection is correct and she is mistaken.

Your provided links are illuminating. Apparently, some person has supplied some alleged alien UFO fragments. On testing, the metal is found to be pure magnesium. Not the best choice of metal for a high speed craft, really.

Does that make him doubt the hypothesis that these are UFO fragments? Nope, he simply assumes the UFO had some kind of magical protective barrier that prevented it from burning up at high speed. Of course, that is *far* more likely than someone faking the UFO fragments. This is not logical: it is wish fulfilment, pure and simple.

If this is the kind of thing you personally find convincing, then really it is no surprise you will find yourself feeling defensive in a forum with a greater than normal complement of analytical/scientific types.

 

[Lauge]

Since UFO has become synonymous with 'alien' I think that was the point he was making.

Yes, it has, and that annoys the Niflheim out of me.

But on the other hand, if you equate "UFO" with "Alien", then the very definite statement "There are no aliens (visiting Earth, i.e. UFO's)" becomes just as wrong as the very definite statement "There are aliens (visiting Earth, i.e. UFO's)". Granted, the first statement is a) vastly more likely to be correct, and b) quite impossible to prove (unlike the second statement), but still....

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen

Luxembourg

 

[donnage99]

Working to improve oneself is always beneficial, and it applies to everybody, whether you believe in God, aliens or common sense.
Last but not least, you see I'm also getting tired of this debate, which as sublight put it, isn't productive. Stick to your convictions and let me stick to mine and perhaps one day you'll realize that you should take your words back, which, of course, knowing you from your posts, you won't do.

Eye witness account is the lowest form of evidence due to limitation of our senses, limited knowledge to interpret what we see/hear, and questionable intention (we see what we want to see). This is why science doesn't take the UFO crowd seriously though large part of the science community believe in existence of life outside earth

 

[bobbymike]

Unfortunately, "verbal or written reports" prove nothing but what the people concerned say they saw. If written or verbal reports constituted "proof", we would have to concede that every religion is proven true.

People believe many things that are either provably false or unproven. My mother-in-law is convinced that cold air causes colds, despite all scientific evidence about viruses. She can personally testify to many occasions when she got a cold after being exposed to cold moving air. This doesn't mean that she is right. Correlation is not causation. Another friend takes alternative medicine when she gets a cold and within a few days feels better. Oddly enough, I don't take anything, and generally within a few days I feel better too. However, she is convinced that the medicine worked for her.

Memories are also very unreliable. My sister and I have completely contradicting memories of a specific event when I was 16 years old. Naturally, I am certain my recollection is correct and she is mistaken.

Your provided links are illuminating. Apparently, some person has supplied some alleged alien UFO fragments. On testing, the metal is found to be pure magnesium. Not the best choice of metal for a high speed craft, really.

Does that make him doubt the hypothesis that these are UFO fragments? Nope, he simply assumes the UFO had some kind of magical protective barrier that prevented it from burning up at high speed. Of course, that is *far* more likely than someone faking the UFO fragments. This is not logical: it is wish fulfilment, pure and simple.

If this is the kind of thing you personally find convincing, then really it is no surprise you will find yourself feeling defensive in a forum with a greater than normal complement of analytical/scientific types.

You see this often in the UFO/Alien visitor debate there is always a series of 'additional' things that someone has to think up to make the story plausible like magic cloaking devices.

I remember reading about a serious discussion of what it would take to travel inter-stellar/inter-galactic distances using known science/physics and anytime something didn't fit the 'believers' premise they would simply state, "Well they probably have technology 'A' that we don't know about'.

The bottom line is when you have people willing to debate like this then you will never change their minds.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Orion, charming as ever, but I can see a serious flaw in your logic: if you don't deny the possibility of aliens visiting, why do you doubt, to use your phrasing, the evidence supplied in verbal/ written reports from people of all walks of life from all over the world?

I fail to see the flaw in my logic, since "reports" from people are pretty much useless.

Who would you trust more when hearing tales of the unknown?

The team of scientists tasked with direct examination of purported extraterrestrial hardware and/or lifeforms. If there are live aliens involved, the team must include someone like Penn & Teller or The Amazing Randi... someone skilled in the art of spotting trickery. A skill most scientists truly lack.

http://http://www.nicap.org/reports/ubatubatd.htm
Do you think this evidence is damn good enough?

Not even close. Small bits of mundane materials? Really? If I can order it from eBay, I'm not impressed with it as evidence of an alien spacecraft:
Pure Magnesium metal element cube 99.9% pure 28 grams
Thing is, magnesium might well have an interestingly extraterrestrial origin. A number of satellites use magnesium structural elements... it has a very good strength/weight ratio, and in space the flammability issue is not an issue. Back in my very brief days at OSC I got to look at and hold some incredibly light magnesium micro-thruster brackets, for example. A satellite burning up on re-entry might well spit out half-burnt chunks of magnesium like this. You'd think magnesium would all burn up, but if it was in a low oxygen environment - cloaked in, say, vaporized plastic or rocket fuel or something else at just the right moment - then bits of it would survive.

But a satellite would not fit the chosen narrative, would it.

Stick to your convictions and let me stick to mine and perhaps one day you'll realize that you should take your words back, which, of course, knowing you from your posts, you won't do.

Ah, yes, the "someday, you'll get yours" style of debate. I hear that a lot from Creationists. And of course it's just as wrong coming from UFO fanatics as religious ones. Science, as the cartoon pointed out, changes with the evidence. Display *actual* evidence that an alien spacecraft has visited, and I'll be all over it.

 

[sublight_]

So back to the original subject, lets just wait and see if Combat Aircraft mag follows up on their claim....

 

[RanulfC]

Orionblamblam, I assure you that for me the universe is fascinating enough, aliens or no aliens. And, I'm sorry to say, it is your attitude that is irrational, when you deny the possibility of alien visits. It reminds me of the views of one 18th or 19th century French academic, who was ready to bet that meteorites do not come from outer space because it's simply impossible: you can't have rocks flying across the cosmos, anybody who thinks otherwise is a dimwit.

If you care to find out about the latest in space exploration, you will learn that several hundred exoplanets have already been discovered, and, statistically, our galaxy alone could have millions of planets( latest news: even 400 BILLION extrasolar planets, source: wikipedia). If just a fraction of them developed life, and there is no reason to question this assumption, and another fraction of that developed intelligent life, we are still left with hundreds/ thousands of places where spacefaring civilizations could develop, ergo might have/ might be visiting us. This is not theorizing but a logical extrapolation with regard to astronomical data.

You know, while we are at it, the problem with academia, but also with any highly-qualified professionals, is of a psychological nature: it is the fear of the unknown, the fear of knowledge that could undermine many scientific/technological achievements or even ruin careers; hence the hostility, derision, and ostracism on the part of many experts when they are faced with information they can't readily categorize( or they do:misinterpretation, hoax, delusion, swamp gas, etc.) It is only human, but this conservatism hampers progress, cloaking itself in rationalism and empirism, otherwise an absolute necessity in science and most desirable in any cognitive process. In short, while we retain our scepticism, it is also worth keeping an open mind. Difficult as it sounds, it is possible.

See there are two problems with the above, the fist being that the actual (and this is pretty prevelent in scientific circles who actually discuss the issue AS a scientific issue and not peopl who attend UFO conventions mind you) "logical conclusion" is that given all the circumstances you have shown we should in fact be hip-deep in visiting aliens if not haveing long ago been conquered or wiped from the fact of the universe. Worse, by ANY standards we should be able to SEE irrifutable evidence of other advanced civilizations all around us unless life and especially complex life is a lot more rare than we have ever imagined, or that other civilizations do not as of yet exist on even our level of development.

The second of course is the rather routine contention that "academia," "the government," or just people in general are so afraid of new things and change that there is a delibrite effort to undermine, cover-up, and discredit new ways of thinking and new ideas. As with all myths there is actually a grain of truth here in that certain interests will lash out when their comfortable world view is distrubed in any way but history pretty much shows that change is inevitable and while it make take waiting for certain "people" to retire and leave the field to "new-thinking" (Continential Drift comes to mind) it WILL happen and long before it does the opposition will have already lost the battle to remain entrenched in the face of contrarian fact or evidence.

The main problem is keeping an open mind but not letting your brain fall out... There are very few "UFO" (as in aliens or super advanced air/spacecraft being hidden from everyone) cases that can not be explained by normal means. These normal means include mis-observation, normal observations that have abnormal conditions, or even observation of a previously unobserved phenomonon. But fact that some cases can NOT be explained as of yet do not mean that the observations were valid or that the reporting was in fact error free. Nor does it mean that it WAS aliens, time travellers, or interdimensional excursions.

Discussion is great but in many peoples minds there is the connection made that if it can't be "explained" then it HAS to be "fill-in-the-blank" and no other explination is possible. Those kind of people tend to not only invite disdain, hostility, and ostercism and in fact they often look to those factors of "proof" they must be getting close to the truth because "someone" is trying to "destroy" their credibility when they have in fact done that quite well themselves. That unfortunatly is very MUCH human nature as well.

At issue is the majority of people who BELIEVE that "UFOs" are aliens/etc do not WANT to "discuss" the issues they want to belive and they want everyone else to acknowledge that belief as a means of self validation. This immediatly makes any "discussion" impossible because one side is NEVER going to give up their position no matter what evidence or fact is brought in to support the oppositions argument. "Academia/et-al" due to the nauture of their training and disposition HAVE to take into account new evidence and facts, "belivers" don't and won't. So I'd suggest you are applying your "argument" to the wrong side of the equation.

As for the cartoon you posted, did you notice the bit about science being based on observation and adjusting itself accordingly? We are talking about observations here. And what about the line saying life is full of mystery? Even the most arrogant scientist will refuse to claim that we already know everything.

No but many arrogant "UFO-belivers" will claim such and they will refuse to consider any observation of data that conflicts with their world-view. Observation is only ONE method of science and unfortunatly it is most often the one that is the least accurate. Especially observation under less than ideal conditions with untrained and often pre-biased observers.

And the criteria for "trained observer" is slippery in and of itself. Take for example your stated list of choices of who you would trust more in "hearing tales of the unknown":
"...pilots, astronauts, air traffic controllers, army officials, astronomers, people who tend to be more competent on identifying aerial vehicles than the average Joe..."

"Tend to be" is one way of saying they are probably more qualified to report observed phenomonon that they KNOW and are TRAINED to interpret by observation. But they are still very, very humans and more often than not those "qualifications" can turn against them when seeing something they have not seen or observed before under the circumstances involved.

For example if a pilot says "the aircraft was a 707" because he's seen dozens of them in flight over the years I would tend to assign that observation a high probability of accuracy. Now an observation of "A light like I'd never seen before hung off our left wing, would suddenly disappear and apear ahead or behind us and then disappear and again take up station off our left wing again and then appeared to move rapidly away towards out rear at a very high rate of speed before we lost sight of it" is going to be less accurate of course simply because the entire event begins outside the pilots experiance envelope. All "professionals" are subject to the same issues with what they may or may not have been trained to observe and what they may actually observe.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

As for the OP and original (more current one suspects) report, more detail would help but the "claims" are in line with various "UFO" reports, ("UFO" in this case being less about "Unidentified Flying Objects" and more about "Something with fantastic abilities and properties but no one can prove what it was... But ya, it was aliens" kind of thinking) and very much unlikely to be some 'fantastic' technolgy drones that the US (or anyone else) has flying around.

No we don't have any "information" on these "drones" because from the sound of it they aren't "drones" but various types of "UFOs" (in the "Unidentified Flying Object" not "aliens" sense) that probably have some "mundane" explination but given lack of detail and account data are as yet unable to be classifed. The proported abilities are probably misinterpritations or misrepresentations of the data and until and unless there is access to more solid data my suggestion would be to simply take the story as a nice read but with no actual information given.
(Of course now I'm going to have to go out and get that issue just to see what's in the article myself )

[quote author=Foxglove]
Because I care about other people's opinions on secret drones.

Then here it is: They aren't "secret drones" but misinterpreted, misreported, and or mistaken observations of currently un-indentified phenomonon. They are probably not "owned or operated" by the US, CIA or any other particular agency or party, they most likely in fact to not exist at all.

'Probably', 'most likely', 'much unlikely': how about sticking to facts Ranulf rather than theorizing?
[/quote]

Well you could start by providing some "facts" if you wish. However given the lack thereof, my summation pretty much still stands.

If we go down this lane I might as well say, which you wrote yourself, the objects are most likely alien spaceships because existing human technology( at least publicly known) does not allow for the flight performance described above.

Occum's razor and the majority of similar cases in history actually points in the opposite direction: Alien spaceships are the LEAST not the most likely answer, and that one in fact would rate "higher" on the list than secret US/CIA drones I might add.

And why do you use 'we' when you write about your lack of knowledge of such technology, you know everybody posting here and how much they know?

Really? I hang around here far to much and have read numerous posts by the majority of contributers here. The other main reason would be the most simple and straight forward though. If anyone DID know they wouldn't say so the end result would be the same. Security being what it is, one risks job and imprisonment for "blabbing" to much on a public forum

How do you know, denying it categorically, that they aren't American drones, you're employed at Skunk Works or Phantom Works, you have full knowledge of current black programs, American or other?

I've a very good grasp of aeronautical and space technolgy and from the brief desciption you've given the fact that the phenomon seems to "defy" all know applications of said technology would indicate its not "ours" and the main problem that so many "UFOs-are-Aliens" folks and other conspiricy people (not neccessarily you mind you) run up against is the fact that managing to run a program in foreign airspace with very advanced high-tech equipment is neither easy nor simple and by doing so the risk of "exposing" that technology greatly increases. "Black" programs for the most part require a great deal of "control" over every aspect of the program to remain "black". Once it goes operational and especially if it does so over foreign territory there is not way to keep it "black" for long. Between simple mechanical or other in-flight failures the expanded exposure and base of people who "know" quickly becomes to large to manage effectivly and the situation only gets worse the longer the program goes on.

And finally, why should I treat this article as a nice read only? 'Combat Aircraft' is not 'Private Eye' or 'News of the world', is it?

Not normally but as I noted I'll have to read the article myself but given the lack of details so far the article amounts to "hearsay" from Iranian sources that "accuse" the US of using highly advanced drones using unknown technology to spy on them. It may just be a "filler" story that is not as rigidly edited as the rest of the magazine. Or it may have simply been published to see how much attention it DOES garner. Not having read the article yet I can't really say one way or another.

Randy

 

[Stargazer]

Is it such a difficult concept for all of you guys to STICK TO A TOPIC???
Once again, a discussion about some very specific occurrence in very specific place and time has turned into a pugilate about UFO believing.
And once again (surprise surprise) it is the same old people playing the part of the skeptics... while repeating they are tired of it (which doesn't keep them from filling pages with their remarks!).
If PaulMM hadn't written in this topic himself, I can honestly guarantee I would simply have removed EVERY single post from this thread that was not related to the original question. At best I would have relocated it in the Bar section as a separate topic, although we've had loads of similar topics that all amounted to absolutely nil in the end. As some said, it is a matter of belief more than fact. "I want to believe..." said Mulder's poster in his office, and the UFO bashers could similarly placate a poster saying "I don't want to believe..." so why keep discussing when both sides are convinced and hermetic to the possibility of changing their minds?
I'll have only one question, personally: Does it not seem strange to anybody that the Iranian military (whose high level of technology was recently proven in the form of a pathetically improbable would-be 5th generation fighter demonstrator) might be capable to adequately assess the speed of a UFO as being Mach 10? Not to mention be able to even follow it at all? And why would a respected publication such as Combat Aircraft even stoop to give any credit to intelligence emanating from Iran, anyway??

 

[RanulfC]

I'll have only one question, personally: Does it not seem strange to anybody that the Iranian military (whose high level of technology was recently proven in the form of a pathetically improbable would-be 5th generation fighter demonstrator) might be capable to adequately assess the speed of a UFO as being Mach 10? Not to mention be able to even follow it at all? And why would a respected publication such as Combat Aircraft even stoop to give any credit to intelligence emanating from Iran, anyway??

Which is why I want to read the article in question

Randy

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

There's no such thing as alien UFOs. Nonsense!

 

[r16]

the sign of maturity is not taking it manly on the chin . Because that tends to start fights when it doesn't happen . The sign of maturity is to keep one's standarts . Hence at a time , when the US Homeland Department or whatever it's called deplores lack of response from the USN , which is apparently the only service that meets and engages "21st Century Foo Fighters" because such drones are a threat to US , one expects the stupid silly reports from Pentagon to be met with the same standart of ridicule . Right ? Nobody expects you people to accept that one Tu-160 was seen sightseeing over US anyhow . Keep up the tough talk , will you ?

 

[sferrin]

Nobody expects you people to accept that one Tu-160 was seen sightseeing over US anyhow .

What fantasy is this? Better odds that it was an honest to god flying saucer.

 

[edwest4]

The Iranian report is fabricated. Hostility toward UFO reports is required. The nonsense statement that half of UFO reports from the 1950s, much the less the 1960s, were recon flights follows no logic. Yes, they are going to leave spy planes in natural metal so sunlight could reflect off them, and fly them at low altitude as opposed to operational. UFO does not mean alien. Russian recon overflights are not out of the question.

 

[sferrin]

The Iranian report is fabricated. Hostility toward UFO reports is required. The nonsense statement that half of UFO reports from the 1950s, much the less the 1960s, were recon flights follows no logic. Yes, they are going to leave spy planes in natural metal so sunlight could reflect off them, and fly them at low altitude as opposed to operational. UFO does not mean alien. Russian recon overflights are not out of the question.

Why would Russians be flying over Iran?

 

[kaiserd]

What is this thread even about any more?

 

[edwest4]

UFOs.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Topic closed.