So several professional people with reputations at stake, reporting about the same incident/same phenomena observed around the same time, are all fantasists?. I find that hard to believe. It could be the case, but I think its highly unlikely. I think that in both Belgium and Tehran, multiple witnesses, a few of whom were proven to be competent in their respective professions, saw something very real. The literal definition of UFO is not extra terrestrial craft but an unidentified flying object, when these unidentified objects display characterisitics and qualities that have not been displayed in currently available technology then surely they deserve to be taken seriously and merit proper investigation with all resources available?

Maybe they have been investigated and found to be ET in origin and the findings are secret, or they are prototype military vehicles that quite rightly, governments want to keep secret. It seems on here though that the merest suggestion of this means conspiracy.To the sceptics though, conspiracy theories just don't happen, when in fact the nations of this worlds national security laws are themselves, the very definition of a conspiracy theory.


eburacum45 gong back to the Tehran incident, from what I've read the 2nd F4 had a visual on the original object when the radar indicated it was 27nm, it got a radar lock at 25nm. The pilots then observed another ufo come from the first object and come towards them rapidly, I don't know if they also tracked that by radar as the report I have read doesn't seem to have that information ,I am also not as technically minded in these matters as others on the board seem to be, but my guess is, if they tried to fire on it, then they must have had it on radar.

Again, the argument settles on reliability of both human observation and the equipment on board the fighter jet, and I see this reliability argument time and time again on threads throughout this forum. What I have presented in the tehran case, are the facts of the incident. First hand accounts from the people involved and the details of radar data recieved. I think, given the amount of witnesses and the professional standing of quite a few of them, what they observed was a real, physical object. There is nothing else I can add.