This isn't about conspiracy theories as such, but about 2 incidents that have been widely reported and investigated that have caught my imagination.

The first one is the Begian UFO sightings in the late 80's / early 90's where large triangular shaped craft were seen all over Belgium by quite a few normal people and members of the Police. The Belgian Airforce took an interest and at one point scrambled jets to intercept, locked on to the craft on radar but could not catch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLjd88-PGgM

The second is the UFO sightings in 1976 over Tehran in Iran, again the airforce in that country scrambled jets to intercept, got lock on by radar as well as having visual confirmation but had their instruments inside the plane die on them, only for them to return to normal when they disengaged the object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

I'm usually quite sceptical about things like this, but the fact so many professional people witnessed these events make me wonder. Whats your thoughts?

Well, why not tell us what you think of them?
Just posting a couple of Youtube links and saying 'what are your thoughts' will usualy provoke negative responses.

Why don't you summarise what is in the videos (For the benefit of the people that can't get to Youtube) and tehn tell us what you think about them.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Both cases describe apparent pursuits of lights in the sky by jet aircraft; in both cases the jets could not get close to the lights, and in the Belgian case the radar returns from the aircraft seem to have been physically impossible, since the target seems to have gone underground at one point.

I note additionally that Bruce Maccabee's investigation is somewhat at odds with the Wiki page on the Tehran incident, as he places Lieutenant Jafari in the first plane to be launched, whereas the Wiki page places him in the second plane. That kind of messes up the sequence of events somewhat, depending on who you believe.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

I posted 1 youtube link and 1 Wikipedia link and have given a brief synopsis of each incident (and in turn what is contained within the links). As both incidents have been widely reported and given the amount of threads on here about UFO's I thought maybe a few of your readers would be aware of the circumstances of the incidents. For those that don't know about them here is some more information -

Belgium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave
http://www.cobeps.org/pdf/ernage_rapport.pdf - PDF report by Belgian UFO society, SOBEPS, about sightings in Ernage, Belgium by Colonel Andre Amond.

Iran

www.mufon.com/famous_cases/ 1976%20Iran%20Part%201%20MUFON%20Case%20File.pdf - Mufon PDF containing eye witness accounts of Tehran incident.

eburacum45 - With regards to the radar contacts in Belgium, its my understanding that 3 different Radar sources picked the object up in the area of the sky that both normal Belgian citizens and the Belgian police had reported it to be to the air force when the air force went in pursuit.


captain swoop - I am not trying to prove one way or the other what these things are, I'll admit I am interested in UFO phenomena, but most cases leave me feeling underwhelmed. Cases where professional people come across such phenomena in the course of their day to day work however, seem slightly more credible than the norm.

Tehran was an "incident" while Belgium experienced multiple incidents, a "flap."
Most notable about Tehran was the electromagnetic interference caused by the object. Do "lights in the sky" cause such things?
IMO, misidentified planets, incompetence and equipment failure are all too often profered as explanations.
Belgium is interesting in that multiple eyewitnesses, if they're to be believed, saw objects, triangular craft, not just "lights in the sky."

These are a couple of interesting cases, to be sure.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Apparently caused by the apparent object, to be accurate. It is possible that a natural phenomenon of a known or unknown nature might cause electromagnetic interference. But I would be more inclined to blame coincidence, myself. On a planet with billions of observers, million-to-one chances happen thousands of times every day.
Usually because they are the correct ones.
Some of the stories told about the Belgian flap are more than a little exaggerated; see
http://www.skepticreport.com/ufo/belgian.htm

and see Astrophotographer's page here
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Belg.htm

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

As I have posted before, I spent many hours staring at both Air Warning and Surface Search screens. Lots of 'anomalies' appear and get reported it doesn't mean there was anything there.

I am always sceptical of Radar 'evidence' given in most UFO reports.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Gee, I don't know, I do know that you need to provide evidence that the interference was "caused by the object" before we can accept it as "fact".

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Well, I suppose all 3 aircraft in the area where the UFO was seen could've experienced similar EM effects, coincidentally, but I doubt it.
I guess if one feels the US Defense Intelligence Agency's review of the incident is credible then one can accept that the EM effects were caused by the object.

From the wiki article:

"Alongside the report there was a form from the DIA which assessed the quality of the report. The form indicated in checked boxes that the content was of high value, that the report was confirmed by other sources, and that the utility of the information was potentially useful to them. The form from the DIA also stated the following:

"An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon:
a) The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shamiran, Mehrabad, and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground).
b) The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force general, qualified aircrews, and experienced tower operators).
c) Visual sightings were confirmed by radar.
d) Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft.
e) There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object).
f) An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs."

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

No; that doesn't follow. The report only states that electromagnetic effects were reported; that is a long way from establishing that the sighting(s) caused the effects.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

Yes, it could have been coincidence, of a mistake, or a lie...

Sorry, but your "doubt" is irrelevant.

As required by the rules of this board, please present conclusive evidence that "the object" was the "cause of the interference", or retract the claim.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

As I understand it, there were two F4s and a commercial plane which experienced the EM effects in the vicinity of the object; one regaining instrumentations after turning away from the object.

Coincidence perhaps, but I'm skeptical as these are by no means isolated reports of EM effects from UFOs.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

My claim, RAF?

The second line in the wiki article on the Tehran incident states:

"The incident is particularly notable for the electromagnetic interference effects observed on aircraft in close proximity to the object: two F-4 Phantom II jet interceptors independently lost instrumentation and communications as they approached, only to have them restored upon withdrawal, and one of the aircraft also suffered temporary weapons systems failure while preparing to open fire. The incident is well-documented in an U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report with a distribution list that included the White House, Secretary of State, Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Agency (NSA), and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Various high-ranking Iranian military officers directly involved with the events have also gone on public record stating their belief that the object was not terrestrial in origin."

I suggest you take it up with them.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

IMO, when you posted it as factual, you made it your own.

Wiki is not generally recognized as a source of conclusive, or even credible, evidence....

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Plus the Dod report and Wiki aren't primary sources.

As we know UFO reports tend to grow in the telling.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Well, I guess it comes down to whether you'll accept the reports from those involved, as all I'm saying is what has been documented.

Wiki is generally rather accurate but I'd agree it isn't a primary source.
Do you doubt the veracity of the DIA's report too? The Iranian air force?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Yes, stating it was my only intention, to remark on, as wiki article does, the EM effects.

I'm of the opinion some UFOs cause these EM effects but I wouldn't know how to defend it.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Seeing something is always possible. Proving that something is an alien spacecraft is, to date, not possible.
Appeal to authority. After 20 years in the Navy I can say that military personnel are as susceptible as anyone to "wishful seeing".
Well, if you want to see something, you'll see it.
Already dealt with above.
Bright doesn't equate to alien space craft.

Quite possibly an impossible amount of maneuverability.

Oh, I agree; I tend to think that if UFOs are alien craft we'll come to know this not by any efforts of our own.
Sufficiently advanced technology and all that.

Sure, but it was those with the DIA who state the high degree of credibility.
I don't think they were appealing to anyone when they sent out this report to the various high offices.

No doubt, like Jesus in a tortilla.

yep.

No doubt.
Would we know an alien spacecraft if we saw it?

Perhaps.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Mistakes do happen. Can you show us evidence that it is impossible for them to have made a mistake?

Credible evidence that can be independently tested would be sufficent for said "defence".

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Did I assert such a thing, that mistakes don't happen?; impossibly so?

I think that's why the DIA document suggested this incident of high value, because they determined those involved were credible, no?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Somehow that part of the story keeps telling me ECM. Were the Iranians being outfitted with anything new in that department, perhaps stuff there were not very familiar with yet? Eager young pilot switching on all the goodies to get a better chance at the "UFO bad guy"?

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

You asked if I doubted their veracity...basically, if I "believed" that they were telling the "truth". They could be telling the "truth", and still be mistaken. Something you "appearently" hadn't taken into account when you asked the question.

"Those involved were credible", means nothing to me. As I posted, mistakes happen. A person can be "credible", and also be mistaken.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

When they say "high degree of credibility" it doesn't, in all likelihood, mean what you think it means. It means their equipment isn't reporting any glitches. They're saying their machines believe they're seeing something.

Hello again, sorry for not posting in response to replies made, but it takes hours for my posts to appear...and I tend to lose interest, or end up getting absorbed in other threads on here .

I've read through various threads on here and it seems unless you have rock solid, one hundred percent proof then you're always going to lose the argument, everythings black and white and abscence of proof = proof of abscence to sceptics. In the cases of UFO sightings you're never going to have absolute proof that a sighting is an ET craft or a prototype military vehicle (I don't believe that all UFO sightings are supposedly extra terrestrial craft).

I can't provide absolute 100% rock solid proof of what these sightings were so I'm not even going to try to present anything claiming it is such evidence, but as I said before, the credibility / corroberation of the witnesses in both cases have left me intrigued by both of them.

What especially gets me thinking is why the chief of air staff in Belgium at the time of the sightings would come out so publicly about the incident, risking ridicule. As a few of you have mentioned people make mistakes and radar returns can be totally explainable by different atmospheric conditions. Don't you think the chief of a countries Air defence staff would know that as well? I assume that to be in such a position within the military you would have to show a great degree of competence and expertise in your chosen field. The same applies to a lesser degree for the members of the Gendamrie who also reported the sightings, and the army colonel and his wife who's testimony is examined in the PDF file I posted a link to earlier. Can all these competent, professional people be wrong about what they saw either visually from the ground, or within radar data?

As for the Tehran incident, eburacum45 states that the intercepting aircraft didn't get near to the lights. It is my understanding from reading the testimony of those involved that the first F4 got as near as 25NM before losing all instrumentation and communications. The second F4, scrambled 10 mins after the first, had visual confirmation of the target and radar lock on from 27NM, at that point a second UFO came from the original light and flew towards them rapidly. The pilot tried to shoot this down with an AIM 9 missile but lost power in his instruments, at the same time he also lost communications. The F 4 broke off from engaging the objects but was followed by the second object which was 3-4 NM behind them, that then broke off and returned to the original UFO. That sounds like they got pretty close to me.

In respect to the Belgian UFO Flap, astrophotographer has given an analysis which is of interest here:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Belg.htm

He concludes saying:

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

The 1976 Tehran UFO case seems to be one of the best around. I have never read of any reasonable explanation.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Dr David Clarke of Sheffield Hallam suspects that several of the more interesting cases from the early days of UFO lore may have been caused by tests of various kinds of electronic countermeasures (ECM), particularly anti-radar devices. Something similar may have been the case in Tehran; it could have been the Russians, or the Iraqis, or even the US testing the young pilots of the Persian airforce (Jafari was 23, whichever plane he was flying) and their still relatively new fleet of Phantoms.

Against that idea is the lack of any documentary evidence from any of the possible suspects.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

25 Nautical miles is the distance his radar seemed to indicate before it failed; if the light was celestial in origin then the radar lock was spurious. The estimation of 3-4 miles for the object 'following' the plane was a visual estimation, if I recall correctly, therefore unreliable. It is entirely impossible for an observer to make a visual estimation of the range of an object of unknown size without additional data.

Although most UFO proponents dismiss Jupiter as a possible cause for the light(s) I do note that the airbase is to the west of Tehran, so for much of the time both planes would have been flying eastwards towards that object; claims that they were each headed 90 degrees away from the planet are overconfident.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set