So we actually did encounter E.I.

**visser300** · April 23, 2012, 02:14 AM

After reading about Tehran Incident 1976, I am convinced that we met EI at that time. There was no strong arguments to against it. The incident were tracked and recorded by armies of Iran, Egypt, USA and Portugal.

However, I still want to read arguments of skeptics in TW. The ones who always say: "oh, you know, it just a hoax, a fool, a trick blah blah blah"

Note: please read the incident before you write any arguments.

**Aanker** · April 23, 2012, 08:35 AM

It could have been a piece of top-secret military equipment (i.e. Soviet spy plane, missile or satellite), an astronomical object such as a meteor or equipment malfunction. Combine any of these with pilots and ground personnel who might have interest in blowing the story beyond proportions and you have the sensational phenomena that supposedly were observed. Neither am I entirely certain that eyewitness accounts amount to much in the way of evidence, especially since (as I pointed out earlier) such accounts can be biased or indeed fabricated.

Also, on:
"there was [sic] no strong arguments against it"
The sensational claim that there are extraterrestials, who have visited Earth, needs arguments and substantial evidence beyond eyewitness accounts. The sceptical position provides alternate explanations but seeing as the sceptics only have (possibly already biased) eyewitness accounts to rely on, it is difficult to create an accurate explanation of the events.

**Phier** · April 23, 2012, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by visser300

Note: please read the incident before you write any arguments.

Note: Please link your sources for the incident before we bother having a debate on it.

**visser300** · April 23, 2012, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by Phier

Note: Please link your sources for the incident before we bother having a debate on it.

This is my source. But if you google the term there are tons of resources.

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

In this incident, we have eyewitness, we have radar signal, we were able to track the objects through three countries (Iran, Egypt and Portugal). What else do you need for? A little green creature who is able to dance and sing in alien language so you could satisfy your doubts.

**Nevins** · April 23, 2012, 04:58 PM

Go out and pick up a copy of Sagan's The Demon Haunted World, he is definitely a believer in E.I. but finds no solid evidence that there have been visitations to earth. He does not mention this specific incident but he does provide a point by point describing how the typical UFO incident can be explained scientifically.

**Aanker** · April 23, 2012, 11:57 PM

Why do we not have any pictures, video, or other such records? If the object really was that fascinating, obviously someone would have tried to get a picture or film clip of it.

**visser300** · April 24, 2012, 12:20 AM

It's Iran 1976. A hand camera was either not existed or as expensive as a Ferrari back then, dude

**alexanderswift** · April 24, 2012, 03:14 AM

Did the Iranian F-4's not have gun cameras (Or any other kind of cameras?)?

**6644kp** · April 24, 2012, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by alexanderswift

Did the Iranian F-4's not have gun cameras (Or any other kind of cameras?)?

Pretty sure they would have since some WW2 fighters had gun cameras/

**MathiasOfAthens** · April 24, 2012, 04:05 AM

American Spy planes as early as the 60s had cameras, not sure about fighters though.

**alexanderswift** · April 24, 2012, 04:34 AM

Judging by the wiki I'm guessing they didn't as there's no mention of them but the whole "records were lost during the revolution" thing seems a tad convenient if you ask me.

Unidentified flying object? Perhaps. Anything beyond that there's little evidence to support.

Edit: Wouldn't say this is 100% certain but it seems likely that F-4s don't have standard cockpit/gun cameras. Though the lack of any photographs at all is a bit curious.

**visser300** · April 24, 2012, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by alexanderswift

Judging by the wiki I'm guessing they didn't as there's no mention of them but the whole "records were lost during the revolution" thing seems a tad convenient if you ask me.

Unidentified flying object? Perhaps. Anything beyond that there's little evidence to support.

Edit: Wouldn't say this is 100% certain but it seems likely that F-4s don't have standard cockpit/gun cameras. Though the lack of any photographs at all is a bit curious.

My dear friend, if you know that all traditional and modern intellectural materials were all burn down in China 'cultural evolution', you will admit that it is a reasonable revolution

**alexanderswift** · April 24, 2012, 05:21 AM

It's hear say with no hard evidence. It's a tough sell to a skeptic.

I'll admit I'm a bit intrigued, but with no reports from independent sources the word of two Iranian fighter pilots isn't going to cut it.

**xcorps** · April 24, 2012, 11:39 AM

This is probably an incident with a developmental TU-95k-22 G.

The plane is cylindrical, silver, and is equipped with a variety of high power Electronic Warfare and Electronic Intelligence suites.

The Bear G was the most extensive upgrade package on any offensive Bear. The upgrade required addition of two inboard wing pylons each with a BD-45K launcher for the Kh-22 missile, and a rebuild of the bomb bay to accommodate a single Kh-22 on a BD-45F launcher displacing the Kh-20 semiconformal station. The Crown Drum attack radar was replaced with a variant of the Backfire's Leninetz Rubin PNA-B 'Down Beat'. The tail gunner's station was replaced with an extended tailcone fairing, mid fuselage and thimble nose radomes, which house emitters for the SPS-151/152/153 Lyutik self protection jammers, common to the MiG-25RBV and MiG-25BM Foxbat, and some Tu-16P Badger subtypes; and the aft fuselage blister radomes for the Kurs N/NM RHAW used to target anti-radiation variants of the Kh-22, ie Kh-22MR. Some sources also claim Rezeda-A / SPS-100A and SPS-140 Siren series jammers were also carried.

Dr Carlo Kopp, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng

Mid air refueling and missile tests are the explanation for the second "craft" sightings.

**Morbius Sire** · April 24, 2012, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by xcorps

This is probably an incident with a developmental TU-95k-22 G.

The plane is cylindrical, silver, and is equipped with a variety of high power Electronic Warfare and Electronic Intelligence suites.
Dr Carlo Kopp, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng

Mid air refueling and missile tests are the explanation for the second "craft" sightings.

Possible
In the wiki article, it said that the radar signature was similar to a Boeing 707

... from civilians in the Shemiran city district, of unusual activity in the night sky. Some callers reported seeing a bird-like object; others reported a helicopter with a bright light...Jafari's jet had acquired a radar lock on the object at 27 nautical miles (50 km) range. The radar signature of the UFO resembled that of a Boeing 707 aircraft. Closing on the object at 150 nautical miles (280 km) per hour and at a range of 25 nautical miles (46 km), the object began to move,

...But why would the Russians build a plane that gives such a powerful shine/light?

It may have had a great first impression/effect, but giving that much like would make it a sitting duck for possible counter-measures, no?

There's also this tiny bit

A military spy satellite also recorded this incident. The DSP-1 satellite detected an infrared anomaly during the time of this event that lasted for about an hour

For now, the more logical answer is that it was a soviet plane/helicopter (I say helicopter because it seems the object was static in midair, then began to move as shown in the quote. ) during development....

**xcorps** · April 24, 2012, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by sarry

Possible
In the wiki article, it said that the radar signature was similar to a Boeing 707

...But why would the Russians build a plane that gives such a powerful shine/light?

It may have had a great first impression/effect, but giving that much like would make it a sitting duck for possible counter-measures, no?

There's also this tiny bit
For now, the more logical answer is that it was a soviet plane/helicopter (I say helicopter because it seems the object was static in midair, then began to move as shown in the quote. ) during development....

The bright lights are easily explained by escort aircraft needing to observe the external structure of the plane during a test firing, such as the hardpoints for the cruise missile, or taking measurements of the refueling boom.
It may also have been the intent of the testers to manipulate any visual identification with the lights (it's extremely difficult to make out an object behind bright lights).

Radar signature is easy to manipulate with something as simple as reflective tape..not to mention active emitters and jammers. The Soviets may have been conducting a "live fire" test of the EW and ELINT systems to observe the reactions of the Iranian Air Force and determine the capability of the acquisition capabilities versus the active jammers. In other words, they purposely put themselves in position to deal with potential threats.

Or, it could have just as easily been a malfunction that required supporting aircraft to inspect the fuselage/wings. The seperation could have been dummy missiles or disposable fuel storage that had to be ejected for safety reasons.

This aircraft is a maritime bomber with the mission of intercepting NAVC convoys. Tehran is well within range of Soviet bombers conducting tests or exercises over the Caspian.

The development program, by the way, for the G variant began in 1973, so the time period is consistent.

**visser300** · April 24, 2012, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by sarry

Possible
In the wiki article, it said that the radar signature was similar to a Boeing 707

...But why would the Russians build a plane that gives such a powerful shine/light?

It may have had a great first impression/effect, but giving that much like would make it a sitting duck for possible counter-measures, no?

There's also this tiny bit

For now, the more logical answer is that it was a soviet plane/helicopter (I say helicopter because it seems the object was static in midair, then began to move as shown in the quote. ) during development....

How could a bomber/helicopter out-perform a jet fighter (f4) ??? The two pilots said that the UFO out-perform/out-maneuver their jet in every single aspect. Moreover, there is no reason for a Soviet aircraft to follow the jet to their airforce (the air control already confirmed that)

**Morbius Sire** · April 24, 2012, 01:40 PM

^ I'll put it this: if we don't accept "a foreign alien machine" as a plausible answer, then the more logical answer is a bomber[radar signature] or helicopter[due to erratic movement.].
This is similar to the stories of Area 51, where there is a military airport near there, if i recall correctly. It is possible that there were aliens, and it is also possible that those UFOs were just experimental military jets.

Saying it is/was a foreign alien machine is an easy and convenient answer, but I am uneasy to just say that, especially considering that this happened in the cold war.

**MathiasOfAthens** · April 24, 2012, 01:50 PM

Sighting something else can be easily explained by another countrys aircraft but how do you explain both fighters, a nearby civilian aircraft and the control tower all losing their electronics when close to the UFO?

Plus the aircraft was visible from both the air and ground and honestly why was the aircraft so bright?

And then there is this:

An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs."

Anyway, one of the F-4 pilots tried to launch a sidewinder, failed and then tried to eject? How his eject switch failed I will never know. The first jet that lost communications broke off pursuit and only once far enough away did his electronics come back? Thats odd.

Plus Iran conducted an investigation into the landing sight but the information was never made public. They apparently did radiation tests as well.

And Sarry several people reported a cylinder object, a helicopter can have erratic behavior but there was no helicopter at that time faster than a Jet. So how did this helicopter fly erratically and overpass the jets and the control tower?

**Morbius Sire** · April 24, 2012, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens

Sighting something else can be easily explained by another countrys aircraft but how do you explain both fighters, a nearby civilian aircraft and the control tower all losing their electronics when close to the UFO?

Plus the aircraft was visible from both the air and ground and honestly why was the aircraft so bright?

And then there is this:

Anyway, one of the F-4 pilots tried to launch a sidewinder, failed and then tried to eject? How his eject switch failed I will never know. The first jet that lost communications broke off pursuit and only once far enough away did his electronics come back? Thats odd.

Plus Iran conducted an investigation into the landing sight but the information was never made public. They apparently did radiation tests as well.

If I recall correctly from the wiki article, there were some radiation in a small house after a bit of the object landed. The residents of that house didn't know anything...

And Sarry several people reported a cylinder object, a helicopter can have erratic behavior but there was no helicopter at that time faster than a Jet. So how did this helicopter fly erratically and overpass the jets and the control tower?

Well, one of the reasons why I am uneasy about saying it is an alien power/ship is because there's nothing else to it. There's no solid available data/info to go on.

At least with a non-traditional bomber/helicopter theory, there is some space for speculation. For example, a powerful jammer could have made the jets lose their electronics. It was mentioned that they regained their electronic system when they flew away from the object, so the jammer has a fixed radius.
As for the lights...i can't speculate on that, i wouldn't know where to start.

While it isn't practical nor very realistic...that object could be an experimental bomber capable of VTOL, like the british harrier[which was introduced in 1970 or 1969 i think ]