1976 Tehran UFO Incident - Skeptical Explanation and Analysis

Skeptical Explanation and Analysis

In his book UFOs: The Public Deceived, journalist Philip J. Klass claimed the witnesses initially saw an astronomical body, probably Jupiter, and pilot incompetence and equipment malfunction accounted for the rest.

The bright object was first noticed by witnesses in Shemiran, the northernmost district of Tehran. One of the witnesses in the northeastern part of Tehran was Gen. Yousefi himself, who ordered the jet interceptions. The jets were scrambled from Shahrokhi AFB in Hamadan, about 175 miles (282 km) west-southwest of Tehran, and vectored to a point 40 miles (64 km) north of central Tehran. However, Jupiter was in the east. Thus the UFO was approximately 90 degrees away from Jupiter at the time. In addition, the second F-4 chased the UFO from northern to southern Tehran. Again, Jupiter would be at nearly 90 degrees to the pursuit trajectory.

Furthermore, both F-4's picked up and tracked something on their radar, impossible for an astronomical object like a star or planet. Many more details of the encounter do not match Klass' proposed explanation, such as both F-4's and the control tower losing their electronics with close approach to the UFO and a third civilian plane in the region also losing communications.

Jerome Clark commented, "Klass's theory presumes a remarkable lack of even rudimentary observing and technical skills on the parts of the Iranian participants. In some ways it would be easier to credit the notion, for which no evidence exists either, that the witnesses consciously fabricated the sighting. Both Gen. Azarbarzin and air controller Perouzi considered the incident thoroughly puzzling. So, as the documents indicate, did American analysts familiar with it."

Read more about this topic:  1976 Tehran UFO Incident

Famous quotes containing the words skeptical, explanation and/or analysis:

    Suicide , moreover, was at the time in vogue in Paris: what more suitable key to the mystery of life for a skeptical society?
    HonorĂ© De Balzac (1799–1850)

    Are cans constitutionally iffy? Whenever, that is, we say that we can do something, or could do something, or could have done something, is there an if in the offing—suppressed, it may be, but due nevertheless to appear when we set out our sentence in full or when we give an explanation of its meaning?
    —J.L. (John Langshaw)

    A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.
    Karl Marx (1818–1883)