- Status
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
If it was a good case, then after all these pages you'd expect that at least one person would have been convinced of it's worth, and come to believe in all these blimpless aliens.
he is consistent (not evidence-wise, but in how he presents his case)
Yeah, like a bull at a gate. He's not presenting a case at all in this respect, just asserting nonsense, Long, loud and without too many spelling mistakes, but it's still just noise.
he does an incredible job in replying to several demanding adversaries
He replies alright, but there's nothing in the replies, otherwise his 'demanding adversaries' wouldn't still be 'demanding answers'.
he bares with all the bullying and bs going on without resorting to the same
I beg your pardon? Bullying and bs? Careful, Padawan, lest you falsely accuse people of forgetting the MA. Not your purview. Can't have.
he is detailed in his posts (regardless of the cherry-picking and arguments from incredulity and ignorance)
Why should these things be disregarded? They are among the main reasons his case can be described as poorly made.
he has shown the capability of admitting to errors
Unfortunately, nowhere near commensurate with his ability to make them.
etc.
Probably the single worst aspect of the whole sorry tale is the sheer etceteraness of it.
Re-Horakty Nepherkheperure Waenre Akhenaten
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Well, small ships don't cross the pacific, they cannot carry enough anchor chain for when they stop at night.
Well they're silly. If they towed a floating drydock along behind them they could use that and spend every night ashore, so to speak.
Yes, but those coaster sailors are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
It might be a language thing, but your criteria here would be described in English as "doing a crappy job of making his case".
Yes, he is unwaveringly consistent in how he presents his case. He presents it with nothing more than incredulity, ignorance, and lies. In other words, he's done a poor job of making his case.
... and an even more incredible job of ignoring any argument that requires him to actually acknowledge evidence, data, and any reality based concept that runs against his preconceived notion that aliens exist. In other words, he's doing an incredible job of arguing from ignorance. In common everyday English, that means he's not making a good case.
Nobody's bullying him. And if you'd read through this thread again, when it comes to BS going on, you'll find that Rramjet is the one doing it. He's ignored responses from almost everyone at one time or another, even after demanding that they answer his same questions over and over again. His continued claims that people haven't addressed his concerns is nonsense, lies to be blunt. If people aren't treating him all sweet and polite it's because he's treated everyone like crap and has earned for himself any loss of respect that has occurred. But of course that doesn't support your notion that he's making a good case either way or the other.
Then, given the cherry picking and arguments from incredulity and ignorance, I'm sure you'll agree that he's doing a lousy job of making his case. Detailed ignorance, incredulity, and lies is still ignorance, incredulity, and lies.
Yes, except when he hasn't. Like he's been shown to be in error dozens of times in his claims about blimps and the Rogue River incident, yet not only has he not admitted it, he is still arguing that he's right and everyone else is wrong. So once more, no, he's not making a good case, not by any normally used definition of the phrase.
Your desire to learn is commendable, Tapio. But you have misunderstood how we would correctly use the phrase "making a good case" in English, as I've explained above. No, Rramjet is not making a good case.
Last edited:
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
I've been desultorily skimming this thread and there are a couple of points I'd like to raise. This post isn't really addressed to Rramjet, I don't consider him capable of accepting explanations other than those he's already decided on and have thus added him to my ignore list.
Firstly with regard to Rramjet's contention about an aerial vehicle splitting and rejoining in flight as made in these posts:
1. The D-21/Q-21/Tagboard reconnaissance drone system.
This was an experimental Mach 3 drone launched from the A-12 (the precursor to the SR-71 not the 1980's stealth attack aircraft). This project from ~1966 was unsuccessful , mainly because it wasn't pursued strongly as the new generation of reconnaissance satellites eliminated the requirement.
Originally the drone was to re-dock with the launch aircraft, either the A-12 or a modified B-52 or deploy a parachute and be snatched by a recovery C-130. I believe at least two successful B-52 re-docks were carried out prior to cancellation.
Interestingly the Soviet Union retrieved a crashed drone and contemplated a similar device ("Voron"). This was never officially built.
2. The Goblin parasite fighter.
The XF-85 Goblin fighter was designed as an escort for the huge B-36 bomber; up to three could be carried internally, they would have been launched to attack intercepting fighters and retrieved afterwards. This odd aircraft flew only six times, on flight tests in 1949, before other considerations caused the project to be canceled. Note that this aircraft did successfully launch from, and dock with, the B-29 test carrier, in 1949.
3. FICON
The Fighter Conveyor experiments of 1952 were an attempt to extend the useful life of the B-36 bomber in the face of heavier Soviet air defenses. An F-84 fighter was carried by the bomber to the vicinity of the target, where it would be launched and use its superior speed and maneuverability to deliver a nuclear bomb. Again the fighter was to re-dock with the "mothership"
and return. The fighter could also act as an escort as it retained its gun armament. The pilot could even leave the fighter while docked (unlike the Goblin).
An additional role planned for the combination was reconnaissance, using the RF-84 version of the fighter to overfly installations too well defended for the heavy bomber. This version saw limited service with the USAF.
This system, while it sounds odd, did work. Despite the difficulties of docking two aircraft in flight, several hundred such maneuvers were carried out in the two years the concept lasted in US service.
Secondly, with regard to the Tehran UFO incident of 1976 it should be remembered that Iran in 1976 was a completely different country compared to today. Imperial Iran was an American ally, and under the last Shah, was modernising its military at an enormous rate. Missile destroyers (what would later become the "Kidd" class DDG), frigates, Sea Control Ships and hovercraft for the IIN; Tomcats and other high performance aircraft for the IIAF. The Shah was wary of the Soviet Union, with whom Iran shares a land border remember, and was arming to become a major regional power (paid for by oil).
It is unsurprising to any reasonable observer that the Soviet Union would wish to monitor the situation in Iran. Quite probably the US would have wanted to keep an eye on a valued but potentially uncertain ally in a vital region. Persian Gulf remember.
It's also known that the MiG-25 "Foxbat" entered service in 1966 and was used as a reconnaissance platform (indeed the recon version flew before the interceptor). Such aircraft flew over Israel in the late sixties, one was tracked at Mach 3.2, immune to interception by F-4 fighters. India also flew such missions over Pakistan.
This leads me to consider a Soviet reconnaissance (and demonstration) mission is a vastly more plausible explanation for the UFO than an extra-terrestrial spacecraft.
As for the odd electromagnetic effects, reconnaissance aircraft typically carry powerful jammers and even the MiG-25's standard "Foxfire" radar set was capable of pumping out 500-850kW.
Firstly with regard to Rramjet's contention about an aerial vehicle splitting and rejoining in flight as made in these posts:
and
This is rubbish. There are three publicly known examples of such behavior, using only human technology, and prior to 1976.
1. The D-21/Q-21/Tagboard reconnaissance drone system.
This was an experimental Mach 3 drone launched from the A-12 (the precursor to the SR-71 not the 1980's stealth attack aircraft). This project from ~1966 was unsuccessful , mainly because it wasn't pursued strongly as the new generation of reconnaissance satellites eliminated the requirement.
Originally the drone was to re-dock with the launch aircraft, either the A-12 or a modified B-52 or deploy a parachute and be snatched by a recovery C-130. I believe at least two successful B-52 re-docks were carried out prior to cancellation.
Interestingly the Soviet Union retrieved a crashed drone and contemplated a similar device ("Voron"). This was never officially built.
2. The Goblin parasite fighter.
The XF-85 Goblin fighter was designed as an escort for the huge B-36 bomber; up to three could be carried internally, they would have been launched to attack intercepting fighters and retrieved afterwards. This odd aircraft flew only six times, on flight tests in 1949, before other considerations caused the project to be canceled. Note that this aircraft did successfully launch from, and dock with, the B-29 test carrier, in 1949.
3. FICON
The Fighter Conveyor experiments of 1952 were an attempt to extend the useful life of the B-36 bomber in the face of heavier Soviet air defenses. An F-84 fighter was carried by the bomber to the vicinity of the target, where it would be launched and use its superior speed and maneuverability to deliver a nuclear bomb. Again the fighter was to re-dock with the "mothership"
and return. The fighter could also act as an escort as it retained its gun armament. The pilot could even leave the fighter while docked (unlike the Goblin).An additional role planned for the combination was reconnaissance, using the RF-84 version of the fighter to overfly installations too well defended for the heavy bomber. This version saw limited service with the USAF.
This system, while it sounds odd, did work. Despite the difficulties of docking two aircraft in flight, several hundred such maneuvers were carried out in the two years the concept lasted in US service.
Secondly, with regard to the Tehran UFO incident of 1976 it should be remembered that Iran in 1976 was a completely different country compared to today. Imperial Iran was an American ally, and under the last Shah, was modernising its military at an enormous rate. Missile destroyers (what would later become the "Kidd" class DDG), frigates, Sea Control Ships and hovercraft for the IIN; Tomcats and other high performance aircraft for the IIAF. The Shah was wary of the Soviet Union, with whom Iran shares a land border remember, and was arming to become a major regional power (paid for by oil).
It is unsurprising to any reasonable observer that the Soviet Union would wish to monitor the situation in Iran. Quite probably the US would have wanted to keep an eye on a valued but potentially uncertain ally in a vital region. Persian Gulf remember.
It's also known that the MiG-25 "Foxbat" entered service in 1966 and was used as a reconnaissance platform (indeed the recon version flew before the interceptor). Such aircraft flew over Israel in the late sixties, one was tracked at Mach 3.2, immune to interception by F-4 fighters. India also flew such missions over Pakistan.
This leads me to consider a Soviet reconnaissance (and demonstration) mission is a vastly more plausible explanation for the UFO than an extra-terrestrial spacecraft.
As for the odd electromagnetic effects, reconnaissance aircraft typically carry powerful jammers and even the MiG-25's standard "Foxfire" radar set was capable of pumping out 500-850kW.
Blimps, blimps, everywhere are blimps- but just not here!
Okay. I can see that while it is quite clear that the historical records show that a blimp at Rogue River is implausible (unlikely, improbable, contrary to reason…), whilst ever there remain gaps in the historical record, the skeptics will claim that, no matter HOW long the odds are, the possibility will always remain. Unfortunately the gaps in the historical record are there, and “reasonable inference” it seems is just not good enough for the skeptics.
That being the case, why don’t we turn to the actual events and the evidence that we DO have – the eyewitness sworn testimony.
The descriptions of the eyewitnesses DO rule out a blimp.
For a start there is that top “fin”…. The fact is that NO other fins were reported – even by the witnesses with binoculars. Blimps have four “vanes” used for steering in the horizontal and vertical planes. The UFO only possessed one such fin quite unlike ANY known blimp (and that fin beginning “amidship” – again quite unlike ANY known blimp).
So the simple fact is, that the blimp hypothesis falls down at precisely that point and must therefore be ruled OUT as an explanatory hypothesis.
Okay. I can see that while it is quite clear that the historical records show that a blimp at Rogue River is implausible (unlikely, improbable, contrary to reason…), whilst ever there remain gaps in the historical record, the skeptics will claim that, no matter HOW long the odds are, the possibility will always remain. Unfortunately the gaps in the historical record are there, and “reasonable inference” it seems is just not good enough for the skeptics.
That being the case, why don’t we turn to the actual events and the evidence that we DO have – the eyewitness sworn testimony.
The descriptions of the eyewitnesses DO rule out a blimp.
For a start there is that top “fin”…. The fact is that NO other fins were reported – even by the witnesses with binoculars. Blimps have four “vanes” used for steering in the horizontal and vertical planes. The UFO only possessed one such fin quite unlike ANY known blimp (and that fin beginning “amidship” – again quite unlike ANY known blimp).
So the simple fact is, that the blimp hypothesis falls down at precisely that point and must therefore be ruled OUT as an explanatory hypothesis.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Only if your argument is from ignorance and incredulity. That would be your argument, Rramjet.
Now, do you have anything to support your claim that aliens exist, that is, other than ignorance, incredulity, and lies? And yes, that is one of those yes/no questions that you seem to have so much trouble answering. But give it a go, will you?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
How many vanes do aliens put on their blimps?
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Rramjet, do you actually read what you post?
You admit that the report we have contains no errors, and that we cannot, therefore, know what the error was. You admitted a few posts back that you aren't an expert on the subject, after I'd pointed out to you that you couldn't even identify the error sources correctly. You constantly berate people for stating things without evidence.
And yet, here you are, still insisting on guessing at an error estimate that can never be known due to lack of evidence, for a subject in which you admit you are not an expert, and for which you can't even identify the error sources!
And you claim to be a scientist doing this research in a scientific manner?
You admit that the report we have contains no errors, and that we cannot, therefore, know what the error was. You admitted a few posts back that you aren't an expert on the subject, after I'd pointed out to you that you couldn't even identify the error sources correctly. You constantly berate people for stating things without evidence.
And yet, here you are, still insisting on guessing at an error estimate that can never be known due to lack of evidence, for a subject in which you admit you are not an expert, and for which you can't even identify the error sources!
And you claim to be a scientist doing this research in a scientific manner?
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
"Blimp" as an explanation for Rogue River is not "implausible" in the slightest. There were USNR and commercial blimp hangars in operation well within range, as has been amply shown throughout this thread. Also, the round/circular shape of the UFO is wholly consistent with the head-on view of a blimp; the cigar-shaped drawing made by one eye-witness, which you yourself have described as "precise", is further evidence that a blimp could have been involved. Finally, the absence of multiple fins or a gondola on the sighted object is consistent with the fading out of detail owing to distance and solar illumination, as has been shown in this thread in photographs and described in some detail.
That you dismiss these points, Rramjet, with an "ugh" and a wave of your extraterrestrial alien hand, creates no compunction for the rest of us to follow suit.
Further, even if we table the blimp hypothesis for the sake of further analysis, the existence of a covert experimental military aircraft designed and flown by the US Army or Navy, but kept under wraps as military secrets often are, is a simpler, more rational, more plausible and more probable explanation than "alien aircraft from some world or experience beyond human knowledge".
That you dismiss these points, Rramjet, with an "ugh" and a wave of your extraterrestrial alien hand, creates no compunction for the rest of us to follow suit.
Further, even if we table the blimp hypothesis for the sake of further analysis, the existence of a covert experimental military aircraft designed and flown by the US Army or Navy, but kept under wraps as military secrets often are, is a simpler, more rational, more plausible and more probable explanation than "alien aircraft from some world or experience beyond human knowledge".
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Again, you ignore difficulties with eyewitness testimony. Why is it you blindly accept such testimony? Why are you ignoring what most real scientists recognize? That being that eyewitness testimony is flawed.
As far as probabilities go, why is the possibility of a blimp less probable than a craft of exotic origin that did not come from anyplace on earth? BTW, don't give me the nonsense about you did not say this because if you are taking the witness testimony as 100% accurate (which you obviously do), there is no craft on earth that looks EXACTLY like the drawing. However, if you accept the possibility of human error, it does resemble a blimp. It could also be just a conventional craft seen under conditions that gave the impression of this shape. All are MORE LIKELY than an alien spaceship.
Was the testimony really "sworn"? Was it a deposition subject to perjury or just a report? I think your use of this term is inaccurate.
If you were interested in the evidence then you should have acquainted yourself properly. A mere “desultory” (spasmodic, disjunctive) “skimming could not possibly have provided you with the arguments already presented that refute the points you go on to raise below.
So then you aren’t even interested in any evidence I might present that might refute your contentions?
Now that is extremely selective. The UFO did MUCH more than merely split and rejoin in flight. You must explain the other features and characteristics IN CONJUNCTION.
I stated
I disagree. My "alien" contention is an exploratory hypothesis based on the fact of intelligent control of a "UFO" with capabilities (such a splitting and rejoining) beyond any known earthly capabilities.
and
The satellite system you talk about had the capability to flee military jets above Mach2, disable their weapons systems, and then chase the jets... during which time it could split apart, land part of itself, then later rejoin in flight...all over Iranian airspace... yeah, I'll buy that.
BUT…in your own words … “This project from ~1966 was unsuccessful” and “This was never officially built”
Why state there three examples when even before you started you KNEW there could only be two? This is like saying “There are three factors accounting for rain: First Unicorns…”
Then there were two…
Okay… in your own words again … “the huge B-36 bomber”. So this bomber could fly at speeds ABOVE Mach 2? Remember the “splitting and joining” bit. It was the UFO that did the fleeing at above Mach 2 and then the cashing and then the splitting apart and rejoining then part of it landing (the XF-85 could land in the way the “part” UFO did?) and then disappearing…
And again in your own words… ” This odd aircraft flew only six times, on flight tests in 1949, before other considerations caused the project to be cancelled”!!!
And then there was one…
Again, in your own words… “The Fighter Conveyor experiments of 1952” and “several hundred such maneuvers were carried out in the two years the concept lasted in US service”. So 1952 to 1954?
And then there were… NONE!
Yes… so?
Ah, so the MiG-25 "Foxbat" could split apart and rejoin? No? Oh, then another one bites the dust!
In your own words… “This leads me to consider a Soviet reconnaissance (and demonstration) mission is a vastly more plausible explanation…” But all the “technology you cite has been specifically ruled OUT on the evidence of the UFOs characteristics… besides “…vastly more plausible…”? ANY reasonable assessment of what you have just posted makes your explanation vastly more IMPLAUSIBLE - to say the least.
Simply, the technology you cite was either not functional at the time or did not have the capability to perform as the UFO did.
The following are merely some of the capabilities of the UFO you must account for
“The command post called BG Yousefi, Assistant Deputy Commander of operations. (…) he noticed an object in the sky similar to a star, bigger and brighter. He decided to scramble an f-4 from Bhahrokhi to investigate.”
“Due to its brilliance the object was easily visible from 70 miles away.”
“The size of the radar return was comparable to that of a 7?7 tanker. The visual size of the object was difficult to discern because of its intense brilliance.”
“The light that it gave off was that of flashing strobe lights arranged in a rectangular pattern and alternating blue, green, red and orange in color. The sequence of lights was so fast that all the colors could be seen at once.”
“Another brightly lighted object, estimated to be one half to one third the apparent size of the moon came out of the original object. This second object headed straight toward the F-4 at a vey fast rate of speed, the pilot attempted to fire an AIM-9 missile at the object but at that instant his weapons control panel went off and he lost all communications (UHF and Interphone)”
“As he continued in his turn away from the primary object, the second object went to the inside of his turn then returned to the primary object for a perfect rejoin.”
“Shortly after the second object joined up with the primary object another object appeared to come out of the other her side of the primary object going straight down at a great rate of speed. The f-4 crew had regained communications and the weapons control panel and watched the object approach the ground anticipating a large explosion. This object appeared to come to rest gently on the earth and cast a very bright light over an area of about 2-3 kilometres.”
“While the F-4 was on a long final approach the crew noticed another cylinder shaped object (about the size of a t-bird at 10m) with bright steady lights on each end and a flasher in the middle”
So we have the splitting apart and “perfect” rejoining, or the “brilliance” of the object, or the rectangular “alternating blue, green, red and orange in color” – “so fast that all the colors could be seen at once”, or the “cylinder” shape, or that the landed part “cast a very bright light over an area of about 2-3 kilometres.” Then there is its nullifying affect on the jets weaponry and communication systems. Or that it “headed toward the F-4 at a great rate of speed”… and this is merely to mention the “mundane” aspects. We still have shapeshifting for example to account for… and much more besides.
So if you are contending this to be a manmade object then I simply ask again, WHAT manmade object has the capabilities of that UFO(s)?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Incredulity? Certainly.
But do you have any evidence that might support your claim that aliens exist, Rramjet? Yes or no?
I realize it presents kind of a catch 22 for you there, kid. If you answer, "Yes," you'll be asked to provide the evidence. And since you can't, you will have failed to support your claim. If you answer, "No," then you admit you've failed to support your claim.
Seems there's only a couple of strategies which don't immediately lead to your having to admit failure. One, which you seem to excel at, is to remain ignorant, simply pretend the question wasn't asked. And the other, an area in which you've also demonstrated much experience, is to lie.
So which will it be, Rramjet? I predict ignorance.
Last edited:
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
So which will it be, Rramjet? I predict ignorance.
ok so I'll predict lie,
just so we have all the angles covered
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Actually we have an interview with the pilot Parvis Jafri:
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
AND Jafri speaking at the National Press club (Nov 2007)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)
So these are precisely the "first hand accounts" you want me to produce (and I assume you are thus willing to discuss?).
On evidence for "alien" hypothesis and the Iranian UFO
Geemack, Marduk and RoboTimbo seem to be missing the obvious point here.
There are two ways in which my hypothesis of “aliens” can be supported.
First we can have “positive” proof. That is UFO capabilities and or characteristics that do not match, or are beyond the limits of, any known human technology.
Second we can have negative proof. That is there are shown to be no “mundane” explanations that describe the UFO in all its capabilities.
In the Rogue River case, we have certainly the positive proof. The UFO characteristics do not match any known human technology. I suggest we also have the negative proof but the skeptics contend a blimp is possible (to which of course I note “possible” does not equate to probable…), nevertheless the case here then rests on the positive proof.
In the Iranian case we have BOTH types of proof. The capabilities and characteristics are certainly beyond the limits of any known human technologies AND we CAN rule out such things as catsmate1 suggested (cutting edge technology…) and also such things as balloons, blimps, meteors, stars or planets, birds, wind blown debris, etc, etc …
Here I would like to add a further note on catsmate1’s assertions of “human technology”.
To believe a Soviet incursion over Tehran with the MiG-25 ignores the initial reports of a hovering object seen by numerous ground witnesses... they reported it to the tower. The object was certainly not moving like a “Foxbat” at that time!
There is also a question mark surrounding whether the Foxbat could outrun the F-4 in a straight on chase.
As for the powerful radar and jamming: Does catsmate1 think that radar could jam the internal communications within the airplane (remember the pilot lost communication with the backseat copilot also "…lost all communications (UHF and Interphone)”)?
Finally, if it had been a Soviet incursion, doesn't catsmate1 think that the USAF and the NSA (who wrote up the report in the “Routing Slip” document) would have known about it…? (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
Geemack, Marduk and RoboTimbo seem to be missing the obvious point here.
There are two ways in which my hypothesis of “aliens” can be supported.
First we can have “positive” proof. That is UFO capabilities and or characteristics that do not match, or are beyond the limits of, any known human technology.
Second we can have negative proof. That is there are shown to be no “mundane” explanations that describe the UFO in all its capabilities.
In the Rogue River case, we have certainly the positive proof. The UFO characteristics do not match any known human technology. I suggest we also have the negative proof but the skeptics contend a blimp is possible (to which of course I note “possible” does not equate to probable…), nevertheless the case here then rests on the positive proof.
In the Iranian case we have BOTH types of proof. The capabilities and characteristics are certainly beyond the limits of any known human technologies AND we CAN rule out such things as catsmate1 suggested (cutting edge technology…) and also such things as balloons, blimps, meteors, stars or planets, birds, wind blown debris, etc, etc …
Here I would like to add a further note on catsmate1’s assertions of “human technology”.
To believe a Soviet incursion over Tehran with the MiG-25 ignores the initial reports of a hovering object seen by numerous ground witnesses... they reported it to the tower. The object was certainly not moving like a “Foxbat” at that time!
There is also a question mark surrounding whether the Foxbat could outrun the F-4 in a straight on chase.
As for the powerful radar and jamming: Does catsmate1 think that radar could jam the internal communications within the airplane (remember the pilot lost communication with the backseat copilot also "…lost all communications (UHF and Interphone)”)?
Finally, if it had been a Soviet incursion, doesn't catsmate1 think that the USAF and the NSA (who wrote up the report in the “Routing Slip” document) would have known about it…? (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
Last edited:
- Status