Originally Posted by Rramjet
…from both of which you selectively quote portions of conversation out of context. This is disingenuous to put it politely.
No, it isn’t. I quoted the relevant portions necessary to deconstruct the unsubstantiated claim made by Maccabee et. al. that the teletype is based on an interview with the pilots by US officials…
Incredible. I showed PRECISELY HOW you had selectively quoted in a manner that totally misrepresented the interview between Pratt and McKenzie. McKenzie was trying not to reveal his source to Pratt, trying hard to throw Pratt off the trail, by prevaricating, but the evidence SHOWS that the source was Col. Mooy.
Besides, it is a matter of record that the account is based on first hand sources. We have only to look at the records of the case to understand that - and MORE we have one of the pilots involved recounting his own experiences in more recent interviews:
Parvis Jafri interview
(
http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)
Originally Posted by Rramjet
You also mix things up with your criticisms of Dr Maccabee as if to make coherent reply to your assertions as difficult as possible.
Not my problem if it was over your head.
Obviously it WAS NOT “over my head” You attempt at confusing the issue failed. I was able to sort it out and provide a detailed refutation of your assertions.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
(Note: FRANK B, MCKENZIE, COL, USAF, SATT was the one who sent the “routing slip”)
No, it was Col. Evans… according to Col. Evans. Please try to pay attention to what has been said.
Bob Pratt:
“Colonel McKenzie had said he had no "one-man source" for his information and had no ties with MAAG. However, the Air Force event¬ually released another document on the Iran affair.
It was a "Memorandum of Record," written by Lieutenant Colonel Olin R. Mooy, the U.S. Air Force executive officer for MAAG. He was one of two U.S. Air Force colonels who sat in on the debriefing of First Lieutenant Jalal Damirian and Second Lieutenant Hossein Shokry, the crew of the second F-4 Phantom jet (similar to the one shown here) that went up that night.
It is interesting that Colonel McKenzie's classified message to the Pentagon on the UFO incident says exactly the same thing, word for word, as Colonel Mooy's report written after the debriefing.”
(
http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)
More on page 3 of the “routing slip” we see that Frank B. McKenzie, Col, USAF, DATT is actually named! (
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
Regarding Evans:
“Late in 1978, a new, revealing document about the case came to light. Todd Zechel, then a UFO researcher and one of the founders of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS), uncovered it. He obtained a copy of a military intelligence analyst's evaluation report of the Iran incident as reported by Colonel McKenzie.
Zechel informed me that the analyst was Air Force Major Roland B. Evans, who was then stationed at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska. I phoned Major Evans in January 1979.
“This was a classic case because everything that was bizarre about it was confirmed with real sources," he told me. "We don't have this capability to jam all these systems simultaneously.”
Major Evans, then forty, had served as a military capabilities analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency in Washington for four years. He was then re-assigned to Offut AFB in July 1978, where he was serving as an electronic warfare officer flying in an RC-l35 reconnaissance aircraft with the 343rd Reconnaissance Squadron.”
(
http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)
YOU are simply distorting the truth (to put it nicely).
Originally Posted by Rramjet
So given what Pratt was asking - and given how McKenzie responded - we can see that MacKenzie was trying hard NOT to reveal his source (Colonel Mooy). What YOU contended is that Mckenie’s statements represented his ACTUAL sources (newspapers, various people… etc). So there WAS a pilot interview. THIS is a contemptible tactic from you Access Denied. You have twisted the meaning of Pratts interview out of all recognition. We are supposed to be dealing with legitimate research and evidence here. Shame on you!
No, that’s what Pratt wants you to believe. Your reading comprehension skills are clearly lacking… McKenzie stated none of his sources (anybody he talked to) interviewed the pilots.
(you know, as pointed out in one of my out of context quotes)
But we NOW KNOW the source. It was Col. Mooy!
Originally Posted by Rramjet
So we CAN verify the sources! Again you simply try to mislead us. You take your readers for fools. BUT you have been found out!
Umm… you need to go back and read Maccabee’s article again. The anonymous “Bob” I referred to that Maccabee uses as a source is not Bob Pratt. Then, when you’re done with that and figure out where you made your mistake, you can come back here and apologize. Also, please show me where Maccabee gives the last names of “Bob” and “Frank” so we can verify they were actually there at the time and in the positions described.
Presumably then you mean THIS “Bob”? (You simply did not make it clear in your first post “which” Bob you referred to).
Dr. Maccabee:
“Bob, another Westinghouse avionics engineer, was not allowed to examine the jet for several days after the incident. However, the Iranians did examine it during the day after it landed and subsequently told him that everything was OK. Four days after the incident Henry was allowed to examine the first jet and Bob was allowed to examine the second jet. They could find no problem with the avionics or radar. Henry told me that there was no possibility that the Iranians had switched radar systems (taken out the system used during the chase and replaced it with another system) because the Westinghouse engineers had kept track of the system serial numbers. The serial numbers were all the same. Hence the Westinghouse engineers had to agree with the Iranians that the jet chase had occurred, apparently with “self-repairing” failures of the avionics on two jets when in the vicinity of the UFO. Bob told me that he had worked on radar systems such as on the F-4 for many years and had never had a self-repairing failure such as reported by the Iranian pilots.”
(
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
Okay…so you don’t trust Dr Maccabee to have quoted his source correctly. Given who Dr Maccabee IS, I contend this is misguided. Moreover, this has NOTHING to do with the substantial facts of the case. That is the actual incident. You are merely grasping at minor details in order to score “cheap” points. The FACT remains that we CAN (if we wanted) ascertain the veracity of the sources. Dr Maccabee is available for contact via his website for example, so it is not as if NO source has been named and that it would be impossible to verify the source if it ever became a critical issue in the case.
Then…NOWHERE in his research report does Dr. Maccabee mention a “Frank”! Bob Pratt does, in his article, but it is none other than Frank B. McKenzie! And he NEVER mentions “Frank” without the surname! So now you are simply making things up (to put it politely).
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Col. Mooy sat in on the debriefing of Jafari, the second pilot.
No he didn’t. Once again, your reading comprehension skills are clearly lacking. Here’s the relevant quote again from Pratt….
“He [Mooy] was one of two U.S. Air Force colonels who sat in on the debriefing of First Lieutenant Jalal Damirian and Second Lieutenant Hossein Shokry, the crew of the second F-4 Phantom jet (similar to the one shown here) that went up that night.”
Where do you read Jafari in there?
Jafari was the pilot of the second jet! Col. Mooy WAS at the interview with Jafari!
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)
Most likely Col. Mooy was in the interview of the pilots of the FIRST jet as well…and that would make sense. If he was in the interview of the pilots of the second (and we know he WAS), he would have been at the first as well. Pratt might simply have been confused as to who were the pilots of the first or second jets. That’s all. Pratt’s confusion in NO way negates the information gained and subsequently reported!
Originally Posted by Rramjet
…on McKenzie's authority as head of the MAAG
Jesus H. Christ… are your reading comprehension skills really that bad? McKenzie said (and I quoted) that he had no ties with the MAAG.
But from subsequent document releases we KNOW your contention (and Mckenzie’s statements on the matter) to be false! He is named in the Routing Slip for …. sake!
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Does THAT help you out with your confusion at all Access Denied?
I’m not confused in the least but you clearly are… either that or you’re deliberately trying to confuse others.
Not I my friend. I am trying to provide all the information available. YOU on the other hand are selectively quoting in a deliberate ATTEMPT to confuse and distort. It is THAT tactic I find despicable.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
You fail to mention WHO was on the Blue Ribbon Panel…
And that has exactly what to do with the price of rice in China?
You were the one who seemed to want to make some sort of “thing” over it… implying that the whole thing was illegitimate because of the Enquirer association and the fact that money might have been involved somewhere in the chain. I merely pointed out that the members of the panel were high calibre people, and were NOT directly paid for their participation. Simple as that really.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
So the panel had some pretty high profile people on board! You make out that somehow because the money was supplied by the Enquirer and they paid witnesses that somehow it was illegitimate. As you can see, this is NOT the case.
So paying witnesses somehow makes them more legitimate in your mind?
Depends what you mean by “paying” the witnesses. If I was asked to travel (for example) to Washington to provide evidence before a panel of experts I would expect them to cover my expenses and pay for potential missed wages and perhaps other compensation. THAT is an entirely reasonable thing to do. That money WAS available for such purposes actually shows how serious the intent WAS.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
More, you fail to mention that NONE of the panel members were paid!
No but their travel expenses to attend meetings at various vacation destinations were… that’s standard practice in UFOlogy in case you didn’t know.
See above! It is standard practice in ANY scientific discipline that constitutes a “panel of experts” to explore the evidence. In fact most often they are ALSO directly reimbursed for their time etc. You make out it is something peculiar to UFO research. More, I note the inclusion of your phrase “at various vacation destinations” as if it made meeting in places (such as south Florida, New York, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Mexico City – to list the locations named) illegitimate. Some of the people involved actually LIVED in those locations! And that is why I find your whole approach …disingenuous (to be polite).
Originally Posted by Rramjet
(Note: Dr Maccabee’s article was published in 1976)
No, it’s copyrighted 2006 and note that the Word document has been revised 24 times and he copyrighted it again in 2009.
Any researcher would make an effort to keep copywrite on an article of his up to date. So what? As far as I can tell, there is no information in the document that would suggest access to information beyond that of the original. Perhaps Dr Maccabee revisits his articles now and then to correct grammar, spelling, to clarify statements, etc. So what? Have you any evidence to suggest otherwise?
Originally Posted by Rramjet
You have been proven incorrect!
Then see above…
Originally Posted by Rramjet
So your assessment is a pack of self-serving garbage (to put it nicely!)
Thank you. I value your opinion…
No you don’t. If you did you would not take me (and your readers more generally) for fools.
He has made a fortune from selling books to gullible people who want to believe in this non-existent phenomena.
