Oh yes, I have “listened” intently. I have followed your points through very carefully. As I MUST do so if I am to show how they are misguided or otherwise inapplicable in the case under examination.
And you know I actually find this tactic is somewhat amusing. When it comes to me presenting cases and hypothesising about what they might mean, the “debunkers” claim each case cannot be related to the others as a cohesive whole - that the evidence from each does not translate into an “overall” evidence base from which we might draw conclusions….yet when it comes to refuting cases, the “debunkers” invariable concatenate the conclusions from numbers of disparate case reports as if they do form a cohesive whole - from which they then draw conclusions! Hypocritical? No, I really don’t think they are sophisticated enough in their approach to even realise they are doing it.
The other thing about presenting the conclusions of such cases in such a manner is that it denies us the context and the evidence to enable a reasonable assessment as to whether the indicated cases CAN be related to the one under discussion (in this instance the Iranian UFO case). We are even denied the data to make a rational assessment as to whether the conclusions are even valid in the cases they supposedly represent.
All it amounts to in the end is a lot of unfounded assertion about cases we have no knowledge of and are provided with no details to even allow us to find out about them. Hendry could be making the conclusions up from whole cloth and proposing any old assertion about the cases in question and we have no way of verifying whether he is thus merely speculating or not. We are entitled to dismiss such observations as Hendry’s as mere unfounded assertion that is not supported by evidence.
Nevertheless, The first mass grouping of such unfounded assertion presented by Astrophotographer means, I presume, that people allegedly misidentify stars in various ways. How is this applicable to the Iranian UFO case? We have no idea. We don’t even know if any stars were visible on the night in question. There might have been a high cloud cover for example below which there was unlimited visibility (and according to debunker logic it is now up to them to show that this was not the case!).
But let us look at the case itself. For a start there were four separate (independent) calls to the control tower by civilians before the Pirouzi (the chief controller on the night) even began to take an interest. As each call came in - it naturally became increasingly unlikely that a mere “star” was being misidentified. Of course that does not rule the contention out.
But once Pirouzi Did take an interest what happened?
”It took him a minute or so of looking, but then he saw it. “I was amazed, flabbergasted. I didn’t know what to think. There definitely was a very strange object there in the sky right over Tehran. To the naked eye it looked like a large star low in the sky but without the twinkle.” However, through binoculars he could see many details of the shape and color. “It was rectangular in shape at a height of about 6,000 ft.” The right end was blue, the left end was blue, and in the middle was a red light making a circular motion. He thought that the object was probably cylindrical. “It reminded me of the flashing light of an ambulance, this one (red light) was not flashing. The circular motion of the red light was not continuous. Every 90 degrees or so, it paused for a fraction of a second.” He estimated that it took a second or two to make a complete circle. The object was also oscillating or tilting like a see-saw.”
Rectangular? I don’t believe that possibility was mentioned in Hendry’s “assertions”. Then what happened?
” “Suddenly it appeared at another position one mile further on.” That is, it was slowly traveling north but suddenly it disappeared and a few seconds later appeared at a further north location. Pirouzi also said it moved southward at times. “I could see it this time as bright as a sun. It was all yellow, like a star, but much bigger. Then it appeared to me to be like a starfish. I can’t be sure of the order of the colors but there were blue, orange, red and yellow lights.”
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)Traveling over distances of miles? Changing locations? I don’t believe THAT was mentioned by Hendry either…
Oh but they were using binoculars… but MOVING stars? No, I contend that “moving” over distances of miles is not a reasonable thing to assume that binocular artefacts can produce.
Oh…and you mention a pilot chases a “star”. Interesting. Did the star chase him back, disable his communication and weapons systems, and then overfly him in full view of the control tower? I think not.
You even admit that the case cannot be accounted for by a mere misidentification of stars. I have considered the role they might have played and it appears on the evidence highly unlikely that stars contributed to the case in any way, shape, or form.
Once again you are trying to pass red herrings off as evidence against dolphins. It just does not work once we notice the difference in the described characteristics of each.
Perhaps you should just stick to the evidence in the case.
