Originally Posted by Rramjet
Now of course he would NOT do that – for the simple reason that Mooy’s Memorandum-for the-Record is in the public domain and Jafari’s statements can be checked against that at any time – and we have none other than the authority of Phillip J. Klass to vouch for the authenticity of that memorandum (and that it was Mooy who wrote it and that Mooy was in the interview with Jafari)! And I can provide further quotes from Klass to support all of that if necessary.
What is in the public domain is not merely “something”. There are a number of authenticated documents in the public domain.
1. The initial Memorandum-for-the-Record written by Mooy. This can be found in Klass, P., J. UFOS, The Public Deceived. 1983 Prometheus Books (pp. 111-113)
Mooy sat in on the “debriefing” of the aircrew of the second F-4 (Jafari was the pilot) and had access to a report of the “debriefing of the aircrew of the first F-4.
2. The “Routing Slip” written by McKenzie (with the attached assessment written later by Evans – a DIA intelligence analyst) which followed Mooy’s Memorandum almost word for word. This can be found at (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
Evan’s assessment of the case included that the information was “confirmed by other sources” and of “high” value.
The provenance here is simply NOT in question. For example Klass states “On October 2, 1977, I telephoned Mooy, now a full colonel who had been reassigned back to the States, and he supplied a little useful background.” (p.117) Earlier in this same document Klass had indicated that he had also directly spoken to Mooy about the provenance of the information in (what has become known as) the Routing Slip.
To further support that we have the Press Club testimony of Jafari (the pilot of the second F-4). In it he confirms the substantive details of the case as well as the fact that Mooy was in the interview with him. This can be found at (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)
We also have Bob Pratt (National Enquirer) who talked to McKenzie and Evans about the case. Pratt asked Mckenzie who his source for the “Routing Slip” was and McKenzie prevaricated, trying to throw Pratt of the trail with misinformation (such as: "Well, we read the newspapers, we talked to various people around town, other attachés. It was really quite a topic of conversa¬tion for three or four days.”) Now we KNOW that Mooy was the source (confirmed by Klass in direct conversation with Mooy), and thus we KNOW that McKenzie was providing “misleading” information to Pratt about his source.
When Pratt asked Evan’s about the case:
Pratt also interviewed Hossain Pirouzi, the chief supervisor of the air-traffic control tower on the night in question. This interview also confirmed the details of the case and provided much extra information as well. We also have other documentary comments from a number of civilian as well as military sources - but at this point it must be noted (in no uncertain terms) that the provenance of the information concerning the case is NOT in question. Moreover, there is no inconsistency between the details of the case as presented by the various sources.
Your continued efforts, Stray Cat, to cast doubt in this area are again an example of the “debunking” mentality at work rather than a true scientific appraisal of the evidence. For example you imply that just because Pratt was a reporter for the National Enquirer, we should disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses he interviewed. However, if he misquoted or otherwise distorted the statements of the interviewees, those interviewees had ample time to dispute Pratt’s reporting. NONE of the interviewee statements have been disputed in any way, either by the interviewees or by anyone else for that matter (until this forum…huh!).
You go on to imply that “confusion played a prominent part” in the case. This is utterly disingenuous. First, there is NO confusion about the details of the case. All the eyewitnesses described the events in detail and each is consistent with the other. There may have been “confusion” about what the object WAS… but that is only because they could not identify it! They were certainly able to describe the objects abilities and characteristics in precise detail. Second there is NO confusion about the sources of information that has come into he public domain. That has been described and verified in the above. So it is simply disingenuous (to be polite) of you to imply that confusion played a “prominent” role in the case. This is simply not correct.
The above then confirms MY assessment:
Originally Posted by Rramjet
You people really try and put the worst possible "spin" on everything whenever you possibly can. It is a deceitful tactic. Your post Stray Cat represents one of the worst examples of that very thing.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
You impugn the reputation of Jafari - an honorable Iranian Airforce pilot - simple because he has accepted invitations to give his testimony in various media forums - forums that YOU assume somehow taint everyone who appears on them! This is not a rational or logical or even scientific way of advancing our knowledge of ANYTHING, let alone the topic under discussion.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
If you are a true skeptic (rather than a mere "debunker") you would take the opportunity to rationally explore the evidence placed before you in an effort to gain whatever knowledge might be available.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Every true scientist is, almost by definition a skeptic. For the members of JREF posting in this thread to call themselves "skeptics", on the evidence of your post at least, is patently doing a disservice to the term and to scientists in general.
Now of course he would NOT do that – for the simple reason that Mooy’s Memorandum-for the-Record is in the public domain and Jafari’s statements can be checked against that at any time – and we have none other than the authority of Phillip J. Klass to vouch for the authenticity of that memorandum (and that it was Mooy who wrote it and that Mooy was in the interview with Jafari)! And I can provide further quotes from Klass to support all of that if necessary.
And also…
What is in the public domain is not merely “something”. There are a number of authenticated documents in the public domain.
1. The initial Memorandum-for-the-Record written by Mooy. This can be found in Klass, P., J. UFOS, The Public Deceived. 1983 Prometheus Books (pp. 111-113)
Mooy sat in on the “debriefing” of the aircrew of the second F-4 (Jafari was the pilot) and had access to a report of the “debriefing of the aircrew of the first F-4.
2. The “Routing Slip” written by McKenzie (with the attached assessment written later by Evans – a DIA intelligence analyst) which followed Mooy’s Memorandum almost word for word. This can be found at (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
Evan’s assessment of the case included that the information was “confirmed by other sources” and of “high” value.
The provenance here is simply NOT in question. For example Klass states “On October 2, 1977, I telephoned Mooy, now a full colonel who had been reassigned back to the States, and he supplied a little useful background.” (p.117) Earlier in this same document Klass had indicated that he had also directly spoken to Mooy about the provenance of the information in (what has become known as) the Routing Slip.
To further support that we have the Press Club testimony of Jafari (the pilot of the second F-4). In it he confirms the substantive details of the case as well as the fact that Mooy was in the interview with him. This can be found at (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)
We also have Bob Pratt (National Enquirer) who talked to McKenzie and Evans about the case. Pratt asked Mckenzie who his source for the “Routing Slip” was and McKenzie prevaricated, trying to throw Pratt of the trail with misinformation (such as: "Well, we read the newspapers, we talked to various people around town, other attachés. It was really quite a topic of conversa¬tion for three or four days.”) Now we KNOW that Mooy was the source (confirmed by Klass in direct conversation with Mooy), and thus we KNOW that McKenzie was providing “misleading” information to Pratt about his source.
When Pratt asked Evan’s about the case:
“We had several other messages that someone would attribute to UFOs," said Major Evans. "I didn't pay much attention to them, but I felt this particular case was very interesting. Here we had a case where we had a visual sighting from three different locations, three different angles, by highly qualified people and they were confirmed by radar from three different points.
"The electromagnetic effects were very interesting to me as an electronic warfare officer, and the fact that this thing was so highly maneuverable impressed me quite a bit. As an electronic warfare officer, I would love to go into combat with the capability of turning off my opponent's weapon system panel at will, and to be able to figure out when he's going to turn it on, and to cut off his communications.”
(http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)"The electromagnetic effects were very interesting to me as an electronic warfare officer, and the fact that this thing was so highly maneuverable impressed me quite a bit. As an electronic warfare officer, I would love to go into combat with the capability of turning off my opponent's weapon system panel at will, and to be able to figure out when he's going to turn it on, and to cut off his communications.”
Pratt also interviewed Hossain Pirouzi, the chief supervisor of the air-traffic control tower on the night in question. This interview also confirmed the details of the case and provided much extra information as well. We also have other documentary comments from a number of civilian as well as military sources - but at this point it must be noted (in no uncertain terms) that the provenance of the information concerning the case is NOT in question. Moreover, there is no inconsistency between the details of the case as presented by the various sources.
Your continued efforts, Stray Cat, to cast doubt in this area are again an example of the “debunking” mentality at work rather than a true scientific appraisal of the evidence. For example you imply that just because Pratt was a reporter for the National Enquirer, we should disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses he interviewed. However, if he misquoted or otherwise distorted the statements of the interviewees, those interviewees had ample time to dispute Pratt’s reporting. NONE of the interviewee statements have been disputed in any way, either by the interviewees or by anyone else for that matter (until this forum…huh!).
You go on to imply that “confusion played a prominent part” in the case. This is utterly disingenuous. First, there is NO confusion about the details of the case. All the eyewitnesses described the events in detail and each is consistent with the other. There may have been “confusion” about what the object WAS… but that is only because they could not identify it! They were certainly able to describe the objects abilities and characteristics in precise detail. Second there is NO confusion about the sources of information that has come into he public domain. That has been described and verified in the above. So it is simply disingenuous (to be polite) of you to imply that confusion played a “prominent” role in the case. This is simply not correct.
The above then confirms MY assessment:
Originally Posted by Rramjet
You people really try and put the worst possible "spin" on everything whenever you possibly can. It is a deceitful tactic. Your post Stray Cat represents one of the worst examples of that very thing.
Your experience counts for nothing then because you have simply failed to investigate the details of the case. If you had investigated, then you would have found the same information available as I have done. You simply carry out NO investigation – preffering instead to try and cast confusion and doubt about the case instead of conducting a rational, scientific analysis of the evidence on the record. My assessment of your tactics (as above) stand.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
You impugn the reputation of Jafari - an honorable Iranian Airforce pilot - simple because he has accepted invitations to give his testimony in various media forums - forums that YOU assume somehow taint everyone who appears on them! This is not a rational or logical or even scientific way of advancing our knowledge of ANYTHING, let alone the topic under discussion.
I am sure if the “Science channel” had invited him, Jafari would have been happy to accept. Again my assessment of your “dirty” tactics stands. You insinuate negative conclusions without a shred of evidence to support them. Just because the “shows” you mention may not have a “pristine” reputation according to your standards, does not mean that when a person appears on them to provide testimony he is automatically disqualified as legitimate – especially when that testimony is so easily verified as Jafari’s is. You simply need to refer to the evidence in the case and quit making irrational, illogical, unscientific and unfounded assertions.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
If you are a true skeptic (rather than a mere "debunker") you would take the opportunity to rationally explore the evidence placed before you in an effort to gain whatever knowledge might be available.
I have just demonstrated how you “over reach”. There is absolutely NO reason to have a “lack of confidence” in the data on the basis of the unfounded assertions you have presented.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Every true scientist is, almost by definition a skeptic. For the members of JREF posting in this thread to call themselves "skeptics", on the evidence of your post at least, is patently doing a disservice to the term and to scientists in general.
Presenting possibilities that are easily refuted by the evidence IS unscientific – unless you have compelling counter-evidence – which of course you do not. And certainly, the peer review process has comprehensively refuted your assertions on the matter.
