You make the claim that aliens are flying around, then you present the evidence. Don't shift the burden of proof.
- Status
You make the claim that aliens are flying around, then you present the evidence. Don't shift the burden of proof.
Happy to oblige:
Mooy’s Memorandum-for-the-Record can be found here:
(Klass, P., "UFOs, The Public Deceived", Prometheus Books 1983, chapter 14. p.113)
The Routing Slip here:
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)
…and a transcript of that here: (http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1107/ufoconference4.html)
Another interview with Jafari here:
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
The statements from the interviews of the avionics engineers here:
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
The interviews with McKenzie and Evans here:
(http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)
The radar analysis etc here:
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/narcap_radcat_textwebsite_MShough_12-8-02.pdf (pp. 125 -148))
Other relevant and pertinent information can be found in the following:
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/us_gov_iran_case.pdf)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
Amusing enlightening UFO HUNTERS “reconstruction”
( http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/2HSFvZvzK90-ufo-hunters-parviz-jafari-case.aspx)
Official Iranian Air Force Site with the story…
(http://www.iiaf.net/stories/warstories/s8.html)
I’ve probably missed some but that should provide you most of the info you need.
I'll get to the rest of you post later...
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
So, this was a tourist craft of some kind from goodness knows where that Father Gill observed. How very interesting. Funny how the visitors looked humanoid, they always do don't they? Adamski's Venusians looked Jesus like.
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,915
So, this was a tourist craft of some kind from goodness knows where that Father Gill observed. How very interesting. Funny how the visitors looked humanoid, they always do don't they? Adamski's Venusians looked Jesus like.
Reminds me of the ones who looked italian, and dropped in on some farmer to borrow ingredients for pancakes.
A
So, this was a tourist craft of some kind from goodness knows where that Father Gill observed. How very interesting. Funny how the visitors looked humanoid, they always do don't they? Adamski's Venusians looked Jesus like.
The lack of sophistication in your knowledge of the subject at hand is showing.
Of course there are many "alien" types...
from these:
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/boastotalabduction.html)
to these
(http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/papua.htm)
to these
(http://www.travis-walton.com/index.shtml)
to these
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
to these
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
and so on...
Adamski...yeah...sure... you'd take his word for it of course... he is just the type of person you WOULD believe.
But of course we are discussing the Father Gill case which has stricly humaniod beings associated.
Summary
(http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/papua.htm)
Interview
(http://www.paranormalinsight.com/rev-william-gills-ufo-encounter/)
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
The lack of sophistication in your knowledge of the subject at hand is showing.
Of course there are many "alien" types...
from these:
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/boastotalabduction.html)
to these
(http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/papua.htm)
to these
(http://www.travis-walton.com/index.shtml)
to these
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
to these
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
and so on...
Adamski...yeah...sure... you'd take his word for it of course... he is just the type of person you WOULD believe.
But of course we are discussing the Father Gill case which has stricly humaniod beings associated.
Summary
(http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/papua.htm)
Interview
(http://www.paranormalinsight.com/rev-william-gills-ufo-encounter/)
Oh brother!!!
Do you not realise that all all the people that report these cases are having a lend of the gullible who will buy their books?The very few who are deluded believe they have seen something other worldly have problems separating dreams from reality.
Sorry, don't have that book.
Got that already.
This is not evidence/testimony. It's storytelling 30 years after the fact.
No, that is not evidence. This is a story by Maccabee. He's is using unknown/dubious sources for his fiction.
Yeah, and information about Biggles can be found here: http://www.biggles.info/
You are confusing Pratts story with evidence.
No it's not, it's yet another story based on (and I quote):
It also claims that information comes from interviews, debriefings etc. but doesn't name the sources so it can't be verified. This is not evidence.
Are you kidding me? I'm waiting for evidence and you keep bringing me unverified retellings/fiction?
This is yet another story based on the information in the routing slip.
So I was right. You have no other contemporary documentation but the routing slip. That's what I thought.
ETA: Did you source your thesis as bad as you do these cases?
Last edited:
Reply to Jocce's post #3027
You really don’t have much of a clue about this case do you – that is, you cannot have done even the most basic research on it. Yet you pretend to be able to criticise the evidence… no wait …you don’t even do that …you simply IGNORE the evidence to mount personal attacks on the messengers!
Of course THAT seems to be standard practice from the members of JREF posting in this forum – forget the evidence, it is the people we have to go after! You’d do really well in a formal study environment… Darwin?… Noooo…that stuff is more than 20 years old… (and before you get on your high horse about that - you DO realise the time between his voyages of discovery and the publication of his “book”…).
Here is a case where we have citizens telephoning the airport tower to report UFOs. The tower operator dismisses them all …until he finally decides to take a look. What he sees alarms him enough to think that he should pass it on to a General. The General takes a look and decides to scramble two F-4s! The pilots chase the UFO, (one tries to fire on it), they lose their avionics and are in turn pursued by the UFO. Meanwhile all the while the UFO has exhibited shape-shifting behaviour, splitting apart and rejoining, fleeing the jets at above Mach 2, disabling the Jet’s avionics and communications, chasing the jets, “Jumping” from point to point at “impossible” speeds, and much more besides…
We have at the very least the first hand accounts of the tower operator, the pilot of the second jet and two avionics engineers who checked the jets after they returned, we also have the statements of Mooy, (and the Memorandum), McKenzie (and the routing slip), Evans (and his DIA analysis), and MUCH more besides (including parts of the communication transcripts)… Choose to dismiss all of that if you wish, it makes absolutely no difference to the evidence WHAT you believe. You WISH it would all just go away - on your mere say so – with a metaphorical wave of your hand - but it will not. It is all there on the public record for all to see.
Oh and if you don’t know the difference between a “boys own adventure tale” and a historical fact …then I can only have a deep sadness and pity for you. I once believed you were a cut above the rabble Jocce (you and Astrophotographer), but your decline (and his), in my opinion, has been swift and inexorable.
I am truly sorry if you feel the evidence is so overwhelming that you can no longer afford to argue against it. But to attack and dismiss the messengers? That is a whole other ball game!
You really don’t have much of a clue about this case do you – that is, you cannot have done even the most basic research on it. Yet you pretend to be able to criticise the evidence… no wait …you don’t even do that …you simply IGNORE the evidence to mount personal attacks on the messengers!
Of course THAT seems to be standard practice from the members of JREF posting in this forum – forget the evidence, it is the people we have to go after! You’d do really well in a formal study environment… Darwin?… Noooo…that stuff is more than 20 years old… (and before you get on your high horse about that - you DO realise the time between his voyages of discovery and the publication of his “book”…).
Here is a case where we have citizens telephoning the airport tower to report UFOs. The tower operator dismisses them all …until he finally decides to take a look. What he sees alarms him enough to think that he should pass it on to a General. The General takes a look and decides to scramble two F-4s! The pilots chase the UFO, (one tries to fire on it), they lose their avionics and are in turn pursued by the UFO. Meanwhile all the while the UFO has exhibited shape-shifting behaviour, splitting apart and rejoining, fleeing the jets at above Mach 2, disabling the Jet’s avionics and communications, chasing the jets, “Jumping” from point to point at “impossible” speeds, and much more besides…
We have at the very least the first hand accounts of the tower operator, the pilot of the second jet and two avionics engineers who checked the jets after they returned, we also have the statements of Mooy, (and the Memorandum), McKenzie (and the routing slip), Evans (and his DIA analysis), and MUCH more besides (including parts of the communication transcripts)… Choose to dismiss all of that if you wish, it makes absolutely no difference to the evidence WHAT you believe. You WISH it would all just go away - on your mere say so – with a metaphorical wave of your hand - but it will not. It is all there on the public record for all to see.
Oh and if you don’t know the difference between a “boys own adventure tale” and a historical fact …then I can only have a deep sadness and pity for you. I once believed you were a cut above the rabble Jocce (you and Astrophotographer), but your decline (and his), in my opinion, has been swift and inexorable.
I am truly sorry if you feel the evidence is so overwhelming that you can no longer afford to argue against it. But to attack and dismiss the messengers? That is a whole other ball game!
Rramjet, why do you use so many words to say "No, I don't have any more evidence". You think it impresses anyone?
You pretend that my criticism of the validity of your data is a joke rather than substantiating your claims with real evidence.
Was this how you defended your theses? "Yes, I saw an article somwehere where someone had talked to a guy who knew for a fact that this is true!"? Pathetic.
You pretend that my criticism of the validity of your data is a joke rather than substantiating your claims with real evidence.
Was this how you defended your theses? "Yes, I saw an article somwehere where someone had talked to a guy who knew for a fact that this is true!"? Pathetic.
Last edited:
Rramjet, here's one example (again) of what I mean (http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/) :
So what is the information in this very long document based on:
1. Bob Pratts interview of Hossain Pirouzi, done 3 and 4 months after the events.
First of all, Bob Pratt is a reporter at National Enquirer, a tabloid known for it's sensationalist articles with far less than adequate quality control when it comes to facts. There is no way of verifying that a) the article content is factually correct and b) that it is not misunderstood or twisted by Maccabee himself when he retells what's in them. Second, it's alledgely done 3-4 months after the events which is a long time for details to dissapear from memory and for outside sources tainting the "testimony".
2. This history is also based on newspaper accounts.
So Maccabee also reads what's been written in some newspaper(s). He doesn't source it so it's impossible to check a) the newspaper articles themselves and b) what source was used for the newspaper articles. Using this as evidence would be like a doctor ordering his patient a medicine based on his wife telling him she read something about it in the Daily Mirror. Surely this is not very scientific.
3. the initially classified (Confidential) U. S. Air Force (USAF) teletype message by Lt. Col. Olin Mooy
As I said, I don't have access to it so I can't check it.
Do you get what I mean now? I am serious even though you pretend otherwise.
ETA: You deliberately choose to take for granted that everything in this word document is factually correct but you have no proof of that. You just want to believe that it is true. You're own quality control of the evidence you use is rather lacking to say the least.
So what is the information in this very long document based on:
1. Bob Pratts interview of Hossain Pirouzi, done 3 and 4 months after the events.
First of all, Bob Pratt is a reporter at National Enquirer, a tabloid known for it's sensationalist articles with far less than adequate quality control when it comes to facts. There is no way of verifying that a) the article content is factually correct and b) that it is not misunderstood or twisted by Maccabee himself when he retells what's in them. Second, it's alledgely done 3-4 months after the events which is a long time for details to dissapear from memory and for outside sources tainting the "testimony".
2. This history is also based on newspaper accounts.
So Maccabee also reads what's been written in some newspaper(s). He doesn't source it so it's impossible to check a) the newspaper articles themselves and b) what source was used for the newspaper articles. Using this as evidence would be like a doctor ordering his patient a medicine based on his wife telling him she read something about it in the Daily Mirror. Surely this is not very scientific.
3. the initially classified (Confidential) U. S. Air Force (USAF) teletype message by Lt. Col. Olin Mooy
As I said, I don't have access to it so I can't check it.
Do you get what I mean now? I am serious even though you pretend otherwise.
ETA: You deliberately choose to take for granted that everything in this word document is factually correct but you have no proof of that. You just want to believe that it is true. You're own quality control of the evidence you use is rather lacking to say the least.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
You aren't sorry at all and there is no overwhelming evidence.
The message you bring was attacked and dismissed well over fifty pages ago, mainly due to a lack of ability to make any kind of case on the part of the messenger.
You appear to have lost both ball games.
Belz...
Fiend God
Still waiting for your understanding of the burden of proof, Ramjet.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Adamski...yeah...sure... you'd take his word for it of course... he is just the type of person you WOULD believe.
How do you pick and choiose which witnesses to believe? For example, why do you disbelieve the Campeche witnesses (trained military observers) who had FLIR video to back up their stories?
Last edited:
Another one: http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm
This one mixes in some information obviously taken from the routing slip, f ex. this part:
However, it doesn't get the facts straight. Rate of closure 15 mph? Were they flying baloons? The routing slip (as far as I can tell and it's hard to read) says 150 NMPH which seems more reasonable. One example of poor proof reading/fact check.
The rest is claimed to come from interviews with some of the participants that night but the only official, contemporary documentation that is used is the routing slip again.
This one mixes in some information obviously taken from the routing slip, f ex. this part:
However, it doesn't get the facts straight. Rate of closure 15 mph? Were they flying baloons? The routing slip (as far as I can tell and it's hard to read) says 150 NMPH which seems more reasonable. One example of poor proof reading/fact check.
The rest is claimed to come from interviews with some of the participants that night but the only official, contemporary documentation that is used is the routing slip again.
Hmmm, this is incorrect. He lost communication and weapons control (source routing slip). That is not equivalent to complete loss of avionics. Please, oh please get your facts straight before posting your walls of text.
ETA: At this point I'm starting to think that you are deliberately trying to mislead those who aren't checking the sources. There are too many "accidental" misrepresentations of the few facts we have.
Last edited:
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
then I would suggest your intelligence falls below the standard required to type "blimp" into the search box on the website. If you had done that you would know that the Goodyear blimp was present at the opening of a new $50,000 dollar drive in theatre named the Rodeo (not the gay Rodeo unfortunately)
or that you have read it and just dont have the balls to admit you are wrong, and that you owe me an apology for calling me a liar but are unprepared to give it
either way, this again proves that if it wasn't the same blimp as the one in salem, then there must have been two blimps in flight distance of the Rogue river on the day of the event. Which makes your claim of "no blimps on the west coast" look a little ridiculous
Adamski...yeah...sure... you'd take his word for it of course... he is just the type of person you WOULD believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nxugHTC92k
hehe
Last edited:
I would understand you concerns more if we did not have independent sources telling us the same information. Including:
Official sources:
Mooy (Memorandum)
McKenzie (Routing slip)
Evans (DIA evaluation)
Jafari (eyewitness testimony)
Interview testimony:
Houssain Pirouzi (tower controller)
Henry & Bob (avionics technicians)
Mooy
McKenzie
Evans
Lieutenant General Abdullah Azarbarzin
Newspaper accounts:
Iran Times (1 Oct 1976)
Tehran Journal (10 Jul 1978)
I simply haven't time just now to go into details... But that is just the beginning... there are names and sources to add in each of the above.
Moreover there were a number of different interviewers supplying the information from different sources. If I had more time I would dig them all out...
Besides, you again simply deny the evidence. Have a closer look at the routing slip for example.
Ughhh no time...sorry...
Most of those are not independent sources! They all seem to rely on the routing slip though and I already told you I accept that as a reasonably factual description of what happened. For the rest, they all source eachother. Pretty lame imo.
No, there are no official sources quoted other than the routing slip. Even you should be able to see that.
Please don't. It's not evidence. It's newspaper articles and useless as evidence.
Exactly, that's more like it. The routing slip is good for me and I have had a very close look at it. Obviously, you haven't (se my previous post).
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,353
I'm glad to hear it's not a guess. Perhaps you can tell us what it is, if not a guess.
You have amply demonstrated your ignorance of military aviation's terminology and technology in this thread ("military power", radar field of view, "weapons control panel" vs "avionics"). So where does your sudden expertise come from to evaluate the correct procedure when a pilot is faced with the urgent imperative of believing he has had a missile launched against him, at night, with no comms and no weapons control?
When you've answered that one, we can perhaps get back to your criticisms of Puddle Duck's critique, to see if you can make those assertions stand up.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
"radar analysis"? It is essentially rehashing what is already known through the report/anecdotal accounts and arguing for the source being ET. There is no actual analysis of radar data. This is very misleading.
- Status