Okay… so sunset is approximately 6pm… (taken from Port Moresby …
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=193&month=6&year=1990&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1).
…I should have known better than to take the figures supplied by you originally at face value! Ughh…
But that means little because:
The next evening, about 6 P.M., the same or a similar object reappeared while the sky was still bright, first seen by Annie Laura Borews, a Papuan medical assistant at the hospital. She called Father Gill, who in turn called Ananias and several other to watch. "We watched figures appear on top.'' Father Gill said. (
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
That means that the time was actually BEFORE 6pm (ie before sunset). I hardly think that witnesses could mistake whether it was daylight or not! (no matter how “delusional” the UFO debunkers” suppose all eyewitnesses must be…)
Are you so divorced from reality as to believe that anecdotal evidence is not permitted in court, even in capital cases? Now let's address your actual hyprocisy.
Your statement was
“For example, in a criminal trial, if 20 people say they saw Billy shoot the sheriff, then Billy will likely be convicted.”
This implies that Billy is convicted of a capital crime on the evidence of ONLY the eyewitnesses. THAT in turn means, according to you, anecdotal evidence is SUFFICIENT to convict in a capital case. If anecdotal (eyewitness) evidence is sufficient to convict in a capital case it would therefore be hypocritical of you to suggest such evidence is not good enough to allow investigation and determine conclusions concerning UFOs.
So… my question to YOU remains. Your fellow skeptics in this forum have oft repeated that anecdotal (eyewitness) evidence is NOT evidence at all. You seem to contradict that position. I just want to confirm your position in the matter. Do you believe anecdotal evidence to be GOOD evidence (and you seem to suggest it IS by allowing conviction in a capital case solely on the basis of it) or not? WHICH is it RoboTimbo?
I stated:
“I have stated on NUMEROUS occasions that the Cempeche incident was determined to be the result of mistaken identity of oil well fires.”
You continuing to assert it doesn't make it true. Now who is it that is so fond of that saying, hm?
Okaaaay…then if not oil well fires (which does seem to be the general consensus)…what is YOUR explanation of the incident then?
I stated:
“In other words researchers determined a reasonable mundane explanation for the case.”
Are you totally discounting the trained military observers' eyewitness testimony and the direct physical evidence of the FLIR video? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!
The simplistic naivety by which you approach this topic is extraordinary. First, if you want to accuse me of hypocricy then I suggest you need to point out precicely WHERE and HOW ANY of my statements have been inconsistent to that degree. You cannot? I thought not.
Second in the Cempeche case there is a perfectly reasonable mundane explanation for precisely HOW and WHY the witnesses misinterpreted what they saw (including the film).
This is something that the UFO debunkers just cannot accept. There is a WEALTH of research on precisely the conditions that may lead to eyewitness error. We CAN and DO take that research into account when examining eyewitness testimony. If environmental and psychological conditions are present that research has shown might lead to (for example) misinterpretation, then we look for things that could be misinterpreted when viewed under those conditions. If we find mundane objects in the environment that CAN be so misinterpreted (while being consistent with eyewitness descriptions) then we can come up with a probable mundane explanation.
A KEY point to note here is that the mundane explanation is entirely CONSISTENT with the eyewitness descriptions. So far from “discounting” the eyewitness testimony or the FLIR, we actually TAKE INTO ACCOUNT the eyewitness observations to ensure our mundane explanation IS consistent with what is being described.
I know this argument will be too subtle and complex for you but others will perhaps see the point and note the naivety of your own approach.
I stated:
“ IF you have ANY mundane explanation for the Tehran of Father Gill cases I would like to hear them and I will assess them on their merits! But of course you HAVE no such explanation do you?”
Of course I don't. It's a UFO. Do you have direct evidence that it's aliens? Are you still sandbagging the direct evidence in this case too?
Okay, it’s a UFO… but note what the UFO DID! What it DID amounts to intelligent control! A UFO under intelligent control? Hmmmm…what does THAT then suggest to you RoboTimbo? (remembering that the thing also performed actions and manouvers totally outside the boundaries of what we commonly take to be the limits of our own technology)
…and the Father Gill case? There were humanoid beings on the “craft” who
interacted with the eyewitnesses. What does THAT suggest to you RoboTimbo? (and please remember that you suggestions must be consistent with the eyewitness accounts)
As one might expect, Gill's account was dismissed by the RAAF despite its extraordinary nature and the number of witnesses. The senior interviewing officer, Squadron Leader F.A. Lang, concluded:
'Although the Reverend Gill could be regarded as a reliable observer, it is felt that the June/July incidents could have been nothing more than natural phenomena coloured by past events and subconscious influences of UFO enthusiasts. During the period of the report the weather was cloudy and unsettled with light thunder storm. Although it is not possible to draw firm conclusions, an analysis of rough bearings and angles above the horizon does suggest that at least some of the lights observed were the planets Jupiter, Saturn and Mars. Light refraction, the changing position of the planet relative to the observer and cloud movement would give the impression of size and rapid movement. In addition varying cloud densities could account for the human shapes and their sudden appearance and disappearance'.
Not exactly clear skies then, as well as not being daylight...
For a start Lang’s and your own weather assessment is plainly mistaken – as is Lang’s assessment of the state of mind of the eyewitnesses.
Father Gill: “Until my sighting I thought UFOs were a figment of imagination or some electrical phenomenon.”
…and on the first night:
“Well, the weather varied over the four hour period. I have recorded here. At the beginning, at 6.45 p.m, there were patches of low cloud over Tagora and Menapi, that is west and east of us, and clear overhead. At 7.10 it was recorded that cloud ceiling overhead was at about 2000 feet... I may mention that at this time the object was under cloud over the west at Tagora. At 8.50 cloud was forming again overhead, and for the next hour or so there were patches of cloud over the sky, then at 10.50 we recorded we had heavy rain at 11.04 - that's when we finished the recording.”
(…)
“I came out of the dining room after dinner and casually glanced at the sky with the purpose, I suppose, of seeing Venus. Well, I saw Venus bit also saw this sparkling object which was to me peculiar because it sparkled, and because it was very, very bright, and it was above Venus and so that caused me to watch it for a while, then I saw it descend towards us.”
…also…
“Q: Were there any witnesses to this?
A: yes, there were thirty-eight of us.”
…and…
“Well, of course, the whole thing was most extraordinary; the fact that we saw what appeared to be humans beings on it, I think, is the important thing. It is certainly the important and exciting thing to us. They were not noticeable at first - they came down, the object came down at about, I should say, 400 feet, maybe 450 feet, perhaps less, maybe 300 feet. It is very difficult to judge at that time of night and not having
experience in measuring elevation, it's purely guess- work, but as we watcheed it, men came out from this object, and appeared on top of it on what seemed to be a deck on top of the huge disk. There were four men in all, occasionally two, then one, then three, then four - we noticed the various times that men appeared, and when one, two and three appeared and one and two, and then numbers one, three, four and two and so on. And then later all those witnesses who are quite sure that our records were right, they agreed with them, and saw these men at the same time as I did - they were able to sign their names as witnesses of what we assume was human activity or beings of some sort on the object itself.
Another peculiar thing about it was this shaft of blue light which emanated from what appeared to be the center of the deck. Now from time to time men, these men, seemed to be working at something on the deck; they'd bend forward and appear to manipulate something on the deck, and then straighten themselves up occasionally, would turn around in our direction, this blue light - rather like a thin spotlight emanated skywards to stay on for a second or two, and then switch off. I recorded the times that we saw that blue light come on and off - for the rest of the night. After all that activity it ascended and remained very high.
…and…
“Q: Did the machine cause any noise?
A: No engine noise heard at any time by anyone during the whole
series of sightings.”
(
http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)
…yeah right … of course… Jupiter, Saturn and Mars!
As for the daylight and weather on the second night:
“The next evening, about 6 P.M., the same or a similar object reappeared
while the sky was still bright…”
(emphasis mine. Rr)
While there is no mention of the wether conditions on the second night we can assume it was a clear night (given that the Father Gill mentions that on the second night “After all that activity it ascended and remained very high.”, meaning of course – at the very least - there were no clouds to obscure this observation)
Your first mistake is assuming they took off from Tehran.
(hint: they didn't)
I assume getting your facts straight before running off at the mouth and insulting somebody who’s obviously much more qualified than you is not your strong point… how did you get to be a scientist…?
I'll be back...
Oh, yes indeed - my mistake. The jet actually would have had to travel 150nm (approx 172 miles – less 29 miles = 143) @ 12.7 miles per minute = approx. 11.3 minutes.
…which of course STILL makes Puddle Duck incorrect.
Then after contacting the UFO and the first F-4 “lost all instrumentation” (
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf), according to Pirouzi “By this time he was running low on fuel so he broke off the chase and headed back toward Shaharoki.” (
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/).
So okay, I admit my mistake in “taking off” from Tehran instead of Shahrokhi, but that does NOT excuse Puddle Duck in his mistaken calculations. That is, MY calculations were at least mathematically correct, Puddle Duck’s were NOT.
The pilot believes himself already to be in jeopardy. He's trying to extricate himself. His instruments are working. Our resident pilot believes the manoeuvre could safely be done without instruments anyway.
The problem with extrapolating from the available details is that such details are few, vague and ambiguous. What do we know for sure about Jafari's knowledge of why the first plane turned back? What exactly were the problems with Jafari's aircraft? Exactly which weapons controls were involved? Was a panel malfunctioning or was it just inadvertantly switched off? Was the radio dead, or was there just interference on the reception? If it was just garbled, then how unusual was that? Was the intercom dead, or garbled, or unaffected? Did the crew resolve any of the problems themselves and, if so, how?
(These are all rhetorical questions, of course, but if anyone happens to have some new source of information then please jump right in.)
Resident pilot? We have only his word on that and given his mathematical incompetence and numerous mistakes concerning the specifications of an F-4 (which he claims to have flown) then how can you be so sure? We have no direct evidence for him being a pilot. I find it interesting that the standards of evidence are always non-existent when it comes to the UFO debunker side of the story but set higher than normal by those same debunkers when it comes to the UFO researcher side of the story. Hypocrisy? You bet!
As for your questions, many of them are actually answered in the records of the case and others we can reasonably infer. Jafari’s knowledge of the first jet? It beggars belief to suppose that Jafari would NOT be informed of the status of the first jet. After all, any information gained by the first jet is directly relevant to his own “mission”. The problems with his own aircraft? He lost weapons system and communication functionality. What more do you need to know? Malfunction? The avionics technicians who examined the plane(s) after the incident could find nothing wrong. Inadvertently switched off? Now you are supposing incompetence from a highly experienced squadron leader… moreover, if a pilot can “switch off” his own weapons system so easily without knowing it in a “combat” situation, then surely that is a MAJOR design fault in the F-4 and would have been picked up on and corrected MUCH earlier that 1976! No, it is a scenario that just does NOT make any sense at all. Radio interference or “garbled” transmission mistaken for a total loss of all communication systems? Again that scenario is at odds with the evidence and also just does NOT make rational sense. Did the crew do anything to “resolve” the problems themselves? According to the evidence the systems rectified themselves. I presume the pilots would have followed a SOP for such situations but according to them the situation self rectified.
The rest of your post assumes you KNOW the answers to your own questions… but I have just shown above you MAY be mistaken in your assessment – probably due to you not having actually read or understood the actual evidence on offer.
the D-21 drone, on its launchpad
http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav_05.html
which is an in flight detachable mach 3 UAV
it has a very interesting effect when its engine starts up, which can be seen here at 0:35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w64f...eature=related
its launchpad in this case is the mach 3+ SR71 Blackbird, an aircraft fitted with an electronic counter measures system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasures
"designed to trick or deceive radar, sonar, or other detection systems like IR (infrared) and Laser. It may be used both offensively or defensively in any method to deny targeting information to an enemy. The system may make many separate targets appear to the enemy, or make the real target appear to disappear or move about randomly. It is used effectively to protect aircraft from guided missiles"
All that is made absolutely redundant by one simple statement from the same website you first reference (
http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav_05.html) “…but the drones were finally put into mothballs in 1973…” Ha!
now that we know that Rogue River was a blimp and that this was a conventional (but secret) American aircraft I am wondering what "best case" rramjets going to pretend is something it isn't next
You continue to deny the evidence in the Rogue River case that not only does the historical record show that a “blimp” at Rogue River at the time is HIGHLY unlikely (though not impossible) but that a “blimp” is ENTIRELY inconsistent with the eyewitness reports. This “head in the sand” denial of evidence is of course the ONLY recourse left to the UFO debunkers given the weight of EVIDENCE that is against their position. They cannot argue rationally or logically, so they simply resort to denying the evidence. Ha! (again)
You’re missing the point… that doesn’t make the story true or any more credible than the exact same story printed in the National Enquirer. Having established clear provenance we now know it’s not the result of a formal investigation into the case by US officials and it was never classified. It’s merely an anecdotal account of what the Iranians claimed happened.
Actually Mooy was IN the interview conducted with Jafari. He was obviously informed by his Iranian contacts concerning the first interview. From those sources he wrote the Memorandum for the Record. We have no reason to assume that Mooy was “making things up” or flat out lying! The reasonable assumption is that his account is an accurate reflection of what happened in the incident. We had Jafari confirming that in first hand accounts and we have Pirouzi similarly confirming it in interviews. The provenance and details of the case are just not in question, despite your attempts.
For all we know the story Mooy was given (and “leaked” to the press within hours after the incident occurred and before the “debriefing” Mooy was invited to occurred) was orchestrated by Iranian intelligence to “cover up” the fact that somebody blew it and sent two jets on a wild goose chase in hot pursuit of a “shape-shifting” star or planet and surprise… encountered somebody else’s clearly superior Earth-based interceptor technology instead.
Again you return to conspiracy theories (funny how they are acceptable when a UFO debunker states them and unacceptable from UFO proponents…hypocrisy? You bet!)
Cover up WHAT precisely? After the reports he was getting the General was entirely justified in sending the jets up. You conspiracy “theory” of an elaborate cover-up just does NOT make rational sense.
The next sections of your post contend that just about everyone involved in the case was lying and that they continue to lie to this day. This is a “super” conspiracy theory of the wildest proportions. It is of course total woo! There is absolutely NO rational reason for such an elaborate lie by ALL involved as you suppose to have been planned and promulgated - including I might add one of your Guru’s Klass – and I find it difficult to believe you would call him a liar and to contend that he was directly involved in your conspiracy cover-up too! What for? And to imply that Phillip Klass was directly involved in a UFO cover-up? You have definitely overreached (to put it mildly) here my friend!
Oh and as a coup-de-gras you contend complete incompetence by Evans of the DIA. Bunk!
Finally you make a link to the Mufon case file website. There we can find a great deal of second hand speculation but of primary interest are the comments of the first hand witnesses directly involved in the case: the tower controller (Pirouzi) and the general who sent the planes up (Azarbarzin) who confirm the substantial details of the case as reported by the many researchers involved.
What more do you want. The details are confirmed on this site by TWO firsthand witnesses and they are also supported by another firsthand witness, the pilot of the second jet Jafari. What more do you want?
