What name do you give a person who, like Astrophotographer, wilfully misrepresents and outright falsifies the historical record about what you and others had to say? For example:
Pirouzi stated:
I ordered him to return towards the Teheran base. He turned back. By this time he was heading towards the border with Afghanistan. When he was about 150 miles away, still coming back towards me, the object suddenly appeared over Teheran. (p.90 in the MUFON file)
I stated:
Astrophotographer… As I have already stated (and obviously you wilfully ignored) Pirouzi’s comments here on Afghanistan refer to a direction NOT a location.
Earlier you stated that he never said anything about the 150 miles. I provide a quote to demonstrate you are wrong and now you try and spin it to make it sound like you were right. What part of 150 miles away is not a locaton?
Two things are apparent in that statement. The first is that I have NEVER stated any such thing. The second is that the “150 miles” refers to miles from Tehran, NOT the Afganistan border!
As another example:
Pirouzi:
“He reported on radio, ‘It keeps coming toward me.’ He swung the jet around in a tight turn and the light followed him and as they swept over the tower at Tehran, the (object) which was chasing him by now was 500 feet above and just behind him. I saw this light for the first time, though only for a few seconds.”
Mooy:
“During the time that the object passed over the F-4 the tower did not have a visual on it but picked it up after the pilot told them to look between the mountains and the refinery.”
I stated:
Pirouzi’s comments do NOT conflict with Mooy’s summary! and
Pirouzi provides no time reference for WHEN he saw the “light”. Indeed his statement seems to indicate that at first he did NOT see the light and this accords with Mooy’s statement. You indulge in historical revisionism again!
That is a bunch of hooey and you know it. He clearly states he saw the light above his plane when it passed near the tower, which is in direct conflict with Mooy's report where they did not see any object over the F-4. Your inability to even consider the possibility of conflicting information demonstrates you are truly close-minded about this. Historical revisionism my foot. You truly are set in your mind. Your doctorate (assuming you actually have one) is not worth the paper it is written upon.
No, Pirouzi does NOT “clearly state “he saw the light above his plane” (I presume by “his” you mean Jafari). Rather, Pirouzi is reporting to us, what Jafari has reported to him, about the location of the object. He then goes on “I saw this light for the first time, though only for a few seconds.” The information only SEEMS contradictory IF you are LOOKING for contradictions and ignore ALL the other evidence in the case (in other words being “closed minded”). It may SEEM contradictory to you, but is NOT necessarily so – that is it can be read as being NOT contradictory and that is enough.
What happened during the revolution alterred many things in the Iranian military. People were killed by the fundamentalists for their positions (the head of the IIAF was executed I believe). BTW, in my examination of the IIAF histories, the only major's I have discovered were only assistant squadron commanders and not squadron commanders (which were usually Lt. Colonels or higher).
So what? People were killed during the revolution. So what? This often occurs during revolutions when the “old guard” is “purged” to make way for the new. So what?
And AGAIN, you FAIL to provide sources for your information! This indicates either your “sources” are fake and you are merely making things up OR there are things in that source material that you do NOT want us to find…
Possible reasons might include an inflation of resume to add credibility to claim. How many people do you know have done this in the civilian community? I see it done many times. How many people have claimed to be something in the military they were not? I have seen it done with people claiming to be SEALs but were not.
This is only ONE “reason” Astrophotographer! You see what you do? You state “reasons” then give us a single reason.
As I have stated, this is NOT a valid “reason” for Jafari to lie. His claim would be just as credible had he been merely “pilot”!
Obviously you never read Klass' book. Why not? Why didn't you read his material to accurately assess the case from both sides? Apparently, you have no interest in reading conflicting opinions. Klass' sources were first hand interviews with these technical representatives who were there at the time.
Actually I am trying (in vain it seems) to get YOU to inform us of the accurate status of Klass’ sources so that OTHERS may look them up. YOU FAIL to provide that information EVERY time! Why IS that Astrophotographer?
Let me help you…
Klass spoke to Mooy (Ch 14, p.111) and confirmed the provenance of the Memorandum for the Record.
Klass wrote to Major General Kenneth Miles, from whom he obtained a “photocopy” of the Mooy memorandum. (p. 114)
Klass the quotes an article (Sep 20th 1976) in the “Tehran Journal” (a newspaper account of the incident), which seems to have access to the tower tapes. (p. 114-115)
Klass the quotes an article (Sep 21th 1976) in the “Kayhan International” (a newspaper account of the incident), which has NO confirmed sources.
…and states “…it seems prudent to put more credence in the Mooy memorandum since it is based on notes taken during the debriefing…” (p.116)
Then…” Prior to writing to (Miles), I contacted a friend in the aerospace industry who had made several business trips to Iran … this friend referred me to a USAF colonel … who could provide no further details…” (p.116)
“Then I wrote to Azerbarzin…” (remember the interview with him in the MUFON file?) “…Azerbarzin never replied”. (p.116)
Then Klass wrote to the Iranian ambassador in Washington. “Zahedi never replied”. (p.116)
Klass wrote to a scientist at the Aviation/Space Writers Association “My letter was returned, seemingly unopened (p.117)
Klass wrote to an astromomy professor at Tehran University “…but I received no response”. (p.117)
Klass wrote to a technical representative in Tehran of McDonnell Douglass “.. but received no reply.” (p.117)
Klass wrote to the director for Middle east operations for E-systems Inc. “…response saying he could supply no more information.” (p.117)
Klass telephoned Mooy, but Mooy was unable to enlighten Klass any further. (p.117)
Klass referenced the 31 Jan 1978
National Enquirer article on the incident, quoting from it. (pp.117-118)
Klass then states “…in late 1977, I contacted Westinghouse Electric…” and “six months later” made contact with a source about whom Klass claims “…it seems wise not to use names here…” (p.118) No names huh? At least Macebee NAMES his sources and HIS sources as the engineers who
actually EXAMINED the F-4s.
Nevertheless, Klass designates this source (according to Klass a “Westinghouse tech rep” “stationed in Iran at the time) TR-1. (p.118)
TR-1 adds NOTHING to our understanding except the information that only the second F-4 was “quarantined” after its return to base and placed in a “revetment” (according to Klass a place designed to safeguard against surprise attacks). Klass states “This confirms only the second F-4 experienced any seemingly mysterious UFO-induced effects”(p.118) Now this is a completely unfounded assumption by Klass here. In other words the “quarantining” of the second F-4 does NOT necessarily lead to the conclusion that it alone experienced UFO induced effects. Klass is overreaching here. Besides, he states, “Neither USAF specialists nor U.S. tech reps at Shahroki were even allowed to get close to the airplane, let alone being asked to check it over.” (p.118)
So much for TR-1!
Now (Klass states) “TR-1’s superior (whom I will call TR-2)…” (p.118) adds absolutely NOTHING further except the claim that the IIAF did not keep “…a running log of aircraft malfunctions and attempted maintenance fixes.” (p.118) Now THIS is utter
hearsay. We do NOT know this for a fact. And remember TR-1 has
already informed us that US reps could not get close…”
TR-2 then informs Klass that he knows of another tech rep who has claimed that the second F-4 “…had a long history of intermittent electric-power-system outages…” (p.118) Wow! So we have now THIRD hand hearsay evidence? Oh come on Astrophotographer! Any one of these people could be simply “making things up” to confirm preconceived attitudes. NONE of them had access to the Iranian jets and logs. They are simply recounting personal OPINION! You take this second and THIRD hand opinion over first hand testimony? Hypocrisy Astrophotographer…no wonder you did NOT provide the accurate information on Klass’ sources that I asked you for!
Klass then goes on to cite further “claims” by TR-2 (that he spoke to Iranian maintenance crews who examined the F-4) that actually CONFIRM there was NOTHING wrong with the F-4s electrical systems! (except for some “static” in the radio system). (p.119) Astrophotographer?
TR-2 then goes on to cast aspersions about the capabilities of the Iranian maintenance people and radar operators “They are not too knowledgeable…” (p.119) and stated (concerning the second F-4s radar “lock” on the target) that “He [radar operator] could have been in manual track or something like that and not really realized it.” (p.119).
”…or something like it…”(!?) and
“…not really reralized it.” Whooo boy, a technical assessment if I EVER heard one! Astrophotographer, these sources are SECOND and THIRD HAND and are spouting OPINION rather than fact! If THIS is the best you can do…
What I see here is somebody, who has solely relied on the Internet for his information and only the information that supports his case. Any other information is declared false or incorrect because it disagrees with the preconceived conclusion. This is not science but pseudoscience. You have demonstrated that you incapable of objectively examining the evidence.
As you can see, I DO have access, AND have noted, information YOU rely on for your OPINIONS in the matter… and my contention have been PROVED correct! Dr Maccabee has FIRST HAND witness testimony. YOU (and Klass) have SECOND and THIRD HAND (at best) opinion. Can you dispute that now?
