I stated:
”I have NEVER claimed the Mooy memo was a “complete detailed account of ALL events on the night. (I don’t actually remember stating “accurate” either because “accurate” and “summary” can be somewhat contradictory when used in conjunction…)”
You claimed it was the “smoking gun” and now you’re claiming it’s not an accurate summary of events as they occurred because it’s not detailed. Details are not events.
Contradict yourself much?
I have NEVER claimed it was the “smoking gun” either.
Accurate means accurate, summary means summary. Anybody can see what you’re trying to do here… you’re trying to redefine Pirouzi’s account as “details” that were left out when what they really are is additional uncorroborated events that were not included in the corroborated (by Mooy et. al.) summary of events… thus making it an incomplete (and therefore inaccurate) summary of events if they actually occurred.
How can the Mooy memo (aka "routing slip") be the “smoking gun” if it’s not an accurate summary of events as they occurred?
Seems to me you have two choices here…
A. Throw out Pirouzi’s account because it contradicts the Mooy memo.
B. Throw out the Mooy memo because it contradicts Pirouzi’s account.
You can’t have it both ways. I know which one I would choose if I wanted to maintain any semblance of credibility as an objective researcher…
First I did NOT state that Mooy’s summary was not “accurate”. I was merely drawing your attention to the fact that as YOU used the term, to claim that the summary was inaccurate because it failed to mention “details” found in Priozi’s account, I thought, was a little confusing in the nature of the terminology. That is why I placed the comment in parentheses – as an aside, rather than a primary argumentative point… but of course I now understand that nuanced communication with UFO debunkers is a lost cause… I can see I am going to have to make it a primary point now.
I think you might do well to at least try to understand the distinction between a detailed account of an event and a summary of that same event. A detailed account is just that. An account revealing all the relevant details of the case (usually) as they occurred. A summary on the other hand is a brief statement that presents the main points in a concise form.
That Mooy’s summary fails to mention details that are found in Pirouzi’s account, does not make it “inaccurate”. And this is where the terminology (the use of accuracy as a descriptor) becomes a little imprecise – or at least not precise enough for our purposes – and hence my original comment.
Your use of “incomplete” as a descriptor fails on a more immediate level. A summary almost
by definition is an incomplete account.
Better terminology, as I already pointed out, is the use of terms such as “more or less concise”, (for example you could have stated that Mooy’s account was too concise) or you could even have used “incorrect”, but of course that would mean that you understood the definition of the term “summary” in the first place and that in turn would have meant that you could not claim “inaccurate”.
Of course Mooy’s account is NOT inaccurate. NOR was it incorrect. It merely
leaves out details that YOU consider SHOULD have been included. Thus it is too concise (in your opinion).
You also use the term “contradict”. This is again another incorrect term. Again, Prouzi’s account does not actually “contradict” Mooy’s summary, in fact, and as you claim, Mooy’s account merely leaves out the
additional details contained within Priouzi’s account.
So, far from me not being able to it “both ways” you, in your use of terminology cannot have it ANY way.
But let us explore some of the “details” you claim Mooy left out.
You claim Mooy left out the involvement of the four civilian airliners. In fact he left out only three of them because he states that at the time the second F-4 lost their communications,
“…one civil airliner that was approaching Mehrabad during this same time experienced communications failure…”
(Someone in this thread asked why ONLY the F-4s avionics were affected…clearly other systems WERE affected and who knows WHAT instruments on the ground experienced disruption also… no investigation was ever conducted so we will probably never know).
As for why Mooy left out the three other airliners…at this late date we can only speculate. Perhaps because the involvement of the civil aircraft was not (at that time) directly related to military activity and he considered his brief was strictly military? Perhaps he was not informed of the three aircraft reports of hearing an emergency “beeper” signal? Perhaps he was informed but considered it might have been an entirely unrelated matter? There are many rational and reasonable explanations as to why Mooy might have left such information out of his summary – and we should consider these before leaping to the unfounded assertion that Pirouzi is simply lying!
More, there is NO rational reason for Pirouzi to lie about such occurrences… it adds nothing to the primary account… it makes it even more strange in fact… and given the certainty that “tower tapes” exist (at least one newspaper account of the time seems to draw on them for its story), he would have been careful NOT to say anything that might be contradicted by the public emergence of those tapes.
So Mooy had reasonable rational reasons for leaving the information out and Pirouzi had every reason to be truthful in his account.
You forgot the other three that Astrophotogrpaher and Puddle Duck have already pointed out so that makes at least four total now… it’s not looking good for Pirouzi’s (and by extension, Jafari’s) version of events.
You state Astrophotographer and Puddle Duck have listed three other “contradictions” …you do not list them and I am not about to search pages of the thread to see if that is correct or not. Besides if those persons DID raise issues, I would have dealt with them already.
You consider Pirouzi’s claim that the first pilot attempted to intercept the object more than once and his equipment malfunctioned every single time as opposed to only once a mere “detail” as opposed to a contradiction? No wonder you believe in “aliens”…
You fail to remember Mooy’s account is a summary account. In such an account it is often sufficient to provide a single exemplar of a repeated event in the interests of brevity. This is standard practice and nothing to be suspicious about. If Mooy wanted to write a detailed account then such an omission would have been remarkable, but not in a summary.
Events are not details. Events not included in a summary of events are called discrepancies. Your attempt to arbitrarily redefine the English language to suit your needs has been duly noted.
Unfortunately for you it is your own failure to understand the nuances and definitions of the English language that has demonstrably let you down, and consequently
lead you down a blind alley.
What capabilities? There is nothing in the Mooy memo that can’t be explained by conventional means.
Go on then, explain them by conventional means!
The fact of the matter is we have nothing more than anecdotal accounts to go by in this case and as everybody (but you apparently) knows, anecdotal accounts are subject to error.
See my reply to Astrophotographer on this very point here:
The question should be how does a UFO demonstrating a number of capabilities consistent with known [and some perhaps unknown to, or never before experienced by, the pilots] Soviet interceptor technology at the time make a clean getaway? I’d have to say by pwning the Iranian intercepts and not landing…
If the capabilities of the UFO DO match those of Soviet technology of the time then you MUST tell us HOW they do. Merely stating that it is so does NOT make it so.
I stated:
”I have consistently presented the evidence in the Rogue River, White Sands, Tehran and Father Gill cases. If the UFO debunkers cannot explain those cases in reasonable mundane terms that FIT the evidence - it then allows me to put forward speculative hypotheses that DO fit the evidence.
But these cases have been explained in “reasonable mundane terms” that do fit the evidence allowing for the known possibility of human error. The fact of the matter is you can’t reasonably rule out those explanations out without denying the reality of human error so your “speculative” (and most extraordinary) hypothesis is falsified by default. What seems more reasonable to you, “alien” technology that we have absolutely no objective evidence for or knowledge of, or human error that we have the whole of human history to draw our conclusions from?
Actually I think you will find, as I have repeated so often, that (for example) the “blimp” hypothesis does NOT fit the witness descriptions (Speed of a jet, circular in plan section, no sound) AND I have pointed out precisely where research tells us to expect errors in such an account (distance, size, etc) AND accounting for those errors it makes the blimp hypothesis even MORE unreasonable (distance wrong – closer – object smaller – not a blimp – distance further – object larger – speed greater - > jet plane – not a blimp).
I have provided similar assessments for White Sands and we are still discussing the Tehran incident. I do not claim “alien technology” merely that the events describe occurrences that go beyond the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural and technological world and are thus BY DEFINITION “alien”. That is entirely reasonable and your mere claim that it is not does not make it unreasonable. YOU must demonstrate WHY what I do is unreasonable before making unfounded assertions.
Bottom line is there will always be people who see things they can’t identify and until you can prove that every eyewitness in every case is 100% accurate there will always be a case for reasonable doubt of the ET (or your disingenuous “aliens” in quotes) hypothesis.
I have NEVER claimed 100% eyewitness accuracy. There is simply NO need. We have much research on human perception and psychology to inform us in these cases. Your position simply denies the capabilities of human understanding and the scientific method and that is pure nonsense!
IF you have a reasonable mundane explanations that FIT the evidence, then I would like to see them.
