UFOs: The Government and Public's Viewpoint

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I read the report. Its interesting, but I don't consider the Iranian Air Force to be a credible source.

That's fair enough. However, with the acknowledgment that this does not qualify as scientific evidence:

First, intelligence assigned the highest credibility to the report. So, 30 years in retrospect and going against the interpretation of Defense Intelligence on location, you can reasonably argue this, but one can hardly dismiss this as an insignificant report. Keep in mind that Iran was a US ally at this time. The Shah was still in power. The Iranian Imperial Air Force was an extension of US power.

This report circulated at nearly all of the highest levels of government.

Wouldn't you agree that significant motivation exist to look into this further?

Also, one might argue that the source is US intelligence, not just the Iranian Air Force. Many witnesses were involved - including most of Tehran.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The Iranian Imperial Air Force was an extension of US power.

I wouldn't go anywhere near that far.

This report circulated at nearly all of the highest levels of government.

Where does it say that?

First, intelligence assigned the highest credibility to the report.

I don't know enough about their credibility rankings to comment on that. You are operating on the assumption that that's something unusual. I'm not so sure. You are also assuming the credibility applies to the original sources, not just the person in the US Air Force who wrote the report, who was twice removed from the sources. Big difference.

Wouldn't you agree that significant motivation exist to look into this further?

Probably not. I'd imagine the NSA looked into it and found there wasn't anything they could get from it.

In any case, UFO does NOT automatically mean flying saucer. Even if it cannot be explained, the lack of explanation is NOT evidence that it was aliens. And it looks to me like there was a possible explanation: a number of the witnesses apparently thought it was a helicopter with a light on it. I'd be much more inclined to believe that than to believe it was a flying saucer.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I wouldn't go anywhere near that far.

I would.

Where does it say that? I don't know enough about their credibility rankings to comment on that.

It says this right on the report. The circulation is also shown. Also, if you go to the First post in the Napster, you will find the Joint Chiefs of Staff Report on this [a duplication] which also shows the distribution.

You are operating on the assumption that that's something unusual. I'm not so sure. You are also assuming the credibility applies to the original sources, not just the person in the US Air Force who wrote the report, who was twice removed from the sources. Big difference.

All intelligence requires lines of communications. That this made it to the many high levels of government indicated show that intelligence did evaluate this report. Intel does not pass on raw information and unconfirmed reports to all these agencies.

Probably not. I'd imagine the NSA looked into it and found there wasn't anything they could get from it.

This is nothing but a baseless assumption. This does not qualify as a legitimate point.

In any case, UFO does NOT automatically mean flying saucer. Even if it cannot be explained, the lack of explanation is NOT evidence that it was aliens. And it looks to me like there was a possible explanation: a number of the witnesses apparently thought it was a helicopter with a light on it. I'd be much more inclined to believe that than to believe it was a flying saucer.

The next sentence reads:

There were no helicopters in the air at that time

Russ, how can you read the description from the pilots, the tower operators, a general, and the other witnesses indicated, in addition to the conclusion of the intelligence report, and make such an assumption. This is simply and unfounded assumption.

Also, I never said flying saucer. I never said aliens.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is the next item for consideration:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/dep_ba1.pdf

 

[Zantra]

I'm curious to hear the rebuttal to this document. I know this is just one of many, but what is the debunker stance on a paper filed by a US military base commander?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zantra
I'm curious to hear the rebuttal to this document. I know this is just one of many, but what is the debunker stance on a paper filed by a US military base commander?

A base with nuclear weapons.

I suppose we put any old schmo in charge of such places?