Hello Sheppard,
 SG> In a message dated 01-19-98 George Jiri Opletal wrote to
 SG> Jack Sargeant:
 SG> GO> Take for example the Tehran sighting I have discussed with some of
 SG> GO> these people.  It has been dismissed by the peopl for the following
 SG> GO> reasons
 SG> I forwarded a multi-part post in SKEPTIC that you ignored. Why?
 SG> (Several people responded to it, so it certainly did make it out
 SG> around the world.)
 I did indead respond to it.  It seems mail makes it quicker to U.F.O then 
Skeptics from my place.  It should be through very soon, here and in 
skeptics. 
 SG> GO> 1) the document is false.  Simply untrue when you can make a FOIA
 SG> GO> request to the DIA for it yourself.
 SG> Funny, if you bothered to read the article I posted there, you would
 SG> have seen that the document was never classified by the MAAG, but a
 SG> _copy_ was indeed classified by one of the US entities it was sent
 SG> to (labeled "classified" -- the LOWEST security level).
 Right, it was 'classified' and leaked (at first).  So? 
 SG> Nevertheless, it remained (and remains) unclassified by the MAAG.
 SG> In other words, you make a big deal out of it coming out of FOIA,
 SG> whereas it has always been available.
 Documents do not need to be above top secret to show valid uof events.  The 
reason I state that it is obtained under FOIA, is to explain to people that 
it is a valid government document. 
 SG> Indeed, a copy was leaked to the UFO group NICAP and reprinted
 SG> in NICAP's November 1976 issue of its 'UFO INVESTIGATOR.'
 So?
 SG> Funny that you should bring up anonymous peopl (sic) whose questions
 SG> you argue with here -- when your initial argument has problems and
 SG> you ignore the facts (as reposted in the SKEPTIC echo) showing
 SG> that the information was available -- unclassified -- by UFO groups
 SG> mere days after the report was issued.
 Your reading of the document you posted.  The report was orginally released 
to Charles Huffer in 1977 (some time after the leak, not days as you claim), 
and he had trouble obtaining it.  (Source: Timothy Good) 
 SG> Some might conclude that this is a straw-man argument you've set up
 SG> just to knock down.
 Nonsense.  You keep going on about the low classification of the document. 
So what?  A more important point is the complete rubbish Klass states about 
the event it in his book.  He concluded that the object was Jupiter and the 
second object coming out of it was a meteor.  He said that the pilot tryed to 
shot at a meteor which seemed to head towards him, missed and it crashed into 
the ground.  HOWEVER, two objects came out of the primary craft.  The one the 
landed softly on the ground (mistake #1, no talk of a crash, as a meteor 
would have) traveled straight down from the craft (mistake #2, the object the 
he claims crashed (meteor) never went near the F-4) to the ground (mistake 
#3).
 The other object the followed the F-4 and in the report, it stated they 
tryed to fire of AIM-9 Sidewinder (mistake #5 he claimed a range of 2miles 
for the missile, it about 10 miles), never crashed but returned to the 
primary craft (mistake #6).
Now this is information from the original report which he had.  A great deal 
of his arguement was based on what the Iranian papers had to say.  However, 
these paper were not the primary source of evidence unlike the report.  Thus 
even Klass claims the the report is more reliabe than the papers:
'Despite this disclaimed from an unidentified "official source", it seems 
prudent to put more credence in the Mooy memorandum, since it is based on 
notes taken during the debriefing of the second F-4 crew'
Now if you read the documents properly, you should of picked up these obvious 
mistakes. 
 SG> GO> 2) some made the claim that it was 2nd hand evidence fowarded by an
 SG> GO> governmental FTB observer in Iran.
 SG> It _is_ second-hand evidence. Moreover, subsequent interviews
 SG> with the flight crews found them contradicting themselves --
 SG> something you are either unaware of, or decided to ignore from that
 SG> article repost in SKEPTIC.
Rubbish, it never states the in the Klass article.  Any discrepancy is due to 
Klass basing his arguements on the less reliable newspaper information (which 
I again remind you, he knows are less reliable). 
 SG> You should return to the SKEPTIC echo and reread that multi-part
 SG> article, which clearly shows that your claims are based on limited
 SG> and inaccurate information.
 I have and I have posted a response.  I hope you do not ignore it.  You just 
opened up a can of worms for yourself, Sheppard. 
--- FMail 1.22
---------------