Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Abduction Digest Number 27
Abduction Digest, Number 27
Saturday, October 5th 1991
Today's Topics:
Jacobs
Jacobs
abductions
Re: abductions
Re: abductions
Re: abductions
Re: abductions
Re: Abductions
Abductions
Re: Abductions
abductions
abductions
abductions
Abductions
Alan Godfrey Case
FPP Research
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield)
Subject: Jacobs
Date: 28 Sep 91 00:06:00 GMT
Can anyone tell me when David Jacobs new book is coming out and the
areas it will cover? Thanks.
--
Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Rodeghier)
Subject: Jacobs
Date: 27 Sep 91 23:27:00 GMT
* In a message originally to All, Keith Basterfield said:
>Can anyone tell me when David Jacobs new book is coming out and
>the areas it will cover? Thanks.
>
Hello, Keith:
First off, Jerry Clark certainly enjoyed his visit in Australia with
you, Bill, Jenny and others. He's spent some time on the phone
filling me in on what he gleaned from his discussions.
As for Jacobs book, it should be out in early 1992. I haven't seen it
but have heard about it from Swords and Jerry, who saw previous
drafts. It is entitled (or was the last I heard) "The Secret Life
of UFO Abductees." I don't have details on its exact content.
If I learn any more I'll certainly pass it along.
Regards, Mark.
--
Mark Rodeghier - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: abductions
Date: 27 Sep 91 19:13:00 GMT
> discuss UFOs intelligently, we MUST divide the question into two
> separate but related issues: 1) Do UFOs exist? 2) Are UFOs alien
> spacecraft? There really is no reason to discuss the second issue
> without first establishing the answer to the first. The answer to #1 is
> obviously yes.
Although UFOs obviously exist, as Vallee has pointed out, there really isn't
much evidence that could prove that they're alien spacecraft. They seem less
hardware and more "somthing else."
So, anyway, I think we really need to seperate things even further....UFOs,
the spacecraft question, and the ET question. One common problem is the
perception that if you "buy" the existence of UFOs, you also "buy" the theory
that they're alien spacecraft piloted by live aliens. That nuance isn't made
very clear in most published material.
Here in North America it's pretty much taken for granted that UFOs are
spacecraft, but I think that reflects our hardware high-tech society more than
any real evidence.
So, granted that UFOs really exist, the question becomes, "Are they hardware
or not-so-hard ware?" Can't do much on where they come from without first
figuring out what they are. And we really can't do much on their occupants
either, other than indulge in pure speculation.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Sue Widemark)
Subject: Re: abductions
Date: 1 Oct 91 07:29:00 GMT
JD>ON what basis do you state that most witnesses are inebriated or
JD>seeking attention.
It's been that way in all the books I have read and I've been reading
books on UFOs for 30 years now... Have read most of the 'classics' as
well as some of the modern works.
JD>I will say however that
JD>one might wonder if the failure of religion to solve the complex
JD>problems of today might lead otherwise religious people to look
JD>for something more meaningful and something that works, i.e.,
JD>UFOnaughts.
Why would a UFOnaught be more meaningful than God? ET's are more
understandable than God and people are more comfortable with them.
Religion solves the complex problems of today (which are really not
much different from the complex problems of yesterday) just fine but
like Epson Salts, it doesn't work if you don't use it! (last statement
paraphrased from the 'Big Book' by Bill W. founder of AA who blamed his
alcoholism on his atheistic belief set which he changed upon getting
into AA, and consequently also, recovered from alcoholism - his
arguments for the falacies of atheism are, unlike Thomas Acquinas and
other scholars, very practical and very interesting to read).
JD>I also don't see any
JD>evidence that mankind is regressing back to paganism althought
JD>I don't see much connection of that with UFO's one way or the
JD>other.
In doing a comparative study of the UFO myths with pagan myths of
earlier civilizations, one can find quite a few striking similarities.
Gods like Apollo who fly through the air, are men but somewhat super
men, would not appeal to technological moderns, however, gods like ETs,
flying in space ships who possess pretty much the same statue and
powers attributed to Apollo and other like pagan gods, would appeal.
The prototype of such a god, humanlike but superior with superior
powers but not beyond the realm of physical enjoyments like sex,
appears in countless religions which predate monotheism. That's the
odd thing about Judiaism and Christianity - the 'god' of those
religions is strikingly different from any other invented gods of
mankind and also, this 'god' is somewhat alien to man, not really a
figure that man feels comfortable with i.e. totally non human, beyond
physical pleasures like sex, doesn't want worship - only wants man to
love Him and other men and doesn't have a body. Is everywhere etc.
Bishop Sheen points out the differentness of this Yahweh God figure as
being a rather impressive argument for the possibility that man did NOT
make up THIS God (too alien and too unlike all the other 'gods') which
leads us to suspect that many Something did contact the Jews (who wrote
down the accounts of this Something who called itself 'I am who is' in
the bible).
--
Sue Widemark - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Sue Widemark)
Subject: Re: abductions
Date: 1 Oct 91 07:42:00 GMT
JS>I don't know where you've been looking, but evidence (not PROOF
JS>- EVIDENCE) exists that demonstrates the existence of a phenomenon.
JS>The phenomenon involves flying objects that have thus far not
JS>been identified, even by our best scientists.
I have examined much evidence and not found anything really convincing.
A few unexplained instances but that, in itself, does not necessarily
mean UFOs.
If you wish, I can upload some of the books I have read - lots - from
the Ruppelt book to the modern Streiber books. Have been interested in
UFOs since the age of 10 when the idea fascinated me.
JS>For now, issue #1 is on the
JS>table. I can, and will, show you videotapes of objects that A)
JS>evade explanation by ordinary means, B) exhibit aerodynamic
properties
JS>we are not yet capable of, and C) SEEM to exhibit intelligent
JS>guidance. Once that's established, are you willing to explore
JS>further, or are you going to tell me what they told me on the
JS>SCIENCE echo - basically, "SO WHAT?"
I will listen with interest to anything you care to share with me. I
did specially order that book you told me to get which you felt very
convincing - I felt it more of the same stuff I had read over and over
- not real creditable witnesses, ETs overly interested in sex (which
they wouldn't be - sex is only exciting to us humans) and very vague
data. However, the idea STILL fascinates me. I would love to discover
some REAL evidence of visitations - guess that's why I keep reading and
investigating.
JS>Its kinda funny, when Jim Delton first logged onto ParaNet 5 years
JS>ago, he left a message almost exactly like yours. He has since
JS>changed his stance somewhat, basically because we were able to
JS>show him the evidence he needed -
I've been studying and reading for the past 30 years. (I list 20 books
in my book journal - just a fraction of the books I have read in the
last 30 years).
--
Sue Widemark - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tyson.Mitchiner@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tyson Mitchiner)
Subject: Re: abductions
Date: 28 Sep 91 09:00:00 GMT
JS> But that's issue #2. For now, issue #1 is on the table. I can, and
JS> will, show you videotapes of objects that A) evade explanation by
JS> ordinary means, B) exhibit aerodynamic properties we are not yet
JS> capable of, and C) SEEM to exhibit intelligent guidance. Once that's
Is there enough of those videotapes to release a documentary
pointing out that something unidentified exists, and to ask for a
serious scientific inquiry?
I mean, if there was such a collection of those videotaped objects
grouped together and presented, and somehow gets on national TV, I don't
see how people would ignore such evidence that would lead one to ask,
"What ARE these objects?". I do not mean saying "Oh, these are alien
spacecraft!", but "What are those objects?".
Tyson
From an explorer.........
--
Tyson Mitchiner - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Tyson.Mitchiner@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Rogers)
Subject: Re: abductions
Date: 29 Sep 91 18:24:22 GMT
Sue,
You certainly seem to make a large number of assertions here, and, like all
rational investigators, I'm interested in where these assertions are based.
For example:
> of view that the Hills were truly abducted), one discovers
> things which subtract from the creditability of the Hills
> testimony.
>
Such as?
> Abductees often show a characteristic
> often found in schizophrenia, the "I was chosen to" attitude.
>
>
Would you not agree, using this criteria, that the same might be said of the
savior of the christian faith, his desiples, and last but not least, one
certain Paul, whose dreams opened the faith for the Gentiles?
>
> Our methods of reproduction are really rather ordinary
> and sexual arousal is something only exciting to the human
> animal - the alien might not even pick up that sex is something
Last time I checked, sexual arrousal was common to most of the higher animals
on this planet. I don't find it in the least odd that a study of the fauna of
the earth (including us) would not include this.
> extraordinarily scintillating to humans - why should they
> since this attitude seems rather unreasonable (i.e. our
> almost worshipping attitude about sex) in the overall scheme
> of things.
Would this happen to reflect some negative attitude of your own?
> Descriptions of examinations are often confusing and described
> as if these aliens, possessing a far greater technology
> than ours, are rather primitive in the methods of examination.
>From this, I assume that the contents of a modern operating room would make
sense to you if you suddenly woke up and found yourself there without
remembering the trip?
> I have studied UFO's for years and have not, to this day,
> seen any HARD evidence that any have even landed. Pictures
> are always fuzzy, witnesses are often inebriated or fame
> seeking or lack in stability in one way or another. Odd
I'd be interested in seeing a statistical breakdown of the percentages of cases
wherein investigators have given credence to drunken sightings. As one trained
in psychology, I find your last comment extremely interesting. How do you come
to the conclusion that people who see the unexplainable are "lacking in
stability?"
> My theory of UFOs is that it's a modern incarnation of
> the Greek and Roman gods and godesses - the aliens often
> bear great resemblance to these ancient mythological figures
> who were super human but very actively sexual beings etc.
<ahem>
I believe I would again like to see a statistical breakdown if you wish to
make this assertion. Do the "Nordics" REALLY outnumber the
"Greys" and the others by a significant percentage? How many sources
have you consulted to arrive at this assertion?
> It's interesting that one seldom finds people into Christianity and 'into'
> UFO's at the same time. I feel that further upholds my
> theory - Christians being satisfied religiously speaking,
> need not search for 'gods' from the sky.
>
It is my personal opinion that the above paragraph summizes your REAL agenda in
making this post. Why do you feel that people who are "into Christianity" are
more stable than those who are not? I can make a large number of arguments to
show that there are many facets of that faith that DESTABILIZE the personality.
I'm not here to bash Christians, but for someone to make an assertion that is
false on the face as you have done cannot go unchallenged.
> I leave this message, not as a criticism, but in hopes
> that many will respond to me and present evidence either
> in favor or against my above stated theory. I wish to
> learn more from those who might teach me.
I trust the above comments will get you started. I'm interested in seeing
hard, statistical answers to back up your generalities. I'm also interested in
anything in your background that would lend cedability to your opinions. It
may seem that I am attacking you personally. I am not. The attack is on
unsubstantiated generalities which you put forth as givens. I attack your
methods, and your reasons for making the post, not you as a person. The above
posts are made by me personally, and not in my role as echo coordinator.
Doug Rogers
--
Doug Rogers - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Abductions
Date: 2 Oct 91 14:30:00 GMT
> ON what basis do you state that most witnesses are inebriated or seeking
> attention. From my reading it is exactly the opposite - most witnesses
> are "normal" people who as often or not don't want to tell anyone what
> they saw for fear of ridicule. As to the religious aspects, again, I
> have seen nothing that would even provide a basis for formulating a
> theory of any substance in regard to the religiosity of witnesses. I
> will say however that one might wonder if the failure of religion to
> solve the complex problems of today might lead otherwise religious
> people to look for something more meaningful and something that works,
> i.e., UFOnaughts. I also don't see any evidence that mankind is
> regressing back to paganism althought I don't see much connection of
> that with UFO's one way or the other.
What elements would be required to formulate a theory?
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Abductions
Date: 2 Oct 91 14:36:00 GMT
> So, granted that UFOs really exist, the question becomes, "Are they
> hardware or not-so-hard ware?" Can't do much on where they come from
> without first figuring out what they are. And we really can't do much on
> their occupants either, other than indulge in pure speculation.
Given yours and Jim's breakdown, the question now becomes, "What do we do to
determine the various properties that the phenomenon represents?" Obviously,
Vallee feels that they do possess a property that exceeds what we feel to be
our physical bounds, but they have left phyysical traces, hence perhaps a
physical property. I assert that we must be looking at scientific ways to
measure and instrument the phenomenon. Unfortunately, stories and photographs
don't really give much information.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Abductions
Date: 2 Oct 91 14:38:00 GMT
Please do not use a period as a line separator. It creates havoc for the
Internet mail software and causes serious problems, not to mention the amount
of hair on Cyro's floor as he tries to straighten things out. Cyro needs all
the hair he can get! :-)
Thanks for your cooperation.
Michael Corbin
Director
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: abductions
Date: 2 Oct 91 18:19:00 GMT
> Although UFOs obviously exist, as Vallee has pointed out, there really
> isn't much evidence that could prove that they're alien spacecraft. They
> seem less hardware and more "somthing else."
> So, anyway, I think we really need to seperate things even
> further....UFOs, the spacecraft question, and the ET question. One
> common problem is the perception that if you "buy" the existence of
> UFOs, you also "buy" the theory that they're alien spacecraft piloted by
> live aliens. That nuance isn't made very clear in most published
> material.
> Here in North America it's pretty much taken for granted that UFOs are
> spacecraft, but I think that reflects our hardware high-tech society
> more than any real evidence.
> So, granted that UFOs really exist, the question becomes, "Are they
> hardware or not-so-hard ware?" Can't do much on where they come from
> without first figuring out what they are. And we really can't do much on
> their occupants either, other than indulge in pure speculation.
Well stated, John, and I agree. I hope the "nuance" becomes clearer, but
unfortunately my many dealings with skeptics shows that there is still
ignorance on this issue. I am constantly forced to defend my stance that UFOs
are alien spaceships, when I haven't even come close to TAKING that stance.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: abductions
Date: 2 Oct 91 18:34:00 GMT
> JS>I don't know where you've been looking, but evidence (not PROOF
> JS>- EVIDENCE) exists that demonstrates the existence of a phenomenon.
> JS>The phenomenon involves flying objects that have thus far not
> JS>been identified, even by our best scientists.
> .
> I have examined much evidence and not found anything really convincing.
> A few unexplained instances but that, in itself, does not necessarily
> mean UFOs.
Unexplained = Unidentified = UFO. Couldn't be much more clear-cut. "UFO" is a
transient term, a temporary name for that which (temporarily) has no name. It
is the goal of all who study this phenomenon, skeptic and believer, to put a
more permanent moniker on each UFO reported.
> .
> If you wish, I can upload some of the books I have read - lots - from
> the Ruppelt book to the modern Streiber books. Have been interested in
> UFOs since the age of 10 when the idea fascinated me.
Good to hear - and yes, I would like to see your book list.
> I will listen with interest to anything you care to share with me. I did
> specially order that book you told me to get which you felt very
> convincing - I felt it more of the same stuff I had read over and over -
> not real creditable witnesses,
What, in your opinion, compromised their creditability? What constitutes a
"creditable witness" in your mind? Perhaps a Christian priest? Plenty of those
in the database....
> ...ETs overly interested in sex (which they
> wouldn't be - sex is only exciting to us humans)
and many other higher forms of life, as Doug has pointed out. But that's not
the issue. Could it be that they are interested in sex, not in a voyeuristic
sense, but in a detached, empirical sense, much as we study the mating habits
of butterflies? (I'm not exactly turned on by watching butterflies getting it
on, and I doubt if many zoologists are).
> and very vague data.
Again, please define "vague" and what you would term "specific". If I remember
correctly, the book I recommended was "Uninvited Guests" by Hall? That contains
an entire appendix of specific cases with specific data that can be researched.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: abductions
Date: 2 Oct 91 18:40:00 GMT
> JS> But that's issue #2. For now, issue #1 is on the table. I can, and
> JS> will, show you videotapes of objects that A) evade explanation by
> JS> ordinary means, B) exhibit aerodynamic properties we are not yet
> JS> capable of, and C) SEEM to exhibit intelligent guidance. Once that's
> Is there enough of those videotapes to release a documentary
> pointing out that something unidentified exists, and to ask for a
> serious scientific inquiry?
There's maybe three or four very fascinating ones. Whether or not that
constitutes enough for a documentary, I don't know. I know that they call for
in-depth analysis, which could make for an interesting documentary (to me at
least).
> I mean, if there was such a collection of those videotaped objects
> grouped together and presented, and somehow gets on national TV, I don't
> see how people would ignore such evidence that would lead one to ask,
> "What ARE these objects?". I do not mean saying "Oh, these are alien
> spacecraft!", but "What are those objects?".
Tyson
As far as I know, all of these tapes have appeared on TV at some time or
another. One of them was on the recent Ron Reagan show (I don't know too much
about that one, but it LOOKS good at first glance - don't hold me to it if it
turns out to be a hoax). No one on the program even commented on the tape. Same
thing with Kanazawa - it was on CBS Evening News, but Connie Chung just smiled
and gave the obligatory "I-don't-believe-I-just-read-the-news" look. Tracy
Torme recently asked me about that tape, and expressed his frustration that no
one is pointing to it as a major mystery. So who knows what people will do,
even if we thrust a videotape in their face, they're likely to say, "Gee,
that's a mystery all right. Now let's see what the Cardinals are up to."
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Abductions
Date: 2 Oct 91 21:18:00 GMT
>> So, granted that UFOs really exist, the question becomes, "Are they
>> hardware or not-so-hard ware?" Can't do much on where they come from
>> without first figuring out what they are. And we really can't do much on
>> their occupants either, other than indulge in pure speculation.
> Given yours and Jim's breakdown, the question now becomes, "What do we
> do to determine the various properties that the phenomenon represents?"
> Obviously, Vallee feels that they do possess a property that exceeds
> what we feel to be our physical bounds, but they have left phyysical
> traces, hence perhaps a physical property. I assert that we must be
> looking at scientific ways to measure and instrument the phenomenon.
> Unfortunately, stories and photographs don't really give much
> information.
This seems to be what I'm up against in the SCIENCE forum. They've gone from
telling me that UFOs are nonsense to telling me that, OK, UFOs exist, so what?
If you can't measure them or quantify them somehow, they are of no use to
science. They seem to forget that it shouldn't be up to us duffers to try and
develop ways of scientifically quantifying UFOs, it should be up to those
whose science degrees and federal grants we have for so long footed the bill.
I like to come back to the ball lightning analogy. Suppose a bunch of witnesses
come to Science saying, we've seen ball lightning. At first they get told that
they're crazy (which they did). Then they get told that, well, OK, prove it.
So they bring in photos. Then they get told, well, OK, we acknowledge the
phenomenon, but there's nothing we can do about it until YOU do the
measurements and the rest of the science. THEN we'll tell you what's
happening. To Science's credit, this did NOT happen; scientists (finally!)
jumped into the ball lightning fray and apparently have duplicated it under
lab conditions. So why can't they do something similar with UFOs? Why should
it be up to us?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Alan Godfrey Case
Date: 2 Oct 91 21:26:00 GMT
> The Alan Godfrey case is featured extensively in a book called the
> Pennine UFO Mystery by Jenny Randles, published around 1983. Basically
> early one morning Alan was patrolling in his car near Todmorden in
> Yorkshire. He came across a large UFO with what he described (I am
> working from memory here) as a series of windows across the middle.
> When he arrived back at the Police Station he appeared to have been
> away around 15minutes longer than he expected. He described a circular
> dry patch (on the wet road) just below where the UFO hovered.
What made the case interesting to me was that when Godfrey came to, he found
himself in a pasture full of cows, where there should be none. All night the
local constabulary had been receiving reports of cows wandering around. Its of
interest to me because it correlates with an abduction case here in Arizona
that was brought to my attention, and possibly with other cases. What IS the
fascination with cows, I wonder?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield)
Subject: FPP Research
Date: 4 Oct 91 03:50:00 GMT
I have been asked to post details of the recent article Bob
Bartholomew and I co-authored with George Howard. The article, titled:
"UFO abductees and contactees:Psychopathology or fantasy proneness?"
appeared in Vol 22 No 3 pp215-222 of "Professional Psychology:Research
and Practice."
--
Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T*******************
Submissions UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!abduct
Submissions DOMAIN abduct@scicom.alphacdc.com
Admin Address abduct-request@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu
****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T*******************
