Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 026
Info-ParaNet Letters Volume 1 Issue 26
Subjects -
Re: Jaques Vallee & "dimensions"
Re: Thomas Bearden
Martian Face - Part I
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Aug 89 04:06:00 GMT
From: paranet!Clark.Matthews
Subject: Re: Jaques Vallee & "dimensions"
Hello Linda. I'm back after a long absence & playing catchup on the
boards here. Your post re: Jacques Vallee & "Dimensions" was very
thought-provoking, as are his thoughts on UFOlogy.
I view the maunderings, ravings, howls & sermons of all public groups
-- particularly advocacy groups & media influencing groups -- the same
way. And ufological organizations (and skeptics) should be no
exception.
Like Vallee says, whenever you hear an anecdote, a claim, a reference
to missing/partial/suspect evidence, etc., always ask:
Who benefits from this?
For instance, there is no doubt in my mind that many bona fide UFO
encounter evidence/interviews are to be found in the pages of The
Weekly World News, the Star, etc. Don't get me wrong -- MOST of the
stuff in those rags is garbage, including UFO material. But REAL
stories that could be sensational if they were taken seriously always
seem to get into {the scandal sheets very quickly indeed.
The result: No one takes them seriously. Of course.
I'm reading Dimensions in bits & pieces as time allows. Vallee is a
good researcher & a true eminence grise of UFOlogy -- and his thesis
that UFOs are Timeships as well as space ships is, I believe, the
truth of the matter. But I've had my hardcover "Dimensions" for almost
a year ... maybe I can accelerate my reading & we can exchange some
more thoughts later.
Also, M. Valle is one of the most respectable UFOlogists in the world
and his reputation goes back 30 years --yet I have never heard of a
single effort to discredit him. I sometimes wonder about this
(remember: "Who benefits?!")s, but the French government has a
much more enlightened attitude to sharing this information than most
others, so perhaps the French spooks have better things to do than
discredit him.
Anyway, it's good to be back & to run across a thoughtful post so
fast...
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!Clark.Matthews
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Aug 89 04:50:00 GMT
From: paranet!Clark.Matthews
Subject: Re: Thomas Bearden
Hello again, Linda. Interesting to see you're reading about Col.
Bearden's theories. I find some of them pretty interesting, but the
mathematics are not persuasive and the tone is a little hysterical.
Have you examined any of his last papers on scalar interferometry as a
weapons/weather control technology? It's interesting stuff. Of
course, he says the Russians are way ahead of us in this technology.
Of course, one must wonder: Tesla made similar claims, and while he
was very eccentric, it's documented that he produced some gizmos that
did astonishing things.
Also, did you know that the human brain acts as a scalar transmitter?
Wouldn't it be interesting if electromagnetic scalar technologies could
alter thought patterns, perceptions, etc?
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!Clark.Matthews
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Aug 89 18:10:00 GMT
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 15:52:24 +0200
From: phs@lifia.imag.fr (Philippe Schnoebelen)
Subject: Martian Face - Part I
Posted-Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 18:53:00 PDT
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 18:53:00 PDT
From: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released
Philipe,
Thanks for your inquiry about the Martian Papers from Dick
Hoagland. They will follow this message. You asked about
ParaNet. ParaNet is an international electronic news
organization reporting and collecting data on the paranormal with
emphasis on UFOs and ET life. We are growing very rapidly and
are the leading organization for up to the minute UFO information
and research. If you are interested further in ParaNet, please
let me know. Also, I would appreciate your comments on the
Hoagland material.
Michael Corbin
Much thanks for sending this material. I apologize for the long delay with
which I answer your request for comments ... but it is difficult for me to
find time to read long articles (and to write down my comments !).
My general opinion can be summarized as "I don't think the Hoagland
material is convincing". I will develop it in the following, but must first
situate myself in the debate.
1) I believe that life has no reason to only exist on earth, and that
intelligent life has nothing specific, so intelligent ETs probably exist
"somewhere in the universe". Now are they visiting us ? Is it even possible
to ETs from another galaxy to visit us ?
I know that UFOs do exist. I also know that most of them have mundane
explanations. I don't know if some of them are extra-terrestrial
spaceships. I see no reasons to assume this.
I have no specific interest in this debate, so I do not follow it closely.
But I cannot imagine that, for so many years, there have been traces and
hints of the visit of ETs, and that not a single one of all these signs has
been convincing and irrefutable. My attitude is thus to wait. Because of
the significance of the event, when a convincing sign will be found, it
will not be possible for anyone to ignore it. Similarly, when World War
Three will start, I will know it. I do not expect to have to rely on
obscur sources and rumours to learn its existence, at least after a few
hours. So, if after so many years, it is not yet acknowledged that ETs are
visiting us, then I do not have to examine the evidence myself to know that
it is not convincing. Anyway, I would not be competent to examine it
myself. Maybe this irrefutable evidence has just been found last week, but
then I (and everybody else) will know it in a few weeks.
2) With this in mind, I was already prejudiced about the "Face on Mars"
papers you sent me. It is not that I am prejudiced about the existence of
ETs, simply, I am prejudiced about their existence being known only by a
few people.
I read Hoagland's paper and found nothing convincing in it. I do understand
that the Face is worth being investigated (it's a chancy bet, but one which
could win much), so I do not criticize Hoagland's investigation. There may
be something to find there.
Hoagland cannot ignore that finding e/pi in a photography (forbidding
measurements to go beyond a certain level of accuracy) will not be a
convincing proof of artificial design. There has been many similar
"numerological" analysis (of the Great Pyramid, of Stonehenge, ...) and
they never provided a convincing and irrefutable case. So why publish it ?
Well, any work, once done, deserves publication, at least for archiving
purpose. Simply, I read this account as a failure to find anything
convincing. Indeed, Hoagland could have refrained from diffusing it,
simply archiving it in his notes, and stating "I found nothing
significant." If this work is just suggesting that further investigations
will prove his case, then he could wait until these further investigations
are completed and have proved the case. But there is nothing wrong with
releasing it now: accounts of failure are part of science.
The problem is that the paper is not written with this in mind. I was not
impressed by its contents, but the authors were ! Well, I am not really
competent on these matters, so I may be wrong, but as scientists from
astronomy, geology, physics, ... don't seem impressed themselves, I just
apply the rule "I will know when WW3 has started."
As a conclusion, I must say that I am interested (though not very deeply,
for lack of time) by this debate about the possibility of extra-terrestrial
life. I am willing to document myself about this debate, but would prefer
to only read major contributions from both sides. Surveys by recognized
specialists would be perfect. I believe I am competent enough to judge if
an argumentation is sound or not when I know what are the arguments and
answers raised by both sides. Maybe ParaNet can provide this kind of
high-level information ? Maybe you could give me some more instructions
about ParaNet and the way I should use it ?
Much thanks in advance,
--Philippe
--
Philippe SCHNOEBELEN, Best: phs@lifia.imag.fr
LIFIA - INPG,
46, Avenue Felix VIALLET 2nd: phs@lifia.UUCP
38000 Grenoble, FRANCE last: ..!mcvax!inria!lifia!phs
"Algebraic symbols are used when you do not know what you are talking about."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
INFO-PARANET NEWSLETTER
ADMIN paranet-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
ARTICLE SUBMISSION infopara@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM
