Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 019
Info-ParaNet Letters Volume 1 Issue 19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 89 13:15:00 GMT
From: paranet!f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bryon.Smith
Subject: Re: Mysteries
> The things that are occuring in Fyffe, quite obviously are
> still distressfull.
> If it weren't, aliases would not be used. The only thing
> that has not been
> found, is a balanced method of aproaching the problem so
> that people do not
> resort to these types of things. SO there is apparently a
> slight flaw in the
> "control" mechanism which dictates the anticipated response
> out of the
> individuals involved. Interesting.
This is true, much of the stress comes from human sources in this case, as
well as not knowning exactly what it is that is taking place.
The images that some have reported from G.B. have been more than a bit
disturbing.
I think that different people perhaps see certain things differently,
perhaps depending on their nature. Different areas of the Earth may
influence those human natures.
One needs a control room full of maps, phone lines, and computers in order
to collect all the data required to put this puzzle together and make sense
out of it, and then I wouldn't make any bets.
I would collect reports from the "strange and bizzar" to "UFOs" and
"whoFOs."
One important factor appears to be just how involved people become with the
concept of UFO's and "aliens." Perhaps a bit of background of each witness
might be helpful.
...Bryon
--
Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!19!19!Bryon.Smith
INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 89 13:22:00 GMT
From: paranet!f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bryon.Smith
Subject: Re: Info-paranet Newsletter
> The "deceiving factor" of course would have to do
> "ground work" to shape the way individuals respond to the
> various symbols.
As in certain concepts that reach the people via some media ?
A form of "religious" programing perhaps. A bit midieval perhaps but still
effective.
Hype the people up on a certan idea, tell them something they are gullable
enough to believe and then tell them to watch for something, perhaps a sign
in the sky. You could tell them anything you wanted to, tell them it's
angels, or the devil, or perhaps God and they will see something on the
order of their own concepts of what ever it is that you tell them.
Is this something on the order of what you are refering to ?
...Bryon
--
Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!19!19!Bryon.Smith
INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 89 12:18:00 GMT
From: paranet!Uucp
Subject: Sagan proposes Terran ET Contact Policy
>From scicom!ncar!amdahl.uts.amdahl.com!drivax!macleod
>From: drivax!macleod@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (MacLeod)
To: ames!scicom.alphacdc.com!mcorbin
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 01:34:34 PDT
It may have been a flahsback, but on the tv the other night I saw Carl Sagan
call for a symposium with scientists from all countries with the purpose of
>preparing< for contact with aliens in the "future". He proposes a set of
rules about who speaks for all of Earth and similar quasi-political questions.
A friend of mine calls Dr. Sagan the Conspiracy's "designated Leaker". I
don't know about that, but I was pretty surprised by the newsbite.
Michael Sloan MacLeod
--
Uucp - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!Uucp
INTERNET: Uucp@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 89 17:21:00 GMT
From: paranet!mcorbin
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze Photos
> I think we can all agree that there have been problems
> with the MUFON
> investigation of Gulf Breeze. However, a bad
> investigation is not a
> valid basis for concluding that the case is a hoax unless
> there is
> evidence that the investigators are the perpetrators of a
> hoax. Since
> you have concluded that the case is a hoax, who do you
> believe are the
> perpetrators? Ed and his wife? All the Gulf Breeze
> people who claim
> to have seen something? The MUFON investigators?
> Maccabee?
Jim, First as I understand it, you are a member of MUFON. What
is your capacity with this organization? Also, what is your
relationship to Ray Jordan? What type of background do you have
as far as investigation is concerned, and what part, if any, have
you in the Gulf Breeze case? Is your interest in our rating
merely personal, or are your questions more on the official side?
Also, Linda asked you a question about your last post on the
Willy Smith allegation that the records at CUFOS not being
publicly available; what is your answer to this? At this
particular time ParaNet rates the Gulf Breeze case a hoax based
upon the information that we have been able to glean from our own
investigation of talking to the technical people regarding the
photographs. We do not comment on the reliability of witnesses
or investigators although my personal feeling is that if an
investigation turns out to be in error or poorly conducted, then
a conclusion such as the conclusion that has been arrived at on
Gulf Breeze is faulty as well since there is no preponderance of
evidence to support the assertion of authenticity. Further,
anytime that scientific evidence is withheld from inspection by
the scientific 'peers' in the community would tend to lead those
to believe that there is something to hide. As is the case in
Gulf Breeze, emotional concerns seem to cloud this issue and
become a basis for keeping the evidence quelled. This, in my
opinion, is in error and invalidates the case for lack of
supporting evidence. Thus far, since the release of ParaNet's
recent rating, and the Dr. Smith paper, I have seen nothing to
support the validity of this case. ParaNet has asked for hard
proof of authenticity and we have only seen further character
assasination upon the parties involved. Does the discrediting of
Dr. Smith make his viewpoints on Gulf Breeze invalid? Perhaps.
Perhaps not. However, we have asked for proof, and it has not
been forthcoming. We have seen only emotional outbursts and
nothing scientific. As I see it, there is no way to prove the
merits of a case by making Dr. Smith the perpetrator of a
subsequent hoax. The original issue continues to be evaded...the
production of the original photographs for independent study of a
photo analysis laboratory, preferably JPL or NASA. Until the
conclusions from this analysis are secured, ParaNet, with or
without Dr. Smith or anyone else, for that matter, will continue
to rate the Gulf Breeze case a hoax.
> If the photos that were studied are 5th generation
> photographic copies,
> then I would certainly hesitate to place much faith in the
> analysis.
> No amount of computer processing can extract information
> that isn't there
> because it was lost during multiple photographic copy
> processes.
>
> An independent analysis of the original photos would
> obviously be desirable. However, handing over the original
> photos to a group of
> critics would subject the original data to the unavoidable
> ris
> associated with repeated handling. Thus, failure to
> provide the original
> photos is not necessarily proof of a hoax.
I totally disagree. Your statement is very interesting.
"However, handing over the original photos to a group of critics
would subject the original..." It appears that you have, more or
less, admitted that the the people that have studied the photos
for MUFON were approaching them from the standpoint that they
were authentic and real. Is this the true 'scientific' way to
approach this subject? If they assume that the photos are real,
why bother studying them? Could it be quite apparent that they
have been authenticated because the belief existed prior that
they are real? How can someone state emphatically that they are
not hoaxed when the principles of a hoax were not applied to
them?
>
> You mentioned that Robert Nathan did a "cursory
> examination" of the photos and reached a skeptical
> conclusion. Is this based only on his
> appearance on the October 1988 "UFO Coverup - Live" TV
> program, or have
> you recently contacted him to learn what his current
> opinion is? (I may
> be wrong, but I vaguely recall reading somewhere that he
> subsequently
> took a closer look and is now less skeptical.)
I talked with Dr. Nathan, and continue to do so. If Dr. Nathan
feels less skeptical than before, this is news to me. He told me
that he continues to feel that the photos are hoax. Furthermore,
he states that he can not fathom how Maccabee could validate
something such as this because just from the cursory examination
that he did, he found things that he was sure would cause the
whole case to crumble. Example is the photo of the UFO over the
road. He stated that there were too many things wrong with that
photograph to be able to support it's authenticity.
Specifically, the way that the light radiates on the road from
the underside of the UFO. Additionally, supposedly, MUFON is in
possession of a photograph showing just the UFO without any
background possibly indicating the 'model' which was used for the
various hoax photographs. In light of this, and much more, there
are too many questions unanswered.
Finally, the original issue and request still stands...that is to
produce the original photographs for independent study. This is
the only way that any progress will be made.
Michael Corbin
>
> ---
> * Origin: NEXUS -=ParaNet Psi=- Flagstaff Az 602/526-
> 8025 (Opus 1:304/1)
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 21 Aug 89 00:17:00 GMT
From: paranet!f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bryon.Smith
Subject: Re: Cydonia.txt
> If someone did leave something behind perhaps it made
> sense to them.
> Have you seen the plaque that was attached to Voyager I?
> (Not sure if it
> is Voyager 1, gettin' old ya' know). Anyway this plaque
> depicts a man
> and woman, and show our position in our solar system along
> with a series
> of 1's and 0's (binary numbers). Well I looked at a picture
> of the
> plaque and it didn' make sense to me. Of course that's not
> saying too
> much but if the plauque was received by another race would
> they be able
> to figure it out?
Perhaps they thought that 0 & 1s would make more sense than just
saying "Earth" in about a dozen languages. Personally certain pictures
would be of more value, something on the order of a modern day\
hieroglyphics.
Could it be that's where the concept of hieroglyphics came from ? hehe.
OH well.
...Bryon
--
Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!19!19!Bryon.Smith
INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 21 Aug 89 00:46:00 GMT
From: paranet!f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bryon.Smith
Subject: Re: RE: Cydonia Breakthrough
> like a sort of April Fool file. An example of the numbers
> game is
> where you measure the passages in the Egyptian pyramids in
> feet,
> multiply by the right ratio, and voila! You now see that
> the
> Egyptians knew what the future of the world was going to
> be, and its
> all here, history built into the dimensions of the
> passages.
I have done some research over the years on the Great Pyramid of
Geza (which is the only one like it by the way), I might be able to help by
stating the unit of measurement used in constructing this Pyramid was the
"sacred cubit" which was 25 "pyramid inches." This unit of measurement was
recorded in the ante-chamber before entering the Kings Chamber.
Regardless of the "dates" that have been assigned to the measurements
this Pyramid is a mathematical masterpiece.
The Pyramid inch is almost exactly the same as our English inch.
This would be a good subject to review in the ParaNet General echo if
anyone is interested in more information about it or if they would like to
share their information about it.
...Bryon
--
Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!19!19!Bryon.Smith
INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
INFO-PARANET NEWSLETTER
ADMIN paranet-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
ARTICLE SUBMISSION info-paranet@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM
