Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 018
Info-ParaNet Letters Volume 1 Issue 18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 89 04:48:00 GMT
From: paranet!f401.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bob.Fletcher
Subject: UFO SIGHTING or / and ENCOUNTER.
> To all people who have seen or experienced any type UFO
> encounter.
Hi Brad:
I see must must have a ufologist in our midst. I am hoping
that in time we will get more Australian input. As you may be aware
UFO Research Australia have agree with ParaNet to share information.
I will shorthly be releasing the UFORA Digest that lists unusual
phenominon reported.
Whilst I cannot say in anyway that I am a ufologist I do take much
interest in anything unexplained.
Yes I did have a sighting in the daytime but that was years ago and my
memory of the event would be most unreliable.
Bob...
--
Bob Fletcher - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!30163!401!Bob.Fletcher
INTERNET: Bob.Fletcher@f401.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 89 04:57:00 GMT
From: paranet!f401.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bob.Fletcher
Subject: Re: Cydonia.txt
> After reading the C.TXT and the "decoding" business I still
> come back to this question -- If "you" were going to leave
When we examine these questions of a possible ET itelligence and what
they would do, we do so in our own terms and understanding.
I recently read a comment that ET's would not travell galactic
distances just to study earth people. Certainly we would not but
that does not mean that Space Persons with higher technology would not
put priorities to it.
Therefore the face on Mars should not be questioned in earth terms.
Bob...
--
Bob Fletcher - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!30163!401!Bob.Fletcher
INTERNET: Bob.Fletcher@f401.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 89 15:23:17 GMT
From: paranet!f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Torson
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?
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.
However, the situation is quite different with digitized images obtained
from the original photos. Exact copies of this digitized data could
easily be provided to independent investigators. Approximately a year
ago Maccabee told me that these digital images would be made available.
In the file SMITH.TXT, Willy Smith states that Maccabee is adamantly
opposed to an independent computer analysis. Have you recently contacted
Maccabee to learn what the truth is? Obviously, refusal to provide the
digital image data would be strong evidence that the proponents have
something to hide.
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.)
--
Jim Torson - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!304!1!Jim.Torson
INTERNET: Jim.Torson@f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 89 18:10:47 GMT
From: paranet!f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Joe.Holland
Subject: Re: RE: Cydonia Breakthrough
I confess I'm having somewhat the same reaction. You know what it
reminds me of? One of the technical magazines I read, maybe it is
Radio-Electronics, every April has a technical article that is just a
little bit off. The object of the game seems to be to see how far
they can take you for a ride.
One time time they had one about a strange communication problem
that occurred when the ground wave from a local strong AM station was
interfering with the wave of a short wave transmission. I don't
remember the details now, but I do remember puzzling over it late in
the evening when the brain is not to good, going over and over it to
no avail, because it seemed contrary to what I understand.
Then finally I realized this was the April issue! Another year
they had an article explaining how a unigue capacitor circuit enabled
the capacitor to engage gravity and act as a free energy receiver.
Again, the explanation was that this was the April issue.
Well, maybe what we have here is a classic of the numbers game,
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.
Tomorrow I should go out and measure the distances between the
trees on my place. With the right calculations, I should be able to
tell you when the government will announce the truth about the UFOs.
OK, so I'm not serious, just a superficial reaction. If this does
turn out to be serious, later, I will read it more carefully. I await
developments.
--
Joe Holland - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!304!1!Joe.Holland
INTERNET: Joe.Holland@f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 89 01:24:18 GMT
From: paranet!Linda.Murphy
Subject: Re: Mysteries
> I don't know if the "aliens" are "aliens," "space visitors," or what, but
> I will refer to them as an external force affecting the thought patterns
> of humankind.
Perhaps, Bryon there is a need to narrow this down to the *individual*.
> We then refer to the "grays" as a negitive force and the
> "Elders" as a positive force affecting certain thought patters of certain
> people. This would explain the major differences between Gulf Breeze and
> the Fyffe, AL cases.
Yet, if examined closely, between the two, although they outwardly appear to be different -- they both *still* promote a *singular* aspect, if you really ponder over it. The "-" vs "+" = "whole". One cannot have a whole, unless both
factors are present and augment each other.
Could it possibly be that there is an attempt to provide a *complete*
conceptual in regards to a particular UFO scenario? To create a "whole?". One
cannot succeed in creating a complete that is based upon the "-" and the "+"
factor, until it is manifesting itself in a believable manner from both ends of the spectrum....
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.
( 1:304/1)
--
Linda Murphy - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!Linda.Murphy
INTERNET: Linda.Murphy@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Aug 89 01:23:23 GMT
From: paranet!Linda.Murphy
Subject: Re: Info-paranet Newsletter
> People tend to place values on words, shapes, descriptions, etc.
> in-so-much that it can influence their thinking, which many times can be
> incorrect and highly misleading.
This is very true, and it appears that there *is* real genuine concern as
to the power behind it. Enough to make any governmental agency try to "outguess" the "double talk". There is much written about it.... outside of the UFO arena.
> If the deceiving factor was aware that a person would
> relate to a certian shape or a certain word then they could use that to
> influence their thinking.
The "deceiving factor" of course would have to do "ground work" to shape the way individuals respond to the various symbols.
( 1:304/1)
--
Linda Murphy - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!Linda.Murphy
INTERNET: Linda.Murphy@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
INFO-PARANET NEWSLETTER
ADMIN paranet-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
ARTICLE SUBMISSION info-paranet@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM
