Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 068
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 68
Saturday, October 28th 1989
Today's Topics:
Grammar and Paranet's credibility
Re: Roswell Incident
Re: Unsolved Mysteries
Re: Roswell Incident
Re: New Member
Grammar and Paranet's credibility
Re: Black Abductees
Re: Oklahoma Sightings
Re: Grammar And Paranet's Credibility
FAA listings
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: postmaster
Subject: Grammar and Paranet's credibility
Date: 27 Oct 89 14:20:07 GMT
>From: Tom Betz <boulder!upaya.lilink.COM!tbetz-+
I have been reposting some of the information from the Newsletter
on the Interlink Beyond conference, and I received this comment
regarding some of it.
While it is not directly about the subject matter, it addresses
the serious question of the credibility of UFO investigators as
perceived by the public at large. I feel it's something we
should be paying attention to.
Below is Judy Stein's commentary, in full.
Date: 10-23-89 (12:33) Number: 575 The Executive Network
To: TOM BETZ Refer#: 372
>From: JUDY STEIN Read: NO
Subj: The Roswell Incident - 1 Conf: (109) Beyond
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom, I find these reports from ParaNet fascinating. I'd like to make
one point about them, though: the quality of the writing and
organization is so poor as to detract seriously from their
credibility. Granted, these days even many intelligent and
well-educated folks don't have the best English skills, but a group
devoted to promoting the reality of an inherently unbelievable
phenomenon needs to take special pains to sound professional.
For instance:
"[Schmitt] enlisted the aid of former Air Force Intelligence Captain
Kevin Randle, whom Schmitt stated, was totally a skeptic. He
was friends of Phil Klass, and Schmitt wanted such a skeptic
involved in the investigation. According to Schmitt, Randle 'has
total conviction' in UFOs."
Aside from the grammatical errors (should read "...Randle, who,
Schmitt stated, was a total skeptic. He was a friend of Phil
Klass..."), the meaning isn't clear. I gather the writer means Randle
was a skeptic *before* becoming involved in the investigation, and is
*now* convinced of the reality of UFOs, but this is not stated
clearly.
"'And, where the specific orders were coming from. Originally,
Moore talked about one flight in the book with Jesse Marcel. We
have found two other flights with other people and have tracked
down those crewmen.'"
What flights are these? After rereading, I assume the writer means the
flights back to the base with the crash debris, but it's not
immediately clear. And is Marcel the co-author of the book, or did
Moore report, in the book *he* wrote, a conversation he had had with
Marcel, who was one of the crewmen on one of the flights? The syntax
is extremely muddled. Granted, the writer of the article is quoting
someone else, and most people don't always speak in perfectly clear
and grammatical sentences. But a good reporter will take steps to
ensure clarity for the reader, either by rewording the quote slightly,
without altering the sense, or by quoting indirectly and phrasing it
so the meaning is clear.
There are many other such fuzzinesses and grammatical errors in this
release. I don't mean to be excessively picky, but I really wish
they'd find a good editor to clean up their writing. This stuff is too
potentially important; if it looks like it's written by functional
illiterates, few will be inclined to take it seriously.
--
"I don't run - I tend to black my eyes." - D.Parton | hombre!marob!upaya!tbetz
----------------------------------------------------| tbetz@upaya.lilink.com
"One minute I'm in the pasture porkin' ponies, | Tom Betz - GBS
the next I'm a can of Mighty Dog!" - Secretariat | (914) 375-1510
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f364.n633.z3.FIDONET.ORG!Mike.Paull
Subject: Re: Roswell Incident
Date: 13 Oct 89 19:55:00 GMT
Hello Bob,
Well i am worried. So far, for two episodes in
a row, Unsolved Mysteries had not been shown. I am hoping that that is
because of tthe two specials they had on, and not because Channel 7
have axed the program, although if they had, i'm sure the news would
have told us. Yes, i wilr tell you when its on though ...
Mike
--
Mike Paull - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mike.Paull@f364.n633.z3.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f364.n633.z3.FIDONET.ORG!Mike.Paull
Subject: Re: Unsolved Mysteries
Date: 19 Oct 89 01:41:00 GMT
Well there might be a problem here.. For the past three weeks Unsolved
Mysteries has NOT been shown down here, on the station that carried it.
Although there has been no mention of it, it possible it has been axed,
although i doubt it, will have to call and find out. Maybe were hitting
non ratings period down here...
Mike
--
Mike Paull - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mike.Paull@f364.n633.z3.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f401.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bob.Fletcher
Subject: Re: Roswell Incident
Date: 28 Oct 89 06:33:00 GMT
> Well i am worried. So far, for two
> episodes in a row, Unsolved Mysteries had not been shown. I am
With all the finacial trouble they are geting themselves in anything
could happen.
Thanks Bob....
--
Bob Fletcher - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bob.Fletcher@f401.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Clark.Matthews
Subject: Re: New Member
Date: 27 Oct 89 23:53:00 GMT
Hello, Rick. Just a note to say hi and, just because you're a skeptic,
welcome and fire away. Sounds like you didn't fare especially well in the
earthquake. I hope that you're able to recover rapidly, and that the damage
wasn't too severe or upsetting.
Again, welcome.
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Linda.Murphy
Subject: Grammar and Paranet's credibility
Date: 28 Oct 89 03:08:25 GMT
> To: TOM BETZ Refer#: 372
> From: JUDY STEIN Read: NO
> Subj: The Roswell Incident - 1 Conf: (109) Beyond
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Klass..."), the meaning isn't clear. I gather the writer means Randle
---------------------------
^
That's it in a nutshell... And it works and is probably not accidental. Context, syntax can make a difference in the way a person reacts to the material that is read. If everything was precise, it would no longer hold fascination... And from a c
onspiracy enthusiast's point of view, premeditated to deliberatly keep the more "literate" and scientific minded OUT of the picture, because it would be easier for them to find the answers. (And thus, such speculations enhance the total picture of the con
spiracy theories and can strengthen the belief in it).... yep. It sure is fascinating....
illiterate linda
( 1:304/1)
--
Linda Murphy - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Murphy@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Greg.Sandow
Subject: Re: Black Abductees
Date: 28 Oct 89 10:00:00 GMT
I don't know . . . maybe the UFO entities ARE black, and hence spare
their homeboys here on earth.
However, I'm not sure I'm responding to your question/comment. Should
we -- is this what you mean? -- think of UFO abductions as deity
experiences created by white culture?
Wanna explain a little more?
--
Greg Sandow - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Greg.Sandow@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Greg.Sandow
Subject: Re: Oklahoma Sightings
Date: 28 Oct 89 10:21:00 GMT
I'm impressed with that Kansas City reporter. He was thorough, vivid,
unbiassed. The quote from the guy who looked at the objects through
binoculars was a killer -- you could share his experience, see what he
saw.
I'm also impressed -- and here I speak as a guy who writes for a
newspaper -- with how much space the Kansas City Star gave this story.
And I assume there were no editors insisting on "balance," or in other
words more quotes from skeptics like the clown the story actually
did quote.
Editors can do a lot to influence the tone of a story like this,
regardless of the reporter's point of view. Is this man (I've forgotten
his name) a senior reporter on the paper, somebody editors can't
readily push around? Or -- and forgive my ignorance here: I've lived in
New York, Boston, and L.A. -- do smaller-city newspapers normally take
a more factual view of local sightings? (I could see that: they'd be
closer to their readers. Large-city papers write as if they had Martin
Gardner looking over their shoulder -- which, in a very real sense,
they actually do.)
--
Greg Sandow - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Greg.Sandow@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Greg.Sandow
Subject: Re: Grammar And Paranet's Credibility
Date: 28 Oct 89 10:35:00 GMT
Well, I must say I agree. Mike C. will remember a letter I wrote when I
first was getting on this system: I'd just read Kevin Randle's "UFO
Casebook" and complained it had not been edited at all carefully, and
detracted from the credibility of the subject.
A BIG offender: Timothy Good's book "Above Top Secret," which is
organized like a giant junior high school term paper. Oh, yeah, and
also the Moore/Berlitz books, which would benefit from proper use of
footnotes, and other academic niceties.
We have important stuff to say, right? So we really don't want to come
across as amateurs when we say it.
--
Greg Sandow - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Greg.Sandow@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder
Subject: FAA listings
Date: 27 Oct 89 03:32:37 GMT
In a message of <25 Oct 89 20:29:00>, Michael Corbin (1:104/428) writes:
>Would anyone have access to a complete listing of all FAA control towers
>throughout the country?
These aren't hard to get. Try a general aviation field pilot shop or flying school. It's called the AIRPORT/FACILITY DIRECTORY. There are 7 volumes each covering one region and a new edition is issued every 56 days. You can also call the publisher Nation
al Ocean Survey at (301)-436-6690. Also if you have a need, aerial charts can be purchased for all areas of the country.
--
Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To have your thoughts in the next issue, please send electronic
mail to 'infopara' at the following address:
UUCP {ncar,isis,nbires,boulder}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
ADMIN Address infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
{ncar,isis,nbires,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
********************************************************************************
End of Info-ParaNet Newsletter
********************************************************************************
