Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 139
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 139
Tuesday, January 30th 1990
Today's Topics:
Freedom of Information
P 1005-1 PE Peruvian Report
P 1006-1 GT Guatemala Report
Skeptics/Science/WR
Re: Lazar
Face clarification
Yup, balanced.
Re: Odds and Ends (Mars Face)
Where Are They Now?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin
Subject: Freedom of Information
Date: 29 Jan 90 03:47:00 GMT
To All:
Over the next few months, we will upload as a message to the ParaNet UFO
area several reports which have been received coming from the various
military and governmental establishments as released through the Freedom of
Information Act. These reports are not only a very important research tool,
but also very informative and interesting to the casual UFO enthusiast and
skeptic. While we continue talking about the lack of government interest in
UFOs, it shall become quite evident that their interest in UFOs is quite the
opposite. It is very interesting to note that most of these documents have
been forwarded through intelligence channels and consist of everything from
actual reports provided by military personnel, but also news clippings.
While these reports do not prove the existence of UFOs in any way, they do
show that there is an ongoing interest and perhaps study going on even
beyond the dissolution of Project Blue Book in 1969.
ParaNet has begun utilizing its research/investigative unit to study these.
It is my hope that we will get some good discussion going about these
documents as to what they could mean and what might have been done with
them. We will keep you posted on the results of our investigation.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin
Subject: P 1005-1 PE Peruvian Report
Date: 29 Jan 90 03:58:00 GMT
========================================================
(C) Copyright 1989 ParaNet Information Service
All Rights Reserved unless copyrighted by Author.
NOTE: THESE FILES ARE NOT FOR REDISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE
OF THE PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE NETWORK
========================================================
NOTE: THESE ARE ACTUAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA)
DOCUMENTS. WHILE THEY ARE REPRODUCED HERE AS ACCURATELY AS
POSSIBLE, CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS HANDWRITING AND NOTES
HAVE NOT BEEN REPRODUCED. THESE CHARACTERISTICS CAN AFFECT THE
DOCUMENT'S CREDIBILITY AND MAY BE MISSING. ALL COMMENTS
CONTAINED HEREIN ENCASED WITH [ ] WILL BE THE OBSERVATIONS OF
PARANET.
PARANET MAKES NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THE DOCUMENT'S
AUTHENTICITY.
=================================================================
PARANET CLASSIFICATION NUMBER: P 1005-1 PE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
MESSAGE CENTER
VZCZCMLT565 7YUW
MULT 18134
ACTION
DIA[?]
DISTR
IADB(01) J5(02) J3:NMCC NIDS SECDEF(07) SECDEF: USDP(15)
ATSD:AE(01) ASD:PA&E(01) ::DIA(20) NMIC
- CMC CC WASHINGTON DC
- CSAF WASHINGTON DC
- CNO WASHINGTON DC
- CSA WASHINGTON DC
- CIA WASHINGTON DC
- SFCSTATE WASHINGTON DC
- NSA WASH DC
FILF
(047)
TRANSIT/1542115/1542207/000:52TOR1542204
DE RUESLMA #4888 1542115
ZNY CCCCC
R 0220527 JUN 80
FM USDAO LIMA PERU
TO RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC
INFO RULPALJ/USCINCSO QUARRY HT8 PN
RULPAFA/USDAFSO HOWARD AFB PN
BT
SUBJ: IR 6 876 0146 80 (U)
THIS IS AN INFO REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVAL INTEL
1. (U) CTRY: PERU (PE)
2. TITLE (U) UFO SIGHTED IN PERU (U)
3. (U) DATE OF INFO: 800510
4. (U) ORIG: USDAO AIR LIMA PERU
5. (U) REQ REFS: Z-D13-PE030
6. (U) SOURCE: 6 876 0138. OFFICER IN THE PERUVAIAN AIR FORCE
WHO OBSERVED THE EVENT AND IS IN A POSITION TO BE PARTY TO
CONVERSATION CONCERNING THE EVENT. SOURCE HAS REPORTED
RELIABILITY IN THE PAST.
7. SUMMARY: SOURCE REPORTED THAT A UFO WAS SPOTTED ON TWO
DIFFERENT OCCASIONS NEAR PERUVIAN AIR FORCE (FAP) BASE IN
SOUTHERN PERU. THE FAP TRIED TO INTERCEPT AND DESTROY THE UFO,
BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS.
PAGE 1 001001111
PAGE 2
8A. DETAILS: SOURCE TOLD RO ABOUT THE SPOTTING OF AN
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT IN THE VICINITY OF MARIANO MELGAR AIR
BASE, LA JOYA, PERU (168058, 0715306W). SOURCE STATED THAT THE
VEHICLE WAS SPOTTED ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. THE FIRST WAS
DURING THE MORNING HOURS OF 9 MAY 80, AND THE SECOND DURING THE
EARLY EVENING HOURS OF 10 MAY 80.
SOURCE STATED THAT ON 9 MAY, WHILE A GROUP OF FAP OFFICERS
WERE IN FORMATION AT MARIANO MALGAR [Spelling discrepancy from
above] THEY SPOTTED A UFO THAT WAS ROUND IN SHAPE, HOVERING NEAR
THE AIRFIELD. THE AIR COMMANDER SCRAMBLED AN SU-22 AIRCRAFT TO
MAKE AN INTERCEPT. THE PILOT, ACCORDING TO A THIRD PARTY,
INTERCEPTED THE VEHICLE AND FIRED UPON IT AT VERY CLOSE RANGE
WITHOUT CAUSING ANY APPARENT DAMAGE. THE PILOT TRIED TO MAKE A
SECOND PASS ON THE VEHICLE, BUT THE UFO OUT-RAN THE SU-22.
THE SECOND SIGHTING WAS DURING HOURS OF DARKNESS. THE
VEHICLE WAS LIGHTED. AGAIN AN SU-22 WAS SCRAMBLED, BUT THE
VEHICLE OUT-RAN THE AIRCRAFT.
8B. DIRG CMTS: RO HAS HEARD DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SIGHTING FROM
OTHER SOURCES. APPARENTLY SOME VEHICLE WAS SPOTTED, BUT ITS
ORIGIN REMAINS UNKNOWN.
9. (U) PROJ NO: N/A
10. (U) COLL MGMT CODES: AB
11. (U) SPEC INST: NONE. DIRC: NO.
12. (U) PREP BY: NORMAN H. RUNGE, COL. AIRA
13. (U) APP BY: VAUGHN E. WILSON, CAPT. DATT, ALUSNA
14. (U) REQ EVAL: NO REL TO: NONE
15. (U) ENCL: N/A
16. (U) DIST BY ORIG: N/A
BT
#4888
ANNOTES
JAL 117
PAGE 2
000101111
NNNN
0222087
[END REPORT]
=================================================================
1/90
1005-1PE.FOI
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin
Subject: P 1006-1 GT Guatemala Report
Date: 29 Jan 90 04:01:00 GMT
========================================================
(C) Copyright 1989 ParaNet Information Service
All Rights Reserved unless copyrighted by Author.
NOTE: THESE FILES ARE NOT FOR REDISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE
OF THE PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE NETWORK
========================================================
NOTE: THESE ARE ACTUAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA)
DOCUMENTS. WHILE THEY ARE REPRODUCED HERE AS ACCURATELY AS
POSSIBLE, CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS HANDWRITING AND NOTES
HAVE NOT BEEN REPRODUCED. THESE CHARACTERISTICS CAN AFFECT THE
DOCUMENT'S CREDIBILITY AND MAY BE MISSING. ALL COMMENTS
CONTAINED HEREIN ENCASED WITH [ ] WILL BE THE OBSERVATIONS OF
PARANET.
PARANET MAKES NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THE DOCUMENT'S
AUTHENTICITY.
=================================================================
PARANET CLASSIFICATION NUMBER: P 1006-1 GT
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION REPORT
1. Country: Guatemala
2. Subject: UFO Sighting
3. ISC Number:
4. Date of Information: 23 Apr 67
5. Place and Date of ACQ: Guatemala City, 26 Apr 67
6. Evaluation: Source F Information 6
7. Source: Mr. J.R. Carlos, who observed phenomenon
8. Report Number: 1 838 0030 67
9. Date of Report: 12 May 1967
10. No. of Pages: 3 [Handwritten]
11. References: DIRM 4A3e
12. Originator: USDAO Guatemala
13. Prepared by: Col John A. Carroll, Jr., Defense Attache and
Air Attache [Signed by Col. Carroll]
14. Approving Authority:
15. Summary:
1. This report forwards a narrative written and signed by J. R.
CARLOS and concerns his sighting of UFO's 23 April 1967. It
should be noted report is submitted as an IR since AFR 80-17 is
not available this station.
COMMENTS OF REPORTING OFFICER: a. On query, Sr. Carlos
described his portrayal of the zig-zag area (on attached
drawing) as representing his conception of the total path of one
object which changed direction in rapid succession, producing an
explosion or brilliant flash at each change of direction. He
thought also that the phenomenon he observed might have had some
sort of connection with SOYUZ I which was reported to have
crashed 24 April.
b. Source became visibly agitated and excited while
recounting the story. He mentioned also that his children were
pulling at his elbow to use the binoculars as the two objects he
described approached one another. Therefore, he was unable to
state whether an actual collision took place or what might have
transpired. He knows of no one else besides himself and family
who might have seen the objects.
c. This report has been delayed in submission to try to
ascertain whether there were other observers. No other observers
have been located and no local publicity has been generated on
the subject. Source is a responsible citizen, a florist in MIXCO
(1439N/090 36W), a small town about 5 miles West of Guatemala
City near the Pan American highway. It should be noted Source
came in of his own accord after requesting an appointment by
phone. He first reported to the MILGP and was referred to
DATT/AirA. He was firm about not wanting any publicity as he did
not wish to appear foolish or overly imaginative. His desire was
simply to report the incident. RO feels he seemed believable;
there was no joking about the subject and there is no doubt in
mind of RO that Source saw something [underlined] which was to
him unnatural or at the very least highly unusual.
TRANSLATION OF WRITTEN NARRATIVE BY J. R. CARLOS
Memorandum Concerning Phenomenon Observed Sunday, 23 April 1967
At Approximately 8:00 P.M.
At approximately the hour indicated above, my wife was
watering the flowers in the window boxes of our house; I was near
a bedroom window which she had left open. She asked me to close
the window and when I approached it I was surprised to see the
sky so clear and full of stars. At this moment I noticed a star
of surprising magnitude; my surprise was even greater when I
observed it was moving from the Southwest to the Northeast. Its
size was greater than Venus in its most visible periods. I
called to my children and to my wife; they saw the star (as we
will call the object) which was moving and had a very intense
brilliance, with no change of color, giving off a clear yellow
light with uniform rays. We ran out to the fields near our house
and I carried binoculars (Zeiss) which are very powerful.
As I leaned on a fence to control my nerves, I called out to
my children that I saw a star of a dull red color, without the
rays which normally appear around a star; it was moving toward
the star which had first interested us. At first I thought it
was an optical illusion since the other star wa also moving in
the same direction, but, on training the binoculars on the red
star, I noticed it was increasing in size and therefore must be
moving. I called out to my children to look at the second star
but found it was not visible to the eye and it was also being
covered by a cloud. The two stars rapidly approached each other;
both appeared to be at the same altitude or height on horizon but
the red star was moving faster. On looking again at the area I
could only see the large star which had somewhat changed its
direction, moving more to the North. (Larger star is the yellow
star.) I realized this change of direction later; I did not stop
to think about it at the time but when I was reconstructing my
observations I remembered it. I did note at the time that the
larger star was moving more rapidly but without losing
brilliance, and while I was observing it there was no change of
color or any flashes.
The drawing attached shows the larger star at the moment I
saw multiple red lines moving from one side to the other, making
a kind of zig-zag and, at the end of some of these lines, what
appeared to be small rays, completely rectilinear, forming small
stars of enormous brilliance. The lines were red and the small
stars formed at the end of the lines were of a very brilliant
clear red color. At this moment the clouds lifted and my wife
could see the multiple lights or stars that formed.
In summary, this phenomenon seemed to come from one object
which moved rapidly from one place to another, leaving behind a
red line which faded out with a sort of flash; it was not like
the explosions of fireworks in which there are a number of rocket
flashes at the same time.
I believe that the two objects crashed together but,
unfortunately, I let my children use the binoculars and tried to
direct their vision toward the two stars; also, the observation
took place during some 80 seconds so there was no time. I do
know that the larger star was already somewhat out of the zone
where I saw the explosions when they appeared. It could be that
there was some delay in finding the area when my children
returned the binoculars, but when I again located it, it was
difficult to find as it was moving fast and had somewhat changed
its trajectory. Signed: J. R. CARLOS G. 26 April 1967.
[Drawing on Page 3]
16. Distribution by Originator:
J2 SOUTHCOM
USAFSO
Am Emb Guat
17. Downgrading Data: NOT APPLICABLE
18. Attaching Data:
[END REPORT]
=================================================================
1/90
1006-1 GT.FOI
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Skeptics/Science/WR
Date: 29 Jan 90 03:31:00 GMT
Thanks for that interesting insight into the funding of scientific
projects, and the rough road to acceptance of new ideas. It becomes more
clear what we're up against. Seems we have a real Catch-22. We can't get
funded because we're not taken seriously. We're not taken seriously
because we have no conclusive evidence. We can't gather the evidence we
need to be taken seriously because we can't get funded.
"Let's find another planet to investigate, Zxryp, these people are too
bogged down in politics and bureaucracy to even recognize that we're
here!"
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bryon.Smith
Subject: Re: Lazar
Date: 28 Jan 90 16:05:00 GMT
In a message to infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com <01-21-90 00:24> Don Allen wrote:
DA> What about an interview between Lazar and Stanton
DA> Friedman??????????
DA> THEN,I would be >> more inclined << to accept what he says
DA> in whole.
DA>
DA> How about a PANEL of:
DA>
DA> Michael Corbin
DA> Stanton Friedman
DA> Jim Speiser
DA> Linda Murphy
DA> etc,etc
DA> Ok,so we've heard about Lazar for about 2 months now..Time
DA> to get
DA> the rubber on the road now.
I like your idea, what would it take to pull this off ?
...Bryon
--
Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@p0.f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mailrus!uunet!crdos1.crd.ge.com!davidsen
Subject: Face clarification
Date: 29 Jan 90 14:20:53 GMT
-+ +From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
-+ Subject: face
-+ Date: 26 Jan 90 06:43:00 GMT
-+
-+
-+ + What many people don't realize is that the "face" is only
-+ + visible with
-+ + some heavy image processing, and that to the unaided eye (were
-+ + there one
-+ + on Mars) it would look like a rockpile.
-+
-+ Are you saying that the image we see in the original Viking frames is
-+ not just computer-enhanced, but computer-modified somehow? That if I
-+ myself were in orbit around Mars at that altitude, that I would not see
-+ the "face" except as a rockpile? Somehow, I don't think you've got that
-+ quite right.
No, I didn't say that it was modified in the sense you mean, and yes,
having looked at the unenhanced data I would say that if you were at
that altitude using only a human eye that you would see a pile of rocks.
Computer enhanced is a term which covers a multitude of actions, and can
be used to reveal additional information or to make certain portions of
visual noise more visible than other (equal noisy) portions, such that
they look like something.
I make no claims to be an expert in DSP, just someone who fooled
around with the contract and brightness controls digitally.
Perhaps someone still has the raw data, it was on a machine here
which got low on disk space and I didn't save a copy after I looked at
it. I got it via ftp from somewhere. If the data is still available
would someone please post the location.
--
bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: keith@raptor.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks)
Subject: Yup, balanced.
Date: 29 Jan 90 15:34:38 GMT
-+Ah, Keith, Keith, Keith. So much of what you say contains kernels of
-+truth, and is obviously inspired by a real thirst for knowledge. But you
-+are painting with a very broad brush. Skepticism, in its purest form, is
Jim, are you complacent with the current situation? Hard-line skepticism
continues to damage the human race by making it increasingly difficult
to investigate and report on ANY new and unusual research. And, like I
was trying to imply in my last posting, the CSICOP type of skepticism is
FASHIONABLE.
This skepticism cannot even stand up to its own scrutiny.
The debunkers are often WRONG, serving only to slow down the advancement
of science. I am against the idea of SPEED LIMITS on the hiway of science.
-+A true skeptic does NOT assume you are lying. He is simply satisfied
-+that the universe possesses a logical order, that that order manifests
-+itself in the form of empirical evidence, and that he is under no
-+obligation to commit himself to believing anything unless empirical
-+evidence exists in its favor.
This is the propaganda they want you to believe. Skeptics (both men and
women:-), want you to think of skepticism as the scientific method. It is
not. The scientific method is the scientific method and it stands on its
own without any amendments.
On a different note, I just saw the Billy Meier video this weekend.
This is very interesting. What is he doing now? Is he still alive?
What about this program on TV about the strange circles in the grass
in Britain?
-keith
--
Keith Fredericks, Cray Research Inc., 1440 Northland Dr. Mendota Hgts., MN 55120
keith@cray.com (612)681-3258
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: Odds and Ends (Mars Face)
Date: 29 Jan 90 17:03:45 GMT
-+From: paranet!p0.f2.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG!John.Daly
-+Subject: Re: Odds and Ends
-+Date: 26 Jan 90 04:38:00 GMT
-+G'day, Mate!
-+
-+ Is the Face on Mars for real?
-+ I have read the book `The Face on Mars', and I found it odd that
-+ the author saw reason to use a different computer-enhancement technique
-+ to that normally used by NASA. The normal method gave us fantastically
-+ sharp pictures, so why was a separate method necessary if not to make
-+ the feature look more human than it really was? The pictures looked
-+ fake to me.
First of all, the original pictures were shot using a camera that did
not have very good resolution compared to what we field now. However,
even with this less than optimal resolution, the Face and several
objects stand out plainly. I have copies of the photos before the
computers are used to improve the quality. This technique of running
the digitized frames through a computer to improve the quality is
standard NASA procedure for most everything. Even with cameras of
higher resolution there are problems in the transmission of the data
back to the various dishes. They now have an algorithm to help fix the
various hits that occur during transmission.
When this standard technique was used, the various objects were still
there. This prompted several people to to run some additional computer
techniques against the digitized photos. These techniques did not exist
at the time of the original Mars missions from which we got the photos
of Cydonia. These techniques are in common use today at places like
JPL, and have been used on photos received from the various planetary
fly-bys.
So, to your points. No the original methods used during the original
Mars mission did not give us "fantastically sharp pictures." And even
if the cameras had been better, we would still have had to run the
digitized photos through computers to fix the problems that occur in
transmission of data across the vast distances. However, even without
the computer works, the first photo of the Face was clear enough to
cause quite a stir at JPL when the photos first came in. The people at
JPL said that the object was caused by shadows and light. They further
stated that they had other pictures of this area that showed nothing.
Well, true they did have *one* other photo of the area where the Face
is. It was taken when the Sun was higher in the Martian sky. The Face
is clearly visible again, and its features are even clearer. Its
bisymmetry is also clearly visible.
When the second photo was discovered, the people examining the photos
decided to submit both photos to further computer work. One of the
efforts produced the 3-D version. Others enhanced the contrast to bring
out details that are difficult to see in the "normal" photos. As I said
previously, none of these techniques are unique to current efforts--they
are all pretty much standard. The contrast enhancement is what allowed
us to see details on Uranus and Neptune. This is not done to make up
findings, but rather to make things clearer. It was the same for the
various objects found at Cydonia on Mars.
Again, I'm not arguing that the objects are of artificial origin or that
they aren't. However, the fact remains that we have discovered some
rather unique objects. Unique enough that the Soviets were planning on
shooting photos of that section on their Mars missions.
Also, I should point out that the people involved with the Mars Project
are not a bunch of fringe loonies. They each have pretty damn solid
credentials and include people like:
Eric Burgess, Co-Founder British Interplanetary Society
Mark J. Carlotto, Ph.D., Digital Imaging Specialist
Daniel Drasin, Photographic Imaging Consultant
Brian O'Leary, Ph.D., Planetary Scientist
Erol Torun, Geographer and Geomorphologist
Michael Vousden, Ph.D., Physicist
And these are just six of the people involved.
-+ My suspicions were further aroused later in the book when the
-+ author started talking about "harmonics of the speed of light" which
-+ to my physics is an absurdity.
You are probably referring to Hoagland's book. His book has good and
bad points. But if you really want good information and details, you
need to contact the Mars Project. I've already posted the address once,
but if you would like it again, I'll be happy to post it once more. The
people at Mars Project can provide you with photos of the various
objects just as they come from the tapes, or enhanced to fix for the
normal hits that occur during transmission. Once you see the photos,
you decide whether or not there is reason to study these anomalies
further. Hoagland's book provided photos; but, at their reduced size
necessitated by the book's size, they don't do the objects any justice.
-+
-+ My conclusion was that it was pseudo-science, the purpose being $$$
However, Mate, you are judging based on one man and his thinking. I
give Hoagland credit for bringing the subject to the attention of the
public, generally. But the real serious work is out of his hands and in
the hands of people with the training and skills necessary to study and
research these objects. We may disagree, for whatever reasons, but that
doesn't mean that these people are doing "pseudo-science." Their
techniques are accepted by others involved in similar work of a less
sensationalised version. The money that people send them is used to pay
for the research being done. Computer time costs $$$$$. Equipment
costs $$$$$. Publishing costs $$$$$. It is the same for any scientific
endeavor, n'est-ce pas?
BTW, on the American attitude toward laywers, I think you might be
surprised. ;-)
Gene
gross@dg-rtp.DG.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZAK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Where Are They Now?
Date: 29 Jan 90 18:17:53 GMT
Does anyone have the current address and phone number of NICAP? A friend
asked me to check on this as it would be a local call for me, but when I
phone, I get a law firm. The address she gave me was 5012 Del Ray Avenue,
Washington, DC, 301-654-8091. The phone number is wrong in any case
because the DC area code is 202. Maryland is 301.
Also, does anyone have current address/phone information on CUFO and MUFON?
Thanks in advance.
********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********
'infopara' at the following address:
UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
ADMIN Address infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
{ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
