Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 174
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 174
Monday, March 12th 1990
Today's Topics:
On The Move...
Re: (none)
Re: Cooper And Paranoia Anonymous
Re: (none)
Gulf Breeze photos
Message From Sally Sheridan
Richard Murray information packet
Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Re: Richard Murray information packet
Re: LOOKING FOR A BOOK
Gulf Breeze
(none)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin
Subject: On The Move...
Date: 9 Mar 90 20:24:00 GMT
ParaNet is moving its headquarters to Las Vegas, Nevada.
Effective Monday, March 12, 1990, the new data number will be
702-792-9773. Voice number will follow shortly.
Please make a note of this.
We also will have a different FAX number.
Michael Corbin
Administrator
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Clark.Matthews
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: 10 Mar 90 05:26:00 GMT
Hi Dan. Thanks for your comments ...
> Clark, you may be interested in a rumor I heard recently:
> that Grays
> have been working the "depleted" mercury mines south of San
> Jose,
> California. I'll try to dig up my notes about the exact
> name of the
> closest town there. The area was once quite famous for its
> mercury
The rumor is interesting, but I confess I just get more & more confused by
all this. First, the aliens give us 500 pounds of "Element 115", which they
must mine on a dead star somewhere in space. Now, they're prospecting up
San Jose way, lookin' for quicksilver. I think Dr. Vallee
may be on to something -- look at all the data and the only consistent
pattern that emerges is that it makes no sense. Quelle bizarre!
As to the Meier case, I noticed the disparity between the earlier photos and
the later ones, too. But if Meier was looking to establish "plausible
deniability" for personal reasons (or whatever) -- he succeeded beyond his
wildest dreams!
For a long time I thought that the models & photos might have been planted
or otherwise foisted on Meier to discredit his whole case. I mean, the
first pix were EXTRAORDINARY and so were the multiple-witness cases,
including the one where Meier walked into the woods in the pouring rain &
was returned suddenly, and not wet! This happened, I believe, before 3
people. Nevertheless, his admitted complicity in the fakes blows the whole
case beyond redemption, in my opinion.
Tell me, have you ever looked into the Philadelphia Experiment? If so, what
do you think of Al Bielek?
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Clark.Matthews
Subject: Re: Cooper And Paranoia Anonymous
Date: 10 Mar 90 05:52:00 GMT
> What is going on is pure trickery and stupidity. And those who are
> going along with this would do well to remember what Franklin said,
> those who are willing to give up some of their liberties for security
> deserve neither.
Thank you, Gene! I'm going to put old Ben Franklin's words on a wall here.
You have put your finger on the problem precisely here. And as to your
other observation...
> that our elected representative and those that they appoint have
> forgotten who serves whom. They are our servants; we aren't theirs.
... to which I respond with two observations of my own:
First, they haven't forgotten who they represent -- they know exactly which
constituents will give them perks, bucks, publicity, and a guaranteed meal
ticket when they return to private life. And they know the rest of us would
prefer to watch Wheel of Fortune...
And second, I would point out that for the past 8 years there has been a
greater turnover in the Soviet Chamber of Deputies than in our Congress.
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Clark.Matthews
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: 10 Mar 90 06:01:00 GMT
> Macabee is now sort of in a no win situation. If he sticks
> to "it's all true" he opinion is questioned by those who
> bring up some of the sticky questions about not only the
> photos but some of the non-photo items. If he changes his
> opinion, he winds up losing credibility in terms of future
> reputation.
I disagree, Jim. In my opinion, a scientist can change his opinion with no
ill effects if he/she does so for good reason. Hell, science is BUILT on
empiricism -- on adopting theories or hypotheses and pitching them out when
you can't prove them.
The real toll to a person's credibility is hanging onto a theory or
interpretation in the face of the facts. Scientists ignore the truth (or
the proof) at their peril.
(Unless of course they're up in front of an appropriations committee, in
which case it can PAY very well, even if they're stealing.)
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Gulf Breeze photos
Date: 8 Mar 90 23:03:00 GMT
> I guess I'm going to have to buy the book and read it, but I
> hate to pay my money so someone can make money off what appears to
> me to be a hoax.
>
Thanks for that message, John. That seems to be an important
observation, one that I don't think has been made before. Is there any
chance you are wrong about the slow lens or slow film speed? What is the
source of your knowledge in this area?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Message From Sally Sheridan
Date: 8 Mar 90 23:11:00 GMT
I have a friend who is badly deformed from birth, due to a rare genetic
defect. He has about half an arm on one side, no hand, and 3/4 of an arm
on the other side, with what passes as a hand with a thumb and two
finger-like appendages. He has one leg that is about a foot long, the
other a little longer, with one completely normal foot. Basically he
looks like he got beamed aboard the Enterprise during a thunderstorm.
This individual drives a car, smokes cigarettes, shoots long arms (no
pun intended) for target practice, and holds down a job as a bookkeeper.
Oh yes, he's married to a beautiful woman, too.
When I showed him the book, "UFO Contact from the Pleiades" about the
Meier case, he read the comment about how hard it would be for a
one-armed man to pull off a hoax of this sort, and just laughed out
loud.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Richard Murray information packet
Date: 9 Mar 90 05:22:00 GMT
Ye gods.
Well, so much for any shot we might have had at Congressional hearings.
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.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Date: 10 Mar 90 03:15:00 GMT
A classic dilemma!
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: Richard Murray information packet
Date: 10 Mar 90 03:35:00 GMT
That sort of letter would certainly get the attention of the staff when
the gather around the water cooler for a few laughs but I doubt it will
do much to mobilize an investigation or establish an amnesty.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Re: LOOKING FOR A BOOK
Date: 10 Mar 90 05:37:00 GMT
>
> JIM I FOUND THE BOOK. GOT QUITE A FEW RESPONSES. BY THE WAY I WILL
> BE
> DOING AN OMNI UFO UPDATE IN THE NEAR FUTURE, SE YA
Good, will look for it. Are you speaking at any of the upcoming cons,
like the one in New Jersey?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Cholar <3432P@navpgs.bitnet>
Subject: Gulf Breeze
Date: 11 Mar 90 01:32:04 GMT
The Gulf Breeze photographs have never looked convincing to me. The
clincher was when an alleged UFO photo was shown on Unsolved Mysteries
awhile back. The picture in question showed a disc shaped object with
sloping sides, similiar in shape to the Jupiter II in the old 'Lost in
Space' series. I can say with almost complete certainty that the photo
was of a ceiling light reflected off of a glass window or patio door.
How can I be so certain? Because I have the EXACT same light in our
living room! And I mean exact! Right down to the verticle slits in
the sloping sides, the curving bottom (all lit up, of course), and
a central dark spot in the bottom (where a decorative nut holds the
light to the ceiling). I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I
saw the picture on the TV. I've been thinking about taking my some
pictures of my own 'UFO' (both rigged and normal) and sending them to
NBC in order to see if they would be interested in a retraction, but
haven't gotten around to it due to lack of time.
Craig Cholar BITNET: 3432P@NAVPGS
Defense Manpower Data Center DDN: 3432P@CC.NPS.NAVY.MIL
Disclaimer: My personal views, not my employer's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ddrasin@well.sf.ca.us (Dan Drasin)
Subject: (none)
Date: 12 Mar 90 10:16:43 GMT
One-sided ufology?
-+ From: paranet!f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Ecker
-+ Subject: Say What ?!???
-+ Date: 9 Mar 90 00:38:00 GMT
-+ same message from all the different tribes, for at least the
-+ last 3 or 4 years! The message is saying " Hey, Buckwheat, UFOs
-+ are hostile!!"
-+ It is not anything new to realize that maybe UFOs can be dangerous
-+ or even deadly. God, there is enough documented evidence to prove
-+ it a thousand times over in a court of law.
Don, I agree with most of what you're pointing out. However, I've
become very uneasy about the growing trend toward concluding that
because *some* "UFOs" (alien civilizations) are undeniably hostile,
*all* UFOs are hostile. I'm afraid I fail to see the logic in such a
sweeping generalization.
To clarify my point of view, I should tell you that I am involved
with several ongoing abduction cases, and I have no illusions about
the broader intentions of certain alien groups. I am as aware as
anyone here of the range of undesirable alien activities that might
well be proven in a court of law. But I find the current ufological
trend toward dismissing all evidence of neutral and benevolent alien
contact extremely puzzling. Such a stance seems a) unnecessary, b)
scientifically untenable and c) potentially dangerous.
Recently I became aware of a number of cases in which highly
respected and otherwise competent investigators have gone so far as
to virtually hang up the phone on people who attempted to report
cases that don't fit their pet scenarios for "real" encounters
because the aliens in question were not sufficiently malevolent. In
my opinion this kind of narrowminded behavior verges on cultishness,
and has no place in a community of inquiring minds.
Isn't it obvious that when one dismisses evidence of "x" out of hand
one's chance of learning anything about "x" drops to zero?
********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************************
