Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 182
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 182
Friday, March 23rd 1990
Today's Topics:
Secrecy and secret groups
Re: Info-Paranet Newsletter
ParaNet FAX
Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Re: Signals Leaving Earth; Book Publisher?
Re: Strange Flash Of Light
Re: Provincetown, MA, mass sightings of UFOs
ParaNet's new address
Re: Gulf Breeze
Re: For Your Info
Klass
Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Re: Things-a-hopping!
Re: Introduction
Re: Richard Murray information packet
Klass
Re: Signals Leaving Earth; Book Publisher?
Re: What's New?
Re: Gulf Breeze
Re: (none)
Gulf Breeze photos
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gene Gross <gross@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Subject: Secrecy and secret groups
Date: 22 Mar 90 21:38:07 GMT
Hi Jim S.:
I won't repeat your post. I found the reasoning sound. It is about
time that researchers to a page from the spooks' notebook. ;-)
I am reluctant to send form letters to my elected officials, regardless
of how solid the cause or motive. I know what I tend to do with form
letters and imagine that my elected reps do the same thing. Who knows
but what they haven't hired somebody to do nothing but open the mail and
search for such letters--sort of a search and destroy mission.
If in fact there is any danger involved with UFOs a la Cooper and Lear,
then secrecy is all important. I also think that even if this is not
the case secrecy is important. Yes, I'm itching to know as much as I
can, especially what the government has been up to. But I'll learn to
live with the calamine lotion. If maintaining the secrecy now helps to
dislodge the government information, go for it! But one thing to
remember, secrecy can eventually become an end in and of itself.
So, when as soon as folks can, please let *us* know what is going on.
;-)
That's all.
Gene
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
Subject: Re: Info-Paranet Newsletter
Date: 23 Mar 90 00:57:44 GMT
I'm not surprised that some devout Christians are
uncomfortable with the idea of intelligent ET life.
Certain fundamentalist churches teach that all
ET's are Angels (World Wide Church of God). Others
hold that at least some ET's are demonic and that
the craters on the other solar bodies are due to
warfare between good and fallen angels (Institute
for Creation Research).
The biggest problem is the question ET life
raises about the uniqueness of Humanity as Orthodox
X'ianity teaches that humans are created in God's image
and that Jesus is His Only Begotten Son. Did ET's
participate in the Original Sin or are they in an
original state of Grace? Are they saved? if so, by Jesus,
and if so how? Do they have their own "Son Of God'? If so,
does this contradict the uniqueness of Jesus?
Are they irredeemably evil? Do they even have souls?
If not, are they merely intelligent animals?
All of these questions may be asked in liberal
or progressive denominations, but for a fundamentalist
whos believes that the Bible is inerrant and all-sufficient
they are unthinkable. Creationists have enough of a problem with
the status of orientals as only caucasians and blacks (sons of Ham)
are mentioned in Genesis. The problem is magnified when
ET's are considered.
Many feel it is best not to ask such questions and
therefore they try to ignore the possibility of ET life
until it is forced upon them. Some even oppose the space program
because they think it is only an attempt to prove Evolution.
-- John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin
Subject: ParaNet FAX
Date: 22 Mar 90 20:58:00 GMT
This is to notify everyone that ParaNet has a new FAX number. It
is 702-792-6560. Anyone wishing to send ParaNet material is
welcomed to do so.
Thanks,
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Date: 21 Mar 90 17:00:00 GMT
A mere coincidence.
..Or perhaps not, perhaps the U.I. arranged it.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Linda.Murphy
Subject: Re: Signals Leaving Earth; Book Publisher?
Date: 22 Mar 90 09:51:00 GMT
Clark, you had asked before if I had read the Philadelphia Experiment,
and no, I did not. Is the ship you are mentioning the ship? It did
sail in the Pacific? Does the book you found the picture in have a lot
of people in the picture? (Just curious). Where did you find it?
(Questions, questions, questions!)
-- Linda
--
Linda Murphy - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Murphy@f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f26.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Komar
Subject: Re: Strange Flash Of Light
Date: 22 Mar 90 05:49:00 GMT
In a message to Gregg Pasterick <03-20-90 22:17> Clark Matthews wrote:
CM=> > 'spectacular' white flash in the southern sky was seen
CM=>by
CM=> > many St. Louis area residents shortly after 9:30 PM
CM=> > SAturday March 17...."
CM=> > "It appeared first as a glowing orange ball for
CM=>maybe
CM=> > a third of a second, due south and moving rapdily across
CM=> > the sky. Then there was a spectacular bright flash."
CM=>But did any of this make the national wires? Or get
CM=>covered anywhere at all?
CM=> Clark
Well, a local paper, The Commercial Appeal did pick it up, and the wife of a
MUFON member in Memphis viewed it, but thats about it!
Regards, John
--
John Komar - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Komar@f26.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f26.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Komar
Subject: Re: Provincetown, MA, mass sightings of UFOs
Date: 22 Mar 90 05:51:00 GMT
In a message to All <03-20-90 00:27> infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com wrote:
in=>From: keithr@tolkien.wv.tek.com
in=>Keith Rowell, Tektronix, Wilsonville, OR
Keith! I've been trying to contact you! Did you receive my last message?
Regards, John
--
John Komar - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Komar@f26.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin
Subject: ParaNet's new address
Date: 22 Mar 90 23:39:00 GMT
This is to announce ParaNet's new address:
It is:
ParaNet
P.O. Box 97797
Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-7797
Thanks,
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze
Date: 22 Mar 90 20:39:00 GMT
I took a look thru Ed's book at Waldens. I remain less then
overwhelmed. In a couple of photos the appearance of a filament as the
source of light is easy to see. In another on, the UFO is seen
apparently at a lower level then the chain link fence -- it looks as if
the UFO is being photoed thru the chain link but the angle that is
involved and the overall effect is that the UFO is a reflection on a
piece of glass that is between the camera and the fence or else a
double exposure. The apparent size of the UFO is 12 inches. I was
also left wondering why the UFO ALWAYS seems to appear at the same
relative angle. In photo after photo, the picture is of a UFO shot
from the same apparent vantage point; that is, the thing never or
almost never is tilted any way but the same exact way relative to the
camerman. The book also reproduces the photo taken of the UFO hovering
over the road where it is obvious that the thing is slightly wider then
the road which is two lanes (minimum width 24 feet). In the
associcated text it explains how Macabee has extensively analysed the
photo and concluded that the UFO is something like 8 feet in diameter.
--
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: For Your Info
Date: 23 Mar 90 02:59:00 GMT
> He also describes a new classification system modeled on Hynek's
> and discusses an expert system he has created to computerize UFO
> reports and conclusions. It's called OVNIBASE and he has already
> proposed its adoption to (I think) the National Academy of Science
> (? I must check this).
I think he told me it was the FRENCH National Science Academy.
> Maybe we should ask him if he needs beta test sites?
Already asked him. He said "sure," but I think he thought I was kidding.
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: Klass
Date: 23 Mar 90 03:29:00 GMT
> Clark: Can you post to ParaNEt or (E or S)Mail me the
> documentation
> to support the allegations against Phil Klass in your recent
> message
> above?
John:
I don't know about Klass' spook connections - I personally think
that if the government were to pay a debunker, they'd get a better one,
or give Klass some support via falsified "facts" and "documents." But I
can give you some examples of where he has, shall we say, played fast
and loose with both the facts and the scientific method.
One incident I learned of recently in the FIDO UFO echo. I had
quoted a survey of the American Astronomy Society, in which it was
learned that 58% of this group believe that UFOs are worthy of serious
attention. In reply, a user quoted from Klass' "UFOs: Identified", where
Klass says that the survey was biased, because three of the possible
responses were positive and only two were negative. (The possible
responses were: Certainly worthy, Probably worthy, Possibly worthy,
Probably not worthy, Certainly not worthy). OK, he's (somewhat) right as
far as he goes. But he fails to inform the reader that ONLY THE FIRST
TWO RESPONSES WERE COUNTED to give the 58% figure. Adding in the third
response ("possibly worthy") yields a total of 80% "positive". This may
not impress you at first blush, but remember that Klass represents an
organization that espouses scientific objectivity. How objective is it
to twist the results of a survey simply to "win" an argument?
I can cite other examples, most of which have to do with his
command of scientific principles rather than his propensity for twisting
facts. I happen to be one that thinks that Phil is not the "Satan of
Ufology," as he puts it, and has no real ulterior motive other than the
desire to see the truth (as he sees it) come out. But I do think the
goals of CSICOP could be better represented by someone with a little
more objectivity.
> I found his analysis of the MJ-12
> documents quite convincing, and I don't see any basis for the
> charges of unethical conduct.
I, too, found his MJ-12 work fairly hard to argue with...but remember
that Klass is only responsible for about 20% of the debunking legwork on
that issue - the other 80% can be claimed by people like Barry
Greenwood, Robert Todd, Robert Hastings, Peter Gersten, and to a small
degree, myself - all of whom are PRO-Ufologists. Christopher Allen, a
Brit skeptic, is also largely responsible. Makes me wonder if Klass is
becoming....redundant?
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!Ray.Griffin
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Date: 23 Mar 90 03:59:00 GMT
I should have said " except for Mr. Ed. " Your point was well served
however.
--
Ray Griffin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Ray.Griffin@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Ray.Griffin
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Date: 23 Mar 90 04:09:00 GMT
You guys evidently believe that a UFO posed for those shots. Maybe it
did maybe it didn't. However, no one knows who believer Bill is.who
also took great pictures. I don't and the pictures were taken in my
yard. I'm not sure that even the photographer is real. I certainly
didn't see him anyway. Whatever, the truth about the photos you have to
admit that GB has been the best P.R.ed UFO event around. If you
interested in my comments. I have said from the begginning that ED.
took pictures of something, but it isn't what you think itZQwq
9%&\s"6#
CizogD`}s =iHpO\TbY&*~LB|'Xj_<*`Br1u*fz19}oU~qS5EQ11Bl2
XZy{.
I just got censored, anyway he is for real, but the pictures prove
nothing. RG
--
Ray Griffin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Ray.Griffin@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Ray.Griffin
Subject: Re: Things-a-hopping!
Date: 23 Mar 90 04:11:00 GMT
Good Deal, I will be free up till July! If you know what I mean.
--
Ray Griffin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Ray.Griffin@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Ray.Griffin
Subject: Re: Introduction
Date: 23 Mar 90 04:35:00 GMT
Welcome, it looks like you have the past and future covered. WEllcome.
--
Ray Griffin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Ray.Griffin@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Ray.Griffin
Subject: Re: Richard Murray information packet
Date: 23 Mar 90 04:40:00 GMT
I would like to add to this "If they investigate and uncover a problem
they had better have a solution.
--
Ray Griffin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Ray.Griffin@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Klass
Date: 23 Mar 90 05:35:00 GMT
Clark --
I didn't mean to contradict you in that message on Klass....hope you
don't take offense. That's just my personal feelings on the man, I just
don't think he's quite in the "spook" league.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Clark.Matthews
Subject: Re: Signals Leaving Earth; Book Publisher?
Date: 23 Mar 90 03:20:00 GMT
Hi Linda. Yes, the SS. Andrew Furuseth figured in the "Phil. Experiment"
because the first person to come forward with the story (or "a" story -- or
"some kind" of story) was an A.B. seaman aboard Andrew Furuseth.
This individual, Carl Allen (a.k.a. Carlos Allende), claimed that he and
several deckmates witnessed part of the notorious "disappearance" of the
Navy test ship. They witnessed this from the Furuseth as she was underway,
on her way to [or possibly from] convoy duty in the Atlantic. All this
according to Allen/Allende.
This raises many more questions than it answers, of course. It is highly
unlikely that the U.S. Navy would have allowed a very highly classified
experiment to proceed in full view of a ship full of witnesses. At the time
the feeling was that pulsed EM fields (and all magnetism) were
completely harmless, but security would have prevented the experiment from
proceeding with people watching -- even if saftey was not a concern -- in my
opinion. Moreover, two or three ships, connected by cables off the
mid-Atlantic coast would have been sitting ducks for a U-boat or even an
entire German "Wolfpack". Germany's U-boat fleets were extremely active
right off our shores until well into 1944 and they were higly dangerous and
efficient. Conclusion: There would have been at least a few ships to
screen the test -- and keep the Andrew Furuseth from coming anywhere near
it.
So maybe the Furuseth was somehow involved in the actual
experiment? Or, if not the ship, then perhaps Allen/Allende was being coy
about his involvement. If we take Moore at his published word about the
voyages made by Furuseth during 1943/44, it would have been in the area
during the experiment (either bound for Oran or returning from Africa) ...
It's a puzzlement -- recommend you read the book.
As to the picture, it probably shows the full ship's complement, 25-30
officers & men.
And by the way, how are you these days, Linda? Sorry to hear UFOnet went
down -- one of the very last posts on UFOnet was tantalizing. About the
scientist in Toronto blew up his basement in an EM experiment?
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Re: What's New?
Date: 21 Mar 90 19:00:00 GMT
> Louisana and North Ala. have seen flying 18-wheel semi's.
> Witnesses include professional T.V. journalists who insist on
> remaining anominous. Can you blame them? RG
Flying 18-wheelers? What?
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze
Date: 21 Mar 90 19:01:01 GMT
> believe in UFO's because of Ed, it is because of other
> unexplained events which have occurred.
I think the locals *have* been seing UFOs, and that Ed may have seen
a possibility for a little fame.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: 21 Mar 90 19:08:02 GMT
> There was also an observation
> made by someone a while ago that Edmund Scientific sold hot-air
> balloons quite a bit like the GB UFO.
I knew I'd seen flying-saucer balloons advertised somewhere, but I
couldn't remember where.
Maccabee makes a point that it would be impossible for Walters to
suspend an object out over the water. However, it would be easy to
*anchor* a lighter-than-air object over the water.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Gulf Breeze photos
Date: 21 Mar 90 19:30:03 GMT
> I hope everyone reads your messages and I'd like to post them to
> CompuServe as well.
You're welcome to. My CI$ number is 76407,1264.
Is there a CI$ UFO forum?
> The shot of the object with the utility pole
> is, to me, one of the most revealing.
I agree; it took me quite a few looks to notice that oblong blur,
too. I could only get to about 5x magnification of the photos in the
book before the detail was lost in the dot pattern.
> You're not the first to
> notice it (alas!); Phil Klass pointed it out to me over a year
> ago. (But nice detective work, anyway!). When I talked to
> Maccabee about it, his reaction was basically that Ed may have
> been panning with the object as it moved. When I challenged him
> on this, and said that he'd have to be AWFULLY skilled (or
> lucky) to get the object in such sharp focus, Maccabee said
> something very surprising (and revealing). He said that I should
> weigh the one POSSIBLY hoax photo against all the other photos
> which don't have any sign of hoaxing in them.
I suspected that someone else had to have noticed. Do you know if
anyone other than Maccabee got to closely examine the originals?
Maccabee's answer certainly is a non-answer. That's like catching a
witness in perjury, then believing everything else he says. I think I
recall that somewhere in the book it was mentioned that Maccabee saw
the UFO off in the distance himself. I'd consider that his opinion of
the photos may have been colored by his sighting.
Someone else mentioned in a message here that Edmund Scientific was
selling saucer-shaped hot air balloons a while back. I knew I
remembered that someone was selling them, but I couldn't think of who.
It'd be worthwhile to try to find an old Edmund catalog and see if
there's any resemblance.
The balloon idea leads to a possibility.
Consider a hot-air balloon big enough to carry a radio-control
receiver, batteries and a few lights. Loft the thing (tethered) and
when it's where you want it, turn on the lights just long enough to
take a picture, then turn off the lights. If no one's looking in just
the right direction, then chances are that no one else sees it.
Maccabee makes a big point of Walters' pictures taken over water. He
says that it would be impossible to suspend an object over water.
However, it would be easy to *anchor* a tethered lighter-than-air
object over water.
> "It jes' don' mean a thing if ya finds that
> ol' string."
I like that one. ;-)
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
********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************************
