Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 197
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 197
Thursday, April 5th 1990
Today's Topics:
Re: Spies, Lies & ET's
Spies, Lies & ET's
Re: Fyffe Sighting
Re: Looking For A Book
Re: Lunar Anomalies
Re: Spies, Lies & ET's
Big Bang and Smoothness (To Vladimir)
Secret military groups
More about Vallee's OVNIBASE
Re: (none)
Klass&Truman sig.
Re: Fyffe Sighting
Spies, Lies & ET's
Re: Spies, Lies & ET's
Re: Spies, Lies & ET's
Spies, Lies & ET's
Re: Fyffe Sighting
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: Spies, Lies & ET's
Date: 3 Apr 90 22:41:00 GMT
Thanks for posting that synopsis of Moores confab. The more Moore
talks, the less credible he becomes. In all of this I still always
wind up back with the basic question of -- How could a supposed
experianced investigator like Moore work on and with these gvt agents
and not have gathered some "goods" on them that would blow their cover?
His recitence to name names seems designed to protect only himself.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Spies, Lies & ET's
Date: 4 Apr 90 07:45:00 GMT
Don:
Thanks for that post.
What did Bob Friend have to say? Did anyone think to ask him if he thought
MJ-12 was real?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f20.n3607.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jerry.Woody
Subject: Re: Fyffe Sighting
Date: 4 Apr 90 02:49:00 GMT
->What about this sighting makes you certain you did not see
->a weather balloon, reflecting the setting sun at an oblique
->angle?
Jim;
Well, I guess the main reason is that I have seen many weather balloons over
the years, especially when one is studying to be a meteorologist :-). When
seen at a distance the balloons appear round, or at times cone shaped. They
reflect light vigourously in a silvery or 'metallic' reflection ( tho I've
seen some where it appears at a white dot.. depending on where the sun is).
These balloons just don't 'vanish'. When reaching a certain height they
explode. Sometimes you can see the gas come out of them.. but you definately
know they exploded.
Second, there were three of us looking at the object "Thru Binoculars". And
we got a pretty good view of it. I've yet to see a weather balloon that is
tapered at 2 ends, flat on the bottom, has a small 'bulge' at the center and
is tilted at a 45 degree angle. The colors just didn't mesh right either
from some of the weather balloons I've seen. Yellow, maybe... but this
object was orange and white ( and one saw red flames coming out of the
bottom of it) and no, I don't believe it could be classified as a hot air
balloon either.
I have considered the idea that it could have been a patch of stratocumulus
clouds but it would more resemble A stratocumulus lenticularis or
lenticularis cloud. However, for lenticularis to form (depending on which
textbook you read) there would have to be a great deal of instability in the
vertical plane with mixing. The atmosphere at the time was becoming more
stable with the cumulus humulous farther toward the west disipating and
lenticularis clouds are rare ( I think some books also call them venticular
clouds... I think). Oh well, if I knew for certain what it was we could call
it an IFU :-).
Jerry
--
Jerry Woody - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jerry.Woody@f20.n3607.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Paul.Carr
Subject: Re: Looking For A Book
Date: 4 Apr 90 02:59:00 GMT
There may well be volatile gases just below the lunar surface, either
due to comet impacts, or possibly of primordial origin. There is no
need for a permanent atmosphere in order to postulate this. In fact,
the LTPs point strongly to it.
--
Paul Carr - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Carr@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Paul.Carr
Subject: Re: Lunar Anomalies
Date: 4 Apr 90 03:03:00 GMT
Several shadows in sequence would be difficult to explain. However,
an object would have to be very large to create an observable shadow.
What is needed to investigate this properly is information about the
timing of the shadow crossings and the angular size of the shadows. In
order to get a good shadow, you've got to block out most of the sun.
In order for that to happen, you either have to be very close to the
surface or very large.
Another possibility that occurs immediately is that the observations
were not of shadows at all, but nearby objects backlit by the moon.
This would explain the high speed.
--
Paul Carr - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Carr@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!.123/21@f21.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Edward.Melville.@.123/21
Subject: Re: Spies, Lies & ET's
Date: 4 Apr 90 05:19:42 GMT
> Hollywood High Auditorium. The theme of the lecture was as
> you see in the refernce of the posting--"Spies, Lies &
MY OLD HIGH SCHOOL!!! grin.
> has the famous SAS or Special Air Service but does anyone
> know what OUR SAS is? Do we have one?
>
That would surely be Delta Force, and possibly the Navy Seals, as well.
Ed
--
Edward Melville @ 123/21 - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Edward.Melville.@.123/21@f21.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gene Gross <gross@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Subject: Big Bang and Smoothness (To Vladimir)
Date: 5 Apr 90 04:11:19 GMT
Mr V:
I can't seem to locate the article I originally referred to, but in a
subsequent issue of U.S. News & World Report, March 26, 1990, there was
a series on the universe. So if you don't mind, I'll quote from it.
I will not use quote marks to make things a bit easier on me. All
following the dashed line is from the magazine, and I'm not responsible
for what they say.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe simply doesn't look the way it ought to, given what
scientists know about its origins, and that is one of the great
cosmological conundrums that astronomers hope to unravel in the coming
decade. Precise new measurements of the faint cosmic background
radiation left over from the big bang reveal that in its earliest stages
the universe was much smoother than anyone expected, free of the minute
perturbations that theoretically would have seeded future galaxies.
Even so, astronomers who are making key measurements of the universe
today are finding anomalies--galaxies arrayed on huge "walls" that
enclose vast voids, for instance--that suggest a surprisingly lumpy
universe inconsistent with what the early evidence would predict.
Adding to the complications, astronomers are now finding quasars, the
brightest and most distant objects in the universe, that are older than
anyone believed possible. Last year, for example, Donald Schneider of
the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., found the oldest
quasar yet, dating from barely a billion years after the big bang.
Since quasars are believed to be at the center of galaxies, the
discovery means that galactic structures had developed very soon,
cosmologically speaking, after the dawn of the universe. This spring,
Schneider and his colleagues will begin a search for quasars that are
even more ancient.
How did such colossal structures form so fast from such a smooth
beginning? The elegant models that have been honed by physicists over
the past two decades to explain the universe's formation are now
breaking down in the face of all these new data. The classic
theoretical explanation has been that tiny fluctuations in the very
first moments following the big bang jostled particles of matter,
causing them to lump together.
Over time, other particles were attracted by gravity to the initial
clumps, causing the structures to grow. But these theoretical
fluctuations should show up in measurements of the cosmic background
radiation, and the problem is, they do not.
Astronomers are probing the relic radiation with a panoply of sensitive
instruments flown on balloons, sited on remote mountaintops, at the
South Pole and on NASA's remarkable Cosmic Background Explorer satellite
launched last November. All are finding the same thing: That the
background radiation (and by inference the early universe) is incredibly
smooth. Theorists are still hoping that the increasingly sensitive
instruments may yet detect the early ripples needed to explain the
universe's current makeup. Says Neil Turok, a theorist at Princeton:
"Basically, we all believe they have to find something. If they don't,
it will be a real puzzle."
The failure to find the expected perturbations near the beginning of
time is made even more troublesome by recent observations of huge,
previously unknown structures in the universe today. Margret Geller and
John Huchra of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in
Cambridge, Mass., painstakingly measured the light given off by
thousands of galaxies to map in three dimensions their positions and
distances from Earth. They were astounded by what they found: A "Great
Wall" of galaxies stretching across the sky. The universe, far from
being homogeneous as expected, looks like a conglomeration of immense
soap bubbles, with galaxies dotting the walls of enormous empty spaces.
A group of astronomers nicknamed the "Seven Samurai" lad by Alan
Dressler of Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, recently discovered in
another part of the universe an enormous gravitation source they call
the "Great Attractor." Nobody knows quite what to make of it, but
whatever is out there, approximately 150 million light-years from Earth,
is literally pulling galaxies toward it. "There are probably lots of
other structures like the Great Attractor," Dressler speculates, but
current theories are hard-pressed to explain how so immense a structure
could possibly have formed.
So researchers are left at once with no evidence to explain any
structure in the universe and a universe with much more structure to
explain. New measurements will confirm the original ideas or else
brand-new theories will have to be spun out. Either way, our view of
the universe will be changed forever.
###
That be it, folks. There are other articles in that issue on how they
think the galaxies formed, about possible other planets circling distant
stars, and the end of the universe. If there's interest, I can post
those as well.
Again, the credit and copyright for the above article belongs to U.S.
News & World Report. I was just the typist.
Gene
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: keithr@tolkien.wv.tek.com
Subject: Secret military groups
Date: 5 Apr 90 04:12:48 GMT
Don Ecker said:
-+He also mentioned a number of acroynms of several intelligence
-+agencies. SSP, SAS, PJ and the much more familar OSI, NSA, DIA,
-+CIA, etc. Now I know that the U. K. has the famous SAS or
-+Special Air Service but does anyone know what OUR SAS is? Do we
-+have one?
SSP, SAS, and PJ do NOT appear as acronyms in:
Richelson, Jeffery T. The U.S. Intelligence Community. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger , 1989. 2nd ed. 385pp. ISBN 0-88730-025-1
I highly recommend Richelson's dry, boring book for an overview of
the US intelligence establishment. He also has "Foreign Intelligence
Organizations" and "Sword and Shield: The Soviet Intelligence and
Security Apparatus" both of which should be valuable too, though I
have not seen either one yet.
(A not so dry and not so boring book concerning secret military groups is
James Adams's Secret Armies: Inside the American, Soviet, and European Special
Forces (Bantam, 1989). I couldn't find SSP, SAS (except for Special Air
Service), or PJ here either.)
Incidentally, in another of his books, "American Espionage and the
Soviet Target", Richelson wrote about the UFO sighting of Senator
Richard Russell and two companions during an official tour of Russia
in the 1950s. (This is also documented in Tim Good's Above Top
Secret.) I said to myself, "What's this guy doing mentioning the UFO
in a non-UFO book?" So, I wrote him a letter.
And Richelson was kind enough to reply. He said he used the UFO
story because it was the only example of that type of intelligence
gathering readily available to him (HUMINT, traveling variety)! OK.
I also asked him this question: "In your researches into the workings
of the U.S. intelligence community, have you come across any
information about UFOs that would lead you to believe that the
[intelligence] community takes the subject of UFOs a lot more
seriously than they have led the American public to believe through
their various public relations statements from 1947 to the
present?"
He said he has run across NO information indicating there is any
difference between the government's public and private stance on
UFOs. Much to my surprised, he also seemed quite well acquainted
with the UFO literature!
You can add this datapoint to your understanding of the
goverment/UFO connection. I continue to believe, of course, as many
of you do, that the gov/UFO connection is deep and longterm. It is
just about inconceivable to me that the goverment could be as
unconcerned about the UFO as their current public stance would lead
us to believe. As I see it, the assumption of government secrecy and
manipulation is about the only way we can have the present UFO
circumstances that we do -- widespread, grassroots unofficial
acknowledgement of the alien presence. If the government had not
manipulated the public and news media in the late 1940s and early
1950s, we would have all known in the 1950s or 1960s (thanks to
diligent reporting and investigating by an *unmanipulated* news
establishment) that the UFO mystery is genuine and that,
furthermore, the flying saucer from outer space is (probably) the
best interpretation of the mystery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: keithr@tolkien.wv.tek.com
Subject: More about Vallee's OVNIBASE
Date: 5 Apr 90 04:13:15 GMT
The following book has a short discussion of Jacques Vallee's
OVNIBASE:
Evans, Hilary and John Spencer (eds.). UFOs: 1947-1987 -- The 40-
Year Search for an Explanation. London: Fortean Tomes, 1987. 384pp.
ISBN 1-870021-02-9. A BUFORA publication.
Vallee chose the NEXPERT SYSTEM of Neuron Data, Inc., to implement
an intelligent UFO database. The NEXPERT SYSTEM is an expert
system development tool. Expert systems allow you to create a set
of rules that operate on your database to extract information
intelligently. The system can even get "smarter" as you enter more
data and rules. Vallee has created a set of rules to differentiate the
80% or so of IFOs from the genuine UFOs. However, the system is
designed to eliminate at least 30% to no more than 70% because if it
eliminated more than this, the system would then be entering the
area where human judgment should be exercised (at this time).
OVNIBASE runs on a Mac or IBM PC. The version of OVNIBASE
described here is a first version prototype. Vallee has undoubtedly
further enhanced his system at this time.
OVNIBASE is also discussed in Vallee's "Confrontations" on page
235-6. The revised rejection percents are between 50% and 75%. He
also mentions making this system available on public access
systems like the French Minitel!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: 4 Apr 90 19:12:00 GMT
Which is easier for you to do -- take a picture of whatever light
fixture you have hanging around and say it is a ufo OR take a picture
of a REAL UFO and then try and find (or make) a light fixture that, had
you taken a picture of it from just the right angle and under just the
right lighting, it would come out looking just like the REAL UFO. It
seems to me it is clearly easier to start with the light fixture and
proceed to hoax a ufo photo, then to start with a ufo photo and then
try and come up with a light fixture that will match to it.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Klass&Truman sig.
Date: 5 Apr 90 01:01:00 GMT
> From: ncar!iucf.bitnet!GRAHAM@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM
> Date: 3 Apr 90 15:43:43 GMT
> Message-ID: <3636@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>
> Newsgroups: info.paranet
>
>
> Concerning the last part about Moore, could you explain this? I haven't
> had my morning coffee, so I'm not yet capable of simple logic. :-) :-)
Jim:
The documents specialist contacted by Klass just happened to be one that Moore
had already contacted. He had told Moore that the document was a phony before
he had told Klass that. So Moore had found out about the phony independently
of Klass.
Moore defends his failure to announce the findings by saying that "all the
information wasn't in yet."
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Re: Fyffe Sighting
Date: 5 Apr 90 06:32:00 GMT
Jerry:
Sounds good to me. You know the question had to be asked, though.
IFU? Is that an obscene IFO? :-)
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder
Subject: Spies, Lies & ET's
Date: 5 Apr 90 03:23:01 GMT
In a message of <02 Apr 90 01:21>, Don Ecker (1:30163/22) writes:
>According to Moore, the G. employs MANY UFO spies to keep tabs on all us
>here. ( and if any of ya reading this happen to be one, could you PLEASE
>answer why???? )
No Don, I'm not a UFO spy but the answer is fairly easy. The people who run
our intelligence networks operate outside of the law under the umbrella of
"national security". These people are not elected to their position and are,
because of no legal restraints and vast resources, essentially more powerful
than our Gov't. The term "national security" is a misnomer and is more
accurately described as "national insecurity". Their game is twofold. One is
to gather intelligence and the other is to prevent intelligence from getting
into the wrong hands.
In the book "The Spy Who Got Away." (namely Edward Lee Howard) by David Wise,
billed as "The true story of the only CIA agent to defect to the Soviet Union",
Howard talks about a game played by the CIA called "IF". In this game one
person is "US", the other plays "THEM". "THEM" says "I'll do this" and then
"US" says "Well if you do that then I'll do this and this" etc etc. The game
never ends going back and forth between "US" and "THEM". It's purpose is to
explore the possibilities and how to prevent certain things from happening
before "THEM" gets a chance to do it. It's completely mental and slightly
paranoid. Is it useful? Well I guess that's debatable.
--
Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Ecker
Subject: Re: Spies, Lies & ET's
Date: 3 Apr 90 19:41:00 GMT
>
> his speech. Falcon was on that big national UFO special
> about a year
> or so ago. Between what he said, and how he said it, I can
> tell you
> for almost postitive... this guy is John Lear. Does anyone
> else get
> this feeling?
Jeff:
For Too many reasons that I can't go into now because of space, I
don't buy that for a second. As a matter of fact, Lear was
originally supposed to contribute to the show, and was cut. He
was upset about this. But keep digging....
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Ecker
Subject: Re: Spies, Lies & ET's
Date: 3 Apr 90 19:59:00 GMT
Jim, as you noted;
> -- How could a supposed experianced investigator like Moore
> work on and with these gvt agents and not have gathered
> some "goods" on them that would blow their cover? His
> recitence to name names seems designed to protect only
> himself.
To answer your question, as either Moore or Shandera mentioned,
they were not naming names because they wanted to protect FALCON.
Not from the govt. folks, but from the public. As I think it was
Moore stated, they wanted to make sure this guy stays in the
"loop" and if the public knew who he was, he would loose his
effectivnes.
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Ecker
Subject: Spies, Lies & ET's
Date: 3 Apr 90 20:01:00 GMT
Jim:
To answer your question about Bob Friend, no, no one asked him
about his opinion on MJ-12. It was kind of sad to see Friend up
there, he seemed to be out of his element. It was obvious he has
some type of hearing problem and the questions had to be repeated
several times to him. Finally Moore fielded Friends questions to
him.
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f20.n3607.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jerry.Woody
Subject: Re: Fyffe Sighting
Date: 4 Apr 90 23:16:00 GMT
->From: Gene Gross <gross@dg-rtp.dg.com>
->Only one person noticed the "red flame coming from the
->bottom." How
->long did this flame appear to last?
Hi Gene;
The one ivestigator observed it I would say about 1-3 minutes. As you know
a MUFON witness, even if he/she is a field investigator, has a right to
anonimity [I know, the spellings all wrong, but a dictonary isn't nearby :-)
]. Plus I haven't read the report from the person who saw it, so I am just
estimating how long he/she saw it. As for only one person seeing it,
remember there were 3 of us "fighting" <GRIN> for a chance to see it with
one set of binoculars. The person who saw it last was the one who saw the
red flame while I and another was taking pictures.
->When the object disappeared, could the "like a hole
->closing" have been
->due to it vanishing in the distance? From the way you put
->it, I was
->wondering if it simply vanished into the distance, which
->might appear as
It could very well have, but the speed with which it would have to do it
would be phenonemal. It was rising 'very' slowly at the time we were
sighting it and for it disappearing the way it did, if it indeed vanished by
distance, it would had to have flown exactly linear (?), or straight from us
. By that I mean no course variants, decelerations, turns, etc. The 'hole
closing' thing was just the best words I could find personally to describe
its' dissapearance. The how/why it actually vanished the way it did I
couldn't even hazard a guess.
->a hole closing. The other thing that is hard to picture is
->just how
->large the object appeared to be to you and the other two
->observers. If
The best way I could describe the size of it to you would be:
Get a dime and hold it at arms length from you. Raise it up 60 degrees above
the horizon and that is how big it was from our vantage point. I'm trying to
see what the magnification is on the binoculars (they're not mine) so I can
better guess the size of the object.
->Also, was the object seen by other people in the area? How
->was the
->object oriented to you three? From the sounds of it, you
->got a look at
->it from the side. Would like to read the reports of the
->others who saw
->this object. When you can, could you arrange this?
As far as I know, no one else in the area saw this particular object... but
the specific area in which we saw it is a well known 'sighting' place.
That's why we were there in the first place. I think the people in the cars
passing us were more interested in these 3 MUFON investigators stopped in
the middle of the road, running around the car and hollaring for binoculars
and pictures <GRIN>. I'll ask Jeff Ballard, MUFON state leader, about what
we can give out about the reports when finished. All really depends on the
other 2 witnesses as far as names, etc.
Regards,
Jerry
--
Jerry Woody - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jerry.Woody@f20.n3607.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************************
