Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 204
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 204
Saturday, April 14th 1990
Today's Topics:
Cooper's BBS #
Klass
Re: Chronocentricity
(none)
(none)
Questions From A Beginner...
Roswell
Re: 3 Star Interview
Chronocentricity
Important Info.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <GRAHAM@iucf.bitnet>
Subject: Cooper's BBS #
Date: 12 Apr 90 15:52:53 GMT
In newsletter 198 Clark Matthews writes:
-+Jim, care to post the number of Mr. Cooper's BBS? A few of us might want
-+to satisfy our curiosity...
Sure, here it is: (714)-680-9537.
Clark, I hope you're more successful than I was.
Jim.
----------------------------------------
GRAHAM@IUCF.BITNET
----------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
Subject: Klass
Date: 13 Apr 90 03:22:28 GMT
Jim: perhaps I misspoke, but Klass and CSICOP have
been the target of some pretty serious charges on
this conference, yet when I requested documentation,
the only reference I received was to this article.
On the the Univ. of Nebraska conference case, nobody has
presented any confirming evidence and my question on
what grounds Klass could threaten UN with legal action
has not been answered. Since a later MUFON conference
was held at UN, the story is suspect. Secondly the
"Endacott" case has been refuted on this conference and
denied in SI. finally, in another article by Jerome
Clark in "Fringes of Reason," JC speaks of the MJ-12
documents as not having been refuted by Klass despite
"frantic" efforts. The status of these documents has
been discussed on ParaNet extensively. Given JC's
track record, I see no reason to believe any of his
charges without further support.
Does this answer your question? I have no
data beyond what is available to everybody else on
PN.
Klass has challenged alleged abductees to
report their kidnapping to the FBI as the government
can impose fairly heavy penalties for false crime
reports.($10,000 fine + prison?) Could this be the
basis for rumor of his threat of legal action?
"Enquiring minds want to know" --- John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: koreth@ebay.sun.com (Steven Grimm)
Subject: Re: Chronocentricity
Date: 13 Apr 90 03:28:04 GMT
What you call chronocentricity, I call science. Isn't that what
science is all about? Forming a theory to explain a phenomenon based
on the best currently available data? I'll admit to being a little
disturbed by the conversation about the brain as a digital computer in
your article; the rest seems not only natural, but healthy, if not
downright necessary. (What sort of world do you have when people just
assume that everything is beyond explanation?)
---
Steven Grimm, Quality Engineering Sun Microsystems Federal, Milpitas, CA
"This isn't going to look good at the next Cannibals' Anonymous meeting."
koreth@ebay.sun.com uunet!sun!ebay!koreth --"Freddy's Nightmares"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: isis!well!ddrasin (Dan Drasin)
Subject: (none)
Date: 13 Apr 90 10:12:39 GMT
Billy Goodman
I heard a rumor this evening that Billy Goodman (KVEG radio, Las Vegas)
has been silenced. Can anyone confirm this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: well!ddrasin (Dan Drasin)
Subject: (none)
Date: 13 Apr 90 10:13:20 GMT
Chronocentrism
-+ I get very suspicious when reading reports of UFO experiences,
-+ encounters, etc., when the report is cast very much in terms of known
-+ phenomenon, of known cultural behavior patterns. When aliens are
-+ alleged to behave very much like humans, I get very suspicious. I
-+ suspect that actual contact with alien intelligence will be of a
-+ nature that is so far beyond our comprehension that we might be no
-+ more aware it was happening than ants are aware of the finer nuances
-+ of high-energy particle physics.
-+ Thoughts, anyone?
-+ Gary
Gary, your "Chronocentricity" posting was marvelous. The only
exception I'd take is the following:
For a phenomenon (or a range of phenomena) to be perceptible to us in
the first place, it must have elements of familiarity, whatever
elements of strangeness it may also have. One cannot necessarily rule
something out (say, an element of humanness) just because it *is*
recognizable.
As you so eloquently pointed out, a dogmatically chronocentric or
anthropocentric *attitude* is not likely to get us much closer to the
undoubtedly complex truth. However, it's just as easy to fall into the
opposite trap -- of insisting that "alien" must mean *100%* alien.
Your argument seems to be based on the assumption of "accidentalism"-
-that evolution isn't likely to occur in the same way in different
places. And on the additional assumption that the universe hasn't been
around long enough for a good deal of interstellar "commerce" and
cross-fertilization to have taken place. Well, there is considerable
evidence right on this earth that parallel evolution *does* take
place, though scientific chronocentrists generally won't look into the
evidence because we can't *presently* account for it. As for
interstellar and/or interdimensional "commerce"... well, there seems
to be no evidence *against* it.
-+ I wonder how, with all our satellites and telescopes, we never really
-+ detect any aliens out there? Unless everyone that does detect it is
-+ involved in the coverup, of course.
-+ Forseti - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
A good question. But satellites and telescopes aren't designed to
detect aliens. You wouldn't look for magnetic fields with an air
pressure gauge, or x-rays with a microphone, or gravitational
anomalies with a metal detector...
There is an amazingly widespread phenomenon known as "instrumental
blindness." It occurs when scientists try to detect phenomenon "x"
with an instrument designed to register only phenomenon "y." That
instrument may be a physical one (examples above) but most often it is
an inappropriate *attitudinal* instrument, i.e., an attitude based on
incorrect presuppositions -- for example, chronocentric ones. In
either case, no phenomenon is detected, and, lo and behold, the
skeptic seems to be vindicated! The Battered Child Syndrome (once the
object of considerable skepticism) was *absolutely undetectable* as a
widespread phenomenon until a certain presupposition (that parents
"wouldn't treat their kids that way") was successfully challenged.
Michaelson and Morley "disproved" the existence of an "ether" -- but
their classic experiment was designed to measure an ether that
conformed to *particular* assumptions about what the ether might be.
As a result of the dogma that arose around this disproof, there has
been no impetus to test *alternative conceptions* of an ether... and
science has been the loser.
A similar phenomenon occurs in a more deliberate sense in the practice
of debunkery, where, say, an astronomer may be trotted out as an
expert on something other than astronomy; for example, ufology (very
little of which involves astronomy). Or a psychiatrist may be brought
in to dispute the value of hypnotic regression in abduction cases that
rest not upon hypnosis but upon spontaneous recall.
Having said all this, I should add that astronomers *have* seen plenty
of unidentified flying objects, and that there seems to be
considerable evidence that our astronauts have as well. The recent
radio transmissions between the space shuttle Discovery and Houston in
which an "alien craft" was evidently "under observance" is one of the
more tantalizing bits of unconfirmed (well, stonewalled) evidence to
that effect.
=d=
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f728.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin
Subject: Questions From A Beginner...
Date: 12 Apr 90 21:38:00 GMT
-+ > From: A_CRUZ@upr1.upr.cun.edu
-+ > - Why the Goverments around the world are so afraid
-+ > of
-+ > admitting the UFO existence?
My big theory is that should UFOs prove to be truly something
that even the government does not understand, they would be
neglect in their duty to disclose to the public that they exist
and that they (the government) are thoroughly in the dark about
them. Lets assume that a UFO did crash in Roswell or somewhere
else for that matter. And, it did contain bodies totally alien
to us. We scoop up the wreckage and scurry it off to the labs
for top priority analysis and we are totally unable to determine
what it is and where it comes from. This presents the first
problem.
Now, we know that UFOs have been known to "buzz" military
facilities, power generating facilities and so forth. Even some
of the most secured facilities seem to be impervious to a UFOs
ability to penetrate, survey and then not only leave, but to fly
circles around our finest and fastest defense aircraft. It is
like they just flip us the bird and giggle all the way back to
where they came from.
There are plenty of factual reports detailing such a scenario as
I have described above. However, consider this one case that
took place in Montana at the Malmstrom AFB in the mid-70's. A
remote nuclear warhead firing silo was penetrated by an unknown
object. When the Air Force equivalent of a metropolitan police
department SWAT team arrived, they found a 150-foot diameter
object hovering over the silo. When the jets and helicopters
arrived, the object began to rise in the air and at various
points, it disappeared both visually and off radar. The local
airbase (Malmstrom) and NORAD (North American Air Defense Command
in Colorado Springs, CO) were tracking it on radar as well as the
aircraft in the area. During its ascent, when it reached a
safe-from-aircraft altitude it was again visible and was tracked
on NORAD's radar to an altitude where it disappeared at approx.
180,000 feet from the radar never to be seen again. During this
time, there were also local sighting reports from civilians as
well. However, it was not just this that really worried the
military. It was determined that the launch codes on the warhead
had been tampered with.
This case occurred during a great UFO flap in that there were
several sightings in a line occurring along states in the country
in line with Malmstrom all the way to the east coast. In
virtually all of the cases, the UFOs were found to penetrate
similar facilities, were chased and left us eating their dust.
We know this is true.
Can you imagine someone going public with an announcement like:
Ladies and gentlemen, UFOs are real, but we don't know what they
are.
Over the years there have also been cases in which there have been
harm brought upon property and people as a direct result of a UFO
encounter. Example is the famous Mantell case. So, it stands to
reason that the press would first ask, "Are we safe from them?"
Logically, since we can't seem to identify them or catch them, we
must not know how to deal with them. So, the answer to that
simple question would have to be we don't know. And, there goes
public confidence in our military and government.
A very interesting paradox, indeed. However simplistic my story
may sound, all one must do is ponder the implications of this and
it appears to be a very valid concern.
Recently, there has also been concern raised publicly about the
possibility of a World War being triggered by UFOs. It is my
understanding only that there may have been concern on the part
of the United States government and the Soviet Union about this
possibility. Antonio Huneeus, a researcher in New York, has been
covering this aspect very heavily. We have a file called
RUSSIAN.UFO, I believe, that deals with this. This theory is
very interesting.
-+ > Let us assume that the U.S. Goverment (to take an example)
-+ > admit and show
-+ > their proofs.
-+ >
-+ > - What would be the people's response?
-+ >
-+ > - Which step will we take next?
-+ >
-+ > ... and before you reply, remember that
-+ > "there are GOOD guys and
-+ > BAD guys out there".
This is interesting also. And, I believe that this has been at
the top of someone's roster of concerns. I would venture to
guess that the government think tanks have discussed this subject
more than once. However, without more information we cannot
assume anything. We don't even have enough information to
determine if they are good or bad or even what their agenda might
be, if they are even real.
Hang around, Angel, I think that things could get very
interesting.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f728.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f728.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin
Subject: Roswell
Date: 12 Apr 90 21:41:00 GMT
-+ > From: James Ghofulpo <REVJIM@mtus5.bitnet>
-+ >
-+ > Regarding the Roswell crash, I remember hearing
-+ > something about
-+ > a resident owning a piece of the crashed "craft". Is
-+ > this true,
-+ > and, if so, is he still alive?
As the story goes, Matt Brazel owned the ranch where the crash
allegedly occurred. His son, Bill, found pieces of the object
after the AF finished in the area. He kept these in a cigar box.
After talking at a local tavern to friends about his find, he was
approached by some AF people who compelled him to turn over
anything that he had in his possession. He complied and the case
was closed.
As far as I know, Bill Brazel did turn everything over to them
and to this day, he has none in his possession.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f728.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f728.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin
Subject: Re: 3 Star Interview
Date: 12 Apr 90 21:54:00 GMT
-+ > My biggest question(s) on all of this stuff is how and
-+ > where do we get proof. I am willing to believe, but I would also,
-+ > at the same time, like to not make a fool of myself and others.
-+ > Which, in fact, is a PLUS for those not wanting anyone to find out
-+ > about our governments dealings with UFOS. After all who wants to
-+ > make a public fool of oneself? I think that is partly why so much
-+ > of this UFO information is so unbelievable. Because we don't want
-+ > to take a stand and say "I really believe this stuff is happening
-+ > and am going to take steps to uncover the truth."
There is definitely a problem with this that goes back to the
Robertson Panel in 1952. Supposedly, the Robertson Panel was to
be a scientific evaluation of the UFO problem, however it was
organized and controlled by the CIA. Instead of focusing on the
scientific problem, the Robertson Panel decided that the subject
of UFOs had to be "debunked" at all cost. The plan was to
utilize the services of highly known and respected people in the
movie industry. Arthur Godfrey, Walt Disney and others were
specifically mentioned as sources of such propoganda to dispell
the UFO problem to the general public. This could have spilled
over into the scientific community as well. We all know that
scientists are motivated by popular peer opinion. Thus, if you
have a Carl Sagan, for instance, tell the scientific community
that there are no such things as UFOs and list all the reasons
why it could be so, and sprinkle that with the possibility of
excommunication that one might experience for even pursuing such
a worthless pursuit, you get a negative attitude in the community
and no one wants to deal with it. Lets face it, crashed saucers
are only rumors at this point. We have nothing solid to study
aside from landing traces and the like.
To go a step further in the public debunking of UFOs, it is
generally believed that persons (contactees of old) such as
George Adamski was in essence a government disinformant who was
being paid by the British government via the US intelligence
community. The powers that be also attempted to undermine NICAP
(National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomenon) and
Donald Keyhoe by slipping in some kook contactees to make it look
like NICAP fell into that belief system. It is rumored that they
actually paid Keyhoe's secretary to slip them into the group.
The contactee movement really polluted the study of UFOs in the
early days as people always equated the contactees with the kooks
and crackpots who were not to be taken seriously as they were
generally exposed as frauds after getting so much public
attention. What happened as a result of this is that the general
public felt that the only persons involved in the study of UFOs
were the kooks and crackpots. This also keeps the scientific
community at bay because UFOlogy is viewed as a fringe science
today, although this could change.
We must approach this with critical thinking in order to gain the
respect of the public.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f728.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f728.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin
Subject: Chronocentricity
Date: 12 Apr 90 22:05:00 GMT
-+ > From: Gary Knight <GARY@maximillion.cp.mcc.com>
Kudos!
I couldn't agree more with this although I feel that
chronocentricity could also be a step in the process of
discovery which should occur.
Hynek believed that we should also consider this problem in terms
that we don't or can't understand too.
BTW, if there is an expanded version of your paper, please send
it to me via netmail. It would make a nice library file.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f728.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!Bill.English
Subject: Important Info.
Date: 13 Apr 90 03:13:00 GMT
Don, if you are still talking to me please give me a call immediately.
I believe that I have come accross one of the hotest bits of
information to every hit Ufology. This is extremely important and I
need you advice before pursuing it. I cannot discuss it openly at this
point, but beleive that you will agree with me on this...
Bill
--
Bill English - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.English@paranet.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************************
