Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 217
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 217
Wednesday, May 9th 1990
Today's Topics:
Re: Echo Guidelines
Woodward and the Company
multiple summer sightings
Phil Klass responds to charges of suing a University...
(none)
Magnetic Lines
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cyrill@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Cyro Lord)
Subject: Re: Echo Guidelines
Date: 7 May 90 21:07:29 GMT
In article <66867.2644ED1B@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Rogers) writes:
>adopt these attitudes, we'll have a more polite, effective network.
>
>1. No anonymous messages may be posted on the network. Some Paranet BBS's
> allow users to use "handles", and USENET users have no opportunity to
> place their names in the "From" field. If a user uses a handle, then all
> posts to Paranet Echos must be signed at the end of the message using
> the user's REAL NAME. In the case of USENET posts, it would help to
> place the ADDRESSEE's REAL NAME in the subject field. It is the respon-
> sibility of the Sysop of each Paranet Node to enforce this requirement,
> either by reviewing all messages before release, or by disallowing
> Paranet access to users using handles.
For USENET/UUCP/INTERNET readers, The real name in the subject field will
not work. Make a fullname file or find out from your system adminperson how
this is done. If you put your Full Name in the Subject line, it will be added
to the subject field in the digest and not what you are talking about. Another
option is to put your full name at the start or a .signature file. (There are
other options that can/could be used, the idea being people want to know who's
talking. Most articles coming in do include the persons full name so if yours
does, forget this as you are already doing this stuff.)
I must ask again that all Fido sites that are not using editors which put
hard carriage returns after each 79 characters be updated at some point
in the very near future as I spend to much time editing long lines before
the digest can go out to readers on the USENET/INTERNET side. Fido articles
are sent from here via mail and some of these (Darpa, CSNET, Decnet and all
mail overseas is sent via other transports than uucp. These transports DON'T
READ LINE LONGER THAN 80 CHARACTERS!!
Hope i'm being clear here and that the echo moderator will have all new sites
coming on line aware of 80 character problem and get them fixed before they
come on line and start sending articles, as I have to find time to do my job
also as the season for work is here at AlphaCDC with limited play time until
fall which means everything else is secondary.
On a personal note, lets do away with all the 'wing' talk as the echo is about
UFO not 'wings'. I'm sure their are plenty of political echos in which anyone
'wings' can be touted and you will get all the smoke (Also call horse stuff)
one could want. (AAAhhhh, you wonder what are 'wings'? My word for the left,
right, center or no wing comments that seem to abound with/without foundation in
the world now.)
Thanks for your time.
-Cyro
<---------------------------++++++++++++++++++----------------------------->
Cyro Lord Alpha Comm. Dev. Corp. - DOMAIN cyrill@scicom.alphacdc.com
UUCP {ncar,nbires,boulder,isis}!scicom!cyrill
Endeavor to Persevere - Chief Dan George
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gene Gross <gross@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Subject: Woodward and the Company
Date: 7 May 90 23:01:48 GMT
# From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Allen
# Subject: Re: UFO'S AND THE CIA
# Date: 5 May 90 06:47:28 GMT
#
# BTW, "All the President's Men" was quite an expose' on Watergate.
Don, this should be a big clue. Woodward has not had much success and
"notoriety" since the Watergate expose. He has been taken to task over
the veracity of his book on Casey and the CIA. According to Casey's
wife and others, Woodward did not have all those interviews with the old
man before his death.
Since Casey is dead and unavailable for further comment, it boils down
the the word of Woodward against all the others. I take the book and
anything Woodward says with a grain of salt.
That doesn't mean that there isn't some truth to what he has written.
But even Agee and others who have tried to lay bare the inner secrets of
the Company have only partly succeeded. Anyone who doesn't understand
the comparmentalization that goes on inside the Company might not
realize this. They would tend to take what these folks have written and
assume that they are getting a real inside look. They are, but only to
a degree.
The CIA and other intelligence groups (NSA, OSI, DIA, etc.) know well
the meaning of never letting your left hand know what the right hand is
doing. The Company was started by "Wild" Bill Donovan of OSS fame. He
knew how to compartmentalize with the best of them. Even the head of
CIA (the Director) doesn't know all that is going on--again, need to
know is the rule of the day. Also, there are projects that get started
and funded through the black budgets and all the file are black draped.
At that point, even the Director can't gain access and must rely upon
subordinates to keep him apprised of on-going operations of that sort.
Thing is he might not hear about one of those covert operations his
entire time in office--unless something goes wrong and could embarass
the President (who controls the Director's tenure at CIA).
Another thing to realize is that the real power in the Company is not
with the political appointees, but rather with the civil servants about
a level or two below them. Those civil servants have been with the
Company a very long time and know where the skeletons are (again only in
the areas that they have a demonstrated need to know). They know how to
tap into the black funds for their operations. They play the system the
way a great maestro plays an orchestra.
So enjoy Woodward's book, but don't take it as gospel, if you catch my
drift. And please do recognize that Woodward is an incurable liberal.
I pass no judgement on that--let history do it.
Gene
P.S. Could someone send me information on a PC BBS, Paranet preferably,
that I can modem to from home. Since Mike's went down I haven't been
able to get into anything. I was in the process of discussing some
things with Paul and others and would like to try and pick that up.
Also, my free time here at work is rather limited. Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: shelmrei@nmsu.edu
Subject: multiple summer sightings
Date: 7 May 90 23:40:26 GMT
It seems to me that the first (obvious?) explanation of more summer
sightings is that more people are outside in the evenings in summer
and (therefore) somewhat more likely to look in the sky. Weather is
often better in the summer as well, so that people may well look up
more and see farther in the summer than the winter.
Similarly, once a sighting has been reported, I would assume that more
people would be "looking up", not to mention the people who would
"see" things that weren't there (e.g., the Mad Anesthetist of
Mattoon).
Stephen Helmreich (shelmrei@nmsu.edu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ames!Atherton.COM!alex (Alex Leavens)
Subject: Phil Klass responds to charges of suing a University...
Date: 7 May 90 23:47:23 GMT
The following is a series of messages that have been posted
to the 'Sci.skeptic' section of usenet. I haven't seen this
info in the paranet newsletter, and considering the information
within, I think it's worthy of attention.
--alex
alex@Atherton.COM
----Start included messages----
Recently, on the "info.paranet" newsgroup, various net posters have
been discussing allegations that UFO researcher and CSCIOP fellow
Phil Klass pressured the University of Nebraska into cancelling a
conference scheduled there on UFOs. Since that didn't sound _at
all_ like Phil, I wrote him to ask him about it, and enclosed
printouts of the discussion.
Here is Phil's recent reply, which I have also posted on
info.paranet. (I hope no one will mind the cross-posting.)
----------------
Dear Rick Moen:
Although I should be smart and let "sleeping University of Nebraska
dogs lie," in view of questions (and misinformation) raised in the
recent Paranet material you sent, you are welcome to input the
following into Paranet, if you have the patience to do so. MANY OF
THESE DETAILS HAVE NEVER BEFORE BEEN MADE PUBLIC. I HAVE
DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT ALL CLAIMS.
In mid-1983, a concerned Nebraska high-school teacher (former APRO
state official) sent me the advance program for an upcoming UFO
symposium being _sponsored by_ the Univ. of Nebraska at Lincoln --
its _second_ such conference. As with the first conference, there
was not a single skeptic on the program.
I sat down to write a short article for "Skeptical Inquirer" to
needle the University for seeming to promote belief in the
paranormal, but decided that out of fairness I should talk to
University officials involved. So, on Aug. 23, 1983, I called and
talked to a man named Russ Free -- the program coordinator.
During our discussion, Free claimed that the University is obliged
to sponsor any conference that rents its facilities. I responded
that I understood why a state-owned institution might be obliged to
RENT ITS FACILITIES to all "askers" but found it surprising that it
was "obliged to sponsor" all such conferences. I asked if the
American Nazi Party wanted to rent its facilities for a meeting,
whether the University would "sponsor" said meeting. Free referred
me to his boss, Dr. Robert Mortenson.
Later that day I talked by telephone with Mortenson. I identified
myself as being a senior editor with Av Week, and a member of
CSICOP's council -- but emphasized that I was NOT CALLING IN EITHER
OF THOSE CAPACITIES -- BUT HAD PLANNED TO WRITE A PIECE ABOUT THE
UPCOMING CONFERENCE WHOSE THEME WAS "GOVERNMENT'S COSMIC WATERGATE
COVERUP."
My conversation with Mortenson was a friendly one in which he
_professed_ to be unaware that the panel of speakers was so
unbalanced and did not have a single skeptic. At one point,
Mortenson inquired if I would be willing to speak if he could
arrange it. I replied that I already was committed to give a
lecture in Philadelphia on the same date -- but even if I weren't, I
would not accept under those conditions. Mortenson asked if I and/or
CSICOP would be willing to participate the following year if such a
conference were held, and I said I thought we would.
At one point in our conversation, lest Mortenson misunderstand my
purpose in calling, I said: "Let me emphasize to you...that I am
not, _repeat not_, suggesting that you cancel or terminate the
conference. I would not want to be a party to that." And a short
time later, I told Mortenson: "I emphasize to you that I am not
recommending or urging (conference) cancellation." Based on
Mortenson's claim that he was unaware of the extreme bias in the
choice of speakers, and his expressed desire to achieve a better
balance in any subsequent conference, I tabled my plans to do a
short needling article for "SI".
Following our conversation, Mortenson wrote a brief memo to Dr. John
Yost, assistant to the Chancellor, reporting the highlights of our
telcon. If his recollections had been more accurate, or IF A COPY
OF HIS INACCURATE AUG. 23 MEMO HAD NOT BEEN LEAKED TO MUFON,
REPRODUCED AND WIDELY DISTRIBUTED -- THE MATTER WOULD HAVE ENDED AT
THAT POINT.
Shortly after the conference on Nov. 11-13, I learned that copies of
Mortenson's Aug. 23 memo to the Chancellor had been handed out to
the attendees. Someone sent me a copy for comment. On Nov. 23,
1983, I wrote Mortenson informing him that his private memo to the
Chancellor had been distributed publicly. Therefore it was
appropriate for me to correct it errors and I QUOTED VERBATIM FROM
MY REMARKS TO HIM -- WHICH I HAD TAPE RECORDED JUST IN CASE SOMEONE
MIGHT LATER CLAIM I HAD TRIED TO SCUTTLE THE CONFERENCE.
I had expected that Mortenson would reply IMMEDIATELY, EXPRESSING
SHOCK THAT HIS PERSONAL MEMO TO THE CHANCELLOR HAD BEEN MADE PUBLIC,
AND APOLOGIZING FOR ITS ERRORS, WHICH SEEMED TO PUT ME IN A BAD
LIGHT. When nearly a month had passes _without a word_ from
Mortenson, I wrote again on Dec. 18, in case he had not received the
original. _Still no reply_.
On Jan. 11, 1984, having still not heard from Mortenson, I then
wrote Dr. John Yost, in the Chancellor's office, enclosing copies of
my two earlier letters to Mortenson. In my brief letter, I said
that failure to hear from Mortenson had caused me to wonder if the
release of his inaccurate memo was intentional.
I wrote that this was "his perogative. But if that be the case,
then it is my perogative to take appropriate legal action to set the
record straight and clear my name." (NOTE: THIS WAS THE ONLY
MENTION OF POSSIBLE LEGAL ACTION ON MY PART DURING THIS LENGTHY
EXCHANGE AND IT WAS INTENDED TO PROMPT A RESPONSE -- WHICH IT DID.)
Shortly after writing this letter, the then new issue (Oct. 1983) of
"MUFON UFO Journal" arrived. MUFON director Walt Andrus devoted
much of his column to this matter, charging I had tried to "scuttle
the University of Nebraska's conference on UFOs and the Government
coverup," as well as making other spurious charges. THE CONTENTS OF
THIS ANDRUS COMMENTARY STRONGLY SUGGESTED THAT MORTENSON AND/OR FREE
WAS HIS SOURCE.
On Jan 22, not having heard from Yost, I wrote again, detailing also
the spurious charges in the just-received MUFON Journal, including
the _false_ claim that I had telephoned the Chancellor's office to
try to get the conference cancelled.
With my letter, I enclosed a copy of the MUFON article in which
Andrus (indiscretely) reported that he had been supplied with "A
COPY OF FIVE PAGES OF NOTES TAKEN DURING THE ACTUAL TELEPHONE
CONVERSATIONS." OBVIOUSLY THESE HAD BEEN SUPPLIED BY MORTENSON OR
FREE. In my letter to Yost I concluded: "I seek your assistance in
establishing the _source_ of the gross errors in MUFON's charges."
My two letters to Yost finally evoked a reply from Mortenson, dated
Feb. 1. He told me that his Aug. 23 memo was "confidential to Dr.
Yost" and that the only other person to receive a copy was Russ
Free. Mortenson said that "The Univesity does wish to inform you
that they had nothing to do with this memorandum going beyond its
original purpose."
Note the clever wording of this statement. It _implies_ that
neither Mortenson nor Free had any role in leaking his memo to
MUFON. By the time I received this Mortenson letter I knew this
claim was FALSE BECAUSE ANDRUS HIMSELF HAD SENT ME A COPY OF A
ONE-PAGE LETTER HE HAD RECEIVED FROM MORTENSON, DATED DEC. 23, 1983.
This Mortenson letter revealed his relations with Andrus were so
close and cozy that before publication Andrus had sent him a copy of
the MUFON article, which quoted from Mortenson's Aug. 23 memo,
seeking Mortenson's comments. And that on Dec. 23, 1983 -- A MONTH
AFTER I HAD FIRST WRITTEN MORTENSON TO QUOTE VERBATIM WHAT I HAD
SAID IN OUR TELCON TO CORRECT ERRORS IN HIS AUG. 23 MEMO, MORTENSON
DID NOT EVEN TRY TO CORRECT THOSE ERRORS IN HIS DEC. 23 LETTER TO
ANDRUS. HE POINTED OUT ONLY ONE ERROR -- NOTING THAT I HAD _NOT_
CALLED THE CHANCELLOR, AS ANDRUS HAD WRITTEN. ANDRUS HAD
(FOOLISHLY) SENT ME (AND OTHERS) THE MORTENSON LETTER WITH THE
ANNOTATION THAT IT WAS RECEIVED TOO LATE TO CORRECT THE LATTER ERROR
IN THE OCT. OR NOV. ISSUE.
The reply to my Jan. 11/22 letters to Yost came from Richard R.
Wood, General Counsel to the University. Wood repeated Mortenson's
claim that "Copies of this memorandum _were not_ distributed to any
other party. Further, neither the University nor any of its
employees has authorized nor consented to any publication by MUFON
concerning Dr. Mortenson's August 23, 1983 memorandum, WHICH WAS
OBTAINED BY THAT ORGANIZATION WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF
THE UNIVERSITY OR ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES." (Latter emphasis added.)
Wood concluded: "This letter will conclude correspondence by the
University with you concerning this matter."
I replied on March 7, 1984, noting: "Either one of your employees
illicitly provided a copy of that Aug. 23 memo to a MUFON
representative, or a thief gained entry to your offices and took
only one item -- the Mortenson memo -- and then gave it to MUFON.
Curiously, your University seemingly has never bothered to
investigate this impropriety, or crime."
I then enclosed a photocopy of Mortenson's letter of Dec. 23 to
MUFON's Andrus. I pointed out that Mortenson never once objected to
Andrus quoting from his Aug. 23 memo. I added that it seemed that
Wood was unaware of this Mortenson-to-Andrus letter, which
contradicted Wood's claims. My letter concluded: "Now that you
have these facts, I expect a more accurate response from you as to
the involvement and culpability of University employees in this
incident."
On March 20, Wood replied, saying he had again discussed the matter
with Mortenson and Free. "Based upon these discussions, I am
convinced that Dr. Mortenson's Aug. 23 memo was not distributed,
leaked, or otherwise given by any member of the University staff to
any third party."
Despite Wood now having a copy of Mortenson's Dec. 23 letter to
Andrus, which Mortenson posed NO OBJECTION TO ANDRUS QUOTING FROM
HIS AUG. 23 MEMO TO YOST, WOOD SAID: "I AM FURTHER CONVINCED THAT
DR. MORTENSON DID NOT CONSENT TO SUCH PUBLICATION AND IN FACT WAS
NOT AWARE THAT MUFON INTENDED TO MAKE REFERENCE TO OR EXCERPT FROM
HIS AUG. 23 MEMO IN ANY OF ITS PUBLICATONS."
Wood concluded with his "sincere expression of regret" over the
matter.
My reply of March 27 began as follows: "As I read, and re-read your
letter of March 20...my thoughts went back a decade to the Watergate
Scandal. And I recalled some basically decent people who became
entrapped in the web of coverup even though they had not been a
party to the original machinations.
"If I were convinced, as claimed in your letter, that you are
`convinced that Dr. Mortenson's Aug. 23 memo was not distributed,
leaked, or otherwise given by any member of the University staff to
any third party...'
"And if I were convinced that you are `convinced that Dr. Mortenson
did not consent to such publication and in fact was not aware that
MUFON intended to make any reference to or excerpt from his August
23 memo in any of its publications...'
"Then I should consider you an excellent prospect to buy the
Chesapeake Bay Bridges at a great bargain price: $199.95 for one
span, or $299.95 for both!"
I then summarized the hard evidence to show that Wood's claims were
not true. I concluded: "Possibly some small good has come of all
this. Surely it has provided the Chancellor's office with better
insight into the character of some members of the University staff.
And it has certainly demonstrated that you, Mr. Wood, are a game
fighter against overwhelming evidence held by the adverse party. In
recognition of the dirty task given you to perform you have my
sympathy and admiration." Wood never replied.
There you have it, Rick -- the background highlights of my _alleged_
threat to sue to the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. You are
welcome to supply a copy to John Chalmers.
This annual conference was terminated after the 1983 meeting, and
Jerry Clark charged "...the university withdrew its sponsorship of
future conferences following Phil's threat to sue the institution."
("Saucer Smear", Oct. 10, 1984.)
The Oct. 14, 1984 edition of the "Omaha World Herald" carried a
story headlined: "UFO Conference Loses Money: UNL Declines Any
Sponsorship."
The story began: "University of Nebraska-Lincoln officials say they
decided not to sponsor a conference on unexplained phenomena this
year because similar conferences in 1982 and 1983 lost money.
"But members of the Nebraska Association for the Study of the
Unexplained, one of the co-sponsors of the event last year, said the
university backed out...because of the controversy surrounding
flying saucers.
"Bob Mortenson, director of conferences and institutes...said the
meetings that dealt primarily with unidentified flying objects DID
NOT BRING IN ENOUGH PARTICIPANTS TO COVER THE UNIVERSITY'S COSTS...
(Emphasis added)
"Mortenson said he had received complaints from several UNL faculty
members about the fact that only believers in UFOs spoke at last
year's conference. `If we were to do another, it would definitely
be a forum where both sides could be presented,' he said."
Even though all of the foregoing info was supplied to Jerry Clark in
1984, including a copy of the Omaha newspaper article, he has never
retracted his accusation that I was responsible for UNL terminating
its sponsorship of conferences on UFOs and the paranormal.
Corially,
Phil Klass
-----------------
Now, there you have Phil Klass's side of the story. Further, he
specifically states that he is willing to document all his claims.
I'd be glad to help anyone wishing to see that documentation. Since
I don't know whether I should be giving out Phil's address, you are
welcome to write Bay Area Skeptics, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco, CA
94122, or via e-mail at Rick_Moen@f27.n125.z1.fidonet.org.
Yours Truly,
Rick Moen, Secretary Do I speak for Bay Area Skeptics?
Bay Area Skeptics Is the pope Polish?
Sysop, The Skeptic's Board
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: isis!well!ddrasin (Dan Drasin)
Subject: (none)
Date: 8 May 90 12:13:48 GMT
Meier Case
-+ From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
-+> Maybe I missed something, but from what I've heard, they've pretty much
-+> dismissed the Meir case as a hoax, and the only evidence I've heard
-+> against him is that they found some carved models of the saucers at his
-+> home. Is that it? I've seen a vidio of some of his 8mm footage and a
-+> most of it looked pretty convincing to me.
-+ Look again, Tim. Do you remember that footage where the UFO circles
-+ a tree? First of all, a site inspection revealed that tree isn't
-+ even there (no stump, no hole, nada). That indicates some kind of
-+ double exposure.
Jim, that's more of a philosophical argument than a scientific one;
according to the Meier material, the Pleiadeans explained that the
proximity of the craft had exposed the tree to damaging radiation;
they therefore "time-shifted" the tree to take it out of our
dimension. Now, that may or may not be true, but there is no hard
evidence either way that I am aware of. The answer must therefore
remain in the realm of speculation. Double exposure, by the way, would
*not* have been the technique of choice in faking such footage. You
would have to have used either scale models (and an incredibly tiny
lens aperture to get the necessary depth of field) or a so-called
"traveling matte" technique, which cannot be successfully employed in
8mm. It could have been done in 16mm or 35mm and then reduced to 8mm,
but that would have left other telltale signs, such as excessive
contrast and a compressed "gamma" (contrast) curve.
-+ Second, remember the sequence where the UFO winks out at one point,
-+ and "jumps" across the frame to another location? Do you remember
-+ how the ambient lighting in the frame became just a touch darker
-+ when the UFO reappeared? Doesn't that indicate to you that the sun
-+ went behind a cloud WHILE THE CAMERA WAS TURNED OFF?
Look again, Jim. There are several points at which the craft snaps
instantaneously from one place to another. In some of these, there is
what's called a "flash frame" (an overexposed frame) which indicates
that the camera was momentarily shut off (the overexposure results
from the relatively slow shutter speed as the camera once again comes
up to speed). And of course there is the change in exposure which you
have observed. However, in *other* instances, there is a momentary
*darkening* of the frame. This is *never* observed when a motion
picture camera is momentarily shut off and re-started. It cannot be
accounted for by the normal mechanics of cinematography. True, these
dark frames may themselves have been faked by sophisticated means; but
*not* by simply turning the camera off and on. On the face of it the
film contains both legitimate "jumps" and instances where the camera
was, for *whatever* reason, momentarily turned off. In any case,
whether or not the *jumps* were faked has no bearing on whether the
*craft* was faked. Once again, any evaluation must remain in the realm
of speculation until harder evidence is in hand.
-+ There's a whole slew of other evidence as well.
Jim, if you're talking about Kal K. Korff's alleged computer analysis
in which a string was said to be found supporting a model, I'm afraid
you're on very thin ice, or no ice at all. The very tone of Korff's
attempted assault on the Meier material should tip anyone off that the
"analysis" should not be confused with a dispassionate scientific
inquiry. Korff in fact found no string: What he did was to take a
*third-generation copy* of the photo (whose analysis proves almost
nothing in the first place) and digitize the image. This image
contained *several* fine lines which appear to be "noisy" scan lines
and film scratches. One of these lines intersects the craft's
"antenna" structure just a little bit below the tip. Note that I said
*intersects* -- it doesn't really *terminate* there. Look closely.
What Korff then did was to crop the photo so the upper limit of this
line was no longer visible. Voila! A string!
The rest of Korff's report contains many completely undocumented
assertions, and invokes the opinions of his own associates as "proof."
Whatever the truth of the Meier case, this purported study has shed no
scientific light upon it that I am aware of.
-+ But really, how much evidence do you need? A bunch of "carved" (they
-+ were actually crafted in detail) models is enough for me.
Jim, maybe you know something I don't, but the Meier models I've seen
bear no resemblance whatsoever to the "beamships." According to Meier,
he built them precisely to illustrate how small scale models
photograph differently from full-scale objects. The photos he took of
these models were never touted as "the real thing" by Meier. The only
crafted-in-detail model I know of was used by Elders and Stevens in
their attempts to replicate the Meier photos at the actual locations.
The results were very convincing to the human eye, but computer
analysis immediately distinguished the originals from the intentional
"fakes."
I can't prove the Meier case true or false, but the sixth and seventh
books on the case are about to be published, and the fabric of
evidence seems to grow denser and denser as layer upon layer of
information is revealed. The success of the debunkers has rested
almost entirely upon most ufologists' ignorance of the case beyond
those superficial "coffee-table" books published years ago by Lee
Elders. IMHO, it's high time more people did their homework on the
Meier case and raised the level of discussion above that of gossip,
true-believerism and debunkery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James Ghofulpo <REVJIM@mtus5.bitnet>
Subject: Magnetic Lines
Date: 8 May 90 14:00:27 GMT
As a sailor and physics student, I can definately say there are
no such things as lines of force. When you sprinkle iron filings
on a piece of paper that is covering a magnet, the iron links together
in a certain direction. The lines of force that you do see is just
a representation of the big picture. It is, in fact a field, so there
are no absolute line of force that a UFO, etc could "grab on to".
A good source for investigating magnetic fields are simple ships charts.
If you look at each compass rose on the chart, you will notice
deviation as you move from east to west. In our part of the country,
the zero degree deviation appears to go through the part of the
country near Chicago from north to south.
I am not saying that UFOs definately do not run magnetically, just that
there is not a "grid" of magnetic field "lines" over the earth. There
are anomalies in the field, but any phenomena that uses a magnetic
field would probably (I guess) find these anomalies to be pretty weak
and therefore not really relevant to the entire situation.
Just my two cents.
James Ghofulpo
********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************************
