Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 216
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 216
Tuesday, May 8th 1990
Today's Topics:
Re: Sonic booms & UFO's
Magnetic grid?
MAGNETIC MAPS
Re: Magnetic grid?
Re: Magnetic grid?
Re: Magnetic grid?
Paranet Plug
Re: UFO'S AND THE CIA
Re: UFOS ABOUND
Re: UFOS ABOUND
Re: Magnetic grid?
Echo Guidelines
two more TV shows
Thoughts and miscellany
Chronocentricity Revisited
UFO Propulsion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder
Subject: Re: Sonic booms & UFO's
Date: 6 May 90 06:08:29 GMT
In a message of <04 May 90 07:32:36>, Art Chevalier (1:209/725) writes:
>Since a stealth fighter does not travel at supersonic speed thus cannot
>break the sound barrier, what is your point?
You're missing it. The topic is about sonic booms; how they occur and why
UFO's don't create any. I only assumed the stealth could travel at supersonic
speeds and was using it as an example and it may be an incorrect assumption at
that.
--
Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder
Subject: Magnetic grid?
Date: 6 May 90 06:43:19 GMT
In a message of <04 May 90 23:33:00>, Jim Speiser (1:114/37) writes:
>> So Jim, if you could tell me the answers to the mysteries of life,
>I'd
>> appreciate it :-)
>
>"The answer is peanut butter."
> -- Larry King
AHA! And all this time I thought the answer was 42! (Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy).
>Actually, there are several suggested patterns of apparent UFO interest.
>The more obvious ones, like nuclear facilities and power lines, are
>well-known and discussed often. But one interesting "UFO Attractor" is,
>of all things, limestone quarries. I'm aware of at least three separate
>sightings at limestone quarries. Matter of fact, I think Bryon Smith put
>me onto one. Whaddya make of that?
That's a new one to me. I've noticed nuclear facilities and water as points of
UFO interests. Limestone quarries...hmmm...There was a PBS documentary on a few
months ago. If I remember right you can dissolve limestone with an acid and it
produces carbon dioxide and some other gasses. Somehow the poisonous gasses
that made up Earth's early history atmosphere were converted into limestone
(where's a geologist when you need one?). What does this have to do with UFO's?
Wish I knew.
--
Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder
Subject: MAGNETIC MAPS
Date: 6 May 90 06:30:24 GMT
In a message of <03 May 90 08:47:27>, Ea Richards (1:154/414) writes:
>Paul: If you wish to procure maps which show the relative intensity of
>magnetic patterns, via their deviation, go to your local flying service
>and check out air navigation maps which have isogonic lines on them which
>indicates parallels in magnetic variation.
After I wrote my reply to you I read another message from another user and I
understand what you're saying. I even found a small map showing these isogonic
lines in my student pilot's flight manual. Thanks.
--
Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder
Subject: Re: Magnetic grid?
Date: 6 May 90 06:34:38 GMT
In a message of <05 May 90 15:10:00>, Paul Carr (1:123/26) writes:
>Try contacting the U.S. geological survey, who are
>normally eager to provide information at a nominal cost.
Thanks Paul, that's a good lead.
--
Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder
Subject: Re: Magnetic grid?
Date: 6 May 90 06:35:59 GMT
In a message of <05 May 90 12:41:42>, Tim Hamewka (1:209/725) writes:
>Another thing I've noticed,
>while doing some research back to 1947, is that most UFO sightings seem
>to occur during the summer months rather than during the winter.
Well the mid-summer is off-peak rates :-)
But seriously, I wonder if there is some connection or pattern myself. As for
summer vs. winter, could it be that more people are outside? I've noticed that
UFO's seem to be near water or hovering over water. It could mean something or
it could mean that UFO's are more easily seen in areas of water since there are
less obstructions (trees, buildings etc) to block ones view.
>soon as I get through with my research, I see if there seems to be a
>pattern.
Yes, please keep us posted.
--
Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Kay.Schaney
Subject: Re: Magnetic grid?
Date: 5 May 90 20:52:00 GMT
Paul,
I have a Map Catalog that claims to list every kind of map and chart on
earth. No mention of Magnetic Maps. It does give a listing of map stores
nationwide, and State map agencies. Tell me where you are located and I'll
send you some addresses and phone numbers where you might look. Hope this
helps.
Kay
--
Kay Schaney - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kay.Schaney@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Kay.Schaney
Subject: Paranet Plug
Date: 5 May 90 20:58:00 GMT
So Mike,
I see that a tase of TV Stardom has taken you to LA. (Smile) What next?
Have you spoken to Speilburg yet??
Hope you are doing well out there.
BTW,now that Cooper has been discredited (Again?) by his own seemingly
co-consperitors, what do you think will happen to the ol' guy. I'm sure we
haven't seen/heard the last of him. He always reminded me of the Anti-Deep
Throat.
Well, best wishes to you in Lo-Cal.
Take care,
Kay
--
Kay Schaney - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kay.Schaney@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Ea.Richards
Subject: Re: UFO'S AND THE CIA
Date: 5 May 90 15:46:06 GMT
Don, this certainly must be the FIDO echo, because that is what your
maundering apologetics for leftist-liberal writer Woodward would imply -
nothing but barking at the moon.
Do you really feel that anyone with any military intelligence background
would willy-nilly answer the questions of some civilian cuckoo who demands to
be answered?
In fact, with your canonization of Woodward, you wouldn't be able to
maintain a discussion of the intelligence subject.
I couldn't care less how many interviews Woodward had with Bill Casey; they
all were certain to end up as a liberal hatchet-job on any administration to
the right of Ramsey Clark.
It is certain that you enjoyed the Nixon-beating in Woodward's Watergate
book; and you must have drooled over the bashing of Nixon's staff, whose real
aim, so they have themselves said in print, was the good of the nation; they
admitted they made errors, one of which was existing in a congressional
situation where the democrat party was in control.
Lucky for a democrat crook, Lyndon Johnson, that the democrats were in power
while he and Bobby Baker were accomplishing their nefarious schemes to make
money. Perhaps you are too young to remember those events.
And with regard to Woodward's interviews with Bill Casey, what he wrote in
his book was characterized by Casey's wife as never having happened in the
interview; even some of the Woodward dupes, who hang on his every word as
Biblical pronouncements, admit that what Woodward claimed as gospel from
Casey's death-bed lips were somewhat far-fetched.
Casey's wife said they were absolute lies - and she was there....
In any case, you certainly have established what side of the issue you are
on, and the concept that you might actually receive answers to classified
topics from former members of the intelligence community, certifies that you
obviously do not qualify for either discourse or membership.
--
Ea Richards - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Ea.Richards@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Pete.Porro
Subject: Re: UFOS ABOUND
Date: 5 May 90 17:57:44 GMT
Wouldn't it be nice if someone finally came out with a weekly show
Nationally that covered the topic of UFO's? There is enough interest from
people nation wide (check the cover of one of the tabloids) and there is no
shortage of information/disinformation to be explored. Maybe I am goig crazy,
but I feel that it would draw a larger viewing audience than much of the
sit-coms that are still being force fed to people. Research would cost money,
but the production would be more inline with news. A host, a guest, a topic
and 30 mins. would be gone in a flash.
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Ea.Richards
Subject: Re: UFOS ABOUND
Date: 5 May 90 20:55:18 GMT
The only comment I would have on a national UFO show is this: First of all,
it would probably have to be on a system like FOX; the establishment networks
and TV critics, not to mention government pressures, would give the show a
hard time. I can just see the adjectives that would abound.
Next, after all the sightings, theories, 'evidence,' etc., had been used,
what would be next?
As with any production, new material would soon be the problem; it would be
difficult to come up with sightings on demand.
I think the idea is fine; it's the implementation that would tough; and the
maintenance of interest beyond us hard-core researchers.
--
Ea Richards - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Ea.Richards@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder
Subject: Re: Magnetic grid?
Date: 7 May 90 00:42:08 GMT
In a message of <05 May 90 13:52:00>, Kay Schaney (1:109/134) writes:
>nationwide, and State map agencies. Tell me where you are located and
>I'll send you some addresses and phone numbers where you might look. Hope
>this helps.
That sound's like a good deal! I'm in northeastern Pennsylvania. Towns and
Cities around here include Stroudsburg, Milford, Scranton, Allentown, Bethlehem
and Easton.
--
Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Doug.Rogers
Subject: Echo Guidelines
Date: 7 May 90 05:44:25 GMT
New readers are always joining Paranet. For their benefit, allow me to review
the rules of posting which we ask all our users to adopt:
******* PARANET ECHO POLICIES ********
The following are guidelines for the operation of the Paranet Echos on member
boards. Please take a moment to read (and understand) these policies. If we'll
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.
(Moderators note: USENET persons should include full name at top of article
if your mailer doesn't include fullname. Forget the name in Subject stuff.)
2. Personal Attacks are *NOT* allowed in the Net. In any echo dealing with
issues as emotional as those with which we deal it is a matter of course
that the validity of testimony on the part of certain individuals will
be called into question. It is important, however, to remember that
*ALL* parties are to be treated with respect. If you wish to question a
person's validity, state your reservations AS YOUR OPINION. For example:
"John Doe is a totally unreliable witness" could leave you legally
vulnerable. "I BELIEVE John Doe to be a totally unreliable witness" is
much better, especially if you can add "because...". Please be careful
how you judge the parties involved, and attempt to defend your
contentions.
3. Direct Flames are best posted elsewhere. They will not be tolerated in
the echos.
4. References should be included if required for clarity. Some users tend
to copy the entirity of previous messages before responding, while
others never quote anything and simply make comments about previous
posts. You should remember that many boards don't hold all messages
forever. Quote (if your software allows it) or at least paraphrase
(write a simple summary of) the content of the message you refer to.
Please DO NOT quote the entire message, as this is just expense for
all boards concerned. Quote only the germaine material.
5. Please make all messages conform to the specified content of the Echo
Area in which you are posting. Putting the messages in the right pile
makes it MUCH easier to make sense out of the stacks of messages.
6. Enforcement. Users who violate these guidelines will be advised of the
lapse by the Echo Moderator. After three violation notices, the user is
to be locked out of Paranet areas by the sysop. A FIRST lockout will be
for THIRTY DAYS. A SECOND lockout will be for NINETY days. The THIRD
lockout will be PERMANENT. Sysops who refuse to lock out troublesome
users can be dropped from the net by the Paranet Administrator. Users
who believe the Moderator has been unfair in requesting a lockout can
request that their Sysop plead their case in the Sysop Echo. In such
cases, ALL net Sysops will be asked to vote on the matter. Vote of the
net is binding on all concerned.
Doug Rogers
Echo Moderator
--
Doug Rogers - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Shaffer Jr <72750.2335@compuserve.com>
Subject: two more TV shows
Date: 7 May 90 05:16:45 GMT
Two more TV shows to add to the list of UFO reports lately:
First, on Friday, May 4, "A Current Affair" visited Mars Pennsylvania where
a UFO has appeared on numerous occasions and once was videotaped by three
people simultaneously. (Unfortunately, no structure can be seen on the
tape -- just a blob of light.) The woman who reported it also has a series
of burned spots in a field behind her house, but they didn't impress me.
It looks like someone built a series of small fires. Soil samples have
been taken, but the results aren't back yet. In following their usual
lousy reporting standards, they didn't say why the burned spots were thought
to be connected to the UFO. In fact, the majority of the report had passed
before we learned that the object had actually moved, thus proving not to
be a bright planet (which is what my first impression of the video was).
Second, on Saturday, May 5, Budd Hopkins and Brian O'Leary appeared on
"What's up, Dr. Ruth" on the Lifetime cable channel. (No, they didn't
really talk about aliens and sex...) Neither Hopkins nor O'Leary said
anything that isn't common knowledge already. In fact, they didn't
go into a lot of details on anything. The most notable thing was that
they seemed to give a LOT of credibility to the Gulf Breeze incident,
including Ed's photos.
All in all, nothing earth-shaking. I wish I got Las Vegas channels here :-)
I don't even get the Fox network, or anyone else carrying Inside Report :-(
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gene Gross <gross@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Subject: Thoughts and miscellany
Date: 7 May 90 14:57:36 GMT
Hi all:
Saturday night (5/5/90) I was channel tripping--you know where you sit
in front of the boob-tube armed with the remote channel changer and
proceed to start flipping through the channels. I had stayed up to
watch a science fiction movie on Cinemax--"Not of this Earth" an el
cheapo movie and not worth watching. Anyway, I hit the Lifetime channel
and stopped. Dr. Ruth had Budd Hopkins and a Dr. O'Leary (or
Leary--he's an astronomer and former astronaut [lucky stiff]) on her
show talking about UFOs and abductions. Unfortunately, I didn't have a
tape to record on so I wasn't able to capture the show for posterity.
Dr. Ruth only wanted to know one thing--do the aliens have sex? ;-) But
O'Leary made a statement that stuck and has had me thinking since
Saturday. He said that "we don't know if we actually originated on this
planet." What do the rest of you think? I wonder if there is evidence
to suggest that the human race (regardless of skin color we are one race
of beings) did not evolve on this planet. Does anyone know of any
research that might have been done in this area--good research not
something flaky?
Hopkins was asked if the abductees might not be suffering from some
psycho-sexual dyfunction or sexual fantasy problems. Budd said that he
had worked with a number (he gave a number that I can't recall right
now) of psychiatrists, psychologists, and similar professionals who were
abductees. None of them showed any symptoms of such disorders. Budd
made a point of stressing the battery of tests each abductee goes
through to weed out such disorders and other problems.
Other than that, the show was nothing new. If you've read any of Budd's
books, than you pretty much know the story from his point of view.
O'Leary has a book out. Dr. Ruth made reference to it a couple of
times, but I missed the start of the show when she introduced him and
showed a copy of the book, so I can't give you the title. Shouldn't be
hard to find though.
In the most recent issue of the Paranet newsletter, someone (Paul
Faeder?) asked about whether there would be enough gov't work to keep an
astronomer busy full-time looking through a telescope. Answer:
probably--depending upon what he or she was working on. The fact that
the person in question is working on classified projects precludes us
from finding out exactly what it is that he is doing--though we might be
able to speculate. But he would have plenty to do, Paul, with our tax
dollars paying his salary. Though, some of his work might be phased out
with the Hubble coming on line.
Gotta run folks.
Gene
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gary Knight <GARY@maximillion.cp.mcc.com>
Subject: Chronocentricity Revisited
Date: 7 May 90 18:32:19 GMT
Hello,
Gee, I really didn't mean to start another scholastic debate with
my posting entitled "Chronocentricity." Perhaps I was overly elaborate in
presenting what I thought was a very simple idea. By using the term
chronocentricity, I meant only to coin a phrase reflecting our tendency to
explain unknown phenomena by analogy to, and in terms of, presently known
pheonomena. There is nothing wrong with this as long as it enables us to
get a grasp on the new thing and begin making progress toward
understanding it. What bothers me is our tendency to start believing in the
analogies instead of using them as tools.
As applied to UFO investigations, my concern is that truly alien
behavior (which includes technology, actions, etc.) would likely be so
bizzare as to have no analogs in human behavior. Thus, when I see reports
of alien behavior that have very close analogs to human behaviors, I get
suspicious. Isn't it odd that reports of strange objects in the sky are
always reported as being projections of the then current vehicle technology
(in roughly chronological order -- flying carpets, chariots, balloons,
airships, spacecraft)? Why do we always interpret in terms of the
technology of the time? If we see something truly alien, why hasn't
someone, sometime, drawn a picture of it as it really is? Or is our evolved
central nervous system incapable of dealing with it, so that we have to
resort to analogies? Or is it all in the mind?
Thus, I don't disagree with anything that's been said in response to
the initial posting -- it's just that my point was not directed at a profound
epistomological level. It was meant only as a comment on how we deal
with the unexplained and what that might mean for the reality of the
unexplained phenomenon. My conclusion -- I doubt that any explanation of
UFO phenomena which is based essentially on an analogy to presently known
technologies, behaviors, etc., is in fact the true explanation.
Gary
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: UFO Propulsion
Date: 7 May 90 18:42:28 GMT
Couple of technical comments:
1.) The magnetic field for the earth is indeed strong - but unfortunately
it is very diffuse. It has been proposed (and perhaps some current
satellites actually use it to a small degree) that satellites interact
with the magnetic field for station keeping. However, when you consider
the tiny amounts of power required for station keeping, you can see that
we aren't talking major lifting capacity.
2.) The main problem with the earth's magnetic field is that its diffuse
strenght sets a very low thrust-to-weight ratio. If you can't overcome
the thrust-to-weight ratio of a smaller scale magnetic unit, then scaling
it up won't buy you anything, because weight will increase faster than
thrust will. You need to have an initially favorable Thrust/weight
ratio -- and this requires VERY high strength fields. Higher than
anything we know of today. So high, in fact, that no materials known
could withstand the internal magnetic forces.
3.) Now if we just want to consider atmospheric travel, then there might
be additional possibilities. Electrical currents could be set up in the
surrounding air and the magnetic field of the craft would repel against
the surrounding air. Or electo-static charges could also be induced into
the surrounding air, and charges on the craft would also repel. These
are merely "high-tech propellers" if you will. They might not actually
be do-able either, but they are at least slightly less diffuse than the
strength of the earth's magnetic field.
4.) Which leads into a discussion of what someone mentioned was a method of
suppressing shock waves by charging the surrounding air. The difficulties
involved in such a scheme are the following: If the craft is simply
dumping charge, it will almost instantly "run out" of charge to supply.
This is due to the effect that for each electron (or ion) that you dump,
you increase imbalance on your own craft's surface (it's voltage.) So
the voltage builds up AGAINST the "pumping" voltage of your generating
system. The other effect is that the surrounding air will become itself
ionized at certain voltage gradients (or in the case of a reentering
object, physical and heat induced ionization will occur.) These free
charges will quickly NEUTRALIZE your "pumping" action. They will merely
swamp it by supplying charge faster than you can dump it.
One method to overcome these limitations would be to, say, trail a long
wire to a second charge dumping (collecting -- same difference :-) device.
You essentially have set up a current flow system where the external path
becomes the atmosphere. In this case, you aren't concerned so much with
the strength of the current as the strength of the electric field.
On the other hand, the reentry ionization MAY allow you to run HIGH
currents through the surrounding atmosphere, and then make use of the
magnetic forces created.
Finally, I have only been considering the DC case in the non-magnetic
case. (The magnetic case REQUIRES AC.) Perhaps AC electric fields
might be of some use?
I suspect that such devices imply high power needs. Not exactly something
you slap on every reentry device with a 1.5 volt "D" cell :-)
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, john@logajan.mn.org, 612-424-4888, Fax 424-2853
********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************************
