Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 225
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 225
Friday, May 18th 1990
Today's Topics:
Re: Woodward and the Company
Re: Sonic booms & UFO's
Re: Your address from DDN
Re: (none)
(none)
Re: Magnetism
Review Of Lazar Revelations
Lazar Part 2
Lazar Part 3
Lazar Part 4
Element Creation
Element Creation, Part 2
Electric Hybrid Cars
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Allen
Subject: Re: Woodward and the Company
Date: 16 May 90 02:54:00 GMT
GG>I see this is coming from Orlando. I'll be down there at the end of this
GG>month for a visit, and a well deserved vacation. Post your phone number,
GG>maybe we can get together for some coffee or something. My wife and I are
GG>going to be staying with my mother-in-law and visiting friends in the area.
Hey great! Be glad to see you..I live up in Sanford,which is about
30 or so miles north of Orlando and can be reached via I-4.
Phone # is 407-323-5240 and I'm home after 4 (usually). I'll check
back here as my local feed (Gallifrey) is experiencing technical
difficulties (Ken's outa town and the board ain't responding).
Don Allen
--
Don Allen - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: Sonic booms & UFO's
Date: 16 May 90 05:13:00 GMT
ARticle in todays paper about the LACK of a "boom" in the immediate
vicinity of Mt St Helens when it had its explosive eruption. People
within about 15 miles of it, even those who could see the top of the
mountain blowing off, did not hear a thing yet people many many miles
away heard all sorts of racket. Some hear one loud boom and others
heard numerous repeated booms. Theory is that different temperature
layers of air caused noise refraction. Might be a similar effect
causing the mysterious air booms that were being discussed on this
echo.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: Your address from DDN
Date: 16 May 90 05:32:00 GMT
I think you are confusing liscensed radio and tv stations with these
BBS's. There is no requirement that any and all be allowed access to a
BBS. It is only as public as the SYSOP wishes to allow. In addition,
it is quite likely that it IS a federal violation of the law for anyone
to knowingly violate any of the Sysops policies.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: 16 May 90 05:39:00 GMT
If you find that Mier case all that compelling, then by all means knock
your socks off looking into it. I've seen enough to not feel the need
to waste anymore time on it. As far as there being "five books and two
more on the way..." so what? There are hundreds of astrology books and
hundreds more on the way. That doesn't change the fact that astrology
has failed each and every controlled study of its ability to do what it
claims to be able to do.
--
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: (none)
Date: 16 May 90 06:04:00 GMT
Re: Meier:
Ok, I'll concede this and this only: If someone has the immense amount of time
and patience it would take to investigate the Meier case up one side and down
the other, and are not dissuaded by the probability of coming up empty-handed
(read: no important new discoveries), then by all means they should do so. I
don't have the time, and furthermore I don't know too many people in this
hectic day and age that do.
I do congratulate you, however, on your patience and open-mindedness.
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: Magnetism
Date: 16 May 90 06:08:00 GMT
You've seen some incredible stuff, Gene, you lucky dog. I've never witnessed
anything, except I have taken part in that party trick at camp a couple of
times. Let's see, 285 lbs divided by 8 fingers is 35 and 5/8 lbs per
finger...I guess that is a bit much....
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!mcorbin
Subject: Review Of Lazar Revelations
Date: 16 May 90 20:28:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "UFO National Echo - Backbone Echo"
* Originally from Lynn Parham
* Originally dated 14 May 90 21:07:02
THE LAZAR REVELATION, AN EVALUATION
By Lynn Parham
In the course of discussions on the UFO echo, I was told about the "LASAR
Revelations". One of my contacts offered to send, to a PARANET close by, the
text of a series of TV appearances by Robert Lazar on KLAS-TV in Nov./Dec.
1989. I downloaded these files and have the following comments.
* * * * * * * *
I will have to admit that the "LAZAR" story turned out to be much more
professional than I thought it would. This guy obviously has some background
in physics, although there were some serious telltale discrepancies. His
reports are not as easy to prove wrong as most of the UFO revelations that I
have seen in the past. Most of those were so bad in the science part as to be
laughable.
The material appears, at first glance, to be very believable. In fact, I
really want to believe him. Its very exciting. And I want to believe that
there is a way for mankind to go to the stars, and to know all the secrets of
the universe. Neglecting the sinister part of his story (cover-ups, etc) it
is almost a wondrous, exciting dream come true. Unfortunately, something in
me will not let me believe him without more proof. I have been through all
this before. At one time I was a strong believer in UFOs as alien spacecraft.
All those wondrous stories of alien presences, hardware, contacts, etc. have
been with us for a long time. I waited with anticipation for the thing to
break wide open and I would know it all. Weeks became months, then years,
then decades. I'm still waiting. Sometimes, little things surface to tweak
my interest, but nothing definite, provable, unequivocal ever does.
I have had similar experiences, though not as strong, with psychic
phenomena, lost continents, money making schemes, health schemes, etc. All
these schemes have a couple of things in common. They sound so wonderful and
so reasonable. And they NEVER, EVER turn out to be of any benefit whatsoever,
at least to me.
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!mcorbin
Subject: Lazar Part 2
Date: 16 May 90 20:28:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "UFO National Echo - Backbone Echo"
* Originally from Lynn Parham
* Originally dated 14 May 90 21:09:02
You might ask, "Why be so skeptical?". On any controversial subject, the
best way to get at the truth is to try to convince an intelligent,
knowledgeable, open minded skeptic. (I do not pretend to fit that model but I
do use it as a goal) He will find your inconsistences, your lapses. If your
theory is the truth, potentially you can plug all the loopholes and eventually
convince the skeptic of the truth of your position. A previous skeptic
converted to a believer is the best kind to have. If your theory is not the
truth, you will normally not be able to do that. A believer, on the other
hand, tends to overlook minor inconsistences since he already knows what it is
the truth.
This doesn't apply to skeptic who does not have an open mind and who
cannot accept proofs and answers. He, like the true blue believer, already
has his mind made up and nothing will change it.
Much of what Mr. Lazar says cannot be proven or checked out without
further collaborating evidence. I will try to evaluate as many of his science
revelations as I can. You should realize that my knowledge is not extensive
in some of these areas and I can very easily be wrong. I do have a scientific
background (Chemist) supplemented by self-training in other scientific areas.
(Translation-I read a lot of scientific books & magazines)
A. "Gravity Wave Guide"
There is nothing known, theorized, or allowable in our science that will
channel gravity. If it can channel gravity, then it should also shield
against or block gravity. The material of this waveguide would be as wondrous
and miraculous as element 115 ever was. It is an interesting, but otherwise
unlikely, concept.
B. "...7000 MPH Saucers"
Wouldn't this velocity heat and ionize the air, create a huge,
destructive sonic boom and create a visible trail of superheated, ionized air
trail miles long? Note that this is not the "instantly there" gravity bending
time and space propulsion technology. This velocity was supposedly measured
by radar.
C. "..antimatter reactor allows the spaceships to produce their own gravity
fields"
This technology is beyond understanding for us. We have absolutely no
control over gravity except through the obvious one of manipulating massive
objects. We can't generate it, direct it, stop it, mediate it, or amplify it.
This is equivalent to talking about ghosts or magic. I don't really think
they exist, but I'm not 100% sure. In any case, wondrous capabilities which
are just out of reach of our science makes me very suspicious.
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!mcorbin
Subject: Lazar Part 3
Date: 16 May 90 20:29:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "UFO National Echo - Backbone Echo"
* Originally from Lynn Parham
* Originally dated 14 May 90 21:11:02
D. "Gravity distorts time & space"
Yes it does. Gravity bends space and slows down time. Black holes bends
space completely around it. Kind of like an infinitely deep well (gravity
well). Time in a black hole apparently stops.
The use of gravity to fold space and manipulate it so you can travel to
distant areas sounds plausible. But, it is not a reasonable extension of
known science. Just another wondrous, magical capability of the alien
technology that's out of reach for us.
As far as the scientific community not buying it, of course not. They
deal in facts and there is no present way that this can be established as
facts. Do you want your tax dollars being spent chasing dreams. (Sometimes
they do) If so, who gets to determine the dream to chase. Senator Joe Blow
may want to study the energy content of thoughts of the African tape worm.
E. "Element 115...has to come from a place where super heavy elements could
be produced naturally."
There are only three know places for producing elements naturally. These
are (1) The Big Bang, (2) Center of Stars(up to Iron) and (3) Supernova (Heavy
elements). The reference to binary stars being a place for element 115
production doesn't make sense. Binary stars have no "heavy element"
production capability greater than any other star of similar size. Besides,
heavy elements greater than Iron must be synthesized in "Supernova"
explosions. Being in the vicinity of a supernova doesn't count. This casts a
little doubt, in my mind, about Mr. Lazar's claim to being a Physicist.
Once created, lab or supernova, a stable element does not depend on
heaviness (weight) to exist. Note that Lazar says we have some here on earth.
Mr. Lazar says that the element is stable, but then says that it is kept in
lead lined chambers. This would only be required if it was radioactive and
not 100% stable. But if it is radioactive, it must not be greatly so since
(from another source) I learn that he stole a small amount of it and brought
it home. If it was no less stable than Uranium (which is slightly
radioactive), then the supernova(s) which created the heavy elements of the
earth itself would have produced significant quantities of element 115 which
would not have completely decayed. Significant stores of Uranium are still
with us. We have not found a trace of element 115.
Incidentally, gravity plays no direct roll in producing heavy elements.
Gravity is very weak and is insignificant in the nucleus of atoms. The strong
and weak nuclear forces control atomic nuclei. Gravity does have a secondary
roll in producing the conditions that create elements. That is, heat &
pressure in the center of stars.
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!mcorbin
Subject: Lazar Part 4
Date: 16 May 90 20:29:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "UFO National Echo - Backbone Echo"
* Originally from Lynn Parham
* Originally dated 14 May 90 21:14:02
F. "By bombarding element 115 with protons, antimatter is produced"
Potentially the most damaging of the scientific revelations. Antimatter
is never made by changing matter into antimatter. Nature apparently does not
work that way. Good thing too since if it did, this universe would be a
universe of energy only. Antimatter must be created out of the energy of
collisions between particles. To create large amounts of antimatter requires
large amounts of energy, probably more than the energy you get back when you
react it with ordinary matter. Really no net gain. In other words, the
energy of producing antimatter from element 115 must come from the energy of
the proton bombardment. Now, where do you get the energy to produce the high
velocity protons. I say high velocity because the energy would have to come
from the kinetic energy of the protons. Once again Lazar seems to have fallen
down in his physics.
In summary, it seems that Mr. Lazar proposes a number of highly
improbable scientific principles and a few that present science say are simply
wrong. On the other hand, some of the science is plausible, requiring some
knowledge of physics. I really don't know what to make of all this. It is
very intriguing and very mysterious. I cannot say that it is all hogwash
although it may be. Neither can I say that it has the ring of truth. There
are too many inconsistences. Until and unless further revelations and
evidence is forthcoming, this must remain (along with ghosts, ESP, psychic
phenomena, etc) an intriguing, indecipherable puzzle.
Finally, I am not an expert on "Private Detective" work. Therefore, I do
not wish to get deeply involved in the controversal question of whether Lazar
or other "revealers" are who they say they are or are ,misinformers, kooks,
etc. I will leave that to others who know more about such things. My only
contribution is to evaluate, scientifically, some of the scientific claims
they propose.
See my next messages on "Creation" for some more background information
on element creation.
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!mcorbin
Subject: Element Creation
Date: 16 May 90 20:29:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "UFO National Echo - Backbone Echo"
* Originally from Lynn Parham
* Originally dated 14 May 90 21:15:02
SOME BASIC PHYSICS ON ELEMENT CREATION
(With a view toward the Robert Lazar UFO Revelations)
The Big Bang apparently created only three elements. They were Hydrogen,
Helium and maybe Lithium, and probably some isotopes of these three like
Deuterium, an isotope of Hydrogen. Present theory is that the "explosion"
which also created time and space was too rapid to create more heavier
elements. Those theories explain very well the observed abundances of
Hydrogen & Helium in the universe today.
When stars finally formed, the second phase of element creation was
started. The heat and pressure at the core of stars produces higher and
higher elements. The energy that the stars emit, (heat, light, radiation)
comes mainly from this elemental fusion reaction at the core.
Iron is the end however. Because the creation of elements higher than
Iron requires energy input rather than produce energy output, no significant
higher elements are created.
The final phase of element creation occurs in a supernova. The energy
concentration is so great that during the explosion, all the naturally
occurring heavy elements above Iron are created. This includes the
radioactive elements, and almost certainly higher elements not found naturally
on earth. The reason they are not found on earth is that they have
disappeared through radioactive decay over the 5 billion years the earth has
existed.
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!mcorbin
Subject: Element Creation, Part 2
Date: 16 May 90 20:29:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "UFO National Echo - Backbone Echo"
* Originally from Lynn Parham
* Originally dated 14 May 90 21:18:02
As for element 115, it remains a real puzzle. If it can be created
naturally, then a supernova explosion would almost certainly have created it
since they are likely the most energetic entities in the universe. If if
couldn't, then I seriously doubt that technology, advanced or otherwise, could
create it. Since the earth is a product of star core synthesis as well as
supernova synthesis, and we find no trace of element 115 here, we must form
one of the following two conclusions.
A. Element 115 cannot be created in supernova explosions which means
that it likely does not occur naturally anywhere in the universe.
B. Element 115 is much more radioactive than Uranium and has disappeared
over the 5 billion year history of the earth.
Conclusion "B" does not necessarily eliminate the use of element 115 in
UFO propulsion. (I am trying to give the "Revealers" all the slack I can.)
Recent "Revelations" indicated that element 115 is stable inferring that it is
not radioactive and that it occurs naturally in heavy star systems. To a
physicist, heavy element stability usually means that it doesn't radioactively
decay in minute fractions of a second. So, it could be relatively stable, but
still radioactive, enough so that it does not occur naturally on earth.
The only place that element 115 would occur would be in the debris of a
recent supernova. Recent could mean hours or millions of years, depending on
the stability of the element. Heavy star systems, or binary stars have no
properties that I am aware of that would make them more likely to contain
element 115. Also, there are no known natural processes occurring in these
systems that could produce element 115.
After the element is created (naturally in a supernova, or unnaturally in
a lab), "ordinary" weight, heat, and pressure (or lack thereof) would have
absolutely no effect on the element.
I INTEND TO LEAVE THESE MESSAGES IN FILES "LAZAR.REV" AND "CREATION.DOC"
IN THE PARANET ECHO.
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom Betz <tbetz@upaya>
Subject: Electric Hybrid Cars
Date: 17 May 90 05:16:32 GMT
| From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
| Subject: Re: Water Engines... for real!
|
| I certainly like to hear more about the hyrogen engine. Even if the
| tank only held enough water for a 75 mile trip, that's a heck of alot
| better then a battery powered car.
We're getting a bit out of the Paranet realm, here, but you've
hit on one of my pet peeves here.
[SOAPBOX MODE ON]
People generally tend to dismiss battery-powered transport for all
the reasons you cite, particularly:
| With batteries you have to wait hours and hours to "refill". Plus, you
| have to generate that electricity which means more polution whereas
| the water breaks down into a fairly clean material.
If you look at a conventional Internal Combustion-powered
vehicle, most of the time (particularly at cruise) it is using about
5% of the power of the engine to maintain its speed. The only
time the engine is really called upon to do real work is during
acceleration. Also, when you hit the brakes, you throw away a
great deal of energy that the big engine used to get you up to
speed.
With an electric vehicle, (like GM's new Impact, which they
recently announced that they are planning to mass-produce)
you can easily recover 80% of the energy you use by running
generators off the brakes, and recharging the batteries.
Furthermore, adding a 5 HP Gasoline/Methane/Propane (my dad always
had a propane-powered company car, sparkplugs and oil lasted
forever on it, and its exhaust is pretty much CO2 and water)
engine would keep such a vehicle's batteries, at highway cruise,
recharged as long as you could keep fuel in it, while running
at a constant optimal speed for minimal emissions and maximum
fuel efficiency. The batteries would serve to provide the power
reserve for acceleration (which for the Impact is something
like 6 seconds from 0 to 60!) and the small engine would
sustain cruise, and lengthen the vehicle's stop 'n go range.
Properly designed, with 10 HP for recharging instead of 5,
and an electronic controller starting and stopping the recharger
as needed, it could even run all day in stop 'n go traffic with
a fiftieth of the pollution of the conventional commuter car.
Also, when you think of power generation as a pollution-producing
process, remember that it is always easier and cheaper to control
pollution at stationary point sources than on moving platforms
like automobiles, as on stationary platforms, weight is not a
consideration.
Modern microprocessor control methods would make such a vehicle
pretty easy to build. Only habit keeps Detroit from innovation.
I wish more people (and politicians) would become aware of the
technology we have at our disposal >now< that would permit us to
greatly reduce urban pollution, reduce the consumption of
non-renewable fuels, and make our streets quieter and more
pleasant places to be, while not restricting our freedom of
movement any less than that offered by our existing fleet of
vehicles.
We need to encourage the development of such vehicles as soon as
possible. Things like reduced tolls for electric/hybrid vehicles
-- the NY PATH is raising tolls on NYC bridges to $6 soon; a $1
toll for less-polluting and lighter automobiles would offer a
strong inducement for folks to buy such cars, as would a
reduction in the registration rates states charged, and the
elimination or reduction in other road use taxes on fuel and
power -- would go a long way toward improving our environment
and conserving our resources.
[SOAPBOX MODE OFF]
Sorry to take up your time on a tangent, but I just wanted to
make a point that we don't need to resort to such exotic
technologies as the Water Engine to take care of our urgent
business. We can do it now, if we have the will.
********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************************
