Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 241
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 241
Friday, June 8th 1990
Today's Topics:
survey
mail
JFK Assassination
Gulf Breeze at NUFOC 1/5
Gulf Breeze at NUFOC 2/5
Gulf Breeze at NUFOC 3/5
Gulf Breeze at NUFOC 4/5
Gulf Breeze at NUFOC 5/5
Re: serious heat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JIM GRAHAM" <graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu>
Subject: survey
Date: 6 Jun 90 02:05:24 GMT
Mike:
For what it's worth, here's my "HO's":
1. Some flying saucers have tried to communicate with us.
PF
2. All UFO reports can be explained either as well understood
happenings or as hoaxes.
DF
Most can be, but not all.
3. The Air Force has done an adequate job of investigation of
UFO reports and UFOs generally.
PT
It's in their best interest to do so. They just aren't telling all.
4. No actual, physical evidence has ever been obtained from a UFO.
PF
What KIND of physical evidence? Photos do not count. What would
constitute physical evidence to EVERYONE that may question such?
5. A government agency maintains a Top Secret file of UFO
reports that are deliberately withheld from the public.
PT
6. No airline pilots have seen UFOs.
DF
7. Most people would not report seeing a UFO for fear of losing a job.
PF
8. No authentic photographs have ever been taken of UFOs.
PF
How can we ever know if ANY photograph is truly "authentic"?
9. Persons who believe they have communicated with visitors
from outer space are mentally ill.
DF
10. The Air Force was told to explain all UFO sightings
reported to them as natural or man-made happenings or events.
PT
11. Earth has been visited at least once in its history by
beings from another world.
PF
Of course, there are unexplainable parallels in different religions
and folklore of various cultures that may point
to this.
12. The government should spend more money than it does now to
study what UFOs are and where they come from.
PF
What the government spent would have little effect on arriving at the
"truth" about UFO's. I think the real research will come from the private
sector.
13. Intelligent forms of life cannot exist elsewhere in the universe.
DF
Baloney! The universe, as Douglas Adams said, is "incredibly mind-bogglingly
HUGE!" Unless we can "be there", we cannot possibly know this. Probability
says it's possible. There can be no convincing argumentse against the
possibility.
14. Flying saucers can be explained scientifically without any
important new discoveries.
DF
If this were true, it would have been done to the satisfaction of us all,
a long time ago.
15. Some UFOs have landed and left marks in the ground.
PF
16. Most UFOs are due to secret defense projects, either ours
or another country's.
PT
17. UFOs are reported throughout the world.
DT
18. The government has done a good job of examining UFO reports.
PT
19. There have never been any UFO sightings in the Soviet Union.
DF
20. People want to believe that life exists elsewhere than on Earth.
DT
Loneliness can be a horrifying prospect for a lot of people, and it
certainly isn't limited to individuals.
21. There have been good radar reports of UFOs.
DT
22. There is no government secrecy about UFOs.
PF
There's plenty of FOIA documentation to refute this, as well as reliable
ex-government employees (retired military officers, etc.).
23. People have seen space ships that have not come from this planet.
PT
Well, this is a vague question. If you mean "people have LITERALLY seen
......", then I can't answer this one, since I just don't know. Otherwise
I believe that some people who make this claim believe it. That's all.
24. Some UFO reports have come from astronomers.
DT
25. Even the most unusual UFO report could be explained by the
laws of science if we knew enough about science.
PF
26. People who do *not* believe in flying saucers must be stupid.
DF
Believe it or not, I know people who JUST DON'T CARE, and therefore tend
toward non-belief, only because they have never taken the time to see
what's really happening in the field. "Belief" is irrelevant anyway.
Personally, I find it hard to understand how ANYONE could not be interested,
but, sad to say, it's true.
27. UFO reports have not been taken seriously by any government agency.
DF
28. Government secrecy about UFOs is an idea made up by newspapers.
DF
29. Science has established that there are such things as
"Unidentified Flying Objects."
DT
Again, the key word is "unidentified".
30. Abduction reports are the result of hallucinations.
PF
I'm certain that many are, yet I know that many are not. Hallucinations,
by definition, completely fool those who experience them, yet, I have personal
experience with a couple of things that happened to my family, and too many
things rule out that any of it was "hallucination".
Finally, what do you believe UFOs to be?
Real, but still Unidentified Flying Objects.
------------------------------------------------------
Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Bitnet: GRAHAM@IUCF.BITNET
BBS: (812)334-0418 9:00pm to 7:00am EST, daily
Voice: (812)334-7754 home, (812)855-7882 work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From swtexas.bitnet!JN02835 (Jess Naumann) Wed Jun 6 19:47:26 1990
Subject: mail
Date: 7 Jun 90 20:23:55 GMT
Hello, everyone.....
I'm kinda new around here, but I just recently got started in reading the
paranet newsletter, and I just caught the hind end of what appeared to be
answers for some questionnaire. Is there some way I could get another copy?
I would like to answer those questions if I can.
As for myself, My name is John (Jess) Naumann, and I live in Seguin, Texas.
And yes, if anyone gets the idea that that is the same place where Walter
Andrus lives, you're right on the money. In fact, I know him, and he has
repeatedly asked me to join the MUFON group, but as it is, my schedule is
limited in that respect. I go to school at Southwest Texas in San Marcos,
and as far as UFO's, aliens, spaceships, etc. go, I have a severely strong
interest in them, for personal reasons.
The last time I spoke to Walt Andrus, I was asking him about how much help
and cooperation he gets from the U.S. Gov't, and I was kinda surprised to find
out that they really don't try to help at all(this was my impression). I'm
saying this to ask a question. If the U.S. Gov't doesn't do much in that
respect, have they EVER? I have heard of incidents that they handle things
with only copies of a type-written standard response in ANY kind of situation,
and that they do the same for UFO's, like the case of the Gulf Breeze
incidents.
That's all that I have to say for now, in a way, this is a test to see if I
can really get through to the newsletter. Hope it does.
Jess Naumann
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gene Gross <gross@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Subject: JFK Assassination
Date: 7 Jun 90 20:36:06 GMT
I've seen a couple of comments about the murder of JFK and thought I add
my .02 worth to the pile.
I was watching the motorcade through Dallas on television that tragic
day. I doubt that I will ever forget it. Over the ensuing years, I
have read everything I could get my hands on to try and figure it out.
Here are some of my thoughts and conclusions.
It was clearly a professional hit. In the Zapruder (sp ?) film, the man
with the umbrella is clearly visible. In the first shot of the man, he
hasn't deployed his umbrella. The next shot of him is just shortly
after the first shot and the umbrella is deployed.
Puffs of smoke can clearly be seen from the grassy knoll. This matches
the lethal activity taking place inside the Presidential car. The first
shot takes Kennedy from the back. The second shot comes from the front.
Dan Rather of CBS claims that experts testify to the fact that Kennedy's
head whips back due to an explosion of gas jetting from the exit wound.
I have never been able to buy this one. In the first frames of the hit,
Kennedy's head moves forward at roughly 60fps; suddenly, his head whips
back at over 120fps. Expulsion of fragments and gas from an exiting
bullet cannot account for this.
>From the reports I've read, Kennedy had three wounds. One in the back.
One at the throat. One to the head. The standing medical report that
has the official stamp of approval says that the wound to the back
resulted in the wound to the throat as well. This means that the bullet
that entered the back made a 90 degree turn up the body after entering
and then made another 90 degree turn to exit through the throat. If the
weapon used was an M-16, I might be tempted to believe this (anyone who
spent time in Nam knows what I'm talking about). Further, the claim is
that this same bullet, after exiting the President's throat, made
another turn in mid-air and struck Governer Connally in the wrist
shattering it. This same bullet was later found on a gurney at the
hospital in near pristine condition.
My personal opinion is that the hit on JFK was clearly a professional
hit. There were at least three shooters and a point-man (and L. H.
Oswald was not one of the shooters--he was a patsy, pure and simple). I
suspect that several groups were involved, including the KGB, CIA, and
mafia.
The original investigation did not follow normal homicide investigation
procedures. My understanding of such investigations is that you try to
determine who benefits from such a murder. Oswald was immediately
arrested and the case was closed with his death. Ruby was seen as some
sort of disturbed patriot who acted out of emotion. The fact remains
that the real guilty parties have not been discovered and brought to
trial for their crimes.
As for Dan Rather, I have not trusted him since the special he did
several years ago on the murder. He is a rubber stamp for the official
position and that makes him totally untrustworthy IMHO. I have not
watched CBS news since then--and won't until he is no longer the one
doing the news for CBS.
I do not suspect Secret Service involvement at this point, and I have
not seen the incident in the Z-film that others have talked about.
Later,
Gene
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Gulf Breeze at NUFOC 1/5
Date: 7 Jun 90 05:49:00 GMT
The following article was submitted by ParaNet Sysop John Hicks, and will also
be circulated as the file NUFOC90.TXT. Copyright (c) 1990 John Hicks and
ParaNet.
The Gulf Breeze mystery continues
by John B. Hicks
The Gulf Breeze sightings have generated huge amounts of public
speculation, scientific bickering and dirty tricks. However, many people
in the Pensacola, Florida, area still see odd objects and lights in the
sky.
The recent publication of The Gulf Breeze Sightings by Ed and Frances
Walters has, if anything, fanned the flames.
"If you took that case, Ed's sightings and those of his family away, and
left everything else, you would still have a monumental amount of evidence
related to the UFO mystery," Dr. Bruce Maccabee said. "Between Nov. 11,
1987 and May 1, 1988, which is the time taken up by Ed's book, the time
that involved Ed Walters and Frances, I estimate that there were about 60
events which involved well over 130 witnesses in the Gulf Breeze area."
Maccabee is a physicist employed by the U.S. Navy and a well-respected
UFO investigator.
According to Maccabee, about 65 sightings have occured in the Pensacola
area since May, 1988.
"I'm basing my statistics on cases that have been reported to MUFON," he
said.
MUFON is the Mutual UFO Network, a large organization of UFO researchers,
investigators and enthusiasts.
MUFON investigators Rex and Carol Salisbury have documented many UFO
sightings and contacts in the Pensacola area going back many years.
They made the following comments to the 1990 National
UFO Conference in Miami Beach, Florida. In the interest of clarity, since
they alternated speaking, I will quote the Salisburys as a team, rather
than individually.
"There have been sightings all around the town (of Pensacola)," they
said. "Another area of intense activity is up around the university area."
They said that the most of the witnesses they interviewed have had
multiple sightings.
"We have also discovered that many of these witnesses have also had
missing time or other related UFO paranormal events or other types of
ESP events in their lives," the Salisburys said. "These witnesses come from
all walks of life, and they have seen a wide variety of UFO types, shapes
and sizes."
On February 8, 1989, Jeff Thompson and his young son watched as a
brightly lighted object of about three feet in diameter landed in their
front yard. Thompson crept close to the object and illuminated it with a
flashlight.
"The object suddenly emitted a bright, brilliant flash of light and
disappeared," the Salisburys said. "Upon questioning Jeff, we learned that
Jeff knew nothing at all of a previously-taken photo of a very small
craft."
"In March of 1989 we interviewed a family who has had multiple sightings
and experiences over a two-year period in Pensacola, and as far back as 10
years ago when the honeymooning couple saw a UFO hovering over a mountain
in Pennsylvania," the Salisburys said. "Another family residing in the same
area has had a number of sightings dating back two or three years."
The two families did not know each other.
The Salisburys said that they have worked on several cases in an area
near a Navy installation. The cases involve witnesses who have had multiple
sightings and past experiences with UFO and related phenomena, some going
back into the 1920s.
One witness is a 71-year-old woman who recently saw her back yard
flooded with light. She underwent hypnosis and learned that she had also
seen a bowtie-shaped object and a second light.
"Her first experience was in 1925," the Salisburys said.
[Continued]
--
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: Gulf Breeze at NUFOC 2/5
Date: 7 Jun 90 05:50:00 GMT
In another experience about seven years ago, according to the Salisburys,
a young woman babysitting was sleeping on a couch when a noise awakened
her and the house shook. She saw a translucent hemispherical
object in the living room with her.
The woman slipped into a bedroom to check the baby. While she was out
of the living room, there was another noise, the house again shook and the
object disappeared.
She told the Salisburys that she looked out a window and saw three
orange balls streaking away across the yard and into the sky.
In March of 1989 two women were driving home (to the mainland) from Gulf
Breeze when they noticed a white light that appeared to be pacing their
car. When they rounded a curve, they saw an object hovering over the road
in front of the car.
The women stopped, got out of the car, and felt compelled to walk
toward the object. They bumped into the open car doors and stopped. When a car
approached, the object lifted straight up and vanished.
A Pensacola-area woman who said a UFO abducted her in Germany 16 years ago
saw a UFO west of Pensacola in August of 1989. She told the Salisburys that
the UFO was identical to what she saw in Germany.
In September, the same woman and her son saw two objects hover over their
house. Twenty similar sightings have occured in their area since then, and
the latest was in April 1990.
On Nov. 30, 1989, a woman driving east from Gulf Breeze saw an
arrowhead-shaped object hover over a utility substation.
In February of 1990 MUFON received 26 sighting reports, and in March the
organization received nine sighting reports.
A large number of UFOs returned to Gulf Breeze in mid-April 1990.
"We had sightings of lights almost every night for about a week," the
Salisburys said. At least two witnesses made videotapes of those objects.
"Pensacola MUFON has submitted over 64 cases," the Salisburys said.
On the night of Nov. 11, 1987, Ed Walters, a Gulf Breeze builder, saw and
photographed his first UFO. What set Walters apart from the other witnesses
was that he had a camera readily accessible, is what would be politely
described as stubborn, and had what could be called good luck as a UFO
photographer.
Walters was not alone in his UFO sightings that day.
In the decade up until Nov. 11, 1987, witnesses reported about 10
sightings a year.
"All of a sudden, on that one day, we find out that there were eight or
nine sightings," Maccabee said. Other witnesses saw objects
similar to the one Walters saw beginning at about 2:30 that morning.
I will not recount Ed and Frances Walters' story here, since they do so
in great detail in their book. Nor will I recount Dr. Bruce Maccabee's
analysis of Ed and Frances Walters' photographs, since he does so in the
paper he presented to MUFON.
Since that Veterans' Day in 1987, Ed Walters has taken 41 pictures of
possibly four different objects with five cameras. He has come under
fire that his photographs were a hoax, possibly because they appeared
too sharp and clear. Many other people took pictures before, during and
after the period of his sightings, and several witnesses made videotapes.
Walters made a videotape during one of his close encounters.
Critics bandied about hoax and conspiracy theories.
"You can't say there wasn't a conspiracy, but you can't establish a
connection," Maccabee said. Also it appears that a large number of people
would have to be in on a conspiracy.
Maccabee examined several possible methods of hoaxing the photographs in
his paper and found each to be either readily detectable or impossible to
carry out. He also determined that Ed Walters would not have had the
knowledge or equipment to carry out a hoax.
"You're going to do something to destroy your roots?" Walters said. "Some
would do something like that, but not a normal sane father."
[Continued]
--
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: Gulf Breeze at NUFOC 3/5
Date: 7 Jun 90 05:50:00 GMT
I described to Maccabee a method that could be used to hoax
photographs that would pass most, if not all, of the tests he used to
examine Walters' photographs. He was not familiar with the material and
methods I described. He then pointed out that the events of the March
17, 1988 sighting and photographs would have precluded any manipulation of
photographs by Walters.
Maccabee said that on that date, a witness (Peter Newman) opened the
sealed Polaroid film boxes, loaded Walters' cameras and wrote down the
serial numbers of the film packs. Newman was also keeping track of the film
counter of each camera. Walters took several unplanned souvenir pictures of
people who had joined the small group.
Because of the cold weather the spectators left, but several
pretended to leave and returned in the darkness. They could not see
Walters because of bushes and a restroom facility building. They
could, however, see the treetops above Walters' position.
Maccabee said that the witnesses saw two flashes in rapid succession
illuminate the treetops. A few moments later they saw Walters run out of
the bushes to his truck and turn on the headlights. The witnesses gathered
around and watched the pictures develop, and those pictures showed a UFO.
"Those people watched the film develop, which means the photos had to
have been taken shortly before," Maccabee said. "There was no time in the
middle to diddle with stuff."
Maccabee said that he had experimented with trying to slow or stop the
film development, even by freezing the film. He said that he managed only
a slight slowdown in development, certainly not enough to have been part of
a hoax.
Critics have suggested that someone may have been showing Walters
something to photograph, such as a balloon. However, weather conditions
that night would rule out a balloon.
Ed Walters said that the weather was cold and nasty that night.
"The wind was coming right off the water," Frances Walters said.
Hoax theories and debunking efforts still abound.
"I don't know how they (debunkers) sleep at night," Ed Walters said.
"What is so intimidating about these photos that would cause such a
reaction among the debunkers?"
Lately articles have appeared in some newspapers in which the primary
source of information has been Willy Smith. MUFON has distanced itself from
Smith, who was originally an investigator involved in Walters' case. Smith
was implicated in a debunking effort in which an image of a Gulf
Breeze-type UFO appeared in a photograph of the Chrysler Building in New
York City.
Smith claimed that Ed Walters took the picture.
UFO investigator Antonio Huneeus and commercial photographer Manuel
Fernandez came forward and stated that Huneeus had Fernandez make the
photograph for study and experimental purposes. They said that it
was not an Ed Walters photograph.
Smith has also claimed that the so-called ghost pictures show
that Walters was familiar with making multiple exposures before he made the
UFO photographs.
Walters said that Smith has taken the entire ghost picture idea out of
context. He said that it is a game he plays with various teenage visitors
to his house, and that the game is that the ghost is "in" you, not beside
you.
He said that he first takes normal pictures of several people. For the
picture of the person the ghost is "in" he focuses the camera for
long-distance and takes the picture with the subject about four feet away.
The flash on his Polaroid camera makes the subject's eyes turn completely
white, and the subject is a little blurry. That is what he calls a ghost
picture. It involves no multiple exposures.
The picture Willy Smith has shown as a ghost picture is of a teenage girl
standing in front of a sliding glass door. It shows blobs of light near the
girl.
Maccabee said that he has confirmed that fingerprints and smudges on
glass can cause similar reflections without the glass itself reflecting
light. Frances Walters said that she had never cleaned that glass door.
[Continued]
--
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: Gulf Breeze at NUFOC 4/5
Date: 7 Jun 90 05:51:00 GMT
The mysterious blue beam that appears in Walters' photographs and other
witnesses' reports has also brought forth much speculation.
"It can lift you up, it can hold you down," Maccabee said.
Walters said, "The blue beam stops you from moving; the white flash, I
believe, if it strikes you on the head, incapacitates you."
"I don't know that, but I believe it's true," he said.
Walters explained how he captured the picture of the blue beam
and Frances running in the doorway. He said that he was going outside while
holding the camera up, and that the blue beam suddenly flashed just where
he was about to step. At that time, Frances ran inside and he pushed the
shutter release without even looking through the viewfinder.
A new apparent debunking attempt is underway.
An advertisement appeared in the Pensacola newspaper. The ad states,
"Hoax UFO balloons are illegal." The advertisement text then says that
anyone who sees or knows of UFO balloons should call a certain telephone
number.
"That's a Phil Klass phone number," Walters said. Walters also pointed
out that the 1990 MUFON symposium will be in early July in Pensacola.
He said that it would not be surprising if someone found a UFO balloon just
in time for the symposium.
Walters also mentioned a flyer that someone stuffed in Gulf Breeze
mailboxes referring to him. It said, in part, "Many of our sources report
how often this UFO nut can be seen drunk at local taverns."
He said that the debunker obviously did not know that Santa Rosa County
is dry, therefore there are no local taverns.
"There is certainly a difference between an honest skeptic and a
debunker," Walters said. "A debunker is compelled to convince all others
that there is no such thing as a UFO; therefore, Gulf Breeze should be
swept away."
"I think probably most of you understand now, if you don't you should,
that Gulf Breeze is not just Ed and Frances Walters," Walters said.
"It would be almost as strange as a UFO to imagine that you can reject
Ed's case as being a hoax and accept all the rest of them as being real,"
Maccabee said.
Walters declined to identify Believer Bill and Jane, two people
who anonymously gave pictures of UFOs similar to those Walters saw to the
Gulf Breeze Sentinel. He said that he knows their identity.
"I might have said it (Believer Bill's name) publicly a few times, and I
might have hurt him," Walters said. "It's not up to me to denigrate or
expose someone who doesn't want to be exposed."
"It's job-related suicide for some professions," he said.
He acknowledged that he may have erred in trying to remain anonymous, but
said he was trying to protect his family.
"I probably made the mistake that if you don't come forward, the news
media will turn into a school of sharks," Walters said. "But if you don't
come forward it almost makes it worse, because then they are going to track
you down."
"They'll try their best to leap upon you from the bushes," he said.
"For two years I tried my best to shun publicity," Walters said. "If they
(debunkers) hadn't attacked so viciously, the book wouldn't have been
written."
On Jan. 8, 1990, witnesses saw another UFO, and this time the military
apparently took an interest.
Ed Walters said that he and Frances were out walking near the Methodist
Church in Gulf Breeze when they saw a large red light in the sky.
"We'd been criticized early on for not always dancing to a phone and
calling somebody, so in this case, we said well, what the heck, we'll run
back to the house, take a chance that it's still going to be there, and
we'll call people," Walters said. "I ran to the phone and started to call
investigators."
[Continued]
--
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: Gulf Breeze at NUFOC 5/5
Date: 7 Jun 90 05:51:00 GMT
Walters reached two answering machines and a paging machine. He then
called Duane Cook and a friend who he had promised he would call, and they
said they were on the way.
"This was all on faith that the object was still in the sky," he said. "I
didn't know, I was still inside."
"It could have already gone and then I would look very foolish because
everybody would have come a'running and I'd be embarrassed," Walters said.
Walters said, "I started to put together this new camera I'd purchased."
He said that he started running back toward the church while still trying
to attach the lens to the camera.
Duane Cook and his son arrived and both saw the object. Two other people
approached and now the object was visible to six people gathered near the
church.
"I could see through the zoom lens this black disc," Walters said. He
said that the disc was visible against a moonlit cloud cover.
Walters and city councilwoman Brenda Pollak took some photographs.
Walters' camera had a zoom lens with a maximum focal length of about 200
mm., and Pollak had a 300 mm. lens on her camera. However, both had their
cameras set on automatic exposure and the cameras automatically set long
exposures.
Walters' photograph shows a red blurry blob.
"The critics and the debunkers would have me being a photo expert, some
kind of genius," he said.
Just after Walters made his exposure, the red light went out or, as
others reported, the disc turned over.
Pollak then took her photograph. Her photograph shows an image that looks
like multi-colored pearls on a string.
Maccabee said that the light changed colors 110 times during Pollak's
three-second exposure. Since the camera was handheld with the 300 mm. lens,
the image was a snakelike line with a blob of different colored light for
each time the light changed colors.
"I think this is a phenomenal picture," Walters said. "It doesn't solve
anything, it just adds to the questions."
"Some of the witnesses remember seeing a white light while the picture
was being taken," Walters said. "We don't know we've captured this odd
effect until the film comes out."
The object then vanished, apparently into the low-lying cloud cover.
Walters said that moments later, about six helicopters approached from
the direction of Pensacola Naval Air Station. "There's no question where
those helicopters came from," he said.
He said that the helicopters approached the area of the church,
illuminated floodlights and searched the area around the church. The object
had been directly over the church when it vanished.
A Navy chief, who was not an official spokesman, first told an
investigator that the Naval Air Station dispatched the helicopters on a
Search and Rescue mission. According to Walters, the investigator pressed
further and the chief told the investigator, "You know what's been going on
over there, you guess."
Another red light appeared near the bridge from Gulf Breeze to Pensacola
on the night of April 18, 1990, and many witnesses took photographs while
several made videotapes. Maccabee said that he has most of the
negatives and videotapes.
Ed and Frances Walters' experiences have given them what could be called
an insiders' perspective on the UFO phenomenon.
"The toughest part is not understanding," Ed Walters said. "I don't like
the idea that there may be something out there that may be a threat."
Frances Walters said, "For every answer that you come up with, you seem
to come up with a lot more questions."
"Sometimes I think we haven't learned a darn thing," she said.
A participant at the conference asked Ed Walters if he is ready for
another visit from the visitors.
"If they come symbolically to my front door, and they knock on the door,
and they say, 'Hi, we're travelers from afar. Can we come in?' I'll open
the door," Walters said. "If they try to come in the back door, in the
darkness, and invade my household, I will resist and I will fight back."
###
Copyright 1990 John B. Hicks
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Daniel.Wisnosky
Subject: Re: serious heat
Date: 6 Jun 90 19:39:51 GMT
GG> Jim:
GG> Called a Colonel friend of mine and have not been able to confir
GG> anything about a shooting of aliens at Fort Dix. Wish TSB would
GG> provide some evidence to support his statements. My friend thinks thi
GG> is merely a hoax. If I find out anymore about this, I'll post it.
You should post that in FIDO-UFO. Of course, doing so would probably
make you a government agent in Mr. Bennett's eyes, huh?
--
Daniel Wisnosky - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Daniel.Wisnosky@f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG
********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********
'infopara' at the following address:
UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
ADMIN Address infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
{ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
