Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 237
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 237
Monday, June 4th 1990
Today's Topics:
UFO Questionaire
Re: Fido UFO
Re: Stealth/Area 51
Re: Fido UFO
Recent Developments
Survey
Re: Fido Ufo
F22/23 And Uaps
Fido UFO
Fido UFO
Re: Fido UFO
Questionnaire
My Questionaire Answers
Questionnaire response
UFO QUESTIONAIRE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: UFO Questionaire
Date: 1 Jun 90 19:54:00 GMT
> 1. Some flying saucers have tried to communicate with us.
Probably true. Many diverse witnesses have reported communication
attempts.
> 2. All UFO reports can be explained either as well understood
> happenings or as hoaxes.
Probably false. That's very unlikely, but possible.
> 3. The Air Force has done an adequate job of investigation of
> UFO reports and UFOs generally.
Probably true. I think they have done a thorough job of
investigating the ufo phenomenon. However, the problem is that they're
not telling anyone else! Their reports are not made available for
public consumption.
> 4. No actual, physical evidence has ever been obtained from a
> UFO.
Probably false. Physical evidence has been obtained, but hasn't been
conclusively proven to be what it's said to be. Ed Walters' mysterious
liquid, some sort of slag mentioned by Vallee, rumored stuff from
Roswell etc.
> 5. A government agency maintains a Top Secret file of UFO
> reports that are deliberately withheld from the public.
Probably true. They'd be absolute fools to not maintain files of UFO
reports. Besides, several FOIA request responses point in this
direction.
> 6. No airline pilots have seen UFOs.
Probably false. I say probably rather than definitely because I
don't have a first-hand report from a pilot, but if a pilot sees
something, and no one can tell him what it is, it's a unidentified
flying object. It *could* be something mundane, but if no one
identifies it, it's unidentified.
> 7. Most people would not report seeing a UFO for fear of losing
> a job.
Probably true. I think the public would avoid a brain surgeon who
claims to have seen flying saucers, and he'd be out of a job.
> 8. No authentic photographs have ever been taken of UFOs.
Probably false. While all ufo photos may be hoaxes or mundane
things, that's highly unlikely.
> 9. Persons who believe they have communicated with visitors
> from outer space are mentally ill.
Probably false. No consistent symptoms of mental illness among
contactees has ever been demonstrated. If anything, the reverse
appears to be true.
> 10. The Air Force was told to explain all UFO sightings
> reported to them as natural or man-made happenings or events.
Probably true. Protect the public from panic etc.
> 11. Earth has been visited at least once in its history by
> beings from another world.
Probably true.
> 12. The government should spend more money than it does now to
> study what UFOs are and where they come from.
Definitely true. The government should help fund *independent*
organizations that would study the ufo phenomenon.
> 13. Intelligent forms of life cannot exist elsewhere in the
> universe.
Definitely false. Unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, false.
> 14. Flying saucers can be explained scientifically without any
> important new discoveries.
Definitely false. Current physics would have to be ignored.
> 15. Some UFOs have landed and left marks in the ground.
Probably true.
> 16. Most UFOs are due to secret defense projects, either ours
> or another country's.
Probably false. Far too many reports for that to be the case. The
projects aren't very secret if that's the case.
> 17. UFOs are reported throughout the world.
Definitely true.
> 18. The government has done a good job of examining UFO
> reports.
Probably true. The problem is that they're not telling.
> 19. There have never been any UFO sightings in the Soviet
> Union.
Probably false. There have been many reports, which we may or may
not accept as having actually been sightings.
> 20. People want to believe that life exists elsewhere than on
> Earth.
Probably true. I think it would be more frightening if we absolutely
knew we were all alone.
> 21. There have been good radar reports of UFOs.
Definitely true. Good enough for scrambles.
> 22. There is no government secrecy about UFOs.
Definitely false. Rolling on floor laughing. The entire government
would have to be absolute fools to not keep lots of ufo material
secret.
> 23. People have seen space ships that have not come from this
> planet.
Probably true. Now we're getting into the nature of the phenomenon.
Are we seeing spaceships, or are we seeing something entirely
different, as proposed by Vallee?
> 24. Some UFO reports have come from astronomers.
Definitely true.
> 25. Even the most unusual UFO report could be explained by the
> laws of science if we knew enough about science.
Definitely true. There's the kicker, if we knew enough about
science. If we knew enough about science, we could say, for instance,
that ufos are definitely visitors from another parallel universe, the
future etc. Man will never fly, y'know. ;-)
> 26. People who do *not* believe in flying saucers must be
> stupid.
Definitely false. Doesn't make sense.
> 27. UFO reports have not been taken seriously by any government
> agency.
Definitely false. Maccabee got a pile of stuff from the CIA on a
FOIA request quite a while ago. That seems pretty serious.
> 28. Government secrecy about UFOs is an idea made up by
> newspapers.
Definitely false. Patently absurd.
> 29. Science has established that there are such things as
> "Unidentified Flying Objects."
Definitely true. If it's not identified, and it flies, it's a
unidentified flying object. Science doesn't even have to establish
that.
> 30. Abduction reports are the result of hallucinations.
Probably false. If that were true, many people worldwide would have
to be having the same hallucinations.
> Finally, what do you believe UFOs to be?
Visitors and objects from realities we know nothing about. Probably
not from what we commonly refer to as space.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Re: Fido UFO
Date: 1 Jun 90 19:55:01 GMT
> Why does he have the right to tell us what we can say and we
> can't say? Has he ever heard of the first ammendmant? Bring up
> that fact and see what he says...
The First Amendment doesn't apply. It's a private network the public
is allowed to use.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Burke
Subject: Re: Stealth/Area 51
Date: 2 Jun 90 01:34:32 GMT
Tim: There was an article about the "atomic plane" published recently
& I can't remember where I saw it - it could have been _Discover_ or
even _Air & Space_, probably a March issue. The article fully
discussed the plane, what it would have looked like & how lucky we all
are about why it never got off the ground. It definately had no
relationship to the B2. Additionally, I think Gonsalves is wrong with
his UFO/B2 story and when I get a chance, I'm going to go through Phil
Imbrogno's book & articles in this library to quote some situations
which clearly refute some of the foundations of Tony's hypothesis.
I'll post that in the Ask UFO echo. Come to think of it, I'm almost
sure that article was in _Air & Space_. -- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Burke
Subject: Re: Fido UFO
Date: 2 Jun 90 01:50:47 GMT
Hi Don! So I see that you're finally back from the Poconos! Say,
isn't that where the Secret Government is headquartered? :-) Anyway,
as far as George Adamski's echo goes, maybe there should be an
agreement that if, for some reason ParaNet must be discussed (such as
in refuting slanderous allegations by BenNet) ParaNet should be
referred to as "PN" or by some other semi-cryptic nomenclature which
would not result in a "subtle advertisement". Say "hi" to The Vickster
for me! -- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!mcorbin
Subject: Recent Developments
Date: 2 Jun 90 16:07:00 GMT
> Rick Edwards of UFO Awareness is starting a syndicated TV
> show called "UFO Spotlight." No idea yet in which markets
> its going to play. If I provide a
> phone number in Palm Springs, CA, can someone find out
> about this?
I am near there, and know Rick Edwards. Give me his number, I
will phone him.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!mcorbin
Subject: Survey
Date: 2 Jun 90 16:08:00 GMT
> I don't know if you consider me a ParaNet user since I'm
> only active on
> the Echo line, but I've completed the survey anyways. My
Anyone in ParaNet is a user and is most welcome. Thanks for
taking the time to do the survey.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!mcorbin
Subject: Re: Fido Ufo
Date: 2 Jun 90 16:20:00 GMT
> slanderous allegations by BenNet) ParaNet should be
> referred to as "PN" or by some other semi-cryptic
> nomenclature which would not result in a "subtle
> advertisement". Say "hi" to The Vickster for me! -- John
Maybe we could go under the nomenclature of MAJESTIC.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!mcorbin
Subject: F22/23 And Uaps
Date: 2 Jun 90 16:24:00 GMT
David Winters
> In one way or the other I've looked into the
> history/stories
> offered by the "hot" UFO freaks like Cooper, Lazar,
> Lear.....
> ad nausea.....and found very little to sink my teeth into.
> I
> keep asking, "Where's the beef???" My main interest is
> propulsion systems for aerospace vechicles and I keep
> hoping
> that tell-tale evidence will be found that will be a clue
> as to what powers/causes these phenomenon. So until the
> field of UAP investigation stops being a beacon for people
> looking for a National Enquirer type
> sensationalism....we'll
> get no where in hard evidence collection and
> classification.
> We need objective collection and reporting of UAPs as they
> happen....not after weeks/months/years of sifting thru
> garbage
> put out by individuals that have some
> agenda/position/belief
> to promote.
I am sure that we would enjoy a report from you concerning the
results of your fact-findings on the Lear, Cooper, Lazar, and so
forth group.
Also, I agree totally with your posting about the objective
collection and reporting of data.
Inasmuch as you are interested in propulsion, would you say that
any physical landing traces could provide any information about
propulsion provided that a qualified person was collecting the
data?
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Ecker
Subject: Fido UFO
Date: 2 Jun 90 13:38:00 GMT
> I think that at least 70% of the messages on that echo are
> garbage. I only carry it for that 30% of interesting
> messages. ParaNet attracts people who are interested in the
> same subject as we are; the other echo attracts everyone.
> If we were to create a backbone echo we too would
> eventually run into similar problems.
>
> Well that's my 2 cents.
Yep Paul, you may have a point, but the real point is that IF we
did that, at least it would be OUR PROBLEM.
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Ecker
Subject: Fido UFO
Date: 2 Jun 90 13:42:00 GMT
> users will come running. FIDO UFO remains fertile ground
> for some good information and good users, but we have a
> better setup here, more dedicated people, and best of all,
> a standard of conduct that prevents melees like what has
> taken place in FIDO UFO.
>
All true Jim, but you know, I just HATE IT when I am blamed for
something that I did NOT do, and then to compound it, I get
punished for it. Sorry, but then my hackles raise, and I start to
get rightious. Then am willing to go to the wall, etc..........
But you are right, FIDO UFO for the most part is just plain
undulterated crap.
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Ecker
Subject: Re: Fido UFO
Date: 2 Jun 90 13:46:00 GMT
Jim, your message noted. I spent about 20 to 25 minutes with G.
Adam, and at times I felt I was beating the old nogan on the
wall. It is hard to try to sway the ol' true believer with facts,
when he is already convinced he is right. ( By God, the world is
FLAT cause I KNOW IT! You follow?? )
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
Subject: Questionnaire
Date: 3 Jun 90 08:07:00 GMT
Mike: I enjoyed answering the UFO questionnaire, but I had some problems with
some of the the phrasing.
1. Answer=2
2. Answer=1
3. Answer=2
4. Answer=3
5. Answer=2
6. Answer=1
7. Answer=3 Ambiguous question. Report to whom? Co-workers, Police,
Governement?
8. Answer=2 Badly worded question: authentic in
reference to which model of UFOs? Does authentic mean
pictures ofextraterestrial vehicles, paranormal
visitations, or merely honest and non- fabricated? 9.
Answer=1. Badly worded question: as phrased, the question
implies a negative value judgement. A social worker friend has
informed me that there are many personality traits which might
lead to non-veridical reports of communication. These traits
are not necesarily indicative of mental illness and do not
require clinical intervention. 10. Answer=1 I believe that
a residual category of unexplained was reported by Blue Book.
The question is ambiguous as it implies either that no one in
the AF admitted any unexplained sightings or else the Blue Book
people disobeyed orders. Told when? 11. Answer=2 The
Microchloranthropogenetic theory is a viable, if
non-parsimonious and question-begging, alternative to the
Judaeo- Xian-Islamic genesis myths. I am unconvinced by any
more contemporary evidence for contact.
12. Answer=2 I dont know how much is being spent and what kind of
research projects have been proposed on which to spend
the money. Merely throwing money at problems seldom solves them.
13. Answer=1. 14. Answer=2. This question is ambiguous as
important is undefined. 15. Answer=2. 16. Answer=1 17.
Answer=4 18. Answer=2 19. Answer=1 20. Answer=3
People are undefined. I think most educated Americans want to
believe in life elswhere. Many fundamentalists reject the idea.
21. Answer=4 This is also a model-dependent question 22.
Answer=2 Current or past ? 23. Answer=2 24. Answer=4 25.
Answer=4 By definition! Are you implying that UFOs will
always be an inexplicable mystery? 26. Answer=1 27.
Answer=1 28. Answer=1 29. Answer=3 This question is
poorly phrased and model-dependent. 30. Answer=1 Poorly
phrased question. Reports could be due to many factors including
dreams, induced fantasizing, true hallucinations and/or
real events.
Finally, what do you believe UFOs to be?
I believe that they are a mixture of many types of
physical and psychological events. Some of these may be truly
new and unknown phenomena, while others will turn out to have
explanations mundane by current knowledge. I would like to
believe in the physical and extraterrestrial origin hypotheses,
but the evidence does not convince me. As I am rather agnostic
about most of UFOlogy, I found it hard to answer some of the
questions. Im looking forward to seeing the results on
Paranet. -- John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From scicom!ncar!csi.compuserve.com!mtg
Subject: My Questionaire Answers
Date: 3 Jun 90 08:06:00 GMT
You didn't make it clear where this should be sent to...
I'll send it to you directly, and if you'd like it to go out
over the net you're welcome to post it there; I don't mind.
- Mark G.
>For each of the statements shown below, please indicate the
>degree to which you feel the statement to be either true or
>false:
>-------------------------------------------------------
>1. Some flying saucers have tried to communicate with us.
3. Probably True.
>2. All UFO reports can be explained either as well understood
>happenings or as hoaxes.
1. Definitely False. Many happenings (UFO and otherwise) don't
fit into our understanding of things; I think Forte's _Book Of
The Damned_ makes this point quite well and I agree with it.
>3. The Air Force has done an adequate job of investigation of
>UFO reports and UFOs generally.
1. Definitely False, as long as "investigating" includes "reporting
the correct results of the investigation".
>4. No actual, physical evidence has ever been obtained from a UFO.
2. Probably False.
>5. A government agency maintains a Top Secret file of UFO
>reports that are deliberately withheld from the public.
3. Probably True.
>6. No airline pilots have seen UFOs.
1. Definitely False; I don't believe all such Flying Objects have been
Identified.
>7. Most people would not report seeing a UFO for fear of losing a job.
4. Definitely True.
>8. No authentic photographs have ever been taken of UFOs.
2. Probably False.
>9. Persons who believe they have communicated with visitors
>from outer space are mentally ill.
2. Probably False.
>10. The Air Force was told to explain all UFO sightings
>reported to them as natural or man-made happenings or events.
3. Probably True.
>11. Earth has been visited at least once in its history by
>beings from another world.
3. Probably True. But what do you mean, "visit"? Walked on the
surface? Landed? Orbited?
>12. The government should spend more money than it does now to
>study what UFOs are and where they come from.
1. Definitely False; they'd just squander it away and claim negative
results. Besides, I'm not so sure they don't have the answers already.
>13. Intelligent forms of life cannot exist elsewhere in the universe.
2. Probably False. I want to say "Definitely", but I've seen no
facts to support alien life, probable though it seems.
>14. Flying saucers can be explained scientifically without any
>important new discoveries.
1. Definitely False.
>15. Some UFOs have landed and left marks in the ground.
3. Probably True. These may or may not be markings we've found
"recently" (in the last century, or millenium, or post-history).
>16. Most UFOs are due to secret defense projects, either ours
>or another country's.
3. Probably True, but I'm really borderline on this one. I don't
have a clear inkling just *what* they are.
>17. UFOs are reported throughout the world.
4. Definitely True, just not publicized equally throughout.
>18. The government has done a good job of examining UFO reports.
4. Examining? Definitely True on examination ONLY. :)
>19. There have never been any UFO sightings in the Soviet Union.
4. Definitely True.
>20. People want to believe that life exists elsewhere than on Earth.
4. Definitely True. The idea may be repugnant to many at first, but
I really think that deep down people know it's good for them.
>21. There have been good radar reports of UFOs.
4. Definitely True.
>22. There is no government secrecy about UFOs.
1. Definitely False. I've seen enough government secrecy to know that
they have a lot of secrecy about EVERYTHING.
>23. People have seen space ships that have not come from this planet.
3. Probably True.
>24. Some UFO reports have come from astronomers.
4. Definitely True. What's an "astronomer"? A telescope owner? Anyone
who looks up?
>25. Even the most unusual UFO report could be explained by the
>laws of science if we knew enough about science.
3. Probably True. I don't know what we have yet to learn about
science, though. :)
>26. People who do *not* believe in flying saucers must be stupid.
1. Definitely False. What is "stupid"? Even still, that's just an
opinion, and I'll let people have their own.
>27. UFO reports have not been taken seriously by any government agency.
1. Definitely False. The Air Force took them seriously enough to
start blithering to the public about them and their subsequent
investigations. Do the agencies believe them? That's another question.
>28. Government secrecy about UFOs is an idea made up by newspapers.
2. Probably False. Who knows who started it? There's always skeptics.
>29. Science has established that there are such things as
>"Unidentified Flying Objects."
3. Probably True. I don't know if I agree that science has proven
this... to be an "Unidentified Flying Object" it just has to have
no satisfactory explanation utilizing the laws and facts we know
currently.
>30. Abduction reports are the result of hallucinations.
2. Probably False, but I'm really very borderline on this. I'd
prefer to abstain from answering at all.
>Finally, what do you believe UFOs to be?
Just what it stands for -- an Unidentified Flying Object. It could
be an atmospheric oddity, it could be an alien craft, it could be
something entirely different. I haven't seen enough proof to push
me either way. I would like to find out that they are indeed visitors
or aliens, but I haven't yet. Many want to display them as entirely
explainable, but their persistence and the explanations and the
public's refusal to believe the explanations force me not to merely
accept UFOs as nothing out of the ordinary.
- Mark G.
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f0.n9.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GARY@MAXIMILLION.CP.MCC.COM (Gary Knight)
Subject: Questionnaire response
Date: 3 Jun 90 08:06:00 GMT
Questionnaire response -- Gary Knight (gary@mcc.com)
DF = definitely false
PF = probably false
PT = probably true
DT = definitely true
1. Some flying saucers have tried to communicate with us.
PT
2. All UFO reports can be explained either as well understood
happenings or as hoaxes.
DF
3. The Air Force has done an adequate job of investigation of
UFO reports and UFOs generally.
DF
4. No actual, physical evidence has ever been obtained from a UFO.
DF
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.
PT
8. No authentic photographs have ever been taken of UFOs.
PF
9. Persons who believe they have communicated with visitors
from outer space are mentally ill.
PT
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.
PT
12. The government should spend more money than it does now to
study what UFOs are and where they come from.
DT
13. Intelligent forms of life cannot exist elsewhere in the universe.
DF
14. Flying saucers can be explained scientifically without any
important new discoveries.
PF
15. Some UFOs have landed and left marks in the ground.
PT
16. Most UFOs are due to secret defense projects, either ours
or another country's.
PF
17. UFOs are reported throughout the world.
DT
18. The government has done a good job of examining UFO reports.
DF
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.
PT
21. There have been good radar reports of UFOs.
DT
22. There is no government secrecy about UFOs.
DF
23. People have seen space ships that have not come from this planet.
PT
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
27. UFO reports have not been taken seriously by any government agency.
PF
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
30. Abduction reports are the result of hallucinations.
PF
Finally, what do you believe UFOs to be?
50% probability -- time travellers from our own or another
planet's future time;
40% probability -- physical space travellers from another star
system;
10% probability -- intelligent beings from a parallel world, co-
existing with our own reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f5.n30223.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Charles.Mcelhinney
Subject: UFO QUESTIONAIRE
Date: 2 Jun 90 15:22:00 GMT
Well...Here goes...
(Rating system is A-Definatly False B-Probably False C-Probably True
D-Definatly True)
1-C 2-A 3-A 4-C 5-C 6-A 7-B 8-A 9-B 10-C 11-C 12-D 13-A 14-B 15-C
16-C 17-D 18-A 19-A 20-C 21-C 22-A 23-C 24-D 25-B 26-A 27-A 28-A 29-D
30-B
What do I believe UFO's are? Well, they definatly are real, but
you have to look at what UFO means and really try to picture the
meaning of it when something happens that involves a UFO. A UFO is an
unidentified flying object. Therefore, it's name implies just that.
Unfortunatly, people tend to throw in words like aliens, abductions and
other nasty words and that tends to confound the problem. Who ever
said anything about aliens???? Exactly. Now, a UFO can be anything
from a bird that you can't recognize to a plane that can't be
identified. In fact, that's where the word acronymn UFO comes
from...The military. Pilots used to use the term when they couldn't
identify a something in front of them (now usually called a Bogey and
when they are deemed hostile, they are deemed "Bandit"). While there
are many explanations to UFO's that come off with reasons that don't
involve space aliens and abductions, there are a few that seem genuine
to me. Therefore, I believe that the whole science (Ufology) should be
taken much more seriously.
--
Charles Mcelhinney - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Charles.Mcelhinney@f5.n30223.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************************
