Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 244
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 244
Wednesday, June 13th 1990
Today's Topics:
Re: serious heat
ILL BREEZE
Ufo Film
ILL BREEZE update
Re: GB Video
Skeptics BBS
Misc
Through a Klass, Darkly
Magnetic Grid?
Sundry Claims
Geomancy
GB Circle
T. S. Bennett
MJ-12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Clark.Matthews
Subject: Re: serious heat
Date: 10 Jun 90 04:41:00 GMT
->Wish TSB would provide some evidence to support his
->statements. My friend thinks this is merely a hoax.
I do too, Gene. I seem to remember reading somewhere that whole parts of
the story don't check out.
I believe the MPs were responding to a call from an NJ State Trooper or
local cop before the alleged "shootout" ("beam-out"?!). No confirming
records of the police call exist. I may be mistaken, but I saw somewhere
that someone had actually gone to the call logs and police tapes to confirm
this.
There have been many genuinely strange UFO encounters in NJ, particularly in
South Jersey, but this probably wasn't one of them...
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: ILL BREEZE
Date: 10 Jun 90 23:47:00 GMT
EXTRA! EXTRA! GULF BREEZE HOAX UNRAVELS!!!!
In a series of shocking developments, the Gulf Breeze case, touted as "The
Most Astounding Wave of Sightings in US History," has been positively shown to
be a hoax. The Pensacola News-Journal sent a reporter to Ed Walter's old
house, which he occupied at the beginning of the sightings. The new tenant
showed the reporter a model, about 9 inches by 5 inches, made of plastic and
construction paper. On the back of the paper, inside the model, were
architectural drawings for a house, apparently in Ed's handwriting. (Ed is a
construction contractor). The model is now in the possession of the newspaper.
Walters has issued two conflicting denials of the hoax. In one version, he
accuses Phil Klass, Bob Boyd, or Willy Smith of having planted the model. In
another, he claims that he was asked by Dr. Bruce Maccabee to construct a
model for measurements and re-enactments.
Walters is scheduled to appear on tonite's CompuServe UFO Conference at 8PM
EDT. ParaNet will cover the conference and report back significant details.
Stay tuned for further developments.
Jim Speiser
--
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: Ufo Film
Date: 11 Jun 90 04:38:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "FIDO UFO"
* Originally from Terry Floyd @ 914/207
* Originally dated 06-09-90 01:53
Hello all. I am a documentary filmmaker at work on a UFO project
My partner and I would like to interview UFO witnesses and/or
contactees. We're looking for both "serious" UFOlogists as well
as your normal adorable eccentrics who want to convince the
public that they've been abducted by aliens. If you know of
any people you think fit this description, or can get us in touch
with UFO enthusiasts willing to be interviewed for our film,
please contact me, Terry Floyd, at (415) 351-0973 or my Associate
Producer, L. Jim Khennedy, at (415) 931-0549. We're in the
earliest stages of pre-production right now, and just want to
gather a list of potential interviewees. Thanks in advance for
your help. You folks are fascinating. I
I'll be checking the board regularly for responses, and perhaps
joining the discussion as well.
# Origin: The Skeptic's Board -- Exploring the fringe. (RBBS 8:914/207.0)
--
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: ILL BREEZE update
Date: 11 Jun 90 05:03:00 GMT
Just got a call from Allison Smith, Pensacola News-Journal, asking me some
questions about the CIS conference with Ed. She reports that the newspaper
obtained the model and photographed it in various perspectives. She says she
has not seen the actual model, but the photos are almost dead ringers for Ed's
photos.
In the CIS Conference, Ed stated that the model is not a very good likeness,
that it is only vaguely similar to "the real thing."
When asked if he had told someone that he had built the model at the behest of
Bruce Maccabee for re-enactments, Ed avoided the question three times, stating
repeatedly that he had made several models for Dr. Maccabee. He stated that he
knew as soon as he saw photos of the model that it wasn't one of his. He said
his models were never made with paper plates or styrofoam, whereas this one
was. But he never confirmed nor denied that he had said at one time that it
was his.
Comment: One of three things has happened. Either Ed accidentally left
incriminating evidence in the attic of his old house, or someone - with no
known motive and no means of access - planted a fake model in Ed's attic...OR,
Ed himself planted a fake model in his attic in order to discredit his
detractors and thereby gain sympathy. This last I think is the most likely
explanation, since the first two require tremendous stupidity, and neither Ed
nor his most vehement detractors are stupid - with the possible exception of
Willy Smith.
Wish I could afford to make it to the MUFON symposium!
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f70.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Charles.Mcelhinney
Subject: Re: GB Video
Date: 11 Jun 90 15:39:00 GMT
I, too, experienced the feeling of wrongness when I watched the
Gulf Breeze video. It seemed too RIGHT. It almost makes me wonder who
the hell was flying the damn thing to let themselves be photoed like
that. Then again, I just might be jealous because he has some damn
good footage (even if it is fake. He should make George Lucas feel
jealous). Also, when I heard the audio of them talking in the
backround "Gee honey, what is it?" "I don't know. I just don't know."
It didn't seem like the "right" thing to say. Any normal person
would've just dropped the camera and run for his life.
Do you know of any polygraph tests done on them (forget their
names)? I usually will only believe anything like that that has a lie
detector test in the back of the book (like Communion).
--
Charles Mcelhinney - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Charles.Mcelhinney@f70.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Skeptics BBS
Date: 11 Jun 90 19:32:00 GMT
The following series of messages originated on the Skeptic's BBS, ParaNet
Alpha-Centauri. Due to the confusion of the recent past, the restructuring,
etc., no mail is being received back from Alpha-Centauri, although they do
seem to be getting all the message traffic. This situation will be cleared up
ASAP, hopefully. In the meantime, just as I'd hoped, this BBS continues to
provide ParaNet with some outstanding, balanced input. Our apologies to Rick
Moen, the Bay Area Skeptics, and Phil Klass for the technical screw-up.
Mr. Klass has provided us with a comprehensive rebuttal to the messages I
posted insinuating that he had "scuttled" the UNL UFO conference of 1983. Some
of the information he provides has never come out before, and I think it is
incumbent upon ParaNet to investigate this incident further. I am requesting
that our MUFONet affiliates provide copies of the three messages involving the
UNL incident to Walt Andrus for comment.
Thanks again to Rick for providing these messages to me in a private upload.
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: Misc
Date: 11 Jun 90 19:33:00 GMT
Msg #: 516 Security: 1 PARANET Subboard
From: SYSOP Sent: 04-20-90 21:43
To: JIM SPEISER Rcvd: -NO-
Re: (R)MISC
> >
> > Klass Acts: I finally saw the 1987 Omni
> > article by Jerome Clark as a reprint in Schulz's
> > "Fringes of Reason." I must say that I see no reason
> > to believe any of Clark's scurrilous and unsupported
> > attacks on CSICOP and Klass. --- John
>
> Apparently, John, you not only have seen nothing to support the
> attacks, you have also seen positive evidence that they are untrue,
> since you classify them as "scurrilous". Can you share your evidence
> with us? Does Shulz defend Klass, and if so, how?
>
> Jim
Jim --
I sent Klass a printout of recent ParaNet message traffic on this
subject, and he had plenty to say about it. As soon as I have the time
and energy to enter and upload some three pages of text, I will do so on
this echo. Stay tuned!
Yrs. Truly,
Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics
--
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: Through a Klass, Darkly
Date: 11 Jun 90 19:33:00 GMT
Msg #: 517 Security: 1 PARANET Subboard
From: SYSOP Sent: 04-23-90 18:50
To: ALL Rcvd: 05-21-90 06:29
Re: THROUGH A KLASS, DARKLY
Dear Folks:
I sent Phil Klass a printout of recent ParaNet traffic concerning him,
as I mentioned recently. Here's the text of his rejoinder. All text is
as in the original (barring typing mistakes), except where I have had to
replace underlining with other means of emphasis.
----------------
Dear Rick Moen:
Although I should be smart and let "sleeping University of Nebraska dogs
lie," in view of questions (and misinformation) raised in the recent
Paranet material you sent, you are welcome to input the following into
Paranet, if you have the patience to do so. MANY OF THESE DETAILS HAVE
NEVER BEFORE BEEN MADE PUBLIC. I HAVE DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT ALL
CLAIMS.
In mid-1983, a concerned Nebraska high-school teacher (former APRO state
official) sent me the advance program for an upcoming UFO symposium
being _sponsored by_ the Univ. of Nebraska at Lincoln -- its _second_
such conference. As with the first conference, there was not a single
skeptic on the program.
I sat down to write a short article for "Skeptical Inquirer" to needle
the University for seeming to promote belief in the paranormal, but
decided that out of fairness I should talk to University officials
involved. So, on Aug. 23, 1983, I called and talked to a man named Russ
Free -- the program coordinator.
During our discussion, Free claimed that the University is obliged to
sponsor any conference that rents its facilities. I responded that I
understood why a state-owned institution might be obliged to RENT ITS
FACILITIES to all "askers" but found it surprising that it was "obliged
to sponsor" all such conferences. I asked if the American Nazi Party
wanted to rent its facilities for a meeting, whether the University
would "sponsor" said meeting. Free referred me to his boss, Dr. Robert
Mortenson.
Later that day I talked by telephone with Mortenson. I identified
myself as being a senior editor with Av Week, and a member of CSICOP's
council -- but emphasized that I was NOT CALLING IN EITHER OF THOSE
CAPACITIES -- BUT HAD PLANNED TO WRITE A PIECE ABOUT THE UPCOMING
CONFERENCE WHOSE THEME WAS "GOVERNMENT'S COSMIC WATERGATE COVERUP."
My conversation with Mortenson was a friendly one in which he
_professed_ to be unaware that the panel of speakers was so unbalanced
and did not have a single skeptic. At one point, Mortenson inquired if
I would be willing to speak if he could arrange it. I replied that I
already was committed to give a lecture in Philadelphia on the same date
-- but even if I weren't, I would not accept under those conditions.
Mortenson asked if I and/or CSICOP would be willing to participate the
following year if such a conference were held, and I said I thought we
would.
At one point in our conversation, lest Mortenson misunderstand my
purpose in calling, I said: "Let me emphasize to you...that I am not,
_repeat not_, suggesting that you cancel or terminate the conference.
I would not want to be a party to that." And a short time later, I told
Mortenson: "I emphasize to you that I am not recommending or urging
(conference) cancellation." Based on Mortenson's claim that he was
unaware of the extreme bias in the choice of speakers, and his expressed
desire to achieve a better balance in any subsequent conference, I
tabled my plans to do a short needling article for "SI".
Following our conversation, Mortenson wrote a brief memo to Dr. John
Yost, assistant to the Chancellor, reporting the highlights of our
telcon. If his recollections had been more accurate, or IF A COPY OF
HIS INACCURATE AUG. 23 MEMO HAD NOT BEEN LEAKED TO MUFON, REPRODUCED AND
WIDELY DISTRIBUTED -- THE MATTER WOULD HAVE ENDED AT THAT POINT.
Shortly after the conference on Nov. 11-13, I learned that copies of
Mortenson's Aug. 23 memo to the Chancellor had been handed out to the
attendees. Someone sent me a copy for comment. On Nov. 23, 1983, I
wrote Mortenson informing him that his private memo to the Chancellor
had been distributed publicly. Therefore it was appropriate for me to
correct it errors and I QUOTED VERBATIM FROM MY REMARKS TO HIM -- WHICH
I HAD TAPE RECORDED JUST IN CASE SOMEONE MIGHT LATER CLAIM I HAD TRIED
TO SCUTTLE THE CONFERENCE.
I had expected that Mortenson would reply IMMEDIATELY, EXPRESSING SHOCK
THAT HIS PERSONAL MEMO TO THE CHANCELLOR HAD BEEN MADE PUBLIC, AND
APOLOGIZING FOR ITS ERRORS, WHICH SEEMED TO PUT ME IN A BAD LIGHT. When
nearly a month had passes _without a word_ from Mortenson, I wrote again
on Dec. 18, in case he had not received the original. _Still no reply_.
On Jan. 11, 1984, having still not heard from Mortenson, I then wrote
Dr. John Yost, in the Chancellor's office, enclosing copies of my two
earlier letters to Mortenson. In my brief letter, I said that failure
to hear from Mortenson had caused me to wonder if the release of his
inaccurate memo was intentional.
I wrote that this was "his perogative. But if that be the case, then it
is my perogative to take appropriate legal action to set the record
straight and clear my name." (NOTE: THIS WAS THE ONLY MENTION OF
POSSIBLE LEGAL ACTION ON MY PART DURING THIS LENGTHY EXCHANGE AND IT WAS
INTENDED TO PROMPT A RESPONSE -- WHICH IT DID.)
Shortly after writing this letter, the then new issue (Oct. 1983) of
"MUFON UFO Journal" arrived. MUFON director Walt Andrus devoted much of
his column to this matter, charging I had tried to "scuttle the
University of Nebraska's conference on UFOs and the Government coverup,"
as well as making other spurious charges. THE CONTENTS OF THIS ANDRUS
COMMENTARY STRONGLY SUGGESTED THAT MORTENSON AND/OR FREE WAS HIS SOURCE.
On Jan 22, not having heard from Yost, I wrote again, detailing also the
spurious charges in the just-received MUFON Journal, including the
_false_ claim that I had telephoned the Chancellor's office to try to
get the conference cancelled.
With my letter, I enclosed a copy of the MUFON article in which Andrus
(indiscretely) reported that he had been supplied with "A COPY OF FIVE
PAGES OF NOTES TAKEN DURING THE ACTUAL TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS."
OBVIOUSLY THESE HAD BEEN SUPPLIED BY MORTENSON OR FREE. In my letter to
Yost I concluded: "I seek your assistance in establishing the _source_
of the gross errors in MUFON's charges."
My two letters to Yost finally evoked a reply from Mortenson, dated Feb.
1. He told me that his Aug. 23 memo was "confidential to Dr. Yost" and
that the only other person to receive a copy was Russ Free. Mortenson
said that "The Univesity does wish to inform you that they had nothing
to do with this memorandum going beyond its original purpose."
Note the clever wording of this statement. It _implies_ that neither
Mortenson nor Free had any role in leaking his memo to MUFON. By the
time I received this Mortenson letter I knew this claim was FALSE
BECAUSE ANDRUS HIMSELF HAD SENT ME A COPY OF A ONE-PAGE LETTER HE HAD
RECEIVED FROM MORTENSON, DATED DEC. 23, 1983.
This Mortenson letter revealed his relations with Andrus were so close
and cozy that before publication Andrus had sent him a copy of the MUFON
article, which quoted from Mortenson's Aug. 23 memo, seeking Mortenson's
comments. And that on Dec. 23, 1983 -- A MONTH AFTER I HAD FIRST
WRITTEN MORTENSON TO QUOTE VERBATIM WHAT I HAD SAID IN OUR TELCON TO
CORRECT ERRORS IN HIS AUG. 23 MEMO, MORTENSON DID NOT EVEN TRY TO
CORRECT THOSE ERRORS IN HIS DEC. 23 LETTER TO ANDRUS. HE POINTED OUT
ONLY ONE ERROR -- NOTING THAT I HAD _NOT_ CALLED THE CHANCELLOR, AS
ANDRUS HAD WRITTEN. ANDRUS HAD (FOOLISHLY) SENT ME (AND OTHERS) THE
MORTENSON LETTER WITH THE ANNOTATION THAT IT WAS RECEIVED TOO LATE TO
CORRECT THE LATTER ERROR IN THE OCT. OR NOV. ISSUE.
The reply to my Jan. 11/22 letters to Yost came from Richard R. Wood,
General Counsel to the University. Wood repeated Mortenson's claim that
"Copies of this memorandum _were not_ distributed to any other party.
Further, neither the University nor any of its employees has authorized
nor consented to any publication by MUFON concerning Dr. Mortenson's
August 23, 1983 memorandum, WHICH WAS OBTAINED BY THAT ORGANIZATION
WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OR ANY OF ITS
EMPLOYEES." (Latter emphasis added." Wood concluded: "This letter
will conclude correspondence by the University with you concerning this
matter."
I replied on March 7, 1984, noting: "Either one of your employees
illicitly provided a copy of that Aug. 23 memo to a MUFON
representative, or a thief gained entry to your offices and took only
one item -- the Mortenson memo -- and then gave it to MUFON. Curiously,
your University seemingly has never bothered to investigate this
impropriety, or crime."
I then enclosed a photocopy of Mortenson's letter of Dec. 23 to MUFON's
Andrus. I pointed out that Mortenson never once objected to Andrus
quoting from his Aug. 23 memo. I added that it seemed that Wood was
unaware of this Mortenson-to-Andrus letter, which contradicted Wood's
claims. My letter concluded: "Now that you have these facts, I expect
a more accurate response from you as to the involvement and culpability
of University employees in this incident."
On March 20, Wood replied, saying he had again discussed the matter with
Mortenson and Free. "Based upon these discussions, I am convinced that
Dr. Mortenson's Aug. 23 memo was not distributed, leaked, or otherwise
given by any member of the University staff to any third party."
Despite Wood now having a copy of Mortenson's Dec. 23 letter to Andrus,
which Mortenson posed NO OBJECTION TO ANDRUS QUOTING FROM HIS AUG. 23
MEMO TO YOST, WOOD SAID: "I AM FURTHER CONVINCED THAT DR. MORTENSON DID
NOT CONSENT TO SUCH PUBLICATION AND IN FACT WAS NOT AWARE THAT MUFON
INTENDED TO MAKE REFERENCE TO OR EXCERPT FROM HIS AUG. 23 MEMO IN ANY OF
ITS PUBLICATONS."
Wood concluded with his "sincere expression of regret" over the matter.
My reply of March 27 began as follows: "As I read, and re-read your
letter of March 20...my thoughts went back a decade to the Watergate
Scandal. And I recalled some basically decent people who became
entrapped in the web of coverup even though they had not been a party to
the original machinations.
"If I were convinced, as claimed in your letter, that you are `convinced
that Dr. Mortenson's Aug. 23 memo was not distributed, leaked, or
otherwise given by any member of the University staff to any third
party...'
"And if I were convinced that you are `convinced that Dr. Mortenson did
not consent to such publication and in fact was not aware that MUFON
intended to make any reference to or excerpt from his August 23 memo in
any of its publications...'
"Then I should consider you an excellent prospect to buy the Chesapeake
Bay Bridges at a great bargain price: $199.95 for one span, or $299.95
for both!"
I then summarized the hard evidence to show that Wood's claims were not
true. I concluded: "Possibly some small good has come of all this.
Surely it has provided the Chancellor's office with better insight into
the character of some members of the University staff. And it has
certainly demonstrated that you, Mr. Wood, are a game fighter against
overwhelming evidence held by the adverse party. In recognition of the
dirty task given you to perform you have my sympathy and admiration."
Wood never replied.
There you have it, Rick -- the background highlights of my _alleged_
threat to sue to the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. You are welcome
to supply a copy to John Chalmers.
This annual conference was terminated after the 1983 meeting, and Jerry
Clark charged "...the university withdrew its sponsorship of future
conferences following Phil's threat to sue the institution." ("Saucer
Smear", Oct. 10, 1984.)
The Oct. 14, 1984 edition of the "Omaha World Herald" carried a story
headlined: "UFO Conference Loses Money: UNL Declines Any Sponsorship."
The story began: "University of Nebraska-Lincoln officials say they
decided not to sponsor a conference on unexplained phenomena this year
because similar conferences in 1982 and 1983 lost money.
"But members of the Nebraska Association for the Study of the
Unexplained, one of the co-sponsors of the event last year, said the
university backed out...because of the controversy surrounding flying
saucers.
"Bob Mortenson, director of conferences and institutes...said the
meetings that dealt primarily with unidentified flying objects DID NOT
BRING IN ENOUGH PARTICIPANTS TO COVER THE UNIVERSITY'S COSTS...
(Emphasis added)
"Mortenson said he had received complaints from several UNL faculty
members about the fact that only believers in UFOs spoke at last year's
conference. `If we were to do another, it would definitely be a forum
where both sides could be presented,' he said."
Even though all of the foregoing info was supplied to Jerry Clark in
1984, including a copy of the Omaha newspaper article, he has never
retracted his accusation that I was responsible for UNL terminating its
sponsorship of conferences on UFOs and the paranormal.
Corially,
Phil Klass
-----------------
Now, there you have Phil Klass's side of the story. Further, he
specifically states that he is willing to document all his claims.
I'd be glad to help anyone wishing to see that documentation. Since I
don't know whether I should be giving out Phil's address, you are
welcome to write Bay Area Skeptics, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco, CA
94122, or netmail me here at Paranet <sm> Alpha-Centauri, FidoNet
1:125/27.
Yours Truly,
Rick Moen, Secretary Do I speak for Bay Area Skeptics?
Bay Area Skeptics Is the pope Polish?
Sysop, The Skeptic's Board
--
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: Magnetic Grid?
Date: 11 Jun 90 19:35:00 GMT
Msg #: 752 Security: 1 PARANET Subboard
From: SYSOP Sent: 05-20-90 09:34
To: CLARK MATTHEWS Rcvd: -NO-
Re: (R)MAGNETIC GRID?
> IMMEDIATELY the four people should stick their parallel, extended
> fingers under the "negator's" knees & armpits and lift. In many
> cases, the person in the chair will rise WEIGHTLESS in the air on top
> of FOUR SETS OF FINGERS.
>
> I've heard this explained as a "Human Quadripole Gravity Antenna".
> And this is the method ostensibly used by the Egyptians to build
> their pyramids [except I don't believe this].
It's a rather ancient trick, and I helped Indian magician B. Premanand
do it when he was out here in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The "pyramid" claim is a nice touch. I like that.
Best Regards,
Rick M.
--
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: Sundry Claims
Date: 11 Jun 90 19:35:00 GMT
Msg #: 933 Security: 0 PARANET Subboard
From: RICK MOEN Sent: 05-30-90 10:06
To: ALL Rcvd: 06-07-90 18:41
Re: RE:SUNDRY CLAIMS
In article <4573@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>, isis!well!ddrasin (Dan
Drasin) writes as follows:
> -+ In the words (more or less) of Dan Drasin, with whom I had a
> -+ private email discussion of this, "Clearly, either something
> -+ is going on there, or it isn't."
> -+ =gerry zeitlin
> Clearly, gerry, either you're right or you're not. 8^)
You realise, Dan, that there are two groups of people in this
world -- those who divide people into two groups, and those who
don't. <grin>
> Paul, "geomancy" (etymologically, "reading of the earth") is the
> art and science of detecting and making use of an apparent
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> spectrum of subtle energies that move within and around the
> earth in somewhat the same manner as the "chi" or "ki" energy is
> said to move in the human body; along certain "meridians" that
> connect particular points where the energy most easily breaks
> the surface. Acupuncture would then be the human body analog to
> geomancy....
Can something really be properly classed as both an art and a
science? This wouldn't mean, would it, that whenever it fails to
pass muster as a science, you can switch gears and claim it's an
art? 'Just an idea.
> Physicists' best guesses run along the lines of quantum theory
> (but then, *everything* at the borderlands is attributed to
> "quantum theory" these days!) At any rate, most scientists will
> tend not to explore things unless they're already explainable in
> familiar terms, or detectable by instruments that *they
> themselves* have contrived. ("If *we* can't measure it it
> probably doesn't exist.")
Dan, I would be very interested to what physics works (quantum or
otherwise) point to chi, geomancy, ley lines, meridians, or
acupuncture (something better than "The Dancing Wu-Li Masters"
and "The Tao of Physics", I hope).
> Please check your sources, Jim. Most "scientific" astrology
> studies I am aware of have been based on gross misconceptions and
> fatally-flawed oversimplifications of astrology....
Check out the study in "Nature" by physicist Shawn Carlson, on
which he worked closely with a number of prominent astrologers.
> The most solid study I know of was conducted a few years ago (I
> can dig up the citation, which escapes me at this late and weary
> hour....), and confirmed one particular aspect of astrology
> beyond any question of statistical doubt. This was the case in
> which CSICOP put its foot deeply into its own mouth by
> publically debunking the study without first checking it out.
> The result was a scandal that rocked CSICOP and triggered a
> number of key resignations.
Dan, although you have the facts wrong (a bad habit to indulge
when mud-slinging), this is recognisably a reference to the
Gauquelin "sports champions" study, which apparently did generate
some controversy within CSICOP. Editor Marcello Truzzi quit, as
did a somewhat crank-like investigator named Dennis Rawlins.
The controversy concerned the adequacy of statistical techniques
employed by CSICOP researchers. There was no "scandal that
rocked CSICOP", it is patently false that they "publicly debuked
the study without checking it out", and it is a vast exaggeration
to speak of "a number of key resignations".
However, your biggest blunder is stating that the claims in
question supported any aspect of astrology. In fact, the claims
advanced were _not_ astrological, and the Gauquelins are in fact
radically -- perhaps rabidly -- opposed to astrology, and have
written a book denouncing it and stating that their theories
disprove it, which you might want to look up some time.
Regards,
Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics
--
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: Geomancy
Date: 11 Jun 90 19:35:00 GMT
Msg #: 934 Security: 0 PARANET Subboard
From: RICK MOEN Sent: 05-30-90 10:33
To: ALL Rcvd: 06-07-90 18:41
Re: GEOMANCY
In article <4403@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>, isis!well!ddrasin (Dan
Drasin) writes as follows:
> ...Of course, the very existence of so-called geomantic force
> is in fact *denied* by most physical scientists because
> mainstream physics has not built devices to measure it.
>
> Why not? Because it can't exist because mainstream physics has
> not built devices to measure it because it can't exist because
> mainstream physics has not built devices to measure it. That's
> why.
If you have access to such a device, I'm pretty sure Bay Area
Skeptics would pay you a considerable sum for its demonstration.
We wouldn't insist that it be built by "mainstream physics", and
wwouldn't force the money on you if it made you uncomfortable.
See, we're easy to please! <grin>
> Never mind that many individuals have reported direct bodily
> experience of these forces since time immemorial...
Anecdotal evidence? You're coming awfully close to saying that
evidence can make up in quantity what it lacks in quality.
> ...(The Chinese have quite a highly developed geomantic
> science), ...
CSICOP tested this stuff on its excursion to China. See the
Summer 1988 issue of "Skeptical Inquirer" (v. 12, #4). However,
I don't think you will find the results encouraging for geomancy
in its present state.
> ...and that when you connect the "power points" that have been
> detected this way, a grid-like pattern emerges. These points
> include an apparent planet-wide network of megaliths and large
> pyramids (Egypt, the Americas, China, etc., etc...). It's
> important to note here that the placement and angles of the
> Cheops Pyramid in Egypt and the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan
> are mathematically related to each other, and to the orbital
> radii and periods of the Earth, Moon, Mars, and the two Martian
> moons. These latter relationships were discovered by Scottish
> astronomer Duncan Lunan several years ago and strongly suggest an
> intentional arrangement of elements on an interplanetary scale
> for some purpose not yet comprehended (or for that matter,
> even acknowledged or investigated) within the confines of
> modern science.
Dan, can you suggest some method for testing the truth or falsity
of this claim?
> The fact that the sun and moon are, on the average, of identical
> diameter when viewed from the earth's surface, is another
> fascinating coincidence that might relate here, given the
> existing observed mathematical relationships mentioned above.
It would be even more fascinating if it were _true_.
Best Regards,
Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics
--
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: GB Circle
Date: 11 Jun 90 19:36:00 GMT
Msg #: 935 Security: 0 PARANET Subboard
From: RICK MOEN Sent: 05-30-90 10:44
To: ALL Rcvd: 06-07-90 18:41
Re: (R)GB CIRCLE
In article <4549@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>, ames!amdahl!drivax!braun
(Kral) writes as follows:
> The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that
> heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but
> "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov
>
> [Friends don't let friends use DOS]
Yay! Two gems to steal for my quotations file, from a single
posting!
Kral, I note that you are in the 408 area code region (Santa
Clara Valley, California). Please feel welcome to come to Bay
Area Skeptics meetings! Our 24-hour information # is
1-415-528-7884, and you may also reach me at
Rick_Moen@f27.n125.z1.fidonet.org (InterNet address of The
Skeptic's Board BBS, San Francisco 1-415-648-8944).
Like CSICOP, BAS does not have a "party line" to push, by the
way.
Yrs. Truly,
Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics
--
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: T. S. Bennett
Date: 11 Jun 90 19:36:00 GMT
Msg #: 936 Security: 0 PARANET Subboard
From: RICK MOEN Sent: 05-30-90 11:54
To: MICHAEL CORBIN Rcvd: -NO-
Re: (R)T.S. BENNETT
MC> * Forwarded from "UFO National Echo - Backbone Echo"
MC> In the absence of the echo moderator, George Adam Stanislav,
MC> who, in my opinion, is doing a poor job of moderating this
MC> conference, I wanted to get a few things clear regarding the
MC> incoherent and attacking messages that have been posted by T.S.
MC> Bennett, a person who is in the service of William Cooper....
Mike --
As someone who has been vilified at length on worldwide
newsgroups, I sincerely sympathise. Let me offer my accumulated
wisdom, such as it is, on this matter:
1) The public tends to see you as equal in stature with those
you debate. This is unfair, but true.
2) The public is easily annoyed by squabbling, and quickly loses
interest in fair judgement, as soon as a dispute starts becoming
tiresome.
3) Generally, Fido backbone echos are effectively anarchic.
Moderators almost never use their theoretical authority to sever
mail links. Also, I suspect that this particular moderator is
(when he's present) hostile to ParaNet.
4) Crank callers need responses to keep going. They thrive on
attention. If universally ignored, they invariably give up
trying to provoke after a while. Unfortunately, backbone echos
have enough critical mass of callers that universal apathy
towards obvious cranks is hard to achieve. For every crank,
there is an equal and opposite crank (Moen's Law #35).
5) The public tends to think that truth/fairness lies somewhere
directly between two opposing positions. Cranks know
instinctively that the more strident and exaggerated their
complaints and claims, the more likely they are to get something.
Many times their concern is not to enhance their own credibility,
but rather to damage someone else's. (Bennett is a classic
example.)
6) Many people recommend that the proper way to deal with such
attacks is to issue a short statement saying only that X's views
are mistaken, and that interested parties may get further details
by contacting Y privately. This avoids most of the drawbacks of
a public response, while getting the message across that you
think the guy is nuts.
I won't pretend that this is an easy call, and intend no
criticism whatsoever.
Yrs. Truly,
Rick M.
--
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: MJ-12
Date: 11 Jun 90 19:37:00 GMT
Msg #: 963 Security: 0 PARANET Subboard
From: RICK MOEN Sent: 05-31-90 09:05
To: RICHARD SALTS Rcvd: -NO-
Re: (R)MJ12
RS> What I meant by a 'double hoax' is that documents appearing to
RS> look real but possibly 'really' bogus might serve as a means of
RS> discouraging continued research into the possibility of an
RS> elite and highly select, Top Secret scientific group that
RS> actually may have been assembled to investigate the Roswell
RS> incident.
RS> By being proved "false" the MJ12 documents may be serving as
RS> someone's weapon against discovering what may have happened in
RS> June of 1947. Reason: National Security, of course!
Rich --
One notable characteristic of conspiracy theories is that
absence of evidence can always be construed as proving the
_success_ of the conspiracy. Consequently, if the theory
happens to be dead wrong, you will never be able to discover
that fact.
As I've mentioned before elsewhere, by the way, I'm currently
hiding invisible elephants in my backyard. I happen to be
hiding them with great skill and resourcefulness. The fact that
no one in the neighbourhood has noticed merely shows how
extremely good I am at it.
Best Regards,
Rick ("What Elephant?") Moen
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.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************************
