Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 246
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 246
Monday, June 18th 1990
Today's Topics:
ILL BREEZE update
ILL BREEZE
Triangular UFO?
Re: Ufo Film
Re: GB Video
An Open Letter to Mr. Ed
Re: JFK Assassination
Re: GB Video
Billy Goodman's radio show
Skeptics and Klass
(none)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p100.f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Kurt.Lochner
Subject: ILL BREEZE update
Date: 11 Jun 90 16:28:53 GMT
Wait a minute, I thought that htis was a symposium...
The conflict about the model strikes me as almost comical,
and while there's some kind of moral to this story, I'm sure
that we'll always have to deal with fraud. Timmy Bennet is
still ranting about bases established on the moon, owing to
his portrayal of Alternative 3 as fact, not fiction. Bob
Lazar uses lasers to cause sitings and now is indictable.
Meanwhile, I still have yet to see a UFO up close. These
legitimate sightings may be nothing more than a natural
phenomena, but it's still worth the effort to sort this
reportage out. There may be some new scientific facts,
besides "Visitors from another planet" to be learned,
most likely concerning "cold" plasma fusion...
Keep up the good work Jim!
--
Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kurt.Lochner@p100.f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p1.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Steve.Rose
Subject: ILL BREEZE
Date: 11 Jun 90 19:15:50 GMT
In a message to All <10 Jun 90 16:47:00> Jim Speiser wrote:
JS> EXTRA! EXTRA! GULF BREEZE HOAX UNRAVELS!!!!
JS> beginning of the sightings. The new tenant showed the reporter a
JS> model, about 9 inches by 5 inches, made of plastic and construction
JS> paper. On the back of the paper, inside the model, were
JS> architectural drawings for a house, apparently in Ed's handwriting.
JS> (Ed is a construction contractor). The model is now in the
JS> possession of the newspaper. Walters has issued two conflicting
You...you mean they were NOT lighting fixtures from 'The China Star'
restaurant? Gee...and I was so sure. :-)
--
Steve Rose - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Steve.Rose@p1.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f24.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jerry.Woody
Subject: Triangular UFO?
Date: 12 Jun 90 00:41:00 GMT
I need some information on any aircraft (known) that arranges its' lights in
a triangular configuration....
On June 9 I was driving home about 20 + miles from my house when I observed
a large craft that was outlined in at least 10 white lights in a triangular
figure. At the bottom was a blinking red light, on both sides of the 'base'
was 2 blinking lights, and on top, was what appeared to be suspended blue
light (blinking) that lit up the 'haze' in the air around it. It flew
silently overhead and just 'disappeared' a few miles away. I estimated the
object to be at least 100 ft. at the base and at least 150 ft. long and app.
2000 feet in altitude.
On June 10 another witness observed the same type UFO near my house but this
time with 4-5+ smaller lights in front of it and at least 1 red/orange
'globe' of light following it as it headed to the south which I observed.
Thank you...
Jerry Woody
--
Jerry Woody - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jerry.Woody@f24.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f70.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Gene.Gross
Subject: Re: Ufo Film
Date: 12 Jun 90 06:37:00 GMT
To Terry:
I understand you are making a film and that is a money making
proposition; however, I do have a slight bone to pick. I have watched
enough documentary films on UFOs now to be tired of the old rehash. I
am also a bit disenchanted with the idea of getting some "eccentrics"
to appear in the film.
Would it be so hard to do a really solid piece of work--one that
really gets into the guts of things? There are a number of excellent
researchers out there who might be willing to work with you if you plan
on doing something serious. But the tone that I picked up from your
post doesn't say serious; it says "Haha, lets cash in on the UFO
craze."
As for the abductees, many of those folks are going through hell.
I personally don't take their experiences lightly. Granted there are
some hucksters out there and some sensation seekers. They have been
grabbing headlines whenever they could, so why give them more? I can't
say for certain that the others have been really abducted by aliens,
but they certainly have experienced something traumatic.
Terry, I'd like to see a serious documentary done on UFOs and
abductions that is sensitive to the issues and experiences of literally
thousands of people around the world. I'd buy it--I have many of the
others that aren't quite so well done.
--
Gene Gross
--
Gene Gross - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Gene.Gross@f70.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f70.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Charles.Mcelhinney
Subject: Re: GB Video
Date: 12 Jun 90 16:40:00 GMT
No, I'm talking about the GB video. I remember seeing it on a TV
show. It might have been A Current Affair or one of those shows. I
remember the host saying specifically that it was Gulf Breeze and then
they had a report on a Naval base a few miles away. Also, I was just
at the bookstore and I was looking at the book on the Gulf Breeze
sitings (the hard cover one) and they have a picture of the UFO on the
cover from the video that I saw.
--
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: An Open Letter to Mr. Ed
Date: 12 Jun 90 07:45:00 GMT
AN OPEN LETTER TO ED WALTERS
Dear Ed:
As a concerned member of the UFO community, I feel I speak for many
when I tell you that I think its time to reel in your catch. You got us, Ed,
and you got us good. We surrender. Now the time has come to lick our wounds,
bury our dead, and replay the battle to see where we went wrong. Specifically,
how could an inexperienced photographer pull off one of the greatest hoaxes in
history, taking with him some of the brightest scientific minds in the field?
This question will be uppermost in our minds for a long time to come, thanks to
you.
Whatever your objective in this game may have been, and whether or not
you have actually accomplished that objective, the game is over. If your goal
was to pull off the biggest UFO hoax in history, congratulations, mission
accomplished. If it was to make a bundle of money, well, barring any lawsuits,
mazel tov. If it was to show the world what a bunch of nincompoops populate the
UFO community, I suggest that now there's one sure-fire way to drive the point
home. You have the opportunity now, with the upcoming MUFON conference, to come
clean, to yell "gotcha," and when you're finished reveling in your victory,
tell us the why of it, the how of it, and what you think the end result of it
all is.
You see, Ed, there really ARE UFOs, and they really ARE unexplained. If
you didn't know that before you started your grand escapade, chances are you
know that now, from your conversations with the many ufologists you've met over
these past two years. Gulf Breeze or no, the sightings will continue, the
phenomenon will persist, and mankind will still be faced with the Ultimate
Question. There are those who are already predicting the demise of ufology
because of your actions. I strongly disagree. True, you've set us back a couple
of decades, you've tarnished the reputations of many in the field, and you've
probably made the subject even more taboo among journalists than it ever
was...but mostly you've made yourself a villain, and you will be viewed for all
time as nothing but a self-interested prankster who scuttled what little
respect the field had garnered over the years.
However, I think MUFON 90 presents you with an opportunity to redeem
yourself several times over - it may even result in an even bigger financial
opportunity. I challenge you to stand before the gathered masses of ufology and
tell us how you fooled us, in painstaking detail. Such a presentation would go
a long way towards preventing such a thing from happening again. It would teach
some of us what to look for, and others not to ignore what we've already found,
simply because it disagrees with what we WANT to find. Most important, it would
be a fitting end to what will otherwise only be an endless cycle of dissension,
disruption, and useless bickering. Perhaps, when you're finished with your
talk, we will all be able to put our differences behind us, shake hands, and
collectively vow that "We won't get fooled again."
What I'm asking you to do is probably not an easy task. You've got a
lot invested in this game. But I'm asking you as an obviously intelligent and
civic-minded man to consider that there are issues here that are orders of
magnitude bigger than you, your family, and your future. End the charade now,
and we stand a chance of repairing the damage and learning from the experience
- and YOU stand a chance of becoming a hero of sorts, perhaps profiting from
another book ("The Gulf Breeze Hoax: How One Man Fooled an Entire Movement")
Carry it on to your grave, and you will only leave a legacy of confusion,
mistrust, and dissent.
You once told me that you thought I hated you. I don't hate you, Ed;
far from it, I admire you and applaud you. Despite the holes in the story, it
was brilliantly executed. It was the hoax of the century, far surpassing Billy
Meier. It was a real gem.
Now take a bow.
Sincerely,
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!f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Daniel.Wisnosky
Subject: Re: JFK Assassination
Date: 12 Jun 90 17:12:28 GMT
p> I do not suspect Secret Service involvement at this point, and I have
p> not seen the incident in the Z-film that others have talked about.
Well, aparently that incident can't be seen on the Zapruder (sp?) film,
but rather on a second film that Bill Cooper somehow got his hands on..
I've not yet seen the film myself, but am trying to get ahold of a
copy.
C ya,
Dan
--
Daniel Wisnosky - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Daniel.Wisnosky@f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Re: GB Video
Date: 13 Jun 90 06:21:00 GMT
> No, I'm talking about the GB video. I remember seeing it on a TV
> show. It might have been A Current Affair or one of those shows. I
> remember the host saying specifically that it was Gulf Breeze and then
> they had a report on a Naval base a few miles away. Also, I was just at
> the bookstore and I was looking at the book on the Gulf Breeze sitings
> (the hard cover one) and they have a picture of the UFO on the cover
> from the video that I saw.
OK, I'm wrong, then. I was unaware that there was an audio track to that
video (but of course there would be). And its strange, because the Pozzuolis
say much the same thing on their video - "Look at that, what is it?" "I'll be
honest with you, honey, I don't know."
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:209/722
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Shaffer Jr <72750.2335@compuserve.com>
Subject: Billy Goodman's radio show
Date: 14 Jun 90 07:20:29 GMT
Does anyone know of any radio stations in or near Pennsylvania that are
going to broadcast Billy Goodman's radio show? I'd need to know the
frequencies, because I can't imagine any stations that I listen to on
a regular basis carrying it. Any info. anyone could give me would be
greatly appreciated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gene Gross <gross@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Subject: Skeptics and Klass
Date: 14 Jun 90 19:20:32 GMT
I am not by nature opposed to skeptics nor particular individuals based
upon there skepticism. I have worked with and around scientists and
engineers for a good portion of my adult life and know their naturally
skeptical nature. As a kid, I babysat for a family next door. The
husband/father was a theoretical physicist working for a large defense
contractor in the R&D area. I learned a lot form him, primarily my love
for science. Nonetheless, I also learned from him and others the need
to balance skepticism with open-mindedness.
If I see something that shouldn't be, I don't automatically dismiss it.
Rather I investigate it. It must be pointed out that quite often that
'something that shouldn't be' turns out to not be after an
investigation. Still there is a tendency to ignore things that
shouldn't be precisely because they shouldn't be. Or worse, to come up
with an explanation to make the shouldn't be fit in.
I find Mr. Klass to be an interesting figure in our times. I have heard
him talking on film about UFOs and am impressed with his drive to
explain away each sighting or incident as a misunderstanding of a
natural event/object or man-made event/object. While I don't suspect
him of any duplicity, I am concerned about the fact that he seems so
driven to explain everything away in this manner.
The University of Nebraska business is a bizaare incident, and I have to
say that I think that Klass is probably innocent to a large degree.
However, I find it odd that he saw fit to identify himself in the manner
he did. To say that he then told them that he wasn't calling in those
capacities (editor of AV and member of CISCOP) isn't going to relief
anyone's anxiety or concern. If I called someone and said that I am an
agent for the CIA but I'm not calling in that capacity, I doubt that
people would feel any easier about talking with me. So in this regard I
hold Mr. Klass to account for his actions in exacerbating a problem.
I have no problem with UFO conferences where no skeptics appear on the
panels. It is sometimes nice to not have to deal with all the
rhetoric and debates. We can share our thinking and research with each
other and see what we have to work with. Also, we can embark on
journeys of speculation to see if we can fit pieces of the puzzle
together. Still, there is something to be said for having to meet the
challenge of skeptics. If we can't deal with the skeptics' responses to
us, we haven't much chance of getting out of the sub-basement of science
and research. Our evidence and research methodologies have to stand up
to the spotlight of skeptical criticism.
One note to the skeptics, however. Please don't dump so hard on our
speculative flights of fantasy. Remember that even in hard sciences
like physics, such flights of fantasy often lead us further down the
road of knowledge and understanding. I can think of a couple of
examples of this type thinking, which is merely a form of brainstorming.
One has to do with dropping a measurement device down to the surface of
a black hole to determine what radiations can be detected. Then there
is the work of David Bohm. This form of brainstorming is like anyother
form of brainstorming and subject to the same rules that govern
creativity. That is, the free flow of thinking that is part of
brainstorming (as a creative exercise) works best in a non-adversarial
environment. After the flow has stopped, then we can get critical.
What concerns me most of all, though, is that something is going on and
we haven't explained it. To say that it is some sort of mass hysteria
is to beggar the question. I can't say that all UFOs aren't explainable
as a misunderstood event/object. But I can say that there are a number
of sightings and films that have yet to be explained. I can't say that
everyone who claims to have seen a UFO didn't see something identifiable
and of a natural or man-made origin. But there are a number of people
who have seen something whose veracity and qualifications make them far
more trustworthy--pilots (military and civilian), astronomers,
scientists, law enforcement agents, and well-educated and informed
public citizens. Saying that people of this calibre saw a sun-dog or
swamp gas is to malign their character and is in my opinion the worst
form of deceit.
Further, having grown up as an Air Force brat, I've known military
pilots. They are an exciting breed of animal. They are never more
alive than when they are in the air. But they are damned serious about
their work and careers. They are extremely professional and
well-trained. As observers, they are quite hard to equal. They aren't
going to mistake a glint of sunlight off their canopy as a UFO. They
aren't going to mistake Venus as a UFO. They aren't going to mistake
another aircraft as a UFO (God, imagine that in a combat situation).
They aren't going to mistake a weather balloon as a UFO. When someone
like that reports a UFO, I'm willing to bet that they've seen some out
of the ordinary and usual. What that is requires some investigation.
It may never be resolved, but to pass it off as a hyperactive
imagination or some mistaken identification of a natural or man-made
event/object is the worst kind of arrogance and deceit.
Some folks think that skeptics ought to boiled in oil, but I can't buy
into that. Often in the area of UFOs and the paranormal, we find
ourselves confronted with bizaare things that later turn out to be false
or mere flights of fancy (couched in terms of 'this is really true, I
swear!!'). I recall when I first started on ParaNet. The Lazar
information was being discussed. I thought about what Lazar had said
and asked myself some questions and came to the conclusion that Lazar
was either not telling the whole story or he had fabricated major
portions of it. I posted my skepticism and explained my reasoning. As
time has moved along, it seems more and more likely that Lazar hasn't
been quite truthful about things. Element 115 and using gravity waves
for propulsion have begun to do a slow swan-dive into a dry pool.
Then there was the Canadian UFO landing and the US government's supposed
attack on the craft. The story sounded like the start of a very bad B
movie. And lately, someone has been treating us to a rehash of
the Alternative 3 science fiction story.
We need to be skeptical in a very positive sense. But we also need to
balance that with open-mindedness. That is, in my opinion, we shouldn't
just accept everything without mental filters. By the same token, we
shouldn't just negate everything because it doesn't match what should
be. What should be is what is. If what is doesn't match our
preconceived ideas and notions, then maybe we ought to start there
before dumping on something. As humanity expands the frontiers of
science and explores into the universe, we are bound to come across more
and more things that challenge our preconceived ideas and notions about
what is--what should be. Only our own arrogance as a species will keep
us from seeing and learning.
Enough of this for now. Rick, thanks for posting Klass' letter on the
University of Nebraska incident. I thought this had been posted before,
may have been, but I seem to recall that I was very busy at the time and
didn't respond.
Now back to the regularly scheduled program.
Gene Gross
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: isis!well!ddrasin (Dan Drasin)
Subject: (none)
Date: 15 Jun 90 02:15:18 GMT
Skepticism
-+ From: RICK MOEN Sent: 05-30-90 10:06
-+ 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>
Rick, thanks for all your postings and comments, and for correcting
several of my misapprehensions. I'm as hassled and hurried as I was
when I wrote those hasty references to the Gacquelin study (mea
culpa!) but I'll do my best to answer some of your questions
-- please let me know if anything is unclear. I do welcome the
opportunity to compare notes, and perhaps engage in some
constructive debate. Since we both divide people into groups
of people who divide other groups of people, perhaps we're not so
far apart after all.
-+ 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.
Good questions. To claim that something is an art *in order* to
inappropriately avoid scientific rigor would obviously be
dishonest. On the other hand, there are *many* activities that may
quite happily be classed as both science and art, because they
depend on a harmonious balance of the two in order to function at
all. For example, music and painting. The mixing of colors, the
formulations of paint, the rules of perspective, the construction
and tuning of musical instruments, the notation of music and so
forth may be approached quite scientifically. Science and art
interact in many ways; each can play either an infrastructural or a
superstructural role relative to the other; a scientist's intuitions
or creative impulses may often lead to insights which are later
rigorously verified; a scientific discovery may provide the artist
with a tool or instrument, or a principle that captures the
imagination and triggers some exciting philosophical or creative
departure.
-+ Dan, I would be very interested to what physics works (quantum or
-+ otherwise) point to chi, geomancy, ley lines, meridians, or
-+ acupuncture...
One thing you might check out is the work of the Dragon Project,
which was founded in England in 1977. Their findings included
anomalous measurements using ultrasonic detectors, geiger counters
magnetometers and other instrumentation at a number of prehistoric
'sacred sites' (power points) in Britain. At the standing stones of
Rollright, they measured unusual pulsations -- but only for an hour
or two after dawn in the months around the spring and fall
equinoxes. They also apparently discovered a high radiation zone
near one of the standing stones, and a *lower-than-background*
cosmic radiation count inside *several* of the stone circles. Other
observations and measurements include anomalous radio (RF) signals
correlated with the geiger counter readings, and *total radio
silence* at two megalithic sites in Ireland. One day at Rollright,
the magnetic field at the site increased by a factor of thousands
for no apparent reason. In January 1986, the project observed and
photographed a flame-like discharge from the top of a standing-
stone. Archaeological chemist Don Robins wrote a book, THE CIRCLE OF
SILENCE, describing these mysterious results and how they challenge
existing theories. The information I'm giving you here is
second-hand, but you can bet I'll track down Robins' book as soon as
I have the time to do it justice.
-+ 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.
I'm a little confused here. If the claims advanced were not in fact
astrological, how could the study in question have proved *or*
disproved any facet of astrology? As I made clear in my original
posting, I have not read the original report -- can you fill us in
some more?
In any case, whether one can meaningfully test whole systems, like
astrology, by analyzing one or a few facets out of context is a
matter of considerable debate. I'm not 'into astrology' but I have
enough general awareness of it to be extremely skeptical of efforts
to understand it piecemeal, or to force it to conform to
inapplicable theoretical foundations.
I recently came across a piece of information that might help us
arrive at a better understanding of what takes place at the
interface of geomancy and astrology: The current (6/90) issue of
EAST-WEST magazine features a number of articles about drinking
water. On page 45 there's an article called DROP SHOTS, excerpted
from a paper by Theodor and Wolfram Schwenk. They have developed a
flow-pattern test (to be used in addition to hygienic testing) to
determine how close a water sample is to its 'native' state as
spring water. The test appears to detect impurities and other
subtle changes that cannot be measured by normal chemical means. It
is quite graphic (see illustrations in the article) and perfectly
repeatable WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEAT (paraphrased from the article):
Deviations can turn up at times that can be exactly pinpointed
and very often predicted. They are related to astronomical
events. Sun and moon eclipses, certain angles of relationship
betwen the planets and other planetary phenomena including their
daily risings and settings and culminations as determined at the
particular location where the experiment is being performed, can
be reflected at the moment they occur, in the flow-pattern test.
This makes it essential to look ahead and plan the timing of
experiments very carefully. Trainees in the method are taught to
keep this necessity in mind.
So it appears that we may have a instrument here with which to begin
some objective empirical inquiry about 'astrological' and
'geomantic' phenomena.
-+> ...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>
If the novel device must be a physical one, perhaps Wolfram Schwenk
could claim your prize.
If a logical device is permissible, then maybe the Dragon Project
will qualify, since their innovation amounted to bringing good
empirical science to bear in spite of any number of potential
theoretical objections and peer-group ridicule. Although their
instrumentation was conventional, the anomalous modulations of known
energies apparently conformed to patterns that one would expect to
encounter on the basis of traditional geomantic lore. Clearly,
something outside the framework of our present knowledge appears to
be going on.
Still, there is little likelihood of mainstream physics checking out
the Dragon Project's work in the foreseeable future. For one thing,
in the west there is practically no undersanding of the very notion
of geomancy, let alone any of its details, and hence no context
within which to make sense of such anomalous observations.
-+ 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.
I'd be interested to read this, to find out exactly what their
assumptions and methods were, and what 'stuff' they thought they
were testing. Geomancy, like many other traditional bodies of
knowledge, has an exoteric (popularized, commercialized, or diluted)
side, some of which may be visible to those outside the culture, and
an esoteric (essential) side, usually available only to members of
that culture and occasionally to respectful and genuinely curious
outsiders. When people from culture 'x' try to challenge something
from culture 'y', they can easily make the mistake of testing the
frosting instead of the cake. This is true even among subcultures
within our own society: the outsiders think they know what they're
critiquing, while the insiders are having a great laugh... or cry.
The very notion that a team of skeptical Westerners could have
dismissed a massive body of oriental tradition on a single
'excursion to China' leaves me skeptical to say the least.
-+> ...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?
If you are serious about studying the work that has been done, one
good way to start would be to write to Christopher Bird and follow
up the leads you get from him.
[Bird's latest book is THE GALILEO OF THE MICROSOPE: THE LIFE
AND TIMES OF GASTON NAESSENS (1990 - Les Presses de l'Universite
de la Personne Inc., 2 Desaulniers Blvd., St. Lambert, Quebec,
Canada J4P 1L2). You can reach him through that publisher.]
[The Naessens book, by the way, is about the work of a French
scientist who dared to challenge the medical establishment. His
discoveries have apparently helped many cancer and AIDS
patients, and appear to open a new level of understanding of the
functions of certain components of blood, and of DNA. He was
jailed by the Canadian authorities for quackery, but this year
was acquitted on all counts. The story is fairly mind-boggling,
and includes many instances where empirical results were
challenged on 'solid theoretical grounds' -- which turned out
to be based on false assumptions, inappropriate testing and
political bias.]
Back on topic, the supposed planetary 'grid' is not rectilinear (as
a mercator projection grid or some such) but a network of geodesics
forming an icosahedral pattern with 62 nodes. As I recall, many of
the initial observations leading to this model were made by Soviet
scientists (and historians, independently of one another) back in
1973. This work was followed up by the Planetary Grid System Study
Group at Governors State University (Park Forest South, IL 60466).
My information is somewhat out of date (circa 1975!) but I'm sure
Christopher Bird has followed this and probably has more recent and
complete data.
As for the mathematics linking the pyramids with each other and with
astronomical measurements, Duncan Lunan can be reached through
Ashgrove Press Ltd., 26 Gay Street, Bath, Avon BA1 2PD, England.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SOME REFLECTIONS ON SKEPTICISM
Many self-proclaimed skeptics I've met seem to hold theoretical
objections against novel claims and consequently 'won't waste their
time' looking into them. But I've never understood how a theory can
disprove the existence of a phenomenon. Theories, however logically
arrived at, are at some point based upon metaphysical (untestable)
assumptions, which shift and change over time as our experience,
understandings and conceptual frameworks evolve. Theories have at
one time or another 'disproven' the possiblity of many things we now
take for granted. Like it or not, logic is only as applicable as the
assumptions underlying its use, hence all theoretical 'conclusions'
should be assumed to be provisional, evolving and open to challenge
and amendment.
The question of the *existence* of a phenomenon is most properly the
province of a rigorous *empirical* science. To erect theoretical
barriers against something before making thorough, dispassionate
empirical studies seems scientifically untenable, and
philosophically tantamount to religious absolutism.
It is one thing to use the tool of skepticism within a specific and
appropriate context (i.e., when scientific method demands it), but
to adopt skepticism as an overall context or stance has always
seemed to me like a case of the tail wagging the dog. To call
oneself a 'skeptic' implies that the skeptical component of
scentific method is somehow logically prior to all the other
factors, and this makes very little sense to me. Science rests on a
tripod of faith, doubt and reason. Without faith, there is no motive
to look into something in the first place and to persevere in one's
vision. The role of doubt or skepticism should be to act as a check
and balance against misplaced faith and excessively abstract
reasoning.
However, skepticism as a *stance* seems essentially indistingushable
from true-believerism -- the only basic difference being a
conservative rather than liberal bias; a bias toward adherence to
the status quo rather than to novelty. Science is essentially a
*process*, not a stance, and is properly blind to content. Many
skeptics I've known seem to confuse process with content, and label
as 'pseudoscience' any inquiry, no matter how responsible, into
subjects they consider taboo. I've found it amusing to hear
skeptics proclaim 'we knew it all along' as soon as a *theoretical*
basis has been discovered for some phenomenon they previous fought
tooth and nail as 'pseudoscience'. Makes no sense, but I've
encountered it many times.
On the psychological level, It is one thing to correct mistakes when
you encounter them, and quite another to actively seek them out.
Personally, I have never known a self-proclaimed skeptic who was
biased toward taking investigative initiative with regard to novel
discoveries *except* to find fault with the work of others. There is
nothing wrong with critique, but in my view there is everything
wrong with fostering a chilling effect upon bona-fide inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-+> 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.
A systems approach to any body of data *does* weight quantity
*significantly*. There are *reasons* for approximative patterns
showing up in quantity, and one of the tasks of science is to
inquire into the nature of those patterns, and understand both their
consistent and inconsistent components, which may both contain
valuable information. There are many situations in which exactitudes
are *inherently* unavailable, but are effectively arrived at by
averaging or triangulating a number of consistent approximations,
and the more the better.
Any scientist knows that anecdotal evidence can be a starting point.
The difference between the scientist and the [true believer or
skeptic], is that the scientist is willing to weigh the *likelihood*
of something against its *potential importance*. It's like
risk-assessment in reverse: you weigh the chances of something
occurring (which may be small) against its potential danger (which
may be great, as in, say, a meltdown at a nuke near a major city.)
To reject consistent anecdotal evidence about something of potential
importance because we have not yet run out the math to fifteen
decimal places or isolated an active ingredient is to stop science
and medicine dead in their tracks.
-+> 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_.
I didn't specify my tolerances for 'identical.' What are yours?
Considering the conceivable range of variation between solar and
lunar visual diameters, even a matter of several degrees' difference
would, in my opinion, be statistically remarkable. But the average
fit is closer than that, isn't it?
-+> 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
-+ Yay! Two gems to steal for my quotations file, from a single
-+ posting!
I'll second that. 'That's funny' hasn't been run out to fifteen
decimal places -- hell, you can't even prove the *existence* of a
'that's funny'! -- but you can bet it has been the starting point
for many a significant discovery.
-+ 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.
That would be characteristic of some (not all) conspiratorial
*theorists*, but hardly of the theories themselves. I've certainly
never encountered a conspiratorial theory that *rested* upon its own
absence of evidence!
What I have found interesting, however, is that not one of the major
conspiracy theories I've heard advanced in the last 20 years seems,
in general way, to *contradict* any of the others. Rather, each one
seems to add details and relationships to a fabric with a consistent
theoretical basis. That by itself doesn't prove or disprove anything
in a binary way, but it definitely seems to nudge the probability
curve...
-+ 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.
Elephants! I knew it all along! Not only invisible, but insmellible!
8^)
Best wishes, Rick.
-Dan Drasin
ddrasin@well
********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************************
