Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 251
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 251
Saturday, June 23rd 1990
Today's Topics:
Re: Paranet Survey Part 2
Re: More Ill Breeze
Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Re: An Open Letter to Mr. Ed
Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Re: More Ill Breeze
Re: Paranet Survey Part 2
Re: An Open Letter to Mr. Ed
Re: MORE ILL BREEZE
Re: ZAPRUDER FILM
Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Nuclear powered aircraft
Lights over Iowa
Shanendoah valley sitings from the past
THEM (Tyson Mitchiner)
UFO Film and JFK Assass. (Jim Delton)
Skeptics and Klass
Re: Arizona UFO's
Ed Walters
Lights Over Iowa
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f0.n9.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Clark.Matthews
Subject: Re: Paranet Survey Part 2
Date: 20 Jun 90 04:31:00 GMT
Riiiiight. Tyco. Still, I wonder if Clarke was aware of the odd lunar
phenomena observed in the late Fifties and early Sixties?
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@f0.n9.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f0.n9.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Clark.Matthews
Subject: Re: More Ill Breeze
Date: 20 Jun 90 04:41:00 GMT
> We need to get scientists/science involved. Although I'm
> sure that there are some very highly educated people
> investigating UFO's; they aren't scientists.
Or scientists who are interested in UFOs and really qualified to examine &
theorize about evidence are scared sh*tless of being publically associated
with such studies. Yeah, most reputable scientists/physicists are
inextricably bound up in the web of gov't grants and funding -- there is no
more certain guarantee of conformity, personal blandness and low-profile
living than living off grants.
> I get the impression that our Gov't would rather leave
> UFO's in the hands of laypersons so we can muck it up.
Probably true. Someone here said that the French government funded UFO
groups and threw the problem in their laps for that very reason. So the
ufologists could make a hash of it. Some did, of course, but most did not.
The U.S. gov't, on the other hand, isn't above helping us along as we make
fools of ourselves. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if there were
agents provacateurs out there who are enlisted & paid to trip us up. Then
more "official" folks -- like, say, Mr. Klass or Dr. Sagan -- can have us
for breakfast after the fiasco is exposed. Result: We're all tarred with
the same brush, and the REAL secret-keepers control the entire scenario.
The American intelligence community is much larger, richer and more virulent
than, say, the French one -- no surprise since our spooks have grown to be a
direct reflection of their KGB adversaries. So such an active
disinformation campaign wouldn't surprise me. Not at all.
I wonder if Bill Moore agrees...
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@f0.n9.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 20 Jun 90 01:24:00 GMT
> We're both getting conflicting information from people whose
> statements should pretty much agree.
> I think I'm going to back off on this until I can run it down in
> person in a couple of weeks. If I can hold my..er..fingers.
> Be sure to look at all the info you can find relating to the pictures
> Ed took at Shoreline Park when the other folks pretended to leave.
> Known items are that the filmpacks couldn't have been switched, the
> frame counters were on the correct numbers, the film comes out
> immediately after the shutter fires, and there's then no way to slow or
> stop development. There's also no way to fiddle the frame counters.
> That's the picture no one can figure out how to hoax.
>
> jbh
Its a doozy, John, no doubt about it. There are also photos in the Meier
collection that still leave them scratching their heads. But do we believe
that its a genuine photo, in the midst of all these controversial ones, or are
we willing to admit that we simply may not be smart enough to figure it out
yet?
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 21 Jun 90 07:17:02 GMT
JD> I thought that that picture was of some fuzzy light? Is
JD> it of something indentifable?
There's an assortment of pictures Ed took at Shorline Park, most of which
show a fairly close object. One has a large object at a distance and an
apparently small object close in. The small object is the same as what he
photographed with the sealed Nimslo camera the MUFON folks gave him.
Take a look at his book. 36L and 36R are the real head-scratchers.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Mr. Ed
Date: 21 Jun 90 07:39:00 GMT
> I may have missed something, but as I recall the only person who
> seems to have any photos that are detailed enough to amount to
> anything more then fuzzy lights is Mr. Ed.
The anonymous "Jane" and "Believer Bill" (supposedly) made photos
of, shall we say, "Ed objects." Both with different (non-Polaroid)
types of cameras. FWIW.
> When Mr. Ed had to use a truely dificult to hoax
> camera setup, the Nimslo 35 mm, he was not able to do any better
> then some extremely fuzzy shots of some lights and they didn't
> look anything like the "classic" GB light patterns. With that
> camera he suddenly "discovered" a new shape of UFO.
Which then turned up in a photo taken with another entirely
different camera, along with a previously-seen type of object.
> there are just to many inconsistancies
> in the "evidence" and too many things about the photos don't
> ring true to my eyeball.
They don't ring true to me either, but the evidence is in their
favor, unless you go with ever-widening conspiracy theories.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
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: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 20 Jun 90 07:25:17 GMT
John: The thing that really makes me suspicious about those "Shoreline
Park" photos is that even though there were "witnesses" in the area
(Duane Cook from the Sentinel -- and his wife -- and at least one other
person) *noone* saw the UFO that Ed photographed. I think it was Duane
who had occaision to actually see the camera flash -- without seeing
*any* UFO.
So we have "eyewitnesses" but what did they witnesses? -- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f0.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder
Subject: Re: More Ill Breeze
Date: 21 Jun 90 04:51:18 GMT
In a message of <19 Jun 90 13:38:47>, Tim Hamewka (1:209/725) writes:
>But how are we to get scientists/science involved.
That *is* the question isn't it? I don't think it will happen without Gov't
funding and/or coporate sponsorship. Thing is, there is enough data out there
that suggests that *something* is going on but I question as to why this
phenomena is ignored on such a grand scale while our Gov't will spend money on
other reaseach that is, in my opinion, relativly unimportant. The military
alone should be drooling at the thought of having a craft that could perform
as some of these UFO's.
>Which means, it is up to the lay people to gather the
>information and just do the best they can, and hope that somewhere out
>there, there are still some pioneers, such as Jacques Vallee, who are
>willing to take a chance.
If there were more like Jacques Vallee we'd be in good shape. Unfortunatley as
long as science ignores the phenomena there will always be room for con artists
, hoaxters and those looking for a quick buck.
I think we basically agree with one another. It would be nice to have a Gov't
grant but until that happens we'll have to settle with what we have now and
hope for the best.
--
Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f0.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f70.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Charles.Mcelhinney
Subject: Re: Paranet Survey Part 2
Date: 20 Jun 90 18:37:00 GMT
CM> Riiiiight. Tyco. Still, I wonder if Clarke was aware of
CM> the odd lunar phenomena observed in the late Fifties and
CM> early Sixties?
Probably. He's a very smart man. In all of his books, he tried to put
in a scientific feeling.
--
Charles Mcelhinney - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Charles.Mcelhinney@f70.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f876.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Burke
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Mr. Ed
Date: 20 Jun 90 06:18:00 GMT
re:> That still leaves *other* evywitnesses ... has ANYONE bothered to
> follow up on THEM???
Don: You must mean the other people in the GB area who have seen UFOs
at various times, as described regularly in the "Current Case Log" of
the _MUFON UFO JOURNAL_. These reports almost always reveal that they
describe an object which is inconsistant from the design of Ed's
things. Only Ed and "Believer Bill" ( an another pseudonymmed- entity)
seem to get the photos of *these* objects. -- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f876.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Pete.Porro
Subject: Re: MORE ILL BREEZE
Date: 19 Jun 90 15:37:26 GMT
I have to agree Jim, when investigations are so primed to find something,
instead of being a detached observer, the results are going to be skewed.
Many, if not most, UFO research people have a strong desire to find
something. So this makes for problems in logic and rational thinking right
off. Yes skeptical inquiry, not negative but just questioning the
informations viability, is necessary. As we see repeated over and over
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence!" There is an old
statement from Social Psyc. that says; The more difficult a position is to
defend, the more strongly the person will defend it. Flat Earthers please
raise your hand...
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Ea.Richards
Subject: Re: ZAPRUDER FILM
Date: 19 Jun 90 20:08:19 GMT
>John said, there's a book that goes deeply into the Z film and LIFE.
Thanks for the info; I'm going to check on the book's availability.
--
Ea Richards - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Ea.Richards@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 21 Jun 90 07:14:01 GMT
JS> But do we believe that its a genuine photo, in
JS> the midst of all these controversial ones, or are we
JS> willing to admit that we simply may not be smart enough to
JS> figure it out yet?
I was sure I'd figured it out a few times, but I wasn't as smart as I
thought I was. ;-)
I'm willing to admit to not being smart enough. The real problem with Ed's
pictures is that most of them could have been faked while some are real
head-scratchers, and no smoking gun has turned up. Just about once a day I
think I've figured it out, for about five minutes.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gary Knight <GARY@maximillion.cp.mcc.com>
Subject: Nuclear powered aircraft
Date: 21 Jun 90 15:22:19 GMT
I've seen some postings on this topic and can, I believe,
provide some factual information. During the summers of 1959 and 1960
I worked at the National Reactor Testing Station outside Idaho Falls,
Idaho. I was in college and majoring in physics at the time (later
went to law school, became a practicing lawyer, finally teaching law
for some 20 years). I worked on a small reactor called the Reactivity
Measurement Facility which was located in the spent element storage
tank of the giant Materials Testing Reactor. We put things in our
little reactor to test their reactivity (I did an experiment on nitric
acid as I recall).
Anyway, one day, amidst great secrecy, we were brought a sample
to test from the GE facility at the NRTS (the facility I worked at was
operated by Phillips Petroleum Company). We were told that GE had a
nuclear powered aircraft project underway and that we would be testing
the reactivity of some materials involved in that project. Later in
the summer I began dating a girl named Phyllis Levine who lived with
her family in Idaho Falls. It turned out that her father was Sam
Levine who was director of the GE nuclear powered aircraft project!
Small world.
Recently I had occasion to exchange some correspondence with
Stanton Friedman on UFO matters, and it turned out that Stan worked at
the GE facility at the same time I was there as a student technition.
Smaller world. Stan can verify any of the information about the project.
The end result was that they were never able to overcome the payload-to-
thrust problem, and the project was abandoned (in the early 60's I think).
So we don't have nuclear powered airplanes -- but we did try! Funny
thing is that I never saw or read anything about this anywhere, and only
when I was glancing over Stan's resume and noticed that we had both
been connected to the GE project back in '59-'60 did I even remember
that such a project existed. I guess failures don't get a lot of
publicity.
So for what it's worth, these are the facts as I know them.
Perhaps Stan Friedman could be persuaded to write a piece for ParaNet
on the topic, if others are interested.
-------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James Roger Black <jrblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Subject: Lights over Iowa
Date: 21 Jun 90 17:44:30 GMT
I saw something last night that I'd appreciate comments on.
Place: Iowa City, Iowa, USA
Time: Approximate 9:30 p.m. (I can't be more precise, because I forgot to
look at my watch. Stupid, stupid ...)
Weather: Scattered clouds, sky mostly clear but some haze, first stars just
starting to show. Just a hint of a breeze at ground level, though given the
weather we've been having I could easily believe stronger winds higher up.
I stepped out the front door to walk a friend to his car, looked up at the
sky to see what the weather was like (we've been having lots of rain lately),
and was pleased to note that some stars were visible. Then I noticed that
one of them, about sixty degrees up from the horizon due south, was moving.
Moments later I picked up a second one, exactly like the first, moving almost
(but not quite) parallel to it.
Both objects were white with a slightly reddish tinge, about the same
brightness as the stars of the Big Dipper. There was no hint of flashing or
any change in brightness, though my friend (who also saw them quite clearly)
thought one of them seemed to be getting redder as time passed. They were
not mere points of light; they seemed to have a real (though tiny) diameter,
more like a planet than a star.
Both objects were heading north, one of them NNE and the other NNW, passing
directly over our heads. After a while we had to change position to keep them
in sight because they were disappearing behind my house, but when we moved we
lost them. When we lost them they were about sixty degrees above the north
horizon.
My first thought was that they were jets. We're directly under major east-west
air corridors for both civilian and military traffic, so at any given time you
can probably find a couple of jets if you look for them. But these objects
were moving south to north instead of east/west, had no flashing lights, left
no contrail, had no visible structure, etc. In short, they simply did not look
at all like airplanes.
My next thought (and also my friend's) was that they were satellites. I've
seen satellites before (when I was a kid we used to go 'satellite hunting' in
my back yard), and I saw nothing such as navigational changes that would
preclude satellites. On the other hand, are there really that many satellites
in polar orbit that a random glance at the sky would catch two of them at once?
It's no Gulf Breeze--not even a flying triangle--but it's the strangest thing
I've seen in the sky since I saw a 'satellite' change course back about 1962.
(I never did figure that one out!) Any comments?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Lapp <mvac23!thomas@louie.udel.edu>
Subject: Shanendoah valley sitings from the past
Date: 22 Jun 90 05:17:25 GMT
Does anyone recognize the name of M. T. Brackbill? He was a professor
at a small Christian college back in the 40s and 50s who had an
interest in the UFO phenomona. He was also a professor of astronomy
and science, so it was somewhat natural that he gravitated in this
direction.
Anyhow, I think he did some investigations on sitings of UFOs in the
Shanandoah Valley of Virginia -- specifically in the area surrounding
Harrisonburg, VA. The area surrounding this city is (or was) mostly
country farmland, so lights in the sky would be pretty unusual to see.
I've read some about him while I was at the college (he died before
I started school there), and the college does have a book that he
wrote on the subject while a professor there. I just wondered if
anyone else was familier with this fellow, or whether he was just
'small potatoes' and just a single person who was interested in
investigating these phenomona.
- tom
--
internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu
uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1 Location: Newark, DE, USA
Quote : I know how to spell banana, I just don't know when to stop
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gene Gross <gross@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Subject: THEM (Tyson Mitchiner)
Date: 22 Jun 90 15:48:38 GMT
Hi Tyson,
You picked up on the point I was making. If my supposition of genetic
engineering is true and for the reasons that I suppose, the aliens have
miscalculated--miscalculated badly. They have created their own
Frankenstein monster--US. It isn't easy to tell humans anything,
especially against their will. I wouldn't want to be the alien that
steps forward to tell us that we are going to go where no one has gone
before for the glory of the X@#^% Empire. I got the tar--who has the
feathers! ;-) We'll go, but we'll go in our own time and for our own
reasons. Thank you very much.
Like I said, it was only speculative thinking. I took some information
from a number of areas and wove that into the scenario. Part of it
works for me--the rest, well...
Of course there may be other reasons for them to manipulate our genetic
structure such that modern man results. When I get more time, I'll post
some more thoughts on this.
Check ya later,
Gene
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gene Gross <gross@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Subject: UFO Film and JFK Assass. (Jim Delton)
Date: 22 Jun 90 15:49:17 GMT
Hi Jim D.:
Used the D to distinquish between you and Speiser. ;-) So many folks on
line have the same first names--and now there is another Gene out there.
Might have to start using my middle name. 8-) Oh, well...
Anyway, Jim, I don't know what 'standard' means in terms of
documentaries on UFOs. The clip that I keep coming back to is from a
documentary called 'The Force Beyond.' The documentary is a bit
sophomoric in its opening--warnings about the producer of the film not
being responsible for any changes to the viewers. But once I got past
that it seemed pretty much like many others--some new material, but not
earth-shaking until at the end when they show the clip of the UFO. I
have looked at that part of the film so many times now that I'm sure the
video tape is going to wear out. If this is a hoax, it is a very good
one. See if you can find the documentary and then give me your
impressions of it.
As to the JFK assassination, the cover-up shouldn't be a surprise to
anyone who fogs a mirror and has half a brain to think with. The
evidence used to indict Oswald at the Warren Commission and since in the
public media is the worst pile of circumstantial evidence and twisting
of facts that I've seen in a long time. Since when does a homicide
investigation start with the presumption of guilt. I am lead to
understand that one of the first questions asked is who stood to gain
from the murder. That question was never asked in the JFK
assassination.
The CIA bears a great responsibility IMHO. What follows is my personal
opinion and is not meant as anything other than that. Going back to
that time period, one has to realize that a lot was going on. The Mafia
had been contacted and used in attempts to hit Castro. Castro and his
people spoiled those attempts. The Mafia hitmen were captured, and
Castro became understandably irrate over the attempts on his life.
Russia had been routed in their confrontation with this nation over the
missiles in Cuba. Mr. K lost considerable face and prestige in his
confrontation with JFK. The Cubans who had been part of the Bay of Pigs
invasion were seething over what they saw as JFK's failure to assist
them in the invasion, dooming it to failure. The CIA was in large part
responsible for that. Living in the area where there were a lot of the
Cuban refugees back then, I am familiar with the thinking and attitudes
at that time. JFK was on their sh*t-list. Many of the survivors of
that failed invasion continued to work for the Company as freelance
contractors. They formed one of the largest splinter groups at that
time.
All of these forces come together, precisely how I'm not sure--I'm still
researching and pondering this. The Mafia was making in-roads into the
Cuban community at that time. Not surprising since many of the Cubans
had known and had business dealing with the Mafia prior to Castro's
coup. It is known that Castro offered the Mafia a deal if they would
hit JFK. I also have an unconfirmed report that at least one hit team
was nailed before they could even begin setting up. It takes no great
leap to see the Mafia turning to some of the more angry Cubans who
survived the invasion (Alpha 66 comes to mind--a group well financed and
equipped by the CIA to continue harassing Castro and his Communist
regieme) and asking them if they would like to avenge themselves. Once
that connection is made, the rest as they say is history. They needed a
patsy. The KGB had one in the form of Oswald. The really interesting
part is that it seems that Oswald was working for the FBI and CIA as an
informant, and the KGB was using him as well. For Oswald to be in
Dallas as far ahead of time as he was indicates to me that he had access
to some advanced intelligence. Explain how the Oswald of the Warren
Commission, a two-bit, radical, was able to obtain such advanced
intelligence. To say that he made the decision on the spur of the
moment is ludicrous and requires little effort to disprove.
Oswald was put there as the patsy. The hit team, all top trained pros,
was sent in at least a week ahead of time to scope the area out and
arrange for the hit. The moment arrives. The spotter waits as the
motorcade turns and heads down toward the Plaza. When Kennedy's car hits
the predesignated spot, the spotter raises his umbrella. The first
shooter nails JFK from the back--that alone would probably have killed
him. The second shooter nails JFK from the front around the grassy
knoll. The wound is fatal. It catches the President in the forehead
and blows out the right side of his head. But this is not enough. As
the dying President is thrown back by the second shot, a third shooter
fires almost at the same time as the second shooter. Only the third
shooter is just a littel off. His shot misses the President and wounds
the Governor of Texas in the wrist and thigh. Still, the hit is a
success. In the scramble to clear out, the shooter on the grassy knoll
encounters local law enforcement, he whips out his fake ID that says he
is a Secret Service agent. The Secret Service has explicitly stated
that the agent met that day was not one of theirs--the Warren Commission
must have missed that. So the second shooter escapes. Shooter one and
three have no trouble. The spotter mingles with the shocked crowd--no
one pays any attention to the most unusual thing--he is carrying an
umbrella--one that moments before had been opened. Such a little thing,
and for that reason, no one notices. They are too shocked by the
killing.
How much of this can be proven? I'm convinced that we will probably
never know for sure. This is one conspiracy and cover-up that not even
the best are going to be able to rip open and expose. As you so aptly
point out, Jim, officially this case is closed as solved. Still, I am
one of the angry ones. I will continue to poke around, investigate,
and research this case. Someday, I might feel confident enough to
commit all that I have to written form and publish it.
Gotta run, guy, check you later.
Gene
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Skeptics and Klass
Date: 21 Jun 90 06:44:00 GMT
Well said, Gene, and I have to agree. You and I might differ as to what we
consider worth our time and energy to investigate, but your main point is that
"We should all keep our minds open, but not as open as say, a refuse can"
(apologies to Joe Nickell).
About Klass and the UNL incident: I DO have problems with the idea of not
having skeptics on a panel. But many of us on the advocacy side ARE skeptics -
its just that our skepticism has been largely satisfied by the amount and
quality of the evidence. Klass' contention seems to be that there was no one
on the panel who believed ALL UFO sightings to be explainable. I maintain that
that is rather like requiring a panel of speakers on the Holocaust to feature
one of those aberrants who believes it never took place. And if Klass
objects to that comparison, I would remind him of his own comparison of
Ufologists with Nazis.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: Arizona UFO's
Date: 22 Jun 90 02:34:00 GMT
Have you heard of Travis Walton? He was reportedly abducted from the
area near Heber and gone for nearly a week and then returned.
Aproximatley 5 witnesses to the UFO that took him but no witnesses who
actually saw him going into or exiting from the UFO.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f701.n362.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Finney
Subject: Ed Walters
Date: 21 Jun 90 00:32:40 GMT
This afternoon on a radio show called "For The People", a nation wide consumer
radio show whos host has some interest in the UFO question, Ed Walters was a
guest on the show. There was a 30 minute interview with Ed, less commercial
time.
PLEASE understand that I was listening to this while driving in downtown
traffic at about 95 degrees with no air conditioning and may not have the
wording exactly right!!!! I also missed a short period of the interview
because I was out of the truck I was driving.
Ed's comments concerning the newspaper article coming out of the Miami (?)
newspaper was essentually that it was a lot of bunk. He gave his explaination
of the model saucer and about the pictures that the boy gave the papers that
are supposed to be fake. He also stated that the article was written at a
press conference, and that he had not been notified that this press conference
was occuring nor was he invited to defend himself.
As to the saucer found in a house that he had built: The newspaper writer that
was involved came to the house unannounced, asked the current owner if he had
ever found any sign of any saucer models and got the owner to look around. The
saucer was supposed to have been found in the attic. Mr. Walters brought out
the fact that there were several drawings found with the saucer (i think he
said "inside" the saucer???) with his name, ect, on them. He also states that
the drawings are of a house that he built, but that the house that the drawings
are of was not designed or built until about 2 years after the pictures were
taken. He says that he can prove this by statements by the house's owners.
His statement was that the drawings were removed from the garbage and used to
help incriminate him. He also said that several other persons that were
supposed to be involved have made statements that they know nothing of the
model.
The pictures: The boy showed him the pics some time before they were given to
the press. At that time, Walters said that he told the boy that he could
either give them to the press or not, to do as he wished, but the boy had
serious misgivings due to the effect that the pics were having on his father,
who was claiming that there was some religious significance to the pics.
Afterwards, the boy told his father that the pics weren't real, that they were
fabricated by Ed Walters using a model, that the areas of dead grass were
created by Walters using a trampoline, and that the stereo pics were taken at
the airport. The impression that I got from listening to him was that the boy
was telling his father this to calm him down, that the boy was making up these
stories simply to keep his father from further talk about how "the angels are
coming". After having his son tell him all this stuff, the father goes and
tells the authorities that the pics are fake based on what he has been told by
his son.
All in all, I don't specifically know what to think. I do know that whether
or not the Ed Walters pics are real or not, there have been a significant
number of sightings by many persons to warrant thinking that there is
something going on and that there are UFO's in the area.
john
--
John Finney - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Finney@f701.n362.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f1.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin
Subject: Lights Over Iowa
Date: 23 Jun 90 01:03:00 GMT
> From: James Roger Black <jrblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu>
I read your post about the lights over Iowa and wanted to comment
on it.
I am also a satellite hunter and have noticed over the last
couple of years that I have seen two satellites traveling around
at the same time in the direction that you refer to. However, I
have noticed that they are only visible to the naked eye to about
40 degrees above horizon which doesn't give much time for
observation. I have also noticed some with a pulsing flash much
like that of a flashcube, but after investigation and contacting
NOAA in Boulder found that these were also satellites reflecting
the sun as they turned. There was one occasion that I observed
an apparent satellite change course, and was just as puzzled
about it as you are with yours.
The most unusual thing that I saw last summer while satellite
hunting was a light traveling from the SW. This light was moving
much like that of an airplane in its flight path at 30,000 feet,
although I can not tell you if it was that high. There was no
noise as that associated with a cruising plane. The most unusual
thing about it was that it appeared to be circular in shape as it
had a bluish coronal-type discharge with a red light in the
center. At arm's length, it appeared to be the roundness of a
dime. It continued its path and disappeared from sight. Never
saw it again.
What you saw may have been a satellite, but if you have more
information to share on it, please do so.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f1.n1010.z9.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************************
