Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 313
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 313
Monday, October 8th 1990
Today's Topics:
Verifiable Sources
Primary Sources
Ed's multi-witness event
Re: Primary Sources
Re: Pessimism And Optimism
Re: Mystery Teletype
Re: Mystery Teletype
Ed's Multi-witness Event
_Out There_
Ufology
_Out There_
Jung's Theories of UFOs
Odd Aircraft
Re: George Green
Re: Mystery Teletype
Re: _out There_
Re: Ufology
_out There_
_out There_
Re: George Green
Re: Mystery Teletype
Re: GB model
Re: CROP CIRCLES
_Out There_
Re: Ufology
Re: Pessimism and Optimism
Paranet Posting Guidelines
Re: Gulf Breeze
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James Roger Black <jrblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Subject: Verifiable Sources
Date: 5 Oct 90 21:26:02 GMT
In Paranet Newsletter #311, John Burke suggests:
+ Perhaps the echo guidelines should be amended so as to preclude
+ the posting of any information that is not attributed to a verifiable
+ source. In other words the Ashtray Command wouldn't count. In those
+ situations where the person posting can't remember the source, or is
+ trying to find out who the source is, they should explicitly request
+ the identity of the source as part of the message.
I'm not sure how far you mean to carry this. I have posted a number of items
in which I conveyed 'information' which was represented to me as accurate by
people I trust, based on their own experiences. I did not give their names
because I did not have their permission to do so, and in most cases they would
have refused even if I asked. I suppose this kind of anecdotal data falls
into the category of 'information that is not attributed to a verifiable
source,' but I think it is still worth telling. Sometimes it's that one
little fact from way out in left field that makes all the difference.
When the intelligence agencies receive information, they classify it by the
source of the information and the estimated reliability of the source--e.g.,
'This information was received from a long-time informant who has provided
accurate information on many occasions,' or 'This information was received
from a convicted perjurer who has once or twice provided accurate information
but usually cannot be relied upon.' Perhaps the guidelines could ask for a
similar approach to non-verifiable information: If you can't cite chapter
and verse, at least state the nature of your source and an estimate of its
reliability. Then the readers can draw their own conclusions.
Question: What is the 'Ashtray Command'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian.Clark@f11.n289.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Brian Clark)
Subject: Primary Sources
Date: 3 Oct 90 15:50:00 GMT
> Those who might have something significant to contribute to
> the discussions here might decide to "tune out" as a result
> of their distaste for antirationalism. I should point out
> that discussing the "abduction issue" is one thing, but
> there seems to be a good number of people who manage to
> comingle their "contactee"-type "experiences" into the
> database of research into the abduction question. I mean
> people who do not believe they were "abducted" and who
> sometimes deny having seen any physical beings in
> connection with these "contacts".
>
> Perhaps the echo guidelines should be amended so as
> to preclude the posting of any information that is not
> attributed to a verifiable source. In other words the
> Ashtray Command wouldn't count. In those situations where
> the person posting can't remember the source, or is trying
> to find out who the source is, they should explicitly
> request the identity of the source as part of the message.
Well, this presents a serious problem for those of us who are
trying to conduct research from primary sources. As a
psychologist, I am equally interested in people who claim to be
in contact with the "Ashtar Command" as farmers who found circles
in their field!! Part of the purpose of this network is to
disiminate raw information. I cringe at the thought of us
setting guidelines that say "have to know the source - and it has
to be a reputadable source". For example, what if I was in
contact with someone who claims to have worked with project
Redlight? Should I be forced to verify all their claims before
posting anything on that subject in the net, or is that one of
the purposes of the net? What if (god forbid) I claimed that I
was in contact with the Ashtar Command? Wouldn't it be great if
I posted messages in the net so that other people involved in
research can pick my brains and maybe help me realize that my
stories do/do not have internal consistancy or external
validity?
Don't censor the net.
Brian Clark, University of Missouri
--
Brian Clark - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Brian.Clark@f11.n289.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Ed's multi-witness event
Date: 6 Oct 90 02:27:45 GMT
Since the Unsolved Mysteries program showed that Ed was the first one to
see the UFO *before* he called for additional witnesses, one has to suspect
that Ed might have launched a balloon or kite of some type to shore up his
credibility.
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Sudduth)
Subject: Re: Primary Sources
Date: 5 Oct 90 19:18:00 GMT
I agree, Brian! Any censoring of the net is going to turn many off to
the freedom of interaction that is essential to any research. Granted,
verbal abuse and personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated. But any
information must be free for all to judge. Under the proposed
guidelines, even the Lazar information is dubious at best!!
--
Don Sudduth - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Sudduth)
Subject: Re: Pessimism And Optimism
Date: 5 Oct 90 19:25:00 GMT
Keith, you have been backed up now by Howard Blum's new book. Remote
Viewing research has been going on now for many years. One of the main
purposes of the military research has been the remote viewing of
information; i.e., documents, computer files, etc.
--
Don Sudduth - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Clark.Matthews@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 6 Oct 90 03:50:00 GMT
> Elders> Just because *one* photo was fake, doesn't mean
> they all were fake.
>
> Oh.
Ha-HAAAAA-hahahahahahahahaha.... Point taken, John!
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f3206.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 6 Oct 90 08:58:00 GMT
John,
Have you ever talked to Dr. Robert Nathan of JPL regarding his
findings on all of this?
For example, he is not happy that Ed used his name in the book
the way that he did as he is *not* a believer in the authenticity
of the photos. He has some very good, and qualified, points
against their authenticity. He definitely stated to me that the
video was clearly a pole passing in front of the light. Although
Nathan did not perform the exhaustive tests on the photos that
Maccabee did, he stated that his trained observations indicated
that the photos had something real wrong with them and should he
get the funding to perform the same tests that Maccabee did, he
would prove this.
Perhaps we should organize a fund raising project to get Nathan
to study the photos. He has stated he would do it.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f3206.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.DeNero@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don DeNero)
Subject: Ed's Multi-witness Event
Date: 7 Oct 90 06:38:00 GMT
> From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
>
> Since the Unsolved Mysteries program showed that Ed was the
> first one to
> see the UFO *before* he called for additional witnesses,
> one has to suspect
> that Ed might have launched a balloon or kite of some type
> to shore up his
> credibility.
I understand that there are actually two witnesses who both
allegedly photographed the UFO. There was "Mr. Ed" and "Believer
Bill." I have also heard rumors that "Believer Bill" is really
Ray Griffin, whose yard one set of photos were taken from.
Griffin refuses to discuss this publicly for reasons unknown, but
he also is a self-proclaimed "inside man" to what he claims are
"The Elders," a group of "ultra-intelligences" who control all
using Griffin as a medium, or something like this, to get the
message out to mankind that they had better straighten up and fly
right before it is too late. Actually, it appears more to be a
classic study in cult intelligence. However, more interesting is
what the real relationship is between Ed Walters and Ray Griffin.
I wonder how come no one has ever taken the time to question
this? Furthermore, I wonder why MUFON has never made any of this
information public?
This is a pretty interesting forum. New here from Compuserve.
What else do you talk about?
--
Don DeNero - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.DeNero@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f20.n1011.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: _Out There_
Date: 5 Oct 90 07:46:00 GMT
Jim:
When I was on your board yesterday I noticed that you asked me
what I thought of _Out There_. Your message hasn't found its way here
yet, but I'll answer it anyway ...
At the outset I was very enthusiastic. After all, here was a
NYT big shot who was going to help us "blow the lid off" the coverup
once and for all. Then I started to notice factual inaccuracies, some
of which have already been pointed out here. I stated to John Hicks
that the numbers Blum used in discussing the Drake equation were wildly
different from any I had seen before. Blum called Roger Ramey "Roger
Ramsey" and his discussion of (the book) _The Philadelphia Experiment_
was all goofed up "a novel about a voyage to a futuristic world".
Phil The Thrill made a good point whehe said that the very idea
that a top-secret group would be called "the UFO Working Group" is
absurd. It would have a code name like Project Dum-dum or something.
I think that the disinformants sent Blum on a "wild goose chase".
The very idea that the "powers that be" would single out Elmwood,
Wisc. as "the best case" for UFO reality is laughable. His remark that
the CIA had a keen interest in the Lonnie Zamora case was alot more
plausable.
My big beef with Blum concerns his division of UFOlogy into 2
camps: "believers" vs "skeptics". In Blum's oversimplified view of
ufology, most of us here on ParaNet don't exist; nor could CUFOS exist.
The MJ-12 debate is simply "Moore vs Klass". Blum has no room for
CAUS, in spite of the fact that he listed Larry and Barry as sources.
Bottom line: Don't waste your money. Wait for the paperback.
-- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f20.n1011.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Allen.Roberts@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Allen Roberts)
Subject: Ufology
Date: 5 Oct 90 08:54:05 GMT
You are quite right in saying that our group is full of many charlatans and
folks of the caliber of Jimmy and Tammy Baker. I downloaded a copy of a speech
given by one currently famous UFO researcher who is a strong advocate of MJ-12,
the Kennedy Assassination theory, and a lot of other bazaar things. I forget
his name this second. Anyway, I plan to write a rebuttal of most all his
beliefs. I consider him to be on the fringe of reality, even for UFOlogy!
When it is complete, I will upload it here. I think you will like it.
--
Allen Roberts - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Allen.Roberts@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul.Faeder@p0.f0.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Faeder)
Subject: _Out There_
Date: 7 Oct 90 03:37:12 GMT
In a message of <05 Oct 90 00:46:00>, John Burke (9:1011/20) writes:
> I think that the disinformants sent Blum on a "wild goose chase".
>The very idea that the "powers that be" would single out Elmwood, Wisc.
>as "the best case" for UFO reality is laughable.
I haven't read Blum's book but from what I understand, he obtained his
information from members of the intelligence community. Now, whether or not
this book is fact or fiction, is there enough evidence in there to prove that
the US Gov't does in fact maintain a disinformation campaign? If so, shouldn't
we ask why they are feeding disinformation about a phenomena that they admit
doesn't exist?
--
Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f0.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Jung's Theories of UFOs
Date: 5 Oct 90 05:44:00 GMT
> I have run into several personal accounts of people who have had a
> personal doomsaying event. In fact, I had a pseudo-doomsaying event
> this summer: a partial psychological, partial psychic event where a
> cosmology was unfolded and "the end", coming really soon, was described
> in terms of a conflict between "power over" and "power with" (or, in
> other theories, that could be called "evil versus good" or "democratic
> Americans versus the secret government"). Beginning to sound familiar?
> Anyway, as I find sources on the Doomsayer Phenomenon, I will of course
> post excerpts here.
>
Sounds fascinating, and definitely a unique area of research. Please keep us
posted.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Odd Aircraft
Date: 5 Oct 90 05:52:00 GMT
The most interesting thing about that article is, of course, that it appears
in AvWeek, which is Phil Klass' old stomping grounds.
Can anyone tell me why these sightings are of such interest to AvWeek all of a
sudden? Where were they a few years ago when such sightings were taking place
nightly in many areas?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: George Green
Date: 5 Oct 90 22:21:00 GMT
How would you go about verifying George Greens claims of alien contact?
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 5 Oct 90 22:29:00 GMT
RE: Model on a pole
Tommy Smith, who claims to have worked with ED in makeing some hoax
photos of the UFO says they did it by putting the model on the end of a
stick and taping a flashlight to the bottom of the stick and wrapping
black tape around the stick. I'm sure you have seen the photo's where
the bottom of the UFO appears to be "cut-off". Some have suggested
that the cutoff may have been from the model having been sitting on a
table, but after listening to Smith's description of how some of the
photos were made, I can see another way the "cut-off" at the bottom
would come about. Since the flashlight would taped to the "front" of
the stick, the cone of light shining up toward the bottom of the model
would be cut-off by the stick that is in the way. It would, in
essence, cast a shadow and it might easily produce the same effect we
see in those photo's that show the flat bottom.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Sudduth)
Subject: Re: _out There_
Date: 7 Oct 90 15:04:00 GMT
There are plenty of reasons to feed disinformation about a phenomena
that the US Government claims doesn't exist! Just look at Bill Moore.
The more they confuse the investigators with false leads, the "safer"
they are! It's easy and it works!
--
Don Sudduth - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Sudduth)
Subject: Re: Ufology
Date: 7 Oct 90 15:06:00 GMT
What is difficult about those who seem like they're on the fringe is
that some truth may be hidden in the fringe!
--
Don Sudduth - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: _out There_
Date: 7 Oct 90 15:47:00 GMT
> Phil The Thrill made a good point whehe said that the
> very idea that a top-secret group would be called "the UFO
> Working Group" is absurd. It would have a code name like
> Project Dum-dum or something.
I agree, John. It just sounded too much like a work of fiction
rather than an account of a real situation. I found that Blum
wrote too much what sounded like in the first person. I also
found it funny that there was very little mentioned about the
formal history of the government's involvement in UFOs. He
almost made it sound like the working group was the first formal
study launched by the government.
> I think that the disinformants sent Blum on a "wild
> goose chase". The very idea that the "powers that be"
> would single out Elmwood, Wisc. as "the best case" for UFO
> reality is laughable. His remark that the CIA had a keen
> interest in the Lonnie Zamora case was alot more plausable.
This is curious too. Doesn't it sound a lot like the Doty/Howe
Covenant? Someone known as a "deep throat" passes information to a
journalist and leads them on a journey of sensational wild-eyed
alien hunts. It almost seems too convenient that Mr. NSA would
suddenly slip something about UFOs while talking about the Walker
spy case.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: _out There_
Date: 7 Oct 90 16:20:00 GMT
> I haven't read Blum's book but from what I understand, he
> obtained his information from members of the intelligence
> community. Now, whether or not this book is fact or
> fiction, is there enough evidence in there to prove that
> the US Gov't does in fact maintain a disinformation
> campaign? If so, shouldn't we ask why they are feeding
> disinformation about a phenomena that they admit doesn't
> exist?
It provides another good source of disinformation study material.
Just as does the other stuff that we have been assaulted with of
late, i.e., Bill Cooper and others.
What would be interesting is for Brian Clark to give us some
information on what it is about UFOs that might appeal to people
psychologically that causes such responses. The disinformation
does not bother me, but the reaction of the people to it do.
I classify this as a phenomena of sorts. Any time that you have
large masses of people reacting a certain way, I feel it becomes
a reasonable concern for the government due to the fact that it
could be the result of psychological warfare launched by an
adversarial government designed at disrupting law and order. We
have seen it in operation with the race riots of the 60s, and
other events in our contemporary history. Psych warfare seems to
be a very effective way of creating such derision. It works here
too.
In the last ten years, there has been a substantial increase in
CE-IV reports. Just in the last year, and seen on ParaNet, there
has been a tremendous increase in the activity of persons
claiming to have experienced abductions or the witnessing of
craft. In the southern United States, we have also seen an
increase in reporting and the subsequent movement by these people
to "religious" type groups who claim to be in contact with the
entities. The interesting thing is that these cases do not fit
the normal pattern observed and documented in previous years.
Although the data is not sufficient to render a conclusion
concerning the validity of these reports, we cannot undermine the
fact that large numbers of people are accepting UFOs as de facto
without any demonstratable proof. The unfortunate thing is that
abductions have been so widely publicized that one wonders just
how much of the reporting being done is the result of a reality
or the result of hallucination brought about by subliminal
hypnotic suggestion. Omni magazine published a questionaire back
in the late 70s, I believe, or early 80s, concerning abduction.
I read the article very carefully and found that it was highly
suggestive. Furthermore, I have met Budd Hopkins, considered to
be a leading authority on the abduction phenomenon, and was not
impressed professionally.
The bottom line here is that there are too many variables
involved that makes a scientifically controlled investigation
next to impossible. Hypnotic regression is *not* a reliable
method to base conclusions of the nature that I have seen coming
from Hopkins. However, using the sensational nature of this,
together with those who are viewed to be experts, makes for a
very interesting problem in disseminating the real from the
fantasy within people's minds.
Therefore, we must look at all aspects, including the possibility
that people are being influenced on a mass scale for some
well-defined reason. Instead of turning our backs on what is
going on, we should be looking hard at this and attempting to
determine what is causing it.
There are many theories about this. Vallee's theory is that we
are being manipulated by an intelligence beyond our scope and
reasoning. Keyhoe made remarks in his books about the
possibility of psych warfare being effected through our efforts
with SETI, but coming from a real foreign intelligence.
What are your ideas?
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matt.Story@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Matt Story)
Subject: Re: George Green
Date: 7 Oct 90 23:00:00 GMT
Well, not so much as verifying his story, but wanting to know if
he has been discredited in the UFO circle as a "Bilkum" type
It seems he has some books for sale entittled "The Phoenix Journals"
I'm trying to establish if he is a legitimate researcher, or another
individual jumping on an "I saw a UFO bandwagon, and now I'm trying
to make a living off it". Follow me ?
--
Matt Story - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Matt.Story@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 6 Oct 90 18:14:00 GMT
CM> Very interesting. Did you see the "Unsolved Mysteries"
Yep, they did a pretty good job.
It's all rather old news for me, but that's just because of proximity,
contacts with investigators and interest in the case.
I'm glad you made that observation about Mayor Ed Grey.
Interestingly, the Gulf Breeze Chamber of Commerce thinks ufos are the
best thing since beach sand. They gave each attendee at the symposium a
packet of all sorts of ads and coupons.
UFOs are a fairly big business in the area.
Note that Grey is going directly against the business wind, which I'd
think would be political suicide. Why is he doing this?
I think he has a hidden agenda, and hidden motives. It'd be rather
interesting to find out those items.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: GB model
Date: 5 Oct 90 08:17:01 GMT
JS> Which could be a simple artifact of viewing angle,
Could be, but you'd expect the object in the upper part of the picture to
be flatter than the model straight on. It's not. However you might look at
it, the model doesn't match anything in the photos.
You and I know Don's rather a true believer. I discovered something that
could conceivably have a great effect; at least one witness was out of sight
of both Ed and his truck for at least several minutes. Actually, that
doesn't really matter. It would take less than 15 seconds to pull it off.
My point is that Don duly reported that to me, but then he clammed up and
wouldn't listen to anything else. He's rapidly losing credibility.
I don't think the "flatness" of the model is what caused the investigators
to say they immediately knew the model wasn't a match, it's also the other
factors. Not enough "windows," different bottom shape etc.
JS> Mayor Ed Gray, I believe.
Somehow that's not surprising at all. Did you know that Ed Grey's been
more vociferous than Phil Klass? Wonder what axe he's grinding, since the GB
Chamber of Commerce thinks ufos are the best thing since beach sand.
I'll poke around on the house plans. It looks like I'll have another
chance to talk with most of the major players in Jan. Think up some
questions.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: CROP CIRCLES
Date: 5 Oct 90 08:18:02 GMT
JD> The tracks I saw in the photos in the paper were very
JD> narrow and there was only one track.
I've seen those in many of the photos. I think what we see are actually
tracks made by people walking here and there. I don't think we've seen any
photos made before lots of people trampled around; that is, a virgin circle.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: _Out There_
Date: 7 Oct 90 17:31:00 GMT
Thanks, John. That pretty much spells it out for me.
Can it be said, then, that "THE" book has yet to be written?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: Ufology
Date: 7 Oct 90 22:10:00 GMT
Sounds like the person whose name you can't remember might be one Bill
Cooper.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: Pessimism and Optimism
Date: 7 Oct 90 22:20:00 GMT
It seems to me that your real compliant is that a couple of people
don't agree with your assesment of the situation in regard to remote
viewing. You seem to be saying there is a lot of good evidence for it
done by reputable people. I simply don't agree with that assesment.
If there is some specific experiment you would like to cite why not
just cite it and how it was done and if anyone wants to discuss it they
can. If you think there is some tie in with UFO's then tell us what
you think the tie in is and how it ties in and again, if there are
people interested in following up they will chime in. It doesn't do a
whole lot of good to castigate people simply because they have not
reached the same conclusions as you have.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: keith@pecan.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks)
Subject: Paranet Posting Guidelines
Date: 8 Oct 90 15:43:18 GMT
There has been some discussion concerning the rules for posting to Paranet.
Some users think that speculation should be identified as such.
Other users think that the Paranet posting rule:
> Any user who is found to have knowingly and deliberately posted false or
> misleading information regarding the activities of the United States
> Government, its intelligence agencies and/or operatives, with respect
> to the investigation of UFOs or other related matters, will be locked
> out of the network immediately and permanently, and their name
> circulated to other UFO investigatory groups.
is arbitrary.
Robert White writes:
+Which presuposes, of course, that some all seing manager of fidonet (I am
+on usenet) knows what is false and what is not.
Why attempt to restrict free speech? My vote is to adopt similar rules
that apply for a USENET moderated newsgroup. If some poster is violating
some law by posting some information, then that should be looked at
closely and reported to the proper officials.
I think that this rule unfairly attempts to restrict what people can
say in a public forum. Furthermore I would argue that access to this
newsletter/mailing list should not be denied to anyone except those
who are violating the law when they post. This concerns the internet
side of the mailing list of which I am a member.
Did anyone ever make any progress as far as making this into a USENET
newsgroup?
-keith
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cyrill@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Cyro Lord)
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze
Date: 8 Oct 90 18:09:09 GMT
In article <68437.270C31BF@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton) writes:
>Unsolved Mysteries carried a segment last night that was an update of a
>earlier segment. This one was fairly well balance I thought and
>carried quite a bit of info on the recent allegations of Hoax. They
>showed the Model found in the attic AND the used it to duplicate one of
>the classic photos of Mr. Ed's UFO.
(deleted for space)
> A very interesting show.
Yes, except, I find it very hard to believe that if I wanted to put up
a hoax, I would leave around stuff that would discredit my claim (1) and
use a youth (2) to do this. Now, Tommy Smith would have me believe that
he sat on his information for years (2-3 forgot) so I do agree with Ed about
Tommy as no one asked him the hard questions like:
Why did you wait all this time to come forward...
Why did Ed use you in the first place...
When did he tell you about this project...
Why didn't his parents, who he says he told not appear on TV and say if
they believed him. (I believe at the time this project was done, he was
about 17 so what did he have that Ed wanted?)
What did he have that ED needed and why didn't ED offer to buy him.
Now on to the 'UFO'. How nice that these folks found this laying in the
attic of the home they brought and how nice this reporter just 'happened
to come by after all this time and ask if they had found anything like
a model of a UFO laying around the house'. (Boy, this really smells).
Nows about the photos, having a real background in this stuff, I will say
any photo can be faked INCLUDING ONE THAT I WANT TO DISCREDIT GIVEN THE
TIME TO DO SO. This includes using the inlarger and timing to make everything
come out just as I want it. One must note that U/M (the show) were shown
photos that were already done, that they were not present when these photos
were printed (they neveer sayed) and for all we know, this 'expert' just
copied ED's photo.
Let look at this from a neutral point and you will see Big holes in both
stories. The only one I see that made money from this is ED so what did
he tell Tommy he would gain by helping (1) and how could he be doing all
this in his yard without someone seening that lived around him. Of course,
I have some idea of how 'special op' and disinformation operation are run
and this may be making be look to hard at this but the timing if way off
here and I really smell a large rat. Remember, this doesn't mean I believe
ED either, just that all this just happen to unfold after all this time.
--
Cyro Lord Alpha Comm. Dev. Corp. - DOMAIN cyrill@scicom.alphacdc.com
UUCP {ncar,nbires,boulder,isis}!scicom!cyrill
Endeavor to Persevere - Chief Dan George
********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************************
