Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 311
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 311
Thursday, October 4th 1990
Today's Topics:
Jung's Theories of UFOs
Re: Bill Cooper's Book
Bogosity in info.paranet posting rules
Re: Gulf Breeze Six
George Green
Odd Aircraft
Bill English Tapes
Wheat Field Patterns
Bentwaters, England
Re: designs
Re: GB model
Bentwaters, England
CSCICOP on Circles
Re: CROP CIRCLES
Re: Bentwaters, England
Re: KECKSBURG INCIDENT
Re: KECKSBURG INCIDENT
Re: KECKSBURG INCIDENT
Re: Kecksburg Incident
Re: BERMUDA TRIANGLE,ETC
Puharich
Pessimism and Optimism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian.Clark@f11.n289.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Brian Clark)
Subject: Jung's Theories of UFOs
Date: 1 Oct 90 16:04:00 GMT
I believe that Jung's theories of UFO's being an explainable
*internal* phenomenon is one that perhaps could use some
consideration - it ties into another area of research that I am
now pursuing - that of the "Doomsayer Phenomon": a well recorded
experience. It seems (if we can borrow Jung's framework for a
moment) that as centuries or (even more important) millineum are
ending, there is a *huge* increase in the incidences of people
declaring that the world is over. What I am trying to research
is the similarities between the theories proposed by Cooper,
those fundamental Christians who propose that we are well into
the Book of Revlations, and several other personal phenomon and
similar events in the late 1890's and the late 10th century.
I have run into several personal accountsof 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.
Brian Clark, University of Missouri-Columbia
--
Brian Clark - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Brian.Clark@f11.n289.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Re: Bill Cooper's Book
Date: 2 Oct 90 03:50:00 GMT
Brian:
As I stated in my last message to you, and if you read it, get UFO
Magazine Vol 5, Numbers 4 and 5, read the two part investigation I did,
then you form your own opinion.
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rcw@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Robert White)
Subject: Bogosity in info.paranet posting rules
Date: 3 Oct 90 05:54:33 GMT
> 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.
Which presuposes, of course, that some all seing manager of fidonet (I am
on usenet) knows what is false and what is not. Who makes this
determination? I think I know why this clause is in here, but let's
set it aside for a moment and try to be rational. Can't you see that if
someone with a hidden agenda gets ahold of this newsgroup that they could
block the truth from this network? I think you should drop this clause!
If you think that's not ultimately possible, then you underestimate
intelligence agencies.
> Enforcement. Users who violate these guidelines will be advised of the
> lapse by the Echo Moderator. After three violation notices, the user is
> to be locked out of Paranet areas by the sysop. A FIRST lockout will be
> for THIRTY DAYS. A SECOND lockout will be for NINETY days. The THIRD
> lockout will be PERMANENT. Sysops who refuse to lock out troublesome
> users can be dropped from the net by the Paranet Administrator. Users
> who believe the Moderator has been unfair in requesting a lockout can
> request that their Sysop plead their case in the Sysop Echo. In such
> cases, ALL net Sysops will be asked to vote on the matter. Vote of the
> net is binding on all concerned.
Is this really an issue in the Fidonet world? Pleez... Thank God the
Constitution doesn't incorporate any such junk. I can sort through
the junky messages myself, thank you very much. God invented the R key
for a reason! The fidonet.net.gods do not have to protect me from this.
Yours truly,
--
Robert C. White, Jr. Right lane of .signature closed, merge left
The WhiteStar Corporation
rcw@scicom.alphacdc.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve.Peterson@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Peterson)
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze Six
Date: 3 Oct 90 04:25:00 GMT
Brian, the Whistleblower articles are in the latest 2 issues of
UFO Magazine. There is an 'Ask UFO Magazine' section on this net,
and they can provide more acturate info (with correct spelling<g>)
than I, or leave a message for Don Ecker, the author.... steve
--
Steve Peterson - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Steve.Peterson@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matt.Story@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Matt Story)
Subject: George Green
Date: 3 Oct 90 05:31:00 GMT
Has anyone heard of a gentlemen named George Green ?
I am Trying to establish the validity of his claims, ie., Alien
contact. He was on a radio program in an interview, and claims to
have contact with an alien race orbiting the Earth.
--
Matt Story - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Matt.Story@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f3206.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Odd Aircraft
Date: 3 Oct 90 06:47:00 GMT
Here is a possible explanation for the "triangular" UFO seen in
the southern United States, and even Hudson Valley. I feel it is
worth investigating further.
DATE OF UPLOAD: October 2, 1990
========================================================
THIS FILE WAS PREPARED BY PARANET ALPHA -- PARANET INFORMATION
SERVICE
1-714-985-0666 9600 BAUD
========================================================
ODD AIRCRAFT SPOTTED IN WEST
AT LEAST 11 SIGHTINGS NEAR EDWARDS AFB, AVIATION JOURNAL REPORTS
Associated Press Article appearing in The Sun, Tuesday, October
2, 1990.
WASHINGTON -- Several large, relatively quiet, triangular
wing-shaped aircraft of unknown origin have been spotted in the
air near Air Force Bases in California and elsewhere in the West,
Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine said Monday.
The Air Force declined to either confirm nor deny that the
sightings represented new warplanes.
The publication, reporting in this week's edition, says the
aircraft are possibly prototypes of the Air Force B-2 or Navy A-
12 aircraft.
The A-12 is a new fighter under development, of which
pictures have not been released.
The B-2 is the "stealth" bomber, which has been displayed.
The magazine said the sightings did not resemble the
production B-2 with its distinctive sawtooth wing trailing edge.
It quoted "well qualified observers" as reporting that the
aircraft are "fairly flat" and triangular shaped with a "rounded
nose, rounded wingtips and probably no vertical tail surfaces."
The observers were not other wise identified.
One observer in Nevada was quoted as saying the shape of the
aircraft was "like a manta ray."
The magazine said there have been at least 11 sightings of
the aircraft near Edwards Air Force Base in California and one
near Fresno.
It said there have been other sightings of similar aircraft
in central Nevada near ranges operated by the Air Force and the
Energy Department.
It said that typically the aircraft are seen flying a
southwest to northwest track near Edwards Air Force Base and the
China Lake Naval Weapon Center.
"This routing would suggest the aircraft are returning from
test ranges or 'work areas' off the western U.S. coast where
airline pilots have reported seeing very high-speed vehicles at
altitudes above 50,000 feet," the magazine said.
Col. Joe Purka, an air force public affairs officer, said he
could say nothing.
"I have nothing I can give you at this time," he said.
"It would take me some time to research it, even to find out
if its bogus.
"I wouldn't say they are (genuine) or whether they are not,"
he said.
"I just don't know."
=================================================================
END
ODDAIR.UFO
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f3206.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Bill English Tapes
Date: 30 Sep 90 22:40:00 GMT
On September 1st, Bill English was the featured speaker at a conference held
by the Foundation for UFO Research in Tucson.
English spoke at two sessions. At the morning session he talked about his
research into the paranormal aspects of UFOs and abductions. In the
afternoon, his talk focused on his experience at RAF Chicksands, where he
allegedly saw a top secret document called "Project Grudge Special Report
13", and on subsequent events in his life. Among other things, English claims
to have had 15 attempts made on his life, and was eventually driven
"underground." Only recently emerged from years of hiding, this was his first
public presentation, and it was quite riveting.
In addition to taping both sessions, Shining Star Productions was granted an
exclusive interview with English the previous evening. Both the interview
(which lasts 45 minutes or so) and the presentations are available on
videotape (the audiotapes are also available, but minus the interview), at a
special discount to ParaNet members.
Videotape 1, morning session + interview: $24.95
Videotape 2, afternoon session: $24.95
Order both for only $39.95
Audiotape 1, morning session: $8.00
Audiotape 2, afternoon session: $8.00
Order both for only $13.50
Honesty Time: William S. English is a participant in the revenues from this
tape offer. However, it should be noted that he contractually abdicated any
creative or editorial control over the contents of the interview in advance,
even when we advised him that the questions would be direct and would address
critical points of contention in his testimony. Furthermore, he agreed to
allow Shining Star to present the results of any future investigations into
his story in future offerings.
_________________________ORDER FORM___________________________________________
Shining Star Productions
7820 E. Evans Dr #900
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
PLEASE SEND ME THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
Videotapes: QTY. EACH TOTAL
Bill English, AM Session + Interview _______ $24.95 ___________
Bill English, PM Session _______ $24.95 ___________
Both of the Above _______ $39.95 ___________
Audiotapes:
Bill English, AM Session _______ $8.00 ___________
Bill English, PM Session _______ $8.00 ___________
Both of the above _______ $13.50 ___________
Subtotal ___________
AZ Residents Only: 6.7% Sales Tax ___________
Shipping/Handling: $3.00 (videos) $1.00 (audios) ___________
Please send check or money order in the amount of: ___________
Your name:______________________________________________________
Address:______________________________________________________
City:________________________ State:_____ Zip:_____________
Phone:________________________ Format: VHS_______ BETA______
Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery of videos, 1 week on audios.
Dealer inquiries invited.
For background, see GRUDGE.DOC, ENGLISH.DOC on ParaNet.
--
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: Wheat Field Patterns
Date: 30 Sep 90 22:47:00 GMT
> Does anyone know of a source that can be contacted to obtain still
> photographs of this phenomena?
Yes, as a matter of fact I do, Jerry. I will post the address in a future
message, but there's an outfit in England known as "Spirit of Avalon" that has
a great many of the stills, and even some negatives I believe.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Schuster@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Schuster)
Subject: Bentwaters, England
Date: 1 Oct 90 12:16:00 GMT
Hi Jim.
Been meaning to ask you if you have any information at all on
the Bentwaters (England) case of ... around 1982. Got a guy
here at Unisys that was at Chicksands RAF (worked in radio
maintenance at the time) and he tells me that they had
numerous sightings there for about a week at about the same
time. Just wondering if there is any correlation between the two.
Best regards,
... don s ...
--
Don Schuster - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Schuster@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: designs
Date: 1 Oct 90 16:17:00 GMT
> > Wai-wai-wai-WAIT a second, the desert? What desert? What kind of
> > design? What'd I miss?
>
> An enourmous Hindu symbol was found in a dry lake bed in Oregon. You
> already know the rest, right?
>
> jbh
Yeah, now I got the story, thanks John.
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: Re: GB model
Date: 1 Oct 90 16:21:00 GMT
> The model's a pretty good match for Ed's drawings, but the photos
> appear to show an object of somewhat greater vertical height.
Which could be a simple artifact of viewing angle, lighting, etc. If that's
the major difference that caused people like Don Ware to say that they
"instantly knew" the model was bogus, I would have to take exception.
>
> > Also, you must know by now that the plans
> > Ed claimed were done after the model was made, were actually
> > found in the City Hall records and dated to a time BEFORE the
> > first photo encounters. Unless there has been some kind of
> > response to that charge?
>
> I've heard just little bits and pieces about that. Not enough to
> really form an opinion yet. Do you know who found them?
Mayor Ed Gray, I believe.
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: Bentwaters, England
Date: 1 Oct 90 16:27:00 GMT
> Hi Jim.
> Been meaning to ask you if you have any information at all on
> the Bentwaters (England) case of ... around 1982. Got a guy
> here at Unisys that was at Chicksands RAF (worked in radio
> maintenance at the time) and he tells me that they had
> numerous sightings there for about a week at about the same
> time. Just wondering if there is any correlation between the two.
> Best regards,
> ... don s ...
Yes, Don, I have some information on that occurence. I am aware that several
stations were reporting anomalous radar contacts up to a week before the
Bentwaters "landing" episode.
Would you be willing to send me the name of your contact via private mail? We
are working on something on this end that he just might be interested in
participating in.
Thanks,
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: CSCICOP on Circles
Date: 1 Oct 90 17:20:00 GMT
Spoke to Barry Karr today, the Executive Director of CSICOP. Barry claims to
have been misquoted in the recent AP story on the crop circles. Karr was
quoted as saying that "some circles found elsewhere [besides England] have
proven to be the doings of mischievous farmers or neighbors who would rather
propagate stories than irrigate crops." When questioned about this quote,
Barry said he never mentioned farmers, and doesn't have any real idea who
might be creating the circles. He said he knows of a couple of hoaxes in
England, involving Ouija boards, crosses, etc., but that's about it. He said
he strongly suspects that the phenomenon is the result of a hoax, but so far,
there is very little information to go on. Karr says that the British CSICOP
team has been working on the problem, but that they may have to wait until
next spring, since the circles seem to stop in the later months of the year.
Karr says he finds the meteorological explanation - "plasma vortices" - to be
highly dubious, since it would have been an ancient and well-known phenomenon
by now and hence would have been explained a long time ago.
The bottom line seems to be that CSICOP is as much in the dark on this one as
everyone else.
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: CROP CIRCLES
Date: 1 Oct 90 20:49:00 GMT
The tracks I saw in the photos in the paper were very narrow and there
was only one track. Looked like what would be made by people walking
in a straight line directly out from the circle. Couldn't tell where
it lead to; photo didn't show far enough out.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Schuster@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Schuster)
Subject: Re: Bentwaters, England
Date: 2 Oct 90 13:39:00 GMT
No problem, Jim. I'll get some details of his experience for you....
In addition, he has some 'REAL' names of other that experienced the
incident. Should have some details for you tomorrow. Regards,
... don s ...
--
Don Schuster - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Schuster@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: KECKSBURG INCIDENT
Date: 2 Oct 90 22:45:00 GMT
>>>...irrefutable proof of what we believe in.....
I generally agree with what you posted but another part of the problem
is that there is no coherent "what" as far as "what we believe in".
Some believe in UFO's being piloted by ET's, others believe only that
UFO's are material objects but don't venture who or what, if anything,
may be responsible for them. Others don't think UFO's are material
objects but that they are from some other dimension. Other's beleive
that they are from the center of the earth. Others believe that they
are the outcome of a Nazi WWII project and are man-made by some hidden
band of WWII hidouts. Others subscribe to the belief that there is a
reality to the reported abductions by ET in UFO's. Other's beleive
that the abductions are only mental having no real physical reality.
And I've just touched on a few of the varieties of belief that relate
to the UFO question. Is it any wonder that there is no proof when
there isn't even any agree upon hypothesis of what it is we are looking
for proof of. Is it any wonder that it is difficult for ANY ufologist
to be taken seriously when the field is permeated by charlatans that
are little different then Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, plus no end of
self-appointed experts and investigators, each at the others throats
for various heresies against the party line.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul.Faeder@p0.f0.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Faeder)
Subject: Re: KECKSBURG INCIDENT
Date: 2 Oct 90 03:43:57 GMT
In a message of <30 Sep 90 03:52:17>, Allen Roberts (1:109/134) writes:
>You said that Ufology needs a bandwagon. I think that Ufology simply
>needs some irrefutable proof of what we believe in. Our beliefs are
>supported by evidence we can't produce (i.e. classified documents) and
>other data that can be explained away.
I have some documents obtained under FOIA that tell of flying objects that
perform in ways that are uncharacteristic of conventional craft. And there are
photos that have been confirmed as "probably not hoaxed". So we do have this
evidence which only proves that something unknown exists. But this alone
doesn't seem to be enough to warrant an investigation.
If a person like yourself begins to study the UFO phenomena, you begin to ask
some questions like 'what are they' and 'what are we doing about it' and 'why
doesn't this get the press coverage it deserves'. The problem is that there
doesn't seem to be *enough* people asking these questions so consequently,
nothing is done. There are no squeaky wheels to oil.
If we could focus on a single issue or aspect, we may be able to rally enough
people to start "squeaking". Perhaps the issue to focus on is the Govt. not
releasing information (people's right to know) or the Govt's lack of concern in
doing something. If we could force either issue and we're lucky, the Govt.
would release information. This would heighten public awareness and we might
see the study of UFO's become 'respectable' in it's own right.
Of course a saucer crashing near a densely populated area with a few hundred
witnesses wouldn't hurt either :-) but until that happens, how do we heighten
awareness on a large scale?
--
Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f0.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: KECKSBURG INCIDENT
Date: 2 Oct 90 04:54:01 GMT
> You said that Ufology needs a bandwagon. I think that Ufology
> simply needs some irrefutable proof of what we believe in. Our
The problems is, just about everything can be explained away.
We have lots of clear pictures that haven't logically been explained.
No news media at a crash site yet, but that'll probably happen
someday, and, as far as the general public is concerned, will be
explanined away.
I think what it would take would be for a fleet to land and stay.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f20.n1011.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Re: Kecksburg Incident
Date: 2 Oct 90 07:05:00 GMT
re: >> I say that we disclaim the jerks ...
Mike:
It should be obvious to anyone involved in BBSing that the
"quality" of a net such as this (i.e. whether its message base is worth
reading through and whether it has anything significant to contribute
to the body of knowledge being discussed) is going to be measured by
the content of the messages themselves. Accordingly, if this system
gets saturated with a significant number of messages to the effect of:
>I channelled the Space Brothers last night and they told me how to
>save the world ...
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.
Whaddaya' think? -- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f20.n1011.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: BERMUDA TRIANGLE,ETC
Date: 1 Oct 90 17:04:30 GMT
I agree John, what I guess I should have said is that in my opinion there is
nothing unusual about the area beyond the natural events that occur there.
Strong currents in parts, sudden violent storms, and the obvious fact that
it's hard to find things lost at sea in the first place.
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: keith@pecan.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks)
Subject: Puharich
Date: 3 Oct 90 18:53:30 GMT
Jim,
I am very interested to hear what it is you have against Puharich.
You implied in your posting that I am quite naive in mentioning
the name Puharich and the words ``reputable'', and ``scholarly''
in the same posting. You also imply that Puharich is neither
reputable or scholarly. And, by quoting the references to the
authors of the chapters within the book of which Puharich was the
editor as the object of your snide comment, you have also called into
question the scholarliness and reputability of these other authors.
I currently have no information about why Puharich is not both
reputable and scholarly. You have implied that you have information
about Puharich that leads you to believe that he is not reputable or
scholarly. Please post that information or references to that information.
-keith
--
Keith Fredericks, Cray Research Inc., 655F Lone Oak Dr., Eagan, MN 55121
keith@cray.com (612)683-5489
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: keith@pecan.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks)
Subject: Pessimism and Optimism
Date: 4 Oct 90 17:15:33 GMT
It seems so often that when I am getting interested in posting stuff
and participating in Paranet, I make a post and then get a response
that makes me take about 4 or 5 steps backward. I don't like that.
I like to keep moving forward. And I am quick to shed ballast.
You may have seen in some of my posts before my ideas about
skeptics and how they are holding back science. Remember that
what we call healthy skepticism is implied in good science. I say
that we do not need self-appointed skeptic swat teams or anything like
that. Being a good researcher I can discern for myself which research
is worthwhile and which research is not well-founded. I make mistakes
like anyone else.
When there is a higher authority, vigilante justice is out of line,
being prone, as we all know, to the lynch mob mentality.
Originally I was interested in getting the discussion going about
remote viewing and its relevance to the UFO question. I find this
topic fascinating and probably a great avenue of research. I
generously offered to Paranet the landmark references on the subject
of remote viewing. These references were then called into question
because of something that The Amazing Randi and/or Marvin Gardens
once called into question.
The higher authority in this situation is what we refer to as ``normal
science.'' What happens in normal science is a system is set up that
is called ``peer review.'' When a discovery or new innovation is made
and the researcher wants to share the information with the rest of the
scientific community, the researcher submits his or her article to a
scientific publication so that it might be reviewed by ``experts
in the field.'' A quick way to find out the state of the art in a
particular field is to do a ``literature search.'' This gives a
good idea of the published work in the field.
In my previous postings on this subject, I represented the references
(and the references therin) that I posted as the ``scholarly work'' done
on the subject. That is, scientists that chose to contribute to the
database of existing knowledge on the subject. And, by the way,
the academic credentials of these authors are second to none.
After becoming quite familiar with this material, I made the statement:
``The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a conclusion that remote
viewing is a real effect observed many times by reputable scientists
under proper experimental protocols.''
There are no so called refutations of this scholarly
work in that same database of existing knowledge on the subject, i.e.
in refereed scientific journals!
But I'm sure that Delton and Speiser and our peanut gallery of skeptics
would chime-in and say: Hey, wait a minute! The Amazing Randi and
Marvin Gardens said in the Skeptical Inquirerer and books that the
remote viewing work was no good. Well, maybe, just to be thorough,
we should take a look at these claims.
I don't think anyone has done this with remote viewing yet. But to see
how its done, take a look at:
D. I. Radin and R. D. Nelson, Found Phys. 19, 1499 (1989)
Which shows that the skeptics have done a lot of yammering about
experiments in psychokinesis, but have little or no refereed publications
to back it up.
In these matters, the skeptical attitudes that I have observed are becoming
more and more reminiscent of the ``flat-earth society'' type of clinging-
to-dogma.
Jim Speiser writes:
+ But to take such 'snide comments' as personal attacks on yourself is a bit
+thin-skinned, and the paranormal is no place for the thin of skin. Its a
jungle out there, Keith!
Gee, thanks for the warning.
The pessimistic among us will often focus on the ``limitations''
(your forboding jungle) losing sight of the ``limitlessness''
(my wonderful garden).
Walking on eggshells is not congruent with any great works that I know of.
+The field of anomalistics is a hall of mirrors with a quicksand floor, and we
+have to be ready to take some flack and stay standing, or we'll sink fast.
Check out this pessimistic attitude! How many scientists are you willing
to sacrifice for one scientific innovation? And you are making it sound
so complex. I don't buy your fear-dogma.
And that is not the way to look at it.
It is really hard to get it through people's heads, but:
(the lights dim, the opening few bars of Dragnet are heard,
and then you hear Jack Webb's familiar monotone...)
This is a scientific investigation. The field of investigation is physics.
(cut back to Paranet...)
So, maybe, in the not too distant future, I can get back to the original
object and post my individual experiences with remote viewing experiments
and we can get a real discussion going in the tradition of real discussions.
I am optimistic that this is the case.
-keith
--
Keith Fredericks, Cray Research Inc., 655F Lone Oak Dr., Eagan, MN 55121
keith@cray.com (612)683-5489
********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************************
