Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 297
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 297
Tuesday, September 4th 1990
Today's Topics:
Betz comment
Re: UFO'S; BERMUDA TRIANGLE
Re: Betz Comment
Mystery Teletype
Re: Mystery Teletype
New Stealth Aircraft
Klass/MJ-12 controversy on Usenet
(none)
One nit to pick with NIGHT SIEGE's author...
Wheatfield Circles, Phase II?
Mystery Teletype
Re: Scott Rogo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 'PAUL CARR, MISSION DESIGN, FAX: 609 490 3142' <CARR@astro.dnet.ge.com>
Subject: Betz comment
Date: 31 Aug 90 17:18:39 GMT
IT was stated in a previous message that Imbrogno's identification of
the O-2 as a single engine plane was in error. Does this mean that
Imbrogno's experts incorrectly identified the plane, or simply that
he didn't know it was a two-engine aircraft? If mistakenly identified,
then it seems to me there is no evidence of a coverup. IT seems to
me that the photgraphs taken would not easily reveal whether the planes
had one engine or two, especially if they are inline on the fuselage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robin.Gober@p0.f701.n362.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Robin Gober)
Subject: Re: UFO'S; BERMUDA TRIANGLE
Date: 26 Aug 90 10:48:49 GMT
Tina HI! i read both of Striebers books,Communion and Tnasformation.
I started reading Communion soon after I started to remember my own
contact events. *I* liked them a lot of other people have a hard time
with them. I also saw the video "Communion" which is sort of like
the book only Strieber added somethings he didn't feel right about
putting in the book. I can say he had the sounds of the ET's down
right and there were parts of the video type that were alot like somne
of my own stuff. I thought it was very good.
About Bermuda i don't know why no one talks about it any more.
I am sure there are still stories down there. I think maybe with the
sucess of Hopkins books and Striebers books maybe everybody thought
it was time to switch to UFO stuff.
I think this may be a mistake becasue I am sure there are
some really good stories waiting to be told about the Triangle and
who ever writes the next big one will get a good share of the market.
Good typing to you Tina,I hope to type to you again sometime.
--
Robin Gober - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Robin.Gober@p0.f701.n362.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Clark.Matthews@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews)
Subject: Re: Betz Comment
Date: 2 Sep 90 02:24:00 GMT
> Imbrobno's identification of
> the O-2 as a single engine plane was in error. Does this
> mean that
> Imbrogno's experts incorrectly identified the plane, or
> simply that
> he didn't know it was a two-engine aircraft?
You're right to bring this up, Paul. The O-2, despite its twin-engine
design, does look quite a bit like a single-engine aircraft. If observed at
night, I wouldn't be at all surprised for an observer to miss the pusher
engine entirely.
Someone was caviling about the Imbrogno files due to the faulty aircraft
recognition on the O-2, and I think that's rather silly.
BTW, in the context of the Hudson Valley sightings and Blum's new book, "Out
There", is anyone picking up on the familiar bells that Out There is
ringing? The CIA involvement despite the CIA's charter (OH! and by the
way, did anyone pick up on the note in the book that Ronald Reagan, by
Executive Order, permitted CIA to resume DOMESTIC OPERATIONS?! I don't
remember any coverage of that. I also don't remember any Congressional
vote.)
Anyway, back to Out There: the familiar "bells" I'm hearing as I read the
book: Involvement of sites belonging to the DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Hud
Valley buffs, take note); use of NASA credential as cover for spooks and
other "contractors" (Fyffe inhabitants, take note).
I'm scared by what I'm reading, folks. Do you suppose the aliens will come
and save us from our own CIVIL SERVANTS? Let's not count on it.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Mystery Teletype
Date: 1 Sep 90 19:37:00 GMT
Rex S. told me that many similar messages were received by news
organizations in the area, and the Army.
My best guess is that some folks are coming out of the woodwork. ;-)
At any rate, I think the Army just wanted to get rid of the Six and get it
over with before it became a huge media event. A year from now, a mention of
the GB6 will probably get you a "who?"
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Clark.Matthews@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 3 Sep 90 03:58:00 GMT
> Rex S. told me that many similar messages were received
> by news organizations in the area, and the Army.
Including the pictures? What did the pictures show/not show, does anyone
know?
> My best guess is that some folks are coming out of the
> woodwork. ;-)
But the problem is -- to my way of thinking, at least -- it is a long way
from the "woodwork" to cutting in on a teletype. An awful long way.
In fact, I'm impressed at the ability of these people *TO* cut in on a
teletype. Are you sure that some UPI (or AP -- I forget) subscriber
didn't pick up on their message and enter it? If so, the origin would be
obvious.
But if the origin is *not* obvious, we're talking about a superior piece of
"cracking"/phreaking here, folks. I'm impressed, anyway.
> At any rate, I think the Army just wanted to get rid of
> the Six and get it over with before it became a huge media
> event.
That's obvious. Unfortunately, the Army only acts that way when it's got
something big to hide. Like Mai Lai.
> A year from now, a mention of the GB6 will probably
> get you a "who?"
Well, Jim, I think that some pretty important people clearly share your
expectation. I think it behooves us not to forget quite yet.
Has anyone tracked any of the GB 6 down & talked to them?
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roger Black <rblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Subject: New Stealth Aircraft
Date: 4 Sep 90 07:21:14 GMT
There has been an interesting discussion in 'sci.skeptic' on Usenet about
the latest stealth aircraft. Here are some (heavily edited) extracts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: skywalker@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Date: 25 Aug 90 23:20:30 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
I just saw a picture of a experimental U.S. fighter that has been
under development for quite a few years. It is a delta wing type
jet, almost a perfect triangle but with strange stealth style shape.
I was thinking if you put running lights on this thing it would
be the answer to some UFO sightings in the recent past. Many UFO sightings
have been described as a triangle of lights in the sky. Hummmmm
As a 9 year old I saw a bizzare shaped aircraft in a hanger at Ellington AFB
here in Houston with U.S.A.F. markings on it. I only saw it through a window
but it was like no aircraft I have ever seen, then or to this date.
Seeing the new U.S. fighter really made me wonder what the U.S. forces
have that we may never see, or if we do see them then arent they UFOS
to us.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy B. Reynolds : VAX Systems Manager
Howard Hughes Medical Institute : Structural Biology Laboratory
Baylor College of Medicine : Houston, Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: skywalker@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 27 Aug 90 21:10:24 GMT
In article <14936@shlump.nac.dec.com> cook@vcsesu.enet.dec.com (Peter R. Cook)
writes:
+
+ It's probably the F117A, otherwise known as the Stealth fighter.
+ There's two squadrons of them in Saudi Arabia even as we speak.
Thats my point it was nothing like a F-117. My father was a military
pilot for 10 years, so I am very up to date on the current military flight
systems. Let me stress 'this thing was very strange'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cej@ll1a.ATT.COM (C. E. T. L. Jones)
Date: 31 Aug 90 01:04:46 GMT
Organization: AT&T, Columbus, Ohio.
I believe what you saw was the new A-20. Just revealed to the
public and much newer than the F-117 'Wobbly Goblin' (redesignated as
the F-17, BTW) or the B-2 stealth bomber. 'A silver/grey triangle or
boomerang' would be a good description of the picture I saw. And it's
not really a fighter, but a 'ground-attack' aircraft - but that's
almost the same thing.
Charles Evan Thomas Llewellyn Jones
...att!ccsitn!cej [Just me, not AT&T] cej@ccsitn.att.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: skywalker@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Date: 31 Aug 90 18:20:43 GMT
In article <2143@bambam.UUCP>pashdown@shotput.es.com@bambam.UUCP (Pete Ashdown)
writes:
+Or was it possibly a flying Weiner Car? Or maybe a big round silver disk
+with a green plastic alien waving from the top?
+
+You left a very big hole in your post. 'I saw this THING!!! This incredibly
+weird THING!!!!'
Ok what I saw was a flying wing type aircraft with a 30 foot wingspan
about 4 1/2 to 5 feet thick in the center, no visable cockpit no verticle
stabalizer, greyish white in color sitting on a tri-gear with USAF
markings on the top. Also two square slits cut in the front I would
guess were air intakes. My point was if you put lights on the leading
edge you would have the 'triangle of lights' alot of people report
with UFO sightings...It was not a stealth fighter or bomber...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Date: 1 Sep 90 00:31:51 GMT
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Maybe the F-23. Just flew on Monday for the first time. Wierd
plane--too long for its width and really angular. Doesn't look
any thing like anything else currently flying.
--
Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roger Black <rblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Subject: Klass/MJ-12 controversy on Usenet
Date: 4 Sep 90 07:22:09 GMT
In a previous ParaNet Newsletter, I forwarded a posting by Phil Klass
on the 'sci.skeptic' newsgroup on Usenet which had been provoked by
a quote I gave from John Burke.
Here is the response I posted to Powell/Klass:
***********************************************************************
In article <1990Aug14.001430.15943@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca>,
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell) writes:
+
+ I faxed this article to Philip Klass this morning (Mon Aug 13) for his
+ comments, and received the reply below by fax.
Wow, I'm famous. Phil Klass has seen my name! I hope this doesn't use up my
whole 15 minutes ... :)
+ If Roger Black correctly quotes John Burke in ParaNet Newsletter #266,
+ then Burke is in error in stating that my claim the MJ-12 'Truman
+ letter' of 9/24/47 is a forgery has been successfully rebutted by
+ Stanton Friedman and that he won $1,000 in the process.
+
[reiteration of Truman Letter stuff omitted]
+
+ The $1,000 that I did pay Friedman was in connection with the
+ typeface of another MJ-12 letter, allegedly written by Robert Cutler
+ to Gen. Nathan Twining on July 14, 1954, which Friedman's MJ-12
+ partners--William L. Moore and Jaime Shandera--claim they found in the
+ National Archives. Friedman did supply evidence to show that the Pica
+ typeface used in this Cutler-Twining memo can be found in other Cutler
+ letters.
So apparently Burke (or somebody) got the Truman letter confused with the
Cutler memo. An important point for getting the record straight, which I
appreciate. The main thrust, of course, remains--at least one of Klass's
assertions about MJ-12 has been disproven. Which only demonstrates that he
is fallible, as he himself admits later; but it's nice to have the proof!
[lots of detail omitted, here and elsewhere below--the original article is too
long to repost the whole thing]
+ The person who typed the MJ-12 Hillenkoetter briefing document used
+ a very unusual style/format for writing the date. Civil style for
+ writing today's date is: August 13, 1990. The military format is:
+ 13 August 1990. The person who typed the MJ-12 Hillenkoetter document
+ consistently used the military format with a superfluous comma. For
+ example: 18 November, 1952. Another example: 24 June, 1947.
...
+ On Nov. 10, 1987, I made the following financial challenge to
+ Friedman, which could have brought him many thousands of dollars if I
+ was wrong:
+ I agreed to pay Friedman:
+
+ (A) $500 for a photocopy of each (different) authentic (as defined
+ below) 'official-business' letter written by Adm. R.H. Hillenkoetter
+ prior to Nov. 18, 1952 [date of the MJ-12 document] which uses the
+ 'Moore/MJ-12' format for writing a date with an "unnecessary comma,"
+ i.e. '24 January, 1947.'
[bigger and better prizes omitted]
+ The above offer is conditional on Friedman agreeing to pay Klass
+ according to the following schedule:
+ (A) $100 for a photocopy of each and every different authentic (as
+ defined below) 'official business' letter written by Adm. R.H.
+ Hillenkoetter prior to Nov. 18, 1952, which uses the traditional civil
+ or military date format, i.e. 'January 24, 1947,' or "24 January 1947"
+ with NO 'unnecessary comma.'
[bigger and better prizes omitted]
+ FRIEDMAN FLATLY REFUSED TO ACCEPT MY GENEROUS OFFER, CALLING IT
+ 'STUPID, TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE.'
Of course he refused. Anybody in his right mind would. But that has no
bearing on the issue at hand.
Nobody is disputing that the 'unnecessary comma' format was used rarely at
best. This means that even if Friedman is able to find a legitimate example
of its use (and all he needs is ONE to prove his case, if I understand the
argument correctly), he most likely won't find very many. On the other hand,
it won't be very hard to find examples using the 'traditional format' precisely
because it is traditional. Friedman would have to be an idiot to accept such
an offer, since even if he is correct on the factual issue (i.e., whether
Hillenkoetter ever used the non-traditional format) he could be bankrupted by a
blizzard of other documents using the more common format. Klass' challenge
shifts the ground of the argument from whether Hillenkoetter *ever* used the
MJ-12 date format to whether he *usually* used it. Not the same issue at all.
I have forwarded Klass' statement to the ParaNet Newsletter so that it can
(hopefully) become part of the permanent record. My thanks to Ted Powell
for his efforts to further the discussion. It's a pity Mr. Klass is not on
the net so he can reply directly. Or is he? Anybody know his email address?
******************************************************************************
And here is Powell's defense of Klass:
******************************************************************************
In article <2118@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> rblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu (Roger Black) writes:
+In article <1990Aug14.001430.15943@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca>,
+ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell) writes:
+> I faxed this article to Philip Klass this morning (Mon Aug 13) for his
+> comments, and received the reply below by fax.
+ ...
+> If Roger Black correctly quotes John Burke in ParaNet Newsletter #266,
+> [--Klass' rebuttal of Burke's claims re Truman letter--]
+> [--Klass' explanation of the $1000 to Friedman (unrelated to Truman memo)--]
+
+So apparently Burke (or somebody) got the Truman letter confused with the
+Cutler memo.
Could be. After all, there is independent evidence that the Cutler
letter is bogus, so the $1000 story wouldn't carry much weight if
(correctly) associated with this letter.
+ An important point for getting the record straight, which I
+appreciate. The main thrust, of course, remains--at least one of Klass's
+assertions about MJ-12 has been disproven.
Not really. As noted in Klass' statement, he finds financial challenges
to Friedman to be a cost-effective means of investigation. The fact that
this particular one did not pay off for Klass hardly disproves his
assertion that the Cutler memo is a fake. (For a summary of evidence
supporting this assertion, see my posting of Klass' statement.)
+ Which only demonstrates that he
+is fallible, as he himself admits later; but it's nice to have the proof!
Unfair. The phrasing implies that Klass has somehow shifted ground on
this point. What he _actually_ said was: 'In closing, I have never
claimed to be infallible. When I err, I promptly admit same. Friedman
prefers to sweep his errors under the rug.' No need to 'have the proof!"
as suggested here; it's been his position all along.
+[lots of detail omitted, here and elsewhere below--the original article is too
+ long to repost the whole thing]
+
+> The person who typed the MJ-12 Hillenkoetter briefing document used
+> a very unusual style/format for writing the date. Civil style for
+> writing today's date is: August 13, 1990. The military format is:
+> 13 August 1990. The person who typed the MJ-12 Hillenkoetter document
+> consistently used the military format with a superfluous comma. For
+> example: 18 November, 1952. Another example: 24 June, 1947.
+...
+> On Nov. 10, 1987, I made the following financial challenge to
+> Friedman, which could have brought him many thousands of dollars if I
+> was wrong:
+
+> I agreed to pay Friedman:
+> [--scale of payments for copies of authentic letters from
+> Hillenkoetter bearing one or more of the anomalous characteristics
+> of the MJ-12 document--]
+>
+> The above offer is conditional on Friedman agreeing to pay Klass
+> according to the following schedule:
+> [--scale of payments one-fifth the size of those above for copies of
+> authentic letters from Hillenkoetter containing unrealized
+> opportunities for those same anomalies (see my posting of Klass'
+> statement for details)--]
+>
+> FRIEDMAN FLATLY REFUSED TO ACCEPT MY GENEROUS OFFER, CALLING IT
+> 'STUPID, TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE.'
+
+Of course he refused. Anybody in his right mind would. But that has no
+bearing on the issue at hand.
Well, let's think about that a little more carefully, in the light of
Klass' statement about using 'financial challenges' to uncover
information. Since, according to both John Burke and Roger Black,
Friedman accepted $1000 from Klass in connection with the Cutler
letter, it's true, and indeed a matter of public record, that Friedman
does not reject any and all such challenges out of hand.
Now the two scales of payments proposed by Klass favored Friedman by
five to one, in terms of dollars per letter of each type. I'm unwilling
to believe that this would have escaped Friedman's notice. Therefore,
Friedman would have had an incentive to spend some time checking into
the question of how often Hillenkoetter's letters had dates in the
unsual style of William L. Moore (original publiciser of the MJ-12
papers), and how often they had the unusual representation of his name
and rank.
Friedman's remarks about stupidity and inappropriateness
notwithstanding, I'm inclined to believe that if he had found that more
than 17% of the applicable Hillenkoetter letters exhibited the
anomalies, he would have chosen to collect from Klass in as public a
fashion as possible. The fact that he has declined to do so is, to me, a
clear indication that the proportion of anomalous letters is less than
17%. Not only that, but it is apparently clear to Roger Black too,
because he says that 'Of course he refused. Anybody in his right mind
would.' which only makes sense if the writer believes the proportion to
be less than 17%.
+Nobody is disputing that the 'unnecessary comma' format was used rarely at
+best.
I'm not quite sure what is meant here. Have the major players publicly
conceded this? Does this in any way preclude somebody doing an archive
search at a later time and finding more? The accomplishment of Klass'
challenge, it seems to me, is that he has given Friedman a monetary
incentive (which, demonstrably, he is not immune to) to conduct such a
search and publicize any positive results.
Whether Friedman actually conducted a search, I have no idea. If
he sincerely believes that the Hillenkoetter document is genuine, it
would make sense for him to conduct the search, because if Hillenkoetter
used the funny format once then it's likely he used it more than once,
possibly even enough times to earn a bundle of Klass' money. Clearly
Friedman is not averse to such a thing, as shown by the Cutler-Twining
case.
If, on the other hand, he did not even _attempt_ a search, this
would strongly suggest his belief that it wouldn't do him any good.
+This means that even if Friedman is able to find a legitimate example
+of its use (and all he needs is ONE to prove his case, if I understand the
+argument correctly), he most likely won't find very many.
Ooops. I thought the position was that Friedman already _has_ 'a
legitimate example of its use', namely the briefing document, and wants
to have TWO. Assuming that's what the writer really meant to say, what
then? For me, the idea that out of the many documents that Hillenkoetter
has produced, just two have the anomalous format, is not much more
plausible than one.
In any case, now that Klass can be reasonably confident that the
proportion of 'anomalous' documents is fairly small, he can up the ante
knowing that there's a ceiling on his potential expense. (I've no idea
whether he intends to do so.)
+[--more commentary illustrating Black's belief that the proportion is
less than 17% --]
+Klass' challenge
+shifts the ground of the argument from whether Hillenkoetter *ever* used the
+MJ-12 date format to whether he *usually* used it. Not the same issue at all.
How about 'from ... *ever* ... to ... *occasionally*'? I think that
'*usually*' would be more appropriately tested by payment scales that
were equal, rather than having a 5:1 per-letter bias in favor of
Friedman.
I believe that the challenge was a reasonable first step. If the
Hillenkoetter document (and of course I'm using 'Hillenkoetter' in the
sense of identification, rather than authorship) were really authored by
Hillenkoetter, there would likely be a whole lot more with the same
anomalous usages. Considering this possiblilty, it would hardly be
prudent to weigh the scales more heavily in Friedman's favor than was
actually done.
+I have forwarded Klass' statement to the ParaNet Newsletter so that it can
+(hopefully) become part of the permanent record. My thanks to Ted Powell
+for his efforts to further the discussion. It's a pity Mr. Klass is not on
+the net so he can reply directly. Or is he? Anybody know his email address?
I don't believe he's on the net. I gather that usage of his bandwidth is
already fairly high, and there are disincentives to being more
publically accessible, such as:
+Wow, I'm famous. Phil Klass has seen my name! I hope this doesn't use up my
+whole 15 minutes ... :)
Unquoted material above is my own commentary, and has not yet been seen
by Phil Klass. I'll be sending hard copy of the previous posting and
this response to him, however.
--
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca ...!ubc-cs!van-bc!eslvcr!ted (Ted Powell)
***********************************************************************
End of quoted material from Usenet. I'm sorry this is so long, but
these guys are a bit long-winded, and I hesitate to do any editing
for fear of being accused of altering the record. I've been told that
it's all right to forward this stuff, so I guess I'll keep doing so
until someone here tells me otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: (none)
Date: 31 Aug 90 13:50:00 GMT
>
> Has anyone out there heard anything new on the strange patterns being
> created in the wheat fields of England? The local news in Detroit had
> a segments that researchers were spending a month there, but I haven't
> heard anything in the past few weeks.
There have been some startling new developments. I will cross-post a message I
left in ParaNet General that deals with this issue. Standby.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: One nit to pick with NIGHT SIEGE's author...
Date: 31 Aug 90 13:55:00 GMT
> This is half right -- the O-2 is the military version of the
> Cessna 337 Skymaster, which any aviation buff will tell you has
> +two< engines, mounted inline on the fuselage, one pushing, and
> one pulling. It is this feature, along with its twin tail booms,
> that gives the plane its distinctive appearance.
>
> It is also true that this airplane is favored by the CIA. Also
> by our clients in South and Central America... it's great for
> strafing small villages.
>
> I'm still digesting the rest of this file, but I was saddened to
> see this obvious error.
Tom:
It was probably due to carelessness in writing. Phil *knows* its a push-pull
configuration, because that's how he described it to me three years ago. And
I'm quite sure he describes it as such in other tracts, which he can always
point to if the debunkers get outta line.
By the way, on a completely different topic, some people out here are looking
for information on Benjamin Creme and the Matreya. Do you know of any sources
of written info on them?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Wheatfield Circles, Phase II?
Date: 30 Aug 90 03:09:00 GMT
(Forwarded from ParaNet General)
A stunning new development in the mystery of the English wheatfield circles
has come to our attention.
Today I had the privilege of viewing aerial photos shot less than three weeks
ago, of anomalous depressions in wheatfields in the Wessex area of England.
The familiar circles are there, BUT ARE NEARLY DWARFED BY INTRICATE PATTERNS
OF DEPRESSION THAT SURROUND THEM. These patterns are not the Celtic Cross, or
any other variation on the circular theme. They are intricate designs such as
a candelabra shape, a series of wide arcs centered on one of the circles, a
couple of shapes that look like "flags" that are "planted" on the outside of
the circles, symmetrical diagonal lines, and others too numerous to mention.
The most disquieting thing about these new patterns is that they are
strikingly familiar. The first thing that popped into my mind upon viewing
them was the lines at the plains of Nazca in Peru. The resemblance is so
close, in fact, that I would say it is intentional, whether it was done by
hoaxers or some other "intelligence."
According to the gents who showed me the photos, the new patterns exhibit the
same oddities as the circles: the stalks are flattened without breaking, yet
the grain survives and grows; the patterns emerge overnight; they are almost
perfectly symmetrical; and no one has yet been spotted trampling the fields.
Furthermore, the scale of the patterns is an order of magnitude larger than
before. Whereas the circles averaged about 30 - 50 feet in diameter, several
of these new patterns are the size of a football field.
I was told today that more news on these latest developments in the mystery
will be forthcoming. Whatever is happening, two things are clear. First,
Terence Meaden's "plasma vortex" theory is shot to hell. And second, this
phenomenon is obviously entering a new phase, one which makes the whole thing
appear to be some form of....communication.
I will have more in the near future. Stay tuned.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Orchard@p1.f502.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Orchard)
Subject: Mystery Teletype
Date: 3 Sep 90 07:01:59 GMT
In a message to John Hicks <02 Sep 90 20:58:00> Clark Matthews wrote:
>> Rex S. told me that many similar messages were received
>> by news organizations in the area, and the Army.
CM> But the problem is -- to my way of thinking, at least -- it is a
CM> long way from the "woodwork" to cutting
CM> in on a teletype. An awful long way.
CM> In fact, I'm impressed at the ability of these people *TO* cut in on
CM> a teletype. Are you sure that some UPI (or AP -- I forget)
CM> subscriber didn't pick up on their message and enter it? If so, the
CM> origin would be obvious.
CM> But if the origin is *not* obvious, we're talking about a superior
CM> piece of "cracking"/phreaking here, folks. I'm impressed, anyway.
Hi Clark,
I just got in on this net and have not seen the whole thread of messages
on this subject. But if you're implying what I think you are, that someone is
breaking in on a military comm circuit, they you are right about a superior
piece of cracking. Those circuites run on dedicated phone lines that you can't
dial into so a contact in the phone company would be required. Plus those
circuits are all encrypted so they need access to special equipment and codes
for that. I'm impressed.
See Ya!!
Don
--
Don Orchard - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Orchard@p1.f502.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Scott Rogo
Date: 31 Aug 90 13:49:00 GMT
> > Three? Scott Rogo, Stacy Borland, and....who else?
>
> Well, Stacy Borland died in a double murder. I believe the other victim
> was her brother, yes? (Not sure.) Thus the number.
Oh yeah, forgot, sorry.
>
> PS -- Jim, do you know Bob Emmenegger? I'm trying to find out if he's
> the same Bob Emmenegger I grew up with long ago & far away in Garden
> City, Long Island. Reply by email if you like. Thanx! --- ZMailQ
No, I don't know him personally, but we have a mutual friend, whom I shall
contact soon. Stay tuned.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********
'infopara' at the following address:
UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
ADMIN Address infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
{ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
