Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 308
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 308
Friday, September 28th 1990
Today's Topics:
Re: Oprah Winfrey
Kecksburg Ufo
Re: KECKSBURG INCIDENT
Re: KECKSBURG INCIDENT
Re: CROP CIRCLES
Re: CROP CIRCLES
SANTA BARBARA CONFERENCE
Re: Crop Circles
Re: Mj-12 Controversy I
Crop Circles
Re: Bill Cooper's Book
Re: Mystery Teletype
Re: Paranet Newsletter 302
Re: MJ-12 CONTROVERSY I
Re: Betz comment
!
Re: CROP CIRCLES
Re: Crop circles
Wright-Patterson AFB
Re: Bill Cooper's Book
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: Oprah Winfrey
Date: 24 Sep 90 19:57:00 GMT
The thing about Blum is that he publicly states, in his book, that the
whole thing may be truth, intentional disinformation or whatever.
Have you *ever* seen a ufo researcher write such a statement? ;-)
Anyway, it's worth a read. Most of it is old hat to us, since it's written
for the general public, but there are some entirely new items.
I think what happens with Blum is that interviewers try to pin him down on
whether or not ufos exist, and whether or not the government is really
covering up what it knows. Since Blum doesn't have any solid, unequivocal
proof, he wisely declines to answer those 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: Kecksburg Ufo
Date: 24 Sep 90 20:05:01 GMT
What put me onto the idea of a (Russian) capsule is that reentry would
probably look like a meteor (at night), parachutes would deploy
automatically, and the parachute descent would be affected by wind direction
and speed at various altitudes during the descent.
The wind patterns could account for the directional changes.
If the capsule came down at an angle, the chutes could have been ripped
off and remained in the treetops some distance away.
Also, the Russians could have easily launched into polar orbits at the
time, while the US has been seriously restricted (from KSC) because of large
population centers downrange for a polar orbit.
Would the military keep such a thing top secret? You bet!
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce.Glassford@f17.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bruce Glassford)
Subject: Re: KECKSBURG INCIDENT
Date: 25 Sep 90 05:10:00 GMT
Paul,
I think you are right in your opinions about this subject becomming
much more mainstream. It seems to be where environmental issues were
prior to their rise in prominance via political focus groups right
before the '88 elections. The vox populi always had strong feelings
toward the environment, but for some reason or another (a maturing?),
decided (independently) that it was worth voicing their opinion. Some
type of critical mass was reached in other words. I think the same is
starting to happen with these mysterious subjects. The environmental
parallel continues if you compare Earth Day 1970, the environmental
slump, and its resurgence now to Von Daniken's (sp) early work at
spreading simply the IDEA that perhaps some weird things were going on
throughout our history, a brief popularity, and now the ball really
starts rolling. Perhaps what is needed is a definitive clearinghouse
for reports of UFOs and their peripheral experiences. What would
happen if there were 10 billboards on rural sections of integral
interstates which simply said, "Seen One? 1-800-SAW-AUFO". Of course
there would be the lunitic fringe, but I think it would also produce
quite a few leads, confirmations or denials to existing stories, and
assist in the building of a vast cross-section of America's experiences
in this matter. Even the most patriotic American, when called a liar
by officialdom, might tend to share their personal experiences in this
area. I had to go through a relatively great deal of trouble to find
and continually monitor this echo. If what J. Q. Public knows about
UFOs is just what is mentioned in the National Enquirer, no wonder most
are keeping silent. Sorry to get so verbose and pseudo-profound. Just
thought I would share some thoughts with the community here.
Take Care,
*- Bruce -*
--
Bruce Glassford - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bruce.Glassford@f17.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul.Faeder@p0.f0.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Faeder)
Subject: Re: KECKSBURG INCIDENT
Date: 26 Sep 90 06:01:47 GMT
In a message of <24 Sep 90 22:10:00>, Bruce Glassford (1:363/17) writes:
>The environmental parallel
>continues if you compare Earth Day 1970, the environmental slump, and its
>resurgence now to Von Daniken's (sp) early work at spreading simply the
>IDEA that perhaps some weird things were going on throughout our history,
I think that environmental awareness was achieved because many people with
similar opinions assembled on the first Earth Day which got media coverage and
succeeded in heightening awareness to environmental issues. So it made some
people aware of something that they took for granted and it was now OK for
those that had environmental concerns to openly talk about them and do
something about it. The first Earth Day built the "bandwagon" that others
could jump on.
UFOlogy needs a bandwagon, but it first needs a problem or issue that is a
cause of concern for many people. We won't get a large assemblage of people
unless we can prove that it's in their best interest to do something. No, I'm
not trying to organize a White House march; at least not yet :-)
--
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: Re: CROP CIRCLES
Date: 24 Sep 90 07:29:00 GMT
> >>Trick of Irrigation
> No, twas not I. Did you tape the 20/20 segment. Was it good??
I did not, but Sir Stephen of Gresser did, and I have the tape. It was pretty
good, although they did the usual bit at the end of poking fun at flying
saucers. Bob Brown said that if he HAD seen any, he wouldn't admit it on the
air, and Baba Wawa said, "of course not, it would be the end of your career."
Somewhat telling, eh?
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: 26 Sep 90 03:52:00 GMT
There was a couple of photos of crop circles in todays paper. As in
many photos I have seen, there seems to be very faint "trails" leading
away from the circle that look like they might be how the perpetrators
came and went. BUT, they could also be the trails caused by
sightseers. It would be helpful if the investigators had aerial
photo's taken before anyone entered the area or at least identified the
presence or absence of such trails upon initial discovery.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: SANTA BARBARA CONFERENCE
Date: 26 Sep 90 05:25:00 GMT
The following is a courtesy announcement of an upcoming UFO Conference.
____________________________________________________________
THE UFO PHENOMENON IN THE 1990s
A conference co-sponsored by the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies and the
Santa Barbara Centre for Humanistic Studies, Inc. in connection with the
publication of "The UFO Encyclopedia, Vol. 1: UFOs in the 1980's" by Jerome
Clark.
DATE: Saturday, Nov. 3rd, 1990
TIME: 9AM - 9PM
PLACE: Lobero Theatre
33 E. Canon Perdido Street
Santa Barbara, CA
FEE: $40
SPEAKERS:
Dr. T. Edward Bullard
Jerome Clark
George M. Eberhardt
Richard F. Haines
Budd Hopkins
David M. Jacobs
Bruce Maccabee
J. Gordon Melton
Mark Rodeghier
John Saliba
Don Schmitt
CONTACT: Santa Barbara Centre for Humanistic Studies, Inc.
Box 9611
Santa Barbara, CA 93190-1611
805-967-2669
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank.Cox@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Frank Cox)
Subject: Re: Crop Circles
Date: 27 Sep 90 08:01:00 GMT
NO, the patterns are too exact and complicated to be a natural
occurance. The key to that argument is the fact that the patterns are
only realized from a high vantage point. Now if you wish to consider a
"high intellengence" manipulating such microorganisms, perhaps. Such an
"intellengence" does not necessarily mean "alien". Mike Corbin's idea
of a sophisticated "Star Wars" theory as in "sighting in the gun" may
be plausible. However, the only objection I have to that is that the
"circle" phenomena has been around much longer than known "Star Wars"
research. I still think it may be an energy field, invisible light,
causing the plants to accelerate growth to the given source. But of
course the source of that light is the question. Perhaps by referencing
specific genetic varieties of plants involved along with specific
farming methods used on the affected fields a clue may be presented. If
the circles are of "higher" intellengence than man, something such as
this may point to a certain direction. My question is, "What plants are
affected, what varieties and what exact agricultural methods are used?"
And I really would like to see the cellular photos I saw on TV the
other night. Anyone know where to get that info??????
--
Frank Cox - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Frank.Cox@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank.Cox@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Frank Cox)
Subject: Re: Mj-12 Controversy I
Date: 27 Sep 90 08:03:00 GMT
Just to remind you that Cooper claims the "Magic" vs "Majic" is a
government plot to mislead everyone should we get too close!!
--
Frank Cox - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Frank.Cox@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matt.Story@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Matt Story)
Subject: Crop Circles
Date: 27 Sep 90 05:18:00 GMT
Frank !
In regard to the circles, Do you think it could be possible there are
basic cell micro organisms in groups that are systematicaly devouring
the lower stems and replacing the cells with an enzyme from thier
excrement causing a modified cell structure in a left or right bias
thus causing the circle formations ? And also as the eat, the stems
may tip in one direction as they get off and go to the next stem ?
Then they may burrow back into the ground and are long gone by the time
the circles are investigated.
--
Matt Story - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Matt.Story@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick.Moen@f2.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: Bill Cooper's Book
Date: 25 Sep 90 06:06:38 GMT
DE> Cooper is a fraud, cut and dried. In MY opinion it is a money
DE> scam to enrich Cooper. If you wish to spend money on UFO
DE> material, there are many better areas to spend it.
Don --
A very friendly word of advice: Be wary of the word "fraud".
Unless you are prepared to prove criminal intent to deceive,
to the satisfaction of a judge, in costly legal proceedings,
you may do better to merely list or hint at damning facts,
and let the latter speak for themselves.
This is exactly the sames advice I give to activists in skeptics'
organisations, and I pass it on to you strictly in the spirit
of intent to be helpful.
You may, in fact, wish to get a copy of Ray Hyman's article
"The Role of Proper Criticism", a copy of which I have sent to
Mike Corbin, at his request.
I hope you will not take any offense at any of this.
Best Regards,
Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics
--
Rick Moen - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f2.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 22 Sep 90 16:15:02 GMT
> Hi John. I overlooked the obvious question: Where were the
> letters postmarked? Any idea?
I don't know. It could probably be found out by asking Duane Cook
or Rex. S. If I can remember to ask, I'll ask anyone I talk with who
should know or be able to find out.
> Enjoyed your writings in UFO magazine -- I don't know what to
> think about the model.
Thanks, but I actually contributed bits and pieces to the story, and
Vicki wrote it. Background etc.
I discount the model as a debunking attempt, but I only discount
that particular model. If anyone found a model that was an exact match
that could have been made during the time period of the incidents, I'd
consider it more seriously.
When thinking about the model, though, remember that it would be
incredibly difficult to make the video tape using a model. One would
also have to presume that the neighbors never peeked out their
windows.
I think model theories are somewhat too simple.
Not saying it couldn't be done with a model, but I haven't seen a
scenario that flies yet.
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: Paranet Newsletter 302
Date: 22 Sep 90 16:17:03 GMT
> UFO Magazine. If someone could post UFO's publisher's address
California UFO
1800 S. Robertson Blvd.
Box 355
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Subscriptions are $18.
Of great interest is the UFO Newsclipping Service. See ads in the
MUFON journal. Don't have the address handy right now.
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: MJ-12 CONTROVERSY I
Date: 22 Sep 90 16:22:04 GMT
> Just a note that there was a MI-6 (and probably others) in
> British Intellegence in the 40's at least, maybe even years
> after. There was a designation MAGIC for the decoding of ENIGMA
> machine messages. Could be a conflict and why nothing ever comes
> back from requests. Much of the OSC or is it BSC information is
> still classified. Just stumbled across this last evening while
> reading.
I came across the same info in William Casey's book The Secret War
Against Hitler.
Casey quotes a general in the late '40's as saying he didn't read
all the MAGIC material.
It strikes me as being extremely odd that the intel organizations
would use practically the same designator (MAGIC and MAJIC). I think
that would be highly unlikely because it so easily could lead to
confusion.
Casey says that MAGIC refers to intercepted decoded messages
(Enigma). Could it be that MAJIC is the same as MAGIC and Top Secret -
MAJIC actually refers to intercepts, rather than the commonly-held
belief that it's simply a contraction of MAJESTIC?
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: Betz comment
Date: 24 Sep 90 07:27:00 GMT
JD> various and sundry authors get a go*da*ned camera and take
I know what you mean. With all the relatively foolproof and inexpensive
cameras available, there's really not many excuses.
JD> I guess i should keep a camera handy too as I've
JD> been warned to expect a visit soon.
If it's a small camera, make a belt clip out of sheet aluminum and wear
it.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: keith@pecan.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks)
Subject: (none)
Date: 27 Sep 90 20:43:10 GMT
Jim Delton writes:
+ material you refered to, I have seen a couple of reviews of the work of
+ Targ and Puthoff and from what I have read I do not consider those
+ gentlemen to be particularly good researchers. I would refer you to
+ James Randi's books and the Quarterly CISOP publication, Skeptical
+ Inquirer. I'd look up some of the specific references if you really
+ intend to read them but it sounds like your mind is already made up as
+ is mine AT THIS POINT. It's not that I don't think remote viewing
Unlike you, Jim, I seek to render available to this mailing list
information, not just opinions.
I have read Skeptical Inquirer and I have even read the criticisms of
respected scientists in these and other publications. I choose not to
refer to these simply because they have no merit. The Amazing Randi
is a stage magician, not a scientist.
(cut to short video clip of Dr. McCoy portraying the Amazing Randi...)
Captain Kirk turns to the Amazing Randi.
'Randi, you have to publish in a mainline scientific journal.'
Amazing raises an eyebrow and glares at the captain.
'Dammit Jim, I'm a stage magician, not a scientist.'
(cut back to Paranet...)
Jim Speiser writes:
+ Keith, how can you possibly mention the words 'scholarly,' "reputable," and
+ 'Puharich' in the same post?
It's easy, Jim. All you have to do is READ and UNDERSTAND
the scholarly publications by reputable scientists like Puharich and you've
got it made. You will be forming complex sentences in no time at all
with remarks that really piss-off skeptics.
But seriously Jim, did you have to refer to your BLACK LIST for this
slam? Why don't you publish your BLACK LIST so that everyone can know
what scientists names are not alright to mention when talking about
serious research.
I am interested, is this a blanket slam of all of the scientists that
were published in 'The Iceland Papers' or do you just have a problem
with Puharich?
It just strikes me what you have a problem with Puharich about.
Probably his work with Uri Geller, right? Is this then a blanket slam
of all of the work that Puharich has done, or do you object specifically
to his work with Geller?
How about Targ and Puthoff as long as you guys slammed them as well.
Do you object to all of the work done by them or just the Remote Viewing
work? And you have quoted also Elizabeth Rauscher. Do you object to
her work too? If so, what work of hers do you object to?
I hope that everyone can see that character attacks on scientists is the
last bastian of the incredibly confused skeptic.
-keith
--
Keith Fredericks, Cray Research Inc., 655F Lone Oak Dr., Eagan, MN 55121
keith@cray.com (612)683-5489
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Schultz@f11.n289.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Schultz)
Subject: Re: CROP CIRCLES
Date: 27 Sep 90 05:09:17 GMT
PF> I'm curious if anyone has heard of any estimates of man hours to crea
PF> most elaborate pictogram. I think it was Colin Andrews who said on Uns
PF> Mysteries that there are only 7 hours of darkness available at that ti
PF> year. With this estimate we could determine the number of people that
PF> have to be involved. I would guesstimate it at several hundred.
I'm not sure if my figures are right, but didn't one of the Britons on
"Unsolved Mysteries" say that it took a dozen people six hours to make
a circle with a ten-yard diameter? I believe those figures are close
to what he said. Also, he said that they were able to tell a hoax from
the real thing (whatever *that* may be).
<*=-JaWS-=*>
--
John Schultz - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Schultz@f11.n289.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Schultz@f11.n289.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Schultz)
Subject: Re: Crop circles
Date: 27 Sep 90 05:13:40 GMT
DS> I heard on some show recently that some researchers had videotape of a
DS> crop circle being formed but that they weren't going to release it
DS> until further study. Anyone know about this?
Yes, I heard that on "Unsolved Mysteries." I think that they said they
wanted to do some computer enhancement before they made it available to
the general public. ("They" being the researchers who made the tape.)
<*=-JaWS-=*>
--
John Schultz - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Schultz@f11.n289.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James Roger Black <jrblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Subject: Wright-Patterson AFB
Date: 28 Sep 90 07:16:24 GMT
I have an acquaintance (former AF intelligence type) who spent some time at
Wright-Patterson AFB, home of the infamous 'secret hangars' where crashed
saucers and alien bodies are supposed to be kept.
This guy is normally very open and friendly, laughs a lot, and has never
failed to give me an honest answer to any question I posed to him. But when
I asked him one day, out of the blue, what was in the secret hangars at
Wright-Patterson, he got very quiet and turned white as a sheet.
He thought about his answer for rather a long time, and then said very softly
and carefully, 'Foreign aircraft.'
'What kind of foreign aircraft?' I asked.
'Foreign aircraft,' he repeated. Then he just sat there and stared at me.
I knew better than to pursue the issue, given his reaction, and I've never
brought it up again. I think if I did he might never speak to me again. I
had always thought of this guy as absolutely unflappable, but this time he
was *scared*. I had never really taken the 'Hangar 18' stories all that
seriously before, but this experience made a believer of me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Re: Bill Cooper's Book
Date: 27 Sep 90 22:52:00 GMT
Rick Moen states;
> A very friendly word of advice: Be wary of the word "fraud".
> Unless you are prepared to prove criminal intent to deceive,
> to the satisfaction of a judge, in costly legal proceedings,
> you may do better to merely list or hint at damning facts,
> and let the latter speak for themselves.
Rick, a point well taken.
> organisations, and I pass it on to you strictly in the spirit
> of intent to be helpful.
and thank you for your helpful advice.
> I hope you will not take any offense at any of this.
>
No Rick, not a bit of offense.
Now, just for the heck of it, after reading your note, I pulled
my trusty WORDFINDER /Dictionary-Thesaurus out, the electronic
model, just to see what it said.
FRAUD: fake, charlatan, cheat, hypocrite. . . (well, so far does
not seem to be a problem) quack, and now for the alternate
defination. . .
hoax, sham, deceit, deception, cheating, dishonesty. Well up to
this point class, so far the word fraud seems, at least in my
electronic dictionary-thesaurus, seems to fit the facts. Now,
just for the heck of it, let us check my Random House Dictionary
of the English Language-College Edition, copyright 1968. Well at
this point, that means it is twenty-two years old, but hey, it
should still work-right?? Ok, here goes.
fraud(frod), n. 1. deceit, trickery, or breach of confidence,
used to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. 2. a
particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud. 3.
any deception or trickery: that book is a fraud. 4. a deceitful
person; impostor. [ME fraude < OF < L fraud- (s. of faus) deceit,
injury] -Syn. 1. See deceit. 3. wile, hoax.
Well Rick, so far I have not observed one iota that would negate
my conclusion that fraud is the correct noun.
Well Hey, what do you think?? <Grin>
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.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************************
