Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 310
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 310
Tuesday, October 2nd 1990
Today's Topics:
Re: Mystery Teletype
Kecksburg Ufo
Re: Kecksburg Incident
Circles
Jackie Gleason
Jung's Theories of UFOs
Circles
Re: BERMUDA TRIANGLE,ETC
Re: MJ-12 CONTROVERSY I
Re: Mystery Teletype
Re: CROP CIRCLES
Jackie Gleason
Re:Berm Triangle.
Re: designs
Re: GB model
Re: Oprah Winfrey
Crop circles vs. UFOs
Re: Mystery Teletype
Re: Bill Cooper's Book
Re: Gulf Breeze Six
Re: KECKSBURG INCIDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f109.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 30 Sep 90 02:16:00 GMT
> 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.
What about the possibility that has been raised that the model is
on a pole? There is some concern over a couple of points in the
video where the UFO passes over the school yard light, and at
that precise moment, the light blinks out.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f109.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f109.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Kecksburg Ufo
Date: 30 Sep 90 02:18:00 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!
Very good point about the wind direction.
How are things your way?
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f109.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f109.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Kecksburg Incident
Date: 30 Sep 90 02:31:00 GMT
> 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
Good point, Paul. I would like to add to this also that UFOlogy
needs more sensible and responsible people involved in the actual
study of the phenomenon. I, personally, am getting tired of the
same old assault on the senses invoked by the "culties" and the
folks that don't care about evidence. As I see it, this behavior
has been a serious deterrent to attracting serious people because
they don't wish to be associated with such irresponsible and
flawed thinking. The change must start with us personally. Each
and everyone of us must demand tangible proof whenever the
"lunatics" come forth with their wild allegations. If that is
not forthcoming, we must resort to the status quo and continue
looking for that proof. Thus far we at ParaNet have seen the
comings and goings of Bill Cooper, John Lear, Robert Lazar, and
others of their caliber. They achieved what appeared to be their
primary directive in infecting as many people as possible with
their silly allegations causing people to behave in deplorable
and almost rabid ways thereby driving the wedge that much deeper
between the skeptics and the believers. The result? Mass
confusion and fear. Sounds like classic disinformation to me.
I say that we disclaim the jerks and the so-called "prophets" and
get back to the basics: Serious study employing critical
thinking.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f109.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f109.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Circles
Date: 30 Sep 90 02:41:00 GMT
> From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
> As for SDI testing, the proposed SDI weapons are high powered
> lasers and/or particle beams. The latter would not propagate very far
> in the atmosphere and would produce highly visible ionization along their
> paths. Both would carbonize and/or vaporize the plants, not just bend
> them over.
Recently, I met a woman who is an associate of a friend of mine.
She related a story about a very intense beam of light which
preceeded a "crop circle" in the Midwest. There was also a
hissing sound associated with it. The folks in attendance were
camping out and were awakened by this activity. After its
cessation, a strange circle was found. This happened over 10
years ago. With that, could the light beam match your
description of ionization which might be associated with possible
SDI testing? She was clear that there was no vehicle associated
with the phenomena.
Finally, I also feel that until we gain access to the scientific
data collected, we have nothing to go on. Perhaps someone in the
net can contact one of the universities that are involved in this
research.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f109.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Jackie Gleason
Date: 28 Sep 90 05:40:00 GMT
Mike:
The Great One's interest in UFOs was legendary, and apparently he had quite a
large collection of UFO books. Funny, I can't picture him being interested in
them, he didn't seem quite cerebral enough...
The Nixon story is probably road apples. I say this because something tells
me that Nixon would never have been let in on The Big Secret in the first
place.
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: Jung's Theories of UFOs
Date: 28 Sep 90 05:46:00 GMT
Thanks muchly for that excerpt, Brian. I have clipped it into a file for
permanent archiving at this node (JUNG.UFO).
It is widely held that Jung went to his grave believing that UFOs were another
expression of his archetypes, as mentioned in the excerpt. While he may have
clung to that possibility, he gave no short shrift to the idea that UFOs are
solid, nuts-and-bolts spacecraft. Not widely known is that he was a member of
the Board of Trustees of NICAP for many years.
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: Circles
Date: 28 Sep 90 06:42:00 GMT
>
> I saw the segment on Unsolved Mysteries about the Crop Circles and
> found it very unclear what the photomicrographs were. They didn't
> look to me like sections of stems or any other cellular structures, so
> I would be very wary of concluding that alterations in cellular
> structure were established. The pix looked like crystallizing salt
> solutions to me, not cells at all.
I have to agree that we are being presented with a very narrow and one-sided
view of this anomaly. Basically 90% of our fundamental knowledge of this
phenomenon comes from a couple of gents named Colin Andrews and Pat Delgado.
(1) Who are they? (2) What are their credentials? (3) What sort of
independent corroboration do we have for the claims that (a) (as you
mentioned) cellular alteration is taking place; (b) that there are no tracks
found leading to the circles from nearby roads, (c) that some kind of radio
emission was detected at the center of one of the circles, (d) that this radio
emission was not a normal artifact of rf interference from the camera/sound
equipment, etc.
It is questions like these that need to be answered before we start
speculating about why aliens would do such things.
I still think this is some kind of grandiose hoax, but as in the case of Ed
Walters, my hat's off to the hoaxers, and more so every day.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: BERMUDA TRIANGLE,ETC
Date: 30 Sep 90 07:25:02 GMT
> I'll take credit for being one of the people that does not
> believe in the Bermuda Triangle as anything more than creative
> editing of facts.
Well, I believe that the Bermuda Triangle exists as fact. Not the
stories.
It's a large area of frequently unsettled, very violent weather.
Storms come up quickly.
Also, the various Gulf Stream eddies make it extremely difficult to
predict where to find wreckage, and it's a mighty big ocean.
So, because of those factors alone, it's an area in which is rather
easy for a boat, ship or airplane to go missing and wreckage to not be
found.
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: 30 Sep 90 07:28:03 GMT
> I think that whoever created the MJ-12 documents (make that
> collected) may have labled them in a manner which is causing
> conflicts in FIOA requests. Yes MAGIC and MAJIC are to similar
> for good protocol. The MJ divisions are still secret except for
> a few that were known to have been blown by Philby or other
> double agents.
Peter Wright spilled lots of it in his book Spycatcher, in which he
fingered Stewart Menzies as being the fifth man. Strange, though, I
don't remember that he mentioned the term Magic anywhere in his book.
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: Mystery Teletype
Date: 30 Sep 90 07:32:04 GMT
> What do you think of the parallels to Billy Meier? He, too, was
> finally discredited when models were found in his barn -- even
> though the models are not a precise match for his
> photos/videos/movies. And he, too, insists that most of his
> work was not hoaxed, even though no one is listening now.
Interestingly enough, I belive that Lee Elder had the Meier models
built when he, his wife and Wendelle Stevens were investigating the
case, and gave the models to Meier. Someone later found the models and
said, "AHA!"
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: 28 Sep 90 07:58:01 GMT
> "trails" leading away from the circle that look like they might
The best photos I've seen were in the 20/20 show. I think what we're
seeing may be tractor tracks. I don't think they're called furrows,
but I can't think of what they're called.
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: Jackie Gleason
Date: 28 Sep 90 08:00:02 GMT
> I've heard it said that Jackie Gleason had a huge collection of
> UFO related
I've heard the same. Unknown as to creditility.
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:Berm Triangle.
Date: 28 Sep 90 08:05:03 GMT
> I seem to remember seeing ad ad for a TV show that is going to show the
> actual discovery and salvage of the Lost Flight. "Unsolved Mysteries"
> perhaps?
They found an Avenger, but didn't confirm it as one of Flight 19.
Didn't get the necessary serial numbers.
The navigational errors check out as being ok; that is, they're
reasonable. I think Myrhe found one airplane of Flight 19.
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: designs
Date: 29 Sep 90 04:52:00 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
--
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: 29 Sep 90 05:10:01 GMT
> John, could you point out the major differences between the
> model and the object in the photos for me? All I've heard is
> that the model is shorter and squatter than the Ed object, which
> to me is not apparent.
You basically have it. Also, I believe it's missing the bottom row
of "windows." I couldn't find a picture of the model just then, so I'm
winging it on that.
Ed's drawings in his book and the photos (hard to tell with them)
show a fillet between the bottom structure and the main body of the
craft, while the model just has an upside-down plastic plate glued to
the bottom of the main body. No fillet.
The model's a pretty good match for Ed's drawings, but the photos
appear to show an object of somewhat greater vertical height.
The model doesn't appear in any of the photos. Of course, it could
have been a test run.
> 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?
> No, one would only have to presume that the neighbors didn't
> think enough of the goings on to report it to anyone.
But they still haven't!
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: Oprah Winfrey
Date: 29 Sep 90 05:14:02 GMT
> Well, as a matter of fact, its just what Bill English states about his own
> experiences.
Yep, you're right. But Bill's referring to his own experiences, not
information fed to him.
> But my contention is that it shouldn't be THAT hard
> to detect if one is being bullsh*tted or not by the govt. I can
> think of several ways of turning the tables on the MIBs.
One would think it shouldn't be too hard. Remember, though, that if
you have only one source, it's rather hard to crosscheck.
> Yeah, but it would have been nice if he'd gotten his more
> mundane facts straight. Would have made for a better showing
> against Klass, who for all his faults, ALWAYS has his ducks in a
> row. They may be in the wrong pond, but they're in a row.
That's true.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <s30735p@taltta.hut.fi> Jyrki Jouko Juhani Kasvi
Subject: Crop circles vs. UFOs
Date: 1 Oct 90 09:15:47 GMT
I guess people are mixing circles and circles when they
suggest that the crop circles might be UFO handiworks.
I know some UFO reports include different kinds of
circles like the one my mum saw when she was a kid
in the 30's (unfortunately she didn't see the UFO
involved, just the white circle in the grass where
nothing grew for several years (inside it yes, but
the arc itself was dead).)
BTW, I remember tales of crop circles from Finnish
folklore too, but lately the fertilizers have made
the grains so weak that most of it is down anyway
so there is nothing left for circles :-( (Not actually
the fertilizers but overdosing them _and_ seeds...
This is what happens when you have a state monopoly
and state research and state experts.)
Yours, JJJ Kasvi, s30735p@taltta.hut.fi
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Clark.Matthews@f109.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 1 Oct 90 07:07:00 GMT
> Interestingly enough, I belive that Lee Elder had the
> Meier models built when he, his wife and Wendelle Stevens
> were investigating the case, and gave the models to Meier.
> Someone later found the models and said, "AHA!"
>
Very intesting indeed. What does Lee Elder and/or his wife say about this?
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@f109.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian.Clark@f11.n289.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Brian Clark)
Subject: Re: Bill Cooper's Book
Date: 30 Sep 90 15:33:00 GMT
> 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>
Well then, maybe you can share with us how Cooper is deceiving
us? It is all good and fine to throw the word fraud around, but
for those of us who are trying to uncover facts, a little more
information would be nice. Do you have proof that he is lying?
Are you just opposed to him trying to make the dissimination of
what he believe to be truth his life work (eg: making some
money)?
Brian Clark
--
Brian Clark - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Brian.Clark@f11.n289.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian.Clark@f11.n289.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Brian Clark)
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze Six
Date: 30 Sep 90 15:41:00 GMT
> I mean. I decided the position of Cooper some time ago, before the
> WhistleBlower articles (which I thourghly enjoyed) hit the
> stands. Right about the time I saw a clear copy of the
Can you describe the contents of that article?
Brian
--
Brian Clark - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Brian.Clark@f11.n289.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Allen.Roberts@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Allen Roberts)
Subject: Re: KECKSBURG INCIDENT
Date: 30 Sep 90 10:52:17 GMT
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. Once we have some real proof, (i.e. clear pictures that
can't be explained away, wreckage where the news media was there, etc etc),
then we will have that bandwagon that you were talking about. Until then,
normal people consider us to be on the fringes of reality. Merely stating the
probabilites of extraterrestrial life based on the numbers of stars and
galaxies is simply not enough. WE NEED UNDENIABLE PROOF. Comments?
--
Allen Roberts - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Allen.Roberts@f134.n109.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************************
