Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 315
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 315
Friday, October 12th 1990
Today's Topics:
Aviation Week/groom Lake
Aviation Week - Part 2
Aviation Week - Part 3
Aviation Week - Part 4
_out There_
Re: _out There_
_out There_
Paranet Posting Guidelines
Censors And Odd Aircraft
Re: Mystery Teletype
Re: Ed's multi-witness event
Re: GB model
Re: Mystery Teletype
Aliases
Re: Jackie Gleason
JFK's UFO Connection?
Re: Bill Cooper's Book
Re: !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Aviation Week/groom Lake
Date: 10 Oct 90 05:46:00 GMT
AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY HAS FINALLY ADMITTED THERE IS
SOMETHING GOING ON IN THE NEVEDA DESERT!!!!!
The following series of messages is quoted from two different
articles in this weeks issue:
*************************************************
AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY October 1, 1990
*************************************************
SECRET ADVANCED VEHICLES DEMONSTRATE TECHNOLOGIES FOR FUTURE MILITARY USE
Advanced secret aircraft developed at highly classified
government facilities in the Nevada desert over the last decade
are demonstrating and validating new technologies for the U.S.'s
future fighters, bombers and reconnaissance platforms.
Although facilities in remote areas of the Southwest have
been home to classified vehicles for decades, the number and
sophistication of new aircraft appear to have increased sharply
over the last 10 years, when substantial funding was made
available for "deep black" projects.
Vehicles now flying from these well-guarded sites include
both manned and unmanned hypersonic-capable aircraft designed to
perform strategic reconnaissance and other, less conventionally
defined missions. The classified fleet also comprises a number
of large-winged concept demonstrators that evolved into the Air
Force's B-2 bomber and the Navy's A-12 next-generation attack
aircraft. Several vehicles, though, appear to incorporate
technologies that outstrip those now employed by engineers
charged with developing more traditional, current-generation
aircraft.
A number of these aircraft have been seen and heard
repeatedly by ground- based and airborne observers in the
western U.S. over the last few years. Based on about 45 reports
provided by people who have seen, heard or had access to the
advanced aircraft, there now appear to be at least two - but
probably more - distinct types of vehicles!
* A triangular-shaped, *quiet* aircraft seen with a flight
of Lockheed F-117A stealth fighters several times since the
summer of 1989. This may be a demonstrator or prototype of the
General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas A-12. Navy officials recently
noted that full-size test models will soon be "exposed to public
view" during testing, suggesting that predecessors of the A-12
are already flying.
* A high-speed aircraft characterized by a very loud, deep,
rumbling roar reminiscent of heavy-lift rockets. When observed
at medium altitude, this aircraft type often makes a pulsing
sound and leaves a thick, segmented smoke trail or contrail.
Lighting patterns indicate the aircraft is on the order of 100+
ft. long, but no reliable description of a planform has been
reported to Aviation Week & Space Technology.
* A high-altitude aircraft that crosses the night sky at
extremely high speed. Normally, *no engine noise or sonic boom
is heard*. The vehicle typically is observed as a single,
*bright light* - sometimes pulsating - flying at speeds far
exceeding other aircraft in the area, and at altitudes estimated
to be above 50,000 ft. Such aircraft have been reported by both
ground-based and airborne observers. This may be the same
vehicle as the one characterized by a loud, pulsing noise when
flying at lower altitude and slower speed...
...These primary types of "black" aircraft appear to employ
relatively conventional propulsion systems, although more
advanced than those available to the "white" world. In addition,
there is substantial evidence that another family of craft
exists that relies on *exotic propulsion and aerodynamic schemes
not fully understood at this time*. Data pertaining to this type
of vehicle are being studied by Aviation Week and several
consultants.
The variety of highly classified "black world" aircraft has
prompted industry experts to suggest that the term "Aurora,"
which has been used in reference to a purported new classified
hypersonic aircraft, may be inappropriate. Instead, Aurora may
be one of several code names, all referring to a class of
aircraft designed for multiple missions.
A line item identified as "Aurora" in a Fiscal 1986
Procurement Program document dated Feb. 4, 1985, supposedly was
simply one "site" for B-2 bomber funds when that program was
highly classified, according to a government official. Listed
under the "Other Aircraft" category, "Aurora" was projected to
receive sharply increased funding. The Fiscal 1986 budget
request for Aurora - $80.1 million - jumped to $2.272 billion in
Fiscal 1987, according to the document.
****************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT MESSAGE...
****************************
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Aviation Week - Part 2
Date: 10 Oct 90 05:46:00 GMT
**********************************
AVIATION WEEK - Article 1 - Part 2
**********************************
...Several of the secret aircraft believed to be based in
Nevada may be experimental or prototypes. At least one type has
advanced to the production and deployment phases, and may be
capable of hypersonic flight, according to officials who have
been closely associated with classified programs at several
Nevada test sites in recent years. One senior official said, "We
don't really do anything strictly for experimental reasons.
There's usually an operational twist." Several of these people
had hands-on experience with a number of the classified
vehicles.
Although prevented from discussing specific projects, these
individuals said, "There are bigger and better things out
there," referring to aircraft based at the Nevada test
locations...
...Knowledgeable government officials, charged with
oversight and funding of military programs, however, continue to
be extremely skeptical of reports about secret hypersonic
aircraft based in Nevada. One respected official said he is
confident that there is no such thing as a class or family of
high-speed aircraft code-named Aurora, either in name or in
fact. Industry experts who have worked on "deep black" programs,
however, believe that it would be highly unusual for all but a
very few political officials to have access to or knowledge of
these programs. History has shown, they maintain, that elected
officials and their staffs are poor security risks. Sensitive
information, they say, will invariably be leaked through these
channels if it is perceived politically advantageous to do so. *
The preceeding article was quoted only in part. It was much too
long to quote in its entirety. I suggest that you find the Oct.
1, 1990 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology for it is a
fascinating article. This is the first time they have even ad-
mitted to any unusual activity at the Nevada test site other
than earlier sightings of F-177As.
Be sure to read the next message for another article pertaining
to the same thing from the same issue.
****************************
Continued in next message...
****************************
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Aviation Week - Part 3
Date: 10 Oct 90 05:47:00 GMT
********************************
AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY
********************************
MULTIPLE SIGHTINGS OF SECRET AIRCRAFT HINT AT NEW PROPULSION,
AIRFRAME DESIGNS
Multiple reports from well-qualified observers lend
substantial credence to the existence of numerous secret
aircraft flying from remote bases in the southwestern U.S.,
regardless of the political, funding or technical arguments
against that probability.
Over the past 13 months, large, triangular wing-shaped
aircraft characterized by a relatively quiet propulsion system
have been the objects of at least 11 sightings near Edwards,
AFB, Calif., and one near Fresno, Calif. These are supported by
additional reports of similar vehicles seen and heard around
remote central Nevada communities near government ranges
operated by the Energy Dept. and the Air Force.
Possibly prototypes of concept demonstrators of the Air
Force B-2 or Navy A-12, the fairly flat, triangular-shaped
vehicles have a rounded nose, rounded wingtips and probably no
vertical tail surfaces. The flying wings' trailing edges may be
slightly curved, but definitely are not sawtooth-shaped like
those of the Air Force's B-2 bomber, according to reports
received so far. One ovserver in Nevada described the shape as
"like a manta ray."
Key sightings include:
* A daytime observation near the Tehachapi mountains (about
30 mi. northwest of Edwards AFB) in early May verified this
craft's triangular shape. Numerous earlier sightings had been at
night, although several were under a near-full moon that
provided enough illumination to identify a large, triangular
planform. The Tehachapi report noted that the aircraft was
light- colored, but had a dark area near the center of the
trailing edge, presumed to be the engine exhaust area.
* On the night of May 3, 1990, a quiet aircraft matching
the triangular description was reported by five different
observers over a 4-hr. period. One or more of the aircraft made
multiple passes over Tehachapi, Mojave, Lancaster and Palmdale,
Calif., during this time.
* A triangular aircraft also has been seen flying with
multiple-ship Lockheed F-117A flights. Typically, the stealth
fighters fly alone, spaced about 8-10 min. apart - a general
pattern that has characterized F-117 operations since they were
first observed in California in mid-1989.
However, on several occasions, the larger, traingular
aircraft appeared on the same general flight path as the
F-117As. It was seen after about three or four of the stealth
fighters had passed, yet was ahead of another three or four. It
has been spotted repeatedly over the northern end of the
Antelope Valley, near Edwards AFB and Mojave, Calif., as well as
in central Nevada.
This vehicle is quiter that the F-117As - which already are
substantially quieter than an F-15 or F-16 - and definitely
larger. It normally displays a lighting pattern similar to that
of the F-117s - single amber lights under the wingtips and a red
beacon near the nose - but can be distinguished by its
characteristic hushed engine noise and larger planform.
All observer descriptions of the triangular aircraft
correlated closely, and the observer who reported seeing the
vehicle before sunset sketched a top view. That sketch matched
descriptions of similar vehicles supposedly seen in Nevada-based
government hangars several years ago and flying in military
operating areas nearby...
...A totally separate, distinctly different type of
aircraft seen and heard in California and Nevada over the last
year is characterized by a loud, very deep, rumbling engine
noise, At times, the exhaust noise is punctuated by a
slow-frequency (about 1 Hz.) pulsing sound, which has prompted
observers to call this aircraft the "pulser." The aircraft also
produces a sausage-link- shaped smoke trail or vapor contrail
when it is pulsing. This vehicle is not the triangular-shaped
aircraft discussed earlier, and may be capable of hypersonic
speeds.
At other times, however, the aircraft exhibits a more
continuous noise without the pulsing characteristic. Observers
are confident it is the same type of aircraft, based on its
distinctive deep, loud roar.
There have been multiple reports of "pulser" flights, including:
* The first, in July, 1989, at about 3 a.m. near Edwards
AFB, Calif. The vehicle was at medium altitude, flying very fast
and exhibiting the characteristic pulsing sound. The "pulser's"
position was marked by a *white glow*, rather than a distinct
point of light.
* An early evening takeoff from Edwards AFB on Oct. 18, 1989.
* Multiple reports of an aircraft having a deep, pulsing
roar flying over central and eastern Nevada during the early
morning hours throughout the past year.
****************************
Continued in next message...
****************************
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Aviation Week - Part 4
Date: 10 Oct 90 05:47:00 GMT
**********************************
AVIATION WEEK - Article 2 - Part 2
**********************************
* Eight separate reports of an aircraft exhibiting the same
characteristics, always flying on a northerly heading near
Mojave, Calif., between midnight and about 5 a.m. It was
typically at lower altitude and slower speeds than when first
seen in July, often had a slower pulsing sound and displayed
only two position lights.
* Six reports of an extremely fast-moving vehicle in
southern California's skies, ranging from Santa Barbara on the
Pacific coastline to near George AFB at the eastern end of the
Antelope Valley. These aircraft typically were flying at very
high altitude, were seen as a *single bright light*, and seldom
changed direction. Speed changes have been observed, and, on
occasion, a pulsing red or white light was seen. Whether these
so-called fast movers also are the "pulser" aircraft is not
known.
A Santa Barbara observer estimated the aircraft crossed
"some 350 mi. of night sky off the Pacific Missile Range bases
in about 6 min." (about 3450 mph!) One Aviation Week & Space
Technology editor estimated a similar aircraft - seen as a
bright point of white light - required less than 20 sec. to
transit about 70 deg. of sky...
...On Oct. 18, 1989, the "pulser" apparently took off from
North Base, an airfield at the north end of the Edwards AFB
complex primarily devoted to classified programs. The noise from
that takeoff was described as extremely loud, with a deep,
throaty rumble that shook houses 16 mi. away, drawing residents
into the street. One observer claimed the noise compared with
that of Saturn 5 rocket tests conducted at Edwards AFB in the
1960s and 1970s.
Although no lights were seen, the deep, vibrating roar
continued for about 5 min., and its source appeared to be
climbing steeply to the north. "Your eyes tended to follow the
noise; something was climbing at a very steep angle," one
observer noted. Residents of surrounding communities reported
that the sound "was like the sky ripping," and was unlike
anything they had heard in the Edwards area for years.
The same pulsing, very loud, rumbling type of engine noise
has been reported by multiple observers in central Nevada as
well. It typically was heard in the early morning hours and was
described as having a 1-2 Hz. pulse rate. One Nevada-based
observer said tha same pulsing aircraft departed from the Groom
Lake range and flew over a neaby community as recently as Aug.
6. It was "the loudest thing I've ever heard. It wasn't breaking
the sound barrier, but it was rattling the window!" *
An interesting note: one of the drawings accompanying the text
shows the object as a very rounded triangular shape glowing
orange!
Again, this was only part of the article. I'll be watching future
issues of Aviation Week & Space Technology for any updates. They
are justifiably very reluctant to speculate very much on things
of this nature. I'm sure you're aware that Phil Klass is a
contributing editor to the magazine.
hop
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: _out There_
Date: 10 Oct 90 06:17:00 GMT
> Hope this stirs up some discussion. Remember, I don't
> necessarily buy into any of these theories, but am simply
> listing what I have encountered. If anyone wants sources
> on any of these, let me know and I'll dig for the book
> titles and such.
I would like to have some sources to start researching, if you
would be kind enough to provide them.
Also, I would like some further information on the "Ashtar
Command." I am particularly interested in the mechanisms that
would trigger such a mass movement toward such belief systems and
how they manifest themselves in otherwise rational people. It
would seem that as our level of technology progresses, we would
come to expect more concrete demonstrations of physical realities
than what is currently displayed with the UFO phenomenon.
Looking forward to your reply.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: _out There_
Date: 10 Oct 90 06:19:00 GMT
> Right! So if someone could prove that the Gov't did have
> a disinfo campaign, wouldn't that help prove the existance
> of UFO's?
Not necessarily, IMHO. It means only that the government is
hiding something, which could be anything from a high technology
project to the real thing. I would also tend to believe that
their lack of response to public pressure might indicate their
inability to explain the phenomenon, too.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: _out There_
Date: 10 Oct 90 06:42:00 GMT
> OK; but what I'm asking is if there is enough evidence to
> prove that a disinformation campaign exists. If so, perhaps
> this can be used as a backdoor approach to proving the
> existance of intelligently controlled UFO's.
> After all, why get involved in a disinformation camapign
> at all unless one wants to confuse.
How can you prove that there is a disinformation campaign at
work? Aside from the total outrageousness of the material being
circulated, what is the definitive proof? I don't know. The
problem with this is in being able to determine the true motives
of the person(s) making the allegations. This is where I believe
that our critical thinking is so important. Yes, I do believe
that disinformation is being deliberately spread about. All one
has to do is to read the historical data, particularly the
business about the "Robertson Panel." It was determined in 1952,
that the UFO business should be "debunked." The key to getting
to the bottom of the UFO question is the total disregard of
whatever we perceive to be disinformation. Combine this with
good investigative skills, and we might find the answer.
Although there is generally truth wrapped into disinformation, I
do not feel that the shred that is intertwined in the material
provides anything near the answer being sought. Who knows? The
truth of the phenomenon might be so totally unbelievable and
outrageous that it could not be believed once it is found,
however, I feel that there will be a physical reality attached to
the significance of it.
> Remember, the South is the bible belt. Perhaps
> interpretation of a UFOencounter depends upon one's
> beliefs. A "bible belter" may interpret it as a religous
> event; a New Yorker would tell them where to go and a
> Pennsylvanianwould probably shoot at them.
> I'm not stating this as fact, but there was no mention of
> a space brother encounter in Night Siege which dealt with a
> UFO wave in lower New York state. But perhaps this is due
> to the author's discretion.
I maintain that the best way to work with any of this material is
to remain impartial and divorced personally from it. It is nice
to have your personal philosophies about something, but it should
never get into the way. As they say, "Just the facts, maam."
Unfortunately, it appears that too many people are falling into
the trap of wanting or pursuing the personal experience rather
than the observational experience. Just as a surgeon would not
operate on his wife, a UFO investigator should never want to
become involved in the phenomenon personally, at least not
without some strict control guidelines and other objective
observers in attendance. The "Bible-belters" immediately jump at
the chance to explain away things by plugging it into their
religious perceptions. Since religion deals with a supposition,
it is not qualified to make statements of fact without sufficient
proof.
> But what of the similar exoglyphs, drawn by different
> people? How can that be explained?
This is a hard one to explain on the surface. However, I have
wondered just how reliable the person(s) collecting the data
really are. All we have to go on is the word of a couple of
people claiming to be working with abductees. When I met with
Hopkins in Las Vegas, I got to see some material that he was
working with. My suspicion regarding the mysterious symbols is
that they are not as obscure as one might think. As I have
noticed of late, symbology seems to be something on the increase.
I feel that a lot of the "mystical" groups have been pushing them
around in literature for a number of years now. Since they do
not necessarily represent main stream publications, it would be
reasonable to assume that the abductee may have been exposed to
it somewhere down the line. After all, I would also suspect that
a lot of the so-called "abductees" have a new age philosophy.
Although the movement is not considered "main stream," it is a
widely circulated body of beliefs. Channeling is a good example
of this. Although there does not appear to be any type of formal
structure to the movement, a lot of people have heard of it in
much greater depth than we realize on the surface.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Paranet Posting Guidelines
Date: 10 Oct 90 06:48:00 GMT
> From: keith@pecan.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks)
>
> Why attempt to restrict free speech? My vote is to adopt
> similar rules
> that apply for a USENET moderated newsgroup. If some
> poster is violating
> some law by posting some information, then that should be
> looked at
> closely and reported to the proper officials.
>
> I think that this rule unfairly attempts to restrict what
> people can
> say in a public forum. Furthermore I would argue that
> access to this
> newsletter/mailing list should not be denied to anyone
> except those
> who are violating the law when they post. This concerns
> the internet
> side of the mailing list of which I am a member.
I would like to jump into this discussion and explain why these
posting guidelines are in place. Although we do not restrict the
free-flow of thought, we do feel at times it is necessary to
exercise authority in keeping things on track. We have had some
pretty horrible experiences in the past with a number of
controversial figures. Correct me if I am wrong, but we did not
"censor" anyone's ideas at any time, although we did restrict
access when they became unruly and leveled personal attacks at
the other members without probable cause. Just as anyone who
attempts to incite a riot, we deal harshly with those who attempt
to disrupt that normal free-flow of thought. On the other hand,
ParaNet has reserved the right to "editorialize" some of the
material that has passed through its phone lines. However, we
have always presented our case and findings accurately allowing
the person the opportunity to respond.
> Did anyone ever make any progress as far as making this
> into a USENET
> newsgroup?
Not yet, although I understand it is being considered.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Censors And Odd Aircraft
Date: 10 Oct 90 06:50:00 GMT
> From: '23BMSDO' <23bmsdo@sacemnet.af.mil>
One of the things that make this so interesting is that it
provides people like you the opportunity to get involved and
share with us what you know. We are anxiously awaiting....
BTW, the Roswell sightings are more of the "Stealth" kind. Not
newsworthy as far as I see it.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 8 Oct 90 06:02:00 GMT
> Perhaps we should organize a fund raising project to get Nathan to study
> the photos. He has stated he would do it.
>
Mike:
Ask him how much.
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: Ed's multi-witness event
Date: 8 Oct 90 21:34:00 GMT
RE: Ed may have lauched a balloon.....
That crossed my mind too. It is also possible that Ed simply took
advantage of a genuine unknown light and it worked out. Compare this
latest to the time he took Duane Cook with him and while Ed was
"seeing" and snapping photos of his UFO Duane was busy taking a picture
of ED taking a picture of the UFO.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: GB model
Date: 8 Oct 90 21:42:00 GMT
JH>the model doesn't match anything in the photos....
I'm suprised that you feel that way. On the recent Unsolved Mysteries
they showed photos of the model from the same angle as ED's photos and
when the photos are shown side by side the match is almost perfect. As
I mentioned in another post, it is a rather interesting coincidence
that the proprotioning of the "real" ufo to the model UFO just happens
to be the right proportions to also match the relative sizes to the two
types of paper plates used to make the model. That alone raises a
giant red flag in my mind.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 8 Oct 90 21:44:00 GMT
I pledge $50.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Aliases
Date: 10 Oct 90 07:06:00 GMT
> I believe ParaNet policy states that if you are going to
> post in any of the national echos while using an alias
> (which I assume Cryo Lord is) that you must post your real
> name at the end of the message. I'm not the "enforcer" or
> anything, but I am a researcher and don't want to ever have
> to quote in one of papers:
>
> "National Echo, written by Cryo Lord"
>
> as a source. :>
>
> Brian Clark, University of Missouri
Cyro is a real flesh and blood person whom I have known
personally for quite some time. As a matter of fact, Cyro is
also our UUCP gateway host.
Please do not take offense to our policy. I would appreciate
this discussion being moved to netmail where I will gladly
continue it.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David.Stager@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Stager)
Subject: Re: Jackie Gleason
Date: 10 Oct 90 06:17:00 GMT
I think there's a file on this subject amongst the Paranet collection.
If not I'm sure I have it somewhere on disk. Check the library here
and get back to me if you can't find it -- I'll upload my copy for all
to read. DCS
--
David Stager - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: David.Stager@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David.Stager@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Stager)
Subject: JFK's UFO Connection?
Date: 10 Oct 90 06:19:00 GMT
Is there any known connection whatsoever to the assassination of JFK
and UFOs?
--
David Stager - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: David.Stager@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick.Moen@f2.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: Bill Cooper's Book
Date: 1 Oct 90 03:03:00 GMT
>> 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.
DE> Now, just for the heck of it, after reading your note, I pulled
DE> my trusty WORDFINDER.... just for the heck of it, let us check
DE> my Random House Dictionary of the English Language-College
DE> Edition....
DE> Well Rick, so far I have not observed one iota that would
DE> negate my conclusion that fraud is the correct noun.
DE> Well Hey, what do you think?? <Grin>
Wild Bill Cooper is a hard-to-resist target, 'have to admit.
Still 'n' all, however, if I called everyone a "fraud" who I
personally think qualifies, the family lawyer would be one happy
guy, but I sure wouldn't.
Also, I'd be kicked off the Bay Area Skeptics Board of Directors
faster than you can say "government disinformation agent".
Regards,
Rick M.
--
Rick Moen - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f2.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick.Moen@f2.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: !
Date: 1 Oct 90 08:52:54 GMT
keith@pecan.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks) writes as follows:
KF> I have read Skeptical Inquirer and I have even read the
KF> criticisms of respected scientists in these and other
KF> publications. I choose not to refer to these simply because
KF> they have no merit. The Amazing Randi is a stage magician, not
KF> a scientist.
...
KF> It just strikes me what you have a problem with Puharich about.
KF> Probably his work with Uri Geller, right? Is this then a
KF> blanket slam of all of the work that Puharich has done, or do
KF> you object specifically to his work with Geller?
...
KF> I hope that everyone can see that character attacks on
KF> scientists is the last bastian of the incredibly confused
KF> skeptic.
Credentialism is a favourite gambit of fringe advocates. I've
even seen it go to the extent of hearing astrologers tell me that
only their fellow astrologers are qualified to judge their work.
(Thus they dismiss Bay Area Skeptics director Shawn Carlson's
study of astrological claims in "Nature", in cooperation with
leading astrologers, because he's a mere physicist, his command
of astrology notwithstanding.)
When scientists do incredibly sloppy work, then their reputations
inevitably and justly suffer. Puharich did this with Geller, and,
yes, it does legitimately make one wonder about his other work.
It happens that the sloppy work was exposed by Randi, a stage
magician. If it had been exposed by my _neighbourhood mailman_,
it would still have been incredibly sloppy work.
You see, if a position has merit, it does so regardless of who
holds it, and Puharich's Geller work is there for anyone to see
the problems for himself. "Damning the source" (e.g., dismissing
Randi's criticisms) remains a species of unsound rhetoric.
Does this mean Puharich has not done good work? Certainly not.
He undoubtedly has, does, and will. What it means is that
one can legitimately wonder if one ought to take his new reported
results on face value, given prior events. That's the way
scientists play the game, after all.
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
********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************************
