Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 321
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 321
Saturday, October 27th 1990
Today's Topics:
Belgium
Belgium UFO
Ed's Video
Krill
The Salisberrys
Re: Ed's Video
The Salisberrys
MUFON
Reprint of letter
HARD COPY/BEL. UFO
Re: HARD COPY/BEL. UFO
Re: Reprint Of Letter
ParaNet Zeti Ret.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Belgium
Date: 26 Oct 90 03:21:00 GMT
Just watched the UFO story from Belgium on Hard Copy. I must say
that I was very impressed with the quality of the report and the
way that it was handled by the producers of Hard Copy.
This case seems to have all the affirmative signs of
authenticity. It has several eyewitnesses with correlated radar
trackings, and it contains a high level of strangeness
considering the data already collected on it, including several
films made of the object with a daylight film containing fairly
clear pictures of the object hovering.
So far, the information that has been released is that it has
been observed to be traveling at speeds as low as 15 miles per
hour and sudden acceleration up to twice the speed of sound,
approximately 1500 mph. The g force has been placed at 40 during
some of its accelerations -- many times more than a human being
could withstand. It has also been observed emitting a
reddish-glow. It appears that there may two different type
objects involved -- the daylight film clearly shows a round
object which appears to have a hole in the center, or at least an
impression of some sort, and what appears to be two notches in
its circumference. During slow motion of the video, it appears
that the notch in the bottom is moving around the object while
the one at the top remains still. It is not possible to
determine if we are looking at the bottom of the object or the
side of it. The other reports detail a triangular-shaped
aircraft that has three lights with "a bunch of yellow stars,"
reports one eyewitness who got a real close-up look at the object
as it flew over her house.
The Belgian military and government is so concerned about this
matter that they are launching a formal investigation. The
military has dispatched American-made F-16s to chase the object,
however the pilots have reported making contact with it, but are
unable to keep up with it. It has been recorded on radar to
display remarkable maneuvers that are beyond normal explanation.
ParaNet is attempting to open up an electronic link to the
University in Belgium where study is being conducted. We will
keep you posted on the progress of this. It is our desire to get
a link there via our UUCP feed. Anyone getting information on
this as it becomes available is encouraged to post it.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Belgium UFO
Date: 26 Oct 90 06:16:00 GMT
To all ParaNet Users;
In reference to the Hard Copy segment on the Belgium UFO
sightings, Hard Copy interviewed Vicki Cooper ( Co-Publish of UFO
Magazine ) and myself on 10/24/90. They wished to get our
reactions on the Belgium footage, that has never been observed in
the United States. During the course of the viewing, I observed
the witnesses that were interviewed, and although they were
speaking French, the producer had furnished us with a transcript
in English. The witnesses were to a person, highly disturbed by
what they had witnessed, and none believed that what was seen was
of a terrestial nature. We were able to watch the entire tape
that Hard Copy had been furnished, and the photo's and video tape
were amazing. During one segment, a close up of one of the
night-time objects was projected, and in slow motion, I was able
to see what appeared to be a series of "spokes" or "struts" that
appeared to connect the lights. It was most unusual to say the
least. The photo of the "disk" was the one object that I felt
demonstrated the "highest strangest" of all the objects. I
genuinely felt unease while watching that.
Prior to this segment, I felt there was a great possibility that
these objects "could" have been U. S. experimental craft, along
the lines of Tony Gonsalves B-2 Bomber hypotheses, but after
watching the clips, not to mention what these objects were
capable of doing, such as making approx. 40 G dives, and
outrunning the Belgium F-16 fighter aircraft, I am not quite as
sure. High Strangeness* * * * indeed!
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Ed's Video
Date: 25 Oct 90 18:45:01 GMT
MC> Just a thought -- $10000.00 is a mere paltry investment on
True. But a fairly high knowledge is required, which means at least one
more person who knows. Plus, it's certainly not a sure thing.
MC> And, how could X-rays be used to fake photographs,
MC> if at all?
X-rays? Where'd you get that?
Well, lessee. X-rays will fog ordinary film, or could be used to form an
image in exactly the same way visible light would form an image. With
ordinary film, the X-ray source would have to be rather strong, since
ordinary film wouldn't be especially sensitive to X-ray.
A big bugaboo you'd run into if you were trying to form an image with a
camera in the X-ray wavelengths is that the common camera optics wouldn't
focus the image very well. The usual X-ray machines, such as your dentist
uses, for all practical purposes makes a contact image. No optics are
involved.
It's certainly possible to use optics, but huge bucks would probably be
involved. Low demand so high per-unit costs.
I know an optical engineer so I'll bounce the question off him.
My opinion is that the use of X-rays in trying to fake a photo would be a
royal PITA with no particular advantage. I seriously doubt you could bring
visible light and X-rays to a common focus on film.
If I wanted to use a relatively invisible light to make an image without
witnesses being the wiser, I'd look at UV or IR. Again, the sources would
have to be fairly strong.
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: Krill
Date: 25 Oct 90 18:46:02 GMT
MC> If I am not mistaken, it was from John's own lips on George
MC> Knapp's "Cooper" scooper.
That seems to ring a bell. Thanks.
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: The Salisberrys
Date: 25 Oct 90 18:51:03 GMT
MC> With this in mind, what is his report on the whole subject?
That's just the problem right now. Since this is a MUFON investigation, we
won't really know until Walt releases the report. It's up to the rest of us
to make sure the report, if it's opposed to Walt's position, isn't just
buried.
Rex is holding his info very closely and waiting for Walt to release the
report.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: Ed's Video
Date: 26 Oct 90 07:32:00 GMT
In regard to the relatively little movement (only a few scan lines) of
the UFO, you still haven't really commented on how you would reconcile
the supposed authenticity of the video with the extreme difficulty of
holding a camera so steady, esp when any normal person would be very
excited at taking a photo of a UFO. I'm just looking at it from the
two perspectives of it either being authentic or a staged hoax. If it
was authentic it would seem vitually an impossiblity that ED managed
to take a video with such a steady hand. However, if it was hoaxed by
setting up a model on a stick (or whatever) and the camera on a tripod,
the "stick" could be held against the ground and moved side to side and
back to back to produce the allusion of slight movement of a distant
object and the movement recorded on the tape would only cover a few
scan lines.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: The Salisberrys
Date: 26 Oct 90 07:44:00 GMT
> That's just the problem right now. Since this is a MUFON
> investigation, we won't really know until Walt releases the
> report. It's up to the rest of us to make sure the report,
> if it's opposed to Walt's position, isn't just buried.
> Rex is holding his info very closely and waiting for Walt
> to release the report.
Well, considering the past performance of his highness, Mr.
International Director, that could be a bloody battle. I often
wonder just how many more of those mass schisms can occur before
Walt is left with just himself and his dog <g>.
Thanks for the info, John.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: MUFON
Date: 26 Oct 90 07:58:00 GMT
I talked over the telephone with Walt Andrus the other day and
was less than surprised at his current attitude over the
situation in Gulf Breeze. It appears that he is facing another
exodus en masse from his rank and file over his insistency in
backing up Gulf Breeze. It was truly refreshing to talk with
Rex Salisbury as I realized that MUFON's reputation hinges on
people like Rex and Carol pulling for them.
However, what will be left should the Salisbury's be "removed"
as have all of the other credible researchers who were previously
involved in MUFON?
It appears certain that MUFON has gone down in flames as the
once highly respected UFO investigative organization. But, as
all good things must come to a close, MUFON has given way to a
host of pseudo-scientific, new-agey-type philosophies and
leadership destined to destroy whatever credibility might be
left. Could this be a replay of the good old NICAP days? As
you may recall, NICAP, once a strong, solid organization was
brought down by the infiltration of its leadership by government
types who ravaged its credibility until it was eventually so
weak that no one could begin to take it seriously.
Nevertheless, the handwriting is on the wall and it will be
interesting to see how successfully ufology will be able to
spring back from this most unfortunate assault.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Reprint of letter
Date: 26 Oct 90 08:14:00 GMT
I thought that this letter from Marge Christensen was appropriate
for reprinting.
MUFON, 1990 - An Organization At Risk
by Marge Christensen
The Gulf Breeze case has recently come crashing down around the
investigators and proponents of the case, and when the
aftershocks cease and all of the pieces settle, there is a good
chance that many of the fragments will have MUFON written on
them. For the past three years, this case has torn Ufologists and
UFO organizations apart, and it is likely that the damage will
not be repaired in the near future, if ever. Can MUFON survive
this crisis and salvage any semblance of credibility or is this
the beginning of the end for MUFON?
Let's examine the facts. In May, 1988, Walt Andrus stated
(concerning the Gulf Breeze case) in the MUFON UFO JOURNAL,
"...if the investigation discloses that a hoax has been
perpetrated upon the UFO community, MUFON will be the first to
acknowledge and announce this revelation."
Then, in the August, 1988 MUFON UFO JOURNAL, Walt Andrus
announced that it was no longer necessary to preface the Gulf
Breeze Case with a disclaimer that it is either one of the most
incredible cases in UFO history or a fantastically orchestrated
hoax. Andrus concluded, "The overwhelming evidence is in. Gulf
Breeze is indeed one of the most incredible cases in modern UFO
history." He further commented, "Gulf Breeze is a solid case and
you read it first in the MUFON UFO JOURNAL."
At that time, in response to statements such as those quoted
above, various persons in MUFON leadership positions, including
this author, spoke out and called for a much more cautious and
objective stand on the part of MUFON in regard to the Gulf Breeze
case, at least until all of the evidence was in. In the December,
1988 issue of the MUFON UFO Journal, Richard Hall warned that
Walt Andrus, Budd Hopkins, and Bruce Maccabee had apparently
already had their minds made up and were helping Ed Walters to
write a book. Hall pointed out, rightly so, that their approach
"departs drastically from long-established scientific procedure
(including published MUFON procedure)."
At that time, I voiced similar objections to both Walt Andrus and
Don Ware to no avail. Both of them responded that they felt that
these sightings were proof of extraterrestrial visitation. They
accused me of being too conservative, and Walt Andrus then
announced the appointment of a new Director of Public Relations
to replace me.
Even more damaging comments are found in Ed and Frances Walters'
book, THE GULF BREEZE SIGHTINGS, published this year by William
Morrow & Co., Inc. In the chapter, "Investigation and Photo
Analysis," Dr. Bruce Maccabee, optical physicist, writes: "Having
studied these sightings `every which way' for more than a year I
have concluded that they are proof of the existence of UFOs." Dr.
Maccabee adds that UFO sightings have been reported for over 40
years but have been ignored or publicly disputed because of a
lack of thoroughly convincing proof that UFOs are actually flying
in our skies. Now, he adds, "that proof is here."
In Appendix 3 of the book, Walt Andrus speculates on the solution
to the UFO enigma occurring in Gulf Breeze and paints a possible
scenario that might be unfolding. That scenario includes Ed
Walters, "successful businessman and civic citizen was probably
selected for the ultimate disclosure so that the events and
evidence would be thoroughly investigated and hopefully accepted
by the scientific community as factual and not easily ignored as
an obvious hoax."
Perhaps the most farfetched claim of all, though, is that of
Donald Ware, MUFON State Director for Florida and Eastern States
Director for MUFON. Ware's position statement on the Gulf Breeze
sightings, published in Appendix 3 of Walters' book, reads as
follows: "I am convinced that these sightings are proof of alien
visitation. The level of technology demonstrated indicates they
can come and go at will and can reside in a variety of places:
the bottoms of our oceans, inside major high-altitude ice fields,
in earth orbit, on the moon, on Mars, etc..."
Ware adds that the feels that the UFOs deliberately allowed Ed to
have 18 photographic sessions because the aliens want people to
see the photographs.
Clearly the statements above are not based on any scientific
principles and are in direct contradiction to the MUFON policy
page included in each year's MUFON UFO Symposium Proceedings.
This policy page states that MUFON is "an international
scientific organization composed of people seriously interested
in studying and researching the UFO phenomenon..." It goes on to
hail the MUFON Board of Consultants which is comprised mostly of
PhDs and MDs in a wide variety of areas of expertise. It
continues, "In order that only qualified, competent and sincere
people may become involved, membership in MUFON is by invitation
only."
The statements of persons discussed above make a mockery of
published MUFON policy and of all that MUFON claims to stand for.
Furthermore, in light of the recent revelations regarding the
hoax behind the Gulf Breeze case, the implications of these three
individuals' statements are even more damaging to the credibility
of the MUFON organization.
In my opinion, it is bad enough that trained investigators,
including a respected optical physicist and photoanalysis expert,
and a former USAF Col. were totally deceived by a con-man such as
Ed Walters. However, it is worse yet that these same trained
investigators rushed to judgement and made such rash claims not
only publicly, but in print. Moreover, these statements were made
by these persons not merely as individuals, but as MUFON officers
and investigators. Is this serious, scientific investigative
methodology? Hardly. Furthermore, making these statements as
MUFON representatives is a direct violation of the MUFON public
information policy guidelines.
In short, _the party's over and it's time for the charade to
end._
Let's face the facts. MUFON is _not_ a serious, scientific
research organization. Rather it has become nothing but a pop
club for people with the mutual interest in reading good stories
about UFO cases.
In my opinion, it will not be possible for MUFON to be in reality
a serious, scientific research organization unless there is new
leadership of the organization. Since that appears to be
extremely unlikely, I see no alternative but to resign from the
MUFON Board of Directors and to resign the post of Director of
Public Education at this time.
Interestingly, at the 1988 MUFON Symposium at the University of
Nebraska, in my paper, entitled "Hynek's Last Wish for Ufology,"
I suggested that the goal for ufologists to strive for in 1988
should be _professionalism_. I pointed out that the major UFO
organizations do have established statements of values,
standards, goals and objectives, but in many cases, the
membership does not take them seriously. I further added that it
isn't enough to pay lip service to these statements or to make
the organizations appear scientific and professional on paper. We
must make that commitment to put those statements and values into
action in our work in the UFO field.
Although I received a great deal of positive feedback on my paper
from those in attendance, it is obvious that while MUFON leaders
approved of the talk, to them it was just that -- talk.
Unfortunately, there was no real commitment of action to back up
the philosophy expressed in that paper.
A highly respected colleague recently commented that MUFON is
much more than these few individuals who have been acting in an
unscientific manner. There are many people who are doing good
work for us. The question now is: Are there enough good people in
the organization to put MUFON back on course to renewed
credibility and continued existence?
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank.Cox@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Frank Cox)
Subject: HARD COPY/BEL. UFO
Date: 26 Oct 90 18:15:00 GMT
Just saw the Hard Copy report on the UFOs over Belgium and must agree
with others here about the even handed reporting of the events by that
organization. Not too sensational, but yet they did cover the events as
thouroughly as television time would allow. I was most impressed by the
fact that the Belgian military was so open and up front about the
entire affair. Now if someone would convince the US military that with
holding information is going to cause much more serious problems in the
long run and full disclosure is the only reasonable, decent and perhaps
intellegent thing to do!! When it finally does come out, public
confidence in government will be non existant anyway. With the mess in
DC now, what else can they do?
--
Frank Cox - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Frank.Cox@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Sudduth)
Subject: Re: HARD COPY/BEL. UFO
Date: 26 Oct 90 21:22:00 GMT
I was not very impressed, however, by the videos of the UFOs on HARD
COPY. The first one looked very much like a distant light out of
focus. The second one showed only three lights in a triangle pattern
with no visible fore or background features. The reporting was pretty
good (including the short interview with Vicki Cooper and Don Ecker).
Not much air time, though.
--
Don Sudduth - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Sudduth)
Subject: Re: Reprint Of Letter
Date: 26 Oct 90 21:25:00 GMT
Ouch! She's right, however. MUFON needs help!
--
Don Sudduth - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: ParaNet Zeti Ret.
Date: 27 Oct 90 19:39:00 GMT
To All:
I just spoke to Jim Speiser and found out he had some tech.
problems that caused Jim to go off line. However, ParaNet Zeti
Ret. aka <Swamp Gas> will be up and running on Monday, October
29th.
FYI---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************************
