Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 316
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 316
Sunday, October 14th 1990
Today's Topics:
Re: Mystery Teletype
Computer Breeze...
George Green
Re: Mystery Teletype
Ed's Multi-witness Event
Re: Mystery Teletype
Paranet Posting Guidelines
Censors and Odd aircraft
Pessimism and Optimism
Aliases
Re: _out There_
Re: _Out There_
Sausage-Link Exhaust Trails
Re: Mystery Teletype
Aviation Week - Part 4
Re: George Green
Re: Mystery Teletype
Re: Ed's Multi-witness Event
Re: Mystery Teletype
Re: Ufology
Re: Ufology
Re: Mystery Teletype
Re: GB model
ELMWOOD
Re: Mystery Teletype
Re: GB model
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 10 Oct 90 14:10:00 GMT
> Ask him how much.
$5,000.00 would get something serious started and probably
concluded.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 'JIM GRAHAM' <graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu>
Subject: Computer Breeze...
Date: 11 Oct 90 01:06:00 GMT
This is a rather spontaneous idea, so feel free to cut it to pieces.
Concerning Ed's Gulf Breeze photos....
It is difficult to imagine how he could have faked some of them
(especially those where the object appears to be high-in-the-sky).
Well, here's my two-bits worth....
On some pc's it is VERY trivial to digitize two images and superimpose
a piece of one image onto the other.
In this case, suppose the background (trees, sky, etc) was digitized,
brought up on the screen, and then a separate image of the 'craft'
was superimposed onto the backdrop.
Would this be easily detectable (or even considered) by photo experts?
I personally have digitized and superimposed images on my system (an
Amiga) with very convincing results.
For those really interested in the details, I would be happy to
elaborate.
Any thoughts?
Jim Graham
---------------------------
work: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
home: dolmen!graham@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
work phone: 812-855-7882
home phone: 812-334-7754
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: George Green
Date: 11 Oct 90 01:50:00 GMT
Matt story asked;
> Don;
> Have you heard of a guy named George Green and the Phoenix
> Journals ?
> Is he legitimate ? He has been on a local radio program
> here in L.A., and I'm curious if you've heard of him.
The only thing I know is that Green is in the Pleidian camp,
beleives that he meant Pleidian entitys, and is into channeling
information.
Caveat Emptor.
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 9 Oct 90 00:44:00 GMT
> I pledge $50.
Thanks, Jim. Could we see the tote board, now, Ed? That number again in New
Jersey...
--
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: Ed's Multi-witness Event
Date: 10 Oct 90 00:59:00 GMT
>
> I understand that there are actually two witnesses who both allegedly
> photographed the UFO. There was "Mr. Ed" and "Believer Bill." I have
> also heard rumors that "Believer Bill" is really Ray Griffin, whose yard
> one set of photos were taken from. Griffin refuses to discuss this
> publicly for reasons unknown, but he also is a self-proclaimed "inside
> man" to what he claims are
> "The Elders," a group of "ultra-intelligences" who control all using
> Griffin as a medium, or something like this, to get the message out to
> mankind that they had better straighten up and fly right before it is
> too late. Actually, it appears more to be a classic study in cult
> intelligence. However, more interesting is what the real relationship
> is between Ed Walters and Ray Griffin. I wonder how come no one has ever
> taken the time to question this? Furthermore, I wonder why MUFON has
> never made any of this information public?
Ed has equivocated greatly on the Griffin issue. At first he said he knew of
him, then he said he knew him, but that he had nothing to do with all this.
Then, in an interview with Caveat Emptor, Ed admitted that "Believer Bill" was
a sales rep for hospital equipment. That is Griffin's occupation.
There is a lot that MUFON has not discussed forthrightly.
>
> This is a pretty interesting forum. New here from Compuserve. What else
> do you talk about?
Stuff like dat dere. <grin> See our other echoes for other paranormal
discussions, such as crop circles, abductions, premonitions, etc.
Very glad you could join us; you seem to be up on your facts.
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: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 10 Oct 90 01:53:00 GMT
> Mayor Gray struck me as being over-rehearsed and possibly aware of how
> odd and distasteful his message was. That's rather unusual in a public
> official these days -- most of them will do just about anything to get
> on camera and they're properly animated in the limelight. What do you
> think? Have you met or seen the guy in person?
Clark, I interviewed Grey for a Paranet article. I did not see the UM segment,
however. As I recall, he was somewhat flat and ineffective, but not so much so
that it was comment-worthy.
Grey is an officer at a local bank, I believe he may even be president.
Certainly not a position in which one wants to go against the grain of local
sentiment....unless one just happens to be a highly principled, intellectually
honest individual who has no ulterior motives whatsoever...but how many of
THOSE are there these days? <grin>
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: Paranet Posting Guidelines
Date: 10 Oct 90 02:46:00 GMT
>
> 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 have to place myself in partial agreement with those who are AGAINST
restrictions on unreferenced material (surprise!). I think its quite enough to
simply ASK someone to post references if they make what seem to be unsupported
claims, or cite unknown sources. We can then judge who's got the upper hand in
an argument by whether or not they are able to post such references. In cases
where a source may wish to remain anonymous, its customary (or should BECOME
customary) to provide their name to a trusted, neutral user, who can then
verify for the others that the source exists.
But I don't think we should get bogged down in a bunch of stuffy rules
restricting the free exchange of ideas. I don't want to discourage people from
posting, UNLESS such posting stands a good chance of hindering progress on
these issues. THAT'S the key to what I want from ParaNet - PROGRESS. We can
talk till we're blue in the face, but face it, only a little bit of what we
speculate on here stands any chance of turning out to be objective fact. I
think we should be at least a LITTLE bit discerning in trying to zero in on
those items that stand the best chance, and I think we should make an effort
to reject those things that stand a great chance of turning out to be complete
red herrings - or worse, disinformation. Otherwise, we'll never get out of
this "hall of mirrors with a quicksand floor." ParaNet Echo Guideline #3 is an
attempt - and really a very small one - at doing a little filtering. Its not
legality we're worried about, its falling into traps like the Lear/Cooper
fiasco, which had this network nearly hamstrung for the better part of a
year. That was time and disk space that I consider to have been completely
and totally WASTED, and I'm far from alone in that belief. Ufology does not
profit from such abuses of the "free exchange of information."
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: Censors and Odd aircraft
Date: 10 Oct 90 02:49:00 GMT
>
> I don't believe that censoring this forum would do any good. My
> solution when reading this stuff is to hit the 'PgDn' key when scanning
> the text. This makes reading this interest group pretty quick since
> 95% of the text is trash and not really useful to anyone following
> unexplained aerial phenomenon and doing research anyway. So let people
> say what they will and keep your PgDn key warmed up!
I mostly agree - see my msg to Keith.
> ----
> Jim Speiser(Odd Aircraft) - A more valid question would be where have
> all
> the UFO buffs been for the past 10 years while all these aircraft have
> been developed. Ohhhhh...I forgot.....thats right we're still debating
> the Gulf Breeze issue and following wild goose chases a'la Robert Lazar.
> Say you haven't forgotten Lazar already have you????
> Well I ranted and raved enough for my semi-annual posting....back to
> Roswell to check into recent(last 3 weeks) sightings that went
> unnoticed and unreported!!! Amazing.
Rather than chastising our ignorance, cure it! Inotherwords, do tell!
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: Pessimism and Optimism
Date: 10 Oct 90 03:08:00 GMT
What Jim Delton said, and...
> You may have seen in some of my posts before my ideas about
> skeptics and how they are holding back science. Remember that
> what we call healthy skepticism is implied in good science. I say
> that we do not need self-appointed skeptic swat teams or anything like
> that.
Why not? If a claim can survive legitimate "swats", it is then MUCH more
worthy of consideration, no? If it cannot, then maybe it should be relegated
to a less immediate corner of our minds?
> because of something that The Amazing Randi and/or Marvin Gardens
> once called into question.
Have these questions been resolved?
> There are no so called refutations of this scholarly
> work in that same database of existing knowledge on the subject, i.e.
> in refereed scientific journals!
Are you saying that the results of peer-reviewed remote viewing experiments
have never been refuted in peer-reviewed journals??
> But I'm sure that Delton and Speiser and our peanut gallery of skeptics
> would chime-in and say: Hey, wait a minute! The Amazing Randi and
> Marvin Gardens said in the Skeptical Inquirerer and books that the
> remote viewing work was no good. Well, maybe, just to be thorough,
> we should take a look at these claims.
Oh, well, I suppose it couldn't hurt.
>
> The pessimistic among us will often focus on the ``limitations''
> (your forboding jungle) losing sight of the ``limitlessness''
> (my wonderful garden).
The best attitude, I think, is to bear in mind that both may exist.
>
> Walking on eggshells is not congruent with any great works that I know
> of.
Then I take it that its ok not to feel compelled to do so in your presence.
>
> Check out this pessimistic attitude! How many scientists are you
> willing
> to sacrifice for one scientific innovation? And you are making it sound
> so complex. I don't buy your fear-dogma.
Dogma implies unreasoned faith. I have experienced the quicksand first hand. I
have fallen into mind-traps that I should not have. We all have. Skepticism is
neither pessimistic nor optimistic. Its just cautious.
>
> So, maybe, in the not too distant future, I can get back to the original
> object and post my individual experiences with remote viewing
> experiments
> and we can get a real discussion going in the tradition of real
> discussions.
> I am optimistic that this is the case.
So am I. Please feel free to discuss your individual experiences here, and I'm
sure you will find me excited and deeply engaged by what you have
encountered. But you will be hard put to convince me that Andrijas Puharich
is anything but a charlatan, which is the only point on which we diverged. You
took it as a slap at Puthoff and Targ, and I have already indicated to you
that such was not the case. Just Puharich.
Now, please continue.
Thanks,
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: Aliases
Date: 10 Oct 90 05:35:00 GMT
>
> "National Echo, written by Cryo Lord"
>
> as a source. :>
>
> Brian Clark, University of Missouri
Er, Brian....I think that CYRO Lord is his real name...
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: Re: _out There_
Date: 10 Oct 90 05:36:00 GMT
> In a message of <07 Oct 90 08:04:00>, Don Sudduth (1:207/320) writes:
>
> >There are plenty of reasons to feed disinformation about a phenomena that
> >the US Government claims doesn't exist! Just look at Bill Moore. The
> >more they confuse the investigators with false leads, the "safer" they
> >are! It's easy and it works!
>
> 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?
>
No, it would only prove the existence of a disinformation campaign. Course,
that in itself might be enough to get some highly placed people to look into
the situation.
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: Re: _Out There_
Date: 10 Oct 90 05:42:00 GMT
> JS> Can it be said, then, that "THE" book has yet to be written?
>
> Jim:
>
> I dunno. Maybe we should check with Wendelle Stevens. :-)
> -- John
Ha! I think I know what the answer would be....
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James Roger Black <jrblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Subject: Sausage-Link Exhaust Trails
Date: 12 Oct 90 04:17:57 GMT
Some thoughts on the supersecret Nevada aircraft described in the October 1
Aviation Week:
(1) The 'sausage-link' exhaust trails sound a lot like what one might expect
from a craft powered by periodic explosions. There were plans for an atomic
spacecraft powered by small nuclear detonations, and a small prototype using
conventional explosives was actually built. If memory serves, Freeman Dyson
was one of the people involved in this; he described the experiment as a
tremendous success, characterizing the vehicle as taking off like a bat out
of hell--but the whole thing was scrapped due to budget constraints. Or so
they said. Maybe it just went 'deep black'.
(2) The reported glow (apparently of the entire craft, not just running lights)
is, of course, also commonly reported in UFO sightings. Could they be using
microwaves or MHD technology to reduce drag, thereby causing the air around the
vehicle to fluoresce? Mach Five under normal circumstances has got to produce
a hellacious amount of friction, so presumably they're doing something strange.
(3) 'Out There' by Howard Blum seems to describe one of the AvWeek vehicles on
pp. 229-230, attributing his information to Paul Bennewitz. He says:
In these last moments before the New Mexico night began, coming from
somewhere in the west near Kirtland Air Force Base, the strange craft,
their running lights aglow, began their maneuvers. They would fly in
a circling formation in the dusk sky above the Manzano Nuclear Weapons
Storage Facility, and next fly south toward the Coyote Canyon test area.
Every evening they came. Their arrival was as regular as the sunsets,
and no less spectacular.
The specific link to the AvWeek vehicles (aside from the obvious one of a New
Mexico location) is the description of the sounds they make. Blum describes
it as:
[a] steady, low-frequency electromagnetic beep ... beep ... beep ... The
signal came in modulated pulses, loud and clear and well-defined ...
This same low-frequency beep is also described in the AvWeek articles.
If indeed Bennewitz stumbled upon the secret of these new aircraft, it would
explain why the Air Force Office of Special Investigations set out to discredit
and silence him, as Blum maintains in his book. 'UFOs be damned--we've got
black-budget aircraft to protect!'
(4) I was kicking this around with a friend who is an avid war-gamer and
devotee of strategic and tactical theory. His first reaction to the Nevada
aircraft was, 'What in hell do they need something like that for? It sounds
like some kind of interceptor--but what could they be trying to intercept
that they would need that kind of speed?'
What, indeed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Clark.Matthews@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 12 Oct 90 03:53:00 GMT
> to go against the grain of local sentiment....unless one
> just happens to be a highly principled, intellectually
> honest individual who has no ulterior motives
> whatsoever...but how many of THOSE are there these days?
> <grin>
Well, there aren't many but we DO cherish them, eh? It seems I've come
across as a perception engineer here, but the on-camera interview with Mayor
Gray was anything but inspiring. Plus the soundbyte was not especially
well-reasoned or cogent: It was just 'Ed Walters is a hoaxer, we always
knew it, etc. etc.' No reasons given for the 'we always knew it' inuendo.
If I close my eyes and listen to the words, they're anything but persuasive
-- no facts.
So, for all I know the esteemed Burgomeister of Gulf Breeze may be as deep
as the North Atlantic and as principled as Honest Abe, but none of it came
thru the lens. What's the skinny on Gray? Did you publish the interview?
How long did you talk to him, and when?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Best,
Clark
PS -- My best to Mary & the kids!
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Aviation Week - Part 4
Date: 11 Oct 90 04:52:00 GMT
I'm terribly sorry, but the preceding articles are horse patooties. A craft
travelling at such a tremendous speed would HAVE to create a sonic boom. Since
no sonic boom was reported, the entire article has to be classed as highly
suspect.
Well, that's exactly the kind of crap you hear in the FIDO SCIENCE echo
anytime you mention UFOs. How much you wanna bet, if the AvWeek article were
posted in SCIENCE, they'd sit there and say, "hmmm, interesting", without
doubting a word of it.
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: George Green
Date: 11 Oct 90 19:40:00 GMT
OK, I see what you mean from that standpoint. I thought maybe you had
some way of verifiying the reality of the claims. It's the first I
have heard of him.
--
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: 11 Oct 90 19:45:00 GMT
The cutoff I'm talking about is a hard line right across the bottom
edge of the UFO. THe fact that it doen't occur in all photo's might
also mean that he realized there was that defect and came up with a new
way to stage the photo's - it doesn't prove they aren't faked.
--
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: Ed's Multi-witness Event
Date: 11 Oct 90 19:48:00 GMT
YOu have asked a lot of good questions. I'm afraid you won't find the
answers forthcoming though. In addition to being a good example of cult
intelligence, it is also a good example of
self-delusion/self-fulfilling prophecy effects.
--
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: 11 Oct 90 19:54:00 GMT
RE: Your comments on Mayor Greys demeanor. I didn't see any of those
things you mentioned in his demeanor. He just looked like a typical
public offical who is used to talking with the media to me. I strongly
doubt he needed any coaching - he's probably already said it a dozen
times before Unsolved mysteries asked him about it. It's interesting
that many people seem to want to shift the focus from whether or not
Mr. Ed is on the up and up to attacking those who don't support Mr.
Ed. WHile it is Ed that has the most far out story to tell everyone
seems to want to question the motives of his critics.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Allen.Roberts@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Allen Roberts)
Subject: Re: Ufology
Date: 10 Oct 90 02:19:42 GMT
It just might have been Bill Cooper. Although I have been interested in
UFOs for a very long time, I never really paid much attention to people's
names. Only now that I participate on UFO BBSs am I now trying to get on
top of them.
--
Allen Roberts - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Allen.Roberts@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Allen.Roberts@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Allen Roberts)
Subject: Re: Ufology
Date: 10 Oct 90 02:21:27 GMT
Some truth may indeed be hidden in the fringe. But there comes a point
when mentally stable individuals have to draw the line.
--
Allen Roberts - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Allen.Roberts@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 10 Oct 90 15:35:00 GMT
> What do you think? Have you met or
> seen the guy in person?
I've never met him.
What strikes me as so odd about Grey is that he's so adamant, and it
appears he's committing political suicide.
Whether those ufos are real or not, the Gulf Breeze Chamber of
Commerce sure didn't object to the symposium crowds spending their
money.
I didn't really notice Grey's eyes, but I'll take another look at
the tape. I have noticed that he doesn't seem as animated as others
speaking on the same topics on the same shows.
I'll have an opportunity to ask some questions of some folks who
know Grey in January, if not sooner.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f20.n1011.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Re: GB model
Date: 11 Oct 90 06:09:00 GMT
JD> ...when the photos are shown side by side the match is almost
> perfect ...
Jim:
I also made that same observation after seeing the Unsolved
Mysteries show. Draw a set of "portholes" on the bottom paper plate,
and you've got an almost perfect match!
UM spent a lot of time on Brenda Pollack's sighting of March 17,
1988. It's too bad they didn't give Robert Boyd equal time to discuss
his analysis as set forth in pgs. 39-43 of _Failure At Science_ of
Brenda's story. He ripped her to shreads.
I also found it curious that Ed, once again, "just got answering
machines" when he called 3 investigators on the evening of the
"multiple witness sighting". Next time he should leave messages.
Anyway the people who turned out for *this* photo-op just happened to
be the ever-faithful Shoreline Park Gang - the same "witnesses" to Ed's
photoflash of March 17, 1988 (with the addition of Brenda's nephew).
Anyway, I can't understand the excitement over what was seen and
photographed this time around. The photos and the verbal description
given by Brenda are consistent with a flare suspended from a balloon.
A person would have to be tripping to think that this "light in the
sky" even remotely resembled the object in Ed's backyard photos.
Anyway, I'm so sick of the Walters case, I'm surprised at myself
for making this post!
-- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f20.n1011.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: ELMWOOD
Date: 10 Oct 90 17:07:05 GMT
The government selected Elmwood as the best case? Now I do have to drop in
there. As I have mentioned before the guy building the landing site has
dropped out as of late. I don't know if he ran out of funds or interest.
Actually I don't recall ever reading about an Elmwood sighting case. That
should be the basis for the rest of it. One reason we may not hear much about
this place is also that it is about nowhere, near nothing, half way between
MPLS,MN and EauClaire 16 miles South on county roads. Not much happens there.
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul.Faeder@p0.f0.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Faeder)
Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype
Date: 12 Oct 90 04:15:58 GMT
In a message of <09 Oct 90 18:53>, Jim Speiser (1:114/37) writes:
>Grey is an officer at a local bank, I believe he may even be president.
As far as the Gulf Breeze model being made from house plans.
Some townships/cities require plans of a building to be submitted to the
building and zoning offices to check for compliance to local statutes. Ed Grey
is the mayor and would have access to these.
All banks require building plans on new construction as part of the mortgage
process. Some banks have in-house real estate appraisers who must inspect a
property as part of the appraisal process. Ed Grey is an officer at a local
bank(?)
Just something to think about.
--
Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f0.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: GB model
Date: 11 Oct 90 15:33:00 GMT
JD> same angle as ED's photos and when the photos are shown
JD> side by side the match is almost perfect. As I mentioned
Almost only counts in horseshoes.
We don't know of any other models; we can only consider the one that's
been found.
Yes, a photo of the model and some of Ed's photos match almost perfectly.
In the same way two photos of two people could match almost perfectly.
But they're not the same.
One thing UM didn't mention is that Ed sketched the object, and his sketch
was published in his book. The model matches the sketch much more closely,
including errors in proportion, compared with the photos. Proportions of the
model *don't* match anything in the photos.
UM's report wasn't too bad, but there's a huge amount of other info and
details that weren't mentioned. Of course, it would have been a four-hour
show by then.
I know that sometimes I give the impression of being a "true believer" of
Ed, and then sometimes I give the impression of being a rabid debunker.
Actually, I'm right on top of the fence.
Since I've gathered much more factual and technical info that is ever
presented on TV I try to get it out too and make people think, rather than
jump to conclusions based on insufficient information.
A number of red flags are flying in Ed's case, but none of them can be
carried through to a provable conclusion.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.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************************
