Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 356
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 356
Thursday, January 31st 1991
Today's Topics:
Close to Home
Close To Home
New Magazine
Gulf Breeze video
Japanese Videotape
America's Best Kept Secrets
Predictions Review
Dave Webb
Re: Japanese Videotape
Abduction Conference to Internet
(none)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Graham@f13.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Graham)
Subject: Close to Home
Date: 29 Jan 91 07:14:12 GMT
Gee, the world seems small at times.
I was just rummaging through my various caches of books, blowing
off the dust and trying to ignore the overpowering musty odor of
aging paper when, what do I find?
"Flying Saucers-Serious Business" by Frank Edwards.
A work colleague of mine had pointed the following out to me
earlier today, and I thought I'd check it out, thus, the rummaging.
Nostalgia returns :-).
Anyway, sure enough I came across a couple of pages devoted to a sighting
in my current area - Bloomington, Indiana.
Apparently, in 1956 four boys sighted a circular object near a stone
quarry and mill (there are several around here). What's interesting
is that enough information is given, that, if this event did occur,
it can easily be followed up.
I am familiar with the area in question. Heck, I even have relatives
there!
According to Edwards, a police report was filed, and an Indiana
University psychiatrist was called in to examine the boys.
I may dig up some more, if anyone's interested.
BTW: The story can be found in chapter 2 - "The Heat Waves".
I realize this is old news, and that there's nothing all that fun and
exciting about this, but, when it hits home, it really hits home :-)
-Jim
--
Jim Graham - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Graham@f13.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Close To Home
Date: 29 Jan 91 06:16:00 GMT
> Nostalgia returns :-).
>
> Anyway, sure enough I came across a couple of pages
> devoted to a sighting
> in my current area - Bloomington, Indiana.
>
> Apparently, in 1956 four boys sighted a circular
> object near a stone
> quarry and mill (there are several around here).
> What's interesting
> is that enough information is given, that, if this
> event did occur,
> it can easily be followed up.
>
> I am familiar with the area in question. Heck, I even
> have relatives
> there!
>
> According to Edwards, a police report was filed, and
> an Indiana
> University psychiatrist was called in to examine the
> boys.
>
> I may dig up some more, if anyone's interested.
It is good practice. Sure, I would love to hear more about
this.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: New Magazine
Date: 30 Jan 91 07:35:00 GMT
Well it looks like Wendelle Stevens has finally come out with his
own magazine. It's called: _UFO ... Journal of Facts_. It's a
quarterly, published on glossy, heavyweight paper, laden with
loads of full-color, full-page photos. As for the articles ...
Oh, brother!
Wendelle claims that the magazine does not espouse any particular
point of view or belief system although the articles themselves
belie that notion. The content of the first issue, particularly
the article on "The Tau Ceti Connection" by Forest Crawford,
represents a combination of Billy Meieresque dogma (no surprise)
with plenty of emphasis on the alien-gov't. conspiracy, greys
eating humans, and Nevada Aerial Research - influenced ideas.
The most absurd and bizarre aspect of this article was the claim
that astronomer Frank Drake acted as some sort of Dr. Mengele -
type of character, ordering cruel medical tests and experiments
to be performed on a human-appearing alien from Tau Ceti --
without anesthetics! We are not supposed to question why an
astronomer would be supervising a medical investigation.
I can't understand why such things would be printed about Frank
Drake in Wendelle's first issue, especially considering the fact
that Drake was kind enough to appear in the movie about Billy
Meier. I doubt whether Drake would bother to sue for libel, but
if he did, it might make this issue a collecter's item: the
first and last issue of its kind.
-- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Gulf Breeze video
Date: 27 Jan 91 21:25:00 GMT
Word has it that an ABC-TV crew videotaped the Gulf Breeze red
night-light ufo the night of Jan. 11. More info as I get it.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen)
Subject: Japanese Videotape
Date: 24 Jan 91 06:53:22 GMT
Jim --
Your 12-9-90 posting about showing the Japanese videotape to a
Phoenix Skeptics meeting was very interesting. Among other
things, upon re-reading it, I figure _it_ must be what Jim Greenen
had in mind when he said (in FidoNet UFO) that Klass, Randi, and
skeptics in general claim that "all UFO photos are faked", which
is of course not quite what you said (let alone Klass, etc.).
JS> The bottom line seems to be that, while we are making inroads in
JS> convincing some skeptics that bona fide unexplainables - indeed,
JS> downright bafflers - exist, their basic philosophy is that there
JS> is so profoundly little chance that they could turn out to be
JS> anything truly earth-shattering, due to the pre-eminence of
JS> scientific knowledge of the universe, that UFOs are simply not
JS> worth bothering with. They will not begrudge us our right to look
JS> into them, but short of the proverbial White House landing, we're
JS> on our own in our pursuit of the truth behind their nature. As
JS> with any dogmatic belief, its hard to argue with.
...and from your follow-up message to Don Ecker of 12-10-90:
JS> They don't refute it. They just don't care. (And there is a
JS> subliminal message that they don't care because they know
JS> someday Phil Klass will explain it all.)
First, I'm sure you've already heard my point that any old
fanatical science-worshipper can call himself a "skeptic". One
such, who shall go nameless, has even gone so far as to start a
social club for his groupies, and calls it a skeptics' group.
However, knee-jerk nay-sayers are no more skeptics than "Beam me
up!" saucer cultists are UFOlogists.
Second, there's no definite border between prudently limited
patience and closed-mindedness. Since nobody has time to pursue
_every_ strange claim, one must inevitably decide which merit
closer study, and which to ignore. (There's a good quotation
from Hynek on this.) If these folks doubted their own ability to
_evaluate_ the videotape, that would explain their shoving it
onto the back burner. That brings me to....
Third, few self-described skeptics are qualified to do much
real UFOlogy. _I'm_ not. I can look in a general way at whether
statements seem consistent, sensible, and relevant, but often
have to rely on knowledgeable people who've seemed reliable in
the past, e.g., Phil Klass. This does _not_ mean subordinating
one's ultimate judgement. It's just realism -- admitting
personal ignorance. _I would_ want to hear Klass's views on the
Japanese tape before opening my big trap about it. (Klass also
consults specialists -- e.g., photography experts, professional
document examiners -- on various technical points. _Nobody's_ an
authority on everything.)
Fourth, any skeptic worth his doubts _will_ be able to tell what
evidence would suffice to convince him on a given factual claim.
In the case of the various UFO theories, it had -=better=- be
short of LGMs in the Rose Garden, else you are _justified_ in
dismissing this alleged skeptic as a closed-minded crank. Klass,
Sheaffer, and Oberg _can and have_ said what would convince them.
So, they may be wrong, but they're not dogmatists.
If you give _me_ time to think about it, I probably could, too --
but I'd probably want to check with Sheaffer, first. ;-)
Fifth, when you speak of the "unexplainable", I assume you mean
"presently unexplainable" (e.g., crop circles, Belgian UFO case).
I would hope that skeptics would not only acknowledge the
latter's existence, but also be delighted and intrigued by it.
"Bafflers" make life more fun.
(The only officer of Phoenix Skeptics I know is Jim Lippard, and
he always struck me as eminently fair-minded toward the
"unexplained". That's my only connection to Phoenix Skeptics.)
Sixth, skeptics don't quite leave UFOlogists "on their own" in
their case studies. Although most skeptics in UFOlogy don't
submit cases, they often do _analyse_ cases. (And, yes, Jim G.,
Klass _has_ done field studies!) At that, even if their only
contribution were helping weed out less-promising cases, they'd
be doing a real service.
Seventh, if you seek critical remarks at a public meeting
(as you did), you shouldn't be surprised at hearing from zealots
in the audience. They're always the loudest in any gathering.
I'd guess that none of them were officers of the group, though.
Best Regards, "Some circumstantial evidence is
Rick Moen, Secretary very strong, as when you find
Bay Area Skeptics a trout in the milk."
(but speaking for himself) -- Henry David Thoreau
--
Rick Moen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hpvclmd.vcd.hp.com!miked
Subject: America's Best Kept Secrets
Date: 30 Jan 91 20:24:44 GMT
From: Mike Dobbs <miked@hpvclmd.vcd.hp.com>
Most of you are probably aware that ABC has been working on a new TV
series called 'America's Best Kept Secrets'. Amoung other things,
they have been looking into Area 51 and Gulf Breeze. I heard a report
that the filming crew actully got some footage of a UFO in Gulf Breeze
on commercial equipment. I guess this show is supposed to be ABC's
answer to 'Unsolved Mysteries'. I have heard but have not been able
to confirm that the premere episode will be on February 4. I do not
know what time. If anyone can confirm this... Please do.
--------
Mike Dobbs / Internet: miked@vcd.hp.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen)
Subject: Predictions Review
Date: 27 Jan 91 10:07:50 GMT
_Keith_ <grin> writes:
KF> Mr. Fredericks is just Keith...
OK, Keith, I'll let my hair down a bit, then.
KF> I think that research into the observations of precognition,
KF> psychokinesis, and related ideas is the most rich area of
KF> research that there is. Any effort to close-off this area of
KF> research should be stopped.
I whole-heartedly and enthusiastically agree that efforts to
close off that research should be blocked, and that has been my
view all along. I _don't know_ how rich an avenue of research it
may prove to be, but I'd like to find out. Nowhere in my
postings, and nowhere in anything from Bay Area Skeptics, has
anyone ever said otherwise. If I may ask, _who_ does?
RM> Members of the public pay hundreds of dollars _an hour_ to
RM> these claimed psychics primarily because their repeated
RM> failures are _not_ obvious to them.
KF> So what.
Well, I'll _tell_ you "what". You criticised our press release
on the grounds (among others) that what it addressed was
"obvious". My response was that it ain't, to millions of people.
So, now you come back and say "So what"? Gimme a break.
Speaking informally, Keith, this is getting to be a rather
tiresome pattern: Step one -- unfounded criticism posted. Step
two -- unfounded criticism refuted. Step three -- evasion.
Keith, I seem to be having a recurrent problem. Someone (like
you) comes out of the blue, angrily and mistakenly tells me what
_I think_, then roundly criticises me for it. I respond by
saying no, I happen to think the exact opposite of what the other
party claims, and I ask him why he thought that. He then
_repeats_ his earlier claim, supplementing it with name-calling
and sundry evasions. Most also have what _I hope_ is the sense
of humour necessary to carry on this sort of zealotry in the name
of open-mindedness and the free exchange of ideas!
KF> They are perhaps entertaining notions that you have
KF> long ago closed off. Is this not more creative than trying
KF> to sell us all some dogma about things not being possible?
I am happy to inform you -- again -- that I (and we) are not in
the business of declaring things impossible. Again, nowhere will
you find any indication to the contrary.
Now, if the people who read (allegedly) psychic predictions in
"The Star" do so to "entertain notions", then I _applaud_ them for
that. The more notions we have available, the better off we all
are. Please note, in any event, that our press release in no way
discouraged anyone from exploring and entertaining even the most
apparently far-out notions. In fact, we _encourage_ just that.
KF> Why do you think that you need to enforce your ideas on
KF> others? It appears to me, and probably many others, that
KF> what you are selling as insight is just cleverly disguised
KF> dogma.
Once again, your personal opinion (as with that of anyone
else who chimes in on this bandwagon appeal) _will_ buy you a
ride on most parts of the San Francisco Municipal Railway,
provided you also have 85 cents. (Fares haven't yet gone up.)
Alas, your rhetorical question (above) is founded on a central
assumption contrary to fact: Since I do not "think I need to
enforce my ideas on others", I cannot really tell you "why". It
does, however, seem a remarkable question coming from someone who
has himself, ironically, relied on classic appeals to prejudice
throughout this discussion.
KF> ...who sits between the outrageous new agers with their soft
KF> science and the hard-line skeptics with their fear of what is
KF> beyond the barriers that they have set up. [stuff deleted]
It must be nice to be able to _define one's self to be a moderate_.
Too bad, then, about your immediately, continually, and grossly
caricaturing one (and only one) of the supposed extremists.
This does tend to sort of _ruin the effect_ a bit.
So, enough with the mud-slinging and rhetorical posturing, OK?
Right. Onwards.
KF> A really good example of [negative attitudes blocking
KF> new insights] was when we were starting to talk about the
KF> remote viewing stuff as prompted by the Blum book. I posted
KF> references to scientific research done in the area. The
KF> references I posted were criticized I believe unfairly.
KF> Instead of proceeding to the next step in the discussion, the
KF> discussion centered on the validity of the research referenced.
Keith, I don't recall the discussion you cite, but please allow me
to address this as a _general_ matter. I believe the point of
citing references is usually to provide support for what one is
alleging, and to allow others to see for themselves the evidence
for your assertion. If that is the case, then the research's
validity is a relevant and primary concern. If you believe
criticism is unfair, you _can_ just say so, say why, and -- again
-- let people decide for themselves. That's what the free
exchange of ideas is all about. ;-)
KF> In brainstorming, a moderator points out when a judgement has
KF> occurred, and nips it in the bud.
So, in the name of open-mindedness and the free exchange of
ideas, would you want to prohibit people from speaking up if they
think some assertion of fact isn't true? I'm not sure I follow.
It seems to me that there's plenty of room in this forum both for
free-ranging brainstorming and for investigation/analysis. If
you just can't abide people saying they find fault with your
assertions, maybe you should try including at the top of your
message something like the following: "The following is
brainstorming to stimulate ideas. Hold the nitpicks, please."
Unfortunately, I've noticed that a lot of people simply want to
have it both ways: They want their statements taken seriously,
but simultaneously declared off-limits to criticism. Why?
Because they want it. Well, good luck to them, I suppose, but I
doubt that most of humanity will accomodate them, skeptics or no
skeptics.
Best Regards,
Rick M.
--
Rick Moen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cwns2.ins.cwru.edu!aa440
Subject: Dave Webb
Date: 31 Jan 91 05:34:21 GMT
From: aa440@cleveland.freenet.edu (Dale Wedge)
Dave, I got alot of documentation (over 200 pages)
on the Spaur-Neff case of 1966. It was intriguing to see your
name listed as one that worked with Weitzel from Pittsburgh
while you were from Alliance. Again, any information that you
can send me would be appreciated.
Best,
--
Dale B. Wedge-----(aa440)----(xx044)----Co-SySop----UFOlogy Sig
\\\\\\\\WE DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH YET TO SAY WHAT THEY ARE/////////
////////SO WE MUST CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE UNTIL WE DO\\\\\\\\\
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Graham@f13.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Graham)
Subject: Re: Japanese Videotape
Date: 31 Jan 91 06:45:37 GMT
>
> Sixth, skeptics don't quite leave UFOlogists "on their own" in
> their case studies. Although most skeptics in UFOlogy don't
> submit cases, they often do _analyse_ cases. (And, yes, Jim G.,
> Klass _has_ done field studies!) At that, even if their only
> contribution were helping weed out less-promising cases, they'd
> be doing a real service.
Ok, Since you mentioned my name (Jim G.), I have to ask....
Did you really mean 'G.' or 'S.'?
If G, then I also have to say that people who read UseNet really DO
remember what they read!
I posted on sci.skeptic a few months back, concerning Randi and Klass,
and in some cases was inundated with verbal incindiaries from the more
hardline self-proclaimed skeptics.
However, I must say Rick that you are truly refreshing after spending
time on sci.skeptic. You actually come across as "open-minded" ! :-)
If you meant to say 'S.' in that name, then accept my apologies for
rambling and running up everyones phone bill.
Regards,
-Jim
--
Jim Graham - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Graham@f13.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Abduction Conference to Internet
Date: 31 Jan 91 05:42:00 GMT
This is to announce that our abduction conference will now
be available on the Internet as a digest much like the
ParaNet Information Digest.
Those wishing to be placed on the list are to send your
submissions to:
abduct-request@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu
Dr. David Jacobs is our special conference moderator and is
best known for his literary work, "The UFO Controversy in
America." Jacobs is working with several abductees and
another book detailing his findings with this research. He
is working closely with Budd Hopkins, author of "Intruders"
and "Missing Time." The conference should be quite
interesting.
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: vm1.yorku.ca!YSCS1296
Subject: (none)
Date: 31 Jan 91 08:21:17 GMT
From: YSCS1296@vm1.yorku.ca
To: infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
With regards to Pete Porro's reply to the 'mystic places' discussion...
In fact, Stonehenge was a really minor detail compared to other artifacts.
I don't think it's fair to brush aside all the mystic places and strange
artifacts on Earth as 'explained'. There can never be any absolute
explanation for them, and their existence, or should I say, co-existence,
stands as a monument for a REALLY BIG question mark. You mentioned no
strange RF radiation, etc... from Stonehenge, and that Nazca was a large
calendar, etc. etc. etc. but how strongly supported are THESE contentions?
Like you, I don't wish to start a 'flame' about this. It isn't the intent.
I simply want to see what, exactly, is the status quo of opinions on these
artifacts. You did not mention your opinion on the various cave drawings
that depict aliens and spaceships, the mathematical complexities of the
artifacts, the references in holy texts of spaceships and spacemen (not
just the Bible, mind you, but other such texts in other religions, including
the Arabian). Even if some artifacts are 'merely' calendars... how did
they arrive at the mathematics? Why SHOULD artifacts emit strange radiation?
And actually I am quite interested in this calendar business because you
mentioned that 1969 was a day that came and went. What the calendar (and
sorry I don't know the name of this artifact or where it is at this moment)
stated was the year 2011 A.D., December 24th. How can they verify it until
2011/12/24 has come and gone? And why this specific, RELIGIOUS, day?
But again, I don't wish to lose sight of the forest for the trees. I hope
you can at least point to the sources that 'explain' all of these artifacts
away because even though I agree CHARIOTS OF THE GODS may suffer from bias,
or ill-executed research methods, these artifacts DO EXIST, regardless of
attempted rationalizations attached to them. I just don't want to put the
topic to rest in the same manner that scientist did on Unsolved Mysteries'
segment on the MARS FACE when he referred to another rock formation looking
like 'Kermit the frog'. It was ridiculous. Just as the scientist who tried
to explain crop circles as nothing strange, that circular patterns are normal
in nature, which totally does NOT address the triangular patterns, and indeed
they are PATTERNS (even the OMNI magazine pictures show that much) and not
simply 'circles'. CROP PATTERNS would be a better name, or was that term
specifically designed to mislead and curb interest from people who have never
seen the real things?
********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************************
