Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report

Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 363

eZine's profile picture
Published in 
Info ParaNet Newsletters
 · 10 months ago
1

                Info-ParaNet Newsletters   Volume I  Number 363 

Saturday, February 9th 1991

Today's Topics:

Re: Cattle Mutes
Re: Phenomenon Framed Again!
My Second Article
Skepticism
Just Cause
the Phoenix Journals
Barry Greenwood
Re: Skepticism
Re: Skeptic
Wild-eyed Claims

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: vanth!jms
Subject: Re: Cattle Mutes
Date: 8 Feb 91 23:12:21 GMT

From: vanth!jms@amix.commodore.com (Jim Shaffer)


+From: Paul.Faeder@p0.f0.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Faeder)

+From the:
+IDAHO STATE JOURNAL, Pocatello, ID - June 20, 1990

+ Those who think unearthly forces are responsible also
+ believe little green people land from flying saucers. There

Well, I think this speaks entire volumes about what the reporter thinks of
UFOs and the people who believe in them!

It also seems to indicate that he has no knowledge of the current theories
in the field. He could at least get the aliens' skin color right.


From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | 'Glittering prizes and
Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | endless compromises
37 Brook Street | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | shatter the illusion of
Montgomery, PA 17752 | (CompuServe as a last resort)| integrity!' (Rush)




--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: Peggy.Noonan@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Peggy Noonan)
Subject: Re: Phenomenon Framed Again!
Date: 8 Feb 91 15:33:00 GMT

Sorry John, I know how that goes--if you miss a message or two, you're
out of the sequence and lost. Or if you've read about a thousand other
messages on various BBS, you can't remember what in the world you were
talking about with X on Y date...Happens to me all the time, so I
should've been extra careful to remind you in my last reply.
We were talking about Dorothy Isaacs and her Unsolved Mysteries
photos and I'd had the impression that she went around the country to
all the various UFO meetings/conferences promoting her pix, so I was
asking you about that--if you knew if she went to these affairs (I
don't get to them myself, so I wouldn't know)--but it's not really that
important, so don't worry about a reply. I was just curious in case
you happened to know offhand.
And this longer message is as long as it is so you'll know what in
the world I'm talking about...that is, if anyone can ever figure out
what in the world I'm talking about...<g>
==Peggy==
--
Peggy Noonan - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Peggy.Noonan@paranet.FIDONET.ORG



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: My Second Article
Date: 8 Feb 91 22:45:00 GMT


> From: David Elmore Coleman <infinity@wam.umd.edu>
>
> In reference to the Hudson Valley Sightings in New York and Connecticut
> during the 1980s, it was often seen that UFOs would focus beams of
> light on lakes and reservoirs of the region. However, I don't think
> anyone noted that from Candlstick Reservoir in Connecticut, to
> Bridgeport, across to Mt. Kisco in New York, and up to Putnam (?) county,
> is about the greatest concentration of lakes in the northeast U.S? If
> you graph the area of the sightings onto a map of New York-Connecticut,
> you will see that the sightings fill the lakes region very well but
> rarely venture beyond (i.e to Enfield and New Haven, Connecticut.)
> This is more evidence for the relationship between the boomerang UFOs
> and their apparent interests in water or lakes.

As I recall, the objects were also observed to have
extended some type of appendage into the water. I find
this very curious. To your knowledge, is there anything
unique about those bodies of water, i.e., minerals,
composition, etc?

> A lot of investigators of abductee experiences, with the exception of
> Dr. Leo Sprinkle, tend to discredit contactee experiences (as opposed to
> abductee experiences.) But, I don't think they realize how many
> abductee experiences seem to overlap contactee
> experiences. John
> Bielinski for example, who is an average abductee with the point scars
> and stuff, is a Connecticut MUFON section director. His sister and
> a couple of his friends have all been abducted. He reports that he
> has been trained in the operation of UFOs, and has been told he will
> have something to do with partial planetary evacuation at the time of
> coming Earth changes, changes which the Hopi, Jose Arguelles'
> controversial research, and contactees continually refer to being
> upcoming. The important thing to note here is that he is an
> *abductee* not a *contactee*.

This is very interesting. I have a great deal of concern
over this distinction. I have not seen many cases of
crossover where an abductee and contactee are concerned.
At least not within a valid body of research or data.
Secondly, depending upon what the person is doing with
respect to his/her position as a State Section Director for
MUFON and the personal experiences that this person has
had, would be of major concern to me. MUFON is supposed to
represent a "scientific" organization dedicated to the
scientific study of the UFO phenomenon. To the best of my
knowledge there has been *no* conclusive findings on what
exactly the abduction phenomenon represents, or that it is
even a real physical episode. For anyone in a capacity of
administration to advance that they have the answers, is
highly unscientific and maybe, in my opinion, very
irresponsible. To say that Mr. Bielinski and friends and
sisters have all been abducted is not a scientific finding.
We have never observed an actual abduction in progress and
therefore cannot determine that what is perceived as an
abduction is really an abduction. The theory that I have
heard thus far is that there is a distinction between an
abductee and a contactee. Adbuctees demonstrate a traumatic
response to the episode which manifests itself in a host of
psychological and physiological disorders, while contactees
do not demonstrate this similar behavior. Of paramount
importance to this is that an abductee's account is always
similar in the basic "onboard" experience, such as that the
examination was veru impersonal, very little actual
communication, either telepathic or otherwise, and brought
to a speedy conclusion without any explanation. On the
contactee side, many different things are reported that are
always never similar to the abductee accounts. Reports from
contactees sometimes do not even involve a UFO or vessel
where they are taken, instead they report that something or
someone conveys a "divine" message to them and that the
whole purpose for the contact is an errand of salvation.
There are a number of well-written books on the market
detailing both sides of this issue. I feel that we are
extremely premature in jumping from point A to point C
without considering and exhausting B as part of the logical
step in investigation. This is not to say that Mr.
Bielinski has not been involved in something of a highly
unusual nature, however I would be curious to know how he
has come to these conclusions and how this affects his
judgment as a section director for MUFON.

As for the Petit interview which appeared in the Paris
French Match Magazine, I found it very interesting. We
posted it here and did have some discussion, but I wanted to
see more.

Thank you for your post.

Mike

--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Skepticism
Date: 8 Feb 91 22:50:00 GMT


> Hey, if I can find a local UFO Fido node, I'll leave him
> some line noise specifying his absence on this echo...
>
> I'll keep ya's spec'd on it as I log around
> town....and?

Thanks Kurt.

Mike

--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: Don.Ecker@f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Just Cause
Date: 2 Feb 91 16:47:00 GMT

Kurt Lochner states;

> I don't think that
> the enactment of this particular law was directed at
> anyone other than former government officials that
> write about "inside" goings on in governments....


Regardless of why the law was passed, this abridges the
First Admendment, and should be overturned at once.
Furthermore, the thing that most people forget, or maybe
worse yet, never realized, is the FACT that "We the
People......"
are the government. I WANT THESE PEOPLE TO
TELL ME WHAT IS GOING ON, ESPECIALLY IF MALFEASANCE IS
INVOLVED. How do you stop unlawful, unauthorized, or
criminal acts, if you have a law that makes the
"whistleblower" a criminal? If someone is threatened with a
huge fine and jail time for exposing wrongdoing, how many
people working for the G will come forward? Something to
think about.

--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: vanth!jms
Subject: the Phoenix Journals
Date: 9 Feb 91 03:20:39 GMT

From: vanth!jms@amix.commodore.com (Jim Shaffer)

+From: lush@ecn.purdue.edu (God of Ultimate)

<Ahem> Real name please. (It kind of kills your credibility, too.)

+I am vey new to this group so I may discuss something that you all
+have already seen, but I would guess from the questions that are
+begin asked that you have not discovered a relatively new source
+of verifiable 'inside' information on UFO's.
----------

True, this is the first time I've heard of it. But VERIFIABLE? Would you
care to elaborate on that? Please?

+These books are the Phoenix Journals, and they also produce
+a newletter, the Phoenix Journal Express. The chief author of
+this series of books is Georgyos Hatonn, and he is an alien
+from our Sister Constellation, the Pleiades.

I'm not an astronomer, but I know that the Pleiades are a relatively new,
relatively hot cluster of stars. Could anyone give me the probability that
life as we know it could have evolved there? (If we're talking about life
as we DON'T know it, then this is irrelevant.)

+The Pleidians date their Journals with two dates, one being the dates
+that you and I use, the second begins in August 1987. (I believe this
+is when all the broo-ha-ha about the Harmonic Convergence was going on.
+I don't know anything about that except that the Pleidians are not kind
+to the New Agers.)

Funny, an awful lot of New Agers seem to believe in intelligent life in the
Pleiades. It seems odd that the aliens wouldn't believe in the New Agers,
then.

I also forgot to ask how this information came to be written down. Is the
alien responsible for it here on the planet physically, or is he a
channelled entity? If he's here physically, his alienness should be easy
to verify. If he's channelled, his alienness would probably be impossible
to verify.

+Unfortunately, people are not making any attempts
+in mass quantities to change the path we are on.

Now THIS is something I can sympathize with, though not necessarily for
religious reasons.

+was asking too many questions. If you can find the number of
+the number of the Executive Order (EO), you will find, according to
+the Pleidians, that it is out of order. EO's are written in
+successive order, no matter who the president is. The number identified
+as the Truman EO for setting up MJ-12 is a number that won't be
+encountered for quite some time. I don't know how to look up such
+a thing.

Well, this wouldn't be the first time that the authenticity of the MJ-12
documents was challenged. And Bill Moore has admitted to working for the
government at one time. As for Cooper, you're certainly not the first
person to call him a liar. I don't know if it's government disinformation,
though. It could be for his personal gain.

+You won't find any of these Journals in your major bookstores because
+they are not allowed to carry them. The Journals point out a lot of
+things that you thought you knew about history, the Hubble Telescope,
+our Constitution, the World Wars I, II, and III, Kissinger, Rockefeller
+are lies. This is not well received by our governmental leaders.

I think if a book was actually banned, we'd hear about it! Or are you
saying that the management simply does not wish to carry them? I find that
hard to believe, since they'd probably sell very well.

Please tell me what the 'truth' about the Hubble Telescope is. I've never
heard any theories regarding this. (I have an idea what it might be, but
I'll save it until I hear this version. I'm pretty sure it's nothing but
coincidence anyway.)

+Kennedy was assassinated in part because he was going to tell the American
+people that governments were in communication with aliens, The
+CIA/Mossad-run drug rings were getting out of hand, bomb shelters were
+a good idea, and the Presidency was being made into a position of
+dictatorship, which is being manifested now with Bush.
+Our Constitution has been destroyed by Executive Orders.

This is exactly the theory put forth by Bill Cooper. What happened to the
aliens calling him a profound liar and debunker?


From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | 'Glittering prizes and
Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | endless compromises
37 Brook Street | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | shatter the illusion of
Montgomery, PA 17752 | (CompuServe as a last resort)| integrity!' (Rush)




--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: vanth!jms
Subject: Barry Greenwood
Date: 9 Feb 91 03:21:18 GMT

From: vanth!jms@amix.commodore.com (Jim Shaffer)

+From: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)

+ As for Barry
+Greenwood's plight, I do not think that he was trying to
+imply that the government passed this law solely to 'clam up
+UFO investigators.' Let's look into this more closely and
+figure out what the reasons are for this action.

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this before...
Do you remember last year there was an uproar over the huge amounts of
money senators and other elected officials got paid to give speeches to
private groups? The feeling at the time was that something should be done
about it. It appears that something has. I don't remember hearing
anything about it until now, but if I tried to keep track of everything the
government was doing I wouldn't have time to do anything else! (And Cooper
wonders why we let them get away with things...)

It's odd that they would extend the prohibition to ALL government employees
and ANY amount of money, but maybe it's not a case of extending it, maybe
it's a case of forgetting to specifically restrict it. If so, it
definitely needs to be re-worded to eliminate the, uh, gray areas. (Keep
in mind that I haven't read it -- maybe it IS explicit. In which case, it
STILL should be changed.)


From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | 'Glittering prizes and
Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | endless compromises
37 Brook Street | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | shatter the illusion of
Montgomery, PA 17752 | (CompuServe as a last resort)| integrity!' (Rush)




--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: Rick.Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: Skepticism
Date: 8 Feb 91 00:51:35 GMT

JG> ...then why not ask the skeptics where their proof is.

Their proof of what, Jim?

--
Rick Moen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: Rick.Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: Skeptic
Date: 8 Feb 91 01:04:29 GMT

> To quote Mr. Webster, the word SKEPTIC is defined as: ...

Jim --

If you want to know what a self-described skeptic thinks, the way to do
so is to ask him, not to consult a dictionary. Caricature performed by
invoking Noah Webster is still caricature.

Best Regards,
Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics
Member, Electronic Communications Subcommittee, CSICOP

--
Rick Moen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: Rick.Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen)
Subject: Wild-eyed Claims
Date: 8 Feb 91 01:42:58 GMT

Douglas Dever of the Cleveland Freenet UFOlogy SIG wrote as follows:

> The very sarcastic skeptic (Lynn Parham) seems to fail to notice the
> fact that 'skeptics' often fail to give proof or evidence for their
> claims. The door seems to swing both ways...

Douglas --

Examples of such unsubstantiated claims, please? (Not saying you're
mistaken, mind you, just don't know what specifically you're referring
to.)

Best Regards,
Rick M.

--
Rick Moen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f27.n125.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************************


← previous
next →

Comments

1
guest's profile picture
@guest

Sabung Ayam Online

6 months ago
loading
sending ...
New to Neperos ? Sign Up for free
download Neperos App from Google Play
install Neperos as PWA

Let's discover also

Recent Articles

Recent Comments

Neperos cookies
This website uses cookies to store your preferences and improve the service. Cookies authorization will allow me and / or my partners to process personal data such as browsing behaviour.

By pressing OK you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge the Privacy Policy

By pressing REJECT you will be able to continue to use Neperos (like read articles or write comments) but some important cookies will not be set. This may affect certain features and functions of the platform.
OK
REJECT