Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 364
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 364
Tuesday, February 12th 1991
Today's Topics:
Abductee/Contactee
My Second Article
Ufo-journal Of Facts
Skeptics
Echo Guidelines
Meeting Announcement
Abductee/contactee
Ideas to Ponder
Soviet UFO Crash Story
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator's Note: Please be sure you have alias 'paramod@scicom....' to
'infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com' for article submissions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wam.umd.edu!infinity
Subject: Abductee/Contactee
Date: 10 Feb 91 00:15:12 GMT
From: David Elmore Coleman <infinity@wam.umd.edu>
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.
+ From: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
+ 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?
I have thought about looking into this. I will check some landform and
geological maps, if I can find them.
>> 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. ...
>> 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,..
+ ...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. ... 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.
Mr. Bielinski is not publicly advancing his experiences, nor is
he assuming his 'answers' are correct when talking and debating
with other people interested in UFOs. My friend Steve Marcus of
Connecticut, who is a member of both MUFON and CAUS, has himself
not been abducted (to his memory), but his wife and (then) four year
old daughter prodigy have. His wife unfortunately changed her mind on
going to a hypnotist to dig out her experiences, but she remembers
being told about big Earth changes coming, although that had been the first
she had heard of the idea of Earth changes. The experiences had been
traumatic for her, in the vein of an abductee experience.
+ ... 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 very 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.
+Mike
I think the indication is that most alien races are watching our
interface with upcoming Earth changes, and only a few wish to take
a highly active part in `salvation' as you put it.
A problem is that there is a wide variety of degrees of 'contactee.'
Some are 'channeled,' which makes them little different than direct
New Age spirit communications. Some meet aliens in their homes, in the
forest, or in the mountains. Some are actually taken on board ships.
The Andreasson Affair seems to be positioned perfectly in between abductee
and contactee. Within the contactee movement, there is plent of room
for abductee experiences, as according to this movement, aliens have many
medical interests in their concern for our dealing with upcoming Earth
changes. Supposedly, 'Ashtar Command,' as it is nicknamed for our sake,
is the main group in charge of seeding forms of Earth life in other
systems (i.e by cattle mutilation,) and in charge of partial evacuation
of the planet. Most of the other groups, 70 if you believe the
Andreasson Affair is a good investigation, have little involvement in
the upcoming changes. They are more interested in observing the changes,
and, apparently, interacting with a few Earth people, out of curiousity,
willingness to help, and a few other reasons. Thus, in the eyes of
the contactee movement, it is not unusual that there are a smaller
amount of in between cases. Any 'variety' in contactee cases I
consider to be a result of there being a good number of non-omniscient
alien races, interference caused by incompatibility between the
thought patterns of the alien and the contactee, and the interference
from mischeivous entities masquerading as ETs. These reasons
obviously depend on whether the contactee experience is real or fake,
but my point is that the contactee movement is actually consistent
with itself.
It is my opinion that the majority of
information written on abductee experiences does somewhat subconsciously
ignore the idea of cross-over cases, because the predominance of
strict contactee and strict abductee experiences seem to indicate that
there should not be any cross-over cases. Thus, in abductee literature,
there does not seem to be much knowledge portrayed of some of the
cross-over cases that do exist. The cross-over cases are
semi-consciously assumed to be nonexistent or hoaxed. This is an
ignorance that is causing those investigators strictly interested in
abductee experiences to fulfill their own self-prophecy that abductee
experiences are the only ones which are real.
This same kind of thing is what (Michael?) Persinger is doing.
He can fit maybe 80 percent of cases to be possibly related to fault lines,
but he has to pretend that the Gulf Breeze cases, the Hudson Valley cases,
the radiation burn abductee cases, are all nonexistent. First of all,
nearly every place in the country seems to be within 50 to 100 miles
of a minor fault line. The more detailed you look, the more common
the fault lines are. I recently looked at a map of Kansas showing
literally hundreds of faults covering the state. So, it is hard for
his theory to be contested, until you look into the physical UFO cases.
Second of all, one cannot exclude such strong evidence as the Gulf Breeze
cases and the landing site cases so that your equally circumstantial seismic
theory becomes reasonable.
Another example of this kind of logic is the vortex theory of the
crop circles. Some of the proponents of this theory
are now saying that the new, complicated pictograms are hoaxes while
the simpler circles are caused by real vorticeses. 'Hoaxers could not
possibly make all of the circles, so let us call the complex ones
hoaxes and the others the product of air vortices!' Claiming that
either a hoaxer or an air vortex could even produce *one* of the simplest
circles is an extraordinary claim by itself. Saying that *both* can
is simply unbelievable.
More galactic thoughts from:
Amicitia Subjugat Omnia Hweohthte... (Hwe-oath-T)
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
David E. Coleman infinity@wam.umd.edu
8125 48th Ave, Apt. 612
College Park, MD 20740 1-(301)-474-7424
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Unknowingly, he picked up a whirly blue throwstone with strange hieroglyphics
on the opposite side he didn't see, and he tossed it into the sunlit stream;
A note said he had opened a gate to some place indescribable.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Greenen)
Subject: Ufo-journal Of Facts
Date: 8 Feb 91 13:58:00 GMT
Dave; you can write to: UFO Journal of Facts
P.O. Box 17206
Tucson, AZ 85710
Now I enjoyed the magazine and I thought the articules were very
interesting. I'm a State Section Director for MUFON but to tell you
the truth, I am tried of the articules in MUFON journal. It's seems
like a bunch of PHD's trying to impress there colleague with a bunch
of words that they spent days looking up in the dictionary. In the
Journal of Facts, it's interesting reading and you don't have to be
spending half the day looking up words. The articule that mention
Frank Drake intrigued me, I don't know if its true but I wouldn't
discard it either. ENJOY 73's ---Jim---
--
Jim Greenen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Rogers)
Subject: Skeptics
Date: 9 Feb 91 19:37:33 GMT
At the risk of drawing all the fire to myself, allow me to suggest
that the skeptic bashing and counter-bashing has gone far enough.
Because someone either believes or does not believe in the subjects
discussed here does not mean that they are "right" or "wrong". I
would hope that all members of this discussion would attempt to keep
their emotions in check, and, instead, present logical argumentation
to support their cases.
The current thread vis-a-vis the role of skepticism is neither
productive, nor, from my perceptions, freindly. The position of Paranet
has *ALWAYS* been that *ALL* responsible, thought-out, supportable
positions are to be considered. Skepticism included.
I suggest that the bashing end and we return to business without
prejudice.
Doug Rogers
Echo Co-ordinator
--
Doug Rogers - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Rogers)
Subject: Echo Guidelines
Date: 9 Feb 91 19:46:10 GMT
New readers are always joining Paranet. For their benefit, allow me to review
the rules of posting which we ask all our users to adopt:
******* PARANET ECHO POLICIES ********
The following are guidelines for the operation of the Paranet Echos on member
boards. Please take a moment to read (and understand) these policies. If we'll
adopt these attitudes, we'll have a more polite, effective network.
1. No anonymous messages may be posted on the network. Some Paranet BBS's
allow users to use "handles", and USENET users have no opportunity to
place their names in the "From" field. If a user uses a handle, then all
posts to Paranet Echos must be signed at the end of the message using
the user's REAL NAME. In the case of USENET posts, it would help to
place the ADDRESSEE's REAL NAME in the subject field. It is the respon-
sibility of the Sysop of each Paranet Node to enforce this requirement,
either by reviewing all messages before release, or by disallowing
Paranet access to users using handles.
2. Personal Attacks are *NOT* allowed in the Net. In any echo dealing with
issues as emotional as those with which we deal it is a matter of course
that the validity of testimony on the part of certain individuals will
be called into question. It is important, however, to remember that
*ALL* parties are to be treated with respect. If you wish to question a
person's validity, state your reservations AS YOUR OPINION. For example:
"John Doe is a totally unreliable witness" could leave you legally
vulnerable. "I BELIEVE John Doe to be a totally unreliable witness" is
much better, especially if you can add "because...". Please be careful
how you judge the parties involved, and attempt to defend your
contentions.
3. Any user who is found to have knowingly and deliberately posted false or
misleading information regarding the activities of the United States
Government, its intelligence agencies and/or operatives, with respect
to the investigation of UFOs or other related matters, will be locked
out of the network immediately and permanently, and their name
circulated to other UFO investigatory groups.
4. Direct Flames are best posted elsewhere. They will not be tolerated in
the echos.
5. References should be included if required for clarity. Some users tend
to copy the entirity of previous messages before responding, while
others never quote anything and simply make comments about previous
posts. You should remember that many boards don't hold all messages
forever. Quote (if your software allows it) or at least paraphrase
(write a simple summary of) the content of the message you refer to.
Please DO NOT quote the entire message, as this is just expense for
all boards concerned. Quote only the germaine material.
6. Please make all messages conform to the specified content of the Echo
Area in which you are posting. Putting the messages in the right pile
makes it MUCH easier to make sense out of the stacks of messages.
7. Enforcement. Users who violate these guidelines will be advised of the
lapse by the Echo Moderator. After three violation notices, the user is
to be locked out of Paranet areas by the sysop. A FIRST lockout will be
for THIRTY DAYS. A SECOND lockout will be for NINETY days. The THIRD
lockout will be PERMANENT. Sysops who refuse to lock out troublesome
users can be dropped from the net by the Paranet Administrator. Users
who believe the Moderator has been unfair in requesting a lockout can
request that their Sysop plead their case in the Sysop Echo. In such
cases, ALL net Sysops will be asked to vote on the matter. Vote of the
net is binding on all concerned.
Doug Rogers
Echo Moderator
--
Doug Rogers - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: violet.berkeley.edu!chalmers
Subject: Meeting Announcement
Date: 10 Feb 91 16:16:51 GMT
From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
The first H.A.S.T. dinner meeting and lecture of 1991 will take
place on Friday, February 22, at 7:00 PM at The Morningside Thai
Restaurant, 6710 Morningside Dr., Houston, TX 77030 in the West
University-Medical Center area one block north of Holcombe Bldv.
between Kirby and Greenbriar. To RSVP or for further information,
please call (713) 933-0007.
The speaker will be John Harling, a chemical engineer and
lawyer, who will speak on the the Burgess Shale fauna and Chaos
theory as examples of scientific resistance to new paradigms.
The Houston Association for Scientific Thinking (H.A.S.T.)
is a non-profit, educational organization of like-minded
volunteers whose OBJECTIVES are:
-To promote logical thinking and to encourage critical
evaluation of evidence presented in support of different points
of view.
-To encourage individuals to be more skeptical and to inform
them of the dangers of belief without evidence.
-To inform people of the differences between science and
pseudoscience
-To investigate the claims and events of an apparently
pseudoscientific or paranormal nature with a critical,
but open, mind.
-To provide reliable information to others about such claims.
For further information on H.A.S.T., please call (713) 933-0007
and leave a message. H.A.S.T. extends an invitation to any
interested person in the greater Houston area to attend our
meetings and parties. It is also looking for stimulating
speakers and suggestions for future programs.
this may be interest to many on the net if they live in the
Houston Texas area ---- John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Abductee/contactee
Date: 10 Feb 91 09:42:00 GMT
> From: David Elmore Coleman <infinity@wam.umd.edu>
> I have thought about looking into this. I will check
> some landform and
> geological maps, if I can find them.
This would be very interesting. I would also be curious at
exploring the data a little more in detail as to what the
witnesses had seen the object doing while over the water. I
believe that one case that I read about indicated that it
appeared that the object was taking in water from a lake or
something similar. I also recall that there is a UFO case
in Australia where the object apparently drained a large
water holding tank and even left the residue stacked in the
center of the tank in a spindle-formation. It appears that
water may be of some use to the objects.
> Mr. Bielinski is not publicly advancing his
> experiences, nor is
> he assuming his 'answers' are correct when talking and
> debating
> with other people interested in UFOs. My friend Steve
> Marcus of
> Connecticut, who is a member of both MUFON and CAUS,
> has himself
> not been abducted (to his memory), but his wife and
> (then) four year
> old daughter prodigy have. His wife unfortunately
> changed her mind on
> going to a hypnotist to dig out her experiences, but
> she remembers
> being told about big Earth changes coming, although
> that had been the first
> she had heard of the idea of Earth changes. The
> experiences had been
> traumatic for her, in the vein of an abductee
> experience.
Again, this is highly subjective until all of the data can
be analyzed by competent authorities. I have always been
curious as to what causes the contactee to equate the
experience to that of a religious experience. An example of
this is the Andreasson case. In her experience, she
observed many symbolic things, such as the Phoenix rising
from the ashes and the geometrical stuctures observed while
in her journey. Although I have read most of the material
on this case, I come away with a less-than-convinced
opinion of the case's validity. However, this is not to say
that the contactee movement doesn't warrant careful study to
determine if it indeed does have a connection to the UFO
phenomenon. Too, with abductees, I am not sure that
hypnotic regression holds much in the way of reliable
findings since I have seen all too many times the hypnotist
not being necessarily qualified at adminstering the
regression or interpretation of it. As in the case of Betty
and Barney Hill, Dr. Simon was a psychiatrist. His work was
highly lauded as reliable and qualified. Dr. Simon's
findings were inconclusive, which indicates to me that there
was not enough information available to make a determination
of what actually happened to the Hills'. I am concerned
over the apparent recreational attitude that is taken by
so-called "hypnotherapists" who possess no medical
credentials whatsoever, running around treating abductees
with no concern for the seriousness that the problem poses
to their mental and physical health. Until such time as
abduction is proven to be an actual physical interaction
with alien beings, the symptoms should be medically treated
by competent, licensed medical personnel to assure that no
damage is being done to the victim as a result of wholesale
amateur regression. One group which purports to be a
scientific organization is allowing such practices by
unqualified personnel to be performed almost on a daily
basis. This is highly irresponsible. There is yet another
complication which arises as a result of this: The body of
data that we are presented with is useless and tends to
disinform the UFO community with statistics that are
unfounded and inaccurate. The actual numbers of estimated
abductions cannot be of any statistical value as the methods
used to arrive at these figures are flawed. So, this
leaves us right where we started, no closer to the truth
than we were ten years ago.
> I think the indication is that most alien races are
> watching our
> interface with upcoming Earth changes, and only a few
> wish to take
> a highly active part in `salvation' as you put it.
This is also highly subjective. Your comment implies that
we have actually discovered that there are, in fact, aliens
at work within our environment. There has been no proof of
this whatsoever. I will agree that the evidence collected
thus far strongly implies that there is something going on
which could have an alien origin to it, however this is
inconclusive.
> A problem is that there is a wide variety of
> degrees of 'contactee.' Some are 'channeled,' which makes them little
> different than direct New Age spirit communications. Some meet aliens in
> their homes, in the forest, or in the mountains. Some are actually taken
> on board ships. The Andreasson Affair seems to be positioned perfectly
> in between abductee and contactee. Within the contactee movement, there
> is plent of room for abductee experiences, as according to this
> movement, aliens have many medical interests in their concern for our dealing
> with upcoming Earth changes. Supposedly, 'Ashtar Command,' as it is
> nicknamed for our sake, is the main group in charge of seeding forms of Earth
> life in other systems (i.e by cattle mutilation,) and in charge of
> partial evacuation of the planet. Most of the other groups, 70 if you
> believe the Andreasson Affair is a good investigation, have little
> involvement in the upcoming changes. They are more interested in
> observing the changes, and, apparently, interacting with a few Earth people,
> out of curiousity, willingness to help, and a few other reasons. Thus,
> in the eyes of the contactee movement, it is not unusual that there
> are a smaller amount of in between cases. Any 'variety' in
> contactee cases I consider to be a result of there being a good number
> of non-omniscient alien races, interference caused by incompatibility
> between the thought patterns of the alien and the contactee, and
> the interference from mischeivous entities masquerading as ETs. These
> reasons obviously depend on whether the contactee experience
> is real or fake, but my point is that the contactee movement is
> actually consistent with itself.
I agree that there are substantial events taking place that
seem to involve a lot of people, all feeling basically the
same thing. However, something that is not being addressed
in your comments have to do with the various variables
involved here. For example, how much of this is the result
of public awareness brought about by the various forms of
media and communication among group participants? An
interesting factoid is that a few years ago, Omni Magazine
ran an article authored by Budd Hopkins and Bruce Maccabee,
dealing with abduction. The article was highly suggestive
and contained a questionaire which strongly impressed the
participant toward the possibility of being an abductee.
All of the necessary ingredients were contained in the
article which would trigger a person's imagination and posed
leading questions that would surely elicit a particular
answer. After reading the article which detailed the usual
symptoms of abduction, the participant was asked to
recollect his/her past and ponder the question of abduction.
Not surprising, the reported incidence of abduction jumped
dramatically until we now see numbers in the millions. To
date, nothing has been done to provide a controlled test
situation to substantiate the numbers of alleged abductees.
> This same kind of thing is what (Michael?)
> Persinger is doing. He can fit maybe 80 percent of cases to be possibly
> related to fault lines, but he has to pretend that the Gulf Breeze cases, the
> Hudson Valley cases, the radiation burn abductee cases, are all
> nonexistent. First of all, nearly every place in the country seems to be
> within 50 to 100 miles of a minor fault line. The more detailed you look,
> the more common the fault lines are. I recently looked at a map of
> Kansas showing literally hundreds of faults covering the state. So,
> it is hard for his theory to be contested, until you look into the
> physical UFO cases. Second of all, one cannot exclude such strong evidence
> as the Gulf Breeze cases and the landing site cases so that your equally
> circumstantial seismic theory becomes reasonable.
Persinger's theory deserves more study. Although it appears
to be superficial and non-supportive of most cases, there
could be other environmental factors at work.
> Another example of this kind of logic is the
> vortex theory of the crop circles. Some of the proponents of this theory
> are now saying that the new, complicated pictograms are hoaxes while
> the simpler circles are caused by real vorticeses. 'Hoaxers could not
> possibly make all of the circles, so let us call the complex ones
> hoaxes and the others the product of air vortices!'
> Claiming that either a hoaxer or an air vortex could even produce
> *one* of the simplest circles is an extraordinary claim by itself. Saying
> that *both* can is simply unbelievable.
The crop circles do represent a strange phenomenon. But,
again, there is really insufficient information to make any
determination as to what causes them. The answers on both
sides of the issue are simply ridiculous.
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: Ideas to Ponder
Date: 10 Feb 91 09:50:00 GMT
Below is a reprint of an article which I took from "The UFO
Evidence," published by the National Investigations
Committee on Aerial Phenomena in 1964. It is interesting to
note that 27 years later, none of the recommendations have
ever been carried out. Why? Perhaps we should concentrate
on these types of objectives.
Statement by NICAP Board of Governors
"Although a large percentage of reported UFOs can be explained
in terms of conventional objects and events, the residual
unexplained cases constitute a separate and important problem.
(The word "UFO" hereafter refers to the residual cases). These
UFOs have proved to be a consistent phenomenon, with significant
new reports made each year. A large number of the reports come
from reputable and competent observers, honest and intelligent
citizens.
"Given the evidence in this report, it is a reasonable
hypothesis that the unexplained UFOs are: * real physical
objects, rather than the result of imagination, hallucination,
illusion or delusion; * artificial, rather than purely natural,
such as meteorological and astronomical phenomena; * under the
control (piloted or remote) of living beings.
"To date serious scientific attention to UFOs has been limited
by several factors including:
* the Air Force practice of artificially reducing the
significance of the data through the use of counter-to-fact
explanations of sightings and issuance of misleading statistics;
* the Air Force practice of implying, through its public
relations program, that all available information has been
disseminated and there is no need for further investigation;
* the lack of governmental recognition, through the Congress or
the Executive Branch, that a scientific problem exists which
ought to be thoroughly probed.
"We believe the following steps should be taken to rectify an
unsatisfactory situation:
(1) The evidence in Air Force files (after deletion of legitimate
security information such as data concerning the capabilities of
radar) should be made freely available to any interested
citizens. (2) There should be a Congressional inquiry into the
Air Force's Project Blue Book to establish, a. the amount and
kind of UFO information in the files, and whether all significant
non-security data has been made public; b. the scientific
adequacy of the investigation (whether there has been a
consistently objective, scientific study of the evidence, or
whether it has been erratic and influenced negatively by high-
level policy decisions, lack of funds, or other factors).
"The foremost question which remains is: What are the UFOs? The
importance of these objects, if the above hypothesis is correct,
is readily apparent. In order to settle this question, we
strongly recommend that a much larger scale and more thorough
scientific investigation be undertaken. "
Joining in these conclusions are NICAP Board Members:
Rev. Albert H. Baller, Congregational Minister, Clinton, Mass.
Col. J. Bryan 111, USAF (Ret.), Writer, Richmond, Va. Mr. Frank
Edwards, WTTV, Indianapolis, Indiana. Col. Robert B. Emerson,
USAR, Research Chemist, Baton Rouge, La.
Mr. Dewey J. Fournet, former Major, USAF, Baton Rouge, La. Rear
Adm. H. B. Knowles, USN (Ret.), Eliot, Maine. Prof. Charles A.
Maney, Department of Physics, Defiance College, Ohio.
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ParaNet.Information.Service@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (sm)
Subject: Soviet UFO Crash Story
Date: 10 Feb 91 17:06:00 GMT
This file was provided by ParaNet(sm) Information Service
and its network of international affiliates.
You may freely distribute this file as long as this header
remains intact.
Contributed by: Peggy Noonan
============================================================
For further information on ParaNet(sm), contact:
Michael Corbin
ParaNet Information Service
P.O. Box 928
Wheatridge, CO 80034-0928
or
Netmail 1:104/422
============================================================
From: UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICE, June 1990, Number 251, page 18
Original source: POST, Jakarta, Indonesia, April 19, 1990
>Soviet Scientists claim flying saucer found in Estonia<
by Serge Mazankine
PARIS (AFP): Soviet scientists say they are studying what they
think is a 20meter wide flying saucer from another planet found
in Estonia.
Several institutes have analyzed the suspected unidentified
flying object and have come to the same conclusion.
Colonel Marina Popovich wrote about the events in Sovietski
Sport. The air force test pilot and president of the world
association of female scientists is an expert on unexplained
phenomena such as UFOs and abominable snowmen.
She has been interested in flying saucers since coming across
two Soviet pilots in hospital who had seen strange lights in the
sky. One had his eyes affected by a strange radiation. The co-
pilot had the calcium in his bones evapoted [sic] and several
ribs broken during landing.
Another crew of an Antonov-12 plane told her how on one ocasion
[sic] all onboard power suddenly failed. They were landing in
complete dark when another vessel of some kind suddenly lit up
the whole area so they could see.
The 60 ton plane landed without a problem.
Popovich plans a journey to Estonia where the flying saucer was
found six meters below the surface. Soviet experts are to attempt
to raise it, and so far no one has been able to cut off a segment
and several institutes have said is [sic] must be from another
planet.
In 1984 Popovich went in search of the Yeti with a Kiev
University expedition to Pamir.
"We went up 3,000 meters and set up guards around the camp,
because we knew it comes out mainly at night.
"We saw traces around the camp from the first day. It could
break into cans of milk with its teeth and threw stones in fires
and moved other objects."
----supplemental note:
UFO Newsclipping Service address: Lucius Farish, Editor UFONS
Route 1, Box 220 Plumerville, Arkansas 72127
END
PARANET FILE NAME: 041990SU.UFO
--
ParaNet(sm) Information Service - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet(sm).Information.Service@f4.n104.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************************
