Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 366
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 366
Thursday, February 14th 1991
Today's Topics:
Hudson Valley `boomerangs'
Re: Belgium
Re: Boomerang
Re: Boomerang
Re: Fixing Spacecraft On The Fly
Soviet Mars Probe
Phobos I details
Phobos I details
ParaNet FTP Archive
Abductee/Contactee debate
Re: Increase Apocalypse feelings!
Re: Just Cause
Skepticism debate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator's Note: Please be sure to alias 'paramod@scicom.alphacdc.com' to
'infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com', the submissions address.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Hudson Valley `boomerangs'
Date: 13 Feb 91 15:48:00 GMT
> I've just finished reading Night Siege by
> Hynek/Imbrogno/Pratt and it seemed to me to be the
> most credible work on UFO existence that I've read to
> date. `The Gulf Breeze Sightings' book was the book
> that hooked me into my interest in UFO investigation,
> but I always told people that `even if it's not true,
> it's still an excellent story.' This is not the case
> with the book by Hynek et al. The book provides
> names, places, dates, times and correlation with
> police blotters and testimony. The number of
> witnesses appear to be in the thousands. Furthermore,
> Hynek alleges that a nuclear power plant has video
> from security cameras of the object hovering between
> two of the cooling stacks, but the plant won't release
> it, because the matter is security related. I
> wonder how the Belgian (and apparently the Spanish)
> sightings will increase the credibility of UFOs? What
> are the chances that someone will really get a well
> videotaped and radar correlated sighting out of
> these?
I agree with you on Night Siege. It provided a look at the
happenings up there with very little being read into it as
to what it could be. It presented the facts in a
straightforward way. Imbrogno is a user of ParaNet. He has
also contributed material concerning the Indian Point
Nuclear Facility and what has taken place there. I will
look for the contribution and place it here. It is very
interesting and involved a number of witnesses who were
subsequently squelched with the exception of one person who
continues to talk to Imbrogno. Apparently there was a video
tape made with a security camera which caught the object on
film. The interesting thing about the Hudson Valley UFO is
that it strongly resembles the Stealth Bomber in shape,
however the maneuverability does not.
Belgium does have good video and positive radar tracks
recorded. I will also publish the Belgium summary report
which just got released not too long ago direct from Col.
DeBrouwer.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Belgium
Date: 13 Feb 91 15:55:00 GMT
The following is a reprint of a summary report on the
Belgian UFO activity. Please note the methods of
determination which are employed and the subsequent findings
of the Belgian military.
ParaNet has established an interface with the Belgian
investigators. More material will be released as it becomes
available.
SUMMARY REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS 30-31 MARCH 1990
BACKGROUND
1. Starting early Dec 89 the BAF has been contacted on
several occasions by eyewitnesses who observed strange
phenomena in the Belgian airspace. On some occassions they
described the phenomena as a triangle-shaped platform up to
200 feet wide with 3 downward beaming projectors, hovering
at +- 100 m above the ground and making only a very light
humming noise. Some witnesses saw the object departing at
very high speed after a very fast acceleration. All
observations were made in the evening or during the night.
2. The radar stations which had been alerted by
eyewitnesses could not definitely determine a correlation
between the visual observations and their detections on
radar. On two occasions the BAF scrambled 2 F16 during the
evening hours. a.On the first occasion the F16 arrived +- 1
hour after the visual detection. Nothing was observed. b.
On the second occassion, pilots could identify a laser-beam
projector on the ground. After investigation it appeared
however that the description of the observations totally
differed from previously described phenomena. 3.
Consequently the Belgian Airforce, anxious to identify the
origin of the phenomena, authorised F16 scrambles if
following conditions were met: a. Visual observations on
the ground confirmed by the local police. b. Detection on
radar.
EVENTS
4. On 30 Mar 1990 at 23.00 Hr the Master Controller (MC) of
the Air Defence radar station of Glons received a phone
call from a person who declared to observe three
independant blinking lights in the sky, changing colours,
with a much higher intensity than the lights of the stars
and forming a triangle. Meteo conditions were clear sky,
no clouds, light wind and a minor temperature inversion at
3000 Ft. 5. The MC in turn notified the police of WAVRE
which confirmed the sighting at +- 23 30 Hr. Meanwhile the
MC had identified a radar contact at about 8 NM North of
the ground observation. The contact moved slowely to the
West at a speed of =- 25kts and an altitude of 10.000 Ft.
6. The ground observers reported 3 additional light spots
which moved gradually, with irregular speeds, towards the
first set of lights and forming a second triangle. 7. At
23.50 a second radar station, situated at +- 100 NM from
the first, confirmed an identical contact at the same place
of the radar contact of Glons. 8. At 00.05 Hr 2 F16 were
scrambled from BEAUVECHAIN airbase and guided towards the
radar contacts. A total of 9 interception attempts have
been made. At 6 occasions the pilots could establish a
lock-on with their air interception radar. Lock-on
distances varried between 5 and 8 NM. On all occasions
targets varied speed and altitude very quickly and
break-locks occured after 10 to 60 seconds. Speeds varied
between 150 and 1010 kts. At 3 occasions both F16
registered simultaneous lock-ons with the same parameters.
The 2 F16 were flying +- 2 NM apart. No visual contact
could be established by either of the F16 pilots. 9. The
F16 flew 3 times through the observation field of the
ground observers. At the third passage the ground observers
notified a change in the behaviour of the light spots. The
most luminous started to blink very intensively while the
other disappeared. Consequently, the most luminous spot
started to dim gradually. 10. Meanwhile the head of the
police of WAVRE had alerted 4 other police stations in the
area. All four, seperated +- 10 NM from each other,
confirmed the visual observations. 11. The aircraft landed
at 01.10 Hrs. The last visual observation was recorded at
+- 01.30 Hrs.
CONCLUSIONS
12. The BELGIAN Airforce was unable to identify neither
the nature nor the origin of the phenomena. However, it
had sufficient elements to exclude following assumptions:
a. Balloons. Impossible due to the highly variable speeds
(confirmed visually and by radar). b. ULM. Same as for
balloons. c. RPV. Impossible due to the hovering
characteristics. d. Aircraft (including Stealth). Same as
for RPV. No noise. e. Laser projections or Mirages.
Unlikely due to lack of projection surface (no clouds).
Light spots have been observed from different locations.
Light spots moved over distance of more than 15 NM. Form
of inlighted part of spots has been observed with
spectacles. Laser projections or mirages can not be
detected by radar.
{signed}
W. DE BROUWER
Kol Vl SBH
VS3
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Boomerang
Date: 13 Feb 91 15:40:00 GMT
> Hmm, the vanishing act may promote the "other
> dimensional" concept, but whatever the case that could
> explain how it gets from one area to another without
> being seen. Either that or a cloaking device. As to
> the formation of craft, how long ago was it? It was
> publicized that the U.S. had stealth fighters in
> action as early as '81, and if they actually admitted
> it, who knows how long they've REALLY had them. This
> is not to say, of course, that they weren't bona fide
> unknowns.
This sighting occurred in 1989. And, yes, it could have
been any of the above, however she stated that she looked
away for only a second to get her husband to look and it was
gone. She wasn't sure that it didn't just fly away, but she
remarked that the time it took to speak to her husband and
look back, it had to disappear.
> On another subject, I wonder if you've read
> the Lear text files. I've heard about'em for quite
> some time and finally found them on this board.
> Considering the possibility that they're true, it
> scares the holy bejeezus outa me, and that ain't
> happened for years. My heart was actually pounding
> after I got through with it. After I calmed down tho,
> I started to question some of what the guy was saying.
> I mean, if these creatures can fling themselves across
> the void, or enter an alternate dimension, or wherever
> it is they came from, you'd think they would have
> figured out some kind of synthesized or genetically
> engineered sloution to their problem, which if you
> haven't read the texts, involves atrophied digestive
> systems requiring cow or human body parts dipped in
> hydrogen peroxide to allow the aliens to absorb
> protiens. now isn't it funny that out of all the
> millions of kinds of life on Earth, the aliens would
> just happen to need HUMANs, of all creatures, to
> digest. What are your thoughts on this?
I think that they are total garbage, and have for a long,
long time. However, being so new to UFOs when I took over
the helm of ParaNet, I was not up to speed on the major
controversy that used to haunt this network from days gone
by. My conclusions were drawn simply from reading them and
applying some critical thinking to them. But, as time has
gone by and things have changed for Lear and his nemesis,
Bill Cooper, I began to see how they could be such garbage.
Recently, Jerry Clark wrote a whole section in his book
"UFOs in the 1980s," devoted to this whole mess. As you may
recall, the UFO community was shocked at the 1989 Las Vegas
MUFON Symposium by William L. Moore when he admitted to a
stunned audience that he had participated in a
disinformation campaign against Dr. Paul Bennewitz, a New
Mexico physicist and UFOlogist. Bennewitz became interested
in the abduction phenomenon when he got involved in an
abduction case of a woman and her daughter who claimed that
they had witnessed a cattle mutilation onboard an alien
craft, all the while they were being medically examined in
the classic sense. Dr. Leo Sprinkle of Wyoming was the
hypnotherapist on this case and it was reviewed in 1980, I
believe. Anyway, Bennewitz became convinced that the aliens
were implanting these people with some kind of control
device which could also monitor the abductees movements by
seeing and listening with the abductee's eyes and ears. He
deduced that if this was so, it would be done by
Electromagnetic means (radio waves), and having the
knowledge and equipment to undertake a research project to
find the frequency, began working on it. Bennewitz lives
near the Manzano Weapons Range in Albuquerque, NM. This is
also the site of Kirtland Air Force Base. Nevertheless,
Bennewitz claimed that he had received strange low frequency
radio emissions emanating from the general area of Manzano
and he also claimed to have filmed with an 8mm camera some
strange lights. Further, he also developed what he claimed
to be a computer program which was capable of translating
the radio emissions into English and that he was actually in
contact with aliens and that they had this sinister plan to
take over mankind by using implants, etc. Bill Moore and
Bennewitz were members of the now defunct APRO (Aerial
Phenomena Research Organization) of Tucson, Arizona.
Bennewitz contacted the Air Force and began a campaign to
alert them to these strange signals. He also contacted
Senators and even made contacts at the White House. AFOSI
(Air Force Office of Special Investigations) began to
investigate Bennewitz and, according to Bill Moore, became
concerned about his credibility and the impression that he
was making on people he talked to. Bennewitz apparently is
very charismatic and is very convincing, although the whole
thing sounds like looney tunes, and is more than likely not
even UFO-related, but instead could be some type of
government project that is classified and he stumbled upon
it. Moore figures that this is the best explanation.
Nevertheless, through a contact Moore calls "Falcon," he was
put in touch with Special Agent Richard Doty of AFOSI. Doty
has been called "Falcon" by the UFO community, however Moore
denies that he is in fact Falcon. Nonetheless, these guys
apparently wanted Moore to disinform Bennewitz and out of
this came a lot of this material that is circulating in the
UFO community today. Even the material disucssed on UFO
Cover-UP? Live! was alleged to be material from this
disinformation campaign, as they featured "Falcon" and
"Condor" on that program, supposedly the same characters
that Moore has been cavorting with.
The bottom line is that Bennewitz suffered a mental
breakdown as a result of this material, and Moore admitted
that even Linda Howe was exposed to the same material when
she began to take Bennewitz seriously. Most of the
prominent UFOlogists want people to understand, and Moore
hammered this point home in his speech, is that the material
is bogus and false. Since this time, it has been
incorporated into John Lear's material, Bill Cooper's
material, and many other scenarios which have helped
perpetrate this crap. It appears that most people would
care to believe the worst case ET Hypothesis instead of
getting the real answers. And, too, the damage that this
material has caused in credibility to the legit UFO research
is tremendous.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Boomerang
Date: 13 Feb 91 15:41:00 GMT
> Just another thought. About five years ago I was
> asleep in bed and was awakened about 3 or 4 in the
> morning by a chopper above our house. Knowing at the
> time about the black "mystery choppers" that have been
> seen near Denver and Boulder, I looked outside. A
> strong searchlight was being played over ours and our
> nieghbors yard. We live in the country about 2-3 miles
> west of Berthoud and the incident was strange to say
> the least. After a few minutes the light went off and
> the rotors sound diminished in the distance. I've
> heard of hypnosis subjects who remember choppers
> reveal them to be ufo experiences under a trance,
> mebbe that's what happened to me, but I'm too shaky to
> actaully see and confirm it either way. Anything like
> this happen to you?
I have heard this too. I have never had any type of unusual
experience as a result of my sighting. Did not even feel
any psychic phenomena which seems to get reported a lot.
Although I believe that the helicopter thing is
over-exaggerated and does not represent a connection to the
phenomenon (IMHO). Although your episode sounds strange, I
would be inclined to believe that it was totally unrelated
to your sighting or encounter.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Fixing Spacecraft On The Fly
Date: 13 Feb 91 17:11:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Space Echo"
* Originally from Bev Freed
* Originally dated 02-08-91 23:27
THE SOFTWARE BUG ON PHOBOS 1
A great deal of speculation followed the August-September 1988 loss
of Phobos 1. According to the Soviets, the error occurred when a
programmer overrode a rudimentary error-checking routine before
uplinking new commands to the spacecraft. The fault in the
revised code caused the spacecraft to break track with the sun and
deplete its batteries. A switchover to a new space control center
may have been a factor, but just how is uncertain.
Whatever the cause, it indicates some problem in basic Soviet
computer programming and architecture. One might ask why the
Soviets did not design the spacecraft with a subroutine that would
start looking for the sun, then Earth, if battery power dropped to
a certain level and no one had called from home. One Soviet
observer in Texas believes that even that level of sophistication
is beyond the Soviets.
Basically, the same sort of error was committed a few years ago by
the U.S., leaving the Viking 1 lander with its high-gain antenna
aimed at the ground instead of space. In addition, a simple error
was believed to be at fault when a U.S. probe headed for Brazil
instead of the planets in the early 1960s.
The following is correspondence expressing speculation regarding
the Phobos 1 loss.
-----
Why couldn't the spacecraft recover from the disastrous drift/tumble?
It was such a twisted set of "coincidences" it could only happen in
real life. From this note the following questions come to mind:
- the probes are programmed "real time" ?
- they are programmed in a very low level language ?
- the code isn't verified before transmission ?
- there is no continous telemetry from the probe ?
- there is no "sanity check" in the probe, and no "panic"
mode to keep the probe from doing really dumb things ?
-----
Phobos I news
On 29 August 88 a very long message was being prepared for
transmission to Phobos I. At one point, near the end of the message,
the operator failed to add the character, the computer stopped, but
failed to display the question on the screen. The operator thought
it was a computer error and overode the stop. The absence of the
particular character changed the bit pattern of the following
instruction, into a bit pattern, not on the list of accepted commands,
but which did call an area of the onboard ROM which had a list of
possible commands, used in development and left there for possible
future use. Unfortunately, the particular pattern created in this
error translated into turning off the attitude control thrusters.
Two days later the Control Center sent a message to Phobos I and
received no answer. It is now believed that as the spacecraft slowly
changed orientation it lost power, because the solar panels no longer
faced the sun, and everything turned off. The serious concern is that
many items need electrical power to avoid becoming too cold, and will be
permanently damaged if they get too cold.
Sagdeev listed the following points as links in the chain:
- error on operator's part
- computer failure
- operator decision to circumvent computer
- absence of cross checks
- actual command sent able to enter ROM
- The OB computer must be programmed to prevent suicide.
This is the first failure of a Soviet deep space spacecraft since 1972.
-----
Soviets See Little Hope of Controlling Spacecraft
According to today's (Saturday, September 10, 1988) New York
Times, the Soviets lost their Phobos I spacecraft after it
tumbled in orbit and the solar cells lost power. The tumbling was
caused when a ground controller gave it an improper command.
This has to one of the most expensive system mistakes ever.
------------------------------
"Single keystroke"
Several people reported on radio items that attributed the problem
to a console operator's single keystroke in error, which it was
speculated might have triggered the Mars probe's self-destruct
signal. After the command was sent, contact with the probe was
lost completely.
I have no reliable information about this particular case, but I am
struck by the high proportion of operator mistakes which get reported
as `single keystroke' errors. I strongly suspect that single-keystroke
errors are largely an urban myth (you know, poodles in microwaves and
the like). I'm sure that in this world of crummy user interfaces you
can often do plenty of damage with a single keystroke, but the image
of a single mistaken keystroke leading to disaster has got to be a
very tempting trope for journalists and cartoonists and rumor-passers
whether it's accurate or not. Besides, it'll always have a certain
tenuous relation to the truth: the single keystroke that does the
damage is the final Return you hit after your two hundred keystrokes
of wrongheadedness.
------------------------------
Subject: Soviet Mars Probe
For the "single-character" doubters:
The Soviet Mars probe was mistakenly ordered to "commit suicide"
when ground control beamed up a 20 to 30 page message in which a
single character was inadvertently omitted. The change in progam
was required because the Phobos 1 control had been transferred from
a command center in the Crimea to a new facility near Moscow. "The
[changes] would not have been required if the controller had been
working the computer in Crimea." The commands caused the spacecraft's
solar panels to point the wrong way, which would prevent the batteries
from staying charged, ultimately causing the spacecraft to run out of
power.
[From the SF Chronicle, 10 Sept 88, item (page A11), thanks
to Jack Goldberg.]
------------------------------
Subject: Phobos I details
United Press International reported on Sept. 10 that IKI Director
Raold Sagdeev said it would take 'a miracle' to save Phobos 1.
UPI, quoting a copyrighted Houston Chronicle story, said the
transfer from the Crimean control facility to one near Moscow
started the problenm. "The controllers did not estimate how
difficult it would be to work in," was quoted as saying, and they
left one character out of a 20 to 30 page message. "The
[changes] would not have been required if the controller had been
working the computer in Crimea," Sagdeev told the Chronicle. The
error then went undetected by a ground computer. "In the end, he
said, the absence of one letter from the computer programming and
the absence of a computer backup program, resulted in the
transmission of 'a comment [sic] to commit suicide' to Phobos 1,"
he said.
------------------------------
Subject: Phobos I details
Key phrases in the UPI Phobos report:
1. ...by an unbelievably small chance, there was a failure in the
computer that allowed the error to go undetected.
2. ...and the absence of a computer backup program..
In (1), the issue seems to be error detection, such as is given by
a check on character type (probably not the case because of reference
to a missing character) or a longitudinal check on a character string
or substring (parity, sum, count, etc.). Such checks may be performed
in hardware or in software.
In (2) the problem is characterized as the absence of a backup program,
which is not, strictly speaking, an error detection mechanism, but
rather a remedy that may invoked by detection of an error (an
alternate remedy is to notify an operator). Error detection is arcane
computer stuff, while "backup program" is almost daily English.
My guess is that the problem was indeed a failure in error detection,
and that the reporter mischaracterized it as a failure in backup. In
either case, it seems that the failure was caused by a combination
of human and computer system failures.
By the way, failure in error detection (and recovery, too), is a
major type of system error (e.g., reports by Siewiorek, CMU,
and Iyer, U. Ill.) The standard explanation is that since errors
are rare events, error detection mechanisms are less frequently
exercised and hence are more poorly debugged than the rest of the
system.
----------
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu!jrblack
Subject: ParaNet FTP Archive
Date: 14 Feb 91 01:21:46 GMT
From: James Roger Black <jrblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu>
An archive of Info-ParaNet back issues is now available for downloading
via anonymous FTP on the Internet.
host name: ftp.uiowa.edu
IP numbers: 128.255.1.3
128.255.64.3
pathname: archives/paranet/infopara
Back issues are stored by number, from 001 to through 365; only number
020 is missing. Some early issues are combined (e.g., 001-004). The
files are stored as straight text, so there is no need for decompression
or decoding software on your local host.
Future issues of the Newsletter will be added as they are published.
Issues of the new ParaNet Abductions Digest will also be made available
as they come out, under 'archives/paranet/abduct'.
This archive is being provided as a public service to FidoNet and the
ParaNet Information Service. Its presence on a University of Iowa host
should not be construed as constituting an endorsement of either
organization or of the contents of the archive. Responsibility for all
statements made and information provided in the archive remains with
the original authors and/or the distributing organizations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wam.umd.edu!infinity
Subject: Abductee/Contactee debate
Date: 14 Feb 91 10:19:55 GMT
From: David Elmore Coleman <infinity@wam.umd.edu>
...Abductee/Contactee
+ > From: David Elmore Coleman <infinity@wam.umd.edu>
+ > 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.
+From: Michael.Corbin@f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
+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.
Oh, my point, which I *assume* is what you mean to address, and that point
is that there are cross-over cases and that Steve Marcus' wife is one of them,
you say is 'highly subjective?' Oh, so never-minding the fact that
*abductee* cases have not been sci-proven, it will be that a cross-over
case has to be physically sci-proven, or else it has no relation whatsoever
to non-crossover abductee cases. It is instead assumed to be anecdotal
gunk while the abductee case is not? And yes, as many times reiterated,
cross-over cases, unlike pure contactee cases, quite in the tradition of
abductee cases, indeed have physical traces (i.e scars...)
On the symbolism: I am sure that you will find that under normal
examples of hypnosis, hypnoses which recollect *known* non-paranormal
events, the same manner of reporting exists where a subject will notice
the items in the recollected environment that have the most symbolic
value, and will also relate events, environs and objects most commonly
in a terminology that gravitates toward symbols. I am just guessing that
the symbolism of certain things in the Andreasson Affair is one of the
things that has turned you off to it.
I think it is important to realize that what PARANET is about has
more to do with people rationally becoming convinced/unconvinced of
bizarre phenomena, less to do with 100.0000% proving something. If all our
beliefs rely only on the laboratory, then we have to throw out 99.9999%
of all UFO evidence. You can study implants and radiation effects,
crop circle magnetism, and a few other things, but when an F-15 locks onto
a UFO over Belgium and there is incredible corroboration (let us ignore
the fact here that the investigations are incomplete) you cannot study
the event in a laboratory.
Now, about a contactee equating contact with religious experience?
I think your question makes massive, hidden implications: that New Age is
religious belief as opposed to experientially induced conviction, and that
contactees greatly exaggerate their experiences. They are indeed profoundly
affected by their experiences, and messages they have received, but most
persons in such a condition would become 'fanatical,' right? The only
New Age business that is not based on psychical/psychological/physical
experiences are the agreements between ancient mystical ideas (which also
were presumably based on experience like today's are) and New Age
information retrieved today through the various psychic/psychological/
physical means. The Ancient Mysticism side has been equated with
merely religious beliefs, because many seers of old had affiliations
with Hindu or Christian or Pagan belief systems which they did not
wish to completely give up. This is at least what my sense is.
But, the New Age side is based on experiencial information, with or
without Ancient Mysticism. Since it is experiencial (although it, like
its Ancient Mysticism predecessor, gets flavored by surrounding religions
and personal psychologies), it is unfair to discard any New Ageish
information received from alledged UFO/alien sightings/visitations, since
these UFO sources of this kind of information are further *experiential*
fuel for New Age studies, not religious fuel for it. So, do not call
contactees religious nuts any more than you would call a non-crossover
abductee one.
+ > 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.
I was talking within the context of the contactee movements *self*consistency
or coherence, not between the contactees and the scientific world, in this
case.
+ > 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.
+
+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.
+
Are you implying that one contactee case could have spurred all the others?
I don't know how much this whole subject has to do with *responding*
to what I had written. This sounds like an aspect of the contactee
movement that is a different issue. I was discussing elements suggesting
that there are no interior consistencies between contactees and abductees,
*in the context of the contactee world of ideas.*
Coming soon is a whole new approach to proving UFOs (nonphysical method)
by theoretical percent chances. Pessimistic figures will be used so that
no matter what the real numbers are, the real numbers would provide an
answer more optimistic than what the pessimistic estimates would
provide. I will show how a massivity of cases where alien UFO existence
is not 100 percent conclusive convert UFOs into an 'ordinary' claim;
then, later claims only require 'ordinary' evidence. Right now though,
I have to re-edit it to make the braintyphoon legible.
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.Pittman@p0.f701.n362.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Pittman)
Subject: Re: Increase Apocalypse feelings!
Date: 13 Feb 91 06:30:47 GMT
When everyone agrees on something, evryone's usually wrong. -- old
stock market saying.
--
Jim Pittman - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Pittman@p0.f701.n362.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Re: Just Cause
Date: 14 Feb 91 05:57:00 GMT
Rick;
Well spoken indeed.
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 'PAUL CARR, MISSION DESIGN' <CARR@astro.dnet.ge.com>
Subject: Skepticism debate
Date: 14 Feb 91 18:51:35 GMT
Even though the debate on Skepticism has often been overheated,
I would like to see it continue because I think it represents
a whole basket of important unresolved issues. Furthermore,
I thnk the issues has more than two sides. A fair number of
paranet users, perhaps the majority, want very much to see
scientific investigation of the UFO phenomenon, and to have
the questions of the reality and cause(s) of UFOs decided by
facts rather than faith. We also all want hoaxes exposed with
swiftness and certainty. However, there are open issues - e.g.
Is P. Klass a skeptic or a dogmatist, or some of both? I want
to see those issues on the table here.
********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************************
