Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 426
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 426
Monday, June 17th 1991
Today's Topics:
Re: Ufons
Miscellaneous
Re: Bashing Sheldon
Phobos & USSR
Re: Hard Copy Booboo!
Re: Wernikoff On Maccabee
Re: "Martian" Chronicles
Men in Black Countermeasures...
Re: "Martian" Chronicles
Miscellaneous
Re: Wernikoff On Maccabee
bashing Sheldon
Re: Hard Copy Booboo!
Russian "octopus"
Russian "octopus"
Roswell & 'A Closer Look'
UFO images redux
mib counter measures
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peggy.Noonan@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Peggy Noonan)
Subject: Re: Ufons
Date: 15 Jun 91 14:43:00 GMT
Hi Don,
[blush from embarrassment!] You're so right...I should've
taken a moment to pull the copy of UFO Magazine to name the editors or
provide the address -- apologies to the REAL top bananas! -- but I
guess it's BBSitis that's caused your name to be permanently etched
next to UFO Magazine in my mind.
But it turned out to be a good thing after all as it gave you a
chance to re-post the savings announcement offered to Paranet users. I
hadn't seen it (must've been posted when I was away for a while) so
maybe others will find it's news to them too and will now be able to
take advantage of such a great savings.
Thanks for putting the correction in such gentle and humorous
terms! Very kind of you.
==Peggy==
--
Peggy Noonan - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Peggy.Noonan@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ncar!apple.com!well!ddrasin
Subject: Miscellaneous
Date: 15 Jun 91 21:47:17 GMT
From: well!ddrasin@apple.com (Dan Drasin)
+ From: Tyson.Mitchiner@p2.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tyson Mitchiner)
+ Do you know if there are any plans to observe Cydonia with the Mars
+ Observer? If so, what kind of observation, how long, and what kind
+ of data/revelations we will be able to make from that kind of close-
+ up resolution? Will that enable scientists to speculate with a good
+ degree of certainity if it is a natural formation or if it appears
+ to be intentionally created?
Viking's cameras (1976) had a resolution of 50 meters at the surface
of Mars. Mars Observer will have a camera aboard capable of *one*-
meter resolution. NASA has promised Robert A. Roe (past chairman of
the House Science Space and Technology) in writing that the Face will
be re-imaged at high resolution by Mars Observer. Roe had formally
requested that they do so because he was impressed with the work of
the independent investigation that has been going on for more than ten
years now.
However, as of now there are no guarantees that the features in
Cydonia will be re-imaged responsibly or thoroughly, therefore, the
next steps are:
1) to draft and circulate a complete protocol for the PROPER re-
imaging of Cydonia and other areas (we're working on it).
2) to obtain NASA/JPL's written agreement to follow the protocol.
There is the possiblity of a broadly-based petitioning action to
assure the latter. I'll keep you all posted on this.
It is generally understood that one-meter resolution photos will
answer the larger questions about the Martian mysteries.
Plenty has already been learned by doing state-of-the-art enhancements
of the old Viking photos (something NASA never did). I'm presently
collaborating with Dr. Mark Carlotto on a book about his work with the
Viking photos, which should be out by this fall. Title is THE MARTIAN
ENIGMAS: A CLOSER LOOK.
+ Flight 19
It's interesting to me how people jumped on the possible
identification of the Flight 19 planes as if finding them could
somehow erase the rather odd circumstances surroundng their initial
disappearance. Where did people start getting the idea that the many
still-inexplicable events recorded in the Bermuda Triangle over the
years necessarily had to have been caused specificaly by aliens in
order to be inexplicable? C'mon, fellas... finding the planes would
only have disproven *particular* scenarios, not the existence of a
larger mystery.
+ Why would anyone assume that anything this woman says has any
+ validity? The Russians have never been 'forthright' about anything
+ except their promises 'bury' us and to eventually take over the
+ world. I would place her in the same category of credibility as 'The
+ Woman from Venus.' She would not be allowed to speak about such
+ things unless given EXACTLY what to say. She's no more of a
+ 'source' than Marlin Fitzwater is.
+ Greg (lush@ecn.purdue.edu)
Greg, this kind of comment presupposes the notion that 'the Russians'
(or any group one can apply a collective label to. How about blacks,
Indians, Jews, or for that matter, Americans?) are a totally
monolithic culture with no individuality. Anyone who has been halfway
awake for the past five years would surely notice that the suppression
of individuality in the Soviet Union has backlashed into a virtual
renaissance of the human spirit (still in progress. Stay tuned.).
Whatever culture one comes from, one still has one's personal
reputation to uphold... which tells me that while Dr. Popvich may be
human (hence prone to error or exaggeration) she is probably not about
to risk her status by being part of some cheap promotional stunt --
although there is always the possiblity, as you say, of her being an
innocent, or not-so-innocent, disinformer.
As for taking over the world, one could argue that the US and the
Soviet Union might now do it together, sooner than they would
separately. Anyone who seriously thinks the USSR in its present pickle
could be thinking about taking over the world (Jeezus -- they're even
talking about changing the name of Leningrad back to St Petersburg!)
has got to be living in a world very different from mine.
+ Re: Bob Nathan
+ I commend you on your interest in this case and the person that you
+ chose to discuss the rational side of the issue with, as I feel no
+ one better could be available.
+ Mike
Mike, isn't it a bit dangerous to say things like 'the rational side
of the issue?' -- as if, in the first place, any issue had only two
sides, and as if rationality itself weren't ultimately a subjective
issue? Remember that the very notion that there is anything at all to
study about UFOs is often considered quite irrational. To most
people, the word 'rational' means nothing more than "*MY* point of
view!'
=d=
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: Bashing Sheldon
Date: 16 Jun 91 03:29:00 GMT
RE:Bruce v Robert
Although I don't disagree with the substance of your messages on that
topic I do disagree with the idea that researchers should not be making
money off what they are doing. Most mainline scientists make their
living thru their trade, science/research. While many may well go to
some proffessional meetings and speak without charging a fee they are
using having all their expenses underwritten by their empolyer and are
not paying their own way out of pocket. And the better known
researchers in the mainline fields do get substantial fees for making
presentations at professional semiars. My brother-in-law, a chemist,
gets invited all over the world with all expenses paid, just to do
seminars a couple of times a year.
Any material being presented by UFOlogists ought to be judged on it
merits (or more commonly perhaps, lack thereof) rather then on the fee,
if any, being paid. While I would love to see the field improve, I
don't think anything would be gained by eliminating fees (I'm not sure
anything would be lost either!!) Proceeding was IMHO only.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Phobos & USSR
Date: 16 Jun 91 05:29:00 GMT
Greg Lush said in reference to Dr. Marina Popovich:
> Why would anyone assume that anything this woman says has any validity?
Well, I would imagine because first she has a Ph.D. in aviation, she is a
retired military pilot that set 101 world aviation records, which 90 still
stand unbroken. She is a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, equivalent
to the US NASA agency, belongs to the Anomalous Phenomena Division of the
Academy of Sciences, she is the President of the World Association of Women
Scientists, she is a member of the International Association of Pilots-"99",
and she is the President of SACUFON, or the Association of Scientists
conducting research on the UFO phenomenon, poltergeist and other anomalous
phenomena. Now-- does is answer your first question?
> The Russians have never been 'forthright' about anything except their
> promises 'bury' us and to eventually take over the world.
Yea, well back in 1961 that may have been true. However this is 1991, and now
even if they still wanted to, I doubt they have the cash to do it. Have you
been reading the news the last three years by chance?? The Iron Curtain has
fallen, they lost the political race and they know it. For example, Boris
Yeltsin was elected President of Russia in free elections, the first free ones
in the USSR. The
Politburo legalized free travel for its citizens, people can now emigrate if
they wish. Changes are happening all over, so read the news and catch up on
current events. If we used your logic, we still would be pissed off at the
British for 1776, the Mexicans for 1836 and 1846, the South for 1861, etc.
People do move on.
> I would place her in the same category of credibility as 'The Woman
> from Venus.'
Well, what can I say except read my first note. I once had an uncle who gave
me some very good advice which I will pass on to you.
"It is always better to keep ones mouth shut so that the people around you
can only guess at your level of ignorance, than it is to open it and have
their suspicions confirmed."
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: Hard Copy Booboo!
Date: 14 Jun 91 17:08:00 GMT
> Would you mind stating which photo you refer to?
It's the photo of what looks like a giant aerial octopus. Antonio
Huneeus has said that he's found that the "object" was actually an
exploding rocket booster from a previously-secret launch site.
Also, if you compare that photo to the photos of the exploding Delta
from Vandenberg a few years ago, there's a close similarity.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: Wernikoff On Maccabee
Date: 14 Jun 91 17:12:01 GMT
> What is his reasoning?
Ed says that he's afraid his originals won't ever be returned, which
I think is pretty reasonable.
Bruce has said publicly that sometimes he's "forgotten" to return
original photos to their owners.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
Subject: Re: "Martian" Chronicles
Date: 15 Jun 91 08:23:04 GMT
JS> So there's actually a newsgroup called
JS> "alt.alien.visitors"? Must have gotten started about the
JS> time the big "these phenomena shouldn't be allowed to have
JS> a newsgroup" war was raging in sci.skeptic. (Which was the
There's always some wag on the "let's rm this newsgrp" kick. And
_then_ you have the infamous "Net Police" who just love to tell you
what you should'nt post and what is 'acceptable'..
The ones that *really* take the cake, are the posters that lay in wait
to flame _anything_ that's different than what _they_ think it should
be.
JS> How active is it (messages/day would be fine)? I've got to
JS> decide whether to waste any money on it :-)
Depending on what your system's expires are and the polling rates..prob
around 10-15 a day is what it seems to average.
Your mileage may vary, depending on message content :-)
I do wish more people from ParaNet would post (if they have the access)..
I also wish someone would *please* post either on the echo here, the
mailing list or in alt.bbs.lists, the current ParaNet BBS listing.
I keep getting email from users who wish to know which BBS in their
area has access to the PN echo and danged if I can help them out.
Perhaps either Mike or Paul Faeder can post such a list?
Regards,
Don
--
Don Allen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve.Rose@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Rose)
Subject: Men in Black Countermeasures...
Date: 14 Jun 91 15:13:00 GMT
Hello Linda!
LB> What do you do if you FAINT first when seeing a MIB, which is what I'd
LB> do!! Next, how does one stay so cool to do the things you suggest?
By realizing that the chance of meeting these so-called comic book 'MIB'
characters face-to-face, is about as much as meeting a Grey in person. ;-)
--
Steve Rose - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Steve.Rose@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: "Martian" Chronicles
Date: 16 Jun 91 02:56:01 GMT
> I also wish someone would *please* post either on the echo here,
> the
> mailing list or in alt.bbs.lists, the current ParaNet BBS
> listing.
Download paradir.asc from my general ufo files dir and you'll have a
list of PN nodes.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Miscellaneous
Date: 17 Jun 91 08:02:00 GMT
> From: well!ddrasin@apple.com (Dan Drasin)
> Viking's cameras (1976) had a resolution of 50 meters at the surface
> of Mars. Mars Observer will have a camera aboard capable of *one*-
> meter resolution. NASA has promised Robert A. Roe (past chairman of
> the House Science Space and Technology) in writing that the Face will
> be re-imaged at high resolution by Mars Observer. Roe had formally
> requested that they do so because he was impressed with the work of
> the independent investigation that has been going on for more than ten
> years now.
>
> However, as of now there are no guarantees that the features in
> Cydonia will be re-imaged responsibly or thoroughly, therefore, the
> next steps are:
>
> 1) to draft and circulate a complete protocol for the PROPER re-
> imaging of Cydonia and other areas (we're working on it).
>
> 2) to obtain NASA/JPL's written agreement to follow the protocol.
>
> There is the possiblity of a broadly-based petitioning action to
> assure the latter. I'll keep you all posted on this.
>
>
> It is generally understood that one-meter resolution photos will
> answer the larger questions about the Martian mysteries.
>
> Plenty has already been learned by doing state-of-the-art enhancements
> of the old Viking photos (something NASA never did). I'm presently
> collaborating with Dr. Mark Carlotto on a book about his work with the
> Viking photos, which should be out by this fall. Title is THE MARTIAN
> ENIGMAS: A CLOSER LOOK.
Please keep us informed of this. I like the suggested procedure for handling
this.
> + Re: Bob Nathan
>
> + I commend you on your interest in this case and the person that you
> + chose to discuss the rational side of the issue with, as I feel no
> + one better could be available.
>
> + Mike
>
> Mike, isn't it a bit dangerous to say things like 'the rational side
> of the issue?' -- as if, in the first place, any issue had only two
> sides, and as if rationality itself weren't ultimately a subjective
> issue? Remember that the very notion that there is anything at all to
> study about UFOs is often considered quite irrational. To most
> people, the word 'rational' means nothing more than "*MY* point of
> view!'
I only meant that in the instance of Gulf Breeze. There *is* an irrational or
irresponsible side to this whole affair. That is the past history that has
been demonstrated by the primary investigative organ, MUFON. I find
dismissing associates from the organization for their divergent positions on
the case to be politically motivated and couched in the fear of exposure of
elements that could discredit the entire case. I have talked to a lot of
these "victims" of the "ax", and find them to have valid points. I, myself
and ParaNet, have been a victim of this political movement to squelch those
against the party line. If MUFON represents a scientific organization, then
let the peers have access to the data for an independent verification. Of
course, we certainly won't hold our breath on this one...the movie is still
being negotiated.
Further, I have talked to Ed and Dr. Nathan, and know that Nathan did not have
any belief in the case, such as Ed has alluded to in his book. I find this to
be another example of the problems that lie with the Gulf Breeze case and Ed's
credibility.
Now the question is, "Why won't Ed make the originals available for study by
an independent optical physicist?"
And, on and on....
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Wernikoff On Maccabee
Date: 17 Jun 91 08:58:00 GMT
> > What is his reasoning?
>
> Ed says that he's afraid his originals won't ever be returned, which I
> think is pretty reasonable.
> Bruce has said publicly that sometimes he's "forgotten" to return
> original photos to their owners.
That is the farthest thing from reasonable considering Ed told me that he
would take them personally to the photo lab where the tests were to be done.
Sounds very interesting.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: bashing Sheldon
Date: 16 Jun 91 03:01:02 GMT
> I'm greatly interested in setting up such a database and have
> access to
> the required laboratory environment. Any suggestions?
Sounds like a wonderful idea, but I suspect it'd end up on a
pay-for-it-yourself basis. Might be a good idea to talk with Bruce M.
and FUFOR about it, though.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: Hard Copy Booboo!
Date: 16 Jun 91 03:02:03 GMT
> What I would like to know is the source of the poster's
> information
> to aid in verifying or repudiating his report.
I'm going from memory here. I believe that was the photo that
Antonio Huneeus said turned out to have been a booster rocket
explosion from a previously-secret launch site. I'll try to find out
more and post it if I find anything.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Russian "octopus"
Date: 16 Jun 91 05:23:00 GMT
I finally found the reference regarding the "octopus" photo Marina
Popovich flashed on tv.
It's in _Red Skies: The Great 1989 UFO Wave in the USSR_, by J.
Antonio Huneeus, in the 1990 MUFON Symposium Proceedings.
"Yet another complicating factor (in USSR UFO reporting) was the
secrecy that permeated most of the Soviet government and society in
the period before Gorbachev. American space expert and UFO skeptic
James Oberg has convincingly demonstrated how famous UFO sightings
like the "jellyfish affair" in Petrozavodsk in September of 1977 and
other sightings in Moscow in June of 1980 were, in fact, caused by the
launching of top secret Cosmos Early Warning satellites from the
northern Plesetsk Cosmodrome. The very existence of this space
facility was then publicly denied by the Kremlin, so UFOs were often
used as a convenient cover to hide secret space and military tests.
According to Oberg, thjis same explanation is applicable to much of
the 1967 UFO wave in teh USSR, which was documented by astronomer
Felix Zigel. It is important to note that since glasnost has revealed
the existence of Plesetsk and many other previously secret facilities
and programs, the USSR Academy of Sciences now recognizes officially
many of Oberg's solutions as "Plesetsk IFOs," giving him credit for
them."
end quote
I've personally seen one launch vehicle explosion (Challenger) and I
saw many times the film clip of the Delta explosion at VAFB a while
back. The "jellyfish/octopus" photo is very similar.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Russian "octopus"
Date: 16 Jun 91 05:25:01 GMT
I don't mean to be coming off as a rabid debunker. I just thought it
rather odd that Marina Popovich was waving around that "octopus"
photo.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil>
Subject: Roswell & 'A Closer Look'
Date: 17 Jun 91 15:53:22 GMT
I happened to be at home at mid-day on Friday, June 14th, due to an
unusual schedule that day, and turned on the TV at random and ran into
a program I had never heard of before, called 'A Closer Look', on
which they were interviewing witnesses from the 1947 Roswell UFO crash
and gov't cover-up incident. It appeared to be a fairly objective and
straightforward account of the incident and the witnesses were presented
in a fair manner. I joined it in the middle, so do not know how the first
part of the program was structured -- what I saw was a stage set with a
lady interviewing two people who appeared to be investigators of the
incident, coupled with taped interviews of the witnesses (which appeared
to have been conducted on-site in New Mexico).
One exchange sticks in my mind. The investigator was saying something
like 'it is high time the media got into this story', and the lady interviewer
responded with something like 'we have, now, here on this show'. I found
that pretty amusing; these people, on what appears to be a syndicated
'tabloid news' type program that plays to a limited daytime or
off-prime-time audience, characterizing themselves as 'the media'. What
the investigator obviously meant was 'the Real media' -- having this
coverage on 60 Minutes or the NBC Nightly News, not in some
fringe-journalism outlet. I seem to recall 'Unsolved Mysteries' did a
Roswell segment, but that's still not the kind of first-string media
coverage that would reach the widest coverage with the attitude of
legitimacy that is needed.
Anyway, I have no idea how likely it is that this 'A Closer Look'
program will be accessible to readers of this list, or if it is at all
possible that this particular program will be repeated or made available
for later viewing. In what I saw, there was nothing in particular tying
it to June 14 1991, so maybe the same show will be aired at other dates
in other markets. (I saw it here in St. Louis, MO.)
Regards, Will
wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ncar!watson.acc.virginia.edu!JBB
Subject: UFO images redux
Date: 17 Jun 91 17:37:51 GMT
From: JBB@WATSON.acc.Virginia.EDU
+From what I have read and heard, I am convinced that he (Dr. Bruce
+Maccabee) is an extremely qualified and capable scientist. I just
+wish he would attempt to cooperate a bit more with Nathan.
Well, I'm not sure what Bruce can do about this - so far as I know,
Ed has the only set of keys to the safe. But there does seem to be a
general appreciation of the need to set these photos or their elec-
tronic equivalents in the public domain so that lack of access will
not heighten the controversy. This of course brings us back to the
database idea. Do you think Bob Nathan would be willing to help de-
fine a set of standards for electronically archiving and accessing
UFO imagery?
To start, I see a need for a draft standard outlining the objectives
of the database archive and some tentative recommendations regarding
pixel quantization level, pixel density, color-separation filter re-
quirements and transport format. I'm now working on this and will be
glad to post a rough draft in a few weeks. I'm adding recommendations
regarding the physical location (internet node) of the archive itself
as well as suggested access modes for various user classes as was
mentioned here earlier. The final version of the draft specification
will be sent to a list of interested parties, Nathan, Maccabee, Swords,
Rodeghier and other researchers here in the U.S. as well as those I'm
able to locate overseas. The key idea here is to elicit agreement
among professionals in the field as to what constitutes an acceptable,
research-oriented image archive, and I would greatly appreciate any
input about this, particularly as to what people should be contacted.
The next step is a little more difficult. Regardless of its technical
sophistication, the database will be useless unless it has something
in it. What procedures should be followed to encourage owners or copy-
right holders of original imagery to make it available to the archive?
What kind of legal protection should be provided for all concerned?
All nice questions for which there are no answers yet.
Once the research is completed and I know (hopefully) a lot more about
what's going to be involved, I plan to draft a formal report and submit
it to the SEE for publication. But this is many months away ...
+Why Bob Nathan you ask? Yes, there are many competent people with
+well equipped labs anxious to look at Ed's original polaroids, but
+Bob was one of the first in line after Bruce. Moreover, Ed
+certainly perpetrated a great injustice upon Bob insofar as failing
+to EVEN MENTION Bob's 'negative' opinion re: the GB photos. I find
+this especially strange since Nathan went public with his analysis
+more than 1 1/2 years prior to the publication of Walters' book!
Can you refer me to a source for Bob's original analysis? I'm new to
this game and obviously need some direction!
+I'm convinced this omission was deliberate. I wonder, what does
+Bruce think about that? What I have even more difficulty with is
+understanding why Nathan's and Maccabee's opinions are so
+disparate. Perhaps the answer lies with the original prints,
+perhaps elsewhere. You state that '...Walters would be crazy to
+send originals to Cal Tech...', yet apparently he feels comfortable
+in sending them to Bruce. Why?
I really can't say, Sheldon. Bring me up to speed and I'll ask! But
a good reason might involve the differences between their professional
disciplines. Maccabee is an optical physicist, I believe. Nathan is
a specialist in image analysis. As to Ed's feelings, I simply don't
know.
Regards, Joe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ncar!cwns2.INS.CWRU.Edu!aa245
Subject: mib counter measures
Date: 17 Jun 91 18:00:48 GMT
From: aa245@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Parish)
Counter Measures for Men In Black Encounters
PART 1 OF 2
After reading various reports of people who have had
encounters with Men In Black after a UFO related siting or
happening, It has brought to my attention that common,
average people without any previous military tactical or
planing training are defenseless to the tactics that have
been reported to frighten and intimidate these people to be
silent or change their minds about reporting or turning over
any information or evidence to UFO Investigators. I have
decided that this would be a good application of some of my
U.S. Army (Over Training) that I have acquired in my younger
days. This should not deal with weapons or combat, but more
of a counter physiological warfare approach. Although weapons
training and hand to hand combat training greatly enhance
confidence of an individuals ability to cope with an
abnormal encounter situation. It gives you a power platform
to relate from. The so called (EDGE). But knowledge and
reasoning is a greater power and can and should be used first
to avoid any physical conflict.
The key to winning any conflict either mental or physical
is to turn the enemies forces exerted against himself or to
use it for your advantage and to exploit his weaknesses.
Remembering and working from some of the Men In Black
document files I have read, I will try to recreate some
reported situations of Men In Black encounters and give the
reader my responses to repel, stop or eliminate the Men In
Black threat.
First, we will start off with the hypothesis that you have
witnessed an unusual aerial craft and you have reported what
you have seen to the press or radio or television reporters.
That your story was printed or told on radio or television by
reporters. And then a big new black car arrives at your
address with two men dressed in black show up on your front
porch or doorstep. They knock, ring your door bell and you go
to the door and there they are! The Men In Black! You spot
the big knew black car!
END OF PART 1 OF 2 (MEN IN BLACK COUNTERMEASURES)
PART 2 OF 2 in NEXT MESSAGE
WRITTEN BY: ROBERT PARISH, NEOPC BBS
aa245, FREE NET
********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
For administrative requests (subscriptions, back issues) send to:
UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
DOMAIN infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
To obtain back issues by anonymous ftp, connect to:
DOMAIN ftp.uiowa.edu (directory /archives/paranet)
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
