Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 417
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 417
Sunday, June 2nd 1991
Today's Topics:
Re: Here's an Item for Inclusion in Info
Hopkins' INTRUDERS
DR. NATHAN INTERVIEW
Face On Mars
Face On Mars Quote
Re: Here's an Item for Inclusion in Info
UFONS
Re: Discussion of statemen
Miscellaneous
(none)
HD Crash
Communion, the movie.
Re: Communion, the movie.
Re: Miscellaneous
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David.Villa@f2704.n206.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Villa)
Subject: Re: Here's an Item for Inclusion in Info
Date: 31 May 91 09:10:00 GMT
>David, what document are you talking about? If you're talking about the MJ
>12 documents, please be advised they were NOT released through the Freedom
>of Information Act, they were allegedly obtained from covert sources within
>the government. There's a BIG difference.
>
>Jim
Yes, there is a BIG difference. The validity of such a document
released into the public in such a way is easily doubted. Damn, I thought
all this MJ-12 stuff had at least some firm footing behind it. Is it all
this same case? Someone claiming they have "obtained" this top-secret info
and are doing their part for the human race by sharing it with us? As if it
wasn't hard to swallow in the first place. Sounds like some very clever
disinformation to me.
--
David Villa - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: David.Villa@f2704.n206.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David.Villa@f2704.n206.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Villa)
Subject: Hopkins' INTRUDERS
Date: 31 May 91 09:45:00 GMT
Linda, I have seen your posts here and on the FidoNet UFO echo and you
seem to be very well read and versed in many aspects of this phenomena. I
had a few questions for you.
I have just read Bud Hopkins' book _Intruders_ and it has really added a
new aspect for me to consider to what I thought I knew of UFO abductions.
Some people argue that Hypnosis is not a very legitimate way to screen
information because people can easily be influenced by the hypnotist and may
even be able to make things up while under the hypnosis. I myself believe
in the validity of hypnisis, as my mother is a Hypnotherapist and I have
seen her do some amazing things with it.
Hopkins' data seems to be very consistant. That UFO abductors are
observing the progress of certain human beings durring their lives, grabbing
them at consistant intervals to conduct tests on them, and even (and this is
the most disturbing element) taking sperm/ovum samples to artificially
inseminate human females and create a hybrid race.
My questions pertain to Bud Hopkins himself. If all his data is valid,
the way he presents it, then he has a very string case. All the different
abductee accounts seem to form a very clear picture. So, the only margin
for error would be with Hopkins himself. How much authenticity does he
have? Does he have proof to offer of these incredible stories he tells? I
havn't read _Missing Time_ yet, but I am interested after reading
_Intruders_. Is there something to Hopkins' writings I would not know from
the books? Has anyone refuted his claims and had any valid proof to back
themselves up? I ask these things because Hopkins' book seems to be written
in such a way that he is basically saying, "Here is the most unquestionable
proof found today as to what is realy going on." I'm just looking for
another side of the coin.
--
David Villa - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: David.Villa@f2704.n206.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: DR. NATHAN INTERVIEW
Date: 1 Jun 91 13:11:00 GMT
On Friday, 05-31-91, I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr.
Robert Nathan at JPL in regards to the continuing saga of the Gulf
Breeze photos. Nathan has analyzed several original negatives,
utilizing microscopy, computer digitization and image enhancement,
along with multiple density printing to arrive at the following
conclusion: He has no definitive proof of a hoax, but the data are
consistent with images from double exposures. Nathan does not feel
that the GB images are from real UFO's.
When asked why he felt the GB photo controversy continues to
this day, Nathan replied in one word "Money". In my (SW) opinion,
that is one of the major reasons Dr. Bruce Maccabee continues to
defend the authenticity of the photos. He receives a fee for each
conference or symposium he attends. When I asked Nathan why he
never speaks at ufology conferences, he responded that he has only
rarely been invited. He stated that most attenders want to hear the
pro, not the con.
Dr. Nathan also explained that he has asked both Walters and
Maccabee for more original negatives to analyze, but he has
received only duplicates. Apparently, they are witholding requested
materials. He is particularly interested in looking at the negative
containing the three hovering craft shot at dawn.
He has recently received some new negatives from Tommy Smith's
father, but does not have any analyses completed on these as yet.
I also questioned Nathan on his opinion of Vallee's "Photo
Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Cost Rica", but he had no knowledge
of that negative.
In closing, I find Dr. Nathan to be a most sincere, accessible
and open minded individual, who's main concern is discerning the
truth. It is encouraging to note that although always extremely
occupied with his position at JPL, Nathan will make time for all
who are seeking answers.
Those of you having further questions for Dr. Nathan may write
to him at the following address:
Robert Nathan, Ph.D.
c/o Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena, California Include S.A.S.E. and a daytime phone #
Sheldon
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob.Hawkins@p0.f192.n101.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bob Hawkins)
Subject: Face On Mars
Date: 30 May 91 18:56:00 GMT
> JL> The October 88(?) issue of Applied Optics had an article on image
> JL> enhancement of the face, and their conclusion was that it
> JL> IS a feature shaped lied a face ....
>
> This is the second time that I have seen this statement on
> the echo. For the second time, I trekked to my local college
> library to look up the reference. For the second time, I
Since there are two bookcases filled with Applied Optics
going back to 1962 wasting space in my lab, I figured I'd be
shirking my duty if I didn't check this out. It turns out the
correct reference is Mark J. Carlotto, "Digital imagery analysis
of unusual Martian surface features," Applied Optics vol. 27,
no. 10, pp. 1926-1933 (15 May 1988). (You can't miss it, it's
the cover story.) I might as well quote his "Summary and
Conclusions"; since it's a long quote, I'll put it in a separate
message.
Some points to notice: all of Carlotto's analysis was done
on just _two_ images taken under similar lighting conditions.
The conclusion that the object looks like a face even from
different angles and under different illumination is based on
Carlotto's analysis; it is _not_ confirmed by photos taken under
different conditions. Such photos, unfortunately, don't yet
exist.
Many other scientists believe that some of Carlotto's
features -- particularly the teeth -- are the result of
image-enhancing the noise in the original image. In general, the
scientific community has not shown much interest in the subject.
And finally, I have to say the enhanced images published in
this paper are not terribly impressive.
( quote in following message... )
--
Bob Hawkins - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bob.Hawkins@p0.f192.n101.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob.Hawkins@p0.f192.n101.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bob Hawkins)
Subject: Face On Mars Quote
Date: 30 May 91 18:57:00 GMT
From Mark J. Carlotto, "Digital imagery analysis of unusual
Martian surface features," Applied Optics vol. 27, pp.
1926-1933 (15 May 1988); "Summary and Conclusions" from pages
1932 and 1933:
"Digital imagery enhancement of a mile long feature
resembling a humanoid face and other nearby objects in the
Cydonia region of Mars were performed, the 3-D structure of the
face was derived using a single image shape-from-shading
algorithm, and synthetic views were then generated using
computer graphic techniques. The 3-D analysis was performed
because there is a lack of high resolution images of this area
viewed in conditions other than in afternoon light and from
directly overhead. The intention was to create synthetic views
of the face to determine if the visual impression of a face
persists over a wide range of lighting conditions and
perspectives.
"The image enhancement results indicate that a second eye
socket may be present on the right, shadowed side of the face;
fine structure in the mouth suggesting teeth are apparent in the
enhanced imagery as well as crossed symmetrical lines on the
forehead. The results of the 3-D analysis show that the
impression of facial features is not a transient phenomenon.
Facial features are evident in the underlying topography and are
shown to induce the visual impression of a face over a wide
range of illumination conditions and perspectives.
"It is the author's belief that, although the Viking data
are not of sufficient resolution to permit the identification of
possible mechanisms of origin for these objects, the results to
date suggest that they may not be natural. At the very least,
these enigmatic objects deserve further scrutiny by future Mars
probes such as the 1988 Soviet Phobos mission or the U.S. Mars
Observer."
--
Bob Hawkins - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bob.Hawkins@p0.f192.n101.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Here's an Item for Inclusion in Info
Date: 1 Jun 91 19:27:00 GMT
In a message to Jim Speiser <05-31-91 02:10> David Villa wrote:
->at least some firm footing behind it. Is it all this same
->case? Someone claiming they have "obtained" this
->top-secret info and are doing their part for the human race
->by sharing it with us? As if it wasn't hard to swallow in
Well, that's not the WHOLE story, Dave, but basically it does look like just
a lot of disinformation. Whether its government-inspired or not is the major
debate taking place now. I suggest you get your hands on a couple of files
called MJ12COM1.UFO and MJ12COM2.UFO, which is a chronology of MJ-12 events
through 1987. I believe they are available at ALPHA.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peggy.Noonan@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Peggy Noonan)
Subject: UFONS
Date: 1 Jun 91 19:01:00 GMT
Hi Bob,
This is the first time I've been able to get back to the BBS
since you've joined here...hope you'll receive the mail message this
way!
Did you get the copies of the articles I sent about MICAP?
And are you a subscriber to UFONS or would you like me to mail
you a copy of an issue? The latest one is almost exclusively UFO
stories (sometimes they use a lot of Bigfoot/Crop Circles/Cattle
Mutilation/etc material.)
Talk to you soon-=-
==Peggy==
--
Peggy Noonan - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Peggy.Noonan@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Moen)
Subject: Re: Discussion of statemen
Date: 1 Jun 91 21:11:15 GMT
> This is just a personal opinion...
> The vitriolic exchanges between Mr. Moen and Mr. Tender are BORING.
> If these two gentleman don't like each other, that is their problem.
Paul --
I absolutely agree with you and Doug Rogers on this point, which is
precisely why I've done my best to end it. I don't dislike Mr. Tender;
I just find his battological baiting, aspersions on my personal
credentials, etc., to be tiresome and unproductive, and assumed that
everyone else would feel likewise.
It is a common American habit to immediately blame both parties to a
dispute, reflection. Given that I've been continually attempting to
end the recent discussion, and that Mr. Tender has been continuing to
indulge in a rather low variety of baiting, I hope you and Doug will
reconsider your conclusions.
Best Regards,
Rick M.
--
Moen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Miscellaneous
Date: 1 Jun 91 11:36:00 GMT
> Just want to mention, in case you missed it, that John Brandenburg
> found that microwave energy can cause grasses to lay down flat but still
> remain alive.
> Interesting........maybe some connection.
Yes, indeed. BTW, what do you know about the 'Rainbow Declaration?' I
understand that Brandenburg did this work and would like to hear a little more
about it.
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: (none)
Date: 2 Jun 91 02:20:00 GMT
> From: lush@ecn.purdue.edu (Gregory B Lush)
> I want to understand what it is that makes people want to discuss UFOs.
> Has anyone changed his/her mind about the subject of aliens/UFOs since
> participating in this newsletter? Why are you reading this newsletter?
> Some people have said that they 'saw something' and want to know what it
> was. Even the strongest skeptics MUST believe that there is the
> possibility of aliens or else they wouldn't waste their time and the
> other readers' time as well. Am I correct?
It would depend on what your definition of a skeptic is. In my definition, I
am a skeptic in that I do believe that the phenomenon represents a true
physical anomaly, but I can't demonstrate the root cause of it. However, the
term skeptic is used too loosely. It seems that the battle lines are drawn
too much askew of actual findings and fact. It is easy to ascribe a
"debunker" to the skeptic side, but this is highly inaccurate. I perceive a
debunker much like a fanatic -- they talk of something that they know nothing
about. There is enough solid evidence to state that UFOs represent a real
phenomenon, i.e., literally thousands of witnesses, physical landing traces,
etc., but the problem is not the data as much as it is the persons collecting
and interpreting it. Of course, it is very easy for one to look into the
strangeness of a UFO encounter and immediately ascribe it to an intelligence
outside of our realm of understanding. But, this is faulty as there is a lack
of sufficient evidence to make such a statement. The second problem with this
is that the data in its raw form could represent something substantial, but
the process that it is disseminated is also faulty. There are no constructs
apparent and the wrong conclusion is reached as there is no scientific fact
derived out of another's assumption of motive, etc. I submit that we might
get a much clearer look at what UFOs represent if qualified personnel were
extracting and studying the data that is currently available.
> Someone posted something about Ed Walters and the fact that
> a model was found in his attic. This would cast doubt on some of
> his pictures if the model looked ANYTHING like ANY of his pictures.
> Could the model have been planted there? Will we ever know?
IMO, the issue is not Ed's credibility or ability to hoax the photos, but
instead the lack of proper scientific study to arrive at the conclusions that
the photos were hoaxed and how. This case represents a complicated set of
circumstances. There could be several things occurring within the one issue.
Unfortunately, too much good data has been lost to atrition of time and a lack
of coordinated effort by several organizations working as a cooperative to get
to the bottom of this. It has been a public circus. The allegations fly
about Ed hoaxing the photos, but there is no more evidence to prove this than
there is to prove that they are real. To complicate the matters, the
organization which performed the primary investigation has sought to censor
anyone who has a differing viewpoint of the situation -- hardly scientific
methodology!
> There has been a large number of complaints about a conference where
> a woman from Venus was allowed to talk. This gives UFOlogy a bad
> name, people say. Why do you care what others think? Seeking
> understanding about these phenomena seems like one of the most personal
> ventures a person can make. Let this 'Venitian' do what she feels she
> needs to do, and you can filter out her input if you deem it
> inappropriate.
> I think most of us are able to do that.
That is not the point. Sure, you are capable of making a distinction, just
like most of the other people who have an interest in the subject. The
problem is that the media takes something like this and makes a mockery out of
it in the main-stream press. This does real wonders for getting credibility
to the field with main-stream people who see the silly aspects of UFOs and the
people that study them. Secondly, there has been a growing concern over the
fraudulent aspects of people who make such ludicrous claims and bilk people
out of their money. It would seem to me that with all of these perils, most
people would insist on testing those who make such claims to validate them.
For example, would you buy a used car without test driving it? Not likely.
The same principle applies to this instance. It is not that she is makes
these claims, but what an unbiased investigation of these claims finds.
> What would it take to convince people that aliens are here?
> And further, what are you going to do with the information if it
> is proven to you, personally, that aliens are here? What does/would
> it mean to you?
Proof. Hard, empirical proof. This proof can come in many different forms
and is not necessarily limited to the form of a vehicle landing in the backyard
complete with a grey critter stepping out of it. Your statement of "what are
you going to do with the information if it is proven to you, personally, that
aliens are here?" is very interesting. First, what do you mean when you say
"personally?" The proof of existence would not lie with personal revelation
unless it could be demonstrated and repeated by others. On the last part of
your question, I cannot say what it would mean to me until I have all of the
information with which to make an informed decision. This is probably the
best policy that anyone could adopt. This saves unnecessary paranoia and
anxiety only to find that it was not what was thought or assumed in the first
place.
> I am genuinely curious. It seems that any photo, person, story, etc.
> can be called a fake. No one thing should convince anyone of anything.
> There was a discussion about what would be proof. There were several
> possibilities mentioned but the only thing that I
> remember being called 'proof' was if we could find a piece of material
> which 'could not have been made on earth.' We know the government keeps
> secret research going (for military, 'national security,' etc.).
> Couldn't
> any such material be explained that way? So that
> doesn't seem to prove anything either. Besides, Meier produced such a
> specimen and the conclusion of one investigator was that it could not
> have been made on earth. So what?
This is well and good. Meier is not a valid example of proof since it was
found that the specimen was lost and unavailable to others for testing.
Additionally, proof would not necessarily have to be "material" left by a UFO,
although this would be interesting. But, the material, in and of itself,
unless demonstrated to contain properties foreign to our world, would not
constitute proof. Proof would have to come in several forms, including
involvement with an intelligence in the form of communication using the known
five senses. Until we have a handle on the alleged "sixth" sense, we can not
accept that as a valid method of proof of interaction with an intelligence.
> What if a saucer landed on your front lawn? Is there any way you could
> know whether that was alien rather than another product of secret
> governmental research? So you saw an alien come out. How do you prove
> he's not wearing a disguise? Do you check for genitals? That might be
> considered very rude on his planet--earth or otherwise. Certainly our
> government's telling us that aliens DO exist should not be taken as
> proof--that would only mean 'they' are either lying now or were lying
> before.
> You still wouldn't know which.
Again, this is very possible, and your argument actually backs up my
contention that we should be more concerned with identifying what is going on
than assuming we have the answers and misleading people.
> What if we assume that there ARE aliens? What with all the stars
> and planets out there, there must be life somewhere. It is reasonable
> therefore, to assume that one civilization might be advanced (or
> patient)
> enough to visit here (to see that 'Epcot Center' they had heard so much
> about!). Does that mean that ONE valid picture would PROVE their
> presence?
> Is there any way to get a 'valid' picture? It seems as though people
> just
> wait until someone finds some way to re-create the picture and then
> declare it bunk.
We cannot assume anything. We can theorize, but assume is not what science is
all about. We theorize first, then we set out to build models that will prove
or disprove the theory. It is reasonable to theorize that there are other
civilizations out there. This theory is based upon known knowledge that we
have about the makeup of the universe and life as it is on Earth. As far as
photographs are concerned, the only thing that can be ascribed to photos is
that they represent a TRUFO (True UFO -- an anomalous image on the film which
cannot be identified) or a photograph that fails all of the scientific methods
available to us to determine whether the image is real or if it is the product
of tampering or a defect on the film. Again, the photograph does not validate
the phenomenon, other than to support theories about what the image
represents. In the Gulf Breeze case, there are things which I feel have been
left out of the scientific analysis which could affect the outcome of the
investigation into the case. It seems faulty to me to go from step one --
that the image on the film represents a TRUFO - to step four - claiming that
Gulf Breeze and Ed Walters is experiencing visits from extraterrestrials. We
have missed step two and three, and that is proving out the identity of the
image on the photograph to who "they" are.
> Are there other sources of information which can teach us something?
> No one talks much about all the myths from ancient civilizations
> from South American indians, the Hopi's, Hindus, Greeks, to the Dakotas
> and others being visited by and taught by aliens, many of which are
> associated with beings from the Pleiades. In one of my first posts I
> mentioned that in the King James bible in Genesis there is a line about
> 'Sons of God' mating with humans and that the "Nephilim" were on the
> planet then. I only found the word 'nephology' in the dictionary
> (study of clouds), so I wondered (aloud) if these were the
> 'People from the Clouds.' Since then, I talked with a Greek fellow
> about this. He then looked up some Greek roots to our words which I
> wish
> to share (used without permission, by the way):
>
> Nephele = ancient greek female god of clods/weather
> Nephele = Cloud, Fog, Darkness or Crowd
> Nephelegeretes = Cloudcollectors
>
> Ne = negation (un-, -less, anti-, etc.)
> Philos = Friend
> Phile = Friend (feminine)
> Philia = Friendship
> Phili = Kiss
> Philema = the respectful Kissing
> Nephiles = Friendless, Unfriend
>
> He said that there can be some confusion as to i's and e's during
> translation so he gave both possibilities. It seems as though the
> proper translation is likely to be 'friendless, unfriend.' There
> are tales about UNFRIENDLY Pleiadians in these myths as well.
Sure. This is historical data, but we have no way of knowing exactly what all
of this represents. This is subject to interpretation.
> I'm asking these questions because I don't see any way to
> 'scientifically'
> PROVE the existence of aliens, short of a personal ride out of the
> galaxy.
> I don't think any alien has the 'time' to take us all for a ride one
> by one. I guess there IS the method used in the movie
> 'The Day the Earth Stood Still,' but if it is true that they cannot
> interfere, that won't happen either.
I strongly disagree. I feel that we can prove something provided that enough
people with the intelligence and discipline would take the bull by the horns
and get into the in-depth study of the phenomenon. I see that a lot of the
product of what we see today represents the failure of the scientific
community in the past to take a serious look at this. All of this wild
speculation is the product of those people who may have had a close brush with
the phenomenon who are so frustrated and disheartened by the scientific
community's lack of response, that they have resolved to attempt to fit this
into their personal reality to be able to deal with it effectively. But, we
know that this can't be done in this fashion. Ignorance breeds fear. A clear
understanding will bring about responsible decision and an effective plan to
deal with whatever this is only if we can get those who can truly explain what
it is, to cooperate in the study.
> I believe/know aliens are here. That's my opinion/feeling. It seems to
> 'fit the data' better than the idea that there are none here. The
> problem
> is sorting out which data points are valid and which are not. I guess I
> believe Billy Meier's contacts are valid, so that is a start for me.
> Perhaps better questions to ask, even if you don't believe yet, are:
> Why are they here?
> Why are they being so discreet/evasive/selective as to
> contacts?
I am very curious why you feel that the Meier's case is so convincing? I am
curious to know what it is that occurs in your and other's thinking processes
that validates a particular scenario without you actually having seen tangible
proof that the claimant is honest and is truly experiencing what they say they
are. I am asking this in a facetious manner. I have a true interest in
understanding this.
Looking forward to your response.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: HD Crash
Date: 2 Jun 91 07:47:00 GMT
To all ParaNet Users:
I suffered a hard disk crash, and lost my BBS setup. I lost a rather
large package of mail, so if anyone had sent me any messages this week,
please resend the messages.
BTW, I am working on a rather amazing case that has just taken place
back east, much more to come out on it. It involves a police officer,
two UFO sightings he made, black choppers, crop circles, and what may
have been an attempt to extort a video tape he took of the action. Much
more will be coming out shortly so stay tuned.
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David.Villa@f2704.n206.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Villa)
Subject: Communion, the movie.
Date: 1 Jun 91 10:41:00 GMT
I just got back from watching movies at a feinds house, late night as you
can tell. We found that our local Wharehouse has the movie Communion, based
on the book by Whitley Streiber. I found this movie fascinating! Have any
of you seen it? The hypnosis scenes were VERY powerfully done and I found
myself wondering after the film, how much of the movie was hollywood imagery
and how much was based on Streiber's true perceptions (how close to what
Streiber saw were the aliens is the film). If you can locate a copy at a
video store, I highly recommend it.
Oh, some other interesting news: I looked at a recent printing of Bud
Hopkins' book _Intruders_ and guess what! On the cover is a little blue
star which says, "Soon to be a major motion picture!" Wow! This sounds
great. Do any of you know more about this? Heard a release date? Know for
sure the movie is being made? I just finished _Intruders_ and would love to
see a movie.
--
David Villa - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: David.Villa@f2704.n206.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James.Clark@f2704.n206.z1.FIDONET.ORG (James Clark)
Subject: Re: Communion, the movie.
Date: 1 Jun 91 11:14:00 GMT
Hmm. I normally don't like alien movies like that. But, I try to have an
open mind (yeah, right) and I'll give it a look. I trust your opinion.
--
James Clark - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: James.Clark@f2704.n206.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul.Mcavoy@f2704.n206.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Mcavoy)
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous
Date: 1 Jun 91 18:15:00 GMT
Interesting that Microwave energy can cauase grass blades to lie flat, and
continue to grow, but in the case of the crop circles, does anyone know if
the grasses continue to grow sideways, or do they eventually go back to
growing straight up opposite the pull of gravity?
--
Paul Mcavoy - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Paul.Mcavoy@f2704.n206.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
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************************
