Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 405
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 405
Tuesday, May 21st 1991
Today's Topics:
Re: Meier, Stevens, Tucson and the Moon
Re: TV shows on Paranormal subjects
AP report on Stevens' gig
Meier, Stevens, Tucson And The Moon
Re: Meier, Stevens, Tucson and the Moon
Re: TV shows on Paranormal subjects
Re: WALTER.SAL
Re: MISCELLANEOUS
Re: 'UFO Abductions' show on CBS
Re: Internet Mailings
Woo-woo
CROP CIRCLES
Re: ARTHUR C. CLARK SHOW
Dr. Marina Popovich
Re: WALTER.SAL
Miscellaneous
ARTHUR C. CLARK SHOW
Re: WALTER.SAL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Meier, Stevens, Tucson and the Moon
Date: 14 May 91 00:48:00 GMT
Dan:
> hundreds of high-tech patents and one of the top crystallographers in
> the country. His work was central to the development of magnetic media
> for computers (hard and floppy disks) and liquid crystal display
> devices. In recent years he devoted himself to exploring some of the
> lesser-known properties of crystals, including many that have been
> poo-poohed by 'scientists' without so much as a wisp of an attempt at
> honest research.
I think what Jim is saying is that Vogel represented himself as "Dr.
Vogel" when he does not in fact possess a doctorate degree. Also, what
lesser-known properties of crystals did he discover that have been
pooh-poohed?
> I can't verify this, but the story I heard was that Vogel made the
> mistake of submitting the sample to a certain government agency for
> independent analysis, and that was the last he ever saw of it.
The story as I know it is that he loaned a sample to Bill Moore, who
simply never returned it. Course, Moore could be lying....but then,
so could "Dr." Vogel. Bill actually showed me a small sample of metal
once, which he claims was the Meier sample. He keeps it in one
of those coin purses that opens like a mouth when you press on the
sides. The sample was a dead ringer for a piece of tin covered with lead
solder.
> little patience with contactees claiming benevolent, interdimensional,
> spiritually-oriented or otherwise complex experiences, though the
> latter have always been more tolerant of the former.
A little *evidence*, Dan. That's ALL we ask. Just a little
non-contradictory evidence, like we have in other cases. We have PLENTY
of patience - we've been at this for forty-four years!
> Stevens has had a reputation for honoring the *entire* spectrum of
> reports, which has always irked those of the narrowly
> materialist-reductionist persuation.
Without some filtering process, every single claim becomes valid,
effectively invalidating all of them.
> Others lost faith (i.e., didn't want to be associated with him) after
> he was convicted of child-molestation a few years back -- which
> occurred after he refused to lay off a certain crashed-saucer case
> after repeated warnings.
Several individuals who know Stevens personally have told me that, as
much as they like Wendelle, the charges were valid. They had visited him
and seen scantily-clad adolescent girls hanging around for no apparent
reason.
> neither I nor anyone else has ever been able to find the least fault
> with his mid-1970's photos. Those pictures are probably the most
> extensively and repeatedly analyzed in the entire history of ufology,
Does this include the ones seen in the book, "Contact from the Pleiades,
Vol. 2"? There are photos in that book that are so obviously fakes, Dan,
that I flat-out refuse to countenance any claims for authenticity. Call
me pigheaded, but that shot of the Volvo hubcap with the Christmas
ornaments hanging "over" the VW van (in reality held right in front of
the camera in order to look larger) was a joke. I hope you're not
referring to that.
We've been down this road before, I know, but I couldn't let your
comments go by without answer. You know I still have an open mind (which
to me signifies not that I haven't come to a conclusion, but that my
conclusion is subject to amendment at any time). If you want to continue
a discussion about Meier, I'm all ears, and I've already learned a great
deal from you (I accept your criticisms of KKK, for example). I hope,
though, that you can present something more convincing than that "SOME
of his photos haven't been found to be fakes."
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: TV shows on Paranormal subjects
Date: 14 May 91 05:34:00 GMT
Thanks for the warning, Mike!
To All: If you see a program listing for something that would be of interest
to ParaNet users, P-L-E-A-S-E post it, even if its just local! What else is
a computer network for??!?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: AP report on Stevens' gig
Date: 14 May 91 07:56:00 GMT
> Thanks for that account of the Tucson Congress, Dan.
> Unfortunately, the only report I got was of a woman who
> claimed to be from Venus. Largely because of her and a few
> others of her ilk, the Congress got bad press. The AP story
> included none of the reports you mentioned.
> ...
> Jim
Jim:
I read the AP report as well. I requested permission to
post it here, but they wanted $50 and an indemnification
agreement (for libel suits).
I think that Wendelle Stevens deserves all of the blame
for why that "Congress" got bad press, assuming that he made the
decisions as to who the speakers would be. (Since he put up
$61,000 for the conference, I would think this was the case.)
The AP article said that he defended the credibility of *all* the
speakers. The fact that the guy puts on a Loonie who calls
herself "Omnec Onec" and who claims to be from the planet Venus
is consistent with his recent effort to resurrect the George
Adamski case. (He has a new book out on the infamous author of
_Saucermen from Venus_.)
I wonder where that guy gets all the money for spewing so
much trash into the ufological data base. His new magazine _UFO
Journal of Facts_ is obviously a very expensive thing to publish
with the expensive, glossy, full-color format and many full-page
photos. It must have cost a fortune to send out so many "free
sample" issues to people like me. His pension as a retired USAF
Col. must only be about 20k/year and his books usually are
published at a rate of about 2000 per title. So where does all
this money come from? The sale of "Beamship Trainee" bumper
stickers and UFO yo-yos? Maybe we should have some "Space Cadet"
propeller beanies on sale at the MUFON convention this summer :-)
Anyway, the AP reporter found at least one guy there (Tim
Petro) who considered the event "too far out", in spite of the
fact that he had been to a number of UFO lectures before. When
Stevens "loads the deck" with Jokers, he not only makes a farce
of the conference but he makes the entire subject of ufology look
utterly inane. I'm beginning to wonder if that isn't the point.
-- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Meier, Stevens, Tucson And The Moon
Date: 14 May 91 08:17:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "ParaNet UFO"
* Originally from John Burke
* Originally dated 05-13-91 0:53
Dan Drasin writes:
> As a professional photographer I can tell you without a
> shadow of a
> doubt that photos presented by Meier after 1980 were
> contrived. But
> neither I nor anyone else has ever been able to find the
> least fault
> with his mid-1970's photos. Those pictures are probably the
> most
> extensively and repeatedly analyzed in the entire history
> of ufology,
> and so far nobody has been able to shoot them down, either
> technically
> or circumstantially.
You didn't mention the 8mm movie footage, though. Dr. Bruce Maccabee wrote an
article for the _IUR_ a couple of years ago, entitled "The Pendulum from the
Pleaides". In this report of his examination of the movie footage of the
saucer circling the tree, he demonstrated that the "UFO" was actually a
pendulum on a string. He even demonstrated how long the string was.
-- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: Meier, Stevens, Tucson and the Moon
Date: 14 May 91 06:20:00 GMT
Dan,
Thanks for taking time to answer my questions; now I'll answer one
of yours. The address of FOR THE PEOPLE magazine is:
Peoples Network, Inc.
Telford Hotel, 3 River Street
White Springs, FL 32096
The head of this organization (Chuck Harder) also has a radio show
that can be heard across the USA --sorta like Rush Limbaugh --althought
I have not tried to locate it here on Phoenix stations. Harder doesn't
talk only about UFO's, but consumer issues as well. It seems to be a
popular show/magazine in Florida (from whence it all originates).
That is all I know.
Thanks again,
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: TV shows on Paranormal subjects
Date: 14 May 91 06:29:00 GMT
Jim and Other Folks -
I hope my posting about the new amusement center at Universal
Studios is still on the board! It features a "bicycle trip across the
face of the Moon with E.T. who takes us for a trip to his home planet."
As I said, "If Hollywood can tell us about UFO's and E.T.'s, why
can't Uncle Sam?"
As usual,
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: WALTER.SAL
Date: 12 May 91 16:48:18 GMT
Well to answer some of your collection of replys. I wonder how large a batch
of film is at Polaroid? To be more specific, go to the store (which I will
do) and look, are all the packages numbered from the same batch? No great
trick to buy two or six film packs, one is doctored as necessary. Next go out
with the witnesses, show them the sealed pack, note the numbers with their
confirmation. Next when they go out of view, swap the doctored pack, and snap
a picture of a UFO (the one that was prepared in advance of course). And the
batch numbers match!
Second, which I may or may not have mentioned, an overlay on top of the
film, will make an image, just like a contact print. So the photographer has
a positive of a UFO with clear background otherwise, slide it in front of the
film, snap picture, out pops the film and the overlay, put it back in your
pocket and see the nice composite shot. I have seen this at trade shows where
they take my photo, lettering is superimposed, the resulting photo is placed
on a badge. Not too difficult.
One of the questions that stands out in my mind is how can one person, at
will, go out and get a nice clear photo of a UFO, when for years people wait
and try and get nothing or blurs? Terribly suspicious in my opinion.
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: MISCELLANEOUS
Date: 12 May 91 16:55:50 GMT
I'll look for the book on Serios, thanks. As for your report on the World
UFO conference... WOW! I hope to see the tapes some day. Maybe someone can
buy a set and rent them to others for say $12 for a week. (includes UPS one
way) I'd even do it myself if there was some way I knew I would not have to
drive to Kalamazoo to retrieve them. (lets see, deposit your first born child
as security deposit? <grin>) When the videos are released please drop a note
on ordering information, I may still attempt this project.
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mcorbin@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: 'UFO Abductions' show on CBS
Date: 18 May 91 04:25:56 GMT
The program that aired this evening was fairly well done. The first section of
the segment dealt with the Travis Walton abduction and basically recanted the
same stuff that we have thorough knowledge of. The second section dealt with
the Alan Godfrey incident. I found this to be very interesting. I think it
was Don Ecker that was asking about this one a while back. I would be
interested in hearing more on this. The third one deals with a more
contemporary case involving Salter and son. Has anyone any further knowledge
of this one?
Finally, my VCR puked. If anyone has a good copy of the segment, I would like
to arrange to get it.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Shaffer@f4.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Internet Mailings
Date: 14 May 91 07:12:00 GMT
Thanks, Mike. As it turns out, I sent a message to the administrative
address, and jrblack sent me a message saying that a while ago one of the
mailings to me bounced so he took me off the list. I haven't figured out
why it bounced though. He said he got an "unknown user" message. Not from
*my* system he didn't!
--
Jim Shaffer - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Shaffer@f4.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator's Note: Jim, he didn't, I did and it was from your site for
some reason. I resent it from here by hand and the same again. (pixies?) :-)
-Cyro
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ncar!apple.com!well!ddrasin
Subject: Woo-woo
Date: 18 May 91 09:33:08 GMT
From: well!ddrasin@apple.com (Dan Drasin)
+ From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
+ Thanks for that account of the Tucson Congress, Dan. Unfortunately, the
+ only report I got was of a woman who claimed to be from Venus.
It is not for me to say whether or not she came from Venus (!) but
for sure the press coverage was just what one might expect.
+ Why can't we have 'New Age'-oriented conventions and
+ science-oriented conventions, and never the twain shall meet? This
+ doesn't denigrate the more spiritual aspects, it simply sets up a
+ 'separate-but-equal' status. This may be improper in the racial
+ context, but I certainly see benefits in the UFO context.
Very good question, Jim. Problem is, different people have very
different ideas about the meaning of 'new age,' "spiritual," etc. To
many mainstreamers, for example, anything remotely ufological falls
right smack dab in the middle of the new-age 'woo-woo' spectrum.
Since everyone's perception is unique, it may not be such a bad
thing for contexts to overlap. I think it's more important for
people to be tolerant of, and to listen to, each other, than it is
to create more compartmentalization and more walls, more judgements
and more 'us-and-them' thinking. IMHO, we have enough of those
already. If we aren't forced to recognize other contexts, we'll
*never* achieve the critical mass of interdisciplinary,
intercontextual communication that's a *minimum* requirement for
solving the multidimensional UFO riddle. Some 'woo-woo' might be the
price we have to pay for this, but the alternative would seem to be
a situation that could set our understanding back many decades...
and that is no doubt precisely what some people would like to have
happen.
Comments?
=d=
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: CROP CIRCLES
Date: 15 May 91 02:46:00 GMT
THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF PLASMA-VORTEX QUINTUPLET CIRCLES
by
Sheldon L. Wernikoff
An important advance in experimental research on the circles
effect has resulted from observations of the motion of vortices in
a gas-filled chamber. The experiments concern the production of
quintuplet circle sets by the impact of plasma vortices upon an
anode.
The experiments are conducted using Tesla-generated high
voltage, low frequency currents in an inert mixture of neon and
argon gas. At certain frequencies around 150 KHZ, plasma vortices
form. The vortices are rendered luminous by the excitation of the
neon-argon mixture. The anode is spherical in shape, approximately
40mm in diameter, and is fabricated of carbon-steel alloy sheathed
in a ceramic insulating capsule.
The vortices form spontaneously and glow brightly during their
approach to the anode. Upon striking it each vortex gives rise to
a regular set of five circles, the four satellite circles being
located at equal distances in the four right angle directions from
the primary circle. The experiment has been repeated many times.
The first color photographs taken in October 1990 using ASA 3200
film suggest that the satellite circles are created at the moment
of impact by the ejection of four subsidiary vortices from the
primary one, but the exact sequence will not be known until the
process has been filmed by a high speed video camera. Good
photographs have subsequently been taken in monochrome at F1.2,
1/250, ASA 3200 pushed to ASA 12500.
This work helps to confirm
tjE@9I1J=9%i2=ICaP!=I%M5R|initiated by Dr. G. Terence
Meaden for crop circle formation by
natural vortex processes in the atmosphere, in combination with the
theory of George Bathurst for quintuplet formation by satellite
vortex ejection. Next, it is hoped to film the life cycle of the
vortices using video film.
(This article and photographs will be published in June 1991,
in a post-conference book of papers entitled "Circles from the
Sky". I welcome correspondence from interested parties)
Sheldon L. Wernikoff
9200 Niles Center Rd #2C
Skokie, IL 60076-1548 U.S.A.
TEL: 708-677-5154
FAX: 312-252-7574
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: ARTHUR C. CLARK SHOW
Date: 13 May 91 17:15:18 GMT
I guess I'm overly sensative to criticism and labeling that arrives from
some people in the guise of debate. I admit I am skeptical of many thing in
science and life that don't have good supporting evidence. Some UFO and
Paranormal claims are included. Seems that when I make a statement about why
I believe what I do, the answer from a small portion is "Your another one of
those debunkers aren't you!" Oh, shame, guilt, and whatever else is being
heaped on me. I'd say "The facts, just the facts..."
I have watched the ongoing debate over what is Evidence, what is
extraordinary, what is reliable information. It's interesting, but leads to
nothing. I am making a concious effort to no respond in the future, and
therefore avoid conflicts and wasted space on this echo.
I caught the special Sunday night on Discovery, "Is Anyone Out There?" and
it removed one or two former beliefs from my collection. The Fox Sisters were
one of the first cases of contact with the dead. The lady confessed that she
did the clicking responses by clicking her toe joints. This is one of the
foundation cases for spiritualism from 1947 I think. Some of the other
mystery miracles had confessions with them, like the never dying flowers in
the church.
Biggest laugh for me was Uri Geller bending a spoon, and taking about how
much money he had made. Finally got to see what Randi looks like, and Carl
Sagan made a nice statement about what he believes, but still left it open
for others to choose for themself. I appreciate that kind of acceptance and
ability to let others have freedom of thought even if one disagrees with
those thoughts.
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Dr. Marina Popovich
Date: 13 May 91 23:32:00 GMT
While attending Wendelle Stevens World Congress in Tucson,
Az. this past week, I had the privilege of meeting Dr.
Marina Popovich of the U.S.S.R. Dr. Popovich is a retired
Soviet Colonel, she has a Ph.D in Flight Technology from
Leningrad University. She might be the Russian version of
our Chuck Yeager. Popovich set over 100 aviation records,
which 90 still stand. Although divorced now, she was married
to General Paval Popovich, a very famous Russian cosmonaut.
Dr. Marina Popovich attended Stevens Congress, which in
itself is almost unbelieveable. Just a couple of years ago
this would be unheard of. I was able to interview her on
Saturday and Sunday, and I extended an invation to Marina to
attend the L.A. Expo West. She tried to attend, but could
not change her flight plans. I also told her that if she
would be interested, I knew some TV people here that would
like to interview her and she agreed. On Thursday, although
she could not stay, she did have a 5 hour layover in LA. I
had contacted the producer I know at NBC's Hard Copy, and
they ran a crew out to meet her. A fascinating interview
that will air later this week. Keep your eyes open, some
very interesting information on the Soviet Mars probes.
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Greenen)
Subject: Re: WALTER.SAL
Date: 13 May 91 14:45:00 GMT
* Replying to a message originally to Pete Porro
PP> I felt it necessary to present this material even though I
PP> don't agree. The last line says critics ignore the hundreds
PP> of other witnesses who report seeing the UFO. I still
PP> wonder why only one person can time after time get photos
PP> of the UFO while others get nothing? Did hundreds of others
PP> reports seeing the same UFO? Oh well in the interest of
PP> fairness and information (plus I didn't see it posted
PP> before) I had to send this out.
PP> --- TBBS v2.1/NM
PP> * Origin: ParaNet XI-Alpha=- Radio Free Milw 4143526176HST
PP> (1:154/414)
Hi Pete, I guess this subject gets a person talking to him or
herself. ---Grin--- You are mostly right on that statement (Billy
Meier, Adamski, Bill Herrmann, etc.) but in the Gulf Breeze case
others have seen the same craft or one that is similar. One can
easily make statements about each of cases that the person in
question has made a model to photograph but have heard nothing about
more then one model. Ed Walters photographed 3 different crafts,
where are these other models if we most let the skeptics have there
way? And yes, Billy Meier, what a great artist he must be to be able
to make 6 different models with only having one arm.
I try to approach this hole thing on a logical basis and not on
one single issue. As in a court case, one must seek a motive and
what is the motive for Ed. It can't be money because Ed builds 30 to
40 custom homes a year and if you figure he makes just $5,000 per
home? Fame!, not likely, he lost a lot of business and took a lot of
abuse from this. So what is Ed's motive. What about the 40 witnesses
that obsured the craft over the church when Jiles Hamilton was
giving a lecture. Did Ed throw a 20 ft. model (type 2) a couple of
thousand feet into the air and run into the church and notified
everyone in the church that a UFO was over the church and then
photographed it in front of everyone. Nah; not logical.
What about the other witnesses that have claimed to seen this
same craft that Ed photographed and one must ask why that in a lot
of these cases a military craft was seen chasing the craft away.
I have no doubt that Gulf Breeze is real and I'm trying to find
out the motive of the persons flying these things and I think Ed can
supply some of the answers. Now, if some of these people will get
off of Ed's back and start searching for the answers, then maybe he
will finish his 2nd book, so some of us can go on with our research.
The Book! Oh yes, $200,000 (maybe a years wages for EEd. Would I
wright a 350 page book for free! 73's ---Jim---
--
Jim Greenen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Miscellaneous
Date: 14 May 91 06:05:02 GMT
> The Soviet contingent included Dr. Marina Popovich, a cosmonaut
BTW, Antonio Huneeus is a great..er..local source of info about the
Russian incidents.
> Jorge Martin, of Puerto Rico, presented some *outstandingly*
> clear
> photographs of military pursuit arcraft (swing-wing jets;
> F-16's??)
Did Jorge mention the F-14s that vanished into an object?
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: ARTHUR C. CLARK SHOW
Date: 14 May 91 06:08:03 GMT
> simulation that determined it was an air blast.
I've read in a couple of places (don't recall where) that the
pattern of downed trees etc. pointed toward an airburst of some kind.
Also I've read that the sides of the trees that were facing the
center were scorched while the sides of the trees that were facing
away were unburned.
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: WALTER.SAL
Date: 14 May 91 06:13:04 GMT
> but in the Gulf
> Breeze case others have seen the same craft or one that is
> similar.
Bruce just sent me a paper which pretty much leaves no doubt that Ed
and quite a few others saw the same or very similar objects over a
period of a couple of years, plus a report of a sighting of a similar
object at St. Pete several years earlier.
While there's still no absolute proof that Ed *photographed* those
objects, such proof will probably never exist and in light of the
supporting witnesses, it's no longer reasonable to doubt that Ed did
indeed photograph those objects.
Interestingly, Rex's investigations form the groundwork for Bruce's
paper.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.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************************
