Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 436
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 436
Tuesday, July 9th 1991
Today's Topics:
Migraine headaches and ET's?
Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King
Hill Abduction: 1 Of 7
Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King
Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King
Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King
Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King
Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King
RE: Paranet Newsletter 435
Re: **** Warning *****
Re: **** Warning *****
Re: Hoax Document
Re: UFO Crash at Roswell
Re: Roswell on Phx Radio
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ncar!apple.com!well!gmz
Subject: Migraine headaches and ET's?
Date: 8 Jul 91 19:52:12 GMT
From: well!gmz@apple.com (Gerry Zeitlin)
(To Michael Corbin)
Since you apparently have access to the echo which contained Mike
Mansfield's report of peculiar questions in the migraine study,
perhaps you could pass along the following:
Mike, there are ways for you to follow up on the reasons for
including those questions in the study.
You should first determine who is the principal investigator on
the study. This is something your wife can learn, simply by
calling the people who handled her in the experiment.
Then I would advise you to go to a convenient technical library
and look up all published papers by this person. From them, you
should be able to learn what is actually the thrust of this
person's research. Each paper will credit the agency which
funded the work. This could be significant. You will not find
something as obvious as 'AFOSI' among them, but take note of
anything with DoD connections. You are also unlikely to find any
reference to 'ET' issues, but maybe you'll see something about
the researcher's ideas about the belief structures of migraine
sufferers.
If you are still interested in pursuing it, armed with whatever
you've learned, contact the researcher in question (at the
address given in the technical papers) and grill him or her. It
would be great if you could get a look at the research proposal
that resulted in the funding of the experiment, but I wouldn't
have high expectation of achieving that. At any rate, be polite
about it, but be persistent. You can also question any coauthors
on the technical papers, and look for inconsistencies. You'll
learn quite a lot from the kind of response you receive.
I'm sure we'd all like to hear of the results.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
gerry zeitlin gmz@well.sf.ca.us
---------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King
Date: 8 Jul 91 19:19:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic"
* Originally from Scott Ballantyne
* Originally dated 07-06-91 12:03
From: sdb%hotmomma@uunet.uu.net (Scott Ballantyne)
Date: 6 Jul 91 00:41:31 GMT
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Message-ID: <1991Jul6.004131.1650@hotmomma.UUCP>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
In article <1477@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>
koreth@twitterpater.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Grimm) writes about my
statement that Phil Klass is intimately familiar with the evidence
about Roswell. He contends:
Klass himself admitted, on the air, that he has not interviewed ANY
of the witnesses to the alleged event. I'm not sure how you can
make that claim with a straight face, in view of that admission.
Actually, Klass stated that he had interviewed Cabot, who is the only
one of the 3 principles still alive, and who actually visited the site
with Marcel. He also stated that he had spoken to those who had
contact with the hard evidence, while admitting he had not interviewed
ALL of the witnesses.
Grimm proceeds:
Did something happen in Roswell? Probably. The evidence laid out
in the book is pretty compelling about that.
You should note that I haven't read the book. Klass also pointed out
that Randle's evidence was flawed:
1) Randle omitted from the book portions of a letter that went
against his case that something out of ordinary happened in
Roswell.
2) Randle omitted documents that went against his case. The
one that Klass showed on the show had been published in
MUFON.
Randle did not dispute either point 1 or 2, he acknowledged that he
had edited the letter, and also that he was familiar with the document
in MUFON.
Grimm continues:
[...] simply declaring that everything in the book is garbage
because it has to be garbage strikes me as a pretty strange thing
for a skeptic to do. Skeptics have no business being dogmatic.
I don't know who said that or who is being dogmatic, I certainly didn't
and neither did Klass. Perhaps this is the place to note that Klass
pointed out to Randle that Cabot, the only surviving principle, has
flatly stated that nothing unusual happened. Randle responded that
Cabot was clearly part of the coverup. Again, I haven't read the book,
but this makes Randle appear as though he is saying that if the
evidence goes against the claim that something strange happened, it
must be part of the coverup.
sdb
----
{sdb%hotmomma@uunet.uu.net | hotmomma!sdb@uunet.uu.net | uunet!hotmomma!sdb}
--
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: Hill Abduction: 1 Of 7
Date: 8 Jul 91 17:52:00 GMT
> Michael, please don't take this as a rag or an attack or anything like
> that but I have some general questions on how my 7-part Hill posting on
> the Fidonet UFO Echo got onto this Paranet Echo. (By the way, I have
> absolutely no problem with this, the flow of information is precisely
> why we do this in the first place, I'm just interested in the
> mechanics...)
>
> Is there a 'link' between the Echos? Is it 'automatic' or does someone
> have to snag messages from one and post them in another? Is there a
> common 'gateway' between the two?
They are occasionally cross-posted to this conference depending upon the
material and how good it is. This is generally my choice as I feel some of
the other echoes offer some good discussion. However, anyone interested in
doing similar is encouraged to do so as long as it is on-topic.
> I've just recently read a couple of month's worth of messages (from the
> Abyss BBS in Washington, DC) in this and other Paranet Echos and there
> are many very good messages, _and_ messengers, that are not available in
> the Fidonet UFO Echo. There was very little duplication, except
> obviously at the topic level. Is this a Sysop's-choice type of thing,
> the selection of Fidonet or Paranet, or is it BBS software-related? Or
> telecommunications-related, or whatever else?
Thank you for the comment. ParaNet is a private network, in that we are not
available through Fidonet, however anyone with a serious interest in this
subject or other paranormal-related interests are encouraged to apply for
sysop status in the network. Our network has grown quite large and is
international, both in Fidonet and Internet. Unfortunately, the moderator of
the Fidonet UFO echo has taken to banish ParaNet from posting to his
conference as he feels we are too controversial, hence we have ceased posting
some of our more interesting materials to UFO echo. At one time we had a
policy to post such material there, but the moderator took exception to the
quality of our material and recently sent me another note asking me not to
post (actually it was the message that I wrote to you about Guy Kirkwood). In
any event, we are glad to have you here, and I encourage you to post
interesting materials to this conference, if you are so inclined. Your
postings show a serious interest in what is going on, and we'd love to have
you here.
> Additionally, is the ABDUCT Echo a MUFON-related, MUFON-sponsored, Echo?
> Is the P_GEN, ('Paranet-General, I guess), something similar to the
> Fidonet UFO Echo?
The Abduction Conference is not related in any way to MUFON. Dr. David
Jacobs moderates this under the ParaNet banner. The ParaNet General
conference is our catch all for non-UFO-related postings, i.e., Forteana, New
Age, etc.
Thanks for your interest.
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: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King
Date: 8 Jul 91 19:24:00 GMT
The next 8 messages are taken from Internet on a debate going on about Randle
& Schmitt's book, UFO Crash at Roswell. You will find the arguments very
interesting.
Mike
* Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic"
* Originally from John Stach X6191
* Originally dated 07-03-91 12:16
From: stach@fritz.sri.com (John Stach x6191)
Date: 2 Jul 91 15:34:56 GMT
Organization: SRI International
Message-ID: <25986@unix.SRI.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
There was a debate on the alleged UFO crash in New Mexico on Larry
King last night. One of the authors of a new book on the incident was
there to promote it. The facts and figures were the same as we've
seen here over and over so I won't comment on them.
However, the debate itself was interesting. On the pro-UFO side there
was the author, the public affairs oficer at a nearby Army-Air Force
base at the time, and a woman who had witnessed pieces when she was
young. On the skeptical side, there was an older man who has studied
UFO sightings and concluded that none had a shred of hard evidence.
Although reason and the obvious may have sided with the skeptic, IMHO
the debate was won by the author and company in the public's view. It
seemed that the skeptic had a general knowledge of the incident but
not nearly enough first-hand knowledge of testimony to argue
convincingly against the evidence presented by the author.
I remain unconvinced, but I believe this tends to be typical of
debates of this sort. Since the believers have a mission, their
knowledge of the subject matter and their careful construction of
facts reflects the years of effort (delusion?) put into it. The
skeptics, realizing the obvious, do not consider a similar effort
worthwhile. I'm not blaming, just observing.
I think this contributes to the public's acceptance of the weird.
John
--
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: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King
Date: 8 Jul 91 19:15:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic"
* Originally from Jim Graham
* Originally dated 07-03-91 12:16
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Date: 2 Jul 91 23:13:30 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Bloomington, Indiana
Message-ID: <1991Jul3.004529.1086@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
WARNING!!!
The following is NOT a flame. I repeat...it is NOT a flame! Any resemblance
to flames, living or dead, is purely coincidental!
In article <25986@unix.SRI.COM>, stach@fritz.sri.com (John Stach x6191)
writes...
>There was a debate on the alleged UFO crash in New Mexico on Larry
>King last night. One of the authors of a new book on the incident was
>there to promote it. The facts and figures were the same as we've
>seen here over and over so I won't comment on them.
I wish I had seen that show. I've read the book, and I can assure you that
most of the information in the book is new and rather difficult to refute.
It is most assuredly NOT the stuff "we've seen here over and over", although
naturally, that stuff is included.
>
>However, the debate itself was interesting. On the pro-UFO side there
>was the author, the public affairs oficer at a nearby Army-Air Force
>base at the time, and a woman who had witnessed pieces when she was
>young. On the skeptical side, there was an older man who has studied
>UFO sightings and concluded that none had a shred of hard evidence.
"that none had a shred of hard evidence" is quite right, and is emphasized
in the book.
>
>Although reason and the obvious may have sided with the skeptic,
What is "reason and the obvious" in this case?
>IMHO
>the debate was won by the author and company in the public's view. It
>seemed that the skeptic had a general knowledge of the incident but
>not nearly enough first-hand knowledge of testimony
Of course not! As I mentioned above, the stuff in the new book is mostly
new. Unless the skeptic on the program read the book, there's no way he
/she could intelligently debate this.
Darned, I wish I had seen that show :-).
>to argue
>convincingly against the evidence presented by the author.
The "evidence presented by the author" is not "hard evidence" as the
"skeptic" demands. It IS however documentable and for the most part,
verifiable.
>
>I remain unconvinced, but I believe this tends to be typical of
>debates of this sort. Since the believers have a mission, their
>knowledge of the subject matter and their careful construction of
>facts reflects the years of effort (delusion?) put into it.
No offence meant here, but why make the above unfair assumptions?
Do you have conclusive evidence that
a.) The authors of the book are "believers"?
b.) That they are under "delusion"?
I'm a skeptic, but I am NOT a debunker. I have to say that after
reading the book, the authors have definitely done their homework.
The most interesting aspect of the book for me was that the authors
consider several other explanations for an event that most definitely DID
occur near Roswell.
For example, they consider the tiresome and silly weather balloon
explanation. They also consider the V2 nosecone explanation. Both of
these, which have been favorites of armchair debunkers in the past,
have serious problems.
Additionally, they have carefully constructed a "time line" much of
which is resolved to within the half-hour, of occurences before,
during, and after the Roswell saga.
>The
>skeptics, realizing the obvious, do not consider a similar effort
Again, I'm a skeptic. What is the "obvious" that I should be "realizing"?
>worthwhile. I'm not blaming, just observing.
>
>I think this contributes to the public's acceptance of the weird.
Not at all.
Do you realistically expect the self-proclaimed skeptic to be more
convincing to the public?
a.) The "public" tends to believe what they wish to believe, the
truth not-withstanding.
b.) No one has the right to consider themselves a true skeptic
unless they know what they're talking about. No implications
to the contrary here, just that the blanket statement that
skeptics realize the obvious is far from the truth.
I am certainly not a "believer", a word which pseudo-skeptics use
liberally. I do tend to gather all of the information that I can
on a subject before I consider talking about it.
I'm not referring to you, BTW, since I haven't the foggiest whether
or not you've actually read the book. If you HAVE, I would love to
know what your opinion is.
If a "skeptic" will come forward and say "I've read the book. It's
garbage. Here's why....", then I'll listen. But, if a "skeptic"
says, "Well gang, there's yet another book out about Roswell, and
since we've all heard it time and time again, it's gotta be garbage...."
then they have a problem with the concept of gathering data before
drawing conclusions (ie, they cannot possibly qualify for any kind
of true scientific attitude).
Darn Darn DARN!!! I wish I'd seen that show.... :-).
BTW: For those who haven't a clue to what I'm talking about....
the book is "UFO Crash at Roswell" by Kevin Randle (USAFR) and
Donald Schmitt. It just hit the stands in June.
-Jim (never judge a book by its cover) Graham
-> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
Neither do they speak for me.
______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu |
| UUCP: dolmen!graham@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu |
| BBS: The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
| (812) 334-0418, 24hrs. |
|______________________________________________________________________|
--
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: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King
Date: 8 Jul 91 19:16:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic"
* Originally from Kathy Daly
* Originally dated 07-03-91 18:15
From: daly@ddtg.com (Kathy Daly)
Date: 3 Jul 91 17:33:05 GMT
Organization: DuPont Design Technologies Group
Message-ID: <1991Jul3.173305.11343@ddtg.com>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
In article <25986@unix.SRI.COM> stach@fritz.sri.com.UUCP (John Stach x6191)
writes:
>There was a debate on the alleged UFO crash in New Mexico on Larry
>King last night....
>Although reason and the obvious may have sided with the skeptic, IMHO
>the debate was won by the author and company in the public's view.
>. . .
>I remain unconvinced, but I believe this tends to be typical of
>debates of this sort. Since the believers have a mission, their
>knowledge of the subject matter and their careful construction of
>facts reflects the years of effort (delusion?) put into it. The
>skeptics, realizing the obvious, do not consider a similar effort
>worthwhile. I'm not blaming, just observing.
>
>I think this contributes to the public's acceptance of the weird.
>
Even if the skeptic did research on a particular claim, the public
probably won't accept his explanation. Often the language used
will only convince other skeptics. A skeptic might think, "I did
the research on the last round, but nobody wanted to listen to my
debunking. Why bother going thru it all over again?" He thinks
it was his research that failed to sway the public, but maybe it
was his delivery.
(Jane Q. Public talking to John T. Skeptic:)
You can convince me that most crop circles are made by pranksters.
But you cannot expect me to assume that every crop circle is a
fraud. My open mind says I must investigate every incident with
no preconceived notions. Sure, some people see UFO's that turn
out to be illusions, hallucinations, over-active imaginations.
But when a new witness comes forward, I do not start from the
closed opinion that he must be mistaken. And to bring in facts
from totally unrelated cases is bad science.
OK, skeptics. You can try to fault a person's logic and continue
to talk about past debunking successes, or you can use that person's
own logic to look at the facts of every individual case on its
own merits. Suppose someone told you "I saw a green cat!". Do you
(a) say "All other cats have turned out to be not green, so you
must be imagining it."
(b) show him ways of faking the appearance of a green cat and hope
he will admit in humiliation that he was fooled.
(c) accept his honest testimony and work with him to find a
plausible explanation.
Which approach (or others) will win him to your side?
Larry King must set these people up. I remember seeing one show
(well, I think I remember it. It was a while ago, and maybe you
all discussed it before I joined this newsgroup. And maybe my
eyewitness account is faulty after all this time . . .)
about a poltergeist-haunted house. A noted skeptic (was it, oh
maybe, Philip Klass?) said something to the effect, "None of the
other houses in the area were experiencing anything unusual."
Well, sure! By definition, a poltergeist is going to bother only
one household or even only one person. But he said it as if to
imply "If only Tom and Mary see it, they must be making it up."
That argument works on a skeptic crowd, but only makes the other
side laugh at your naive disbelief.
Speak their language before you expect them to listen!
--
Kathy E.F.Daly ----- "A bad .signature is better than no .signature at all"
(technically) Camex,Inc. pays me, but I work for DuPont Design Technologies
. . and neither is liable nor responsible for anything I say or do here.
## daly%ddtisvr@uunet.uu.net ## daly@ddtisvr.ddtg.com ## (408)980-8009 ##
--
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: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King
Date: 8 Jul 91 19:17:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic"
* Originally from Jim Giles
* Originally dated 07-04-91 12:00
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Date: 3 Jul 91 19:49:49 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Message-ID: <26994@beta.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
In article <1991Jul3.173305.11343@ddtg.com>, daly@ddtg.com (Kathy Daly) writes:
|> [...] Suppose someone told you "I saw a green cat!". Do you
|> (a) say "All other cats have turned out to be not green, so you
|> must be imagining it."
|> (b) show him ways of faking the appearance of a green cat and hope
|> he will admit in humiliation that he was fooled.
|> (c) accept his honest testimony and work with him to find a
|> plausible explanation.
If they have no independently verifyable evidence of the existence
of any green cat, then the phenomenon is simply _UNKNOWN_. It
remains _UNKNOWN_ in spite of the man's testimony because you
have no objective means to verify (or disprove) his testimony.
For all you know, the man may be lying (a choice you didn't
provide). That's why anecdotal evidence is useless in the
sciences - there's no method available for verification. The
fact is that (a) people _do_ imagine things; (b) people _do_ get
fooled; (c) people _do_ honestly report unusual things; and (d)
as unpalatable as it is to make the accusation: people _do_ lie
about things. With only the _testimony_ to go on, there's no
way to distinguish between these (and other) possibilities.
Not accepting such vague evidence may seem harsh, but it's
been repeatedly demonstrated as one of the more reliable
ways of avoiding large mistakes. If the phenomenon is
real (your choice (c)) then verifyable evidence will turn up
sooner or later. In the meantime, _UNKNOWN_ doesn't mean
"didn't happen", it means _UNKNOWN_. The problem is that
science doesn't deal with _complete_ unknowns. There must
either be a verifyable phenomenon to study or a new prediction
of some (otherwise well verified) theory to go on. Without
these, the phenomenon in question is not amenable to scientific
inquiry. No matter how fervently you believe in something, if
its not amenable to scientific inquiry, few scientists will
be interested - many may scoff (especially if they fervently
believe the opposite - and since you've provided no _hard_
evidence, their belief is as justified as yours).
The bottom line is that the level of rhertoric and the heat
of discussions about UFOs is not justified by the quality
of the evidence. (In fact, isn't there a famous aphorism
that the heat generated in an argument is inversely proportional
to the quality of evidence being discussed?)
J. Giles
--
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: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King
Date: 8 Jul 91 19:18:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic"
* Originally from Scott Ballantyne
* Originally dated 07-04-91 12:01
From: sdb%hotmomma@uunet.uu.net (Scott Ballantyne)
Date: 3 Jul 91 16:35:30 GMT
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Message-ID: <1991Jul3.163530.1303@hotmomma.UUCP>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
In article <25986@unix.SRI.COM> stach@fritz.sri.com (John Stach x6191) writes:
However, the debate itself was interesting. On the pro-UFO side there
was the author, the public affairs oficer at a nearby Army-Air Force
base at the time, and a woman who had witnessed pieces when she was
young. On the skeptical side, there was an older man who has studied
UFO sightings and concluded that none had a shred of hard evidence.
Although reason and the obvious may have sided with the skeptic, IMHO
the debate was won by the author and company in the public's view. It
seemed that the skeptic had a general knowledge of the incident but
not nearly enough first-hand knowledge of testimony to argue
convincingly against the evidence presented by the author.
I saw the show. The 'older man' was Phil Klass, and I can assure you
that he is intimately familiar with every detail of Roswell, probably
sickeningly familiar with it, has examined the evidence himself in
detail and written at length about it. It's possible that, as you
say, the public will side with the UFO-nik, but I think it has more to
do with the structure of tv shows of this type.
sdb
------
{sdb%hotmomma@uunet.uu.net | hotmomma!sdb@uunet.uu.net | uunet!hotmomma!sdb}
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ncar!gw1.hanscom.af.mil!fluryr
Subject: RE: Paranet Newsletter 435
Date: 9 Jul 91 05:13:56 GMT
From: 'MAJ ROBERT FLURY' <fluryr@gw1.hanscom.af.mil>
+(Michael Corbin)
+This was on another echo. I found it
+interesting, and figured someone out
+there might want to look into it.
+ * Originally from Mike Mansfield
+ In a recent 'research study' done
+by UTMB Neuropsychology Galveston on the
+effects of migrane headaches upon
+lifestyle, a few CURIOUS questions
+arose,
+being that my wife was a participant,
+she was able to relay this information
+to me. (She had recently been scheduled
+for a Cat Scan to diagnose unusual
+migrane headaches) The questionairres
+were in general, mostly generic, but
+the following questions were asked that
+make me feel *perhaps* something more
+is being studied than just headaches...
+1) Have you ever felt you were being
+watched? next question was a clincher...
+2) Do you believe in
+Extraterrestrial life?
+
+I see little reason that such questions
+should be included in a purely
+scientific study unless the medical
+profession has turned 180 degrees and
+suddenly believes in
+extraterrestrials...
For your info, the following is taken from a medical text. Do we
have any MDs out there to comment?
'...Common Migraine. This is the most frequent type of migraine,
occuring in over 80% of migraine sufferers. The prodromes of common
migraine are not sharply defined, and they precede the attack by
several hours or even days. These vary widely from patient to patient
and include psychic disturbances, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and
changes in fluid balance...'
- Rowland, Lewis P., Ed., _Merritt's Textbook of Neurology_,
SEVENTH EDITION, LEA & FEBIGER, PHILADELPHIA, PA, 1984, pg. 625.
Bob Flury
fluryr@gw1.hanscom.af.mil
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: **** Warning *****
Date: 8 Jul 91 17:44:00 GMT
In a message to All <07-07-91 16:41> Michael Corbin wrote:
->This was on another echo. I found it interesting, and
->figured someone out there might want to look into it.
Someone does. What is UTMB? Is it in Galveston?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: **** Warning *****
Date: 8 Jul 91 22:08:00 GMT
RE: Those strange cat scan questions
That sounds like something that would be interesting to track down. If
it is a bonafide study it ought to be public record as to what they are
doing and why. Certainly sounds suspicious if it is what it seems to
be on the surface. Can you followup with the poster of the original
message to maybe find out more?
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Hoax Document
Date: 8 Jul 91 17:41:00 GMT
In a message to Jim Speiser <07-05-91 12:13> Steve Rose wrote:
->It is sort of saying, "Hey, we know that there MUST be some
->covert operations going on which are acknowledged or
->sponsored by the Penatagon, right? So if we add that
->element of presumed guilt into this 'document' we are
->drawing up...the gullible will more easily accept the REST
->of this letter as gospel, too!" No dice. ;-)
Ah, OK, gotcha. Sorta like trying to kill two birds with one stone. ;->
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: UFO Crash at Roswell
Date: 9 Jul 91 06:18:00 GMT
Hello Dave,
I'm finally reading UFO Crash at Roswell, and it is very
interesting. Seems every page makes you want to aske questions!
See ya!
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: Roswell on Phx Radio
Date: 9 Jul 91 06:20:00 GMT
Dave,
Jim was on the radio on July 4th. We have 3 tape recorders and not
one of them would work right! I think I know someone who might have
taped the program, and I'll get back to you. It was an excellent
show and the first hour had Kevin Randle on live.
Later,
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@paranet.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************************
