Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 431
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 431
Thursday, June 27th 1991
Today's Topics:
Re: UFONS
Re: Crop Circles?
Russian "octopus"
Roswell
UFO Crash at Roswell
Cufos Roswell Special Report
Russian "octopus"
June 10, AW&ST
Re: UFO Crash at Roswell
Re: CROP CIRCLES?
Russian "octopus"
Undeniable evidence
Crop Circles?
Hoax Document
Re: Wernikoff On Maccabee
Re: Crash at Roswell
Re: UFO Crash at Roswell
UFO Crash at Roswell Review
CUFOS Roswell Report
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob.Trevithick@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bob Trevithick)
Subject: Re: UFONS
Date: 25 Jun 91 22:10:00 GMT
Hi Peggy,
I got your CIS note, and remembered that I hadn't been back here for a
long time! I keep meaning to send in my $$$ but keep getting wrapped
up in other things and forgeting. The rare times I remember I usually
procrastinate. Is it hopeless?? :-)
I am at work, waiting for the VAX backup run to complete, so this is a
good time to write a check and address an envelope!
Thanks for the note. No, don't have that Silver Express thing, but
will look for it. In the meantime, I will go back to TapCis and send
you a longer note while meter is on pause...
Talk to you soon,
-Bob
--
Bob Trevithick - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bob.Trevithick@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David.Villa@f2704.n206.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Villa)
Subject: Re: Crop Circles?
Date: 22 Jun 91 17:58:00 GMT
>I am not sure, but I think that there have been many other types of designes
>that have appeared in crops, not just circles. Also there are a few other
>types of designes such as human figures and various animals that are
>'engraved' in the earth which are very large, that are possibly in nevada or
>other places, but I am not sure where exactly.
True, I remember seeing pictures of a giant stick-figure horse and snake
somewhere in Europe or thereabouts which can be seen from the sky. Being
built so long ago, why would it's constructors direct the field of view to
the skies, having no flying instruments of their own.
Also, what about those huge shapes in the desert that can be seen from
the sky. People claim they are 'landing marks'.
--
David Villa - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: David.Villa@f2704.n206.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Russian "octopus"
Date: 24 Jun 91 07:47:00 GMT
DE> do not recall Marina placing any great emphasis on that
DE> picture, I imagine that it garnered the interest because of
DE> how spectacular it looked.
Yes, I noticed she had an assortment of photos, and didn't place any
emphasis on that one. It sure is spectacular.
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: Roswell
Date: 25 Jun 91 04:52:08 GMT
> I was just informed that on July 1st, the Roswell case will be
> discussed on the Larry King TV program on CNN.
Thanks. Marked it on my calendar.
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: UFO Crash at Roswell
Date: 25 Jun 91 04:54:09 GMT
> Kudos to Randle and Schmitt!
If they were prosecutors, a conviction would be almost certain. Great
job.
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: Cufos Roswell Special Report
Date: 25 Jun 91 04:56:10 GMT
How about posting CUFOS mailing address.
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: 25 Jun 91 04:58:11 GMT
> I think I've lost track of this conversation.
No, it was a still photo of what looks like an aerial octopus.
Marina Popovich waved a handful of photos, and that one was visible.
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: June 10, AW&ST
Date: 25 Jun 91 05:00:12 GMT
> triangular aircraft which have been developed by the U.S. to provide
> support for the Stealth fighter.
That's mighty interesting. Did the article mention the role
(specifically) of these aircraft?
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: UFO Crash at Roswell
Date: 25 Jun 91 05:01:13 GMT
> Do you know if the book is available at the usual places,
> Waldenbooks, etc.?
That's the title, and I found my copy at a Walden's.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: CROP CIRCLES?
Date: 24 Jun 91 20:34:12 GMT
If it's the cover I'm thinking of, the circles are irrigation arms
photographed from the air. Notice how none overlap, and there are long lines
leading into each circle into the center. (the pivot point) I think it's the
back of Coda right? Since I'm at work I don't have it hand to observe
specifics.
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Russian "octopus"
Date: 24 Jun 91 19:53:00 GMT
Jim Speiser said:
> I think I've lost track of this conversation. Are we talking about the
> photo that PHOBOS sent back of the shadow on Mars? If so, that photo
> appears on page 282 of "Genesis Revisited" by Zechariah Sitchin. If not,
> could someone please clarify?
Jim the photo referred to was a type of "light flash" that resembled what
looked like a surrealistic octopus. This photo was included in the bundle that
Marina had with her.
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: vanth!jms
Subject: Undeniable evidence
Date: 27 Jun 91 07:39:22 GMT
From: vanth!jms@amix.commodore.com (Jim Shaffer)
To: David Villa
+ 2. The way the Govt. handles the UFO phenomena in that there is such a
+MASSIVE outpouring of eye-whitness accounts of sightings and abductions. A
+Govt. so 'responsible' for the welfare of it's people and even as a purely
+scientific interest, should take the phenomenon more seriousy. Because of
+the volume of sightings and reports, the Govt. should be forced to respond
+with it's own hardcore investigative measures no matter how outlandish the
+outcome may yeild. All the Govt. has stated on the phenomenon is that it is
+'inconclusive'. This, in itself, proves to me the Govt. knows somthing we
+do not. Our Govt. has never acted this way in the past with more 'up-front'
+measures. Look at the 'Red Scare'.
Although the government professes to have no interest in the phenomenon,
there's evidence that that simply isn't true. Have you read 'Above Top
Secret' by Tim Good yet? It's a huge book, covering not only the American
government but the Canadian, British, and Russian as well. Waldenbooks is
selling it for about $13, and it's a bargain!
--
* From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | 'Let's become
Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | alive again.'
37 Brook Street | uunet!cbmvax!amix!vanth!jms |
Montgomery, PA 17752 | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | --Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: vanth!jms
Subject: Crop Circles?
Date: 27 Jun 91 07:40:19 GMT
From: vanth!jms@amix.commodore.com (Jim Shaffer)
To: David Villa
+ Does anyone know if that weird chain of symbols in the crops on the cover
+of the Led Zepplin collection is a crop circle? If so, that sure is a weird
+'circle'. Looks more like artwork to me.
'Artwork' or not :-) , it's an actual formation found in England. They
*have* been getting stranger lately. (When I say 'lately' I mean as of
last season. I haven't heard much this year.)
--
* From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | 'Let's become
Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | alive again.'
37 Brook Street | uunet!cbmvax!amix!vanth!jms |
Montgomery, PA 17752 | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | --Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: vanth!jms
Subject: Hoax Document
Date: 27 Jun 91 07:41:14 GMT
From: vanth!jms@amix.commodore.com (Jim Shaffer)
To: Jim Speiser
+THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT IS A HOAX. IT IS NOT TO BE CIRCULATED WITHOUT THIS
+PREAMBLE.
+
+This document was received by a noted abduction researcher, along with an
+anonymous letter. My cursory investigation shows that there is no Maj. Thomas
+Shively at the Pentagon. The only Thomas Shively in the Pentagon Personnel
+Index is a civilian computer programmer for the Dept. of the Army. Efforts to
+contact him thus far have been fruitless. Nevertheless, it is our considered
+opinion that this document is a hoax, and we provide the transcription of it
+here for information and cautionary purposes only. If you circulate this
+document, either in print or electronically, please include this preamble.
+
+Jim Speiser
+[...]
+ First, there are still some concerns over the October issue of
+Av-Week. We could not understand why they would run the Edwards story
+without review. This is still under review. What are your ideas?
Does the government usually review AvWeek stories? I've never seen the
magazine, so I don't know what its policies are.
+ The Belgium situation has been corrected to all our satisfaction. I
+understand that another show will air on the tabloid program that will show
+that the sightings could be a mis-identification of terrestrial objects, say
+a street light. This should air in January.
Huh? A street light? Are they talking about the same Belgium situation?
Did this show air? We don't get it around here.
+ The Nevada situation has been brought under control by the inclusion
+of the 'porno' queen along with the Nellis allegations. That was a brilliant
+coup. This entire issue is under constant monitoring. Anything else you may
+hear will be of great interest.
Oh please! How is Marilyn Chambers with *one* sighting which
doesn't even match the others supposed to discredit the entire story?
+ The last area to be addressed concerns our 'friend' Mr. Cooper. As
+you can see by the attachment included, the reason for Mr. Cooper leaving
+Naval service, I believe back in the old days, the phrase would be keel
+hauling. Cooper has worked out beyond our expectations. With his paranoid
+personality, and alcohol abuse not to mention the crowds he draws, we feel
+that the field has been covered. Cooper, as expected, will self-destruct at
+some point, and with that, a large part and parcel of this field will go
+with him. We were concerned last year when he drew police interest in the
Again, who does this author take us for? Seeing as how a lot of sincere
dedicated researchers have already rejected Cooper, how does he figure that
his 'self-destruction' will take out "a large part and parcel of this
field'? Only that part which gets in all the other parts' way!
My conclusion (in case it hasn't been obvious):
This document was written by a fool. I have difficulty believing that the
government could fall to this level of illogic, regardless of what else you
might say about them.
+[...]
+END DOCUMENT
+
+I'd like to request that at least two people not connected with ParaNet
+Administration reply to this message and quote the preamble in its entirety.
+At least one person should be on InterNet.
OK...
--
* From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | 'Let's become
Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | alive again.'
37 Brook Street | uunet!cbmvax!amix!vanth!jms |
Montgomery, PA 17752 | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | --Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Re: Wernikoff On Maccabee
Date: 27 Jun 91 01:25:00 GMT
Jim Greenen writes:
>"John; and who said that Ed wasn't smart. If it was I that had
>taken those photo's, there would be a clod day in hell before I
>would turn them over to the JPL lab or to anyone else connected to
>the government. And that wouldn't have anything to do with the
>notion that thay are fake or not. Turning these photos over to JPL
>is like having Phillip Klass the final word on the GB case. Ed did
>the right thing on this and if people don't want to believe these
>phots are real because JPL didn't analyze them, then that their
>problem. And goes along with all other photos that come from
>Russia or other places in the world. This is just like handing a
>gun to the accused and asking him if this is the gun that he used
>in the crime. One must check to see who funds the JPL and other
>places. We must all look before we leap and Ed has looked and he
>ain't leaping." <<< Jim Greenen
Jim, JPL is one of the most highly esteemed laboratories for
photographic analysis in the world. I am confident you will agree
that an affirmative response from Nathan re: the GB polaroids,
videotape, and Nimslo shots, would boost Ed Walters' credibility
significantly. If Walters is apprehensive about his originals
vanishing, why does he entrust them to Maccabee, who is employed by
the government? How does he know for sure that the "originals" he
now retains, are not copies? Obviously, there has to be some degree
of trust. If not JPL, what scientific body would you personally
endorse to do further evaluation of the available material? Proper
scientific method stipulates that all elements of doubt in any
experimental situation be controlled, with results being
reproducible by others. It is irresponsible of you to state that
"...if people don't want to believe these photos are real because
JPL didn't analyze them, then that (sic) their problem..." I think
we all want these photos to be "real", but we must not let our
desires cloud our objectivity.
Sheldon Wernikoff, N9EHL
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: Crash at Roswell
Date: 26 Jun 91 00:28:00 GMT
Sheldon,
The cover photo on "UFO Crash at Roswell" looks like a hoax photo
I saw in another book. I probably have it and will look further in
this room I call my "office." :-)
Will let ya know.
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: UFO Crash at Roswell
Date: 26 Jun 91 00:34:00 GMT
Hi David,
I, too, just picked up the LAST copy of "UFO Crash at Roswell" and
can't wait to read it.
See ya,
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (sm)
Subject: UFO Crash at Roswell Review
Date: 27 Jun 91 07:53:00 GMT
Book Review: "UFO Crash at Roswell" by Kevin D. Randle and Donald
R. Schmitt (Avon Books, 1991), 327 pages.
(Reviewed by Michael Corbin and James R. Black, ParaNet
Information Service. Copyright 1991 by Michael Corbin and James
R. Black. All Rights Reserved.)
There are some books that everyone with an interest in UFOs
should own. "UFO Crash at Roswell" is one of them. Here, for the
first time, is a definitive answer to the long-standing question,
"Has the U.S. government ever recovered a crashed flying saucer?"
The answer is a resounding "Yes!"
The Story and the Evidence
-------------------------
In brief, "UFO Crash at Roswell" tells how an unidentified flying
object struck the earth on July 2, 1947 near Corona, New Mexico
during a violent thunderstorm; how the wreckage was found by a
local rancher and reported to the 509th Bomb Group at Roswell
Army Air Field; how the soldiers of the 509th gathered the
wreckage, discovered a second (and possibly a third) associated
crash site, took possession of four alien bodies, and transported
their finds to Los Alamos and Wright Field for analysis; and how
the military brass in the Eighth Air Force and the Pentagon
squelched the facts, disinformed the public, and suppressed
almost all discussion of the events for decades afterwards.
Such a story could easily be dismissed as the rankest sort of
sci-fi nonsense, and in its previous incarnations it has been so
dismissed by UFO believers and debunkers alike. When Charles
Berlitz and William L. Moore's "The Roswell Incident" made the
first tentative steps to cover this ground in 1980, it was
mercilessly derided and picked to pieces for its intrinsic
unbelievability and its lapses of both fact and logic. But Randle
and Schmitt know their history, and they were determined not to
repeat the mistakes of the past. Randle is a former helicopter
pilot and Air Force intelligence officer; Schmitt is Director of
Special Investigations for the Center for UFO Studies, one of the
oldest and most respectable of today's UFO organizations.
Together, over the course of almost three years, they interviewed
more than 200 witnesses, reviewed hundreds of documents, and
conducted the first scientific site visit by private citizens to
the crash site itself. The result is a mountain of proof which
will delight the true believer, astound the open-minded, and
hopefully give the debunkers a real run for their money.
Inevitably, much of the book is concerned with sometimes confused
tales of unearthly materials and alien bodies. But in our
estimation this is not the most important and convincing
evidence; much more telling is the downright strange behavior of
the government itself, both then and now. Witnesses can easily be
mistaken about esoteric technical issues outside their everyday
experience; it's much harder to misinterpret being threatened by
uniformed men carrying guns. The U.S. military has buried the
Roswell event under all the trappings of a full-blown government
coverup: the intimidation of witnesses, the destruction or
suppression of evidence, and a systematic campaign of lies and
disinformation to prevent the truth from becoming widely known.
The indisputable fact of the coverup itself is enough to
establish that Roswell is truly the tip of the "Cosmic Watergate"
iceberg.
The authors have anticipated the inevitable assault by debunkers
who "know" that the Roswell event cannot have happened as
described. They consider whether the Roswell crash can be
explained as nothing more than a downed weather balloon, or a
stray V-2 rocket nose cone, or a late-breaking Japanese balloon
bomb--and then firmly reject them all. In the end, only one
explanation remains: that in 1947 the New Mexico countryside
witnessed the crash of a vehicle that was "not of this world".
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
------------------------------
"UFO Crash at Roswell" is not without its flaws. It was published
as a paperback original rather than in hardcover, which almost
inevitably means it will appear in few libraries and will garner
few serious reviews. The cover art (against the authors' wishes)
is a classic "daylight disk" photo which has been widely
denounced as a hoax and has nothing whatever to do with the
Roswell crash. The text is replete with typographical errors and
grammatical slips that even casual editing should have caught and
corrected. There are mangled and self-contradictory quotations
(some of which can be repaired by reference to repetitions of the
same material elsewhere in the book), and there are "backward
glances" to facts that have not yet been discussed. But these
represent a failure by the publisher to take the book seriously,
rather than a failure by the authors to write a book worth
reading.
Perhaps more disconcerting is the authors' decision to cover the
same ground four times from different perspectives: once in a
brief historical overview, once in a "just the facts" account of
the event itself, once in a blow-by-blow description of their
investigation, and finally once more in a day-by-day time line.
This occasionally gives the reader an annoying sense of "deja
vu", as well as making it difficult to know which part of the
book to search through for any particular detail.
On the positive side, the authors have taken a very professional
and forthright approach to their work. The contributions of
previous researchers are acknowleged (and, where necessary,
gently corrected); shortcomings in the evidence are freely
admitted; witnesses are named, and sources are documented. There
are detailed lists of interviewees and participants, a glossary,
a bibliography, extensive footnotes, and an index--all of which
will greatly assist anyone who wishes to verify their information
or to build on their efforts. One senses no "proprietary
interests" at work here, which is a welcome relief in a field
where information is often jealously guarded and cooperation
among researchers is all too rare.
Where Do We Go From Here?
------------------------
"UFO Crash at Roswell" does not mark the end of crashed-disk
research; indeed, it is only the beginning. A moment's
consideration yields any number of avenues for further research,
some of which Randle and Schmitt are no doubt already pursuing:
(1) The material relating to the second and third crash sites,
the discovery of the alien bodies, and their final disposition at
the hands of the military is still sketchy and full of holes;
further research is definitely needed here, both to find more
witnesses and to establish precisely what happened and how it is
related to the primary site.
(2) Roswell is not the only rumored UFO crash; Randle and Schmitt
list a number of them in an appendix. These other alleged
incidents need to be investigated with the same vigor as the
Roswell crash, and conclusively verified or disproved.
(3) The role of Kirtland Air Force Base, not only in the Roswell
recovery and its coverup but in other landmark UFO events, needs
to be thoroughly investigated and documented. Kirtland crops up
over and over again in Randle and Schmitt's story--as a source of
orders and machinations outside the normal military chain of
command, as a transshipment point for material destined for the
labs at Los Alamos, as the place where secret scientific reports
on the crash were filed, and as the possible source of a military
mapping expedition near the crash site years afterwards. Given
the prominence of Kirtland in the infamous Bennewitz affair and
other disinformation operations which are known to have been
carried out by personnel of the Air Force Office of Special
Investigations, it seems highly significant that Kirtland appears
so early and so prominently in the Roswell case.
(4) As far as we know now, Roswell was the first recovery of a
crashed UFO; but there is reason to believe that the U.S.
government had, to say the least, already given the matter some
thought. The speed with which the military responded to the
initial report, the forethought shown by the arrangements for
transporting the wreckage, and the thoroughness with which the
witnesses were hushed up and the evidence eliminated, indicate
that the Roswell coverup was not an ad-hoc response to an
unexpected event but rather the outworking of a pre-arranged
plan. It remains to be seen whether this plan was formulated as
the result of prior experience in crashed-saucer retrievals or
was merely a contingency plan provoked by earlier encounters with
"foo fighters", "ghost rockets", and "green fireballs" in the
postwar years.
(5) The revelation by General Arthur Exon of the existence of a
UFO control group outside official channels once again raises the
spectre of MJ-12. Exon referred to the group as "the Unholy
Thirteen" for lack of a better name, but of course this could
easily mean nothing more than the twelve principals of MJ-12 plus
the President himself, to whom the control group undoubtedly
reported. While the controversy surrounding the MJ-12 briefing
paper should not be allowed to sully the Roswell event itself,
the semi-official acknowledgment that such a group once existed
(and presumably still exists) should add new fuel to the MJ-12
fire.
(6) There is a crying need to re-evaluate postwar history in
light of the now-established fact of the Roswell crash and
retrieval. If the U.S. government successfully recovered an alien
spacecraft, alien technology, and alien corpses in 1947, it
should have had a profound impact on high-tech research (several
witnesses described a material similar to modern fiber optics),
on foreign policy, and on the aerospace industry and the space
program--not to mention its effect on the government's attitude
toward the UFO problem itself. Just as the revelation of the
ultra-secret Enigma machine and the allies' successful cracking
of Axis codes has required a complete rethinking of the
historiography of World War II, so the Roswell event necessitates
a reinvestigation of almost everything that has happened in the
last 44 years.
(7) Finally, a host of questions remain unanswered about the
relationship between the Roswell crash and the "other half" of
the UFO equation: abductions, occult phenomena, cattle
mutilations, and all the rest. Roswell *looks* like the crash of
an extraterrestrial spacecraft; but that could be because the
event has been shaped to look that way, either by the government,
by the researchers, or by the forces behind the event itself. It
would be a grave error to conclude at this point that Roswell
establishes the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis as the only solution
to the UFO mystery. That something extraordinary happened at
Roswell is astonishingly clear. Its ultimate explanation and
significance are yet to be determined.
Conclusion
---------
If you have any interest in UFOs, go out and get a copy of this
book. Better yet, get two copies--one for yourself, and one to
loan out to your friends. You'll be glad you did.
END
PARANET FILE NAME: ROSREV.TXT
--
ParaNet(sm) Information Service - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet(sm).Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ncar!ASTRO.dnet.ge.com!CARR
Subject: CUFOS Roswell Report
Date: 27 Jun 91 21:32:17 GMT
From: Paul Carr <CARR@ASTRO.dnet.ge.com>
I don't have CUFOS mailing address for the purpose of obtaining their
Roswell report. Can anyone post this?
********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************************
