Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 438
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 438
Friday, July 12th 1991
Today's Topics:
Re: UFONS
Re: Asteriods?
Re: Roswell on Phx Radio
Re: Bilderbergers & UN?
Re: Wernikoff On Maccabee
Re: RE: Paranet Newsletter 435
Roswell Discussion
Re: Cfr, Russia And Other Off-topic "gee-whiz" Excuses....
(none)
Your posting to sci.skeptic (as seen on Paranet.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peggy.Noonan@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Peggy Noonan)
Subject: Re: UFONS
Date: 10 Jul 91 20:32:00 GMT
Hi Bob,
I've been off the BBS for a week or so getting some heavy
deadline work done but was delighted to see your message here today!
I'll check CIS (hope it'll be today) later on.
==Peggy==
--
Peggy Noonan - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Peggy.Noonan@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ncar!neptune.convex.com!swarren
Subject: Re: Asteriods?
Date: 11 Jul 91 17:37:41 GMT
From: swarren@neptune.convex.com (Steve Warren)
+From: Kurt.Lochner@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kurt Lochner)
+Subject: Asteriods?
+Date: 7 Jul 91 21:32:11 GMT
+
+Nope! There's been some deep-space tracking experiments
+going on over the years with the asteriod belt. The
+contigencies for dealing with an errant asteriod do
+include 'blowing it up' which IMHO is an oxymoron.
+
+Remember 'up' in freefall is not a valid reference, as
+all directions in space (free of gravity wells) are 'up.'
+So blowing it up is not a term that I would want to see
+in usage to describe what might be done to prevent such
+a cataclysm. Nope, more likely and feasible would be to
+use various instrument probes (and atomic devices) to
+try and deflect the trajectory of an asteroid.
No, actually the most sensible solution would indeed be 'blowing
it up' (which I hope we can agree means 'apart" - not in any
particular direction).
The problem is that deflecting a large object requires reaction mass,
and it is silly to carry reaction mass out to an asteroid, when the
asteroid itself is a wonderful source reaction mass in and of itself.
Why would blowing an asteroid apart solve the problem?
Because, even if the average velocity added to a chunk of the asteroid
by the explosion is only 100 m/s (which is rather small for a nuclear
explosion), then exploding a 1 km diameter asteroid 1 week before impact
will expand its diameter from 1 km to 60,000 km.
The Earth's diameter is approximately 12,000 km. The ratio of surface
area - to - surface area of Earth to asteroid would be approximately
0.04 (ie the Earth would intersect 4% of the cross-sectional area of
space occupied by the asteroid). We would see a spectacular meteorite
shower, but it would not threaten civilization.
A more energetic explosion would scatter the remains much more widely,
resulting in a much smaller percentage of the asteroid intersecting
the Earth. The cloud of asteroid particles would continue to expand and
become less dense over time, with the result that if it ever crosses the
Earth's orbit again it will be a minimal threat.
The explosive device would be similar to our bunker-busting bombs, as
it would need to tunnel deep into the asteroid before exploding.
I like the destruction approach because it also means that there is one
less large mass in an orbit that intersects ours. In other words, not
only will it not destroy our civilization now, but it will not come back
and get us later either. The orbit modification approach is bad because
it allows a serious threat to our existence to continue hanging over our
heads (call me paranoid).
_.
--Steve ._||__
Warren v\ *|
V
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
Subject: Re: Roswell on Phx Radio
Date: 11 Jul 91 00:36:01 GMT
JS> So was I! Klass I can handle. Stackpole's too sensible to
JS> argue with. We wound up agreeing most of the time.
Methinks Klass is getting OLD (and slow :-)
He sure looks like he's added a few miles..and I noticed that
despite his usual ramblings..he's gotten _soft_.
Ah..Klass..He's one of our favorites :-)
JS> ->BTW..Did you notice how well Randle handled Klass on "Larry
JS> ->King Live"?
JS>
JS> Well, I thought Kevin did a decent job, but I wish he
JS> hadn't fudged on the first question, about "was this the
JS> first book on the subjectt?"
I think that was the big boo-boo of the evening. There certainly
would have been no problem to admit his wasn't the first..and it
I noticed that Klass lost no time at all in taking advantage of Randle's
faux pas :-/
I'm upto page 85 of the book. So far, it looks pretty solid.
Don
--
Don Allen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Feilke@f14.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Feilke)
Subject: Re: Bilderbergers & UN?
Date: 10 Jul 91 22:54:00 GMT
In a message to John Feilke <07-09-91 23:03> John Hrusovszky wrote:
JH=>JF> Pack the suckers up and give me a magic word and i'll
JH=>get them, I have
JH=>JF> GEMSTONE FILES......
JH=>
JH=>Can you let me in on what these "Gemstone Files" are
JH=>basically about?
JH=>And can I FREQ them at high speed from you? If so, what
JH=>magicname?
JH=>
the Gemstone files are the goods on everyone! I think the file name is
GEMSTONE.ZIP d'l my allfiles list and have a looksee. magic word is FILE or
FILES.
--
John Feilke - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Feilke@f14.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Greenen)
Subject: Re: Wernikoff On Maccabee
Date: 12 Jul 91 00:15:00 GMT
JS> In a message to Michael Corbin <06-29-91 09:08> Jim Greenen
JS> wrote:
JS> -> Ed did the right thing by letting MUFON handle the photo
JS> ->analyzes. MUFON has also sent the photo's to another expert
JS> ->and they are being looked at now. The results should be
JS>
JS> What makes you so sure that MUFON hasn't been "compromised"
JS> by the control group at the highest levels?
JS>
JS> Jim
JS>
JS> --- QuickBBS 2.66 (Eval)
JS> * Origin: ParaNet(sm) Zeta-Reticuli Scottsdale, AZ
JS> 9:1010/100 (0:0/0)
I don't, Jim. But from all the other facts in the GB case makes Ed's
photos look awful good. ---Jim---
--
Jim Greenen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: RE: Paranet Newsletter 435
Date: 12 Jul 91 06:47:00 GMT
Hello,
Thanks for posting the info on migraine headaches. I used to get
them severely as a Senior in H.S. When I noted this on my medical
form as a college Freshman, I was called to the medical center (Cal
State Long Beach) and asked to take a "self-hypnosis" class that
dealt with students with migraines.
I did take the class and found the self-hypnosis techniques worked
extremely well. I seldom ever get headaches now, and I'm
"fortysomething." :-)
Regards,
Linda Bird
--
Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Roswell Discussion
Date: 12 Jul 91 18:15:00 GMT
> 1) The entire second crash site scenario is a house of cards. Barney
> Barnett, by all previous accounts, had been placed at Magdalena at the
> time of the crash. Ruth Barnett's diary is quoted as authoritative at
> one point, in order to put Barney in his office, yet later the authors
> speculate that her diary entry placing Barney "300 miles[*]" from -
> their- second crash site may have been due to Barney lying to his wife
> under pressure from the military. This is an inconsistent use of
> documentary evidence. The authors were stretching in their speculation,
> yet they use this speculation later as part of the foundation of their
> conclusion that a second crash site, complete with bodies, existed. It
> doesn't wash that Barney would lie to his wife, yet tell the truth to
> his niece.
I feel that these inconsistencies serve to support the case even more. Barney
Barnett may have been under so much duress at that time that he did exactly
what the military told him to do under threat of criminal prosecution.
However, the authors do claim that the Barnett connection is very ambiguous.
I feel that they have not stretched their speculation regarding this point.
On another similarly related point, Magdalena was noted by the authors to not
be the point of the second debris field. However, LaPaz was sent out a little
over a year later to discover yet another related debris field.
> 2) Mac Brazel, who saw only a debris field, was imprisoned for days and
> supposedly debriefed by the military. Barney Barnett, who saw a saucer,
> bodies, the whole shootin' match, was merely "shooed away" by the
> military.
This is unfounded and is not even a legit point. First, we don't know exactly
what Mac Brazel saw. We don't know what his attitude was with the military
which prompted them to cloister him for those days. He was also the caretaker
of the land that the debris crashed on. He could have made it very difficult
for the military to carry out their operation by being present while they did
their work. As with the witnesses at the other crash site, they were alleged
to have been sworn to secrecy and sent on their way. Since Brazel was
considerably more intimate with the affair, more so than Barnett, it makes
perfect sense that they would try to persuade him to be cooperative.
> 3) A glaring inconsistency in the much-vaunted time-line: The "first
> flight from Washington" arrived at Roswell at 12 Noon. Allowing for a
> two-hour drive to Corona, that places them at the crash site around 2PM.
> Yet the CIC man stated that a "photography crew from Washington" had
> been on the scene by 11AM. How did they get there?
A trivial point. The Air Force uses planes. If they flew in from Washington,
it would make perfect sense that they flew to the site and may have landed on
the roadway, or someplace else in close proximity to the debris field.
> 4) The gases that cause the stench associated with decomposition also
> cause profound bloating, which would result in "fat corpses." Yet the
> corpses were invariably described as "skinny."
Again, trivial. If we are dealing with non-human entities, then we do not
know that their method of decomposition would be consistent with humans.
> 5) On the flight from Roswell to Ft. Worth, armed guards were placed
> around the crates containing the wreckage (and possibly the bodies). No
> one on that flight was allowed near it. Yet on the flight from Ft. Worth
> to Dayton, as attested to by Pappy Henderson, the crew were allowed to
> handle the debris (now supposedly ESTABLISHED to be a flying saucer) to
> their heart's content.
Without looking back at the book, wasn't that material contained in a shoe
box? This is not the same material that was on the flight deck to be flown to
Dayton. I will have to check this point out further.
> 6) The crate used to ship the alleged bodies measured 14' by 5' by 5'
> (or thereabouts). This works out to about 300 cubic feet. This much ice
> would weigh 18,000 lbs. Allowing for a hollowed-out area to contain the
> bodies, let's say anywhere from 10,000-12,000 pounds. Yet one of the
> crewmen was quoted as saying that the weight-and-balance man cleared the
> plane for flight without doing his calculations, since the load would be
> so light.
Without knowing my aviation stuff, as I suspect Mike doesn't, I would say that
18,000 pounds is nothing compared to other cargo that the military would fly
in a cargo hold of one of their planes. Also, due to the nature of the
material that was contained in the cargo, all of the necessary arrangements
would have been pre-arranged to alleviate another person in the chain of
having intimate knowledge of his cargo.
> I have to say that I acknowledge and agree with the above objections,
> and others that Mike raises. These are points that sorely need to be
> addressed, if the authors wish to maintain the integrity of their
> investigation. However, I part company with Mike on the ultimate
> conclusion to be drawn from these discrepancies. I view these as a point
> of departure for further research, rather than as a basis for dismissal
> of the case as a whole. Mike said that the authors were inconsistent; I
> replied that it was the evidence that was inconsistent, and the authors
> were to be commended for including contradictory testimony, and labeling
> it as such.
I have to disagree completely. What amazes me is that this argument is
another of the typical "maintain the party line" in direct opposition of solid
eyewitness data to a very extraordinary incident. Granted, it is not the
flying-saucer-lands-on-the-White-House-Lawn that would settle this business
once and for all, but it does prove that many people were involved in a highly
organized effort to clean up a crash site where something very strange
crashed. The main points to consider, and for the debunkers to address are:
1) If it was a weather balloon, why the need for secrecy for over 40 years
since the original event? Even the most highly classified aerial project that
they would have had going at that time would surely have become obsolete with
the technological advances that have been made since that time. After all,
the Manhattan Project, known to be one of this nation's most classified
projects, is now available in your local library.
2) Why would trained observers like Marcel make such a stupid mistake in
identification of a simple weather balloon? Even if it was classified, the
weather balloon was as common as the automobile. Would Marcel have made such
a misidentification? Surely not.
3) The amount of witnesses testifying to an extraordinary event is
staggering. I admit that the AFOSI might go to nominal extremes to disinform
the public, but to influence over 300 people to directly lie about an incident
just for the sake of trickery on the public is ludicrous, not to mention the
amount of time that has passed. Even with faded memories, the same bottom
line consensus is arrived at: It was something foreign to our technology.
Let's get real! Something happened at Roswell in 1947. Whether it represents
extraterrestrial technology or something prosaic that is highly advanced is
not necessarily the issue. We need to find out what it represents, and why it
has represented such a big cloud of secrecy that has stretched to 1991, 44
years later.
This example above is not skepticism, it is debunkery. I am skeptical, and I
will admit that something happened there.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Cfr, Russia And Other Off-topic "gee-whiz" Excuses....
Date: 12 Jul 91 18:18:00 GMT
> > From: lush@ecn.purdue.edu (Gregory B Lush)
>
> Can someone please inform me as to what the gibberish in line number
> one above is? I mean, on my computer, it says:
> From: lush@ecn.purdue.edu
> Now, I can understand what the word lush is (although I believe it is
> misspelled) and Purdue is obviously familiar, but what is the @ecn.?
> Is this an interpretation of some high-bit ascii characters, or what?
This is best left for the sysop conference or netmail, but it is the
addressing path for Internet traffic. the "ecn" represents the name of the
organization where Mr. Lush is posting from. As in the words of Outer Limits
program, "Do not adjust your set. We are in complete control of the video and
the audio." <grin>
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: 12 Jul 91 19:01:00 GMT
> From: lush@ecn.purdue.edu (Gregory B Lush)
Greg,
After reading your message, I have come to the conclusion that there is just
no common ground between our viewpoints. I suggest that we agree to
disagree. However, just to clarify my position on things about this whole
mess...
I do believe that there is something going on. There are just too many
people reporting things to dismiss it out-of-hand. But, at the same time, I
object to those who have no idea of what it is trying to convince others that
they have the truth without proof of it. When I use the word "proof" I speak
of not what it would take to convince you or me of the validity of something,
but what it takes to convince the masses. It is clear that we are battling
the same thing: Big media, mega-bucks and everything else that fits into that
camp. This also does not validate their position, but they have a corner on
the market when it comes to knowing which buttons to push. They did not come
to these strategies by just guessing. They employed known and tested
psychological methods to know what it is that we want to hear. Obviously it
works, so something can be said for scientific study.
The problem with this whole UFO field is that no one is willing to make the
commitment to see it through. Since most people already have the answers,
they have no interest in pursuing it further. But, all the while that they
are convinced that they have the answers, the real thing might be going on
somewhere else.
Do you really know the agenda of these aliens or whatever they are? If you
do, then why don't they come out and show themselves?
On another note, do psychics really have the answers? If so, then why didn't
they channel the dead president that they thought was poisoned so we could
get the real scoop? If they really are in contact with those out there, then
why do we still have social problems? Why can't we cure cancer and AIDS?
The answers are simple. If the "space brothers" are real, and their
intentions were good, we would see drastic social changes, but we don't. We
would see a movement to be indoctrinated into the galactic society, but we
aren't. There is no progress being made at all.
I say that I am grateful for what science has done thus far. Thank goodness
we don't have pseudo-scientists building bridges and airplanes. If we did,
we would really be in trouble.
On a closing note, there is this word "ESPIONAGE" that keeps troubling me.
Until we know what the agenda is, we have to approach this thing with the
utmost care. I do recall that several noted scientists involved with early
SETI were also concerned with this aspect of making contact with aliens should
that ever happen, much less what could happen if they intercept a signal sent
out by us.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ncar!gatech!ucsd!cs.UCSD.EDU!pluto
Subject: Your posting to sci.skeptic (as seen on Paranet.)
Date: 12 Jul 91 21:14:52 GMT
----- Begin Included Message -----
* 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
----- End Included Message -----
Actually, I didn't think that the author defended his point of view as well
as he could have against the flimsy but popular retorts of Klass. You should
also know that Klass has put quite a lot of effort into his 'Mission' -- and
a mission it is -- he believes in his point of view enough to call anyone
who disagrees with him a 'kook' and question their credibility by calling
attention to their age or personal characteristics. Another favorite strategy
of his is not to judge the evidence on its own merits, but to try to reduce
it to an absurdity, by saying, 'If this were true, then, why is it not true
that ...[fill in the blank with an appropriately absurd situation.]'
I think that these arguments are persuasive enough to a large segment of
the population to have allowed Klass to come out about even in this debate,
even though he was up against two people with access to (apparently) much
better information than he had.
It should be noted that the author did point out that he used to be on the
other side of the fence in this debate, and that he claims to have changed
his opinion due to the evidence. We can only take this for what it's worth,
i.e., take his word for it. However, it did make him seem more objective than
Klass. I have never heard Klass adopt even a moderately objective stance.
When confronted with evidence that is currently unexplainable
he typically changes the subject, or else pulls another ad absurdum argument
out of his hat. I think the skeptics have a valuable role to play in this
field, that of eliminating the kooks who are really messing up the picture --
but I also think that they need a new spokesman, because Klass' arguments are
wearing thin in his old age.
(That last barb is understandable by any who saw the show and heard him
challenge the witnesses by pointing out either their current elderly age,
or the youthful age they were at the time they were first hand witnesses.)
To be fair, other than the presence of the public relations officer, who
seemed to be in the know, and lended a fair amount of credibility to the
author's side of the debate, I didn't see any new evidence -- for example,
when it was maintained that the physical evidence was not from a balloon
or radar target, they didn't explain why they believed this to be true.
Then, they show a video clip of a woman handling some metallic material
that could easily have been taken from a weather balloon or radar target.
So, while Klass lost a great deal of respect in my eyes due to the way he
handled himself (as he usually does) the author did not do a great job
of increasing my faith in his evidence - and the public relations officer
was sufficiently enigmatic to make me hesitant to embrace his evidence as
anything other than hearsay.
= Mark Plutowski
********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************************
