Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 509
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 509
Wednesday, December 11th 1991
Today's Topics:
Antigravity report
An Interesting Development ...
Omni Online
Revision/Update
Popular Mechanics
Re: Revision/Update
EARLY AMERICANS
Vegas Update
Q&A: John Burroughs
Re: Welcome back!
Re: Sphinx debated
UFORA moving to Cairns
Omni Online
Popular Mechanics
Re: Omni Comments
Re: Omni ONLINE
Omni Online
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wam.umd.edu!infinity
Subject: Antigravity report
Date: 5 Dec 91 00:38:03 GMT
From: David Elmore Coleman <infinity@wam.umd.edu>
I am wondering if anyone has any further information on the following
article from sci.physics or sci.astro last year. At the bottom a
reprint license is given with certain conditions, which are plainly
satisfied. Does anyone know how to contact the below organization,
given the little information that the organization below provides us
about how to contact it?
I would like to mention the January 1990 Physics Review Letters A
article on Japanese scientists detecting mass loss in an electrical
gyroscope, which would imply perhaps an antigravity effect similar to
the gyroscopic antigravity effect purported below. Subsequent attempts
to reproduce the Japanese results have failed to acheive mass loss
results, although the experiments are designed somewhat differently.
If I recall correctly the difference involved the absence of electricity
in the follow-up experiments. This version of emacs unfortunately does
not allow me to precede lines with the traditional '> '. It used to
work, the ^[R command, until they switched to the idiotic NeXT server
which has screwed everybody.
----------------CUT------HERE------(if_you_want_to_of_course!)----------
+From mcnc!rinne Fri Aug 31 10:25:53 EDT 1990
An interesting article I just received on converting angular momentum
into linear momentum:
<><><><><><><> T h e V O G O N N e w s S e r v i c e <><><><><><><><>
Edition : 2131 Thursday 16-Aug-1990 Circulation : 8288
VNS TECHNOLOGY WATCH: [Mike Taylor, VNS Correspondent]
===================== [Nashua, NH, USA ]
The man who defies gravity (and scientists, and skeptics, and Newton)
Scotland to Sydney in 17 minutes ? Mars in 1= days ? It could happen
thanks to the engineer Sandy Kidd's anti-gravity invention. Stuart
Bathgate meets the man who British Aerospace are at last taking seriously.
In 1903 the eminent American astronomer Simon Newcomb 'proved' on paper
that heavier-than-air flight was a mathematical impossibility. Later that
year the Wright brothers flew a Kitty Hawk.
This gap between accepted scientific theory and reality is all too
familiar to Dundee-based engineer Sandy Kidd. In a book published this
week, Beyond 2001, Kidd provides a fascinating account of the process that
eventually led to his producing a self-propelling giroscopic device - the
Kidd machine - which, it is said, will revolutionize the laws of physics.
In particular, Kidd's claims that Newton's Laws of Motion - sacrosanct for
centuries - do not hold true for all instances.
The machine's value though, is not just theoretical. Employing constant
acceleration, it could shrink the solar system. Traveling to Mars would
take a day and a half. Neptune - some seven years distant by rocket -
would be reached in under a fortnight. Distances on Earth too, could
become meaningless: instead of commuting by rail from, say Linlithgow to
Edinburgh, a journey of 15 minutes, the owner of a Kidd machine could
travel to work daily from Sydney - it would only take two minutes longer.
All this is possible because of what is known as 'anti-Newtonian lift'.
The classical physics dictum that 'every action must have an equal and
opposite reaction' is observable in everyday life: you can only jump into
the air by first pushing down on the ground; a rocket can escape our
atmosphere only by producing a phenomenal thrust. Yet Kidd's machine does
not require thrust to lift itself into the air. It is not lifted by
aerodynamics. It does not depend on a hot-air cushion. Incredible as it
sounds, Kidd's machine rises by losing weight.
'Taking angular momentum and turning it into linear momentum without a
reaction is just not allowed,' says Kidd - 'but that's what my machine
does.'
Needles to say, since that night in 1984 when he first got the machine to
work in his own garage on the outskirts of Dundee, reaction from the
academic world has been almost universally hostile. At first, the tactic
was to laugh it off, with the claim that Kidd was spinning a yarn, not a
giroscope. Then, various, increasingly desperate, attempts were made to
prove that Kidd's device, did, after all, conform to the known laws of
physics. None of them have been successful.
Now, six years on, with the publication of 'Beyond 2001', and of an
independent laboratory report on his machine, Kidd says that it is time
for the academics to put up or shut up. 'They just want to think that if
they jump up and down and tear their hair out I'll admit I'm a liar. A lot
of them are like children when you've taken away their toys. It really
gets to them. How can this unqualified nitwit make this machine?'
It's a refreshingly honest self-description. Kidd realizes all too well
the apparent uncertainty of the situation: an engineer with no academic
training potters about in his shed, cannibalizing washing machines and
lawn-mowers for spare parts until he stands accepted physics on its head.
His interest in the entire project began, he says, in the air force.
'There were a lot of times with nothing to do, times of boredom when you
just lie in your pit and ask 'Who am I? Why am I here?' - all these
two-steps-to-the-loony-bin questions. So you had to find some other
interest. In my case, I honestly believed that man would find an
alternative means of space travel.'
It was the very fact that Kidd had not been 'brainwashed', as he puts it,
by an academic training, that led him to ask the right questions in the
first place. He also has an implicit awareness of the importance of the
old saying, that the greatest wisdom of all is to appreciate the depth of
your own ignorance.
'When I hear scientists say we know all there is to know about the laws of
physics it annoys me. How can they be so arrogant? We don't have a clue.
Nobody's ever seen an electron. We don't know what gravity is. We don't
know what inertia is. We only scratch the surface'
Events have moved on apace since the successful lab tests with which the
book concludes. Whereas previously Kidd had achieved the lifting effect
without knowing how strong that effect could become, in the last six
months, he says, 'I have proved it can be as good as you want it to be.
It's only limited to the strength of the material.'
Of equal importance is the fact that he now knows why the machine works -
not only because it will help to make technical advances, but also
because his wife Janet - 'I couldn't have done any of this without her' -
is threatening to leave him if he doesn't stop constructing new, improved
models. 'She said that years ago,' says Kidd, trying to laugh off his
wife's assertion. 'Aye, but I mean it this time,' she replies.
The Kidd machine works for reasons entirely different to those he first
thought of, although clearly, with the enormous potential involved, he is
not about to divulge those reasons to the general public. 'Let's just say
that a physicist or mathematician who isn't brainwashed or hidebound will
be able to look at the machine and accept that my explanation for why it
works is correct.'
If anyone is still skeptical, Kidd is willing to stake more than personal
pride on the veracity of his claims. 'I'm prepared to bet my house against
their house,' he says. 'All those academics can take me up on that if they
still refuse to believe me. They'll be furious when the book comes out -
and the more fury the book raises, the happier I'll be - but I doubt if
any of them will take me up on that bet.'
There is a theory of scientific advancement known as 'steam-kettle time'
which asserts that once the conditions are right, a certain invention is
more or less inevitable.
Scattered around Europe and North America are dozens of people working
independently on the same project. At least two others, Kidd thinks, have
achieved anti-Newtonian lift. 'A lot of people have been working on
'anti-gravity devices' for the same reason as me,' he says. 'The rocket is
a crude, inefficient, dangerous device. There has to be a better way.'
Now the timescale for commercial development of that better way is
'directly proportional to wallet - it all depends on how much money
someone is willing to put into it.' While it was announced yesterday that
British Aerospace will help fund further tests, the Australian company BWN
with whom Kidd has worked for several years will retain a keen interest in
the device's development: the engineer will soon return to Australia, with
his wife, to supervise more research.
Kidd's device, then, is an idea whose time has come. And, one might say
paradoxically, not before time. Anyone who struggles for so many years to
achieve what is said to be impossible, who perseveres despite the diverse
difficulties detailed in Beyond 2001, must either be mad, or know that he
is right. Sandy Kidd is not mad. Very soon now the final verdict will be
delivered.
- Beyond 2001: The laws of physics revolutionized, By Sandy Kidd, with Ron
Thompson, is published on Thursday by Sidgwick and Jackson, #14.95
{contributed by Craig Cockburn, From Scotland on Sunday, 5-Aug-90}
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Please send subscription and backissue requests to CASEE::VNS
Permission to copy material from this VNS is granted (per DIGITAL PP&P)
provided that the message header for the issue and credit lines for the
VNS correspondent and original source are retained in the copy.
<><><><><><><><> VNS Edition : 2131 Thursday 16-Aug-1990 <><><><><><><><>
----------------END-OF-ARTICLE------SO-CUT-HERE-if-you-like--------------------
More galactic thoughts from:
Amicitia Subjugat Omnia Hweohthte... (Hwe-oath-T)
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
David E. Coleman infinity@wam.umd.edu
8125 48th Ave, Apt. 612
College Park, MD 20740 1-(301)-474-7424
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Unknowingly, he picked up a whirly blue throwstone with strange hieroglyphics
on the opposite side he didn't see, and he tossed it into the sunlit stream;
A note said he had opened a gate to some place indescribable.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: An Interesting Development ...
Date: 4 Dec 91 08:13:52 GMT
In a message to Jim Speiser <30 Nov 91 23:09> Doug Rogers wrote:
>> I predict that this person will either a) never come forward,
>> b) will come forward with an alias, or c) will come forward
>> with his real name, but will be able to provide nothing
>> in the way of evidence, either for his claims or his background.
DR> <grin> Are you entering this in PARANET_PREDICT??????
I should, hey?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Omni Online
Date: 4 Dec 91 08:15:51 GMT
In a message to Jim Speiser <02 Dec 91 07:50> Peggy Noonan wrote:
PN> Thanks for the suggestion. If you have any ideas on
PN> which BBS should be included in a UFO BBS article, I'd love to
PN> hear from you on that too, okay?
PN> ==Peggy==
Thanks, Peggy. I'll think about it. Glad to hear CUFON is back online, but am
not familiar with Jim Klotz. Is Dale Goudie still connected with it?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Revision/Update
Date: 4 Dec 91 08:23:28 GMT
In a message to Michael Corbin <30 Nov 91 23:26> Linda Bird wrote:
LB> Hello Mike,
LB> To my surprise, Loren revised his paper on Bentwaters without a
LB> fuss, and I'll send it out Monday. (Will miracles never cease??)
Linda:
Suppose I could get a copy as well, to show to John?
Thanks!
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Popular Mechanics
Date: 4 Dec 91 08:34:44 GMT
In a message to All <03 Dec 91 01:22> John Burke wrote:
JB> As an aside, I am rather suspicious about the way in which UFO
JB> design has parallelled earthly design trends. The older UFO
JB> photographs and sketches (such as the McMinnville, Oregon UFO)
JB> have an almost "art deco" look. More recent UFOs, as
JB> photographed in the Hudson Valley area and in Belgium have a more
JB> "Stealth"-y, Bauhaus type of look that is so popular nowdays.
JB> -- John
John:
I am currently working on an article for CONTINUUM that will address this
issue, and much more. It's turning out to be sort of a Unified Field Theory of
UFOs. I might just send you an advance draft for review...I think I'll need a
reality check for this one.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: Revision/Update
Date: 5 Dec 91 04:04:00 GMT
Hi Jim,
Will certainly see that you get an update of Loren's report/retort!
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: CU.NIH.GOV!ZAK
Subject: EARLY AMERICANS
Date: 5 Dec 91 18:33:45 GMT
From: ZAK@CU.NIH.GOV
From: wam.umd.edu!infinity
+ In July or August 1989 a French anthropological or archaeological journal
+ published or reviewed a study by a Brazilian archaeologist/anthropologist
+ concerning remains in northern Brazil dated by thermoluminescence to
+ be 300,000 years old. This came on the heels of a discovery in the Mojave
+ Desert, which was at the time quite controversial, concerning 270,000 year
+ old evidence of human habitation. I have been unable to find the journal,
+ as I got my information from a news periodical I should have photocopied.
-- MORE--
Have you seen the book _American_Genesis_ by the-name-escapes-me?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wrs.com!davidj
Subject: Vegas Update
Date: 6 Dec 91 02:33:28 GMT
From: davidj@wrs.com (David Jones)
***************************
Written a few days ago
***************************
I called Wendelle Stevens at home last Sunday night and asked him if
the rumor was true. He said that the only time he was approached by
the F.B.I. was in May and in regards to the Russians. His (Dec 12th)
Thursday night special will be more undisclosed stuff from Bob Lazar
and, if he comes out from the underground, a 2nd level security guard
from northern Nellis will tell what he knows (not a test pilot - Oh
well).
I spent most of last Saturday and Sunday with Marina Popovich, asking
her everything I could think of. I will be with Colin Andrews this
weekend.
I need to be at the Russian Consolate in San Francisco tomorrow for
a press conference with Marina, Andrews and Harder anouncing the
Soviet American UFO/ET Symposium that I am helping to produce. On
Sunday I will be with Dr. Steven Greer, founder of CSETI who has
been successful in getting a group consciousness of 30 - 50 people
to get an alien fly-by. I'll beleive it when I see it. Location
is classified. Next week I'm off to the Vegas show. I wish I had time
to share with you what Marina had to say. Maybe later ...
***************************
UPDATE
***************************
Well, according to Bob Brown, Wendelle's grandson, Mr. Cox, just
spent a bunch of time with this, so-called, 2nd level security
guard by travelling all over Florida with him. As it turns out
none of the things that this guard said could be verified. Cox
left the guy in Florida after deciding that he was a con man. This
is very disappointing. As I write this, Cox is in his car on his
way back to Arizona. Oh well, perhaps it was too good to be true ...
I apologize for the mis/dis-information, it was unintentional. Ah, but
the intrigue ... :-)
-------------------
David W. Jones
davidj@wrs.com OR
uunet!wrs!davidj
-------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dale.Anderson@p3.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Dale Anderson)
Subject: Q&A: John Burroughs
Date: 5 Dec 91 03:07:07 GMT
In a message to All <21 Nov 91 15:35> Jim Speiser wrote:
JS> PARANET Q&A: JOHN BURROUGHS
JS> If you have any questions or comments about the Bentwaters case
JS> that you would like to address to any of these witnesses, please
JS> post them in reply to this message. I will compile all the
JS> questions and send them on to John, and then will transcribe his
JS> responses to the network.
You bet. Here they are. Questions are addressed to John Burroughs, or as he
deems, to another individual.
-+--
1. How do you respond to the allegation by Jacques Vallee in his new book,
Revelations", that you and your UFO witness group may have been unknowing
subjects of a psychological experiment perpetrated by the U.S. military?
2. Did anything seem different in regard to the way the SP's reacted to the
bright lights in Rendlesham Forest? Any actions that didn't follow Air Force
guidelines/checklists? Is it official A.F. policy to disallow weapon use off
the base?
3. The second patrol unit that met you near the base gates, was this unit on a
routine patrol as you were? How many patrols are normally in force during the
evening hours?
4. The object that appeared to land. Was this object disc shaped or other?
Did the object appear to rotate? Was any sound heard from the object? How
many feet away, at closest approach, were you from the landed UFO? Do you
feel this object was under a controlled guidance?
5. Were you present when the red object 'broke up' and dispersed? If not,
would Col. Halt describe this in more detail?
6. We have heard various rumors of entities being present during the sighting
of the landed UFO. Do you know if there is any truth to these rumors?
7. Did anyone remark about their watches being off time, or items to that
nature?
8. Do you know if the malfunctioning light-alls were found to be defective
upon later inspection?
9. Does the Air Force continue to neither confirm nor deny the sightings? Has
anyone experienced discontent from the Air Force, since appearing on the
Unsolved Mysteries program?
10. Are you currently on active Air Force Reserve status?
11. Were the forest animals actually highly agitated and frightened? Were
they possibly confused because of the bright lights and the sense of daylight?
12. What was the total time duration of all events, to the best of your
knowledge?
13. In your opinion, do you feel the governments of the world are involved in
a UFO cover-up? Why, or why not?
14. Have you witnessed, other than the Bentwaters incident, a UFO which you
couldn't explain? Have you recalled periods of unaccounted 'missing time'?
15. What are your thoughts when challenged by skeptical people who say the
Bentwaters events never happened as you and your comrades described them?
16. How have the UFO events changed your life?
-+--
That's it. Please thank Mr. Burroughs for his time and his appearance on
Unsolved Mysteries. I also extend my thanks to the remainder of the
Bentwaters witnesses for coming forward with their story, as well.
JS> Also, we're open to suggestions for future Q&A subjects. Among
JS> all the members of this network, there's barely a major UFO
JS> figure in the world that cannot be reached fairly easily for
JS> comments.
The following suggestions may fall within the "barely" category. :-)
Jacques Vallee: UFO/abduction origin theories and how they may interrelate.
Linda Howe: The proposed connections between mutilations and black helicopters.
John Keel: His current mindset regarding Roswell and UFOs.
Lawrence Fawcett and/or Barry Greenwood: The overall success rate of procuring
formerly classified documents via FOIA requests, and past/pending legislation
that has/could impede the FOIA.
Robert Lazar: Area 51, and why he decided to speak up. Why others won't.
Thanks for the opportunity, Jim. It's greatly appreciated by all of us.
Regards,
Dale
--
Dale Anderson - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Dale.Anderson@p3.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: Welcome back!
Date: 6 Dec 91 04:42:00 GMT
Hi Vlad,
Glad to see you are enjoying the weather there. Ours isn't too bad,
either. When I was in Greece in the summertime, I'd always meet
Aussies trying to get away from the winters!
In that part of Australia where you are now, is there enough farming
and growing of grains to get some crop circles? We're all waiting to
see what develops in your neck of the woods!
Keep your eyes on the skies,
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: Sphinx debated
Date: 6 Dec 91 05:09:00 GMT
Hi David,
I greatly enjoyed the articles on the Sphinx, and hope you will post
your findings. In the latest issue of UFO Newsclipping Service, there
were 2 articles on the professors and the Sphinx. Fascinating!
Best,
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: UFORA moving to Cairns
Date: 5 Dec 91 18:49:56 GMT
In a message to Jim Speiser <05 Dec 91 00:45> Vladimir Godic wrote:
>> Good to have you back! Things have been slow in your absence,
>> except for a highly skeptical report on the Belgium case (which
>> itself must be viewed with skepticism...)
VG> Jim,
VG> Yes IT'S good to be back with you guys. Re the Belgium case, I
VG> just read the report on Paranet. Makes you wonder why suddenly such a
VG> contradictory report. There's definitely something going on.
VG> Hopefully we can find out the truth behind it.
Offhand I would say its typical knee-jerk debunking. The article doesn't
address the photographs I've seen, and it addresses the radar traces in such a
general, detached manner, that I'm sure its a case of someone who didn't really
do the research and is filtering his observations through his total disbelief
in UFOs.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Omni Online
Date: 6 Dec 91 07:17:00 GMT
Peggy:
I've noticed that in the last 2 issues of _Omni_ there has been
no "Antimatter" section and hence, no "UFO Update". Did they
drop it or what?
-- 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: Popular Mechanics
Date: 6 Dec 91 07:20:00 GMT
Jim Speiser writes:
> I am currently working on an article for CONTINUUM that
> will address this issue, and much more. It's turning out to
> be sort of a Unified Field Theory of UFOs. I might just
> send you an advance draft for review...I think I'll need a
> reality check for this one.
I'll look forward to it!
-- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve.Rose@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Rose)
Subject: Re: Omni Comments
Date: 4 Dec 91 02:21:00 GMT
SR> Alright! Now there's some meat on dem bones. :)
JS> How bout taking it one step further, and allowing the claimants to
JS> review the debunking, point by point, perhaps going back and forth
JS> until it boils down to a fundamental difference in philosophy
Naw...they would then be forced to raise the subscription rates. ;-)
--
Steve Rose - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Steve.Rose@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve.Rose@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Rose)
Subject: Re: Omni ONLINE
Date: 4 Dec 91 02:23:00 GMT
PN> Have you been doing this -- the UFO boards -- long enough to note
PN> any kind of seasonal variation in participation? That could make a
PN> difference to OMNI's scheduling plans, if they should go ahead with
PN> this idea. You wouldn't want to launch when nobody's home!
As we have found out here after BBS sysoping for six years now...
"Summer's a Bummer...but Winter is a Wonderland." :-)
--
Steve Rose - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Steve.Rose@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Omni Online
Date: 6 Dec 91 01:35:00 GMT
> proposal for the mag for an article about the UFO BBS,
The main thing is that unlike CI$ and similar services, the ufo nets are
networks, and access may be available in the reader's home town. Many writers
don't seem to understand the concept of networks rather than a central system,
and they leave the reader with an impression that the only way to get into an
echo is to call the host, wherever that might be, just like with CI$.
So, please try to get across that these are far-flung networks. For example,
idonet has some 10,000 or so nodes, ranging from Southeast Asia, Australia and
New Zealand to the west, to Canada to the north, to the tip of South America to
the south, to Moscow to the east. Truly an international network. So, if for
instance a Moscow node wanted to pick up Fidonet UFO from Zone 1, he could,
and it would be available to users in Moscow.
ParaNet also has quite a few international links, as do some of the other
nets.
The main point is that a potential user can find the echos with a local call,
rather than having to call long-distance. If a particular echo doesn't exist
locally, a few polite requests can work wonders.
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,csn}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
For administrative requests (subscriptions, back issues) send to:
UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!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)
Mail to private Paranet/Fidonet addresses from the newsletters:
DOMAIN firstname.lastname@paranet.org
UUCP scicom!paranet.org!firstname.lastname
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
