Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 530
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 530
Wednesday, January 29th 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
Hello
Re: Budd Hopkins in Denver
Re: DELPHOS, DEUTERIUM, PU
Re: AMAZON QUESTION
UFO suicides?
UFOCAT
Aussie Circles
Re: Delphos, Deuterium, Pu
Dudley & Chorost
Paranet Content
Re: Feder & Williams' books
Re: Texas Camps - FEMA
Re: Budd Hopkins In Denver
Siberian Encounter
Ufocat
Aussie Circles
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark.Rodeghier@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Rodeghier)
Subject: Hello
Date: 24 Jan 92 05:24:00 GMT
Dear Mark,
I'm not sure if this message will reach you but I just wanted to
take this opportunity to introduce myself. You see, my name is also Mark
Rodeghier. I'm from Orlando, (Winter home of Mickey Mouse) and have been
getting some of your message traffic on the local UFO/Paranet BBS. Anyway,
just wanted to say Hello and hope that we can strike up a conversation in
the near future. BTW, my father's family came from Chicago, which is where
I understand you now live. Maybe we're from the same family 'tree' somehow.
Hope to make contact soon!!
Your Twin,
Mark Rodeghier
--
Mark Rodeghier - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mark.Rodeghier@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hrusovszky@f300.n238.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hrusovszky)
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins in Denver
Date: 24 Jan 92 02:05:18 GMT
MC> UFO ABDUCTIONS -- LATEST CASES BEST EVIDENCE
MC> with
MC> BUDD HOPKINS
Ah, Budd Hopkins. Is this guy for real? The reason I ask, is about a
month ago, in THE NEWS (ya know, the national gossip rag like the
enquirer) there was an article supposedly by Budd Hopkins about how 1/3
of our pets, i.e. dogs, cats, etc., were actually space aliens in
disguise! If this is the same guy that you are speaking of, can you
really believe ANYTHING at all he says?
--
John Hrusovszky - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hrusovszky@f300.n238.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: DELPHOS, DEUTERIUM, PU
Date: 23 Jan 92 16:07:20 GMT
I believe you stated that right when you mentioned that one group had
retracted their discovery, while another is still behind their own findings.
Just for the sake of interest, both groups are investigating the same pulsar.
If you get Astronomy echo it was covered fairly well.
It appears that at a conference where both were to speak, the first group
reported that they were withdrawing. The second was surprised at this, but
gave their report none the less, and said so far nothing had changed.
Both were looking at the same place in space, and the same pulsar.
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: AMAZON QUESTION
Date: 23 Jan 92 16:24:50 GMT
John what is the file name or the topic area, I can make a late night call
and see what I can find. This is in the area I enjoy the most.
TJ> WWII injury first leg, pleas for funds are appearing in numerous water
oriented mags.
I think I am going to re-join the archaeology area at the museum, maybe
there are some brains to be picked when this stuff arises. (but I'm not doing
it for that reason) I'm still wondering about the steps under the water in
the bahamas? or is it Bimini?, but I recall a geological reason for them,
which was hardly a mystery.
Nazca has pretty much been put to rest and confirmed by follow ups many
times. NOT a landing field for UFO's. Of course every day someone new is
infected with "Chariots Desease" and the cure takes much more effort than the
infection period. "Berlizt Syndrome" is running up there in the numbers also,
and seems to have peaks and valleys. One strain is finally conquered, and it
seems an outbreak of a new variety comes up elsewhere. It seems to have
started in Bermuda, but now is concentrated in Japan.
Can you sumarize the questions in the Amazon? There are red haired and light
haired tribes. Seems some light haired Spaniards or Portugese crash landed
there and blended in with the locals. This is documented if you want the
specifics and the area.
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Greenen)
Subject: UFO suicides?
Date: 24 Jan 92 13:30:00 GMT
That was the point I was trying to put over. Your correct, Sheldon.
From what I have read in past books, that this only occurs after a
few warnings to back off of your investigation or if your in a
position to cause a great discomfort or embarrassment at the time.
Such is the case I feel happen to the 20+ witness to the JFK
incident. Somebody really plays hardball, which I new who was behind
it.
If I can get ahold of Lars, I can dish out some names that this
occured in the past year. All 3 of these people were deeply in the
investigation of government corruption.
One I remember he told me about was a gentleman that was found in
his office completely naked. The office was tore up, meaning that it
showed that a struggle had occured and it was either a ice picked or
a knife was struck though his hand. I also believe that he was shot
though the head. The ruling was that he commited suicide.
According to some that new this person, no way that this person
would do what they claimed.
--... ...-- <<< JIM >>>
--
Jim Greenen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield)
Subject: UFOCAT
Date: 24 Jan 92 04:04:00 GMT
To: Mark Rodeghier, CUFOS
Finally I have completed stage one of reviewing the UFOCAT printout of
Australian UFO cases. It turned out to be a much lengthier job than I
envisaged. I ended up sorting through all my files, filing them
chronologically and making a computer listing of them.
I took a copy of the listing you sent me and have marked on it in
green highlighter all the cases which I can see are duplicates, i,e,
refer to a single event.
I then made up my own data entry form to give me more room to work,
and utilising an updated UFORA catalogue of the 150 most interesting
Australian reports, I coded these 150 cases as accurately as the known
data allows.
I have despatched by surface mail some 300 sheets of paper (airmail
would have cost some US$50) being:-
a) Copy of your UFOCAT printout showing duplicates, and
b) 150 odd entry sheets ready for computer input your end, up to the
year 1990.
A covering letter is enclosed with the package. It should be with you
in 6-8 weeks. Please confirm its receipt. I have kept copies.
--
Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill.Chalker.UFORA.Associate.NSW@f8.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Chalker UFORA Associate NSW)
Subject: Aussie Circles
Date: 24 Jan 92 06:46:00 GMT
Sheldon in response to your points I have made the following
comments:
1. Tully, 1966
> I agree that this case does not fit Meaden's theory
> directly, however, being in a coastal region, the land/water/air
> thermal variations could be conducive to vortex formation. As
> a sailor, I have frequently noticed strong on-shore off-shore
> breezes in coastal areas, even at times when calm air prevailed
> inland and seaward.
Local investigators who have lived in the area and who have
undertaken retrospective investigations for me (Russell
Boundy & Holly Gorris) have seen extensive and consistent
ground trace evidence of "traditional" vortices in the local
flora (both grasslands & swampland). All of it is
consistent in its rough wind blown appearance. They are
readily explainable and in the rare cases of observed
creation the causative agency is clear cut - in the
Australian idiom: "willy willies" or mini wind vortices.
More complex "plasma vortices" are not required for their
explanation. What concerns me that Dr. Meaden has invoked
his "plasma vortex" in order to explain a minority of cases
where visual causative events of "crop circles" are reported
and to provide a mechanism for the apparent large forces at
work. And yet when we look at the majority of eyewitness
events were are dealing with an invisible agency. The
Melvyn Bell case does not require a "plasma vortex" to
account for it. Instead we have a remarkable observation of
what appears to be a wind related phenomenon of a most
unusual kind - one that is most worthy of investigation. I
feel we do not need to invent a Mercedes when a Model T Ford
will do. Admittedly since the explosion of fringe interest in
crop circles we have had an increase in claims of visual
observations of "causative" luminous phenomena - but these
have taken on a wide variety from beams to blobs of light.
The few films available show little of substance as evidence
for a "plasma vortex" at work. In most of these visual
luminous events we have fairly poor evidence of direct
correlations with the "circles". WE do however have a
greater consistency in the observed phenomena in so called
bonafide CE2 ground traces, specifically in the Rosedale
case, Landenburg, Canada, etc and possibly in the Tully
case - namely apparently solid 3 dimensional objects dull in
appearance. In the Bell case after the remarkable formation
of the circle we are unable to see the agency move away,
maneuver etc, and yet in the Tully case for example we are
expected to accept that after expending an extraordinary
amount of energy ripping out tough waterlogged sword grass
and leaving it all floating in a tight clockwise swirl in
the Horseshoe Lagoon, there was still enough plasma intact
operating as a vortex to account for George Pedley's
observation of a UFO leaving the site. THe RAAF suggested a
"willy willy" sucked up the reeds and that sufficient stayed
in the vortex to give the impression of a UFO. The problem
is there was no evidence supporting the suggestion that
there were significant amounts of grass missing.
As Tully 1966 was a daylight sighting a Meaden vortex needs
to satisfy the criteria of being having a boundary layer
effect giving "an evenly-reflecting surface with the
illusion of metallic lustre". Pedley has confirmed to me
his police staement (made same day of sighting) that the UFO
was "light grey; dull-non-relecting", looking like "two
saucers-face to face". As it was bright sunshine with the
sun directly behind him the conditions would have been ideal
for a relective metallic look as per the Meaden hypothesis.
> There are in all probability, different variations of
> "crop circle type" UGM's with various origins. However, if the data
> is correct, there certainly seems to be some correlation (at least
> in England) to circle formation proximate to the leeward side hill
> slopes. For example 1989 yielded the following data according to
> Meaden's analysis:
> Number of circles 0-0.5 km from hill slope: 54
> Number of circles 0.5-1.0 km from hill slope: 135
> Number of circles 1.0-1.5 km from hill slope: 55
> Number of circles 1.5-2.0 km from hill slope: 33
> Number of circles 2.0-2.5 km from hill slope: 22
> Number of circles 2.5-3.0 km from hill slope: 8
> NO circles were located greater than 3 km from a hill
> slope.
The closest elevated ground from Horsehoe lagoon is Mount
Mackay to the north at 8 km (peak 724 metres) and 6 km
(base). We have the anomoly of few areas in Australia
revealing circle concentrations, but in the few where maybe
they could be considered in "high" numbers (Tully, Speed in
the Mallee Dstrict) we have topograhic conditions atypical
of the Meaden theory. Maybe this is what to expect over
open flat areas if available in England. We still do not
have reports on circle epidemics in English like terrain in
Australia.
> Are you Bill, through your interviews with the
> principals of this case, convinced that the witness viewed a solid
> object, rather than a double-convex opaque "cloud-type" composition?
I cannot say I am convinced but it sure seems persausive.
See above report quotes.
> "rotating as it went" part makes me think "vortex". How rapidly
> did the UFO rise?
Again from RAAF/police statemwent:"First seen at treetop
height 30 feet. Rose verticallly to about twice that height,
then departed, climbing at about 45 degrees...extremely
fast; no estimate of speed, but much faster than an
aeroplane.... (It) receeded into distance." It apparently
seemed to disappear in midair in the distance.
> How long did it remain in sight AFTER it began
> to rotate?
It was described appearing to be rotating for the full time
it was seem, some 15 seconds according to Pedley's police
statement.
> Good! What about the recently reported radiation
> anomalies? I have
> a feeling the data may be being misinterpreted. Some
> elements that
> should be showing up in the gamma spec data are
> curiously absent.
> We shall see.
As an industrial chemist I would have to ask where is the
detailed control data as a comparison point. Without it we
must be cautious in speculations about reported radiation.
> BC> Trust this information helps.
> It has... and Thanks!
> -- Sheldon
My pleasure, Regards, BIll Chalker.
--
Bill Chalker UFORA Associate NSW - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Chalker.UFORA.Associate.NSW@f8.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brent.Wilcox@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Brent Wilcox)
Subject: Re: Delphos, Deuterium, Pu
Date: 25 Jan 92 22:35:01 GMT
They were researching the same pulsar? That's interesting. Thanks
for the clarification. Although the question of planets there is
now anything but clear <g>.
--
Brent Wilcox - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Brent.Wilcox@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Dudley & Chorost
Date: 26 Jan 92 01:49:01 GMT
In a message to Sheldon Wernikoff <23-Jan-92 13:31>
Brent Wilcox wrote:
BW> They sent the soil samples to a "National Lab" to have tests
BW> run. The Lab provided them with their computer analysis of the
BW> data, and this analysis showed several peaks that they
BW> interpreted as the anomalous radioisotopes.
Hello Brent... thanks for posting this information. Was there any
mention as to which "National Lab" did the testing? Mike had always
been evasive about this. No specific names were ever mentioned.
BW> They stand by that conclusion, based on that data.
Do you mean solely on the computer analysis the lab provided?
BW> They didn't have immediate access "for security reasons" to the
BW> raw data.
Immediate??? This is five months after the original gamma spec was
run! WHOSE "security reasons" are they speaking of?
BW> BUT when the Lab finally gave them access to the raw data, they
BW> found that it didn't support the computer analysis.
I don't understand this. If D & C paid for this "National Lab" to
run comprehensive tests, what right did the lab have to withhold
data? Are D & C intimating a possible cover-up here?? I don't think
I can handle another *conspiracy*!
BW> There were about a hundred peaks, and the "anomalies" became
BW> likely artifacts of background noise in the data. There were
BW> calibration problems between different machines used in the
BW> test, and between the control and the test samples (the test
BW> sample was tested at a higher sensitivity than the control).
What kind of "National Lab" would run analyses of control and test
material utilizing DIFFERENT machines, set at DIFFERENT sensitivity
levels??? This is absolutely preposterous!
BW> They hope to test the samples again if they can find a more
BW> reliable private lab to do the tests under their own scrutiny.
But... but... these are for the most part - VERY short-lived
radioisotopes - and the samples are now about 7 months old. I think
it's a bit late for further testing.
BW> They seem to have been victims of bad lab procedures and their
BW> own enthusiasm.
The lab's original report should have at least described variables
such as equipment calibration and sensitivity levels. This should
have been sufficient reason to be suspect of the computer analysis.
Besides, what about the fact that certain elements, such as Cobalt
56, which should have showed up in the spectra, were remarkably
absent?
BW> At least they discovered the errors themselves.
With a bit of coaxing from many others.
BW> I'm not really keeping score anymore, I'm just watching how the
BW> game is played... <g>
Unfortunately, it seems that's exactly what this has all become...
If you can post the full report, or netmail it to me @ 1:11/50, I'd
appreciate it. Take care -- Sheldon
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Rogers)
Subject: Paranet Content
Date: 22 Jan 92 04:45:35 GMT
I believe the time has come to amplify the comments that I, and others, have
been making in the Paranet General echo.
Over the past several months, many, many worthwhile posts have been made on the
net. Rival points of view have exchanged information in a rational, scholarly
way that has allowed those of us who follow the echos to appreciate both sides
of the arguments.
Unfortunately, this has not been the case with ALL the posts.
The JFK exchanges in Paranet General are a good example. While those posts are
interesting, and I personally enjoy the read, I must note that they lose sight
of the PURPOSE OF PARANET.
PARANET exists to study and exchange information about PARANORMAL EXPERIENCES
AND OCCURANCES. While the JFK material is a good read, I am failing to see the
PARANORMAL connection. Some of the other posts in other areas, such as the
religion-fest in Abductions (did I miss a connection? I think not!) and the
assertions of unsuported New Age beliefs in the UFO echo signal me that it is
time to suggest that we all take a few moments to review what we are talking
about here, and attempt to make it conform to the purpose of the net.
IF YOU CAN MAKE A PARANORMAL CONNECTION with your post, post it. If it has
nothing to do with the paranormal, please post it elsewhere.
I'm not threatening or admonishinng any one person or group. I just feel we
have begun to lose our focus, and am trying to get each poster to fine tune
his own ideas before turning them loose in an international echo.
Further discussions with me relative this issue are invited via netmail at
either my Paranet address or fido 108/110 or my private net address 606/1.
Further communications to individuals ref this message will also be private
mailed to your board of choice.
Doug Rogers
Echo Coordinator
--
Doug Rogers - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kay.Mclaughlin@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kay Mclaughlin)
Subject: Re: Feder & Williams' books
Date: 24 Jan 92 05:52:00 GMT
On 01-19-92 12:08 ncar!wam.umd.edu!infinity posted to All:
n> From: ncar!wam.umd.edu!infinity
n> Date: 19 Jan 92 18:34:53 GMT
n> Message-ID: <18145@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>
n> Newsgroups: info.paranet
n> From: David Elmore Coleman <infinity@wam.umd.edu>
n> Barry Fell wrote a book _America B.C_ which details all sorts of
n> enigmatic finds in the Americas (Hebrew script and the usual.)
n> Recently, and simultaneously, Kenneth L Feder and Stephen Williams
n> separately wrote books skeptical of these types of claims in North
n> America specifically. This is a subject I am not generally interested
n> -- Phoenicians and Hebrews -- but one author referenced Fell's claim
n> that in the script of the Algonquian indians of Canada, 2000+ symbols
n> are identical with known Egyptian hieroglyphs. I am interested what
n> Feder, Williams, or other skeptics or academics have to say of this
n> claim *in particular*. Does anyone have any information?
n> More galactic thoughts
n> from: Amicitia Subjugat Omnia Hweohthte...
n> (Hwe-oath-T) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
n> ---- ---- ---- ---- David E. Coleman
n> infinity@wam.umd.edu 8125 48th Ave, Apt. 612
n> College Park, MD 20740 1-(301)-474-7424
Picking up blue stone stuff deleted.
David,
I'm familiar with Fells work. I can't personally CONFIRM the
Phonecian>Hebrew>America claim, BUT I have been to "Americas
Stonehenge", a pretty amazing stone circle, and ruins of buildings in
southern New Hampshire.
There are a few of these circles in New England. Shure does make ya
wonder. If you ever have a chance GO.
But, since this has nothing (that we know) to do with UFO's I think we
are a bit off topic.
Sorry Doug, I'll try to behave! When will the Pnet General echo be
available on the Internet? (Mike?)
Regards,
Kay
--
Kay Mclaughlin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kay.Mclaughlin@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kay.Mclaughlin@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kay Mclaughlin)
Subject: Re: Texas Camps - FEMA
Date: 24 Jan 92 06:22:00 GMT
On 01-21-92 18:20 Clark Matthews posted to Kay Mclaughlin:
CM> In a message to Don Ecker <10 Jan 92 11:19> Kay Mclaughlin wrote:
>DE> Kay Mclaughlin asked;
>> On the Chuck Harder Show the other night, I heard a snippet about how
>> various private pilots(?) have been seeing "concentration type camps"(!)
>> springing up in the wilds of Texas. I didn't catch the whole thing, but
>> it sounded weird, he said he was looking into it.
>> Heard anything?
KM> Thanks so much, that was exactly the distant bell that rang in my head
KM> when I heard the rumor. FEMA, FEMA, FEMA. Bingo!
CM> Kay (& Don),
CM> You may be interested to know that the shadowy bureaucrats of FEMA
CM> have suddenly taken a higher profile here in the Northeast. All of a
CM> sudden, two of them appeared on the Jersey Shore, making promises
CM> about Federal preparedness to restore the damaged beaches &
CM> breakwaters here. This happened three weeks ago, and they haven't
CM> been heard from since.
CM> They only seem to be interested in beach areas around Ft. Dix and
CM> McGuire AFB, which are slated for reductions and cutbacks. Several
CM> folks here have taken notice of this. Theories range from an
CM> election-year Federal makework program to help local economies around
CM> the bases to conversion of areas within the bases to barracks-type
CM> camps.
CM> NSD-47 and the other Executive Orders and Directives of its ilk do not
CM> bode well for the continuation of freedom in this country, in my
CM> opinion.
CM> Keep you posted as long as the phones work...
CM> Best,
CM> Clark
THX, Clark! Sheesh, I figured that what I'd heard was a wild rumor, but
the more I hear from folks the more I wonder... Just when you thought it
was safe to back in the water......
Kay
--
Kay Mclaughlin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kay.Mclaughlin@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins In Denver
Date: 26 Jan 92 18:59:00 GMT
>Ah, Budd Hopkins. Is this guy for real? The reason I ask, is about a
>month ago, in THE NEWS (ya know, the national gossip rag like the
>enquirer) there was an article supposedly by Budd Hopkins about how 1/3
>of our pets, i.e. dogs, cats, etc., were actually space aliens in
>disguise! If this is the same guy that you are speaking of, can you
>really believe ANYTHING at all he says?
Come on John! You surely know that this is not THE Budd Hopkins. :-)
Budd is considered to be the premier abduction researcher in the world.
Whatever you read in the tabloids is generally considered the finest in BS.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Rodeghier)
Subject: Siberian Encounter
Date: 26 Jan 92 20:16:01 GMT
Regarding the Haines report in the last IUR, I understand your
uneasiness, but I don't have any more information about the report
than you see in IUR. All I can suggest is that you contact Haines
directly (we have his address at the CUFOS office).
Mark
--
Mark Rodeghier - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Rodeghier)
Subject: Ufocat
Date: 26 Jan 92 20:21:02 GMT
Your UFOCAT work on Australian cases is most welcome! I'll let Don
Johnson know it's coming our way, and I'll verify receipt. We very
much appreciate this work. I'll send along any comments that come
to mind after I've read through the material.
Mark
--
Mark Rodeghier - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Aussie Circles
Date: 27 Jan 92 00:15:01 GMT
Hello Bill, and thanks for your recent post. As you have probably
read on this echo already, it now appears that the existence of
Dudley and Chorost's crop circle radioisotope anomalies are not
supported by the raw data, and may be nothing more than statistical
deviations in the background. You were very well grounded in your
suspicions.
Can you believe that according to Dudley, DIFFERENT gamma spec
apparatuses, with detectors made by DIFFERENT manufacturers were
used on one of the circle samples; and that the sensitivity of the
device was set @ 1/2 scale for the control, as compared to the
circle samples?
Who would even think of publishing a report based on these
techniques?
Many of us may be barking up the wrong tree, or as you said Bill...
who needs a Mercedes when a Model-T explanation will do.
Perhaps even a horse and carriage will suffice <g>.
Take care,
Sheldon
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
********************************************************************************
For permission to reproduce or redistribute this digest, contact:
DOMAIN Michael.Corbin@paranet.org
UUCP scicom!paranet.org!Michael.Corbin
********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************************
