Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 541
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 541
Saturday, March 21st 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
GILLESPIE AND MEIER
JPL Proposes Small, Cheap Mars Landers
Australian Computer Disk
Implants
KIK, UFO congress and exhibition in Berlin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: well.sf.ca.us!ddrasin
Subject: GILLESPIE AND MEIER
Date: 14 Mar 92 05:07:54 GMT
From: Dan Drasin <ddrasin@well.sf.ca.us>
+ From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
+ Subject: Eduard 'billy' Meier - Photo Evidence
+ In 1981, the late Frank Gillespie wrote the following review of
+'UFO Contact from the Pleiades.' In light of recent Paranet discussions
+on this very outdated subject, I will repeat Frank's article here.
+Before doing so, I would like to point out that Frank Gillespie was
+a scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research
+Organisation (CSIRO). Being a photographic expert, Frank was, for
+many years, a scientific advisor to Australian UFO groups.
RESPONSE: In light of his statements below , I seriously question
his qualifications as a 'scientist,' let alone a "photographic
expert.' Plainly, his mind was made up before he investigated the
case, (oops... he never investigated the case -- only a book about
the case!) and many of his assertions are either intentional or
misguided bunk or the result of ignorance. In any event, to presume
to have destroyed the Meier case on the basis of one very
poorly-organized book smacks of a zealous amateurishness.
+ 'UFO...CONTACT FROM THE PLEIADES Vol.1'
+The presentation of this UFO contactee story is quite different from
+any of its predecessors. The backbone of the book is a series of
+twenty two flying saucer photographs, supported by a rather sketchy
+and disjointed text; and padded out by personal photographs,
+snatches of cosmonaut and other philosophy, and seven pages invoking
+tenuous connections with the pyramids, the parthenon, and verious
+other ancient structures.
RESPONSE: Again, this 'scientist' has based his entire evaluation of
a case *not* on any first-hand investigation whatsoever, but on a
*deliberately* tentative and sketchy (and in fact very poorly
written) coffeetable book. Whatever else Mr. Gillespie may have
been, he certainly was not much of a historian -- those 'tenuous'
connections between various early cultures and their Pleiadean myths
are in fact extremely well-established. He was also not much of a
researcher: had he gone to the trouble of contacting the publishers
of the book he would have come away with a much diffrerent
perspective. It should be noted that *six* books have now been
written about this case, some of them agonizingly thorough.
+The credit for the preparation and publishing of this
+book is shared by a team of nine indivduals and four companies; but
+all of the flying saucer photographs are attributed to Eduard
+'Billy' Meier, a farmer/caretaker of Inwel, Switzerland.
RESPONSE: Meier lived, at the time, in Hinwil, not 'Inwel.'
+A connected series of photographs such as this can be likened to a
+chain, where the failure of a single link distrupts the entire
+chain.
RESPONSE: Whether this is true or not depends upon one's
interpretation of how the chain is sequenced. For example, unless a
photograph is a *gross* fake, no meaningful analysis can be
performed on anything but the original generation. Analyzing
*subsequent* 'links in the chain' usually tells you more about the
artifacts introduced by those later links than it does about the
original image.
Photographic 'expert' Gillespie apparent knew nothing of the
extensive analysis of the Meier photos then being performed on
*original generation* transparencies and negatives by Jim Dilletoso
(who now works for a division of NASA in Phoenix, AZ). Jim's
detailed 20-page report on his 52-step procedure is reproduced (with
17 pages of additional notes) in the appendices of Wendelle Stevens'
542-page report (C) 1982.
+Rather ironically, the very first photograph in the book is the
+one in which evidence of fakery can be most clearly seen, so that
+detectable discrepancies in later photographs only go to confirm
+that a superimposition technique such as front projection has
+undoubtedly been used.
RESPONSE: According to Dilletoso's analysis the 'front projection'
technique could not conceivably have been used in that sequence of
photos for a number of technical reasons. Mr. Gillespie's use of the
word 'undoubtedly' seems to constitute the whole of his scientific
foundation for this assertion.
+ The first picture, which is reproduced again precisely half way
+through the book, is one of a series supposedly taken just before
+sunset on 29th March, 1976. It has the appearance of a scene
+largely in shadow, but lit from the right by a reddish sun, which
+also flashes brightly off the upper section of the spacecraft.
+However, this apparent illumination terminates abruptly along the
+line of the distant hilltops, along with the transition from pale
+blue sky to brownish hills.
RESPONSE: Of *course* it terminated along that line. That's how the
sun's light terminates in a valley at sunset! At that time of day
objects below the horizon-shadow line are illuminated differently
from those above it.
+ Close examination reveals that this appearance of sunshine has
+been achieved by displacing the magenta and yellow colour image
+laterally from the cyan and black, thus generating an orange flash
+on one side of the tree limbs. The effect of this technique is
+apparent only where the background is lacking in magenta and yellow
+- in this case, the sky. The question arises, was this the result
+of poor printing technique, or was it deliberately done, either
+before or after the picture reached the hands of the printers?
RESPONSE: Hold on a second. First he says there's different *natural*
illumination in different parts of the picture, and then he
attributes the difference to *artificial* color displacement.
Besides the double-standard here, the problem with this is that you
can't acheive regional color displacement this way (except to some
small extent by polar rotation of the color separations, but that could
never produce a line of demarcation such as he describes).
In any event, he's talking about apparent artifacts in the
BOOKPRINTING process, which is at the *end* of the chain and has
nothing to do with the original photos.
+ Consider the evidence; that the only pictures in the book which
+have this defect to any serious extent are the ones in this
+particular series, that the extent of the defect is far beyond what
+any reputable colour reprodcer would allow, and that the effect of
+the misregistration is so pronounced that it could not possibly have
+been missed.
RESPONSE: Color printers (even good ones) can let misregistered
indivual copies slip through. Books are printed at high speed, and
individual copies are not routinely checked for color-registration.
Did Mr. Gillespie make any attempt to obtain another copy for
comparison?
Once again, the Dilletoso analysis was made on *original* photos
which, show no such gross registration shift and no subtle phenomena
of the kind suggested here.
And of course, Gillespie is here asserting that the fact that *only*
these photos have this problem is somehow to be taken as 'evidence.'
Evidence for *what*?
+As to who was responsible for the fakery, the buck
+appears to stop at the colour reproducers, because in the second
+printing of this picture, the colour displacement has been done in
+the wrong direction, and the trees appear to be sunlit from the
+left. The printers would have used the blocks as received, on
+equipment which automatically preserved the registration of the four
+colours.
RESPONSE: Mr. Gillespie's grasp of the process and terminology of
color separation, platemaking, printing, signature-binding, etc.,
leaves a great deal to be desired. Also, 'fakery' implies deliberate
intent. If the color separator, plate maker or book printer in the
United States took it upon himself to deliberately fake these photos
it is certainly not the responsiblity of a Swiss farmer. I don't
quite get the point he's trying to make here.
+It would be tedious to go through all the individual discrepancies
+in the various pictures, particularly as the book pages are not
+numbered for reference. Suffice to say that the faults to look for
+come into the following categories:
RESPONSE: The book was sloppily designed, as I've said above.
Of course, there's no excuse for having no page numbers. ... Now,
back to the substance of the case:
+ 1. Lighting direction discrepancies between the background and the
spacecraft.
RESPONSE: There are none that anyone (except Mr. Gillespie) has been
able to find. The discrepancy in lighting *quality* (not direction)
has already been covered above, and has to do with the shadow-line
at sunset... and also the fact that the craft in question had a
mirror-finish, and is the only such specularly-reflective object in
the frame.
+ 2. Overcast sky and flatly lit ground scene, with a brightly lit
craft.
RESPONSE: Covered in last response. In addition. Mr. Gillespie seems
to have confused illumination with reflectivity.
Note that the reflections in the bottom of the craft (as seen in
magnified ORIGINAL images -- not book reproductions) accurately
reflect the pertinent details of the terrain below, and in proper
scale and proportion.
for the craft, when the scene is badly
underexposed.
RESPONSE: 'Badly' is amateurishly subjective, Mr. Gillespie. Let's
have some figures, please.
Perhaps he may not have been aware that the natural surfaces in the
sunset-shadow area would be at least 5 f-stops lower (in terms of a
reflected-light reading reading) than that of bright metal at an
altitude where the sun can illuminate it it directly.
+ 4. Craft in better focus than any part of the scene.
RESPONSE: Mr. Gillespie appears to know nothing about 'aerial
perspective' and about the difference in perceived sharpness of
materials of different textures and under different lighting
conditions. For the record, Dilletoso's analysis was able to find no
such difference in *measureable* sharpness.
+ 5. Lack of ground shadow cast by the craft.
RESPONSE: *Of course* there was no ground shadow. By Mr. Gillespie's
own estimation the photo was taken in a valley close to sunset!
+ 6. Inconsistent lighting between shots supposedly taken at the same time.
RESPONSE: He's probably unfamiliar with the fact that that series
was shot over a span of minutes, and in a wide panning arc. He's
also not being very specific about what inconsistency he's noted
here.
+7. No signs of life in any of the UFO pictures.
RESPONSE: According to Meier's story, his early sightings and
contacts were deliberately arranged to exclude other witnesses. Mr.
Gillespie evidently didn't know this, but that's not surprising
since he seems to have made no relevant inquiries. In any case, the
absence of other 'signs of life' cannot, by any stretch of the
imagination, be considered evidence of fraud in this context. This
point is simply irrelevant.
+ The first five of these faults all indicate that a superimposition
technique has been used, probably involving models for the
spacecraft.
RESPONSE: See above. Dilletoso's painstaking analyses of *original*
photographic materials failed to find any support wires or other
evidence of fraud. (As an aside, the infamous 'string' said to have
been found by Kal K. Korff in a dusty, scratched fourth-generation
94~extend to the top of the uncropped photo!)
+ Confirmatory evidence comes from the last saucer picture in the
book, where the painted on 'portholes' are fairly obvious.
RESPONSE: 'Fairly obvious' is no substitute for quantitative
analysis. Dilletoso's work makes this kind of statement look like
kindergartenish dabbling.
+ The most likely technique used for the superimposition is front
+projection, which is widely used in the United States today. With
+this technique, you can have your wedding day photographs taken in
+front of the Salt Lake Tabernacle, even though the ceremony took
+place in a Brooklyn registry office. The technique is virtually
+undetectable, except when mistakes are made, such as those listed
+above.
RESPONSE: Hogwash. Even in 1981 there were plenty of methods to
detect front-projection. Just to give you a small taste of what a
real scientific analysis is like, I reproduce below the table of
contents of Dilletoso's analysis report:
Page
1. Introduction: Qualitative vs. Quantitative
2,3.Questions concerning Photogrammetric Analysis
4. Diagram: System APproach
5. Equipment List
6. Image Processing System and Computer Programs
7. Overview of Examination Criteria
8. Examination of the Negative
9. Examination of the Edges
10. Light Properties
11. Energy Fields, Magnetic Properties, Infrared Film
12. Composite and Enhanced Pictures
13. Drawing Conclusions, Correlating Data
14. Dictionary of Terms
15. Sample Photographs
16. Bibliography.
+ The text of this book is also not immune to criticism. The claim
+is made, for instance, that the focussing of the camera used for all
+the saucer stills was jammed just short of infinity. This is just
+the setting which would be used to obtain maximum clarity in a
+landscape photograph, so it becomes a rather hollow excuse for the
+poor focussing evident in many of the pictures.
RESPONSE: No specifics here. Again, he seems to have mistaken aerial
perspective, the effects of exposure on grain, etc., for 'poor focus.
' See Dilletoso's quantitative analysis for a clearer idea of what's
going on. It's too long to get into here.
+ The captions of the two micrograph pictures are nonsensical - all
+metals have adequate conductivity for scanning electron microscopy,
+but the specimen in the picture exhibits signs of poor conductivity,
+suggesting an improperly prepared nonmetallic object; and the
+machining in the other micrograph is not only very poor, but it
+appears to have been done by an unsuitable technique. It is
+repeatedly claimed that an abundance of pictures are available for
+publication, which makes it hard to understand why five of them have
+been printed twice, for no good reason.
RESPONSE: He's correct about the book having been poorly written.
However, none of the above has any bearing on the genuineness of the
photos.
Mr. Gillespie is evidently unfamiliar with the circumstances
surrounding the INTERCEP publications: They had planned (unwisely,
in my opinion) to release the photos over time in subsequent issues
of similar books. They had also, unwisely, failed to engage the
services of a professional writer or editor.
+ Looking at the drawings of the various craft, one would expect
+their clarity and detail, that they would be accurate. This appears
+to be so for type 5 craft, and for type 2 other than the one in the
+movie sequence, but it is definitely not the case for the remaining
+variations.
RESPONSE: So what? Stevens' drawings have nothing to do with the
veracity of Meier's photographs. What's the point of bringing them
in here at all?
+ The claims made for the movie segment deserve some attention. Ask
+ any film producer, and he will tell you that these are all standard
+effects with a tripod mounted camera, involving only simply
+ stop/start and time-lapse techniques.
RESPONSE: Film *producers* don't necessarily know anything about
film technology. Ask a *cinematographer* or *motion picture
technician* and you might get an intelligent answer.
For one thing, time-lapse techniques are completely out of the
question here. The concept doesn't even apply. I'm not sure Mr.
Gillespie even knew what the term means. As for stop/start, the
curious thing about the 'jumps' in question is that *some* of them
include the expected 'flash frames' (overexposed frames, produced as
the camera abruptly comes up to speed with each 'start')... but
others include *dark* frames at the cut point, which cannot be
accounted for by stop/start. Nobody has yet offered a conventional
explanation for this phenomenon.
+ The scientific investigation is one aspect of this book which
+ worries me. Apart from acknowledging the part played by De Anza
+ Systems Inc., the book does not name any of the persons involved;
+ but one would expect an honourable scientist to revoke any abuse of
+ his professional status. I can only conclude, therefore, that some,
+ at least, of my colleagues, have allowed themselves to be so blinded
+ by state-of-the-art technology, that they cannot see how easy it is
+ to cheat such a system.
RESPONSE: The coffeetable books reproduced almost nothing of the
details of any of the analyses. See pp 484-488 of W. Stevens
PRELIMINARY REPORT for the research notes which include an extensive
listing of the participants.
+ Relying entirely on a computer for UFO photograph analysis is like
+ staking your reputation on the computer beating all comers at
+ chess. Anyone knowing or guessing the factors on which the computer
+ calculations are based, can devise techniques to force incorrect
+ analyses from the comptuer. For example, distance and size
+ assessment are both based on edge sharpness data, which can be
+ readily manipulated to give any desired result during a
+ superimposition.
RESPONSE: If Gillespie had any specific criticisms of how the
computer analyses were conducted, why didn't he make them? Of course
computers can be misused, but that's not the point. The point is
that Gillespie was equating the *possibility* of fraud with the
*commission* of fraud. This kind of innuendo smacks of
emotionally-based debunkery and has no place in science. Period.
+ Regarding the metal, biological and mineral specimens left by the
+ cosmonauts, there is a technique called isotope analysis now
+ available, which will determine with absolute certainty whether a
+ material is of extraterrestrial origin. There are many places where
+ it can be carried out; and some of these must be known to the
+ American scientists allegedly involved in the investigation.
+ Significantly, no mention is made of this technique being used.
RESPONSE: The late Marcel Vogel (a much-decorated metallurgist and
materials scientist at IBM, responsible for the development of
liquid crystals, computer-disk media technology, etc.) did a
thorough analysis of the Meier metal samples and declared that he
knew of no technique that could possibly have produced them.
However, Vogel's work was done after Gillespie's writing.
Isotope analysis may be a great idea, but Gillespie cannot take the
investigators to task if the latter did not know about it. They are
obviously specialists in completely different fields; photo analysts
should not necessarily be expected to know about it any more than
Mr. Gillespie should be expected to know everything about
photography and film making.
+ This scientific aspect is so important, that, at the risk of boring
+layman readers, I will deal specifically with some of the
+misconceptions which appear in the book. Ele
QI^9j%
I=fAe
1neMj|>sounds impressive, but it would be hard to conceive of a greater
+exercise in futility than using it on colour film images.
+ A scanning microscope would show only the topography of the
+emulsion surface, wheras in a transmission microscope, the dye
+materials of the image would be indistinguishable from the gelatin
+medium.
RESPONSE: The electron microscope was considered ancillary. In fact
it was on the list of *auxiliary* (not primary) equipment. If
Gillespie had actually looked into the case instead of getting his
info from this book he would have found that things were done quite
a bit differently than he represents here.
+Three dimensionality can be detected with reasonable certainty from
+an original photograph, taken under known conditions. However,
+UFOs have frequently been assessed as three dimensional from
+analysis of copied photographs, which are, by definition,
+photographs of photographs having only two effective dimensions.
RESPONSE: Sorry, I can't figure out what he means here. He seems to
be juxtaposing and comparing apples and oranges... or something. I'm
at a loss to comment on any of this; it certainly doesn't sound like
scientist speaking.
+Alternatively, skillful artists routinely transfer attributes of
+three dimensionality to canvas, sufficient to fool any computer
+analysis.
RESPONSE: I wish I knew what he was talking about here, too.
+ In colour film, the image is composed of three dyes, each of which
+is visible to the eye.
RESPONSE: So far, so good.
+ There is no other material present with which invisible image
could be formed;
RESPONSE: Who said there was any 'invisible image?'
+ and to suggest that some mysterious radiation produced such an
+ image is surely ridiculous.
RESPONSE: That's what I thought, too, until I heard what Dilletoso
has to say about light and other electromagnetic phenomena outside
the visible spectrum affecting color emulsions. Now, I'm not so sure.
+ Similarly, it is foolhardy to suggest that any wire or thread
+supporting a model must show up with computer enhancement. A 300mm
+diameter foam plastic model, for instance, could easily be supported
+by a single fibre from a nylon stocking, which, at 2 metres from the
+camera, would be well beyond the resolving power of its optical
+system.
RESPONSE: Not so. The right kind of computer enhancement can bring
out very weak exposure gradients that would not normally be visible
or noticeable as a line. In any event, nobody is suggesting that it
would be absolutely impossible to suspend a model undetectably; the
point is that, possible or not, nobody has actually discovered any
evidence of such fraud under *any* circumstances or conditions.
+ A general characteristic of film grains is that they overlap - it
+is only thus that a true black image can be built up. This is
+especially true of colour film, where each of the tree emulsions has
+to be capable of developing as a solid colour. Another
+characteristic of film grains is that once they are developed, there
+is no way to tell how or when they were exposed; hence film grain
+analysis gives no information about the use of multiple exposures,
+or of most darkroom techniques.
RESPONSE: Assuming all this is correct, so what?
+In conclusion computer techniques have their place, but they cannot
+substitute entirely for careful visual examination of any UFO
+photograph.
RESPONSE: I Agree 100%, but no one has claimed otherwise.
+The above article which appeared in the `UFO Research Australia
+Newsletter,' Vol.2 No.1, Jan-Feb 1981, is one of many written at the
+time. Other individuals and organisations wrote expose as well, so
+the above is not an isolated critique. I reproduce Frank Gillespie's
+article here in an attempt to show those who have only been
+subjected to pro Billy Meier arguments that scientific evaluations
+revealed a very different story.
RESPONSE: One does not have to be 'pro Billy Meier' to be anti
sloppy science. The kind of 'research' exemplified by Mr.
Gillespie's article does no service to the truth (whatever it may
be), and no service to ufology. His hodgepodge of objective and
subjective assertions is a disgrace as it leads the unwary reader to
believe that some kind of real investigation was done. Nothing could
be further from the truth. I would venture to guess that much the
same holds true for many of the 'other individuals and
organizations' mentioned. Opinion should never be considered a
substitute for investigation.
+I think it a shame that time is wasted on cut and dried hoaxes
+when there is so much that is presently unexplained and far more
+deserving of our time and attention.
Whatever the Meier case may be, no one has ever successfully accused
it of being 'cut and dried.' It contains as many questions as
answers, almost 20 years after it first came to light. The photos
presented by Meier after 1980 (of the craft that resembles an
aluminum wedding cake) are obviously contrived, as any experienced
photographer can tell you. However, nobody has yet explained away
the mid-1970's photos which bear no resemblance whatsoever to the
later ones. Some years ago Kal K. Korff attempted to debunk the
early Meier pictures, but could only do so by recourse to
pseudoscience, innuendo and character-assassination, none of which
has any place in bona-fide ufological investigation.
Mike, I'd appreciate it if you could post some more information on
the 'individuals and organizations' to which you allude above. I
would very much like to see some evidence of intelligent
investigation by *anyone* at that time in the history of the case.
+ In closing, I would like to state that the above ends my
+ participation in the Billy Meier farce. I will not enter into any
+further discussions, I value my time far too much to debate proven
+hoaxes.
Well, thanks for posting this attempt at disproof, Mike. Obviously
we disagree as to its validity, but such debates over the principles
of scientific approach (apart from the merits of the particular case)
are always valuable.
Dan Drasin
ddrasin@well.sf.ca.us
PS: Sorry for the line noise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ns-mx.uiowa.edu!jrblack
Subject: JPL Proposes Small, Cheap Mars Landers
Date: 14 Mar 92 05:10:49 GMT
From: James Roger Black <jrblack@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
In an article in sci.space.news on Usenet News,
Ron Baalke <baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
|> This is a summary of an article from the Space News newspaper titled
|> 'JPL Proposes Small, Cheap Mars Lander', March 2-8, 1992.
|>
|> JPL is proposing to send 16 small spacecraft to Mars. The spacecraft would
|> parachute down to the surface and collect information on the atmosphere,
|> weather and rock and soil composition. Each spacecraft will be about two
|> meters (6.5 feet) in diameter and 315 pounds in weight. The spacecraft
|> would be launched in groups of four from a Delta launch vehicle. If this
|> project is started in 1996, then the first four spacecraft can be launched
|> in 1999, the next four in 2001, and the final eight spacecraft in 2003. Also,
|> a Mars orbiter would be sent in 2001 to relay data back to Earth at a higher
|> data rate. The program is expected to cost $150 million a year with a total
|> cost of under $1 billion. The program has already received $300,000 in the
|> 1991 budget, $1.6 million in the 1992 budget, and is expected to receive
|> $6 million in the 1993 budget.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Black roger-black@uiowa.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Rodeghier)
Subject: Australian Computer Disk
Date: 14 Mar 92 11:28:01 GMT
Vlad:
I received your Internet message. Thanks for the kind offer of
review copies. However, I ordered one in January (and have received
it) for CUFOS, but Mike Swords doesn't have a copy and would
appreciate obtaining one for his personal use ( I showed it to him
when he was in Chicago last week for a CUFOS meeting).
I've been meaning to tell you and everyone else connected with the
project that I've been most impressed by the quality of
contributions to the document, and I've already run off a few hard
copies to add to both my and the CUFOS files on various Australian
reports. So congratulations on a job well done!
Mark Rodeghier
--
Mark Rodeghier - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield)
Subject: Implants
Date: 14 Mar 92 16:46:00 GMT
Thank you to all who corresponded or provided leads to accounts of
abduction implants for an article I was researching. The article
appeared in Vol 17(1) Jan/Feb 1992 issue of the Centre for UFO Studies
International UFO Reporter. For anyone interested who doesn't receive
the IUR (US$25 for 6 issues 24 pages write to CUFOS 2457 West Peterson
Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60659) I am happy to airmail you a copy of
the article. Post an address here.
--
Keith Basterfield - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andre.Eichner@f10.n2403.z2.FIDONET.ORG (Andre Eichner)
Subject: KIK, UFO congress and exhibition in Berlin
Date: 17 Mar 92 01:59:00 GMT
International UFO congress in Berlin (Germany)
KIK - communication in teh universe, congress & exhibition 16.-20.4.92 in Berlin
A international UFO-congress take place at April 16.-20. in Berlin.
Speakers:
Virgil Armstrong, USA, Sponsor, as secret service officer he works
on the recovery of the first UFO, found 1948 in
the USA.
Fred Bell, USA Scientist, works with pyramid-energy and is
in contect with the aliens and makes music
Valerij Nagibin, GUS psychologist, medical doctor, UFO-research
scientist and para-psychologist.
Anthony Dodd, UK ex Sergeant of UK police.
employee of UFO-journal QUEST
investigate the crop circles in UK
Prof. J. J. Hurtak USA futurology, director of "future Science" institute
Dr. Edith Fiore USA psychologist, works with persons which was
captured through aliens.
Douglas Pue, USA Ex NASA-employee, is informed about contacts
between aliens and the US Gouvernment.
JULIE RAVEL BRD Channel und spiritual head of the Licht-Oase
Berlin, arranges newest information from the
"Ashtar Command".
MICKY REMANN, New Age writer and expert for unusual
spirital occurrence.
and many more.
besides become a lot NewAge technical news in a exhibition/fair.
for more information and registration call
If you place a call, please inform about the source "FidoNet/ParaNet-Berlin"!
International cultural centre
"UFA-Fabrik Berlin" : +49-30-752 80 85
Fax......: +49-30-752 23 44
--
Andre Eichner - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Andre.Eichner@f10.n2403.z2.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************************
