Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 564
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 564
Tuesday, July 7th 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
Vcr Alert: Ufo Abductionists On Parade
Ufo Siting
Ufo Sightings (long Reply)
The 'ufo' Seen By The Phobos-2 Spacecraft: What 'it' *really* Was
Re: STS-UFO - Hard Copy
Re: ROAD FLARES
Unexplained Experience
Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
Ufo Related Shows
Two Mysteries Solved
Re: Adam & Eve
Re: "ANZA UFO" VIDEO
Re: ROAD FLARES
Re: ROAD FLARES
"ANZA UFO" VIDEO
"white" Spot In Strieber's Brain
Gulf Breeze Hoax Discussion
Re: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
Caution For Ufo Investigators
Re: (aurora)/want Info......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Vcr Alert: Ufo Abductionists On Parade
Date: 13 Jun 92 02:31:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Robert Sheaffer
* Originally dated 06-11-92 12:33
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Date: 10 Jun 92 19:39:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Message-ID: <z9alnqb.sheaffer@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
A very interesting show is going to be seen on late-night TV, covering
only about 30% of the U.S. market (which is too bad for the other 70%).
It is "Night Talk" with Jane Whitney, and it will be shown late night
on Thursady June 11 (actually the morning of the 12th). Guests on the
show are: on the pro-abduction side, Budd Hopkins, Dr. John Mack, Dr. David
Jacobs, and 3 abductees, while the anti-side is represented by James
Oberg, making the show pretty much evenly balanced. :)
I understand that the show degenerated into something of a 'media
circus', and that the Abductionists were not at all pleased with the
way it turned out.
The show will be visible *only* on the following stations:
Boston WCVB Dallas KDFI
Detroit WXYZ Cleveland WEWS
Houston KHOU Atlanta WSB
Seattle KOMO Miami WPLG
Sacramento KOVR Phoenix KTVK
Portland, OR KARU Milwaukee WITI
Cincinatti WCPO
Check local listings for the exact time.
--
Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
"Every psychic investigator of [the medium] Mrs. Piper was impressed
by her simplicity and honesty. It never occurred to them that no
charlatan ever achieves greatness by acting like a charlatan. No
professional spy acts like a spy. No card cheat behaves at the
table like a card cheat."
- Martin Gardner (writing in "Free Inquiry",
Spring, 1992)
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet 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: Ufo Siting
Date: 13 Jun 92 05:57:00 GMT
> > 1987, Thompson, Connecticut.
>
> Would this maybe have been sort of in the right place at the right
> time to be part of the "Hudson Valley Boomerang" flap? His descriptions
> sounds pretty similar.
Actually, this place is in eastern CT. However, he could not make out enough
shape to determine anything.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet 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: Ufo Sightings (long Reply)
Date: 13 Jun 92 06:02:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic"
* Originally from William Vanhorne
* Originally dated 06-10-92 19:01
From: wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne)
Date: 10 Jun 92 14:56:06 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.145606.1849@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Ok, let's try posting this again !
> From : bb6d9cj@baarsa.bell-atl.com (Kretmar)
>
> I'm just interested in finding out how many readers of this
> newsgroup have actually seen a UFO(First person accounts!)
I'll 'fess-up. I have indeed seen a UFO.
(Sorry about the length of this post, but you *did* ask !)
Chapter One ... The UFO is sighted
Location : Columbus, Ohio, northwest side
Date : June ?, 1976
Time : 10:05 P.M. EDT
Conditions : sky dark, no residual twilight, cloudless sky
I was standing in a gas station watching my car get filled (remember when
they did it for you?) when I chanced to look into the sky to the east and
saw an actual flying saucer. A crude ASCII picture of what I saw :
red light -------------> *
xxxxxxx
red lights -----> * xxxxxxxxxxxxx *
xxxxxxxxx
rotating white light --------> >>>>>>>
Note that the "x" parts (the body of the UFO) were much dimmer than the lights
on its edges. The rotating white light on the bottom of the craft was very
bright, and was spinning left-to-right. I watched the saucer hover over the
north side of Columbus for ten minutes.
Of course, while I watched this thing hovering, I was frantically trying to
find some "rational" explanation for what I was seeing. I enlisted the two
gas station attendants (remember those?) and another customer in my
observations. After ten minutes, and much debate, the general consensus
was that we were watching something that was about the size of a two-story
house whose mode of propulsion was unknown (but tied to the rapidly rotating
bottom), and that it was not like anything any of us had ever seen fly before.
Chapter Two ... The UFO approaches !
By 10:15 PM the UFO had stopped hovering and not only flew towards us, but
actually flew directly over our location. Another ASCII picture to show
a close-up view of the saucer :
red light on tail -------> *
|
---------
red lights on wings -> * ------------------------ *
\ xxxxxxx /
\ xxxxx /
\ / \ /
------------
Yep, it was a "wing-over" airplane (like a Piper Cub) carrying a "travelling
marquee" banner strung from wing-tip to wing-tip. The "hovering" effect
had been caused by the fact that the plane was travelling east-to-west
(towards us) and was moving very slowly so that people on the ground could
read the advertisement being displayed.
(apology: Actually, I don't know what to call that lighted banner other than
"travelling marquee", but it consists of a row of lights which has
messages "travel" across it (like on the side of the Goodyear blimp) so
"travelling marquee" sounds good to me.)
Note that the "rotating bottom" effect was caused by the letters (advertising
some car dealership as I recall) moving across the banner, and that we all
percieved the rotation as left-to-right whereas the letters moved right-to-
left. Note also that our collective imaginations had "filled-in" the space
between the red running lights on the plane with the dim body of a UFO,
since the airplane was too far away to actually see its body.
Chapter Three ... Musings on close encounters with alien life forms
So, it's a plane afterall ! We all had a good laugh, and went about our
lives. But, BUT, what would have happened if that plane had turned south
before coming close enough to identify?
I would like to think that I would have filed the experience in the "strange
-and-unexplained-but-hardly-paranormal" file, but you never know ! I would
like to think that I would today still be reading sci.skeptic instead of
alt.alien.visitors.are.using.the.Corolis.force.to.control.your.mind, but
you never know !
And while we're at it, imagine that later some recidivistic non-holisitic
reductionist like Scott Chase were to come along and try to convince me
that what I had seen was an airplane carrying an advertising banner. Well,
excuse me, but I have *never* seen, before or since, an airplane carrying
a "travelling marquee" strung across its bottom. In fact, I can't imagine
how one would take off or land the thing (aha! maybe that's why I've never
seen one since!). Also, I *do* know what an airplane looks like at night,
thank you very much, and what I originally saw looked *nothing* like an
airplane.
So here are my rules for UFO sightings :
o Human perception is tricky. You really *can't* believe your eyes.
o Don't try to convince observers of UFOs that what they really saw
was "ice from the space shuttle" or that "the camera moved, not the
UFO", since even if you are correct, you will sound forced or stupid.
o Don't bother with UFOs at all until one lands somewhere and stays
long enough to convince *everyone* that it is really an alien craft.
End confession.
Skoal,
Bill VanHorne
Who is neither a PHYSICIST or an ASTRONOMER or even a SCIENTIST but who IS
working on a new PARADIGM of holistic object-oriented Oneness with the
bioelectrologic forces underlying the Universal coexpressions OF existance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are not my employers opinions
These are not even my opinions
These are REVEALED TRUTH
wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet 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: The 'ufo' Seen By The Phobos-2 Spacecraft: What 'it' *really* Was
Date: 13 Jun 92 06:03:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic"
* Originally from Daniel Fischer
* Originally dated 06-10-92 19:02
From: dfi@spcklg.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Daniel Fischer)
Date: 10 Jun 92 18:19:41 GMT
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut f"ur Radioastronomie
Message-ID: <1992Jun10.181941.23124@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.astro,sci.skeptic
Thanks to the kindness of Dr. G. Neukum of the German Aerospace Research
Establishment's Dept. for Optoelectronics, I can herewith once and for ever
state that THE PHOBOS 2 SPACECRAFT DID NOT PHOTOGRAPH A UFO NEAR MARS! Neukum
showed me the sequence of raw images obtained by PHOBOS-2, and it becomes
obvious immediately that these images are full of blemishes, reflexes, bad
pixels and so on - the Russian CCD camera that was in use here was not a very
good one. The one frame in question which shows some bright line next to the
Martian moon Phobos is full of other bright lines, all exactly parallel to the
frame's rim - which would make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that these
are well-known artifacts produced by electronic interference, 'hot pixels' etc.
Of course, on the next frame of the sequence these 'structures' are gone. So
there's no need whatsoever to speculate about natural explanations like trails
of another Martian moon, an antenna in the FOV etc. - it's so much simpler...
+ dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de - Daniel Fischer - p515dfi@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de
+
| Max-Planck-Institut f. Radioastronomie, Auf dem Huegel 69, W-5300 Bonn 1,FRG
|
> - Standard Disclaimer: This posting does in no way represent an official -
<
| ------ opinion voiced or a question asked by the MPIfR or the MPG! --------
|
+----- Enjoy the Universe - it's the only one you're likely to experience
-----+
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: STS-UFO - Hard Copy
Date: 12 Jun 92 14:46:00 GMT
Don:
You're too late, Mike grabbed it already and posted it. But Shaeffer's tag
line, while completely unrelated to this topic, is VERY important, and
should be a lesson to all people who believe Ed Walters because he _seems_
so sincere:
DA> "Every psychic investigator of [the medium] Mrs. Piper was
DA> impressed
DA> by her simplicity and honesty. It never occurred to them that no
DA> charlatan ever achieves greatness by acting like a charlatan. No
DA> professional spy acts like a spy. No card cheat behaves at the
DA> table like a card cheat."
And no UFO hoaxer wears a t-shirt proclaiming, "I am a UFO Hoaxer"!
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: ROAD FLARES
Date: 12 Jun 92 19:18:00 GMT
Hi John,
Glad you got the info on road flares OK. I sent copies to Pete Poro
yesterday (listening, Pete?) so he should have his on Saturday.
TTYL,
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Unexplained Experience
Date: 13 Jun 92 10:09:00 GMT
In response to a sarcastic message from some guy, John Robin
writes:
> * * *
> Although the general consensus running through the net seems to me
> to favor an extraterrestial vistor explanation, this to me is far from
> certain, and seems even unlikely based on my skimpy first hand experience.
> Whatever these beings are it puzzles me that they would express
> any concern whatever for the spirtual activities of our little group.
> So much of the literature seems to want to paint the "visitors" as
> vicious human mutilators, this seems totally contrary if we are just
> so much foder.
> My experience really had much more similarity to a classic magical
> evocation of an elemental spirit. In fact the triangle is the vessel
> that is traditionally used to "hold" the elemental spirit when it is
> invoked. It is held captive there in Goetic magic until it agrees
> under threat of being tortured if neccesary to carry out the will
> of the magician. Could it be that what I saw was the "spirit" of the
> sigil we had charged manefesting itself to me to as what I wanted?
> This may seem preposterous especially if one refuses to consider the
> possiblity of spirits existing in the first place, but is it any more
> preposterous or presumptuous than postualating ET visitors requireing
> the postulation of advanced intellegent beings travelling to Earth
> in machines that seem to violate physics as we currently understand it.
> You see it really requires (arguably) a less complex hypothesis to
> adopt an "elemental/spiritual" model than a "physical/ET" model don't 'ya
> think?
> - John Robin
I'm seriously giving consideration to another possibility.
Maybe, by asking you what was the significance of the sigil
diagram on the ground, the actual motive behind this question was
to find out:
"Which am I supposed to be this time: the `ET Alien' or the
`spirit' who is supposed to get caught in that triangle over
there?"
Who knows? It could be *very* complex.
-- John
--
John Burke - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic)
Subject: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
Date: 14 Jun 92 05:36:00 GMT
> This can all be easily confirmed by securing both the voice
> transmission logs and the engineering logs from that mission,
> and matching up the time index to see if there was a thruster
> burn at that precise moment.
Jim,
I agree with you. These incidents should be thoroughly investigated.
In the November 1976 issue of ANALOG James Oberg wrote an excellent
article on Astronauts and UFOs titled "Unidentified Fraudulent Objects." In
this article he deals with alleged sightings of UFOs by the US astronauts,
however, he was also somewhat critical of UFO researchers and their willingness
to accept "astronauts and UFOs" stories which have been published in newspapers
and magazines all over the world. In this article he deals mainly with
McDivitt's UFO and explains in detail how this story was completely distorted
simply because someone wanted it to be a genuine UFO.
".....IT SHOWED AN OVAL BLOB OF LIGHT WITH A SMEAR OVER IT. NASA SAID IT WAS A
GLARE OF A WINDOW BOLT AND SMUDGES ON THE GLASS WINDOW.
".... many facts have never been added up, and there have been few people
willing to either dig up the facts or to do the adding up. NASA was not
concerned McDivitt was a UFO celebrity, and the UFO groups already had an
"official endorsement" of the case and were not interested in further
investigation of what they rightly considered one of the most persuasive cases."
"The retired astronaut has appeared on numerous TV talk shows, was invited to
participate in a 1976 Playboy magazine panel, and has recently taken part in a
long playing UFO record album."
"McDivitt was never particularly impressed by the UFO, while taking advantage
of the opportunities his testimony afforded. He still maintains that it was
probably some man-made object."
These are just a few excerpts from that article and, in the interest of
scientific and sane research into the UFO phenomena, if anybody is interested I
am quite willing to post it here on Paranet - including exchange of
correspondence between James Oberg and myself relating to this article. The
article is a copyright but James gave me permission to reprint it whenever and
wherever I like. It is 8 (A-4) pages long plus 3 pages of correspondence.
--
Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Sudduth@p0.f26.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Sudduth)
Subject: Ufo Related Shows
Date: 13 Jun 92 19:50:00 GMT
> Somebody sympathetic to the UFO scientific community
> who could get the attention of whoever does, say, the
> NOVA science show (for starters) would be the one to
> get a hold of.
Too late, Richard! NOVA already did their UFO show back in 1979, I think. They
featured the Travis Walton case (spending way too much time on the National
Inquirer polygraph stuff) and the Pascagoula case. They basically picked cases
that were easily debunked. Perhaps its time for NOVA to do an update - but I
don't think they'll have a very open mind. It was a real disappointment.
--
Don Sudduth - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Sudduth@p0.f26.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Keithly)
Subject: Two Mysteries Solved
Date: 15 Jun 92 01:18:01 GMT
* Forwarded from "Internet Alien Visitors Conference"
* Originally by Bill Moore
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 14 Jun 1992, 12:24
From: billy@anasaz (Bill Moore)
Date: 14 Jun 92 08:08:43 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA
Message-ID: <1992Jun14.080843.16102@anasaz>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
My post on the NASA video might not have gotten out. It boiled down to
identifying the two objects as ice crystals near the shuttle. The
abrupt turn optical illusion occured when they hit a stream of OMS
hydrazine. These thrusters fire very small, short bursts automatically
to keep the shuttle in a programmed alignment.
And, for those of you interested in the physical evidence reported by
Jacques Valle from the "UFO" explosion in South America, the titanium
alloy was apparently from an SR-71 that broke up in flight for unknown
reasons. It's secret because it was in somebody's air space where it
wasn't supposed to be. The "not of this earth" composition reported
by Vallee is consistent with the material from which the SR-71's wings
are made.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Moore billy%anasaz.UUCP@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (602) 395-1732
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
Mike Keithly - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Houston.Mayer@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Houston Mayer)
Subject: Re: Adam & Eve
Date: 15 Jun 92 03:37:00 GMT
Never mind checking out the story. I've been looking through some old
issues of Omni for your work and my wife is looking through her collections
also. I admire your posts and wanted to say hi! I have a bookshelf of most
of the best UFO works, and I always look for the really old out of print
works. But I'm still trapped in the checkout lines weekly, like all of us,
but unlike most I have to buy the entertainment versions of the news.
I hope all goes well for you and I'm honored that you responded to my post.
Hope to see you at one of the upcoming conferences. Thanks again.
Houston
--
Houston Mayer - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Houston.Mayer@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: "ANZA UFO" VIDEO
Date: 11 Jun 92 16:07:54 GMT
As for the radar unit it was a marine unit for mast mounting as far as I
could tell from the video. Nothing special. Any $2000 will get you one to
play with. I could be wrong, but it looked like an off the shelf model for
boating.
The scope shot was over exposed as many have noted. Sounds like creative
science-like efforts. As usual I'll wait for the book and read it at Waldens
without paying for it.
Sorry but my personal opinion of this one is very low.
--
Pete Porro - via ParaNet 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: ROAD FLARES
Date: 11 Jun 92 16:18:59 GMT
As for making it to the conference, I have trouble filling my gas tank to
get around the neighborhood. Something about the divorce and my "X" who
refuses to grow up and be adult. She was ordered to pay half the medical and
half the taxes (nothing else), so far she has paid 00 so assorted agencys are
after me again. Ho Hum... nothing new except the stress is begining to make
me a bit intolerant of irrational childlike adults. f*
{{
my
--
Pete Porro - via ParaNet 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: ROAD FLARES
Date: 11 Jun 92 16:48:04 GMT
Sorry about a brief off topic message which was terminated by a crossed
telephone line at work. I was going to continue. (ps it was a collection
agency followed by my accountant... maybe I'll win the lottery?) 8*)
I'd love to go to one of these conferences and see what kind of people
appear. In this field I'm sure the serious ones would be interesting and the
fringe would be amusing. I'd like to see what's on the market besides books
and T-shirts. Maybe you can do a short review when you return? Take notes and
all that. Include the pyramid hold outs, crystal rubbers and the like along
with the more UFO related events and orginizations. I apologize for the
spelling in this message. I was out self destructing until 2am last night and
I have not fully detoxified yet. Only 4.5 hours of sleep and I'm back in the
office again.
If I start seeing pink elephants, I won't be reporting the sightings. <arf>
--
Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: "ANZA UFO" VIDEO
Date: 13 Jun 92 17:14:02 GMT
> As for the radar unit it was a marine unit for mast mounting as far as I
> could tell from the video.
That's what I thought too. One question about using such a radar is how
suitable it might be for air search. Being a marine radar, it'd have a rather
flat pattern. I don't know what effect that might have on airborne returns....
but I wonder if that aspect might cause some sort of tendency toward false
returns from aerial objects.
> Sounds like creative science-like efforts.
That's a very good statement. These guys bought the hardware, but clearly
there wasn't any expertise in the use of that hardware, which can only harm the
credibility of the project.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: "white" Spot In Strieber's Brain
Date: 14 Jun 92 17:42:04 GMT
AK> I know Robert Sheaffer, and have no reason to doubt his
AK> version.
Yep, for all I know he may be a rabid debunker, but I think his story on
Streiber is true. It all adds up very well.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Gulf Breeze Hoax Discussion
Date: 14 Jun 92 17:52:05 GMT
VG> I've seen, I feel that Gulf Breeze is a joke that took root
VG> because the local people were predisposed towards belief.
We're on the same wavelength, more or less.
My reading is that some people saw a ufo and that most likely Ed Walters
saw an opportunity for a big joke, so he conjured up his pictures. I think
he was probably very surprised when the MUFON guys took him seriously and
his photos were pronounced as being the real thing, plus then of course the
news media jumped on it.
Now Ed's not dumb, so he probably thought that if he could make some money
on the big joke, why not. So he and Frances wrote the book. BTW, Frances is
a published author, so they wouldn't have needed much outside help.
Now, I think there's a mix of maybe a few true sightings and lots of
flares. Someone's giving the "ufo nuts" something to see.
So I'm with you; I think there have been and maybe still are some true ufo
incidents in that area, but Ed hadn't had a true ufo sighting until that
first redlight incident. I believe the first few redlight sightings were for
real, but the recent redlight sightings were likely flares.
MUFON has had a pretty big shakeout over Gulf Breeze, and a very important
factor is that many of the investigators involved in the case were "true
believers" who were looking to confirm their beliefs more than anything
else. The few who were skeptical were forced out.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Re: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
Date: 13 Jun 92 19:40:00 GMT
Jim;
Well it looks as if my system is now up and running once again.
I just received a "first generation" copy of the video in question from my
source. This video is MUCH clearer than the first, and detail is extremely
clear. I am going to employ some experts to enhance the sections in question,
and I may be able to (with the info I have) to determine the approx. rate of
speed of the object in "EVENT 2". This story is only beginning, much more to
come. I will advise.
BTW, the business about the object being "piss in space" or as some pundits
are calling the ice from waste water, in PURE crap. The manuver to dump the
waste water is just AFTER this event. The radio transmission is on the tape
just after EVENT 2. This issue will be addressed on my radio show on June
14th.
Best;
Don
--
Don Ecker - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Keithly)
Subject: Caution For Ufo Investigators
Date: 15 Jun 92 22:59:01 GMT
* Forwarded from "Internet Alien Visitors Conference"
* Originally by Jon Roland
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 15 Jun 1992, 12:15
From: jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM (Jon Roland)
Date: 15 Jun 92 05:50:13 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Message-ID: <l3obslINN6th@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
CAUTION
for UFO Investigators
Copyright (c) 1991 Jon Roland
There is an old saying, "Be careful what
you ask for. You might get it." It applies to
UFO investigators, most of whom are
motivated to try to find out what is behind
what so many people are reporting by a
mixture of curiosity, fear, and a nagging
suspicion that we are not being told
something that we have a right to know. The
UFO mystery has emerged as perhaps the
major unsolved mystery of our time that is
not being openly researched by organized,
governmentally supported science.
One family of hypotheses concerning this
subject, first advanced by Charles Fort, one
version of which I have discussed elsewhere
(see "Speculations on UFO Technology and
Operations"), supposes that at least one, and
perhaps many, alien races are based in the
vicinity of Earth, perhaps underground, and
have been for a long time; and that lifeforms
on the surface of Earth, including ourselves,
are the subject of long-term study and
perhaps experimentation by at least one of
those races.
The importance of this hypothesis is that, if
valid, it could be dangerous to verify it,
either for the investigator and his friends, or
even for humanity as a whole.
Much speculation on alien visitors tends to
suppose that they are occasional visitors to
Earth, based elsewhere, who regard us as
less developed than themselves, but who still
respect us as fellow sentients that may
someday join them among the family of
spacefaring civilizations. This may be
wishful thinking, a projection of our
attitudes toward primitive peoples in recent
history. We must consider the possibility
that they rather regard us as we regard
laboratory rats, with little or no sympathy,
as things which exist for their edification or
amusement, and which they are prepared to
manipulate or terminate when it suits their
purposes to do so.
If their purposes are scientific, then our
continued existence may depend on us
remaining interesting to their scientific
studies.
Experimenters don't care whether rats know
about them, because rats can't discuss their
situation among themselves, or contemplate
different ways of behaving that are affected
by their knowledge of the existence of the
experimenters and their purposes. Rats that
developed the ability to do that during an
experiment would thereby become useless
for behavioral studies. It would be a classic
case of the problem of the subject being
excessively altered by the act of observation.
Although there is already a widespread
belief among people that UFOs are evidence
of alien beings, the lack of official
acknowledgement that they are at least
leaves most people not behaving much
differently than they would if they were
unaware of the phenomenon -- much like
rats. Proof of the existence of aliens and of
their role in our fate could change that
situation suddenly. Before we find such
proof, we need to consider the consequences
of finding and disclosing it.
We also need to consider the role of our
species among other surface lifeforms,
which may also be the subject of alien study
and experimentation. Our unchecked growth
is threatening to destroy those other
lifeforms, and ultimately, destroy us as well.
If the study is very long-term, over geologic
time, then even though our species might be
more interesting than the rest, we threaten to
make the situation on the surface less
interesting for study. One might ask why
aliens have let us go as far as they have. By
almost any reasonable standard of
experimental practice, we should have been
cut back or eliminated long ago, or at least
modified into a form that is not as
disruptive. The fact that such intervention is
long overdue suggests that it may be
imminent. The question then is what form it
might take.
Alien experimenters might consider our
species salvageable if it were cut back in
numbers, and perhaps modified in its
destructive behavior, especially if they could
find a way to do so that would not reveal
their existence, if they could, perhaps, make
it look to us like an accident. Intervention to
that effect would be bad enough from our
viewpoint, and perhaps even a blessing from
the viewpoint of future generations, but
what happens if, before such intervention is
accomplished, we find out about them and
what they are doing? Would we be of any
further use to them as subjects of study?
Any of us?
There are two long-standing questions about
government coverups of the evidence of
aliens: How could governments keep such a
secret, and keep it so long? And why would
they be so determined to keep it a secret
from the public? If the above hypothesis is
valid, then the answer is clear, and their
coverup is fully justified!
UFO investigators may be harmless enough
while they don't have any real solid
evidence to work with, and don't get any
real results, but what happens if some of
them get lucky, or unlucky, and actually
come up with proof that can't be ignored?
UFO investigators must consider that the
above hypothesis might be valid, and
prepare themselves, logistically and psycho-
logically, to immediately conceal proof that
they may acquire if it tends to confirm that
hypothesis, and to cooperate in keeping it
concealed if found by others. Once such
proof is obtained, there may be little time to
think about the consequences to humanity.
We need to do our thinking in advance, and
plan for that contingency.
This does not mean that we should not
continue to investigate and discuss the
subject. Such discussion, perhaps combined
with more ecologically responsible behavior,
might persuade hypothetical aliens to spare
at least some of us. It may turn out that they
do not regard us as theirs to dispose of, or
that, by our behavior, we might convince
them to change the way they regard us, in
the direction of greater respect. It is worth
a try. There is no downside if this hypo-
thesis and response is wrong. If it is right,
we have an immense responsibility that we
need to take very seriously.
Many people are discouraged by the
prospects for trying to cope with either the
ecological crisis, or with aliens who may
hold our fates in their appendages.
However, the ecological crisis, at least, is
solvable in principle. It does not require
knowledge or resources we don't have. It
only requires the willingness to sacrifice for
the good of future generations. We have
often seen such a willingness in times of
war. Now we need to find it when the
enemy is ourselves. I suspect that if we do,
we might also find ourselves being regarded
by certain others with a new respect that
could make all the difference.
jdr@starflight.corp.sun.com, starflt@uunet.uu.net
Jon Roland
Starflight Corporation, 1755 E Bayshore Rd #9A,
Redwood City, CA 94063-4142, 415/361-8141
--
Mike Keithly - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: (aurora)/want Info......
Date: 16 Jun 92 03:33:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Douglas R Fils
* Originally dated 06-14-92 18:13
From: fils@iastate.edu (Douglas R Fils)
Date: 14 Jun 92 20:18:36 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Message-ID: <1992Jun14.201836.19852@news.iastate.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
In article <1992Jun13.145411.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsgaw1@acad3.alaska.edu
writes:
> In a recent post, someone mentioned a craft called the (AURORA), a
>supposed "US invention". Since I have never heard of such a craft, or the
>specifics of its construction and design, could you please send me any
>information you may have......
Netland,
The subject of the Aurora pulser aircraft seems to come up
ever so often. What I have below is my own citation list of
articles about Aurora. All these come from _Aviation Week
And Space Technology_.
Aviation Week May 11, 1992, page 62
New Evidence Bolsters Report of Secret, High-Speed Aircraft
Aviation Week Oct 1, 1990, page 20
Secret Advanced Vehicles Demonstrate Technologies for
Future Military Use
Aviation Week Dec. 24, 1990, page 41
Scientists' and Engineers' Dreams take to Skies as 'Black' Aircraft
Aviation Week Dec. 18, 1990 page 42
There are others but I don't have them in front of me.
--
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.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 grind.isca.uiowa.edu:/info/paranet/infopara
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************************
