Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 562
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 562
Saturday, July 4th 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
*****B*U*L*L*E*T*I*N***B*U*L*L*E*T*I*N***B*U*L*L*E*T*I*N***B*U*L*L*E*T*I*N*****
We're Back!
Approximately a month ago, the list server for the ParaNet digests was
taken out of service. Since then we have been working hard to find a
new home for the mailing list and the FTP archives. We are pleased to
announce that we have been successful at both tasks.
While the digests were out of service, the FidoNet echo traffic has
continued, and we have faithfully stored it up for you. In order not
to overflow the mail queues for those of you with restricted disk
space, we will be doling out the backlogged digests at the rate of two
or three a day until they are all completed. As far as we know, no
traffic has been lost, so you should be able to get completely caught
up on the various discussions by simply reading the digests in order as
they come out.
The FTP archives for the ParaNet digests are now located on Internet
host "grind.isca.uiowa.edu". The InfoPara digests are in subdirectory
/info/paranet/infopara; the Abduction digests are in subdirectory
/info/paranet/abduct. Both are available via anonymous FTP.
We would like to thank all of you for your patience and your concern
while we made the transition. Please let us know if we can serve you
in any way, or if you experience any difficulties with our new setup.
*******************************************************************************
Today's Topics:
Ufo Video From Nasa
Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
"white" Spot In Strieber's Brain
Re: What Can We Do?
Re: Anza Video, Shooting Aircraft at Night
Flare spectra
Re: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
Re: Ufo Video From Nasa
Gulf Breeze Hoax Discussion
Nasa Video..most Interesting
Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
Re: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Ufo Video From Nasa
Date: 8 Jun 92 10:24:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Nick Eads
* Originally dated 06-06-92 15:44
From: nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads)
Date: 5 Jun 92 22:02:29 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville
Message-ID: <nreads01.707781749@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Did anyone catch today's Hard Copy (6/5)? (Of course, I hate to admit that I
saw it myself -- it was an accident.) They showed what I feel is some of the
most impressive evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial activity. The
video was shot by one of the astronauts on a recent (the most recent?)
shuttle mission. I will describe the video as it was shown...
Looking toward the surface of the earth, and just below the horizon, a
small light moved slowly (relatively, of course) from the right to the left.
Then suddenly, and without *apparent* cause, the thing immediately executes
a 90 degree turn and accelerates rapidly off across the horizon and into
space. Meanwhile, at roughly the same location where the thing was at the
moment before turning, another something shoots rapidly *up* from earth and
into space. According to the UFO investigator (pardon me, but I forget
his name, but he is on the UFO magazine staff), somebody "shot" something
at it, and the thing anticipated the shot and evaded.
Official explanation from NASA was "it was ice" left by the shuttle. ICE?
That's a heck of a change in attitude and speed for a piece of orbiting
ice. Of course, one can't be sure of the distance from the shuttle, which
would be a vital piece of info. I'm usually not impressed by UFO reports,
but this was something to see. Anyone else catch it?
--
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Nick "The Cache" Eads | nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu |
| EE Department *----------------------------------------------*
| University of Louisville | GEMail: N.EADS |
| Louisville, Kentucky 40292 | SciBoard (502-588-0864): Sysnick |
*------------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
| Don't blame me; the Illuminati are responsible for everything... |
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
--
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: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
Date: 8 Jun 92 10:27:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Drew Davidson
* Originally dated 06-07-92 12:42
From: davidson@monet.cs.unc.edu (Drew Davidson)
Date: 6 Jun 92 18:26:06 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Message-ID: <12711@borg.cs.unc.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
The syndicated TV infotainment show Hard Copy showed a NASA videotape
beamed live from the Space Shuttle Discovery depicting a UFO flying
above the earth. The video appears to be black and white; the UFO is
just a speck of light. However, the light suddenly makes a right-angle
turn and speeds off into space at what appears to be high speed (it
actually seems to fly on a trajectory away from the camera, but seems to
go at high speed because it becomes quite dim and disappears as it is
moving a short distance on the screen). A second or two after the UFO
appears to speed off, an object shoots up at right angles to the earth,
somewhat near the position of the UFO a second or two earlier. Don
Ecker of UFO magazine theorizes that the UFO was making an evasive
maneuver to avoid being shot at.
NASA claims the object is a piece of ice made from waste water dumped by
the shuttle on a previous orbit. They have no comment about the
apparent shot coming from earth, or the apparent right-angle turn of the
UFO.
Whatever it is, it's very intriguing. It's very hard for me to believe
it was a piece of ice. I would like to know much more, like what part
of earth the UFO and shot were over, and if there were any UFO
encounters in that area on that date. I would also like to know what
the astronauts on board the shuttle thought of the incident when it
happened, and I would like to hear all radio transmissions made by them
before and after the incident.
Any comments on the video?
Drew
--
Drew Davidson \\ HELP FULLY INFORM JURORS! TELL YOUR FRIENDS:
davidson@cs.unc.edu \\ As a juror, you have the right to vote NOT GUILTY
** LEGALIZE TRUTH ** \\ if you believe the law broken is unjust or wrongly
* FULLY INFORM JURORS * \\ applied, regardless of the facts of the case.
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anson.Kennedy@p0.f25.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: "white" Spot In Strieber's Brain
Date: 6 Jun 92 06:31:00 GMT
>> severe reservations about Scheaffer's alleged "description" of Mr.
>> Strieber and how Strieber is supposed to have acted on the set of KPIX.
> In other words, you think he's putting a spin on the
> story. Right?
> But I don't think so simply because almost anyone
> could independently verify the story, or discover that
> it isn't true. I don't know Schaeffer, but I think
> he'd feel that the risk of being discredited would
> outweight the potential gain.
I know Robert Sheaffer, and have no reason to doubt his version. Your point
about it being easilly discredited should be compelling for anyone who doesn't
know him. And if they are still skeptical, they can call KPIX, can't they? :-)
> Also, Whitley sort of behaved like a spoiled child
> in his "farewell letter," so that supports Schaeffer's
> story.
Yes, it does. Doesn't it?
--- Anson
--
Anson Kennedy - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Anson.Kennedy@p0.f25.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: What Can We Do?
Date: 9 Jun 92 05:40:00 GMT
Hi Tom,
Boy, what you said about sarcasm and resentment is right-on! I teach a
program for at-risk teens and have been working under a principal for
3 years who has been hoping I'd fail at it. When I didn't, he resented
me and the program because then it became a permanent program. Now
I'm moving to a new school, and the principal there does not want the
program either, and is already in my face and acting nasty! He
doesn't even KNOW me and is all ready trying to get the program sent to
another campus.
What does this have to do with UFO's?? Well, I'm sure if he knew I was
involved in UFO studies, he'd flip, and I'd promptly sue him since we
already have a precedent with Arizona's Bob Dean.
I hate the feeling that I am sneaking around when I attend UFO meetings
or have UFO books in my house. I resent it! But I hate sarcasm even
more, and rejection.
Thanks for listening!
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ichips.intel.com!larry
Subject: Re: Anza Video, Shooting Aircraft at Night
Date: 10 Jun 92 03:14:54 GMT
From: larry@ichips.intel.com
Sheldon Wernikoff writes:
+Just a point of information here Mike... The 'starlight' camera the
+team was using amplifies available _visible spectrum light_, not
+infra-red as you suggest.
Correct. Visible red goes up to ~.7 micron in wavelength. It would be
interesting to try a good IR imager, although there may be more
detail on an aircraft to see than a UFO. Last I checked, the best
publicly available (not really though) IR imager could detect out to
a 12 micron wavelength, which would allow you to see a lot, depending
on the optics (germanium material used in the optics).
An IR Imager I checked out over a year ago could resolve a 10 foot
object at 100,000 feet. It went 4 hours before it needed a LN2
recharge and supported battery based field operations. However
these machines are VERY expensive (~ $70,000 purchase) and I haven't
been able to find anyone that would really rent one. Manufacturer
reps will rent them for approx 10% of the purchase price per month.
Manufacturers also do some charity loaning/discounting but this usually takes
a long time to schedule. There are newer cheaper IR Imagers that can
go to 4 microns. They cost ~ $45,000. As time goes on these should
get cheaper.
+ I am quite familiar with the Fujinon
+PS-910 night vision scope, which I have employed many times while
+sailing. Shape and detail of viewed objects ARE readily perceived
+with this scope, almost as easily as during daylight observation.
+The only difficulty in discerning detail may originate from
+overexposure - due to failing to attenuate the scope's output when
+a bright object comes into it's field of view. The team probably
+had the scope set on automatic, which did not properly compensate
+for a small, bright object against a rather dark background.
I haven't used that particular scope, but I have been involved in
trying to shoot aircraft at night with image intensifiers.
As you said, there is no trouble observing objects painted by starlight
or moonlight almost as good as day. However, when shooting an aircraft
at night from below, the position lights on the aircraft always drowned
out the shape. We have played with the intensity control and could
never bring in a shape.
That's why I want to go IR.
Have you ever shot an aircraft with lights at night with the Fujinon,
and gotten a shape?
+I found that brief video segment most intriguing, but judging by
+the apparent 'linear drifting' motion of the object, my best guess
+would be that it was some type of lighter-than-air inflatable
+device.
I didn't detect a drift. It seemed to be going in one particular direction,
fairly slowly. Did I understand you that you thought it seemed to be flying too
slowly in one direction for a traditional aircraft?
Michael Corbin responds:
+Thanks for clarifying that point Sheldon. I also agree on what the object
+could have been. Very impressive that they took the equipment out there, but
+disappointing that they didn't use it to its full potential.
John Hicks responds:
+ I've noticed that failure to reasonably properly use the hardware in relation
+to many ufo videos, photos etc. It's as if the people who're using the gear
+have just obtained it and have never familiarized themselves with it.....seems
+that they just set it on Automatic and let it rip.
Some are probably somewhat excited at the moment as well!
As far as the Anza video is concerned, after having to try and prepare such
a trip myself, believe me, there is nobody you can call before such a trip
to ask how you shoot a possibly black object in front of a black sky. I even
talked to astronomy buffs and supply companies who use/sell image intensifiers
on their equipment. Nobody had ever tried to shoot an aircraft at night!
We recognized that we were blazing new trails here. So you learn by trial
and error. We wanted to go IR from the beginning, but how did we know that
an Image Intensifier wouldn't work, unless we tried it? As I said before,
nobody that we could find had any experience on this subject, and the
logistics of getting an image intensifier were a lot better than full IR.
I don't know this for a fact, but I would suspect that the Anza team fooled
with every control on their image intensifier. I would also
suspect that they shot regular airplanes to calibrate their gear just like
we did. When you're sitting there all night in the desert for several days
you've got a lot of time on your hands. You also should be aware of snakes,
scorpions, and coyotes, if your out there at certain times of the year.
Don't kid yourself, sitting out there is a tough, boring job most of the
time, but it's still fun and worthwhile.
John.Hicks writes:
+ Like at Anza....if the intensified image hadn't bloomed and smeared from
+overload/overexposure, they might possibly have seen wings and a tail and
+solved the mystery...or of course might have seen something else entirely. But
+they just got the standard blurry blob.
Well, did it bloom, or was the target completely luminous? Speaking of
wings ... .
Early in the Sightings program there was a series of quick flashes of
drawings. You'll have to slo-mo your VCRs and then freeze frame to see
this, but one of the drawings portrayed a pentagon shaped wing with a
long probe at its nose. The drawing indicates that the color of the
object was gold.
The final video of the bright Anza target shot by the image intensifier, where
the target is going AWAY from the camera, seems to show just such a
pentagon shape, without the long probe on the nose! Or is this just me that
sees this resemblance.
The section of the Anza video showing that target as it approaches the
camera, I agree, does not seem to be a recognizeable shape. I was puzzled
why they characterized the shape as 'oblong' unless they were talking about
the shape as the target approached the camera. They also didn't mention
explicitly what color the object was to the naked eye. They showed the
image intensified video of it, which doesn't portray the true color.
Larry Smith
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kksys.kksys.mn.org!orbit!pnet51!logajan
Subject: Flare spectra
Date: 10 Jun 92 05:19:47 GMT
From: logajan@pnet51.orb.mn.org (John Logajan)
It is easy to believe that spectra from two different flares do not match.
There are several chemcials that produce red coloration, and there are
several mixtures associated with each. By the by, a popular red flare
chemical is strontium nitrate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
Date: 9 Jun 92 16:00:00 GMT
Mike:
As I told Don in another echo (but I'm not sure if he'll get it because of
his hard disk problems), I believe the video is what NASA says it is: a
chunk of ice or other space debris.
If you look closely, there is another, slightly smaller object at around
8:00 from the main object and about 3/4 down the screen. It is moving in the
same direction as the main object (Object A), but much more slowly, as if it
is further away (lower orbit?). When Object A makes its sharp turn and
accelerates, Object B does THE SAME THING AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME
DIRECTION, but again much more slowly. Conclusion: both objects are inert.
The apparent turn-and-acceleration are due to a Shuttle thruster firing at
that moment.
As to the shot, it has problems from the start. It is much too slow for a
laser, and much too fast for anything else, unless it is happening right
outside the Discovery's window, in which case the object it is firing on is
much too small to be anything significant.
I believe that when the thrusters fired, the Shuttle turned slightly,
causing the sun to illuminate a diagonal scratch or rub mark or streak on
the glass in front of the camera. The same effect can be seen when driving
at night. Oncoming headlights will illuminate streaks on your windshield in
such a way as to make them appear "animated"; the light seems to travel
"upwards".
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
--
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: Ufo Video From Nasa
Date: 10 Jun 92 06:38:00 GMT
Hi Mike,
I saw the NASA footage with the object serenely cruising above the
Earth's surface, watched it dart out of the way as something seemed to
aim straight for it. It was pretty amazing! I wonder if anyone has
attempted to enlarge any of the footage?
No doubt, we need to get a closer look.
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic)
Subject: Gulf Breeze Hoax Discussion
Date: 11 Jun 92 01:09:00 GMT
John,
Thanks for your very interesting background info on Gulf Breeze. Of course,
I'm only a long-distance observer, so I can't say anything absolutely.
Nevertheless, based on what I've seen, I feel that Gulf Breeze is a joke that
took root because the local people were predisposed towards belief. This led
to the involvement of outside researchers, some of whom seem to have needed
emotionally to finally get their hands on a paydirt case and were pursuaded
that this was such a case. Of course all of this was set in concrete when the
media got on the band wagon. The truly extraordinary thing is that the
situation has grown and you may well be right that there is a core phenomena
totally unrelated to Ed etc. Nevertheless, I do feel that the someone is
playing funny buggers and that this constitutes the majority of Gulf Breeze.
Cheers, Pony.
--
Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Nasa Video..most Interesting
Date: 11 Jun 92 02:26:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Travis R. Stone
* Originally dated 06-09-92 18:51
From: STONE@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Travis R. Stone)
Date: 8 Jun 92 19:24:56 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Message-ID: <1992Jun8.192456.25461@news.unomaha.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
I've seen the video mentioned; actually, I've seen a version
of it that had quite a bit more stuff on it that was along
the same lines, just a bit stranger. The version I saw included
a segment showing (fairly clearly) two objects that
appeared to be oblate and flickering as though they were
spinning come across the field of view; a fast-moving "streak" comes
up from below---presumably from Mother Earth---and appears to
strike one of the objects. The result? I don't know...at the
instant of apparent impact, the tape "cut away" to another segment.
The version shown to me is currently in the hands of a small group
of private individuals whose names I cannot---and would not---reveal.
I feel that merely stating what I have seen in no way compromises
my promise to them to keep my big trap shut about their posessing
such a tape, and I only mention this to let all of you who have
not seen this video (nor, more than likely, believe that it exists)
that
(A) It most certainly does exist, although I grant you that
my merely saying so doesn't constitute concrete proof
thereof,
(B) It contains rather a bit more than the segment seen on
"Hard Copy"---stuff that left me shaking my head and
feeling a bit disturbed (yeah, yeah---I can hear all the
wits out there smirking: "Yup...I'll BET you're disturbed,
buddy!") that, if those "streaks" really WERE shots, then
we may already be in a "shooting war" with an opponent
we can't hit, and
(C) This NASA nonsense about ice can be definitely ruled out
(especially if you see the other segments of the tape,)
but the possibility of the whole thing being a H-K
(Hunter-Killer) satellite test cannot---until somebody
figures out how to deduce the speed of the objects from
the video tape and arrives at a figure that mitigates
against making the rather extreme turns seen therein.
I may give it a go myself this summer, if I can find
some slack time.
T.R. Stone
University of Nebraska-Omaha
Home of the Toughest Organic Chemistry Instructors in the Galaxy
(On videotape OR off!)
--
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: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
Date: 11 Jun 92 02:28:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Robert Sheaffer
* Originally dated 06-09-92 18:52
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Date: 8 Jun 92 21:17:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Message-ID: <q#=lmw.sheaffer@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
In article <nreads01.707781749@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads) writes:
>Did anyone catch today's Hard Copy (6/5)? (Of course, I hate to admit that I
>saw it myself -- it was an accident.) They showed what I feel is some of the
>most impressive evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial activity. The
>video was shot by one of the astronauts on a recent (the most recent?)
>shuttle mission. I will describe the video as it was shown...
>
>Looking toward the surface of the earth, and just below the horizon, a
>small light moved slowly (relatively, of course) from the right to the left.
>Then suddenly, and without *apparent* cause, the thing immediately executes
>a 90 degree turn and accelerates rapidly off across the horizon and into
>space. Meanwhile, at roughly the same location where the thing was at the
>moment before turning, another something shoots rapidly *up* from earth and
>into space. According to the UFO investigator (pardon me, but I forget
>his name, but he is on the UFO magazine staff), somebody "shot" something
>at it, and the thing anticipated the shot and evaded.
>
>Official explanation from NASA was "it was ice" left by the shuttle. ICE?
>That's a heck of a change in attitude and speed for a piece of orbiting
>ice. Of course, one can't be sure of the distance from the shuttle, which
>would be a vital piece of info. I'm usually not impressed by UFO reports,
>but this was something to see. Anyone else catch it?
I spoke to James Oberg about this. He didn't know it had been on "Hard
Copy", but he's quite familiar with the video. Apparently it's something
that some UFO enthusiast taped off the "NASA Select" cable channel late
one night, got excited, and flew off the handle. The far-out fringe of
UFOlogy has been promoting it ever since.
Yes, it IS a piece of ice, floating in the payload bay of the shuttle
Discovery. It's illuminated by the lights in the payload bay. But what
your Trash TV program surely did not tell you is: what you saw was motion
of the CAMERA, not motion of the object. You see, NASA mission controllers
leave the camera on during the "night", while the crew is asleep. The
camera is then controlled from the ground, with a little joystick-type
arrangement. If the mission controllers want to look over here, or
over there, they just flip the lever, and the camera moves. And if
some brain-dead UFOlogist just happens to be watching as the camera
is turned away from a piece of ice, he says "Wow! Look at that baby
accelerate!!!!!!"
--
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: Re: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
Date: 11 Jun 92 02:30:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Nate Hawthorn
* Originally dated 06-09-92 18:56
From: nateh@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate Hawthorn)
Date: 9 Jun 92 13:54:37 GMT
Organization: Quake Public Access
Message-ID: <qTT4LB2w163w@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
davidson@monet.cs.unc.edu (Drew Davidson) writes:
> The syndicated TV infotainment show Hard Copy showed a NASA videotape
> beamed live from the Space Shuttle Discovery depicting a UFO flying
> above the earth. The video appears to be black and white; the UFO is
> just a speck of light. However, the light suddenly makes a right-angle
> turn and speeds off into space at what appears to be high speed (it
> actually seems to fly on a trajectory away from the camera, but seems to
> go at high speed because it becomes quite dim and disappears as it is
> moving a short distance on the screen). A second or two after the UFO
> appears to speed off, an object shoots up at right angles to the earth,
> somewhat near the position of the UFO a second or two earlier. Don
> Ecker of UFO magazine theorizes that the UFO was making an evasive
> maneuver to avoid being shot at.
>
> NASA claims the object is a piece of ice made from waste water dumped by
> the shuttle on a previous orbit. They have no comment about the
> apparent shot coming from earth, or the apparent right-angle turn of the
> UFO.
>
> Whatever it is, it's very intriguing. It's very hard for me to believe
> it was a piece of ice. I would like to know much more, like what part
> of earth the UFO and shot were over, and if there were any UFO
> encounters in that area on that date. I would also like to know what
> the astronauts on board the shuttle thought of the incident when it
> happened, and I would like to hear all radio transmissions made by them
> before and after the incident.
>
> Any comments on the video?
>
> Drew
> --
> Drew Davidson \\ HELP FULLY INFORM JURORS! TELL YOUR FRIENDS:
> davidson@cs.unc.edu \\ As a juror, you have the right to vote NOT GUILTY
> ** LEGALIZE TRUTH ** \\ if you believe the law broken is unjust or wrongl
> * FULLY INFORM JURORS * \\ applied, regardless of the facts of the case.
I agree, but as you can tell, YOUR GOVERNMENT is trying to say that you
are stupid enough to beleive their cover up!
So the question is: Are you stupid enough to beleive your government?
Are you stupid enough to let them keep covering this stuff up???
The reason we don't know more is that people are being really STUPID!
So:
How can we do anything about this?????
(I'm going back to bed, and watch TV and forget all this and hide in my
little world)
--
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************************
