Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 566
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 566
Wednesday, July 8th 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
NavalInt + Missing Msgs
Nasa Footage: 10billion Watt Lasar
Lasar,Nasa Footage
Re: Nasa Footage: 10billion Watt Lasar
Re: Don's GB Sighting Report
Re: MIT Conference
Re: Don's GB Sighting Report
Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
ASTRONAUTS AND UFOs-Part 2
ASTRONAUTS AND UFOs-Part 3
ASTRONAUTS AND UFOs-PART4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve.Beatty@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Beatty)
Subject: NavalInt + Missing Msgs
Date: 20 Jun 92 03:59:01 GMT
Hello, all ParaNetters!
I'd like some help with an issue of potential importance to everybody,
censorship of information on some of these computer networks. I posted
a listing for "Naval Intelligence" in Washington, District of Criminals,
twice on Fido's UFO echo. It never echoed back, and no one I know ever saw
this message. I think it's important for the reasons outlined below in
excerpts of personal communications about this problem. Any ideas?
- - -
To elaborate on my message about Naval Intelligence: Briefly, I believe
most debunkers of the Lazar claims base their disbelief on their assertion
that there is no "Office of Naval Intelligence." What I posted positively
refutes that claim with an address, phone number, listing of mainframe
hardware, and four names and titles for the agency that Lazar claims to
have worked for, the same agency that debunkers insist was dissolved in
1966 or similar nonsense. My info came from a publically-available source
dated 10/91. Here's where it gets weird: this was posted on Fido_UFO from
CCS BBS here in town, but it never echoed back to me; no idea how far it
got. I reposted again, also on Fido_UFO, via Clark Matthews' Wrong Number
BBS (Clark indicated other posts had been disappearing lately too), and
again, no local echo! No answers yet from Clark - he was gonna check w/
John Hicks to see what could have happened. I'm baffled. Any ideas? To
continue, I faxed a copy of the listing to Bill Knell at Island Skywatch
in NY. He has a list of questions from me and Clark Matthews that he will
ask Mr. Lazar to answer in person when they meet in a few days. They deal
mostly with physics, and I plan to create a file for upload based on his
answers. Bill said in a letter I got today, "Can't wait to hear more
about the Naval matter...THANK YOU again for all the great info!" Please
see what you can find out about this =before= we go onto ParaNet with it.
I wanna have my ducks in a row. <8-)
- - -
RE: disappearing Fido messages - seriously, I wonder if all messages
aren't routed thru a mysterious "filter" of some kind. This isn't the
first time for me, or others on the system. We should start keeping track
of these unexplained "glitches" and report every occurence to the sysop of
the originating BBS. It would be his responsibility to figure out how,
where, and why it happened, and report all findings to the originator, and
all other sysops on the net. = OTHERWISE, WE DON'T *HAVE* A NET! = Let's
keep on top of this Naval Intelligence thing too - I'm just about ready to
post this on ParaNet unless I see a really good reason not to. Do you
agree? We need answers, not BS.
- - -
Here's the original message uploaded 4/23/92 and again around 5/1/92:
........................................................................
Yes, Virginia, there seems to be a =REAL= "Naval Intelligence" group:
I ran across this listing at the library today, in an industry directory
of "TOP COMPUTER EXECUTIVES" - fall 1991 issue, p.37 col.1. VERBATIM:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
US NAVAL INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITY (F)
4600 Silver Hill Rd
Washington, DC 20389
Phone: (703) 545-6700
TCE: LtCdr C S Williams, Dir - Data
Processing
SYS: Ron Grine, Manager -
Executive Software
OPS: James R Braxton, Manager -
Automated Data Processing
SUP: Peggy Mundey, Manager -
Technical Suppport
Systems: CDC Cyber 170, DEC
PDP-11/70, 2-DEC System 2040
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Abbreviations decoded: (F) = Federal Government
TCE = Top computer executive
SYS = Systems executive
OPS = Operations executive
SUP = Support executive
Maybe someone here is acquainted with one of the people listed above,
or might be bold enough to give 'em a call. Since they all work for us,
perhaps they wouldn't mind answering a few questions, or directing us
to someone who could. Perhaps the results of inquiries could be posted.
I intend to examine this same business directory further, especially in
the area of Nevada, New Mexico, and California. I'll post anything
interesting here.
Anyone care to suggest any companies or government agencies to check out?
I'd be glad to... <8-)
73, Steve N0CRE (Can't Remember Everything...)
* SLMR 2.0 * The worst thing about censorship is #################
.........................................................................
Can anyone shed some light on what happened to this message (twice) ?
Sorry about reopening the "who did Bob Lazar really work for" question,
but my post seems to show that the agency is alive and well, and could
bear some serious investigation. Maybe that's why the MIBs killed it.
---
--
Steve Beatty - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Steve.Beatty@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Nasa Footage: 10billion Watt Lasar
Date: 20 Jun 92 05:19:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Brick Wilbur
* Originally dated 06-19-92 12:27
From: wilbur@tuna.cps.msu.edu (Brick Wilbur)
Date: 18 Jun 92 23:31:07 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Message-ID: <1992Jun18.233107.22814@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
I talked to someone who works for the United States Govt on Wednesday.
I recently told him of the research that I was doing for the series of articles
that I was to write for some newspapers. These articles are about the UFO
controversy. Anyways, I mentioned to him if he had seen the footage from the
shuttle. He said, no.
As soon as I described what occurred, his eyes fixed on me and said, " I know
what it was that shot up...a lasar." I said, "A lasar? How do you know that?"
He replied: "They got a lasar that shoots up into space. I've seen actual
footage of it. Its in the desert in New Mexico, I believe... They showed them
making sure that there were no planes in the way when the shot it."
I thought this was interesting. So I did some research.
At Los Alamos National Laboratory is a 20 BILLION WATT LASAR!!!
And get this, the name of the lasar is A U R O R A ! ! ! !
Bizzzzzaaaaarrrreeee!
Brick
--
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: Lasar,Nasa Footage
Date: 20 Jun 92 05:19:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Brick Wilbur
* Originally dated 06-19-92 12:27
From: wilbur@tuna.cps.msu.edu (Brick Wilbur)
Date: 18 Jun 92 23:56:26 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Message-ID: <1992Jun18.235626.24811@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
By the way for those people who will ask me for the citation of the Aurora
lasar is:
SOURCE: Fusion, May-June 1985 v7 p14
TITLE: Aurora Laser hits record 20-billion watts.
AUTHOR: Charles B. Stevens
ref. no. 03756347
Brick
--
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: Nasa Footage: 10billion Watt Lasar
Date: 20 Jun 92 05:20:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Mark Schlegel
* Originally dated 06-19-92 12:27
From: schlegel@odin.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Date: 19 Jun 92 01:37:00 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Message-ID: <schlegel.708917820@odin>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
wilbur@tuna.cps.msu.edu (Brick Wilbur) writes:
> As soon as I described what occurred, his eyes fixed on me and said, " I know
>what it was that shot up...a lasar." I said, "A lasar? How do you know
that?"
>He replied: "They got a lasar that shoots up into space. I've seen actual
>footage of it. Its in the desert in New Mexico, I believe... They showed them
>making sure that there were no planes in the way when the shot it."
This laser is used for ranging satellites and the moon by bouncing short pulses
off retroflectors on the satellites or off retroflectors left on the moon by
the Apollo astronauts. The flight time is measured by atomic clock to arrive
at the distance. The site in New Mexico mentioned above is actually McDonald
observatory in Western Texas (unless a new system has been built that's
unknown to me).
>I thought this was interesting. So I did some research.
>At Los Alamos National Laboratory is a 20 BILLION WATT LASAR!!!
>And get this, the name of the lasar is A U R O R A ! ! ! !
>Bizzzzzaaaaarrrreeee!
Remember that although the power is enormous (2x10^10 watts) the pulse
duration is so short that the energy involved is very small because
energy = power * time
Mark Schlegel
schlegel@odin.unomaha.edu
--
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: Don's GB Sighting Report
Date: 19 Jun 92 15:54:00 GMT
Don:
Thanks for that report. Very interesting, and very important. Glad to have
it on the network for all to see.
What would be the chances of pooling some funds and hiring a helicopter to
"chase" the damned thing? Has anyone thought of that? It should be done
fairly surreptitiously, and should be ready to fly on a moment's notice. I
wonder if anyone here on ParaNet would be willing to donate to such a cause?
Why don't you scrape up some price quotes, and maybe some of us here can
help out?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: MIT Conference
Date: 19 Jun 92 15:55:00 GMT
Mike:
While I see the need for some confidentiality, and I was glad the conference
was as restricted as it was, something about the copyright restrictions
makes me suspicious. Can't put my finger on it...
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: Don's GB Sighting Report
Date: 20 Jun 92 06:16:00 GMT
Hi Don,
Perhaps you have noticed that I have mentioned that I was at the
Pensacola MUFON Conf. in 1990. I explored the area quite a bit, and
know the Holiday Inn, 3-mile bridge (it really is 3 miles long). I
even got to meet Vicki Lyons who introduced some of us ladies to
Debbie Tomey, abductee of Budd Hopkins' book INTRUDERS.
I did not go to the beach to look for anything, though. I'm not sure
the object was showing up with such regularity at that time.
Doesn't Bob Oueschler live in Maryland?
Best,
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: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
Date: 19 Jun 92 05:09:00 GMT
> By all means post your article and correspondences with J. Oberg.
> Remember, a lot of us are new to this field, not old-timers like
> you and Jim S.
Hi Linda,
Thank you for your interest in this article. I'd be more than happy to
reproduce it here. As an introduction first - this article and correspondence
was featured in the UFO Research (S.A) Inc. Newsletter No 32, July/August 1978.
I was Liaison Officer for UFO Research South Australia, an organisation which
I founded in 1968. (That was before Keith Basterfield and I founded UFO
Research Australia which is a national organisation - UFOR (SA) was, and still
is, a South Australian research organisation and an associate of UFORA). After
reading Oberg's article I wrote to the editor of Analogue on behalf of UFOR
(SA).
I am going to reprint the article as it appeared in the UFOR SA Newsletter.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASTRONAUTS AND UFOs
James E.Oberg is a 33 year old old computer specialist at NASA MISSION CONTROL,
HOUSTON, who has widely published popular articles on space and science. He is
also associate editor of Space World - the magazine of Space News, published in
the USA. These works are a private interest and have no connection with his
official duties, nor they can be construed to reflect any government policies,
programs or conclusions.
An article titled "Unidentified Fraudulent Object", written by Mr Oberg,
appeared in the November 1976 issue of ANALOG, Science Fiction - Science Fact
magazine, published in the USA. In this article Mr Oberg deals with alleged
sightings of UFOs by the US astronauts, however, he was also somewhat critical
of UFO groups and their willingness to accept "astronauts and UFOs" stories
which have been published in newspapers and magazines all over the world.
In October 1977, we wrote the following letter to the editor of ANALOG.
"Dear Mr Bova,
Unidentified Fraudulent Objects is an excellent report, on what must be one of
the best UFO investigations ever. It is a pity, though, that Mr Oberg appears
appears to have encountered only the worst aspects of UFO research, with the
result that he is too-all embracing in his condemnation. Contrary to his
impressions, there are many careful and competent UFO investigators whose sole
aim is identify the unknown, whatever it may be.
"It is rare, however, to find such people active in UFO organizations, because
like Mr Oberg himself, they tend to be strong individualists. It is only
recently that most of the serious investigators in Australia have cosented to
co-operate in a loosely bound organisation which in turn co-operates with its
American counterpart. (The american counterpart is CUFOS
--
Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic)
Subject: ASTRONAUTS AND UFOs-Part 2
Date: 20 Jun 92 05:07:00 GMT
ASTRONAUTS AND UFOs
PART 2
UNIDENTIFIED FRAUDULENT OBJECTS
"UFOs are real, all right, - It's some of IFOs that are phony"
By James E. Oberg
------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) COPYRIGHT 1976
Reprinted from ANALOG - Science Fiction, Science Fact - November 1976
with with kind permission of the author of this article- James E. Oberg.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The first contact between human beings and alien civilizations is amjor topic
in science fiction. It has been a fruitful theme for stories and novels about
Martians, Moties and manifold other creatures. Many observers today believe
that cuch contact has already taken place n earth, or in space near the earth,
The "extraterrestrial hypothesis" of UFOs claims that they are space craft from
other worlds.
Hardly a UFO book or movie fails to point out that "astronauts have seen them
too." If the tens of thousands of earthbound witnessed and photographs may be
questionable. at least (so these advocate maintain) the space reports are
reliable. The "astronaut sighting" provide a challenging controlled case study
in UFO methodology. A researcher should be able to determine all the variables,
obtain extensive transcripts and verified photographs, and observe teh
begaviour of prvious researchers.
I have been interested in space mysteries for a long time. This phenomenon was
intriguing, but I refrained from serious work because I felt certain that the
field has already been adequately covered by "UFO believers" and the
UNiversity of Colorado (Condon Committee") investigators. My unique background
in computer science, Ait Force operations, astronautics, and historical
research did not seem to promise andt additional insights.But after an initial
investigation this year, I changed my mind. After three further months of
intensive effort, I came to some startling and eye-opening conclusions,
conclusions never seen in print. Compelling evidence has accumulated to
convince me of the truth of the following:
1. There are no "astronaut UFO sightings." All reported cases have been
readily identified as entirely prosaic events.
2. Previous research efforts heve been conducted with individuals clearly
lacking the proper credentials, experience and insight to penetrate the
"mystery."
3. A number of specific individuals in this country and overseas have been the
main source of the persistent published reports of "astronaut UFO sightings ",
in absolute variance with the facts known to themselves but witheld from the
general public. Evidence has been altered, omitted, or fabricated to support
myth.
My research furthermore revealed carelesness, gullibility, and distortion on
the part of respected UFO ressearch groups succh as MUFON, APRO, NICAP, and
CUFOS. One may certainly hope thet these froups, and rhe hubdreds of
hardworking, dedicated, and honest members of their investigation teams, have
been more careful when it comes to investigating terrestrial sightings.
What is the evidence? Always realizing that it is impossible to "prove a
negative", what can I prove about the "best cases" of the "astronaut UFO
sightings" genre? Is there a slightest suggestion that anything mysterious and
unexplainable is involved?
The bst cases of Gemini program (196501966) were described by Dr. Franklin
Roach of the Condon Committee as a "chalenge to the analyst". Despite the man's
impressive experience with the space program, one can easily see the gaps which
challenged his own powers of analysis. It is also clear that the UFO groups
eagerly accepted the "endorsement" of the sceptical Condon Report which
otherwise was seen by many to have been a whitewash of the goevernments's UFO
activities.
Roach, now living in Hawaii, listed the sightings on Gemini-4 and Gemini-7 as
practically unsolvable. Other researchers have compiled even longer lists,
going back to Mercury-7 (a "domed saucer" in a photograph), Mercury-9 ( "radar
sightings of a visual target"), Gemini-1 ("four objects tracked by radar for
one orbit"), early X-15 flights in 1962, and later Gemini flights including
Gemini-10, Gemini-11, and Gemini-12 ("four objects, not stars"). During Apollo,
reports were published about Apollo-11 and Apollo-12 being chased on the way to
the moon, while "Apro Bulletin" had to caution its readers that there was no
reason to suspect that UFOs had shot down Apollo-13. Skylab photographed more
UFOs, including a paddle-shaped objectof immense size, a strange reddish
framework, and a cigar shaped object which has just buzzed an Army helicopter
in Ohio. These, at least, published reports.
As with terrestrial reports, an observer may be inclined to agree that "most
may be explainable", but that a hard core of cases (perhaps 20%, perhaps 5%,
perhaps 1%) are authentic. UFO evidence, unlike proverbial chain which is as
strong as its weakest link, is oddly enough as weak as it strongest link. What
this means is that dsiproving a single case, or almost all cases, proves
nothing; there is alway one more case which might be a true UFO. To demolish
that posibility, a sceptic must takle what the believers consider to be the
best case, and show just how good they really are. Up until my research, not a
single investigator had done that. After my research (to be published in
excruciating detail), the "astronaut UFO cases" will never be the same.
The Gemini-4 of Major James McDivitt is by large the "best" case of the class
during fifteen years of Soviet and American manned space flights. A photograph,
allegedly taken by the astronaut, has been picked by NICAP as one of the four
best photogaphs ever taken enuehere. The retired astronaut has appeared on
numeruous TV talk shows, was invited to participate in a 1976 Playboy magazine
UFO panel, and recently taken pasrt in a long playin UFO record album.
CONTINUED IN PART 3.....
--
Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic)
Subject: ASTRONAUTS AND UFOs-Part 3
Date: 20 Jun 92 07:41:00 GMT
ASTRONAUTS AND UFOs
PART 3.
Early on the two- man four day mission in June 1965, McDivitt reported seeing
and phoogrphing a cylindrical object with an arm sticking out. It was
apparently on collision course with the capsule. Ed White, tye copilot, was
asleep at the time. Back on earth, NASA asked the Air Force to check with the
North American Defense Command (NORAD) space radars in Colorado to see what
other satellites were near enough to Gemini-4 to account for the sighting. A
computer run came up with a list of dozen objects , mostly debris. One large
satellite, called Pegasus-3, was about a thousand miles away at the time of
sighting, but might have accounted for the report. But it was too far away for
the spave pilot to have seen the details which he described.
Upon returning to earth, McDivitt searched through all the films taken on
flight. He could not find the ones he took of the object, a fact which some
observers found ssuspicious. Shortly thereafter, a photograph appeared in print
(I was never able to find out who was first with this accomplishement) which
purported to be "McDivitt's 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.
My own search leads me to the inescapable conclusion that McDIvitt had caught a
glimpse of his own Titan-2 second stage booster which was in a nearby orbit.
This hypothesis sounds trivial and laughable at first (at least those were my
own impressions), with the major objection being the question of why it took so
long to prove such an obvious answer. However, many facts have never been added
up, and there have been few paople 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 their
most persuasive cases.
Here are the relevant facts, never published together:
1. McDivitt had been maneuvering around the booster early in the flight in the
world's first attempt at a space rendezvous. He broke off the attempt after an
unknown amount of successes when the capsule fuel ran low.
2. McDivitt continued to see the booster on subsequent revolutions when the
orbits of the two satellites (which were nearly parallel) crossed.
3. McDivitt saw his UFO at the same point in the Gemini orbit where he had last
seen the booster several hours before.
4. Mc Divitt had earlier seen the booster at least once but failed to recognize
it due to sun glare. He reported an "unkown object" to Mission Control, only to
correct himself moments later when he recognized the characteristic beer-can
shape of the booster, metal straps and insulation hanging off it.
5. At the news conference a few days after the flight, McDivitt clearly stated
thet the UFO looked just like a rocket booster.
6. McDivitt saw the UFO through small Gemini window (about the angular size of
this magazine at arms lenght - 25cm) badly smeared by Ed White's attempt to
clean them during his walk in space the previous day.
7. The object drifted across the field of view while the capsule was in slow
tumble, and then was lost in the glare of the SUN.
8. McDivitt's observation that the object seemd at first to have been on
collision course can only mean one thing to a pilot: it held a constant "angle
off", or relative angle of the line of sight. This clearly implies an object
in parallel orbit.
9. McDivitt later complained to flight surgeons that his eyes were very red and
teary at this part of flight. "I didn't think I was going to be able to hack
it", Mc Divitt reoprted to earth the following day. A large accidential urine
spill a few hours before the sighting had not helped his eye sight.
10. The booster did remain in orbit somewhere for at least another day before
burning up in the atmosphere, according to NORAD figures.
11. NORAD had been asked to plot an intersection of the Gemini orbit and "other
satellites", which was taken to mean "other previously-launched satellites".
The booster, which was in a neraby orbit, was NOT on the list of objects
supplied to NASA.
12. McDivitt was the first astronaut to attempt to make visual range estimates
while in flight. Many of his readings were off by a fact of ten; his experience
helped later crewmen be more accurate.
13. Gemini-4 was the first long American space mission, and the first on which
photography was attempted on large scale. Exposure settings in space were
uncertain, and a very large percentage of Gemini-4 photographs were badly
exposed. Many photographs were aparently taken with th lens cap still in place.
14. McDivitt completely disassociated himself fro the "McDivitt UFO"
photograph, and reiterates his contention the he never saw anything on film
which looked like his UFO. Since he had copies of the film manifests and log,
he was able to determine that he had been shown all film exposed on the flight.
15. 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.
Where do these facts leave us when we consider them all? What do they add up
to? Where do they leave "McDivitt UFO?" UFO researchers and writers have been
repeating this story for more than a decade without many of these fifteen
facts. Where does that leave your trust in them? Clearly the main mystery is
why and how this case ever achieved teh notoriety and fame which it did. The
mystery is how a major "anti-UFO" study can leave it unsolved, and how a UFO
group can pick an overexposed, smudged photograph as one of the four "best UFO
photographs ever taken."
CONTINUED IN PART 4.............
--
Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic)
Subject: ASTRONAUTS AND UFOs-PART4
Date: 21 Jun 92 00:47:00 GMT
(Actually, I agree: the photograph is a lousy shot and proves nothing, but it
still does qualify as one of the best ever compared with its competition.)
I naturally expected that McDivitt himself would be curious to see this new
development in a puzzle which has been bothering him for a decade, so I sent
him an advance copy of the manuscript. In public, he has recently said, "I was
never able to find out what it was, and nobody else ever did either." The air
of mystery was enhanced by McDivitt's often quoted opinion that nobody will
ever solve this UFO sighting.
After eight weeks, McDivitt returned my manuscript with a brief disappointing
note. With the time spent on talk shows and records, he did not have time to
study the report or offer any comments or criticism whatsoever. He did "glance
through it," wished me luck as a writer, and subtly informed me that he was not
interested in any solution to a puzzle which continues to bring him publicity
and attention.
Another famous case, recently revived, concerns the Gemini-11 photographs of
what NASA identified as the Soviet Union Proton-3 satellite. NORAD prediction
(the computer was projecting forward some sightins made a day earlier) put the
Soviet satellite a few hundred miles behind the Gemini over the Indian Ocean on
Sept 12, 1966. The crew, however, reported an object quite close in. Their
photographs show resolvable detail and large angular size. Therefore, say UFO
investigators, the object was "too big to have been at the range of Proton-3,
or much closer than Proton-3." This whole line of reasoning collapses when the
actual range is computed. Since the Proton was in the final stages of orbital
decay (it burned up 36 hours later), it was running far ahead of its predicted
schedule. Once I had obtained several consecutive orbital predictions over the
final few days, I was able to determine just how far off the initial NORAD
estimates had been: several hundred miles per day. The contradiction between
range and size vanished.
Overlooked by the same researchers (either they never saw it and were
superficial in their study, or did see it and chose to ignore it) is a visual
descripton of the object given by astronaut Charles "Pete" Conrad. He
describes an object which looks like Proton-3, just as Soviet space program
analysts in Washington D.C. maintain that the NASA photographs show an object
which looks like the Proton satellite. The shape of the Soviet object is known
because models are on exhibit in a museum in Moscom, but UFO researcheres
continue to use an arbitrary and wholly eroneous geometry to "prove" that the
photographs cannot be identified with Proton-3.
If these serious "astronaut UFO reports" are so easily solved (easy only in the
sense of obvious solutions once all the relevant facts hae been determined, a
process which took more insight and effort than anyone had ever before applied
to the problem), what purpose can be served by spending time with the lesser
cases? My detailed report treats every one of them in exhaustive precision,
but a summary will deomonstrate all that can be learned from them.
On Mercury-7, astronaut Carpenter was photographing a poorly inflated balloon
subsatellite ejected from the capsule in an unsuccessful attempt to get visual
tracking data. X-15 pilots, like Mercury and Vostok spaceman, were plagued by
"fireflies," flaking paint and frozen droplets of fuel and water floating near
their spacecraft. The Gemini-12 astronauts were the victims, not of a UFO
visit, but of a deliberate misquotation: at the news conference they described
how they threw overboard four bags of equipment and saw them a few orbits
later. Gordon Cooper saw what he thought was a UFO while he was a fighter
pilot in Germany, but in his latest public appearnce on the UFO record with
McDivitt, he never mentioned his space flight. The Skylab photos were space
debris and a strangely shaped structure on the surface of the Earth.
It is immediately obvious that the reports of this caliber would not long hold
the attention of the news media. There must be some driving force behind it
all, some agency which continuously brings "astronaut UFOs" back in the
limelight again and again. The evidence may be counterfeit as well as
contrived, but it serves to keep the subject in the public mind and to lend
credence to the who UFO phenomenon.
One of the most widely printed astronaut UFO photographs is from the Gemini-7
missions. It shows two octagonal objects with strange luminous force fields
glowing beneath them as they fly in formation over the clouded Earth hundreds
of miles below. It has been widely reprinted in UFO magazines. It has been
widely publicized in travelling slide shows given by serious UFO lecturers. The
photo is a forgery. An authentic Gemini-7 space photograph which shows the
nose of the spacecraft and sunlight glinting off two roll rockets thrusters
was retouched to make the black spacecraft body fade into the blackness of the
dark Earth background. The two lights were left mysteriously hanging in space.
The fake was so transparent that a simple inquiry at the NASA photo archives
in Houston would have uncovered the fraud. I was the first - and only - person
to ask. I talked with photo analyst Dick Underwood in building No.8 at the
Johnson Space Center (formerly the Manned Spacecraft Center). He had viewed
every photograph ever brought back from space by astronauts. I asked him
point-blank if he had ever found anything strange. "There are a lot of things
to photograph in space," Underwood pointed out. "We have photos of insulation
fragments, gloves floating out of open hatches, fuel and urine droplets,
boosters and rendezvous targets, flaws in the negative, dust in the cabin
between the lens and the window, and so on. Nothing has really stumped me for
long."
"So there were no UFOs," I pressed. "Unfortunately not," chuckled Underwood.
"I'm kind of disappointed not to find something really intersting."
Other visitors to Underwood's office have apparently been far more sceptical
than I. While researching a film (UFOs Past, Present and Future) billed as a
"documentary," investigator Alan Sandler came to the same office (it is open to
any member of the press, who may order copies of any photograph ever made by
astronauts in space). He was looking for UFO evidence, or was looking for
evident that NASA was hiding evidence. One series of photographs turned out to
be very useful. They were used in the movie and were reprinted in the book of
the same name, authored by Richard Emenegger. They showed three lights in a
row agains a dark background; Sandler added that NASA "said" they were Arena
tracking lights, with the clear implication that it was an obvious coverup of
a true space mystery. Tracking lights, indeed, was the obvious implicit sneer.
..........Continued in Part 5...................
--
Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.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************************
