Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 560
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 560
Monday, June 8th 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
"white" Spot In Strieber's Brain
Ufo Siting
Re: Communion
Re: Ufo Related Shows
Re: What Can We Do?
Important Announcement
Re: Interesting Klass Item
Re: Gulf Breeze Hoax Discussion
Re: Ufo Related Shows
Re: What Can We Do?
Meeting Announcement
truth of the belgien ufo's ?
Re: Ufo Related Shows
"anza Ufo" Video
Gulf Breeze
Gulf Breeze
Science and UFOlogy
Gulf Breeze
Belgium
"White" spot in Strieber's brain
ROAD FLARES
Gulf Breeze Hoax Discussion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anson.Kennedy@p0.f25.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: "white" Spot In Strieber's Brain
Date: 31 May 92 19:45:00 GMT
> Given the source (Robert Scheaffer, a Skeptical
> Inquirer writer) and given CISCOP's overwhelming
> penchant for describing anybody who has a positive
> interest in any paranormal subject in the most
> belittling, derisive, patronizing and derogatory terms
> available, I have quite severe reservations about
> Scheaffer's alleged "description" of Mr. Strieber and
> how Strieber is supposed to have acted on the set of
> KPIX.
It's easy enough to check. Call KPIX and ask.
--- Anson
--
Anson Kennedy - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Anson.Kennedy@p0.f25.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Ufo Siting
Date: 2 Jun 92 05:19:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Jeremy Gilbert
* Originally dated 06-01-92 20:12
From: gilbert@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Jeremy Gilbert)
Date: 30 May 92 01:15:59 GMT
Organization: Bull HN Information Systems Inc.
Message-ID: <1992May30.011559.22787@mips2.ma30.bull.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Don't get your hopes up, this isn't anything earth-shattering. I
didn't get abducted. No star maps were dispensed. The following is, however,
completely factual to my knowledge. No artistic license has been employed, nor
any other form of exaggeration, purposeful omission, or general out-and-out
lying. Disclaimers aside, on with the article:
1987, Thompson, Connecticut.
It was a clear, dark night and I had finished driving some friends
home and was on my way home.
If you have ever driven through parts of the North-East or any other
heavily wooded area at night then you may have noticed that the space between
the trees above the road affords a rather limited view of the sky in most
places. I noticed something up there. At first I figured it was only an
airplane or helicopter, but there were three things about it that caused me to
pay attention to it.
1) It had two bright white lights oriented such that (if it were an
airplane) the lights would be on each wing.
2) It was moving along the road in such a way that it was always ahead
of me, and always in view.
3) It was not moving quickly relative to my position as I would expect
a fixed wing aircraft to do.
Now, as I was driving I tried to rationalize this. All the items are
explainable. I am not an expert on aircraft anti-collision lighting, however
I would be somewhat surprised to learn of white anti-collision lights mounted
on either side of an aircraft and pointed AFT as they would have to be if the
aircraft were moving in the same direction as me and staying ahead of me.
I am a flight student and as of yet I have neither read about nor seen any
such thing. But, as I have said, I am not an expert on aircraft or aircraft
lighting systems.
The UFO (and I use that term strictly according to definition) may
have been on a course that placed it directly ahead of me along the road
that I was driving only by coincidence. So there is nothing at all necessarily
mysterious about item (2).
Item (3) could be explained if the UFO were an helicopter or
hovercraft (a word that I will use to refer to a Harrier jet or other such
aircraft). A hovercraft would be inexplicable in its own right since
Thompson is not near any military installation. And the only other type
of aircraft that I know of that is capable of the maneuvers that I witnessed
is a helicopter. I don't know much about helicopters and I knew even less in
1987 so that was my best bet.
The UFO set me to wondering. So, I started blinking my headlights
in the sequence of prime numbers. (I'm not sure why I do this when I see
potentially odd things in the sky. Presumably it is to prove that I am an
intelligent being. I have often wondered how many perfectly normal terrestrial
pilots would beg to differ on that point :-) Yes, I really did this.
Nothing particularly interesting happened immediately. The UFO didn't
blink back like I had hoped it would. I just kept driving and watching and
occasionally looking at the road to make sure I didn't drive off the road or
into anything important. Then it occurred to me that I had gone around several
curves and this object was still with me. This is when I got really curious.
Spine started tingling and everything.
I knew this could still be coincidence, or explainable by other
less plausible arguments (such as: perhaps it was a helicopter with a pilot
with a sense of humor).
So I decided to really get to the bottom of this. I drove on until
I got to a spot with fewer trees and had a pretty good view of the sky and
then I pulled over.
This is when the fun starts.
The moment I pulled over the UFO no longer continued its course along
the road I was on. It veered off to the West (to the right of the road I was
on traveling South), which was perfect because that placed it in the part
of the sky that I had the best view of. It then stopped. The UFO appeared
motionless. It was hovering.
I turned off my car's engine. Got out of the car and watched it for
over a minute while it simply hovered. The two white lights seemed to be
pointed in my direction.
Now the most remarkable thing, the only inexplicable thing, about what
I was observing was that I HEARD nothing. I could not hear any kind of engine
noise whatsoever. It was summer time and there was the sound of tree toads and
insects all around me, but any aircraft in that proximity, especially a
helicopter or hovercraft would certainly have been audible, without any doubt.
An air balloon would make sense here, but would not be capable of the maneuvers
that the UFO executed.
After about a minute or so the two white lights suddenly turned off.
Then, against the faint back-lighting of the sky, a could just barely see
the thing moving. It was too dark for me to make out the shape of the thing.
I could only tell that it was moving towards me. I watched it pass directly
over me. As it crossed the road I could just barely hear something. It
didn't sound like an airplane or helicopter. It didn't sound like your
traditional UFO (like somebody went nuts with a Moog synthesizer). It was
very quiet and sounded like the wind.
It went behind some trees. End of UFO experience.
Now. A few notes about me. I don't drink (at all) or do drugs, or
partake in any other kind of mind-altering activity that might lead to "seeing
things". I have never passed out or have had any kind of delusions that I
know of. I was not on any kind of medication. My memories of that evening
seem consistent (no hours mysteriously disappeared, my friends agree to the
time that I remember driving them home, etc.) In short, I have considered the
possibilities and honestly cannot think of any way that this could have been
imagined, fantasized, or dreamt.
I am open-minded, but critical. I did get excited about what I
saw, but I also attempted to rationalize it and was unsuccessful, and therefore
I have concluded that what I saw was strange and not a part of my previous
experience, a UFO.
I believe in E.T.'s insofar that I accept the probability that alien
life exists. I would like to know for sure that the UFO was other-worldly,
but the jury is still out on that one. For now, though, I fancy that it was.
Questions, critisizms, and possible explanations are welcomed (post
if you like, but please E-mail to me also as I have a hard time keeping
current with newsgroups).
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jeremy Gilbert (aka. Burl) | "They said Bill Clinton subscribed to |
| Bull HN Information Systems | Playboy when he was in college. He |
| Billerica, Mass. 01821 | said that it was true, but he never |
| gilbert@mips2.ma30.bull.com | looked at the pictures." -Burl |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: Communion
Date: 2 Jun 92 04:53:00 GMT
Hi Richard!
Thanks for reply. I have only read 3 of Strieber's books. I "liked"
"Communion," but when I read "Transformation," I began to doubt both
Strieber's credibility and sanity. There was a part where the Visitors
instructed Strieber to give up Oreos or some kind of cookie, and that
just seemed like nonsense to me. HOWEVER! Now that I have been a
baby ufologist for 2 years, I also know the aliens give people nonsense
messages and say deceptive things. So perhaps I'm more tolerant today
of silly instructions via aliens.
Did you ever read Strieber's book "Majestic?" I liked it best of all
the three he wrote with UFO themes.
Now I'm going to have to ask you to tell me again which chap. in
"Communion" I need to look at, and I will do so, and write back.
Thanks a million,
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: Ufo Related Shows
Date: 2 Jun 92 05:08:00 GMT
Hi Richard,
How about Jerome Clark of CUFOS?? (Can I help??)
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: What Can We Do?
Date: 2 Jun 92 05:28:00 GMT
Hi Tom,
It was with interest I read your message to Jim Speiser. Yes, what
can we do? I hate ridicule, and sometimes I can ignore it, and some-
times I can't. I have a whole group of friends in California who know
absolutely nothing of my interest in ufology. I don't know what they'd
think, and I don't want to lose them, even though at the moment they
are "fair weather friends" because of the distance.
However, I am very happy to know my dear friends here in Arizona (and
for the other folks I have met on this BBS), but I have to put up with
some sarcasm (gentle sarcasm, but there nonetheless) from my husband.
I have decided to just keep doing "my thing" and am going to the MUFON
July conf. alone. I guess we have decided to agree to disagree.
But I did get a smarty remark from my step daughter who laughed and
inquired why was I flyhing to the MUFON conf. when I could just get the
aliens to give me a lift, and there were lots of ha-ha's.
I guess for some it will take a personal experience...
I hope your idea can get off the ground!
Best regards,
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Important Announcement
Date: 3 Jun 92 08:39:00 GMT
ParaNet is now going on its sixth year of operation. During that time,
ParaNet has strived to be the most reliable and informative information
service in the world dealing with issues of the paranormal. Our growth
has been tremendous and has been funded solely out of pocket.
However, we have reached the point where the equipment for ParaNet's
central office is very tired and in need of retirement. This was
brought home to us as forcefully as possible this week when the hard
disk crashed and could not be resurrected, resulting in a loss of
service for several hours and the failure of some important mail to
reach its destination. We are doing everything we can within our
limited resources to keep things on an even keel, but it's not always
possible to squeeze more blood from the turnip.
We are desperately in need of *immediate* funding for some new
equipment to replace that which has died. It is our fervent hope that
those of you out there who may be in a financial position to assist us
will respond generously to our plea for help. We do not make requests
like this frequently or lightly, but an emergency is an emergency, and
it is critical that our main office be able to stay on the net.
If you are in a position to help, please send email to "mcorbin@csn.org"
or call (303) 431-8796. Thanks to you all.
--
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.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Interesting Klass Item
Date: 3 Jun 92 04:04:01 GMT
>You mentioned the "infamous Daniel Fry photo" (of a UFO) and by
>that I assume you mean the absoluteley,clear, unmistakable
>photo shown on the
>cover of "UFO Crash at Roswell." (Hoe DID that photo get on
>that
>book cover anyhow??)
I don't recall answering this. I have been swamped with work. So, excuse
the delay. I understand that Schmitt and Randle did not have anything to
say about the design of the jacket of that book. I also understand that
they were not too happy with the photo selection.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze Hoax Discussion
Date: 3 Jun 92 00:39:00 GMT
Pony:
I second your Gulf Breeze message with a vengeance. It was to avoid
precisely this prospect of decades of "wondering" that I wrote my open
letter to Ed Walters, in which I exhorted him to "come clean now." I even
gave him a financial motivation: he could write another book on how he
fooled the world's leading ufologists. (To no avail; I never received a
response from him). Your analogy with the Cottingley fairies is a good one,
but I think we can at least take heart with the fact that no one, to my
knowledge, actually BELIEVED the sisters for that long, especially after the
art of trick photography became known to more and more people.
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: Ufo Related Shows
Date: 3 Jun 92 00:41:00 GMT
In a message to Jim Speiser <05-28-92 14:57> Marc Michalik wrote:
MM> I keep seeing that name, who is Phil Klass?
MM> ---
No one important.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: What Can We Do?
Date: 4 Jun 92 00:31:00 GMT
> We need a center for research. We need salaried professionals and we
> need sufficient funds to continue major lines of research. At the
> moment we have none of this - and the few competent souls that carry the
> torch are often crushed by negative press and self serving
> entrepreneurs.
I fully agree, but we need more. We need standards and ethics. We also need
people who are capable, via professional training, of separating their
religious and philosophical belief systems from the phenomena long enough to
look at this thing with a critical, objective eye. There are too many
self-proclaimed "gurus" out there trashing the whole field of research,
putting forth their own views as if they were fact.
Finally, we need people who are *serious* about getting to the answers who can
make a committment of time and money to see this through. I see this as the
largest obstacle to ever getting anywhere. I believe that this was Hynek's
major point of frustration.
So, are you volunteering your resources? :-)
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: Meeting Announcement
Date: 4 Jun 92 01:14:00 GMT
The following announcement is provided by ParaNet Information Service as a
public service. It is not to be construed as an endorsement by ParaNet.
Global View/2020 Presents
Investigative Journalists
Michael Lindemann, Author of "UFOs and the Alien Presence"
and
Ralph Steiner, Public Affairs producer, KPFA
will present
UFOS & THE SECRET GOVERNMENT (A public symposium)
Powerful new evidence suggests the U.S. Government has engaged in secret UFO
research for decades. Perhaps CONTACT has already occurred.
Questions to be explored at a daylong event.
Saturday, June 20, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. at Berkeley Conference Center,
2105 Bancroft Way (at Shattuck) in Berkeley.
Call 510-540-6038 for ticket information.
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Christine.Schmid@f10.n2403.z2.FIDONET.ORG (Christine Schmid)
Subject: truth of the belgien ufo's ?
Date: 1 Jun 92 19:37:00 GMT
Hello All!
I hear from someone that the belgian ufos has destroyed the computer of the
illuminates where they have stored the transferdata of all credit card business.
Is this the truth?
He says, the illuminates plans to collapse the currency regime worldwide and
the et's delayed this for years with the belgian operation.
I will enjoy for any truth information. Please no desinformation and no lies!
--
Christine Schmid - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Christine.Schmid@f10.n2403.z2.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Marc Michalik)
Subject: Re: Ufo Related Shows
Date: 5 Jun 92 04:22:00 GMT
No one important. Yea, I've seen enough said about him to know that
he is a big skeptic or something. You're right, we don't need them.
They are all over, the "jerks" we are trying to convince.
--
Marc Michalik - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: "anza Ufo" Video
Date: 31 May 92 17:43:00 GMT
> Very impressive that they took the equipment
> out there, but disappointing that they didn't use it to its full
> potential.
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.
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.
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
Date: 31 May 92 17:47:01 GMT
> Another question: Why has not a certain "scientific" UFO research
> organization used a small, hand-held spectrometer to analyze the light?
> This would give some clear indication of its composition, which might
> turn out to be magnesium.
A recent article in the Pensacola Beach _Islander_ by Bland Pugh notes that
Gary Watson's team has shot some spectra....
A photograph of a redlight ufo was shot through a diffraction grating, and
immediately thereafter, a shot of a far-away flare (setup) was shot through the
same diffraction grating, same film etc. According to Watson, the spectra
do _not_ match. There was no indication of in which ways the spectra did not
match; atmospheric crud, dust, moisture etc. could account for the differences.
No other info at this point.
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
Date: 31 May 92 17:56:02 GMT
> Thanks for the update John, I will pass this on to my colleague who is
> reading all he can on Gulf Breeze at the moment. Much appreciated.
The Gulf Breeze thing is a really tough one.....all sorts of people make all
sorts of assertions but no one has been able to support those assertions with
unimpeachable evidence. Lots of things point toward fake photos and flares, but
no one has been able to conclusively prove that the photos are fake and that
all the sightings are of flares.
The person who claims that he and Ed Walters faked the photos showed, if
anything, "better" photos than Ed. Plus, the photos couldn't have been faked
in the manner he described.
Some of the redlight sightings have definitely been flares...but all of them?
Anyway, it's rather wierd.
Probably the best overview is Bruce Maccabee's _Gulf Breeze Without Ed_ in
last year's MUFON Symposium Proceedings, just in case I didn't mention that.
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: Science and UFOlogy
Date: 31 May 92 17:59:03 GMT
He didn't mention another possibility as a cause for the corona....the
buildup of a static charge as a result of friction from the object's passage
through air.
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
Date: 2 Jun 92 06:39:02 GMT
> I agree with you Mike, but you know by now that some "scientific"
> researchers and organisation will investigate reports only as far as it
> suits them.
_Very_ valid point. Somewhere along the line, some of the lead investigators
became "true believers" and stopped really investigating. Those who did not
were ostracized.
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: Belgium
Date: 2 Jun 92 06:42:03 GMT
> Well, these guy's went into nitpicking the number of RADAR stations and
> are convinced that something called "Ionospheric Deflection" did it now.
Ahh...is that a new phenomenon?
I thought radar, being usually a rather high-frequency signal, would for the
most part go straight off into space except for the special backscatter
systems. But those aren't exactly on every street corner.
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: 2 Jun 92 06:45:04 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.
Also, Whitley sort of behaved like a spoiled child in his "farewell letter,"
so that supports Schaeffer's story.
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: ROAD FLARES
Date: 2 Jun 92 06:46:05 GMT
> Should be about to get the IUR article on "flying road flares"
OK, I'll be looking for it. Thanks very much.
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: 2 Jun 92 07:20:06 GMT
> What a bloody shame it'll be if Gulf
> Breeze has anything like the longevity of the Cottingley fairies.
Somehow I have a feeling that's exactly what will happen.
If I might indulge in a little rambling.....
About two years or so ago, I became intrigued with the Ed Walters photos. I
couldn't understand how photos that appeared so extremely hokey could be taken
seriously. My mind wouldn't let me rest, so I kept picking at it.
A guy on Fidonet UFO echo, Ray Griffin, kept prodding me to talk with the
principals in the case. Ray's sort of an example of "high strangeness" himself,
or he has a better line on what's happening than we do. He's widely believed
to be "Believer Bill," although he denies it. However, the Believer Bill photos
were shot in Ray's yard. Anyway....
"Talk to the principals," he'd repeat.
So I did.
I quickly discovered that it wasn't anywhere near as cut-and-dried as it
appeared.
No one could prove that the Ed Walters photos were fake. Sure, they looked
goofy, and we could find many things that were consistent with hoax methods,
but we couldn't find the "string," so to speak. The latest is that there's no
reflection where there should be a reflection, but again, that's not entirely
cut-and-dried.
Ed aside.....
Rex Salisberry, a skeptic's skeptic, has investigated and documented
literally a couple of hundred ufo-related incidents in the Pensacola metro
area in the past few years.
There's a general belief that Gulf Breeze is a small town out in the boonies.
..but it's really an across-the-bay bedroom community, and part of a huge
metropolitan area.
Rex firmly believes that there have been many "real" ufo incidents in the
area, a significantly higher number of incidents than could be considered
"normal," but he doesn't believe Ed Walters had a "true" ufo incident until
one of the much-later red light sightings along with about 30 other witnesses.
BTW, long before that, Ray suggested that I think in terms of a "joke that
turned into reality."
In short, Rex will insist that there's been a "real" ufo flap in the area
while just as strongly insisting that the Ed Walters case is a hoax.
BTW, Rex led Pensacola MUFON until he jumped the "party line" on the Ed
Walters case; he's been pretty much drummed out of MUFON within two years after
being awarded MUFON's Investigator of the Year citation.
The real point of all this rambling is that what we call the Gulf Breeze flap
needs to broken down into its several parts...
One part is the Ed Walters case. It may be true (we haven't managed to prove
that it isn't), or it may be an opportunistic hoax.
Another part is the past and continuing red light sightings...one side
presents evidence that the red lights are flares, then the other side presents
evidence that a red light sighting is not a flare...we're forced to conclude
that they may be both. That is, some of the red light sightings may be valid
unknowns mainly because spectra don't match sample flare spectra, and the
lights/objects do aerial manuevers that balloon-borne or parachute flares
couldn't possibly do. And some of the red lights illuminate their own smoke,
drop bits of burning material...they're definitely flares.
Yet another part is the non-redlight, non-Ed wierd stuff, and there's quite a
bit of it. Many of us speculate that the number of reports surfaced simply
because the Ed Walters case and other reports made it "ok" to report ufo
incidents. We have no idea what would be a "normal" number of incidents in that
area, but the number of reported long-past and recent incidents seems rather
high.
In the long run, if we completely ignore the Ed Walters case, investigators
have received and investigated so many reports, many highly credible, that the
North Florida-area incidents really qualify as a real flap, rather than just a
goofy hoax.
BTW, if you wonder, I'm firmly on the fence (ouch). My gut feeling is that
Ed's a fake, but _something_ is happening.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
********************************************************************************
For permission to reproduce or redistribute this digest, contact:
DOMAIN Michael.Corbin@paranet.org
UUCP scicom!paranet.org!Michael.Corbin
********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********
'infopara' at the following address:
UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
For administrative requests (subscriptions, back issues) send to:
UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!infopara-request
DOMAIN infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
To obtain back issues by anonymous ftp, connect to:
DOMAIN ftp.uiowa.edu (directory /archives/paranet)
Mail to private Paranet/Fidonet addresses from the newsletters:
DOMAIN firstname.lastname@paranet.org
UUCP scicom!paranet.org!firstname.lastname
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
