Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 568
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 568
Friday, July 10th 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
California Earthquakes
California Earthquakes
UFOCAT coding sheets
California Earthquakes
Re: Nasa Ufo Debate W/ Oberg, Eckert On "larry King Live"
NavalInt + Missing Msgs
Ufos And The Secret Govt
UK CIRCLES
ASTRONAUTS AND UFOs-Part5
Crop Circles
What Can We Do?
Re: ROAD FLARES
Re: UFO CONFERENCES
Crop Circles
Nasa Ufo Debate W/ Oberg,
Re: UK CIRCLES
Re: Crop Circles
Re: SOCIOPATHS
ROAD FLARES
ROAD FLARES
California Earthquakes
Nasa Ufo Debate W/ Oberg,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Marc Michalik)
Subject: California Earthquakes
Date: 29 Jun 92 22:32:00 GMT
There is, of course, no evidence to support this but the government
may be hiding a HUGE secret about yesterdays earthquakes. Those
quakes happened at 4:58 A.M. california time, about 1/2 hour before
dawn. This is exactly when the Aurora spy planes would be coming
over southern california on their way back to base from test flights
over tha Pacific ocean. The Aurora was originally discovered
because it caused small tremors that siemic stations picked up.
Boy, would the American people be pissed off if Aurora caused the
quakes. This would be covered up at the highest levels so we will
never know. Isn't our government just wonderfull!
--
Marc Michalik - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Keithly)
Subject: California Earthquakes
Date: 29 Jun 92 23:17:01 GMT
> There is, of course, no evidence to support this but the
> government may be hiding a HUGE secret about yesterdays
> earthquakes. Those quakes happened at 4:58 A.M. california
> time, about 1/2 hour before dawn. This is exactly when the
> Aurora spy planes would be coming over southern california on
> their way back to base from test flights over tha Pacific
> ocean. The Aurora was originally discovered because it caused
> small tremors that siemic stations picked up. Boy, would the
> American people be pissed off if Aurora caused the quakes.
> This would be covered up at the highest levels so we will
> never know. Isn't our government just wonderfull!
> ---
Boy I find aircraft and earthquakes a little hard to swallow whan you try to
link the two together. No airplane to my knowledge can cause an earthquake..
Mike Keithly
--
Mike Keithly - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Rodeghier)
Subject: UFOCAT coding sheets
Date: 30 Jun 92 23:38:01 GMT
Keith,
I've checked around the CUFOS office and Don Johnson has searched as
well, but neither of us can find the coding sheets you sent.
Unfortunately I'll have to ask you to send copies again. Sorry
about that.
I really enjoyed our talks at MIT. I haven't had a chance to sit
down and compose a summary of my current thoughts about our joint
abduction research, but I will do so as soon as possible. If you
have anything you want to say now, send it along via Mike Corbin as
usual.
--
Mark Rodeghier - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Marc Michalik)
Subject: California Earthquakes
Date: 1 Jul 92 05:12:00 GMT
I don't know if an airplane can cause an earthquake or not. I do
know that one of the ways the exsistance of Aroura was revealed was
that siesmic monotoring devices in sothern California picked picked
the plane up. I would think that that might do it, but I really
don't know.
--
Marc Michalik - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Nasa Ufo Debate W/ Oberg, Eckert On "larry King Live"
Date: 1 Jul 92 05:45:01 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Christophe Meessen
* Originally dated 06-30-92 12:28
From: Meessen@slig.ucl.ac.be (Christophe Meessen)
Date: 30 Jun 92 09:11:45 GMT
Organization: Universite Catholique de Louvain (Belgium)
Message-ID: <Meessen-300692103254@130.104.58.8>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
In article <l4vl24g.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert
Sheaffer) wrote:
>
> In article <-dvl6tl.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert
Sheaffer) writes:
> >
> >Better late than never. Not quite two hours ago, James Oberg (skeptic)
> >and [Don] Ecker of "UFO Magazine" were the guests on "Larry King Live"
> >(approx 6:30 PM PDT, 9:30 EDT Friday 6-26). The subject was the alleged
> >"NASA Space Shuttle UFOs" that had earlier been seen on Hard Copy. If
>
>
> OK, now I have seen the show, and the "famous" NASA UFO video. Gee,
> I was absolutely UNDERWHELMED by the "UFO"! It is so obviously a tiny
> piece of debris floating alongside the orbiter. Then there is a flash,
> representing either a water dump or the brief firing of an attitude-
> control thruster (both frequent). The piece of debris is pushed outward
> from the craft by the force of this. A few seconds later, a second piece
> is also pushed outward. (That's the "secret weapon sent up to intercept
> it!".) Anyone who thinks that these little pieces of debris are "alien
> spacecraft" is ready to enlist in the funny farm.
"Obviously" ? What is that for an argument ? How deep was your
investigation ?
On what informations do you base your assertions ? Can you prove these
assertions ? Is "enlist in the funny farm" a scientific argument ?
Can you prove that the object seen was a piece of debris ? Where did you
get this idear that the flash was a water dump or the brief firing of an
attitude-
control thruster (both frequent) ? Is the frequence enough to prove that
the flash is due to one of your assertions ?
Irony has never be a scientifical and productive argument.
Why can't we study the phenomenon with a more objectif point of view.
Gather facts as much as possible. This video images are facts. Where there
other informations that could be used to correlate the images ? It's size
..
Every thing else is just noise, no solid and usfull information.
> Ecker came on strong against Oberg in prosecutorial form, asking him
> questions that imply his role in a "government cover-up." Larry King
> had to restrain Ecker several times.
This attitude will NEVER lead to a collaboration with the "government". You
can be shure that the "government" will avoid people with unwise behaviour.
Even if they wished to share informations and a scientifical study of the
phenomenon, they can't thrust people with such behaviour.
> Please, UFOlogists, help out the "debunkers". Jump on the
> bandwagon of this "NASA UFO Video," and proclaim it's "genuine evidence"
> of aliens! Then everyone will be able to see how credulous you
> really are! :)
>
>
> --
>
> Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>
Please, everyone, help out to solve this scientifical problem. Please keep
to solid evidence and solid deductions. Keep the wiseness to accept
whatever conclusions comes out of these evidences.
Please, everyone, avoid irony in one way or the other. This is just noise
and shows that you don't have the maturity or the wiseness to enter upon
this subject. Take some backward movement first.
Bien cordialement,
Christophe MEESSEN
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brent.Wilcox@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Brent Wilcox)
Subject: NavalInt + Missing Msgs
Date: 1 Jul 92 05:09:00 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?
I seem to remember seeing your post on Fido UFO, can't say for sure
right now, as the local hub has apparently been down more days than
it's been up recently. But remember, some e-mail simply flies
into limbo on these nets... Its a perennial glitch.
It's more entropy than some intentional filtering...
--
Brent Wilcox - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Brent.Wilcox@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brent.Wilcox@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Brent Wilcox)
Subject: Ufos And The Secret Govt
Date: 1 Jul 92 05:09:00 GMT
>>This is a partial summary of the meeting of 06/20/92 at the Berkeley
>>Conference Center in Berkeley, California, sponsored by the 2020 Group.
>>There were perhaps 100 attendees.
Thanks for re-posting that, Mike. Frankly, the 20/20 Group strikes
me as another bunch of expert hand-wavers, heavy on form, low on
content. And with a curious lack of focus. For every good piece of
info the seem to put out, they undermine it with something more
dubious, as if they haven't learned to tell the difference.
--
Brent Wilcox - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Brent.Wilcox@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield)
Subject: UK CIRCLES
Date: 27 Jun 92 19:42:00 GMT
A UK researcher has just sent me a listing of a number of crop
formations, the first of the current UK season. I'll list them for
your information:-
1. April 30th Sutton Scotney, nr Winchster, Hampshire.
Circle. Geometrically circular perhaps too geometric to be genuine.
72ft diameter. Complicated floor pattern reminiscent of 'swastika'
circle of 1990. Taylor and Andrews first sighting reported
hoaxing-others subsequently have doubts about this because of swirl.
2-3 May 4th East Kennet, Wiltshire.
Small 5ft circle pair in oil seed rape. Seen by member of Beckhampton
group ballooning. No apparent point of entry. No further details.
4-8 May 7th Cornwall-location protected but on one barley field.
4-6 set of three circles unjoined. 7. Ringed circle 4.5ft diam: 6 inch
fine ring. 8. Circle with tail 7.5ft diam.
9 May 9th Alton Barnes UFO sighting.
Nine lights in formation seen 2230hrs by several observers. Some of
lights appeared to be rotating. What may make this event of the year
is that the whole event has been captured on video.
10 Lurkely Hill nr Alton Barnes Date??
May: Circle in oil seed rape-said by some to be a "scruffy mess" not a
complete circle perhaps just wind damage-with no further details.
11 About May 10th Avebury Trusloe, Wilts. Yatesbury Airfield.
25ft circle in oil seed rape.
12 About May 12th Shibolton, Hants.
Ringed circle with pointed spur-possible hoax.
13 About May 12th County Wiltshire.
Cicrle with 3 pronged shaft-access restricted by farmer.
14 May 17th Stoke Orchard Airfield, nr Cheltenham, Gloucs.
Small 10ft circle in oil seed rape. Seen 7.30pm by member of
Beckhampton group ballooning. Some wind damage in field but not
adjacent to circle. No visible sign of entry.
--
Keith Basterfield - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic)
Subject: ASTRONAUTS AND UFOs-Part5
Date: 2 Jul 92 06:08:00 GMT
> Thanks so much for the article! I enjoyed reading this as did
> others, I am sure!
> Also, your info on Gulf Breeze is on its way and should be there
> next week!
Hi Linda,
I am pleased to hear you enjoyed the article. It was my pleasure to present it.
I might sound like a sceptic sometime, however, I am only interested in the
truth.
Vlad
--
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: Crop Circles
Date: 2 Jul 92 06:24:00 GMT
I have received information that a French scientist, Dr. Jean Jaccque Velasco,
who works for CNES which is equivalent of NASA, will shortly present a paper to
a seminar held by Society for the Scientific Exploration in Princeton, in which
he will explain his findings on Crop Formation Phenomena. He believes the
formations are the results of military experiments using Laser CO2 or
Infra-Red lasers. The tools used are not satellites but other airborne devices.
Vlad
--
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: What Can We Do?
Date: 2 Jul 92 06:43:00 GMT
> Clearly, the type of research that I would enjoy seeing
> develop relative to UFOs would not be headed by someone
> "convinced" that UFOs as alien spacecraft really exist, nor by
> someone who finds the holy grail of debunking as a personal
> crusade.
I'll second that Tom.
> phenomena that can create physical observation can be proven by
> scientific method. By the same token, the spiritual psychic and
> alternative world concepts cannot be totally dismissed out of
> hand.
Yes, we must look at all possibilities.
> As to raising the money, it would almost have to come from a
> single financial backer - or a small consortium; all too many
> times people have been deprived of the monies by those who claim
> to have some special insight or knowledge. SO far, no one, to
> my knowledge, has proven such a claim
Agreed, as long as financial backer(s) do not have some preconcieved ideas as
to what UFOs are. As for those who claim to have some special "insight or
knowledge" - I personally prefer to keep miles away from them. Thanks for
your comments Tom.
Vlad
--
Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: ROAD FLARES
Date: 2 Jul 92 05:49:00 GMT
HI Pete,
Don't blame you for being skeptical at all. If I lived in G.B. I'd try
to figure it out, too. Only--I was there in 1990, and kiddo, there is
a lot of water down there! One of their bridges was 3 miles long over
open water, and those bays snake around for miles....
Don't know what else to say!
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 CONFERENCES
Date: 2 Jul 92 05:52:00 GMT
Hi again,
I'll be listening to my "science conference" with both ears, and will
try to have something intelligent to say about it.
Take care,
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: Crop Circles
Date: 3 Jul 92 04:46:01 GMT
> I have received information that a French scientist, Dr. Jean Jaccque
> Velasco, who works for CNES which is equivalent of NASA, will shortly
> present a paper to a seminar held by Society for the Scientific
> Exploration in Princeton, in which he will explain his findings on Crop
> Formation Phenomena. He believes the formations are the results of
> military experiments using Laser CO2 or Infra-Red lasers. The tools used
> are not satellites but other airborne devices.
Will be looking forward to reading it.
Mike
--
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: Nasa Ufo Debate W/ Oberg,
Date: 2 Jul 92 15:23:00 GMT
MC>> OK, now I have seen the show, and the "famous" NASA UFO video. Gee,
MC>> I was absolutely UNDERWHELMED by the "UFO"! It is so obviously a tiny
MC>> piece of debris floating alongside the orbiter. Then there is a flash,
MC>"Obviously" ? What is that for an argument ? How deep was your
MC>investigation ?
MC>On what informations do you base your assertions ? Can you prove these
MC>assertions ? Is "enlist in the funny farm" a scientific argument ?
MC>Can you prove that the object seen was a piece of debris ? Where did you
MC>get this idear that the flash was a water dump or the brief firing of an
MC>attitude-
MC>control thruster (both frequent) ? Is the frequence enough to prove that
MC>the flash is due to one of your assertions ?
While I don't go as far as Sheaffer, I have to agree that Don's tone was
more combative than I would like to have seen (as I have already
discussed with him). I think both sides are lacking in gentlemanly
conduct here. Can't such a conversation go something like this:
"In my opinion, the images shown were very likely debris from the
orbiter, knocked galley west by a thruster firing. In any case, there is
no reason yet to dismiss such a possibility."
"I disagree. A thruster firing would have caused the entire frame to
move...." etc.
There is absolutely no reason for the invective displayed by BOTH sides.
This is not a war. This is a disagreement over the interpretation of
data. I personally believe that the side that engages in the LESSER
amount of personal invective, and uses less emotionally-charged
language, at least comes across better to the public. Let the facts and
the data do the yelling.
Jim Speiser
* OLX 2.1 TD * Press "+" to see another tagline.
--
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: UK CIRCLES
Date: 3 Jul 92 06:14:00 GMT
Hi Keith,
And so the crop circle mystery continues... Is the harvesting season
over for now in the U.K.? If not, perhaps more circles will appear.
Thanks for that post; many of us were wondering if anything would occur
this year.
Best,
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: Crop Circles
Date: 3 Jul 92 06:18:00 GMT
Hi Vlad,
Thanks for post about Dr. Velasco who will present his ideas to CNES
about crop circle formations. The first thought that popped into my
mind was do these military operations (which produce the circles) also
claim to produce the circles world-wide, and not just in a small area.
Did Velasco address that issue?
Regards,
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: SOCIOPATHS
Date: 29 Jun 92 17:36:05 GMT
I've known a few myself, but details would be in poor taste. I can see it
now that they are gone from my life, but at the time, I was actually taken in
by the scams they pulled. Most often I felt sorry for these people and
thought I could help them or reason with logic. I guess the biggest fool was
me for falling into the manipulating traps. Or "Nice guys finish last!"
Thanks for the two good articles about possible floating hoaxes at GB. The
old laundry bag trick... Actually it doesn't have to helium, candles will
raise one of these things very well. A plastic bag in the bay would draw less
attention than a balloon also. Meanwhile if it was tethered there would be no
polution or evidence. I wish I was living a bit closer (instead of two days
away) so I could go to the other side and look down while everyone else is
looking up. One of the major arts of magic is diversion.
--
Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
Subject: ROAD FLARES
Date: 1 Jul 92 01:28:02 GMT
JH> I still don't feel very comfortable assuming that the
JH> incidents are caused by flares....it just doesn't feel
JH> right that all the current lights are flares...but I do
JH> feel comfortable with the idea that many if not most are
JH> flares or misidentifications.
If I get the chance to go back up there I intend to take a boat
out into Pensacola Bay right near the bridge. That would be an
excellent vantage point since this is the area that I spotted the light.
Good idea about splitting from the pack. This would help you in
scoping out and other triangulation. If you get the chance to
see Bruce Morrison, please do ask him about the light seen coming
from under the water. We have noted this has been reported other
times as well. I'm VERY un-convinced that's it a "flare".
Don
--
Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: ROAD FLARES
Date: 1 Jul 92 05:19:03 GMT
> If I get the chance to go back up there I intend to take a boat
> out into Pensacola Bay right near the bridge. That would be an
> excellent vantage point since this is the area that I spotted the light.
Yes, that sounds good, or at least out onto the old bridge/fish pier. I
believe most lights have been seen right near the bridge.
> from under the water. We have noted this has been reported other
> times as well. I'm VERY un-convinced that's it a "flare".
I'll be sure to ask around about 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: California Earthquakes
Date: 3 Jul 92 02:17:01 GMT
> be pissed off if Aurora caused the quakes.
Not logical. You can be sure the nuke tests in Nevada cause somewhat more
ground shock.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Nasa Ufo Debate W/ Oberg,
Date: 3 Jul 92 17:44:01 GMT
> While I don't go as far as Sheaffer, I have to agree that Don's tone
> wasmore combative than I would like to have seen (as I have already
> discussed with him). I think both sides are lacking in gentlemanly
> conduct here. Can't such a conversation go something like this:
>
> "In my opinion, the images shown were very likely debris from the
> orbiter, knocked galley west by a thruster firing. In any case, there
> isno reason yet to dismiss such a possibility."
>
> "I disagree. A thruster firing would have caused the entire frame to
> move...." etc.
>
> There is absolutely no reason for the invective displayed by BOTH
> sides.This is not a war. This is a disagreement over the interpretation
> of
> data. I personally believe that the side that engages in the LESSER
> amount of personal invective, and uses less emotionally-charged
> language, at least comes across better to the public. Let the facts and
> the data do the yelling.
Since I did not see Larry King Live, I cannot comment on it, but I would like
to see a formal request be sent to NASA asking them to document their
findings. I think that this is in order and is not asking too much. What
could we do to get the ball rolling?
Additionally, I feel that we need to formally have that video enhanced and
studied.
Mike
--
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************************
