Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 558
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 558
Tuesday, June 2nd 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
Hard Copy
Science and UFOlogy
Re: Ufo Related Shows
Re: What Can We Do?
Re: Interesting Klass Item
Are abductions separate from UFO Phenomena?
Re: What Happened To The White Spot In W.strieber's Brain?
Re: What Can We Do?
Re: road flares
Gulf Breeze road flares
Gulf Breeze
Science and UFOlogy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Hard Copy
Date: 27 May 92 08:28:00 GMT
(1339) Wed 27 May 92 1:27a
By: Don Ecker
To: All
Re: Hard Copy
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 9:1012/3 5d81636e
Tune into the NBC show Hard Copy on June 5th 1992. I set up a shoot
with them concerning a very interesting video tape I recieved two
weeks ago. This promises to stir up a debate that will be a long
time settling. I can't say more now except it involves NASA and a
recent orbital mission.
Don
--
Don Ecker - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Science and UFOlogy
Date: 28 May 92 06:52:00 GMT
Whoever said that science can't work to discover the nature of
UFOs was mistaken. James M. McCampbell has published a book
concerning some very sound scientific principles that can be
applied to the study of this phenomenon. Below is an excerpt
from his book regarding the Soft Glow that is often reported by
witnesses. In the future, ParaNet will be posting such excerpts
hoping to generate some discussion on various ways that science
can work to instrument and measure the phenomenon. Your comments
are encouraged.
Excerpted from UFOLOGY by James M. McCampbell (c) 1976, Page 25
and 26.
The metallic appearance of UFOs in the previous category is a
result of light reflecting off their polished surfaces. But
witnesses frequently indicate that the UFO itself was luminous.
As distinguished from a wide variety of white or colored lights
that are reportedly attached to UFOs, light is observed radiating
from the entire object or its immediate vicinity. Occasional
references to "sparks" immediately suggest that some kind of
electrical phenomenon is involved.
An electrical discharge of sufficient strength in the air
surrounding a UFO would produce a soft, white glow, known as
corona. Such discharge can sometimes be seen at night along a
high-voltage transmission line but they are not visible in the
daylight. Coronas could be responsible for the typical
distinction between metallic discs that are so commonly reported
in the daytime and diffuse lights most often seen at night. They
would adhere to the UFO surface and gradually dissipate a short
distance away, thereby appearing as the " halo " often described
by witnesses. Unfortunately, an ordinary corona is not likely to
be the correct explanation for the white glow.
The designer of a high-voltage transmission line would seek to
use the smallest possible cable to minimize the amount of copper
required the weight suspended between towers, and the number of
towers per mile of line. He would select electrical potentials as
high as 750,000 volts to reduce the power losses from internal
heating of the cable. High voltage, however, would induce power
losses through corona discharge unless offset by the use of large
cable sizes. As electrical lines of force converge toward the
center of a cable, electrical field strengths at its surface will
be smaller for cables of greater diameter. A well-designed
transmission line will therefore balance these and other
considerations for a minimum construction cost and utilize a
cable just large enough to prevent corona under normal operating
conditions. Under occasional atmospheric conditions favoring
electrical breakdown, corona will occur at field strengths on the
order of 3,000,000 volts per meter.8 The possibility of such
extreme electrical fields being developed near a large object,
such as a UFO having gently curving surfaces, seems quite remote.
Even so, some technical implications arise in the context of
white glow. As some sort of electrical phenomenon is suspected it
can be postulated that a UFO has:
a) a large, negative potential relative to ground that cause
electrons to leak into the atmosphere,
b) an alternating potential that agitates gas atoms in its
vicinity, or
c) an alternating current within its skin acting as an antenna to
radiate energy into the atmosphere.
--
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: Ufo Related Shows
Date: 27 May 92 14:30:00 GMT
In a message to Jim Speiser <05-26-92 22:01> Richard Salts wrote:
RS> If memory serves me correctly, back in '87, or thereabouts, Ted
RS> Koppel did a program on his "Nightline" series about the abduction
RS> phenomena when Strieber's "Communion" (which I thought then and still
RS> do that it is a very good book) and Hopkins' "Intruders" first came
RS> out. Unfortunately, at that time, I didn't know it was on and missed
RS> it but would a show like that qualify in terms of credibility for our
RS> subject? Did you see that edition of "Nightline"?
I did not. Yes, "NightLine" would be a start, but not if they insisted on
doing the usual "prominent ufologist vs. Phil Klass" debate. That debate is
over, we've won that one, its time to get down to some real issues, say for
example, Don Schmitt vs. an Air Force Public Information Officer on the
Roswell crash.
But NightLine would only be the beginning. I think the best vehicle would be
PrimeTime Live, as it has a history of following up doggedly on their
investigations. I don't want to see a one shot deal, I want some reporter to
sink his teeth into the cover-up and not let go.
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: What Can We Do?
Date: 27 May 92 14:48:00 GMT
In a message to Don Sudduth <05-26-92 13:20> Marc Michalik wrote:
MM> Ideas? Well this may be going off of the deep end but over the last
MM> several weeks I have been running an idea through my head. What if
MM> we were to orginize a Dr. Martin Luther King type march on
MM> Washington. It would only work if we were able to get at least about
Sorry Mark, somebody tried that last year. I think it was more along the
lines of camping out on the White House lawn. Only a few hundred people
showed up, mostly of the fringe variety I understand (wearing pyramid hats,
etc.). Somehow I think the field should be a bit more dignified than that.
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: Interesting Klass Item
Date: 28 May 92 05:33:00 GMT
Hi Mike,
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??)
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mrc-crc.ac.uk!sgamble
Subject: Are abductions separate from UFO Phenomena?
Date: 28 May 92 16:14:05 GMT
From: sgamble@mrc-crc.ac.uk (Steve Gamble x3293)
In Bulletin 556, Mike Corbin relayed a message I originally
sent to alt.alien.visitors on internet concerning abductions.
This was a follow-up to an article which appeared in The Times
which stated that reliable surveys had shown that one in fifty
americans believed they had been abducted.
I having been working a few ideas through for several months.
Now might be a good time to start to air these and stimulate
comments.
A common view is that abductions are caused by aliens travelling
in spacecraft coming down and kidnapping people. (OK Guys I know
its not as simple as that :) )
I do not dispute that there is such a thing as the abduction
phenomenon or that 1 in 50 americans believe they have been
abducted.
What I find difficult to account for is the size of the operation
involved if the scenario of aliens in spacecraft is correct.
As stated in the previous post, I would expect there to be
around 3000 UFO reports PER DAY from the USA alone. Given that
maybe only 10% of UFOs get reported that should still mean that UFO
groups should get 200 to 300 reports per day.
Thinking about say the Communion film, Streiber has a number of
encounters with entities before there is even a suggestion of a
spacecraft being involved. Some of the other abduction reports I have
come across do not mention spacecraft or UFOs.
What I want to propose is Abductions are one phenomenon and that
UFOs are a separate phenomenon. If 1 in 50 people has been
abducted that is 2% of the population. If they two phenomena
are independent then we would expect 2% of all UFO reporters
to also be abductees. I have no feel for what proportion of UFO
reporters are abductees, does anybodyelse? The only guide I
could have is that in the UFO Experience Hynek states that 1% of
UFO cases are Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I believe he
included distant sightings of entities and contactees, but he
raises the Betty and Barney Hill case as something different and
he felt uneasy at including it with CE3s. (Hynek's book was
published in 1972, although there were a few abduction cases
very little had been made public at this time)
If the two phenomena are linked then I would expect a significantly
higher proportion of abductees to report also UFO sightings than
the general population and more than 2% of the UFO reporters to
be abductees.
Comments.............
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: What Happened To The White Spot In W.strieber's Brain?
Date: 28 May 92 16:20:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Robert Sheaffer
* Originally dated 05-27-92 15:35
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Date: 27 May 92 05:07:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Message-ID: <dl3kqql.sheaffer@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.paranormal
While we're on the subject of Whitley Strieber, the following appeared
in the November, 1988 issue of BASIS, the Bay Area Skeptics' BBS.
(Call the Skeptics' Board at 415-648-8944 for lots more good stuff!)
The "Transformation" of Whitley Strieber
by Robert Sheaffer
On September 21, 1988, viewers of the popular daytime television
show "People Are Talking" on KPIX, Channel 5, in San Francisco
saw an amazing thing. Whitley Strieber, author of such popular
works of fiction as "The Wolfen", and "The Hunger", as well as
the best-selling and supposedly true accounts of humanoid
visitation in "Communion" an "Transformation", indignantly
refused to let the hosts of the show do any promotion of his
latest book! No doubt the viewers of that show are still
scratching their heads about such inexplicable behavior on the
part of a guest doing a book promotion tour. As the other guest
on that show, the one who was all but ignored by the hosts, let
me explain why that strange scene happened.
You see, forty-five minutes before air time, I arrived at the
studio and was escorted to the Green Room, where guests are
groomed and prepared. There I came upon Whitley Strieber in the
midst of a world-class temper tantrum. He was indignantly
refusing to go on! He apparently expected to be the only guest,
and to have an entire hour to expound his fantasies about the
humanoid "visitors" who are said to be lavishing their unwanted
attention on him, unchallenged and unquestioned. I later found
out that while he had left instructions with those arranging the
tour that under no circumstances would he appear on any show with
Philip J. Klass, he had not ruled out - at least to them -
appearing with some other skeptic. The producer of "People Are
Talking," Karen Stevenson, a young woman of great firmness and
tact, was sitting there quietly enduring Whitley's verbal
assaults. "I don't know who this man is," complained Streiber,
"and I don't know what he will say!" Apparently he expects all
opposing opinions to be cleared in advance! Karen firmly repeated
that she had made all arrangements with his publisher, and with
his publicist, in accordance with their instructions, and they
had raised no objections. The young woman representing his
publicist sat there quietly and somewhat nervously, obviously
wishing she were somewhere else.
Whitley continued his tirade. Pointing to me, he shouted "that
man is going to go on and challenge my mental health. He's going
to call me crazy! He's with that CSICOP, they're just as nuts as
those new-age people. They have a religion of disbelief." In his
short tirade against the skeptics, who he says are in the habit
of calling anyone who disagrees with them crazy, Strieber called
us "nuts" or "crazy" three times. I pointed out the irony of
this, but it was clear from the reaction of all involved that the
best thing I could say at this point was nothing. I kept silent
for a while, enabling him to resume his tirade. He had received
long letters from Philip J. Klass of CSICOP, he said, that were
"crazy," and made no sense at all. He also charged that the hosts
of the show were bound to misrepresent his experiences by saying
that they are alien visitors, while he has never claimed to know
whether or not "the visitors" are extraterrestrial. Those people
who claim alien encounters are just as crazy as CSICOP, he
charged.
Streiber also claimed to be upset about the previous time he was
on the show. Karen recalled that it had gone very well, but
Strieber insisted it was a "stupid" show. She suggested that he
was perhaps confusing it with a show in some other city called
"People Are Talking," of which there are several. No, he
insisted, he remembered it perfectly. The audience at this show
was "stupid", they asked "stupid" questions, and they accused
him of being crazy. "I don't need your show," he continued, "your
stupid show! My book ("Transformation") is number four on the
Best-Seller list. I don't need to do these shows! I'm getting so
fed up with going on shows and having everyone laugh at me!"
Karen emphasised that a live show would be starting very soon, on
which he had agreed to appear, and that he must meet his
commitments. But Whitley still refused to go out and appear or
debate with me. "Let him go on first. I'll just do the final
segment. And DON'T mention my book! I don't want you to mention
my book at all if he is going to be criticising it!" Karen once
again reaffirmed that he had made a commitment. Then Strieber
must have realized that he couldn't win this battle. He gradually
decreased his level of objection, the bluster slowly fading as it
became clear that he was not going to be able to keep me off the
show. "All right," said Whitley, "I will go on - but I WON'T LIKE
IT!" The magnitude of that threat stunned all who were present.
"And I'll never come back!"
At this point we broke to get on our makeup. The assistant
director of the show, Lisa Tatum, had arrived in the doorway of
the Green Room a few minutes earlier, standing there silently in
obvious bewilderment. Karen excused herself to go talk to the
hosts of the show. The makeup man, who had been listening to all
this from the adjoining room, expressed bewilderment to me about
Whitley's behavior as he applied a light coat of powder to my
face. Returning to the Green Room, in the few minutes remaining
before air time, I attempted to engage Whitley in a substantive
discussion, to disarm his hostility. I succeeded to a small
extent. He objected mightily to CSICOP and everything it stands
for, displaying an extreme hostility to science as well. To him,
both CSICOP and the "new agers" are "fascists", because they both
seek to break down the individual.
We went on stage at this point, got our microphones on, and
waited for the show to begin. Whitley said nothing, and still was
refusing to allow the hosts to mention the name of the book he
came to promote, or to show its cover. We came on camera, and as
I expected, the early minutes of the show were entirely his, to
tell his stories of things that go "bump" in the night, things
that allegedly come into his bedroom, carry him up somewhere into
the sky, and poke needles into his skull and nose to implant
probes. He neglected to describe at least on the air, how the
beings allegedly inserted a long, cylindrical probe up his
rectum, or how the female humanoid was very interested in his
penis, as was recounted in "Communion." The situation must have
seemed at least a little odd to the viewers: here is a guest with
many weird tales to tell, but apparently without any book in
which it is told!
I expected to be given a similar amount of time to question the
plausibility and substance of such claims, but I had only the
briefest opportunity to respond. The two hosts then took the show
to the audience for questions - previewed by them - all of which
except one were directed to Strieber. It became clear that I was
never going to get the time to speak I was expecting. I tried
interrupting a few times, but after speaking only a few words,
the hosts moved on to something else. Clearly, some kind of
"arrangement" had been made, keeping my time to the absolute
minimum, probably because they feared that Strieber might walk
off the set. One questioner asked if Strieber had attempted to
trap, or photograph the visitors. Indeed he had, he replied,
using video cameras, still cameras, and other devices.
Unfortunately, something always goes wrong with the attempt, such
as the camera batteries going dead; "the visitors" seem to
possess the ability to thwart all attempts to document their
presence! I was dumbfounded by a question directed to me by co-
host Ross McGowen, as he worked the audience: "you DO believe
that men have landed on the moon, don't you?" Apparently Whitley
had succeeded in "selling", at least to the show's staff, his
notion that to question his visions of "the visitors" was as
perversely blind as those who insist that the space program is a
fraud! I responded that 99.9 percent of the scientific community
do not accept accounts of the kind Strieber relates.
During the commercial break before one of the final segments,
Karen dashed out onto the set to ask Strieber if he wanted his
book to be "promo-ed". "NO!", he flatly replied. I said that I
would like to have MY book, The UFO Verdict, "promo-ed". Whitley
said, still annoyed, "Yes, go promo HIS book!" This was done,
briefly. In the final fifteen seconds of the show, Ross asked
Strieber from across the room if he wanted to mention his book.
"NO!", Whitley snarled, then paused, and sheepishly muttered,
"it's Transformation." Within seconds of going off the air,
Strieber had left the studio. The 'Prima Donna' was still
furious.
In the final analysis, Strieber's visions of "the visitors"
undoubtedly have more to do with religion and psychology than
they do with anything extraterrestrial. Strieber is far from the
first person in history to experience visions of bizarre beings,
and then become transformed into a tireless evangelist seeking to
convince the world that they are real. Many religions were
founded in precisely this manner; indeed, the very titles he has
chosen for these books about "the visitors" places them firmly in
the realm of religion. There seems little room for doubt that
Strieber firmly believes what he is saying. There is also not the
slightest bit of physical evidence that any of it is true. But
truth has never been a necessary element for making a nonfiction
book a success, as we see from the 1987 success of "Communion" as
a #1 Best-Seller, and "Transformation" now seems headed toward
similar success. As skeptics, this will not surprise us, but as
citizens concerned about the future of education and rational
thought, it gives us reasons for grave concern.
--
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
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Marc Michalik)
Subject: Re: What Can We Do?
Date: 28 May 92 21:51:00 GMT
Too bad, I didn't know that it had been tried. Of course, no idea
will work if you wind up having too many people in "pyramid hats" or
people walking around saying "Aliens took me to France for breakfast
and then stuck me with the check, I'm pissed off!"
Do you want me to E-mail you the GEnie topic or are you just going
to go there? It's free, for the $4.95 per month that you already
pay.
--
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: Re: road flares
Date: 24 May 92 19:17:00 GMT
JS> It just sounds like the more parsimonious explanation to
JS> me. Again, if someone can come up with something even
JS> fairly solid that distinguishes these sightings from a
JS> balloon, I'm all ears.
Yeah, I sure can't argue with that. Rex S. mentioned recently that there
had been a few "ufos" that had been identified as flares, but he didn't have
specifics at hand. This in addition to the earlier flare/balloon episode.
And what I've heard that would support the non-flare theories have been
just little bits and pieces; no solid reports.
OTOH, there have been some mentions of the objects moving to windward,
plus I haven't heard of anyone finding debris of any sort.
Anyway, maybe I should buy stock in a flare company.... ;-)
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 road flares
Date: 25 May 92 19:24:04 GMT
> also heard tell that there is some very high-tech and very "deep black"
> testing going on at Eglin AFB, possibly related to whatever is beyond
> Aurora.
The Eglin AFB range is a _huge_ area, plus extends very far out into the
Gulf. So I wouldn't be surprised if there's some "black" testing. Plus of
course there's lots of RPV activity from testing recon stuff to target drones.
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: 27 May 92 22:29:00 GMT
VG> There is no doubt whatsoever that the whole thing
VG> is a hoax and the "UFOs" are flares.
I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but........
It's not that easy. Many of us have been making general pains of ourselves
trying to prove the truth or falsehood of various aspects of the Gulf Breeze
incidents, and we haven't gotten all that far.
There is new evidence that Ed Walters' "road shot" could not have been an
in-camera single exposure....absence of reflections in the truck hood etc.
But there is also new "relatively hard" evidence that the spectral signature
of the "redlight ufo" doesn't match that of a flare. I'll post more on that
soon's I can.
There _have_ been several flare incidents.....they were identified as such
by the MUFON guys on the scene.
I'm leaning towards the idea that at least some of the redlight sightings
have been "the real thing," and that Ed took advantage of an opportunity to
perpetrate a hoax. One person told a skeptical investigator that the strange
red lights have been seen by mullet fishermen (at night) in the area for
several decades.
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: Science and UFOlogy
Date: 29 May 92 22:00:00 GMT
Below is an excerpt taken from James M. McCampbell's book,
UFOLOGY, in ParaNet's continuing series of Science and UFOlogy.
This segment deals with the reliability of reports.
UFOLOGY (c) 1976 by James M. McCampbell
Excerpt taken from pages 2 - 4
Reliability of Reports
By James M. McCampbell
The theoretical question of reliability became quite important
during the years when intercontinental ballistic missiles were
being developed. These weapons, implanted in underground silos in
the western states, must remain on stand-by for long periods but
they must always be operable. They are extremely complex
mechanisms; consequently, many things can go wrong with them. The
strategic posture of the United States is defined by the
existence of these missiles plus the assurance that they would
work if called upon. Every aspect of these weapons, from their
control systems to their maintenance schedules, had to be planned
to meet the stringent demands of reliability. This obligation
fostered a new and powerful tool that is known as Reliability
Theory. 1 This theory establishes the relationship between the
performance of a complex system and its subsystems and
components. If the reliability of the individual components is
known the theory may be employed to compute the reliability of
the complete system. Conversely, if the required reliability of
the overall system is specified, the theory can be used to
establish the requisite reliability of all the constituents. In
the latter case, each element that goes into the system must be
tested extensively to prove that it meets the prescribed
standards. The mathematical statement of reliability is a single
number from 0 to 1.0, similar to the scale of probability.
Absolute reliability, represented by 1.0 is theoretically
unattainable.
This theory has been successfully applied to UFO reports. As
with any complex system, the problem was first broken down into
its finest elements. Such factors as the number of witnesses,
their training in aerial observation, and the circumstances of
the sighting were isolated. Details of the original documentation
were accounted for with emphasis upon interviews of the witnesses
and the professional qualifications of the interviewers. Finally,
the quality of secondary reports than had been prepared from the
original documents was assessed. Reliability Theory was then used
to derive an equation expressing the reliability of a report. One
hundred sixty (160) sightings from Japan, France, Venezuela, and
the U.S.A. were selected and analyzed.2
In 1961, a large, spherical object was observed by a famous
television commentator and hundreds of other people. It hovered
over the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, at two different
altitudes before moving away rapidly to the south. It was
apparently metallic with a steady green light an top and flashing
red lights on the bottom. Just above its equator was a row of
windows. The Reliability Index for this sighting turned out to be
in excess of 0.999! In other words, one can be well assured that
this incident took place according to the reports, although
absolute certainty is ruled out. Even the structural details of
UFOs, such as the windows in this instance, must be taken
seriously when they are included in highly reliable reports.
Other interesting sightings whose Reliability Indices were also
found to be greater than 0.999 are summarized below:
a. Bright light on shadowy object. Confirmed by radar. Scrambled
jet fighter had radar lock-on. UFO broke into three pieces that
all flew away.
b. Rigid submarine-shaped cloud with metallic disc spiraling
around it. Disc flew over a four mile area then returned to the
"submarine."
c. Bright, cigar-shaped object with windows. Hovered then left
rapidly. Emitted strong strands or fibers that evaporated upon
touch and stained hands. d. Ovoid, aluminum-colored object.
Landed on a hill. Grass flattened in rough circle 60 ft. in
diameter. Moved as a white cloud with fuzzy edges.
e. Two convex, disc-shaped objects near a large balloon. Speed
changes and extremely fast departure. Size estimated between 200
and 300 ft.
f. Night lights in rigid pattern. Approached, hovered, then flew
away. Inferred size about 150 ft. No structure discernible but
impression of metallic surface. Car could not catch it upon
departure.
g. Bright glowing object proceeding over hills in undulatory
path.
These examples are especially important because they are quite
typical UFO reports. It would be difficult to dismiss these
events or to interpret them in any way other than at face value.
One word of caution: A report is not proven to be fraudulent
even though it may warrant a low Reliability Index. A single
witness who is neither technically trained nor professionally
involved in aerial observations would rank low on the reliability
scale. Yet a sharp-eyed farmer from Pennsylvania would be
perfectly capable of reporting a sighting with sincerity and
accuracy. Consequently, all reports should be studied without
prejudice, unless of course, a hoax or misinterpretation has been
proven in a particular instance. Only on this basis can the
maximum amount of information be brought to bear upon the
perplexing problem of UFOs.
1. See article, "Reliability of Equipment and Bibliography",
McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol 11, p.
471, 1971.
2. Olsen, Thomas M., Editor, The Reference For Outstanding UFO
Sighting Reports, UFO Information Retrieval Center, Inc.,
Riderwook, Maryland, November, 1966.
--
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 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************************
