Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 567
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 567
Friday, July 10th 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
Astronauts And Ufos-part5
MUFON Schedule
ROAD FLARES
Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
Gulf Breeze Hoax Discussion
NavalInt + Missing Msgs
Re: ALL
Re: ROAD FLARES
Re: (AURORA)/WANT INFO......
Re: CLOSED ABDUCTEE CONFERENCE
Re: UFO CONFERENCES
ROAD FLARES
Mit Conference
Re: Ufo related shows
Re: "white" spot in strieb
Re: "white" spot in strieb
Congrats to Don Ecker!
Re: Happy Birthday, Flying Saucers!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Astronauts And Ufos-part5
To: cyrill@scicom.alphacdc.com
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 92 12:37:24 PDT
* Forwarded from "ParaNet UFO Echo"
* Originally from Vladimir Godic
* Originally dated 06-20-92 18:26
"But that's exactly what they were," Underwood told me plaintively. We stood
together over a lit viewing board in his laboratory, looking at the entire
sequence from which Sandler had selected just two shots. The Agena was
brilliantly lit by the sun, then the Earth darkened beneath it, and finally
it too faded into darkness. All that was finally visible was a row of
tracking lights. "I brought this whole sequence to Hollywood to Sandler, but
he wasn't interested in using all of it," Underwood explained.
"Unfortunately, he just used what he had taken."
Every few years a new report comes out of Berkely, California, that Apollo-12
astronauts were followed on the way to and from the moon. The source is Dr
James Harder, research director of APRO. He seems to have found the secret
information in an article in Saga magazine. The quotations are indeed
accurate. Astronatus Conrad, Gordon and Bean were joking about flashing
lights visible in space, lights which quite obviously came from tumbling
fragments of their own booster rocket which was in a nearby trajectory.
Conrad's own words on the matter (he has verified the quotation directly to
me) are direct and to the point:
"They've been after me for years because we were followed by a UFO on the way
to the moon. That, of course, was untrue. The guy who came up with it was
going by our transcript where he saw debris from our own rocket and were
joking with the ground crew about it. He took this out of context. I
called the ground and said: `Hey, gang, we are being followed, there is some
flashing object out there.' Some scandal sheet took that and made a helluva
story out of it."
Harder's version is that Conrad, and his crewmen, are being forced to lie to
the American people by some secret government agency that can control ex-
astronatus but cannot intimidate college professors. There is a simpler
explanation, and it is that Conrad is telling the truth. What that implies
about Dr Harder and APRO is something else.
Two of the most respected UFO researchers in the country are Dr J. Allen
Hynek and Dr Jacques Vallee, leading officials of the Center for UFO Studies
in Evanston, Illinois. In their latest book, The Edge of Reality (Hentry
Regnery, Chicago, 1975), they reveal the quality of their scientific research
by publishing a "Table of UFO Sightings by Astronatus." Aside from
misspelling, wrong dates, and completely discredited reports, they
demonstrate that they did not even read their own book carefully: Mercury-9
is launched a year before Mercury-8, Voskhod-2 is launched a year before
Voskhod 1, Gemini-4 is launched a year before Gemini-3. The quality of their
accuracy leaves much to be desired (Hynek disavows any responsibility for
this section of the book.)
While UFO devotees claim that astronauts are ordered never to discuss UFO
sightings, they proudly display quotations from astronauts indicating the
possibility that UFOs may be real (astronauts have no special inside
information, and are just as well-informed, or as badly misinformed, as the
average citizen). Even the quotes can be questionable.
On November 27, 1973, chief astronaut John Young was asked about life in the
universe and he was quoted to the effect that "there are so many stars that
it's mathematically improbable that there aren't other life sources in the
universe." The AP wire story from Seattle started off with the sentence,
"Astronaut John W. Young says that odds are that unidentified flying objects
do exist." Before you could say "UFO flap," the punctuation in the sentence
had been rearranged. Vallee gives the quote as follows: "Odds are that UFOs
exist" - Astronaut John Young.
The pattern of "astronaut UFO sightings" in the news now becomes clear. The
object seems to be to create enough smoke so that people will suspect that
there is fire somewhere. Probably the two most original and persistent
rumor- mongers of this type are George Fawcett and Gary Henderson, whose
stories are eagerly reprinted nad embellished by writers like Hayden Hewes
(of the "International UFO Bureau"), Major Donald Keyhoe, and Bob Abborino
(of the National Tattler, "the most respected name in people-to-people
journalism."
A revealing look into the mentality of such writers was afforded to me by an
exchange of letters with columnist Gregory Kanon of Halifax. His weekly
newspaper feature "The Unknown," mentioned the Gemini-11 case and closed
dramatically with the words, "Not surprisingly, NASA no longer accepts the
satellite explanation. The file on the case is now marked with one large,
unmistakable word - UNIDENTIFIED.'
When I objected to Kanon's interpretation and presented my own analysis, he
evaded responsibility for the story, claiming that he was just reporting
somebody else's conclusion. He clearly was also taking no responsibility for
the truth or falsehood of the opinion, preferring instead to pass on another
juicy rumor, suitably dramatized and embellished from his own imagination.
In one local newspaper, my letter to the editor was carried, explaining what
really happened on Gemini-11 and what journalists like Kanon had made of it.
But there were dozens of other papers with hundreds of thousands of readers
for whom Kanon's opinion is the ultimate authority and last word. It should
be clear by now that the "astronaut UFO" phenomenon is a MANUFACTURED
PHEONOMENON - loosely based on actual events, but essentially created in the
imaginations and fantasies of UFO writers and "researchers." Not a single
case has the slightest merit. There is not a shred of evidence - either
photographic, anecdotal, material or otherwise - to demonstrate that any
astronauts has ever seen an object which might suggests that the Earth is
being visited by other spacecraft.
What the evidence overwhelmingly does demonstrate is the lengths to which
even the most respected UFO groups can and will go to prove their point of
view. It there is good evidence elsewhere, why the concentration on
misquoting astronauts, forging photographs, and insinuating coverups?
Why the need to convince the public that UFOs must exist because "even our
astronatus have seen them?"
SUCH PROOF OF EXISTENCE OF UFOs MUST BE SOUGHT AND FOUND ELSEWHERE,
IF IT EXISTS AT ALL. THE PAYOFF FOR POSITIVE PROOF WILL BE SO HIGH
THAT THE EFFORT IS WORTHWHILE AND REAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INTO THE
"UFO PHENOMENON" BY PHYSICIST, SOCIOLOGISTS, PSYCHOLOGISTS AND OTHER
SCIENTISTS IS LONG OVERDUE. THE PROOF WE DO HAVE ON HAND IS RELATED TO THE
QUALITY OF UFO RESEARCH ALREADY CARRIED OUT. IT IS EMBARRASSINGLY LOW, AND
MUST BE A SEVERE DISAPPOINTMENT TO ANY OF US WHO EXPECT TO FIND TRUE EVIDENCE
OF ALIEN CONTACT - CONTACT WHICH SOONER OR LATER WILL OCCUR.
- THE END-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda, apologies for typing errors in some sections of this article. My
computer decided to pack for export before I had chance to proof read. - Vlad
---
* Origin: UFO Research Australia Administrator - Cairns QLD Aust. (9:1040/7)
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: MUFON Schedule
Date: 26 Jun 92 06:33:00 GMT
Hello Everyone,
The June issue of the MUFON UFO Journal came today and the speaking
program is printed inside for the UFO Symposium in July in Albuquerque.
Here's a brief run-down:
SATURDAY SPEAKERS:
Linda Moulton Howe
Richard F. Haines
Walter Andrus, Jr. (Mufon Director)
Lunch
Montague Keen (from England)
Jeffrey W. Sainio (photo analyst)
Dr. Vladimir Ajaja (from Russia)
Evening Speakers
Jacques Vallee
Budd Hopkins
Panel for Questions and Answers, composed of all speakers
SUNDAY SPEAKERS
Philippe Piet van Putten (from Brazil)
Clifford E. Stone (Roswell, NM)
Richard M> Neal, MD (Calif)
Lunch
Antonio Huneeus
Stanton Friedman (needs no intro!)
Afternoon panel of all speakers
Go home!
Hope to see many of you there!
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: ROAD FLARES
Date: 21 Jun 92 17:11:12 GMT
> Glad you got the info on road flares OK.
Thanks very much.
I'm just about bursting to get some time off to go up to GB and take a look
myself, but business has picked up so much (!?) I hardly even have time to
read echomail.
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: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video
Date: 21 Jun 92 17:19:13 GMT
> The ice could have been there from a previous waste water venting.
Speaking of which, I wonder how water vapor is removed from the cabin air.
Maybe continually vented once the ship is in orbit?
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: 24 Jun 92 06:22:03 GMT
PG> I think it's sad to see people who have spent so long
PG> fighting the good fight, stumble on this one.
Yes, I think so too. There's so much belief, so much desire to have a case
that's the first to be the "real thing," that there's a strong tendency in
many to overstep the bounds of investigating and become an adherent.
PG> really do love breaking a block buster and once its up
PG> there in lights they just love to boost the electricity.
If you're a newsie there's no thrill like it. And once that adrenaline
gets going it's awfully difficult to step back and look at a story
objectively to make sure the facts are indeed facts and that the facts
warrant the conclusion.
Notice the similarity with the previously-mentioned investigators.....
PG> I see an article about Greta Garbo they go on about what a
PG> great beauty she was. Well, every time I look I see a very
PG> plain woman who at best could be described as attractive.
Yes, I know what you mean. She could probably project a strong impression
in person or on film that just doesn't come through in a still photo. I've
never really paid any attention to her, I guess since here famous time was
a little before my time.
The latest Gulf Breeze trivia is that Ed and Frances are getting divorced.
I don't know why, but I'm saddened. Hoax or not, they were awfully pleasant
people to sit down and talk with.
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: NavalInt + Missing Msgs
Date: 24 Jun 92 07:05:01 GMT
I saw your Naval Intel listing here, but I can't recall if it was in UFO or
if Clark forwarded it to me via netmail.
I know Clark's having trouble keeping a reliable feed for UFO....he says
other echos go ok but UFO gets cut off. I _suspect_ that someone further up the
echo distribution line from him just decides he doesn't need it; it's a pretty
heavy-traffic echo and Clark may be the only sysop in his net receiving it, so
someone may just decide to save a little on the phone bill by cutting it off.
As for "echoing back," you definitely wouldn't see your message appear a
second time on the bbs on which you wrote it....and of course the sysop of that
bbs is free to delete any message that originates on his bbs before it gets
sent. Editing or deleting echomail that's going downstream is against Fidonet
policy except in cases of illegal activity. It's possible that your sysop
decided your message _could be_ in some way related to illegal activity and
killed it, but I think that if that were the case, you'd hear about it.
Anyway....although I have no way of knowing for sure, I don't believe there's
any intentional censorship of that echo. But if you come up with any
irrefutable evidence that someone is censoring echomail that passes through,
let me know and I'll go after him. If I couldn't get him tossed out of Fidonet,
I'll certainly make sure it's widely known.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: ALL
Date: 24 Jun 92 16:05:41 GMT
What's the name for the latest Swamp Gas Journal? I polled for others and
posted them on the BBS here.
--
Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: ROAD FLARES
Date: 24 Jun 92 16:26:13 GMT
Thanks much, I'll have to see if I can get my car to run all the way to the
post office. Lately the brakes have a habit of putting themselves on and then
I have to park for 30 minutes while they relax again. It's wonderful being
rich. I only drive 2 miles to work, so that's fine. Walk a bit more and ride
my bikes.
As for GB sightings, I was biting my tounge with the last reports. I'm going
to just say I find it highly suspicious when a group gets together to look
for something. They caravan to a specfic point, and "Oh my God, look over
there acroos the bay... A UFO!"
If I lived a bit closer and had the chance I'd got to the opposite shore
from the gathering and try to see what was going on from that vantage point.
Might give some more clues as to the location of the object because of
sighting it from two different vantage points. Might even see someone
launching it?
As you may gather I am highly skeptical when a group sets a date and time to
look for UFO's and almost on schedule, one appears for them. I'd really like
to see the video of this latest one, since it appears that a large number of
people saw it and photographed it.
--
Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: (AURORA)/WANT INFO......
Date: 24 Jun 92 16:54:14 GMT
Of all things I was up north fishing and a guy who's more involved in design
and aviation than I brought up the Aurora. He pretty well described the plane
that has been creating shock waves in CA lately. He has no interest in UFO's
so it was from a strickly scientific viewpoint. Here's what he told me. The
plane flys like and SR-71 and at a certain speed they inject a fuel into the
shock waves which are so hot that it ignites and pushes the plane along. Ram
jets to take it up to speed, after that it's almost self powered by a very
simple source with very few moving parts. Oh yes he said it was supposed to
have a low pulsing sound as it flys.
As I said he has no interest in UFO's and made no connecton to them, yet he
described what has been heard and sighted lately. What started this was
mentioning the SR-71 and how it was taken out of service. I said they
wouldn't have done it without a replacement.
What do you think?
--
Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: CLOSED ABDUCTEE CONFERENCE
Date: 24 Jun 92 17:00:30 GMT
You know Mike the one thing that jumped out at me was the agreement that
people had to sign. Other than that, it looks like a good project. I'll have
to wait for the book to come out as usual. Sounds like these people are being
used for research which will end up being a new book. On the up side, maybe
some good research will produce some good information about abductions.
--
Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: UFO CONFERENCES
Date: 24 Jun 92 17:06:54 GMT
Glug, Glug covers it. Fortunatly I haven't lost contact with reality yet.
(at least I don't think so <grin>)
I'm looking forward to the latest from the conference. Have a good trip and
enjoy your "science conference".
--
Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: ROAD FLARES
Date: 25 Jun 92 16:37:01 GMT
> As for GB sightings, I was biting my tounge with the last reports.
Someone on another echo just pointed out that many military parachute flares
will flash to white just before they burn out simply to indicate that it's time
to launch another one.
He's speculating that someone who has access to mil. supplies is launching
them, but I'd guess they might also be available on the surplus market.
At any rate, if I ever get around to going to GB, you can bet I won't be
hanging around with the crowd. A mile or two upwind from them would probably
be a better spot, maybe near the "launch pad" so to speak.
I still don't feel very comfortable assuming that the incidents are caused by
flares....it just doesn't feel right that all the current lights are flares...
but I do feel comfortable with the idea that many if not most are flares or
misidentifications.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic)
Subject: Mit Conference
Date: 28 Jun 92 05:13:00 GMT
> My point is: We have several years of stories concerning this
> portion of the phenomenon. We know the routine so well. It is
> time to start demanding that these magicians either come out in
> the open or denounce them as charlatans before the damage that
> they have done in the name of proprietary license and book
> contracts becomes irreversible and the real data is lost in the
> mire of fantasy and confusion.
Mike,
I agree 100% with what you are saying, however, I cannot see how we can "start
demanding that these magicians....etc. " It is probably too late. The damage
has already been done because a lot of books on abductions have been sold and,
as you well know, the general public, as a rule, believe what they read in
sensational books. Do you honestly think our "magicians" will come out in the
open and denounce the damage that they have already done? Can't you hear cash
registers ringing?
Out of all other areas of UFOlogy, abductions are becoming an easy target for
charlatans who, so conveniently, call themselves "leading" abduction "experts"
(this, by the way, is a perfect example of FPP, which, so they say, does not
exist) and claim they are the only ones who know how to investigate abductions.
The rest of us mortals are completely ignored and basically told to shut up
and listen, buy their books on abduction and read all about it.
Let's do our own abduction research, Mike. We are quite capable of
investigating abductions. I say this with a certain amount of authority because
I have seen my Australian associates, Keith Basterfield and Bill Chalker, doing
an admirable job not only investigating abductions but other cases as well. I
am sure the situation is similar in the USA - you, too, have good and honest,
data sharing researchers.
--
Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick.Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: Ufo related shows
Date: 26 Jun 92 09:09:35 GMT
> Perhaps I should have added, " if they are not able to 'define'
> paranormal phenomena on their (skeptic's) terms."
This leaves the statement just as wrong and pig-headed as before,
unfortunately.
> RM> This is, of course, a pure appeal to prejudice.
>
> As you see it.
No, it was NOT just as I see it. It was a blatant appeal to prejudice
of the more extreme kind. Wake up.
> RM> This begs the question of whether Fredric Rice was decrying
> RM> sensationalism/pandering to pseudoscience. You see, Fred is
> primarily RM> an anti-RELIGIOUS zealot, much more than he is a
> skeptic, and his big
> I've found exceedingly LITTLE to nothing at all in the way of
> religious, or antireligious postings in his echo. Sometimes such
> posts find their way there but Fred and company, I've seen, are very
> good at keeping to their subject matter.
If you've seen little or nothing at all of that sort, then you have
not been paying attention. However, you are ignoring my point, that
you interpreted ONE poster's expression of his personal anti-religious
sentiment as a blanket hostility towards mysticism, ignoring the obvious
explanation for that individual expression of opinion. As elsewhere,
you did this in order to sling mud.
> RM> causes as a sysop are the A_THEIST and HOLYSMOKE echos he
> started. RM> Occasionally, I have sharp words with him on his echo
> about indulging RM> anti-religion rants under the rubric of
> "skepticism". He then backs RM> off, and doesn't do that for another
> month. In any event, you would RM> seem to have misinterpreted the
> reason for and nature of Fred's RM> outburst (which I didn't see, but
> I've seen similar ones before).
> No, Rick, I didn't.
What's this "No, I didn't" chozzeroi? I just told you the reason for
Fred Rice's outburst, on the basis of long experience. What, are you
supposed to have a superior divine gift of knowledge or something, in
spite of being so unfamiliar over the echo that you're unaware of the
fact that off-topic religious debates are very common, there?
> >> In another instance, CSICOP took a DIM view of NOVA presenting
> >> the program, "The Case of ESP." I saw that when it aired and its
> >> attitude was intelligent and e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y cautious and
> featured >> very vocal dissenters at the end of the show.
> Nevertheless CSICOP was >> unimpressed and would rather not have the
> show been broadcast at all >> but it was.
>> [explains why this is wrong, and part of what was lacking in the
>> show]
> Would you mind specifying what it was that was supposedly "cut out"
> and how you came by that info?
Not a bit. Are you suddenly interested in fact? The omitted material
was explanations of contradictions in the presented evidence, and more
reasonable explanations. I got it by talking to the people in question
and their friends (e.g., Ray Hyman).
> RM> I believe the thrust of the author's comments in _SI_ was simplhy
> that RM> the show was very disappointing, and could and should have
> been much RM> better.
>
> From whose viewpoint?
>From the author's, obviously. You are ignoring my point, that you
misrepresented the thrust of the author's comments, in a derogative
fashion, in order to sling mud.
> >> Even though "A Current Affair", "Hardcopy" and other such shows
> may >> not be exactly the kind of medium we would ideally like this
> material >> we care about to be presented on, at least it IS getting
> public >> exposure and maybe sparking some positive public interest.
>
> RM> Is public interest not good unless it's "positive"? What exactly
> RM> does "positive" mean?
>
> What do you think it means?
This is ignoring my first question (the more important one), and
sidestepping the second one.
> RM> Does this mean that every time CUFOS's researchers
> RM> judged that a UFO was an IFO, and thus saved the efforts of other
> RM> researchers and contributed to our understanding of sightings,
> RM> that was a "negative" contribution?
>
> What's an IFO?
Identified Flying Object. Now, are you going to answer my question, or
address properly any of my other points?
--
Rick Moen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick.Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: "white" spot in strieb
Date: 26 Jun 92 09:13:05 GMT
> I have eight copies of the SI, some old others new. I'll talk about
> what I've read in them in another message.
More ideological rants, and reasons why not to listen to people? I can
hardly wait.
> RM> 4. You misspelled "CSICOP". 5. You misspelled "Sheaffer".
> RM> As the saying goes, take care.
>
> And while we're on the subject of spelling bees, you misspelled my
> name. It's Salt(s) with an S after the 't'....
Yes, I know. It was a deliberate jest. Sorry that wasn't obvious.
Best Regards,
Rick M.
--
Rick Moen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick.Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: "white" spot in strieb
Date: 26 Jun 92 09:20:42 GMT
> Since Randi apparently chose to open himself to such action in the
> name of 'critical rationality', I was simply speculating on the
> possibility (and ONLY that!) that another writer might be so tempted
> to do something along those lines. Note I said 'speculation'. As in
> the above quote, I did NOT accuse Sheaffer (see! I got his name right
> this time!) of directly being dishonest.
Ah, so it is OK if you suggest, on the basis of zero evidence, that
a researcher has pulled a particularly blatant act of defamation,
provided that you declare it after the fact to be "only speculation".
I can see why you might _speculate_ that sort of behaviour in others.
> Since it has been awhile since the original posting of Sheaffer's
> article, and my system kills off old posts, maybe you could be so kind
> as to refresh my memory as to the show Strieber was to appear (or
> appeared) on and the date of that show so I could check for myself as
> to what happened with Strieber? Just to make sure, the station was
> KPIX, wasn't it?
It was KPIX, channel 5, San Francisco. If you would like to re-read
the repost of Sheaffer's article, and yours slamming it, you can call
my BBS (415-572-0359). I recall that you have enjoyed its open and
broad hospitality in the past, though you have very poorly repayed it.
Best Regards,
Rick Moen
Sysop, ParaNet Alpha-Centauri, The Skeptic's Board
Vice-Chair, Bay Area Skeptics
--
Rick Moen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cwns5.INS.CWRU.Edu!aa440
Subject: Congrats to Don Ecker!
Date: 29 Jun 92 19:09:34 GMT
From: aa440@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dale Wedge)
Hey Don, I just happened to be up last Saturday morning at around 4:30 a.m.
flipping through the channels when I saw you and James Oberg going through
the motions on Larry King Live.
It was great to see you in top form acting like a Prosecutor trying to get
Oberg to answer some questions.
BTW, you've lost alot of weight - about 75 pounds? Anyways, good to see you
on national T.V. as a credible proponent of UFOlogy.
Best, Dale B. Wedge
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday, Flying Saucers!
Date: 29 Jun 92 19:06:01 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Robert Sheaffer
* Originally dated 06-24-92 18:09
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Date: 24 Jun 92 18:56:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Message-ID: <-7rljwb.sheaffer@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Today is the 45th anniversary of the birth of UFOs, or, as they were
called in those days, "flying Saucers." On June 24, 1947, pilot Kenneth
Arnold reported seeing a group of objects shaped roughly like boomerangs,
flying in the vicinity of Mt. Rainier in Washington state, that "skipped
like a saucer" tossed over water.
Notice that people did not report seeing what Arnold SAID he saw - objects
having a sort of boomerang-like shape - but rather what they THOUGHT he said
he saw, "flying saucers." It didn't look like a saucer, but rather
it behaved like one, yet this didn't seem to matter. From this popular
misimpression, "flying saucers" (later UFOs) were born. People "saw"
what they had been told they might "see."
Of course, after 45 years of chasing after "saucers", we have no more
solid evidence about this supposed phenomenon than we did in 1947.
I wonder how many more years the "flying saucers" will continue to
avoid unambiguous detection? And I wonder how many more years the
UFOlogists will be able to convince themselves that there's really
something "out there" to be proven?
--
Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
"Every psychic investigator of [the medium] Mrs. Piper was impressed
by her simplicity and honesty. It never occurred to them that no
charlatan ever achieves greatness by acting like a charlatan. No
professional spy acts like a spy. No card cheat behaves at the
table like a card cheat."
- Martin Gardner (writing in "Free Inquiry",
Spring, 1992)
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
********************************************************************************
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************************
