Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 563
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 563
Tuesday, July 7th 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
What Can We Do? (And Swamp Gas Journal!)
Re: What Can We Do?
Unexplained Experience
Ufo Siting
Gulf Breeze Hoax Discussion
Re: UFO Related Shows
"anza Ufo" Video
Gulf Breeze
"white" Spot In Strieber's Brain
ROAD FLARES
"white" Spot In Strieber's Brain
STS-UFO - Hard Copy
Re: UFO video from NASA - The CAMERA was moving!
Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
Re: Unexplained Experience
Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ccu.UManitoba.CA!rutkows
Subject: What Can We Do? (And Swamp Gas Journal!)
Date: 11 Jun 92 19:02:23 GMT
From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@ccu.UManitoba.CA>
The discussions here about the current state of ufology are dead on, and
reflect the serious problems that are plaguing the subject these days.
I sympathise with Tom Davis and his initial thread. Linda Bird
(Hi, Linda!) accurately describes the plight of many ufologists in her
relating of the ridicule and teasing she experiences because of her
interest. (Especially with an astronomer husband!)
The field IS cluttered with guillible loonies, but it's something we
will have to tolerate for some time yet. The best defence might be to
laugh along with the critics at the silly claims, but point out that
there ARE some serious researchers out there.
Like John Hicks, I tend to sit painfully upon the picket fence,
objectively examining and reading diatribes from both sides. I openly
engage in discussions with both 'skeptics' and 'believers', and act as
a sort of 'thermostat' in Canadian ufology.
.................................
Speaking of which - as an experiment, the latest Swamp Gas Journal is
available upon request by posting me at:
rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca
.................................
BTW, FTWC, I have just completed the 1991 Canadian UFO Survey analyses.
There were 165 UFO cases reported in Canada last year, some from each
province. Contributions were from Mike Strainic (MUFON), Gord Kijek
(AUFOSG), Christian Page, Lorne Goldfader (UFORIC), Jeff Harland, Grant
Cameron, Roy Bauer (UFOROM), and a few other sources as well as the
NRC. Most interesting case: multiple pilot/ATC radar sighting with
'verified' paints on different radar equipment, from 28 December 1991.
Regards,
--
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Davis)
Subject: Re: What Can We Do?
Date: 10 Jun 92 08:39:00 GMT
Here's a little tip that will keep some of the wolves from your door.
Collect a few of the really antique books such as Adamski's "We Are
Not Alone," or Menzel's "The World of Flying Saucers," or even Barker's
"They Knew Too Much About Flying Saucers," and proudly display them as
collectors books. Show friends the value of such books when in mint
condition and tell them you have started a new hobby of book collecting
and investing. By specializing in a particular field (let's say UFOs)
you are enhancing the value of your collection ten-fold.
You'd be surprised how many of the most stubbornly officious will
fall for it. After all, if it makes money - remember the part about
showing results?
The main thing is have fun with it. The seriousness will come along
in its own time.
--
Tom Davis - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Unexplained Experience
Date: 12 Jun 92 07:06:00 GMT
John Robin writes
> Greetings! I'm new to this conference, and reading through
> it for the last few days has got me thinking about an
> experience I had a couple of years ago when I attended a
> midwest gathering of neopagans. The group that I travelled
> with went to the gathering to perform a ceremony that
> involved the use of a sigil placed on the ground traced in
> corn. We ritually drew the sigil making various prayers
> and leaving sacred objects within and around the sigil.
> The shape of the sigil was triangular with several other
> lines inside the triangle forming the lines of the sign.
> The intent of the working can be generally expressed as
> "May the people learn to live in a good way on the planet."
> The sigil was left on the ground following our cermemonial
> charging throughout the remainder of the gathering as a
> place for people to come and make prayers, leave offerings
> etc. A couple of days into the gathering I was returning
> to our camp which was right next to the sigil, late at
> night after doing some ecstatic dancing around the fire.
> It was very dark, and I was alone except for the kids who
> were asleep in the tents. As soon as I walked past the
> sigil, I became aware of some very unusual perceptions.
> Above my head perhaps 15 feet above me, I had the distinct
> vision of a rotating ring of lights. These lights were
> accompanied by a very unusual sound that reminded me of a
> cross between humming insects, bells and singing. At the
> same time I became aware of two figures nearby, one was in
> front of me, the other was "crouching" to my left. I had
> the distinct feeling that the one on the left was prepared
> to attack me or leap on me at any moment. The figure before
> me was clearer. It had a triangular head and was clothed
> in some kind of garment the sort of faded out toward the
> ground. I felt that the figure was asking me about the
> significance of the sigil. My fear left me as I held my
> * * *
Hmmmm ... Perhaps it would be interesting if you could mail a
diagram of this sigil design to Mike Corbin at ParaNet Hqts. or
to someone else who could scan it so that it could be made
available as a .gif file. Then other people online here could
try making a diagram like this on the ground in the hope that it
would attract some UFOnauts. If they get asked the same question
about the significance of the sigil they can reply: "It was
placed there to lure you into the crosshairs of my Handycam
viewfinder. Thanks for stopping by." Maybe we could have
Sheldon Wernikoff there with his Fujinon Whatchamacallit just to
make sure we get some good shots of these guys, for once!
How 'bout it?
-- John
--
John Burke - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Ufo Siting
Date: 8 Jun 92 03:20:01 GMT
> 1987, Thompson, Connecticut.
Would this maybe have been sort of in the right place at the right time to be
part of the "Hudson Valley Boomerang" flap? His descriptions sounds pretty
similar.
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: 8 Jun 92 03:25:02 GMT
> to my knowledge, actually BELIEVED the sisters for that long,
Yes, that's going to be the sad fallout from the Gulf Breeze mess.....so many
people have very seriously believed Ed Walters, and believed their own eyes.
It'll be sort of like learning the truth about Santa, but with a whole lot of
embarassment, anger and guilt mixed in.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark.Rodeghier@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Rodeghier)
Subject: Re: UFO Related Shows
Date: 9 Jun 92 15:43:00 GMT
LB> Did you get a chance to see Don Ecker's fim clip on
LB> Friday's HARD
LB> COPY? It was quite astounding! There was this little
No I didn't get a chance to see it. Sounds like the little white thing was
trying to get away from someone or something.
LB> As for what UFO's and breast implants might have in common:
LB> no one can hardly believe their eyes when they see either
LB> one!! <:-)
What a warped sense of humor you have...I LOVE IT...Tell me more ;-)
Mark
--
Mark Rodeghier - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mark.Rodeghier@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: "anza Ufo" Video
Date: 9 Jun 92 22:37:01 GMT
MC> I agree John, but you know there appeared to be people
MC> involved in that project that were representing the company
MC> that supplied the radar set. I may have seen it wrong as I
MC> don't have a videotape of it, but I recall some guy talking
MC> about something that was associated with Panasonic(?).
The radar appeared to be a standard small-boat type set....not really
intended for air search but could be used for that. Just speculation really;
but the rotating antenna looked like the type of marine radar units I used
to be slightly familiar with.
I think the factory rep was there to sort of certify that they were using
it right and maybe to help interpret any returns.
MC> looks to me like a sham.
I'm not sure "sham" would be appropriate; maybe "misinterpretation" would
be more appropriate. The radar could only indicate a return from somthing;
absent IFF or anything else, it couldn't tell the operators _what_ the
return was from.
So they also got a visual on a light that appeared to match the radar
blip. But then again, the visual was a _light_, which is a long way from a
"spacecraft."
And the video failed to show what they saw in terms of structure. Just a
light.
I see no reason the "ufo" couldn't have been a helicopter or other
aircraft that's still unidentified just because the investigators haven't
identified it yet, and nothing more than that. At best, or perhaps at most
mysterious, they've verified an unidentified light that also reflects radar.
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: 9 Jun 92 22:42:02 GMT
MC> with the spectra data so we can have our NASA analyst go
MC> over it.
Hee hee. We'll never see that.
So far as I've been able to learn, these "spectra" are just sort of
smears; nothing really precise, measurable or quantifiable. The analyst
would probably throw up his hands.
Also, Pete P. has pointed out that of course there's more than one type of
flare and more than one flare manufacturer.
Anyway, I'll post or let you know anything interesting I find out.
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: 9 Jun 92 22:46:03 GMT
RS> I missed that "farewell letter", so to speak. Would it be
RS> in Paranet's library so I could download and read it and
RS> see what Strieber said?
It probably is, but I have no idea the filename. I recently saw an excerpt
posted somewhere.
Anyway, the gist of it was "You didn't believe my story so I'm taking my
toys and going home."
The tone was sort of as a spoiled child; he appeared to be outraged that
his story had been questioned etc.
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: 10 Jun 92 04:37:02 GMT
> Just checked to see if I have your address, and I do, so can get it out
> right away. John should have his copy in a day or so, and I'm sure he'd
> be interested in your comments as well. Then I'LL read the article
> again myself (duh), and comment.
Thanks for sending me that stuff. After a quick read, it looks very solid.
Also, about memory, there's another of the early confirming witnesses whose
memory appeared to change to fit the questions....the original report said he
saw the object at a couple of _miles_; the witness later insists it was a
couple of hundred _yards_.
Soon's I can I'll have a good solid read and comment.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
Subject: "white" Spot In Strieber's Brain
Date: 11 Jun 92 05:48:02 GMT
* Replying to a message originally to Richard Salts
JH> RS> I missed that "farewell letter", so to speak. Would it be
JH> RS> in Paranet's library so I could download and read it and
JH> RS> see what Strieber said?
JH>
JH> It probably is, but I have no idea the filename. I
JH> recently saw an excerpt posted somewhere.
JH> Anyway, the gist of it was "You didn't believe my story
JH> so I'm taking my toys and going home."
JH> The tone was sort of as a spoiled child; he appeared to
JH> be outraged that his story had been questioned etc.
Yep, that was it. I just recently re-posted an excerpt from the letter
that John Powell had commented on in the Contact echo. I'll see about
digging it up again and posting it here.
I also recall posting it to alt.alien on Usenet a couple of weeks ago.
This is something that _can't_ be posted often enough :-)
Don
--
Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
Subject: STS-UFO - Hard Copy
Date: 11 Jun 92 05:53:03 GMT
I just posted this to just about every available UFO around. I'm
going to take a chance that Mike C. hasn't just spotted it and
decided to do the same thing ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Forwarded from Usenet **
[ This probably should be sub-titled "The Clueless Skeptic" ...it's
pretty apparent that Sheaffer did NOT see the segment. A number of people
in alt.alien.visitors have taken him to task, me included. - DonA ]
=========================================================================
Article 5415 of alt.alien.visitors:
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Path: bilver!tous!tarpit!fang!att!att!linac!
pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
mips!decwrl!csus.edu!netcomsv!mork!sheaffer
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: UFO video from NASA - The CAMERA was moving!
Message-ID: <q#=lmw.sheaffer@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 92 21:17:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <nreads01.707781749@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
Keywords: UFO
In article <nreads01.707781749@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
nreads01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Nick Eads) writes:
>Did anyone catch today's Hard Copy (6/5)? (Of course, I hate to admit that
I
>saw it myself -- it was an accident.) They showed what I feel is some of
the
>most impressive evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial activity.
The
>video was shot by one of the astronauts on a recent (the most recent?)
>shuttle mission. I will describe the video as it was shown...
>
>Looking toward the surface of the earth, and just below the horizon, a
>small light moved slowly (relatively, of course) from the right to the
left.
>Then suddenly, and without *apparent* cause, the thing immediately executes
>a 90 degree turn and accelerates rapidly off across the horizon and into
>space. Meanwhile, at roughly the same location where the thing was at the
>moment before turning, another something shoots rapidly *up* from earth and
>into space. According to the UFO investigator (pardon me, but I forget
>his name, but he is on the UFO magazine staff), somebody "shot" something
>at it, and the thing anticipated the shot and evaded.
>
>Official explanation from NASA was "it was ice" left by the shuttle. ICE?
>That's a heck of a change in attitude and speed for a piece of orbiting
>ice. Of course, one can't be sure of the distance from the shuttle, which
>would be a vital piece of info. I'm usually not impressed by UFO reports,
>but this was something to see. Anyone else catch it?
I spoke to James Oberg about this. He didn't know it had been on "Hard
Copy", but he's quite familiar with the video. Apparently it's something
that some UFO enthusiast taped off the "NASA Select" cable channel late
one night, got excited, and flew off the handle. The far-out fringe of
UFOlogy has been promoting it ever since.
Yes, it IS a piece of ice, floating in the payload bay of the shuttle
Discovery. It's illuminated by the lights in the payload bay. But what
your Trash TV program surely did not tell you is: what you saw was motion
of the CAMERA, not motion of the object. You see, NASA mission controllers
leave the camera on during the "night", while the crew is asleep. The
camera is then controlled from the ground, with a little joystick-type
arrangement. If the mission controllers want to look over here, or
over there, they just flip the lever, and the camera moves. And if
some brain-dead UFOlogist just happens to be watching as the camera
is turned away from a piece of ice, he says "Wow! Look at that baby
accelerate!!!!!!"
--
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)
** End of Article **
Dona @bilver.uucp
Have fun, everyone :-))
--
Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
Date: 11 Jun 92 15:14:00 GMT
Mike:
Mr. Oberg, and therefore Mr. Shaeffer, are wrong. The camera was not trained
on any part of the Shuttle's payload bay. Earth filled the screen. And
merely changing the angle of the camera would not account for the movement
of one object relative to another in the same frame. They must be thinking
of some other portion of tape.
Can you forward my explanation to alt.alien.visitors?
Thanks
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Robin@p0.f26.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Robin)
Subject: Re: Unexplained Experience
Date: 12 Jun 92 21:51:00 GMT
>> ..... We ritually drew the sigil making various prayers
>> and leaving sacred objects within and around the sigil.
>> The shape of the sigil was triangular with several other
>> lines inside the triangle forming the lines of the sign.
>> The intent of the working can be generally expressed as
>> "May the people learn to live in a good way on the planet."
>> The sigil was left on the ground following our cermemonial
>> charging throughout the remainder of the gathering as a
>> place for people to come and make prayers, leave offerings
>> etc. A couple of days into the gathering I was returning
>> to our camp which was right next to the sigil, late at
>> night after doing some ecstatic dancing around the fire.
>> It was very dark, and I was alone except for the kids who
>> were asleep in the tents. As soon as I walked past the
>> sigil, I became aware of some very unusual perceptions.
>> Above my head perhaps 15 feet above me, I had the distinct
>> vision of a rotating ring of lights. These lights were
>> accompanied by a very unusual sound that reminded me of a
>> cross between humming insects, bells and singing. At the
>> same time I became aware of two figures nearby, one was in
>> front of me, the other was "crouching" to my left. I had
>> the distinct feeling that the one on the left was prepared
>> to attack me or leap on me at any moment. The figure before
>> me was clearer. It had a triangular head and was clothed
>> in some kind of garment the sort of faded out toward the
>> ground. I felt that the figure was asking me about the
>> significance of the sigil. My fear left me as I held my
>> * * *
John Burke replies
>
>Hmmmm ... Perhaps it would be interesting if you could
>mail a diagram of this sigil design to Mike Corbin at
>ParaNet Hqts. or to someone else who could scan it so that
>it could be made available as a .gif file.
>Then other people online here could try making a diagram
>like this on the ground in the hope that it would attract
>some UFOnauts. If they get asked the same question about
>the significance of the sigil they can reply: "It was
>placed there to lure you into the crosshairs of my Handycam
>viewfinder. Thanks for stopping by." Maybe we could have
>Sheldon Wernikoff there with his Fujinon Whatchamacallit
>just to make sure we get some good shots of these guys, for once!
>How 'bout it?
> -- John
I can appreciate this reply both for its sense of humor
and what it says about the blinds we may be falling into regarding the
phenomena. The second being the critical point. The experience
I reported may or may not have been "invoked" by the ceremonies and
sigil that we placed upon the ground. At any rate this was not an
expected result of the operation! Applying scientific methods we
cannot base any conclusions on any one aspect of our "experiment"
while ignoring others. In other words, dispite the "coincidental"
resemblance of the sigil to the "trilateral insignia", (I just
read about that insignia here on the net after I posted my
original message and I must say I felt a bit of a chill run down my
back.) it may not have had a causal relationship to the sighting.
I can't help but think that the experience would have beed
vastly different if I had had the area staked out with cameras and
other
equipment. I really did NOT get the impression that this was a very
"physical" phenomena. The beings were only partially visible and
the one that "spoke" to me seemed to sort of fade out towards the
ground. If I were going to put a model around this experience, I
think I would be more likely to say that these were some kind of
"spirits" rather than aliens from space.
Although the general consensus running through the net seems to me
to favor an extraterrestial vistor explanation, this to me is far from
certain, and seems even unlikely based on my skimpy first hand
experience.
Whatever these beings are it puzzles me that they would express
any concern whatever for the spirtual activities of our little group.
So much of the literature seems to want to paint the "visitors" as
vicious human mutilators, this seems totally contrary if we are just
so much foder.
My experience really had much more similarity to a classic magical
evocation of an elemental spirit. In fact the triangle is the vessel
that is traditionally used to "hold" the elemental spirit when it is
invoked. It is held captive there in Goetic magic until it agrees
under threat of being tortured if neccesary to carry out the will
of the magician. Could it be that what I saw was the "spirit" of the
sigil we had charged manefesting itself to me to as what I wanted?
This may seem preposterous especially if one refuses to consider the
possiblity of spirits existing in the first place, but is it any more
preposterous or presumptuous than postualating ET visitors requireing
the postulation of advanced intellegent beings travelling to Earth
in machines that seem to violate physics as we currently understand it.
You see it really requires (arguably) a less complex hypothesis to
adopt an "elemental/spiritual" model than a "physical/ET" model
don't 'ya think?
- John Robin
--
John Robin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Robin@p0.f26.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Ufo Video From Nasa - The Camera Was Moving!
Date: 13 Jun 92 02:29:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Marcy Weibe
* Originally dated 06-10-92 19:00
From: 283s@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Marcy Weibe)
Date: 10 Jun 92 14:00:41 GMT
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Message-ID: <20872@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
First, I am using my wife's account. Second, I am very familiar with
this footage (just by the description) because I was one of the researchers
who pulled the original tapes. The trush is that the objects (not object)
were being referenced against an Earth background. The atmosphere is
also visible as a thin band along the edge of the Earth background.
This gives us the camera reference we are looking for. The camera
did not move. A rotation of the Earth versus the Orbiter reference
shows the camera very steady.
Next, we have the objects in question, and there are a couple of "hat"
shaped objects which are present at the same distance on different days.
However, these do not make abrupt turns or accelerate. They are very
stationary with respect to the background and surrounding smaller particles.
The objects being mentioned that are seemingly changing velocity and
direction, are very hard to get a size fix on. The stationary and slightly
wobbling hat types are also hard to judge size but they have a definite
observable shape to them; tophat if you will.
I am aware of Mr. Oberg's knowledge of this and the original ufologist
who brought these to our attention. A very talented collegue of mine
and myself proceeded to do an extensive study of these and remained
collective throughout the study. It then so happened that the astronauts
were attending a dinner locally to be congratulated on their successful
misison. Digital zooming providing by me on all subject objects, with
color removed for clarity, and a tape of this was hand delivered to
one of the crew at this dinner. A thorough study was promised. By
this time, Mr. Oberg was in full defense. A somewhat cocky attitude
was observed in his correspondence. This was long before any rational
study was concluded.
My experiences with UFO's and video go deep into the Gulf Breeze sightings
case and beyond. I know a tru-f-o when I see one. The astronauts efforts,
with the "experts" they have, concluded it was indeed ice particles
affected by a thruster firing. No real explanation was given for the
"hat" shape which appeared on at least two occasions at different days
on the mission. My getting on here is to give the facts, and there
is more to this story. In my opinion, everything seen, was not necessarily
ice, but chunks only; maybe.
In addition, I do this type of work for research purposes only not to
make money which sometimes others tend to do. I have no idea where
Hard Copy received their tape but I know if they showed the black and
white version, this tape was one that I worked on.
--
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************************
