Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 585
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 585
Tuesday, August 25th 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
Stephen Greer?
Korresponding With Klass
Latest On Aurora
Tennessee video
GIF Viewer
Re: CONFIRMATION
Computer Confession
Observations at Pilot Peak
Reply From Phoenix Project
NSA - Crypto 1/4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Stephen Greer?
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:13:01 GMT
Your report is par with some of the things that I have heard also. Would it
be possible to put us in touch with some of the people in your area that have
had dealings with him? I would like to add this to our investigation.
Thanks,
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Korresponding With Klass
Date: 22 Aug 92 01:57:01 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally from Jon Roland
* Originally dated 08-21-92 13:49
From: jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM (Jon Roland)
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:25:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Message-ID: <l98ohcINN7it@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic
The following is a letter I received from Philip Klass, and my reply to it:
Philip J. Klass 404 "N" St. Southwest Washington, DC 20024
August 10, 1992
Mr. Jon Roland
Starflight Corp.
1755 E. Bayshore Rd. #9A
Redwood City, Calif. 94063-4142
Dear Jon Roland:
A friend was kind enough to send me your excellent summary of
Budd Hopkins account of the "Linda UFO Abduction Case" at the
recent MUFON conference in Albuquerque as it appeared on an
Electronic Bulletin Board
Two corrrections:
(1) It was Robert Redford--the handsome, charming movie star--who
took the photos of Linda and Budd Hopkins. We are often mistaken
for one another so don't feel badly.
(2) The letter from "Rich" was received by Hopkins in Feb. 1991,
not "a few weeks later." Hopkins misspoke when he gave the date
as "Feb. 1990"--but he corrected himself when he said "about 15
months after" Linda's Nov. 29-30 incident.
Reference Hopkins' expressed hope that the "well-known
political figure" (the man that Hopkins was told was a 3rd witness)
will go public and confirm the incident. I am so confident that
this individual was not involved (and was home asleep at the time)
that I propose the following wager:
I'll agree to pay you $1,000 if/when this "well-known
political figure" publicly confirms the truth of Linda's story if
you will agree to pay me $100/year for every year that passes until
he does so--with a limit of $500 maximum on the amount of your
payments. In other words, if he goes public and confirms Linda's
story within two years, you're $800 ahead; within 10 or more years,
you're $500 ahead. If NEVER, then you're out $500. If this proposed
wager is appealing, I'll draw up a one page contract for our mutual
execution.
Regardless, my compliments on your excellent summary of Hop-
kins' MUFON talk.
The next (September) issue of my Skeptics UFO Newsletter (SUN
#17) will carry a lengthy report on the "Linda Case" including a
number of details that Hopkins intentionally omitted. If you are
interested, I'll send you a complimentary copy.
/s/ (Phil Klass)
1755 E Bayshore Rd #9A
Redwood City, CA 94063-4142
415/361-8141
Email: starflt@uunet.uu.net
92/08/15
Philip J Klass
404 N St SW
Washington, DC 20024
Dear Phil:
Thank you for your letter and its corrections. I am taking the liberty
of posting your letter and this reply to the Net, as I am sure others
would like to share them.
However, as I recall from Budd Hopkins' talk, the third witness was
referred to only as an "important public official" -- not as a
"well-known political figure". Since you seem to know who he is, this
is further clarification that makes it easier to identify him and the
agency for whom the other two witnesses worked.
And since you do seem to know who he is, I will decline your wager. You
may know him well enough to know that he won't come forward, although
perhaps it is because he was in bed at his mistress' apartment in that
building rather than at home. But thanks for confirming that he exists,
and thus lending credence to the events he may have either witnessed or
just missed witnessing.
But I am concerned about how you are recovering from the abduction
experience you reported to me at the MUFON Symposium. You weren't
supposed to remember the alien you had sex with as being one of the
ugly ones. If you recalled anything, you were supposed to remember her
as a voluptuous redhead. Ah well, I suppose with all the liquor the
memory implant didn't take. I tried to get one of the beautiful aliens
to have sex with you -- really I did. But when I mentioned it to them,
well .... Their thoughts just don't translate.
I would be happy to receive a complimentary copy of the Skeptics UFO
Newsletter #17. I hope, however, if you cite any facts that Hopkins
omitted, you will also explain how you come to know those facts.
Skepticism cuts both ways.
Jon Roland
A question arises concerning Klass' letter: What was his real purpose
in writing it? He's clearly smart enough to know that I'm not stupid
enough to take him up on a "wager" like this, so what purpose does the
letter really serve? I have several ideas, but I would like to hear
from the rest of you.
jdr@starflight.corp.sun.com, starflt@uunet.uu.net
Jon Roland
Starflight Corporation, 1755 E Bayshore Rd #9A,
Redwood City, CA 94063-4142, 415/361-8141
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Latest On Aurora
Date: 22 Aug 92 07:18:03 GMT
* Forwarded from "Fidonet UFO Conference"
* Originally from Albert Dobyns
* Originally dated 08-19-92 21:52
[This article appeared in the London "Sunday Telegraph" dated 26th
July 1992]
SECRET US SPY PLANE IS KINTYRE'S DARK VISITOR
A mysterious, fast-moving shape in the sky has been scaring sheep in
the Mull of Kintyre and rattling windows in Los Angeles. From both
sides of the globe have come reports of sudden "pulsating roars" and
strange smoke rings in the sky.
Defence analysts are convinced that they are caused by the US Air
Forces' top secret Project Aurora - a spy plane as big as Concorde
that can fly three times as fast.
The USAF is using the remote RAF airbase at Machrihanish, Strathclyde,
as a staging point, it was claimed last week. The mysterious aircraft
has been stealthily dropping in at night before streaking back to
America across the North Pole at more than 6 times the speed of sound.
Flying at the edge of space, powered by a "pulser" engine, the
aircraft is being tested in missions that circle the globe.
Guy Norris of 'Flight' magazine, who is based in Los Angeles, said
last night that Aurora was being flown from a base in the Nevada
desert to an atoll in the Pacific [Kwajalein], then on to Scotland to
refuel before returning to the US at night.
Specially modified tanker aircraft flying from Britain are being used
to top up Aurora's tanks with liquid methane fuel in mid-air.
The aircraft carries high-powered cameras and infra-red radar which
can see down through cloud cover. Its flightpath covers targets in
Iraq. An F-111 fighter-bomber is scrambled as the black-painted
aircraft lands, flying in close formation to confuse prying civilian
radars, according to reports from US airmen.
Paul Wiggins, editor of 'Scottish Airnews', describes Machrihanish as
"the remotest military airfield in Britain - with a very long runway".
It is guarded by a detachment of US SEALS, the equivalent of Britain's
Special Boat Squadron."It would be ideal for operating a secret
high-performance aircraft", he says.
People living nearby reported strange ear-splitting noises and
mysterious smoke rings in the sky earlier this year. As rumours grew
of secret developments at the base, Archie Hamilton, the Defence
Minister, told Parliament last month that the existence of, and any
operations by Aurora were a "matter for the American authorities". A
USAF spokesman yesterday refused to confirm or deny its existence. But
last week independent evidence came from Washington that the Pentagon
is spending billions from its "black budget" on a clandestine
successor to the SR-71 spy plane, retired 2 years ago.Kemper
Securities, the financial analysts, said up to $8 billion has already
been spent of the project at Lockheed's "Skunk Works" in California
where the F-117 stealth fighter was developed.
"Something has been booming Los Angeles regularly for the last six
months," said Bill Sweetman, a US-based aerospace writer. "The
frequency of the sonic booms indicates that whatever is causing them
is now an operational aircraft."
[My thanks to fellow Blackbird fan(atic?): Dean Adams for posting this
originally!]
# Origin: Chicago's Multiline BBS (708) 887-7685 [9600 V32 HST] (8:7001/1)
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield)
Subject: Tennessee video
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:34:00 GMT
On TV here late last night was a segment on a 10th Mar 1991 Tennessee
video film, which although showing only a white light,
looked rather impressive. Can anyone direct me to a
published article which presents the results of any analysis on this
video? Thanks.
--
Keith Basterfield - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vince.Johnson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Vince Johnson)
Subject: GIF Viewer
Date: 22 Aug 92 17:58:00 GMT
That was the main MUFON BBS phone number. Its got numerous UFO and
paranormal files, not to mention quite a bit of shareware. It has a
liberal download policy, although for some reason it restricts
uploads (I'm still trying). By the way, a good freind of mine who is
both a technical writer and a DOS whiz gives his enthusiastic
endorsement to Windows in general and to MS Word for Windows in
particular.
Regards,
Vince
--
Vince Johnson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vince.Johnson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: CONFIRMATION
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:17:38 GMT
For anyone else who wonders what 10 L would be in American greenbacks, it's
aprox. $19.20 as of the latest conversion. Just figure 2 bucks per pound
sterling. That's about an 8% increase since 1989 figures. Unidentified flying
dollars?
--
Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peggy.Noonan@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Peggy Noonan)
Subject: Computer Confession
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:54:01 GMT
Hi Linda,
Hmmmm....that's odd about all the text being in caps and
oddly spaced. It wasn't when I zipped it or saved it. I've just
(since I have more space now on the new hard disk) unzipped that
disk and put it back onto my active memory and nothing that I've
checked so far is all-caps or otherwise strange. I wonder if
there's some incompatibility in hardware that could account for
that, or in viewing programs, maybe? The files whose names start
with "C-" are from Compuserve and they certainly should have no
glitches at all. Very odd indeed.
Sorry the instructions didn't help you to be able to unzip
the file yourself, but it's nice that Loren helped you. Didn't the
instructions work?
When you unzipped it, did you unzip only to view or unzip
and the files are now stored on your computer? If the latter, you
could print selectively -- just those you wanted at a given time.
My printer won't handle long jobs either, so what works for me is to
import a file into, say, WordPerfect, where the program allows me to
print a page or multiple pages at a time (instead of printing the
whole file at one go) and that gives the printer a break between
units so it doesn't overheat. Maybe your printer is better
though...mine's a Panasonic 24pin dot matrix, noisy and no bells or
whistles.
You could start with the Cydonia file if you were more
interested in Hoagland than other topics. But whatever works for
you...
The radio show sounds really interesting. Was it a case of
talking about UFO research or personal experiences or what? I
wonder because maybe you and Jim should be guests on KOA's Weird
Night sometime -- sounds like a winner to me.
==Peggy
--
Peggy Noonan - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Peggy.Noonan@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Observations at Pilot Peak
Date: 24 Aug 92 07:43:01 GMT
Our special thanks to John Pickens, who conducted an independent investigation
of the Phoenix Project's claims of an underground alien base in Northern
California. As you will read, John's report clearly shows that the K2 report
is definitely questionable.
* Forwarded from John Pickens, 205/300
* Originally to Michael Corbin
* Originally dated 23 Aug 92 21:46:55
* Original: TO ... Michael Corbin of 1:104/428
* ReDirected Using ReDirect Version 1.00 (C)1989 David Nugent
REFLECTIONS ON THE K2 REPORT & OBSERVATIONS AT PILOT PEAK
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Having read the Phoenix Project's K2 report and having visited the
Pilot Peak area I offer some of my impressions and observations.
Animal Sounds: The K2 Report suggests there is curious lack of
animal sounds and indicated there is an unnatural quiet in the
area.
Having spent 2 nights in the immediate area in question I can say
there was nothing I observed, either by night or by day, to support
this contention. The level of animal sounds was consistent with
what I have heard in other forested areas.
Animal Life: The K2 report makes much of the fact that there was
an absence of animal life in the area (this additionally supported
by the claim of lack of animal sounds). In particular the report
comments on the apparent absence of squirrels, chipmunks, rodents,
owls and birds flying over the area.
On my first night at the Pilot Peak area I spent the night at a
spot over looking the location of the "landing zones." I had an
unobstructed view of the area. I was there while the Moon was
still below the eastern horizon and I used a high-powered spotlight
to illuminate the area. I saw no less than two (possibly three)
deer - one of which was very close by, if not on, one of the
"landing zones." Throughout the night, owls could be heard
hooting. During the day birds could be seen flitting about the
meadow that contained the "landing zones" and both squirrels and
chipmunks were easily seen. At the very top of Pilot Peak there is
a lookout station which I explored. There I found two exhausted
boxes of D-Con rodent killer and rodent droppings in the first and
second floors of the station - clearly evidence of rodents.
Another variety of rodent - bats - were seen in no small numbers
around the Pilot Peak area.
I will comment on the K2 report itself concerning their claim of
absence of animal life and animal sounds. I found it a curious
contradiction that one of their observers (and I do not recall how
they identified him/her, it was perhaps Contact #2, but it was the
one who forgot their camera and had to come back the next day to
make photographs) indicated that there was a sighting of a UFO and
once it came into view all the animal noises ceased. I have to
ask - if there was a curious and noteworthy lack of animal sounds
how could they cease?
Landing Zones: Having seen the purported "landing zones"
personally, and in some cases having walked over them, I have to
say there seems to be a more prosaic explanation. There was an
abundance of deer tracks throughout the area. It is not
unreasonable to assume these are places where deer have rested. I
found it odd that in the midst of the flattened grass there was, in
some instances, a variety of tall weed that was still standing,
unbent, in the area of flattened grass. In addition, the "landing
zones" exhibited none of the swirling patterns associated with UFO
"nests" or the more recent crop circles. Very low strangeness
index and certainly subject to more "Earthly" explanation than
landed craft. I also found other, smaller, areas of flattened
grass which looked exactly like the purported "landing zones" but
which could clearly be discounted as such.
There are two other factors which weigh heavily against these areas
being "landing zones" which I will address next.
Camping Area: Far from being the desolate area one might imagine
from reading the K2 report there is a camping area immediately
adjacent to the "landing zones." To the southwest, and just behind
a moderately dense stand of trees, this camping area did not remain
unoccupied during the time of my visit. On the first night there
were three carloads of people camping and on the second night there
was one family there. The area of the "landing zones" is easily
seen from this camping area and access to the "landing zones" from
the camping area is immediate. It is not the sort of area one
would choose if one wanted any sort of privacy. In addition, the
area of the "landing zones" is clearly seen from the road which
passes nearby and the view from the road is unobstructed, save for
two small trees, for over a quarter mile of travel.
The Road: The report mentions a road which passes the K2 site.
This is not the unused and long-forgotten road one would envision
from reading the K2 report. Quite the contrary. During the day
logging trucks, pick-up trucks, residents of the La Porte & Quincy
areas and campers travel this road. While it will never resemble
rush hour, I was somewhat surprised at the number of vehicles
traveling that road as I thought we were well off the beaten track.
At night the traffic is much less active. The first night there
was no traffic from 9 PM until 4:15 AM the next morning. The
second night there was traffic on and off throughout the night.
Again, the meadow with the "landing zones" is clearly and
unmistakably visible from the road.
Forest Service: The K2 report alludes to the Forest Service
personnel being mind-controlled minions of the Greys and says they
were questioned about their reasons for being there. The report
paints a picture of the Forest Service watching their every move
and questioning their every action. I found quite the opposite to
be the case. Not once did the Forest Service exhibit the slightest
interest in what I was doing - even when I passed a Forest Service
truck on the mine road (a dirt road that leads right to the base of
the summit of Pilot Peak). The only reaction I received from the
Forest Service was a smile and a wave as they drove past in their
trucks.
My observations cover a brief period of time - from the evening of
Wednesday, August 19 to the morning of Friday, August 21. My
comments and observations can be verified and confirmed by Mr. Ed
Stuart who accompanied me to Pilot Peak.
As Ed has asked, "If the facts we CAN verify are false then are the
facts we CAN'T verify false?" To which I must reply, not
necessarily, but they are certainly called into question.
Other lines of inquiry come to mind. IS the corridor from the west
to Pilot Peak actually RADAR blind as put forth by the Phoenix
Project K2 report? I'm sure any ATC person from the area can
answer that easily enough.
I also think a discussion with Forest Service personnel is in
order. Are they aware that some of their members are being
presented as unwitting allies of the Greys? Did they have occasion
to question the activities of a group of people investigating the
Pilot Peak area? Has there ever been a female member of their
team, and if so, who was she? And if so, what does she think of
the seduction for information scenario as described by the K2
report?
I think I'm ready to go ask some questions.
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve.Rose@f601.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Rose)
Subject: Reply From Phoenix Project
Date: 23 Aug 92 08:11:22 GMT
Hello Don!
DS> Emotions aside, the Phoenix Project's response to Mike was not that of a
DS> careful scientific voice. It was mostly irrational and emotional. I'm
DS> not saying that scientists and researchers should keep their emotions at
DS> bay. However, the Phoenix Project's response lacked any sense of how a
DS> group of scientists would act in this situation. The ranting I read was
DS> of someone who seems somewhat off balance.
Scientists and researchers? What a paper-mill title-fest. Who accredits them
as such??
--
Steve Rose - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Steve.Rose@f601.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
Subject: NSA - Crypto 1/4
Date: 23 Aug 92 04:33:00 GMT
I read with much interest that posting regarding NSA and the
FOIA Lawsuit..here's something off Usenet that has reference to
the NSDD145 you might find as equally interesting. In 4 parts.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.usa
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [sci.crypt et al] CPSR Letter on Crypto Policy
In-Reply-To: David Banisar <Banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <1992Aug18.170250.6185@nntp.hut.fi>
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:02:50 GMT
A repost from sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.security:
From: David Banisar <Banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Subject: CPSR Letter on Crypto Policy
Message-ID: <1992Aug18.123558.26646@eff.org>
Organization: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:35:58 GMT
The following is the text of a letter Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility (CPSR) recently sent to Rep. Jack Brooks,
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The letter raises several
issues concerning computer security and cryptography policy. For
additional information on CPSR's activities in this area, contact
banisar@washofc.cpsr.org. For information concerning CPSR generally
(including membership information), contact cpsr@csli.stanford.edu.
======================================================================
August 11, 1992
Representative Jack Brooks
Chairman
House Judiciary Committee 2138
Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515-6216
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Earlier this year, you held hearings before the Subcommittee on
Economic and Commercial Law on the threat of foreign economic
espionage to U.S. corporations. Among the issues raised during the
hearings were the future of computer security authority and the
efforts of government agencies to restrict the use of new
technologies, such as cryptography.
As a national organization of computer professionals interested
in the policies surrounding civil liberties and privacy, including
computer security and cryptography, CPSR supports your efforts to
encourage public dialogue of these matters. Particularly as the
United States becomes more dependent on advanced network technologies,
such as cellular communications, the long-term impact of proposed
restrictions on privacy-enhancing techniques should be carefully
explored in a public forum.
When we had the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on
Legislation and National Security in May 1989 on the enforcement of
the Computer Security Act of 1987, we raised a number of these issues.
We write to you now to provide new information about the role of the
National Security Agency in the development of the Digital Signature
Standard and the recent National Security Directive on computer
security authority. The information that we have gathered suggests
that further hearings are necessary to assess the activities of the
National Security Agency since passage of the Computer Security Act of
1987.
The National Security Agency and the Digital Signature Standard
Through the Freedom of Information Act, CPSR has recently learned
that the NSA was the driving force behind the selection and
development of the Digital Signature Standard (DSS). We believe that
the NSA's actions contravene the Computer Security Act of 1987. We
have also determined that the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) attempted to shield the NSA's role in the
development of the DSS from public scrutiny.
The Digital Signature Standard will be used for the
authentication of computer messages that travel across the public
computer network. Its development was closely watched in the computer
science community. Questions about the factors leading to the
selection of the standard were raised by a Federal Register notice, 56
Fed. Reg. 42, (Aug 30, 1991), in which NIST indicated that it had
considered the impact of the proposed standard on "national security
and law enforcement," though there was no apparent reason why these
factors might be considered in the development of a technical standard
for communications security.
In August 1991, CPSR filed a FOIA request with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology seeking all documentation
relating to the development of the DSS. NIST denied our request in
its entirety. The agency did not indicate that they had responsive
documents from the National Security Agency in their files, as they
were required to do under their own regulations. 15 C.F.R. Sec.
4.6(a)(4) (1992). In October 1991, we filed a similar request for
documents concerning the development of the DSS with the Department of
Defense. The Department replied that they were forwarding the request
to the NSA, from whom we never received even an acknowledgement of our
request.
In April 1992, CPSR filed suit against NIST to force disclosure
of the documents. CPSR v. NIST, et al., Civil Action No. 92-0972-RCL
(D.D.C.). As a result of that lawsuit, NIST released 140 out of a
total of 142 pages. Among those documents is a memo from Roy Saltman
to Lynn McNulty which suggests that there were better algorithms
available than the one NIST eventually recommended for adoption. If
that is so, why did NIST recommend a standard that its own expert
believed was inferior?
** Cont in NSA - Crypto part 2 **
Don
--
Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
*******************************************************************************
Submissions infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
Administrative requests infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
FTP archive grind.isca.uiowa.edu:/info/paranet/infopara
Permission to distribute Michael.Corbin@paranet.org
Private mail to Paranet/Fidonet users firstname.lastname@paranet.org
UUCP gateway {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom
*********************End**of**the**InfoPara**Newsletter************************
