Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 584
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 584
Friday, August 21st 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
Phoenix Project Letter
Our Response to Phoenix Project
Phoenix Response - Part 2
Phoenix Response - Conclusion
Stephen Greer?
Stephen Greer?
Lawsuit Against Nsa...
CORRECTION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (ParaNet Information Service)
Subject: Phoenix Project Letter
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:13:02 GMT
> From: Robert Chansky <robertc@sco.COM>
>
> Is there a summary available for those of us who missed the hubbub about
> the Phoenix Project letter? I find the organized style of the letter
> compelling (though I admit it does stray from level-headedness) and
> would like a view from this side of the fence.
I am not sure what you want. Let me know and I will see that you get it.
Mike
--
ParaNet Information Service - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (ParaNet Information Service)
Subject: Our Response to Phoenix Project
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:23:03 GMT
On 6 August 1992, ParaNet Information Service posted a preliminary
statement on our investigation into an organization known as the
Phoenix Project, which had recently released "investigative reports"
entitled "The Dulce Report", "The K-2 Report", and "The Ultimate
Secret". In our statement we pointed out some apparent problems with
all three Phoenix Project reports, as well as some suspicious aspects
of the Project's organization itself. In our conclusion, we issued a
warning not to take the Phoenix Project reports at face value, pending
further investigation.
On 10 August 1992, Jack Mathias of the Phoenix Project responded in a
long, rambling message posted to a number of bulletin boards and news
groups. Unfortunately, rather than dealing with the substantive issues
raised in our previous postings regarding the project and its
publications, Mr. Mathias's statement consisted mostly of ad-hominem
attacks impugning the motives, integrity, and competence of ParaNet's
officers and investigators. Here is some typical language excerpted
from the Phoenix Project statement:
" ... you blew it ..."
" ... a snap judgement without examining the evidence ..."
" ... your spontaneous and instant negative reaction ..."
" ... your attitude problem ..."
" ... you abused your position of trust and responsibility ..."
" ... inexcusable ... a new record for prejudice ..."
" ... you've just won the Golden Fleece Award ..."
" ... outstanding ineptness ..."
" ... amateur sleuthing ..."
" ... self-centered ..."
" ... lacking any real expertise ..."
" ... seated upon your starry throne ..."
" ... elected yourself to be the final arbiter of the truth ..."
" ... Judge, Jury, and Executioner ..."
" ... Kangaroo Court Proceeding of your own fashioning ..."
" ... arm-chair expertise ..."
" ... laughable ..."
Following paragraph after paragraph of this kind of personal invective,
Mr. Mathias then suggests that:
PP> In our opinion, the public deserves the truth regarding the real
PP> story of UFO's, government involvement and the Alien threat. That
PP> should be our objective. ... Perhaps you'll agree that, that
PP> objective is more productive than entertaining the public via the
PP> BBS links with a side-show of petty squabbles and bickering
PP> between individuals and organizations.
This is a noble sentiment, and one which we at ParaNet wholeheartedly
agree with. Hopefully in the future the Phoenix Project's
representatives will take some of their own advice and try to keep the
rhetoric down to a more civilized level.
Having said that, let's look at the actual issues raised by this latest
salvo from the Phoenix Project, and see how they stack up.
PP> Let us review the facts. You reacted by issuing a public warning
PP> to the members of ParaNet, which was also widely distributed via
PP> other BBS's nation-wide. That warning contained language which
PP> implied the information, and the source, were highly suspect.
PP> Thus, single-handedly, you created a strong impression throughout
PP> the UFO community, that our information was false. Many sincere
PP> people, trusting your qualifications, accepted your warning.
True.
PP> You took it upon yourself to make a snap judgement
PP> without examining the evidence.
False. We did not arrive at our conclusion single-handedly or
instantaneously. Our analysis and the resulting warning were the
products of considerable discussion among ParaNet's researchers and
subscribers. They were also labeled as tentative, pending further
investigation.
PP> In your message, you mention that you wrote to the Phoenix Project,
PP> after the fact and your preliminary judgement, requesting further
PP> information. You made the same comment in other BBS messages. You
PP> state that we did not respond to your request. You also imply, by
PP> insinuation, that this is a mark against us and a further
PP> indication that we are suspect. ... To date we have
PP> not received your letter of inquiry. Apparently, of all the mail
PP> we receive, your letter is the only one that has gone astray. We
PP> can only conclude that is was either lost in the mail or you didn't
PP> mail it. Did it ever occur to you to mail us a second request,
PP> when you did not receive a response to your first inquiry?
The letter was followed up with electronic mail to the Project's
spokesman, Jack Mathias. The request for information was repeated
through that channel. The request was refused.
PP> But, this was not the end of your attitude problem regarding the
PP> Phoenix Project. You did the same thing, again, issuing warnings,
PP> etc., with our release of the K-2 and the Ultimate Secret Reports.
PP> And, again, you had not seen or examined the supporting documents
PP> at the time you issued those warnings to ParaNet and the public.
We have already stated our reasons for suspecting the "K-2" and
"Ultimate Secret" reports. As with the "Dulce" report, our suspicions
went to the core of the entire concept and execution of both reports;
consequently, it seemed unlikely that the "supporting documents" would
make much difference. Our judgement in this matter was borne out when
we received the "supporting documents" from another source. We were
not impressed.
PP> Would we be out of line in concluding that your mind was
PP> already made-up?
Yes, that would be out of line, since our minds were not and in fact
are not yet entirely made up. Our warnings were tentative, and in our
view totally justified. So far we have not been provided with any
evidence to the contrary. If such evidence is provided, we will not
only change our minds but say so publicly.
PP> Fortunately, for the UFO Movement, other
PP> investigators and researchers don't share your opinion.
That's not the feedback we've been getting.
PP> You state in your initial message that "much of the information in
PP> the Dulce Report about Dulce and the Archuleta Mesa contradicts
PP> information already provided to ParaNet by other capable
PP> investigators." What information? Who provided it? How did you
PP> determine its validity?
Our information consists of the testimony of ParaNet investigators and
others who have been in Dulce and on the Mesa. Their experiences were
very different from what you describe, and it is difficult to reconcile
your claims with the findings of our own people.
PP> We formally request access to that
PP> information. We'd like to examine it ourselves. Can we obtain
PP> copies of "that" information?
Our investigation continues, and the information will be made public
when it is complete At that time we will be glad to provide you with a
complimentary copy of our report.
PP> Now, let us get to the main thrust of your message - your
PP> investigation to reveal the personnel of the Phoenix Project.
PP>
PP> [several paragraphs of meaningless abuse deleted]
>
PP> What, if anything, is the Phoenix Project guilty of? Is it the
PP> fact that we dared to question and investigate two of the sacred
PP> cows of UFO-dom namely the ones you mentioned, i.e., "underground
PP> alien bases, and the cluster of government projects referred to
PP> collectively as Operation Majestic Twelve?"
<Continued in next message..>
--
ParaNet Information Service - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (ParaNet Information Service)
Subject: Phoenix Response - Part 2
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:23:04 GMT
<..Continued from previous message>
No. ParaNet has long questioned both of those sacred cows. To this
point we have seen no acceptable proof for the existence of any
underground alien base near Dulce, nor have we seen adequate proof for
the existence of "Operation Majestic Twelve". We have publicly stated
as much on many occasions.
PP> According to our sources within the intelligence community, the
PP> Dulce Scam, perpetrated by the disinformation specialists of MAJI,
PP> better known to you as Majestic Twelve with help from the CIA and
PP> NSA, is considered one of their most brilliant success stories.
But, of course, these "sources" cannot be named, and all we have to go
on is your word that they even exist. And, unfortunately, you are
making a concerted effort to keep anyone from knowing who *you* are,
either. Anonymous stories relayed by anonymous story tellers. Sorry,
but that's not "evidence".
PP> We sent in experienced investigators, not amateurs, to check out
PP> the alleged Dulce Base. Those people knew what to look for, how to
PP> look for it, how to get answers, and are not easily mislead.
We have no evidence for this except your say-so.
PP> If you do not agree with our findings, get off your posterior, go
PP> to Dulce, and check it out for yourself.
We have.
PP> In fact, we invite
PP> anybody to do the same thing. We're sure you'll find exactly what
PP> we did ...
We didn't.
PP> You imply that you're good at asking questions -- how are you at
PP> answering them? We have a few questions ... Would you mind sharing
PP> with all of us, everyone on the BBS's and the public, what hard
PP> evidence you have that, without question, supports the presence and
PP> validity of the Dulce Base.
Would you mind sharing what hard evidence you have that we ever said
anything of the kind? We have never said anything in support of the
presence of a secret alien base at Dulce. In point of fact, we
consider it extremely unlikely that any such base exists--at Dulce or
anywhere else. That's one of the reasons we have so much trouble with
your "K-2" report, which purports to document the existence of just
such a base in California.
PP> Unless you have irrefutable
PP> evidence to present, made available for public scrutiny and
PP> evaluation, which invalidates the findings of the Phoenix Project
PP> regarding Dulce, K-2, or the Ultimate Secret, or our future
PP> reports, back off. Either put-up or shut-up. In other words, get
PP> off our back.
All right, challenge accepted. Let's start with this statement from
your "Ultimate Secret" report:
PP> According to eye-witness testimony, the CIA
PP> agent in charge of this covert operation, wearing the
PP> uniform of an AF Colonel, was William C. Cooper. ...
PP> This witness testifies that this is the
PP> same William C. Cooper, who has been prominent since 1988
PP> in the civilian UFO movement.
Is this "William C. Cooper" supposed to be the famous Bill Cooper we
have all come to know so well? Apparently so. Unfortunately, in his
own published documents Bill Cooper gives his full name as "Milton
William Cooper", not "William C. Cooper". Either Cooper doesn't know
his own name, or the Phoenix Project's "eye witness" doesn't know what
he's talking about.
And while we're on the subject of Bill Cooper, it is instructive to
compare some of the text of the Phoenix Project's "Ultimate Secret"
document with some of Bill Cooper's material on the same subject.
Cooper writes in his "Operation Majority--Final Release":
BC> [Project Grudge] was financed by CIA confidential
BC> funds (nonappropriated)
BC> and money from the illicit drug trade ...
BC> The purpose of Project Grudge
BC> was to collect all scientific, technological, medical and
BC> intelligence information from UFO/IAC sightings and
BC> contacts with alien life forms. This orderly file of
BC> collected information has been used to advance the United
BC> States Space Program.
Now look at the corresponding paragraph of the Phoenix Project's
"Ultimate Secret" report:
PP> Project Aquarius was funded by CIA confidential
PP> funds (non-appropriated) ...
PP> The purpose of Project Aquarius
PP> was to collect all scientific, technological, medical and
PP> intelligence information from UFO/IAC sightings and
PP> contacts with alien lifeforms. This orderly file of
PP> collected information has been used to advance the United
PP> States' Space Program and provided the data needed to
PP> develop present stealth technology.
You don't have to be an intelligence agent to see that these two
passages are virtually identical in both content and phrasing. Since
Cooper's statement is dated 10 January 1989, more than half a year
before the "Ultimate Secret" report's "origination" date of 4 August
1989, we seem to be left with three possibilities: (1) Cooper was
somehow privy to the Phoenix Project's investigative results even
before they were first put to paper; or, (2) the Phoenix Project
plagiarized Cooper's writings; or (3) the Phoenix Project's own
investigations drew on the same tainted and discredited sources as
Cooper apparently did in compiling his own materials. Whichever one
you pick, it's not a pretty picture.
But it gets worse:
PP> The basic information revealing the existence of
PP> Operation Majestic-12, the crashed UFOs, alien beings,
PP> and their secret bases within the United States, was
PP> obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from the
PP> files of the CIA, NSA, FBI, State Department, the U.S.
PP> Air Force.
This is utter nonsense, as any perusal of published FOIA documents on
UFOs would quickly reveal. FOIA requests have forced the government to
disgorge many hundreds of pages of UFO documents over the years, but
they provide little if any support for the existence of Operation
Majestic Twelve, crashed saucers, alien beings, or secret bases. If
the Phoenix Project is relying on already published documents as their
source for this claim (e.g., "The UFO Cover-UP" by Lawrence Fawcett and
Barry Greenwood, or "Above Top Secret" by Timothy Good), then clearly
they have not examined them very carefully. On the other hand, if the
project really does have such explosive FOIA documents in its
possession, let's see them; their publication would do more to
establish the project's credibility than anything else it could
possibly do short of producing a live alien.
PP> PROJECT GRUDGE: This project was originally
PP> established in 1953, by order of President Eisenhower and
PP> is under the control of the CIA, NSA, and MAJI. Project
PP> Grudge went underground and another project, Project
PP> Sign, was established as a cover operation. In 1960, the
PP> Project's name was changed from Project SIGN to Project
PP> Bluebook.
This is demonstrably and totally wrong. Project Sign was established
first, in 1947, and it was under the control of the Air Force, not the
CIA. The name was changed to Project Grudge in 1949, and to Blue Book
in 1952-- not 1960. (For details, see "The Report on Unidentified
Flying Objects" by Edward J. Ruppelt, who headed the project from 1951
to 1953.) The exact dates slide around a little bit depending on
whether you're talking about when the decision was made, when the order
was signed, or when the order became effective; but the differences are
on the order of months, not decades! How could the Phoenix Project's
experienced intelligence agents make so many ludicrous errors in a
single paragraph?
<Concluded in next message..>
--
ParaNet Information Service - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (ParaNet Information Service)
Subject: Phoenix Response - Conclusion
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:24:05 GMT
<<..Continued from previous message>>
In fact, this whole business was such an embarrassing mess that the
Phoenix Project issued a "correction" document to try to straighten it
out. But, ironically, the correction is also wrong--just less
obviously so.
We could go on, but I think you get the point. The "Ultimate Secret"
report is, at best, a rehash of other people's garbage. At worst, it
is a deliberate effort to confuse and disinform.
PP> We actively encourage other serious investigators to use the
PP> information we have provided as a basis for conducting their own
PP> inquiry and to carry-on our effort. Can you, Mr. Corbin, or
PP> ParaNet, or Mufon, make the same claim. Or, is it true that the
PP> results of critical investigations are held sacred by the elite
PP> leadership of these organizations, and are not shared with the
PP> member's of their organizations or the public?
We can't speak for other organizations, but in the case of ParaNet we
have always made our results public as soon as our investigations are
complete.
PP> In your message, you insinuate that because of our past military
PP> and intelligence backgrounds, our area of expertise so-to-speak,
PP> that the motives of the Phoenix Project are suspect. You further
PP> insinuate that we are possibly government operatives attempting to
PP> send serious researchers off on a variety of wild goose chases.
Given the prior history of government disinformation in ufology, most
of it purveyed by active or former intelligence agents and their
victims, anyone who (1) purports to have a military intelligence
background, (2) refuses to divulge their identity, and (3) propagates
known disinformation as reliable intelligence (whether deliberately or
not) should expect his motives to be considered suspect until proven
otherwise. It is extremely naive of you to think it would happen any
other way.
PP> If anyone needed assurance that the truth regarding UFO's will
PP> remain a deep, dark, secret -- they can rest secure in the
PP> knowledge that you, are on the job. There are any number of
PP> government agencies who would welcome you with open arms.
PP> Expect some offers.
Sorry, none so far. We'll let you know if we get any.
PP> We are sure that the honest and sincere members of ParaNet and
PP> other UFO investigative organizations (and there are many) must be
PP> seriously considering whether your qualifications, fitness and
PP> investigative ability warrant your continuance in a position of
PP> leadership within what used to be a respected research
PP> organization.
Exactly the opposite, actually. Most of our people are grateful for
the warning, and are coming to the same conclusions as we did.
PP> Instead of making an honest attempt to validate or
PP> disprove our findings regarding the subjects mentioned -- missing
PP> the point completely, you chose to become obsessed with determining
PP> the identity of Phoenix Project personnel. For what reason? Do you
PP> intend to judge the validity of the information based on the
PP> credentials of those providing it? Some people would interpret
PP> that as putting the cart before the horse.
And some people would interpret it as a determination not to fall prey
to the same fate as far too many others in this field, who trusted
strangers too easily and ended up wasting years chasing wild geese--or
worse.
PP> Explain to us how or
PP> why the credentials of our investigators, or their identity, have
PP> any bearing on the validity of the information. Either the
PP> information is true or it isn't. It's as simple as that, or does
PP> that simple fact escape you.
The credentials of your investigators have a strong bearing on whether
or not it is even worth the trouble to examine your "information".
Anybody can sit down for a few hours at a word processor and cook up
reams of tittilating "information" about almost any subject under the
sun. But unless there is good reason to think there might be something
to it, it's a fool's errand to try to chase it all down.
It's like this: If ordinary claims come from an anonymous source, they
may be assigned some measure of trust simply because they accord with
everyday experience. If extraordinary claims come from a reputable
source, they may be assigned some measure of trust simply because of
the proven track record of the person making the claims. But when
extraordinary claims originate from an anonymous source, they generally
are given no credence at all, because there is simply no reason to
believe they are true. Life is too short to chase every wild goose
that comes cackling along. There must be *some* reason--either in the
plausibility of the claim or the authority of the claimant--to think
it's worth the trouble. You have provided neither one.
PP> How can we, or others, be assured of your motives. One does
PP> not need a brilliant mind to envision a scenario where the
PP> information the Phoenix Project has released is discredited because
PP> of an act of character assignation.
Please explain what "character assignation" is, and then maybe we can
envision the scenario you have in mind.
PP> Suppose we asked these questions -- would you be prepared to
PP> respond to them? Who are you? What are your credentials? Who are
PP> those holding positions of leadership in ParaNet? What are their
PP> qualifications and credentials? How do we know that you or ParaNet
PP> are not controlled by government operatives? What qualifications
PP> are required to hold a position of leadership within ParaNet?
There has never been any secret about what ParaNet is or who it
consists of. Lists of ParaNet nodes and their sysops have been posted
to the net on several occasions. Anyone who wants to follow the
ParaNet BBS echoes can log in to a local ParaNet node, receive the echo
digests over the net, or download them from our FTP archives. All
postings are signed with the user name and node ID of the originator.
All articles in Continuum, ParaNet's quarterly magazine, are signed by
the authors. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but neither our personnel
nor our purposes are in any way secret or mysterious.
PP> We were unaware that anyone had ever attempted to create a
PP> corporation in Nevada calling itself the Phoenix Project. Due to
PP> the nature of our work, and to protect the identity of our
PP> personnel it would be a foolish endeavor. We never made an attempt
PP> to incorporate our organization in any State.
The incorporation issue originally came up because we were trying to
track down your trademark registration. We have been unable to find
any such registration, yet at the beginning of each of your reports you
explicitly state that "all publications of the "Phoenix Project" bear
the Project's Logo (a registered trade-mark)." Is that a lie? It
certainly seems that a trademark registration of the project logo would
be almost as much of a threat to "the identity of your personnel" as
incorporation would be.
PP> You suggest a possible link between our organization and America
PP> West. Sorry about that, but you're dead wrong. It has come to us
PP> from several sources that we're not on their list of favorite
PP> people. We will take this opportunity to categorically deny that
PP> we have any affiliation with America West, their publication the
PP> "Phoenix Liberator," or any other publication they provide.
PP>
PP> Do not expect us to respond to the other coincidences,
PP> suppositions, insinuations or innuendoes contained in your message.
Why? Perhaps because there are other "insinuations" that cannot be
truthfully denied? As a matter of fact, we now have solid confirmation
of another one of our "insinuations"--i.e., the fact that the Richard
Miller who owns Advent Publishing is indeed the same Richard Miller who
used to channel "Hatonn". That confirmation came from none other than
Mr. Miller himself. So I guess we're not doing too badly.
In consideration of your explicit denials of any ties to America West,
and in view of the additional information provided privately by Mr.
Miller, we withdraw our previous suggestion of possible connections
between the Phoenix Project and the America West/Phoenix Liberator
operation. As we stated before, those suggestions were tentative
pending further investigation, and further investigation has not
uncovered any additional evidence to support them. Unfortunately, this
is the kind of burden that the Phoenix Project inevitably took on when
it chose to publicly portray itself as a clandestine organization.
PP> Since you brought up America West and The "Phoenix Liberator," why
PP> not turn your investigative abilities loose on their organization.
PP> Just suppose that Milton Cooper is, quietly, linked to their
PP> organization. That should intrigue you.
It does, if true. We also find it intriguing that you are, apparently,
using Cooper's material without attributing it to him--thereby lending
it credibility when there is every indication that it is completely
bogus.
PP> Equally intriguing, is
PP> where their funding comes from - not the obvious subscription
PP> income - the covert funding. Or, how about the busy and numerous,
PP> off premise, writers that prepare the volumes of "Hatonn" material,
PP> and their use of high-speed modems to provide the copy for each
PP> weekly issue of the "Phoenix Liberator" and the dozens of books
PP> they produce. In our supposition, we're talking about a big-time
PP> operation. You might also check out their printing facilities,
PP> distribution centers, and world-wide circulation. Equally
PP> fascinating is their sudden rise, in a few short years, to the top
PP> of the New Age Movement. You might even think to ask yourself, why
PP> the New Age Movement? What possible connection is there with
PP> covert government UFO activities, or a New World Order, with the
PP> New Age Movement? The answer to that might be revealed, if you dig
PP> deep enough, and discover high-speed modem links between their
PP> headquarters and certain organizations located at Langley and Ft.
PP> Meade. Yes, if you really dig, you might uncover all kinds of
PP> interesting things about America West.
Thanks for the tip.
PP> As to your effort in trying to identify staff personnel of the
PP> Phoenix Project -- good luck. However, we do have to admit that
PP> you may get lucky and hit on a couple of them. However, since
PP> there are many, it is doubtful you will ever get beyond that point.
Our only interest in the personnel of the Phoenix Project is to
determine whether the Project has a hidden agenda, and whether it is
covertly linked to other organizations whose agendas are known. That
interest was made necessary by the Project's clandestine nature and
consequent lack of public accountability. You brought it on
yourselves, and your continuing hostility and evasiveness suggest that
we were not entirely mistaken in our suspicions.
Our investigation continues. We'll let you know what we find out.
Michael Corbin
Director
ParaNet Information Service
END
--
ParaNet Information Service - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anson.Kennedy@p0.f25.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Stephen Greer?
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:49:00 GMT
> What's the take on this Dr. Stephen Greer fellow? He seems to be involved in
> a project called "CE-V", which he defines as human-initiated contact with
> UFO occupants. I dimly remember him doing something with lasers and
> ohm-chanters in Gulf Breeze, but now his organization is claiming some
> measure of success. A lady in our local MUFON group has been singing his
> praises, and is organizing field trips to UFO hot-spots to conduct more
> experiments. One place mentioned was Chino Valley, CA. It is said that on
> their sign-up form is a field marked "Next of Kin". I guess they're not
> taking any chances....
The Georgia Skeptics have received some less than pretty info on Dr. Greer and
his CSETI group.
First, "Working Group" members must pass a vetting admistered by Dr. Greer. If
you don't meet his requirements (and any sort of skeptical attitude is
summarily dismissed), then you cannot participate. If you pass this, he keeps
your money and you are "in." You must sign an agreement in which you give up
all rights to any and all video or audio recordings you make at CSETI events;
you agree that any such tapes become Dr. Greer's property even if made on your
own equipment.
WG meetings consist of a lot of meditating. In fact meditating plays a large
part in his program. Prior to going to a site, members are expected to
meditate as a group on its location in order to mentally communicate the place
to teh aliens.
Apparently, when he takes a WG out to a site (kept secret so as to avoid the
prying eyes of investigators), the WG meditates to "call down" UFOs. Amazingly,
UFOs *are* seen. Unfortunately, they are only seen around twilight and as
darkness increases, they disappear. The UFO descriptions we have heard are
"bright lights travelling west to east," in other words satellites.
Some reports of such excusions indicate that other apparent sightings are as
much the product of social compliance (something which stage hypnotists rely
on for their success) as the result of any alien visitors.
Also, the local Atlanta CSETI group seems to have been cut off by Greer after
he came down and got their money. He has not returned any of their calls yet
he is apparently planning another "event" in the area. He has not notified
them of it.
I would urge caution in dealing with him, although local groups are probably
sincere.
--- Anson
--
Anson Kennedy - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Anson.Kennedy@p0.f25.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anson.Kennedy@p0.f25.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Stephen Greer?
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:51:00 GMT
> We are doing an article in the next issue of
> CONTINUUM. Watch for it! Greer's stuff is most
> interesting, if not credible.
I would agree wiith both "interesting" and "not credible." Do you have any
info that he *is* credible?
--- Anson
--
Anson Kennedy - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Anson.Kennedy@p0.f25.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
Subject: Lawsuit Against Nsa...
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:57:02 GMT
> Congressional oversight committees have found these
> reasons very persuasive. So WHAT'S THIS GUY'S
> PROBLEM?!! Some people simply refuse to sit in front
> of the tube and watch Married With Children, like good
> little doobies.
> Geez, why can't this troublemaker just go away and
> catch Anthrax,
> or commit suicide in his motel room, or something?
> Best,
> Clark
As usual, your post left me smiling and musing at the same time. Prolly' a lot
of truth in those "reasons". I just wonder if the contents of Millie's lunch
(the Bushes dog) are classified as well. :^_)
Don
--
Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (ParaNet Information Service)
Subject: CORRECTION
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:04:02 GMT
On August 20, 1992, ParaNet published a message from Richard Miller,
owner of Advent Publishing, regarding his relationship to the Phoenix
Project. Our preface to that message stated, incorrectly, that "this
Richard Miller is the Richard Miller who was associated with George
Green." It should have stated that "this Richard Miller is the Richard
Miller who once channelled an entity called Hatonn." Mr. Green's
publications also purport to contain messages from this same Hatonn;
but this fact does not necessarily imply any prior or present
relationship between Richard Miller on the one hand and George Green,
America West, or the Phoenix Liberator on the other. Mr. Miller has in
fact stated that no such relationship has ever existed, and we have no
reason at this time to dispute his assertion.
We regret the error and apologize to Mr. Miller for the confusion.
--
ParaNet Information Service - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.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************************
