Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 615
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 615
Sunday, December 6th 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
Article by George Wingfield on Crop Circles
Wingfield/Crop Circles - Conclusion
Re: New Affiliate
Arizona Sighting
Paranet Faq File
ParaNet FAQ File
Paranet Faq File
Fido Ufo moderator
Cable News Radio
Aurora Aircraft
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Article by George Wingfield on Crop Circles
Date: 29 Nov 92 09:28:03 GMT
This file was provided by HUFON (Houston UFO Network) on crop circles.
The Changing Face of the English Crop Circles
By George Wingfield
The summer of 1991 was undoubtedly the Golden Age of the English crop
circles. There seemed to be no stopping them, and a series of staggering
geometric shapes was evolving rapidly throughout the season culminating
in such masterpieces as the great Mandelbrot. The circles had a huge and
enthusiastic following throughout that summer comprising scientists,
researchers of the paranormal and New Agers alike. The leading thinkers in
each of these camps were all finding in the circles ample confirmation of
their non-conventional origin and the unmistakable signs of design and
purpose. Only the British press held back with reservation, unsure of how to
treat the strange phenomenon. Large sums of money were spent on surveillance
and research of one kind or another and such was the confidence in the
phenomenon that no one could have foreseen the doubt and paranoia which
would replace it during the following year.
What brought about this unfortunate change in perception in 1992 was not so
much a well-publicized hoaxing scam (which in retrospect had very little
credibility) as the increasing indication throughout 1991 that the crop
circles were the product of some form of intelligence. That conclusion, by
the time of the appearance of the Barbury Castle formation, had become quite
irresistible. For those seeking a solution in terms of a natural phenomenon
there was nowhere left to go. The remaining question left was whether the
intelligence involved was human or non-human in origin.
For some, the possibility of non-human intelligence comes neither as a
surprise nor as a threat to their particular world-view. The intelligence
is not necessarily extra-terrestrial and nor is it necessarily even physical.
Such intelligence in many guises from poltergeists to angels and from nature
spirits to spirits of the dead, or even the collective human unconscious
itself, has always been with us as an expression of the metaphysical
interaction with the physical world throughout our history. Just because modern
western science has banished such concepts it does not mean that they have gone
away or that they can be neatly explained in terms of the laws of physics.
But for others, the interpretation of non-human intelligence was met with
the objection: "You are asking me to think the unthinkable!" Rather than
draw the obvious conclusion, they would shy away and cling to the entirely
insupportable belief that all the circles must be manmade. Some of those who
had sought a natural phenomenon now desperately strove to maintain a highly
implausible combined explanation. Dr. Terence Meaden attempted to maintain
this middle path, to the effect that simple and ringed circles were "genuine"
and pictograms and complex circles (which do not fit his plasma vortex
theory) were "hoaxes." Even apart from the fact that simple circles on
their own have become quite a rarity, such a proposition cannot be seriously
entertained.
Because of such blinkered thinking, and because of various claims of hoaxing
(some justified), the circles have lost their innocence and 1992 has been a
year of doubt and suspicion. The circles phenomenon itself has not changed
that much but we, the audience, have. What has become abundantly plain is
that no one currently has any 100% fool-proof method of distinguishing the
genuine article from the cleverly made fake. Sometimes we can be nearly
certain that we have the real thing if we are lucky enough to find a virgin
formation. We could point to a dozen telling characteristics that were
indicators of true circles. But 100% certainty of what really occurred
during an unwitnessed event is, as I have said before, impossible. If one
goes to examine a circle just a day or two after its arrivals, visual
assessment will probably be of little value since it will already have been
trampled by dozens of visitors.
If we find that there is no definite "litmus test" for true circles, we will
be forced once more to listen to our own intuition, or else to take far
greater notice of the downing results which perhaps amounts to the same
thing. The fact that dowsers are not infallible does not mean one should
abandon such methods; scientists too make mistakes and this does not cause
us to abandon science. All of us can be deceived or mistaken and such
failure should not cause us to lose heart. We have here a real phenomenon of
extreme significance and the temporary confusion in 1992 should never cause
us to lose sight of this.
Those who would have one believe that every crop formation is manmade have
obviously never spent much time in the circles or engaged in active research.
There is a host of effects of a quite extraordinary but intermittent nature
that leave the investigators bewildered but convinced that intangible forces,
or energies, are at work even long after the circle has formed. Apart from a
whole catalogue of sightings of strange lights and luminous objects above the
circles, or even down in the corn, there have been many reports of anomalous
noises and of the anomalous, but inconsistent, behavior of cameras and
scientific measuring instruments used in the circles. Some of these luminous
objects have been recorded on videotape and the sounds associated with the
circles have also been recorded. Preliminary results of scientific testing
done in 1991 (and being continued in 1992) shows organic changes to the crop
which is consistent with a high temperature, of perhaps between 120 dg. and
220 dg. C, having acted for just a microsecond or two. Whether this is
microwave radiation or some other agency is not clear. Nor does it explain
the bizarre shapes that are being produced in the fields.
Neither does the suggested manmade origin of the formations, whether by
conventional manual means or by "star wars" high technology, explain the
quite extraordinary effects which the circles have had on people. These can
be divided into a range of physiological effects, for which there is
insufficient space for discussion here, and also what we may call spiritual
effects that have evidently changed many people's lives. It is not too much
of an exaggeration to say that the pursuit of the crop circles has taken on
the aspect a religious following for many people.
Given the prevailing atmosphere of doubt and suspicion I consider myself
lucky to have had the chance to examine several of the 1992 formations when
they were completely fresh. One such was the magnificent triplet at Overtown
Farm, just a mile north of Barbury Castle, which formed on June 4th. The
barley in these three circles was laid with a perfection that left little
doubt as to their authenticity. Two of these circles sported long curling
tails terminating in small (1.5 metre) circles at the center of which were
standing tufts of just two or three plants. Beside one of the tailed circles
was the new "signature" of 1992, an alpha or symbolic fish design similar to
that of the early Christians, was about 14 feet long. This appeared with
several of the new formations in that part of Wiltshire.
Besides this curious signature and a noticeable predilection for triplets,
several other themes were also apparent in the 1992 circles. Tailed circles,
first seen at Cheesefoot Head in 1989 but largely absent in 1990 and 1991,
were often seen this year. Some of these gave a distinct impression of a
seed with a shoot coming out of it. sometimes the tails developed into long
curving paths where the circle making agency had swept through the crop, in
one case crossing over itself. Certainly the total number of formations in
1992 is comparable with the 1990 and 1991 totals.
<<Concluded in next message..>>
--
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: Wingfield/Crop Circles - Conclusion
Date: 29 Nov 92 09:29:04 GMT
<<..Continued from previous message>>
Other themes included circles with plain crosses attached, similar to the
'female' sign or the astrological sign for Venus. Dumb-bells and pictograms
similar to those seen in 1990 and 1991 were also found in many parts of the
country. These sometimes embodied spirals and crescents which were never
previously seen. One huge pictogram at Hyden Hill two miles south of East
Meon in Hampshire displayed some of the unmistakable characteristics of the
1990 pictograms at Pepperbox Hill and Hazeley Farm fields (otherwise known as
the Gallops Pictogram of 4/8/90). At its centre was a large ring bisected by
a straight pathway on either side of which were single boxes parallel to this
axis and within the ring; at either end of the pathway, outside the ring were
circles of equal size. This format later developed in to the insectograms of
1991.
The 1992 pictogram of this shape was examined by several seasoned
cereologists who gave it their blessing. Richard Andrews dowsed the
formation and said that he was confident of its authenticity. This casts
an interesting light on the claims of Doug & Dave (now retired) who
previously laid claim to authorship of these earlier formations but whose
highly questionable claims appear to have shrunk even more of late.
The Cereologist's Manmade Circle Making Competition at West Wycombe was held
in mid-season. Although it was anticipated that it would never provide
conclusive answers, it certainly taught us two things; that impressive
geometric formations can be produced at night by diligent fakers and that
in the past, many of us have too readily accepted as "genuine" circles which
could have been hoaxed; and that man-made circles generally lack the flow
which we usually see in the genuine formations--there is a fluidity to this
flow which sweeps the plants with it in a way that was not displayed in the
man-made circles at West Wycombe.
Interestingly, the more successful competitors used substantial amounts of
equipment to scribe their pictograms and bridge the gap when climbing into
isolated parts of the design they were making. At least half the teams
managed to leave behind small items after they had finished. And in every
case the flattened crop in the manmade circles was broken or buckled, which
is not generally the case in "genuine" formations.
Even without these insights it was apparent that there were several hoaxed
formations being made in the cornfields during the circle season of 1992.
No one can seriously deny this. Some of the more spectacular hoaxes of 1992
will soon be revealed in THE CIRCULAR together with photographs of their
creators. However this hoaxing does not in any way vindicate the heavy-
handed campaign, which is currently pursued by one particular group, and
invisibly encouraged, to say the least, by some people close to government,
to rubbish the circles phenomenon as a whole.
If one set out to run a successful campaign to discredit the circles
phenomenon, how would one best proceed? Governments at war have, in the
past, counterfeited large quantities of their enemy's currency in order to
devalue and ruin the economy based upon that currency. The same strategy
might be used against the circles by whoever is running such a disinformation
campaign. Some would interpret the following happenings in this light.
On July 9th a vast formation, 440 ft long, shaped like a fully extended snail
with curious L-shaped eyestalks appeared after a misty night in the
celebrated East Field at Alton Barnes. Despite the fact that several groups
had been watching the field no one saw people making this formation.
Nevertheless, such was the heightened state of paranoia that prevailed, all
sorts of accusations were made and anyone in the vicinity that night was
regarded by some, at least, with deep suspicion. One absurd and malicious
accusation was that farmer Tim Carson had commissioned hoaxing of the "Snail"
for financial motives.
Was the "Snail" genuine or a fake? There were many indications that it was
indeed the real thing. Distinctive dowsable patterns were found and the
initial close examination gave no suggestion of hoaxing. Many people
reported strong energies in different parts of this bizarre formation.
Fifteen days later a second snail appeared 2 miles away at Stanton St.
Bernard. This was much rougher, apparently did not dowse, and was soon
condemned as a hoax. A third huge snail appeared on July 29 near Pewsey,
and a fourth at Manningford Bohune some days later. These too were
considered to be extremely dubious.
The very idea of a huge snail-shaped agriglyph is outrageous. Surely all
such formations must be hoaxes? It is too early to make a full assessment
of the snail conundrum but the phenomenon continues to stretch and test us
and the "Snails," true or false, are all part of the extraordinary crop
circle enigma. Certainly there were some very elaborate hoaxes during 1992.
Two of these, at Upton Lovell near Warminster and at Froxfield near
Marlborough, were specifically aimed at deceiving CCCS and discrediting leading
circles researchers. However these were detected as fakes by CCCS, who are
aware who is responsible, and this may have forestalled the anticipated
debunking article in popular newspapers which the circle fakers no doubt had
intended to publish.
Snails apart, the quickening pace of the phenomenon as the 1992 harvest
approached (especially in the usual area of mid-Wiltshire with several new
formations reported every day) began to test even the most skeptical. Their
thesis rests of an invisible army of unseen hoaxers -- quite apart from the
small number of actual hoaxers -- who are never caught and never acknowledged
and who never abandon their formations half-made. In July and August
considerable numbers of circle enthusiasts gathered and watched night after
night.
What they sometimes did see near Alton Barnes and Milk Hill were luminous
orange globes low over the fields and which, on at least one occasion,
descended into the crop. What these objects -- these UFOs -- are, we
simply do not know but they appear to move and behave in a purposive manner.
Whatever they turn out to be, it seems more likely that they are progenitors
of the circles and pictograms.
On August 17th the final mystery of 1992 was sprung on us in a wheat field
close to Silbury Hill. There was found a large ring, in the centre of which
was a quandranted circle like the ancient swastika. On the ring were eight
devices that included many of the symbols which we had seen singly in the
fields earlier. There was a crescent, a circle with antler-like horns, a
quincunx (with only three satellites), a "hand of God," a ring with a key,
a heart (?) and a dumbbell. The eight devices on the ring were distorted
beyond recognition as it had come down in the position of a water trough
which stood in the field from the time when it had been a pasture. This
curious detail and other factors gave indication that this formation was
not of manmade origin.
Magnificent from the air, the new prodigy, known facetiously by some as the
"Happy Eater Cosmic Mega-Menu," immediately posed all sorts of questions.
It appeared that despite the determined campaign to rubbish the circles and
the often expressed expectation that they would decline or stop, the
phenomenon stays very much with us and will most likely reappear in 1993.
George Wingfield
August 1992.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article originally appeared in the Dec. '92 edition of HUFON REPORT,
the newsletter of the Houston UFO Network. For more information call
(713) 850-1352.
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Danni.Brewi@p0.f812.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Danni Brewi)
Subject: Re: New Affiliate
Date: 30 Nov 92 03:29:13 GMT
MC> This is to welcome Jeff and Danni Brewi of Palm Springs, CA to the Par
MC> family. They have an avid interest in research and investigation.
MC> ParaNet ALPHA-THETA(sm)
MC> Jeff and Danni Brewi
MC> On behalf of the group, welcome! Please take a moment and introduce
MC> yourselves.
Thanks Mike,
I guess we are hoping to find the truth like everyone else here. We
spend a lot of time running around in the desert looking for things
that have been reported. So far we haave just gotten a lot of sand in
our shoes.:} We have had the good fortune to get two people to submit
sighting reports to us and would be willing to share theh info. It
seems that either we have met a lot of people that have had abductions
or to much sun...Several people here are having similar dreams that
they seem to also be together in certain cases.
We feel very previliged to be among the ParaNet family and hope we can
help in any way needed to get to the truth. Jeff is busy making all
sorts of strange devices to detect magnetic waves and we are doing
research on copper..
Thanks, again.
Danni and Jeff
--
Danni Brewi - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Danni.Brewi@p0.f812.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve.Gresser@f100.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Gresser)
Subject: Arizona Sighting
Date: 1 Dec 92 19:57:00 GMT
* Forwarded from "UFOs"
* Originally by Steve Gresser
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 1 Dec 1992, 12:32
Also: Nohl Rosen
Well, last night it happened - I _FINALLY_ saw something. It is strange mostly
because there have been, apparantly, some sightings in the area. Beyond that, I
would have an extremely difficult time accepting a prosaic explanation without
a recreation of the event. It is, of course, possible.
Background: I am in Scottsdale, Arizona, which borders (mostly) Phoenix's
eastern side. I live in the northeastern end of Scottsdale. To the north are
mountains, and there are houses obscuring portions of the horizon on all sides
but the west. Several miles west of me is a hospital that has a helipad, so I
regularly see helicopters. I am grateful that my walls are thick because I am
nearly directly on the approach path to Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport, and a great number of the aircraft going towards Scottsdale Municipal
Airpark also fly over my house, or nearly so. Until construction begins on the
other two houses, I also have a mostly unobstructed view to the south, where I
can see aircraft coming in for quite a long time before they turn to Phoenix.
Also, I am a pilot. Suffice to say, my wife and I are familiar with aircraft
lights, helicopter lights, military aircraft lighting on a general scale,
stars, meteors (the sky is beautiful at night because we are slightly elevated
above the smog), and a variety of other natural phenomenon that are highly
visible over the Phoenix valley area.
Report (well, it's about time!): Last night, at about 10:17pm MST, I was in the
street in front of my house (E/W double cul-de-sac) w/no cross streets). I was
going to tell my sister-in-law something in her van, so I walked E towards it,
turned towards her (N) and spotted something out of the corner of my eye (W). I
turned west and said, "What's that?", thinking that it was another aircraft
coming in low with its lights towards me, a common sight but still pretty
spectacular. She replied, "It's an airplane," which I beleived at first, but I
still wanted to watch it. Then I realized that the object was not lighted like
any aircraft I have ever seen, and the lights were flashing without a sequence
that I could register (rotating beacons, position lights, etc. have a pattern
to them - usually "flash, flash, flash" or "flash-flash, flash-flash, flash-
flash" - but this had neither) and the lights were brighter than even the
closest aircraft that I had seen - but VERY sharp. My wife was coming out of
the house, and I was moving across the street to keep the object in view as it
moved northward, closer than the hospital. I kept calling her over to see it
but she was in the wrong position and nearly fell as I moved W down the street
to keep in in view. I kept thinking, "This has got to be an aircraft!" But it
never resolved itself into something my mind could recognize. It was pointed
maybe thirty degrees down in the direction of movement, and it moved more
quickly than a helicopter, and VERY smooth movement, but not as fast as, say, a
low-flying jet.
When my wife finally got it in to view, she said something that I had seen but
not noticed - "That son-of-a-***** is ROTATING! What is that, Steve?" A
series of colorful expletives followed. As my wife looked at it, it began to
turn northeastwards, as if to go behind the mountains, and she decided to dash
down to the van my sister-in-law was in and chase it. I was about to lose
sight of it, so I ran down too (by this time I was at the intersection of my
street), but we never got sight of it again.
On first sight, it appeared to be an overly-lighted aircraft, kind of long,
with many lights on it. But the lights looked more light arcing electricity
than lights, and were exceptionally sharp and bright. This looked nothing like
a helicopter with a search light, nor like any other lights I've seen on an
aircraft. My wife and I were both wearing our glasses, and her sister does not
wear glasses. The incident frightened her enough that she was scared to go
home down Pima Road (the major N/S access road near the hospital). The incident
was over by 10:19pm MST. The object appeard almost to be in three sections
because of the lighting and was slowly rotating (if looking from above the
object) in a counter-clockwise motion. I estimated its altitude to be between
1200 and 1500 feet, but my wife says it was below 1000 feet. The object itself
was not clearly visible to me at all.
So now I join the ranks of all the kooks and looneys who have seen these things
before. All I can say is, all the years of dreaming and imagining what it
would be like do not prepare you for the sense of the object being out of place
that you get when you actually see one. It just looks ... strange.
I welcome questions regarding this sighting and would appreciate no accusations
of substance abuse or fabrication. I have had many oportunities to fabricate
UFO stories before, but as someone who is sincerely interested in the
phenomenon, I feel that particular action is equatable to rape. I no longer
smoke, I almost never drink, I do not take drugs (but I inhale regularly <G>),
and my prescription on my glasses is "plano" for a mild astigmatism (I'm not
sure what "plano" is, but I bet SOMEONE knows).
I thank you greatly for your time reading this. I know it is a long story.
Thank you again,
Steve
--
Steve Gresser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Steve.Gresser@f100.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lawrence.A..Doerr@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Lawrence A. Doerr)
Subject: Paranet Faq File
Date: 3 Dec 92 04:39:00 GMT
You might want to arrange your database by country as well.
As an example, I'm trying to find some links between the Mexico City
sightings and the newly published theory that the great extinction
asteroid impacted nearby. The gravity and magnetic fluctuations are
amazing, the core samples taken seem to be fairly conclusive.
You could index by continent, latitude and longitude of the sighting
as well, but that may be beyond most of us.
--
Lawrence A. Doerr - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Lawrence.A..Doerr@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob.Dunn@p0.f31.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Bob Dunn)
Subject: ParaNet FAQ File
Date: 2 Dec 92 05:45:00 GMT
MC>The first step will be to define the various categories that the FAQ file
MC>should have, i.e., a list of organizations, bibliographies of publications
MC>and articles, publishers, and information on the subjects of interest.
MC>Ideas?
Boy, you're talking about a =lot= of material here, my most recent
list of UFO publications alone is over 75k. If you wanted to add in
ghosts, esp, monsters, etc. you'd have one major FAQ!
One of the things I've been working on in my dubious free time is a
sort of "who's who" in UFO research. A short bio and address for some
of the more prominent UFO investigators. I think Jerry Clark's UFO
Encyclopedia would be a good source for this.
I'm also working on a "celebrity UFO file", prominent people (Carter,
Reagan, Stuart Whitman, Muhammad Ali, etc) who believe they've seen a
UFO. I'm especially interested in sightings by scientists and military
brass. If you're interested in seeing any of this, let me know.
--
Bob Dunn - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bob.Dunn@p0.f31.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Paranet Faq File
Date: 3 Dec 92 06:19:01 GMT
+ Boy, you're talking about a =lot= of material here, my most recent
+ list of UFO publications alone is over 75k. If you wanted to add in
+ ghosts, esp, monsters, etc. you'd have one major FAQ!
ParaNet's name stands for Paranormal Network. Those subjects deserve attention
as well.
+ One of the things I've been working on in my dubious free time is a
+ sort of "who's who" in UFO research. A short bio and address for some
+ of the more prominent UFO investigators. I think Jerry Clark's UFO
+ Encyclopedia would be a good source for this.
+ I'm also working on a "celebrity UFO file", prominent people (Carter,
+ Reagan, Stuart Whitman, Muhammad Ali, etc) who believe they've seen a
+ UFO. I'm especially interested in sightings by scientists and
+ military
+ brass. If you're interested in seeing any of this, let me know.
Great ideas. Are you willing to work on this aspect of it?
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick.Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen)
Subject: Fido Ufo moderator
Date: 3 Dec 92 07:34:33 GMT
JH> FYI, Don Allen is now Fido UFO moderator.
JH> I'm sure he'll do fine. I just couldn't find enough hours in the day.
You did a super job, and deserve about a thousand times more gratitude
than was ever thrown your way. Don will be great, too, and I'll do my
best to support him and avoid complicating his life.
Maybe I'll volunteer, sometime. I have a thick skin, and wield a
sharp tongue impartially. ;->
Cheers,
Rick M.
--
Rick Moen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bcstec.ca.boeing.com!kuryakin
Subject: Cable News Radio
Date: 5 Dec 92 06:16:06 GMT
From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek)
This was transcribed by a friend who wishes to remain anonymous.
The following is from 'UFO's Tonight', carried on Cable Radio Network at
9:00 pm PST every Sunday.
The guest on the show was Kevin Randle, co-author of the book,
'UFO Crash at Roswell', Avon paperback, 1991. The interview covered
the latest on this case from one of the leading researchers on this
subject.
I won't review the entire Roswell story. There is a lot about it currently
available from many in-print books. The above book is one, there is another
by Stanton Friedman and Don Berliner called 'Crash At Corona' that is currently
on the shelves. I also won't get into the arguement that is going on between
the two Roswell research factions, represented by the above two books.
I will only say that the arguement centers around the existence of a second
crash site to the west of the Corona/Roswell site, in the Plains of San
Agustin. With the exception of a few details, both factions agree about
the first site, the Corona/Roswell site.
Since the interview was with Kevin Randle, I prefer to report just the work
that Randle/Schmitt are doing on this case. Randle/Schmitt are also sponsored
by the Center For UFO Studies in Chicago.
The Randle/Schmitt book has some very impressive testimony:
Col. Thomas DuBose then chief of staff for Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey,
who was then commander of the 8th Air Force, of which the 509th Bomb Group
at Roswell, was a part. Col. DuBose was in on the creation of the crashed
weather balloon cover story per the direct order of General Clements
McMullen, Washington DC.
Members of the 509th bomb group intelligence and counter-intelligence
staffs (named in the book).
Former B-29 crew members who flew pieces of the wreckage around (named in
the book).
USAF Brig. Gen, Arthur Exon, who was a former commander of Wright
Patterson AFB.
So if you're interested, get the books, read the stories, and make up your
own minds.
Summary:
A summary of the new information follows:
- Randle/Schmitt are now concentrating their efforts on investigating the
impact area of the Corona/Roswell vehicle.
- There are now 7 first hand witnesses to the vehicle impact site.
There were really no first hand witnesses to the impact site when
their book was written.
- A better approximation of the location of the vehicle impact site
has been made, based on the new first hand witnesses.
- Based on the testimony of these new first-hand witnesses, some of the
'conventional wisdom', such as the crash date, now seems to be
changing.
- Randle/Schmitt have now talked to over 400 1st/2nd hand witnesses
regarding the Corona/Roswell site.
- The crashed vehicle was tracked on radar before the crash.
- Kevin Randle claims to have handled a small piece of the crash debris,
pocketed by one of the first hand witnesses.
- Randle provided additional information on why the Roswell Army Air Field
released a press story that they had recovered a flying saucer.
- Although there was less specific information on this, there also seems
to be progress that is being made on understanding the General Twining
flying disk letter, of September 23, 1947.
- The claims of a second crash site on the Plains of San Agustin, over
100 miles to the west of Roswell, now seems to be in serious jeopardy.
Back in September, the sole first hand witness to that scenario,
admitted to lying about a small aspect of the case. So now there are no
more 'credible' first hand witnesses to the 'Plains' site.
There is more information on some of the above below. Some of the following
are exact quotes. If there are no quote marks, then it is a summary in
my words, of what Randle said.
Q: Do we have anyone first hand who witnessed the object itself near Roswell?
A: There are now 7 first hand witnesses that are familiar with the craft impact
site discovered near Roswell. It was only after 2-to-3 years of research
that Randle/Schmitt started to find first hand witnesses to the vehicle
impact site. Randle/Schmitt have been researching the Corona/Roswell case
now for a little over 4 years.
Based on the testimony of the 7 new first hand witnesses, the vehicle
impact site is now located 25-to-30 miles from the debris field near
Corona NM. That places it much closer to Roswell NM.
During the 7/4/47 3-day weekend, the head of the AAF, General Carl Spaatz,
was on a fishing trip in the Pacific Northwest, where most of the sightings
were taking place at that time (interesting).
Q: Have you ever looked into the possibility of a high powered radar site
as contributing to the cause of the crash?
A: Randle indicated there were radar sites at White Sands, Roswell AAF, and
Kirtland. This thing was tracked on radar for a period of time.
Randle was skeptical that radar could have been a contributing factor
to the crash.
Q: Have you anything new to report from the recent Denver, CO engagements?
A: On a radio show during the Denver speaking engagement Randle was asked if he
had ever seen any of the debris.
'I have actually handled a piece of the debris. A small piece of the
debris maybe 3/4 of an inch long and 1/2 of an inch wide.
It looked like silver pumice with some stratification in it.
Very light weight.
It didn't crumble like pumice would. There was not that kind of a gritty
texture to it. But it looked like pumice.'
Q: You're convinced that you actually handled a piece of an extraterrestrial
craft?
A: 'I was told that what I was handling was a piece of the debris, yes.
Now the question becomes, it was not analyzed and all I could do was look
at it and see what it looked like.
The question is always in the back of your mind, was this really a piece
of the debris or was I being taken down the garden path.
I was told this was a piece of the debris from the craft that the fella
had been able to pocket.'
Q: Was this one of the original first hand witnesses?
A: 'This was a first hand witness! I have no reason to doubt his word at this
point, at all. All I can say is yes I handled a small piece of the debris,
as far as I know.'
Q: Are there things going on behind the scenes (regarding Roswell) that we
don't know about as civilians?
A: 'I would imagine there's a great deal going on that we don't understand.
We've been told again by some of our sources that there's all kinds of
talk about releasing this data slowly. That sort of thing. We've been told
that there is a small contingent of people who now are in control of this
data, who really don't want it to come out! So it's kind of, take a
choice, type of thing. We can speculate about things but we don't really
have any answers about that.
The reason for the press release in 1947 though, that was part of the
whole plan to keep this thing buried by having the lower headquarters
come out with a story that they had a flying saucer, then a higher
headquarters say: No, no, it was merely a weather balloon. You've
discredited all the rumors coming out of Roswell at that time. And that
was the plan, to discredit the rumors so people wouldn't be asking the
very difficult questions. Well those dummies in Roswell, they thought
they had a flying saucer, but what they had was a weather balloon.'
The Twining letter of Sept. 23, 1947 was talked about. Randle said that
to explain fully what was going on would take a couple of hours. This
thing was at the highest levels of security and at that level it's a very
convoluted and complex system that's in place.
Q: What do you intend to do at this point forward ...?
A: 'One of the things we're working on is to of course track down additional
witnesses to corroborate the impact site near Roswell and we're looking
for documentation so that rather than having to believe what we say we
can kind of prove what we're saying - and that's always been kind of what
we're doing, looking for corroboration. But the investigation also
encompasses looking at the stories told by people and finding out whether
we can break them down under scrutiny.'
Q: ... How do the stories check out ... among the new witnesses?
A: Randle indicated that there are problems with certain conventional wisdom
regarding the Roswell case, for example the crash date. Conventional
wisdom says that the crash occurred on July 2. One of the things that is
interesting about what the new witnesses say, is that the crash actually
seems to have happened a couple of days later. These new witnesses were
involved with the retrieval. They are not currently in contact with each
other, and I believe Randle said they don't know each other.
Q: The new witnesses must be getting on in years. Are they afraid of
government retribution for talking?
A: 'These first hand witnesses are not necessarily afraid of government
retribution, but are more afraid of losing their privacy.'
He indicated that Walter Haut, the former Roswell AAF PIO back in 1947,
the guy who released the crashed flying saucer story under orders from
the 509th Roswell Base Commander, Col. William Blanchard, gets 2-3 phone
calls per week at 2-to-3 in the morning from people wanting to discuss
the case!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doug.Morrow@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Morrow)
Subject: Aurora Aircraft
Date: 5 Dec 92 20:16:00 GMT
I don't know if any of you have seen this article, but I'm posting
it for those of you who haven't:
Rocky Mountain News, Sat., Dec 5, 1992
Associated Press--
SECRET US AIRPLANE FLIES 5,280 MPH
BRITISH MILITARY-AFFAIRS JOURNAL SAYS
London--
The US Air Force is operating a new generation of secret spy
planes capable of reaching eight times the speed of sound, "Jane's
Defense Weekly" said Friday.
In a report prepared for next week's issues, the military-affairs
magazine said the triangular-shaped planes have been in service
since 1989.
"We've been working on this report for about three years," Jane's
editor, Paul Beaver said in a telephone interview. "The evidence
has grown overwhelming-all we need now is a photograph to prove that
it exists."
Beaver quoted the report as saying the $1 billion plane, dubbed
Aurora, could reachcruising speeds of Mach-8 - or 5,280 mph, more
than 2 1/2 times the official world record.
The defense establishment continues to deny the existence of
Aurora, he said.
Chris Hudson, 30, a trained aircraft observer, told Jane's that
while working as an oil-drilling engineer in the North Sea in 1989
he saw a bizarre wedge shaped plane flying between two F-111
fighter-bombers and a Hercules tanker.
End Story...
Nothing all that new, but just more comfirmation that the US
spy-guys have been flying and denying this craft for a long time.
--
Doug Morrow - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Doug.Morrow@p0.f150.n30163.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************************
