Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 628
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 628
Thursday, March 4th 1993
(C) Copyright 1993 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
questions from alt.alien.visitors
Re: "truth"
I GOT FOOLED TOO!
NE Ohio Center for ET Studies
Ne Ohio Center For Et Studies
Re: "truth"
Re: Stink
CO UFO case continues...
Alabama Mutilations
Colorado Ufo Update
Re: "truth"
David Bloomberg
Baker Paper
Truth, experts out of primary fields,etc.
Evidence
RE: Paranet Newsletter 626
Phobos Ii
MYSTERY SOUND
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: violet.berkeley.edu!chalmers
Subject: questions from alt.alien.visitors
Date: 24 Feb 93 20:31:36 GMT
From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
Michael Corbin:
Re your post from Bill Peterson, originally from alt.alien.visitors:
There are two points on which I have questions or comments: 1).
What are the criminal penalties for pilots discussing UFO sightings
with the press? Do they apply only to military and commercial pilots
or do they include private pilots as well. 2). While many scientists
still think there must be life elsewhere in space, I have sensed a
growing pessimism about this and a willingness to admit the
possibility that the earth may be unique. The argument, such as it is,
concerns the number of necessary coincidences that made the earth
habitable, allowed life to begin, and then survive long enough for
intelligence to evolve. I don't find it convincing myself; for
one thing, life doesn't have to be humanoid or intelligent to exist.
Also, we really don't know enough about the origin of planetary
systems, early solar system and planetary formation, primitive
earth chemistry, etc. to be too dogmatic about what is and is
not a rare event. However, there is a feeling that life might
be less common than was thought a few years ago. On the other
hand, protoplanetary disks seem commoner than imagined too.
-- John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Re: "truth"
Date: 25 Feb 93 08:43:00 GMT
Tom Davis writes:
> I understand your position in the classic sense; yet,
> practical history does not substantiate the concept: Paul
> Winchell, with little or no scientific training coming up
> with the first working model of an artificial heart. When
> his contribution to medical science was first announced the
> laughter could be heard in every medical school in the
> nation - "A ventriloquist," they said, "what could he
> possibly know of anatomy, let alone the heart?" Yet, self
> studied and with the wisdom to ask what he did not know he
> made his contribution.
> Now, there can be no argument that in spite of his
> contribution he was shunned by the medical community - that
> his a matter of record. But I always thought that a matter
> of disgrace, not wisdom.
Paul Winchell never came up with a working model of an artificial
heart. The first "working model" of an artificial heart was the
Jarvik 7. It didn't work too well because its initial recepient,
Haskell Karp, didn't live very long after its installation. His
widow sued just about everyone who had anything to do with that
fiasco. Paul Winchell was not a defendant in that case. To this
date, the only person who walks around with an artificial heart
is Capt. John-Luc Picard, a fictitious character.
Please remember that the echo guidelines prohibit the posting of
unsubstantiated B.S. stories such as this Paul Winchell piece.
This is the second time you have done this. Last time, you told
some story about a guy who fell from a balcony in Skokie and
never hit the ground. Sheldon had to waste a lot of time trying
to run this down before you finally retracted it.
> Hereis a final point - while the methodology may
> certainly be outside the realm of acceptance of a given
> discipline, the results, of repeatable, should be carefully
> studied by those who claim to be scientists; remembering,
> of course, that we have a lot of people traIned as
> scientists who could no more grow a culture or create a
> controlled study if their lives depended on it.
This is the same specious argument that is constantly being made
by Professor Jacobs. We are supposed to believe that just
because there are some incompetent psychologists and
psychiatrists around, we should therefore abandon science and
leave this subject in the hands of the diletantes. What is
really needed is a situation wherein qualified mental health
professionals are *attracted* to the investigation of this
subject because of the *quality* of data being produced. What is
really happening is just the opposite, as evidenced by Dr.
Kenneth Ring's refusal to continue his involvement in this area.
-- John
--
John Burke - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Clark.Matthews@f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews)
Subject: I GOT FOOLED TOO!
Date: 24 Feb 93 20:09:00 GMT
In a message to Clark Matthews <22 Feb 93 09:38> Pete Porro wrote:
PP> I got fooled by some lights myself. It was raining and the way
PP> the water (downpour) was reflecting off the lights, made for a
PP> very unusual sight. I backed up the car and started laughing at
PP> myself. From one particular spot it looked like a bright yellow
PP> UFO glowing in the sky, from 15 feet up the road, it was
PP> obviously a large light over a parking lot that was partially
PP> obstructed, and that gave it the unusual appearance.
Yes, it's really surprising. You'd think that stationary lights at close range
would be pretty obvious, but they're not in some cases.
PP> driveway, but when temps. return to above 50, I'll grab the
PP> camera and try it. I also have a desire to head up north for some
PP> mystery lights in Watersmeet WI and tape them if I can. It's over
PP> an hour from the cottage, so I need a clear night before I'm
PP> going for a ride. (ps the cottage is five hours from home to start with)
Sounds interesting. Good luck on getting results --
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hela.INS.CWRU.Edu!cc203
Subject: NE Ohio Center for ET Studies
Date: 25 Feb 93 23:10:34 GMT
From: cc203@cleveland.freenet.edu (David R. Stepien)
+ From: Jim.Dickerson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Dickerson)
+ Subject: N.e. Ohio Center For Et Studies
+ Date: 12 Feb 93 17:59:00 GMT
+
+ Mike; who posted this message that you passed on. And why didn't
+ they sign it?
+ It appears to be another waco NEW AGE group. Is there anything that
+ you know personally about them or the person that posted this
+ message?
+ Jim
+ --
+ Jim Dickerson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
The message you refer to was forwarded from 'Internet Alien Visitors
Conference' by Mike Keithly, and clearly identifies myself as the
original author. The message is a recap of an interview NOCES conducted
with Cliff Stumbaugh, and was reported with no judgement on our part as
to the accuracy of his statements. I will, however, repeat that we
believe it likely (based on indepent corroboration) that some type of
visible UFO activity did occur at the rallies Cliff presented, and that
it is certainly worth our time to take him up on his offer to reproduce
it for us this summer.
The Northeast Ohio Center for Extraterrestrial Studies (NOCES) is a new
organization that is dedicated to the study of the UFO phenomemenon.
Our goal is to attract, witness, and possibly communicate with
extraterrestrial craft, and to document this as far as possible. This
contrasts with standard UFO investigation techniques, which concentrate
on collecting information after an event has occurred. To achieve this
we will experiment with techniques such as the use of high powered
lights, and more esoterically, projected thought. There are numerous
cases in which a witness has sighted a craft, called out to it in
thought or merely wished it was closer, and found that the craft
responded. This indicates that our goals are possible, and at least
worth trying.
The most widely known group performing this type of work today is, of
course, CSETI. While CSETI is controversial in the UFO community, it
is our assesment that they have successfully witnessed structured
extraterrestrial spacecraft at close range. This assesment is based on
a review of CSETI documentation of their experiments conducted last
summer in England, and a personal conversation with Dr. Steven Greer.
NOCES invites inquiries from anyone interested in participating in our
experiments. Send email to cc203@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
David Stepien
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Ne Ohio Center For Et Studies
Date: 26 Feb 93 06:54:00 GMT
David Stepien writes:
> * * *
>
> NOCES invites inquiries from anyone interested in
> participating in our
> experiments. Send email to cc203@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>
David:
From what I've heard about the way in which CSETI
operates, your open invitation to "outisders" is a radical
departure from the CSETI modus operandi. I've been told that
CSETI carefully screens all would-be participants in their
exercises. A lengthy questionnaire is supposedly used to
determine whether the applicant's belief systems resonate with
the harmonies eminated by the "thought sequencers". This is
supposed to facilitate their "success". What have you heard in
this regard? Do you have any information that would either
support or disprove these points?
Best of luck to you and your group! I hope that you can come up
with something more convincing than what CSETI has been boasting
about.
-- John
--
John Burke - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Davis)
Subject: Re: "truth"
Date: 24 Feb 93 17:59:00 GMT
Exactly, Sheldon. When it comes to degrees (and I have my share)
the only thing which may be assumed is that the bearer of said
sheepskins has learned to function within the community of his or her
specialty. It may, but not necessarily, mean the individual has
learned to think.
A person's value to research is more in developed and inate
intelligence than in certification - in other words, in each person's
case we have to look at what they had to work with, evaluate how they
delt with it, and determine if the results are provable and repeatable.
We need to keep in mind that some of the most profound scientific
hoaxes have been perpetrated by college certified scientists who needed
grant money or desperately sought recognition.
A degree (and again, no sour grapes here, I have several) is
absolutely no indication of competence. Only performance proves that.
--
Tom Davis - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Davis)
Subject: Re: Stink
Date: 24 Feb 93 18:17:00 GMT
While I remember the incident personally, that would not be
evidence. You might try contacting MARS via any local military PR
officer and see if they will provide tapes or transcripts from recorded
messages of that period. Another source could be the Goldwater estate.
--
Tom Davis - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: CO UFO case continues...
Date: 26 Feb 93 01:58:00 GMT
MC>I personally don't feel that the lights on the home, or possibly a restaurant
MC> had anything to do with the lights that the deputy saw. I also feel that
MC>after "14 years on the job," it is unlikely that he would have made such an
MC>error. However, I suspect that if that is a home up on the hill, they would
MC>have had an excellent vantage point to see this object as it would have been
MC>in the vicinity of the object. We have been unable to determine how to get
MC>up there, but that is part of the ongoing investigation.
Thanks for your comments and insight Mike. This appears to have
the makings of a bona-fide "unknown" sighting... one that can
not readily be explained via prosaic mechanisms.
Can't wait to hear more! Keep at it... --Sheldon
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Alabama Mutilations
Date: 26 Feb 93 01:58:00 GMT
MC> > This message was from JERRY WOODY to ALL,
MC> > originally in conference Bama
MC> > and was forwarded to you by SHELDON WERNIKOFF.
MC>Just curious, was this prepared specifically for distribution to ParaNet?
MC>Please pass along to Jerry that we are anxiously awaiting further information
MC> and thank him for his timely contribution.
MC>Mike
I read this on BAMA, and cross-posted to ParaNet. Things seem to
be heating up around the country. A video-tape of a UFO sighted
in Alabama on Feb 19, was telecast on Chicago television a
few days ago.
A woman had video-taped the UFO in DeKalb County, AL, the same
place many cattle mutilations have recently transpired. The
UFO was nearly identical to what was seen in Belgium. A DeKalb
County sheriff verified this object _was_ in the sky, and was
not hoaxed on the tape. An investigation to determine if the
stealth bomber was in the area at the time turned up negative.
I'll post future updates as available. --Sheldon
* OLX 2.1 TD * <SLW> <CHICAGO> <NETMAIL> 1:115/887.2 (708)-887-7687
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Colorado Ufo Update
Date: 26 Feb 93 01:58:00 GMT
CM>I saw the lights of this house late one night -- the high angle, darkness,
CM>and relative banking/curving motion of my car absolutely convinced me I was
CM>seeing a large UFO.
CM>It sounds incredible, but house lights (especially in unexpected places) can
CM>be very convincing. In my case, the relative motion of the car and the
CM>twisty/turny road made the effect really something, because it looked like
CM>the house was maneuvering among the hills.
CM>I just offer this as personal experience, since I have no facts on the
CM>Colorado sighting(s) beyond what Mike Keithly and others have reported.
CM>Regardless of that, the thing Mike Corbin observed high in the sky over
CM>downtown Denver last year (along with apparently thousands of citizens &
CM>police) does NOT sound like any kind of domicile, earthbound or flying.
Thank you very much for these comments, observations,
*and* your _objectivity_ Clark. It is most important to
maintain our balance and focus in all this, if we are to
isolate the wheat from the chaff. Let's investigate _all_
the possibilities... --Sheldon
* OLX 2.1 TD * <SLW> <CHICAGO> <NETMAIL> 1:115/887.2 (708)-887-7687
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Re: "truth"
Date: 26 Feb 93 01:58:00 GMT
TD>Exactly, Sheldon. When it comes to degrees (and I have my share) the
TD>only thing which may be assumed is that the bearer of said sheepskins has
TD>learned to function within the community of his or her specialty.
Not quite Tom... I wouldn't necessarily bestow even that much
credit on some "bearers". The "degree" _at times_ merely signifies
you've played the game of orthodox education, but have no idea
of how to function outside the classroom or dissertation circuit.
I know personally of at least two "M.D." degreed individuals
that I'd swear their shingle signifies "_M_ighty _D_isturbed"!
TD>A person's value to research is more in developed and inate
TD>intelligence than in certification - in other words, in each person's case we
TD>have to look at what they had to work with, evaluate how they delt with it,
TD>and determine if the results are provable and repeatable.
Ah.... another believer in scientific method, eh? Yes, we could
use a bit more of that around here. We are getting better
though, are we not?
TD>A degree (and again, no sour grapes here, I have several) is absolutely
TD>no indication of competence. Only performance proves that.
Agreed... --Sheldon
* OLX 2.1 TD * <SLW> <CHICAGO> <NETMAIL> 1:115/887.2 (708)-887-7687
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: David Bloomberg
Date: 26 Feb 93 01:58:00 GMT
MC>This is to welcome David Bloomberg of Springfield, Illinois to the ParaNet
MC>family.
MC>He is ParaNet ALPHA-KAPPA(sm).
MC>Please welcome him!
And a terrific addition he will be Mike. David is an excellent
researcher, skeptical - but open-minded, and sure to stir
the pot a bit around here.
I've recently chatted a bit with him on another network and really
enjoy his style. He's certain to aid in narrowing the
credibility gap.
Welcome David... --Sheldon
* OLX 2.1 TD * <SLW> <CHICAGO> <NETMAIL> 1:115/887.2 (708)-887-7687
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Baker Paper
Date: 26 Feb 93 01:58:00 GMT
DA>Received the Baker paper today. Thank you!
DA>This sure makes a lot more sense than most stuff I've come across in
DA>the last few years ..and it's fascinating reading.
It is very well done for the most part Don, and no doubt does
explain _prosaically_ and _rationally_ what could be happening
in a large percentage of abductions cases.
The missing time/truck driver scenario Baker describes is something
I had investigated earlier. Just ask any long haul driver if
he/she has had a "missing time" experience. Chances are... they'll
tell you they've had several. Of course, Hopkins will tell us
that's because they've been abducted! What better target than
a truck driver in the middle of nowhere at 0300. I can hear the
rebuttal loud and clear!
DA>I've often wondered about all those abduction stats that were carelessly
DA>tossed about and this report only serves to re-inforce my belief that
DA>there is perhaps very little hard evidence to support not only the
DA>claims, but also the alledged by-products..ie..implants.
..and anecdotal evidence just doesn't cut it in the
scientific realm. I know, I know... We are on the verge of
a New Age of enlightenment, and what is happening is subtle
beyond the sensitivity of our most sophisticated instruments.
DA>It's too bad that this report couldn't be made widely available on
DA>the BBS's. I'm of the opinion that we need to consider both sides
DA>of the abduction issue, not just the 'believer' side.
Yes, this is a "must read" for all Don. I hope we can initiate
a discussion on this soon. I've been a bit short on time
of late though. We'll continue with this thread.
--Sheldon
* OLX 2.1 TD * <SLW> <CHICAGO> <NETMAIL> 1:115/887.2 (708)-887-7687
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: violet.berkeley.edu!chalmers
Subject: Truth, experts out of primary fields,etc.
Date: 26 Feb 93 16:51:10 GMT
From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
While it is true that there are scientists and scholars
who have done creditable work in more than one field or
who have successfully changed fields, it is not as easy as it
might appear. Learning how to learn is not as important as
learning what to learn. Newcomers to a field often have trouble
distinguishing merely interesting from important work. Important
work is that which opens up new areas of research, answers long
standing questions, or removes embarassing anomalies, etc.
The best way to develop critical judgement is to interact
with others in the field. That is why it is so important for graduate
students to attend meetings, give presentations, read the latest
issues of peer-reviewed journals, etc., and partly why graduate and
professional schools are so time-consuming. One has to learn
what the standards are, who does reliable (i.e., replicable) work,
where such work appears (there are more journals than one can
read), etc. Alas, many field-changers work alone, without the stimulus
of interaction with their peers. While Nobel-quality work can
be done in a home laboratory (e.g., Peter Mitchell and the chemiosmotic
theory of energy transduction in mitochondia and chloroplasts), it
is a very rare occurrence.
Newcomers tend to focus on material or ideas of personal
interest and ignore the rest, leading to large gaps in their basic
knowledge and very often deficiencies in technique, methodology
and scientific judgement.
Even within a single broad field, it takes a newcomer several
years of hard work to become conversant with the basic literature
and learn the latest techniques (and their limitations). Hands-on
experience is essential in any experimental field; one can't learn
it simply by reading textbooks, monographs, review articles, or
even the serial literature, though all of those are necessary.
So, it is necessary to examine the qualifications of purported
experts on a case-by-case basis. If they have published in peer-
reviewed journals, studied in recognized or accredited programs,
and use methods and techniques that have been validated as reliable,
then one can put some credence in their opinions and findings.
However, all work needs to be independently replicated, as even
well-qualified scientists and investigators can make mistakes,
publish too hastily, or go outside of the normal publication channels.
Examples are legion -- polywater, cold fusion, messenger DNA
( a DNA fraction that bypassed transcription and directed protein
synthesis directly), and many others. These are not cases of fraud,
but of error. Deliberate fraud is quite rare, if only because if the
work seems important, somebody will try to repeat it and fail.
Despite my caveats, I'm not at all opposed to innovative
ideas by outsiders. In fact I have not only changed my speciality
several times, I have published extensively in a field totally
outside my primary one. I also had to publish this other material
initially in non-reviewed and little known journals at first.
It's just that most new ideas turn out to be wrong, or worse,
irrelevant. Einstein once said of disparagingly another physicist
that 'his physics was not even wrong.'
--- John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: violet.berkeley.edu!chalmers
Subject: Evidence
Date: 26 Feb 93 16:51:29 GMT
From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
Every time I see the clever and elegant statement
<Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence>, I have to pause.
I assume that it is intended to remind us to have an open mind
about the existence of UFO's and related phenomena. Indeed, it is
true in a tautological sense. However, it also contradicts
common-sense, intuitive notions. Very few investors can survive
very long by investing in stocks from companies who release no
information and very few gamblers would bet large sums on
totally unknown horses. Blind faith may be admirable in religion,
but it is a poor strategy in the real world, where absence of
evidence is very often evidence of absence.
The problem is that the statement is a tautology and
therefore in a sense meaningless. In the absence of evidence,
one can conclude anything. For example, Let A mean a body
of physical evidence and B that UFO's are real phenomena.
Not-A, written as -A, is the negation of A or evidence against B.
The combination of A and -A (A or -A) symbolizes the lack of
knowledge about A's truth or 'absence of evidence.' as all
possibilities are covered (in standard logic that is, multivalued
and Fuzzy logics offer other alternatives).
One can then formalise the original statement as
-((A or -A) = -A), meaning that it is not true that A or -A is
equal to -A. This is true no matter what A may be or whether
it is true. Thus, while the original statement is true, it tells one
nothing about the real world.
A similar problem is that one can deduce anything from
falsity as as the truth table of A implies B shows. This statement
is true not only when A and B are both true, but also when A is
false, irrespective of B's truth. In the absence of evidence, the
the truth of B (B or -B may be true) is undefined.
So, while the original statement really says nothing about
the truth of UFO's and other paranormal phenomena, it does set
one to thinking and hence is provocative in a very positive sense.
-- John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: '86FTSCCQ' <86FTSCCQ@strathost.stratcom.af.mil>
Subject: RE: Paranet Newsletter 626
Date: 27 Feb 93 00:54:22 GMT
Need info from anyone on a series of sightings that occurred in
April 1975 in the state of North Carolina.
A man from New York sent me a newspaper clipping from 1975 that
described a triangle craft. The gentleman is asking if this
was one of our test aircraft and I would like to know if there is
any other information in the media on this event.
Please post here or Email to my address.
Thanks,
Capt David Winters
412TW
Edwards AFB,CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Keithly)
Subject: Phobos Ii
Date: 6 Feb 93 05:36:01 GMT
* Forwarded from "Ask UFO Magazine"
* Originally by Sheldon Wernikoff
* Originally to Don Ecker
* Originally dated 3 Feb 1993, 21:57
Hello Don,
So what's you opinion of the material Anson posted
from _The Planetary Report_ re: the mysterious
disappearance of Phobos II? Sounds plausible.
What ever happened to the analysis you were having
worked up at JPL. We've never heard a word on that!
Is there some reason they are withholding their
findings. --Sheldon
* OLX 2.1 TD * **************** slw / Chicago Netmail @ (1:115/887) FIDO
--
Mike Keithly - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: MYSTERY SOUND
Date: 26 Feb 93 21:14:23 GMT
I received this in the mail yesterday. I live in a small community named
River Hills, about eight miles north of the city of Milwaukee, WI. I
have not included the name of the people, because I do not have their
permission. They mailed this to all residents of the Village. After
reading it I thought maybe someone has heard about some other strange
noises, or at least might add it to their list of mystery sounds. We
have had the rumblings, whistles, and others. Here's one more for the
list. Funny how resonating came to mind before I finished the third
paragraph. I'll give them a call in a couple of weeks and see if they
found the source of the problem. Pete Porro 1:154/414
File: Rhills.khz
Feb 18, 1993
<Address>
Dear friends and neighbors,
We are experiencing a most troublesome problem that began about December
28th, and are hopeful that perhaps you may be of assistance.
A high pitched sound at the human threshold of hearing (15 to 16 KHz),
akin to a ringing in the ears, is present in our house at varying
intensities day and night. It precludes those of us who can hear it from
sleeping peacfully and from even having a peaceful moment during the
day.
We have had a variety of expert technicians, from Wisconsin Electric to
Wisconsin Bell, the security company, heating and water experts,
technicians with oscilloscopes and other equipment, as well as several
engineers, none of whom has been able to identify the sound nor locate
the source.
We are told that perhaps a signal of some sort is being transmitted into
the house from an external source, such as a HAM radio, new or recently
moved high power lines, a dish antenna, high-powered computers, or some
other obscure equipment that emits a signal that could resonate with
something in our home.
If you have any ideas regarding the cause of this problem, however
remote, we would be most appreciative to hear about them. Additionally,
if you happened to have experienced the same problem, perhaps a clue to
this mystery might surface if we compare notes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
<Signed>
--
Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.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************************
