Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 625
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 625
Sunday, February 21st 1993
(C) Copyright 1993 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
Survey
N.e. Ohio Center For Et Studies
Colorado Ufo Update
Evidence
Journal of Scientific Exploration
"truth"
Stuff
"truth"
Guardian Ad Lightshow
Colorado Ufo Update
Colorado Ufo Update
Re: WISCONSIN SIGHTING
Colorado Sighting Report
Wisconsin Sighting
Re: Stuff
Re: "truth"
Colorado Ufo Update
"truth"
The U/m Guardian Case: Facts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vince.Johnson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Vince Johnson)
Subject: Survey
Date: 12 Feb 93 17:11:00 GMT
One piece of hardware that could be useful would be a gravitometer,
used in Oil & Gas exploration. Presumably, UFOs use some form of
anti-gravity that could theoretically be detected by a gravitometer.
As an aside, what is the story on electo/mechanical failure in
association with proximity to UFOs? Do the motors simply stop, and
then resume after the UFO leaves, or do cars need to be restarted?
If the engine simply resumes operation without needing to restart
with the ignition key, this could be explained as classical
Einsteinian time dilation due to a strong gravitational field. Also,
the reported "switching off" of consciousness in reported abductions
could also be an effect of the presence of a strong gravitational
field (time slows down to the point where consciousness and other
biological processes are suspended).
Does anyone have any information on whether stalled cars etc. need
to be restarted after close encounters?
Regards,
Vince
--
Vince Johnson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vince.Johnson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 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
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Dickerson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Dickerson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Dickerson)
Subject: Colorado Ufo Update
Date: 12 Feb 93 18:15:00 GMT
Sheldon, the objects sighted near Denver on Jan 24th, were reported
as different objects. One main object that was higher and to the
West relative to the small yellow lights that were reported in the
saddle between two mountains. These yellow lights incidently, also
happen to be exactly where a house is located in that saddle. Also,
you should note that when we observed the area one night after the
sighting, that the lights in the house kept going off and on which
made it appear as if they had changed formation several times. Of
course they did not! We watched through binoculars. But I can see
how a person without binoculars might think that they were hovering,
and changing formation.
JIm
--
Jim Dickerson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Dickerson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Evidence
Date: 12 Feb 93 19:00:02 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally by Bill Peterson
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 10 Feb 1993, 20:19
From: billp@mozart.amd.com (Bill Peterson)
Date: 8 Feb 93 18:15:36 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Message-ID: <C256q0.Ayy@amd.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
The lack of physical evidence is frequently put forward
as proof that UFO's don't exist, or that there is no phenomenon
to study. Anecdotal evidence is not considered as valid proof.
Some say that if the gubment DID have something, they wouldn't
be able to keep it a secret. I think a little perspective is
needed here:
1) no incontrovertible physical evidence has been found.
If so, someone has kept it almost totally secret.
2) pilots are the most likely to see UFO's, since they spend
many hours in the air. There are criminal penalties for discussing
UFO sightings with the general public.
3) many military people have come forward with anecdotal
evidence of UFO's : foo fighters, radar locks, scrambles, etc. They
can't talk about it without some fear of prosecution.
4) anyone who tries to come out in the open with a story
is immediately discredited, called a "kook", etc. Even police officers
and other credible witnesses can lose their jobs.
5) many sightings are massive in scale : Washington National
sightings in 1952 for example.
6) our current science says that other planets must be extremely
common. Life should be abundant.
7) our science currently cannot tell us how to travel to another
star. But look at us 200 years ago. Now look 200 years into the future.
Is it still going to be impossible? How about a robot ship?
8) UFO's have been sighted for thousands of years.
I think that some things are obvious:
1) there is some phenomenon to study
2) we don't know everything
3) to jump to any conclusion is to stop learning
4) there is no real reason to operate under the hypothesis
that aliens are visiting us to study
5) it could just as well be angels, ourselves in the future,
or something even better
6) perhaps it is a kind of collective unconcious fantasy
--
Howdy Pardner! Let's chew the fat!
Disclaimer : my thoughts are not my own. :-X
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cadsys.enet.dec.com!cooper
Subject: Journal of Scientific Exploration
Date: 13 Feb 93 03:30:29 GMT
From: 12-Feb-1993 1455 <cooper@cadsys.enet.dec.com>
The JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION publishes peer-reviewed research
articles and invited essays in areas that do not fit neatly into the
matrix of present-day science. Now in it's 6th year of publication,
this quarterly journal provides a professional forum for the
presentation, scrutiny and criticism of topics falling outside the
established scientific disciplines. JSE publishes articles both 'pro'
and 'con', the only criteria being quality and scholarship. It is the
official publication of the international Society for Scientific
Exploration (founded in 1982). For information contact:
JSE Editorial Office
ERL 306
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
FAX: 415-725-2333
sims@flare.stanford.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Powell@f601.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Powell)
Subject: "truth"
Date: 9 Feb 93 05:51:02 GMT
-=> Quoting Sheldon Wernikoff to Pete Porro <=-
SW> Another point that disturbs me Pete is... Just exactly _WHO_ are
SW> the writers convincing with their writing?? For example (and
SW> please correct me if I am incorrect), Jacob's _Secret Life_ has
SW> been on the shelf for about a year. Have you (or anyone else out
SW> there) heard of any _new_ big name professionals being so
SW> impressed by the "reality" of the abduction phenomenon, that
SW> they've jumped on the bandwagon?
Well, there is Dr. Karla Turner...
SW> What about Roswell... Two recent books out - but I haven't heard
SW> of any _new_ mainstream scientists joining the quest for truth.
Roswell isn't really a scientific problem Sheldon. It either happenned
or it didn't, there's not much in-between. Actually, its really a
political issue at this point...
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
<Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence>
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
--
John Powell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Powell@f601.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Powell@f601.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Powell)
Subject: Stuff
Date: 9 Feb 93 05:58:08 GMT
JP> In a message to John Powell <01-21-93 18:50>, Tom Davis writes:
TD> "Frank Edwards"
TD> Well, you have hit on the essence of his problem - culpability.
TD> Edwards problems were pretty must self-inflicted errors in
TD> continuity and logic. There came a time in his life when he seemed
TD> (even on his radio show) to be desperately reaching for anything that
TD> would "prove" the existence of UFOs. As we know in retrograde, he
TD> never found such proof.
I think desperate is an appropriate word there. He was really reaching
it seemed to me. Which was unfortunate.
TD> Nor, unfortunately, has anyone else. My own experiences convinced
TD> me that UFOs exist - but I have absolutely no idea what they are.
It would sure help a lot if Uncle Sam would tell us what's theirs and
what's not...
TD> He was a well versed individual and had many followers as much
TD> through his verbal delivery as through his subject matter.
His "verbal delivery" was (for the time, I suppose) excellent! Nowadays
it seems real corny. I have a cassette of one of his radio broadcasts
and it could almost go on TV unchanged for comedy...
TD> Remember too, that we were a country just out of a world war, still
TD> expecting catastrophy...
What was the purpose of the Ground Saucer Watch? Was this funded by the
Air Force?
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
<Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence>
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
--
John Powell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Powell@f601.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: "truth"
Date: 13 Feb 93 22:41:00 GMT
In response to a point raised by Sheldon Wernikoff, John Powell
writes:
> -=> Quoting Sheldon Wernikoff to Pete Porro <=-
>
> SW> Another point that disturbs me Pete is... Just exactly _WHO_ are
> SW> the writers convincing with their writing?? For example (and
> SW> please correct me if I am incorrect), Jacob's _Secret Life_ has
> SW> been on the shelf for about a year. Have you (or anyone else out
> SW> there) heard of any _new_ big name professionals being so
> SW> impressed by the "reality" of the abduction phenomenon, that
> SW> they've jumped on the bandwagon?
>
> Well, there is Dr. Karla Turner...
ARRRGGHH!!! Karla Turner has her Ph.D in ENGLISH STUDIES. She
has no more business conducting hypnotic "regressions" than does
Roseanne Barr. One of the few QUALIFIED professionals involved
in the subject of alien abductions, Dr. Kenneth Ring (Ph.D in
Clinical Psychology) has recently DROPPED OUT of this field,
since it is rapidly becoming the exclusive province of charlatans
and diletantes.
All too often, we see examples where people, who have Ph.D's in
irrelevant subjects are tauted as experts in "hypnotic
regression" by emphasizing their moniker as "Dr. (So-And-So)" in
attempt to lend unwarranted credibility to their ideas. A good
example of this appears at page 18 of UFO magazine, Vol. 8 No. 1.
Here, we have an article about "Abduction Syndrome". At the top
of the page it says: "More Therapists Taking Note". At the
bottom of the page we have two pictures: one of Richard Boylan,
Ph.D (clinical psychology) and one of James Harder, Ph.D
(ENGINEERING). Unfortunately the article contained only three
sentences attributed to Dr. Boylan. I would have liked to find
out more from his perspective. Even worse was the article about
Yvonne Smith, a former "public relations representative" from the
L.A. courthouse who took a course in hypnotism from the Hypnosis
Motivation Institute in Tarzana. She was described as a
"Certified Hypnotherapist". Her personal Motivation for studying
hypnosis was summed up in a brief quote which speaks VOLUMES
about what is wrong with the current state of "abduction
research":
> "As I read all the material, I became extremely fascinated
> with the fact that hypnosis is used to retrieve buried trauma,
> hidden memories," she says. "When I observed people such as
> Budd Hopkins in a regression session, I knew I could do this
> work.
As Frank Sinatra said: Send in the clowns!
-- John
--
John Burke - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Guardian Ad Lightshow
Date: 13 Feb 93 23:08:00 GMT
Sheldon Wernikoff writes:
> JB>Mike:
> JB> Well, I just saw the 2/3/93 edition of Unsolved Mysteries
> JB> and all I can say is . . . YEECH!
>
> I second the emotion John. It's unfortunate that most UFO
> segments
> only seem to make it to the tabloid shows like, UM,
> Sightings, Hard Copy,
> Inside Edition, Current Affair, ad nauseum.
Sheldon:
I was going to get back to you earlier to discuss how I felt that
"Sightings" was really in a class all by itself (at the bottom of
the barrel). Then I saw the Feb. 12th show! Their coverage of
the "Guardian" caper was nowhere near as objective as the UM
show. They never discussed the hokeyness of the "Guardian
document" since it would discredit the case. This pandering to
sensationalism is why I have been calling this show: "The Pimps
of the Paranormal".
The Sightings show about CSETI was sickening. The CSETI clowns
had no business calling their "taped" event a "close encounter of
the fifth kind". By definition, a CE must be something more than
"mysterious lights in the sky at night". As most of us know,
even a CE I is a "daylight disk". These people didn't even see
anything that good. They decided that because they WILLED those
lights to appear by "thought sequencing" this was some type of
"close encounter" event. This "thought sequencing" reminds me of
a bunch of sixth-grade girls playing "Mary Worth" at a slumber
party. "Imagination focusing" is more like it. Even worse was
the substitution of the "actual footage" of the event with a
SIMULATION -- probably because the "Emperor's New Clothes
Principle" doesn't work well on TV. They did show only about
*three seconds* of the "actual footage" which was most
unimpressive.
I'd like to see an expose' of what CSETI is really like and how
it operates. We'll never see *that* on Sightings!
-- John
--
John Burke - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Colorado Ufo Update
Date: 15 Feb 93 03:19:00 GMT
On 02-10-93 Michael Corbin wrote to Sheldon Wernikoff...
MC> > It appears so far that this one's not going to be
MC> > explained away too easily. I understand there was
MC> > at least one airport radar confirmation, which would
MC> > eliminate the possibility of astronomical body
MC> > mis-identification. --Sheldon
MC>
MC> There was *no* radar confirmation, however the tower at Stapleton did
MC> see them visually with binoculars. They stated that the lights were too
MC> low to be observable with radar.
MC>
Thanks for clarifying that Mike. At least it _was_ a confirmation
by a trained observer(s). Am I correct in assuming the visual
was made by an air traffic controller?
That's a bit odd though, if they could see the lights
visually, why could they not see them on their radar? From
my experiences with radar, anything high enough to be seen
visually, could also be seen on the screen, unless it was
composed of a non-reflecting material. What do you think?
--Sheldon
... OFFLINE 1.44 * <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: Michael.Corbin@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Colorado Ufo Update
Date: 14 Feb 93 07:58:00 GMT
> Thanks for clarifying that Mike. At least it _was_ a confirmation
> by a trained observer(s). Am I correct in assuming the visual
> was made by an air traffic controller?
Yes. The tower did see them visually.
> That's a bit odd though, if they could see the lights
> visually, why could they not see them on their radar? From
> my experiences with radar, anything high enough to be seen
> visually, could also be seen on the screen, unless it was
> composed of a non-reflecting material. What do you think?
They explained to the sheriff's department that it was too low to see them
on radar due to ground clutter. This is normal.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: WISCONSIN SIGHTING
Date: 12 Feb 93 17:31:08 GMT
How come you get to see the video, and I can't get anything even though I
live here? (sounds like the usual?) What's a Kanasawa object, I'm not
familiar with the term.
The local police have been interviewed to distraction by the local media.
Mostly they have said it was a bright light, but they can't say what it was.
Since there are a few departments involved, there might be mixed reports. I
think you might have seen three eye-witness reports. All three disagree as to
what they saw, and the Astronomy experts said Venus. (which would be
expected) UFO believers said, it was a UFO for sure. Houswife said, Venus.
Outside observer, airplanes (and he saw them turn the bright lights off).
Farners said it swooped over the barn. Different farmer, bright lights to the
SW. News media had a drawing from two seperate sources, classic fried egg
saucer, dome on top with bright light, four yellow lights below. One person
described it as grey in color. (don't know how you can say that at night with
a bright light shinning at you?) Also saw smaller flap comming from IL during
the same week.
Try to sort all of this out? Part of the problem is perception variation. A
UFO to one person, might be a refuelling plane to someone else. Flickering of
planets on the horizon can be seen as something flying around to another.
Since I didn't see it, I shouldn't even guess. Just that many people went
looking for UFO's after the first report, and guess what, they saw them. The
lady who was listening to the police radio was convinced it was nothing,
because she was in the same area, went outside at the same time, and saw
Venus. The guy who saw the military planes, was closer to Madison, to the
west of the sightings, and was convinced it was just planes. The guy who
reported seeing a definite UFO, was looking in a different direction from all
other reports, unless I misunderstood and he was in fact much farther than
his reported location.
It's a mess as usual, with at least five variations on what was seen, by
people who are certian of what they saw. It would be nice if a majority of
the people agreed, but unfortunatly it's split about 20-20-20-20-20 of those
who saw something.
--
Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Colorado Sighting Report
Date: 16 Feb 93 02:52:02 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally by Michael Corbin
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 15 Feb 1993, 19:52
------------------------------------------------------------
This file was provided by ParaNet(sm) Information Service
and its network of international affiliates.
You may freely distribute this file as long as this header remains intact.
ParaNet UFO Newsclipping Service
Date Prepared: February 15, 1993.
Source: Mike Keithly, Columbine Community Courier.
Date: Article date February 3, 1993
Location: Ken Caryl Ranch, Southwest Jefferson County Colorado.
============================================================
For further information on ParaNet(sm), contact:
Michael Corbin
ParaNet Information Service
P.O. Box 172
Wheatridge, CO 80034-0172
or
FidoNet 1:104/422
Internet mcorbin@scicom.alphacdc.com
============================================================
This article was Submitted from the Columbine Community Courier dated
Wednesday Feb 3, 1993. It is rewritten without permission by Mike Kei
thly on Feb 15, 1993. Article name Article1.txt.
Ken Caryl Residents report "UFO"
Deputy Mike Sensano doesn't know what he saw on Jan 24. but he's positive
that it wasn't from a helicopter, or an airplane, or a spotlight.
Sensano was among four Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputies that saw a strange
cluster of lights appear over the Ken Caryl Valley two Sundays ago. And the
Deputies weren't alone. Between 7:45pm and 9:00pm the Jefferson County Sherr
if's Department recieved 10 calls from residents of the Ken Caryl Ranch area
who also observed a bright white light and a group of yelow ones hovering over
the air.
"When people ask me to describe the lights, I tell them I've never seen this
kind of light before, so I have nothing to compare it to." Sensano said. "
If I saw some men coming out of saucers, I'd say so."
Sensano was dispatched to the location after an anonymous citizen reported
the sighting from his car. The citizen called JCSD from a cellular phone.
When Sensano looked west from the Diamond/Shamrock gasoline station on Chat
field Avenue, he saw the lights above the mountain where the Ken Caryl West
Ranch subdivision is located.
According to a Sheriff's report filed by Sensano, the yellow cluster appeared
to be suspended in the air and not traveling in any direction. Sensano said
he could not hear any engine sounds. One deputy called officials at Staple
ton International Airport, who confirmed that they had seen the lights, but
showed nothing on there radar screen.
The lights abruptly dissapeared from the sky around 8:00pm, but reappeared
in a triangular form about ten minutes later in the same area as seen before.
Sensano said the hovering beams luminated the car of a man traveling on U.S
285 by the hogback. He said the driver ws momentarily blinded by the bright
ness of the lights. Since the incident, Sensano says he's heard numerous
theories explaining the phenomenon. One theory is that the lights were mere
ly fiber optics created by the airwaves. Another theory is that there was
some king of mirage reflecting heat waves. Others claim that the lights
were the result of a secret military experiment. Sensano himself offers
no theories on what he saw.
In his sherrif's report, the deputy classified the case as a "Suspicious
incident."
End of Article.
--
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: Wisconsin Sighting
Date: 17 Feb 93 00:20:01 GMT
> How come you get to see the video, and I can't get anything even though
> I live here? (sounds like the usual?) What's a Kanasawa object, I'm not
> familiar with the term.
That is a reference to a place. Kanazawa, Japan. 1989, an object was videotaped
by a local there. The object resembled the object that I saw in the video. The
object in Japan was a saturn-shaped object with a red light on its underside.
The shape of the WI object was similar.
> The local police have been interviewed to distraction by the local
> media. Mostly they have said it was a bright light, but they can't say
> what it was. Since there are a few departments involved, there might be
> mixed reports. I think you might have seen three eye-witness reports.
> All three disagree as to what they saw, and the Astronomy experts said
> Venus. (which would be expected) UFO believers said, it was a UFO for
> sure. Houswife said, Venus. Outside observer, airplanes (and he saw them
> turn the bright lights off). Farners said it swooped over the barn.
> Different farmer, bright lights to the SW. News media had a drawing from
> two seperate sources, classic fried egg saucer, dome on top with bright
> light, four yellow lights below. One person described it as grey in
> color. (don't know how you can say that at night with a bright light
> shinning at you?) Also saw smaller flap comming from IL during the same
> week.
>From what I saw on the video, it was nothing ordinary.
Please keep us posted on any further developments.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Davis)
Subject: Re: Stuff
Date: 16 Feb 93 18:34:00 GMT
"What was the purpose of the Ground Saucer Watch?"
I am unfamiliar with Ground Saucer Watch. The Ground Observer
Corps, on the other hand, was a civilian branch of the US Air Force
that estabnlished, maintained and manned observation posts along the
sea coast to spot enemy aircraft encroaching into our air space below
radar levels. Somewhat to the embarrassment of the US Air Force, the
GOC became a major contributor to UFO sightings. It is important to
know that what we now tend to call UFOs (alien space craft or
phenomenon outside the norm) were not usually mentioned in GOC.
Instead of calling in a UFO, operators would describe such an object
as, for example, "Unknown; Unknown; Multi; 1,500; S by SW." Such a
report meant that a craft of unknown configuration with more than 1
engine was flying by at 1,500 feet from the S by SW of the compass.
Such reports when heard over the com net brought everyone to their feet
to see if they could confirm the sighting. It almost always meant
simply that it was too dark for an observer to correctly identify a
commercial or military transport. - Almost always.
Now, back to Ground Saucer Watch; while I have nothing specific on
this, there was a group in Wyoming (we've all seen the stereotyped
version in Close Encounters) that spent considerable time and money on
a nation-wide radio link via amateur radio to try to correlate sighting
as they occurred. To my knowledge the effort was short lived and, with
one minor accomplishment, was fruitless in its efforts. But oh my what
an accomplishment! On December 12, 1965 the group reported 3 sightings
within 10 minutes of each other in three different parts of the North
American continent: All three sightings were absolutely identical in
content, description and evaluation. Same object, same visual
perception, same sound, same movement and what appears to have been at
exactly the same moment. One possible explanation was a singular
phenomenon simultaneously observed at three different points. The
implication is mind boggling. However, it was not a popular
explanation among those that were making their incomes via the gullible
- the same magazines and feature writings who sold their volumes by
pandering to the "It has to be aliens come to mate with my daughter"
crowd.
In February of 1966 Senator Goldwater mentioned the incident on
the MARS net and suggested other amateurs share such knowledge since
the Wyoming group was closing down its efforts. A few days later on
the International Emergency System on 14.332 (20 meters) the senator
was asked to comment additionally on his idea about amateurs renewing a
concerted sky-watch program. Goldwater said, "Perhaps I was a bit
premature. It occurs that such a program could include inherent
dangers that the average operator is not willing to take upon himself
or his family."
And so, another chapter fades into oblivion.
--
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: "truth"
Date: 16 Feb 93 18:37:00 GMT
"All too often, we see examples where people, who have Ph.D's in
irrelevant subjects..."
Your point appears worthy at first read, but there is another
side to it; people who have doctorates have learned how to learn. The
scientific community is full of those who have stepped out of their
initially chosen field of endeavor to make substantial contributions in
other areas. The mere fact that a person is working outside of a
specific discipline is not in itself sufficient reason to negate the
results of that work.
--
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: Colorado Ufo Update
Date: 17 Feb 93 02:43:00 GMT
JD>These yellow lights incidently, also happen to be exactly where a
JD>house is located in that saddle. Also, you should note that when we observed
JD>the area one night after the sighting, that the lights in the house kept
JD>going off and on which made it appear as if they had changed formation
JD>several times. Of course they did not! We watched through binoculars. But I
JD>can see how a person without binoculars might think that they were hovering,
JD>and changing formation.
Do you believe it's possible that this is what was actually observed?
Window lights blinking on and off in the darkness? Were there any other
residences located in the area - or just the aforementioned home?
Interesting... --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: "truth"
Date: 17 Feb 93 02:43:00 GMT
JP> -=> Quoting Sheldon Wernikoff to Pete Porro <=-
JP> SW> .... heard of any _new_ big name professionals being so
JP> SW> impressed by the "reality" of the abduction phenomenon, that
JP> SW> they've jumped on the bandwagon?
JP>Well, there is Dr. Karla Turner...
Yes John... unfortunately there _is_ Dr. Karla "Into The Fringe"
Turner. I was looking for someone with a bit more scientific
(rather than literary) background.
JP> SW> What about Roswell... Two recent books out - but I haven't heard
JP> SW> of any _new_ mainstream scientists joining the quest for truth.
JP>Roswell isn't really a scientific problem Sheldon. It either happenned
JP>or it didn't, there's not much in-between.
Well... something happened - but what? I know I'll draw a lot of
flak with this statement... but I still haven't been convinced that
fragments of an extraterrestrial craft and alien bodies were
actually recovered. And you're right - there is nothing remaining
amenable to scientific analysis.
JP> Actually, its really a political issue at this point...
Sad, but true. Seems _everything_ boils down to "politics"
in the end. Think I still have time to embark upon a new
career? --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: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: The U/m Guardian Case: Facts
Date: 17 Feb 93 10:55:02 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally by Chris Rutkowski
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 11 Feb 1993, 16:14
From: rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski)
Date: 9 Feb 93 18:23:13 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Message-ID: <C271qr.K0v@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Okay, guys. Here's the REAL info about the Guardian case.
A few years ago, several UFO researchers including myself received a
package of info from an anonymous sender. Included were several
supposedly authentic documents, map and diagrams concerning a crashed
saucer near Carp, Ontario, which is near Ottawa. The documents alleged
that both the Canadian and US military covered up the crash, which
included recovery of alien bodies, saucer, etc.
Investigations by Clive Nadin, Christian Page, Leonard Stringfield and
myself showed that this was in all likelihood a hoax, and a pretty poor
one at that.
The docs were badly contrived amateur jobs with numerous spelling
mistakes. In one long, tedious section, the docs warned mankind about
a threat by Red China to Jews and how the White Brotherhood was working
somehow to keep the military in line, etc. etc. etc.
Clive and another researcher went to the site indicated on the map and
found NO indication of anything. Local residents knew nothing about
the movements of "heavy equipment" (as the docs alleged) and there had
been only a few minor NL sightings during the past number of years.
Later, blurry Polaroid photos were received by several researchers.
These showed nothing but patches of colour, and were accompanied by
more ramblings about the White Brotherhood.
I notified the RCMP about the packages. It was determined that the
sender mailed the items from somewhere in Ottawa/Hull, specifically the
downtown Ottawa post office. The RCMP were interested in the items
because of their similarity to hate literature.
The video came later. Oeschler was only one of several people to get
it. He obviously thinks it's real.
Okay, the video LOOKS good, and he somehow found a witness (whose story
matches exactly [!!!!] the video image) who saw something during the
year in about the same area. But putting it into the context of all
the other stuff, the case looks very, very bad.
Now, of course, if someone fingers the Guardian, then the UM segment
will have been worthwhile. But as a UFO case, forget it!
The docs have been reprinted in a few ufozines, including the SGJ and
(I think) the Cambridge UFO newsletter. Len Stringfield has copies,
and so does Christian Page. They both have written about the case as
an obvious hoax.
Next.
--
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@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************************
