Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 630
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 630
Thursday, March 11th 1993
(C) Copyright 1993 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
Colorado Ufo Update
Re: Ne Ohio Center For Et Studies
Re: Ne Ohio Center For Et Studies
Billy Meier/Beamships/Pleadians
CE5 definition
Experience
Billy Meier/beamships/pleadians
Ce5 Definition
Help Me Debunk Bob Lazar Ufo Theory
Ce5 Definition
MUFON-NET
Now echoing!
Billy Meier/beamships/pleadians
Help Me Debunk Bob Lazar Ufo Theory
UFO classification(s) and databases
Dr Victorian Responds to Mufon Nov 92 Article - part 1
Dr Victorian responds to Mufon Nov 92 Article - part 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Clark.Matthews@f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews)
Subject: Colorado Ufo Update
Date: 3 Mar 93 06:12:00 GMT
In a message to Clark Matthews <25 Feb 93 18:58> Sheldon Wernikoff wrote:
SW> Thank you very much for these comments, observations,
SW> *and* your _objectivity_ Clark. It is most important to
Thanks, Sheldon. I ended up with a little egg on my face, at least as far as
Jim Speiser was concerned, because I was so *certain* it was real.
SW> maintain our balance and focus in all this, if we are to
SW> isolate the wheat from the chaff. Let's investigate _all_
SW> the possibilities... --Sheldon
Agreed. There's more than enough genuine stuff out there, IMO.
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff.Brewi@p0.f812.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jeff Brewi)
Subject: Re: Ne Ohio Center For Et Studies
Date: 3 Mar 93 04:16:10 GMT
JB> From what I've heard about the way in which CSETI
JB> operates, your open invitation to "outisders" is a radical
JB> departure from the CSETI modus operandi. I've been told that
JB> CSETI carefully screens all would-be participants in their
JB> exercises. A lengthy questionnaire is supposedly used to
JB> determine whether the applicant's belief systems resonate with
JB> the harmonies eminated by the "thought sequencers". This is
JB> supposed to facilitate their "success". What have you heard in
JB> this regard? Do you have any information that would either
JB> support or disprove these points?
I sent for information regarding CSETI, as I was curious to the
organization. From what I gather in the package I received is that all
you have to do to join CSETI is fill out the form and send your money.
--
Jeff Brewi - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jeff.Brewi@p0.f812.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Re: Ne Ohio Center For Et Studies
Date: 4 Mar 93 06:11:00 GMT
Jeff Brewi writes:
> I sent for information regarding CSETI, as I was curious to the
> organization. From what I gather in the package I received is that all
> you have to do to join CSETI is fill out the form and send your money.
Ok. But what I'm trying to find out is: do you have to jump
through any flaming hoops in order to attend one of their
"encounter" exercises? Did you attempt to make arrangements to
attend one of these?
Thanx,
-- John
--
John Burke - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve.Gresser@f100.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Gresser)
Subject: Billy Meier/Beamships/Pleadians
Date: 4 Mar 93 06:21:00 GMT
Anybody know WHY the Billy Meier "Beamship" books are no longer available? I've
got someone telling me that they were BANNED in the U.S., but I don't think so.
Hard evidence would be preferrable?
Thank you in advance,
Steve
--
Steve Gresser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Steve.Gresser@f100.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: blitzen.gvg.tek.com!mike
Subject: CE5 definition
Date: 4 Mar 93 19:30:31 GMT
From: mike@blitzen.gvg.tek.com (Mike Henderson)
In Paranet Volume I Number 627, a CE5 is defined as
'a report that involves CE4, with additional permanent
physiological injuries, effects or subsequent death.'
How long has this definition been around?
Dr. Greer of CSETI fame defined a CE5 as a human initiated contact with
UFOs and/or their occupants roughly two years ago. If your definition
is 'newer', why does it take precedence. Greer's definition is known
of by many people and while he may be a 'sheister', he may also be
genuine. So unless Paranet is governed by the 'not invented here'
rule, I would recommend a consideration of the CSETI CE5 definition or,
at least, an explicit restatement of your definition every time you use
the term 'CE5'.
M. Henderson(mike@blitzen.gvg.tek.com)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike.Keithly@p0.f608.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Keithly)
Subject: Experience
Date: 4 Mar 93 22:45:01 GMT
* Forwarded from "FidoNet UFO Echo"
* Originally by Bob Dawson
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 3 Mar 1993, 15:32
I am new to this echo, and reading some of the messages here has caused me
to remember an incident that took place way back in mid 1971. I have no
explanation, and thought someone else may have experienced something
similar...
It was a dark and starry night, but with no moon. I was
on the navy destroyer Dennis J. Buckley DD-808, and we were
heading west at about 27 knots somewhere between Hawaii
and Guam. We were eventually to be on a six-month tour
of duty that included floating off the coast of Viet Nam.
I was 22 and excited about getting the opportunity to see
the Orient, a part of the world that has always
fascintated me.
It was just after midnight and I was sitting on the fan-
tail of the ship, smoking a cigaret (I did strange things
in those years, when I thought I was immortal), and
talking with a couple of buddies. Although there was no
moon, it was pretty bright out from the light of the
zillions of stars that were sprayed across the dark sky.
It's AMAZING how many more stars you see when at sea,
with no city lights, smog, etc., etc., to block them out.
Anyway, at 27 knots, which is a little over 30 mph, a
destroyer makes a pretty good sized rooster tail from the
backwash of the props. We were watching that rooster
tail and talking about things in general, when one of the
guys shouted, "Hey! Look over there!" and pointed way
back behind us and to the port side.
There was a noticable glow underneath the ocean. It was
relatively bright, but looked like it was preety deep,
from our vantage point. Now we knew it wasn't the moon
reflecting on the water, because there wasn't any moon
out. And it had a definite oblong shape. As we watched,
the light got closer to the surface. It seemed to be
following us.
We continued to watch, and as we did, the glow got even
closer to the surface, and came closer to the ship, until
it was just about 15 yards off the stern, and about 30
yards to port. The object was half as long as the ship,
or about 50 yds., and was going just as fast as we were.
Although it varied its depth, it never broke surface.
There was never any sound from it; we heard nothing but
the slosh of the rooster tail, which isn't really that loud.
It paralleled our course for about two miles, then
quickly dove to the depths until the glow disappeared.
I've never seen, or heard, of anything like it before,
or since. I don't know what it was. We never reported it to
anybody, for fear we'd be rediculed.
By the way, one of the guys out there smoking with us was
a "lifer" who had been in for over 20 years at the time, and
he said he had seen some strange things at sea, but never
anything like that.
Any ideas?
.. Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your taglines!
--
Mike Keithly - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mike.Keithly@p0.f608.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Billy Meier/beamships/pleadians
Date: 5 Mar 93 06:05:00 GMT
Steve Gresser writes:
> Anybody know WHY the Billy Meier "Beamship" books are no
> longer available? I've got someone telling me that they
> were BANNED in the U.S., but I don't think so. Hard
> evidence would be preferrable?
The original Billy Meier "coffee table" book (or books - I've
seen a "Vol. I" & a "Vol. II" advertised, although I'm not sure
whether Vol. II is just a newie) went out of print for a while.
Around 1988, _UFO: Contact From The Pleaides_ became a
collectors' item and a good copy could fetch $1,000 or more.
Now, they're back in print (with 2 volumes). I've seen them
advertised, although I don't believe Stevens is the vendor. I
was recently willing to suspend good taste long enough to look at
a copy of that goofy "International UFO Library Magazine" (not to
be confused with the International UFO Reporter) while at a
bookstore. I saw the ad there. I *know* that you don't want to
buy one - you just want to put a rumor to rest. :-)
-- 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: Ce5 Definition
Date: 5 Mar 93 06:47:00 GMT
Mike Henderson writes:
>
> In Paranet Volume I Number 627, a CE5 is defined as
>
> 'a report that involves CE4, with additional permanent
> physiological injuries, effects or subsequent death.'
>
> How long has this definition been around?
>
> Dr. Greer of CSETI fame defined a CE5 as a human initiated contact with
> UFOs and/or their occupants roughly two years ago. If your definition
> is 'newer', why does it take precedence. Greer's definition is known
> of by many people and while he may be a 'sheister', he may also be
> genuine. So unless Paranet is governed by the 'not invented here'
> rule, I would recommend a consideration of the CSETI CE5 definition or,
> at least, an explicit restatement of your definition every time you use
> the term 'CE5'.
You're obviously not the same Mike Henderson who used to play the
bass for Miles Davis.
The CE5 definition you saw posted here was written by Jacques
Vallee, a scientist who has been researching the UFO phenomenon
since the 1950's. Vallee and J. Allen Hynek developed the
classification system which introduced the term "Close
Encounter", which originally went from CEI through CE III. What
Hynek & Vallee called "Nocturnal Lights" and "Daylight Disks"
were not considered to be Close Encounters unless seen at close
range. Greer will call "sightings" which would be considered as
merely nocturnal lights: "Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind" if
they happen to take place during one of his group's "thought
sequencing" exercises. In fact, such events are not "Close
Encounters" at all. They are distinguishable from "nocturnal
lights" only by his *belief* that they were caused to appear by
"thought sequencing". No legitimate, scientific classification
system would allow belief to play a part in distinguishing
measurable criteria. Cause-and-effect must be measurable by
something more than the "doctrine" of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_
in order to be taken seriously by intelligent people.
Accordingly, your point is not well-taken here.
The "Close Encounter" criteria were first discussed in _The UFO
Experience_ by J. Allen Hynek (1972) at pg. 32 of the 5th
edition.
-- John
--
John Burke - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Help Me Debunk Bob Lazar Ufo Theory
Date: 4 Mar 93 16:06:01 GMT
* Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors"
* Originally by An4773@anon.penet.fi
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 3 Mar 1993, 15:00
From: an4773@anon.penet.fi
Date: 3 Mar 93 01:59:45 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Message-ID: <1993Mar3.084646.27724@fuug.fi>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
I recently watched a video in which Bob Lazar described his theory
regarding how UFOs work. I was pretty skeptical regarding most of
his claims and need help in "debunking" his theory.
My physics is a little rusty and I don't have a background in
the latest gravity theories, so I'd appreciate any help!
Bob states that there are two theories regarding gravity - gravity
is either a wave, or involves particles. He thinks that the particle
theory (gravitons?) is obviously not true.
Bob says that there are two type of gravity waves - Type A, which
is the "normal" type of gravity that affects masses, and Type B,
which he identifies as the STRONG Nuclear Force.
The reactor of UFOs contain element 115, which is not found on Earth.
This element is stable, and he claimed a certain rather high melting
point. In heavy elements such as 115 the strong nuclear force (Type B
gravity wave) actually extends past the boundary of the nucleus.
Since gravity is a wave, it can be amplified like any other type of wave.
In the UFO propulsion system, a small amount of 115 is bombarded with a
proton stream, which causes element 116 to be formed. 116 is unstable,
and disintegrates, producing anti-matter. The anti-matter combines
with some type of gas in the reactor, producing a large amount of energy.
The energy is turned into electricity via some type of solar/electrical
generator.
115 thus provides a source of gravity waves, as well as enormous amounts
of energy via a matter/anti-matter reaction.
3 gravity amplifiers in the bottom of the spacecraft amplify and
focus the gravity wave.
The gravity wave is so powerful that it creates a distortion in the
space-time continuum. Normally, this type of distortion is found only
in the neighborhood of black holes. By distorting space-time, enormous
distances are traversed without having to spend light years worth of
travel.
He had some graphics which showed two points on a space-time grid. The
intense gravitational field caused the sheet to fold up in half, thus bringing
the two points very close.
That's his lecture in a nutshell.
Here are some opening points for discussion:
1. Is there any theoretical basis in modern physics for claiming the gravity
is identical with the Strong or weak forces? I'm really not versed in
current Grand Unification literature so for all I know, there may be
some relation between the two.
2. Is there any possibility of heavy elements such as 115 existing in nature?
3. Are gravitons really out-of-vogue?
4. Could gravity waves be amplified (theoretically?)
5. If you could distort space-time, wouldn't a third observer outside
the UFO suddenly see the destination (star, galaxy, etc.) suddenly
appear much closer as well?
6. Lazar claimed that in fission and fusion reactions, a small
percentage of matter is converted into energy, maybe the yield is
5 or 10%, I forgot what statistics he cited. However, a matter-antimatter
reaction would result in a total conversion of matter into energy.
He displayed some sober graphics showing the zones of total annihilation
for fission, fusion and anti-matter bombs.
Has there been any effort to build anti-matter bombs?
In the tape, a segment of a interview with Teller was shown. Teller
refused to even talk about an anti-matter bomb. He wouldn't even comment
about Bob Lazar!
7. What is Lazar's reputation in the physics community? Does he really have
a formal degree in physics? I've heard that people have tried to
check into his background but havn't been able to confirm his
registration at US colleges. Is it possible that the government
(CIA, DIA or NSA) could tell a college to erase his transcripts
because of "security reasons"???
8. Is there any possibility that the US government really has flown alien
vehicles at S4 in Nellis Air Force base?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
*IMPORTANT server security update*, mail to update@anon.penet.fi for details.
--
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: Ce5 Definition
Date: 5 Mar 93 16:23:02 GMT
> From: blitzen.gvg.tek.com!mike@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM
> Date: 4 Mar 93 19:30:31 GMT
> Message-ID: <35150@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>
> Newsgroups: info.paranet
> From: mike@blitzen.gvg.tek.com (Mike Henderson)
> 'a report that involves CE4, with additional permanent
> physiological injuries, effects or subsequent death.'
> How long has this definition been around?
> Dr. Greer of CSETI fame defined a CE5 as a human initiated contact with
> UFOs and/or their occupants roughly two years ago. If your definition
> is 'newer', why does it take precedence. Greer's definition is known
> of by many people and while he may be a 'sheister', he may also be
> genuine. So unless Paranet is governed by the 'not invented here'
> rule, I would recommend a consideration of the CSETI CE5 definition or,
> at least, an explicit restatement of your definition every time you use
> the term 'CE5'.
Interesting observation. However, I do not feel that Greer's classification of
CE5 is valid until it has been proven to be scientifically valid. Vallee's
design was found in "CONFRONTATIONS," a book with a 1990 copyright. Further, I
believe that CE5, as Vallee uses it, is an extension of the Hynek rating
system, initiated years ago. If anything, Greer has probably used this
classification subsequent to Vallee.
This, however, does not pose a problem. Greer's group is not accepted or
recognized by any standard of ufology because there is not one. In over 30
years, one group in particular, having ample time to establish standards and
practices, has never done it. As a result, the field is still as fragmented as
it was years ago. While we are not the de facto standard for ufology, we are
leading in the desire to bring some standardization to this field. The
utilization of this rating scheme is just one of many ways that we have planned
to bring this about.
Finally, on Greer's CSETI, just what is "human initiated contact?" Has this
practice been reviewed by a panel of Greer's peers? (No rhyme intended :-) )
What are the dynamics of this operation? And, on and on. I would venture an
educated guess that the answer to the review question is no, and I would also
venture to guess that CSETI's operation is based on some kind of esoteric
claptrap than solid scientific methodology. Before you or other start flaming,
consider this...I realize that several claim to have seen this work. But, I
have also heard numerous stories of witnesses observing unusual phenomenon in a
paranormal sense. This does not make it valid or invalid. What it does make it
is interesting. It is similar to a magic show where there *can* be a prosaic
explanation for something that appears completely out of the norm. However, as
I have heard before, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," I feel
that until Greer's program meets muster, it has to be listed as unfounded. I
understand that Greer is very closed about outsiders looking in. Any truth to
this?
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: compsci.liverpool.ac.uk!u2nmh
Subject: MUFON-NET
Date: 5 Mar 93 19:26:00 GMT
From: u2nmh@compsci.liverpool.ac.uk
A while back a.a.v. published a Paranet article about a UFO crash on Long
Island, and the source was a place called MUFON-NET. Does anybody have any ideas
on how to log on to MUFON-NET from a UNIX machine?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cursor, aka Nick Humphries, u2nmh@csc.liv.ac.uk, at your service.
'People have started taking shotguns to UFO sightings. Kinda brings a whole
new meaning to the phrase 'You ain't from 'round here, are ya?''-Bill Hicks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike.Labbe@f20.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Labbe)
Subject: Now echoing!
Date: 6 Mar 93 01:57:00 GMT
ENC BBS in Providence, RI is now echoing this conference.
--
Mike Labbe - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mike.Labbe@f20.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve.Gresser@f100.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Gresser)
Subject: Billy Meier/beamships/pleadians
Date: 6 Mar 93 08:21:00 GMT
> Steve Gresser writes:
>> Anybody know WHY the Billy Meier "Beamship" books are no
>> longer available? I've got someone telling me that they
>> were BANNED in the U.S., but I don't think so. Hard
>> evidence would be preferrable?
> The original Billy Meier "coffee table" book (or books - I've seen a
> "Vol. I" & a "Vol. II" advertised, although I'm not sure whether Vol. II
> is just a newie) went out of print for a while. Around 1988, _UFO:
> Contact From The Pleaides_ became a collectors' item and a good copy
> could fetch $1,000 or more. Now, they're back in print (with 2 volumes).
> I've seen them advertised, although I don't believe Stevens is the
> vendor. I was recently willing to suspend good taste long enough to
> look at a copy of that goofy "International UFO Library Magazine" (not
> to be confused with the International UFO Reporter) while at a
> bookstore. I saw the ad there. I *know* that you don't want to buy one
> - you just want to put a rumor to rest. :-)
Well, I WOULD actually like to have a set of them for reference sake (and to
"scan" in and "examine" some of the photos for the strings, if they've not
already been "washed" out). Also, yes, I want to put the rumor to rest.
Thank you very very much for the information. If you could, please find out
who the distributor is? I'm certain I'll be asked for that information as
well, to prove that the government didn't actually force out or ban it.
Steve
--
Steve Gresser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Steve.Gresser@f100.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve.Gresser@f100.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Gresser)
Subject: Help Me Debunk Bob Lazar Ufo Theory
Date: 6 Mar 93 08:23:00 GMT
> In the UFO propulsion system, a small amount of 115 is bombarded with a
> proton stream, which causes element 116 to be formed. 116 is unstable,
> and disintegrates, producing anti-matter. The anti-matter combines
> with some type of gas in the reactor, producing a large amount of energy.
> The energy is turned into electricity via some type of solar/electrical
> generator.
I don't know about the rest, Mike, but for more information on this, this
person should examine the "Star Trek" series - it sounds like that's EXACTLY
where Lazar gets his info from!
Steve
--
Steve Gresser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Steve.Gresser@f100.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: senex.unh.edu!unhtel!morwyn!root
Subject: UFO classification(s) and databases
Date: 6 Mar 93 14:50:56 GMT
From: Forrie Aldrich <root@morwyn.UUCP>
I'm partially aware of there being some reliable (and quite large)
databases that are maintained by various organizations (MUFON?) and that
are updated regularly which contain information on various UFO sightings
across the US (the world?).
I'm interested in accessing this data, and perhaps obtaining a copy which
can be updated for personal use and research.
Where are these available to be accessed, and whom should I inquire about
this?
Thanks,
Forrest
--
Forrie Aldrich @ morwyn.UUCP / morwyn!forrie@gsg.com
VISION GRAPHICS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic)
Subject: Dr Victorian Responds to Mufon Nov 92 Article - part 1
Date: 8 Mar 93 00:58:00 GMT
The following is a response from Dr Armen Victorian to the James
Schnabel
"Confessions of a Crop Circle Spy!" article in the MUFON UFO
Journal No.295 November 1992:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DISINFORMERS, DECEIVERS AND THEIR LEGITIMATE SUPPORTERS
By Dr Armen Victorian
The November 1992 issue of the MUFON Journal published an
extraordinary account written by Jim Schnabel titled, "Confessions
of a Crop Circle Spy!" introduced by Dennis Stacy, the MUFON
Editor. On December 5, 1992, I received a letter from Dennis Stacy
together with a copy of the article concerned. Before this, my
fellow colleague, Mr George Wingfield, had contacted me earlier on
and briefed me about the article. I was utterly surprised that
MUFON had decided to go ahead without checking the accuracy of
Schnabel's material. I was later told that Walt Andrus had hiterto
sanctioned the publication of the article. Andrus' interference in
this instance was the result of a longstanding difference that
exists between myself and his management of MUFON. He and the
editor of the MUFON Journal are fully aware of my forthcoming
paper, concerning MUFON, which portrays in detail a modern version
of NICAP in its dying days. Equally condemning is his bluder in the
Gulf Breeze fake case and the current Mr Hopkins abduction case
that Mr Stacy coins the "case of the centry." MUFON's philosophy
and attitude is reflective of how easily it acts as a mouthpiece,
readily and in accordance with what is precisely the official line
and has been for decades; deceit, dis-information and the high
level publicity and support given to these accounts. Several State
Directors of MUFON, that I have talked to, are also highly critical
of the autocratic manner in which a few run the organisation. In
one instance, in the course of our recent correspondence with Mr
Stacy, the MUFON Editor, when he had faxed a ridiculous letter to
Mr Wingfield he wrote back with the excuse that he was drunk when
he wrote the letter, therefore apologising for its contents.
Equally condemning is the attitude and supportive platform MUFON
provides for self confessed tricksters like Jim Schnabel and Robert
Irving, who boast about what they have done and still do. Which, in
a sense, is very much reminiscent of what OSI did through Bill
Moore, for a decade, to the field.
But who are Jim Schnabel and Robert Irving and what did
actually happen? It is known by everyone in crop circle research
that Irving-Schnabel's joint covert activities have caused enormous
damage to both the farmers, who are desperately seeking for legal
means to prosecute the two, and the crop circle researchers
themselves, whose research has suffered irreparable damage.
Schnabel, a graduate of Duke University in Electronic
Engineering, later applied for a place in the Lincoln College,
Oxford, to study Politics. This was rejected. During the period
when his application was under Oxford's consideration, he made
several contacts with leading crop circle researcehrs, with the
excuse that he is trying to collect information for his Ph.D.
thesis in Sociology. In reality he was neither a student nor was
his applied subject in Lincoln College that of Sociology. Senior
researchers believed that he was a genuine student and they trusted
him and shared with him the results of some of their findings.
Then Schnabel published the most damning article in the Independent
Magazine in December 1991 about crop circles and their researchers,
and his true quest emerged. It became immediately clear that
Schnabel, by deploying outright deceitful tacts, had fooled
everyone about his genuine intentions. In fact, in a letter dated
December 4, 1991, to a leading crop circle researcher, he very
diplomaticlaly confessed what he was all about:
"I am writing to you to apologize. A week or so ago I decided,
unwisely, to write an article about Doug and Dave and the reaction
to them by the crop circle groups. Everything I report in the
article is true, and personally I believe that crop circle research
could use a general house cleaning, but house cleaning is not my
proper role, and I am afraid that the article unnecessarily hurt
some people. In any case, by the time I regretted writing the
piece it was too late. I understand that the story will appear in
the Independent Magazine on December 7."
"Naturally, you and others will be concerned that my mingling
of sociological and journalistic roles is inappropriate. I agree,
and can only reiterate my apology. Something that I report I might
not have learned if I had not seemed like a harmless sociological
researcher. In particular, some questions I have asked `for my
thesis' may now seem to have been intended all along for a magazine
article. Although I emphasize that this is not the case,
nevertheless I admit that I was wrong to write the article in the
first place, and I assure you that information you have given me
will be treated with all due respect. In any case I have finished
my sociological field work, and although I still have a personal
interest in the circles phenomenon, I am more or less retiring from
the case."
..........continued on page 2 -> -> ->
--
Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic)
Subject: Dr Victorian responds to Mufon Nov 92 Article - part 2
Date: 8 Mar 93 01:02:00 GMT
....continued from page 1:
Quite the contrary, this was the beginning of an intensified campaign
of disinformation by Schnabel and his colleague Robert Irving. In
the following months they published more similar articles.
Together with Robert Irving, they donned camouflage clothing and,
with the help of the night, they created utter havoc in the farmers
fields and, thereby, further confusion amongst the crop circle
researchers about the number of hoaxed formations in existence.
Ken Brown, who is currently writing a book about the Doug and Dave
affair, told me that several meetings had taken place between
Schnabel/Irving and Doug and Dave, the former keen to further his
knowledge on how to advance hoaxing techniques. In fact, Jim
Schnabel was proud of winning the second prize in a circle faking
competition in the summer of 1992. Gill Freeman, the producer of
the Equinox TV program, did tell me that Schnabel and Irving had
admitted to faking several crop formations by illegally entering
into farm land and thereby causing damage crops.
Robert Irving, Schnabel's colleague, claims to be a
photographer. He spends his entire time on the farm lands during
the crop circle season each year. He lived in Los Angeles for
eight years prior to returning to England. He was allegedly a
member of the Second Church of Satan in the USA, or Friends of
Hecarte in England, and his views on black magic are widely known
in England through a number of anonymous Statanic letters he has
written to a number of crop circle researchers. When he was
questioned about who pays for him to spend his full time in the
field, he answered, as he did to me, "Man does not live on bread
alone, a Foundation pays me handsomely for my work," but would not
divulge the name of the foundation. He is also known for his
provocative manner of taking photographs of everyone without
seeking their consent as a matter of courtesy. He carries a very
large knife with him at all times. In a letter from a couple of
American crop cirlce researchers, they related the impression made
upon them by Schnabel and Irving, during their visit to England:
"Many thanks for meeting up with Suzie and I during summer.
Wasn't it bloody marvellous? I felt that I had to write and tell
you about a nasty close encounter which happened over the 3rd to
4th August, just outside of Marlborough. Suzie and I had left the
Merlin Hotel, at 1.30am, to go and drive around for a bit. We
ended up on a small dirt track, we parked the car and with camera
in tow, walked along a footpath. After about 30 min., we saw
lights in a field ahead of us. Thinking we had discovered some
little green men at play, we hurriedly moved forward. Imagine our
surprise, when we came face to face with four men, all dressed in
black. Two of them, were rather burly characters wearing peaked
caps. One was tall and thin and had long, dirty looking straggly
hair."
"They were each carrying certain bits and pieces - the one with
the hair had a video camera in his hand and a fancy looking camera
hanging from his shoulder. We asked them what they were doing.
One of them said, that they were taking a short cut through the
field. But I didn't like the look of them at all. Suzie and I
walked back to the car and availed ourselves of the black coffee
that the hotel had provided. The men were ahead of us. Two of
them got into a small van, the others into a dark coupe type of
car. They then drove off."
"We did not think much about it until the following morning,
when a guy at the hotel told us about a new crop circle at a place
called Froxfield (?) When we went there, later that day, imagine
our further surprise when it turned out to be the field we had
visited the night before. I have no doubt that those guys were the
makers of that circle. What is your feeling about this?"
"That isn't the end of the story. We ended up at the Wagon and
Horses for a drink. Just as we were finishing, a guy came in, with
a big built American chap - who was brandishing a video camera. I
was sure that it was two of the men that we had seen the night
before. Out of curiosity, I started up a conversation about the
corn circles. I wished I hadn't."
"The guy with the hair (dressed black) name was Bob (maybe Rob)
Irvine (Bob Irving - author). He was a psychopath. Suzie wanted
us to leave, because he was becoming very annoyed with my
questions. I am of the opinion that this guy had something very
wrong with him, in a psychological way. A nutter."
"I don't know whether this means anything to you but I would
stay well away from this idiot, he seems dangerous to me. Have you
heard of him? As to the crop circle, I hope no-one said it was
genuine!!!"
We were aware for a long time that some elements, with certain
connections, were determined to put an end to the crop circle
research. In fact, this is all too clear in Schnabel's telephone
conversation with me, where he states that the aim is to terminate
the research and media interest in this phenomena. Although, he
admits that the phenomena is genuine.
..............continued on page 3 -> -> ->
--
Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.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************************
