Info-ParaNet Letters Volume 1 Issue 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 Subjects - Subject: Gulf Breeze Photos Subject: Cydonia Breakthrough Subject: Willy Smith Subject: Willy Smith Subject: Re: Info-Paranet Newsletter Subject: Re: Cydonia Breakthrough Subject: Re: Info-Paranet Newsletter Subject: Flying Saucers-Top Secret Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze Subject: Cydonia.txt Subject: New Nodes Subject: Re: Info-Paranet Newsletter Subject: Re: Flying Saucers-Top Secret Subject: Re: Info-paranet Newsletter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Gulf Breeze Photos Organization: Paranet Information Service, Denver, CO (303) 431-1343 > Well, now I'm confused. Uh...er... I should say *STILL* > confused. Confusion goes with this modern day UFOlogy. > 1. What is the source of these reports of findings by an > independent > lab? (Sorry, it had to be asked.) I received enhanced photos showing something holding the UFO up. The source for these photographs are Dr. Willy Smith. > 2. What lab performed this analysis, and exactly what was > done? This is currently unavailable. For reasons that we cannot disclose at this time, the photos were analyzed by a lab possibly connected with the government. However, a private lab is currently producing the exact results from an independent analysis being done at present. Upon release of this material, we will provide the name and other information pertaining to the analysis and what was found. > 3. If there has been a refusal to provide the original > photos, then what > photos were analyzed? First generation copies? > Second? Third? > Obviously, the copying process can destroy original > information and > introduce spurious artifacts. The validity of analysis > of copies is > thus questionable. Exactly. This is why MUFON must make the original photographs available for study. The photos that were studied are, I believe, 5th generation photos. However, with a computer analysis, which was done, irregardless, this type of analysis will bring out all characteristics of the photograph. Further, I believe that John Cauley, the sysop of ParaNet PI, may be able to further clarify this point as they are the founders of the Center for Instrumented UFO Studies, which deals with photographs. > About a year ago I talked with Bruce Maccabee and > expressed an interest > in performing computer analysis on digitized copies of the > original photos. He said that he was planning to obtain > digital images using > high quality equipment and that the data would be provided > to interested > people when they became available. However, I lost > interest and never > followed up on this because it quickly became obvious that > most people > were more interested in making personal attacks on the > investagtors > rather than in examining the evidence in the case. Some > obvious questions: Dr. Willy Smith, although a controversial figure at present, is certainly qualified to make certain statements about the Gulf Breeze case. Although his specialty is not photography, he, along with other Gulf Breeze opponents, have been totally disallowed access to the evidence. As far as I can tell, this is in violation of scientific ethics, and further, demonstrates a very 'one-sided' approach to scientific evidence. It is clear that most people who have advanced their approval of Gulf Breeze are of the 'less than skeptical' type. Further, Maccabee's conclusions were not necessarily that the photos were authentic, but more so that Ed Hanson (Walters) could not have performed the trick photography with known and apparent knowledge available to him. This, in my opinion, is very vague, as you must agree, and does not a Gulf Breeze case make. Most of the indications that we have received from MUFON are that the Gulf Breeze case is real. This is in error as still there is no evidence of any extraterrestrial involvement or that a genuine UFO is visiting the community. Not only do we have the appearance of an organization such as MUFON publicly stating that the Gulf Breeze case is real, but we have them throwing people out of the organization because they diverge from MUFON's position -- all without concrete basis. 1. Is Maccabee now refusing to provide the digital image > data to > independent investigators? If so, what reason does he > give for > refusing? It is my understanding that MUFON has the photographs in their possession. It is also my understanding that MUFON, as represented by Walt Andrus, is not allowing anyone access to these photographs. > 2. If the data were provided to others, what labs were > involved and > what were their conclusions? It is sufficient to say that Dr. Robert Nathan, at JPL, maintains that there was enough lack of evidence, with a cursory examination of the photographs, to shoot the case to hell. It is sufficient to say that from what we have observed, the photographs can not be authenticated if they were subjected to an independent analysis, thus, perhaps the reason for them to be kept from the public as they are now. > The fake UFO photos by Wim van Utrecht (IUR May/June 1989) > are certainly > interesting. However, I agree with Maccabee when he says > that it would > be much more difficult to fake the stereo Gulf Breeze > photos. Is there > good evidence indicating that Ed is capable of faking > these? Unfortunately, I am not qualified to answer this question, however I can say that I feel that although it may be more difficult to 'fake' stereo photographs, a true stereo camera was not used to make these photographs. It was a home made gadget using two polaroid type cameras. If the expertise is there to fake polaroid type photographs, then it may not be difficult using two cameras of like make. > Perhaps I should clarify that I do not necessarily accept > the validity > of the Gulf Breeze case. However, before we can accept a > firm conclusion > of "hoax" we will need answers to questions such as those > listed above. Agreed. However, it is important to say that any scientist must approach something of this nature from the standpoint of speculation and unbiased objectivity. Can anyone clearly state that this has been the case here, and prove it? Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Cydonia Breakthrough Organization: Paranet Information Service, Denver, CO (303) 431-1343 Richard Hoagland of the Mars Mission - the folks who think the Face on Mars is no coincidence - has announced a "breakthrough" in the study of the alleged artifact. He claims to have decoded the geomorphology of the face and surrounding structures in such a way as to be able to make predictions about other planets. For example, he predicts that Neptune's magnetic field will be the reverse of Earth's. Unlike most "predictions" we hear these days, we won't have too long to wait for the results on this one. Voyager II will pass through Neptune's magnetosphere August 24th. For more information, see the files I uploaded tonight - Mike will have to give you the filenames. Basically, its pretty exciting stuff. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!Jim.Speiser INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Torson@f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Torson) Subject: Willy Smith Organization: FidoNet node 1:304/1 - NEXUS, Flagstaff AZ In the file SMITH.TXT Willy Smith states that the official CUFOS position is that the MJ-12 documents are genuine. This is news to me. I would assume that such an important conclusion would be explained in the pages of IUR. I guess I missed it. Could someone tell me where to find it? Smith also seems to say that the IUR reported that Bruce Maccabee is adamantly opposed to an independent computer analysis of the Gulf Breeze photos. I guess I missed this also. Can someone tell me where to find this report? Smith is correct that ufology has serious problems. However, I think he has missed one of the major problems. In my opinion, Smith's article is a good example of this problem: hostility and arrogance. For many people, this field of investigation seems to take on a character similar to a religious crusade. Their attitude seems to be: "I am right and anyone with a different viewpoint is obviously wrong. Their intentions are probably evil and they should be viciously attacked." Another major problem is illustrated by the allegations against Smith by Huneeus/Fernandez/Walters contained in the file FERNAN.GB. Tom Mickus reports that he has talked with Smith and Smith denies the allegations. I have no idea what the truth is. Far too much effort is being expended by people trying to figure out who is lying, who is telling the truth, and who is unwittingly passing on rumors or disinformation. The net result of all this is that many good peopleavoid getting involved with ufology. A sad state of affairs indeed. Is this the result of deliberate efforts by someone? Or, is it merely the result of our own stupidity? -- Jim Torson - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!304!1!Jim.Torson INTERNET: Jim.Torson@f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda.Murphy@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Murphy) Subject: Willy Smith Organization: Paranet Information Service, Denver, CO (303) 431-1343 > people, this field of investigation seems to take on a character similar > to a religious crusade. This could very well be true, if one thinks about the implications that are repeatedly tied in with the UFO/ET scenario. ( 1:304/1) -- Linda Murphy - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!Linda.Murphy INTERNET: Linda.Murphy@paranet.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Aug 89 16:05:00 GMT From: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bryon Smith) Subject: Re: Info-Paranet Newsletter > >But why would people call about a prowler and not call > about a > >UFO that's landed in their yard?" > Because the police can do something about a prowler, but > what would make > a UFO a police matter? Sure, there are some silly people > who call the police about anything and everything -- earthquakes, sonic > booms, an apparition of their late Aunt Ethel -- but the only value > police would have in a UFO sighting would be as witnesses, and they > wouldn't be of any more value than any other person in that role. If I > saw a UFO, I'd be as likely to call the Street Department as the > police... Funny thing about people and UFO sightings, as well as different media people. In Pearl, ILL (population 500) back in 1969 a huge brightly lighted UFO was sighted coming down the ILL. river three times a week and just about midnight. I believe it was on Mondays, Thursdays, & Fridays this UFO was seen rather regular, but no one that I know called the police or reported it to anyone except the people they talked to often. I didn't report it to anyone either. People up there would rather grab a gun than a camera in order to get evidence of the sighting and certanly do not care to call the police and tell them they are seeing a UFO flying over town. Each one may have their own reasons for not wanting the police involved but more than that I think you have mentioned a good reason why many people would not call the police to report a UFO sighting. What could they do ? The UFO would no doubt be gone by the time they got there and the police would think the person who reported it was a nut case anyway. I called the police station here in Fort Smith and asked them if they ever got UFO reports and the guy asked me to repeat what I had asked, he wasn't sure he heard me correctly, then he laughed and told me to check with the TV and radio stations and said that people would be more likely to call a TV or radio station news room than they would be to call the police in this area. I called several radio stations and one of them just laughed at me, several others just politly said "No, we don't get reports of that type very often," and one station in town was very interested (or should I say the D.J.s were) and they have had me speak on three different radio shows since that time concerning ParaNet and UFO's. KFSA radio is well known in this area as the AM sister station to KISR, but very few people actually listen to it in relationship to the population in this area. I gave out my phone number over the air and did get an interesting UFO report. They would rather call the New Project Blue Book or myself in this area to report a UFO sighting than they would to call the police station or the TV and Radio Stations. At least they know that Bill Pitts and myself will not laugh at them. Now take Fyffe, AL for instance, totally different case, small town, everyone knows everyone, the triangular UFO was sighted in that area and the people called the police first thing. Another strange thing is that the UFO was still there when the police arrived. These people aren't kooks, the police also saw the UFO at close range and filed their reports. Why did the people call the police ? Small community, police station is on main street in the middle of town, everyone knows everyone and many no doubt consider the police there on a personal level (having no doubt chatted on the street corner many times) so they wouldn't have a second thought about calling the police to report a UFO. Each town is different in the way they handle a UFO report. People are differn't in the way they report a sighting of a UFO depending on their area. As for Gulf Breeze, people there know that the police in charge don't believe the sightings in that area and so they are not likely to call a sighting in to the police station. They are more likely to call the news paper or perhaps a TV or Radio station than they are to call the police. They don't want their name added to the "kook-list" down at the police station. I would just about bet that if an officer saw a true to life UFO in that area that he would not report it either, why run the risk of having the officer in charge think you are a nut-case to. People are strange animals. ...Bryon -- Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!19!19!Bryon.Smith INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Aug 89 14:18:42 GMT From: mcorbin@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Cydonia Breakthrough Jim, Thank you for that upload. It will be available soon. I am curious about how this discovery with Mars could affect the planet Neptune. Mike ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Aug 89 14:16:55 GMT From: keith@raptor.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks) Subject: Re: Info-Paranet Newsletter > > Obviously, the copying process can destroy original > > information and > > introduce spurious artifacts. The validity of analysis > > of copies is > > thus questionable. > Exactly. This is why MUFON must make the original photographs > available for study. The photos that were studied are, I > believe, 5th generation photos. However, with a computer > analysis, which was done, irregardless, this type of analysis > will bring out all characteristics of the photograph. Further, I Why would anyone defend the <> of 5th generation photos? It is just not necessary. > > interesting. However, I agree with Maccabee when he says > > that it would > > be much more difficult to fake the stereo Gulf Breeze > > photos. Is there > > good evidence indicating that Ed is capable of faking > > these? > Unfortunately, I am not qualified to answer this question, > however I can say that I feel that although it may be more > difficult to 'fake' stereo photographs, a true stereo camera was > not used to make these photographs. It was a home made gadget > using two polaroid type cameras. If the expertise is there to > fake polaroid type photographs, then it may not be difficult > using two cameras of like make. I guess it depends on what information you want from the stereo photographs. I would want to try to obtain information about the range of the object from the image plane(s). A commercially available stereo camera will almost certainly be less accurate at ranging a distant object than stereo imaging with two separate cameras since the further the separation of the image planes, the more accurate the range calculation. Faking the range measurement is almost trivial with the 2 camera arrangement if the range measurement is based on a known orientation of the optical axes of the cameras. Faking becomes less likely if the range measurement is based upon disparity in x position of the ranged object with respect to another reference object common to the two exposures. Faking a particular range measurement would be much more difficult with a commercially available stereo camera with fixed optical axes. Was the object ranged with these stereo photographs? What was the range? What was the size of the object? Was the object ranged using a reference object common to both exopsures, or was the range based only on the relative orientation of the optical axes of the cameras? -keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Aug 89 14:08:17 GMT From: Linda.Murphy@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Murphy) Subject: Flying Saucers-Top Secret > first group was deliberately abandoned here." > "Abandoned?" I said. "But why should they be?" > "To get rid of undesirables." > "That's an ugly thought." > "I don't mean criminals necessarily," replied the captain. "Though > turning a planet into a Devil's Island isn't impossible." > Commander Larsen grimaced. "Bein banished like that - most people > would prefer a death sentence." Do you know much about Australia's history? It's a *very* valid expression of humanity when faced with things such as the above. Maybe Commander Larsen is expressing his own feelings, and decided that since he felt that way, then, of course every other human on earth (more likley the USA only) would have the same attitude.... > What effect would this have upon religion? Which religion? (Which interpretation?) And *who* decides? (has it now reached a point where the government or some other appointed agency decides how people should respond to religion?)..... It seems to be astounding to me, that in turn some can say the "coverup" is neccessary in order to prevent social and economic collapse -- that people would go off on tangents of suicide... Who decides these things for us? Are we allowing other people to think for us? To decide how we should react? (This sounds highly suspicious to me -- and it smacks of some of the tactics utilized against Galileo and others).... > ...More and more, I realized the difficulties of preparing the > public. And so here we go, once again, with a political structure beginning to prepare a people for a higher intelligence..... > Why wasn't the CIA, or whatever agency was in control, already at > work on a program of prepartion? Nothing like having a highly secretive intelligence agency looking after us in such a "shepherding" manner ---- guiding us, in preperation for a "Great Event".... (I shudder when I think about it). ( 1:304/1) -- Linda Murphy - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!Linda.Murphy INTERNET: Linda.Murphy@paranet.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 89 15:52:00 GMT From: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bryon Smith) Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze > My offhand impression is that Ufology has not yet > learned how to investigate something as involved as Gulf Breeze, and I do > not in a general way, tend to beleive the conclusions that have > been reached. Involved, isn't this amazing how complex this case is ? It looks like it should be BLACK & WHITE but it's all shades of gray. Here we are with over a hundred people who say they have seen this UFO, and there are the photographs and all that and still there is the smell of something hidden behind it. Now take the Fyffe, AL case, no real photos that show anything more than lights. A bunch of farmers and witnesses have seen it. No one has been abducted (to our knowledge) but still it's easer to believe than the Gulf Breeze case, WHY ? Something is certanly going on in Gulf Breeze and everyone is talking about it. Something even more believable is going on in the Fyffe area and there are no photos, only witnesses, and yet it's getting hardly no attention at all. Is that because Gulf Breeze is getting all the attention ? Is it because of Mr Ed's photos ? Is it because there is room to doubt the Gulf Breeze case and people would rather solve a mystery, especially one that has a bit of a taint to it. If there was no Gulf Breeze case could it be that the attention would be focused toward the Fyffe area ? The photos in the Gulf Breeze case give a type of physical evidence that allows researchers and skeptics to analize the case and more or less take it apart. Some of the photos are very good and some are less than impressive. It's a common thought amoung UFO investigators that if a hoax photo can be duplicated then the original photo must have also be faked, but should this be the bases for final judgment of the case ? If some of the photos are real and some are faked then who put the fakes in with the real photos ? Who was it who was sending in the UFO photos anonymously ? Perhaps they were fakes intended to taint the case and confuse the investigation. Perhaps Ed is really pulling one over on the investigators. Be it a hoax or partial hoax Gulf Breeze has truly attracted attention and I would love to see it solved. > The case would be more interesting to me if something > had emerged from it that told us something about the aliens. It seems > more like a study of Ufologists. That, of course, is also interesting. Perhaps there is something we can learn from this. I must agree with you, it appears the investigators are more in the "light" than the UFOs or the aliens. ...Bryon -- Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!19!19!Bryon.Smith INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 89 05:25:00 GMT From: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Cydonia.txt For the benefit of our UUCP readers, I am reprinting the contents of the Cydonia.Txt file which was uploaded to ParaNet by Jim Speiser and contributed by Richard Hoagland. Comments are welcomed. The "Message of Cydonia": First Communication from an Extraterrestrial Civilization? By Richard C. Hoagland* and Erol O. Torun @ [Copyright (C) 1989 All Rights Reserved] Abstract In 1976 an unmanned NASA Viking spacecraft successfully photographed the surface of the planet Mars. In the subsequent 13 years, a mystery has loomed . . . a mile-long, 1500-ft high humanoid "face" discovered in a northern Martian desert called "Cydonia." Initially dismissed by NASA as "a trick of light and shadow," new analysis presented here reveals a far more complex situation, and a far more significant conclusion: The "face" and its surrounding "enigmatic landforms" appear to be a carefully layed out, highly-sophisticated, redundantly encoded "mathematical and geometric CETI message" on the Martian landscape -- in the tradition of century-old proposals by Gauss, Lockyer, et al.. This paper presents the evidence whereby the authors have reached this "radical conclusion." We -- one of us a former NASA consultant, the other a geomorphologist -- detail the extensive geodedic and mathematical analysis of "the Face" we have conducted over the past several years: specifically, its geometric relationship to other, equally enigmatic objects in the immediate vicinity. This evidence includes multiple appearances of two specific mathematical constants: "e" and "pi," derived by angular measurement of the placement of key morphological objects around the "face" and the discovery of redundant angles and derived constants from that placement. We have also discovered the two constants -- "e" and "pi" -- "coded" in the geodedic siting latitude of the "complex" on the planet. It is this multiple, diversified, but converging geodedic, geometric and mathematical evidence that, in the authors' opinion, now robustly supports the "radical conclusion" presented above. The geometry and mathematical constants we have discovered at Cydonia appear to be a highly-specific communication of "embedded tetrahedral geometry." It's apparent purpose: the geometric ____________________________________________________________________ * The Mars Mission: Box 981, Wytheville, VA 24382 @ The Defense Mapping Agency: McLean, VA 22102 -2- prediction of a specific geodedic latitude -- 19.5 degrees N. and S. -- resulting from the location of the vertices of a "circumscribed tetrahedran" rotated inside a planetary or stellar sphere. This conclusion is reinforced by the geomorphological observation of a major "tetrahedral pyramid" at Cydonia -- connected geometrically (by a 19.5-degree angle offset to the local geodedic meridian) to equally obvious morphological representations of "spheres" at Cydonia itself. The purpose of all this appears to be to direct attention towards "something occurring at these two specific planetary latitudes." When examined by the authors, using published geodedic planetary maps from NASA and U.S Geological Survey sources, these latitudes are observed to be associated with a hitherto unknown planetary and stellar energy phenomenon -- blatantly emerging at these specific latitudes -- on astronomical objects all across the solar system, including the Sun. Further, the appearance of these "energy outpourings" seems to be modulated by the polarity of the planetary (or stellar) magnetic dipole moment -- raising, in the author's minds, the possibility that the "message" is attempting to direct us to a verifiable astrophysical manifestation of a basic, "unified field," connecting planetary angular momentum, gravity, and electromagnetism with surface energy release. The possibility that "the message" is directing us to, not merely energy transfer but energy generation, is also considered in this paper. Several convergent observations of the outer planets, most recently from Voyager 2, are presented to buttress our contention that we may be looking at a new astrophysically- significant form of energy. Evidence is also presented that some manifestations of this energy may be altering the local "gravitational space-time metric" -- consistant with current theoretical interpretations of tetrahedral mathematics by specialists, as "representative of higher-dimensional n-spaces." The implications of these "real world" geophysical manifestations of "unified field tetrahedral mathematics" -- specific, localized energy release on planetary surfaces, apparently unrecognized until the "Cydonia tetrahedral mathematics" were decoded by the authors -- are profound: ranging from a possible breakthrough in the centuries-long search for a Unified Field Theory connecting the four elemental forces of Nature; to possible technological applications of this knowledge -- including a new energy source, and possibly, ultimate control of gravity itself. We conclude by urging immediate verification of the "Cydonia Message," via the 1992 unmanned Mars Observer spacecraft, as well as detailed follow-up to our preliminary work presented here. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Aug 89 05:48:00 GMT From: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: New Nodes I would like to welcome the newest nodes to the ParaNet family. They are: ParaNet Omega-Eta(sm) Grame Thompson Lane Cove, New South Wales, Australia 011-61-002-428-2446 ParaNet Omega-Zeta(sm) Scott Furry Melba, A.C.T., Australia (The Australian Capital) 011-61-62-587-160 ParaNet Omega-Theta(sm) Andrew Milner Dalkeith, Western Australia 011-61-9-386-2405 On behalf of the group, I would like to welcome you to ParaNet. Please take a moment and enter a message about your interests. Thanks, Michael Corbin Administrator -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Aug 89 07:48:00 GMT From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Re: Info-paranet Newsletter Keith: > Was the object ranged with these stereo photographs? What was > the range? What was the size of the object? Was the object > ranged using a reference object common to both exopsures, or was > the range based only on the relative orientation of the optical > axes of the cameras? The jury-rigged device that Maccabee asked Ed to put together consisted of two Polaroid cameras mounted on a cross beam, a fixed distance apart. At a specific range within the frame of each camera was an upright stick of known height and distance. It was deduced from the resultant photos that the object was about 180' distance (if memory serves), and about 12' diameter. This is one of the more positive aspects of the case, I must admit. However, its my feeling that no matter how genuine one photo or even most of the photos may seem, one proven hoax photo sullies the rest of the data. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!Jim.Speiser INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Aug 89 14:27:00 GMT From: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bryon Smith) Subject: Re: Flying Saucers-Top Secret > > ...More and more, I realized the difficulties of > preparing the > > public. > > And so here we go, once again, with a political structure > beginning to prepare a people for a higher > intelligence..... > > > Why wasn't the CIA, or whatever agency was in > control, already at > > work on a program of prepartion? > > Nothing like having a highly secretive intelligence > agency looking after us in such a "shepherding" manner ---- > guiding us, in preperation for a "Great Event".... (I > shudder when I think about it). If they wasn't so busy with their secrets and lying to the public, etc. perhaps they wouldn't need to prepare the public for such things. I say the government deliberatly keeps the public "unaware" of the truth, and should someone accidently stumble onto something then certain actions are taken to either prevent that person from telling their story, or a second story is concocted to confuse the understanding concerning the first story. Make that person look like a nut case and then get out of the way and watch the fireworks. ...Bryon -- Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!19!19!Bryon.Smith INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 89 16:30:00 GMT From: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bryon Smith) Subject: Re: Info-paranet Newsletter > ... However, its my feeling that no matter how > genuine one photo or even most of the photos may seem, one proven hoax > photo sullies the rest of the data. While I certanly do "smell a rat" in the Gulf Breeze case, and have no real intentions of defending Ed or those photos I feel that I must say that the point you make here has been used by certain factions to discredit true information as well. Take a stack of (perhaps) true UFO photos and slip in one good fake with at least one tiny flaw and you discredit the entire set of photos. I'm not saying that's what has happened in this case but just wanted to make a point that one should not throw the baby out with the bath water, depending on the case. I am finding the differences between the Gulf Breeze case and the Fyffe, AL case very interesting. Why is it that we never hear much about Fyffe and it has more credibility than Gulf Breeze ? They are still seeing this "Triangular" UFO in that area from time to time. It was gone for about a month and then suddenly the people started seeing it again. Certain other strange things are taking place in that area now and I understand that we should be getting some reports from that area very soon. A woman was talking to a man long distance and suddenly she heard both their voices coming over a police scanner setting on her table. She called the police station and asked them what was going on. The dispatcher said that he had also heard the conversation but didn't understand why it had happened. I understand it has happened at least twice now. I need to make some calls and check out some things down that way. There were certain other things that were related to communications failures in that area but I have yet to get all the information on it. I wonder if this is just "human" failures or if perhaps it's connected to the UFO sightings in that area. A man in Gulf Breeze stated that he had seen "apparitions" of "gray's" as if it were "projected" into his house. He also stated that his children were talking to someone in the middle of the night and they didn't know who it was. They say they heard voices but didn't see who was talking to them. If these bizarre things start happening in the Fyffe area then what ? So what is UFO or "alien" related and what is not ? Did "aliens" cause these things, or is someone else behind it and just wanting us to see "UFO's" and "aliens." I read a (tabloid) article about two years ago that was about two men who had entered a tomb in Egypt that had just been opened and deep in the tomb they described the air as quite bad (naturally) and while in the tomb they say they encountered a being who's description was very much like a "gray" who was able to "walk through walls" or so it appeared to them and who showed them a room that had (I believe) 5 other beings of the same type who were in "suspended animation". This "alien" said they were "aliens" who had helped build at least some of the pyramids and who were waiting in this secret chamber for their "fellow beings" to return and take them home. The men were warned not to try to disclose the location of this room and to warn others not to try to find it because they would die. As the article said these two men returned and told the same story and they died shortly thereafter of some fungus that was in their lungs from breathing the air in the tomb. Naturally they should have been delirious from breathing the toxic air in that place (if in fact this did happen) and might very well have been seeing things, but why would they both see the same thing ? I realize this makes good fiction and tabloids go for the sensational and no doubt often adjust the story to make it so, but why "aliens" and why was the description of the "aliens" so much like the description of the "gray's" ? Now I get a report that a man has seen what he believes was a "projection" of "grays" in his bedroom and his children are talking to someone who "isn't there" or at least they can't see who it is. Most certanly something "funny" is going on and who is to say what is a result of "aliens" (or whatever/whoever) and what is not ? Who is a "nut-case" and who is not ? Who is credible and who is not ? What I am getting at is that even the strange and bizarre things like disrupted communications (other than sunspots or jamming) or apparitions, or voices without bodies, should be considered, researched and explained if possible. I think there might be a connection between the "aliens" (if that's what they are) and some of these other strange happenings. ...Bryon -- Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!19!19!Bryon.Smith INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ INFO-PARANET NEWSLETTER ADMIN paranet-request@scicom.alphacdc.com ARTICLE SUBMISSION info-paranet@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM