Info-ParaNet Letters Volume 1 Issue 19 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Aug 89 13:15:00 GMT From: paranet!f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bryon.Smith Subject: Re: Mysteries > The things that are occuring in Fyffe, quite obviously are > still distressfull. > If it weren't, aliases would not be used. The only thing > that has not been > found, is a balanced method of aproaching the problem so > that people do not > resort to these types of things. SO there is apparently a > slight flaw in the > "control" mechanism which dictates the anticipated response > out of the > individuals involved. Interesting. This is true, much of the stress comes from human sources in this case, as well as not knowning exactly what it is that is taking place. The images that some have reported from G.B. have been more than a bit disturbing. I think that different people perhaps see certain things differently, perhaps depending on their nature. Different areas of the Earth may influence those human natures. One needs a control room full of maps, phone lines, and computers in order to collect all the data required to put this puzzle together and make sense out of it, and then I wouldn't make any bets. I would collect reports from the "strange and bizzar" to "UFOs" and "whoFOs." One important factor appears to be just how involved people become with the concept of UFO's and "aliens." Perhaps a bit of background of each witness might be helpful. ...Bryon -- Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!19!19!Bryon.Smith INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Aug 89 13:22:00 GMT From: paranet!f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bryon.Smith Subject: Re: Info-paranet Newsletter > The "deceiving factor" of course would have to do > "ground work" to shape the way individuals respond to the > various symbols. As in certain concepts that reach the people via some media ? A form of "religious" programing perhaps. A bit midieval perhaps but still effective. Hype the people up on a certan idea, tell them something they are gullable enough to believe and then tell them to watch for something, perhaps a sign in the sky. You could tell them anything you wanted to, tell them it's angels, or the devil, or perhaps God and they will see something on the order of their own concepts of what ever it is that you tell them. Is this something on the order of what you are refering to ? ...Bryon -- Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!19!19!Bryon.Smith INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Aug 89 12:18:00 GMT From: paranet!Uucp Subject: Sagan proposes Terran ET Contact Policy >From scicom!ncar!amdahl.uts.amdahl.com!drivax!macleod >From: drivax!macleod@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (MacLeod) To: ames!scicom.alphacdc.com!mcorbin Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 01:34:34 PDT It may have been a flahsback, but on the tv the other night I saw Carl Sagan call for a symposium with scientists from all countries with the purpose of >preparing< for contact with aliens in the "future". He proposes a set of rules about who speaks for all of Earth and similar quasi-political questions. A friend of mine calls Dr. Sagan the Conspiracy's "designated Leaker". I don't know about that, but I was pretty surprised by the newsbite. Michael Sloan MacLeod -- Uucp - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!Uucp INTERNET: Uucp@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Aug 89 17:21:00 GMT From: paranet!mcorbin Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze Photos > I think we can all agree that there have been problems > with the MUFON > investigation of Gulf Breeze. However, a bad > investigation is not a > valid basis for concluding that the case is a hoax unless > there is > evidence that the investigators are the perpetrators of a > hoax. Since > you have concluded that the case is a hoax, who do you > believe are the > perpetrators? Ed and his wife? All the Gulf Breeze > people who claim > to have seen something? The MUFON investigators? > Maccabee? Jim, First as I understand it, you are a member of MUFON. What is your capacity with this organization? Also, what is your relationship to Ray Jordan? What type of background do you have as far as investigation is concerned, and what part, if any, have you in the Gulf Breeze case? Is your interest in our rating merely personal, or are your questions more on the official side? Also, Linda asked you a question about your last post on the Willy Smith allegation that the records at CUFOS not being publicly available; what is your answer to this? At this particular time ParaNet rates the Gulf Breeze case a hoax based upon the information that we have been able to glean from our own investigation of talking to the technical people regarding the photographs. We do not comment on the reliability of witnesses or investigators although my personal feeling is that if an investigation turns out to be in error or poorly conducted, then a conclusion such as the conclusion that has been arrived at on Gulf Breeze is faulty as well since there is no preponderance of evidence to support the assertion of authenticity. Further, anytime that scientific evidence is withheld from inspection by the scientific 'peers' in the community would tend to lead those to believe that there is something to hide. As is the case in Gulf Breeze, emotional concerns seem to cloud this issue and become a basis for keeping the evidence quelled. This, in my opinion, is in error and invalidates the case for lack of supporting evidence. Thus far, since the release of ParaNet's recent rating, and the Dr. Smith paper, I have seen nothing to support the validity of this case. ParaNet has asked for hard proof of authenticity and we have only seen further character assasination upon the parties involved. Does the discrediting of Dr. Smith make his viewpoints on Gulf Breeze invalid? Perhaps. Perhaps not. However, we have asked for proof, and it has not been forthcoming. We have seen only emotional outbursts and nothing scientific. As I see it, there is no way to prove the merits of a case by making Dr. Smith the perpetrator of a subsequent hoax. The original issue continues to be evaded...the production of the original photographs for independent study of a photo analysis laboratory, preferably JPL or NASA. Until the conclusions from this analysis are secured, ParaNet, with or without Dr. Smith or anyone else, for that matter, will continue to rate the Gulf Breeze case a hoax. > If the photos that were studied are 5th generation > photographic copies, > then I would certainly hesitate to place much faith in the > analysis. > No amount of computer processing can extract information > that isn't there > because it was lost during multiple photographic copy > processes. > > An independent analysis of the original photos would > obviously be desirable. However, handing over the original > photos to a group of > critics would subject the original data to the unavoidable > ris > associated with repeated handling. Thus, failure to > provide the original > photos is not necessarily proof of a hoax. I totally disagree. Your statement is very interesting. "However, handing over the original photos to a group of critics would subject the original..." It appears that you have, more or less, admitted that the the people that have studied the photos for MUFON were approaching them from the standpoint that they were authentic and real. Is this the true 'scientific' way to approach this subject? If they assume that the photos are real, why bother studying them? Could it be quite apparent that they have been authenticated because the belief existed prior that they are real? How can someone state emphatically that they are not hoaxed when the principles of a hoax were not applied to them? > > You mentioned that Robert Nathan did a "cursory > examination" of the photos and reached a skeptical > conclusion. Is this based only on his > appearance on the October 1988 "UFO Coverup - Live" TV > program, or have > you recently contacted him to learn what his current > opinion is? (I may > be wrong, but I vaguely recall reading somewhere that he > subsequently > took a closer look and is now less skeptical.) I talked with Dr. Nathan, and continue to do so. If Dr. Nathan feels less skeptical than before, this is news to me. He told me that he continues to feel that the photos are hoax. Furthermore, he states that he can not fathom how Maccabee could validate something such as this because just from the cursory examination that he did, he found things that he was sure would cause the whole case to crumble. Example is the photo of the UFO over the road. He stated that there were too many things wrong with that photograph to be able to support it's authenticity. Specifically, the way that the light radiates on the road from the underside of the UFO. Additionally, supposedly, MUFON is in possession of a photograph showing just the UFO without any background possibly indicating the 'model' which was used for the various hoax photographs. In light of this, and much more, there are too many questions unanswered. Finally, the original issue and request still stands...that is to produce the original photographs for independent study. This is the only way that any progress will be made. Michael Corbin > > --- > * Origin: NEXUS -=ParaNet Psi=- Flagstaff Az 602/526- > 8025 (Opus 1:304/1) -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Aug 89 00:17:00 GMT From: paranet!f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bryon.Smith Subject: Re: Cydonia.txt > If someone did leave something behind perhaps it made > sense to them. > Have you seen the plaque that was attached to Voyager I? > (Not sure if it > is Voyager 1, gettin' old ya' know). Anyway this plaque > depicts a man > and woman, and show our position in our solar system along > with a series > of 1's and 0's (binary numbers). Well I looked at a picture > of the > plaque and it didn' make sense to me. Of course that's not > saying too > much but if the plauque was received by another race would > they be able > to figure it out? Perhaps they thought that 0 & 1s would make more sense than just saying "Earth" in about a dozen languages. Personally certain pictures would be of more value, something on the order of a modern day\ hieroglyphics. Could it be that's where the concept of hieroglyphics came from ? hehe. OH well. ...Bryon -- Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!19!19!Bryon.Smith INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Aug 89 00:46:00 GMT From: paranet!f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bryon.Smith Subject: Re: RE: Cydonia Breakthrough > like a sort of April Fool file. An example of the numbers > game is > where you measure the passages in the Egyptian pyramids in > feet, > multiply by the right ratio, and voila! You now see that > the > Egyptians knew what the future of the world was going to > be, and its > all here, history built into the dimensions of the > passages. I have done some research over the years on the Great Pyramid of Geza (which is the only one like it by the way), I might be able to help by stating the unit of measurement used in constructing this Pyramid was the "sacred cubit" which was 25 "pyramid inches." This unit of measurement was recorded in the ante-chamber before entering the Kings Chamber. Regardless of the "dates" that have been assigned to the measurements this Pyramid is a mathematical masterpiece. The Pyramid inch is almost exactly the same as our English inch. This would be a good subject to review in the ParaNet General echo if anyone is interested in more information about it or if they would like to share their information about it. ...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