Info-ParaNet Letters Volume 1 Issue 29 Subjects - Psychotherapeutic Services Westchester Wing - Part I Westchester Wing - Part I (Continued) Westchester Wing - Part I (Continued) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 89 04:20:00 GMT From: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Psychotherapeutic Services DATE OF UPLOAD: September 1, 1989 ORIGIN OF UPLOAD: ParaNet Alpha/Denver, Colorado CONTRIBUTED BY: R. Leo Sprinkle, PhD ======================================================== (C) Copyright 1989 ParaNet Information Service All Rights Reserved unless copyrighted by Author. THIS FILE WAS PREPARED BY PARANET ALPHA -- PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE ======================================================== Dr. Leo Sprinkle, a noted psychologist from the University of Wyoming at Laramie sent ParaNet a literary piece that he wrote dealing with UFO experiences and psychotherapy for contactees and/or abductees. Further information about Dr. Sprinkle can be obtained by contacting ParaNet Information Service by data or by voice. The voice number is 303-420-6758. PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC SERVICES FOR PERSONS WHO CLAIM UFO EXPERIENCES By R. Leo Sprinkle Introduction--Psychotherapeutic services can be helpful to persons who are experiencing post traumatic stress disorders. Physiological and psychological stress reactions can occur from the effects of abandonment, abuse (corporal, emotional, and/or sexual), loss of relationship, rape, robbery, etc. If abused persons are given competent and compassionate assistance, then often they can learn to cope with their feelings of anger, anxiety, doubt, grief, guilt, pain, shame, etc. However, in our contemporary society, those persons who describe paranormal/psychic/spiritual crises, or emotional trauma from memories of possible past lives, often are faced with scoffing or skeptical reactions -- not only from their friends and relatives, but sometimes from professional persons, including psychotherapists. And, if a person describes a UFO experience (including abduction by alien beings, out of body experience, near death experience, bodily marks from a medical examination, genital examination, past life memories, planetary visions, automatic writing or telepathic communication, and a message or mission for Humankind, etc.), then the psychological resistance of the psychotherapist, as well as the emotional trauma of the person, can be an important factor -- not only in the processes of psychotherapy, but in the questions of whether services are provided to that person! The complex and controversial claims of UFO abductees/contactees are a background for the general question: Based on the processes of psychotherapy, what do we know about UFO experiences? This paper offers a personal view about psychotherapeutic services for UFO Experiencers, a brief review of UFO literature, and a biased viewpoint about the social significance of UFO activity. The major hypothesis, or speculation, is that UFO activity is an educational program: A gradual, but persistent, conditioning of human awareness for a new age of science and spirituality (advanced technology and advanced morality). An excellent "introduction to issues of UFO research" can be obtained from William L. Moore Publications; the booklet is written by the Los Angeles UFO Research Group (LAUFORG, 1986) and it provides a brief but comprehensive review of the available evidence and scientific implications of UFO reports. Also, further information can be obtained from various UFO organizations, including, CUFOS (1987) and MUFON 1987). EXPERIENCES OF THE WRITER I am trained as a counseling psychologist: BA (1952), MPS (1956), University of Colorado -- Boulder; PhD (1961), University of Missouri -- Columbia (APA approved program). I now serve as Psychologist II and Professor of Counseling Services, University of Wyoming -- Laramie. In 1949, on the campus of the University of Colorado, a buddy and I observed a "flying saucer" (Daylight Disc). In 1956, my wife, Marilyn, and I observed a silent UFO which hovered, moved, hovered, moved, etc., over Boulder, Colorado. After the second sighting, I began to investigate the literature on UFO reports. In 1962, I joined APRO and NICAP (Aerial Phenomena Research Organization; National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena). I began to consider ways that psychologists could contribute to UFO research (Sprinkle, 1967) as well as study the personal characteristics of persons interested in UFO reports (Sprinkle, 1969). In 1964, at the University of Wyoming, I began a study of UFO abductees/contactees, including their claims of ESP and UFO experiences as well as their responses to psychological inventories (Sprinkle, 1976). In 1967, I began to provide hypnotic sessions for persons who claimed UFO abduction encounter experiences (Sprinkle, 1977). I have assisted more than 175 persons who have explored their UFO memories in hypnosis sessions (Sprinkle, 1979a, 1982). I have read thousands of reports, and I have corresponded with hundreds of persons who have described their strange and bizarre UFO experiences. I have cussed and discussed, with many persons, the implications of UFO activity (Sprinkle, 1976b, 1979b). In 1980, after our first Rocky Mountain Conference on UFO Investigation, I sought hypnotic procedures with a fellow psychologist in order to explore my own memories (dreams? fantasies?) of some childhood experiences. My current interpretation of those memories is that I experienced childhood encounters with a Space Being (SB) on board a space craft. (See Montgomery, R., 1985.) After 31 years of UFO investigation, including 25 years of UFO research and 20 years of therapeutic services to persons who claim UFO encounters, I have come to several tentative viewpoints: 1. I believe that "flying saucers" (UFOs) exist. 2. I believe that I cannot prove to anyone that UFOs exist. 3. I believe that UFO research is always frustrating, often fearful, sometimes fun. 4. I believe that psychotherapeutic services and social support for UFO Experiencers are helpful to them in accepting the reality of these experiences and in their understanding of the silliness and the significance of these experiences. 5. I believe that there are many skills that can be useful to the psychotherapist who works with UFO Experiencers, but the main attributes are courage, curiosity, and compassion. 6. I appreciate the willingness of UFO Experiencers to share their information, and the willingness of professional colleagues to assist UFO Experiencers. Perhaps, someday, UFO research can lead to results which could test the hypothesis that UFO activity is an educational program (Cosmic Consciousness Conditioning, Sprinkle, 1976b). UFO EXPERIENCES AS AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM Many writers have discussed the implications of UFO activity, including Vallee (1975), who suggested that a conditioning program is influencing the human race, and Deardorff (1986), who presented a model of extraterrestrial strategy for Earth. There are four minor hypotheses which can be associated with the major hypothesis about UFO experiences as an educational program: Thesis I. There is sufficient evidence to accept the hypothesis that many UFO witnesses have experienced encounters with space craft that are piloted or controlled by intelligent alien beings (e.g., Hynek, 1972; Jacobs, 1975; Randles, 1983, Rutledge, 1981; Smith, 1987). Thesis II. There is sufficient evidence to accept the hypothesis that many UFO witnesses have experienced abductions and examination by UFO occupants, including bodily, psychological, and/or sexual examinations (e.g., Fowler, 1979, 1982; Fuller, 1966; Hopkins, 1981, 1987; Lorenzen & Lorenzen, 1967, 1976, 1977; Sprinkle, 1979, 1981; Strieber, 1987). Thesis III. There is sufficient evidence to accept the hypothesis that most UFO witnesses are normal in their psychological functioning (e.g., Bloecher, Clamar, & Hopkins, 1985, Keul & Phillips, 1986; Parnell, 1987; Schwarz, 1983; Sprinkle, 1976b, 1979a). Thesis IV. There is sufficient evidence to accept the hypothesis that psychic phenomena, including "channeled" communications, are associated with UFO encounters; further, there is emerging evidence that UFO contactees view themselves as changing from "planetary persons" to "cosmic citizens" (e.g., Davis, 1985; Kannenberg, 1982, 1986; Kinder, 1987; Montgomery, 1985; Puharich, 1974; Sprinkle, 1981; Steiger & Steiger, 1981). CONCLUSIONS Psychotherapeutic services can be helpful to persons who are confounded by their UFO encounters. Appropriate techniques are similar to those which are used to assist persons to deal with paranormal experiences (e.g., Hastings, 1983, 1987; Mintz, 1983); hypnotic techniques for recalling repressed memories or "loss of time" (amnesic) experiences (e.g., Hopkins, 1981, 1986; Sprinkle, 1977); and mutual support in self-help groups who provide a sense of community for UFO Experiencers (e.g., Edwards, 1987; IFUFOCS, 1987; Tessman, 1987). An increasing number of UFO witnesses, including UFO investigators, are sharing information about their UFO experiences and seeking assistance in order to deal with their anxieties about those experiences. Perhaps we are entering a new phase of UFO research; perhaps a network of psychologists can be established in order to provide psychotherapeutic services to persons who claim UFO experiences. ================================================================= R. Leo Sprinkle, PhD, is Professor of Counseling Services at the University of Wyoming. In addition, he is associated with the Counseling and Career Development Center, Laramie, Wyoming as psychologist and Coordinator of Training. Psychotherapy in Private Practice, Vol. 6(3) 1988 (C) 1989 by The Hayworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. ================================================================== -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 89 04:23:00 GMT From: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Westchester Wing - Part I ParaNet will run a two part special on the Westchester Wing, also known as the Hudson Valley UFO. As this was an older case, it's points as brought out by Collins are interesting regards the "psychic connection". DATE OF UPLOAD: August 27, 1989 ORIGIN OF UPLOAD: ParaNet Alpha/Denver, Colorado CONTRIBUTED BY: R. Perry Collins ======================================================== (C) Copyright 1989 ParaNet Information Service All Rights Reserved unless copyrighted by Author. THIS FILE WAS PREPARED BY PARANET ALPHA -- PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE ======================================================== ParaNet Information Service, Denver, CO--Recently, Phil Imbrogno unleashed an attack on R. Perry Collins regarding the following articles (Wingpt1.ufo and Wingpt2.ufo). By permission of the author, R. Perry Collins, we are reproducing these two articles on ParaNet. They are entitled The Westchester Wing - A Closer Look and The Westchester Wing Part II. These articles appeared in Pursuit Magazine in 1985. THE WESTCHESTER WING -- A CLOSER LOOK BY R. Perry Collins From the spring of 1983 to the summer and fall of 1984, the counties of Westchester, New York and Fairfield, Conneticut were the focus of one of the largest UFO waves in history. An estimated 30,000 individuals in these areas witnessed an extremely large, obviously structured, triangular-shaped object cruising silently at altitudes of less than one thousand feet. It was most often described as a huge "V" shaped flying wing. During this same period, while groups of unidentified pilots had been flying light aircraft in V formations, police departments had been visited by federal agents offering "hang glider" and "light aircraft" flights as explanations for the lights in the sky. Several months after the beginning of these sightings, a popular television series began. The show is called "V" and portrays invaders from the stars, disguised as humans, who, in reality are alien reptiles bent on conquering the world. Can all this be coincidence? If more than 30,000 people have seen this thing, why haven't the major media groups been more interested? Why are federal agents covertly investigating and attempting to censor reports of these overflights? Why now, when unidentified aircraft can be rapidly detected, intercepted and even shot down, has this object apparently not been challenged? On August 21st, 1983, I personally witnessed the object. I grew up in the Air Force and now work as an aerospace engineer. What I saw was not an aircraft nor a group of light planes. As a result, I began an in-depth investigation of the phenomenon the next day. Prior to August 21st, I had followed reports of the object and spoken with several investigators who were attempting to determine its real nature. Then I began investigating the reports myself. I interviewed witnesses, spoke with local police officers and conferred with other investigators and with interested journalists. I found clear evidence of the existence of an aerial craft, approximately three times as large as the largest known conventional aircraft, which displayed characteristics beyond our current level of technology. I also found indications of a well-planned attempt to coverup the sightings, and covert investigations by federal agencies using FBI operatives and other federal agency personnel. The object got major notice on March 24th, 1983 when residents of Yorktown, New Castle, Mt. Kisco and other nearby towns in New York State reported it cruising slowly at low altitude. From that date to the present (last confirmed sighting Dec. 26th, 1984) the unknown object has been reported over Westchester, Putnam, Rockland and Duchess counties in New York and over Fairfield county in Conneticut. Professional investigators have interviewed more than 2000 witnesses, more than seventy media articles have appeared (primarily in local newspapers), and photographs and video tapes have recorded the presence of the "V" shaped UFO. Numerous police officers have seen it. These same officers have reported attempts by their police chiefs to censor their statements. Investigators of this phenomenon have been covertly watched and, on occasion, subjected to spurious interviews by FBI agents. All of this is documented; here, by the media, in the logs of investigators, on tapes of witness accounts and in signed statements by police officers. WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING Before we can attempt any analysis we must take a long, hard look at the information available. Three men have been most active in investigating these reports: Lt. George Lesnick of the Fairfield, Conneticut police department, Philip Imbrogno of Greenwich, Conneticut, and myself. Phil and George have been more active in interviewing witnesses and relaying information that the Center for UFO Studies in Illinois. The head of CUFOS and 'dean' of UFO research, J. Allen Hynek, has personally visited the area several times to interview witnesses with George and Phil. He acknowledges this to be "one of the largest UFO waves in history." We cannot deal directly with the object, examine it and determine exactly what it is or where it is from. We can examine witness reports, drawings and photographs of the object. We can examine the reaction of the media, of local police and of federal agencies such as the FAA, the ANG (Air National Guard) and the FBI. Thousands of witness reports are on record. Drawings, photographs and reports of aircraft encounters are also available. (The media coverage is listed at the end of this article.) While the object has been seen primarily over the Westchester/Fairfield area there are reports from Pennsylvania to Maine of a UFO with similar characteristics. There are also scattered reports of this type of UFO seen during 1980, 1981 and 1982. The focus, however, seems to be on this 1983 and 1984 flap over New York and Conneticut. The first widely read media article to comment on this object was printed in the Port Chester (New York) Daily Item. Hundreds Claim to Have Seen UFO was the headline and, indeed, hundreds of reports of a large, "V" shaped UFO with multicolored lights were received by the police departments of Yorktown, Mt. Kisco, Carmel and nearby areas. This was on Thursday night, March 24, 1983. Police officers in these towns also reported seeing it. (For the record, however, one week earlier, on March 17th, residents of Kent, N.Y. and motorists on highway I-84 had reported an identical UFO.) The object was seen the next night, March 25th, and again the following night. Now the witnesses numbered in the thousands. Other newspapers began picking up the story. Again the object appeared on several nights in early April, this time in the area of Danbury, Conneticut and a story appeared in the Danbury News-Times. Then the Sunday New York Times on April 17th carried a lengthy article about the activity. The name Philip Imbrogno was seen often and rightly so; Phil is one of the most authoritative experts on aerial phenomena in the area. A Viet-Nam war medical corpsman veteran, he is a high school science teacher and a graduate astronomer. Phil is a man of many talents, with an exacting attitude as an investigator and almost limitless energy. He began pursuing the mystery of this UFO and, with the aid of Lt. Lesnick, an experienced police investigator, gathered reams of data. Verbal reports on tape, written and signed reports, occasional photographs, drawings, maps of flight routes and computer evaluations of patterns began accumulating as George and Phil continued their investigations. Obligingly, the UFO continued to reappear. Then, other aspects of the situation also began to occur. It was clear to Phil and George and to most of the witnesses that what was being seen was not a conventional aircraft nor a group of them. The object hovered, made little or no noise, performed unusual and abrupt turns, rotated on its own axis and displayed extremely rapid accelerations and decelerations. Often it was reported to blink off its lights, seeming to disappear, only to reappear seconds later, lights blazing, in a removed quadrant of the evening sky miles away. Official explanations began to proliferate. First they said it was hang gliders, then "ultra light" aircraft. These explanations were shown to be inaccurate, or at least, inadequate. Such very light aircraft would be hard pressed to stay aloft even with the weight of several hand flashlights, not to mention six to twenty bright, glowing lights. Other explanations came to the fore. Light aircraft in formation became the byword of authorities and explainers. It was, at this time, more than two months after the beginning of the sightings, that attention became focused upon a group of pilots flying out of Stormville airport in New York. These pilots flew close formations, most often in V or wedge- shaped patterns. Thus, the perfect explanation for the sightings was found and publicized. Reality, however, was more complex. Lt. Lesnick uncovered definite evidence of censorship attempts directed towards the witnesses who were police officers. These officers stated that the police chiefs of their departments had been visited by federal agents and that they had then been instructed to explain the UFOs as conventional aircraft activity. The officers were indignant about this, for they were convinced that what they saw was not normal aircraft activity. The Stormville pilots were very evasive and would not talk to investigators or newspaper reporters. Several times they avoided state and local police waiting in their cruisers at the landing strip by diverting themselves to other airports. More was going on then met the eye. Throughout the summer and into the late fall of 1983 the "V" shaped object continued to be seen. Media articles appeared, but less often, I found myself drawn to the activity, and spoke several times with George and Phil. They greatly impressed me. These men were very professional UFO investigators. Compared to them, I felt I was a hobbyist. At the beginning of this wave of activity I began to keep a log of all information coming my way that might pertain to this "object." My first guess was that it was some new type of military aircraft displayed in a strange attempt to gage public reaction to UFOs. After several talks with witnesses and aerospace engineers, this idea began to seem untenable. After August 21st, when the object circled and overflew my residence, the idea that it had been constructed using our present day technology was one I abandoned altogether. On August 21st, 1983, I watched the object at close range for several minutes. That same night witnesses reported it over New Haven, West Haven, Bridgeport, Monroe and Stratford, Conneticut. On September 23rd, 1983, the object was seen over Newton, Sandy Hook and along Highway I-84 in Conneticut. We shall examine these two nights in depth as an expanded reference to the larger range of reported incidents. In this way we may find some tentative answers or at least some closer descriptions of its appearances and activities. -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 89 04:24:00 GMT From: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Westchester Wing - Part I (Continued) <...Continued from Previous Message> It is important that we draw no conclusions unless warranted by the data available. UFOs are unreal to most of us. We have not seen them. We see only the reports. For those people who saw this UFO, it suddenly becomes a reality which is open to various interpretations. Explanations, especially for those not directly exposed to the phenomenon, leaped forth. I saw it. I have a clear grasp of what I saw and how it interacted with me. I have also closely interviewed many of the witnesses of August 21st and September 23rd. Yet, I have no idea what it actually was -- I can only report on how it appeared and what it did. What it actually was or is will remain, for the most part, unknown until it lands or openly displays itself in daylight. Witnesses agree, no matter what may have been aloft, the object they saw was not a formation of light planes. Many witnesses have seen both the object and a group of light aircraft in formation over their areas (not at the same time). These witnesses, some being pilots themselves, agree that there was no confusing the two. Again, the object was huge, displayed multicolored lights (which changed color and intensity), flew below 1000 feet, hovered, moved at very low speeds, turned on its own axis, accelerated very rapidly, cast unusual light beams to the ground and interacted with witnesses as if it was aware of the witness participation in its appearance. No formation of light planes, or other conventional aircraft, can do all these things. A CLOSER LOOK Let us look at the nights of August 21st and September 23rd, 1983, in more detail. AUGUST 21st, 1983: At approximately 10:30 p.m. on the evening of August 21st, 1983, an unusual flying object with multicolored lights was reported to Louis Coveyduck at Tweed-New Haven Airport, Conneticut. The first calls came in from the Foxon/East Haven area, followed by calls from New Haven and then West Haven. Six witnesses reported more than unusual lights; their reports were of a huge lighted object seen at close range. Two men, Shawn Fricker and John Trendine, both from West Haven, reported seeing the object hovering low over the Yale Bowl stadium, just outside of New Haven. Security guards Jose Velasquez and Kenneth Rayon saw it directly over the Jackson Newspaper building. Police also received calls from numerous individuals such as Robert McBride, his wife and neighbors on Washington Avenue in New Haven. They consistently reported an extremely large, low-flying object seemingly studded with multicolored lights. At 10:40 p.m., three women reported a low flying "V" shaped object near Seaside Park in Bridgeport. These witnesses became somewhat agitated as the large display of lights seemed to follow them from the shore and through Bridgeport towards the North End of town. At 10:45 p.m., I, myself, saw a set of unusual lights low over the North End near St. Vincent's Hospital. As I watched, they seemed to be drifting slowly and then blinked out. Not really believing what I saw, and attempting to rationally explain it to myself mentally, I moved to a window facing west, over Main Street. As I looked out, the lights reappeared. They were stationary now, and much closer. There were three widely- spaced lights, approximately four city blocks away, about two or three hundred feet over the rooftops. I was on the third floor of a house on French Street. As I watched, I became convinced that the lights were unusual and that what I was seeing was a UFO. The lights, colored red, green and blue, began changing color. The green blinked out, then back on, then they all went out. At this point I moved to the north facing window. Upon looking out and up, I witnessed a huge display of wing shaped colored lights, moving silently and slowly eastward between me and the hospital. The hospital sits on a hill approximately half a mile away and a quarter of a mile up from my residence. Being a quality control engineer by profession, I computed the dimensions of the structure containing the lights to be at least 500 feet across and 300 feet long. I immediately called Lt. Lesnick and then went outdoors in an attempt to see the object again. Security guard Lopes of Sikorsky Field in Stratford reported that a very excited motorist had driven into the airport at approximately 10:55 p.m. to report having seen "a huge UFO" over Route 25 moments before. The motorist would have been seeing the object at the same time and in the same area as myself. At 11:06 p.m., the Monroe Police Department received a call from an electrical engineer living near a new golf course in the town. The engineer reported observing a set of unusual colored lights hovering over and behind his house. At 11:10 p.m., the Monroe police received another call from a man living less than three hundred yards from the engineer. Lee Lent, his wife and his eldest son all saw a very large, "V" shaped group of lights hovering at less than two hundred feet in front of their house. The lights, "blue, green and almost a pink color," hovered and then began moving directly towards the open fields of the golf course. Mr. Lent works as a financial director of a successful company and has often traveled by air, many times in light aircraft. "This was no plane," he stated emphatically. He and his family had watched it hovering silently for approximately five minutes before it began moving silently over his house. Shortly after this, another Monroe resident and her teenaged daughter saw the object moving slowly over their house back towards Bridgeport. At 11:45 p.m., I returned to my house and called the Bridgeport Police Department to report the UFO. At 11:50 p.m., a young woman in the vicinity of the General Electric plant near Boston and Seaview Avenues called the Bridgeport police to say that she and several friends were watching a huge lighted object either moving or hovering in the sky. Immediately afterwards, at 11:55 p.m., Stratford police received a call from Cliff Robertson, 58, who stated that he, his wife and several others were watching a "huge cluster of lights" in the air over Conners Lane near Huntington Road, in Stratford. Tracing the reports, we see that a huge, well-lighted, seemingly "V" shaped object was seen first over East Haven, then New Haven, then West Haven, then Bridgeport, then Monroe, back over Bridgeport and onto Stratford. The sightings occurred sequentially from approximately 10:30 p.m. to 11:50 p.m. The flight path was a consistent line over the closely clustered towns. There can be no doubt something was there. Phil Imbrogno has gathered many examples of this type of incident in 1983 and 1984 over Duchess, Putnam and Westchester counties of New York. At times of peak frequency, reports of this type of overflight occurred more than twice a week. George Lesnick has made inquiries at local police departments in these counties. He has spoken to police officers who saw the object. As mentioned, the New York State Police and local police chiefs at first attempted to officially explain the sightings as "ultra- light" aircraft. More recently the official explanations have stated that the sightings were due to a formation of light planes coming out of Stormville Airport in New York. An FAA inquiry was initiated and it came to light that a group of pilots, flying light aircraft, had often flown over the same areas in close formation. The light planes appeared flying at both high and low altitudes several times, and many people, including police officers, had seen both the planes and the "UFO" separately and reported that, again, there was no confusing the two. As early as April 23, 1983, both Phil Imbrogno and myself received reports of "very low flying Cessnas" from a police officer and from an amateur astronomer in the New Fairfield, Conneticut area. This formation of planes was readily identified as such by both witnesses and was not referred to as being a UFO. Surprisingly, some local police officers (who witnessed the UFO themselves) claim, somewhat angrily, that their superiors had instructed them to say it was an airplane or an ultra-light plane. Some officers reported that their chiefs had been approached by federal authorities who were attempting to "keep a lid" on the unusual activity. Investigations into the identities and motivations of the "formation flying" pilots have been clouded, perhaps deliberately, but one salient fact has emerged: these flights were never noticed until after the UFO reports of March and April, 1983. Since the characteristics of those UFO reports could not be duplicated by any regular aircraft formations, either the pilots are hoaxers trying to imitate the reported UFO or they are part of a well-conceived plan to present a "rational" explanation for the unusual activity. Such an explanation could help to keep the public calm in the face of the unknown. And, it could give defense analysts some breathing room. It is reported that UFOs have caused profound alarm at higher levels of military intelligence centers. They have interfered with the operation of long-range ballistic missile implacements. They have landed near military bases. Numerous unsuccessful interceptions have been attempted. These facts are very well documented in two books: Casebook of a UFO Investigator by Raymond Fowler and Clear Intent by Larry Fawcett and Barry Greenwood, both published by Prentice-Hall Inc. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 07632). A study of these two books should give anyone the foundation of an understanding of the UFO phenomenon. SEPTEMBER 23rd, 1983: At about 11:00 p.m. on the night of September 23rd, 1983, three girls and the mother of one left a dance at the Sandy Hook, Conneticut high school. As they proceeded through Sandy Hook and onto the Highway I-84 overpass, one of the girls saw a "UFO" almost directly over Sandy Hook. Excitedly, she told the others, while watching it from the rear window of the car. They began making fun of her until they, too, saw the object. The mother, driving the car, turned left onto Walnut Tree Hill Road. Suddenly they all began seeing the object off to their right, between the trees along the road. The mother stopped the car, but refused to allow the girls to get out. All four watched as the object silently flew almost directly overhead and back towards I-84. All agreed that it appeared to be very large, kite-like, with four steady, glowing lights (two red, two blue). The "leading point" of the object in flight was a red light, the two "tips" were blue and the "tail" was red. They were steady and did not blink. The lights were described as "too close together to be several planes in formation, but too far apart to be one single plane." As the object moved over to the left side of the car, the trailing red light went out. The witnesses estimate that the object was now over Highway I-84. It appeared to be a large triangle, with a red light at the apex and two blue lights at the "wingtips." The blue lights then went out, followed by the disappearance of the leading red light. At approximately this same time, a woman graduate student of the University of Conneticut, 33 years old, saw the object as she was driving on I-84. She reported three unusual lights (a red and two blues) to the Newton Police Department. She hurriedly exited the highway near the Grand Union store and as she did, she noticed the two blue lights go out and then the red light also went out. She felt as if "the thing" had disappeared. She noticed other people on the road slowing down, as if also watching it, and talked with another woman at the supermarket who had seen "it," too. The police dispatcher from nearby Newton told her that there had been two other sightings of a large unknown object in the past two weeks, but advised her to relax because whatever it was, the FAA was tracking it. -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 89 04:25:00 GMT From: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Westchester Wing - Part I (Continued) <...Continued from Previous Message> Barbara Allen, a resident of Sandy Hook, her daughter and her son also saw the object at approximately the same time, while traveling eastbound on I-84 in the same area. The daughter, bright for her eleven years, wrote a most cogent report: "I was thinking about falling asleep. Then I saw a bright light above a hill and I thought it was a radar tower. As we drove along, it was going along the same way we were and it was very big or at least bigger than a large plane. We got off at Exit 10 and stopped to look at it. It was a triangular shape and had one red light and two blue lights. As we were watching it, the lights seemed to fade away. I know they (it) didn't go behind a cloud because it was a totally clear night." All agreed that what they saw was unusual and that it was unlike anything they had seen before. After stopping at the bottom of Exit 10, they watched as it hovered over them briefly and then moved slowly away. Barbara talked with a teenager standing on the opposite side of the road, who had also seen "it." The last report from the Sandy Hook area that night came from a self employed construction worker who, at age 28, runs his own concrete business. Paul Valliquette of Meriden, Conneticut was on his way home from a job when he saw it. Without fear, but with a lot of curiosity, Paul stopped his truck on I-84, got out and proceeded to get a very good look at the object at close range, with its lights on and after they went off. He gave a very concise report of an extremely large, metallic object. Using hand widths and angular measurements (he saw it hovering in front of a nearby hill), the dimensions of the object were computed by him to be approximately 800 feet across, 500 feet long, and approximately 50 to 100 feet in thickness. This seems ludicrously large, but almost every witness reported similar dimensions. "As large as a football field" was a common comparison. Paul watched the huge object for about five minutes. "It" had doused its lights, but in the moonlight he could see a "huge, grey metallic object." Suddenly its lights came back on and it "moved very swiftly" to the west at the same low altitude. Paul stated, "On a soft arc, it lifted up towards the stars and became the size of a pin head in a matter of five to ten seconds." The acceleration was short-lived, extremely rapid, and silent. It stopped abruptly, seemingly miles away, at about sixty degrees above the horizon over the area of Ridgefield, CT. At this point, Paul perceived it to be much like a star, giving off multicolored lights. The reports from each of the two nights are not isolated to the witnesses mentioned. Media articles appeared in the Bridgeport Post of August 22, 1983; in the Meridian Record Journal of August 24 and in the New Haven Journal Courier of August 23. Again in September, reports appeared in the New Haven Register on the 24th and in the Newton Bee on the 30th. Police departments received numerous calls about the object in all the towns mentioned. It is estimated that there were several hundred witnesses in August and somewhat less in September. These two nights are typical of many. Phil Imbrogno, the most persistent and perhaps most experienced investigator, has looked thoroughly into numerous sets of similar reports over Westchester, Putnam and Duchess counties of New York. The record of his investigations, along with photographs, taped testimony and police officer observations checked by Lt. Lesnick, leaves little room for "conventional explanations." My own investigations into the object's appearances included interviews of more than fifty witnesses, taped and written testimony, drawings and other records of reports. I met several times with Phil Imbrogno and George Lesnick and consulted with other investigators and journalists in gathering and comparing information. I also consulted with several experienced aerospace and astronautical engineers. They agreed, after reviewing the reports, that those describing a large, low-flying, structured object could not be explained by aircraft activity. One suggestion was that the object might be a very large, parawing surveillance craft, powered by newly developed brushless DC electric motors. Although an attractive concept, this proposal has several serious drawbacks. Such craft are still in the experimental stage and are being developed solely for the military. What would they be doing cruising low over the affluent suburbs of Westchester and Fairfield? Such surveillance drones are designed to be unobtrusive and cannot duplicate many of the reported maneuvers of the "Westchester Wing." Surveillance aircraft used at low altitudes are much smaller in size than the reported UFO. The general consensus is that a structured object of the reported size and characteristics of the "Westchester Wing" was beyond our present technological capabilities. Other aspects of the situation surfaced. On three separate occasions I encountered direct evidence of covert FBI interest in investigations into the sightings. One evening I found myself being interviewed by a person representing herself to be a MUFON investigator (MUFON is a UFO group based in Texas with branches throughout the U.S.). While we spoke, an FBI agent was sitting at the next table, listening intently. This was verified by local police officers who had an ongoing interest in the investigation and in the presence of the agent, but especially since he had not officially notified them of his presence and intent. Other agents were identified through license plate checks. The shadow cast by the presence of federal agencies interested in the UFO phenomenon has a definite outline, although the complete image is still unknown. SUMMARY It can be stated that many thousands of individuals in the New York/Conneticut area were witness to an unusual aerial object in 1983 and 1984. The object was consistently described as extremely large, structured, "V" shaped, silent and flying slowly at low altitudes. It also was seen to accelerate "very, very quickly," to rotate on its axis in flight, make abrupt right- angle turns, hover motionlessly and display variable lighting as well as "searchlight-like" beams extending to the ground. Within one month of the first of these reports, certain pilots began flying light aircraft out of Stormville and other small airports in formations over the same areas. They refused to identify themselves to civilian investigators and several times avoided state and local police waiting for them by diverting to land at other airports. Investigations into their identities, led by lawyer Peter Gersten, have linked them, it is said, with the CIA. Several researchers experienced covert attempts of being followed and falsely interviewed. Investigations into this activity showed these attempts to be the actions of FBI employees. Numerous police officers, themselves witnesses of the unknown object, reported attempted censorship by superiors. They also reported, in several separate townships, approaches to police chiefs by federal agents allegedly attempting to cover up and explain away reports. What were we experiencing? At this point we can only say that we were witnessing what appears to be a very large, structured vehicle which flew low over populated areas, displayed unusual lights perhaps to deliberately attract attention to it. What it was, where it was from and who was or is behind its activities is all still entirely unknown. Someone or something seemed to be trying to get our attention. Once attending, we found ourselves even further entranced with the implications of its appearance. We need to clearly separate what we know from what we may imagine. UFOs have somehow managed to consistently attract a low level of public attention for years. For some reason, this particular wave of activity seemed to be more open and intense. Too many witnesses had seen the object for it to be explained away as an "ultra-light aircraft." Too many witnesses, among them pilots and aeronautical engineers, had seen the unknown object display characteristics completely beyond the capabilities of "light aircraft formations." Whether one chooses to believe the explanations or to believe in UFOs is no longer a cogent approach. One does not "believe in" helicopters. One can only accept the evidence, all of the evidence, in showing UFO activity occurred on a surprisingly consistent and prolonged basis in 1983 and 1984 over the New York/Conneticut area. We cannot define completely the nature of this activity at this time. We can, however, closely examine the evidence gathered. And, thanks to the efforts of Philip Imbrogno, George Lesnick and others, that evidence is considerable. Using what we know are verified reports, we can make some reasonable statements and deductions about it. It seems clear that an unknown agency was displaying what we call a UFO to thousands of individuals in the densely populated New York/Conneticut area. The displays were consistent and presumably were attention seeking, particularly by the object turning its lights on and off. If it did not want to be seen, we may presume, it would not have illuminated itself at all. The object was seen only at night and seemed to have no clearly detectable purpose for flying low over populated areas except, perhaps, to demonstrate unusually high performance flight characteristics. The object was huge: one witness, Mr. Valiquette, compared it to the size of three jumbo jet 747 aircraft lined up in a row. The extreme size of the object and its unusual and unbelievable flight characteristics invite us to be in awe of its presence. At the same time, it did not display itself in daylight or, as far as we know, it never made contact with the ground; its presence did not create hysteria, rather it seems we were gently introduced, over a period of many months, to the reality of its existence. The UFO phenomenon has been following this modus operendi for many years. In New England the manifestations of this particular UFO showed a greater frequency, a greater consistency and a greater duration than previous UFO waves. We might deduce that the UFO phenomenon is accelerating its program. We might consider that our reaction to the phenomenon could be just as important as our realization of its actual nature. SPECULATION There are reports that: Minuteman missile systems have had their command and control computer systems crashed by the appearances of UFOs; UFOs have effortlessly destroyed antiaircraft missiles launched at them over Korea, over Belgium, over Moscow; jet fighters launched at them over the United States and the Soviet Union have been lost in interception attempts; electromagnetic communications and radar have been totally jammed at military bases for hours during UFO appearances; and UFOs have closely overflown and landed near military bases throughout the world. At the same time UFOs have made appearances to isolated individuals and have overflown towns and cities without displaying hostility. Perhaps we are being slowly and gently introduced to a superior culture which will not allow nuclear conflict on our planet. Our adolescence may be over. It may be that we shall resolve our international differences and go on to an eventual open and peaceful contact. It may also happen that we may be involved in a nuclear conflict. Such an event presumably could be stopped by the UFO "agency," since it has shown the capability for intervention. An intervention on this scale would be a tremendous shock to humanity. The Westchester overflights, the Exeter, NH sightings of the last decade, and the reports of UFO appearances in the past several decades may be designed to cushion that shock. Perhaps time will tell. ================================================================= -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Info-ParaNet Letters Volume 1 Issue 29a Subjects - Re: Info-Paranet Newsletter Abductees reunion (from CBC's \ Alive\) The Carman, Manitoba UFO encounter, 1966 UFO Wave (?) Startling New Theory Norad Re: Interesting Contradiction Part II Re: The Carman, Manitoba Ufo Encounter, 1966 Re: Info-paranet Newsletter Re: Thomas Bearden Re: Cydonia.txt Public Opinion --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Sep 89 18:01:59 GMT From: Gary L Dare Subject: Re: Info-Paranet Newsletter Bob.Fletcher wrote in Vol. 1, Issue 28: >There is a general feeling here in Australia that Pine Gap (NORAD >Base) is engaged in something more than defence. paranet!Clark.Matthews wrote in reply: >I didn't know NORAD had bases in Australia, but your post >caught my eye for another reason, too: NORAD is the NORthern Air Defence treaty between the United States and Canada. It is seperate from NATO, with a mandate for only these two countries, and not a lot of Americans away from the border areas with access to Canadian media know about it. Pine Gap, being down under, would not be an ANZUS base unless there are provisions for the stationing of US personnel there; indeed, its presence is probably covered by other agreements. Getting back to Norad for a moment: while its role is not as great as it was in the 50's and 60's, and it has significantly diminished in import as the US is concentrating on doing as much of its own northern defence without interference from Canadians, who would be privy to any joint information. This has coincided with (but was not caused by) growth in feelings over Arctic sovereignty on the part of Canadians due to a number of rude intrusions by American naval craft (i.e., the Polar Sea incident of 1985) and Arctic territorial disputes in the World Court over the Beaufort Sea and other areas (for mineral exploitation, but also to expand America's domestic perimeters for defence). The Norad agreement allows the US military a number of "hooks" for information sharing on military matters, such as UFO investigations by the RCAF (I don't know if this has been taken over by CSIS - the Canadian Security and Information Service). A typical post-siting investigation in rural south-western Ontario (that's the area next to Michigan) had a group of Canadian Forces officers visit a couple who made siting reports and photos; with them were two USAF officers of Major rank, who instructed the two to keep quiet about what they saw, and that revelation will gain them only difficulty and not sympathy. There was no noting as to whether these Americans were attached to the SAC (Strategic Air Command) or not, since this is the arm alleged to be carrying on UFO investigations (whose UFO branch can safely hide in the SAC's cloak of secrecy and security). -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gary L. Dare Quebec Elections, 25 Sept.: > gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU Vote for the Rhino Party! > gld@cunixc.BITNET Votons le Parti Rhino!! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Sep 89 18:02:25 GMT From: Gary L Dare Subject: Abductees reunion (from CBC's \ Alive\) During the 1986 or 1987 Xmas break, I was home in Winnipeg, Manitoba (Canada) and watching a CBC series called "Man Alive". The show deals with issues of the human spirit, primarily religeous perceptions and for the most part Christian. They also tackle UFO phenomenom every once in a while, due to its obvious links to the show's mandate. This particular episode dealt with two women who met each other during a UFO abduction. In a previous show, one or two seasons back, a woman from Southern Ontario recounted her abduction; she was taken to a farm house and while there met another woman who was also abducted. They didn't speak to one another. They didn't even know if they were still in Canada. It turns out that the second woman either saw this program or was told of it by friends; she lives in British Columbia, on the west coast. Many years had passed, and both women were old. As they recounted their episode seperately, their stories converged towards the actual meeting in that mysterious farmhouse. (This all took place prior to their meeting.) Finally, the two women were introduced to each other and the show ended. Has anyone else heard of this incident, or obtained a transcript of the show from the CBC? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gary L. Dare Quebec Elections, 25 Sept.: > gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU Vote for the Rhino Party! > gld@cunixc.BITNET Votons le Parti Rhino!! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Sep 89 18:16:54 GMT From: Gary L Dare Subject: The Carman, Manitoba UFO encounter, 1966 [Sorry if the dates are garbled, but a lot of stuff is flooding back from the depths of my memory. - gld] In the mid-60's, a man in Carman, Manitoba encountered a UFO standing in a field. For geographic reference, this is a flat prairie region, quite isolated by American standards -- outback by Australian. He approached the craft, and his clothes caught fire. He wandered to the highway, where an RCMP constable picked him up and took him to hospital. The man was treated for burns and radiation poisoning. Has this one been documented in the UFO record? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gary L. Dare Quebec Elections, 25 Sept.: > gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU Vote for the Rhino Party! > gld@cunixc.BITNET Votons le Parti Rhino!! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 89 04:29:00 GMT From: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: UFO Wave (?) To All: I have received a report from Stan Gordon of PASU in Pennsylvania that there has been a sharp increase in UFO reports of the last few days in a four state area, including the counties of Butler, Cambria and Westmoreland. During the evening last night, numerous reports came in regarding objects of considerable brightness moving rapidly up, down and side to side. Additionally, we received a report from Chicago regarding an anomaly described as a large "wing" like device that appeared to be translucent with "sparkles" in its form. The persons making this report were very shaken up about this and appeared to be sincere. This report was turned over to PASU and CUFOS for followup. More to follow. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 89 04:46:00 GMT From: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Startling New Theory NEWS CLIPPING SERVICE DATE OF ARTICLE: 19 August, 1989 SOURCE OF ARTICLE: New Scientist LOCATION: BYLINE: None ======================================================== (C) Copyright 1989 ParaNet Information Service All Rights Reserved. THIS FILE WAS PREPARED BY PARANET OMEGA-ALPHA(sm) FOR PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE 1-303-431-1343 9600 BAUD DENVER, COLORADO NOTE: THESE FILES ARE NOT FOR REDISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE OF THE PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE NETWORK ======================================================== COSMIC COINCIDENCE Carbon is manufactured inside stars, thank to a remarkable coincidence that was first pointed out by Fred Hoyle in the 1950s. An alpha particle (a helium nucleus) and a nucleus of beryllium-8 can stick together to form carbon-12 only because the nucleus has an excited energy level at precisely the right place. If this level were even slightly shifted, the process of building elements in stars would falter before reaching carbon. As a result, there would be no heaver elements. The coincidence is so remarkable, Hoyle pointed out, that it seems to imply that the Universe was designed to produce carbon-based forms of life. This is an extreme version of what it known as the "anthropic principle". Now however, researchers from the Israeli Institute of Technology, the University of Illinois and the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in West Germany have tested the power of this coincidence. Using a computer, they calculated how much carbon would be produced if the energy level of excited carbon-12 did not fit so closely the energy of beryllium-8, plus an alpha particle. The researchers found that an increase of 60 kiloelectronvolts (keV) in the energy level, does not significantly alter the amount of carbon produced inside stars. However, if the energy level rises by 277 keV or more, "the results of nuclear burning are radically different and very little carbon is produced" (Nature, vol340, p180). Despite this result, the coincidence remains remarkable, at least for carbon-based organisms. The difference between this energy level of carbon-12 and the next one is a huge 9.64 million electronvolts. ============================================================ This story was contributed by ParaNet's Australian Bureau Chief, Bob Fletcher -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Sep 89 16:47:41 GMT From: Linda.Murphy@f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Murphy) Subject: Norad > If you were to assume this was the truth, (which I don't) then > how high up do we have to go, to find the level which obstructed > Goldwater and Don Ecker and Linda Howe and others and sent > helicopters after the Coynes? I have on good word that the Coynes live in an area where helicopters are. It is not unusual to see helicopters in the area that they live. How they react to the helicopters, and why, is the crux of the mater. We had a lot of helicopters in Flagstaff awhile back. Made a bunch of racket. People went out to look at them. They were military, and it was the first time in ages I had seen that many helicopters in the air over this part of town. I could've had a holiday with that, if I chose to. I used to spend about an hour a night with one of Shirley Coynes relatives when I worked at Denny's (small world, ain't it?)... We would rap about all sorts of things at 4am in the morning, and he told me about this relative of his. A user of mine had given him some printed out files about UFO's, and he said, "You know Linda, I think that Shirley is the same Shirley!" I brought in a UFO Magazine with Shirley's picture in it, and sure enough! It is my understanding, that if there are serial murders, or murders in which organized groups may be responsible for, it is not unusual for inquiry to be intercepted by the FBI or other agencies if the cases are still open. (courtesy of the Coconino Sheriff's Dept.) In regards to Goldwater, I feel that his inquiry most likely was out of his jurisdiction. And it is WE who in turn interpret what could have been withheld from him. In regards to cattle mutilations, I will never be content with any results that make odd claims of specific properties found in the victim, until like testing is done with live cattle to determin if it is unique to the victim, or common amoung the cattle. I came across a film that shows a jet being crashed. Helicopters flew with it (the jet was remote controled) to photograph it. Inside the jet were dummies that were made of special material that would burn like human flesh. It showed the crash from all angles, and also the "pilots" that were in the remote tower. It was very interesting to look at. "Crash retrieval". This is all part of testing jets and the like. THe film is a real film taken at a test sight. The "bodies" that were removed that "died" in the crash were covered just like any other corpse. The particular jet had a foriegn emblem on it's tail. And so could this be an "alien crash retrieval?" The film has bylines including JPL. NASA, and other various military organizations. It is authentic. We need to look at all probabilities, Joe --- to determin just what could be going on. I think UFOlogy is suffering from "tunnel vision". If there are aliens amoung us, we need to understand what planet Earth is doing first, so we can distinguish the differences. There is too much of an intense desire on one hand to believe, and the direct opposition to descredit that belief. The "happy medium" of rational assesment of the problem appears to be difficult to find. -- Linda Murphy - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!304!1!Linda.Murphy INTERNET: Linda.Murphy@f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Sep 89 16:27:47 GMT From: Linda.Murphy@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Murphy) Subject: Re: Interesting Contradiction Part II > There is a general feeling here in Australia that Pine Gap (NORAD Base) > is engaged in something more than defence. Are we all paranoid anout > this establishment? I had an unusual "theory" presented to me at work yesterday. The underground bases are being designed to house various families durring a time of cataclysm in order to not only defend this great nation of ours, but also to preserve enough citizens alive to populate the nation afterwards. The theory consists of possibility that the decision as to who would live in these various underground communities would be very difficult to do, without creating general panic of the American populace. So various methods are being utilized to "program" these individuals (and that is why their are so many who have "visions" of going to a mountain to live) and it is being blamed on ET abductions, and because the claims are so absurbed, nobody would realize what was happening. (As you can see, there are some pretty active imaginations working on this problem! .... Sounded pretty good, until Armageddon was brought up as being a scheduled time table of planned "cleansing" of the earth.... and the government is aware of this. (Scary thought....). The individual relating the theory had read Strieber's books. The tendency towards vegetarianism (so that their systems would be prepared to live without meat) and dispensing with junk food and nicotine (since it won't be available) and extreme "open mindedness" are all pre-conditioning efforts to prepare these "chosen ones" for long term confinement in close quarters. I told the individual they should write a book about it. Sort of a "Nuts and Bolts" Swan Song.... ( 1:304/1) -- Linda Murphy - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!Linda.Murphy INTERNET: Linda.Murphy@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 89 07:16:00 GMT From: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews) Subject: Re: The Carman, Manitoba Ufo Encounter, 1966 Hello, Canada. The Falcon Lake incident has been pretty well documented -- suggest you look at Timothy Good's "Above Top Secret", pages 195-205. The unfortunate victim was a man named Stephen Michalak, the event took place on 20 May 1967. It had repercussions for many months/years afterward, though. In fact, at one point investigators returned to the site and tested for radioactivity; they found readings that were so high that it was considered placing a large area off limits to campers, hunters, etc. The Falcon Lake story & aftermath are part of a larger section on UFOs in Canada and the collusion and coordination between the RCAF and USAF in surpressing reports & concealing information along the lines of America's notorious JNAP protocols. Anyway, I highly recommend the book. Best, Clark -- Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!Clark.Matthews INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 89 07:26:00 GMT From: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews) Subject: Re: Info-paranet Newsletter Hello, Gary. Well, it's not surprising that US specialists would be involved in Canadian investigations: Remember the flap at Kirtland Air Force Base in Maine? A UFO intruded into the weapons dump, landed, did SOMETHING to a couple of M.P.'s who were sent to investigate, scared the living bejeezus out of many more security people who went looking for the M.P.'s -- and then (supposedly) altered nuclear weapons in storage and modified systems software! Then the UFO flew back to New Brunswick, where it came from. Anyway, it stands to reason that some cooperative arrangement is at work between Canada and the U.S.,and the collaboration would appear to be very close indeed. I wonder: What is the incidence of UFO sightings over the Maritimes? I'm wondering in particular about the St. John river valley and the area around northern Fundy... Best, Clark -- Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!Clark.Matthews INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 89 07:32:00 GMT From: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews) Subject: Re: Thomas Bearden Hi Linda. It's nice to BE back, of course. RE: Col. Bearden. He's no longer employed/affiliated with the Redstone Arsenal (well, this info is about a year old, but at that time he had resigned his commission & left Redstone). I wrote him but got no response. Funny, but every time I write people who are theorizing or working in this field...I get no response. Same thing happened when I wrote Dr. Thomas Harris in Austin Tx about his Time-Field equations and their applications in UFO propulsion/concealment. And it happened when I wrote Dr. Bennewitz at Thunder Labs about his Air Force consulting work -- as described in "Clear Intent". Turns out Bennewitz no longer works at Thunder Labs (according to the receptionist). Is ANYBODY out there? I wonder sometimes. Best, Clark PS -- Will look into Persinger. Tell me, what else has he written? -- Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!Clark.Matthews INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Sep 89 23:47:23 GMT From: Jim.Delton@f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton) Subject: Re: Cydonia.txt If they are that advanced there should have been a deposit on them and they wouldn't have been left behind! -- Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!304!1!Jim.Delton INTERNET: Jim.Delton@f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 89 00:57:19 GMT From: Linda.Murphy@f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Murphy) Subject: Public Opinion > In an effort to provide the highest quality conference possible, I am > interested in comments, suggestions or any type of feedback that will > help to accomplish this goal. I have heard from some of you privately, > however I would like most of all to hear from all of you, including the > sysops. What can we do to improve things around here? One idea that I > have is perhaps we should moderate the UFO conference. 1) When the Western Star was down, people could get on your board and post! hint)... THEN! We could succesfully poll! (ANd so everybody else could also!). 2) Remove the full page ParaNet (C) out of the files that are put into the message base. A short "ParaNet (C)" should suffice... The origin is known. If a smaller portion of the file was entered instead of it's entirety, it should encourage calls, inquiries, to our boards to hear the "Rest of the Story" (just like Paul Harvey!)... this should help aide in furthering discusion... 3) I am opposed to moderating the UFO echo. Let's work on ParaNet. 4) Post! If there is something interesting someone comes across, post it! Remember -- you asked..... -- Linda -- Linda Murphy - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!304!1!Linda.Murphy INTERNET: Linda.Murphy@f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG