Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 144
 
                           Monday, February 5th 1990
 
Today's Topics:
 
                                 General replies
                                      cows
                                     OZTRAIN
                                    "Giants"
                            Re: Mysterious Fireballs
                            Re: Mysterious Fireballs
                                     OZTRAIN
                                    HgSaucers
                 Is your skeptic a debunker in sheep's clothing?
                            Re: Mysterious Fireballs
                           Re: Mars Face and Skeptics
                                  Re: Mars Face
                                    KLAS tape
                 Is your skeptic a debunker in sheep's clothing?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
Subject: General replies
Date: 3 Feb 90 20:25:58 GMT

Paul:  my transmission was in reply to a message from Gene Gross
and concerned the experiments done by Alain Aspect and colleagues
in France. They were testing the predictions of Bell's theorem which 
bear on whether local hidden variable theories are possible in QM. 
What they showed was that orthodox QM is "true", that nature is not
deterministic, and that separated components of a QM system remain 
in some sort of "communication" which apparently violates 
the light speed limit. These philosophical consequences are profoundly 
disturbing to many philosophers and physicists.  
I hasten to add, however, that no one has found any way 
to use this effect or property.  Apparently the only information 
"transmitted" is information about the state of the system. 
No modulation seems to be possible. Scientific American has 
had a number of articles on "quantum weirdness" in the last decade. 
If you can get to a library, look them up as they tend to be 
clearly written.

Gene: The alleged presence of other elements in measurable amounts 
in the Deuterium gas suggests to me that they should spend more 
time in the lab. H could be degassing from their electrodes as Pd has
a great affinity for H2 and we don't know their history.  
Helium 4 could have diffused in from the atmosphere in the lab 
as it passes through glass quite easily, enough to ruin some types of electronic
equipment such a photomultiplier tubes. I can't explain 
the tritium except maybe as a contaminant of their 
deuterium, though both would also bind to Pd.  As for Helium-3, I
plead ignorance, save to note that it is the decay product of tritium
(t1/2 is about 12 years).The Li might be from the glass iself. 
	Both of these experiments are very preliminary, the data are 
at most suggestive, the power and rates are very small, and they have  
not been confirmed.  The burst-like nature of all these P&F experiments
suggests either electrical noise in the detectors or cosmic rays.
	P&F were subjected to some deserved criticism for not publishing
detailed accounts of their discovery and some completly uncalled for
attacks, notably by a person from Cal Tech of whom my opinion is 
inappropriate for a genteel conference such as this. If P&F had 
published their findings correctly they would have saved other people
months of their time and millions of dollars. 

Byron: Thanks for the giants references. let's both keep our eyes
open for something in the anthropological and paleontological
literature.

By the way, years ago while I was working late in the lab, one of the
other grad students came in and said he'd heard on the radio that 
a Roman soldier's helmet had been found in an Indian burial in the 
S.W. US. I've never been able to find out anything else about, but this
conference should know something if anyone does.
--John

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: paranet!f2.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG!John.Daly
Subject: cows
Date: 31 Jan 90 03:21:00 GMT

BS > In a message to Bryon Smith <01-25-90 21:25> John Daly
BS > wrote:
BS > 
BS > > > aliens mutilating cattle etc.
BS > JD>    The aliens or their UFO's never come here to Tasmania.
BS > JD>    Our Tasmanian Devils would mutilate them!
BS > JD>      John Daly     Tasmania
BS > 
BS > John, how much would you charge to go out and catch me one
BS > of those "devils" ;->.  Who knows there might even become a
BS > market for them.  <grin>
Are you kidding?
No-one who ever tried to catch a Tasmanian Devil ever lived to tell
the tale!
Regards     John Daly    Tasmania  (Land of the Tasmanian Devil)
--  
John Daly - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Daly@f2.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: paranet!f7.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Vladimir.Godic.
Subject: OZTRAIN
Date: 4 Feb 90 06:46:00 GMT

 >  >
 >  > This is an excellent example of how ParaNet can serve to pass on
 >  > information that would not otherwise become available.
 >
 > It sure is, and we're lovin' every minute of it here in the
 > states. See that, gang? THIS is what we're about - NETWORKING!!
   I agree with you Jim, let's keep it that way.

 > Bob, Vlad, David, Keith, please keep us updated on the OZTRAIN
 > incident. If you guys are familiar with our rating system (S vs.
 > P), I'd like to know what kind of preliminary rating you assign
 > this case.
   I am NOT familiar with your rating system (S vs.P), please explain.
   We're trying to find out more about the OZTRAIN. There was, 
   however, another report nearby at the same time. As I mentioned, 
   elsewhere, we prefer to investigate UFO thoroughly and then publish 
   our findings.

 > Jim
--  
Vladimir Godic  - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic.@f7.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: paranet!f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin
Subject: "Giants"
Date: 3 Feb 90 21:13:00 GMT

Bryon,

I have been watching the various posts about the 'Nephilim' or 
'Giants.'

I have conducted an extensive study of theology and ancient 
philosophy and have found several things which pertain to 
accuracy in information and translation.

A lot of the material, including the Book of Enoch, which you 
refer to, are taken from very old manuscripts that were found in 
various parts of the world over the years.  Enoch is part of the 
Jewish tradition and has been used for many years.

However, in my research, aside from consulting with a Jewish 
Rabbi on certain concerns and questions that I have had regarding 
this material, I have found a real problem in the modern-day 
translations of the material.

In the interest of guiding you to the right sources for this 
material, I would like to recommend a couple of books which I 
have found to be as accurate as possible with regard to this 
material and other related materials, such as The Testament of 
Adam, Josephus, etc.  Around the beginning of our century, 1913 
to be exact, R. H. Charles compiled two volumes titled 'The 
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English' 
under Oxford.  These books were highly regarded as painstakingly 
researched and translated.  These books are still available, 
however, Oxford only prints the first volume and the second 
volume only when enough orders get put together.  Recently, 
however, James H. Charlesworth published a similar text in two 
volumes under the same title under the Doubleday label.  It is a 
very scholarly work and is, in my opinion, the most complete.

I have noticed a large difference in the interpretations that you 
have cited and the interpretations that are contained in these 
works.  I feel that it is highly important to retain the 
authenticity of the work for the correct understanding of the 
writings.  You will also find many other interesting texts 
contained in these books.

Hope this helps.

Mike
--  
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: Mysterious Fireballs
Date: 3 Feb 90 17:44:00 GMT

Jim, wasn't part of the mystery of the Green fireballs the fact that 
they occured in so localized an area over a period of some months.  
WHile a rash of localized sightings might make sense on a single night 
I though it was rather difficult for that to occur over a period of 
time.  With the constant movement of the earth around it axis, 
rotating, tilting, and rotation around the sun, the assumption of some 
group of meteors being timed exactly right to always "strike" at the 
same small area is just about impossible if they are comming from out 
in space in an uncontrolled manner.  I claim no expertise but I 
recalled that that was one of the really mysterious aspects to the 
green fireball situation -- why so many in New Mexico and not 
elsewhere, and now, so localized in the east??
--  
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Re: Mysterious Fireballs
Date: 3 Feb 90 19:04:00 GMT

 > I claim no expertise but I recalled that that was one of the
 > really mysterious aspects to the green fireball situation -- why
 > so many in New Mexico and not elsewhere, and now, so localized in
 > the east??

Ya got me there, that is a bit strange. But I still have difficulty with 
linking these occurences with the strict TRUFO phenomenon.
Jim
--  
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: OZTRAIN
Date: 4 Feb 90 03:42:00 GMT

Vladimir:

The S-P rating is a more stringently calibrated version of Hynek's 
Strangeness vs. Probability matrix. Each case is assigned a Strangeness 
rating, or S factor, from 1 to 5, as follows:

S1 - Prosaic explanation
S2 - Probably explainable, with more data
S3 - Possibly explainable, but with elements of strangeness
S4 - Strange; does not conform to known scientific principles
S5 - Highly strange, indicative of intelligent guidance

In addition, each case is assigned a Probability rating, or P factor, 
from 1 to 5, as a sort of average of the overall probability that the 
event occured as described. It takes into account many factors, 
including witness credibility, soundness of evidence, correlation with 
other contemporaneous reports, etc. The ratings are as follows:

P1 - Not credible or sound; Hoax
P2 - Lacking in soundness; smacks of hoax
P3 - Somewhat credible or indeterminate
P4 - Credible; Sound
P5 - Highly credible, leaving almost no doubt

The rating of a case is stated as S#/P#. For example, Frederich 
Valentich is rated S4/P5, the Knowles case is S2/P3 last I checked.

The most important aspect of this system is that it is dynamic, that is, 
the rating can change with every new piece of evidence. It is therefore 
possible to issue preliminary ratings based on the first reports of a 
case, intermediate ratings as the case progresses through various stages 
of investigation, and then we can post a public rating (rarely is 
there a "final" rating except in the case of "S1"). The purpose of the 
system is not to wave our best cases at the skeptics and say that they 
are unexplainable, but to call attention to the more important, more 
intriguing cases and say that they cry out for further investigation. 

I fully understand your reticence to publish anything prior to 
investigation, and that is why I would suggest issuing preliminary and 
intermediate ParaNet ratings on the RESEARCH echo. At this early stage, 
OZTRAIN sounds like a candidate for a high rating, in the neighborhood 
of S4/P4 or higher, but we're counting on the GangDownUnder for a 
clearer picture of the situation. Good luck!
Jim
--  
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
Subject: HgSaucers
Date: 4 Feb 90 19:02:57 GMT

Byron: The only references I have seen to "mercury saucers" was
in George Adamski and Desmond Leslie's first UFO book back in the 50's.
Leslie's refs were all to the Mahabharata/Bhagavad Gita (spelling?).  
Are there any other independent sources?  
	Has anyone (Clendenon?) with an engineering background 
examined the description of the "vimanas" or "light-ships". 
Rocket designers generally try to make the average molecular 
weight of the exhaust as low as possible as the speed a rocket 
can go depends upon the speed of the exhaust gases. 
The lower the M.W., the higher the average speed of the atoms 
or molecules at a given temperature and energy input. There are 
exceptions; the Shuttle solid boosters use Aluminum powder, 
thiokol rubber and Ammonium Perchlorate which contain
atoms as heavy as Cl and S (36, 32 A.W.). The reasons here are 
storability,  energy content and flame temperature. Most of 
the exhaust gas is N2,and H2O with solid Al2O3, solid AlCl3, HCl,
SO2, CO2, etc.  Other favorite high energy and low MW elements 
are Boron, Beryllium, and Fluorine, but the high toxicity of 
these elements and their compounds precludes their use. 
Hg has an atomic weight of about 200.  However, it might work 
in some sort of ionic drive as it ionizes rather easily. 
Designers seem to prefer Caesium or Rubdidium though.
No I'm not on ET echo, but I might enjoy it. --John


--------------------------------------------------------------------

>From: keithr@tolkien.wv.tek.com
Subject: Is your skeptic a debunker in sheep's clothing?
Date: 4 Feb 90 21:14:54 GMT

In a book written specifically to get at the fine distinctions in word
meaning (S. I. Hayakawa (ed). Use the Right Word, Reader's Digest,
1968), we find:

"Skepticism is considerably more decisive in tone than the other
words here [doubt, uncertainty, suspicion], pointing to an unwavering
posture of doubt until faced with undeniable proof: He greeted her
protestations of innocence with amused skepticism.  Often, the word
suggests a rationalistic or scientific attitude -- or an irreverent
attitude toward the claims of religion or the occult: the necessary
skepticism of science toward new scientific theories; Talking to the
medium had only increased his skepticism about spiritualism."

So, a skeptic wants to be shown by logic or evidence (or both) that
something is true beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Also, skeptics tend to
look askance at religion and the occult.  They favor rational and
scientific kinds of logic and evidence.  Fair enough.  What about the
debunker, though?

In Webster's Third New International Dictionary (the standard one 
you find in big public and academic libraries) says:

Debunk: a) to expose the sham pretensions or exaggerated claims of <
the authorities were anxious that the natives gain enough literacy to
debunk the witch doctors -- Jerome Ellison+

In Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus (1976), debunk leads us to 
meaning 4 of expose:

Expose: 4 to reveal the faults, frailties, unsoundness, pretensions of
<the monograph exposed the theory as being pure myth+

So, I take it that the debunker has *already* made up his/her mind
about the issue under consideration.  That is, they are pre-judged,
biased.  They "know" that your belief is false.  Thus, the arena of
the debate is entered.  With the debunking attitude we have left the
arena of rational or scientific *investigation*.  When a scholar,
investigative reporter, criminal investigator, or scientist
formulates a hypothesis to test about some circumstance in human
affairs or nature, he/she is not pre-judged.  To test the hypothesis,
the investigator proceeds to apply the relevant methods that will
eventually lead to rational conclusions about the subject matter. 
These conclusions are then discussed further to see if methods have
been properly carried out, if the conclusions make sense in the
context of current knowledge, etc.  Occasionally, during this period
an opponent with a strong interest will take on a debunking stance,
but the debunking attitude is not an essential part of the process of
scientific, scholarly, or other rational investigative endeavors.

So, my conclusions after long study of CSICOP and CSICOP-sponsored
writings and activities is that CSICOP is primarily a debunking
organization.  Having the term "claims" in their very name is
completely consistent with this idea.  CSICOP is a public relations
organization whose real mission is debunking and not real
investigation.  What few investigations they do make are certainly
not scientific, though they may be rational except insofar as they
are pre-judged and not dispassionate.

CSICOP was formed by members of the American Humanist 
Association.  Humanist belief includes a philosophy of life that
denies any sort of essential reality to spiritual, psychic, or altered
states of consciousness.  Humanists pretty much believe in the 
world view of scientific realism or materialism.  They believe that
all "real" phenomena will ultimately be explained by the
electrochemical and/or mechanical action of molecules on each 
other or the interaction of molecules with radiant energy.  They are
predisposed to deny vigorously any phenomena that remotely seem to
threaten this explanatory scheme.  

Thus, when you read, for example, as I have, the books of Philip
Klass, you find that there is a lack of agreement about exactly what
*facts* are to be explained in a UFO case.  Amid the welter of data
on well-investigated cases, Klass picks and chooses whatever data
seems to fit best his cobbled together "explanation" of a case. Let's
look at the famous Coyne helicopter case to illustrate how Klass operates.

According to the abstract in the 1989 MUFON Proceedings of Jennie
Zeidman's talk "The Mansfield (Coyne) Helicopter Case":
"One of the most extensively written about and debated UFO events
concerns [the Coyne case] . . . a lighted object paced the helicopter
on the eastern horizon, orbited to an intercept course, described a zig-
zag flight path as it maintained a position above and in front of the
helicopter, and then resumed its westward course to disappear on 
the NW horizon.  At closest approach the object was seen to be
submarine-shaped, opaque, and sharply defined, with two precisely
positioned lights and an intense green maneuvering spotlight. 
Anomalies of controls, instruments, and radios, [occurred].  Five
witnesses have been found who were nearly directly below the
encounter point.  *Two additional witnesses, found only in 
September, 1988, heard the helicopter and saw the grean beam but 
did not direcly view either airborne object.* [my emphasis]

[Zeidman investigated the incident over 2 and one half years, being
MUFON's Coordinator of Technical Analysis at the time.] Beginning a
few days after the event (and continuing to this day) journalist
Philip J. Klass (who has never met Coyne) has maintained 
vociferously that the object was a meteor.

This paper introduces the two latest witnesses, reviews the 
Zeidman analysis, and presents Klass-to-Zeidman (et al)
correspondence which may provide the reader with insight into the
thought processes of another 'investigator' of the case."

Reading Zeidman's analysis and Klass's in his *UFOs: Explained* and
*UFOs: The Public Deceived*, it is quite clear that Klass never did
produce a reconstructed time line of events, though he spent plenty
of time disputing the length of one segment or another of the total
duration of events.  Zeidman constructed this time line for Klass
(and everyone else).  Who's the real investigator?  Zeidman, not
Klass.  Klass never interviewed Coyne, the principal witness in
person, though he did (amazingly) in this case actually call up Coyne
two or three times!  Klass has never visited the site of the incident.
Klass has only (phone) interviewed one of the now seven ground
witnesses to this case.  None of this despite the hours he spent
writing, according to Zeidman, letters to Hynek, Zeidman, Jerome
Clark, and others, filled with nonsequiturs, deceptions, perpetual
irrelevancies, etc.  (I received first hand confirmation of this
letter-writing behavior this past summer at the MUFON Conference by
talking to a MUFON investigator who received one of Klass's
diatribes.)  This is the work of a debunker and not a true skeptic.

My conclusions are that ufology certainly does NOT need debunkers. 
CSICOPers are primarily debunkers and not true skeptics, though I
think that there are some true skeptics who get lured into CSICOP,
naturally thinking that CSICOP represents true skepticism with a
scientific orientation.  After all, CSICOP does vigorously promote
itself that way!  There's a sucker born every minute!  (I think I would
have been a sucker too, if I had not read the relevant UFO literature by
the time CSICOP was being founded in the middle 1970s.)

It is instructive also to note the early defections of Marcello Truzzi
and Dennis Rawlins from CSICOP because they understood the true
purpose of CSICOP -- to promote debunking, not truly skeptical,
patient, longterm investigation of supposed anomalistic phenomena.
If you want to join a true skeptics' organization join the Society for
Scientific Exploration or Truzzi's organization (see below) and read 
his Zetetic Scholar.  If you want to keep an eye on what the debunkers
are doing read their magazine, the Skeptical Inquirer, but, if you want
to see what true scholarly and scientific skeptics are doing, read the
Zetetic Scholar.  It is certainly not as exciting as SI, but it is a lot
more enlightening.

Prof. Laurence W. Fredrick
Society for Scientific Exploration Secretary
Department of Astronomy
University of Virginia,
Box 3818
Charlottesville, VA  22903

Here's what Dennis Rawlins had to say in the October 1981 issue of
Fate in an article called sTARBABY about CSICOP and their
investigation of astrologer Gauquelin.  Rawlins is "cofounder of
[CSICOP] and served on CSICOP's Executive Council from 1976 to 
1979.  Until 1980 he was an Associate Editor of Skeptical Inquirer.

"He holds degrees in physics from Harvard University (B.A.) and
Boston University (M.A.). His researches have been published in
Nature, Astronomical Journal, American Journal of Physics, [etc.,...]
and was the first to release to the public news of a major ESP
scandal (in 1974) at the laboratory of the late J. B. Rhine."

Rawlins writes in the article:

"I used to believe it was simply a figment of the National Enquirer's
weekly imagination that the Science Establishment would cover up
evidence for the occult.  But that was in the era B.C. -- Before the
Committee.  I refer to [CSICOP], of which I am a cofounder and on
whose ruling Executive Council...I served for some years.

"I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to
debunk.  But I *have* changed by mind about the integrity of some of
those who make a career of opposing occultism. 

"I now believe that if a flying saucer landed in the backyard of a
leading anti-UFO spokesman, he *might* hide the incident from the
public (for the public's own good, of course).  He might swiftly
convince himself that the landing was a hoax, a delusion or an
'unfortunate' interpretation of mundane phenomena that could be
explained away with 'further research'.

"The irony of all this particularly distresses me since both in print
and before a national television audience I have stated that the
conspiratorial mentality of believers in occultism presents a real
political danger in a voting democracy.  Now I find that the very
group I helped found has partially justified this mentality."

And in conclusion, Rawlins says:

"The bottom line is:

"Every one of the Councilors [participating in the Gauquelin
investigation] who say they know something about the sTARBABY
[Gauquelin investigation] knows that it was a disaster.  Yet
Skeptical Inquirer readers are given to believe nothing went wrong."

And about Truzzi:

The March/April 1986 issue of Columbia Journalism Review 
published "GhostBoosters: the press and the paranormal" by Philip
Meyer. ("Philip Meyer is the William Rand Kenan, Jr. professor of
journalism at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a
media consultant.")  

Toward the end of the article, he states:

"Diversity is also found among the militant skeptics.  One of them,
Marcello Truzzi, a sociologist at Eastern Michigan University, pulled
out of CSICOP and founded his own journal, "The Zetetic Scholar", 
and a competing organization, the Center for Scientific Anomalies
Research.  Truzzi criticizes CSICOP for ridiculing those who are less
skeptical.  Science, he says, is self-correcting in the long run, and
'the worst sin anyone can commit in science is to do anything that
might block inquiry.' Though himself a skeptic, he thinks CSICOP
should be more open-minded, and that it sometimes goes to 
extremes, as when it asked newspapers to abandon their horoscope
columns or at least run a disclaimer with them....'I'm all in favor of
debunking bunk,' says Truzzi, 'but this is like shooting at fleas with
a cannon.'"

True skeptics, si; debunkers, no!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: paranet!f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin
Subject: Re: Mysterious Fireballs
Date: 5 Feb 90 00:24:00 GMT

 > Jim, wasn't part of the mystery of the Green fireballs the
 > fact that they occured in so localized an area over a
 > period of some months.  WHile a rash of localized sightings
 > might make sense on a single night I though it was rather
 > difficult for that to occur over a period of time.

Yes, Jim, this was a part of that concern.  I went back and 
researched this thing and found that LaPaz was concerned about 
the color of them from the standpoint that they were of a color 
of green which he felt was highly unusual for a meteor.  However, 
this was not the major concern.  Aside from your statement about 
being so localized, they also travelled in a straight line and 
when they did come down, they could not be found.  LaPaz was 
highly noted for his success in locating a meteor that had hit 
the ground.  There were also several reports of the green 
fireballs coming down close to the ground and then exploding with 
a red spray or mist.  This could not be explained satisfactorily. 
Nonetheless, there were some very strange things going on with 
the New Mexico fireballs.

Mike
--  
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: Mars Face and Skeptics
Date: 4 Feb 90 08:13:00 GMT

I most assuredly don't consider most of my fellow earthians to be logical, 
informed people.  That is one of the reasons that there will be no 
significant effect if tentative proof of the "face" is forthcoming.  While 
our current scientific majority viewpoint may be that we are probably the 
only lifeform, that is simply a statement of the probablities based on what 
we know right now.  I don't see any evidnece that suggests that there is any 
concern by scientist that, horrors, they will be proved wrong if we do find 
some lifeform out there.  You seem to think that scientists all live in fear 
of finding out something new and different and are afraid of the unknown.  I 
don't share that view.  I do think that scientists are more likely to go 
with the areas that seem to have the best chance of getting results reather 
then jumping off on some wild tangent so that people like you (and I don't 
mean that to be derogatory) won't accuse them of being closed minded.   IF 
you and the others who think all the scientists are all screwed up want to 
correct that situation, why don't you all get your phd's and prove thelm all 
wrong.  The biggest failing I see in your line of thinking is that you seem 
to think that scientific discoveries are easy work and are quick to condemn 
all scientists for not proving whatever your pet theory is.  Well, I've 
rambled off the track a little.  When there is new evidence for other life 
in our solar system the scientist will be jumping for joy and more then 
happy to ADD that new knowledge to what we now know and will revise things 
accordingly.  Much the same way they did when they found that Newtons laws 
really didn't quite describe the physical world correctly in the 
relativistic realm.
As to chariots of the gods, while you and I and most scientists didn't give 
it a second thought, plenty of others did and still do most likely.  If 
anything, history seems to indicate that people can adapt to just about 
anything in no time at all if they have the right impetus.
  Much of your displeasure is simply because your interests are not the same 
as that of those who control the purse strings -- I can certaninly 
sympathize with that although I am alot more concerned with some of the 
"wrong" political priorities then I am with the scientific one.
  Anyway, your posts are always interesting, hope you won't take my opposing 
view as an "attack" on your views, that's not my intent.  I am obviously 
more optimistic in regard to the world reaction that would occur then you 
are.  May we both live to find out!!! 
--  
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: Mars Face
Date: 4 Feb 90 08:23:00 GMT

If you meant to suggest those were the only 4 possible scenerios I can think 
of at least one more.  Maybe Mars colonized earth (scenerio number 5).  One, 
can of course speculate endlessly and always come up with some scenerio 
that would be so fantastic that it would blow everyones mind here on earth. 
I guess my feeling that our minds won't get blown even if the face is proved 
to be artifical, is because I don't subscribe to the meta-science ideas that 
we are suddenly going to find that we "have it all wrong", that there is a 
"New Physics" that will turn all our Old physics rules on their heads.  IF 
the face is shown to be artifical then we will have some interesting 
exploring to do, no doubt about it, but the immediate effect on earth is 
likely to be business as usual, we really have no other option. 
--  
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: macleod@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Michael Sloan MacLeod)
Subject: KLAS tape
Date: 5 Feb 90 08:03:25 GMT

Thanks to Michael Corbin, I got to watch the KLAS tape of Lazar and Company. 
I have had some of the same doubts about Lazar's credibility as others, based
on his curious slips of memory and a general lack of depth to his background. 
But I was favorably impressed by his appearance on film.  So much so, that I
am inclined to believe that he belives what he is saying.

On the other hand, John Lear makes a few brief statements on the tape, and,
 for what the analysis of a few moments of discussion means, seems to me to
agree with Mr. Bennett's suggestion that John Lear was motivated to blab about
aliens because he got wind of the story but the spooks wouldn't let him into
the inner circle of pilots trusted enough to fly the saucers. 

By a strange stoke of luck - or perhaps an indication that this data is
getting around at a very impressive rate of transmission and retransmission - 
my colleague Waves Forest (Subgenius author of "'Bob And the Oxygen Wars" in
Rev. Ivan Stang's new _Three-Fisted Tales of "Bob"_) received a tape of a 
frightened Bill Cooper speaking to an audience in Sedona, Arizona (an area
thought to have several well-publicized power spots also rumoured to be
dimensional gateways to Other Realities and generally New Agey hangouts.

Wild Bill had a tough audience; he talked about aliens and strawberry ice
cream and walking through walls and all that, but he talked about aliens as an
entree to his larger agenda, which was exposing the real government of the
USA, and other western nations, an international conspiracy making and
breaking kings and presidents alike.  The alien cover story is breaking down,
he says, so that we can expect a phony staged invasion as an excuse to 
formally hand over all political power to a classic One World Government.
Bill even saw fit to lecture the New Age Yuppies about their support of
laws banning guns, and introduced two subtopics which he spent some time
explaining, and also illustrated with videotape segments.  

Bill Cooper explained about the doings of Col. "Bo" Gritz, who, when looking
for POWs in the Golden Triangle of Burma, discovered a huge heroin operation
selling 800 tons a year to officials in the US Government, such as Richard
Armitage. During his tenure in the CIA George Bush was responsible for running
the program and is implicated up to his eyeballs.  Mr. Cooper explained that
the funds from drug sales were used to fund vast "black" projects, accounted
for off-budget, aimed at handling the alien problem.  He also mentions that
Bush is the first president since Eisenhower who knows the whole story about
the alien conquest of Earth, and this means that the Conspiracy has handpicked
him for the post.  Or it could mean that he screwed up and they wanted to 
push him out onto the world stage so he could take the fall for somebody
else's machinations. 

The other topic is the assassination of JFK.  Before explaing what actually
went on in Dallas, Mr. Cooper opens with an emotional evocation of a president
who wanted to end organized crime and reveal the existence of the aliens, but
who antagonized the Teamsters, the Mob, Fidel Castro, and finally - and most
dangerously - the CIA.  In particular, the CIA were ordered to end the drug
trafficking, and this of course threatened the network of parasites all
ultimately living off of the same host.  

Then Bill ran an extremely interesting bit of videotape which was nearly 
unviewable on Waves' already poor tape copy.  Waves, who worked on the JFK
assassination investigations with Mae Brussell, the Queen of conspiracy
theorists, said he had never seen this bit of footage.  It contains three
different films taken of the assassination - the Zapruder film and two other
suppressed films.  In Bill Cooper's scenario, the driver of the Kennedy car
actually turned and shot Kennedy, and the terrified Jackie is clearly trying
to climb up out of the way of the gun, while looking in horror at the driver.
As far as I could see secondhand, he made a good case.  There are more
detains, but this was the main thrust.

Waves noted that Mr. Cooper's eyes look haunted.  This may be because, while a
Naval Intelligence Officer standing lookout, he watched an "aircraft-carrier"
sized UFO practice touch and gos in the ocean.  It made a number of passes
during a ten minute period, long enough to get the Captain to the bridge where
he goggled at it as well and told the crew that it never happened. Later, when
they reached port, Naval Intelligence swooped in and interviewed all those who
had observed the craft.  Any report but "I didn't see anything" was rejected
with threats and anger, while professions of ignorance were rewarded with
"That's the spirit". 

Mr. Cooper must have learned the benefits of intelligent cooperation, because
(apparently, though this is not explicitly clear) he seems to have been privy
to a lot of very sensitive materials in his later career.  Having seen a real
UFO, he was able to believe the materials in documents like the Yellow Book
and Project Bluebook Volume 13.  He encountered these when working as a
preparer of news digests for top American Admiralty.  The briefing books told
the story that not only was MJ-12 running the coverup of Earth's conquest, it
was in fact running the US government from top to bottom, as the local agency
of a vast worldwide conspiracy.  

He maintains that it's useless to fret about the aliens until the Bad Guys are
rooted out of the government.  He seems to realize that it's an uphill fight -
well, sort of.  He has the gleam of the desperate in his eye, a disquieting
appraisal.  Three or four time he speaks of "marching off to battle" with
others beside him.  He says that the Navy's shrinks predict that a substantial
segment of the US population will openly worship the aliens as Gods when 
they reveal themselves.  It does not take much imagination to picture a Bill
Cooper picturing himself leading on the Resistance, after a terrified and
disillusioned public clamors for him to lead them after serving Bush the same
dish served Ceaucescu by the Romanian oppressed. 

I can see the Reconstructionists, leaders of the modern postmillenialists,
enlisting in the resistance to eradicate the alien (i.e., satanic) pollution
and bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth, a prerequisite for the return of
Christ (according to their libretto).  Vietnam Vets, Anarchists, Monarchists:
there will be a part for all.  I think the Resistance is a good thing.  The 
State has had its innings; they sit like a rabbit hypnotized by the headlights
of an onrushing car.  If society does begin to disintigrate after the alien
presence becomes overt, we will all face a problem of monumental proportions.
It seems likely, unfortunately, that Bill Cooper is correct in predicting that
the first casualty would be the Constitution and its guarantees of liberty.

Although Bill does not speculate about this, it is likely that (if the aliens
exist and behave in the ways described) there are alien factions and political
alignments.  There could be power struggles.  My own belief, written about
elsewhere, is that the Greys may be a genetically-engineered "subject species"
used as a softening-up measure - sappers, as it were - for the second wave of
invaders.  Or perhaps the little Greys are actually teleoperated, or sentient
but mind-controlled to perfection by a highly advanced science of
brainwashing.

Unfortunately, I don't have the facilities to copy Waves's tape of Bill in
Sedona, but he may be able to produce a single dub of it.  If I can get one, I
will make it available to Mike Corbin, if he wants to copy it for himself or
for wider distribution.

I am somewhat concerned about violating copyrights.  The courts have ruled
that one can legally tape any broadcast, such as the KLAS special, but Bill
Cooper's tape may be protected by common-law copyright from sale (at least) to
inability to legally reproduce.  If this is of concern, please consider it. 

 Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Is your skeptic a debunker in sheep's clothing?
Date: 5 Feb 90 07:17:00 GMT

Thank you for that article, Keith, and thank you for acknowledging that 
there is a place for true skepticism in paranormal research. I have a 
few minor quibbles with your piece, for example, I see nothing wrong 
with approaching a paranormal claim with an attitude of "you'll have to 
prove it to me," as long as I remain open to the possibility that the 
claimant is right, and as long as I'm willing to admit that there is a 
grey area between "proven true" and "proven false." In some cases, such 
as UFOs, that grey area translates to "its not proven, but its damned 
peculiar." In other cases, the grey area amounts to "Its not disproven, 
but there's a much easier, neater explanation that does not invoke 
supernatural powers or beings, and absent any other evidence, I choose 
to lean toward the more parsimonious explanation." The difference is a 
judgement call, but I think this is where common sense and the 
"prudent man" theory come into play.

I also think we should acknowledge that there is good debunking and bad 
debunking. There are SOME good skeptics, and yes, SOME good debunkers in 
CSICOP. Joe Nickell comes to mind. He once told me that "mysteries are 
for solving, not mongering. Some people will try to pick apart any reasonable 
explanation, simply because that explanation would rob them of a good 
mystery to monger." BUT, he also said, "These things should be 
examined with a magnifying glass, not a baseball bat." While he didn't 
explicitly say so, I felt at the time he was referring to Phil Klass.

The Coyne copter case has long been a favorite of mine, not because I 
think its particularly compelling, but because it points up the shoddy, 
unscientific work that Klass is capable of. Klass himself said of the 
case in one of his books, words to the effect of, "Its either a bolide 
or a bona fide alien spaceship." I can't come up with a single 
meteoritics expert who will agree that the object could have been a 
bolide. One very skeptical planetologist named Tom LeCompte insisted 
that it could have been, but agreed that the chances were extremely slim 
indeed. Looks like Klass really put his foot in his mouth on this one.

Jim

--  
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG


********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********
                      'infopara' at the following address: 

UUCP		{ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN		infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
ADMIN Address	infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
		{ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
 
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************