Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 145 Tuesday, February 6th 1990 Today's Topics: Re: Skeptics and QM fireballs Re: face Re: Thoughts for Bryon skepticism and science Guidelines Re: Info-Paranet Newsletter OZTRAIN Re: Mars Face Re: Skeptomania is cool Strange Rings in Britain Re: "Giants" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) Subject: Re: Skeptics and QM Date: 5 Feb 90 16:38:16 GMT -+From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder -+Subject: Re: Skeptics -+ -+ In an article of <28 Jan 90 18:18:29 GMT+, chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu -+ (John H. Chalmers Jr.) writes: Paul, John did not write that I did. I did it solely to point out that even in a conservative realm of science, physics, there are some really strange things happening. And that the mojority of physicists tend to steer clear of the implications of the findings of experiments like Aspect's. -+ -+ Can you elaborate on this? I have never heard of this, but then again -+ I'm not a scientist. John, feel free to jump in if the mood strikes you. ;-) Paul, Aspect's experiment essentially drove the last nail into general relativitiy's coffin. It proved, in my humble opinion, the validity of quantum theory. Yet it also uncovered a real can of worms. The two items I listed are the only options. They are not hypothetical statements. One or the other must be true. But this isn't the only thing that has come out of those involved in quantum theory research. David Bohm has proposed that what we are dealing with is the effects of a nonlocal universe. That is that the subatomic realm is fuzzy because it is part of a greater whole to which the some 10 to the 89th power particles we find belong. This idea has gone a bit further, and we now have a proposal on the table that the universe is actually a superhologram. If any of this intrigues you, I'd be happy to post a list of books that I recommend. They cover quantum theory across the spectrum. -+From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.) -+Subject: QM -+ -+ Gene: Thanks for the kind words. I would agree with virtually -+ everything you said in your message. However, I would like to -+ qualify your statement about the unknowability of ultimate -+ reality or reality separate from the observer. This is, of -+ course, a very controversial point among physicists, but the -+ consensus is that while reality may have a subjective and -+ indeterminate component, it is not wholly arbitrary. There -+ is really is "something" out there, even if different -+ observers perceive it differently. We don't create it in any -+ strong sense. John, I won't quibble over this one with you. I don't mind the bizaare, but to conclude that there isn't "something" out there would be too bizaare, even for me. Yet, I'm constantly struck by the idea that the observer is so important to the result. It goes back to the little puzzle--if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make any noise? Or maybe an even better one, is Schrodinger's Cat alive or dead? (sorry about the lack of the umlaut--can't get this machine to do that) But another question would involve the "something." What is the "something"? How is it affected by us? You say that we don't create, and I might agree that there is "something" that we haven't created. But it seems to be highly responsive to us, which only serves to open up another can of worms. -+ On the question of higher dimensions of space, most -+ modern theoretical work descends from Klein and Kaluza's -+ pre-war attempts to unify EM and gravity by assuming a warped -+ ........................................ The multidimensional aspect is another thing that has bugged me a bit. In doing the high energy experiments such as are done at Fermi Labs, Cern, and Stanford, I wonder if we aren't reopening some of those dimensions, as it were. In doing so, could that account for some of the bizaare things we are encountering. Yes, I know, as you've pointed out, that the other dimensions have compactified. But the experiments are creating conditions similar to the Big Bang, or shortly thereafter. When that new collider comes on line later this decade, we should be able to really get close to producing a mini-Big Bang. So, I feel a bit compeled to ask the question about the other dimensions being un-compactified, or in simpler terms opening them up. Something that you might want to explain, John, is the idea that some of the dimensions might be just mathematical formalisms. Some might take this the wrong way. And I suspect that you'll do a better job explaining it than I will. -+ -+ I enjoyed "Gravitation" by Kip Thorne, A. A. Wheeler, -+ and Meisner. The heavy math is in boxes, so the text is readable. -+ I found "The Tao of Physics" rather unsatisifying--it seemed to -+ oversimplify both the physics and the philosophy and -+ trivialize both. "Gravitation" is on my list. Why couldn't I live without sleep? ;-) For those out there wondering what all of this has to do with the general topics in this newsletter, well here is part of it. Gravity and its possible use for travel to and among the stars has long been talked about. But we are still trying to understand gravity. The attempts to link EM and gravity have so far been unsuccessful. This is part of the reason that John has serious reservations about the Philadelphia experiment. Is that a fair summation, John? As to "The Tao of Physics," I found it better than the "Dancing Wu Li Masters." But I give Capra his due, he tried to explore something that has far-reaching implications to our lives. If he failed, he at least made the attempt and prompted others to pick up the challenge. The problem is that people who have not read the more serious works on QM without the philosophy might not understand what has lead to some of the points and discoveries. And that really does affect the philosophy. Also, there are physicists who assiduously avoid the philosophical implications of QM. Personally, I don't see how you can really avoid either the physical and the philosophical. -+ -+ I find speculations like Sheldrake's Morphogenetic fields, and -+ Lyall Watson's Hundredth Monkey effect interesting SF, except that -+ similar ideas were described in the 40's and 50's. They are essentially -+ pseudoscience. Sheldrake's theories are weakly testable, -+ but have not been confirmed. Well, funny you should mention it. I just spent a nice couple of hours talking with my wife's boss about Sheldrake and the morphogenetic fields (M-Fields as Sheldrake calls them). My wife and her boss work in teratology research--looking at the results of various chemicals in common everyday use on gravid animals and their fetuses. Seems that morphogenetic fields have much more of an audience than either of us would have suspected. The rat studies done by Harvard psychologist William McDougall have been duplicated by at least two other researchers, F.A.E. Crew and W.E. Agar, who did research to try to explain and disprove McDougall's findings. Crew did his in Scotland with rats not genetically related to McDougall's. Agar's did his in Australia again with rats not genetically related to McDougall's or Crew's. The results were even more disconcerting. I'm not taking the time to give the particulars because of the length required. If someone is really interested, send me a note and I'll do so via email. The point is that while John is skeptical, not without some reason, there are some serious anomalies here that have people really concerned. M-fields, if true, have more immediate implications to our lives than the results of some of the QM discoveries, not to minimize those. John may not agree with this, but here is were QM and biology seem to dove tail. If the superholographic universe of Bohm exists and Sheldrake's M-fields exist, we have a possible explanation for some of the so-called paranormal functions such as telepathy, clairvoyance, clairaudience, etc. And, I might add that there is some evidence that our brains function on the holographic principle. And this is why I've been taking up bandwidth talking about quantum theory. It could be that what we call the metaphysical is not metaphysical at all (in the normal sense that we mean that word), but rather the normal function of this universe we seem to be a part of--the nonlocal universe that is. The universe we see could be a superholographic projection of the nonlocal universe. M-fields could be the biological equivalent of the fields we observe elsewhere. I am using words like "could be" because the jury is still out. The research and experimentation to prove these things still needs to be done. If the M-fields are proven a fact, then we have also objective proof of Jung's collective unconscious. This would also lead to a different understanding of and explanation for the paranormal. But I must stress, in due deference to John and other scientists on the net, that all of this is still very highly speculative and merely hypothetical. -+ I have his book, but just can't seem to get into it; -+ in this respect it's rather like Jeremy Rifkin's "Algeny." -+ Neither the physical nor biological world seems to work his way, -+ though I suppose on could conceive of a universe where -+ Lamackian theories would hold (they do culturally). Try explaining the acquisition of language using Lamackian theories. That takes more faith than I've ever possessed, or ever will. -+ The language learning tests ignore the fact that there -+ are lexical universals. It's been known for a long time that people -+ can guess new vocabularies better than chance. Turkish is just possibly -+ ............................................. John, you are beginning to step over into M-fields here. Language seems to be one of the things that helps show the hologaphic properties of the brain. Human children show a remarkable facility for learning language. Linguist Noam Chomsky proposes that our ability to acquire language, plus an entire range of cognitive skills, may be genetically inherited. He postulates that these skills developed in much the same manner as the body's physical organs. Take a moment to think about this. According to current thinking, this would mean that all the intricate complexities that we know of as language acquisition developed as the result of an almost incomprehensible series of propitious accidents, random genetic mutations that bit by bit resulted in the formidable cognitive skills that we possess today. Sheldrake's M-field postulates that, instead of this being the result of genetic accidents that amassed in thousands of different and often disconnected genetic lines, such advances in cognitive skills could have been the innovations of a few individuals that then spread through the entire species collectively. I tend to lean toward the M-fields explanation because it has a certain simplicity to it. All in all, John, I think we live a universe that is at once familiar and strange/bizaare. It would be nice if we were really as close to discovering everything there is to know as some seem to think. But based upon the work that has been done and the work that is on-going, I'd have to say that for the most part we've just scratched the surface. Seems that everytime we think we've got a grip on things, things move. Gene -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: 72750.2335@compuserve.com (Jim Shaffer Jr) Subject: fireballs Date: 5 Feb 90 18:33:47 GMT On the subject of these fireballs that have been sighted lately: In "The War Of The Worlds", the Martian spacecraft looked like green meteors as they entered the atmosphere and crash-landed. So keep looking up! --Jim :-) 72750.2335@compuserve.com "No-one's ever wrong. (Until later.)" --Rush -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) Subject: Re: face Date: 5 Feb 90 19:51:15 GMT -+From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com -+Subject: face -+ -+ When I start getting personal attacks I know I'm getting close to -+ finding that something is fishy. I want to respond to this before I go any further. Bill, if my comments seemed to be a personal attack, I hereby and publicly apologize to you. None of my comments were really intended to be personal attacks. After re-reading them, I can see where they could have been taken that way. So I want to put an end to this before it does get out of hand. I agree with you that "unretouched photos" could be misleading. But no moreso than the idea that something non-standard was done. The scale that you are questioning is not something dreamed up. It was used by JPL and NASA on the photos. Based on that scale, which I don't have access to right this minute at my office, the first photo of the Face was seen, not by the Mars Project researchers, but the scientists and journalists gathered at JPL to see and witness the first photos of Mars surface. The Face was clearly visible, even without further processing to take care of the hits that occur during transmission. And that is what I mean by unretouched. And, as you well know, there are a number of computer programs that can be run against such photos to produce various results. These have uses and to discount them is to do a major disservice. The use of false color imaging, for the color photos, produces results that enable planetary scientists and geologists, and others, to see details that otherwise would be hidden. With the B&W photos, there are similar algorithms that can improve the contrast and pull out details. Yes, you can also manufacture a photo from nothing, if you'd be so inclined. However, as far as the Martian objects are concerned, Sagan and others who have been opponents, have not once taken exception to the computer techniques used, at least not the ones used to produce the photos from the digital data tapes of the Viking pictures. And I believe that I can say without fear of contradiction that if there was any reason to question the validity of the scale or computer-based imaging techniques used, at least to produce the initial photos, Sagan, et al, would have pointed this out--and rather loudly. -+ -+ If I get a source for the raw data I'll say more, and I am writing to -+ the Mars Project to see if they can supply it, otherwise I've said what -+ I intended, and I must be right, since I am getting mail from some -+ people which says "we are not cooking the data" and others which says -+ "JPL is not doing a coverup." That must mean I'm in the middle. I doubt that there is a coverup, just that this is something that does not fit the existing paradigm. And paradigms tend to die hard deaths. Which I suppose is to be expected considering the nature of paradigms. Also, I think that anyone who contacts the Mars Project with serious intent to research the information will be pleased with the attitude they find. The Mars Project newsletter, Martian Horizon, gives plenty of space to dissenting voices and to those with alternate explanations for the various objects and discoveries of those currently involved in research and study. Gene -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) Subject: Re: Thoughts for Bryon Date: 5 Feb 90 21:18:12 GMT -+From: paranet!p0.f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bryon.Smith -+ -+ Melchizedek came out of "no where" and vanished back into "no where." Is -+ this just because no one was able to keep track of him and make records of -+ it, or is it because he didn't come from the Earth in the first place ? Melchizedek is indeed a strange figure in the Bible. The first time we meet him is when Abraham is returning from battle. Melchizedek is attending a gathering of kings of the area. But Maelchizedek is the only one to come out to meet Abraham, and Abraham does something rather out of the ordinary--he gives Melchizedek one tenth, a tithe, to Melchizedek. Melchizedek is also titled the King of Salem, which means the King of Peace. Thus, we also know the he was the king of the city now called Jerusalem. We know that he, Melchizedek, had no known parentage and that he had no beginning or end. The speculation within Christian circles is that he was an example of the "pre-incarnate" work of Jesus. In fact, beyond what is said in the OT and NT, anything about him is pure speculation. The mere fact that a nomad chieftain like Abraham would give him a tithe says that we aren't dealing with a normal human figure. Somewhere I recall seeing a book on Melchizedek. I'll see if I can find it again and send you the title and author. Could he have been something other than human? 8-) -+ -+ I would expect you would enjoy some of the messages now going through the ET -+ echo as several others have joined in and are helping me find information -+ that I am needing. I don't get that echo. If you can access the UNIX net, you could email directly to me at gross@dg-rtp.dg.com. Short of that, you'll have to post here. -+ -+ Bill Clendenon of Biloxi, MS has done a massive amount of research into the -+ design of the mercury saucer. He has a foot locker full of plans and -+ ........................... I would like Bill's address and phone number. The little information I've been able to find on the mercury power idea is pitiful. But then Durham doesn't have a huge library, which you seem to suffer from in Fort Smith. BTW, synchronicity is at work here, I lived in Little Rock until 1986. I have a propentsity to move around. ;-) You say that Bill says that his current plans will work. That is interesting!! There might be a way to get funds to develop a working prototype if his plans are that good. Another explanation for the medical symbol goes back to a mythical character from the worship found in the near east. I'll dig up that information for you. As for legends, please don't ignore the legends of the Native Americans. There has been a real push to get the oral traditions and legends written down to preserve them. Please keep me posted on all of this. It adds to the database. Thanks, Gene -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: keith@raptor.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks) Subject: skepticism and science Date: 6 Feb 90 00:31:19 GMT I started this thread because I subscribe to sci.skeptic on usenet. All I have to do to get riled-up about skeptics is to read a few slams by skeptics on topics that I consider near and dear. I admit it.....sometimes skeptics are right. But skeptics are not always right. It is interesting the reaction that my postings have gotten. Most of the reaction has been as I would have suspected in a newsgroup other than paranet. It seems to me that indeed SKEPTICISM IS IN VOGUE. ...Cut to Wilford Brimley walking down the isle of a grocery store... Wilford Brimley: Skepticism....its the right thing to do. ...Cut back to paranet... But, this is the thing: SKEPTICISM IS PESSIMISM. ...Cut to a laboratory hallway... A scientist is seen moving with jerky little motions apparently trying to walk down the hallway. As we approach, we see that there are people that have grabbed on to the scientists legs, one per leg. These people, being dragged on the floor, also have lab coats on but theirs have the name SKEPTIC on the back, in big black letters. It doesn't look like they are letting go. ...Cut back to paranet... It goes without saying (or should) that a scientist should be careful. And scientists should check their results. But no matter what the field of investigation, I believe that pessimism is unwarranted. I believe that scientists or investigators of any kind should maintain a cautious OPTIMISM. They should be optimistic that new discoveries can still be made, and that even they can make these new discoveries. Skepticism has done to fringe investigators the same thing that racism has done to oppressed races. Skeptics tend to discount a whole body of investigation much like racial supremacists tend to discount a whole race of people. Helmut Schmidt, the researcher that communicated results about psychokinesis with Random Event Generators previous to the R. G. Jahn studies, has mentioned one of the effects of such prejudice. He asserts that a researcher can become ``causally embedded.'' This happens when the researcher does not publish results because something has been found which is not commonly accepted. The rampant in-vogue skepticism of the eighties has surely prevented the publication of important papers. John Chalmers, in response to one of my postings on skepticism where I mention the burning of Reich's books, wants to teach us the real story about Reich: + As for Wilhelm Reich, the story is a little more complex +than often supposed. He was convicted of violating laws on the +insterstate shipment of unlicensed medical devices and while some +copies of his books were seized, they were never banned and in +fact some are still in print. Reich died of a heart attack +while serving a sentence in a federal prison. Pathetically, +he thought that he was being persecuted by communists in the +FDA and that President Eisenhower was going to rescue him. [etc.] +point. There has never been any evidence for the reality of +"Orgone Engergy," his microbiological work on "bions" was +extremely amateurish, and his theory that cancer, neuroses, [etc.] Freud's students, Reich, Adler and Jung hold strong positions in the history of psychology. Much of Reich's work is still used in psychology courses. Although I agree that some of Reich's work is amateurish and he was out of bounds working with physics, I am intrigued by the orgone accumulator idea and think that it should be put to the test to find out if there really is something there, or not. I think that this guy was on to something. Unfortunately he did not posess the right tools to get the word out in the proper way. The lesson is simple. Reich's books were burned. Just like books were burned in Nazi Germany. ...fade to black... -- Keith Fredericks, Cray Research Inc., 1440 Northland Dr. Mendota Hgts., MN 55120 keith@cray.com (612)681-3258 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: keith@raptor.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks) Subject: Guidelines Date: 6 Feb 90 00:32:40 GMT ( To: Doug Rogers ) ( Cc: All ) + ******* PARANET ECHO POLICIES ******** + +1. No anonymous messages may be posted on the network. Some Paranet BBS's +[etc.] +2. Personal Attacks are *NOT* allowed in the Net. In any echo dealing with +[etc.] +3. Direct Flames are best posted elsewhere. They will not be tolerated in +[etc.] +4. References should be included if required for clarity. Some users tend +[etc.] +5. Please make all messages conform to the specified content of the Echo +[etc.] +6. Enforcement. Users who violate these guidelines will be advised of the +[etc.] Is there a guideline for how we are supposed to address our posting within the posting. For those of us coming from the internet, we address our correspondences to the email address infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com. Should we add (e.g.): (To: Doug Rogers) But this is seen by everyone anyway. But this presumably helps when we dial up the BBS and want to search for our name in all of the postings. The newsletter format is interesting, but would it be possible to do an internet mailing list type mailing where individual messages are sent to each internet site? -- Keith Fredericks, Cray Research Inc., 1440 Northland Dr. Mendota Hgts., MN 55120 keith@cray.com (612)681-3258 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com Subject: Re: Info-Paranet Newsletter Date: 6 Feb 90 15:42:42 GMT I have to reply to a couple of articles recently. While I more or less agree with the possible implications of finding that the face on Mars is artificial, let's not lose sight of the opposite view: even if its not artificial, that doesn't prove that there are no other intelligent lifeforms, or that they haven't visited this system. While I am inclined to say that the face is natural until I see positive proof otherwise, I will also not hold an opinion on other lifeforms until there is proof. When the ACA report comes out, they won't have to find negative evidence, all they have to do is point to the lack of positive evidence. There is a lot of good evidence for UAP (Unexplained Aerial Phenomina) but very little *credible* evidence for intelligence being the cause. The scientiffic method includes verifying a theory by testing, using the theory to predict results. Unfortunately this is where most "alien" evidence breaks down. We can't check the past to see what really happened, and we can't predict the future to validate a theory. This leaves all the theories "not proved." To a certain extent, the large number of alien sightings works against credibility. Because so many *types* of ships and aliens have been claimed to have been sighted, or talked to, or kidnapped by... we either have to believe that most of the reports are not true, or that taking humans for a joyride is as popular as dwarf tossing in Austrailia. If people all ofver the planet were seeing the same thing it would add credibility. I personally find the whole topic interesting as a topic for investigation, but the only thing I can feel is firmly established is that there are phenomina in the sky which are visible to the eye and to radar, some of which have no viable explanation by known causes. It's when people start to advance theories that I remain unconvinced. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f7.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Vladimir.Godic. Subject: OZTRAIN Date: 6 Feb 90 05:59:00 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 Yes, I remember Hynek's ratings. Many thanks for your update on S-P. Stay tuned re-OZTRAIN. We'll let you know as soon as we have more news on this incident. Vladimir -- Vladimir Godic - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic.@f7.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f2.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG!John.Daly Subject: Re: Mars Face Date: 3 Feb 90 16:10:00 GMT My remarks on the face being a computer construct seem to be supported by another message on this echo, whose name is unreadable (alpha&*%.com.dc.weslk.4.do.com etc. etc. - what the hell does all these signatures mean?). The message described the photos lack of a linear grey scale bar on the side which he says is usual practice at NASA. When the black-white-grey scale is altered, face-like features appear. However, when the scale is set linearly from black thru to white, the `face' just looks like a pile of rock. Not only is it possible for any feature to lOok face-like, even on Earth, due to accidental factors, we now clearly have two factors at work in the Mars case 1) The features face-like properties may be accidental 2) The `face' may only look like a face under a particular sequence of digital scaling, thus making it a computer construct. I think the next Mars mission should obviously take a photo of this feature, to settle the issue, but a special mission just for this one computer anomaly would be a waste of your money (not mine fortunately). BY THE WAY, CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT ALL THESE WEIRD CODE-NAMES MEAN? You know - alpha&par.inf.com.dc etc. etc. 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!f2.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG!John.Daly Subject: Re: Skeptomania is cool Date: 3 Feb 90 16:29:00 GMT JD > >>Free speech cuts both ways. JD > Is it a moral sin to "offend" the believers belief. It JD > seems like the more irrational the belief, the stronger the JD > "taboo" toward criticism is. This is an ever present danger in society. The environmental movement is now developing into a totalitarian movement, where any citicism of the claims or methods brings down howls of `vandal' upon the dissenter. In addition the environmentalists now believe in the Gaia Hypothesis, which is becoming a sort of religion. Heated debate is Ok, but totalitarianism seeks to suppress debate, and it was this attitude which I spoke out against. I accept and expect my own views to be challenged and contradict, just as I do that to others. What is not permissible is for one side in a debate to be branded a heretic or whatever, followed by suppression of their views. Unfortunately, this is where the environental movement in the western world is heading. 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!f2.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG!John.Daly Subject: Strange Rings in Britain Date: 3 Feb 90 16:49:00 GMT During a recent drought in Britain, aerial photographs revealed strange impressions of rings on the ground. This gave rise to stories about alien spacecraft etc. Having lived in Britain myself, I wish to point out that rings are common all over Britain, many of them above the grund. They were built by iron-age people thousands of years ago usually serving a dual role of fortifications and solar observatory to track the progress of tHe seasons. Their ability to engineer such projects is attested to by Stonehenge. One set of rings, ABOVE GROUND, is the Badbury Rings near Bournemouth in the south of England. They are a series of rings within rings in the form of earth and rock works, and perfectly visible. Similar earthworks can be seen at Hengistbury Head, also near Bournemouth, where identical types of mounds were strung in a straight line right across the isthmus of a peninsula, to protect an iron ore quarry on the peninsula itself, again built by iron age man. Since many rings are above ground, it is inevitable that many more will be below ground due to sedimentation, and become visible only during periods of unusual weather when underground features can leave a visible trace on the surface. Iron age man in Britain were great civil engineers - evidence of their work litters the countryside of Britain, so there is no mystery about the rings. Regards John Daly Tasmania -- John Daly - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Daly@f2.n1030.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p0.f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bryon.Smith Subject: Re: "Giants" Date: 6 Feb 90 17:58:00 GMT In a message to Bryon Smith <02-03-90 14:13> Michael Corbin wrote: MC> In the interest of guiding you to the right sources for MC> this material, I would like to recommend a couple of books MC> which I have found to be as accurate as possible with MC> regard to this material and other related materials, such MC> as The Testament of Adam, Josephus, etc. Around the MC> beginning of our century, 1913 to be exact, R. H. Charles MC> compiled two volumes titled 'The Apocrypha and MC> Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English' under MC> Oxford. These books were highly regarded as painstakingly MC> researched and translated. These books are still MC> available, however, Oxford only prints the first volume and MC> the second volume only when enough orders get put together. Thanks for the info. I shall check some of these other books I have, I may have some of the information you mentioned. ...Bryon -- Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@p0.f19.n19.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************************