Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 216 Tuesday, May 8th 1990 Today's Topics: Re: Sonic booms & UFO's Magnetic grid? MAGNETIC MAPS Re: Magnetic grid? Re: Magnetic grid? Re: Magnetic grid? Paranet Plug Re: UFO'S AND THE CIA Re: UFOS ABOUND Re: UFOS ABOUND Re: Magnetic grid? Echo Guidelines two more TV shows Thoughts and miscellany Chronocentricity Revisited UFO Propulsion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder Subject: Re: Sonic booms & UFO's Date: 6 May 90 06:08:29 GMT In a message of <04 May 90 07:32:36>, Art Chevalier (1:209/725) writes: >Since a stealth fighter does not travel at supersonic speed thus cannot >break the sound barrier, what is your point? You're missing it. The topic is about sonic booms; how they occur and why UFO's don't create any. I only assumed the stealth could travel at supersonic speeds and was using it as an example and it may be an incorrect assumption at that. -- Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder Subject: Magnetic grid? Date: 6 May 90 06:43:19 GMT In a message of <04 May 90 23:33:00>, Jim Speiser (1:114/37) writes: >> So Jim, if you could tell me the answers to the mysteries of life, >I'd >> appreciate it :-) > >"The answer is peanut butter." > -- Larry King AHA! And all this time I thought the answer was 42! (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). >Actually, there are several suggested patterns of apparent UFO interest. >The more obvious ones, like nuclear facilities and power lines, are >well-known and discussed often. But one interesting "UFO Attractor" is, >of all things, limestone quarries. I'm aware of at least three separate >sightings at limestone quarries. Matter of fact, I think Bryon Smith put >me onto one. Whaddya make of that? That's a new one to me. I've noticed nuclear facilities and water as points of UFO interests. Limestone quarries...hmmm...There was a PBS documentary on a few months ago. If I remember right you can dissolve limestone with an acid and it produces carbon dioxide and some other gasses. Somehow the poisonous gasses that made up Earth's early history atmosphere were converted into limestone (where's a geologist when you need one?). What does this have to do with UFO's? Wish I knew. -- Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder Subject: MAGNETIC MAPS Date: 6 May 90 06:30:24 GMT In a message of <03 May 90 08:47:27>, Ea Richards (1:154/414) writes: >Paul: If you wish to procure maps which show the relative intensity of >magnetic patterns, via their deviation, go to your local flying service >and check out air navigation maps which have isogonic lines on them which >indicates parallels in magnetic variation. After I wrote my reply to you I read another message from another user and I understand what you're saying. I even found a small map showing these isogonic lines in my student pilot's flight manual. Thanks. -- Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder Subject: Re: Magnetic grid? Date: 6 May 90 06:34:38 GMT In a message of <05 May 90 15:10:00>, Paul Carr (1:123/26) writes: >Try contacting the U.S. geological survey, who are >normally eager to provide information at a nominal cost. Thanks Paul, that's a good lead. -- Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder Subject: Re: Magnetic grid? Date: 6 May 90 06:35:59 GMT In a message of <05 May 90 12:41:42>, Tim Hamewka (1:209/725) writes: >Another thing I've noticed, >while doing some research back to 1947, is that most UFO sightings seem >to occur during the summer months rather than during the winter. Well the mid-summer is off-peak rates :-) But seriously, I wonder if there is some connection or pattern myself. As for summer vs. winter, could it be that more people are outside? I've noticed that UFO's seem to be near water or hovering over water. It could mean something or it could mean that UFO's are more easily seen in areas of water since there are less obstructions (trees, buildings etc) to block ones view. >soon as I get through with my research, I see if there seems to be a >pattern. Yes, please keep us posted. -- Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Kay.Schaney Subject: Re: Magnetic grid? Date: 5 May 90 20:52:00 GMT Paul, I have a Map Catalog that claims to list every kind of map and chart on earth. No mention of Magnetic Maps. It does give a listing of map stores nationwide, and State map agencies. Tell me where you are located and I'll send you some addresses and phone numbers where you might look. Hope this helps. Kay -- Kay Schaney - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Kay.Schaney@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Kay.Schaney Subject: Paranet Plug Date: 5 May 90 20:58:00 GMT So Mike, I see that a tase of TV Stardom has taken you to LA. (Smile) What next? Have you spoken to Speilburg yet?? Hope you are doing well out there. BTW,now that Cooper has been discredited (Again?) by his own seemingly co-consperitors, what do you think will happen to the ol' guy. I'm sure we haven't seen/heard the last of him. He always reminded me of the Anti-Deep Throat. Well, best wishes to you in Lo-Cal. Take care, Kay -- Kay Schaney - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Kay.Schaney@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Ea.Richards Subject: Re: UFO'S AND THE CIA Date: 5 May 90 15:46:06 GMT Don, this certainly must be the FIDO echo, because that is what your maundering apologetics for leftist-liberal writer Woodward would imply - nothing but barking at the moon. Do you really feel that anyone with any military intelligence background would willy-nilly answer the questions of some civilian cuckoo who demands to be answered? In fact, with your canonization of Woodward, you wouldn't be able to maintain a discussion of the intelligence subject. I couldn't care less how many interviews Woodward had with Bill Casey; they all were certain to end up as a liberal hatchet-job on any administration to the right of Ramsey Clark. It is certain that you enjoyed the Nixon-beating in Woodward's Watergate book; and you must have drooled over the bashing of Nixon's staff, whose real aim, so they have themselves said in print, was the good of the nation; they admitted they made errors, one of which was existing in a congressional situation where the democrat party was in control. Lucky for a democrat crook, Lyndon Johnson, that the democrats were in power while he and Bobby Baker were accomplishing their nefarious schemes to make money. Perhaps you are too young to remember those events. And with regard to Woodward's interviews with Bill Casey, what he wrote in his book was characterized by Casey's wife as never having happened in the interview; even some of the Woodward dupes, who hang on his every word as Biblical pronouncements, admit that what Woodward claimed as gospel from Casey's death-bed lips were somewhat far-fetched. Casey's wife said they were absolute lies - and she was there.... In any case, you certainly have established what side of the issue you are on, and the concept that you might actually receive answers to classified topics from former members of the intelligence community, certifies that you obviously do not qualify for either discourse or membership. -- Ea Richards - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Ea.Richards@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Pete.Porro Subject: Re: UFOS ABOUND Date: 5 May 90 17:57:44 GMT Wouldn't it be nice if someone finally came out with a weekly show Nationally that covered the topic of UFO's? There is enough interest from people nation wide (check the cover of one of the tabloids) and there is no shortage of information/disinformation to be explored. Maybe I am goig crazy, but I feel that it would draw a larger viewing audience than much of the sit-coms that are still being force fed to people. Research would cost money, but the production would be more inline with news. A host, a guest, a topic and 30 mins. would be gone in a flash. -- Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Ea.Richards Subject: Re: UFOS ABOUND Date: 5 May 90 20:55:18 GMT The only comment I would have on a national UFO show is this: First of all, it would probably have to be on a system like FOX; the establishment networks and TV critics, not to mention government pressures, would give the show a hard time. I can just see the adjectives that would abound. Next, after all the sightings, theories, 'evidence,' etc., had been used, what would be next? As with any production, new material would soon be the problem; it would be difficult to come up with sightings on demand. I think the idea is fine; it's the implementation that would tough; and the maintenance of interest beyond us hard-core researchers. -- Ea Richards - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Ea.Richards@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder Subject: Re: Magnetic grid? Date: 7 May 90 00:42:08 GMT In a message of <05 May 90 13:52:00>, Kay Schaney (1:109/134) writes: >nationwide, and State map agencies. Tell me where you are located and >I'll send you some addresses and phone numbers where you might look. Hope >this helps. That sound's like a good deal! I'm in northeastern Pennsylvania. Towns and Cities around here include Stroudsburg, Milford, Scranton, Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton. -- Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Doug.Rogers Subject: Echo Guidelines Date: 7 May 90 05:44:25 GMT New readers are always joining Paranet. For their benefit, allow me to review the rules of posting which we ask all our users to adopt: ******* PARANET ECHO POLICIES ******** The following are guidelines for the operation of the Paranet Echos on member boards. Please take a moment to read (and understand) these policies. If we'll adopt these attitudes, we'll have a more polite, effective network. 1. No anonymous messages may be posted on the network. Some Paranet BBS's allow users to use "handles", and USENET users have no opportunity to place their names in the "From" field. If a user uses a handle, then all posts to Paranet Echos must be signed at the end of the message using the user's REAL NAME. In the case of USENET posts, it would help to place the ADDRESSEE's REAL NAME in the subject field. It is the respon- sibility of the Sysop of each Paranet Node to enforce this requirement, either by reviewing all messages before release, or by disallowing Paranet access to users using handles. (Moderators note: USENET persons should include full name at top of article if your mailer doesn't include fullname. Forget the name in Subject stuff.) 2. Personal Attacks are *NOT* allowed in the Net. In any echo dealing with issues as emotional as those with which we deal it is a matter of course that the validity of testimony on the part of certain individuals will be called into question. It is important, however, to remember that *ALL* parties are to be treated with respect. If you wish to question a person's validity, state your reservations AS YOUR OPINION. For example: "John Doe is a totally unreliable witness" could leave you legally vulnerable. "I BELIEVE John Doe to be a totally unreliable witness" is much better, especially if you can add "because...". Please be careful how you judge the parties involved, and attempt to defend your contentions. 3. Direct Flames are best posted elsewhere. They will not be tolerated in the echos. 4. References should be included if required for clarity. Some users tend to copy the entirity of previous messages before responding, while others never quote anything and simply make comments about previous posts. You should remember that many boards don't hold all messages forever. Quote (if your software allows it) or at least paraphrase (write a simple summary of) the content of the message you refer to. Please DO NOT quote the entire message, as this is just expense for all boards concerned. Quote only the germaine material. 5. Please make all messages conform to the specified content of the Echo Area in which you are posting. Putting the messages in the right pile makes it MUCH easier to make sense out of the stacks of messages. 6. Enforcement. Users who violate these guidelines will be advised of the lapse by the Echo Moderator. After three violation notices, the user is to be locked out of Paranet areas by the sysop. A FIRST lockout will be for THIRTY DAYS. A SECOND lockout will be for NINETY days. The THIRD lockout will be PERMANENT. Sysops who refuse to lock out troublesome users can be dropped from the net by the Paranet Administrator. Users who believe the Moderator has been unfair in requesting a lockout can request that their Sysop plead their case in the Sysop Echo. In such cases, ALL net Sysops will be asked to vote on the matter. Vote of the net is binding on all concerned. Doug Rogers Echo Moderator -- Doug Rogers - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Shaffer Jr <72750.2335@compuserve.com> Subject: two more TV shows Date: 7 May 90 05:16:45 GMT Two more TV shows to add to the list of UFO reports lately: First, on Friday, May 4, "A Current Affair" visited Mars Pennsylvania where a UFO has appeared on numerous occasions and once was videotaped by three people simultaneously. (Unfortunately, no structure can be seen on the tape -- just a blob of light.) The woman who reported it also has a series of burned spots in a field behind her house, but they didn't impress me. It looks like someone built a series of small fires. Soil samples have been taken, but the results aren't back yet. In following their usual lousy reporting standards, they didn't say why the burned spots were thought to be connected to the UFO. In fact, the majority of the report had passed before we learned that the object had actually moved, thus proving not to be a bright planet (which is what my first impression of the video was). Second, on Saturday, May 5, Budd Hopkins and Brian O'Leary appeared on "What's up, Dr. Ruth" on the Lifetime cable channel. (No, they didn't really talk about aliens and sex...) Neither Hopkins nor O'Leary said anything that isn't common knowledge already. In fact, they didn't go into a lot of details on anything. The most notable thing was that they seemed to give a LOT of credibility to the Gulf Breeze incident, including Ed's photos. All in all, nothing earth-shaking. I wish I got Las Vegas channels here :-) I don't even get the Fox network, or anyone else carrying Inside Report :-( -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gene Gross Subject: Thoughts and miscellany Date: 7 May 90 14:57:36 GMT Hi all: Saturday night (5/5/90) I was channel tripping--you know where you sit in front of the boob-tube armed with the remote channel changer and proceed to start flipping through the channels. I had stayed up to watch a science fiction movie on Cinemax--"Not of this Earth" an el cheapo movie and not worth watching. Anyway, I hit the Lifetime channel and stopped. Dr. Ruth had Budd Hopkins and a Dr. O'Leary (or Leary--he's an astronomer and former astronaut [lucky stiff]) on her show talking about UFOs and abductions. Unfortunately, I didn't have a tape to record on so I wasn't able to capture the show for posterity. Dr. Ruth only wanted to know one thing--do the aliens have sex? ;-) But O'Leary made a statement that stuck and has had me thinking since Saturday. He said that "we don't know if we actually originated on this planet." What do the rest of you think? I wonder if there is evidence to suggest that the human race (regardless of skin color we are one race of beings) did not evolve on this planet. Does anyone know of any research that might have been done in this area--good research not something flaky? Hopkins was asked if the abductees might not be suffering from some psycho-sexual dyfunction or sexual fantasy problems. Budd said that he had worked with a number (he gave a number that I can't recall right now) of psychiatrists, psychologists, and similar professionals who were abductees. None of them showed any symptoms of such disorders. Budd made a point of stressing the battery of tests each abductee goes through to weed out such disorders and other problems. Other than that, the show was nothing new. If you've read any of Budd's books, than you pretty much know the story from his point of view. O'Leary has a book out. Dr. Ruth made reference to it a couple of times, but I missed the start of the show when she introduced him and showed a copy of the book, so I can't give you the title. Shouldn't be hard to find though. In the most recent issue of the Paranet newsletter, someone (Paul Faeder?) asked about whether there would be enough gov't work to keep an astronomer busy full-time looking through a telescope. Answer: probably--depending upon what he or she was working on. The fact that the person in question is working on classified projects precludes us from finding out exactly what it is that he is doing--though we might be able to speculate. But he would have plenty to do, Paul, with our tax dollars paying his salary. Though, some of his work might be phased out with the Hubble coming on line. Gotta run folks. Gene -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gary Knight Subject: Chronocentricity Revisited Date: 7 May 90 18:32:19 GMT Hello, Gee, I really didn't mean to start another scholastic debate with my posting entitled "Chronocentricity." Perhaps I was overly elaborate in presenting what I thought was a very simple idea. By using the term chronocentricity, I meant only to coin a phrase reflecting our tendency to explain unknown phenomena by analogy to, and in terms of, presently known pheonomena. There is nothing wrong with this as long as it enables us to get a grasp on the new thing and begin making progress toward understanding it. What bothers me is our tendency to start believing in the analogies instead of using them as tools. As applied to UFO investigations, my concern is that truly alien behavior (which includes technology, actions, etc.) would likely be so bizzare as to have no analogs in human behavior. Thus, when I see reports of alien behavior that have very close analogs to human behaviors, I get suspicious. Isn't it odd that reports of strange objects in the sky are always reported as being projections of the then current vehicle technology (in roughly chronological order -- flying carpets, chariots, balloons, airships, spacecraft)? Why do we always interpret in terms of the technology of the time? If we see something truly alien, why hasn't someone, sometime, drawn a picture of it as it really is? Or is our evolved central nervous system incapable of dealing with it, so that we have to resort to analogies? Or is it all in the mind? Thus, I don't disagree with anything that's been said in response to the initial posting -- it's just that my point was not directed at a profound epistomological level. It was meant only as a comment on how we deal with the unexplained and what that might mean for the reality of the unexplained phenomenon. My conclusion -- I doubt that any explanation of UFO phenomena which is based essentially on an analogy to presently known technologies, behaviors, etc., is in fact the true explanation. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Subject: UFO Propulsion Date: 7 May 90 18:42:28 GMT Couple of technical comments: 1.) The magnetic field for the earth is indeed strong - but unfortunately it is very diffuse. It has been proposed (and perhaps some current satellites actually use it to a small degree) that satellites interact with the magnetic field for station keeping. However, when you consider the tiny amounts of power required for station keeping, you can see that we aren't talking major lifting capacity. 2.) The main problem with the earth's magnetic field is that its diffuse strenght sets a very low thrust-to-weight ratio. If you can't overcome the thrust-to-weight ratio of a smaller scale magnetic unit, then scaling it up won't buy you anything, because weight will increase faster than thrust will. You need to have an initially favorable Thrust/weight ratio -- and this requires VERY high strength fields. Higher than anything we know of today. So high, in fact, that no materials known could withstand the internal magnetic forces. 3.) Now if we just want to consider atmospheric travel, then there might be additional possibilities. Electrical currents could be set up in the surrounding air and the magnetic field of the craft would repel against the surrounding air. Or electo-static charges could also be induced into the surrounding air, and charges on the craft would also repel. These are merely "high-tech propellers" if you will. They might not actually be do-able either, but they are at least slightly less diffuse than the strength of the earth's magnetic field. 4.) Which leads into a discussion of what someone mentioned was a method of suppressing shock waves by charging the surrounding air. The difficulties involved in such a scheme are the following: If the craft is simply dumping charge, it will almost instantly "run out" of charge to supply. This is due to the effect that for each electron (or ion) that you dump, you increase imbalance on your own craft's surface (it's voltage.) So the voltage builds up AGAINST the "pumping" voltage of your generating system. The other effect is that the surrounding air will become itself ionized at certain voltage gradients (or in the case of a reentering object, physical and heat induced ionization will occur.) These free charges will quickly NEUTRALIZE your "pumping" action. They will merely swamp it by supplying charge faster than you can dump it. One method to overcome these limitations would be to, say, trail a long wire to a second charge dumping (collecting -- same difference :-) device. You essentially have set up a current flow system where the external path becomes the atmosphere. In this case, you aren't concerned so much with the strength of the current as the strength of the electric field. On the other hand, the reentry ionization MAY allow you to run HIGH currents through the surrounding atmosphere, and then make use of the magnetic forces created. Finally, I have only been considering the DC case in the non-magnetic case. (The magnetic case REQUIRES AC.) Perhaps AC electric fields might be of some use? I suspect that such devices imply high power needs. Not exactly something you slap on every reentry device with a 1.5 volt "D" cell :-) - John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - logajan@ns.network.com, john@logajan.mn.org, 612-424-4888, Fax 424-2853 ********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************************