Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 237 Monday, June 4th 1990 Today's Topics: UFO Questionaire Re: Fido UFO Re: Stealth/Area 51 Re: Fido UFO Recent Developments Survey Re: Fido Ufo F22/23 And Uaps Fido UFO Fido UFO Re: Fido UFO Questionnaire My Questionaire Answers Questionnaire response UFO QUESTIONAIRE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks Subject: UFO Questionaire Date: 1 Jun 90 19:54:00 GMT > 1. Some flying saucers have tried to communicate with us. Probably true. Many diverse witnesses have reported communication attempts. > 2. All UFO reports can be explained either as well understood > happenings or as hoaxes. Probably false. That's very unlikely, but possible. > 3. The Air Force has done an adequate job of investigation of > UFO reports and UFOs generally. Probably true. I think they have done a thorough job of investigating the ufo phenomenon. However, the problem is that they're not telling anyone else! Their reports are not made available for public consumption. > 4. No actual, physical evidence has ever been obtained from a > UFO. Probably false. Physical evidence has been obtained, but hasn't been conclusively proven to be what it's said to be. Ed Walters' mysterious liquid, some sort of slag mentioned by Vallee, rumored stuff from Roswell etc. > 5. A government agency maintains a Top Secret file of UFO > reports that are deliberately withheld from the public. Probably true. They'd be absolute fools to not maintain files of UFO reports. Besides, several FOIA request responses point in this direction. > 6. No airline pilots have seen UFOs. Probably false. I say probably rather than definitely because I don't have a first-hand report from a pilot, but if a pilot sees something, and no one can tell him what it is, it's a unidentified flying object. It *could* be something mundane, but if no one identifies it, it's unidentified. > 7. Most people would not report seeing a UFO for fear of losing > a job. Probably true. I think the public would avoid a brain surgeon who claims to have seen flying saucers, and he'd be out of a job. > 8. No authentic photographs have ever been taken of UFOs. Probably false. While all ufo photos may be hoaxes or mundane things, that's highly unlikely. > 9. Persons who believe they have communicated with visitors > from outer space are mentally ill. Probably false. No consistent symptoms of mental illness among contactees has ever been demonstrated. If anything, the reverse appears to be true. > 10. The Air Force was told to explain all UFO sightings > reported to them as natural or man-made happenings or events. Probably true. Protect the public from panic etc. > 11. Earth has been visited at least once in its history by > beings from another world. Probably true. > 12. The government should spend more money than it does now to > study what UFOs are and where they come from. Definitely true. The government should help fund *independent* organizations that would study the ufo phenomenon. > 13. Intelligent forms of life cannot exist elsewhere in the > universe. Definitely false. Unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, false. > 14. Flying saucers can be explained scientifically without any > important new discoveries. Definitely false. Current physics would have to be ignored. > 15. Some UFOs have landed and left marks in the ground. Probably true. > 16. Most UFOs are due to secret defense projects, either ours > or another country's. Probably false. Far too many reports for that to be the case. The projects aren't very secret if that's the case. > 17. UFOs are reported throughout the world. Definitely true. > 18. The government has done a good job of examining UFO > reports. Probably true. The problem is that they're not telling. > 19. There have never been any UFO sightings in the Soviet > Union. Probably false. There have been many reports, which we may or may not accept as having actually been sightings. > 20. People want to believe that life exists elsewhere than on > Earth. Probably true. I think it would be more frightening if we absolutely knew we were all alone. > 21. There have been good radar reports of UFOs. Definitely true. Good enough for scrambles. > 22. There is no government secrecy about UFOs. Definitely false. Rolling on floor laughing. The entire government would have to be absolute fools to not keep lots of ufo material secret. > 23. People have seen space ships that have not come from this > planet. Probably true. Now we're getting into the nature of the phenomenon. Are we seeing spaceships, or are we seeing something entirely different, as proposed by Vallee? > 24. Some UFO reports have come from astronomers. Definitely true. > 25. Even the most unusual UFO report could be explained by the > laws of science if we knew enough about science. Definitely true. There's the kicker, if we knew enough about science. If we knew enough about science, we could say, for instance, that ufos are definitely visitors from another parallel universe, the future etc. Man will never fly, y'know. ;-) > 26. People who do *not* believe in flying saucers must be > stupid. Definitely false. Doesn't make sense. > 27. UFO reports have not been taken seriously by any government > agency. Definitely false. Maccabee got a pile of stuff from the CIA on a FOIA request quite a while ago. That seems pretty serious. > 28. Government secrecy about UFOs is an idea made up by > newspapers. Definitely false. Patently absurd. > 29. Science has established that there are such things as > "Unidentified Flying Objects." Definitely true. If it's not identified, and it flies, it's a unidentified flying object. Science doesn't even have to establish that. > 30. Abduction reports are the result of hallucinations. Probably false. If that were true, many people worldwide would have to be having the same hallucinations. > Finally, what do you believe UFOs to be? Visitors and objects from realities we know nothing about. Probably not from what we commonly refer to as space. jbh -- John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks Subject: Re: Fido UFO Date: 1 Jun 90 19:55:01 GMT > Why does he have the right to tell us what we can say and we > can't say? Has he ever heard of the first ammendmant? Bring up > that fact and see what he says... The First Amendment doesn't apply. It's a private network the public is allowed to use. jbh -- John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Burke Subject: Re: Stealth/Area 51 Date: 2 Jun 90 01:34:32 GMT Tim: There was an article about the "atomic plane" published recently & I can't remember where I saw it - it could have been _Discover_ or even _Air & Space_, probably a March issue. The article fully discussed the plane, what it would have looked like & how lucky we all are about why it never got off the ground. It definately had no relationship to the B2. Additionally, I think Gonsalves is wrong with his UFO/B2 story and when I get a chance, I'm going to go through Phil Imbrogno's book & articles in this library to quote some situations which clearly refute some of the foundations of Tony's hypothesis. I'll post that in the Ask UFO echo. Come to think of it, I'm almost sure that article was in _Air & Space_. -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Burke Subject: Re: Fido UFO Date: 2 Jun 90 01:50:47 GMT Hi Don! So I see that you're finally back from the Poconos! Say, isn't that where the Secret Government is headquartered? :-) Anyway, as far as George Adamski's echo goes, maybe there should be an agreement that if, for some reason ParaNet must be discussed (such as in refuting slanderous allegations by BenNet) ParaNet should be referred to as "PN" or by some other semi-cryptic nomenclature which would not result in a "subtle advertisement". Say "hi" to The Vickster for me! -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!mcorbin Subject: Recent Developments Date: 2 Jun 90 16:07:00 GMT > Rick Edwards of UFO Awareness is starting a syndicated TV > show called "UFO Spotlight." No idea yet in which markets > its going to play. If I provide a > phone number in Palm Springs, CA, can someone find out > about this? I am near there, and know Rick Edwards. Give me his number, I will phone him. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!mcorbin Subject: Survey Date: 2 Jun 90 16:08:00 GMT > I don't know if you consider me a ParaNet user since I'm > only active on > the Echo line, but I've completed the survey anyways. My Anyone in ParaNet is a user and is most welcome. Thanks for taking the time to do the survey. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!mcorbin Subject: Re: Fido Ufo Date: 2 Jun 90 16:20:00 GMT > slanderous allegations by BenNet) ParaNet should be > referred to as "PN" or by some other semi-cryptic > nomenclature which would not result in a "subtle > advertisement". Say "hi" to The Vickster for me! -- John Maybe we could go under the nomenclature of MAJESTIC. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!mcorbin Subject: F22/23 And Uaps Date: 2 Jun 90 16:24:00 GMT David Winters > In one way or the other I've looked into the > history/stories > offered by the "hot" UFO freaks like Cooper, Lazar, > Lear..... > ad nausea.....and found very little to sink my teeth into. > I > keep asking, "Where's the beef???" My main interest is > propulsion systems for aerospace vechicles and I keep > hoping > that tell-tale evidence will be found that will be a clue > as to what powers/causes these phenomenon. So until the > field of UAP investigation stops being a beacon for people > looking for a National Enquirer type > sensationalism....we'll > get no where in hard evidence collection and > classification. > We need objective collection and reporting of UAPs as they > happen....not after weeks/months/years of sifting thru > garbage > put out by individuals that have some > agenda/position/belief > to promote. I am sure that we would enjoy a report from you concerning the results of your fact-findings on the Lear, Cooper, Lazar, and so forth group. Also, I agree totally with your posting about the objective collection and reporting of data. Inasmuch as you are interested in propulsion, would you say that any physical landing traces could provide any information about propulsion provided that a qualified person was collecting the data? Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Ecker Subject: Fido UFO Date: 2 Jun 90 13:38:00 GMT > I think that at least 70% of the messages on that echo are > garbage. I only carry it for that 30% of interesting > messages. ParaNet attracts people who are interested in the > same subject as we are; the other echo attracts everyone. > If we were to create a backbone echo we too would > eventually run into similar problems. > > Well that's my 2 cents. Yep Paul, you may have a point, but the real point is that IF we did that, at least it would be OUR PROBLEM. Don -- Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Ecker Subject: Fido UFO Date: 2 Jun 90 13:42:00 GMT > users will come running. FIDO UFO remains fertile ground > for some good information and good users, but we have a > better setup here, more dedicated people, and best of all, > a standard of conduct that prevents melees like what has > taken place in FIDO UFO. > All true Jim, but you know, I just HATE IT when I am blamed for something that I did NOT do, and then to compound it, I get punished for it. Sorry, but then my hackles raise, and I start to get rightious. Then am willing to go to the wall, etc.......... But you are right, FIDO UFO for the most part is just plain undulterated crap. -- Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Ecker Subject: Re: Fido UFO Date: 2 Jun 90 13:46:00 GMT Jim, your message noted. I spent about 20 to 25 minutes with G. Adam, and at times I felt I was beating the old nogan on the wall. It is hard to try to sway the ol' true believer with facts, when he is already convinced he is right. ( By God, the world is FLAT cause I KNOW IT! You follow?? ) Don -- Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.) Subject: Questionnaire Date: 3 Jun 90 08:07:00 GMT Mike: I enjoyed answering the UFO questionnaire, but I had some problems with some of the the phrasing. 1. Answer=2 2. Answer=1 3. Answer=2 4. Answer=3 5. Answer=2 6. Answer=1 7. Answer=3 Ambiguous question. Report to whom? Co-workers, Police, Governement? 8. Answer=2 Badly worded question: authentic in reference to which model of UFOs? Does authentic mean pictures ofextraterestrial vehicles, paranormal visitations, or merely honest and non- fabricated? 9. Answer=1. Badly worded question: as phrased, the question implies a negative value judgement. A social worker friend has informed me that there are many personality traits which might lead to non-veridical reports of communication. These traits are not necesarily indicative of mental illness and do not require clinical intervention. 10. Answer=1 I believe that a residual category of unexplained was reported by Blue Book. The question is ambiguous as it implies either that no one in the AF admitted any unexplained sightings or else the Blue Book people disobeyed orders. Told when? 11. Answer=2 The Microchloranthropogenetic theory is a viable, if non-parsimonious and question-begging, alternative to the Judaeo- Xian-Islamic genesis myths. I am unconvinced by any more contemporary evidence for contact. 12. Answer=2 I dont know how much is being spent and what kind of research projects have been proposed on which to spend the money. Merely throwing money at problems seldom solves them. 13. Answer=1. 14. Answer=2. This question is ambiguous as important is undefined. 15. Answer=2. 16. Answer=1 17. Answer=4 18. Answer=2 19. Answer=1 20. Answer=3 People are undefined. I think most educated Americans want to believe in life elswhere. Many fundamentalists reject the idea. 21. Answer=4 This is also a model-dependent question 22. Answer=2 Current or past ? 23. Answer=2 24. Answer=4 25. Answer=4 By definition! Are you implying that UFOs will always be an inexplicable mystery? 26. Answer=1 27. Answer=1 28. Answer=1 29. Answer=3 This question is poorly phrased and model-dependent. 30. Answer=1 Poorly phrased question. Reports could be due to many factors including dreams, induced fantasizing, true hallucinations and/or real events. Finally, what do you believe UFOs to be? I believe that they are a mixture of many types of physical and psychological events. Some of these may be truly new and unknown phenomena, while others will turn out to have explanations mundane by current knowledge. I would like to believe in the physical and extraterrestrial origin hypotheses, but the evidence does not convince me. As I am rather agnostic about most of UFOlogy, I found it hard to answer some of the questions. Im looking forward to seeing the results on Paranet. -- John -------------------------------------------------------------------- >From scicom!ncar!csi.compuserve.com!mtg Subject: My Questionaire Answers Date: 3 Jun 90 08:06:00 GMT You didn't make it clear where this should be sent to... I'll send it to you directly, and if you'd like it to go out over the net you're welcome to post it there; I don't mind. - Mark G. >For each of the statements shown below, please indicate the >degree to which you feel the statement to be either true or >false: >------------------------------------------------------- >1. Some flying saucers have tried to communicate with us. 3. Probably True. >2. All UFO reports can be explained either as well understood >happenings or as hoaxes. 1. Definitely False. Many happenings (UFO and otherwise) don't fit into our understanding of things; I think Forte's _Book Of The Damned_ makes this point quite well and I agree with it. >3. The Air Force has done an adequate job of investigation of >UFO reports and UFOs generally. 1. Definitely False, as long as "investigating" includes "reporting the correct results of the investigation". >4. No actual, physical evidence has ever been obtained from a UFO. 2. Probably False. >5. A government agency maintains a Top Secret file of UFO >reports that are deliberately withheld from the public. 3. Probably True. >6. No airline pilots have seen UFOs. 1. Definitely False; I don't believe all such Flying Objects have been Identified. >7. Most people would not report seeing a UFO for fear of losing a job. 4. Definitely True. >8. No authentic photographs have ever been taken of UFOs. 2. Probably False. >9. Persons who believe they have communicated with visitors >from outer space are mentally ill. 2. Probably False. >10. The Air Force was told to explain all UFO sightings >reported to them as natural or man-made happenings or events. 3. Probably True. >11. Earth has been visited at least once in its history by >beings from another world. 3. Probably True. But what do you mean, "visit"? Walked on the surface? Landed? Orbited? >12. The government should spend more money than it does now to >study what UFOs are and where they come from. 1. Definitely False; they'd just squander it away and claim negative results. Besides, I'm not so sure they don't have the answers already. >13. Intelligent forms of life cannot exist elsewhere in the universe. 2. Probably False. I want to say "Definitely", but I've seen no facts to support alien life, probable though it seems. >14. Flying saucers can be explained scientifically without any >important new discoveries. 1. Definitely False. >15. Some UFOs have landed and left marks in the ground. 3. Probably True. These may or may not be markings we've found "recently" (in the last century, or millenium, or post-history). >16. Most UFOs are due to secret defense projects, either ours >or another country's. 3. Probably True, but I'm really borderline on this one. I don't have a clear inkling just *what* they are. >17. UFOs are reported throughout the world. 4. Definitely True, just not publicized equally throughout. >18. The government has done a good job of examining UFO reports. 4. Examining? Definitely True on examination ONLY. :) >19. There have never been any UFO sightings in the Soviet Union. 4. Definitely True. >20. People want to believe that life exists elsewhere than on Earth. 4. Definitely True. The idea may be repugnant to many at first, but I really think that deep down people know it's good for them. >21. There have been good radar reports of UFOs. 4. Definitely True. >22. There is no government secrecy about UFOs. 1. Definitely False. I've seen enough government secrecy to know that they have a lot of secrecy about EVERYTHING. >23. People have seen space ships that have not come from this planet. 3. Probably True. >24. Some UFO reports have come from astronomers. 4. Definitely True. What's an "astronomer"? A telescope owner? Anyone who looks up? >25. Even the most unusual UFO report could be explained by the >laws of science if we knew enough about science. 3. Probably True. I don't know what we have yet to learn about science, though. :) >26. People who do *not* believe in flying saucers must be stupid. 1. Definitely False. What is "stupid"? Even still, that's just an opinion, and I'll let people have their own. >27. UFO reports have not been taken seriously by any government agency. 1. Definitely False. The Air Force took them seriously enough to start blithering to the public about them and their subsequent investigations. Do the agencies believe them? That's another question. >28. Government secrecy about UFOs is an idea made up by newspapers. 2. Probably False. Who knows who started it? There's always skeptics. >29. Science has established that there are such things as >"Unidentified Flying Objects." 3. Probably True. I don't know if I agree that science has proven this... to be an "Unidentified Flying Object" it just has to have no satisfactory explanation utilizing the laws and facts we know currently. >30. Abduction reports are the result of hallucinations. 2. Probably False, but I'm really very borderline on this. I'd prefer to abstain from answering at all. >Finally, what do you believe UFOs to be? Just what it stands for -- an Unidentified Flying Object. It could be an atmospheric oddity, it could be an alien craft, it could be something entirely different. I haven't seen enough proof to push me either way. I would like to find out that they are indeed visitors or aliens, but I haven't yet. Many want to display them as entirely explainable, but their persistence and the explanations and the public's refusal to believe the explanations force me not to merely accept UFOs as nothing out of the ordinary. - Mark G. -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f0.n9.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: GARY@MAXIMILLION.CP.MCC.COM (Gary Knight) Subject: Questionnaire response Date: 3 Jun 90 08:06:00 GMT Questionnaire response -- Gary Knight (gary@mcc.com) DF = definitely false PF = probably false PT = probably true DT = definitely true 1. Some flying saucers have tried to communicate with us. PT 2. All UFO reports can be explained either as well understood happenings or as hoaxes. DF 3. The Air Force has done an adequate job of investigation of UFO reports and UFOs generally. DF 4. No actual, physical evidence has ever been obtained from a UFO. DF 5. A government agency maintains a Top Secret file of UFO reports that are deliberately withheld from the public. PT 6. No airline pilots have seen UFOs. DF 7. Most people would not report seeing a UFO for fear of losing a job. PT 8. No authentic photographs have ever been taken of UFOs. PF 9. Persons who believe they have communicated with visitors from outer space are mentally ill. PT 10. The Air Force was told to explain all UFO sightings reported to them as natural or man-made happenings or events. PT 11. Earth has been visited at least once in its history by beings from another world. PT 12. The government should spend more money than it does now to study what UFOs are and where they come from. DT 13. Intelligent forms of life cannot exist elsewhere in the universe. DF 14. Flying saucers can be explained scientifically without any important new discoveries. PF 15. Some UFOs have landed and left marks in the ground. PT 16. Most UFOs are due to secret defense projects, either ours or another country's. PF 17. UFOs are reported throughout the world. DT 18. The government has done a good job of examining UFO reports. DF 19. There have never been any UFO sightings in the Soviet Union. DF 20. People want to believe that life exists elsewhere than on Earth. PT 21. There have been good radar reports of UFOs. DT 22. There is no government secrecy about UFOs. DF 23. People have seen space ships that have not come from this planet. PT 24. Some UFO reports have come from astronomers. DT 25. Even the most unusual UFO report could be explained by the laws of science if we knew enough about science. PF 26. People who do *not* believe in flying saucers must be stupid. DF 27. UFO reports have not been taken seriously by any government agency. PF 28. Government secrecy about UFOs is an idea made up by newspapers. DF 29. Science has established that there are such things as "Unidentified Flying Objects." DT 30. Abduction reports are the result of hallucinations. PF Finally, what do you believe UFOs to be? 50% probability -- time travellers from our own or another planet's future time; 40% probability -- physical space travellers from another star system; 10% probability -- intelligent beings from a parallel world, co- existing with our own reality. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f5.n30223.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Charles.Mcelhinney Subject: UFO QUESTIONAIRE Date: 2 Jun 90 15:22:00 GMT Well...Here goes... (Rating system is A-Definatly False B-Probably False C-Probably True D-Definatly True) 1-C 2-A 3-A 4-C 5-C 6-A 7-B 8-A 9-B 10-C 11-C 12-D 13-A 14-B 15-C 16-C 17-D 18-A 19-A 20-C 21-C 22-A 23-C 24-D 25-B 26-A 27-A 28-A 29-D 30-B What do I believe UFO's are? Well, they definatly are real, but you have to look at what UFO means and really try to picture the meaning of it when something happens that involves a UFO. A UFO is an unidentified flying object. Therefore, it's name implies just that. Unfortunatly, people tend to throw in words like aliens, abductions and other nasty words and that tends to confound the problem. Who ever said anything about aliens???? Exactly. Now, a UFO can be anything from a bird that you can't recognize to a plane that can't be identified. In fact, that's where the word acronymn UFO comes from...The military. Pilots used to use the term when they couldn't identify a something in front of them (now usually called a Bogey and when they are deemed hostile, they are deemed "Bandit"). While there are many explanations to UFO's that come off with reasons that don't involve space aliens and abductions, there are a few that seem genuine to me. Therefore, I believe that the whole science (Ufology) should be taken much more seriously. -- Charles Mcelhinney - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Charles.Mcelhinney@f5.n30223.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************************