Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 246 Monday, June 18th 1990 Today's Topics: ILL BREEZE update ILL BREEZE Triangular UFO? Re: Ufo Film Re: GB Video An Open Letter to Mr. Ed Re: JFK Assassination Re: GB Video Billy Goodman's radio show Skeptics and Klass (none) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p100.f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Kurt.Lochner Subject: ILL BREEZE update Date: 11 Jun 90 16:28:53 GMT Wait a minute, I thought that htis was a symposium... The conflict about the model strikes me as almost comical, and while there's some kind of moral to this story, I'm sure that we'll always have to deal with fraud. Timmy Bennet is still ranting about bases established on the moon, owing to his portrayal of Alternative 3 as fact, not fiction. Bob Lazar uses lasers to cause sitings and now is indictable. Meanwhile, I still have yet to see a UFO up close. These legitimate sightings may be nothing more than a natural phenomena, but it's still worth the effort to sort this reportage out. There may be some new scientific facts, besides "Visitors from another planet" to be learned, most likely concerning "cold" plasma fusion... Keep up the good work Jim! -- Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Kurt.Lochner@p100.f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p1.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Steve.Rose Subject: ILL BREEZE Date: 11 Jun 90 19:15:50 GMT In a message to All <10 Jun 90 16:47:00> Jim Speiser wrote: JS> EXTRA! EXTRA! GULF BREEZE HOAX UNRAVELS!!!! JS> beginning of the sightings. The new tenant showed the reporter a JS> model, about 9 inches by 5 inches, made of plastic and construction JS> paper. On the back of the paper, inside the model, were JS> architectural drawings for a house, apparently in Ed's handwriting. JS> (Ed is a construction contractor). The model is now in the JS> possession of the newspaper. Walters has issued two conflicting You...you mean they were NOT lighting fixtures from 'The China Star' restaurant? Gee...and I was so sure. :-) -- Steve Rose - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Steve.Rose@p1.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f24.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jerry.Woody Subject: Triangular UFO? Date: 12 Jun 90 00:41:00 GMT I need some information on any aircraft (known) that arranges its' lights in a triangular configuration.... On June 9 I was driving home about 20 + miles from my house when I observed a large craft that was outlined in at least 10 white lights in a triangular figure. At the bottom was a blinking red light, on both sides of the 'base' was 2 blinking lights, and on top, was what appeared to be suspended blue light (blinking) that lit up the 'haze' in the air around it. It flew silently overhead and just 'disappeared' a few miles away. I estimated the object to be at least 100 ft. at the base and at least 150 ft. long and app. 2000 feet in altitude. On June 10 another witness observed the same type UFO near my house but this time with 4-5+ smaller lights in front of it and at least 1 red/orange 'globe' of light following it as it headed to the south which I observed. Thank you... Jerry Woody -- Jerry Woody - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jerry.Woody@f24.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f70.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Gene.Gross Subject: Re: Ufo Film Date: 12 Jun 90 06:37:00 GMT To Terry: I understand you are making a film and that is a money making proposition; however, I do have a slight bone to pick. I have watched enough documentary films on UFOs now to be tired of the old rehash. I am also a bit disenchanted with the idea of getting some "eccentrics" to appear in the film. Would it be so hard to do a really solid piece of work--one that really gets into the guts of things? There are a number of excellent researchers out there who might be willing to work with you if you plan on doing something serious. But the tone that I picked up from your post doesn't say serious; it says "Haha, lets cash in on the UFO craze." As for the abductees, many of those folks are going through hell. I personally don't take their experiences lightly. Granted there are some hucksters out there and some sensation seekers. They have been grabbing headlines whenever they could, so why give them more? I can't say for certain that the others have been really abducted by aliens, but they certainly have experienced something traumatic. Terry, I'd like to see a serious documentary done on UFOs and abductions that is sensitive to the issues and experiences of literally thousands of people around the world. I'd buy it--I have many of the others that aren't quite so well done. -- Gene Gross -- Gene Gross - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Gene.Gross@f70.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f70.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Charles.Mcelhinney Subject: Re: GB Video Date: 12 Jun 90 16:40:00 GMT No, I'm talking about the GB video. I remember seeing it on a TV show. It might have been A Current Affair or one of those shows. I remember the host saying specifically that it was Gulf Breeze and then they had a report on a Naval base a few miles away. Also, I was just at the bookstore and I was looking at the book on the Gulf Breeze sitings (the hard cover one) and they have a picture of the UFO on the cover from the video that I saw. -- Charles Mcelhinney - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Charles.Mcelhinney@f70.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser Subject: An Open Letter to Mr. Ed Date: 12 Jun 90 07:45:00 GMT AN OPEN LETTER TO ED WALTERS Dear Ed: As a concerned member of the UFO community, I feel I speak for many when I tell you that I think its time to reel in your catch. You got us, Ed, and you got us good. We surrender. Now the time has come to lick our wounds, bury our dead, and replay the battle to see where we went wrong. Specifically, how could an inexperienced photographer pull off one of the greatest hoaxes in history, taking with him some of the brightest scientific minds in the field? This question will be uppermost in our minds for a long time to come, thanks to you. Whatever your objective in this game may have been, and whether or not you have actually accomplished that objective, the game is over. If your goal was to pull off the biggest UFO hoax in history, congratulations, mission accomplished. If it was to make a bundle of money, well, barring any lawsuits, mazel tov. If it was to show the world what a bunch of nincompoops populate the UFO community, I suggest that now there's one sure-fire way to drive the point home. You have the opportunity now, with the upcoming MUFON conference, to come clean, to yell "gotcha," and when you're finished reveling in your victory, tell us the why of it, the how of it, and what you think the end result of it all is. You see, Ed, there really ARE UFOs, and they really ARE unexplained. If you didn't know that before you started your grand escapade, chances are you know that now, from your conversations with the many ufologists you've met over these past two years. Gulf Breeze or no, the sightings will continue, the phenomenon will persist, and mankind will still be faced with the Ultimate Question. There are those who are already predicting the demise of ufology because of your actions. I strongly disagree. True, you've set us back a couple of decades, you've tarnished the reputations of many in the field, and you've probably made the subject even more taboo among journalists than it ever was...but mostly you've made yourself a villain, and you will be viewed for all time as nothing but a self-interested prankster who scuttled what little respect the field had garnered over the years. However, I think MUFON 90 presents you with an opportunity to redeem yourself several times over - it may even result in an even bigger financial opportunity. I challenge you to stand before the gathered masses of ufology and tell us how you fooled us, in painstaking detail. Such a presentation would go a long way towards preventing such a thing from happening again. It would teach some of us what to look for, and others not to ignore what we've already found, simply because it disagrees with what we WANT to find. Most important, it would be a fitting end to what will otherwise only be an endless cycle of dissension, disruption, and useless bickering. Perhaps, when you're finished with your talk, we will all be able to put our differences behind us, shake hands, and collectively vow that "We won't get fooled again." What I'm asking you to do is probably not an easy task. You've got a lot invested in this game. But I'm asking you as an obviously intelligent and civic-minded man to consider that there are issues here that are orders of magnitude bigger than you, your family, and your future. End the charade now, and we stand a chance of repairing the damage and learning from the experience - and YOU stand a chance of becoming a hero of sorts, perhaps profiting from another book ("The Gulf Breeze Hoax: How One Man Fooled an Entire Movement") Carry it on to your grave, and you will only leave a legacy of confusion, mistrust, and dissent. You once told me that you thought I hated you. I don't hate you, Ed; far from it, I admire you and applaud you. Despite the holes in the story, it was brilliantly executed. It was the hoax of the century, far surpassing Billy Meier. It was a real gem. Now take a bow. Sincerely, Jim Speiser -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Daniel.Wisnosky Subject: Re: JFK Assassination Date: 12 Jun 90 17:12:28 GMT p> I do not suspect Secret Service involvement at this point, and I have p> not seen the incident in the Z-film that others have talked about. Well, aparently that incident can't be seen on the Zapruder (sp?) film, but rather on a second film that Bill Cooper somehow got his hands on.. I've not yet seen the film myself, but am trying to get ahold of a copy. C ya, Dan -- Daniel Wisnosky - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Daniel.Wisnosky@f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser Subject: Re: GB Video Date: 13 Jun 90 06:21:00 GMT > No, I'm talking about the GB video. I remember seeing it on a TV > show. It might have been A Current Affair or one of those shows. I > remember the host saying specifically that it was Gulf Breeze and then > they had a report on a Naval base a few miles away. Also, I was just at > the bookstore and I was looking at the book on the Gulf Breeze sitings > (the hard cover one) and they have a picture of the UFO on the cover > from the video that I saw. OK, I'm wrong, then. I was unaware that there was an audio track to that video (but of course there would be). And its strange, because the Pozzuolis say much the same thing on their video - "Look at that, what is it?" "I'll be honest with you, honey, I don't know." Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:209/722 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Shaffer Jr <72750.2335@compuserve.com> Subject: Billy Goodman's radio show Date: 14 Jun 90 07:20:29 GMT Does anyone know of any radio stations in or near Pennsylvania that are going to broadcast Billy Goodman's radio show? I'd need to know the frequencies, because I can't imagine any stations that I listen to on a regular basis carrying it. Any info. anyone could give me would be greatly appreciated. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gene Gross Subject: Skeptics and Klass Date: 14 Jun 90 19:20:32 GMT I am not by nature opposed to skeptics nor particular individuals based upon there skepticism. I have worked with and around scientists and engineers for a good portion of my adult life and know their naturally skeptical nature. As a kid, I babysat for a family next door. The husband/father was a theoretical physicist working for a large defense contractor in the R&D area. I learned a lot form him, primarily my love for science. Nonetheless, I also learned from him and others the need to balance skepticism with open-mindedness. If I see something that shouldn't be, I don't automatically dismiss it. Rather I investigate it. It must be pointed out that quite often that 'something that shouldn't be' turns out to not be after an investigation. Still there is a tendency to ignore things that shouldn't be precisely because they shouldn't be. Or worse, to come up with an explanation to make the shouldn't be fit in. I find Mr. Klass to be an interesting figure in our times. I have heard him talking on film about UFOs and am impressed with his drive to explain away each sighting or incident as a misunderstanding of a natural event/object or man-made event/object. While I don't suspect him of any duplicity, I am concerned about the fact that he seems so driven to explain everything away in this manner. The University of Nebraska business is a bizaare incident, and I have to say that I think that Klass is probably innocent to a large degree. However, I find it odd that he saw fit to identify himself in the manner he did. To say that he then told them that he wasn't calling in those capacities (editor of AV and member of CISCOP) isn't going to relief anyone's anxiety or concern. If I called someone and said that I am an agent for the CIA but I'm not calling in that capacity, I doubt that people would feel any easier about talking with me. So in this regard I hold Mr. Klass to account for his actions in exacerbating a problem. I have no problem with UFO conferences where no skeptics appear on the panels. It is sometimes nice to not have to deal with all the rhetoric and debates. We can share our thinking and research with each other and see what we have to work with. Also, we can embark on journeys of speculation to see if we can fit pieces of the puzzle together. Still, there is something to be said for having to meet the challenge of skeptics. If we can't deal with the skeptics' responses to us, we haven't much chance of getting out of the sub-basement of science and research. Our evidence and research methodologies have to stand up to the spotlight of skeptical criticism. One note to the skeptics, however. Please don't dump so hard on our speculative flights of fantasy. Remember that even in hard sciences like physics, such flights of fantasy often lead us further down the road of knowledge and understanding. I can think of a couple of examples of this type thinking, which is merely a form of brainstorming. One has to do with dropping a measurement device down to the surface of a black hole to determine what radiations can be detected. Then there is the work of David Bohm. This form of brainstorming is like anyother form of brainstorming and subject to the same rules that govern creativity. That is, the free flow of thinking that is part of brainstorming (as a creative exercise) works best in a non-adversarial environment. After the flow has stopped, then we can get critical. What concerns me most of all, though, is that something is going on and we haven't explained it. To say that it is some sort of mass hysteria is to beggar the question. I can't say that all UFOs aren't explainable as a misunderstood event/object. But I can say that there are a number of sightings and films that have yet to be explained. I can't say that everyone who claims to have seen a UFO didn't see something identifiable and of a natural or man-made origin. But there are a number of people who have seen something whose veracity and qualifications make them far more trustworthy--pilots (military and civilian), astronomers, scientists, law enforcement agents, and well-educated and informed public citizens. Saying that people of this calibre saw a sun-dog or swamp gas is to malign their character and is in my opinion the worst form of deceit. Further, having grown up as an Air Force brat, I've known military pilots. They are an exciting breed of animal. They are never more alive than when they are in the air. But they are damned serious about their work and careers. They are extremely professional and well-trained. As observers, they are quite hard to equal. They aren't going to mistake a glint of sunlight off their canopy as a UFO. They aren't going to mistake Venus as a UFO. They aren't going to mistake another aircraft as a UFO (God, imagine that in a combat situation). They aren't going to mistake a weather balloon as a UFO. When someone like that reports a UFO, I'm willing to bet that they've seen some out of the ordinary and usual. What that is requires some investigation. It may never be resolved, but to pass it off as a hyperactive imagination or some mistaken identification of a natural or man-made event/object is the worst kind of arrogance and deceit. Some folks think that skeptics ought to boiled in oil, but I can't buy into that. Often in the area of UFOs and the paranormal, we find ourselves confronted with bizaare things that later turn out to be false or mere flights of fancy (couched in terms of 'this is really true, I swear!!'). I recall when I first started on ParaNet. The Lazar information was being discussed. I thought about what Lazar had said and asked myself some questions and came to the conclusion that Lazar was either not telling the whole story or he had fabricated major portions of it. I posted my skepticism and explained my reasoning. As time has moved along, it seems more and more likely that Lazar hasn't been quite truthful about things. Element 115 and using gravity waves for propulsion have begun to do a slow swan-dive into a dry pool. Then there was the Canadian UFO landing and the US government's supposed attack on the craft. The story sounded like the start of a very bad B movie. And lately, someone has been treating us to a rehash of the Alternative 3 science fiction story. We need to be skeptical in a very positive sense. But we also need to balance that with open-mindedness. That is, in my opinion, we shouldn't just accept everything without mental filters. By the same token, we shouldn't just negate everything because it doesn't match what should be. What should be is what is. If what is doesn't match our preconceived ideas and notions, then maybe we ought to start there before dumping on something. As humanity expands the frontiers of science and explores into the universe, we are bound to come across more and more things that challenge our preconceived ideas and notions about what is--what should be. Only our own arrogance as a species will keep us from seeing and learning. Enough of this for now. Rick, thanks for posting Klass' letter on the University of Nebraska incident. I thought this had been posted before, may have been, but I seem to recall that I was very busy at the time and didn't respond. Now back to the regularly scheduled program. Gene Gross -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: isis!well!ddrasin (Dan Drasin) Subject: (none) Date: 15 Jun 90 02:15:18 GMT Skepticism -+ From: RICK MOEN Sent: 05-30-90 10:06 -+ You realise, Dan, that there are two groups of people in this -+ world -- those who divide people into two groups, and those who -+ don't. Rick, thanks for all your postings and comments, and for correcting several of my misapprehensions. I'm as hassled and hurried as I was when I wrote those hasty references to the Gacquelin study (mea culpa!) but I'll do my best to answer some of your questions -- please let me know if anything is unclear. I do welcome the opportunity to compare notes, and perhaps engage in some constructive debate. Since we both divide people into groups of people who divide other groups of people, perhaps we're not so far apart after all. -+ Can something really be properly classed as both an art and a -+ science? This wouldn't mean, would it, that whenever it fails to -+ pass muster as a science, you can switch gears and claim it's an -+ art? 'Just an idea. Good questions. To claim that something is an art *in order* to inappropriately avoid scientific rigor would obviously be dishonest. On the other hand, there are *many* activities that may quite happily be classed as both science and art, because they depend on a harmonious balance of the two in order to function at all. For example, music and painting. The mixing of colors, the formulations of paint, the rules of perspective, the construction and tuning of musical instruments, the notation of music and so forth may be approached quite scientifically. Science and art interact in many ways; each can play either an infrastructural or a superstructural role relative to the other; a scientist's intuitions or creative impulses may often lead to insights which are later rigorously verified; a scientific discovery may provide the artist with a tool or instrument, or a principle that captures the imagination and triggers some exciting philosophical or creative departure. -+ Dan, I would be very interested to what physics works (quantum or -+ otherwise) point to chi, geomancy, ley lines, meridians, or -+ acupuncture... One thing you might check out is the work of the Dragon Project, which was founded in England in 1977. Their findings included anomalous measurements using ultrasonic detectors, geiger counters magnetometers and other instrumentation at a number of prehistoric 'sacred sites' (power points) in Britain. At the standing stones of Rollright, they measured unusual pulsations -- but only for an hour or two after dawn in the months around the spring and fall equinoxes. They also apparently discovered a high radiation zone near one of the standing stones, and a *lower-than-background* cosmic radiation count inside *several* of the stone circles. Other observations and measurements include anomalous radio (RF) signals correlated with the geiger counter readings, and *total radio silence* at two megalithic sites in Ireland. One day at Rollright, the magnetic field at the site increased by a factor of thousands for no apparent reason. In January 1986, the project observed and photographed a flame-like discharge from the top of a standing- stone. Archaeological chemist Don Robins wrote a book, THE CIRCLE OF SILENCE, describing these mysterious results and how they challenge existing theories. The information I'm giving you here is second-hand, but you can bet I'll track down Robins' book as soon as I have the time to do it justice. -+ However, your biggest blunder is stating that the claims in -+ question supported any aspect of astrology. In fact, the claims -+ advanced were _not_ astrological, and the Gauquelins are in fact -+ radically -- perhaps rabidly -- opposed to astrology, and have -+ written a book denouncing it and stating that their theories -+ disprove it, which you might want to look up some time. I'm a little confused here. If the claims advanced were not in fact astrological, how could the study in question have proved *or* disproved any facet of astrology? As I made clear in my original posting, I have not read the original report -- can you fill us in some more? In any case, whether one can meaningfully test whole systems, like astrology, by analyzing one or a few facets out of context is a matter of considerable debate. I'm not 'into astrology' but I have enough general awareness of it to be extremely skeptical of efforts to understand it piecemeal, or to force it to conform to inapplicable theoretical foundations. I recently came across a piece of information that might help us arrive at a better understanding of what takes place at the interface of geomancy and astrology: The current (6/90) issue of EAST-WEST magazine features a number of articles about drinking water. On page 45 there's an article called DROP SHOTS, excerpted from a paper by Theodor and Wolfram Schwenk. They have developed a flow-pattern test (to be used in addition to hygienic testing) to determine how close a water sample is to its 'native' state as spring water. The test appears to detect impurities and other subtle changes that cannot be measured by normal chemical means. It is quite graphic (see illustrations in the article) and perfectly repeatable WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEAT (paraphrased from the article): Deviations can turn up at times that can be exactly pinpointed and very often predicted. They are related to astronomical events. Sun and moon eclipses, certain angles of relationship betwen the planets and other planetary phenomena including their daily risings and settings and culminations as determined at the particular location where the experiment is being performed, can be reflected at the moment they occur, in the flow-pattern test. This makes it essential to look ahead and plan the timing of experiments very carefully. Trainees in the method are taught to keep this necessity in mind. So it appears that we may have a instrument here with which to begin some objective empirical inquiry about 'astrological' and 'geomantic' phenomena. -+> ...Of course, the very existence of so-called geomantic force -+> is in fact *denied* by most physical scientists because -+> mainstream physics has not built devices to measure it. -+> -+> Why not? Because it can't exist because mainstream physics has -+> not built devices to measure it because it can't exist because -+> mainstream physics has not built devices to measure it. That's -+> why. -+ If you have access to such a device, I'm pretty sure Bay Area -+ Skeptics would pay you a considerable sum for its demonstration. -+ We wouldn't insist that it be built by 'mainstream physics', and -+ wwouldn't force the money on you if it made you uncomfortable. See, -+ we're easy to please! If the novel device must be a physical one, perhaps Wolfram Schwenk could claim your prize. If a logical device is permissible, then maybe the Dragon Project will qualify, since their innovation amounted to bringing good empirical science to bear in spite of any number of potential theoretical objections and peer-group ridicule. Although their instrumentation was conventional, the anomalous modulations of known energies apparently conformed to patterns that one would expect to encounter on the basis of traditional geomantic lore. Clearly, something outside the framework of our present knowledge appears to be going on. Still, there is little likelihood of mainstream physics checking out the Dragon Project's work in the foreseeable future. For one thing, in the west there is practically no undersanding of the very notion of geomancy, let alone any of its details, and hence no context within which to make sense of such anomalous observations. -+ CSICOP tested this stuff on its excursion to China. See the -+ Summer 1988 issue of 'Skeptical Inquirer' (v. 12, #4). However, I -+ don't think you will find the results encouraging for geomancy in -+ its present state. I'd be interested to read this, to find out exactly what their assumptions and methods were, and what 'stuff' they thought they were testing. Geomancy, like many other traditional bodies of knowledge, has an exoteric (popularized, commercialized, or diluted) side, some of which may be visible to those outside the culture, and an esoteric (essential) side, usually available only to members of that culture and occasionally to respectful and genuinely curious outsiders. When people from culture 'x' try to challenge something from culture 'y', they can easily make the mistake of testing the frosting instead of the cake. This is true even among subcultures within our own society: the outsiders think they know what they're critiquing, while the insiders are having a great laugh... or cry. The very notion that a team of skeptical Westerners could have dismissed a massive body of oriental tradition on a single 'excursion to China' leaves me skeptical to say the least. -+> ...and that when you connect the 'power points' that have been -+> detected this way, a grid-like pattern emerges. These points -+> include an apparent planet-wide network of megaliths and large -+> pyramids (Egypt, the Americas, China, etc., etc...). -+> It's important to note here that the placement and angles of the -+> Cheops Pyramid in Egypt and the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan -+> are mathematically related to each other, and to the orbital -+> radii and periods of the Earth, Moon, Mars, and the two Martian -+> moons. These latter relationships were discovered by Scottish -+> astronomer Duncan Lunan several years ago and strongly suggest an -+> intentional arrangement of elements on an interplanetary scale -+> for some purpose not yet comprehended (or for that matter, -+> even acknowledged or investigated) within the confines of -+> modern science. -+ Dan, can you suggest some method for testing the truth or falsity of this claim? If you are serious about studying the work that has been done, one good way to start would be to write to Christopher Bird and follow up the leads you get from him. [Bird's latest book is THE GALILEO OF THE MICROSOPE: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF GASTON NAESSENS (1990 - Les Presses de l'Universite de la Personne Inc., 2 Desaulniers Blvd., St. Lambert, Quebec, Canada J4P 1L2). You can reach him through that publisher.] [The Naessens book, by the way, is about the work of a French scientist who dared to challenge the medical establishment. His discoveries have apparently helped many cancer and AIDS patients, and appear to open a new level of understanding of the functions of certain components of blood, and of DNA. He was jailed by the Canadian authorities for quackery, but this year was acquitted on all counts. The story is fairly mind-boggling, and includes many instances where empirical results were challenged on 'solid theoretical grounds' -- which turned out to be based on false assumptions, inappropriate testing and political bias.] Back on topic, the supposed planetary 'grid' is not rectilinear (as a mercator projection grid or some such) but a network of geodesics forming an icosahedral pattern with 62 nodes. As I recall, many of the initial observations leading to this model were made by Soviet scientists (and historians, independently of one another) back in 1973. This work was followed up by the Planetary Grid System Study Group at Governors State University (Park Forest South, IL 60466). My information is somewhat out of date (circa 1975!) but I'm sure Christopher Bird has followed this and probably has more recent and complete data. As for the mathematics linking the pyramids with each other and with astronomical measurements, Duncan Lunan can be reached through Ashgrove Press Ltd., 26 Gay Street, Bath, Avon BA1 2PD, England. --------------------------------------------------------------------- SOME REFLECTIONS ON SKEPTICISM Many self-proclaimed skeptics I've met seem to hold theoretical objections against novel claims and consequently 'won't waste their time' looking into them. But I've never understood how a theory can disprove the existence of a phenomenon. Theories, however logically arrived at, are at some point based upon metaphysical (untestable) assumptions, which shift and change over time as our experience, understandings and conceptual frameworks evolve. Theories have at one time or another 'disproven' the possiblity of many things we now take for granted. Like it or not, logic is only as applicable as the assumptions underlying its use, hence all theoretical 'conclusions' should be assumed to be provisional, evolving and open to challenge and amendment. The question of the *existence* of a phenomenon is most properly the province of a rigorous *empirical* science. To erect theoretical barriers against something before making thorough, dispassionate empirical studies seems scientifically untenable, and philosophically tantamount to religious absolutism. It is one thing to use the tool of skepticism within a specific and appropriate context (i.e., when scientific method demands it), but to adopt skepticism as an overall context or stance has always seemed to me like a case of the tail wagging the dog. To call oneself a 'skeptic' implies that the skeptical component of scentific method is somehow logically prior to all the other factors, and this makes very little sense to me. Science rests on a tripod of faith, doubt and reason. Without faith, there is no motive to look into something in the first place and to persevere in one's vision. The role of doubt or skepticism should be to act as a check and balance against misplaced faith and excessively abstract reasoning. However, skepticism as a *stance* seems essentially indistingushable from true-believerism -- the only basic difference being a conservative rather than liberal bias; a bias toward adherence to the status quo rather than to novelty. Science is essentially a *process*, not a stance, and is properly blind to content. Many skeptics I've known seem to confuse process with content, and label as 'pseudoscience' any inquiry, no matter how responsible, into subjects they consider taboo. I've found it amusing to hear skeptics proclaim 'we knew it all along' as soon as a *theoretical* basis has been discovered for some phenomenon they previous fought tooth and nail as 'pseudoscience'. Makes no sense, but I've encountered it many times. On the psychological level, It is one thing to correct mistakes when you encounter them, and quite another to actively seek them out. Personally, I have never known a self-proclaimed skeptic who was biased toward taking investigative initiative with regard to novel discoveries *except* to find fault with the work of others. There is nothing wrong with critique, but in my view there is everything wrong with fostering a chilling effect upon bona-fide inquiry. --------------------------------------------------------------------- -+> Never mind that many individuals have reported direct bodily -+> experience of these forces since time immemorial... -+ Anecdotal evidence? You're coming awfully close to saying that -+ evidence can make up in quantity what it lacks in quality. A systems approach to any body of data *does* weight quantity *significantly*. There are *reasons* for approximative patterns showing up in quantity, and one of the tasks of science is to inquire into the nature of those patterns, and understand both their consistent and inconsistent components, which may both contain valuable information. There are many situations in which exactitudes are *inherently* unavailable, but are effectively arrived at by averaging or triangulating a number of consistent approximations, and the more the better. Any scientist knows that anecdotal evidence can be a starting point. The difference between the scientist and the [true believer or skeptic], is that the scientist is willing to weigh the *likelihood* of something against its *potential importance*. It's like risk-assessment in reverse: you weigh the chances of something occurring (which may be small) against its potential danger (which may be great, as in, say, a meltdown at a nuke near a major city.) To reject consistent anecdotal evidence about something of potential importance because we have not yet run out the math to fifteen decimal places or isolated an active ingredient is to stop science and medicine dead in their tracks. -+> The fact that the sun and moon are, on the average, of identical -+> diameter when viewed from the earth's surface, is another -+> fascinating coincidence that might relate here, given the -+> existing observed mathematical relationships mentioned above. -+ It would be even more fascinating if it were _true_. I didn't specify my tolerances for 'identical.' What are yours? Considering the conceivable range of variation between solar and lunar visual diameters, even a matter of several degrees' difference would, in my opinion, be statistically remarkable. But the average fit is closer than that, isn't it? -+> The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that -+> heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but -+> 'That's funny ...' -- Isaac Asimov -+ Yay! Two gems to steal for my quotations file, from a single -+ posting! I'll second that. 'That's funny' hasn't been run out to fifteen decimal places -- hell, you can't even prove the *existence* of a 'that's funny'! -- but you can bet it has been the starting point for many a significant discovery. -+ One notable characteristic of conspiracy theories is that absence -+ of evidence can always be construed as proving the _success_ of -+ the conspiracy. Consequently, if the theory happens to be dead -+ wrong, you will never be able to discover that fact. That would be characteristic of some (not all) conspiratorial *theorists*, but hardly of the theories themselves. I've certainly never encountered a conspiratorial theory that *rested* upon its own absence of evidence! What I have found interesting, however, is that not one of the major conspiracy theories I've heard advanced in the last 20 years seems, in general way, to *contradict* any of the others. Rather, each one seems to add details and relationships to a fabric with a consistent theoretical basis. That by itself doesn't prove or disprove anything in a binary way, but it definitely seems to nudge the probability curve... -+ As I've mentioned before elsewhere, by the way, I'm currently -+ hiding invisible elephants in my backyard. I happen to be -+ hiding them with great skill and resourcefulness. The fact that -+ no one in the neighbourhood has noticed merely shows how -+ extremely good I am at it. Elephants! I knew it all along! Not only invisible, but insmellible! 8^) Best wishes, Rick. -Dan Drasin ddrasin@well ********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************************