Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 313 Monday, October 8th 1990 Today's Topics: Verifiable Sources Primary Sources Ed's multi-witness event Re: Primary Sources Re: Pessimism And Optimism Re: Mystery Teletype Re: Mystery Teletype Ed's Multi-witness Event _Out There_ Ufology _Out There_ Jung's Theories of UFOs Odd Aircraft Re: George Green Re: Mystery Teletype Re: _out There_ Re: Ufology _out There_ _out There_ Re: George Green Re: Mystery Teletype Re: GB model Re: CROP CIRCLES _Out There_ Re: Ufology Re: Pessimism and Optimism Paranet Posting Guidelines Re: Gulf Breeze ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Roger Black Subject: Verifiable Sources Date: 5 Oct 90 21:26:02 GMT In Paranet Newsletter #311, John Burke suggests: + Perhaps the echo guidelines should be amended so as to preclude + the posting of any information that is not attributed to a verifiable + source. In other words the Ashtray Command wouldn't count. In those + situations where the person posting can't remember the source, or is + trying to find out who the source is, they should explicitly request + the identity of the source as part of the message. I'm not sure how far you mean to carry this. I have posted a number of items in which I conveyed 'information' which was represented to me as accurate by people I trust, based on their own experiences. I did not give their names because I did not have their permission to do so, and in most cases they would have refused even if I asked. I suppose this kind of anecdotal data falls into the category of 'information that is not attributed to a verifiable source,' but I think it is still worth telling. Sometimes it's that one little fact from way out in left field that makes all the difference. When the intelligence agencies receive information, they classify it by the source of the information and the estimated reliability of the source--e.g., 'This information was received from a long-time informant who has provided accurate information on many occasions,' or 'This information was received from a convicted perjurer who has once or twice provided accurate information but usually cannot be relied upon.' Perhaps the guidelines could ask for a similar approach to non-verifiable information: If you can't cite chapter and verse, at least state the nature of your source and an estimate of its reliability. Then the readers can draw their own conclusions. Question: What is the 'Ashtray Command'? -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian.Clark@f11.n289.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Brian Clark) Subject: Primary Sources Date: 3 Oct 90 15:50:00 GMT > Those who might have something significant to contribute to > the discussions here might decide to "tune out" as a result > of their distaste for antirationalism. I should point out > that discussing the "abduction issue" is one thing, but > there seems to be a good number of people who manage to > comingle their "contactee"-type "experiences" into the > database of research into the abduction question. I mean > people who do not believe they were "abducted" and who > sometimes deny having seen any physical beings in > connection with these "contacts". > > Perhaps the echo guidelines should be amended so as > to preclude the posting of any information that is not > attributed to a verifiable source. In other words the > Ashtray Command wouldn't count. In those situations where > the person posting can't remember the source, or is trying > to find out who the source is, they should explicitly > request the identity of the source as part of the message. Well, this presents a serious problem for those of us who are trying to conduct research from primary sources. As a psychologist, I am equally interested in people who claim to be in contact with the "Ashtar Command" as farmers who found circles in their field!! Part of the purpose of this network is to disiminate raw information. I cringe at the thought of us setting guidelines that say "have to know the source - and it has to be a reputadable source". For example, what if I was in contact with someone who claims to have worked with project Redlight? Should I be forced to verify all their claims before posting anything on that subject in the net, or is that one of the purposes of the net? What if (god forbid) I claimed that I was in contact with the Ashtar Command? Wouldn't it be great if I posted messages in the net so that other people involved in research can pick my brains and maybe help me realize that my stories do/do not have internal consistancy or external validity? Don't censor the net. Brian Clark, University of Missouri -- Brian Clark - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Brian.Clark@f11.n289.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) Subject: Ed's multi-witness event Date: 6 Oct 90 02:27:45 GMT Since the Unsolved Mysteries program showed that Ed was the first one to see the UFO *before* he called for additional witnesses, one has to suspect that Ed might have launched a balloon or kite of some type to shore up his credibility. - John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Sudduth) Subject: Re: Primary Sources Date: 5 Oct 90 19:18:00 GMT I agree, Brian! Any censoring of the net is going to turn many off to the freedom of interaction that is essential to any research. Granted, verbal abuse and personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated. But any information must be free for all to judge. Under the proposed guidelines, even the Lazar information is dubious at best!! -- Don Sudduth - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Sudduth) Subject: Re: Pessimism And Optimism Date: 5 Oct 90 19:25:00 GMT Keith, you have been backed up now by Howard Blum's new book. Remote Viewing research has been going on now for many years. One of the main purposes of the military research has been the remote viewing of information; i.e., documents, computer files, etc. -- Don Sudduth - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark.Matthews@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews) Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype Date: 6 Oct 90 03:50:00 GMT > Elders> Just because *one* photo was fake, doesn't mean > they all were fake. > > Oh. Ha-HAAAAA-hahahahahahahahaha.... Point taken, John! Best, Clark -- Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@f3206.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype Date: 6 Oct 90 08:58:00 GMT John, Have you ever talked to Dr. Robert Nathan of JPL regarding his findings on all of this? For example, he is not happy that Ed used his name in the book the way that he did as he is *not* a believer in the authenticity of the photos. He has some very good, and qualified, points against their authenticity. He definitely stated to me that the video was clearly a pole passing in front of the light. Although Nathan did not perform the exhaustive tests on the photos that Maccabee did, he stated that his trained observations indicated that the photos had something real wrong with them and should he get the funding to perform the same tests that Maccabee did, he would prove this. Perhaps we should organize a fund raising project to get Nathan to study the photos. He has stated he would do it. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f3206.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.DeNero@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don DeNero) Subject: Ed's Multi-witness Event Date: 7 Oct 90 06:38:00 GMT > From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) > > Since the Unsolved Mysteries program showed that Ed was the > first one to > see the UFO *before* he called for additional witnesses, > one has to suspect > that Ed might have launched a balloon or kite of some type > to shore up his > credibility. I understand that there are actually two witnesses who both allegedly photographed the UFO. There was "Mr. Ed" and "Believer Bill." I have also heard rumors that "Believer Bill" is really Ray Griffin, whose yard one set of photos were taken from. Griffin refuses to discuss this publicly for reasons unknown, but he also is a self-proclaimed "inside man" to what he claims are "The Elders," a group of "ultra-intelligences" who control all using Griffin as a medium, or something like this, to get the message out to mankind that they had better straighten up and fly right before it is too late. Actually, it appears more to be a classic study in cult intelligence. However, more interesting is what the real relationship is between Ed Walters and Ray Griffin. I wonder how come no one has ever taken the time to question this? Furthermore, I wonder why MUFON has never made any of this information public? This is a pretty interesting forum. New here from Compuserve. What else do you talk about? -- Don DeNero - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.DeNero@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f20.n1011.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: _Out There_ Date: 5 Oct 90 07:46:00 GMT Jim: When I was on your board yesterday I noticed that you asked me what I thought of _Out There_. Your message hasn't found its way here yet, but I'll answer it anyway ... At the outset I was very enthusiastic. After all, here was a NYT big shot who was going to help us "blow the lid off" the coverup once and for all. Then I started to notice factual inaccuracies, some of which have already been pointed out here. I stated to John Hicks that the numbers Blum used in discussing the Drake equation were wildly different from any I had seen before. Blum called Roger Ramey "Roger Ramsey" and his discussion of (the book) _The Philadelphia Experiment_ was all goofed up "a novel about a voyage to a futuristic world". Phil The Thrill made a good point whehe said that the very idea that a top-secret group would be called "the UFO Working Group" is absurd. It would have a code name like Project Dum-dum or something. I think that the disinformants sent Blum on a "wild goose chase". The very idea that the "powers that be" would single out Elmwood, Wisc. as "the best case" for UFO reality is laughable. His remark that the CIA had a keen interest in the Lonnie Zamora case was alot more plausable. My big beef with Blum concerns his division of UFOlogy into 2 camps: "believers" vs "skeptics". In Blum's oversimplified view of ufology, most of us here on ParaNet don't exist; nor could CUFOS exist. The MJ-12 debate is simply "Moore vs Klass". Blum has no room for CAUS, in spite of the fact that he listed Larry and Barry as sources. Bottom line: Don't waste your money. Wait for the paperback. -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f20.n1011.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Allen.Roberts@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Allen Roberts) Subject: Ufology Date: 5 Oct 90 08:54:05 GMT You are quite right in saying that our group is full of many charlatans and folks of the caliber of Jimmy and Tammy Baker. I downloaded a copy of a speech given by one currently famous UFO researcher who is a strong advocate of MJ-12, the Kennedy Assassination theory, and a lot of other bazaar things. I forget his name this second. Anyway, I plan to write a rebuttal of most all his beliefs. I consider him to be on the fringe of reality, even for UFOlogy! When it is complete, I will upload it here. I think you will like it. -- Allen Roberts - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Allen.Roberts@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul.Faeder@p0.f0.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Faeder) Subject: _Out There_ Date: 7 Oct 90 03:37:12 GMT In a message of <05 Oct 90 00:46:00>, John Burke (9:1011/20) writes: > I think that the disinformants sent Blum on a "wild goose chase". >The very idea that the "powers that be" would single out Elmwood, Wisc. >as "the best case" for UFO reality is laughable. I haven't read Blum's book but from what I understand, he obtained his information from members of the intelligence community. Now, whether or not this book is fact or fiction, is there enough evidence in there to prove that the US Gov't does in fact maintain a disinformation campaign? If so, shouldn't we ask why they are feeding disinformation about a phenomena that they admit doesn't exist? -- Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f0.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Jung's Theories of UFOs Date: 5 Oct 90 05:44:00 GMT > I have run into several personal accounts of people who have had a > personal doomsaying event. In fact, I had a pseudo-doomsaying event > this summer: a partial psychological, partial psychic event where a > cosmology was unfolded and "the end", coming really soon, was described > in terms of a conflict between "power over" and "power with" (or, in > other theories, that could be called "evil versus good" or "democratic > Americans versus the secret government"). Beginning to sound familiar? > Anyway, as I find sources on the Doomsayer Phenomenon, I will of course > post excerpts here. > Sounds fascinating, and definitely a unique area of research. Please keep us posted. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Odd Aircraft Date: 5 Oct 90 05:52:00 GMT The most interesting thing about that article is, of course, that it appears in AvWeek, which is Phil Klass' old stomping grounds. Can anyone tell me why these sightings are of such interest to AvWeek all of a sudden? Where were they a few years ago when such sightings were taking place nightly in many areas? Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton) Subject: Re: George Green Date: 5 Oct 90 22:21:00 GMT How would you go about verifying George Greens claims of alien contact? -- Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton) Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype Date: 5 Oct 90 22:29:00 GMT RE: Model on a pole Tommy Smith, who claims to have worked with ED in makeing some hoax photos of the UFO says they did it by putting the model on the end of a stick and taping a flashlight to the bottom of the stick and wrapping black tape around the stick. I'm sure you have seen the photo's where the bottom of the UFO appears to be "cut-off". Some have suggested that the cutoff may have been from the model having been sitting on a table, but after listening to Smith's description of how some of the photos were made, I can see another way the "cut-off" at the bottom would come about. Since the flashlight would taped to the "front" of the stick, the cone of light shining up toward the bottom of the model would be cut-off by the stick that is in the way. It would, in essence, cast a shadow and it might easily produce the same effect we see in those photo's that show the flat bottom. -- Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Sudduth) Subject: Re: _out There_ Date: 7 Oct 90 15:04:00 GMT There are plenty of reasons to feed disinformation about a phenomena that the US Government claims doesn't exist! Just look at Bill Moore. The more they confuse the investigators with false leads, the "safer" they are! It's easy and it works! -- Don Sudduth - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Sudduth) Subject: Re: Ufology Date: 7 Oct 90 15:06:00 GMT What is difficult about those who seem like they're on the fringe is that some truth may be hidden in the fringe! -- Don Sudduth - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Sudduth@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: _out There_ Date: 7 Oct 90 15:47:00 GMT > Phil The Thrill made a good point whehe said that the > very idea that a top-secret group would be called "the UFO > Working Group" is absurd. It would have a code name like > Project Dum-dum or something. I agree, John. It just sounded too much like a work of fiction rather than an account of a real situation. I found that Blum wrote too much what sounded like in the first person. I also found it funny that there was very little mentioned about the formal history of the government's involvement in UFOs. He almost made it sound like the working group was the first formal study launched by the government. > I think that the disinformants sent Blum on a "wild > goose chase". The very idea that the "powers that be" > would single out Elmwood, Wisc. as "the best case" for UFO > reality is laughable. His remark that the CIA had a keen > interest in the Lonnie Zamora case was alot more plausable. This is curious too. Doesn't it sound a lot like the Doty/Howe Covenant? Someone known as a "deep throat" passes information to a journalist and leads them on a journey of sensational wild-eyed alien hunts. It almost seems too convenient that Mr. NSA would suddenly slip something about UFOs while talking about the Walker spy case. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: _out There_ Date: 7 Oct 90 16:20:00 GMT > I haven't read Blum's book but from what I understand, he > obtained his information from members of the intelligence > community. Now, whether or not this book is fact or > fiction, is there enough evidence in there to prove that > the US Gov't does in fact maintain a disinformation > campaign? If so, shouldn't we ask why they are feeding > disinformation about a phenomena that they admit doesn't > exist? It provides another good source of disinformation study material. Just as does the other stuff that we have been assaulted with of late, i.e., Bill Cooper and others. What would be interesting is for Brian Clark to give us some information on what it is about UFOs that might appeal to people psychologically that causes such responses. The disinformation does not bother me, but the reaction of the people to it do. I classify this as a phenomena of sorts. Any time that you have large masses of people reacting a certain way, I feel it becomes a reasonable concern for the government due to the fact that it could be the result of psychological warfare launched by an adversarial government designed at disrupting law and order. We have seen it in operation with the race riots of the 60s, and other events in our contemporary history. Psych warfare seems to be a very effective way of creating such derision. It works here too. In the last ten years, there has been a substantial increase in CE-IV reports. Just in the last year, and seen on ParaNet, there has been a tremendous increase in the activity of persons claiming to have experienced abductions or the witnessing of craft. In the southern United States, we have also seen an increase in reporting and the subsequent movement by these people to "religious" type groups who claim to be in contact with the entities. The interesting thing is that these cases do not fit the normal pattern observed and documented in previous years. Although the data is not sufficient to render a conclusion concerning the validity of these reports, we cannot undermine the fact that large numbers of people are accepting UFOs as de facto without any demonstratable proof. The unfortunate thing is that abductions have been so widely publicized that one wonders just how much of the reporting being done is the result of a reality or the result of hallucination brought about by subliminal hypnotic suggestion. Omni magazine published a questionaire back in the late 70s, I believe, or early 80s, concerning abduction. I read the article very carefully and found that it was highly suggestive. Furthermore, I have met Budd Hopkins, considered to be a leading authority on the abduction phenomenon, and was not impressed professionally. The bottom line here is that there are too many variables involved that makes a scientifically controlled investigation next to impossible. Hypnotic regression is *not* a reliable method to base conclusions of the nature that I have seen coming from Hopkins. However, using the sensational nature of this, together with those who are viewed to be experts, makes for a very interesting problem in disseminating the real from the fantasy within people's minds. Therefore, we must look at all aspects, including the possibility that people are being influenced on a mass scale for some well-defined reason. Instead of turning our backs on what is going on, we should be looking hard at this and attempting to determine what is causing it. There are many theories about this. Vallee's theory is that we are being manipulated by an intelligence beyond our scope and reasoning. Keyhoe made remarks in his books about the possibility of psych warfare being effected through our efforts with SETI, but coming from a real foreign intelligence. What are your ideas? Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n208.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matt.Story@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Matt Story) Subject: Re: George Green Date: 7 Oct 90 23:00:00 GMT Well, not so much as verifying his story, but wanting to know if he has been discredited in the UFO circle as a "Bilkum" type It seems he has some books for sale entittled "The Phoenix Journals" I'm trying to establish if he is a legitimate researcher, or another individual jumping on an "I saw a UFO bandwagon, and now I'm trying to make a living off it". Follow me ? -- Matt Story - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Matt.Story@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: Re: Mystery Teletype Date: 6 Oct 90 18:14:00 GMT CM> Very interesting. Did you see the "Unsolved Mysteries" Yep, they did a pretty good job. It's all rather old news for me, but that's just because of proximity, contacts with investigators and interest in the case. I'm glad you made that observation about Mayor Ed Grey. Interestingly, the Gulf Breeze Chamber of Commerce thinks ufos are the best thing since beach sand. They gave each attendee at the symposium a packet of all sorts of ads and coupons. UFOs are a fairly big business in the area. Note that Grey is going directly against the business wind, which I'd think would be political suicide. Why is he doing this? I think he has a hidden agenda, and hidden motives. It'd be rather interesting to find out those items. jbh -- John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: Re: GB model Date: 5 Oct 90 08:17:01 GMT JS> Which could be a simple artifact of viewing angle, Could be, but you'd expect the object in the upper part of the picture to be flatter than the model straight on. It's not. However you might look at it, the model doesn't match anything in the photos. You and I know Don's rather a true believer. I discovered something that could conceivably have a great effect; at least one witness was out of sight of both Ed and his truck for at least several minutes. Actually, that doesn't really matter. It would take less than 15 seconds to pull it off. My point is that Don duly reported that to me, but then he clammed up and wouldn't listen to anything else. He's rapidly losing credibility. I don't think the "flatness" of the model is what caused the investigators to say they immediately knew the model wasn't a match, it's also the other factors. Not enough "windows," different bottom shape etc. JS> Mayor Ed Gray, I believe. Somehow that's not surprising at all. Did you know that Ed Grey's been more vociferous than Phil Klass? Wonder what axe he's grinding, since the GB Chamber of Commerce thinks ufos are the best thing since beach sand. I'll poke around on the house plans. It looks like I'll have another chance to talk with most of the major players in Jan. Think up some questions. jbh -- John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: Re: CROP CIRCLES Date: 5 Oct 90 08:18:02 GMT JD> The tracks I saw in the photos in the paper were very JD> narrow and there was only one track. I've seen those in many of the photos. I think what we see are actually tracks made by people walking here and there. I don't think we've seen any photos made before lots of people trampled around; that is, a virgin circle. jbh -- John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: _Out There_ Date: 7 Oct 90 17:31:00 GMT Thanks, John. That pretty much spells it out for me. Can it be said, then, that "THE" book has yet to be written? Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton) Subject: Re: Ufology Date: 7 Oct 90 22:10:00 GMT Sounds like the person whose name you can't remember might be one Bill Cooper. -- Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton) Subject: Re: Pessimism and Optimism Date: 7 Oct 90 22:20:00 GMT It seems to me that your real compliant is that a couple of people don't agree with your assesment of the situation in regard to remote viewing. You seem to be saying there is a lot of good evidence for it done by reputable people. I simply don't agree with that assesment. If there is some specific experiment you would like to cite why not just cite it and how it was done and if anyone wants to discuss it they can. If you think there is some tie in with UFO's then tell us what you think the tie in is and how it ties in and again, if there are people interested in following up they will chime in. It doesn't do a whole lot of good to castigate people simply because they have not reached the same conclusions as you have. -- Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: keith@pecan.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks) Subject: Paranet Posting Guidelines Date: 8 Oct 90 15:43:18 GMT There has been some discussion concerning the rules for posting to Paranet. Some users think that speculation should be identified as such. Other users think that the Paranet posting rule: > Any user who is found to have knowingly and deliberately posted false or > misleading information regarding the activities of the United States > Government, its intelligence agencies and/or operatives, with respect > to the investigation of UFOs or other related matters, will be locked > out of the network immediately and permanently, and their name > circulated to other UFO investigatory groups. is arbitrary. Robert White writes: +Which presuposes, of course, that some all seing manager of fidonet (I am +on usenet) knows what is false and what is not. Why attempt to restrict free speech? My vote is to adopt similar rules that apply for a USENET moderated newsgroup. If some poster is violating some law by posting some information, then that should be looked at closely and reported to the proper officials. I think that this rule unfairly attempts to restrict what people can say in a public forum. Furthermore I would argue that access to this newsletter/mailing list should not be denied to anyone except those who are violating the law when they post. This concerns the internet side of the mailing list of which I am a member. Did anyone ever make any progress as far as making this into a USENET newsgroup? -keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cyrill@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Cyro Lord) Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze Date: 8 Oct 90 18:09:09 GMT In article <68437.270C31BF@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton) writes: >Unsolved Mysteries carried a segment last night that was an update of a >earlier segment. This one was fairly well balance I thought and >carried quite a bit of info on the recent allegations of Hoax. They >showed the Model found in the attic AND the used it to duplicate one of >the classic photos of Mr. Ed's UFO. (deleted for space) > A very interesting show. Yes, except, I find it very hard to believe that if I wanted to put up a hoax, I would leave around stuff that would discredit my claim (1) and use a youth (2) to do this. Now, Tommy Smith would have me believe that he sat on his information for years (2-3 forgot) so I do agree with Ed about Tommy as no one asked him the hard questions like: Why did you wait all this time to come forward... Why did Ed use you in the first place... When did he tell you about this project... Why didn't his parents, who he says he told not appear on TV and say if they believed him. (I believe at the time this project was done, he was about 17 so what did he have that Ed wanted?) What did he have that ED needed and why didn't ED offer to buy him. Now on to the 'UFO'. How nice that these folks found this laying in the attic of the home they brought and how nice this reporter just 'happened to come by after all this time and ask if they had found anything like a model of a UFO laying around the house'. (Boy, this really smells). Nows about the photos, having a real background in this stuff, I will say any photo can be faked INCLUDING ONE THAT I WANT TO DISCREDIT GIVEN THE TIME TO DO SO. This includes using the inlarger and timing to make everything come out just as I want it. One must note that U/M (the show) were shown photos that were already done, that they were not present when these photos were printed (they neveer sayed) and for all we know, this 'expert' just copied ED's photo. Let look at this from a neutral point and you will see Big holes in both stories. The only one I see that made money from this is ED so what did he tell Tommy he would gain by helping (1) and how could he be doing all this in his yard without someone seening that lived around him. Of course, I have some idea of how 'special op' and disinformation operation are run and this may be making be look to hard at this but the timing if way off here and I really smell a large rat. Remember, this doesn't mean I believe ED either, just that all this just happen to unfold after all this time. -- Cyro Lord Alpha Comm. Dev. Corp. - DOMAIN cyrill@scicom.alphacdc.com UUCP {ncar,nbires,boulder,isis}!scicom!cyrill Endeavor to Persevere - Chief Dan George ********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************************