Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 348 Monday, January 14th 1991 Today's Topics: Call The Wrong Number! Re: Don Ecker Re: Couldn't resist Re: Need Information RE: Chuck Harder: FOR THE PEOPLE radio show Re: Don Ecker Re: Couldn't Resist Re: Scanner & OCR Re: Scanner & OCR Re: Need information Re: Couldn't resist Eclipse Re: Scanner & Ocr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark.Matthews@p0.f4.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews) Subject: Call The Wrong Number! Date: 10 Jan 91 21:28:00 GMT After many travails, I'm pleased to announce the availability of The Wrong Number BBS to users and researchers in the N.Y./Northern N.J. area! All ParaNet International Message Echoes are fully functional (except InterNet/UNIX gateway). File library areas are still under construction. Areas will include key ParaNet files and remarkable Alternate Technology/Free Energy/Anti-Gravity articles, papers, and demonstration reports courtesy of the Vanguard Sciences Foundation/KeeleyNet. The Wrong Number BBS ParaNet Pi (1012/4.0) A KeeleyNet/Vanguard Sciences Affiliate (201) 451-3063 300/1200/2400 24 hrs. PC Pursuitable @ NJNEW z z z 3 z z z z z z 3 z z z z z z z 3 z Thankszfor callingzThe Wrong NumberzBBS!z z IKKKK; IKKNK; z z z GWWWW6 GWWWW6 3 zServing N.Y. &zNorthern N.J. as ParaNet Pi zGWWWW6 GWWWW6zZP? z z GWWWW6 GWWWW6ZOMO? z _ z z z z GWWWW6 GWWWW63###3 _1_z z z z U UMMMJJJJJJ8GWWWW63###3__111 __|__ z VN7z 3ppppppppp3GWWWW63###300111 ._____/ z z VJJJ7 3ppppppppp3GWWWW63###300111 z / \z z z VNNNNN73ppppp[_[_[_[_[_[_[##30[[[[] z z :ccccc:3ppppp:~\~\~\~\~\~:##30]]]]] z z :::::::3ppppVWRRRRR7~\~\~:##30[^^^]11 z z z \ VNNNNNNN4ppppLNNNNNN9~\~\~:##30]]]]]111 V7 __ z V7 0\:ccccccc3p^[[CEEEEEE4~\~\~:##30[^^^]1212:\0V::71102_____________V::7____\00 VNNNNNNNN5p^^^CEEEEEE4~\~\~:2220]]]]]22_ I::::; I::::; :cccccccc3p^^^CEEEEEE4~\~\~:2220[^^^]2 V::::::::7 V::::::::7 :::::::::3p^^^CEEEEEE4~\~\~:2220]]]]]VI::::::::::::::;;7RVII::::::::::::::; ___[[\\\\\3p^^^CEEEEEE4~\~\~:222\[[[[_________::___________________::_______ ___[[[^^^CEEEEEE4\[[[[[[[____ :: :: ____[[[[[[[[[[____ S= S= -- Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:310/8 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@p0.f4.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Houston.Mayer@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Houston Mayer) Subject: Re: Don Ecker Date: 11 Jan 91 02:40:00 GMT Maybe he could provide a few tips for some of us out here that have the hand held scanners. -- Houston Mayer - via FidoNet node 1:310/8 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Houston.Mayer@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pecan.cray.com!keith@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM Subject: Re: Couldn't resist Date: 11 Jan 91 18:02:43 GMT From: keith@pecan.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks) Rick Moen writes: > This posting gives me high hopes that you intend to post a few > insights, Insight Number 1. Skeptics appear to focus on only one area of investigation implying strongly that only one area of investigation is worthy of scrutiny. If skepticism a la BAS and PSICOP is a necessary part of science, as has been implied, then it should be applied across the board. We should expect to see in a review of, say, The Skeptical Inquirer that skepticism has been applied uniformly throughout science. But that's not the way it works! PSICOP is set up only to investigate claims of the paranormal. If skeptics really believe in what they are preaching, then they should be injecting themselves into all disciplines of science equally, not in just one area exclusively. Skeptics should insist that magician representatives be present during ANY scientific investigations of any type. This leads to the idea that skeptics are biased philosophically since they have chosen to focus on only one area of investigation. Philosophical bias of this kind does not fit in with the idea of even-handed scientific investigation. In my opinion, this is not a matter of being closed-minded, but rather of being wrong-headed. Insight Number 2. Since it is possible to apply this skepticism evenly across the board, we should indeed look at applying it to every area of investigation. If skepticism is as robust as some might have us believe, then it too should be subjected to a skeptical analysis and survive the bootstrap. This is left as an exercise for the skeptic. Insight Number 3. I believe that skeptics are in the business of putting up road blocks. They probably would deny this saying that you can investigate anything you want (and please let us judge it for you). Open ridicule for the idea of the existance of psychic functioning (as in the cutesy news release) and the portrayal of skeptical organizations as open to any ideas (as long as they are interesting) is contradictory. Skeptics imply the condemnation of an entire path of thinking and then expect proponents of that same path of thinking to consult the skeptic organizations. Now there's some real humor! Insight Number 4. > other than the one about how open-minded you are The value of brainstorming as a way of thinking is that we get lots of ideas. Many of the ideas that are generated by a brain- storming process are apparently crazy, but may serve a purpose of spurring other ideas that turn out to be quite useful. In brainstorming sessions, judgement of ideas is suspended till the session is over. In this way the free-flow of ideas is not inhibited, but promoted. It is well known that judgement can easily kill a brainstorming session. Suspension of judgement about an idea or a path of thinking is an important part of the creative thought process. An important workable idea often arises from a really crazy idea, an idea that would have been closed-off by judgement. Mailing lists like ParaNet have a great potential for generating lots of ideas. We should probably go for a good balance between generating lots of ideas with brainstorming and judging those ideas. I believe that ParaNet is currently skewed to the judgemental side. This probably has the side effect of lots of potential posters not posting because they are afraid of getting flamed by the skeptics. It would be easier to throw an idea out on a non-judgemental mailing list than to lay yourself open to ridicule on a judgemental mailing list. > and how closed-minded sundry folk who have the temerity to call > themselves skeptics are, As I mentioned above, I think that it is not necessarily a problem of being closed-minded but a problem of being wrong-headed. The approach that I have outlined above of condemning a path of thought and then inviting people who use that line of thought to be evaluated by your organizations simply does not make sense. > with which you have favoured us -- oh -- at least a few times. Sometimes the signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver is so low that redundancy must be employed at the transmitter to ensure reliable transmission. -keith -- Keith Fredericks, Cray Research Inc., 655F Lone Oak Dr., Eagan, MN 55121 keith@cray.com (612)MUD-KITY Fax: (612)MUD-KLYX -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: afglsc.span.nasa.gov!webb Subject: Re: Need Information Date: 11 Jan 91 20:18:24 GMT From: webb@afglsc.span.nasa.gov To: Dale Wedge I was born and raised in Ohio but now live in Boston. I assume you are referring to the Spaur-Neff police chase in 1966. I lived in Alliance at the time and actually helped Bill Weitzel with this case, meeting he and the two officers at the Portage Co. Courthouse a few days after the chase. I lost touch with Bill soon after that time. I know he moved to Bradford, PA and taught school there for many years. Whether he is still there or active in UFOs I don't know. What are you doing on the Spaur-Neff case? If you need it, I can provide you with some data from my files on the case. Give me your mail address here on the net. Dave Webb -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hpvclmd.vcd.hp.com!miked Subject: RE: Chuck Harder: FOR THE PEOPLE radio show Date: 11 Jan 91 22:46:09 GMT From: Mike Dobbs A number of folks have been asking about Chuck Harder's 'FOR THE PEOPLE' radio show. It airs weekdays from 2pm to 5pm EST although some stations do not carry all three hours. Two hours of the show is repeated each night on short wave station WWCR at 7.520 MegaHertz from 8-10pm EST. On weekends, this short wave station airs more repeats just as the clock turns from Saturday to Sunday from Midnight to 2am. Those of you who are particularly interested in hearing Richard Hoagland should note that he generally is a guest on the shows during the first hour on Fridays. Occationally he appears at other random times however. Walt Andrus is also a guest once in a while. He was on for all three hours on New Years day he told me. Alaska Anchorage KENI 550 am | Missouri Bolivar KYOO 1200 am Alabama Evergreen WIJK 1470 am | Marshfield KMRF 1510 am Mobile WABB 1480 am | Washington KSLQ 1350 am Montgomery WACV 1170 am | Mississi Crystal Spas WCSP 590 am Arkansas Glenwood KANI 670 am | I-aurel WLAU 1430 am Jonesboro KBTM 1230 am | Natchez KAIN 1040 am Little Rock KBIS 1010 am | Tupelo VVITUP 1490 am Californ Baja XEK 950 am | Montana Billings KBLG 910 am Canoga Pk KWNK 950 am | N. Carol Aberdeen WQNX 1350 am Mendoconi KPMO 1300 am | Eden WEDE 1130 am Palm Desert KNWZ 1270 am | Edenton WZBO 1260 am Connecti Middletown WCNX 1150 am | Graham WSML 1190 am Florida Clearwater WEND 760 am | King WKTE 1090 am DeLand WXVQ 1490 am | Kinston WISP 1230 am Ft Walton Bch WFTW 1260 am | Lexington WLXN 1440 am Gainesville WGGG 1230 am | Rocky Mount WEED 1390 am Kissimmee WMJK 1220am | Weldon WSMY 1400 am New Smyrna Bc wccz 1550 am | Whiteville WTXY 1540 am Punta Gorda WCCF 1580 am | Nevada Laughlin KROL 870 am St Augustine WFOY 1240 am | New York Schenectady WVKZ 1240 am Sanford WTRR 1400 am | Ohio Bellevue WNRR 92.1 fm Tallahassee WFAL 1450 am | Delaware WDLR 1550 am Vero Bch WTFR 1490 am | Marietta WBRJ 910 am Georgia Camilla WCLB 1400 am | Oklahoma Blackwell KOKB 1580 am Gainesville WGGA 1240 am | Oregon Lk Oswego KLVS 1290 am Garden City WNMT 1520 am | St Hlens KOHI 1600 am Vienna W'N 1550 am | Pennsylv Brownsville WASP 1130 am Idaho Idaho Falls KID 590 am | Johnstown WCRO 1230 am Illinois Alton WBGZ 1570 am | Shamokin WISL 1480 am Belleview WIBV 1260 am | S. Carol Clemson WCCP 1560 am Chicago Hts WCGO 1600 am | Greenville WFBC 1330 am Crete WRAS 102.3 fm| Tennesse Chattanooga WGOW 1150 am Harrisburg WEBQ 1240 am | Humboldt WIRJ 740 am Herrin WJPF 1340 am | Nashville(SW) WWCR 7.520MHz Metropolis WRIK 750 am | Oak Ridge WORI 1550 am Murphysboro WINI 1420 am | Texas Amarillo KFNS 1360 am Indiana Ft Wayne WGL 1250 am | Bellville KACO 1090 am Mt Vernon WPCO 1590 am | Utah Ogden KJQN 1490 am Noblesville WYIC 1110 am | Virginia Norton WNVA 1350 am Kansas El Dorado KSPG 1360 am | Onley WESR 1330 am Kentucky Paducah WRIK 98.3 fm | Washingt Tacoma WLAY 1180 am Louisian Lk Charles KAOK 1400 am | Wisconsi Pt Washington WGLB 1560 am Massachu Lowell WCAP 980 am | Ripon WCWC 1600 am Springfield WSPR 1270 am | W. Virgi Bluefield WKOY 1240 am Maine Lincoln WTOX 1450 am | Sanford WSME 1220 am | Michigan Caro WKYO 1360 am | Escanaba WDBC 680 am | Gaylord WSNQ 900 am | Traverse City VVITCM 580 am | Wyoming VVYGR 1530 am | -------- Mike Dobbs / Internet: miked@vcd.hp.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@f9.n310.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Don Ecker Date: 12 Jan 91 03:52:00 GMT > Maybe he could provide a few tips for some of us out > here that have the hand held scanners. Ask him. He may at that. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:310/8 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f9.n310.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@f9.n310.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Couldn't Resist Date: 12 Jan 91 04:05:00 GMT > From: keith@pecan.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks) > It would be easier to throw an idea out on a non- > judgemental > mailing list than to lay yourself open to ridicule on > a > judgemental mailing list. > > > and how closed-minded sundry folk who have the temerity to call > > themselves skeptics are, > > As I mentioned above, I think that it is not > necessarily a problem > of being closed-minded but a problem of being wrong- > headed. > > The approach that I have outlined above of condemning > a path of > thought and then inviting people who use that line of > thought > to be evaluated by your organizations simply does not > make sense. > > > with which you have favoured us -- oh -- at least a few times. > > Sometimes the signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver is > so low that > redundancy must be employed at the transmitter to > ensure reliable > transmission. Keith, Among your "signal-to-noise" I have failed to see any substantive refutation of the findings that were brought forth in Rick's posting about the psychics. Rather than spend bandwidth on personal observations, why not post something that can get a non-judgmental discussion going pertaining to facts? It is obvious that the predictions made did not prove out. That is factual. So, what do you have in the way of refutation for this? Your posting about this being a judgmental list is inaccurate. We are only exercising our freedom to post results of something that was made public. Perhaps you could also elaborate on how we are "judgmental" in an unfavorable way? Thanks, Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:310/8 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f9.n310.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.Ecker@f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker) Subject: Re: Scanner & OCR Date: 11 Jan 91 17:33:00 GMT > Maybe he could provide a few tips for some of us out > here that have the hand held scanners. Houston, what is it that you would like to know? Don -- Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:310/8 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Houston.Mayer@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Houston Mayer) Subject: Re: Scanner & OCR Date: 13 Jan 91 03:40:00 GMT Basic set up of switch settings and how in the heck can I judge the rate of movement during the scan process. I'm pretty sure that lots of practice will be the answer but a tip or two or incouragement would be appreciated. I seem to have the hang of scanning pictures but my text scans come out twisted, broken and in diffent heights. Thanks for the reply and courtesy. -- Houston Mayer - via FidoNet node 1:310/8 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Houston.Mayer@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen) Subject: Re: Need information Date: 10 Jan 91 15:47:34 GMT Dale Wedge (aa440@cleveland.freenet.edu) writes as follows: DW> Also, does anyone know what happened to the files that NICAP DW> had after it went defunct? Probably there are other net posters who are better informed on this than I, but you might try CUFOS. CUFOS was founded in 1973, which is right around when NICAP went under for financial reasons (declining membership -- they kept admitting in public that their evidence for the ET hypothesis was poor, that the Travis Walton case was probably a hoax, etc.). Further, CUFOS has a massive database of case reports, and it would have been logical to give them NICAP's files. Anyhow, CUFOS might well be able to point you to where they went. Best Regards, Rick M. -- Rick Moen - via FidoNet node 1:310/8 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen) Subject: Re: Couldn't resist Date: 13 Jan 91 09:04:02 GMT Keith A. Fredericks (keith@pecan.cray.com) expounds as follows: KF> Skeptics appear to focus on only one area of investigation, KF> implying strongly that only one area of investigation is worthy KF> of scrutiny. KF> If skepticism a la BAS and CSICOP is a necessary part of science, KF> as has been implied, then it should be applied across the board. KF> We should expect to see in a review of, say, _The Skeptical KF> Inquirer_ that skepticism has been applied uniformly throughout KF> science. KF> But that's not the way it works! CSICOP is set up only to KF> investigate claims of the paranormal. KF> If skeptics really believe in what they are preaching, then they KF> should be injecting themselves into all disciplines of science KF> equally, not in just one area exclusively. Keith would no doubt criticise the National Geographic Society for allegedly creating the implication that astronomy is not worthy of study, since it never has articles on that subject. He would say that carpenters imply that _only wood_ is worthy of use in construction, because they don't use steel girders, that physicists imply that chemistry is not worthy of scrutiny because they don't do titrations, etc. The purpose of the skeptics' movement _happens to be_ the critical examination of fringe science/medicine and paranormal claims (which doesn't entail "belief" or "preaching", by the way). That happens to just be a basic fact. That's what the field _concerns_. It is ludicrous to suggest that it _must also_ be the skeptics' business to cover every branch of mainstream science. They have a vast enough territory to cover, as it is. KF> This leads to the idea that skeptics are biased philosophically KF> since they have chosen to focus on only one area of KF> investigation. Philosophical bias of this kind does not fit in KF> with the idea of even-handed scientific investigation. As I've suggested above, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Further, all of this (the whole posting, really) is just a genteel variation on the traditional appeal ad hominem. KF> I believe that skeptics are in the business of putting up road KF> blocks. They probably would deny this saying that you can KF> investigate anything you want (and please let us judge it for KF> you). The good news is that this personal opinion, accompanied by 85 cents, will get you a several-hour ride on most of San Francisco's Municipal Railway system (barring fare increases). The bad news is that it has no other apparent merit. See below. KF> Open ridicule for the idea of the existence of psychic KF> functioning (as in the cutesy news release) and the portrayal of KF> skeptical organizations as open to any ideas (as long as they are KF> interesting) is contradictory. The sentence's initial premise (skeptics ridiculing possiblity of psychic powers' existence) is an obvious error, making the conclusion untenable. Sorry, Keith. Nowhere has Bay Area Skeptics ridiculed that possibility -- in particular, nowhere in the press release in question. Try re-reading? KF> Skeptics imply the condemnation of an entire path of thinking and KF> then expect proponents of that same path of thinking to consult KF> the skeptics' organizations. Now there's some real humor! As above. Wrong opening premise, leading to wrong conclusion. KF> The value of brainstorming as a way of thinking is that we get KF> lots of ideas. Many of the ideas that are generated by a brain- KF> storming process are apparently crazy, but may serve a purpose of KF> spurring other ideas that turn out to be quite useful. The obvious implied premise is that skeptics _oppose_ brainstorming. This premise is yet another blunder! Keith will search in vain for any indication that I or Bay Area Skeptics have opposed brainstorming in any way. At this point, it would be difficult to not suspect a strong personal bias behind these pervasive misapprehensions. KF> I believe that ParaNet is currently skewed to the judgemental KF> side. This probably has the side effect of lots of potential KF> posters not posting because they are afraid of getting flamed by KF> the skeptics. Where _are_ all these guys with the flame-throwers, by the way? The only flamings I've seen in quite a while have been aspersions cast between rival UFOlogists, plus of course the periodic one-note postings against skeptics from Mr. Fredericks. (However, I hereby absolve him of concern for oversensitivity on _our_ part, in case he was as even-handedly worried about _us_ as he was about those other "potential posters".) Isn't it interesting that Keith didn't fault BAS's press release for any _inaccuracies_? One might almost think that Keith regards fact-determination as unimportant, that the key thing on Paranet is that no one to be scared off by "judgement" (which seems to mean any attempt to distinguish fact from fiction). Anyhow, aside from being founded on copious and pervasive fundamental errors, dubious motivation, and an overall appeal to prejudice, _otherwise_, Keith's posting was just great! Best Regards, Rick M. -- Rick Moen - via FidoNet node 1:310/8 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kurt.Lochner@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kurt Lochner) Subject: Eclipse Date: 11 Jan 91 09:11:09 GMT Another tidbit that ran across my shadow..... I've been reading Sagan's latest snoring collection of billions of adjectives..it's about nuclear winter. It was mentioned in retort to me by a friend that even a conventional war would have firestorms sufficient to raise absorbing particulate matter. The parallel given to support this was the cruel winters of WWII. Petroleum "smoke" of an even more recent study was modeled to simulate this effect of lowering the surface temps. Something like 5-10 degrees was consider'd quite harmful and could be likened to a mini-ice age. Geez, this sounds worse than Chicken Little.... "The sky is falling" -- Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:310/8 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Kurt.Lochner@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.Ecker@f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker) Subject: Re: Scanner & Ocr Date: 14 Jan 91 06:25:00 GMT Houston, OK, you first asked; > Basic set up of switch settings and how in the heck > can I judge the rate of movement during the scan > process. I presume you have OCR software, so check your manuel on what it says about your scanner. I have Logitech, both OCR and the Scanman +. My DPI is set at the 300 setting for Point size 6 to 15, ( that is the size of the print that is being scanned ) and the other settings on the card I took from the manuel. > I'm pretty sure that lots of practice will > be the answer but a tip or two or incouragement would > be appreciated. I seem to have the hang of scanning > pictures but my text scans come out twisted, broken > and in diffent heights. You are absolutely correct, practice is what you need to do. If you are finding out that the text is twisted ( and if you can get the text, your settings must be correct) then make sure that when you are scanning, use a straight edge of some type ( perhaps a 12" ruler or a large book ) and "carefully" scan the text down in an even movement, and with testing you should find the movement that will suit you best. > Thanks for the reply and > courtesy. You are more than welcome, and if you need some more help, let me know. Best; Don -- Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:310/8 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f3.n1012.z9.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************************