Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 364 Tuesday, February 12th 1991 Today's Topics: Abductee/Contactee My Second Article Ufo-journal Of Facts Skeptics Echo Guidelines Meeting Announcement Abductee/contactee Ideas to Ponder Soviet UFO Crash Story ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moderator's Note: Please be sure you have alias 'paramod@scicom....' to 'infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com' for article submissions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wam.umd.edu!infinity Subject: Abductee/Contactee Date: 10 Feb 91 00:15:12 GMT From: David Elmore Coleman Subject: My Second Article Date: 8 Feb 91 22:45:00 GMT > From: David Elmore Coleman > >> In reference to the Hudson Valley Sightings in New York and Connecticut >> during the 1980s, it was often seen that UFOs would focus beams of >> light on lakes and reservoirs of the region. However, I don't think >> anyone noted that from Candlstick Reservoir in Connecticut, to >> Bridgeport, across to Mt. Kisco in New York, and up to Putnam (?) county, >> is about the greatest concentration of lakes in the northeast U.S? If >> you graph the area of the sightings onto a map of New York-Connecticut, >> you will see that the sightings fill the lakes region very well but >> rarely venture beyond (i.e to Enfield and New Haven, Connecticut.) >> This is more evidence for the relationship between the boomerang UFOs >> and their apparent interests in water or lakes. + From: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) + As I recall, the objects were also observed to have + extended some type of appendage into the water. I find + this very curious. To your knowledge, is there anything + unique about those bodies of water, i.e., minerals, + composition, etc? I have thought about looking into this. I will check some landform and geological maps, if I can find them. >> A lot of investigators of abductee experiences, with the exception of >> Dr. Leo Sprinkle, tend to discredit contactee experiences (as opposed to >> abductee experiences.) But, I don't think they realize how many >> abductee experiences seem to overlap contactee >> experiences. John >> Bielinski for example, who is an average abductee with the point scars >> and stuff, is a Connecticut MUFON section director. ... >> a couple of his friends have all been abducted. He reports that he >> has been trained in the operation of UFOs, and has been told he will >> have something to do with partial planetary evacuation at the time of >> coming Earth changes,.. + ...I have not seen many cases of + crossover where an abductee and contactee are concerned. + At least not within a valid body of research or data. + Secondly, depending upon what the person is doing with + respect to his/her position as a State Section Director for + MUFON and the personal experiences that this person has + had, would be of major concern to me. ... For anyone in a capacity of + administration to advance that they have the answers, is + highly unscientific and maybe, in my opinion, very + irresponsible. To say that Mr. Bielinski and friends and + sisters have all been abducted is not a scientific finding. Mr. Bielinski is not publicly advancing his experiences, nor is he assuming his 'answers' are correct when talking and debating with other people interested in UFOs. My friend Steve Marcus of Connecticut, who is a member of both MUFON and CAUS, has himself not been abducted (to his memory), but his wife and (then) four year old daughter prodigy have. His wife unfortunately changed her mind on going to a hypnotist to dig out her experiences, but she remembers being told about big Earth changes coming, although that had been the first she had heard of the idea of Earth changes. The experiences had been traumatic for her, in the vein of an abductee experience. + ... Of paramount importance to this is that an abductee's account is always + similar in the basic 'onboard' experience, such as that the + examination was very impersonal, very little actual + communication, either telepathic or otherwise, and brought + to a speedy conclusion without any explanation. On the + contactee side, many different things are reported that are + always never similar to the abductee accounts. Reports from + contactees sometimes do not even involve a UFO or vessel + where they are taken, instead they report that something or + someone conveys a 'divine' message to them and that the + whole purpose for the contact is an errand of salvation. +Mike I think the indication is that most alien races are watching our interface with upcoming Earth changes, and only a few wish to take a highly active part in `salvation' as you put it. A problem is that there is a wide variety of degrees of 'contactee.' Some are 'channeled,' which makes them little different than direct New Age spirit communications. Some meet aliens in their homes, in the forest, or in the mountains. Some are actually taken on board ships. The Andreasson Affair seems to be positioned perfectly in between abductee and contactee. Within the contactee movement, there is plent of room for abductee experiences, as according to this movement, aliens have many medical interests in their concern for our dealing with upcoming Earth changes. Supposedly, 'Ashtar Command,' as it is nicknamed for our sake, is the main group in charge of seeding forms of Earth life in other systems (i.e by cattle mutilation,) and in charge of partial evacuation of the planet. Most of the other groups, 70 if you believe the Andreasson Affair is a good investigation, have little involvement in the upcoming changes. They are more interested in observing the changes, and, apparently, interacting with a few Earth people, out of curiousity, willingness to help, and a few other reasons. Thus, in the eyes of the contactee movement, it is not unusual that there are a smaller amount of in between cases. Any 'variety' in contactee cases I consider to be a result of there being a good number of non-omniscient alien races, interference caused by incompatibility between the thought patterns of the alien and the contactee, and the interference from mischeivous entities masquerading as ETs. These reasons obviously depend on whether the contactee experience is real or fake, but my point is that the contactee movement is actually consistent with itself. It is my opinion that the majority of information written on abductee experiences does somewhat subconsciously ignore the idea of cross-over cases, because the predominance of strict contactee and strict abductee experiences seem to indicate that there should not be any cross-over cases. Thus, in abductee literature, there does not seem to be much knowledge portrayed of some of the cross-over cases that do exist. The cross-over cases are semi-consciously assumed to be nonexistent or hoaxed. This is an ignorance that is causing those investigators strictly interested in abductee experiences to fulfill their own self-prophecy that abductee experiences are the only ones which are real. This same kind of thing is what (Michael?) Persinger is doing. He can fit maybe 80 percent of cases to be possibly related to fault lines, but he has to pretend that the Gulf Breeze cases, the Hudson Valley cases, the radiation burn abductee cases, are all nonexistent. First of all, nearly every place in the country seems to be within 50 to 100 miles of a minor fault line. The more detailed you look, the more common the fault lines are. I recently looked at a map of Kansas showing literally hundreds of faults covering the state. So, it is hard for his theory to be contested, until you look into the physical UFO cases. Second of all, one cannot exclude such strong evidence as the Gulf Breeze cases and the landing site cases so that your equally circumstantial seismic theory becomes reasonable. Another example of this kind of logic is the vortex theory of the crop circles. Some of the proponents of this theory are now saying that the new, complicated pictograms are hoaxes while the simpler circles are caused by real vorticeses. 'Hoaxers could not possibly make all of the circles, so let us call the complex ones hoaxes and the others the product of air vortices!' Claiming that either a hoaxer or an air vortex could even produce *one* of the simplest circles is an extraordinary claim by itself. Saying that *both* can is simply unbelievable. More galactic thoughts from: Amicitia Subjugat Omnia Hweohthte... (Hwe-oath-T) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- David E. Coleman infinity@wam.umd.edu 8125 48th Ave, Apt. 612 College Park, MD 20740 1-(301)-474-7424 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Unknowingly, he picked up a whirly blue throwstone with strange hieroglyphics on the opposite side he didn't see, and he tossed it into the sunlit stream; A note said he had opened a gate to some place indescribable. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Greenen) Subject: Ufo-journal Of Facts Date: 8 Feb 91 13:58:00 GMT Dave; you can write to: UFO Journal of Facts P.O. Box 17206 Tucson, AZ 85710 Now I enjoyed the magazine and I thought the articules were very interesting. I'm a State Section Director for MUFON but to tell you the truth, I am tried of the articules in MUFON journal. It's seems like a bunch of PHD's trying to impress there colleague with a bunch of words that they spent days looking up in the dictionary. In the Journal of Facts, it's interesting reading and you don't have to be spending half the day looking up words. The articule that mention Frank Drake intrigued me, I don't know if its true but I wouldn't discard it either. ENJOY 73's ---Jim--- -- Jim Greenen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Rogers) Subject: Skeptics Date: 9 Feb 91 19:37:33 GMT At the risk of drawing all the fire to myself, allow me to suggest that the skeptic bashing and counter-bashing has gone far enough. Because someone either believes or does not believe in the subjects discussed here does not mean that they are "right" or "wrong". I would hope that all members of this discussion would attempt to keep their emotions in check, and, instead, present logical argumentation to support their cases. The current thread vis-a-vis the role of skepticism is neither productive, nor, from my perceptions, freindly. The position of Paranet has *ALWAYS* been that *ALL* responsible, thought-out, supportable positions are to be considered. Skepticism included. I suggest that the bashing end and we return to business without prejudice. Doug Rogers Echo Co-ordinator -- Doug Rogers - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Rogers) Subject: Echo Guidelines Date: 9 Feb 91 19:46:10 GMT New readers are always joining Paranet. For their benefit, allow me to review the rules of posting which we ask all our users to adopt: ******* PARANET ECHO POLICIES ******** The following are guidelines for the operation of the Paranet Echos on member boards. Please take a moment to read (and understand) these policies. If we'll adopt these attitudes, we'll have a more polite, effective network. 1. No anonymous messages may be posted on the network. Some Paranet BBS's allow users to use "handles", and USENET users have no opportunity to place their names in the "From" field. If a user uses a handle, then all posts to Paranet Echos must be signed at the end of the message using the user's REAL NAME. In the case of USENET posts, it would help to place the ADDRESSEE's REAL NAME in the subject field. It is the respon- sibility of the Sysop of each Paranet Node to enforce this requirement, either by reviewing all messages before release, or by disallowing Paranet access to users using handles. 2. Personal Attacks are *NOT* allowed in the Net. In any echo dealing with issues as emotional as those with which we deal it is a matter of course that the validity of testimony on the part of certain individuals will be called into question. It is important, however, to remember that *ALL* parties are to be treated with respect. If you wish to question a person's validity, state your reservations AS YOUR OPINION. For example: "John Doe is a totally unreliable witness" could leave you legally vulnerable. "I BELIEVE John Doe to be a totally unreliable witness" is much better, especially if you can add "because...". Please be careful how you judge the parties involved, and attempt to defend your contentions. 3. 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. 4. Direct Flames are best posted elsewhere. They will not be tolerated in the echos. 5. References should be included if required for clarity. Some users tend to copy the entirity of previous messages before responding, while others never quote anything and simply make comments about previous posts. You should remember that many boards don't hold all messages forever. Quote (if your software allows it) or at least paraphrase (write a simple summary of) the content of the message you refer to. Please DO NOT quote the entire message, as this is just expense for all boards concerned. Quote only the germaine material. 6. Please make all messages conform to the specified content of the Echo Area in which you are posting. Putting the messages in the right pile makes it MUCH easier to make sense out of the stacks of messages. 7. Enforcement. Users who violate these guidelines will be advised of the lapse by the Echo Moderator. After three violation notices, the user is to be locked out of Paranet areas by the sysop. A FIRST lockout will be for THIRTY DAYS. A SECOND lockout will be for NINETY days. The THIRD lockout will be PERMANENT. Sysops who refuse to lock out troublesome users can be dropped from the net by the Paranet Administrator. Users who believe the Moderator has been unfair in requesting a lockout can request that their Sysop plead their case in the Sysop Echo. In such cases, ALL net Sysops will be asked to vote on the matter. Vote of the net is binding on all concerned. Doug Rogers Echo Moderator -- Doug Rogers - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: violet.berkeley.edu!chalmers Subject: Meeting Announcement Date: 10 Feb 91 16:16:51 GMT From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.) The first H.A.S.T. dinner meeting and lecture of 1991 will take place on Friday, February 22, at 7:00 PM at The Morningside Thai Restaurant, 6710 Morningside Dr., Houston, TX 77030 in the West University-Medical Center area one block north of Holcombe Bldv. between Kirby and Greenbriar. To RSVP or for further information, please call (713) 933-0007. The speaker will be John Harling, a chemical engineer and lawyer, who will speak on the the Burgess Shale fauna and Chaos theory as examples of scientific resistance to new paradigms. The Houston Association for Scientific Thinking (H.A.S.T.) is a non-profit, educational organization of like-minded volunteers whose OBJECTIVES are: -To promote logical thinking and to encourage critical evaluation of evidence presented in support of different points of view. -To encourage individuals to be more skeptical and to inform them of the dangers of belief without evidence. -To inform people of the differences between science and pseudoscience -To investigate the claims and events of an apparently pseudoscientific or paranormal nature with a critical, but open, mind. -To provide reliable information to others about such claims. For further information on H.A.S.T., please call (713) 933-0007 and leave a message. H.A.S.T. extends an invitation to any interested person in the greater Houston area to attend our meetings and parties. It is also looking for stimulating speakers and suggestions for future programs. this may be interest to many on the net if they live in the Houston Texas area ---- John -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Abductee/contactee Date: 10 Feb 91 09:42:00 GMT > From: David Elmore Coleman > I have thought about looking into this. I will check > some landform and > geological maps, if I can find them. This would be very interesting. I would also be curious at exploring the data a little more in detail as to what the witnesses had seen the object doing while over the water. I believe that one case that I read about indicated that it appeared that the object was taking in water from a lake or something similar. I also recall that there is a UFO case in Australia where the object apparently drained a large water holding tank and even left the residue stacked in the center of the tank in a spindle-formation. It appears that water may be of some use to the objects. > Mr. Bielinski is not publicly advancing his > experiences, nor is > he assuming his 'answers' are correct when talking and > debating > with other people interested in UFOs. My friend Steve > Marcus of > Connecticut, who is a member of both MUFON and CAUS, > has himself > not been abducted (to his memory), but his wife and > (then) four year > old daughter prodigy have. His wife unfortunately > changed her mind on > going to a hypnotist to dig out her experiences, but > she remembers > being told about big Earth changes coming, although > that had been the first > she had heard of the idea of Earth changes. The > experiences had been > traumatic for her, in the vein of an abductee > experience. Again, this is highly subjective until all of the data can be analyzed by competent authorities. I have always been curious as to what causes the contactee to equate the experience to that of a religious experience. An example of this is the Andreasson case. In her experience, she observed many symbolic things, such as the Phoenix rising from the ashes and the geometrical stuctures observed while in her journey. Although I have read most of the material on this case, I come away with a less-than-convinced opinion of the case's validity. However, this is not to say that the contactee movement doesn't warrant careful study to determine if it indeed does have a connection to the UFO phenomenon. Too, with abductees, I am not sure that hypnotic regression holds much in the way of reliable findings since I have seen all too many times the hypnotist not being necessarily qualified at adminstering the regression or interpretation of it. As in the case of Betty and Barney Hill, Dr. Simon was a psychiatrist. His work was highly lauded as reliable and qualified. Dr. Simon's findings were inconclusive, which indicates to me that there was not enough information available to make a determination of what actually happened to the Hills'. I am concerned over the apparent recreational attitude that is taken by so-called "hypnotherapists" who possess no medical credentials whatsoever, running around treating abductees with no concern for the seriousness that the problem poses to their mental and physical health. Until such time as abduction is proven to be an actual physical interaction with alien beings, the symptoms should be medically treated by competent, licensed medical personnel to assure that no damage is being done to the victim as a result of wholesale amateur regression. One group which purports to be a scientific organization is allowing such practices by unqualified personnel to be performed almost on a daily basis. This is highly irresponsible. There is yet another complication which arises as a result of this: The body of data that we are presented with is useless and tends to disinform the UFO community with statistics that are unfounded and inaccurate. The actual numbers of estimated abductions cannot be of any statistical value as the methods used to arrive at these figures are flawed. So, this leaves us right where we started, no closer to the truth than we were ten years ago. > I think the indication is that most alien races are > watching our > interface with upcoming Earth changes, and only a few > wish to take > a highly active part in `salvation' as you put it. This is also highly subjective. Your comment implies that we have actually discovered that there are, in fact, aliens at work within our environment. There has been no proof of this whatsoever. I will agree that the evidence collected thus far strongly implies that there is something going on which could have an alien origin to it, however this is inconclusive. > A problem is that there is a wide variety of > degrees of 'contactee.' Some are 'channeled,' which makes them little > different than direct New Age spirit communications. Some meet aliens in > their homes, in the forest, or in the mountains. Some are actually taken > on board ships. The Andreasson Affair seems to be positioned perfectly > in between abductee and contactee. Within the contactee movement, there > is plent of room for abductee experiences, as according to this > movement, aliens have many medical interests in their concern for our dealing > with upcoming Earth changes. Supposedly, 'Ashtar Command,' as it is > nicknamed for our sake, is the main group in charge of seeding forms of Earth > life in other systems (i.e by cattle mutilation,) and in charge of > partial evacuation of the planet. Most of the other groups, 70 if you > believe the Andreasson Affair is a good investigation, have little > involvement in the upcoming changes. They are more interested in > observing the changes, and, apparently, interacting with a few Earth people, > out of curiousity, willingness to help, and a few other reasons. Thus, > in the eyes of the contactee movement, it is not unusual that there > are a smaller amount of in between cases. Any 'variety' in > contactee cases I consider to be a result of there being a good number > of non-omniscient alien races, interference caused by incompatibility > between the thought patterns of the alien and the contactee, and > the interference from mischeivous entities masquerading as ETs. These > reasons obviously depend on whether the contactee experience > is real or fake, but my point is that the contactee movement is > actually consistent with itself. I agree that there are substantial events taking place that seem to involve a lot of people, all feeling basically the same thing. However, something that is not being addressed in your comments have to do with the various variables involved here. For example, how much of this is the result of public awareness brought about by the various forms of media and communication among group participants? An interesting factoid is that a few years ago, Omni Magazine ran an article authored by Budd Hopkins and Bruce Maccabee, dealing with abduction. The article was highly suggestive and contained a questionaire which strongly impressed the participant toward the possibility of being an abductee. All of the necessary ingredients were contained in the article which would trigger a person's imagination and posed leading questions that would surely elicit a particular answer. After reading the article which detailed the usual symptoms of abduction, the participant was asked to recollect his/her past and ponder the question of abduction. Not surprising, the reported incidence of abduction jumped dramatically until we now see numbers in the millions. To date, nothing has been done to provide a controlled test situation to substantiate the numbers of alleged abductees. > This same kind of thing is what (Michael?) > Persinger is doing. He can fit maybe 80 percent of cases to be possibly > related to fault lines, but he has to pretend that the Gulf Breeze cases, the > Hudson Valley cases, the radiation burn abductee cases, are all > nonexistent. First of all, nearly every place in the country seems to be > within 50 to 100 miles of a minor fault line. The more detailed you look, > the more common the fault lines are. I recently looked at a map of > Kansas showing literally hundreds of faults covering the state. So, > it is hard for his theory to be contested, until you look into the > physical UFO cases. Second of all, one cannot exclude such strong evidence > as the Gulf Breeze cases and the landing site cases so that your equally > circumstantial seismic theory becomes reasonable. Persinger's theory deserves more study. Although it appears to be superficial and non-supportive of most cases, there could be other environmental factors at work. > Another example of this kind of logic is the > vortex theory of the crop circles. Some of the proponents of this theory > are now saying that the new, complicated pictograms are hoaxes while > the simpler circles are caused by real vorticeses. 'Hoaxers could not > possibly make all of the circles, so let us call the complex ones > hoaxes and the others the product of air vortices!' > Claiming that either a hoaxer or an air vortex could even produce > *one* of the simplest circles is an extraordinary claim by itself. Saying > that *both* can is simply unbelievable. The crop circles do represent a strange phenomenon. But, again, there is really insufficient information to make any determination as to what causes them. The answers on both sides of the issue are simply ridiculous. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Ideas to Ponder Date: 10 Feb 91 09:50:00 GMT Below is a reprint of an article which I took from "The UFO Evidence," published by the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena in 1964. It is interesting to note that 27 years later, none of the recommendations have ever been carried out. Why? Perhaps we should concentrate on these types of objectives. Statement by NICAP Board of Governors "Although a large percentage of reported UFOs can be explained in terms of conventional objects and events, the residual unexplained cases constitute a separate and important problem. (The word "UFO" hereafter refers to the residual cases). These UFOs have proved to be a consistent phenomenon, with significant new reports made each year. A large number of the reports come from reputable and competent observers, honest and intelligent citizens. "Given the evidence in this report, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the unexplained UFOs are: * real physical objects, rather than the result of imagination, hallucination, illusion or delusion; * artificial, rather than purely natural, such as meteorological and astronomical phenomena; * under the control (piloted or remote) of living beings. "To date serious scientific attention to UFOs has been limited by several factors including: * the Air Force practice of artificially reducing the significance of the data through the use of counter-to-fact explanations of sightings and issuance of misleading statistics; * the Air Force practice of implying, through its public relations program, that all available information has been disseminated and there is no need for further investigation; * the lack of governmental recognition, through the Congress or the Executive Branch, that a scientific problem exists which ought to be thoroughly probed. "We believe the following steps should be taken to rectify an unsatisfactory situation: (1) The evidence in Air Force files (after deletion of legitimate security information such as data concerning the capabilities of radar) should be made freely available to any interested citizens. (2) There should be a Congressional inquiry into the Air Force's Project Blue Book to establish, a. the amount and kind of UFO information in the files, and whether all significant non-security data has been made public; b. the scientific adequacy of the investigation (whether there has been a consistently objective, scientific study of the evidence, or whether it has been erratic and influenced negatively by high- level policy decisions, lack of funds, or other factors). "The foremost question which remains is: What are the UFOs? The importance of these objects, if the above hypothesis is correct, is readily apparent. In order to settle this question, we strongly recommend that a much larger scale and more thorough scientific investigation be undertaken. " Joining in these conclusions are NICAP Board Members: Rev. Albert H. Baller, Congregational Minister, Clinton, Mass. Col. J. Bryan 111, USAF (Ret.), Writer, Richmond, Va. Mr. Frank Edwards, WTTV, Indianapolis, Indiana. Col. Robert B. Emerson, USAR, Research Chemist, Baton Rouge, La. Mr. Dewey J. Fournet, former Major, USAF, Baton Rouge, La. Rear Adm. H. B. Knowles, USN (Ret.), Eliot, Maine. Prof. Charles A. Maney, Department of Physics, Defiance College, Ohio. -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ParaNet.Information.Service@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (sm) Subject: Soviet UFO Crash Story Date: 10 Feb 91 17:06:00 GMT This file was provided by ParaNet(sm) Information Service and its network of international affiliates. You may freely distribute this file as long as this header remains intact. Contributed by: Peggy Noonan ============================================================ For further information on ParaNet(sm), contact: Michael Corbin ParaNet Information Service P.O. Box 928 Wheatridge, CO 80034-0928 or Netmail 1:104/422 ============================================================ From: UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICE, June 1990, Number 251, page 18 Original source: POST, Jakarta, Indonesia, April 19, 1990 >Soviet Scientists claim flying saucer found in Estonia< by Serge Mazankine PARIS (AFP): Soviet scientists say they are studying what they think is a 20meter wide flying saucer from another planet found in Estonia. Several institutes have analyzed the suspected unidentified flying object and have come to the same conclusion. Colonel Marina Popovich wrote about the events in Sovietski Sport. The air force test pilot and president of the world association of female scientists is an expert on unexplained phenomena such as UFOs and abominable snowmen. She has been interested in flying saucers since coming across two Soviet pilots in hospital who had seen strange lights in the sky. One had his eyes affected by a strange radiation. The co- pilot had the calcium in his bones evapoted [sic] and several ribs broken during landing. Another crew of an Antonov-12 plane told her how on one ocasion [sic] all onboard power suddenly failed. They were landing in complete dark when another vessel of some kind suddenly lit up the whole area so they could see. The 60 ton plane landed without a problem. Popovich plans a journey to Estonia where the flying saucer was found six meters below the surface. Soviet experts are to attempt to raise it, and so far no one has been able to cut off a segment and several institutes have said is [sic] must be from another planet. In 1984 Popovich went in search of the Yeti with a Kiev University expedition to Pamir. "We went up 3,000 meters and set up guards around the camp, because we knew it comes out mainly at night. "We saw traces around the camp from the first day. It could break into cans of milk with its teeth and threw stones in fires and moved other objects." ----supplemental note: UFO Newsclipping Service address: Lucius Farish, Editor UFONS Route 1, Box 220 Plumerville, Arkansas 72127 END PARANET FILE NAME: 041990SU.UFO -- ParaNet(sm) Information Service - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: ParaNet(sm).Information.Service@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG ********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to******** 'infopara' at the following address: UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com ADMIN Address infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request ******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************