Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 396 Monday, April 29th 1991 Today's Topics: (none) (none) The Universe Bill Cooper YES Re: Question from a UFOlogy Sig User - Help Pleidians need better calculators! Periodical: Kindred Spirit Re: Csicop Members Re: INCIDENT-INDIAN POINT UFOs in the Hudson Highlands ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ncar!wam.umd.edu!infinity Subject: (none) Date: 27 Apr 91 02:43:16 GMT From: David Elmore Coleman Re:SERIOS BUSINESS Pete Porro notes that '[Arthur C. Clarke] does say that there is a question as to the viability of the events.' Wait a minute, the guy whom you are debating, who defends Serios, has just provided information (the second edition of the _World of Serios_ or whatever) that debunks A.C and you are now saying that in spite of what hard core reasoning might be in the book, A.C's point blank mere statement overrides it. You seem to being saying, 'it's not fair that AC could be infallible and not omniscient about the Serios case.' Have you heard of fillibusters? Skeptical thinkers have a hard time avoiding doing it. Further, Pete says, +It's unreasonable to stick to something that has been proven fraud over + and over again, just because of defensive thoughts. Wait again, o.k, stand in line... Skeptics make accusations, such as that the gizmo is not a handicap, but a miracle technodevice. Does this constitute *proving* Serios bogus 'over and over again.'? No. The reason proponents stick to their defenses is because of the one-time treatment of cases by skeptics. A skeptic looks at a photograph of a UFO, sees a faint film incongruity running linear through the UFO image, calls the photo 'the most obvious hoax I have ever seen' (This is from Klass), and asserts that since the flaw *could* be a hoax (i.e a model hanging by that linear incongruity) it *is* a hoax, because which is more likely, a hoax or a real UFO? This Klass believed. So, the skeptic ceases to consider the case worthy of investigation. But, along comes Bruce Maccabee who shows through the simplest of simple reasoning how the line on the photo *absolutely* could not have been a string (i.e it passed in front of the UFO and *clearly* off center). Now Klass could *never* have found this, because he is a very shotty investigator. He considered the case closed, no matter the other evidence in the case. Well, what if the aliens landed at a stadium at Gulf Breeze and ABC, NBC, CBS all filmed it land among the football players. Well, this tells you that no piece of evidence that *could* be a hoax eliminates any other evidence or concludes a case to *be* a hoax. Back to the subject: skeptics pull this garbage and proponents, who have invested more time and money into the case, and who are *very* afraid of a giant case like this going to waste on the pile of other cases the believe skeptics have treated poorly, never will believe a mere accusation of impropriety is itself proof of an impropriety and thus will look at the details of the case further. As with all non-paranormal accusations, which you find implied by people recurrently in the real world, most accusations of incongruity turn out to be solved in such a way that the defender of the case can absolve his case easily. I can easily put two *carefully selected* (selected by bias) facts together to indicate 'suspicion' or "incongruity" about you if I had a partial knowledge of your life. I could imply you are a malicious or underhanded person. Thus, accusation is easy. 'Suspicion' should never be taken, even in the context of EXTRAordinary cases, to be reason to be incomplete in treating the case. But, how much money do you want to put down AC Clarke merely looked into Randi's or Klass's books, found the clear indications of fraud, so deftly stated out of full context of the cases they are taken from, and converted it into a session for his show. Would he ever look to see if Serios & gang, the proponents, washed away the criticisms of Serios by merely returning the coverage of the case to the *full* context of the case, or by providing new information on Serios, or by digging up background information originally thought not to be important? Skeptics assume that 'demolishing criticism' demolishes a case, when in reality most all cases (Rendelsham, Gulf Breeze, Roswell, etc) immediately turn up evidence that refutes the skeptic. 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: ncar!wam.umd.edu!infinity Subject: (none) Date: 27 Apr 91 02:45:49 GMT From: David Elmore Coleman Pete Porro says, '...it is because each event is independent. I hope to keep thinking that way also. Each case or event is judged on individual merits.' Oh... So, if 25 million people see UFOs, which is the case, then in effect the strength of the argument that UFOs exist is no greater than the strength of the strongest of the 25 million cases? Hmmm... I think... ......NOTTTT!!! Try applying your thinking to something like a nonparanormal issue, and you will look ridiculous. And, the scientific method does NOT change once you move to the paranormal, although some of the idiotic assumptions in the 17th century wording of the method, which is the same as it is today, were based ONLY on the assumption that nondeterministic/noncausal things do not exist. (Spinning off) When the *rest* of the scientific method, the part, i.e hypothesis is part of the rest, the part that does not depend on such bad assumptions, has disproven the part that does depend on assumptions, since it has disproven the assumptions, irregardless of whether or not you consider the part that depends on the assumptions. The part that depends on assumptions cannot prove itself, by using its arbitrary placement in the scientific method to steer the scientific method away from disproving the part that depends on assumptions. Chaos, paranormal experimentation (now to rhetoric me on that one, it is not the point), a new calculation that allows Maxwell's demon, and the anomaly of awareness covering biological machines that are made up of nonawarenesses. This list, although perhaps none of the above are 100 percent proven, is enough that you cannot simply include arbitrary assumptions in your scientific method until you conclusively prove that the assumptions are not violated by the list I just gave. 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: ncar!cwns2.INS.CWRU.Edu!ak842 Subject: The Universe Date: 27 Apr 91 17:22:16 GMT From: ak842@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Douglas Dever) The theory I based my comments about the universe on were from the 'Big Bang Theory.' That's where a single atom explodes and everything rushes away from everything else at the speed of light. According to many scientists... everything is still moving farther and farther apart from everything else so this is the theory that they've been going on. (Some scientists at least) So I basically got my informmation from the books I've been reading.... *** Proud Member of The Cleveland Free-Net UFOlogy SIG *** -- __ Douglas A. Dever __ ! INTERNET: ak842@cleveland.freenet.edu ****** IRC CHAT ****** ! ac502@medina.freenet.edu (soon I-net) ****** Niltsiar ****** ! BITNET: ak842%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm I cannot be held responsible for this message since my foot is in my mouth. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ncar!cwns1.INS.CWRU.Edu!ak842 Subject: Bill Cooper Date: 27 Apr 91 18:56:54 GMT From: ak842@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Douglas Dever) 'Flashing red lights don't make an alian spacecraft :-) ' (Or something to that effect) I never said that they did... I just thought that I've seen enough prove to believe that the crafts to exsist and are visiting this planed. My earlier message made a bad assuption about Skeptics. Sorry... As for the flashing red lights... imagine someone like that living near an airport... 'Hello... yea... there's a UFO going over my house ever 5 or so minutes.... ' :-) *** Proud Member of The Cleveland Free-Net UFOlogy SIG *** -- __ Douglas A. Dever __ ! INTERNET: ak842@cleveland.freenet.edu ****** IRC CHAT ****** ! ac502@medina.freenet.edu (soon I-net) ****** Niltsiar ****** ! BITNET: ak842%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm I cannot be held responsible for this message since my foot is in my mouth. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird) Subject: YES Date: 24 Apr 91 03:21:00 GMT Robert, I have your address, and it will be in the mail in a few days. The title is NASA RECONSIDERS FINDINGS: Martian Pyramids and Humanoid Face May Hold Clues to Our Earthbound Origins. I'll also include a couple of xerox copies of the Face & pyramids. Thanks for your interest! Linda -- Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird) Subject: Re: Question from a UFOlogy Sig User - Help Date: 24 Apr 91 03:28:00 GMT Clark! Speak of the Devil (W. Cooper)! He's going to be on our local KFYI Radio this Saturday night on "The Middle of the Damn Night Show", starting at 11:00 p.m. I'll post something about it (if I'm able to stay up that late) and if I'm able to beat Jim Speiser to it! Hehehe! (Just kidding, Jim...) Stay tuned, Linda -- Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ncar!anubis.network.com!logajan Subject: Pleidians need better calculators! Date: 28 Apr 91 07:28:27 GMT From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan) RE: The Grey Men Tape or Our space brothers, the Pleidians, need better calculators. In the excerpt of the Grey Men Tape, uploaded on Paranet by Gregory B. Lush, either the Pleidian or his spokesman (I'm not clear on this point) makes an error in a simple calculation. He was discussing the Federal Reserve's fractional reserve system in which a bank can loan out 95% of its deposits holding only 5% in reserve. The Pleidian correctly points out that some or all of those loaned out funds can come back into the banking system as deposits -- but the Pleidian, in taking a $1000 original deposit example, concludes that the end result would be a total of $20,229.60 increase in the money supply. This is wrong, for at a 5% reserve and a $1000 original deposit, the increase in the money supply would be $20000.00. Or, 1/.05 * $1000, the inverse of the reserve requirment times the original deposit. Or you can do the iteration with a simple Basic program, below. 10 t=1000 20 s=1000 30 r=t*.05 40 t=t-r 50 s=s+t 60 print s 70 goto 30 t = the deposits, r = the reserve requirements, s = the money supply as it increases with each subsequent deposit. This program is simple and will run forever as the deposits become tiny fractions of a penny. But you will see the value of 's' converge on $20000. Note that the original deposit is immediately added to the total money supply, and so therefore you wouldn't want to add the reserve again to the money supply or you'd be double counting it. But if you insist on doing so, change line 50 to: 50 s=s+t+r You will find now that the total money supply is no longer $20,000, but $21,000 -- exactly $1000 more (and not the $20,229.60 figure of the Pleidian.) Purists note: I ran a slightly more complex version of the program that took into account that transactions are always rounded to the nearest penny. Then the result is $19998.88. If you always round down on reserve requirements, then the result is $20016.63. If you always round up the reserve requirements you get $19982.53. Again none of the results are near the Pleidian's. --------------- A further related theoretical error of the Pleidian is to assert that the oil money we oil consumers paid the Arabs is coming back into the banking system and causing a 20:1 inflation (or profit to the bankers.) This too is false. The 20:1 thing happened long ago and has stabilized. That is to say, when we pay for gas, we only transfer money from one bank to another, therefore one bank has its reserves reduced in exactly the same amount another has it increased. (Which assumes human beings keep all monies in time deposit accounts so as to reach the maximum 20:1. This certainly is false as a large hunk of money is in the form of currency, so the 20:1 ratio is never actually realized. However, various factors including consumer withdrawal from banks or consumer deposits into banks can have a leveraged effect on the money supply. So the money supply can vary within the 20:1.) Ongoing inflation is a result, not of the fractional reserve system, per se, since it was a one time impulse which converged, as my Basic program shows, to a certain money supply, given an initial money supply, but rather the result of government manipulations which increase the reserves -- i.e. the so called (and correctly called) 'printing presses.' The primary beneficiary of inflation is the government itself, rather than the bankers. I'm not saying that bankers don't have favored status in the eyes of the government, but there is no way they are making a 20:1 profit on deposits (because there is no mechanism, as I have shown, to allow them to do so.) The benefit the government gets from inflation is that it is simply printing up money. The fact that it smuggles it out through the fractional reserve banking system is almost irrelevant. What has this all to do with UFO's? I don't know. I'm just setting the record straight. - John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - logajan@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ncar!wam.umd.edu!infinity Subject: Periodical: Kindred Spirit Date: 29 Apr 91 09:21:04 GMT From: David Elmore Coleman Does anybody out there know where I can send to to receive a subscription to _Kindred Spirit_? You can reply to me at infinity@wam.umd.edu or aq017@cleveland.freenet.edu, or you can make the address general knowledge, if you know it. Thankx. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Re: Csicop Members Date: 25 Apr 91 05:07:00 GMT ->Obviously, it ->includes Paul Kurtz (chairman, humanist high-muckity-muck, ->and prof. of ->philosophy at SUNY Buffalo). I would guess the rest to be ->as follows: ->James Alcock (prof. of psychology, York U.), Kendrick ->Frazier (editor), ->Phil Klass, Randi, and Ray Hyman (prof. of psychology, U. ->of Oregon). ->Possibly CSICOP's Executive Director also serves -- the ->fourth and ->current one being Barry Karr. I used to know the answer to this question, but now I'm just guessing. But I think you've nailed them all. The only one I'm not real certain of is Alcock. Oh, and I think I read somewhere that whatsisname from Cal Poly, the guy that plays with Pterodactyls.....MacReady, I think he was named a couple of years back, wasn't he? Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert.Mcgowan@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Robert Mcgowan) Subject: Re: INCIDENT-INDIAN POINT Date: 23 Apr 91 22:18:08 GMT Don, Didn't Greenwood and Fawcett write about Indian Point in their book Clear Intent, I read it some where was that it? -- Robert Mcgowan - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Robert.Mcgowan@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ncar!wam.umd.edu!infinity Subject: UFOs in the Hudson Highlands Date: 29 Apr 91 14:08:08 GMT From: David Elmore Coleman Hudson Valley Geology OK, I have looked for information on the geology/chemistry of the Westchester/Putnam/Fairfield county region where the numerous lakes were found where the Boomerang(s) and Triangles flew in the Hudson Valley UFO mystery. This was all I could come up with, without looking for geodetic surveys. This more time-consuming move I will get around to when I have the time, hopefully soon. From 'Roadside Geology of New York,' 1985 (Van Diver) Oops, forget to get the author's name, damn it. pp.83-4. The Hudson Highlands: mostly gneisses, some amphibolites. Oldest rocks in New York State, formed 1.1-1.3 million years ago. 'This is a region of knobby, small, almost conical hills lacking any conspicuous alignment, and lots of marshy, shallow valleys, small lakes, and large man-made reservoirs.' Well, that's all of it for now -- not much. 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 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 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. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ********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************************