Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 436 Tuesday, July 9th 1991 Today's Topics: Migraine headaches and ET's? Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King Hill Abduction: 1 Of 7 Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King RE: Paranet Newsletter 435 Re: **** Warning ***** Re: **** Warning ***** Re: Hoax Document Re: UFO Crash at Roswell Re: Roswell on Phx Radio ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ncar!apple.com!well!gmz Subject: Migraine headaches and ET's? Date: 8 Jul 91 19:52:12 GMT From: well!gmz@apple.com (Gerry Zeitlin) (To Michael Corbin) Since you apparently have access to the echo which contained Mike Mansfield's report of peculiar questions in the migraine study, perhaps you could pass along the following: Mike, there are ways for you to follow up on the reasons for including those questions in the study. You should first determine who is the principal investigator on the study. This is something your wife can learn, simply by calling the people who handled her in the experiment. Then I would advise you to go to a convenient technical library and look up all published papers by this person. From them, you should be able to learn what is actually the thrust of this person's research. Each paper will credit the agency which funded the work. This could be significant. You will not find something as obvious as 'AFOSI' among them, but take note of anything with DoD connections. You are also unlikely to find any reference to 'ET' issues, but maybe you'll see something about the researcher's ideas about the belief structures of migraine sufferers. If you are still interested in pursuing it, armed with whatever you've learned, contact the researcher in question (at the address given in the technical papers) and grill him or her. It would be great if you could get a look at the research proposal that resulted in the funding of the experiment, but I wouldn't have high expectation of achieving that. At any rate, be polite about it, but be persistent. You can also question any coauthors on the technical papers, and look for inconsistencies. You'll learn quite a lot from the kind of response you receive. I'm sure we'd all like to hear of the results. -- --------------------------------------------------------- gerry zeitlin gmz@well.sf.ca.us --------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King Date: 8 Jul 91 19:19:00 GMT * Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic" * Originally from Scott Ballantyne * Originally dated 07-06-91 12:03 From: sdb%hotmomma@uunet.uu.net (Scott Ballantyne) Date: 6 Jul 91 00:41:31 GMT Organization: ScotSoft Research Message-ID: <1991Jul6.004131.1650@hotmomma.UUCP> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic In article <1477@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> koreth@twitterpater.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Grimm) writes about my statement that Phil Klass is intimately familiar with the evidence about Roswell. He contends: Klass himself admitted, on the air, that he has not interviewed ANY of the witnesses to the alleged event. I'm not sure how you can make that claim with a straight face, in view of that admission. Actually, Klass stated that he had interviewed Cabot, who is the only one of the 3 principles still alive, and who actually visited the site with Marcel. He also stated that he had spoken to those who had contact with the hard evidence, while admitting he had not interviewed ALL of the witnesses. Grimm proceeds: Did something happen in Roswell? Probably. The evidence laid out in the book is pretty compelling about that. You should note that I haven't read the book. Klass also pointed out that Randle's evidence was flawed: 1) Randle omitted from the book portions of a letter that went against his case that something out of ordinary happened in Roswell. 2) Randle omitted documents that went against his case. The one that Klass showed on the show had been published in MUFON. Randle did not dispute either point 1 or 2, he acknowledged that he had edited the letter, and also that he was familiar with the document in MUFON. Grimm continues: [...] simply declaring that everything in the book is garbage because it has to be garbage strikes me as a pretty strange thing for a skeptic to do. Skeptics have no business being dogmatic. I don't know who said that or who is being dogmatic, I certainly didn't and neither did Klass. Perhaps this is the place to note that Klass pointed out to Randle that Cabot, the only surviving principle, has flatly stated that nothing unusual happened. Randle responded that Cabot was clearly part of the coverup. Again, I haven't read the book, but this makes Randle appear as though he is saying that if the evidence goes against the claim that something strange happened, it must be part of the coverup. sdb ---- {sdb%hotmomma@uunet.uu.net | hotmomma!sdb@uunet.uu.net | uunet!hotmomma!sdb} -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Hill Abduction: 1 Of 7 Date: 8 Jul 91 17:52:00 GMT > Michael, please don't take this as a rag or an attack or anything like > that but I have some general questions on how my 7-part Hill posting on > the Fidonet UFO Echo got onto this Paranet Echo. (By the way, I have > absolutely no problem with this, the flow of information is precisely > why we do this in the first place, I'm just interested in the > mechanics...) > > Is there a 'link' between the Echos? Is it 'automatic' or does someone > have to snag messages from one and post them in another? Is there a > common 'gateway' between the two? They are occasionally cross-posted to this conference depending upon the material and how good it is. This is generally my choice as I feel some of the other echoes offer some good discussion. However, anyone interested in doing similar is encouraged to do so as long as it is on-topic. > I've just recently read a couple of month's worth of messages (from the > Abyss BBS in Washington, DC) in this and other Paranet Echos and there > are many very good messages, _and_ messengers, that are not available in > the Fidonet UFO Echo. There was very little duplication, except > obviously at the topic level. Is this a Sysop's-choice type of thing, > the selection of Fidonet or Paranet, or is it BBS software-related? Or > telecommunications-related, or whatever else? Thank you for the comment. ParaNet is a private network, in that we are not available through Fidonet, however anyone with a serious interest in this subject or other paranormal-related interests are encouraged to apply for sysop status in the network. Our network has grown quite large and is international, both in Fidonet and Internet. Unfortunately, the moderator of the Fidonet UFO echo has taken to banish ParaNet from posting to his conference as he feels we are too controversial, hence we have ceased posting some of our more interesting materials to UFO echo. At one time we had a policy to post such material there, but the moderator took exception to the quality of our material and recently sent me another note asking me not to post (actually it was the message that I wrote to you about Guy Kirkwood). In any event, we are glad to have you here, and I encourage you to post interesting materials to this conference, if you are so inclined. Your postings show a serious interest in what is going on, and we'd love to have you here. > Additionally, is the ABDUCT Echo a MUFON-related, MUFON-sponsored, Echo? > Is the P_GEN, ('Paranet-General, I guess), something similar to the > Fidonet UFO Echo? The Abduction Conference is not related in any way to MUFON. Dr. David Jacobs moderates this under the ParaNet banner. The ParaNet General conference is our catch all for non-UFO-related postings, i.e., Forteana, New Age, etc. Thanks for your interest. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King Date: 8 Jul 91 19:24:00 GMT The next 8 messages are taken from Internet on a debate going on about Randle & Schmitt's book, UFO Crash at Roswell. You will find the arguments very interesting. Mike * Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic" * Originally from John Stach X6191 * Originally dated 07-03-91 12:16 From: stach@fritz.sri.com (John Stach x6191) Date: 2 Jul 91 15:34:56 GMT Organization: SRI International Message-ID: <25986@unix.SRI.COM> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic There was a debate on the alleged UFO crash in New Mexico on Larry King last night. One of the authors of a new book on the incident was there to promote it. The facts and figures were the same as we've seen here over and over so I won't comment on them. However, the debate itself was interesting. On the pro-UFO side there was the author, the public affairs oficer at a nearby Army-Air Force base at the time, and a woman who had witnessed pieces when she was young. On the skeptical side, there was an older man who has studied UFO sightings and concluded that none had a shred of hard evidence. Although reason and the obvious may have sided with the skeptic, IMHO the debate was won by the author and company in the public's view. It seemed that the skeptic had a general knowledge of the incident but not nearly enough first-hand knowledge of testimony to argue convincingly against the evidence presented by the author. I remain unconvinced, but I believe this tends to be typical of debates of this sort. Since the believers have a mission, their knowledge of the subject matter and their careful construction of facts reflects the years of effort (delusion?) put into it. The skeptics, realizing the obvious, do not consider a similar effort worthwhile. I'm not blaming, just observing. I think this contributes to the public's acceptance of the weird. John -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King Date: 8 Jul 91 19:15:00 GMT * Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic" * Originally from Jim Graham * Originally dated 07-03-91 12:16 From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) Date: 2 Jul 91 23:13:30 GMT Organization: Somewhere in Bloomington, Indiana Message-ID: <1991Jul3.004529.1086@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic WARNING!!! The following is NOT a flame. I repeat...it is NOT a flame! Any resemblance to flames, living or dead, is purely coincidental! In article <25986@unix.SRI.COM>, stach@fritz.sri.com (John Stach x6191) writes... >There was a debate on the alleged UFO crash in New Mexico on Larry >King last night. One of the authors of a new book on the incident was >there to promote it. The facts and figures were the same as we've >seen here over and over so I won't comment on them. I wish I had seen that show. I've read the book, and I can assure you that most of the information in the book is new and rather difficult to refute. It is most assuredly NOT the stuff "we've seen here over and over", although naturally, that stuff is included. > >However, the debate itself was interesting. On the pro-UFO side there >was the author, the public affairs oficer at a nearby Army-Air Force >base at the time, and a woman who had witnessed pieces when she was >young. On the skeptical side, there was an older man who has studied >UFO sightings and concluded that none had a shred of hard evidence. "that none had a shred of hard evidence" is quite right, and is emphasized in the book. > >Although reason and the obvious may have sided with the skeptic, What is "reason and the obvious" in this case? >IMHO >the debate was won by the author and company in the public's view. It >seemed that the skeptic had a general knowledge of the incident but >not nearly enough first-hand knowledge of testimony Of course not! As I mentioned above, the stuff in the new book is mostly new. Unless the skeptic on the program read the book, there's no way he /she could intelligently debate this. Darned, I wish I had seen that show :-). >to argue >convincingly against the evidence presented by the author. The "evidence presented by the author" is not "hard evidence" as the "skeptic" demands. It IS however documentable and for the most part, verifiable. > >I remain unconvinced, but I believe this tends to be typical of >debates of this sort. Since the believers have a mission, their >knowledge of the subject matter and their careful construction of >facts reflects the years of effort (delusion?) put into it. No offence meant here, but why make the above unfair assumptions? Do you have conclusive evidence that a.) The authors of the book are "believers"? b.) That they are under "delusion"? I'm a skeptic, but I am NOT a debunker. I have to say that after reading the book, the authors have definitely done their homework. The most interesting aspect of the book for me was that the authors consider several other explanations for an event that most definitely DID occur near Roswell. For example, they consider the tiresome and silly weather balloon explanation. They also consider the V2 nosecone explanation. Both of these, which have been favorites of armchair debunkers in the past, have serious problems. Additionally, they have carefully constructed a "time line" much of which is resolved to within the half-hour, of occurences before, during, and after the Roswell saga. >The >skeptics, realizing the obvious, do not consider a similar effort Again, I'm a skeptic. What is the "obvious" that I should be "realizing"? >worthwhile. I'm not blaming, just observing. > >I think this contributes to the public's acceptance of the weird. Not at all. Do you realistically expect the self-proclaimed skeptic to be more convincing to the public? a.) The "public" tends to believe what they wish to believe, the truth not-withstanding. b.) No one has the right to consider themselves a true skeptic unless they know what they're talking about. No implications to the contrary here, just that the blanket statement that skeptics realize the obvious is far from the truth. I am certainly not a "believer", a word which pseudo-skeptics use liberally. I do tend to gather all of the information that I can on a subject before I consider talking about it. I'm not referring to you, BTW, since I haven't the foggiest whether or not you've actually read the book. If you HAVE, I would love to know what your opinion is. If a "skeptic" will come forward and say "I've read the book. It's garbage. Here's why....", then I'll listen. But, if a "skeptic" says, "Well gang, there's yet another book out about Roswell, and since we've all heard it time and time again, it's gotta be garbage...." then they have a problem with the concept of gathering data before drawing conclusions (ie, they cannot possibly qualify for any kind of true scientific attitude). Darn Darn DARN!!! I wish I'd seen that show.... :-). BTW: For those who haven't a clue to what I'm talking about.... the book is "UFO Crash at Roswell" by Kevin Randle (USAFR) and Donald Schmitt. It just hit the stands in June. -Jim (never judge a book by its cover) Graham -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <- Neither do they speak for me. ______________________________________________________________________ | Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu | | UUCP: dolmen!graham@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu | | BBS: The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) | | (812) 334-0418, 24hrs. | |______________________________________________________________________| -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King Date: 8 Jul 91 19:16:00 GMT * Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic" * Originally from Kathy Daly * Originally dated 07-03-91 18:15 From: daly@ddtg.com (Kathy Daly) Date: 3 Jul 91 17:33:05 GMT Organization: DuPont Design Technologies Group Message-ID: <1991Jul3.173305.11343@ddtg.com> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic In article <25986@unix.SRI.COM> stach@fritz.sri.com.UUCP (John Stach x6191) writes: >There was a debate on the alleged UFO crash in New Mexico on Larry >King last night.... >Although reason and the obvious may have sided with the skeptic, IMHO >the debate was won by the author and company in the public's view. >. . . >I remain unconvinced, but I believe this tends to be typical of >debates of this sort. Since the believers have a mission, their >knowledge of the subject matter and their careful construction of >facts reflects the years of effort (delusion?) put into it. The >skeptics, realizing the obvious, do not consider a similar effort >worthwhile. I'm not blaming, just observing. > >I think this contributes to the public's acceptance of the weird. > Even if the skeptic did research on a particular claim, the public probably won't accept his explanation. Often the language used will only convince other skeptics. A skeptic might think, "I did the research on the last round, but nobody wanted to listen to my debunking. Why bother going thru it all over again?" He thinks it was his research that failed to sway the public, but maybe it was his delivery. (Jane Q. Public talking to John T. Skeptic:) You can convince me that most crop circles are made by pranksters. But you cannot expect me to assume that every crop circle is a fraud. My open mind says I must investigate every incident with no preconceived notions. Sure, some people see UFO's that turn out to be illusions, hallucinations, over-active imaginations. But when a new witness comes forward, I do not start from the closed opinion that he must be mistaken. And to bring in facts from totally unrelated cases is bad science. OK, skeptics. You can try to fault a person's logic and continue to talk about past debunking successes, or you can use that person's own logic to look at the facts of every individual case on its own merits. Suppose someone told you "I saw a green cat!". Do you (a) say "All other cats have turned out to be not green, so you must be imagining it." (b) show him ways of faking the appearance of a green cat and hope he will admit in humiliation that he was fooled. (c) accept his honest testimony and work with him to find a plausible explanation. Which approach (or others) will win him to your side? Larry King must set these people up. I remember seeing one show (well, I think I remember it. It was a while ago, and maybe you all discussed it before I joined this newsgroup. And maybe my eyewitness account is faulty after all this time . . .) about a poltergeist-haunted house. A noted skeptic (was it, oh maybe, Philip Klass?) said something to the effect, "None of the other houses in the area were experiencing anything unusual." Well, sure! By definition, a poltergeist is going to bother only one household or even only one person. But he said it as if to imply "If only Tom and Mary see it, they must be making it up." That argument works on a skeptic crowd, but only makes the other side laugh at your naive disbelief. Speak their language before you expect them to listen! -- Kathy E.F.Daly ----- "A bad .signature is better than no .signature at all" (technically) Camex,Inc. pays me, but I work for DuPont Design Technologies . . and neither is liable nor responsible for anything I say or do here. ## daly%ddtisvr@uunet.uu.net ## daly@ddtisvr.ddtg.com ## (408)980-8009 ## -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King Date: 8 Jul 91 19:17:00 GMT * Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic" * Originally from Jim Giles * Originally dated 07-04-91 12:00 From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) Date: 3 Jul 91 19:49:49 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Message-ID: <26994@beta.gov> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic In article <1991Jul3.173305.11343@ddtg.com>, daly@ddtg.com (Kathy Daly) writes: |> [...] Suppose someone told you "I saw a green cat!". Do you |> (a) say "All other cats have turned out to be not green, so you |> must be imagining it." |> (b) show him ways of faking the appearance of a green cat and hope |> he will admit in humiliation that he was fooled. |> (c) accept his honest testimony and work with him to find a |> plausible explanation. If they have no independently verifyable evidence of the existence of any green cat, then the phenomenon is simply _UNKNOWN_. It remains _UNKNOWN_ in spite of the man's testimony because you have no objective means to verify (or disprove) his testimony. For all you know, the man may be lying (a choice you didn't provide). That's why anecdotal evidence is useless in the sciences - there's no method available for verification. The fact is that (a) people _do_ imagine things; (b) people _do_ get fooled; (c) people _do_ honestly report unusual things; and (d) as unpalatable as it is to make the accusation: people _do_ lie about things. With only the _testimony_ to go on, there's no way to distinguish between these (and other) possibilities. Not accepting such vague evidence may seem harsh, but it's been repeatedly demonstrated as one of the more reliable ways of avoiding large mistakes. If the phenomenon is real (your choice (c)) then verifyable evidence will turn up sooner or later. In the meantime, _UNKNOWN_ doesn't mean "didn't happen", it means _UNKNOWN_. The problem is that science doesn't deal with _complete_ unknowns. There must either be a verifyable phenomenon to study or a new prediction of some (otherwise well verified) theory to go on. Without these, the phenomenon in question is not amenable to scientific inquiry. No matter how fervently you believe in something, if its not amenable to scientific inquiry, few scientists will be interested - many may scoff (especially if they fervently believe the opposite - and since you've provided no _hard_ evidence, their belief is as justified as yours). The bottom line is that the level of rhertoric and the heat of discussions about UFOs is not justified by the quality of the evidence. (In fact, isn't there a famous aphorism that the heat generated in an argument is inversely proportional to the quality of evidence being discussed?) J. Giles -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Ufo's In New Mexico On Larry King Date: 8 Jul 91 19:18:00 GMT * Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic" * Originally from Scott Ballantyne * Originally dated 07-04-91 12:01 From: sdb%hotmomma@uunet.uu.net (Scott Ballantyne) Date: 3 Jul 91 16:35:30 GMT Organization: ScotSoft Research Message-ID: <1991Jul3.163530.1303@hotmomma.UUCP> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic In article <25986@unix.SRI.COM> stach@fritz.sri.com (John Stach x6191) writes: However, the debate itself was interesting. On the pro-UFO side there was the author, the public affairs oficer at a nearby Army-Air Force base at the time, and a woman who had witnessed pieces when she was young. On the skeptical side, there was an older man who has studied UFO sightings and concluded that none had a shred of hard evidence. Although reason and the obvious may have sided with the skeptic, IMHO the debate was won by the author and company in the public's view. It seemed that the skeptic had a general knowledge of the incident but not nearly enough first-hand knowledge of testimony to argue convincingly against the evidence presented by the author. I saw the show. The 'older man' was Phil Klass, and I can assure you that he is intimately familiar with every detail of Roswell, probably sickeningly familiar with it, has examined the evidence himself in detail and written at length about it. It's possible that, as you say, the public will side with the UFO-nik, but I think it has more to do with the structure of tv shows of this type. sdb ------ {sdb%hotmomma@uunet.uu.net | hotmomma!sdb@uunet.uu.net | uunet!hotmomma!sdb} -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ncar!gw1.hanscom.af.mil!fluryr Subject: RE: Paranet Newsletter 435 Date: 9 Jul 91 05:13:56 GMT From: 'MAJ ROBERT FLURY' +(Michael Corbin) +This was on another echo. I found it +interesting, and figured someone out +there might want to look into it. + * Originally from Mike Mansfield + In a recent 'research study' done +by UTMB Neuropsychology Galveston on the +effects of migrane headaches upon +lifestyle, a few CURIOUS questions +arose, +being that my wife was a participant, +she was able to relay this information +to me. (She had recently been scheduled +for a Cat Scan to diagnose unusual +migrane headaches) The questionairres +were in general, mostly generic, but +the following questions were asked that +make me feel *perhaps* something more +is being studied than just headaches... +1) Have you ever felt you were being +watched? next question was a clincher... +2) Do you believe in +Extraterrestrial life? + +I see little reason that such questions +should be included in a purely +scientific study unless the medical +profession has turned 180 degrees and +suddenly believes in +extraterrestrials... For your info, the following is taken from a medical text. Do we have any MDs out there to comment? '...Common Migraine. This is the most frequent type of migraine, occuring in over 80% of migraine sufferers. The prodromes of common migraine are not sharply defined, and they precede the attack by several hours or even days. These vary widely from patient to patient and include psychic disturbances, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and changes in fluid balance...' - Rowland, Lewis P., Ed., _Merritt's Textbook of Neurology_, SEVENTH EDITION, LEA & FEBIGER, PHILADELPHIA, PA, 1984, pg. 625. Bob Flury fluryr@gw1.hanscom.af.mil -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Re: **** Warning ***** Date: 8 Jul 91 17:44:00 GMT In a message to All <07-07-91 16:41> Michael Corbin wrote: ->This was on another echo. I found it interesting, and ->figured someone out there might want to look into it. Someone does. What is UTMB? Is it in Galveston? Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Delton@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton) Subject: Re: **** Warning ***** Date: 8 Jul 91 22:08:00 GMT RE: Those strange cat scan questions That sounds like something that would be interesting to track down. If it is a bonafide study it ought to be public record as to what they are doing and why. Certainly sounds suspicious if it is what it seems to be on the surface. Can you followup with the poster of the original message to maybe find out more? -- Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Delton@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Re: Hoax Document Date: 8 Jul 91 17:41:00 GMT In a message to Jim Speiser <07-05-91 12:13> Steve Rose wrote: ->It is sort of saying, "Hey, we know that there MUST be some ->covert operations going on which are acknowledged or ->sponsored by the Penatagon, right? So if we add that ->element of presumed guilt into this 'document' we are ->drawing up...the gullible will more easily accept the REST ->of this letter as gospel, too!" No dice. ;-) Ah, OK, gotcha. Sorta like trying to kill two birds with one stone. ;-> Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird) Subject: Re: UFO Crash at Roswell Date: 9 Jul 91 06:18:00 GMT Hello Dave, I'm finally reading UFO Crash at Roswell, and it is very interesting. Seems every page makes you want to aske questions! See ya! 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: Roswell on Phx Radio Date: 9 Jul 91 06:20:00 GMT Dave, Jim was on the radio on July 4th. We have 3 tape recorders and not one of them would work right! I think I know someone who might have taped the program, and I'll get back to you. It was an excellent show and the first hour had Kevin Randle on live. Later, Linda -- Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Linda.Bird@paranet.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 For administrative requests (subscriptions, back issues) send to: UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request DOMAIN infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com To obtain back issues by anonymous ftp, connect to: DOMAIN ftp.uiowa.edu (directory /archives/paranet) ******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************