Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 439 Tuesday, July 16th 1991 Today's Topics: Hopkins on TV Re: Wernikoff On Maccabee Media Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit BUFORA Welcome Re: The moon Re: Media Hill Abduction/Paranet Stuff (none) Star Trek--The Next Generation The Coverup Re: Roswell Discussion Re: Roswell Discussion Psychics and abductions Re: Roswell Discussion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: vanth!jms Subject: Hopkins on TV Date: 13 Jul 91 05:33:23 GMT From: vanth!jms@amix.commodore.com (Jim Shaffer) I caught a few minutes of a talk show on Lifetime this afternoon in which Budd Hopkins and one or two abductees were being interviewed. I got the feeling that it was a very short segment and not at all part of a bigger theme to the show. But I don't even know what the show was called. Can anyone fill me in on what I missed? -- * From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | 'Let's become Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | alive again.' 37 Brook Street | uunet!cbmvax!amix!vanth!jms | Montgomery, PA 17752 | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | --Yes -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Re: Wernikoff On Maccabee Date: 12 Jul 91 15:08:00 GMT ->I don't, Jim. But from all the other facts in the GB case ->makes Ed's photos look awful good. ---Jim--- ->--- RemoteAccess 0.03+ I'm sorry, Jim, but I don't think they look awful good. I think they look just plain awful. And I don't know what makes you think you're even GETTING all the facts on the case, seeing as MUFON saw fit to withhold certain information from the public for a while, such as the exact nature of Ed's criminal record. Who knows what else they might be sitting on. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kay.Schaney@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kay Schaney) Subject: Media Date: 13 Jul 91 14:13:00 GMT I have noticed a few things in the media lately: In the July 1991 issue of PC world there is an ad for ProComm Plus which features a picture of a crop circle (or maybe crop disk since it's in the shape of a floppy disk). The copy reads "Out of the prairie comes proof that a higher level of communication has arrived." Also there is a Car ad on TV which features a picture of a flying disk.(Don't remember which Car) In the May 1991 issue of Boardwatch magazine there is an article on Soviet BBS's. They give instruction on how to call the USSR and they list about 35 BBS's. One of them caught my eye as it is named "Flying Disks BBS" the number is 7-014-268-4911 (FidoNet Node 2:490/40.401), if I spoke Russian I might give it a try, anyone out there who can? I think it would be interesting. Lastly, I saw an episode of "Star Trek, the new generation" last week, where the crew of the Enterprise were making first contact with a new planet. This included visits to the planet disguised as natives, trying to prove that they were there not to take over the planet, and contained lots of dialog that sounds alot like what is bandied about here. Perhaps the media IS catching up?! Kay McLaughlin -- Kay Schaney - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Kay.Schaney@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit Date: 13 Jul 91 18:15:00 GMT In light of the recent release of UFO Crash at Roswell, some interesting ideas start coming to mind about obscure organizations that have been involved militaristically over the years charged with investigation of UFOs. I recently ran across something in Timothy Good's book, Above Top Secret, concerning a group called the Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit (IPU). I am quoting the paragraph containing this material. This material was part of the green fireballs in New Mexico. As you will see, the organization was apparently established in 1947. I would appreciate anyone with any further information to please post, such as dates of beginning and purpose for the organization, etc. >From Page 267... Of the US Army Intelligence (G-2) representatives present, it is possible that some included members of the Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit (IPU) of the Scientific and Technical Branch, Counterintelligence Directorate, an elite UFO investigation group allegedly set up by General Marshall in 1947 and disbanded in the 1950s. According to Colonel William Guild, Director of Counterintelligence, "All records pertaining to this unit were surrendered to the US Air Force Office of Special Investigations in conjunction with operation 'BLUEBOOK,'" [27] AFOSI have not released these records to date. Did the Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit learn some disturbing facts that still cannot be revealed? In 1955 General Douglas MacArthur -- also rumored to have been involved in establishing the IPU -- made an astonishing statement that lends weight to this possiblility. "The nations of the world will have to unite," he said, "for the next war will be an interplanetary war. The nations of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets." [28] [27] Letter from Colonel William B. Guild, Director of Counterintelligence, Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Washington, D.C. 20310, to Richard Hall, 25 September 1980. [28] New York Timess, 9 October 1955. (?) -- 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: BUFORA Welcome Date: 13 Jul 91 15:26:00 GMT It is with great pleasure that I introduce the newest member of this conference. On Sunday, June 30th, I had the great pleasure of meeting Steve Gamble, Chariman of BUFORA (British UFO Research Association) in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Steve and colleague, Robin Lindsey, were attending the Rocky Mountain Conference on UFO Investigation in Laramie. At this meeting we discussed various points, one of which was the current state of affairs in the UK regarding UFO research. I found Steve and Robin very interesting people, and British research is very organized. Steve now joins us in this conference. Below is Steve's biography so you may get acquainted with him. On behalf of the group at ParaNet, welcome. BIOGRAPHY OF STEPHEN GAMBLE ============================ LOCAL ACTIVITIES ================= Member Committee Horsenden Hill Skywatch Group 1971-72 Founder of Brent Aerial Research 1973-74 Chairman and Director of Research, Northamptonshire UFO Research Centre 1987-to date NATIONAL ACTIVITIES ==================== Joined British UFO Research Association 1971 BUFORA Field Investigator 1974 - 1977, becoming Deputy National Investigations Officer 1977 Joined the BUFORA Research and Investigations Committee 1975 Photographic consultant 1975- to date Traces consultant 1977- to date Joined BUFORA Council 1977, becoming :- Director of Research 1983- to date Vice-chairman 1984-1989 Chairman 1989- to date Member of the Editorial Board Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena 1979-1989, becoming Editor 1984-1989 Research Editor, UFO Times 1989 - to date INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES ========================= Secretary to initial meeting of Provisional International Committee for UFO Research (P.I.C.U.R.) 1979 (P.I.C.U.R. became I.C.U.R. in 1983) BUFORA representative to I.C.U.R. 1979 - to date I.C.U.R. Secretary 1987- to date PUBLICATIONS ============ Numerous contributions to : BUFORA Journal BUFORA Bulletin UFO Times Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena NUFORC Newletter Also contributions to UFO Debate Contributor to "Phenomenon", Macdonald Futura Books 1988 A number of presentations at BUFORA, ICUR and NUFORC meetings. -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas.Wolfe@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Douglas Wolfe) Subject: Re: The moon Date: 12 Jul 91 17:39:10 GMT Regarding Lunar Anomalies: The phenomena you read about are called Lunar Transient Phenomena, and have been recorded at least since the days of Wm. Herschel in 1800's. One of the more interesting reports came from astronauts who saw something from lunar orbit. Unfortunately, although reports are abundant, no such event has lasted long enough to be corroborated. There was an interesting candidate last year. A photograph of the 1st quarter moon showed a nearly pointlike bright spot. The image fit the parameters for a possible volcanic event, given its position, brightness, and lunar phase. A few months later someone found an artificial satellite which passed between us and the Moon at just the right time to explain the image. Another one bites the dust...... Paranormalists look to these events and to lunar domes as possible ET artifacts. No such exotic explanation is necessary. The dark areas on the moon which we can see with the naked eye are huge lava flows which are more recent than the craters they have buried (although still very ancient). Since no such lava flows appear on the side of the moon which faces away from us, it is easy to model volcanic activity on the Moon in response to its tidal interactions with the earth. Just as the Moon sets up tides on the Earth, the Earth's gravity "pulls" on lunar core material and "sucks" it out on the Earth-facing side. The Lunar Transient Phenomena may be such volcanic activity, or they may be meteorite hits, or perhaps may have another, unexplained, cause. This is one of the areas where amateur astronomers may can make important observations, since the moon is accessible to modest telescopes. No professional astronomers, as far as I know, work on the Moon anymore. Post me on Fidonet Astronomy (public) if I can tell you more... J. Douglas Wolfe St Clements Lunar Society, SF -- Douglas Wolfe - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Douglas.Wolfe@f27.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird) Subject: Re: Media Date: 15 Jul 91 03:21:00 GMT Hi Kay: Yes, I saw the Star Trek episode called "First Contact." I was mesmerized by the dialogue which certainly could have/could be occurring right now in our government offices. I wished I had taped it as it was excellent. I'll look for that ad in PC Magazine. Thanks, Linda -- Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Powell@p8.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Powell) Subject: Hill Abduction/Paranet Stuff Date: 13 Jul 91 19:40:48 GMT In a message to John Powell <08 Jul 91 10:52> Michael Corbin wrote: >> I've just recently read a couple of month's worth of messages... MC> Thank you for the comment. You're very much welcome. MC> Unfortunately, the moderator of the Fidonet UFO echo has... Hmmm... MC> ...we are glad to have you here, and I encourage you to... Thanks, I'm glad to be here, just hope you don't get bored to death with all my questions... MC> The Abduction Conference is not related in any way to MUFON. Dr. MC> David Jacobs moderates this under the ParaNet banner. Excellent! I have about a 102,000 questions for Dr. Jacobs... Thanks, take care. John. -- John Powell - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Powell@p8.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve.Rose@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Rose) Subject: (none) Date: 14 Jul 91 17:47:00 GMT In a msg of <10 Jul 91>, ncar!ecn.purdue.edu!lush@scicom.Alp writes to All: npeA> You say that main-stream media treats UFOlogy like a joke, npeA> and you don't see *THAT* as being a *CLUE*. A clue that some are not so gullible to blindly accept was it told to them. npeA> It is easily proven and has been proven that for *ALL* major npeA> media--newspapers, networks (including CNN), publishing houses--the npeA> controlling interest is owned by people who are members of the npeA> Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR has been linked with UFOs by npeA> the MJ-12 documents, although I haven't been able to discern what npeA> people think about the validity of those documents. Watch out for those outlandish statements when creating your non-sequitors, guy. Show us all the media affiliations to this council you speak of. You may just give Ted Turner his biggest laugh of the year, if it's convincing enough. I know I had a good chuckle reading the first sentence above. :) npeA> it is very likely, in my opinion, that the CFR would npeA> create just such a panel to study 'the alien question.' It is npeA> consistent with the CFR's track record. The conclusions of that panel npeA> would then become the conclusions of our governing bodies. Hmmm...such a weighty and powerful group. Why not have them tackle other issues of world importance, such as which religion is the valid one and what bible we all should adhere to. Sure would save a lot of useless arguing on those concerns, eh? I suppose they are the drafters of the upcoming 'One World Government' doctrine as well? npeA> Keeping one's self from being 'bilked' is not anybody's responsibility npeA> except the one threatened with 'bilkage.' If people were angry about npeA> seeing a 'Woman from Venus' at that conference, then they won't go to npeA> the next one. The press focused on her rather than all the scientific npeA> study presented at the conference. Does that make sense? Perhpas you should ask WHY she commanded all the attention. Then you would gain insight as to what a 'specticle' is all about. No one likes to cover court cases, unless they are expecting skeletons to come from the closet. npeA> I there a reporter for any of the 'mainstream' press that finds this npeA> npeA> worthy of serious investigation? If there is (there must be!), npeA> then why is his/her voice not heard? If all you wish to see are the 6-o'clock news bulletins...forget it. Such dull stories of 'scientific inquiry' are never given treatment, unless they are of IMMEDIATE concern (such as health issues) to the viewers. Air time is too precious to waste on what *might* be occuring. There are too many car dealerships panting over their advertising dollars and too many program ratings to be won. npeA> There are no major research labs which are not intimately controlled npeA> by the government either directly or through dependence on funding. You've got that right! Here, we call it the 'Brainstorm' theory of government grants (named after the movie and its plot). Once you have something tangible and workable in the lab...your favorite Uncle takes over. npeA> who have seen/smelled/touched/heard/talked to intelligent alien npeA> beings. The evidence is so huge you can...taste it! But how does such npeA> a person prove to *YOU* that he/she experienced something real and is npeA> not lying? It doesn't seem possible to do that. I would blame the 'Greys' (our favorite term) for that oversight. As long as THEY want to remain in the shadows and limit their presence to isolated contacts with the indigenous populous (seeing that there has NEVER been a true 'White House lawn' landing), than ALL those reports will continue to be suspect. How do I prove that the bullet struck someone dead if they are not around to listen to me? npeA> Additionally, many people have a *GREAT* handle on the 'sixth' sense. npeA> You probably have been exposed to the worst of it, or you don't npeA> believe it is real so you haven't sought any of it out. I would imagine that this falls into the same arena as Grey Hunting. Only difference is one deals with PHYSICAL phenomenon...the other ETHERIC. npeA> Wrong about science. Science is often about making assumptions in npeA> order to either get the models to fit data or to simplify the npeA> equations. The problem here is that the data is 'scattered,' as you npeA> have said. It's too hard to tell a good data point from a fudged one. Now...substitute the word *sightings* for the word 'data' above. See how easy it is to have the same validation problems cross over fields of study? npeA> 'Ignorance breeds fear,' someone once said, and ignorance and npeA> fear are the best combination for control of people. There seem to be npeA> plenty of clues which suggest that ignorance, fear, and control are npeA> the ends being sought. UFOs and aliens are simply one of many means npeA> toward that end. Turn that one around. Stories of UFOs and aliens are the RESULT of that fear. No one doubts that the government looooooooves control. It is the fundamental reason for its existence and purpose. But to ascribe all reports or COVERUP of those reports to government, gives them too much credence and authenticity. npeA> I asked what people would do with it is related to the official npeA> government position of non-existence. If you believe we are being npeA> visited by aliens, then you *MUST* believe that the government, npeA> visible and invisible, has a *VERY STRONG REASON FOR COVERING IT UP npeA> ALL THESE YEARS*. Once again, that banks on the ferverent *assumption* there are any true incidences to be covered up. The biggest excuse usually centers on, "Well, we MUST keep this knowledge from the public at large. Think of all the upheavals and riots this will create, once it is revealed that Man is not the center of his own universe!" Government would be shattered...churches would turn tail and run since they would be exposed as the sham they are...chaos would reign supreme...etc...etc. Now we cannot have that happening in our nice, neat and orderly world society, right? npeA> Generally, when something is true and it is desired to npeA> discredit (debunk) the information, the speaker is attacked. That is old news. Been going on for centuries. Funny thing is...many times, they are right! In many such cases So-and-So IS crazy and their information is NOT true after all. Or it could be out and out fabrication, usually to gain acceptance...fame...money...etc. npeA> Therefore, because the scientific method and the major-media will not npeA> come through for us, a different approach is needed. It means npeA> absorbing everything at your disposal, no matter how poorly or how npeA> well packaged. This means including ancient myths and legends. npeA> Mostly it means accepting some claims as believable without what one npeA> would call concrete proof, and filling in the spaces with your own npeA> discernment. One cannot throw out true scientific study, regardless of the poor or limited exposure, just because one is eager to see their beliefs externalized. The fictional character Samantha Stevens may really be able to twitch her nose, but that is where the reality of her abilities ends in this world. The rest of the effect is so much camera trickery and desire on the audience's part. npeA> That is why I wish the discussion would take up the question of npeA> 'Why' they are here rather than 'Whether' they are here. I would tend to doubt that ParaNet would give up its credibility with the community, by ignoring one aspect and concentrating solely on the other. The "Why" can't even be properly discussed until the "Whether" is addressed. :-) -- Steve Rose - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Steve.Rose@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ncar!ecn.purdue.edu!lush Subject: Star Trek--The Next Generation Date: 15 Jul 91 19:40:35 GMT From: lush@ecn.purdue.edu (Gregory B Lush) I just saw a rerun of an episode of Star Trek--The Next Generation. It describes how the Enterprise makes first contact with a planet just about to learn how to achieve warp-drive--that is, travel faster than the speed of light. The methods of contact used and the terminology used by the captain in talking to the leader of the planet sounded similar to what I have read as explanations for why aliens might be here now. Did anyone else see this episode? Is there any way someone could find out on what the writers/producers based their script? Greg (lush@ecn.purdue.edu) -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: The Coverup Date: 16 Jul 91 07:09:00 GMT In response to a message from Greg Lush (concerning the cover-up of the UFO situation) Steve Rose writes: > > I would blame the 'Greys' (our favorite term) for that > oversight. As long as THEY want to remain in the shadows > and limit their presence to isolated contacts with the > indigenous populous (seeing that there has NEVER been a > true 'White House lawn' landing), than ALL those reports > will continue to be suspect. This has been my opinion for a long time. The existence of a cover-up is ultimately up to the UFOnauts themselves. If they ever decided to get really bold, the government's efforts at "damage control" would be futile. The fact that they keep such a low profile is the only thing that keeps the notion of a coverup alive. If those little wimps had any guts at all, they'd interrupt the halftime show at the next Super Bowl! -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Re: Roswell Discussion Date: 16 Jul 91 07:38:00 GMT >> 1) The entire second crash site scenario is a house of cards. Barney >I feel that these inconsistencies serve to support the case even more. >Barney Barnett may have been under so much duress at that time that he did >exactly what the military told him to do under threat of criminal >prosecution. I have fleshed this point out with Mark Rodeghier, and I can understand why the Barnett scenario was included. But I think it should have been more noticeably labeled "speculation." >very ambiguous. I feel that they have not stretched their speculation >regarding this point. Perhaps not, but it is obvious that they use it as a foundation for their conclusion that the alien hypothesis has been proven. I just think its a tad early for that. >On another similarly related point, Magdalena was noted >by the authors to not be the point of the second debris field. However, >LaPaz was sent out a little over a year later to discover yet another related >debris field. I do find the La Paz connection very interesting. Hadn't heard his name mentioned in connection with this case before. >> 2) Mac Brazel, who saw only a debris field, was imprisoned for days and >> supposedly debriefed by the military. Barney Barnett, who saw a saucer, >> bodies, the whole shootin' match, was merely "shooed away" by the >> military. >This is unfounded and is not even a legit point. First, we don't know >exactly what Mac Brazel saw. We don't know what his attitude was with the >military which prompted them to cloister him for those days. Again, Mark Rodeghier answered the same way. He states that Brazel might well have had an attitude problen. In any case, I don't see this particular objection as a problem. >> 3) A glaring inconsistency in the much-vaunted time-line: The "first >> flight from Washington" arrived at Roswell at 12 Noon. Allowing for a >> two-hour drive to Corona, that places them at the crash site around 2PM. >> Yet the CIC man stated that a "photography crew from Washington" had >> been on the scene by 11AM. How did they get there? >A trivial point. The Air Force uses planes. If they flew in from >Washington, it would make perfect sense that they flew to the site and may >have landed on the roadway, or someplace else in close proximity to the >debris field. Mmmm, naw, I don't think so. I think its more likely just a poor memory on someone's part. Again, perhaps not major, but if it's so trivial, I don't think the authors should have hesitated to say, "This is an inconsistency." I understand, however, that some of this will be cleared up in the Special Report. >> 4) The gases that cause the stench associated with decomposition also >> cause profound bloating, which would result in "fat corpses." Yet the >> corpses were invariably described as "skinny." >Again, trivial. If we are dealing with non-human entities, then we do not >know that their method of decomposition would be consistent with humans. But the presence of a stench is a strong clue that it WOULD be. [Continued] -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Re: Roswell Discussion Date: 16 Jul 91 07:39:00 GMT >> 6) The crate used to ship the alleged bodies measured 14' by 5' by 5' >> (or thereabouts). This works out to about 300 cubic feet. This much ice >> would weigh 18,000 lbs. Allowing for a hollowed-out area to contain the >> bodies, let's say anywhere from 10,000-12,000 pounds. Yet one of the >> crewmen was quoted as saying that the weight-and-balance man cleared the >> plane for flight without doing his calculations, since the load would be >> so light. >Without knowing my aviation stuff, as I suspect Mike doesn't, I would say >that 18,000 pounds is nothing compared to other cargo that the military would >fly in a cargo hold of one of their planes. Without knowing a great deal of aviation stuff myself, I believe that's incorrect. 18,000 pounds would, if not positioned properly, have a major effect on the flight characteristics of almost ANY plane that I'm aware of. There are such things as moment-arms and the center of gravity to be dealt with. >Also, due to the nature of the >material that was contained in the cargo, all of the necessary arrangements >would have been pre-arranged to alleviate another person in the chain of >having intimate knowledge of his cargo. But they seemed *inconsistenly* concerned over this. It is inconceivable to me, for example, that they would go to the lengths of having the W&B calculated in advance, yet allow as many people as they did to have access to the material. One guy actually peeked into the hangar with his buddy. >> However, I part company with Mike on the ultimate >> conclusion to be drawn from these discrepancies. I view these as a point >> of departure for further research, rather than as a basis for dismissal >> of the case as a whole. Mike said that the authors were inconsistent; I >> replied that it was the evidence that was inconsistent, and the authors >> were to be commended for including contradictory testimony, and labeling >> it as such. >I have to disagree completely. What amazes me is that this argument is >another of the typical "maintain the party line" in direct opposition of >solid eyewitness data to a very extraordinary incident. I don't think Mike is maintaining the party line. He acknowledges that something crashed at Roswell, and acknowledges that it most likely is not a weather balloon. He even characterizes the eyewitness testimony surrounding the first crash site as "remarkably consistent." His main point of contention is that we should not accept this body of research as gospel until the weaker portions are addressed. Put simply, he was looking for a more scholarly work. While I must admit I would love to have seen a highly scientific, airtight research project done, I argued that such a thing is well-nigh impossible given the current financing of Ufology and the fact that we have to make do with a flyboy and a commercial artist rather than trained historians and archaeologists. I'd say they did a helluva job under the circumstances. I also argued that this was a work in progress, and part of the idea of releasing the book when they did was to generate more data from people who are still hiding in the woodwork. But just as skeptics and debunkers need to squarely face the issues the book raises, it is unfair to expect them to do so while we ignore or trivialize the problems they raise. I think CUFOS agrees with me on this, based on my conversation with Mark. >2) Why would trained observers like Marcel make such a stupid mistake in >identification of a simple weather balloon? Even if it was classified, the >weather balloon was as common as the automobile. Would Marcel have made such >a misidentification? Surely not. This might be a good time for me to ask, Did Marcel in any of his later interviews, ever claim that the material he displayed in Ramey's office was not the material he brought in from Roswell? I may just be drawing a blank on this, but I don't think I've ever read where he said that. Can someone straighten me out on this? I think its important. > This example above is not skepticism, it is debunkery. I am skeptical, and > I will admit that something happened there. So does Stackpole! All he's saying is that its early yet, and we have not ELIMINATED prosaic explanations, which we MUST do before we can jump on the alien bandwagon. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ncar!CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU!morekypr.BITNET!HALLRL Subject: Psychics and abductions Date: 16 Jul 91 18:07:08 GMT From: HALLRL%morekypr@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU +From: Ed.Ngai@f2704.n206.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Ed Ngai) +Subject: Abductions +Date: 16 Jun 91 04:03:00 GMT + +Does anyone know if any ESP'ers, Clairvoiant's, have ever been +abducted? Seems that all the Earthlings that have been abducted were +normal Human Beings. Why don't Extra-Terrestials ever abduct Humans with +special powers, if there really are such Humans as +Clairvoiant's. Well, there does seem to be some correlation between abductions and humans who have paranormal abilities. I would suggest that you pick up a copy of 'ENCOUNTERS' by Dr. Edith Fiore. There are several case studies of people with psychic abilities that experience abductions on a regular basis and even seem to be in the process of undergoing training by the visitors to enhance these abilities. In 'THE WATCHERS', Raymond Fowler also explores the experiences of Betty Andreasson Luca that include many out-of-body experiences connected with abductions. He also postulates that these visitors may be billions of years in advance of our race and civilization, and that their perception of time, space, and dimensions are far beyond even our wildest dreams. Hope this gives you some direction with your question. Randy -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Roswell Discussion Date: 16 Jul 91 20:21:00 GMT > I don't think Mike is maintaining the party line. He acknowledges that > something crashed at Roswell, and acknowledges that it most likely is > not a > weather balloon. He even characterizes the eyewitness testimony > surrounding > the first crash site as "remarkably consistent." His main point of > contention > is that we should not accept this body of research as gospel until the > weaker > portions are addressed. Put simply, he was looking for a more scholarly > work. Why base these inconsistencies on throwing out the baby with the bath water? What is important is that the consistency is in place for the original field debris found in Brazel's area. Simply based upon the consistent eyewitness' testimony from this part, we can conclude that something extraordinary occurred there, perhaps, according to the witnesses, something out of this world. Even without consistent testimony to the additional debris field, we must elevate this incident to the proper status. It was not a crash of anything conventional. Added to this, after 44 years, what aerial device could still warrant such high level secrecy? I will agree that the prosaic is still a viable option, however, I consider most of those witnesses from the Air Force to be "expert." Taking Roswell as a single incident is not necessarily valid, either. You must incorporate this into the overall picture of what this phenomenon represents. We have many reports of fly-overs, strange devices executing fantastic maneuvers, eyewitness accounts placing non-human entities in direct proximity to these devices, and a lot more. Although these are not scientific findings, they do lend some credibility to the validity of the phenomenon. I suggest that Roswell is merely a piece of the puzzle which provides more than a single eyewitness account of a UFO. The circumstances leading up to and following the recovery of the debris suggests that something happened. As to the body situation, how would Stackpole answer the mortician's claims? Would he agree that bodies of some type were recovered, be they human or not? Why would the Air Force purchase caskets and dry ice unless they were interested in preserving biological material? Why would they be in contact with the mortician asking for advice on various embalming techniques. I won't accept an answer such as "the bodies were Rhesus monkeys returning from a secret space flight." If the Air Force did recover bodies, human or not, what were they doing in association with this crash of a weather balloon? My point in saying that Mike's arguments are trivial are that he makes such statements without firm counterpoints that adequately answer the objections. So, there is inconsistencies in some of the testimony? Which percentage of this testimony is out of line? What could this represent? Does it invalidate the incredible testimony of the original witnesses to the Brazel debris field? No, at least from what I can glean. > While I must admit I would love to have seen a highly scientific, > airtight > research project done, I argued that such a thing is well-nigh > impossible > given the current financing of Ufology and the fact that we have to make > do > with a flyboy and a commercial artist rather than trained historians and > archaeologists. I'd say they did a helluva job under the circumstances. > I also argued that this was a work in progress, and part of the idea of > releasing the book when they did was to generate more data from people > who are still hiding in the woodwork. But just as skeptics and debunkers > need to squarely face the issues the book raises, it is unfair to expect > them to do so while we ignore > or trivialize the problems they raise. I think CUFOS agrees with me on > this, > based on my conversation with Mark. The beginning of any finding starts with claims. This investigation is far from over. The scientific aspect will not apply here, unfortunately. There is nothing left after 44 years but memories. However, this does represent some very solid and incriminating evidence against the so-called "cover-up." What is important now is what we do with this from this point forward? I do not believe that debunkers have any place in this. You and I both know that a debunker is not interested in the truth. They will twist as much of it as they possibly can, without giving the evidence a fair hearing. As in the case of Mike Stackpole, I would love to see more in the way of alternatives. Perhaps he could provide us with some food for thought? > This might be a good time for me to ask, Did Marcel in any of his later > interviews, ever claim that the material he displayed in Ramey's office > was > not the material he brought in from Roswell? I may just be drawing a > blank on this, but I don't think I've ever read where he said that. Can > someone > straighten me out on this? I think its important. I will have to locate it, but yes, I do believe that Marcel made statements to this effect. There was something, as I recall, in the IUR, about Marcel stating that he carried some of the debris in from the plane, but that when he left the room, it was switched. He claimed that the material that is in the photograph with DuBose is not the same material. I will attempt to locate that article. In the meantime, maybe Mark Rodeghier could comment on this aspect of it here. > So does Stackpole! All he's saying is that its early yet, and we have > not > ELIMINATED prosaic explanations, which we MUST do before we can jump on > the > alien bandwagon. I do not advocate jumping on the "alien" bandwagon. However, I do not eliminate this as a very viable possibility, again, with the information from reliable sources to date. We will have to see where this goes, but again, it is important to raise solid counter-issues with something to back it up. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.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 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************************