Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 509 Wednesday, December 11th 1991 Today's Topics: Antigravity report An Interesting Development ... Omni Online Revision/Update Popular Mechanics Re: Revision/Update EARLY AMERICANS Vegas Update Q&A: John Burroughs Re: Welcome back! Re: Sphinx debated UFORA moving to Cairns Omni Online Popular Mechanics Re: Omni Comments Re: Omni ONLINE Omni Online ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wam.umd.edu!infinity Subject: Antigravity report Date: 5 Dec 91 00:38:03 GMT From: David Elmore Coleman I am wondering if anyone has any further information on the following article from sci.physics or sci.astro last year. At the bottom a reprint license is given with certain conditions, which are plainly satisfied. Does anyone know how to contact the below organization, given the little information that the organization below provides us about how to contact it? I would like to mention the January 1990 Physics Review Letters A article on Japanese scientists detecting mass loss in an electrical gyroscope, which would imply perhaps an antigravity effect similar to the gyroscopic antigravity effect purported below. Subsequent attempts to reproduce the Japanese results have failed to acheive mass loss results, although the experiments are designed somewhat differently. If I recall correctly the difference involved the absence of electricity in the follow-up experiments. This version of emacs unfortunately does not allow me to precede lines with the traditional '> '. It used to work, the ^[R command, until they switched to the idiotic NeXT server which has screwed everybody. ----------------CUT------HERE------(if_you_want_to_of_course!)---------- +From mcnc!rinne Fri Aug 31 10:25:53 EDT 1990 An interesting article I just received on converting angular momentum into linear momentum: <><><><><><><> T h e V O G O N N e w s S e r v i c e <><><><><><><><> Edition : 2131 Thursday 16-Aug-1990 Circulation : 8288 VNS TECHNOLOGY WATCH: [Mike Taylor, VNS Correspondent] ===================== [Nashua, NH, USA ] The man who defies gravity (and scientists, and skeptics, and Newton) Scotland to Sydney in 17 minutes ? Mars in 1= days ? It could happen thanks to the engineer Sandy Kidd's anti-gravity invention. Stuart Bathgate meets the man who British Aerospace are at last taking seriously. In 1903 the eminent American astronomer Simon Newcomb 'proved' on paper that heavier-than-air flight was a mathematical impossibility. Later that year the Wright brothers flew a Kitty Hawk. This gap between accepted scientific theory and reality is all too familiar to Dundee-based engineer Sandy Kidd. In a book published this week, Beyond 2001, Kidd provides a fascinating account of the process that eventually led to his producing a self-propelling giroscopic device - the Kidd machine - which, it is said, will revolutionize the laws of physics. In particular, Kidd's claims that Newton's Laws of Motion - sacrosanct for centuries - do not hold true for all instances. The machine's value though, is not just theoretical. Employing constant acceleration, it could shrink the solar system. Traveling to Mars would take a day and a half. Neptune - some seven years distant by rocket - would be reached in under a fortnight. Distances on Earth too, could become meaningless: instead of commuting by rail from, say Linlithgow to Edinburgh, a journey of 15 minutes, the owner of a Kidd machine could travel to work daily from Sydney - it would only take two minutes longer. All this is possible because of what is known as 'anti-Newtonian lift'. The classical physics dictum that 'every action must have an equal and opposite reaction' is observable in everyday life: you can only jump into the air by first pushing down on the ground; a rocket can escape our atmosphere only by producing a phenomenal thrust. Yet Kidd's machine does not require thrust to lift itself into the air. It is not lifted by aerodynamics. It does not depend on a hot-air cushion. Incredible as it sounds, Kidd's machine rises by losing weight. 'Taking angular momentum and turning it into linear momentum without a reaction is just not allowed,' says Kidd - 'but that's what my machine does.' Needles to say, since that night in 1984 when he first got the machine to work in his own garage on the outskirts of Dundee, reaction from the academic world has been almost universally hostile. At first, the tactic was to laugh it off, with the claim that Kidd was spinning a yarn, not a giroscope. Then, various, increasingly desperate, attempts were made to prove that Kidd's device, did, after all, conform to the known laws of physics. None of them have been successful. Now, six years on, with the publication of 'Beyond 2001', and of an independent laboratory report on his machine, Kidd says that it is time for the academics to put up or shut up. 'They just want to think that if they jump up and down and tear their hair out I'll admit I'm a liar. A lot of them are like children when you've taken away their toys. It really gets to them. How can this unqualified nitwit make this machine?' It's a refreshingly honest self-description. Kidd realizes all too well the apparent uncertainty of the situation: an engineer with no academic training potters about in his shed, cannibalizing washing machines and lawn-mowers for spare parts until he stands accepted physics on its head. His interest in the entire project began, he says, in the air force. 'There were a lot of times with nothing to do, times of boredom when you just lie in your pit and ask 'Who am I? Why am I here?' - all these two-steps-to-the-loony-bin questions. So you had to find some other interest. In my case, I honestly believed that man would find an alternative means of space travel.' It was the very fact that Kidd had not been 'brainwashed', as he puts it, by an academic training, that led him to ask the right questions in the first place. He also has an implicit awareness of the importance of the old saying, that the greatest wisdom of all is to appreciate the depth of your own ignorance. 'When I hear scientists say we know all there is to know about the laws of physics it annoys me. How can they be so arrogant? We don't have a clue. Nobody's ever seen an electron. We don't know what gravity is. We don't know what inertia is. We only scratch the surface' Events have moved on apace since the successful lab tests with which the book concludes. Whereas previously Kidd had achieved the lifting effect without knowing how strong that effect could become, in the last six months, he says, 'I have proved it can be as good as you want it to be. It's only limited to the strength of the material.' Of equal importance is the fact that he now knows why the machine works - not only because it will help to make technical advances, but also because his wife Janet - 'I couldn't have done any of this without her' - is threatening to leave him if he doesn't stop constructing new, improved models. 'She said that years ago,' says Kidd, trying to laugh off his wife's assertion. 'Aye, but I mean it this time,' she replies. The Kidd machine works for reasons entirely different to those he first thought of, although clearly, with the enormous potential involved, he is not about to divulge those reasons to the general public. 'Let's just say that a physicist or mathematician who isn't brainwashed or hidebound will be able to look at the machine and accept that my explanation for why it works is correct.' If anyone is still skeptical, Kidd is willing to stake more than personal pride on the veracity of his claims. 'I'm prepared to bet my house against their house,' he says. 'All those academics can take me up on that if they still refuse to believe me. They'll be furious when the book comes out - and the more fury the book raises, the happier I'll be - but I doubt if any of them will take me up on that bet.' There is a theory of scientific advancement known as 'steam-kettle time' which asserts that once the conditions are right, a certain invention is more or less inevitable. Scattered around Europe and North America are dozens of people working independently on the same project. At least two others, Kidd thinks, have achieved anti-Newtonian lift. 'A lot of people have been working on 'anti-gravity devices' for the same reason as me,' he says. 'The rocket is a crude, inefficient, dangerous device. There has to be a better way.' Now the timescale for commercial development of that better way is 'directly proportional to wallet - it all depends on how much money someone is willing to put into it.' While it was announced yesterday that British Aerospace will help fund further tests, the Australian company BWN with whom Kidd has worked for several years will retain a keen interest in the device's development: the engineer will soon return to Australia, with his wife, to supervise more research. Kidd's device, then, is an idea whose time has come. And, one might say paradoxically, not before time. Anyone who struggles for so many years to achieve what is said to be impossible, who perseveres despite the diverse difficulties detailed in Beyond 2001, must either be mad, or know that he is right. Sandy Kidd is not mad. Very soon now the final verdict will be delivered. - Beyond 2001: The laws of physics revolutionized, By Sandy Kidd, with Ron Thompson, is published on Thursday by Sidgwick and Jackson, #14.95 {contributed by Craig Cockburn, From Scotland on Sunday, 5-Aug-90} <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Please send subscription and backissue requests to CASEE::VNS Permission to copy material from this VNS is granted (per DIGITAL PP&P) provided that the message header for the issue and credit lines for the VNS correspondent and original source are retained in the copy. <><><><><><><><> VNS Edition : 2131 Thursday 16-Aug-1990 <><><><><><><><> ----------------END-OF-ARTICLE------SO-CUT-HERE-if-you-like-------------------- 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.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: An Interesting Development ... Date: 4 Dec 91 08:13:52 GMT In a message to Jim Speiser <30 Nov 91 23:09> Doug Rogers wrote: >> I predict that this person will either a) never come forward, >> b) will come forward with an alias, or c) will come forward >> with his real name, but will be able to provide nothing >> in the way of evidence, either for his claims or his background. DR> Are you entering this in PARANET_PREDICT?????? I should, hey? Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Omni Online Date: 4 Dec 91 08:15:51 GMT In a message to Jim Speiser <02 Dec 91 07:50> Peggy Noonan wrote: PN> Thanks for the suggestion. If you have any ideas on PN> which BBS should be included in a UFO BBS article, I'd love to PN> hear from you on that too, okay? PN> ==Peggy== Thanks, Peggy. I'll think about it. Glad to hear CUFON is back online, but am not familiar with Jim Klotz. Is Dale Goudie still connected with it? Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Revision/Update Date: 4 Dec 91 08:23:28 GMT In a message to Michael Corbin <30 Nov 91 23:26> Linda Bird wrote: LB> Hello Mike, LB> To my surprise, Loren revised his paper on Bentwaters without a LB> fuss, and I'll send it out Monday. (Will miracles never cease??) Linda: Suppose I could get a copy as well, to show to John? Thanks! Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Popular Mechanics Date: 4 Dec 91 08:34:44 GMT In a message to All <03 Dec 91 01:22> John Burke wrote: JB> As an aside, I am rather suspicious about the way in which UFO JB> design has parallelled earthly design trends. The older UFO JB> photographs and sketches (such as the McMinnville, Oregon UFO) JB> have an almost "art deco" look. More recent UFOs, as JB> photographed in the Hudson Valley area and in Belgium have a more JB> "Stealth"-y, Bauhaus type of look that is so popular nowdays. JB> -- John John: I am currently working on an article for CONTINUUM that will address this issue, and much more. It's turning out to be sort of a Unified Field Theory of UFOs. I might just send you an advance draft for review...I think I'll need a reality check for this one. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird) Subject: Re: Revision/Update Date: 5 Dec 91 04:04:00 GMT Hi Jim, Will certainly see that you get an update of Loren's report/retort! Linda -- Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: CU.NIH.GOV!ZAK Subject: EARLY AMERICANS Date: 5 Dec 91 18:33:45 GMT From: ZAK@CU.NIH.GOV From: wam.umd.edu!infinity + In July or August 1989 a French anthropological or archaeological journal + published or reviewed a study by a Brazilian archaeologist/anthropologist + concerning remains in northern Brazil dated by thermoluminescence to + be 300,000 years old. This came on the heels of a discovery in the Mojave + Desert, which was at the time quite controversial, concerning 270,000 year + old evidence of human habitation. I have been unable to find the journal, + as I got my information from a news periodical I should have photocopied. -- MORE-- Have you seen the book _American_Genesis_ by the-name-escapes-me? -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wrs.com!davidj Subject: Vegas Update Date: 6 Dec 91 02:33:28 GMT From: davidj@wrs.com (David Jones) *************************** Written a few days ago *************************** I called Wendelle Stevens at home last Sunday night and asked him if the rumor was true. He said that the only time he was approached by the F.B.I. was in May and in regards to the Russians. His (Dec 12th) Thursday night special will be more undisclosed stuff from Bob Lazar and, if he comes out from the underground, a 2nd level security guard from northern Nellis will tell what he knows (not a test pilot - Oh well). I spent most of last Saturday and Sunday with Marina Popovich, asking her everything I could think of. I will be with Colin Andrews this weekend. I need to be at the Russian Consolate in San Francisco tomorrow for a press conference with Marina, Andrews and Harder anouncing the Soviet American UFO/ET Symposium that I am helping to produce. On Sunday I will be with Dr. Steven Greer, founder of CSETI who has been successful in getting a group consciousness of 30 - 50 people to get an alien fly-by. I'll beleive it when I see it. Location is classified. Next week I'm off to the Vegas show. I wish I had time to share with you what Marina had to say. Maybe later ... *************************** UPDATE *************************** Well, according to Bob Brown, Wendelle's grandson, Mr. Cox, just spent a bunch of time with this, so-called, 2nd level security guard by travelling all over Florida with him. As it turns out none of the things that this guard said could be verified. Cox left the guy in Florida after deciding that he was a con man. This is very disappointing. As I write this, Cox is in his car on his way back to Arizona. Oh well, perhaps it was too good to be true ... I apologize for the mis/dis-information, it was unintentional. Ah, but the intrigue ... :-) ------------------- David W. Jones davidj@wrs.com OR uunet!wrs!davidj ------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale.Anderson@p3.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Dale Anderson) Subject: Q&A: John Burroughs Date: 5 Dec 91 03:07:07 GMT In a message to All <21 Nov 91 15:35> Jim Speiser wrote: JS> PARANET Q&A: JOHN BURROUGHS JS> If you have any questions or comments about the Bentwaters case JS> that you would like to address to any of these witnesses, please JS> post them in reply to this message. I will compile all the JS> questions and send them on to John, and then will transcribe his JS> responses to the network. You bet. Here they are. Questions are addressed to John Burroughs, or as he deems, to another individual. -+-- 1. How do you respond to the allegation by Jacques Vallee in his new book, Revelations", that you and your UFO witness group may have been unknowing subjects of a psychological experiment perpetrated by the U.S. military? 2. Did anything seem different in regard to the way the SP's reacted to the bright lights in Rendlesham Forest? Any actions that didn't follow Air Force guidelines/checklists? Is it official A.F. policy to disallow weapon use off the base? 3. The second patrol unit that met you near the base gates, was this unit on a routine patrol as you were? How many patrols are normally in force during the evening hours? 4. The object that appeared to land. Was this object disc shaped or other? Did the object appear to rotate? Was any sound heard from the object? How many feet away, at closest approach, were you from the landed UFO? Do you feel this object was under a controlled guidance? 5. Were you present when the red object 'broke up' and dispersed? If not, would Col. Halt describe this in more detail? 6. We have heard various rumors of entities being present during the sighting of the landed UFO. Do you know if there is any truth to these rumors? 7. Did anyone remark about their watches being off time, or items to that nature? 8. Do you know if the malfunctioning light-alls were found to be defective upon later inspection? 9. Does the Air Force continue to neither confirm nor deny the sightings? Has anyone experienced discontent from the Air Force, since appearing on the Unsolved Mysteries program? 10. Are you currently on active Air Force Reserve status? 11. Were the forest animals actually highly agitated and frightened? Were they possibly confused because of the bright lights and the sense of daylight? 12. What was the total time duration of all events, to the best of your knowledge? 13. In your opinion, do you feel the governments of the world are involved in a UFO cover-up? Why, or why not? 14. Have you witnessed, other than the Bentwaters incident, a UFO which you couldn't explain? Have you recalled periods of unaccounted 'missing time'? 15. What are your thoughts when challenged by skeptical people who say the Bentwaters events never happened as you and your comrades described them? 16. How have the UFO events changed your life? -+-- That's it. Please thank Mr. Burroughs for his time and his appearance on Unsolved Mysteries. I also extend my thanks to the remainder of the Bentwaters witnesses for coming forward with their story, as well. JS> Also, we're open to suggestions for future Q&A subjects. Among JS> all the members of this network, there's barely a major UFO JS> figure in the world that cannot be reached fairly easily for JS> comments. The following suggestions may fall within the "barely" category. :-) Jacques Vallee: UFO/abduction origin theories and how they may interrelate. Linda Howe: The proposed connections between mutilations and black helicopters. John Keel: His current mindset regarding Roswell and UFOs. Lawrence Fawcett and/or Barry Greenwood: The overall success rate of procuring formerly classified documents via FOIA requests, and past/pending legislation that has/could impede the FOIA. Robert Lazar: Area 51, and why he decided to speak up. Why others won't. Thanks for the opportunity, Jim. It's greatly appreciated by all of us. Regards, Dale -- Dale Anderson - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Dale.Anderson@p3.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird) Subject: Re: Welcome back! Date: 6 Dec 91 04:42:00 GMT Hi Vlad, Glad to see you are enjoying the weather there. Ours isn't too bad, either. When I was in Greece in the summertime, I'd always meet Aussies trying to get away from the winters! In that part of Australia where you are now, is there enough farming and growing of grains to get some crop circles? We're all waiting to see what develops in your neck of the woods! Keep your eyes on the skies, Linda -- Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird) Subject: Re: Sphinx debated Date: 6 Dec 91 05:09:00 GMT Hi David, I greatly enjoyed the articles on the Sphinx, and hope you will post your findings. In the latest issue of UFO Newsclipping Service, there were 2 articles on the professors and the Sphinx. Fascinating! Best, Linda -- Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: UFORA moving to Cairns Date: 5 Dec 91 18:49:56 GMT In a message to Jim Speiser <05 Dec 91 00:45> Vladimir Godic wrote: >> Good to have you back! Things have been slow in your absence, >> except for a highly skeptical report on the Belgium case (which >> itself must be viewed with skepticism...) VG> Jim, VG> Yes IT'S good to be back with you guys. Re the Belgium case, I VG> just read the report on Paranet. Makes you wonder why suddenly such a VG> contradictory report. There's definitely something going on. VG> Hopefully we can find out the truth behind it. Offhand I would say its typical knee-jerk debunking. The article doesn't address the photographs I've seen, and it addresses the radar traces in such a general, detached manner, that I'm sure its a case of someone who didn't really do the research and is filtering his observations through his total disbelief in UFOs. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@p666.f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Omni Online Date: 6 Dec 91 07:17:00 GMT Peggy: I've noticed that in the last 2 issues of _Omni_ there has been no "Antimatter" section and hence, no "UFO Update". Did they drop it or what? -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Popular Mechanics Date: 6 Dec 91 07:20:00 GMT Jim Speiser writes: > I am currently working on an article for CONTINUUM that > will address this issue, and much more. It's turning out to > be sort of a Unified Field Theory of UFOs. I might just > send you an advance draft for review...I think I'll need a > reality check for this one. I'll look forward to it! -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve.Rose@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Rose) Subject: Re: Omni Comments Date: 4 Dec 91 02:21:00 GMT SR> Alright! Now there's some meat on dem bones. :) JS> How bout taking it one step further, and allowing the claimants to JS> review the debunking, point by point, perhaps going back and forth JS> until it boils down to a fundamental difference in philosophy Naw...they would then be forced to raise the subscription rates. ;-) -- Steve Rose - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Steve.Rose@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve.Rose@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Rose) Subject: Re: Omni ONLINE Date: 4 Dec 91 02:23:00 GMT PN> Have you been doing this -- the UFO boards -- long enough to note PN> any kind of seasonal variation in participation? That could make a PN> difference to OMNI's scheduling plans, if they should go ahead with PN> this idea. You wouldn't want to launch when nobody's home! As we have found out here after BBS sysoping for six years now... "Summer's a Bummer...but Winter is a Wonderland." :-) -- Steve Rose - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Steve.Rose@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: Omni Online Date: 6 Dec 91 01:35:00 GMT > proposal for the mag for an article about the UFO BBS, The main thing is that unlike CI$ and similar services, the ufo nets are networks, and access may be available in the reader's home town. Many writers don't seem to understand the concept of networks rather than a central system, and they leave the reader with an impression that the only way to get into an echo is to call the host, wherever that might be, just like with CI$. So, please try to get across that these are far-flung networks. For example, idonet has some 10,000 or so nodes, ranging from Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand to the west, to Canada to the north, to the tip of South America to the south, to Moscow to the east. Truly an international network. So, if for instance a Moscow node wanted to pick up Fidonet UFO from Zone 1, he could, and it would be available to users in Moscow. ParaNet also has quite a few international links, as do some of the other nets. The main point is that a potential user can find the echos with a local call, rather than having to call long-distance. If a particular echo doesn't exist locally, a few polite requests can work wonders. jbh -- John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG ********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to******** 'infopara' at the following address: UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!infopara DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com For administrative requests (subscriptions, back issues) send to: UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!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) Mail to private Paranet/Fidonet addresses from the newsletters: DOMAIN firstname.lastname@paranet.org UUCP scicom!paranet.org!firstname.lastname ******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************