Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 558 Tuesday, June 2nd 1992 (C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved. Today's Topics: Hard Copy Science and UFOlogy Re: Ufo Related Shows Re: What Can We Do? Re: Interesting Klass Item Are abductions separate from UFO Phenomena? Re: What Happened To The White Spot In W.strieber's Brain? Re: What Can We Do? Re: road flares Gulf Breeze road flares Gulf Breeze Science and UFOlogy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker) Subject: Hard Copy Date: 27 May 92 08:28:00 GMT (1339) Wed 27 May 92 1:27a By: Don Ecker To: All Re: Hard Copy St: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ @MSGID: 9:1012/3 5d81636e Tune into the NBC show Hard Copy on June 5th 1992. I set up a shoot with them concerning a very interesting video tape I recieved two weeks ago. This promises to stir up a debate that will be a long time settling. I can't say more now except it involves NASA and a recent orbital mission. Don -- Don Ecker - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Science and UFOlogy Date: 28 May 92 06:52:00 GMT Whoever said that science can't work to discover the nature of UFOs was mistaken. James M. McCampbell has published a book concerning some very sound scientific principles that can be applied to the study of this phenomenon. Below is an excerpt from his book regarding the Soft Glow that is often reported by witnesses. In the future, ParaNet will be posting such excerpts hoping to generate some discussion on various ways that science can work to instrument and measure the phenomenon. Your comments are encouraged. Excerpted from UFOLOGY by James M. McCampbell (c) 1976, Page 25 and 26. The metallic appearance of UFOs in the previous category is a result of light reflecting off their polished surfaces. But witnesses frequently indicate that the UFO itself was luminous. As distinguished from a wide variety of white or colored lights that are reportedly attached to UFOs, light is observed radiating from the entire object or its immediate vicinity. Occasional references to "sparks" immediately suggest that some kind of electrical phenomenon is involved. An electrical discharge of sufficient strength in the air surrounding a UFO would produce a soft, white glow, known as corona. Such discharge can sometimes be seen at night along a high-voltage transmission line but they are not visible in the daylight. Coronas could be responsible for the typical distinction between metallic discs that are so commonly reported in the daytime and diffuse lights most often seen at night. They would adhere to the UFO surface and gradually dissipate a short distance away, thereby appearing as the " halo " often described by witnesses. Unfortunately, an ordinary corona is not likely to be the correct explanation for the white glow. The designer of a high-voltage transmission line would seek to use the smallest possible cable to minimize the amount of copper required the weight suspended between towers, and the number of towers per mile of line. He would select electrical potentials as high as 750,000 volts to reduce the power losses from internal heating of the cable. High voltage, however, would induce power losses through corona discharge unless offset by the use of large cable sizes. As electrical lines of force converge toward the center of a cable, electrical field strengths at its surface will be smaller for cables of greater diameter. A well-designed transmission line will therefore balance these and other considerations for a minimum construction cost and utilize a cable just large enough to prevent corona under normal operating conditions. Under occasional atmospheric conditions favoring electrical breakdown, corona will occur at field strengths on the order of 3,000,000 volts per meter.8 The possibility of such extreme electrical fields being developed near a large object, such as a UFO having gently curving surfaces, seems quite remote. Even so, some technical implications arise in the context of white glow. As some sort of electrical phenomenon is suspected it can be postulated that a UFO has: a) a large, negative potential relative to ground that cause electrons to leak into the atmosphere, b) an alternating potential that agitates gas atoms in its vicinity, or c) an alternating current within its skin acting as an antenna to radiate energy into the atmosphere. -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Re: Ufo Related Shows Date: 27 May 92 14:30:00 GMT In a message to Jim Speiser <05-26-92 22:01> Richard Salts wrote: RS> If memory serves me correctly, back in '87, or thereabouts, Ted RS> Koppel did a program on his "Nightline" series about the abduction RS> phenomena when Strieber's "Communion" (which I thought then and still RS> do that it is a very good book) and Hopkins' "Intruders" first came RS> out. Unfortunately, at that time, I didn't know it was on and missed RS> it but would a show like that qualify in terms of credibility for our RS> subject? Did you see that edition of "Nightline"? I did not. Yes, "NightLine" would be a start, but not if they insisted on doing the usual "prominent ufologist vs. Phil Klass" debate. That debate is over, we've won that one, its time to get down to some real issues, say for example, Don Schmitt vs. an Air Force Public Information Officer on the Roswell crash. But NightLine would only be the beginning. I think the best vehicle would be PrimeTime Live, as it has a history of following up doggedly on their investigations. I don't want to see a one shot deal, I want some reporter to sink his teeth into the cover-up and not let go. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Re: What Can We Do? Date: 27 May 92 14:48:00 GMT In a message to Don Sudduth <05-26-92 13:20> Marc Michalik wrote: MM> Ideas? Well this may be going off of the deep end but over the last MM> several weeks I have been running an idea through my head. What if MM> we were to orginize a Dr. Martin Luther King type march on MM> Washington. It would only work if we were able to get at least about Sorry Mark, somebody tried that last year. I think it was more along the lines of camping out on the White House lawn. Only a few hundred people showed up, mostly of the fringe variety I understand (wearing pyramid hats, etc.). Somehow I think the field should be a bit more dignified than that. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird) Subject: Re: Interesting Klass Item Date: 28 May 92 05:33:00 GMT Hi Mike, You mentioned the "infamous Daniel Fry photo" (of a UFO) and by that I assume you mean the absoluteley,clear, unmistakable photo shown on the cover of "UFO Crash at Roswell." (Hoe DID that photo get on that book cover anyhow??) Linda -- Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mrc-crc.ac.uk!sgamble Subject: Are abductions separate from UFO Phenomena? Date: 28 May 92 16:14:05 GMT From: sgamble@mrc-crc.ac.uk (Steve Gamble x3293) In Bulletin 556, Mike Corbin relayed a message I originally sent to alt.alien.visitors on internet concerning abductions. This was a follow-up to an article which appeared in The Times which stated that reliable surveys had shown that one in fifty americans believed they had been abducted. I having been working a few ideas through for several months. Now might be a good time to start to air these and stimulate comments. A common view is that abductions are caused by aliens travelling in spacecraft coming down and kidnapping people. (OK Guys I know its not as simple as that :) ) I do not dispute that there is such a thing as the abduction phenomenon or that 1 in 50 americans believe they have been abducted. What I find difficult to account for is the size of the operation involved if the scenario of aliens in spacecraft is correct. As stated in the previous post, I would expect there to be around 3000 UFO reports PER DAY from the USA alone. Given that maybe only 10% of UFOs get reported that should still mean that UFO groups should get 200 to 300 reports per day. Thinking about say the Communion film, Streiber has a number of encounters with entities before there is even a suggestion of a spacecraft being involved. Some of the other abduction reports I have come across do not mention spacecraft or UFOs. What I want to propose is Abductions are one phenomenon and that UFOs are a separate phenomenon. If 1 in 50 people has been abducted that is 2% of the population. If they two phenomena are independent then we would expect 2% of all UFO reporters to also be abductees. I have no feel for what proportion of UFO reporters are abductees, does anybodyelse? The only guide I could have is that in the UFO Experience Hynek states that 1% of UFO cases are Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I believe he included distant sightings of entities and contactees, but he raises the Betty and Barney Hill case as something different and he felt uneasy at including it with CE3s. (Hynek's book was published in 1972, although there were a few abduction cases very little had been made public at this time) If the two phenomena are linked then I would expect a significantly higher proportion of abductees to report also UFO sightings than the general population and more than 2% of the UFO reporters to be abductees. Comments............. Steve -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: What Happened To The White Spot In W.strieber's Brain? Date: 28 May 92 16:20:00 GMT * Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors" * Originally from Robert Sheaffer * Originally dated 05-27-92 15:35 From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) Date: 27 May 92 05:07:51 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.paranormal While we're on the subject of Whitley Strieber, the following appeared in the November, 1988 issue of BASIS, the Bay Area Skeptics' BBS. (Call the Skeptics' Board at 415-648-8944 for lots more good stuff!) The "Transformation" of Whitley Strieber by Robert Sheaffer On September 21, 1988, viewers of the popular daytime television show "People Are Talking" on KPIX, Channel 5, in San Francisco saw an amazing thing. Whitley Strieber, author of such popular works of fiction as "The Wolfen", and "The Hunger", as well as the best-selling and supposedly true accounts of humanoid visitation in "Communion" an "Transformation", indignantly refused to let the hosts of the show do any promotion of his latest book! No doubt the viewers of that show are still scratching their heads about such inexplicable behavior on the part of a guest doing a book promotion tour. As the other guest on that show, the one who was all but ignored by the hosts, let me explain why that strange scene happened. You see, forty-five minutes before air time, I arrived at the studio and was escorted to the Green Room, where guests are groomed and prepared. There I came upon Whitley Strieber in the midst of a world-class temper tantrum. He was indignantly refusing to go on! He apparently expected to be the only guest, and to have an entire hour to expound his fantasies about the humanoid "visitors" who are said to be lavishing their unwanted attention on him, unchallenged and unquestioned. I later found out that while he had left instructions with those arranging the tour that under no circumstances would he appear on any show with Philip J. Klass, he had not ruled out - at least to them - appearing with some other skeptic. The producer of "People Are Talking," Karen Stevenson, a young woman of great firmness and tact, was sitting there quietly enduring Whitley's verbal assaults. "I don't know who this man is," complained Streiber, "and I don't know what he will say!" Apparently he expects all opposing opinions to be cleared in advance! Karen firmly repeated that she had made all arrangements with his publisher, and with his publicist, in accordance with their instructions, and they had raised no objections. The young woman representing his publicist sat there quietly and somewhat nervously, obviously wishing she were somewhere else. Whitley continued his tirade. Pointing to me, he shouted "that man is going to go on and challenge my mental health. He's going to call me crazy! He's with that CSICOP, they're just as nuts as those new-age people. They have a religion of disbelief." In his short tirade against the skeptics, who he says are in the habit of calling anyone who disagrees with them crazy, Strieber called us "nuts" or "crazy" three times. I pointed out the irony of this, but it was clear from the reaction of all involved that the best thing I could say at this point was nothing. I kept silent for a while, enabling him to resume his tirade. He had received long letters from Philip J. Klass of CSICOP, he said, that were "crazy," and made no sense at all. He also charged that the hosts of the show were bound to misrepresent his experiences by saying that they are alien visitors, while he has never claimed to know whether or not "the visitors" are extraterrestrial. Those people who claim alien encounters are just as crazy as CSICOP, he charged. Streiber also claimed to be upset about the previous time he was on the show. Karen recalled that it had gone very well, but Strieber insisted it was a "stupid" show. She suggested that he was perhaps confusing it with a show in some other city called "People Are Talking," of which there are several. No, he insisted, he remembered it perfectly. The audience at this show was "stupid", they asked "stupid" questions, and they accused him of being crazy. "I don't need your show," he continued, "your stupid show! My book ("Transformation") is number four on the Best-Seller list. I don't need to do these shows! I'm getting so fed up with going on shows and having everyone laugh at me!" Karen emphasised that a live show would be starting very soon, on which he had agreed to appear, and that he must meet his commitments. But Whitley still refused to go out and appear or debate with me. "Let him go on first. I'll just do the final segment. And DON'T mention my book! I don't want you to mention my book at all if he is going to be criticising it!" Karen once again reaffirmed that he had made a commitment. Then Strieber must have realized that he couldn't win this battle. He gradually decreased his level of objection, the bluster slowly fading as it became clear that he was not going to be able to keep me off the show. "All right," said Whitley, "I will go on - but I WON'T LIKE IT!" The magnitude of that threat stunned all who were present. "And I'll never come back!" At this point we broke to get on our makeup. The assistant director of the show, Lisa Tatum, had arrived in the doorway of the Green Room a few minutes earlier, standing there silently in obvious bewilderment. Karen excused herself to go talk to the hosts of the show. The makeup man, who had been listening to all this from the adjoining room, expressed bewilderment to me about Whitley's behavior as he applied a light coat of powder to my face. Returning to the Green Room, in the few minutes remaining before air time, I attempted to engage Whitley in a substantive discussion, to disarm his hostility. I succeeded to a small extent. He objected mightily to CSICOP and everything it stands for, displaying an extreme hostility to science as well. To him, both CSICOP and the "new agers" are "fascists", because they both seek to break down the individual. We went on stage at this point, got our microphones on, and waited for the show to begin. Whitley said nothing, and still was refusing to allow the hosts to mention the name of the book he came to promote, or to show its cover. We came on camera, and as I expected, the early minutes of the show were entirely his, to tell his stories of things that go "bump" in the night, things that allegedly come into his bedroom, carry him up somewhere into the sky, and poke needles into his skull and nose to implant probes. He neglected to describe at least on the air, how the beings allegedly inserted a long, cylindrical probe up his rectum, or how the female humanoid was very interested in his penis, as was recounted in "Communion." The situation must have seemed at least a little odd to the viewers: here is a guest with many weird tales to tell, but apparently without any book in which it is told! I expected to be given a similar amount of time to question the plausibility and substance of such claims, but I had only the briefest opportunity to respond. The two hosts then took the show to the audience for questions - previewed by them - all of which except one were directed to Strieber. It became clear that I was never going to get the time to speak I was expecting. I tried interrupting a few times, but after speaking only a few words, the hosts moved on to something else. Clearly, some kind of "arrangement" had been made, keeping my time to the absolute minimum, probably because they feared that Strieber might walk off the set. One questioner asked if Strieber had attempted to trap, or photograph the visitors. Indeed he had, he replied, using video cameras, still cameras, and other devices. Unfortunately, something always goes wrong with the attempt, such as the camera batteries going dead; "the visitors" seem to possess the ability to thwart all attempts to document their presence! I was dumbfounded by a question directed to me by co- host Ross McGowen, as he worked the audience: "you DO believe that men have landed on the moon, don't you?" Apparently Whitley had succeeded in "selling", at least to the show's staff, his notion that to question his visions of "the visitors" was as perversely blind as those who insist that the space program is a fraud! I responded that 99.9 percent of the scientific community do not accept accounts of the kind Strieber relates. During the commercial break before one of the final segments, Karen dashed out onto the set to ask Strieber if he wanted his book to be "promo-ed". "NO!", he flatly replied. I said that I would like to have MY book, The UFO Verdict, "promo-ed". Whitley said, still annoyed, "Yes, go promo HIS book!" This was done, briefly. In the final fifteen seconds of the show, Ross asked Strieber from across the room if he wanted to mention his book. "NO!", Whitley snarled, then paused, and sheepishly muttered, "it's Transformation." Within seconds of going off the air, Strieber had left the studio. The 'Prima Donna' was still furious. In the final analysis, Strieber's visions of "the visitors" undoubtedly have more to do with religion and psychology than they do with anything extraterrestrial. Strieber is far from the first person in history to experience visions of bizarre beings, and then become transformed into a tireless evangelist seeking to convince the world that they are real. Many religions were founded in precisely this manner; indeed, the very titles he has chosen for these books about "the visitors" places them firmly in the realm of religion. There seems little room for doubt that Strieber firmly believes what he is saying. There is also not the slightest bit of physical evidence that any of it is true. But truth has never been a necessary element for making a nonfiction book a success, as we see from the 1987 success of "Communion" as a #1 Best-Seller, and "Transformation" now seems headed toward similar success. As skeptics, this will not surprise us, but as citizens concerned about the future of education and rational thought, it gives us reasons for grave concern. -- Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized! "Every psychic investigator of [the medium] Mrs. Piper was impressed by her simplicity and honesty. It never occurred to them that no charlatan ever achieves greatness by acting like a charlatan. No professional spy acts like a spy. No card cheat behaves at the table like a card cheat." - Martin Gardner -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Marc Michalik) Subject: Re: What Can We Do? Date: 28 May 92 21:51:00 GMT Too bad, I didn't know that it had been tried. Of course, no idea will work if you wind up having too many people in "pyramid hats" or people walking around saying "Aliens took me to France for breakfast and then stuck me with the check, I'm pissed off!" Do you want me to E-mail you the GEnie topic or are you just going to go there? It's free, for the $4.95 per month that you already pay. -- Marc Michalik - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: Re: road flares Date: 24 May 92 19:17:00 GMT JS> It just sounds like the more parsimonious explanation to JS> me. Again, if someone can come up with something even JS> fairly solid that distinguishes these sightings from a JS> balloon, I'm all ears. Yeah, I sure can't argue with that. Rex S. mentioned recently that there had been a few "ufos" that had been identified as flares, but he didn't have specifics at hand. This in addition to the earlier flare/balloon episode. And what I've heard that would support the non-flare theories have been just little bits and pieces; no solid reports. OTOH, there have been some mentions of the objects moving to windward, plus I haven't heard of anyone finding debris of any sort. Anyway, maybe I should buy stock in a flare company.... ;-) jbh -- John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: Gulf Breeze road flares Date: 25 May 92 19:24:04 GMT > also heard tell that there is some very high-tech and very "deep black" > testing going on at Eglin AFB, possibly related to whatever is beyond > Aurora. The Eglin AFB range is a _huge_ area, plus extends very far out into the Gulf. So I wouldn't be surprised if there's some "black" testing. Plus of course there's lots of RPV activity from testing recon stuff to target drones. jbh -- John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: Gulf Breeze Date: 27 May 92 22:29:00 GMT VG> There is no doubt whatsoever that the whole thing VG> is a hoax and the "UFOs" are flares. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but........ It's not that easy. Many of us have been making general pains of ourselves trying to prove the truth or falsehood of various aspects of the Gulf Breeze incidents, and we haven't gotten all that far. There is new evidence that Ed Walters' "road shot" could not have been an in-camera single exposure....absence of reflections in the truck hood etc. But there is also new "relatively hard" evidence that the spectral signature of the "redlight ufo" doesn't match that of a flare. I'll post more on that soon's I can. There _have_ been several flare incidents.....they were identified as such by the MUFON guys on the scene. I'm leaning towards the idea that at least some of the redlight sightings have been "the real thing," and that Ed took advantage of an opportunity to perpetrate a hoax. One person told a skeptical investigator that the strange red lights have been seen by mullet fishermen (at night) in the area for several decades. jbh -- John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Science and UFOlogy Date: 29 May 92 22:00:00 GMT Below is an excerpt taken from James M. McCampbell's book, UFOLOGY, in ParaNet's continuing series of Science and UFOlogy. This segment deals with the reliability of reports. UFOLOGY (c) 1976 by James M. McCampbell Excerpt taken from pages 2 - 4 Reliability of Reports By James M. McCampbell The theoretical question of reliability became quite important during the years when intercontinental ballistic missiles were being developed. These weapons, implanted in underground silos in the western states, must remain on stand-by for long periods but they must always be operable. They are extremely complex mechanisms; consequently, many things can go wrong with them. The strategic posture of the United States is defined by the existence of these missiles plus the assurance that they would work if called upon. Every aspect of these weapons, from their control systems to their maintenance schedules, had to be planned to meet the stringent demands of reliability. This obligation fostered a new and powerful tool that is known as Reliability Theory. 1 This theory establishes the relationship between the performance of a complex system and its subsystems and components. If the reliability of the individual components is known the theory may be employed to compute the reliability of the complete system. Conversely, if the required reliability of the overall system is specified, the theory can be used to establish the requisite reliability of all the constituents. In the latter case, each element that goes into the system must be tested extensively to prove that it meets the prescribed standards. The mathematical statement of reliability is a single number from 0 to 1.0, similar to the scale of probability. Absolute reliability, represented by 1.0 is theoretically unattainable. This theory has been successfully applied to UFO reports. As with any complex system, the problem was first broken down into its finest elements. Such factors as the number of witnesses, their training in aerial observation, and the circumstances of the sighting were isolated. Details of the original documentation were accounted for with emphasis upon interviews of the witnesses and the professional qualifications of the interviewers. Finally, the quality of secondary reports than had been prepared from the original documents was assessed. Reliability Theory was then used to derive an equation expressing the reliability of a report. One hundred sixty (160) sightings from Japan, France, Venezuela, and the U.S.A. were selected and analyzed.2 In 1961, a large, spherical object was observed by a famous television commentator and hundreds of other people. It hovered over the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, at two different altitudes before moving away rapidly to the south. It was apparently metallic with a steady green light an top and flashing red lights on the bottom. Just above its equator was a row of windows. The Reliability Index for this sighting turned out to be in excess of 0.999! In other words, one can be well assured that this incident took place according to the reports, although absolute certainty is ruled out. Even the structural details of UFOs, such as the windows in this instance, must be taken seriously when they are included in highly reliable reports. Other interesting sightings whose Reliability Indices were also found to be greater than 0.999 are summarized below: a. Bright light on shadowy object. Confirmed by radar. Scrambled jet fighter had radar lock-on. UFO broke into three pieces that all flew away. b. Rigid submarine-shaped cloud with metallic disc spiraling around it. Disc flew over a four mile area then returned to the "submarine." c. Bright, cigar-shaped object with windows. Hovered then left rapidly. Emitted strong strands or fibers that evaporated upon touch and stained hands. d. Ovoid, aluminum-colored object. Landed on a hill. Grass flattened in rough circle 60 ft. in diameter. Moved as a white cloud with fuzzy edges. e. Two convex, disc-shaped objects near a large balloon. Speed changes and extremely fast departure. Size estimated between 200 and 300 ft. f. Night lights in rigid pattern. Approached, hovered, then flew away. Inferred size about 150 ft. No structure discernible but impression of metallic surface. Car could not catch it upon departure. g. Bright glowing object proceeding over hills in undulatory path. These examples are especially important because they are quite typical UFO reports. It would be difficult to dismiss these events or to interpret them in any way other than at face value. One word of caution: A report is not proven to be fraudulent even though it may warrant a low Reliability Index. A single witness who is neither technically trained nor professionally involved in aerial observations would rank low on the reliability scale. Yet a sharp-eyed farmer from Pennsylvania would be perfectly capable of reporting a sighting with sincerity and accuracy. Consequently, all reports should be studied without prejudice, unless of course, a hoax or misinterpretation has been proven in a particular instance. Only on this basis can the maximum amount of information be brought to bear upon the perplexing problem of UFOs. 1. See article, "Reliability of Equipment and Bibliography", McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol 11, p. 471, 1971. 2. Olsen, Thomas M., Editor, The Reference For Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports, UFO Information Retrieval Center, Inc., Riderwook, Maryland, November, 1966. -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG ******************************************************************************** For permission to reproduce or redistribute this digest, contact: DOMAIN Michael.Corbin@paranet.org UUCP scicom!paranet.org!Michael.Corbin ********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************************