Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 564 Tuesday, July 7th 1992 (C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved. Today's Topics: Vcr Alert: Ufo Abductionists On Parade Ufo Siting Ufo Sightings (long Reply) The 'ufo' Seen By The Phobos-2 Spacecraft: What 'it' *really* Was Re: STS-UFO - Hard Copy Re: ROAD FLARES Unexplained Experience Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video Ufo Related Shows Two Mysteries Solved Re: Adam & Eve Re: "ANZA UFO" VIDEO Re: ROAD FLARES Re: ROAD FLARES "ANZA UFO" VIDEO "white" Spot In Strieber's Brain Gulf Breeze Hoax Discussion Re: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video Caution For Ufo Investigators Re: (aurora)/want Info...... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Vcr Alert: Ufo Abductionists On Parade Date: 13 Jun 92 02:31:00 GMT * Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors" * Originally from Robert Sheaffer * Originally dated 06-11-92 12:33 From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) Date: 10 Jun 92 19:39:07 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal A very interesting show is going to be seen on late-night TV, covering only about 30% of the U.S. market (which is too bad for the other 70%). It is "Night Talk" with Jane Whitney, and it will be shown late night on Thursady June 11 (actually the morning of the 12th). Guests on the show are: on the pro-abduction side, Budd Hopkins, Dr. John Mack, Dr. David Jacobs, and 3 abductees, while the anti-side is represented by James Oberg, making the show pretty much evenly balanced. :) I understand that the show degenerated into something of a 'media circus', and that the Abductionists were not at all pleased with the way it turned out. The show will be visible *only* on the following stations: Boston WCVB Dallas KDFI Detroit WXYZ Cleveland WEWS Houston KHOU Atlanta WSB Seattle KOMO Miami WPLG Sacramento KOVR Phoenix KTVK Portland, OR KARU Milwaukee WITI Cincinatti WCPO Check local listings for the exact time. -- 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 (writing in "Free Inquiry", Spring, 1992) -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Ufo Siting Date: 13 Jun 92 05:57:00 GMT > > 1987, Thompson, Connecticut. > > Would this maybe have been sort of in the right place at the right > time to be part of the "Hudson Valley Boomerang" flap? His descriptions > sounds pretty similar. Actually, this place is in eastern CT. However, he could not make out enough shape to determine anything. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Ufo Sightings (long Reply) Date: 13 Jun 92 06:02:00 GMT * Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic" * Originally from William Vanhorne * Originally dated 06-10-92 19:01 From: wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne) Date: 10 Jun 92 14:56:06 GMT Organization: The Ohio State University Message-ID: <1992Jun10.145606.1849@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic Ok, let's try posting this again ! > From : bb6d9cj@baarsa.bell-atl.com (Kretmar) > > I'm just interested in finding out how many readers of this > newsgroup have actually seen a UFO(First person accounts!) I'll 'fess-up. I have indeed seen a UFO. (Sorry about the length of this post, but you *did* ask !) Chapter One ... The UFO is sighted Location : Columbus, Ohio, northwest side Date : June ?, 1976 Time : 10:05 P.M. EDT Conditions : sky dark, no residual twilight, cloudless sky I was standing in a gas station watching my car get filled (remember when they did it for you?) when I chanced to look into the sky to the east and saw an actual flying saucer. A crude ASCII picture of what I saw : red light -------------> * xxxxxxx red lights -----> * xxxxxxxxxxxxx * xxxxxxxxx rotating white light --------> >>>>>>> Note that the "x" parts (the body of the UFO) were much dimmer than the lights on its edges. The rotating white light on the bottom of the craft was very bright, and was spinning left-to-right. I watched the saucer hover over the north side of Columbus for ten minutes. Of course, while I watched this thing hovering, I was frantically trying to find some "rational" explanation for what I was seeing. I enlisted the two gas station attendants (remember those?) and another customer in my observations. After ten minutes, and much debate, the general consensus was that we were watching something that was about the size of a two-story house whose mode of propulsion was unknown (but tied to the rapidly rotating bottom), and that it was not like anything any of us had ever seen fly before. Chapter Two ... The UFO approaches ! By 10:15 PM the UFO had stopped hovering and not only flew towards us, but actually flew directly over our location. Another ASCII picture to show a close-up view of the saucer : red light on tail -------> * | --------- red lights on wings -> * ------------------------ * \ xxxxxxx / \ xxxxx / \ / \ / ------------ Yep, it was a "wing-over" airplane (like a Piper Cub) carrying a "travelling marquee" banner strung from wing-tip to wing-tip. The "hovering" effect had been caused by the fact that the plane was travelling east-to-west (towards us) and was moving very slowly so that people on the ground could read the advertisement being displayed. (apology: Actually, I don't know what to call that lighted banner other than "travelling marquee", but it consists of a row of lights which has messages "travel" across it (like on the side of the Goodyear blimp) so "travelling marquee" sounds good to me.) Note that the "rotating bottom" effect was caused by the letters (advertising some car dealership as I recall) moving across the banner, and that we all percieved the rotation as left-to-right whereas the letters moved right-to- left. Note also that our collective imaginations had "filled-in" the space between the red running lights on the plane with the dim body of a UFO, since the airplane was too far away to actually see its body. Chapter Three ... Musings on close encounters with alien life forms So, it's a plane afterall ! We all had a good laugh, and went about our lives. But, BUT, what would have happened if that plane had turned south before coming close enough to identify? I would like to think that I would have filed the experience in the "strange -and-unexplained-but-hardly-paranormal" file, but you never know ! I would like to think that I would today still be reading sci.skeptic instead of alt.alien.visitors.are.using.the.Corolis.force.to.control.your.mind, but you never know ! And while we're at it, imagine that later some recidivistic non-holisitic reductionist like Scott Chase were to come along and try to convince me that what I had seen was an airplane carrying an advertising banner. Well, excuse me, but I have *never* seen, before or since, an airplane carrying a "travelling marquee" strung across its bottom. In fact, I can't imagine how one would take off or land the thing (aha! maybe that's why I've never seen one since!). Also, I *do* know what an airplane looks like at night, thank you very much, and what I originally saw looked *nothing* like an airplane. So here are my rules for UFO sightings : o Human perception is tricky. You really *can't* believe your eyes. o Don't try to convince observers of UFOs that what they really saw was "ice from the space shuttle" or that "the camera moved, not the UFO", since even if you are correct, you will sound forced or stupid. o Don't bother with UFOs at all until one lands somewhere and stays long enough to convince *everyone* that it is really an alien craft. End confession. Skoal, Bill VanHorne Who is neither a PHYSICIST or an ASTRONOMER or even a SCIENTIST but who IS working on a new PARADIGM of holistic object-oriented Oneness with the bioelectrologic forces underlying the Universal coexpressions OF existance. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- These are not my employers opinions These are not even my opinions These are REVEALED TRUTH wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet 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: The 'ufo' Seen By The Phobos-2 Spacecraft: What 'it' *really* Was Date: 13 Jun 92 06:03:00 GMT * Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic" * Originally from Daniel Fischer * Originally dated 06-10-92 19:02 From: dfi@spcklg.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Daniel Fischer) Date: 10 Jun 92 18:19:41 GMT Organization: Max-Planck-Institut f"ur Radioastronomie Message-ID: <1992Jun10.181941.23124@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.astro,sci.skeptic Thanks to the kindness of Dr. G. Neukum of the German Aerospace Research Establishment's Dept. for Optoelectronics, I can herewith once and for ever state that THE PHOBOS 2 SPACECRAFT DID NOT PHOTOGRAPH A UFO NEAR MARS! Neukum showed me the sequence of raw images obtained by PHOBOS-2, and it becomes obvious immediately that these images are full of blemishes, reflexes, bad pixels and so on - the Russian CCD camera that was in use here was not a very good one. The one frame in question which shows some bright line next to the Martian moon Phobos is full of other bright lines, all exactly parallel to the frame's rim - which would make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that these are well-known artifacts produced by electronic interference, 'hot pixels' etc. Of course, on the next frame of the sequence these 'structures' are gone. So there's no need whatsoever to speculate about natural explanations like trails of another Martian moon, an antenna in the FOV etc. - it's so much simpler... + dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de - Daniel Fischer - p515dfi@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de + | Max-Planck-Institut f. Radioastronomie, Auf dem Huegel 69, W-5300 Bonn 1,FRG | > - Standard Disclaimer: This posting does in no way represent an official - < | ------ opinion voiced or a question asked by the MPIfR or the MPG! -------- | +----- Enjoy the Universe - it's the only one you're likely to experience -----+ -- 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: STS-UFO - Hard Copy Date: 12 Jun 92 14:46:00 GMT Don: You're too late, Mike grabbed it already and posted it. But Shaeffer's tag line, while completely unrelated to this topic, is VERY important, and should be a lesson to all people who believe Ed Walters because he _seems_ so sincere: DA> "Every psychic investigator of [the medium] Mrs. Piper was DA> impressed DA> by her simplicity and honesty. It never occurred to them that no DA> charlatan ever achieves greatness by acting like a charlatan. No DA> professional spy acts like a spy. No card cheat behaves at the DA> table like a card cheat." And no UFO hoaxer wears a t-shirt proclaiming, "I am a UFO Hoaxer"! 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: ROAD FLARES Date: 12 Jun 92 19:18:00 GMT Hi John, Glad you got the info on road flares OK. I sent copies to Pete Poro yesterday (listening, Pete?) so he should have his on Saturday. TTYL, Linda -- Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Unexplained Experience Date: 13 Jun 92 10:09:00 GMT In response to a sarcastic message from some guy, John Robin writes: > * * * > Although the general consensus running through the net seems to me > to favor an extraterrestial vistor explanation, this to me is far from > certain, and seems even unlikely based on my skimpy first hand experience. > Whatever these beings are it puzzles me that they would express > any concern whatever for the spirtual activities of our little group. > So much of the literature seems to want to paint the "visitors" as > vicious human mutilators, this seems totally contrary if we are just > so much foder. > My experience really had much more similarity to a classic magical > evocation of an elemental spirit. In fact the triangle is the vessel > that is traditionally used to "hold" the elemental spirit when it is > invoked. It is held captive there in Goetic magic until it agrees > under threat of being tortured if neccesary to carry out the will > of the magician. Could it be that what I saw was the "spirit" of the > sigil we had charged manefesting itself to me to as what I wanted? > This may seem preposterous especially if one refuses to consider the > possiblity of spirits existing in the first place, but is it any more > preposterous or presumptuous than postualating ET visitors requireing > the postulation of advanced intellegent beings travelling to Earth > in machines that seem to violate physics as we currently understand it. > You see it really requires (arguably) a less complex hypothesis to > adopt an "elemental/spiritual" model than a "physical/ET" model don't 'ya > think? > - John Robin I'm seriously giving consideration to another possibility. Maybe, by asking you what was the significance of the sigil diagram on the ground, the actual motive behind this question was to find out: "Which am I supposed to be this time: the `ET Alien' or the `spirit' who is supposed to get caught in that triangle over there?" Who knows? It could be *very* complex. -- John -- John Burke - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic) Subject: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video Date: 14 Jun 92 05:36:00 GMT > This can all be easily confirmed by securing both the voice > transmission logs and the engineering logs from that mission, > and matching up the time index to see if there was a thruster > burn at that precise moment. Jim, I agree with you. These incidents should be thoroughly investigated. In the November 1976 issue of ANALOG James Oberg wrote an excellent article on Astronauts and UFOs titled "Unidentified Fraudulent Objects." In this article he deals with alleged sightings of UFOs by the US astronauts, however, he was also somewhat critical of UFO researchers and their willingness to accept "astronauts and UFOs" stories which have been published in newspapers and magazines all over the world. In this article he deals mainly with McDivitt's UFO and explains in detail how this story was completely distorted simply because someone wanted it to be a genuine UFO. ".....IT SHOWED AN OVAL BLOB OF LIGHT WITH A SMEAR OVER IT. NASA SAID IT WAS A GLARE OF A WINDOW BOLT AND SMUDGES ON THE GLASS WINDOW. ".... many facts have never been added up, and there have been few people willing to either dig up the facts or to do the adding up. NASA was not concerned McDivitt was a UFO celebrity, and the UFO groups already had an "official endorsement" of the case and were not interested in further investigation of what they rightly considered one of the most persuasive cases." "The retired astronaut has appeared on numerous TV talk shows, was invited to participate in a 1976 Playboy magazine panel, and has recently taken part in a long playing UFO record album." "McDivitt was never particularly impressed by the UFO, while taking advantage of the opportunities his testimony afforded. He still maintains that it was probably some man-made object." These are just a few excerpts from that article and, in the interest of scientific and sane research into the UFO phenomena, if anybody is interested I am quite willing to post it here on Paranet - including exchange of correspondence between James Oberg and myself relating to this article. The article is a copyright but James gave me permission to reprint it whenever and wherever I like. It is 8 (A-4) pages long plus 3 pages of correspondence. -- Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.Sudduth@p0.f26.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Sudduth) Subject: Ufo Related Shows Date: 13 Jun 92 19:50:00 GMT > Somebody sympathetic to the UFO scientific community > who could get the attention of whoever does, say, the > NOVA science show (for starters) would be the one to > get a hold of. Too late, Richard! NOVA already did their UFO show back in 1979, I think. They featured the Travis Walton case (spending way too much time on the National Inquirer polygraph stuff) and the Pascagoula case. They basically picked cases that were easily debunked. Perhaps its time for NOVA to do an update - but I don't think they'll have a very open mind. It was a real disappointment. -- Don Sudduth - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Sudduth@p0.f26.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Keithly) Subject: Two Mysteries Solved Date: 15 Jun 92 01:18:01 GMT * Forwarded from "Internet Alien Visitors Conference" * Originally by Bill Moore * Originally to All * Originally dated 14 Jun 1992, 12:24 From: billy@anasaz (Bill Moore) Date: 14 Jun 92 08:08:43 GMT Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, AZ, USA Message-ID: <1992Jun14.080843.16102@anasaz> Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors My post on the NASA video might not have gotten out. It boiled down to identifying the two objects as ice crystals near the shuttle. The abrupt turn optical illusion occured when they hit a stream of OMS hydrazine. These thrusters fire very small, short bursts automatically to keep the shuttle in a programmed alignment. And, for those of you interested in the physical evidence reported by Jacques Valle from the "UFO" explosion in South America, the titanium alloy was apparently from an SR-71 that broke up in flight for unknown reasons. It's secret because it was in somebody's air space where it wasn't supposed to be. The "not of this earth" composition reported by Vallee is consistent with the material from which the SR-71's wings are made. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bill Moore billy%anasaz.UUCP@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (602) 395-1732 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mike Keithly - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Houston.Mayer@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Houston Mayer) Subject: Re: Adam & Eve Date: 15 Jun 92 03:37:00 GMT Never mind checking out the story. I've been looking through some old issues of Omni for your work and my wife is looking through her collections also. I admire your posts and wanted to say hi! I have a bookshelf of most of the best UFO works, and I always look for the really old out of print works. But I'm still trapped in the checkout lines weekly, like all of us, but unlike most I have to buy the entertainment versions of the news. I hope all goes well for you and I'm honored that you responded to my post. Hope to see you at one of the upcoming conferences. Thanks again. Houston -- Houston Mayer - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Houston.Mayer@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro) Subject: Re: "ANZA UFO" VIDEO Date: 11 Jun 92 16:07:54 GMT As for the radar unit it was a marine unit for mast mounting as far as I could tell from the video. Nothing special. Any $2000 will get you one to play with. I could be wrong, but it looked like an off the shelf model for boating. The scope shot was over exposed as many have noted. Sounds like creative science-like efforts. As usual I'll wait for the book and read it at Waldens without paying for it. Sorry but my personal opinion of this one is very low. -- Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro) Subject: Re: ROAD FLARES Date: 11 Jun 92 16:18:59 GMT As for making it to the conference, I have trouble filling my gas tank to get around the neighborhood. Something about the divorce and my "X" who refuses to grow up and be adult. She was ordered to pay half the medical and half the taxes (nothing else), so far she has paid 00 so assorted agencys are after me again. Ho Hum... nothing new except the stress is begining to make me a bit intolerant of irrational childlike adults. f* {{ my -- Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro) Subject: Re: ROAD FLARES Date: 11 Jun 92 16:48:04 GMT Sorry about a brief off topic message which was terminated by a crossed telephone line at work. I was going to continue. (ps it was a collection agency followed by my accountant... maybe I'll win the lottery?) 8*) I'd love to go to one of these conferences and see what kind of people appear. In this field I'm sure the serious ones would be interesting and the fringe would be amusing. I'd like to see what's on the market besides books and T-shirts. Maybe you can do a short review when you return? Take notes and all that. Include the pyramid hold outs, crystal rubbers and the like along with the more UFO related events and orginizations. I apologize for the spelling in this message. I was out self destructing until 2am last night and I have not fully detoxified yet. Only 4.5 hours of sleep and I'm back in the office again. If I start seeing pink elephants, I won't be reporting the sightings. -- Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: "ANZA UFO" VIDEO Date: 13 Jun 92 17:14:02 GMT > As for the radar unit it was a marine unit for mast mounting as far as I > could tell from the video. That's what I thought too. One question about using such a radar is how suitable it might be for air search. Being a marine radar, it'd have a rather flat pattern. I don't know what effect that might have on airborne returns.... but I wonder if that aspect might cause some sort of tendency toward false returns from aerial objects. > Sounds like creative science-like efforts. That's a very good statement. These guys bought the hardware, but clearly there wasn't any expertise in the use of that hardware, which can only harm the credibility of the project. 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: "white" Spot In Strieber's Brain Date: 14 Jun 92 17:42:04 GMT AK> I know Robert Sheaffer, and have no reason to doubt his AK> version. Yep, for all I know he may be a rabid debunker, but I think his story on Streiber is true. It all adds up very well. 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 Hoax Discussion Date: 14 Jun 92 17:52:05 GMT VG> I've seen, I feel that Gulf Breeze is a joke that took root VG> because the local people were predisposed towards belief. We're on the same wavelength, more or less. My reading is that some people saw a ufo and that most likely Ed Walters saw an opportunity for a big joke, so he conjured up his pictures. I think he was probably very surprised when the MUFON guys took him seriously and his photos were pronounced as being the real thing, plus then of course the news media jumped on it. Now Ed's not dumb, so he probably thought that if he could make some money on the big joke, why not. So he and Frances wrote the book. BTW, Frances is a published author, so they wouldn't have needed much outside help. Now, I think there's a mix of maybe a few true sightings and lots of flares. Someone's giving the "ufo nuts" something to see. So I'm with you; I think there have been and maybe still are some true ufo incidents in that area, but Ed hadn't had a true ufo sighting until that first redlight incident. I believe the first few redlight sightings were for real, but the recent redlight sightings were likely flares. MUFON has had a pretty big shakeout over Gulf Breeze, and a very important factor is that many of the investigators involved in the case were "true believers" who were looking to confirm their beliefs more than anything else. The few who were skeptical were forced out. jbh -- John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker) Subject: Re: Hard Copy Shows Nasa Ufo Video Date: 13 Jun 92 19:40:00 GMT Jim; Well it looks as if my system is now up and running once again. I just received a "first generation" copy of the video in question from my source. This video is MUCH clearer than the first, and detail is extremely clear. I am going to employ some experts to enhance the sections in question, and I may be able to (with the info I have) to determine the approx. rate of speed of the object in "EVENT 2". This story is only beginning, much more to come. I will advise. BTW, the business about the object being "piss in space" or as some pundits are calling the ice from waste water, in PURE crap. The manuver to dump the waste water is just AFTER this event. The radio transmission is on the tape just after EVENT 2. This issue will be addressed on my radio show on June 14th. Best; Don -- Don Ecker - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Keithly) Subject: Caution For Ufo Investigators Date: 15 Jun 92 22:59:01 GMT * Forwarded from "Internet Alien Visitors Conference" * Originally by Jon Roland * Originally to All * Originally dated 15 Jun 1992, 12:15 From: jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM (Jon Roland) Date: 15 Jun 92 05:50:13 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors CAUTION for UFO Investigators Copyright (c) 1991 Jon Roland There is an old saying, "Be careful what you ask for. You might get it." It applies to UFO investigators, most of whom are motivated to try to find out what is behind what so many people are reporting by a mixture of curiosity, fear, and a nagging suspicion that we are not being told something that we have a right to know. The UFO mystery has emerged as perhaps the major unsolved mystery of our time that is not being openly researched by organized, governmentally supported science. One family of hypotheses concerning this subject, first advanced by Charles Fort, one version of which I have discussed elsewhere (see "Speculations on UFO Technology and Operations"), supposes that at least one, and perhaps many, alien races are based in the vicinity of Earth, perhaps underground, and have been for a long time; and that lifeforms on the surface of Earth, including ourselves, are the subject of long-term study and perhaps experimentation by at least one of those races. The importance of this hypothesis is that, if valid, it could be dangerous to verify it, either for the investigator and his friends, or even for humanity as a whole. Much speculation on alien visitors tends to suppose that they are occasional visitors to Earth, based elsewhere, who regard us as less developed than themselves, but who still respect us as fellow sentients that may someday join them among the family of spacefaring civilizations. This may be wishful thinking, a projection of our attitudes toward primitive peoples in recent history. We must consider the possibility that they rather regard us as we regard laboratory rats, with little or no sympathy, as things which exist for their edification or amusement, and which they are prepared to manipulate or terminate when it suits their purposes to do so. If their purposes are scientific, then our continued existence may depend on us remaining interesting to their scientific studies. Experimenters don't care whether rats know about them, because rats can't discuss their situation among themselves, or contemplate different ways of behaving that are affected by their knowledge of the existence of the experimenters and their purposes. Rats that developed the ability to do that during an experiment would thereby become useless for behavioral studies. It would be a classic case of the problem of the subject being excessively altered by the act of observation. Although there is already a widespread belief among people that UFOs are evidence of alien beings, the lack of official acknowledgement that they are at least leaves most people not behaving much differently than they would if they were unaware of the phenomenon -- much like rats. Proof of the existence of aliens and of their role in our fate could change that situation suddenly. Before we find such proof, we need to consider the consequences of finding and disclosing it. We also need to consider the role of our species among other surface lifeforms, which may also be the subject of alien study and experimentation. Our unchecked growth is threatening to destroy those other lifeforms, and ultimately, destroy us as well. If the study is very long-term, over geologic time, then even though our species might be more interesting than the rest, we threaten to make the situation on the surface less interesting for study. One might ask why aliens have let us go as far as they have. By almost any reasonable standard of experimental practice, we should have been cut back or eliminated long ago, or at least modified into a form that is not as disruptive. The fact that such intervention is long overdue suggests that it may be imminent. The question then is what form it might take. Alien experimenters might consider our species salvageable if it were cut back in numbers, and perhaps modified in its destructive behavior, especially if they could find a way to do so that would not reveal their existence, if they could, perhaps, make it look to us like an accident. Intervention to that effect would be bad enough from our viewpoint, and perhaps even a blessing from the viewpoint of future generations, but what happens if, before such intervention is accomplished, we find out about them and what they are doing? Would we be of any further use to them as subjects of study? Any of us? There are two long-standing questions about government coverups of the evidence of aliens: How could governments keep such a secret, and keep it so long? And why would they be so determined to keep it a secret from the public? If the above hypothesis is valid, then the answer is clear, and their coverup is fully justified! UFO investigators may be harmless enough while they don't have any real solid evidence to work with, and don't get any real results, but what happens if some of them get lucky, or unlucky, and actually come up with proof that can't be ignored? UFO investigators must consider that the above hypothesis might be valid, and prepare themselves, logistically and psycho- logically, to immediately conceal proof that they may acquire if it tends to confirm that hypothesis, and to cooperate in keeping it concealed if found by others. Once such proof is obtained, there may be little time to think about the consequences to humanity. We need to do our thinking in advance, and plan for that contingency. This does not mean that we should not continue to investigate and discuss the subject. Such discussion, perhaps combined with more ecologically responsible behavior, might persuade hypothetical aliens to spare at least some of us. It may turn out that they do not regard us as theirs to dispose of, or that, by our behavior, we might convince them to change the way they regard us, in the direction of greater respect. It is worth a try. There is no downside if this hypo- thesis and response is wrong. If it is right, we have an immense responsibility that we need to take very seriously. Many people are discouraged by the prospects for trying to cope with either the ecological crisis, or with aliens who may hold our fates in their appendages. However, the ecological crisis, at least, is solvable in principle. It does not require knowledge or resources we don't have. It only requires the willingness to sacrifice for the good of future generations. We have often seen such a willingness in times of war. Now we need to find it when the enemy is ourselves. I suspect that if we do, we might also find ourselves being regarded by certain others with a new respect that could make all the difference. jdr@starflight.corp.sun.com, starflt@uunet.uu.net Jon Roland Starflight Corporation, 1755 E Bayshore Rd #9A, Redwood City, CA 94063-4142, 415/361-8141 -- Mike Keithly - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: (aurora)/want Info...... Date: 16 Jun 92 03:33:00 GMT * Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors" * Originally from Douglas R Fils * Originally dated 06-14-92 18:13 From: fils@iastate.edu (Douglas R Fils) Date: 14 Jun 92 20:18:36 GMT Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA Message-ID: <1992Jun14.201836.19852@news.iastate.edu> Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors In article <1992Jun13.145411.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsgaw1@acad3.alaska.edu writes: > In a recent post, someone mentioned a craft called the (AURORA), a >supposed "US invention". Since I have never heard of such a craft, or the >specifics of its construction and design, could you please send me any >information you may have...... Netland, The subject of the Aurora pulser aircraft seems to come up ever so often. What I have below is my own citation list of articles about Aurora. All these come from _Aviation Week And Space Technology_. Aviation Week May 11, 1992, page 62 New Evidence Bolsters Report of Secret, High-Speed Aircraft Aviation Week Oct 1, 1990, page 20 Secret Advanced Vehicles Demonstrate Technologies for Future Military Use Aviation Week Dec. 24, 1990, page 41 Scientists' and Engineers' Dreams take to Skies as 'Black' Aircraft Aviation Week Dec. 18, 1990 page 42 There are others but I don't have them in front of me. -- -- 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 grind.isca.uiowa.edu:/info/paranet/infopara 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************************