Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 568 Friday, July 10th 1992 (C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved. Today's Topics: California Earthquakes California Earthquakes UFOCAT coding sheets California Earthquakes Re: Nasa Ufo Debate W/ Oberg, Eckert On "larry King Live" NavalInt + Missing Msgs Ufos And The Secret Govt UK CIRCLES ASTRONAUTS AND UFOs-Part5 Crop Circles What Can We Do? Re: ROAD FLARES Re: UFO CONFERENCES Crop Circles Nasa Ufo Debate W/ Oberg, Re: UK CIRCLES Re: Crop Circles Re: SOCIOPATHS ROAD FLARES ROAD FLARES California Earthquakes Nasa Ufo Debate W/ Oberg, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Marc Michalik) Subject: California Earthquakes Date: 29 Jun 92 22:32:00 GMT There is, of course, no evidence to support this but the government may be hiding a HUGE secret about yesterdays earthquakes. Those quakes happened at 4:58 A.M. california time, about 1/2 hour before dawn. This is exactly when the Aurora spy planes would be coming over southern california on their way back to base from test flights over tha Pacific ocean. The Aurora was originally discovered because it caused small tremors that siemic stations picked up. Boy, would the American people be pissed off if Aurora caused the quakes. This would be covered up at the highest levels so we will never know. Isn't our government just wonderfull! -- Marc Michalik - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Keithly) Subject: California Earthquakes Date: 29 Jun 92 23:17:01 GMT > There is, of course, no evidence to support this but the > government may be hiding a HUGE secret about yesterdays > earthquakes. Those quakes happened at 4:58 A.M. california > time, about 1/2 hour before dawn. This is exactly when the > Aurora spy planes would be coming over southern california on > their way back to base from test flights over tha Pacific > ocean. The Aurora was originally discovered because it caused > small tremors that siemic stations picked up. Boy, would the > American people be pissed off if Aurora caused the quakes. > This would be covered up at the highest levels so we will > never know. Isn't our government just wonderfull! > --- Boy I find aircraft and earthquakes a little hard to swallow whan you try to link the two together. No airplane to my knowledge can cause an earthquake.. Mike Keithly -- Mike Keithly - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Rodeghier) Subject: UFOCAT coding sheets Date: 30 Jun 92 23:38:01 GMT Keith, I've checked around the CUFOS office and Don Johnson has searched as well, but neither of us can find the coding sheets you sent. Unfortunately I'll have to ask you to send copies again. Sorry about that. I really enjoyed our talks at MIT. I haven't had a chance to sit down and compose a summary of my current thoughts about our joint abduction research, but I will do so as soon as possible. If you have anything you want to say now, send it along via Mike Corbin as usual. -- Mark Rodeghier - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Marc Michalik) Subject: California Earthquakes Date: 1 Jul 92 05:12:00 GMT I don't know if an airplane can cause an earthquake or not. I do know that one of the ways the exsistance of Aroura was revealed was that siesmic monotoring devices in sothern California picked picked the plane up. I would think that that might do it, but I really don't know. -- Marc Michalik - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Marc.Michalik@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Nasa Ufo Debate W/ Oberg, Eckert On "larry King Live" Date: 1 Jul 92 05:45:01 GMT * Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors" * Originally from Christophe Meessen * Originally dated 06-30-92 12:28 From: Meessen@slig.ucl.ac.be (Christophe Meessen) Date: 30 Jun 92 09:11:45 GMT Organization: Universite Catholique de Louvain (Belgium) Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors In article , sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) wrote: > > In article <-dvl6tl.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes: > > > >Better late than never. Not quite two hours ago, James Oberg (skeptic) > >and [Don] Ecker of "UFO Magazine" were the guests on "Larry King Live" > >(approx 6:30 PM PDT, 9:30 EDT Friday 6-26). The subject was the alleged > >"NASA Space Shuttle UFOs" that had earlier been seen on Hard Copy. If > > > OK, now I have seen the show, and the "famous" NASA UFO video. Gee, > I was absolutely UNDERWHELMED by the "UFO"! It is so obviously a tiny > piece of debris floating alongside the orbiter. Then there is a flash, > representing either a water dump or the brief firing of an attitude- > control thruster (both frequent). The piece of debris is pushed outward > from the craft by the force of this. A few seconds later, a second piece > is also pushed outward. (That's the "secret weapon sent up to intercept > it!".) Anyone who thinks that these little pieces of debris are "alien > spacecraft" is ready to enlist in the funny farm. "Obviously" ? What is that for an argument ? How deep was your investigation ? On what informations do you base your assertions ? Can you prove these assertions ? Is "enlist in the funny farm" a scientific argument ? Can you prove that the object seen was a piece of debris ? Where did you get this idear that the flash was a water dump or the brief firing of an attitude- control thruster (both frequent) ? Is the frequence enough to prove that the flash is due to one of your assertions ? Irony has never be a scientifical and productive argument. Why can't we study the phenomenon with a more objectif point of view. Gather facts as much as possible. This video images are facts. Where there other informations that could be used to correlate the images ? It's size .. Every thing else is just noise, no solid and usfull information. > Ecker came on strong against Oberg in prosecutorial form, asking him > questions that imply his role in a "government cover-up." Larry King > had to restrain Ecker several times. This attitude will NEVER lead to a collaboration with the "government". You can be shure that the "government" will avoid people with unwise behaviour. Even if they wished to share informations and a scientifical study of the phenomenon, they can't thrust people with such behaviour. > Please, UFOlogists, help out the "debunkers". Jump on the > bandwagon of this "NASA UFO Video," and proclaim it's "genuine evidence" > of aliens! Then everyone will be able to see how credulous you > really are! :) > > > -- > > Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com > Please, everyone, help out to solve this scientifical problem. Please keep to solid evidence and solid deductions. Keep the wiseness to accept whatever conclusions comes out of these evidences. Please, everyone, avoid irony in one way or the other. This is just noise and shows that you don't have the maturity or the wiseness to enter upon this subject. Take some backward movement first. Bien cordialement, Christophe MEESSEN -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brent.Wilcox@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Brent Wilcox) Subject: NavalInt + Missing Msgs Date: 1 Jul 92 05:09:00 GMT >>Hello, all ParaNetters! >> >>I'd like some help with an issue of potential importance to everybody, >>censorship of information on some of these computer networks. I posted >>a listing for "Naval Intelligence" in Washington, District of Criminals, >>twice on Fido's UFO echo. It never echoed back, and no one I know ever saw >>this message. I think it's important for the reasons outlined below in >>excerpts of personal communications about this problem. Any ideas? I seem to remember seeing your post on Fido UFO, can't say for sure right now, as the local hub has apparently been down more days than it's been up recently. But remember, some e-mail simply flies into limbo on these nets... Its a perennial glitch. It's more entropy than some intentional filtering... -- Brent Wilcox - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Brent.Wilcox@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brent.Wilcox@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Brent Wilcox) Subject: Ufos And The Secret Govt Date: 1 Jul 92 05:09:00 GMT >>This is a partial summary of the meeting of 06/20/92 at the Berkeley >>Conference Center in Berkeley, California, sponsored by the 2020 Group. >>There were perhaps 100 attendees. Thanks for re-posting that, Mike. Frankly, the 20/20 Group strikes me as another bunch of expert hand-wavers, heavy on form, low on content. And with a curious lack of focus. For every good piece of info the seem to put out, they undermine it with something more dubious, as if they haven't learned to tell the difference. -- Brent Wilcox - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Brent.Wilcox@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield) Subject: UK CIRCLES Date: 27 Jun 92 19:42:00 GMT A UK researcher has just sent me a listing of a number of crop formations, the first of the current UK season. I'll list them for your information:- 1. April 30th Sutton Scotney, nr Winchster, Hampshire. Circle. Geometrically circular perhaps too geometric to be genuine. 72ft diameter. Complicated floor pattern reminiscent of 'swastika' circle of 1990. Taylor and Andrews first sighting reported hoaxing-others subsequently have doubts about this because of swirl. 2-3 May 4th East Kennet, Wiltshire. Small 5ft circle pair in oil seed rape. Seen by member of Beckhampton group ballooning. No apparent point of entry. No further details. 4-8 May 7th Cornwall-location protected but on one barley field. 4-6 set of three circles unjoined. 7. Ringed circle 4.5ft diam: 6 inch fine ring. 8. Circle with tail 7.5ft diam. 9 May 9th Alton Barnes UFO sighting. Nine lights in formation seen 2230hrs by several observers. Some of lights appeared to be rotating. What may make this event of the year is that the whole event has been captured on video. 10 Lurkely Hill nr Alton Barnes Date?? May: Circle in oil seed rape-said by some to be a "scruffy mess" not a complete circle perhaps just wind damage-with no further details. 11 About May 10th Avebury Trusloe, Wilts. Yatesbury Airfield. 25ft circle in oil seed rape. 12 About May 12th Shibolton, Hants. Ringed circle with pointed spur-possible hoax. 13 About May 12th County Wiltshire. Cicrle with 3 pronged shaft-access restricted by farmer. 14 May 17th Stoke Orchard Airfield, nr Cheltenham, Gloucs. Small 10ft circle in oil seed rape. Seen 7.30pm by member of Beckhampton group ballooning. Some wind damage in field but not adjacent to circle. No visible sign of entry. -- Keith Basterfield - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic) Subject: ASTRONAUTS AND UFOs-Part5 Date: 2 Jul 92 06:08:00 GMT > Thanks so much for the article! I enjoyed reading this as did > others, I am sure! > Also, your info on Gulf Breeze is on its way and should be there > next week! Hi Linda, I am pleased to hear you enjoyed the article. It was my pleasure to present it. I might sound like a sceptic sometime, however, I am only interested in the truth. Vlad -- Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic) Subject: Crop Circles Date: 2 Jul 92 06:24:00 GMT I have received information that a French scientist, Dr. Jean Jaccque Velasco, who works for CNES which is equivalent of NASA, will shortly present a paper to a seminar held by Society for the Scientific Exploration in Princeton, in which he will explain his findings on Crop Formation Phenomena. He believes the formations are the results of military experiments using Laser CO2 or Infra-Red lasers. The tools used are not satellites but other airborne devices. Vlad -- Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic) Subject: What Can We Do? Date: 2 Jul 92 06:43:00 GMT > Clearly, the type of research that I would enjoy seeing > develop relative to UFOs would not be headed by someone > "convinced" that UFOs as alien spacecraft really exist, nor by > someone who finds the holy grail of debunking as a personal > crusade. I'll second that Tom. > phenomena that can create physical observation can be proven by > scientific method. By the same token, the spiritual psychic and > alternative world concepts cannot be totally dismissed out of > hand. Yes, we must look at all possibilities. > As to raising the money, it would almost have to come from a > single financial backer - or a small consortium; all too many > times people have been deprived of the monies by those who claim > to have some special insight or knowledge. SO far, no one, to > my knowledge, has proven such a claim Agreed, as long as financial backer(s) do not have some preconcieved ideas as to what UFOs are. As for those who claim to have some special "insight or knowledge" - I personally prefer to keep miles away from them. Thanks for your comments Tom. Vlad -- Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird) Subject: Re: ROAD FLARES Date: 2 Jul 92 05:49:00 GMT HI Pete, Don't blame you for being skeptical at all. If I lived in G.B. I'd try to figure it out, too. Only--I was there in 1990, and kiddo, there is a lot of water down there! One of their bridges was 3 miles long over open water, and those bays snake around for miles.... Don't know what else to say! Linda -- Linda Bird - via ParaNet 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: UFO CONFERENCES Date: 2 Jul 92 05:52:00 GMT Hi again, I'll be listening to my "science conference" with both ears, and will try to have something intelligent to say about it. Take care, Linda -- Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Crop Circles Date: 3 Jul 92 04:46:01 GMT > I have received information that a French scientist, Dr. Jean Jaccque > Velasco, who works for CNES which is equivalent of NASA, will shortly > present a paper to a seminar held by Society for the Scientific > Exploration in Princeton, in which he will explain his findings on Crop > Formation Phenomena. He believes the formations are the results of > military experiments using Laser CO2 or Infra-Red lasers. The tools used > are not satellites but other airborne devices. Will be looking forward to reading it. Mike -- 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: Nasa Ufo Debate W/ Oberg, Date: 2 Jul 92 15:23:00 GMT MC>> OK, now I have seen the show, and the "famous" NASA UFO video. Gee, MC>> I was absolutely UNDERWHELMED by the "UFO"! It is so obviously a tiny MC>> piece of debris floating alongside the orbiter. Then there is a flash, MC>"Obviously" ? What is that for an argument ? How deep was your MC>investigation ? MC>On what informations do you base your assertions ? Can you prove these MC>assertions ? Is "enlist in the funny farm" a scientific argument ? MC>Can you prove that the object seen was a piece of debris ? Where did you MC>get this idear that the flash was a water dump or the brief firing of an MC>attitude- MC>control thruster (both frequent) ? Is the frequence enough to prove that MC>the flash is due to one of your assertions ? While I don't go as far as Sheaffer, I have to agree that Don's tone was more combative than I would like to have seen (as I have already discussed with him). I think both sides are lacking in gentlemanly conduct here. Can't such a conversation go something like this: "In my opinion, the images shown were very likely debris from the orbiter, knocked galley west by a thruster firing. In any case, there is no reason yet to dismiss such a possibility." "I disagree. A thruster firing would have caused the entire frame to move...." etc. There is absolutely no reason for the invective displayed by BOTH sides. This is not a war. This is a disagreement over the interpretation of data. I personally believe that the side that engages in the LESSER amount of personal invective, and uses less emotionally-charged language, at least comes across better to the public. Let the facts and the data do the yelling. Jim Speiser * OLX 2.1 TD * Press "+" to see another tagline. -- 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: UK CIRCLES Date: 3 Jul 92 06:14:00 GMT Hi Keith, And so the crop circle mystery continues... Is the harvesting season over for now in the U.K.? If not, perhaps more circles will appear. Thanks for that post; many of us were wondering if anything would occur this year. Best, Linda -- Linda Bird - via ParaNet 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: Crop Circles Date: 3 Jul 92 06:18:00 GMT Hi Vlad, Thanks for post about Dr. Velasco who will present his ideas to CNES about crop circle formations. The first thought that popped into my mind was do these military operations (which produce the circles) also claim to produce the circles world-wide, and not just in a small area. Did Velasco address that issue? Regards, Linda -- Linda Bird - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Linda.Bird@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro) Subject: Re: SOCIOPATHS Date: 29 Jun 92 17:36:05 GMT I've known a few myself, but details would be in poor taste. I can see it now that they are gone from my life, but at the time, I was actually taken in by the scams they pulled. Most often I felt sorry for these people and thought I could help them or reason with logic. I guess the biggest fool was me for falling into the manipulating traps. Or "Nice guys finish last!" Thanks for the two good articles about possible floating hoaxes at GB. The old laundry bag trick... Actually it doesn't have to helium, candles will raise one of these things very well. A plastic bag in the bay would draw less attention than a balloon also. Meanwhile if it was tethered there would be no polution or evidence. I wish I was living a bit closer (instead of two days away) so I could go to the other side and look down while everyone else is looking up. One of the major arts of magic is diversion. -- Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen) Subject: ROAD FLARES Date: 1 Jul 92 01:28:02 GMT JH> I still don't feel very comfortable assuming that the JH> incidents are caused by flares....it just doesn't feel JH> right that all the current lights are flares...but I do JH> feel comfortable with the idea that many if not most are JH> flares or misidentifications. If I get the chance to go back up there I intend to take a boat out into Pensacola Bay right near the bridge. That would be an excellent vantage point since this is the area that I spotted the light. Good idea about splitting from the pack. This would help you in scoping out and other triangulation. If you get the chance to see Bruce Morrison, please do ask him about the light seen coming from under the water. We have noted this has been reported other times as well. I'm VERY un-convinced that's it a "flare". Don -- Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: ROAD FLARES Date: 1 Jul 92 05:19:03 GMT > If I get the chance to go back up there I intend to take a boat > out into Pensacola Bay right near the bridge. That would be an > excellent vantage point since this is the area that I spotted the light. Yes, that sounds good, or at least out onto the old bridge/fish pier. I believe most lights have been seen right near the bridge. > from under the water. We have noted this has been reported other > times as well. I'm VERY un-convinced that's it a "flare". I'll be sure to ask around about that. 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: California Earthquakes Date: 3 Jul 92 02:17:01 GMT > be pissed off if Aurora caused the quakes. Not logical. You can be sure the nuke tests in Nevada cause somewhat more ground shock. 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: Nasa Ufo Debate W/ Oberg, Date: 3 Jul 92 17:44:01 GMT > While I don't go as far as Sheaffer, I have to agree that Don's tone > wasmore combative than I would like to have seen (as I have already > discussed with him). I think both sides are lacking in gentlemanly > conduct here. Can't such a conversation go something like this: > > "In my opinion, the images shown were very likely debris from the > orbiter, knocked galley west by a thruster firing. In any case, there > isno reason yet to dismiss such a possibility." > > "I disagree. A thruster firing would have caused the entire frame to > move...." etc. > > There is absolutely no reason for the invective displayed by BOTH > sides.This is not a war. This is a disagreement over the interpretation > of > data. I personally believe that the side that engages in the LESSER > amount of personal invective, and uses less emotionally-charged > language, at least comes across better to the public. Let the facts and > the data do the yelling. Since I did not see Larry King Live, I cannot comment on it, but I would like to see a formal request be sent to NASA asking them to document their findings. I think that this is in order and is not asking too much. What could we do to get the ball rolling? Additionally, I feel that we need to formally have that video enhanced and studied. Mike -- 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************************