Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 585 Tuesday, August 25th 1992 (C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved. Today's Topics: Stephen Greer? Korresponding With Klass Latest On Aurora Tennessee video GIF Viewer Re: CONFIRMATION Computer Confession Observations at Pilot Peak Reply From Phoenix Project NSA - Crypto 1/4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Stephen Greer? Date: 21 Aug 92 23:13:01 GMT Your report is par with some of the things that I have heard also. Would it be possible to put us in touch with some of the people in your area that have had dealings with him? I would like to add this to our investigation. Thanks, 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: Korresponding With Klass Date: 22 Aug 92 01:57:01 GMT * Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors" * Originally from Jon Roland * Originally dated 08-21-92 13:49 From: jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM (Jon Roland) Date: 21 Aug 92 03:25:32 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic The following is a letter I received from Philip Klass, and my reply to it: Philip J. Klass 404 "N" St. Southwest Washington, DC 20024 August 10, 1992 Mr. Jon Roland Starflight Corp. 1755 E. Bayshore Rd. #9A Redwood City, Calif. 94063-4142 Dear Jon Roland: A friend was kind enough to send me your excellent summary of Budd Hopkins account of the "Linda UFO Abduction Case" at the recent MUFON conference in Albuquerque as it appeared on an Electronic Bulletin Board Two corrrections: (1) It was Robert Redford--the handsome, charming movie star--who took the photos of Linda and Budd Hopkins. We are often mistaken for one another so don't feel badly. (2) The letter from "Rich" was received by Hopkins in Feb. 1991, not "a few weeks later." Hopkins misspoke when he gave the date as "Feb. 1990"--but he corrected himself when he said "about 15 months after" Linda's Nov. 29-30 incident. Reference Hopkins' expressed hope that the "well-known political figure" (the man that Hopkins was told was a 3rd witness) will go public and confirm the incident. I am so confident that this individual was not involved (and was home asleep at the time) that I propose the following wager: I'll agree to pay you $1,000 if/when this "well-known political figure" publicly confirms the truth of Linda's story if you will agree to pay me $100/year for every year that passes until he does so--with a limit of $500 maximum on the amount of your payments. In other words, if he goes public and confirms Linda's story within two years, you're $800 ahead; within 10 or more years, you're $500 ahead. If NEVER, then you're out $500. If this proposed wager is appealing, I'll draw up a one page contract for our mutual execution. Regardless, my compliments on your excellent summary of Hop- kins' MUFON talk. The next (September) issue of my Skeptics UFO Newsletter (SUN #17) will carry a lengthy report on the "Linda Case" including a number of details that Hopkins intentionally omitted. If you are interested, I'll send you a complimentary copy. /s/ (Phil Klass) 1755 E Bayshore Rd #9A Redwood City, CA 94063-4142 415/361-8141 Email: starflt@uunet.uu.net 92/08/15 Philip J Klass 404 N St SW Washington, DC 20024 Dear Phil: Thank you for your letter and its corrections. I am taking the liberty of posting your letter and this reply to the Net, as I am sure others would like to share them. However, as I recall from Budd Hopkins' talk, the third witness was referred to only as an "important public official" -- not as a "well-known political figure". Since you seem to know who he is, this is further clarification that makes it easier to identify him and the agency for whom the other two witnesses worked. And since you do seem to know who he is, I will decline your wager. You may know him well enough to know that he won't come forward, although perhaps it is because he was in bed at his mistress' apartment in that building rather than at home. But thanks for confirming that he exists, and thus lending credence to the events he may have either witnessed or just missed witnessing. But I am concerned about how you are recovering from the abduction experience you reported to me at the MUFON Symposium. You weren't supposed to remember the alien you had sex with as being one of the ugly ones. If you recalled anything, you were supposed to remember her as a voluptuous redhead. Ah well, I suppose with all the liquor the memory implant didn't take. I tried to get one of the beautiful aliens to have sex with you -- really I did. But when I mentioned it to them, well .... Their thoughts just don't translate. I would be happy to receive a complimentary copy of the Skeptics UFO Newsletter #17. I hope, however, if you cite any facts that Hopkins omitted, you will also explain how you come to know those facts. Skepticism cuts both ways. Jon Roland A question arises concerning Klass' letter: What was his real purpose in writing it? He's clearly smart enough to know that I'm not stupid enough to take him up on a "wager" like this, so what purpose does the letter really serve? I have several ideas, but I would like to hear from the rest of you. 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 -- 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: Latest On Aurora Date: 22 Aug 92 07:18:03 GMT * Forwarded from "Fidonet UFO Conference" * Originally from Albert Dobyns * Originally dated 08-19-92 21:52 [This article appeared in the London "Sunday Telegraph" dated 26th July 1992] SECRET US SPY PLANE IS KINTYRE'S DARK VISITOR A mysterious, fast-moving shape in the sky has been scaring sheep in the Mull of Kintyre and rattling windows in Los Angeles. From both sides of the globe have come reports of sudden "pulsating roars" and strange smoke rings in the sky. Defence analysts are convinced that they are caused by the US Air Forces' top secret Project Aurora - a spy plane as big as Concorde that can fly three times as fast. The USAF is using the remote RAF airbase at Machrihanish, Strathclyde, as a staging point, it was claimed last week. The mysterious aircraft has been stealthily dropping in at night before streaking back to America across the North Pole at more than 6 times the speed of sound. Flying at the edge of space, powered by a "pulser" engine, the aircraft is being tested in missions that circle the globe. Guy Norris of 'Flight' magazine, who is based in Los Angeles, said last night that Aurora was being flown from a base in the Nevada desert to an atoll in the Pacific [Kwajalein], then on to Scotland to refuel before returning to the US at night. Specially modified tanker aircraft flying from Britain are being used to top up Aurora's tanks with liquid methane fuel in mid-air. The aircraft carries high-powered cameras and infra-red radar which can see down through cloud cover. Its flightpath covers targets in Iraq. An F-111 fighter-bomber is scrambled as the black-painted aircraft lands, flying in close formation to confuse prying civilian radars, according to reports from US airmen. Paul Wiggins, editor of 'Scottish Airnews', describes Machrihanish as "the remotest military airfield in Britain - with a very long runway". It is guarded by a detachment of US SEALS, the equivalent of Britain's Special Boat Squadron."It would be ideal for operating a secret high-performance aircraft", he says. People living nearby reported strange ear-splitting noises and mysterious smoke rings in the sky earlier this year. As rumours grew of secret developments at the base, Archie Hamilton, the Defence Minister, told Parliament last month that the existence of, and any operations by Aurora were a "matter for the American authorities". A USAF spokesman yesterday refused to confirm or deny its existence. But last week independent evidence came from Washington that the Pentagon is spending billions from its "black budget" on a clandestine successor to the SR-71 spy plane, retired 2 years ago.Kemper Securities, the financial analysts, said up to $8 billion has already been spent of the project at Lockheed's "Skunk Works" in California where the F-117 stealth fighter was developed. "Something has been booming Los Angeles regularly for the last six months," said Bill Sweetman, a US-based aerospace writer. "The frequency of the sonic booms indicates that whatever is causing them is now an operational aircraft." [My thanks to fellow Blackbird fan(atic?): Dean Adams for posting this originally!] # Origin: Chicago's Multiline BBS (708) 887-7685 [9600 V32 HST] (8:7001/1) -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield) Subject: Tennessee video Date: 20 Aug 92 23:34:00 GMT On TV here late last night was a segment on a 10th Mar 1991 Tennessee video film, which although showing only a white light, looked rather impressive. Can anyone direct me to a published article which presents the results of any analysis on this video? Thanks. -- Keith Basterfield - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vince.Johnson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Vince Johnson) Subject: GIF Viewer Date: 22 Aug 92 17:58:00 GMT That was the main MUFON BBS phone number. Its got numerous UFO and paranormal files, not to mention quite a bit of shareware. It has a liberal download policy, although for some reason it restricts uploads (I'm still trying). By the way, a good freind of mine who is both a technical writer and a DOS whiz gives his enthusiastic endorsement to Windows in general and to MS Word for Windows in particular. Regards, Vince -- Vince Johnson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Vince.Johnson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro) Subject: Re: CONFIRMATION Date: 21 Aug 92 15:17:38 GMT For anyone else who wonders what 10 L would be in American greenbacks, it's aprox. $19.20 as of the latest conversion. Just figure 2 bucks per pound sterling. That's about an 8% increase since 1989 figures. Unidentified flying dollars? -- Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peggy.Noonan@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Peggy Noonan) Subject: Computer Confession Date: 23 Aug 92 23:54:01 GMT Hi Linda, Hmmmm....that's odd about all the text being in caps and oddly spaced. It wasn't when I zipped it or saved it. I've just (since I have more space now on the new hard disk) unzipped that disk and put it back onto my active memory and nothing that I've checked so far is all-caps or otherwise strange. I wonder if there's some incompatibility in hardware that could account for that, or in viewing programs, maybe? The files whose names start with "C-" are from Compuserve and they certainly should have no glitches at all. Very odd indeed. Sorry the instructions didn't help you to be able to unzip the file yourself, but it's nice that Loren helped you. Didn't the instructions work? When you unzipped it, did you unzip only to view or unzip and the files are now stored on your computer? If the latter, you could print selectively -- just those you wanted at a given time. My printer won't handle long jobs either, so what works for me is to import a file into, say, WordPerfect, where the program allows me to print a page or multiple pages at a time (instead of printing the whole file at one go) and that gives the printer a break between units so it doesn't overheat. Maybe your printer is better though...mine's a Panasonic 24pin dot matrix, noisy and no bells or whistles. You could start with the Cydonia file if you were more interested in Hoagland than other topics. But whatever works for you... The radio show sounds really interesting. Was it a case of talking about UFO research or personal experiences or what? I wonder because maybe you and Jim should be guests on KOA's Weird Night sometime -- sounds like a winner to me. ==Peggy -- Peggy Noonan - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Peggy.Noonan@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Observations at Pilot Peak Date: 24 Aug 92 07:43:01 GMT Our special thanks to John Pickens, who conducted an independent investigation of the Phoenix Project's claims of an underground alien base in Northern California. As you will read, John's report clearly shows that the K2 report is definitely questionable. * Forwarded from John Pickens, 205/300 * Originally to Michael Corbin * Originally dated 23 Aug 92 21:46:55 * Original: TO ... Michael Corbin of 1:104/428 * ReDirected Using ReDirect Version 1.00 (C)1989 David Nugent REFLECTIONS ON THE K2 REPORT & OBSERVATIONS AT PILOT PEAK +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Having read the Phoenix Project's K2 report and having visited the Pilot Peak area I offer some of my impressions and observations. Animal Sounds: The K2 Report suggests there is curious lack of animal sounds and indicated there is an unnatural quiet in the area. Having spent 2 nights in the immediate area in question I can say there was nothing I observed, either by night or by day, to support this contention. The level of animal sounds was consistent with what I have heard in other forested areas. Animal Life: The K2 report makes much of the fact that there was an absence of animal life in the area (this additionally supported by the claim of lack of animal sounds). In particular the report comments on the apparent absence of squirrels, chipmunks, rodents, owls and birds flying over the area. On my first night at the Pilot Peak area I spent the night at a spot over looking the location of the "landing zones." I had an unobstructed view of the area. I was there while the Moon was still below the eastern horizon and I used a high-powered spotlight to illuminate the area. I saw no less than two (possibly three) deer - one of which was very close by, if not on, one of the "landing zones." Throughout the night, owls could be heard hooting. During the day birds could be seen flitting about the meadow that contained the "landing zones" and both squirrels and chipmunks were easily seen. At the very top of Pilot Peak there is a lookout station which I explored. There I found two exhausted boxes of D-Con rodent killer and rodent droppings in the first and second floors of the station - clearly evidence of rodents. Another variety of rodent - bats - were seen in no small numbers around the Pilot Peak area. I will comment on the K2 report itself concerning their claim of absence of animal life and animal sounds. I found it a curious contradiction that one of their observers (and I do not recall how they identified him/her, it was perhaps Contact #2, but it was the one who forgot their camera and had to come back the next day to make photographs) indicated that there was a sighting of a UFO and once it came into view all the animal noises ceased. I have to ask - if there was a curious and noteworthy lack of animal sounds how could they cease? Landing Zones: Having seen the purported "landing zones" personally, and in some cases having walked over them, I have to say there seems to be a more prosaic explanation. There was an abundance of deer tracks throughout the area. It is not unreasonable to assume these are places where deer have rested. I found it odd that in the midst of the flattened grass there was, in some instances, a variety of tall weed that was still standing, unbent, in the area of flattened grass. In addition, the "landing zones" exhibited none of the swirling patterns associated with UFO "nests" or the more recent crop circles. Very low strangeness index and certainly subject to more "Earthly" explanation than landed craft. I also found other, smaller, areas of flattened grass which looked exactly like the purported "landing zones" but which could clearly be discounted as such. There are two other factors which weigh heavily against these areas being "landing zones" which I will address next. Camping Area: Far from being the desolate area one might imagine from reading the K2 report there is a camping area immediately adjacent to the "landing zones." To the southwest, and just behind a moderately dense stand of trees, this camping area did not remain unoccupied during the time of my visit. On the first night there were three carloads of people camping and on the second night there was one family there. The area of the "landing zones" is easily seen from this camping area and access to the "landing zones" from the camping area is immediate. It is not the sort of area one would choose if one wanted any sort of privacy. In addition, the area of the "landing zones" is clearly seen from the road which passes nearby and the view from the road is unobstructed, save for two small trees, for over a quarter mile of travel. The Road: The report mentions a road which passes the K2 site. This is not the unused and long-forgotten road one would envision from reading the K2 report. Quite the contrary. During the day logging trucks, pick-up trucks, residents of the La Porte & Quincy areas and campers travel this road. While it will never resemble rush hour, I was somewhat surprised at the number of vehicles traveling that road as I thought we were well off the beaten track. At night the traffic is much less active. The first night there was no traffic from 9 PM until 4:15 AM the next morning. The second night there was traffic on and off throughout the night. Again, the meadow with the "landing zones" is clearly and unmistakably visible from the road. Forest Service: The K2 report alludes to the Forest Service personnel being mind-controlled minions of the Greys and says they were questioned about their reasons for being there. The report paints a picture of the Forest Service watching their every move and questioning their every action. I found quite the opposite to be the case. Not once did the Forest Service exhibit the slightest interest in what I was doing - even when I passed a Forest Service truck on the mine road (a dirt road that leads right to the base of the summit of Pilot Peak). The only reaction I received from the Forest Service was a smile and a wave as they drove past in their trucks. My observations cover a brief period of time - from the evening of Wednesday, August 19 to the morning of Friday, August 21. My comments and observations can be verified and confirmed by Mr. Ed Stuart who accompanied me to Pilot Peak. As Ed has asked, "If the facts we CAN verify are false then are the facts we CAN'T verify false?" To which I must reply, not necessarily, but they are certainly called into question. Other lines of inquiry come to mind. IS the corridor from the west to Pilot Peak actually RADAR blind as put forth by the Phoenix Project K2 report? I'm sure any ATC person from the area can answer that easily enough. I also think a discussion with Forest Service personnel is in order. Are they aware that some of their members are being presented as unwitting allies of the Greys? Did they have occasion to question the activities of a group of people investigating the Pilot Peak area? Has there ever been a female member of their team, and if so, who was she? And if so, what does she think of the seduction for information scenario as described by the K2 report? I think I'm ready to go ask some questions. -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve.Rose@f601.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Rose) Subject: Reply From Phoenix Project Date: 23 Aug 92 08:11:22 GMT Hello Don! DS> Emotions aside, the Phoenix Project's response to Mike was not that of a DS> careful scientific voice. It was mostly irrational and emotional. I'm DS> not saying that scientists and researchers should keep their emotions at DS> bay. However, the Phoenix Project's response lacked any sense of how a DS> group of scientists would act in this situation. The ranting I read was DS> of someone who seems somewhat off balance. Scientists and researchers? What a paper-mill title-fest. Who accredits them as such?? -- Steve Rose - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Steve.Rose@f601.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen) Subject: NSA - Crypto 1/4 Date: 23 Aug 92 04:33:00 GMT I read with much interest that posting regarding NSA and the FOIA Lawsuit..here's something off Usenet that has reference to the NSDD145 you might find as equally interesting. In 4 parts. ----------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.usa From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) Subject: [sci.crypt et al] CPSR Letter on Crypto Policy In-Reply-To: David Banisar Message-ID: <1992Aug18.170250.6185@nntp.hut.fi> Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:02:50 GMT A repost from sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.security: From: David Banisar Subject: CPSR Letter on Crypto Policy Message-ID: <1992Aug18.123558.26646@eff.org> Organization: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:35:58 GMT The following is the text of a letter Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) recently sent to Rep. Jack Brooks, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The letter raises several issues concerning computer security and cryptography policy. For additional information on CPSR's activities in this area, contact banisar@washofc.cpsr.org. For information concerning CPSR generally (including membership information), contact cpsr@csli.stanford.edu. ====================================================================== August 11, 1992 Representative Jack Brooks Chairman House Judiciary Committee 2138 Rayburn House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515-6216 Dear Mr. Chairman: Earlier this year, you held hearings before the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law on the threat of foreign economic espionage to U.S. corporations. Among the issues raised during the hearings were the future of computer security authority and the efforts of government agencies to restrict the use of new technologies, such as cryptography. As a national organization of computer professionals interested in the policies surrounding civil liberties and privacy, including computer security and cryptography, CPSR supports your efforts to encourage public dialogue of these matters. Particularly as the United States becomes more dependent on advanced network technologies, such as cellular communications, the long-term impact of proposed restrictions on privacy-enhancing techniques should be carefully explored in a public forum. When we had the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security in May 1989 on the enforcement of the Computer Security Act of 1987, we raised a number of these issues. We write to you now to provide new information about the role of the National Security Agency in the development of the Digital Signature Standard and the recent National Security Directive on computer security authority. The information that we have gathered suggests that further hearings are necessary to assess the activities of the National Security Agency since passage of the Computer Security Act of 1987. The National Security Agency and the Digital Signature Standard Through the Freedom of Information Act, CPSR has recently learned that the NSA was the driving force behind the selection and development of the Digital Signature Standard (DSS). We believe that the NSA's actions contravene the Computer Security Act of 1987. We have also determined that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) attempted to shield the NSA's role in the development of the DSS from public scrutiny. The Digital Signature Standard will be used for the authentication of computer messages that travel across the public computer network. Its development was closely watched in the computer science community. Questions about the factors leading to the selection of the standard were raised by a Federal Register notice, 56 Fed. Reg. 42, (Aug 30, 1991), in which NIST indicated that it had considered the impact of the proposed standard on "national security and law enforcement," though there was no apparent reason why these factors might be considered in the development of a technical standard for communications security. In August 1991, CPSR filed a FOIA request with the National Institute of Standards and Technology seeking all documentation relating to the development of the DSS. NIST denied our request in its entirety. The agency did not indicate that they had responsive documents from the National Security Agency in their files, as they were required to do under their own regulations. 15 C.F.R. Sec. 4.6(a)(4) (1992). In October 1991, we filed a similar request for documents concerning the development of the DSS with the Department of Defense. The Department replied that they were forwarding the request to the NSA, from whom we never received even an acknowledgement of our request. In April 1992, CPSR filed suit against NIST to force disclosure of the documents. CPSR v. NIST, et al., Civil Action No. 92-0972-RCL (D.D.C.). As a result of that lawsuit, NIST released 140 out of a total of 142 pages. Among those documents is a memo from Roy Saltman to Lynn McNulty which suggests that there were better algorithms available than the one NIST eventually recommended for adoption. If that is so, why did NIST recommend a standard that its own expert believed was inferior? ** Cont in NSA - Crypto part 2 ** Don -- Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG ******************************************************************************* Submissions infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com Administrative requests infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com FTP archive grind.isca.uiowa.edu:/info/paranet/infopara Permission to distribute Michael.Corbin@paranet.org Private mail to Paranet/Fidonet users firstname.lastname@paranet.org UUCP gateway {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom *********************End**of**the**InfoPara**Newsletter************************