Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 625 Sunday, February 21st 1993 (C) Copyright 1993 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved. Today's Topics: Survey N.e. Ohio Center For Et Studies Colorado Ufo Update Evidence Journal of Scientific Exploration "truth" Stuff "truth" Guardian Ad Lightshow Colorado Ufo Update Colorado Ufo Update Re: WISCONSIN SIGHTING Colorado Sighting Report Wisconsin Sighting Re: Stuff Re: "truth" Colorado Ufo Update "truth" The U/m Guardian Case: Facts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vince.Johnson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Vince Johnson) Subject: Survey Date: 12 Feb 93 17:11:00 GMT One piece of hardware that could be useful would be a gravitometer, used in Oil & Gas exploration. Presumably, UFOs use some form of anti-gravity that could theoretically be detected by a gravitometer. As an aside, what is the story on electo/mechanical failure in association with proximity to UFOs? Do the motors simply stop, and then resume after the UFO leaves, or do cars need to be restarted? If the engine simply resumes operation without needing to restart with the ignition key, this could be explained as classical Einsteinian time dilation due to a strong gravitational field. Also, the reported "switching off" of consciousness in reported abductions could also be an effect of the presence of a strong gravitational field (time slows down to the point where consciousness and other biological processes are suspended). Does anyone have any information on whether stalled cars etc. need to be restarted after close encounters? 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: Jim.Dickerson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Dickerson) Subject: N.e. Ohio Center For Et Studies Date: 12 Feb 93 17:59:00 GMT Mike; who posted this message that you passed on. And why didn't they sign it? It appears to be another waco NEW AGE group. Is there anything that you know personally about them or the person that posted this message? Jim -- Jim Dickerson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Dickerson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Dickerson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Dickerson) Subject: Colorado Ufo Update Date: 12 Feb 93 18:15:00 GMT Sheldon, the objects sighted near Denver on Jan 24th, were reported as different objects. One main object that was higher and to the West relative to the small yellow lights that were reported in the saddle between two mountains. These yellow lights incidently, also happen to be exactly where a house is located in that saddle. Also, you should note that when we observed the area one night after the sighting, that the lights in the house kept going off and on which made it appear as if they had changed formation several times. Of course they did not! We watched through binoculars. But I can see how a person without binoculars might think that they were hovering, and changing formation. JIm -- Jim Dickerson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Dickerson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Evidence Date: 12 Feb 93 19:00:02 GMT * Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors" * Originally by Bill Peterson * Originally to All * Originally dated 10 Feb 1993, 20:19 From: billp@mozart.amd.com (Bill Peterson) Date: 8 Feb 93 18:15:36 GMT Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors The lack of physical evidence is frequently put forward as proof that UFO's don't exist, or that there is no phenomenon to study. Anecdotal evidence is not considered as valid proof. Some say that if the gubment DID have something, they wouldn't be able to keep it a secret. I think a little perspective is needed here: 1) no incontrovertible physical evidence has been found. If so, someone has kept it almost totally secret. 2) pilots are the most likely to see UFO's, since they spend many hours in the air. There are criminal penalties for discussing UFO sightings with the general public. 3) many military people have come forward with anecdotal evidence of UFO's : foo fighters, radar locks, scrambles, etc. They can't talk about it without some fear of prosecution. 4) anyone who tries to come out in the open with a story is immediately discredited, called a "kook", etc. Even police officers and other credible witnesses can lose their jobs. 5) many sightings are massive in scale : Washington National sightings in 1952 for example. 6) our current science says that other planets must be extremely common. Life should be abundant. 7) our science currently cannot tell us how to travel to another star. But look at us 200 years ago. Now look 200 years into the future. Is it still going to be impossible? How about a robot ship? 8) UFO's have been sighted for thousands of years. I think that some things are obvious: 1) there is some phenomenon to study 2) we don't know everything 3) to jump to any conclusion is to stop learning 4) there is no real reason to operate under the hypothesis that aliens are visiting us to study 5) it could just as well be angels, ourselves in the future, or something even better 6) perhaps it is a kind of collective unconcious fantasy -- Howdy Pardner! Let's chew the fat! Disclaimer : my thoughts are not my own. :-X -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cadsys.enet.dec.com!cooper Subject: Journal of Scientific Exploration Date: 13 Feb 93 03:30:29 GMT From: 12-Feb-1993 1455 The JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION publishes peer-reviewed research articles and invited essays in areas that do not fit neatly into the matrix of present-day science. Now in it's 6th year of publication, this quarterly journal provides a professional forum for the presentation, scrutiny and criticism of topics falling outside the established scientific disciplines. JSE publishes articles both 'pro' and 'con', the only criteria being quality and scholarship. It is the official publication of the international Society for Scientific Exploration (founded in 1982). For information contact: JSE Editorial Office ERL 306 Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 FAX: 415-725-2333 sims@flare.stanford.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Powell@f601.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Powell) Subject: "truth" Date: 9 Feb 93 05:51:02 GMT -=> Quoting Sheldon Wernikoff to Pete Porro <=- SW> Another point that disturbs me Pete is... Just exactly _WHO_ are SW> the writers convincing with their writing?? For example (and SW> please correct me if I am incorrect), Jacob's _Secret Life_ has SW> been on the shelf for about a year. Have you (or anyone else out SW> there) heard of any _new_ big name professionals being so SW> impressed by the "reality" of the abduction phenomenon, that SW> they've jumped on the bandwagon? Well, there is Dr. Karla Turner... SW> What about Roswell... Two recent books out - but I haven't heard SW> of any _new_ mainstream scientists joining the quest for truth. Roswell isn't really a scientific problem Sheldon. It either happenned or it didn't, there's not much in-between. Actually, its really a political issue at this point... Thanks, take care. John. - ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 -- John Powell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Powell@f601.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Powell@f601.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Powell) Subject: Stuff Date: 9 Feb 93 05:58:08 GMT JP> In a message to John Powell <01-21-93 18:50>, Tom Davis writes: TD> "Frank Edwards" TD> Well, you have hit on the essence of his problem - culpability. TD> Edwards problems were pretty must self-inflicted errors in TD> continuity and logic. There came a time in his life when he seemed TD> (even on his radio show) to be desperately reaching for anything that TD> would "prove" the existence of UFOs. As we know in retrograde, he TD> never found such proof. I think desperate is an appropriate word there. He was really reaching it seemed to me. Which was unfortunate. TD> Nor, unfortunately, has anyone else. My own experiences convinced TD> me that UFOs exist - but I have absolutely no idea what they are. It would sure help a lot if Uncle Sam would tell us what's theirs and what's not... TD> He was a well versed individual and had many followers as much TD> through his verbal delivery as through his subject matter. His "verbal delivery" was (for the time, I suppose) excellent! Nowadays it seems real corny. I have a cassette of one of his radio broadcasts and it could almost go on TV unchanged for comedy... TD> Remember too, that we were a country just out of a world war, still TD> expecting catastrophy... What was the purpose of the Ground Saucer Watch? Was this funded by the Air Force? Thanks, take care. John. - ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 -- John Powell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Powell@f601.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: "truth" Date: 13 Feb 93 22:41:00 GMT In response to a point raised by Sheldon Wernikoff, John Powell writes: > -=> Quoting Sheldon Wernikoff to Pete Porro <=- > > SW> Another point that disturbs me Pete is... Just exactly _WHO_ are > SW> the writers convincing with their writing?? For example (and > SW> please correct me if I am incorrect), Jacob's _Secret Life_ has > SW> been on the shelf for about a year. Have you (or anyone else out > SW> there) heard of any _new_ big name professionals being so > SW> impressed by the "reality" of the abduction phenomenon, that > SW> they've jumped on the bandwagon? > > Well, there is Dr. Karla Turner... ARRRGGHH!!! Karla Turner has her Ph.D in ENGLISH STUDIES. She has no more business conducting hypnotic "regressions" than does Roseanne Barr. One of the few QUALIFIED professionals involved in the subject of alien abductions, Dr. Kenneth Ring (Ph.D in Clinical Psychology) has recently DROPPED OUT of this field, since it is rapidly becoming the exclusive province of charlatans and diletantes. All too often, we see examples where people, who have Ph.D's in irrelevant subjects are tauted as experts in "hypnotic regression" by emphasizing their moniker as "Dr. (So-And-So)" in attempt to lend unwarranted credibility to their ideas. A good example of this appears at page 18 of UFO magazine, Vol. 8 No. 1. Here, we have an article about "Abduction Syndrome". At the top of the page it says: "More Therapists Taking Note". At the bottom of the page we have two pictures: one of Richard Boylan, Ph.D (clinical psychology) and one of James Harder, Ph.D (ENGINEERING). Unfortunately the article contained only three sentences attributed to Dr. Boylan. I would have liked to find out more from his perspective. Even worse was the article about Yvonne Smith, a former "public relations representative" from the L.A. courthouse who took a course in hypnotism from the Hypnosis Motivation Institute in Tarzana. She was described as a "Certified Hypnotherapist". Her personal Motivation for studying hypnosis was summed up in a brief quote which speaks VOLUMES about what is wrong with the current state of "abduction research": > "As I read all the material, I became extremely fascinated > with the fact that hypnosis is used to retrieve buried trauma, > hidden memories," she says. "When I observed people such as > Budd Hopkins in a regression session, I knew I could do this > work. As Frank Sinatra said: Send in the clowns! -- John -- John Burke - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Guardian Ad Lightshow Date: 13 Feb 93 23:08:00 GMT Sheldon Wernikoff writes: > JB>Mike: > JB> Well, I just saw the 2/3/93 edition of Unsolved Mysteries > JB> and all I can say is . . . YEECH! > > I second the emotion John. It's unfortunate that most UFO > segments > only seem to make it to the tabloid shows like, UM, > Sightings, Hard Copy, > Inside Edition, Current Affair, ad nauseum. Sheldon: I was going to get back to you earlier to discuss how I felt that "Sightings" was really in a class all by itself (at the bottom of the barrel). Then I saw the Feb. 12th show! Their coverage of the "Guardian" caper was nowhere near as objective as the UM show. They never discussed the hokeyness of the "Guardian document" since it would discredit the case. This pandering to sensationalism is why I have been calling this show: "The Pimps of the Paranormal". The Sightings show about CSETI was sickening. The CSETI clowns had no business calling their "taped" event a "close encounter of the fifth kind". By definition, a CE must be something more than "mysterious lights in the sky at night". As most of us know, even a CE I is a "daylight disk". These people didn't even see anything that good. They decided that because they WILLED those lights to appear by "thought sequencing" this was some type of "close encounter" event. This "thought sequencing" reminds me of a bunch of sixth-grade girls playing "Mary Worth" at a slumber party. "Imagination focusing" is more like it. Even worse was the substitution of the "actual footage" of the event with a SIMULATION -- probably because the "Emperor's New Clothes Principle" doesn't work well on TV. They did show only about *three seconds* of the "actual footage" which was most unimpressive. I'd like to see an expose' of what CSETI is really like and how it operates. We'll never see *that* on Sightings! -- John -- John Burke - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff) Subject: Colorado Ufo Update Date: 15 Feb 93 03:19:00 GMT On 02-10-93 Michael Corbin wrote to Sheldon Wernikoff... MC> > It appears so far that this one's not going to be MC> > explained away too easily. I understand there was MC> > at least one airport radar confirmation, which would MC> > eliminate the possibility of astronomical body MC> > mis-identification. --Sheldon MC> MC> There was *no* radar confirmation, however the tower at Stapleton did MC> see them visually with binoculars. They stated that the lights were too MC> low to be observable with radar. MC> Thanks for clarifying that Mike. At least it _was_ a confirmation by a trained observer(s). Am I correct in assuming the visual was made by an air traffic controller? That's a bit odd though, if they could see the lights visually, why could they not see them on their radar? From my experiences with radar, anything high enough to be seen visually, could also be seen on the screen, unless it was composed of a non-reflecting material. What do you think? --Sheldon ... OFFLINE 1.44 * 1:115/887.2 (708)-887-7687 -- Sheldon Wernikoff - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Colorado Ufo Update Date: 14 Feb 93 07:58:00 GMT > Thanks for clarifying that Mike. At least it _was_ a confirmation > by a trained observer(s). Am I correct in assuming the visual > was made by an air traffic controller? Yes. The tower did see them visually. > That's a bit odd though, if they could see the lights > visually, why could they not see them on their radar? From > my experiences with radar, anything high enough to be seen > visually, could also be seen on the screen, unless it was > composed of a non-reflecting material. What do you think? They explained to the sheriff's department that it was too low to see them on radar due to ground clutter. This is normal. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro) Subject: Re: WISCONSIN SIGHTING Date: 12 Feb 93 17:31:08 GMT How come you get to see the video, and I can't get anything even though I live here? (sounds like the usual?) What's a Kanasawa object, I'm not familiar with the term. The local police have been interviewed to distraction by the local media. Mostly they have said it was a bright light, but they can't say what it was. Since there are a few departments involved, there might be mixed reports. I think you might have seen three eye-witness reports. All three disagree as to what they saw, and the Astronomy experts said Venus. (which would be expected) UFO believers said, it was a UFO for sure. Houswife said, Venus. Outside observer, airplanes (and he saw them turn the bright lights off). Farners said it swooped over the barn. Different farmer, bright lights to the SW. News media had a drawing from two seperate sources, classic fried egg saucer, dome on top with bright light, four yellow lights below. One person described it as grey in color. (don't know how you can say that at night with a bright light shinning at you?) Also saw smaller flap comming from IL during the same week. Try to sort all of this out? Part of the problem is perception variation. A UFO to one person, might be a refuelling plane to someone else. Flickering of planets on the horizon can be seen as something flying around to another. Since I didn't see it, I shouldn't even guess. Just that many people went looking for UFO's after the first report, and guess what, they saw them. The lady who was listening to the police radio was convinced it was nothing, because she was in the same area, went outside at the same time, and saw Venus. The guy who saw the military planes, was closer to Madison, to the west of the sightings, and was convinced it was just planes. The guy who reported seeing a definite UFO, was looking in a different direction from all other reports, unless I misunderstood and he was in fact much farther than his reported location. It's a mess as usual, with at least five variations on what was seen, by people who are certian of what they saw. It would be nice if a majority of the people agreed, but unfortunatly it's split about 20-20-20-20-20 of those who saw something. -- Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Colorado Sighting Report Date: 16 Feb 93 02:52:02 GMT * Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors" * Originally by Michael Corbin * Originally to All * Originally dated 15 Feb 1993, 19:52 ------------------------------------------------------------ This file was provided by ParaNet(sm) Information Service and its network of international affiliates. You may freely distribute this file as long as this header remains intact. ParaNet UFO Newsclipping Service Date Prepared: February 15, 1993. Source: Mike Keithly, Columbine Community Courier. Date: Article date February 3, 1993 Location: Ken Caryl Ranch, Southwest Jefferson County Colorado. ============================================================ For further information on ParaNet(sm), contact: Michael Corbin ParaNet Information Service P.O. Box 172 Wheatridge, CO 80034-0172 or FidoNet 1:104/422 Internet mcorbin@scicom.alphacdc.com ============================================================ This article was Submitted from the Columbine Community Courier dated Wednesday Feb 3, 1993. It is rewritten without permission by Mike Kei thly on Feb 15, 1993. Article name Article1.txt. Ken Caryl Residents report "UFO" Deputy Mike Sensano doesn't know what he saw on Jan 24. but he's positive that it wasn't from a helicopter, or an airplane, or a spotlight. Sensano was among four Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputies that saw a strange cluster of lights appear over the Ken Caryl Valley two Sundays ago. And the Deputies weren't alone. Between 7:45pm and 9:00pm the Jefferson County Sherr if's Department recieved 10 calls from residents of the Ken Caryl Ranch area who also observed a bright white light and a group of yelow ones hovering over the air. "When people ask me to describe the lights, I tell them I've never seen this kind of light before, so I have nothing to compare it to." Sensano said. " If I saw some men coming out of saucers, I'd say so." Sensano was dispatched to the location after an anonymous citizen reported the sighting from his car. The citizen called JCSD from a cellular phone. When Sensano looked west from the Diamond/Shamrock gasoline station on Chat field Avenue, he saw the lights above the mountain where the Ken Caryl West Ranch subdivision is located. According to a Sheriff's report filed by Sensano, the yellow cluster appeared to be suspended in the air and not traveling in any direction. Sensano said he could not hear any engine sounds. One deputy called officials at Staple ton International Airport, who confirmed that they had seen the lights, but showed nothing on there radar screen. The lights abruptly dissapeared from the sky around 8:00pm, but reappeared in a triangular form about ten minutes later in the same area as seen before. Sensano said the hovering beams luminated the car of a man traveling on U.S 285 by the hogback. He said the driver ws momentarily blinded by the bright ness of the lights. Since the incident, Sensano says he's heard numerous theories explaining the phenomenon. One theory is that the lights were mere ly fiber optics created by the airwaves. Another theory is that there was some king of mirage reflecting heat waves. Others claim that the lights were the result of a secret military experiment. Sensano himself offers no theories on what he saw. In his sherrif's report, the deputy classified the case as a "Suspicious incident." End of Article. -- 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: Wisconsin Sighting Date: 17 Feb 93 00:20:01 GMT > How come you get to see the video, and I can't get anything even though > I live here? (sounds like the usual?) What's a Kanasawa object, I'm not > familiar with the term. That is a reference to a place. Kanazawa, Japan. 1989, an object was videotaped by a local there. The object resembled the object that I saw in the video. The object in Japan was a saturn-shaped object with a red light on its underside. The shape of the WI object was similar. > The local police have been interviewed to distraction by the local > media. Mostly they have said it was a bright light, but they can't say > what it was. Since there are a few departments involved, there might be > mixed reports. I think you might have seen three eye-witness reports. > All three disagree as to what they saw, and the Astronomy experts said > Venus. (which would be expected) UFO believers said, it was a UFO for > sure. Houswife said, Venus. Outside observer, airplanes (and he saw them > turn the bright lights off). Farners said it swooped over the barn. > Different farmer, bright lights to the SW. News media had a drawing from > two seperate sources, classic fried egg saucer, dome on top with bright > light, four yellow lights below. One person described it as grey in > color. (don't know how you can say that at night with a bright light > shinning at you?) Also saw smaller flap comming from IL during the same > week. >From what I saw on the video, it was nothing ordinary. Please keep us posted on any further developments. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Davis) Subject: Re: Stuff Date: 16 Feb 93 18:34:00 GMT "What was the purpose of the Ground Saucer Watch?" I am unfamiliar with Ground Saucer Watch. The Ground Observer Corps, on the other hand, was a civilian branch of the US Air Force that estabnlished, maintained and manned observation posts along the sea coast to spot enemy aircraft encroaching into our air space below radar levels. Somewhat to the embarrassment of the US Air Force, the GOC became a major contributor to UFO sightings. It is important to know that what we now tend to call UFOs (alien space craft or phenomenon outside the norm) were not usually mentioned in GOC. Instead of calling in a UFO, operators would describe such an object as, for example, "Unknown; Unknown; Multi; 1,500; S by SW." Such a report meant that a craft of unknown configuration with more than 1 engine was flying by at 1,500 feet from the S by SW of the compass. Such reports when heard over the com net brought everyone to their feet to see if they could confirm the sighting. It almost always meant simply that it was too dark for an observer to correctly identify a commercial or military transport. - Almost always. Now, back to Ground Saucer Watch; while I have nothing specific on this, there was a group in Wyoming (we've all seen the stereotyped version in Close Encounters) that spent considerable time and money on a nation-wide radio link via amateur radio to try to correlate sighting as they occurred. To my knowledge the effort was short lived and, with one minor accomplishment, was fruitless in its efforts. But oh my what an accomplishment! On December 12, 1965 the group reported 3 sightings within 10 minutes of each other in three different parts of the North American continent: All three sightings were absolutely identical in content, description and evaluation. Same object, same visual perception, same sound, same movement and what appears to have been at exactly the same moment. One possible explanation was a singular phenomenon simultaneously observed at three different points. The implication is mind boggling. However, it was not a popular explanation among those that were making their incomes via the gullible - the same magazines and feature writings who sold their volumes by pandering to the "It has to be aliens come to mate with my daughter" crowd. In February of 1966 Senator Goldwater mentioned the incident on the MARS net and suggested other amateurs share such knowledge since the Wyoming group was closing down its efforts. A few days later on the International Emergency System on 14.332 (20 meters) the senator was asked to comment additionally on his idea about amateurs renewing a concerted sky-watch program. Goldwater said, "Perhaps I was a bit premature. It occurs that such a program could include inherent dangers that the average operator is not willing to take upon himself or his family." And so, another chapter fades into oblivion. -- Tom Davis - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Davis) Subject: Re: "truth" Date: 16 Feb 93 18:37:00 GMT "All too often, we see examples where people, who have Ph.D's in irrelevant subjects..." Your point appears worthy at first read, but there is another side to it; people who have doctorates have learned how to learn. The scientific community is full of those who have stepped out of their initially chosen field of endeavor to make substantial contributions in other areas. The mere fact that a person is working outside of a specific discipline is not in itself sufficient reason to negate the results of that work. -- Tom Davis - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff) Subject: Colorado Ufo Update Date: 17 Feb 93 02:43:00 GMT JD>These yellow lights incidently, also happen to be exactly where a JD>house is located in that saddle. Also, you should note that when we observed JD>the area one night after the sighting, that the lights in the house kept JD>going off and on which made it appear as if they had changed formation JD>several times. Of course they did not! We watched through binoculars. But I JD>can see how a person without binoculars might think that they were hovering, JD>and changing formation. Do you believe it's possible that this is what was actually observed? Window lights blinking on and off in the darkness? Were there any other residences located in the area - or just the aforementioned home? Interesting... --Sheldon * OLX 2.1 TD * 1:115/887.2 (708)-887-7687 -- Sheldon Wernikoff - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff) Subject: "truth" Date: 17 Feb 93 02:43:00 GMT JP> -=> Quoting Sheldon Wernikoff to Pete Porro <=- JP> SW> .... heard of any _new_ big name professionals being so JP> SW> impressed by the "reality" of the abduction phenomenon, that JP> SW> they've jumped on the bandwagon? JP>Well, there is Dr. Karla Turner... Yes John... unfortunately there _is_ Dr. Karla "Into The Fringe" Turner. I was looking for someone with a bit more scientific (rather than literary) background. JP> SW> What about Roswell... Two recent books out - but I haven't heard JP> SW> of any _new_ mainstream scientists joining the quest for truth. JP>Roswell isn't really a scientific problem Sheldon. It either happenned JP>or it didn't, there's not much in-between. Well... something happened - but what? I know I'll draw a lot of flak with this statement... but I still haven't been convinced that fragments of an extraterrestrial craft and alien bodies were actually recovered. And you're right - there is nothing remaining amenable to scientific analysis. JP> Actually, its really a political issue at this point... Sad, but true. Seems _everything_ boils down to "politics" in the end. Think I still have time to embark upon a new career? --Sheldon * OLX 2.1 TD * 1:115/887.2 (708)-887-7687 -- Sheldon Wernikoff - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: The U/m Guardian Case: Facts Date: 17 Feb 93 10:55:02 GMT * Forwarded from "Alt.Alien.Visitors" * Originally by Chris Rutkowski * Originally to All * Originally dated 11 Feb 1993, 16:14 From: rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) Date: 9 Feb 93 18:23:13 GMT Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors Okay, guys. Here's the REAL info about the Guardian case. A few years ago, several UFO researchers including myself received a package of info from an anonymous sender. Included were several supposedly authentic documents, map and diagrams concerning a crashed saucer near Carp, Ontario, which is near Ottawa. The documents alleged that both the Canadian and US military covered up the crash, which included recovery of alien bodies, saucer, etc. Investigations by Clive Nadin, Christian Page, Leonard Stringfield and myself showed that this was in all likelihood a hoax, and a pretty poor one at that. The docs were badly contrived amateur jobs with numerous spelling mistakes. In one long, tedious section, the docs warned mankind about a threat by Red China to Jews and how the White Brotherhood was working somehow to keep the military in line, etc. etc. etc. Clive and another researcher went to the site indicated on the map and found NO indication of anything. Local residents knew nothing about the movements of "heavy equipment" (as the docs alleged) and there had been only a few minor NL sightings during the past number of years. Later, blurry Polaroid photos were received by several researchers. These showed nothing but patches of colour, and were accompanied by more ramblings about the White Brotherhood. I notified the RCMP about the packages. It was determined that the sender mailed the items from somewhere in Ottawa/Hull, specifically the downtown Ottawa post office. The RCMP were interested in the items because of their similarity to hate literature. The video came later. Oeschler was only one of several people to get it. He obviously thinks it's real. Okay, the video LOOKS good, and he somehow found a witness (whose story matches exactly [!!!!] the video image) who saw something during the year in about the same area. But putting it into the context of all the other stuff, the case looks very, very bad. Now, of course, if someone fingers the Guardian, then the UM segment will have been worthwhile. But as a UFO case, forget it! The docs have been reprinted in a few ufozines, including the SGJ and (I think) the Cambridge UFO newsletter. Len Stringfield has copies, and so does Christian Page. They both have written about the case as an obvious hoax. Next. -- Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca Royal Astronomical Society of Canada University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.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************************