Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 628 Thursday, March 4th 1993 (C) Copyright 1993 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved. Today's Topics: questions from alt.alien.visitors Re: "truth" I GOT FOOLED TOO! NE Ohio Center for ET Studies Ne Ohio Center For Et Studies Re: "truth" Re: Stink CO UFO case continues... Alabama Mutilations Colorado Ufo Update Re: "truth" David Bloomberg Baker Paper Truth, experts out of primary fields,etc. Evidence RE: Paranet Newsletter 626 Phobos Ii MYSTERY SOUND ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: violet.berkeley.edu!chalmers Subject: questions from alt.alien.visitors Date: 24 Feb 93 20:31:36 GMT From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.) Michael Corbin: Re your post from Bill Peterson, originally from alt.alien.visitors: There are two points on which I have questions or comments: 1). What are the criminal penalties for pilots discussing UFO sightings with the press? Do they apply only to military and commercial pilots or do they include private pilots as well. 2). While many scientists still think there must be life elsewhere in space, I have sensed a growing pessimism about this and a willingness to admit the possibility that the earth may be unique. The argument, such as it is, concerns the number of necessary coincidences that made the earth habitable, allowed life to begin, and then survive long enough for intelligence to evolve. I don't find it convincing myself; for one thing, life doesn't have to be humanoid or intelligent to exist. Also, we really don't know enough about the origin of planetary systems, early solar system and planetary formation, primitive earth chemistry, etc. to be too dogmatic about what is and is not a rare event. However, there is a feeling that life might be less common than was thought a few years ago. On the other hand, protoplanetary disks seem commoner than imagined too. -- John -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Re: "truth" Date: 25 Feb 93 08:43:00 GMT Tom Davis writes: > I understand your position in the classic sense; yet, > practical history does not substantiate the concept: Paul > Winchell, with little or no scientific training coming up > with the first working model of an artificial heart. When > his contribution to medical science was first announced the > laughter could be heard in every medical school in the > nation - "A ventriloquist," they said, "what could he > possibly know of anatomy, let alone the heart?" Yet, self > studied and with the wisdom to ask what he did not know he > made his contribution. > Now, there can be no argument that in spite of his > contribution he was shunned by the medical community - that > his a matter of record. But I always thought that a matter > of disgrace, not wisdom. Paul Winchell never came up with a working model of an artificial heart. The first "working model" of an artificial heart was the Jarvik 7. It didn't work too well because its initial recepient, Haskell Karp, didn't live very long after its installation. His widow sued just about everyone who had anything to do with that fiasco. Paul Winchell was not a defendant in that case. To this date, the only person who walks around with an artificial heart is Capt. John-Luc Picard, a fictitious character. Please remember that the echo guidelines prohibit the posting of unsubstantiated B.S. stories such as this Paul Winchell piece. This is the second time you have done this. Last time, you told some story about a guy who fell from a balcony in Skokie and never hit the ground. Sheldon had to waste a lot of time trying to run this down before you finally retracted it. > Hereis a final point - while the methodology may > certainly be outside the realm of acceptance of a given > discipline, the results, of repeatable, should be carefully > studied by those who claim to be scientists; remembering, > of course, that we have a lot of people traIned as > scientists who could no more grow a culture or create a > controlled study if their lives depended on it. This is the same specious argument that is constantly being made by Professor Jacobs. We are supposed to believe that just because there are some incompetent psychologists and psychiatrists around, we should therefore abandon science and leave this subject in the hands of the diletantes. What is really needed is a situation wherein qualified mental health professionals are *attracted* to the investigation of this subject because of the *quality* of data being produced. What is really happening is just the opposite, as evidenced by Dr. Kenneth Ring's refusal to continue his involvement in this area. -- John -- John Burke - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark.Matthews@f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews) Subject: I GOT FOOLED TOO! Date: 24 Feb 93 20:09:00 GMT In a message to Clark Matthews <22 Feb 93 09:38> Pete Porro wrote: PP> I got fooled by some lights myself. It was raining and the way PP> the water (downpour) was reflecting off the lights, made for a PP> very unusual sight. I backed up the car and started laughing at PP> myself. From one particular spot it looked like a bright yellow PP> UFO glowing in the sky, from 15 feet up the road, it was PP> obviously a large light over a parking lot that was partially PP> obstructed, and that gave it the unusual appearance. Yes, it's really surprising. You'd think that stationary lights at close range would be pretty obvious, but they're not in some cases. PP> driveway, but when temps. return to above 50, I'll grab the PP> camera and try it. I also have a desire to head up north for some PP> mystery lights in Watersmeet WI and tape them if I can. It's over PP> an hour from the cottage, so I need a clear night before I'm PP> going for a ride. (ps the cottage is five hours from home to start with) Sounds interesting. Good luck on getting results -- Best, Clark -- Clark Matthews - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hela.INS.CWRU.Edu!cc203 Subject: NE Ohio Center for ET Studies Date: 25 Feb 93 23:10:34 GMT From: cc203@cleveland.freenet.edu (David R. Stepien) + 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 The message you refer to was forwarded from 'Internet Alien Visitors Conference' by Mike Keithly, and clearly identifies myself as the original author. The message is a recap of an interview NOCES conducted with Cliff Stumbaugh, and was reported with no judgement on our part as to the accuracy of his statements. I will, however, repeat that we believe it likely (based on indepent corroboration) that some type of visible UFO activity did occur at the rallies Cliff presented, and that it is certainly worth our time to take him up on his offer to reproduce it for us this summer. The Northeast Ohio Center for Extraterrestrial Studies (NOCES) is a new organization that is dedicated to the study of the UFO phenomemenon. Our goal is to attract, witness, and possibly communicate with extraterrestrial craft, and to document this as far as possible. This contrasts with standard UFO investigation techniques, which concentrate on collecting information after an event has occurred. To achieve this we will experiment with techniques such as the use of high powered lights, and more esoterically, projected thought. There are numerous cases in which a witness has sighted a craft, called out to it in thought or merely wished it was closer, and found that the craft responded. This indicates that our goals are possible, and at least worth trying. The most widely known group performing this type of work today is, of course, CSETI. While CSETI is controversial in the UFO community, it is our assesment that they have successfully witnessed structured extraterrestrial spacecraft at close range. This assesment is based on a review of CSETI documentation of their experiments conducted last summer in England, and a personal conversation with Dr. Steven Greer. NOCES invites inquiries from anyone interested in participating in our experiments. Send email to cc203@cleveland.Freenet.Edu David Stepien -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Ne Ohio Center For Et Studies Date: 26 Feb 93 06:54:00 GMT David Stepien writes: > * * * > > NOCES invites inquiries from anyone interested in > participating in our > experiments. Send email to cc203@cleveland.Freenet.Edu > David: From what I've heard about the way in which CSETI operates, your open invitation to "outisders" is a radical departure from the CSETI modus operandi. I've been told that CSETI carefully screens all would-be participants in their exercises. A lengthy questionnaire is supposedly used to determine whether the applicant's belief systems resonate with the harmonies eminated by the "thought sequencers". This is supposed to facilitate their "success". What have you heard in this regard? Do you have any information that would either support or disprove these points? Best of luck to you and your group! I hope that you can come up with something more convincing than what CSETI has been boasting about. -- John -- John Burke - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Davis) Subject: Re: "truth" Date: 24 Feb 93 17:59:00 GMT Exactly, Sheldon. When it comes to degrees (and I have my share) the only thing which may be assumed is that the bearer of said sheepskins has learned to function within the community of his or her specialty. It may, but not necessarily, mean the individual has learned to think. A person's value to research is more in developed and inate intelligence than in certification - in other words, in each person's case we have to look at what they had to work with, evaluate how they delt with it, and determine if the results are provable and repeatable. We need to keep in mind that some of the most profound scientific hoaxes have been perpetrated by college certified scientists who needed grant money or desperately sought recognition. A degree (and again, no sour grapes here, I have several) is absolutely no indication of competence. Only performance proves that. -- 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: Stink Date: 24 Feb 93 18:17:00 GMT While I remember the incident personally, that would not be evidence. You might try contacting MARS via any local military PR officer and see if they will provide tapes or transcripts from recorded messages of that period. Another source could be the Goldwater estate. -- 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: CO UFO case continues... Date: 26 Feb 93 01:58:00 GMT MC>I personally don't feel that the lights on the home, or possibly a restaurant MC> had anything to do with the lights that the deputy saw. I also feel that MC>after "14 years on the job," it is unlikely that he would have made such an MC>error. However, I suspect that if that is a home up on the hill, they would MC>have had an excellent vantage point to see this object as it would have been MC>in the vicinity of the object. We have been unable to determine how to get MC>up there, but that is part of the ongoing investigation. Thanks for your comments and insight Mike. This appears to have the makings of a bona-fide "unknown" sighting... one that can not readily be explained via prosaic mechanisms. Can't wait to hear more! Keep at it... --Sheldon -- 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: Alabama Mutilations Date: 26 Feb 93 01:58:00 GMT MC> > This message was from JERRY WOODY to ALL, MC> > originally in conference Bama MC> > and was forwarded to you by SHELDON WERNIKOFF. MC>Just curious, was this prepared specifically for distribution to ParaNet? MC>Please pass along to Jerry that we are anxiously awaiting further information MC> and thank him for his timely contribution. MC>Mike I read this on BAMA, and cross-posted to ParaNet. Things seem to be heating up around the country. A video-tape of a UFO sighted in Alabama on Feb 19, was telecast on Chicago television a few days ago. A woman had video-taped the UFO in DeKalb County, AL, the same place many cattle mutilations have recently transpired. The UFO was nearly identical to what was seen in Belgium. A DeKalb County sheriff verified this object _was_ in the sky, and was not hoaxed on the tape. An investigation to determine if the stealth bomber was in the area at the time turned up negative. I'll post future updates as available. --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: Colorado Ufo Update Date: 26 Feb 93 01:58:00 GMT CM>I saw the lights of this house late one night -- the high angle, darkness, CM>and relative banking/curving motion of my car absolutely convinced me I was CM>seeing a large UFO. CM>It sounds incredible, but house lights (especially in unexpected places) can CM>be very convincing. In my case, the relative motion of the car and the CM>twisty/turny road made the effect really something, because it looked like CM>the house was maneuvering among the hills. CM>I just offer this as personal experience, since I have no facts on the CM>Colorado sighting(s) beyond what Mike Keithly and others have reported. CM>Regardless of that, the thing Mike Corbin observed high in the sky over CM>downtown Denver last year (along with apparently thousands of citizens & CM>police) does NOT sound like any kind of domicile, earthbound or flying. Thank you very much for these comments, observations, *and* your _objectivity_ Clark. It is most important to maintain our balance and focus in all this, if we are to isolate the wheat from the chaff. Let's investigate _all_ the possibilities... --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: Re: "truth" Date: 26 Feb 93 01:58:00 GMT TD>Exactly, Sheldon. When it comes to degrees (and I have my share) the TD>only thing which may be assumed is that the bearer of said sheepskins has TD>learned to function within the community of his or her specialty. Not quite Tom... I wouldn't necessarily bestow even that much credit on some "bearers". The "degree" _at times_ merely signifies you've played the game of orthodox education, but have no idea of how to function outside the classroom or dissertation circuit. I know personally of at least two "M.D." degreed individuals that I'd swear their shingle signifies "_M_ighty _D_isturbed"! TD>A person's value to research is more in developed and inate TD>intelligence than in certification - in other words, in each person's case we TD>have to look at what they had to work with, evaluate how they delt with it, TD>and determine if the results are provable and repeatable. Ah.... another believer in scientific method, eh? Yes, we could use a bit more of that around here. We are getting better though, are we not? TD>A degree (and again, no sour grapes here, I have several) is absolutely TD>no indication of competence. Only performance proves that. Agreed... --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: David Bloomberg Date: 26 Feb 93 01:58:00 GMT MC>This is to welcome David Bloomberg of Springfield, Illinois to the ParaNet MC>family. MC>He is ParaNet ALPHA-KAPPA(sm). MC>Please welcome him! And a terrific addition he will be Mike. David is an excellent researcher, skeptical - but open-minded, and sure to stir the pot a bit around here. I've recently chatted a bit with him on another network and really enjoy his style. He's certain to aid in narrowing the credibility gap. Welcome David... --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: Baker Paper Date: 26 Feb 93 01:58:00 GMT DA>Received the Baker paper today. Thank you! DA>This sure makes a lot more sense than most stuff I've come across in DA>the last few years ..and it's fascinating reading. It is very well done for the most part Don, and no doubt does explain _prosaically_ and _rationally_ what could be happening in a large percentage of abductions cases. The missing time/truck driver scenario Baker describes is something I had investigated earlier. Just ask any long haul driver if he/she has had a "missing time" experience. Chances are... they'll tell you they've had several. Of course, Hopkins will tell us that's because they've been abducted! What better target than a truck driver in the middle of nowhere at 0300. I can hear the rebuttal loud and clear! DA>I've often wondered about all those abduction stats that were carelessly DA>tossed about and this report only serves to re-inforce my belief that DA>there is perhaps very little hard evidence to support not only the DA>claims, but also the alledged by-products..ie..implants. ..and anecdotal evidence just doesn't cut it in the scientific realm. I know, I know... We are on the verge of a New Age of enlightenment, and what is happening is subtle beyond the sensitivity of our most sophisticated instruments. DA>It's too bad that this report couldn't be made widely available on DA>the BBS's. I'm of the opinion that we need to consider both sides DA>of the abduction issue, not just the 'believer' side. Yes, this is a "must read" for all Don. I hope we can initiate a discussion on this soon. I've been a bit short on time of late though. We'll continue with this thread. --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: violet.berkeley.edu!chalmers Subject: Truth, experts out of primary fields,etc. Date: 26 Feb 93 16:51:10 GMT From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.) While it is true that there are scientists and scholars who have done creditable work in more than one field or who have successfully changed fields, it is not as easy as it might appear. Learning how to learn is not as important as learning what to learn. Newcomers to a field often have trouble distinguishing merely interesting from important work. Important work is that which opens up new areas of research, answers long standing questions, or removes embarassing anomalies, etc. The best way to develop critical judgement is to interact with others in the field. That is why it is so important for graduate students to attend meetings, give presentations, read the latest issues of peer-reviewed journals, etc., and partly why graduate and professional schools are so time-consuming. One has to learn what the standards are, who does reliable (i.e., replicable) work, where such work appears (there are more journals than one can read), etc. Alas, many field-changers work alone, without the stimulus of interaction with their peers. While Nobel-quality work can be done in a home laboratory (e.g., Peter Mitchell and the chemiosmotic theory of energy transduction in mitochondia and chloroplasts), it is a very rare occurrence. Newcomers tend to focus on material or ideas of personal interest and ignore the rest, leading to large gaps in their basic knowledge and very often deficiencies in technique, methodology and scientific judgement. Even within a single broad field, it takes a newcomer several years of hard work to become conversant with the basic literature and learn the latest techniques (and their limitations). Hands-on experience is essential in any experimental field; one can't learn it simply by reading textbooks, monographs, review articles, or even the serial literature, though all of those are necessary. So, it is necessary to examine the qualifications of purported experts on a case-by-case basis. If they have published in peer- reviewed journals, studied in recognized or accredited programs, and use methods and techniques that have been validated as reliable, then one can put some credence in their opinions and findings. However, all work needs to be independently replicated, as even well-qualified scientists and investigators can make mistakes, publish too hastily, or go outside of the normal publication channels. Examples are legion -- polywater, cold fusion, messenger DNA ( a DNA fraction that bypassed transcription and directed protein synthesis directly), and many others. These are not cases of fraud, but of error. Deliberate fraud is quite rare, if only because if the work seems important, somebody will try to repeat it and fail. Despite my caveats, I'm not at all opposed to innovative ideas by outsiders. In fact I have not only changed my speciality several times, I have published extensively in a field totally outside my primary one. I also had to publish this other material initially in non-reviewed and little known journals at first. It's just that most new ideas turn out to be wrong, or worse, irrelevant. Einstein once said of disparagingly another physicist that 'his physics was not even wrong.' --- John -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: violet.berkeley.edu!chalmers Subject: Evidence Date: 26 Feb 93 16:51:29 GMT From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.) Every time I see the clever and elegant statement , I have to pause. I assume that it is intended to remind us to have an open mind about the existence of UFO's and related phenomena. Indeed, it is true in a tautological sense. However, it also contradicts common-sense, intuitive notions. Very few investors can survive very long by investing in stocks from companies who release no information and very few gamblers would bet large sums on totally unknown horses. Blind faith may be admirable in religion, but it is a poor strategy in the real world, where absence of evidence is very often evidence of absence. The problem is that the statement is a tautology and therefore in a sense meaningless. In the absence of evidence, one can conclude anything. For example, Let A mean a body of physical evidence and B that UFO's are real phenomena. Not-A, written as -A, is the negation of A or evidence against B. The combination of A and -A (A or -A) symbolizes the lack of knowledge about A's truth or 'absence of evidence.' as all possibilities are covered (in standard logic that is, multivalued and Fuzzy logics offer other alternatives). One can then formalise the original statement as -((A or -A) = -A), meaning that it is not true that A or -A is equal to -A. This is true no matter what A may be or whether it is true. Thus, while the original statement is true, it tells one nothing about the real world. A similar problem is that one can deduce anything from falsity as as the truth table of A implies B shows. This statement is true not only when A and B are both true, but also when A is false, irrespective of B's truth. In the absence of evidence, the the truth of B (B or -B may be true) is undefined. So, while the original statement really says nothing about the truth of UFO's and other paranormal phenomena, it does set one to thinking and hence is provocative in a very positive sense. -- John -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: '86FTSCCQ' <86FTSCCQ@strathost.stratcom.af.mil> Subject: RE: Paranet Newsletter 626 Date: 27 Feb 93 00:54:22 GMT Need info from anyone on a series of sightings that occurred in April 1975 in the state of North Carolina. A man from New York sent me a newspaper clipping from 1975 that described a triangle craft. The gentleman is asking if this was one of our test aircraft and I would like to know if there is any other information in the media on this event. Please post here or Email to my address. Thanks, Capt David Winters 412TW Edwards AFB,CA -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Keithly) Subject: Phobos Ii Date: 6 Feb 93 05:36:01 GMT * Forwarded from "Ask UFO Magazine" * Originally by Sheldon Wernikoff * Originally to Don Ecker * Originally dated 3 Feb 1993, 21:57 Hello Don, So what's you opinion of the material Anson posted from _The Planetary Report_ re: the mysterious disappearance of Phobos II? Sounds plausible. What ever happened to the analysis you were having worked up at JPL. We've never heard a word on that! Is there some reason they are withholding their findings. --Sheldon * OLX 2.1 TD * **************** slw / Chicago Netmail @ (1:115/887) FIDO -- Mike Keithly - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Mike.Keithly@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro) Subject: MYSTERY SOUND Date: 26 Feb 93 21:14:23 GMT I received this in the mail yesterday. I live in a small community named River Hills, about eight miles north of the city of Milwaukee, WI. I have not included the name of the people, because I do not have their permission. They mailed this to all residents of the Village. After reading it I thought maybe someone has heard about some other strange noises, or at least might add it to their list of mystery sounds. We have had the rumblings, whistles, and others. Here's one more for the list. Funny how resonating came to mind before I finished the third paragraph. I'll give them a call in a couple of weeks and see if they found the source of the problem. Pete Porro 1:154/414 File: Rhills.khz Feb 18, 1993
Dear friends and neighbors, We are experiencing a most troublesome problem that began about December 28th, and are hopeful that perhaps you may be of assistance. A high pitched sound at the human threshold of hearing (15 to 16 KHz), akin to a ringing in the ears, is present in our house at varying intensities day and night. It precludes those of us who can hear it from sleeping peacfully and from even having a peaceful moment during the day. We have had a variety of expert technicians, from Wisconsin Electric to Wisconsin Bell, the security company, heating and water experts, technicians with oscilloscopes and other equipment, as well as several engineers, none of whom has been able to identify the sound nor locate the source. We are told that perhaps a signal of some sort is being transmitted into the house from an external source, such as a HAM radio, new or recently moved high power lines, a dish antenna, high-powered computers, or some other obscure equipment that emits a signal that could resonate with something in our home. If you have any ideas regarding the cause of this problem, however remote, we would be most appreciative to hear about them. Additionally, if you happened to have experienced the same problem, perhaps a clue to this mystery might surface if we compare notes. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, -- Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.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************************