United Public Domain Gold 2/United Public Domain Gold 2.iso/utilities/pu636.dms/pu636.adf/PARA321

Text File | 1994-10-11 | 24KB | 582 lines

                Info-ParaNet Newsletters   Volume I  Number 321

                          Saturday, October 27th 1990

Today's Topics:

                                     Belgium
                                   Belgium UFO
                                   Ed's Video
                                      Krill
                                 The Salisberrys
                                 Re: Ed's Video
                                 The Salisberrys
                                      MUFON
                                Reprint of letter
                               HARD COPY/BEL. UFO
                             Re: HARD COPY/BEL. UFO
                              Re: Reprint Of Letter
                                ParaNet Zeti Ret.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Belgium
Date: 26 Oct 90 03:21:00 GMT

Just watched the UFO story from Belgium on Hard Copy.  I must say
that I was very impressed with the quality of the report and the
way that it was handled by the producers of Hard Copy.

This case seems to have all the affirmative signs of
authenticity.  It has several eyewitnesses with correlated radar
trackings, and it contains a high level of strangeness
considering the data already collected on it, including several
films made of the object with a daylight film containing fairly
clear pictures of the object hovering.

So far, the information that has been released is that it has
been observed to be traveling at speeds as low as 15 miles per
hour and sudden acceleration up to twice the speed of sound,
approximately 1500 mph.  The g force has been placed at 40 during
some of its accelerations -- many times more than a human being
could withstand.  It has also been observed emitting a
reddish-glow.  It appears that there may two different type
objects involved -- the daylight film clearly shows a round
object which appears to have a hole in the center, or at least an
impression of some sort, and what appears to be two notches in
its circumference.  During slow motion of the video, it appears
that the notch in the bottom is moving around the object while
the one at the top remains still.   It is not possible to
determine if we are looking at the bottom of the object or the
side of it.  The other reports detail a triangular-shaped
aircraft that has three lights with "a bunch of yellow stars,"
reports one eyewitness who got a real close-up look at the object
as it flew over her house.

The Belgian military and government is so concerned about this
matter that they are launching a formal investigation.  The
military has dispatched American-made F-16s to chase the object,
however the pilots have reported making contact with it, but are
unable to keep up with it.  It has been recorded on radar to
display remarkable maneuvers that are beyond normal explanation.

ParaNet is attempting to open up an electronic link to the
University in Belgium where study is being conducted.  We will
keep you posted on the progress of this.  It is our desire to get
a link there via our UUCP feed.  Anyone getting information on
this as it becomes available is encouraged to post it.

Mike

--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (Don Ecker)
Subject: Belgium UFO
Date: 26 Oct 90 06:16:00 GMT

To all ParaNet Users;

In reference to the Hard Copy segment on the Belgium UFO
sightings, Hard Copy interviewed Vicki Cooper ( Co-Publish of UFO
Magazine ) and myself on 10/24/90. They wished to get our
reactions on the Belgium footage, that has never been observed in
the United States.  During the course of the viewing, I observed
the witnesses that were interviewed, and although they were
speaking French, the producer had furnished us with a transcript
in English.  The witnesses were to a person, highly disturbed by
what they had witnessed, and none believed that what was seen was
of a terrestial nature.  We were able to watch the entire tape
that Hard Copy had been furnished, and the photo's and video tape
were amazing.  During one segment, a close up of one of the
night-time objects was projected, and in slow motion, I was able
to see what appeared to be a series of "spokes" or "struts" that
appeared to connect the lights.  It was most unusual to say the
least. The photo of the "disk" was the one object that I felt
demonstrated the "highest strangest" of all the objects. I
genuinely felt unease while watching that.

Prior to this segment, I felt there was a great possibility that
these objects "could" have been U. S. experimental craft, along
the lines of Tony Gonsalves B-2 Bomber hypotheses, but after
watching the clips, not to mention what these objects were
capable of doing, such as making approx. 40 G dives, and
outrunning the Belgium F-16 fighter aircraft, I am not quite as
sure.  High Strangeness* * * * indeed!

Don

--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (John Hicks)
Subject: Ed's Video
Date: 25 Oct 90 18:45:01 GMT


 MC> Just a thought -- $10000.00 is a mere paltry investment on

 True. But a fairly high knowledge is required, which means at least one
more person who knows. Plus, it's certainly not a sure thing.

 MC>   And, how could X-rays be used to fake photographs,
 MC> if at all?

  X-rays?  Where'd you get that?
  Well, lessee. X-rays will fog ordinary film, or could be used to form an
image in exactly the same way visible light would form an image. With
ordinary film, the X-ray source would have to be rather strong, since
ordinary film wouldn't be especially sensitive to X-ray.
  A big bugaboo you'd run into if you were trying to form an image with a
camera in the X-ray wavelengths is that the common camera optics wouldn't
focus the image very well. The usual X-ray machines, such as your dentist
uses, for all practical purposes makes a contact image. No optics are
involved.
  It's certainly possible to use optics, but huge bucks would probably be
involved. Low demand so high per-unit costs.
  I know an optical engineer so I'll bounce the question off him.
  My opinion is that the use of X-rays in trying to fake a photo would be a
royal PITA with no particular advantage. I seriously doubt you could bring
visible light and X-rays to a common focus on film.
  If I wanted to use a relatively invisible light to make an image without
witnesses being the wiser, I'd look at UV or IR. Again, the sources would
have to be fairly strong.

                                        jbh

--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (John Hicks)
Subject: Krill
Date: 25 Oct 90 18:46:02 GMT


 MC> If I am not mistaken, it was from John's own lips on George
 MC> Knapp's "Cooper" scooper.

  That seems to ring a bell. Thanks.

                        jbh

--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (John Hicks)
Subject: The Salisberrys
Date: 25 Oct 90 18:51:03 GMT


 MC> With this in mind, what is his report on the whole subject?

  That's just the problem right now. Since this is a MUFON investigation, we
won't really know until Walt releases the report. It's up to the rest of us
to make sure the report, if it's opposed to Walt's position, isn't just
buried.
  Rex is holding his info very closely and waiting for Walt to release the
report.

                                                jbh

--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: Ed's Video
Date: 26 Oct 90 07:32:00 GMT

In regard to the relatively little movement (only  a few scan lines) of
the UFO, you still haven't really commented on how you would reconcile
the supposed authenticity of the video with the extreme difficulty of
holding a camera so steady, esp when any normal person would be very
excited at taking a photo of a UFO.  I'm just looking at it from the
two perspectives of it either being authentic or a staged hoax.  If it
was authentic  it would seem vitually an impossiblity that ED managed
to take a video with such a steady hand.  However, if it was hoaxed by
setting up a model on a stick (or whatever) and the camera on a tripod,
the "stick" could be held against the ground and moved side to side and
back to back to produce the allusion of slight movement of a distant
object and the movement recorded on the tape would only cover a few
scan lines.

--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (Michael Corbin)
Subject: The Salisberrys
Date: 26 Oct 90 07:44:00 GMT


 >   That's just the problem right now. Since this is a MUFON
 > investigation, we won't really know until Walt releases the
 > report. It's up to the rest of us to make sure the report,
 > if it's opposed to Walt's position, isn't just buried.
 > Rex is holding his info very closely and waiting for Walt
 > to release the report.

Well, considering the past performance of his highness, Mr.
International Director, that could be a bloody battle.  I often
wonder just how many more of those mass schisms can occur before
Walt is left with just himself and his dog <g>.

Thanks for the info, John.

Mike

--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (Michael Corbin)
Subject: MUFON
Date: 26 Oct 90 07:58:00 GMT

I talked over the telephone with Walt Andrus the other day and
was less than surprised at his current attitude over the
situation in Gulf Breeze.  It appears that he is facing another
exodus en masse from his rank and file over his insistency in
backing up Gulf Breeze.  It was truly refreshing to talk with
Rex Salisbury as I realized that MUFON's reputation hinges on
people like Rex and Carol pulling for them.

However, what will be left should the Salisbury's be "removed"
as have all of the other credible researchers who were previously
involved in MUFON?

It appears certain that MUFON has gone down in flames as the
once highly respected UFO investigative organization.  But, as
all good things must come to a close, MUFON has given way to a
host of pseudo-scientific, new-agey-type philosophies and
leadership destined to destroy whatever credibility might be
left.  Could this be a replay of the good old NICAP days?  As
you may recall, NICAP, once a strong, solid organization was
brought down by the infiltration of its leadership by government
types who ravaged its credibility until it was eventually so
weak that no one could begin to take it seriously.

Nevertheless, the handwriting is on the wall and it will be
interesting to see how successfully ufology will be able to
spring back from this most unfortunate assault.

Mike

--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Reprint of letter
Date: 26 Oct 90 08:14:00 GMT

I thought that this letter from Marge Christensen was appropriate
for reprinting.

                   MUFON, 1990 - An Organization At Risk

                            by Marge Christensen

The Gulf Breeze case has recently come crashing down around the
investigators   and  proponents  of  the  case,  and   when   the
aftershocks  cease and all of the pieces settle, there is a  good
chance  that  many of the fragments will have  MUFON  written  on
them. For the past three years, this case has torn Ufologists and
UFO  organizations apart, and it is likely that the  damage  will
not  be repaired in the near future, if ever. Can  MUFON  survive
this  crisis and salvage any semblance of credibility or is  this
the beginning of the end for MUFON?

Let's  examine  the  facts.  In May,  1988,  Walt  Andrus  stated
(concerning  the  Gulf  Breeze case) in the  MUFON  UFO  JOURNAL,
"...if   the  investigation  discloses  that  a  hoax  has   been
perpetrated  upon the UFO community, MUFON will be the  first  to
acknowledge and announce this revelation."
Then,  in  the  August,  1988  MUFON  UFO  JOURNAL,  Walt  Andrus
announced  that  it was no longer necessary to preface  the  Gulf
Breeze  Case with a disclaimer that it is either one of the  most
incredible  cases in UFO history or a fantastically  orchestrated
hoax.  Andrus concluded, "The overwhelming evidence is  in.  Gulf
Breeze  is indeed one of the most incredible cases in modern  UFO
history." He further commented, "Gulf Breeze is a solid case  and
you read it first in the MUFON UFO JOURNAL."

At  that  time, in response to statements such  as  those  quoted
above,  various persons in MUFON leadership positions,  including
this  author, spoke out and called for a much more  cautious  and
objective stand on the part of MUFON in regard to the Gulf Breeze
case, at least until all of the evidence was in. In the December,
1988  issue  of the MUFON UFO Journal, Richard Hall  warned  that
Walt  Andrus,  Budd Hopkins, and Bruce  Maccabee  had  apparently
already  had their minds made up and were helping Ed  Walters  to
write  a book. Hall pointed out, rightly so, that their  approach
"departs  drastically from long-established scientific  procedure
(including published MUFON procedure)."

At that time, I voiced similar objections to both Walt Andrus and
Don Ware to no avail. Both of them responded that they felt  that
these  sightings were proof of extraterrestrial visitation.  They
accused  me  of  being too conservative,  and  Walt  Andrus  then
announced  the appointment of a new Director of Public  Relations
to replace me.

Even more damaging comments are found in Ed and Frances  Walters'
book,  THE GULF BREEZE SIGHTINGS, published this year by  William
Morrow  &  Co.,  Inc. In the chapter,  "Investigation  and  Photo
Analysis," Dr. Bruce Maccabee, optical physicist, writes: "Having
studied these sightings `every which way' for more than a year  I
have concluded that they are proof of the existence of UFOs." Dr.
Maccabee  adds that UFO sightings have been reported for over  40
years  but  have been ignored or publicly disputed because  of  a
lack of thoroughly convincing proof that UFOs are actually flying
in our skies. Now, he adds, "that proof is here."

In Appendix 3 of the book, Walt Andrus speculates on the solution
to the UFO enigma occurring in Gulf Breeze and paints a  possible
scenario  that  might  be unfolding. That  scenario  includes  Ed
Walters,  "successful businessman and civic citizen was  probably
selected  for  the  ultimate disclosure so that  the  events  and
evidence would be thoroughly investigated and hopefully  accepted
by the scientific community as factual and not easily ignored  as
an obvious hoax."

Perhaps  the  most farfetched claim of all, though,  is  that  of
Donald Ware, MUFON State Director for Florida and Eastern  States
Director for MUFON. Ware's position statement on the Gulf  Breeze
sightings,  published  in Appendix 3 of Walters' book,  reads  as
follows: "I am convinced that these sightings are proof of  alien
visitation.  The level of technology demonstrated indicates  they
can  come and go at will and can reside in a variety  of  places:
the bottoms of our oceans, inside major high-altitude ice fields,
in earth orbit, on the moon, on Mars, etc..."
Ware adds that the feels that the UFOs deliberately allowed Ed to
have  18 photographic sessions because the aliens want people  to
see the photographs.

Clearly  the  statements above are not based  on  any  scientific
principles  and are in direct contradiction to the  MUFON  policy
page  included  in each year's MUFON UFO  Symposium  Proceedings.
This   policy  page  states  that  MUFON  is  "an   international
scientific  organization composed of people seriously  interested
in studying and researching the UFO phenomenon..." It goes on  to
hail the MUFON Board of Consultants which is comprised mostly  of
PhDs  and  MDs  in  a wide variety  of  areas  of  expertise.  It
continues,  "In order that only qualified, competent and  sincere
people may become involved, membership in MUFON is by  invitation
only."

The  statements  of  persons discussed above make  a  mockery  of
published MUFON policy and of all that MUFON claims to stand for.
Furthermore,  in  light of the recent revelations  regarding  the
hoax behind the Gulf Breeze case, the implications of these three
individuals' statements are even more damaging to the credibility
of the MUFON organization.

In  my  opinion,  it is bad enough  that  trained  investigators,
including a respected optical physicist and photoanalysis expert,
and a former USAF Col. were totally deceived by a con-man such as
Ed  Walters.  However, it is worse yet that  these  same  trained
investigators  rushed to judgement and made such rash claims  not
only publicly, but in print. Moreover, these statements were made
by these persons not merely as individuals, but as MUFON officers
and  investigators.  Is this  serious,  scientific  investigative
methodology?  Hardly.  Furthermore, making  these  statements  as
MUFON representatives is a direct violation of the MUFON public
information policy guidelines.

In  short,  _the party's over and it's time for  the  charade  to
end._

Let's  face  the  facts. MUFON is  _not_  a  serious,  scientific
research  organization.  Rather it has become nothing but  a  pop
club for people with the mutual interest in reading good  stories
about UFO cases.

In my opinion, it will not be possible for MUFON to be in reality
a  serious, scientific research organization unless there is  new
leadership  of  the  organization.  Since  that  appears  to   be
extremely  unlikely, I see no alternative but to resign from  the
MUFON  Board of Directors and to resign the post of  Director  of
Public Education at this time.

Interestingly,  at the 1988 MUFON Symposium at the University  of
Nebraska, in my paper, entitled "Hynek's Last Wish for  Ufology,"
I  suggested that the goal for ufologists to strive for  in  1988
should  be  _professionalism_. I pointed out that the  major  UFO
organizations   do   have  established  statements   of   values,
standards,   goals  and  objectives,  but  in  many  cases,   the
membership does not take them seriously. I further added that  it
isn't  enough to pay lip service to these statements or  to  make
the organizations appear scientific and professional on paper. We
must make that commitment to put those statements and values into
action in our work in the UFO field.

Although I received a great deal of positive feedback on my paper
from those in attendance, it is obvious that while MUFON  leaders
approved  of  the  talk,  to  them it  was  just  that  --  talk.
Unfortunately, there was no real commitment of action to back  up
the philosophy expressed in that paper.

A  highly  respected colleague recently commented that  MUFON  is
much  more than these few individuals who have been acting in  an
unscientific  manner.  There are many people who are  doing  good
work for us. The question now is: Are there enough good people in
the  organization  to  put  MUFON  back  on  course  to   renewed
credibility and continued existence?

--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (Frank Cox)
Subject: HARD COPY/BEL. UFO
Date: 26 Oct 90 18:15:00 GMT

Just saw the Hard Copy report on the UFOs over Belgium and must agree
with others here about the even handed reporting of the events by that
organization. Not too sensational, but yet they did cover the events as
thouroughly as television time would allow. I was most impressed by the
fact that the Belgian military was so open and up front about the
entire affair. Now if someone would convince the US military that with
holding information is going to cause much more serious problems in the
long run and full disclosure is the only reasonable, decent and perhaps
intellegent thing to do!! When it finally does come out, public
confidence in government will be non existant anyway. With the mess in
DC now, what else can they do?
--
Frank Cox - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (Don Sudduth)
Subject: Re: HARD COPY/BEL. UFO
Date: 26 Oct 90 21:22:00 GMT

I was not very impressed, however, by the videos of the UFOs on HARD
COPY.  The first one looked very much like a distant light out of
focus.  The second one showed only three lights in a triangle pattern
with no visible fore or background features.  The reporting was pretty
good (including the short interview with Vicki Cooper and Don Ecker).
Not much air time, though.
--
Don Sudduth - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (Don Sudduth)
Subject: Re: Reprint Of Letter
Date: 26 Oct 90 21:25:00 GMT

Ouch!  She's right, however.  MUFON needs help!
--
Don Sudduth - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (Don Ecker)
Subject: ParaNet Zeti Ret.
Date: 27 Oct 90 19:39:00 GMT

To All:

I just spoke to Jim Speiser and found out he had some tech.
problems that caused Jim to go off line.  However, ParaNet Zeti
Ret. aka <Swamp Gas> will be up and running on Monday, October
29th.

FYI---Grin

Don

--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:207/109
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********
                      'infopara' at the following address:

UUCP{ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara
[e-mail]
ADMIN [e-mail]
{ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request

******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************