United Public Domain Gold 2/United Public Domain Gold 2.iso/utilities/pu637.dms/pu637.adf/PARA384

Text File | 1994-10-11 | 23KB | 609 lines

                Info-ParaNet Newsletters   Volume I  Number 384

                             Monday, April 1st 1991

Today's Topics:

                        Sheriff's Deputy Denied Promotion
                                 Re: Bill Cooper
                                 Re: Bill Cooper
                                 Hoagland's Mars
                        Sheriff's Deputy Denied Promotion
                            Subscription termination
                            Re: Statements of accepta
                                 Re: Bill Cooper
                                 Re: Bill Cooper
                                Fcc Modem Charge
                                    MODEM TAX
                                  Mail Problems
                              Re: Fcc Modem Charge
                              Re: Fcc Modem Charge

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Sheriff's Deputy Denied Promotion
Date: 28 Mar 91 07:45:00 GMT

I've just learned that a sheriff's deputy in Tucson, who also happens to be
MUFON State Section Director for Pima County, has been denied a promotion
within the department due to his active interest in Ufology. Apparently Hard
Copy is sending a camera crew to cover the case of Bob Dean, long-time
member of the now-defunct APRO and now an investigator for MUFON. Allegedly
Dean's lawyer taped a statement from the sheriff, who promoted a supposedly
less-qualified deputy instead of Dean, due to Dean's belief in flying
saucers.

T'will be interesting to see how Hard Copy covers this one.

Jim

--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Tyson Mitchiner)
Subject: Re: Bill Cooper
Date: 26 Mar 91 01:38:00 GMT


 > that, and I believe in the possibilty of ET life. However I
 > to am a SKEPTIC I do not believe in allowing my mind to be so
 > open that my brains tumble out _ I may never find them!  GRIN
 >
 > DON

(GASP)

If I gather as much information as I can on this subject, my brains
will.. will..  ex-explode?


You know, I never can understand the "Dont allow too much
information in or your brain will pop out" concept.  Our mind
supposedly has unlimited storage capacity.

I don't care about skepticism.. I don't care about gullibilism.  All
that seems logical is that since I have a curiousity as to what
those sightings may be (I will not conclude they are aliens.  They
may be U.S. secret planes, a freak of nature, whatever.)  I do not
have enough information to conclude that those sightings are hoaxes,
and I do not have enough information to conclude what exactly UFO's
are (NOTE: *UNIDENTIFIED* FLYING OBJECT, not aliens.).  So, it would
be rather illogical of me to conclude anything until I have
sufficient information to make a conclusion.

Since my mind has unlimited storage capacity (at least there has
been no real evidence to the contrary), I'll gather as much
information I can to piece together the puzzle.

                                Tyson
--
Tyson Mitchiner - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Greenen)
Subject: Re: Bill Cooper
Date: 26 Mar 91 14:10:01 GMT


 DE> Jim;
 DE>
 DE> Excuse me for jumping in about your message to Rick Moen,
 DE> but I have to state that as one of the old timers here in
 DE> ParaNet, I have "known" Rick for quite some time. Rick can
 DE> NOT be accused of being "close" minded, but he does ask
 DE> questions. That does not make him a bad guy. Checking my
 DE> dictionary skeptic was listed as: n. doubt in absence of
 DE> conclusive evidence; and BROTHER does that describe Mr.
 DE> Cooper!
 DE>
 DE> As one who did a two part investigation in Mr. Milton Wm.
 DE> Cooper, I can tell you first hand that Cooper is at the
 DE> forfront of lacking ANY CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. As a matter of
 DE> fact, several months ago I used the word CHARLATAN in
 DE> reference to Cooper, ( and I was being nice to boot ) and
 DE> Mr. Moen chided me for the adjective. Skeptic? Yep, Mr.
 DE> Moen is that and he uses it in his origin line. Close
 DE> minded? No I do not agree. I had a sighting myself, and a
 DE> dramatic one at that, and I believe in the possibilty of ET
 DE> life. However I to am a SKEPTIC I do not believe in
 DE> allowing my mind to be so open that my brains tumble out _
 DE> I may never find them!  GRIN
 DE>
 DE> DON
 DE>

No problem in jumping in, Don. But didn't I see you on stage with
the 4 uninvited guest in Las Vegas and wasn't Uncle Milty one of
them?  ---GRIN---. Now, If you had a dramatic sighting (and I also
had one) wouldn't you have the tendency to throw all skeptism out
and look toward the reasons of who, how, what and where questions? I
did that many years ago and now I am looking for the answers to
those questions.
   You mention that you are skeptic but skeptic of what? If you were
refering to Mr. Cooper, you have good reason but to the existence of
aliens visiting this planet, you should not have any doubt. I have
had many discussions with Rick on the BBS and got the feeling that
what ever you or anybody said he had a swamp gas answers to your
questions or quoted the amazing Randy guy. Maybe Rick has change his
mind since reading these echos and now might believe that maybe
something might be valid to these storys. I hope so because the real
investigation has many unanswered questions.
          73's     ---Jim---
--
Jim Greenen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Hoagland's Mars
Date: 28 Mar 91 20:29:00 GMT


 > I have recieved a badly formatted letter from Alan Shawn Feinstein
 > Associates, Cranston RI 02905 telling of a release that explains why the
 > Jan 6th NASA briefing was cancelled.  The letter tells me that this was
 > quite a revelation, and tries to sell stamps.  If anyone knows whats
 > going on, let me know.  I'm so cornfused.

I just received a review of copy of "Hoagland's Mars" which I am going to
review for ParaNet.  I will get you some information in a couple of days.  The
video is impressive, however I cannot comment on it yet without going further
into the review.

Mike

--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Sheriff's Deputy Denied Promotion
Date: 28 Mar 91 20:29:00 GMT


 > I've just learned that a sheriff's deputy in Tucson, who also happens to
 > be MUFON State Section Director for Pima County, has been denied a
 > promotion within the department due to his active interest in Ufology.
 > Apparently Hard Copy is sending a camera crew to cover the case of Bob
 > Dean, long-time member of the now-defunct APRO and now an investigator
 > for MUFON. Allegedly Dean's lawyer taped a statement from the sheriff,
 > who promoted a supposedly less-qualified deputy instead of Dean, due to
 > Dean's belief in flying saucers.

Can you cover it for ParaNet?

Mike

--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Subscription termination
Date: 28 Mar 91 15:39:00 GMT


 > Please terminate my subscription to the Paranet Newsletter.
 > Although I have found some of the postings to be of interest,
 > particularly those of sightings and information thereto,
 > I find the bickering and arguing to be a waste of my time, counter-
 > productive, and uninteresting, to boot.
 > I just don't have the time to go through all that to get to the
 > postings I consider valuable.

Can someone please tell me the name of a non-technical echo I can check into,
that DOESN'T feature bickering and arguing?  Personally I think there's more
bickering on that supposed bastion of gentlemanly discourse, the FIDO SCIENCE
echo, than there is here....

Jim

--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (John Tender)
Subject: Re: Statements of accepta
Date: 28 Mar 91 05:51:50 GMT

->>material with
->>which you (and you say Jim also) are all too familiar, you
->>were unable
->>to supply them. (Jim, if you're there, can you help out
->>here?)

 JS> Golly, wish I could, John, but I can't seem to get a handle on
 JS> what the hell you guys are arguing about. The rhetoric seems to
 JS> be getting piled pretty high here. If you're asking me what
 JS> Shaeffer, Klass, et al have held out as criteria for proof of
 JS> UFO reality, I do have some idea, but the references would be
 JS> mostly personal conversations. Will that do? As I posted here

     You found the pony.

     I am looking for statements they have committed to print and public
distribution; if no single definitive statements are available, then
maybe a few relevant citations. If you have some files of personal
conversations, I'm interested but I'd rather have "official" statements
in their own words.

     Such statements would be quite valuable. It would at least show how
competent these guys are as scientists (assuming they would actually
write their own stuff) as opposed to propagandists.

 JS> As to the rest of the argument, I think both you guys ought to
 JS> cool it. I was director of ParaNet at the time Cooper was
 JS> logging on, and it was my decision to keep all of his and John
 JS> Lear's files public, and I commend Rick for doing the same.
 JS> *My* reasoning was that it was important for those people who
 JS> had not made up their minds on the issue to be given everything
 JS> they needed in order to do so. I felt confident that Cooper
 JS> would simply hang himself with his own words, but regardless of
 JS> that, its always been my feeling that we have nothing to fear
 JS> from ideas....

     I never said Rick or anyone should delete any files. I did say that
if we are going to categorize these files, as "good" or "bad" or
"Cooper-like" etc., we should have explicitly stated (as opposed to
implicitly assumed) ~reasons~ for doing so. I opposed the idea that such
file deletions should be made at the whim of a sysop. This is both
consistent with and required of a scientific approach to the UFO
phenomena.

     When Rick, a member of the Bay Area Skeptics and CSICOP, evaded
this issue so persistently it merely reinforced a pattern I've seen in
skeptics before; using science when it is convenient, and ignoring it
otherwise.



 ... from the purlieus of Pittsburgh
--
John Tender - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Don Ecker)
Subject: Re: Bill Cooper
Date: 29 Mar 91 04:41:00 GMT

I said:

 >  > that, and I believe in the possibilty of ET life. However I
 > > to am a SKEPTIC I do not believe in allowing my mind to be so
 > > open that my brains tumble out _ I may never find them!  GRIN

What I meant was - - - I do not except just anything I hear
until such time as I have the time to conduct my own
research into the question. I DID NOT MEAN
THAT I DISBELIEVE EVERYTHING I HEAR, BUT AS MUCH AS I HATE
TO SAY IT, THE WILDER CLAIMS BY NECESSITY MUST BE
RESEARCHED TO THE Nth DEGREE. For example, Milty Coopers
claim now that the "aliens" are demons, the Government is
going to round up all the abductees and put them into
concentration camps, and other assorted Bull of that type.

Tyson said:

 > (GASP)
 >
 > If I gather as much information as I can on this
 > subject, my brains will.. will..  ex-explode?
 >
 > much information in or your brain will pop out"
 > concept.
 > Our mind  supposedly has unlimited storage capacity.

Yea Tyson, that may be, but still, that does not mean that
you don't question, and research. Do you believe EVERYTHING
you hear?  If so, I got this really GREAT car that I am
selling, and BOY* * * can YOU BUY it CHEAP. You send me a
check, I send you the papers-----OK?

 > I don't care about skepticism.. I don't care about
 > gullibilism.  All that seems logical is that since I
 > have a curiousity as to what those sightings may be (I
 > will not conclude they are aliens.  They may be U.S.
 > secret planes, a freak of nature, whatever.)  I do not
 > have enough information to conclude that those
 > sightings are hoaxes, and I do not have enough
 > information to conclude what exactly UFO's are (NOTE:
 > *UNIDENTIFIED* FLYING OBJECT, not aliens.).  So, it
 > would be rather illogical of me to conclude anything
 > until I have sufficient information to make a
 > conclusion.

Thats right, so just where do we disagree?



 > Since my mind has unlimited storage capacity (at least
 > there has been no real evidence to the contrary), I'll
 > gather as much information I can to piece together the
 > puzzle.
 >

And to think I thought I was speaking in a vacuum.

Don

--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Don Ecker)
Subject: Re: Bill Cooper
Date: 29 Mar 91 04:53:00 GMT

Jim Greenen said:

 > No problem in jumping in, Don. But didn't I see you on
 > stage with the 4 uninvited guest in Las Vegas and
 > wasn't Uncle Milty one of them?  ---GRIN---.

June of 1989. Yep, John Lear, then the MUFON State Director
hosted the MUFON Conference, and he invited me to speak on
my research involving mutilations. What does that have to do
with the above?

 > Now, If you had a dramatic sighting (and I also had one)
 > wouldn't you have the tendency to throw all skeptism
 > out and look toward the reasons of who, how, what and
 > where questions?

No. I would first attempt to see if there was an explanation
in prosaic terms. Even though I had a sighting that has
never been explained, I am too aware of other peoples
sightings that WERE explained.

 >    You mention that you are skeptic but skeptic of
 > what? If you were refering to Mr. Cooper, you have
 > good reason but to the existence of aliens visiting
 > this planet, you should not have any doubt.

Ah ha, but that is it. We do not KNOW that aliens are
visiting here. I may suspect, I may "feel it" but I do not
know, and I would venture a guess that no one I know, TRULY
knows that aliens are here. What we have at this point is a
strong working hypothesis that this is the case. However, if
you KNOW, and CAN PROVE IT, you are probably on your way to
your first million.  The catch is, PROVE IT.

What started this conversation however, if I recall, is the
fact that although Moen is a skeptic, he had Cooper Crap on
his board. Well, the First Admendment is still in effect,
regardless of what Cooper claims is going on and Moen is the
Sysop of his BBS, and he has not censored it, so what was it
that got you all fired up?


Don

--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Fcc Modem Charge
Date: 29 Mar 91 19:19:00 GMT


 * Forwarded from "Communications Echo"
 * Originally from Philip Kirschner
 * Originally dated 03-28-91 03:48

 Next  Again
Msg #   8 of   9Date: Fri  3-22-91,  4:37 pm
From: SYSOPRead: 37 times

Subject: MODEM TAX

A new regulation that the FCC is quietly working on will directly affect you as
the user of a computer and modem.  The FCC proposes that users of modems should
pay extra charges for use of the public
telephone network which carry their data.  In addition, computer
network services such as Compu Serv, Tymnet, & Telenet would also be charged as
much as $6.00 per hour per user for use of the public
telephone network.  These charges would very likely be passed on to the
subscribers.  The money is to be collected and given to the
telephone company in an effort to raise funds lost to deregulation. Jim Eason
of KGO newstalk radio (San Francisco, Ca) commented on the proposal during his
afternoon radio program during which, he said he learned of the new regulation
in an article in the New York Times. Jim took the time to gather the addresses
which are given below.
What you should do:  First, take the time to download this message and the
letter which follows.  Next find three or more other BBS systems which are not
carrying this message and upload this text.  Finally, print three copies of the
letter which follows (or write your own) and send a signed copy to the three
addresses.  It is important that you act now.  The bureaucrats already have it
in there mind that modem users should subsidize the phone company and are now
listening to public comment. Please stand up and make it clear that we will
not stand for any government restriction on the free exchange of information.


The three addresses to write to: (a letter to send follows)
Chairman of the FCC
1919 M Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554

Chairman, Senate Communication Subcommittee
SH-227 Hart Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Chairman, House Telecommunication Subcommittee
B-331 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Sir,
  Please allow me to express my displeasure with the FCC proposal which would
authorize a surcharge for the use of modems on the
-- more --telephone network. This regulation is nothing less than an attempt
torestrict the free exchange of information among the growing number of
computer users. Calls placed using modems require no special telephone company
equipment, and users of modems pay the phone company for use of the network in
the form of a monthly bill. In short, a modem call is the same as a voice call
and therefore should not be subject to any additional regulation.

                     | Or words to that effect |


 Again  Reply  Prev  Next  Quit
Read the next message Next

--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Clark Matthews)
Subject: Mail Problems
Date: 30 Mar 91 07:51:00 GMT


Hi Elizabeth, and thank you for the speedy response re:Nahani Park.

Unfortunately, my mail tossing program seems to have a major bug -- all I could
decypher from your response was your name, "Nahani", some odd works &
fragments, and a tantalizing allusion to headless prospectors.

Would you be kind enough to repost your response?  I have pitched Zmail in
favor of Imail and am reasonably certain that I can read your reply without a
program editor this time!

Many thanks!

Best,
  Clark

--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Fcc Modem Charge
Date: 1 Apr 91 08:12:00 GMT

Hey, wait a minute!

Not only have I heard of this proposed tax about a year ago (and
subsequently, after starting a big argument about it on another net, found
out that it was phony), THIS IS THE *EXACT* ARTICLE I READ BACK THEN!

I agree that if such a suggestion is ever made, we must act to crush it as
fast as it physically possible, but I doubt that it's actually being
considered now.  If this weren't the same message I read previously, I might
be worried.  So if there's really something going on, somebody better do
something more than paste ancient messages into his editor!

--
Jim Shaffer - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Fcc Modem Charge
Date: 1 Apr 91 08:17:00 GMT

Clark,

I hear that in New York, you have to pay extra to use CompuServe.  Not only
that, but CIS has to bill that part!  If I were running the thing, I'd have
told them where to go!

Also, our esteemed Governor Casey wants to tax long-distance phone calls, as
well as cable TV.  Don't you hate it when high technology is taken over by
people who in all likelihood don't even understand the basic principles of
its operation?!

Anyway, see my recent reply to Mike's message before you bomb FCC HQ or
anything.

--
Jim Shaffer - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
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
DOMAIN  [e-mail]
ADMIN Address [e-mail]
  {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request

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