United Public Domain Gold 2/United Public Domain Gold 2.iso/utilities/pu637.dms/pu637.adf/PARA390

Text File | 1994-10-11 | 28KB | 700 lines

                Info-ParaNet Newsletters   Volume I  Number 390

                            Friday, April 12th 1991

Today's Topics:

                     Question From A Ufology Sig User - Help
                                 Re: Bill Cooper
                                     (none)
                              UFOLOGIST PASSED OVER
                                  solar flares
                         National Reconnaissance Office
                                  solar flares
                                 Re: Rick redux
                                  Re: Skeptics
                           Re: Openmindedness and psy
                                 Re: Rick redux
                            Re: Statements of accepta
                               Re: HUMAN VISITORS

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

From: [e-mail] (John Burke)
Subject: Question From A Ufology Sig User - Help
Date: 10 Apr 91 07:23:00 GMT


 * Forwarded from "ParaNet UFO"
 * Originally from John Burke
 * Originally dated 04-10-91  0:05

Dale:
         Here's my 2 cents' worth:

 >
 > 2. What is/was Project Redlight and Project Snowbird?
 >
 >    I know that you guys know this one.

Project Snowbird was supposed to involve the testing of crashed UFOs or UFOs
given to us by the aliens.  Many people believe that the Cash-Landrum incident
occurred as a result of Project Snowbird.  I used to have a copy of Bill
Moore's FOIA file on Project Redlight which he sells for about $6.  I think
that it was supposed to have a similar focus, such as the reverse-engineering
of captured UFOs.

 > 3. Does the 'National Reconnaissance Organization' still
 > exist, and what
 >    can they tell us about UFO activities?
 >
 >    I never heard of it, have you?

The NRO is supposed to be part of the NSA.  Some believe that their duties
involve crash/retrieval operations.  Many suspect that the infamous "Black
Helicopters" are flown by the NRO.  As I recall, it is supposedly headquartered
down in Texas somewhere.

 >
 > 6. This is a long one.  How can the assassination of
 > President Kennedy/MJ-
 >    12/The Council of Foreign Relations/The Joint Alien,
 > U.S., U.S.S.R/The
 >    Deaths and or disappearance of prominate civilian and
 > military people
 >    and the manned base on the moon connect?
 >
 >    Hey, this question has all the makings of a book!!!

In fact, Bill Cooper has written just such a book.  He calls it: _Behold A Pale
Horse_.  I call it:  _Behold A Pail Of Horsesh*t_.

                                          --  John

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Greenen)
Subject: Re: Bill Cooper
Date: 9 Apr 91 14:20:00 GMT


 * Replying to a message originally to Don Ecker
 TM>  >  > much information in or your brain will pop out"
 TM>  >  > concept.
 TM>  >  > Our mind  supposedly has unlimited storage capacity.
 TM>  >
 TM>  > Yea Tyson, that may be, but still, that does not mean that
 TM>  > you don't question, and research. Do you believe EVERYTHING
 TM>  > you hear?  If so, I got this really GREAT car that I am
 TM>  > selling, and BOY* * * can YOU BUY it CHEAP. You send me a
 TM>  > check, I send you the papers-----OK?
 TM>
 TM>   Well, I never stated that you disbelieve everything you
 TM> hear.. I was just trying to point out the danger in using
 TM> the "mind so open the brains flutter out" concept.. It
 TM> gives an excuse to ignore possible information.  I sound
 TM> too serious sometimes, and I apologize if I seemed too
 TM> vehement in my post.
 TM>
 TM>    My point isn't that you should believe or disbelieve
 TM> anything. My point is that you should consider all sources
 TM> of information.. and if there is not sufficient (or
 TM> reasonable) proof to disbelieve it, then it shouldn't be
 TM> dismissed totally.  However, there are some claims that do
 TM> not have to be researched into, for they seem to be a waste
 TM> of time (like the aliens are "demons" type).  I agree with
 TM> you totally on that.  I also never lead myself to believe
 TM> any
 TM> information if I do not have sufficient proof of it also..
 TM> I just
 TM> consider it, and try to learn more information about it,
 TM> and hopefully gain more proof for or against it.
 TM>
 TM>                                 Tyson
 TM>
 TM> --- GoldED 2.29f-
 TM>  * Origin: ParaNet ALPHA-EPSILON(sm) ABySS - WASHDC
 TM> (1:109/134)
I agree with you 100 % on your statement. If a person was released
from prison after spending 40 years for a ccrim and while walking
down to the local diner to get himself some real food. If a UFO
flew over his head, stopped and pick him up as in the Ed Walters
case, should we throw out his testimony because he had a prison
record? Should we throw out all what Bill Cooper says because he
goes off the deep end sometimes? I don't think so, are courts won't
let you use pass crimes in a case, then why do the ufologist have
double standards. Why must we have to drag a alien space craft in
the middle of Washington D.C. for some to accept that this is the
only proof that they can except. Why always this double standard
that we try to create. I will repeat this to all that are reading
this, I know that they exist and I am not going to play this game
that some like to play. I think its time to try and find out the
WHO, WHAT, WHERE AND HOW. Tyson; with the logic you have, you will
help find these answers that we all are seeking.  73's  ---Jim---
--
Jim Greenen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Greenen)
Subject: (none)
Date: 9 Apr 91 14:43:00 GMT

What seems strange about the Kecksburg sighting is that nobody has
ask the opinion of the orignal investigator of that case, Clark
McClelland. He lives here in Central Florida and is mention in
Leonard Stringfield book and also in Above Top Secret. Clark has
been a active investigator in UFOs for over forty years and former
NICAP director for the Space Center????    ---Jim---
--
Jim Greenen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Speiser)
Subject: UFOLOGIST PASSED OVER
Date: 10 Apr 91 06:18:00 GMT

UFOLOGIST DENIED PROMOTION
by Jim Speiser

ParaNet Zeta-Reticuli 04/09/91 - A Tucson man has been passed over for a
promotion within the Sheriff's Department, allegedly because of his
interest in UFOs.

Bob Dean, a 62-year-old technical worker within the Pima County Office
of Emergency Services and an officer of the Mutual UFO Network, is suing
the Department, which oversees the OES, alleging violations of
discrimination laws as well as of his First Amendment rights.

Dean, who served 27 years in the US Army and retired as a Command
Sergeant Major, claims that he was number two in line for a promotion,
out of a list of 70 applicants, for the head job at the emergency
services office. When the number one applicant declined the job, Dean
says, it was incumbent upon the Department to name him, based on his
professional credentials and years of service to Pima County.

But Dean was passed over, and the job went to the next in line. Dean
filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which
ruled in his favor, but that ruling was overturned by the County
Manager, who was supported by the Sheriff.

At first, Dean thought age was the issue - he was 61 at the time. But in
a sworn, tape-recorded deposition, the Sheriff apparently raised a
different objection. Dean quoted the Sheriff as saying words to the
effect of, "I've known Bob for years, and know him to be very a
professional and capable guy - hell, he even helped get me elected back
in 1980. But I just couldn't bring myself to offer him that position.
He's into UFOs, you know."

Bob Dean has quietly served in various capacities in the UFO field,
including a stint on the Board of Directors of the now-defunct Aerial
Phenomena Research Organization (APRO). His interest in the subject was
apparently sparked by his experiences while on duty at NATO's SHAPE
headquarters in Paris. Cleared for TOP SECRET-COSMIC security
information, Dean claims he had access to several "sensitive" documents
which he says would shine a different light on the military's interest
in UFOs. He makes vague allusions to one document in particular, which
he refers to as "The Assessment."

"I've been pretty quiet about this for a number of years now," says
Dean, "but I'm not going to be around that much longer, and I'm tired of
all the secrecy." When reminded of the similarity between his story and
that of Ufology's enfant terrible, M. William Cooper, who claims to have
had access to Top Secret UFO documents at the Navy's Pacific Fleet
Headquarters, Dean merely scoffed. "Now there's a gentleman who's lost a
lot of credibility in my book."

However, it was not unusual, Dean says, to have enlisted men and
non-coms "clean up" after generals and other top brass. "There were some
indiscretions, some sensitive documents left lying around."

Dean is soft-spoken, very polite and personable. While his present post
as MUFON State Section Director for Pima County has made him more
visible of late, he has maintained a low profile in Ufology for some
years, yet unlike Cooper, who seemingly came out of nowhere,  his
interest in the subject has been a known factor. He is well thought-of
by others in the field, including MUFON State Director Hal Starr. "As
far as I can tell, Bob's a straight shooter," says Starr.

Dean's battle with his superiors will soon raise his visibility to the
national level. An upcoming segment of TV's "Hard Copy" will feature the
brouhaha, which Dean claims is the first "UFO employment discrimination
case" ever to be litigated. Dean was interviewed by a Hard Copy reporter
for "over seven hours," and there is talk that an entire half-hour
episode will be devoted to the case, which may come to trial as early as
this summer. Dean is asking for back pay, restoral of pension, and a
large sum of money for "mental anguish."



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



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


From: ecn.purdue.edu!lush
Subject: solar flares
Date: 10 Apr 91 17:20:34 GMT

From: [e-mail] (Gregory B Lush)


A while back, Mr. Corbin mistakenly posted some solar
flare alerts to the newsletter.  I asked some questions
about flares, but no reply.  I then went to the source of
the postings in alt.space and got answers to all my questions.

If anyone else was interested, I can send you a list of our
questions/answers and a glossary of terms used in the flare
alerts.

Greg Lush ([e-mail])





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


From: ncar!shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu!jrblack
Subject: National Reconnaissance Office
Date: 11 Apr 91 01:25:10 GMT

From: James Roger Black <[e-mail]>

Greg Lush asked about the NRO:

+  Does the 'National Reconnaissance Organization' still exist, and what
+  can they tell us about UFO activities?

Actually, it's the 'National Reconnaissance Office', and yes it does
still exist (or at least it did as recently as 1986, and I have heard
nothing to indicate otherwise since then).  William Burrows' book 'Deep
Black' (Random House, 1986) discusses the NRO in some detail.  Here is
how he begins Chapter 9 of that book:

  The National Reconnaissance Office, which officially does not exist,
  is headquartered in a guarded sanctum--4C-956--inside the Pentagon.
  The NRO's cover, according to a small sign on the outermost of its
  several doors, is that of the Office of Space Systems, which, in turn,
  reports to the under secretary of the Air Force for Space Systems.

  The NRO's cover may be suitably ambiguous, but its mandate is explicit.
  It is responsible for the design, development, and procurement of all
  U.S. reconnaissance satellites and for their management once in orbit.

Since the NRO is in charge of spy satellites, and UFOs (if they exist)
can be expected to (1) appear on satellite photos occasionally, and (2)
inspect spy satellites up close and perhaps interfere with them from
time to time, it is not unlikely that the NRO could have interesting
stuff in their files.  It isn't likely they will ever tell us, however,
since--as Burrows says--NRO officially does not even exist.

One other detail of interest in Burrows' book is his reference (p. 221)
to famous UFO debunker Philip J. Klass as 'a longtime observer of
reconnaissance satellite activities' and quotes him as an authority on
the subject.  Hmmm ...




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


From: [e-mail] (Michael Corbin)
Subject: solar flares
Date: 10 Apr 91 22:44:00 GMT


 > From: ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]
 > Date: 10 Apr 91 17:20:34 GMT
 > Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
 > Newsgroups: info.paranet
 >
 > From: [e-mail] (Gregory B Lush)
 >
 >
 > A while back, Mr. Corbin mistakenly posted some solar
 > flare alerts to the newsletter.  I asked some questions
 > about flares, but no reply.  I then went to the source of
 > the postings in alt.space and got answers to all my questions.
 >
 > If anyone else was interested, I can send you a list of our
 > questions/answers and a glossary of terms used in the flare
 > alerts.

I would love to have it.  Sorry, did I miss replying to something that you
sent?

Mike

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: Rick redux
Date: 8 Apr 91 17:24:43 GMT

>  > In order to save echo bandwidth, I've decided to
>  > change my mind and admit publicly that I'm really a closed-minded
>  > zealot who's here to attack people for their beliefs, ignore
>  > overwhelming evidence that might serve to undermine my faith in my
>  > ideology and divert me from my hidden agenda, and basically to
>  > test how dark the depths of my soul really are.
>
> Ah Ha!  I knew it all along....  I bet you < GASP!! > even
> write letters to Phil < GASP > KLASS!! Out with the stake
> Mike, we got one to burn!
>
> GRIN

Wait!  I repent, and have seen the light (a blue one, from the
Pleiades).

Actually, my mind was damaged at an early age when my mother solemnly
advised me to avoid walking through screen doors because I might
_strain_ myself.  I've had a hard time believing people ever since.

Best Regards,
Rick M.

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: Skeptics
Date: 8 Apr 91 18:08:56 GMT

Gene --

You make some very good points about avoiding circular reasoning in
considering the ET (and other) UFO hypothesis, which leads some to
refuse to consider any evidence.  Like all such refusals to consider
evidence, this is counter-productive and bull-headed.  I of course
agree, and appreciate your comments.

Best Regards,
Rick M.

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: Openmindedness and psy
Date: 8 Apr 91 20:11:47 GMT

gatech!apple.com!well!ddrasin (Dan Drasin) writes:

DD> Rick, I've heard variations on this from skeptics for a long
DD> time. It's usually '...as long as your mind isn't so open
DD> that your brains fall out.' Pray tell, Rick, just what does
DD> this mean?

It means that some people use "openmindedness" as a code word to
mean _unwillingness_ to apply one's critical faculties to claims of
fact, at all.  A couple of examples will suffice, I think:  When Uri
Geller informed Targ and Puthoff that he was receiving his information
from orbiting flying saucers from the planet Hoova, a lot of folks
decided not to take Uri very seriously any more (and began to have
doubts about Targ and Puthoff), without much worry about being
"closed-minded".  When others heard Shirley MacLaine tell friends that
they are only figments of _her_ imagination, they reacted similarly.

In short, it means that -- although the boundary between sense and
nonsense may be hazy and legitimate grounds for many differences
of opinion -- nonetheless it exists.  There are a few people who
_violently disagree with even this_.  To these folks, who
basically consider reality to be only a crutch, I say:  More
power to you.  Hail Eris!  All hail Discordia!

> Just exactly what are the prescribed limits to openmindedness,
> and who gets to do the prescribing for everyone else?

I'll leave that up to you, for now, but I have your number.

> This falls into the same category as the statement 'extraordinary
> claims require extraordinary proof' -- because (apart from the
> double-standard implied here, which science is never supposed to
> tolerate) nobody has ever defined what 'ordinary' (and therefore
> "extra-ordinary') means.

God, I've gone over this so many times.  Old chestnuts refuse to die.

The basic idea is supposed to be that all factual claims are supported
by some evidence (zero or greater), and that some are supported by
huge amounts of evidence accumulated over hundreds of years.  I should
hasten to add that _quality_ counts, too.  Some bodies of evidence are
more convincing than others.  (For some guidelines as to what is good
scientific evidence and what is bulldada, I refer you the FidoNet
SCIENCE echo or any sci.* newsgroup.  That is clearly beyond the scope
of this echo, and a too-long discussion, to boot.)

A claim is extraordinary if its acceptance would require rejecting
massive amounts of well- (if tentatively) accepted, accumulated
knowledge.  This happened, for example, when geologists suddenly
accepted plate tectonics in the early '60s, when the quantity and
quality of evidence _for_ tectonics became convincing -- after 45
years.  It has never happened, for example, with Charles Fort's
hollow-earth theories, since that evidence is, um, unconvincing.

This is -=not=- a double-standard, since it is just a corollary of the
maxim that _all_ claims should be supported by _appropriate_ evidence.
(The preponderance of quantity and quality rules.)

> That statement is also frequently used to discourage honest
> research into certain subjects....

For the record, as I have said here _many, many times_, I'm all in
favour of honest research, regardless of subject.

> In other words, a (real or imagined) lack of proof is often
> used to rationalize avoiding the very investigation that would
> be required to develop such proof in the first place.

For the record, I'm against imagining a lack of proof.
For the record, I'm against rationalising.
For the record, I'm all in favour of investigations.

> If anything, 'extraordinary' claims (assuming one is interested
> enogh to follow them up in the first place) require extraordinarily
> openiminded, careful and resourceful science....

For the record, I'm absolutely keen on open-minded, careful, and
resourceful science.

> ...Period.

Period, as long as one realises that any very surprising result, whose
acceptance would require massive revisions in accepted scientific
knowledge, will need to have strong evidence.  This is the _ordinary_
standard of science, and applies equally to Alfed Wegener, father of
plate tectonics, and to Robert Jahn of the Princeton PK experiments.
No more, no less.

Some people just won't accept that standard (Velikovsky, Reich...).
That's fine, but then what they do isn't science.

If this topic continues, it would better be moved to a more
appropriate echo or newsgroup.

Best Regards,
Rick M.


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



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


From: [e-mail] (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: Rick redux
Date: 8 Apr 91 20:14:59 GMT

> Well, thank God you finally brought that out into the open!<grin>.
> I've been reading the ongoing battle between all of you people and it
> just ocurred to me that it seems a shame that, Heaven forbid anyone
> should have an actual opinion about something. Everyone seems afraid
> of giving their gut feelings on a subject in fear of "offending" the
> other party, with the exception of you to a degree. I mean, I'll come
> right out and say it, I THINK BILL COOPER IS A COMPLETE FRAUD AND
> APPEARS TO HAVE SERIOUS NEUROTIC PROBLEMS TO BOOT, AND YET I CONSIDER
> MYSELF QUITE OPENMINDED ON THE SUBJECT OF UFOS! ...

John --

Personally, I've met too many totally sincere people to apply the word
"fraud" to an individual without a tremendous amount of thought.  Also,
questioning people's motives is seldom necessary, or even helpful.  You
come across as having an axe to grind, and lose the chance to let the
record speak for itself.  Lastly, as I said when I tut-tutted and tsk-
tsked Don for calling Cooper a "charlatan", such words can land you in
court.

Nonetheless, I thank you for your remarks.  You're right; we shouldn't
be afraid to express opinions.  I've just had a tough time with
oversensitive and aggressive correspondents, and have to worry about
being misunderstood.  For the record, I think some of Coop's statements
are highly suspect, and I understand why many serious UFOlogists are
more than annoyed with him (most recently Budd Hopkins in MUFON's
journal).  I basically just don't care to debate Cooper with people.

Best Regards,
Rick M.

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: Statements of accepta
Date: 8 Apr 91 20:21:49 GMT

Jim --

> The good [text files] should be presented so that they may be acted
> on, and the bad ones, so that they may stand as examples of how NOT
> to think.  I suspect that if Rick kept the files up because he damn
> well felt like it, this may be WHY he damn well felt like it.

Thank you.  That's pretty much the real reason (and it's never been
an issue in these parts).  It's just that whenever people start
grandstanding to me about how sysops _should_ run their boards (as
opposed to making suggestions), I simply tell them to go hang.  Sysops
get a continual parade of such folk, and I have little patience for
them.

I have less patience when the grandstanding is just another ploy in a
tiresome smear campaign, and none at all when that campaign has extended
(notwithstanding allegations to the contrary) over a two year period
in the FidoNet SCIENCE, PHYSICS, and UFO conferences -- and now here,
too.

Again, notwithstanding allegations to the contrary, I advocated
sysops' classifying download files as "Sysop's Picks" or other
_only_ as a less drastic alternative to deleting Cooper's files.

Once more, notwithstanding allegations to the contrary, I am not a
"member" of CSICOP.  I serve on its Electronic Communications
Subcommittee, offering it advice and help in that area, and do not
presume to speak for it.  (To find out CSICOP's views, contact CSICOP.)
I _do_ speak for Bay Area Skeptics, however.

My occasional and long-time correspondant John Tender _has_, however,
suggested (in a roundabout way) a useful project:  Writing to Klass,
Oberg, Sheaffer, other members of CSICOP's UFO Subcommittee, and to
other prominent UFOlogists, and ask them _formally_ what they would
accept as convincing evidence of the ET UFO hypothesis.  (Allegations to
the contrary, I never stated that Klass, Oberg, and Sheaffer had
_published_ such statements, only that they had "said" what would
convince them. They _may_ have published this; I don't remember.)
Perhaps someone else in ParaNet could do this -- I'm swamped.

In my opinion, any skeptic who considers himself an authority on UFOlogy
(which I've consistently said I'm _not_, remember) should be able to
provide a clear -- and serious -- answer to that question.  For that
matter, so should any other avowedly serious UFOlogist.

> I *believe* Klass is looking for some kind of statement from a body
> such as the National Academy of Sciences...

The _Betelgeusian_ Academy of Sciences?  <grin>

I think Phil Klass can probably specify a little better than that.
Fortunately, he's not at all difficult to reach.  You can tell him that
Moen is stirring up trouble again.

Best Regards,
Rick M.

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: HUMAN VISITORS
Date: 9 Apr 91 16:31:00 GMT

As far as why do "visitors" have similar features. I have a few answers. One
is that what we see is controlled to a large extent by our previous context
and perceeptions. Since it appears that not too many people have had good
close up views, it might be fair in my opinion to say that they are
describing what they see in terms of what reality we know. It's difficult to
describe something to someone when they have no concept of what it is you are
trying to create a visual image of for their mind.

Second point is that certian physical features are logical for advancement
and abilitys. Opposing thumbs for grasping (no comment on how many fingers
though) Two eyes for parralex vision. Two ears for binaural hearing. Method
of ingesting nutrition, (once again may not include a mouth and teeth like
ours). Method of communication, verbal and written. Mobility, a capacity for
intellegence. I think you get the idea I am head towards. The logic in my
viewpoint is that beings with six arms, two heads and 8 eyes are less likely
than something _similar_ in nature to the human form. I'm in no way trying to
say that it is impossible for another intelegent life form to have all of the
above different, it just makes more sense physically to have a like
construction.

Last of all, even if there is a high probability that there is life
elsewhere, why presume they/it is visiting us at all?
--
Pete Porro - 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************************