United Public Domain Gold 2/United Public Domain Gold 2.iso/utilities/pu637.dms/pu637.adf/PARA394

Text File | 1994-10-11 | 39KB | 831 lines

                Info-ParaNet Newsletters   Volume I  Number 394

                            Sunday, April 21st 1991

Today's Topics:

                                 Human visitors
                                     Again?
                            Re: Statements of accepta
                           Re: Gravitational magnetism
                              Extraordinary Claims
                            Re: Statements of accepta
                                  Moondome.Zip
                             Belgium Information (2)
                             Belgium Information (3)
                        Belgium Information (Conclusion)

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Greenen)
Subject: Human visitors
Date: 17 Apr 91 13:38:00 GMT


 * Replying to a message originally to All
 ee> From: [e-mail] (Steven Nelson)
 ee>
 ee>
 ee>
 ee>         Why are the visitors so humanlike? Given the
 ee> complexity of the
 ee> evolutionary process, the odds that aliens would have such
 ee> a human shape as is
 ee> commonly reported seems rather implausible. Parallel
 ee> evolution adapts creatures
 ee> that live in similar environments to similar shapes, yet
 ee> certainly there's no
 ee> reason to assume that our planet and any alien planet would
 ee> be remotely
 ee> similar.
 ee>         I hold out, at present, no explanations. I would
 ee> not invalidate the
 ee> phenomenon based on this point, but I find that this datum,
 ee> which many
 ee> researchers seem to ignore, is essential to understanding
 ee> the UFO phenomenon.
 ee>
 ee>         I use Whitley Streiber's term 'visitors' simply
 ee> because it is less
 ee> committal than the term 'aliens.'
 ee>
 ee> Does anyone have any comments?
 ee>
 ee> -Steve

Hi Steve; I think that if you look at what one single cell has done
when a new child is born, you can apply that to the birth of a new
planet or solar system. Very much the same but different. Have you
thought about the possibly that we might be transplants from some
other solar system. If you read the great book, it mentions the
angels came down and mated with man. We can assume that a sprirt
can't mate with a mortal, then who were the angels they mention?
Good question that could be debated and has for many centurys.
   Also if you believe the people that have cllaimed to have seen or
been in contact with aliens, you will get a lot of different types
and shapes that are reported as you mentioed. This is what we should
be reseaching in rather then debating if they are here or not.
          73's      ---Jim---
--
Jim Greenen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (John Hicks)
Subject: Again?
Date: 17 Apr 91 19:25:00 GMT


 > Hmmmm...isn't it about the time for them to gear up for the
 > upcoming tourist season?  This seems to becoming a springtime
 > ritual.

  Good point. Seems like something happens early every April.

                                           jbh

--
John Hicks - 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: 15 Apr 91 08:02:36 GMT



 >>      I am looking for statements they have committed to print and public
 >> distribution;

 JS> Sorry; can't really help you there. I do believe that the
 JS> statements you seek exist in many places, most notably the
 JS> Skeptical Inquirer, but I couldn't cite you specific references.

     I was of the same 'impression' re the Skeptical Inquirer; what I
can't understand is, when I ask people who I feel should be familiar
with this material to give references, in order to substantiate or
unsubstantiate the general impressions, I get nowhere. That says
something, either about the material or the people.

 >>      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> It is my impression that these guys are competent "scientific
 JS> thinkers." (Define "scientist.") I am not by any stretch of the

     I would rather define what is "scientific" rather than trust a
"scientist" to be always "scientific".

     So, now my stab at a definition of "scientific": 1) Objective and
repeatable standards of measurement, 2) objective and consistent
validation of data, uncoupled to any specific theory or hypothesis, 3)
Explicit statement of all assumptions, 4) Explicit and quantitative
formulation of theories, either algorithmically or heuristically.

 JS> imagination a "scientist", but I believe I've got a grasp on
 JS> how the thinking process goes. While I disagree with their
 JS> parameters for evidence, I recognize that there is enough room
 JS> for gentlemanly debate on the subject without stooping to the
 JS> degree of vilification you seem to revel in. The bottom line

     If the issue is still unclear, perhaps the "gentlemanly debate"
hasn't been as productive as you think. Perhaps we should stoop to
criticise improper thinking, even when our friends do it. On the other
hand, I 'was' engaged in sarcastic parody at some points. For that, I'll
apologize.

 JS> is, I *do* believe that "these guys" will accept *SOMETHING*
 JS> solid as evidence, and though they do seem to present a moving

     All I'm trying to do is determine exactly what that "SOMETHING" is.
As you know, it's not a question of belief; evidence acquired will make
a specific hypothesis or theory (though in the case of UFO
investigation, I think the term "explanation" is more accurate) either
more probable or less probable. Granted, trying to develop a consistent
and explicit process for evaluating exactly how much even "accepted"
evidence bolsters any particular theory is not easy. However,
materialist that I am, I assume that if the human mind is capable of
doing it then we can, with sufficient technological resources, model the
procedure, and in the process get rid of many of the aspects of human
psychology that interfere with objectivity.

 JS> target, I believe that, if UFOs are a genuine, physical
 JS> phenomenon, it is within our power to gather the requisite
 JS> amount of evidence to convince them. Of course, with some of

     "Within our power" if they have explicit and reasoned standards of
evidence.

 >>      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.

 JS> <sigh> I have seen that pattern in skeptics myself. I just
 JS> don't see it in Rick, and I don't think you should be painting
 JS> with such a broad brush.

     Everyone has blind spots; I can't claim absolute correctness. I
pointed out what I considered to be serious, and specific, lapses.

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



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


From: [e-mail] (John Tender)
Subject: Re: Gravitational magnetism
Date: 15 Apr 91 08:02:15 GMT


 >>      I got the impression that the mass goes through
 >> the toroid, not the coils.
 >>
 KL> He's written back that the stellar mass goes through the
 KL> coils and that the mass/movement is the cause of this
 KL> gravitational magnetism.

     Sounds like it would take quite a bit of energy to force the mass
along that path. They'd better run a 440 line to the generator.

 >>      What are "Planck energy values"?

 KL> Values of energies present at the birth of our universe.

     If these are energy values, then the exact magnitude is
meaningless, since we can arbitrarily choose whatever units we wish. In
the comparison I made, the 10e40 ratio is independent of the unit of
measurement.

     I'll try to look up a copy of Zee's book. In the meantime, two
quick questions: Energies of what? At what time after the BB does this
refer? ("birth" is a little ambiguous.)

 KL> A. Zee, Gravity, an Old Man's Toy.
 >>
 >>      The 10e40 value for comparative field strength of
 >> the EM force over the gravitational force comes from a
 >> comparison of the field strengths for specific particles.

 KL> Yes, but that's a misapplication of the forces involved with
 KL> the scale of distances being used to carry this discussion.

     It might be a misapplication, but not because of the scale. As I
said, the ratio is valid for any distance, since both EM and G field
strengths are proportional to 1/r^2. There would be a problem with
comparing the other fundamental interactions, since they do not share
the same property.

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



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


From: [e-mail] (John Tender)
Subject: Extraordinary Claims
Date: 17 Apr 91 08:25:42 GMT


 RM> A claim is extraordinary if its acceptance would require
 RM> rejecting massive amounts of well- (if tentatively) accepted,
 RM> accumulated knowledge.  This happened, for example, when

     All scientific knowledge is tentative.

     You've described an extraordinary claim; what is "extrardinary
evidence"?

 RM> geologists suddenly accepted plate tectonics in the early '60s,
 RM> when the quantity and quality of evidence _for_ tectonics
 RM> became convincing -- after 45 years.  It has never happened,
 RM> for example, with Charles Fort's hollow-earth theories, since
 RM> that evidence is, um, unconvincing.

     Exactly what were the "massive amounts of well- (if tentatively)
accepted, accumulated knowledge"  that were rejected (or if I can
interject the term contradicted) by the theory of plate tectonics?

     Based on what I know of the situation, it was considered
"extraordinary" only in the sense that no known mechanism could be
supplied to account for the movements of the plates. In other words, it
just didn't "fit in". That's a much different (and weaker) reason to
label something "extraordinary" that the one you described.
Unfortunately, I suspect it is also more often the case.

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

     Adopting this "maxim" means that there should be clear and specific
methods for determining what is "appropriate" evidence; otherwise, you
are right, it's not a double standard, it's a non-standard supporting
only non-science. Where can I get a copy of such rules and methods?

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

 RM> For the record, as I have said here _many, many times_, I'm all
 RM> in favour of honest research, regardless of subject.
 RM> In other words, a (real or imagined) lack of proof is often
 RM> used to rationalize avoiding the very investigation that would
 RM> be required to develop such proof in the first place.

 RM> For the record, I'm against imagining a lack of proof.

 RM> For the record, I'm against rationalising.

 RM> For the record, I'm all in favour of investigations.

     For the record, it's too bad saying something over and over doesn't
make the statement any more valid.

     What's the point of favoring the investigations if you reserve the
right to 'arbitrarily' decide if the evidence they provide are valid?

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

     What 'specific' qualities distinguish "extraordinarily openiminded,
 careful and resourceful science" from the "run-of-the-mill" science. I
 doubt that it can be the same as the criteria for extraordinary
 evidence, i.e. it contradicts massive amounts of accepted science.

  RM> RM> For the record, I'm absolutely keen on open-minded, careful,
 and RM> resourceful science. RM> >> ...Period. RM> RM> Period, as long
 as one realises that any very surprising RM> result, whose acceptance
 would require massive revisions in RM> accepted scientific knowledge,
 will need to have strong RM> evidence.  This is the _ordinary_ standard
 of science, and RM> applies equally to Alfed Wegener, father of plate
 tectonics, RM> and to Robert Jahn of the Princeton PK experiments. No
 more, no RM> less.

     Nice platitudes; it's just unfortunate the real world isn't that
way. All too often evidence is rejected not because it contradicts
massive amounts of other evidence, but because the is no mechanism or
model to "explain" the data, or because of a superficial similarity to a
separate theory that was discredited.

     Submitted for your consideration: 120 years ago Bill Scientist
notes a correlation between weather patterns on earth and sunspot
activity. The scientist is ridiculed, because it is such a ridiculous
idea; "How could the sun influence the earth through the void of space?
Besides, these crackpots are linking sunspots with everything. The
evidence is obviously faulty; I reject it."

     Second submission: Joe Psychic claims he is receiving messages from
extraterrestrial entities based on Pluto. Is this claim "extraordinary"?
If so, what massive amounts of valid evidence are contradicted by this
claim.

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

     Science also requires explicit and objective criteria that are
consistently applied; as long as that is lacking for the term
"extraordinary", it has no place in science.

     BTW, aren't you grandstanding on this "scientific standards" thing.
Will you just let these guys use whatever standards they damn well
please and quit whining. (sarcasm flag)

 ... from the purlieus of Pittsburgh
--
John Tender - 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: 17 Apr 91 08:40:25 GMT

>> 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.

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

     Rick, you have a tendency to twist any criticism into a personal
attack. Don't. I replied to another message here in which 'you' assert
that scientific principles have to be followed consistently. My
statements about deleting files arbitrarily, or distributing files
without warning as to known contradictions, were in line with (at least
what I consider to be) valid scientific principles. And yes, you 'don't'
get to make your own rules 'if' you want to adhere to scientifically
correct procedures. All I did was to point that out. Run your board
however you wish, but it is certainly valid to judge you on your
decisions.

     Perhaps what you have little patience for is being held to your own
standards.

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

     SMEAR CAMPAIGN? Get real. You construe a consistent argument about
certain "scientific" standards of evidence as a smear campaign. That is
not in keeping with your claims about "open-minded" debate.

     Can you proffer any evidence of this SMEAR CAMPAIGN? Maybe the
people on 'this' echo would like to see more than your vague
allegations. I detect an overabundance of paranoia that is usually more
characteristic of those making what skeptics label as "claims of the
paranormal".

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

     There were never any "allegations to the contrary". Again, all I
wanted were the criteria for classifying the files, and pointed out that
"because I damn well felt like it" lacked a certain measure of
scientific correctness. I really don't want to harp on this, but if you
are going to misrepresent the situation, I have to.

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

     I apologize. It was totally inappropriate for me to interpret your
signature line:

    "Best Regards,
     Rick Moen, Secretary
     Bay Area Skeptics
     Member, Electronic Communications Subcommittee, CSICOP"

as implying that you were a member of CSICOP. How foolish of me. I'm
sorry if I caused any confusion by doing such a damnably stupid thing.
Thanks for the clarification.

     Would it be appropriate for me to ask if you support CSICOP's
views?

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

     OK, they "said" it. (But they were whispering over in the corner and
everyone else was too tired and nobody remembers it and they said it in
small dribbles here and there and no one has 'any' record of it but they
said it, maybe not clearly and maybe they were wrong and who am I to
judge, but they definitely said it.) OK.

     Gee, you saw something useful in my messages? I'll have to remember
to restrain my remarks to smearing you character and filter out that
useful stuff. (sarcasm alert)

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

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

 RM> The _Betelgeusian_ Academy of Sciences?  <grin>

     Kim Basinger?

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

 RM> Best Regards,
 RM> Rick M.

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Clark Matthews)
Subject: Moondome.Zip
Date: 19 Apr 91 08:12:00 GMT


Linda, I'm happy to report the file MOONDOME.ZIP is online here.

I have forwarded a copy to Mike Corbin at ParaNet Alpha for
distribution here.

The file is text only, no illustrations.  I hope to supplement it
with scanned art & photos when time allows.  Thank you for your
patience and good reading!

Best,
  Clark


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



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


From: [e-mail] (sm)
Subject: Belgium Information (2)
Date: 18 Apr 91 01:14:00 GMT

<<Continued from previous message>>

 It is perhaps because the objects are so far unidentified,  that
the  Belgian  Air Force has undertaken the task  of  chasing  and
investigating  the  intruders. As Col. Wilfried de  Brouwer,  the
Chief of Operations of the Belgian Air Force who is  coordinating
the  UFO  investigation,  told  The  Wall  Street  Journal,  "Our
approach  is that it's our job to see what's going  on."  Indeed,
the  UFO flap climaxed on the night of March 30-31 of 1990,  when
unknown targets were tracked by two radar installations. The  one
at  Glons,  located southeast of Brussels, belongs  to  the  NATO
defense group - NATO Headquarters is in Brussels - while that  at
Semmerzake,  west  of Brussels, is in charge of  controlling  all
military and civilian traffic in the entire Belgian territory. At
that  point, the master-controller at Glons ordered the  scramble
of  two  F-16 interceptors, which also locked the  UFO  on  their
onboard radars.
  We  have  obtained,  courtesy  of  French  researcher  Jean-Luc
Rivera, a copy of the complete report of this incident, which was
prepared  by  Air Force Major P. Lambrechts, from the  Air  Force
General Staff in Brussels, and which was forwarded to the  SOBEPS
following  the instructions of full cooperation with that  group.
The  "Report Concerning the Observation of UFOs During the  Night
of  March  30  to 31, 1990," includes a full  chronology  of  the
events, as well as a thick dossier of enclosures with eyewitness'
descriptions  from  several  gendarmes  and  maps  of  where  the
sightings took place.
  Major  P.  Lambrechts  explains at  the  inception  that,  "the
observations  both visual and by radar were of such nature,  that
it  was decided to order the scramble of two F-16  aircraft  with
the  goal of identifying these UFOs." The report  also  indicates
that  "the  presence or testing of B2 or F117  (Stealth  Bomber),
RPVs  (Remotely Piloted Vehicles), ULMs (Ultra  Light  Motorized)
and AWACS at the moment of these events in the Belgian  airspace,
can be excluded. "
  According  to the Chronology, the Sequence of events  began  at
22.50  hours, when the "master controller at Glons "  received  a
telephone call from gendarme Renquin, who reported he was  seeing
from  his house in Ramillies, "three unusual lights. . .  forming
an  equilateral triangle, and with changing colors of red,  green
and  yellow." At 23.05, the Gendarmerie at Wavre sent  a  patrol,
which  confirmed the observation. At 23.15, Renquin called  again
to inform that he was seeing a new set of three lights, while the
radar screens at Glons detected " an unidentified contact  moving
at  a  speed of around 25 knots." (A knot is  equivalent  to  one
nautical mile - 6,080 feet - per hour. )
  For  the  next two and a half hours, an  increasing  number  of
gendarmes  and other witnesses continued to observe  the  strange
maneuvers  of  up  to  three sets of  triangular  lights  in  the
outskirts  of  Brussels.  By 23.49 hours, the  radar  screens  at
Semmerzake confirmed the targets and the order to scramble two F-
16s  was given at 23.56 hours, taking off at 00.05 on  March  31.
According  to the report, "the aircraft had brief radar  contacts
on  several occasions." However, each time that "the pilots  were
able  to secure a lock on one of the targets for a  few  seconds,
this  resulted each time in a drastic change in the  behavior  of
the UFOs."
  During  the first lock on at 00.13, continues the report,  "the
speed of the target changed in a minimum of time from 150 to  970
knots  and  from 9,000 to 5,000 feet, returning  then  to  11,000
feet,  in  order to change again to close to ground  level;  this
resulted  in a 'break lock' in a few seconds and the pilots  lost
the radar contact." In another lock on at 00.30 hours, the "break
lock" was achieved by what the report calls "a jamming signal  on
the screen."
  Col. de Brouwer explained to Paris Match reporter Marie-Therese
de Brosses, that the change of velocity from 280 KPM to 1,800 KPH
while descending from 3,000 meters to 1,000 meters in one second,
was  a  fantastic acceleration equivalent to 40  Gs.  This  would
exclude  any human pilot onboard the UFO, since humans  can  only
withstand  8 Gs. (A "G " is a unit of acceleration equivalent  to
the  gravitational pull of the earth, 9.81 m/sec/sec.)  When  the
UFO  approached the ground level, continued Col. de Brouwer,  "it
was out of the question for the F-16 to catch up with the  object
at  this  low altitude, where the density of the air  limits  the
speed  to  1,300 KMP. Above that speed, the  temperature  in  the
compressors of the jet turbines would cause the engines to burst.
There  was a logic behind the motions of the object,"  added  the
Colonel.

In any case, the cat and mouse game went on until shortly after 1
am,  when the F-16s were ordered to return to their base. On  the
ground, however, Captain Pinson and other gendarmes continued  to
observe "four white luminous spots forming a square" until around
1.30,  when  "the four UFOs lost their luminosity and  seemed  to
disappear  in  four  different  directions."  Significantly,  the
weather conditions on that night were very clear, allowing ground
witnesses  to  observe  the objects in detail,  as  well  as  the
pursuit  by the F-16s. The pilots, however, did not  observe  the
objects visually.
  Major  Lambrechts  finally  excludes a  number  of  alternative
hypotheses  for the UFOs, such as "optical  illusions,  confusion
with   planets  or  other  meteorological  phenomena...   weather
balloons.  .  .  or meteorological inversions.  .  .  holographic
projections,"  etc. More importantly, he writes that "the  speeds
measured  at  he moment of the change of altitudes,  exclude  the
hypothesis  that  the  UFOs  observed  could  be  confused   with
aircraft. " Still more puzzling was the fact that, "despite  that
on  several  occasions high speeds above the speed of  the  sound
barrier  were measured, the shock wave was never observed.  Here,
no  explanation can be given." The French physicist  Jean  Pierre
Petit concurred: "In reality," he told Paris Match, "there is  no
machine  made  by man, either an airplane or a missile,  that  is
capable of such performance. Specifically, flying at the speed of
sound without making a sonic boom."

<<Continued in next message..>>

--
ParaNet(sm) Information Service - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet(sm)[e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (sm)
Subject: Belgium Information (3)
Date: 18 Apr 91 01:15:00 GMT

<<<Continued from previous message>>>

  Although  the Belgian military authorities have  insisted  that
the  UFOs  in Wallonia are no secret aircraft,  the  similarities
between the triangular craft seen in Belgium with the  boomerang-
shaped objects reported throughout the last decade in the  Hudson
Valley  in  New York and Western Connecticut, as  well  as  other
triangular UFOs observed in Wytheville, Virginia, Fyffe, Alabama,
and Puerto Rico, among other places, have led some researchers to
suggest  that  the technology behind all  these  observations  is
terrestrial and not extraterrestrial.
  The similarity between the Belgian and Hudson Valley flaps  was
noted  by SOBEPS investigator Patrick Ferryn. Commenting  on  the
book  Night  Siege  by the late  Dr.  Allen  Hynek,  investigator
Phillip  Imbrogno  and reporter Bob Pratt, which  documented  the
Hudson  Valley  cases,  Ferryn wrote that "changing  only  a  few
words,  exactly the same could be written to give an  account  of
the position of affairs here! [in Belgium] The same goes for many
entire pages and excerpts elsewhere in the book."
  While  nobody doubts that people have been seeing something  in
both  upstate New York and Wallonia in Belgium, the big  question
is  whether  these sightings are caused by true UFOs or  by  some
kind  of  new revolutionary secret  military  aircraft.  Foremost
among  the  proponents  of  the  secret  weapon  theory  is  Tony
Gonsalves,  a researcher from East Providence, Rhode Island,  who
served  as a jet mechanic and plane captain for the U.S. Navy  on
three aircraft carriers between 1959 and 1963.
  In  a  number  of papers written during  the  last  two  years,
Gonsalves  has developed his theory of "The American made UFO"  -
that the boomerangs of Westchester and Duchess counties, as  well
as the triangular UFOs of Belgium, Virginia and Puerto Rico,  are
actually  a  modified covert version of the B-2  Stealth  Bomber.
Gonsalves  believes this craft has been fully  operational  since
the early 80s, while the official B-2 bomber that was unveiled in
1988  is a "decoy" to deceive the American public, the media  and
the  Congress.  Furthermore,  Tony  Gonsalves  and  a  few  other
ufologists   speculate  that  this  secret  aircraft   may   even
incorporate  some  alien  technology obtained  from  UFO  crashes
decades ago.
  Gonsalves' theory seemed to gain some credibility when Aviation
Week & Space Technology magazine reported in its October 1,  1990
edition that, "large, triangular wing-Shaped aircraft" are indeed
being tested out of the Nellis Air Force range in Nevada and  the
Tehachapi  Mountains  near Edwards AFB in  California.  The  well
known aerospace magazine mentioned several sightings by engineers
of "triangular-shaped aircraft, " possibly prototypes for the  A-
12,  the  Navy's  new Stealth attack plane, and  one  or  several
versions for reconnaissance aircraft cloaked under the top secret
code  of  Aurora, to replace the old Lockheed  SR-71  "Blackbird"
which was recently mothballed. Aviation Week (sometimes  referred
by the nickname of "Aviation Leak") also quoted Air Force sources
who "acknowledged that diamond and triangular-shaped vehicles are
'the  trend  now,'" as well as unconfirmed reports that  some  of
these aircraft "were designed to operate at speeds around Mach 10
or higher."
  Because  he  worked  for  over 30 years  as  senior  editor  of
Aviation Week, where he is still a contributing editor, we sought
the  opinion  of  well known UFO debunker  Phillip  Klass  as  to
whether there could be any validity to explain the Hudson  Valley
and  Belgian  flaps  with Secret military  aircraft,  Stealth  or
otherwise.  "In  my  opinion  the  answer  is  absolutely   not,"
responded  Klass,  adding  that  only  those  sightings  "in  the
vicinity  of Nellis Air Force Base" in Nevada could be caused  by
military  aircraft  tests. "If there were a  secret  airplane,  "
continued Klass, "for goodness' sake, the last place in the world
you'd want to fly it is in Duchess County, where people have been
alerted to look for objects."
  Although  they  certainly disagree on the final  cause  of  the
sightings,  Klass  and  Phillip  Imbrogno  seem  to  be  in  full
agreement  in their rejection of Tony Gonsalves' Stealth  theory.
"l  can't  see the government testing a top secret device  in  an
area like this, " said Imbrogno. "Number one, what if they have a
problem,  what  if they crash?" Imbrogno said he  had  considered
this  possibility  when  he  first  looked  into  the   boomerang
sightings,  but  that "I am convinced right now that  the  Hudson
Valley UFO is not an aircraft, Stealth or otherwise. Number  two,
I  am  not totally convinced that it's  from  outerspace.  Number
three, I don't know what the hell it is."
   Meanwhile, sightings continue to pile up in Europe. The latest
case  before we go to press was reported in early November,  when
"mystery shapes in the sky, variously described as orange  balls,
triangles and points of light," were reported in France, Belgium,
Germany,  Switzerland and Italy, according to a  newswire  report
from  the Reuter's news agency. Police phone lines  were  flooded
across  the  continent  with  calls  about  unidentified   flying
objects.  Experts in Munich speculated the sightings  could  have
been  triggered  by the explosion of a meteorite.  However,  this
explanation  could  hardly  satisfy  the  familiar  sightings  in
Belgium,  where  "dozens of people reported a  triangular  object
with   three  lights  flying  slowly  and  soundlessly   to   the
southwest," according to the Reuter report.
  The Belgian Air Force was studying once again the case, and  so
was France's Service for the Investigation of Re-entry  Phenomena
(SEPRA), which is attached to the French National Space Agency in
Toulouse  and was formerly known as GEPAN. One Air  France  pilot
told  a  radio  interviewer: "We were on a  flight  to  Barcelona
(Spain) at about 33,000 feet at about 7 pm when we first saw  the
shape. It couldn't have been a satellite because it was there for
three or four minutes."
  If the sightings in Belgium and elsewhere turn out to be secret
aircraft,  the mystery will become pubic sooner or later, but  if
they are indeed caused by true UFOs, then we may be debating them
for  a long time to come. Perhaps a summary of the whole  Belgian
flap  and  its  meaning was best expressed  by  SOBEPS  Scientist
August  Meessen, Professor of Physics at the Catholic  University
at  Louvain. He told the French magazine Paris Match: "There  are
too  many independent eyewitness reports to ignore. Too  many  of
the  reports describe coherent physical effects, and there is  an
agreement among the accounts concerning what was observed. If all
of these witnesses are lying, then it is a mental disease of such
novelty and proportions that it must be studied."

<<Concluded in next message..>>

--
ParaNet(sm) Information Service - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet(sm)[e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (sm)
Subject: Belgium Information (Conclusion)
Date: 18 Apr 91 01:16:00 GMT

<<<<Continued from previous message>>>>

  "But  of  course,"  continued Prof. Meessen,  "there  are  also
physical effects. The Air Force report allows us to approach  the
problem in a rational and scientific way. The simplest hypothesis
is that the reports are caused by extraterrestrial visitors,  but
that  hypothesis carries with it other problems. We are not in  a
rush  to form a conclusion, but continue to study  the  mystery."
The last word about the UFO flap that has brought down "The Wall"
of UFO Silence has yet to be uttered.


     ABOUT THE AUTHOR Chilean-American journalist Antonio Huneeus
was  born in New York in 1950, the son of a Chilean diplomat  and
United  States  official. After studying French at  the  Sarbonne
University  in Paris in 1970 and journalism at the University  of
Chile,  he  worked  as science editor for a  weekly  magazine  in
Santiago  and  was  a contributor for  a  number  of  newspapers.
Huneeus'  UFO investigation began in 1977 with the bizarre  "time
warp"  incident  of Chilean Army Corporal Armando  Valdes.  Since
then,  he  has written hundreds of articles on UFOs  and  related
subjects for such publications as Omni, UFO Report, and the MUFON
JOURNAL  in the U.S., as well as for magazines  throughout  South
America  and Europe. Last year he won the UFOlogists of the  Year
Award  given by the National UFO Conference. The photographs  and
art  that  accompany  this  article are  part  of  Antonio's  UFO
CHRONICLE  lecture and slide presentation. Readers may reach  the
author directly at Box 1989, New York, NY 10159.

END
PARANET FILE NAME: BELGIUM1.UFO

--
ParaNet(sm) Information Service - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet(sm)[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************************