2,000 Greater & Lesser Mysteries/2,000 Greater and Lesser Mysteries.iso/ufo/paranet/mys02382.txt

Text File | 1994-06-10 | 39.6 KB | 931 lines

                Info-ParaNet Newsletters   Volume I  Number 439

                            Tuesday, July 16th 1991

Today's Topics:

                                  Hopkins on TV
                            Re: Wernikoff On Maccabee
                                      Media
                         Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit
                                 BUFORA Welcome
                                  Re: The moon
                                    Re: Media
                          Hill Abduction/Paranet Stuff
                                     (none)
                         Star Trek--The Next Generation
                                   The Coverup
                             Re: Roswell Discussion
                             Re: Roswell Discussion
                               Psychics and abductions
                             Re: Roswell Discussion

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

From: vanth!jms
Subject: Hopkins on TV
Date: 13 Jul 91 05:33:23 GMT

From: vanth![e-mail] (Jim Shaffer)

I caught a few minutes of a talk show on Lifetime this afternoon in which
Budd Hopkins and one or two abductees were being interviewed.  I got the
feeling that it was a very short segment and not at all part of a bigger
theme to the show.  But I don't even know what the show was called.  Can
anyone fill me in on what I missed?

--
  *  From the disk of: |  [e-mail]   |  'Let's become
  Jim Shaffer, Jr. |  amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms  |   alive again.'
  37 Brook Street |  uunet!cbmvax!amix!vanth!jms  |
  Montgomery, PA 17752 |  [e-mail]  |    --Yes




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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Wernikoff On Maccabee
Date: 12 Jul 91 15:08:00 GMT

->I don't, Jim. But from all the other facts in the GB case
->makes Ed's photos look awful good.   ---Jim---
->--- RemoteAccess 0.03+

I'm sorry, Jim, but I don't think they look awful good. I think they look
just plain awful. And I don't know what makes you think you're even GETTING
all the facts on the case, seeing as MUFON saw fit to withhold certain
information from the public for a while, such as the exact nature of Ed's
criminal record. Who knows what else they might be sitting on.

Jim

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Kay Schaney)
Subject: Media
Date: 13 Jul 91 14:13:00 GMT

I have noticed a few things in the media lately:
In the July 1991 issue of PC world there is an ad for ProComm Plus
which features a picture of a crop circle (or maybe crop disk since
it's in the shape of a floppy disk). The copy reads "Out of the prairie
comes proof that a higher level of communication has arrived."
Also there is a Car ad on TV which features a picture of a flying
disk.(Don't remember which Car)
In the May 1991 issue of Boardwatch magazine there is an article on
Soviet BBS's. They give instruction on how to call the USSR and they
list about 35 BBS's. One of them caught my eye as it is named "Flying
Disks BBS" the number is 7-014-268-4911 (FidoNet Node 2:490/40.401), if
I spoke Russian I might give it a try, anyone out there who can? I
think it would be interesting.
Lastly, I saw an episode of "Star Trek, the new generation" last week,
where the crew of the Enterprise were making first contact with a new
planet. This included visits to the planet disguised as natives, trying
to prove that they were there not to take over the planet, and
contained lots of dialog that sounds alot like what is bandied about
here.
Perhaps the media IS catching up?!
Kay McLaughlin
--
Kay Schaney - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit
Date: 13 Jul 91 18:15:00 GMT

In light of the recent release of UFO Crash at Roswell, some interesting ideas
start coming to mind about obscure organizations that have been involved
militaristically over the years charged with investigation of UFOs.  I
recently ran across something in Timothy Good's book, Above Top Secret,
concerning a group called the Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit (IPU).  I am
quoting the paragraph containing this material.  This material was part of the
green fireballs in New Mexico.  As you will see, the
organization was apparently established in 1947.  I would appreciate anyone
with any further information to please post, such as dates of beginning and
purpose for the organization, etc.

From Page 267...

Of the US Army Intelligence (G-2) representatives present, it is possible that
some included members of the Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit (IPU) of the
Scientific and Technical Branch, Counterintelligence Directorate, an elite UFO
investigation group allegedly set up by General Marshall in 1947 and disbanded
in the 1950s.  According to Colonel William Guild, Director of
Counterintelligence, "All records pertaining to this unit were surrendered to
the US Air Force Office of Special Investigations in conjunction with
operation 'BLUEBOOK,'" [27]  AFOSI have not released these records to date.
Did the Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit learn some disturbing facts that still
cannot be revealed?  In 1955 General Douglas MacArthur -- also rumored to have
been involved in establishing the IPU -- made an astonishing statement that
lends weight to this possiblility.  "The nations of the world will have to
unite," he said, "for the next war will be an interplanetary war.  The nations
of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from
other planets." [28]

[27]  Letter from Colonel William B. Guild, Director of Counterintelligence,
Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for
Intelligence, Washington, D.C.  20310, to Richard Hall, 25 September 1980.

[28]  New York Timess, 9 October 1955. (?)

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Michael Corbin)
Subject: BUFORA Welcome
Date: 13 Jul 91 15:26:00 GMT

It is with great pleasure that I introduce the newest member of this
conference.  On Sunday, June 30th, I had the great pleasure of meeting Steve
Gamble, Chariman of BUFORA (British UFO Research Association) in Cheyenne,
Wyoming.  Steve and colleague, Robin Lindsey, were attending the Rocky
Mountain Conference on UFO Investigation in Laramie.  At this meeting we
discussed various points, one of which was the current state of affairs in
the UK regarding UFO research.  I found Steve and Robin very interesting
people, and British research is very organized.

Steve now joins us in this conference.  Below is Steve's biography so you may
get acquainted with him.  On behalf of the group at ParaNet, welcome.

        BIOGRAPHY OF STEPHEN GAMBLE
        ============================

LOCAL ACTIVITIES
=================

        Member Committee Horsenden Hill Skywatch Group 1971-72
        Founder of Brent Aerial Research 1973-74
        Chairman and Director of Research, Northamptonshire UFO
                Research Centre 1987-to date

NATIONAL ACTIVITIES
====================

        Joined British UFO Research Association 1971

        BUFORA Field Investigator 1974 - 1977, becoming
                Deputy National Investigations Officer 1977

        Joined the BUFORA Research and Investigations Committee 1975
                Photographic consultant 1975- to date
                Traces consultant       1977- to date

        Joined BUFORA Council 1977, becoming :-
                Director of Research   1983- to date
                Vice-chairman          1984-1989
                Chairman               1989- to date

        Member of the Editorial Board Journal of Transient Aerial
                Phenomena 1979-1989, becoming
                Editor    1984-1989

        Research Editor, UFO Times 1989 - to date

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
=========================

        Secretary to initial meeting of Provisional International Committee
                for UFO Research (P.I.C.U.R.) 1979

        (P.I.C.U.R. became I.C.U.R. in 1983)

        BUFORA representative to I.C.U.R. 1979 - to date

        I.C.U.R. Secretary   1987- to date

PUBLICATIONS
============

        Numerous contributions to :
                BUFORA Journal
                BUFORA Bulletin
                UFO Times
                Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena
                NUFORC Newletter

        Also contributions to UFO Debate

        Contributor to "Phenomenon", Macdonald Futura Books 1988

        A number of presentations at BUFORA, ICUR and NUFORC meetings.

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Douglas Wolfe)
Subject: Re: The moon
Date: 12 Jul 91 17:39:10 GMT

Regarding Lunar Anomalies:

The phenomena you read about are called Lunar Transient Phenomena, and have
been recorded at least since the days of Wm. Herschel in 1800's.  One of the
more interesting reports came from astronauts who saw something from lunar
orbit.   Unfortunately, although reports are abundant,  no such event
has lasted long enough to be corroborated.

  There was an interesting candidate last year.  A photograph of the 1st
quarter  moon showed a nearly pointlike bright spot.  The image fit the
parameters for a possible volcanic event, given its position, brightness,
and lunar phase.  A few months later someone found an artificial satellite
which passed between us and the Moon at just the right time to explain the
image.  Another one bites the dust......

   Paranormalists look to these events and to lunar domes as possible  ET
artifacts.  No such exotic explanation is necessary.  The
dark areas on the moon which we can see with the naked eye are huge lava
flows which are more recent than the craters they have buried (although
still very ancient).   Since no such lava flows appear on the side of
the moon which faces away from us, it is easy to model volcanic activity
on the Moon in response to its tidal interactions with the earth.  Just as
the Moon sets up tides on the Earth, the Earth's gravity "pulls" on lunar
core material and "sucks" it out on the Earth-facing side.

    The Lunar Transient Phenomena may be such volcanic activity,  or they
may  be meteorite hits, or perhaps may have another, unexplained, cause.

This is one of the areas where amateur astronomers may can make important
observations,  since the moon is accessible to modest telescopes.  No
professional astronomers, as far as I know, work on the Moon anymore.
Post me on Fidonet Astronomy (public) if I can tell you more...

J. Douglas Wolfe
St Clements Lunar Society, SF


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



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


From: [e-mail] (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: Media
Date: 15 Jul 91 03:21:00 GMT

Hi Kay:
   Yes, I saw the Star Trek episode called "First Contact."  I was
mesmerized by the dialogue which certainly could have/could be
occurring right now in our government offices.  I wished I had taped it
as it was excellent.
   I'll look for that ad in PC Magazine.

Thanks,
       Linda
--
Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (John Powell)
Subject: Hill Abduction/Paranet Stuff
Date: 13 Jul 91 19:40:48 GMT

In a message to John Powell <08 Jul 91 10:52> Michael Corbin wrote:

 >> I've just recently read a couple of month's worth of messages...
 MC> Thank you for the comment.

You're very much welcome.

 MC> Unfortunately, the moderator of the Fidonet UFO echo has...

Hmmm...

 MC> ...we are glad to have you here, and I encourage you to...

Thanks, I'm glad to be here, just hope you don't get bored to death with all my questions...

 MC> The Abduction Conference is not related in any way to MUFON.  Dr.
 MC> David Jacobs moderates this under the ParaNet banner.

Excellent!  I have about a 102,000 questions for Dr. Jacobs...

Thanks, take care.
John.

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Steve Rose)
Subject: (none)
Date: 14 Jul 91 17:47:00 GMT

In a msg of <10 Jul 91>, ncar!ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail] writes to All:

 npeA> You say that main-stream media treats UFOlogy like a joke,
 npeA> and you don't see *THAT* as being a *CLUE*.

A clue that some are not so gullible to blindly accept was it told to them.

 npeA> It is easily proven and has been proven that for *ALL* major
 npeA> media--newspapers, networks (including CNN), publishing houses--the
 npeA> controlling interest is owned by people who are members of the
 npeA> Council on Foreign Relations.  The CFR has been linked with UFOs by
 npeA> the MJ-12 documents, although I haven't been able to discern what
 npeA> people think about the validity of those documents.

Watch out for those outlandish statements when creating your non-sequitors,
guy.  Show us all the media affiliations to this council you speak of.  You
may just give Ted Turner his biggest laugh of the year, if it's convincing
enough.  I know I had a good chuckle reading the first sentence above. :)

 npeA> it is very likely, in my opinion, that the CFR would
 npeA> create just such a panel to study 'the alien question.'  It is
 npeA> consistent with the CFR's track record. The conclusions of that panel
 npeA> would then become the conclusions of our governing bodies.

Hmmm...such a weighty and powerful group.  Why not have them tackle other
issues of world importance, such as which religion is the valid one and what
bible we all should adhere to.  Sure would save a lot of useless arguing on
those concerns, eh?  I suppose they are the drafters of the upcoming 'One
World Government' doctrine as well?

 npeA> Keeping one's self from being 'bilked' is not anybody's responsibility
 npeA> except the one threatened with 'bilkage.'  If people were angry about
 npeA> seeing a 'Woman from Venus' at that conference, then they won't go to
 npeA> the next one.  The press focused on her rather than all the scientific
 npeA> study presented at the conference.  Does that make sense?

Perhpas you should ask WHY she commanded all the attention.  Then you would
gain insight as to what a 'specticle' is all about.  No one likes to cover
court cases, unless they are expecting skeletons to come from the closet.

 npeA> I there a reporter for any of the 'mainstream' press that finds this
 npeA> npeA> worthy of serious investigation?  If there is (there must be!),
 npeA> then why is his/her voice not heard?

If all you wish to see are the 6-o'clock news bulletins...forget it.  Such dull
stories of 'scientific inquiry' are never given treatment, unless they are of
IMMEDIATE concern (such as health issues) to the viewers.  Air time is too
precious to waste on what *might* be occuring.  There are too many car
dealerships panting over their advertising dollars and too many program
ratings to be won.

 npeA>  There are no major research labs which are not intimately controlled
 npeA> by the government either directly or through dependence on funding.

You've got that right!  Here, we call it the 'Brainstorm' theory of government
grants (named after the movie and its plot).  Once you have something tangible
and workable in the lab...your favorite Uncle takes over.

 npeA> who have seen/smelled/touched/heard/talked to intelligent alien
 npeA> beings. The evidence is so huge you can...taste it!  But how does such
 npeA> a person prove to *YOU* that he/she experienced something real and is
 npeA> not lying?  It doesn't seem possible to do that.

I would blame the 'Greys' (our favorite term) for that oversight.  As long as
THEY want to remain in the shadows and limit their presence to isolated
contacts with the indigenous populous (seeing that there has NEVER been a true
'White House lawn' landing), than ALL those reports will continue to be
suspect.  How do I prove that the bullet struck someone dead if they are not
around to listen to me?

 npeA> Additionally, many people have a *GREAT* handle on the 'sixth' sense.
 npeA> You probably have been exposed to the worst of it, or you don't
 npeA> believe it is real so you haven't sought any of it out.

I would imagine that this falls into the same arena as Grey Hunting.  Only
difference is one deals with PHYSICAL phenomenon...the other ETHERIC.

 npeA> Wrong about science.  Science is often about making assumptions in
 npeA> order to either get the models to fit data or to simplify the
 npeA> equations. The problem here is that the data is 'scattered,' as you
 npeA> have said. It's too hard to tell a good data point from a fudged one.

Now...substitute the word *sightings* for the word 'data' above.  See how easy
it is to have the same validation problems cross over fields of study?

 npeA> 'Ignorance breeds fear,' someone once said, and ignorance and
 npeA> fear are the best combination for control of people.  There seem to be
 npeA> plenty of clues which suggest that ignorance, fear, and control are
 npeA> the ends being sought.  UFOs and aliens are simply one of many means
 npeA> toward that end.

Turn that one around.  Stories of UFOs and aliens are the RESULT of that fear.
No one doubts that the government looooooooves control.  It is the fundamental
reason for its existence and purpose.  But to ascribe all reports or COVERUP
of those reports to government, gives them too much credence and authenticity.

 npeA> I asked what people would do with it is related to the official
 npeA> government position of non-existence. If you believe we are being
 npeA> visited by aliens, then you *MUST* believe that the government,
 npeA> visible and invisible, has a *VERY STRONG REASON FOR COVERING IT UP
 npeA> ALL THESE YEARS*.

Once again, that banks on the ferverent *assumption* there are any true
incidences to be covered up.  The biggest excuse usually centers on, "Well,
we MUST keep this knowledge from the public at large.  Think of all the
upheavals and riots this will create, once it is revealed that Man is not the
center of his own universe!"  Government would be shattered...churches would
turn tail and run since they would be exposed as the sham they are...chaos
would reign supreme...etc...etc.  Now we cannot have that happening in our
nice, neat and orderly world society, right?

 npeA> Generally, when something is true and it is desired to
 npeA> discredit (debunk) the information, the speaker is attacked.

That is old news.  Been going on for centuries.  Funny thing is...many times,
they are right!  In many such cases So-and-So IS crazy and their information is
NOT true after all.  Or it could be out and out fabrication, usually to gain
acceptance...fame...money...etc.

 npeA> Therefore, because the scientific method and the major-media will not
 npeA> come through for us, a different approach is needed.  It means
 npeA> absorbing everything at your disposal, no matter how poorly or how
 npeA> well packaged.  This means including ancient myths and legends.
 npeA> Mostly it means accepting some claims as believable without what one
 npeA> would call concrete proof, and filling in the spaces with your own
 npeA> discernment.

One cannot throw out true scientific study, regardless of the poor or limited
exposure, just because one is eager to see their beliefs externalized.  The
fictional character Samantha Stevens may really be able to twitch her nose,
but that is where the reality of her abilities ends in this world.  The rest
of the effect is so much camera trickery and desire on the audience's part.

 npeA>  That is why I wish the discussion would take up the question of
 npeA> 'Why' they are here rather than 'Whether' they are here.

I would tend to doubt that ParaNet would give up its credibility with the
community, by ignoring one aspect and concentrating solely on the other.  The
"Why" can't even be properly discussed until the "Whether" is addressed. :-)




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



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


From: ncar!ecn.purdue.edu!lush
Subject: Star Trek--The Next Generation
Date: 15 Jul 91 19:40:35 GMT

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


I just saw a rerun of an episode of Star Trek--The Next Generation.
It describes how the Enterprise makes first contact with a planet
just about to learn how to achieve warp-drive--that is, travel faster
than the speed of light.  The methods of contact used and the terminology
used by the captain in talking to the leader of the planet sounded similar
to what I have read as explanations for why aliens might be here now.

Did anyone else see this episode?

Is there any way someone could find out on what the
writers/producers based their script?

Greg ([e-mail])






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


From: [e-mail] (John Burke)
Subject: The Coverup
Date: 16 Jul 91 07:09:00 GMT

In response to a message from Greg Lush (concerning the cover-up
of the UFO situation) Steve Rose writes:

 >
 > I would blame the 'Greys' (our favorite term) for that
 > oversight.  As long as THEY want to remain in the shadows
 > and limit their presence to isolated contacts with the
 > indigenous populous (seeing that there has NEVER been a
 > true 'White House lawn' landing), than ALL those reports
 > will continue to be suspect.

This has been my opinion for a long time.  The existence of a
cover-up is ultimately up to the UFOnauts themselves.  If they
ever decided to get really bold, the government's efforts at
"damage control" would be futile.  The fact that they keep such a
low profile is the only thing that keeps the notion of a coverup
alive.  If those little wimps had any guts at all, they'd
interrupt the halftime show at the next Super Bowl!

                                                 --  John

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Roswell Discussion
Date: 16 Jul 91 07:38:00 GMT

>> 1) The entire second crash site scenario is a house of cards. Barney

>I feel that these inconsistencies serve to support the case even more.
>Barney Barnett may have been under so much duress at that time that he did
>exactly what the military told him to do under threat of criminal
>prosecution.

I have fleshed this point out with Mark Rodeghier, and I can understand why
the Barnett scenario was included. But I think it should have been more
noticeably labeled "speculation."

>very ambiguous. I feel that they have not stretched their speculation
>regarding this point.

Perhaps not, but it is obvious that they use it as a foundation for their
conclusion that the alien hypothesis has been proven. I just think its a tad
early for that.

>On another similarly related point, Magdalena was noted
>by the authors to not be the point of the second debris field.  However,
>LaPaz was sent out a little over a year later to discover yet another
related
>debris field.

I do find the La Paz connection very interesting. Hadn't heard his name
mentioned in connection with this case before.


>> 2) Mac Brazel, who saw only a debris field, was imprisoned for days and
>> supposedly debriefed by the military. Barney Barnett, who saw a saucer,
>> bodies, the whole shootin' match, was merely "shooed away" by the
>> military.

>This is unfounded and is not even a legit point.  First, we don't know
>exactly what Mac Brazel saw.  We don't know what his attitude was with the
>military which prompted them to cloister him for those days.

Again, Mark Rodeghier answered the same way. He states that Brazel might
well
have had an attitude problen. In any case, I don't see this particular
objection as a problem.

>> 3) A glaring inconsistency in the much-vaunted time-line: The "first
>> flight from Washington" arrived at Roswell at 12 Noon. Allowing for a
>> two-hour drive to Corona, that places them at the crash site around 2PM.
>> Yet the CIC man stated that a "photography crew from Washington" had
>> been on the scene by 11AM. How did they get there?

>A trivial point.  The Air Force uses planes.  If they flew in from
>Washington, it would make perfect sense that they flew to the site and may
>have landed on the roadway, or someplace else in close proximity to the
>debris field.

Mmmm, naw, I don't think so. I think its more likely just a poor memory on
someone's part. Again, perhaps not major, but if it's so trivial, I don't
think the authors should have hesitated to say, "This is an inconsistency."
I understand, however, that some of this will be cleared up in the Special
Report.

>> 4) The gases that cause the stench associated with decomposition also
>> cause profound bloating, which would result in "fat corpses." Yet the
>> corpses were invariably described as "skinny."

>Again, trivial.  If we are dealing with non-human entities, then we do not
>know that their method of decomposition would be consistent with humans.

But the presence of a stench is a strong clue that it WOULD be.

[Continued]

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Roswell Discussion
Date: 16 Jul 91 07:39:00 GMT

>> 6) The crate used to ship the alleged bodies measured 14' by 5' by 5'
>> (or thereabouts). This works out to about 300 cubic feet. This much ice
>> would weigh 18,000 lbs. Allowing for a hollowed-out area to contain the
>> bodies, let's say anywhere from 10,000-12,000 pounds. Yet one of the
>> crewmen was quoted as saying that the weight-and-balance man cleared the
>> plane for flight without doing his calculations, since the load would be
>> so light.

>Without knowing my aviation stuff, as I suspect Mike doesn't, I would say
>that 18,000 pounds is nothing compared to other cargo that the military
would
>fly in a cargo hold of one of their planes.

Without knowing a great deal of aviation stuff myself, I believe that's
incorrect. 18,000 pounds would, if not positioned properly, have a major
effect on the flight characteristics of almost ANY plane that I'm aware of.
There are such things as moment-arms and the center of gravity to be dealt
with.

>Also, due to the nature of the
>material that was contained in the cargo, all of the necessary arrangements
>would have been pre-arranged to alleviate another person in the chain of
>having intimate knowledge of his cargo.

But they seemed *inconsistenly* concerned over this. It is inconceivable to
me, for example, that they would go to the lengths of having the W&B
calculated in advance, yet allow as many people as they did to have access
to
the material. One guy actually peeked into the hangar with his buddy.

>> However, I part company with Mike on the ultimate
>> conclusion to be drawn from these discrepancies. I view these as a point
>> of departure for further research, rather than as a basis for dismissal
>> of the case as a whole. Mike said that the authors were inconsistent; I
>> replied that it was the evidence that was inconsistent, and the authors
>> were to be commended for including contradictory testimony, and labeling
>> it as such.

>I have to disagree completely.  What amazes me is that this argument is
>another of the typical "maintain the party line" in direct opposition of
>solid eyewitness data to a very extraordinary incident.

I don't think Mike is maintaining the party line. He acknowledges that
something crashed at Roswell, and acknowledges that it most likely is not a
weather balloon. He even characterizes the eyewitness testimony surrounding
the first crash site as "remarkably consistent." His main point of contention
is that we should not accept this body of research as gospel until the weaker
portions are addressed. Put simply, he was looking for a more scholarly work.
While I must admit I would love to have seen a highly scientific, airtight
research project done, I argued that such a thing is well-nigh impossible
given the current financing of Ufology and the fact that we have to make do
with a flyboy and a commercial artist rather than trained historians and
archaeologists. I'd say they did a helluva job under the circumstances. I also
argued that this was a work in progress, and part of the idea of releasing the
book when they did was to generate more data from people who are still hiding
in the woodwork. But just as skeptics and debunkers need to squarely face the
issues the book raises, it is unfair to expect them to do so while we ignore
or trivialize the problems they raise. I think CUFOS agrees with me on this,
based on my conversation with Mark.

>2)  Why would trained observers like Marcel make such a stupid mistake in
>identification of a simple weather balloon?  Even if it was classified, the
>weather balloon was as common as the automobile.  Would Marcel have made
such
>a misidentification?  Surely not.

This might be a good time for me to ask, Did Marcel in any of his later
interviews, ever claim that the material he displayed in Ramey's office was
not the material he brought in from Roswell? I may just be drawing a blank
on
this, but I don't think I've ever read where he said that. Can someone
straighten me out on this? I think its important.

> This example above is not skepticism, it is debunkery.  I am skeptical,
and
> I will admit that something happened there.

So does Stackpole! All he's saying is that its early yet, and we have not
ELIMINATED prosaic explanations, which we MUST do before we can jump on the
alien bandwagon.

Jim

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



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


From: ncar!CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU!morekypr.BITNET!HALLRL
Subject:      Psychics and abductions
Date: 16 Jul 91 18:07:08 GMT

From: [e-mail]

+From: [e-mail] (Ed Ngai)
+Subject: Abductions
+Date: 16 Jun 91 04:03:00 GMT
+
+Does anyone know if any ESP'ers, Clairvoiant's, have ever been
+abducted?  Seems that all the Earthlings that have been abducted were
+normal Human Beings. Why don't Extra-Terrestials ever abduct Humans with
+special powers, if there really are such Humans as
+Clairvoiant's.

Well, there does seem to be some correlation between abductions and
humans who have paranormal abilities.  I would suggest that you pick up
a copy of 'ENCOUNTERS' by Dr. Edith Fiore.  There are several case
studies of people with psychic abilities that experience abductions on a
regular basis and even seem to be in the process of undergoing training
by the visitors to enhance these abilities.  In 'THE WATCHERS', Raymond
Fowler also explores the experiences of Betty Andreasson Luca that
include many out-of-body experiences connected with abductions.  He also
postulates that these visitors may be billions of years in advance of our
race and civilization, and that their perception of time, space, and
dimensions are far beyond even our wildest dreams.  Hope this gives you
some direction with your question.

Randy




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


From: [e-mail] (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Roswell Discussion
Date: 16 Jul 91 20:21:00 GMT


 > I don't think Mike is maintaining the party line. He acknowledges that
 > something crashed at Roswell, and acknowledges that it most likely is
 > not a
 > weather balloon. He even characterizes the eyewitness testimony
 > surrounding
 > the first crash site as "remarkably consistent." His main point of
 > contention
 > is that we should not accept this body of research as gospel until the
 > weaker
 > portions are addressed. Put simply, he was looking for a more scholarly
 > work.

Why base these inconsistencies on throwing out the baby with the bath water?
What is important is that the consistency is in place for the original field
debris found in Brazel's area.  Simply based upon the consistent eyewitness'
testimony from this part, we can conclude that something extraordinary
occurred there, perhaps, according to the witnesses, something out of this
world.  Even without consistent testimony to the additional debris field, we
must elevate this incident to the proper status.  It was not a crash of
anything conventional.  Added to this, after 44 years, what aerial device
could still warrant such high level secrecy?  I will agree that the prosaic is
still a viable option, however, I consider most of those witnesses from the
Air Force to be "expert."  Taking Roswell as a single incident is not
necessarily valid, either.  You must incorporate this into the overall picture
of what this phenomenon represents.  We have many reports of fly-overs,
strange devices executing fantastic maneuvers, eyewitness accounts placing
non-human entities in direct proximity to these devices, and a lot more.
Although these are not scientific findings, they do lend some credibility to
the validity of the phenomenon.  I suggest that Roswell is merely a piece of
the puzzle which provides more than a single eyewitness account of a UFO.
The circumstances leading up to and following the recovery of the debris
suggests that something happened.  As to the body situation, how would
Stackpole answer the mortician's claims?  Would he agree that bodies of some
type were recovered, be they human or not?  Why would the Air Force purchase
caskets and dry ice unless they were interested in preserving biological
material?  Why would they be in contact with the mortician asking for advice
on various embalming techniques.  I won't accept an answer such as "the
bodies were Rhesus monkeys returning from a secret space flight."  If the Air
Force did recover bodies, human or not, what were they doing in association
with this crash of a weather balloon?

My point in saying that Mike's arguments are trivial are that he makes such
statements without firm counterpoints that adequately answer the objections.
So, there is inconsistencies in some of the testimony?  Which percentage of
this testimony is out of line?  What could this represent?  Does it invalidate
the incredible testimony of the original witnesses to the Brazel debris field?
No, at least from what I can glean.

 > While I must admit I would love to have seen a highly scientific,
 > airtight
 > research project done, I argued that such a thing is well-nigh
 > impossible
 > given the current financing of Ufology and the fact that we have to make
 > do
 > with a flyboy and a commercial artist rather than trained historians and
 > archaeologists. I'd say they did a helluva job under the circumstances.
 > I also argued that this was a work in progress, and part of the idea of
 > releasing the book when they did was to generate more data from people
 > who are still hiding in the woodwork. But just as skeptics and debunkers
 > need to squarely face the issues the book raises, it is unfair to expect
 > them to do so while we ignore
 > or trivialize the problems they raise. I think CUFOS agrees with me on
 > this,
 > based on my conversation with Mark.

The beginning of any finding starts with claims.  This investigation is far
from over.  The scientific aspect will not apply here, unfortunately.  There
is nothing left after 44 years but memories.  However, this does represent
some very solid and incriminating evidence against the so-called "cover-up."
What is important now is what we do with this from this point forward?  I do
not believe that debunkers have any place in this.  You and I both know that a
debunker is not interested in the truth.  They will twist as much of it as
they possibly can, without giving the evidence a fair hearing.  As in the case
of Mike Stackpole, I would love to see more in the way of alternatives.
Perhaps he could provide us with some food for thought?

 > This might be a good time for me to ask, Did Marcel in any of his later
 > interviews, ever claim that the material he displayed in Ramey's office
 > was
 > not the material he brought in from Roswell? I may just be drawing a
 > blank on this, but I don't think I've ever read where he said that. Can
 > someone
 > straighten me out on this? I think its important.

I will have to locate it, but yes, I do believe that Marcel made statements to
this effect.  There was something, as I recall, in the IUR, about Marcel
stating that he carried some of the debris in from the plane, but that when he
left the room, it was switched.  He claimed that the material that is in the
photograph with DuBose is not the same material.  I will attempt to locate
that article.  In the meantime, maybe Mark Rodeghier could comment on this
aspect of it here.

 > So does Stackpole! All he's saying is that its early yet, and we have
 > not
 > ELIMINATED prosaic explanations, which we MUST do before we can jump on
 > the
 > alien bandwagon.

I do not advocate jumping on the "alien" bandwagon.  However, I do not
eliminate this as a very viable possibility, again, with the information from
reliable sources to date.  We will have to see where this goes, but again, it
is important to raise solid counter-issues with something to back it up.

Mike

--
Michael Corbin - 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]

 For administrative requests (subscriptions, back issues) send to:

UUCP            {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
DOMAIN          [e-mail]
 To obtain back issues by anonymous ftp, connect to:

DOMAIN          ftp.uiowa.edu (directory /archives/paranet)

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