United Public Domain Gold 2/United Public Domain Gold 2.iso/utilities/pu637.dms/pu637.adf/PARA386

Text File | 1994-10-11 | 32.3 KB | 808 lines

                Info-ParaNet Newsletters   Volume I  Number 386

                            Saturday, April 6th 1991

Today's Topics:

                           Re: Gravitational magnetism
                                 Belgian reports
                                 Re: Bill Cooper
                                     (none)
                               Kecksburg UFO Crash
                                 Re: Rick Redux
                            Re: Statements of accepta
                              Re: Fcc Modem Charge
                                Re: Mail Problems
                                    Skeptics
                      Fiery Objects Fall on Northern Texas
                              Re: THEY'RE HERE!!!!
                                       KOA
                                Re:  Bill Cooper
                               Re: Serios Business

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

From: [e-mail] (John Tender)
Subject: Re: Gravitational magnetism
Date: 30 Mar 91 09:57:42 GMT


 >>          Robert Forward, a physicist specializing
 >> in gravitational theory and 'hard SF' writer (Dragon's
 >> Egg and sequel), has described an antigravity device
 >> consisting of a toroidal coil with an ID of about
 >> 100 meters.
 >>
 >> If the mass of a neutron star were to flow through the
 >> windings of the coil every millisecond, the magnetic

 KL>  Not possible.  The constraints of even a superconductor
 KL> to handle that many electrons per millisec dictate a
 KL> conductor wider than the toroid itself.  That's my
 KL> hip-pocket assessment without knowing the mass of the
 KL> neutron star involved.

     I got the impression that the mass goes through the toroid, not the
coils.

 >> enormous masses and velocities required is the low
 >> value of the gravitational coupling constant
 >> (about 40 orders of magnitude less than the strong
 >> nuclear or EM)

 KL> Wrong!  40 orders of magnitude places this "reaction"
 KL> above Planck energy values, an unexplored region if not
 KL> virgin territory by human instrumentation(s) that one
 KL> might consider possible billionths of a second after the
 KL> creation of the (now reckoned) universe.
 KL> 10^19 to 10^28 is more likely the region that we could
 KL> measure "gravitons" at, if superstring theory is valid.

     What are "Planck energy values"?  Where did you get the numbers
10^19 to 10^28?

     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. In a model of the hydrogen atom, assuming a
proton-electron distance of 5.3e-11 meter, the EM force between the two
particles is 8.1e-8 newtons while the gravitational force is only
3.7e-47 newtons. This yields about a 10e40 ratio, and since both fields
have an inverse square dependance on distance, the ratio is invariant
for particle separation. As most of the charged particles in the
universe are protons and electrons, this is not an inappropriate
comparison. However, even if you substitute another proton for the
electron, the ratio is only reduced to about 10e37.

 >> and the low permeability of space to the field.
 >>         Physicists at Stanford and elsewhere are
 >> planning experiments on a satellite in the next decade
 >> to test for the existence of the protational field.

 KL> I'll have to look this term up, never heard it before.

     It's new to me too. Let me know what you find.

 ... 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 Hicks)
Subject: Belgian reports
Date: 31 Mar 91 00:13:00 GMT


  An interesting little tidbit from the International Literary Gazette
(reprinted by UFONS) in an interview by Oleg Moroz of Ivan Tretyak,
CIC USSR ADF.

MOROZ. "The Belgian Air Force headquarters published some excerpts
from a report which gave an account of the events that occurred on the
night of March 30: It was at last officially confirmed that the
mysterious black triangles that had for seven months recurrently
appeared over Belgium were detected by military radars."

TRETYAK. "I know about this publication. But the fact is that several
days later it was refuted; there had been no detection by radars."

  Have we missed a followup somewhere? Throughout the interview,
Tretyak seems to be a fairly straightforward guy.

                                           jbh

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Greenen)
Subject: Re: Bill Cooper
Date: 4 Apr 91 00:55:00 GMT

Don; I was just pulling the leg a little when I mention Las Vegas.
If we can you the team Alien as some other race that is not of the
planet earth, then I would say that YES there is prove that we are
being visited by Aliens. Check in Wendelle Stevens back room and you
will see over 3,500 pictures of these crafts that they are using.
Ask the 20,000,000 people that have seen something that does not
look or act like anything that is know on this earth.
   You being a retired police investigator would not have any
problem sending a person to death if you had the data that exist on
UFO's. If our courts demanded more prove then what we have collected
over the pass 40+ years then we might as well lay off ever police
officer and close all prisons. I have to go now because I got to
give a lecture on UFO's in about 1 hour to our local Amateur Radio
Club. I ask for a rebuttal when the 2 months ago a lawyer gave a
talk on the subject and said that because the speed of light is the
fastest thing know to man and the nearest star that might support
life is x mount of years and it would take this long to get from
point a to b, there for there is no such thing as UFO's. Believe me
someone is going to hang tonight because I am going to show them
some prove.      73's      ---Jim---
--
Jim Greenen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: psuvm.psu.edu!CCB104
Subject: (none)
Date: 5 Apr 91 04:30:45 GMT

From: <[e-mail]>


(I am sending you this on behalf of T. Scott Crain, Jr.)

  - - The original note follows - -

  - - Standard disclaimers apply - -

  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Cut here * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

From:    T. Scott Crain, Jr.
Subject: Kecksburg UFO Crash

Perhaps Paranet subscribers should not be so quick to write off the
Kecksburg UFO crash, as would be the upshot of a recent article by
Robert Young for the Spring 1991 Skeptical Inquirer (Info-Paranet
Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 380). It appears Young has a knack for filtering
out facts that don't parallel his preconceived notions about what really
happened that night on December 9, 1965.

Stan Gordon, Director of the Pennsylvania Association for
the Study of the Unexplained (PASU), is an active investigator of the
Kecksburg crash and has compiled a mountain of evidence that supports
the notion that a bronze-colored, acorn-shaped object, approximately 12
feet long and 10 feet in diameter, with a band of unintelligible
markings wrapped around it, crash-landed in a wooded area near
Kecksburg, Pennsylvania.

After seeing Young's article in Info-Paranet Newsletter, I phoned Gordon on
March 31, 1991, and we discussed his ongoing investigation as well as Young's
article.

First of all, Young dismisses what witnesses claim they saw, simply
because they did not come forward sooner. Gordon has interviewed at
least 4 witnesses who saw the object while it was on the ground (and,
to be sure, before the military had secured the crash site area).
They include one fireman (one of several who saw it that day) and three
civilians.  These witnesses are not looking for publicity and will not
let Gordon release their names to the media for fear of ridicule.  Gordon
explained to me how witnesses who didn't know each other took him to the
same crash site.  Witnesses' descriptions of the craft were virtually
identical, during separate interviews conducted by PASU.

Young points out in his article that during the alleged UFO recovery
operation, Jerome and Valerie Miller's home was portrayed as a 'military
command post' in the re-enactment appearing on NBC's 'Unsolved
Mysteries' episode on the crash (Sept. 19, 1990). The Miller's deny their
home was a command center for the military, and so does Stan Gordon, who told
me that another home in the vicinity of the crash was the command post.

Young hints that a secret satellite was launched from Vandenberg Air
Force Base, California, that same day, and the stage was set for
Kecksburg. Never mind that scientist Ivan T. Sanderson traced the flight
pattern of the UFO and discovered it made a controlled 25-degree turn in
Ohio and headed for Pennsylvania (Fate Magazine, arch 1966). Not a
typical movement of a satellite crashing back to Earth.

Young also hints that the object may have been a brilliant bolide or
'fireball' that was observed coming down from Canada and a half dozen or
so states before crash-landing. But he failed to mention that Sanderson
estimated the object's speed at 1062.5 miles per hour. PASU did a
detailed analysis of the observations and times the object was seen and
concluded that at most the object was moving at a speed of 5257 miles
per hour. Neither estimate comes anywhere near the minimum speed for a
meteor which is approximately 27,000 miles per hour. Witnesses to the
Kecksburg UFO said it was 'gliding in' before it crashed and moving at
the speed of a small plane.

Finally, Young concludes from old newspaper accounts that really nothing
fell in Kecksburg. Young reports 'the Air Force also announced that
nothing had been found' (Pittsburgh Press, Dec. 10). Yet, Project
Bluebook records I have in my hands indicate the Air Force concluded the
object was a meteor, which we have already determined is virtually
impossible. Anyhow, why would numerous local fire companies, the
Pennsylvania State Police, the U.S. Air Force, the 662nd Radar Squadron,
and various other military officials gravitate to the village of
Kecksburg to recover a rock from space? What happened to this alleged
meteor? Why did it have to be removed that night? And why all the
secrecy?

Young reports: 'The official explanations are totally consistent with
all published accounts and the present recollections of scores of
witnesses.' Obviously, Young has not been talking to the same witnesses
that Gordon has been talking to. Like the Westmoreland County man who
was stationed at Lockborne Air Base near Columbus, Ohio, who claims the
base was put on 'red alert' during the early morning hours of December
10, 1965 (the same morning witnesses at Kecksburg watched a flatbed
truck travel towards the crash site and leave with a large object on the
back covered with a tarp). According to this former member of the Air
Police at Lockborne, a flatbed truck with a tarpaulin-covered object
drove into the hangar and was guarded until 7:30 a.m., when it left for
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base 100 miles away.

Several days later, a witness reported seeing the object at
Wright-Patterson. Reporter Sharon Santus writing in the Greensburg
Tribune-Review (Dec. 9, 1990) writes:

+Another witness, Ohio truck driver John Cummings (not his real name),
+said he actually saw the object inside a building at Wright-Patterson
+on Dec. 12, 1965, just three days after the alleged landing.
+
+Cummings, who made deliveries for a Dayton-area building-supply company,
+said a high-ranking military officer arrived at the firm on Dec. 11,
+1965, and ordered a special radiation-, moisture-resistant brick for
+construction of a protective room inside a building at Wright-Patterson.
+
+Cummings said he and a cousin delivered 6,500 bricks to Wright-Patterson
+the next day after being instructed by their boss not to discuss
+anything they might observe at the compound.
+
+'We were unloading the bricks onto pallets and me and my cousin decided
+to sneak inside to see what all the secrecy was about,' Cummings said.
+'Guards immediately ordered us out ... but not before we saw it.'
+
+Cummings said he saw a dark bronze, bell-shaped object about 14 feet
+wide at the base and about 12 feet high.
+
+He said scaffolding surrounded the object, which was covered on three
+sides with parachute-like material that hung from the ceiling. According
+to Cummings, 10 to 15 men with white, protective suits, wearing rubber
+boots, rubber gloves and gas masks were attempting to open the object.
+
+'They took us outside and told us to forget what we had seen,' Cummings
+said, 'We were told that in 20 years, the object would be common
+knowledge.'
+
+Cummings said that a few days later he learned that other truck drivers
+had seen a flatbed military truck with a tarpaulin-covered object on the
+back traveling from the Pittsburgh area west on Route 40 toward
+Wheeling, W.Va., and then on to Columbus and Dayton.
+
+He said that information along with his own experience convinces him
+that the object he saw at Wright-Patterson was the same as that which
+allegedly fell in Kecksburg.

As one can see, there is more to this case than Young has reported in
his article. At the close of my conversation with Gordon, he said that
he was not saying it's an alien spacecraft (that's only one possibility);
it could be a sophisticated military probe of an undetermined origin.
But something landed that day in Kecksburg, and whatever it was, it
attracted the interest of the military.

  - - End of message from T. Scott Crain, Jr. - -




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


From: [e-mail] (John Cockrell)
Subject: Re: Rick Redux
Date: 4 Apr 91 22:46:00 GMT

Musta missed that one. What'd he say?
                                Just wonderin',
                                        J.C.
--
John Cockrell - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Statements of accepta
Date: 4 Apr 91 21:16:00 GMT


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

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

 >      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.

It is my impression that these guys are competent "scientific thinkers."
(Define "scientist.") I am not by any stretch of the imagination a
"scientist", but I believe I've got a grasp on how the thinking process goes.
While I disagree with their parameters for evidence, I recognize that there
is enough room for gentlemanly debate on the subject without stooping to the
degree of vilification you seem to revel in. The bottom line is, I *do*
believe that "these guys" will accept *SOMETHING* solid as evidence, and
though they do seem to present a moving target, I believe that, if UFOs are a
genuine, physical phenomenon, it is within our power to gather the requisite
amount of evidence to convince them. Of course, with some of them, it becomes
almost academic, since a sufficiently large body of evidence has indeed
already been gathered.

 >      I never said Rick or anyone should delete any files. I did say that
 > if we are going to categorize these files, as "good" or "bad" or
 > "Cooper-like" etc., we should have explicitly stated (as opposed to
 > implicitly assumed) ~reasons~ for doing so. I opposed the idea that such
 > file deletions should be made at the whim of a sysop. This is both
 > consistent with and required of a scientific approach to the UFO
 > phenomena.
 >
 >      When Rick, a member of the Bay Area Skeptics and CSICOP, evaded
 > this issue so persistently it merely reinforced a pattern I've seen in
 > skeptics before; using science when it is convenient, and ignoring it
 > otherwise.

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

Jim

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Fcc Modem Charge
Date: 5 Apr 91 07:42:00 GMT

I don't blame you Mike, I "posted in haste" to say the least, the first time
I read the article.  But then I stopped to think, and I hesitated on sending
any nasty letters to the FCC.  Good thing, because it was debunked a few
weeks later.  (I think it was probably around February/March of last year,
but I'm not certain.  As I said before, it was the same message you posted.)

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Elizabeth Anderson)
Subject: Re: Mail Problems
Date: 4 Apr 91 01:51:00 GMT

Ok, here's the information again. Everybody please note, however, I am at a
very remedial level with computers, and I don't keep copies of messages I
send, ok?

It is called the Nahanni (two 'n's) National Park. Established 1972. Covers
4700 square kms. The river is 320 kms long. There are gorges over 1000 m
deep, and there is a falls, over 100 m deep (or high, I suppose) called
Virginia Falls.

32 mammal species; 120 bird species. UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Nearest service point - Fort Simpson, N.W.T.; write to their Board of Trade
or Chamber of Commerce for information.

As for the headless prospectors, they were looking for gold - but maybe they
found it, maybe they didn't......


All the best, and good luck! Let me know if you need more info.


Elizabeth

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



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


From: [e-mail] (Gene Gross)
Subject: Skeptics
Date: 5 Apr 91 14:56:44 GMT

>From [e-mail] (Gene Gross)

The only problem with being open-minded is that your brains may fall
out. <GRIN!!>

Okay, enough clowning for a moment.  Look, Rick and other skeptics serve
a very valid and useful purpose in any investigation of things that the
rationalist tends to see as outside the 'natural laws.'  They demand of
all of us far better work and documentation of the evidence.  And as
irritating as their constant questioning can be, it should be the spur
in the flank that moves us onward.  No amount of belief makes up for
sloppy scholarship and research.

By the same token, skepticism for the mere sake of being skeptical
is an unworthy effort.  This is not to accuse any individual of this
practice.  One of the problems that I've had with the rationalist school
is that much of the philosophical positions tend to be self-defeating.
But this is not the place for an extensive discourse on Hume and others.

Rick, has often asked very good questions that deserve good, or better
answers.  He has shown the weakness of some thinking and positions.  For
this, we ought to tip our hat to him.

One thing though, Rick, offering an alternative explanation of an event
does not disprove the event or the other explanation.  Also, I wonder
how many skeptics form their arguments as follows:

P = premise
C = conclusion

P:  Since UFOs do not exist,
C:  there cannot be any evidence that they do exist.
P:  Since there cannot be any evidence for UFOs' existence,
C:  all evidences for UFOs must be somehow false.
P:  Since all evidences for UFOs are false,
C:  UFOs do not exist.

Again, this is not a personal accusation.  However, I have been
interested in the comments of many skeptics that, regardless of the
evidence, UFOs are impossible.  I remain skeptical that UFOs are what
some think they are, but I do acknowledge that something is happening to
people that cannot be accounted for by a natural explanation.  At that
point I have to stop because I do not have enough information and
evidence to make a definitive statement.

Nonetheless, keep it up, Rick.

Gene Gross


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


From: neptune.convex.com!swarren
Subject: Fiery Objects Fall on Northern Texas
Date: 5 Apr 91 18:54:05 GMT

From: [e-mail] (Steve Warren)

This was in today's (Friday  4/5/91) issue of The
Dallas Morning News (bottom of page 21A).

In  light  of the  recent  discussions  regarding
sightings  of  fireballs, I thought  some  of the
Paranet readers would  find  it interesting, so I
typed in the article this morning.

Enjoy:
-------------------------------------------------
SIRENS GO OFF; NO ONE KNOWS WHY
Teletype, 'Fiery Objects' in Sky Add to Mystery

By Todd Copilevitz and Nita Thurman
Staff Writer of The Dallas Morning News

A cryptic Teletype about a ground fire and 'fiery
objects' falling from the sky - followed by civil
defense sirens apparently  sounding  off on their
own - had Dallas officials humming the theme from
The Twilight Zone on Thursday.

Beginning at  1:47  a.m., the 911 switchboard was
flooded with phone   calls from  residents in the
Eastern  third of the  city  wanting to  know the
reason for the sirens.

Authorities wanted to know, too.

Computer  tapes   did  not show  that  anyone had
triggered the  sirens -  or  even that  they were
sounding,  said  Bobby   J.  Martinez,  assistant
director   of  Dallas'   Office     of  Emergency
Preparedness.

But three  minutes  before the  sirens went  off,
police  received   a  Teletype  from  the   North
American     Aerospace    Defense Command,  which
monitors the  skies for falling  objects  such as
enemy missiles and space debris.

The message - first sent to the  Texas Department
of  Public  Safety   in Austin, then   relayed to
police departments, read:

'Report from national warning center on  hot spot
or  possible  ground   fire  28  miles  North  of
Longview.  Are attempting to locate fire now.  At
approximately same time  national warning  center
received  reports of  fiery objects falling  from
sky east of  Oklahoma  City.  Are investigating a
possible  correlation  of  the    two  sightings.
Request any   agency  receiving similar   reports
forward      information    to    DPS      Austin
communications.'

Moments  later,  according to    telephone  logs,
people started calling about the sirens.

'This  place  was   going nuts,' said  one police
communications worker.   'They kept expecting Rod
Serling  to step out  of  the corner,' she  said,
referring  to the  host of the  old Twilight Zone
television show.

Mr.  Martinez said  the  city's 94  sirens can be
turned  on only by   the  watch commander at  the
police  communications center  or  the Office  of
Emergency Preparedness.

'Dallas police do  not indicate that they sounded
the sirens, and we weren't  even in the office at
that time,' he said.

There is  no way for  a teletype to  trigger  the
127-decibel sirens   automatically,  Mr. Martinez
said.

Police and emergency preparedness officials tried
to turn the sirens off, but with limited success.
The sirens went back  on  as  many as three times
before Mr.  Martinez's office disabled the city's
entire system at 3:00 a.m.

'It became obvious that the system was  not going
to  reset on its own,  so our only  choice was to
disable it,' he said.

NORAD officials said they had issued the teletype
about midnight Dallas time.  Apparently there was
a  delay in transmission  of the message from the
DPS in Austin to local police.

Meanwhile, the bright  objects  mentioned  in the
NORAD Teletype were  reported by residents across
North Texas.

Mike Ames, 25, of The Colony (a city in the North
Dallas area - SW) said he was jogging  in a rural
area when he saw a ball of fire streak across the
sky from northwest to southeast  sometime after 9
p.m.

'I  thought it was  a satellite coming  down,' he
said.  'I thought I was  going to get hit by some
debris.

'I could see flames coming off ...and it had this
big tale.'

A  fisherman on  Lake Whitney, 35 miles  north of
Waco, called the National Weather Service in Fort
Worth to  report that  the whole lake  lit up and
debris  fell everywhere,  said  a weather service
spokesman.

'We  had three   or  four calls  here from people
wondering what the light was,' said meteorologist
Jesse  Moore.   'All we  can   say  is it  wasn't
weather-related.'

As for he report  of a ground fire  in  northeast
Texas,  Upshur  County deputies  said a  thorough
search turned up nothing.

'They couldn't  locate anything,'  said sheriff's
Capt.  Nancy  Betterton.     'There   just wasn't
anything there.'

In addition to plenty  of mystery,   Mr. Martinez
said the episode provided one benefit:

'At least we  know now that the   sirens are loud
enough to wake people if necessary.'
-------------------------------------------------

            _.
--Steve   ._||__      DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own.
  Warren   v\ *|     ----------------------------------------------
             V       {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; [e-mail]




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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: THEY'RE HERE!!!!
Date: 5 Apr 91 14:10:00 GMT

> They're Here!

And they look like the Michelin Tire Man!
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Speiser)
Subject: KOA
Date: 5 Apr 91 14:11:00 GMT

How did the KOA appearance go?
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



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


From: neptune.convex.com!swarren
Subject: Re:  Bill Cooper
Date: 6 Apr 91 00:18:51 GMT

From: [e-mail] (Steve Warren)

+From: [e-mail] (Jim Greenen)
+Subject: Re: Bill Cooper
+Date: 26 Mar 91 14:10:01 GMT
                            [...]
+            ...  Now, If you had a dramatic sighting (and I also
+had one) wouldn't you have the tendency to throw all skeptism out
+and look toward the reasons of who, how, what and where questions? I
+did that many years ago and now I am looking for the answers to
+those questions.
+   You mention that you are skeptic but skeptic of what? If you were
+refering to Mr. Cooper, you have good reason but to the existence of
+aliens visiting this planet, you should not have any doubt.  ...

On what grounds?  Just because I experience a dramatic sighting does not
mean that aliens are visiting us!  What did I really see?  How many
conclusions can I draw from my experience?  Does everything that is bizarre
(beyond anything I've experienced before) necessarily come from outside of
our planet?  Certainly I have no extra-planetary experiences that would
give me the ability to actually judge whether something originated from
outside of planet Earth.

And I'm not saying aliens are not visiting us.  But really, we are trying
to discover what the reality of this phenomenum is, and just deciding that
it is aliens visiting this planet is not helpful!

Why not?  Because there are a number of alternative theories that taken
together could explain everything that has been reported.  Some of these
theories include intentional hoaxes and mental/emotional instability,
suggestability (in the case of hypnotic regression), gov't disinformation
for unknown purposes (possibly using UFO reports to explain/discredit
sightings of supersecret technology developed by the gov't), etc.

Again, let me stress, I am not saying that there are no aliens.  I am just
saying that when you want to get to the bottom of something it is not
productive to decide in advance that you already know what has happened.

In order to actually say, as Jim says here, 'you should not have any
doubt,' (and actually be right) you *must* have some kind of verifiable
evidence that *distinguishes* between these theories.  IE you need to have
evidence that clearly eliminates Earthly technology, as well as hoaxes,
delusions or hallucinations.

There is also the less-popular alternate theory that says that the
explanation for ufos is 'spiritual,' that is, only a small part of the
manifestations are actually physical, and everything else is spectral
(manipulations of light/ radar/magnetism/etc by 'spirit' or
extra-dimensional creatures who have some bizarre otherworldly purpose for
'spooking' us on a regular basis).  This theory would be dealt a serious
blow by the recovery of a working alien spacecraft.  ;^)

All these various explanations are clamoring for attention, and no one has
yet presented the definitive evidence that justifies any one theory to the
exclusion of all the rest.  Until the definitive evidence appears, it is
silly to accuse people of being closed minded for not embracing one view
over another.  In reality the closed-minded ones are the people like Jim
here, who has already made up his mind that one theory is 'it'; it's the
answer.  The truth is, there are other theories that are just as likely to
be the correct explanation, if not more so.

To me open-minded means being open to *all* the plausible explanations, and
remaining neutral even towards the more silly explanations.  You can't
narrow the field until the actual evidence is sufficient to eliminate the
other contenders.
            _.
--Steve   ._||__      DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own.
  Warren   v\ *|     ----------------------------------------------
             V       {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; [e-mail]




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


From: [e-mail] (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Serios Business
Date: 5 Apr 91 14:09:00 GMT

OK, Dan, you've convinced me. I shall look for the much-vaunted *second
edition* of the World of Ted Serios.

In the meantime, I shall review Martin Gardner's "Science: Good, Bad
and Bogus" and may excerpt a few things from it for your reading
"pleasure." Mind you, I'm no great fan of Gardner's, and if I run
something of his up the flagpole, its because I'm really hoping it can
be shot down - personally I think the guy is the most pompous of the
CSICOP hit-men. But I will be looking for bulls-eyes on Eisenbud's
part.

Jim
--
Jim Speiser - 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************************