Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 330

  

                Info-ParaNet Newsletters   Volume I  Number 330

 

                           Monday, November 12th 1990

 

Today's Topics:

 

                          Re: Conclusion - Gulf Breeze

                                 Re: GB Sentinel

                                Re: Walters case

                              Davis Sea Happenings

                          Re: Santa Barbara (Continued)

                            Santa Barbara (Continued)

                                    GB Photos

                              Re: Ed Walters video

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

Moderator's Note:  Mike Corbin is in transit to Wyoming as he has a sickness

in his family. He will be out of touch for about 7-10 days. Please send nothing

in the way of articles during this time as they may get deleted or lost before

he is back up.

-Cyro (Moderator at UUCP/INTERNET/USENET host site.)

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

From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)

Subject: Re: Conclusion - Gulf Breeze

Date: 9 Nov 90 16:11:03 GMT

 >        From what I read in Saucer Smear, it looks like Ed had

 > big plans on starting his own newsletter or magazine which was

 > to begin publication next month.

  No ideas about that.

  Look around for a new file called GBREFUTE.ZIP. Interesting.

                                           jbh

--  

John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG

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

From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)

Subject: Re: GB Sentinel

Date: 9 Nov 90 16:13:04 GMT

 >      As long as Mr. Somerby likes to impugn motives, how about

 > this one:  What single publication in America had the most to

 > gain from the Walters hoax?

  Aw, c'mon now. Do you really think a publisher of a lowly weekly 

newspaper would stoop to such things. ;-)

                                           jbh

--  

John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG

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

From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)

Subject: Re: Walters case

Date: 9 Nov 90 16:22:05 GMT

 >         So Dan Wright says that MUFON is concerned that one of

 > their investigators has taken sides in a political dispu.

 Yeah, interesting isn't it.

  I got a copy of Don Ware's original letter to the editors of the 

News-Journal and the Sentinel. Actually, it's signed by both Don and 

Charles.

  The letter contains three long paragraphs which attempt to refute 

Rex's findings re: the Road Shot, which is well and good, but the 

fourth and final paragraph simply states that they have gotten to know 

Ed and Frances well and wishes them luck.

  The Sentinel folks apparently edited out the first three paragraphs, 

which were the meat and the intent of the letter, and just published 

the final paragraph, which looks like (out of context) a political 

endorsement. Which it isn't.

  So, contrary to my initial statement based on the (edited) letter 

published in the Sentinel, the fact is that Don and Charles did *not* 

write a political endorsement of Ed, but part of their letter was 

taken out of context and made to *appear* to be just that.

  Lousy, slanted and biased editing by whoever edits the letters to 

the editor for the Sentinel.

                                           jbh

                                    Neither a Debunker

                                     nor a True Believer.

--  

John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG

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

From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)

Subject: Davis Sea Happenings

Date: 9 Nov 90 16:27:06 GMT

 > I'm hoping somebody can shed some additional light on an unusual

 > story that appeared in the San Diego Union about three weeks ago

 > (this was told to me by a reliable friend, and will try to

 > further track down this story).

  How about this possibility.

  The egg-shaped craft may have been some sort of submersible 

servicing, laying or retrieving sonobuoys. Everyone's navy would 

probably want to keep such ops secret.

                                           jbh

--  

John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG

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

From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)

Subject: Re: Santa Barbara (Continued)

Date: 9 Nov 90 15:28:00 GMT

 > What is the basis for the suggestion that some of the Roswell witnesses

 > may be given immunity??  Has the gvt been approached? By whom? With what

 > response?  Who specifically was approached?

CUFOS has apparently petitioned some Congresscritters on behalf of several 

individuals connected with the case, one of whom was in charge of securing the 

perimeter of the crash site. I don't know if there has been a response yet, 

apparently it is a work in progress.

 >   Another question that comes to mind is would it be a violation of an

 > oath of silence to simply say "I can't tell you what I know but the gvt

 > statements as to what happened are not true."

Don Schmitt asked one of these individuals if we are "on the right track," 

meaning, are we justified in exploring the alien spacecraft possibility. His 

response was, "well, off the record, you're not on the wrong track."

Jim

--  

Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG

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

From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)

Subject: Santa Barbara (Continued)

Date: 10 Nov 90 23:55:00 GMT

 >  > may be granted immunity for their testimony,

 >

 >  and I'm wondering (a rhetorical) why.

 >

Immunity meaning, they won't be prosecuted for violating any secrecy oaths if 

they should testify.

Jim

--  

Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG

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

From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)

Subject: GB Photos

Date: 11 Nov 90 00:01:00 GMT

 >  So lemme see if I got this right: The book written by the professionals

 > goes unnoticed and the book written by the architect generates a furor.

 >

 >

Ya see now why PR experts get such big bucks?

I think the differences are, 1) GB has the steadfast support of the largest 

UFO organization in the world, from the top down. 2) The leader of that 

organization has endorsed it as being genuine, whereas the lead investigators 

of HV (Hynek and Imbrogno) were always careful to couch their language in 

relatively (and properly) ambiguous terms. 3) and here's where the PR comes 

in, Ed was published by a larger house, Morrow, than was Night Siege 

(Ballantine). And Ballantine sent Phil on a relatively small tour, whereas Ed 

has canvassed the country twice and is going again. Many other factors, too, 

such as the media coverage - the press decided early on that HV was a hoax by 

a bunch of pilots, and there didn't seem to be any changing their minds. GB 

had the luxury of occuring in the era of tabloid TV, and Ed took full 

advantage, appearing on Lard Copy, Inside Sedition, and A Torrid Affair.

Jim

--  

Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG

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

From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)

Subject: Re: Ed Walters video

Date: 11 Nov 90 06:18:00 GMT

When My polaroid rollers are dirty they produce much different "lights" 

then I saw in Ed's photos.  As an aside, do you think S-VHS is here to 

stay??  I also noticed on my camcorder that bright lights leave streaks 

vertically.  SHould the light from the UFO or any of the other lights 

in Ed's recordings have left different streaks then they did??

  I heard that Macabee may be revising his estimate of the size of the 

UFO in the "road" photo to twice as large and twice as far away.  I 

remain confused as to why the obvious seems to be consitently ignored 

in that photo.  It would seem that the size of the UFO is readily 

established due to it's close proximity to the road.  Most roads of the 

sort shown in the photo are about 28 feet wide (the blacktop part).  

And there should be no problem actually measureing the road since Ed 

has said exactly where it is.  Once the width of the road is known the 

diameter of the UFO would be easily established.

--  

Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG

********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********

                      'infopara' at the following address: 

UUCP            {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara

DOMAIN          infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com

ADMIN Address   infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com

                {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request

 

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