Info-ParaNet Newsletters Friday, May 17th 1991
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 404
Friday, May 17th 1991
Today's Topics:
Getting Smart About Getting Smarts
SANTA FE UFO'S 1980
Re: Csicop members
Re: Statements of accepta
Stranger Than Science
Re: Extraordinary claims
Re: Statements of acceptance
Re: (NONE)
Re: Stranger Than Science
Re: Discussion of statements of acceptance
WALTER.SAL
Re: WALTER.SAL
Re: WALTER.SAL
Re: WALTER.SAL
ARTHUR C. CLARK SHOW
Re: Getting Smart About Getting Smarts
GB paper
Re: Miscellaneous
Re: ARTHUR C. CLARK SHOW
alien alloys/green fireballs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Getting Smart About Getting Smarts
Date: 10 May 91 23:04:00 GMT
> From: Paul Carr <CARR@ASTRO.dnet.ge.com>
>
> Could we start a discussion about Zen Faulkes article in the last
> SE on the subject of extraterrestrial life (Spring 1991)? I sense
> that his reasoning is specious, but I've yet to nail down my
> counterargument.
> If anyone is interested, I will try to summarize the article for those
> who don't have access to SE (anyone seriously interested in the
> Paranormal should pop for the $15/yr, though). BTW, same issue carries
> an interview with Dr. Thomas R. McDonough, the astrophysicist who heads
> up SETI.
By all means. I would be interested in the article and the discussion.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: SANTA FE UFO'S 1980
Date: 10 May 91 03:49:00 GMT
SANTA FE UFO'S 1980
I am interested in corresponding with anyone who has information on
UFO sightings that may have occurred in the Santa Fe, NM area in
the fall of 1980, particularly during the months of Oct. and Nov.
(I am aware of the Kirtland AFB sightings in Albuquerque, and the
Cimarron abduction-mutilation case of that year. I do not feel that
these reports are relevant to my investigation.)
This information is needed to help corroborate the testimony of a
possible abduction case I have been directly involved with over the
past year. Any help from Paranet(sm) users would be greatly
appreciated. Please respond to this message #, or contact me
directly as per the following:
Sincerely,
Sheldon Wernikoff
9200 Niles Center Road
Skokie, IL 60076-1548
708-677-5154 FAX 312-252-7574
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Tender@f112.n129.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Tender)
Subject: Re: Csicop members
Date: 6 May 91 22:53:01 GMT
>> Once again, Rick, your claim that I disregarded a fact is without
>> foundation. Although I surmised CSICOP was a committee since CSICOP is
>> an acronym for "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims
>> of the Paranormal", I did not know that members of CSICOP
>> sub-committees: 1) were not members of CSICOP
>> 2) would have no knowledge of CSICOP viewpoints
>> 3) would not support the majority of such viewpoints even if known
>> 4) would nevertheless use the CSICOP cachet
RM> P.S.: Your supposition that unstated but hinted-at members of
RM> CSICOP subcommittees have no knowledge of CSICOP "viewpoints"
RM> (what _is_ a "CSICOP viewpoint"?), would not support the
CSICOP viewpoint: a theory or explanation of events or phenomena
proposed by a CSICOP member (or associate) and unchallenged by any other
CSICOP member (or associate). (from *JT's Big Book of Definitions*, 1991
edition)
RM> majority of those "viewpoints", and "would nevertheless use the
RM> CSICOP cachet" (whatever that means) is entirely your own.
cachet (ka-shay'): 1) a stamp or official seal, as on a document.
2) any sign of official approval, or of quality, prestige, etc. 3) a
design, slogan, advertisement, etc., stamped or printed on mail. (from
*Webster's New World Dictionary*, 1987 pocket edition.)
I'd say the second definition covers it.
I didn't mean to imply that *all* (or even a majority, or even a
significant number) of the non-member members, or even the actual
members, fell into this category; I was just surprised (well not just
surprised but utterly astounded) that *any* of them would. You, by your
own admission, do.
... from the purlieus of Pittsburgh
--
John Tender - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Tender@f112.n129.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Tender@f112.n129.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Tender)
Subject: Re: Statements of accepta
Date: 6 May 91 22:58:09 GMT
>> I assume that you know this is a public forum, and that persons
>> other than Jim read your posting, and that persons other than Jim can
>> reply.
RM> You assume right, although rather pointlessly.
Glad you agree. If you had the capacity to remember your own posts,
the point would have been clear.
>> RM> I see you are still trying to imply something about my allegedly
>> RM> deleting download files or listing them classified according to
>> RM> credibility, something I never said I did, and have in fact
>> RM> specifically said I don't.
>>
>> Anyone following the discussion will remember it like this: If
>> such classification is made, it should be made on the basis of
>> explicit criteria.
RM> Anyone telling sysops how to run their boards should go hang.
And anyone telling "creation scientists" how to do science should do
likewise, eh? That's very reasonable, Rick.
>> I'm not a member of CSICOP either, not even a non-member member
>> of a CSICOP sub-committee, so I'm not all too familiar with their
>> current views. Are there any files available that would yield useful
>> information in this area?
RM> None known to me. You might ask them. What am I, by the way,
RM> your personal research librarian? Call them up, for heaven's
RM> sake; they're in the 'phone book for Buffalo.
Once upon a time, I thought you were someone interested in
providing information and openly discussing that information; I have
since discarded that myth-based assessment. Instead, I find you are only
interested in twisting any comment or question into some sort of
personal attack, and have no interest in providing substantive
information. So be it.
>> Here's another idea I am, though again roundaboutly, suggesting:
>> Have CSICOP issue a CD-ROM with all back issues of the "Inquirer",
>> plus all books of Klass, Sheaffer, and Oberg (and anyone else who is
>> associated with CSICOP).
RM> Try suggesting it to CSICOP. I believe I gave you their
RM> address.
RM> Best Regards,
RM> Rick Moen
RM> Secretary, Bay Area Skeptics
RM> Member, Electronic Communications Subcommittee, CSICOP
Why not add "BTW, I know very little about CSICOP, and am not a
real member" at the end here, in the interest of accuracy.
... from the purlieus of Pittsburgh
--
John Tender - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Tender@f112.n129.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Tender@f112.n129.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Tender)
Subject: Stranger Than Science
Date: 7 May 91 03:03:58 GMT
LB> Jim:
LB> You could be right about the book. I don't know where I
LB> spotted that info about the farmer, only that it "stayed with
LB> me." I'll let you know if I run across the story again.
LB> Linda
I think the book you're referring to is:
Edwards, Frank T, (1959). Stranger Than Science. Citadel Press (Secaucus,
N.J.). (0-8065-0850-7)
The first story is "The Mystery of David Lang" and concerns
the curious disappearance of Mr. Lang.
This allegedly took place on September 23, 1880, at Lang's 40 acre
farm just outside Gallatin, Tennessee. Lang had just stepped off the
porch and was crossing the front lawn to meet an approaching buggy.
Quoting Edwards:
"David Lang had not taken more than half a dozen steps
when he disappeared in full view of all those present. Mrs.
Lang screamed. The children, too startled to realize what had
happened, stood mutely. Instinctively, they all ran toward the
spot where Lang had last been seen a few seconds before....
There was not a tree, not a bush, not a hole to mar the
surface. And not a single clue to indicate what had happened
to David Lang."
Of course, a search was conducted and the ground was tested for
sinkholes, etc., but Lang never was found. But, in April 1881, seven
months after the disappearance:
"The children noticed that at the spot where he had last
been seen, there was a circle of stunted yellow grass some
fifteen feet in diameter. On that evening as they stood beside
the circle, eleven-year-old Sarah called to their father; and,
to their astonishment, the youngsters heard his voice ...
calling faintly for help ... over and over ... until it faded
away, forever."
I've never come across an account of this event anywhere else, and
judging by Edwards other entries in the book, it's prudent to regard
them as good stories.
... from the purlieus of Pittsburgh
--
John Tender - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Tender@f112.n129.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Tender@f112.n129.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Tender)
Subject: Re: Extraordinary claims
Date: 6 May 91 23:11:55 GMT
RM> As I said, in the increasingly unlikely event that you are
RM> interested in a substantive discussion of the philosophy of
RM> science, I will consider discussing it with you in a more
RM> appropriate forum, such as one of the science-related echoes or
RM> newsgroups.
Just a few weeks ago you accused me of having launched a
two-year-long "smear campaign" against you, beginning in those very
echoes to which you now suggest we move. Why are you now *contradicting*
yourself in offering to discuss this further at all?
Unless, of course, you made up my long history of distortion and
personal attack as a way to disguise the weakness of your own arguments.
RM> As you are probably aware, most effective moderating is in fact
RM> done by individuals deciding that their own postings belong in
RM> a more appropriate forum, and this is in fact the only way in
RM> which on-topic discussion can be maintained, realistically.
It's also a useful technique in weaseling out of a discussion, once
one has found themself in an untenable position.
... from the purlieus of Pittsburgh
--
John Tender - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Tender@f112.n129.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Tender@f112.n129.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Tender)
Subject: Re: Statements of acceptance
Date: 7 May 91 03:13:40 GMT
N> In _Report on Communion_ by Ed Conroy, Phil Klass stated
N> specifically the proof that he wanted. What follows is
N> reproduced without permission, but it's short.
[quotation omitted]
N> Obviously, Klass is relying on others' scientific
N> expertise to make his decision, but as an editor of Aviation
N> Week magazine, relying on scientific reports made by mainstream
N> organizations is part of his job. So long as there is an
N> alternative to claiming that we are being visited by other
N> planets, Klass will take it.
Klass must have criteria for choosing the organizations he puts his
trust in. Does he give any details of that criteria?
I'm not familiar with the NAS; do they actually release official
statements about the validity of scientific theories or explanations?
How does Klass' "statement of proof" differ in any respects from,
lets say, someone saying that they will only accept the pronouncement of
the Catholic Church concerning the validity of demon possession?
... from the purlieus of Pittsburgh
--
John Tender - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Tender@f112.n129.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: (NONE)
Date: 11 May 91 03:33:00 GMT
Hi Pete,
Seemsas if something is always being written about
Bentwaters/Rendlesham. I receive a magazine called UFO UNIVERSE (pit
put, that is, out by Timothy Green Beckley). The Aug/Sept issue which
I received two days ago has a 7-page article on Bentwaters. I haven't
had a chance to read it yet. The jist of it has Jenny Randles from
England giving one point of view and some American military
eyewitnesses giving theirs. I can't tell you any more than that and
whether or not Randles adds anything to what she wrote in her book
called THE UFO CONSPIRACY.
I don't even know what to think of most of what I see in this
particular magazine. It seems to be eclectic in its approach.
Maybe I can write a brief synopsis of this article in the next week
or so....
Thanks, Pete.
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: Stranger Than Science
Date: 11 May 91 03:42:00 GMT
Hi John
My goodness! That's the account of the story that I
remember---exactly! It's amazing how many of us remember that
story.
Just to throw a "monkey wrench" in here - - - it's interesting
to see that a "large circle, 15 feet in diameter" was left at the spot
where he disappeared. In the light of the crop circle mysteries that
we are seeing today, I wonder if there's any connection...
Of course it could just be a good story. Just recently someone
else posted some information about this story (how one reporter got it
from someone and didn't check out the facts).
A million thanks for posting your information. It brings back
memories.
Take care,
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Rogers)
Subject: Re: Discussion of statements of acceptance
Date: 11 May 91 09:53:18 GMT
> The vitriolic exchanges between Mr. Moen and Mr. Tender
> are BORING.
> If these two gentleman don't like each other, that is their
> problem.
I couldn't agree more.
And I have ALMOST put a stop to it on several occasions.
The reason I have allowed it to continue is a (possibly vain) hope
that between the two of them, they will contribute something in the
way of thoughtful guidelines for evaluation of ideas and "proofs".
I continue to post the guidelines for Paranet monthly. I assume all
members have access to the document, and READ IT.
I will attempt to monitor this conversation a bit more closely, and
if it grows beyond the current levels will contact the participants
directly.
Thanks for your input.
Doug Rogers
Echo Moderator
--
Doug Rogers - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: WALTER.SAL
Date: 10 May 91 17:40:02 GMT
> 8) The Salisberrys say that on March 17, (Photo 36 L & R),
> that
> "Frances did not emerge from the bushes at the same time
> as Mr. Walters and hence had ample time to have hidden
> away the model and other paraphernalia involved." THIS IS A
> FALSE STATEMENT. THE WITNESSES CONFIRM UNANIMOUSLY
> THAT FRANCES WAS BEHIND ED WITHIN SECONDS (five or ten
> seconds at the most). Eight people, including Frances, stood
> in front of Ed's truck headlights to watch the film develop.
Interesting. I have directly from Duane Cook (a witness) that the
Walters' position and the area of the parking lot where Ed's truck was
parked was out of sight of the witnesses for several minutes.
Also, to directly address the above, Cook told Don Ware who relayed
to me that Frances did *not* come out of the bushes "within seconds."
Interesting that what was unanimous in February wasn't unanimous
back in July.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
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: WALTER.SAL
Date: 10 May 91 17:42:03 GMT
>
> 9) The Salisberrys say (in ref. to March 17, photos 36 L & R),
> that "None of the witnesses recorded the numbers!" The
> Salisberrys attribute this statement to Charles Flannigan. It
> is a reference to the numbers on the back of the film. CHARLES
> FLANNIGAN SAID "IT IS A COMPLETELY FALSE AND MISLEADING
> STATEMENT."
Bruce M. told me in September or so that Ed himself wrote down the
numbers, *not* any of the witnesses.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
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: WALTER.SAL
Date: 10 May 91 17:44:04 GMT
Interesting how the waters get muddier and muddier.
Speaking of muddy, Charles Somerby first told investigators that he
object he saw was about two miles away, then later insisted (and still
insists) that he saw an Ed-type object about 200 yards away. That was
after the photos were published.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
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: WALTER.SAL
Date: 10 May 91 17:46:05 GMT
> I felt it necessary to present this material even though I don't
> agree. The last line says critics ignore the hundreds of other
> witnesses who report seeing the UFO. I still wonder why only one
> person can time after time get photos of the UFO while others
> get nothing?
It is rather strange. I mentioned elsewhere (possibly to you) that
Ray G. suggested that we consider the idea of a joke that turns into
reality.
Note that Ed hasn't taken any more close shots of craft, just red
lights like everyone else.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: ARTHUR C. CLARK SHOW
Date: 10 May 91 18:40:48 GMT
After the last time I mentioned this show a few people said he's a debunker.
This weeks show he reviews (the whole half hour) the Siberian explosion at
Tungusa(sp?) and the people he interviews come down to the conclusion it was
either a comet or nuclear or unknown, but they rulled out a meteor.
Interesting part is the simulation that determined it was an air blast. If
anyone wants me to watch it from the tape, and make accurate notes, I'd be
happy to do so. By the way on the same date in 1908 there were numerous
reports all over the world of daylight like light well into the night, so it
was not localized.
The film footage of the first expidetion in 1928 (yes twenty years after the
event) is very good. The second investigation was in the 50's I believe. Now
they go up there on an annual basis. I'm not so sure this is UFO, or
Paranormal in nature, but it sure is unusual.
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: Getting Smart About Getting Smarts
Date: 13 May 91 06:09:00 GMT
Paul,
I hate to be a nitpicker -- but --I believe the magazine you are
referring to (SE) is really SI - The Skeptical Inquirer. That is their
spelling. And yep, it certainly is interesting. Looking forward to
your posting.
Respectfully,
Linda B.
--
Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: GB paper
Date: 12 May 91 05:27:00 GMT
Anyone interested in the Gulf Breeze incidents, be sure and get a
copy of Bruce Maccabee's paper to be presented to the MUFON symposium
in July.
It's about the "other" incidents, and it'll knock your socks off.
Bruce's paper should be included in the symposium Proceedings, which
will be available from MUFON.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous
Date: 12 May 91 18:49:00 GMT
Thanks for that account of the Tucson Congress, Dan. Unfortunately, the
only report I got was of a woman who claimed to be from Venus. Largely
because of her and a few others of her ilk, the Congress got bad press.
The AP story included none of the reports you mentioned. Why can't we
have "New Age"-oriented conventions and science-oriented conventions,
and never the twain shall meet? This doesn't denigrate the more
spiritual aspects, it simply sets up a "separate-but-equal" status.
This may be improper in the racial context, but I certainly see
benefits in the UFO context.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: ARTHUR C. CLARK SHOW
Date: 12 May 91 19:16:00 GMT
Technically its UFO related, since one of the more popular theories was
that it was a nuclear-powered spacecraft that exploded. This was
popularized by one of the Russian investigators, who also was a science
fiction writer.
I do not consider Clarke a debunker. He has made some statements in the
past that show he is not above acknowledging genuine anomalies. For the
most part, however, he is highly skeptical of UFO claims. That, in
itself, does not equate to "debunker."
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: violet.berkeley.edu!chalmers
Subject: alien alloys/green fireballs
Date: 17 May 91 13:34:34 GMT
From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.)
Pete Porro: Can you expand on magnesium and green meteors or
can you post any references to the spectra of the green fireballs
seen since the 1940's in the S.W. US?
I am not aware that magnesium or its compounds emits green
light when heated. Mg metal burning in air or oxygen gives off a
dazzling white light. In nature Mg is always combined, usually
as the silicate, ocasionally on the earth also as the carbonate
(with calcium in Dolomite), as a chloride (with KCL or in sea
water), or sulfate (Epsom Salts). I don't know the emission
spectra of these compounds, but I would expect MgO and Mg Silicate
vapors (expected in meteor trails) to emit only whitish, continuum
radiation because of the high temperatures involved.
The brillian colors seen in fireworks are actually rather
special cases and hard to duplicate in nature because at
high temperatures atomic and continuum emissions dominate, so the
light turns whitish. The red and blue colors are due to emission
from excited strontium and copper containing molecules (SrOH, SrCL,
for red and CuCL, blue). These molecules are thermally fragile,
so pyrotechnic flames are relatively cool. Sodium atoms emit
yellow light, but burning lithium at high temperature looks white.
Green fire is usually from barium compounds, but burning metallic
Zinc dust can also produce green light. At low flame temperatures,
boron compounds can too. Copper without chlorine also produces green
colors. Antimony, mercury, and arsenic compounds are sometimes also
used in fireworks, though I don't know if they are still legal.
I'm sorry that I don't know the temperature dependence of the spectra
of these other elements and their compounds. Can anybody help?
--- John
********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
** For administrative requests (subscriptions, back issues) send to: **
UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
DOMAIN infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
** To obtain back issues by anonymous ftp, connect to: **
DOMAIN ftp.uiowa.edu (directory /archives/paranet)
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
Comments
Post a Comment