Info-ParaNet Newsletters June 15th 1991
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 425
Saturday, June 15th 1991
Today's Topics:
Re: Ufons
Phobos 2-USSR
Re: Hard Copy Booboo!
Re: Hard Copy Booboo!
Re: "Martian" Chronicles
Re: HARD COPY BOOBOO!
Hard Copy Booboo!
Re: feeling?
Unreal Articles
Re: Statistical Sampling
Re: Bashing Sheldon
(none)
Now the Russians are Valid sources?????
Hard Copy Booboo!
Re: Bashing Sheldon
(none)
Re: Unreal Articles
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Re: Ufons
Date: 12 Jun 91 14:04:00 GMT
Peggy Noonan said:
> they contain. (Of course, Don Ecker's UFO Magazine is good too, but
> it's a quite different thing--he can take stories into detail there,
> where in UFONS you'll only get the raw reports.)
Thanks for the plug Peggy, but if Vicki or Sherie saw the above, I am sure
they would wonder when I took over ownership! Grin........
UFO Magazine is Co-Published and owned by Sherie Stark and Vicki Cooper, and
I just do a lot of the work on it........ GRIN
Don
PS.. Which reminds me for any of you that did not see the offer of a couple
of months ago.
UFO Magazine is offering ( only until July 1, 1991 ) a special rate to
ParaNet users. As of July 1, the subscription is raised to $21.00 per year,
with single issues going for $3.95 plus postage. If you mention seeing this
ad on ParaNet, you can get a years subscription for $17.50 which is less that
the present subscription. Time is running out.
Send $17.50 for a one years subscription to;
UFO Magazine
PO Bx 1053
Sunland, CA 91041
Find out what you have been missing.
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Phobos 2-USSR
Date: 12 Jun 91 18:50:00 GMT
Having attended the World UFO Congress in Tucson, Ar. for UFO
Magazine, I had the distinct pleasure of meeting Dr. Marina
Popovich who was one of the Congress speakers. Dr. Popovich is a
Soviet citizen who was here speaking on her UFO research in the
Soviet Union. Marina Popovich, Ph.D., is a graduate of the
University of Leningrad, graduated from the Military Flight School,
is a retired Colonel from the Soviet Air Force, and set over 100
aviation records of which 90 still stand unbroken. Dr. Popovich's
former husband is General Paval Popovich, the first man to
rendezvous with another space craft in orbit during the Vostok 4
flight in August, 1962.
Interviewing Dr. Popovich in Tucson, I learned of a number of
incidents that had allegedly occurred during the 1989 Soviet Phobos
2 probe, and upon returning to LA I contacted a producer that I
know for the NBC television program "Hard Copy". We ended up doing
a segment with Marina that detailed the admittedly fantastic story
of Phobos 2, ( during a JOINT US-USSR-EUROPEAN space mission ) and
what appeared to be a huge and artificial object between Mars and
her moonlet Phobos, that may have either intentionally or
unintentionally destroyed the probe Phobos 2. I can state that
because even the mission control specialists at Glavkosmos claim
that Phobos 2 was probably hit by something ( meteors and debris
dust was ruled out according to the report in the UK publication
NATURE made by the Soviets ) which caused the probe to become a
"spinner" that later completely disappeared. The Soviets then
released a photo that Phobos 2 took of a very long "ellipse"
reflected off of Mars, but the last several photos of the "object"
were never released by the Soviets. Marina then told me that this
was a high topic of discussion between President George Bush and
Secretary General Mikhil Gorbachev at the Malta Conference. She
received the information from a source of hers in the Soviet
Politburo. Still the photo showing this object remained in "limbo"
with the Soviets refusing to release it, and NASA of course, not
mentioning any of these events.
On June 7th Marina returned to the Los Angeles area to be a
featured speaker for the World Harmony Expo in Long Beach. The Hard
Copy producer, Mr. Dean Vallas, Guy Kirkwood, a former US Air Force
fighter pilot who had a UFO experience on duty and myself, met with
Marina over drinks and discussed her last trip, ongoing events in
the USSR, and then much to the surprise of us all, produced one of
the photos from Phobos 2, showing the "object". According to her,
once back in the USSR, she contacted several friends in Glavkosmos,
and they gave her the print of this "thing". It shows an object off
of the moonlet Phobos, that is approx. 25 kilometers long, approx.
1 1/2 kilometers in dia., and is a cylindrical cigar shaped
"craft?". Not being a photo analyst, I can only give my own
impressions. However, I asked for a copy of the said photo, and
upon receiving it, I intend to hand it over to some contacts at JPL
for analysis.
My feelings on the above? There is no doubt that a large degree of
"high strangeness" is present in the above events. That of course
is my own opinion. However until such time as NASA or JPL release
the information that they may have, this will continue to be an
interesting but apocryphal series of stories. I will state that I
do feel there is a basis of fact in the above series of incidents,
and will continue to investigate via my contacts to see what
additional events can be verified.
Don Ecker
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Re: Hard Copy Booboo!
Date: 13 Jun 91 02:14:00 GMT
Don,
I believe the photo the original poster was referring to as being
part of a Soviet rocket explosion was the one that looked like (in
the poster's words) an "octopus". It appeared to be ellipsoid in
shape, with a luminous center, from which radiated approximately
nine luminous streamers. That should help you identify the photo.
What I would like to know is the source of the poster's information
to aid in verifying or repudiating his report.
I'm sorry you seem to feel my complaint about the way Hard Copy
handled that Phobos shadow dramatization sequence was unwarranted,
but I've seen this type of "accident" so often, that I felt
obligated to make a statement. Many people I spoke to after the
show thought those WERE the ACTUAL shadow images...followed by the
camera going dead. After seeing 20/20 do a post-mortem interview
with Buckwheat last year, I've become a bit more skeptical of
programs of this genre.
As far as the information Dr. Popovich imparted, I absolutely agree
that IF verified, it is of great significance. We have the finest
facilities in the world for analyzing space probe reconnaissance
photos at JPL, so let's get to work! If Marina and/or the Soviets
are hesitant to cooperate in this quest for truth, that's when my
incredulity will kick in. Until then, I shall maintain an open
mind.
Sheldon
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Bird)
Subject: Re: Hard Copy Booboo!
Date: 12 Jun 91 05:05:00 GMT
Hi Don,
The picture that Marina held up that looked like an explosion was
(I think) the first one she held up. It just looked like a lot of
brilliant light, and John (Hicks?) said in a post that it was an
explosion.
I just bought Sitchin's book "Genesis Revisited" and although I
have not begun to read it yet, I did thumb thru to "look at the
pictures." Imagine my surprise to see on pg.282 (now quoting) "a
still
from the Soviet television clip" of a thin ellipse with very sharp
rather than rounded points, etc. of "something that is between the
spacedraft and Mars, because we can see the Martian surface below it."
The book goes on to say that the last frame or frames have not been
publicly released and one can only speculate .
Yes, I am now aware after the Hard Copy report and some others
that Marina is a respected aviator. I'm hoping she can use her
influence to convince the Soviets to release the remaining film!
Thanks, Don.
Best regards,
Linda
--
Linda Bird - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Linda.Bird@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: "Martian" Chronicles
Date: 12 Jun 91 22:20:00 GMT
>
> So there's actually a newsgroup called "alt.alien.visitors"? Must have
> gotten started about the time the big "these phenomena shouldn't be
> allowed to have a newsgroup" war was raging in sci.skeptic. (Which was
> the same time I stopped wasting my money on sci.skeptic!)
There was actually a war raging over whether "these phenomena" should be
allowed to have a newsgroup? That kind of stuff is the ultimate in arrogance.
I think even most skeptics would agree. Right, skeptics?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: HARD COPY BOOBOO!
Date: 12 Jun 91 07:47:00 GMT
> You said: That photo Marina held up was an explosion of a
> secret rocket/missle. I'm assuming it was a Soviet
> rocket explosion? Boy, that sure breaks down her credibility,
> don't you thing??
Well, it is kinda iffy. She didn't actually say it was a ufo photo,
she just waved it and others. It'd be interesting to get Antonio
Huneeus' opinion of her, if anyone gets to talk with him.
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: Hard Copy Booboo!
Date: 12 Jun 91 07:54:01 GMT
> the segment showing a shadow crossing
> the moonlet Phobos was an artists depiction. The photo of Phobos
> was real, having gotten it from JPL, the shadow was inserted.
I have no problem with the animation, although I believe it should
have been labeled as such. At least a few people here and on other
related echos thought it was the real thing.
Not letting the viewers know they were watching an animation was
just shoddy practice that can only damage the show's credibility.
BTW, I'm not overly excited about this. ;-)
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: feeling?
Date: 12 Jun 91 07:56:02 GMT
> Intriguing about the coincidences between the solar flares and
> the supposed sightings on june 17, is that what you were talking
> about?? what might yor speculations be on that?
Well, it's odd.
One person in a northern state said he had a feeling some things
would happen in mid-June. Another person here in central Florida, who
is definitely not active in these echos (or BBS's in general) said
virtually the same thing a few days later. There's no way they could
have been in communication. Coincidence? No idea.
Then, yet a few days later, came the first major solar flare alert.
Strange. And it's not even mid-June yet!
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David.Villa@f2704.n206.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Villa)
Subject: Unreal Articles
Date: 10 Jun 91 20:12:00 GMT
Yes, nowadays, any homebody with an Amiga and video toaster can create a
superimposure image or splice an object from one frame into another. The
technology is within reach for a reasonable cost for just anyone to use. I
forsee pretty soon the U.S. Govt. having to change the paper currency to
somthing a little harder to forge. All this new top-of-the-line photocopy
equipment is getting to the point that you only need the paper money is
printed on to make replicas that only casual scrutiny will not reveal.
--
David Villa - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: David.Villa@f2704.n206.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Rogers)
Subject: Re: Statistical Sampling
Date: 14 Jun 91 08:35:50 GMT
I'm not sure what you are trying to do, Mike, but if I can be of help,
I'll be glad to. Being a college prof type, I have more than a passing
familiarity with statistical methods and the design of questionnaires.
Call me if I can help.
--
Doug Rogers - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Re: Bashing Sheldon
Date: 14 Jun 91 13:07:00 GMT
Joseph,
First and foremost, I want to assert that I think you and I are
playing on the same team in this Maccabee vs. Nathan controversy,
that of the truth, so let's start acting more like allies instead
of adversaries, agreed?
I am very much against the "facts for fees" approach so rampant at
many of the pseudo-scientific ufo congregations, where knowledge
and rumors are hawked. I, and others such as yourself and the
people active in this network, are actually willing to expend cash
and time to aid in the dissemination of what we believe to be the
truth. I don't mean to be 'bashing' or 'slamming' Bruce, I am just
stating my personal speculations. From what I have read and heard,
I am convinced that he is an extremely qualified and capable
scientist. I just wish he would attempt to cooperate a bit more
with Nathan.
Why Bob Nathan you ask? Yes, there are many competent people with
well equipped labs anxious to look at Ed's original polaroids, but
Bob was one of the first in line after Bruce. Moreover, Ed
certainly perpetrated a great injustice upon Bob insofar as failing
to EVEN MENTION Bob's 'negative' opinion re: the GB photos. I find
this especially strange since Nathan went public with his analysis
more than 1 1/2 years prior to the publication of Walters' book!
I'm convinced this omission was deliberate. I wonder, what does
Bruce think about that? What I have even more difficulty with is
understanding why Nathan's and Maccabee's opinions are so
disparate. Perhaps the answer lies with the original prints,
perhaps elsewhere. You state that '...Walters would be crazy to
send originals to Cal Tech...', yet apparently he feels comfortable
in sending them to Bruce. Why?
Finally, I think your ideas around the FTP-able digitized
photographic database, accessible to the general research community
is fantastic. I'll try to get some feedback from Nathan on that,
and post his comments and/or suggestions here.
Best regards,
Sheldon
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ecn.purdue.edu!lush
Subject: (none)
Date: 14 Jun 91 17:35:28 GMT
From: lush@ecn.purdue.edu (Gregory B Lush)
Subject: Now the Russians are Valid sources?????
? From: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
? Subject: Dr. Marina Popovich
? Date: 28 May 91 07:52:01 GMT
?
?
? DE> The interview with Dr. Marina Popovich, Retired Soviet Air
? DE> Force Colonel and top Soviet UFOlogist will air on Hard
? DE> Copy on Monday May 27th. This should be of great interest
? DE> so if you get a chance make sure you do not miss it.
? DE>
? DE> Don
?
?
? I'll say!! That was probably one of the BEST pieces I've ever seen.
?
? Has anyone mentioned what they think the 'shadow' was, as indicated by the
? Russian probe before it went ...poof?
?
? Your comments were excellent and I just wonder what OUR Govt/Military
? does/reacts to the presentation. It's indeed a shame when the Soviets
? are forthright about their evidence and their military admits to being
? 'baffled' and *our* military just stonewalls the public.
?
Why would anyone assume that anything this woman says has any validity?
The Russians have never been 'forthright' about anything except their
promises 'bury' us and to eventually take over the world. I would place
her in the same category of credibility as 'The Woman from Venus.'
She would not be allowed to speak about such things unless given
EXACTLY what to say. She's no more of a 'source' than Marlin Fitzwater is.
Greg (lush@ecn.purdue.edu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Hard Copy Booboo!
Date: 15 Jun 91 03:59:00 GMT
> I have no problem with the animation, although I believe it should
> have been labeled as such. At least a few people here and on other
> related echos thought it was the real thing.
> Not letting the viewers know they were watching an animation was just
> shoddy practice that can only damage the show's credibility.
> BTW, I'm not overly excited about this. ;-)
I just wanted to jump in here about this nit-picky business over the Hard Copy
segment. All this carrying on is wonderful, but what about the *IMPORTANT*
things that are deceiving that we are being fed about Cooper's material,
Lear's material and the Gulf Breeze fiasco. It is nice to hear that people
are being conscientious about what animation is being used on Hard Copy which
could mislead people observing it, but I don't hear this much debate over the
important issues that are truly a serious problem for ufology.
Just my two cents!
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Bashing Sheldon
Date: 15 Jun 91 04:02:00 GMT
> Why Bob Nathan you ask? Yes, there are many competent people with
> well equipped labs anxious to look at Ed's original polaroids, but
> Bob was one of the first in line after Bruce. Moreover, Ed
> certainly perpetrated a great injustice upon Bob insofar as failing
> to EVEN MENTION Bob's 'negative' opinion re: the GB photos. I find
> this especially strange since Nathan went public with his analysis
> more than 1 1/2 years prior to the publication of Walters' book!
> I'm convinced this omission was deliberate. I wonder, what does
> Bruce think about that? What I have even more difficulty with is
> understanding why Nathan's and Maccabee's opinions are so
> disparate. Perhaps the answer lies with the original prints,
> perhaps elsewhere. You state that '...Walters would be crazy to
> send originals to Cal Tech...', yet apparently he feels comfortable
> in sending them to Bruce. Why?
I have known Bob Nathan for quite some time. Just for information: Bob is
the father of image photography. He pioneered the processes that NASA uses in
its mission photography to get pictures of the planets. He is a very credible
and highly respected physicist with a very sour taste over several of the
events that took place with Gulf Breeze. I commend you on your interest in
this case and the person that you chose to discuss the rational side of the
issue with, as I feel no one better could be available.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: (none)
Date: 15 Jun 91 04:04:00 GMT
> From: ncar!ecn.purdue.edu!lush
> Date: 14 Jun 91 17:35:28 GMT
> Message-ID: <12776@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>
> Newsgroups: info.paranet
>
> From: lush@ecn.purdue.edu (Gregory B Lush)
> Why would anyone assume that anything this woman says has any validity?
> The Russians have never been 'forthright' about anything except their
> promises 'bury' us and to eventually take over the world. I would place
> her in the same category of credibility as 'The Woman from Venus.'
> She would not be allowed to speak about such things unless given
> EXACTLY what to say. She's no more of a 'source' than Marlin Fitzwater
> is.
I agree. Don and I have discussed this, however he has seen the photograph
and is attempting to get a copy of it to have it analyzed for verification.
The photograph at this point, speaks for itself until it can be disproven as a
hoax.
Irregardless, your argument is a very valid one: Demanding more proof than
just the word of some folks. That is what I like to see :-)
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: Unreal Articles
Date: 14 Jun 91 15:17:00 GMT
In a message to Steve Rose <06-10-91 13:12> David Villa wrote:
->the point that you only need the paper money is printed on
->to make replicas that only casual scrutiny will not reveal.
->
Didn't I just read where they are sewing strands of metal into the bills, to
make them detectable by airport x-ray machines? I'm sure this can also be
used to detect counterfeiting.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.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
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