Info-ParaNet Newsletters April 21st 1991
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 394
Sunday, April 21st 1991
Today's Topics:
Human visitors
Again?
Re: Statements of accepta
Re: Gravitational magnetism
Extraordinary Claims
Re: Statements of accepta
Moondome.Zip
Belgium Information (2)
Belgium Information (3)
Belgium Information (Conclusion)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Greenen)
Subject: Human visitors
Date: 17 Apr 91 13:38:00 GMT
* Replying to a message originally to All
ee> From: snelson@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Steven Nelson)
ee>
ee>
ee>
ee> Why are the visitors so humanlike? Given the
ee> complexity of the
ee> evolutionary process, the odds that aliens would have such
ee> a human shape as is
ee> commonly reported seems rather implausible. Parallel
ee> evolution adapts creatures
ee> that live in similar environments to similar shapes, yet
ee> certainly there's no
ee> reason to assume that our planet and any alien planet would
ee> be remotely
ee> similar.
ee> I hold out, at present, no explanations. I would
ee> not invalidate the
ee> phenomenon based on this point, but I find that this datum,
ee> which many
ee> researchers seem to ignore, is essential to understanding
ee> the UFO phenomenon.
ee>
ee> I use Whitley Streiber's term 'visitors' simply
ee> because it is less
ee> committal than the term 'aliens.'
ee>
ee> Does anyone have any comments?
ee>
ee> -Steve
Hi Steve; I think that if you look at what one single cell has done
when a new child is born, you can apply that to the birth of a new
planet or solar system. Very much the same but different. Have you
thought about the possibly that we might be transplants from some
other solar system. If you read the great book, it mentions the
angels came down and mated with man. We can assume that a sprirt
can't mate with a mortal, then who were the angels they mention?
Good question that could be debated and has for many centurys.
Also if you believe the people that have cllaimed to have seen or
been in contact with aliens, you will get a lot of different types
and shapes that are reported as you mentioed. This is what we should
be reseaching in rather then debating if they are here or not.
73's ---Jim---
--
Jim Greenen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@p2.f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Again?
Date: 17 Apr 91 19:25:00 GMT
> Hmmmm...isn't it about the time for them to gear up for the
> upcoming tourist season? This seems to becoming a springtime
> ritual.
Good point. Seems like something happens early every April.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@p2.f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Tender@f112.n129.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Tender)
Subject: Re: Statements of accepta
Date: 15 Apr 91 08:02:36 GMT
>> I am looking for statements they have committed to print and public
>> distribution;
JS> Sorry; can't really help you there. I do believe that the
JS> statements you seek exist in many places, most notably the
JS> Skeptical Inquirer, but I couldn't cite you specific references.
I was of the same 'impression' re the Skeptical Inquirer; what I
can't understand is, when I ask people who I feel should be familiar
with this material to give references, in order to substantiate or
unsubstantiate the general impressions, I get nowhere. That says
something, either about the material or the people.
>> 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.
JS> It is my impression that these guys are competent "scientific
JS> thinkers." (Define "scientist.") I am not by any stretch of the
I would rather define what is "scientific" rather than trust a
"scientist" to be always "scientific".
So, now my stab at a definition of "scientific": 1) Objective and
repeatable standards of measurement, 2) objective and consistent
validation of data, uncoupled to any specific theory or hypothesis, 3)
Explicit statement of all assumptions, 4) Explicit and quantitative
formulation of theories, either algorithmically or heuristically.
JS> imagination a "scientist", but I believe I've got a grasp on
JS> how the thinking process goes. While I disagree with their
JS> parameters for evidence, I recognize that there is enough room
JS> for gentlemanly debate on the subject without stooping to the
JS> degree of vilification you seem to revel in. The bottom line
If the issue is still unclear, perhaps the "gentlemanly debate"
hasn't been as productive as you think. Perhaps we should stoop to
criticise improper thinking, even when our friends do it. On the other
hand, I 'was' engaged in sarcastic parody at some points. For that, I'll
apologize.
JS> is, I *do* believe that "these guys" will accept *SOMETHING*
JS> solid as evidence, and though they do seem to present a moving
All I'm trying to do is determine exactly what that "SOMETHING" is.
As you know, it's not a question of belief; evidence acquired will make
a specific hypothesis or theory (though in the case of UFO
investigation, I think the term "explanation" is more accurate) either
more probable or less probable. Granted, trying to develop a consistent
and explicit process for evaluating exactly how much even "accepted"
evidence bolsters any particular theory is not easy. However,
materialist that I am, I assume that if the human mind is capable of
doing it then we can, with sufficient technological resources, model the
procedure, and in the process get rid of many of the aspects of human
psychology that interfere with objectivity.
JS> target, I believe that, if UFOs are a genuine, physical
JS> phenomenon, it is within our power to gather the requisite
JS> amount of evidence to convince them. Of course, with some of
"Within our power" if they have explicit and reasoned standards of
evidence.
>> 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.
JS> <sigh> I have seen that pattern in skeptics myself. I just
JS> don't see it in Rick, and I don't think you should be painting
JS> with such a broad brush.
Everyone has blind spots; I can't claim absolute correctness. I
pointed out what I considered to be serious, and specific, lapses.
... 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: Gravitational magnetism
Date: 15 Apr 91 08:02:15 GMT
>> I got the impression that the mass goes through
>> the toroid, not the coils.
>>
KL> He's written back that the stellar mass goes through the
KL> coils and that the mass/movement is the cause of this
KL> gravitational magnetism.
Sounds like it would take quite a bit of energy to force the mass
along that path. They'd better run a 440 line to the generator.
>> What are "Planck energy values"?
KL> Values of energies present at the birth of our universe.
If these are energy values, then the exact magnitude is
meaningless, since we can arbitrarily choose whatever units we wish. In
the comparison I made, the 10e40 ratio is independent of the unit of
measurement.
I'll try to look up a copy of Zee's book. In the meantime, two
quick questions: Energies of what? At what time after the BB does this
refer? ("birth" is a little ambiguous.)
KL> A. Zee, Gravity, an Old Man's Toy.
>>
>> 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.
KL> Yes, but that's a misapplication of the forces involved with
KL> the scale of distances being used to carry this discussion.
It might be a misapplication, but not because of the scale. As I
said, the ratio is valid for any distance, since both EM and G field
strengths are proportional to 1/r^2. There would be a problem with
comparing the other fundamental interactions, since they do not share
the same property.
... 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: Extraordinary Claims
Date: 17 Apr 91 08:25:42 GMT
RM> A claim is extraordinary if its acceptance would require
RM> rejecting massive amounts of well- (if tentatively) accepted,
RM> accumulated knowledge. This happened, for example, when
All scientific knowledge is tentative.
You've described an extraordinary claim; what is "extrardinary
evidence"?
RM> geologists suddenly accepted plate tectonics in the early '60s,
RM> when the quantity and quality of evidence _for_ tectonics
RM> became convincing -- after 45 years. It has never happened,
RM> for example, with Charles Fort's hollow-earth theories, since
RM> that evidence is, um, unconvincing.
Exactly what were the "massive amounts of well- (if tentatively)
accepted, accumulated knowledge" that were rejected (or if I can
interject the term contradicted) by the theory of plate tectonics?
Based on what I know of the situation, it was considered
"extraordinary" only in the sense that no known mechanism could be
supplied to account for the movements of the plates. In other words, it
just didn't "fit in". That's a much different (and weaker) reason to
label something "extraordinary" that the one you described.
Unfortunately, I suspect it is also more often the case.
RM> This is -=not=- a double-standard, since it is just a corollary
RM> of the maxim that _all_ claims should be supported by
RM> _appropriate_ evidence. (The preponderance of quantity and
RM> quality rules.) >>
Adopting this "maxim" means that there should be clear and specific
methods for determining what is "appropriate" evidence; otherwise, you
are right, it's not a double standard, it's a non-standard supporting
only non-science. Where can I get a copy of such rules and methods?
RM> That statement is also frequently used to discourage honest
RM> research into certain subjects....
RM> For the record, as I have said here _many, many times_, I'm all
RM> in favour of honest research, regardless of subject.
RM> In other words, a (real or imagined) lack of proof is often
RM> used to rationalize avoiding the very investigation that would
RM> be required to develop such proof in the first place.
RM> For the record, I'm against imagining a lack of proof.
RM> For the record, I'm against rationalising.
RM> For the record, I'm all in favour of investigations.
For the record, it's too bad saying something over and over doesn't
make the statement any more valid.
What's the point of favoring the investigations if you reserve the
right to 'arbitrarily' decide if the evidence they provide are valid?
RM> If anything, 'extraordinary' claims (assuming one is
RM> interested enogh to follow them up in the first place)
RM> require extraordinarily openiminded, careful and resourceful
RM> science....
What 'specific' qualities distinguish "extraordinarily openiminded,
careful and resourceful science" from the "run-of-the-mill" science. I
doubt that it can be the same as the criteria for extraordinary
evidence, i.e. it contradicts massive amounts of accepted science.
RM> RM> For the record, I'm absolutely keen on open-minded, careful,
and RM> resourceful science. RM> >> ...Period. RM> RM> Period, as long
as one realises that any very surprising RM> result, whose acceptance
would require massive revisions in RM> accepted scientific knowledge,
will need to have strong RM> evidence. This is the _ordinary_ standard
of science, and RM> applies equally to Alfed Wegener, father of plate
tectonics, RM> and to Robert Jahn of the Princeton PK experiments. No
more, no RM> less.
Nice platitudes; it's just unfortunate the real world isn't that
way. All too often evidence is rejected not because it contradicts
massive amounts of other evidence, but because the is no mechanism or
model to "explain" the data, or because of a superficial similarity to a
separate theory that was discredited.
Submitted for your consideration: 120 years ago Bill Scientist
notes a correlation between weather patterns on earth and sunspot
activity. The scientist is ridiculed, because it is such a ridiculous
idea; "How could the sun influence the earth through the void of space?
Besides, these crackpots are linking sunspots with everything. The
evidence is obviously faulty; I reject it."
Second submission: Joe Psychic claims he is receiving messages from
extraterrestrial entities based on Pluto. Is this claim "extraordinary"?
If so, what massive amounts of valid evidence are contradicted by this
claim.
RM> Some people just won't accept that standard (Velikovsky, RM>
Reich...). That's fine, but then what they do isn't science.
Science also requires explicit and objective criteria that are
consistently applied; as long as that is lacking for the term
"extraordinary", it has no place in science.
BTW, aren't you grandstanding on this "scientific standards" thing.
Will you just let these guys use whatever standards they damn well
please and quit whining. (sarcasm flag)
... 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: 17 Apr 91 08:40:25 GMT
>> The good [text files] should be presented so that they may be acted
>> on, and the bad ones, so that they may stand as examples of how NOT
>> to think. I suspect that if Rick kept the files up because he damn
>> well felt like it, this may be WHY he damn well felt like it.
RM> Thank you. That's pretty much the real reason (and it's never
RM> been an issue in these parts). It's just that whenever people
RM> start grandstanding to me about how sysops _should_ run their
RM> boards (as opposed to making suggestions), I simply tell them
RM> to go hang. Sysops get a continual parade of such folk, and I
RM> have little patience for them.
Rick, you have a tendency to twist any criticism into a personal
attack. Don't. I replied to another message here in which 'you' assert
that scientific principles have to be followed consistently. My
statements about deleting files arbitrarily, or distributing files
without warning as to known contradictions, were in line with (at least
what I consider to be) valid scientific principles. And yes, you 'don't'
get to make your own rules 'if' you want to adhere to scientifically
correct procedures. All I did was to point that out. Run your board
however you wish, but it is certainly valid to judge you on your
decisions.
Perhaps what you have little patience for is being held to your own
standards.
RM> I have less patience when the grandstanding is just another
RM> ploy in a tiresome smear campaign, and none at all when that
RM> campaign has extended (notwithstanding allegations to the
RM> contrary) over a two year period in the FidoNet SCIENCE,
RM> PHYSICS, and UFO conferences -- and now here, too.
SMEAR CAMPAIGN? Get real. You construe a consistent argument about
certain "scientific" standards of evidence as a smear campaign. That is
not in keeping with your claims about "open-minded" debate.
Can you proffer any evidence of this SMEAR CAMPAIGN? Maybe the
people on 'this' echo would like to see more than your vague
allegations. I detect an overabundance of paranoia that is usually more
characteristic of those making what skeptics label as "claims of the
paranormal".
RM> Again, notwithstanding allegations to the contrary, I advocated
RM> sysops' classifying download files as "Sysop's Picks" or other
RM> _only_ as a less drastic alternative to deleting Cooper's files.
There were never any "allegations to the contrary". Again, all I
wanted were the criteria for classifying the files, and pointed out that
"because I damn well felt like it" lacked a certain measure of
scientific correctness. I really don't want to harp on this, but if you
are going to misrepresent the situation, I have to.
RM> Once more, notwithstanding allegations to the contrary, I am
RM> not a "member" of CSICOP. I serve on its Electronic
RM> Communications Subcommittee, offering it advice and help in
RM> that area, and do not presume to speak for it. (To find out
RM> CSICOP's views, contact CSICOP.) I _do_ speak for Bay Area
RM> Skeptics, however.
I apologize. It was totally inappropriate for me to interpret your
signature line:
"Best Regards,
Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics
Member, Electronic Communications Subcommittee, CSICOP"
as implying that you were a member of CSICOP. How foolish of me. I'm
sorry if I caused any confusion by doing such a damnably stupid thing.
Thanks for the clarification.
Would it be appropriate for me to ask if you support CSICOP's
views?
RM> My occasional and long-time correspondant John Tender _has_,
RM> however, suggested (in a roundabout way) a useful project:
RM> Writing to Klass, Oberg, Sheaffer, other members of CSICOP's
RM> UFO Subcommittee, and to other prominent UFOlogists, and ask
RM> them _formally_ what they would accept as convincing evidence
RM> of the ET UFO hypothesis. (Allegations to the contrary, I
RM> never stated that Klass, Oberg, and Sheaffer had _published_
RM> such statements, only that they had "said" what would convince
RM> them. They _may_ have published this; I don't remember.)
RM> Perhaps someone else in ParaNet could do this -- I'm swamped.
OK, they "said" it. (But they were whispering over in the corner and
everyone else was too tired and nobody remembers it and they said it in
small dribbles here and there and no one has 'any' record of it but they
said it, maybe not clearly and maybe they were wrong and who am I to
judge, but they definitely said it.) OK.
Gee, you saw something useful in my messages? I'll have to remember
to restrain my remarks to smearing you character and filter out that
useful stuff. (sarcasm alert)
RM> In my opinion, any skeptic who considers himself an authority
RM> on UFOlogy (which I've consistently said I'm _not_, remember)
RM> should be able to provide a clear -- and serious -- answer to
RM> that question. For that matter, so should any other avowedly
RM> serious UFOlogist.
>> I *believe* Klass is looking for some kind of statement from a body
>> such as the National Academy of Sciences...
RM> The _Betelgeusian_ Academy of Sciences? <grin>
Kim Basinger?
RM> I think Phil Klass can probably specify a little better than
RM> that. Fortunately, he's not at all difficult to reach. You can
RM> tell him that Moen is stirring up trouble again.
RM> Best Regards,
RM> Rick M.
... 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: Clark.Matthews@f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews)
Subject: Moondome.Zip
Date: 19 Apr 91 08:12:00 GMT
Linda, I'm happy to report the file MOONDOME.ZIP is online here.
I have forwarded a copy to Mike Corbin at ParaNet Alpha for
distribution here.
The file is text only, no illustrations. I hope to supplement it
with scanned art & photos when time allows. Thank you for your
patience and good reading!
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (sm)
Subject: Belgium Information (2)
Date: 18 Apr 91 01:14:00 GMT
<<Continued from previous message>>
It is perhaps because the objects are so far unidentified, that
the Belgian Air Force has undertaken the task of chasing and
investigating the intruders. As Col. Wilfried de Brouwer, the
Chief of Operations of the Belgian Air Force who is coordinating
the UFO investigation, told The Wall Street Journal, "Our
approach is that it's our job to see what's going on." Indeed,
the UFO flap climaxed on the night of March 30-31 of 1990, when
unknown targets were tracked by two radar installations. The one
at Glons, located southeast of Brussels, belongs to the NATO
defense group - NATO Headquarters is in Brussels - while that at
Semmerzake, west of Brussels, is in charge of controlling all
military and civilian traffic in the entire Belgian territory. At
that point, the master-controller at Glons ordered the scramble
of two F-16 interceptors, which also locked the UFO on their
onboard radars.
We have obtained, courtesy of French researcher Jean-Luc
Rivera, a copy of the complete report of this incident, which was
prepared by Air Force Major P. Lambrechts, from the Air Force
General Staff in Brussels, and which was forwarded to the SOBEPS
following the instructions of full cooperation with that group.
The "Report Concerning the Observation of UFOs During the Night
of March 30 to 31, 1990," includes a full chronology of the
events, as well as a thick dossier of enclosures with eyewitness'
descriptions from several gendarmes and maps of where the
sightings took place.
Major P. Lambrechts explains at the inception that, "the
observations both visual and by radar were of such nature, that
it was decided to order the scramble of two F-16 aircraft with
the goal of identifying these UFOs." The report also indicates
that "the presence or testing of B2 or F117 (Stealth Bomber),
RPVs (Remotely Piloted Vehicles), ULMs (Ultra Light Motorized)
and AWACS at the moment of these events in the Belgian airspace,
can be excluded. "
According to the Chronology, the Sequence of events began at
22.50 hours, when the "master controller at Glons " received a
telephone call from gendarme Renquin, who reported he was seeing
from his house in Ramillies, "three unusual lights. . . forming
an equilateral triangle, and with changing colors of red, green
and yellow." At 23.05, the Gendarmerie at Wavre sent a patrol,
which confirmed the observation. At 23.15, Renquin called again
to inform that he was seeing a new set of three lights, while the
radar screens at Glons detected " an unidentified contact moving
at a speed of around 25 knots." (A knot is equivalent to one
nautical mile - 6,080 feet - per hour. )
For the next two and a half hours, an increasing number of
gendarmes and other witnesses continued to observe the strange
maneuvers of up to three sets of triangular lights in the
outskirts of Brussels. By 23.49 hours, the radar screens at
Semmerzake confirmed the targets and the order to scramble two F-
16s was given at 23.56 hours, taking off at 00.05 on March 31.
According to the report, "the aircraft had brief radar contacts
on several occasions." However, each time that "the pilots were
able to secure a lock on one of the targets for a few seconds,
this resulted each time in a drastic change in the behavior of
the UFOs."
During the first lock on at 00.13, continues the report, "the
speed of the target changed in a minimum of time from 150 to 970
knots and from 9,000 to 5,000 feet, returning then to 11,000
feet, in order to change again to close to ground level; this
resulted in a 'break lock' in a few seconds and the pilots lost
the radar contact." In another lock on at 00.30 hours, the "break
lock" was achieved by what the report calls "a jamming signal on
the screen."
Col. de Brouwer explained to Paris Match reporter Marie-Therese
de Brosses, that the change of velocity from 280 KPM to 1,800 KPH
while descending from 3,000 meters to 1,000 meters in one second,
was a fantastic acceleration equivalent to 40 Gs. This would
exclude any human pilot onboard the UFO, since humans can only
withstand 8 Gs. (A "G " is a unit of acceleration equivalent to
the gravitational pull of the earth, 9.81 m/sec/sec.) When the
UFO approached the ground level, continued Col. de Brouwer, "it
was out of the question for the F-16 to catch up with the object
at this low altitude, where the density of the air limits the
speed to 1,300 KMP. Above that speed, the temperature in the
compressors of the jet turbines would cause the engines to burst.
There was a logic behind the motions of the object," added the
Colonel.
In any case, the cat and mouse game went on until shortly after 1
am, when the F-16s were ordered to return to their base. On the
ground, however, Captain Pinson and other gendarmes continued to
observe "four white luminous spots forming a square" until around
1.30, when "the four UFOs lost their luminosity and seemed to
disappear in four different directions." Significantly, the
weather conditions on that night were very clear, allowing ground
witnesses to observe the objects in detail, as well as the
pursuit by the F-16s. The pilots, however, did not observe the
objects visually.
Major Lambrechts finally excludes a number of alternative
hypotheses for the UFOs, such as "optical illusions, confusion
with planets or other meteorological phenomena... weather
balloons. . . or meteorological inversions. . . holographic
projections," etc. More importantly, he writes that "the speeds
measured at he moment of the change of altitudes, exclude the
hypothesis that the UFOs observed could be confused with
aircraft. " Still more puzzling was the fact that, "despite that
on several occasions high speeds above the speed of the sound
barrier were measured, the shock wave was never observed. Here,
no explanation can be given." The French physicist Jean Pierre
Petit concurred: "In reality," he told Paris Match, "there is no
machine made by man, either an airplane or a missile, that is
capable of such performance. Specifically, flying at the speed of
sound without making a sonic boom."
<<Continued in next message..>>
--
ParaNet(sm) Information Service - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet(sm).Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (sm)
Subject: Belgium Information (3)
Date: 18 Apr 91 01:15:00 GMT
<<<Continued from previous message>>>
Although the Belgian military authorities have insisted that
the UFOs in Wallonia are no secret aircraft, the similarities
between the triangular craft seen in Belgium with the boomerang-
shaped objects reported throughout the last decade in the Hudson
Valley in New York and Western Connecticut, as well as other
triangular UFOs observed in Wytheville, Virginia, Fyffe, Alabama,
and Puerto Rico, among other places, have led some researchers to
suggest that the technology behind all these observations is
terrestrial and not extraterrestrial.
The similarity between the Belgian and Hudson Valley flaps was
noted by SOBEPS investigator Patrick Ferryn. Commenting on the
book Night Siege by the late Dr. Allen Hynek, investigator
Phillip Imbrogno and reporter Bob Pratt, which documented the
Hudson Valley cases, Ferryn wrote that "changing only a few
words, exactly the same could be written to give an account of
the position of affairs here! [in Belgium] The same goes for many
entire pages and excerpts elsewhere in the book."
While nobody doubts that people have been seeing something in
both upstate New York and Wallonia in Belgium, the big question
is whether these sightings are caused by true UFOs or by some
kind of new revolutionary secret military aircraft. Foremost
among the proponents of the secret weapon theory is Tony
Gonsalves, a researcher from East Providence, Rhode Island, who
served as a jet mechanic and plane captain for the U.S. Navy on
three aircraft carriers between 1959 and 1963.
In a number of papers written during the last two years,
Gonsalves has developed his theory of "The American made UFO" -
that the boomerangs of Westchester and Duchess counties, as well
as the triangular UFOs of Belgium, Virginia and Puerto Rico, are
actually a modified covert version of the B-2 Stealth Bomber.
Gonsalves believes this craft has been fully operational since
the early 80s, while the official B-2 bomber that was unveiled in
1988 is a "decoy" to deceive the American public, the media and
the Congress. Furthermore, Tony Gonsalves and a few other
ufologists speculate that this secret aircraft may even
incorporate some alien technology obtained from UFO crashes
decades ago.
Gonsalves' theory seemed to gain some credibility when Aviation
Week & Space Technology magazine reported in its October 1, 1990
edition that, "large, triangular wing-Shaped aircraft" are indeed
being tested out of the Nellis Air Force range in Nevada and the
Tehachapi Mountains near Edwards AFB in California. The well
known aerospace magazine mentioned several sightings by engineers
of "triangular-shaped aircraft, " possibly prototypes for the A-
12, the Navy's new Stealth attack plane, and one or several
versions for reconnaissance aircraft cloaked under the top secret
code of Aurora, to replace the old Lockheed SR-71 "Blackbird"
which was recently mothballed. Aviation Week (sometimes referred
by the nickname of "Aviation Leak") also quoted Air Force sources
who "acknowledged that diamond and triangular-shaped vehicles are
'the trend now,'" as well as unconfirmed reports that some of
these aircraft "were designed to operate at speeds around Mach 10
or higher."
Because he worked for over 30 years as senior editor of
Aviation Week, where he is still a contributing editor, we sought
the opinion of well known UFO debunker Phillip Klass as to
whether there could be any validity to explain the Hudson Valley
and Belgian flaps with Secret military aircraft, Stealth or
otherwise. "In my opinion the answer is absolutely not,"
responded Klass, adding that only those sightings "in the
vicinity of Nellis Air Force Base" in Nevada could be caused by
military aircraft tests. "If there were a secret airplane, "
continued Klass, "for goodness' sake, the last place in the world
you'd want to fly it is in Duchess County, where people have been
alerted to look for objects."
Although they certainly disagree on the final cause of the
sightings, Klass and Phillip Imbrogno seem to be in full
agreement in their rejection of Tony Gonsalves' Stealth theory.
"l can't see the government testing a top secret device in an
area like this, " said Imbrogno. "Number one, what if they have a
problem, what if they crash?" Imbrogno said he had considered
this possibility when he first looked into the boomerang
sightings, but that "I am convinced right now that the Hudson
Valley UFO is not an aircraft, Stealth or otherwise. Number two,
I am not totally convinced that it's from outerspace. Number
three, I don't know what the hell it is."
Meanwhile, sightings continue to pile up in Europe. The latest
case before we go to press was reported in early November, when
"mystery shapes in the sky, variously described as orange balls,
triangles and points of light," were reported in France, Belgium,
Germany, Switzerland and Italy, according to a newswire report
from the Reuter's news agency. Police phone lines were flooded
across the continent with calls about unidentified flying
objects. Experts in Munich speculated the sightings could have
been triggered by the explosion of a meteorite. However, this
explanation could hardly satisfy the familiar sightings in
Belgium, where "dozens of people reported a triangular object
with three lights flying slowly and soundlessly to the
southwest," according to the Reuter report.
The Belgian Air Force was studying once again the case, and so
was France's Service for the Investigation of Re-entry Phenomena
(SEPRA), which is attached to the French National Space Agency in
Toulouse and was formerly known as GEPAN. One Air France pilot
told a radio interviewer: "We were on a flight to Barcelona
(Spain) at about 33,000 feet at about 7 pm when we first saw the
shape. It couldn't have been a satellite because it was there for
three or four minutes."
If the sightings in Belgium and elsewhere turn out to be secret
aircraft, the mystery will become pubic sooner or later, but if
they are indeed caused by true UFOs, then we may be debating them
for a long time to come. Perhaps a summary of the whole Belgian
flap and its meaning was best expressed by SOBEPS Scientist
August Meessen, Professor of Physics at the Catholic University
at Louvain. He told the French magazine Paris Match: "There are
too many independent eyewitness reports to ignore. Too many of
the reports describe coherent physical effects, and there is an
agreement among the accounts concerning what was observed. If all
of these witnesses are lying, then it is a mental disease of such
novelty and proportions that it must be studied."
<<Concluded in next message..>>
--
ParaNet(sm) Information Service - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet(sm).Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ParaNet.Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (sm)
Subject: Belgium Information (Conclusion)
Date: 18 Apr 91 01:16:00 GMT
<<<<Continued from previous message>>>>
"But of course," continued Prof. Meessen, "there are also
physical effects. The Air Force report allows us to approach the
problem in a rational and scientific way. The simplest hypothesis
is that the reports are caused by extraterrestrial visitors, but
that hypothesis carries with it other problems. We are not in a
rush to form a conclusion, but continue to study the mystery."
The last word about the UFO flap that has brought down "The Wall"
of UFO Silence has yet to be uttered.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Chilean-American journalist Antonio Huneeus
was born in New York in 1950, the son of a Chilean diplomat and
United States official. After studying French at the Sarbonne
University in Paris in 1970 and journalism at the University of
Chile, he worked as science editor for a weekly magazine in
Santiago and was a contributor for a number of newspapers.
Huneeus' UFO investigation began in 1977 with the bizarre "time
warp" incident of Chilean Army Corporal Armando Valdes. Since
then, he has written hundreds of articles on UFOs and related
subjects for such publications as Omni, UFO Report, and the MUFON
JOURNAL in the U.S., as well as for magazines throughout South
America and Europe. Last year he won the UFOlogists of the Year
Award given by the National UFO Conference. The photographs and
art that accompany this article are part of Antonio's UFO
CHRONICLE lecture and slide presentation. Readers may reach the
author directly at Box 1989, New York, NY 10159.
END
PARANET FILE NAME: BELGIUM1.UFO
--
ParaNet(sm) Information Service - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: ParaNet(sm).Information.Service@p0.f428.n104.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************************
Comments
Post a Comment