Conference hydra::dejavu

	By definition, if it's unidentified, you don't know what it is.
I am a licensed pilot, and in ten years of flying, I never encountered
anything I didn't identify.
	As a pilot, I have a few reservations about most UFO reports.  
*If they are solid objects* and are "flying" at the speeds mentioned,
whether the motive power is natural or supernatural, they should leave
loud sonic booms in their wake (the space shuttle, which is a glider on
reentry, leaves a LOUD double sonic boom as it maneuvers for landing
at Edwards or the Cape).
	If they are solid, the implication is that they are nearer and
slower than most reports.
	If they are insubstantial, then they could be anything, such as
a plasma like ball lightning. (I've never seen ball lightning, but I
have seen the close relative, chain lightning, many times in Florida).
	I doubt they are extraterrestrial spacecraft, whatever else they might
be.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: -.1

Your comments are interesting Steve, in view of the fact that the reports
of so many sightings were made by pilots.  In regard to the base note who
is to say it was not above the atmosphere and thus no sonic boom.

I have had two experiences of this nature and will try to be very brief in
recounting them.

In 1957 I was with RCA at the missile tracking station on the island of
San Salvador (where Columbus first landed on his first voyage).  We heard
news reports of a small light that had been seen from Arizona or New Mexico
moving at a steady rate from west to east.  The next night is was reported
as being seen from the SE states - Georgia or Florida.  The next night there
it was moving from west to east clearly visible above our ourdoor movie
screen.

In 1968 I was the communications manager at the missile tracking station
on the island of Antiqua, BWI. A NASA DC-6 instrumentation aircraft was
flying equipment calibration patterns around the island, checking
comm equipment.  I was aboard the aircraft as an observer.  We were at
about 4000 feet when the pilot, copilot, engineer, equipment operator and
myself all saw an object that appeared to be a flattened ball, orange in
color, smaller that the DC-6 approach rapidly (not supersonic) from 2 o'clock
and somewhat below the aircraft.  We passed above it and continued on toward
8 o'clock.  The tracking stations were Air Force bases and at that time the
Air Force was classifying all reported sightings of this nature so we
were forbidden to discuss the incident, even among ourselves.

( Sorry for the spelling, its Antigua.)

					Bi;;
---I can't type either --- 		Bill

	I was reading the latest time mag tonight and it reviewed a new book
by Carl Sagan involving extra-terresterials (sp?).  It's fiction but he always
brings up, as he did in Cosmos, the rational of aliens of higher intelligence.
If they are that much smarter they could go undetected if they wanted so if
these ufo sightings are real, involving beings from another planet, it would 
seem that they do want to be detected.  or maybe they don't care if they are.
Could some of you share some thoughts on this as to why would they come to our
planet, why would they allow themselves to be detected?  Could they be superior
to us in morals and compassion as to want to give us hope for our own future
to develope and not wipe our selves out?  Perhaps they have gone thru the same 
struggle we are going thru and rose above self destruction?  Perhaps they were
as we are and were helped by beings superior to themselves to get out of this
rut like ours (the impending nuclear doomsday rut).  

	I find the moral superiority issue very interesting as well as the 
technicalogical superiority issues.

							Jorge'

P.S.  I sometimes type so fast that I sacrafice spelling and grammer. Sorry!!

re .2:

Please note I didn't say that the UFO phenomenon wasn't *real*; I just make
the two points that I doubt the sightings concern spacecraft or solid ob-
jects.  If, for instance, a UFO is a plasma phenomenon, its behavior would
be able to seem to violate certain physical restrictions such as reported 
instantaneous 90-degree changes in direction at high speeds.  A plasma
structure could also explain color shifts (per .0) and electrical/electronic
anomalies often reported in the more credible sightings.

Let's assume a number of UFOs are some sort of plasmoid.  Then, the inter-
esting question becomes are they blind natural phenomens or living bwings,
perhaps intelligent?  My mind is fully open on this question.

Rather than UFO, I'd propose we use the term UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phe-
nomenon) to cover more contingencies than are normally proposed.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

P.S.: I never claimed I spoke for all pilots, but a decade in the air 
without running into an anomaly is worth something, in my book.  Without
a bit more information of all the conditions in the incidents cited, I can't
make much judgement about what it could (or couldn't) be in each case.

-SK

In 1981 I witnessed along with approximately 25 others a rather
unusual sighting. I was a counselor at a camp in Maine and one
day the counselors were having a meeting. When someone noticed
a strange object hovering over the lake. It was not making any
noise and after a few minutes it ascending into the sky vertically
and took off at a 90 degree path until it was obstructed by 
trees. Now I have never believed in UFO's until that sighting.
It did make a rather loud noise when it changed it path. But
the unusual thing was that after 2 hours about 25 USAF helicopters
were flying in the area. The next day some of the campers said
they saw the object at the camps. So we tried to make a call to
the local AF base with no real response. And when we related the
fact about the helicopters they said that we were crazy. 
And from then on I always asked. Who really are the crazy ones?
I still can't explain what happened and probably will never find
out. Sorry to say.

b

My father used to be a watch officer in the underground command post at 
SAC headquarters in Omaha. He told me that during the mid to late 
sixties the AP's on duty at the Minute Man missle sites were going crazy 
because they were seeing and tracking on radar many "UFO's". He also had 
gone through flight school with a guy named Hector Quintenella (sp?) who 
was the head of the Air Force Project Blue book (their official UFO 
investigation). According to Hector and off the record (of course) 90-95 
% of all sightings could be easily explained. He also said that the 
other 5-10% kept him awake at night. Blue Book had reported that there was 
nothing to the whole thing. Dad told me that if Hector believed that 
there was something to wonder about that was good enough for him.

A last event. One night dad and I sighted a bright gold object very high 
moving very fast. He checked with the command post logs the next day and 
the Air Force did not know what the object was. They had attemped to 
intercept it and it ran away. None of this ever made the papers or 
anything as we were satisfied to know that we had seen something and we 
were fortunate enough to get confirmation that it was in fact not an 
ordinary aircraft.

dave

	Does anyone have any input about the UFO sightings last thursday and 
friday in this area?  The Middlesex News had a story about a sighting thurs
night and one friday morning.  Please let us all know what happened if anyone
can!

								Jorge'

According to the WRKO broadcast this morning, there were sightings of one
or two "pulsating orange globes" hovering slightly above tree level
in Boxborough.

Some serious UFOlogists are investigating.

A suggestion was that it's The Great Pumpkin!  :-)

Steve Kallis, Jr.

P.S.: To me, the thing sounded more like a natural than artificial phenome-
non.

-SK

 	I saw the "pulsating orange globes" as they passed into the Boxboro
area. They were very vivid and definitely NOT the great pumpkin. I only 
saw one clearly. It was very bright and sort of looked like a planet but
the edges were too clearly defined and the object was too close to be
 a plannet. It didn't look like landing lights either. It was a crisp
outline of a globe.

Question?  UFO's fascinate me and all that I have ever heard of there activity 
has been at night, has there ever been any sightings during the day and if so
where?  Maybe I just haven't read enough about them. .....OH! and one more
question.  Is this area (New England) known for frequent sightings and if so
where would the sightings most often occur.  End of question (s).

Thanks!

Addie

Perhaps it's just easier to spot UFOs at night.

Any pilot with some night experience will tell you that other aircraft are
easier to spot at night, so maybe the same thing is going on here with UFOs.

						- Bluejay Adametz, CFII

re: .10
I have seen pictures in books of UFOs taken during the day.

As was touched upon in .0, there was a book published over 20
years ago called _Incident in Exeter_.  Exeter is in NH.

There was a UAP (Unexplained Aero Phenomena?) on the West Coast a while
ago.  The Soviets said they thought it was a UFO.  By coincidence,
it closely corresponded to a Soviet missle test that went awry.  Just
something more to stir up the sh*t.

Tom

On the natural front, Dr. Dionald Menzel of Harvard's astronomy dept. wrote
two books (one with a coauthor) discussing "natural" aerial phenomena that 
have been classified as UFOs.  Both cover interesting optical phenomena.

I noted earlier that plasmoids might constitute another class of "natural"
UFOs (better, UAPs).

Bluejay is right; however, things _are_ easier to see at night.  D'you know
what color the Moon is?  It's about the color of asphalt (perhaps just a 
_little_ lighter).  It looks silvery because that's still infinitelty more re-
flective than the space around it.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

	    I read in a recent _Parade_Magazine_ (one of those high-
	quality sources) that Soviet Cosmonauts reported seeing angels.
			<_Jym_>

 ...and I have an article that says the number 1 fighter pilot in the
USSR shot down a UFO into the Pacific

    Re; .12
    
    I have read *Incident in Exeter* and found it very interesting.
    
    Since I live next door, in Epping, I have visited the locations
    of the two sightings and have talked to friends of the two policemen
    involved in the incident.  They apparently had nothing to gain by
    pulling a hoax, and they took a lot of "guff" from the local citizenry.
    So much so that they both eventually left the department and one
    moved out of the area.
    
    				Bill
    

WHAT WOULD YOU DO???

YOU ARE DRIVING HOME LATE AT THROUGH SOME BACKWOODS IN AN UNFAMILIAR OR MAYBE
THROUGH FAMILIAR COUNTRY AND OFF IN THE WESTERN SKY AGAINST A BACKDROP OF
BRILLIANT STARS YOU SEE FLASHING LIGHTS THAT SEEM TO BE APPROACHING CLOSER...
IN YOUR DIRECTION.  YOU KNOW WITHOUT KNOWING WHY THESE LIGHTS ARE NOT FROM
ANY KNOWN TYPE OF AIRCRAFT....THEY ARE SO DIFFERENT IN NATURE....THEY PULSE
BRIGHTLY AND THE CRAFT MOVES SOUNDLESSLY,QUICKLY.  WOULD YOU STOP AND WAIT?
TURN BACK?   HURRY UP AND GET OUT OF THERE?  HYPOTHETICALLY, WHAT WOULD/SHOULD
YOU DO????

JUST CURIOUS,
ADDIE

What would I do?  I guess it depends on just how "strange" these lights
were.  If I thought they were different enough I would probably pull over
for a once in a lifetime event and try not to shake too badly.

One question, though.  If you were in a moving car, how would you know that
craft was silent?  You'd have to stop to find that out.  Besides, sound from
anything far away can take a long time to get to you.

Tom

Re .17:

Also, how do you "know without knowing" that the lights aren't from 
any known aircraft?  Bluejay, as a flight instructor, has pronably seen
a lot of different lighting configurations on aircraft, between nav
lights, collission avoidance lights (rotating or strobe), and landing
lights.  When driving, I wopuldn't hazard a guess about strange lights
without stopping and getting a good look.  You might have seen wingtip
strobes.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

	If I noticed something like that I would definitely stop and take a
look.  I recall reading somewhere about how difficult it is to observe or to
catch anything happening outside of your direct field of vision while driving.
So unless it was directly before me I doubt I'd even notice it.

							Jorge'

    I read in a book about UFO'S that Winsted Conn was an entry port
    for UFO'S.  Does anyone know anything about this.

    Re .21:
    
    "Entry port"?  Where's the duty-free shop? :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    CUTE STEVE!! :-)
     I would gladly  be a receptionist!!!
    
    Addie

    
    Re .7,8,9
    
    Back in 1980 my wife and I observed a large orange light towards
    Acton while traveling on Rt. 62. We thought it was the moon at the
    time so we didn't stop to gawk at it but when we pulled into our
    driveway in Maynard the moon was in the opposite direction and was
    very white! Two days later she saw it at 6am and got scared about
    the whole thing. I really was pissed at myself for not realizing
    what was going on! Just thought I'd add this in seeing as someone
    saw orange lights in Boxboro recently that seem very close to what
    i saw 6 years ago in about the same direction. It wasn't moving
    when I saw it. What was it? I'll probably never know.
    
    M.H.

    re .24:
    
    Great!  This is in the same general area, and it might be possible
    to do some serious investigating.  I know it's hard to ask you to
    recall an event of more than half a decade ago, but try...
    
    Can you estimate the size of the light, relative to the moon?  Did
    it have any patterns onm its suerface?  Did it move?  What time
    opf night was it?  How far off the horizon was it and was the moon?
     What time of year was it?  Was there any unusual weather condition?
    
    If you can dredge up these details, _I_ for one would be interested.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

Associated Press Thu 22-MAY-1986 19:41                            Brazil UFOs

   Brazilian Air Force Investigates UFO sighting

   RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) - The Air Force has ordered an
investigation Thursday into the sighting of tiny balls of light
that flew through Brazilian skies at 900 miles an hour and evaded
air force planes sent up to chase them.
   ``We are looking for a technical explanation for these
phenomena. So far we don't have any,'' the air force ministry's
press office said in Brasilia, the capital.
   The objects were first sighted Monday night by a private plane
near Sao Jose dos Campos, an industrial city 210 miles southwest of
Rio de Janeiro.
   The air force minister, Gen. Octavio Moreira Lima, said the
objects soon ``were saturating radar and interfering with air
traffic'' in Sao Jose dos Campos and nearby Sao Paulo, Brazil's
biggest city.
   Lima said the air force sent up three French-built Mirage III
fighters and two U.S.-made F-5E jets to chase the objects, which he
described as ``multi-colored balls of light.'' Instead, the objects
pursued one of the planes, he said.
   ``One of the pilots ... reported that 13 of the objects
accompanied his aircraft, seven on one side and six on the other,''
the minister said.
   The air force jets, which confirmed the presence of the UFOs on
their radar screens, reportedly flew after the objects for three
hours until low fuel forced them to return to base. No further
sightings were reported.
   ATV network quoted an unidentified pilot as saying the objects
were the size and shape of ping pong balls and flew at a speed of
nearly 900 miles an hour.
   Lima was asked in a televised interview to explain what had
occurred, and answered: ``Don't ask me. We don't have any
explanation.''
   Astronomer Larry Brown of the Hayden Planetarium in New York on
Thursday said, ``It could be anything. There's a whole lot of
phenomena that take place on the earth all the time that we don't
know about.''
   He said there were no major meteor showers on that day, but did
offer one possible explanation: ``It may have something to do with
the recent passage of Halley's Comet. There's a lot of dust in the
air, and when it hits the earth's atmosphere it burns brightly.''

    re .26:
    
    > ... tiny balls of light
    >that flew through Brazilian skies at 900 miles an hour ....
    
    Any reports of somic booms before the jets arrived?  That would
    tend to determine whether the balls of light were material or otherwise
    (some non"material" things can be picked up on radar).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    The latest issue of _Fate_ has an interesting article correlating
    UAP [UFO] sightings to earthquakes.  The idea advanced that for
    whatever reason, UAPs seem to manifest themselves shortly before
    the advent of earthquake activities.  The author claims a correlation,
    and it would be interesting to see whether there's any oither source
    that claims a siomilar result from investigations.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    RE.28  Please explain UAP, I haven't seen that one before.

    re .29:
    
    I prefer the term UAP (Unclassified Aerial Phenomenon) to UFO because
    the "F" of UFO implies it's flying (i.e., being propelled through
    the air, presumably by aerodynamic or aerostatic forces) and the
    "O" implies that it's an object (i.e., a material construct or mass).
     
    If it were an optical effect (e.g., sundog, segment of Santa Fe
    Cross, inversion refraction, etc), the "O" wouldn't hold (or the
    "F" for that matter).  If it were a plasmoid like ball lightning,
    neither would hold.  If it were a ghost or spirit, the "F" would
    hold but the "O" wouldn't, etc.  Until it's partially identified,
    the UAP classification makes better sense.  (Apparently _some_ early
    reports were traced to sightings of planets: in this case the "O"
    would apply, but the "F" wouldn't.)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    
    I have two stories, one of my own and one of a friend...
    
    I was sitting out back of Cumberland Farms in Maynard about 8:00
    with three other people (this is about 10 years ago but can recall
    as clear as yesterday), there are some extremely tall trees right
    beside this store but in back of the Library.  I looked up near
    the trees because and object caught my eye slowly peeking out from
    beside the tree, when I told everybody else to look, three more
    were following the first one, right in a line, all four of them
    just hovered as if they were looking at us.  All of the sudden the
    first one turned (so we could see the bottom) and took off with
    the remaining three following and doing the exact same thing.
    They disappeared into thin air.  By the way, the bottoms of these
    "unknown" things had lights around the whole circular bottom that
    were blinking.

    Here is the story of my friend...
    
    He was sitting on his front step of his house with a friend of his and
    the two of them were just talking about how hot out it was.  His yard
    has shrubs lining his property from the front yard to the back.
    He said as they were talking something that looked like a bolt of
    lightning came from the bush and flew by right in front of them
    and out through the other bushes on the other side of the house.
    He said he asked if friend if he saw it too and his friend said
    he did.  My fiend said it went by at about 50 billion miles an hour
    and it was extremely bright.  I asked him why he didn't go look
    for it and all he said was, "I was too busy thanking God that it
    didn't hit us".  Anybody got any ideas, could it have been lightning?
    

    Re .32:
    
    Yes, a relatively rare form known as "ball lightning."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Could someone (moderator?) unhide the base note here and in 23,24
    snd 25.
    					/Gwumph/ Terry
    

    Who knows ... in this conference, the base notes may have hidden
    themselves ...
    
    \tab

    The base note is not hidden.  It is completely invisible.  It has
    no author, only a subject.  I don't know how this happened, so we'll
    just have to surmise what it said by the responses.

    		Dave

    As I understand it, the base note was deleted.
    
    I guess you can do that in VAXnotes.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

Associated Press Thu 26-JUN-1986 20:19                                   UFOs

       UFO Enthusiasts to Hold Symposium at Michigan State University
    
                              By JACQUELYNN BOYLE
                            Associated Press Writer
    
   LANSING, Mich. (AP) - As many as 300 scientists, sociologists and
ordinary people interested in Unidentified Flying Objects gather
this weekend for a 17th annual symposium devoted to understanding
inexplicable things in the sky.
   ``For most people, their only access to UFOs is standing in a
grocery store line reading those absurb tabloids,'' said Dan Wright,
symposium chairman. ``This is a unique opportunity to gain some
hard, credible information.''
   ``Beyond the Mainstream of Science,'' a two-day event sponsored
by the Mutual UFO Network, features lectures by experts in
astronautics, physics, natural sciences and UFO history.
   Although the symposium is being held at Michigan State
University's Kellogg Center in East Lansing, a spokesman for MSU's
Abrams Planetarium said the school is not affiliated with the
sponsor of the meeting.
   ``They are terribly biased. They're essentially true believers
and this is a religion to them,'' said Doug Murphy, program producer
at the planetarium.
   Wright, a state employee who spends his free time investigating
UFO sightings, said MUFON has a monthly newsletter and a membership
of about 1,500 nationwide.
   ``It was founded in May 1969, which is virtually the same point
that Project Bluebook, the U.S. Air Force's investigation of the UFO
subject, ended,'' Wright said. ``So it's fair to say MUFON picked up
the ball the Air Force dropped.
   The Air Force, he said, concluded that UFOs shouldn't be further
investigated because they showed no threat to national security, no
technology beyond that on this planet and no evidence of
extraterrestrial origin.
   ``We don't believe that, any of those three counts, and we have
evidence to show the opposite since then - evidence in abundance,''
said Wright.
   Symposium speakers include John Schuessler, an astronautics
engineer and former flight operations director for the space shuttle
program; Michael Swords, a natural sciences professor from Western
Michigan University; and Temple University history professor David
Jacobs.
   Workshops will examine interstellar transportation systems,
analyses of alleged UFO photographs and investigative methods, he
said. The symposium also will offer a photographic exhibit, films
and videotaped interviews of people who have sighted UFOs.
    

    
    
    Hi, I'm new to this, hope I can figure out how to do this...
    
    re:  Earlier note mentioning Carl Sagan's book on extraterrestrials.
    The book is called "Contact", and is excellent reading.  Gives an
    interesting perspective on why et's might want to meet us.  
    
    re:  note .14, Soviet Cosmonauts report seeing angels.  
    I also heard they not only saw angels, but saw seven of them.  
    Keep in mind this is was in space, and it was 9 Jan 86...
    19 days before the Challenger accident.  (That story was popular
    here at NASA in Jan/Feb).
    
    Additionally...My newlywed parents saw strange objects flying around
    amongst refinery tanks (lots of those in Houston) en route to visit
    one of my aunts.  They pulled over, as did some other people in
    a pickup truck (lots of those in Houston, too!!), and watched
    these "round shiny things with lights" dart in and out of the tanks.
    We're talking completely horizontal movement, 20-30 ft. off the
    ground.  After a while (neither knew how long), the things went
    straight up with amazing speed, and were gone.  My parents never
    mentioned it, not even to each other, for years.
    
    Funny thing...9 months later I was born.
    Funnier still...my first spoken word was "moon."
    
    Hmmmmm....
    
    afr
    

    I would be interested also in more information on the Russians 
    seeing angels.  Having been to the Soviet Union and having talked 
    to communists who don't believe in God, they found it hard to
    visualize let alone speak about.  Did the cosmonauts see what they 
    thought were angels, or having described this to someone else have 
    a "western" interpretation put out of what they saw? I'm sure the
    Soviets only pick "good" communists to become cosmonauts, therefore  
    I find it hard to believe that the Soviets would admit to seeing 
    "angels" though possibly human figures with wings.
                    
    _stew-

    Does anybody have or know where I can get a copy of "PROJECT BLUE
    BOOK"?
                    BILL COLLETON 

The following came over the USENET astronomical newsgroup recently.  I have
quoted it here to show that some *very* strange looking things can occur
which have perfectly conventional explanations.

This of course does *not* mean that all UFO sightings have conventional
explanations.  It does mean that a "freakish" appearance is not good enough
by itself to rule out such explanations.

			Topher

Newsgroups: net.astro
Path: decwrl!amdcad!amd!intelca!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!homxa!wada
Subject: August 12th Mystery Object
Posted: 22 Aug 86 18:41:32 GMT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Murray Hill NJ
 
 
Recently I returned from a long canoe trip in the north lake
region of the Adirondack Mountains of New York state.
On the evening of Tuesday, August 12th I saw a strange object
in the southern sky.  Basically, I would like to know what it was.
 
I first saw the object at 10:01pm EDT about 45 degrees elevation
above the horizon looking toward the southeast (or south southeast).
The object had the general appearance of a fuzzy comma (",") lying
on its side.  The "head" was a good deal brighter than the tail,
but it was not a point source of light.  The object was bright
enough to be seen with the naked eye, but not bright enough to obscure
background stars.  (When first seen it was "outlined" against
the Milky Way.)  There was no accompanying sound.
 
As the minutes passed, the object drifted approximately parallel to
the eastern horizon in a northern direction.  However, the most
interesting aspect was that at the same time it gradually began to
form a multi-turned spiral.  While the spiral was forming, the center
retained its prominent diffuse brightness.  Throughout all this,
the object appeared to be a pale white in color.  After about three
minutes the structural details had merged to form a nondescript "cloud".
It then disappeared as it passed out of view behind some nearby trees.
At that time it was several diameters of the moon in size.
 
This observation was made from the bank of the Raquette River where
it is joined by Stony Creek near Tupper Lake, NY.  There was no wind
and the sky was exceptionally clear.  (One artificial earth satellite
had previously been observed passing over.  A number of meteors were
also seen.)  The moon was about at the one-quarter phase, but was hidden
by trees.
 
My first thought was that this was a rocket-launched experiment
to create an artificial comet or northern lights.  However, such
launchings from Virginia can't be seen this far north.  (Did anybody
launch something from Albany, NY??)  In retrospect, perhaps it was
an artifical satellite that "split its seams", so to speak, and
lost all of its liquid stabilization fuel.  I don't know.
 
I have been an amateur observer for thirty years and have never
seen anything like this.  Well, what was it??
 
 
					R. Wadsack
						AT&T Information Systems
					Murray Hill, NJ
					homxa!wada
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: net.astro
Path: decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!caip!amq
Subject: Re: August 12th Mystery Object
Posted: 27 Aug 86 09:50:37 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Summary: me too!
 
		.	.	.			     From a
point approx 50 miles north of pittsburg Pa, it appeared to be slightly
below Altair at the time when it was a fuzzy ball with a spiral tail. 
It drifted left (so Im not good at directions) at about the same height
above the horizon for at least 20 minutes, slowly losing definition and 
luminosity until it could no longer be seen. Unfortunately, i had no way of 
writing down my observation of where it went, and my memory of its path
is very fuzzy, so that is all the info I have. A large number of us had 
been sitting around a campfire, watching the sky, and someone said "gee, 
that is a weird cloud over the moon." And someone else said "There is no 
cloud over the moon." And then things got really strange, with some of 
the more drunken of us deciding it was an omen and then trying to figure 
out what it meant. There was a large number of people at that campground, 
and the talk for the next two days was of this object... most of the 
"official" sources we could get to (newspaper and radio) were saying it 
was a meteorite that had entered the atmosphere, which was soundly disagreed
with. Unfortunately, the astronomers in our group were driving that night 
and never saw it, so we had no real information... thanks.
 
very eerie...
/amq

Newsgroups: net.astro
Path: decwrl!amdcad!amd!intelca!qantel!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbatt!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!petrus!karn
Subject: Re: August 12th Mystery Object
Posted: 23 Aug 86 17:53:12 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
 
Your "mystery object" was almost certainly the upper stage of the Japanese
H-1 launch that occurred Tuesday afternoon (our time).  This was the first
flight of a hydrogen-oxygen upper stage by the Japanese, and what you saw
was the venting of excess fuel that is done to prevent an eventual explosion
of the stage. This keeps NORAD happy since it reduces the amount of junk in
earth orbit they have to track.  There were quite a few "UFOs" reported on
that night. NASA got so many calls about it that they started routinely
referring them to NASDA's Washington office (NASDA is the Japanese space
agency).
 
This launch carried two payloads. The Experimental Geodetic Payload (EGP),
now called AJISAI, is a large, passive "mirror ball" whose orbit can be very
precisely determined by laser measurements. This is useful in mapping the
earth's gravitational field to a high degree of accuracy. This object is
typically 1 to 4th magnitude, which makes it a naked-eye object.
 
The other payload (the one I'm interested in) is an amateur radio satellite
called JAS-1 (now Japan-Oscar-12).  It carries both a conventional analog
"bent pipe" communications transponder and a new, experimental "digital
transponder" consisting of an onboard computer with about a megabyte of RAM.
It will be used as an electronic mail "store and forward" satellite, or
a "flying mailbox".
 
Both objects (plus the launcher) are in 1500 km circular orbits with an
inclination of 50 degrees.  For more info, see net.ham-radio over the past
few weeks.
 
Phil
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: net.astro
Path: decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!seismo!columbia!caip!meccts!mecc!sewilco
Subject: Re: August 12th Mystery Object
Posted: 25 Aug 86 18:01:35 GMT
Organization: MN Ed Comp Corp, St Paul, MN
Summary: Japanese JAS-1 observation?
 
Many recent articles in net.ham-radio have been discussing the Japanese
JAS-1/EGP launch.  JAS-1 is another radio amateur satellite.  If you'd
like to observe it again, net.ham-radio has orbit descriptions of the
three objects.
 
JAS-1 was launched at 2100 UTC Aug 12.  22:01 EDT is 02:01 UTC Aug 13,
only five hours after launch.  Message <142@ka9q.bellcore.com> (or
"KGIG-2601-1146") mentions "The rocket body had a nebula of bluish gas
about it...", which fits your description. 

		.	.	.

 
Scot E. Wilcoxon    Minn Ed Comp Corp  {quest,dicome,meccts}!mecc!sewilco
45 03 N  93 08 W (612)481-3507 {{caip!meccts},ihnp4,philabs}!mecc!sewilco
	Laws are society's common sense, recorded for the stupid.
	The alert question everything anyway.

I extracted this from the meteorology conference.  One of the 
members opened the subject by talking of lenticular clouds, and I 
eagerly jumped on the bandwagon.  Anyway, we decided to limit the 
discussion to UFO-like weather phenomenon, so I thought I'd post my 
note here as a way of introduction.  

         <<< PYRITE::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]METEOROLOGY.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Meteorology Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 11.4                      UFO'S and WEATHER                          4 of 6
GENRAL::TAVARES                                      26 lines  21-AUG-1986 14:53
                                   -< UFOs? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Yeah, I guess we should be careful about this one, but its not big
    enough for a conference; maybe too big for a note...just seemed
    like a good idea to "work the issue" a little with out it getting
    too far out of hand.  For myself, I've been following the phenomenon
    since the mid-fifties, sort of off and on.  Its a kind of "which
    indian is telling the truth" game.  Anyway, I did come across a
    nice set of criteria for a UFO; this was proposed either by Alan
    Hynek or Jacques Vallee in the mid-sixties.  It says that a UFO,
    the ones that fall into the true unsolved category have the following
    characteristics: a)bright white light *and* some combination of
    colored lights b)a varying altitude flight path (they frequently
    follow a path that varies up and down with the terrain) c)some
    combination of speed change.  I think there may have been one or
    two more, but this was the gist of it all.  
    
    Clearly, such phenomonea as lenticular clouds, ball lighting, and
    "swamp gas", all favorite explainations used by the Air Force and
    other disprovers, flunk the above test.  But, just because its the
    subject here, and for fun, I seen no reason why we shouldn't discuss
    UFO-like weather phenomonea.  
    
    I, for one, will not bring up the subject of green men, or, as I
    like to refer to them, the "space brothers".  For me, after almost
    30 years, the jury is still out.  In fact, I am more inclined to
    attribute the whole thing to some sort of Jungian effect, as proposed
    by Vallee.

         <<< PYRITE::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]METEOROLOGY.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Meteorology Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 11.0                      UFO'S and WEATHER                       7 replies
EDEN::KLAES "Avoid a granfalloon."                   16 lines  20-AUG-1986 10:59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    	Since someome suggested it in this Note (6.8) - and since they
    ARE so often associated with weather phenomenon - let's have a
    discussion on Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO's) in regards to
    whether they are unusual atmospheric conditions or otherwise.
    
    	As I said in Note 6.7, many UFO's have been explained as fireball
    lightning, high-altitude clouds, and even weather balloons (I saw
    one as a boy at night, reflecting sunlight from high up in the
    atmosphere where the Sun still had not gone below the horizon; it
    also had a red light underneath it and made no sound as it drifted
    across the sky - it sure gave me the impression of a UFO!).
    
    	So what are UFO's - funny air or alien spaceships?
    
    	Larry
    
================================================================================
Note 11.1                      UFO'S and WEATHER                          1 of 7
NCMWVX::MATEJCEK "prjm"                                1 line  20-AUG-1986 16:47
                        -< Why not start another file? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8-{
================================================================================
Note 11.2                      UFO'S and WEATHER                          2 of 7
JAKE::SMITH                                          16 lines  21-AUG-1986 06:58
                             -< Clouds and UFO's >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general discussion of UFO's should be in another conference
    but I could not resist this reply because it is weather related
    and really turned me off to what I thought was a good magazine.
    
    A few years back, Omni Magazine had a big article on UFO's and I
    thought I would see what it had to say so I picked up a copy.  In
    it there were photos of what Omni reported as REAL UFO's.  One of
    the pictures looked IDENTICLAL to a picture in one of my Weather
    observer text books.  It was a photo of a lens shaped cloud called
    an orthographic lenticular formation which can happen when humid
    air is carried over mountains by the prevailing winds, they are
    lens shaped and appear to hover right over the mountain and sometimes
    a few will appear at the same time and look like formations of lenses.
    I have not bought an Omni Magazine since that issue.
    
    Charlie Smith
================================================================================
Note 11.3                      UFO'S and WEATHER                          3 of 7
NCMWVX::MATEJCEK "prjm"                              14 lines  21-AUG-1986 09:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, yes, lenticular clouds -- 'lennies' -- the sailplane pilot's dream.  
'Standing lenticular' clouds are misunderstood by lots of folks.  
Because they appear to be stationary with reference to the earth, people 
think they're just standing there -- and that implies to the naive that
it can't be very turbulent in their neighborhood.  Wrongamundo!  What is
really happening is the cloud is continuously forming at its 'leading
edge' -- the upwind side -- and dissipating at its 'trailing edge' --
the lee side.  The presence of lennies implies strong winds aloft and
strong turbulence.  They are 'standing' only in the same way that an
aircraft flying at 100 knots into a 100 knot headwind is 'standing' --
plenty of airspeed, no groundspeed.... 

paul

================================================================================
Note 11.4                      UFO'S and WEATHER                          4 of 7
GENRAL::TAVARES                                      26 lines  21-AUG-1986 14:53
                                   -< UFOs? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Yeah, I guess we should be careful about this one, but its not big
    enough for a conference; maybe too big for a note...just seemed
    like a good idea to "work the issue" a little with out it getting
    too far out of hand.  For myself, I've been following the phenomenon
    since the mid-fifties, sort of off and on.  Its a kind of "which
    indian is telling the truth" game.  Anyway, I did come across a
    nice set of criteria for a UFO; this was proposed either by Alan
    Hynek or Jacques Vallee in the mid-sixties.  It says that a UFO,
    the ones that fall into the true unsolved category have the following
    characteristics: a)bright white light *and* some combination of
    colored lights b)a varying altitude flight path (they frequently
    follow a path that varies up and down with the terrain) c)some
    combination of speed change.  I think there may have been one or
    two more, but this was the gist of it all.  
    
    Clearly, such phenomonea as lenticular clouds, ball lighting, and
    "swamp gas", all favorite explainations used by the Air Force and
    other disprovers, flunk the above test.  But, just because its the
    subject here, and for fun, I seen no reason why we shouldn't discuss
    UFO-like weather phenomonea.  
    
    I, for one, will not bring up the subject of green men, or, as I
    like to refer to them, the "space brothers".  For me, after almost
    30 years, the jury is still out.  In fact, I am more inclined to
    attribute the whole thing to some sort of Jungian effect, as proposed
    by Vallee.
================================================================================
Note 11.5                      UFO'S and WEATHER                          5 of 7
PYRITE::WEAVER "Dave - Laboratory Data Products"      7 lines  22-AUG-1986 13:23
                      -< Keep it related to weather here >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SPACE conference would probably be a more appropriate place
    to discuss the general issue of UFO's.  But I have no qualms with
    keeping this topic here limited to weather phenomena frequently
    classified as UFO's.
    
    					-Dave (moderator of both
    					       SPACE & METEROLOGY)
================================================================================
Note 11.6                      UFO'S and WEATHER                          6 of 7
EDEN::KLAES "Avoid a granfalloon."                   11 lines  22-AUG-1986 14:02
                          -< RE 11.5 - THAT'S RIGHT! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    	That is EXACTLY what I wanted this topic for - discussing UFO's
    in terms of WEATHER PHENOMENON!
    
    	They are so often associated with weather, I figure why not
    discuss the issue and see if anyone can come up with any ideas!
    Remember, that's why UFO's are called UNIDENTIFIED - no one yets
    knows what they really are, and weather phenomenon is one PLAUSIBLE
    theory!
    
    	Larry
    

    	The two Soviet manned space stations currently in Earth orbit
    are designated Salyut (Salute) 7 and Mir (Peace or World).
    
    	Is there any validity to these stories of "angels" (UFO's?)
    the cosmonauts have been seeing?  I do not believe that the Soviet
    government would make such events public if they thought it would
    make the government look foolish, so there must be "some" validity
    to these sightings - perhaps they are trying to get Western scientists'
    opinions?
    
    	It is true that Soviet cosmonauts mainly just hang around in
    those space stations, mainly to beat old space endurance records;
    would a special form of "cabin fever" result from being confined
    in a place the size of a small house for months in microgravity,
    thus giving the men halucinations?  
    	Or are they really seeing "something"?
    
    	Larry
    

    REF 27.46
    
    >Or are they really seing something ?
    
    Why not ??
    
    Do they have any interest (of any nature) to mention such almost
    unbelievable story ?? Just at the risk of being taken for "unreliable
    reporters".I doubt it.
    
    Charles Aubert @ shire
    
    

    	Then what IS the reason for the Soviet cosmonauts reporting
    these UFO sightings, have there been any more reported anywhere,
    and what are some explainations for them?                  
    
    	Larry
    

    Larry,
    I read that the Soviets believed the light forms to be "an alien
    intelligence".  I wish I still had the AP article to quote from
    directly.  It was the European news story of the year (1985 or 84 
    I think) so it must be archived somewhere.  
    The incidence of "strange lights" being associated with ufo reports
    is fairly common world wide. In the west however we usually have a
    scientific explanation for them, such as the "cosmic rays" that
    explained the lights that John Glen reported following him in his mission.
    
    I agree that the soviets would not report to the national press
    something that would make them look foolish unless there was some
    validity to the reports.  I'll try to dig up the original Associated
    Press report and send it to you.  Maybe the library....
    
    MP
    

    One of my usual nits --
    
    The lights that John Glen, and other astronauts after him, reported
    accompanying the capsule were determined to be, I believe by
    spectroscopic analysis, paint chips from the capsule itself.  There
    is some minor disagreement (or was last I heard) about what caused
    them to chip off.  Things in the same orbit tend to stay in the
    same orbit, which is why they seemed to follow.
    
    Cosmic rays was the explanation for a different phenomena only noticed
    much later.  This was occasional flashes of light.  Since they were
    equally visible whether the astronaut was looking at a dark background
    or had his/her eyes closed, it was either 1) Not really light at
    all, 2) Happening in the eye, 3) Happening in the nervous system.
    It was finally decided that the flashes were caused by Cherenkov
    radiation in the vitreous humor of the eye.
    
    No particle can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
    Light travels slower, however, in a transparent medium.  A particle
    *can* travel faster than light in such a medium.  When this occurs,
    a shock-wave effect (like a sonic boom except with light) produces
    radiation -- generally, as it happens, within the visual range.
    Cosmic rays are very fast moving particles (mostly protons).  When
    they strike the transparent jelly inside the eye, a visible flash
    of light results.
    
    Once the phenomena was observed, calculations were done which indicated
    that, if anyone had thought to check, it would have been expected.
    Also, I believe, some brave soul, stuck their head into a high energy
    low density beam from a particle acclerator and observed the same
    thing.  In theory this was considerably safer than going into orbit,
    but still, I'm not sure I would have had the guts.

    	What John Glenn saw on his historic (and only) Mercury flight
    around Earth in 1962 were frozen fuel gases flaking off his spaceship.
    The phenomenon has been seen many times since then, but since that
    was the U.S. first manned orbital flight, such things were then
    unknown, and thus quite frightening at the time.
    
    	Many astronauts have seriously reported seeing unknown objects
    trailing their spaceships, with most being brushed off by NASA as
    distant satellites and discarded booster rockets, as well as outright
    misinformation by the tabloids.
    
    	Of course, SOME UFO reports by astronauts have NOT been
    satisfactorily explained, and their highly developed skills at accurate
    celestial observing does give their reports a lot of extra credence.
                                                                  
    	Larry
    

    AS UFO SIGHTINGS PER SAY GO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THESE ASTRONAUT
    INCIDENTS ARE VERY WELL DOCUMENTED BEYOND THE ORIGIONAL EYEWITNESS
    ACCOUNT. EVEN THE EXPLANATIONS(OR THEORIES)ALTHOUGH PROBABLY COR-
    RECT ARE BAISICLY UNSUBSTANTIATED IN MY OPINION......ANY COMMENTS?
    
    STEVE 

    	While the astronauts do not have any physical proof, and some
    of the photos of these objects do not really prove anything - they
    look like small blurs of light against the blackness of space -
    I still believe the astronauts observed something out of the ordinary,
    primarily because of their expert training.
    
    	BTW - why are you shouting?
    
    	Larry
    

    I have a question for those non-believers that have sent responses
    regarding UFO's.  How can you possibly believe that the planet 
    Earth is the only planet in the huge universe that could possibly
    have life (of whatever form) on it?  It seems impossible that
    intelligent people would not consider this!!

    Re .55:
    
    I don't believe that there's a direct correlation between believing
    that the Earth is the only pklanet that has life on it and a disbelief
    that UFOs represent evidence of the existence of other life.
    
    UFOs are by definition unidentified.  It isn't absolutely clear
    they're flying, and they might not even be objects in all cases.
    
    There are basically four explanations for UFOS
    
    1) They represent spacecraft (or beings?) from elsewhere than Earth.
    2) They're natural forces we don't understand yet.
    3) They're misinterpretations of known phenomena.
    4) They're hoaxes.
    
    Starting from the bottom:
    There have been several successful implementations of hoaxes.  Frank
    Scully's "Behind the Flying Saucers" books of the late '40s and
    erly '50s are an example.
    There have been many cases of known objects mistaken for "spacecraft."
     These have included mirages, sundogs, and even planets, balloons,
    and aircraft.
    Some phenomena, like ball lightning, are not fully understood and
    their manifestations could be taken for "objects."
    Finally, outside of affidavits, there have been no incontrovertible
    instances of encounters with spacecraft.
    
    Having said all the foregoing, that in no way means that there isn't
    intelligent life elsewhere.  In fact, physics, chemistry, and
    mathematics together imply that there's _lots_ of life elsewhere!
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    

    Did anyone read on the AP about the UFO (maybe meteor definitely
    not satellite debris) that came down over the south west?  
     And about the radar going out for awhile on Monday?
    (Steven Speilberg where are you.....)
                                          :-)

    	It sounded more like a fireball meteor (a very bright meteor
    caused by the piece of interplanetary debris being larger than the
    usual size of a meteor - a dust speck), or another re-entering rocket
    booster, like the Soviet one which re-entered Earth's atmosphere
    over California last week.
    
    	Do you have any additional information on what people saw, what
    it did, and what NORAD had to say? (NORAD tracks all Earth-orbiting
    objects)
    
    	Larry
    

Associated Press Tue 11-NOV-1986 17:21                            Night Light

   Searches for Possible Meteorite Turn Up Nothing, Authorities Say
                         By MARGARET HABERMAN
                        Associated Press Writer
   A red-glowing light with a tail that flared across the sky in the
Southeast prompted searches in several states for traces of a
possible meteor or other space object, but nothing was found,
authorities said Tuesday.
   The light was spotted about sunset Monday over parts of
Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi as it streaked westward.
   Aviation officials said it was probably a meteor. Maj. Walter
Chipchase, a spokesman for the North American Air Defense Command,
said it was not believed to be a disintegrating rocket or satellite.
   Although authorities said the object likely burned in the
atmosphere hundreds of miles from Earth, some officials looked for
fragments in fields and other areas where residents reported
sightings.
   Joe Keltch, a deputy with the Rhea County Sheriff's Department in
East Tennessee, said he scoured an area near Graysville where a
caller reported something had fallen out of the sky.
   ``We got a report that it might have been a piece of a plane,''
he said. ``We looked around and didn't find anything.''
   Searched also were conducted near Ducktown in southeastern
Tennessee, in Fannin County in northern Georgia, in Cullman County
in northern Alabama and other areas as hundreds of calls were made
to airports and local authorities.
   Other sightings were reported in eastern Mississippi around
Meridian, Birmingham and Montgomery in Alabama and Morristown and
Chattanooga in Tennessee.
   Curley Wainwright, a traffic control supervisor at McGhee Tyson
Airport in Knoxville, Tenn., said the light had ``quite a red glow
and a tail behind it.''
   ``There were reports that it was a fireball falling out of the
sky, a downed plane, a possible satellite explosion ... or a
shooting star,'' said Gene Jones, director of the Gilmer County
(Ga.) Emergency Management Agency. ``Apparently it was a meteorite
entering the atmosphere.''
   Jones said chances of finding any pieces of the object were slim.
   ``A meteorite could be the size of a pin-point to a bowling
ball,'' Jones said. ``It's like trying to find a needle in a
haystack. It may have landed on the ground, but where, God knows.''
   David Raney, a radio dispatcher with the Cullman County Sheriff's
Department, said his office had received about 80 telephone calls
from people who saw the object, and many seemed to believe it was
centered over Cullman, due north of Birmingham.
   ``It was directly over this county from what we understand,''
said Raney. ``People have been reporting seeing it and hearing a
sonic boom.''

    	Most likely it was a fireball meteor.
    
    	Or an out-of-control alien spacecraft burning up in Earth's
    atmosphere.
    
    	Larry
    

    I hope it was an out-of-control alien spacecraft.  That would be
    so much more fun than a meteor.
    					:-)
    (e.t. can even use my phone.....no charge)
    mary

    I wonder what the *long* distance charge to something even as close
    as Alpha Centauri would be?  :-)
    
    Dave

    NOT MANY PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH HOW TO REPORT A UFO SIGHTING.
    THE FOLLOWING ARE CHANNELS THROUGH WHICH YOU CAN REPORT SIGHTINGS
    AND IF NEED BE SEND OUT A QUALIFIED FIELD INVESTIGATOR:
    
    
    STEVE FIRMANI
    STUBBI::PROSUP
    DTN: 241-4738
    OR
    11 RICHARDSON ST.
    LEOMINSTER, MA. 01453
    (
    
    (617) 537-6478
    
    
    
    
    
    MUTUAL UFO NETWORK(MASSACHUSETTS)
    43 HARRISON ST.
    READING, MA. 01867
    HOTLINE #: (617) 944-0686
    ---------------------------------
    
    
    MUTUAL UFO NETWORK (NATIONAL OFFICE)
    103 OLDTOWNE RD.
    SEGUIN, TEXAS  78155-4099
    ---------------------------------
    
    NATIONAL UFO REPORTING CENTER
    SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
    HOTLINE #:(206) 722-3000
    
    

    	A crashing spacecraft might be fun for YOU, but I don't think
    the ship's crew would be too thrilled.
    
    	Larry
    

    
    	Unless they bail out over Fitchburg.   Then, I guarantee them
    	the time of their lives.  (and I've got this recipe for seafood
        chowder	that can't be beat, ....even in the Andromeda galaxy, 
        .....even in the Pleiades star cluster, ...even at the core of
        the universe.....)
    				:-)
    					mary
    She-who-knows-how-to-make-a-crashed-spacecrafts-crew-happy-they-are-
    no-longer-in-interstellar-space.
    

    Re .65:
    
    Didn't you know UFOs that fly over Fitchburg are piloted and crewed
    by intelligent extraterrestrial clams and oysters?  I think a seafood
    chowder would hardly promote interstellar goodwill. :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    re .66:
    	You're right Steve, no interstellar goodwill there.  (but think
    	of how they would help my food budget!...) 
    		:-)
    			mary
    
    		(I don't believe I said that....Forgive me ET)
    

    	No wonder alien intelligences do not want to make themselves
    known to us barbaric humans!  :^)
    
    	Larry
    

    WHERE TO REPORT A UFO SIGHTING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE:
    
    MUTUAL UFO NETWORK(NEW HAMPSHIRE)
    571 BRACKETT RD.
    RYE, N.H. 03870
    (603) 436-9283
    
    
    ****CASES ARE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL IF DESIRED!!!****
    

    WHERE HAS EVERYONE BEEN LATELY?
    

    	Obviously, no one has had any close encounters of the UFO kind
    lately.
    
    	But I will say that I called that UFO number in 27.46, and it
    is the biggest bunch of garbage I have ever heard - don't waste
    your money and time calling it, unless you want a good laugh, and
    a sample of how some people would rather rip off the public than
    assist in a serious study of the UFO phenomenon.
                                       
    	Larry
    

 To which phone number are you referring to? I see no number in 27.46,
 and why do you feel it is such garbage?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
       

    	Obviously whoever posted it unfortunately deleted it - I did
    not want it deleted, mainly because there was some interesting
    information about the UFOs some Soviet cosmonauts recently saw.
     	
    	 I certainly wasn't putting down the person who posted it, just
    warning anyone that the group who has this UFO phone service are
    a bunch of phonies and their "news" a pack of tabloid headlines.
    
    	Please repost your note, or at least the latest info on the
    Soviet cosmonauts' UFO sightings.
    
    	Larry
    

    Re: .73
    
    Larry - I'm getting very confused.  Note 27.46 is still in the file...
    and you are the author!  Have you been experiencing any loss of
    time, not remembering things, any funny marks on your body, dents
    and burned grass in your backyard...anything like that?
    
    Just kidding!
                 
    Carole :-)
    

    	My mistake - I meant Note 27.45, which was deleted, and I wish
    would be put back in.
    
    	Larry
             

    That was one of my notes and I deleted it and I don't even remember
    why.  It did give the UFO hotline number but specified that the
    UFO hotline is more of a comical diversion than anything else (as
    Larry will attest to).  It also told of the European news story
    of the year (1984 I think) about the Soviet cosmonauts seeing 
    "beings of light" after being on the space station (Salyut) for 
    several months.
    The story said that the ground crew then sent up a team of scientists
    to deal with the apparent hallucination and the team of scientists
    saw them too.
    (Remember Carole when we first saw the news report on the VTX AP press
    release?)
    Sorry I deleted it Larry.  I don't have a good excuse that I can think
    of right now, (except that there are strange burn marks on my body
    and I seem to have lost memory of spans of time....:-) 

    	That's okay, I'm just glad you reiterated the informationon
    the Soviet cosmonaut sightings.
    
    	I find it amazing (if this is true) that the scientists sent
    to the Salyut 7 space station to check out these "beings of light"
    also saw them - it kind of blows the long-duration hallucination
    theory out of the water, because visiting Soyuz-Salyut crews do
    not stay in Earth orbit longer than one week, so the scientists
    certainly did not have several months of spacetime to start seeing
    visions (based on the hallucination theory).
    
    	I have come to these theories about this:
    
    	1.  It is a hoax, either by the Soviets or due to yellow
            journalism by the European press (what paper did print this
            article?). 
        
        2.  The cosmonauts and scientists are having hallucinations,
            due to some unknown physiological cause; or they are
            lying for undisclosed reasons.                          
    
        3.  The cosmonauts saw some new type of natural cosmic phenomenon
            previously unknown to scientists.
    
     	4.  The cosmonauts saw some human artificial objects, either
            some satellites or some spacecraft debris (remember John
            Glenn's "fireflies"?).
    
    	5.  There really ARE luminous aliens out in Earth orbit, possibly
            studying human society.
         
    	  Larry
     

    Your five theories sort of sum up my feelings about the story too.
    Remember this was supposed to be the European NEWS STORY OF THE
    YEAR.  If it was yellow journalism I can't believe they would 
    give it that kind of publicity.  The soviets seem to be far more
    open minded than we are regarding the unusual.  My first reaction
    was surprise that they even admitted what happened in public as
    they are usually concerned about their image.  I watched carefully
    for any follow up information but the whole story was just dropped
    after the initial release.  I would dearly love to find any additional
    information but I don't even know where to begin to look.  If I
    read anything more on this I will post the article.  I wish some
    of our European friends would confirm or deny the original story
    and perhaps post the original article.
    
    
     
    

                <<< 2B::NOTES1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
================================================================================
Note 442.35          89-YEAR-OLD GRANDMOTHER GIVES BIRTH???             35 of 40
VAXUUM::DYER "Kenneth, what is the frequency?"       36 lines  30-DEC-1986 02:52
                        -< {RE .33} - Coming Right Up! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

================================================================================
 VAXUUM::DYER                        Humour                   21-NOV-1984 08:45
 Note 21.0                 Co-Workers From Outer Space              0 responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

		    Your Co-worker Could Be a
		    Space Alien, Say Experts
		    ... Here's How You Can Tell
		    From the National Enquirer

By Michael Cassels

	Many Americans work side by side with space aliens who look
human - but you can spot these visitors by looking for certain
tip-offs, say experts. 

	They listed 10 signs to watch for:

	1. Odd or mismatched clothes.
	  "Often space aliens don't fully understand the different
styles, so they wear combinations that are in bad taste, such as
checked pants with a striped shirt or a tuxedo jacket with blue jeans
or sneakers," noted Brad Steiger, a renowned UFO investigator and
author. 

	2. Strange diet or unusual eating habits.   
          Space aliens might eat French fries with a spoon or gobble
down large amounts of pills, the experts say. 

	3. Bizarre sense of humor.   
          Space aliens who don't understand earthly humor may laugh
during a company training film or tell jokes that no one understands,
said Steiger. 

	4. Takes frequent sick days.   
          A space alien might need extra time off to "rejuvenate its
energy," said Dr. Thomas Easton, a theoretical biologist and futurist.

	5. Keeps a written or tape-recorded diary.   
          "Aliens are constantly gathering information," said Steiger.

	6. Misuses everyday items.   
          "A space alien may use correction fluid to paint its nails,"
said Steiger. 

	7. Constant questioning about customs of co-workers.   

    
    
    Has anyone else heard about the UFO sighting this week (12/30/86
    I believe) in Alaska?  I heard this on the TV late night news that
    same night, and about 3 times on the New York radio news station
    WINS on Wednesday 12/31 while I was driving home to Massachusetts.
    
    The way the story goes (as best as I can remember) is that a cargo
    plane reported being followed by a "large mother ship about the
    size of two aircraft carriers" and two smaller craft that looked
    like lights.  They could stop and start abruptly.  The cargo plane
    was followed for 400 miles and then the ships just disappeared.
    The UFOs were also tracked on radar on the ground by the FAA and
    another organization.
    
    I have not been able to find this in the newspapers and have not
    heard it on TV or the radio since I arrived back in Massachusetts
    on 12/31.  Anyone else have any info?
    
    Carole
    

	RE: 27.80 
    
Associated Press Sun 04-JAN-1987 22:14                             Alaska UFO

   ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - The Federal Aviation Administration has
stepped up its investigation of wavering lights that dogged a Japan
Air Lines cargo jet across Alaska's night sky for nearly an hour in
November, an official said Sunday.
   ``We're looking at it to ensure that somebody didn't violate
airspace we control,'' said FAA spokesman Paul Steucke. ``We looked
at it about six weeks ago, but since then we've gotten a lot of
public interest, so we went back and re-interviewed the pilot.''
   The veteran pilot, Kenji Terauchi, told investigators that two
of the lights were small, perhaps no larger than eight feet across.
He said the third light was on an aircraft, a huge darkened globe
with a diameter of perhaps two aircraft carriers placed end-to-end,
Steucke said.
   Terauchi said the large UFO showed up on his cockpit weather
radar. But images on military radar screens at the time were
dismissed as ``clutter,'' and a blip that showed up on FAA screens
was analyzed as a coincidental ``split image'' of the aircraft,
Steucke said.
   Radar tapes, transcribed interviews and radio messages are to be
sent to the FAA in Washington, D.C., later this week for review,
Steucke said.
   A JAL spokeswoman Sunday said Terauchi was on a flight to Europe
and was unavailable.
   Flight 1628, with a three-man crew, left Iceland on Nov. 17 with
a load of wine bound for Tokyo from Paris. Terauchi and his crew
boarded the Boeing 747 in Iceland for the leg of the trip to
Anchorage.
   The evening sky was clear as the jet, cruising at 525 knots,
crossed into Alaska from Canada, just northeast of Fort Yukon. As
the plane flew at 35,000 feet, Terauchi said he saw three lights
eight miles in front of his aircraft.
   The pilot reported the lights were yellow, amber and green,
Steucke said, but not red, the international color for aircraft
beacons.
   ``The two smaller ones moved a little bit, changed their angle.
The smaller ones did not show up on the weather radar onboard,''
Steucke said. ``The larger one did.
   ``It appeared to him it might be possible that the lights might
be exhaust pipes, they kind of wavered but did not blink. His main
concern was trying to determine whether he was overtaking another
aircraft.''
   Steucke said the pilot reported he dimmed cockpit lights to
ensure he was not seeing a reflection.
   ``He flew for about six minutes before he decided to report
anything,'' Steucke said. ``I can't say I blame him for that.''
   Terauchi radioed Anchorage FAA air controllers, who direct all
aircraft traffic in the state, except for planes near airports,
Steucke said. Fairbanks controllers checked their screens but saw
only Flight 1628, Stuecke said.
   The pilot reported the object was staying with him and
controllers told him to take any evasive action needed. Terauchi
decreased altitude to 31,000 feet, but the lights went down with
him ``in formation,'' Steucke said.
   South of Fairbanks, Terauchi turned the plane in a complete
circle to see if the lights would follow. ``That was pretty
clever,'' Steucke said. ``It allowed him to eliminate any natural
phenomenon which would have stayed stationary.''
   The lights stayed with the cargo jet, and moved to its left
side, the pilot told the FAA.
   The lights vanished, heading east, when the JAL jet was about 80
miles north of Anchorage, Steucke said.

Associated Press Sun 04-JAN-1987 15:59                        UFOBibliography

   New Book Lists All There is to Know About UFOs

   CHICAGO (AP) - George Eberhart has never seen a flying saucer,
but after compiling a list of more than 15,600 books and reports
about UFOs he's pretty sure there is something to the stories.
   ``That there is some phenomenon out there which behaves at odds
with what we consider reality seems pretty well established from
the evidence I have seen,'' he said Friday in a telephone interview.
   Eberhart is an editor for an American Library Association
magazine in Chicago, but he volunteers his time to serve as
librarian for the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies in suburban
Glenview. The library was named for the former head of the
Astronomy Department at Northwestern University, who died in April.
   Eberhart's two-volume, 1,300-page work, ``UFOs and the
Extraterrestrial Contact Movement: A Bibliography,'' lists titles
of books, articles, records, tapes and unpublished works on
unidentified flying objects, or UFOs.
   The work is published by Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, N.J., and
was released in December. Eberhart said he wrote it for libraries
and for collectors of UFO materials.
   Eberhart said his interest in the field, and his own collection
of publications, does not mean he is eccentric.
   ``I collect it not because I believe it's all true, but because
it's very important, not only to (give possible) evidence of
extraterrestrial life, but also because of the impact the UFO
phenomenon has had on the human race,'' he said.
   He agrees that some of the material he listed is far-fetched,
such as a book called ``UFOs: Nazi Secret Weapon?'' It says Adolph
Hitler and other Nazis escaped from Germany in 1945 and have
survived in a colony at the South Pole, their base for an air force
of flying saucers.
   ``I didn't want to ignore anything, no matter how ridiculous it
might seem,'' he said.
   The list's entries include more than 5,500 books in English,
2,200 books in other languages and magazines such as the Flying
Saucer Review and the International UFO Reporter.
   One listing is for a 1957 record album called ``Music from
Another Planet,'' on which Howard Menger played songs he said were
taught to him by a man from Saturn.
   The bibliography has 158 chapters on different types of
listings. One chapter is on UFO abductions, in which people claim
they were kidnapped by aliens and later released.
   Another is on animal mutilations, where extraterrestrials are
blamed for killing cattle or other animals whose organs are
supposedly surgically removed. There are two chapters on UFO
reports before 1945, some reaching back 2,500 years to the Roman
Empire.
   Eberhart, 36, said he has been interested in UFOs since he was a
teen-ager. In the 1960s and 1970s, he said, people reported many
sightings, but there was a decline from about 1981 until a year
ago, when things began picking up again.
   But he said new technology is making it tougher to determine
which reports of UFOs are important, now that there are aircraft
like experimental Stealth planes in the air.
   ``In 1987, it may have more of a basis in it being a government
project than it would have been in 1957,'' he said.

    .80 sounds like a textbook case of an experienced pilot mistaking a
    celsestial body for a flying object at night.  I wonder why people
    are taking this case especially seriously. 
    
    	-Neil 

    	What would the "celestial body" be?
    
    	Larry
    

    RE: .83 
    
    The celestial bodies that night (I assume night) were:
    	1. the full moon. (I think most pilots know 
    			   what the moon looks like)
    	2. Jupiter. visible in the early evening. The color is
    		    yellow-green
    	3. Mars. Very close to Jupiter in the evening sky.  
    		 *Definitely* red.
    
    Jupiter and Mars were both in the vicinity of Aquarius, a very dim
    constellation with no bright stars, so multiple lights couldn't
    have come from other stars.
    
    The pilot said there were no red lights.  If he saw Jupiter he
    is almost certain to have seen Mars.
    
    Besides, when the plane turned, the objects followed it, ie moved.
    What was west of them was no longer west of them.
    
    I wish the report told what the local time was so we could determine
    what planets were where at the time of the sighting.
    
    Then again, the pilot described the shape of the "craft".  He probably
    saw it by the light of the full moon, quite bright in the winter
    on a clear night.
    
    I don't think we can dismiss this as simply mistaken planets or
    stars.  I doesn't add up.
    
    Tom

    	I heard the pilots said the UFO's were the size of aircraft
    carriers!  I do not beleive there are any natural objects in the
    sky which are as large as that (dismissing clouds - which I'm sure
    these seasoned pilots would know the difference about).
    
    	I would still like to know how such large "objects" avoided
    radar detection?
    
    	Larry
    

  I feel sure the next issue of the National Enquirere will clear the
whole thing up for us.
                                                8-)

    	If this is somethng for the National Enquirer, then why is the
    FAA investigating the event?
    
    	Larry
    

    I suppose the flip reply would be "so that the National Enquirer can't
accuse the FAA of participating in a coverup."     8-)

    Actually, I don't know what discretion the FAA has in determining how
far it must go in investigating any incident reported by one or more
apparently serious observers.  It would be interesting to know...

                                                     Herb

    All Things Considered on National Public Radio had a representative
    from the FAA on last night.  He confirmed that the report is being
    taken seriously by the FAA, and most of the other details presented
    here.  One additional fact -- the pilot reported dimming his cockpit
    lights to check that the objects were not reflections on the window.
    
    I wouldn't take the pilots estimate of size as gospel.  Beyond about
    thirty feet (the limit of steroscopic vision) you need a cue as
    to the distance of an object.  To judge the size of an unfamiliar
    object you must know its distance.  Looking at an unknown object,
    suspended in air, without known objects nearby or ground-lines to
    follow, even a trained pilot's judgement on size would depend on
    assumptions which might be inaccurate.
    
    My personal guesses, from most favored to least favored:
    
    	1) Unknown form of electric discharge (different from, but perhaps
    	   related to the little understood ball lightning).
    
    	2) Cockpit lights on window which the pilot failed to dim.
    
    	3) Hoax or hallucination on the part of the pilot.
    
    	4) Some relatively ordinary object attached to the plane.
    
    	5) Experimental aircraft.
    
    	6) Some truely unknown phenomena (interstellar craft being far
    	   down on the list of possibilities within this category).
    
    				Topher

    
    First of all the FAA is not conforming to the norm in the JAL case
    in as much as showing an interest concerning a UFO sighting. Usually
    in incidents such as this they will go with the "Official" explan-
    ation and stay with it until the media storm blows over or decide
    not to get officially involved at all.
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                                                              
                                                                   
    

    	So in other words, more bureaucratic doubletalk, as usual. 
    
    	With attitudes like that, no wonder we don't really know what
    UFO's are.
    
    	Larry
    

    
    Thats the idea.......To make it as inaccessable as possible. Even
    requests under the Freedom of Information Act which we recieve do
    show promise but most seem to be missing the needed document(s)
    to put the puzzle together.
    

    > but most seem to be missing the needed document(s)
      to put the puzzle together.
    How does one know if documents are missing if the government
    never makes them available? are pages numbered sequentually
    or are there refrences with in the doc. pointing to other documents?
                                              bill colleton

    
    Many documents recieved are pages with only "selected" lines visible
    anything which the government does not want you to see is blacked
    out and impossible to read. In some instances we were sent requested
    documents with virtually every line on every page blacked out so
    even these documents which were recieved under the FOIA can in all
    actuallity be listed as missing documentation, because we know its
    there but what does it say. There are also numerous documents which
    were refused release because of national security. Barry Goldwater
    tried painstakingly to acquire information on the supposed "blue
    room" at Wright-Patterson AFB and was repeatedly denied forcing
    him to give up with the attitude that it has to be one of the most
    highly classified secrets in the history of this country.
    

Associated Press Mon 12-JAN-1987 13:10                              Pilot-UFO

   	Pilot Reports Second UFO Sighting
   ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - For the second time in two months, a
Japan Air Lines pilot has reported spotting an unidentified object
that seemed to be flying near his cargo jet over central Alaska.
   Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi reported his second sighting Sunday on a
cargo flight from London to a refueling stop in Anchorage, said
Paul Steucke, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration.
   Terauchi's co-pilot reported seeing the lights, Steucke said,
but the flight engineer, who sits farther back in the Boeing 747
cockpit, ``indicated he was uncertain whether he saw any lights at
all.''
   Steucke said FAA officials and experienced pilots speculated
that Sunday's sighting could have been caused by light bouncing off
ice crystals in the atmosphere.
   On Nov. 17, Terauchi reported that two bright objects and third
object as wide as two aircraft carriers placed end-to-end followed
his JAL plane for more than 300 miles as it flew to Anchorage from
Iceland.
   ``We asked him point-blank if this was like the Nov. 17
sighting, and he said, `No, no, there's no similarity between the
two,''' Steucke said.
   Terauchi said he saw the lights twice Sunday, once for about 20
minutes and again for about 10 minutes as his plane flew at 37,000
feet. He notified an air traffic controller in Anchorage of the
sighting.
   ``His statement to the controller was `irregular lights, looks
like a spaceship,''' Steucke said.
   Unlike the lights that he reported in November, which seemed to
stay with him even when he took evasive action, the lights seen
Sunday appeared to approach from the front of the plane, went
beneath it and reappeared to the rear.
   Controllers and the supervisors immediatedly checked their radar
screens for objects in the vicinity of the JAL flight Sunday.
``There were none, and that was confirmed'' by miliary radar,
Steucke said.
   In the Nov. 17 incident, air traffic controllers spotted what
they believed was a split image of the aircraft caused by a minor
problem with the plane's radar transponder, Steucke said earlier.
It was coincidence that the split image was located where Terauchi
reported seeing the objects, he said.
   The military also dismissed the blip seen in the earlier
incident, calling it radar clutter.
   Steucke said that both times Terauchi reported seeing lights
Sunday, his plane was flying over villages.
   ``The ground temperature in the area was about minus-23 and
there was a temperature inversion at 23,500 feet,'' he said.
``Temperature inversions in cold climates, with ice crystals, have
been known to create a bounce light effect.''
   Light from the villages could have reflected off ice crystals in
the inversion and appeared to be hovering in midair, Steucke said.
As the plane approached and passed over villages, the reflected
light would appear to go under the aircraft and reappear behind it,
as Terauchi described, Steucke said.
   Steucke said the bounce-light theory is only speculation and is
not an FAA finding in the case. ``Those of us involved in this
talked about it,'' he said. ``People who are experienced at flying
mentioned that is not an infrequent occurrence.''
   Both sightings are under investigation, Steucke said.

    	Radar doesn't lie (at least I don't beleive so), and would it
    detect ice crystals?
    
    	Larry
    

RE: .98
    
    No, radar doesn't lie, but it can be misunderstood/misinterpretted.
    Specifially, radar can show something when there is "nothing" (or
    at least nothing "solid"),  or can show nothing when there is instead
    the right something there.  Basically, what radar tells you is that
    a signal has been received similar to a signal you have sent out,
    but distorted in particular ways and delayed a particular amount
    of time.  Really that is all its saying, everything else is fallible
    deduction.
    
    What can be said from the lack of a radar trace is that there was
    nothing there which reflects radar waves according to the patterns
    which the radar was designed to detect.  This basically means that
    there was nothing that reflected radar waves similarly to metal
    objects approximately the size of an airplane.
    
    I believe radar can detect ice crystals, but a radar being used
    for defense or air-traffic control would be designed to avoid doing
    so as much as possible, since it would produce "clutter".  Radar
    designed for meterological purposes would be designed to ignore
    airplanes and just notice the ice crystals, on the other hand.
    
    					Topher

    
    Every type of radar is designed to detect the deflection from
    certain phenomena man-made or natural but not for detection of
    unknown anomalies. They each fill a specific purpose give or
    take minimal ammounts of clutter which an experienced radar
    operator should be capable of sorting from a solid target.
    

I think that it is also possible that if a certain UFO is indeed a space craft
that contains intelligent life, it may have the technology to be invisible to
our radar.  I imagine that being discreet would aid in whatever observations
that it might be making.

		Dave

    Another theory on the lack of more radar sightings and UFOs
    disapearing into thin air is the possibility of these craft
    comming from another dimension.
    
    Steve
    

    	Or from another time.
    
    	God, it's nice to able to air these theories without being
    ridiculed.
    
    	Larry
    

    They might have been here all along.  This might have been a "seeded"
    planet.

    The new Omni arrived at my house last night and it was facinating.
    It delt primarily with censorship but one particular article 
    discussed an organization (containing some famous members, Carl
    Sagan for example) founded to debunk UFO reports.  The  article
    mentioned how a member of that organization quit because he felt
    that some members of the organization were "berserk", (apparently
    he felt they were  fanatics who were trying to censor
    or dispute all UFO reports without exception or consideration.)
    
    I know I don't have this down verbatim because I don't have the
    magazine with me but I tried to get the jist of what they were saying.
    What is going on, anyway?  What is there to hide and why?               
    
    

    Re .107:
    
    There are several questions here.
    
    1) What about debunking organizations?  I suspect, without having
    seen the article, the author's writing about CSISCOP, which has
    been treated elsewhere.  The problenm is that an organization of
    any sort that's organized for the express purpose of debunking has
    an axe to grind.
    
    2) UFOs may be a variety of things.  Any cover-up would be before
    the "debunking" organization(s) were organized....
    
    3) Fanatics abound, and can be pro- or anti- on any issue.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr,.
    

    Debunkers or debunking organizations are built from the exact same
    "It can't be therefore it isn't" foundation. They visciously assault
    the character of any UFO witnesses and approach investigations hap-
    azardly, with a negative attitude from the beginning, and total
    reckless abondon for the facts as presented and no tact whatsoever
    when approaching or characterizing a witness. The sceptics code
    of ethics include "Anyone who sees a UFO is either seeing things,
    mentally unstable or an outright liar!" 
    
    The true shame about this is that these are supposed to be the ones
    to look up to; the ones who use objectivity(and I use the term loosely)
    and the scientific method. It appears to me that scientific method
    and understanding in the hands of these unfortunates creates a
    mental block which they will never overcome until they realize that
    the average UFO witness is not the bumbling idiot that they make
    him/her out to be and in many ways may be more intelligent.
    
    People have already found out how much they can trust the government,
    is science next
                                                                   
                    
    

    Please, let us not abuse the term "skeptic".  That these people
    describe themselves inaccurately with that word is no reason for
    us to misuse it.  A skeptic is someone who approaches any question
    with a priori doubt and looks to evidence to change his/her mind.
    The debunkers will swallow almost anything if it fits their
    preconceptions, hence they are far from being skeptics.  Rather,
    they are partisans.
    
    			Topher

    
    Pardon the misunderstanding, my comments were based upon UFO skeptics
    and not skeptics in general.
    

Associated Press Wed 28-JAN-1987 04:26                           UFOExplained
        
   NEW YORK (AP) - Astronomical calculations show that a Japan Air
Lines pilot who claimed to see an unidentified flying object over
Alaska last November was actually looking at Jupiter and possibly
Mars, says a new report.
   ``This is not the first time that an experienced pilot has
mistaken a bright celestial body for a UFO, nor will it be the
last,'' said the report by Philip J. Klass, a longtime investigator
of claimed UFO sightings.
   ``Jupiter was only 10 degrees above the horizon, making it
appear to the pilot to be roughly at his own 35,000-foot
altitude,'' the report said.
   The planet also was unusually bright, and located exactly where
the pilot said he saw the UFO. The pilot, Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi,
never mentioned seeing Jupiter or Mars.
   Mars was just below and to the right of Jupiter, and may explain
Terauchi's initial report that he saw two lights, Klass said.
   Klass said Tuesday he has found, in hundreds of UFO
    investigations, that ``they've all turned out to have prosaic
explanations.'' He spoke in a telephone interview from Colorado,
where he is vacationing.
   The Buffalo-based Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
Claims of the Paranormal, which issued Klass' report, is an
organization of scientists who investigate claims of UFO sightings,
ESP occurrences and other so-called paranormal phenomena.
   Klass, who heads the organization's UFO subcommittee, is an
editor with the magazine Aviation Week and Space Technology, and
author of ``UFOs: The Public Deceived.'' He has been investigating
UFO sightings for more than 20 years.
   In his report, he said Terauchi's claims that the object
followed him as he made a 360-degree turn are contradicted by what
he told flight controllers at the time.
   John Leyden, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration
in Washington, D.C., quoted from a summary of conversations between
Terauchi and ground controllers in which the pilot reported losing
sight of the object after completing his turn.
   The object reappeared a few moments later, according to the FAA
summary quoted by Leyde
   Paul Steucke, a spokesman for the FAA in Anchorage, said that
Terauchi told FAA officials in an interview that the object stayed
with him as he turned.
   Terauchi was over Alaska enroute from Europe, via Iceland, to
Tokyo when he saw the mysterious light.
   According to Klass, who reviewed a complete copy of the
transcript, the pilot never reported seeing Jupiter or Mars, even
though they were clearly visible.
   Morris Simoncelli, a spokesman for Japan Air Lines in New York,
said, ``We have no position on this as the airline. The captain
said he saw something; he reported it. He followed procedures.''
   A United Airlines flight and an Air Force C-130 cargo plane that
were in Terauchi's vicinity at the time of the claimed sighting
were asked to look for the object, and neither reported seeing it.
   ``I think that the Japanese pilot should have been a little more
skeptical when the United airliner and the Air Force plane reported
seeing nothing,'' Klass said.
   A reported radar ``blip'' near the Japan Air Lines plane was a
spurious echo from the mountainous terrain underneath the aircraft,
Klass said.           
   Terauchi reported a second UFO sighting in approximately the
same area on January 11. That sighting was explained by FDA
officials as village lights bouncing off ice crystals in the
atmosphere.
   Terauchi later conceded that that was a reasonable explanation,
said Steucke.
   Steucke said the FAA would be releasing the results of its own
investigation in mid-February.
                      

    Check the latest issue of Omni for an article on the credibility
    of this particular UFO debunking organization.  

    	HOW can two experienced pilots mistake the planets Mars and
    Jupiter for UFO's?!
    
    	Not only are these planets not incredibly brilliant (Mars
    particularly so), but pilots should know their astronomy, and no
    planet can be mistaken for something the size of an aircraft carrier!
    
    	I have read Mr. Klass' books, and although I know he is VERY
    thorough in his investigating, he seems skeptical about every UFO
    report he checks out, being all set to debunk it.
    
    	I can buy some average person who knows nothing of astronomy
    mistaking a planet (particularly brilliant Venus) for a UFO because
    of their ignorance, but NOT two experienced pilots; even if they
    are not familiar with astronomy, their aviation skills should be
    enough to judge objects in the night sky.
    
    	I hope the FAA doesn't buy this thin rational from Klass.
    
    	Larry
    

    The books are FULL of accounts of experienced pilots mistaking
    planets for something else.
    
    Note that there was never a suggestion that the light that was
    seen was the size of an aircraft carrier.  There was supposed
    to be a black sphere the size of an aircraft carrier, 20 miles
    away, with a few bright lights on it.  In other words, a few
    pinpoints of light on a featureless black disk about three degrees
    in diameter.  Once again, the records are full of stories of
    people seeing a point of light, and their visual systems creating
    a complete image around it.
    
    	-Neil

    Re .114, .115:
    
    In the old days, when "experienced pilots" were required to learn
    astronavigation, it would be more difficult for one to mistake a
    planet for an inter[planetary/stellar] navigation light [?] on a
    spacecraft.  Nowadays, with radionavigation, it would be far easier.
    
    However:
    
    If the pilot was telling the truth, then what he saw followed him
    through a 360-degree turn.  Klass says otherwise, according to the
    news accounts.
    
    The pilot was in contact with a US air traffic control (ATC) facility;
    therefore, there is a complete tape recording of both sides of their
    conversation.  It would be interesting to compare a transcript of
    that with whatever reports Klass used.
    
    I don't lean heavily towards the extraterrestrial-craft explanation
    of UFOs, but neither do I take Phil Klass' explanation to be satisfac-
    tory, given the track record of CSICOP.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.: Bluejay would be better at this response, but I _have_ been
    pushing holes through the sky for more than a decade.
    

    I am unconvinced by Klass's explanation but would not reject it
    out of hand.  Mr. Klass works on the "Sherlock Holmes" principle
    that "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter
    how unlikely, is the truth."  Unfortunately, Mr. Klass (along with
    the other principles of his organization) assume that anything unknown
    is, ipso facto, impossible.
    
    The question is, how much of a change actually occured in the pilot's
    report, and how much did Klass simply dismiss as inconsitent with
    the "possible".  There are people whose judgement I would trust
    as sufficiently objective to determine that the pilot probably made
    this error, but Klass is not one of them.
    
    On the other hand, being a trained pilot, or a trained anything
    else, does not raise one above the limitations of the human perceptual
    system.  There is very little visual context in the sky, and we evolved
    to take very heavy advantage of context.  Given a false clue an
    optical illusion can be created quite easily in these circumstances,
    and, again in these circumstances, it is likely to be perceptually
    tenacious even after the false clue is no longer there (that is,
    the optical illusion will persist even though the thing that caused
    it is gone, it becomes locked into the low-level interpretation
    system because there is nothing to actively contradict it).
    
    The giant, dimly perceived, sphere struck me immediately as a likely
    optical illusion, whatever the lights which defined it were.  There
    are some great films depicting a particular optical illusion.  First
    we see a "frozen frame" of some bright spots, arranged seemingly
    at random on a black field.  That is all we see.  Now the film starts
    to move, as do the lights.  Suddenly we perceive a human figure,
    completely black, walking along against the black background.  The
    figure is evident only during motion, there is no trace in any of
    the still frames.
    
    The film is produced by dressing someone in black, including a black
    hood, attaching small lights to various parts of their body (head,
    elbows, knees, feet, hands, etc.) and them filming them, at high
    contrast, against a black background.  The human figure is invisible
    (the effect works even if the position of the lights are copied
    by hand onto animation frames) its faint but very real seeming
    appearance is due entirely to an optical illusion.  One of the things
    that the human perceptual system is good at is recognizing a human
    gait, and it simply fills in the details to inform your conscious
    mind of the recognition.  One can even catch hints of male vs female
    figures.
    
    				Topher 

    The statement in .116 that:
    
        "... neither do I take Phil Klass' explanation to be satisfac-
    	tory, given the track record of CSICOP" 
    
    implies that CSICOP in general, and Klass in particular, have
    frequently promulgated explanations of supposedly paranormal
    phenomena, which explanations have subsequently been shown to be
    spurious, fraudulent, unfounded, etc.  I am not aware of any
    such instances.  I would very much appreciate it if you would
    post a few examples to support this statement.
    
    	-Neil

    Omni Magazine..February 1987
    
    .page 33  CONTINUUM Censoring The Paranormal
    
    "In 1977 a group of prominent academics and journalists-few of whom
    had firsthand experiece with anomaly research-formed the Committee
    for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).
    The committee, whose members included such luminaries as Carl Sagan
    and Harvard zoologist Stephen J. Gould, declared as their mission
    nothing less than the salvation of Western civilization from 
    "irrationality" and "dangerous sects", which, because they accepted
    the reality of anomalies, opposed science-or so CSICOP charged.
    
    Not long afterward CSICOP complained to the Federal Communications
    Commission about an NBC documentary that treated paranormal phenomena
    more sympathetically than the debunkers liked.  Although CSICOP
    alleged that the point of view the documentary represented was 
    harmfull to the public, the FCC, umimpressed, refused to act.
    
    In one strange incident CSICOP official Philip J. Klass, learning
    of a forum on anomalies research that the University of Nebraska
    was sponsoring, called the school to protest that CSICOP's views
    were not being represented and that, moreover, in questioning the
    United States Government's work on the nonexistence of UFO's, speakers
    at the conference were seeking "what the Soviet Union does-to convey
    to the public that our government cannon be trusted, that it lies,
    that it falsifies....As a patriotic American I very much resent
    [this]".  After Klass threatemed legal action against the university,
    it canceled its sponsorship of future conferences of this kind.
    
    Since then satellite groups of debunkers have proliferated all around
    the country, determined to do battle with "pseudoscience" real and
    imagined.  Not content simple to argue the issues on their merits,
    they have harassed colleges and universities into dropping (usually
    non-credit)courses inparapsychology, conducted vituperative campaigns
    against amnomaly proponents, and done-in the words of Phiadelphian
    Drew Endacott, one of their number-"anything short of criminal
    activity" to get "the point across to people who have no demonstrated
    facility to reason".
    As the antianomaly hysteria has escalated, even some skeptics have
    begun to express alarm.  Psychologist Ray Hyman, a respected critic
    of parapsychology, speaks of a "frightening fundamentalism" in all
    this, a "witch-hunting" mentality that has nothing to do with real
    science.  CSICOP cofounder Marcello Truzzi, a sociologist who left
    the organization when he grew concerned that it was becoming an
    "inquisitional body", says that some debunkers have gone "berserk".
    
    Well, what do you think boys and girls?  Would the government who
    brought you Watergate and the Iran Arms scandel ACTUALLY LIE TO
    YOU.  Mr. Klass says that if you think UFO's might be real you are
    sympathizing  with the Soviet Union against your own country.  Does
    that sound like scientific logic to you?  Step back and ask yourselves,
    What's wrong with this picture?
    
    

    Re: .118

    I second Neil Faiman's opinion about lack of any anti-CSICOP evidence.
    There seems to be too much of CSICOP-bashing. They must do something
    right. Right?

    -- Rav Karwan

RE: .118
    
    I've said most of this elsewhere, but ...
    
    CSICOP through its official organ, the Skeptical Inquirer, has
    published much valid, useful information.  It has also published
    misleading statements, unsubstantiated claims, personal attacks,
    innuendo, and highly questionable reasoning; and has consistently
    failed to publish any facts which do not strictly fit its "party
    line" or to allow meaningful rebuttal by those attacked (Marcello
    Truzzi, the original editor of SI was forced out of the organization
    for "being soft on occultists", i.e., for allowing them room to
    present their opinions and allow the readers to decide truth for
    themselves).
    
    If read with a *truely* skeptical eye, the innuendo, personal attacks,
    questionable reasoning, and the lack of rebuttal are obvious.  Here
    is an "objectivity trick" which you may find useful when reading
    SI or other debunking literature (I suggested this not long ago
    to a friend who was an avid reader of SI.  He was astounded at how
    much of the contents came out poorly).  As you read, simply pretend
    that what you are reading is about evolutionary biology and that
    the author is a Creationist.
    
    The misleading statements, and gross incompleteness of the pictures
    presented, naturally enough, require alternate sources of information
    and cannot be judged purely internally.  I have yet to see an article
    in SI about parapsychology (something about which I know more than
    a little) which was fair, accurate, and unbiased -- whether or not
    I agreed with its conclusions (NOTE, I am not talking about articles
    dealing with the debunking of phony psychics, some of which have
    been, to the best of my knowledge, well done; but those that deal
    with "debunking" scientific experiments which show evidence of
    paranormal effects).  I am not expert enough in UFO's to render
    an opinion myself about the completeness and accuracy of the UFO
    articles (although it is not hard to find innuendo and sloppy reasoning
    replacing facts in some of Klass's articles).  I'll post an article
    from elsewhere about one such supposed case involving Klass, however
    (as a separate reply).
    
    In the meanwhile, please read note 109.*.
    
    				Topher
    

    Re .118:
    
    I particularly suggest 109.3-109.6, which cover things pretty well.
    
    Anyone who's read my replies in other notes (as well as my base notes)
    in this Conference must be aware that I'm not of the "I'll believe
    anything" school.  Having said that, I'm forced to observe that
    some of the arguments that prominent CSICOPs have forwarded have
    been done so with unnecessary shrillness.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

The following article came over the USENET bulletin board about a year ago.
I have removed some parts (marked with ellipsis) which I felt were irrelevant.
I cannot personally testify to the accuracy of what is presented.  I have,
however, corresponded with the author some, and have read a number of his
postings on a variety of subjects.  Although we disagree somewhat on what
constitutes sufficient scientific evidence, I have always found him rational
and level-headed, even under attack.  I therefore should state a strong
personal belief that Dave honestly believes what he presents here and that,
whether or not he is correct, he has fairly good, rational reasons for having
reached this conclusion.

				Topher

Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Path: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!im4u!oakhill!davet
Subject: Re: . . . - CSICOP liars - . . .
Posted: 7 Feb 86 10:30:14 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx

		.	.	.
 
Like Arlan, to my dismay I have found another of the CSICOP group to be a
liar - Phillip J. Klass.  Phillip's specialty is debunking UFO reports and
at one time I thought he was on-the-level and did an exceptionally good
job.  That is, until I happened to come across a case he debunked where
I was in a position to learn the facts.
 
Briefly, two older women and a young boy had a close-encounter with a craft
which left the adults with radiation poisoning north of Houston.  All 3
witnesses reported the same thing with quite concrete details mentioned.
(For example they counted the number of helicopters in the sky following
the craft around - 18 I think it was.)  They were driving in their car at
the time.
 
Klass claimed that only one of the women ever admitted to the event and
that she had been in the looney-bin so she wasn't to be believed in any
case.  He dismissed it at that, claiming no evidence.
 
The facts are that that all 3 reported seeing the very same events, and that
two of them were treated for severe radiation burns at the local hospital.
(When their hair started falling out they knew something was wrong.)  If
Klass had only bothered to check the hospital, he would at least have seen
that this was something which merited checking into.  But his mind seemed
already made up.  There can't be weird things going that we don't understand
therefore the story had to be the product of a deranged mind (or liars.)
The very same attitude many 'investigators' (I use the term lightly) use
against parapsychology.  It can't be so it isn't.
 
		.	.	.
 
Now I would suspect that a person like Carl Sagan is honest.  But he probably
thinks that the others in CSICOP are as honest as he is himself.  I can only
think of him as being somewhat naive in that respect.  If he knew the facts
I think he would be a lot more wary associating with people like Klass
and Randi.
 
Another point to make is this:  Isn't it true that even if those two once
were honest about investigating unusual claims, that now they are in a
position that they HAVE to find them false?  Otherwise, how could they admit
that for all those years of investigating there conclusions were wrong.

		.	.	. 
 
 --  Dave Trissel  Motorola Semiconductor, Austin, Texas
      {seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!im4u!oakhill!davet

    
    What's a Disinformation Campaign?
    
    It's a political tool that the govenernment uses to spread a mixture
    of half-truth, truth, innuendo, and lies to discredit a person or
    a concept.
    
    But why would the government do that?
    
    I don't know.  Rationally speaking the subject doesn't seem to deserve
    so much time and money and trouble.  So lets think about that for awhile. 

    Back in the days of "Project Bluebook"(the Air Force's commitee
    on UFO investigations) Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Professor Emeritus of
    Astronomy at Northwestern University was asked by the Air Force
    to become Consultant for Bluebook. Thinking that it would be a
    cake-walk the late Dr. Hynek accepted. After years of case in-
    vestigations he well well known as the scientist the Air Force
    used to down-play UFO reports. Soon Hynek sat and did some serious
    thinking. Why was he doing this when he knew deep down inside that
    the Bluebook was witholding valuable data......even from him and
    why was he treating these witnesses, most of which seemed like
    normal intelligent people, as if they all belonged in the looney-
    bin when all they were doing was trying to find out what it was
    that they had seen or thought they had seen?
    
    This was the turning point in Dr. Hynek's life. He then decided
    that the UFO phenomenon was well worth taking a serious look at
    and founded the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) in Illinois.
    
    What had made Hynek's attitude change so abbruptly? It could have
    been only one thing.......OBJECTIVITY!!!!
    
    Phil Klass substitutes objectivity with rationality and if I were
    a UFO witness I would not have a chance against people like Klass
    because of his total lack(unlike Hynek)of objectivity or at least
    compassion for another human being so that these witnesses could
    chat with him without being torn apart at the seams.
    
    Take a lesson!!
                         
    
    
    
    
    
    

    	Sadly, J. Allen Hynek died late last year.  I too admired his
    objectivity greatly, and he stressed studying UFOs for the very
    logical reason that we may be missing out on a unique phenomenon
    (either natural or artificial) if we don't take UFOs more seriously.
    
    	Larry
    

       Yes, Hynek's death was a big blow as I met him for the first
    and last time as he was speaking in Beverly,Ma. It's a shame
    that the dedicated ones have to go when the need for them is
    most urgent.
    
    

RE: .125
    
    Not rationality but *pseudo*-rationality -- one might coin the term
    "rationaliz-ity".
    
    Objectivity is the foundation of rationality, and the assumption
    that anything which is unknown does not exist (is "impossible")
    is a form of subjectivity which masquerades as its oposite.
    
    			Topher
    

    Bingo!!!!
    I couldn't have said it better myself!!
    
    Steve
    

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
Path: decwrl!pyramid!oliveb!ames!sri-spam!rutgers!daemon
Subject: Government coverup of UFO'S
Posted: 10 Feb 87 04:05:08 GMT
Organization: 
 
From: 52194052%NMSUVM1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
 
                     UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects)
 
    Late last year people in New Mexico were treated to an unusual
sight in the night sky.  Many people observed the bright comet-like
object as it burned upon re-entry of the Earth's atmosphere.  This
object was identified by NORAD  (North American Air Defense Command)
as a Soviet rocket booster.  Again on on Monday night of the next
week, U.S. citizens across the South reported an unusual sighting.
This object was not identified by NORAD, but an air traffic controller
in Tennessee said "It was probably a meteor." Some reports claimed
that the object was a flying saucer.  Throughout history there have
been thousands of far more dramatic observations of UFOs, and some of
the most provocative have been right here in New Mexico. Evidence
suggests that some UFOs are alien spacecraft. 

    There are some that do not agree with this particular analysis on
UFO origin.  First, they have examples of intentional hoaxes
perpetrated by UFO enthusiasts.  One example is the list of "Astronaut
UFO Sightings", a collection of data listed in the book EDGE OF
REALITY, by Dr. J. Allen Hyneck.  Hyneck has, after more careful
research, disavowed the list.  Of sixteen items on the list, most have
been shown to be cases where astronauts were quoted out of context or
cases of outright fraud.  All of the items on the list were in some
way discredited by James Oberg, who works for NASA (National
Aeronautics and Space Administration), in his article "Astronaut UFO
Sightings".  Second, anti-UFO-ists say that there is no physical
evidence to support the hypothesis that UFOs are alien vehicles; since
UFOs have been studied for an extended period of time, there should be
some physical evidence.  Finally, they say most sightings have been
fully explained as "normal" occurences such as electromagnetic field
effects, weather balloons, and the like. 
 
    While it is logically valid to hold this point of view given the
type of information considered thus far, there is information that has
been ignored up until this point.  For over thirty years, Government
agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NSA (National Security Agency) and DIA
(Defense Intelligence Agency) have actively researched UFOs, but
because of national security considerations, not all their findings
have been released (One national newspaper ran the headline:  "If
there are no UFO's, Why All the Secrecy?").  There have been over of
12,618 reports turned over to the Air Force for investigation, with
701 remaining unexplained. 

IF JUST ONE OF THESE REPORTS CONSTITUTES A SIGHTING OF AN
EXTRATERRESTRIAL VEHICLE, THE IMPLICATIONS WOULD BE PROFOUND. 

    Even skeptics admit that some UFO sightings are puzzling.  One
example of this exists in a CIA document written by Hector Quintanella
Jr. (the figurehead of Air Force skepticism), relating to an incident
observed by a Socorro, New Mexico police officer in 1964, who saw a
large, egg-shaped UFO in the desert, with two white-suited humanoid
figures standing next to the object.  The figures went inside the
object, then it took off into the sky at a tremendous rate of speed,
burning the ground from what appeared to have been take-off rockets: 
 
The document stated:
 
            " There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object
             which left quite an impression on him.  There is
             also no question about Zamora's reliability. He is
             a serious officer, a pillar of his church, and a
             man well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles
             in his area. He is puzzled by what he saw and
             frankly, so are we.  This is the best documented
             case on record, and still we have been unable, in
             spite of thorough  investigation, to find the
             vehicle or other stimulus that scared Zamora to
             the point of panic."*
 
Quintanella was head of the Air Force's "Project Blue Book" at the
time the document was compiled.  In another collection of 1,018
incidents reported by at least two observers, 3.3 per cent (41)
involved episodes where humanoids were seen with the vehicle or
vehicles. Forty-two cases included the observation of a landing.  In
addition, some notable people were recently asked to indicate where
aliens would land and why.  Nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman and
Bruce Maccabee, a physicist specializing in laser optics, picked New
Mexico, because of the proximity of White Sands Proving Ground, and
since New Mexico is the location of the first atomic bomb test site,
in 1945. 
 
                        * more on this in the book CLEAR INTENT.
  
Bibliography -

    CLEAR INTENT: Fawcett/Greenwood
    PARANORMAL BORDERLANDS OF SCIENCE: Kendrick Frazier
    SPACETIME TRANSIENTS AND UNUSUAL EVENTS: Persinger/Lafreniere
    LAS CRUCES SUN NEWS: November 11, 1986 1b
    OMNI (Magazine): May, 1986
    THE BOOK OF LISTS: Wallechinsky/Eallace/Wallace
 
 "lepton noodle soup"
 
                          MIKEY
                              (AAXION)

    The landing at Socorro was, according to Klass, a hoax although
    the police officer involved was probably a victim not a perpetraitor.
    He has a very persuasive argument to support this.
    
    /Bevin

    What was his very persuasive argument this time?  Let me guess....
    the police officer was a nerotic, anti-american, communist sympathizer
    who saw venus and jupiter enter the moon and fly away in order to
    gain publicity for his taco chain before his nervous breakdown,
    right? :-)                                                 
    

    Actually Lonnie Zamora was an outstanding police officer and ac-
    cording to acquaintences one of the last people in the world who
    would even consider perpetrating a hoax. If it was some kind of
    a hoax and was not carried out by Zamora, then who in the world
    would have or could have committed such an elaborate hoax and for
    what possible gain? As far as Klass is concerned this is another
    of his great case solutions which would be fine if it were not
    missing one critical piece of data........the facts....which he
    has shown time and time again that he glances through them rather
    than at them..............Klass dismissed!
    
    Steve
    

    
    
    One day last week I heard bits and pieces of a radio interview with
    a man who claims to have had a "close encounter of the third kind"
    with extraterrestrial beings.  This interview was on the "Ted and
    Janet" Show on WRKO.  I didn't get his name, but he has written
    a book of the experiences, entitled "Communion".  
    
    I was at the Paper Store in Maynard (MA) yesterday and checked to see
    if they had it.  They do not, but it is on their list of available
    books - the cost is $17.95 (a little bit high but books seem to
    be going in that direction).
    
    Did anyone else here the interview?
    
    Carole

    
    I did not hear that interview but do know who you are refering to.
    His name is Whitley Strieber whom I met at our UFO forum last August
    in Beverly, Mass. I have mixed feelings about the man(not that I
    doubt he had some kind of experience mind you), but he has already
    back-stabbed the man who initially investigated his case and showed
    him people who could help him. I have the book and am not impressed
    with it, mainly because he constantly repeats himself in most of
    the book on the same issues over and over again. You can try it,
    maybe it's just me.
    
    My sincere feelings are that he is more interested in making a buck
    than serious UFO research. This shows by the company he has been
    keeping on talk shows. Last tuesday he was on Donahue with a channeler
    and Joyce DeWitt(formerly of Three's Company), who is following
    in Shirley Maclaine's footsteps.
    
    We(investigators and researchers of the UFO phenonenon) have spent
    many years in an effort to bring respectability to this subject
    but all it takes is this type of irresponsible behavior to bring
    us back to square one.
    
    It's not that I have any objections to people practicing or believing
    what they choose, but if you do you'd best know what you are doing,
    ie.......step on the toes of organizations dedicated to helping
    people in these situations and taking away any credibility that
    has been strived for.
    
    Steve
    
    
    

    
    
    Steve,
    
    Thanks for the feedback.  I'll keep it in mind if or when I get
    the opportunity to read Whitley Strieber's book.
    
    Regards, Carole

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!ames!styx!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question
Posted: 3 Mar 87 01:10:16 GMT
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
 
> Even assuming he was telling the truth, Zamora may simply have been mistaken.
> Being "well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles" does not equip one to
> report reliably on really bizarre atmospheric phenomena, which come in much
> greater variety than naive UFOlogists think.  There was at least one major
> UFO sighting by airline pilots -- trained observers, surely -- which simply
> cannot have been anything other than a fireball meteor. (The clincher is
> that the meteor was big and spectacular and visible in the same part of
> the sky at the same time as the "UFO", and the pilots didn't see it.)
> 
> Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
 
    It's always amazing how easy it is to get confused by just the
right combination of lighting, perspective, and relative motion.  Some
years ago I was standing on the cliffs at Santa Monica, California,
around sunset.  Out over the Pacific Ocean was a tremendously bright
light, apparently motionless in the sky.  Within a couple of minutes,
there were several people standing there watching this "object", all
of us quite baffled.  I spent a little time analyzing it to determine
what it was. 
 
1. Because it wasn't moving, horizontally or vertically, I knew it
wasn't an airplane.  (It COULD have been flying directly at me, but
the light was so bright, and so many minutes elapsed without the light
getting noticeably brighter or dimmer, I dismissed the possibility). 
 
2. Helicopter?  Possible, except that there was absolutely no sound,
and the light was so bright -- perhaps magnitude -6 or -7, that we all
discounted that. 
 
3. Planet or star?  I knew it wasn't Venus, because of its position,
and because it was too bright.  I was about ready to consider myself
fortunate to have see a supernova. 
 
    What was it?  After 15 minutes had elapsed, suddenly there was
motion apparent.  The atmospheric conditions were phenomenonally
clear, and the jetliner was perhaps 50 or 60 miles out over the ocean,
coming so directly towards us that motion was too subtle to see. 
 
    I was a pretty knowledgeable observer of atmospheric and
astronomical events, and I was completely confused for 15 minutes. 
I've read a lot of UFO accounts similar to my experience -- I can
believe that even a very knowledgeable observer can be fooled by just
the right combination of unusual circumstances. 
 
Clayton E. Cramer


Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!ames!rutgers!husc6!linus!utzoo!henry
Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question
Posted: 3 Mar 87 02:35:44 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
> It's interesting to see a scientific community assuming that some
> phenomenon doesn't exist simply because there's no absolute proof
> that it does...
 
    It's interesting to see the True Believers assuming the existence
of some phenomenon when there is *no* trustworthy evidence for it. 
 
> ... In fact, in cases of UFOs and ESP, the scientific
> community is quite willing to ignore evidence because the evidence
> doesn't support the favored hypothesis.
 
    As Philip Klass has said (approximately):  "I work for the world's
leading aerospace journal.  If it turned out that I had overlooked
evidence of a real extraterrestrial landing because of my
preconceptions, the LEAST that would happen would be that I'd lose my
job and my career would be ruined. On the other hand, if I was the
first to report a genuine extraterrestrial spaceship, I would be
world-famous and my name would be in the history books for the next
thousand years.  I have every reason to be open-minded." 
 
> ...  There certainly is evidence that our
> government hides and distorts the facts about UFOs...
 
    Really?  The government that couldn't hide Irangate has hidden and
distorted the facts about UFOs so thoroughly that there has never been
unquestionable evidence of it?  I have my doubts. 
 
> > None of which establishes that he [Zamora] wasn't lying....
> 
> When one has evidence that doesn't fit one's hypothesis, then the
> first reaction is to blame one's equipment.  Of course.  Maybe he
> is telling the truth...
 
    Okay, it's time to kill this one dead.  Consider the following: 
 
- Zamora claimed he heard a loud roar when the UFO landed, and another
when it took off.  He was about 3/4 mile away when it landed.  There
was a house barely 1000 feet from the site.  Its owner and his wife
were at home with windows and doors open, and heard nothing. 
 
- When Zamora reported the incident and called for assistance, he
asked specifically for Sgt. Sam Chavez of the State Police, not for
officers from the local police or the sheriff's office.  He's never
said why. 
 
- Zamora reported intense heat and flame on both landing and takeoff.
There was no evidence of this at the site -- pictures taken the
following day show only traces of burning on one bush and one clump of
grass.  Small twigs were undisturbed at the center of the landing
site. 
 
- The four "pad-prints" on the site were of very different shapes and
very unevenly spaced, not what one would expect for landing gear. 
 
- Zamora's sketch of the object shows only two legs, although he
should have been able to see at least three from his position. 
 
- Zamora's account of the object's departure has it passing over a
major highway in broad daylight.  No motorist ever reported it.  There
is a secondhand report of *one* motorist seeing it, but the motorist
has never been located and the secondhand report contradicts Zamora's
story in several particulars. 
 
- Socorro (the town) was in an economic slump and badly needed tourist
revenue.  (Indeed, the local merchants rose to the opportunity offered
by the UFO sighting.)  The UFO came down in a very convenient place,
between two major highways.  Furthermore, it landed on property owned
by the town's mayor, who was also the town banker. 
 
> ... Maybe instead of
> dismissing the evidence, we should give it our scientific attention
> with as little preconception as possible...
 
    Doing so in this case leads quickly to the conclusion that the
Socorro UFO was a crude hoax, and Zamora was simply lying. 
 
    "It is good to have an open mind, but not at both ends."  One must
not reject valid evidence just because it offends one's
preconceptions, but on the other hand one must not fall into the trap
of going to the other extreme.  If we accept such grossly faulty
evidence as the Socorro case just because it *confirms* our
preconceptions, we will never understand anything. 

"We must choose: The stars or	 Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	 {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

    
    I have been notified that very soon information is being released
    on the possibility (or probabillity) that Lonnie Zamora
    was indeed "in the wrong place at the wrong time" (or right time.....
    depending on your point of view) running smack into the middle of
    a military(govt.) project.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Did anyone hear about this?
    
    Carole
    
    
    
    Newsgroups: sci.astro
    Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!husc6!linus!
          faron!jnk
    Subject: Meteor Over Boston
    Posted: 27 Feb 87 19:14:56 GMT
    Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA
 
 
    An interesting event occurred 8:30 p.m. yesterday (2/26).  A large and 
    very bright object with a long tail streaked over the Boston skyline.  
    Very likely a meteor, it was unusual because of its brightness and
    because it was reportedly visible for over 30 seconds!  Countless UFO 
    sightings were called in to the local news stations.  Wish I'd seen it.

    
    
    

    
    Yes I did, it was all over VTX NEWS. Sounds like an astronomical
    object..ie,..meteorite, fireball..etc....
    
    Another possibility is that on the day before a cargo craft was
    released from the Soviet MIR space station. It is possible that
    some debris from this vehicle hung around before re-entering a
    bit later.
    
    Steve
    

    	It was very likely either a fireball meteor or some spacecraft
    debris reentering Earth's atmosphere and burning up from friction
    with the air.
         
    	People are "used" to seeing "shooting stars" (an incorrect name
    if I ever heard one) which look like quick little streaks of white
    light.  They are the almost countless number of dust particles which
    exist in interplanetary space and strike Earth's atmosphere every
    day as Earth orbits Sol.  Their atmospheric entry display is 
    relatively brief and unspectacular because the dust specks are so
    small.  
    	But when a large chunk of natural space debris (meteors -
    very small planetoids) hit Earth's atmosphere, take longer and more
    energy to burn up, thus we get this very bright and sometimes even
    noisy light show in the sky.  People aren't used to these types
    of "shooting stars", mainly because they are relatively infrequent,
    and thus automatically think it's some kind of UFO.  The same rule 
    applies to reentering artificial satellites. 
    
    	All I can say is when you read about a UFO which "streaked across
    the sky and looked like a big ball of light", it most probably is
    a either a fireball meteor or a decaying satellite.  Those kind of
    reports are more appropriate for the PYRITE::ASTRONOMY Conference.
    	
         But if you read a report about a large bright object which
    lands in a field and disgorges two silver-clad aliens who start
    taking soil samples, then you got something (or you've been taking
    the NATIONAL ENQUIRER too seriously again :^)).
                                   
    	Larry
    

    Re .141:
    
    The technical name for a fireball-meteor is called a "bolide." 
    Consult any decent astronomy book for details.
                     
    I've seen several of these myself, during my amateur-astronomy phase.
    They can be very pretty.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    
    I have developed a basis by which to simply identify this type of
    aerial phenomena:
    
    Description                      Identification
    -----------                      --------------
    Short duration                   Bollide,(possibly junk re-entry)
    
    Longer duration                  Junk re-entry
    
    
    
    Steve
    

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!pyramid!amdahl!ptsfa!ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan
Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question
Posted: 5 Mar 87 18:19:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T Consumer Products, Indianapolis
 
    Wrong, Mr. (Dr.?) Spencer, on every count!
 
    You obviously have not read anything but Klass' account of the
Zamora incident, and thus have failed to read other information about
the case. In a book called (poorly titled!) SOCORRO SAUCER IN A
PENTAGON PANTRY (or something very close to that), each of Klass'
points you enumerated is destroyed.  I would call this selective
reading and find it hard to believe a scientist would only read one
side of a controversial subject. 
 
    I lived only 100 miles south of Socorro (working at White Sands
Missile Range) when this event occurred.  Believe me, nothing could
save Socorro's economy!  By the time this happened, I was interested
in UFOs, a member of APRO, but I figured the USAF and Dr. Hynek could
handle it, so I never even bothered to travel the 100 miles. 
 
    Klass' allegations that there were no other witnesses is a lie;
his allegations of economic reasons is a fraud.  On the other hand,
his record is very poor in debunking UFOs for the most part, anyhow,
so one more try at destroying the life of an innocent observer is to
be expected.  Why try to find contradictory information if you have
already concluded that the victims are culprits? 
 
    In 1978, I met Dr. Hynek (again; first in 1960) and he was still
convinced Zamora saw some kind of real object.  In 1975, I chanced to
meet the man who was Commanding General at Kirtland AFB during the
investigation, and he told me that his officers were convinced there
was some kind of landing of something that left traces.  The landing
trace data correlates with hundreds of other landing reports, so
nothing unusual there. 
 
    Other evidence is contained in the previously mentioned book.  So,
read the other evidence some time before you spout off PSICOPs latest
drivel, would you? 
 
    (I wonder what Klass would have called two of us co-op students
who photographed an object at WSMR in the early 1960s, an ovoidal blob
that we measured going at least 5000 mph [determined from our field of
view, a known target in the same frame, etc.].  No doubt that as men
in our early 20s, he'd have called us unreliable, denied that the film
existed, probably accused us of chewing some of the strange weeds that
grow in Jornada del Muerto...) 
 
--Arlan Andrews (ex desert rat)

    I just heard (unconfirmed at this point) that the FAA has completed
    their investigation of the Alaska sighting and has classified the
    sighting as an "unknown".  

    re -.1
    
    Your Tax Dollars At Work For You
    
    yeah, sure
    
    A whole lot of investigation to come up with "I dunno".  Seems to
    me they should at least give a list of 'possibilities'.  Has anyone
    seen/heard more about the report?
    
    Also, is my memory fading, or did Carter or Reagan claim they would
    release the Air Force's project Blue Book?
    
    And why are the hoaxes the ones that get all the publicity.  Why
    not more on the 'offically unknown's?

    
    Comments: 27.146
    
    1) " A whole lot of investigation to come up with I dunno."
         -----------------------------------------------------
       First of all 15-20% of the cases investigated by Bluebook were
       " I dunnos " and a substantial ammount of the remaining cases
       were "labeled" with convenient explanations (ie..possibilities).
       Secondly the method of investigations does not entail putting
       the cart before the horse(the normal process requires compiling
       a list of possibillities, curtailing that list and either ident-
       ifying it or not).
    
    2) The Bluebook Files are out...one of my colleagues has these files,
       how complete is up to Bluebook, on microfiche. These files tell
       no more than the info in comment #1 above.
    
    3) Why are hoaxes publicized more than unknowns?
    
       Answer: Ask the press and the public. Who's opinion/investigation
       was published in the newspapers as the final word on the Alaska
       case?......None other than Phil Klass and where was the publicity
       when the FAA decided to reopen the case for investigation. 
       
       And why the public?.......You ask?.......The public is responsible
       for accepting this type of journalism and not really being aware
       of the sources 
       
           
    
       

    Re .174:
    
    >3)  Why are hoaxes publicized more than unknowns?
    
    That question can be taken two ways, which I will cover.
    
    For both ways, one answer is, "They usually are more sensational."
    
    Now, the question can be read: "Why are the exposures of hoaxes
    greater grist for journalists' mills than actual mysteries?"
    
    If taken that way, the answers include:
    
    a) People want answers rather than questions.  A successfully exposed
    hoax is _an_ answer, not a question.  Derivitively, the press
    represents itself in large part as a source of answers (that's why
    reporters "report"), therefore, it's easier to run a story of a
    hoax than to leave a hanging mystery.
    
    b) It's somewhat reassuring to some that there is "proof" that
    extraterrestials "don't exist"; publicizing a hoax expose reinforces
    that idea.
    
    The question can also be read, "Why are stories that turn out to
    be hoaxes those most publicized?"
    
    The answers to that include:
    
    a) Sensationalism sells newspapers (and equivalent).  The old newsman's
    saw that "Dog bites man" isn't a story where "Man bites dog" is
    does have validity.  If one looks at grocery-sdtore checkout lines,
    one sees several weekly tabloids with grossly sensational stories
    ("I Sold My Baby for Spare Parts," "Woman Can Move Cream Cheese
    With Her Mind," and "Real-Life PSYCHO: Man Stuffs Mother" are typical
    headlines).  There used to be only one or two.  That they prosped
    and proliferate is an indication of a need by a certain percentage
    of the public to read strange and groutesque reports.
    
    b) Even the most conservative hoax supplies more details than an
    "I dunno."
    
    c) People think they are getting secret information,. and there's
    a vicarious thrill in that.  
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!pyramid!ctnews!sri-unix!rutgers!seismo!mnetor!utzoo!henry
Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question
Posted: 13 Mar 87 00:58:20 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
> You obviously have not read anything but Klass' account of the Zamora
> incident, and thus have failed to read other information about the case.
 
    On the contrary, I have read other accounts of the case, and found
Klass's distinctly more informative and less pervaded by fervent
I've-made-up-my-mind-don't-confuse-me-with-facts. 
 
> In a book called (poorly titled!) SOCORRO SAUCER IN A PENTAGON PANTRY
> (or something very close to that), each of Klass' points you enumerated
> is destroyed.  I would call this selective reading and find it hard
> to believe a scientist would only read one side of a controversial
> subject.
 
    There is a limit to my book budget, also to my interest in the
subject. Also, most significantly, to the time I have to spend on it. 
Other things being equal, if I want to know about UFOs, I will read
Klass rather than (say) Adamski. 
 
> I lived only 100 miles south of Socorro (working at White Sands Missile
> Range) when this event occurred...
> one more try at destroying the life of an innocent observer is to be
> expected.  Why try to find contradictory information if you have already 
> concluded that the victims are culprits?
 
    An interesting sidelight on this is that in response to my
article, I got private mail from a fellow who lived in Socorro at the
time.  He said, in essence, "Nobody in Socorro believed Zamora was
telling the truth". 
 
> ...read the other evidence some time before you spout off PSICOPs latest
> drivel, would you?
 
    Given a choice between wise words from Dr. Hynek and "drivel" from
the likes of Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and Martin Gardner, I'll take
the drivel any day. 

"We must choose: the stars or	  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	  {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

    
    What point are you trying to make?
    
    Steve

    	I presume you are referring to the articles from USENET I have
    been putting in here in regards to the Zamora UFO case.
    
    	I am not trying to make any "point", other than present both
    sides of the issue as it appears in USENET.  Since I don't know
    of anyone who was there with Zamora in 1964 in this Conference,
    it is only fair to read both sides.
    
    	Larry
    

    
    Very good.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Steve

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!pyramid!amdahl!ptsfa!ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry
Subject: Re: UFO evidence
Posted: 17 Mar 87 03:57:31 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
> Ok, so having adpoted this as a hobby, where would people recomend I
> start looking, for information, both on-line and printed, who, if
> anyone is researching it, (i.e. USAF? NASA?, No one?)..
>
> I have no bias in either direction, but I am unwilling to disbeleive,
> or beleive, based on heresay, so where to look?
 
    There are three classes of literature you should read:
 
    First, the "serious" UFOlogists.  I'm no longer acquainted with
what's current, but look for names like Hendry, Hynek, Saunders. 
 
    Second, the disreputable UFOlogists and out-and-out nuts.  Why
should you read them?  Well, any good history course will hammer into
you that you cannot cannot cannot take the accuracy of your sources
for granted, and you must must must check them out independently.  One
way (out of many -- see any good how-to-do-history book) is to see
what your sources think of people whom you can assess independently. 
If you read an obvious crackpot or sensationalist, and then see a
"serious" UFOlogist treating him as a respected colleague, this tells
you something about the "serious" UFOlogist.  Names to look for are
Hill, Adamski, Keyhoe, Steiger, Keel. (To properly apply this method,
you will have to *read* them, not just take my word for it that
they're whackos.  My personal prediction is that applying this method
will make you lose a lot of respect for the "serious" UFOlogists, who
fiercely attack the skeptics but treat any fellow-believer with
respect no matter how crazy he is.) 
 
    Third, the skeptics.  Those nasty people who insist that 2+2=4 and
E=mc^2, and want to see solid evidence if anyone claims otherwise.  It
should be obvious that I'm in this camp.  Philip Klass's books, UFOS
EXPLAINED, and UFOS: THE PUBLIC DECEIVED, are noteworthy.  Robert
Shaeffer's THE UFO VERDICT: EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE is particularly
interesting, because Shaeffer is the opposite of Hynek:  an
ex-believer who turned skeptic because he felt the evidence could not
justify the claims.  You might also want to check out the home turf of
the dreaded "debunkers":  the much-maligned (often by people who have
never read it), much-praised SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. 

"We must choose: the stars or	  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	  {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry


Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!pyramid!amdahl!ptsfa!ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry
Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question
Posted: 17 Mar 87 04:00:55 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
> ...read the other evidence some time before you spout off PSICOPs latest
> drivel, would you?
 
    The group's initials are not "PSICOP".  That is the way it's
usually pronounced, but not the way it's written.  Have you ever
*read* any of the "drivel" you condemn? 

"We must choose: the stars or	  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	  {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry


Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!nsc!nsta!instable!amos
Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question
Posted: 18 Mar 87 09:14:57 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor (Israel) Ltd.
 
    In article <802@nrcvax.UUCP> ihm@minnie.UUCP (Ian Merritt) writes:

>Late on a very dark night, air clear except for patchy, well-defined
>clouds, about 5 1/2 years ago, I encountered some unexplained lights
>on the way from Los Angeles to Palm Springs (specifically, on hwy 111,
>about 5 miles out).
 
    Have you though about the Goodyear Blimp? The area is also a
training ground for airplanes and helicopters from at least 7 air
bases. 

	Amos Shapir
National Semiconductor (Israel)
6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel
(011-972) 52-522261  amos%nsta@nsc.com 34.48'E 32.10'N

    
    Who decides who is a "serious UFOlogist" or a "whacko"?
    
    Is it those on the inside track of this phenomena, the "Real UFO-
    logists" and skeptics, or those "armchair" investigators who feel
    that based on the print of a book seem to have all the answers to
    Who's Who in UFO's. 
    
    The serious UFOlogist and skeptic is already a public target just
    for being involved in the subject in any way shape or form. So why
    do others feel that they know what is best or the proper way to
    approach the study of such a touchy subject.
    
    First I would like to mention that Adamski, Hill..etc...are not
    even considered to be UFOlogists whatsoever(more on the idea of
    contactees). Secondly, you will not see a serious UFOlogist treating
    a contactee as a respected colleague. So lets get to the point.
    I someone has been experienced at UFO investigations and dealing
    with the whackos, fine let them make that decision; but if they
    are
    are basing all their experience and information on a book. Forget
    it.
    
    If there are people that are that interested either way, get involved
    instead of talking about it. It's a learning experience.
    
    
    Steve

    
    
    Did anyone listen to the interview on WBCN's Boston Sunday Review
    with a man named "Bud" (unfortunately I can't remember his last
    name) who has just published a book called "Intruders"?  If so,
    did you catch his last name?  What did you think of the interview?
    
    Apparently he has been on the show before and has written another
    book.  The new book deals mainly with cases of UFO contact where
    the people have been abducted for some length of time, but the
    interview itself touched on many other types of experiences.
    Think I'll take a look for the book.
    
    Carole
    

    
    Yes, I did listen to the interview on Sunday and Budd Hopkins is
    on the level. Budd is a coleague of mine with the Mutual UFO Net-
    work and last year was awarded the First Annual J. Allen Hynek
    award for excellence and contribution in the field of UFO research.
    
    I have met and spoken to Budd a number of times and his credabillity
    is unquestionable. He is built in the J. Allen mold, first skeptical
    and after extensive research into abduction cases(Note: These people
    are not contactees, but normal everyday people who have experienced
    traumatic incidents which have very much upset their lives, such
    as a rape victim responds to being violated)decided, against his
    feelings that "this couldn"t possibly be happening", that there
    were much too many similarities in subsequent cases and the fact
    that these experiences were sufficiently traumatic to cause every-
    day people to question their own sanity and even contemplate suicide,
    developed case guidelines on abductions.
    
    Yes, Budd did have a previous book out titled: MISSING TIME.
    As a matter of fact, the Copley woods case covered in the book
    INTRUDERS, was initiated by the witness' reading MISSING TIME
    and finding definite similarities in her experiences(which at first
    were thought to be recurring dreams) and those of other abductees.
    It is important to note that abductees shun the public spotlight
    and just want to know "Why is this happening to me?", Whats going
    on?, and would prefer to get back to a normal lifestyle, which Budd
    has helped many to do.
    
    As far as finding a copy of INTRUDERS, you should be able to find
    or order it at any major bookstore.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Tonite 20/20 will be featuring a segment on UFOs. I am not shure
    what aspects it will cover but it may be interesting.
    
    Also keep an eye on "60 Minutes"......They will be running a segment
    on UFOs and government involvement. The date is not currently known.
    
    Steve

    
    Did anyony catch 20/20 last night?.....If so, any comments?
    
    Steve

    	While I do believe that life exists elsewhere in the Universe,
    both primitive and intelligent, and that aliens probably have explored/
    are exploring Earth, I do not think that these particular people
    were abducted by aliens, but rather went through frightening
    Earth-based ordeals.
    
    	Why?  Because most of their descriptions of the "abductions"
    sound like a type of child abuse (especially from the women) 
    psychologically twisted into something "outside" like aliens, perhaps
    to lessen the impact of the trauma (although the pain still seems
    to be there in any event).  Now I admit I'm only playing amateur
    psychologist here, but their stories gave ME that impression.
    
    	If these were aliens using human women to produce babies for
    genetic experiments, the logical question is WHY?  Why Earth women?
    If they are advanced enough to travel interstellar distances, why
    do they need living beings to create humans?  If we are at the stage
    where artificial wombs will keep animal embryos alive, why don't
    they do that for human embryos?  I realize they would need a human
    first, but why "keep" them?  I am trying to stay within the framework
    of the alleged situations, but this is starting to sound like an
    overused Science Fiction movie plot!
    
    	The easy answer to these questions is: How can we know what
    an alien mind would do?  But let us think of something more 
    substantial, and even more important is to find out if these reports 
    are true at all!  I am particularly interested in the validity of 
    the books which were shown, and the credentials of the authors and 
    witnesses.
     
    	I trusted most of the investigators who were on the show that
    night, but I resent how Lynn Sherr (who doesn't know anything about
    the space reports she does for ABC-TV, either!) and Barbara Walters 
    had an underlying air of ridicule the whole time; I personally want 
    more evidence before I am convinced, but laughing at it won't make 
    the serious scientific investigations any easier.
                                                              
    	Larry
    

    
    The numbers of Americans, the inability of some of them to distinquish
    betten dreaming and being awake, the relative ease of sieving thru large
    numbers of them, practically guarantees that you could find the
    number of people who appeared as "witnesses" on 20/20 for ANY similar
    topic.
    
    I suggest that someone who has slightly less scruples than I write
    a book entitled
    
    			"People Can Fly Without Machines!"
    
    and get the evidence for this by looking for people who have dreamed
    they were flying...  On secnd thoughts various gurus already have!
          
    
    /Bevin

    
    Granted, these abduction experiences are for the most part quite
    difficult to swallow.........But, these situations are equally
    distressing to both the investigator and witness. If it were not
    for the fact that these independent witnesses, who by the way have
    never met one another before their experiences began, relate uncan-
    ny similarities thus creating an "abduction scenario" which includes
    testing by professional psychiatrists and psychologists and backed-
    up with physical evidence(scars, ground traces, extremely bad nose
    bleeds resulting from an abduction "dream" that a probe had been
    implanted up through the nose using a long fiber like instrument....)
    
    I feel that abduction cases are being erroneously mistaken for Tabloid-
    like contactee/cult experiences. This misconception is light years
    from the truth. Abduction victims are not(as proven by psychoanalysis)
    mentally imbalanced. 
    
    The child abuse hypothesis is a possibility, but in a number of
    cases whole families, friends and neighbors who are close to the
    victim are not immune from being present when these experiences
    occur. And what about the "missing time" which so often leaves
    these people unable to explain why it took them an hour or two
    to travel a distance which normally takes them 10 to 15 minutes?
    
    Budd Hopkins, author of "Missing Time" and the newly published 
    "Intruders" has investigated literally hundreds of abduction
    cases. I have had the pleasure of meeting Budd on a number of 
    occasions and found a former skeptic who found the available
    facts on abduction cases, at first very hard to swallow and 
    would not allow himself to believe that this could even possibly
    be occuring, but after seriously studying the facts and the over-
    whelming witness credabillity he felt that he could not continue
    to deny that in fact, something was out of place. Budd is gen-
    uinely concerned first and always with the health and well being
    of his witnesses and will not compromise either to expedite a case.
    
    Many people feel that they are "too intelligent" to believe that
    such events could be even remotely possible. But Budd Hopkins is
    one that feels intelligence is promoted by a healthy dosage of
    open-minded/skepticism.
    
    

    One result of extreme child abuse is the development of multiple
    personalities.  The phrase such people use to describe what
    happens when one of the "other" personalities has been in charge
    is "missing time".
    						Ann B.

    
    None of the victims involved in abduction cases, which have gone
    through psychoanalysis(and the majority have) have ever shown
    any psychological abnormalities whatsoever. Also, why would a
    child abuse victim wish to counter their trauma with(even involun-
    tarily) something equally, if not more traumatic. Trauma is often
    countered by a mental block(blocking out of part or all conscious
    memory of the experience). If such a block occurs in an abuse victim
    why would it surface,under hypnotic regression as a traumatic UFO
    abduction experience?
    
    

    
    "To scoff at that which is not understood only because it does not
    fit ones sense of reality can not and will not bring an end to a
    true mystery; the only path to be followed is open-minded skepticism."
    
    *Not meant as a criticism, but merely something to contemplate.
    
    Steve
    
    
    

There is a widespread belief, including among some hypnotists, that
hypnosis can be used to significantly aid recall of forgotten or repressed
memories.  Although it is possible that under special circumstances this may
be true, generally it is not.  Hypnotic practitioners who make an effort to
actually verify the "memories" produced by regression generally find that
they are no more accurate than if the same person were asked to guess at
the incidents or details.

What hypnosis *is* good at is helping the subject to generate elaborate,
consistent, plausible fantasies, and, for many subjects, creating a strong
sense of conviction in the reality of those fantasies.  (Therapeutically it
frequently seems to make no difference whether or not these memories are
real or are coping mechanisms designed to make sense of some traumatic
situation.)

The implied question "Why would the `abductees' remember under hypnosis
being kidnaped by non-humans?" is a very good and interesting one.

The implied answer, "Because they actually were kidnaped by non-humans", is
not well justified.  I am *very* interested in independent evidence for UFO
abductions, but I have to consider the evidential weight of hypnotically
aided recall as very close to zero.

					Topher

    Has anyone read Whitley Strieber's new book, Communion?  And if
    so, comments please.  If you don't recognize the name, he is the
    author of Wolfen and other books of that type.
    
    Communion purports to be a true story of an abduction scenerio,
    and although I'm only about 50 pages into it, I am having problems
    being convinced.  He tries to build credibility in the first few
    pages by stating that he has been through hypnosis, and "even a
    lie detector test, which he passed".  He mentions that as soon as
    he realized something strange was going on he contacted Budd Hopkins,
    but then makes strong point that he would not go to any hypnotist
    that Budd Hopkins had had anything to do with.  The bottom of every
    page of the book has a footnote that is *not* the name of the book,
    but the phrase "A true Story".  Anybody who has to "pound" that
    hard on the "truth" of what you are reading is suspect in my mind.
    
    I'll reserve further judgement until I finish the book -- or put
    it down.
    			Bill
    

RE: .166
        
    Lie detectors measure belief not truth.
    
    Despite their popularity with certain segments of government, industry,
    "intellegence" and law enforcement, they are demonstrably not very
    reliable when used in the only way that would seem to be applicable to
    this situation.  So they don't even measure belief very well.
    
    And of course, we only have his word at this point that he actually
    had a lie detector test.
    
    What was his justification for avoiding hypnotists associated with
    Bud Hopkins?
    
    					Topher

    
    I started to read Communion and put it down just as quickly. I was
    also shocked at the way he treated Budd Hopkins during some of the
    sessions. It almost seemed to me that he had used Budd to get him-
    self rolling and then walked all over him. 
    
    There are a number of incidents not discussed in communion. First
    of all Mr. Strieber had asked Budd for permission to interview a
    few of his witnesses and it was agreed upon that Strieber would
    reimburse them for their time and travel expenses. Whitley got his
    interviews for his book and refused to keep his part of the agreement.
    
    Next, Budd Hopkins' book "Intruders" was due to be released when
    Strieber used his political influence within the publishing com-
    munity to push back the release of "Intruders", pending publication
    and release of "Communion".
    
    These incidents do not seem to be the actions of a very reliable
    person. It seems that any antagonism shown towards Budd Hopkins
    in Communion had a more deep-rooted connection and not Budd's
    abillity as an investigator.
    
    Steve
    
    

    	I have not yet read COMMUNION, but I did see the author on the
    Johnny Carson show, and - being totally unscientific here - he seemed
    like a weirdo!  (I know, weirdness is subjective)
    
    	The author said he did NOT believe that he was captured by aliens
    from another planet, but by creatures of unknown origin; and he
    kept pounding over and over to Carson and the audience that he did
    have some kind of experience.  
    
    	I have my doubts about this one.
    
    	Larry
    

    	"There's a sucker born every minute."
    
    			- P. T. Barnum
    

RE: .170
    
    I have my reservations also but they are not the same as you.  I
    have met a fair number of SF, fantasy (if you feel there is a
    difference) and horror (ditto) writers, and know that many are involved
    because their inclinations lie in that direction.  If you don't
    look you won't find, and they as a group are more likely to look
    than, say, writers of westerns.  (Example: Steve Kallis who graces
    our conference but is away just now, has published SF).  Of course
    this does not mean that I am convinced that they have necessarily
    found what they think they have.
    
    My reservations come from the specialized skills of these authors:
    to make the irrational (and I *don't* mean non-rational) seem rational
    and reasonable; to induce in the reader a willing (frequently
    unconscious) suspension of disbelief.  To the extent that they are
    good at their craft, they are difficult to rationally evalutate.
    
    					Topher

    
    Why is it that psychiatrists and psychologists are qualified to
    testify in a court of law pertaining to a persons "sanity", but
    when the topic of the incident is difficult to swallow their
    qualifications decrease dramatically(ie..."No real professional
    would get involved in such a thing). These abductees have been
    examined by not one but several different psychotherapists just
    for that reason(Most not even knowing the circumstances of events).
    
    As far as trauma is concerned there is no reason at this time to
    believe that they are abuse victims other than their stated exper-
    iences(but aren't these experiences if true sufficiently traumatic
    to give this effect?). It is quite simple to brush aside verbal
    testimony, but what about the physical aspects which seem to lend
    credence to these experiences. Also in Budd Hopkins books he pur-
    posely leaves out certain details and these details still come
    out from witnesses from all over the country who have never before
    met.
    
    There is more to this than meets the eye. I have been involved in
    this type of investigation and have sat through sessions and you
    would not believe how traumatic these encounters seem to be. 
    
    A typical feeling among abductees is that"Why did this happen to
    me?..Couldn't it have been someone else?" These people are not out
    for recognition, all they want is to get back to a normal lifestyle.
    
    
    By the way, hypnosis is not sanctioned by the courts, but it is
    by the AMA as"A tool for amnesia and and time loss victims."
    And according to them it does help these victims.
    
    Steve
    
    

    	Steve,
    
    	Since I have only studied UFO abduction cases, and have never
    met anyone in person who has claimed to have been abducted in this
    manner, I would very much like to know what makes supposed abductions
    by aliens so utterly terrifying to the victims?  Is it xenophobia?
    Are the people treated in some torturous manner?  From most of the
    cases I have read, many were given the equivalent of medical
    examinations (this is in regards to the more "substantial" cases,
    if such a term can be used to apply to any of them), which in itself
    was not meant to be harmful to the humans; in fact, the aliens 
    were reported to have gone out of their way to make the humans feel as 
    little pain and stress as possible.  
    
    	The other big question is, why "ordinary" people?  Why not
    scientists or authority figures or someone with specific knowledge  
    about some aspect of human civilization?  Why is it usually some single
    woman with a history of psychological problems, or a couple from 
    Backwoods U.S.A.?  The "wanting to remain unknown" angle might work 
    in this scenario, but if these aliens can apparently abduct anyone 
    anywhere and get away with it (remain undetected), why not go for the 
    more knowledgable people in society?  These cases are what usually leave
    me skeptical about most UFO abductions.
    
    	Larry
                                           

    
    Larry,
    
    An abductees trauma is caused by both what seems to be sometimes
    painful "operations"/physicals" some more graphic than others,
    but the main trauma relates to the fact that what is happening to
    them feels like it has to be a dream because it is too far-fetched
    even for them to accept but physical evidence ties in with their
    "dreams" and they try to rationalize it because these things are
    just not supposed to exist. Tie this in with the feeling that you
    are not in control of yourself anymore and that "they" can come
    and get you against your will anytime they very well please. As
    one victim put it: " I feel that even if I was being protected
    by the full security of the White House, they could still take me
    anytime they well please". 
    
       Whoever they are, they do not seem to be after intellectual 
    knowledge in any way, and they do not really seem to care who
    they take. It seems more like a random specimine gathering with
    return visits. But, there are people from all walks of including
    a military person, an electronics engineer, a psychologist, a police
    officer and a great mixture of others and how many more that dont
    even realize that something is happening to them. The list of abdu-
    ctees is more impressive than you think as far as credibillity.
    As a matter of fact, within the whole UFO phenomenon there are more
    reports, much more, from credible people, than from people with
    psychological problems and as far as Backwoods USA , there are a
    good portion of cases out in the boonies but this is consistent
    with most general UFO reports, but to add a twist, there was a
    woman abducted from her appartment in New York City.
    
    Very good questions Larry,
    
    Steve
    

    Ever notice that all the psych. cases that get into the papers have
    "expert" shrink witnesses on BOTH sides giving OPPOSITE testimony
    about the same subject?  Of all the branches of modern medicine,
    the one we know least about, and can do the least to help people
    with, is "mental disturbance".  The usual state is (1) not knowing
    for sure if the person is/is not "sane"/"normal", (2) not knowing
    whether the problem is caused by genetic, chemical, emotional
    trauma, or bad teaching.  As a consequence of not being able to
    identify causes, correct treatment is very difficult to establish,
    and based on accumulated "trial and error" experience.
    
    /Bevin, whose wife spent nine months as a psych. nurse, and whose
    brother has been one for many years.

    
    A good point to make is....."Are these abductees thought of as
    mentally unstable because of their "experience" or because they
    were unstable from the outset?"
    
    Steve

In OMNI magazine (June 1987), Acting Justice, Supreme Court, State of New
York Howard E. Goldfluss discusses evidence received through the Freedom Of
Information Act.  

He concludes;

"We have now heard the other side of the case.  We have been led to believe
that only charlatans, drunks, fools, or psychopaths observed the phenomenon.
We now know that many of those witnesses were responsible, credible, and 
respected people, most of whom were technologically trained.  We now have
reason to consider the subject of UFOs in light of strong evidence heretofore
suppressed."

Among the UFO observers (according to Air Intelligence Report 1R-193-55, dated
October 15, 1955) were Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, then chairman of 
the Armed Forces Committee of the Senate; Lieutenant Colonel E.V. Hathaway,
a staff officer assigned to the committee; and Reuben Efron, a committee 
consultant.  Other witnesses named were scientists, police officers, and navy
pilots, all of whom were named in (previously) classified government reports.

    Re .179,
    
    Most critical and skeptical discussions of UFO observations that
    I have read have started out with the assumption that the observers,
    in many cases at least, are responsible, credible, respected,
    and technologically trained.  They then go on to consider the
    perceptual phenomena which can lead even an experienced, responsible
    observer to radically misinterpret an observation.  I have never
    encountered skeptical writing which asserts that only charlatans,
    drunks, fools, or psychopaths have observed UFOs.
    
	-Neil

    
    Try Phil Klass, because that has been his opinion all along.
    

    I am referring specifically to Phil Klass.
    
    	-Neil

    Nashua Telegraph, Wednesday May 22nd, 1987 - front page.
    
    
    	It's a bird, It's a UFO! No, it's just a plane.
    	-----------------------------------------------
    
    A Londonderry firm that uses a private airplane to advertise at
    night says one of its planes was responsible for a UFO sighting
    reported over Merrimack Monday night, underlining what a national
    expert says are questions about visual identification of unidentified
    flying objects.
    
    Despite that report, however, a Nashua woman reiterated Tuesday
    here belief the object she and a friend saw while driving on Route
    3 was not an airplane.
    
    "I am unshaken in my belief." said Sandy Kauffman. "I never believed
    in UFOs before but I believe in them now."
    
    Kauffman, 30, a medical technology instructor at Northern Essex
    Community College in Massachussetts and Rose Brosco, 22, a medical
    secretary for Lawrence (Mass.) General Hospital say that around
    9 to 9:30 pm, Monday, they saw a "dome-shaped" object lit by a score
    or so of lights flying between Manchester and Nashua.
    
    Both women said they wacthed it for three or four minutes, during
    which time it appeared to hover, then move quickly from right to
    left across the sky, and then, when their car had come alongside
    it, dissappeared.
    
    Barbara Shute, spokeswoman for Nitetime Skywriter, an advertising
    firm that flies out of Manchester Airport, said Tuesday that one
    of the firms Cessna 150 single-engines [sic] planes, carrying a
    440-square-foot grid with 300 high-intensity lights, was flying
    over the Litchfield Technical Park on Route 3A betweeb 8:45 and
    9:15 pm. Monday.  The plane, which was flashing a "happy anniversary"
    message on the grid, circled for a half-hour at about a thousand
    feet above the ground and then left the area.
    
    UFO page 16
    
    "When we first started about ten years ago we had a lot of reports
    like this, and we were very often called by (a national UFP reporting
    centre) to see if we were flying in a certain area at a certain
    time," siad Shute.  "But we haven't had one in a while."
    
    No other reports of UFOs could be found to have been called in to
    local police or area airports, although the two women siad there
    were other cars on the highway with them at the time of the sighting.
    
    Philip J. Klass, a contributing editor for the magazine Aviation
    Week and Space Technology, who has been investigating UFO reports
    for more than 21 years, said Tuesday that nighttime advertising
    planes are frequently mistaken for UFOs.  He noted that The UFO
    Handbook, 230 of 1,307, or 18 percent, of UFO reports investigated
    by the book's author, Allan Hendry, were such airplanes.
    
    "At a distance, the (sign) often assumes a saucer shape," said Klass,
    who heads the UFO subcommittee for the group Committee for the
    Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). "And
    when the pilot looks at his watch and says `I've given my hour'
    or whatever for the customer, he shuts of his lights, so (to the
    observer), he suddenly dissappears.
    
    "It just demonstrates what any trial lawyer can tell you: that
    eyewitness testimony is not reliable, especially for unusual or
    unexpected events," he siad. "It makes no difference if it's the
    local minister, or a lawyer, or a pilot - education and profession
    has nothing to do with perception and recollection of unfamiliar
    events."
    
    Kauffman, however, said she didn't believe her sighting could have
    been an advertising plane.
    
    "We saw nothing flashing, there weren't any words.  We were right
    under it, and we would have seen them," she said.  "I don't think
    that's what I saw.
    
    "I have some friends that are chuckling today, but I know what I
    saw." she added.
    
    More than a quarter of the UFO sightings investigated in The UFO
    Handbook turned out to be stars or planets, with nighttime advertising
    planes the second-largest category.  Most of the remainder of the
    sightings were either regular aircraft or meteors.
    
    Klass said that during his career, he has never found a single UFO
    sighting that could not be given a "prosaic" explanation.

    On the Opreah Winfrey show on UFOs shown on Memorial day, Phil Klass
    said that people who report ufo sighting "should be ridiculed because
    such reports are ridiculous".

    	Ah, nothing like putting down a theory before it can even be
    satisfactorily proven or disproven!
    
    	Unfortunately, too many "authorities" take Klass' opinions above
    all others (there ARE some serious UFOlogists (?) out there); for
    example, in the latest issue of SKY AND TELESCOPE (a very respectable
    astronomy magazine), a small paragraph was given to the Japan airline
    UFO sighting of earlier this year.  It was dismissed (with a tinge
    of ridicule) as the planet Jupiter, with several examples of planets
    mistaken for UFOs to back it up; and guess who they used to cite
    the information...
    	
    	In my opinion, the jury's still out on that UFO case, and Klass'
    statements held nothing substantial for this case; but S&T being
    the astronomically prestigious magazine that it is, would only use
    a recognized "authority".  They are also the magazine who exclusivley
    publshed an article by one of the few astronomers today who do NOT
    believe in life elsewhere in the Universe - Frank Tipler.
    
        Larry
    

Well, a friend of mine sat in on a taping of "People are Talking" [a 
locally produced talk show on WBZ-TV channel 4 in Boston, Mass.]

It was a pretty typical show on UFOs with panelists mostly comprised of the 
"pro-" side.

One of the more disturbing things about the show [as told to me by my 
friend] was a document obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

This document was dozens of pages long.  Over 99% of it was blacked out due 
to "National Security".  One line was, however, not blacked out.  It went 
something like:

	"Cases of U.F.O.s and I.A.C.s................"

IAC is the government acronym for Identified Alien Craft.

Makes you think......

VNS TECHNOLOGY WATCH:                           [Mike Taylor, VNS Correspondent]
=====================                           [Nashua, NH, USA               ]

           Government paper says UFO alien bodies found
    
    The bodies of four aliens from a crashed flying saucer were
    recovered 40 years ago, according to a government "document"
    obtained by a British researcher recently.
    
    A bitter debate is now likely to develop among UFO experts
    over the existence of a mysterious committee, code-named
    Majestic-12, which is supposed to have examined the aliens.
    
    The top-secret briefing paper claims then CIA Director Adm.
    Roscoe Hillenhoetter reported that "although these creatures
    are human-like in appearance, the biological and evolutionary 
    processes responsible for their development has apparently
    been quite different from those observed or postulated in
    homo-sapiens."
    
    The document, which The London Observer obtained from Timothy 
    Good, Britain's leading UFO researcher, purports to be a
    briefing paper for General Eisenhower on Operation
    Majestic-12, also known as MJ-12.  Good, in his book "Above
    Top Secret: The Worldwide UFO Cover-up," to be published this
    year, claims that MJ-12 was a committee of senior US
    officials which investigated and then covered up news of
    flying saucer crashes.
    
    "I obtained the document two months ago from a reliable
    American source who has close connections with the
    intelligence community," Good said Saturday.

    {Sunday Eagle-Tribune May 31, 1987 pg A4.}

  <><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 1330     Tuesday  2-Jun-1987   <><><><><><><>

    Lets assume the previous report is true.  What effect, if any, do
    you think it will have on our attitudes/society/daily_lives?
    Who are they?  Why did they come?  Are they still here?  Has our
    government been in communication with them all along?  
    
    We haven't had much fun in this note for awhile so, .....lets speculate.

    Imagine if you were in the U.S. government in the '30s-'50s and
    you found absolute evidence that UFOs are E.T. in origin.  Then
    you think back to Orson Well's show "War of the Worlds", a FICTIONAL
    story about the world being invaded by martians, remember the public's
    reaction to that one?  There was a lot of UFO publicity in the
    media every year back then and quite simply, you're not sure how
    the public would accept proof that UFOs are aliens,  so you don't
    want them to find out.  Sure evidence will surface in the media,
    but the government will dispute all claims about UFOs.  Something
    like this can be called a "cover-up by avoiding the facts".  It 
    doesn't have to be a complete coverup, but you _question_ all evidence
    so that all UFO sightings have a shaky foundation.  If there is
    *real* evidence then you confiscate it or get rid of it.
    
    I'm not sure if UFO's are E.T. in nature.  I wouldn't be surprised if
    they were.  If a civilization can travel between the stars, then it
    should be a piece of cake to know if "life" exists in a given solar
    system.  We've reached a point where we are starting to move away from
    our little pebble in the sky so I'd keep a close eye on us if I were
    "them", God knows if _we_ will be friendly to _them_!
    
    As a side comment, I remember a few years ago (5 or so) a report
    about something "crashing" into a pond on a farm in New Hampshire
    during the winter (the crash site was noted by a hole in the ice).
    The military came in and after a few days left saying that nothing
    was found.  Rumor has it that they took something out of the pond
    before they left.  Anyone else remember this?

    REF:.189
    
      We are their desendants.They come to check on us to see how we
    have progressed.They planted a seed a long time ago and are interested
    how it grew.What an interesting experiment.We would not look exactly
    like them since our invironment may be different.They presently
    use Mars as a stop over.
    
      MIKE

    		-<REF: 27.190........I WAS IN THE AREA>-
    	I was living in N.H. at the time and a friend of mine was living
    near the loacation mentioned. He (!) claims something was taken
    from the pond on account of an eye-witness that he knows. Sorry
    I have little further details........But I remember (quite
    extraordinary considering the time lapse)

    Re .187:
    
    Concerning "IAC" designation ...
    
    There's currently the science of Xenobiology.  It's defined as the
    science of biology for creatures from other planets (or conceivably
    from deep space, if anything could evolve itself that far).  So
    far [and excluding any possible dead ETs per .188], it's a science
    without any known examples.  [Even hypothecating the supposed beings of
    .188, the majority of exobiologists are _not_ working on things
    classified; therefore, this would hold true for the majority of
    folk in the discipline, no matter what else.]  The xenobiologist
    is one who, when a sample of alien life is delivered to him or her,
    will know what to do.
    
    The "IAC" designator might have a similar meaning, assuming "alien"
    means "extraterrestrial": that is, it might be a classification
    waiting for a subject.
    
    In short, terminology alone won't bring in a verdict.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    

re .193

Steve, I don't remember the entire quote from the document [courtesy of the 
Freedom of Info Act].  I will, however, try to get it.  In the context of 
the statement, there was little doubt that they were talking about 
Identified Alien Craft that existed.

re: Speculation

If we acknowledged their presence, wouldn't we [the US] have to deport them 
as illegal aliens?  Would we have them open an embassy in Washington?

dj

    re: speculation
    
    We may have no choice but to acknowledge their presence.  So far,
    they have been content with monitoring us and our activities but
    what if they have a "project plan" or an agenda that they are
    following?  They have had enough time now to "condition" us to 
    the concept of who and what they are.  Perhaps there is a whole
    interstellar civilization out there that we are being prepared to
    enter.  
    
    No doubt their confirmed presence would engender a great deal of 
    insecurity in established authority figures.  Perhaps they will 
    select "spokespeople for the planet earth" according to their own 
    standards of adaptability and ethics.
    
    

    	The following is quoted directly from THE SPACE PROGRAM QUIZ
    AND FACT BOOK by Timothy B. Benford and Brian Wilkes (1985):
    
    	"Has the Government ever investigated what effect the discovery
    of extraterrestrial life life might have on society?
    
    	In the 1960s, NASA and the Brookings Institute did such a study
    and concluded that there would be no signifigant effect if the
    life-form is of subhuman intelligence; but if "they" are smarter
    than us, it could upset many philosophies and value systems - and
    would be most devastating to scientists and engineers!"
    

    Another point on the whole UFO-as-spacecraft business:
    
    Some people claim that the ETs would have to be "superior."  Not
    necessarily; they merely could have stumbled upon a form of transport
    that allows them inter[whatever] flight.
    
    Also, these hypothetical beings may have a completely different
    logic value than we have, and highly different interests/motivations.
    Suppose, for instance, they feel it's _necessary_ to buzz swamps
    and isolated bodies of water in sparsely populated areas.  By our
    standards of what's sane and otherwise, our hypothetical ETs might
    be crazy as bedbugs.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    To carry that thought a bit further Steve, our measure of intelligence
    is often disputed among our own specialists.  What we consider
    intelligence may not be what they consider intelligence.  That they
    are sentient beings may be more important than their intelligence
    level.  So too is "superior" a qualifier that is parochial in nature.
    Perhaps their value systems preclude classifing anything in terms
    of importance.  Some of our own ancient belief systems (including
    some of the American Indian systems) believed that all that exists
    is important, each in its own measure and place, and we are simply
    a part of it all.  
    
    If "they" think that way it will be lovely for us (and we will probably
    be quite a puzzle for them_:-).  One thing we know for sure is that
    they possess one quality we have thought to be human.......they
    are curious.  They are (in their own way) scientists so they value
    knowledge.  They are also (so far) non-intrusive, non-aggressive
    which seems to imply a respect for the condition of life.
    

    re: .194 and .195
    
    There was book based on these thoughts titled "Childhood's End".
    I had to read it for a course in college and though I never finished
    it (typical!) it was very good.
    
    It would be a great novel for the believers in UFO's (I am one after
    witnessing one on Cape Cod with several other people during the
    summer of 1977 or 1978) since it presents not only the humnas
    viewpoints, but also the aliens!
    
    I recommend the book for a Saturday afternoon reading.
    
    Leigh

    
    I happened to be standing out on a balcony in Nashua, New Hampshire 
    sometime between June-December of 1986, and spotted something that 
    looked like a 'flying saucer' (round, blinking lights on the bottom..).
    
    Well, as the 'thing' got closer, I was able to make out the lights
    a bit better and they did indeed say "Happy Birthday, name", or
    something like that.
                                            
    I went inside and summoned 2 of my friends out to have them take
    a look at it.  Their first reaction was, "Wow, that looks like a
    UFO!".  After encouraging them to put their glasses on and look
    more closely, they managed to make out the words too and we all
    had a good laugh.
    
    A few observations on this:
    
    	- Had the 'object' not come closer to us, we may have indeed
    	  believed that we truly spotted a UFO.
    
    	- The people who have spotted other UFO's truly believed what
    	  they saw (as we did).
    
    	- I sincerely doubt that I would ever report my sightings to
    	  any 'official body', simply because my life would probably
    	  be distrupted to no end and I'm not willing to go through
    	  the hassle.
    
    And, no, I've never really seen a UFO, but that doesn't mean that 
    they don't exist.
         
    Just my thoughts.
    
    Cindy
    

Re .199
    
    I haven't seen any UFOs.  However, I second Leigh's recommendation
    of  CHILDHOOD'S END.  I re-read it three weeks ago, and it was
    worth the second reading.
    
    Pat Hardy
    

    
    Cindy:
    
    Misidentification of an aircraft(especially a well-lighted advertising
    plane)as a UFO is a common occurence in UFO investigations.
    
    Steve

    re: speculation
    .195 ~ Brotherhood of the Stars
    
    
    So who says they are friendly or would understand us.
    
    a la  "Footfall" by Niven et al (A delightful Sci-Fi throw back
    to aliens as INVADERS with dramatic cultural differences.)
    
    ;-)
    
    Thom
    
    
    

RE: .174

    1. I suspect that you typo-ed when you said that the AMA sanctioned the
    use of hypnosis for amnesiacs: the AMA has little expertise and, as an
    organization, even less interest in this area.  I suspect that you are
    meant the APA (the American Psychiatric Association). 

    2. Hypnosis is generally used psychiatrically as an aid to improve the
    effectiveness/efficiency of other forms of treatment, because of its
    ability to improve concentration, increase motivation, increase the
    vividness of mental imagery and suspend the patients rational or
    irrational disbelief of whatever line of bulls**t (:-?) that the
    therapist is handing out. Sanctioning of hypnosis as an aid in this
    area is not the same as sanctioning the more specific treatment of
    regression for the direct recovery of the lost memories. 

    3. Very, very few of the non-drug treatments approved by the APA (or,
    for that matter, used by psychiatrists or clinical psychologists) have
    ever been adequately tested in properly designed clinical trials.  In
    many cases the theoretical foundations of different approved treatments
    contradict each other.  Sanction by the APA effectively means that a
    significant number of the members believe it works, while at most an
    insignificant number of members believe it is dangerous.  "Significant
    number" may refer to as few as a single vocal, respected member from
    what I understand.  Or, to put it a bit more positively, sanction means
    that the treatment, in the judgment of some qualified people, gives the
    appearance of working.  (This is all based on personal conversations I
    have had with people involved in the field). 

    4. If the purpose of treatment is to give the amnesiac a feeling of
    "completeness" so they can get on with their life -- a perfectly valid
    clinical goal -- then I have no doubt that regression can be effective.
    Pseudo-memories are quite easy to plant, even accidentally, in a good
    subject or moderately-good-and-well-motivated subject.  Once again,
    however, it seems that practioners who actually bother to check the
    accuracy of the "restored" memories seem to find that they are no more
    accurate than a good guess based on what is known to the subject.  This
    is consistent with experimental evidence about similar circumstances. 

    5. As was said in .180 legal sanity is a much more limited concept than
    sanity.  For an accused person to be considered sane for purposes of
    criminal proceedings they must (1) have been capable of understanding
    the moral/legal implications of what the crime and (2) they were
    capable of controlling their actions (somewhat simplified, of course).
    If they meet those two criteria they are legally sane even if the
    believe that "Marcus Welby, M.D.", speaking through their magic socks,
    told them to commit the crime. 

    6. It is the opinion of the APA that psychiatrists, and presumably
    other psychological professionals, only have limited ability to
    determine even *legal* sanity.  It sanctions court testimony on the
    issue only because it feels that without help non-professionals are
    even *less* able to make such determinations, and only when the
    psychiatrist makes clear that he is rendering an expert *opinion* and
    that the final determination is up to the jury. It also cautions great
    care in rendering other professional opinions during court proceedings.

				    Topher

    
    I will have to recheck, but I am almost positive that it was the
    AMA and not the APA.
    
    You have brought up many very interesting points which brings to
    light another situation.
    
    There has been numerous discussions here on "sanity" and "capabilities
    /qualifications/validity of hypnosis...etc..,but I feel that the
    main issue is being overlooked.
    Should a person be declared "unstable by default" merely for voicing
    their experience which just may be unbelievable to society? And
    if we are not confident in our psycho-theraputics how as laymen
    are we qualified to pass that judgement?........Remember, there
    have been many human beings throughout the history of this planet
    who have been ridiculed and thought unstable merely because they
    had dared to "go against the grain of society" by absurdly daring
    to mention the unspeakable and the unbelievable. Some cracked under
    the pressure and others bent and went with the flow. The latter
    had absurd notions, but finally after years of solid persistence
    were found not to be cranks, but heroes.
    
    So lets face it......as judges of character and sanity society is
    the proud owner of an atrocious track record.
    
    Steve 
    
    
    

    	I started as a skeptic, but now after many years, I have decided
    the evidence points toward several possibilities within the UFO
    phenomena.    I remain somewhat skeptical, so remember I present
    these as THEORIES, not as known realities.
    
    	I hypothesize that the UFO sightings cover more than one type
    of item, the possibilities as I see it are:
    
    	1) alien craft  ( if they exist, I believe they are a very small
    		percentage of the sightings.)
    	2) secret government craft   ( some undoubtedly do exist. )
    	3) Plasmoidal creatures, normally invisible, have very little
    		mass, and become temporarily visible to cause sightings.)

    
    I am leaving out of this list all those sightings of known items
    that get misidentified.
    	I believe that the plasmoidal creatures account for most of
    the UFO sightings.    Recent work with infra-red photography has
    captured images of transparent creatures which share our biosphere
    with us.    This theory correlates well with a lot of sighting
    info, for instance:  1) UFO's often behave like playful animals.
    2) UFO's like to hang out in swampy areas.    3) so called "fairy
    rings" that have been noted for ages are similar to so called
    "landing traces" left by hypothesized craft.
    	See "Passport To Magonia" by Jacques Vallee, for a comparison
    of fairy tales with modern UFO stories.
    
    	This is not to discount the stories of abduction and such, which
    if true, must be perpetrated by "alien craft" UFO's.   From what
    evidence I have collected, I believe that craft must be quite rare
    compared with the atmospheric "critters".
    
    	"Critters", by the way is a term I first ran across in this
    context, in a book by Trevor James Constable, called "The Cosmic
    Pulse Of Life".   It is quite an interesting book, but Mr.
    Constable has a bit of persecution complex, which reduces his
    credibility.   Also the photos reproduced in the book are of
    such poor quality as to also reduce credibility even more.
    Even so, I believe his theory is well reasoned, and should be
    taken seriously.
    
    	Eventually these theories may tie into other traditions of
    occult literature:
    
    	1) "Elementals" described in traditional literature, may
    		be plasmoidal creatures.
    	2) The immortal spirit or soul may be a plasmoidal creature
    		in symbiosis with the physical human body.
    	3) "Elves" or "Nature spirits" may be plasmoidal life forms
    		may be a natural part of our ecology.
    
    
    What is a plasmoid?   According to the theory, plasmoids are made
    of plasma, the fourth state of matter (plasma, gas, liquid, solid)
    which is more tenuous than the other three states.  That is, a
    plasma is thinner than a gas.   One of the plasmoid photos I saw
    looked like a single celled creature about ten feet in diameter,
    floating in the air, a few feet off the ground.
	Plasmoids may represent an entirely new class of lifeforms,
    with many different species.  They may come in both stupid and
    smart varieties.    Steve Kallis mentions plasma and plasmoids
    in 27.1 and 27.4 and 27.13.   Many of the better UFO researchers
    are beginning to get serious about these plasmoid theories.
    
    		Alan.

    	There is the theory that some day the human race will evolve
    into something akin to pure mental energy beings, who will be able 
    to traverse great distances with ease.  It is far easier to cross 
    interstellar (and even intergalactic) space through non-physical 
    (in the way we think of physical - i.e., starships) means.

        Perhaps this is what alien races who developed earlier than we 
    humans have done (and are doing):  Traveling to other planets by 
    mental energy methods.
            
    	Larry
                                               

     Re .206:
    
>    	Plasmoids may represent an entirely new class of lifeforms,
>    with many different species.  They may come in both stupid and
>    smart varieties.    Steve Kallis mentions plasma and plasmoids
>    in 27.1 and 27.4 and 27.13.   Many of the better UFO researchers
>    are beginning to get serious about these plasmoid theories.
 
    Geez!  I thought nobody even noticed! :-)
    Actually, I'm gratified that someone is beginning to look into this
    possibility.
    
>        	I believe that the plasmoidal creatures account for most of
>    the UFO sightings.    Recent work with infra-red photography has
>    captured images of transparent creatures which share our biosphere
>    with us.    This theory correlates well with a lot of sighting
>    info, for instance:  1) UFO's often behave like playful animals.
>    2) UFO's like to hang out in swampy areas.    3) so called "fairy
>    rings" that have been noted for ages are similar to so called
>    "landing traces" left by hypothesized craft.
 
    I'd be interested in seeing these pictures.  Where were they published?
    Just in that one book?
    
    I tend to go along with items 1 and 2, but not 3.  "Fairy Rings"
    usually are the seemingly trampled areas of grass found within a
    ring of mushrooms.  That phenomenon is due to the fact that each
    mushroom (or toadstool) drops spores in a circular pattern, and
    each next generation tends to form a rinfg asround that spot.  After
    a couple of generations, the result in a ring of fungi within which
    the ground is sufficiently infertile that what grass (or other plants)
    does grow is enervated and looks "trampled."  However an injured
    or expiring could discharge, giving the ground (and any plants)
    a scorched look.
    
>        	Eventually these theories may tie into other traditions of
>    occult literature:
>    
>    	1) "Elementals" described in traditional literature, may
>    		be plasmoidal creatures.
>    	2) The immortal spirit or soul may be a plasmoidal creature
>    		in symbiosis with the physical human body.
>    	3) "Elves" or "Nature spirits" may be plasmoidal life forms
>    		may be a natural part of our ecology.

    Here I think you're stretching the concept of "plasma" a little
    too far.  Item 2 in particular is hard _if you accept `plasma' as
    we've been talking about it up to now_, since a stable plasma must
    be self-contained, not attached to solid matter, symbiotically or
    not.  Now if you shift gears and talk about another type of plasma,
    such as the spiritist's "ectoplasm," one can make a case; but here
    you've got to be aware that you _have_ shifted gears.
    
    Elementals are tied to the different matter states, and if you
    postulate a plasmoid as an elemental, it would be a fire elemental.
    I suspect elementals are something else. 
    
    >What is a plasmoid?   According to the theory, plasmoids are made
    >of plasma, the fourth state of matter (plasma, gas, liquid, solid)
    >which is more tenuous than the other three states.  ...
    
    A plasmoid is a stable collection of plasma.  Plasma, as we understand 
    it, is, if nothing else, _hot_.  I know of no physics (yet) that
    allows for cold plasmoids in something like the Earth's atmosphere.
     That should _not_ discredit the idea of there being plasmoids there;
    just not room-temperature ones (the heat of a discharging plasmoid
    should leave excellent scorch marks).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 
    

    	The other theory for plasmoids is that they are actually ball
    lightning, a rare form of lightning which has been known to behave
    in a manner which almost seems to indicate it is under some sort
    of intelligent control, but is actually due to its unusual inorganic
    (and unintelligent) nautre.
    
    	Larry
    

    Re .209:
    
    >                    -< It could be ball lightning, too... >-
    >
    >	The other theory for plasmoids is that they are actually ball
    >lightning, a rare form of lightning  ....
    
    Geez!  I thought I said that a couple'a hundred responses ago, give
    or take a few .... :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Many years ago I happened to read two books in succession.  The
    titles escape me, but one was the proceedings of a conference met
    to debate the merits of UFO's (it may have been edited by Sagan)
    and the other was a book summarizing what was known and hypothosized
    about ball lightning.  It was quite striking that the set of "core,
    highly reliable sightings" of UFO's differed in only one major point
    from the descriptions of ball lighting.  Ball lighting was seen
    as a few centimeters across at a distance of a few meters, while
    the UFO's were *much* larger at a *much* greater distance.  Given
    the difficulties of judging the size/distance of arbitrary objects
    suspended in air, I think that it is reasonable to suppose that
    a large number of the still unexplained UFO sightings (but not all)
    are ball lighting.
    
    There is an understandable hesitancy to "explain" an unknown phenomena
    in terms of an 95% unknown phenomena.  I am only willing therefore
    to make the statement statistical: I would not feel secure identifying
    any specific UFO sighting as ball lighting (or very few anyway)
    but do not feel uncomfortable believing that many of them are just
    that.
    
    				Topher

    It is a fairly popular to various unusual states of matter as the
    "fourth" state of matter.  Mentioning plasma in this regards is
    particular popular and is frequently found in high school textbooks,
    but that title is also at times claimed by liquid crystals, glasses,
    super-fluids, non-newtonian fluids, gels & sols, neutronium and
    other which don't come to mind at the moment.  This is all word-games,
    however.  The usual solid/liquid/gas trichotomy manages to classify
    most of the phenomena in the universe but leaves some gaps.  These
    are *only* words and do not capture any absolute concepts.  All
    the others are essentially one of these three but with some additional
    or unusual property.
    
    A plasma is a gas in which an appreciable number of the electrons
    have been stripped from the atoms.  (I vaguely remember that there
    are things called solid plasmas, but I don't remember the details,
    so we'll ignore them).  An uncontained non-ionized gas tends to
    expand if uncontained (that is part of the definition of a gas).
    Because of the forces of repulsion between the gas nuclei (now much
    less moderated by the surrounding electron clouds) a plasma does
    so much more forcefully.  It can be of any density, and low density
    plasmas are commonplace -- some electrostatic air cleaners cycle
    through a period of generating them.
    
    A high density plasma needs a lot of containment, and is thus normally
    unstable and very short lived.  A lighting bolide appears to be
    a stable, high energy, self contained plasma (they have an estimate
    of its energy from when one fell into a full rain barrel and quickly
    boiled away some percentage of the water -- which requires a well
    defined quatity of energy).  Nobody is *sure* that it *is* a plasma,
    and if it is what holds it together for time periods of up to several
    minutes, though theories abound.
    
    					Topher

    Re .212
    
    >It is a fairly popular to various unusual states of matter as the
    >"fourth" state of matter.   ...
    
    Yes, and it is popular to refer to time as "the" fourth dimension.
    
    >A plasma is a gas in which an appreciable number of the electrons
    >have been stripped from the atoms. ... 
    
    Not inaccurate, but one can equally make the claim that a liquid
    is a solid in which the structural integrity has been mostly removed
    because of an increase in molecular kinetics.
    
    > A high density plasma needs a lot of containment, and is thus normally
    >unstable and very short lived.  A lighting bolide appears to be
    >a stable, high energy, self contained plasma (they have an estimate
    >of its energy from when one fell into a full rain barrel and quickly
    >boiled away some percentage of the water -- which requires a well
    >defined quatity of energy).  Nobody is *sure* that it *is* a plasma,
    >and if it is what holds it together for time periods of up to several
    >minutes, though theories abound.  
    
    Well, okay; if we don't call it a plasma/plasmoid (the way I've
    been using the term all along), let's call it something else for
    purposes of clarifying this disscussion.  Say, a "ignoid," for
    "fire-state."  Now the ignoid is clearly "stable" enough to be
    classified as a state of matter (after all, if a transuraniac nucleus
    with a hal;f-life in the milliseconds can be a legitimate element...).
    It's my suspicion that ignoids constitute a percentage of so-far
    unexplained UFO sightings.
    
    I also suspect that ignoids are _not_ connected with elemental beings,
    but that's virtually a whole other note.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Can we start a new note on plasmoids where theories can abound?
    please?, please?, please?  I'm doing this sort of personal research
    thing on religious apparitions (sort of tracking them to UFO flaps
    too) and a common characteristic is fire or flame appearing (plasmoid
    generated?).  There is a tremendous amount of activity going on
    in Yugoslavia right now (Medjugory - hope its spelled right).
    I'd love to hear more about plasmoids.
    Gratefully (as always_:-)
    Mary                                
    

    	There is also a discussion on the Yugoslavia incident in
    VCQUAL::CATHOLIC_THEOLOGY Note 29 (Ask COVERT::COVERT for membership
    into this Conference).
    
    	Larry
     

    Re:  .216
    
    What is the Yugoslavia incident?
    
    Carole
    

    	Several people in Yugoslavia have reported seeing the Virgin
    Mary; but as this has little to do with UFOs, I think that discussion
    of this should be taken elsewhere.
    
    	Larry
    

   Let me start this note by commenting on my purpose.  It may seem that I
   am being very negative; but, in my mind at least, I am not.  You claim
   an interest in examining the issue of the nature of UFOs from a
   scientific viewpoint.  My intention is to provide critical comments
   towards that goal in areas where I have some (and I should emphasize:
   only some) knowledge. I am supportive of your efforts, and, although I
   am unconvinced that UFOs represent any form of mysterious artifacts
   (human or non-human), I am also unconvinced that they do not. 

   The idea is to help winnow the potential evidence to that subset which,
   individually or collectively, unambiguously indicates artifacts
   radically different from publicly known forms. 

   That out of the way --

RE: .163

   >   None of the victims involved in abduction cases, which have gone
   >   through psychoanalysis(and the majority have) have ever shown
   >   any psychological abnormalities whatsoever.

   I'm afraid that I have quite a bit of trouble with this statement.  It
   needs quite a bit of clarification. 

   1. Depending on what is meant by "psychological abnormalities" there are
   very few people around who show no sign of psychological abnormality.
   Let us assume that what is meant is gross psychological pathology: e.g.,
   schizophrenia, chronic depression, obsessive/compulsive disorder, or
   chronic substance abuse. 

   2. I forget the percentage of Americans who show significant signs of
   psychopathology upon expert examination, but it is much higher than you
   would expect.  If I had to guess I would say 1 in 5.  So either way we
   take it we have a super-exceptionally "sane" group. 

   3. I rather suspect that what we are getting is a selection effect.  The
   people who are being included in our sample of "real" abduction cases
   are those who show no sign of gross psychological abnormalities.  This
   can happen either through a formal or informal selection criteria (meant
   to distinguish "cult contactees" from "real" abduction cases) or as a
   side effect of how such cases are discovered for inclusion in the
   sample.  The statement that "there is a significant population of
   ostensible UFO abductees who show no signs of gross psychological
   pathology" is still an interesting one, but it is *not* equivalent to
   yours. 

   4. But we still have a problem -- *all* of these people are explicitly
   distinguished by having a specific psychological abnormality -- a major
   period of time loss.  This is not simply a nit since it leads to the
   important question: 

       What proportion of patients who seek psychological help because of
       an incident of time-loss, and whose problem is demonstrated to be
       other than abduction by non-human intelligences, show signs of other
       psychological abnormality? 

   I haven't the faintest idea what the answer to this is, but without the
   answer to that question the lack of other psychological abnormalities in
   the UFO abductees really tells us nothing.  Given the possibility of
   selection in our subject population, the answer would have to be very
   close to 100% before the abductees apparent "sanity" can be taken as
   meaning much of anything. 

   5. But we *still* have a problem -- you have repeatedly emphasized that
   these people *do* consistently suffer from another psychological
   abnormality -- they show signs of severe trauma (and trauma which is
   described as worse than sexual abuse is severe indeed).  Trauma by its
   definition implies damage. Granting for sake of argument the ability of
   trained psychologists to determine the presence or absence of severe or
   moderate psychopathology (note: we are *not* discussing "sanity" here),
   I am unwilling to concede that they have the ability to accurately
   attribute all psychopathology found to a single cause -- particularly
   since I doubt their ability to identify whether or not that cause is
   "real" (whatever real is) or fantasy in the first place. 

				Topher

    
    My comments were not at all meant to expose a negative attitude,
    but to merely state the facts as I know them. The point I was 
    trying to make was that besides the signs of trauma in these
    victims, psychologists could find no contributing abnormalities
    that would classify them as any less stable than you or I.
    
    See note .205 also.
    
    Steve
    

    
    I will be a representative of Massachusetts MUFON at the International
    Symposium being held next week and sponsored by the Fund For UFO
    Research. I am not positive who will be among the guest speakers
    present at this time, but it might be interesting to get some input
    during the question/answer pannel session.
    
    If anyone would like a question brought up in this discussion period,
    please forward them to me and I will post the answers in this conf-
    erence when I return on July 1st.
    
    Depending on the ammount of questions, I cannot guarantee that all
    will be answered or brought up for discussion but it might be fun
    to see what some responses will be.
    
    Forward questions to: VOLGA::S_FIRMANI
                          Steve Firmani
    
    Thanks,
       Steve
    

    For those in this area -- there is a nice piece on UFOs on page
    2 of the Boston Globe today (Wed.).  It does not discuss UFOs as
    such but discusses how the military deliberately manipulated the
    press to downplay the reports.  It does not attribute this to any
    effort by the military to cover up something secret that they knew
    about, but simply to cover up the fact that there was a lot going
    on in the sky which they were not "on top of".
    
    A nice collection of "standard" pictures, at least one of which,
    I am pretty sure has been demonstrated to be faked.  The pictures
    are not refered to by the author of the piece, and I suspect that
    the Globe layout editor simply pulled them out of the file and added
    them.
    
    				Topher

    Thanks Toph....I'll definitely pick up a Globe on the way home.

    Did anyone catch Night Line last night?  I forgor to set my VCR.
    Copple was to have addressed UFO's

    
    Steve

    Steve, Can you give us a rundown on the MUFON UFO Symposium you
    attended in Washington last weekend?  We'd LOVE to hear about it.

    
    MUFON's 1987 International Symposium was held June 26-28 at
    American University, Washington D.C. and hosted by the Fund
    for UFO Research. Guest speakers came from Italy, Japan, Spain,
    Argentina, Africa, France, England, the U.S. and Canada as well
    as those presenting contributing papers on many aspects of the
    UFO phenomenon.
    
    Talks ranged from Scientific elements to abductions and investigative
    training/techniques as well as structural reorganization of research/
    investigative groups.
    
    Among those present were Richard Haines(NASA Research Scientist and
    author:"Observing UFOs" and "Melbourne Episode: Case Study Of A
    Missing Pilot"), Cynthia Hind (African UFO Researcher and author:
    "UFOs: African Encounters),Jenny Randles(British Researcher,author:
    "Skycrash"),Barry Greenwood(UFO/Government Researcher and Co-author:
    Clear Intent"),Marge Christinsen(MUFON Director of Public Relations),
    Stanton Friedman(Canadian Research Physicist), Dr. Bruce MacAbee
    (Navy Research Physicist),Budd Hopkins(UFO Abduction Expert and
    author: "Missing Time" and "Intruders"),Mr. Paul Norman(Australian
    UFO Researcher),Dr. Willy Smith(Project UNICAT),Chuck DiCaro(CNN News)
    and a pannel of eight abductees including Charles Hickson(of the
    well known Hickson/Parker-Pascagoula Abduction Case.
    
    I was surprised that Whitley Strieber showed his face and even more
    so to see Phil Klass(who incidentally stayed on for the whole time).
    
    Friday night a registration and reception was held and the next
    two days were devoted to presentations. A Saturday night banquet
    was held with Author Bill Moore as guest speaker.
    
    Following each days talks, pannel discussions were held. 
    
    All in all it was a very fruitful experience as an investigator.
    
    
    

    	Were any major conclusions reached?
    
    	What did Philip Klass say, and how did the audience react to
    him?
    
    	Larry
    

    
    No major conclusions were reached, discussions were mostly on
    current case investigations around the world, investigative tools
    and techniques and group reorganization for utilizing maximum
    potential and resources in case studies. There were some documents
    recieved dating back to president Eisenhower stating the existence
    of a group labeled Majestic 12(MJ12, Majic 12) which supposedly
    retained and studied the remains of a crashed disk and its occupants.
    This group allegedly was made up of 12 of the highest ranked
    scientists and military personnel in the country, surprisingingly
    including DR. Donald Menzel noted professor and top ranked UFO
    debunker of that era. The main problem with this documentation is
    that some was recieved anonomously through the mail and according
    to Barry Greenwood (co-author "Clear Intent") there are discrepancies
    between these documents and other "official" doucments which have
    been released under the FOIA and he feels that this should be handled
    very carefully until verified as authentic or otherwise.
    
    Phil Klass was not present as a speaker per say, but more or less
    to gather information for his new book on abductions. There were
    many side discussions between Klass and Ufologists but the one 
    which stood out the most was when it was agreed upon by Klass and
    Bill Moore that the MJ12 documents should be(as they were) released
    to the press and let them follow them through to verify authenticity.
    Klass was almost non-existent as far as questioning speakers and
    at times seemed to be enjoying himself and at times seemed almost
    congenial but don't let that decieve anyone he is still Phil Klass
    debunker extrodinaire and will soon be back to his old tricks.
    
    Steve
    
    
    

    Anything new in the UFO community?  Is Steve Firmani still out there?
    Could you fill us in on whats going on these days?
    Mary

I'm new to this file and have a lot of reading to do.  I haven't read all of
the replies to this topic yet, but am glad so many have responded to it.  I
have had one "UFO" experience, but have told very few people about it.  Anyone
who has followed my notes in other conferences knows that I am skeptical about
most things, UFOs included. I certainly don't want to be branded a "weirdo"
(any more than I have been already! :-)) but since so many other people have
had the moxy to tell their stories, I'll tell mine. 

My encounter happened on the first day of college (1976).  I attended Cal
Poly Tech in San Luis Obispo, California--a somewhat rural setting.  There
was a big welcoming party at my dorm where everybody was getting to know each
other.  I had just met my roommate that day and was meeting quite a few
people at the party.  The hall was pretty crowded, so I decided to take
in some night air. 

I was enjoying the walk and was feeling really good about all the people I had
met (FWIW: I had no help from alcohol, as Cal Poly was a "dry" campus and
I didn't drink at that time).  It was an extremely clear summer night and
there must have been a billion stars out.  There was a warm breeze blowing,
and not a soul around, since most people were at the party.  I was walking
by the Music building and looking up at the stars when something caught
my eye:  an object, about the size of a pickup truck was approaching slowly
overhead.  I estimated that it was about 50 feet above the music building.
At first glance I thought it was an airplane, but it made no sound at all.
Then I thought it might be some kind of balloon, but it was flying against
the wind.  I stood directly under it and got a very clear view.

The object was shaped somewhat like a manta ray with one red dome on the
underside of one "wing" and one green dome under the other.  The red and green
lights were what caused me to think it was an airplane at first, but when
I stood under the object, the light had a funny speckly quality, much like
a laser.  The funny lights, strange shape, and perfectly smooth, absolutely
silent motion led me to the conclusion that this was a UFO.  Needless to
say, I was so excited I almost had an accident.  I didn't know what to do
so I thought, "look at your watch."  It was 9:01.  

I looked all around but couldn't find anyone else.  I followed the thing for
another hundred feet or so when , all of a sudden, it took off straight ahead
like a bat out of hell.  It was out of sight in about 10 seconds.  That
*really* did it for me, and I went running back toward the dorm.  On my way
back I ran into these two people standing in the music parking lot and kissing
like there was no tomorrow.  Since the object would have passed over them, I
frantically asked them if they had seen it.  They looked at me like I was some
kind of nut.  I remember how *mad* I felt at them for standing there sucking
face when they could have been a witness to what I saw. 

I went back to my dorm room, where I was greeted by my new roommate, Alan. He
remarked that I looked like I had just seen a ghost, to which I replied, "No,
it was a UFO!"  He looked at me and said "uh huh."  "REALLY!" I shouted, but he
thought I was joking.  Then it struck me: I couldn't tell anybody! This was my
first time at college and I didn't want to be branded as a nut. To make matters
worse, I had never even believed in UFOs!  The combination of not wanting
people to think I was a kook and having been confronted at close range with
something I claimed did not exist caused some psychological turmoil, to say the
least.  I dreamed about the incident virtually every night for the entire
first quarter.  This didn't stop until quarter break when I told the story
to my family.  Knowing how scientific I am and how I would never lie to
them, they believed me and accepted the story.  What a relief!  The next
quarter I wrote a term paper on the subject and my English prof remarked that
he believed me also (I was somewhat surprised at this).

I still dream of this incident from time to time and rarely discuss it (it is a
very uncomfortable memory).  I get somewhat annoyed with people who describe
UFOs as being "spiritual" in nature or psychological "projections."  What I saw
was as physical and real as a car in the parking lot. 

How I wish someone else had been there!


John M. 
 

    Was there any lost time John?  Can you account for all of your time
    that night?

    
    John, if it makes you feel any better there are many other people
    who have had similar experiences and experience the same frustration
    that occurs when one is the sole witness. There are just some people
    who will not believe such an account no matter how well they know
    the person. This comes from their refusal or fear of accepting the
    story rather than their reluctance to believe you and as you well
    know many people find it more comforting to go with the crowd rather
    than come out and say what they really think fearing that if they
    openly support you they will also be labeled as a kook.
    
    See note 304
    
    Steve

RE: .31

There was no lapse in time.  The whole event was very much in real
time...except when the damn thing took off!

RE: .32

You're right...it is very frustrating not to have had another witness. 
The whole incident would have been a heckuva lot easier on my psyche had
there been someone else there.  One thing I will say is that the event made
me a tad more tollerant.  About a year later a very sober Japanese engineering
student stayed at my place for a few days.  He told me in all seriousness
that he had once seen a UFO.  I didn't tell him about what happened to me,
but I assured him that I believed him.  He seemed relieved at my saying
so.

RE: .33

Et tu Ray?


John M.

    This is from the Business Week, 17th Aug. '87 issue (page 81).

	"Last year, in one of the more spectacular experiments at AT&T
	Bell Laboratories, scientists trapped a handful of atoms in a
	"bottle" of laser light, then used a laser-beam "tweezer" to
	move them around (BW-July 28, 1986). Now it turns out that the
	same laser tweezer can be used to grab living microorganisms,
	such as bacteria or viruses, and move them around on microscope
	slides for closer study - without harming the organism.

	The tweezer, says researcher Arthur Ashkin, who invented the
	technique, "gives you very fine control: While you are looking
	at a slide, you can grab on bacterium and drag it out of a
	cluster," even flip it over to get the best viewing angle."

    I know that it's a big step from moving micro-organisms to moving
    humans, but I wonder why nobody seems to have picked up on the
    connection between this "laser tweezer" and the way the UFOnauts
    seem to to be able to pick or lift up the contactees in a shaft of
    light. Or has it already been commented upon?

    -- Rav Karwan

    Its worth thinking about, but the technique in question depends
    on the object being manipulated being about the size of a wavelength
    of light.  If I remember (I'll have to check this) even the micro-
    organisms are way to big for this.  Their "trapping" was a surpise
    to the researchers, and is due to movement of the water molecules
    they are suspended in.  It doesn't take much force to do this, its
    the matter of control that was surprising.  I would think that to
    apply this "indirect" technique to humans in air would require such
    an intense beam of light that it would completely and instantly
    vaporize them.  I'll recheck the articles I have on the laser trap,
    however, and see if I can figure out a plausible way to scale up
    the effect.
    
    					Topher

    	This is a bit late (Hey, the Mill blew a fuse big time yesterday!),
    but in the August 30, 1987 edition of THE BOSTON GLOBE SUNDAY MAGAZINE,
    there is a large article on the current trend in UFO abductions,
    written by a woman reporter who interviewed some alleged abductees
    at the latest Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) convention.
    
    	After reading the article, I still feel that those particular
    subjects underwent some sort of *Earthly* psychological trauma and
    have tried to deal with it by displacing it as far as possible (and
    you can't get much further than space! :^)).  Also, the alleged
    photographs of the UFO used in the article all look very fake.
    
    	Larry
    

VNS MAIN NEWS:                            [Richard De Morgan, Chief Editor, VNS]
==============                            [Basingstoke, England                ]

    Science, Technology, Medicine, and Nature
    -----------------------------------------

    Documents alleging that a UFO with alien occupants crashed 40 years 
    ago in New Mexico have been proved to be fraudulent.

    [Does anyone have more details on this report?] 

  <><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 1410      Friday 25-Sep-1987   <><><><><><><>

RE: .238
    
    There was a (very small) item in this week's (came yesterday) issue
    of New Scientist.  I meant to bring it in and post it, but forgot.
    
    There wasn't a whole lot of info but the important points are:
    
    	1) The proof was presented by Kurtz and others from CSICOP.
    
    	2) They are demanding prosecution under laws forbidding forgery
    	   of gov't docs.
    
    	3) Only one example of the evidence was presented: a security
    	   classification mark refering to a security category which
    	   did not exist until the Nixon administration.  The context
    	   made it clear that this was only an example of a broader
    	   body of evidence.
    
    Given the source, it is reasonable to assume that their evidence
    is accurate.  We cannot, however, assume that we have been informed
    of *all* the evidence, or of any reasonable counter explanations
    which might exist (e.g., evidence or claims that the document in
    question had been *RE*classified under Nixon would only be likely
    to be included in their public release if they could prove that
    it was not so).
    
    				Topher

Path: muscat!decwrl!ucbvax!AFSC-SD.ARPA!bold%dss.DECnet
From: bold%dss.DECnet@AFSC-SD.ARPA ("DSS::BOLD")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: AIAA October Event: UFO seminar
Message-ID: <8710081528.AA02573@galileo.s1.gov>
Date: 6 Oct 87 21:51:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 30
 
S P A C E  D I V I S I O N 
 
                   I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M
 
                                        Date:      6-Oct-1987 14:36 PST
                                        From:      Kevin W. Bold 
                                        Tel No:    (213)643-1540/AV833-
 
Subject: AIAA October Event
 
AIAA is sponsoring a seminar on UFOs featuring William L. Moore,
Saturday, 24 Oct 1987, at the TRW Forum in Redondo Beach.  Registration
begins at 0830 and the seminar runs from 0900 to 1200.  Admission fee,
which includes coffee and rolls, is $6.00.
 
     Compton Blvd
  ____________________________________________
    |                                       |
  A |                                       | F
  v |          				    | r            N
  i |                                       | e          W   E
  a |      R1    R3     Pkng                | e            S
  t |                                       | m
  i |      R2    E1     S (Seminar          | a
  o |                      location)        | n
  n |_______________________________________|
       Space Park Drive
  
For more information or to make reservations call (213) 429-3713.
(They may even have more complete maps!)

    
    
    I was surprised to see that noone has entered this information.
    There was a report on CNN over the weekend of reported UFO
    sightings in Wythe County, Virginia.  Apparently there have 
    been over 100 reported sightings since late September of this
    year.  The police spokespeople say that the people reporting
    them are respected and intelligent members of the community.
    Some have described only lights, others have seen ships shaped
    like halved walnut shells with lights around the bottom.
    
    One official felt that what was being seen were airplane refueling 
    flights, or perhaps military exercises.  The military has not 
    advised of any manuevers going on in the area.
    
    Anyone hear any more?
    
    Carole
    
    P.S.  I caught this news item while staying over at a friends house
          for the weekend.  Another guest and I were woken up by Bambi
          (a cat) stepping on the cable box at 7:00 am on Saturday,
          just in time to catch the report.  We did hear it again on
          Saturday night, too.
    
    

    So why do we assume that aliens will have physical bodies and space
    crafts?
    
    If a human can project it's consciousness to other parts of the
    universe, why not others? Are our human projectors considered aliens or
    UFO's in other planes?
    
    It seems to me that if humans see aliens and UFO's as physical things
    when energy fields are easier to move around (humans do it), then
    a human perspective is added which could taint the experience.
    
    I have a friend who has had visits and conversations with what they
    call aliens. These were ghost like, little beings (Sidhe?) that floated
    outside their house. No spcae ship, no lights, just visitors. 
       
    Here we find that we have assumed that such beings will have craft
    of somekind. Why not think that they can project themselves to any
    place and time they want?

    RE: .242
    
    That's nice, Mikie, but it is hard to think of possible other beings
    as "spiritual" when one sees a very physical strange craft in the
    sky.
    
    
    John M.

    Re .242, 243:
    
    John, I can answer your objections to Mikie?'s hypothetical question
    by positing that the UFOs are really lumoinous plasmoids (as physics
    understands the term) that are somehow alive and motile (the plasmic
    equicalent of microvorticity to create complex energy domanis necessary
    for awareness?).
    
    Ain't speculation fun?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    RE: .244 (Steve)
    
    You have been reading too much Topher.
    
    
    
    JOhn M.

    RE: .241
    
    My sister-in-law lives in Ft. Walten Beach, Florida (the panhandle
    part of Florida) and she saw lights last Tuesday night (the 20th).
    
    She told me that what she and her daughter (my niece is 11) saw,
    were a green light followed by a white light and they were moving
    very slowly in a clearing near the road.  This clearing is about
    half a mile from her house, so she is quite familiar with the
    size of the clearing and that trees are in the background.  The
    light appeared to be below tree level and in front of the trees.
    
    They saw these lights while driving home that night.  My niece had
    her seat back and was looking out the window and asked my sister-in-
    law if she "saw those lights".  
    
    Later on, she heard on the local tv station (originating in Mobile,
    Alabama) that there had been dozens of calls about the hemispherical
    (or to quote, "half a cantaloupe") shapes with ring of lights on
    the bottom.  
    
    Sounds like the typical UFO flap; lights are seen and there is lots
    of speculation, but unfortunately, the press doesn't complete the
    coverage.  
    
    I will ask her if she's heard anything more.
    
    --Eve
    

    I am fairly new to this notes file and have a lot of catching up
    to do, but I read this whole category on UFO's, and would like to
    summarize my experiences.
    I have seen three UFO's in my life, one of which I seen when I was
    very young and alone in bed.  The other two were witnessed by other
    people, and resembled each other, one was in Buffalo N. Y., and
    the other one (six), was in N. H. going into Mass. I am not going
    to give the particulars here, but instead try to explain a feeling
    I have about them, and see if I get any feedback.
       Besides seeing UFO's, I have also been very gifted from youth
    with incredible ESP, and have had many, many strange experiences
    with this, and also with Astral Projection.  I no longer use the
    ESP I had, because, to be perfectly frank, it scared the hell out
    of me, and seemed to be getting out of control, however, this belongs
    in another note.
       One of the feelings I have always had is that somehow the ESP
    and the UFO sightings are inexplicably linked somehow.  I feel very
    special in a way I can't identify that these things happened to
    me.  Most people have not seen even one UFO.  I am wondering if
    anybody else has had a similar background, or have thought about
    a link between the two phenomenom.
       I have also had a couple of incredible "religious" type experiences,
    and will try to find a note to explain some of these things.  My
    personal feeling about UFO's is that they are not from other planets,
    but that they coexist with us, here on or around earth, perhaps
    under the oceans, or another dimension.  Could it be that in our
    future, we develop the way to time travel, and what we are seeing
    is our decendants(sp?) traveling back through time to study us,
    or perhaps warn us of something?  Anybody who reads Sci-Fi knows
    the danger of traveling in time and changing what should have happened!
      Just a few thoughts I figured I'd throw out to see what comes
    back.  I really enjoy this conference, and look forward to contributing
    to it much more in the future.
    
                                          Greg

    I don't think you're alone in your experiences and feelings Greg.
    I'd be most interested in hearing more too.
    Mary
    

    >anyone who reads Sci-Fi knows the danger of traveling in time and
    >changing what should have happened.
    
    I'm sorry but I disagree. It doesn't matter whether you travel in
    time or not because what happened happened. If you had traveled
    back in time and helped someone do something or warnewd someone
    of something then when you got back to the present the thing which
    you warned them about wouldn't have happened because they would
    have avoided it. All time coexists. There is no future or past but
    only the present and that exists on different plains. 
    
    Sorry this doesn't really belong in this note but I wanted to reply
    to the aforementioned statement.
    
    						Geoff

    	But can you prove this?
    
    	Larry
    

RE: .249
    
    That IS the danger.  What if one of the consequences of what you
    warned the person about not happening was that you were never born?
    
    The only temporal structure in which true backward time travel,
    precognition or retroactive PK makes sense is one equivalent to
    a branching structure, or the variant in Jim Hogan's book (the title
    escapes me).  In such a structure you could not return to where
    you came from, but only to the time "created" by your intervention.
    
    In other words (RE: .250), he doesn't have to prove it -- its logically
    equivalent to the assumption that time travel (or, as I said,
    precognition) exists.
    
    						Topher

    RE: .251 (Topher)
    
    > That IS the danger.  What if one of the consequences of what you
    warned the person about not happening was that you were never born?
    <
    
    Then you never would have existed to go back and warn the person.
    The fact that you DID exist means that you were obviously born.
    No matter what you did, the future would ALWAYS be the same, as
    your action is part of the past.
    
    .249 is correct; there is only now.  There is also only one possible
    future.  
    
    Feedback in a circuit is an excellent analogy to going back in time.
    
    John M.

    Re: .252
            
>>    Feedback in a circuit is an excellent analogy to going back in time.

    Remember that Feedback can lead to instability.
    
    I think it might be time to start a topic on TIME TRAVEL.
    
    Dave

    
    re: 253
    
    Great Idea!
    

    Ok Dejavuites and Ufologists, who were the Aliens on Miami Mice last
    night? Were they really aliens, or the Airforce testing new pshcyo
    weapons, or aliens posing as the Airforce testing new pshcyo-weapons?? 

    Miami Mice?  Mikie, have you been drinking?_:-)

    Reply to .256; Pare,
    
    Miami Mice is a contortion of Miami Vice. You probably won't understand
    unless you saw the program. It was about abductees wacking themselves
    in Miami. Perhaps even on command.

RE: Miami Vice
    
    I would say that it had been deliberately left ambiguous, with the
    additional trite possibility thrown in that it was all "only a dream"
    (that is, everything after the guy with the picture freaking out
    at the stake out).
    
    Beth says that she thought that the opening credits listed Tom Disch
    (a well known SF author) as the writer, but she wasn't sure (I missed
    the credits completely).  Did anyone notice?
    
    						Topher

    RE: John
    
    Glad I read your experience or I would not have entered mine which
    was very similar.  I entered this once before and changed my mine
    just before the final keystroke.
    
    I just starting reading this file last friday.
    
    Anyways it was a summer nite, 1975.  I was parked in my car with
    my girlfriend in front of her fathers barn on a farm in the sticks
    of NE Maine.  We were mad at each other sitting there not talking
    when I saw a bright lite in the distance above or in the tree line,
    the object was far away.  I asked her what she thought it might
    be, I offered the suggestion of a logging truck in the woods with
    bright lites but we ruled that out.  The light was bobbing up and
    down and slowely moving closer and closer towards us.  By now we
    were spell bound and silent staring at this strange thing.  The
    closer it got, the brighter it got and it became evident to me that
    it must be a UFO.  It ended up stopping directly above her parents
    house.  We were hiding and peaking at it from behind the dash board.
    Yes we were quite scared.  Some of the strange things about it were,
    that the closer it got the more difficult it became to determine
    it size, the lights were so bright that we could not see if there
    was something behind it, there was no sound, and no ground disturbance.
    
    Suddenly it shot into the sky, and stopped high up in the air. 
    It was bobbing gently up and down next to another light.  The
    speed at which it traveled and stopped was unbelievable.  It
    defied all of my perceptions of the laws of weight and gravity.
    
    It then zoomed across the sky from right to left and stopped by
    another light.  I now looked all around the sky and noticed
    a fourth light to my left above the tree line and this one unlike
    the others had a red light under it.
    
    There was also a fifth light floating to the right.  
    
    Soon they all starting darting around the sky at incredible speeds,
    making as you said "dog leg" turns, and one by one they flew out
    of sight.
    
    Well my reaction to my girl friend was something like "Holy #%$&&
    S&^t", "do you realize what we just saw?".
    
    We were still so scared that we did not want to get out of the car
    and walk the 100 feet or so to the back door of the house.  So,
    I drove to the back door and we ran out of the passenger door into
    the house.  
    
    It was late at night, about 1:00 am, everyone was sleeping except
    her mother who was on the phone.  We told her what happended but
    she was more interested in her phone conversation.  We went to the
    front window and stared at the sky for about five minutes seeing
    nothing when suddenly one flew over head from behind the house and
    went straight out out of site.  When it passed by the whole front
    yard lit up like a stadium.  We both went "WOW" at the same time.
    
    END OF INCIDENT
    
    Three weeks later we were on a private mountain dirt road, of course
    we did not belong there.  I noticed a bright lite off in the distance
    in the woods.  Looked like a cabin with incredibly bright lites
    eluminating from it.  I stopped and told my girl friend about it.
    We looked and saw nothing.  Two seconds later the light flew over
    the top of car from left to right and vanished.  We turned around
    and left immediately.
    
    END OF 2ND AND ALL INCIDENTS
    
    My remarks after the fact...
    
    I should not have feared it.  I wish I had tried to approach it
    when I had the chance.  
    
    I too disagree with religious and psychic experiences.  This was
    there, it was real.  Its a fact I will never forget.
    
    I found it interesting that this happened in the same time period,
    1975, 1976.  I am referring to John's experience.  Also interesting
    is the fact that we were minutes from the ocean.  I would imagine
    John's experience was near the ocean (you did say Calif., right?).
    
    There had been a lot of sitings in the area I was in for many years.
    
    Some stories had witnesses see these things go into the ocean.
    
    Oh well, thats my story.  Thanks again John for telling yours. 
    I have shared this experience with many people over the years
    including others who have seen these lights in the sky performing
    incredible manouvers.
    
    It is much more difficult to put this in writing, because its like
    a permanent document for the world to see I guess.  Hope I am
    never nominated for Supreme Court Justice, this note will ruin all
    my chances of nomination.
    
    
    
    
    Mark.
    

    	Did the object(s) make any sound?  You do not mention if it
    did or not.  Could you tell NO other details, just lights?  Would
    you honestly say that they were possibly military helicopters on
    manuevers?  Is an Air Force base located relatively nearby the area
    you saw the objects?  Is there anything else you left out?
    
    	Larry
    

    I think he did mention that it made no sound Larry... and (except
    for classified helicopters that we may not know about) most helicopters
    don't move like that soundlessly.  Sounds like a very interesting
    sighting.  Thanks for sharing it Mark and... if you ever get nominated
    for the supreme court,... you can count on my support_:-)
    Mary
    
    

    	Mine too, except that with all the entries I've made here
    	I'd never make it to Congress...  *8-)
    
    					Carla
    

RE: .259

    What a fascinating account!  You are lucky your girlfriend saw it too. 

    San Luis Obispo is about a 30-minute drive from the ocean (the
    direction, by the way, from which the object I saw was heading).  There
    is quite a difference in the crafts you saw and the craft I saw, but it
    seems both would do pretty well in the zero-to-60 acceleration test! 


    John M. 

    re: .258
        Topher, it was that guy!  I happen to have it on tape (since
    I'm "never home" Friday nights I usually tape Miami Vice) and I
    watched it last night and it was Disch (sp?)
        Personally, I want the aliens in my reality to be surrounded
    with more love than the aliens who "infected" the public in this
    story seem to have.  :-)  Interesting story, though.
     
    Frederick
    

    re: 259
    
    There was no sound what soever and no wind or ground disturbance.
    I can't imagine anything moving that quickly and effortlessly that
    man has developed.  Remember also, it was 12 years ago, its even
    unimaginable with what we know of todays technology for something
    to move like that.
    
    Yes, there is a military communications base nearby, on the ocean.
    It has the largest communication towers clustered together that
    I have ever seen.  I beleive it is a comm center for all the nuclear
    submarines.  Many sitings had been made near these towers.  Local
    theory is that the towers attract these objects.
    
    But I am sure these objects were not and could not be military.
    
    Mark.
    
    

    Mark,
    I think thats the best first-hand UFO sighting I've read about yet.
    If you ever hear anything more, please let us know.
    Mary

JUST GOING THROUGH SOME OLD FILES....

THIS HAS BEEN ENTERED HERE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR OF THE NOTE.

ENJOY!

===============================================================================

<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

 Edition : 1346             Thursday 25-Jun-1987            Circulation :  4433 

        VNS MAIN NEWS .....................................   90 Lines
        VNS COMPUTER NEWS .................................   46   "
        VNS Letters to the Editor
            Jonathan B. Raphaelson ........................   15   "


VNS Letters to the Editor:
==========================

From: Jonathan B. Raphaelson ................................... Hudson, MA, USA

"Office of Fair Trading to investigate monop(o)loy on racing satellite
 service."  ..............VNS  6/23/87.

      I was not aware of the growth of satellite racing as a leisure time
activity.  I assume it's one of those things that will get popular here in
the states after it is no longer fashionable in Europe.  I can see why a 
monoploy on repair services would be investigated - it's not very sporting.
I can just imagine the maladies that will become associated with the sport,
such as joystick thumb (a common problem among video game enthusiasts), and
antenna elbow.  Spectators will probably be subject to telescope eyes, a 
heretofore rare affliction limited to the ranks of lyricysts and 
alienologists.  I don't hold much hope for satellite racing catching on 
world-wide.  I expect it will remain an elitist rich man's sport, like 
nuclear marbles and rocket booster polo.
...................Jon Raphaelson, Hudson, Mass., U.S.A....................

    I would like to write my account of a sighting of a UFO that I saw
    with a group of 6 adults and 11 children in 1981. At the time I
    was living in Tennessee 75 miles south of Nashville in rural farm
    country. I was walking down a dirt road with a group of 5 other
    adults. It was in the middle of the afternoon, bright blue cloudless
    sky, when a group of children about 50 yards in front of us
    started shouting, "Look up in the sky, what is that?". This caught
    our attention to this large silver object. It looked something like
    this outline
    shape:           
                       x
                      xxxx
                     xxxxxxxxx
                    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    
                   xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx          
                  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx              
                 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                
                xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                                   
               xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    
    It flew very fast with no sound, no lights, no visible markings
    whatever right above the treetops 1/4 mile in front of us by
    this woodline. Everyone shouted and screamed saying it was a
    UFO. It seemed to catch the reflection of the sun as it moved along.
    
    Then at an incredible speed, at a blink of an eye, it flew at a
    70 degree angle to the horizon completely out of sight. Whoosh....
    it was Gone......
    
    It had no jet trail, no afterburner sound, whoosh.....it was just
    gone.  We all in the group noticed it silently flew along the top
    of the treeline ahead of us as we could see it for about a minutes
    time. It wasn't an F-16 or any type of military aircraft that I
    could recognize, as I am familiar with those types of outlines.
    
    After it literally just disappeared from view, we all talked about
    it and said that it wasn't anything that any of us had ever seen
    before, and concluded it was unidentified, it surely was flying
    like an object not any us adults and kids alike had ever seen before.
    
    -Arthur
                      

    	Did anyone besides the people with you see this object (was
    it in the news?).  Did you or anyone else feel any "unusual" effects
    after the encounter (this was of the First Kind, according to J.
    Allen Hynek's scale)?
    
    	Larry
    

    A little over a week ago I was walking out to my car in the driveway
    about 11:00 PM when I noticed a strange light moving slowly across
    the clear sky. It was quite fuzzy and I couldn't make out the shape,
    so I went back into the house to get my binoculars. When I came
    out again the light was gone. I waited for 10 or 15 minutes and
    then saw it again in a slightly different position. With the aid
    of the binoculars I was able to see it quite clearly. I couldn't
    believe my eyes. It was 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Santa Claus

    I have seen several references to Mr. Kass and several well known
    UFO debunkers. I have been an amateur astronomer all of my adult
    life and I have done some of the difficlut calculations the UFO
    debunking experts were supposed to have done before making their
    grand revelations to the public. I have yet to find more than a
    small handfull of astronomical explinations that were correct. On
    several occasions metiors are comming from the wrong constellation
    at the wrong time, planets are in the wrong location or are seen
    below the horizon etc. I now think that only a fool would believe
    the so called pronouncements delivered from on high by these people.
    
    
    
    David Suitor
    

    Has anyone heard anything about a ufo seen in England earlier this
    week?   Supposedly a woman saw it hovering over her house and called
    the police who also saw it.  It was briefly mentioned on the radio
    but I haven't seen or heard anything about it since.  Has anyone
    else?
    Mary

RE: 271
    
    A true skeptic is at least as skeptical of the pronouncements of
    self-proclaimed skeptics upholding the "status quo".
    
    					Topher

    Re:  England UFO
    
    Maybe the med clad in black got to her!
    
    [Sorry, couldn't resist  :^) ]

    
    On Monday's "People Are Talking" (WBZ-TV's daily talk show, hosted
    by Tom Bergeron), the guests included people from amongst the many
    who claim to have been abducted by aliens for the purposes of genetic
    experimentation.  I have heard of these claims for years.  Frankly,
    I'm pretty convinced -- there have been far too many indepently-told
    stories worldwide by people from all walks of life who recall the
    same chain of events, describe the same imagery and even draw the
    same alien life form (such as the special effects folks portrayed
    in Close Encounters) while under medically-supervised hypnosis.
    The "evidence" would seem overwhelming.
    
    There are far too many aspects here to address in one note.  What
    I'm wondering is if any of you UFO buffs can help with the following.
    There was one man in the studio audience who volunteered that a
    friend of his, a fairly high-level government official (no, he didn't
    say which branch) told him that there exists somewhere (DC?  FLA?)
    a warehouse containing actual UFO's and UFO parts.  He also said
    that an alien had really been captured, but its fate is undisclosed.
    Has anyone heard of any rumors to this effect?  Apparently, these
    flying vehicles are indeed visible on certain types of radar, but 
    we are not being told about it.  Why did the U.S. Gov't suddenly
    clam up about UFO sightings in the late '70's?  Aren't they in
    violation of the Freedom of Information Act?  I'm sick and tired
    of hearing about the "National Security is at stake" routine.  Who
    are they kidding? If they were truly concerned about contributing
    to mass hysteria, such as ensued when H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds"
    originally aired, then they would/should at least prepare the public
    by altering our mindset via the path of knowledge and acceptance.  
    Instead, this stuff shows up in the prestigious National Enquirer.
    
    You'd never know the year 2000 was only twelve years away.  
     
    Maureen
    
    (I made the apparent mistake of originally trying to post this in
    the SPACE conference, since I hardly consider this psychic phenomenon.
    As I replied to the moderator when he sent it back to me, "Your action
    proves the very point of my note" -- How can we begin to accept such
    things, little 'lone ADDRESS them, if we aren't even being made aware 
    of them?!)

    Another long-winded aside:  Many of you have mentioned that you felt
    funny about even posting your experiences in an internal use only
    notesfile.  One of the guests due to appear on the show was in fact
    a no-show -- As a Boston area media personality (gotta be Dickie or
    Dave Maynard, folks :-) ), he feared ruining his credibility.
    They (NASA/the gov't) WANT us to feel this way!  As long as this fear
    of revelation continues, we aren't going to get very far.

    	If you read back in this Topic, you will see that the "captured
    crashed UFO" story goes back to the 1940s, and was recently proven
    to be a hoax.
    
    	I do not doubt there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe,
    and that some of them may have sent starships to Earth, but just
    because the Government refuses to deal with UFOs does not make them
    "legit".  I would think that by now, in a country where such minute
    things as a political candidate's personal habits can be discovered
    and exposed, that such a big phenomenon as UFOs should have been
    "exposed" as either real or fake by now.  The fact that the jury
    is still out after almost half a century should tell you something
    as to UFOs creditbilty at this time.
    
    	I ask YOU:  Where is the proof of their existence?
                                                          
    	Larry
    

    	I would also like to correct several statements you made:
    
    	The U.S. Air Force ended its UFO study (called Project Bluebook)
    in 1969, not "the late 1970s".  They stated their reasons for ending
    the project as being that UFOs did *NOT* constitute a threat to
    the nation (this contradicts what you said).  They also found that
    most UFO reports had non-alien spaceship explanations, though they
    did acknowledge a small percentage was unexplained, which they wisely
    did not try to explain, having no data to back them up.

        And NASA has had *nothing* to do with the UFO phenomenon; just 
    because they deal with exploring space does not mean they also go 
    chading UFOs.  That's why your Note was not accepted in the SPACE 
    Conference:  That Notesfile deals with scientific space exploration, 
    not unproven phenomenon which may or may not have to do with space 
    travel.  Just where did you get your information?
                                                           
    	Larry
    

    RE: .276/.277
    
    The claims I refer to regarding the warehouse of UFO's are RECENT,
    not pertaining to the 1940's.
    
    Do you believe in God?  Where is the PROOF that our creator exists?
    Truth is something that one can somehow recognize without having
    "data" or "proof" to back the whole thing up.  If you are waiting
    for all the necessary data to enter your brain before it tells you
    when your own personal jury is in, forget it.
    
    I wasn't referring to the Blue Book studies -- I said CLAMMED UP...
    meaning not an official word after a given point, from what I've
    heard and read, was put forth.  The explanations we are given are
    those of non-revealing parents to inquisitive children.
    
    I don't recall eluding to actual THREAT, unless that is how you
    perceive the aforementioned supposed interaction (genetic
    experimentation, I presume).  THIS ISN'T THE POINT!  I for one don't
    CARE about government studies -- I DO care about the incredible
    experiences of the individuals at hand, those who HAVE added some
    form of alien sighting or contact to the human experience, both
    their own and ours as a people.

    RE: .277
    
    <<Where did you get your information?>>
    
    In this particular instance, I was, as I explainined in the first
    sentence of the reply, referring only and directly to "People Are
    Talking" and the discussions therein.

    
    	It does appear to be true that the government has 'clammed up'
    on the UFO issue.   In the Carter years, the freedom of information
    act could be used to extract some documents from them, but when
    Reagan came into office it became much more difficult to use the
    FOI act.
    
    	It's a little too soon for science to say the jury is in.
    It's a little stunning to imagine that George Ohm  (of Ohm's law
    fame) was hounded out of his teaching job and spent more than
    a decade being harrassed for volts=amps*resistance !!    If
    conventional science resists this -- how much more we should
    expect them to resist really revolutionary stuff like UFOs !!
    
    	I think it will take several more years for the truth to
    filter through.   The "jury" on UFOs is not yet in.   The government
    *is* keeping secrets -- but by the very definition of secret
    we can't know what is hidden until it is revealed.   (who killed
    Kennedy?  where is Jimmy Hoffa?  does the Govt. have disc aircraft?
    the 200 mile/gallon carburator.....    6^)
    
    	Alan.

    	Do you mean to tell me you are basing your claims on a talk
    show?!  Are you aware that there are those who will do and say many
    things to get a moment of fame by being on TV.  I highly mistrust
    the person who claims there are UFOs in a wharehouse because a
    "high-ranking government official who shall remain nameless" said
    so.  I'm also surprised you would trust the source, as you seem
    to find the Government to be the one who does all the misleading
    and hiding of UFO "evidence" in the first place, so why trust them
    with this story?
    
    	And as for those people who claim to have been abducted by aliens
    for "genetic experiments", while I do believe that some of them
    underwent some sort of trauma, the sexual natures of their experiences
    would seem to indicate a more unfortunately Earthly incident.  These
    poor people should be given good psychological help, not exploited
    on a talk show.
                                       
    	Larry
                                                        

    
    re: .275 - .281
    
    A couple of years ago, a documentary was released entitled "UFO's
    Are Real".  In this documentary, it shows several (and I do mean
    several...) government documents proving that the government has
    a lot of information concerning alien spacecraft & aliens, some
    of which was "snuck through" with the Freedom of Information act.
    Some of the documents had many blackened out paragraphs due to
    "National Security" reasons.
    
    If the government does not have alien spacecrafts and parts, etc.,
    then why did Hoover write on a memo (his own handwriting) that he
    was very upset because the army had some "saucers" and would not
    turn them over to his jurisdiction?
    
    I remember watching a talk-show about 10 years ago in which one
    of the Apollo astronauts (I can't remember his name, off hand) stated
    that the government has many spacecraft remains and also alien remains.
    In fact, he stated that they found a crash in which they were able
    to keep an alien alive for a couple days....  There are a couple
    other Apollo astronauts that have publicly stated similar occurances.
    
    Out of all the documentaries I have seen on UFO's, the "UFO's Are
    Real" was the best for giving proof & evidence indicating that
    the government knows more than it's letting on....
    
    I also recommend the book, "Light Years" by Gary Kinder (which was
    released last year in hard-copy and will be released in February
    in paperback...)
    
    Linda
  
    If the government 

    Re .280 (Alan):
    
    Agreed.  The jury is far from in.  The "U" in UFO means "unidentifed";
    until it is, it could be anything from an alien spacecraft to a
    natural phenomenon to a traditional Hallowe'en witch with a silver
    lame' cloak. :-)
    
    > ...does the Govt. have disc aircraft? ...
    
    Oddly, shortly after World War II, the U.S. government _did_ experiment
    with disk-shaped aircraft (a disk shape with concevtional
    engine/nacelle and props, edge control surfaces, and rudder-stabalizer;
    I forget the name, but it was a Navy experiment).  It didn't work
    very well and was scrapped.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

<<  Do you mean to tell me you are basing your claims on a talk
    show?!  Are you aware that there are those who will do and say many
    things to get a moment of fame by being on TV.  >>
    
    
    I am not "basing MY claims" -- I am relating the admissions of the
    show and further expounding upon them and suggesting questions that
    arise.
    
    It's funny...EVERY point you mention was brought up as reasons why
    people fear admission.  You insult my intelligence with the latter
    question above.  At any rate, it took a great deal of courage for 
    these people to relate their stories.  OF COURSE they know that
    the majority of the audience is going to feel/think/react as you
    do.  You're a good representation of the public at large.  These
    are people who thought they WERE going crazy...it was a long process
    for them to accept what happened to them and deal with it emotionally/
    psychologically.  You really should see the segment to judge for
    yourself.  Would YOU submit to public ridicule if you didn't have
    to?
    
<<  And as for those people who claim to have been abducted by aliens
    for "genetic experiments", while I do believe that some of them
    underwent some sort of trauma, the sexual natures of their experiences
    would seem to indicate a more unfortunately Earthly incident.  These
    poor people should be given good psychological help, not exploited
    on a talk show. >>
    
    These people have had just that -- good psychological help.  That
    is actually how much of this came out -- seeking psychological help
    for fear of delusion, only to "have it all come out" under hypnosis.
    What you suggest is exactly what many psychologists thought at first
    -- the remanisfestation of early sexual trauma.  These people were
    brutally scrutinized.  These theories were proven wrong.  There
    were two psychologists on the show, staking their reputations on
    their clients sound mental health.  Think about it -- there have
    literally been hundreds of similar claims.  Do you honestly believe
    that all of those people, had they all actually HAD early sexual
    traumas, would have had the same manisfestation, the same exact
    post-traumatic experience?  That's like 100 people having the exact
    same dream... 
    
                                       
                                                        

    	You still haven't shown me any "proof" about the supposed aliens
    in a Government warehouse, or answered my query as to why you accept
    a stranger's statements that an "unknown official" gave him this info,
    while rejecting all other Government claims.

        And as far as the alien abduction cases go, while a few might  
    deem some "merit", most of the others probably stem from the "copycat 
    syndrome", of which the UFO phenomenon seems to breed like crazy.
    
    	Larry
               

 RE: 285   ( DICKNS::KLAES )
    
    	Gak !  You might wait a long time for "proof".   Even if you
    saw it, I suspect you would deny that anything was "proven".
    I saw a lecture on the papers (including Hoover's memo) that
    had been obtained between 1970 and 1980 with the freedom of
    information act.   Even this "proved" nothing but that some
    papers saying such and such do exist...

        Having looked at a lot of the "evidence", I am more convinced
    by the sincerity of the "believers" than I am by your skepticism.
    I think your skepticism is more "copycat" in nature than are the
    experiences of the abductees.   
    
    	Try reading Jacques Vallee's "Messengers Of Deception", or
    "Passport To Magonia", and try opening your mind to the wonder 
    and mystery of it all.   There is *something* real behind all 
    these UFO stories.

    	Alan.

    
    Re.285
    
    Rathole.  
    
    I wasn't aware that things had to be 'proven' and 'defended' in a 
    conference set up specifically for the discussion of 'paranormal 
    experiences'.  
    
    Or did I miss something?
    
    Cindy

    RE: .287
    
    But, Cindy, why not?  Seems to be in keeping with the introductory
    note.
    
    
    All I know is that at least *ONE* UFO exists...
                                 
    John M.

    re: .285 (Larry)
    
    	If you are going to require physical "proof" of metaphysical/
    	psychic/spiritual experiences, beliefs, and phenomena (i.e., 
    	a spaceship landing on your front lawn or a dinner invitation
    	from God) then you will have to negate all replies I have ever
    	put in this conference.  The only proof I have are in my *own*
    	experiences and that is something you have no right to judge
    	actuality and/or validity on.  Not for me, and not for anybody
    	but yourself.  I've seen a UFO.  So have many people I know.
    	Can I prove it?  Do I *want* to prove it???  No!
    
    	I suppose you could also wonder if *I* even exist.  What is your 
    	proof that I do???  Because I have an account?  Hardly.  Because 
    	I'm registered in ELF??  No.  The majority of DEJAVU'ers haven't
    	ever seen me.  Deb Wolbach has.  Alan Ackley has.  Jack Callaghan
    	"claims" to work with me.  Does that prove my existence??  Three
    	people who have seen me and a couple others who've communicated 
    	with me only in a non-physical realm???  That's only a handful 
    	of people out of hundreds who participate in this conference,
    	who could easily be conspiring to propagate this illusion (not 
    	quite as illustrious as the *fame* one may derive from appearing 
    	on a talk-show, but attention is attention).  And not one of
    	these three people even has a photo of me!  They can offer you 
    	NO PROOF WHATSOEVER of my actual existence that couldn't be
    	rationalized as contrived or made-up.  And if you meet me in
    	person???  How do you still know it's not a stand-in???
    
    	My point is that proof can be offered until the "provers" are
    	blue in the face, figuratively AND literally.  That doesn't 
    	mean you're ever going to accept their knowledge, nor should 
    	you.  But please do not negate (at least publicly) what others
    	say they've experienced simply because you're not satisfied 
    	with the evidence they have (or don't have).
    
 	No, I don't think this is turning into a rathole, (maybe just
    	a mousetrap), but I do think it's beginning to sound awfully 
    	nitty.
    
    						Carla
    

    	There is no shame in having reservations about a concept for
    which the evidence is still lacking.
    
    	Before you people think I am making statements out of the blue,
    or just following the skeptics' opinions, I have been studying the
    UFO phenomenon for a number of years, have approximately a dozen
    books on the subject, and numerous articles.  This does not make
    me an expert of the J. Allen Hynek class (now there's a UFO authority
    I respect), but it also shows I did not come to my conclusions without
    an in-depth look.  
    
    	I've given the UFO phenomenon a lot of thought.  I would LOVE
    to have us intercept an alien spacecraft which was probing our planet,
    but there has yet to be one positively identified, even after all
    these decades.  How many astronomical and meteorological phenomenon
    have been mistaken for UFOs by a general populace who is unfamiliar 
    with the sky?  How many Earth-created aircraft, balloons, and space
    vehicles have been mistaken for UFOs?  How many people have outright
    lied to gain a moment of fame in regards to UFOs?  The answer is
    *MANY*.  Now I do not think that everyone who reports a UFO is either
    crazy or a liar, but I DO believe that many have mistaken natural
    phenomenon for alien starships; and as for those reports which cannot
    be explained?  No conclusive evidence pro or con should be labeled
    on them at this time, until better evidence comes in.
                                                     
    	Larry
             

    re .290 (Larry):
    
    > .............. How many astronomical and meteorological phenomenon
    >have been mistaken for UFOs by a general populace who is unfamiliar 
    >with the sky?  How many Earth-created aircraft, balloons, and space
    >vehicles have been mistaken for UFOs? 
    
    A related story: in the early days of the space program (1959-1960),
    I was living in Albany, New Youk.  Stuff In The Sky was -- well,
    if not hot, at least toasty warm -- news, and thus it came to pass
    one day the local papers and TV/radio stations informed us that
    an artificial satellite would pass overhead at a reasonable time
    in the evening.  So I got out some optics (a telescope, as I recall)
    and went out to spot it.  I traveled to a hill where some friends
    of mine had a home, and which was away from the worst of the city
    glare.  We spotted it, and it was sort of nice, but nothing
    spectacular.  However: when I got home, the man who lived below
    me said he took his little boy out and "showed him the satellite."
    As he put it, "It was quite something.  That blinking red light
    was real impressive!"  The satellite actually looked like a dim
    star, having some slight brightness variations (if dim, rusty,
    and cobwebbed memory serves, it was one of the ECHO satellites).
    I can't be sure just what he did see, but some sort of aircraft
    navigational light seems most likely.
    
    The point here is that even when folks are told in advance what
    to look for, where to look, and what to expect to see, some folk
    get it wrong, though in all sincerity.
    
    So some UFO observations must be taken with the understanding that
    we are all fallible humans.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    You're right, there is no shame, and consequently many of us feel
    none.
    
    You are not the *only* one who has been "studying the UFO phenomenon
    for a number of years."  As I said when I first broached the subject,
    I've been hearing (i.e., following developments, reading, listening
    to radio and t.v. talk shows, etc.) about these "stories" for years.
    
    If I could break into the file cabinets where the top secret documents
    you require as "proof" might be located, I would.  Not just to convince
    YOU, but to have on hand as "Exhibit A", etc.
    
    << I did not come to my conclusions without an in-depth look." >>
    
    And the moral of the story is, NEVER COME TO CONCLUSIONS.  A conclusion
    by its very nature denotes (or perhaps only connotes) an *end*,
    a *closing* (of the MIND).
    
    Maureen

    I disagree Larry.  No amount of evidence, conclusive or otherwise
    will convince some people... nor does it matter if they are convinced.
    Some people couldn't handle the truth anyway. 

    These notes were taken from another notesfile and are added without
    permission with my apologies to the authors.... bad noting ettiquette
    but I intended no harm.  These sightings are typical of what is
    happening in the UFO community.  It is also typical that the eye-
    witness accounts of these people is not "evidence".  
    
    
    
                   <<< BETHE::$DISK3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Welcome to The New Soapbox! >-
================================================================================
Note 292.61                    Little green men ?                       61 of 61
MTBLUE::BOTTOM_DAVID "Not so famous rock star"       18 lines   1-DEC-1987 07:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re: .60 No it would have been about '69 or '70, but still it's not
    surprising as many ( some claim a majority) UFO sightings are in
    the vicinity of military installations and Offut AFB (SAC headquarters)
    is one of the biggest.
    
    More interesting stuff. My Dad was a pilot at Pease AFB, back in the
    '60s on the day that the couple from NH claimed to have been picked up
    (Incident in Exeter) Pease was tracking multiple UFO's over the runway
    on their approach control radar but could not get visual contact. The
    radar was not defective. They were going nuts. I just heard this story
    for the first time this weekend...after turkey...
    
    I can also remember when dad was a controller in the SAC underground
    the stories of security crews at missle sites chasing UFO's on regular
    basis, complete with radar telemetry, but never explained.
    
    dtheb 
         
               <<< BETHE::$DISK3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Welcome to The New Soapbox! >-
================================================================================
Note 292.60                    Little green men ?                       60 of 61
VLNVAX::DMCLURE "Utopia is only a spec away"         38 lines   1-DEC-1987 00:35
                           -< Great Balls of Fire! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re: .49,
    
>    When I was an inhabitant of the state of Nebraska I saw a disk shaped
>    object that glowed...it moved slowly over the town of Ralston, Nebr.
>    It was seen by hundreds of people. It was not any aircraft I have
>    ever seen. The official Air Force conclusion was "unexplained"

	This wouldn't have been in the spring of 1978 would it?  A friend
    of mine was driving west on Interstate-80 on his way westward towards
    Des Moines, Iowa when he and his girl-friend both noticed something
    that came swooping down on them from behind over to his left on the
    south side of the interstate also heading west.  It apparently looked
    like a giant fireball perhaps the size of the Goodyear blimp (only whipping
    along at upwards of 1000 mph) in the distance hovering along the horizon
    line.  He slowed-down to take a better look and noticed that everybody
    else on the highway was also slowing down and honking their horns and
    pointing at it to each other in disbelief (as if to confirm to each
    other that others saw it too).  It continued to hover along at a good
    pace (it was huge and could be plainly seen to have a bluish glow to it
    in the distance), when suddenly, it appeared to launch itself upwards
    again towards the sky and it disappeared out of his line of sight.

	He said that he would have almost thought it was simply a giant
    fireball skimming across the earth's surface, except for the way it
    maneuvered so quickly right before it went out of sight.  Anyway, we
    all laughed at his story when he got back, but it didn't seem quite
    right because Mike never made things up like that.  Then, sure enough,
    later that night there was a report on the news about something that
    fit the description perfectly which was seen in at least three different
    states from Illinois to Nebraska!  We always expected much more news
    on it, but that was the last I ever hearc anything about it.

	The truly sad thing was that I happened to be out filming a movie
    that afternoon ON THE INTERSTATE, but I ran out of film and we came back
    home around sunset!  SHIT!  I could have filmed the sucker (not to mention
    at least have seen it)!

				  -davo

    	Let me clarify myself once again.  The conclusions I have come
    up with for myself are those which I harbor *at this time*, until
    some new evidence comes along to either convince me that UFOs are
    alien spacecraft or something of this planet.
    
    	I would also like to give more "evidence" as to why I think
    most UFOs are mistaken natural phenomenon of one form or the other
    by the general public.  I have noticed that UFO reports usually
    tend to increase after the showing of a popular film based on the
    subject of alien spacecraft coming to Earth (I hate using the term
    "flying saucer").  For example, there was a massive increase of
    UFO sightings in 1951-1952, the year that the SF film THE DAY THE
    EARTH STOOD STILL came out.  This film involved the arrival of a
    disk-shaped spacecraft to Washington, D.C., where a humanoid alien
    warns humanity not to extend its hostile actions into space.  Soon
    after this film, there were reports of UFOs "buzzing" the U.S. capital.
    
    	The same thing occured in 1977, after the release of CLOSE
    ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, where aliens come to Devil's Tower
    to reveal themselves and return a truckload of missing people. 
    I've read many UFO stories and alien contacts which sound suspiciously
    like the events in those and many other similar SF films.
                                                             
    	I firmly believe that much of America gets its information -
    and is influenced by - the media, particularly films and television.
    Did you ever go see a horror film, then go home and for a while think
    that every unfamiliar noise and movement was a ghost?  It's the
    same with the UFO phenomenon - people start looking up for the first
    time in their lives with interest, and every strange light becomes
    a potential starship from Alpha Centauri.  Steve Kallis' Note proved
    that some people can't tell airplanes from satellites!
    
    	You don't have to take this as gospel, but I for one find the
    correlation between what the media tells us and how many react to
    be quite strong.
                    
    	Larry
    

    RE: .290/.291
    
    I haven't specifically been talking about sightings...I was referring
    to people who have physically, not just psychologically/emotionally,
    undergone a strange, almost nightmarish happening.  One does not
    mistake lying on some kind of table, having aliens perform
    experimentation on human bodily functions, having no brain motor
    control to activate one's own body (I'm not talking about pre or
    post rem stages), etc.  Contrary to Disney's "Flight of the Navigator",
    a cute kiddie flick, there WERE gaps of time that people could not
    account for, thus leading many to seek help and undergo tests to
    find out where that time went.  
    
    Apparently, the only way you as an individual will ever believe
    any of this is to have it happen to you.  (Which is often the case.)
    Even then, you'd rationalize what had happened to you, provided
    you had a glimmer of conscious remembering.  If you just remembered
    in quick-flashback form, you'd attribute it to childhood dreams.
    And if you didn't remember at all and had it come out under
    pscyotherapy/hypnosis, you'd think the findings ludicrous and the
    results somehow flawed.  'Tis said but I suspect true.
     

    Sure that might account for some of it Larry ... but not all of
    it.  Contrary to government opinion, we are not all a bunch of mindless
    idiots_;-}.  Many sightings have been made by professionals, both
    Airforce and civilian, these people were not influenced by seeing
    E.T., .... they make their living working in the aeronautical field.
    Many movies come out every year yet large segments of the population 
    do not go trudging through the Vietnam jungle to rescue abandoned 
    servicemen or hunt crocodile in Australia.  
    

    	RE 27.296 -
    
    	You certainly presume a lot about how I might react to certain
    situations.  For your information, I like to learn and accept the
    truth, even when it goes against what I previously thought.
    
    	RE 27.297 -
    
    	Oh, I know a lot of intelligent people - many of whom *are*
    familiar with astronomy, meteorology, physics, etc., have seen UFOs.
    I wasn't referring to them; but I think you are exagerrating my
    claims about the SF film-UFO sighting increase connection.  Running
    off into jungles is an expensive, personal risk.  Simply tilting
    ones head up and calling a strange light a spaceship is much easier
    and more prevalent.
    
    	Larry
    

    Re last_few:
    
    This is beginning to get (perhaps unnecessarily) heated.
    
    Let's see if we can agree on the following, and go from there.
    
    1) The "U" in UFO generally means "unidentified."  Just who is
       qualified to identify it is an open question.
    
    2) "Evidence" in the form of anecdotes, at least from the sense
        of a court, is generally inadmissable; to the extent it is
        (testimony), it can be refuted by "evidence" oif greater weight.
    
    3)  Expert testimony carries greater weight, although it may not
        be conclusive.  Also, the testimony ought to be in a field
        that the testifier is expert in.
    
    4)  The most solid evidence is physical evidence.  To be valid
        in a court, there must be a clear "chain of evidence," from
        the moment it was acquired until the trial, to ensure that
        it wasn't tampered with.
    
    5)  Photographs and other evidence (e.g., recordings), while not
        physical evidence such as a piece of material, carry more weight
        than simple testimony.
    
    6)  Hearsay isn't admissable as evidence.
                                            
    Now where does this leave UFOs?
    
    If it weren't an open question, this note wouldn't have almost 300
    responses.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    
    
    
    
    Well, let's just make sure that this discussion doesn't get to
    the point where it might cause people to hold back sharing their
    experiences.  At this point, all a person can do is share what
    they saw and what happened to them - they won't be able to prove it,
    and I don't want them to feel like they have to.

    
    Carole
    

    
    I was listening to Dave Maynard on WBZ (Boston) this morning and
    he interviewed an Australian reporter who told him of a recent UFO
    occurance in the Outback in Australia.  Apparently a woman with
    her children was driving along when this egg-shaped UFO started
    following them.  The UFO supposedly landed on top of their car and
    started lifting them up, but it dropped them (?).  The reporter
    said the officials were taking this seriously because the roof of
    their car was dented in and scratched, there was some sort of ash
    covering the car, and the woman & children were visibly shakened.
    
    Has anyone heard anything about this??

    Linda

    No, but I'd certainly like to hear more.

    Exactly as Linda stated.  Now I can't find the newspaper with the
    info.  Will try to find out more next week.  In an all day meet
    today, off Mond/Tues with our 200th birthday, but promise Wed/Thurs
    I will try to get the article.  
    
    There really wasn't much more information, but the cartoons, sent
    up the whole thing.
    
    ....dale
    

    thank you Dale

    According to a paper I just read, the police are giving the story
    serious consideration because some men on a fishing boat reported
    a UFO had buzzed them just a little before the car incident happened.
    In both cases the observers reported that their speech became strangely
    garbled while the object was over them.  Very interesting!
    
    
    John M.

    
    
    
    Before I left for work this morning, I was watching the today show
    and one of the topics to be discussed later in the morning was this
    UFO sighting report.  They also stated that it was being given 
    serious consideration.  Let's see where it goes from here!
    
    Carole
    

    Did anyone see the latest addition of Omni?  They have an interesting
    article in the UFO section on numerous sightings of a huge, boomerang
    shaped ufo in the New York area.  Very interesting indeed.  Apparently
    there has been no explanation.

    It seems like its about time for "first contact".... Any volunteers
    besides me_:-)_?

    I don't know if this will shed any light on the boomerang shaped
    ufo's, but last year I read an artical in Popular mechnaic's or
    Popular Sience where the Air force or a private company was looking
    into the flying wedge type of aircraft design again.
    
    John
    

    Don't think that applies John.  My MUFON section direction called
    this afternoon and told me that the same craft was sighted again
    last night.  Apparently one of the times it was seen over a power
    company and the local gendarmes shot at it.  I doubt the Air Force
    or a private company would hover over power companies to be shot
    at by local police_:-)_although... the way things are going in this
    country... maybe they would.

  Wow the UFO sightings even made the Kennebec Journal.(a respectable 
paper in Maine)Now if George Bush would only comment ;^).
I don't believe that other life in the universe can reach us,but
if it can,we are in deep sneakers.I have this picture in my mind
of aliens watching us on a television series called primitive planet.
The audience watches in disbelief.



                George D. 

    re: .310
    > the same craft was sighted again
    >last night.  Apparently one of the times it was seen over a power
    >company and the local gendarmes shot at it.
     
    I can't understand why aliens wouldn't just step out and say "hi"
    with the friendly receptions we give to the unknown. ;-)
    
    Assuming any actual hardware found would be immediately classified
    and never again seen by the public and our "friendly" greetings tend
    to discourage public contact, what do "skeptics" require as "valid
    proof" that not *all* sightings are swamp gas or similar?  I would
    like a "skeptic" to pin this down in writing to avoid the current
    tendency of upping the requiremnets for validity each time more
    concrete proof is presented.  
          
    BTW, I am basing the "government will classify anything it can get its
    hands on policy" on having worked in a "classified" environment
    seeing first hand the ridiculous extent to which they take this
    policy.
   
    Thom

    By definition, "UFO" means "Unidentified Flying Object." And that
    means that anything anybody sees up in the sky that can't be
    identified *must* be a UFO.
    
    It doesn't mean that because it's a UFO it's a shoggoth from Regelus
    in a flying saucer made of swiss cheese.
    
    -bs

What would you do if a UFO were to land in your yard ?
    
    I myself would be interested with its crew and how the thing worked,
    while mostlikely being somewhat scared.
    
    John
    
    

    Re .315 (John):
    
>What would you do if a UFO were to land in your yard ?

    I would proceed _very_ cautiously.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.    

    I'd hide in the closet and send my husband to 
    check on the situation (he'd take the dogs
    with him for protection! ;-)
    
                Deb
    
    (this is also my reaction to strange noises in
     the night)
    

    OPTIONS:
    
    1.  Hide,  WHERE IF THEY ARE INTELLEGENT THEY PROBABLY HAVE HEAT
               SENSITIVE DEVICES FOR TRACKING YOU.
    
    2.  Investigate,  
               I LIKE THIS, IF THEY CHOOSE TO MAKE CONTACT YOUR REACTION
               WILL LIKELY SET THE MOOD OF THE CONTACT..THO IF THEY
               ARE VERY UNSIGHTLY OR SICKENING TO LOOK UPON THE REACTION
               COULD BE AUTOMATIC.
    
    3.  Run,   WHERE GO BACK TO ABOVE.
    
    If an Alien life from has the Intellect to travel through the
    SPACE-TIME contineum then we had better be willing to meet with
    them when they do come,  no WEAPONS, just ourselves, and trusting
    in God.

    Time is short this morning, but am still trying to enter data on
    egg-shapped ufo in central Aust.
    
    Believe me, the media and scientific persons are treating this as
    a joke.
    
    1.	Brake linings went
    2.	Meteorite
    3.	Family not too bright
    
    The UFO people are now joining in to make this NOT a laughing matter.
    
    ...dale
    

    My MUFON section direction called this week to let me know that
    the hotline has had a significant increase in reported UFO activity
    lately.  I don't have the list of places with me at the moment
    but there are about seven of them (if I remember correctly) ...
    the ones I remember are New York and Florida.  I'll post the list
    from home this weekend.  Stay tuned for further adventures of ....

    The UFO HOTLINE reports another sighting on Jan 29th in Pleasantville,
    New York.  The woman is a medical technical who was on the way to
    the hospital in some kind of an emergency and she couldn't stop
    to investigate further.
    
    Also, this Wednesday the report of the Australia sighting is due
    in.  One of the New York MUFON people was in Australia on vacation
    and participated in the investigation.
    
    Does anyone remember the Andreason affair?  An interesting side
    note, the MUFON investigator who first investigated the Andreason
    incident was contacted by Betty Andreason's daughter (they are now
    living in Athol, Mass).  She and her family have started having
    activity happen again.  Among the things they have seen are "tall,
    silver robed beings" moving through the yard.  MUFON has a taped
    interview but has yet to investigate further.  Will keep you posted.

    Got the first half of the Melbourne report today.  Check this out
    for someone who the papers reported "got confused by a meteor
    shower"_:-).
    
    The woman was traveling with her three sons, the oldest is 24 years
    old.  The ufo was shaped like "an egg in an egg cup".  The ufo grabbed
    onto the roof of their car and lifted it about three feet off the
    ground, then it dropped and blew a tire.  The occupants of the car
    hid in the bushes until the ufo left and then changed the tire and
    got back in the tire and took off.  Just after they got back in
    the car the ufo returned.  Several trucks went by and also saw it
    but none stopped.  The car was damaged.  
    Reported by MUFON member currently in Australia.  Second half of
    the report will follow.

    Sorry,
    
    Still have the paper articles, but have not had the time.
    
    Hope your friend tells you about the newspaper reports.  I am
    embarrassed by the press.  As I said earlier, meteor, brake problems,
    but nobdoy in the *normal* so called press is acknowledging a UFO.
    
    MUFON is treating it as one of the one of the most important cases
    to date.
    
    But alas, no more in the press over here.  About three days of front
    page coverage, not all good press, then *poof* all disappeared ....
    
    ...dale
    

Here is the latest MUFON report:

New York is having it's regular Thursday night 9:00 sightings...(red, white,
and blue lights).  This guy got a video of it.  A book has been written about 
these sightings called Night Seige.  Its out in paperback.  Heraldo Rivera's
tv show on Wednesday features these sightings.  He will interview the author
of Night Seige.

Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m., there was a sighting at Lake Naukegg in Ashburnham.
Several callers reported seeing a light 'fall from the sky', one man said he
heard a load noise at the same time.  Our MUFON Section Direction followed 
the police car that investigated and neither of them saw anything.  It was a 
clear, bright night and the police are chalking it up to a shooting star.

Mary

    
    
    Well, I'm not sure what I saw last night.  I was driving home at
    around 7:00 pm on Hudson Road in Sudbury, heading west.  I looked
    up and saw bright light, orangey yellow, with a tail.  It was up
    quite high and travelled from left to right.  I couldn't stop my
    car because of others behind me.  It moved quickly across the sky
    and then I lost it behind some trees.  By the time I could stop,
    there was nothing left to see.  So, my questions are:
    
    Do "falling stars" move sideways?  Is there anyway to check and
    see if there was a visible meteor at that time last night?  Did
    anyone else see it?
    
    Carole
    

RE: .325
    
    > Do "falling stars" move sideways?
    
    Yes.  They can enter the atmosphere at any angle, and thus, will
    appear to be moving at any angle relative to the local horizon.
    Remember that most of them are ~100 miles up, and, if they hadn't
    hit the atmosphere and evaporated would have gone on out again
    after skimming relatively near the Earth.
    
    > Is there anyway to check and see if thre was a visible meteor
    > at that time last night?
    
    Given the area you might try the Harvard/Smithsonian Observatory,
    but I wouldn't hold out much hope.
    
    Meteors are very common.  If you spend a couple of hours, preferably
    around midnight (more before midnight than after), just staring
    at the sky when its clear well away from lights, you'll see a number
    of them.  One of the most pleasent evenings I can remember in a
    number of years was lying on my back on the hill at Tanglewood
    listening to the music and watching for meteors.  We see them so rarely
    only because they last such a short time, we don't look all that much
    or long at the sky, and we are usually surrounded by lights.  I
    can't judge from your note just *how* bright what you saw was (if
    it caught your attention and had such clear color it was probably
    exceptionally bright) but you could probably match it in a few
    days of meteor watching (or a single night during one of the major
    showers).
    
    We'll never know for sure what you saw, but it *sounds* like it
    looked just like an exceptionally bright meteor.
    
    					Topher
    

    
    
    Thanks Topher.  It was really a treat to see that bright light
    streaking across the sky.  We live in such a magical world!
    
    Carole
    

    	I'm sorry to say this, but your Note is yet another example
    of how easy it is for those without a common knowledge of astronomy
    to mistake natural celestial phenomenon for alien spaceships.  Meteors
    can enter Earth's atmosphere at ANY angle from space.
                    
    	I highly suggest that some of the Noters in this Conference
    take the time to study the numerous complexities involved in traveling
    from one star to another, even in the relative closeness of the
    Milky Way Galaxy.  Even if the technological and physical difficulties
    are surmounted, there are still hundreds of billions of stars (and star
    systems) in our galaxy alone, with our planet and Sun being a very
    average and non-outstanding part of the galaxy (and don't forget
    there are hundreds of billions of galaxies to boot!).
                                                         
    	Once you have done this, then see illogic of an alien race sending
    a starship countless lightyears to Earth, just so one of their ships
    can land on a woman's car in Australia and drop it three feet to
    the ground.
               
    	Larry
    

    But Larry,
    How far more illogical it is to assume that alien minds, alien technology,
    alien experiences and alien motivation mirror our own.  What humans
    find to be difficult based on the level of our intelligence and
    experience may be simple to an ancient, spacefaring race.  What
    humans find to be worthwhile, may be totally perplexing to a species
    that evolved with different values and priorities.  Only the very
    arrogant make these kinds of assumptions.  The people in this
    conference are known for the openness of their minds and I have
    always admired them for that trait.  Someone has to free the
    imagination so that the intellect can follow.
    Mary

    
    
    Larry, I say this with *no* animosity - would you please lighten
    up?  I entered my note so that those who are knowledgeable could
    give me some information about *natural* phenomena in the heavens.
    I did not say that I thought I saw a spaceship.  I was almost
    100% sure that I saw a meteor.  This is a rare event in my 
    experience and I was touched by the beauty and wonder of it.
    However, there will *always* be a part of me that is open to 
    the myriad possibilities that this world is capable of.
    
    I do read quite a bit, however, like all the rest of us I have 
    certain areas that get more attention, and I do have to work and
    houseclean and spend time with Mike and sleep and on and on.  
    So, I ask the questions of others that might have chosen the
    field in question to give their attention to and are knowledgeable
    in it.
    
    So now I know that meteors can enter the atmosphere at any angle.
    Will my intelligence be respected now? :-)
    
    Carole
    

    	I was NOT talking about what alien minds think, but that there
    are laws of physics which can NOT be avoided, one of them being
    the fact that light is the ultimate speed limit in this Universe.
    I'm sure I'll hear now about other universes and hyperspace and
    so forth which these aliens use constantly to come to Earth, but
    one has to deal with GETTING TO THAT POINT in the first place, whether
    you are human or alien.  The rules of the Universe to do not change
    for anyone.
    
    	RE 27.330 -
    
    	Carole, I DO apologize if I offended you in any way, and I'm
    glad you have now recognized this astronomical phenomenon.  I too
    think that the Universe by itself - without all the imaginary creatures
    and objects humans populate it with from their minds - is a
    fascinating, almost mystical place. 
               
    	Larry
    

    Re .328, .331 (Larry):
    
    >	Once you have done this, then see illogic of an alien race sending
    >a starship countless lightyears to Earth, just so one of their ships
    >can land on a woman's car in Australia and drop it three feet to
    >the ground.
     
    ... Even using human logic, it could make sense if the aleins involved
    were their equivalent of juvenile delinquents. :-)
    
    >	I was NOT talking about what alien minds think, but that there
    >are laws of physics which can NOT be avoided, one of them being
    >the fact that light is the ultimate speed limit in this Universe.
     
    As you suggested, we could easily drop into the rathole of discussing
    ways to get aliens here at superphotic speeds.  Let's not.  I agree
    that the rules of the physical universe don't change, but I'm willing
    to keep an open mind about any technology that might allow interstellar
    transport.
    
    Having said that, let's get on with the discussions.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    We don't know all of the laws of the physical universe.  We know
    about the physical laws that exist on earth and some of the physical laws
    that exist within our own solar system but there is much that we
    do not know too.  I am reminded of those very practical scoffers
    who firmly believed that the earth was flat and Columbus would sail
    off the edge.  

    	The physical laws which exist within our solar system also exist
    (and provably so) throughout the Universe, and I do NOT appreciate
    being compared to those who thought Earth was flat - especially 
    since we know MUCH more than those who lived in the time of 
    Columbus.

        And BTW, there WERE those scientists who DID know that Earth 
    was round; many of those who thought it was flat were not scientists 
    nor even knew any science.
    
    	Larry
    

    Re .333 (Mary):
    
    >We don't know all of the laws of the physical universe.  We know
    >about the physical laws that exist on earth and some of the physical laws
    >that exist within our own solar system but there is much that we
    >do not know too.
     
    Coupla' points:  First, we know "physical laws" to the state of
    our knowledge, which isn't absolute.  A "physical law" is really
    a model, based on observation, induction, and deduction, that provides
    a behavioral frame for "material" processes.  For instance, the
    behavior of objects by the influence of gravity was fiorst codified
    by Galileo, then modified by Newton, then further refined by Einstein.
    None is an absolute "law," but each model, in itss context, is good
    enough for its environment.  Second, as we learn more, we modify
    whatever "laws" we have developed to explain any anomalies.
    
    Re .334 (Larry):
    
    >	The physical laws which exist within our solar system also exist
    >(and provably so) throughout the Universe ...
    
    Correct.  But we haven't discovered/developed all the "laws" yet. 
    
    >    And BTW, there WERE those scientists who DID know that Earth 
    >was round; many of those who thought it was flat were not scientists 
    >nor even knew any science.
     
    The people who first did understand that the Earth was an approximate
    sphere were the ancient Greeks, though calling those philosophers
    "scientists" is a little generous.  What boots it? The "common view"
    was a flat Earth, and somer of those who held that view were scholars.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.    

    Larry,
    This isn't ASTRONOMY.  The focus here isn't on proven fact and you
    (a long time participant) know that.  Entering notes saying that
    "I wish the people here would..." isn't effective communication.
    You know what we are like and what we are interested in and your
    desire to change us to suit your own standards of thought is a futile
    and impotent effort.  You dwell in the relm of the known, we wander
    in the reaches of the unknown.  

    	If you don't want to believe the facts I have stated, then fine,
    but I WILL continue to present my point of view, as is my right,
    a point of view I can state with certainty has much more backing
    and data than many of the "psuedo-sciences" promoted by yourself
    and others.
    
    	You insinuate that I am close-minded - well, you seem equally
    close-minded to my point of view as well.  
    
    	Science will admit when it is wrong and will change to conform
    to those new facts, but those in the area of psychic phenomenon
    seem far less willing to do so.
                                   
    	Larry
    

    I can understand where Larry is coming from.  He seems to be the
    type of person that says "prove it to me".  I was like that, too.
    I'm not Larry-bashing, but if 50 years ago you asked me if it was
    possible to get a piece of paper from Maynard, Massachusetts to
    Santa Clara in five minutes, I would have said no.  But, if you
    ask me today, I would tell you to use the Fax machine and send a
    COPY of the piece of paper there.  In another 50 years, who knows?
    The ACTUAL paper may be able to get there.
    
    Who's to say that there aren't other civilizations out there who
    are thousand years ahead of us?  A thousand years is not that much
    in the scope of time, but what would life be like in the year 2988?
    I would like to think that even WE may be able to travel "between
    the stars".
    
    But to prove it?  Not yet.
     

    Please do continue to present your point of view Larry.  I would
    miss you if you weren't around.

    Re .336 (Mary), .337 (Larry):
    
    
    >................................ Entering notes saying that
    >"I wish the people here would..." isn't effective communication.
    >You know what we are like and what we are interested in and your
    >desire to change us to suit your own standards of thought is a futile
    >and impotent effort. 
     
    > ... I WILL continue to present my point of view, as is my right,
    >a point of view I can state with certainty has much more backing
    >and data than many of the "psuedo-sciences" promoted by yourself
    >and others.
    >
    >	You insinuate that I am close-minded - well, you seem equally
    >close-minded to my point of view as well.  
     
    One of the things we've almost always been able to do in this
    conference is to keep our cool.  Sometimes we all inadvertently
    ruffle feathers (I recently became a notorious feather-ruffler,
    so I'm not casting stones or trying to place myself on a pedestal).
    Occasionally, that becomes difficult.
    
    Well, now, I hope we can all try harder to keep our cool.
    
    >	Science will admit when it is wrong and will change to conform
    >to those new facts, but those in the area of psychic phenomenon
    >seem far less willing to do so.
     
    "Science" often admits error, but scientists often don't.  I've
    seen one or two "professional" space scientists come to near-blows
    when defending their pet hypotheses.  I recall, during the time
    I was in the Apollo Project where two nearly had a shouting match
    when discussing the composition and structure of the lunar surface,
    and _that_ was on national television.  The vehemence with which
    some attacked Velikovsky (who I happen to believe was in serious
    error) was almost with the frenzy of a holy crusade.
    
    Let's put this in perspective:  my personal opinion is that the
    liklihood that UFOs are extraterrestrial craft, much less extrasolar,
    is _extremely_ minute.  However, I don't _absolutely_ rule it out.
    Nor do I believe that even if my suspicions are borne out and the
    UFOs are not alien spacecraft, that our current understanding of
    the "laws" of the universe precludes our ever reaching the stars
    by a "faster than light" mechanism of some sort.
    
    Having said that, the "willingness" of people investigating all
    sorts of psychic phenomena to "change their mind" or "admit when
    they are wrong," I don't think is any less flexible than in other
    areas of human activity.  If we assume that there's something to
    at least part of the stuff that collectively are called psychic
    phenomena, then there's a very hard job.  First, we have to separtate
    the wheat from the chaff. Then we have to determine just what that
    wheat is, and _then_ we have to develop the model to make it
    understandable.  If we don't know that, we're in trouble.
    
    Let me give a quick example of this: the poltergeist.
    
    The poltergeist was once thought of as a mischievious spirit.
    Modern-day parapsychologists apparently view this as some sort of
    telekinetic psi function.
    Some spiritists think that at least some of them are spirits of
    the dead.
    
    Three possibilities for one phenomenon (a fourth, fakery, is possible;
    however, there have been enough cases to suggest at least some of
    them were genuine).  Without a clear, single mechanism, attempting
    to do the observation/testing rigorous enough to make a
    first-approximation "law" is extraordinarily difficult.  So, by
    using whatever model the observer is most comfortable with, _some_
    work can get done.
    
    In short, it's less rigidity than expediency.
    
    Let's all give each other a break, huh?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

UFO's come from under the ocean.
The universe is flat.
Have a nice day!
Jay

    	I have NEVER said that there is no way to travel to other star
    systems, or that there are no advanced intelligences in the Universe;
    far from it - I firmly believe in both concepts.
    
    	What I am trying to get across is that star travel IS difficult,
    even for a hypothetical race that has starships that can achieve
    99 percent of the speed of light, due to the technology needed and
    the distances involved - they had to start somewhere, and that
    first step is the tough one.  I highly suggest reading about the
    British Interplanetary Society's DAEDELUS fusion starprobe (magazine
    articles and books can be found on it in any good library), which
    details one of the *simplest* starship designs - and even THAT has
    incredible technological obstacles to overcome!  
    
    	And to give you an idea of how far apart the stars are in the
    Milky Way Galaxy, the star system nearest to our Sun - Alpha Centauri
    - is four light-years away; that corresponds roughly to 25 TRILLION
    miles in distance from Earth!  The fastest spacecraft we have now
    would take 80,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri, if they were headed
    in that direction.
                      
    	The other "problem" is not only the distances involved, but
    the NUMBER of stars in our galaxy alone.  There are hundreds of
    billions of stars in the Milky Way.  If you were a star-faring race,
    where would you begin to look amongst all that?  And might it not
    also occur that the human race is *nothing special* in terms of
    being an intelligent race.  One estimate is that there are ONE MILLION
    intelligent races in the galaxy alone (this is a guess, mind you),
    probably varying in culture and technology.  Earth might not be
    advanced enough to catch the attention of advanced beings.
    
    	Even if there were only TWO intelligent races in the galaxy
    (Us and one other hypothetical alien species), if those aliens were
    situated on the other side of the galaxy, finding us would be far
    worse than a needle in a haystack.
                                      
    	In summation - it's a BIG Universe out there, and specks of
    dust like us can easily go unnoticed for a long time, according
    to probability factors.
                                                         
    	Larry
                           

    re .342 (Larry):
    
    >	What I am trying to get across is that star travel IS difficult,
    >even for a hypothetical race that has starships that can achieve
    >99 percent of the speed of light, due to the technology needed and
    >the distances involved - they had to start somewhere, and that
    >first step is the tough one.  I highly suggest reading about the
    >British Interplanetary Society's DAEDELUS fusion starprobe (magazine
    >articles and books can be found on it in any good library), which
    >details one of the *simplest* starship designs - and even THAT has
    >incredible technological obstacles to overcome!  
     
    Agreed.  From our current state-of-transportation art, the ways
    between the stars are =>difficult<= to traverse.  It's like  some
    of Roger Bacon's time talking about transportation in the 20th Century.
    [As it happens, Bacon wrote about future transportation, and predicted
    automobiles, ships propelled by internal combustion engines,
    submarines, and aircraft.  All of these were _way_ beyond the available
    technology of the time.]  
    
    Now, in the late 1950s, a writer, Gotthard Gunther, came out with
    a theoretical model that would enable instantaneous transport between
    two greatly separated points, like stars.  I don't recall where
    it was first published, but a popularized version of nit came out
    in the old _Astounding_ magazine.  From what I recall, the concept
    was sound; its applicability required deeper undersatanding of some
    phenomena.  If there's validity to what he wrote, the speed-of-light
    "barrier" might prove inapplicable to transport between star systems.
    
    Will a practical system eventually be developed?  Who knows?
    
    _Now_ can we climb out of this rathole?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    	Could you please elaborate on Gunther's concept?  Thanks.
    
    	Larry
    
    	PS - I don't quite see where the "rathole" is.  If we're debating
    about UFOs as alien starships, then analyzing on how these aliens
    can supposedly build such vessels and transport themselves here should 
    not be inconsistant with this Topic.
    
    	Larry
    

    I started to write this yesterday, but the system link broke.
    
    Cavaet:  This is being written from a sketchy memory after some
    25 years.
    
    Gunther suggests that the concept of linear space is insufficient
    to account for all happenings.  [Example, maybe not his: the
    "tunneling" effect of a tunnel diode.]  Under certain space-energy
    conditions, something can transition from one location to another
    (equiGuntherial) location as if no space existed between them. 
    This, of course, would immediately bypass relativistic considerations.
    
    I don't know if I can find those old papers, but if I can, I'll
    try to enter something more detailed here.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I hope you find them Steve.
    
    The latest from MUFON:
    
    New York is still having its regular weekly sighting (Thursday nights
    between 9 and 10)  This time police asked people to please leave
    because there were about 40 cars lining the highway (route 312)
    and they left they were creating a traffic hazzard.  This sighting
    has become a regular thing in the area.
    
    Mary

    	Has anyone thought of sending an airplane or helicopter after
    these lights to investigate them?  It should be possible, especially
    if they appear in the same area on a regular basis.  Has anyone
    found out anything else about these lights?
    
    	Larry
    

    This has been going on for quite awhile.  All of the local airports
    and the Air Force were contacted long ago to be sure they were not
    a regularly scheduled flight.  Thousands of people have seen them
    and a book has been written about them called Night Seige.  I haven't
    read it yet but I understand its very interesting and plan to get
    it.
    Mary

    	But has anyone gone after these UFOs in an aircraft or taken
    pictures?  What has been learned about them, and why do they appear
    in the same place and time on a regular basis?  I would think this
    would allow a rather easy investigation, unless they happen to "fly
    off" every time an aircraft approaches them.

        While I'm at it, let me ask these questions:  How long have 
    these UFOs been appearing?  Where exactly in New York do they appear? 
    And what behavior have they exhibited (noises, unusual flight 
    patterns, landings)?
    
    	Larry
    

    re: .348
    
    Mary,
    
    Do you know who was the author of the book you mention (Night
    Seige)? I think I'd like to read it. 
    
    Thanks.
     -Amy.

    
    RE: .328
    
    I would just like to state that not everyone that believes that
    UFO's are possibly alien spacecrafts are people with no knowledge
    of astronomy or physics.  I personally FEEL that there are UFO's
    that are alien spacecrafts (not all,...I think about 5-10% of UFO
    sightings are extra-terrestrial in nature) and I have a B.S in Physics
    with a concentration on astrophysics and quantum mechanics, graduated
    at 20 years old with honors, and I worked for a short period of time at
    the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory as a scientific
    computer programmer.  (Please don't interpret this as "I know
    everything" - I don't, if I did, I wouldn't be here... - but I am
    familiar with astronomy & physics).  Also, there are a lot of qualified
    people (scientists, people in the armed forces, astronauts, etc.) that
    believe in this concept as well.
    
    Also, a physics professor I knew, who had worked briefly with Albert
    Einstein, told me that Einstein burnt a major part of his work because
    he felt that the human race was not ready for the power that could
    be obtained from it.  Part of the work that he had burnt was the solution
    to the unification field equation and the discovery of an
    "Anti-gravity" field that is, I feel, a field used in the "propulsion"
    of the disk-shaped UFO's.  This physics professor also told me that
    from what he knew & heard, he felt that the story about the
    Philadelphia Experiment actually did happen.
    
    You are entitled to your opinions, but please do not assume that
    people are not knowledgeable in certain areas just because they
    do not agree with you.   People are different and interpret things
    differently, so even with being given the same data, people do draw
    different conclusions.
    
    Remember, it's all relative (...sorry, Albert.... I couldn't resist...).

    Linda

Note 27.350                           
    
I can't remember the author's name Amy, but I'll try to find out.

Note 27.351                           

Thank you Linda, facinating note... (and it is all relative_:-)
    
Note 27.349                           

>>But has anyone gone after these UFOs in an aircraft or taken
>>pictures?  

I know that a video was taken just recently and hundreds of pictures.

>>What has been learned about them, and why do they appear in the same place 
>>and time on a regular basis?  

The book would probably cover a lot of what the field investigators have found
so far in more detail.

>>While I'm at it, let me ask these questions:  How long have 
>>these UFOs been appearing?  

To my knowledge, they have been appearing for years.

>>Where exactly in New York do they appear? 

Brewster, off of highway 312 between 9 and 10 o'clock every Thursday night.

>>And what behavior have they exhibited (noises, unusual flight 
>>patterns, landings)?
    
The book would probably provide more detail on the specifics.  To the best of
my recall, there is no noise, have been no landings but they have been known
to hover over the power plant.      

    	But I must ask this again - WHY hasn't anyone gone after the
    UFOs in an aircraft, since they appear in one area like clockwork
    and are relatively close?  I would think such an opportunity would
    have every plane and helicopter zooming to the spot!
    
    	Larry
    

    I don't know that that hasn't been done Larry.  I don't know that
    it has either.  Are you a flyer?  This would perhaps be a good
    opportunity for a personal experiment.  From what I've been told
    the book has a lot of detail in it regarding the past investigation.
    I think that perhaps the answers you seek may be in the book.

    	No, I do not fly, but I must say that I would think such an
    "experiment" would have (or should have) been done by now, and received
    a lot of publicity.  I would be quite surprised if it hasn't.
    
    	Larry
    

RE: last few.
    
    I'm afraid I agree with Larry -- something isn't quite right here.
    The weakness of the whole UFO thing has been the (logically necessary)
    absence of an even erratically repeatable test.  This would seem
    to be a situation which would allow a certain degree of repeatability.
    
    There are a lot of people like myself (and I suspect, like Larry)
    who would like some of what we would consider solid evidence but
    in its absence (or rather in its present weakness) can only sit
    back and say "A priori unlikely, and therefore, in the absence of
    clear evidence, a postori unlikely" (In other words, "You ain't
    convinced me yet, but keep trying.")  Yes, there are Phil Klass's
    out there, who wouldn't accept a flying saucer containing intelligent
    squids in his back yard as sufficient evidence.  But there are also
    a lot of open minded people, some of whom would have the resources
    to produce a fairly convincing case pro or con in a repeating situation
    like this.
    
    If I have time, I'll read the book, but there is something seriously
    missing here.
    
    					Topher

    This is a pretty well known case in the UFO world Topher.  The thing
    that always struck me about it was that it is repeatable and yet
    there has been little publicity outside of the 'trade' (so to speak)
    and no official statement on it (to my knowledge).  Its the skeptics
    dream... and yet, rather than investigate on one's own, it is a
    common response to hear people say that "it can't be true".  I'm
    not saying that it is or isn't a space or inter-dimensional ship.
    I'm just saying that these red, white, and blue lights show up every
    Thursday night between 9 and 10 and have for years and it is common
    knowledge in the area.  The local police are aware of it and a book
    has been written about it.  I would think that a true skeptic (so
    to speak_:-) would at least be curious enough to investigate a little
    further on his own._;-)
    Mary

    	And ONCE AGAIN you do NOT respond as to whether or not anyone
    has sent an aircraft after this UFO!
    
    	I do not and do not know how to fly an airplane, so I don't
    think I'll be going there myself any time soon.  SO, has there
    been any air investigations, and if not, WHY NOT after all these
    years?  
    
    	I love it - a supposed UFO practically begging to be identified
    and yet nothing beyond some film footage has been done.  I'd like
    a few answers to my questions, and I believe you could at least
    tell me if an aircraft has gone to them or not without that book
    you keep mentioning.
                        
    	Larry
    

    Larry dear,
    This is not my personal ufo.  I do not own it, I do not assume total
    responsibility for it.  I am not under obligation to defend its
    validity.  MUFON merely reports on Unidentified Sightings.  I
    feel like I'm talking to George Bush.  I answered your question
    honestly.  I told you that I don't know the answer and I'm not going
    to make one up to please you.  I will attempt to get additional
    information on this particular sighting.  Now, mellow out will you.

    	It's just that I (and every other person labeled a skeptic in
    this Conference) always feel like I have to have answers for my
    statements, but that everyone else can just say "Oh, who knows the
    mysteries of the Cosmos?" and walk away.
    
    	I just hope you can see my point about such a supposedly prominent
    UFO remaining so uninvestigated.
    
    	Larry
    

    But Larry!!!  Who knows the mysteries of the Cosmos?  (sigh)_:-)

    Re .361 (Mary):
    
    >But Larry!!!  Who knows the mysteries of the Cosmos? ...
    
    Carl Sagan (according to Carl Sagan). :-D
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re .larry
    
    Larry, for reasons that you have articulated in this note, you KNOW
    that it absolutely cannot be an alien space-ship, and is merely
    some as-yet unidentified terrestrial phenomenon.  Why are you so
    obsessed by it?  Can't you please allow some of us our delusions,
    secure in the knowledge that you are aware of what's really
    possible and what's not?
    
    	lighten up!/bruce

                                   
    Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnn...............
    
    I come to DEJAVU today for some happy, light and interesting
    conversation after working very hard, and wind up reading over 20
    notes in this topic in a tit-for-tat "I'm obviously right and the 
    majority of the rest of the people in this topic are ignorant slobs 
    who should go read up on Astronomy because they obviously have no 
    idea what the H*ll they're talking about!"
              
    Give me a break!
    
    Tired, drained, and will <NEXT UNSEEN> this topic from now on.....
    
    Cindy  (who_really_does_believe_in_UFO's_and_doesn't_care_what
            anyone_thinks)

    	If there was an award for the Conference which contained Noters
    who continually misinterpreted what others were saying, DEJAVU would
    take the prize hands down!
                           
    	I HAVE NEVER SAID the New York UFO was either an alien spaceship
    or not!  I do NOT know what it is, that is why I was asking if anyone
    had done any closeup identification, and my question was not answered
    - either in a form of saying if it had or that they did not know -
    for several Notes!  What else am I supposed to think when I see
    all my other questions answered but one.
    
    	And Ms. Pare, you seem to have a lovely gift for twisting
    everything I say - that turnabout on my "Cosmos" comment is a beautiful
    example!  It's obvious that no one read Topher's Note a few back -
    I am NOT a UFO skeptic of the Philip J. Klass kind!  In fact, I
    think he is has built up such a reputation of being against UFOs
    as starships that he must now discredit them all to secure his job.
                                                                       
    	I think it would have been in the world news long ago if some
    one had fond out about that UFO hovering above a powerplant every
    Thursday night for years by now, yet I haven't seen anything outside
    of some suspicious UFO journals.  The press is so hungry for all
    sorts of sensational stories, I'd think they'd jump on this in a
    minute, but WHY HAVEN'T THEY?
    
    	All I ask for are straighforward answers to my questions, not
    constant attempts to shut me up or roundabout comments.  I am able
    to defend my viewpoints on the spot with facts to back them up,
    why can't I be treated with the same?
                                         
    	Larry
    

    re: .365 (Larry)
    
    >>	I HAVE NEVER SAID the New York UFO was either an alien spaceship
    >>	or not!  I do NOT know what it is, 
    
    	That's all well and good, but I am quite tired of the yelling
    	going on here.  This is not SOAPBOX.  In my view Mary has not
    	twisted your words, rather she presented some information she
    	came across and now it appears she's been dubbed "Bearer of
    	Proof" in order to make *you* a believer.  Wrong-o!
     
    >>	It's obvious that no one read Topher's Note a few back -
    
    	And can you read our minds to know what we've read and what
    	we haven't?
    
    >>	I am able to defend my viewpoints on the spot with facts to 
    >>	back them up, why can't I be treated with the same?
    
    	Here we go again.  Do you believe in God, Larry?  If so,
    	please provide *facts* to back up your viewpoint.  Thank
    	you.
    
						Carla
    

    	Pulling a bit of roundabout talk myself, what does God have
    to do with UFOs?
                                              
    	Larry
    

    	You said you can provide facts to back up your viewpoints.
    	Viewpoints are beliefs.  So prove it.
    
    	C.
    

    	What do you want me to prove?  I never agreed to prove or disporve
    the existence of God.
    
    	Larry
    

      
    
       Did anyone hear if the UFO's showed last night...?
    I'd certainly like to see some photos...or even better be there
    myself,but it's a long drive from Maine.
       I've had the priviledge of witnessing a couple of ufo's in
    my life and am very interested in positive research on the subject.
    
      Rick J

    
>>And Ms. Pare, you seem to have a lovely gift for twisting
>>everything I say - that turnabout on my "Cosmos" comment is a beautiful
>>example!  

Thank you Larry, ... but compliments aside, you're so cranky and irritable
lately that I've almost decided not to play with you anymore.

re: -1
    My section director usually calls once a week with MUFON reports.
    I'll keep posting the most interesting ones.

Mary

        I have been fascinated by the subject of UFOs for a long time.  
   When I was a kid, I was certain that all UFOs were alien spaceships 
   come to explore Earth, and that the Air Force was hiding the evidence 
   for fear of causing a cultural shock at the knowledge of beings from 
   other planets.  I amassed about two dozen books and numerous articles 
   on the subject in the process.

        But as I got older and was able to understand the evidence more
   clearly, I began to see all sorts of flaws and inconsistencies in
   many of even the "best" cases, and NOT due to any data supplied by
   Philip Klass, but on the available evidence as it stood.  While this
   did not make me stop believing that UFOs could be alien spaceships, it
   did make me more cautious about what was going on with those lights in
   the sky. 

        When I learned about the UFO Topic in DEJAVU, and thought that
   DEJAVU Noters in general were in the habit of discussing
   out-of-the-ordinary subjects on a regular basis, I thought this would
   be a wonderful forum for analyzing the possibilities (and 
   improbabilities) of UFOs as space vessels capable of interstellar travel.

        Instead, for the most part, I encountered people who clung to
   their beliefs that UFOs were spaceships and spirits as if they were a
   *religious* belief!  Now if we were discussing one's religion, then I
   would have NO right to tell another what I thought they should and
   should not believe - and I am proud to say that I have never told
   anyone how or what to worship; but UFOs, whatever they may be, are NOT
   deities or a religious sect.  They are an as yet unexplained
   phenomenon which deserves analysis at ALL levels.  Yet when I try to
   bring in some common sense and logical scientific analysis, I am
   treated with disrespect at my ideas and told to essentially mind my
   own business. 

       True there were some who did agree with me, but most importantly I
   appreciated those who, although they may have disagreed with me, at
   least allowed my right to state my viewpoints.  The ones who disturbed
   me the most were the ones who said "I believe in UFOs and I don't care
   what you say!", then stuck their heads in the sand for fear of trying
   to learn anything new, it seemed; and when I tried to ask for further
   details on certain UFO sightings (NOT the New York UFO in this case),
   I was given roundabout answers (or none at all), and I would be
   foolish to trust the validity of such sightings on skimpy, indirect
   evidence like that. 

       I hope this Note will be read in the spirit in which I am writing
   it - to allow UFOs to be analyzed on all fronts, if they are as valid
   as those who say they are real claim them to be.  Screaming at me and
   saying they will never read this Topic again (as Cindy Painter did) is
   no way to go about it, and serves no purpose in the end.  Making jokes
   at me, insults, and telling me to shut up will also not dissuade me;
   indeed, it makes me wonder even more just how valid those people who
   claim to know what UFOs are really think! 

       For the record, I DO think there are other life forms in the
   Universe, intelligent and otherwise, and that some are capable of star
   travel, and may have come to Earth; but the plain fact is that THERE
   IS NO EVIDENCE AS OF YET EITHER WAY, plus the fact that stars are very
   far apart from each other, the technologies involved to make such
   journeys is formidable, and there are so MANY stars in just our Milky
   Way Galaxy alone as to make the search for any other alien races in it
   a task almost beyond comprehension!  Strange lights hovering above a
   powerplant in New York, or an egg-shaped object which attacks a car in
   Australia is not proof that whatever those things were were alien
   ships.  I am simply scrutinizing the evidence and waiting for more
   data, as I feel the discovery of life elsewhere is VERY important to
   humanity, and should not be based on numerous unproven sightings. 

       Once again, I hope this Note is taken in the spirit it is given,
   and that the DEJAVU Noters will show me that a group which can discuss
   so many esoteric things CAN have an open mind and be respectful to all
   ideas, including the scientific ones, so that we can learn about these
   mysteries.  If that turns out not to be the case, then I don't know
   what to say anymore. 

       Larry

    After receiving the book Communion for Christmas, I have taken a
    little interest in UFO's.  After Communion, I picked up the book
    Intruders by Bud Hopkins.  I have to say that Intruders is far more
    interesting then Comunion, and I would recommend it as one of the
    better UFO books around.
    
    Anyways, I wanted to pass on to you an interesting experience my
    father had.  Please keep in mind that my father had always been an 
    extreme skeptic of such things as the super-natural and UFO's. 
    
    This is what happened: A few years ago during the summer, my father
    stepped out on the outside porch to relax for a few minutes.  He
    glanced up and saw something hovering over the neighborhood.  He
    described it as being circular and disk-like, very large, with lights
    around the perimeter, and it made no noice that he could detect.
    He was absolutely amazed by this and ran into the house to get my
    brother.  My brother came out with him, probably less then a minute
    later, and this object was still hovering in exactly the same spot.
    My father and brother continued to watch this thing for what seemed
    like several minutes, and then the object began to shudder slightly
    and took off.  
    
    They said the object seemed to go through a tremendous acceleration
    and was out of sight in only a few seconds.  This took place over
    a congested area, and both of them seemed to think that other people
    in the neighborhood probably saw it also.
    
    Knowing what a skeptic my father was, I have absolutely no doubt
    that he and my brother saw this thing.  I am not saying that the
    object contained "aliens", but it certainly certainly doesn't seem 
    like anything I am familiar with.
    
    I cannot claim to have ever seen UFO's.  Being a private pilot with
    over three hundred hours flight time in various aircraft, including
    multi-engine airplanes and helicopters, I have never seen anything
    while flying that I could not identify.  However, the way these
    objects have been described, even if I did spot one I doubt that I 
    could ever catch up to it while flying a conventional aircraft.
    
    Finally, I have heard over and over this theory about the speed
    of light and how it cannot be exceeded.  This is about as controversial
    as the theory of the speed of sound before it was broken.  I really
    think that the speed of light is not an absolute limit, and I would
    consider myself close minded if I believed it was.  We have to keep
    in mind that, compared to other possible civilizations, we could
    be very primitive.  Just because our limited minds cannot comprehend
    space travel doesn't mean it is not possible.
    
    
    Regards,
    Denis
   
    

    Re .373 (Denis):
    
    >Finally, I have heard over and over this theory about the speed
    >of light and how it cannot be exceeded.  This is about as controversial
    >as the theory of the speed of sound before it was broken.  I really
    >think that the speed of light is not an absolute limit, and I would
    >consider myself close minded if I believed it was.
     
    Things are not analogous between speed_of_sound-as-a-barrier and
    speed_of_light-as-an-upper-speed-limit.   In point of fact, things
    were going at better than Mach 1 before an aircraft was flown at
    100 miles/hour.  The bugaboo about speed-of-sound was something
    called "compressability," which you'll find touched upon in all
    the fighter-pilot's aircraft manuals of World War II (I have a few
    in my collection, and nowadays, they seem a mite quaint on that
    point).   The thought was that the air couldn't get out of the way;
    in point of fact, it can if enough force pushes it aside.  The "speed
    limit" on the speed of light is a consequence of relativistic
    mechanics.  Enabling something to move to another location in less
    time than it would take light waves to reach there would require
    a mechanism that weould _not_ be at variance with that model.
    
    This might be achievable with a Gunther mechanism, inertialessness,
    or something like the oft-used science fiction convention,
    "hyperspace."  But it can't be done via sheer brute force.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .373
    
    As Steve said, the two are not comparable.  The "aircraft cannot
    move faster than sound" barrier was an *engineering* barrier
    not a physical limit, and was always controversial.  No one
    knowledgeable said it was impossible (or at least really meant that
    when they said it) the argument was about whether it was *practical*.
    
    Here is a quick quiz question which I saw recently: What was the
    most likely first human artifact to "break the sound barrier?"
    (answer after the page break at end of this note.)
    
RE: .374
    
    > This might be achievable with ... But it can't be done via sheer
    > brute force.
    
    As has been  said elsewhere in DEJAVU, the limit according to
    relativity theory is much more fundamental than that.  FTL travel is
    equivalent to backward time travel according to special relativity, and
    special relativity is at least very close to being true.  Backward
    time travel requires that the notion of causality which SR depends
    on to be chucked out.  We would *have* to extend SR to include
    branching time or the equivalent and that would be a *major* extension
    -- at least as radical an extension as relativity was to Newtonian
    mechanics.
    
    					Topher

	(Answer to quiz on next page)

    QUESTION: What was the most likely first human artifact to "break
	the sound barrier?"

    ANSWER: The end of a bullwhip like whip, *at least* several thousand
	years Before the Common Era (probably much, much earlier).  The
	"crack" made by a whip is a small sonic boom.  This was known well
	before the first aircraft traveled safely past Mach 1.

    
    Larry, may I make one small suggestion? So far, I agree in large
    part with almost everything you've saidin this discussion. However, 
    I have a problem with the *way* you are saying it, your "tone 
    of voice", if you will. I know that it is tough to know how your
    written "tone of voice" will sound to someone reading it, but perhaps,
    if you were a bit more aware that how you come across is often not
    as you intended to...
    
    -Amy.
    

    Re .375 (Topher):
    
    >......................................................... No one
    >knowledgeable said it was impossible (or at least really meant that
    >when they said it) the argument was about whether it was *practical*.
                                                         
    Even more interesting:  while aeronautical engineers were arguing
    about objects going faater than  Mach 1, the artillery people 
    "down the street" were firing shells going _well_ beyond Mach 1.
    
    Anyone who has had a bullet from a rifle pass close to them will
    hear a _snap!_ as it passes (rather than the "spingow!" ricochet
    sound so favored in films), followed by the crack of the rifle.
    The _snap!_ (or, bore accurately, _bang!_) is the sonic boom of
    the slug as it passes by.
    
    > . ................... We would *have* to extend SR to include
    >branching time or the equivalent and that would be a *major* extension
    >-- at least as radical an extension as relativity was to Newtonian
    >mechanics.             
     
    It might be more complex (or easier) than that, Topher.  Nobody
    said this'd be easy ... :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .377 (title)
    
    > is instantaneous translation "travel"?
    
    According to special relativity --
    
    What is instantaneous translation?  I would suppose that it means
    that the object being "translated" would disappear from one point
    and simultaneously reappear in another, more or less distant point.
    
    Einstein asked "What do we mean by simultaneous?"  His answer was
    that for two events to be meaningfully called simultaneous in any
    fundamental way they would have to appear to be occur at the same
    time for all observers (after the observers had subtracted out
    whatever time it took for them to learn about the two events due
    to the finite speed of whatever signal informs them of it -- this
    is *not* about delays due to the finite speed of light).  He then
    showed that two events can only appear to happen simultaneously
    to all observers if the two events happen in *exactly* the same
    place.  If observer A sees two events (at different places) happening
    simultaneously than observer B, traveling at a different speed (though,
    potentially, at roughly the same place as observer A) would see them
    occuring at different times.  And there is no particular reason
    to prefer what A sees to what B sees.
    
    Since instantaneous translation depends by definition on two events
    (the objects disappearance and reappearance) occuring simultaneously
    at two different locations, it is not, according to relativity
    a meaningful concept.  It is somewhat less meaningful, for example,
    than an "immovable object."  It makes sense only approximately
    when you are dealing with such a small range of velocities (as
    we normally do) that the discrepencies in simultaneity for different
    observers is too small to notice.
    
    What if we use a "softer" definition of simultaneous?  What if we
    only require that we find one observational framework (velocity)
    from which an observer we see the object appear and disappear
    simultaneously?  In that case we could find another framework
    (an infinite number of them, actually) in which the time delay
    between the two events was finite but too short for light (and
    therefore anything else) to have carried the information.  Indeed,
    there would not exist any (sub-light) framework from which there
    would be time for a light signal to cross between the two events.
    
    In other words, "instantaneous translation" in any one frame
    will always look like faster than light travel in others; and
    faster than light travel in some frame will always look like
    instantaneous translation in another.
    
    Worse -- there will be some (sub-light) frames in which the object
    "arrives" at B *before* it is "launched" from A.  This is not
    illusion -- there would be nothing preventing an observer in that
    frame from sending a signal to A (e.g., a bomb) which would arrive
    at A before the object were "launched" and prevent the launch
    from ever taking place.  That is -- the bomb was dropped because
    because the object was launched, which prevented the object from
    being launched and so the bomb was *not* dropped, and so the object
    *was* launched ... Paradox.
    
    The only ways out are to say that instantaneous translation (or
    equivalentely, faster than light travel) cannot occur, or to
    extend the meaning of space and time so that the location A in
    which the object was launched is not really the same location
    in which the bomb was dropped (i.e., branching time).  How to
    get space to split up into parallel "time-streams" under these
    conditions, in a way which is consistent with relativity when FTL
    travel doesn't occur, is non-trivial, to say the least.  Branching
    time is much easier to add to pre-relativistic physics where
    there is only *one* time.
    
    					Topher
    

    REP .372
    
    Well, Larry, I hope you will continue to ask probing questions.
    I have many of the same questions as you, even though I had my own
    "close encounter" [.230].  I don't have any problems with your style
    and rather like things to get spiced up around here every so often.
    This is a discussion forum  afterall, right?
    
    John M.

   RE .373 & 374
    
    I never said the speed of light and sound were comparable.  Please,
    I don't need a lecture of what it takes to break the speed of sound;
    I am familiar with this subject.
    
    What I am saying is to open up your minds a little.  Then, maybe
    you can realize that a race more intelligent then us ( and that
    isn't saying much) can find a way to travel enormous distances 
    in a reasonable period of time.
    
    Like I mentioned earlier, I have never seen a UFO.  Despite this,
    I really don't think we have the privilege of being the only living
    beings in the universe.  And I certainly don't think we are the
    most intelligent; on the contrary, we are probably very primitive
    and violent campared to other possible races.
    
    I wonder who else gets people into space by mounting them to a giant
    firecracker!  :-)
    
    Regards,
    Denis

    

    I received a phone call on the Ashburnham sighting on the same evening
    about 20 minutes after it occurred and immediately phoned the Harvard
    Observatory. They were very cordial and cooperative but knew nothing
    of this occurrance and did not recieve any other calls, but they
    did thank me for bringing it to their attention and would contact
    me if they had found out anything further.
    
    Steve(I'm Back!!!)
    

    Welcome back.

    
    
    Welcome back, Steve.
    
    I was at a bookstore at lunchtime today and picked up Budd Hopkins'
    book "Intruders".  As I left the store, you came to my mind and
    I wondered what ever happened to you!  Good to hear from you again.
    
    Carole
    

     
    AMY, 
    
    The author of Night Seige is Philip Imbrogno.
    
    Steve

    Larry,
    
      I'm not trying to be picky, but I felt that this should be corrected
    for the benefit of the group.
    
      In note .268 the witness(s) estimated the object to be 1/4mi away.
    This would classify the sighting as a Daylight Disk. In order to
    be classified as a Close Encounter of any Kind, it must occur within
    500 feet of the witnesses.
    
    Steve
    
    

    
    >Also, the alleged photographs of the UFO used in the article
    >all look very fake.
    
    The photographs are not alleged, they are photographs, but are the
    UFOs real?
    
    Actually, what I wanted to add was that grainy photographs from
    a newspaper are really not sufficient to make a proper judgement
    either way and who knows, those used by the Globe may have been
    file photos from cases that were already found to be hoaxes.
    
    Steve

    re: .384
    
    Thanks, Steve.
    
    -Amy.

    re: 27.277
    
                     Termination of Project Blue Book
                     ================================
    
       On December 17, 1969, Secretary of the Air Force Robert C. Seamans,
    Jr. announced the official termination of Project Blue Book. In
    a memorandum to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John D. Ryan, Seamans
    stated that the projects continuance "cannot be justified either
    on the ground of National Security or in the interest of Science".
    
       Seamans' recommendation was based on the Condon Study (suspect
    in itself), the National Academy of Sciences' approval of the study,
    "past UFO studies" and previous investigating experience.
    
       The main problem with this is that the entire basis for Blue
    Books termination is chock full of holes.
    
       The Condon Study into UFOs, according to Hynek was a circus with
    constant bickering and little, if any cooperation or organization
    between the individuals involved. As a matter of fact, according
    to one of the study members, the initial report placed on Dr.
    Condon's desk favored a further study into the UFO phenomenon, but
    when the final report was presented to the Air Force by Condon,
    it stated that UFOs were not worthy of further study and the cases
    used in this report were only those that could be explained. This
    trash study was approved by the National Academy of Sciences?
    
      Blue Book was an even bigger joke. According to the late Dr. Hynek,
    the project center(and the entire project) consisted of a tiny office
    with two desks, one file cabinet and one, maybe two investigators
    who handled the majority of its investigations over the phone. Hynek
    himself, as scientific consultant, was allowed access to very few
    case documents and told to give them believable explanations.
    This was their "past UFO studies" and previous investigating 
    experience.
    
    UFO reports, and not UFOs, were the thorn in the Air Forces side.
    They simply did not have the time or manpower to waste on such a
    thing. So what would be the best way to solvethis problem? Dump
    the reports by diminishing national interest in these "Flying
    Disks"!
    
       The official investigation had been terminated, but the interest
    never ceased, as FOIA documents to this day depict a major concern
    about UFO incidents occuring in and around military installations
    all over the world and CIA/NSA concerns over the problem.
    
    Steve
                                                                   
                                                                   
      

    
    re:27.276
    
    >the "captured crashed UFO" story goes back to the
    >1940s, and was recently proven to be a hoax.
    
    This statement is false.
    
    The documents pertaining to the April 12, 1954 case known as the
    "Roswell Incident" are in the posession of Bill Moore, Dr. Stanton
    Friedman and a Mr. Schandera. They are under tight scrutiny by CISCOP
    and my friend and colleague Barry Greenwood. Barry is a long time
    expert on FOIA released UFO documentations and co-author of "Clear
    Intent. He is also co-founder of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy(CAUSE).
    
    Now, both CISCOP and Greenwood have rightfully criticized these
    documents, but at this time, the onlt thing that has been proven
    is that there are definite inconsistancies in some of these(for
    that era). Moore and company unfortunately did not use the same
    scrutiny before releasing this information to the public. In other
    words, these documents "have not been proven to be fake, they have
    been proven to be inconsistant with similar documents of that era.
    
    Getting to the incident itself, this has never been proven as a
    hoax. UFO Crash/Retrieval researcher Leonard Stringfield has
    interviewed many witnesses, military and civilian, who are 
    most positive that these events did in fact occur. The main draw-
    back is everyone wants the names of sources as proof, but this
    became quite difficult with the initiation of JANAP (Joint-Army
    Navy-Air Force Publication) 146 in December of 1953. JANAP 146
    made releasing any UFO report information to the public a crime
    under the Espionage Act, punishable by a one-to-ten year prison
    term or a $10,000 fine. This applied to anyone who knew it existed,
    including retired personnel and commercial airline pilots.
    
    
    The following are two responses by then Sen. Barry Goldwater to
    letters from concerned citizens:
    
    Response #1       March 28, 1975
    
    "The subject of UFOs is one that has interested me for some long
    time. About ten or twelve years ago I made an effort to find what
    was in the building at Wright Patterson Air Force Base where the
    information is stored that has been collected by the Air Force
    and I was understandably denied this request. It is still clas-
    sified above top secret. I have, however, heard that there is a
    plan under way to release some, if not all, of this material in
    the near future. I'm just as anxious to see this material as you
    are, and I hope we will not have to wait too much longer".
    
    
    Response #2        August 31, 1984
    
    "Thank you so much for the book you sent me on the UFO.
    
    I have been interested in this subject for a long, long time
    and I do know that whatever the Air Force has on the
    subject is going to remain highly classified".
    
    
    
    
    
    Steve
                                                              

RE: .389
    
    Steve -- your point is well made that the question of whether or
    not the "captured crashed UFO" story is a hoax is quite independent
    of the status of the recently circulated documents since the source
    of the story was not those documents.  If they are hoaxes it only
    means that they do not constitute evidence supporting the story.
    
    However, in all fairness, I think that you are wasting effort at
    this time supporting the documents as having "been proven ... that
    there are defininte inconsistencies in some of these (for that era)"
    rather than that they are hoaxes.  This is what one shows to prove
    that a document (especially a copy of a document) is a hoax.
    
    We are not talking about use of a word which would be unusual but
    possible at the time but genuine anachronisms.  If one of the
    documents claiming to be from the Eisenhower era refered to "President
    Reagan" would you still say that it was "only" shown inconsistent
    rather than a hoax.  The actual reported flaws, are more subtle and
    require more specialized knowledge but are no less damning.  People
    do not -- *cannot* -- use security classification phrases which
    don't even exist yet.
    
    If the contents of the documents and the facts they seem to be
    inconsistent with are as represented by the accusers (a big if
    in my opinion -- CSICOP has a reputation for covering up details
    which don't fit in order to make clear "THE TRUTH") then the
    probability of those documents not being hoaxes are too small to
    worry about.  The other documents in the set cannot be taken as
    having been proven hoaxes but their status is so ambiguous that
    they simply cannot be accepted as meaningful evidence for anything
    (they could conceivably be used, however, if they happen to be
    genuine, to locate evidence with more direct plausibility).
    
    If the inconsistencies exist -- we have a hoax.  If CSICOP has
    misrepresented the facts -- demonstrate it.  But defending the
    documents as "merely" inconsistent is a waste of effort and is
    probably harmful to the goal of having legitimate evidence looked
    at objectively.
    
    					Topher
    

    
    Topher,
    
    As a field investigator/researcher I feel that any time and energy
    contributing to the UFO phenomena is not wasted and that just
    because some of the documents are inconsistent, it does not
    nessecarily prove or disprove their authenticity. We all know
    from experience that government "Red Tape" for the most part
    is far from logical and lacks deeply in consistency. What must 
    be found out is: Were the problems with these documents created
    by a hoaxter (from which side?) or by incompetancy on the part
    of the government at that time.
    
    One way to look at it is, OK some of these documents have flaws,
    but for this reason are we to turn our backs on the others that
    may have potential significance?
    
    Steve

    Re .391 (Steve):
    
    >One way to look at it is, OK some of these documents have flaws,
    >but for this reason are we to turn our backs on the others that
    >may have potential significance?
     
    Well, if the "other documents" rely on the questionable ones, then
    they're _all_ questionable.  If they don't, then it's easy enough
    to separate the wheat (potentially valid ones) from the chaff (flawed
    ones).
    
    The whole name to the "documents" game is _credibility_.  If you
    can't maintain that, then the whole argument goes down the drain.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Steve,
    
    Given finite resources for investigation one must choose where
    to put those resources.  If CSICOP has accurately represented
    the situation (and *that* is very worth investigating) then the
    probability that those documents containing those inconsistencies
    is very, very small.  A security phrase used *after* it is no
    longer officially recognized as having meaning could be due to
    error; a security phrase used *before* it was invented is no
    more believable than an Uzi machine gun mentioned in a supposed
    Old West diary.
    
    To expend resources on treating such documents (and I am only speaking
    of the specific documents shown inconsitent) as legitimate implies
    either that the UFO investigative community either has much, much
    more resources than I think likely (say, somewhere around equal
    to that of the US physics community), or that the alternative places
    where effort might be expended are nearly as weak (implying that
    the case for UFO's is thousands of times weaker than even I, a
    sympathetic sceptic, believed).
    
    To defend such documents as not having been proved hoaxers (when
    indeed, they have had all the proof of that normally required, or
    excepting confession of the hoaxer, expected to be found) damages
    your credibility.  If you defend such documents as having any
    credibility than why should someone consider your opinion that some
    other piece of evidence has the same or greater credibility as
    meaningful?
    
    The extent to which I will consider documents as evidence of anything
    is strictly determined by my evaluation of the degree to which the
    source of those documents are willing and able to forge them.  Although
    the other documents have not been demonstrated to be hoaxes, since
    they come essentially from the same source as the fake ones (I'm
    still assuming that investigation shows that CSICOP's accusations
    are accurate), they are not, of themselves evidence.  They must
    be shown to come from a different, more reliable source, or their
    specific claims must be independently verified.  They may aid in
    your search for evidence, but are not, as things now stands evidence.
    
    By all means, investigate the accuracy of CSICOP's accusations --
    that is certainly worth doing.  If you have the slightest indication
    that the not-shown-inconsistent documents have a different origin
    than the inconsistent ones, then by all means, try to get independent
    confirmation of their authenticity.  But I strongly advise you
    not to waste reputation and investigative resources on defending
    the demonstrably corrupt when there are so many more productive
    avenues of investigation open.
    
    					Topher 

    Re .393 (Topher):
    
    Geez!  There are two responses from different Steves.
    
    I'm the one in substantial agreement with you. :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: 394
    
    Sorry, forgot the "RE:" on .393.
    
    			Topher

    
    Steve, I am not refering only to the Roswell documents, but to the
    many others obtained under the FOIA.
    
    Steve

    Re .396 (Steve):
    
    Okay, what I said in .392 still holds.  If there are documents that
    are questionable, any other documents that are based on them share
    whatever taint there is.
    
    If there are [other] documents that are _not_ based (nor otherwise
    rely) on questionable documents, then they are not tainted by the
    existence of the tainted ones.
    
    Let's shift from UFOs for a second to make this clearer.
    
    Darwinian evolution is only oner of several evolutionary "theories."
    [quotes to show that I'm using the word in its non-precise sense.]
    Another theory was that of Lysenko.  Now when Lysenkoism was
    demonstrated to be fallacious, that merely meant that _it_ was
    fallacious, not that any competing theories were.
    
    Apply that to documents: they ought to stand on their own.  If one
    is dermonstrated to be questionable (or an outright, if unintentional,
    fraud, like Scully's  book, _The Flying Saucers Are Real_), then
    ancillary documents _that rely on them_ have to be put into question.
    
    The reverse of that doesn't hold true, though: just because a document
    doesn't rely on questionable documents, that doesn't automativally
    make it "true."  It just has to be judged on its own merit.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: 27.393
    
    Topher,
    
    I am quite interested in learning the sources and extent of research
    on Moore documents from which your opinion has been expressed that
    these documents are fake. Was this merely from that single report
    by CISCOP or do you have anything further to back this up.
    
    The only "facts" that I have run across during this discussion seem
    to be "ifs and assumptions". One cannot make too many assumptions
    supported by ifs and create facts upon this basis.
    
    The burden of proof has rested upon the investigative community
    from the very begining to prove the existence of UFOs and now it
    has shifted to the skeptics. If they can prove beyond the shadow
    of a doubt that any of these documents have been intentionally
    created or falsified I will be the first to applaud them. But as
    of this moment CISCOPs "proof" is really not legit. The "evidence"
    is inconclusive as they have only the names of those in posession
    of the documents and not the source. This would not hold up in 
    a court of law.
    
    Proof cannot be based on scattered inuendos, but if these documents
    are fakes, we also would love to know and are also persuing those
    trails. 
    
    The Jury is still out and until the facts are sorted I cannot and
    will not assume either way and I do not "defend" these documents,
    but merely stand unconvinced without assumption that they are beyond
    a doubt fakes.
    
    The holders of these documents are not the source but are the ones
    being scrutinized. There are two sources one whose identity will
    not be released by Moore and company and the National Archives.
    
    I recognize and respect your opinional rights, but there is much
    more to this story than meets the eye in publicized articles.
    
    Steve F.
    

RE: .398
    
    Steve (F.),
    
    I have been reacting to your statement to the effect that
    inconsistencies had been demonstrated in the documents but hoax
    had not been.  I was saying that *this* is not a useful, sensible
    defense.  If the inconsistencies alleged by CSICOP exists then
    the documents are hoaxes (to a degree of probability high enough
    to make alternatives not worth bothering with).  This is based only
    on the CSICOP report.
    
    I did not say who was responsible for the hoax, how or why.
    
    More importantly, I quite explicitly did *not* say that the
    inconsistencies actually existed.  On the basis of CSICOP's tendency
    to deal with only those parts of the truth which fit their
    preconceptions I strongly recommend that their allegations be
    independently verified.
    
    I have not, nor would not on CSICOP's say so, written those documents
    off.
    
    If a witness claims to have seen a suspect point a gun at a victim and
    pull the trigger and hear a BANG and seen the gun jerk and the
    victim has fallen dead and the coroner reports that a bullet from
    the gun was the cause of death, then you don't defend the suspect
    on the basis that the witness didn't see the bullet leave the gun
    and enter the victim.  Instead you attempt to show that the witness
    was lying or mistaken.
    
    					Topher

    
    Topher,
    
    The suspect is entitled to a defense and is considered innocent
    until proven guilty.
    
    Steve F.
    

    Steve (F.):
    
    I support *strongly* the principle of presumption of innocence in
    law.  I do not believe justice can be served in any system without
    it -- though the principle can be implicit (as it is in the Napoleonic
    Code) rather than explicit.  The importance of this is due to a
    variety of social goals the principle serves -- probably the most
    important being that it is better in any specific case that a
    guilty suspect goes free than that the State becomes oppressor by
    punishing the innocent.
    
    This does *not* apply to scientific investigation, however, where
    the goal is truth not justice (means to the end are, of course,
    subject to ethical, humanitarian and social restraints).  Scientific
    ideas should not, *cannot*, be presumed true or false.
    
    Even in law, presumption of innocence applies *only* to the defendent,
    not to witnesses.  It is not true that witnesses are, or should
    be, considered telling the truth unless it is proven that they lie.
    The judge or jury must judge whether or not they are lying (or in
    error) and on that basis decide whether or not their presumption
    of innocence for the defendant needs to be rejected.
    
    In scientific investigation there are no defendants and no victims,
    there are *only* witnesses.  The question of whether or not these
    documents are credible witnesses for scientific purposes is unrelated
    as to whether or not those who had the opportunity to forge or
    alter them should be prosecuted for fraud.
    
    I *know* that there are people with the resources to forge such
    documents.  I *know* that there are people who have the motivation,
    emotional, religious or financial, to forge such documents, either
    to discredit or in support of UFO theories.  Such documents *will
    be forged* if those resources combine with that motivation either
    in an individual or in a group.  Therefore the appearance of such
    documents is unsurprising from the viewpoint of conventional
    explanations of UFO sightings (the power of evidence to distinguish
    between two competing theories is determined by the relative elements
    of surprise in that evidence for each of those theories).  Their
    mere existence is insufficient as evidence -- there *must* be a reason
    beyond mere assumption to believe there authenticity.
    
    When evidence is presented which seems to impeach other evidence
    then the impeaching evidence falls under exactly the same requirements.
    There is *no* "entitlement to a defense", there is simply a
    requirement of scrutiny for all evidence.  I reiterate my support of
    such scrutiny of CSICOP's claims.
    
    					Topher

    Topher,
    
    Fine, but there is a great difference between supporting CISCOPs
    "evidence"(which is an assumption in itself) and the truth.
    
    Even in my situation my reluctance to call these documents fake
    do not nesecerally mean that I am correct, but this goes both ways
    and both points of view must be very carefully analyzed. CISCOP
    on the other hand has one thing in mind and that is discrediting
    not only those documents but anything at all to do with UFOs. They
    have blinders on and until they remove them, they are on a one way
    street and will stop at nothing in order to rid themselves of the
    fools who dare to believe in things that (in their opinion) cannot,
    therefore do not exist.
    
    This conversation began when I mentioned that it was a fallacy that
    this documentation had been proven to be fake and as of today still
    has not. I will stick by my guns and stay somewhat skeptical of
    some of the documents but will not let a release by CISCOP lead
    me to an assumption that I know from my own sources is not true
    and that is the literal fact(please take this literally,word for
    word)that "these documents have by no means been officially declared
    to be fake". This is the only point I have been trying to make all
    along.
    
    Great conversation, Topher
    Steve F.
    

    I just found this file and have been working at light speed (well,
    almost ;-) to catch up.  I read this note up to .250 and just had to
    get a reply in somewhere.  So this will be an aside from the present
    conversation (pardon me).  I am also glad to see Steve is still
    around since this will be in his area of interest and experience.
    
    I consider myself a curious skeptic.  So here goes.  I got to thinking
    about the "abductee syndrome" (let me call it that without too many
    people jumping on me!).  How would I go about doing a study and
    writing a book about this subject?  If we assume a large sample
    population (say 250 million :-) and we identify something we call
    an "abductee syndrome" wherein the components of this sub-population
    claim to have been abducted by aliens.  Suppose this sub-population
    is small (1/100 of 1 percent (25000) or maybe 1/1000 of 1 percent
    (2500)) relative to the general population.  Now we assume that
    some of these are frauds, cuckoos, etc. and perhaps a hand full
    of real cases.  We still have a fairly large sample to sift through
    (several thousand).  How do we determine those "telling the truth"
    from the rest?
    
    Let's take a stab at it?  First we get rid of all the obvious nut
    cases.  (What did you do while aboard the alien craft?  Well the
    aliens and I shot a few racks of pool had a few brews and then watched
    re-runs of "I Love Lucy".)  Based on what criteria?  (maybe aliens
    like "I Love Lucy"! (god only knows why!) :-)  Let's say we are 
    "scientists" and we think that aliens must have a purpose for hanging
    around our little world.  What would they be doing here?  Obviously, 
    they would be gathering biological samples; worms, cows, slugs, humans,
    etc.  I say "obviously" since that is what we tried to do with our 
    probe to Mars.  Therefore, people that have "abductee syndromes" that
    tell of "medical examinations", "exploratory surgery", etc. must
    be telling the truth, right?  Is this a valid criteria? (Aside:
    These are "kind" aliens, they heal and return their subjects to earth 
    when done.  They obviously hold human life in a higher regard than
    most humans.  How, well, "human" (as opposed to "inhuman") of them.)
    
    I guess my contention and question comes down to criteria.  What
    critera did Budd (what was his name again?) use to choose his study
    population?  I maintain that no matter what criteria you choose
    you can find a (perhaps in)significant population on which to
    write a book.  How many subjects were chosen?  How many were
    discarded? (and of course, why?)  How many of the subjects "shot
    pool, had a brew and watched re-runs of "I Love Lucy" with the aliens"?
    Of course, within this population there will be a amazing correlation
    between what they experienced on the alien vessel.  I mean, after
    all, that IS why you chose them for study, isn't it?  One of the
    criteria could even be "they just want to get on with their lives".
    After all, if the guy wants to go on Johnny Carson, Donahue, etc.
    he is a fraud and just in it for the money, isn't he?
    
    No, I haven't read the book. (too many hobbies and too little time)
    I am not trying to be insulting Steve (and other UFOologists). 
    I am just trying to point out some of the pitfalls inherent in any
    human study.  I don't like "true believers".  I much prefer "true
    doubters" ;-).
    
    What would I look for in a study?  Damn hard to say.  I guess I
    would try to find a consistent line of testimony that showed something
    that was not within our technology and was currently being applied.
    This would be hard to identify.  If I heard it, I might not believe
    it.  It IS awful hard to objective about non-humans when one is
    human!  I would also realize that this just gives me a different
    sample (or no sample) of subjects with which to work.
    
    Have I ever had a UFO experience?  Close.  We were out in the yard
    (brothers and I) when a bright light sliced the sky in half at
    incredible speed.  At the end of its path it split into several
    fragments like a dud rocket on the 4th of July.  I said "did you
    see that meteor".  You couldn't miss it.  It was so bright it caused
    my shadow to appear on the ground which drew my attention upward.
    Anyone for the disintegrating spaceship theory?  There were a lot of
    UFO sightings called in that night.  If the end of its run had been
    blocked and I did not see it split up maybe I would have been a
    little less positive that it was a meteor.  (I know, "why not a
    disintegrating spaceship"?  I am sorry, my answer is subjective and
    purely an opinion based on my observation of the phenomenon!)
    
    By the way, the Bloom County comicstrip is about "abductees" in
    the Globe today!
    
    I would appreciate some of your thoughts Steve (and others).
    
    Stan

    RE: 403
    	
    	Budd Hopkins (the author of "Intruders") found his sample of
    abductees, mostly by having previoulsy written about the subject
    and by being interviewed (either TV or radio, I don't remember).
    Others heard about it, and it reminded them of their own "missing
    hours".   They then contacted Budd.  These stories are of varying
    quality, some being more convincing than others.   Only a few seemed
    to have corraborating physical evidence (scars, burn marks on the
    ground, etc.) but these would be among the most convincing cases
    that he concentrated on.
    
    	Since most abductees don't remember it, and it only comes out
    later, under hypnosis or in dreams, it would be *very* hard to tell
    how common such experiences are.

    	Alan.

    
    RE: .403
    
    Stan,
    
    I believe that there is nothing wrong with being skeptical as I
    myself indulge in healthy skepticism in performing investigations.
    
    Upon recieving abduction cases and the initial interview is performed,
    (some may not even make it to the interview) this is the point where
    the crazies or those with apparent ulterior motives are separated
    from those which show sincerity, honesty, unwillingness for publicity,
    and signs of a traumatic experience. Surprisingly enough, the crazies
    /publicists ratio is very small vs. the "meaty cases".
    
    Among these cases there is a very consistent line of testimony and
    this was discovered by Budd Hopkins by doing one simple thing. Before
    this I would like to state that their stories are not completely
    consistent in the sense that some very minor details are different,
    but the major traumas seem very consistent and this can be expected
    when carrying out a human study. What Budd would do is in each of
    his books he would leave out certain important facts of these cases
    and those reporting abductions after the books were read usually
    came up with very similar accounts, including the facts or parts
    of experiences which were purpously left out of Budd's books.
    
    I myself do not consider myself either a true "believer or doubter"
    and like to work with the facts and then form my own opinion.
    
    To answer your question Budd's study criteria was chosen by simply
    taking the best cases and going with it from there.
    
    I have had the opportunity to meet and discuss with several of Budd's
    abductees and they seem very sensible and level headed. The fact
    that they had been on talk shows is also irrelevant, because it
    was something which took them a long time and and tons of courage
    to make the decision to do so.(believe me, they are no more well
    off financially than before their experiences, sometimes just the
    opposite)
    
    The overall consensus of these abductees is not a great feeling
    because they have been chosen for this, but they experience strong
    feelings of insecurity no matter where they are, a sense of having
    no privacy in their lives and the strong feeling that they are not
    safe anywhere. As one male abductee put it "if I was living in the
    White House and they wanted to get to me, no matter how much security
    there was around me, they would get to me."
    
    These beings seem to be more confused by our human feelings/actions
    and do not seem to understand as most abductees feel that "do not
    have the right to come into my home and take me away whenever they
    feel like it, who do they think they are"?!!!!
    
    Steve

    Well, I made it back here and will probably continue to do so. 
    I just burned my way through the last of the replies in this note
    so I am up-to-date.  Some great flames and discussions in there!
    
    I would like to state a point of view.  If a person writes a book
    he is selling something.  It may be as simple as a mystery story
    for pure enjoyment, a pet theory, etc.  Whenever I read a book
    I try to see where the writer is "coming from" (selling).  I'm not 
    knocking any author mentioned here, this is just a general statement.
    
    As you have described the book to me, I would call it a flawed study.
    After I wrote .403 I took my daily 1 hr. commute home and thought
    about this all the way.  I was still trying to figure out how I
    would do such a study.  I decided I would not eliminate any first
    hand "evidence".  I would collect *all* incidents that I could find.
    (and from what you just mentioned in .405, I would actively seek
    out people with tales to tell (rather than just let them come to me))
    If a person feels compelled to tell his story, then that is a criteria
    I would not want imposed on my study.
    
    Once I had collected a significant body of evidence (100s preferably
    1000s of accounts) I would construct bins in which to try to place 
    them.  I would create large categories and then subsets under each.
    ("How did you get aboard the alien craft?"  "tractor beam", "they wrestled
    me to the ground and dragged me aboard", "I don't know", "I rang the front 
    doorbell")
    
    Once this was accomplished I would try to sort out the trends in
    the stories.  This would leave the reader to draw his own conclusions
    from the evidence I had gathered.  If, indeed, a large number fell 
    into a category such as you described, my skepticism would take a 
    pretty good hit.  However, as I mentioned in .403 if we apply a
    human point of view of "they want to study the life forms" then one
    would expect this bin to have a larger population (people with
    psychological problems), as well we would if aliens were studying life 
    forms.  It is somewhat inconclusive.  I feel a study such as I have 
    described would be of more value (to me) than the one you described.  
    I could see the forest as well as the trees pointed out by the
    author.  If you are not very careful in choosing the criteria you 
    impose on a study, you will impose criteria you never intended to 
    impose.
    
    Just some personal comments.
    
    How about evidence of animal abductions?  Especially domesticated
    animals from protective structures?
    
    I am assuming that aliens would view all lifeforms on a foreign
    planet as equal.  There would be no apparent reason to discriminate.  
    After study they may try to communicate with the more intelligent 
    species (plural).  I seem to recall some evidence of mass killings 
    of cows and/or sheep in remote locations.  Memory fails me.
    
    I guess my question comes down to "what peripheral evidence is there
    of abduction"?  And how can we as skeptics or believers improve
    the available proof for or against?
    
    I guess I am just going to have to get a ride on one of these suckers!
    "Beam me up, Scotty!"
    
    Curious,
    Stan

    Stan
    
    I think there may have been a misunderstanding here. All cases are
    documented and stored in file, but only the most reliable are used
    in books and the studies are not based on these alone, there are
    still many more reliable cases that are not used in books and are
    used in case studies. As far as the less reliable cases are concerned,
    they are studied and filed, but one must realize that most of these
    investigations are conducted by those who are also working full-time
    occupations during the daytime, and the case loads are so heavy
    and manpower so limited(it can take weeks, months and in some cases
    years to complete one abduction case. It is not an in and out
    operation) that qualified abduction investigators are booked to
    the max and must use their available time to get the most out of
    these cases. It would be much simpler if we had proper funding to
    allow us to get into full-time investigations, but at this time
    funds are very limited and must be used on all facets of the UFO
    phenomenon and not on abductions alone.
    
    Steve
    

    
    For those interested in the opposition view of abduction cases a
    new book is on the shelves:
    
                        "UFO Abductions- A Dangerous Game"
                                By: Phillip Klass
    
                          Published by: Prometheus Books
    
    
    .........and for those who were not able to obtain copies of this book:
    
                          "The Andreasson Affair"
                            By: Raymond Fowler
                           Published by: Bantam Books
    
    Is back in paperback. This is a re-publication of the first book
    on the well known abduction case which occurred in Ashburnham, Mass.
    
    Steve
    
                               
    
    

RE: .408
    
    Keep in mind when reading the Klass book that Klass has a reputation
    for telling only that part of a story which fits his preconceptions.
    He is generally worth listening to for facts which might not be
    presented by the other side -- I know of no example where he has
    actually falsified something -- but he cannot be relied on to present
    the whole story and what he says may, though accurate, be presented
    in a misleading way.
    
RE: last several
    
    Keep in mind that common elements are evidence for a common origin
    but *not* that that origin is what the experients believe it to
    be.  To take a silly (but not quite as silly as it sounds) example,
    all the experients may have read the same comic book when they were
    kids, and be dredging it out of their subconscious without any
    awareness of the fact.  Common origin is an important initial
    evidentiary step but it still must be established that that common
    origin is a literal shared experience and not shared psychological
    mechanisms, shared culture or shared mundane experiences transformed
    by common subconscious mechanisms.
    
    					Topher

    
    RE: .409
    
    Topher:
    
    Very good points and well taken.
    
    Steve
    

    
    March 25-26   UFO Conference       Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Guest Speakers include:
    
    Major Dewey Fournet (USAF Ret.)-former Blue Book/Pentagon liaison ofc.
    Al Chop-Pentagon spokesman on UFOs
    
    For more information, call 501-452-3708
    
    
    Sept. 17, 1988    25th Annual National UFO Conf.  Cleveland, Ohio
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    For conference info call, 800-325-2525
    
    
    June 24-26, 1988    "88" MUFON Symposium    Lincoln, Nebraska
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Will post more information when recieved.
    
    
    
    
    
                            

    
    Has anyone heard anything more on the Meier's (sp?) case??  I heard
    that he is still having visitations.
    
    Also...
    
    Steve F, I'd be interested in knowing your opinion on the Meier
    case and if you have any more information on it since the book
    Light Years was written....
    
    Thanks, Linda

    Linda,
    
    "Light Years" brings on the resurrection of cobwebs out of the 
    closet in the UFO investigative community. For years the Meier
    case has been subject to heated debate not only from dedicated
    skeptics, but also from our own colleagues and just when the
    debate seemed to be settling down and the much worn out incident
    dwindling away, Kinder steps in and Whammo!!......Here we go again.
    
    In my opinion Meier's case seems to be enveloped in a distinct cloud
    of contacteeism (ala.....George Adamski, Cult Groups). Initially,
    it lacks any similarities to the more traumatic abductee cases and
    at the same time has many very debatable points to consider, but
    here I will list three:
    
    1) In examining some of Meier's photographs, I get the strong feeling,
       "What is wrong with this picture?"....ie.....It just does not
       look right, as if the disk shaped "beamship" as he called them,do
       not, by contrast to the surrounding scenery, fit in.
    
       One opposition point made was; "how could a one armed man be
       physically capable of creating a hoax this way?"
    
       My answer: A 35mm Camera, Tripod and cable release.
    
    
    2) As to the credibillity of Meier's confidant Wendell Stevens,
       he is now in the process of serving a prison term for child
       molestation.(need I say more?)
    
    3) Alleged beamship metal samples and full-spectrum sound recording
       of a beamship "mysteriously" disappeared just before they were
       due to be analyzed and finally, the photographs allegedly taken
       by Meier of "earthquake-ravaged San Francisco" (get this)...in
       the future, turned out to be nothing but copies of artwork pre-
       viously published in "GEO" magazine.
    
    
       I try to be as open minded as possible when examining cases,
       but this time I must make my conclusion by my "gut feeling",
       and that is "one good fake deserves another". Yes, you can
       quote me on that.
    
      ************************************************************
    
       As far as any updates go, I have heard none and strongly believe
       that this case will blow over much easier than it did the first
       time around.
    
      Steve F.
    

    
    Steve,
    
    I have some questions regarding your three points:
    
    >1) In examining some of Meier's photographs, I get the strong feeling,
    >   "What is wrong with this picture?"....ie.....It just does not
    >   look right, as if the disk shaped "beamship" as he called them,do
    >   not, by contrast to the surrounding scenery, fit in.
    >   One opposition point made was; "how could a one armed man be
    >   physically capable of creating a hoax this way?"
    >   My answer: A 35mm Camera, Tripod and cable release.
    
    Why, then, did several special effects experts say that they could
    only reproduce the motion picture film Meier took only if they had a
    fairly LARGE budget?  Where would Meier get the bucks?  The FX experts
    also said that it would require a TEAM of several individuals in
    order to do the filming.  Also what about the fact that there is a very
    large amount of photographs and that several photographs that were
    examined in detail with measurements against the background, shadows,
    etc. all checked out.
    
    >2) As to the credibillity of Meier's confidant Wendell Stevens,
    >   he is now in the process of serving a prison term for child
    >   molestation.(need I say more?)
    
    I don't see what that has to do with Col. Wendell Stevens' compentence
    as an "investigator".  (Don't get me wrong.....child molestation
    is wrong and he deserves a prison term if he is guilty).  I'm sure
    that there are top-notch scientists and professionals that are child
    molestors, wife-beaters, etc., but does that make them any less
    knowledgeable in their field of expertise?

    >3) Alleged beamship metal samples and full-spectrum sound recording
    >   of a beamship "mysteriously" disappeared just before they were
    >   due to be analyzed and finally, the photographs allegedly taken
    >   by Meier of "earthquake-ravaged San Francisco" (get this)...in
    >   the future, turned out to be nothing but copies of artwork pre-
    >   viously published in "GEO" magazine.
    
    It is my understanding that the sound recordings did not disappear
    and that several sound-engineers analyzed these recordings and said
    that they either could not duplicate the sounds or would be very
    difficult and expensive to duplicate the sounds.  (Kinder played
    a recording on a talk show, but then again...what a way to sell
    books....????)  As for the art-work, I agree that that really does
    cause concern, but I wonder if Meier "faked" this so that maybe people
    would be scared enough to listen to him about all the ethical teachings
    that the beings conveyed to him.  I do know that there have been
    scientists that have "faked" an end result of an experiment initially
    to get people to listen to them so that they could pursue there
    experiment further and they had been right and proved so after they had
    the time, money, etc. to do further experimentation.  I don't know if
    this is the case with Meier, but I think it is something to wonder
    about (i.e. just because one piece of evidence is fake does not
    NECESSARILY mean all the other pieces of evidence are fake....  the 
    human element, you know... I do admit, though, that it's not the
    wisest thing to do...).
    
    Obviously I don't know if Meier is a fake or not (I wouldn't be
    asking these questions if I did know), and I appreciate your input.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Linda

    
    Linda,
    
    RE: >1 
    
    I also have some experience in photography and if you examine
    some of the photographs in "Light years", you can see a distinct
    difference between the fore and background (called depth of field)
    and how the object is definately much clearer than the surrounding
    view, especially the photo showing the "beamship" right against
    the tree. In this case the depth of field of the tree and ship
    should be similar in clarity and foreground light surce shows only
    brightness upon the ship and not the tree. I know that these photos
    have been allegedly examined by experts, but there have been cases
    in the past where photos have been analyzed as origional and the
    case filed as unidentified. This fooled even Dr. J. Allen Hynek,
    as a few months later the perpetrator(s) felt guilty and admitted
    that they had hoaxed the whole event. We must be very careful in
    these type of cases. We have been burned before and will not be
    burned again. 
    
    RE: >2, 3
    
    Investigator credabillity is just as important as that of a witness.
    Stevens is not only in prison, but also had made many statements
    which later were found to be contradictary to the testimony of Meier
    and his companions. In case investigations we must gain the 
    confidence and cooperation of the witness(') and be positive of
    the facts. Just because Stevens has a Dr. before his name does not
    in any respect qualify him as a UFO investigator, it goes much 
    deeper than that.
    
    Now to witness credabillity. One of the main characteristics an
    investigator looks for in a witness is honesty and another 
    reliabillity. If Meier had any of these he would not have hoaxed
    the "GEO" magazine artwork as a look into the future and after
    doing so(and I am almost positive, with the full knowledge of
    Stevens) thought he could pull the wool over someones eyes and
    did not have the concience to advise others of what he had done
    until his little hoax was discovered. A reliable witness does not
    fabricate any part of a case.
    
    I stand of the opinion that Kinder did put in much research, but
    was very gullible at times and only stated the pros and not the
    cons. A witness should expect professionalism and cooperation
    from an investigator, and they should get that, but this alone to
    me shows blatant disregard for the witness/investigator relationship.
    
    Steve F.
    
    

    
    RE: > just because Stevens has a Dr. in front of his name
    
        Correction: Col. not Dr.
    
         I stand self-corrected.
    

    
    Last Thursday night our New York hotline logged 50 sighting
    reports between 8:45 and 9:45 PM.
    
    Steve
    

	It would seem rather strange that such an advance civilization
	would spend its time abducting people and shoot pool, drink
	brew and watch I Love Lucy reruns :-). How long has these
	abductions supposedly going on - 10yrs, 50yrs, 100yr, 1000yrs?
	How come they have never asked: "Take us to your leaders".
	Wouldn't they want to abduct or talk to Ronnie and Gorbie?
	How about or scientist or artists. It seems these aliens are
	operating most illogically (or would their logic allow such
	actions.

    Re .418:
    
    I happen to be one who has serious reservations on the validity
    of UFOs being alien spacecraft.  However, to answer your
    questions/observations ...
    
    Some say the abductions have gone on for a long time.  The "Wheel
    within a wheel" passage of Ezekiel has been suggested to be some
    sort of extraterrestrial spacecraft.
    
    Why no leaders, scientists, or artists?  To minimize culture shock.
    
    On acting illogically: by our standards, the aliens can be insane.
    Who knows?  The cosmos might be filled with wiggies.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    
    I'd like to start some discussion around the subject of
    abductions.  I just finished reading "Intruders" by Budd
    Hopkins and found it to be disturbing.  *If* these abductions
    actually happened, and *if* the details of the events that
    occurred during the losses of time are true, I wouldn't want
    to be in these peoples (the abductees) shoes.  My heart goes
    out to them for the trauma and stress they have suffered.
    Those of you out there who have read this book, I'd like to
    hear what you thought of it and how it made you *feel*.  I
    would like to see the discussion have as it basis the
    assumption that these events happened, so this is not a skeptic-
    non-skeptic debate subject, ok guys?
    
    I guess the biggest question that the book left me with is
    "where is all this leading to?".  Any thoughts?
    
    Carole
    

< Note 27.417 by TWEED::S_FIRMANI >

I seem to be missing something about the Thursday night sightings.  What, if
anything, is being done to collect 'evidence'?  Have any photos been taken?
Is the cause already known and this is just a report of the number of people
who report it as a UFO?  Seems to me if it is happening almost predicatably,
then analysis of it would be straight forward.  HAs any been done?  With what
results?

-Joe

.420  Carole

>   I guess the biggest question that the book left me with is
>   "where is all this leading to?".  Any thoughts?

How about...
?? Book sales ??
Jay

    
    RE: .422
    
    Ok, ok....I realized that this could open up the possibility
    for a lot of jokes and stuff, but I was really sincerely asking
    for some discussion about this.  I know Steve F. has read the
    book....has anyone else.
    
    Carole
    
    P.S.  (and Jay, I know you did what you did because you just
           couldn't resist :-) ).
    

<-- Carole

ur right, i cudn't resist! ;')
I have not read the book, nor any of the others relating to abductions
(my wife has read them all). And, i probly shudn't make jokes, but
something about all this doesn't seem right to me. i am a skeptic
regarding abductions, while firmly believing that whatever happened to
the individuals involved seems(ed) very real to them.

Sincerely ;')
Jay

    
    RE: .421
    
    Joe,
    
    The best way to answer your questions would be by reading
    "Night Seige" by Philip Imbrogno. This has been an ongoing
    situation for years in New York and parts of Connecticut.
    My update was merely information that cases are still being
    reported.
    
    Steve F.
    

    re: New York Sightings
    
    OK, we went thru "why_don't_we_know_about_them" a while back,
    (accompanied by frayed tempers 8(>>)  let's not do _that_ again.
    
    In case I don't find a copy of the book, could we have better
    directions, any other details, from someone who does?
    
    It happens I grew up in W Connecticut, and will make run and
    _see_, given some better locations...
    
    thanks
    dave pierson

    
    re: .426
    
    The New York sightings began approximately eight years ago with
    over 1500 cases investigated within a 2 week span in areas in
    and around Brewster, NY. Most of these cases involved multiple
    witnesses (a good portion with highly technical backgrounds)
    some involving as much as or more than 30 witnesses at a time.
    Numerous incidents stopped traffic on the busy Taconic Parkway
    and were causing serious traffic hazards.
    
    The most frequently described object was a "huge" triangular
    or "boomerang shaped" object approximately 300' in size and
    moving very slowly and also showing the ability to rotate on
    its axis and at times completely disappear form one spot, only
    to suddenly reappear in another direction. Many of these sightings
    were reported by local and state police.
    
    Some of these sightings were found to be light aircraft flying in
    formation (a prank formed by the pilots after the origional incidents
    had occurred to try and prove that this is what the people were
    witnessing) but videotapes taken have shown a marked difference
    between the aircraft and the unusual aerial phenomena.
    
    At one point, a local police department would not cooperate with
    investigators because they felt it was rediculous, that is, until
    their officers themselves had reportedly sighted this object.
    Needless to say, since that time they have been very cooperative.
    
    In one incident, a local police chief summoned everyone out of
    a city council meeting, where all attending witnessed the event.
    The overall consensus is that many have seen both the aircraft
    formations and the object, and could easily tell the difference.
    
    
    These sightings have continued since that time, although not as
    frequently as in the begining, but there are reports being recieved
    and investigated every week and still comming in.
    
    In many cases witnesses reportedly were near enough (within 100
    feet) of the object and could see a definite beamed structure.
    It moved so slow at times that witnesses close enough could walk
    at a steady pace and keep under it. It made no sound whatsoever.
    
    These updates being placed on this note are mainly to inform noters
    of new reports being investigated and that the New York incidents
    are still occurring.
    
    Hope this sheds some light on things for you,
    
    Steve F.
                                                              
                                                                  

    re: Carole
    
    There has been some speculation that a certain amount of 'genetic
    engineering' has been going on Carole.  It might make for an
    interesting discussion if you're game_:-).
    
    Mary

    Re .428 (Mary):
    
    >There has been some speculation that a certain amount of 'genetic
    >engineering' has been going on Carole.
     
    I don't think there has been _any_ genetic engineering going on
    Carole. :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: -last two
     
        I wonder how Carole feels being game?
     
    :-)
    Frederick
    

    FYI --
    
    There is a good overview of this entire conversation in the 
    August 1987 issue of Reader's Digest.  Presented as an editorial
    review, it is entitled, "What's Behind Our UFO Mania?"  Time
    to sort out those old magazines...
    
    Maureen

    
    I cannot see where this discussion(Re: Abductions) is really getting
    anywhere. Carole began this conversation feeling that it would be
    interesting to discuss the depths of the abduction scenario and
    not the pros or cons of the posibilities of it's existence.
    
    It is very difficult to believe some of the stories because they
    seem so "unbelievable", but , no one (so far) has given me the
    impression that they have had any first hand experiences such as
    talking with an abductee and the investigators.
    
    It seems quite simple to read a book or a note, such as an armchair
    quarterback on a Sunday afternoon criticizing a player for dropping
    a ball and feeling that under the same circumstances he could have
    done better.
    
    Shurely, everyone has the right to their own opinion, but I can't
    see people having New Age belief systems(which I am openly skeptical
    about and believe that most things are possible) being so critical
    of other things which are outside their basic interest.
    
    Give it the benefit of a doubt. I do in the case of New Age.
    
    Steve F.
    

    
    
    Re:  last several replies
    
    Well, I'm still interested in speculating about the abduction
    cases, so I've put on my protective armor against all the
    ribbing that might be dished out - I can take it :-).
    
    *If they are true* - repeat - *if they are true*, and
    there really are hybrid beings, do they plan to keep coming
    back here for more genetic mixing, or are they going to 
    strengthen their own species and then go back to their home
    never to return here again, or do they plan to reach a point
    where they can intermingle with us?  
    
    I also got the feeling that these beings are not extraterrestrial,
    but interdimensional.  And that they could not exist here and we
    could not exist in their world (will the hybrids be able to exist
    in both?).
    
    Those who have read the book....any ideas?
    
    Carole
    
    P.S.  And you skeptics and hecklers out there, don't take this
          so seriously - it's just my curiousity at work.  And if
          you can't help yourselves, I'll love you anyway! :-)
    
    

    
    
    Re: .428 - .429 - .430
    
    Gee, I hope there was no genetic engineering going on, yikes! :-{
    I have been missing some time, though.....about 8 hours every
    night!  However, ever since I've been doing my Gemini north node,
    I've been feeling *very* different.  Mary, being a Gemini, you
    would know what it's like!
    
    Steve, thanks for asking - I've been feeling pretty good lately!
    
    And Frederick, I guess I am game!  And it's ok!
    
    Carole
    

RE: Carole;

	They may want to strengthen their own gene pool.   They may want
to influence *our* gene pool.   They may have other motives that wouldn't
even occur to us.   I wouldn't want them messing with *my* family, as I
think they are up to no good.  (from a human point of view.)   Although,
in general, genetic diversity may be good for a gene pool.     (well, maybe
if she's *nice*, and cute...  ;^)    

	This genetic interference may have been going on for a long time.   
Lots of people were said to have had sexual encounters with the "fairies".
Ever hear of Morgan le Fey  (Morgan of the fairies)?  She was said to be 
King Arthur's sister, and quite a magician in her own right.   Perhaps 
many people through history, who have been known for unusual powers, might 
actually have been half-breeds of one sort or another.    Perhaps they have 
certain blood lines that they track through many generations.   They may want 
to control politics through influence on key families.   Here it is interesting
to note that a lot of kings in the old days ruled "by right of divine
descent"!

	Jacques Vallee says, in his "Messengers of Deception" that they
may be programming a random percentage of people.   He notes that most
sightings begin with the sighting of a light, that often seems hypnotic.
He hypothesizes that the light may be the only real part of the remembered
event, which may consist entirely of hallucinatory experiences.   From this
point of view, the whole of a UFO experience might be analyzed more like
a dream or a psychodrama, rather than as a physical event.  From that
point of view we should ask;  what does gene manipulation symbolize?
What attitudes would these dramas tend to create;  
	Some possibilities:  
"my children will be utterly unlike me..."    
"i am the property of these other beings..."    
"i am a chosen vessel..."

		speculatively,
		Alan.

    
    	I heard an interview with Budd Hopkins, and some of the abductees,
    on NPR news, (national public radio) on their "weekend edition"
    saturday.    The conversation included both statements by the
    abductees, and some skeptical denials by some of the reporters.
    The conversations sounded much like the reactions here, with the
    same general type of vague skepticism.
    
    	NPR's reporter mentioned that he felt the witnesses were credible,
    and that he had seen many witnesses over the years, from accidents
    and wars, and that he personally believed that these people had
    been through some major trauma, and were not misrepresenting what
    had happened, but were genuinely trying to commuicate and warn
    humanity.
    
    	These events, as they are reported, seem quite incredible, and
    it is all too easy to dismiss it all as unfounded or fabricated.
    If it is real (and I believe there *is* something real going on
    here!) then it is a grave mistake to explain it all away and go
    on with our collective heads in the sand.

    	Alan.

    
    	The experience of the abductees is similar in many respects
    to the treatment we have given to wild animals;   We capture an
    animal from the herd, possibly using an anesthetic or tranquilizer.
    Then we subject the animal to a medical procedure, during which
    we attach a tag or radio beacon so we can track the animal and
    it's movement in the herd.   Then we release the animal back into
    it's environment.   Later the same animal may be recaptured and
    the tag removed, or replaced.
    
	If these events are *symbolic* in nature, I suspect that it
    may be an indictment of our own treatment of animals.   On the
    other hand, it may simply be an alien science as detached and
    uncaring as our own.   There may be the action of genuine *karma*
    here.

    	Alan.

    
    
         Has anyone considered that these aliens might in fact be human
    beings from some future time--perhaps hundreds of thousands of years
    in the future? To me at least, that seems like the most plausible
    explanation. I believe that time travel will eventually be a reality
    and we may simply be seeing its effects now. Another piece of evidence
    that leads me to believe this is that nearly all of the descriptions
    of what these creatures supposedly look like appear to be the same.
    They all have this similar *humanoid* appearance that would make
    it seem that they are all from the same place. So where else would
    humanoids come from except Earth?
         I remember first reading this theory about a year ago and it
    just fits better than anything else. Any comments?
    
    
    Roy

    Re .438 (Roy):
    
    Well, speaking as one who takes time-travel very lightly, I'd say
    that --
    
    1) _If_ the reports of appearance are valid, and
    
    2) _If_ the reports of possible genetic reasons for contact are
       true,
    
    then it makes more sense than aliens-from-the-Great_Beyond, since
    there would be a probavblle genetic match.
    
    Hie-de-ho...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

>         Has anyone considered that these aliens might in fact be human
>    beings from some future time--perhaps hundreds of thousands of years
>    in the future? 

I think that this is within the Realm of Possibilities - that's the place where 
you can't yet know if the idea is true, but you do know it is possible, even 
though you might still be sceptical.  I think any of us ought to be able to put 
it there.

>    I believe that time travel will eventually be a reality
>    and we may simply be seeing its effects now. 

Also possible.

>    Another piece of evidence
>    that leads me to believe this is that nearly all of the descriptions
>    of what these creatures supposedly look like appear to be the same.
>    They all have this similar *humanoid* appearance that would make
>    it seem that they are all from the same place. So where else would
>    humanoids come from except Earth?

Well, humanoids could come from just about anyplace, assuming that there are 
places out there that would call for similar lifeforms, which science would 
lead us to believe, is true.  Infinity is a mighty long...what, time, space, 
what???  You get the picture...I think...Anyway, one thing in favor of this 
argument;  If I were from the year 3000, and I knew the result of some things 
that happened in 1988, and I knew that, by going back to 1988 and changing 
certain things, I could change things in 3000 for the better, and going back 
was possible, I would go back.

The Possibilities Are Infinite.

Carla, can we go for that Bud now?? ;-)

    RE:438
    
    A thought came into my head as I neared the end of COMMUNION that
    sent chills down my spine.  Strieber was careful NOT to allude to
    this particular speculation, but his described imagery might suggest
    this anyway:  Perhaps they ARE us.
    
    When confronted with an incensed Strieber, the "female" being 'says'
    to him (via sound and/or brain waves) "WE DO HAVE A RIGHT."  The
    right of survival of the species, I assume.
    
    The Bible and other appocalyptic writings mention the last reigning
    species of the history of the world as being a kingdom of INSECTS.
    These beings seem to be a cross between our familiar humanoid form
    and that of an insect.  
    
    Take, for example, the EYES:  Huge, black, bug-like, CONVEX.  Could
    this be the evolutionary result of increased levels of radiation,
    either via deterioration of the Earth's ozone layer, nuclear war
    or both?  Interesting questions...perhaps we shouldn't wait too
    long to ponder the answers.
    
    Scenario:
    
    "Man" lives on, adapting genetically to his increasingly caustic
    environment.  Half a millenia passes, and a new "species" has evolved.
    But the heart of man remembers.  He remembers different colored
    eyes that reflect light.  He remembers the texture of hair, the
    agility lent by developed muscles, the resonance of real vocal sound
    hitting the air...And he longs to re-integrate the genes of the
    species of old.  The Earth's electromagnetic properties are no longer
    a mystery to this man, and he harnesses these properties using the
    technology of the times.  Then, the time barrier is broken.  And
    you know the rest...
    
    Sound like an episode of your favorite sci-fi show?  Perhaps...But
    still I wonder.........
    
    Maureen

    Lifted from the Thursday, 14 "Accent" supplement to the Assabet
    Beacon (and several other Eastern Mass paper.
    
    "Public awareness of presumed abductions of humans by alien beings
    has been growing...
    
    A two day public conference on UFO Abductions will be held at the
    Best Western TLC Hotel in Waltham, 6 & 7 May...
    
    ... well known authors  such as Bud Hopkins..., Ray Fowler...,
    and other speakers who say the have been abducted.
    
    For hard-nosed skeptics.... David Webb a scientist who lives in
    Burlington...one of an unexpectedly large number of professional
    scientists who take the UFO/abduction phenomenon very seriously
    indeed."
    
    Conference starts Friday evening, 6 May, 8pm, and will continue
    to 5:00pm, Sat.  Full registration, $75.00.  Advance registration
    through Psi Syymposium, 117 Stanley Rd, Swampscott, Ma 01907.
    Partial registration available.
    
    (Pardon, all, if this has already been entered elsewhere.
      Just got back vacation, and haven't quite caught up 8)>>...
    
    thanks
    dwp

    I think it's very possible for "UFO'S" to be humans from the future!I
    was waiting for this topic to arise! Does anyone watch Star Trek??
    Anyway, there was an episode where the Enterprise went back into
    the past to the early 1900's( via, speed of light travel). There
    was a women that they knew was going to get hit by a car and killed
    but they couldn't do anything about it because they might change
    their course of history.
    	The point I'm trying to make is, maybe our friends in space
    cannot land on earth because they're afraid they might change the
    future, which in turn would effect their lives! ( How did I do?!?!)

    Re .443:
    
    Not bad, but if you use the changing-history model, then even _seeing_
    the "UFO" would potentially change the past.  For instance, a person
    who might otherwise have crossed a dimly lit street without incident
    could have been distracted by a glowing UFO so that the driver of
    a car, similarely distracted, might hit him or her as the person
    was crossing the street. (Just to parallel the _Star Trek_ example,
    although that particular episode, "The City on the Edge of Forever,"
    written by Harlan Ellison, actually used a time/space gate rather
    than the faster-than-light "slingshot" method used in other shows.)
    _Any_ visible return to the past could produce unacceptable
    consequences.
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    	Just your opinion,Steve... *What if* a certain human being was
    to travel back in time(say, 100 yrs)and cross one of his ancestors.
    I don't have an evil mind but curios... What if he was to kill that
    induvidule? Would he himself vanish or continue to live his *own*
    life.
    
    							jim
    

    Re .445 (Jim):
    
    This was covered somewhat in another note.  To synopsize, if that
    person destroyed his or her ancestor, he or she would cease to exist.
    This would mean that he or she did _not_ kill the ancestor, so
    the ancestor would be around to produce the person who went back
    in time, etc.
    
    In short, the "universe" would oscillate between the two states
    of ancestor_being_killed and ancestor_not_being_killed.
    
    Kinda like a flip/flop.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I prefer the idea of a continuous realtimeline in which your 
    going back from the present (or future) to the past already 
    happened; therefore if you go back with the intent of commiting 
    suicide by killing your grandfather would be impossible, even 'tho
    you planned on doing it tomorrow, because it has already happened.
                                    
    Your personal timeline jumps around but the realtimeline stays
    continuous and unbroken (and therefore unalterable).  A TZ show
    had a fellow gonig back in time to change history--he tried to warn
    the Titanic crew about the iceberg and was thought crazy, he tried
    to assinate Hitler but the weapon misfired, etc.
    
    Mr Kallis' theory of a flip/flop loop could potentially put us all
    in a repeating time loop: past, present, but no future.  Something
    *else* for us to worry about.  :-)
    
    						Don
                   
    

    re:.446
    
    Steven, I beg to differ (what else is new?).  Pure and simply, the
    past can't be changed.  Because whatever a person from the future
    did to his past would be PART of his past.  It would be possible for a
    person to kill his grandfather only after his grandfather reproduced.
    It is impossible the other way; like lifting yourself off the ground
    by your bootstraps.  The killer would not disappear because the
    killer would not exist to kill in the first place.
    
    John M.

    	How about the theory that if someone goes back in time and changes
    the past, while he/she may not be able to affect his/her spacetime
    continuum, their actions create a new reality in which the results
    of their changes occur, thus in effect the changes do exist because
    they happen, but do not upset the reality which the time traveler
    originally came from.
    
    	I think this belongs in a Topic on time travel, if one does
    not already exist for it in this Conference.
    
    	Larry
    

    	DEJAVU Topics on time and time travel:
    
    	Topics 149, 212, 220, 551
    
    	Found through the "magic" of DIR/TITLE=topicname
                           
    	Larry
               

    Did anyone attend last weekends UFO conference? I was not able to
    make it. Any comments?
    
    Steve

    No, My craft stalled out between Saturn and Jupiter without a space
    station in sight!!!  ;-)...
    
    Terry
    

    Must have been a loooooooong weekend out there!
    
    Steve

    	There is now an entire VAX Notes Conference devoted to the
    discussion of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), located at
    OCTAVE::UFOS.
    
    	Press the KP7 or SELECT key to add UFOS to your Notebook.
    
    	Larry
    

	Regarding .0's avowed skepticism in the UFO arena, I'm going
    to add that I am the same way.

	I also am a pilot. I recently had a peculiar mid-air event that
    is described in CRAKRS::FLYING   DIR/TITLE=Unidentified object 
     if anyone is interested.

Scooter

        This is a little funny and perhaps a little frightening. Comments?
 
 >> John Lear has requested that the following file be published on ParaNet. 
 
It is our philosophy to encourage debate on paranormal issues, no matter
how controversial, and we welcome his input. The information contained in
this file has not been verified by ParaNet, nor do the opinions expressed
herein necessarily reflect those of the Administrator or other ParaNet
staff members. We can state, however, that John is who he says he is, and
has numerous contacts in sensitive positions that could conceivably allow
him access to information of this type.
-------------------------
 
                        Statement Released By:
 
                              John Lear
 
                          December 29, 1987
 
John Lear, a captain for a major US Airline has flown over 160 
different types of aircraft in over 50 different countries.  He holds 
17 world speed record in the Lear Jet and is the only pilot ever to 
hold every airline certificate issued by the Federal Aviation 
Administration.  Mr. Lear has flown missions worldwide for the CIA and 
other government agencies.   A former Nevada State Senator candidate, 
he is the son of William P. Lear, designer of the Lear Jet executive 
airplane, the 8-track stereo, and founder of Lear Siegler Corporation.  
Lear became interested in the subject of UFO's 13 months ago after 
talking with United States Air Force Personnel who had witnessed a UFO 
landing at Bentwaters AFB, near London, England, and three small 
aliens walking up to the Wing Commander.
 
Note to the Press:
        The government of the United States continues to rely on your 
personal and professional gullibility to suppress the information 
contained herein.  Your cooperation over the past 40 years has exceeded 
our wildest expectations and we salute you.
        
        "The sun does not revolve around the Earth"
        "The United States Government has been in business 
         with little gray extraterrestrials for about 20 years"
 
The first truth stated here got Giordano Bruno burned at the stake in AD 
1600 for daring to propose that it was real.  The second truth has 
gotten far more people killed trying to state it publicly than will ever 
be known.
 
But the truth must be told.  The fact that the Earth revolves around the 
sun was successfully suppressed by the church for over 200 years.  It 
eventually cause a major upheaval in the church, government, and 
thought.  A realignment of social and traditional values.  That was in 
the 1800's.
 
Now, about 400 years after the first truth was pronounced we must again 
face the shocking facts.  The "horrible truth" the government has been 
hiding from us over 40 years.  Unfortunately, the "horrible truth" is 
far more horrible than the government ever imagined.
 
In its effort to protect democracy, our government sold us to the 
aliens.  And here is how it happened.  But before I begin, I'd like to 
offer a word in the defense of those who bargained us away.  They had 
the best of intentions.
 
Germany may have recovered a flying saucer as early as 1939.  General 
James H. Doolittle went to Sweden in 1946 to inspect a flying saucer 
that had crashed there in Spitzbergen.  
 
The "horrible truth" was known by only a very few persons: They were 
indeed ugly little creatures, shaped like praying mantises and who were 
more advanced than us by perhaps a billion years.  Of the original group 
that were the first to learn the "horrible truth", several committed 
suicide, the most prominent of which was General James V. Forrestal who 
jumped to his death from a 16th story hospital window.  General 
Forrestal's medical records are sealed to this day.
 
President Truman quickly put a lid on the secret and turned the screws 
so tight that the general public still thinks that flying saucers are a 
joke.  Have I ever got a surprise for them.  
 
In 1947, President Truman established a group of 12 of the top military 
scientific personnel of their time.  They were known as MJ-12.  Although 
the group exists today, none of the original members are still alive.  
The last one to die was Gordon Gray, former Secretary of the Army, in 
1984.  As each member passed away, the group itself appointed a new 
member to fill the position.  There is some speculation that the group 
known as MJ-12 expanded to at least several more members.
 
There were several more saucer crashes in the late 1940's, one in 
Roswell, New Mexico, one in Aztec, New Mexico, and one near Laredo, 
Texas, about 30 miles inside the Mexican border.  
 
Consider, if you will, the position of the United States Government at 
that time.  They proudly thought of themselves as the most powerful 
nation on Earth, having recently produced the atomic bomb, and 
achievement so stupendous, it would take Russia 4 years to catch up, and 
only with the help of traitors to Democracy.  They had built a jet 
aircraft that had exceeded the speed of sound in flight.  They had built 
jet bombers with intercontinental range that could carry weapons of 
enormous destruction.  The post war era, and the future seemed bright.  
Now imagine what it was like for those same leaders, all of whom had 
witnessed the panic of Orson Wells' radio broadcast, "The War of the 
Worlds", in 1938.  Thousands of Americans panicked at a realistically 
presented invasion of Earth by beings from another planet. Imagine their 
horror as they actually viewed the dead bodies of these frightening 
looking little creatures with enormous eyes, reptilian skin and claw 
like fingers.  Imagine their shock as they attempted to determine how 
these strange "saucers" were powered and could discover no part even 
remotely similar to components they were familiar with: no cylinders or 
pistons, no vacuum tubes or turbines or hydraulic actuators.  It is 
only when you fully understand the overwhelming helplessness the 
government was faced with in the late 40's that you can comprehend their 
perceived need for a total, thorough and sweeping cover up, to include 
the use of "deadly force".
 
The cover-up was so successful that as late as 1985 a senior scientist 
with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, Dr. Al 
Hibbs, would look at a video tape of an enormous flying saucer and state 
the record, "I'm not going to assign anything to that (UFO) phenomena 
without a lot more data".  Dr. Hibbs was looking at the naked emperor 
and saying, "He certainly looks naked, but that doesn't prove he's 
naked."
 
In July of 1952, a panicked government watched helplessly as squadron of 
"flying saucers" flew over Washington, D.C., and buzzed the White House, 
the Capitol Building, and the Pentagon.  It took all the imagination and 
intimidation the government could muster to force that incident out of 
the memory of the public.
 
Thousands of sightings occurred during the Korean war and several more 
sauces were retrieved by the Air Force.  Some were stored at Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, some were stored at Air Force bases near the 
location of the crash sight.
 
One saucer was so enormous and the logistic problems in transportation 
so enormous that it was buried at the crash sight and remains there 
today.  The stories are legendary on transporting crashed saucers over 
long distances, moving only at night, purchasing complete farms, 
slashing through forests, blocking major highways, sometimes driving 2 
and 3 lo-boys in tandem with and extraterrestrial load a hundred feet 
in diameter.
 
On April 30, 1964, the first communication between these aliens and the 
U.S. Government took place at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico.  3 
saucers landed at a prearranged area and a meeting was held between the 
aliens and intelligence officers of the U.S. Government.
 
During the period of 1969-1971, MJ-12 representing the U.S. Government 
made a deal with these creatures, called EBE's (Extraterrestrial 
Biological Entities, named by Detley Bronk, original MJ-12 member and 
6th President of Johns Hopkins University).  The "deal" was that in 
exchange for "technology" that they would provide to us, we agreed to 
"ignore" the abductions that were going on and suppress information on 
the cattle mutilations.  The EBE's assured MJ-12 that the abductions 
(usually lasting about 2 hours) were merely the ongoing monitoring of 
developing civilizations.
 
In fact, the purposes for the abductions turned out to be:
 
        (1) The insertion of a 3mm spherical device through
            the nasal cavity of the abductee into the brain.
            the device is used for the biological monitoring,
            tracking, and control of the abductee.
 
        (2) Implementation of Posthypnotic Suggestion to carry
            out a specific activity during a specific time period,
            the actuation of which will occur within the next
            2 to 5 years.
 
        (3) Termination of some people so that they could function
            as living sources for biological material and
            substances.
 
        (4) Termination of individuals who represent a threat to
            the continuation of their activity.
 
        (5) Effect genetic engineering experiments.
 
        (6) Impregnation of human females and early termination of
            pregnancies to secure the crossbreed infant.
 
The U.S. Government was not initially aware of the far reaching 
consequences of their "deal".  They were led to believe that the 
abductions were essentially benign and since they figured the abductions 
would probably go on anyway whether they agreed or not, they merely 
insisted that a current list of abductees be submitted, on a periodic 
basis, to MJ-12 and the National Security Council.  Does this sound 
incredible?  An actual list of abductees sent to the National Security 
Council?  Read on, because I have news for you.
 
The EBE's have a genetic disorder in that their digestive system is 
atrophied and not functional.  Some speculate that they were involved in 
some type of accident or nuclear war, or possibly on the back side of 
and evolutionary genetic curve.  In order to sustain themselves they use 
an enzyme or hormonal secretion obtained from the tissue that they 
extract from humans and animals. (Note: Cows and Humans are genetically 
similar.  In the event of a national disaster, cow's blood can be used 
by humans.)
 
The secretions obtained are then mixed with hydrogen peroxide and 
applied on the skin by spreading or dipping parts of their bodies in the 
solution.  The body absorbs the solution, then excretes the waste back 
through the skin.  The cattle mutilations that were prevalent throughout 
the period from 1973 to 1983 and publicly noted through newspaper and 
magazine stories and included a documentary produced by Linda Howe for 
the Denver CBS affiliate KMGH-TV, were for the collection of these 
tissues by the aliens.  The mutilations included genitals taken, rectums 
cored out to the colon, eyes, tongue, and throat all surgically removed 
with extreme precision.  In some cases the incisions were made by 
cutting between the cells, a process we are not yet capable of 
performing in the field.  In many of the mutilations there was no blood 
found at all in the carcass, yet there was no vascular collapse of the 
internal organs.  This has been also noted in the human mutilations, one 
of the first of which was Sgt. Jonathan P. Louette at the White Sands 
Missile Test Range in 1956, who was found three days after an Air Force 
Major had witnessed his abduction by a "disk shaped" object at 0300 
while on a search for missile debris downrange.  His genitals had been 
removed, rectum cored out in a surgically precise "plug" up to the 
colon, eyes removed and all blood removed with, again, no vascular 
collapse.  From some of the evidence it is apparent that this surgery is 
accomplished, in most cases, while the victim, animal or human, is still 
alive.
 
The various parts of the body are taken to various underground 
laboratories, one of which is known to be near the small New Mexico town 
of Dulce.  This jointly occupied (CIA-Alien) facility has been described 
as enormous, with huge tiled walls that "go on forever".  Witnesses have 
reported huge vats filled with amber liquid with parts of human bodies 
being stirred inside.
 
After the initial agreement, Groom Lake, one of this nations most secret 
test centers, was closed for a period of about a year, sometime between 
about 1972 and 1974, and a huge underground facility was constructed for 
and with the help of the EBE's.  The "bargained for" technology was set 
in place but could only be operated by the EBE's themselves.  Needless 
to say, the advanced technology could not be used against the EBE's 
themselves, even if needed.
 
During the period between 1979 and 1983 it became increasingly obvious 
to MJ-12 that things were not going as planned.  It became known that 
many more people (in the thousands) were being abducted than were listed 
on the official abduction lists.  In addition it became obvious that 
some, not all, but some of the nation's missing children had been used 
for secretions and other parts required by the aliens.
 
In 1979 there was an altercation of sorts at the Dulce laboratory.  A 
special armed forces unit was called in to try and free a number of our 
people trapped in the facility, who had become aware of what was really 
going on.  According to one source, 66 of the soldiers were killed and 
our people were not freed.
 
By 1984, MJ-12 must have been in stark terror at the mistake they had 
made in dealing with the EBE's.  They had subtly promoted "Close 
Encounters of the Third Kind" and "E.T." to get the public used to "odd 
looking" aliens that were compassionate, benevolent and very much our 
"space brothers".  MJ-12 "sold" the EBE's to the public, and were now 
faced with the fact that quite the opposite was true.  In addition, a 
plan was formulated in 1968 to make the public aware of the existence of 
aliens on earth over the next 20 years to be culminated with several 
documentaries to be released during 1985-1987 period of time.  These 
documentaries would explain the history and intentions of the EBE's.  
The discovery of the "Grand Deception" put the entire plans, hopes and 
dreams of MJ-12 into utter confusion and panic.
 
Meeting at the "Country Club", a remote lodge with private golf course, 
comfortable sleeping and working quarters, and its own private airstrip 
built by and exclusively for the member of MJ-12, it was a factional 
fight of what to do now.  Part of MJ-12 wanted to confess the whole 
scheme and shambles it had become to the public, beg their forgiveness 
and ask for their support.  The other part (and majority) of MJ-12 
argued that there was no way they could do that, that the situation was 
untenable and there was no use in exciting the public with the "horrible 
truth" and that the best plan was to continue the development of a 
weapon that could be used against the EBE's under the guise of "SDI", 
the Strategic Defense Initiative, which had nothing whatsoever to do 
with a defense for inbound Russian nuclear missiles.  As these words are 
being written, Dr. Edward Teller, "father" of the H-Bomb is personally 
in the test tunnels of the Nevada Test Site, driving his workers and 
associates in the words of one, "like a man possessed".  And well he 
should, for Dr. Teller is a member of MJ-12 along with Dr. Kissenger, 
Admiral Bobby Inman, and possibly Admiral Poindexter, to name a few of 
the current members of MJ-12.
 
Before the "Grand Deception" was discovered and according to a 
meticulous plan of metered release of information to the public, several 
documentaries and video tapes were made.  William Moore, a Burbank, 
California, based UFO researcher who wrote "The Roswell Incident", a 
book published in 1980 that detailed the crash, recovery and subsequent 
cover-up of a UFO with 4 alien bodies, has a video tape of 2 newsmen 
interviewing a military officer associated with MJ-12.  This military 
officer answers questions relating to the history of MJ-12 and the 
cover-up, the recovery of a number of flying saucers and the existence 
of a live alien (one of 3 living aliens captured and designated, or 
named, EBE-1, EBE-2, and EBE-3, being held in a facility designated as 
YY-II at Los Alamos, New Mexico.  The only other facility of this type, 
which is electromagnetically secure, is at Edwards Air Force Base in 
Mojave, California).  The officer names as previously mentioned 
plus a few others: Harold Brown, Richard Helms, Gen. Vernon Walters, 
JPL's Dr. Lew Allen and Dr. Theodore von Karman, to name a few of the 
current and past members of MJ-12.
 
The officer also relates the fact that the EBE's claim to have created 
Christ.  The EBE's have a type of recording device that has recorded all 
of Earth's history and can display it in the form of a hologram.  This 
hologram can be filmed but because of the way holograms work does not 
come out very clear on movie film or video tape.  The crucifixion of 
Christ on the Mount of Olives has allegedly been put on film to show the 
public.  The EBE's claim to have created Christ, which, in view of the 
"Grand Deception", could be an effort to disrupt traditional values for 
undetermined reasons.
 
Another video tape allegedly in existence is an interview with an EBE.  
Since EBE's communicate telepathically, and Air Force Colonel serves as 
an interpreter.  Just before the recent stock market correction in 
October of 1987, several newsmen, including Bill Moore, had been invited 
to Washington, D.C., to personally film the EBE in a similar type 
interview, and distribute the film to the public.  Apparently, because 
of the correction in the market, it was felt the timing was not 
propitious.  In any case, it certainly seems like an odd method to 
inform the public of extraterrestrials, but it would be in keeping with 
the actions of a panicked organization who at this point in time doesn't 
know which way to turn.
 
Moore is also in possession of more Aquarius documents, a few pages of 
which leaked out several years ago and detailed the supersecret NSA 
project which had been denied by them until just recently.  In a letter 
to Senator John Glenn, NSA's Director of Policy, Julia B. Wetzel, wrote, 
"Apparently there is or was an Air Force project with that name 
(Aquarius) which dealt with UFO's. Coincidently, there is also an NSA 
project by that name."  NSA's project Aquarius deals specifically with 
the "communications wit the aliens" (the EBE's).  Within the Aquarius 
program was project "Snowbird", a project to test-fly a recovered alien 
aircraft at Groom Lake, Nevada.  This project continues today at that 
location.  In the words of an individual who works at Groom Lake, "Our 
people are much better at taking things apart than they are at putting 
them back together."
 
Moore, who claims he has a contact with MJ-12, feels that they have been 
stringing him along, slipping him documents and providing him leads, 
promising to go public with some of the information on extraterrestrials 
by the end of 1987.
 
Certain of Moore's statements lead one to believe that Moore himself is 
a government agent working for MJ-12, not to be strung along, but string 
along ever hopeful UFOlogists that the truth is just around the corner.  
Consider:
 
        1. Moore states emphatically that he is not a government
           agent, although when Lee Graham (a Southern California
           based UFOlogist) was investigated by DIS (Defense
           Investigative Service) for possession of classified
           documents received from Moore, Moore himself was not.
 
        2. Moore states emphatically that the cattle mutilations
           of 1973-1983 were a hoax by Linda Howe (producer of 
           "A Strange Harvest") to create publicity for herself.
           He cites the book "Mute Evidence" as the bottom line of
           the hoax.  "Mute Evidence" was a government sponsored
           book to explain the mutilations in conventional terms.
 
        3. Moore states that the U.S.A.F. Academy physics book,
           "Introductory Space Science", vol. II chapter 13, entitled
           "Unidentified Flying Objects", which describes four of
           the most commonly seen aliens (one of which is the EBE)
           was written by Lt. Col. Edward R. Therkelson and Major
           Donald B. Carpenter, Air Force personnel who did not
           know what they were talking about and were merely siting
           "crackpot" references.  He, Moore, states that the book
           was withdrawn to excise the chapter.
 
If the government felt they were being forced to acknowledge the 
existence of aliens on Earth because of the overwhelming evidence such 
as the October and November sightings in Wytheville, Va., and recently 
released books such as "Night Siege" (Hynek, J. Allen;Imbrogno, Phillip 
J.;Pratt, Bob:Night Siege, Ballantine Books, Random House, New York), 
and taking into consideration the "grand deception" and obviously hostile 
intentions of the EBE's, it might be expedient for MJ-12 to admit the 
EBE's but conceal the information on the mutilations and abductions.  If 
MJ-12 and Moore were in some kind of agreement then it would be 
beneficial to Moore to tow the party line.  For example, MJ-12 would 
say..."here are some more genuine documents...but remember...no talking 
about the mutilations or abductions".  This would be beneficial to Moore 
as it would supply the evidence to support his theory that E.T.'s exist 
but deny the truths about the E.T.'s.  However, if Moore was indeed 
working for MJ-12, he would follow the party line anyway...admitting the 
E.T.'s but pooh poohing the mutilations and abductions.  If working 
alone, Moore might not even be aware of the "grand deception".
 
Time will tell.  It is possible that Moore will go ahead and release the 
video interview with the military officer around the first of the year, 
as he has promised.  From MJ-12's point of view, the public would be 
exposed to the information without really having to believe it because 
Moore is essentially not as credible a source as, say, the President of 
the United States.  After a few months of digestion and discussion, a 
more credible source could emerge with a statement that yes in fact the 
interview was essentially factual.  This scenario would cushion somewhat 
the blow to the public.  If, however, Moore does not release the tape 
by, say, February 1 of 1988, but comes instead with a story similar to: 
"MJ-12 has informed me that they are definitely planning a release of 
all information by October of 88.  I have seen the plan and have seen 
the guarantee that this will happen, so I have decided to withhold the 
release of my video tape at this time as it may cause some problems with 
MJ-12's plans."  This would in effect buy more time for MJ-12 and time 
is what they desperately need.
 
Now you ask, "Why haven't I heard about any of this?"  Who do you think 
you would hear it from?  Dan Rather?  Tom Brokaw?  Sam Donaldson?  
Wrong.  These people just read the news, they don't find it.  They have 
ladies who call and interview witnesses and verify statements on stories 
coming over the wire (either AP or UPI).  It's not like Dan Rather would 
go down to Wytheville, Virginia, and dig into why there were 4 THOUSAND 
reported sightings in October and November of 1987.  Better that Tom 
Brokaw or someone else should risk their credibility on this type of 
story.  Tom Brokaw?  Tom wants Sam Donaldson to risk his credibility.  
No one, but no one, is going to risk their neck on such outlandish 
ideas, regardless of how many people report sightings of 900 foot 
objects running them off the road.  In the case of the Wytheville 
sightings, dozens of vans with NASA lettered on the side failed to 
interest newsmen.  And those that asked questions were informed that 
NASA was doing a weather survey.
 
Well then, you ask, what about our scientists?  What about Carl Sagan?  
Isaac Asimov?  Arthur C. Clarke?  Wouldn't they have known?  If Carl 
Sagan knows then he is committing a great fraud through the solicitation 
of memberships in the Planetary Society, "to search for extraterrestrial 
intelligence".  Another charade into which the U.S. Government dumps 
million of dollar every year is the radiotelescope in Arecibo, Puerto 
Rico, operated by Cornell University with - guess who? - Carl Sagan.  
Cornell is ostensibly searching for signals from Outer Space, a sign 
maybe, that somebody is out there.  It is hard to believe that 
relatively intelligent astronomers like Sagan could be so ignorant.
 
What about Isaac Asimov?  Surely the most prolific science fiction 
writer of all time would have guessed by now that there must be an 
enormous cover-up?  Maybe, but if he knows he's not saying.  Perhaps 
he's afraid that Foundation and Empire will turn out to be inaccurate.
 
What about Arthur C. Clarke?  Surely the most technically accurate of 
Science Fiction writers with very close ties to NASA would have at least 
a hint of what's really going on.  Again, if so he isn't talking.  In a 
recent Science Fiction survey, Clarke estimates that contact with 
extraterrestrial intelligent life would not occur before the 21st 
Century.
 
If the government won't tell us the truth and the major networks won't 
even give it serious consideration, then what is the big picture, 
anyway?  Are the EBE's, having done a hundred thousand or more 
abductions (possibly millions worldwide), built an untold number of 
secret underground bases (Groom Lake, Nevada; Sunspot, Datil, Roswell, 
and Pine Town, New Mexico, just to name a few) getting ready to return 
to wherever they came from?  Or, form the obvious preparations are we to 
assume that they are getting ready for a big move?  Or is the more 
sinister and most probable situation that the invasion is essentially 
complete and it is all over but the screaming?
 
A well planned invasion of Earth for it's resources and benefits would 
not begin with mass landings of ray-gun equipped aliens.  A properly 
planned and executed invasion by a civilization thousands and probably 
hundreds of thousands of years in advance of us would most likely be 
complete before even a handful of people, say 12?, realized what was 
happening.  No fuss, no muss.  The best advice I can give you is this:
Next time you see a flying saucer and are awed by its obvious display of 
technology and gorgeous lights of pure color - RUN LIKE HELL!

 
>Note to the Press:
>        The government of the United States continues to rely on your 
>personal and professional gullibility to suppress the information 
>contained herein.  Your cooperation over the past 40 years has exceeded 
>our wildest expectations and we salute you.

        Nice little gouge into the Press' side.. B^)
>                
>        "The sun does not revolve around the Earth"
>        "The United States Government has been in business 
>         with little gray extraterrestrials for about 20 years"
> 
>The first truth stated here got Giordano Bruno burned at the stake in AD 
>1600 for daring to propose that it was real.  The second truth has 
>gotten far more people killed trying to state it publicly than will ever 
>be known.
 
        I've seen this little trick used many times to give credibility to
    the secondary premise. The first and second premise have no bearing
    upon one another. Indeed the second premise may be utterly false or
    nonexistant and have no relationship to the first premise.
        
>        Now, about 400 years after the first truth was pronounced we must
> again face the shocking facts.  The "horrible truth" the government has
> been hiding from us over 40 years.  Unfortunately, the "horrible truth"
> is far more horrible than the government ever imagined.
 
        Truth, what truth? I'd rather see truth in advertizing, truth in
    government, and a balanced budget than the truth that the governemtn is
    run by little green mantis looking reptiles.
                
>In its effort to protect democracy, our government sold us to the 
>aliens.  And here is how it happened.  But before I begin, I'd like to 
>offer a word in the defense of those who bargained us away.  They had 
>the best of intentions.

        Again, no proof. Just hysterics.
                 
>Germany may have recovered a flying saucer as early as 1939.  General 
>James H. Doolittle went to Sweden in 1946 to inspect a flying saucer 
>that had crashed there in Spitzbergen.  
 
        Again no proof, hysterics abound.
        
>The "horrible truth" was known by only a very few persons: They were 
>indeed ugly little creatures, shaped like praying mantises and who were 
>more advanced than us by perhaps a billion years.  Of the original group 
>that were the first to learn the "horrible truth", several committed 
>suicide, the most prominent of which was General James V. Forrestal who 
>jumped to his death from a 16th story hospital window.  General 
>Forrestal's medical records are sealed to this day.
 
        How convienient that all the witnesses are dead. Sounds like a
    "Mystery to Me" (by Fleetwood Mac).
                
>President Truman quickly put a lid on the secret and turned the screws 
>so tight that the general public still thinks that flying saucers are a 
>joke.  Have I ever got a surprise for them.  
 
        Again, no proof and no references, more hysterics.
         
>There were several more saucer crashes in the late 1940's, one in 
>Roswell, New Mexico, one in Aztec, New Mexico, and one near Laredo, 
>Texas, about 30 miles inside the Mexican border.  
 
        Didn't dose crazy piolts know how to fly dem things? It seems
    incredulous that a race has the ability to traverse light years and
    doesn't have the ability to fly safely around the planet. Sounds like a
    comedy of errors to me.
  
        More hysterics based upon history deleted.
 
>The cover-up was so successful that as late as 1985 a senior scientist 
>with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, Dr. Al 
>Hibbs, would look at a video tape of an enormous flying saucer and state 
>the record, "I'm not going to assign anything to that (UFO) phenomena 
>without a lot more data".  Dr. Hibbs was looking at the naked emperor 
>and saying, "He certainly looks naked, but that doesn't prove he's 
>naked."
 
        What has this got to do with the price of tea in Burma. What
    Emperor? Which drugs are being used by the writer of this paragraph?        
                
>In July of 1952, a panicked government watched helplessly as squadron of 
>"flying saucers" flew over Washington, D.C., and buzzed the White House, 
>the Capitol Building, and the Pentagon.  It took all the imagination and 
>intimidation the government could muster to force that incident out of 
>the memory of the public.
 
        Again no proof. If it's forced out of the memory of the public then
    who remembered? why? when? Lazy thinkers would accept this paragraph at
    face value.
        
>Thousands of sightings occurred during the Korean war and several more 
>sauces were retrieved by the Air Force.  Some were stored at Wright-
>Patterson Air Force Base, some were stored at Air Force bases near the 
>location of the crash sight.
 
        Again no proof. More hysterics?
        
>One saucer was so enormous and the logistic problems in transportation 
>so enormous that it was buried at the crash sight and remains there 
>today.  The stories are legendary on transporting crashed saucers over 
>long distances, moving only at night, purchasing complete farms, 
>slashing through forests, blocking major highways, sometimes driving 2 
>and 3 lo-boys in tandem with and extraterrestrial load a hundred feet 
>in diameter.
 
        Nice story. My granny has big teeth too.
                
>On April 30, 1964, the first communication between these aliens and the 
>U.S. Government took place at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico.  3 
>saucers landed at a prearranged area and a meeting was held between the 
>aliens and intelligence officers of the U.S. Government.
 
        More hysterics, no proof. I guess everyone is expecting a rapture
    now. I wonder if the aliens are going to build an intergalatic-bypass
    through our space. Maybe we should abandon the planet now?
        
        I won't comment on the rest of the article. It's just more of the
    same.

    
    re: .465
    
    HAHAHAHAHA!
    
    I especially liked the part where the aliens "create" Jesus. Nice
    touch.
    
    Perry
    
    (Hey, who stole my rectum?)

    RE: .456 Well, it fits all of the best conspiracy theories...
    
    But then, he'd say that's what we're supposed to think. ;-)
    
    Tamzen

         For anyone who may be interested, Lazaris talks about UFO's
    somewhat (5 or 6 pages) in his new book, INTERVIEWS II.
    
         Additionally, yesterday he indicated that most people who
    indicate they have been abducted, etc., are simply not in touch
    with "reality."  He asks, why would aliens abduct someone to disect
    them when the have at least equal access to all the best medical
    libraries on the planet...a warehouse for the collective medical
    knowledge of mankind? 
          In that same discussion, he indicated further that the only
    difference between insanity and genius is processing...the sifting
    of information.  Genius focuses, insanity doesn't.
    
    Frederick
    

Cross posted from UFOS    


I couldn't understand why someone who works for the government and who has
the credentials that John Lear supposedly has, would leak such an inflammatory 
article to the outside world.  It didn't make sense.  

That is... it didn't make sense until I got home last night and read the 
latest addition of OMNI that arrived yesterday.  Then it seemed like another 
'disinformation' campaign designed to discredit the following article due 
to come out in the same week.  Note the similarities and differences.
Especially note how some of the wording is so similar.  Too many coincidences?
At any rate, there are certainly some strange reports regarding the CIA coming
out of (supposed) government sources. What was that old saying?  Oh yea...
... I remember... "Where there is smoke, there is fire"

Mary


OMNI  November 1988 (page 82)

UFOS AND THE CIA
by Jerome Clark

"The CIA is nervous.  It's sitting on a time bomb, and there's no way to defuse
it.  It has known for 40 years that extraterrestrials are visiting the earth on
a "strange and incomprehensible" mission.  And it has done everything in its
power to keep that fact from the American people, the media, the scientific
community, and even a president--or so says a mysterious document recently
received by President Reagan and assorted members of the UFO community.

The proclaimed sender is a San Antonio-based organization called Justice for
Military Personnel, or JMP.  Among other things, JMP claims that the CIA, in a
desperate attempt to get hold of UFO technology, sent military pilots out in 
pursuit of alien craft.  As a result, says JMP, a number of pilots died.
To make matters worse, the letter adds, the CIA kept this act from President
Carter, who asked NASA about UFO research but was never told what had taken
place.  (Was Bush in the CIA in those days?)

JMP, which claims to represent the principal victims of the alleged 
cover-up (the military men who died) says, "The very least the government can 
do is tell us against whom we are fighting and why."

Though the document has made a splash in the UFO community, its individual
authors have managed to remain unidentified.  According to Barry Greenwood,
head of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy, "We can't endorse the document, since we
don't know the source.  If the people who wrote this have some inside 
information, we'd better see some evidence pretty soon"."

	Where the hell is the 60 Minutes team? I'm sure
	Diane Sawyer could charm the truth out of them.

	> Where the hell is the 60 Minutes team? I'm sure
	> Diane Sawyer could charm the truth out of them.

        Maybe they're one of 'them' ;-)))

        Terry 

    I have posted a 1209 line article in ::UFO. This is in addition
    to the Lear article and contains more information.

    Anyone know the whereabouts of the UFO notes file??????
    
    
    Steve

    
    
    Steve,
    
    The address for the conference is OCTAVE::UFOS.
    
    Carole

    Thanks Carole...
    
    Steve

    Some thoughts not covered in later replies to the Lear note:
    
    1. If EBEs are sp powerful, why haven't they rescued their 3 captive
       compatriots?
       
    2. As I heard it, Forrestal's window was closed.  Why didn't he
       find one that was open instead of jumping thru it?  The theory
       is he was thrown thru it (and not by a 3-ft. alien) and the 
        evidence of the "helping hands" is in the closed medical files.
                                      
    And, as stated in a prev note, a society a billion years old with
    ships that crash all the time?  Our airlines have better records.
    It must have been sheer luck they made it to this planet in the 
    first place. 
    
    I still fall back on my basic observation: Why with all the sightings
    in the last 40 years has no artifact been made public.  Sure the
    government suppresses thing, but the tabloids would eat it up.
    
    							Don
    better

    
    Simple answer to why EBE ships crash all the time :-)
    
    	1) EBE's are much more advanced in every field...
    
    	2) This includes bureaucracy...
    
    	3) Every part of an EBE ship is built under contract...
    
    	4) ... by the lowest bidder...
    
    		QED
    
    -Bill
    
    	"I'd rather have my mail delivered by Lockheed than ride in
    	 an airplane built by the Post Office."
    

    And they never crash in populated areas.  (I realize they don't
    *frequent* populated areas but the Law of Averages has to catch up
    sometime.)
     
    Or are their Laws more advanced, also?  :-)
    
    						Don

Just heard an intersteing story on NPR.  The Russian news agency, TAS, has
reported that Russian Scientists have confirmed the landing of an alien
space craft.  The aliens were described as being large (7-8' tall) with 
small heads.  The scientists claim to have physical evidence of the landing.

The best part of the NPR story was about the reactions to the report.  A 
UFO-ologist from England felt it a bit too unusual because, (approximate 
quote) "Normal aliens are smaller (4-5' tall) and have large heads."  He felt 
that this pretty much disqualified the report.  The next was the best, a US 
National Security official.  He stated that he felt the report was of a 
subversive nature, a kind of "psychological warfare" and that they (whoever 
"they" are) are looking into the report.  A Russian reporter in England felt 
there must be something to it, stating that TAS doesn't make jokes and 
everything reported is taken very seriously.

Maybe there's more to come... (but from where?)

Terry

    
    
    I specifically listened to the TV news tonight to see if anyone
    was going to report this (having read the note in UFOS).  ABC
    Evening News did have a small item on it, and presented it with
    the usual barely hidden snicker.  I think we should stay tuned
    to see what else happens with this.  It's just too odd to pass
    over.
    
    Carole

    
    Boy did the aliens screw up. They landed in Russian with no passports,
    no rubles, they don't speak Russian and they AREN'T tourists. I'd hate
    to be in their shoes. B^)
    
    The way I see it was they were supposed to show up for monday nite
    football two weeks ago, but maybe their hyper-space warp converter got
    bent outta' shape and they landed in the wrong country at the wrong
    time.

    
    
    From the Boston GLOBE, Tuesday, October 10, 1989
    
    Associate Press
    
    Humanoid aliens check out perestroika!
    
    MOSCOW -  The account described a close encounter of the Soviet
    kind.
    
    The official news agency TASS carried a story yesterday recounting
    an alledged sighting of an unidentified flying object in a park
    in the Russion city of Voronezh.
    
    TASS, contributing to a string of weird tales that have crept into
    the once-stuffy state-controlled media in recent months, said in
    a straight-faced report that towering, tiny-headed humanoids from
    outer space landed in a UFO, spreading fear among residents before
    departing.
    
    The new agency said Soviet scientists vouched for the authenticity
    of the alledged encounter.
    
    "Scientists have confirmed that an unidentified flying object recently
    landed in a park in the Russion city of Voronezh," TASS said.  "They
    have also identified the landing site and found traces of aliens
    who made a short promenade about the park".
    
    The Soviet media, unleashed by the Kremlin's policy of glasnost,
    have felt free lately to hype incredible stories that seem more
    at home in the supermarket tabloids of the West.  Recent examples
    have included other accounts of UFOs, sightings of Abominable
    Snowman-type creatures, and a tale about a young mystic who goes
    into trance and flies about the cosmos.
    
    
    

    This is also being discussed in the UFOs note conference....
    (I think it's note 111.....)


    Linda
    

    re: .475
    
        I wonder if the psychic referred to is the same guy who "used to"
    stop people and things in their tracks..."used to", that is, until
    last week, when he attempted to stop a locomotive and failed.  I
    wonder what he'll do in his next incarnation.  "I fought the law and
    the law won" could be an apt statement...I guess we all have a heavy
    investment in this illusionary reality, huh?  ;-)
    
    Frederick
    

    
    
    Re:  the aliens in Russia....
    
    A few of us at work have been talking about the UFO report and
    the description of the aliens.  Most of this is done in humor -
    I don't think anyone feels safe enough to talk about it with
    any seriousness, which is interesting in itself.  Along the
    line of humor, one of the guys here drew a picture of the alien
    on my writing board.  So now I have this drawing of a tall alien
    with a little head, big hands and small feet right in the middle
    of all my heavy duty project task reminders.  Next to it is the
    caption "NBA #1 draft pick!" ;-).  It adds sort of a perspective
    to my work-world.  If they are real, I do hope they have a sense 
    of humor!   

    
    Carole

    re: .478
    
         Carole, that's fun!  It reminds me of a movie that came out
    a year or so ago, called something like "Mutley and Joe" (*that's*
    DEFINITELY not it!) about some aliens from the moon that are
    accidentally picked up by a lunar lander soil-sampling machine
    and are brought to Earth.  The movie is very weird and is quite
    goofy.  One of the scenes has the alien playing basketball (kind
    of looking a bit like Manute Bol of the Golden Gate NBA team.)
         The sad part for me is the unwillingness humanity seems to
    have in accepting others as they are and wanting to emulate THEM.
    Instead, we seem to expect others to copy us...this is done
    inter-racially and apparently outer-racially, too.  (Just ask
    foreigners in other countries why they may happen to hate Americans...
    the answer is often because Americans are so arrogant.)  
    So the movie is to me an "alien exploitation" film.  With a 
    human mentality like this, it's no wonder they don't make themselves
    more visible.  :-)
    
    
    Frederick
    

    
    
    All of the discussion about the Russian UFO has brought some
    thing I read a few months ago very much into my thoughts.  In
    the book "Phoenix Rising" by Mary Summer Rain, she shares with
    us the predictions of coming earth changes which were given to
    her by No-Eyes, her teacher and mentor.  These predictions are
    connected to different stages of the symbolic birth of the 
    Phoenix through the Earth Mother.  One of the predictions has
    to do with UFO's.  No-Eyes stated that there would be an
    increase in reported UFO sightings and eventually these beings
    would present themselves to us so that we could no longer deny
    them and the government could no longer cover up that they had
    been visiting here for awhile.  The general populace will not
    be happy with our governments for keeping this knowledge from
    us and there will be active protests.
    
    It will be interesting to see how this current UFO event will
    unfold.
    
    Carole 

        I'll just sort of say this without defending it...if they
    come to us from Orion, be wary.  If they come from the Pleides
    or Sirius, then be open.
    
    Frederick
    

In Russia there is a saying, "In Pravda there is no news, in Isvestia
no truth."

(In Russian, isvestia = news, pravda = truth)


Perry

    Carole .480 (I think)
    
    I met a man this summer on Martha's Vineyard who is a UFO 
    research/investigator.  He contracts with the U.S. government who sends
    him out to UFO sightings.  There he interviews people and generally
    investigates the "experience".  It is always hush-hush.  He is not even
    allowed to discuss his findings with his peers.  He has to report
    everything to a "superior".  Because of the confidentiality of his
    work, could not give me any details...unfortunately.
    
    At one point I asked him, "So what do you think - are *they* real?"  To
    which he said that there was absolutely no doubt in his mind.  Also, he
    indicated that the U.S. government *is* withholding information from
    the public because they feel the public is not *ready* for it and its
    implications.  But information is being disseminated slowly.  There is
    a report out now called The Blue Report, (or some such color) that
    documents government findings on some of these sightings.  He also
    added that he felt sure that within ten years people would know (be
    told) the truth about UFO's...
    
    Kb
    

Allow me to donate my thoughts on the UFO phenomenon.
    
    The UFO phenomena has always been an area of great interest to me.
    It is my opinion that the presence of this phenomena is not so 
    simple as a bunch of space guys hopping in a ship and popping over
    to earth for an experiment or two.  
    
    There are tons of literature on the subject.  These range from the
    real "off the wall" (in my opinion) to the basically scientific.
    I am not saying that some of the claims made by some people are
    "off the wall", the problem I have with outlandish claims is that
    they are not ground in any kind of logical argument.  For example
    I sight Ruth Montgomery's "Aliens Among Us".  She reports on people
    who are in contact with our 'space brothers'.  I think this material
    should be read since it gives insight into the personalities involved
    in the phenomenon.
    
    Then there are books that try to handle the subject in a logical
    manner.  These are (and I recomend them) "Dimensions" by Jacques
    Vallee' ; "Communion" and "Transformation" by Whitley Strieber.  
    I found them fascinating because they approach the subject with the
    attitude that it is not so much wether or not UFO's are "real",
    (because, really, it is such a strange thing that who can say they
    are "real" as we define it), but the subject needs study simply
    for the reason that it exists.
    
    I'd also suggets Carl Jung's work on the problem of UFO's and the
    Archtypes of the Collective Unconscious.  Very interesting corrallary.
    
    Anybody got a similar opinion????
    
    
    Just curious.
    
    jp.

    I have had a few instances involving UFO'S, so I will try to make it as
    short as possible. I think my first remembrance was of a dream that was
    so vivid it woke me up, and my whole body was vibrating and did not
    stop for quite a while. In the *dream* I was standing in front of a
    large Cathedral with a friend when we spotted a UFO heading toward us.
    All of a sudden, I realized that they were coming for me and I started
    to run as fast as I could, they continued after me and I said, "Please
    don't take me, I can't leave my family. At that moment a light came
    down from the craft, enveloped me in the most wonderful feeling I have
    ever had and said (in my mind) "you can have them and us too". I don't
    remember anything after that but waking up, still having that feeling
    and not wanting it to go away.
    
    Another time, I was driving home and on a back street (in the city)I
    saw the outside of a UFO through the bushes and I was able to see
    inside the windows, I do not recall what I saw in there, but the most
    amazing thing was that it was OK in my mind that it was there, like it
    was a normal occurance!! I drove home and never gave it another thought
    until that night when my daughter came in from outside and said that
    there were about ten bright lights dancing around above the trees
    outside.  We went out to look and I thought "they just want me to know
    that they are still around" and went back into the house like this was
    the way it was, it didn't phase me until much later when the human
    part of me said Hey, wait a minute, this is not normal in the real
    world, what happened here?"
    
    I have another story to tell of a supposed alien from outer space that
    claimed that she was born here of alien parents.  This was a very
    intelligent girl who went to Boston University and had knowledge that
    she should not have known, according to someone who worked at NASA. But
    I will save that for another time.
    
    Pat

    I happened upon a radio program featuring a young girl of about 21
    years, stating that she was of alien parents.  She claimed that her
    parents were of different factions at the time of her birth. I don't
    remember how she said that she got here, herself but claimed that her
    father was captured in Florida and his vessel was housed in a hidden
    hangar, by the U.S.government.
    I called the station to ask her to be on our show at a later date (I
    worked for a talk show host in Boston at the time) She was not
    available at the time, so they took my name and phone number. She
    called back later in the day and told me that of all the people that
    she had received messages from I was the only one that she wanted to
    call back. We set a time for her to be on the show and then made plans
    to meet. My first meeting with her was very disconcerting, because
    everything I was thinking about and not verbalizing, she answered. I
    began to resent that she was able to "tune in" to my thoughts.  Do you
    know how hard it is to think of nothing? It's impossible!!!!
    She brought me to her apartment in Boston, and all over her bedroom
    walls were pictures and I mean 35MM photo's of UFO's, in the sky, near
    the ground, daylight, nightlight, real life, honest to goodness photo's
    that you take down to the Foto-mat to get developed. She told me many
    stories of flying down here on earth and of frightened people, that she
    had been told by her mother, because she was a child the last time she
    was on a "ship" (for lack of a better or correct word)
    She also told me that one time after she had been on a talk show, two
    men who claimed to work for the government ( I can't recall which
    branch) approached her in the street and told her to stay off the air
    and to cease and desist from telling the public where she was from.
    Needless to say, she was not frightened and continued to do so.
    
    In her apartment she showed me many manuscripts that she had written,
    in anticipation of her own show, someday. They were fictional, but had
    much basis in fact, according to her.  
    
    I called a contact that we had at NASA, and told him about her and some
    of the things she was saying.  I gave him her phone number and he
    talked to her from midnight to 6:00 AM. When he called me back he said
    that she was an extremely intelligent girl, and that she had knowledge
    that she could not possibly have read about, especially about
    propulsion or more importantly reverse propulsion, ( I think thats how
    he phrased it.) He said he could not say that she *was not* from
    another planet because of all the information she gave to him.
    
    For all of you astrology buffs who may remember the Grand Dame of
    astrology, Francis Sakoian (who I worked for and loved dearly)and her
    students and I did a chart on this girl, I can't remember what we used
    for her birth location. What we came up with was that she was for real
    or was so into her fantacy that she truly beleived everything that she
    said.  So in essence, all out work on her chart was of no help to us at
    all.
    
    She was an entertainer, along with all of her other talents, so I
    booked her into a restaurant that I owned at the time.  She had the
    most unusual voice that I had ever heard. I cannot explain what it
    sounded like , but I brought a friend who was an operatic tenor to
    listen to her and he said "The normal person could not do with their
    voice what she is capable of doing with hers"
    
    I had to end the relationship because she was taking over my every
    thought and trying to run my life for me and I felt as if I was not me
    anymore.  I was making decisions that I would not have made before and
    was out of character.
    
    The last I heard she had gradutated college and moved to Florida. 
                                                                     

    WOW
    
    Any body know what happend to the ufo notes it tells me device not
    on-line not read or not mounted. did it cease or was it siezed?
         Bill-

    It's been having problems since last week.  It was up briefly yesterday
    but then went down again.  It seems to be the machine.

    This all started right after a discussion started on whether or not
    "they" would try to use forceful measures to supress the type of public
    discussion of conspiracy theories that were then going on in UFO. :-)

					Topher

    :-)  what a coincidence

    Do you suppose the vast size of the fleet that Hubble spotted up there
    freaked them out? ;-)
    
    Mary

I'm new to this conference but not to notes. Well, did anyone
else happen to see the nice display that two craft performed
over Boston a few Thursday nights ago?

I have had a number a great sightings in the past, hwoever, none
near a city. Actually the other sightings that I have seen were
in the town of Eastham on Cape Cod where there are no city lights
to distract from the sky.

On the Thursday night of my latest sighting I had just taken the
trash out. It was around 8:30 and I was checking the sky out.
Mainly looking in the direction of Orion which is due south from
where I live in Arlington. I can't explain why but I had a feeling
that something was up. One of those feelings that I get now and then
where I feel strange knowing that 'we' are not alone and wondering
what other realities are out there.

From the Southwest come two boomerang shaped objects streaking across
the city of Boston heading Northeast. They were moving at such a rate
of speed that at first I thought that they were dual shooting starts.
That thought vanished in a hurry when I could clearly make out that
they were a craft of one sort or another. Within a flash of the eye
one of the craft stopped on a dime and just sat there kind of floating.
It is hard for me to say how high up these craft were but they weren't
too high as I could easliy make out the shape of the craft and that
there seemed to be three distinct 'light' sources coming from each craft.

While the one craft sat there hovering the other veered off directly north
and proceded to perform a many mile loop in about 2 seconds. When the
looping craft came back towards the stationary one they both flew off
to the east and over the Atlantic at great speed. It was fascinating to
watch the one craft that stopped on a dime and them went from 0 to who
knows how fast in the blink of an eye. The whole incident too about 5 -
10 seconds and of course there was no one with me, there never is when
I see them. 

On another subject I have also experienced lost time episodes. These,
at least the ones that I can 'remember', happened while I was a child.
All of these happened at the Cape. The most interesting of these happened
when I was about 5. I had just finished lunch and went outside over a
sand dune to where there is this clump of stunted bushes. This is a place
where I would go and pretend that I was in a Space ship. I was only 5 but
I guess I figured that I was in there for about a half an hour or so.
Attention spans at that age are short so I couldn't have been there too
long.

When I came over the dune, which was only a few yards from my family's
cottage my mother was in tears, there were police, fireman and family
friends everywhere. The sun was setting so I guess that it was around
8:00 - 8:30. They had thought that I had either drowned in the Bay, got
lost or was stolen. I told them that I had been in the bushes for only
a little while and had been nowhere else. I was told this was impossible
because the bush was checked numerous times because my mother knew I liked
to play there. Needless to say my family was glad I was ok but I was grounded 
for a while because they didn't believe me. 

This incident and others like it have fascinated me since, where was I?
I really want to find a hypnotist who can take me back to that time to find
out. To be honest I'd be just as happy to find out that I did just wander
off for 8 hours, but I just don't know.

In any event, I'm glad that I have found this conference and look forward
to reading about other people's experiences.

Jim C

    

  It's too bad we don't look at the sky much. There might have been more
  than one person in an area the size of metro Boston who saw this and
  reported it.

  I had a similar experience in the Spring of '72. There were two others
  of us (in a group of four or five) who saw an object (which we could
  only make out as a couple of unblinking points of light) behave
  exactly as described in .-1 -- high speed, then instant stop, then
  high speed in a different direction. We didn't bother to report it
  because (1) we had little information to report beyond what I just
  described, and (2) we didn't think anyone would be particularly
  interested.

  Anyway, I'm still looking. All I've ever seen since is meteorites and
  satellites, and there's never been any chance that any of those
  behaved as clearly uniquely as the object we saw 19 years ago. But I
  still keep looking.

    
	From the Boston Herald - Wednesday, November 20, 1991

	
	MYSTERY SPACE OBJECT NEARING EARTH

	Los Angeles - A small mysterious object is going to zoom close to
	Earth December 5, but astronomers can't tell yet if it's some
	previously unseen kind of asteroid or an old spacecraft swinging
	past its home planet.

	"We don't know what it is: It just struck me as very curious",
	said astronomer Brian Marsden, director of the International
	Astronomical Union's Central Bureau of Astronomical Telegrams.

	James Scotti, a University of Arizona scientist, first spotted
	the object November 6 through the university's 36-inch Spacewatch
	telescope on Kitt Peak in southern Arizona.

	The telescope is used to look for asteroids that might smash into
	the planet.  Many scientists believe large asteroid impacts wiped
	out the dinosaurs and caused other prehistoric mass extinctions

    re: .493
    
    "The Boston Globe" of the same date said that this room-sized
    object, named 1991VG, would be hurtling past Earth about 293,000
    miles out.  (The moon's median orbit is 238,000 miles away.)  The
    article also notes that objects of this size, 15-30 feet across,
    come this close to Earth about once every hour.
    
    Even though our present equipment is inadequate, we'll attempt to
    determine if the object is natural or artificial by observing it
    with radar as it passes.    
    
    Virginia
    

    Anyone know where the UFO notes file is.  I tried Octave::ufos but the
    file is not found.  Must be somewhere else now?
    
    Thanx,
    
    Diana

RE: .495 (Diana)

    Try WIDGET::UFOS, or hit <SELECT> (KP7 in character-cell notes) while
    reading this note to add it to your notebook.

					Topher

    I am fascinated by UFO's, I have learned much about them by studing 
     the past.There seems to be many puzzles that are linked to another 
     life form.Technology advancments that could not of been made without
     a more surpreme lifeforce. Everything from cave drawings to the great
     Pyrimids. How did the ancients have the technology to build these near
     perfect and enormous structures. Why are there cave paintings of heli-
     copters, and other spacecraft, and human form bodies in spacesuit com
     plete with headgear.There are many,many other things quit worth 
     mentioning, There are two books (among others)that I have read that
     take a realistic look at all of our worlds wonders, and makes a logi
     cal approach to tying them with another lifeforce,In another reply
     I will name these books.
    
     imput please
     
    
     S.T.
    

    Has anyone in any other country besides the US ever heard of any cattle
    mutilations that happened outside of the US?
    
    I'm wondering if our government is monitoring the amount of radiation
    we've been exposed to via nuclear testing in Nevada etc.

    AP 10/31 18:01 EST V0702

    Copyright 1993. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. 

    NEW YORK (AP) -- People who think they've seen a UFO or a space alien
    appear to be just as intelligent and psychologically healthy as other
    people, a new study says.  

    Researchers found that UFO reporters scored no worse than other people
    on tests of psychological health, intelligence and fantasy-proneness.  

    They appeared to be "very normal," said study co-author Patricia Cross
    of Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada.  

    Many of their reports may just be misinterpretations of unfamiliar
    sights or experiences, influenced by a prior belief in visits by space
    aliens, she said.  

    Cross, a psychology graduate student who did the study as her master's
    thesis, reports the work with psychologist Nicholas Spanos and others
    at Carleton in the November issue of the Journal of Abnormal
    Psychology.  

    "Our findings clearly contradict the previously held notions that
    people who seemingly had bizarre experiences, such as missing time and
    communicating with aliens, have wild imaginations and are easily swayed
    into believing the unbelievable," the study said.  

    The study included 49 adults who said they had seen UFOs, 39 members of
    the general public and 74 introductory psychology students.  

    Eighteen of the UFO spotters said they had simply seen something in the
    sky. The other 31 reported a more intense experience. For example, 10
    said they had seen a spacecraft close-up, 10 said they had spotted an
    alien, seven reported verbal contact with aliens and eight cited
    telepathic contact. Seven recalled total body paralysis and eight said
    time was inexplicably lost. Two said they were taken up in a spaceship.  

    As a whole, the UFO spotters were more likely than other study
    participants to report belief in visits from space aliens. It was
    unclear whether that belief preceded or followed their UFO experiences,
    although some evidence suggests it came before, researchers said.  

    Most UFO experiences occurred at night, when darkness and sleepiness
    might have made unusual distant sights hard to interpret, researchers
    said. A person who believed in alien visitation might have considered
    them sightings of alien spaceships, the researchers said.  

    As for those reporting a more intense experience, 60 percent of the
    experiences were associated with sleep, suggesting that some were
    simply dreams, the researchers said.  

    Nearly a quarter of people with intense experiences told stories
    suggesting sleep paralysis, a relatively common experience in which one
    feels awake but cannot move, Cross said. The disorder is often
    accompanied by fear and a sense that another being is present, she
    said.  

    If a person who believed in alien visitation had that experience, "you
    might interpret that experience in terms of those beliefs," she said.  

    Philip J. Klass, a prominent UFO skeptic and member of the Committee
    for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, said the
    findings appear sound but that the study is only preliminary.  

    Klass said he believes the intense UFO experiences have a variety of
    explanations, including some people being fantasy-prone, others
    delusional and still others just trying to attract attention. 

    re: .499,
    
    I've seen it, and I had some comments.
    
    The conclusion is seemingly to me only of _trivial_ value,
    "people who report UFOs aren't necessarily insane," which hardly
    required a new study to demonstrate !
    
    I thought it had been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt years ago
    that it was a waste of time trying to correlate _all_ UFO reports to
    personality variables.  The reporting population is just too diverse.
    
    Depending on what minor variation of psychological factors hypothesis you 
    come up with for describing the entire population at once, there will 
    seemingly always be more than enough variance to cast doubt on any 
    conclusions drawn.   
    
    The only way to do this analysis meaningfully is
    to find a way to break the reporting population into sub-groups, and
    study them individually.  When this is done, you come up with 
    a few hoaxers, a few people who are mentally ill, a few who may
    theoretically have an unusual capacity for vivid imagery ('fantasy prone'), 
    and some for whose unusual experiences there is not even a speculative 
    psychological explanation or description.  Spanos has for years
    promoted a theory of suggestibility which says that all cases of
    unusual human suggestibility are a matter of social expectations and
    role playing.  His theory has a lot of merit, but it does not cover all
    of the basis.
    
    The borderline between the last two groups above, those who are
    theorized as 'fantasy prone' and those cases which are unexplained or
    examples of extremely unusual perceptual events or unusual physical
    phenomena or possible extraterrestrial contacts is very fuzzy and 
    tentative, and this is part of what Spanos bases his position on.  
    
    But it seems to me that his view is really a straw man, knocking down a 
    view of UFO reporters that no researcher has ever promoted, rather than
    addressing the 'fantasy proneness' theory which would apply to only a 
    specific subset of reporters.  Spanos has been criticized in the 
    hypnosis literature for the same tactics, attacking extreme 'special state'
    theories that no one even holds, rather than investigating the details of
    what aspects of those theories hold water and what aspects don't.
    
    You have to read between the lines in these types of studies, people
    are promoting competing theories of things that probably don't
    _have_ a single explanation.  Many times their studies provide
    a useful insight, but they draw a conclusion that serves only to tie
    the data to their existing theory, rather than to clarify what is
    really going on.
    
    						kind regards,
    							todd

RE: .500

    Todd, I don't think it is as bad as all that.  A lot of research
    involves checking assumptions, replication and laying groundwork for
    further research.  The growth of the abduction phenomenon over the past
    few years certainly argues for the re-examination of the assumptions.
    The results most certainly are unsurprising, but unsurprising results
    are not poor science.

    More bothersome to me is the heavy speculation as to explanations which
    are completely unbacked up by any of the research reported.  I'm
    willing to tentatively blame the reporter for that one though.

    Klass is being Klass, of course, using terms (e.g., "delusional") with
    negative connotations (instead of, for example, the more neutral term,
    "mistaken") in commenting on a report which emphasizes how
    inappropriate the term is.

                                             Topher

    re: .501,
    
    I never said it was poor science, I just question what was implied
    in the article.  As you say, it may be interpreted incorrectly by the 
    reporter.  
    
    The juxtaposition of Spanos and Klass was just too much for me,
    I guess.  ;-)
    							todd

To:	extraterrestrials@mailbase.ac.uk
Subj:	Re: RECENT ARTICLE in New Scientist

> The current issue of New Scientist summarizes what looks like it might be
> an interesting article in the journal Abnormal Psychology.  The article is
> a study of the psychology of those who report encounters with aliens. The
> findings are interestingly negative: those of who report such things are,
> apparently, no less intelligent, no more fantasy prone, and no more prone
> to mental disorder than the population at large.
> Peter Moore

I was asked to comment on this when the article hit the news wire
services here. The reporter asked me if I agreed with the findings. The
researchers, Spanos and Cross, are at Carleton University, and I had
heard about their research about four years ago from others in Ottawa.
Their conclusions, of course, are not at all surprising. In fact, there
had been other studies which reported the same basic results. There was
one classic study many years ago, if I recall, where there was a survey
done to see if patients in a mental hospital were reporting encounters
with aliens that were similar to such reports by "normal" people. And
there have been other studies on characteristic traits of ufologists
and UFO witnesses. 

My own experience is that UFO witnesses come from a complete
cross-section of the general population, and show no strong deviations
or trends toward psychopathology.

There was one paper some time ago, written by a debunker, who studied a
"flying saucer club" in the 1950's, and found its members to have some
odd characteristics. I think this was reported in a sociological
monograph. However, his observations were clearly myopic - most members
were elderly women, uneducated, irrational, etc.

I'd be interested in seeing the New Scientist article. Can you give the
citation, or perhaps even post or snailmail a copy?


-- 
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada

This file is broken, Marcos. Uudecode gives "short file", and even
after repairing that problem, the image is corrupted. Can you post a
pointer, rather than an entire uuencoded gif? Thanks very much (I've
been curious to see some of these photos, myself).

    
    File deleted...though I'm not sure if space is automatically cleaned up
    (am not the sysmgr for the current location of DEJAVU). 
    
    Cindy

You get the disk space back using a CONVERT/RECLAIM command on the
file, I think (notes server has to be shut down).

    I was just able to log into UFOS...
    
    *Susan*

    	
    	Interesting, thanks for entering it, Jamie.
    	So, were any flying dragons seen over Kobe, Japan 2 weeks ago?
    
    	Actually, Jamie, you could be right, perhaps there's a sign on the
    dark side of the moon: Rest Stop 250,000 miles-Take Blue planet Exit 4
    
    BillM

    
    re.513
    
    This professor may not be far off the mark. I remember once during a
    slight tremor, whilst on holiday in the Phillipines, that I suffered
    a similair experience. I felt as though something hot, wet & sticky
    had attached itself to me. It then began jumping up & down on top of me.
    I remember feeling great discomfort at first, and then afterwards, a 
    great feeling came over me. I wonder if this is of any significance ?
    
    

    Can you Describe the"Great_Feeling"?
    

    
    A sort of after-glow. You know, the feeling just after sex & prior to
    lighting up a cigarette !
    
    

    Maybe you just $hit yourself ? I know I always enjoy a cigarette after
    a slippy thomas.
    			Davie.