Conference hydra::dejavu

    > I guess this must mean there must be some around ...eh?
    
    Psychics or Scriptures? :-)
    
    Actually, they pop up from time to time in the Old Testament.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    There was also a pretty major psychic that popped up at the beginning
    of the New Testament.
    
    		Dave

    Joseph, husband of Mary, who had prophetic dreams?  Or John the
    Baptist?
    
    ;-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    
    
    re .0
    
    I'm still amazed that how folks seperate our psychicness from
    own being.....from our natural senses - from all our other gifts
    and abilities.  We're so locked into being 'SEPERATE' from each
    other, our selves, our source and everything else that it's a wonder
    we can function at all.
       
    Our  'sixth sense' is used all the time and too often called something
    else; "gut feel, imagination, coincidence, wierd feeling" and on
    and on.....
                           
    I wonder who else has to "bless" it to legitimatize it?  We just
    continue..... to debate it's existance, we beat it up - pick it up, 
    hate it, fear it and do the same with folks who are willing to admit
    they have this sense...and that's all it is - with all the
    limitations andinterpretations the other senses are subject to....do
    you think this much nonsense went on when we discoved fire and the
    impactit had on the individual, community and society as a whole?
    Probably!
    
    I guess we'll just go  on putting people down who utilize      
    this ability and hope they have enough moxie to work thur all the
    goofiness, dangers and joyful experiences this area opens us to..
    cause many have to do it alone since it's still in the "closet"
    and that's the most dangerous thing of all.
    
    When will people wake up and start dealing with this with love and
    acceptance instead of fear,protectionism and irresponsible attitudes?
    
    Sorry, I'm my soap box!!!!  I know it. A subject near and dear!
    
    Lora

    re .5:
    
    I never considered belief in psychic abilities a liberal/conservative
    issue: at least he's broadminded enough not to call them agents
    of the Devil.  Nor dismiss them as "a lot of baloney," in the words
    of a former President on another matter.
    
    Point of interest:
    
    There are six letters in the President's first, middle, and last
    names each.  I'm surprised someone hasn't accused him of being "666."
    {I can say that because I rather like the man; no malice from this
    quarter.}  But perhaps this observation belongs in another conference.
    ;-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.:  There are persistent reports that various government agencies,
    notably the CIA, consult psychics.  So I guess the President is
    not alone in not writing them off....
    
    -SK
    

    	We call it the Force (May the Force be with you).
    
    	But Ronny says, may the AIR Force be with you!
    
    	Weak, but hey!
    
    

    Ronald Wilson Reagan (6+6+6) happens to be a friend of one rather
    well-known former AP reporter covering The White House, who since
    became a widely-published author on matters psychic: Ruth Montgomery.
    
    She's quite a Reagan supporter; she also supports the oppressive
    authoritarian regimes of Central and South America, while living
    quite comfortably in Mexico. She lambastes Socialism & Communism.
    
    You might imagine that psychics know no loyalty to political party;
    some sitting Presidents don't; & some, in fact, know each other.
    
    - Boleslaw 
     

    Re .8:
    
    >You might imagine that psychics know no loyalty to political party;
    
    Why should they?  What would make a psychic different from a doctor,
    minister, engineer, or any other trade/profession?
    
    Or are you speaking of psychics individually, but as a stereotype?                 
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                                                 

    " You might imagine..." was entirely rhetorical; that is: In case
    You think that being psychic is a loyalty to a Higher Order, it
    simply isn't. Psychic people are people; people ad infinitum.
      
      Hitler had a thoroughly Nazi psychic; Reagan has a thoroughly
    Reaganite psychic...actually two: Jeanne Dixon & Ruth Montgomery,
    to name just 2 who publicly commend Reagan for his politics.
      
      The (commercially-named) New Age is not the exclusive domain of any 
    particular party, any particular faction of any particular party,
    or any particular partisan psychics. It may in fact not yet exist
    as an age. It most certainly is more than a groundswell so far.  
      
      I'm not particularly psychic, or @ least not officially so. I'm
    most certainly partisan, however. It's plainly anti-Reaganite.
    
    - Boleslaw
                                                                   

    Re .10:
    
    >  I'm not particularly psychic, or @ least not officially so. I'm
    >most certainly partisan, however. It's plainly anti-Reaganite.
    
     Your privilege to be partisan.  However, this _is_ DEJAVU, not
    SOAPBOX.  People may have gathered my political leanings from other
    Conferences; I don't believe they have from this one.
    
    I believe the base note was less a direct political statement than
    that a head of state in the late 1980s has not written off psychics.
    
    >  The (commercially-named) New Age is not the exclusive domain of any 
    >particular party, any particular faction of any particular party,
    >or any particular partisan psychics. It may in fact not yet exist
    >as an age. It most certainly is more than a groundswell so far.  
     
    Now that's an interesting observation.  I agree.  "New Age," (which
    is primarily a commercial term) may not yet be an "age."  Let's
    hope the term doesn't disintegrate into something like "hi-fi" or
    "state-of-the-art."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Perhaps it was not perceived that my original note was written in
    a highly ironic tone because: I had imagined that This Conference
    was opened as some sort of leg-pull about Reagan & psychics, as
    though those two categories simply couldn't co-exist anywhere.
   
    I knew differently & thought what actually is the case should be
    known here, especially. {Now it is: Reagan is in some senses quite
    the favorite of both Jeanne Dixon & Ruth Montgomery, & both are
    widely quoted & widely-available in inexpensive paperback editions.
    I occasionally sell them on Sundays in a small suburban bookstore.}
                                         
    Whether Reagan is their favorite for his politics (which I believe
    is the case) OR his Presidency (plausible, as title attracts) OR
    his personality (plausible, as personality attracts even moreso),
    it's not @ all impossible to think of Reagan & those two American
    psychics together. They make a point of stating their attraction;
    Ruth Montgomery makes much of prominent living/dead Republicans &
    made a point of asking Arthur Ford about their afterlives. QED.
    
    Which brings us to the question of partisanship in This Conference.
    Q: If Dixon & Montgomery are partisan, need any of us be any less?
    Z: {this is not a widely-avaliable commercial paperback edition}
    A: {                                                           }
    
    -Boleslaw     
     
    
     

    Re .12:
    
    >Q: If Dixon & Montgomery are partisan, need any of us be any less?
    >Z: {this is not a widely-avaliable commercial paperback edition}
    >A: {
    
    I think the answer to that question goes to the whole idea of
    perception.  Sure, we could include anti- or pro- anyone comments
    in our responses, but there are already a lot of ratholes in most
    conferences.  DEJAVU is unique in that it tries to discuss issues
    that are difficult at best and often very complex.  Neither Dixon
    nor Montgomery are [as far as I know :-)] participants in this
    Conference.  This conference is _definitely_ not "widely available";
    indeed, it is restricted to a small group within Digital who are
    interested in various aspects of the paranormal, and aming members
    of that group, there is a diversity of perspectives.  In this context,
    it's my feeling that _political_ partisanship just adds an additional
    layer of stuff standing between us and discussing the real issues.
    
    Why on earth muck it up?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.:  If something involved with the paranorman has a political
    and/or ideological bwent, then irt's fair game; otherwise, it's
    just a sort of sideways _ad hominem_ attack.
    
    -S
    

    Since This Conference was titled "Ronald Reagan on Psychics "
    it's no contravention of that to speak about prominent Psychics
    who publicly speak often about Ronald Reagan as President. 
    
    You can't cite both...without giving both equal...time&space. 
    It's a mater of mutual definition: Reagan is not anti-psychic;
    some psychics are quite pro-Reagan. {Rather Euler-diagrammish.}
    Now if you'd like to extend the scope to include psychics who
    are anti-Reagan, we might find a very curious 'finding' indeed.
                        
    - Boleslaw                                       
     

    Re .14:
    
    Hmm...
    
    Ronald Reagan believes is psychics.  Does that mean that psychics
    believe in Ronald Reagan?
    
    or ...
    
    >Now if you'd like to extend the scope to include psychics who
    >are anti-Reagan, we might find a very curious 'finding' indeed.
     
    Since _you're_ the one who brought up pro-Reagan psychics, does
    that mean you're declaring yourself a psychic [anti-Reagan, of
    course...]? :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    RE .14   
    
    I think there's a terminology problem here.  This "Conference" is
    titled "DEJAVU"   where as this particular note is titled "Ronald
    Reagan, on psychics."  They are not the same thing.  
    
    	- Bill Keefe
    

    .16
    
    Precisely. It's {?} to read that Ronald Reagan is not entirely
    sure whether he's ready to dismiss psychics as existing, but
    his not being entirely sure is a rather middle-of-the-road lack
    of endorsement for the subject of the overall Conference of
    Conferences. Frankly, I take Ronald Reagan's statements as an
    endorsement of The Bible & Prophecy (read it again), not psychics;
    more like Garner Ted Armstrong's Prophecy In The News (on cable).
    
    I'm 'not officially' psychic: that is, I'm not about to hang-out
    nowadays any in/formal shingle saying so. (See .176 replies .14,.16). 
    It's too risky a proposition in the Age of Pray-TV ravers calling down
    a flaming Jehovah to roast Satan(ists). I'm just a 'sensitive' chap. 
                                                                        
    -Boleslaw
    .   

    .15 
    
    The 'finding' I'm alluding to is this: of the widely-quoted
    publicly-declared psychics (vide, supermarket take-out tabloids)
    the most prominent of which is Jeanne Dixon (this week's STAR
    has her half-year predictions)...none (to my knowledge) has ever
    made the slightest negative criticism of Ronald or Nancy Reagan.
    
    Statistically, (given that psychics are distributed over the
    entire range of political stances, parties & factions) this is
    not only highly implausible, but entirely UNbelieveable. QED.
                       
    Either Ronald Reagan leads 'a charmed life' (it appears he does);
    OR Somebody's failing to note the full-range of psychic-opinion(s).
    
    - Boleslaw
    

    18. (cont)
    
    [To further break the suspected suspense re: anti-Reagan psychics.]
    
    Jean Kenney, {who was from time-to-time a guest on WBZ radio's 
    late-nite The Larry Glick Show; and who in the mid-'70s was
    to be found in Rose's Tea Room, just off-the-corner of Boylston 
    & Tremont Sts. in downtown Boston} is an antiReagan psychic.
    Vehemently & quite partisanly so. I knew her in the mid-'70s.
    She was then the casual- advisor of many Boston GLOBE and also
    Stone & Webster Engineering Co. people (I was one of the latter).   
                                                 
    - Boleslaw          

    Re .19:
    
    >[To further break the suspected suspense re: anti-Reagan psychics.]
    
    ...not only ideologization, but split infinitives... <sigh> ...
    
    :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    .19
    ==============================headnote==============================
    What's this? A humorlessness...unaware of extended alliterations? 
    Has no one read any of J.P. Donleavy's titles over the past decades?
    Really now. It appears literary licence has herein been forbidden. 
    ====================================================================
       
    
    re: Ideologization.  
    
    Partisanship was the term used in all the preceding notes.
    That is, declared membership of a 'known political party'.
    Reagan is (at present) a Republican. Ditto Ruth Montgomery.
   
    For the record, I am (at present) a declared (Independent),
    or as it happens in Wellesley, Massachusetts, a declared (Undeclared).  
                                         
    - Boleslaw
    

    Re .21:
    
    >Has no one read any of J.P. Donleavy's titles over the past decades?
    
    I dunno.  What Conferences does he note in?
    
    :-P
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    .22
    
    Is this another {hint} that these Notes are now both confined to DEC people,
    and must therefore be restricted to only mentioning presumed-DEC people?
    
    How (then) did Ronald Reagan's name (manage to) top-this-note?
    
    "Potato, patata; tomato, tamata, let's call the whole thing off."
    (ah, mi 'scusi, that's by Cole Porter, a notable non-DECcie.)
    
    - Boleslaw 
    

    Re .23:
    
    No, no hint.
    
    Somehow, I think levity has fled this note.  The smiley face symbol
    --
    
    :-)
    
    means "not to be taken seriously"
    
    The tongue-in-cheek symbol
    
    :-P
    
    means one is speaking in ==>broad<== jest.
    
    The "grin" symbol
    
    :-D
    
    means "you really ought to take a crash course in Thorne Smith if
    you take this at all seriously."
    
    These little icons are used because since we are writing notes,
    it's hard to convey facial expressions (or tone-of-voice equivalents)
    otherwise.  
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    {{{{{{{{{Levity is the spirit of levitating light-wits}}}}}}}}}}}}
    ==================================================================
    
    It only now (suddenly!) appears to me that one would have to cock
    one's head 90-degrees to the Left (!) to be able to read those icons,
    & unless one were told that they were icons, one would never have
    thought they were anything except initialized-typographic-signiatures.  
    
    Well (O), well (o), well (.)...
    deeper & deeper...becoming...
    ...irrepressable & interminable
    ... notedomaniacs.
    
    By the way, Reagan yesterday said: 
    
    "There will be NO Post-Reagan Era; 
     There never WAS any Reagan Era..." 
     
    (cf. " I am Not I, You are Not You, We are not We.") {Upanishads}
                                 
    
    Would you buy a used-endorsement from That Man?  
                       
    - Boleslaw                                                       
    "
    

Meanwhile back on the topic, I read in the local paper, The Colorado 
Springs Gazette, that Zolar was Reagan's astrologer and the Zolar
predicts that Reagan will resign before his term of office is up.
Have any other psychics, pro or con Reagan, made any similiar predictions?

Mike
Democrat and psychic sympathizer

    I've been told by various 'psychics' (people who have abilities,
    but are, in fact, loath to either take the title or charge for any
    of their abilities) that Reagan would definitely NOT last out his
    2nd term. It's been a cliff-hanger to see what/when/if he doesn't.
    My (personal) fear was that (were he to be assasinated) we would
    be precipituosly plunged into a serious military-clamp-down that
    would not be unlike what the papers now are revealing Ollie North was
    planning for...(under Nixon it was the [Tom Charles] Huuston Plan.)
    
    re: partisanship. IF indeed, the intent of the original entry was
    to open discussion on psychics, not Reagan, it's gone far astray
    & I'm certainly one-of-those to blame, probably The Most To Blame:
    
    I find it hard to take anything Reagan has ever said seriously...
    BUT he has, indeed, prominent publicly-declred psychics who are
    both friendly to him, partisan politically, & unashamed to say so.
    
    Put it this way: how would we all react to a new Note titled:
    (w/ absolutely no comic, parodic, or satirical intentions, since
    this is an historically-researched & rather well known area:)
     
    'Hitler, on psychics'.   
                                                     
    - Boleslaw  

    Re n.28:
    
    >Put it this way: how would we all react to a new Note titled:
    >(w/ absolutely no comic, parodic, or satirical intentions, since
    >this is an historically-researched & rather well known area:)
    > 
    >'Hitler, on psychics'.  
    
    I suspect exactly the way it _was_ reacted to in note 260.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 
    

    re: .28
    
    Note 260 " The Nazis and the Occult "
    =====================================
    ..is not, fortunately, isolated to a single -fuehrer (as is Note 186).
    Discussion (up to .24) ranges over the NSDAP's history, carefully
    distinguishing that from The Germans' collective-destiny, et. al. 
    
    It (so far) would be extraordinarily difficult to adduce much about
    Reagan's interest in psychic phenomena from the head-quote of Note
    186, other than an off-hand public comment linking it with Scripture.
                                       
    But, of course, it is (so far) extraordinarily difficult to adduce
    much about Reagan's interest in the practical details of Iran-gate.
    That will have to come out in the legislative & historical wash(ington).
    
    What we have here is very thin sliver to build any sort of liferaft
    from, let alone a parquet dancefloor; we can pick our teeth however.
    
    - Boleslaw 
      
     

    Re .30:
    
    >It (so far) would be extraordinarily difficult to adduce much about
    >Reagan's interest in psychic phenomena from the head-quote of Note
    >186, other than an off-hand public comment linking it with Scripture.
     
    Actually, I can deduce a little: the quote indicates that he has
    an open mind on such matters, but isn't particularly interested,
    since he makes a passing reference to Scripture.  Were he "hot"
    on the subject, he'd have cited something else, possibly the very
    psychics you tell us are his partisans.  I can further surmise that
    he probably would be a bit surprised at reports [that have circulated]
    about CIA and other agency types consulting with psychics in Washington
    and elsewhere.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .31
    
    It is an "open secret" that some parapsychological research is financed
    by the CIA.  Most often cited is Putoff and Targ's controversial
    (read, not very good scientifically, and so a favorite target of
    critics who present it as the best available in the field) work
    at SRI.  Chuck Honorton (who, in my limited experience with him,
    is almost compulsively honest) claims to have turned down an offer
    of funding by the CIA.  There may well be some research, publicly
    known about or secret which is secretly funded by the CIA or other
    secret agencies.  There have also been reports, some of them reliable,
    of other agencies of the government funding some kind of research
    project in paranormal science, but, since they never have the sense
    to give the money to someone who knows anything about the field,
    they are usually rather laughable.
    
    				Topher
    

    	I remember reading an article once (in the NEW YORK TIMES, not
    the ENQUIRER) that the Pentagon has spent millions (low millions,
    but still millions) of dollars on researching weapons that could
    open a time warp above the Arctic, so that incoming Soviet missles
    would be swallowed up in the time warp and detonate "harmlessly"
    somewhere in Earth's past (the military brass obviously never read
    Ray Bradbury's classic SF story, A SOUND OF THUNDER).  They have
    also reportedly considered a means of teleporting bombs instantaneously
    to their target spots, either through a STAR TREK-type transporter
    or through genetically (biotechnically) increased telekinetic matter
    transfer.                                             
    
    	This may all be bogus, but somehow I do not doubt that our
    Government would not at least *consider* such unique military tactics;
    hey, anything to beat the "other side", right?
                                   
    	Larry
    

    Re .30, .31:
    
    Look at the quote attributed to Ronald Reagan:
    
    >"I've found it difficult to write them off entirely.
    >The Scriptures say there will be such people."
                                                  
    Note the word "entirely."  That's hardly the attitude of someone
    who's Deep Into Psychics/Psychism [if you'll pardon a semi-coined
    word].  This is what I'm driving at.
    
    Re .32:
    
    It might be an "open secret," but that may not mean that the President
    is briefed on it, which was my point there.  
    
    Re .33:
    
    Apoparently, the Soviets are doing some work in this area (psi weapons)
    too.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .34
    
    There seems to be very little doubt that the Soviets are spending
    a *great* deal on (mostly) secret research on psi.  Probably at
    least an order of magnitude more than the entire public scientific
    budget for parapsychology worldwide.  Like much (though by no means
    all) Soviet science it seems to be so encumbered of politics and "correct"
    thinking, that I suspect little direct (i.e., knowledge of psi)
    will come of it.  They *might* stumble upon some interesting spin-offs
    (e.g., the EEG was the result of a parapsychologist working along
    lines not dissimilar to what the Soviets seem to be doing now).
    And, of course, I could be wrong about the fruitfulness of what
    I see them doing or I could be seeing a smoke screen designed to
    mislead me.
    
    				Topher

    	Paraphrasing an already famous example - say the US Military
    did develop a "time warp generator" across the Arctic, and a Soviet
    nuclear missle was launched at the US.  As it passed over the North
    Pole, it would be "captured" and sent back in time, say, to the
    era when your grandfather was alive but had not yet married nor
    had any children.  Say that the missle ends up detonating not only
    at that time, but at the PLACE where your grandfather was (this
    is naturally all hypothetical for the sake of the argument), killing
    him.  This would effectively wipe out your family line (and you)
    from then on, and change history in subtle (and maybe not so subtle)
    ways, thus the danger of such a device.
    
    	This is why I mentioned Ray Bradbury's SF story, if you will
    recall.  It involved a future company which allowed hunters to travel 
    back in time to hunt dinosaurs; but everything was planned out well
    in advance so that the hunters only killed dinosaurs that were "meant"
    to die at certain times.  The time travel company had also developed
    a long, antigravity metal ramp through the jungles of the Dinosaur Era,
    so that the hunters never touched anything they were not supposed
    to, thus disrupting history far into the future in a kind of "snowball"
    effect.  This theory was "proven" when a careless hunter accidentally
    stepped off the Path and killed a butterfly - the results when they
    returned was a whole new society, which spelled things differently
    and had elected a different President than the one who was elected
    when they left.  You have to read the story to get the full
    perspective, but I personally believe that small changes in history
    make for bigger changes later on, thus the danger of ANY tamoering
    with the past, *especially* sending nuclear weapons back to explode,
    and affecting who knows what!
                 
    	Larry
                                      

    RE.37
    
    Sort of sounds like "It's A Wonderful Life" and "It Happened One
    Night", only on a universal scale.
         
    Meet you all at Milliways!  (:^)

    Re .last_few:
    
    This really belongs in NAC::SF, but ...
    
    If the bombs were time-warped back far enough, they'd destroy stuff
    sufficiently so that the technology to produce the bombs never would
    have taken place.  Then, because of thast, the bombs _wouldn't_
    have been launched, and hence, they wouldn't have been back-transported
    to whenever, so then the changes wouldn't have occurred, whereupon
    the bombs _would_ have been developed, whereupon they would have
    been sent back in time ...
    
    And the universe/cosmos/whatever would oscillate between two states.
    And never beyond...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    Re .also the last few:
    
    Maybe this explains the "mysterious" disappearance of the Dinosaurs??
    
    Was it really an asteroid, or one of 'our' nasty bombs. . .
    
    BTP
    

    RE: yet again - the last few
    
    Since we occupy such a tiny spot of time/space, even if all this
    happened, would we be cognizant of it? Wouldn't everything just
    seem to be like it was supposed to be, anyway?
    
    Kinda reminds me of the Cliquot Club bottles, with a boy holding
    a Cliquot Club bottle, with a boy on the bottle, holding a bottle
    with a boy on the bottle...etc. Where does it end?
    
    Dawn
    

    Well, that's been quite a divigation on Time & Bombs of some-magnitude.
    ======================================================================
    In a lighter vein, the relatively recent film "BACK TO THE FUTURE"
    uses Michael J. Fox's Yuppie Alex P. Keaton character to illustrate
    that wish-fulfillment in the present thrown into the past creates
    exactly the same desired future: a Yuppie fantasy. (The details
    are irrelevant: he makes the present into what he hoped it might
    be.) Nicely done. It's a pleasant few hours illustration.
    
    But seriously now, re: psychics as tactial weapons. It happens that
    someone who I worked with @ Sanders in '74 had 2 children who were 
    clandestinely telepathically solicited by a division of the U.S.
    the gov't to work as psychics. He thought they were too young to
    make the decision & would not make it for them. Yes, he was quite
    candid his children were psychic. He was also quite a Loyalist to
    the government: we both worked in military-industrial applications.
    (Lest anyone think I'm just a rabid '60s radical & nothing more/less.)
                                         
    - Boleslaw

    Now THATS scary.

    Well, not actually: it's fairly evident that 'both sides' are
    quite capable of 'developing strategic weapons' of the human-
    kind; you might say it's like a neutron bomb, minus hardware
    ...like in the film "Scanners" (and many others before/after).
    
    But let me recount Merle's experience. He and his 2 children were
    fishing on a NH lake when a black helicopter suddenly hove into
    sight and hovered over them. His children turned to him and said:
    " They're asking us if you would let us work for them. We can go
    to any colleges we want, all the way to PhDs, but we have to work
    for them for 5 years after that. " Merle told the children," No,
    you're too young to make that decision and I won't make it for you."
    The helicopter quickly departed.
    
    This was before 1975; i.e. preRegan Era, lest you think this story
    illustrates what the Reagan Era has sunk to; no sinking needed. 
    It was/is the Continuing Era of the Pentagon Ascendancy.  
    
    -Boleslaw            
    
     
    
    
    
    
    .
    
    
    

    I thought it might amuse us all that in last week's STAR (Canadian,
    not the Toronto STAR, however, but the one sold @ supermarket-line
    ckeckouts with The ENQUIRER, etc., the cover story was (approx.) 
    
    RONALD REAGAN TALKS WITH SPACE ALIENS ABOUT ANNEXATION OF PLANETS
    
    inside (complete with artist's rendering of classic macrocephalic
    aliens sitting around a table lifting ceremonial drinks with Ron)
    a psychic explained that Reagan's been in telepathic communication
    with space aliens who want their planets to be annexed to the USA,
    to encircle the Russians once and for all. {THAT's SDI/Space Shield!}
    
    Ronald Wilson Reagan thus becomes the First Interplanetary President.
    No more just-plain-Leader of the Free World, Nancy! The Free Galaxy!
    
    - Boleslaw
                                                           
    

    RE: .-1 :  "Macrocephalic aliens"  
    
    I've been wondering where these supreme-court nominees have come
    from ...

    re: .45
    
    Sounds more like a '50s Grade "B" Science Fiction drive-in movie
    to me.
    
    Please pass the popcorn.
    
    Dave

re: .47 

Yes, Dave, it is Ronnie's first grade-B horror/sci-fi flick. Didn't you read
the sign at the door?



"Registered North will be on duty!"


Hahahahahahhahha!


John M.

    Some time last spring, I was watching a TV show on MTV that was
    produced by some world peace organization.  This same organization
    held a rock concert in Japan for world peace last year (though
    I forget its name).

    It was a half hour of the most powerful anti-war "propaganda" (I
    agreed with what was said, but it was still propaganda) that I have
    ever seen.  Aside from showing clips from the concert, There was two 
    things shown that was worthwhile:
    
    o	Clips of a video for Peter Gabriel's "Red Rain" that was shown
    	throughout the show, This video is a very powerful anti-war
    	statement.
    
    o	A clip from an old B/W Sci-Fi movie with Ronnie playing an officer
    	who was working with a scientist to build a force sheild that
    	would protect the United States from Soviet missiles.  There
    	was a point where they showed the scientists describing the
    	shield and Reagan talking about SDI and the words used where
    	almost identical.
    
    Did anyone see this?  Did anyone tape this?  Supposidly, a one hour
    version of the show was to be shown this fall, but I haven't heard
    anything about it.
    
    Also, does anyone know the name of the Movie?
    
    Dave

    No, I don't know the name of that film (although a look thru your
    local public library's film-refs. will greach it in a series of
    jumps: Reagan to Films to Descriptions...in Halliwell's Film Guide.)
    
    But you should know that a psychiatrist has now compiled a series of
    old Reagan film-clips like that showing that Ron's simply replaying
    his parts again and simply cannot tell the diff. twixt film & real.
    The psychiatrist was on TV & the compilation's been in theaters.  

    Has everyone heard that Ronnie and Nancy have their own astrologists?
    Supposedly Nancy has even specified the time of some meetings or
    treaty signings to coincide with astrological events.
    
    Anyone else now anything more?
    
    Dave

    "At least he's consulting with someone."

    Jim Wright - Speaker of the House, after being told of   
                 President Ronald Reagan's consulting with astrologers.

    Last night's NIGHT LINE spotlighted the Nancy Reagan/astrology issue.
    Reportedly, Nancy began influencing Ronnie after an astrologer
    predicted "something of consequence" would happen on the day that
    an assasination attempt was made on Ronnie's life.
    
    A well-spoken astrologer woman was pitted against the president
    of the American University (an astronomer).  Koppel handled both
    viewpoints with respect.  The astronomer stooped to mud-slinging.
    The astrologer did not.

    It is my understanding that the Reagan's interest in psychics
    isn't new; wonder why it wasn't brought out in the campaign.
                                                         
    re:.35  Larry, you should read VORTEX, by Jon Lund.
    
    re:.40  You make it sound as if the sharks, armadilloes, mammoths,
            and the like woke up one day and found themselves virtually
            alone. 
                                                             
    re:.45  You mean you actually looked *inside* one?  :-)
    
    I waded thru this note hoping to find references to what influence
    psychics have had on the presidential decisions of the past.  Didn't
    see any.  For all we know, the sugar in his jellybeans have had
    more effect.
              
    Also, I've noticed a lot of SET HIDDEN replies in this conference,
    and I haven't read that many notes.   Are they anti-social comments
    or are they so prophetic they will blast the eyes of the readers?
                                      
    							Don
    
    Speaking of prophecies, I guess it appears Jane & Tom & Joan aren't
    very psychic.

    What follows is an excerpt from Herb Caen's column in the May 11 
  edition of the San Francisco Chronicle:
 
   "That was an amazing coincidence on the front pages yesterday --
    the spread on Nancy Reagan's professional stargazer, S.F.'s Joan
    Quigley-Wiggly, and the obituary of the great science fiction
    writer, Robert A. Heinlein, who died in Carmel at the age of 80.
    In his best-known book, 'Stranger in a Strange Land,' published
    in 1961, Heinlein writes about the leader of the free world,
    Joseph E. Douglas, who bases all his decisions on advice his wife
    receives from her astrologer, a San Francisco woman named Becky
    Vesant.  As if that weren't close enough to the mark -- in fact,
    Joan Quigley lives VERY close to the Mark -- Heinlein describes
    the leader of the free world as 'a smiling nincompoop.'  Science
    fiction indeed."
 
    One hopes Heinlein thought of that and got a smile out of it.
 
*******************************************************************************
*  Paul Floriani        *FRI@cup.portal.com   *"Thou art God!" -- Mike        *
*Foothill Research, Inc.*sun!portal!---+      *                               *
*1301 Shoreway Rd.      *sun.com!---+  |      *                               *
*Suite 300              *sun!---+   |  |      *                               *
*Belmont, CA 94019      *   cup.portal.com!FRI*                               *
*******************************************************************************
* DISCLAIMER:  Opinions?  What's an opinion?                                  *
*******************************************************************************

    "If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?"

    Wow, what a "coincidence" .  I wonder if a well-read RAH fan could
    find any other "coincidences" in the news....
                                 
    "If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?"  Easy.
    There are those who keep showing the "ignorant" what they're missing.
    Like missionaries, crusaders, do-gooders, bleeding-heart liberals,
    and (my category) compulsive helpers.
    
    							Don

	"The report that important decisions in the White House were
	 based on astrological advice is most disturbing.  The results
	 could undermine faith in astrology."
 
					Letter to the Editor
					New York Times
					15 May 1988