SUBJECT: COVER-UP, LEAR DISCUSSION FILE: UFO1823
02-Feb-88 06:19 PM
Subj: UFOs and Lear (cont)
From: Sysop/Paranet
To: Jim Speiser
I'm not sure if I have that file here Jim, but I'll try to get it
soon. In the meantime, I tend to agree with your opinion, particularly
regarding the need to not get carried away when one of these
statements is released. Regarding the bolide explanation, it seems
likely that Maccabee may have his finger on that one. Thanks for your input!
Brad Langton
03-Feb-88 04:55 AM
Subj: Cover ups
From: Fred Scacchitti
To: John Lear (X)
John,
I`ve always believed there's more to "it" than meets the eye. However,
carte blance approval/acceptance has never been my style and I prefer
to read/sift and decide individual cases for myself. I followed the
M12 postings for a while and the best I could get out of there was
"maybe" - "something" - "in the 50's". I believe that the Eisenhower
administration would, at the very least, attemp a cover up. Just look
at his record on space exploration. We could have put a sattelite in
orbit years before the Russians' Sputnik, but Ike wouldn't allow our
scientist's to launch any rocket that would leave the earth's
atmosphere or go into orbit. Getting back to M12 - The articles
started strong (implications) but lost energy toward the end as if the
sensationalism had played out.
I grew up in the 50's and remember the rash of proposed UFO sightings
(mid to late). In fact, I spent many an hour scanning the skies,
hoping for a glance ... At that age, even a mistake would have been a
treasure.
I'll look over the articles you mentioned and comment if I find
something to comment on. As to TV specials, I try to catch them all
(those regarding UFO's/Occult/etc). But keep in mind that the prime
purpose of any TV show is audience (pronounce advertise to the most)
capture. Please no comments about PBS.
Another thought, very often experimenter predjudice, can sway the
flavor of a report toward that reporters views. I believe this is more
the rule than the exception.
regards, Fred Scacchitti
03-Feb-88 07:34 AM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Captain Picard (X)
I've practically given up on the major media giving us reports on
obscure UFO reports (usually the most interesting...) About the only
alternative is to get involved with specialized groups (like ParaNet)
where one can perhaps obtain new information through sources and the
like. It seems that those who are interested in UFO's are eternally
relegated to the dark corners of book stores (where you hope you won't
see anyone you know...) in order to try and glean any new info. But if
John Lear is right, not for long... since UFO's are about to hit the
big time...
-Tom
03-Feb-88 03:50 PM
Subj: Cover ups
From: Sysop/Paranet
To: Tom Mickus (X)
And... of course we must monitor ourselves against the bias we may
hold as well. Jim Speiser said it well when he said that his theory
was the only one he could come up with without invoking ETs.
This is an aspect of Paranet that we must preserve at all costs... to
be as objective as possible and recognize, however distateful it may
be, that we are going to be a bit biased one way or the other. If
indeed, John Lear is correct, the implications for our planet are
undeed staggering, yet many of the problems they have encountered,
crashes, biological.medical obstacles...etc... does not suggest to me,
a civilization billions of years in advance of us. As Jim says,
sufficiently advanced technology should look like utter nonsense to
our primitive understandings.
04-Feb-88 01:52 AM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Captain Picard
To: Tom Mickus (X)
Well, knowing what I do (having gleaned much of it from various
sources over the years, we may find that all too much of what Mr. Lear
has said is true. And if that turns out to be the case, then God help
us all.
Captain Picard
05-Feb-88 06:36 AM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Captain Picard
We may not have the cards stacked against us, we humans are a cunning
lot.
-Tom
05-Feb-88 08:58 PM
Subj: Cover ups
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus (X)
I'll second that Tom, we know so little at present... we must not rush
into anything without more thought.
03-Feb-88 07:47 AM
Subj: Lear,txt (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
The "Cliff Notes" of UFOlogy books, I've got to laugh at that one
Brad... ,not because your off base but because you are right on!
Something I was going to bring up in my soon to be forthcoming
MICKUS.RES, is that quite a substantial number of references in
LEAR.TXT seem to be practically lifted verbatim from the pages of
George C. Andrews "Extra-Terrestrials Among Us" (part of Llewellyn's
PSI-TECH Series, Llewellyn Publications - P.O.B. 64383, St. Paul, MN
55164-0383). As I've mentioned on the Alpha message base, this does
raise a number of questions, the fact that one book seems to have been
so heavily relied upon. Since John Lear has admitted only really
seriously interested in UFO's for some 14 months, maybe his coming
across a so sensationally written book has unduly affected his
perception of the UFO phenomenom.
-Tom
03-Feb-88 03:53 PM
Subj: Lear,txt (R)
From: Sysop/Paranet
To: Tom Mickus (X)
Your discovery of Andrew's book coorelating almost verbatim from ETs S
Among Us really throws the baby out with the bath water! We'll be
looking forward to your interpretation.
04-Feb-88 01:20 PM
Subj: Lear,txt (R)
From: John Lear
To: Sysop (X)
And looking forward to specific reference, page no line and verse.
Regards, John Lear
04-Feb-88 03:21 PM
Subj: Lear,txt
From: Sysop
To: John Lear
I agree, John.
05-Feb-88 06:17 AM
Subj: Lear,txt (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
As I've mentioned to John at Alpha, its "put up or shut up" time for
me. By tomorrow morning (02/06/88), I shall have up a file detailing
any similarities between Andrew's book and LEAR.TXT. However, I
preface this by saying (see Alpha message base) that this is NOT to
say that John Lear somehow was plagiarizing this (although I had
originally assumed that he had used the book as a reference material
while composing his text...), but that maybe some of his information
given by his "sources" was perhaps not the result of first hand
knowledge or experience, but merely a repetition of some claims made
by a particularly controversial UFO book.
It should be mentioned that "Extra-Terrestrials Among Us" (279p.+),
does cover a lot of ground and brings in a lot of bizarre material
which at times makes the book a little less than smooth flowing and
coherent in its line of reasoning. Thus seeing that a lot of the UFO
information is now more or less public domain, it perhaps is not
surprising that the a lot of the same information can be found now
from a variety of sources, including of course Andrews' book and LEAR.TXT .
-Tom
05-Feb-88 08:48 PM
Subj: Lear,txt (R)
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus (X)
Unfortunately, I think the emotional meltdown has caused a few of us,
me included, to say things that have not been as open minded as
perhaps we should have been. I saw that on Alpha there was also a few
curt words exchanged... things like the impossibility of this, the
lifting of that, or just plain bad headers like "Learidiot."
I think in retrospect, John has behaved much better than some of his
listeners. Tom, this message really doesn't address your post but it
gave me an opportunity to try and take a few steps backwards and re-
evaluate things. In any case... I'm anxiously awaiting Mickus.Res!!!
-Brad
07-Feb-88 06:49 AM
Subj: Lear,txt (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
Yes Brad, John has had a bit of a rough going over in the process of
trying to defend his hypothesis. No doubt, with people not always
understanding the motives of one another or the tone of a question,
misunderstandings and conflicts will from time to time arise
(...perhaps this is one of the limitations of a BBS). However, one
strength of a BBS is that words are placed on a premium, thus we must
be careful what we say; even an off the cuff answer can do great
damage to those people who might read it and not realize your state of
mind when you said it. This is not said in defense of what I said
concerning the "Cliff Notes" fiasco, there I did err, and I have
apologized for that. But one thing I do feel strongly about is that
mistakes made by individuals should not be held against them
indefinitely. We live and learn and if we have any common sense, we'll
continue to go forward...
-Tom
07-Feb-88 01:07 PM
Subj: Lear,txt
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus
I believe a measure of maturity in such matters is the ability to
recognize when one has over reacted. I believe many of us have done
this. The credibility of the participants rests upon such fundamental
issues in a forum such as this. Thankyou for your reflections.
-BL
04-Feb-88 01:10 PM
Subj: Lear,txt (R)
From: John Lear
To: Tom Mickus (X)
As I told Tom on Paranet Alpha in answer to the one specific allegedly
lifted from Andrews my reference was 'The New Atlas of the Universe'
written by Patrick Moore Page 14 (published by Crown Publishers in New
York) I do not have the Andrews book but will get it. If you can give
me the specifics of 'what was lifted' I will respond. I would also
like to state that in my research I could very well have been fed
disinformation and could also be feeding disinformation. The purpose
of the hypothesis was to put forth my ideas on what I thought was
going on. I appreciate inputs from all sides but you must admit that
its difficult to debate with people who cannot rationaly discuss
events such as Zamorra/Socorro, Bentwaters, Pascagoula, Walton,
Cash/Landrum and a host of others from research THEY have done.
05-Feb-88 07:28 AM
Subj: Lear,txt
From: Tom Mickus
To: John Lear
.disinformation?? Why keep going on about disinformation John? Sure
its a possibility, but its not what my message was about.
Comphrendenz? My original point in stating that there seemed to be a
correlation between Andrews' book and LEAR.TXT was that: (1) You had
used it as a reference material while composing LEAR.TXT (..no problem
with that), but that an inordinate amount of TXT seemed to echo what
was printed in Andrews' book (which, need I explain, would be
questionable). - subsequently however, you did inform me that you had
not used the book, nor ever heard of it. This then raises a second
question: (2) That your "in the know" source(s) were then
regurgitating to you many of the same claims as put forward in
Andrews' book (..or from a number of other books, for that matter.),
and thus this would raise questions about the credibility of some of
your contacts and their access to first hand knowledge/experience vis
a vis UFO related matters. As I've said here, and on Alpha, the UFO
phenomenom is such that there really isn't that much "original"
information on the subject thats floating around out there, and that
someone hasn't already heard. From this vantage point then, LEAR.TXT
in many respects does seem to be an amalgam (...here the "Cliff Notes"
reference is apt) of much of the current UFO theories (W-5) that have
been thrown around at one time or another. Nonetheless, I owe John
some proof that LEAR.TXT contains statements which are also in
Andrews' book, and not just 1 or 2 of them. As I've told John, its
"put up or shut up" time for me... and so tomorrow (Sat.) I shall
upload a file outlining the similarities, and perhaps John will have a
litte more feel for why (...in addition to seeing Brad's similar
observations which induced me to make a likewise comment) I had
compared the two aforementioned pieces of writing.
-Tom
03-Feb-88 07:50 AM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
Speaking off things falling from above, what do you make of fish
falling from the sky (if you have a copy, see the aforementioned book
by George C. Andrews). Weird or what...
03-Feb-88 03:54 PM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus (X)
I've not heard reference to that from Andrew's book but I believe
Clarke explained it as fish that were sent aloft in a waterspout...
you know what they say, whatever goes up, must come down.... most of
the time anyway! heheheh
05-Feb-88 06:20 AM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
Yah, I just kind of threw that reference in (...early in the morning,
little sleep...), its only one of a lot of bizarre incidents mentioned
by Andrews, which all together add up to something, although I'm not
quite sure what...
-Tom
05-Feb-88 08:54 PM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus (X)
I find it intriguing that so many different sources have reported
similar kinds of phenomenon. Whether a given hypothesis is correct or
not is not really the issue... I guess we need to get a handle on the
cross-correlational UFO data from a variety of sources, sift out the
things that don't matchup, put them in one category, and take a hard
look at the remaining constants across sightings.. perhaps a more
coherent picture will begin to emerge.
I'm not naive enough to think this hasn't been tried before... maybe
that is how John has reached his conclusions. In anycase, I think we
need to recheck the data and see if we can corraborate observations
and to what extent, we can also corraborate conclusions. At present, I
think that conclusions is a rather premature label for any findings.
We'll have to see if John wants to re-enter the dialog here. If you're
listening John, please consider the magnitude of all this and let us
have another, more objective look at things.
07-Feb-88 06:58 AM
SUBJ: COVER-UPS
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
Like others, I feel that we can most benefit from knowledge such as
that acquired in UFO related discussion, by fitting it together so
that we can see the "big" picture, the Gestalt if you like. This is a
difficult process however and is full of pitfalls, not least of which
is that new information may change your views from one hour to the
next. Here it takes courage, to accept new data no matter how painful
it might be. This is one of the hallmarks of an "open mind", nobody
can tolerate an ideologue. As I've told John Lear before, it took guts
to do what he did by coming out in the open with his views. However
the minefield he is now in is just one of the prices you pay for
taking that stand. I encourage him to continue with what he has
started. He must know that there is really no turning back...
-Tom
07-Feb-88 01:10 PM
Subj: Cover ups
From: Sysop/Paranet
To: Tom Mickus
In my opinion, that is the crux of the issue. Placement of such a
controvertial statement for public review and critique is a given. The
preparation for response from both sides of the issue must be a clear
realization prior to implementing such action.
-BL
03-Feb-88 08:08 AM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
Must have something to do with false pride...
-Tom
03-Feb-88 03:57 PM
Subj: Cover ups
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus (X)
..and pride goeth before the fall!
-Brad
03-Feb-88 08:12 AM
Subj: #2477 - UFO Files (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
To paraphrase one of your better Presidents, "It is better to be silent and
thought of as a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
-Abraham Lincoln
-However I don't think the above is good advice for a BBS eh?
03-Feb-88 04:02 PM
Subj: UFO Files (R)
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus (X)
I've often invoked Lincoln, as so many of our country's politicians...
yet to invoke Lincoln is somewhat suggestive that we ourselves have
nothing of pertinence to say... by identifying with a "great man" of
history, I think we are trybibg to cast our own discussion as if it
were worthy of the same introspection due the words of the hero.
04-Feb-88 02:05 AM
Subj: UFO Files (R)
From: Captain Picard
To: Sysop (X)
I like to think of it as simply pointing to a person (alive or no) who
has expressed what we already believe in a much better and more
elloquent way.
It is not simply mouthing the words and thoughts of another because
you yourself have nothing to say.
Captain Picard
04-Feb-88 03:05 AM
Subj: UFO Files
From: Sysop
To: Captain Picard
Point taken... I withdraw my overgeneralization.
Brad
05-Feb-88 06:22 AM
Subj: #2540 - UFO Files (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
You don't think so??
-Tom
05-Feb-88 08:55 PM
Subj: UFO Files (R)
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus (X)
Sometimes, I don't think.
-Brad
07-Feb-88 06:59 AM
Subj: UFO Files
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
ditto.
-Tom
03-Feb-88 08:31 AM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
Something that I'd like to start on ParaNet.Lambda (which I feel would
help narrow the whole UFO phenomenom down somewhat) is a discussion on
the origin of the EBES. In my mind, it basically comes down to three
options,
(1) They're from some spiritual dimension (our brains, the
enviroment around us).
(2) They are of Extra-terrestrial origin (moon, mars, Zeta
Reticuli)
(3) They are of terrestrial origin. (Gov't creation, secret
location on earth).
The last of these options doesn't necessarily mean that they can not
still be Aliens (unlike us, different evolution). Personally, I think
the Zeta Reticuli option is a bit far fetched ( I had heard that FISH
had used a little poetic license with the sketch). Then again there's
that Sirius mystery with the Dogon tribe in Africa... Interestingly,
I've come across a book entitled "The Hollow Earth", written by a
scientist with all the proper credentials (although I've come to look
on people with a lot of degrees and honours somewhat skeptically since
they can be as wacky as the 9 to 5 guy). In short, he argues that
there is a big hollow within the earth from which the UFO's leave. It
has a "sun" type energy source held at its center along with a number
of other interesting aspects. I know it sounds bizarre, but I'm
getting used to by now. Any reactions?? When you get past the initial
"silliness" of the hypothesis, isn't it kind of significant that the
deepest we have penetrated the earth's surface is about 15 miles (I
could be wrong, but I think I'm close). Our scientific assumptions
tell us that the center of the earth is molten, well what about some
of the other layers, couldn't there be huge cavities capable of
supporting life...?
-Tom
03-Feb-88 04:28 PM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus (X)
I may be wrong, but I believe that the results of seismic disturbances
resounding from one side of the Earth to another, ruke out the hollow
Earth theory almost entirely... also the physics of the Earth-Moon
system presumes a ceratin mass relationship which is consistant with
predicted observation...not to mention the tidal effect on a hollow
Earth.
Regarding your other 3 points. I'm not so certain about whether any
one is more or less viable than another. I would tend most strongly to
support them in the order you presented the options. First, illusory
or trandimensional entities, second, ET = Aliens from space, and
lastly, that there is some sophisticated alternate species on the
planet of which we know nothing.
Basically... if we look at PSI phenomena, we may be more on the mark.
I have written before of superluminal communication between elemental
particles and won't repeat that essay here... but next time it becomes
a text file! Let us assume that thought transmission or "astral
projection" is at the route of the UFO issue. No need to constrain
ourselves to time, space, or place of origen. This would account for a
great deal of reports since the actual contacts may be taking place in
a zone that is parallel with yet outside of, our physical sphere. I
also see this as more consistent with mental powers "billions" of
years ahead of us. In WICCA, we recognize the existence of entities
both benevolent and malevolent operating in realms beyond our own.
Suppose they too can "project" into our world... I think this line of
thought may not be so far from the mark.
05-Feb-88 06:31 AM
Subj: cover-ups
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
Good points about the Hollow Earth Theory, but I'm not going to write
it off just yet. I'll try and compress the author's arguments so that
you can critique it on the data that he himself uses. As to your
observations about this all being a mental thing, I would agree with
you about the existence of a parallel type spiritual dimension. It
only makes sense that if certain humans (...potentially all) can
'access' this plane, that those in the spiritual dimension can also
come out into our physical 'real' world. Very intriguing when it comes
to discussion of UFO origin, which is really one of thee big questions
out there that has been lacking a suitable answer...
-Tom
05-Feb-88 08:57 PM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus (X)
I'm kind of intrigued by this parallel reality business... we'll have
to explore the possible implications of this further. Wasn't this to
some extent Streiber's contention in "Communion?"
07-Feb-88 07:03 AM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
I would welcome that Brad. As far as Streiber's "Communion" is
concerned, I had gotten half through it before I got sidetracked. I
will try and finish it soon, so that I can get a sense of some of
Steiber's own conclusions. In light of Jim Speiser's recent upload, do
you think Streiber fits the category of a FP (Fantasy-Prone) type person?
-Tom
07-Feb-88 01:17 PM
Subj: Cover ups
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus
Interestingly enough, I too fell away from the text about halfway
through. One of the concerns I have had right along regarding Streiber
is that he is and has been an author of fiction and is well versed in
its devices. Another book that he has claimed to be working on is "Cat
Magic," and this book is presumably dealing with the issue of
witchcraft in America today as it really is, as oppossed to the
popular stereotype. I've been looking for the release of this book for
over three months now and have yet to see any mention of it since the
Geraldo Show on witchcraft last October. I haven't read Jim's recent
upload but will do so and make some generalizations based on how I
interpret his text.
Brad
04-Feb-88 01:55 AM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Captain Picard
To: Tom Mickus (X)
Shades of Dungeons & Dragons and the UnderDeep!
Captain Picard
05-Feb-88 06:38 AM
Subj: Cover ups
From: Tom Mickus
To: Captain Picard
I wonder what level the Aliens would be on? Hmmmm...
04-Feb-88 01:14 PM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: John Lear
To: Tom Mickus (X)
Tom, could you please cite your reference to the 'psychic' in
reference to the Fish study. That was not mentioned in the Dec. issue
of Astronomy nor in the rebutals of Sgan, Schaefer et all in the
reprint of 1976. Thank you.
05-Feb-88 07:40 AM
Subj: Cover ups
From: Tom Mickus
To: John Lear
I think you better re-read that message John, I made no reference to a
"psychic", but rather the word "poetic". Do you wear glasses by any
chance? But seriously, my reference to Fish's erroneous interpretation
(...no I did not conduct a personal interview or analysis of the map
in question...) came from a UFO paperback "Alien Abductions", which on
page 9 had made reference to Jacques Vallee's assessment of the map
from his book entitled "Messengers of Deception". The just of the
argument was:
(1) Betty Hill's map was not drawn to scale. The size of the stars
does not correspond to their brightness. The distance between the two
stars comprising Zeta Reticuli is exagerrated to the point where
navigation would be useless using the map.
(2) Fish's configuration has only an artificial resemblance to the
original map. In other words, if you look long and hard enough, any
set of points (which was essentially what the Hill map showed), will
have a physical analog somewhere in the galaxy. Thus the correlation
is a fluke.
(3) Therefore the map is bogus. But Vallee argues that it was a
"clever bit of mis-information deliberately given to Betty Hill so
that she would come to an erroneous conclusion about the nature of her
experience", and of the origin of the aliens.
-Tom
03-Feb-88 08:39 AM
Subj: #2488 - Lear Interview (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
Congradulations on ParaNet.Lambda's "scoop" with John Lear. There are
so many people clamoring for answers from him that to get him for
yourself for a whole hour and a half makes me envious! I for one would
like John Lear to expound on a couple of specific points as found in
his hypothesis. Not all of it at once, but the areas in which he feels
he has particular competence, and contacts. He seems to know his way
around on the Military angle. How 'bout it John (if your listening),
lets have some additional detailed info (and no, I'm not asking for
documents and all that, although it would be nice.) and some more
focused hypothesizing on those aspects of the UFO phenom. you feel
most comfortable with. I know I'd appreciate it.
-Tom
03-Feb-88 04:31 PM
Subj: Lear Interview
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus (X)
Thanks Tom, I was very happy to be a doorway to John's views for the
Paranet Community. Its satisfying when you are able to contribute some
original material to a hot issue.
-BL
03-Feb-88 10:06 AM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Craig Mccann
To: Sysop (X)
"the eternal fallacy of man"..... an interesting but apparently
truthful observation!....A tough habit to break, for sure! -C.M.
03-Feb-88 03:59 PM
Subj: Cover ups (R)
From: Sysop
To: Craig Mccann (X)
If I have but one wish... it is NOT to be remembered for that rather
off hand remark, lets us not forget... eternal fallacies presume the
existence of their opposites... eternal truths!
08-Feb-88 12:31 AM
Subj: Cover ups
From: Craig Mccann
To: Sysop
Ooops, I didn't mean to cast 'eternal fallacies' in stone, Brad, I
thought it rather appropriate in the context it was used. It seems to
fit rather well in a series of 'trials' held in a town called Salem a
few centuries ago, too. Have I missed the point? :-) -C.M.
03-Feb-88 10:35 AM
Subj: John Lear & etc. (R)
From: Craig Mccann
To: sysop (X)
Brad, I missed out on Lear.res. Can you reload it so I may pick it up
(if I can get on line)? Sometimes I log on when I don't have much
time and miss a few things. It's hard to get on at all, even at
2a.m.! Once in a while I can jump on from work but for short moments!
I'm working on additional questions for John Lear but the file is on
my system at home and can't send it now. I read some of Lear.int as I
was capturing it and it appears some questions have already been
answered. Also a file about MUFON was mentioned in an earlier post.
Could you reload it also? I will try to get back this evening. Thanks
-C.M.
03-Feb-88 04:40 PM
Subj: #2527 - John Lear & etc. (R)
From: Sysop
To: Craig Mccann (X)
The filename is Lear.rep not Lear.res and is a MUFON response to the Lear
material. Was there another NUFON article of interest? Everything but the
early p-net.msg and Magick.echo files are online all the time. I think I stll
need to get that press release from Alpha on the media and UFOs, otherwise,
everything should be here.
-BL
05-Feb-88 06:33 AM
Subj: John Lear & etc.
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
Don't bother Brad, I'll upload it tomorrow from here.
-Tom
03-Feb-88 03:43 PM
Subj: Religious Beliefs (R) (F)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Captain Picard (X)
Yes, but the problem Captain ('handle' right?) , is that its not so
simple when you are talking about religious beliefs. Many believe them
to be the TRUTH, but as far as demonstrating them (perhaps it would
help to be specific here...) to an un-believer, you might as well
forget it. That's because faith has so much to do with their believing
them. The cynic would call this a cop-out, but to the truly religious
person it is not.
-Tom
04-Feb-88 02:01 AM
Subj: Religious Beliefs (R)
From: Captain Picard
To: Tom Mickus (X)
Yes, "Captain" is part of my handle. I'm not connected with the
Military in any way. And yes, much of what religionists call "proof"
are actually purely subjective feelings and responses. But to them, it
is just as real as any externally verifiable(sp?) proof.
Thus it is beyond the reach of objective, external examination. Which,
for most religionists, is just as well.
Captain Picard
05-Feb-88 06:41 AM
Subj: Religious Beliefs
From: Tom Mickus
To: Captain Picard
Well..., generalizations are tricky. 'Religionists' I don't think
would shy away from a good fight, its just that certain tenets of
their belief they realize the futility of trying to explain without
the necessary component of faith.
-Tom
03-Feb-88 03:56 PM
Subj: User comment (F)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
A lot of people get turned off organized religion by the actions of a
few. Be it an errant Priest, or those actions of a lot of "Sunday
Christians", or of those of people such as Jim & Ta... I admit that at
times it can make one physically sick, yet they don't represent the
particular faith (don't want to limit this to Christianity...) it its
most perfect form (Okay, so no one does, we're all imperfect...) but
at least so long as we are striving for the ideal as represented by
(again...to use the Christian example) by our most perfect example,
Jesus Christ. I am in agreement with your observations on the state of
the Catholic Church in America (...or Canada for that matter). Who
knows what will come in the future. As far as cafeteria-Catholicism is
concerned, I like you agree that people should either follow the Pope
or leave the Church and start their own sect instead of destroying it
from within, which seems to be the new strategy of late. Everyone can
respect someone who is consistent in their views, and practices what
they preach. But it is the blatant hypocrisy of those who profess to
be what they are not which thinking people everywhere cannot respect.
-Tom
04-Feb-88 03:27 AM
Subj: Contentions on EBEs (R)
From: Sysop
To: John Lear (X)
First of all, I want to thankyou for taking the time to participate in
the interview of 02/03/88. I do however, feel that its appropriate
that I make a statement of my own regarding the issue at hand.
During the interview, I tried to remain neutral and ask questions that
may be helpful to those users who have clammored for more information.
I believe that I have met this responsibility.
For myself, I'm afraid that I find a great deal of the material
wanting in proof, or even reasonable expectations for such an advanced
culture. You have said that these are the facts, but without proving
these facts in some objective, verifiable way, you must understand
that your allegations are without substance. If you are sincere about
establishing the validity of your claims, you're going to have to go
openly public on a nationwide basis with credible witnesses, dates,
times, records, physical evidence, and whatever means possible to
support what you are saying.
I'm not saying that within the framework of your story, there are not
elements of strangeness that have been reported in other media at
different times in the last 40 years. All I'm saying is that the
statement without proof is doing more to harm credible UFO research
than it is helping it. I hope this was not your intention, but lets
look at this objectively, the story makes alot of the material you
read in the tabloids pale by comparison..."Insects From Space Align
with US to Harvest Human Enzymes!" You've got to admit, that sounds
pretty silly.
My final point is one that regards my beliefs about intelligence in
the universe and is no more valid than your contentions, but given a
civilization "BILLIONS" of years advanced beyond us, I'm very dubious
that they would even need bodies let alone spaceships... the more
primitive instincts would be barely a race memory. I can't buy the
"backside of an evolutionary curve" theory either. I don't even know
what that means! De-evolve? <cont. next message>
04-Feb-88 03:37 AM
Subj: Contentions on EBEs (R)
From: Sysop
To: Sysop (X)
De-evolve to me is nonsense. Evolution is an adaptive process that
moves in the direction of greatest survivability. We can argue that
point until the end of time and never meet minds... its like
philosophy, you either believe the contention or you don't.
I'll grant you that the UFO issue has been around a long time and yes,
the government DOES cover thing up very well.. but judging from the
initial impact this story had, gaged against more reasonable
inspection after the initial shock wears off, users that were leaning
in the direction of supporting more active efforts to learn the truth
about UFOs are now even laughing at the idea themselves.
I'm afraid I can't swallow this story John, I've thought about it,
I've talked about it, and I've read other peoples views on it, and it
just is too fantastic to believe.... EVEN IF ITS TRUE!
That last point is important, if you do have something to say,
sensationalism is not the way to garner support.
I respect your right to express your beliefs, but please respect our
rights to have a high degree of proof before going off half-cocked in
a blitz to stop the aliens!!
Brad Langton Paranet Lambda
05-Feb-88 06:50 AM
Subj: #2573 - Contentions on EBEs (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
Reflecting on LEAR.TXT... its almost as if John should of narrowed
down his hypothesis to a few areas since getting it all at once has
given some people a severe case of gastronitis. It was almost
inevitable that, due to the wide number of statements made in a
relatively short piece of text, that it would take on the shape of a
tabloid article, as sensational revelation was followed one after
another after another, until the reader felt blitzed at the end of it.
This is not really John's fault, as it is our problem if we take
something the wrong way, and we can't really expect him to write a
book or anything (..who knows?).
-Tom
05-Feb-88 09:01 PM
Subj: Contentions on EBEs (R)
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus (X)
I'm going to go back over it again. This time without the shock value,
and see what things I feel need more reflection.
-Brad
07-Feb-88 07:13 AM
Subj: Contentions on EBEs (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
That should of been "gastroenteritis". And yes I still have after it
after successive readings of LEAR.TXT Plain and simple, it covers a
lot of ground in a short time which means that each observation or
claim is given relatively short shrift. To repeat once again to John
Lear, lets have MORE. Not necessarily dealing with every single aspect
(there are only 24 hours in a day), but with those areas you feel
especially competent or qualified to expound on.
-Tom
07-Feb-88 01:23 PM
Subj: Contentions on EBEs
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus
In rereading John's text, I continue to see alot of "claims" and
little basic historical documentation. If John is really serious about
all this, I think he's made further disclosures necessary in order to
retain a credible stance. I realize that John has rephrased his
original "statement" into a "hypothesis," yet a hypothesis can not
hang in a vacuum. If he has data, let us see it... otherwise how can
we EVER reach an opinion without being indicted as "closeminded?"
John's hypothesis faces its biggest trial... the burdon of proof.
John, its in your court.
-Brad
04-Feb-88 06:57 AM
Subj: Evolution (R)
From: Fred Scacchitti
To: sysop (X)
Brad,
For the most part evolution does tend to promote suvivability,
however some genetic traits (dominant genes) don't. m/vHow about near-
sightedness? I don't have the facts but I doubt if it will be very
long (long on the evolutionary scale of time) before everyone require
glasses or some sort of ec#G2b/qye correction. So it`s not to far
fetched.
Since I was last on I read all the lear files and I'm astounded. I
can't say exactly howzR?7 I feel or think. I don't take it verbatum,
sounds to much like a class B movies with the same plot. But yet I
wouldn't be suprised if something did break | o_ in the media. Too
much line noise to go on for long. Lear's credentials indicate he's
not a wolf cryer and it`s clear that he believes what he says but the
whole story is difficult to swallow. If confrontation is imminent than
why delay telling the world #n^m{{? What can we do if it's true? Is
this just an alarm or can anything be done.
More later, Fred Scacchitti
04-Feb-88 03:17 PM
Subj: Evolution (R)
From: Sysop
To: Fred Scacchitti (X)
As you say, evolution tends to favor survivability, however,
nearsightedness is not necessarily a make or break adaptation. Also,
mutations do occur which is the crux of evolution in the first place.
Regarding primitive/aggressive characteristics as hinted at in
LEAR.TXT, I find it hard to believe, in the absense of hard proof,
that such an outcome would be possible as the race would very likely
be unable to survive its nuclear period.
I am not questioning Mr. Lear's credentials, although I'm not going to
become overly awed by them either. In the absense of hard evidence,
documented by organizations that have a record of credibility, I can
not accept the main thrust of his theses. This is my opinion at this
point in time, I can tell you that I'm an alien from Proxima Centauri
A and that my mission on Earth is benevolent observation of its
inhabitants. I too have held a level of at least industrial secret
clearance, I am a graduate of a respected college with a 3.49
cummulative point average, am completing a Masters Degree in Education
at another respected institution with 18 hours completed and a 4.0
average, I have been the Chairman of the Computer science Department
of one of Rochester's most prestigious high schools, I have been a
Manufacturing Engineer at Eastman Kodak Company and various other
sundries which have absolutely no bearing on my credibility in
claiming to be a humanoid alien from another world. I have never cried
wolf and therefore there is no reason to believe that were I to make
such as claim that I be automatically be given the benefit of the
doubt because it is an absolutely outlandish thing for me to say.
That does NOT mean that it might not be true in an idealistic sort of
way...although, I will state for the record that I am indigenous to
the Earth.
I mean no disrespect to Mr. Lear, if what he says is true I will
apologize profusely and "RUN LIKE HELL" (Lear, 1987). But my opinion
does in no way have a bearing on his report's truth.
05-Feb-88 07:47 AM
Subj: Evolution (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
Shoot! Thanks for blowing it Brad, now there's nothing left for our
imaginations as to the mystery surrounding our SYSOP...
-Tom
05-Feb-88 02:32 PM
Subj: Evolution (R)
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus (X)
Unless of course... I'm distributing disinformation. heheheh
-Brad
07-Feb-88 06:36 AM
Subj: #2626 - Evolution
From: Tom Mickus
To: Sysop (X)
Hmmm......
04-Feb-88 02:26 PM
Subj: Lear txt.
From: John Lear
To: Fred Scacchitti (X)
I appreciate your comments. As you know most new ideas meet with very
heavy resistance particularly ideas that assault long held beliefs. I
am confident in my information and sources, however, in all fairness I
could have well been fed disinformation and I could be feeding
disinfor- mation. The question would then be, 'to what end?' The
question you put forth about 'why delay telling the world?' is the
question that has been facing MJ-12 for a number of years. Do we or
don't we. What would be accomplished by telling the world? The
purpose of my hypothesis was not 'to tell the world' it was to let
those who wanted to know, know. I just have some information which
might be of interest to a few. Regards, John
04-Feb-88 02:34 PM
Subj: 2572 (R)
From: John Lear
To: Sysop (X)
Brad-I had a number of documents and video tapes to send toyou but in
reference to your message 2572 your mind appears to have been made up
and I'm afraid I can't deal with that sort of mindset. You asked me
for the material during my interview but you wrote your condemnation
before you got it. Had you withheld your opinion for a few days you
might have gained a different perspective on what I had to say. I
would much prefer to deal with an open mind than a closed one although
I think you were posturing anticipating disaster. I'm afraid that if I
send it now you will be evaluating the information against what you
have already committed to rather than an unbiased point of view. Of
all people the sysop should be the one to say 'All the information is
not in and I will reserve my opinion until such time as it is.' Thanks
again for the interview.
04-Feb-88 03:41 PM
Subj: 2572
From: Sysop
To: John Lear
John,
My opinions are based on what I know now, not on what the future may
yield. You must understand that to release such a statement without
making very clear that it is hypothesis only, was not good science.
Furthermore, if you were going to release this material at all, I
think that had you spent more effort to include more of your proof in
documents that can be independently verified, you would receive less
resistance to your allegations, (hypothesis).
My statement was based on information I have at present. If you want
to sulk about it that is your concern. It was necessary for me to make
a statement and I did in no way contend that the opinion was cast in
stone. I asked you questions in the interview that I felt were
important to me in forming an opinion. Your response was quite
often... "I don't know." Well John, I don't know either. What I do
know is that this kind of talk has been around a long time without any
proof to back it up. I deliberately did NOT call you crazy, misguided,
or anything else judgmental particularly because I do not have all the
facts. I thought that was implicit in my statement, if you did not see
that then perhaps your own expectations of rejection have colored your
interpretation.
You, on the otherhand have decided that I have a particular mindset
and therefore can not be open to real proof. If that were the case I
would not be running this forum in the first place nor would I have
sat up until 3:30 in the morning discussing this with you. I would
suggest that you may wish to review your own motives in writing me off
as being "open minded." There is a difference between open-mindedness
and vacillating in limbo waiting for questionable proof. My opinions
do not reflect on my opinion of you or the veracity of your statement.
My opinion is based on my facts at present, and they are always open
to change should the data indicate it. I do not prejudge, and your
assertion that I have done so does not appear to be fair.
04-Feb-88 02:37 PM
Subj: Lear txt.
From: John Lear
To: Captain Picard
I appreciate your comments and your open mind. I have a number of
documents and some video tape sitting on my desk that I had prepared
for Brad. But Brad has already made up his mind so it is of no use to
him. If you could call me at 702-438-8181 I can make arrangements to
ship these items for your review. Best regards, John Lear.
05-Feb-88 01:19 AM
Subj: Apologies
From: Sysop
To: John Lear
In reading over my responses to you, I have concluded that I was out
of line not taking a more neutral position. As you have said... I
should wait until the facts are in. I guess these things can happen
when an issue such as this has such volatility. My apologies for
anything offensive, that was clearly not my intent.
Brad
06-Feb-88 08:42 AM
Subj: Curiosity (R)
From: Fred Scacchitti
To: Brad, Tom, John
I have to admit I find it all difficult to believe, however my
curiosity is piqued. This is the first time I've ever encountered
anyone as close to "what's happening" in my life and I for one would
like to hear John out and view the evidence.
It appears to me that there's quite a bit of emotion creeping into
this (if the shoe fits . . . ) and this doesn't help anything. Let's
here/see what John Lear has to offer. Then we can all judge for
ourselves.
Brad - Alien or not - I'm please to have come in contact with you.
One of the Lear files was little more than a roasting of Lear.txt and
John himself. I remember thinking at the time, that we're all human
and it must be irritating as hell for John to catch flack like that
from a group of such open-minded(?) individuals. The only thing that's
evident to me is that John believes what he's written. If it's a hoax,
so be it, I've been duped before.
John, the balls in your court, I'd like to hear you out. But I must
warn you although I'm a good listener, I won't carry your flag before
I'm convinced.
regards, Fred Scacchitti
06-Feb-88 11:50 AM
Subj: #2653 - Curiosity (R)
From: Sysop
To: Fred Scacchitti (X)
As one of the roasters... allow me to say in defense that as human
beings, the probability that an initial reaction to lear.txt might
sway towards the incredulous response it has had in some quarters, is
neither damning to the roaster or the roastee... however, I have
agreed to take a step or two backwards and see what John has to say.
If he was unprepared to defend himself against the predictable
skeptism, I would have even more questions. But as I said, I'll not
air those views until more facts come in. I will not however,
apologize forever on this point... if John wants to be heard, he has
to get back on his horse and not let understandable skeptism throw him
into the outback.
07-Feb-88 03:25 AM
Subj: Curiosity (R)
From: Fred Scacchitti
To: Sysop (X)
Brad, I have no problem with that. Fred
07-Feb-88 04:38 AM
Subj: #2682 - Curiosity (R)
From: Sysop
To: Fred Scacchitti
Thanks Fred... I've this terrible habit of foot-in-mouth lately. Maybe
I'm losing my objectivity... or something. I almost always giving
kneejerk responses lately... perhaps a side effect of trying to be
"deep" on about a dozen topics at once around here. Like Dave O'Leyar
pointed out recently... its easy to reach burnout on hot issues like
these... any one of which, if handled correctly, could conceivably
monopolize the message base for months.
Brad
08-Feb-88 01:10 AM
Subj: #2688 - Curiosity
From: Craig Mccann
To: Sysop
Brad, at least you get to the base every day. Some of us only get on
once in a while and the amount of material to cover is almost
staggering at times. Message burnout is the least when you know you
have to get up to go to work in 4 more hours. But I believe you DO
know how THAT feels! I'm following as much as I can anyway! Damn the
torpedoes! Full speed ahead! :-) -C.M.
07-Feb-88 07:27 AM
Subj: #2653 - Curiosity (R)
From: Tom Mickus
To: Fred Scacchitti
I too share some of that excitement Fred, and I would like to hear
MORE. However, your post has prompted me say a few things regarding
what would it take to convince us anyway? You know, John Lear could
probably talk forever about his hypothesis and no matter how eloquent
he is, in the end it probably would not convince me as to its 100%
truth or falsity. But John isn't operating in a vacuum, there are
others who are saying the same things, others who have different
perspectives. As Budd Hopkins said in reference to the alien abduction
phenomenom, "the strength is in the patterns". Ultimately you or I
won't be convinced unless we receive enough information from enough
sources, be it a UFO researcher or from some Indian tribe in the
MidWest. It is also affected by our own life experiences, ideas,
intuition etc., as to the probability of this or that being true.
After we do all this, then we can decide whether something is true or
not from our own opinions. That is why it is important for John Lear
and others to go on and continue to make contributions to our
understanding, because when viewed in a totality, we will have a much
better pool from which to make an informed judgement.
-Tom
07-Feb-88 01:25 PM
Subj: #2697 - Curiosity
From: Sysop
To: Tom Mickus
I would add that at present, Lear.txt IS in a vacuum... and at this
writing, I see no attempt being made to alter the situation.
06-Feb-88 11:53 AM
Subj: UFOPRESS.TXT
From: Sysop
To: All
The file mentioned earlier by Jim Speiser regarding the press and the
UFO issue is available in the DL. Also you will find the latest
message dump from Alpha where it is beginning to appear that interest
in the latest UFO controversy is starting to wane. I'll not say
anymore, but read p-net48.msg and see ifd you agree or not.
Brad
06-Feb-88 05:08 PM
Subj: MICKUS1.RES
From: Tom Mickus
To: ALL
Have just uploaded MICKUS1.RES, which is in response to John Lear's
questions regarding my statements to the effect that I more or less
accused him of using the contents of "Extra-Terrestrials Among Us" in
his LEAR.TXT As you'll see, I was a little washed up, and now am
eating some pie...
-Tom
07-Feb-88 07:06 AM
Subj: "handle"
From: Tom Mickus
To: Captain Picard
.Picard...I get it. Sorry, I must be getting a little slow...
-Tom
*****************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS
http://www.ufobbs.com/ *
*****************************************
