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/ *
*****************************************