textfiles/ufo/UFOBBS/2000/2214.ufo

SUBJECT: SOME MORE ABOUT CROP CIRCLES                        FILE: UFO2214





5] I have a feeling that it may be a misconception to think
that it's raw power that sends a beam of light so far and
so neatly.  It may be that a coherent beam need not
actually burn the plants; perhaps part of the test is one
of adjusting power as well.



Message #746 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: Jeff Stuart 350
Date: 09-08-91 03:25:49
Subject: Circles

There is an erratic crop circle thread on Compuserve;
National Issues forum, Paranormal section (9?).  There are a
couple of Englishmen on it who report new apports timelily.


Message #747 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Jeff Stuart 350
To: Tim Curnen 92
Date: 09-08-91 11:58:56
Subject: Livelier ideas

How about this:

If the crop circles are demonstrations of a human
technology, money had to be spent. It was probably
money from SDI, mingled in with other sincere/misguided/
calculated efforts.

So Ronald Reagan made the crop circles.

Or this:

If the crop circles are a product of U.S. military
technology, and were, in fact, related to the
targeting systems used in the Kuwaiti liberation, to
put a little proof in the pudding... knowledge of
that system may have been the straw that broke the
back of the Soviet Union.

The New World Order made the crop circles.

Actually, by "livelier," I'm going to guess you mean more
imaginative, farther out there in the realms of
SETI/UFOs/E.T.s/ mystic/Druidic/Stonehengic stuff.

That's a lot of wish fulfillment. People desperately want
something magical and special to happen, preferably to them,
and the circles are a perfect mirror of their dreams.

However, if the SABAROFF.COM utility et. al. are correct,
the circles are evidence of a powerful, possibly world-
dominating device, and that's a whole lot spookier than most
people can handle.

Thanks for the Compuserve tip - it'll be checked out.  JS


Message #748 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Duane Poole 447
To: Crop Circle Fanciers...
Date: 09-09-91 09:56:58
Subject: Hoaxers step forward


I saw a brief piece on the CBS Morning News this a.m. about
a couple of men in England who've stepped forward to say
that they're the ones behind what they refer to as "this
hoax."  I tuned in just after they explained how they've
been doing it, but in time to hear them say it was just
getting out of hand and they felt they had to 'fess up.

Oddly, this confession itself sounded like a hoax -- or
perhaps I just assumed that, having spent the last week or
so reading through the fascinating theories put forth on
this forum.  Can it really come down to two men tromping
through the fields at night?

Did anyone else see this piece and get the whole story?
D.


Message #749 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Tim Curnen 92
To: Duane Poole 447
Date: 09-09-91 11:21:48
Subject: Crop Circles

CNN ran a similar story this morning, adding to the fun.
These guys could be for real, or they could be a couple of
geezers having a little fun with the press.

CNN interviewed a scientist who's heavily invested in crop
circle speculation, and he said that he won't believe the
"hoaxsters" unless they are willing to go on TV and
demonstrate how they did it.

Tim


Message #750 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Jeff Stuart 350
To: Circle Watch
Date: 09-09-91 12:32:39
Subject: More on the Hoaxers

There was a report on National Public Radio this morning,
between 8:00 and 8:30 AM PDT, which stated that two men had
come forward to admit they were responsible for making the
crop circles, using flat boards of some kind. They claimed
they've been making the circles for over ten years, and that
they were finally "tired of everyone else making money [from
the circles] but them."

I was preoccupied with Coldwater Canyon traffic at the time
and can't recall the names.  The story will probably be
repeated on other news services.

Of course, given the kind of paranoid slip knots we've been
talking about on this thread, this admission may be one more
form of disinformation, intentional or not, to keep more
investigation to a minimum.

And, of course, the circles should stop appearing now.  I
don't really want them to, but they should...

Two guys finally show up, cop to the gig, and I still don't
believe it. Sigh. I must be a member of the WGA.  JS


Message #751 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Gil Evans 31
To: Cropsters
Date: 09-09-91 12:49:53
Subject: A hoax!?

Damn...

Let's see them duplicate it on Prime Time Live!


Message #754 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Peter A. Lake 430
To: Gil Evans 31
Date: 09-09-91 13:04:32
Subject: Hoax

        I heard one of the hoaxers this AM on CNN. He said
that they had taken most of their inspiration from art books
c. 1900-1920.

One of the figures was a Mandlebrot equation, however,
unknown at that time.

-pal


Message #755 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: all
Date: 09-09-91 17:47:30
Subject: In case no one else saw it, ABC News presented a

solution to the crop circles tonight: two artists, middle-
aged men, who working from little diagrams on scraps of
paper walk about in the middle of the night with home-made
treaders or rollers, scape out the designs.

It would be pleasant and conducive to the peace of our
minds if this indeed were the solution.  But I would ask a
few questions: 1/ These men are identified as "artists".
Do we know where they come from and do we have other
examples of their art?  Do they have their own documentation
of their work?  This sort of performance piece does not
spring full-blown from the artistic souls of white-collar or
blue-collar functionaries.  2/ The single example of how
they did it showed only a single circle and a portion of a
line -- they didn't go so far as to reproduce any of their
other designs.  3/ The design they said they worked from
gave no indication of scale.  How did they determine scale,
working together?  How did they maintain precise angles and
preciser curves with apparatus comprised of a board hung
around their necks on a rope. Symmetry that is exact over
the area of a soccer field is difficult to maintain. 4/ How
did they evade detection of watchdogs, and the alarms of
other animals?  5/ How did they work silently together, how
did they reproduce a freehand sketch with only their unequal
foot-strides as measurement to give such intricate and
careful designs?  Operating not only silently, but without
light or guide-lines?  6/ How did they reproduce designs
following invisible ley lines, yet against visible field
lines -- as if they had arranged living room furniture with
reference to true north rather than according to the room's
walls? 7/ How did they manage more than one field in a
night? Producing two of their most complicated designs?  8/
The designs are based on a number of different sources, most
of them English or Keltic?  It would be interesting to see
the range of the actual books or sources for their designs.
9/If they began simply and close to home, then the normal
tendency would be to radiate the scope and placement of
their work.  The work only moved westward.  What compelled
this decision?  10/ With instruments that are meters wide
how did they manage to bend individual stalks in a spiral
pattern at the interior of circles?  11/ Would they please
to reproduce one of their patterns, during the day?

If these two artists are the genuine cause of the crop
circles, they should be able to answer all of the above
questions.  And if they wish to claim credit for the
circles and designs, then they ought to be anxious to do
so.

What they do show, quite convincingly, is how the stalks
are bent not broken.  I find his act kind of astonighing,
too, but then, I always did.

I remember at the Sportsman's Lodge rally we were talking
and I asked him if it weren't time to contact the AFL-CIO
and suggest a national boycott of cassettes and movies as a
way of showing union muscle.  His response?  "You don't want
to get into that, do ya?"

Well,  yes......

                                                F.


Message #756 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Philip S. Spencer 881
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-09-91 23:09:04
Subject: People claiming credit

On a 2-year old BBC tape I have there's a group that
deliberately set out to fake the crop circles - just the
plain simple ones - and then they called in the experts.
Almost to a man they said these were fakes.

Bob's suggestion that masers or other beam weapons are
"melting" the wheat is still more likely then these guys
being for real.

The biggest question is "how do/did you get the wheat to lie
down like that?". It certainly wasn't trampled or raked.

Philip


Message #757 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Peter A. Lake 430
To: Philip S. Spencer 881
Date: 09-10-91 00:00:50
Subject: Crop Circles

        I'm pleased to announce that the Science and Health
Forum moderator has stuck out his scaly tongue at all those
who thought the crop circles came from outer space.
        I believe those old guys and I bet they had one hell
of a good time making those circles.

        This opinion is purely that of the management, which
will be pleased to see further entries which try to make a
case for high-tech weaponry manufacturing what was actually
done with a board and piece of rope and bit of ingenuity.

       While I thoroughly enjoyed all the postings here I
must say that I thought they were a crock re the crop
circles. Sorry, guys. I know you put in a lot of effort
trying to figure thisone out, but I have far less trouble
believing the new explanation rather than the fantastic
theories.
        As pieces of sci-fi, though, all the messages here
were first-rate and I hope no one will be put off by this
personal view.

--Mr. Lizard


Message #758 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Larry Brand 922
To: Peter A. Lake 430
Date: 09-10-91 00:58:33
Subject: Your opinion (on the crop circles)

Is NOT shared only by "the management".

The thread should be preserved as a wonderfully entertaining
parable on "epicyclic" nature of conspiracy thinking, and
the simple prosaic elegance of the truth.


Message #759 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Peter A. Lake 430
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-10-91 03:56:41
Subject: Preserving the thread

        I also think it should be preserved for its
considerable entertainment value. Some of the best reading
on the BBS, IMHO.

--pal


Message #760 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: Peter A. Lake 430
Date: 09-10-91 04:06:36
Subject: Mr Lizard's Credulity

You will be pleased to be reassured to hear that the
equipment also included a baseball cap with a hole in it
through which a piece of twisted wire formed a gun-site to
align with the horizon in order to make straight lines.

It was not indicated what was used to illuminate the horizon
at dead of night.  Or what happened when there were trees or
hills in the way.  And moonless nights are very black in
that part of England.


Message #762 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Larry & The Liz
Date: 09-10-91 05:16:38
Subject: Immortality

Seriously, disagreements aside, I'm pleased to have partici-
pated in a thread which was an enjoyable read, regardless of
the position taken re content.

I'm also delighted that you consider it worth archiving.

Many people asked good questions and made wonderful
contributions, dissenters, too.

Uh... stay tuned, folks.

                              Bob


Message #763 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Participants in the Crop Circle Thread
Date: 09-10-91 05:21:19
Subject: Seeking Fame and Glory

I can't believe this thread went all the way back to
#693...

There is a desire to upload the thread to one or more
CompuServe forums - paranormal and straight.  This would
mean a global "read." I hope that all who participated will
consider granting permission, to me and to the BBS
Committee, before this is even considered.

It doesn't address any "issues" per se, and in the context
of the "M" forum in no way can be construed as the Guild
or the BBS taking any position on an "issue."

If you don't want your posting even considered, if you would
like it included - names deleted from the headers or not,
please let me know, preferably in a public posting.

Having looked around some of "serious" forums on CIS,
such as SPACE, etc., I was intrigued to find a number
of messages in a number of section referring the message
sender to ISSUES/PARANORMAL.

There is a lot of interest, apparently, and a lot of
discussion - pro and con - on the current hoax gig.
If you're willing to be including in such a posting,
or if you're not, please let me know.

I posted a procedural question on "O", and welcome any
feedback from any BBS Committee members who might have
feelings on the subject.

It'll all be by the book, if at all.  Feedback is
strongly desired.

The points of view here are also absent from the CIS
discussion, and why not put them on the table?

Why not toss a rock in the pond?


                            Bob


Message #765 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Gil Evans 31
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-10-91 08:59:01
Subject: Lake's opinion

about crop circles is one of the few I'm proud to share with
him :-).  Saw these great Limey jokesters on TV this
morning.  They had video of their technique: a four-foot
piece of wood with a string attached to both ends.  These
guys made a circle, then they brought in one of the
"experts" (accroding to the LA Times) who declared it real.
But...  The same experts, who have stuck their necks out
with all these whacko theories, are *still unwilling to
believe that this is a hoax!  Talk about firmly held
beliefs...it's no wonder communism, or the flat earth
theory, lasted as long as it did!


Message #766 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Gil Evans 31
To: Gil Evans 31
Date: 09-10-91 09:04:21
Subject: Oh, yeah...

These blokes were *artists*!


Message #767 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Larry Brand 922
To: Gil Evans 31
Date: 09-10-91 10:52:19
Subject: Unwillingness to believe it's a hoax

I guess there are also some folks who think the Amazing
Randi is really a double agent for all those psychics out
there who'd prefer to keep their dark powers under wraps.
One of the neat things about conspiracy theories is that you
can turn ANYTHING to your advantage:  any disproof becomes
only a further indicator of the magnitude of the conpsiracy.


Message #768 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Larry Brand 922
To: Bob Sabaroff 56
Date: 09-10-91 10:56:29
Subject: But....

Far be it for me to turn down a chance at pixelic
immortality.

So let me throw my two cents in concerning something that's
been bothering me (Columbo reading optional):  if the crop
circles WERE the result of weapons testing, why wouldn't the
military have simply set up a site somewhere in the middle
of nowhere, on land they owned, where they could check the
results with ease, unhindered by locals, and unthreatened by
the potential for exposure?


Message #769 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Fred Haines 161
To: Larry Brand
Date: 09-10-91 11:38:34
Subject: suspension of disbelief

I'm as unwilling to believe that the crop circles were a
hoax as I was and am to believe that they were caused by
weather, testing of advanced military hardware, or
Extraterrestrial Biological Entities in flying saucers.
Until more proof is in, I remain equally skeptical of all
explanations.

If they really are a hoax, it shouldn't be too long before
sufficient proof is available. The circles were studied not
only by crazed amateurs, but by teams of university-based
scientists, and it shouldn't take some of these people long
to determine whether the explanation proposed by Doug Bower
and Dave Chorly meets all of the desiderata.

If Bower and Chorly are indeed responsible, they are very
great artists indeed. It's easy for the sophisticated to
sneer at the needs of ordinary people for romance, mystery,
and magic in their lives, but it is, as those of us who
toil to create it through fiction know all too well, very
much harder to satisfy those needs. If Bower and Chorly
made the circles, they created a work of art which reached
into the depths of the myths of our time to fascinate and
spellbind a huge international audience, including both the
naive and the sophisticated, over many years. I hope they
did do it - and, if they did, my hat's off to them.


Message #771 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Sheldon Keller 78
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-10-91 12:02:08
Subject: Your message 758

I truly enjoy your postings on the BBS, Larry Brand - Half
the time I don't know what the <bleep> you're saying, but
you do say it with panache and brio ...(Coincidentally,
those are my attorneys as well) ... Best, SBK


Message #772 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-10-91 12:49:47
Subject: Why England?

If the crop circles had appeared in eastern Montana, say, or
Saskatchewan,  they might have remained undiscovered for
some time, but not forever.  But appearing there, it would
have been fairly obvious that it was satellite work.  But to
do it in England?  Where there's a history of such?  And a
history of pranksters?  And where those who really are
studying the circles can mask their work in the crowds of
New Agers?  Where there is the greatest potential for
disinformational activity?  Where, when it appears that some
people are getting uncomfortably close to the real answer,
you can pull two chuckly old English eccentrics out of the
band box to cry aloud, "Hey I guess we fooled you guys!"

To the infinite relief of those who are comfortable to think
that conspiracies exist only in our past; and that there are
no conspiracies today, only paranoid delusions.


Message #773 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Larry Brand 922
To: Fred Haines 161
Date: 09-10-91 13:03:48
Subject: I didn't mean to imply

That I accept without proof that these two characters are
responsible for the phenomena.  Only that it's a far more
likely scenario than most, and when the truth IS uncovered,
it will probably be a simple and prosaic one.

And as far as those science guys are concerned, bear in mind
how many of them were fooled by the likes of Uri Geller --
and later complained that they didn't THINK he would CHEAT!


Message #774 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Larry Brand 922
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-10-91 13:08:36
Subject: You're illustrating my point

That ANY evidence to the contrary is merely used to
"demonstrate" how truly sophisticated and wide-spread the
conspiracy really is.  By that reasoning, all those nice
photos from space showing a spherical planet PROVE how deep
the conspiracy runs to prevent us from ever finding out that
the earth is really flat.


Message #775 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Jeff Stuart 350
To: Circlers
Date: 09-10-91 13:54:50
Subject: Update

The SABAROFF.COM utility graciously provided me with the
latest Compuserve postings on the circles and the hoaxers.
Briefly:

1. Different news services have decidedly different
attitudes on the revealed hoax. The story on NBC (owned by
General Electric) was basically, okay, mystery solved,
everyone go home. There was more perceived skepticism on ABC
and other feeds.

2 Given the sheer number and size of the circles, and given
the fact that 30 circles allegedly appeared all in *one
night* sometime in 1990, there is ample room for disbelief
that these two gents are alone responsible for everything,
and that disbelief is being expressed.  It is being
expressed by people who *want* the circles to be UFO paw
prints, of course. The sound of dreams shattering is not
pleasant.

Of course, here at Temple Beth Doubt It, we're keeping an
open mind.

JS



Message #777 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Durnford King 745
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-10-91 15:07:14
Subject:             Paranoid delusions...........

Having just returned from Western Canada I must tell you
that the papers were full of reports of the same phenomena
last week.  Perhaps it's a virus that's spreading.

                                *DK



Message #781 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Ian Abrams 910
To: All
Date: 09-10-91 20:26:17
Subject: The Amazing Frauds

Anyone interested in learning about the gullibility of
scientists when encountering a determined con artist should
AT ONCE read two books by Martin Gardner:  "Fads and
Fallacies in the Name of Science" and "Science:  Good, Bad
and Bogus."  Great reads about all branches of
pseudoscience.


Message #782 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Ian Abrams 910
To: All
Date: 09-10-91 20:27:52
Subject: Crop Circles and Hoaxters:  A Precedent

Anybody remember the story of von Meegerin?

My memory for details here is a bit hazy, but it's something
like this:  V.M. was an art forger in Holland in the 30's
who specialized in Rembrandts-- an artist of whom there are
a notoriously large number of uncatalogued paintings.  Van
Meegerin would bake his canvases to age them a few centuries
overnight, and made a fortune selling ersatz old masters.

Anyway, after WWII, he started to resume his trade, and was
promptly arrested-- and accused of, not selling phony
Rembrandts, but selling *real* Rembrandts which were
supposed to have been looted from Dutch collections by the
Nazis.  In other words, V.M. was accused of having been a
Nazi collaborator now cashing in.

In order to clear himself of the collaboration charge, V.M.
had to reveal that he was, instead, the master forger of the
century-- which he was barely unable to do, because the
experts who'd vetted all his phony Rembrandts as the real
thing in the 30's were now unwilling to admit they'd been
duped...

Anybody know more about this story?  I can't even remember
how it came out.


Message #783 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-10-91 20:35:06
Subject: However...

First, welcome to pixelic immortality.

After I log off (I still need my Read Since Flag), I'll post
the message numbers) in which Ian Abrams raised those very
questions, and several, not all by me, which offered answers
to it.

Which is not to say it isn't a perfectly valid question.  If
you do a Scan Back and pick up Ian's entry, then check out
Michael McDowell's riposte, you'll see it's been covered.

I'll still send the appropriate numbers.  (I hate Scan Back,
myself...)  I'd do it now, but I'm low on time.

                            Bob


Message #784 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Fred Haines 161
Date: 09-10-91 20:41:31
Subject: Addendum (crop circles)

Fred, there were simultaneous "advanced" design happenings
in several fields at the same time, separated by miles.
There have also been happenings in fields which were under
surveillance by night vision equipment and thermographic
devices.

There are still others, which if the total linear length is
measures, add up to a total line length of over 900 (some
more) yards.

In the CIS threads I found, including tabloid quotes
"MYSTERY SOLVED!", the reactions are generally contemptuous
and refer to the artists as "No way these bozos could
have..." etc.

                         Bob


Message #785 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-10-91 20:54:41
Subject: your question

Larry, when I posted the prior, I hadn't yet read ahead
and found the responses following your posting.

Just as a general FYI for those who are getting here late,
the thread begins with #693.

                         Bob


Message #786 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Jim Houghton 649
To: Bob Sabaroff 56
Date: 09-10-91 20:59:26
Subject: This thread

You say that crop circles happened in fields that were under
observation by night-vision devices and thermographic
sensors?  What, pray tell, did they see?



Message #797 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Larry Brand 922
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-11-91 01:47:23
Subject: The point, in science, as in conspiracy theories

Is that one must offer PROOF, or, at the very least,
compelling evidence.  But to simply assert that every fact
that contradicts your assumptions only "proves" another
layer of the conspiracy is reminiscent of the Ptolemeians
simply adding another "epicycle" onto their scheme every
time an astronomical observation indicated that the far
simpler, if heretical, notion of a sun-centered solar system
was closer to the truth.


Message #799 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Jim Houghton 649
Date: 09-11-91 03:15:54
Subject: What the night vision and thermographic sensors
saw.

Nada.  Zip.  Just new circles in the morning.

This is one of the reasons I lean toward masers as opposed
to lasers - presuming the exposure and the effect are
closely connected in time.  But then, I have no idea how
many units of heat a laser would have produced, relative to
the sensitivity of the devices.

They would have seen any warm blooded critter taller than a
wheatstalk, however.  Even shorter, maybe.

                          Bob


Message #801 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-11-91 04:06:16
Subject: Proof in Science

Earlier on this forum, I posted a long message positing a
number of questions I had about these men's claims.  If they
could answer them satisfactorily, I would be pleased and
unashamed to declare that no conspiracy exists.  But it is
just as unscientific to accept an unsubstantiated claim --
or at any rate a claim that has provided for proof a couple
of small circles done during day, and the testimony of the
two men themselves.  Your conjecture has no more been proved
than mine.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of these two men;
and it would be interesting to know where they sprang from.
One from Australia, I hear, from the time certain circles
appeared there.   If your conjecture is true, then it is
obvious what happened.   But if my conjecture is true, then
it is equally obvious that this man's job is to follow the
circles.  Or it might be a coincidence, or someone might
have made that bit of information up.

How will the British gov't react?  Trespass.  A public
nuisance.  Fraud.  Causing unnecessary expenditure of
pounds.  I have a feeling the gov't will bluster a bit at
the beginning, with rhetoric about the wounded dignity of
the nation, the cruel slaps against the beliefs of sincere
people, involving everyone in a pointless hoax -- and then I
believe they will do nothing.

Mr Sabaroff ought to back me up or knock me down here, for
his is the honed mind in this matter.  One of the tests of a
theory is the ability to make predictions.  And so I add the
above paragraph, which makes sense if I am right.

I am all for the scientific method.  As a tool.  Not as a
screen.


Message #802 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-11-91 04:39:53
Subject: The point, in science, as in conspiracy theories

Larry, it sometimes happens that something new is noticed,
is an actual happening, leaving us with a single fact -
the fact remaining that the fact remains.  The fact being
the happening.  Sometimes it happens that this newly noticed
happening requires that we ask what is happening.

Many options get put forth, the simplest first, and as they
become less tenable than other options, they are put aside
and we move on to other options.  Some of these are
conspiratorial, but if there weren't conspiracy freaks, who
would protect the world from conspiracies?

The circle thread is not about "proofs," which are only as
good as yesterday's data base - not about hoaxes, but about
something which is happening which needs to be put to rest.
Jeff Stuart put it very well when he changed the word "hoax"
to "stunt."  Somebody's doing it, and however whoever's
doing the whatever, it's a helluva stunt.

Precluding options by diagnosing conjecturers as conjurers
went out with Benjamin Franklin, not to mention Einstein.

I haven't read anybody as asserting facts which contradicts
one's presumptions "proves" another layer of the conspiracy.
What I am reading, and am gratified by, is that people are
brainstorming freely and seeking pattern recognition.

Pattern is not conspiracy.  It is just pattern.  Invoking
the Ptolemaian (aic?) "epicycle" rap re seeking the
simplest, albeit heretical solution as the truth of a sun-
centered solar system is, to be as merciful as possible,
engraving angels on the head of a pin.

I thought we *were* seeking the most simple possible
solution.  That's what real science does.

To me, SDI seems like the simplest possible solution. An
exploration of its "doability" compared to other simple
solutions must, by nature, involve exploring a lot of the
known science which makes it a viable option.

As I said in a prior,  I really hope I'm wrong.  But PROOF
of anything is a process of elimination, and in the end only
exists on paper, until some new surprise requires that a
previously asked question be asked again.  To learn that
what one considers the fundamentals are riddled with
bull<bleep>, that tomorrow's Obvious may be today's
Invisible - this is the stuff of creative inquiry.

Many bright, sincere practitioners of a variety of
disciplines suffer only the fear that their fundamentals
will be undermined by the successful demonstration (as close
as we can come to "proof") that some basic questions need to
be asked again.

There is much value in negative truth - learning what isn't
true.  Without it, we wouldn't learn diddly, and
revisionist/conspiratorial/paranoids would still be
heretics.

                            Bob


Message #803 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-11-91 05:12:50
Subject: Proof in science.

Michael, conjecture about the reaction of the Brits to all
this is one of the more fascinating things I'm waiting to
see take form.  The scientific method of analyzing their
reaction requires that certain questions be resolved first,
or their reaction is meaningless on the face of it, whatever
it is.

Presuming the SDI scenario for the moment, are they
involved?  I'm inclined to think they would have to be,
because that presents a simpler scenario.

Is the proximity of the Greenwich Observatory to the area an
asset, considering the importance of its location to
accurate terrestrial mapping.  It sits on what we call the
Greenwich Meridian, designated as 0 degrees because that
location is one of the world's few, where true north and
magnetic north tend to remain the same.

It also contains a lot of the position plotting computers
already in uplink to the satellites by which shipping and
air traffic receive direct readout of their geographic po-
sition, to very high accuracy.  So there is a potentially
useful technology, uniquely British, also present in the
pattern under discussion.

Of course, to some, this just adds another layer to an
already incredible conspiracy.  To others, it's another
piece that might or might not fit the pattern whose leads
we must follow.

I also doubt that a geosynchronous satellite or set of
linked satellites could operate over southern England un-
detected.  The Brits have a lock on radar technology.

I think some archeologists are going to be very pissed off
if their choice sites get <bleep>ed up.  Who's to blame
them?

At the risk of sounding paranoid and conspiratorial, an
Anglo-American (and maybe other) co-venture seems like the
simplest speculation.

I wait by your side for the cover stories and/or reactions
that will emerge if this speculation of ours enters the main
stream of discussion on the matter - which is not yet the
case.  I anticipate some laughers, until the implications
set in.

All the more reason to get it on the public table ASAP.

                        Bob


Message #806 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Larry Brand 922
To: Michael and Bob
Date: 09-11-91 10:07:09
Subject: Reasoning, circular and otherwise

As I've said before, I DON'T take these two codgers at their
word any more than I would Uri Geller.  At the very least
they could certainly be a couple of garden variety non-
conspiratorial publicity seekers.  I'll await evidence to
make a judgement.

As far as the scientific criterion of "making predictions"
is concerned, here's my problem with conspiracy thinking:
it can make any prediction it wants, but it holds open the
option of finding ANY result acceptable to its thesis.  For
example, were these two guys to produce detailed maps,
plans, travel ticket receipts, and a home video of them
MAKING the damn things, you could still say, "See?  This
only shows how deep the conspiracy goes."  Bob, as you well
know, any credible scientific theory allows for the
potential of "disprovaility".  So let me throw it back to
you:  what evidence could turn up that would cause you to
reassess your theory, and not simply add another layer
to the conspiracy?


Message #808 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Jeff Stuart 350
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-11-91 11:56:42
Subject: Conspiracies

The late Mae Brussell, the queen of conspiracies, used to
broadcast a show called World Watch from a hippie radio
station in Carmel.   Much of what she had to say was based
in valid research, clipping stories, tracking individuals as
they moved around the government, etc.  She was absolutely
dead on about Watergate a day or two after the break-in.

The problem was, Mae went overboard. Every event fell into
her cosmology. No prominent political figure simply "died."
She would see a cliche like "white knight" in a newspaper
article and infer that it was a code phrase for the CIA,
stuff like that. So her credibility suffered.

To take fresh information and incorporate it into an ongoing
cogent theory is not necessarily going overboard.  Virtually
nobody is buying the media jive that the Quaint English
Eccentrics did all the circles all by themselves. That means
all options are still open.

The only wild-eyed conspiracy person in this thread is me,
and that's because I'm linking a discussion about possible
technologies to a series of possibly unrelated current
events.  I'm the one playing with international motives and
implications, and I apologize if that in any way clouded the
issue.

My own reservations about the theory that have had to do
with technology and secrecy.  Those reservations are pretty
much gone now - apparently the means, the manpower, and the
back channels neccessary all do exist.

It's just not pleasant to think they exist. That's when the
implication machine kicks in, because nobody would go to
that much trouble just to doodle on the lawn. So to speak.

And, whatever the crop circles do turn out to be, there are
still technologies we (the public "we") don't know about
yet, there are people deployed all over this planet doing
stuff unknown to us, and those back channels do exist and
will continue to do so.

Of that I am more than certain.  JS


Message #809 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Larry Brand 922
To: Jeff Stuart 350
Date: 09-11-91 13:24:12
Subject: Mae and Watergate

One of my favorite lines of all time:  just because you're
paranoid doesn't mean people aren't really out to get you.


Message #810 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Peter A. Lake 430
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-11-91 14:01:04
Subject: And the converse....

        Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean people
are not out to get you.

        (or is that the inverse? Logicians, please....)

-pal


Message #812 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-11-91 18:00:30
Subject: What evidence would turn up?

If they could reproduce one of their more complicated
figures in daylight and silence and a length of time
comparale to what they would have had on the night the
figure actually appeared.  It's why cold fusion claims have
mostly died out -- lack of reproducibility of the first
claims.

I don't embrace conspiracies because I like conspiracies --
God knows I abhor them.  I only accept a conspiracy theory
if it is the best explanation for a series of pheneomena.
If all simple explanations for something are ruled out, then
the remaining explanation, no matter how complex or
unlikely, must be the real one.


Message #813 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: Bob Sabaroff 56
Date: 09-11-91 18:12:35
Subject: Even closer than the Greenwich Observatory is the
former National

Observatory of England, located in the beloved home of
Augustus Hare.  (I forget what the country house is called.)
Abruptly a few years ago, the British Government announced
that it was closing the place down.  They did so.

The house, on large grounds, is located in the middle of all
the activity.  I do not know if it was National Trust.


Message #814 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Peter A. Lake 430
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-11-91 19:58:25
Subject: Greenwich Observatory

        I thought it had shut down. There is no more
Greenwich Mean Time, for example. Now it's Universal
Standard Time and I thought that when GMT went out the
observatory also went.

--pal



Message #821 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-12-91 04:14:07
Subject: What evidence would cause me to reassess my theory?

A staged demonstration that accounts for all the extant
realities.  That would satisfy me, and put my mind totally
to rest.

A revue of the circle thread offers a pretty good list of
situations that would have to be duplicated.  If this is
done, I will happily concede the point.

The worst possible case will have been eliminated.  I will
no longer have to worry about the Manhattan Project of the
21st Century hanging over my head.

I hope you get a chance to study the detailed photos and
scientifically documented multiple events.  If you do,
I trust you to at least grant that such a demonstration
would be a tall order.  At least my theory offers a means
of doing it, by technology already conceded to exist.

Surely you can't believe I hope I'm right about this.
But unless the option is seriously examined, we'll never
know.  So far it has not been, to my knowledge, except
here.

Let me ask you one, Larry?  On what grounds would you
exclude my theory from the menu of options, given that
I'm willing to concede "some of the above," on a "happening
by happening" basis?

                          Bob


Message #822 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Peter A. Lake 430
Date: 09-12-91 04:31:37
Subject: inverse and converse

I love 'em both.  Either way it makes paranoia look like
one hell of a useful Natural Selector for survival, huh?

                        Bob


Message #824 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-12-91 04:34:56
Subject: National Observatory closed down...?

Located in the middle of the activity...?

A new datum for the puzzle.  I hadn't known that.  Rather
than seem to seize on this new information to further my
conspiracy theory, I'll leave it on the table as yet another
bean on the Go board.

One of the things that tends to reinforce conspiracy
theories that are true, is the way one thing leads to
another.  When I mentioned the Greenwich Observatory's
possible function, I didn't know it would lead to yet
another parallel element.

I wonder of that's where Professors A, B and C (pondered
in someone's prior) are living.  It must be lovely there.

Thanks, Michael.

                         Bob


Message #825 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Peter A. Lake 430
Date: 09-12-91 04:51:51
Subject: Greenwich Observatory

I think they only shut down the observatory part, as in
"telescopes."  There is still an operational facility there
not unlike our Bureau of Standards, and it does house a
number of operational mainframes networked into the global
navigation system.

They also have classified sections, which wasn't the case
when I visited the place in the '70's.  Even then, it was
far more than an observatory.

The site is still also a benchmark for what is probably the
best mapping service in the world, the British Ordnance Sur-
vey.

                           Bob


Message #826 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Gil Evans 31
To: Bob Sabaroff 56
Date: 09-12-91 09:04:07
Subject: The great Etch-A-Sketch in the sky

Just a thought, Bobby, but even *if* these wacky Limeys can
prove they did make all the crop circles...and you're
satisfied that SDI wasn't responsible...that doesn't mean
that there *isn't* some hideous death ray over your head,
does it?  It only means that the ray wasn't responsible for
the crop circles (which is most probably the case anyway).
Ahhhhhaahhahahahhhhh!



Message #828 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Larry Brand 922
To: Bob Sabaroff 56
Date: 09-12-91 10:33:28
Subject: At this point I'm an agnostic

On both your theory AND the two fellas' tall tale.

(Technically speaking, of course, "agnostic" is not an
accurate description, since I believe eventually we WILL
know the answer.)

The single most implausible part of your theory remains the
notion that the government wouldn't simply set up a test
site on its own land, and avoid all the potential for
exposure.  I apologize for not going back through all the
messages, and would greatly appreciate you clarifying this
one aspect.  Michael's explanation looked a bit along the
lines of "epicyclic" conspiracy thinking, when logic would
dictate that a true conspiracy would try to keep things as
simple and private as possible.


Message #829 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-12-91 18:37:05
Subject: Epicyclic Thinking

My understanding of epicyclic thinking is a little different
from yours.  It was with Ptolemaic astronomy as it is now
with the Big Bang: you start out with a nice reasonable,
elegant theory that explains a great deal more than was ever
explained before.   But then new evidence comes forward
which contradicts that theory, so an adjustment is made --
the inflationary period of the universe at about what? 10e-
35 sec or so.  Then we learn about the bubbles and the
voids, so we have to posit a mass to the neutrino, or
believe that the very heavy Higgs Bosom exists in incredible
numbers, or that there is cold dark matter out there
sufficient to solve our problems.  The originally simple
theory gets tweaked and pinched and buffeted and fitted with
artificial limbs to the point that it is far beyond
simplicity or elegance.  That's epicyclic thinking.

Beyond saying that there are masers and lasers shooting down
beams of coherent light from geosynchronous satellites,
we've not had to make any revisions.  But those who posit
the two guys are already saying, "Well they started it and
did the important ones, but obviously other hoaxsters were
getting in on the act as well.   And these guys aren't
really so attractive as solutions, but it was obviously
something like this, right?"  That's epicyclic
thinking.

I also am not sure why you think that the government would
want to keep things simple.  The government most often wants
things very complicated.  Layers upon layers of deceit and
coverup and fingerposts that point you in the wrong
direction.  Was selling arms to Iran in order to fund the
Contras a straightforward transaction?


Message #830 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: Bob Sabaroff 56
Date: 09-12-91 18:51:23
Subject: Shutting down the observatory

No, no, no.  You're talking about Greenwich.  I'm talking
about Hurstmonceaux, an 18th-century country house in south-
central England which for many years was the Royal
Observatory.  Just a few years ago, the gov't announced that
Hurstmonceaux was being shut down, and that the property
would be sold, telescope and observatory intact.  This
seemed strange to me because Hurstmonceaux had long been a
National Trust property, and those places are only rented to
those willing to show off their interesting homes to the
occasional horde.  I never saw an announcement of what
happened with it.

This is what I meant when I said that this observatory was
in the middle of the region of the crop circles.


Message #832 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Larry Brand 922
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-12-91 20:06:06
Subject: Epicycles etc.

My point is that one may either begin with a DOGMA (e.g., a
conspiracy exists, or the earth is the center of the
universe), in which case every contradictory bit of data
must be accomodated by an increasingly unwieldy set of
assertions (a new layer of the conspiracy, or a new
Ptolemaic epicycle); or one begins with a THEORY, which is
subject to refutability, and, if the facts warrant, may be
replaced by a new theory.

Now, unless you've got witnesses or documents to back up
your assertions, your reasoning is merely speculative, which
of course is fine.  But it would be spurious to claim, for
example, that your LACK of witnesses and documents only
PROVED a conspiracy must be afoot.  And others may find the
speculations of a more earthbound origin to the phenomenon
somewhat more plausible.


Message #833 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-12-91 22:46:53
Subject: Crop Circles

I did not begin with dogma.  I worked through this in July
in Compuserve.  People put up theories, and for me there are
very obvious reasons these causes were not plausible.  The
nearest that I came to anything remotely satisfying (for
myself) was that the patterns replicated something that was
under the ground, some military project long abandoned.
(These fields were also used in World War II for secret
landing fields, for disguised hangars, and for fake runways,
and for disguised flight path signals.)

Also the conspiracy part of this is merely an adjunct to the
central question of what causes the patterns.  I believe as
Mr Sabaroff suggested first: masers and lasers lodged in
geosynchronous satellites.  That is the solution that we are
embracing.

If this is so, then there has to be a reason we have never
been told this.  Conspiracy here is only of issue if we are
right about the real cause.  Proving or disproving the
conspiracy is a misleading exercise.  At most it is helpful
only to point out that there have indeed been secret
military enterprises in the past, and those were kept secret
with a fair number of people being privy to parts of the
whole.  Good God!  How many Americans knew about Los Alamos?
Yet there were thousands of people directly involved with
it.  Satellites and crop circles are small (but elegant)
potatoes when compared with the government's wish, attempt,
and success to keep secret most of the atomic bomb tests it
conducted above ground.  When it comes to physical
phenomena, atomic bombs aren't exactly on the diddly end of
the scale.  I believe we are only positing the equivalent or
even less stringent amount of secrecy round the masers and
the lasers and the quivering grasses.



Message #834 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-13-91 01:29:17
Subject: Encryption, Gov't Standards, Committee
Recommendations

Now, here is a new situation for everyone to cut some teeth
on.  Or perhaps there are many who will see in this nothing
at all for comment.

Our government has been slothful when it comes to the
devising of national standards: we can't get together on
HDTV, there are no standards for cellular phones, none for
computer operating systems (and there was a time when such
a standard was eagerly sought by the community), and we
should be on the metric system now -- but the government
decided to freeze all the funds that were to be used to
implement it.

With this in mind, I was very surprised to learn today that
a governmental commission had come up with some very
specific recommendations for national standards on an issue
I consider less important than any of those above.  The
issue: computer data encryption.

As things stand now, encryption is in a very good state, by
using two different keys, one of which is secret between
sender and receiver, and another which can be public.  This
allows not only for the encoding of data and message, but
can also guarantee the authenticity of the sender's
"signature".  I have read no dissent to the evaluation of
this public key encryption: it will not be solvable in our
lifetime.  This encryption is available on PCTools (as
PCSecure), and this little program is capable of meeting
the encryption and destruction standards of the US
Department of Energy, and it cannot be exported.

Our encryption standards committee, however, has
recommended a different method of encryption, one based on
the calculation of discrete logarithms.  It is acknowledged
to be not as secure as the public key method; it has not
even been extensively tested yet; and at present, no one
actually uses it.  If this becomes standard, then any
encryption required to meet government standards will
actually be less secure than those which do not have to
meet federal standards.

Now, you may look at this as another example of puzzling
bureaucratic inefficiency.  But I see patterns here, and a
not-very-well-hidden agenda.  When I first heard of this, I
said to myself, the CIA or the NSA is in this mix.  Someone
had to give a push to get this standard proposed before
other committees on national standards could even get a
Sub-Committee Interim Report on much larger issues.  And
even bureaucratic stupidity can't make a Committee on
Security say that they recommend a standard than is less
secure and untested from what we have now.

Unless the purpose is to make encryption a crackable code.
To me this makes sense if I think of information-gathering
agencies who are distressed to find old sources drying up.
If they are unable to crack a code that I use even to
encode a file I upload to USR2USR, then they are missing
out on a lot.  They want to be able to understand what they
eavesdrop on.  In their position, I might well do what I
could to turn back the clock.

Oh yes, and I was right: for the Committee acknowledges
with gratitude the assistance provided them by
representatives of the National Security Agency.


Message #835 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Gil Evans 31
Date: 09-13-91 04:59:28
Subject: Etch-A-Sketch in the sky

Well, Gil, that about sums it up.  Being a conspiracy freak
has it's downside.  I may be a little paranoid, but I'm not
into S & M.  At least not M.  If those wacky Limeys actually
blow me away I'll stop taking my Prozak and go back to the
"1" forum.

But then... you're right.  It won't mean there isn't still
a death ray hanging over my head, will it...?

AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!



Message #836 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-13-91 05:05:58
Subject: three observatory monte

Thanks for the clarification, Michael.

Where's that damn eraser...

                            Bob


Message #837 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-13-91 06:24:22
Subject: The circles, why there? (part I of II)

Larry, the question you raise about "why there" is a good
one and deserves repetition.  These are exerpts from larger
messages. which also deal with your question.  I refer you
also to Jeff's #743, in which he gives all the information
necessary to find the one high quality book of good
photographs I've seen, and which is referred to in some of
the messages as "the CCCS" book.  He refers to it also in
#693.

My use of terms like "weirdo" and "freaks" isn't meant to
ridicule those with a more metaphysical bent.  In re-reading
the stuff, I wish I'd phrased it differently, but those
connotations are part of why the location works so well.


#698 (me to Jeff Stuart)
~~~~
Stonehenge marks the crossing of *many* major ley lines.
This, plus the overwhelming linguistic evidence of the older
place names at major intersections of leys and where they
lead, has brought a lot of what academia calls its "weirdo
fringe" (real, credentialed scientists) into the study of
this stuff since Watkins first published on it in the '20's.

It also brought out the druid-freaks, the New Wavers, and
the old guard students of the paranormal.  Given the nature
of the crop circles, and their placement, this would have
been predictable.  So, in dealing with such a delicate
matter in which peoples' faiths and cosmologies are
confirmed or challenged, depending where they sit, what
better place to make crop circles than inside a hundred mile
circle with Stonehenge at the center, where a 4K year
tradition of them is already in place.

The rules of evidence become unmanageable. "It's an old
story, you see..."  A brilliant cover for a new story.


#714 (me to Ian Abrams)
~~~~
When remote test sites are used, even those on military
property, there is usually a lot of ground and air movement
to those sites to analyze them.  Being able to place the
test range in a place where such activity is already going
on, and with muddled reasons, gives a very convenient cloak
to analysis.

Nothing unusual takes place.  Except for the ground
markings, of course.


#716 (Jeff Stuart to Ian Abrams)
~~~~
...The Wiltshire area already had a history of circles in
the fields which the locals knew about. There is a
reproduction in the CCCS book of an English pamphlet dated
*1678* that describes a "mowing devil," with a woodcut so
similar to the modern circles that it leaves me a little
chilly when I look at it. There is evidence that wind spouts
do touch down in the area and leave crude circular
impressions. There are also rings on the ground that are the
afterimage of ancient stuctures, burial mounds, henges,
fortified sites, and so on. Mingling the new circles with
the old ones in an area w.k. for historical weirdness would
be very elegant camouflage.

(CONT'D)


Message #838 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-13-91 06:27:27
Subject: Why there & technological footnotes (II)

(CONT'D)

#734 (me to Ted Lang and Gil Evans)
~~~~
Ted, you're right about the antiquity of corn disturbances
in that region, and it goes back much further than 100
years.  One of the pictures in Jeff's book that gave us both
the creeps was a 16th or 17th century woodcut of a
diabolical creature with a scythe, mowing an elliptical
swath in a wheat field, with the same pattern of layover.
It even had a traditional name - something like "crop
demon."  I hope Jeff will correct me.  Such a phenomenon,
were it really rare, could be accounted for by as the brief
touchdown of a strong whirlwind, like a dust devil.
(Interesting parallel nomenclature.)  All the more
reinforcement for the power of the local mythology already
in place, to be exploited as a confounder.


#745 (Michael McDowell to me)
~~~~
... Every question that is raised about other possible
solutions is a proof that the choice of England / Wiltshire
/ Stonehenge was the cleverest possible.  The phenomenon
was immediately and inextricably confused with millinnea of
mystic plausibilities.  If these same patterns appeared in
a single county of a single US state, would there be any
question that they were of military origin?  The sincere
mystics and spiritists are providing a campaign of
disinformation that money could not buy -- though I find
interesting the possibility that the lavishly produced
coffee table book was so free of suggesting human agency.

                 -------------------------

For questions and answers about the technologies which might
be involved - technologies which do currently exist, try #'s
698, 699, 700, 701, 706, 731, 733, 734, 735, 737, 741, and
745,

#'s 734 and 735 are my own compressions of the technology
aspects of the thread, with some independent confirmations
from Michael McDowell in #745 which made my day.  The other
messages are full of the good questions which are so
necessary to organizing pertinent answers.

I appreciate your inquiry, Larry.  Those themes could use
some back-referencing now, given the time this has all been
forming up.

                          Bob


Message #839 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Elisberg 456
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-13-91 09:24:27
Subject: Encryption and govt standards


Knowing as little as I do about this subject, my question
might have no basis in reality.  However --

Just because the govt standards are lower than they are now,
wouldn't it not only be possible, but likely that private
software companies will sell encryption programs which are
marketed -- in blazing letters -- "BEATS GOVERNMENT
STANDARDS!"?

Bob


Message #848 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Larry Brand 922
To: Bob Sabaroff 56
Date: 09-14-91 01:03:42
Subject: In under the Compuserve wire?

Some might see in the existence of similar artifacts from
earlier eras the perfect "cover" for a military conspiracy.
Others might simply cite them as prima facie evidence that
a technology significantly inferior to that of SDI is
sufficient to account for the phenomena; and that now, as
then, a couple of guys stomping on the wheat and sighting
along the horizon is a far more likely scenario than lasers
and masers shot from satellites.


Message #850 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-14-91 01:24:45
Subject: Under the wire.

That's what's so neat about this thread.  It boils down to
relative likelihoods.  Like you said in a prior, when a
qualified "agnostic,"  I agree that whatever's happening,
we WILL eventually solve it.

It would conform to the history of inquiry if it turned out
to be "none of the above."

                          Bob


Message #853 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Elisberg 456
To: Bob Sabaroff 56
Date: 09-14-91 20:49:36
Subject: Crop circles


I think this discussion is interesting.  I don't know what
the truth is about them.

Bob


Message #857 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Bob Elisberg 456
Date: 09-14-91 23:44:56
Subject: What the truth is about the interesting crop
circles.

Finding out is what this is all about, Bob.  If everybody
comes away with your concisely stated reaction, it'll be
a big step.

                         Bob

Message #862 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Ed Mann 58
To: Bob Elisberg
Date: 09-15-91 11:30:31
Subject: Crop Circles

I have watched this discussion with interest.  I am probably
the only one who knows the truth.  I lived in England for
many years and through friends met White Witches in Devon,
who revealed to me all about mystic circles, ley lines, etc.

The circles are made by elves.  Yes, there's no doubt.  Many
people have seen these little men in Lincoln Green darting
about in the forest making mischief.

That is the salient fact.  These creatures are PRANKSTERS.
They are always up to tricks and games to torment humans.

"Doth circles and symbols lay midst thy crops and fodder,
beist dwarfen and faeries at play."


Message #868 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: all
Date: 09-16-91 00:27:12
Subject: New Info

In the past few days I have done a little research into the
literature of crop circles, and have come up with some
information that is new, that is interesting, that is
peculiar, and that is available on the various Compuserve
databases.  I'll give here some of the highlights -- I'm
sorry, but copyright prevents me from uploading the
articles and reviews en masse.

First, regarding Herstmonceaux Castle that I had mentioned.
Bob Sabaroff was right, and so was I.  This was the home of
the Royal Greenwich Observatory for 40 years.  It was sold
in 1988 to James Developments, who announced plans to turn
it into a golf course and country club.  Nothing came of
this.  In 1990 it was put up for sale again, and the two
bidders were Kyoto Broadcasting and an unidentified group
of American investors.  The Americans won the bid, but
failed to come up with the cash.  There is now no buyer,
and since 1988 the obversatory and castle, in the midst of
extensive grounds, have been unoccupied.  There have been
protests against the government's inept handling of this
sale, claiming that initially the property was grossly
underpriced.

Second, regarding the Hoaxters.  The crop circle that they
reproduced was not actually documented -- there is no
videotape of their work on that circle nor on any other.
They are no longer granting interviews, and have not been
questioned by crop circle experts.  They left England the
day before yesterday, embarked on a world tour sponsored by
Rupert Murdoch.  Speakers at the Crop Circle "Cornference"
last week saw this as possibly more sinister than an
attempt to sell more of Murdoch's newspapers.  "Looking at
the way the British Army hoaxed a circle last year in order
to get rid of the media attention, they feel that there is
some intelligence Service involvement in this."

Third, a few statistics.  (I know that I neglected to think
these through and perhaps others did as well.)  Crop
circles of course require crops to be seen.  This pretty
much limits them to the English growing season, which for
these cereals is approximately mid-June to late September -
- generously, 120 days.  In 1990 there were 710 recorded
crop circles, which means just about 6 every night, 7
nights a week for the entire growing season.

This suggests several things.  The schedule is too much for
two retired men to accomplish.  But let us suppose that all
of these circles were hoaxes -- how many hoaxters does it
take to accomplish this startling feat?  And can that many
hoaxters all work with the same nuances of technique?
(Where are they practicing and training?)  And who are
these hoaxters that they are so silent when others claim
credit?  England is a very small country -- the size of
Alabama, in fact -- and this region is only a couple of
counties.  Ventura and Los Angeles counties would be a good
approximation of size, I would think.  What large-scale
human movement can be hidden on this small scale?  Even if
you could have it all done by six highly-trained crop
commandoes, you're going to need a central planning
committee to map out possible fields, someone to make
assignments, and making contingency provision for finding
fields under surveillance. Other than the various groupings
of military researchers, the only people bizarrely
imaginative enough to orchestrate something like this are
involved in investigating the phenomena.

In an upcoming message: The Scientific Explanations and
Research into Columnar Microwave Radiation...


Message #869 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Stanley Sheff 86
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-16-91 01:09:41
Subject: Hoaxes

Have you considered the possiblity that there could be a
community of hoax perpetrators?  Just because the method is
currently unkown does not indicate any supernatural or high-
tech explantation.  I firmly maintain the source of the
circles is human, and a trick.  Not unlike a group of
magicians keeping their secrets to themselves.  To those
outside the group, the circles look weird and mysterious,
but to those in the know, I'm sure it's all a big laugh.
This all reminds me of the file NIGHTMARE ALLEY, and how
easy it is to hook a sucker into the spook racket.

Stanley


Message #870 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-16-91 05:07:37
Subject: Circles.

Michael, the 20/20 piece includes footage of the British
soldiers hoaxing one.  In Jeff Stuart's book, a copy of
which I'll have within days, is included that very same
circle.  That's the book which makes no reference to human
origin.

Kyoto Broadcasting...?

I'm looking forward to the next installment.

                           Bob


Message #872 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Jeff Stuart 350
To: Circle Fans
Date: 09-16-91 15:35:48
Subject: Summaries R Us

We have deduced that, given the sheer quantity and placement
of the circles, more than a single set of two perpetrators
is necessary.  Even those among us who opine that all the
circles are made by humans, physically, on the ground, can
accede to that point.

For the other hoax teams to remain silent while two and only
two people grab the press limelight seems to go awry from
the usual human expectations.  Rival hoax teams would
naturally want to claim their share of the glory, unless we
are talking about a) shy, deferential, altruistic hoaxers
willing to work for no credit, or b) individuals who would
prefer to remain unknown.

Meanwhile, given the ever-tightening news budgets of the
major media, it is logical to assume that the English
Eccentrics effectively put the story to bed in this country.
No one has the bucks to follow up on a shaggy dog item. JS


Message #875 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: all
Date: 09-17-91 03:03:41
Subject: Scientific Investigations of Crop Circles

Now, on to the scientific studies that have been conducted,
and the theories that have been put forward.

Terence Meaden, "Britain's chief circleologist", argues
that the circles are caused by small whirlwinds made of
plasma (ionized gas), such as those that can be caused by
strong microwave radiation in air.  Peter Handel (U.
Missouri) suggested that a low temperature plasma generated
by microwaves might explain ball lightning, which is
thought to be a related phenomenon.  Yoshi-Hiko Ohtsuki, a
Japanese scientist, who is the foremost scientist to study
the phenomenon has modified this idea:

"He envisages a spinning core of positive ions ...
surrounded by a shell composed of the liberated electrons.
The two are kept apart by pressure from microwaves trapped
in the plasma.  It is here that the questions start.  The
trapped microwave field inside the sphere needs outside
energy to keep it going.  Where that energy comes from is
not yet clear."

...

But even closer to what Sabaroff has proposed and what I
entirely agree with is the conclusions of the following
article: "Atmospheric plasma-vortex phenomenon and its
circular ground traces known as the circles effect", by G
Terence Meaden in the Journal of Meteorology, May/June 89.
Meaden works for the CERES (the Circles Effect Res. Unit)
or the Tornado and Storm Research Organization,
Bradford-on-Avon.  From an abstract:

This precision of airflow in a tight, ultra-circumferential
belt strongly hints at an origin promoted by an induced
current of atmospheric ions. ... Furthermore, good evidence
is available for attendant acoustic, luminous, and
radio-frequency electromagnetic effects.  High rotational
speeds could give the shape a flattened spheroidal or
discoidal appearance, while a continuously-replenished
electrical discharge illuminates it, causing the humming
noise so typical of atmospheric vortices. Lifetimes are
considerably longer than for ball lightning because it is
expected that steady losses from discharge effects due to
recombination and leakage are balanced by inputs piped
along the conducting channel of the parent columnar vortex.
... The dangers posed to low-flying aircraft by the
presence of such poweful vortices as a form of low-level
clear air turbulence are stressed.

All of the above is consistent with maser microwave
radiation directed to the ground from a satellite poised
above England.  In fact, the scientists' chief difficulty
seems to be finding a method for microwave radiation to be
replenished.  It should also be pointed out that while
maser/laser output absolutely does produce the effects
noted above, there is no evidence whatever of atmospheric
conditions which do.  Ball lightning, probably related, was
reproduced in the laboratory for the first time last year;
before that few scientists believed the phenomenon even to
exist.


Message #876 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-17-91 04:26:24
Subject: Can it be that the circle is closing...?

Michael, I'm not saying this because your awesome research
tends to validate our particular POV's (well, it did cross
my mind...), but because that's an awesome piece of
research.

Even given my own, to put it mildly, predisposition to the
satellite-borne maser theory, I found it stunning.  I look
forward to digging up the cited sources.

If you have any out-takes lying around, or even more stuff,
I hope you are able to add it to the thread.

I also hope that skeptics or holders of other beliefs will
take the chance to pile on, as there's no rule that says
a skeptic can't have the last word.

                           Bob


Message #881 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Fred Haines 161
To: Michael McDowell
Date: 09-17-91 10:43:07
Subject: Circles again

There are several reasons, Michael, that I have been unable
to embrace wholeheartedly the two-duffers-with-a-plank
explanation for the crop circles, several of which are
touched on in your message 875.

First, ten or so years ago I saw BBC footage of a large
group of British university students attempting the two-
duffers-with-a-plank idea, with equally inadequate results
for all variations of method. There was as well a number of
circles mixed in among the real ones which were clearly the
work of amateur fakers. The scientists had little
difficulty discriminating between the real and the fake -
especially when the fakers, discouraged, abandoned their
stakes, strings, and planks as well as their half-completed
circles.

What caught my eye in your message, though was,
'Furthermore, good evidence is available for attendant
acoustic, luminous, and radio-frequency electromagnetic
effects.'

I saw footage on that too. The acoustic or electromagnetic
effects, or some of them, anyway, are detectable with an
ordinary microphone, and the film crew resorted to the
simple expedient of filming their own soundman walking
first around the circumference of a circle which had
appeared some hours previously, then along a diameter, and
letting us hear the attendant noise. It was quite
pronounced - we heard it against the foreground of the
people's voices. I don't remember the nature of the
anomalies, but the sound changed quite markedly from the
perimeter of the circle across the radius to the center,
where there was a very dramatic shift.

This could easily be faked, of course, but what couldn't?
The people making the documentary seemed to have no vested
interest in any particular theory about the circles. These
anomalies have been studied by much more sophisticated
means than a soundman tramping around with a Nagra, but it
was interesting that evidence of something rather beyond
two duffers with a plank could be picked up so simply.

The other point from your message which I think the hoax
theorists fail to note is that real scientists like Terence
Meaden, Peter Handel, and Yoshi-Hiko Ohtsuki are seriously
studying the phenomena, their work published by a Journal
of Meteorology, and perhaps by other scientific
publications. Since highly reputable scientists have been
known to commit scientific fraud and, even more commonly,
entertain wildly ludicrous hypotheses, I wouldn't begin to
suggest that their interest in the subject compels belief
in any particular theory, but it does suggest that there
are people around who can make short shrift of the two-
duffers if they fail, for instance, to produce or account
for the characteristic 'acoustic, luminous, and radio-
frequency electromagnetic effects.'


Message #886 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Ed Mann 58
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-17-91 18:47:13
Subject: Circlews

It's the pixies, Michael.


Message #888 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: All
Date: 09-17-91 22:07:55
Subject: Scientific RoundUp & News on Herstmonceaux

I'm going to try to make this my final message on the Crop,
and indeed I have just a few points more to make on the
scientific question.

This season, 1991, crop circles have spread across Europe,
with notable formations appearing in Sweden, near Wiesbaden
and near Cologne in Germany, in the Netherlands, in Italy,
in Bulgaria, in Yugoslavia, and in Siberia.  About three
dozen have been formed in Japan.

State-of-the-art scientific explanation for the circles:
very rare and particular atmospheric and topographical
conditions trigger: "a spinning, mini-whirlwind or
"vortex", which accumulates highly electrically-charged
matter and descends, spinning, to the ground."  This
ionized mass can be luminous, and it makes a noise.  If
there's a crop underneath it, the crop is flattened. (John
Vidal, The Guardian, 2 Aug 91)

The Japanese scientist Ohtsuki has managed to create
artificial plasma vortices by concentrating microwaves into
a small space -- i.e., he re-creates them using a laser.
(The Observer, 23 Jun 91).

***

I think I'd like to close with a very pleasing confirmation
of one of my conjectures.  The following from a
correspondent Englishman on Compuserve, in response to the
information that the telescopes at Castle Herstmonceaux
were no longer in use:

"The Satellite Laser Ranger scope at Herstmonceaux is still
used by the RGO [Royal Greenwich Observatory] for measuring
orbits of artificial satellites, for measuring precise
earth-rotation parameters.  The work of the RGO is quite
interesting -- mostly design and maintenance of the
equipment at La Palma, and development of new technology in
astronomical research (both telescopes and data
collection/processing equipment)."


Message #890 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Michael McDowell 1018
Date: 09-18-91 04:45:00
Subject: Circles - Herstmonceaux Plus

My goodness... "pleasing confirmation" is putting it mildly,
Michael.  I'd heard there was still activity at the RGO, but
hadn't realized just how relevant it was.  That is clearly
the nucleus of a "wrap."  Your message speaks for iteslf.

I'll give it til Friday night, and then also bail out.

I would like to add another conjecture, something I wasn't
going to comment on until a) seeing your information about
the expanding geography of happenings, and b) programming
my VCR.

I noticed the following blurb regarding the contents of the
season premiere, tonight (Wed.), of "UNSOLVED MYSTERIES."

     "...U.S. military officers discuss a 1980 sighting
      of an unidentified flying craft near a U.S.
      air base in England."

I recall from the beginning of the thread, (and Jeff Stuarts
CCCS book) that the record got heavy starting around 1980.
I haven't seen the show, yet, so I don't know what it
contains, but wouldn't it be ironic if after all these years
of hedging, the military suddenly got serious about it and
started fueling the UFO issue?   Maybe the year and place
and sudden openness of military officers on the subject is
all a coincidence.

If not, why?  Maybe to cover a movement of activity from the
current dominant site?  Something to watch in the future
will be whether scientific/military investigators start to
openly travel to investigate these sites, conceding a
"mystery."  It would serve the needs of expanded
deniability.

I may be reaching, especially since I haven't seen the show
yet, but what a break in military form that TV-GUIDE blurb
suggests.

I am looking forward to the show.

                             Bob


Message #891 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Elisberg 456
To: Bob Sabaroff 56
Date: 09-19-91 10:26:20
Subject: The TV show

As I said earlier, I have no idea about lots of things in
life, notably what's making the circles.

However, your message about the show intrigued me.  It is
quite, quite odd that -- after years of poo-pooing UFO's,
the military suddenly becomes interested in them...just
around the time the circles begin appearing.

Now, certainly, coinkydinks are possible.  But still, this
is a pretty darn big one.

I took a great astronomy course at Northwestern University,
taught by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who was probably the world
expert on UFO's and, in fact, headed the Air Force's Blue
Book Project, before the government closed it down.  As part
of the course, he gave a two-day lecture on UFO's.  And, as
I recall it, the Air Force just wasn't interested in the
*slightest* in pursuing the subject.

And when you add to all this that the sightings of the
circles were in the Stonehenge area -- a place, as pointed
out earlier in the thread, just rife with mysticism, where
lots of people would be more apt to believe anything going
on -- it seems like there could have been a whole mess of
diversion going on there. As one of the precepts of
government and military seems to be, "Cover Thyself," there
just appears to be a lot of covering going on.

Mind you, none of this proves diddly.  Nor is it meant to.
Just that, when there *are* coincidences, it's good to look
at them and see if there's a connection or not.  If not,
fine.  There often isn't.  Though sometimes, of course,
there is.

Bob


Message #893 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Michael McDowell 1018
To: Bob Elisberg 456
Date: 09-19-91 18:54:08
Subject: Adding more facts

The Gulf Breeze phenomena have just started up again, in
earnest, in the last day or so.  These are sighting of
strange aircraft, and some were photographed.  These
photographs were shown absolutely to be fakes by a de-bunker
who subsequently used them as evidence for the reality of
UFOs.  Gulf Breeze is a stupid but astonishingly beautiful
little tract community near Pensacola Florida.  Condos are
built for people like my aunt and uncle, who are semi-
retired and wanted to live on the beach, but near to a PX.
(My uncle is an ex-Marine lieut colonel.)

I was clumsily trying to make a point back there -- Gulf
Breeze is a few miles away from Eglin -- an enormous Air
Force/Navy training facility.  They specialize in training
helicopter (and I think, small jet) pilots.  Gulf Breeze
itself has a preponderance of retired and current military
residents.

My aunt Roberta says that she goes out on the golf course to
see if she can see any UFO's, but knowing Roberta, she does
it so she can call the cutest and youngest caddies over and
say, "Did you just see something over there?  No, over
there.  No, here, look along my line of sight..."


Message #894 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Bob Elisberg 456
Date: 09-19-91 19:52:22
Subject: "Unexplained Mysteries"... the UFO diversion

Bob, the show, for those who missed it, was unusual in
several ways.  One was that the actual participants (taking
it at face value) included Air Force personnel either still
on active duty or in the Reserves.  This is new, in such
matters.

They had on one UFO debunker who gave a preposterous debunk,
but only after an unusual disclaimer - "not impossible, but
certainly extra-ordinary.

The program stated that the Air Force was withholding
comment, but there's no way those personnel could have done
that show without either permission or rehearsal.  It was
especially interesting to note that recreations of the
phenomena were as though someone had taken the script from
the research papers on plasma energy and "ball lightning,"
with the exception of a "classic" UFO which appears only
once, at the beginning.

The base in question was in S.E. England.  The overall
effect of the show, as you noted, was to reinforce the SDI
scenario, but only if one has been primed with the other
pieces of the puzzle, such as those presented here.  Then
another logic clicks into place.

Your summation is a reasonable one, and one on which I'm
willing to wind down.  The CIS upload file is getting large
enough to approach intimidation-size, re downloaders, so I
plan to send it over the weekend.

Let's call Sunday morning the deadline.  (I'll be deleting
the CIS reference in this message, so as not to intimidate
anyone in advance.
..)

Thanks for the message.  Very rational, and very fitting.

                          Bob

P.S.  The show also included a key memo obtained under the
Freedom of Information Act, which is also unprecedented in
such "revelations."


Message #897 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Larry Brand 922
To: Bob Sabaroff 56
Date: 09-19-91 20:49:55
Subject: Clarification

I'm not sure how the "UFO diversion" serves to "reinforce
the SDI hypothesis".  Surely, the military wouldn't want
people thinking it was UFO's causing the crop circles, would
they?


Message #898 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Sabaroff 56
To: Larry Brand 922
Date: 09-19-91 21:12:40
Subject: Clarication (circles)

Larry, given the recent accounts of an expanding range of
heavy duty "events" in other countries,  That could mean
that the work (if the SDI theory is correct) could be
developing to where testing and experimentation needs to be
moved.

"They" will no longer have the _in situ_ mythology to
confuse it, and need another deniability that will also make
reasonable the need to move people and things to remote
places, openly.

The hoaxters have been thoroughly discredited.  The
"Unexplained Mysteries" segment on the UFO events at the air
base in S.E. England, from 1980, contains a LARGE pullback
from the usual military position on the thing.

I don't find it unreasonable that they'd rather refuel the
UFO-logists than admit to what some of us are speculating.
It also is likely that we're not the only ones speculating,
and it's gaining on them.

For me it's more than ever a matter of "stay tuned, folks."

                           Bob

Message #902 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Jeff Stuart 350
To: *.*
Date: 09-20-91 14:12:19
Subject: Fin de circles (For musement purposes only).

If any of you take the time to look back on the crop circle
thread, strip it of the details and just look at the
structure, you'll find something interesting has happened on
the Science Forum.

We've been doing science.

We've been on a field trip without leaving the keyboard.

We took a very large, visible, touchable yet mysterious set
of evidence and tried to see it in a new way, a way that was
otherwise overlooked, dismissed, or denied.

There have been over 2,000 of these suckers in England
alone, and now that we have tapped into international news,
we know that they have allegedly appeared all over the world
(actually the northern hemisphere, if I read the map
correctly with Michael McDowell's information).

They're too big to ignore and they're not going away.

So we took a fresh train of thought and sent it out on the
rails.

A theory evolved, and each piece of this ambiguous puzzle
fell into a niche in that theory (although some of you may
think we've kinda jammed them into place).  Every step
necessary to the theory was reality-tested as best as the
contributing brains knew how.

The theory was presented to a limited audience of
questioning minds, and almost immediately:

    Some people just outright booted the theory.
    Some people tried to pick the theory apart.
    Some people questioned the theory and in doing so,
       made it stronger.
    Some people made cases for alternate theories.
    Some people kibbutzed, a reminder to keep it light.
    Some people embraced the theory.
    Some people did the baffled thing.

Pretty soon our bit of armchair science will be pushed out
into the real world (if you choose to call Compuserve the
real world).

It will take its turn among other theories, and it will be
interesting to see how many lookers we pull into the tent.
To mix metaphors one last time.

A round of digital finger snaps to the SABAROFF.COM utility
for the hard work of compilation.  Hats off to all
contributors, and to everyone who keeps an open mind.  JS


Message #903 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Ian Abrams 910
To: Jeff Stuart 350
Date: 09-20-91 16:16:48
Subject: Yeah, but--

--if Sabaroff and McDowell and the others start vanishing
into Government Chevy's in the middle of the night, it's
gonna <bleep> up the quality of this BBS.


Message #905 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Bob Levinson 489
To: Bob Sabaroff 56
Date: 09-21-91 07:22:20
Subject: Sometimes,

going around in circles gets a bum rap it doesn't deserve.


Message #906 - SCIENCE & HEALTH FORUM
From: Peter A. Lake 430
To: All Circle People
Date: 09-22-91 01:19:16
Subject: Thanks from the Moderator

        A personal note of thanks for everyone who
contributed to the discussion about crop circles, even as I
remain a sceptic.  You have brought out the best in the
Science And Health Forum and I know I speak for many on the
BBS who have enjoyed this thread with fascination and
wonder.
        As fall begins, it's time to swing into action here
again and I assure you that as a sign of rejuvenation we
will be convening soon in the field.

        The announced goal of this Moderator will be to
sponsor one field trip per month, starting in October.
        Thanks for the inspiration, all.

--Mr. Lizard
-----------------------------------------------------------
**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************