01 - email@example.com (Gl - The Moderator's Axe: Too Much Support! 02 - firstname.lastname@example.org (Gl - CSICOP Claims Copyright, Privacy Violations (Fudd vs. Bunny) L 03 - email@example.com (Gl - Old Groom Landing Field, Book Recommendations, etc. (a.c.a51) 04 - firstname.lastname@example.org (Gl - Cray Computers At Area 51?
From: email@example.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Subject: The Moderator's Axe: Too Much Support! Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:13:31 -0700 I've just rejected several messages because they only voice support for a previous message without adding any new information or arguments. To see what you are missing: http://www.ufomind.com/area51/list/out/1996/960915.txt To keep the forum from bogging down, most of these messages should be sent to the author, not the entire list. Messages should be posted to the list only when you have something significant to add or refute. (Otherwise, the danger is that you have 20 messages in your mailbox, only one of which actually says something.) I have switched the return address again, so that when you hit the "Reply" button, the message goes to the author, not the list. If you want the message to go to the list, you have to change the address manually. And a repeat reminder: Don't quote the WHOLE previous message when replying to it. Just 3-4 lines of what you are responding to are sufficient. I will have to send back submissions where the entire previous message is quoted. The more messages we get during the day, the more selective we will be, remembering our target ceiling of no more than 5-6 messages a day. Acting Moderator +------ U F O M I N D -------+ | Glenn Campbell firstname.lastname@example.org | | AREA 51 RESEARCH CENTER - Las Vegas & Rachel, Nevada | | UFOs - Gov't Secrets - Philosophy - Psychology | | http://www.ufomind.com Box 448, Rachel, NV 89001 | +------------------------------------------------------+
From: email@example.com (Glenn Campbell) Subject: CSICOP Claims Copyright, Privacy Violations (Fudd vs. Bunny) LONG Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:20:59 -0700 Because issues of copyright and privacy on the internet have yet to be fully defined and are important to all web and newsgroup users, I am posting to this newsgroup a letter I received today from a lawyer for CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), the largest U.S. skeptics group. They are upset that I have reproduced a portion of one of their Skeptical Inquirer articles on my Area 51 website. (http:\\www.ufomind.com\area51) Following the letter is the article in question (all six paragraphs), as well as the full correspondence between myself and CSICOP leader Barry Karr (two messages). Are we making a mountain out of a molehill? No, no, no, we're talking about serious issues of copyright and piracy - er - privacy. So what¼s the right thing to do? Should I remove the article from my website? Or should I grovel for permission to us it? If I do drop it from the site, is there some other place people can get it, or will it be lost forever in the archives of the never-read Skeptical Inquirer? At times like this, I turn to my animal spirit guide: Bugs Bunny. What would Bugs do when, say, a dumb, fat, bald guy stuck a gun in his rabbit hole? "Anggh, What¼s up, Doc?" --------------------- BRENTON N. VER PLOEG, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2100 International Place 100 S.E. Second Street Miami, Florida 33131-2154 Brenton N. VerPloeg Tel. (305) 577-3996 Ivonne Prieto FAX (305) 577-3558 September 13, 1996 Glenn Campbell, Director Area 51 Research Center P.O. Box 448 Rachel, Nevada 89001 Dear Mr. Campbell: I am CSICOP's corporate counsel, and am writing you this letter at its direction and request. A copy of the e-mail exchanges between you and Barry Karr last month has been sent to my attention, and I am writing to advise you of our opinion that you are in violating the copyright and privacy laws of the United States. This is true in two areas. First, the United States Copyright Laws were not designed to encourage Socratic dialogues concerning the source of materials, or to appoint private citizens as judges to decide for themselves the equities on republications of material. They were enacted, in fact, to do the opposite, i.e., to bring clarity to the process. Assuming the accuracy of the statements made in your e-mail of August 15th, it seems very likely that The Skeptical Inquirer would have granted permission to post their article, but if you insist on making these decisions unilaterally you will doubtless enjoy the opportunity to pay counsel fees to test your conclusion that you have a right to do so. The Skeptical Inquirer obviously encourages the free exchange of ideas, but it does not - nor will it - consent to the violation inherent in your unilateral decision to ignore the copyright laws. Second, your impression that you have a right to republish or post on your database all correspondence sent to you is flatly incorrect. Private letters sent to your attention, whether by regular or electronic mail, may not be reproduced by you without the author's permission. This applies not only to letters from The Skeptical Inquirer, of course, but other letters as well. You should consult with counsel of your choice on this subject, and, if you wish, I would be happy to supply him or her with citations of authority to this effect. In sum, the Skeptical Inquirer does not waive its copyright and before you undertake such a step in the future we ask that you seek the appropriate permission. Any such request that is reasonable will doubtless be granted. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, [Signed] Brenton N. Ver Ploeg, P.A. cc: Barry Karr Ken Frazier --------------------- [Here is the article in question, six paragraphs total, as found on my web site. This segment was scanned from a longer column, the remainder of which did not concern Area 51.] PSYCHIC VIBRATIONS [column] By Robert Sheaffer Travels on the Extraterrestrial Highway The State of Nevada appears to have pulled off another minor miracle, transforming a barren stretch of desert road into a major tourist destination. In this column (Spring 1992, 250) you were among the first to read of the tall tales surrounding the supposedly mysterious "Area 51," where UFOs galore could allegedly be seen by anyone who took the trouble to drive out near the tiny hamlet of Rachel along barren State Highway 375. This road is now officially designated the Extraterrestrial Highway by proclamation of Governor Bob Miller, who spoke at a brief ceremony April 18, 1996, and its speed limit is now posted as "Warp 7." Another sign warns of alien encounters "next 51 miles." When I drove that road in July of 1992, stopping off for lunch at the Little A'Le'Inn, the only evidence of space visitors were the drawings and blurry photos plastered all over the walls. Leaving Rachel for Tonopah, there was a sign reading "Next Gas 97 Miles," so I doubled back to buy a few more gallons just to be safe. I suspect that sign will be coming down soon, if it hasn't already. Twentieth-Century Fox sent from Hollywood a whole convoy of movie stars, reporters, and film moguls to a ceremony in the hamlet of Rachel to promote its new blockbuster, Independence Day, a film about aliens attacking the earth. A base supposedly beneath Area 51 plays a key role in the movie. The studio is also planning to unveil a "monument" along the Extraterrestrial Highway intended to "serve as a beacon for possible 'close encounters' with visitors arriving from the far reaches of outer space," according to its press release. While the local UFO hucksters were doing a brisker business than ever, not everybody in the UFOlogical realm was cheering. Area 51 promoter Glenn Campbell, who publishes a newsletter called The Desert Rat (http://www.ufomind.com/area51/desert_rat), warns that "the state is setting up naive tourists for arrest & film seizure along the tense & poorly marked military border near the highway," and he does have a valid point, as the guards who patrol the perimeter of the high-security Air Force test range take a dim view of the cat-and-mouse games being played by amateur intelligence-gathers. Campbell also points out that Twentieth- Century Fox's "UFO monument," whatever it may be, seems to have completely circumvented the normal process of permits and approvals, as state and federal agencies have nothing on file about it, which would seem to preclude anything being constructed. However, Chuck Clark of Rachel, author of the rival Area 51 Handbook, suggests that Campbell may be "a government plant" sent to confuse people. Perhaps giving expression to this discontent, certain pranksters "abducted" the studio's Las Vegas-to-Rachel caravan by posting official-looking signs for the "Extraterrestrial Highway," sending them miles out of their way on a wild UFO chase down dusty desert roads, bypassing the paved state highway. Campbell reports that at least forty cars and one tour bus were thus "abducted" to the edge of the high-security area before arriving, covered with dust, at the planned extraterrestrial rendezvous. All the excitement over the new Extraterrestrial Highway has obscured the most exciting development on which Campbell has yet reported: extraterrestrial linguistics. An anonymous earthling who uses the alias "Jarod 2" (pronounced Jay-rod) claims to have conversed briefly with his original namesake, an extraterrestrial now in residence at Area 51. This Jarod (the original) is reputed to be a consultant-alien, one of several who are advising the U.S. government on how to reproduce their flying saucers. That one or more extraterrestrials are now resident at that site is not news. Several years ago, John Lear claimed that aliens had violated their treaty with earthlings, resulting in humans at Area 51 being eaten by aliens. Bob Lazar later told a story of a battle being waged by earthly bullets against ET Ray Guns (this column, Fall 1993, 23). However, nothing had previously been reported about the extraterrestrials' language. Recently, Jarod 2 asked a group of UFOlogists, "What is the most difficult language on earth to learn?" When somebody piped up and said "Hungarian" (I have no idea whether this is true or not), Jarod 2 said that was right, and claimed that the ETs speak Hungarianãactually, "a higher form of Hungarian." Or so he claimed to have been told by his supervisor at Area 51. Further evidence of this is that the extraterrestrials speak English words in Hungarian word-order during their terse conversations. "This is something we never expected," Campbell observes wryly. "The aliens can talk to Zsa Zsa Gabor! But it's a HIGHER FORM of Hungarian, so maybe they can talk to Eva Gabor now that she has passed on." Jarod 2 claims that the Area 51 project employed many skilled human linguists} but all of them were stumped trying to figure out this higher form of Hungarian. Campbell observes that he had previously suggested that "prudent investors consider boron as a possible growth commodity, since it is one product that Jarod says the aliens take from Earth. Now we suggest ambitious college students consider the benefits of Hungarian. Take a few introductory classes, and when the aliens reveal themselves you'll be way ahead of everyone else." Apparently eager to place himself at the head of that queue, Campbell recently traveled to Budapest, describing his trip in Desert Rat. While contemporary Hungary is indeed in a state of UFO excitement, Campbell found nothing that would directly confirm or refute Jarod 2's statements. Other interesting tidbits from Jarod 2: The aliens keep clean by taking a "bug bath" (actually, a microbe shower). They enter a shower stall where microbes are sprayed onto the alien's skin, and "the good bacteria eat the bad bacteria," as he explains. The aliens do not eat as we do, but they apparently do drink liquids. --------------------- [Shortly after this article was added to my site, I received this email from an anonymous correspondent, apparently Barry Karr.] Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 09:02:47 -0400 From: SkeptInq@aol.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Skeptical Inquirer article Did you request and receive permission to reprint the Robet Sheaffer article from the Skeptical Inquirer and if so from whom? --------------------- [This pissed me off enough to send this reply....] To: SkeptInq@aol.com From: email@example.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Subject: Re: Skeptical Inquirer article Dear SkeptInq: In response to your query: No, I did not request or receive permission to reprint the Robe[r]t Sheaffer article. So what about it? It is my policy to try to make available on the net _every_ published article about Area 51. If I have had contact with the author, I usually ask if they object. If I have never had contact with the author, as in Mr. Sheaffer's case, then I just do it. I recognize the obvious copyright issues, but I also recognize a public "need to know," and I feel that I can slip between the cracks in most cases. Mine is not-for-profit site, and I have never tried to gain any benefit from the articles I reprint. Although I do advertise products for sale on other parts of the site to try to defray my substantial costs, that advertising is kept far away from the articles. As far as I know, no publication has ever lost revenue because of the Area 51 articles I reprint, and no one has ever complained -- until now. I decided in the beginning that if there were any conflicts, I would resolve them on a case-by-case basis. Do we have a conflict now? The portion of the Robe[r]t Sheaffer column that I reprinted is derived almost exclusively from my work and the well-trodden path of previous journalists. He read my Desert Rat newsletters and my other postings on the net -- all available free to anyone -- and reported them in his own column. I have no objection to this, because it is part of the open exchange of ideas. I was aware of his article because I am a Skeptical Inquirer subscriber, and I scanned it to disk myself. In all, I am pleased with the article, but apart from the fact that Mr. Sheaffer actually did drive down the E.T. Highway, he cannot claim to have done any original research, only repeated the reports of others. (His "Jarod" report appears to be entirely drawn from my own articles.) Unlike the Skeptical Inquirer, it seems, I believe in an open intellectual exchange on fantastic claims and am willing to entertain occasional generosity to allow it to take place. I encourage your magazine to report on Area 51 -- beyond a superficial review of other people's work -- because this social circus certainly deserves criticism. However, I DO resent the Skeptical Inquirer recycling my openly available work and then asserting intellectual property rights over the results. I also resent receiving an anonymous query on this matter. Anyone can create a "SkeptInq" screenname on AOL. If you do represent the Skeptical Inquirer, then you should have the courtesy to include your name. The Robe[r]t Sheaffer article will remain in place on my web site. However, I will be sure to append to it your inquiry and my response. Any further correspondence we exchange on this matter will also be made public here. Glenn Campbell Director Area 51 Research Center --------------------- The next correspondence I received was the letter from the lawyer above. Evidently, those six paragraphs have caused enough distress at CSICOP HQ that they are ready to pull out all the stops. The only thing getting in their way is the law itself, which isn't exactly as Mr. VerPloeg portrays it. I think his "privacy" concept is delightful fiction, especially when a writer is acting on behalf of an organization, and his "citations of authority" will be as ephemeral as poltergeists. (But don't blame him; he's a lawyer. Their job is to intimidate, not report the truth.) Copyright remains a potential problem for me, but Fudds like this earn no one's respect and usually end up getting shot with their own gun. The only purpose of this newsgroup posting, of course, is to promote the free exchange of ideas and to encourage debate on important privacy and copyright issues, as spearheaded by the Skeptical Inquirer. This message and any ensuing debate will be available for permanent reference at Deja News (http://www.dejanews.com) and other news servers. (Hmmmm... and the article, too!) I think CSICOP should join forces with the Scientologists, who also raise internet copyright issues. If this team won't police the internet, who will? Glenn [If I reply to Mr. VerPloeg, I will post a copy of that letter later in this thread (as a response to this message).] +------------------------------------------------------+ | Glenn Campbell firstname.lastname@example.org | | AREA 51 RESEARCH CENTER - Las Vegas & Rachel, Nevada | | For latest see... http://www.ufomind.com/new/current | | Please cc newsgroup responses to email address above | +------------------------------------------------------+
From: email@example.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Subject: Old Groom Landing Field, Book Recommendations, etc. (a.c.a51) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 01:17:37 -0700 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (John O'Farrell) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.area51 Subject: A-51 Question (WOW!) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 13:10:59 -0700 Okay, it's time to get back to the subject of this newsgroup. Here's a question for all you Tikaboo lurkers and parimeter climbers. The A-51 Research Center maps of Groom Lake show what appears to be a landing field just to the east of the lakebed. The map shows two runways roughly 6000-7000 ft long running SW-NE and SE-NW in a cross pattern, with numerous dirt roads leading to it, but no apparent structures. Has anybody been able to view this? Would anybody care to comment on it's purpose? It seems that there would not be a need for an emergency strip so close to the main runways, one would think that the pilot would just set 'er down on the lakebed if there was a problem. Maybe it's an old, obsolete landing field? Also, one might want to take a gander at a new offering from the Area-51 Research Center, a book from the "Center for Land Use Interpretation" entitled, _The Nevada Test Site, A Guide To America's Nuclear Proving Ground_. It is truly awesome! The book is worth the cost simply for the front and back cover photos. The front photo is a shot taken about 5000 ft. AGL over Yukka Flat looking south with Yukka Lake centered in the background and CP-1 right on the saddle. Based on the old mark-1 eyeball and an outdated sectional chart, it would appear that the photo also includes a great shot of the Papoose hills and possibly a little of the lakebed, though it's a fairly low level shot with Papoose about 25 miles away. The subsidence craters that litter Yukka Flat are quite a sight to behold and you actually get quite the overview of a large part of the NTS. The back photo consists of a very nice satallite repro of the whole region with Sedan, Schooner, and Buggy craters quite apparent. But what makes this photo so cool (at least to me) is that, wonder of wonders, what do we see but Papoose and Groom Lakes in all their glory. The detail is pretty good with both runways at Groom readily apparent and one can easily see the numerous dirt roads that emminate all around the region. You can even see dirt roads around Papoose, though it certainly appears that these are low-use/light duty dirt roads. Unfortunately, the image ends just to the east of Groom Dry Lake thereby obscuring the supposed landing strip to the east. The book itself is quite outstanding in that it takes you on a virtual tour of the test site with numerous photos of selected sites including a great photo of the gates into "Plutonium Valley", apparently the most contaminated area of NTS. It's really a grim and stark photo. There are also contempory photos of numerous test "articles" including concrete test shelters (some of which have been "imploded" by atmospheric blasts. Several of the "Apple 2" structures exist including a two-story "typical American house" with photos of the interior as it exists today (It looks alot like the house in "Atomic Cafe" that was subject to an atomic blast that literally burned all the paint off the structure. The book states that the "Atomic Cafe" sequence was actually taken from the "Annie" test, but the structures look the same). Anyway, enough of my ranting, you can check it out yourself at: http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/c/clui/ and, no, I'm not affiliated with the Research Center, but I know a good thing when I see it (I think). -------------- Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.area51 From: email@example.com (Tom Mahood) Subject: Re: A-51 Question (WOW!) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 14:53:33 GMT John O'Farrell (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: : Okay, it's time to get back to the subject of this newsgroup. Here's a : question for all you Tikaboo lurkers and parimeter climbers. The A-51 : Research Center maps of Groom Lake show what appears to be a landing field : just to the east of the lakebed. The map shows two runways roughly : 6000-7000 ft long running SW-NE and SE-NW in a cross pattern, with : numerous dirt roads leading to it, but no apparent structures. Has anybody : been able to view this? Would anybody care to comment on it's purpose? It The two strips you mention were used for training purposes during WWII. I'm not sure if they were actually used to land aircraft on, or were just used for targeting and strafing purposes. There are several of these these things in the general area, one being on the west side of Hwy 375, about 5 miles north of Queen City Summit. It has pretty much vanished, and unless you knew it was there, you would have to walk right up to it to see it. When new, they were just graded dirt. The strips on the east side of Groom show up in 1952 aerial photos. However, according to a story I heard was told by Tony LeVier, when he landed on Groom in 1955, scouting for the U-2 base, the runways east of the lake were pretty much gone. As to why they are on the map you mention, I'd guess the map maker wanted to add them for historical benefit. Tom
From: email@example.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Subject: Cray Computers At Area 51? Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:07:52 -0700 Email correspondent GM writes (densely): >>> Also heres a thought, During the years of 1964 - 1993 there have been what looks like awhole heap of either gravitational tests which would indicate 'reverse engineering', now that SGI has taken over CRAY, wouldnt it be safe to assume that SiliconGraphics may have SOME info available, or if they have any contact with the military in area51 ?, as CRAY computers now has been bought out, then that would be safe to assume that someone would have to take over for them right?, and i cant get any information from SGI (australia), but you may get alittle more than me (with sgi being US based)... It was just a thought and maybe you might get some information from them, as they "HAVE" to be using some sort of computer equipment at '51' to do pre-testing surely ?! <<< Interesting point about Crays. Our flying saucer reverse- engineering people, at '51 or Los Alamos, ought to have a Cray or two in their workshop, and maybe there is something about it that is traceable. Glenn +------ U F O M I N D -------+ | Glenn Campbell firstname.lastname@example.org | | AREA 51 RESEARCH CENTER - Las Vegas & Rachel, Nevada | | UFOs - Gov't Secrets - Philosophy - Psychology | | http://www.ufomind.com Box 448, Rachel, NV 89001 | +------------------------------------------------------+
Sponsored by the Area 51 Research Center (www.ufomind.com)
Created: 19 Sep 1996