01 - Mark Hartoog <markht@worl - Re: Possible New Planet in Zeta Reticuli! 02 - John Joseph Mercieca <muf - Re: AREA 51: Possible New Planet in Zeta Reticuli! 03 - Mark Hartoog <markht@alta - Zeta Reticuli 04 - email@example.com (Gl - A Little More on Zeta Reticuli (en francais) 05 - Mark Hartoog <markht@worl - Re: AREA 51: A Little More on Zeta Reticuli (en francais) 06 - firstname.lastname@example.org (Gl - Fe Fi Fo Fum... Reticuli or Reticulum? 07 - Mark Hartoog <markht@alta - Re: Fe Fi Fo Fum... Reticuli or Reticulum? 08 - email@example.com (Gl - Richard Boylan's UFO and Helicopter Encounters 09 - firstname.lastname@example.org (Gl - Inside Edition on Secret Aircraft, Sept. 27 [Press Release] 10 - email@example.com (Gl - Follow-up from Boylan 11 - firstname.lastname@example.org (Gl - Wallace Antigravity Patents [LONG] 12 - email@example.com (Gl - Mars Researchers Discover Ufology [Loon]
From: Mark Hartoog <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Possible New Planet in Zeta Reticuli! Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 22:33:31 -0700 Glenn Campbell asked: > Given that astronomers seem to be finding quite a few planets > these days (9 confirmed so far), what is the probability - given all > those billion, billion stars, etc. - of finding one right where we > want it? I have several comments on this. First of all, this is a ex-post-facto experiment. By this I mean you only asked what were the odds of this happening after it has happened. When I worked in astronomy 20 years ago there were all kinds of arguments about questions like this. Astronomers would go out and look for anything funny in the sky, and when they found something funny, they would ask what are the odds of this happening by chance ? The problem was they had never defined what funny things they were looking for before they started, only after they had found it. Imagine the following experiment. Walk out on the strip in Las Vegas and stop the first person you happen to meet. Now what were the odds of you going out on the street in Las Vegas and meeting this particular person, out of the billions on the planet Earth. They were probably very slim, but your odds of meeting someone were 100%. You didn't define who you would consider it funny to meet before you walked out on the street, so you donot have a valid experiment. If you do not believe the Lazar/Jarod 2 stories, then you have to believe that someone who knew some astronomy picked this star for the story. I found that Zeta 2 Reticuli pulled the abstract of a paper out of the ADS service which was a list of candidate stars for the SETI project. Now I am not sure how long the SETI project idea has been around, but I remember it was already being discussed seriously in the late 70's when I was still working in astronomy. Some astronomers even back then were looking around for candidate systems to search and probably would put Zeta Reticuli on the list. Maybe whoever pick Zeta 2 Reticuli got it off a list of SETI candidates or something similar. The astronomers looking for planets today are obviously interested in finding planets around solar like stars (I know I would be if I were doing the research). In order to be bright enough to do the planet search, a solar type star has to be nearby. That would put Zeta 2 Reticuli near the top of the list of stars to check for planets, and might help to explain this apparent co-incidence. Mark Hartoog Los Gatos, CA
From: John Joseph Mercieca <email@example.com> Subject: Re: AREA 51: Possible New Planet in Zeta Reticuli! Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 16:42:59 +0200 Hi all, I have a very interesting 30 page publication called "The Zeta Reticuli Incident" by Terence Dickinson. This was published in 1976 by AstroMedia Corp, publisher of Astronomy magazine. It contains Betty Hill's abduction story .. how she drew the star map that was shown to her .. how Marjorie Fish came up with a model of the space surrounding Zeta Reticuli and how this matches Betty's star map. It also has commentary by Carl Sagan, Jeffrey Kretsch, Steven Soter, Robert Scheaffer, David Saunders and Michael Peck. I think it is available from Stanton Friedman - http://medianet.nbnet.nb.ca/ufo/index.htm Regards, JJ Mercieca .-------------------------------------------------------. * ~ MALTA UFO RESEARCH ~ * * Researcher & Investigator : John Joseph Mercieca * '-------------------------------------------------------' * MUFOR Web site : http://www.waldonet.net.mt/~mufor/ * * E-mail 1 : firstname.lastname@example.org * * E-mail 2 : email@example.com * * IRC Channel : #cydonia (on Undernet) * * Fax : + 356 456729 .'--------------. * Mobile : 099 0756 * "Either these * * Postal Address : P.O. Box 14, Rabat RBT 01, MALTA. * features on * '--------.--------------------------------------------.' Mars are * * natural and this investigation is a complete waste of time, * *or they are artificial and this is one of the most important * * discoveries of our entire existence on Earth." * * - RICHARD C.HOAGLAND on the MONUMENTS of CYDONIA, MARS * '-------------------------------------------------------------'
From: Mark Hartoog <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Zeta Reticuli Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 14:54:51 -0700 While searching the net for any info on Zeta Reticuli, I came across the link: http://www.protree.com/npt-ufo/ufo-files/ufo-text-files/z/zeta-reticuli.1 This is apparently a copy of a long message someone posted to alt.paranet.ufo in 1994. Although alt.parnet.ufo posting might not be a reliable source, most of this file seems to be a reprint of the December 1974 Astronomy Magazine article on the Marjorie Fish identification of Zeta Reticuli as the hub of the Betty Hill star map, plus some addition comentary for and against the identification. This file contains a detailed explanation, based on astronomy, of how Marjorie Fish identified Zeta Reticuli. I skimmed through most of it and it looks like the astronomy is sound (Assuming this is from Astronomy Magazine you would expect that). According to this file, Marjorie Fish started with a catalogue of about 1000 known stars within 55 light years, and then selected only the stars from this list that were very similar to the Sun. She came up with a list of only 46 stars (perhaps because the Betty Hill map had 46 stars on it ??), which she then was able to match to the Betty Hill map. Marjorie Fish's reasoning was that it was the stars most similar to Sun that would have earth like planets. Now astronomers looking for planets today would be very interested in finding planets around Sun like stars. That would focus them on much the same type of stars that Marjorie Fish selected. The radial velocity measurements being used to find planets are much easier on brighter stars, so astronomers would want to look at the brightest ones first. On Marjorie Fish's list, only 14 stars are brighter than Zeta 2 Reticuli, so this would obviously put it high on the list of stars to be searched, so perhaps it was the same astronomical reasoning that lead Marjorie Fish to put Zeta Recticuli on the short list of stars to id with the Betty Hill map, that put Zeta Recticuli high on the list of stars for astronomers to check for planets. Mark Hartoog Reformed Astronomer Los Gatos, CA
From: email@example.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Subject: A Little More on Zeta Reticuli (en francais) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:32:01 -0700 > Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 01:58:22 -0400 (EDT) > From: Joe LeSesne <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Reply-To: Joe LeSesne <email@example.com> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: More on Zeta Reticuli (french) > > Ok, I took two years of French but remmember little. Anyone parlez vouse > francais? Parler? Non. Mais je comprend presque tout. > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 12:51:41 +0002 > From: Jean.Schneider@obspm.fr > Subject: nouvelle planete (a confirmer) New planet (to be confirmed) > To: email@example.com > > Artie Hatzes (UTexas) dit avoir peut-etre trouve (avec W. Cochran) une > planete a l'ESO par la methode des vitesses radiales. Artie Hatzes (UTexas) says [he] has perhaps found (with W. Cochran) a planet of ESO [type?] by the method of radial speeds. > Masse: 0.27 masse de jupiter .27 the mass of Jupiter (still a big sucker) > Periode: 18.9 Jours Revolution around the star (I assume): 18.9 days (Too fast for comfort! It would have to be very close to the star, closer than Mercury to the sun. Different than J-2's configuration.) > Etoile: G1V Star: G1V > On peut penser que c'est la planete qui sera annoncee au DPS Meeting > le 23 Octobre. One could think that this is the planet that will be announced at the DPS Meeting on Oct. 23. > Jean Schneider > http://www.obspm.fr/planets +------ 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: Mark Hartoog <email@example.com> Subject: Re: AREA 51: A Little More on Zeta Reticuli (en francais) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 06:19:42 -0700 At 07:32 AM 9/25/96 +0000, you wrote: >> Artie Hatzes (UTexas) dit avoir peut-etre trouve (avec W. Cochran) une >> planete a l'ESO par la methode des vitesses radiales. > >Artie Hatzes (UTexas) says [he] has perhaps found (with W. Cochran) a >planet of ESO [type?] by the method of radial speeds. > ESO = European Souther Observatory (http://www.hq.eso.org/eso-homepage.html), so I think this is "at ESO by the method of radial velocity.". Mark Hartoog Los Gatos, CA
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Subject: Fe Fi Fo Fum... Reticuli or Reticulum? Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 08:39:13 -0700 Will someone of an astronomical bent please clarify for we laymen... -- Is it Zeta Reticuli or Zeta Reticulum? -- Does this name refer to a star system, a single star or a pair of stars? -- What does "Reticulum" alone refer to? How was the name "zeta" assigned? -- If it refers to a pair of stars, how do you distiguish one from the other? (What words do you use?) -- Does the possible planet revolve around one of the pair or both of them? If only one of the pair, which one? -- How far apart is the pair of stars? -- Are both of these stars like our sun? -- Given the rotational period of the possible planet, what is its ballpark distance from the star? -- Is there anything about the astronomical data that would preclude life on a different planet in that solar system? ------- Mark Hartoog sends this explanation of some of the data.... --- Begin Message --- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:22:19 -0700 To: email@example.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) From: Mark Hartoog <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: AREA 51: Possible New Planet in Zeta Reticuli! I guess I never answered the question you asked about what all that astronomical data posted on the web about Zeta Reticuli means. It is mostly, ... well... not very interesting. >SIMBAD database : > >Basic data and identifiers for the object HD 20807 > >Type: High proper-motion Star >Coord 1950.0 = 03 17 07.40 -62 41 47.8 mb, mv = 5.84 5.24 >Coord 2000.0 = 03 18 03.22 -62 30 55.7 sp type = G1V Coordinates of Zeta Reticuli on the sky, mb = 5.94 and mv = 5.24 are photographic and visual brightest measurements. mv = 5.24 means visible with naked eye from a good dark place. sp type = G1V - means Zeta 2 Reticuili is very similar to our Sun, which is G2V. > gal = 279.00 -47.23 co-ordinates in a system base on plane of our galaxy. > pm = +1.332 [ 7] +0.658 [ 7] The poper motion, ie how much the star moves on the sky every year. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >HD 20807 GEN# +1.00020807 SKY# 4958 >SAO 248774 UBV M 9467 Ci 20 226 >GC 3975 N30 680 LHS 172 >CPD-62 265 * zet02 Ret PLX 705 >GJ 138 CPC 20.1 685 GCRV 1842 >HR 1010 IDS 03160-6253 A JP11 777 >UBV 3233 LFT 276 LPM 148 >LTT 1576 PM 03171-6242 PPM 353441 >CCDM J03180-6232A HIC 15371 This is just a list of other names for Zeta 2 Reticuili in various catalogues. Any of these names could be used in technical papers. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Measurements: >SAO: 1 UBV: 6 pos: 2 MK:13 JP11: 1 PLX: 5 GCRV: 5 >uvby: 5 Hbet: 4 PM: 4 IUE: 3 These are various kinds of standard measurements of brightest or color, or something like that. I think the numbers indicate how many determinations on this star are availabe in the ADS system. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >References: 96 The total number of papers in the ADS systme about this star. This information probably looks more interesting when you don't know what it means. Mark Hartoog Los Gatos, CA
From: Mark Hartoog <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Fe Fi Fo Fum... Reticuli or Reticulum? Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 10:55:55 -0700 >Will someone of an astronomical bent please clarify for we laymen... > >-- Is it Zeta Reticuli or Zeta Reticulum? It is Zeta Reticuli. >-- Does this name refer to a star system, a single star or a pair of >stars? Just Zeta Reticuli refers to the pair of stars. Astronomers think these two are revolving around each other, but the period must >100,000 years, so they cannot be sure. >-- What does "Reticulum" alone refer to? How was the name "zeta" >assigned? Reticulum is the name of the constelation that Zeta Reticuli is in. Acient astronomer divided the sky up into constelations, and named the stars with greek letters starting with the brightest star. So Alpha Reticuli is the brightest star in Reticulum, Beta Reticuli is the second brighest, ect. If I remember my greek alphabet, this makes Zeta Reticuli the 6th brightest star in Reticulum. Since Reticulum is too far South for ancient Greek and Roman astronomers to have seen it, these names probably got made up when western astronomers first got to the Southern hemisphere (15th century ??). When the name Zeta Reticuli was assigned, astronomers obviously thought this was one star, later with telescopes, they discovered it was really two stars. >-- If it refers to a pair of stars, how do you distiguish one from the >other? (What words do you use?) When this name is printed in books, the Zeta is written as a greek letter, with a superscript of 1 or 2 to refer to each star. On computer keyboards, which don't have greek letters or superscripts, they are usually written Zeta 1 Reticuli and Zeta 2 Reticuli. Some people have used Zeta^1 and Zeta^2 to indicate that the 1 and 2 should be superscripts. It is possible someone would use Zeta A and Zeta B, but I have not seen that used in any of the papers I have looked at. >-- Does the possible planet revolve around one of the pair or both of >them? If only one of the pair, which one? The possible planet is only revolving around Zeta 2 Reticuli. >-- How far apart is the pair of stars? In an earlier message I quote one estimate by astronomers of 5000 AU. If you just take the visible seperation on the sky, it is 3400 AU, we cannot measure the seperation, if any, along the line of sight. The 5000 AU includes a "statistical correction" (wild guess) for the seperation along the line of sight. The Earth is 1 AU from the Sun, Pluto, the most distant known planet, is 39.44 AU from the Sun. 3400 AU ~= 3 light weeks and 5000 AU ~= 4 light weeks. >-- Are both of these stars like our sun? Zeta 1 Reticuli is classified as a G2V star and Zeta 2 Reticuli is a G1V. Our Sun is a G2V, so both stars are very similar to our Sun. Zeta 2 Reticuli should be just slightly larger and hotter than our Sun, Zeta 1 Reticuli about the same. >-- Given the rotational period of the possible planet, what is its >ballpark distance from the star? It would be very close. If I remember the formula to work this out correctly, it comes to about 0.14 AU. Mercury, the closest planet to our Sun, is 0.387 AU from the Sun. By the way the radius of the Sun is about 0.004 AU, so this would not be inside the Star, but it would be very hot on this planet. >-- Is there anything about the astronomical data that would preclude >life on a different planet in that solar system? No. Mark Hartoog Los Gatos, CA
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Subject: Richard Boylan's UFO and Helicopter Encounters Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 21:26:52 -0700 ---- Begin Forwarded Message From: email@example.com Date: Wed, 25 Sep 96 09:00:44 -0800 Subject: ET Highway, NV To: firstname.lastname@example.org Close Encounters on the Extraterrestrial Highway By Richard J. Boylan, Ph.D. September 9-10, 1996 will stand out in my memory for a very long time. My wife, stepson and I were traveling from Rachel along Highway 375 towards the Groom Lake Road intersection. It was a dark and very stormy night with unusual amounts of lightning striking every few seconds. As we were about ten miles east of Rachel, we noticed a very intense white light about a mile and a half ahead of us, lined up with the highway. At first we thought it was an oncoming vehicle, but after a while noticed that it never got any closer, but maintained the same distance. It couldn't be an oncoming car going backwards. We puzzled about this for a few more minutes until a fortunate stroke of lightning flashed behind the mystery object, illuminating it and revealing that it was about 100 feet in the air above the highway roadbed! Shortly afterwards, the object grew dim and tiny, then almost disappeared. It briefly reflared again to full size, then, some moments later, went out. Indeed this was an Unidentified Flying Object. The next morning we drove down Groom Lake Road to the boundary of Area 51. We took some photographs by the federal warning signs. Not five minutes had elapsed before an unmarked, olive-drab Apache attack helicopter loomed over the ridge from Area 51 and flew low over us at about 150 feet altitude. It circled around and made another pass over us. We got in our car and retraced our path towards Highway 375, with the chopper leading us halfway down the road to the Extraterrestrial Highway. Are all tourists accorded such military courtesies? Highway 375 is definitely for anyone who wants to seek unusual experiences. Rich Richard Boylan, Ph.D. ---- End Forwarded Message Boylan must be charmed. Everything happens to him, usually within hours of arrival. On previous visits, he had his tire shot out and saw UFOs of several different kinds. His article on the topic in MUFON journal in 1992 was the main thing that prompted me to visit. I, however, haven't seen squat in years, and although I've often been buzzed by the helicopter, it has always been the same old clunker. How come _HE_ gets the Apache and not me?!!!! I wonder if he knows his helicopters, though. If this were a Pave Hawk helicopter it would be an everyday occurrance. (One patrols the border every morning.) I have never seen an Apache near the border myself, but I guess it is possible. "It was a dark and stormy night...." GC
From: email@example.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Subject: Inside Edition on Secret Aircraft, Sept. 27 [Press Release] Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 21:49:43 -0700 I N S I D E E D I T I O N FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE SECRET U.S. AIRCRAFT MAY THREATEN PASSENGER JETS, "INSIDE EDITION" REPORTS NEW YORK, N.Y., Sept. 25, 1996...Is the U.S. government putting public safety at risk with secret flights of classified aircraft that stray into civilian airspace? Information gathered from commercial pilots, journalists, government watchdogs and confidential sources suggest that's happening, INSIDE EDITION reports Friday, Sept. 27* What's the official reaction to suspicions that home-grown UFO's are darting around the skies over the U.S. and abroad? Air Force Secretary Shell Widnall refuses even to admit the existance of the craft, telling INSIDE EDITION Investigative Reporter Mark Sauter exclusively, "I cannot comment on it...just because of the national security implications." Widnall later says past secret airplane projects were "model programs," adding that "unauthorized flight outside of the military airspace during a flight test -- to me -- is inconceivable." Widnall was also asked about the increasingly popular conspiracy theory that the government is using technology from captured UFO's in its secret aircraft programs. "That's popular culture. I can't even comment on that." When Sauter asks "Can you deny it?" Widnall replies "I'm not even going to discuss it." The report notes several sightings of mysterious aircraft in commercial airspace including two near-collisions. Even government earthquake equipment has picked up signs that something strange is out there --- sonic booms called ''skyquakes'' that match no plane known to be in the air. One sighting was made by Mark Stewart, co-pilot of a British Airways jetliner he says nearly collided with a mysterious aircraft last year. Stewart says, "I actually saw the object Coming toward me. What I felt was a silver, silvery-gray, wedge- shaped object. My first instant reaction was to actually try and reach for the control column... You don't expect to see an aircraft ever in your flying career that close." The report also questions whether taxpayer money is being wasted on experimental aircraft. John Pike, Director of Space Policy for the Federation of American Scientists, a Washington think tank, says "As long as these airplanes are classified, we don't know whether we're getting our money's worth and we don't know whether they're posing a safety problem for the flying public." Pike asserts that billions have been spent on secret aircraft, and that much of this spending may have been unnecessary. -- ## -- [I like how Inside Edition has an "exclusive" no comment from Widnall. That's why they're called _Inside_ Edition. -- GC.]
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Subject: Follow-up from Boylan Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 07:49:52 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Sep 96 20:15:39 -0800 Subject: RE: ET HIGHWAY, NV To: email@example.com -> SearchNet's iufo Mailing List > > The next morning we drove down Groom Lake Road to the > boundary of Area > >51. We took some photographs by the federal warning signs. Not five > minutes had > >elapsed before an unmarked, olive-drab Apache attack helicopter > loomed over the > >ridge from Area 51 and flew low over us at about 150 feet altitude. > It circled > >around and made another pass over us. > > We got in our car and retraced our path towards Highway 375, with > the > chopper leading us halfway down the road to the > >Extraterrestrial Highway. Tom Watson asks, and Rich Boylan replies: > us, the > "general public readers". > I have a question - Why did you leave at that time? Were you > bored? No, anything but bored. > you have an important appointment to keep? Not particularly. On a family trip to Great Basin National Park, NV. > Were you frightened? Why not just hang around and keep taking > pictures of > the "american landscapes" and the local aircraft/helicopters? You > were on a > public road, were you not? Yes,we were on perfectly-legal, public (Bureau of Land Management) land. > Just curious as to the distance one would go when confronted with a > choice > between being uncomfortable with illegal harassment by unknown > persons, and > simply turning with tail between legs and going "b-a-a-a, b-a-a-a" > all the > way home. My wife, who has been quite concerned about the shooting harassment I have experienced in the past on Groom Lake Road was quite unsettled by the approach of a military attack helicopter, and requested emphatically that we depart forthwith. As a considerate spouse and a gentleman, I acceded to my wife's request. Richard Boylan, Ph.D.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Subject: Wallace Antigravity Patents [LONG] Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 08:13:41 -0700 [I have some reservations about posting anti-gravity material on this list, since it can get quite lengthy. This topic relates to Area 51 in that the Lazar & J-2 stories involve gravity propulsion systems, but I am worried about the list being taken over by Tesla discussions and pseudo science. We'll see how it works out. If you reply or post new messages regarding antigravity research, be sure that "Antigravity" or a similar keyword appears somewhere in the subject line. Then people with no interest in the subject can ignore the message. --GC] ---- Subj: Heavy reading about an "enlightening force" Date: Fri, Jul 26, 1996 8:18 PM PDT From: email@example.com X-From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Gary) To: email@example.com Glen below I have included verbatim some material I found on the Wallace patents. I looked them up and found them extremely interesting and do infact describe what is described in the material below a tested working apparatus for the "kinesmatic force"/ antigravity. I was wondering if any of your wanderings or contacts could shed any light on these patents, their inventor, the device etc. -- Gary Alevy firstname.lastname@example.org From email@example.comTue Nov 14 19:25:53 1995 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 10:59:07 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Stirniman <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: About Wallace AntiGrav Patents From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Stirniman ) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.research Subject: More Re Wallace AntiGrav Patents Date: 13 Nov 1995 04:48:26 GMT More About the Wallace Patents -- Anti-Gravity Technology An article about the Wallace patents appeared in the British magazine "New Scientist" in February 1980. This was written nearly ten years after Wallace was awarded his patents. Here's a paragraph from the article. "Although the Wallace patents were initially ignored as cranky, observers believe that his invention is now under serious but secret investigation by the military authorities in the US. The military may now regret that the patents have already been granted and so are available for anyone to read." I know -- it's a tease. And the rest of the article is the same way. It provides barely enough information to jab your psyche a little, and not nearly enough to get you off your comfortable ass. And who knows who the anonymous party of "observers" are, who believe that a secret investigation is underway by the military -- or whether these observers even exist at all. None the less, the New Scientist has a fairly well established track record for accurate identification of new science trends and issues. And, while the editors of this British journal may be prone to enjoyment of gossip and innuendo, it generally turns out be grounded in truth. One thing they got right for sure: The patents are available for anyone to read. Get them. Study them. No doubt, Wallace got many things wrong about the physical theory of his invention. But, he did discover something very important. It does work. Regards, Robert Stirniman (email@example.com) Subject: Re: More Re Wallace AntiGrav Patents Followup-To: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.research Date: 13 Nov 1995 04:49:05 GMT The Wallace Patents and Politics of Science Henry Wallace was an engineer at General Electric about 25 years ago, and developed some incredible inventions relating to the underlying physics of the gravitational field. Few people have heard of him or his work. US Patent #3626605 -- "Method and Apparatus for Generating a Secondary Gravitational Force Field" Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Ardmore PA Dec 14, 1971 US Patent #3626606 -- "Method and Apparatus for Generating a Dynamic Force Field" Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Ardmore PA Dec 14, 1971 US Patent #3823570 -- "Heat Pump" (based on technology similar to the above two inventions) Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Freeport NY July 16, 1973 Wallace discovered that a force field, similar or related to the gravitational field, results from the interaction of relatively moving masses. He built machines which demonstrated that this field could be generated by spinning masses of elemental material having an odd number of nucleotides -- i.e. a nucleus having a multiple half-integral value of h-bar, the quantum of angular momentum. Wallace used bismuth or copper material for his rotating bodies and "kinnemassic" field concentrators. Aside from the immense benefits to humanity which could result from a better understanding of the physical nature of gravity, and other fundamental forces, Wallace's inventions could have enormous practical value in countering gravity or converting gravitational force fields into energy for doing useful work. So, why has no one heard of him? One might think that the discoverer of important knowledge such as this would be heralded as a great scientist and nominated for dynamite prizes. Could it be that his invention does not work? Anyone can get the patents. Study them -- Wallace -- General Electric -- detailed descriptions of operations -- measurements of effects -- drawings and models -- it is authentic. If you're handy you can even build it yourself. It does work. So what is going on? One explanation I've heard is that Wallace ran up against the politics of science, as dictated in the late 1960's by the power-block at Princeton, who were primarily interested in promoting the ideas of their main man, Einstein, and the gravitation-is-geometry paradigm. Maybe there is some truth to this story. Nowadays, there seems to be a piss-pot full of theoretical physicists working on abstract geometrical theories and other absurdly difficult mental masturbations, while no one seems to have made any effort to provide a theoretical explanation of the physics of a nuts-and-bolts invention which could have enormous practical value. Maybe we can blame it on the Princeton folks, but I'm more inclined to believe that our defense industry black project community has confiscated and suppressed knowledge of Wallace's discoveries. All done of course under the most honorable and sacred banner of national security. Well, it's been 25 years. We ought to be real secure by now. Isn't it way past time for some trickle down benefits to real people? Wallace's inventions offer the potential of improving the quality of life for everyone. Throughout history, political suppression and hoarding of scientific knowledge has inevitably resulted in a retardation of human advancement. It continues today. When will we ever learn? Regards, Robert Stirniman (firstname.lastname@example.org) Followup-To: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.research Date: 13 Nov 1995 04:50:36 GMT Intrinsic and Extrinsic Angular Momentum and Suppressed Science There is an important relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic angular momemtum, microscopic and macroscopic angular momentum, and quantum and classical level angular momentum. A body which is spinning within a larger macroscopic body which is also spinning will tend to align the axis of its angular momentum with the spin axis of the larger body. For example, a gyroscope located on the earth, unless it is in a frictionless gimbal, with always try to precess due to the rotation of the earth into alignment with the earth's polar axis, at which point it will no longer precess due to earth rotation. Another example. A cylinder of magnetic material spinning around its longitudinal axis will develop a magnetic field proportional to is angular velocity (Barnett Effect), because the angular momemtum of the electrons in the material will attempt to precess and come into alignment with the macroscopic axis of the spinning cylinder, which also brings into alignment the magnetic moment of the electrons, some of which have unpaired spins (ferromagnetic), resulting in generation of a macroscopic magnetic field. Similarly, it is know that a static magnetic field itself contains angular momentum -- and spinning the source of the static field, whether a magnet or DC current loop, will result in a corresponding increase or decrease in the field strength. Another example is the inventions of Henry Wallace, which were discovered and patented about 25 years ago, when he worked at General Electric. Wallace found that an unusual thing happens when you spin elemental material which has an odd number of nucleotides, i.e. having an "un-paired" value of angular momentum in the nucleus, resulting in a multiple integer of a one-half value of the quantum of angular momentum (h-bar). The spin of the nucleus will begin to line up with the macroscopic spin axis, and will create a force field related to gravity -- which Wallace called the "kinemassic" field. Maybe I've missed it, but I've looked seriously, and there seems to be no information in undergraduate or graduate level physics reference books which mentions the relationship between macroscopic and microscopic angular momentum -- much less provides any analysis or explanation linking quantum angular momentum to macroscopic angular momentum. Why not? How does quantum angular momentum become organized from a microscopic to a macroscopic level? Has anyone ever published any work about this? I can't find any. Robert Stirniman ============================================================= Here's an interesting reply I received to the above questions. Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 From: James Youlton <email@example.com> To: Robert Stirniman <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Angular Momentum and the Barnett Effect On Wed, 1 Nov 1995, Robert Stirniman wrote: > Maybe I've missed it, but I've looked seriously, and there seems > to be no information in undergraduate or graduate level physics > reference books which mentions the relationship between > macroscopic and microscopic angular momentum -- much less > provides any analysis or explanation linking quantum angular > momentum to macroscopic angular momentum. You're catching on. The subject of compound angular momentum, or internal and external angular momentum, or intrinsic and extrinsic angular momentum has been a repressed subject for about 2 and half decades. Add to that list, spherical pendulums, Coriolis effect, except as applied to balistics and meteorology as used by the US military, and Shafer's pendulum, that neat little device used as the artifical horizon of aircraft. > How does quantum angular momentum become organized from a > microscopic to a macroscopic level? Has anyone ever published > any work about this? I can't find any. There isn't any that I know of, though back in the late fifties, there was a fellow named Edward Condon at the University of Colorado who was fairly proficient on the subject. So much so that he wrote the rotational dynamics section, called noninertial dynamics at the time, of the reference "The Handbook of Physics" which he also co-edited (Chapter 5). I don't recall offhand who the publisher was (Harcourt/Brace?), though it was endorsed by the American Institute of Physics. Later, when Mr Condon was the head of the USAF project 'Blue Book', he labored to suppress his own work when the directive was handed down from the Navy's Turtle Island project. James Youlton ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Edward Condon was not involved with project Blue Book, but was involved in a different study of UFOs for the USAF which resulted in termination of the Blue Book project. Condon's first known involvement with study of UFOs was in 1943, when he was engaged by the military to assess the FooFighter phenomena. After the nationwide wave of UFO sightings in 1966, Condon was appointed head of a new committee to "study" the problem, The Committee for Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. He proceeded immediately to ridicule and debunk the idea of UFOs, even before the committee began it's "investigation". There are many files of information now circulating which document Edward Condon's sad turn from scientific pursuit of truth to the dark side of politics. But, that's another story. Here's an excerpt about the Condon committee which comes from the research report about UFOs prepared by Major Brummet and Captain Zuick in May 1974 for the USAF Air Command and Staff College. By September 1947, the United States Air Force (USAF) had become sufficiently interested in the growing number of UFO reports by reputable, respected citizens to estab- lish "Project Sign", later named "Project Grudge", and finally renamed "Project Blue Book", the Air Force program for investigation of UFOs. Project Blue Book remained in effect for over twenty-two years and investigated re- ports of 12,618 sightings. Unexplained sightings ranged between the official Project Blue Book report of 6 per cent to UFOlogist estimates of 54 per cent. Despite the wide variance in unexplained sightings, Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Robert Seamans, announced the termination of Project Blue Book on December 17, 1969. The decision to discontinue UFO investigations was based on an eval- uation of a report prepared by the University of Colorado entitled, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Ob- jects," more commonly referred to as the "Condon Report"; a review of the Condon Report by the National Academy of Sciences; past UFO studies; and two decades of Air Force experience investigating UFO reports. (6:141)" .... Project Blue Book was terminated on December 17, 1969, by Secretary of the Air Force, Robert C. Seamans, Jr. The decision to discontinue UFO investigations was based on a report prepared by the University of Colorado (Condon Report), a review of that report by the National Academy of Sciences, past UFO studies, and Air Force experience in investigating UFO reports.(21:297) Sec- retary Robert Seamans Jr., stated that the program "no longer can be justified either on the ground of national security or in the interest of science.(15:76) Many experts disagree with the conclusion of the 1500 page, $539,000 independent Condon Study that took over two years to complete. The Condon Study concluded that : Nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that sci- ence will be advanced thereby.(1:2) One of the major critics of the Condon Study was an amateur UFO organization, The National Investigators Committee for Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). As indicated by the Condon Report , NICAP in the past has spent much effort in attacking Air Force UFO policies and attempting to influence Congress. NICAP warned members of the Colorado Project to beware less the Condon Project turn out to have been "hired to whitewash the Air Force." (End of excerpt from USAF research report) ================================================================= Well there you have it. Has the military really been suppressing new science knowledge for almost 50 years now, or is it just another one of those wild and crazy conspiracy rumors? Regards, Robert Stirniman (email@example.com) Subject: Re: More Re Wallace AntiGrav Patents Followup-To: alt.alien.visitors,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.rese arch,alt.paranet.ufo Date: 13 Nov 1995 04:51:02 GMT Andrew Parle (firstname.lastname@example.org) writes regarding the Wallace inventions: >However, if that is not the case, then perhaps you should consider >the possibility that it does not work. This would then be sufficient >explanation for no-one ever hearing of Wallace or his inventions. Yes, what you say would seem to be a most rational explanation, maybe even the most rational explanation. That is -- the reason no one has ever heard of Wallace, is simply because his inventions don't work. And surely an invention like this discovered by a scientist at a renowned company such as General Electric, which was awarded two patents, and has enormous possible practical value and unestimable consequences in physical theory and experiment (we are talking about gravity control) -- would have been tested and evaluated by at least one or more independent research organizations. Guess what -- either it was never tested, or it was tested and the results were classified. There is NO published information about evaluation of the performance or non- performance of Wallace's invention. So what looks more rational -- was it never even tested, or did we just never get to see the results. And why have we never seen the results? What is more likely -- because it didn't work, or because it did? >So unless you can produce a working model, I guess the obvious >answer is: just another inventor who thought he had made a >discovery but in fact had made a mistake. Wallace has already produced a working device, and you refuse to even look at. Why would I expect that you would bother to look at one that I might produce? If we were able to look at any kind of test results for Wallace's device. That would be helpful. But the thing is -- there aren't any tests to look at, at least not in the public domain. Most peculiar. Anyhow, if you prefer to entirely discard the idea that the invention might actually work, with no serious consideration whatsoever to the possibility that it's been suppressed. OK by me. It's refreshing to see someone these days with so much faith in our defense and national security agencies. And hey, don't worry about them UFOs either. You know, that's all a bunch of nonsense too, right? For anyone interested in new-physics and gravity control, I suggest you start by studying the patents. Wallace's invention does work. Regards, Robert Stirniman (email@example.com) Subject: Re: More Re Wallace AntiGrav Patents Followup-To: alt.alien.visitors,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.rese arch,alt.paranet.ufo Date: 13 Nov 1995 04:51:23 GMT Where to Get Copies of Wallace Patents Patents awarded to Henry Wm Wallace for "anti-gravity" technology: US Patent #3626605 -- "Method and Apparauts for Generating a Secondary Gravitational Force Field" Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Ardmore PA Dec 14, 1971 US Patent #3626606 -- "Method and Apparatus for Generating a Dynamic Force Field" Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Ardmore PA Dec 14, 1971 US Patent #3823570 -- "Heat Pump" (based on technology similar to the above two inventions) Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Freeport NY July 16, 1973 The original full text description and all drawings from every US patent ever issued, is available on microfiche at patent depository libraries throughout the country. It cost about 10 cents per page to make paper copies. You have to go there. If you don't take the kids, you might enjoy it. Regards, Robert Stirniman (firstname.lastname@example.org) ================================================================= PATENT AND TRADEMARK DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES ______________________________________________________________ Patent and Trademark Depository Library Program United States Patent and Trademark Office Crystal Plaza 3, Room 2C04 Washington, D.C. 20231 Phone: 703-308-3924. _________________________________________________________________ Reference Collection of U.S. Patents Available for Public Use in Patent Depository Libraries The following libraries, designated as Patent and Trademark Depository Libraries (PTDLs) receive current issues of U.S. Patents and maintain collections of earlier-issued patents as well as trademarks published for opposition. The scope of these collections varies from library to library, ranging from patents of only recent years to all or most of the patents issued since 1790 and trademarks published since 1872. These patent and trademark collections, which are organized in number sequence, are available for use by the public free of charge. Each of the PTDLs, in addition, offers supplemental reference publications of the U.S. Patent Classification System, including the Manual of Classification, Index to the U.S. Patent Classification and Classification Definitions, and provides technical staff assistance in using such publications in gaining effective access to information contained in patents and trademarks. CASSIS (Classification and Search Support Information System) and other CD-ROM products for searching patent and trademark information are available at all PTDLs. Facilities for making paper copies of patents and trademarks from either microfilm or paper collections are generally provided for a fee. Since there are variations in the scope of patent collections among the PTDLs and in their hours of service to the public, anyone contemplating use of the patents at a particular library is urged to contact that library, in advance, about its collection and hours in order to avert possible inconvenience. State Name of Library Telephone Nevada Reno: University of Nevada-Reno Library (702) 784-6579
From: email@example.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Subject: Mars Researchers Discover Ufology [Loon] Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 10:36:02 -0700 Reposted here to illustrate what we're already used to at the border of '51. --G ---- From Stanford (Univ.) Weekly http://daily.stanford.org/8-22-96/NEWS/NEWmars22.html TITLE: Researchers cope with life after 'life on Mars' Chemistry Prof. Richard Zare doesn't have to imagine anymore what it would be like to discover life on another planet. Two weeks ago the story broke that his lab, along with collaborators at the Johnson Space Center, had detected molecules suggestive of biological origin on a rock from Mars. Since that day, Zare has been wondering if there is life after life on Mars. "My whole life has been consumed by this," Zare said. "Of course I thought the results would be of interest to the public, but I had no idea it would cause such a fervor," he added. ... In addition to generating media interest and capturing the imagination of millions around the world, the announcement has brought the attention of fringe elements to the Zare lab. "I spoke with a man who saw rocks falling from a UFO and wanted to bring them into our lab for analysis. We've been getting calls like this all week," Zare said. Liz Edlund, Zare's secretary, has found her job description expanding. Not only has Edlund taken on the role of ad hoc publicist for Zare, but she has also found herself acting as a counselor for some of the more troubled callers. Zare complemented Edlund on her quick thinking when she "surfed the Web to find an alien abduction support group while talking with a distraught caller." +------ 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: 26 Sep 1996