HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: petert@zikzak.apana.org.au (Peter T.)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Life on Mars {was Re: The Cursor Speaks Out! }
Date: 28 Jan 1993 01:07:14 GMT
Organization: Zikzak public access UNIX, Melbourne Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: zikzak.apana.org.au
Newsreader: MS Windows WinVN

In article <1jv4saINN66r@ub.d.umn.edu>, rfentima@ub.d.umn.edu (Robert Fentiman) says:
>
>Mars can support life (alabeit simple, combon dioxide breathing).  NASA
>officially lists life on Mars as 'inconclusive'.  I believe this is due
>to a researcher who found bacteria living in antartica.

The tests carried out on board the Viking for metabolism, growth, 
photosynthesis were done by three seperate experiments, 
gas exchange, labeled release and pyrolytic release.

Results:An unpredictably high level of oxygen was released
when the samples were sitmulated by sunlight or water, but
not if the sample was sterilized. One possible reason for this 
release of oxygen was that plants were present and undergoing
photosynthesis. Another possible answer was that a purely
inorganic chemical reaction was taking place. Neither of these
possibilities could be proven or disproven conclusively, leaving
open the question of life on Mars.

Source for the above: p160/161 The Encyclopedia of US Spacecraft
by Bill Yenne

The researcher in Antartica was Dr Wolf {spelling?}, he spent 
20 years building the wolf trap. The wolf trap was a device
which was suppose to be fitted to the Viking landers, but because
of last minute budget cutbacks, it was left out. Basically the
experiment involved adding some soil to some nutrient rich
mixture and then detecing if anything would grow. because
of the Viking kickback, he decided to try his device in Antartica,
with success.

Source for the above paragraph: Carl Sagan's Cosmos series.

Carl Sagan beleived that the wolf trap would have resolved
the question of life on Mars {ie in the area of the other tests}

Peter T.
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Stonehenge Crop Circle
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:37:00 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

Time for a periodical re-airing of my pet theory about
crop circles, and this time it is improved!

Wheat, after millions of years of natural evolution and
thousands of years of selective breeding, has become
*sentient*, and is trying to communicate with us.

Now for the improvement on the theory (hold onto your hats).

Hoaxers have been hypnotized by wheat into making crop
circles. Or perhaps they have been bribed...
From: asm332@cix.compulink.co.uk (Sean Eaton)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Don't Worry Be Happy.
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:13:00 GMT
Reply-To: asm332@cix.compulink.co.uk
Cc: asm332@cix.compulink.co.uk

>-- K.
>Never shout "Theater!" in
> fired crowd.

...and never shout "VACUUM!" in
a crowded space port.
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Joe Bob)
Subject: Re: Stonehenge Crop Circle
Organization: a gora
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:29:54 GMT



  Crop circles are fake.

From: simpson@teecs.UUCP (Libby Simpson)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 21:40:30 GMT
Subject: Re: John Winston=fucking wanker
Organization: Litton Systems, Toronto ONT
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors

My sentiments exactly!!!!!!!!!! this "brain" has an imagination
that would best be served by writing fiction and selling it to
low budget movie monguls.   He wastes valuable network resources
with all the crap that dreams up every night.  Everytime I see
a posting from this dude, I avoid reading it, because its always
sounds like some weird stuff he made up in a dream.[A[A[B[C[C[C[C[C[C[D[3~[B[D[D[D
Its not just me feeling this way, its also my other friends feel
the same way too.  John Winston, with all the crap you write
you give the REAL honest to goodness UFO researchers a bad name!
Libby Simpson
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: 7&^ IVO&^T
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:24:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.165146.29114@netcom.com>, derich@netcom.com (Scott A. Steinbrink) writes:
> bsrrg@dct.ac.uk writes:
> 
> >D(&C^R(C% $XO%*P&^(O*% (O*&^% (&659765 (&^%(^%(*%^$I&$I&IR&^RFKFGKHGJF&I%^$RE
> >CI&^R CI&^RE I&^%$ CI&%^ CI^%I^&RKTDF(&)
> >:TY*T!Q&^%$*O&F*$^%"&^%$*^&%$YRT&^%X*^%Z*&$%^Z&$%*%^*^X%$X*^%$*
> 
> omeone trnslate this.,  please?
> 
i'll give it a crack. it's an ancient zaemphian greeting.

if you bracket[>D(&C^R(C% $XO%*P&^(O*% (O*&^% (&659765 (&^%(^%(*%^$I&$I&]
this means hello, but it can mean butterbread too, but that wouldn't
make much sense in this context.

this says
[$I&IR&^RFKFGKHGJF&I%^$RECI&^R CI&^RE I&^%$ CI&%^ CI^%I^&RKTDF(&)]
we are planning a visit soon, or it could mean corn grits corn grits,
but the same applies in the context.

here we have
[:TY*T!Q&^%$*O&F*$^%"&^%$*^&%$YRT&^%X*^%Z*&$%^Z&$%*%^*^X%$X*^%$*]
is gas still 20 cents per gallon, over.
or an alternate meaning is gutterbum gutterbum, apply context as same.

hope this helps.
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Monday, 25 Jan 1993 17:27:03 EST
From: <BOTGC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: newsletter

TO: Suzanne Courey.
Thank you for subscribing.  The newsletter is on its way to you.
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Government coverups
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:43:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Jan27.021714.29460@netcom.com> jeffp@netcom.com (Jeff) writes:
>In article <C1Gw8H.KG@compsci.liverpool.ac.uk> u2nmh@csc.liv.ac.uk (N.M. Humphries) writes:
>>
>>It's not a question of what they have to _gain_ from a cover-up, rather what
>>they haveto _lose_. If the governments publicly acknowledge the existence of 
>>UFOs there would be mass hysteria worldwide.
>
>Actually, what they have to lose is:
>
>A) Military dominance and control of the Free World - You don't need a military
>if everyone loves each other and refuse to kill ANYTHING. As you don't need
>a military, military leaders lose control of power.

Maybe it's just me, but this seems a bit simplistic. 
 
>B) More important, the powers that be would loose crediblity - over dictating 
>to the the masses what to believe in, and the nature of reality.
>Because if you can believe in aliens, maybe you can believe in things other
>than thier power structure.

So then you are saying that UFOs are a threat to established religion? (and
their power structures)
 
>>	Why? Let me put it this way. People will suddenly realise that all we
>>are are just little specks of dust when considering the universe. We're not 
>>very advanced in our space travel or our defenses, so when we hear about UFOs,
>>we usually deduce that the things flying them are very advanced compared to us,
>>therefore have the weaponory to destroy us at the flick of a switch. And, unlike
>>nuclear weapons, we have _no_ defenses against UFOs _whatsoever_. When the
>>public realise this, they will realise that any worry they have is absolutely
>>_nothing_ compared to the UFO threat and so will turn to crime because they'll
>>think "Sod it, the UFOs will get us sooner or later, so I may as well make the
>>most of the time I've got now". In short, they'll turn to anarchy.
>>
>>	That's why there is a cover-up.
>
>Exactly...

Technically, I am not sure the statement "we have _no_ defenses against UFOs 
_whatsoever_" is meaningful. Is a misidentified balloon really a threat to
all? Perhaps it would be better to substitute -alien spaceship- for UFO.
 
>Jeff-


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
From: morale@jec306.its.rpi.edu (Enrique Morales)
Subject: Re: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:11:32 GMT

Scott_Leaf@mindlink.bc.ca (Scott Leaf) writes:

>How dare you call ST:TNG and DS9 Lowbrow!

>You quasi-intellectuals piss me off.

>The greatest contribution to society you have ever made is probably the
>message that I am replying too.  IF *you* don't watch TV then refrain from
>commenting on the above topic.

>I also find it quite rewarding that The Simpsons contributed to your decision
>to nix TV.  You really must have a good sense of humour, a regular Jerry
>Steinfeld! (or do you know who he is?)

>Pissed off in B.C.

You tell him!!!

Cheering from N.Y.

Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
From: LB.KSD@ISUMVS.IASTATE.EDU
Subject: Re: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:50:54 GMT

In article <C1F94E.9Ip@apollo.hp.com>,
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <01050133.o78qbm@distant.uucp> edw@distant.uucp writes:
>>
>>In article <serb.350@polisci.umn.edu> (talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic), serb@polisci.umn.edu (Scott Erb) writes:
>>>
>>> >   isn't very well-read.   So he doesn't realize that all these
>>> >   themes are treated with VASTLY greater insight and wit in such
>>> >   diverse writings as Greek classical literature, the Bible, the
>>> >   Vedic scripts, Shakespeare, and thousands of great works of 19th
>>> >   and 20th century literature, including important works of science
>>> >   fiction!
>>>
>>If Peter didn't mention the Bible, I would have thought that he was a victim
>>of Ayn Rand. The Simpsons comment is what got me really wondering. I personally
>>think that the Simpsons is one of the best shows on television. Things such
>>as mob behavior and the hypocrisy of most of society's inhabitants are constant
>>sources of material in the show.
>
>  Yes I agree they (and ST:NG) are *inspired* by important themes --
>  nobody could deny that.  My complaint is that they don't do anything
>  with these ideas that isn't obvious, simple, and comprehensible to
>  a mass audience who doesn't want to spend any time thinking about
>  "hard" subjects.
>
>> The show could easily be called "Young Friedrich Nietzsche in Late
>> Twentieth Century Suburbia."
>
>  I would say it's a comic-book or Weekly-Reader treatment of these
>  topics.  To me there's no complexity or depth to their treatment
>  of these things; everything is laid out in graphic simplicity.
>
>>There is so much depth and texture to the show you truly get out of it
>> what you put in in terms of the effort you exert in watching it.
>
>  I think what's happening is that you're getting out of it MORE
>  than what the writers originally put in.  The "meaning" of the
>  content is coming from inside your, kind of like a video Rorshach
>  (sp?) test.
>
>
>---peter
>


I think you might be passing judgement on a show you have watched
very little.  If you don't like it, don't watch it.

--- Kerry
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Government coverups
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:54:57 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <C1Gw8H.KG@compsci.liverpool.ac.uk> u2nmh@csc.liv.ac.uk (N.M. Humphries) writes:
>Michael Saleeba (zik@zikzak.apana.org.au) wrote:
>> billp@mozart.amd.com (Bill Peterson) writes:
>
>> >	1) Something crashed. The Air Force doesn't want us all to know.
>> >	2) The Air Force STILL doesn't want us to know. (Almost 50 years
>> >	   later).
>
>> You see this sort of thing again and again, particularly in
>> alt.alien.visitors - wild claims that the government or some part of
>> it is trying to cover up information about UFOs. Now there's something
>
>It's not a question of what they have to _gain_ from a cover-up, rather what
>they haveto _lose_. If the governments publicly acknowledge the existence of 
>UFOs there would be mass hysteria worldwide.
>
>	Why? Let me put it this way. People will suddenly realise that all we
>are are just little specks of dust when considering the universe. We're not 
>very advanced in our space travel or our defenses, so when we hear about UFOs,
>we usually deduce that the things flying them are very advanced compared to us,
>therefore have the weaponory to destroy us at the flick of a switch.


   Oh, ca-ca!!    The vast majority of the world's population are
   religionists of one sort or another so they have ALREADY come
   to terms with the idea of beings in the universe VASTLY more
   powerful that us, and nearly incomprehensible in their motives
   and actions (God, or various gods).  
                                                                     
>                                                         And, unlike
>nuclear weapons, we have _no_ defenses against UFOs _whatsoever_.
                                                         
   More ca-ca.   Since when do we have defenses against nuclear
   weapons?   Get real - if there's a major nuclear war you and
   I both toast.
   
   Anyway, your comments are still mere speculation.   You have
   provided not one shred of evidence for your views.


---peter
From: mcgrew@dropout.rutgers.edu (Charles Mcgrew)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Roswell Testimony
Date: 26 Jan 93 06:13:46 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


	mm@brl.mil (Mike Markowski) writes:
	Someone would tell his wife or best friend or let it slip on
	his death bed, etc.

O'course, this has actually happened.  For instance, "Pappy" Henderson
told his wife.  Jesse Marcel talked to various people.  Mac Brazel was
specifically told *not* to talk to anyone.  Various people have come
to Len Stringfield (for, among other things, his proven discretion) --
I recommend his various reports (most available from MUFON) about a
number of UFO-related things.  Also have a read of Randle and
Schmitt's "UFO Crash at Roswell", for lists of people who witnessed
events at Roswell.

	After so many decades the most likely reason an et vehicle
	could remain secret is if something so big or so bad were
	discovered that it left no doubt in anyone's mind that it
	should remain secret.

... yes.  I have said before that a secret is easy to keep if everyone
involved *wants* to keep it secret (or at least has a vested interest
in keeping it secret.)

	But in that case, we should observe some major shift in
	governmental goals and policies, and we haven't.  

... well, now let's not get too hasty.  Major shifts from what to
what?  Do we know for certain that the late-1950's "race for space"
was motivated solely because of fear of a (as was known at the time,
at least in some government circles) relatively inferior Soviet
capability?   


	Consider NASA's continuing quest for a reasonable budget.

... NASA's budget is not by any means the entirety of the US space
effort (and never was).  Ever hear of a KH-11?  (I know Vandenburg AFB
is a long way from you, but surely you've heard of it!  :-) Have a
read of William Burrows' "Deep Black"  for more.

Charles
From: smg6@po.CWRU.Edu (Stanley M. Golem)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Cleveland
Date: 21 Jan 1993 18:34:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


Everything is _not_ all right in Cleveland!  For one thing, we've
got brown snow!  (Well, today's heat wave melted that, but we still
have brown air.)
--
From: petert@zikzak.apana.org.au (Peter T.)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Stonehenge Crop Circle
Date: 23 Jan 1993 03:58:37 GMT
Organization: Zikzak public access UNIX, Melbourne Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: zikzak.apana.org.au
Newsreader: MS Windows WinVN

In article <1jjrgmINN9dk@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>, stinerkt@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Kevin T Stiner) says:
>
>Didn't we hear a while back about the guys who supposedly created all  
>these things as a joke and then video taped how they did it?  Are crop  
>circles still actually believed to be made by aliens (I thought the guys  
>had enough proof otherwise)?
>
>Just asking.....

I posted an article here about this not long ago, so I won't go into too much detail as I hate typing.
Anyway one majour difference between the unexplained circles and the hoaxed ones, is that the
hoaxed circles made by those two {their names escape me at the moment} had straw which was
broken at the base due to their bending. Whereas the unexplained circles had straw which was 
bent in a nicely curved radius {no brakes}.

Cheers 
Peter T.
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: the universe
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 07:48:34 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Welcome To One And All: I believe you will find that this group
of people covers the whole spectrum of different kinds of people
So enjoy yourself.
John Winston.
From: rhys@cs.uq.oz.au (Rhys Weatherley)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Another reminder about JW (was Re: John Winston=fucking wanker)
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:07:34 GMT
Reply-To: rhys@cs.uq.oz.au

The next round of alt.alien.visitors newbies have moved in I see ... *sigh*

In <79720002@teecs.UUCP> simpson@teecs.UUCP (Libby Simpson) writes:

>My sentiments exactly!!!!!!!!!! this "brain" has an imagination
>that would best be served by writing fiction and selling it to
>low budget movie monguls.   He wastes valuable network resources
		             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

He doesn't waste nearly as much network resources as the people who flame him.

If you can't stand him, ignore him!  That's your right.  But don't contribute
to the general noise level of the newsgroup.  Here's an excerpt from the
"Rules for posting to Usenet" FAQ that is posted periodically to the
news.announce.newusers newsgroup:

   Some newsgroups are intended for discussions and some for announcements
   or queries.  It is not usually a good idea to carry on discussions in
   newsgroups that are designated otherwise.  It is never a good idea to
   carry on "meta-discussions" about whether a given discussion is
   appropriate -- such traffic mushrooms until nobody can find articles
   that belong.  If you are unhappy with what some user said, send him/her
   mail, don't post it.

Flaming JW is a "meta-discussion" topic.  As is this message :-) .

Rhys.
--
Rhys Weatherley, University of Queensland, Australia.
rhys@cs.uq.oz.au  "I'm a FAQ nut - what's your problem?"
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: John Winston=fucking wanker
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 17:55:10 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Dear People: I am glad to hear Mr. Libby's opinion of my efforts
to put down my views and honor his right to express himself.
May the force be with you and all of that sort of stuff.
John Winston.
From: u2nmh@csc.liv.ac.uk (N.M. Humphries)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: How do I kill a file?
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:32:54 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Liverpool University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]



--I think someone has asked this already, but I'll ask anyway. Is it possible
to have a kill file on a UNIX so that I don't have to read any of John Winston's,
Jack Sarfatti's and Peter Nelson's bollocks?

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The Cursor, aka Nick Humphries, u2nmh@csc.liv.ac.uk, at your service.
  "People have started taking shotguns to UFO sightings. Kinda brings a whole
  new meaning to the phrase 'You ain't from 'round here, are ya?'"-Bill Hicks
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Give Me A Break!
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:44:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan26.145958.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu> parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:
>About six months ago this was an interesting newsgroup.  Now it consists of
>science fiction and egos.  

  This has NEVER been an interesting newsgroup!   All it consist of are 
  people making wild, unsubstantiated claims about UFO's, alien abductions,
  and government conspiracies to hide alien contact, and other people
  like me damanding *decent evidence* for this stuff rather than
  speculation.   And never getting such evidence.  


>The possiblility that there could be life on another planet is not one that any
>of us would view as impossible.  
>
>That they could travel here and watch us and want to examine us is also not
>impossible.   

  It's not impossible that someone has built a 120 story skyscraper in
  the middle of an Iowa cornfield.   It's not impossible that my mother
  had 8 children (my father had 8 children).  It's not impossible that
  I could be wearing grey dress slacks right now.   Many things are
  not impossible.   But this is no indication whatsoever that they 
  are true.

>And what could Star Trek, this generation or the last, possibly have to do with
>the purpose of this group?  

  Beats me.  The STNG debates got crossposted to sci.skeptic, too.  On
  both newsgroups I had also made comments and raised issues MUCH more
  relevant to the stated purpose of the newsgroup and got almost no
  responses, whereas I got LOTS of reaction to the TV comments.


>This is supposed to be about REAL ENCOUNTERS not encounters with a televison
>set.

  I think a lot of people who watch a lot of TV can't tell the difference.
  They think if they saw something on TV or heard a CNN reporter say it
  was true, it must be!   _TV Guide_, of all places, had an article about
  a year ago on how the televised testimony of some Kuwaiti refugees 
  just before the Gulf War in 1991 was a major factor in whipping up
  war frenzy, and building up sympathy for Kuwait in the US.   Only
  problem was that the tretimony, according to the magazine, was a
  fabrication.

  I can't vouch for whether it really was a fabrication, but I certainly 
  have seen MANY things on network news that were either factually wrong
  or deliberate lies (take your pick).   And several studies have found
  that frequent TV viewers are more likely to perceive the world as a 
  dangerous place and have an exaggerated sense of the likelihood of
  themselves being a crime victim than non-TV-viewers.  So I'm not sure
  that frequent TV watchers DO have the powers of discrimination you 
  ask for.   I think if they saw a news report about UFO abductions or
  something they WOULD think that UFO abductions were real.



---peter





Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
From: Adrian.Jenkin@f873.n800.z3.fidonet.org (Adrian Jenkin)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: beliefs
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:27:00

In a message dated 17 Jan 93  03:52:16, mcgrew@dropout.rutgers.edu wrote:

 M>     6) there are many other life-bearing planets in our galaxy
 M>        (Drake equation)

 M> ... well, now, hold on.  The Drake equation:

 M>     N = R * fp * n * f1 * fi * fc * L

A very fascinating equation and one which ties closely into my interests in
Aliens.  Could you tell me where I might find out about this Drake equation?

Later Mate,

Adrian


 * Origin: The Deep Woods BBS (08) 287-2224 (3:800/873)
From: mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf)
Newsgroups: alt.california
Subject: Re: Gang Women of Los Angeles
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:26:38 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, Gene.Saunders@West.Sun.COM writes:
>
>I was home yesterday for the holiday, and the tube was on (keeping the dog
>occupied, for the most part).  Seems that Geraldo had a one-hour piece about
>the gangs in Los Angeles -- specifically the women who are now getting into
>the act.  The ones on the show were in the 12-20 year old category, for
>the most part.
>

I ran into a girl gang on Hollywood blvd one night at a newsagent.
They had T-shirts on that said "Compton Locals" and had daggers
strapped around their legs. They looked menacing to say the least.  

Chris
Newsgroups: alt.california