(View all exhibits mentioned below here )
SCIENTIST REVEALS: NASA VIDEO OF FOAM HITTING COLUMBIA LEFT WING WAS HOAXED...
THE FINAL EVIDENCE:
How NASA's video of falling foam damaging Columbia's left wing is purposely hoaxing the media, the public and Congress
Scientific Proof of a Massive Government Cover-up
I need to say right up front, I do not think NASA is lying or hoaxing data or evidence on purpose. They can do no other, since it seems they were ordered to lie. I am a 15 year veteran as a NASA investigator/analyst mostly on Space Shuttle problems and failures. I do not believe that NASA has a lack of concern about the safety and the lives of the astronauts. In my years working with astronauts and NASA personnel, I was proud of my service to increase the safety of the astronauts and ensure the completion of the NASA Space Shuttle missions.
On February 1, 2003, just over an hour after the Columbia disaster, when Tom Ridge, Homeland Security Director, made the finding that the Columbia incident was NOT terrorism, then NASA must not nor cannot, present any evidence nor make any statement that might lead the public to think about a terrorist attack on the Shuttle.
That is also exactly what happened when TWA Flight 800 was shot down and the FBI controlled all the evidence and badgered the witnesses. More recently, just after 9-11, the American Airlines Flight 587 Airbus crashed in a strange flat spin in Queens NY, killing all on board. Within hours, the FBI "found no evidence of terrorism" and had ordered the NTSB investigators to make no statement nor show any evidence that might show a terror attack. But they could not detract from or erase the live coverage videos of the crash which I watched, which proved that the NTSB was providing false information.
I had, days later, conclusively proven and reported that Flight 587 was either sabotage or terrorism, but the NTSB could only claim some internal structural damage and sent the tail assembly to Arizona for engineering analysis. That was 18 months ago and still no analysis report from Arizona or the NTSB. That disaster was buried and "outta sight outta mind." Flight 587 was the largest loss of life and worst air disaster in US history, since the Airbus was so big. But actually there was no investigation. Now the very same thing is occurring with the Columbia investigation. We are told that maybe we will never know what really happened to Spaceship Columbia.
All of the Space Shuttle debris pieces and all data tapes and evidence of Columbia are under "impoundment" and now controlled by FEMA, under Tom Ridge. Some people did look askance at that, but only wondered: how come the investigation is not under NASA or NTSB? Don't look to NASA for any data, answers or evidence, because they have none, no more than you or I. FEMA has it. The mere fact that the Columbia evidence is under the jurisdiction of FEMA in the Department of Homeland Security is the clearest and most obvious admission that the Columbia disaster was a terrorist attack. How much more clear and obvious can it get? Maybe Tom Ridge does not want anybody to know that he was asleep at the terror switch.
During the Feb 12, 2003 testimony of NASA Director Sean O'Keefe, many congressmen complained that Adm. Gehman's Columbia investigation committee is not independent of NASA. They want an independent committee. It makes no difference which committee or who does the investigation, the results will always be the same. Any committee making a finding of the cause of the disaster must come to the same conclusion, since all would be based on the same doctored evidence and data which is released by FEMA to NASA.
So I must attempt to discredit and disprove the "presented NASA evidence" based on engineering or scientific logic grounds, since I cannot use the real evidence -- because there is none available to anybody. I must rely on my own notes and records, my notes of the live first-day media coverage and the first press conference by NASA Shuttle Program Manager, Ron Dittemore, before the coverup began on the very next day, Feb 2, 2003.
Based on my experience as a decade and half-long failure investigator/analyst/designer for NASA, mostly on Space Shuttle failures, I don't think NASA does not care about safety of the astronauts nor has poor management. NASA is being forced in this case to stand with their pants down and take the blame for the Columbia disaster. The Homeland Security Department, and Tom Ridge are standing directly between you and the evidence which would explain the loss of seven astronauts and the trashing of a billion dollar Space Shuttle. How long will you allow this atrocity against humanity and America to go un-investigated? I for one, take my stand. Even if it means standing alone.
A lot of people were worried that The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Department might take away our rights and become like Nazism in America. Well, here it is, up close and in your face, and right on your TV set. Just as chief Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels said, "tell a lie often enough" and eventually all the people will believe it. And the bigger the lie the better, since most Americans cannot believe that the US government would actually lie to them. Especially not that nice man, Tom Ridge. After all, we trust him to keep us free from terrorism -- and one way to eliminate terrorism in America is to never report it.
As of this writing, four weeks after the Columbia disaster, there have been five major and many lesser “items of evidence” either officially released by NASA or allowed to continue to be discussed in the press as innuendo or rumor. All of which are false, doctored or hoaxed. The first and best known of these is the NASA video showing a piece of the External Tank insulating foam falling and hitting the left wing of Columbia, causing left wing damage. It never happened. The closest any piece of anything from the External Tank when Columbia was at that altitude and speed would be about 10 feet from the Shuttle. Rather than just me prove it, I will show you how you can prove that for yourself.
The NASA Columbia ascent video was played and replayed, ad nauseum, on TV, and photos from the video printed in every major newspaper in the US and around the world. This update will be concerned primarily with showing with devastating precision and absolute logic that the video was purposely hoaxed. After reading what I will show you, then you will know that when you saw the video and the way it was presented, that you were being played for a fool. The hoaxers thought they could get away with it. But I will not allow that to happen.
According to NASA Director Sean O’Keefe’s testimony before Congress on February 12, 2003, within two hours after the Columbia disaster, Tom Ridge at Homeland Security had determined that the incident was not a terrorist attack. Tom Ridge is not an aerospace engineer, he had no data, how could he know? Nonetheless, what began at that time is what I call the “Tom Ridge Scenario.” In this scenario, damage to the left wing caused the Columbia to crash. Any evidence which does not fit this scenario is to be discarded, disregarded or not discussed. Other “evidence” will be made up to fit the prescribed scenario.
Certainly Tom Ridge did not write the scenario. But right now I have no other name for it. It certainly is not the NASA scenario. Those NASA astronauts, engineers, and project managers I worked with over the many years would never have allowed such illogic with no possible evidence such as in the “Tom Ridge Scenario” to be made public or published. The “Tom Ridge Scenario” ignores logic, violates the laws of physics, and defies the law of gravity.
You may ask, “Mr. Smith, if you are so smart and know so much about NASA and Space Shuttles, how come you aren’t still working at NASA?” After 15 years of successfully playing with the big boys toys, I decided to move on to more meaningful things in my life. I do what I am doing now. I write.
I now use my insightful wit and steel-trap logic, not to do failure analysis of Space Shuttles and to solve the insolvable problems, but to investigate and do disaster and failure analysis of the Federal government. It is now only a fairytale myth taught in second-grade good-citizenship classes, that in our American representative form of government, the US Government is us. Instead it has grown to a monolith, an entity unto itself, driven by monied lobbyists, political action committees, pressure groups and special interests. The US monolith seems to have no longer a concern for the public interest. I have chosen as a career to become a public servant, which to me, does not mean working for the government.
OK, so let’s look at that hoaxed NASA video.
Here, in Figures 1 and 2, I am showing you two of the 10 or so frames from that famous NASA video shown on every TV news program for several weeks. Figure 1 shows some kind of puff of something just behind the nose of Columbia or maybe on the left wing. Figure 2 is the puff of whatever a little bit lower. There are a couple of frames before Figure 1 that showed something ahead of Columbia’s nose, a few frames in between Figures 1 and 2 that don’t show much and a couple of frames after Figure 2 showing the puff of whatever moving downward.
These 10 or so movie frames were slowed down on TV so that it took about 2 seconds to see the puff of smoke moving downward. That was so short a time, the TV people repeated the short 2 sec clip over and over again just to make sure you saw what you are supposed to see. The problem is you didn’t really know what you were seeing. So the TV announcer had to tell you that this is the official NASA film showing a piece of foam from the external tank falling and damaging Columbia’s left wing.
The reason why most people had no idea what they were seeing is because of the Great NASA Space Shuttle Mystery. Almost everybody, if they have a TV or they read newspapers, has seen the Shuttle takeoff. It looks like a big fiery rocket ship blasting into space. Then a week or so later they see the Shuttle landing and it looks something like a big boxy Boeing airplane landing on its wheels. The big mystery for 99 percent of the people in the world is, how did NASA turn a rocket ship into an airplane, way out there in space?
A common street solution to the Great Shuttle Mystery is that NASA must be hiding elves and leprechauns somewhere in those secret compartments inside the Shuttle. Once in space the elves come out and hammer that rocket into an airplane so that it can come back and land in Florida. Some bright people have even checked the historical record of NASA Shuttle flights and noted that no flights occur on Christmas or Saint Paddy’s day. Thus proving that NASA is now hiring below-scale temporary elf and leprechaun labor during the off-season.
The result of all this, is that 99 percent of the people who watched the official NASA video on TV had no idea what they were seeing. The video didn’t look like a rocket ship nor can they see any airplane. It was confusing. To most people it was a blob of white in the middle with some kind of big stick on the left.
It is a property of the human brain that when you can’t understand what you are seeing, your brain turns it into something that at least makes sense. To many people, the NASA video shows that big five-pound trout laying on the edge of the pier during that fishing trip you made with uncle Randy and the kids last summer to Lake Couchy. If you squint your eyes you can probably see the big fish too. And then next to the big trout along comes a big orange fluffy caterpillar as it crawls down next to the fish. The TV expert goes on and on about how this shows the damage to the left wing that killed seven astronauts and destroyed a billion dollar Space Shuttle, but all you can see is a dead fish. So you think, “OK — If you say so.”
To give you the first clue that there is something very wrong with this picture, I will prove, a little bit down below, that the whole video clip did not occur in one or two seconds, to make it look like something falling, but actually took place in less than five-thousandths of a second. Because “five-thousandths” is hard to say, and for mouth readers very difficult to read, and for those oral readers who either lisp or stutter its a nearly impossible to read, I will not use that term again. Its about one tenth of the blink of a human eye. Using proper mathematical procedure I will scientifically round that off to less than the “blink of an eye.” So what does all that mean to seeing the video?
If you have ever tossed a ball into the air, or dropped a ball from the roof or from a second story building, it takes about one second for the ball to drop about 16 feet from your hand to the ground. In the video the puff of whatever seems to be falling about 16 feet under the force of gravity and dropping in about one or two seconds. That’s reasonable. But if you dropped a ball and as it left your hand, in the blink of an eye, it suddenly appeared on the ground, you would be amazed. How did that magic trick happen? One moment the ball was in your hand. The next moment the ball is on the ground with nothing visible in between. So what does that mean for seeing and understanding the NASA video?
On February 1, NASA Shuttle Program Manager, Ron Dittemore, during the very first press conference, gave a simple recitation of some of the early known facts about the Columbia disaster and expressed strong grief and emotions, as would be expected. The next day, Mr. Dittemore used a visual aid model of a Space Shuttle to announce new evidence to explain that something, most probably some foam from the fuel tank had hit the front nose of Columbia. He held up the model and said that the video seems to show something hitting just about “here” as he pointed to the nose of the model.
First, I need to say that I have a model of the Shuttle too. But mine is bigger and better than Ron’s. Mine is the Official Revell model of the Challenger, with all the working hatches, cargo bay doors and liners, opening wheel wells with the wheels that come down, the ESA SpaceLab and all the cryo-tanks, pumps, and everything. Mine even comes with a little smiling astronaut, whom I usually display up on the left wing demonstrating how they empty the toilets while upside down and weightless in space.
I made my model back in 1983 when I was one of the project managers for the rat and monkey experiments which flew on Shuttle Challenger a year or so later. The experiment was to fly in space four monkeys and 24 rats with a duplicate set of animals on the ground in the lab at KSC. The purpose of the experiment was to compare the differences between the two groups of animals after flying one set in space.
The experiment was built by a team of about 50 people at GE-Matsco on the base at NASA Ames. They made one big mistake. They had everyone working on the flight cages, computers and data sensors, but nobody was working on the duplicate ground system. They had less than a month to have everything ready for flight. I was the one person hired to design and build the ground based Simulated Cage System or simply the SimCages with all the computers and bio-sensors. I finished my system first and proved that when filled with animals this project will never fly.
Out of sheer boredom, the animals quickly found the only thing to play with was those pretty NASA color-coded data cables and chewed right through them all. I redesigned my SimCages to prevent that from happening, so the only logical thing to do was also redesign the flight cages.
I also suggested they should include some rat and monkey play toys like wheels to run on or maybe some DC comics to read while in space. Or they are going to have some real problems. Within hours, all the rats in my cages found the only play toy they had was to chew through the foot and a half long cookie bar of rat food that was supposed to last for a whole week in space. They took all those crumbled cookie pieces and started playing Kick-the-Can around the cage. They soon found they could bat the pieces of food from cage to cage. By afternoon, they had chosen up sides and were playing rounds of pickup basketball with cookie bits.
Well, I solved all those engineering problems and many others which went into the final design of the flight hardware. That’s why I know so much about NASA specifications and certifications for flight hardware like temperature and pressure sensors, cabling, connectors, junction boxes, and NASA standards for electronic circuitry for data-acquisition and control systems. I wanted to show my family and friends all the things I had made for the Space Shuttle. And that’s why I have my “official” large size Space Shuttle model with the working hatches, doors, wheels and the smiling astronaut demonstrating how — umm, never mind. And then again, I may have a bigger model of the Shuttle than Mr. Dittemore's desktop model, but he has a fleet of four full-scale Shuttle Orbiters which I don't have.
By February 3, 2003, during a third press conference, Ron Dittemore had somehow changed the falling foam story and instead of hitting right “here” on the nose of Columbia it was now way over “here” on the Shuttle’s left wing, over 20 feet away. To demonstrate how this might happen, that day, Dittemore released the official NASA video.
The NASA video is faintly reminiscent of the “magic bullet” in Dallas 1963. Back then a single assassination bullet tore through President Kennedy’s neck, made a mid-air right turn, jumped up over the back of Governor Connolly’s car seat, turned left, then in mid-flight dove down, made another right turn in mid-air smashing all the way through Connolly’s wrist and then magically ended up in pristine unblemished condition back with President Kennedy in Parkland Hospital. Even more amazing than the mid-air flight of the magic bullet was the fact that 90 percent of the American people believed the story. Tell a lie often enough and everybody will go right to sleep.
Thus by February 3, 2003, it was clear that the official story of Columbia would be changed to fit the “Tom Ridge Scenario” with left wing damage being the only cause of the disaster. Any evidence which was previously presented would be ignored, discarded and forgotten. New “evidence” to explain, the unlikely, the improbable or impossible would be manufactured to show to the public and the media how the impossible might have happened. And that gets us back to the official NASA video of the foam from the External Tank hitting the left wing of Columbia.
To help you understand the video, I am going to show you two pictures. Figure 4 is a photo taken by an amateur photographer on the afternoon of January 16th 2003 about 2:00 PM just as Columbia was taking off and about a mile up into the sunny blue Florida skies. What I wanted you to see is the curve of the rocket trail, which is called a parabola. You may not know what a complete parabola might look like so I have included a true parabolic shape in Figure 5, which is the Gateway Arch in St. Louis. This is a very important shape for understanding space flight and even gravity.
Every time you toss a ball or anything up in the air, it will always follow a parabolic path under the force of gravity. Every time Cal Ripken ripped a homer, or the Navy shelled Iwo Jima, the paths of the ball or shells were all parabolas. If you ignore wind resistance, then anything going up in the air follows the curve on the left side of the Gateway Arch, and anything falling down follows the curve on the right side of the arch.
When NASA trains its astronauts about weightlessness, it flies them in an airplane which follows a flight path that is the same as the curve coming down the right side of the arch. All the passengers in the plane experience the feeling of falling, which is the feeling of zero gravity in orbit. Thus the parabola shape is very important for understanding space travel, gravity and weightlessness.
When a Space Shuttle rockets upward following the shape of the curve on the left side of the arch, and when it reaches the top of the curve, if it is also going 18,000 miles per hour, instead of falling back to earth, it falls “around” the earth. That is called being in orbit around the earth. The important part to learn here is that at the beginning of the flight the rocket is mostly pointed upward. As it nears the top it is curving over, and at the very top it is now flat to the earth, before it curves completely over and starts to fall down. If you don’t quite understand all that then I will help you out when you need it.
Right now I am going to show you a magic trick. I am going to change one thing into another right before your eyes. You will be stunned and amazed. I am going to take the video frame in Figure 1 and instantly change it into something else. And, no, I am not using any animation or any web tricks, nor will I even touch the picture. You may ask, “Mr. Smith how can you take a picture on a web page or printed in a book and change it into something else?” Well, its a trick I performed many times for NASA. That’s probably why they hired me to solve all those problems they couldn’t figure out. I often felt that I was way too overpaid for simply doing some hand gesturing, but since they couldn’t do the trick, they paid me to do it.
OK. Are you ready to watch the trick? I raise my arms and show there's nothing is up my sleeves. There is no rabbit in the hat. I wave my hands and say. "Presto Chango." And I direct your attention to the picture of Figure 1 over there on the left and then ask you, "What color is the sky?"
You notice that the bright blue sky with the happy little clouds in the brilliant Florida sunshine has all disappeared. It was never there in the first place. You just hadn’t noticed. You had been fooled by the official NASA video that this was a normal picture at liftoff. This is not a picture of Columbia just taking off from the launchpad in Florida. This is a picture of Columbia already in outer space where there is no blue sky. It is about 50 miles up and about 60 miles away from Florida heading out across the Atlantic ocean toward orbit. Most of the people who were on hand to watch the liftoff in Florida were already turning to head for their cars in the parking lot. The launch of Columbia had already come and gone.
Even the high altitude chase airplane which took this high speed movie of Columbia was so high above the air that the sky is completely black. Thus, as if by magic, I have turned this frame from the official NASA video from a picture of Columbia taking off, to a picture of Columbia already in outer space above the atmosphere. Do things fall in outer space? I am now going to do another trick just as astounding, but since you are already expecting it, I will tell you how I do it.
I am going to rotate the picture 90 degrees clockwise. Look at the picture in Figure 8. This is the view, as you would have seen it, if you were looking at the original film from the chase plane following Columbia into space.
You can tell this is the original and correct view by the fact that Columbia is now heading eastward away from you over the Atlantic ocean. As you would be watching Columbia you would also be facing eastward and the afternoon Florida sunshine would be coming over your right shoulder from the south. Now the sunlight shining on the big booster rocket at the top of the picture seems to be coming from the right direction over your right shoulder, and the sun is shining on Columbia’s south side, making a shadow of the wing all the way down to the American Flag on the rocket pod cover. Slowly the big dead fish on the pier is disappearing and the booster rocket and the upside-down Space Shuttle Orbiter airplane are coming into view.
There is a lot more magic I can show you about this picture, but for right now, notice that when the hoaxers made the “official NASA video” they rotated this correct original picture 90 degrees counter-clockwise. Why did they do that? Remember back there when I told you about the parabola shape and the Gateway Arch in St. Louis? You can tell where the rocket is in its flight by looking at its angle to the ground.
The hoaxers turned the picture counter-clockwise to put the nose of Columbia going almost straight up to fool you into thinking this was down at the bottom of the parabola curve and just taking off from earth, near Kennedy Space Center in Florida. They wanted you to think some foam from the tank was “falling down” and hitting Columbia’s wing. But in this actual picture, Columbia is turned way over almost flat to the earth because it is far up near the top of the parabola curve and in outer space. Columbia is getting ready to race up to 18,000 miles per hour over the Indian ocean and insert into a circular orbit.
Notice also that the orange fluffy thingy that you were told is falling down and hitting Columbia is actually now moving sideways to the left and not falling at all. It is actually rising. The fluffy bit of tank foam is really being blown by a supersonic 1,200 mile per hour wind to the left and now seems to be moving away from Columbia. In the un-hoaxed video nothing ever hit Columbia.
There are other mistakes the hoaxers made, but before I show them to you, I am going to show you what actually happened.
In Figure 6, the Boeing-made Space Shuttle Orbiter is flying on top of the Boeing-made 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. The 747 is now used to carry the Shuttle from its alternate landing site in California back to the launch pad in Florida, whenever the weather in Florida requires using the California site for landing. The most important item to note in this photo is the method used to attach the Shuttle Orbiter to the aircraft. This same method of attachment is used when the Orbiter is connected to the large External Tank when "stacked" or assembled as a Space Shuttle and ready for takeoff.
In the back of the Orbiter are two very strong attachment points, which include large shock absorbers to allow the Orbiter to rock forward and back slightly as the 747 accelerates and decelerates during takeoff and landing. Most of the weight of the Orbiter is near the back, so the largest support is there.
The support in the front under the Shuttle Orbiter’s nose is an inverted “V” called the Bipod because it only has two feet. This also allows the Orbiter to move forward and back slightly but the Bipod has much less weight to support so it is thin and lightweight. If the front support were a tripod then no rocking motion of the Orbiter could occur without damaging the top of the 747. During launch of the Shuttle into space the G forces on the Orbiter caused by the acceleration of the rockets would possibly cause the attachments points to rip away or rupture the external fuel tank if the attachment points were not allowed to flex slightly.
As you can see in the above photo, Figure 6, the piece of external tank foam from an area just in front of and under the left nose of Columbia would hit the left attachment point of the Bipod and was nowhere near Columbia’s left wing. In the official NASA video, the tip of Columbia’s left wing is just hiding the front Bipod attachment, so you can’t see it. The actual impact of the piece of tank foam at the bottom of the left Bipod is also hidden, and if you did not know there was a Bipod attachment there you would assume it was hitting the left wing. In the video you never see the impact, only the fluffy cloud of shattered foam. The impact of the foam was hidden by the left wing along with the Bipod, so you can’t see the impact, only the powdered foam after the impact. No foam or debris hit Columbia’s left wing. Especially not when Columbia was moving at supersonic speed through the very thin atmosphere near outer space.
In order to prove that no piece of External Tank foam hit the Columbia on the nose or the wing, take a look at Figure 7, which is a front view of the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft 747 with the Shuttle Orbiter on top. From this view you can see the Bipod inverted “V” support at the front of the Shuttle and attaching just under the nose. The area on the External Tank where the foam came from in the official NASA video is just about the same area as the left window of the 747 where the pilot of the 747 sits, which here is on the right side in this photo. The nose of the Columbia is about 12 feet up in the air above the 747 pilot’s left window and the front of the left wing is also about 10 feet up and about 30 feet back from the pilot’s left window.
If you try to toss anything out the pilot’s window and try to hit the Shuttle it will always slam into the left Bipod foot and burst into powder when the Shuttle is moving at 1,200 miles per hour. And what is a 1,200 mile per hour wind?
If the wind is blowing at 50 miles per hour, it blows stuff around and makes a pretty good mess in your front yard. A 100 mile per hour hurricane gale takes about anything that’s loose and blows it straight down the road. For your protection you should not be walking around in a 100 mile per hour wind. In a 200 mile per hour wind, if your name is Dorothy, you and Toto are not in Kansas anymore. And even cannonballs, cars and locomotives are scooting down the road. In a 500 mile per hour wind whole large cities are sandpapered flat, just poof, gone. A 1,000 mile per hour wind does not occur on earth except around supersonic airplanes. And then its not the wind that is moving, its the airplane.
In studying what would happen when you toss anything out the 747 pilot’s window, you will always find that it hits the left Bipod foot and then shatters into a spray of powdered molecules. It never comes anywhere near the Shuttle Orbiter. If you could trace the path of anything coming out the pilot’s window it actually follows a curved path. First is curves upward slightly toward the centerline of the airplane, and as it gets near the Bipod it starts to curve downward, so that by the time it gets about to the wing of the 747 it has dropped down away from the Shuttle and is about in line with the windows on the side of the 747. And then swoops back up and exits near the tail of the 747. This exact curving pattern is also seen in the official NASA video of the foam “falling and hitting Columbia.”
This curving path is explicit proof that nothing hit Columbia. But I feel like I am probably beating a dead horse for the third time. I may be giving you too much information all at once. Before I continue with another magic trick to prove how the curving path shows that the official NASA video is a hoax, lets take a break. Come back with pencil and paper and a calculator and I will show you how you can prove that nothing ever happened to Columbia’s left wing. And that the "Tom Ridge Scenario" is merely a fiction.
Marshall Smith
Editor, Brother Jonathan Gazette
www.brojon.com
* * * * *
Now that you know, what will you do? The first thing is to tell your friends that something is very wrong in America. Despots and Tyrants rule when the people do nothing. "Look! The Emperor has no clothes."
<A HREF="">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
