>A list like this one is bound to attract the 'barmy army' element, and if
>you don't take them too seriously, they can be quite amusing.
>However, it has been pointed out that the purpose of this list is serious
>research and some valuable work is being done. That may well be the case, I
>don't know.
Why don't you act professionally then with calm reasoned responses
instead of insults, innuendo and the like. Your responses do not reflect
those of a 'serious researcher' - your responses reflect those of a
person whose 'buttons' are being pushed.
>IF this is a serious discussion list, then when someone posts an unsupported
>'fact', it is not at all unreasonable for someone else to ask for a source
>or verifiable reference for this 'fact'. This is perfectly normal procedure
>and should come as no surprise to anyone.
>If, on the other hand, you are going to allow ( and believe) any old rubbish
>that someone decides is of merit, the list will have no credibility at all
>and you may as well rename it as 'Conspiracy Fantasy Research List'.
You believe in the theory of evolution despite evidence to the contrary.
I choose to look further. Why this pisses you off is beyond me. You
are coming close to acting like the thought police that run the rest of
our media - oh, I forgot, that is where you get your 'facts' from isn't
it?
>Yesterday, I asked Duncan to provide some evidence for a claim he was
>making. Up to now I have had no response apart from a rather cryptic ' you
>can take a horse to water' message. I must therefore conclude that his
>claims are false and he should withdraw them.
I have no intention of proving anything. I am perfectly happy with my
research. I publish a magazine that attracts people whose 'story' is
ignored by the 'mainstream'. Sure there are plenty of wackos, but there
are also those who have their car running on water, or those who have
cured themselves of cancer and AIDS, or those who hold social positions
of respect who have a seen a UFO and want to know what the ***** is going
on. There are also those who have been told to falsify archaeological,
or geological data in the course of their 'research'.
If you are at all open-minded, get hold of "Forbidden Archaeology" by
Michael Cremo and start there.
>I know that some people will not like my style and find me offensive, I can
>live with that, but if you don't like what I write, don't open my posts. I
>am not attacking any individual poster, I always try to play the ball, not
>the man, but if you are going to forward posts that are plain silly, then
>you can get what you deserve. (In my opinion.)
>Silas
Rubbish Silas, you play the man as much as you play the ball. At least
be honest with yourself, we can all read for ourselves you know!
I will leave you with a copy of the text of an article we published
nearly two years ago. You be the judge, you seem pretty good at that.
I'll see if I can dig up the photos and post them later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppressed Evidence For Ancient Man in Mexico
The discovery of tools among fossilised mammoth bones, dated at least
250,000 years old, extends the history of humans in the Americas well
beyond the dates accepted by establishment science.
by Virginia Steen-McIntyre, PhD � 1998
PO Box 1167
Idaho Springs, CO 80452, USA
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Was someone actively hunting mammoth in Mexico a quarter-million years
ago? In this article I give the geologic evidence for such a presence
and relate the 25-year ongoing battle I've had with the establishment to
get the information out to the public.
So, 250,000 years ago�not 25,000, but 250,000. Closer to 275,000,
actually�at least that's where the radiometric dates seem to cluster:
zircon fission-track dates from two of the overlying volcanic units, and
two uranium-series dates from a butchered camel skeleton that was found
lying next to some well-made stone tools. No 14C [carbon-14] dates, of
course�the site is much too old for that dating method. And that's just
for Hueyatlaco (way-at-LA-co), the youngest of the four sites.
Fifteen metres lower in the sedimentary section, exposed only when the
water of the reservoir is abnormally low, lies the oldest site, El Horno
(el OR-no)�a mastodon kill site, that one, found with a slim stone flake
still wedged between two of the teeth. Someone had tried to remove one
of the molars. When? According to two uranium-series dates on the
tooth, some time more than 280,000 years ago!
"How exciting! A new discovery?" you ask.
No. The uranium-series [U-series] dates were published almost 30 years
ago,l and the zircon fission-track dates over 17 years ago.2 But the
scientific evidence and radiometric dating methods we geologists used to
date the archaeologic sites fly in the face of an entrenched theory that
has only lately been seriously questioned�a theory that declares that
humans have been in the New World (the Americas) only since the end of
the last ice age some 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. According to this
prevailing view, both our data and our dates are "impossible". Both are
ignored by establishment science, and my career as a research geologist
is ruined as a consequence.
But for me, some good has come out of this after all. With no career to
worry about, no job to protect, no boss looking over my shoulder, I'm
free at last to speak my mind. I want to give you the true story about
these ancient archaeologic sites. Who knows, it may be the only time
you'll ever hear it!
ANCIENT HUNTERS AT VALSEQUILLO
One hundred kilometres east of Mexico City and few kilometres south of
the city of Puebla lies the Valsequillo (bal-say-KEY-yo) Reservoir. It
nestles in a high mountain valley guarded by some of Mexico's most famous
volcanoes: La Malinche, Tlaloc, Iztacc�huatl and steaming Popocat�petl.
Surrounding the reservoir are low, buffy-tan badlands: thick, eroded
deposits of ancient mudflows, lake beds, stream and overbank sediments,
and volcanic ash and pumice layers. Grass-covered now, in the 1960s and
1970s when the climate was drier they were sparsely dotted with cactus
and other spiny plants of the Mexican high desert.
For over a century the area has been famous with palaeontologists and
museums as a collecting locality. Weathering out of these badlands beds
are well-preserved remains of an incredibly rich assortment of ice age
(Pleistocene) animals: mammoth, mastodon, glyptodont, horse, camel, dire
wolf and sabre-toothed cat, to name a few.
Also weathering from these beds, as first noted over 60 years ago by the
Mexican pre-historian Juan Armenta Camacho, are man-made artifacts of
flaked flint, quartz and bone.
Juan is the original hero of this story. Born and raised in the city of
Puebla and of an inquiring mind, as a lad he would often go exploring
along the shores of the reservoir and up the arroyos that fed into it.
There, in 1935, he found eroding out of a sediment bank in the Alseseca
Arroyo the fossilised leg bone of an elephant-like creature. Firmly
embedded in the bone was a flint spearhead.3 Obviously, someone at some
time had actively hunted that animal. But who? And when?
The questions intrigued Juan, and he was hooked. For the next 30 years
he spent much of his spare time searching for more evidence of these
early hunters. His search was well rewarded. During that time he
located well over 100 partial skeletons of butchered mastodon and mammoth
as well as many others of the smaller game animals. Missing were the
parts rich in meat. Often the bones he found showed signs of human
activity. There were intentional cut marks on some of the bones, made
during butchering operations. He found splinters of bone, sharpened,
smoothed and made into tools; bones cracked to remove the marrow (a food
delicacy for primitive hunters even today); a fragment of engraved
mastodon pelvis, worked when the bone was fresh; and even a mammoth jaw
with an embedded spearpoint.
And what of the archaeological establishment in Mexico City during this
time? They ignored Juan and his evidence, declaring that all of
it�including the engraving and the spearpoint in the mammoth jaw�was the
result of Nature, not Man.
THE VALSEQUILLO PROJECT
Fortunately the research didn't end there. Other scientists besides the
archaeological elite in Mexico City learned of Juan's work. They
realised its importance and that an in-depth study of the area was
imperative�a study that would include input from archaeology, geology,
palaeontology and other more esoteric fields. Wheels were put in motion
both in Mexico and in the United States; funds were found; and in 1962
the Valsequillo Project was born.
Cynthia Irwin-Williams, a young anthropologist from Harvard, was tapped
to work with Juan. That first summer exploring together, they located
four sites on the north shore of the Valsequillo Reservoir where
fossilised bones and stone tools occurred together in situ�that is,
within the sediment layers and not just lying loose on the surface. From
oldest to youngest, these sites were El Horno, El Mirador, Tecacaxco and
Hueyatlaco.
Hueyatlaco was the one they concentrated on during the ensuing field
seasons. It had lots of fossil bones and two distinct artifact types:
rather simple-looking tools (unifacial tools), made by chipping the edges
of natural stone flakes, found in a lower, older sedimentary layer; and
more complexly worked pieces (bifacial tools), found in several upper,
younger layers. Capping the artifact-bearing beds was a thick cover of
younger sediment that contained several volcanic ash and pumice layers.
Both tool types included projectile points (spearheads) and both were
associated with butchered bones from very large mammals such as the
mastodon and mammoth. This was exciting news! It meant that the
tool-makers, whoever they were, were actively hunting and killing these
large prey, not simply cutting up a dead carcass they happened upon.
Next step was to date the Hueyatlaco site, but a problem quickly arose.
No carbon (charcoal, wood, shell) had been preserved at any of the four
sites including Hueyatlaco. Without carbon there can be no 14C dates,
and 14C is the common radiometric method used to date archaeologic
remains in the New World. There was fossil bone in plenty, and bone
usually contains carbon, but the bones from these sites had all been
permineralised, fossilised, turned to stone. Whatever carbon had been
there was now gone.
And the sites just had to be dated! Evidence from two other areas in
Mexico where ancient stone tools had been found�Caulapan, about five
kilometres northeast of Hueyatlaco, and Tlapacoya, south of Mexico
City�suggested that Hueyatlaco, the youngest of the four sites found by
Armenta and Irwin-Williams, could be as old as 22,000 years. This would
make it more than twice as old as any date accepted in the 1960s as
evidence of humans in the New World. Textbooks would have to be
rewritten. It would make our careers!
TESTS ON THE TEPHRA LAYERS
It was the lack of carbon and the need to date Hueyatlaco that brought me
to the project in 1966. I was a young, enthusiastic graduate student at
the time�a volcanic ash specialist (tephrochronologist) looking for an
interesting research project for my doctoral dissertation.
At the site itself were several overlying younger ash and pumice layers
(tephra layers). The surrounding badlands contained hundreds of other
volcanic deposits. On nearby La Malinche volcano, the project geologist
Hal Malde had already dated a series of tephra layers by the 14C method,
using charcoal from the carbonised logs they contained.
Employing the microscope techniques I had learned at the university, I
was certain I could help the other project scientists date their
butchered bones and stone tools. I would match up the undated volcanic
layers at the site with the dated layers on the volcano. Find even one
match, and I had a pair of samples that came from the same eruption.
Same eruption, same date. The site would then be dated indirectly.
Simple�or so I thought!
So my work began. Years went by. I examined tens of samples, hundreds
of samples! No luck. No correlation.
JEALOUSY AND ACCUSATION
Dating her sites was only one of Irwin-Williams' concerns during those
years. She also had to contend with the insane jealousy of a highly
placed archaeologist in Mexico City�a man who did all he could to
discredit her, Armenta and their work.
In a series of moves that sound like a plot for a TV soap opera, they
were accused in print of incompetence, with dark suggestions of worse
things.4 Massive excavations were made by a rival team of archaeologists
only metres from her trenches.5 Armenta's life-work was confiscated and
moved up to Mexico City,6 and he was forbidden by law to do any more
fieldwork of any kind, ever.
Cynthia easily refuted the charges against them,7 but it obviously was a
difficult time for her, for Juan, for us all.
"IMPOSSIBLE" URANIUM-SERIES DATES
Meanwhile, other scientists were also trying to date the site. In 1968
Barney Szabo, a geochemist with the United States Geological Survey
(USGS), wanted to try the then-new radiometric method on the fossilised
bones�the uranium-series method.
Cynthia sent Barney a molar from the butchered mastodon at El Horno, a
pelvic bone from the butchered camel skeleton associated with bifacial
tools at Hueyatlaco, and a bone associated with the one stone-flake
scraper that made up her "site" at Caulapan. (Caulapan had already been
dated at approx. 22,000 years by the 14C method, using fossilised snail
shells found next to the scraper.)
The dates came back.8 Irwin-Williams was delighted with the ones for
Caulapan: 22,000 � 2,000 years by one U-series ratio; 20,000 � 1,500
years by the other. They agreed closely with the 14C date on the
fossilised snail shells: 21,850 � 850 years.
But oh, the other dates!
The butchered camel pelvis from Hueyatlaco dated 10 times older than the
oldest date we had ever considered: greater than 180,000 years by the
first ratio; 245,000 � 40,000 years by the second. And the El Horno
dates were even "worse": greater than 165,000 years by one ratio;
greater than 280,000 years by the second!
Cynthia ignored these new dates, calling them "impossible".9 She
considered the 22,000-year 14C date for Caulapan valid for her other
Valsequillo sites as well�the only valid date.10
"Poor Barney!" the rest of us thought. "His methods only work on young
material."
PARADIGM SHIFT
Although the evidence for very ancient hunters was clear, we other
scientists on the project had our politically correct blinders on. Since
the sites "couldn't be that old", we assumed out of hand that something
was wrong with Barney's methods�until we began to look more closely at
the sites, especially the Hueyatlaco site, and at our own lack of results.
Hard to believe, but it took seven years of negative results at the
microscope before my thinking began to change. What if Barney's dates
were correct? If so, I would never find that elusive correlation I was
looking for between a dated volcanic ash layer on La Malinche volcano and
one of the undated ashes at the Hueyatlaco site. The matching layer I
was seeking would, in reality, lie deeply buried in the flanks of the
volcano, covered over with a quarter-million years' worth of younger
deposits!
As I began to look at the problem with new eyes, it was obvious that,
geologically speaking, the Hueyatlaco site was old. The sediments were
all highly weathered. The volcanic glass was turning to clay. There
were many buried soils in the overlying sediment pile, each one
representing hundreds if not thousands of years when the landscape just
sat there with little deposition or erosion. The sediment cap over the
artifact-bearing layers was at least 10 metres thick and probably had
been much thicker at one time. Erosion by the nearby river had cut down
through that cap at least 50 metres.11
A quarter-million years? That meant that if we were ever going to date
the site using other than the controversial uranium-series method, we
would have to stop thinking "New World" with its comfortable 14C dates
and start thinking "Africa". Only in Africa, with the early hominid
research going on there, would we find the means to date such old
archaeologic material.
ELATION OVER ZIRCON FISSION-TRACK DATES
Fortunately, the scientists working in Africa had faced a similar problem
to ours and had come up with several radiometric dating methods besides
the unsuitable 14C method. And most of those methods required volcanic
ash!
In 1973, early sites in Africa were commonly dated radiometrically using
materials from overlying volcanic layers. The potassium-argon method was
popular, but it required lava flows and/or potassium-rich mineral
crystals. We had neither at Hueyatlaco.
But we did have tiny zircon crystals (very tiny, about the size of a
grain of sugar) in the tephra samples. This meant we could use the
zircon fission-track dating method on the younger volcanic ash and pumice
layers exposed in the archaeologic trenches. Dates for these tephra
units would give a minimum age for the underlying, older artifact beds.
In 1973 Chuck Naeser, another geochemist with the USGS, offered to run
the zircons for us. We didn't ask him for precise data at the time, as
that would have required weeks of hard labour. We only wanted "the big
picture": to know if his zircon dates would fall closer to Barney's
"impossible" 250,000-year uranium-series dates or to Cynthia's
"politically correct" 22,000-year date.
The dates came back with two sigma numbers�meaning that statistically
there is a 95 per cent possibility that the actual measured date falls
within the stated range. Even with a large plus or minus value, Chuck's
dates agreed with Barney's: 600,000 � 340,000 years for zircons from an
overlying pumice-rich mudflow layer; 370,000 � 200,000 years from an
overlying air-fall ash layer.12 Cynthia's wishful-thinking date of
22,000 years was out of the running.
I was elated! Several lines of geologic evidence, including six
radiometric dates, placed big-game hunters in Mexico a quarter-million
years ago. As far as I was concerned, it was an open-and-shut case.
How na�ve I was!
ESTABLISHMENT DENIAL
It was the geologists versus the anthropologists; fact versus theory.
Geologic evidence said the Valsequillo sites were old. Entrenched theory
said the sites were young.
In a classic case of arguing from theory to fact, then throwing out the
facts that don't fit, Cynthia Irwin-Williams wrote:
"These [bifacial] tools surely were not in use at Valsequillo more than
200,000 years before the date generally accepted for development of
analogous tools in the Old World, nor indeed more than 150,000 years
before the appearance of Homo sapiens."13
Privately, she referred to those of us involved with dating the site as
"the lunatic fringe".14 She ceased all communication with us from that
time forward.
PUBLICATION WOES
If this were a perfect world, the Valsequillo players would have sat down
at the same table and debated the issues publicly until the truth came
out. But it isn't. And we didn't.
Cynthia Irwin-Williams was an establishment anthropologist with degrees
from prestigious schools and influential friends in the east. I was a
geologist with a PhD from a small western university and my dad was a
meat cutter. Her friends, especially her mentor H. Marie Wormington,
advised her to ignore me and the whole geological thing and preach the
22,000-year date for all her sites. And she did.15
Meanwhile, we geologists were having a hard time getting our old dates
for the sites into print. We started out well with an exciting news
release in the fall of 1973. The story was picked up by the wire
services and quickly circled the globe. But then, when it came to the
critical research paper, it was one delay after another.
>From 1975 to 1979 we waited for the paper to be printed in a scientific
book. After four years, the third editor decided not to publish the book
at all. The manuscript was returned.
In 1980 I submitted the paper to the editor of a popular science magazine
who had requested it. After several months' delay, he regretted that
"the manuscript had fallen down behind the file cabinet and had been
lost". It was returned.
By 1980 my career as a research geologist was suffering. My professional
correspondence, both domestic and foreign, fell to near zero. My
government job disappeared. My contract as an adjunct professor at one
of the state universities was subsequently dropped. And were my
geological colleagues avoiding me?
You couldn't blame them, really. In 1973 we geologists made a startling
announcement: we had found evidence for mammoth hunters in Mexico
250,000 years ago. Seven years later, no supporting data were
forthcoming. Where were the facts? Were the dates wrong? Were we
wrong? Why no information? My future as a professional scientist looked
grim.
I then submitted the manuscript to an acquaintance of mine: geologist
Steve Porter, editor of the high-powered scientific journal Quaternary
Research. Steve was a gem. He wrote that he did not care how
controversial our findings were as long as we had the scientific data to
back them up. He sent the article out to other scientists for review.
It was approved, accepted for publication and finally saw print in
1981.16
But it was too late. That 22,000-year date for all the Valsequillo
sites, including Hueyatlaco, had flooded the literature and was now set
in concrete.17
So there I was in 1981: stonewalled, jobless, no career, damaged
reputation, mightily depressed. For 13 years I dropped out of science
completely. During that time, Armenta, Irwin-Williams, Wormington and
the jealous archaeologist died; Malde and Szabo retired; and I cared for
elderly relatives and became a professional flower gardener.
A NEW START, BUT THE SAGA CONTINUES
Then things began to turn around.
In 1993, Cremo and Thompson's book, Forbidden Archeology, was published.
Eight years in the writing, it has a nice section on Hueyatlaco and my
problems with it.
In 1994 I did a short segment for the Sightings TV program, and in 1996
did a larger segment for the network special, The Mysterious Origins of
Man.
In 1997 I gave my first lecture on Hueyatlaco in over 20 years, did a bit
of fieldwork in Mexico and examined the late Irwin-Williams' files. (Her
critical Valsequillo materials have disappeared, as has most of my
correspondence with her.) A wealthy philanthropist became interested in
the project and we sent away material for more radiometric dates.
In July 1997, I "just happened" to learn that primitive human skull
fragments are coming to light in Valsequillo-like sediments west of
Mexico City. According to entrenched theory, those fragments can't be
there. Establishment scientists are involved. They are trying to date
the fragments using the 14C method. I told them to try the
uranium-series method instead, and not to forget all the work we've
already done at Hueyatlaco.
In March 1998, in response to news about the well-documented Monte Verde
site in Chile,18 establishment archaeologists at the 63rd Annual Meeting
of the Society for American Archeology admitted that humans just may have
entered the New World earlier than they thought�perhaps as long ago
as...15,000 years!
Things are getting interesting. Stay tuned in!
Endnotes
1. Szabo, B. J., H. E. Malde and C. Irwin-Williams (1969), "Dilemma
posed by uranium-series dates on archaeologically significant bones from
Valsequillo, Puebla, Mexico", Earth and Planetary Science Letters
6(4):237-244.
2. Steen-McIntyre, V., R. Fryxell and H. E. Malde (1981), "Geologic
evidence for age of deposits at Hueyatlaco archeological site,
Valsequillo, Mexico", Quaternary Research 16:1-17.
3. Armenta Camacho, J. (1978), "Vestigios de labor humana en huesos de
animales extintos de Valsequillo, Puebla, Mexico", Consejo Editorial del
Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico, p. 11 (128 pp; published
privately).
4. Lorenzo, J. L. (1967), "Sobre M�todos Arqueol�gicos", Boletin del
Instituto Nacional de Antropolog�a e Historia, Mexico City, Junio 1967,
pp. 48-51.
5. Irwin-Williams, C. (1967), "Comments on Allegations by J. L. Lorenzo
Concerning Archaeological Research at Valsequillo, Puebla", Miscellaneous
Publications, Paleoindian Institute, Eastern New Mexico University,
Portales, NM, USA, p. 2 (7 pp.).
6. Armenta Camacho (1978), op. cit., p. 120.
7a. Irwin-Williams, C. (1967), op. cit.
7b. Irwin-Williams, C. (1969), "Comments on the associations of
archaeological materials and extinct fauna in the Valsequillo region,
Puebla, Mexico", American Antiquity 34(1):82-83.
8. Szabo, B. J. et al. (1969), op. cit., p. 241.
9. Ibid.
10. Irwin-Williams, C. (1978), "Summary of archaeological evidence from
the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico", in Browman, D. L. (ed.),
Cultural Continuity in Mesoamerica, Mouton, The Hague, Paris, pp. 7-22.
11a. Steen-McIntyre, V., R. Fryxell and H. E. Malde (1981), op. cit.
11b. Cornwall, I. W. (1971), "Geology and Early Man in Central Mexico",
Proc. Geologists Assoc., vol. 82, part 3, pp. 379-392 (p. 388 and fig.
3), and cited references.
12. Steen-McIntyre et al. (1981), op. cit., table 2.
13. Szabo, B. J. et al. (1969), op. cit., p. 241.
14. Cremo, M. A. and R. L. Thompson, Forbidden Archeology, Bhaktivedanta
Institute, Govardhan Hill Publishing (PO Box 52-211, Badger, CA 93603
USA), 1993, p. 366 (914 pp); condensed edition: The Hidden History of
the Human Race, 1994 (322 pp.).
15. Irwin-Williams, C. (1978), ibid., pp. 18-20.
16. Steen-McIntyre, V. et al. (1981), op cit.
17a. Lorenzo, J. L. (1978), "Early Man Research in the American
Hemisphere: appraisal and perspectives", in Bryan, A. L. (ed.), Early
Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective, Occasional Papers No.
1, Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Arch. Res. Inst.,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, pp. 1-9 (fig. 1, p. 4).
17b. Canby, T. Y. (1979), "The Search for the First Americans", National
Geographic 156(3):330-363, September 1979 (pp. 350, 352, 354).
17c. Bryant Jr, V. M. (1992), "In Search of the First Americans", 1993
Yearbook of Science and the Future, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.,
Chicago, pp. 8-27 (pp. 19, 24).
18. Meltzer, D. J. (1997), "Monte Verde and the Pleistocene Peopling of
the Americas", Science 276:754-755, and references.
About the Author
Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre is a geologist who specialises in the study of
volcanic ash layers, especially those used to date ancient archaeologic
sites. At present she is not gainfully employed. She and her husband
live in a small mountain community west of Denver, Colorado.
Duncan M. Roads
Editor, NEXUS Magazine
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia
Tel: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
http://www.nexusmagazine.com ICQ#62399259
"The nature of the universe is such that ends can never justify the means.
On the contrary, the means always determine the end."
(Aldous Huxley)
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">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, misdirections 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, CTRL
gives 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://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">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
