-Caveat Lector-
Hiding Humanity's True History
'The Brain Police' and 'The Big Lie'
By Will Hart
� 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Extracted from Nexus Magazine
Volume 9, Number 3
April-May 2002
4-8-2
Any time you allege a conspiracy is afoot, especially
in the field of
science, you are treading on thin ice. We tend to be
very sceptical
about conspiracies--unless the Mafia or some Muslim
radicals are
behind the alleged plot. But the evidence is
overwhelming and the
irony is that much of it is in plain view.
The good news is that the players are obvious. Their
game plan and
even their play-by-play tactics are transparent, once
you learn to spot
them. However, it is not so easy to penetrate through
the
smokescreen of propaganda and disinformation to get to
their
underlying motives and goals. It would be convenient if
we could
point to a plumber's unit and a boldface liar like
Richard Nixon, but
this is a more subtle operation.
The bad news: the conspiracy is global and there are
many vested
interest groups. A cursory investigation yields the
usual suspects:
scientists with a theoretical axe to grind, careers to
further and the
status quo to maintain. Their modus operandi is "The
Big Lie"--and
the bigger and more widely publicised, the better. They
rely on
invoking their academic credentials to support their
arguments, and
the presumption is that no one has the right to
question their
authoritarian pronouncements that: 1. there is no
mystery about who
built the Great Pyramid or what the methods of
construction were,
and the Sphinx shows no signs of water damage; 2. there
were no
humans in the Americas before 20,000 BC; 3. the first
civilisation
dates back no further than 6000 BC; 4. there are no
documented
anomalous, unexplained or enigmatic data to take into
account; 5.
there are no lost or unaccounted-for civilisations. Let
the evidence to
the contrary be damned!
Personal Attacks: Dispute over Age of the Sphinx and
Great Pyramid
In 1993, NBC in the USA aired The Mysteries of the
Sphinx, which
presented geological evidence showing that the Sphinx
was at least
twice as old (9,000 years) as Egyptologists claimed. It
has become
well known as the "water erosion controversy". An
examination of the
politicking that Egyptologists deployed to combat this
undermining of
their turf is instructive.
Self-taught Egyptologist John Anthony West brought the
water
erosion issue to the attention of geologist Dr Robert
Schoch. They
went to Egypt and launched an intensive on-site
investigation. After
thoroughly studying the Sphinx first hand, the
geologist came to
share West's preliminary conclusion and they announced
their
findings.
Dr Zahi Hawass, the Giza Monuments chief, wasted no
time in firing a
barrage of public criticism at the pair. Renowned
Egyptologist Dr
Mark Lehner, who is regarded as the world's foremost
expert on the
Sphinx, joined his attack. He charged West and Schoch
with being
"ignorant and insensitive". That was a curious
accusation which took
the matter off the professional level and put the whole
affair on a
personal plane. It did not address the facts or issues
at all and it was
highly unscientific.
But we must note the standard tactic of discrediting
anyone who
dares to call the accepted theories into question.
Shifting the focus
away from the issues and "personalising" the debate is
a highly
effective strategy--one which is often used by
politicians who feel
insecure about their positions. Hawass and Lehner
invoked their
untouchable status and presumed authority. (One would
think that a
geologist's assessment would hold more weight on this
particular
point.)
A short time later, Schoch, Hawass and Lehner were
invited to
debate the issue at the American Association for the
Advancement of
Science. West was not allowed to participate because he
lacked the
required credentials.
This points to a questionable assumption that is part
of the
establishment's arsenal: only degreed scientists can
practise science.
Two filters keep the uncredentialled, independent
researcher out of
the loop: (1) credentials, and (2) peer review. You do
not get to
number two unless you have number one.
Science is a method that anyone can learn and apply. It
does not
require a degree to observe and record facts and think
critically about
them, especially in the non-technical social sciences.
In a free and
open society, science has to be a democratic process.
Be that as it may, West was barred. The elements of the
debate have
been batted back and forth since then without
resolution. It is similar
to the controversy over who built the Giza pyramids and
how.
This brings up the issue of The Big Lie and how it has
been
promoted for generations in front of God and everyone.
The
controversy over how the Great Pyramid was constructed
is one
example. It could be easily settled if Egyptologists
wanted to resolve
the dispute. A simple test could be designed and
arranged by
impartial engineers that would either prove or disprove
their
longstanding disputed theory--that it was built using
the primitive tools
and methods of the day, circa 2500 BC.
Why hasn't this been done? The answer is so obvious, it
seems
impossible: they know that the theory is bogus. Could a
trained,
highly educated scientist really believe that 2.3
million tons of stone,
some blocks weighing 70 tons, could have been
transported and
lifted by primitive methods? That seems improbable,
though they
have no compunction against lying to the public,
writing textbooks
and defending this theory against alternative theories.
However, we
must note that they will not subject themselves to the
bottom-line test.
We think it is incumbent upon any scientist to bear the
burden of
proof of his/her thesis; however, the social scientists
who make these
claims have never stood up to that kind of scrutiny.
That is why we
must suspect a conspiracy. No other scientific
discipline would get
away with bending the rules of science. All that
Egyptologists have
ever done is bat down alternative theories using
underhanded tactics.
It is time to insist that they prove their own
proposals.
Why would scientists try to hide the truth and avoid
any test of their
hypothesis? Their motivations are equally transparent.
If it can be
proved that the Egyptians did not build the Great
Pyramid in 2500 BC
using primitive methods, or if the Sphinx can be dated
to 9000 BC,
the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Orthodox
views of
cultural evolution are based upon a chronology of
civilisation having
started in Sumeria no earlier than 4000 BC. The theory
does not
permit an advanced civilisation to have existed prior
to that time. End
of discussion. Archaeology and history lose their
meaning without a
fixed timeline as a point of reference.
Since the theory of "cultural evolution" has been tied
to Darwin's
general theory of evolution, even more is at stake.
Does this explain
why facts, anomalies and enigmas are denied, suppressed
and/or
ignored? Yes, it does. The biological sciences today
are based on
Darwinism.
Pressure Tactics: The Ica Stones of Peru
Now we turn to another, very different case. In 1966,
Dr Javier
Cabrera received a stone as a gift from a poor local
farmer in his
native Ica, Peru. A fish was carved on the stone, which
would not
have meant much to the average villager but it did mean
a lot to the
educated Dr Cabrera. He recognised it as a long-extinct
species.
This aroused his curiosity. He purchased more stones
from the
farmer, who said he had collected them near the river
after a flood.
Dr Cabrera accumulated more and more stones, and word
of their
existence and potential import reached the
archaeological community.
Soon, the doctor had amassed thousands of "Ica stones".
The
sophisticated carvings were as enigmatic as they were
fascinating.
Someone had carved men fighting with dinosaurs, men
with
telescopes and men performing operations with surgical
equipment.
They also contained drawings of lost continents.
Several of the stones were sent to Germany and the
etchings were
dated to remote antiquity. But we all know that men
could not have
lived at the time of dinosaurs; Homo sapiens has only
existed for
about 100,000 years.
The BBC got wind of this discovery and swooped down to
produce a
documentary about the Ica stones. The media exposure
ignited a
storm of controversy. Archaeologists criticised the
Peruvian
government for being lax about enforcing antiquities
laws (but that
was not their real concern). Pressure was applied to
government
officials.
The farmer who had been selling the stones to Cabrera
was arrested;
he claimed to have found them in a cave but refused to
disclose the
exact location to authorities, or so they claimed.
This case was disposed of so artfully that it would do
any corrupt
politician proud. The Peruvian government threatened to
prosecute
and imprison the farmer. He was offered and accepted a
plea
bargain; he then recanted his story and "admitted" to
having carved
the stones himself. That seems highly implausible,
since he was
uneducated and unskilled and there were 11,000 stones
in all. Some
were fairly large and intricately carved with animals
and scenes that
the farmer would not have had knowledge of without
being a
palaeontologist. He would have needed to work every day
for several
decades to produce that volume of stones. However, the
underlying
facts were neither here nor there. The Ica stones were
labelled
"hoax" and forgotten.
The case did not require a head-to-head confrontation
or public
discrediting of non-scientists by scientists; it was
taken care of with
invisible pressure tactics. Since it was filed under
"hoax", the
enigmatic evidence never had to be dealt with, as it
did in the next
example.
Censorship of "Forbidden" Thinking: Evidence for
Mankind's Great
Antiquity
The case of author Michael Cremo is well documented,
and it also
demonstrates how the scientific establishment openly
uses pressure
tactics on the media and government. His book Forbidden
Archeology
examines many previously ignored examples of artifacts
that prove
modern man's antiquity far exceeds the age given in
accepted
chronologies.
The examples which he and his co-author present are
controversial,
but the book became far more controversial than the
contents when it
was used in a documentary.
In 1996, NBC broadcast a special called The Mysterious
Origins of
Man, which featured material from Cremo's book. The
reaction from
the scientific community went off the Richter scale.
NBC was deluged
with letters from irate scientists who called the
producer "a fraud" and
the whole program "a hoax".
But the scientists went further than this--a lot
further. In an extremely
unconscionable sequence of bizarre moves, they tried to
force NBC
not to rebroadcast the popular program, but that effort
failed. Then
they took the most radical step of all: they presented
their case to the
federal government and requested the Federal
Communications
Commission to step in and bar NBC from airing the
program again.
This was not only an apparent infringement of free
speech and a
blatant attempt to thwart commerce, it was an
unprecedented effort to
censor intellectual discourse. If the public or any
government agency
made an attempt to handcuff the scientific
establishment, the public
would never hear the end of it.
The letter to the FCC written by Dr Allison Palmer,
President of the
Institute for Cambrian Studies, is revealing:
At the very least, NBC should be required to make
substantial
prime-time apologies to their viewing audience for a
sufficient period
of time so that the audience clearly gets the message
that they were
duped. In addition, NBC should perhaps be fined
sufficiently so that a
major fund for public science education can be
established.
I think we have some good leads on who "the Brain
Police" are. And I
really do not think "conspiracy" is too strong a word--
because for
every case of this kind of attempted suppression that
is exposed, 10
others are going on successfully. We have no idea how
many
enigmatic artifacts or dates have been labelled "error"
and tucked
away in storage warehouses or circular files, never to
see the light of
day.
Data Rejection: Inconvenient Dating in Mexico
Then there is the high-profile case of Dr Virginia
Steen-McIntyre, a
geologist working for the US Geological Survey (USGS),
who was
dispatched to an archaeological site in Mexico to date
a group of
artifacts in the 1970s. This travesty also illustrates
how far
established scientists will go to guard orthodox
tenets.
McIntyre used state-of-the-art equipment and backed up
her results
by using four different methods, but her results were
off the chart.
The lead archaeologist expected a date of 25,000 years
or less, and
the geologist's finding was 250,000 years or more.
The figure of 25,000 years or less was critical to the
Bering Strait
"crossing" theory, and it was the motivation behind the
head
archaeologist's tossing Steen-McIntyre's results in the
circular file and
asking for a new series of dating tests. This sort of
reaction does not
occur when dates match the expected chronological model
that
supports accepted theories.
Steen-McIntyre was given a chance to retract her
conclusions, but
she refused. She found it hard thereafter to get her
papers published
and she lost a teaching job at an American university.
Government Suppression and Ethnocentrism: Avoiding
Anomalous
Evidence in NZ, China and Mexico
In New Zealand, the government actually stepped in and
enacted a
law forbidding the public from entering a controversial
archaeological
zone. This story appeared in the book, Ancient Celtic
New Zealand,
by Mark Doutr�.
However, as we will find (and as I promised at the
beginning of the
article), this is a complicated conspiracy. Scientists
trying to protect
their "hallowed" theories while furthering their
careers are not the only
ones who want artifacts and data suppressed. This is
where the
situation gets sticky.
The Waipoua Forest became a controversial site in New
Zealand
because an archaeological dig apparently showed
evidence of a
non-Polynesian culture that preceded the Maori--a fact
that the tribe
was not happy with. They learned of the results of the
excavations
before the general public did and complained to the
government.
According to Doutr�, the outcome was "an official
archival document,
which clearly showed an intention by New Zealand
government
departments to withhold archaeological information from
public
scrutiny for 75 years".
The public got wind of this fiasco but the government
denied the
claim. However, official documents show that an embargo
had been
placed on the site. Doutr� is a student of New Zealand
history and
archaeology. He is concerned because he says that
artifacts proving
that there was an earlier culture which preceded the
Maori are
missing from museums. He asks what happened to several
anomalous remains:
Where are the ancient Indo-European hair samples (wavy
red brown
hair), originally obtained from a rock shelter near
Watakere, that were
on display at the Auckland War Memorial Museum for many
years?
Where is the giant skeleton found near Mitimati?
Unfortunately this is not the only such incident.
Ethnocentrism has
become a factor in the conspiracy to hide mankind's
true history.
Author Graham Hancock has been attacked by various
ethnic groups
for reporting similar enigmatic findings.
The problem for researchers concerned with establishing
humanity's
true history is that the goals of nationalists or
ethnic groups who want
to lay claim to having been in a particular place
first, often dovetail
with the goals of cultural evolutionists.
Archaeologists are quick to go along with suppressing
these kinds of
anomalous finds. One reason Egyptologists so jealously
guard the
Great Pyramid's construction date has to do with the
issue of national
pride.
The case of the Takla Makan Desert mummies in western
China is
another example of this phenomenon. In the 1970s and
1980s, an
unaccounted-for Caucasian culture was suddenly
unearthed in
China. The arid environment preserved the remains of a
blond-haired, blue-eyed people who lived in pre-
dynastic China. They
wore colourful robes, boots, stockings and hats. The
Chinese were
not happy about this revelation and they have
downplayed the
enigmatic find, even though Asians were found buried
alongside the
Caucasian mummies.
National Geographic writer Thomas B. Allen mused in a
1996 article
about his finding a potsherd bearing a fingerprint of
the potter. When
he inquired if he could take the fragment to a forensic
anthropologist,
the Chinese scientist asked whether he "would be able
to tell if the
potter was a white man". Allen said he was not sure,
and the official
pocketed the fragment and quietly walked away. It
appears that many
things get in the way of scientific discovery and
disclosure.
The existence of the Olmec culture in Old Mexico has
always posed a
problem. Where did the Negroid people depicted on the
colossal
heads come from? Why are there Caucasians carved on the
stele in
what is Mexico's seed civilisation? What is worse, why
aren't the
indigenous Mexican people found on the Olmec artifacts?
Recently a
Mexican archaeologist solved the problem by making a
fantastic
claim: that the Olmec heads--which generations of
people of all ethnic
groups have agreed bear a striking resemblance to
Africans--were
really representations of the local tribe.
STORMTROOPERS FOR DARWINISM
The public does not seem at all aware of the fact that
the scientific
establishment has a double standard when it comes to
the free flow
of information. In essence, it goes like this...
Scientists are highly
educated, well trained and intellectually capable of
processing all
types of information, and they can make the correct
critical
distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and
fantasy. The
unwashed public is simply incapable of functioning on
this high
mental plane.
The noble ideal of the scientist as a highly trained,
impartial, apolitical
observer and assembler of established facts into a
useful body of
knowledge seems to have been shredded under the
pressures and
demands of the real world. Science has produced many
positive
benefits for society; but we should know by now that
science has a
dark, negative side. Didn't those meek fellows in the
clean lab coats
give us nuclear bombs and biological weapons? The age
of
innocence ended in World War II.
That the scientific community has an attitude of
intellectual superiority
is thinly veiled under a carefully orchestrated public
relations guise.
We always see Science and Progress walking hand in
hand. Science
as an institution in a democratic society has to
function in the same
way as the society at large; it should be open to
debate, argument
and counter-argument. There is no place for
unquestioned
authoritarianism. Is modern science meeting these
standards?
In the Fall of 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series,
titled Evolution.
Taken at face value, that seems harmless enough.
However, while
the program was presented as pure, objective,
investigative science
journalism, it completely failed to meet even minimum
standards of
impartial reporting. The series was heavily weighted
towards the view
that the theory of evolution is "a science fact" that
is accepted by
"virtually all reputable scientists in the world", and
not a theory that
has weaknesses and strong scientific critics.
The series did not even bother to interview scientists
who have
criticisms of Darwinism: not "creationists" but bona
fide scientists. To
correct this deficiency, a group of 100 dissenting
scientists felt
compelled to issue a press release, "A Scientific
Dissent on
Darwinism", on the day the first program was scheduled
to go to air.
Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaefer was among them. He
encouraged open public debate of Darwin's theory:
Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of
evidence for
evolution that as scientists they would never accept in
other
circumstances.
We have seen this same "unscientific" approach applied
to
archaeology and anthropology, where "scientists" simply
refuse to
prove their theories yet appoint themselves as the
final arbiters of
"the facts". It would be naive to think that the
scientists who
cooperated in the production of the series were unaware
that there
would be no counter-balancing presentation by critics
of Darwin's
theory.
Richard Milton is a science journalist. He had been an
ardent true
believer in Darwinian doctrine until his investigative
instincts kicked in
one day. After 20 years of studying and writing about
evolution, he
suddenly realised that there were many disconcerting
holes in the
theory. He decided to try to allay his doubts and prove
the theory to
himself by using the standard methods of investigative
journalism.
Milton became a regular visitor to London's famed
Natural History
Museum. He painstakingly put every main tenet and
classic proof of
Darwinism to the test. The results shocked him. He
found that the
theory could not even stand up to the rigours of
routine investigative
journalism.
The veteran science writer took a bold step and
published a book
titled The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of
Darwinism. It is clear
that the Darwinian myth had been shattered for him, but
many more
myths about science would also be crushed after his
book came out.
Milton says:
I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the
Darwinist police at first
handit was deeply disappointing to find myself being
described by a
prominent Oxford zoologist [Richard Dawkins] as
"loony", "stupid" and
"in need of psychiatric help" in response to purely
scientific reporting.
(Does this sound like stories that came out of the
Soviet Union 20
years ago when dissident scientists there started
speaking out?)
Dawkins launched a letter-writing campaign to newspaper
editors,
implying that Milton was a "mole" creationist whose
work should be
dismissed. Anyone at all familiar with politics will
recognise this as a
standard Machiavellian by-the-book "character
assassination" tactic.
Dawkins is a highly respected scientist, whose
reputation and
standing in the scientific community carry a great deal
of weight.
According to Milton, the process came to a head when
the London
Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned him to
write a
critique of Darwinism. The publication foreshadowed his
coming
piece: "Next Week: Darwinism - Richard Milton goes on
the attack".
Dawkins caught wind of this and wasted no time in
nipping this
heresy in the bud. He contacted the editor, Auriol
Stevens, and
accused Milton of being a "creationist", and prevailed
upon Stevens
to pull the plug on the article. Milton learned of this
behind-the-scenes backstabbing and wrote a letter of
appeal to
Stevens. In the end, she caved in to Dawkins and
scratched the
piece.
Imagine what would happen if a politician or bureaucrat
used such
pressure tactics to kill a story in the mass media. It
would ignite a
huge scandal. Not so with scientists, who seem to be
regarded as
"sacred cows" and beyond reproach. There are many
disturbing facts
related to these cases. Darwin's theory of evolution is
the only theory
routinely taught in our public school system that has
never been
subjected to rigorous scrutiny; nor have any of the
criticisms been
allowed into the curriculum.
This is an interesting fact, because a recent poll
showed that the
American public wants the theory of evolution taught to
their children;
however, "71 per cent of the respondents say biology
teachers
should teach both Darwinism and scientific evidence
against
Darwinian theory". Nevertheless, there are no plans to
implement this
balanced approach.
It is ironic that Richard Dawkins has been appointed to
the position of
Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at
Oxford
University. He is a classic "Brain Police"
stormtrooper, patrolling the
neurological front lines. The Western scientific
establishment and
mass media pride themselves on being open public forums
devoid of
prejudice or censorship. However, no television program
examining
the flaws and weaknesses of Darwinism has ever been
aired in
Darwin's home country or in America. A scientist who
opposes the
theory cannot get a paper published.
The Mysterious Origins of Man was not a frontal attack
on
Darwinism; it merely presented evidence that is
considered
anomalous by the precepts of his theory of evolution.
Returning to our bastions of intellectual integrity,
Forest Mims was a
solid and skilled science journalist. He had never been
the centre of
any controversy and so he was invited to write the most-
read column
in the prestigious Scientific American, "The Amateur
Scientist", a task
he gladly accepted. According to Mims, the magazine's
editor
Jonathan Piel then learned that he also wrote articles
for a number of
Christian magazines. The editor called Mims into his
office and
confronted him.
"Do you believe in the theory of evolution?" Piel
asked.
Mims replied, "No, and neither does Stephen Jay Gould."
His response did not affect Piel's decision to bump
Mims off the
popular column after just three articles.
This has the unpleasant odour of a witch-hunt. The
writer never
publicly broadcast his private views or beliefs, so it
would appear that
the "stormtroopers" now believe they have orders to
make sure
"unapproved" thoughts are never publicly disclosed.
TABOO OR NOT TABOO?
So, the monitors of "good thinking" are not just the
elite of the
scientific community, as we have seen in several cases;
they are
television producers and magazine editors as well. It
seems clear that
they are all driven by the singular imperative of
furthering "public
science education", as the president of the Cambrian
Institute so
aptly phrased it.
However, there is a second item on the agenda, and that
is to protect
the public from "unscientific" thoughts and ideas that
might infect the
mass mind. We outlined some of those taboo subjects at
the
beginning of the article; now we should add that it is
also
"unwholesome" and "unacceptable" to engage in any of
the following
research pursuits: paranormal phenomena, UFOs, cold
fusion, free
energy and all the rest of the "pseudo-sciences". Does
this have a
familiar ring to it? Are we hearing the faint echoes of
religious
zealotry?
Who ever gave science the mission of engineering and
directing the
inquisitive pursuits of the citizenry of the free
world? It is all but
impossible for any scientific paper that has anti-
Darwinian
ramifications to be published in a mainstream
scientific journal. It is
also just as impossible to get the "taboo" subjects
even to the review
table, and you can forget about finding your name under
the title of
any article in Nature unless you are a credentialled
scientist, even if
you are the next Albert Einstein.
To restate how this conspiracy begins, it is with two
filters:
credentials and peer review. Modern science is now a
maze of such
filters set up to promote certain orthodox theories and
at the same
time filter out that data already prejudged to be
unacceptable.
Evidence and merit are not the guiding principles;
conformity and
position within the established community have replaced
objectivity,
access and openness.
Scientists do not hesitate to launch the most
outrageous personal
attacks against those they perceive to be the enemy.
Eminent
palaeontologist Louis Leakey penned this acid one-liner
about
Forbidden Archeology: "Your book is pure humbug and
does not
deserve to be taken seriously by anyone but a fool."
Once again, we
see the thrust of a personal attack; the merits of the
evidence
presented in the book are not examined or debated. It
is a blunt,
authoritarian pronouncement.
In a forthcoming instalment, we will examine some more
documented
cases and delve deeper into the subtler dimensions of
the
conspiracy.
References and Resources:
* Cremo, Michael A. and Richard L. Thompson, Forbidden
Archeology, Govardhan Hill, USA, 1993.
* Cremo, Michael A., "The Controversy over 'The
Mysterious Origins
of Man'", NEXUS 5/04, 1998; Forbidden Archeology's
Impact,
Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing, USA, 1998, website
http://www.mcremo.com.
* Doore, Kathy, "The Nazca Spaceport & the Ica Stones
of Peru",
http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica.htm; see website for
copy of Dr Javier
Cabrera's book, The Message of the Engraved Stones.
* Doutr�, Mark, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, D� Danann,
New
Zealand, 1999, website http://www.celticnz.co.nz.
* Milton, Richard, The Facts of Life: Shattering the
Myths of
Darwinism, Corgi, UK, 1993,
http://www.alternativescience.com.
* Steen-McIntyre, Virginia, "Suppressed Evidence for
Ancient Man in
Mexico", NEXUS 5/05, 1998.
* Sunfellow, David, "The Great Pyramid & The Sphinx",
November
25, 1994, at
http://www.nhne.com/specialrepots/spyramid.html.
* Tampa Bay Tribune, October 12, 2001
(Darwinism/evolution quote),
http://www.tampatrib.com.
About the Author: Will Hart is a freelance journalist,
book author,
nature photographer and documentary filmmaker. He lives
and does
much of his research in the Lake Tahoe area in the USA,
and writes
a column titled "The Tahoe Naturalist" for a regional
publication. He
has produced and directed films about wolves and wild
horses.
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/arcoverups.html
Email This Article
MainPage
http://www.rense.com
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
-GW Bush during a photo-op with Congressional leaders on 12/18/2000.
As broadcast on CNN and available in transcript on their website
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html
Steve Wingate, Webmaster
ANOMALOUS IMAGES AND UFO FILES
http://www.anomalous-images.com
<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, 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="http://peach.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
