============================================================================= ARTICLE #1

Taken from The Anti-Gravity Handbook

TYPED BY: The P/\NTHER TRSI-UMF

ELEVEN THINGS THAT NASA DISCOVERED ABOUT THE MOON THAT YOU NEVER KNEW.

"It seems much easier to explain the nonexistence of the moon than its existence." -NASA scientist Dr. Robin Brett

1. The Puzzle of the Moon's Origin: Scientist have generally offered three major theories to account for the moon in orbit about our planet. All three are in serious trouble, but the least likely theory emerged from the Apollo missions as the favorite theory. one theory was that the moon might have been born alongside the earth out of the same cosmic cloud of gas dust about 4.6 billion years ago. Another theory was that the moon was the earth's child, ripped out the Pacific basin, possibly. Evidence gathered by the Apollo program indicates though that the moon and the earth differ greatly in composition. Scientists now tend to lean toward the third theory-that the moon was "captured" by the earth's gravitational field and locked into orbit ages ago. Opponents of the theory are in doubt, and none satisfactory. NASA scientist Dr. Robin Brett sums it up best.

2. The Puzzle of the Moon's Age: Incredibly, over 99 percent of the moon rocks brought back turned out upon analysis to be older than 90 percent of the oldest rocks that can be found on earth. The first rock that Neil Armstron picked up after landing on the Sea of Tranquility turned out to be more than 3.6 billion years old. Other rocks turned out to be even older; 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, and one even alleged to be 5.3 billion years old! The oldest rocks found on earth are about 3.7 billion years old, and the area that the moon rocks came from was thought by scientists to be one of the youngest area of the moon! Based on such evidence, some scientist have concluded that the moon was formed among the stars long before our sun was born.

3. The Puzzle Of How Moon Soil Could Be Older Than Lunar Rocks: The mystery of the age of the Moon is even more perplexing when rocks taken from the Sea of Tranquility were young compared to the soil on which they rested. Upon analysis, the soil proved to be at least a billion years older. This would appear impossible, since the soil was presumably the powdered remains of the rocks, but from somewhere else.

4. The Puzzle of Why the Moon "Rings" like a Hollow Sphere When a Large Object Hits it: During the Apollo Moon missions, ascent stages of lunar modules as well as the spent third stages of rockets crashed on the hard surface of the moon. Each time, these caused the moon, according to NASA to "ring like a gong or bell." One one of the Apollo 12 flights, reverberations lasted from nearly an hour to as much as four hours. NASA is reluctant to suggest that the moon may actually be hollow, but can otherwise not explain this strange fact.

5. The Puzzle of the Mystifying Maria of the Moon: The dark areas of the moon are known as maria (seas, as this is what they looked like to early astronomers-dried-up seas). Some of these maria form the familiar "man-in-the-moon" and are, strangely, located almost entirely on one side of the moon. Astronauts found it extremely difficult to drill into surface of these dark plainlike areas. Soil samples were loaded with rare metals and elements like titanium, zirconium, yttrium, and beryllium. This dumbfounded scientists because these elements require tremendous heat, approximately 4,500 degrees fahrenheit, to melt and fuse with surrounding rock, as it had.

6. The Puzzle of the Rustproof Iron Found on the Moon: Samples brought back to earth by both Soviet and American space probes contain pure iron particles. The Soviets announced that pure iron particles brought back by the remote controlled lunar probe Zond 20 have not oxidized even after several years on earth. Pure iron particles that do not rust are unheard of in the scientific world (although there is a solid iron pillar of unknown age in New Delhi, India, that has also never rusted, and no one knows why).

7. The Puzzle of the Moon's High Radioactivity: Apparently, the upper 8 miles of the moon's crust are surprisingly radioactive. When Apollo 15 astronauts used thermal equipment, they got unusually high readings, which indicated that the heat flow near the Apennie Mountains was rather hot. In fact, one lunar expert confessed: "When we saw that we said, 'My God, this place is about to melt! The core must be very hot.'" But that is puzzle. The core is not hot at all, but cold (in fact, as was assumed, it is a hollow sphere). The amount of radioactive materials on the surface is not only "embarrassingly high" but, difficult to account for. Where did all this hot radioactive material (uranium, thorium, and potassium) come from? And if it came from the interior of the moon (unlikely), how did it get to the moon's surface?

8. The Puzzle of the Immense Clouds of Water Vapor on the Dry Moon: The few lunar excursions indicated that the moon was a very dry world. One lunar expert said that it was "a million times as dry as the Gobi Desert." The early Apollo missions did not even find the slightest trace of water. But after Apollo 15, NASA experts were stunned when a cloud of water vapor more than 100 square miles in size was detected on the moon's surface. Red-faced scientists suggested that two tiny tanks, abandoned on the moon by U.S. astronauts, had somehow ruptured. But the tanks could not have produced a cloud of such magnitude. Nor would the astronauts' urine, which had been dumped into the lunar skies, be an answer. The water vapor appears to have come from the moon's interior, according to NASA. Mists, clouds and surface changes have allegedly been seen on the moon over the years by astronomers. For instance, six astronomers in the last century have claimed to have seem a mist which obscured details in the floor of the crater Plato. Clouds on the moon are extremely odd, because the moon's supposed small gravity (one sixth of the earth's, claim many conventional scientists and NASA) could not hold an atmosphere or have any clouds on it at all.

9. The Puzzle of the Glassy Surface on the Moon: Lunar explorations have revealed that much of the moon's surface is covered with a glassy glaze, which indicates that the moon's surface has been scorched by an unknown source of intense heat. As one scientist put it, the moon is "paved with glass." The experts' analysis shows this did not result from massive meteor impacts. One explanation forwarded was that an intense solar flare, of awesome proportions, scorched the moon some 30,000 years or so ago. Scientists have remarked that the glassy glaze is not unlike that created by atomic weapons (the high radiation of the moon should also be considered in light of this theory).

10. The Puzzle of the Moon's Strange Magnetism: Early lunar tests and studies indicated that the moon had little or no magnetic field. Then lunar rocks proved upon analysis to be strongly magnetized. This was shocking to scientists who had always assumed that the rocks had "some very strange magnetic properties...which were not expected." NASA can not explain where this magnetic field came from.

11. The Puzzle of the Mysterious "Mascons" Inside the Moon: In 1968, tracking data of the lunar orbiters first indicated that massive concentrations (mascons) existed under the surface of the circular maria. NASA even reported that the gravitational pull caused by them was so pronounced that the spacecraft passing overhead dipped slightly and accelerated when fitting by the circular lunar plains, thus revealing the existence of these hidden structures, whatever they were. Scientists have calculated that they are enormous concentrations of dense, heavy matter centered like a bull's-eye under the circular maria. As one scientist put it, "No one seems to know quite what to do with them".

============================================================================= ARTICLE #2

(Reprint of Nikola Tesla's last public work, written shortly before his death.)

TYPED BY: [MEtONeR]/TRSI

A Machine to End War

By Nikola Tesla As Told To George Sylvester Viereck

Editor's note: Nikola Tesla, now in his seventy-eighth year, has been called the father of radio, television, power transmission, the induction motor, and the robot, and the discovery of the cosmic ray. Recently he has announced a heretofore unknown source of energy present everywhere in unlimited amounts, and he is now working upon a device which he believes will make war impracticable.

Tesla and Edison have often been represented as rivals. They were rivals, to a certain extent, in the battle between the alternating and direct current in which Tesla championed the former. He won; the great power plants at Niagara Falls and elsewhere are founded on the Tesla system. Otherwise the two men were merely opposites. Edison had a genius for practical inventions immediately applicable. Tesla, whose inventions were far ahead of the time, aroused antagonisms which del- ayed the fruition of his ideas for years.

However, great physicists like Kelvin and Crookes spoke of his inventions as marvelous. "Tesla," said professor A.E. Kennely of Harvard University when the Edison medal was presented to the inventor, "set the wheels going round all over the world...What he showed was a revelation to science and art unto all time.."

"Were we," remarks B.A. Behrend, distinguished author and eng- ineer, "to seize and to eliminate the results of Mr. Tesla's work, the wheels of industry would cease to turn, our electric cars and trains would stop, our towns would be dark, our mills would be dead and idle."

Forecasting is perilous. No man can look very far into the future. Progress and invention evolve in directions other than those anticipated. Such has been my experience, although I may flatter myself that many of the developments which I forecast has been verified by events in the first third of the twentieth century.

It seems that I have always been ahead of my time. I had to wait nineteen years before Niagra was harnessed by my system, fifteen years before the basic inventions for wireless which I gave to the world in 1893 were applied universally. I announced the cosmic ray and my theory of radioactivity in 1896. One of my most important discoveries - terrestrial resonance - which is the foundation of wireless power tran- smission and which I announced in 1899, is not understood even today. Nearly two years after I had flashed an electric current around the globe, Edison, Steinmetz, Marconi, and others declared it would not be impossible to transmit even signals across the Atlantic. Having anticipated so many important developments, it is not without assurance that I attempt to predict what life is likely to be in the twenty-first century.

Life is and will ever remain an equation incapable of solution, but it contains certain known factors. We may definitely say that it is a movement even if we do not fully understand its nature. Movement implies a body which is being moved and a force which propels it against resistance. Man, in large, is a mass urged on by a force. Hence the general laws governing movement in the realm of mechanics are applicable to humanity.

There are three ways by which the energy which determines human progress can be increased: First, we may increase the mass. This, in the case of humanity, would mean the improvement of living conditions, health, eugenic, etc. Second, we may reduce the frictional forces which impede progress, such as ignorance, insanity, and religious fanaticism. Third, we may multiply the energy of the human mass by enchaining the forces of the universe, like those of the sun, the ocean, the winds and tides.

The first method increases food and well-being. The second tends to bring peace. The third enhances our ability to work and to achieve. There can be no progress that is not constantly directed toward increa- sing well-being, peace, and achievement. Here the mechanistic conception of life is one with the teaching of Buddha and the Sermon on the Mount.

While I am not a believer in the orthodox sense, I commend religion, first, because every individual should have some ideal -religious, artistic, scientific, or humanitarian -to give significance to his life. Second, because all the great religions contain wise prescriptions relating to the conduct of life, which hold good now as they did when they were promulgated.

There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because sci- ence is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and will never end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not direct- ly or indirectly a response to stimuli, and from the concordance of our reactions, understand is born. In the course of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what we call "soul" or "spirit", is nothing more than the sum of the functioning of the body. When this functioning ceases, the "soul" or the "spirit" ceases likewise.

I expressed these ideas long before behaviorists, led by Pavlov in Russia and by Watson in the United States, proclaimed their new psychol- ogy. This apparently mechanistic conception is not antagonistic to an ethical conception of life. The acceptance by mankind at large of these tenets will not destroy religious ideas. Today Buddhism and Christianity are the greatest religions both in number of desciples and in importance. I believe that the essence of both will be the religion of the human race in the twenty-first century.

The year 2100 will see eugenics as firmly established. In past ages, the law governing the survival of the fittest roughly weeded out the less desirable strains. Then man's new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of nature. As a result, we continue to keep alive and to breed the unfit. The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct. Sever- al European countries and a number of states of the American Union steri- lize the criminal and insane. This is not sufficient. The trend among eugenists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person who is eugenically until than to marry a habitual criminal.

Hygiene, physical culture will be recognized branches of education and government. The Secretary of Hygiene of Physical Culture will be far more important in the cabinet of the President of the United States who holds office in the year 2035 than the Secretary of War. The pollution of our beaches as exists today around New York City will seem as unthinkable to our children and grandchildren as life without plumbing seems to us. Our water supply will be more carefully supervised, and only a lunatic will drink unsterilized water. More die or grow sick from polluted water than from coffee, tea, tobacco, and other stimulants. I myself eschew all stimulants. I also practically abstain from meat. I am convinced that within a century coffee, tea, and tobacco will no longer in vogue. Alcohol, however, will still be used. It is not a stimulant but a veritable elixir of life. The abolition of stimulants will not come about forcibly. It will simply no longer be fashionable to poison the system with harmful ingredients. Benarr Macfadden has shown how it is possible to provide palatable food based upon natural products such as milk, honey, and wheat. I believe that the food which is served today in his penny restaurants will be the basis of epicurean meals in the smartest banquet halls of the twenty- first century. There will be enough wheat and wheat products to feed the entire world, including the teem millions of China and India, now chronically on the verge of starvation. The earth is bountiful, and where her bounty fails, nitrogen drawn from the air will refertilize her womb. I developed a process for this purpose in 1900. It was perfected fourteen years later under the stress of war by German chemists. Long before the next century dawns, systematic reforestation and the scientific management of natural resources will have made an end of all devastating droughts, forest fires, and floods. The universal utilization of water power and its long-distance transmission will supply every household with cheap power and will dispense with the necessity or burning fuel. The struggle for existence being lessened, there should be development along ideal rather than material lines.

Today the most civilized countries spend a maximum of their income on war and a minimum on education. The twenty-first century will revise this order. It will be more glorious to fight against ignorance than to die on the field of battle. The discovery of a new scientific truth will be more important than the squabbles of diplomats. Even the newspapers of our own day are beginning to treat scientific discoveries and the creation of fresh philosophical concepts as news. The newspapers of the twenty-first century will give a mere "stick" in the back pages to accounts of crime or political controversies, but will headline of the front pages the proclamation of a new scientific hypothesis.

Progress along such lines will be impossible while nations persist in the savage practice of killing each other off. I inherited from my father, an erudite man who labored hard for peace, an ineradicable hatred of war. Like other inventors, I believed at one time that war could be stopped by making it more destructive. But I found that I was mistaken. I underestimated man's combative instinct, which it will take more than a century to breed out. We cannot abolish war by outlawing it. We cannot end it by disarming the strong. War can be stopped, not by making the strong weak but by making every nation weak or strong, able to defend itself. Hitherto all devices that could be used for defense could also be utilized to serve for aggression. This nullified the value of the improvement for purposes of peace. But I was fortunate enough to evolve a new idea and to perfect means which can be used chiefly for defense. If it is adopted, it will revolutionize the relations between nations. It will make any country, large or small, impregnable against armies, airplanes, and other means for attack. My invention requires a large plant, but once it is established it will be possible to destroy anything, men or machines, approaching within a radius of 200 miles. It will, so to speak, provide a wall of power offering an insuperable obstacle against any effective aggression. If no country can be attacked successfully, there can be no purpose in war. My discovery ends the menace of airplanes or submarines, but it ensures the supremacy of the battleship, because battleships may be provided with some of the required equipment. There might still be war at sea, but no warship could successfully attack the shore line, as the coast equipment will be superior to the armament of any battleship. I want to state explicitly that this invention of mine does not contemplate the use of any so-called "death rays." Rays are not applicable because they cannot be produced in requisite quantities and diminish rapidly in intensity with distance. All the energy of New York City (approximately two million horsepower) transformed into rays and projected twenty miles, could not kill a human being, because, according to a well-known law of physics, it would disperse to such an extent as to be ineffectual.

My apparatus projects particles which may be relatively large or of microscopic dimensions, enabling us to convey to a small area at great distance trillions of times more energy than is possible with rays of any kind. Many thousands of horsepower can thus be transmitted by a stream thinner than a hair, so that nothing can resist. This wonderful feature will make it possible, among other things, to achieve undreamed-of results in television, for there will be almost no limit to the intensity of illumination, the size of the picture, or distance of projection. I do not say that there may not be several destructive wars before the world accepts my gift. I may not live to see its acceptance. But I am convinced that a century from now every nation will render itself immune from attack by my device or by a device based upon a similar principle. At present we suffer from the derangement of our civilization because we have not yet completely adjusted ourselves to the machine age. The solution of our problems does not lie in destroying but in mastering the machine.

Innumerable activities still performed by human hands today will be performed by automatons. At this very moment scientists working in the laboratories of American Universities are attempting to create what has been described as a "thinking machine." I anticipated this development.

I actually constructed "robots." Today the robot is an accepted fact, but the principle has not been pushed far enough. In the twenty-first century the robot will take the place which slave labor occupied in ancient civilization. There is no reason at all why most of this should not come to pass in less than a century, freeing mankind to peruse its higher aspirations.

And unless mankind's attention is too violently diverted by external wars and internal revolutions, there is no reason why the elec- tric millennium should not begin in a few decades.

============================================================================= ARTICLE #3

Taken from American Rifleman, October 1993 edition.

TYPED BY: The P/\NTHER TRSI-UMF

WE WARNED YOU THEY WERE COMING AND THEY'RE HERE

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So just repeal it. NRA warned its members. We tried to warn all Americans. We said the stakes couldn't be higher, that innocent lives were on the line. And we said it would be like no other threat.

Today, that threat is crouching at freedom's door, ready to commit the ultimate crime against the Bill of Rights. For the first time, an anti-gun White House is in league with anti-gun politicians in Congress. For the first time, power-hungry federal bureaucrats have ganged up with gun hungry enemies of the fundamental right to protect ourselves and our families. And while these enemies of the Constitution stalk our rights and threaten our values like never before, the media elite cover their tracks. Blinded by bias and feeding on its hatred for you and other law-abiding gun owners, the national press cheers on the gun ban movement, reserving greatest praise for the greatest attack on your rights.

Never before has such raw political muscle been brought to bear in the biggest power grab in Second Amendment history. And lost in the struggle are not just patriots who salute the Second Amendment as a pillar of our democracy, but crime victims-some 1.2 million annually who thwart criminal attack with privately owned firearms. To these Americans, the Second Amendment is the right to say "No" to a criminal predator and make it stick.

It's time for America to face the facts: the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms always had a plan to infringe on the Second Amendment. Now they've got the power to finish it off.

UNDER CLINTON: NO DEFENSE AGAINST "THE MAN IN THE SHADOWS"

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles...that we are unable to think about reality." When he said this on March 11, 1993 (USA Today), President Bill Clinton was unable to think about the reality of criminal attack. Sonya Dowdy was and remembering her attack two years before, remains fixated on her right to defend herself: "I was living alone. My father bought me a handgun that day and gave it to me that night. Fifteen minutes later, I was picking up my mail, and there was a man standing in the shadows."-Sonya Dowdy

Bill Clinton could not have been clearer in his State of the Union address: "Send me [the Brady bill], and I'll sure sign it." And Sarah Brady could not have been clearer in her statement to the New York Times (8-15-93): "Without the first step of the Brady bill, we're never going to get anywhere...Once we get this [the Brady bill], I think it will become easier to get the laws we need passed."

And Brady was clear on the laws she thinks you need: "[M]ore thorough background checks," the Times disclosed, "including fingerprinting of purchasers, require safety training for gun buyers and a system of 'needs-based licensing' with different requirements for hunters, target shooters and security guards." Crime victims need not apply for their rights. They don't even make her list. But to these crimes against the Bill of Rights, victims themselves can not be clearer: a president who asks them to wait is a president who asks them to die: "I pulled my gun, and he ran away. If I had to wait," Sonya Dowdy said, "I would be dead now."

UNDER CLINTON: CRIMINAL OFFENDERS "GET TREATMENT'" 3.2 CITIZENS "GET LOST"

When crime threatens every American family, Americans demand that the nation's chief law enforcement officer be a fighter whose aim on criminals never falters and faith with crime victims is never broken. "I later learned he had committed a crime in Texas for which he got a 10-year sentence: he served three months. He just raped a 12 year old. And he had wedged himself between me and my car." -Sonya Dowdy

Under Clinton, they get an Attorney General who told prosecutors that the Second Amendment's days are numbered: "We can do something about guns, if only this nation would rise up and tell the NRA to get lost!" In fact, we can do something about violent crime, if only this nation would rise up and tell the chief law enforcement officer of the United States to take her hatred of 3.2 million law-abiding citizens and channel it against the violent criminals-and reserve treatment programs for crime victims.

UNDER CLINTON: AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO SMIRKS AT SELF-DEFENSE

The day Clinton and Reno introduced their crime bill, NRA send CBS's "This Morning" press clips of women who've defended themselves with handguns purchased hours before they were attacked: Sonya Dowdy of North Carolina defended herself with a gun received 15 minutes before an attack. Rayna Ross of Virginia thwarted a knife attack with a gun purchased the day before. The family of Virgen Blanca of Texas thwarted a repeat-intruder with a gun purchased the day before.

But when CBS's Paula Zahn raised the issue of self-defense, the nation's cheif law enforcement officer had one response: a smirk. "This bill is designed to get deadly assault weapons out of the hands of civilians." she added.

UNDER CLINTON: A FEDERAL POLITICAL POLICE FORCE

This summer, secret documents inadvertently released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed that, under Clinton, the agency was given the greed light to lobby for passages of the "Brady bill." And even for the FBI, Brady was just a start. FBI documents revealed a larger campaign: semiautomatic firearms bans, restrictive licensing, a ban on ammunition commonly used in hunting and personal protection, gun owner registration, and federal qualifications for gun purchasers with buy-back programs for the disqualified. The plan to convert FBI to a federal police force was made complete by a "publicity" campaign-a proposed taxpayer-funded lobbying effort expressly forbidden by federal law.

In firing FBI Director William Sessions soon after the documents were made public, Bill Clinton faced a unique political opportunity. He could assure the American people of the FBI's independence from politics and salvage the morale of agents increasingly troubled over FBI politicization in Clinton's own "TravelGate" fiasco-all with just four words to his nominee: "Stay out of politics." He didn't, or nominee Judge Louis Freeh didn't listen. In responding to questions on the Brady bill before the U.S. Senate July 30th, Freeh said only that such initiatives should not be made public: "I would not disagree or attempt to set aside a recommendation which my predecessor has already made-although not publicly, his recommendation was made in confidence to the Attorney General. I would not set that aside or disagree with it." On the Brady bill, the "first step" to more restrictions: "I would enthusiastically and vigorously support its enforcement." And on banning guns, he said, "The strongest piece of gun legislation [which Congress passes] I would enforce diligently, completely and exhaustively. With that law on the books...there would be no respite with respect to its enforcement." "Everybody has a right to be protected. And they deserve a chance to have a gun. It's in the Bill of Rights." -Sonya Dowdy

UNDER CLINTON: A MASS MURDER COVER-UP

On July 23, 1993, U.S. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) wrote to Lloyd Bentsen and Janet Reno, concerned about the investigation into the deadly assault on the Idaho home of Randy Weaver and the deaths of some 80 people at the compound in Waco, Texas. Craig wrote: "My own review has led me to draw some preliminary conclusions hinting at problems larger than the Weaver/Harris matter-pre-existing problems that were manifested in Idaho and potentially in Waco, but are not limited to either case." "Do you think there'd be any convincing the politicians?"-Sonya Dowdy Craig closed by saying he looked forward to the results of the investigation. The Senator may have quite a wait. The Clinton administration is covering up the Waco debacle. His Treasury Department is attempting to hide the work of the "Waco Administrative Review Group" under the guise of a separate "system of records" exempted from public disclosure.

Arguing that releasing the records would "allow individuals to learn whether they have been identified as suspects," Clinton's cronies forgot that most of the suspects are dead. Killed. Mention of any others in official records can be bloated out to safeguard legitimate law enforcement interests while the larger record is released in the public interest. Clinton's unelected bureaucrats have given Americans only 30 days to object to the secrecy. At press time, the Clinton cover-up is nearly a done deal.

UNDER CLINTON: A CONGRESS HUNGRY FOR YOUR GUNS

Politicians like Howard Metzenbaum and Charles Schumer have aimed for your guns before. Now they've got a plan with presidential power. Senator Metzenbaum's S.653 makes it a crime to "transfer or possess" certain semiautomatic firearms, including some .22 rimfire self-loading rifles. The bill also gives the Treasury Department the power to ban any other semiautomatic firearm at the discretion of a political appointee elected by no one. Senator Dennis DeConcini bans specific domestic and imported self-loading firearms in S.639/H.R.1472. Senator Metzenbaum wants much more: "Until we ban all of them, we might as well ban none..." Metzenbaum said during an August 3rd hearing.

Politicians not only have the power to grab the guns millions of Americans own, but the ammunition used for self-defense. Senator Daniel Moynihan's S.178 (called cosmetically the "Violent Crime Prevention Act") prohibits the manufacture, transfer or importation of 9mm,.32 and .25 caliber ammunition. His S.179 slaps a 1000 percent federal tax on 9mm, .32 and .25 caliber ammunition. If you're wealthy, you have rights. If you're poor, you're dead. And Congressman Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), in H.R.544, wants to make it a federal crime for any individual to purchase more than one handgun within a 30 day period. To Torricelli, firearms ownership is a privilege to be rationed, not a constitutional right to be safeguarded. Like other gun rationing advocates, he's ignorant of the facts. Since enactment of a similar law in South Carolina, violent crime has risen steadily.

They have a plan-and the power-to grab your guns, your ammo and your land. In a move to stop hunting and hunter access in an area the size of Delaware, Connecticut and Rhode Island combined, the misnamed "California Desert Protection Act." turns back the clock on scientific wildlife management and reverses progress made in restoring game and non-game species in the California desert. And it's a dangerous precedent: what they can do in the desert, they can do in the hills and mountains of anywhere in the U.S.A.

UNDER CLINTON: CITIZENS WHO'VE HAD ENOUGH

Never before have Americans faced a U.S. President so bent on restricting the Second Amendment of the Constitution at the expense of crime victims.

Never before has the director of the nation's premier law enforcement agency openly expressed support for the strongest infringements on Second Amendment rights.

And never before has the Congress so blatantly and adamantly called for laws clearly written to shred the Bill of Rights, roll back America's cultural tradition of hunting and our precious natural resources. For the Bill of Rights, American history is beginning a new chapter. Only the individual members of the National Rifle Association of America will decide whether it's the Second Amendment's last chapter or a lasting record of its continuing struggle.

With your commitment. Our children will read in the history of this crucial era the first account of renewed liberty. They will learn of our concerted drive against violent crime that carried us safely into the next century. And they will discover that the ultimate crime against the Bill of Rights was prevented, because American patriots cared enough to fight for what's right.

FIGHTING CRIME - THE NRA WAY.

Each year, 60,000 predators are convicted of crime and never go to prison. That includes 1,200 murderers, 7,000 rapists and 36,000 convicted of aggravated assault. And each year their numbers grow by 60,000 more.

In the face of a tidal wave of violence, our nation is repeating its worst domestic policy failure of the 1960s and 1970s: it is locking up proportionately fewer offenders. At a reckless pace, Bill Clinton and like-minded politicians in a growing number of states are abandoning the proven policy of incapacitation and embracing the failed policy of rehabilitation. More "earned time" credit. More unchecked plea bargaining. More automatic paroles. More "alternatives to incarceration."

More crime. Fewer rights for crime victims. Politicians like Bill Clinton are not surrendering our streets to the criminals. They're giving them away. The father of basketball superstar Michael Jordan may have been the victim of this catch-and-release criminal justice travesty. One suspect in the case served less than two years0for assault with a deadly weapon-an ax-with intent to kill, plus armed robbery. The other suspect was months on bond awaiting trial on charges that he nearly crushed a woman's skull with a cinder block.

President Bill Clinton's answer to this merciless revolving-door system? Spin the door faster. Clinton has cut a half a billion dollars from federal prison construction. In its place, he wants 50,000 new police-a down-payment on his campaign pledge of 100,000 officers.

Surely, there are jurisdictions that are under-patrolled and precincts under-staffed. Americans, both citizens and police, don't want 50,000 new police as much as they need 10,000 new prosecutors and judges. Without any of Clinton's new recruits, Lumberton, North Carolina, is drowning in criminal cases. The D.A> who's handling the Jordan murder case told the press he has a thousand pending cases. As in most locales, law enforcement there is doing a great job. It's the bottleneck downstream-prosecutors, the courts, prisons-that keeps skull-crushing monsters in business.

So why the Clinton bid for thousands of new police? Politics. According to Clinton domestic policy advisor Bruce Reed: "The best thing politically for Bill Clinton is to have people look out their window, see a cop on the corner and say: 'Bill Clinton put that cop there.'" By focusing on appearances instead of action, Bill Clinton ensures that any thug his new officer arrests will be back on the streets faster than the officer makes it home.

If the community policing strategy is right for your locale, fine. But don't ignore the real answer to runaway violent crime: more prosecutors, courts and prisons.

Through its CrimeStrike Division, NRA has an answer to violent crime-18 essential reforms for an effective criminal justice system. Representing a consensus of some of the best criminal justice minds in the country. CrimeStrike's "Essential Elements" include:

*Mandatory prison sentences for the most serious offenders, including use of a deadly weapon and sex offenses against women and children.

*"Real Offense" Sentencing to ensure offenders are sentenced for their "real offense," not what they were able to plea-bargain.

*Mandatory life without release for a third conviction of violent or serious felony similar to the "3 Strikes You're Out" initiative backed by NRA in Washington state.

*Death penalty for first degree murder with aggravating circumstances.

*Tough, determinate sentences with "truth-in-sentencing," coupled with prison release policies that require every inmate to serve no less than 85% of prison sentence.

*Affordable prisons and jails which do not allow persons in custody to live better than law-abiding persons living at the poverty level.

*Comprehensive, effective juvenile justice reform with early intervention for youth at risk.

*Adequate prison capacity with authority to privatize institutions.

*Protection against civil and criminal liability for a person's exercise of reasonable defensive force, including deadly force in self-defense, defense of a third person or to prevent a serious felony.

CrimeStrike's "Essential Elements" can cut crime and save lives. Write to your elected representatives-both state and federal. Help make these reforms YOUR law.

Do it now, because 60,000 violent criminals convicted this year will see your neighborhood before they ever see prison.

TO RIGHT THE WRONGS, WRITE TO NRA:

For a copy of an NRA Special Report on the anti-incarceration movement-and a complete report of CrimeStrike's "Effective Elements of a State Criminal Justice System," send $10 to:

NRA Institute for Legislative Action Special CrimeStrike Package 1600 Rhode Island Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C., 20036 Your non-tax deductible contribution of $10 or more will help NRA safeguard your Second Amendment rights and fight for meaningful criminal justice reform.

============================================================================= ARTICLE #4

Taken from the Anti-Gravity Handbook

TYPED BY: The P/\NTHER TRSI-UMF

NASA, THE MOON AND ANTI-GRAVITY

According to conventional science, the moon has only one-sixth of the Earth's gravity. Sir Isaac Newton formulated the Law of Universal Gravitation in 1666 which led to this conclusion. The famous law states that the gravitational pull of one body on another body depends on the product of the masses of the two bodies. Therefore, a planet such as the earth will attract another object with this force. The further out in space one goes, the less attraction is exerted on it by the body. That the moon's gravity is one sixth of the earth's has been assumed for centuries, through there is now evidence that this is not the case. William L. Brian II, a Nuclear Engineer from Oregon State University investigated what he calls a "NASA cover-up" in his 1982 book entitled: "MOONGATE: SUPPRESSED FINDINGS OF THE U.S. SPACE PROGRAM (THE NASA-MILITARY COVERUP)." Brian centers his argument for a cover-up on the so-called "neutral point" between the earth and the moon. This neutral point, and all gravitational bodies have them, is the point where a space vehicle enters the predominant attractive zone of the moon's gravity. It is the region in space where the earth's force of attraction equals the moon's force of attraction. Since the moon is smaller and supposedly has a lesser surface gravity, the neutral point should be quite close to the moon. If the moon has one sixth of the earth's gravity, the neutral point is calculated to be about nine-tenths of the distance between the earth and the moon. The average distance to the moon is about 239,000 miles; hence this places the neutral point approximately 23,900 miles from the moon's center. Throughout the fifties and sixties, the neutral point between the earth and the moon was given over and over again as between 22,078 and 25,193 miles from the center of the moon. These figures, merely logical guesses from trained scientists, were based upon Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. However, only be observing falling or orbiting bodies in the moon's vicinity could the actual neutral point distance, hence the moon's true gravity, be determined. Using the above neutral point and assumed gravity for their calculations, the U.S. and the Soviet Union began to send space probes to the moon in the late fifties. They met with a miserable failure. The Russians were the first to launch a successful lunar probe, Luna 1, on January 2, 1959. It flew within 4,660 miles of the moon and broadcast back information before continuing on into deep space. The U.S. made three unsuccessful attempts before achieving a fly-by of 37,000 miles from the surface some months after Luna 1 with their Pioneer 4. The Russian's Luna 2 became the first space probe to hit the moon and Luna 3 Circled the far side of the moon, approached within 4,372 miles, and sent back photos of the far side. Strangely, Russian moon exploration came to a four year stop after these successes. Furthermore, the Russian's were intensely secretive about the data they collected. The American efforts were almost laughable at first. The Ranger Space Probes were designed to hard land on the moon with seismometers in spherical containers designed to withstand the impacts on the moon. Ranger 3, launched on January 26, 1962, missed its target completely and went into a solar orbit. Ranger 4, hit the moon but did not send back any useful information. Ranger 5 missed the moon by 450 miles and then the effort was put off for two years while the entire program was reorganized--something was wrong with their calculations! Ranger 6, launched on January 30, 1964, allegedly had its electrical system burn out in flight and no pictures were sent. Subsequent Ranger probes were more successful. The Russians reactivated their space probes, but their Luna 5; launched on May 9, 1964; crashed at full speed on the moon, when it was intended to make a soft landing. Luna 6 utterly missed the moon, and Luna 7 crashed on the moon's surface when its retro-rockets supposedly fired too soon. Luna 8 also crashed on the moon, but Luna 9 became the first probe to successfully soft land on the moon. Missions became more successful after this, and Brian alleges that this is because the Soviets and Americans had been able to recalculate the neutral point and correct gravity of the moon from the many failures (and the few successes). The strangest thing to come out of the reanalyzing of "observing bodies fall and orbit the moon" was for NASA to come up with a new neutral point between the earth and the moon. And this is the key to "a NASA cover-up", according to Brian. The July 25, 1969 issue of Time magazine stated that the neutral point was 43,495 miles from the center of the moon. Werner von Braun in the 1969 edition of "History of Rocketry & Space Travel", said that the neutral point was 43,495 miles from the center of the moon. Other reliable sources, obtaining their information from NASA, claimed that the neutral point was between 38,000 and 43,495 miles from the center of the moon. The pre-Apollo distances were given as 20,000 to 25,000 miles from the center of the moon. NASA, it appears, had recalculated the neutral point, which would indicate that the moon's gravity is not one sixth, as Newton had stated. We invite readers to research these figures for themselves. According to Brian, if the neutral point of the moon's gravity is 43,495 miles from the moon, then the gravitation of the moon is 64% of the Earth's surface gravity, not one-sixth or 16.7% as predicted by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation! Bizarrely, NASA and the status-quo of science and government continue to allude that the moon's gravity is one-sixth that of the earth's, representative of a neutral point less than 25,193 miles from the moon. Brian goes on to say that if the neutral point were more like 52,000 miles instead of 43,495 miles from the moon, the moon's surface gravity would be identical to the earths! Brian's data dwells heavily on inconsistent and contradictory information released through NASA, indicating an official cover-up. Brian's book goes on to list other evidence that the moon has a higher gravity than previously assumed; in fact, a gravity nearly equal the earth's! He points out the flight times of the Apollo spacecraft are inconsistent and much faster than if the moon had only one-sixth gravity, as the vehicle would continue to decelerate until it reached the neutral point, at which point it would begin to accelerate again as it became pulled by the moon's gravity. Assuming that Brian is right about a higher surface gravity on the moon, then the ramification of the high gravity on the fuel requirements of the lunar descent and ascent vehicle of the manned Apollo program to the moon are horrific! The Apollo launch rocket weighed 6,400,000 pounds. The payloads of the Lunar Module are correct, assuming that the moon had only one-sixth gravity. However, under a high lunar gravity the Lunar module would have had to have been nearly as large as a Titan 2 rocket which weighs 330,000 pounds and was 103 feet tall (the actual Lunar module, according to NASA, weighed 33,200 pounds)! The startling conclusion is that if men really landed on the moon in high lunar gravity conditions, it was not done with rockets! These amazing conclusions, backed up by many scientists and using NASA data itself, raise a number of questions: Why did the Russians apparently pull out of the space race when they were hot on the trail of putting a man on the moon? How did the United States succeed when rockets would clearly not work in the high lunar gravity conditions? What was the military's involvement in top secret research which led to the successful moon landings? Did we even go to the moon as claimed? One publication, also by a former NASA employee, uses the same information from NASA used by Brian to "prove" that we never made the trip! (This book is "We Never Went To The Moon", by Bill Kaysing, 1981, Desert Publications, Cornville, Arizona). Brian goes on to offer more "proof" that the moon's gravity is nearly equal to that of earth's, and that NASA staged the whole show in order to fake a one-sixth gravity, presumably to hide the fact that they had to use the ultra-secret "anti-gravity" device that were what really powered the Lunar Module. Consider these "facts": In one sixth gravity, a 180 pound man would weigh a mere 30 pounds. Writers had programmed the public to expect athletic feats of a spectacular nature when astronauts explored the moon. In the November 1967 issue of Science Digest and article entitled, "How To Walk on the Moon" was printed that predicted that men would be able to make 14-foot slow-motion leaps, perform backflips and other gymnastics like professionals, and be able to easily move up ladders and poles with their arms. An astronaut, even in a cumbersome suit could jump six times higher on the moon than earth. Even though the alleged weight of the spacesuits and backpacks of the astronauts was 185 pounds, the total combined weight of a 185 pound astronaut and his suit would be only 62 pounds. This is still only one third of the astronaut's weight. Therefore, the astronauts should have been able to jump vertically far higher than they could on Earth without any burden. Brian believes that an average man can jump about 18 inches high without a run. Basketball players routinely jump over three feet high. However, though astronauts such as John Young made a number of leaps while on the moon, they never jumped more than about 18 inches in height, while they were theoretically capable of slow backflips! Brian believes that this is explained by the evidence that the moon's gravity is not one sixth, but much heavier, and that the spacesuits did not weight as much as NASA said. Young and other astronauts were, essentially not capable of jumping more than 18 inches off the ground. Evidence that the suits weighed far less and 185 pounds is given that the astronauts practiced in the same suits at an area of Oregon known as the "Bend". What would be the point of doing maneuvers in a 185 pound space suit, when on the moon the astronaut and suit would weigh a mere combined total of 62 pounds? Furthermore, how did they manage to do maneuvers if the suits weighed so much in the first place? Brian estimates from his own research that the spacesuits and backpacks weighed a combined total of about 75 pounds. Brian also discusses the scene in which during Apollo 12 when astronaut Conrad jumped the final three feet from the bottom of the ladder to the moon's surface. He mentioned that the three foot jump may have been a short one for Neil, but for him it was a long one. Later, when he was scooping up a contingency sample of moon material, astronaut Bean warned him not to fall over since he appeared to be leaning forward too far. Supposedly, it would be difficult for him to get up in the moon suit if he fell over. Brian analyses the scene by saying that jumping off a three foot ladder in one sixth gravity would be like jumping from a 6 inch height on the earth. Even with a heavy suit and back on, it would scarcely have been felt the astronaut, and they could have lowered themselves down with their arm strength alone. Furthermore, should Conrad have fallen over, they should have been able to right themselves with a simple arm push. Furthermore, astronaut Charles Duke during Apollo 16 fell a number of times while on the moon. Since objects on the moon would supposedly take two and a half times longer to fall in one-sixth gravity, Duke should have had plenty of time to catch himself. Brian finds it incredible that the astronauts during Apollo 14 failed to climb cone crater as was planned. At one point during the mission, astronaut Sheppard went down on one knee to pick up a rock and required the aid of astronaut Mitchell to stand up! About two-thirds of the way to their destination, their heart rates were up to 120 beats per minute as they moved uphill. After four hours of travel, the two astronauts were still a half hour away, they estimated from their goal, and Sheppard estimated that they could not reach the top of the crater in that time, so they abandoned the mission. This is all the more astonishing in that the crater is little more than a hill, the entire distance to be traveled was estimated as 1.8 miles. If the astronauts were two-thirds of the distance, they should have been able to travel the remaining half a mile in six minutes, assuming that they traveled a speed of five miles an hour on the moon in one-sixth gravity. And yet, they estimated that half an hour would not be enough! Brian comments on a great deal more material which he finds inconsistent in the Apollo missions, including inconsistencies in the Moon Rover, but his final comment is quite revealing. During Apollo 17 astronauts Cernan and Schmitt began their first assignment by deploying and loading the Rover. Cernan apparently became quite excited and his Capsule Communicator, astronaut Parker warned him that his metabolic rate was going up. This meant that he was using more oxygen. Cernan replied that he had never felt calmer in his life and indicated to Parker that they would take it easy. He mentioned to Parker that he thought Cernan was working at one-sixth gravity. Cernan's reply was, "Yes. You know where we are . . . whatever." Brian suggests that the latter remark by Cernan in response to the moon's gravity seems to suggest that he wanted to avoid the discussion. Perhaps Parker was not aware of the high gravity situation and asked an embarrassing question. Brian's book is fascinating, though not without flaw. For instance, he does not seem to understand the difference between the fundamental physical concepts of mass and weight. However, his discussion of the discrepancy of stated values of the neutral point between the earth and the moon appears valid. If Brian is correct, and the moon's gravity is nearly that of the earth's, then we are faced with the question of how and if NASA "really did it." Perhaps NASA just faked it, as suggested in the movie Capricorn One and discussed in the book, We Never Went To The Moon. On the other hand, Brian and others suggest that we did in fact go to the moon, but we defeated the high gravity conditions not with rockets, but with anti-gravity devices. That the Lunar Module was in reality an anti-gravity device has been suggested by several researchers. Brian claims that in high lunar gravity conditions, the LM could not have taken off from the moon, and that it's ascent is not consistent with that of a rocket powered vehicle. he also states that no rocket exhaust can be seen from the lunar module after it's initial explosion. Does the moon have a high surface gravity, greater than one-sixth? Does gravity control really exist? If so, why do we continue to expend billions of dollars on dangerous rockets that can explode on take-off? If NASA has developed anti-gravity devices based on Einstein's unified field, then have we really stopped going to the moon? Perhaps the science-fiction of the Star Wars movies is more of a reality than NASA would have us believe!

============================================================================= ARTICLE #5

OCR'd BY: The P/\NTHER TRSI-UMF

WHY ARE FRENCH HEMOPHILIACS DYING OF AIDS? BECAUSE FRENCH OFFICIALS KNOWINGLY GAVE THEM TAINTED BLOOD.

B L O O D M O N E Y

This is a horror story, and it's far from over. It began in 1985 in France, a country often envied for its system of universal health care and tradition of medical excellence. In one of the most shameful episodes of the AIDS epidemic, physicians and government officials there knowingly allowed at least a thousand people to receive blood or blood products contaminated by the virus that causes the disease. Three hundred of those people-mainly hemophiliacs, many of them children-are already dead. The rest are going to die, barring a miracle.

They are, of course, not the only victims of transfusion- related AIDS. At the epidemic's start in the early 1980s, before a viral cause was found and the blood supply could be protected, many hemophiliacs and people who received transfusions were likewise infected by contaminated blood. The tragedy, born out of ignorance, occurred in nearly every country in the world. But in France what began as ignorance turned into calculated connivance. Using tainted blood stocks became a matter of economic expediency and government-sanctioned policy. The callous handling of the affair is widely believed to have contributed to the rout of the ruling Socialist party in last March's elections. Two years ago, when the scandal broke, Georgina Dufoix, who in l985 oversaw the health system as minister of social affairs, protested her innocence on television. "I feel re- sponsible," she told a flabbergasted audience, "but not guilty" To the disgust of many, when the case first came to trial last summer both she and former health minister Edmond Herve, her subordinate, were conspicuously absent from the dock. Instead the rap was taken by lesser government officials and by Michel Garretta, a physician (now suspended) and former director of the National Center for Blood Transfusions (known as the CNTS in France). "I'm not ashamed," he said in his defense, with a disingenuousness that echoed Dufoix's. "The decisions I made at the time, I would make again, for myself and my own children." Garretta has never stopped claiming that not enough was known about AIDS even in early 1985 to foresee that hemophiliacs and transfusees were running a mortal risk. Nor was he alone, he insisted at his trial, in failing to act when he did know the truth. "Thousands of people were informed," he said, "but they didn't necessarily draw the consequences." Why not? There are answers, but none offers much comfort.

IN 1983 U.S. BLOOD BANKS WARNED THAT THE CAUSE OF AIDS WAS PROBABLY TO BE FOUND IN BLOOD. THE FRENCH RESPONSE WAS "BEATIFIC OPTIMISM."

Hemophilia is a genetic disease that afflicts males almost exclusively. Those affected suffer crises of uncontrolled internal bleeding because they lack proteins, most commonly one called factor VIII, that are needed to clot blood. Until the 1960s such a crisis was usually treated with a hospital transfusion of fresh whole blood or plasma (The fluid part of the blood, which contains the critical proteins). But all that changed with the introduction of cryoprecipitate-the sediment of frozen plasma, which is five times richer than fresh blood in clotting proteins. A method was soon developed to concentrate clotting proteins from the pooled blood of hundreds of donors. Available in easily stored powered form, these concentrates not only let hemophiliacs treat themselves but also enabled them to work and travel with unprecedented freedom. The drawback of the concentrates was that a single donor infected with a blood-borne disease (the most dreaded before the 1980s was hepatitis) could contaminate all the concentrates made from a batch of pooled blood. France's hemophiliacs, however, felt relatively safe from that risk. "In this country" explains Francis Graeve, honorary presi- dent of the Association of French Hemophiliacs, "blood is freely donated." French addicts couldn't sell their disease-ridden blood for the price of a bottle or a fix (whereas in the United States it was technically possible to sell blood until 1981, and paying for plasma remains the norm). In the French view, giving blood was a noble act, and donors were respected as healthy, civic-minded people. Unfortunately many drug addicts in Paris gave blood to get the free sandwiches and coffee handed out at collection posts. The French blood system was a perplexing marriage of genuine idealism and charity, hitched to a quasi-feudal power structure. At the top was the Ministry for Social Affairs, which pays all medical costs in France through the Social Security Administration. Next came the Ministry of Health, which granted the exclusive right to collect and distribute blood to

160 transfusion centers (a network of independent, government- regulated bodies). Seven of these were large regional centers responsible for manufacturing and distributing blood products such as clotting factors, according to prices set by the ministry. The most powerful regional fife (as you might guess from its name) was the National Center for Blood Transfusions in Paris, a gleaming black steel-and-glass bastion in the city's quiet fifteenth arrondissement. Its factory was already satisfy - ing about half the national demand for blood plasma and concentrates and was trying to do better. (In 1982 the Ministry of Health granted the CNTS a monopoly on imported blood products, with instructions to reduce them and bolster national self-sufficiency.) Together with its research advisers, who included top hematologists at Paris 's giant public hospitals, the CNTS was a formidable operation. The CNTS didn't initially think AIDS was its problem. In 1981 , when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced its first cases , most were occurring in homosexual men; the first AIDS diagnosis in an American hemophiliac in January 1982 didn't alter the French perception that this was a gay disease whose prime vector was semen. By March 1983, however, more unsettling news had arrived from the United States. In the journal Transfusion, read by hematologists the world over, American blood banks joined forces to announce "eight confirmed cases of AIDS in hemophiliacs treated with antihemophilic factor" and to warn that the still unknown causal agent was probably to be found in blood. The startling response of the Ministry of Health to this news was "beatific optimism," according to physician-journalist Anne-Marie Casteret, writing in the May 4 edition of the doctors' daily, Le Quotidien du medecin. The ministry was apparently not alone in ignoring the warning. The CNTS's research director, a hematologist named Jean-Pierre Alllain, maintained that "no relation has been demonstrated between a very high number of transfusions and AIDS." Yet in June.

Allain himself published a study of 2,300 French hemophiliacs that suggested otherwise: six of his subjects showed clinical signs of AIDS, such as swollen lymph nodes and striking weight loss.. (There were no tests yet for the still mysterious causative agent. A retrovirus had been isolated from a patient that February by Luc Montagier at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, but whether this virus caused AIDS remained to be confirmed.) What's more, three of the six hemophiliacs showing signs of AIDS in Allain's study had been receiving clotting factor made only from the blood of French donors. It seemed that the French blood supply might not be pristine after all. In July Ler Mode,France's newspaper of record, reported the first case of AIDS in a French hemophiliac. That summer the ministry, chief medical counsel, General Director of Health Jacques Roux, circulated a letter to transfusion centers telling them to be wary off blood donations from people in all the known risk groups, which now included intravenous drug users. But beatific indifference prevailed. A ministry survey conducted shortly afterward revealed that even in Paris-a city with a disproportionate share of AIDS cases-a majority of blood banks didn't think of their donors as presenting any risk. The myth of pure French blood was so pervasive that in January 1984 a program to collect blood in prisons was actually stepped up. (Studies for the following year showed that 25% of France's contaminated units came from prisons.)

By the fall of 1983 Montagnier, at the Pasteur Institute, had developed a prototype test to screen blood for antibodies to the virus he believed was responsible for AIDS. This test involved mixing drops of blood with proteins from the virus that were known to cause an antibody response: a color change indicated that an antibody reaction had taken place and that the blood was probably infected. An initial study of French hemophiliacs using the Pasteur test identified "a strong incidence" of antibodies to the virus in 133 French hemophiliacs. These results were announced-but not published or fleshed out with numbers-by CNTS lab chief Anne-Marie Courouce at an in-house conference on March 13, 1984. The myth of pure French blood was crumbling fast. Yet the CNTS did not reveal these findings to the Ministry of Health. Nor did CNTS share its information with the hemophiliacs' association, whose officers were in the very same building.

This fog of willful optimism was penetrated almost by accident. The events were set in motion not long after U.S. AIDS researcher Robert Gallo stole Luc Montagnier's thunder by announcing in April 1984 that the retrovirus both had been studying, the one we now call the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), was indeed the cause of AIDS. That July an ener- getic French immunologist, Jacques Leibowitch, called Francois Pinon, chief of hematology at the giant Cochin Hospital of] Paris, requesting a favor. A family member was to have surgery at the hospital, and Leibowitch wanted to send Pinon some AIDS-free blood donors that he'd selected himself. Pinon was offended; he protested that his blood supplies were perfectly safe. But he was impressed that Leibowitch had come up with his own way to screen blood for HIV antibodies- neither Montagnier's Pasteur test nor any other was yet on the market. (Leibowitch's method was to add blood samples to lab dishes containing HIV -infected cells; an antibody response in the dish meant that the blood being tested contained antibodies to the virus and, thus, that the donor was already infected.) The two men subsequently decided to run a study on Pinon's stocks . Neither realized how terrifying the results would be .. That same July, at the congress of the International Blood Transfusion Society in Munich, word went out that heating blood products could inactivate tbe AIDS virus. Even though there were no published data yet, no transfusion specialist could afford to ignore the implications. Indeed, Garretta, then assistant director of the CNTS, opened negotiations while still in Munich to license a heat treatment from Immuno, an Austrian firm. But at the time, no deal was closed. Garretta became director of the CNTS the following October He inherited an institution that was deeply dependent on Ministry of Health subsidies to meet its operating losses; in addition, it was far from its goal of making France self-sufficient in blood products. Garretta immediately stepped up factor VIII production without waiting to develop heating techniques, despite a report in the medical journal The Lancet in September that heat treatment killed animal retroviruses. It was a terrible miscalculation. Just how terrible became clear on December 12, when Leibowitch finished screening the Cochin blood stocks. Ten of the 2,000 blood samples provided by Pinon tested positive for HlV antibodies. (To make sure, the results were independently confirmed by a much more laborious test called a Western blot.) Aghast, Pinion did some fast mental arithmetic. Public hospitals in Paris alone used 500,000 units of blood per year, based on an infection rate of five units per thousand (0 . 5 percent) , that translated into 2,500 contamination per year, or roughly seven new infections per day. He issued a written warning to the doctors at Cochin to cut transfusions to a bare minimum and then called the Ministry of Health and the CNTS.

The implications for Garretta were inescapable: each batch of the CNTS's factor VIII was prepared from as many as 5,000 pooled blood donations, so the chances of any batches escaping contamination were almost nil. By upping his production, Garretta had accelerated the epidemic. Pinon had confirmed what at least one of the CNTS 's top officials, the research director Allain, already suspected. For some time Allain had been procuring imported, heated concentrates for a young patient of his, a hemophiliac teenager he'd taken into his own home; he warned the boy to destroy his unheated CNTS stocks because tbe heated concentrates were "purer." But the vague admonition didn't stop the boy from injecting unheated factor VIII one night that December when he felt a Painful bleeding crisis coming on. Allain's wife, also a CNTS employee, exploded when she learned what had happened. "You idiot! " she said to the boy. "How could you do that? " He had previously tested seronegative; he became seropositive. By February 1985 the case for heat-treating blood was closed. In two reports in The Lancet, Montagnier confirmed that heat killed the AIDS virus and that heated concentrates prevented infection. "Virgin" (previously untreated) French hemophiliacs given only heated factor VIII tested negative for HIV "while those treated with unheated factor VIII tested positive . Hurriedly" Garretta signed a deal with Immuno for its heating technology. But it would be months before his factory could be refitted, and only imports of heated factor VIII could avert a tragedy in tbe interim. Still he held back. If the CNTS asked the ministry to cover the cost of the imports, its officials might want to know why it had taken so long to discover the tainted-blood crisis and protect the blood supply. As Allain had warned Garretta in January (in what Allain later claimed was a last-ditch attempt to stop the catastrophe), "Garretta was exposing the CNTS to" discredit and failure, in the achievement of one of its fundamental missions. So Garretta began covering his track? That spring a CNTS official persuaded Pinon to join an anti-AIDS strategy group. It was "a way to not really take into account, our alarm signal," Pinon summed up later, "and it is my impression that it delayed a decision." Pinon and the rest of the group called for the immediate introduction of heat treated products, imported from abroad if necessary. But in May, when the presiding CNTS official submitted the group's report to the Ministry of Health, the document included a phrase that recommended deferring the decision to recall or to leave the unheated products in circulation to a higher government authority.

Not that the ministry would necessarily have heeded Pinon and his colleagues. On March 12, 1985, General Director of Health Roux had received a report from an aide concerning Pinon and Leibowitch's latest finding. The two had located 19 seropositive donors at Cochin and another hospital with blood bank facilities; recipients of factor VIII prepared from their blood had been located, too. All were seropositive. The report concluded: "It is probable that all the blood products prepared from pools of Parisian donors are now contaminated," with the word all underlined for emphasis. Roux couldn't ignore this report. Yet, he says now, he had "no power to implement" health policy. Only Health Minister Herve could ordain the destruction of contaminated stocks and speed up donor testing. (Montagnier's antibody test still wasn't available, but a test made by Abbott, a U.S. company, had been approved for American use on March 2, 1985.) So Roux forwarded this report to Herve's office with a letter appealing for action. Herve denies receiving it. It wasn't until May 9, 1985 five long months after Pinon Called the CNTS with his initial data-that Garretta himself wrote to the Ministry of Social Affairs, saying that cleaning up the blood supply was "an absolute urgency." But the CNTS's boss also said that a "compromise" had to he found "between the imperatives of public health and the economic constraints." By his calculations "from that time on "every three months of delay" in testing donor and using heated factor VIII meant "the deaths of five to ten hemophiliacs and some of their close relations." His guess was based on studies showing that only 10 percent of HIV-positive patients had so far developed AIDS. (The CDC now estimates that thus far 29 percent of infected people have gone on to develop AIDS; of those, some 63 percent have died to date.) But the economic constrains, he groused , were "considerable" : importing heated factor VIII alone would cost 41 millions francs (about $5 million at the time); destroying contaminated stocks and making up the 20 percent production loss due to the heating process would cost millions more. The Ministries of Health and Social Affairs, of course, would have to cover those costs. To minimize them, Garretta recommended that the CNTS continue to provide unheated products to its clients until mid-July. He was proposing that they all accept a few more deaths between May and July for the sake of staying on budget.

On May 10 the officers of the Association of French Hemophiliacs trustingly played into his hands. Garretta had recently promised them that the CNTS would soon be making heated products. However, pleading technical problems, he had not named a date. He omitted one other detail, said the association's honorary president Graeve: "He never told us the stocks of unheated factor VIII were contaminated." So the association asked only that the ministry ban the sale of unheated blood concentrates after October 1, 1985-time enough, they figured, for Garretta to refit his plant. It never occurred to them, said Graeve, that Garretta also "needed to get rid of his stocks."

Meanwhile, on May 9, another link had been forged in the chain of tragedy. That day representatives of the prime minister and the Ministries of Health, External Commerce, Social Affairs, and Finances met to discuss the Pasteu Institute's production arm, Pasteur Diagnostics, which was struggling toward commercializing Montagnier's test. Its American competitor, Abbott, had already requested French government approval for its own test in February. Everyone knew that compulsory testing of blood donors was long overdue. But they figured that if Abbott seized the market for tests in France's transfusion centers, there would be no market for Pasteur's product, in France or elsewhere. (Just as the French felt cheated out of the discovery of HIV, they now felt in danger of being squeezed out of the antibody-test market.) It added up to a choice between buying foreign tests and saving lives, or saving an annual market estimated at 91 million francs ($11 million) for a French company. Once again, economics won. It was decided that "the licensing file for Abbott be held awhile longer," until Pasteur caught up. On May 29, in the CNTS building, Garretta held another meeting with his top officers. The fundamental question facing them, he said, was this: "Should we accept that all our products are contaminated?" Unfortunately, he added, recalling contaminated products would entail "grave consequences." According to the meetings minutes, a CNTS doctor named Jean Yves Muller said: "The important thing is to avoid contaminating the hemophiliacs who aren't yet." But no one suggested how contaminations could be avoided if the deadly concentrates remained on the market. Instead they resolved to wait "for the higher authorities"-meaning the Ministry of Health-"to forbid us to sell these products, with the financial consequences that this represents." In effect, they were asking their superiors to stop them before they killed again.

On June 1, Allain met with the Consulting Commission on Blood Transfusion, a watchdog for the ministry composed of government officials and physicians. One regional center director who was present recalls that the commission decided discreetly-this does not appear in the recommendations signed by the 31 physicians presents-that "just for a few weeks, a transition period, you could inject the unheated product into people who were already seropositive." Of course, he admitted, "we knew we needed heated products for all hemophiliacs." There were medical as well as ethical concerns: Who knew what effect reinfection might have in an HIV-positive patient? (According to CDC researchers, reinfection poses the risk of becoming contaminated with a new strain of the virus that might be resistant to AIDS drugs and could exacerbate the disease.)

There were scattered revolts against Garretta. In mid- June, Roux "slammed the door on a meeting" of Health Minister Herve's cabinet and refused to attend meetings of the Consulting Commission until heated blood products were universally available. In a bureaucratic pique be declared that he "wouldn't defend the ministry's policy anymore." But that left no one to oppose Garretta inside the Ministry of Health. No one upstairs was listening, anyway. On June 27 Jean Ducos, a usually influential director of a transfusion center in Tonlouse, wrote to Dufoix, the minister of social affairs, begging to see her immediately. One month later her secretary replied that "previous engagements" made a meeting impossible. Ducos also wrote Herve at the Health Ministry that it was "impossible . . . in all conscience to continue to pressure hemophiliacs" to accept "noxions" products. Herve never responded. Meanwhile, Garretta began planning how to sell off his contaminated wares. On June 26 he wrote to his aides at the CNTS: "The distribution of nonheated products remains the normal procedure, so long as they are in stock." If prescribing physicians didn't ask for safe goods, they wouldn't get them. Heated concentrates, he added, were "authorized"-not required-only for recipients who tested HIV-negative.

His aides bullied physicians to accept unheated concentrates. "You couldn't just say, 'This patient's seronegative; give us the heated products,'" recalled Thierry Lambert, a Parisian hematologist and researcher. "Each prescription had to be discussed"-and the discussions were "sometimes difficult." To prevent sharing of the precious heated goods, no patient was allowed more than a one-month supply.

The worst of it, the awful catch-22, was that hardly any physicians could prove their patients were seronegative-because there were still no screening tests on the open market. Approval for the Pasteur tests came only at the end of June, when Prime Minister Laurent Fabius (alerted that Casteret and other reporters were readying highly critical stories) announced compulsory testing of donors. Even then the promise rang hollow, since it was not until July 23 that the social security system agreed to reimburse the costs of testing. (Abbott's test was approved in France the following day.) What with delays in distribution and the training of test personnel, by the end of 1985 only 1,670 hemophiliacs-fewer than half the 4,000 in France-had been tested for HIV.

That same July 23 the Ministries of Health and Social Affairs decided that Garretta could continue to sell his unheated stocks as long as anyone would buy them. The only caveat was that after October 1 the social security fund, which ordinarily reimburses prescription costs, wouldn't pay for unheated factor VIII. Apparently the transition period agreed to by the Consulting Commission in June would now extend into the fall.

On September 6 the Association of French Hemophiliacs belatedly saw the light. Agreement with Garretta's plans, their leaders said at a meeting, had not been meant as permission "to off-load cumbersome products onto unsuspecting hemophiliacs." They called for a ban on unheated concentrates and alerted their membership and the media. Garretta subsequently complained that they had ruined his "realistic and responsible" strategy. He'd been forced to import more heated factor VIII than he'd planned, and he was stuck with "large stocks of unused French products." The contaminated ones, that is.

In fact, he had already sold plenty. According to internal CNTS records, 1.6 million units of its unheated factor VIII were off-loaded between July and October of 1985. The biggest sales were just before and after the summer vacation-to hemophiliacs and parents of young hemophiliacs stocking up for trips, or replenishing supplies when they came home. Graeve, of the hemophiliacs' association, was among them. On July 12 he bought some unheated factor VIII for his hemophiliac teenage son. Graeve doesn't know whether the batch he bought was contaminated and, if so, whether it hastened his son's death from AIDS. But this much is certain: Graeve would never have knowingly given his child a substance that might harm him.

Just how many people were condemned to die between December 1984, when the CNTS became aware of the extent of the crisis, and October 1985, when its last contaminated products were sold? Garretta and his aides have always contended that upwards of 90 percent of France's seropositive hemophiliacs were infected before 1985, when contamination, so to speak, became official policy. HOwever, a retrospective study conducted at two Paris hospitals found 60 hemophiliacs for whom "the year of seroconversion is known with precision thanks to a reference serum drawn less than a year before." Seventeen of the 60-28 percent-seroconverted in 1985.

Nor were hemophiliacs the only victims. At an inquiry late last year, the CNTS's Courouce testified that "a simple calculation shows that around 200 people per month were contaminated" by blood from infected donors from April through August 1985, in the months before AIDS tests were easily available. In other words, there were "about 1,000 victims," not counting the victims' subsequently infected spouses, lovers, or newborns.

The French judicial system is commonly viewed as an arm of the state rather than as an independent power. It thus surprised no one in France that when the first suit was filed by hemophiliacs in 1988, the investigating magistrate in charge of the case moved at an excruciatingly cautious pace. It would take four years for the case to come to trial. Meanwhile, among the press, only Casteret took the story seriously. She began to visit former CNTS and ministry officials and to amass a gigantic file of official documents-a feat in a country where freedom of information has never existed. Yet the hardest part, she recalled, was to believe what she was seeing "I'm a doctor," she said, "and I couldn't conceive that a doctor would follow an economic logic instead of a healing logic." She withheld full publication until she had checked her work too much to doubt it. In April 1991 her articles began to appear in the newsweekly L'Evenment du jeudi.

One of her readers was Edmont-Luc Henry, an accountant and hemophiliac who had been contaminated with HIV in 1984 while under treatment by a CNTS physician. Enraged by Casteret's revelations, Henery filed charges against "a person or persons unknown" for "poisoning"-a felony that, in the French penal code, carries a life sentence. Apparently to forestall a felony trial, the state's investigating magistrate abruptly issued misdemeanor indictments against Garretta, Allain, Roux, and Roux's Ministry of Health colleague Robert Netter. In March 1992 they were charged with "deception over the basis quality of a product," under a law that Sabine Paugam, Henry's lawyer, acidly described as designed to punish vendors of spoiled mustard. (The indictment of Roux and Netter was widely considered a maneuver to shield Herve himself.) The four men were first tried last summer by a panel of judges at Paris's Palace of Justice. In October 1992 Garretta was sentenced to four years in jail and a heavy fine. (He lost any hope of clemency when he absconded to Boston before his sentencing to work as a consultant for a biotech firm.) Roux received a suspended sentence, Netter was acquitted, and Allain, sentenced to two years in jail, appealed and was granted a retrial. In an unusual move, perhaps to satisfy public opinion, which considered the sentence too lenient, state prosecutors asked that all four men be retried. The object of the second trial, which began this past May in the Paris Court of Appeals, was to decide whether the original verdict would be upheld, lessened, or stiffened. This was still a criminal trial, conducted by state prosecutors. But in France victims and their lawyers are allowed to put their side of the story to the court. During the appeal, Paugam and other lawyers representing hemophiliacs pressed to move the case to the felony court on the tougher charges of poisoning. If so, additional defendants could be named. The lawyers have also asked that charges of poisoning be filed against Herve, Dufoix, and former prime minister Fabius in the HIgh Court of Justice, the only tribunal in France that can try former ministers for offenses committed while in office.

As he awaited the outcome of this latest trial, Henry summed up the legal and ethical issues at stake with the relentless simplicity of a dying man: "If you're sitting in an office counting boxes of products, you can talk about marketing," he said. "But not if you're treating human beings. If you're a doctor, you don't give people products that can hurt them."

Indeed, Garretta didn't just help destroy hundreds of lives; he deeply damaged the relationship between patient and doctor. "What I most reproach Garretta for," Pinon said recently, "is that he created distrust in the blood system, which is completely built on trust." Garretta's performance in the May court hearings did nothing to restore the French public's faith. Day after day, the haggard former head of the CNTS tearfully recited the same refrain: "It wasn't possible for me to decide alone. No one ever said we should do things differently." He was a scapegoat, he said, for a common failure of foresight and courage.

Should doctors be better than the rest of us? Why blame Allain, for example, for staying on at the CNTS and carrying out Garretta's policy? After all, as he said when interviewed during the trial, "I have four children of my own, and I need to make a living." Behind him was a courtroom packed with anguished parents who used to have children of their own. Their sons are dead now because men like Garretta and Allain-and no doubt many others who will never be publicly named-betrayed them.

============================================================================= ARTICLE #6

Taken from The Anti-Gravity Handbook

TYPED BY: The P/\NTHER TRSI-UMF TALES FROM THE RED PLANET: MARS, UFOs, AND ANTI-GRAVITY

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority as such; for every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority" T. H. Huxley

As if the moon were not the source of enough mysteries and cover-ups by NASA and the scientific community, in their apparent attempt to hide their own "flying saucer" research and other military schemes, the Red Planet, Mars adds its two bits to the whole bizarre scenario.

Mars has featured in mankind's fantasies and mythology for thousands of years. The planet itself is named after the Roman god of war (or vice versa). Jonathan Swift wrote in "Gulliver's Travels" in 1726 that astronomers on "Laputa," the mythical floating land which also means "prostitute" in spanish, had discovered two swiftly moving moons on Mars, and provided information on their distances from Mars and their periods of revolution about Mars. Astonishingly, the moons of Mars had not been "discovered" yet, and would not be, officially for another hundred and fifty years of so, though Kepler had surmised before Swift's time that Mars had two moons. Swift's information on the distances from the planet and the revolution periods of Mars were two moons. most Scientists merely pass it off as a "good guess." This was just the start of the mystery of the moons of Mars, and of Mars itself. Prior to 1877, when the moons were seen for the first time, no one (except possibly Swift) had seen any moons on Mars even through excellent telescopes were at the disposal of astronomers, easily capable of discerning the moons. Mars was a popular planet to view, and literally hundreds of astronomers observed Mars for some time, and even discovered moons on Uranus until one day Asaph Hall found that Mars had two satellites where none had been before.

Not only this, but the two Martian satellites moved at very high speeds and, strangely, traveled in different directions! These and other factors have led some prominent astronomers to actually put forth the supposition that the moons are artificial! The Soviet astronomer I.S. Schklovsky, pointed out that the Martian satellite Phobos exhibits a strange acceleration in its orbit, an irregularity which would be expected if the satellite were in reality a huge metallic sphere that was hollow. The same difference in speed, however, would be impossible for a natural astronomical body. Therefore, says, Dr. Schklovsky, at least one of the moons of Mars is not a natural object, but an artificial satellite placed in orbit around the planet, possibly in 1877, or shortly before that time.

A few years later, astronomers observing Mars began to notice markings on the planet that seemed to be connected in a system that covered the whole planet. These markings were dubbed to be "canals" and were actually thought to be just that by many of the foremost astronomers of the times. The Italian astronomer Schiaparelli was the first to note the canals in the early 1890s, and other astronomers began to notice them as well. The American astronomer Percival Lowell, who built one of the best observatories in the world in Flagstaff, Arizona, became obsessed with the canals, drew detailed maps of them and worried that the Martians were fighting a losing battle to survive on a dying planet.

The "canals" exist, there can be no doubt. Just what they are, is the question. Considering the great variety of canals on the Martian surface, it was thought by some scientists that the Martians were trying to signal us. At one time plans were suggested for planting mid-western crops in patterns by way of acknowledging the communication. Canals were seen to wax and wane by astronomers, and would apparently move at times, confusing everybody.

In the 1910 issue of "Nature," the astronomer James Worthington made the comment, after visiting Lowell at his observatory in Flagstaff (and Lowell was of the outspoken opinion that there was life on Mars and the canals were of an artificial nature), "As to the deductions which Dr. Lowell had drawn from his observations I have nothing to say except that the startlingly artificial and geometrical appearance of the markings did force itself upon me."

Flashes of light were frequently seen on Mars and have been called Transient Martian Phenomena, much like the Transient Lunar Phenomena of the same nature. While some astronomers interpreted it as signals, others thought it to be clouds drifting across the surface. One prominent place where the "projections" (flashes of light) occurred, is the lcarium Mare, and Percival Lowell stated at the American Philosophical Society meeting in December 1901, that more han 400 projections seen in the Mare were clouds reflecting light. Icarium Mare, he said, was undoubtedly a great tract of vegetation and was given to forming clouds.

As time went on, and Percival Lowell died, other scientists were sure to make statements that there was no life on Mars, nor any of the other planets in our solar system. This did not stop the wave of hysteria when Orson Wells broadcast his Halloween hoax of H.G. Wells' "War Of The Worlds," simulating an actual invasion from Mars. After the Viking 1 Orbiter flew by Mars on July 31, 1976 at an altitude of 1,278 miles, taking picture of the Martian surface, some new and interesting information suddenly came up in a photograph released and described by NASA only as "the northern latitudes of Mars." In the photograph since published several times in Omni magazine (April, 1982 and March, 1985), as well as in other journals, a huge rock formation that looks like a face can be seen in the center of the photo. This rock formation has been measured as one mile across. NASA claims that it is an illusion caused by the angel of the sun.

Furthermore, to the left of the photo are two rock formations which appear to be pyramidical in shape. They are clearly throwing out triangular shadows. Parallel lines, looking like perfectly straight runways or roads appear in the upper left hand portion on the photo. According to Jim Safran of Lunar Photos in Van Nuys, California, these markings appear in quite a few of the Viking Mars photos. Oddly, these artificial-looking markings have been cropped out of the photos that appeared in Omni magazine and are not mentioned at all.

Fortunately, two computer scientists who work for Computer Science Technicolor Associates, of Seabrook, Maryland, a company that does contract work for NASA, noticed the photos, and decided to analyze them themselves. The scientists, Vincent DiPietro and Greg Molenaar concluded that the face in the photos, taken of the Elysian Plains, would "appear to have been carved rather than formed by nature," as there is no surrounding sediment that could have resulted from natural erosion, as NASA claimed.

They furthermore concluded that the face was truly symmetrical (they were using computer enhanced photos to make their detailed analysis). It had two halves, each containing an "eye," a "cheek" and an appropriate continuation of the "mouth." They even discovered what resembles an eyeball with a visible pupil in the eye socket. They also discovered that there was a second NASA photograph of the "Face in Space," as it has been dubbed, and that it was just an illusion caused by the angle of the sun on a natural formation.

The whole affair got even sticker when a science writer who was a friend of DiPietro and Molenaar, named Richard Hoagland, got original copies of the photos and then claimed to have found, in the same photo, a "lost civilization on Mars" (Omni, Vol 7 No. 6, March, 1985)! They had turned their attentions to the pyramidical features to the west of the face, and to the grid-like pattern of rectilinear markings like the layout of a city in the shadows of the upper pyramid. He also spotted a series of right angles contributing to an overall impression of a main avenue leading toward the face.

Hoagland discovered that this main "avenue" seems to be aligned in a special way with the face, which itself runs along a northeast-southeast axis with the Martian poles. Back then, a person standing in the center of the "city," gazing east over the face, would be sighting along a solstice alignment; that is, seeing the sun rise directly over the face on the longest day of the Martian year. Hoagland surmised that for 50,000 years, the first summer sun of the year would have risen above the face. Later, as the planet tilted, the alignment of the solstice viewing would have passed right through the top of the pyramid as well.

The honeycomb like tracery that exists in the shadow of the pyramid could be optical "glitches" caused by the photo-enhancing process. Yet, these walls cast shadows, and DiPietro and Molenaar claim they did not get these kinds of glitches with enhancements of aerial photos taken here on Earth. The grid spacing suspiciously resembles that of real city streets, and the layout is aligned toward the winter solstice sunrise. An architect friend of Hoagland's calculated the buildings would have been oriented in a manner that would best use the scant winter warmth of the shortest day of the Martian year. Incredibly, the senior scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and one of the world's leading experts on Martian geology, a man who headed the NASA group in charge of selecting the sites where the Viking landers set down, Harold Masursky, told Omni magazine, "If you're going to say features like that are evidence for a past civilization, that's total nonsense. I'm working on finding landing sites for a possible Mars Rover. And this (the city on Mars) is not one of the areas where I would send what is probably a thirty-billion dollar mission. In fact, if somebody bought us a free one, I'm not sure I'd send it there because there are too many other places that are more interesting." Is Masursky a blind idiot, or is he toeing the party line, so to speak? He is probably not an idiot, and considering the startling finds of NASA on the Moon, and their many secret projects and coverups, it is not surprising that he would make such statements. Either masursky is on the periphery of NASA knowledge, and actually believes that there is nothing worth viewing at this "Martian City" (it would be interesting to hear his comments of UFOs), or he is naturally trying to avert attention from this startling find and cover up what may even be a "live city" as opposed to a "dead" one. Interestingly, a book published in 1978 by Avon books in the United States, and which originally appeared as a BBC special in Britain, called "Alternative 3" (by Leslie Watkins, David Ambrose and Christopher Miles) was reportedly an investigation into the disappearance of scientists in Britain and the United States. According to the book, these scientists were being send to Mars(!) by NASA to work in secret cities there, in an effort to create a habitual climate on Mars (which included melting the polar ice caps and building dome-cities on the planet). The reason, the book stated, was that NASA was doing this because the Earth's atmosphere is becoming super-heated and unbreathable. Life was doomed on earth; therefore, a secret conspiracy, involving most of the world's governments (including the U.S.S.R.) were working to move a certain portion of mankind to Mars.

According to the book, the first manned landing on Mars took place in the early 1960s, and Mars Bases were begun shortly afterwards. Anti-gravity spaceships were used to shuttle scientists and "brainwashed," kidnapped, slave-workers to the bases to work. There was a lunar staging base in a crater on the moon.

While the book made some impact on UFO and conspiracy buffs, and was written in a matter-of-fact style and purported to be an investigative book, it was in fact an April Fool's Day television special done for the BBC that was never aired on April Fool's Day because of a television strike in Britain. When it was finally aired, straight-faced, some months later, most people did not realize that is was an April Fool's joke. It was later published in Britain and the United States in book form as "science fact," also on April Fool's Day. An interesting story, it is however quite unlikely, considering the difficulty that both the Soviets and the Americans had in just landing space probes on the moon in the early sixties, much less Mars. Even if NASA possessed anti-gravity vehicles at that time, it seems unlikely that they would have been flying them to Mars while laughingly flinging Rangers at the Moon. Furthermore, the author, British journalist Leslie Watkins has come right out and said that the whole book was a hoax. Yet still, many UFO buffs believe it as fact.

One does wonder, though, if NASA has visited Mars yet in one of its supposed "Anti-Gravity" craft? It seems unlikely. They are far too busy preparing for nuclear war and setting up presumed bases on the Moon. With all the UFOs out there (especially on the Moon, if reports are to be believed), and their occasional interference in the NASA space program, NASA may consider it too dangerous to take a manned flight to Mars.

One cannot help but think that there was certainly life on Mars in the past, if not now. Are some UFOs from Mars? Perhaps they are little green men, busy mining our Moon without a permit, exploiting Earth's God-given natural resources, much as huge multi-national companies and western powers have been doing to underdeveloped nations here on earth.

Still more disturbing are the many reports of captured alien craft and even aliens, by the U.S. Government. In the book, Clear Intent: The Government Coverup of the UFO Experience, by Lawrence Fawcett and Barry J. Greenwood, they catalog a great deal of evidence for what they term a massive coverup of UFO data and even captured UFOs that have either crash landed or been shot down by the airforce.

They relate one interesting story about a "crashed" UFO in the Pacific that happened in 1973. An unidentified Naval Intelligence officer tells how, while stationed at the Great Lakes Naval Base in Chicago, he was the Officer of the Guard and was asked to take a sealed message to the Commander inside a highly restricted quonset hut at the northwestern end of the base. He had been told that there was highly top secret material inside. Normally the OD would come to the door, but was busy that night so he was allowed inside. This was highly unusual.

"As I went to the doorway, where the OD was, I saw a very highly unusual craft over to my left. The craft was possibly thirty to thirty-five feet long, about twelve to fifteen feet at its thickest part; then it tapered off in the front to a teardrop shape. I only caught it at an angular view. It looked like it did not have any seams to it. It had a bluish tint, but that was only if you looked at it for a few seconds." As the officer turned to leave, he got another look at it, "At this time I had a very good view about halfway from the craft to the tail section. The whole craft tapered back to a very high edge. It looked as if it had a razor sharp edge. The bottom went about three quarters the length of the craft and then angled sharply upward." The craft sat on a frame made out of four by four wooden blocks, with crossbeams under it, so that it was sitting one or two feet off the floor.

Later, the Intelligence Officer was in San Diego talking to some crew members of a destroyer who said that they had tangled with an unidentified craft. The destroyer had show down the craft while heading from San Diego to Hawaii in 1973 with a surface to air missile, but did not destroy it. It sank in about 350 feet of water. The Glomar Explorer was used to extract the craft and it was sent by rail to Chicago. When the crew member drew a picture of the unidentified craft, it matched perfectly the craft that the Intelligence Officer had seen at the Great Lakes Naval Base.

One interesting incident reported in 1981 by many newspapers as well as OMNI and other magazines, was the case of three Texas school teachers who saw a "flying saucer" was an Army helicopter, which landed at the crash site. The ladies, all middle-aged, and respectable, reported their sightings to the police. Then, a few days later, all three of the women los all the hair on their heads! They had apparently gotten a dose of radiation!

This case does not appear to be one of an alien ship, but rather an unsuccessful test of an experimental U.S. military craft. Other tales of crashed UFOs appear in many books; the most famous is probably "the Roswell Incident," detailed by Charles Berlitz in the book, "The Roswell Incident". While many of the stories appear rather fanciful in nature, and most "kidnapping" stories appear to be utter bunk, one can not discount the possibility that the U.S. and other governments have captured a UFO

============================================================================= ARTICLE #7

San Francisco Chronicle Monday, September 16, 1985

TYPED BY: The P/\NTHER TRSI-UMF U.S. Contesting Lawsuit Over UFO Radiation.

Houston

Three people suing the federal government for $20 million say they do not know to this day what it was that hovered far over their heads and zapped them with radiation almost five years ago.

They claim it was an unidentified flying object that was escorted away by military helicopters. They say they suspect it was a secret U.S. military experiment. In any event, they say, the government should have warned residents that a UFO was in their area.

The military says it had nothing to do with the alleged occurrence Dec. 29, 1980, on a rural road northeast of Houston. Even if there were UFOs, a U.S. attorney says, the government has no duty to warn people about them because the government does not know whether they are dangerous.

With such straightforward arguments, the government is urging U.S. District Judge Ross Sterling to throw out a lawsuit filed year by former Dayton, Texas cafe owner Betty Cash, 56, former waitress Vickie Landrum, 61, and Landrum's grandson, Colby Landrum, 11.

The suit claims that about 9 p.m. on Dec. 29, 1980 while headed for their homes in Dayton along a two -lane road about 30 miles northeast of Houston, the three encountered a brightly glowing craft the size of a city water tower. It hovered at treetop level, had red and orange flames flowing from its bottom, and bathed them in intense heat for several minutes before it was escorted away by at least 23 helicopters, they assert.

Their lawsuit, filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, claims that the government failed to warn them of the UFO and "negligently, carelessly and recklessly" allowed it "to fly over a publicly used road and come in contact with the plaintiffs."

As a result, all suffered stomach pains, vomiting, diarrhea, radiation burns, deteriorating eyesight, and the women's hair fell out and grew back with a different texture, the suit claims. It also says that they became highly sensitive to sunlight, suffered blisters and headaches, and that Cash developed breast cancer.

Despite the plaintiffs report that there were no markings on the "large, unconventional aerial object" or on the helicopters, the lawsuit has recently moved from simply suggesting that the government merely knew about the UFO to saying that the government owned the UFO.

The government has offered affidavits from high-ranking officials that it had nothing to do with the UFO. -Dallas Times Herald

============================================================================= ARTICLE #8

TYPED BY: The P/\NTHER TRSI-UMF

The White Sides Defense Committee cordially invites you and all your friends to a free-

WHITE SIDES CAMP-OUT on public land outside the border of the TOP SECRET Groom Lake Air Base Weekend of Oct 15-17, 1993 from Noon, Sat to" whenever" Sun. Come join us... -Show the military that we value this land and will fight their attempts to take it -See,from legal viewpoint, the big military base that the government does not acknowledge. -Visit the newly discovered public vantage point, Freedom Ridge, offering an even better view of the base. -Help mark trails and improve the area for future hikers and campers. -Camp under the stars and enjoy the desert.

This is an informal"bring your own everything" event. There sill be no protests confrontations or storming of the gates. All courtesies and laws will be respected. Come with your backpack and sleeping bag and have a good time. Activities and camping will center on White Sides peak, a 1-12 hour hike from the road

Loosely organized activities will include... -An MPE cookout. Bring your own Meal-Ready-to Eat, either an official military one (available at army-navy stores), or a comparably bland substitute of your own making. -A marshmallow toast on the Mount. Mallows provided, but bring some firewood if you can, as this is scarce in the desert. -A semi-organized hike along border. -Industrious SECRET PROJECTS.Bring work gloves. -Sky watching, base viewing and flying saucer hunting. Bring binoculars or telescope if you have them.

Details: The camp-out will be either pleasantly intimate or the Groom Range "Woodstock" depending on how many people come. We will meet at noon at the White-Side Trail head. If you can't arrive by noon, then come whenever you can. Expect a rigorous high-altitude hike (from 5000 up to 6000 feet) but most people can make it. If they take their time.

Daytime temperatures here are usually very pleasant in the fall, but afternoons can be windy and nights can be cold-often close to freezing. Unless you have a cold weather sleeping bag, consider bringing two summer ones; to use one inside the other.

You sill also need a foam pad to sleep on-The ground is rocky- and a camp shovel can be useful to make a flat place for yourself. Tents are not practical on the Mount, although you could use them back near the trailhead. (Merit badges are awarded only to people who spend the whole night on the mountain) Rain is unlikely, but should it occur call the secretary at the number below for more information, awarded only to people who spend the whole night on the mountain). Rain is unlikely, but should it occur, call the secretary at the number below for more information.

Recommended Items: Backpack, sleeping bat (or two) foam pad, food for 3-4 meals sturdy hiking shoes, flashlight, hat gloves and warm clothing for possible winds and cold nighttime temperature at least 2 qts water per person(and more carried in the car). Optional Items:Firewood, binoculars, telescope, camp shovel.work gloves, MRE,space blankets, kids. We ask that you NOT bring: Beer pr amy other alcohol, drugs or anything illegal, firearms.

Ground rules: (1) Be aware of where the Restricted Area border is and do not and do not cross it. (The border is clearly marked by signs or every dirt road and by orange posts in the desert). (2) Be aware that the military is very sensitive about photography of their secret base. (See signs upon arrival). If you choose to bring a camera or videocamera, keep it out of sight. (3) It is illegal to park or camp within 100 yards of the water trough at the White Sides Trail head. Alternate parking will be provided. (4) Carry in, carry out. (5) Watch for cattle as you drive, range is unfenced. (6) Please respect the rancher's privacy. Do not approach the ranch compound (7) You are responsible for your own safety, the organizers of this camp-out accept no liability for any injury or damages. (8)Please respect the land and mind your manners.

In the event of a Land Seizure: The military wants to take the mountain because it overlooks their secret Groom base, home of the Black Budget aircraft and many still active Cold War weapons programs. Since The move to take White Sides has already been initiated in Washington. It is possible that a new land grab could take place before the date of the camp-out. You can be sure, in that case, that guards will be posted and that the new claims will be clearly marked. If the military does take White Sides, then the camp-out will proceed as scheduled, but with a new agenda and a different set of activities.

Meet at noon Saturday at the closest accessible point to White Sides.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONTACT GLENN CAMPBELL (SECRETARY TO THE WSDC) AT 702 729 2646..

BACK TO INDEX