It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House bill 15090 showing that the US Government asked for the aids virus to be made!

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Video #1
Between the odd cuts, loops, and out of sync audio it's kind of hard to call this video uncensored. It reminds me of a typical Daily Show "interview". "Laughter not added", they have to make this clear. Strange that the video pauses while the laughter continues. Apparently this conversation concerns the alleged introduction of HIV from simian sources for oral polio vaccine. This theory had proponents and opponents but the genetic tracing of HIV shows that it made the "jump" from simians to humans long before the creation of the live polio vaccine and has nothing to do with the alleged intentional creation of the retrovirus.

Video #2
Is beneath discussion, claiming that HIV was spefically created to attack gays and blacks. Its distortions and reliance on fear and ignorance to make its "point" are also demonstrated false by the genetic tracing of HIV.


[edit on 1/16/2009 by Phage]




posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muundoggie
I can only add one thing to this discussion.
In the early '70s I lived in Oakland Ca and made numerous trips to Berkeley CA on the U.C. campus. On one of these trips I came across a flyer that was for a lecture/talk by a professor/scientist which stated he helped develop the AIDS "bug." I'm using the word bug for lack of a better one. I believe I still have this flyer somewhere in my crap in a storage locker. Wish I could remember his name as this was a serious lecture that was being given at that time.


Interesting. But since AIDS was not even defined as a particular syndrome until 1981 and the retrovirus responsible for it was not determined until 1982 it calls your interpretation of what the lecture was about into question.
www.sciencemag.org...

[edit on 1/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by freeduhm
 


That is it -

The great deceiver of the Apocolypse - Lucifer - Satan has been revealed

It is the Government - not the Government we "USED" to know

No

It is this New World Government - The U.N. - Trilateral Commission - U.K Government and the "hijacked" U.S. Government in combination with the bankers and the financers of war and debt!

The Liar - The Deceiver - The Beast

It is the Government in whole that are preparing to destroy us all!

Open the pit - cast thee out!



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Warning: Personal Opinion Ahead.

Edit: It only took me a few mins to answer my own question.
sorry

[edit on 16-1-2009 by Boogley]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
This is very typical of conspiracy theorists scouring through old records to find something they can point to that gives the impression there is an AIDS virus the US developed ot exterminate people in large numbers.

As already pointed out, there is no such thing as an AIDS virus per se, and the condition has existed for decades, maybe always, but was only recognized as such fairly recently.

A survey was done a few years ago showing a significant proportion of American blacks believe AIDS was created in US labs.

This is one of the more disgusting areas of conspiracy theories that intorduces totally baseless information into the system alarming people unnecessarily with malign intentions.


Mike F


Yet if you look at what they were willing to do with the Syphilis experiment this is not that far a strech. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.

They purposly gave Syphillis to dozens of black men, then refused to cure them, let them infect their wives, girlfriends and others, the experiment went all the way up to the top. Many knew about it, and for 50 years most did nothing. So this is not that far off to believe that the HIV virus was created in the lab. Look at how this virus acts, very different than others in many regards.

It's even possible they used some of the knowledge from the dead men to create a virus that was more lethal to some people more than others.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yes it obviously existed in the past and in other forms, genetic reshuffling is the key term, it wasn't created from scratch.

So you are claiming the video is fake? It's cheaply done many youtube clips have the audio out of sync problems, however it is an exert from another unrelated production.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

Rather than fake, I'd be more inclined to think the video contains some creative editing. Even if it does not there is nothing in it which alludes to the intentional creation of HIV. The topic of the video is the accidental introduction of HIV via live polio vaccine, a theory not well supported.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
From what I understand, the HIV viral strain has been around for eons and is common among apes and certain types of monkeys though often remain dormant in the being until the immune system is compromised due to an illness. It doesn't become AIDS or active until the immune system is compromised in one way or another. Stress alone, or psychosomatic stress disorder, as some call it, can cause HIV to spread to AIDS.

It is believed in some circles that the 'strain' of HIV had been genetically altered/manipulated in a lab to make a human more prone to the disease. This would be found to be the experiment of a rogue consortium of scientists working in collusion with a rogue agenda, not attributable to one govt or the other. There are many other viral strains created/manipulated in rogue labs around the world of which were created for antibody purposes or for purposes of ill will to the fellow man.

Viral strains have been around for eons and are a creation of the Divine for purposes of natural means of population controls. When humanity gets involved with manipulating the 'natural' forces of population control, unnatural effects are bound occur.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by Perseus Apex]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
What is the AIDS virus? I've never heard of it.

I guess like everything else, the government screwed up in the production of the "AIDS" virus, lol.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harassment101

... if you look at what they were willing to do with the Syphilis experiment this is not that far a strech. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.

They purposly gave Syphillis to dozens of black men, then refused to cure them, let them infect their wives, girlfriends and others, the experiment went all the way up to the top. Many knew about it, and for 50 years most did nothing. So this is not that far off to believe that the HIV virus was created in the lab. Look at how this virus acts, very different than others in many regards.

It's even possible they used some of the knowledge from the dead men to create a virus that was more lethal to some people more than others.




Good point. And weren't blankets from British hospital from, (was it Smallpox?) patients traded with the Indians.

Experimental testing on humans is widespread, benign and otherwise.
Look at control studies where one group is given the untested medication and another a placebo.

From what I've hear about bacteriological and viral labs, they have big concerns about containing lethal new strains isolated from their own workers.

I have trouble believing any labs would work out a long term plan to infect the part of the population in such a way as to make them susceptible to HIV. Too may uncontrollable and unpredictable elements. The victims often take decades to die and use up a fortune in medical resources in the process, for one thing.

There are more effective ways to wipe out large segments of the population, if that was the plan.

Maybe getting people all stressed out with fears their own government is trying to kill them is one.


Mike F



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by squiz
 

Rather than fake, I'd be more inclined to think the video contains some creative editing. Even if it does not there is nothing in it which alludes to the intentional creation of HIV. The topic of the video is the accidental introduction of HIV via live polio vaccine, a theory not well supported.


Oh yes creative editing of course
To what end? It's clear that new viruses emerged during the manufacture of vaccines, intentional or not he's admitting importing the African greens into the country. And admitting to viruses showing up in the vaccines.
And of course it's only a coincidence that the outbreak emerged immediately following the HB trials in those same groups. A theory not well supported?
Of course it's not. It's just a coincidence after all.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by squiz]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

Saying it is not well supported was an understatement on my part. The monkeys used to create polio vaccine in the early 80's were infected with SV40. They were not infected with HIV. It has been established by genetic analysis that the strain of HIV which began the pandemic originated long before the monkeys were used (and before the polio vaccines were developed).

HIV-1 sequences were analyzed to estimate the timing of the ancestral sequence of the main group of HIV-1, the strains responsible for the AIDS pandemic. Using parallel supercomputers and assuming a constant rate of evolution, we applied maximum-likelihood phylogenetic methods to unprecedented amounts of data for this calculation. We validated our approach by correctly estimating the timing of two historically documented points. Using a comprehensive full-length envelope sequence alignment, we estimated the date of the last common ancestor of the main group of HIV-1 to be 1931 (1915-41). Analysis of a gag gene alignment, subregions of envelope including additional sequences, and a method that relaxed the assumption of a strict molecular clock also supported these results.

www.sciencemag.org...

But again, the claim of the OP is that HIV was intentionally created. This video is irrelevant to that claim.

[edit on 1/17/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The monkeys used to create polio vaccine in the early 80's were infected with SV40. They were not infected with HIV.

Yes and no, the wild African greens were NOT infected, they were used to replace the infected rhesus monkeys, and there is a definite connection between SV40 and HIV (see below). Nice info from a government computer simulation though.


Regarding the 1931 estimated date of HIV’s origin advanced by Korber et al.7 (i.e., “somewhere between 1910 and 1950”), a critical examination of these authors’ methods reveals problems. Largely speculative due to their use of a confounding-factor-liable computer model, Korber and colleagues noted their limitations. They stated their finding(s) regarding the 1931 genetic projection, that precludes various vaccine-induced pandemic theories, might be wrong if viral recombination(s) had occurred. They most certainly did in the evolutionary process of SIV to HIV according to most scientists.....

.....In summary, the determinations reached by Korber et al.,7 and Ho et al.,9 of possible dates for the origin of HIV-1, 1931 and 1959 respectively, have been adequately clarified elsewhere.10 “The authors themselves acknowledge, the super-computer-based study cannot tell whether this hypothetical 1930 virus was in humans or animals and so do not show when zoonosis occurred."

Myers et al. further qualified: “If PIV [primate immunodeficiency virus] was in humans in the first half of the 20th century, it may be estimated, given the assumptions of the look-back analysis, that the ancestral HIV-1 group M virus arose at 1930 plus or minus 20 years.” Conversely, if PIV was not in humans in the first half of the 20th century, then the Korber et al analysis holds little, if any, value in-so-far-as determining a date or origin of the HIVs and AIDS.


www.originofaids.com...

So I take your answer as "Yes" the outbreak amongst the recipients of the HB vaccine was a coincidence.

And here is another coincidence.

"Within the next 5 to 10 years it would probably be possible to make a new infective micro-organism which could differ in certain important respects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our reletive freedom from infectious disease." Dr D.M. Macarthur, Congressional Subcommitee,1969

Yep, right on time.

And yet another coincidence.

The first viruses and retroviruses used for biological weapons research passed through the NCI. This chapter reviews the massive chemical and biological war research campaign centered in Frederick (Fort Detrick), Maryland, and chronicles the viral research that was ongoing here and in surrounding labs. A premier lab, specifically researching, developing, and testing immune system destroying viruses, was the Cell Tumor Biology Laboratory at the NCI. This was headed by Dr. Robert Gallo--the co-discoverer of the AIDS virus. The chapter ends by asking, "When did Gallo discover HIV? In 1984, as reported, or in 1970?"

www.blackherbals.com...
Robert Gallo worked on immune system destroying viruses before he discovered AIDS.
Viruses that were descriptively and functionally the same as AIDS, and began right after the Bill mentioned in the OP.


But again, the claim of the OP is that HIV was intentionally created. This video is irrelevant to that claim.

Hardly, it is the result of a cloning of animal viruses, inoculated into humans, which thus provoked a new illness. The video suggest exactly that.

Do I know for sure? No of course not, I just see some very disturbing facts meshing with a historical perspective of numerous horrific experiments done on a unsuspecting public. There has never been any government research into the damage done by the polio vaccines.

Anyways I actually do hope your correct in your trust, I'm a little more stubborn simply because a there are a minority of scientists that have a similar view. That should be enough to warrant some concern.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by squiz]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
This thread has renewed my faith in ATS. In the first few posts, skeptical posters blew gaping scientific holes in the claims made by the thread starter, rather than blindly jumping on the latest conspiracy bandwagon. I guess I misjudged this place entirely.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Text

During Vietnam there were a few Special Ops folks talking about the “Black Syphilis” incurable they said. If contracted from hookers in the “nam” you would be shipped out to an island near the Philippines or if you refuse would join the MIA or KIA lists.

One story from a person with the right clearance goes like this: “The CIA think tank suggested contamination of hookers being frequented by Viet Cong brass with an incurable VD.” He went on to say it came from a base of venom from the grey cobra. Evidence from Litton’s work at Fort Detrick indicates the green monkey was also involved:
www.theconspiracy.us...

At the close of US involvement in Vietnam HIV popped up in geographic areas surrounding Angola that were anti-US interests in that country. Did “AIDS” come from Africa or was it tested there? www.gwu.edu...

What I find most concerning is history repeating it’s self with the spread of Marburg virus. This from the same animal, the green monkey and the outbreak comes out of Angola:
www.absoluteastronomy.com...

www.globalsecurity.org...

Can this be a new improved product from the people that brought us HIV?????

Marburg virus has a new improved version:
hem.passagen.se...

For a little more reading:
www.ww4report.com...

I have warned in earlier posts of the blending of Variant-“U” with the bio-fungal agent “Red Rain” to keep it effective for over 30 minutes at temperatures of 1500-F. So it can be used in a payload “chaser” to a nuclear warhead, in effect allowing the spores it to be spread over hundreds of miles beyond the effect of the nuclear weapon.
Text

I believe 70 fuel trucks loaded with the above were driven out of Iraq just prior to the US invasion. Thanks to all the warning by Bush by saber rattling prior to the invasion. Don't worry he's keeping us safe!



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

On one hand you seem to be saying that HIV was an accidental creation related to the Hepatitis B vaccine. But on the other hand you also seem to be backing up the OP's view that it was an intentional result of biological warfare research.

A biopsy from 1960 (used in the more recent study which I referenced earlier in the thread) and the sample from 1959 establish the existence of HIV well prior to the HB trials (and the bill touted in the OP). It also helps to validate and refine the results of the Korber study.


Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) sequences that pre-date the recognition of AIDS are critical to defining the time of origin and the timescale of virus evolution. A viral sequence from 1959 (ZR59) is the oldest known HIV-1 infection. Other historically documented sequences, important calibration points to convert evolutionary distance into time, are lacking, however; ZR59 is the only one sampled before 1976. Here we report the amplification and characterization of viral sequences from a Bouin's-fixed paraffin-embedded lymph node biopsy specimen obtained in 1960 from an adult female in Léopoldville, Belgian Congo (now Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)), and we use them to conduct the first comparative evolutionary genetic study of early pre-AIDS epidemic HIV-1 group M viruses. Phylogenetic analyses position this viral sequence (DRC60) closest to the ancestral node of subtype A (excluding A2). Relaxed molecular clock analyses incorporating DRC60 and ZR59 date the most recent common ancestor of the M group to near the beginning of the twentieth century. The sizeable genetic distance between DRC60 and ZR59 directly demonstrates that diversification of HIV-1 in west-central Africa occurred long before the recognized AIDS pandemic. The recovery of viral gene sequences from decades-old paraffin-embedded tissues opens the door to a detailed palaeovirological investigation of the evolutionary history of HIV-1 that is not accessible by other methods.
Source
Hooper, of course, disputes the phylogenetic dating to 1908 and clings to the theory about CHAT but that is not relevant to the discussion of H.R. 15090. If HIV-1 existed in 1960 how could it be the product of biological warfare research carried out in 1970 and afterward? How could it be a result of the Hepatitis B vaccine in the mid 70's?

This is not a matter of "trust". It is a matter of evidence. There seems to be very good evidence that HIV has been around for at least 100 years. Symptoms do not usually occur until years after infection. This was one of the factors which delayed the recognition of HIV.

"The interpretation that HIV-1 was spreading among humans for 60-80 years before AIDS was first recognized should not be surprising. If the epidemic grew roughly exponentially from only one or a few infected individuals around 1910 to the more than 55 million estimated to have been infected by 2007, there were probably only a few thousand HIV-infected individuals by 1960, all in central Africa. Given the diverse array of symptoms characteristic of AIDS, and the often-long asymptomatic period following infection, it is easy to imagine how the nascent epidemic went unrecognized.
www.natap.org...


From what we know about the transmission of HIV, it is not a coincidence that the gay community on which the HB trials were carried out were among the first cases to be recognized. It seems likely that the timing was a coincidence.

[edit on 1/17/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage

Phage, the genetic analyses you have quoted to support the idea that AIDS has been around for a long time were done on the assumption that AIDS is a naturally occurring illness, resulting from gradual mutations.
Therefore, if AIDS was man-made, the analysis is based on incorrect data and is irrelevant to the argument.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

An interesting detail left out of any discussion about the subject from whom L70 sample (which produced ZR59) was obtained is his age. We do not know whether this person was an adult, child or baby.
If the subject was very young, he may have been a recipient of a vaccine made using chimpanzees, and been infected through this vaccine.
There is also a problem with the relevance of the data, as there is no indication that the subject either caught HIV from another human or ever passed it on.

As an example, we have many cases recorded of avian influenza in humans over the past few years. However the infection is not commonly being passed human to human. If the enhanced and highly infectious H5N1 which has been created in the last 10 years is ever released into the community, no amount of similar genetic instances occurring previously will be relevant.


I continue to believe that the crucial element that allowed the chimp virus, SIVcpz, to transfer to humans and to prosper in its new host was not the preparation or consumption of chimpanzee bushmeat. After all, such activities did not, to anyone's knowledge, result in any outbreaks of AIDS by 1959, despite Professor Sharp's unconvincing claim that thousands of Africans would have had the disease by then. As proposed above, it is entirely possible that one or more chimpanzees infected with a virus close to HIV-1 (such as chimps from south-eastern Cameroon) could have ended up at Lindi. I believe that two or more chimp SIVs were present in the tissue cultures that were used to create CHAT vaccine, and that the vaccine therefore contained both chimp SIVs and various recombinant strains created from them. (Geneticist Mikkel Schierup has pointed out that initial recombination between just two SIVs would have been sufficient to create all the viral subtypes and variants of HIV-1(M) seen today.) I further believe that an OPV administered orally via a high-pressure squirt from a syringe, as CHAT was, would have provided an effective (and completely novel) route of transfer for these viruses from chimpanzee to human.

www.aidsorigins.com...

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Dr. Ho, who helped identify HIV-1 in the L70 sample, was part of a group very eager to find proof that HIV-1 has been around for a long time.
I question the research of anyone who is so determined to prove the correctness of a particular line of thought, rather than simply investigating to find the truth, whatever it happens to be.
It is concern about the biased results this can lead to which has led to scientific journals insisting that the affiliations of researchers be declared.

In research on another 1959 sample, Dr Ho found that the sample had been contaminated with recent HIV-1-containing material.
If this experiment had the extra material added intentionally, we have to wonder to what extent people would go to to find another false positive.


Earliest AIDS Case Is Called Into Doubt

WHAT was believed to be the earliest known case of AIDS, dating to 1959, may not have been AIDS after all, new scientific evidence shows.
The case of David Carr, a 25-year-old man who died in 1959 in Manchester, England, has taken another perplexing twist.

The dating of the Manchester AIDS case had several nonscientific consequences. It appeared to give the lie to a theory being put about by the Soviet K.G.B. that H.I.V. had escaped from an American germ warfare laboratory. Its early date seemed to contradict a theory advanced in Rolling Stone that AIDS originated in the polio vaccines tested in Africa in the late 1950's. And the case could be cited as evidence that AIDS was abroad in the Western world well before the epidemic appeared among gay men in the United States.
. . .
"That is why we went after it so hard," said Dr. David Ho, who decided to analyze the virus sequence in further detail. Dr. Ho heads the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York City and was a member of a panel that refuted the polio vaccine theory in 1992. He wrote to Dr. Corbitt in July 1992 to ask for samples of Mr. Carr's stored tissues, and later he asked Dr. Williams for more.

But to Dr. Ho's amazement, he could isolate H.I.V. from only one sample that the British researchers sent him, and the genetic map made of the virus's fingerprints differed so much from what he expected that he went on to do even more tests.

Most critically, the additional tests showed the tissues sent to Dr. Ho were from at least two people.
. . . . . . . .
"We wanted it to be true," Dr. Ho said, adding that he initially resisted Dr. Myers's skepticism. Valid findings would "mean that the virus had not changed much in 30 years, indicating the virus had been with us for centuries."
. . . . . . . .
Dr. Ho's only isolation of H.I.V. was from a kidney DNA sample that appears to have been contaminated by another clinical specimen. "Whether that is an accident or something else we have no way of saying," Dr. Ho said.


[edit on 17/1/09 by Kailassa]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 

I agree that bias can come into play in research and interpretation of results. However that blade cuts with two edges and Hooper can hardly be considered non-biased. It is plain from his website (a frequently used source) that he is quite biased toward the OPV/HB origins of HIV. Scientists are subject to peer review before they are published. Hooper is not.

Dr. Ho, in spite of his desire to find certain results, was able to avoid the trap and found serious difficulties with the Manchester sample. Independent verification served its purpose, in spite of the fact that it could be considered "biased" attempt at verification.

The validity of the DCR60 sequence has been independently verified at University of Arizona and Northwestern University, Illinois. www.natap.org...

In the 11 years since the publishing of Dr. Ho's 1997 paper, has there been any peer review or study questioning the validity of the L70 sample?


[edit on 1/17/2009 by Phage]

[edit on 1/17/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
On one hand you seem to be saying that HIV was an accidental creation related to the Hepatitis B vaccine. But on the other hand you also seem to be backing up the OP's view that it was an intentional result of biological warfare research.

That part I can not be certain of, it may indeed have been a tragic accident that had to be covered up at all costs. However some statements and this particular bill leave an opening for the other possibility.
I do flip flop on many issues, only because I'm still learning and will gladly accept truth regardless of my previous conceptions.


A biopsy from 1960 (used in the more recent study which I referenced earlier in the thread) and the sample from 1959 establish the existence of HIV well prior to the HB trials (and the bill touted in the OP). It also helps to validate and refine the results of the Korber study.

Yes you are correct in the timing regarding the HB trials, but the timing and location coincides perfectly with the mass polio vaccinations given to millions between 1957 and 1960. Also using monkey kidneys to develop the vaccine. Yes yet another coincidence. I'd say it validates the POV theory.


This is not a matter of "trust". It is a matter of evidence. There seems to be very good evidence that HIV has been around for at least 100 years.

That evidence is highly questionable and your ignoring the rest of the evidence. So unless your a microbiologist with access to the samples and complete assurances that the samples are what they say they are and correctly dated, then it is a matter of trust.

This thread encouraged me do do a little more searching and I'm even more convinced that it was spread through vaccines. Intentional or not I cannot say. The effort to protect the public opinion on the matter of vaccines went into full effect. You can see that effort at the CDC website. It also surrounds the issue of the samples and is indicated in the Hilleman video.

This was one of the better sites I found outlining POV theory, it also offers some of the rebuttals. www.uow.edu.au...

Let's simplify for the sake of Ockham's razor perhaps?

So it was either spread from someone eating or having sex
with an infected monkey.

Or it was spread through the mass inoculation of millions with vaccines made with monkey kidneys infected with SIV, which could not be screened for at the time. Just as Dr Hilleman had discovered in the video I posted. The dates and locations of the outbreaks match up exactly In both the polio and HB vaccinations.
This can easily account for the explosion of AIDS onto the world.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by squiz]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Far be it from me to actually go back to the OP... but you notice what happens when you try to find text of HB or HR 15090?

You get a lot of blogispam. Useless material that becomes a sewing circle of cross-sourcing and wholesale plagerism.

While I lack all my fun toys since it's the weekend... A publication search of the Congressional record for the 90th and 91st congresses shows only one publication with "15090".

I've found the truth!

It's a postal conspiracy!

Tongue-in-cheek aside, that is the only document that I can find at this time.

However I'll dig a little deeper.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join