Saturday, 28 August 1999 0:31 (GMT), (UPI Focus), By HIL ANDERSON

GROUP HAS NEW LOOK AT TWA 800 CRASH

WASHINGTON, Aug. 27 (UPI) - A group of independent investigators says their analysis of recently obtained radar images lends support to the theory that there has been a government cover-up in the probe into the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island, New York.

The Flight 800 Independent Research Organization (FIRO) and the Associated Retired Aviation Professionals said at a news conference today that their analysis of the radar data pokes holes in the federal government's conclusions that the disaster was caused by a fuel tank explosion rather than a missile fired either by a terrorist or, accidentally, by a Navy warship or plane.

In the report issued by FIRO, the FBI, CIA and National Transportation Safety Board were criticized for what the investigators saw as misleading conclusions about the crash that killed 229 passengers and crew.

The presentation, which stretched some three hours, came up with little in the way of a smoking gun that would prove any of the missile theories, and was aimed more at the evidence that was used, and not used, by the official investigators.

The analysis of the air traffic radar images from Islip, N.Y. provided two routes of attack on the fuel tank explosion scenario. It aimed to cast doubts on the accuracy of a CIA computer simulation that showed the doomed plane rapidly gaining altitude immediately after the fatal explosion, a scenario that has been used to explain the fiery streak flying into the sky that some witnesses on Long Island reported seeing. It also indicated a good deal of air and surface activity around a restricted military area, dubbed W-105 by the Navy, which was activated the day of the crash.

Thomas F. Stalcup, a member of the Florida State University physics department and the head of FIRO, said tracking the new radar images shows the Boeing 747 picked up speed in its final moments, meaning the aircraft was descending rather than climbing, which would have caused it to lose speed.

"It is clear to see that the radar data doesn't follow the simulation data," Stalcup said. "The conclusion can be drawn that the plane did not climb."

The radar information also provided a wider view of the area where Flight 800 went down, showing some 30 ships sailing in formation and patterns that could indicate an active naval exercise.

The ship that attracted the most attention was an unidentified blip that crossed the airliner's path at about 30 knots a short time before the crash. The ship, which Stalcup said was larger fairly large, has never been identified and continued sailing toward W-105 as the airliner went down.

What was unusual about the activity around W-105 picked up by radar, Stalcup said, was the seeming lack of reaction by the ships and planes to a fiery explosion that should have been clearly visible to the crews. None of the ships altered their course or seemed to make any effort to head for the scene to offer assistance.

"It would have looked like the sun was setting," Stalcup said. "It would have been a huge ball of fire in front of them."

Before the news conference, Reed Irvine, the head of Accuracy in Media, said any role the Navy might have played in the crash would probably not be revealed by anyone in the Navy because no one would be willing to risk their military career by talking to the media.

Accuracy in Media organized today's news conference.

Implicating the Navy in the downing of an airliner and any supposed cover-up, however, did not seem to sit well with some of the retired officers on hand to represent the Associated Retired Aviation Professionals, including retired Adm. Thomas Moorer, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Moorer said the Navy is not in the habit of firing missiles without knowing where they are going.

"We don't fire a multi-million dollar missile willy-nilly," he said. "You have to have a target."

"I don't think you are going to get to the bottom of this," said Moorer, who said the final word on Flight 800 would have to be determined through Congressional hearings that would have the clout to compel testimony from government officials. "You have a lot of evidence and no final decision."
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

-- Ashton & Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), August 27, 1999

Answers

[ Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only ] per the above.

Wow. Wonder how much longer after T Y2K SHTF the truth will trickle out. One reason this Forum is SO valuable: documentation BEFORE the event! We all are witnesses to the truth that the Fall was knowable before it occurred, and could have been mitigated ...

How long before they acknowledge that "explosion in the sky" before Kennedy's plane plummeted? Same area, too.

Right before Rollover, suppressions are oozing a whiff of their deceit reek.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 27, 1999.

A & L,

I have always thought there was something "strange" about that investigation. Things I heard at the very beginning didn't match up with "conclusions" at the end. Definately something wrong somewhere.........makes one want to go find a hole and hide....hmmmm...didn't someone from Florida just do that recently?:>

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), August 27, 1999.

Yep, Moore Dinty More, that Florida guy in the cave was from NASA -- a couple threads about that, good story. He was arrested for disturbing the peace, sitting in a cave, peacefully waiting for the comet -- ho hum, very disturbing. :-)

Do you think the Navy will be arrested for disturbing the peace of those Flight 800 passengers who died in the missile fireball? Hhhmmm.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 27, 1999.

A & L,

That disaster was the result of a Navy missile accidentally going astray. There will be no congressional investigation. The NTSB and the FBI have produced their own "plausible scenario" which has been accepted by the media and will cause no further embarrassment to the Navy or the multi-billion dollar defense equipment they were testing. If you want to read a good investigative report on this, done within months of the event, and published in book form, it's available. The Downing Of TWA Flight 800, by James Sanders. Amazon.com has it.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

For more detailed information on this subject read: THE DOWNING OF FLIGHT 800. It is an excellent read and very credible. I believe there has been a cover-up and Flight 800 was hit by a missle.

The author of the book recently was tried on Long Island for obtaining restricted evidence and having it tested. He and his wife were both tried. He is an investigator and she was employed by TWA.

-- LongIslander (Long@Island.com), August 27, 1999.

Hey Gordon,

as an ex-commercial airliner Pilot yourself, I'm curious whether the TWA 800 "incident" is ever discussed between the pro's, I know the book mentioned pretty much ties it up for me, but do Pilot's generally have any clue about this?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 28, 1999.

http://www.artbell.com/sound.html

Art has an interview with the NASA guy on this page. If you aren't convinced this guy is off kilter....well I would have to wonder about you for a moment

-- hear it from (his@mouth.com), August 28, 1999.

Another thread here asked something like "Would Government Lie to You about Y2K?"
Naawww; why would they do that? They're our GOVERNMENT, fer chrissakes. Anyone who thinks our Government would lie to us must obviously be paranoid. Riiight!

"Paranoia is no more than a heightened sense of awareness."

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 28, 1999.

I saw part of this on C Span II at around 1:30 A.M. Sat morning. It will probably be repeated over the weekend. Some very credible evidence was supressed or ignored in the initial "investigation". FBI Documents were found in the motel where the FBI Agents stayed showing that the FBI agents were specifically looking for "stinger missile" parts, the missile part was found during the search but tossed overboard since the finder did not realize it was connected to the crash, the evidence indicated that the center fuel tank exploded inward (a blast outside of the fuel tank crushed it inward) kerosene jet fuel does not explote under 14,000 feet and the plane was at 13,800 feet, and the search team was specifically looking for the fuel pump for the middle fuel tank. Can Boeing and Pan Am sue the Government for defamation of character? Was the initial "investigation" subornation of perjury? Was not this coverup in fact an effort to defraud the insurance company? The evidence is clear that the crash was caused by an explosion outside of the fuel tanks.

What is going on? Janet demands an investigation of FBI actions at Waco? Does this have anything to do with the evidence held by the Texas Rangers that the Texas Judge ordered to be released? Incindendary shells were fired at the facility? Why were tanks used against civilians. If FBI Agents went hunting with Korish a week before, they could have served a warrant on him. The Murah bombing was exactly 3 years later. By one person? Will the truth come out about the fact that a load of fertilizer could not do that pattern of damage to the columns in the Murah building. In effect the government was responsible for this one too. These events contributed to Clintons reelection. We have got to ban ammonium nitrate fertilizer and kerosene. They are extremely dangerous. Give me a break. What a government. Cause a crash and a fire that causes 84 deaths and prosecute the victims. Deny Deny. Oops. The evidence is coming out. Gee maybe those shells were used after all but we were shooting at a storage bunker 6 hours earlier. Proof? Spin Spin. Perhaps we need to have the Texas Rangers investigate the FBI actions and coverup. Has anyone been fired yet over these events? Will the truth come out about Y2k before the end of the year? We live in interesting times.

-- Tom (Tom@curious.gom), August 28, 1999.

New TWA 800 Radar Tapes Inexplicably Appear Revealing 'Blip Activity'

Cornell University News Service Contact Blaine P. Friedlander, Jr.

The National Transportation Safety Board has released radar data from the night TWA Flight 800 crashed that reveal radar-blip activity omitted from earlier reports.

New radar data relating to the July 17, 1996, explosion of TWA Flight 800 that went down off the coast of Long Island, N.Y., inexplicably have just become available. The well-publicized previous data focused narrowly on a 20-nautical-mile circle centered on the crash site and was the basis of the FBI's conclusion that there was little air or naval traffic in the selected area at the time of the crash. But that restricted data pattern, it turns out, is only a subset of a larger radar field.

. . . . The new data just obtained by Insight from sources at the National Transportation Safety Board, or NTSB, show that between the perimeters of a 22-nautical-mile circle and a 35-nautical-mile circle, a concentration of a large number of radar blips appears to be moving into a well-known military warning area closed to civilian and commercial traffic.

. . . . The anomaly presented by the additional data is as yet unexplained. The Clinton administration previously has stated that no concentration of military vessels was in the area that night. Indeed, the Department of the Navy specified that the closest naval vessel was the USS Normandy, 185 nautical miles to the south.

. . . . The two radar charts accompanying this story are a representation of official data supplied by the NTSB, one of the federal agencies tasked with investigating the crash of TWA 800. The original data, plotted by the NTSB, is from Exhibit 13A, contained on a CD-ROM which included the entire Aircraft Performance Group Chairman's Factual Report released to the public at December 1997 hearings in Baltimore. But the additional data are found on a floppy disk obtained by Insight from the NTSB -- a disk which has the complete database of Exhibit 13A. Chart B was plotted for Insight by independent radar technical experts.

. . . . Chart A focuses on the area within a circle of 20 nautical miles centered on the crash site. NTSB identified only a Navy P-3 Orion antisubmarine airplane, U.S. Airways Flight 217, TWA Flight 900 and four unidentified tracks moving at 30 knots, 15 knots, 12 knots and 20 knots as the only vehicles and/or objects noted within a 10- nautical-mile radius of the crash site. The NTSB has concluded that the unidentified tracks in Chart A all were consistent with the speed of surface vessels.

. . . . The newly obtained data in Chart B include the same information available in Exhibit 13A, but present additional data showing that the level of surface vessels and aircraft activity increases significantly outside the 20-nautical-mile boundary set by the NTSB review.

. . . . Chart B shows the identical tracks of the aircraft and unidentified surface vessels revealed in Chart A. But Chart B also shows in excess of two dozen surface vessels and aircraft detected by radar just beyond the 20-nautical-mile mark. Of interest to experts who have reviewed the data plot is that most of the surface vessels in Chart B appear to be heading in a parallel movement toward Whiskey 105, or W-105 -- a military warning area highly publicized to mariners and aviators, designed to keep commercial aircraft and surface vessels out of harm's way during military exercises. On the evening of the explosion, W-105 was activated for military exercises along with several other warning areas along the Atlantic Coast.

. . . . Furthermore, Chart B reveals two aircraft just outside the NTSB's 20-nautical-mile boundary, one traveling at 475 knots in an east-southeast direction heading toward W-105 and a second aircraft that, in a span of approximately 30 minutes, appears to fly into and out of W-105 on two separate occasions. When the earlier data were released, both FBI and NTSB investigators said that they were unable to identify all surface vessels and aircraft within the area of the crash.

. . . . Radar technical experts who reviewed the data on Chart B for Insight identify the tracks of approximately 30 surface vessels and at least two aircraft that were outside the narrow perimeter of the previously announced results and have not been made public until now. When questioned about the newly released radar data, Bernard Loeb, director of the Office of Aviation Safety at the NTSB, said, "There are lots and lots of things out there, lots and lots of surface vessels and airplanes. It's New York City." However, when specifically asked whether the NTSB was aware of any apparently synchronized parallel movement of vessels, Loeb replied, "We don't see some large number of vessels running in a parallel track in the same direction."

. . . . The FBI, which took the lead on the criminal investigation of the downing of the Boeing 747 aircraft, was unaware at first that the new radar data from NTSB had come to light. When the differences in scope between the earlier data and the new data were presented to Joe Valiquette, an FBI special agent in the New York City office, he responded, "This is ancient history. There is no one who is willing to make one of our agents available here to talk about the radar data. Everything we have to say about the TWA 800 investigation was said on Nov. 18, 1997" [the day the FBI put its criminal investigation on an inactive pending status]. ____________

The Anatomy of a Mystery By Paul M. Rodriguez

Intimidating the press and carping about bold reporters are old tricks. But rarely do government officials seek out rival news organizations to malign a writer before a story even is written.

Where ruining people is considered sport." So wrote the late Vincent Foster, the deputy White House counsel whose body was found in Fort Marcy Park in Northern Virginia, dead by apparent suicide due to complicated reasons only he knew -- among them, perhaps, the relentless hounding of junkyard dogs in the Washington press corps.

. . . . I know a little now about how he must have felt. Until recently, reporters avoided launching public smear attacks against one of their own. And certainly in my experience as a veteran newsman, journalists would never roll over and allow government bureaucrats to use them to slime their colleagues.

. . . . Yet that precisely is what recently happened to an Insight reporter whom I asked to unravel a new mystery involving the doomed flight of TWA 800. Specifically, the reporter -- Kelly Patricia O'Meara -- was detailed to find out why recently unearthed radar tapes never seen before showed significant numbers of "hits" compared with previously released government radar tapes. And why were so many of the new blips passing beyond the crash site into a military no- fly/no-sail zone?

. . . . Government investigators for the National Transportation Safety Board, or NTSB, the FBI and the military previously had said such data didn't exist or stated bluntly there was no such traffic.

. . . . The blind reporting of potentially new data refuting the government would have been an irresponsible thing for this magazine -- or for any bona fide newsmagazine -- to do. But just as certainly it probably would have fueled cries of cover-up from the so-called black-chopper crowd. One of the favorite theories still buzzing around Internet groups and skeptics is that a missile from friendly or hostile fire brought the plane down, although no evidence has been forthcoming proving that happened.

. . . . Armed with documents -- interestingly, at one point supplied by an NTSB employee -- O'Meara's assignment was simple: Ask the NTSB why the "new" radar data had not been previously released and determine what the data actually showed.

. . . . Notwithstanding the dog-eat-dog mores now prevailing in Washington, it still came as some surprise to me how NTSB officials managed to convince a legitimate writer at a competing news organization -- the Washington Post -- to try through innuendo to intimidate the Insight reporter for leveling aggressive questions about the data at testy and flippant bureaucrats.

. . . . Maybe it was O'Meara's gender or her tailored pantsuit that provoked the attack. Or perhaps it was her background as having worked for a member of Congress who initially disbelieved government reports that TWA 800 blew up due to mechanical failure. Then again, perhaps it was a former stint working for an Oliver Stone production company hired by ABC to do a since-dropped documentary on the doomed flight that may have been the reason.

. . . . But regardless of the excuse, NTSB Managing Director Peter Goelz decided not to complain to any of Insight's top editors -- including me -- about what he felt were "extraordinary antagonistic" questions from the magazine's reporter. Instead he went to Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz. And while Matt Drudge is known to report on stories about to be printed by competitors, Kurtz reported on a "story" that had not even been written nor was going to be written as slyly suggested by Goelz in the Post article.

. . . . "Kelly O'Meara was questioning Goelz about secret government radar reports that she said show plenty of activity nearby on the day in 1996 that TWA Flight 800 crashed," Kurtz wrote in the Aug. 23 issue of his newspaper. "The government says it found no evidence to support theories that the plane was downed by a missile," Kurtz continued. And later he quoted Goelz as saying: "She really believes that the United States Navy shot this thing down and there was a fleet of warships."

. . . . Kurtz wrote these words without interviewing O'Meara. And he wrote it after being told by me that the reporter hadn't yet returned from the Goelz interview, so there was no basis to judge the accuracy of the bureaucrat's rendition of events. Moreover, I recall telling Kurtz, missiles and such were not the issue for the magazine, but the issue was what may be on never-before-seen radar data. "If anyone has questions about [the reporter's] bias, wait 'til they see a printed product," I was quoted by Kurtz as saying. Otherwise, "it's just carping about an aggressive reporter." Kurtz seemed to be assuaged sufficiently, at least to the point of waiting to find out what actually did happen at the allegedly aggressive interview -- especially since neither one of us knew fully. That was about 5 p.m. on a Friday. Then, in Monday's Aug. 23 Post, Kurtz, without hearing back from this editor, went ahead and printed a one-sided story that had been cleverly placed with him by the bureaucrats three days earlier.

. . . . An examination of the transcript of the reporter's interview, however, paints a different picture from the one Goelz portrays and Kurtz displays. It also puts into context the so-called rude reporter's tactics. It demonstrates, perhaps, how nervous, worried and reactive bureaucrats become when faced with tough questions and persistence. Challenged with straightforward questions, they evade or turn flippant.

. . . . Curiously, O'Meara never brought up in her Aug. 20 interview the theory that the plane had been shot down. It was the NTSB officials themselves who raised it, as they did in subsequent interviews with me on Aug. 23 and Aug. 25. They were the ones who also brought up errant-missile theories -- only, admittedly, to mock them.

. . . . Some exchanges from the O'Meara interview with the NTSB officials perhaps show best what transpired. For example, when asked where the latest data showing significantly larger numbers of previously unknown radar hits have been -- at least since the NTSB issued an interim report 18 months ago, along with CD-ROMs -- NTSB's Bernie Loeb said: "It's not on the CD, but it's on the floppy disk. All you had to do was ask for it. It's been available since last April." Floppy disk? What floppy disk?

. . . . According to NTSB sources and officials who spoke privately to Insight, no one knew about the floppy disk -- a point even Loeb suggests could have happened because "the public-inquiries office shifted locations at some point and it may have been a period of time simply because they had misplaced it." When asked whether the newly obtained disk from the NTSB showing the expanded data could have been the wrong "tape," Goelz replied: "You know it's hard to believe but, who knows?"

. . . . As can be seen by the charts accompanying O'Meara's story in this issue (p. 24), there are significant differences from the previous publicly released NTSB reports and the newly acquired radar data.

. . . . And the differences beg questions, such as why are there are two versions of what supposedly are the same set of data? What does the new information show? Do the blips represent military, civilian or commercial boats and planes on the new radar tapes? Why are so many targets moving beyond the crash site into a military no-fly/no- sail zone? And, certainly not least, why were these additional targets scrubbed or otherwise not reported in previous published NTSB reports?

. . . . In response to such commonsense questions posed by O'Meara -- they were not loaded ones nor did they presuppose anything -- NTSB officials speaking to a tape recorder in plain sight were evasive, mocking and circular in their answers. And, again, contrary to what Kurtz quoted Goelz as saying, it was the NTSB officials who first raised the issue of missile conspiracies in the Post story. In the actual interview they limited the scope of such off-the-wall chatter to Internet conspiracy theorists.

. . . . Loeb and Goelz subsequently confirmed to me that the NTSB had, in fact, left out much of the additional and "new" radar data obtained by Insight and that, indeed, it will lead to further questions. But that said, they also maintained that in the final analysis it doesn't matter what additional information comes out because in their judgment nothing will change: A mechanical fault brought the plane down.

. . . . Fine. Insight was not questioning that or any other conclusion, but it was -- and still is -- questioning the handling and release of the radar data.

. . . . If conspiracy theories are fueled, it will be partly because the NTSB saw fit to play fast and loose -- for whatever reason, innocent or not -- with material that should have been released to the public promptly, clearly and professionally.

. . . . Too bad Kurtz didn't wait to get the full facts himself before taking a dud-filled potshot. No wonder the public has grown weary -- and wary -- of a media that rushes into print before it has the whole story.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 28, 1999.

Anyone who believes that a full tank of aviation fuel, kerosene, will spontaneously explode on a Boeing 747 is either grossly ignorant or a complete idiot. Yeah, thats right where our government estimates the publics status. Right the fuel pump blew the plane to smitherenes. If the public knew terrorists could hit passenger planes with missiles, airline traffic would drop like a stone. Not to be permitted. So obviously, the plane blew itself up! Just like the Branch Dividians (who were American citizens BTW) blew up and burned their complex in 35 seconds while making no attempt to escape the flames! And ,BTW, Joseph Stalin didn't murder the Polish officers corps at Katyn forest. After all, he made a thorough investigation which "proved" the Nazis did it!

-- doktorbob (downsouth@dixie.com), August 28, 1999.

it came in eMail ~~

[ Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only ]

WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF, August 27 1999, Copyright Joel M. Skousen.
Quotations with attribution permitted.

>>Snip<<

JFK JR. ASSASSINATION:
Evidence continues to mount that JFK Jr. and passengers were killed by an altitude triggered bomb planted in the tail section of the plane.

Here is the evidence:
Kennedy's sister in law's (Lauren Bessette) suitcase was found miles out in the ocean, away from the crash site. Lawyer Victor Pribanic was on the shore fishing and heard the explosion from the same location and time frame where the plane went down.

The wreckage of the plane was recovered under "national security" conditions and no reporters were allowed to see or photograph it. The wreckage was loaded on to sealed containers and taken away.

The FAA report indicated the recovered engine was fully functional.
The presumed bad weather that caused Kennedy to spiral into the water was some 8 miles away from the crash site at that time, so the report of bad weather was part of the cover-up.

ANALYSIS: I have been very skeptical from the beginning when these reports of conspiracy began to surface. As I reported earlier, the "powers that be" would have had every reason to groom JFK Jr. as a future president, and hardly any reason to want him eliminated.

However, it appears that the "powers that be" have to deal with factions within, just like every other criminal syndicates, and JFK jr. was a victim of a war between conspiring factions.

Here is an overview of the major players and how Kennedy got into the middle. While there is growing central control over the dark side of government, there are various factions below the top levels trying to vie for recognition and power. The CIA is the "enforcement arm" of the dark side of government and often uses Israeli Mossad agents both to facilitate international drug operations (for a cut in the take) and to carry out assassinations the US doesn't want to handle.

The Kennedy killing appears to be one of them. Here is how it may all connect together: The Clinton team is the lead ball carrier for NWO leaders in the US, but this dark side of government has had to maintain liaisons with dozens of political and criminal syndicates, both to consolidate and hold onto its power base.

NWO leaders could never have gained the upper hand without the initial cooperation with old guard democratic machines who have long controlled power in New York, Chicago, LA, and Miami, etc. The democratic machine in New York is controlled by the Wagner group, who has close ties with the orthodox Jewish sector and is very pro-Israel, although liberal. This old-line democratic party machine has been battling the Clinton team's attempt to shove Hillary Clinton down their throats in NY.

The radical feminist section of the NWO group (backing the Clintons) has big plans to launch Hillary onto the world political stage through her carpetbagging move to NY, but the Democratic party machine in NY will have none of it. The Wagner group, according to one Democratic insider, countered Hillary's intrusion by approaching JFK Jr. to run against her in the primary.

They even offered monetary support for Kennedy's faltering George Magazine to sweeten the pie. Kennedy was reportedly set to announce his candidacy on Labor Day. For this, he had to be eliminated and insiders say the CIA got the Mossad to plant the altitude triggered bomb in the tail section of the plane.

There is a lot of cloak and dagger stuff going on here, which I clearly can't verify. But there does appear to be a credible motive now. I have never believed the conservative's wishful thinking that the Kennedys were killed because they were going to blow the whistle on the POB. The forensic evidence clearly points to a bomb, and once again the government's secrecy surrounding the wreckage recovery certainly looks like TWA 800 all over again. The government is clearly involved in some way and is hiding something significant.

>>Snip<<

______________________________________________________

-- it came in eMail (eMail@eMail.eMail), August 28, 1999.

Sometime last year a comic came up with a "kinda" joke. The question was asked: "Why can't our Prez tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" The answer was: "Because for him, that's three different stories." Taint funny MaGee. And neither is this whole business of spin and partial truths and total lies that are a constant part of our societal system. It's very depressing, isn't it?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Yes Gordon, it certainly is depressing. Almost as much as the noticeably high level of 'sheeple bleeting' going on around here lately, as they surround anyone who questions the PTB bleeting, "Don't get maaaaaaaad.....get glaaaaaad."

The sheep do NOT want anyone rocking the boat. Sit down, shut up and keep grazing like the rest of us!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 28, 1999.

doktorbob: good 1 paragraph summary.

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 28, 1999.