STOP CASSINI Newsletter #239 -- December 17th, 1999 (Second edition)
Copyright (c) 1999
STOP CASSINI Newsletters Index
To: Subscribers, government officials, members of the press
From: Russell David Hoffman, a worried citizen of the planet Earth
Re: NASA is full of losers, either way: -- STOP CASSINI #239
Date: December 17th, 1999 (second edition of the day)
This issue's subjects:
*** (1) Space Shuttle Discovery grounded for what looks like sabotage to this writer
*** (2) Space Shuttle Discovery grounded again -- what is it this time?
*** (3) Tell Clinton how you feel -- Official government contact points
*** (4) Newsletter subscription information
*** (5) Newsletter Authorship notes and additional URLs
***************************************************************
*** (1) Space Shuttle Discovery grounded for what looks like sabotage to this writer:
***************************************************************
NASA is in terrible shape these days, what with the two back-back Mars flops. But besides those, the rest of NASA is taking a beating as well -- possibly in the literal sense.
The Space Shuttles have all been grounded for several months due to several frayed wiring problems, a loose drill bit found inside one of the engines, and several other problems. But that was about to be lifted. Then this happened:
----- NEWS ITEM FORWARDED BY LARRY KLAES: -----
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 16:55:49 -0500
To: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
From: Larry Klaes <lklaes@bbn.com>
>From: "Bruce Moomaw" <moomaw@jps.net>
>To: "Europa Icepick Group" <europa@klx.com>
>Subject: Yet another space triumph!
>Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:53:21 -0800
>Sender: owner-europa@klx.com
>Reply-To: europa@klx.com
>
> NASA has just announced that a seriously crushed hydrogen line has
>been discovered in the Shuttle's engine compartment, and that the Hubble
>repair mission will be delayed "indefinitely". As Leo Durocher said during
>the Mets' nadir back in 1964, can't anybody play this game? The trouble is
>not "better, faster, cheaper"; it's "dumber, dumber, dumber".
>
> Bruce Moomaw
>==
>You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: europa@klx.com
>Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
----- END OF ITEM FORWARDED BY LARRY KLAES -----
----- LETTER TO JAMES OBERG, SPACE EXPERT, WABC NEWS -----
Dear Mr. Oberg,
I wonder if you've seen pictures of the damaged fuel line on the shuttle? It will probably cause a delay at least until after Y2K (that's good).
I saw a quick shot of it on one of the mass-media television stations. The pipe looks like it was whacked half a dozen times with a baseball bat.
I'm willing to believe that MCO and MPL (especially MPL) were just plain old everyday failures, but this looks downright malicious to me, and I would like to know your opinion.
If I'm right that it was indeed sabotage, then I also think the pipe bashing deserves more press and more importantly a larger investigation than MCO and MPL combined -- almost as large as the investigation I think ought to occur over Cassini!
Instead I see nothing about it at all in this morning's papers. I hope you can give me more details on what might have happened.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
P. S. I used your piece in newsletter ###. Thanks. I think it helps me provide unequivocal documentation that I've put geopolitical issues as well as technological issues into their proper perspective, and at the same time, perhaps we saved a few lives[...]
----- END OF LETTER TO JAMES OBERG, SPACE EXPERT, WABC NEWS -----
----- FIRST INCOMING EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG: -----
In a message dated 12/9/99 12:34:09 PM, you wrote:
<<I'm willing to believe that MCO and MPL (especially MPL) were just plain
old everyday failures, but this looks downright malicious to me, and I
would like to know your opinion.>>
I saw the picture too and I'm at a loss to imagine a random way it could
happen -- but I don't know the kinds of maintenance ops in that part of the
ship. There was a dent in the same pipe a dozen years ago, that was approved
to fly "as is", and it's just gotten longer and deeper, so this SUGGESTS a
mechanical stress-induced force, most likely during the severe acoustics and
vibration environment of launch when rebounding forces can accumulate on
unfortunate locations of the structure -- I know THAT can happen.
Sabotage to cause launch failure would be designed not to be visible to
check-out teams. Sabotage to DELAY launch would probably be more severe. I
don't know of any case in 20 years of shuttle ops when somebody did something
STUPID on purpose -- but as we know, it HAS happened elsewhere.
----- END OF 1ST OBERG REPLY -----
Mr. Oberg makes the assumption that all forms of sabotage are alike. This might have been done simply to delay the flight long enough to have it up for Christmas! -- rdh
----- MY RESPONSE TO JAMES OBERG'S FIRST EMAIL TO ME (IN THIS SET): -----
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your response (shown in part below).
The purpose of this sabotage (if that's what it is) would simply be to delay the launch of any Space Shuttle mission to beyond Y2K, which I assume would be done for political reasons of expedience -- in other words, a launch failure now, before Y2K, would be just about the most disastrous PR the U.S. Government (as well as NASA) could ever have. Bad though this incident is, that would be infinitely worse. So the launch was delayed by damaging the Space Shuttle itself. That way, no official (public) decision had to be made. If all goes well for the perpetrators, no record of the decision would ever be made public.
How often would stress-induced failures have so many bumps and ridges as I saw in the photograph? That looked like monkey-wrench induced failure to me. I would think that if it was stress, then in most cases once the pipe "gives", you don't get more and more bending in other places -- instead the part that gave takes more and more of the stress, flexing, and with enough stress, it eventually breaks.
Anyway, if it was sabotage, there could be indications of blows being struck, or other indicators.
If the purpose of the sabotage was to cause an in-flight failure, you're right, it would have to be done in an un-noticeable way or in a part of the ship that had already had its final pre-flight inspection. And it would have to be done on the right pipe, since I'm sure there must be one or two in there that won't cause a catastrophic failure if they break, though most pipe failures around the engine probably would be pretty significant. Maybe the 0-G toilet tank pipes can break without it being too big a deal, but they're in a different area of the ship.
This was discovered very, very late, within about 48 hours of launch, which indicates that it was NOT in a hidden or out-of-the-way place that was inspected long ago. I would like to know the exact location. Was it in a high-traffic area where there was little or no chance it would not be found before launch? This would be in line with it being "an inside job" by government agents who are smart enough to know what a publicity disaster a shuttle disaster would be right now -- most people realize it could happen on any flight, but right now it would be a political nightmare 100 times worse than usual.
After Y2K, if things don't go too terribly wrong, and the "survivors" push on like it's just another blip on the radar, then they'll be happy to launch the things again and go back to hoping for the best, crossing their fingers with each launch (and eating beans and franks). But right now, it would lend too much credence to the realists who know that accidents can happen, and want proper precautions taken at those places where the greatest threats to civilization lie. (Not a non-nuclear Shuttle launch, which is basically just a threat to those few who volunteered to go up in them. I'm referring to launches which risk public health, and other excessive dangers, such as chemical explosions at Oak Ridge, etc..)
Clearly, an immediate and thorough (and PUBLIC) investigation of this shuttle damage is necessary. This should take no more than 10 days or so. If it was an "inside job" the public has a right to know that -- BEFORE Y2K! There's been entirely too many "inside jobs" lately, if you ask me (not that you ever would). In this case, there are just too many questions, and it looks too suspicious.
Come to think of it, the lack of a public investigation would be/is, in itself, highly suspicious.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
At 03:51 PM 12/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
Sabotage to cause launch failure would be designed not to be visible to
check-out teams. Sabotage to DELAY launch would probably be more severe. I
don't know of any case in 20 years of shuttle ops when somebody did something
STUPID on purpose -- but as we know, it HAS happened elsewhere.
----- END OF MY RESPONSE TO JAMES OBERG'S FIRST EMAIL IN SET -----
----- OBERG'S SECOND EMAIL ON THE SUBJECT OF SABOTAGE: -----
From: JamesOberg@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:43:59 EST
Subject: Re: Re: Shuttle damage looks like sabotage to me
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
Not very likely -- it's dangerous to extrapolate from home workshop
experience to unearthly environments like a spaceship. Maybe you credit some
secret cabal with more finesse than humanly possible -- too many reruns of
the X-Files? I find the idea worth considering, but easily debunked. Don't
mind discussing it, though..
What did you do with the [news item] I sent? [refers to a previous item from earlier this year -- rdh]
Jim
----- END OF OBERG'S SECOND EMAIL -----
To make a long story (shown below) short, Oberg's sticking to his theory that it's an innocent mistake, and I find that hard to fathom. Here's are the rest of the letters in the sequence:
----- OUTGOING RESPONSE TO JAMES OBERG'S SECOND EMAIL: -----
Hi!
I doubt there's anything "unearthly" about this. That ship had just spent two months+ being carefully inspected, inch by inch, remember? It's rather hard to believe this was missed. Or do wire inspectors not look at pipes they pass which are covered with dents? if that's true, that's a mighty serious management problem. Have you learned what exact area of the ship the problem was in?
I doubt very much this happened in outer space. Do we know yet if any other shuttles show any type of similar damage?
Besides, those dents looked like they went basically in, not out.
What would 0-G have to do with such stuff anyway? The laws of physics still apply, as well as the laws governing metal fatigue, stress, etc., although certainly some things are different from the extreme radiation, the hot, the cold, the vibration, and the lack of atmospheric pressures and chemicals in the air. But generally, what would any of those have to do with the physics of a stress fracture?
They said in a tiny article in my local paper today, "NASA is targeting liftoff for Thursday, but that's assuming workers can quickly complete a job that's never been attempted before." (San Diego Union-Tribune, Friday, December 10th, 1999)
So by next week, we'll know if this worked to delay the launch past Y2K, maybe. Next Thursday would be getting close to the "no flyby" date, since they have already acknowledged wanting to be back on the ground on Y2K itself.
Did you hear about Japan deciding to shut down 21 of their nuclear power plants for Y2K (about half of the one's they've got)? The news just came in this morning; it's not getting the press it should be getting. Taiwan likewise intends to shut theirs. Would that America were so prudent!
By the way, I don't know much about the "X-files", sorry. That's fiction, like Star Trek. I guess if I had suggested that the reason for the sabotage was to prevent astronomers from using Hubble so they can't see some space invasion someone says is coming, you'd have a leg to stand on. But as things actually stand, I am serious. This looks like sabotage, that's extremely serious, and your explanations are weak, so far. And what exactly do you mean by this: "Maybe you credit some secret cabal with more finesse than humanly possible"? Where's the finesse in hammering on a fuel line with a hammer? And I didn't say anything about some secret cabal, I said government agents, specifically, just higher up than NASA's Shuttle team.
My next newsletter (#238, probably to be sent out later today) might be titled "Boris Yeltsin is an idiot". He's more of a nuclear fool than just about anyone. That's one thing that really confuses me about this whole nuclear mess, which maybe you could explain (but having read your SPT , I doubt it): For opposing nukes on scientific principal, I get called a Commie-Luddite (whatever that is) by yahoos with no brains who support old, genocidal technology, and who have lots of anarchistic patriotism (whatever that is), yet the most crazed nuke country in the world is Russia. Go figure.
Lastly, I mentioned in my first letter to you about the fuel line yesterday how I used your item; in the P.S. I've reproduced the P.S. below, with a URL added where it can be found online, plus I've cut-and-pasted the item for your perusal.
Thanks,
Russell Hoffman
P. S. I used your piece in newsletter ###. Thanks. I think it helps me provide unequivocal documentation that I've put geopolitical issues as well as technological issues into their proper perspective, and at the same time, perhaps we saved a few lives[...]
----- END OF THIRD EMAIL TO J.O.: -----
----- THIRD EMAIL FROM J.O.: -----
From: JamesOberg@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:30:42 EST
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Shuttle damage STILL looks like sabotage to me
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
In a message dated 12/10/99 2:21:02 PM, you wrote:
<<I doubt there's anything "unearthly" about this. That ship had just spent
two months+ being carefully inspected, inch by inch, remember? It's rather
hard to believe this was missed. Or do wire inspectors not look at pipes
they pass which are covered with dents? if that's true, that's a mighty
serious management problem. Have you learned what exact area of the ship
the problem was in?>>
Since it was wrapped in insulation, there are no records of anybody looking
at it since the original dent had been seen and wavered in 1985. This dent
was just a bigger version of the old one, it "grew". That suggests it's a
result of repeated exposure to launch environment.
----- END OF THIRD EMAIL FROM J.O. -----
But later evidence (namely, NASA spokesperson's opinions) suggests it did not simply "grow"... -- rdh
----- 4TH EMAIL TO JAMES OBERG: -----
Hi!
So a day or two before launch, they unwrap all the insulation? There did not appear to be any insulation in the area, it didn't seem to be pulled back, etc..
Your (their) story sounds good to the casual observer, though, however I don't think it fits the facts. Besides we have yet to see if the Shuttle launches before Y2K...
Are there additional photos (including microscans) of the dent available to the public (yet)?
Also, let me get this straight: They find a dent in 1985, document it as ignorable ("wavered"), cover it up with insulation and forget about it for 14 years, THEN, two days before launch of a space ship that just completed a two month downtime for detailed inspection, they uncover it and find substantially increased damage since 1985? Nothing shocking in any of this, I guess, if you have nerves of depleted uranium, but it doesn't sound logical to me. It sounds like the kind of logic that gets 98,000 medical patients killed each year by mistake.
Thanks,
Russell Hoffman
----- END OF 4TH EMAIL TO J.O. -----
----- 4TH EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG: -----
From: JamesOberg@aol.com
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 00:08:08 EST
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shuttle damage STILL looks like sabotage to me
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
In a message dated 12/10/99 4:44:29 PM, you wrote:
<<Your (their) story sounds good to the casual observer, though, however I
don't think it fits the facts.>>
Suit yourself. Just develop a little humility regarding how many of the facts
are real and how many are your own assumptions.
----- END OF 4TH EMAIL FROM J.O. -----
----- 5TH EMAIL TO JAMES OBERG: -----
At 12:08 AM 12/11/99 -0500, you wrote:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Shuttle damage STILL looks like sabotage to me
>Just develop a little humility regarding how many of the facts
>are real and how many are your own assumptions.
I will as soon as the occasion warrants it. This incident is nowhere near that stage, which is not to say *I'll* ever learn the truth -- because it's hidden (despite the X-file's claims to the contrary).
Sabotage is an extremely serious crime, even if it's perpetrated in the interests of "national security". Are you still trying to tell me this thing really was found a little damaged 14 years ago, wrapped up, left for 14 years, and then after a two month intense inspection of the whole ship, two days before the final flight before the millennium, they unwrap it, find this extensive damage, and that's all there is to it?
Come on, Mr. Oberg. Your credibility gap is widening with each email.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
----- END OF 5TH EMAIL TO J.O. -----
----- 5TH EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG: -----
From: JamesOberg@aol.com
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:59:39 EST
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shuttle damage STILL looks like sabotage to
me
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
In a message dated 12/11/99 1:06:08 AM, you wrote:
<<Sabotage is an extremely serious crime, even if it's perpetrated in the
interests of "national security". Are you still trying to tell me this
thing really was found a little damaged 14 years ago, wrapped up, left for
14 years, and then after a two month intense inspection of the whole ship,
two days before the final flight before the millennium, they unwrap it,
find this extensive damage, and that's all there is to it?>>
Yup.
----- END OF 5TH EMAIL FROM J. O. -----
I don't mind people who brag, providing they have a good reason. "Yup" didn't go over well with me... -- rdh
----- 6TH EMAIL TO JAMES OBERG: -----
Dear Sir,
"Yup"?
You have no proof of this, you have offered no proof, no closeup photos, no photos showing the same area with the insulation, no description of how high the traffic in that area actually is normally, before a launch or during an inspection, you won't help me investigate the details (other than to speculate than I'm wrong), and then you say it's ME that lacks humility. Okay, well at least we know the score:
Oberg 0 Hoffman 4
or is it 5 now, or 6, or whatever? You haven't made me cry "uncle" yet, over anything! And believe me, I know how much you and all the other pro-nukers are always after me for a victory of some sort (however small).
But this isn't it.
Thanks,
Russell Hoffman
P.S. Okay, there was one thing. The shuttle boosters don't even make it once around the Earth so they're not called "orbital" debris. I learned that from you, but it's extremely minor; not even worth a quarter point. Before you can possibly determine my actual level of humility, you have to prove me wrong on something the least bit substantial! Then you'd discover the truth about whether or not I know when to quit, apologize, take back, correct, or otherwise admit to my own failings. Because the truth is, Mr. Oberg, I am well aware of my ability to make mistakes and I have an almost inhuman willingness to correct them (if I may say so). You actually (if you think about it) know this to be true, because otherwise, I wouldn't waste a minute writing to you, who is always so eager to find fault with me! But since that is something I so deeply appreciate, I keep at it. I love my critics most of all, because they are the ones who are most likely to educate m
e, and we all need a good education. Besides, perhaps one or two of them soften a little and are less sure of themselves when they fail to correct any of my statements, even after trying repeatedly... One can dream...
----- END OF 6TH EMAIL TO JAMES OBERG -----
Well, that last letter was a big mistake! It made it too easy for Oberg to claim I am giving him the third degree, as it's called. But nevertheless, this incident is bizarre, and Oberg's explanations are especially bizarre since they don't fit the facts which began appearing, in an incoming email sent in by Larry Klaes, and in a San Diego Union-Tribune article:
----- 6TH EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG: -----
From: JamesOberg@aol.com
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:02:38 EST
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup?
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
In a message dated 12/11/99 12:17:26 PM, you wrote:
<<You have no proof of this, you have offered no proof, no closeup photos, no
photos showing the same area with the insulation, no description of how
high the traffic in that area actually is normally, before a launch or
during an inspection, you won't help me investigate the details (other than
to speculate than I'm wrong), and then you say it's ME that lacks
humility. >>
Hey, I'm just offering you my comments and views -- stop acting as if I'm on
some sort of witness stand and you're a crusading DA. Do you want to have
candid, respectful, informative truth-seeking conversations, or is everything
you do part of some strategy for squeezing anybody foolish enough to waste
time responding to you. Jeesh, Hoffman, show some human side.
----- END OF 6TH INCOMING EMAIL FROM J.O. TO R.D.H. -----
----- 7TH OUTGOING EMAIL TO JAMES OBERG FROM RUSSELL HOFFMAN: -----
To: James Oberg
From: Russell Hoffman
Re: Trashed fuel line
Date: December 15th, 1999
Dear Mr. Oberg:
Thank you for your letter of a few days ago. I composed a response to your very difficult line of attack, namely, against my "humanity", which followed your earlier comments on my "humility". That original letter follows. In the meantime, the new facts I've been able to find so far support my theory of sabotage perfectly well, except that it appears the perpetrator miscalculated (by only 50 hours or so) how long it would take to fix the damage. Specifically, the San Diego Union-Tribune, page A-9, December 15th, 1999, states: "[Shuttle program manager Ron] Dittemore said he's looking at ways to prevent accidental damage inside the cramped engine compartment, like the bent fuel line. He suspects that someone stepped on the pipe or crushed it with a work platform."
So much for the theory of fancy outer-space stresses that are a mystery to the common man.
As for the potential danger to the crew, Dale M. Gray, Frontier Historical Consultants, quotes Florida Today with the following information, which indicates that the target was well-selected for its LACK of danger to the crew in flight, as I suspected. (Still unknown is how likely this thing was to have been discovered at all. My hypothesis is that it was impossible to miss.):
"While [other repair work] was proceeding another serious problem was discovered with a hydrogen line. A dent was discovered on a six-foot section of a liquid hydrogen recirculation line. The dent on the four-inch line was about 12 inches long and up to 1.5 inches deep. The line is not used during launch, but is critical in keeping the engines cool while waiting for lift-off. The launch of the Hubble repair mission was delayed for the 6th time to allow the repair. The mission is currently slated for Tuesday, December 14. Any further delay would cause the mission to be moved to January to avoid any undetected Y2K problems (Florida Today; NASA)."
And I will add that if it was someone simply banging into the pipe by accident, or stepping on it and bending it by accident, then we still have two conflicting questions, one of which needs to be answered: First, what kind of management structure would make this person choose not to say anything? Second, how come the dent I saw on the news was unlikely to be the result of one misstep, but more like half a dozen or more?
Are you still telling me it's not possible to you this was sabotage? And are you still so sure, you don't think an independent investigation is called for?
What follows is my original answer to your remarks. I'm not a crusading DA (though that does sound like fun), just a citizen trying to find answers to questions that should have been answered by everyone a long time ago. I really don't understand why so many people seem to take pleasure in trying to stop me at every step, however weak their facts, however tenuous their chain of excuses.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Attachments:
1) Additional response (mostly written a few days ago)
2) Your most recent email to me
3) An related email discussing the results of the anti-Cassini activism, FYI
================== ATTACHMENT #1: ====================
Sir,
Thanks as always for your gifted (if harsh) insight into my psyche. The human brain is incredibly complex, with 100 billion brain cells, 100 trillion synaptic connections -- a virtually instantaneous parallel (if somewhat imperfect) computer. There's nothing like it. Unfortunately, the average human brain accomplishes relatively little in its hundred years or less (seldom more) on Earth. Only a very few get to be called "great". Very few indeed (and none of the greatest ones, as far as I know) think they have managed to reach their full potential -- they are always learning. So I'm not sure what difference my psyche makes -- I'm just looking for answers in a world which provides very few of them easily. Dig deep, and what do you learn? Only that you haven't scratched the surface. Doctors I've talked too in my professional career writing health education software always feel that way. Astrophysicists too, not to mention those who study human
nature.
Absolutely no one talks about closing the Patent Office anymore because everything that can be invented has been invented -- least of all the head of the patent office.
I try to learn from your letters to me. For example I've tried hard to learn never to use the phrase "of course". But, some of the things I write about require reminding people of basic facts which they seem to have forgotten, or rather, which they seem to have excluded. For example, NASA spokespeople claimed the chance of Cassini impacting Earth during the flyby was zilch, that it was impossible, and even the official risk was "one in one million". But OF COURSE, Mars Climate Orbiter proved them wrong, especially after the inquiry showed how many people missed the error that doomed it. Errors happen. But NASA pretends they can't when they claim impossibly long odds against an accident. Jeesh, Oberg, isn't there ONE employee involved in Cassini who feels even a tinge of guilt? Yet now, after we were forced to be just a hare's breath away from 400,000 Curies of the most gruesome stuff of Earth, certainly if for no other reason than that you an
d all those others wouldn't listen to reason, you still continue to box with me only to the point where you have yourself telling me I'm lacking not just humility, but an actual human side. Well, fine. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'll try to appear more humble, though speaking as someone who refuses to be sure about anything (other than that I don't know everything), I really don't know how much lower I can really go. I question everything I say and write, and expect others to as well (and they do!). I remain unsure. I come to people with questions, and its true that after a while I know I won't get answers, but how am I supposed to know, not having any of the access to experts that you have, what the facts really are if not by asking? You on the other hand, could probably be given a personal tour of the spot where this possible sabotage occurred, certainly could get high-resolution photos, either from NASA or the others in the media. As an "activist
" these doors are both closed to me -- the UAW has a better chance at a seat at the WTO than I do on a citizen's seat at a NASA public inquiry. In this particular case, it does still look like sabotage to me, and I can't help that. What it looks like and what the evidence points to is beyond my control.
True, I want to find SOMETHING that will break the armor down that allows NASA to launch nuclear payloads, to hire people like Woody Smith, to miscalculate everything in their EIS and yet get away with it, and on and on and on. Certainly I want to break the nuclear cycle that always ends in death for innocent victims, often years down the road and thousands of miles away. You bet it's a crusade! But what has that to do with wondering if something was Y2K-related sabotage by government operatives (or others, that's always possible) when the facts so indicate?
Many of my friends and heros were pioneers in the nuclear fields and are now in their 80's. They were good engineers, with decades of experience in the nuclear industry, who worked at the most basic and important levels, and time is not on their side, and THEY -- not me -- wish to be heard, and need to be heard. But a nuclear industry that hides millions of deaths among phrases like "statistical significance" and "ALARA" and "below regulatory concern" needs to be stopped, and soon. Oh yeah, and then there's that little problem of nuclear war, and not to mention ... Y2K.
Truth has always been on a crusade just to get heard above the din. I have been accused of many things, but few of them have stuck. I don't think that accusing me of not showing a human side would stick very well either, because I bleed just like everyone else, and my blood's the same color as yours, and I don't even "believe" in Aliens (sure it's possible, all things are possible, it's just that there's no hard evidence), but perhaps your name-calling is an opportunity for me to try to express my humanity personally to you.
I believe that just about any human mind, with its 100s of billions of interconnected CPUs each with 1,000 to 10,000 synaptic junctions (serial ports), is capable of great things. It just has to be trained right. That is why I value your correspondence so much -- because you educate me. About space, about myself, about my "persona" as it appears to others (or at least, to you).
You deserve my best efforts at showing "some human side", except when you tell me you would eat two-headed llamas if I can find you one. Will you care for millions of children with leukemia caused by global space-nuclear policies such as you promote, is a more reasonable question. Will you stop ignoring the scientists who are saying essentially the same things I say?
Before I got involved in Cassini, I had a really wonderful life, and I had met hundreds of engineers, who would help me understand a technical point, and never had a mean thing to say about me even if it took me a while to grasp the nuances of what they were trying to explain. I've worked with some of the best inventors and they have eagerly explained their complex contraptions to YH&OS. I'm not so hard to get along with. If you like, you can read some of the interviews I have done with various famous scientists and engineers (transcripts are online at my web site) -- you'll find them peppered with phrases like "excellent question" and "exactly" and "that's right" and "that's exactly what I'm trying to say" and so on -- I know how to listen, and my questions are fair ones. It is, however, impossible to interview any single person who can explain the reason it is safe to play with nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. Not one person
has the answers. Not you. You turned away from the hard questions with your two-headed llama joke, for instance.
I am used to dealing with engineers, doctors, crackpots and inventors. But in the Cassini battle there are people like Louis Friedman, Woody Smith and David Grinspoon instead. In the battle to prevent nuclear war there are people like Bud Aaron and Jeff Nyquist. None of these people have been able to properly conclude a debate by answering any hard questions, any more than you have (and all of them did it with spite and arrogance, a combination I have never felt from you, much to your credit).
If you could somehow, for one moment, presume that I am right, which is a fair thing to do since you cannot for one moment prove I'm wrong, or if you could step into my shoes for a day and see how hard it is to get honest answers from anyone in the nuclear arena, you might understand why, 19 days before Y2K (now 16), I am tired of all the run-arounds I get. After all, my failure to stop Cassini resulted in ... exactly nothing, but had it been Cassini instead of MCO (and MPL) which failed, how would you treat me then? Well, we know exactly what you and NASA both would be saying -- that 72.3 pounds of Pu 238 dioxide (mostly, and some Pu 239 and other isotopes) is practically harmless, that only 120 people would die, etc. etc..
What am I getting from you here instead? Psychological warfare! (Something I admit to being wholly unsuited to engaging you in!)
I assure you, Sir, I am as human as you are. If you feel squeezed by me because of my questions, I hope it's because you know that you should have let me squeeze you when it really mattered -- when 6 billion people on Earth were threatened with nuclear pollution (as they continue to be by future planned nuclear missions (see correspondence with Jonathan Mark, shown below)). What about that Titan rocket that blew up on August 12th, 1998? Until the truth about whether or not there was a plutonium RTG on board that rocket can come out, what have we got? More circus. How can NASA expect anyone to care about their science return, when that return is shrouded in lies and secrecy? Such behavior INVALIDATES any science return! Science from dishonest agencies is useless, wasted effort. Such behavior as NASA displays time and again had never in history produced good science and won't now.
So you ask me to show a human side, because I grilled you once too often on something that still stands out to me as utterly peculiar (and all the more so, three days after writing that), while in the meantime, you tell me that anyone who responds to me is being foolish. Perhaps they are, but not for the reason you suggest. However, such comments as you make about me denigrate me terribly and unfairly. Time has been proving me far more right than wrong (unfortunately, for I wish I were wrong entirely. The world would then be a safer place).
It's true, I don't know how to deal with sarcastic answers given in order to avoid an honest answer -- like that comment about eating deformed llamas. And practically every hard debate on these subjects ends with such silliness on the part of the opposing debater. Meanwhile, millions die every year, and genocide is threatened constantly, by Boris Yeltzin and anyone else who would target me (or anyone else) with a nuclear weapon, build a nuclear power plant, or otherwise work to destroy our world thoroughly through radioactive releases. As you know, right now dozens of Russian nuclear reactors circle the Earth, the result of the "Cold War". How is it possible that no one in any space industry or agency cares about that? Radioactive waste containers, dumped in the Arctic by the Russians during the 1960's are leaking, and the Stepovoi Gulf (wherever that is) has radiation levels "100 times normal" according to an AP article (from some time ago; I'm sure the situa
tion has only gotten worse there).
Who will solve these problems? Who will at least recognize the common thread in these threats -- human greed coupled with human failings? The "Cold War" hasn't really ended, because the truth of what happened during it still hasn't come out (namely, that nuclear waste is spreading throughout the planet)? Who will at least recognize human frailty and our susceptibility to cancerous nuclear poison? There are no significant cures known (prevention, however, works well). Even if we could cure 99% of the cancers, would we, with our economic structure which denies basic health care and AIDS drugs to millions?
And what about all those whales that the Navy's ocean dumping of nuclear waste is killing each year? Whales can dive far deeper than was once believed. Even today the Navy's plans for nuclear accidents on board their ships is to tow them out to sea and sink them, as if that somehow solves the problems caused by worldwide dispersals of the radioactive contents.
But whenever these various problems are all tied together as part of the great nuclear lie, someone wants to separate them out again and pretend they are separate issues -- they aren't. There are NO successful nuclear waste repositories, there are thousands if not millions of nuclear waste sites which need remediation, those Russian orbiting nukes need to be taken care of somehow, and all those nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons need to be dismantled.
But to have compassion for those billions in the future who are doomed by our nuclear policies of today is not good enough. I have to also be "human" to those who support those policies which have resulted in this mess.
You are right; I do; and I try. I do my best, in very trying times. I've been abused by the best in the business, for no reason other than that I stuck up for humanity and tried to give a voice to the future generations who will have to live on our poisoned planet -- but I knew when I got into this, that that would happen, so I'm not complaining. I'm just stating that it did, indeed, happen. I've been lied to by the best (and by the worst), as is fully-documented in my STOP CASSINI newsletters with their very words. I've been censored by the top news organizations on the planet. I've had to put up with absurd threats of legal action by the likes of Woody Smith, who hasn't got a leg to stand on. I expected such absurdities, having read, long ago, the tactics employed to keep the "activists" from accomplishing anything in America.
I just had no idea I would still be at it three years later, but here I am, 16 days before the millennium, praying for a unprepared planet. Praying I be "proven wrong" about the dangers posed by Y2K.
Perhaps tomorrow or some time before the Y2K-cut-off Saturday the Shuttle Discovery will fly, and my idea that the dents in that pipe were part of a plot to keep the bird on the ground through Y2K will be hard to believe. But other than that, I truly wish I could understand why this particular incident seems so matter-of-fact to you and so strange to me, but I can't. (Especially as new data still indicates sabotage, or at the very least, huge stupidity followed by malicious failure to report an incident. And yes, in my opinion, Dittemore's description of how it happened doesn't match the photo I saw.)
Thanks again for your insight into my psyche.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
================== ATTACHMENT #2: ====================
At 12:02 PM 12/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
In a message dated 12/11/99 12:17:26 PM, you wrote:
<<You have no proof of this, you have offered no proof, no closeup photos, no
photos showing the same area with the insulation, no description of how
high the traffic in that area actually is normally, before a launch or
during an inspection, you won't help me investigate the details (other than
to speculate than I'm wrong), and then you say it's ME that lacks
humility. >>
Hey, I'm just offering you my comments and views -- stop acting as if I'm on
some sort of witness stand and you're a crusading DA. Do you want to have
candid, respectful, informative truth-seeking conversations, or is everything
you do part of some strategy for squeezing anybody foolish enough to waste
time responding to you. Jeesh, Hoffman, show some human side.
================== ATTACHMENT #3: ====================
To: Jonathan Mark
From: Russell Hoffman
Re: Declaring victory
Date: December 14th, 1999
cc: President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Daniel Goldin, etc.
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for your viewpoints, but I am sure that a rumor of victory is not a victory! There is a policy here, which allowed the Titan IVA that exploded August 12th,1998 to possibly contain plutonium, and many, many others. There is a huge battle against radioactive and other poisons in the environment, and it involves vastly more than just NASA's deep space science probes. The military applications -- if you want to stop those weapons you and Karl Grossman write about, you need to take away the tools -- nuclear power!
Another point: Flybys specifically can be done from a number of inner planets with roughly the same effect. If you mean we've stopped them from doing flybys of Earth ONLY, that's not much of a victory at all, since a dead probe that has left Earth can come back an a tremendous velocity following failed flybys of other planets, or just because they simply went dead and we eventually crossed their path.
And once they have gone dead, we can't tell where they are! They become poisoned pills hurtling silently amidst the planets!
So what you think is a victory is truly none at all. I'm sorry. It's like thinking that raising the flyby height in stages as we complain and complain and complain is some sort of victory -- it isn't. I don't know who your "investigative reporter" contact is, but he's being fed a line by NASA. An inconsequential, two-bit solution to NASA's problem, a problem which they still see as entirely political.
It is NOT. It is a scientific problem NASA has, and stopping nuclear flybys of Earth alone (if indeed that is a new policy, which frankly I doubt) does little to solve the problems of launch dangers, lost probe dangers, numerous probes which increases the overall risk of an accident, military probes which pose a risk for no useful purpose, probes from other country's who follow our lead, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention, the abuses people like Woody Smith and others heaped upon us (mercilessly!) simply for protesting NASA's madness -- none of these issue have been addressed by any government agency as far as we know, nor even have these problems even been acknowledged, and they ALL should be. The corruption has not ended. The Environmental Impact Statements for the Cassini Mission have not been retracted and corrected, with updated and honest information indicating how stupid the mission was in the first place. None of these possible improvements have occurred. Instead,
despite overwhelming and indisputable evidence showing that indeed, just as we suggested, what NASA did when it launched Cassini was nothing less than a crime against humanity, despite indisputable proof -- we still have nothing positive to show for it, in any way, except your journalist contact's rumor.
That's not enough to declare victory, Jonathan. Even if it's true, it's only enough to prove that NASA is (still) underhanded in everything it does, because such a policy, without written explanation, confirmation, discussion, etc. is underhanded! So if your rumor is right, NASA is even more corrupt that we've imagined!
So again it proves that we have not won any victory. NASA lacks all humility, and threatens cancerous pain and inhuman suffering as much as ever. About the only good news I've heard lately (today, in fact) is that Dan Goldin says he takes his job's long-term prospects "day by day" these days. But let's say he's kicked out. How will THAT change the system? There's someone to take his place, someone just as blind to the truths that people like the late Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, or like Dr. Horst Poehler or Dr. Michio Kaku present as Dan Goldin is. Still, I hope he's not the only one at NASA who feels that way. Not that I'm for witch-hunts, but when people have proven themselves utterly incapable of serving the public, they simply can't be allowed to keep their jobs in public service.
Contrition is a wonderful thing when properly applied, and if NASA can't show it now, on these issues, they never will. And indeed, NASA can't even utter the words "MCO" and "Cassini" together in the same sentence (or even in the same interview). They are not facing facts; they won't look at the evidence; they haven't changed.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad, California
At 01:14 PM 12/14/99 -0800, [Jonathan Mark] wrote:
hi russell, i agree with both of us again. yes, there
is no heat shield to even theoretically protect a
flyby accident rtg pu fuel source..
also i discovered by an investigative reporter
interviewing some contacts in nasa that they were
embarrassed by our challenge to their false
inefficient and dangerous reasoning for conducting
the cassini flyby on the internet.. they may try to
keep the launches going, which is dangerous enough,
but the point of a flyby risk with pu has been made
strong enough for them to not want the risk or the bs
reasoning that one in a million chance is okay to
take.
2 points.. no, it is not worth the risk.. and one in a
million? what a laugh after such a track record.. do
you know of a scheduled flyby with pu around earth
planned anytime? if they do.. they will be
re-energizing everything we have already done, and
proven to many authorities, including scientists
working for nasa.. but that is not so great a victory,
with space-based weapons to destroy the abm treaty and
nuclear power being developed big time.. we have work
to do be safe in this world.. and that is part of the
purpose of our post cassini efforts,, but a little
credit for our successful campaign is only relative,
things could be worse.. our efforts that we have given
might not have been without our choosing this as an
appropriate issue to illumine the dangers.. but
dangers still persist with the nuclear space-weapon
programs.
thanks.. it is good to hear from you, and hear of your
perspective, too..
jonathan
--- "Russell D. Hoffman"
<rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com> wrote:
> At 11:03 AM 12/14/99 -0500, you wrote:
> > heat shields
>
>
> ???
>
> What do you mean, "heat shields"? There are no heat
> shields; nothing we've
> designed can be guaranteed to withstand the heat
> possible, when it also
> will be slamming into the atmosphere at x thousand
> miles an hour, breaking
> apart, the parts banging into each other...
> Jonathan, there's been no
> victory at all. No statement that you can hang your
> hat on and say we won
> because that statement proves anything. Nothing,
> nothing at all. I wish I
> could feel like you do, but I'd like an ounce of
> proof first!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Russell Hoffman
>
>
----- END OF 7TH OUTGOING EMAIL TO J.O. FROM RDH -----
----- 7TH EMAIL FROM JAMES OBERG TO RDH: -----
From: JamesOberg@aol.com
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:20:35 EST
Subject: Re: Thanks for your insight; new news supports our theories
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
In a message dated 12/15/99 2:24:36 PM, you wrote:
<<In the meantime, the new facts I've been able to find so far
support my theory of sabotage perfectly well, except that it appears the
perpetrator miscalculated (by only 50 hours or so) how long it would take
to fix the damage>>
Of course the universe as you perceive it will support your theories about
conspiracies. Stands to reason....
----- END OF 7TH EMAIL FROM J.O. TO RDH -----
----- 8TH EMAIL FROM RDH TO JAMES OBERG: -----
Sir,
I can't change the facts, and if you think the facts I've been able to glean so far (or others you know and have not yet revealed to me) somehow disprove my theories, your best efforts are NOT your continued personal denigration of me, but rather, your presentation of those alternative facts or explanations which you feel would tend to disprove my assertions. So far, not only do the facts continue to support my theory of intentional damage, but one of the best alternative hypothesis -- that someone did it by accident -- is in many ways worse, because it indicates (yet another) management problem, namely, that whoever did it didn't bring it to management's attention. So if it wasn't sabotage, then it appears that the average worker on the Shuttle will dent a four-inch pipe terribly, then walk away and tell no one, as if nothing happened.
NASA's full of losers, either way.
Sincerely,
-- Russell Hoffman
----- END OF 8TH EMAIL TO JAMES OBERG -----
After all this, a correction was in order:
----- 9TH EMAIL FROM RDH TO JAMES OBERG: -----
Subject: Correction to an off-topic item in a previous email...
Dear Mr. Oberg,
---- I wrote this to you on 12/10/99: -----
Did you hear about Japan deciding to shut down 21 of their nuclear power plants for Y2K (about half of the one's they've got)? The news just came in this morning; it's not getting the press it should be getting.
----- end of clip -----
I've since heard it's nuclear facilities, not nuclear plants, and they are in the prefecture where Tokaimura is, and the count is suspicious, too. Some of these facilities are down already for the usual misc. purposes, or are decommissioned already. Anyway, the story didn't get much press presumably because it was full of holes.
I correct my errors whenever I learn that I have made them.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Carlsbad CA
----- END OF 9TH EMAIL TO JAMES OBERG -----
As I write this the repair was done in time to launch, but another problem has come up which is keeping the Shuttle grounded, namely, they are worried about the quality of some welds that were done (see next item).
The lack of proper investigation into the bent pipe incident continues, as far as I know. -- rdh
*************************************************************************
*** (2) Space Shuttle Discovery grounded again -- what is it this time?:
*************************************************************************
This article and commentary are complete and uncut. I asked Mr. Doucette to resend his original email because the colorization he had used to differentiate between his comments and the AP report were unclear, hence the comment in the beginning about this being a resend. In my letter to him I mentioned my theory that the prior damage may have been intentional sabotage to keep the shuttle on the ground though Y2K (as discussed above). -- rdh
----- INCOMING EMAIL FROM AUTHOR DOUCETTE: -----
Russell,
Here is that article again, I didn't consider that NASA was delaying it
themselves, as you said, they are a weird bunch, but actually right now I
think they are primed for another Challenger type disaster due to
impatience, the desire to get the Shuttle up is so high, after months of
delays and with the bad press from MCO and the silent Mars lander you
know that they can't dismiss from their decision process the political
implications. Right now they are planning on flying over Xmas. You just
know the whole support staff is thrilled with that. I'm sure none will be
coming to work after late night Xmas parties or getting hell from their
spouses....
I loved the quote today when asked how much overtime that flying over
Christmas would cost and the administrator said. "It will cost what it
will cost but we're going to do it anyway"
My comments are now bracketed with ******, I've deleted some of the AP
story to highlight these points, but what I deleted in no way changes the
meaning or context of these gems.
Arthur
Thursday, 16 December, 5:13 p.m.
C A P E C A N A V E R A L , F L A . (AP)
LAST-MINUTE CONCERNS over welds in critical fuel lines forced NASA on
Thursday to delay space shuttle Discovery's rescue mission to the Hubble
Space Telescope for one more day.
It was the seventh postponement for Discovery, which should have flown in
October. ***** When NASA has concerns that affect their prized Shuttle,
they don't hesitate to delay...well at least since Challenger when they
claimed space travel was becoming "routine".******
If the shuttle isn't up by Saturday night, the flight will have to be
bumped into January because NASA does not want to fly close to New Year's
and run the risk of Y2K trouble. ****** Well Washington is saying that
there is little to worry about Y2K, but NASA isn't buying it.... seems
contradictory, either there is something to worry about or there isn't,
which is it guys?*******
Until Discovery's seven-man crew installs new gyroscopes to fix Hubble's
pointing system, the telescope cannot perform any astronomical
observations. Its eye to the universe closed in mid-November. The
astronauts also are taking up a new computer, radio transmitter, data
recorder, fine guidance sensor and other equipment. ***** Note how many
things have failed on Hubble, not to mention all of the gyroscopes that
keep it stable...... Guess these kind of failures were a million to one on
Cassini right? *****
The welding issue cropped up Tuesday night.
NASA learned that the wrong material was used to weld pressurization lines
for an external fuel tank being built, and officials wanted to make sure
the material was not used for Discovery's tank. It wasn't, and NASA
cleared the tank Wednesday evening for flight.
But NASA also has to ensure that the wrong welding material was not used
in the main propulsion lines running between Discovery's tank and main
engines.
These lines were built in the late 1970s and have been used since
Discovery's first flight in 1984. This would be Discovery's 27th flight
with this plumbing. ***** Well here's a hoot, some welder used the wrong
material to weld a super critical component (this thing breaks and either
the Shuttle goes boom or it does an emergency landing (hopefully, although
never tried before)) ...the point is, "million to one odds" only apply if
you can control all the variables in making the launcher and space craft
and know the path and trajectory of all the potentially millions of
objects that could cross its path in space. How many variables are there?
Well conservatively Billions.... anyone of which could start a chain of
actions which cause the craft to fail in just the worst possible way.
******
Dittemore said there is only a remote possibility that the fuel lines were
welded with the wrong material. ***** Only a remote possibility??? Must be
greater then one and a million, they didn't mind risking what they
considered minimal (but not zero) civilian lives at that level so this
remote possibility must not have been as remote as Cassini's remote
chances....******
----- END OF INCOMING EMAIL FROM AUTHOR DOUCETTE -----
(3) Tell Clinton how you feel -- Official government contact points:
To contact the top government officials:
President Bill Clinton
White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20500
Phone -- (202) 456-1111 Fax -- (202) 456-2461
e-mail -- president@whitehouse.gov
Vice President Albert Gore (same address)
Phone -- (202) 456-1414 Fax -- (202) 456-2461
e-mail -- vicepresident@whitehouse.gov
Secretary William Cohen
1000 Defense
The Pentagon
Washington D.C. 20301
Phone -- (703) 695-6352 Fax -- (703) 695-1149
Secretary Bill Richardson
Department of Energy (DoE)
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington D.C. 20585
Phone -- (202) 586-6210 Fax -- (202) 586-4403
To learn about the absurd excuses NASA used to launch Cassini and its 72.3 pounds of plutonium in 1997, ask them for the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini mission, and all subsequent documentation. At the same time, be sure to ask them for ANY and ALL documentation available on future uses of plutonium in space, including MILITARY, CIVILIAN, or "OTHER" (just in case they make a new category somehow!). To get this information, contact:
Cassini Public Information
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena CA 91109
(818) 354-5011 or (818) 354-6478
Here's NASA's "comments" email address:
comments@www.hq.nasa.gov
Daniel Goldin is the head of NASA. Here's his email address:
daniel.goldin@hq.nasa.gov
or
dgoldin@mail.hq.nasa.gov
Here's the NASA URL to find additional addresses to submit written questions to:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/facts/HTML/FS-002-HQ.html
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT NASA IS DOING TO YOUR HEALTH.
NASA should never have been allowed to launch monstrosities like Cassini and Galileo, but the next breed -- such as Europa Orbiter and Pluto-Kuiper Express are not much better and the policy is being set for greatly increased rates of missions! The danger continues! To complain to NASA about their future nuclear space probes, here are two addresses you can use:
For Europa Orbiter:
"Europa Orbiter comments" osseuropa@hq.nasa.gov
For Pluto-Kuiper Express:
"Pluto-Kuiper Express comments" osspluto@hq.nasa.gov
Be sure to "cc" the president and VP and your senators and congresspeople, too.
Always include your full name and postal address in all correspondence to any Government official of any country, because otherwise they will throw it out unread, or hand it directly to their police force to try to identify the author. (Thus, nothing good will come of it.) Also, ALWAYS include a personal message of some sort, indicating YOUR OWN VIEWS, even if you include a lot of material written by other people (me, for instance).
(4) Newsletter subscription information:
Thanks for reading! Welcome new subscribers!
To subscribe, simply email the editor at
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
and state:
SUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER
Please include a personal message of any
length and subject matter. Thank you!
To unsubscribe email me and say
UNSUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER
Published by Russell D. Hoffman electronically.
This newsletter is free and is not distributed for profit.
The opinions expressed are those of the individual authors.
Please distribute these newsletters EVERYWHERE!
Written in the United States of America.
(5) Newsletter Authorship notes and additional URLs:
Russell D. Hoffman, Carlsbad, California, Peace Activist, Environmentalist, High Tech Guru:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/whoisrdh.htm
Hoffman's Y2K Preparedness Information:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/y2k/index.htm
Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm
************************************************************
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** Carlsbad CA
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:
** http://www.animatedsoftware.com
************************************************************
Next issue (#240)
Previous issue (#238)
CANCEL CASSINI
This article has been presented on the World Wide Web by:
The Animated Software Company
http://www.animatedsoftware.com
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
First placed online December 29th, 1999.
Last modified December 29th, 1999.
Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman
Copyright (c) Russell D. Hoffman