DOD HB 15090

The Black Flag Cafe is the place travelers come to share stories and advice. Moderated by Robert Young Pelton the author of The World's Most Dangerous Places.

Moderator: coldharvest

DOD HB 15090

Postby Holland » Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:07 am

Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Holland
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 2331
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Central America

Re: DOD HB 15090

Postby ROB » Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:56 am

This might be a silly question so feel free to flame.

But the 91st congress (mentioned on your first document) of the US was between 1969 and 1971.

One of the congressmen mentioned on the document (Glenn R. Davis) finished serving in 1974.

Why then does the first document refer to events from as late as 1978?

Why does it refer to "AIDS" which wasn't even named by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention until the 1980s?
User avatar
ROB
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 5145
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:49 am

Re: DOD HB 15090

Postby thewalrus » Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:45 am

It was known as "GRID" in the medical community long before the term AIDS was ever coined.

for what it's worth scientists have tracked the outbreak to the late 1960s and a group of sailors that visited africa...
User avatar
thewalrus
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 2172
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: Earth

Re: DOD HB 15090

Postby muskrat » Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:19 am

Image

Holland you know marijuana use promotes paranoia.

Cheers M.
the Rat is less about criminality per se but the importance and sheer fun of using one's intellect, skill and willpower to carve a survival niche into whatever inhospitable environment one finds oneself. Damn the imposed morality of the overlords. F
User avatar
muskrat
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:17 am
Location: get lucky country

Re: DOD HB 15090

Postby thewalrus » Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:33 am

Image
User avatar
thewalrus
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 2172
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: Earth

Re: DOD HB 15090

Postby ROB » Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:24 am

thewalrus wrote:It was known as "GRID" in the medical community long before the term AIDS was ever coined.

for what it's worth scientists have tracked the outbreak to the late 1960s and a group of sailors that visited africa...


Wasn't it also know as something like 4H for a while? Homosexuals, Horoin Users, Haitians and somethnig else beginnig with H?
User avatar
ROB
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 5145
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:49 am

Re: DOD HB 15090

Postby Buzzsaw » Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:43 am

Horny motherfuckers?

Seriously, the AIDS there must be something else. This might have Dan Rather's fingerprints on it.
Buzzsaw
Gynecology Enthusiast
 
Posts: 5288
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:53 pm
Location: Lavaca

Re: DOD HB 15090

Postby NIJ » Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:24 am

Ahem...

Captain Riley refers in her speeches to a document which, as she asserted on one occasion, "I think ought to literally shock you into hopefully understanding that we are involved in something that is much, much bigger than us. This is a demonic activity that is so large, and so encompassing, and hopefully you will never forget the time that you saw this document. Because I've had people contacting me from all over the world wanting to get this. They've only heard that it exists, and they've tried to find it." She continued to describe the document as "one of the most shocking things that I ever saw," and claimed that "a gentleman from the British Broadcasting Company, BBC, was over here for awhile, and I told him that I had this document. I said, 'I can show you something that is going to literally shake you to the rafters.' And I said, 'I want you to know that this is an official government document, and it exists.' And I told him what it was--what I thought it was--and he said, 'I don't believe it. I don't believe you have it.' He sat down. I said, 'Read this.' And when he finished, he was gray. He was absolutely shaken when he saw this. And he left, and said, 'I wish I'd never seen this.'" [2] She told another audience, "I want you to remember this as long as you live. This ought to be like the day Kennedy died," and asserted: "This document to me I believe to be the origination of the appropriation of the money to make the AIDS virus." [3]

The "document" which has become centerpiece of Riley's lectures is a page from a 1969 hearing on Fiscal 1970 appropriations for the Defense Department, conducted by the Subcommittee on Department of Defense Appropriations of the House Committee on Appropriations. Photocopies of the cover of the printed hearing, and the controversial page which Riley cites (page 129), are attached to this memo. The underscoring and other markings were on the copy we received. Note that "HB 15090" has been penned-in on the cover page. Whomever did so was unfamiliar with federal nomenclature, as there is no such bill. House bills at the federal level are designated "H.R." (for "House of Representatives"). The bill number was actually H.R. 15090. It was introduced on December 3, 1969, approved by the House five days later, and by the Senate on December 15th. It was signed into law by President Nixon on December 29th as Public Law 91-171.

Here is how Riley describes the document (bear in mind that it is only a page from a hearing transcript, not a bill):

This is an appropriations hearing of 1970 for the Department of Defense. It is House Bill [sic] 15090....I want you to see that the Department of Defense appropriated [sic] $10 million in 1970 to make a synthetic biological agent. Ask yourself why the Department of Defense needs this kind of an agent.

There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. It says that they believe that "within a period of 5 to 10 years, it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired."

What does that sound like to you? Can you believe that this is actually a House bill, 15090. Why does the DOD need to make something like this?

It goes on down here to say, "within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new effective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organism. Most important of these is that it might be refractory"--damaging--"to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease."

Basically it is saying it will destroy the immune system. 1970 was when this was appropriated. 1975 is the first recorded AIDS-related death [sic; see "'NEW' DISEASES" below]. And it's perfect timing for this.

"A research program to explore the feasibility could be completed in approximately five years at a cost of $10 million."

Now, look at this part down here. This scares me. "It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large populations."

That is in your government documentation. [3]


Captain Riley does not misquote the hearing record, but she takes it out of context. The discussion was clearly focused on whether or not a research program should be instigated to provide the U.S. a method of defense in the event that some other country were to develop a deadly and impervious "synthetic biological agent." In her speeches, she does not quote the pertinent segment of the final paragraph of the information supplied to the subcommittee, which states: "On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done, there is little that can be done to devise defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate research program." [7]

Captain Riley claims that $10 million was actually appropriated for the suggested research, but there is no mention of such an appropriation in Public Law 91-171. There is, however, a general provision for an emergency defense fund "to be used upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that such funds can be wisely, profitably, and practically used in the interest of national defense," [8] under which the suggested funding could conceivably have been provided. Riley claims that "through a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request it was determined that, yes, this was appropriated--$10 million was appropriated. A virus was made. However, they will not give us the name of the virus." [4] Strangely, however, she does not document that claim with, for instance, photocopies of the pertinent FOIA documents (assuming that they exist). And in any event, if money was indeed spent on the proposed research, there is no reason to believe, based on the documentation Captain Riley does present, that it was for anything other than to find a way to defend the United States against a deadly biological agent that might be developed by some other country.


1. Speech, August 28, 1995, Independence, Kansas

2. Speech, December, 1995, Topeka, Kansas

3. Speech, January 15, 1996, Adrian, Michigan. A version this address, erroneously transcribed in scores of instances, has been widely circulated on the Internet.

4. Speech, July 15, 1996, Lawton, Oklahoma

5. Testimony before the U.S. Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, Clinical Syndromes Panel meeting, San Antonio, Texas, February 27, 1996.

6. "Did U. S. Make Germ That Sickened GIs?," by Michelle Nicolosi (Orange County (California) Register), Salt Lake Tribune, January 27, 1997.

7. Appropriations for 1970, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Department of Defense Appropriations of the House Committee on Appropriations, 91st Congress, First Session (1969), Part 6, Page 129.

8. Public Law 91-171 (December 29, 1969), Title V, paragraph 5, as recorded in United States Statutes At Large (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1970), Volume 83, page 479.
"You have to consider we're only made out of dust. But even considering, I mean it's a sort of bad beginning, we're not doing too bad." - PKD, The 3 Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch
User avatar
NIJ
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1135
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Land(of)mines

Re: DOD HB 15090

Postby ROB » Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:47 am

Hmm, so the chick's a nutter.

Still interested in the questions about the actual document though.
User avatar
ROB
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 5145
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:49 am

Re: DOD HB 15090

Postby usedagain » Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:41 pm

Where did you find this? I've searched all the gov archives and can't find it. Or, does anyone know where to look?
usedagain
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:37 pm

Re: DOD HB 15090

Postby Jäeger » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:08 pm

for what it's worth scientists have tracked the outbreak to the late 1960s and a group of sailors that visited africa...


Actually, I've read that they tracked the virus back to the early 1900's in the Congo.
User avatar
Jäeger
In Last Chance Saloon
 
Posts: 1872
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 10:13 pm
Location: Just the other side of nowhere....

Re: DOD HB 15090

Postby sparrow » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:49 pm

Four of the earliest known instances of HIV infection are as follows:

1) A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
2) A lymph node sample taken in 1960 from an adult female, also from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
3) HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.
4) HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.

A 1998 analysis of the plasma sample from 1959 suggested that HIV-1 was introduced into humans around the 1940s or the early 1950s.

In January 2000, the results of a new study suggested that the first case of HIV-1 infection occurred around 1931 in West Africa. This estimate (which had a 15 year margin of error) was based on a complex computer model of HIV's evolution.

However, a study in 2008 dated the origin of HIV to between 1884 and 1924, much earlier than previous estimates. The researchers compared the viral sequence from 1959 (the oldest known HIV-1 specimen) to the newly discovered sequence from 1960. They found a significant genetic difference between them, demonstrating diversification of HIV-1 occurred long before the AIDS pandemic was recognised.

The authors suggest a long history of the virus in Africa and call Kinshasa the “epicentre of the HIV/AIDS pandemic” in West Africa. They propose the early spread of HIV was concurrent with the development of colonial cities, in which crowding of people increased opportunities for transmission. If accurate, these findings imply that HIV existed before many scenarios (such as the OPV and conspiracy theories) suggest.

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

ROB wrote:Wasn't it also know as something like 4H for a while? Homosexuals, Horoin Users, Haitians and somethnig else beginnig with H?


A large number of Haitian immigrants living in the US lost their jobs and were evicted from their homes as Haitians were added to homosexuals, haemophiliacs and heroin users to make the 'Four-H Club' of groups at high risk of AIDS.18
User avatar
sparrow
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:14 pm

Re: DOD HB 15090

Postby Vincent » Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:33 pm

Wasn't it also know as something like 4H for a while? Homosexuals, Horoin Users, Haitians and somethnig else beginnig with H?


Hemophiliacs - from blood transfusions.
"Too bad my real life experiences lead me to believe they're just like the rest of us: 5% assholes, 5% good people and 90% scenery." - el3so, BFC philosopher and bon vivant.
User avatar
Vincent
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 11:40 pm
Location: New York, USA


Return to Black Flag Cafe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron