Re: SAVE This Evidence

Ian Goddard (
Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:03:48 -0500

At 04:37 PM 1/27/99 -0800, Hal wrote:

>It seems to me that this law merely puts restrictions on the way testing
>is done. It does not explicitly authorize human testing, but it says
>that IF human testing is done, it must be done in certain ways. It says
>that the testing must involve certain kinds of notifications and certain
>time limits.

IAN: I see what you're saying, and I think the point is that it doesn't say it must or will happen, but that it may happen. As it says, once the 30-day waiting period is over, "such test or experiment may then be conducted." The 30-day notice probably allows key local-civilian officials to plan a vacation.

We don't even know, at least I don't know (many claim to know), if they ever utilized the system defined. They may have been "spraying" rural cities every day or no days, but many people claim such. I've read claims of spraying years ago, it sounded like crazy talk, but now I find it defined in law!

It seems like a classified code that popped its head out like the Loch Ness monster, only to slip back underwater. It's like a "sighting," and once deleted, few will believe.

>Repealing the law would therefore repeal the restrictions. There would
>no longer be the requirement of notice within 30 days, or notice to
>civilian authorities.
>It's not clear to me that the repeal of this law would make it illegal
>to test chemical or biological agents on humans. There may be other
>laws which would do that, but the mere act of repealing this would would
>not in itself make such testing illegal.

IAN: Ya... good thinking! If so, the repeal acts as a distraction, causing the illusion of an end.

I can't say that during the 20 years that law was the law of my country that I ever heard about it in the major media or in any social commentary. I wonder if it was ever discussed in the media. I hope there's a "repealed U.S. Code archive."

Visit Ian Williams Goddard -------->