The Current Mass Extermination And UFOs

From: (Germannvh)

Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo

Subject: Mass Extinction And UFOs

Date: 2 Aug 1995 14:28:15 -0400

Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Message-ID: <3vog3v$>


The Current Mass Extermination And UFOs


Val Germann

Columbia, Missouri


The following is an essay I wrote at the beginning of 1994, followed

by an addendum written a few months later. Please read both of these

and then my comments on an article in today’s (August 2, 1995) New

York TIMES. Here we go:


Though my interest in the UFO dates back to the mid-1960s it is only

since the fall of 1987 that I have been researching and writing essays

on the subject. This level of interest has been the result of Whitley

Strieber’s first book, Communion. Though I do not believe that I am an

abductee, I did have a terrifying experience as a child involving a

mysterious, low-flying object. For me, the emotional content of

Communion was in tune with what I had felt thirty-five years before,

and as I read Strieber’s book it hit me very hard that it was, in a

word, correct. I believed then that Strieber was doing the best job

he could to convey to his readers the story of what had happened to

him. I continue to believe that today.


Now, it just so happened that in the fall of 1987 something else

interesting took place, namely the great stock market crash of October

19th. In response to that disaster this writer began a series of

essays, first on the financial markets and then on the U.S. economy in

general. To his amazement, as the 1980s became the 1990s, these two

lines of research began to converge in strange yet important ways.

For instance, hanging over both venues was a miasma of bad faith and

pessimism, perhaps the legacy of the Cold War. In the financial world

dozens of analysts were writing of serious structural problems in the

world economy that were leading to almost certain disaster in the long

run. At the same time, many “sources” in the UFO arena were speaking

of impending disasters, too, disasters with an “end of the world”

stamp to them. As 1994 dawned amid revelations of the systematic

radiation poisoning of hundreds of American poor people (perpetrated

by our scientific elite and smacking of Lear-Letter type ethical

sensibilities on their part), my two lines of research came together

with a crash.


The first hints of this collision surfaced at the end of 1992 but did

not resonate into the mainstream big-time media. Throughout 1993

there were other hints, in various media, though no one there thought

to put anything together. Today, at the end of the first month of the

new year, information has been published in the popular press that has

the unmistakable sound of metal on metal, of a collision of

horrendous, world-shaking proportions.


But let’s begin with an article from the November 11, 1992 Columbia

Daily Tribune reporting on a scientific clambake in Virginia held the

previous month. The subject of the meeting was Dioxin, and one

conclusion (trumpeted in several media) was something about Dioxin,

once touted as “the most deadly chemical known to man,” now being

considered “a rather weak carcinogen.” Huh? Yeah, that’s what Rush

Limbaugh and Paul Harvey said, that and how the “liberals” and

“whale-squeezers” had been making up all the data on the carcinogenic

effects of Dioxin, and by extension, hundreds of other chemicals.



Left out of nearly all the stories was the fact that there was an

internal memo leaked to the press after the meeting, an internal memo

that told an interesting story. It seems that Dioxin (which does

cause cancer by the way) has other effects that may make its

carcinogenic properties seem almost benign. Most devastating was the

fact that, at levels found routinely in human beings around the world,

Dioxin has produced “changes in the reproductive and immune systems of

animals.” In addition to this, the memo states that “there is no safe

dose where Dioxin is concerned though the risk of very low doses has

not been determined.” For the average boob that means that everything

is A-OK with Dioxin, right?


Fast-forward to October 24, 1993 and another story from the Tribune,

this one headlined, “Health researchers issue chemical wake-up call.”

The story features a Missouri University biologist who “helped write

an ominous paper.” This paper, which ran in the then-current issue of

Environmental Health Perspectives, concerns chemicals like Dioxin

being liberated from human tissues during pregnancy and affecting

fetal development in subtle but critical ways. “These problems may

not be visible at birth and may not show up until the child begins

failing in school or has fertility problems,” says Fred vom Saal,

University biologist and co-author of the paper. “The effects come on

slowly, over generations,” says Tufts University professor Ana Soto,

another co-author. “Sure, the baby has arms and legs,” says Vom Saal,

“But it doesn’t have all the right neurotransmitters. The brain is

there but it doesn’t work correctly.” Vom Saal closes the article by

saying that his paper is the first joining the efforts of health

scientists and wildlife researchers.


Let’s now move ahead to the November 13, 1993 state edition of the St.

Louis Post-Dispatch. On the front page, below the fold, is the

headline, “Farm Chemicals Rob Couples Of Their Dreams.” The lead

reads, “One by one, the men whisper of unfulfilled lives, of children

never born, of marriages broken.” The speakers are Honduran farm

workers, among “thousands who suffer sterility and other disorders

from working with a pesticide called DBCP.” The chemical was last

applied a decade ago but its effects are still showing up in human

beings and will continue to surface for decades to come.


DBCPs were first developed in the 1950s by Shell Oil and Dow Chemical

(not by the Monsanto Chemical Company which is based in St. Louis. .

.that’s one reason this article could even run in the Post-Dispatch).

Early tests showed that rat testes were damaged by high doses of the

chemical. In an internal document from the early 1960s a Dow chemist

states that no one should work with the material without a full-face

mask and impenetrable clothing. But in 1964, when the chemical was

approved for sale in the United States, there were no such warnings.

DBCPs proved very effective in killing worms that attack the roots of

banana plants and in 1970 Dole food company began using it on bananas.

In 1977 the first cases of sterility began showing up. In August of

that year 30 workers at a Lathrop, California chemical plant making

DBCPs were discovered to be sterile. California immediately banned

the stuff and very soon the EPA followed suit. In Central America,

Dole Foods continued to use DBCPs and pressured Dow Chemical to

continue to make them. By 1979, sterility problems had begun to show

up in Costa Rica and the government there tried to get Dole to quit

using DBCPs, which the company was by then procuring from non-U.S.

sources, mainly overseas subsidiaries of Shell and Dow Chemical, both

of whom continued to manufacture the material until quite recently.


It turns out that DBCPs are “testicular toxins” and thousands of men

in Central America have become sterile from them. Hundreds of

thousands of pounds of this material have been pumped deep into the

ground all over Costa Rica where they will remain a health hazard for

the indefinite future. Of the affected farm workers, a few have been

able to sue in U.S. courts but the chemical companies have been very

successful in keeping Costa Ricans out of our civil court system.

Most sterilized Costa Ricans settle for $135.00 — in exchange for

signing a paper saying they will never sue anywhere, ever again.


The three articles I have so far discussed are only a sample of what

was appearing in various print media over the late-1992 through 1993

period. Putting them all together painted a very disturbing picture,

especially when you realize that the chemicals mentioned above have

been used in vast quantities all over the world for nearly 50 years, a

long time for an individual human, a short time for life on Earth.

Every person and animal on Earth has Dioxin stored in their fatty

tissues. This is true even for Eskimos on the Arctic Ice.


All of this flashed through my mind as I scanned the first part of a

two-part article in the January 8, 1994 issue of Science News. The

article, as devastating and frightening as anything you are ever

likely to see in the popular press, was headlined, “The Gender

Benders,” as if life-threatening materials were playfully giving wild

animals sex-change operations for the entertainment of half-wit

journalists. But the fun came to an abrupt end when I read in a

little box at the lower left of the first page that Bald Eagles in the

upper midwest, which have been making a come-back of late, are showing

up with reproductive problems and birth defects when PCB levels have

reached only 4 to 6 parts per million in their fatty tissues. Another

material, known as DDE, can do the same damage at ONE part per

million. Europe and the USA have been saturated with these materials

and every human being on both continents carries significant amounts

of them around all the time, every day.


The article quotes Theo Colborn, a zoologist with the World Wildlife

Fund, who says that extremely low exposures to certain materials are

sufficient to cause reproductive difficulties in many animals. These

difficulties can be so subtle that it might take years or even decades

to detect them, by which time it might be much too late. For example,

the pallid sturgeon, a fish native to our nearby Missouri River, has

apparently not been able to reproduce for at least 10 years now.

(Signs at every put-in point on the river state, in large red letters,

that fish caught in the Missouri are not to be eaten.) For the last

fifteen years it has been noticed that the pallid sturgeon’s

reproductive organs are not distinctly male or female. All of these

fish have high concentrations of PCBs and DDT in their tissues and

very few of the sturgeon left in the Missouri River are younger than

30 to 40 years. As one of the biologists says, “. . .we’re just

waiting for the last adults to die.”


So much for Part One of the series, which was enough to give me a

shiver. Part Two got a lot more interesting, and frightening, too.

The first page recaps the important points of Part One: The

environment is increasingly being flooded with chemicals that emulate

human estrogen and other hormones; these chemicals interfere with the

reproduction of many animals and have been shown to sterilize whole

species; in high doses these materials can sterilize human males and,

finally, even very low doses of these chemicals can have long- range

deleterious effects on animal and human reproduction.


You have to understand that it is only since World War II that large

amounts of these materials have been released into the world’s

environment. Beginning with trivial amounts in the mid-1940s,

pesticides and herbicides have been used with geometrically increasing

frequency ever since. For instance, last year more than 60 million

pounds of just one type of herbicide (2,4-D) were applied in the

United States alone. Of another material, the surfactant known as

monylphenol polyethoxylate, 360 million pounds were used last year in

the United States. World-wide, the total of all of these chemicals

used every year must be in the billions of pounds. No one even knows

the exact number and many of the compounds used extensively elsewhere

in the world have been banned in North America and Europe. Recently

examined Antarctic penguins had DDT, Heptachlor and Kepones in their

bodies, all three of these pesticides having been banned in the United

States long ago but all three still used widely overseas. It takes a

long time for these materials to make their way into the food chain

and then move up through biological concentration to man. But make no

mistake, move up they do, even if it takes decades.


Which moves us to the capper of Part Two, the discussion of the

information from the Center For Growth And Reproduction in Copenhagen,

Denmark. These folks have been keeping statistics since 1943 and

their data show that testicular cancer has tripled in incidence in

Denmark, other Scandinavian countries and in the United States. “The

frightening thing is, the rate of increase in this cancer is

continuing to grow,” says an endocrinologist at the center, Niels E.

Skakkebaek. This gentleman and a colleague also recently completed a

study involving nearly 15,000 men which clearly shows that human sperm

density and quality has declined by nearly 50 percent since 1940, that

is, since World War II. In addition, sperm volume has dropped by

almost 20 percent, meaning the effective drop in sperm quality is

actually more than 50 percent. Finally, there has been a world-wide

increase in undescended testicles and in birth defects involving the

penis. British studies have shown a doubling of the testicular

condition between the late 1950s and the late 1970s while serious

penile defects doubled between 1965 and 1983 in England and Wales. I

don’t think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what is

going on, do you? Well, maybe not, but it wasn’t until 1991 that the

“Klassical” smoking gun, so to speak, was found.


In that year a group of scientists discovered that the cluster of

reproductive defects described above is exactly the same as produced

by the estrogen-based fertility drug DES, once widely used around the

world. Women who were prescribed this drug produced sons with high

rates of penile defects and undescended testicles, poor quality semen

and finally, testicular cancer. And in 1991 it was also shown that

many, many commonly used chemicals can and do emulate the action of

DES in the human body, especially in males. And, says one scientist,

“a lot of these chemicals are very resistant to degradation, including

the PCBs, DDT and the breakdown products (monylphenols) of certain



Says Theo Colborn, “We have just begun to open the door of discovery

concerning the noncancer health effects of synthetic chemicals that in

the last 50 years have become an integral part of our lives.” Says

Ana Soto of the Tufts School Of Medicine in response to complaints

about the cost of testing hundreds of chemicals formerly thought

“safe” and now known to be problems: “What is the cost of having a

generation of humans that cannot reproduce?” Yes, exactly, what is

the cost/benefit ratio for human extinction?


How many of you read Raymond Fowler’s book The Watchers when it came

out in July of 1990? Well, this writer did–and he annotated the

book. Beginning on page 22, Fowler’s source, the abductee Betty Luca,

begins to describe (in 1987) the strange 1973 birth of a half-human

fetus, the mother assisted by what can only be described as

hideous-looking alien beings. The newborn is taken from the mother

and placed into a liquid–after having large needles placed into its

head! Betty is, of course, horrified by this and she says to these

aliens, “Why do you have to do such a terrible thing.”


The answer, when it came, was a stunner. Betty says, “And one of them

is saying– ‘We have to because as time goes by, mankind will become

sterile. They will not be able to reproduce.'” Fowler goes on to talk

about his initial shock and disbelief at this, followed by a

discussion of the pollution problems of the Earth and how they could

cause problems with human reproduction. But it’s all rather vague and

it obviously didn’t resonate because I read nothing about this

“revelation” in any follow-up material in the field. In fact, it

seemed to me that the whole book was sort of ignored by “ufology” and

it very quickly went down the memory black hole. Remember, in 1990

the hard evidence mentioned earlier in this paper had not yet been

published, and the powerful reproductive effects of dozens of common

chemicals were known only to a very few specialists. This is very

important and, at least for this writer, raises Betty Luca’s

revelations to nearly the level of predictive proof.


According to the Danish study the average human male’s sperm quality,

on a world-wide basis, has been decreasing rapidly since 1940. By the

early 1990s it had fallen by more than 50 percent. There is deafening

silence in the Science News article about the trend in the human sperm

data, that is, is this trend increasing, decreasing or staying the

same? What is the shape of the curve? Also, where does widespread

reproductive failure start?


If the progression found by the Danish researchers is linear then

fifty years from today, in about the year 2040, sperm counts of

hundreds of millions of human males will be nearing zero. Is this out

of the question? Hardly. Infertility problems are common in the USA

right now, and if the rising incidence of testicular cancer is any

indication, these problems are not going to get any better. And don’t

forget that prostate cancer, once rare in men younger than seventy, is

now a huge scourge of men in their fifties, just ask the families of

Bill Bixby and Frank Zappa. Among women, cervical cancer, once

unknown in women under fifty, is now showing up in women in their



The operative question is, “When is the human male’s sperm going to

become so defective, on the average, that the number of children who

get born begins to decline sharply?” Beyond that, will human sperm

quality drop so low that at some point in the future births will

simply stop happening? Such a thing is possible based on the data and

the fact that no one wants to talk about it says volumes to this

writer. How interesting that today, while the world is grappling with

a population problem of unprecedented proportions, one that threatens

to overcome the biosphere of the entire Earth, a few dozen scientists,

and a few abductees, are contemplating the end of the human race based

on the failure of human reproduction. The irony is choice. Finally,

is this then part of the reason behind the appearance of these hideous

“visitors” and for their strange “abductions” and seeming

“experiments?” Have they been telling Betty Luca the truth all along?


Many of you read my recently-posted series on mass extinctions and

UFOs. The July 15, 1995 issue of Science News has more on one of the

very disturbing environmental effects extant here in the United States

today, what SN calls “Gender Bending.”


On page 44 of this issue begins an article titled “Beyond Estrogens.”

My comments are inside (( double paren )).


The lead paragraph is very interesting:


“Over the past year, the news media have hammered home the message

that most of the animal kingdom is bathed in a sea of pollutants that

act like estrogen, the primary female sex hormone. Reinforced by

photos of birds, fish and alligators exhibiting gonadal malformations,

a growing awareness and acceptance of these risks has crept into the

public’s consciousness.”


(( The media have “hammered?” Show me the Gallup results! ))


“Scientists at the EPA’s Health Effects Research Laboratory have now

identified a host of pollutants that functionally mimic estrogens in

animals . . . by blocking the activity of the male sex hormones.”


(( Other studies mentioned show how dioxin-related chemicals

emasculate fish and how the effluent from paper mills blocks the

FEMALE sex hormones, turning female fish male. ))


“These new findings reinforce the pivotal role of animal studies in

identifying pollutants with a hormonal alter-ego, says University of

Missouri biologist Frederick S. vom Saal.”


(( Mentioned in my Mass Extinction piece from a 1993 article that ran

here in Columbia. ))


“These new studies. . .expand the list of suspected crimes, the cast

of potential trouble makers, and the sites of their suspected



End direct quotes.


Other interesting findings mentioned in this article:


** The widely used fungicide vinclozolin produces male rats with

undescended testicles, unfused penises, vaginal pouches and

infertility — emasculation combined with feminization.


** In concentrations of 60 parts per billion the widely found chemical

DDE can produce similiar effects to vinclozolin. In South America

human dwellings treated with DDT (to “control” malarial mosquitos)

the owners have concentrations of DDE averaging 140 parts per



** DDE can cross the placental barrier and in 1966 the brain tissues

of stillborn infants in Atlanta contained 650 parts per billion of

this compound, a breakdown product of DDT.


** DDT is STILL, 20-plus years after its banishment from the USA and

Europe, massively used in the Third World and as we ought to know,

the world’s air and waters are not sealed up continent by

continent. Could Carson’s silent spring in the end not refer to

the birds but to the non-crying of human babies?


** A material called TCDD, in the dioxin family, has large effects on

sperm counts even after very slight exposure, if the exposure is

pre-natal. TCDD mimics several different hormones and hormones are

the controllers of fetal development. Thus slight chemical

exposures that cause no apparent harm in adults can have massive

and long-lasting effects on developing embryos.


** Because there have been millions of tons of thousands of different

materials released into the air and water there is no one technique

or test that can determine whether any given ecosystem is polluted.

Says vom Saal, “We have not even begun in science to identify the

multitude of hormones active during development. . .researchers

don’t even know where to look for toxicity. . .”


The article ends with the revelation that EPA, under attack up and

down the line by political Skinheads like Dole and Gingrich, plans to

appoint a committee to coordinate research in this area. Big deal.

Without any money nothing is going to be done.


Lundberg was right.


*** End ***





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s