Article/Document:
You Don't Have To 'Believe' In UFOs Any Longer
James Neff, webmaster, Rense.com
original source | fair use notice
Summary: Whenever I hear the question "do you believe in UFOs?" in coversation I become immensely frustrated. To most of those who have devoted even a reasonable portion of time to acquiring an understanding of the phenomenon, the term "belief" simply doesn't, and should never, apply. To use this expression shoves the UFO over into the category of religion or even fantasy, and nothing could be more inaccurate or counter-productive. UFOlogy is a scientific pursuit like any other.
Whenever I hear the question "do you believe in UFOs?" in coversation I become immensely frustrated. To most of those who have devoted even a reasonable portion of time to acquiring an understanding of the phenomenon, the term "belief" simply doesn't, and should never, apply. To use this expression shoves the UFO over into the category of religion or even fantasy, and nothing could be more inaccurate or counter-productive. UFOlogy is a scientific pursuit like any other. It takes absolutely no leap of faith, no mustering of imagination or whimsy for any rational mind to realize what is already a proven reality: Unidentified Flying Objects of an inexplicable class and character exist and are as real and verified as comets or the rings of Saturn (and may have been around just as long).
The simple fact of the matter is, UFOs (and whatever may be piloting them) are a substantive, verified and massively documented phenomena ... but much of our culture and language perpetuate and cling to the erroneous notion that we're dealing with some kind of specter or myth of hysteria or mass-societal halucenation.
I'll go one step further. One might 'believe' in fire-breathing dragons or fairies ... yet, there is no evidence whatsoever that either of these exist. However, one need only look at the facts now in evidence to see that actual 'flying saucers' (not merely "unidentified flying objects") do, indeed, exist.
Those who know UFOs are 'real' need to make a serious effort to cease using and condoning that negative terminology of doubt inspired by our disinformation-driven culture. "Are you aware of UFOs?" (ie, "have you been educated on the existence of flying saucers?") should have replaced "Do you believe in UFOs?" in both text and conversation long ago. We no longer are soliciting people to 'believe'. Instead, we are (or should be) asking the uninformed to become educated to the facts. The issue of visitors to this planet, wherever (or whenever) they originate, is as vital an issue as any world geopolitical, religious, or economic affair or policy. In fact, it is probably far more important.
Flying Laboratories
It is simply a matter of education. The evidence we have for the existence of unidentified flying machines of advanced technology, even if we toss out all photographic evidence and all abduction accounts or close encounter experience testimonies from the most reliable, credible civilian experiencers, is... massive. Even if we dismiss the most credible testimony and eyewitness accounts, the evidence is simply enormous.
What remains is a nearly a century of 'expert' interaction with flying saucers (and other shaped craft of equally inexplicable propulsion technology) under extremely scientific, verifiable, and examinable circumstances. I am speaking of the countless military and commercial pilot interactions with these remarkable, unknown machines, in situations where often entirely empirical testing of data has been recorded. One could not ask for a much better 'test lab' for the UFO phenomenon than in the cockpit of a military fighter or commercial airliner.
In both situations there are one, or more, specialists in the field of atmospherics and aerodynamics in a 'flying laboratory,' well-equipped with scientifically-approved and understood instrumentation which can record and note verifiable time frames, locations, altitudes, longitudes, latitudes of the UFO phenomena. Additionally, and obviously, there is also (in countless cases) verification by radar -- which consitututes a second 'laboratory' of qualified, educated and capable specialists interpreting data.
Apart from pilots in their 'flying laboratories' and their ground-based radar counterparts, there is now also the testimony of astronauts who are increasingly detailing UFO evidence and information outside of the stratosphere.
From these three sources alone, there exists undeniable proof of the 'flying saucer' which would hold up in any court of law.
UFOs have entered practically every 'sensitive' international airspace, been tracked on uncountable civilian and military radars, been pursued by the finest and most advanced flying machines on the planet, eye-witnessed by our best trained pilots, even fired upon (or so attempted) by pilots dating all the way back to reports from WWI aviators over England.
Our visitors have been tracked at speeds exceeding all known propulsion or contemporary technology and fully-defying the laws of *our* physics. Flying Saucers have on scores of occasions brought military units, including our nuclear forces, to full alert and then engaged those forces in what appear to be tests of our technological capacity. Flying Saucers of gargantuan size have been seen at close range by both civilian and military professionals and verified by radar...both ground and airborne. Some would even say our visitors have taunted and played with our military...the reports of incursions into our SAC bases being particularly extraordinary.
Millions of dollars are spent every year by air force units around the world from every advanced nation to intercept these aerial interlopers. Countries do not spend that kind of money chasing Venus, 'heat inversions' or entertaining myths. To suggest so is simply preposterous.
The information and data, mountains of it, from these civilian and military aviation and defense specialists regarding the UFO match or exceed the information we have from "less than expert" civilian eyewitnesses of UFOs, and only serves to validate and support public accounts of UFOs and/or interactions with them. We accept without reservation the existence of atomic and subatomic particles which only a privileged handful of experts in that field of study have ever 'seen' with the most advanced special instrumentation.
Granted, there is far more 'scientific' data and knowledge of atomic and subatomic particles than exists for flying saucers -- but data is data, and evidence is evidence -- and we have no trouble in trusting and being dependent upon the experiences and veracity of the physicists and scientists involved. We accept the reality of these all but invisible atomic and sub-atomic structures with no hesitation. And yet with the flying saucer, we are not dealing with 'invisibles' at all.
At best, one must define the flying saucer as transitory, difficult and evasive -- but nonetheless, a real part of our physicial universe. Unlike the atomic particle which is governed by laws already understood, or well on the way to being understood within the sheer mechanics of the universe itself and its conditions and measures, the UFO has behind it an intelligence of its own. We can no more easily reach out and snatch a flying saucer for examination than we can ball lightning... yet, both exist. (There is strong indication our military has had examples of UFO technology ...and its flight crews...for more than a half century, but that is another subject altogether).
Our public sector scientific evaluation of the flying saucer is therefore more akin to hunting a rare and highly-advanced species of animal formerly classified as 'cryptozooligical' but now definitely reclassified as 'authentic' due to the sheer weight of verifiable and coherent data from experts. Like the Tasmanian Tiger, we now know they "are"... but to capture one for more advanced study proves to be essentially impossible.
Ours Or 'Theirs'?
It does appear that the U.S. military has developed craft with similar appearance and capabilities as some 'flying saucers' (as reported by many reasonable and credible individuals). However, history shows us that the flying saucer has been coming and going on planet earth for generations, and centuries, which rules out the idea that all flying saucers are manmade craft of a clandestine technology.
Considering these realities, our language regarding UFOs should cease, immediately, to reflect the elements of myth, legend or fantasy, and fully embrace its definitive reality, helping to bring in a new cultural era regarding the UFO. We must each arm ourselves with these most primary facts when dealing with those uneducated, prepared to give a rational defense of the subject.
There is absolutely no reason to ever feel awkward about the issue simply because others are poorly-educated about the facts. And educating them at every opportunity is paramount. The reality of UFOs is such that its implications require every human being to become as aware of it as their individual mental and emotional limits will allow. Our place in the universe is likely to be defined by this very subject, be it a truth we are ready to receive or a lie we are miserably destined to suffer.
Either way, we don't "believe" in UFOs. No faith is required. It is not a religion or occult pseudo science. It is a reality. What we do with that reality is now squarely on the table.
--------------------------------
A Rebuttal
Jim Foreman of The Skeptic Report. wrote to alert me to his rebuttal...
X-Sender: (on file)
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 03:23:03 -0700
To: webmaster@sightings.com
From: "James H. Foreman"
It's been almost a year, but I'm still here, fighting the good fight.
The Daily Skeptic died a horrible, slow death, but it's been resurrected as The Skeptic Report. You might be happy to know that I just completed a story about your recent article that appeared on Sightings.com. Your article is well written, but it's wrong in a lot of places. Check out our rebuttle:
http://jebzingo.tripod.com/skepticreport/
Enjoy!
Jim Foreman
Editor, The Skeptic Report
His rebuttal is published as follows...
M A Y 2 9 , 2 0 0 0
From the UFOs Suck File
SORRY, IT'S STILL A BELIEF
http://jebzingo.tripod.com/skepticreport/
James Neff, the webmaster of rense.com, is a gentleman with whom we've clashed before. He's always been courteous and friendly in our dealings with him (except for that time he got really pissed off at us*), and he is one of the more intelligent, articulate paranormalites out there in the Internet's electronic soup. He also does some nifty artwork.
The reason we bring him up is for this nice little article he wrote for Jeff Rense's website (you can read it here) entitled "You Don't Have to 'Believe' Anymore." This article basically extolls the virtues of UFO worship, though he devotes the article to damning that anyone could "believe" in UFOs at all. According to him, the existence of UFOs is a proven fact, not open to belief at all. Here, Mr. Neff is just plain wrong.
OK, we'll grant that UFOs (in this, we mean Unidentified Flying Objects) do exist. There are strange things in the sky that people see and then report to their local branch of MUFON. Maybe these objects are vehicles, or are at least unnatural phenomena built by intelligent species. Some of them. Maybe. Does this mean that those few that are actually physical, manufactured objects made by humans? Probably. Does this mean that they're created by aliens? Absolutely not.
But rather than condemn Mr. Neff without any corroboration, let's let his own words convict him:
"It takes absolutely no leap of faith, no mustering of imagination or whimsy for any rational mind to realize what is already a proven reality: UFOs exist and are as real and the Pacific Ocean or the Rocky Mountains..."
OK, maybe you're on to something there. Like we said, we'll admit that people are seeing stuff.
"...(and may have been here just as long)."
What? Where's the corroboration for that? Does my rational mind accept that? Hell, no! Sneaking in undocumented "whimsy" into a somewhat corroborated statement of fact is just not very nice.
"The issue of visitors to this planet, wherever (or whenever) they originate, is as vital an issue as any world geopolitical, religious, or economic affair or policy. In fact, it is probably far more important."
Ah, yes, an undocumented, unreliably recorded and outright unproved event is definitely more important than, say, nuclear war or something. Realize this, Mr. Neff, UFOs aren't alien creations until you (or someone else) proves it. It ain't been proven yet. Case closed.
"What remains is a nearly a century of 'expert' interaction with flying saucers (and other shaped craft) under extremely scientific, verifiable, and examinable circumstances. I am speaking of the countless military and commercial pilot interactions with these remarkable, unknown machines, in situations where often entirely empirical testing of data has been recorded. One could not ask for a much better 'test lab' for the UFO phenomenon than in the cockpit of a military fighter or commercial airliner.
In both situations there are one, or more, specialists in the field of atmospherics and aerodynamics in a 'flying laboratory,' well-equipped with scientifically-approved and understood instrumentation which can record and note verifiable time frames, locations, altitudes, longitudes, latitudes of the UFO phenomena. Additionally, and obviously, there is also (in countless cases) verification by radar -- which consitututes a second 'laboratory' of qualified, educated and capable specialists interpreting data.
Apart from pilots in their 'flying laboratories' and their ground-based radar counterparts, there is now also the testimony of astronauts who are increasingly detailing UFO evidence and information outside of the stratosphere.
From these three sources alone, there exists undeniable proof of the 'flying saucer.' "
No, that's not true at all. Other than grainy photographs, radar ghosts and eyewitness testimony (which is always highly questionable...ask any lawyer) I am not aware of anything empirical or scientific. Simply noting that something is there, flying around, or might be flying around, in no way proves (or even logically suggests) that it is an alien spacecraft.
"Millions of dollars are spent every year by air force units around the world from every advanced nation to intercept these aerial interlopers. Countries do not spend that kind of money chasing Venus, 'heat inversions' or entertaining myths. To suggest so is simply preposterous."
Prove it. Can't? I didn't think so. It's not like a paranormalite to cite national governments as reliable about anything. I guess they do when it serves their purposes.
"We accept without reservation the existence of atomic and subatomic particles which only a privileged handful of experts in that field of study have ever 'seen' with the most advanced special instrumentation."
Uh huh. This doesn't explain why UFO supporters assume that because these flying things are unidentified, that they also have little gray men flying them around. That's "simply preposterous."
"Granted, there is far more 'scientific' data and knowledge of atomic and subatomic particles than exists for flying saucers -- but data is data, and evidence is evidence -- and we have no trouble in trusting and being dependent upon the experiences and veracity of the physicists and scientists involved."
I love it when paranormalites put the word scientific in quotations. Like it's just some buzz word that scientists attach to things to make them seem valid.
"Like the Tasmanian Tiger, we now know they "are"... but to capture one for more advanced study proves to be essentially impossible."
Uh, the Tasmanian Tiger "isn't," anymore, since it's extinct, and we know for a fact that it was wiped out by Europeans, since we still have their pelts. I met a guy who said he had an alien pelt once, but it looked more like a bolt of suede leather left out in the rain.
"However, history shows us that the flying saucer has been coming and going on planet earth for generations, and centuries, which rules out the idea that all flying saucers are manmade craft of a clandestine technology."
Pure speculation. There's no evidence for any of that at all. There are also some pretty cool accounts of vampires, but close examination by scientists familiar with body decay and pathology have shown that vampires probably weren't supernatural. Thus, historical accounts can't be trusted without modern analysis.
What really saddens us about the flavor of this whole article is the tendency for the people responsible for the dissemination of UFO information to wholly embrace the scanty evidence for Unidentified Flying Objects and then similarly assume, without any corroboration, that the objects are alien in origin. That's inexcusable, unscientific, and just plain unfair.
Reply
I love a skeptic, and consider myself one. A big one. It takes alot to convince me of anything. I'm not even sure you are real, Jim :)
You write:
"This article basically extolls the virtues of UFO worship, though he devotes the article to damning that anyone could "believe" in UFOs at all.
God forbid ANYONE "worships" UFOs as you claim I have encouraged! My entire point is that the UFO is undeserving of such mentality... because of the weight of evidence.
Now, allow me to defend myself only on two points, the rest of which I'll leave to the readers to evaluate using that wonderful gray matter between their ears. My admonition: BE SKEPTICAL. That's the entire point. EDUCATE yourself on the facts. Once the facts are in evidence, you will come to the same conclusion. Either that, or, turn in denial and ignore the truth.
(1) I make it very clear that we have in no way defined the ORIGINS of the UFO; this has NOT been verified or proven -- admittedly it is entirely speculative that they are "alien" craft from other planets or 'outer space'. But what I DO say is that since these craft have been recorded historically dating far beyond our own industrial revolution, much less the invention of manned flight, we can surmise that these are not all "ours" (ie, man made craft). You immediately debunk this idea. Well, history is on my side here. Anyone can crack a Bible and read about Ezekiel's UFO experience... anyone can read the Upanishads of the Hindu's and read about 'air cars' powered by an energy source called 'sidis'... and if one really wants to educate oneself on the true history of UFOs, you can read quite a lot in this excellent NIGHTWATCH article entitled "UFOs Through The Ages...A Timeline." Because human beings have been describing this same phenomena for so many centuries persuades me that the phenomena is at the very least not a production of modern technology. It remains to determine what they are, where they come from, etc. So we are in agreement -- your first statement is:
"OK, we'll grant that UFOs (in this, we mean Unidentified Flying Objects) do exist. There are strange things in the sky that people see and then report to their local branch of MUFON. Maybe these objects are vehicles, or are at least unnatural phenomena built by intelligent species."
(2) My second point is to rise to your challenge of proof that the military/air forces around the world spend millions of dollars dealing with the UFO phenomena. These events are on record. Stanton Friedman and many other researchers have amassed such data, and this is nothing new or earthshaking (to the UFO educated). Iraqi & Israeli Air Force, as well as the French government, have been entirely open about their UFO encounters. Several of our own astronauts have openly told about their encounters with UFOs when in the Air Force. Major Donald E. Kehoe spent the latter part of his life documenting such cases provoked by personal experience. Filer's Files frequently and archivally have records of such events. These aren't buried someplace! They've been known to anyone wanting to learn about it for years. Do you have any idea how much it costs to send your best fighters after a radar detected interloper traveling at 3000 mph over sensitive airspace (only to close in on it and discover it's not a missile, but a silver disc with brilliant lights playing cat and mouse)? Any person in the air force will confirm this fact: it costs millions, even if it only happens a few times a year. This website is overflowing with these cases and accounts, as are many others. The documentation is openly available. The witnesses, expert. The accounts, verified.
I will not defend the idea that UFOs are proven to be alien spacecraft. I don't know what they are. I simply know they 'ARE' and that historically the evidence for their existence reveals that, whatever their origin, it is entirely unrelated to our own technological status here on earth. Hence, it is not a "belief" system. It is a rational assembly of facts with a reasonable conclusion. Flying Saucers (and other shapes and forms of this same aerial phenomena) EXIST. They being of extraterrestrial origin is, indeed, a speculation; as is, a metaphysical conclusion; as is a phenomenon of nature. My personal speculation, based on the evidence, is that these are craft with intelligent occupants and/or guided by intelligent means which is not human; there is ample evidence of intelligent control behind these devices.
As I said, what we do with this reality is squarely on the table. I appreciate your skeptical proddings. Keeps me on my toes :)
PS: The Tasmanian Tiger is "believed" to be extinct. But so was the damned Coelacanth, captured in 1938.
*This "pissed off" issue was a FORUM abuse related issue. I could not link to their example because of the kind of frames The Skeptic Report was using, but anyone interested in such soap opera and longdead issues can find it at the original posting of Jim's rebuttal to my piece.
Comment
Glenn (Name/email on file)
5-20-00
The calibur of evidence is the evidence, not its source. UFO documentation is riff with source, which is all but meaningless. Nancy Reagan will tell you there is something to astrology, the Flat-Earth society was founded by a Phd, and astronaut Edgar Mitchell believed in mental telepathy (and later, a lot of other arcane things). If source is proof of anything, then just about every thing imaginable must be true!
Joe Blow says NASA is covering up. Joe Blow knows because he use to work for NASA. More source baloney. UFO buffs have to realize that Joe Blow can say anything he wants. But until Mr. Blow drags out the evidence, it is meaningless.
**** I was recently sent a video clip which supposedly showed a UFO crashing in the desert. They sent it to the wrong fellow as, despite the doctoring done to the video, I recognized it. I had watched that video of an unmanned F-100 crashing after being launched from a ramp possibly several dozen times. The UFO scene is so hoplessly mired in hoaxes that it's a wonder there are any skeptics left who bother to debunk the videos and pictures. The field is being left to the hoaxers who are busy trying to hoax other hoaxers.
I'd like to believe in visiting aliens, but not the ones being presented in all these tales of the day. Thankfully, I don't have to. I've looked at most of the so-called evidence, and I'm afraid all the UFO community has is its tales. Stories of aliens do not aliens make.
Reply:
You sure must have read 'another' article than the one I wrote. I said nothing of photos and nothing of 'tales.' I stated explicitly that even if we toss OUT ALL photographic and even credible civilian eye witness 'accounts and reports,' there remains a monumental amount of recorded, documented data and evidence from experts in aerodynamics with cooaberative radar to validate that these craft exist and do exceed all 'publicly known' modern technological achievements. The interaction of air force units the world over demonstrate the UFO is real. You don't scramble to intercept popular imagination or hoaxes. You don't have seasoned pilots return to the ground stunned by what they've encountered, and their experiences validated by scientific instrumentation if it's all just the planet Venus or swamp gas. The evidence is sufficient to stand up in any court of law.
Comment
From: "John Doe"
Subject: Rebuttal to a Rebuttal
CC: webmaster@sightings.com
" Sorry, It's Still A Belief " (..and other groundless drivel)
Mr. Foreman,
You're a pretty cynical individual, I respect that and applaud it in it's many forms. However, I hate to be the one to inform you of this---you, Mr. Foreman, are the one who is dead wrong on the subject of UFO's. You, Mr. Foreman, are the one who has not done the research, devoted the time, nor spoken with the individuals whom this entire field of LEGITIMATE research has affected. I'm so sick and tired of people blatantly damning a subject of which they have NO UNDERSTANDING. None. I'm sure you and Philip Klass would get along wonderfully...you should ask him where his financial backing and funding for his "loosely" (at best) based organization comes from. After he dodges the question several times he'll tell you "the US Government." It's no secret, it's a known fact. He's a skeptic such as yourself. Of course, his alterior motives are less than constructive. I respect people who are not afraid to ask questions and probe subjects until they are positive there is no shell left unturned I do not respect individuals who jump on a bandwagon, which is all you're doing here, so that they can sleep easy at night knowing that there is "no such thing as aliens", you can rest easy because you think you've seen all there is to see, heard all there is to hear, and read all there is to read. You are so far from the truth, so far from reality, I think you're going to need a map to get back.
I used to be a skeptic such as you, so did my father, an engineer. Of course he changed his tune quickly while he witnessed a formation of UFO's light up the sky above Washington D.C. in 1952, along with thousands and thousands of other witnesses. Funny how your entire outlook on the world you live in (or should I say bubble) can be instantly changed when it actually happens to you. It's like telling people "ya know, rolling your car 4 times at 65mph isn't that bad, it's surviveable, I don't know what all the hooplah is..." Then the day comes that it actually happens to you, do you think you're still going to retain that viewpoint? I don't think so.
I have said this in the past, and I'm going to say it again because self-styled researchers and egotistical skeptics just don't seem to listen the first time around---do the research *before* you start making claims. It's so easy and comfortable for you to sit back and say, "yeah, well this doesn't exist, and that never happened, and this was just swamp gas, blah, blah..." C'mon, you talk about being logical when in fact all you're really accomplishing is a wonderful demonstration of the antithesis of practical logic. (I think that was a required course in my second year of college) Ruling EVERYTHING out gets you nowhere, you'll be backpedaling the rest of your life with that philosophy.
I have had two sightings of my own within the past 6 years, both of which were witnessed with other people. One, my brother, the other a good friend of mine who happens to be a police officer, now in Florida. The latter sighting occurred from the window of a 767 at 33,000 feet over New Mexico in 1995. I can tell you what it wasn't, but I can't tell you with 100% certainty what is was either. It had to be unmanned, or it had to have full control of the laws of inertia, because any human being (or animal) would have been splattered against the back wall of the craft with the g's it pulled. So, do you see me sitting here saying; "yeah, these little aliens were waving at me out the window before they shot off at high Mach instantaneously..." No. It could have been a chimp flying the damn thing for all I know, but it would be one dead chimp if it were! That's called "keeping an open mind" and staying open to ALL possibilities, not just the most obvious.
Bottomline is, this was an excercise in hearing myself speak because (and forgive any offense), people like you will never admit that you are aware of unidentified craft entering and exiting the atmosphere of this planet on a daily basis. If a craft landed on your front lawn, you STILL probably wouldn't believe your own eyes. I have pity for you, personally. I hope you can get over that same skeptical "phase" that I was in and maybe see what's really going on around you. I hope you do, really. If you want to know more about what it is you're trying to talk about, do the research, because so far all you've done is make unfounded claims of your own, with no proof of your own otherwise. The US Government tried to explain away UFO's as well...it was called Project Blue Book, (this is Ufology 101). If you'd like to take a crack at explaining away the THOUSANDS of cases THEY couldn't explain, then I'm sure we'd all be interested to see what you come up with, in fact, so would the US Air Force. The proof is here, if you've managed to get a look at ANY of the NASA footage from STS flights of the past 6 years, there is literally hours worth of footage of unexplained objects entering and exiting the upper atmosphere of Earth. This was straight footage downloaded by numerous individuals around the world off of NASA select TV, raw footage from space, in realtime. I don't think you can get any more 'real' than that.
The evidence is out there, you just haven't taken your blinders off long enough to give it a second (or first) look. If you'd viewed the data, done the research and THEN made the statements you have--it would at least be credible, but all you're doing is playing Devil's advocate with an empty revolver. Where's your ammo? Where is your support? It surely can't be from your wonderful Geocities website (c'mon, in this day and age you can pay $20 a month for a REAL hosting service, don't bring a knife to a gunfight). I can't believe you have the gall to put down the sightings.com website and call it "amaturish" when your own site is utterly ridiculous. The key is to drive traffic TO your site, not AWAY. In your case, I'm glad there is very little interest. Aside from namecalling, what valid content do you have on your site? I can't seem to find any.
You talk about fighting a war....what war? We already know what's going on, we've all seen the facts and relevant evidence, you're just lobbing water balloons over the wall at us! There is no war, only you trying to clear your mind by making the world safe from us "paranormalites", by debunking everything first, then maybe looking at the facts later if it suits your own agenda. You're the one sticking quotes around a cutesy little word you made up hoping it sounds "scientific", not us. You don't see UFO researchers running around trying to debunk skeptics, you don't see us making up immature names to tag skeptics with. If you're going to play with the big boys, at least play by the rules and don't be an ass about it. There is plenty of mutual respect to go around for everyone, your e-mail to Mr. Neff was not indicative of that.
Good luck, and happy hunting -- for more excuses.
Best Regards,
A Concerned (Veteran) Researcher & Artist
Read more articles on this topic:
Unsorted Documents 1
