UFO Conjectures

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Solid light and the Burkes Flat UFO of 1966

While looking for UFO sightings in the time-frame of the 1966 Ann Arbor/Dexter/Hillsdale “swamp gas” sightings, I came across the Burkes Flat (Australia) sighting of April 4th, 1966, which was featured as part of The Science Channel’s “Close Encounter” series [May 15/16, 2014].

Here is the full story as found on a Facebook page about Australian UFO sightings:

Date: April 4th, 1966

Location: Burkes Flat, Victoria, Australia

At about 8:00 p.m., Ron Sullivan, was travelling on a straight sealed section of the Dunolly-St.Arnaud road, near Bourkes Flat, in central country Victoria. Ahead in a pasture off to his right, Sullivan observed an unusual light. He first took it to be a tractor, engaged in night plowing, but as he drew closer, Sullivan began to see a most unusual light display, located at ground level. The following things happened quickly as he drew closer to the scene, and then passed it. He was paying attention to both the light display in the pasture on his right and the road when he observed the following sequence of light display in the strange phenomenon in the pasture.

Initially, as he approached, Sullivan saw a white phosphorous type of light on the ground that appeared to be about 15' in diameter. It opened up and there was another white oval on top of it, about 30' in height, coming down making the shape of a cone, with a 15' bottom diameter and 20' top diameter. And in that cone were tubes of colored lights, all the lights as you see as you look through the spectrum, all the colors of the rainbow red, blue, indigo & purple. Travelling up and down, or they seem to be, from the small oval to the bigger oval at the top. They were going up and down in shafts. Then gradually the top seemed to come to meet the bottom, They seemed to close in, making a transition of one light oval, similar to first view, everything then just disappeared. The last thing Sullivan saw of the light display was just a spot on the ground, a light spot, become smaller and smaller, to nothing. Meanwhile, as he was driving, he observed that his car headlight beams suddenly appeared to be pointing in a direction off to the right in the direction of the strange light display and also seemed to be, bending back on an axis with the object in the pasture. As he got closer, the angle of bending of his cars headlight beams became more acute.

He thought his car must have been heading off the road to the right, and immediately compensated by turning it to the left. He found he was now heading directly towards a tree on the left hand side of the road. He turned the car to the right to regain the direction of travel along the straight section of road, thoroughly confused and leaving behind the display in the pasture.

He had his car lights checked and found them to be working properly. Later in Maryborough he found that a young man from Carnegie, Gary Taylor, was killed in a car accident at Burkes Flat on the night of April 6th, two nights later. Sullivan reported his experience to police. At the accident site, it was determined that Taylors car had collided with the same tree that Sullivan almost collided with 2 nights earlier. Directly opposite the tree in the pasture, about 70 yards from the roadway, coincident with where Sullivan saw the strange light display, a shallow depression was found in the plowed earth. It was a little over 3' in diameter and only a few inches in depth. The depression was cleanly scooped out of the sandy soil with no apparent debris around it. There were no human or animal tracks around the area. The property owner indicated the depression had not been there when he had finished plowing. There appeared to be no explanation for the depression or the light display.


A few things struck me about this story…

First a personal note: We had a Gary Taylor working with us from (about 1966) to 1987. He’s still alive and kicking, but not his doppelganger, as noted in the account above.

And in looking at my notes about the Dexter/Frank Mannor 1966 Ann Arbor/Dexter sighting that shoved Allen Hynek into buffoonery with his “swamp gas” explanation, Mr. Mannor said the object he saw, “had a light coming out of the bottom” -- a light that looked like milk being “spilt” into the ground, except that it was a light, that reflected off the surrounding trees.

Light acting like a solid has been the topic of conjecture in some science circles:

One of the 1966 Wanaque photos, which I’ve always considered a fake, but Anthony Bragalia insists is authentic, shows a light, emanating from a “craft” that has a solid demeanor about it:

There are a plethora of UFO sightings with light beams, none bending as that at Burkes Flat, but seemingly solid, not the wave/particle light that Einstein dealt with.

This would seem to be a topic for scrutiny by ufologists of a serious kind, those who seek a clue or explanation explaining the UFO phenomenon.

(I’ll present more, and have passed my interest on to The Einstein Fellowship, an adjunct group of ours.)

For more on Burkes Flat, you might Google Bill Chalker and Burkes Flat. Mr. Chalker is a bona fide UFO researcher, whose analyses and research is above reproach.



  • Taken at face value, the highly anomalous bending headlight beams are one of the key features of the report. There aren't many conceivable ways this could happen. In ascending orders of "exotic-ness" the ones I can think of would be:

    1. Mirror-like finish, if the headlights were reflecting off the object in a new direction. (Assumes headlights hitting object)

    2. Object's surface being made of metamaterials, now being experimented with in our labs, which can bend EM waves around an object much like they are being refracted by a lens. (Again assumes headlights hitting object) In theory, if done right, this could cloak the object or render it invisible (if it is not glowing), because regardless of what direction you view the object from, you will be seeing light from the background being bent around it, not light reflected off the object itself. (How we usually view objects)

    3. Actual warping of space-time around the object, which gets us back to Joel Crook's father's theory that UFO's are able to alter the fundamental EM constants of the vacuum. If they increase, space-time curvature increases as well. (Here, the headlights would NOT have to be striking object--the bending would occur in the region around the object where space-time curvature had changed.) Obviously, much more highly speculative.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Saturday, May 17, 2014  

  • Some internet musings on the light-bending phenomenon -- one related to Penniston of Rendlesham fame?:


    And this:

    Also, in several cases, light (e.g. from car headlights or beaming spotlights) is reported to "bend" in front of the UFO, an effect which some suggest is related with the most controversial aspect of UFO reports: the apparent ability to disappear / "blink out" or seem to "implode" (diminish in angular size) [miniature-scale "gravitational lensing"-type phenomenon?]




    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, May 17, 2014  

  • David: you beat me to the punch in the time it took me to write this up.

    Continuing along the lines proposed by Puthoff, et. al, and assuming the witness was reporting things accurately, all the reported optical effects can be explained by localized changes in the index of refraction of light in the space surrounding the object or objects.

    Taking for example, the bending of the headlight beams toward the object: this implies that the index of refraction in the space surrounding the object is increasing in the radial-inward direction. The amount of bending is predicted by Snell’s law and is proportional to the ratio of the index of refraction in the near vicinity of the object to the index of refraction in air (far away from the object). That the witness reported the bending of the headlight beams becoming greater as his car drew closer to the object says that the gradient in the index of refraction increases significantly on the spatial scale of the car and the object (≈ 20 ft).

    Next considering the light show in the region of space between the two ovals: it is significant that the witness reported seeing the “light tubes” as having all the colors of the rainbow (i.e., a complete spectrum). In other words, the region between the two ovals acts like a prism and disperses any light in this region, into its component wavelengths. This requires the index of refraction in the region to be constant and numerically greater than that of the surrounding region.

    So, light rays that originate from outside the region between the two ovals are bent around the region by a radial gradient in the index of refraction while light that either originates from inside the region or manages to traverse it is dispersed into its constituent colors by a constant index of refraction (as in raindrops creating a rainbow).

    Now consider the reported behavior in which one oval seems to descend on the other and the two merge into one. This sounds suspiciously like a mirage which, again, is dependent on there existing a strong gradient in the index of refraction, but this time the gradient is symmetric about a horizontal plane of reflection. I suggest that there was actually only one object with its mirror image and that the apparent motion of the two objects merging was actually an illusion caused by a time-changing index of refraction gradient.

    So the model emerging here is of an oval object (which could have been a lenticular disk seen in profile) creating a field around itself that is both radially symmetric and symmetric about a plane of reflection. The field, which has been proposed to be identical to Paul Hill’s “acceleration field” used for propulsion is identical to Puthoff’s “Polarizable Vacuum” method of engineering the space-time matrix of Einstein’s General Relativity theory (http://www.gravitycontrol.org/pdf/jbisZPE.pdf). Rich; you might want to give this suggestion to your Einstein Fellowship.

    Alternatively, maybe Ron Sullivan was just making crap up.

    By Blogger Larry, at Saturday, May 17, 2014  

  • Taking the descriptions of the event without superimposing an extraterrestrial craft into it, this is an event that brings to mind what is contained in Appendix Four: Electromagnetic Wave Ducting of the GEPAN-SEPRA report. It is here: http://www.ufocasebook.com/gepanreport.html. If you scroll down the page, you will find it. Of course this is but one potential explanation.
    The other observation that I think is another superimposition is the direct comparison to those tagged with an “extraterrestrial” label without the benefit of any measurements beyond a witness description that implies a common denominator ( ET) is another error of putting the cart before the horse. There may be several causes rather than a common one.
    The other issue are the illustrations and or photographs tied to an event that can be inaccurate, intentionally misleading or prone to open ended interpretations where ET can be inserted.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • Also
    Natural but anomalous geophysical and atmospheric phenomenon can exhibit extreme high strangeness.
    This link gives a good representation of papers delivered on this..
    Recently it was reported that the geology of this area may have contributed to creating this phenomenon.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • Bruce would rather have an esoteric physical property explain what witnesses report but the attending UFO complicates that scenario, unless the witness is hallucinating. The sightings are more than a confrontation with an anomalous physical intrusion of a rare kind, it seems to me.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • ttp://theozfiles.blogspot.com.ayThanks for highting the 1966 Burkes Flat story. It is indeed a fascinating case. These two links describe some research into "solid light" and the Burkes Flat event

    They can be accessed via my main blog.
    Thanks for highlighting "the spilt milk" aspect in the "swamp gas" saga. I had missed that. Interesting to see what the consensus is on that. Fodder for natural forces, optical effects or something more exotic?

    By Blogger Bill Chalker, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • 1. If deception is involved in the myriad of shapes and sizes, then the deception is more obvious than the prosaic which is counter-intuitive to logic. Why draw attention to itself without a purpose?
    2. If these phantoms can bend space ( time) then were are there no localised gravitational anomalies present in the environment? The mass required would pull a car off the street.
    3. In the historical accounts, why have these phantoms appeared as non spaceships in the atmosphere?
    4. In close encounters with conventional craft at extraordinary speed, why has no turbulence been experienced?
    5. If observation is the point of these alleged craft why is it necessary to enter the atmosphere when telemetry devices etc can do this outside of it?
    6. Why fly in close proximity to conventional aircraft?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • Thanks Bill for the links. The Burkes Flat account is extremely fascinating, to me.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • Keeping your quantum connection in mind, Bruce, one can say the episode is altered by its measurement or observation.

    That would account for the variations, or "deception" that you seem to prefer.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • I would agree with that. I guess what bothers me at times, is that this is such a incommensurable phenomenon and at the same time there is a sort of close minded focus on a sole ET hypothesis.
    Strictly for myself this points to other more social and cultural psychologies at play.
    The fact that the development of forms and shapes has paralleled technological developments as well as belief systems seems to indicate the sort of feedback system a macro-quantum effect might indicate.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • Bruce:
    Thanks for the reference to the GEPAN/SEPRA document that mentions Von Eshelman's comments on atmospheric electromagnetic wave ducting (which is a fancy name for mirages--whether at optical wavelengths or radar).

    First, note that the phenomenon he refers to IS actually caused by a change in the index of refraction. In that case, however, it is the index of refraction of air whose density is greater or less at different locations because it is hotter or cooler at different loactions.

    The relatively well studied phenomenon of atmospheric ducting has two characteristics that are inconsistent with the Burkes Flat report which is why I dismissed it after considering it. First, the variations in atmospheric density are driven by variations in temperature which in turn are driven by the naturally occurng structure of the atmosphere. Atmospheric structure, of course, is driven by gravity, which is why the displaced images in mirages occur in the vertical direction. In the Burkes Flat case, the headlights were bent in the horizontal plane and the dispersion of the light into the spectrum occurred in the horizontal plane. This clearly implies that if there is a gradient in the index of refraction it is in the horizontal direction and thus not driven by the gravity vector.

    Secondly, because the amount of bending of light in naturally occurring wave ducting is proportional to the temperature gradient in the air, the ability to bend headlights a noticeable amount within the spatial scale of 20 feet implies a very large temperature gradient. I don't see how such a large gradient could possibly be stable.

    If someone can show a theoretical or empirical case for the natural existence of thermally driven atmospheric structure with the stability and complexity implied by this case, I will of course reconsider.

    By Blogger Larry, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • Bruce wrote: (part 1 of 2)
    1. If deception is involved in the myriad of shapes and sizes, then the deception is more obvious than the prosaic which is counter-intuitive to logic. Why draw attention to itself without a purpose?

    How do you know there is necessarily an attempt to deceive, or if deception is at work that there is no purpose? (Notice your implicit assumptions at work?) E.g., maybe the purpose is to gradually introduce one's presence to a few at a time but to make the encounter have high-strangeness so few outside the witnesses might believe it. Human's call that plausible deniability.

    2. If these phantoms can bend space ( time) then were are there no localised gravitational anomalies present in the environment? The mass required would pull a car off the street.

    The gravitational anomalies might disappear once the objects and their propulsion system leave the scene. (Why do you assume any anomalies would necessarily hang around?). If something like Heim-Droescher Unified-Field Theory were correct, no large masses needed for artificial gravity, only very large magnetic fields just a little beyond our laboratory superconducting magnets.

    3. In the historical accounts, why have these phantoms appeared as non spaceships in the atmosphere?

    Again, how do you know this? People back then might merely be describing them with metaphors they could understand in their own time frame, like flaming shields or dragons or chariots of the gods. The concept of “spaceships” would probably be well outside the understanding of cavemen or ancient Romans. Alternatively they might use camouflage to conceal their true shape and nature, which would change as human society changes. (Even dumb animals employ camouflage, sometimes NOT to conceal oneself but to appear as something else.)

    4. In close encounters with conventional craft at extraordinary speed, why has no turbulence been experienced?

    Some times some turbulence has been reported. This also relates to why typically no sonic boom when they go supersonic, and the consensus among literal rocket scientists like Hermann Oberth, Paul Hill, and James McCampbell is they control the airflow around them with fields, changing shock waves to smooth laminar flow. This also enables them to go at hypersonic speeds within the atmosphere with much less energy. Concept currently being researched, e.g., by aeronautical engineer Leik Myrabo of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Again, this all might be explained with technology only a little beyond our own.

    5. If observation is the point of these alleged craft why is it necessary to enter the atmosphere when telemetry devices etc can do this outside of it?

    Even IF surveillance were the SOLE motivation, for the same reasons human spy agencies need to get in close and personal sometimes and not rely solely on spy satellites. Same with scientists or linguists or anthropologists, in other words, also depends on what is being studied. Some information can only be reliably collected closeup or with a direct physical presence. Also spy agencies will sometimes give a target a "poke" to see how they respond or deliver a message, such as flying a plane close to a target's borders or even penetrating their air space. (Putin just did this to the U.S.) Intrusions at our missile sites and shutting them down would be an example of giving us a poke and delivering a message at the same time.

    6. Why fly in close proximity to conventional aircraft?

    For one, just another way to get a close look or give a target a poke, or maybe pilots are curious and playing tourist, or maybe accidental, or maybe they're being a little malicious and like to scare the humans, or any number of possible things.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • (part 2 of 2)
    Once had some human jet jockeys fly their jets screaming only 50 feet above my car at near Mach 1 and scared the living bejeezus out of my family and myself. What logical military "purpose" was served in doing that, other than they were just being a-holes for the fun of it by scaring the living bejeezus out of some civilians?

    In short, even our fellow humans often don't behave in ways that seem rational to us personally. Humans do all sorts of seemingly irrational things on the surface, but sometimes there is method in the madness. Was "9/11" a "rational" event? Is the behavior of serial killers "rational"? Is Wall Street "rational"? Are joyriding teenagers "rational"? Depends on your POV.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • Larry
    The example in the GEPAN report was simply an example of a bizarre electromagnetic effect being pertinent to misapprehension by observation and was not meant to be directly applicable to the event in question. It struck me as illustrative of several naturally occurring optical effects that do not necessarily infer beings from outer space. I think it is more probable ( if true) that this is an unknown effect in the same general category than a "landing" of an extraterrestrial space ship.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • 1. Deception or camouflaging is a commonly cited behavior attributed to this phenomenon. If it is to produce the same plausible deniability as you suggest, it has utterly failed in deflecting the credibility of high strangeness atmospheric events while also producing a large population of ET believers.
    2.Most physicists consider a extremely dense form of matter ( as in a black hole) required to bend space ( time) I said nothing about lingering effects but rather localized immediate effects.
    3. Your theory would assume that a great deal of metaphoric description would apply to all cases of the variability of forms
    which isn't likely. This would also apply to more contemporary cases which also exhibit huge variability.
    4. These are theoretical explanations that are yet unproved although there have been experiments to cut the atmosphere at the leading edge at the wing but you lose lift if this effect is extended and hence the turbulence left behind as a consequence. The ambivalence of the theories could leave open the possibility that anything is theoretically possible but isnt very pragmatic in a helpful sense.
    5. This is more of a bias projection of human behavior involved in contest or competition which I see no evidence for except for filling in a blank with the familiar.
    6. The same as #5 it is unlikely an advanced civilization would do drive by's to scare the locals or act like the Dukes of Hazard.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • Also..
    Was "9/11" a "rational" event? Is the behavior of serial killers "rational"? Is Wall Street "rational"? Are joyriding teenagers "rational"? Depends on your POV"

    This is pure and simple anthropomorphism as a bias projection on a unknown.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • Bruce...

    You write:

    "Deception or camouflaging is a commonly cited behavior attributed to this phenomenon."

    Is it?

    The phenomenon is mysterious and incalculably odd.

    Is is just as likely to be an ET manifestation as a spurt of a strange physical anomaly, quantum or something else.

    I don't see it as ET as anyone knows from reading me here and through the years.

    But one can't rule that out, based upon logic or thoughtful cogitation (as David Rudiak insists). He's right.

    You have a swelling against the ET proposition, but your position is just as iffy as the ETH, when push comes to shove.

    Let's leave the door open, and explore the phenomenon with an open-mind, and no bias either way.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • Rich
    Jose's theory of "unknown agents" is pretty common whether ET, demons, tricksters etc.. If you are studying by observation a species in their natural habitat, you don't suddenly act like a bull in a china shop just to see what will happen.
    I have never said ET visitation is impossible, it is extremely improbable and there's a difference in that.It could happen at some later date. There are very strange happenings all around us but I doubt ET is one of them although it has a sort of trans-personal appeal to me..a kind of transcendent happening in relation to what we know..all the more reason to find some balance in that and to be wary of any old tale.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • We are in agreement, pretty much, BD.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • Bruce asked:

    “… If these phantoms can bend space time) then [why] are there no localised gravitational anomalies present in the environment?”

    Sometimes there ARE localized anomalies reported such as water being pulled up in a peak underneath them, or tree branches being disturbed without being touched, etc. even cars being rocked and lifted. It seems to depend heavily on the proximity to the phantom and its state of activity (landed, hovering, in active flight, etc.) This is discussed in Paul Hill’s book and is one of his main pieces of evidence for the existence of an “acceleration field”.

    “…The mass required would pull a car off the street.”

    That’s if you assume that the warping of the local space-time metric is caused entirely by a static spatial distribution of mass/energy (as in a black hole, for example). But that’s not what is being proposed. You may know that there is a small community of theoretical physicists and cosmologists who “design” wormholes and stargates and present their work at various interstellar travel conferences. By “designing” wormholes and stargates I mean that they invent clever arrangements of mass and then calculate the effect this would have on warping of the space-time metric using standard General Relativity equations. The idea is to create a wormhole mouth that is sufficiently large to allow a human or a human scale vehicle to enter it and that has a sufficiently gradual gradient in it that it would not tear humans apart due to tidal forces. So far, the lowest mass design requires approximately 1 Jupiter mass.

    Nobody is proposing that there was a Jupiter-mass object sitting next to the highway in Australia. The conjecture is that these objects have a technology that allows the direct altering of the electric permittivity (epsilon0) and magnetic permeability (mu0) of space in a field surrounding and closely attached to the object. This was discussed in a post about a month ago at Kevin Randle’s blog. Such an alteration would have two effects. The primary effect is to alter the scale factor in Einstein’s GR equation. Since this change would appear in a term that’s raised to the fourth power, small changes have very large effects. The result is to lower the mass/energy threshold required to create something like a stable wormhole/stargate to the point where the mass of the vehicle itself would suffice (many orders of magnitude smaller than 1 Jupiter mass). The second result would be to create the range of refractive optics effects that seem to have been reported in this case.

    The fact that one conjectured mechanism can explain both how materially real UFOs could move around in a non-Newtonian manner and why they would have the optical appearance reported in this case is highly suggestive.

    By Blogger Larry, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • Larry
    Its a intriguing theoretical possibility that as they say, "sounds good on paper".Vectoring is entirely different matter depending on what theory of space time you ascribe to.They seem to be a dime a dozen. Again I tend to be pragmatic rightly or wrongly as a matter of agnosticism.
    However directed space (time) forces are problematic in that classical ufology separates this aspect this from that aspect and more often than not ignores the forest for the trees, the entire landscape or context.
    This is especially true in the Roswell roundabout where the microcosm of unreliable information becomes so parsed it is an abstraction in of itself.
    I don't think that divide and conquer is a viable tactic in all this for what it's worth.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • Also..Larry
    Have you looked at the gravitational mapping of localized anomalies in the field which seems to correspond with the geophysical properties where they are found? The crystalline deposits found appear to have an effect on co-creating these pockets of variability which is interesting if they precipitate or co-create an effect in relation to electromagnetic force.
    Have you read any of this stuff?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • I wrote:
    Was "9/11" a "rational" event? Is the behavior of serial killers "rational"? Is Wall Street "rational"? Are joyriding teenagers "rational"? Depends on your POV"

    Bruce responded:
    "This is pure and simple anthropomorphism as a bias projection on a unknown."

    And yours is pure and simple "anti-anthropomorphism" that aliens would NEVER behave like humans would (even if it would entirely logical for them to do so even from a totally non-human frame of mind), thus your own implicit bias projection on the unknown.

    Another of your seeming implicit assumptions is that would have absolutely no interest in knowing anything other than what they could glean remotely from orbit. Really? How could you possibly know what their various agendas might be, any number of imaginable ones would require them to enter the atmosphere and even land or even possibly have human-looking agents wander among us to get the full details on how humans in different cultures behave and the multiple languages they speak?

    This all depends on one's implicit assumptions of how detailed a "surveillance" might be. Is it purely a military one, a scientific one, a geophysical one, a cultural one, a biological one, all or some of the above?

    If we found a planet with intelligent technological beings with a world civilization posing a potential threat to us in the future, also rich in biological diversity and natural resources, what would we be interested in and what would we be studying? Would we just observe from orbit and never go down and check out at least some things at close range?

    This isn't a strictly anthropomorphic question but one of what intelligent species in general might logically be interested in.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Sunday, May 18, 2014  

  • David
    Its a matter of seeing the forest instead of one tree. Examining the entire phenomenon instead of cherry picking a theoretical is more my cup of tea and going further into your personal beliefs is about as far from being pragmatic as I can imagine.
    If the extraterrestrial scenario suits whatever is driving your desire to see it to come to fruition as an acceptable reality then I am not the guy to spend time with by exchanging curve balls.
    It will produce nothing but pointless theologies. You see spacemen and I do not. Evangelising this subject off into the wild blue yonder is like shoveling sand into the tide for both parties.
    All I can say is I hope this morning finds you well.
    This line of reasoning reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend and who said the world’s problems could be solved with “Affordabilium” a safe, cheap source of energy and I like him still have that need for simple and understandable answers to complex problems. I doubt that ET or affordable energy would change human nature to any significant degree, although that kind of idealism keeps hope afloat in spite of evidence to the contrary.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, May 19, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home