Advancements in UFOlogy

Originally posted by Access Denied

Originally posted by malakiem
The skeptics still feel it's impossible that a flying saucer could travel here from across the universe.

Not impossible... extremely unlikely... especially manned... and most likely wouldn't look anything like a "flying saucer".

Hi Access Denied

How do you figure?

Originally posted by GeeGee
How do you figure?

Which part? If it's the "flying saucer" part I say that because Kenneth Arnold's sighting in 1947, the first sighting to be described as a "flying saucer", actually looked like this according to him...




Ever since then many people have claimed to see "flying saucers" (i.e. two plates or saucers together facing each other to form the classic Science Fiction "disc" shape) even though that's not what he really saw.

[edit to add clarification]

[edit on 14-10-2007 by Access Denied]

reply to post by Access Denied


He didn't claim to see a "flying saucer", as you can see in the picture, he claimed to see a crescent shaped craft moving "Like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water". But I understand where you're going with it. I've often wondered at the same thing.

Typical of the media to screw up something so simple.

[edit on 14-10-2007 by Zenagain]

[edit on 14-10-2007 by Zenagain]

Whether the ufo's are military or alien craft doesn't matter really. Doesn't that mean the their technology is way beyond ours and even though we the public get nicer camera's and camcorders, technology is booming. Wouldn't their technology boom as well and always stay ahead of us. I've heard that the black ops government" if there is one of these organizations" has technology that would blow the publics mind to see. And if it's alien technology then who's to say what they have. I do feel that if we knew about all these secret technology advancements, that it would change the money system on this planet and unslave us all.

Originally posted by Access Denied
Which part?

If it's the "flying saucer" part I say that because Kenneth Arnold's sighting in 1947, the first sighting to be described as a "flying saucer", actually looked like this according to him...

Ever since then many people have claimed to see "flying saucers" (i.e. two plates or saucers together facing each other to form the classic Science Fiction "disc" shape) even though that's not what he really saw.

I mean, if saucers are really built by us, why don't they just come out and say so? What's all the secrecy about?

Personally it makes sense to me that if they reveal the saucer truth, they also have to reveal the ET truth. There's no reason why they would have to hide saucer technology for 50+ years if it were actually man made.

Also, if you check out the "aliens are NOT real" thread, a poster linked a few sites that explains UFO sightings dating back to the early 1900's.

Originally posted by GeeGee
I mean, if saucers are really built by us, why don't they just come out and say so? What's all the secrecy about?

Many "flying saucer" (UFO) reports (especially the famous ones) were undoubtedly of (then) secret military aircraft or otherwise involved operations deemed to be of a sensitive nature. They didn't come out and say so because they're secret and they don’t want their enemies finding out what they’ve been up to. That’s what’s known as a “cover-up” done in the interest of National Security. Sucks if you’re the one who saw something and freaked out because you didn’t know what it was.

As far as the rest of UFO reports go, some are misidentifications of ordinary things that looked strange for whatever reason (because of the conditions), some are hoaxes, and some are who knows what (no way to tell for sure)… doesn’t mean it was ET but a lot of people want to believe it was.

Originally posted by GeeGee
Personally it makes sense to me that if they reveal the saucer truth, they also have to reveal the ET truth. There's no reason why they would have to hide saucer technology for 50+ years if it were actually man made.

Many people don’t believe it but the military doesn’t have any “flying saucer” technology and they are just as much in the dark about whether or not we are actually being visited by ET as everyone else… although they (as do I and the vast majority of scientists) remain convinced we’re not based on all the available evidence so far. That of course would change in a hurry if a UFO landed on the White House lawn or something else truly extraordinary happens.

Originally posted by GeeGee
Also, if you check out the "aliens are NOT real" thread, a poster linked a few sites that explains UFO sightings dating back to the early 1900's.

Right but they didn’t report seeing “flying saucers” did they?

That’s my $0.02 anyway…

In regards to the original question, there is this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also don't forget all the new advancements in detecting exoplanets, this has added some support for the prospect of alien life, and we've only just begun.

"Advancement" is a pretty tricky thing to define, especially when it comes to the study of UFOs. In some ways an advancement might be nothing more or less than not heading so much in a wrong direction. You also have to understand that we really haven't seriously been at it for very long. Sixty years, maybe at the most. It took science 1,000 years to invent the light bulb. We've barely gotten started.

However in that time, we've at least made advancements on several fronts:

1) The ability for the Average Joe to take a photographic image and analzye it for himself and find out what it's all about. It wasn't too long ago that the best we could hope for was some horribly grainy print of a photo in a little pulp paperback. Now we can download high-resolution images and pick them apart ourselves. Of course, the opportunity is greater for hoaxes, but just by so many people being sensitive to hoaxes makes them easier to foil and ignore. I think that's progress.

1.a) People are also getting easier access to higher quality photo and video stuff, so they can catch those rare authentic UFOs when they show up. Digital photos were lousy at first, but they're getting better fast. It also increased the noise level, of course, but we're able to handle it better thanks to #1 above.

2) More openness when it comes to unconventional theories. When This all first started out, flying saucers were either Russian spies or space aliens. These days, I think there's a greater understanding that maybe the explanations aren't that simple, whether it has to do with psycho-social projections, time manipulation, or what have you.

3) Not so much interest or credit given to contactees. Back in the Fifties, it seemed like there was no end to people who were given rides aboard flying saucers by human-line aliens to the local planets. They all had books, and none of them had so much as an alien lug nut to prove it. I think it's a positive thing that these folks are asked a bit tougher questions than in the past. Abductees, however, are a different story. We'll need to wait and see just how that shakes down.

4) General acceptance of UFOs is very high. I don't know what the latest figures are, but a huge percentage of average people understand and accept that there are strange things flying around, and they can't all be debunked. That's a huge step forward. Back in the flying saucer days, it used to be that unless you saw one, you we're very skeptical. Now, however, even if you haven't seen one in person, you have to admit something odd is going on. The ridicule factor has almost vanished.

5) Recognized involvement by unknown government agencies. I'm not talking about Blue Book. I'm talking about a growing awareness of clandestine government activity in the UFO field, usually investigatory, but sometimes disinforming. A lot of it is probably spook chasing, that is, looking for security leaks. But a lot of it seems to be relatively active involvement for some unknown reason, although I would guess it's either to cover up what they know, and maybe more important, what they don't know. Hard to tell, though. That's why they call it SECRET.

That's just a few things I can think of where we've made progress. Of course, we haven't "cracked the case" yet, and even if we find one batch of aliens or time travelers, that doesn't mean those other UFOs are the same thing. But personally, I think we're coming along, slowly. Like I said, we haven't really been at it that long.

Originally posted by Access Denied

Many "flying saucer" (UFO) reports (especially the famous ones) were undoubtedly of (then) secret military aircraft or otherwise involved operations deemed to be of a sensitive nature. They didn't come out and say so because they're secret and they don’t want their enemies finding out what they’ve been up to.

That’s what’s known as a “cover-up” done in the interest of National Security. Sucks if you’re the one who saw something and freaked out because you didn’t know what it was.

As far as the rest of UFO reports go, some are misidentification's of ordinary things that looked strange for whatever reason (because of the conditions), some are hoaxes, and some are who knows what (no way to tell for sure)… doesn’t mean it was ET but a lot of people want to believe it was.

Oh I definitely agree that most UFO's are ours, especially black triangles, but I don't see why it is illogical to think that we obtained that technology from ET's. Hypothetically speaking, if we were the first ones to create saucers in less than 100 years, what makes you think that other advanced civilizations wouldn't have something similar or better?

As far as enemies knowing our secret....the cat's been out of the bag for at least 50 years.

I just don't see a logical, Earthly reason for them to cover this up for 50 years if more than half the population have seen flying saucers. It's not even a secret anymore.

Many people don’t believe it but the military doesn’t have any “flying saucer” technology and they are just as much in the dark about whether or not we are actually being visited by ET as everyone else… although they (as do I and the vast majority of scientists) remain convinced we’re not based on all the available evidence so far. That of course would change in a hurry if a UFO landed on the White House lawn or something else truly extraordinary happens.

Yes, that type of event would definitely shock the nation all right. So what is your take on flying saucers if you believe we don't have any?

Right but they didn’t report seeing “flying saucers” did they?

That’s my $0.02 anyway…

If they're from a very far distance, it'd be quite hard to tell exactly what they are. Even if it's a flying object, in the 1900's there were no aircraft that we know of. There are cave drawings of what looks to be flying saucers and humanoid figures, although I wouldn't necessarily promote that as proof. Thanks for you input by the way.


[edit on 15-10-2007 by GeeGee]

Reading the replies here and gathering my thoughts, I have come to the conclusion that either I don't understand or perhaps I don't want to. An interesting thought excercise for myself.

I am still firmly of the belief that the reason that UFOlogy has made little or no advancement is the extenive cover up that has been going on ad infinitum and the reason is it so successful is plausible deniability.

I don't believe for one second that if a UFO landed on the White House lawn that it would not be covered up. There is a large, professional and some not so professional group of people that are simply regurgitating what the mainstream tells them and are not using common sense, reason and logic that is so often thrown back at believers when my opinion is that the debunkers and deniers are lacking same in many respects.

I also don't think this situation will or can change in the short term, to each their own I guess.

EDIT: Thank you to all for your thoughts.


[edit on 17/10/07 by Prote]

Originally posted by Access Denied
Many "flying saucer" (UFO) reports (especially the famous ones) were undoubtedly of (then) secret military aircraft or otherwise involved operations deemed to be of a sensitive nature.

I don't think there is any evidence to support that claim. Which specific cases did you have in mind?

Originally posted by Access Denied
Right but they didn’t report seeing “flying saucers” did they?

Pre-modern sightings describe aerial phenomena that are basically identical to modern sightings.

As the MoD's Condign report states, "Descriptions are much the same and often identical to those reported today." and "Listings go back far beyond the days of all manned flight, lasers or satellites. Hence, none of these familiar objects of the 20th century could have caused the earlier reports shown." - Vol. 1, Chapter 2, 17


[edit on 17-10-2007 by lost_shaman]

reply to post by Prote

I am still firmly of the belief that the reason that UFOlogy has made little or no advancement is the extenive cover up that has been going on ad infinitum and the reason is it so successful is plausible deniability.

Hi Prote, I agree gererally. One point usually overlooked is that the government should be getting better at covering up and denying as they get better equipment, procedures and experience. On the other side, ETs probably know that they need to use more sophisticated techniques as time goes on such as cloaking as more and more people become aware and expect to observe their presence.
We can assume that non disclosure is and will continue to be a well enforced policy for ET and governments around the world. No reason to believe otherwise and I think this thread supports this.

Originally posted by plumranch
We can assume that non disclosure is and will continue to be a well enforced policy for ET and governments around the world. No reason to believe otherwise and I think this thread supports this.

The NASA commissioned 1961 Brookings report addresses this very issue or not depending on your take on the relevant paragraph.

""Evidences of its (E.T. - l_s) existence might also be found in artifacts left on the moon or other planets. The consequences for attitudes and values are unpredictable, but would vary profoundly in different cultures and between groups within complex societies; a crucial factor would be the nature of the communication between us and the other beings. Whether or not earth would be inspired to an all-out space effort by such a discovery (E.T. - l_s) is moot: societies sure of their own place in the universe have disintegrated when confronted by a superior society, and others have survived even though changed. Clearly, the better we can come to understand the factors involved in responding to such crises the better prepared we may be."

en.wikipedia.org...-0


To me it reads like a policy statement. The point is very 'clear', while NASA 'might' benefit from popular support after 'certain Discoveries' this is a non-issue because entire "societies" have " disintegrated when confronted by a superior society".

Isn't that really saying Scientific 'Discovery' of E.T. is basically treasonous (National Security) as it causes "societies" to "disintegrate" or only "survive" by being "changed" through "crisis"?

Last I checked a "crisis" of any kind was a 'security' issue.

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Originally posted by Access Denied
Many "flying saucer" (UFO) reports (especially the famous ones) were undoubtedly of (then) secret military aircraft or otherwise involved operations deemed to be of a sensitive nature.

I don't think there is any evidence to support that claim. Which specific cases did you have in mind?

Let me see if I got this right, this is where I post a list of the top 10-20 famous cases I’ve investigated and you respond with “no that’s not right” just like every case and document we’ve argued about correct? No thanks, I’ll pass.

UFOlogy has had 60 years to prove their case… isn’t it about time for a change?

How about say a multiple independent witness account with multiple independent photographs and/or video of an object that was tracked on radar?

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Originally posted by Access Denied

Right but they didn’t report seeing “flying saucers” did they?

Pre-modern sightings describe aerial phenomena that are basically identical to modern sightings.

As the MoD's Condign report states, "Descriptions are much the same and often identical to those reported today." and "Listings go back far beyond the days of all manned flight, lasers or satellites. Hence, none of these familiar objects of the 20th century could have caused the earlier reports shown." - Vol. 1, Chapter 2, 17

Who said anything about BOL? Show me a pre-modern (1947) sighting of a classic “flying saucer” or an encounter with a “grey alien” prior to 1961.

[besides a few obscure references to “discs” in wikipedia or similar and don’t forget the first manned balloon flight was in 1783]

Later,

AD

Hi Plumranch,

Originally posted by plumranch
One point usually overlooked is that the government should be getting better at covering up and denying as they get better equipment, procedures and experience.

I think they are but every cover up adds to the noise and adds more weight to the deniers cause. I also believe it adds to the "smoke without fire". Even if you are on the fence, just how much smoke do you need before realising there's a flame.

Originally posted by plumranch
On the other side, ETs probably know that they need to use more sophisticated techniques as time goes on such as cloaking as more and more people become aware and expect to observe their presence.

I think those with personal experiences, it is undeniable and unmistakable that they are here. It is and always will be a personal and subjective issue. I actually think it's best this way.

Originally posted by plumranch
We can assume that non disclosure is and will continue to be a well enforced policy for ET and governments around the world. No reason to believe otherwise and I think this thread supports this.

I agree. Strange as it may sound, I don't really want disclosure because it would probably be spun. I'm quite comfortable with my belief/knowledge and I don't need others to share the view for me to get confirmation.

Hi AD,

I disagree with most of what you say but I'm not interested in swaying someone's viewpoint and going head to head, rather, I'm happy to hear the viewpoint and try to understand it better.

I was wondering about this...

Originally posted by Access Denied
UFOlogy has had 60 years to prove their case… isn’t it about time for a change?

What change are you speaking of or wishing for?

reply to post by Prote

I think they are but every cover up adds to the noise and adds more weight to the deniers cause. I also believe it adds to the "smoke without fire". Even if you are on the fence, just how much smoke do you need before realising there's a flame.

Hi Prote, I agree entirely. The bottome line is that most of humanity needs actual proof in the form of hardware, ETs or governmental disclosure. And without that proof it's back to Monday night football and the 9 to 5. I guess the rest of us have various reasons to stay interested. For me it started back in the 60s when my best buddy watched an obvious saucer shaped craft do an incredible flight over a corn field.

Originally posted by Access Denied
Let me see if I got this right, this is where I post a list of the top 10-20 famous cases I’ve investigated and you respond with “no that’s not right” just like every case and document we’ve argued about correct? No thanks, I’ll pass.

How about supporting your claim that 'flying saucers' were Military aircraft especially "famous cases"?

Why even make a claim like that unless your willing to support it?

Originally posted by Access Denied
UFOlogy has had 60 years to prove their case… isn’t it about time for a change?

Prove what? That there are unidentifiable objects in the atmosphere. Well I thought just about everyone understands that to be the case these days.

Originally posted by Access Denied
How about say a multiple independent witness account with multiple independent photographs and/or video of an object that was tracked on radar?

There have been several cases that would fit that description. What exactly would that do for us anyway? Tells us that somethings flying around and we don't know what it is? We already know that.

Originally posted by Access Denied
Who said anything about BOL?

Not I. Did you say something about BOL? If so I missed it.

Originally posted by Access Denied
Show me a pre-modern (1947) sighting of a classic “flying saucer” or an encounter with a “grey alien” prior to 1961.

What do "grey aliens" have to do with this discussion?



1808 , Sept. 1 8:07 pm Russia, Moscow

“In 1808 at a meeting of Moscow Naturalist Society Andrey Chebotaryov, a 24-year-old professor of chemistry at the Moscow University, made a report on a meteor that he happened to see,” says Galina Ponomaryova, an expert of the State Astronomy University.

“On September, 1, 1808, at 8 o’clock and 7 minutes in the afternoon, in the sky, clear and sown with stars, a phenomenon appeared, incomparable in its beauty and rigor, as well as in radiance and enormous size, to anything seen before. As we noticed it, attracted by the loud cracking sound, it was rising in an arch over the horizon, from 55’ to almost 90’. Having passed this distance in an instant, it stopped among the clouds as if over the Kremlin and looked like a long straight plate some nine arshin (6.35 meter) long and half arshin (0.35 meter) thick.

Then on its front edge, turned to the South-West, an oval flame flared, some two arshin (1.4 meter) long and one and a half arshin (1.4 meter) thick, with a flame that can only be compared to the radiance of burning phosphor.

Floating in a circle without open fire or sparkle, it nonetheless lighted everything around as broad daylight; then the flame went out, the light disappeared, but the bright plate remained and quite smoothly went perpendicularly upwards, reached the stars and still could be seen for some two minutes and then, without disappearing, it became invisible due to the extraordinary height.”
( www.mosnews.com... )

Originally posted by Access Denied
[besides a few obscure references to “discs” in wikipedia or similar and don’t forget the first manned balloon flight was in 1783]

So if a reference is listed on a wikipedia page then it doesn't count?

Yes I know the first manned balloon flight was in June, 1783. Your not suggesting that sightings after 1783 are explainable as hot air balloons are you?

Originally posted by Prote

I disagree with most of what you say but I'm not interested in swaying someone's viewpoint and going head to head, rather, I'm happy to hear the viewpoint and try to understand it better.

Hi Prote, that right there is the definition of an open mind, cool. I fully expect that most here would not agree with me. The reason I post is to share things from my perspective and hopefully encourage others to look at the phenomena from a different viewpoint then the one they’ve perhaps been indoctrinated into believing without even realizing it (not saying that applies to everyone). Why? Because once upon a time (in a Galaxy far far away lol) I was where many I see here are today… woefully misinformed by the charlatans, hoaxers, and intellectually dishonest folks that dominate this field.

Originally posted by Prote

I was wondering about this...

Originally posted by Access Denied

UFOlogy has had 60 years to prove their case… isn’t it about time for a change?

What change are you speaking of or wishing for?

Thank you for asking me for my opinion. In addition to what I said earlier about UFOlogy being dead until folks learn how to sort out the wheat from chafe for themselves, I think the biggest change that needs to be made if any advancement is to be made is for folks to start realizing that contrary to “popular belief” there’s a very high probability that the Government isn’t holding any secrets about ETs from outer space… i.e. the answer to the UFO question that you seek is going to have to come from somewhere else… either from within, as through personal experience, or from without, as in a flying saucer landing on the White House for all the world to see. Otherwise UFOlogy is a trap that’s all too easily to fall into and it usually goes something like this…

“There have been thousands of UFO reports by credible witnesses so clearly “something” is going on and surely the Government in their infinite wisdom must know the “truth” therefore the reason we can’t prove to the world Aliens are here is because “they” are keeping a lid on all the best evidence.”

BS! The whole “disclosure” thing is a red herring… it’s just a convenient excuse made up by those who know they can’t provide any evidence to support their claims and still want people to listen to them… or buy their books. It’s old news… the USG already released their secret UFO files (Project Blue Book) 30 years ago under intense public pressure and criticism and got themselves out of the UFO “business” by turning the responsibility to investigate sightings over to civilian research groups (like MUFON). The ETH crowd got what they wanted and yet I wonder how many here have actually bothered to even look at the actual Blue Book files? Oh right, those aren’t the “good” cases…yeah OK.

Anyway, once you drop the “conspiracy to suppress the truth” nonsense, I think the mainstream will be more inclined not to associate UFOs with nut jobs and those in the mainstream who may have seen something unusual may be more inclined to come forward and talk about it.

Originally posted by lost_shaman

How about supporting your claim that 'flying saucers' were Military aircraft especially "famous cases"?

Why even make a claim like that unless your willing to support it?

Because that wasn’t a claim, it was my $0.02… take it for what it’s worth. Did you miss that part? I’ve already outlined the evidence to support my opinion on many famous cases both here and elsewhere and you know it.

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Prove what? That there are unidentifiable objects in the atmosphere. Well I thought just about everyone understands that to be the case these days.

Right but that doesn’t mean they’re from outer space and you know as well as I do that there’s no proof… otherwise we wouldn’t be here arguing about it now would we?

Originally posted by lost_shaman

There have been several cases that would fit that description. What exactly would that do for us anyway? Tells us that somethings flying around and we don't know what it is? We already know that.

I’m not sure what cases you’re talking about but yeah I guess I see your point.

If you’re talking about the Belgium case I would suggest reading this…

The So-Called "Belgian Ufo Wave" - A Critical View
www.skepticreport.com...

Many people who once believed in UFOs do not believe in them any longer. In contrast with a vast number of credulous people who believe in anything that gets into print, these former-UFO believers have started to check, systematically, the validity of the testimonies and of the literature that constitute the "UFO phenomenon". Their doubts have increased constantly. Indeed, as soon as one starts digging a little deeper into this matter, it becomes clear that ufology is unsubstantiated. Consequently, each year, more and more reputed ufologists admit that they have erred or were on the wrong track; after what they join the rank of the ex-ufologists. This important fact is generally ignored by those who believe in extraterrestrial UFOs and is often censored or falsely explained by the ufologists themselves.

One enters and stays "in" ufology just as if it were a cult, sheltered from any hard facts that could trigger a process of disbelief. Ufology is scientific neither in its methodology nor in its achievements. The so-called "Belgian UFO wave" is a fine example of that...

Time and again, when subjected to closer scrutiny and critical thought, the case for the ETH simply falls apart.

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Not I. Did you say something about BOL? If so I missed it.

You invoked the MoD report. As you know the working hypothesis of the report is that a number of unexplained similar cases suggest the possibility for the existence of a heretofore undiscovered rare and poorly understood atmospheric phenomenon… e.g. “massless” electrically charged objects like “dusty” plasmas might explain BOLs, foo fighters, and other similar sightings reported by pilots.

Originally posted by lost_shaman

What do "grey aliens" have to do with this discussion?

Dude this is ATS, are you kidding?

Originally posted by lost_shaman

In 1808 at a meeting of Moscow Naturalist Society Andrey Chebotaryov, a 24-year-old professor of chemistry at the Moscow University, made a report on a meteor that he happened to see,” says Galina Ponomaryova, an expert of the State Astronomy University.

My point exactly. This early sighting, despite the witness’ bizarre description which we know is highly subjective and ambiguous at best, was attributed to a meteor… not a “flying saucer”.

Originally posted by lost_shaman

So if a reference is listed on a wikipedia page then it doesn't count?

No it’s redundant.

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Yes I know the first manned balloon flight was in June, 1783. Your not suggesting that sightings after 1783 are explainable as hot air balloons are you?

No but I’m suggesting some might be (either outright or inspired by). The popular UFOlogy argument that there were no manmade aircraft prior to the early 1900s therefore anything before that must be ET is bunk… dreams of flying machines have been in the popular consciousness for centuries if not for all time (e.g. Icarus)… long before they became a reality.

Later,

AD

[edit on 21-10-2007 by Access Denied]

Originally posted by Access Denied
BS! The whole “disclosure” thing is a red herring… it’s just a convenient excuse made up by those who know they can’t provide any evidence to support their claims and still want people to listen to them… or buy their books. It’s old news… the USG already released their secret UFO files (Project Blue Book) 30 years ago under intense public pressure and criticism and got themselves out of the UFO “business” by turning the responsibility to investigate sightings over to civilian research groups (like MUFON). The ETH crowd got what they wanted and yet I wonder how many here have actually bothered to even look at the actual Blue Book files? Oh right, those aren’t the “good” cases…yeah OK.

Anyway, once you drop the “conspiracy to suppress the truth” nonsense, I think the mainstream will be more inclined not to associate UFOs with nut jobs and those in the mainstream who may have seen something unusual may be more inclined to come forward and talk about it.

If this is their idea of a red herring, than it is absolutely worthless. The general populace doesn't even believe in UFO's or aliens, they only care what comes out of CNN. They'll only listen to government officials with proof, and as of yet no one has any. I agree with you that most if not all spotted UFO's are ours, but I don't see how this means that there aren't ET's here on Earth. It seems you have trouble accepting that little green men(and others) might have given us this technology. With all the abductions/encounters since the 50's, I seriously don't understand how you think there's nothing to this.

[edit on 21-10-2007 by GeeGee]