tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post1294985690941988844..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Delbert Newhouse and the Utah MovieKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-45413007151860542792017-04-08T08:53:10.726-07:002017-04-08T08:53:10.726-07:00I have lived in Tremonton for 16 years. I have of...I have lived in Tremonton for 16 years. I have often seen high flying pelicans flying exactly like what is on the film during the summer months. They fly very high and in changing formations. Often they mill around in one place and then fly off. When they dive it can be fast. They are large birds with a wing span of 8 to 10 feet.Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09100928173358174663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-576726784145405052016-01-08T20:38:20.288-08:002016-01-08T20:38:20.288-08:00Why does every thread, everywhere, devolve into a ...Why does every thread, everywhere, devolve into a master class on the 25 Rules of Disinformation... But only when it relates to one of the genuinely unexplained and high quality records of a UFO?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04355521785297533930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46567601327133455012013-12-13T20:39:07.461-08:002013-12-13T20:39:07.461-08:00Alan: good one! There is some truth to what you sa...Alan: good one! There is some truth to what you say.<br /><br />I will consider the lobotomy idea!<br /><br />But not all researchers are quite as unreachable. I knew that Kevin would see the truth.<br /><br />If it doesn't bother you when the hardcore fantasists like Rudiak simply state lies as facts then maybe the lobotomy thing isn't such ignoble idea.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25029347933173003222013-12-13T19:50:38.620-08:002013-12-13T19:50:38.620-08:00Lance if as you say y'can't trust what peo...Lance if as you say y'can't trust what people claim t'see because they're constantly confusin' things all day long an' the researchers who study this sort o' stuff read nonsensical things in t'what're at best images of blobs etc then why bother?<br /><br />Clearly us seers'n'investigators of blobs're determined t'ignore your advice so why waste so much time try'n'o communicate with those who clearly won't be communicated with?<br /><br />For that matter why're y'remotely arsed if it's all just complete tosh?<br /><br />Wouldn't y'spend y'time more productively if y'lobbied Congress t'have us all locked up or lobotomised?<br /><br />At the moment though y'resemble a born again Christian or a fundamentalist Muslim standin' outside a gay night club try'n'o save the souls of people pushin' their way past you.alanborkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15333017272673090593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84589740388635584272013-12-13T11:36:08.565-08:002013-12-13T11:36:08.565-08:00Here's a N.M. reporter's sighting of multi...Here's a N.M. reporter's sighting of multiple glowing objects engaged in formation flying in the same time frame as Jim Robinson's sighting. Obviously this isn't exactly the same (different time of day and about 3 weeks later), but does point out what Jim is reporting was not unique.<br /><br />The Albuquerque Tribune<br />Wednesday, July 30, 1952, p. 1 <br /><br />Flight of Luminous Objects Maneuvers Over City<br />By DOYLE KLINE<br /><br />A flight of luminous objects—at least 10—passed over Albuquerque at 9:30 last night.<br /><br />Whatever they were, they made a “flying saucer” believer out of me. They resembled nothing I had seen before.<br /><br />Their flight, if it was flight as we know it, was soundless and graceful. At first they appeared overhead from the south. They were clustered together in no apparent pattern, heading due north.<br /><br />Then they shifted to a perfect V. The shift was done with great precision. The formation resembled a flight of geese.<br /><br />Within a second or so they formed a new pattern.<br /><br />This formation presented two rows with the objects in front spaced at exact intervals. Take your pencil and place five dots on a piece of paper. Then at a distance as far behind the dots as the dots are apart, start a new row. Place the second row of five dots so they center between the openings of the first row and you’ll see how the formation appeared.<br /><br />Incredible Performance<br /><br />If the objects were about 2500 feet over the city, as they appeared, they moved only about as fast as an F-86 Sabre jet. Going on this assumption, their shifts in position were incredibly swift, fantastically violent—in terms of our experience.<br /><br />But if their nearness to the ground was an illusion—and the Air Force has said it believes such phenomena may be tricks of the atmosphere—there performance takes on even more incredible aspects.<br /><br />Their size appeared about one third the size of the moon when it is overhead. But the light they emitted was very different. It was not as intense as a star, nor as bright as the moon. There was no color except white.<br /><br />It was soft, almost suggesting reflection from the lights of the city. The objects appeared low—yet at a great distance, if such contradiction is credible.<br /><br />If they were at a great height, and this observer would like to believe they were, their speed must be beyond comprehension.<br /><br />Witnessed Fireballs<br /><br />I was a witness on several occasions when fireballs, both green and blue white, flashed through the skies at various points in the southwest. On one occasion I reported in detail what I saw to Dr. Lincoln LaPaz, director of the University’s Institute of Meteoritics and a nationally-known authority on such things.<br /><br />Dr. LaPaz told me today that the objects I saw last night “definitely are not associated with the Perseid meteor shower.” He said the meteors are coming from the northeast, that they do not change formation nor exa=hibit “intelligence or coordination.”<br /><br />Col. William Matheny, commander of the 345h Air Defense here, reported he knew nothing of any military flights at the hour of the “saucer maneuvers” and requested me to relate what I saw to his air defense intelligence officers.<br /><br />The flight of aircraft also is familiar to me. The “lights” indulged in maneuvers impossible to modern aircraft.<br /><br />I have witnessed flight of rockets, German and American, at White Sands Proving Ground in daylight and at night. The saucers were something different altogether...”David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40577697672131781902013-12-13T07:31:53.682-08:002013-12-13T07:31:53.682-08:00Don -
Oh, I don't know... a photograph? A dia...Don -<br /><br />Oh, I don't know... a photograph? A diary entry written at the time... a letter to a friend... a newspaper account.<br /><br />Here, we have a fellow suggesting that he saw the same objects, maybe on the same time, maybe later, sometime between 10 and noon... and 700 miles away. Given that he is appending his sighting to Newhouse, I would expect something more than the vague notion of date and time.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40723007195837188292013-12-12T20:31:41.755-08:002013-12-12T20:31:41.755-08:00Apparently I failed to make it clear that,despite ...Apparently I failed to make it clear that,despite having the feeling I had seen the objects simultaneously with Newhouse's filming (because I was able to reconcile most everything in the film with what I had seen, as well as agreeing with his description of the reversal of one of the objects) I knew it couldn't have been simultaneous because of the large distance involved, which required unbelievably high altitudes.<br /><br />Of course, I could never prove any of my account (Hi, cda) because I was alone in a wheat field without camera or binoculars at the time. As to the date & time, I can only say for sure it was no longer than 2 weeks before the famous Washington flap of 1952, & it was definitely between 10am & noon.<br /><br />I can't fault anyone for not believing my story; I probably wouldn't either. Nevertheless, every word is true, including the last sentence of my previous comment.Jim Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13509149778784903417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38985628416541690652013-12-12T20:02:29.926-08:002013-12-12T20:02:29.926-08:00What documentation is required for being a first h...What documentation is required for being a first hand witness of a sighting?Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-62877677130298521342013-12-12T15:12:21.585-08:002013-12-12T15:12:21.585-08:00All -
Really... he saw the objects in New Mexico ...All -<br /><br />Really... he saw the objects in New Mexico about the same time, maybe.<br /><br />I was well aware of this sighting before I posted and I left it out on purpose because it does nothing to support Newhouse. If he was in Utah and could document the sighting in some fashion, that is one thing. But really, a half century later with no documentation...KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-74651856667799231022013-12-12T14:32:14.640-08:002013-12-12T14:32:14.640-08:00Vague collections of white dots---hey wait a minut...Vague collections of white dots---hey wait a minute. I saw those, too!<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-72918774866809637492013-12-12T13:21:03.362-08:002013-12-12T13:21:03.362-08:00CDA said:
"Does he really suppose he saw the...CDA said:<br /><br /><i>"Does he really suppose he saw the same objects as Newhouse? If not, then why does he present this as supporting evidence?"</i><br /><br />mmh...let's see... <br />because the Newhouse video was very similar to what Robinson saw?<br /><br />I think it does not really matter if the Robinson's sighting was at the same instant or not. What matters is that he saw the same objects, and he did not think they were birds.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50400507653794874392013-12-12T12:30:51.882-08:002013-12-12T12:30:51.882-08:00Kevin,
I'll reply to your comment under your ...Kevin,<br /><br />I'll reply to your comment under your new post.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54239831772733093582013-12-12T11:48:40.451-08:002013-12-12T11:48:40.451-08:00Lance -
Had you read the post carefully, you woul...Lance -<br /><br />Had you read the post carefully, you would have noted that I said that the skeptics would climb all over my interview with Newhouse some 24 years later... but, at least I talked to him with is more than William Hartmann can say.<br /><br />Second, you should have noticed that I quoted Ed Ruppelt who talked to Newhouse some two years after the event, so your criticism is misplaced...<br /><br />And third, I realize that sometimes witnesses unconsciously embellish their accounts and that these changes can take place in a matter of weeks, I will also note that sometimes the memories are accurate.<br /><br />Finally, your language is unnecessarily coarse... and will point out that the information you cite, McDonald's letter is second hand at best.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-82417803560394078682013-12-12T10:56:57.412-08:002013-12-12T10:56:57.412-08:00Danger! The Jedi Master, Old Ceedee Yay has just d...Danger! The Jedi Master, Old Ceedee Yay has just detected a massive disturbance in the Force. A death-star from the Dark Side is rapidly approaching his home world--the perpetually fog-bound planet, Skepticus.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-76242939012511800332013-12-12T07:10:51.758-08:002013-12-12T07:10:51.758-08:00I am baffled by Jim Robinson's testimony above...I am baffled by Jim Robinson's testimony above.<br /><br />Does he really suppose he saw the same objects as Newhouse? If not, then why does he present this as supporting evidence?<br /><br />There were no satellites up there in July 1952 and nowhere did Newhouse ever think his objects were 100 miles or so above the earth. <br /><br />There is no "amazing coincidence" since Mr Robinson gives no date or time and there is absolutely nothing to indicate the objects he saw were the same as in the Newhouse film. Pure conjecture.<br /><br />As supporting evidence goes, it is useless. His opening statement is "I was a witness to this event".<br />Oh no you weren't. I you still think you were, prove it.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-72087945039421062452013-12-11T16:15:45.853-08:002013-12-11T16:15:45.853-08:00All,
I was a witness to this event, and related t...All,<br /><br />I was a witness to this event, and related the details of my sighting in a blog,<i> The Tremonton Seagulls</i> 6 years ago, & it also appeared in <i>UFO Digest</i>.<br /><br />I have always felt my sighting was simultaneous with Newhouse's film, since all the details shown were the same as my sighting. Newhouse made the comment in his movie interview that he was disappointed with the film results, & that it was not what he saw. Well, maybe so, but the images were <b>precisely</b> what <b>I</b> saw. The first time I saw the film sequence I was flabbergasted,immediately recognizing most every detail of the movements, relative positions, etc., including a pair of the objects bringing up the rear of the group which were closely orbiting each other rapidly for at least a couple of laps. It's true the objects appeared to be milling about, but only within the group. The group had a very definite course & speed (east-to-west), which never varied as far as I could tell. The group was loosely strung out in its direction of motion, crossing my meridian to the north by some 10 to 20 degrees.<br /><br />The film does not show any movement, except for the relative motions, because Newhouse was panning to keep up with the group. However, I can look at those frames & tell you from memory which way was west & north.<br /><br />The lone object, which Newhouse described as simply reversing its direction, started peeling off gradually to the north shortly after crossing my meridian, and continued in a broad, sweeping turn to the right, finally disappearing just above my northeast horizon when it was headed back east. The group went horizon-to-horizon in a very short time, 3-to-5 minutes at most.<br /><br />The only trouble with all this is the fact I was standing in a wheat field in eastern New Mexico, some 700 miles from Tremonton, Utah, and any objects there would have to be at least 300,000 feet high just to clear my horizon. The objects were high in the sky for both Newhouse and myself, which could only be true if they were at least several hundred miles in altitude (have you ever tried spotting a satellite in the daytime sky with the naked eye?). These objects were very bright & white & showed no path radiance effects whatever. It's hard to believe they could have been very high, and I recall someone made the comment in one of the early investigations that they seemed to be internally lit. <br /><br />Obviously my sighting could not have been simultaneous with Newhouse,but all the identical details seen call for an amazing coincidence.<br />I estimated the size of the objects as somewhere in the vicinity of 7min. of arc, and their velocity near the meridian as 5-to-10 degrees/second. I recall thinking they looked round with no projections, but it was hard to be sure since their angular size was so small. Their motion was very smooth & machine-like; they absolutely were not birds of any kind, nor aircraft of any kind, nor balloons of any kind. Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine !!Jim Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13509149778784903417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54803605115541462922013-12-11T06:37:43.471-08:002013-12-11T06:37:43.471-08:00Anthony,
I will agree with most of your post.
Ne...Anthony,<br /><br />I will agree with most of your post.<br /><br />Newhouse did not mention the objects seeming to climb but without reference, maybe he couldn't tell.<br /><br />Your statement about the footage shows a lack of understanding of the situation.<br /><br />It isn't just a matter of a difference in the number of feet of film.<br /><br />Newhouse, was trying to make his sighting different than the 1000's of lights in the sky cases.<br /><br />He invented (at some point after 1956) this story that he had actually shot some really good close up footage before the useless crappy stuff we have all seen.<br /><br />Along several paths, I have shown definitely that this simply can't be true:<br /><br />1. The footage and what is shown on it was carefully documented by the Air Force after receipt. It is the same stuff we have seen and ONLY that stuff. <br /><br />2. Newhouse seals the deal with his contemporaneous description of the technical circumstances of the shooting. He claimed that he shot one shot at f8 and all the rests at f16. Actually there are two bursts at f8 logged on the film (brighter sky) and then 5 additional shots (darker sky) all on the film we now see and carefully logged by the military. Then there were Newhouses's vacation mountain shots. There are no close up UFO shots.<br /><br />Kevin's post was all about how Newhouse was telling people 20 years later about how he had seen the objects close up. I think there are good indications that he (intentionally or not) was embroidering his tale.<br /><br />The bullshit about two different rolls of film, etc. -- something not even hinted at in anything from 1952 suggests to me that Newhouse was seeking to increase the importance of what actually was just a distant lights in the sky case and an unfortunately mostly useless piece of film.<br /><br /><br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8490965765257582752013-12-11T01:49:26.290-08:002013-12-11T01:49:26.290-08:00Hi Lance, Larry and Lyall
Lyall - thank you very ...Hi Lance, Larry and Lyall<br /><br />Lyall - thank you very much for including the MacDonald letter. I hadn't come across that one before<br /><br />Lance and Larry - I share your interpretation of the description in the 1952 report quoted by Hartman. I am glad we seem to have some degree of consensus that Newhouse did describe the objects as appearing disk shaped as early as that.<br /><br />Lance - you mention MacDonald's scepticism concerning the change in apparent angular size with the reported change in angle of elevation. If the flight was horizontal this would be a valid point. As we do not know if the objects (e.g. birds) were moving horizontally or changing altitude I do not feel that this can be taken as being a problem. The different figures can match very simply if we presume an increase in altitude. We have no way of knowing what the initial and final altitudes of the objects filmed were but the figures quoted are well within the range of possibilities. An observer has little chance of accurately assessing altitude without a reference point. In fact I am a bit surprised at Macdonald not noting that.<br /><br />Don't think we can read too much into what seem extremely minor variations in recollection of the number of feet of film shot or approximations such as 'half' when used in conversation rather than, for example, in a scientific paper.<br /><br />Overall - The bird hypothesis comes across as extremely shaky to me. The behaviour of the Robertson panel - simply asserting this solution despite evidence presented by specialists in photo interpretation to contrary could be seen as a classic example of the use of positional power (even Hynek said he felt it difficult to challenge the great men on the panel.<br /><br />This case is one which would benefit from an up to date complete analysis.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-89004232933969081202013-12-10T20:01:30.083-08:002013-12-10T20:01:30.083-08:00Some further evidence that by the 1970's, Newh...Some further evidence that by the 1970's, Newhouse was changing his story to make it more exciting.<br /><br />http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB11-453<br /><br />Here we see on a signed 1952 statement that Newhouse himself is submitting a 50 foot roll of 16mm film.<br /><br />When Newhouse talked to McDonald decades later, he now making the claim that he actually shot about 60 feet (20 feet on a previously exposed roll) and 40 feet on a new roll that he started during the UFO event). The last 10 feet on that roll were of some mountains he shot later.<br /><br />So actually Newhouse in the 1970's is claiming he sent at least 70 feet (after all, mountain shots were there on the roll sent to the Air Force).<br /><br />This doesn't jibe with his signed statement about the 50ft. roll. On the other hand, ALL of the actual documents DO match up with one 50ft roll.<br /><br />Newhouse tells McDonald that he was missing about 10-20 feet when the film (copy) was returned to him.<br /><br />Sadly by 1990, he is now claiming that he is missing HALF of the footage he shot.<br /><br />It doesn't take too much intelligence to see the way the story is evolving. And it isn't evolving towards the truth.<br /><br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-60341947679882298562013-12-10T19:23:55.722-08:002013-12-10T19:23:55.722-08:00Larry,
You could be right. It isn't certain ...Larry, <br /><br />You could be right. It isn't certain but I think I would tend to agree with you that this makes the most sense.<br /><br />Lance<br /><br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54554061448992895382013-12-10T19:15:19.156-08:002013-12-10T19:15:19.156-08:00Lance wrote:
“…1. No clear mention of shape in 19...Lance wrote:<br /><br />“…1. No clear mention of shape in 1952 (seems to just be called object round)--later changed to saucers.”<br /><br />Again, from my Bantam Books 1968 version of the Condon report, pp 419-420, Newhouse was interviewed by “an intelligence officer” on Sept. 10, 1952. The intelligence officer’s report contains the statement: “[In the witness’s opinion]:…Objects appeared approximately as long as they were wide and thin [sic]….”<br /><br />Hartmann presumably included the Latin adverb sic which carries the connotation ("thus"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written"). Sic is added immediately after a quoted word or phrase (or a longer piece of text), to indicate that the quotation has been transcribed exactly as found in the original source, complete with any erroneous spelling or other nonstandard presentation. So Hartmann was telling us that he recognized there was some erroneous spelling or other nonstandard presentation in the sentence that precluded instant comprehension on the part of the reader.<br /><br />In describing the shape of an object, it is customary to describe the maximum extent of 3 orthogonal dimensions that encompass the object: length, width, and height. So it is logical to presume that the intelligence officer’s sentence was attempting to convey those 3 independent pieces of information. His sentence makes perfect sense if one simply inserts the missing comma, as: “Objects appeared approximately as long as they were wide, and thin.” Then the sentence describes an object whose length and width are one and the same dimension, and whose height (or thickness) is much smaller than that dimension, in other words, the length, width, and height of a discoid.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84577638168085722572013-12-10T12:49:53.125-08:002013-12-10T12:49:53.125-08:00Indeed the disconnect between the claimed angular ...Indeed the disconnect between the claimed angular size and the filmed angular size that McDonald was complaining about (why were the objects so small if they only traveled a relatively short way) is much greater if you take Newhouse's original 70 degree filming elevation---then the objects travelled a much shorter distance but were smaller by a factor of 10.<br /><br />McDonald apparently didn't know about Newhouse's original report.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-20722230975516331542013-12-10T12:32:27.716-08:002013-12-10T12:32:27.716-08:00Yes Lyall--the story changed like this (perhaps yo...Yes Lyall--the story changed like this (perhaps you haven't read this thread or I'm really not being clear):"<br /><br />1. No clear mention of shape in 1952 (seems to just be called object round)--later changed to saucers.<br /><br />2. No mention of huge angular size (which even McDonald scoffed at) in 1952.<br /><br />3. No mention of changing film etc. in 1952. This point is the one I am homing in on because it seems to clearly demonstrate that Newhouse was spinning his tale over time--Newhouse later began to claim the good closeup footage was missing! But his own words sink that story as I have tried to demonstrate. By the way, I think the stuff that Newhouse told Kevin and McDonald is highly dubious but not because he was a liar or fraud but because of human nature.<br /><br /><br />I apologize if my tone was too harsh with you. As you see above, I'm having to deal with some saucer buffs who simply state falsehoods as fact and then aren't man enough to admit their mistake.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67632473897483201152013-12-10T12:09:38.258-08:002013-12-10T12:09:38.258-08:00The rest of the letter doesn't have anything t...The rest of the letter doesn't have anything to do with Newhouse but can found at : <br />http://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/tremontonmcdonald.htm#doc<br /><br />Anyway, I’m glad I gave you a laugh Lance, when I use term unwavering I mean that Newhouse had never changed his story unlike the Fogel guy who said he faked a photo around 1960 and today says it was real. Do you have any evidence of Newhouse ever changing his story? - Is my description of the event that different from Newhouse’s ? I’m not sure what you mean by unsupported assertion or discredited. Or is this just flea picking for sake of argument.<br /> <br />Delbert Newhouse passed away around 2008 or so and strangely enough Canada’s History Channel had been scheduled to interview him but arrived three hours too late on the day that he died. <br />http://ufothemovie.blogspot.com/2008/07/main-attraction-actual-ufo-films.html<br /><br />Lyall - boy did I run into problems cutting and pasting!Lyall Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07569413806564237702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-39306874456177722822013-12-10T12:00:20.849-08:002013-12-10T12:00:20.849-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lyall Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07569413806564237702noreply@blogger.com