It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ufology is a scientific field of study

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
If I were still in school I'd take it as an elective for sure.




posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Do we know who these people are.
The UFO Hunters are not Ufologists.

Who calls on them for anything.
It must be a total hobby.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You are trying to separate contemporary ufology with other ufology and it doesn't add up.

Ufology is Ufology. It's the study of Unidentified Flying Objects. You will have different theories from different sources but it's all Ufology.


So then are you saying Blossom Goodchild, Bill Cooper, David Ickes, Billy Meier and Donald Schmidt are to be given the same weight as J. Allan Hynek, Kevin Randle, Stanton Friedman, and Jacque Valle? Surely you cannot mean that everything within contemporary Ufology should be given equal consideration and should be considered "scientific."


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
For instance, there's different theories in physics about Parallel universes. Nobody has ever seen or observed a Parallel universe yet this is accepted from people like Professor David Deutsch or Dr. Michio Kaku.


You are getting way off the point here. Could you please tell us what this argument has to do with anything Majorion brought up? His point was there is a lot of trash in this field. Surely even you can acknowledge this, right? So what does your above rant have to do with that?

Even though you are off point, ranting about something no one brought up, I understand the point you are trying to make, even if it is a false analogy. Parallel universes are to quantum mechanics what the ETH is to UFOs. That is, it is a theory that seeks to interpret and explain the data. You are just dropping buzzwords without any real understanding of the meaning.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
In every field of study you will have theories that are not accepted by the mainstream of that particular field.


Thus my question. What do you separate as being worthy of study and consideration and what do you consider worthy of dismissal?


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Again, you just can't seperate UFO's from Extraterrestrials. UFO's means Unidentified Flying Objects.


I did not bring up extraterrestrials. The only person to bring up extraterrestrials, is you. In fact, you bring up the ETH in every post.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You are talking about people arguing over cases and hoaxes. You are debating the ET hypothesis.


You miss the point. It has nothing to do with extraterrestrials. Rather, it has to do with many fans of the field not being able to accept findings they do not want to hear. If Ufology wishes to be a scientific field, then those within Ufology need to accept consensus on those findings and shun those who refuse.

And, in post after post, which you refuse to acknowledge, I have said extraterrestrials have nothing to do with UFOs.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You said:

"Right now, Ufology has trouble coming to a consensus on anything."

This again is way off because you can't separate Ufology from Extraterrestrials. Ufology doesn't have a problem coming to the consensus that UFO's Unidentified Flying Objects exist. This is a scientific consensus.


No one is arguing that and any reasonable person understands that. And I have no doubt you you understand that, but are purposefully twisting my words to be argumentative.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This is Ufology, the study of Unidentified Flying Objects.


Once again, the only person to bring up extraterrestrials is you.

Matrix Rising, as I stated earlier, you are so incensed that someone has disagreed with you on one point that you fail to see when they are agreeing with you on others. You refuse to realize that we are meeting you half way, and are entrenching yourself to the point of absurdity.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Hello Matrix Rising,

Firstly, I would like to thank you (if I havent) for this thread as I find it to be one of those rare and informative discussions that we can have on this forum about UFOs. The debate is well worth it.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You are trying to seperate contemporary ufology with other ufology and it doesn't add up.


No, I am not defining another Ufology, as of today, as of right now, there is only one Ufology. But what I am attempting to separate are two things;

1) is the concept of studying unexplained aerial phenomena in a scientific manner - based solely on collecting data pertaining to the different craft and phenomena reported in our planets skies.

2) the Ufology of today and what has been accumulated in hundreds and thousands of books, interviews, documentaries, events, etc - and all this forms the collective research and insights of the different theories and explanations all the other related phenomena and issues such as abductions, alien history, government cover up, conspiracy, secrecy, and so on.

The study of UFOs, without any bias from either side, and simply studying the data alone, without any preconceived notions and hypothesis like the ETH or anything else - may be considered a scientific investigation, if the scientific method is applied of course.


Ufology is Ufology. It's the study of Unidentified Flying Objects. You will have different theories from different sources but it's all Ufology.


I am afraid that I must disagree with you on this point.

Ufology is not the unbiased sole data gathering and study of unidentified aerial phenomena, alone. Ufology has turned into something of a tell-tale of explanations and a few genuine efforts to prove that UFOs are extraterrestrial.

And although a few credible researchers like Friedman and Richard Dolan have convinced me personally that extraterrestrial is the most likely explanation, I cannot agree with you that Ufology is supposedly the same thing as the study of UFOs. Theres simply a monumental difference, imo.


I have never seen a Parallel universe but I have seen 3 U.F.O.'s. I can see pictures and videos of UFO's and hear eyewitness accounts from police officers and pilots. I can't do this with Parallel universes.


Thats a good point you reiterate! I do agree with you there. UFOs definitely exist, even most skeptics will admit that. But many people, especially those within the scientific community, beg to differ with the popular extraterrestrial hypothesis, and to them, this is the corner stone of Ufology, to them, this is all Ufology is about these days, and they would be correct.

Fact of the matter is that Ufology has not established any concrete conclusions, I hate to say it, because I definitely believe otherwise, but this is the truth, and if we want the matter to be taken seriously, then we need to start anew, start from the beginning, and encourage investigation of the matter without the preconditions that have become the defining aspect of contemporary Ufology. The study of the aerial phenomena by itself is what takes us to the next stage.

As for Abductions for example, I think that Ufology has intermingled all of these issues together, when they could be totally different phenomena, with completely different explanations. Thus, my opinion is that these things need to be separate, Abductions require its own investigation. Unfortunately, all is one and the same in Ufology.

Best regards,

[edit on 17/6/09 by Majorion]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Of course Ufology is a scientific field of study and should be offered as a class in colleges.

Yeah. Just as Santaclausology.


Give me a break!

Show me an alien.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
What have they determined.
Do they have any clue at all.
Its all the Alien explanation for the UFO.
Otherwise its all man made lies for the man made UFO.
Well there are lies on both parts.

They lie about Aliens because that was the official word
from day one in the 1950s as shown on 'Secret Space'
video. Willy Ley with his big goggle glasses says we know
nothing about the Alien technology. He was a prize microwave
scientist of Hitler and a member of the Rocket Society in
New Mexico in the 1930s. Ley quit just before Wernher von Braun
came to take back to Germany important findings. When Wernher
came back in 1945, Ley was probably in the design team for the
Ameican saucers that flu over the Capitol. A secret treaty was
signed to keep the technology secret.

Oh yeah, there is evidence Tesla was in New Mexico and had
a laboratory accessible the Ley and Von Braun.
Germany got rocket and UFO secrets before WWII.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


You keep saying the same thing but it's not making much sense. If U.F.O.'s exist which is a subject that's agreed upon in both scientific and non scientific circles, so yes it's a legitimate field of study.

There's theories in physics that are not taught in a physics class, does this mean we should scrap the whole field of physics?

There's theories in Microbiology that's not taught in a class on Microbiology, does this mean that we should scrap the whole field of Microbiology?

This is a intellectually dishonest argument. All classes have filters and there's theories and discussions in class that exclude things that you speak of.

Nobody is talking about teaching about someone saying Visitation will occur on this date or in this area.

Again, this is a strawman argument that is brought up because you know your argument is weak.

We have a framework already built that will form the bases of Ufology as it would be taught in a college course.

This simple quote sets things up perfectly:

"The evidence that there are objects which have been seen in our atmosphere, and even on terra firma, that cannot be accounted for either as man-made objects or as any physical force or effect known to our scientists seems to me to be overwhelming. . . There have been thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of sightings and encounters, physical results and of the latter, by people all over the world whose evidence on any other subject would be accepted without question."

Lord Hill-Norton, Admiral of the Fleet, former Chief of the Defence Staff, former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. United Kingdom, 1988.

The problem is people want to exclude talk of Extraterrestrials. You can't exclude this because these things are UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS. This means you don't know what they are. Science can not exclude the ET Hypothesis because of bias. It's silly because you can't reduce the universe to life on earth that started 4.5 billion years ago.

There's billions of exoplanets.
NASA discovered liquid water on Mars and signs of microbrial life.
Some UFO's could be another life form that has yet to be discovered.

This discussion belongs in an academic setting with academic research money. Everyone says there's Unidentified Flying Objects flying in our skies.

Once you say U.F.O.'s exist then Ufology becomes a legitimate field of study. The definition of Ufology is, the study of Unidentified Flying Objects.

If there Unidentified the ET Hypothesis has to be included by definition because you don't know what they are. Especially in light of Parallel universes, extra-dimensions and other things that are taught that have never been observed or measured. Yet, U.F.O.'s have been observed and measured from pictures, videos, mass sightings, trace evidence, radar and more.

You have no facts. You have yet to answer the simple question, do you think U.F.O.'s exist. Yes or No? It's a simple question that you have failed to answer because your argument is weak.

If you say yes then of course it should be taught in class, if you say no then your a closed minded skeptic. I have yet to debate one person in scientific or non scientific fields that will deny UFO's exist.

THIS IS UFOLOGY, THE STUDY OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 



You just described Ufology.

Ufology can be tested through the mathematical process. Have you heard of Drake's equation? Have you heard of Seti or Dyson Spheres?

What about trace evidence?


I can go on and on.

So yes, by your definition Ufology should be a scientific field of study.


(shortened so I can reply)

I just wanted state that this is one of the best and most commendable posts I have ever encountered via posts online related to intelligent UFO discussion. It's really refreshing to read an intelligent and responsible reply as opposed to the UFO fan mail that pervades so many UFO discussions online. Those like yourself and the great Stanton Friedman are the real backbone in mindset of the UFO community. Jokers like all the mental cases on this forum that are claiming to be aliens or those claiming to possess an exact knowledge of cloaked war ships or other such preposterous perverted religious nonsense are what give a VERY credible field of scientific interest a bad name & smell.

Thanks!



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I'm on the side that Ufology should be taken seriously, and I've argued that in other threads.

To be concise here, and then bow out: UFO/UAOs have been observed by enough credible witnesses, tracked on radar, photographed, left ground traces, disrupted power sources, disarmed nuclear tipped missiles etc. that they, whether extraterrestrial or not, need to be understood by some branch of science. That would be Ufology if no other branch rises to the occasion.

(edit for spelling)

[edit on 17-6-2009 by 1SawSomeThings]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


Again, this post is all over the place.

On one hand you say U.F.O.'s should be study and then you say we should exclude the ET hypothesis.

What???

How can you exclude the ET Hypothesis when by definition these things are UNIDENTIFIED? That makes no sense.

Does Theoretical Physics exclude Parallel uniiverses or extra dimensions? We have never seen or observed these things.

You can't exclude the ET Hypothesis because the ET Hypothesis is tied to current scientific understanding.

Extraterrestials would be a result of evolution which is a scientific field of study.

Some say the are extra dimensional. The study of extra dimensions is a scientific field of study.

Some say they are a psychological effect. Psychology is a legitimate field of study.

So, yes the ET Hypothesis has to be included in the study of Unidentified Flying Objects because you have no basis to exclude it beyond your own personal bias.

By definition Unidentified means we don't know.

The E.T. Hypothesis is based on observed evidence from eyewitness accounts, abduction cases, mass sightings and more. Maybe we will find that abduction cases have a psychological explanation. To deny these things because of a personal bias is silly.

Science is about exploration and we can't limit the explanation of the universe to a person's personal point of view. We don't know what constitutes 96% of the universe so how can you exclude the ET Hypothesis from an explanation of Unidentified Flying Objects?

How does that make any sense?



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I'm on the side that Ufology should be taken seriously, and I've argued that in other threads.

To be concise here, and then bow out: UFO/UAOs have been observed by enough credible witnesses, tracked on radar, photographed, left ground traces, disrupted power sources, disarmed nuclear tipped missiles etc. that they, whether extraterrestrial or not, need to be understood by some branch of science. That would be Ufology if no other branch rises to the occasion.

(edit for spelling)

[edit on 17-6-2009 by 1SawSomeThings]


Good points,

If Ufology is in the arena of academia then it will be a very focused debate and discussion as to what these Unidentified Flying Objects are. Also, more research money would be available to do research in this area.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Majorion
 
On one hand you say U.F.O.'s should be study and then you say we should exclude the ET hypothesis.

What???


OK we do a course on Ufology, there are certainly a lot of sightings of UFOs to study, analyze, and research, that would take up most of the course I presume. So let's say we don't exclude ET, how much time would the course spend on it? Maybe a mention of 5 minutes in one lecture saying "OK we've identified a lot of these UFO sightings, now let's look at what the theories are for the sightings we were unable to identify. One of those theories is craft controlled by ETs" I don't see any problem with that, but really how much more can you say about it and still be scientific about it?



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
So, yes the ET Hypothesis has to be included in the study of Unidentified Flying Objects because you have no basis to exclude it beyond your own personal bias.


I have already stated more than once, that my personal bias is that some UFOs are extraterrestrial, I think it is the most likely explanation, but putting my own bias aside, I dont think that there is enough concrete evidence to establish the UFO phenomenon as that of an extraterrestrial explanation as of yet. Are you even reading my posts?


To deny these things because of a personal bias is silly


True, but then again, Ive already told you more than once and have reiterated my belief that the ETH is most likely, but we must put our own personal bias' aside and study the data relating to UFOs alone. Abductions is a completely different thing, a different field. Throwing all these things together makes it difficult to be accepted as a scientific field of study.


By definition Unidentified means we don't know.


Exactly. So why not start from there?


How can you exclude the ET Hypothesis when by definition these things are UNIDENTIFIED? That makes no sense.


I am not excluding the ETH. I am simply leaving room for other possible explanations. We are not supposed to be biased, remember?


Best regards,

[edit on 17/6/09 by Majorion]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Majorion
 
On one hand you say U.F.O.'s should be study and then you say we should exclude the ET hypothesis.

What???


OK we do a course on Ufology, there are certainly a lot of sightings of UFOs to study, analyze, and research, that would take up most of the course I presume. So let's say we don't exclude ET, how much time would the course spend on it? Maybe a mention of 5 minutes in one lecture saying "OK we've identified a lot of these UFO sightings, now let's look at what the theories are for the sightings we were unable to identify. One of those theories is craft controlled by ETs" I don't see any problem with that, but really how much more can you say about it and still be scientific about it?


Good question,

There's plenty to discuss and discover in this area.

You can discuss the ET Hypothesis as well as atmospheric explanations for these things. You can look into the psychological aspect of it as well as doing discussion on new life forms, exoplanets and microbrial life in the universe.

I think a great name for the course would be Theoretical Ufology.

This way all theories can be discussed and debated that pertain to Unidentified Flying Objects.

To me, science can't be limited by personal bias. We live in a vast universe and science talks about thing like dark energy, extra dimensions and parallel universes. Surely we can talk about Unidentified Flying Objects which both scientific and non scientific circles say exist.

This will also bring more research dollars into the subject.

A good example of scientific exploration to me is the Society of Scientific Exploration which produces the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

www.scientificexploration.org...

I think there's room in Science for publications like Nature or Scientific American and the Journal of Scientific Exploration.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You keep saying the same thing but it's not making much sense. If U.F.O.'s exist which is a subject that's agreed upon in both scientific and non scientific circles, so yes it's a legitimate field of study.


Thank you for re-wording a point I have made before. UFOs are a worthy subject for study. Majorion and I have stated and restated this. Why won't you grant us that?


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
There's theories in physics that are not taught in a physics class, does this mean we should scrap the whole field of physics?

There's theories in Microbiology that's not taught in a class on Microbiology, does this mean that we should scrap the whole field of Microbiology?


Of course, and no one is suggesting otherwise. You are making an argument to the absurd, rephrasing my arguments and points (ie; twisting them) to make your arguments. This itself is a strawman argument so you do not have to answer the question.

I am asking what would and would not be taught. What would and wouldn't be taught. What experts would you teach?


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
We have a framework already built that will form the bases of Ufology as it would be taught in a college course.


What is this framework? What are the specifics?


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Once you say U.F.O.'s exist then Ufology becomes a legitimate field of study. The definition of Ufology is, the study of Unidentified Flying Objects.


You say Ufology is the study of UFOs, but that is a very broad definition. There are plenty of people who "study" UFOs but what they do could not be considered a science. So, where is the drawing line?


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The problem is people want to exclude talk of Extraterrestrials.


This just proves you are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. First you attacks us for being supposedly unable to separate aliens and UFOs. Now you are saying we are trying to exclude the ETH.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising You have yet to answer the simple question, do you think U.F.O.'s exist. Yes or No? It's a simple question that you have failed to answer because your argument is weak.


Matrix Rising, I have answered this question several times now. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Why do you refuse to acknowledge this?

Why have you ignored what was stated in this post, this post, this post and this post?

This is not a conversation, just you arguing for the sake of arguing. For it to be a conversation, you have to at least acknowledge when questions have been answered for you, repeatedly, and when people are agreeing with your points or meeting you half way.

So, for us to continue the conversation, could you at least acknowledge that yes I have answered this question?


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
If you say yes then of course it should be taught in class, if you say no then your a closed minded skeptic.


You are presenting a false dichotomy. Is there no room for a middle ground? What if I told you that the subject of UFOs is worthy of scientific study but we know so little about it that it should not be taught in college? Would I be a closed-minded skeptic?

Or is a closed-minded skeptic defined as "someone who does not agree with Matrix Rising's every word"?

[edit on 17-6-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Matrix Rising,

It gets down to this; todays Ufology has got its fair share of Greers and Blossom Goodchilds and other trash in the field. Now the question is; do you accept that in the context of a scientific field of study? Is all this the same thing to you?

Best regards,



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
It gets down to this; todays Ufology has got its fair share of Greers and Blossom Goodchilds and other trash in the field. Now the question is; do you accept that in the context of a scientific field of study? Is all this the same thing to you?


That is what this boils down to. Matrix Rising has defined Ufology is very broad terms. But what constitutes the study of UFOs? What is legitimate and what is not?



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Good question,

There's plenty to discuss and discover in this area.

You can discuss the ET Hypothesis as well as atmospheric explanations for these things. You can look into the psychological aspect of it as well as doing discussion on new life forms, exoplanets and microbrial life in the universe.

I think a great name for the course would be Theoretical Ufology.

This way all theories can be discussed and debated that pertain to Unidentified Flying Objects.


Thanks for saying it was a good question, and thanks for the good answer.

Actually some universities have had exobiology courses for quite some time, I attended one many years ago, covering the Drake equation and such, and the kind of things that researchers like Dr. Seth Shostak look at. So having a little overlap with that in another course wouldn't be anything new at some places, so I agree those are valid scientific subjects for college courses, as would be looking at the atmospheric explanations you mentioned alongside other theories such as ETs.

So I think we are in basic agreement here. But I would like to qualify something. I just attended a college course which covered genetics and evolution, and guess what theory they mentioned? The opposite of evolution, aka creationism. While they didn't want to take away anyone's religious belief, they took 10 minutes explaining why Creationism is NOT a valid scientific theory. So if that's the context in which you say that "all theories could be discussed", even if it means discrediting those which have absolutely no scientific basis in the UFO field (just as the creationism theory has no scientific basis in the field of evolution, and was discussed only to point out that it has absolutely no scientific value) then I'm sure we are in complete agreement.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Good question,

There's plenty to discuss and discover in this area.

You can discuss the ET Hypothesis as well as atmospheric explanations for these things. You can look into the psychological aspect of it as well as doing discussion on new life forms, exoplanets and microbrial life in the universe.

I think a great name for the course would be Theoretical Ufology.

This way all theories can be discussed and debated that pertain to Unidentified Flying Objects.


Thanks for saying it was a good question, and thanks for the good answer.

Actually some universities have had exobiology courses for quite some time, I attended one many years ago, covering the Drake equation and such, and the kind of things that researchers like Dr. Seth Shostak look at. So having a little overlap with that in another course wouldn't be anything new at some places, so I agree those are valid scientific subjects for college courses, as would be looking at the atmospheric explanations you mentioned alongside other theories such as ETs.

So I think we are in basic agreement here. But I would like to qualify something. I just attended a college course which covered genetics and evolution, and guess what theory they mentioned? The opposite of evolution, aka creationism. While they didn't want to take away anyone's religious belief, they took 10 minutes explaining why Creationism is NOT a valid scientific theory. So if that's the context in which you say that "all theories could be discussed", even if it means discrediting those which have absolutely no scientific basis in the UFO field (just as the creationism theory has no scientific basis in the field of evolution, and was discussed only to point out that it has absolutely no scientific value) then I'm sure we are in complete agreement.


Good post and this is exactly what I'm talking about.

I personally agree with the ET Hypothesis but all theories should be discussed. Also theories should be welcomed that try to discredit and point to other explanations.

This is why it belongs in an academic setting.

You can build and debate new and existing theories that explain Unidentified Flying Objects. You will also get more research dollars.

It's not even open to debate if U.F.O.'s exist. I have debated those in scientific circles as well as non scientific circle and they are all in agreement that U.F.O.'s exist. Not extraterrestrials but Unidentified Flying Objects.

Here's some title's of papers that were published on this topic.

McDonald, James E., "UFOs: Extraterrestrial Probes?", Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 5, August 1967, pp. 19-20.

"Our Extraterrestrial Heritage: From UFO's to Space Colonies", Proceedings of the Joint Symposium, Los Angeles, Calif., January 28, Symposium sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and World Futures Society, 1978.

Morgan, David L. Jr., "Evaluating Extreme Movements of UFO's and Postulating an Explanation of Effects of Forces on Their Maneuverability", ASME Design Engineering conference, New York City, May 15-19, 1967, session 10.

Five Arguments Against Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects. J. Valee

Walker, Sydney, "Establishing Observer Creditability: A Proposed method", Journal of Astronautical Sciences, Vol. XV, No. 2, pp. 92-96, March-April, 1968.

Hynek, Allen J., "UFO's Merit Scientific Study", Science, October 21, 1966.

Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation. Haisch, Puthoff 2005.

www.ufoevidence.org...

So these things would be discussed and researched in an academic setting.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join