ENLIGHTENED MAGNETISM (The Full Proof of Ken Wheeler's Theories)

[Aaron]

counterspace

I am a firm believer in ether (or aether if you prefer the old ways), but also there I see no need for counterspace.

I am fully aware of the fact that the word 'dimension' is not fully understood by many and that some of those have given it different meanings. But in mathematics and physics it is clearly defined, and I stick to those definitions. If you mean to say something else, use another word. Space as we perceive it has 3 dimensions, which are all measured by the same unit (meter). The fact that they are all measured by the same unit or the fact that they are interchangeable does not make it 1 dimension. So if someone says space has 1 dimension, then he redefines the word 'dimension'.

Rudolf Steiner is an example of someone who thinks deeply but not clearly, and I have the impression that his counterspace again differs from both EPD's and Nick C.'s, but until I can find his definition I have no absolute proof.
Aarons piston with vacuum and pressure, escapes me completely. I read the words and an image of a gasoline engine forms in my mind, but how that relates to space-counterspace... I have not the faintest clue.

A piston wasn't part of what I personally posted, what I did post is still in my post.

You say you believe in the aether and see no need for counterspace. However, you would have to define what qualifies something as space? Can there be space with no aether and if not what do you call it? It would be the opposite of space.

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufopolitics,

Please don't worry too much about my understanding of Euclidean geometry... I'll manage, trust me.

Euclidean Geometry basically the part that concern Us about Counterspace...is the fact that from a Point...he can start drawing very complex 3D Volumes...just by "extrusions", projections, rotations, as linear and curve paths...that by leaving behind a solid trace...they form solid objects.

A fact is...that Euclidean Geometry is exactly the way Nature creates everything around us...

I am a firm believer in ether (or aether if you prefer the old ways), but also there I see no need for counterspace.

That is a VERY good advance!...to -at least try- to believe in Ether...and if you do so...please, note that Ether "lives" in Counterspace.

I am fully aware of the fact that the word 'dimension' is not fully understood by many and that some of those have given it different meanings. But in mathematics and physics it is clearly defined, and I stick to those definitions. If you mean to say something else, use another word. Space as we perceive it has 3 dimensions, which are all measured by the same unit (meter). The fact that they are all measured by the same unit or the fact that they are interchangeable does not make it 1 dimension. So if someone says space has 1 dimension, then he redefines the word 'dimension'.

Ernst.

Ernst, please realize that We, (mankind) have only created/invented an "Encasement", based on only three parameters to define -by space limitation- a very complex word as is Dimension...

When we set those three x,y,z axis, we are actually tending a spatial limitation, a "fence" to say that volume exist there, be able to draw it, build it etc,...or whatever "fits" within those parameters, based on also "an invented coordinate system" to then say that IS "Our Three Dimensions"...

The same exact thing happens with TIME...we invented a Clock...the hours, the minutes, the seconds and so on...BUT, is that really Time as in our Universe?...or is it a System invented to be able to define just a "local" fraction of its immense real meaning?

Will our conceived "Local Earth Time" could predict far away Galaxy events or planets rotations, displacements taking place in our whole Universe Space?...or it would only be "applicable" to Earth Time?

I know it is very hard to get out of an "Established BOX" my friend...but only if you could step "outside" for a little bit of time only...then look at it...you will realize we are all enclosed in a fictional, man invented reality.

So, could we step out of it for just some brief, but deeper analysis?

Later on you could return back to it, and throw away the keys if you prefer...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[BroMikey]

Fun with Geometry.

Art since cashed in all of his chips.

Back in the olden days...... AAA? ERNST?


[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkCFvtslEIs[/VIDEO]


[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gu7c70t9pc[/VIDEO]

[Ernst]

http://kathodos.com/PhysicalEtherealSpaces.pdf

Lecture: On the Dimensions of Space

I have read both, and can now confirm that the anthroposophical counterspace of Rudolf is NOT the counterspace of Eric. It is in fact just a different approach to describe normal space and to include 'the infinite'. This is very tricky and easily deceiving because 'the infinite' does not exist.
Example:
how many points are there between 1 and 2? answer: infinite.
how many points are there between 1 and 3? answer: infinite.
Yet there must be twice as many points in the latter case since it can be divided into two parts equal to the first.
Or worse:
if I take a line of 1 long, how many points are there? answer: infinite.
if I take a square of 1x1, how many points are there? answer: infinite.
Yet there are an infinite number of lines in the square, so the second answer should be infinite squared. But infinite² = infinite... so infinite is infinitely more than infinite...

Including the infinite in geometry is a starting point for much confusion and error...
I understand Rudolf's desire to define such space, as it stems from an ancient understanding that the universe is created from 2 forces, one outward directed, destructive, male force and one inward directed, creative, female force. In his view space is defined in a 'male' manner so he wants to add a 'female' counterpart to it. But if you read it carefully both describe the same space, he just changes the way of describing it.


Ernst.

[Aaron]

Dollard - Counterspace

I have read both, and can now confirm that the anthroposophical counterspace of Rudolf is NOT the counterspace of Eric. It is in fact just a different approach to describe normal space and to include 'the infinite'. This is very tricky and easily deceiving because 'the infinite' does not exist.
Example:
how many points are there between 1 and 2? answer: infinite.
how many points are there between 1 and 3? answer: infinite.
Yet there must be twice as many points in the latter case since it can be divided into two parts equal to the first.
Or worse:
if I take a line of 1 long, how many points are there? answer: infinite.
if I take a square of 1x1, how many points are there? answer: infinite.
Yet there are an infinite number of lines in the square, so the second answer should be infinite squared. But infinite² = infinite... so infinite is infinitely more than infinite...

Including the infinite in geometry is a starting point for much confusion and error...
I understand Rudolf's desire to define such space, as it stems from an ancient understanding that the universe is created from 2 forces, one outward directed, destructive, male force and one inward directed, creative, female force. In his view space is defined in a 'male' manner so he wants to add a 'female' counterpart to it. But if you read it carefully both describe the same space, he just changes the way of describing it.


Ernst.

The Steiner concepts I believe are early inspirations about these concepts in general and are not meant to be identical comparisons to Eric's work. There were early Borderland's articles on Steiner's Counterspace concepts that are probably still on the web.

The concept of the male/female are still analogous to Eric's perspective. Here is a quote from the first chapter in A Common Language for Electrical Engineering (Lone Pine Writings)...

"Energy, in its most arch-typical form, is embodied in the phenomenon of Electricity, but what is Electricity? Now our wheels even more stuck in the mud! But we have important clues, namely that of polarity, not plus or minus so much but more like male or female. This thought follows from Goethe to Tesla and Steinmetz. Thus Electricity, in order to manifest, a UNION must develop. This is the union of the "male", or projective, and "multiplied by" the "female", or receptive. Hereby, the male is the dielectric field in counterspace (of per centimeters), and the magnetic field or female in space (of centimeters squared). Space in cm squared is what you pay for in "real estate", counterspace in per cm is the space between the lines on a ruler, or between molecules in a crystal." - Eric Dollard

I'll see Eric in a few days and if time permits, maybe will try to do a video interview going over some of these topics.

[Ernst]

Now I see that even here people have different definitions of counterspace.
Ufopolitics seems to follow Steiner. Aaron says (?) to follow Eric, but doesn't. Eric describes it mathematically as something with a unit of 'per meter' (as I did in my countertime example, which is NOT time in reverse, plse reread my post) but in words he describes it more like the opposite of space (which is completely different from his mathematical description): bring two plates closer together then the space between them decreases and the counterspace increases.
The latter is in the direction of what Aaron says but 'space devoid of ether' (if my interpretation is correct) again is something else.

Can you have space without ether?
Theoretically (mathematically) yes! no problem. And I would call that space. Why would it be the opposite??? Is a car without gas the opposite of a car?
Physically, no! as that would conflict with the definition of ether.
Ether does not reside in counterspace (wherever that might be) it is here everywhere filling up space. It conveys electric and magnetic forces which could not exist without a medium filling up the space (not counterspace!) between objects that act on each other without physical contact. (so in a way you could say that ether creates that physical contact)
Back to the car without gas, space without ether would be dysfunctional space. It has all the properties to call it space (it can hold objects), but it does not function in a physical sense as 'normal' physical space would (light can not pass). Exactly as the car, it is still a car, only it does not drive.

I do not believe that we (mankind) invented space by inventing a way to describe it (Cartesian or polar coordinates), nor did we invent time by inventing a clock and calendar.
Time and space were there already and we invented ways to measure and describe it.
It could be possible that there are more than the 3 (space) dimensions that we perceive and it is possible that time, as we perceive it, is part of a larger multidimensional system, we can not possibly know for sure.
So now I am out of that established BOX, ready for a deeper analysis?
How does this relate to counterspace?

Well... you guys sure keep me busy this Saturday!


Ernst.

[Dog-One]

@ufo

Sent you a PM.

[Aaron]

Counterspace

Now I see that even here people have different definitions of counterspace.
Ufopolitics seems to follow Steiner. Aaron says (?) to follow Eric, but doesn't. Eric describes it mathematically as something with a unit of 'per meter' (as I did in my countertime example, which is NOT time in reverse, plse reread my post) but in words he describes it more like the opposite of space (which is completely different from his mathematical description): bring two plates closer together then the space between them decreases and the counterspace increases.
The latter is in the direction of what Aaron says but 'space devoid of ether' (if my interpretation is correct) again is something else.

Can you have space without ether?
Theoretically (mathematically) yes! no problem. And I would call that space. Why would it be the opposite??? Is a car without gas the opposite of a car?
Physically, no! as that would conflict with the definition of ether.
Ether does not reside in counterspace (wherever that might be) it is here everywhere filling up space. It conveys electric and magnetic forces which could not exist without a medium filling up the space (not counterspace!) between objects that act on each other without physical contact. (so in a way you could say that ether creates that physical contact)
Back to the car without gas, space without ether would be dysfunctional space. It has all the properties to call it space (it can hold objects), but it does not function in a physical sense as 'normal' physical space would (light can not pass). Exactly as the car, it is still a car, only it does not drive.

I do not believe that we (mankind) invented space by inventing a way to describe it (Cartesian or polar coordinates), nor did we invent time by inventing a clock and calendar.
Time and space were there already and we invented ways to measure and describe it.
It could be possible that there are more than the 3 (space) dimensions that we perceive and it is possible that time, as we perceive it, is part of a larger multidimensional system, we can not possibly know for sure.
So now I am out of that established BOX, ready for a deeper analysis?
How does this relate to counterspace?

Well... you guys sure keep me busy this Saturday!


Ernst.

I do recommend that people pay attention to Eric's work on the subject even though I see counterspace as something different because if people stick to his work, it is all engineerable and it works. A belief in counterspace isn't necessary to demonstrate the unaccounted for disappearance of a large amount of RF energy between two coils on a Cosmic Induction Generator (energy desynthesis or destruction of energy).

The idea of counterspace however offers a seamless and sensible explanation for all of these effects, which cannot be explained by conventional terms. Basically, I have yet to see anything debunk any part of Eric's theories, meaning they actually are theories that have stood the test of time and based on many experiments on the bench, math on paper, etc. they all suggest that Eric is incredibly right on. Any theory to the contrary would have to fall to the side and not just be relegated to a postulation, but would have to simply be erased as a mistake.

Lines on paper - those are simple analogies to give the idea but show what counterspace is for simple comprehension. Counterspace does apply there, but is not the same counterspace as space and counterspace in terms of energy disappearing into counterspace.

A car isn't defined by the gasoline in the tank, but space is defined by the existence of the aether so I don't believe your comparison is valid.

Space without objects can only hold objects if space can exist without the aether and I don't believe it can.

The aether exists in various densities, which determines the speed that light is propagating through it. The more dense, the slower and the less dense, the faster. The idea that aether is incompressible is not a fully defined concept and does not exclude the possibility for aether to be more or less dense. Therefore, aether is more dense in a higher gravity environment and less dense in a lower gravity environment.

Space with aether offers the ability for objects to exist at different sizes. An object would be smaller under high aetheric density and would be larger under lower density aether - from an absolute perspective. To an observer in each area, they couldn't tell the difference since they are subject to the same size fluctuations caused by the density of the aether, their perception is subject to it and the light in that area is subject to it.

Therefore, space with aether is what is responsible for distance to exist. From an absolute perspective, higher density a certain distance is shorter and high lower density it is longer. Everything in space with aether is subject to this compression and decompression but to the observer in each area, they can't tell the difference. Inside of the space with aether, the space can be measured with a coordinate system of x, y and z to determine the size of an object.

Time is simply the progression of movement of mass through the aether. We happen to believe we are measuring time by simply looking at periodic movements of an object moving in the aether that we count in certain divisions called a clock. A child on a swing - if swinging 24/7 with a consistent periodicity, we can count those swings and it is just as much of a clock as any other. When we measure time, all we're doing it simply measuring movement through the aether.

The rate at which time ticks is solely based on one factor and that is the density of the aether. In high density aether, there is more resistance to the movement of the mass through it and therefore time ticks slower and in a lower density area, time ticks faster since there is less resistance to the movement of the mass through the aether. These relativistic type effects are very real, but BECAUSE OF the aether, which Einstein was too much of a narcissistic egomaniac to ever admit, but he did come close when he commented many times on the work of Dayton Miller.

If there is no aether, there is no time since there is no space.

If the aether diminishes to the point where the density is so low that it is basically non-existent, there is no longer any ability for distance to exist because there is no more space. Light cannot move through that area because the aether is not there, an object cannot exist in that area because there is nothing to sustain its existence and there is no longer any measurable space for any object of any size to exist.

That is the only true vacuum in my opinion because it is quite literally, empty in the most absolute sense of the word. It is a complete void and is the lack of space.

This does bring up the possibility of having space and counterspace exist simultaneously in the same "space" and it doesn't contradict what I mentioned above. We can create localized areas that are void of the aether that deflect the aether around it and such an object could move without inertia since the aether is not able to penetrate and induce the counter force to resist its movement. That would be an example and still may be different than the counterspace Eric is defining. I'm definitely going to be asking him some questions and I'd encourage anyone that wants to ask Eric to send him a letter to his Lone Pine address - he will write you back.

[BroMikey]

Trying to go over terms is like trying to reason why we used
the field lines of force for magnetism, for the last 100 years
as a way of expressing what we thought it was. But it is always
more than we thought so we come up with more terms to explain
what we saw in an experiment.

Of course this is not the end.

Since the 1800's we have accumulated more experimental data so
our need to explain effects is growing and so are the term lists we
have chosen to call it.

We put the guys name on his discovery, but that is only the start
not the end. After 50 men with definitions of their findings are all
placed at the same table we must find out how they can all be
knitted together into one big happy family.

As a for instance when men from the 1800's gathered experimental data
they might have used a cup of water with 2 electrodes in it to show
bubbles of gas and their explanations for the gas. They didn't have many
of the devices we have today so we have more results.

Results that do not line up with present theory so terms will be replaced.

Just look at how many men with their documented effects were thrown
out of the scientific arena. we need to call our new found data something.

We will never arrive, forever we will learn new things and never come
to a full understanding of the SELF EXISTENT ONE. Learning and growing
time without end. Now having said that, how many new terms do you
figure we will have accumulated in another 400,000 years, or 400 billion
time without end?

We are created in the image of the limitless SELF EXISTENT ONE.

The few terms we have today are just a tiny list though we find them
almost impossible to retain. We will grow as will our new list of explanations
will, time without end.

That is the wonder of our created being.

Enjoy it, you are they only one. There are no others like you a tiny
piece of the larger picture, a chip off the old block as they say.

And just one man can and will change the world.

So what does the term "COUNTER=SPACE" mean? It is our way of saying
we found a cause and effect that is not yet found on the books so this
is our best stab at adding a new idea into the ever growing mix.

A better explanation than the old one that allows everyone's effects
to fit together more perfectly. Well, the best we can for now til another
50 effects are introduced.

[bistander]

Induced Voltage

The answer is simple, as Ken has written on his book...and I have quoted here on the first post of this Thread:

Magnetism is dimensional, the dielectric is intradimensional, or in counterspace, and only when these two Ether fields move against each other over time is there electrification, which is the Ether in a modality of dynamic polarization.

Thanks for the reply Ufo,

I understand this to say that in your experiment (post#1) when you moved the large coil up and down on the magnet that you were actually moving a dielectric field in counterspace against the magnetic field in real space. And that it was the these two fields moving against each other which caused the plus-to-minus sine like wave to appear on the scope (induced alternating voltage).

O.K.

bi

[Ben2503]

Puzzled.

Yes, definitively an electromagnet and a magnet project different fields...

If we were in a stage of Higher Civilization scientific levels...where we all have recognized the Aether back again as the main force that creates and moves everything at universal scale...then I could explain that difference easily...but I will try in the best of my ability without perturbing other closed minds...by keeping it all still in a "Theory"...

Say that every time we create a Permanent Magnet by dumping a fast and high DC-Coil electrification to a ferromagnetic mass...we are not just "aligning" straight all particles into microscopic domains within that object that run from end to end without any recognition of domain walls typical explanation from old concepts...But instead all we are doing is opening a permanent Aether gate that concentrates right at the center plane of that volume...to create both known polarized and spatial ends...and vualá we have a Magnet.

Then we could conclude that an Electromagnet is just a Permanent Magnet in a starting process... where that "Aether Gate" is just a "momentary" one, because we have not provided the required energy dump to open it permanently...and it is dependent upon the fluctuations of our source feeding that coil...for example, if it was an AC Source, the sine wave +/0/- fluctuations will cause gate to open-close-revert...if it was a pulsed DC +/0/+...then open-Close deal...or if just a straight, linear DC...that does not reach the top values to fully open it...resuming that in all three cases of electromagnets, the gates would be very different than the one formed permanently on a magnet. Therefore, none of their projecting fields would be the same.

However, an electromagnet has properties that a permanent magnet could never do, just because its permanently situation...

But then again...that was just "Theorizing" ....


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi UFO.
There are 2 things that puzzled me:
1. You placed the permanent magnet on a steel plate, so the blochwall or dielectric thingy must have been pulled downwards. Below the centre of the magnet right? Then you put steel on the top, thus I expect that the dielectric thingy moves back to the center.
So if the movement of dielectric thingy induces the voltage, I would expect that the maximum induction would be in the middle of permanent magnet and not on the top.
2. Now if I put a piece of steel on one of the poles, What would happen to the shape of the magnetic vortex and why?

thanks for your time.
Best regards,
Ben

[Dog-One]

So what does the term "COUNTER=SPACE" mean? It is our way of saying
we found a cause and effect that is not yet found on the books so this
is our best stab at adding a new idea into the ever growing mix.

The easiest (for me) way to embody this idea it to think of a capacitor. When you reduce the distance between the plates, the volume (i.e. the space) shrinks, but the capacitance increases. The only way this could happen is if space itself has an opposite, a reciprocal. When you squeeze out space, it seems likely you are actually filling the void with counterspace. Because of the Aether, a true void cannot exist--it must contain space or counterspace; empty is not an option. So I suspect some sort of membrane exists between the two. Mathematically I have no idea how this membrane would be described, but it must be there, it must separate space from counterspace.

Aaron, this would be a great question to formulate for Eric, since it is so fundamental to our understanding.

[Ben2503]

Really??

The idea of counterspace however offers a seamless and sensible explanation for all of these effects, which cannot be explained by conventional terms. Basically, I have yet to see anything debunk any part of Eric's theories, meaning they actually are theories that have stood the test of time and based on many experiments on the bench, math on paper, etc. they all suggest that Eric is incredibly right on. Any theory to the contrary would have to fall to the side and not just be relegated to a postulation, but would have to simply be erased as a mistake.

Are there any UT video's on his experiments? (BroMickey will probably be able to find it )

The aether exists in various densities, which determines the speed that light is propagating through it. The more dense, the slower and the less dense, the faster. The idea that aether is incompressible is not a fully defined concept and does not exclude the possibility for aether to be more or less dense. Therefore, aether is more dense in a higher gravity environment and less dense in a lower gravity environment.

Really how can you be so sure? Did you device some experiments that support that theory. I f you did, man you can rock the Scientific Scene.

Space with aether offers the ability for objects to exist at different sizes. An object would be smaller under high aetheric density and would be larger under lower density aether - from an absolute perspective. To an observer in each area, they couldn't tell the difference since they are subject to the same size fluctuations caused by the density of the aether, their perception is subject to it and the light in that area is subject to it.

Ok so if I understand correctly. Aether is like a gas that compresses the 'bodies' that are submerged in it. Like a balloon in a vacuum chamber (= low pressure) that expands when you pump the air out. Then the aether inside the 'body' will cause the 'body' to expand. The mass of the body will remain the same, the density of the aether becomes less, and therefore the volume of the body becomes bigger?

The rate at which time ticks is solely based on one factor and that is the density of the aether. In high density aether, there is more resistance to the movement of the mass through it and therefore time ticks slower and in a lower density area, time ticks faster since there is less resistance to the movement of the mass through the aether. These relativistic type effects are very real, but BECAUSE OF the aether, which Einstein was too much of a narcissistic egomaniac to ever admit, but he did come close when he commented many times on the work of Dayton Miller.

If there is no aether, there is no time since there is no space.

In outer space the resistance of the aether must be very low, because the planets have incredible masses and move at incredible speeds, thus the time must move a very high speed. Right?

So if the time moves fast then everything else must be moving slower when speed is expressed in delta distance / delta time? Or faster because also distances change? Or both and cancel each other?

You have an interesting theory Aaron.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ufopolitics]

Thanks for the reply Ufo,

I understand this to say that in your experiment (post#1) when you moved the large coil up and down on the magnet that you were actually moving a dielectric field in counterspace against the magnetic field in real space. And that it was the these two fields moving against each other which caused the plus-to-minus sine like wave to appear on the scope (induced alternating voltage).

O.K.

bi

Nope,

That movement of the larger coil over the seating magnet was JUST to demonstrate Faraday's Induction. There are absolutely no movements of both spatial and counterspatial fields there...it is simple, if we do just like microwatt did on his experiment...dumping a magnet through some copper tube, there would not be fields movement within magnet...therefore, no dielectric displacement/no electrification.

As am sure you do not need any further explanation on Faraday Induction...right?...even the wrong one but Iknow you agree with it.

[Ufopolitics]

Hi UFO.
There are 2 things that puzzled me:
1. You placed the permanent magnet on a steel plate, so the blochwall or dielectric thingy must have been pulled downwards. Below the centre of the magnet right? Then you put steel on the top, thus I expect that the dielectric thingy moves back to the center.
So if the movement of dielectric thingy induces the voltage, I would expect that the maximum induction would be in the middle of permanent magnet and not on the top.

Hello Ben,

Friend, you are forgetting a very essential part of video...the very first observation I show...that when iron cylinder is approaching magnetic field (or when iron is under the influence of a polarized field, could be N or S) there appears a secondary dielectric field right on the tip-surface of iron, Ken calls it a "projection" .

Now, this newly formed counter field on iron cylinder, together with the existing magnet dielectric establish what Ken calls a self voidance or attraction as we say...

On page 71 of Wheeler's Book writings about the attraction (Center Picture) between two magnets separated by an air gap powdered with iron filings (the typical image that has lasted for 200 years):

Ken Wheeler's Book P71...whereas the middle picture is a negative pressure counterspatial voidance sink. Since the center picture is diagramming the Ether returning to counterspace, that picture is showing the formation of the new dielectric inertial plane between two inverse spin fields and two separate magnets about to become one single magnet.

Now, between iron-magnet that formation of the new field does not take place right in the middle space between them, but instead, like I showed on video...right on the end surface of cylinder...but, no matter what, the effect described is exactly the same as with another magnet's pole in attraction mode.


The point here is that the Range from both Dielectric Fields displacing towards a voidance plane is what generates that spike charge...so, it must be higher on the top section of magnet, because that is where both dielectric planes are moving towards until final contact.

2. Now if I put a piece of steel on one of the poles, What would happen to the shape of the magnetic vortex and why?

thanks for your time.
Best regards,
Ben

If any piece of steel would be approached or contacted any magnet, that contact end pole would expand towards the iron mass.

If it is a South....then that iron mass would become an extension of that south pole...and so on with North.

AND, NOT the entire pole though!...but another part of that pole would remain at magnet.

why?

First you must understand what happens to dielectric field under viewing film when two magnets approach by alike poles...I have shown that image here a lot...they become one magnet and both dielectric planes from each magnet rushes towards the center or contact gap surfaces.

Then with iron occurs a very similar process, except that the highest force is on magnet, not on iron, therefore dielectric still remains within the magnet, but displaced off center towards the iron mass...I showed that on the first part of video Ben.

This Voidance acceleration is higher from two alike poles than it is between iron and magnet.


Hope is clear now!


Regards


Ufopolitics