*** Well, we now have just one day left to raise the remainder of our deficit. Its down to $150 and we have til midnight tomorrow which is monday the 3rd. We stretched this out as long as we could. Tuesday is bomb day. lol Please help us, if you have not already contributed, by pushing the donate button off to the right and donate what you can afford to give. We are readership supported and need the help to continue. Thanks to all those who have helped to get us down this far. Bless you and our readers and we hope you had a wonderful holiday.
Vatic Note: In the very first part of this, we maybe looking at the solution to our problems. First we have to understand if we have this power, especially those who are hybrids, Then its simply a matter of learning how to tap into it and direct it, or does it require some sort of external object to direct the energy? It could explain why they are so afraid of us, amoung other reasons, such as we can kill them with our guns which was an unknown at one time, but no longer.
What is good about this, is the neutral treatment he uses to try and determine the validity of these stories. Its very well done and matches the concept of deductive reasoning and critical thinking. He asks all the right questions and searches for the answers. Even his conclusions are conservative and allow for some flexibility in alternative options for what has gone on. The thing I got out of this so far, is, Dulce may still exist but some top secret functions may have been moved due to the attention it has gotten.
What is good about this, is the neutral treatment he uses to try and determine the validity of these stories. Its very well done and matches the concept of deductive reasoning and critical thinking. He asks all the right questions and searches for the answers. Even his conclusions are conservative and allow for some flexibility in alternative options for what has gone on. The thing I got out of this so far, is, Dulce may still exist but some top secret functions may have been moved due to the attention it has gotten.
http://exopolitics.org/Dulce-Report.htm
An Independent Report by © Dr Michael E. Salla, Exopolitics
September 25, 2003
Another ‘whistleblower’ that lends credence to the possibility that a firefight had occurred between US military forces and ETs in a secret underground base was Dr Michael Wolf. Wolf’s book Catcher’s of Heaven described a firefight between ETs and elite US military forces that had occurred in 1975 at the Groom Lake, Nevada facility that may have been related to what occurred later at the nearby Dulce:
The Greys shared certain of their technological advances with military/intelligence scientists, apparently often while prisoner "guests" within secure underground military installations in Nevada and New Mexico.
The extraterrestrials have given the U.S. government some of their antigravity craft and a huge amount of fuel (element 115). On May 1, 1975 during one such technology exchange in Nevada, a demonstration of a small ET antimatter reactor, the lead Grey asked the Colonel in charge of the Delta Forces guarding the ETs to remove all their rifles and bullets from the room, (so that they would not accidentally discharge during the energy emissions.)
The guards refused, and in the ensuing commotion a guard opened fire on the Greys. One alien, two scientists and 41 military personnel were killed. One guard was left alive to attest that the ETs apparently used directed mental energy in self-defense to kill the other attacking Delta Forces. Dr. Wolf states that "this incident ended certain exchanges with (the Greys)." [52]
There are important parallels with the ‘Dulce war’ in the description of the ‘Nevada’ confrontation described by Wolf, with that described by Castello and Schneider. In both cases, a significant number of US military personnel are killed after a confrontation with ETs. These parallels suggest either that Wolf was narrating an entirely different conflict, or the same conflict but with some inaccuracies intended to hide the true nature and location of the conflict between the US military and ET races.
Some notable differences in the accounts are that Wolfe said that the ETs were ‘prisoner’ guests rather than sharing joint base facilities with the US. It is unlikely that ETs as ‘prisoner guests’ would participate in the kind of significant technology exchange described by Wolf. It is likely that Wolf’s reference to the ETs as ‘prisoner guests’ was intended to hide the true extent of the cooperation between US military and ET races in a shared base that might lead to a connection being made with Bennewitz claims regarding Dulce.
This also casts doubt on whether the conflict did occur in Nevada in 1975 as Wolf writes, or whether he was alluding to the 1979 military conflict at Dulce, New Mexico. If the latter is the case, then Wolf was instructed by his superiors in the ‘controlled release of information’ to sow some inaccuracies (disinformation) into the information he was releasing that a firefight had indeed occurred at a shared Government-ET facility and the US had taken heavy casualties.
Such a disinformation strategy would strengthen any fall back position of ‘plausibility deniability’ that the government could choose to take over the sensitive information released by Wolf. Wolf further disclosed in an interview that he had worked at the Dulce laboratory, thereby providing more confirmation for the existence of this secret underground base that is the key claim made by Bennewitz. [53]
Another whistleblower that revealed evidence of the existence of a joint government-ET base and the ‘Dulce military conflict’ is Bob Lazar. Lazar worked for a few months in 1988 at the S-4 Nevada facility on reverse-engineering the propulsion and power system of ET craft. In an interview he described his background as follows:
Some notable differences in the accounts are that Wolfe said that the ETs were ‘prisoner’ guests rather than sharing joint base facilities with the US. It is unlikely that ETs as ‘prisoner guests’ would participate in the kind of significant technology exchange described by Wolf. It is likely that Wolf’s reference to the ETs as ‘prisoner guests’ was intended to hide the true extent of the cooperation between US military and ET races in a shared base that might lead to a connection being made with Bennewitz claims regarding Dulce.
This also casts doubt on whether the conflict did occur in Nevada in 1975 as Wolf writes, or whether he was alluding to the 1979 military conflict at Dulce, New Mexico. If the latter is the case, then Wolf was instructed by his superiors in the ‘controlled release of information’ to sow some inaccuracies (disinformation) into the information he was releasing that a firefight had indeed occurred at a shared Government-ET facility and the US had taken heavy casualties.
Such a disinformation strategy would strengthen any fall back position of ‘plausibility deniability’ that the government could choose to take over the sensitive information released by Wolf. Wolf further disclosed in an interview that he had worked at the Dulce laboratory, thereby providing more confirmation for the existence of this secret underground base that is the key claim made by Bennewitz. [53]
"I have two masters degrees, one's in physics; one's in electronics. I wrote my thesis on MHD, which is magnetohydrodynamics. I worked at Los Alamos for a few years as a technician and then as a physicist in the Polarized Proton Section, dealing with the accelerator there. I was hired at S-4 as a senior staff physicist to work on gravitational propulsion systems and whatnot associated with those crafts." [54]
Lazar revealed that in his briefing prior to working on the ET craft he was required to read 200 pages of briefing documents in preparation for his job. [55] He recalled that the briefing document mentioned a battle between ETs and humans at a secret base in 1979. He said the conflict was caused by a security guard that tried to take a weapon in the ET area and resulted in fatal wounds to security personnel. Lazar’s recollection of the briefing document he read in 1988 is very likely referring to the 1979 Dulce firefight.
In sum, the strongest evidence for Bennewitz’s claims regarding the Dulce base come from: Thomas Castello’s testimony of his employment and defection from the Dulce underground base after witnessing human rights abuses; testimony of Phil Schneider who was directly involved in the Dulce firefight; important parallels with Michael Wolf’s revelation of a firefight that may have occurred four years earlier at another underground base in Nevada and his admission of having worked at Dulce; Bob Lazar’s recollection of a written briefing disclosing a 1979 firefight between ETs and security personal at a secret base; and the reports of abductees who underwent hypnotic regression and whose testimonies are recorded in the book, The Dulce Wars.
Furthermore, the disinformation campaign instigated against Bennewitz, and the mysterious death of Schneider after his going public on the existence of secret underground facilities, both lend circumstantial support to the view that there was sufficient basis to whistleblower claims concerning the existence of the Dulce underground facility, and possible gross human rights abuses occurring there.
Furthermore, the disinformation campaign instigated against Bennewitz, and the mysterious death of Schneider after his going public on the existence of secret underground facilities, both lend circumstantial support to the view that there was sufficient basis to whistleblower claims concerning the existence of the Dulce underground facility, and possible gross human rights abuses occurring there.
I can now return to the three possibilities mentioned earlier concerning Bennewitz’s major claims of the existence of the Dulce base, a military conflict having taken place, and extensive human rights having occurred (or continuing to occur) at the base. The first possibility was that the evidence substantiates Bennewitz’s claims. The second possibility was that Bennewitz’s claims concerning ET abuses against civilian abductees was disinformation intended to steer researchers away from the existence of the base and/or a military conflict having taken place there.
The third possibility was that Bennewitz’s claims were compromised by disinformation intended to steer UFO researchers away from genuine sightings of UFO’s. In order to determine which possibility is most plausible, I will now consider some of the criticisms made of Bennewitz’s and others claims surrounding the Dulce base:
The third possibility was that Bennewitz’s claims were compromised by disinformation intended to steer UFO researchers away from genuine sightings of UFO’s. In order to determine which possibility is most plausible, I will now consider some of the criticisms made of Bennewitz’s and others claims surrounding the Dulce base:
Critique of the Dulce Underground Base Hypothesis
Ever since Bennewitz first began circulating his claims concerning the Dulce base in the early 1980s, and latter physical evidence and personal testimonies provided by Castello and others, there has predictably been intense criticism of the evidence supporting the Dulce base hypothesis.
These criticisms fall into three categories.
First are criticisms of physical evidence such as Bennewitz’s intercepted electronic transmissions, communication transcripts, photos, video recordings, and the ‘Dulce Papers’ provided by Castello; and lack of physical evidence of an underground base in terms of entrances, air vents, etc.
Second, are criticisms that focus on the credibility of Bennewitz, Castello and Schneider as reliable sources for the Dulce base hypothesis.
Finally, there are criticisms that the whole Dulce underground base hypothesis is a clever disinformation strategy launched by intelligence services such as the Air Force Office of Special Intelligence (AFOSI) to divide the UFO community. I will examine each of these criticisms in turn.
These criticisms fall into three categories.
First are criticisms of physical evidence such as Bennewitz’s intercepted electronic transmissions, communication transcripts, photos, video recordings, and the ‘Dulce Papers’ provided by Castello; and lack of physical evidence of an underground base in terms of entrances, air vents, etc.
Second, are criticisms that focus on the credibility of Bennewitz, Castello and Schneider as reliable sources for the Dulce base hypothesis.
Finally, there are criticisms that the whole Dulce underground base hypothesis is a clever disinformation strategy launched by intelligence services such as the Air Force Office of Special Intelligence (AFOSI) to divide the UFO community. I will examine each of these criticisms in turn.
As far as the Bennewitz evidence was concerned, his photographs and films from 1980 clearly demonstrated some anomalous phenomenon that was acknowledged even by Air Force Intelligence, but the difficultly lay in conclusively showing what these showed. [56]
Nevertheless, many UFO researchers believed this was some of the strongest evidence yet discovered of UFO’s captured on film. [57]Bennewitz electronic communications while again demonstrating something odd was occurring was subject to most controversy and was again not conclusive proof. As far as the physical evidence found in the Dulce Papers was concerned, most researchers simply didn’t take these seriously and assumed they were part of the disinformation campaign against Bennewitz.
The lack of conclusive proof by way of photos, videos and physical sights is reminiscent of the entire history of the UFO community’s efforts to find sufficient evidence to persuade even the most skeptical of professionals. [58] This suggests that the validity of physical evidence surrounding Bennewitz electronic records of UFO activity and ET communication, and the Dulce Papers, will continue to be subject to debate. A clear conclusion over what the physical evidence provided for the existence of the Dulce base is therefore elusive.
Nevertheless, many UFO researchers believed this was some of the strongest evidence yet discovered of UFO’s captured on film. [57]Bennewitz electronic communications while again demonstrating something odd was occurring was subject to most controversy and was again not conclusive proof. As far as the physical evidence found in the Dulce Papers was concerned, most researchers simply didn’t take these seriously and assumed they were part of the disinformation campaign against Bennewitz.
The lack of conclusive proof by way of photos, videos and physical sights is reminiscent of the entire history of the UFO community’s efforts to find sufficient evidence to persuade even the most skeptical of professionals. [58] This suggests that the validity of physical evidence surrounding Bennewitz electronic records of UFO activity and ET communication, and the Dulce Papers, will continue to be subject to debate. A clear conclusion over what the physical evidence provided for the existence of the Dulce base is therefore elusive.
Private investigators have explored the terrain where the underground base is allegedly located. The Archuletta Mesa is situated on Jicarilla Apache Indian reservation land. One investigator, Glen Campbell, found that there were no visible security restrictions on the land, no evidence of a military presence, and no concealed entrances, air vents, water intakes from the nearby Navaho river, etc., were found. He subsequently concluded that there was no physical evidence of an underground base. [59] Other field investigators, however, have found evidence of strange occurrences in the area lending support to the existence of a base. [60] For instance, Norio Harakaya visited Dulce with a Japanese film production crew in 1990 and concluded:
I've been to Dulce with the Nippon Television Network crew and interviewed many, many people over there and came back with the firm conviction that something was happening around 10 to 15 years ago over there, including nightly sightings of strange lights and appearances of military jeeps and trucks. [61]
Some of the criticisms raised by Campbell might be explained in a number of ways. Castello and Schneider, for example, both described an extensive underground infrastructure that used advanced technology such as a high-speed rail link. [62] This would make it possible for entrances to the Dulce base to be concealed in more secure areas.
Also, air circulation and water could also be provided in other ways by those possessing the advanced technology to do so. This suggests that criticism of a lack of physical evidence on Jicarilla Apache land to support the idea of a secret underground base is not conclusive, and even conflicts with other testimonies of mysterious military troop movements and anomalous sightings in the area .
Also, air circulation and water could also be provided in other ways by those possessing the advanced technology to do so. This suggests that criticism of a lack of physical evidence on Jicarilla Apache land to support the idea of a secret underground base is not conclusive, and even conflicts with other testimonies of mysterious military troop movements and anomalous sightings in the area .
The covert disinformation campaign launched by AFOSI against Bennewitz suggests that the physical evidence he had of an underground base in the area, and the public support he attracted, were perceived to be a national security threat. This covert disinformation campaign that began in 1980 suggests that criticisms of the physical evidence provided by Bennewitz and Castello, are not conclusive and may themselves be part of an ongoing disinformation campaign. Consequently, criticism of the lack of physical evidence for the existence of an underground base in Dulce fails to dismiss the Dulce base hypothesis.
The second set of criticisms focus on the credibility of the whistleblowers/witnesses who provided evidence or testimony of the Dulce base. Establishing credibility in a field rife with disinformation, intimidation and official efforts to discredit expert witnesses and ‘whistleblowers’ requires some flexibility in analyzing whistleblower behavioral and/or personality characteristics.
A ‘nervous breakdown’, ‘refusal to give interviews’, or use of ‘cover identities’, for instance, may be more of a result of covert intimidation than a sign of an individual who lacks credibility. Focusing on the mental or health problems encountered by whistleblowers/witnesses advocating the Dulce base hypothesis may amount to little more than veiled personal attacks against the credibility of the principle advocates of the hypothesis.
For instance, in an online article that is critical of evidence for the Dulce base, the writer Roy Lawhon, glosses over the challenges faced in establishing the credibility of the three principle witnesses/whistleblowers advocating the Dulce Underground base hypothesis - Bennewitz, Castello and Schneider. Lawhon finishes his description of their respective claims with references to a range of personal problems or behaviors each exhibited in a way that appears to be little more than a veiled attack on their credibility.[63]
For example, he refers to Bennewitz being “committed for a time to a mental hospital”, and then becoming a “reclusive, refusing to talk about UFOs.” [64] As mentioned earlier, Bennewitz became the subject of an intense disinformation campaign, public scrutiny, attacks on his credibility, and unusual activities being directed against him that finally led to him having a nervous breakdown. This doesn’t affect the quality of his material nor his credibility, but only displays that in intense circumstances, many individuals succumb to the psychological pressure that has been directed against them.
A ‘nervous breakdown’, ‘refusal to give interviews’, or use of ‘cover identities’, for instance, may be more of a result of covert intimidation than a sign of an individual who lacks credibility. Focusing on the mental or health problems encountered by whistleblowers/witnesses advocating the Dulce base hypothesis may amount to little more than veiled personal attacks against the credibility of the principle advocates of the hypothesis.
For instance, in an online article that is critical of evidence for the Dulce base, the writer Roy Lawhon, glosses over the challenges faced in establishing the credibility of the three principle witnesses/whistleblowers advocating the Dulce Underground base hypothesis - Bennewitz, Castello and Schneider. Lawhon finishes his description of their respective claims with references to a range of personal problems or behaviors each exhibited in a way that appears to be little more than a veiled attack on their credibility.[63]
For example, he refers to Bennewitz being “committed for a time to a mental hospital”, and then becoming a “reclusive, refusing to talk about UFOs.” [64] As mentioned earlier, Bennewitz became the subject of an intense disinformation campaign, public scrutiny, attacks on his credibility, and unusual activities being directed against him that finally led to him having a nervous breakdown. This doesn’t affect the quality of his material nor his credibility, but only displays that in intense circumstances, many individuals succumb to the psychological pressure that has been directed against them.
Moving on to Castello, Lawhon concludes that Castello “has only provided stories, nothing solid, and has yet to come forward in person,” and that there “is some doubt as to whether he actually exists.” [65]While only a relatively few researchers can vouch for Castello’s existence, there would be very good reason to believe that as a possible whistleblower revealing classified information, he would be subject to arrest or other official efforts to ‘silence’ him, if he emerged into the public.
This may explain his mysterious movement while at the same time leaving open the possibility that he is part of a disinformation strategy. Therefore, while his testimony and the Dulce Papers on their own lack persuasiveness, they become significant as supporting evidence for Bennewitz’s claims.
This may explain his mysterious movement while at the same time leaving open the possibility that he is part of a disinformation strategy. Therefore, while his testimony and the Dulce Papers on their own lack persuasiveness, they become significant as supporting evidence for Bennewitz’s claims.
Finally, with regard to Schneider, Lawhon refers to unquoted sources that Schneider “had severe brain damage and was also a paranoid schizophrenic.” [66] This would have to be the most unfair of the criticisms raised by Lawhon. Schneider spent nearly two years on the lecture circuit (1993-95) candidly revealing his activities while an employee for corporations that built the Dulce and other underground bases. There were ample opportunities for his integrity and mental resilience to be tested, and it appears that he did not disappoint his growing number of supporters. [67]
He gave the appearance of a man who knew his life would soon end from either natural causes (he had terminal cancer) or from being murdered. His apparent ‘suicide’ had the tell tale signs of murder that was not seriously pursued by public authorities. [68] Schneider’s testimony represents the most solid whistleblower disclosure available on the existence of the Dulce Base and of a firefight between ETs and elite US troops having occurred there in 1979. In conclusion, criticisms of the credibility of the principal advocates of the Dulce base hypothesis fail to be persuasive.
He gave the appearance of a man who knew his life would soon end from either natural causes (he had terminal cancer) or from being murdered. His apparent ‘suicide’ had the tell tale signs of murder that was not seriously pursued by public authorities. [68] Schneider’s testimony represents the most solid whistleblower disclosure available on the existence of the Dulce Base and of a firefight between ETs and elite US troops having occurred there in 1979. In conclusion, criticisms of the credibility of the principal advocates of the Dulce base hypothesis fail to be persuasive.
Finally, there are criticisms that focus on William Moore’s 1989 declaration at a MUFON conference that he had been co-opted into a covert effort by AFOSI to feed disinformation to Bennewitz in order to discredit him. While furious that one UFO researcher would actively participate in a disinformation campaign against another researcher, many UFO researchers were quick to accept Moore’s story that the most bizarre aspects of Bennewitz’s claims, human rights abuses involving ET abductions, cold storage of humans and underground vats filled with cattle and human parts were disinformation.
Bennewitz’s claims had been gaining widespread support in the UFO community and being championed by controversial individuals such as John Lear, William Cooper and William Hamilton. Some well-established UFO researchers believed that Lear’s and Hamilton’s claims, reflecting Bennewitz’s statements about the Dulce underground base, would damage legitimate UFO research. [69]
When it was learned that John Lear had been invited to host the 1989 Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) conference, for instance, prominent MUFON members began to resign in protest. [70] Many UFO researchers did not believe that Bennewitz’s electronic interceptions, interpretations of the data, and interviews with abductees, were sufficient proof of an underground ET base at Dulce.
Bennewitz’s claims of ETs committing gross human rights violations at the base were widely dismissed as little more than disinformation even by those who believed in his integrity and the quality of the hard evidence he had compiled. [71]
Bennewitz’s claims had been gaining widespread support in the UFO community and being championed by controversial individuals such as John Lear, William Cooper and William Hamilton. Some well-established UFO researchers believed that Lear’s and Hamilton’s claims, reflecting Bennewitz’s statements about the Dulce underground base, would damage legitimate UFO research. [69]
When it was learned that John Lear had been invited to host the 1989 Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) conference, for instance, prominent MUFON members began to resign in protest. [70] Many UFO researchers did not believe that Bennewitz’s electronic interceptions, interpretations of the data, and interviews with abductees, were sufficient proof of an underground ET base at Dulce.
Bennewitz’s claims of ETs committing gross human rights violations at the base were widely dismissed as little more than disinformation even by those who believed in his integrity and the quality of the hard evidence he had compiled. [71]
As far as the view that disinformation played a major role in Bennewitz developing his views concerning the base and human rights abuses, Bennewitz had already compiled an extensive database of information based on his two years of electronic surveillance prior to approaching AFOSI in 1980. Consequently, Bennewitz had already developed many of his views about Dulce before AFOSI began to feed him disinformation after Bennewitz’s 1980 AFOSI interviews and subsequent meeting with Moore in 1982.
It is likely that Bennewitz’s observation of UFO/ET activity in the area, electronic monitoring of radio and video transmissions, and his electronic communications, leading up to and including the Dulce war, gave him an overall picture of what was occurring in the base.
The more likely explanation is that US intelligence services were in damage control mode after Bennewitz’s intercepts of electronic communications between ET ships and the Dulce base. The even more revealing evidence and testimony provided by Castello, and later by Schneider, became intertwined with disinformation that was actively being fed into the public debate surrounding the Dolce base hypothesis.
Criticism that the most alarming aspects of the Dulce base hypothesis, ET human rights abuses, etc., were simply AFOSI disinformation, fails to take into account how disinformation is actively used as a standard tool by the intelligence community to create confusion and prevent discovery of what is precisely occurring. [72]
It is likely that Bennewitz’s observation of UFO/ET activity in the area, electronic monitoring of radio and video transmissions, and his electronic communications, leading up to and including the Dulce war, gave him an overall picture of what was occurring in the base.
The more likely explanation is that US intelligence services were in damage control mode after Bennewitz’s intercepts of electronic communications between ET ships and the Dulce base. The even more revealing evidence and testimony provided by Castello, and later by Schneider, became intertwined with disinformation that was actively being fed into the public debate surrounding the Dolce base hypothesis.
Criticism that the most alarming aspects of the Dulce base hypothesis, ET human rights abuses, etc., were simply AFOSI disinformation, fails to take into account how disinformation is actively used as a standard tool by the intelligence community to create confusion and prevent discovery of what is precisely occurring. [72]
I now return to the three possibilities raised earlier concerning the Dulce underground base hypothesis:
1. the physical evidence, whistleblower claims and witness testimonies provide conclusive evidence of the Dulce base and extensive ET abuses of abducted civilians;
2. claims of the base are likely accurate but some disinformation has occurred as far as the more extreme stories of human rights abuses; and
3. the Dulce base hypothesis is disinformation. Based on the evidence presented thus far, and the lack of conclusive criticism of this evidence, the third possibility can be dismissed.
This suggests the conclusion that a secret joint government-ET base did exist at Dulce, that military conflict did occur over issues that remain open to debate, but most likely involved perceptions of a treaty violation by one or both sides.
Reports of gross human rights abuses against civilians abducted for various projects at the base while not at this point conclusive have sufficient evidentiary support to warrant further investigation on the part of responsible government authorities and human rights organizations.
One further issue to be examined for understanding the human rights and political implications of the evidence presented thus far is to identify how Dulce and any similar bases are funded without legislative oversight. (VN: This will be covered in part 4)
1. the physical evidence, whistleblower claims and witness testimonies provide conclusive evidence of the Dulce base and extensive ET abuses of abducted civilians;
2. claims of the base are likely accurate but some disinformation has occurred as far as the more extreme stories of human rights abuses; and
3. the Dulce base hypothesis is disinformation. Based on the evidence presented thus far, and the lack of conclusive criticism of this evidence, the third possibility can be dismissed.
This suggests the conclusion that a secret joint government-ET base did exist at Dulce, that military conflict did occur over issues that remain open to debate, but most likely involved perceptions of a treaty violation by one or both sides.
Reports of gross human rights abuses against civilians abducted for various projects at the base while not at this point conclusive have sufficient evidentiary support to warrant further investigation on the part of responsible government authorities and human rights organizations.
One further issue to be examined for understanding the human rights and political implications of the evidence presented thus far is to identify how Dulce and any similar bases are funded without legislative oversight. (VN: This will be covered in part 4)
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
No comments:
Post a Comment