Well, that is something I can work on.

I am not a very good writer. I am just an average guy who had the time to do a lot of research. Thousands of hours, on dozens of topics.

This is what I am good at. I am a good sifter. I can sift information with the best of them.

While I hit my peak around 2002, researching 25-30 hours a week, I was close to an expert at researching on the net. Since then I have become a little rusty and have not been able to find specific information as quickly as I once did.

Still, what I do best is sift information.

I try to share what I have learned, but I am constantly attacked, as is the information I post, by people who are not even willing to read the information. They just attack.

When i first started telling people about the National Emergency the USA has been in since 1933, no one believed me. I had to prove it to them. Sources are constantly attacked, even if the information is verifiable.

When I first posted the Senate report titled "Is Military Research Hazardous to Veteran's Health", the info was questioned for it's authenticity. In the old days, the Senate report was only available from one site. Not it is posted at numerous sites. I have hundreds of pieces of information questioned, but there have only been a few times when I could not prove the authenticity of what I posted. People often look at a website and dismiss anything from that site, without looking at the "original" source. Where information is posted is irrelevant. TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

What matters is the "original" source and if the information can be verified. This is something many people will never flipping get.

I am so stringent on my sources, few so-called journalists do a better job then I do of verifying sources.

So, I am not good at presenting the information I wish to share. That is constructive criticism and I will try to work on that, but what is it I have to do?

Do I have to condense 700 page books down to 2 paragraphs?

That is impossible.

If you have suggestions, please share them.