Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Could Atlantis be under Greenland's Ice?


Egyptian-Illuminati

Recommended Posts

One thing that caught my attention the other day: the MAR started to exist when Pangaea broke up. Notice how the northern MAR (red line) seem to follow by Greenland's side, in its movement, northwards. Greenland is extremely close to the Iberian region.

Central_atlantic.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greenland has a considerably better continental fit when facing Iberian Peninsula (Gadeirus), than it does regarding the Scandinavian Peninsula. Iceland and Canary Islands appear to be of the same shape and size...

IBERIA.jpg

Atlas and Gadeirus

Edited by Mario Dantas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WWW.jpg

Gunnbjørn Fjeld is the highest mountain on Greenland, situated within the most mountainous region of the island, located in front of the Atlas range, perhaps proving that a continental orogeny might have occurred there.

greenland.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your speculation about Greenland and Atlantis is absolutely warranted. We don't know about Atlantis, and lots of other stuff. I would be happy to wager that certainly all parts of this Earth have been peopled at some time in the past, including the Antarctic. Theories abound and facts are speculative at best. Could Greenland be the site of the former Atlantis? Certainly. Also, about Cayce... the quote about Earth Changes was, "in the period between '58 and '98". He specifically did not say 1958 or 1998, it could be 2058. Cayce was great though... remember the time when he announced he was going to make a certain citizen of Hopkinsville come into his photo studio; and it worked? Amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your speculation about Greenland and Atlantis is absolutely warranted. We don't know about Atlantis, and lots of other stuff. I would be happy to wager that certainly all parts of this Earth have been peopled at some time in the past, including the Antarctic. Theories abound and facts are speculative at best. Could Greenland be the site of the former Atlantis? Certainly. Also, about Cayce... the quote about Earth Changes was, "in the period between '58 and '98". He specifically did not say 1958 or 1998, it could be 2058. Cayce was great though... remember the time when he announced he was going to make a certain citizen of Hopkinsville come into his photo studio; and it worked? Amazing.

Edgar Cayce, eh....that is your basis for that nonsense? Not surprised.....

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your speculation about Greenland and Atlantis is absolutely warranted. We don't know about Atlantis, and lots of other stuff. I would be happy to wager that certainly all parts of this Earth have been peopled at some time in the past, including the Antarctic. Theories abound and facts are speculative at best. Could Greenland be the site of the former Atlantis? Certainly. Also, about Cayce... the quote about Earth Changes was, "in the period between '58 and '98". He specifically did not say 1958 or 1998, it could be 2058. Cayce was great though... remember the time when he announced he was going to make a certain citizen of Hopkinsville come into his photo studio; and it worked? Amazing.

A fool and his money are soon parted, or so they say...

--Jaylemurph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your speculation about Greenland and Atlantis is absolutely warranted. We don't know about Atlantis, and lots of other stuff. I would be happy to wager that certainly all parts of this Earth have been peopled at some time in the past, including the Antarctic. Theories abound and facts are speculative at best. Could Greenland be the site of the former Atlantis? Certainly.

Thanks! I appreciate your encouragement.

The largest island on the planet was situated further down south and very close to Gibraltar there is a continental fit between the three "continental" pieces (Iberia/Africa/Greenland).

asia.jpg

Regards,

Mario Dantas

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks! I appreciate your encouragement.

The largest island on the planet was situated further down south and very close to Gibraltar there is a continental fit between the three "continental" pieces (Iberia/Africa/Greenland).

asia.jpg

Regards,

Mario Dantas

It is certainly possible that Greenland was once part of the Iberian peninsula. A legion of scientists and 'critical thinkers' may tell you that's impossible, but we know very well that "science" is not an open inquiry into the unexplained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atlantis has been a very interesting subject, I have been doing my own research on it.

Greenland could have been Atlantis or it could be some other huge land mass. Take a good look at a pangea map towards Europe when all of that land mass broke apart maybe there.

There has been a huge speculation about Cuba and the caribbean islands, about the locals looking at the deeps of the water and seeing a stream of blue lights on the oceans floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that caught my attention the other day: the MAR started to exist when Pangaea broke up. Notice how the northern MAR (red line) seem to follow by Greenland's side, in its movement, northwards. Greenland is extremely close to the Iberian region.

Central_atlantic.png

By your own post Greenland was pretty much where it is now 100 mya

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pangea, Gondwana, Rodinia and the supercontinent hypothesis

Introduction: The reconstruction of plate movements back in time is a major scientific accomplishment. When viewing the myriad of reconstructions, complete with animations, available on the web these days the uninitiated may be forgiven for thinking these are 'artistic' renderings and impressions. The incredible wealth of data that inform and constrain these reconstructions is often not immediately evident in the reconstruction itself. Nor is the geometric rigor behind the depictions (projects, poles of rotation, etc.). These reconstructions are now being used in testing and developing global climate models, and so arguably they are much more than an academic exercise. Additionally they are routinely used in resource exploration. This material focuses on the how of reconstruction creation, and then on the results in the context of the debate on the supercontinent hypothesis.

http://maps.unomaha.edu/maher/plate/week12/super.html

This is going to sound ridiculous but again there are coincidences that arise after playing with general continental fit. I have made yet another album showing an "obvious" fitting.

I can't show all the details i have been working on. Nevertheless, my research has already lead me there before, e.g. the Pacific ocean, the Ring of fire, Deccan traps, India, Ninety-east ridge, etc...

Theories of an expanding earth have been proposed before but the lack of a credible mechanism enabling such expansion was one of the major flaws in this system.

The expanding Earth or growing Earth hypothesis asserts that the position and relative movement of continents is at least partially due to the volume of Earth increasing.

While suggested historically, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s, scientific consensus has rejected any significant expansion or contraction of Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

I understand that there were many geologic theories which were considered nonviable when confronted with the scientific academia skepticism.

I was surprised to find out many geologists in the past studied continental models, in which, an expansion of the earth (continents and ocean floors) occurs. Pangaea while a large and sole continental group, would occupy the entire round earth (and therefore, no oceanic crust existed at all).

It is fact that continents fit together if you reduce the earth radius. There are models that attest this!

Expansion Tectonics

It is interesting to note that in 1958 Professor Sam Carey, in researching the concept of continental drift, made scale models of the Earth and demonstrated “if all the continents were reassembled into a Pangaean configuration on a model representing the Earths modern dimensions, the fit was reasonably precise at the centre of the reassembly and along the common margins of north-west Africa and the United States east coast embayment, but became progressively imperfect away from these areas”. Carey concluded from this research that the fit of these ancient continents “could be made much more precise in these areas if the diameter of the Earth was smaller at the time of Pangaea”. With the acceptance of Plate Tectonics, these basic physical observations and conclusions of Carey have been totally ignored.

http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=8&MMN_position=7:4

For lack of interest at the time and/or due to the birth of the newest scientific field of plate tectonics (ocean floor spreading, subduction, etc), the expansion logic was soon forgot since there was now a theoretical process that explained merely everything.

My new album contains (i believe) evidence of a continental fitting between the Asian eastern coast and the north American/South America west coast. I have never seen evidence regarding continental similitude between these two countries (except for the expanding earth theory).

CV_LUN%2520_20%25202014.jpg

The continental fit is difficult because the Asian coastline is very fragmented but there is undeniable resemblance between the two continents.

- Asia (red)

- America (yellow)

- India (blue) where i believe an impact took place

Resuming, the possibility of a smaller earth would show that continents were virtually the only crust that existed. The fit is there... how come the earth was smaller then and got bigger? It is the question i keep asking myself.

An expanding earth must have a relationship with the fact that Pangaea breaks up from the center outwards, as it would if continents moved apart upon a widening ocean floor as a consequence of the expansion itself. An inflating balloon with continental fixed surfaces moving radially further away from a common point, would be a good analogy.

After the expanding event, the earth radius stood the same because the force making all this happened ceased to exist, plain and simple? It is a fact that meteoric accretion did influence the earth's size in the past

Sea floor spreading and subduction probably exist now as vestiges of a dynamic planetary expansion. Today, perhaps the residual forces that still act upon the continental plates are the result of the extreme mantle activity (after impact). According to Newton's first law of motion, a body is at rest or moving with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://maps.unomaha....ek12/super.html

This is going to sound ridiculous but again there are coincidences that arise after playing with general continental fit. I have made yet another album showing an "obvious" fitting.

I can't show all the details i have been working on. Nevertheless, my research has already lead me there before, e.g. the Pacific ocean, the Ring of fire, Deccan traps, India, Ninety-east ridge, etc...

Theories of an expanding earth have been proposed before but the lack of a credible mechanism enabling such expansion was one of the major flaws in this system.

[/size]

http://en.wikipedia....Expanding_Earth

I understand that there were many geologic theories which were considered nonviable when confronted with the scientific academia skepticism.

I was surprised to find out many geologists in the past studied continental models, in which, an expansion of the earth (continents and ocean floors) occurs. Pangaea while a large and sole continental group, would occupy the entire round earth (and therefore, no oceanic crust existed at all).

It is fact that continents fit together if you reduce the earth radius. There are models that attest this!

For lack of interest at the time and/or due to the birth of the newest scientific field of plate tectonics (ocean floor spreading, subduction, etc), the expansion logic was soon forgot since there was now a theoretical process that explained merely everything.

My new album contains (i believe) evidence of a continental fitting between the Asian eastern coast and the north American/South America west coast. I have never seen evidence regarding continental similitude between these two countries (except for the expanding earth theory).

CV_LUN%2520_20%25202014.jpg

The continental fit is difficult because the Asian coastline is very fragmented but there is undeniable resemblance between the two continents.

- Asia (red)

- America (yellow)

- India (blue) where i believe an impact took place

Resuming, the possibility of a smaller earth would show that continents were virtually the only crust that existed. The fit is there... how come the earth was smaller then and got bigger? It is the question i keep asking myself.

An expanding earth must have a relationship with the fact that Pangaea breaks up from the center outwards, as it would if continents moved apart upon a widening ocean floor as a consequence of the expansion itself. An inflating balloon with continental fixed surfaces moving radially further away from a common point, would be a good analogy.

After the expanding event, the earth radius stood the same because the force making all this happened ceased to exist, plain and simple? It is a fact that meteoric accretion did influence the earth's size in the past

Sea floor spreading and subduction probably exist now as vestiges of a dynamic planetary expansion. Today, perhaps the residual forces that still act upon the continental plates are the result of the extreme mantle activity (after impact). According to Newton's first law of motion, a body is at rest or moving with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

There is no doubt the continent fit together but the break up of Pangaea was hundreds of millions of years before there were people so I'm not sure how this is relevant to your search for Atlantis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt the continent fit together but the break up of Pangaea was hundreds of millions of years before there were people so I'm not sure how this is relevant to your search for Atlantis.

Spacecowboy,

Firstly i would like to start by saying, Pangaea's continental configuration is not portrayed, by modern science, as being completely fitting all around the planet. Asian and America seem to fit together, as i believe i have showed:

Asia.jpg

I can assure you that there is a positive continental fit between the two, although it is all i can show you right now (some of the pictures became very badly "twisted" that i discarted them as i tried to produce more accurate imagery about this specific phenomena.

There is an older album AmericanContinentalDriftGeoidReconstructionModel (2011):

https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/AmericanContinentalDriftGeoidReconstructionModel

The continental fit is pretty obvious, but i guarantee you that science does not consider this hypothesis, at all...

It simply wasn't possible if you assume that the earth stayed pretty much with the same diameter, then, it should be unthinkable for a continental fit to exist there.

A logical question should be: how can this happen? How could Pangaea be just a big continental kernel, "floating" on a huge water extension (70% of the surface of the planet), when there is an undeniable continental fit between its most far apart continents, in that projection, namely America and Asia?

That can only mean that there was an earth expansion of sorts (which would itself eased and even further improve continental movement or drift).

pangaea-breakup.jpg

I believe that a catastrophic impact event occurred around 10.000 years ago. The earth being more than four thousand million years old, makes the geologic time scale a very long road to our present day. Plato's Atlantis demise is supposed to be a very recent and transforming event that could have been misunderstood and/or misinterpreted by whoever studied these things...

Resuming, There are, in my view, too many coincidences leading me to think this way. I just cannot stop gathering new information about what i think are true evidences, just because it is not in tune with the canonical time line . Meaning, that i do not care whether people tell me otherwise, or that maybe i have become paranoid about it, or else...

Why the radial continental spreading? Why, after Pangaea breakup, continents drifted as if they were impacted?

Pangaea.gif

Notice that the late Cretaceous period (in animation), when India starts the fastest continental journey on the planet of all times, the continents appear to accelerate and finally breakup completely from each other. Sea floor spreading seem to distance continents evenly across the surface of the planet, why?

It does seem like an expanding baloon...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spacecowboy,

Firstly i would like to start by saying, Pangaea's continental configuration is not portrayed, by modern science, as being completely fitting all around the planet. Asian and America seem to fit together, as i believe i have showed:

Asia.jpg

I can assure you that there is a positive continental fit between the two, although it is all i can show you right now (some of the pictures became very badly "twisted" that i discarted them as i tried to produce more accurate imagery about this specific phenomena.

There is an older album AmericanContinentalDriftGeoidReconstructionModel (2011):

https://picasaweb.go...nstructionModel

The continental fit is pretty obvious, but i guarantee you that science does not consider this hypothesis, at all...

It simply wasn't possible if you assume that the earth stayed pretty much with the same diameter, then, it should be unthinkable for a continental fit to exist there.

A logical question should be: how can this happen? How could Pangaea be just a big continental kernel, "floating" on a huge water extension (70% of the surface of the planet), when there is an undeniable continental fit between its most far apart continents, in that projection, namely America and Asia?

That can only mean that there was an earth expansion of sorts (which would itself eased and even further improve continental movement or drift).

pangaea-breakup.jpg

I believe that a catastrophic impact event occurred around 10.000 years ago. The earth being more than four thousand million years old, makes the geologic time scale a very long road to our present day. Plato's Atlantis demise is supposed to be a very recent and transforming event that could have been misunderstood and/or misinterpreted by whoever studied these things...

Resuming, There are, in my view, too many coincidences leading me to think this way. I just cannot stop gathering new information about what i think are true evidences, just because it is not in tune with the canonical time line . Meaning, that i do not care whether people tell me otherwise, or that maybe i have become paranoid about it, or else...

Why the radial continental spreading? Why, after Pangaea breakup, continents drifted as if they were impacted?

Pangaea.gif

Notice that the late Cretaceous period (in animation), when India starts the fastest continental journey on the planet of all times, the continents appear to accelerate and finally breakup completely from each other. Sea floor spreading seem to distance continents evenly across the surface of the planet, why?

It does seem like an expanding baloon...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Pangaea was not the only supercontinent. I think if memory serves there were two others. I'll have to look that up, but I don't see what you mean by an even spreading of continents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gem5.jpg

The largest negative gravitational anomaly on the planet is situated where the fastest drift happened. An impact like depression of several million square kilometers is patent in the geoid maps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pangaea was not the only supercontinent. I think if memory serves there were two others. I'll have to look that up, but I don't see what you mean by an even spreading of continents.

I do not care about any other previous continental configuration at the moment. Officially, Plato's Atlantic ocean started to exist right after Pangaea breakup. Accepted Pangaea's configuration (if it ever existed) does not answer why there is a fit between distant continents? Mainstream science has never agreed on a fit between the American/Asian continents, nevertheless, it is there...

In late Cretaceous continents evenly lengthen from each other by a concentrated acting force making them all to move gradually at the same time.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not care about any other previous continental configuration at the moment. Officially, Plato's Atlantic ocean started to exist right after Pangaea breakup. Accepted Pangaea's configuration (if it ever existed) does not answer why there is a fit between distant continents? Mainstream science has never agreed on a fit between the American/Asian continents, nevertheless, it is there...

In late Cretaceous continents evenly lengthen from each other by a concentrated acting force making them all to move gradually at the same time.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

My point about the other super continents is this explains why some seem to line up in more than one way. And pangaea's breakup was 130 million years before Plato was born.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that caught my attention the other day: the MAR started to exist when Pangaea broke up. Notice how the northern MAR (red line) seem to follow by Greenland's side, in its movement, northwards. Greenland is extremely close to the Iberian region.

Central_atlantic.png

Looking at these images Greenland is never in front of the Straits of Gibraltar. We can also see that these land movements happened millions of years before there were any humans on Earth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you but...

can you tell why does a continental fit exist between Asia and America? I obviously understand that dating does not add up. Nevertheless, at my own risk, i chose to try different things. These models could be wrong, but i challenge you to deny the "apparent" continental fit...

slide2%2520%25281%2529.png

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mario, when you discard everything we learned from geology, then yes, your idea of fitting pieces of a puzzle might be true.

But Greenland's geological structures fit Canada and Northern Europe, not Northern Africa.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abramelin,

Could there really have been another slightly different configuration for Pangaea? Notice the gap in the north Atlantic, in front of Gibraltar! Having the same angles and proportions as the Greenlandic continental wedge, further north.

I believe that if continents "bump" into each other, their shape becomes somehow similar, which would be a logic thing to happen. Being a plastic material, continental coastlines could deform (grosso modo) evenly along continents, as far as conditions are met for such a thing to happen. India and the Himalayas are a good example.

M21.gif

Greenland, imo, did not exist, as an island, in the north, before 10.000 years. The continental fit existing today is nothing more than the last continental "approach" made by the island, as it moved north. The north Atlantic "gap" in the coastline fit (and older region in the Atlantic, is a region which becomes extremely rich in sea shells.

Greenland might have "escaped" from its original position and "fled" towards north. Notice that Greenland also performs an upward motion, even though very short, but again very close to the Iberian Peninsula.

The continental fit portrayed in the Pangaea breakup animation is actually just a secondary fit which took place after the impact occurred. Before the event, Greenland could have existed further south and "snapped" out of the northern MAR floor stable position and move north,as it appear to be the case in the reconstruction below: An intense activity seems to exists on the MAR region, in the later snapshots of the animation, and therefore, recently enough...

recon.gif

Notice (in the animation) how the northern MAR region show signs of considerable volcanic activity, as the Indian continent reach the Himalayan region...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, i meant that the North American continent is not completely fitting its western African "counterpart". There should have been something between the two continental margins that produced the enormous amount of sand that exists in the "old" Atlantic coasts, and furthermore, in the "recent" Saharan desert.

Why? What geological rule are you following that says something had to be there? Why could it not have been an inland sea?

How come, "suddenly", a vast region of the world is covered by sand and fine dust for no good reason...

Well, suddenly being 2 million years or so...

How would the Atlantic floor be dated, if large parts the ocean floor got molten as a result of an impact, 10.000 years ago?

I've answered this question at least twice already. If the ocean floor became molten 10,000 years ago, then the date of the ocean floor would be 10,000 years. Here's my original response on this thread:

Basalt is dated (again, working from memory here) using the Potassium/Argon method. The theory is that, when molten, argon (Ar) freely escapes because it is a gas, but potassium (K) sticks around because it isn't. The basalt solidifies, the argon is gone, and the potassium continues along its merry way of breaking down from potassium to argon, thus giving us the means to date it. So, what would happen if the basalt was re-molten? Well, asides from the previously mentioned point of anything organic and much of the inorganic stuff on the surface of the planet being reduced to their component molecules (including any Atlantians, Athenians, Egyptians, or anyone else anywhere on the planet), what we would get is whatever argon had formed from the potassium would, again, escape into the air. Basically, the clock would reset, and when the basalt cooled, it would start the whole potassium to argon thing again, with the argon count back at zero. The dating method wouldn't even be wrong; it would, after all, be giving us the date of when it formed. However, the age of the basalt would actually be
younger.

The second error is that oceanic basalt isn't primarily measured using radioisotope dating methods. Those are just used to support the data; multiple points of confirmation and all that. Oceanic crust tends to be dated more by the distance from the mid-ocean ridge that created it. The further away from the ridge, the older it is. The speed of movement varies depending on various factors, but there are physical limits. Too much magma coming out doesn't result in faster crustal plains; it results in volcanoes. Going back to your squooshed apple pie, the filling oozes out at a given rate; applying greater pressure results in a bigger glob, not a faster glob.
What about dating when a geologic metamorphism take place? Immense extensions of Atlantic oceanic crust could have been re-heated and thus altered to an unknown degree.

This was also answered. Why do you keep repeating the same questions and never acknowledging any of the answers?

As far as the modern crust never having been pierced, yeah, lack of evidence is pretty massive on that one for a couple of reasons. The first is that anything massive or strong enough to actually pierce the crust would be packing so much energy that it would simply be an extinction level event. Heck, it doesn't even
have
to pierce the crust to get to that level; there are plenty of heavenly bodies that could destroy all life on Earth without getting close to piercing the crust. And, of course, the geological evidence would be massive, even after we evolved, millions possibly billions, of years later. Simply put, damage caused by internal pressure is much different than damage caused from external pressure. Go to McDonald's and get an apple pie. Crush one end with your hand. Compare the damage there with the damage on the other end. Tell the people staring at you that you are doing science.

Look, about 65 million years ago, something called the K-T Event occurred. A 6-mile wide asteroid struck the planet and set of a cataclysm that resulted in the death of 70% of life on Earth. How do we know? Because we found the crater. The Chicxulub Crater doesn't even come close to cracking the basalt underlayment of the Gulf of Mexico, let alone melting it. Anything that hit the Earth with enough force to melt the basalt would utterly cauterize the surface. I have my doubts even bacteria could survive such an event. Last time something of that magnitude happened, planet Earth ended up getting a moon out of it.

Radiometric dating must happen on the good faith that earthly things evolved quite slowly and smooth, when a legend tells us otherwise...

Again, also answered. You have been parroting yourself since the very beginning of this thread:

Catastrophism is not mainstream, but it is recognized by pretty much all geologists, and I can't think of any that would deny it
ever
occurred, even if it wasn't a normal part of geological history. Heck, the theory that the moon was created by an impact on proto-Earth so massive it tore a chunk (glob?) out of the planet is still alive and well in academic circles.

Theories of an expanding earth have been proposed before but the lack of a credible mechanism enabling such expansion was one of the major flaws in this system.

Yes, it is a pretty major flaw. It's like saying that the reason people put something down, turn around, and then when they go to pick it up, it is gone, it is because magical faeries turn it invisible except that we can't show that faeries actually exist. A solution that doesn't exist isn't a solution; It's a bad excuse.

I understand that there were many geologic theories which were considered nonviable when confronted with the scientific academia skepticism.

Yep. See above.

You try and make it sound like it is the skeptics that make the solutions non-viable. You like leaving out the part about the solutions failing because they could not stand up on their own merits.

It is fact that continents fit together if you reduce the earth radius. There are models that attest this!

There are also models showing how the Earth fit together (and didn't fit together) using plate tectonics and continental drift, and those models actually have evidence and support behind them. Between two competing theories, the one with the empirical evidence beats the one...that doesn't have an actual mechanism beyond "It happened? Maybe?"

I do not care about any other previous continental configuration at the moment.

Why not? What criteria forces you to exclude them?

Officially, Plato's Atlantic ocean started to exist right after Pangaea breakup.

Officially?

Officially according to whom? Plato certainly didn't have anything to say about it. Heck, he barely had anything to say about Atlantis to begin with.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.