Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 4 votes

Roswell debris tested; Not from Earth


  • Please log in to reply
904 replies to this topic

#871    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,033 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 26 November 2011 - 03:28 AM

I see the dummies were flying the spy balloon and crashed in yosh` zaggarts field and a party broke out with all the Shiner Bock beer one could hold down? :rolleyes:

This is a Work in Progress!

#872    Viper2

Viper2

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 156 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 November 2011 - 09:07 PM

View Postbison, on 25 November 2011 - 04:02 PM, said:

When we imagine something, can we know that it is impossible? The 'laws' of physics merely reflect our current understanding of the subject. These can not be reified into the very basis of the universe and reality. Or are we to assume that human knowledge is correct and complete in all respects? I would point out that radio waves were once derided as a fantasy, with no basis in the real world, and that radioactivity was unknown until a little over a century ago.
 M theory in current physics speaks of the possibility of dimensions outside what we think of as normal space. It is indicated that 'shortcuts' through these dimensions could reduce the the travel time between point  A and and point B within normal space. This would effectively allow faster than light travel in a global sense, while maintaining Special Relativity's light speed limit within 'normal' space. Of course we are not currently able to use such a possibility for space travel. Can we know that this will always be the case, or that others with a substantial head start on us have not already learned how to do so?

That's exactly the point.  Most UFO skeptics on forums such as this know very little about theoretical physics (or physics at all), yet they make proclamations as to what is possible and what isn't.  What they do is really nothing more than a form of hidden trolling in an attempt to agitate UFO believers.


#873    Oppono Astos

Oppono Astos

    Overlord of Delgon

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,094 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beyond your dimension

Posted 27 November 2011 - 09:23 PM

View PostViper2, on 27 November 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

That's exactly the point.  Most UFO skeptics on forums such as this know very little about theoretical physics (or physics at all), yet they make proclamations as to what is possible and what isn't.  What they do is really nothing more than a form of hidden trolling in an attempt to agitate UFO believers.
So-called skeptics invariably have a better grasp of science (theoretical or otherwise) than Believers.

Who is the skeptic: the realist who won't accept belief, or the believer who won't accept reality?

#874    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 38,390 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 28 November 2011 - 05:44 AM

View Postbison, on 25 November 2011 - 04:02 PM, said:

When we imagine something, can we know that it is impossible?

Yes indeed we can! Can you fly to the Sun using only your own body and walk on it naked?

Can you post my wife's middle name? I imagine that you seem to think that such is possible and a demonstration would convince me.

View Postbison, on 25 November 2011 - 04:02 PM, said:

The 'laws' of physics merely reflect our current understanding of the subject. These can not be reified into the very basis of the universe and reality.

I never said that was the case, but you are remiss in mentioning that what we do know makes up a base so to speak. Just like with the hominid model, initial base findings were correct, we do have evolution, yet it took many decades to refine that progression from a relay into a malay. It leaves room to modify what we do know. That is the very essence of science. Science is not Knowledge, it is the pursuit of knowledge.

View Postbison, on 25 November 2011 - 04:02 PM, said:

Or are we to assume that human knowledge is correct and complete in all respects?

As I said above, I see every reason to believe that we have indeed worked out some basics. I always think of E=MC2 as the Universes 1+1=2. I expect room for improvement, but I do not believe there is any reason to feel that physics requires a complete re-write. It is working quite OK so far. NASA's LISA experiment is going great guns, and should shore up GR principals quite solidly as we speak.

View Postbison, on 25 November 2011 - 04:02 PM, said:

I would point out that radio waves were once derided as a fantasy, with no basis in the real world, and that radioactivity was unknown until a little over a century ago.

How is this relevant? I could also tell you how science has been held back for centuries by belief. I am quite sure you are well aware of such historical record. Science has not held science back. Men have held science back. That is the big difference here. Science prevails.

View Postbison, on 25 November 2011 - 04:02 PM, said:

M theory in current physics speaks of the possibility of dimensions outside what we think of as normal space. It is indicated that 'shortcuts' through these dimensions could reduce the the travel time between point  A and and point B within normal space. This would effectively allow faster than light travel in a global sense, while maintaining Special Relativity's light speed limit within 'normal' space. Of course we are not currently able to use such a possibility for space travel. Can we know that this will always be the case, or that others with a substantial head start on us have not already learned how to do so?

No it would not allow travel at all. How do you envisage it would? The dimensions that M theory predicts are microscopic. Not useful to us physically in any way, and yes, they (dimensions) are new "ways to move" not new universes and worlds. Sci Fi writers have much to explain there. As such, the best we can hope for from that avenue is a better communications system for interstellar distances. Can you offer a proposal whereby we might send a spaceship through a microscopic opening? You have your work cut out for you there I have to say. Expecting others to simply "accomplish the impossible" is a very long way from an objective viewpoint I find personally. It seems a bit of a cop out too I have to say. Surely we are not just going to wait around in hope that someone is better at this than we are?

Edited by psyche101, 28 November 2011 - 05:56 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#875    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 38,390 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 28 November 2011 - 05:58 AM

View PostViper2, on 27 November 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

That's exactly the point.  Most UFO skeptics on forums such as this know very little about theoretical physics (or physics at all), yet they make proclamations as to what is possible and what isn't.  What they do is really nothing more than a form of hidden trolling in an attempt to agitate UFO believers.


And yet by the same logic you are expecting everyone to believe that ETHers can determine everything we need to know about a UFO from a few seconds glance at a distance?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#876    quillius

quillius

    52.0839° N, 1.4328° E

  • Member
  • 5,591 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 28 November 2011 - 09:31 AM

View Postbadeskov, on 25 November 2011 - 07:43 PM, said:

Hey quillius,

Please do drop in at any time. I always enjoy reading what you have to say :)

People would be talking, however, if we had this kind of evidence they would also be able to back it up. What many people fail to realize is that, by far, the largest part of scientific analyses is done by civilian entities and they talk. Simply because that is their job, they publish. Not only that, they are curious people, eager to share information to learn more. And if they had something substantial to share, it would come with the hard data to support it.  

Cheers,
Badeskov

Hey Badeskov,

thank you.  :tu:

I see your points, all I would say is that IF Roswell for example was real and the government were in possession of some alien craft then I do not think that this kind of material would be placed with 'civilian' entities for testing. In the case of Frank Kimbler and anyone else who makes such a claim then yes these may well be tested by such.

:tu:

View Postpsyche101, on 28 November 2011 - 05:58 AM, said:

And yet by the same logic you are expecting everyone to believe that ETHers can determine everything we need to know about a UFO from a few seconds glance at a distance?


why not...we are smarter than the average bear booboo. :) :P


#877    Belial

Belial

    Love me grub i do.

  • Member
  • 4,430 posts
  • Joined:28 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:On a beach

  • We all want to go to heaven, but no one wants to die to get their.

Posted 28 November 2011 - 10:23 AM

Roswell debris tested; Not from Earth so where's it from then K MART :w00t:

Where it states "For official use only" - gently rub a white wax candle over the area indicated.

#878    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,740 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 28 November 2011 - 03:54 PM

[quote name='psyche101' timestamp='1322459094' post='4128002']
Yes indeed we can! Can you fly to the Sun using only your own body and walk on it naked?

Can you post my wife's middle name? I imagine that you seem to think that such is possible and a demonstration would convince me.



I never said that was the case, but you are remiss in mentioning that what we do know makes up a base so to speak. Just like with the hominid model, initial base findings were correct, we do have evolution, yet it took many decades to refine that progression from a relay into a malay. It leaves room to modify what we do know. That is the very essence of science. Science is not Knowledge, it is the pursuit of knowledge.



As I said above, I see every reason to believe that we have indeed worked out some basics. I always think of E=MC2 as the Universes 1+1=2. I expect room for improvement, but I do not believe there is any reason to feel that physics requires a complete re-write. It is working quite OK so far. NASA's LISA experiment is going great guns, and should shore up GR principals quite solidly as we speak.



How is this relevant? I could also tell you how science has been held back for centuries by belief. I am quite sure you are well aware of such historical record. Science has not held science back. Men have held science back. That is the big difference here. Science prevails.



No it would not allow travel at all. How do you envisage it would? The dimensions that M theory predicts are microscopic. Not useful to us physically in any way, and yes, they (dimensions) are new "ways to move" not new universes and worlds. Sci Fi writers have much to explain there. As such, the best we can hope for from that avenue is a better communications system for interstellar distances. Can you offer a proposal whereby we might send a spaceship through a microscopic opening? You have your work cut out for you there I have to say. Expecting others to simply "accomplish the impossible" is a very long way from an objective viewpoint I find personally. It seems a bit of a cop out too I have to say. Surely we are not just going to wait around in hope that someone is better at this than we are?
[/quote The sort of possibility I was speaking of is not about what can be done at the moment but what might be done in the future. Also, I did not say that everything that could be imagined was possible. The presumption that certain things currently undo-able will continue to be so is what I was challenging.  My examples about radioactivity and radio waves were quite relevant. I did not intend to criticize the scientific process, but to emphasize its open-ended nature. Much of what science would have rejected two centuries ago is now commonplace.  Who can say that a means of space travel, currently unthinkable, won't, two centuries hence, be similarly commonplace?  One of the possible  consequences of M Theory is that our known universe resides in a membrane surrounded by a large 'bulk space'. It was this space to which I was referring in my comments about higher dimensional short cuts, not to the minute dimensions described by String Theory.

Edited by bison, 28 November 2011 - 03:55 PM.


#879    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 38,390 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:40 AM

View Postbison, on 28 November 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:


The sort of possibility I was speaking of is not about what can be done at the moment but what might be done in the future.

I still have to disagree. With examples of our Industrial Revolution, things that were deemed "impossible" Like breaking the sound barrier had examples in nature. Some even man made. The extrapolations brought about by string theory have expanded into a Sci FI world, not relative to the one we deal with each day.

View Postbison, on 28 November 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

Also, I did not say that everything that could be imagined was possible.

That is right, so I answered the question. You said if we can imagine something, can we know it is impossible. I feel established a positive in that regard?

View Postbison, on 28 November 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

The presumption that certain things currently undo-able will continue to be so is what I was challenging.  My examples about radioactivity and radio waves were quite relevant. I did not intend to criticize the scientific process, but to emphasize its open-ended nature. Much of what science would have rejected two centuries ago is now commonplace.  Who can say that a means of space travel, currently unthinkable, won't, two centuries hence, be similarly commonplace?

What is the point of imaging such? As development arise, the path will become clear. We have been on this path for decades, and have a viable concept with Nuclear Propulsion via the Orion Project. Today is more difficult due to the snake oil salesmen saturating the UFO field. I cannot possibly imagine any of these crackpots (David Icke etc.) holding an answer. I feel we need to clear that stale air to make a fresh approach to an age old conundrum, as older research has lead nowhere.

View Postbison, on 28 November 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

One of the possible  consequences of M Theory is that our known universe resides in a membrane surrounded by a large 'bulk space'. It was this space to which I was referring in my comments about higher dimensional short cuts, not to the minute dimensions described by String Theory.


Ahh, so you are referring to Brane Cosmology. Are there not some serious problems to overcome between Einstein and Maxwell there? 5 dimensional space has some serious stability problems as far as I know, like string theory, I feel it is a little early to start designing starships based upon that theory. It might be wrong or right, all we can do for the moment is follow the progress, and current results from the LHC are not too promising.

Search for Microscopic Black Hole Signatures at the Large Hadron Collider

Who knows, maybe Kaluza–Klein geometry will come charging over the hill to save the day. But lets not start holding our breath just yet.

Edited by psyche101, 29 November 2011 - 12:42 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#880    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,740 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 30 November 2011 - 04:20 PM

Breaking his vow of silence, Frank Kimbler posted recently on the ATS forum. He was much more informative than usual; explaining the reasons for the delay in retesting his metal fragments, and giving a preliminary report on what has been learned recently.  He indicates that he wishes to have the proportions of the isotopes of  magnesium, aluminum, and possibly copper assayed. He seeks a precision of  0.1 % , and an error factor of the same size.  He adds that the weight of the proposed sample is just under 3 milligrams. As mentioned before, he seeks a certified lab.
 He reports that this combination of requirements has made it difficult to find  an appropriate lab to do the work, or to have it done in a  short period of time. An interesting situation. Given his specificity, it should be possible for someone knowledgeable in this area to check his claims against reality. Has he overstated, or overestimated the difficulties involved, or is his situation, as presented, reasonable?  If the former is the case, he needs to be advised of this and pointed in the direction of laboratories that could do this work in a timely manner.

Edited by bison, 30 November 2011 - 04:20 PM.


#881    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,033 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 30 November 2011 - 08:51 PM

The best part is the  "Not Of part" !
Like in not really  real part.
I.E.   "=MC2" or M.I.B`s is about as close to E.T. as Roswell = E.T - All the possibilities combined = Mass Brain Damage. :innocent: justDONTEATUS.

This is a Work in Progress!

#882    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,650 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 30 November 2011 - 10:51 PM

View Postbison, on 30 November 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

Breaking his vow of silence, Frank Kimbler posted recently on the ATS forum. He was much more informative than usual; explaining the reasons for the delay in retesting his metal fragments, and giving a preliminary report on what has been learned recently.  He indicates that he wishes to have the proportions of the isotopes of  magnesium, aluminum, and possibly copper assayed. He seeks a precision of  0.1 % , and an error factor of the same size.  He adds that the weight of the proposed sample is just under 3 milligrams. As mentioned before, he seeks a certified lab.
 He reports that this combination of requirements has made it difficult to find  an appropriate lab to do the work, or to have it done in a  short period of time. An interesting situation. Given his specificity, it should be possible for someone knowledgeable in this area to check his claims against reality. Has he overstated, or overestimated the difficulties involved, or is his situation, as presented, reasonable?  If the former is the case, he needs to be advised of this and pointed in the direction of laboratories that could do this work in a timely manner.

Hi bison,

The short answer is no, his problems are not valid. Labs doing such routinely handle samples with a mass of tenths of micrograms, I.e. hundreds of times smaller than his proposed sample mass. And a 0.1% accuracy would be laughable. They are much, much better than that.

I'll see if I can find some numbers when I get home.

And the tests he requested are straight forward, no time penalty incurred anywhere.

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#883    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 38,390 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 01 December 2011 - 01:25 AM

View Postquillius, on 28 November 2011 - 09:31 AM, said:

why not...we are smarter than the average bear booboo. :) :P


Hey Quillius


Somehow I am detecting some TIC in the reply........... ;)

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#884    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,650 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 01 December 2011 - 01:49 AM

View Postbison, on 30 November 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

Breaking his vow of silence, Frank Kimbler posted recently on the ATS forum. He was much more informative than usual; explaining the reasons for the delay in retesting his metal fragments, and giving a preliminary report on what has been learned recently.  He indicates that he wishes to have the proportions of the isotopes of  magnesium, aluminum, and possibly copper assayed. He seeks a precision of  0.1 % , and an error factor of the same size.  He adds that the weight of the proposed sample is just under 3 milligrams. As mentioned before, he seeks a certified lab.
 He reports that this combination of requirements has made it difficult to find  an appropriate lab to do the work, or to have it done in a  short period of time. An interesting situation. Given his specificity, it should be possible for someone knowledgeable in this area to check his claims against reality. Has he overstated, or overestimated the difficulties involved, or is his situation, as presented, reasonable?  If the former is the case, he needs to be advised of this and pointed in the direction of laboratories that could do this work in a timely manner.

Just to add to my previous post, here is a very nice tutorial on mass spec. Very informative. Just to snip a few paragraphs:

Quote

A mass spectrum will usually be presented as a vertical bar graph, in  which each bar represents an ion having a specific mass-to-charge ratio  (m/z) and the length of the bar indicates the relative abundance of the  ion. The most intense ion is assigned an abundance of 100, and it is  referred to as the base peak. Most of the ions formed in a mass  spectrometer have a single charge, so the m/z value is equivalent to  mass itself. Modern mass spectrometers easily distinguish (resolve) ions  differing by only a single atomic mass unit, and thus provide  completely accurate values for the molecular mass of a compound. The  highest-mass ion in a spectrum is normally considered to be the  molecular ion, and lower-mass ions are fragments from the molecular ion,  assuming the sample is a single pure compound.
Atomic mass is given in terms of the unified atomic mass unit (symbol: μ) or dalton  (symbol: Da). In recent years there has been a gradual change towards  using the dalton in preference to the unified atomic mass unit. The  dalton is classified as a "non-SI unit whose values in SI units must be  obtained experimentally". It is defined as one twelfth of the rest mass  of an unbound atom of carbon-12 in its nuclear and electronic ground  state, and has a value of 1.660538782(83)x10-27 kg.

Quote

Since a mass spectrometer separates and detects ions of slightly  different masses, it easily distinguishes different isotopes of a given  element.

This is another good and informative article on mass spectrometry. It's somewhat more technical, but rather informative nonetheless. A few quotes:

Quote

“A well-prepared sample, a well-defined analytical goal, the appropriate use of accurate mass, reproducible retention times and good instrument control generates unassailable data.” To this he adds:“Make it run in triplicate, and [you] get real data from which to draw conclusions.”

Which is pretty obvious :P And, more interestingly:

Quote

Simply stated, mass accuracy is the ability to measure or calibrate the instrument response against a known entity. Usually expressed in parts per million (ppm), the measurement indicates the deviation of the instrument response from a known monoisotopic calculated mass.

So it's ability to measure and thus separate mass is measured in ppm, or parts per million (with some rather expensive equipment being even better). From the table in the article on pp. 38 an example list of known substances and the errors measured. All under 5ppm. Given that 0.1% corresponds to 1000ppm, current accuracies are in the  0.0005% range.

Frankly, his so called problems in finding an accredited lab that can meet his rather lax requirements rings a bit hollow to me.

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#885    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,650 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:05 AM

View Postbison, on 30 November 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

Breaking his vow of silence, Frank Kimbler posted recently on the ATS forum. He was much more informative than usual; explaining the reasons for the delay in retesting his metal fragments, and giving a preliminary report on what has been learned recently.  He indicates that he wishes to have the proportions of the isotopes of  magnesium, aluminum, and possibly copper assayed. He seeks a precision of  0.1 % , and an error factor of the same size.  He adds that the weight of the proposed sample is just under 3 milligrams. As mentioned before, he seeks a certified lab.
 He reports that this combination of requirements has made it difficult to find  an appropriate lab to do the work, or to have it done in a  short period of time. An interesting situation. Given his specificity, it should be possible for someone knowledgeable in this area to check his claims against reality. Has he overstated, or overestimated the difficulties involved, or is his situation, as presented, reasonable?  If the former is the case, he needs to be advised of this and pointed in the direction of laboratories that could do this work in a timely manner.

Oh, and he doesn't need to specify that he needs magnesium, aluminum and possibly (??) copper assessed. If he does a mass spec he'll get everything that is in there - everything. Which any lab would tell him if he had actually asked a lab, certified or not. That kinda tells me that he hasn't asked a lab and his problems are not as real as he would like to make them out to be.

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users