Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 17
Hazzard

More Best Evidence for aliens

25,265 posts in this topic

LOL.....a couple more beers and it won't look so bad! ;):P

LOL! When I have had beers to the extent that I don't find it scary, I will probably see four of it (out of focus) and I will have a hard time figuring out which one to choose :P

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very well put, Sky Scanner! :tu: And so true. Some people are indeed coming to the discussion with a predefined answer to a question they don't really know.

Cheers,

Badeskov

If I'm honest I can't really see it changing much in the short to medium term either - perhaps this new belief system needs to run it's course, where it will fall apart through it's own merit (or lack thereof) as people grow tired of the false promises, inconclusive videos and poor interpretation of data. Meanwhile, hopefully, serious research into our planet and it's atmosphere, space and all that encompasses will continue as normal, and when this belief system has run it's course we might be in a better postion to start coming up with some answers, or more importantly, actually agree on what the question should be.

LOL! When I have had beers to the extent that I don't find it scary, I will probably see four of it (out of focus) and I will have a hard time figuring out which one to choose :P

Cheers,

Badeskov

Well, which ever baton you grab, as long as don't find yourself drunkingly running towards a BBQ you'll be fine! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the part that blows me away, Nigel!! ..I mean, I get the time invested, hard to let go of a life long belief and all that, but, how in the hell can people still believe in an edmitted fake/hoax!?

It's incredible to me too, but the will to believe is strong in some (sounds like Star Wars, doesn't it?). People are able to rationalize all sorts of behavior and beliefs, both good and bad. That's why one of the best things you can do for yourself is examine your beliefs -- "I believe this.....is that rational? Does it make sense? Is it healthy for me to believe this or act this way?" And that sort of self-examination goes for anything from the foods you eat to your politics to spirituality. Many believe that it doesn't matter how they act, because [insert deity or benevolent space alien] will take care of them. The fact of the matter is, that's not a healthy way to live (see here

Wis. jury: Father guilty in prayer death case
). Or of course the Heaven's Gate cult, or any of a thousand other....I hesitate to use "cults," because my point isn't just religion, but any...philosophy....thought process...take your pick, that people follow that is irrational.

So how can people believe in an admitted fake? It's not easy, but the fact is they work very, very hard at it, and don't want to give up that belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel that he comes much closer to hitting the mark than any 'reality showing otherwise' saucer advocate. Skepticism has failed in that it hasn't marketed itself as well as mainstream ufology has marketed itself. In some ways, the pro-ufo camp has actually been given the opportunity to redefine what skepticism and debunking actually are. Historically, it really wasn't that long ago that those words had a positive connotation to them.

Evangium, it is very rare that I disagree with you, but I must do so here. I don't see that skepticism has failed as such. While I see it as the skeptics job to continuously counter the likes of Hoagland et. al., I don't see it as their job to educate the gullible in this sense. Honestly, I see that as the job of parenting and subsequently the education system. And in that sense I don't think the amount of gullible have really increased, I think we are just seeing the effect of the internet where anybody can post without any editorial scrutiny. And, quite frankly, we could be called masochists since we are coming here to discuss such topics (and with an urge to actually try and educate); we could be in one of the strictly scientific discussion forums.

That said, I enjoy it here and the few people that have actually taken a more skeptical approach based on the skeptics' posts here is reward enough for me. I have no illusion of turning this field around as there are too many with predetermined opinions, as Sky Scanner also put it.

Mainstream ufology his its Hoaxlands, it Greer's, Lazaars, Bragalias, Friedmans and a whole host of supporting cast. It has slick production (in some cases) and the technological nous to market and spread it's message. And above all else it has a message to tell and a reason to believe. Something the churches of the world clued on to a long time ago. You don't fill the pews by coming out and saying there may or may not be an eternal reward, and you certainly don't fill a convention/conference centre with anything less than the 'irrefutable truth'.

The field of ufology is just one of such areas. It is a system of belief, just like religion. And I doubt there will ever be a means to eliminate that. I think it is built into human nature.

So where does that leave the skeptic? Coming out with a truthful message accomplishes very little, since the target audience isn't interested in the truth (more so if they have to spend more than 5 minutes actually thinking about it).

I think it leaves the skeptic where the skeptic has always been and maybe even cementing the need to be skeptical given the amount of clutter that is polluting this field. To be quite blunt, I don't think this has any impact whatsoever on science. Scientists couldn't care less about what the believers think and do. Nor would the Government. Neither science nor the Government is going to take any notice unless documentation is brought forth that can actually stand up to scrutiny. It is, in other words, background noise easily filtered out.

I have noted in the past that we are seeing emergence of the new breed of ufologist. Those guys that aren't afraid to take the 'softline' approach and allow some doubt, skepticism and critical thinking guide their research. But we also need a new breed of skeptic to take the stage. Only then will serious science have a fair opportunity to place a foot in the mainsteam arena.

I have a feeling that serious science will never really get the opportunity to place a foot in the mainstream arena on equal footing. Serious science will never be able to offer the same as a snake oil sales person. Science is and will always be limited by the rigorous process of science, whereas the snake oil sales person is limited only by the imagination. The snake oil sales person will therefore always be able to deliver the extraordinary that appeals to the desire of the mind for mystery.

Of course, this is only my personal take on it ;)

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I'm honest I can't really see it changing much in the short to medium term either - perhaps this new belief system needs to run it's course, where it will fall apart through it's own merit (or lack thereof) as people grow tired of the false promises, inconclusive videos and poor interpretation of data. Meanwhile, hopefully, serious research into our planet and it's atmosphere, space and all that encompasses will continue as normal, and when this belief system has run it's course we might be in a better postion to start coming up with some answers, or more importantly, actually agree on what the question should be.

I wholeheartedly agree. Honestly, in *mumble* years I think we will see this as a foot note in history like the belief in fairies and gnomes.

Well, which ever baton you grab, as long as don't find yourself drunkingly running towards a BBQ you'll be fine! ;)

:D

I'll make sure no BBQ is around, albeit with the amount of beer required to actually grab one of those I would doubt my ability to coordinate my leg movements for walking, let alone running ;)

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wholeheartedly agree. Honestly, in *mumble* years I think we will see this as a foot note in history like the belief in fairies and gnomes.

Im afraid that your right here, Badeskov.

I would of course love it if your wrong about this. That we, in our lifetime, could get that final scientific proof of ETI.

But nah, I dont think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im afraid that your right here, Badeskov.

I would of course love it if your wrong about this. That we, in our lifetime, could get that final scientific proof of ETI.

But nah, I dont think so.

Oh, trust me. There is nothing I would rather see than the US Government admitting that Roswell actually happened or some other Government disclosing real proof of ET visitation or that ET decided to pay us a visit in a very public way.

Unfortunately, my hope for either is very low.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well well well, you are so wrong :D

The scientists confirmed the crashed Roswell UFO debris as Extraterrestrial origin! :w00t:

There are those who don't want to accept reality, yet, they accepted the false weather balloon story with no problem, and both Roswell reports, which have since been proven as false.

What's up with that???

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wholeheartedly agree. Honestly, in *mumble* years I think we will see this as a foot note in history like the belief in fairies and gnomes.

I'll make sure no BBQ is around, albeit with the amount of beer required to actually grab one of those I would doubt my ability to coordinate my leg movements for walking, let alone running ;)

No BBQ?! How about a nice plate of Crow?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mainstream ufology his its Hoaxlands, it Greer's, Lazaars, Bragalias, Friedmans and a whole host of supporting cast.

Let's stack them up against the skeptic's heroe's.

Phil Klass:

* SR-71 as a UFO that manuevered around a satellite more than 20,000 miles in space

* Planets to explain UFOs that maneuvered around a B-747

* Ice clouds in clear skies after it was determined that those UFOs were also tracked on radar, which the skeptics found later to their dismay :lol:

* Plasma as UFOs. Phil later threw out that explanation out the window after he was hoaxed with a photo. :w00t:

And then, we have:

* Dave Thomas

* Donald Menzel

* CSI

* The Skeptical Inquirer

* Joe Nickell

* The Skeptic's Dictionary

My favorite:

* Tim Printy

But there are more as well, but we can highlight their past explanations on UFOs that I could have used at Comedy Central in Las Vegas.

So, if you want to compare believers and skeptics, then be my guess! :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That said, there are a lot of scientists in the field of UFOlogy effectively, albeit not visibly so. They are astronomers, atmospheric scientists, astrophysicists etc. They work scientifically and rigorously on data they continuously obtain, some of which shows unknown events and phenomena. However, since they publish in peer reviewed scientific journals (where the populist field of UFOlogy very, very rarely goes) , they discuss with all options open and somehow have discovered and explained a lot of hitherto unknown natural phenomena. Or left the observations as of unknown origin until better models and/or more data can be obtained. But that is obviously not very appealing for a nmber of people, people for which the process of independent verification and falsification are completely unknown entities.

Sightings by Astronomers

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView....tion=Astronomer

http://www.bufora.org.uk/Articles/Astronomers_and_UFOs.pdf

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the one!

Here's the star-map Betty drew:

starmap.jpg

Here's the actual layout of http://www.bufora.org.uk/Articles/Astronomers_and_UFOs.pdf:

Zeta_reticuli.png

Perhaps, if we wait long enough, the skeptics will eventually claim that Zeta Reticuli was that UFO that maneuvered around a B-29 years ago. After all, they have claimed that Jupiter and Mars were the UFOs that maneuvered around a B747 in 1986!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These believers keep complaining about how serious scientists dont want to touch the religion that is UFOlogy... Gosh(!),

Science in Default:

Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations

American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting

General Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects

James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences

The University of Arizona

Tucson, Arizona

December 27, 1969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ROSWELL DEBRIS CONFIRMED AS EXTRATERRESTRIAL: Lab Located, Scientists Named

by Anthony Bragalia

Posted: 11:44 May 26, 2009

Newly discovered documents reveal that in the months immediately following the purported 1947 UFO crash at Roswell, secret government studies began on a material that was previously unknown to science. The "memory metal" that was studied precisely matches some of the debris material reported by several witnesses to the crash. Evidence shows that -under military direction- these unique metal studies were undertaken by a contracted laboratory that possessed advanced technical capabilities that the U.S. government itself did not have at the time. A former high-level scientist employed by the involved laboratory has offered a confession that he was tasked to study the crashed UFO material. Information provided by two U.S. Air Force Generals also offers direct support for this discovery.

The documents suggest that after the crash, the US government attempted to develop a unique material that is today referred to as memory metal. This shape-recovery alloy was reported by several witnesses to the Roswell crash in the summer of 1947. The lightweight "morphing" material was able to be crumpled or deformed and then return itself instantly and seamlessly to its original state. The metallurgical discoveries that resulted from these studies were then "seeded" for further technology development to other government agencies (including NASA) and through a series of military contracts to universities and industry.

The laboratory contracted by Wright Patterson Air Force Base to perform these studies was Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, OH. It has been credibly reported that Wright Patterson Air Force Base was the very base where the Roswell UFO debris was flown after the crash.

BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE:

WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE:

Recently obtained documents reveal that these studies for Wright Patterson were conducted at Battelle under the direction of Dr. Howard C. Cross. In the late 1940's, H.C Cross was Battelle's expert scientist in exotic metallurgy and Titanium alloy research.

Curiously –although he was a research metallurgist- Cross was also Battelle's "point person" in later studies on UFOs that Battelle conducted in the early 1950's for the U.S. Air Force's official UFO study, Project Bluebook. Cross is likely an author of Project Bluebook's still-missing Report Number 13. He is also the author of a strange letter from Battelle to Wright Patterson known as "The Pentacle" memo. Dr. Cross' historic role will be detailed in a forthcoming article.

Founded in 1929, Battelle is engaged in research, development and commercialization of technological innovation. They specialize in materials science and engineering, life sciences, energy science and national security. Battelle contract operates many of our country's National Laboratories. This includes some of the U.S.'s most sensitive installations such as Oak Ridge, Lawrence Livermore and Brookhaven laboratories. Battelle is headquartered in proximity to Wright Patterson- and remains one of the nation's leading defense contractors. Their metallurgical capabilities and technical talent continue to be recognized as world-class.

Thank you!! :tu:

Military officials and civilian personnel were also confirming that fact years ago, including the former commanding general of Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ill accept no such thing from this clown Robert D. Morningstar ... you might aswell tell me to accept Richard C Hoaglands nonsense as fact!!

Hazzard, you need to accept reality for what it is!

Remember, the skeptics have been unable to refute any of the case files I've listed and do you know why I listed only those particular case files?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard, you need to accept reality for what it is!

Remember, the skeptics have been unable to refute any of the case files I've listed and do you know why I listed only those particular case files?!

So why is it so important to 'accept this particular reality'? Is it of greater importance than healthcare and education, or the 20% of the global population that doesn't have access to safe drinking water? What do we gain? Does it improve our quality of life?

How does 'this particular reality' look when put into this kind of perspective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's stack them up against the skeptic's heroe's.

So, if you want to compare believers and skeptics, then be my guess! :yes:

Why not? Of course you do realise that in the eyes of the average person, ufo skeptics and believers are tarred with the same brush...

But you kind of missed my point (no surprises there), the fact that your 'list of heroes' is less of a who's who and more of a who? (or what? in some cases), just confirms what I meant in regarding ufology's showmen.

Answer this honestly, who has the greater number of conventions/conferences, media and internet presence, the skeptics or propents/individuals riding on the coat tails of the ETH?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard, you need to accept reality for what it is!

Remember, the skeptics have been unable to refute any of the case files I've listed and do you know why I listed only those particular case files?!

First off, im neither a "believer" nor a skeptic. Im open minded but try to be realistic.

You had better be careful Sky Eagle. I, like yourself would love to find evidence of UFO's as extraterrestrial in origin, but im never gonna fall into that trap of desperation you seem to be slipping towards. Never, NEVER believe a one off report from any source about anything. The whole point of verifying evidence IS that the theory is contested by skeptics. Not that its so obscure and difficult to source that skeptics cant realistically critique it.

Example:

GLASGOW POST 7/07/09

By: Alan Grant

Scientists working from their base at Loch Ness Scotland have confirmed that strange tissue samples found by the waterside match that of an ancient extinct Pleaseosaur.

Now. Eagle, Disrove that. On you go.

See? JUst because you cant disprove something doesnt mean its real. It means its obscure and baseless itself. Any one media outlet covering a story which isnt picked up by other professionals in the field is probably a load of crap. It'll be a journalist with an agenda, someone wanting to sell a story, or another hardcore desperate believer clutching at straws.

Like i said, your in trouble of undermining your, and everyones investigations into the origins of UFO's by cluttering and muddying teh waters with dodgy, amateur and baseless information, which further masks and hides any real proof, or evidence which might exists. Infact you should be offended Eagle. Your obviously looking for something, proof of aliens. As many of us are, and theres gonna be utter gits exploiting your ineterest. Theres always someone out there writing down, and palming off a baseless cheap version of what someone wants. Wither its false weight loss advice, fabricated methods of gettinga woman or duff sexual tips form companies wanting to sell you ******. Dont feed out of their hands. Their laughing in yer face.

Dont go wildly chasing every piece of pro-UFO evidence. Wait for good stuff. It may never come, but its better than just following whatever comes along. And remember dude, im with ya, i'd love to find evidence today, would love it. But im not gonna undermine my own hopes by whoring out my loyalty to idiots with no evidence.

Edited by Spankster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, im neither a "believer" nor a skeptic. Im open minded but try to be realistic.

*Edit for space*

Dont go wildly chasing every piece of pro-UFO evidence. Wait for good stuff. It may never come, but its better than just following whatever comes along. And remember dude, im with ya, i'd love to find evidence today, would love it. But im not gonna undermine my own hopes by whoring out my loyalty to idiots with no evidence.

I applaud you for directing your attention to the large target that is Skyeagle, so early on in your time on this forum.

Unfortunately, Sky has been peddling his take on ufology (and other things) for so long, there is no longer fact nor fiction only 'evidence'.

Admittedly many of the cases he presents are interesting enough on there own merits, but that unfortunate spin of 'it wasn't one of ours (so therefore it was ET)' is really enough to put most people off discussing them further.

After all, who wants to talk about something if the only 'answer' that can be given is the one that gives the other guy his ego trip?

But again, applause for stepping up to the plate so soon. I expect Skyeagle will have one long, cut/paste, heavily edited reply for you soon ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Astronomers have seen UFOs and they stayed UFOs, i.e. unknown and did not become ET.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont go wildly chasing every piece of pro-UFO evidence. Wait for good stuff. It may never come, but its better than just following whatever comes along. And remember dude, im with ya, i'd love to find evidence today, would love it. But im not gonna undermine my own hopes by whoring out my loyalty to idiots with no evidence.

Well put :tu:

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I applaud you for directing your attention to the large target that is Skyeagle, so early on in your time on this forum.

Unfortunately, Sky has been peddling his take on ufology (and other things) for so long, there is no longer fact nor fiction only 'evidence'.

Admittedly many of the cases he presents are interesting enough on there own merits, but that unfortunate spin of 'it wasn't one of ours (so therefore it was ET)' is really enough to put most people off discussing them further.

After all, who wants to talk about something if the only 'answer' that can be given is the one that gives the other guy his ego trip?

But again, applause for stepping up to the plate so soon. I expect Skyeagle will have one long, cut/paste, heavily edited reply for you soon ;)

Well, i just think Eagle is looking too hard is all. We both share an obvious interest and hopefulness in ET life. Im just not as readily willing to accept evidence supporting them. If i were ever to become a believer, it'd need to be something life changing to convince me.

I expect Skyeagle will have one long, cut/paste, heavily edited reply for you soon ;)

LOL, ah well, thats why im here.

Cheers, Spanky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ill accept no such thing from this clown Robert D. Morningstar ... you might aswell tell me to accept Richard C Hoaglands nonsense as fact!!

His Enterprise Mission Website is as silly as Morningstars Cyberspaceorbit.or should I say KS15s..!??

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/mor...orningstar.html

If this guys photo analysis is scientific, then KS15 is a God damb genious!! :rolleyes:

Yes Hazzard, you must accept this reality ;)

My take on M* (Morningstar)

I personally don't think his intelligence credentials are quite so 'high level' that he would be briefing government agencies directly.

Looking at his ufological affiliations, and conspirital leanings, I dare say anything he does would be fairly low level. If he is fluent in Chinese language (Mandarin or Cantonese?) and has an understanding of that culture, I can see that there would be some scope for those skills to be utilised. Again, given his ufological connections, this would be fairly low level. There is always the possibility that 'briefing the government' actually means writing articles for civilian groups such as Jane's or Military Periscope, but based on his ufo articles, his standard of writing and analysis is at best an average standard when compared to reports and analysis I have seen from those types of agencies. He is particularly lacking in regard to referencing.

Perhaps the biggest problem to his credibility is the blurb about him at UFO Digest, where it states that -

"since 9/11 he has advised various government agencies regarding the War on Terror about 'CommunIslam" Link

All well and good, but what is 'Communislam'?

Very little actually turns up on this 'subject', at least not in the sense of any more than the extrapolation that militant Islam tends to borrow heavily from dialouges of 'communist freedom fighters' (which in turn borrows from Marxism and the works of Mao Zedong). Certainly nothing that establishes M* as a leading authority on the subject. Instead we find an interesting reference from in the form of a reader comment in Truth in Media, May, 2001 (update 2 June)-

"PHOENIX, June 2 - Here is an additional reader reaction to the TiM story about the Serb church bells being banned in Kosovo:

NEW YORK - 'Communislam' - An Unholy Alliance

It's good to hear from you again. It's been a long time… People still have not awakened to the fact that Red China has enlisted Islam as a surrogate and ally in its upcoming world power play and that the upcoming conflict will be fought along religious lines of demarcation. It is important to understand this new development and a new vocabulary will be necessary. That is why I have coined the term "Communislam" to describe this unholy alliance.

Robert Morningstar, NY "

So he coined the term, and somehow knows that 'Red China' is pulling the strings? I wonder how he managed to find that through open source...

Rather than go completely off topic here, I'll just leave the suggestion that people google [china islam terrorism] and [uygur seperatists] to see where M* has taken another u-turn away from reality.

And of course, there is always this upcoming 'special' -

http://www.veritasshow.com/

Robert Morningstar

"The Moon has a Moon"

August 14, 2009

Edited by Evangium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my take on all this:

Not all evidence is of equal value and merit. Conjecture, stories, personal experiences, while all part of human reasoning, can't take the place of solid direct evidence. If someone has personally 'seen enough' to convince them that ET is behind the UFO phenomena that's certainly an acceptable personal choice. However, 'personal proof' isn't 'scientific proof'. To expect others to embrace ones personal opinion based on the rather dubious evidence available simply isn't going to suffice for most people. This is reality. Until we have some kind of definitive evidence (the elusive exhibit A) I can't see this changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my take on all this:

Not all evidence is of equal value and merit. Conjecture, stories, personal experiences, while all part of human reasoning, can't take the place of solid direct evidence. If someone has personally 'seen enough' to convince them that ET is behind the UFO phenomena that's certainly an acceptable personal choice. However, 'personal proof' isn't 'scientific proof'. To expect others to embrace ones personal opinion based on the rather dubious evidence available simply isn't going to suffice for most people. This is reality. Until we have some kind of definitive evidence (the elusive exhibit A) I can't see this changing.

I'd agree with that Lilly.

The problem here is for some folk a torn piece of tin-foil, random untraceable article or a dodgy radar signal IS definitive proof. Like yourself, i'd need alot more. Some people also see corroboration as outright evidence. You know, TWO crazy rednecks seen lights that night. IT MUST BE REAL !!!

Its just not concrete...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT:

After posting this i done some quick wiki searching and found an outstanding case with so much corroboration its difficult to cast it off as a hoax, swamp gas or weatherballoons.

Anyone got any further reading or better sourcing for this event ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

Brief: 1976. Tehran, Iran: Iranian airforce scrambles two U.S built Phantom aircraft to track a UFO located visually by civilians. Both aircraft lose avionics, and later weapons capabilities whilst locking on with RADAR and later attempting to fire on the UFO.

a) The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shamiran, Mehrabad, and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground).

B) The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force general, qualified aircrews, and experienced tower operators).

c) Visual sightings were confirmed by radar.

d) Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft.

e) There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object).

f) An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs."

IF all of that information were to be correct. (I.E names, dates, radar info etc) Then this would have to be the most convincing single event confirming the UFO phenomena. However, it still wouldnt do anything to prove the origins of those UFO's. Strange high tech stuff floating around annoying Iran sounds a bit like a U.S hobby to me.

Edited by Spankster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 17

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.