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 7
stevemagegod

Atlantis

2,243 posts in this topic

I suppose it only matters what YOU think?

I never said it matters what I think. Plato's Timaeus says what it says regardless of what you and I think.

Got a little Hitler complex going on in your head eh?

Please act mature and do not compare me to Hitler. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it if I called you a Nazi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agonaces of Susa

I never said it matters what I think. Plato's Timaeus says what it says regardless of what you and I think.

And so, just because Plato says it - it's a fact? Are you going to come back with the answer that he tells us right up front that it's true? So what? This doesn't mean it IS true. Actually, I would say that right up front, for the sake of his audience that knows what's what, he is saying it isn't true, that it's just a story he's making up. He thus informs the audience by saying that Poseidon had a son named Atlas, and that the Atlas Mountains and the Atlas sea is named after him. I think the august audience in the room that day all knew the genesis of their gods, and they would have all known that the Atlas Mountains and the Atlas Sea were named not after Poseidon's son, but after the name of the son of Iapetus. That would have been their first clue.

Edited by Qoais

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said it matters what I think. Plato's Timaeus says what it says regardless of what you and I think.

Please act mature and do not compare me to Hitler. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it if I called you a Nazi.

He was just the most egotistical person who first came to mind. I guess I could say a Messiah complex, if that is more to your liking. Plato says an island that is in Front of the Pillars. Antactica is a complete miss there. The rest of Plato's narative has been know to be a political statement from about 15 seconds after he said it. There is no Plato's Atlantis. I dare you to post the entire quote from Plato and explain each of the details. How do these Atlanteans conquer the world? How do they lose to the protoGreek Athenians? The explaination that he was making a political statement to rub in the Egyptians faces makes a lot more sense. Especially since Plato was very political and used historical facts mostly to support his political and philosophical points. Also he was known to make up historical facts to support points if he did not have any other good historical references at hand. Much has been written about Plato. He is well understoood. Little has been written about Atlantis. And that is why it is considered mythical. You decide what is true and what was made up on the spot in the equivalent of "Face the Nation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it was a complete waste of 1 hr in my life, to discuss on this, when the a new user in the orion Von Koch "Mould".

When asked for evidence to a particular subject or point, he is giving evidence, not related to the point in question, but as a general,which is of no use.

His evidence is so shaky, that he doesn't even bother to answer questions that he knows he cant answer.

he is a worthy successor to OVK!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was just the most egotistical person who first came to mind. I guess I could say a Messiah complex, if that is more to your liking. Plato says an island that is in Front of the Pillars. Antactica is a complete miss there.

Why is that?

Do you think "in front of the pillars of Heracles" means inside the Mediterranean?

Because if you do, you're quite wrong about that.

The description of Antarctica is very specific.

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent." -- Plato, timaeus, 360 B.C.

Antarctica is the only island continent on Earth that lies in the middle of "The True Ocean."

2wphwf9.png

As you can see Antarctica is the only logical interpretation since Antarctica is the only place on Earth that fits that description.

Edited by Agonaces of Susa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no boundless continent. Just a boundless ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no boundless continent. Just a boundless ocean.

The boundless continent surrounds the "True Ocean."

It is represented by the extremities of the map.

2wphwf9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plato

And he named them all; the eldest, who was the first king, he named Atlas, and after him the whole island and the ocean were called Atlantic. To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world, he gave the name which in the Hellenic language is Eumelus, in the language of the country which is named after him, Gadeirus.

Agonaces - Could you show us on that map where Gadeirus was? And also which mountains would be the ones named after Poseidon's son Atlas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agonaces - Could you show us on that map where Gadeirus was?

Eumelus/Gadeirus is the western part of Antarctica on the map above, namely what is today New Swabia.

And also which mountains would be the ones named after Poseidon's son Atlas?

I believe you will find that these are the mountains you are looking for.

Amos, J., Expedition Set For 'Ghost Peaks', BBC, Oct 2008

Bell, R., Dispatches From The Bottom of the Earth: An Antarctic Expedition In Search of Lost Mountains Encased In Ice, Scientific American, Nov 2008

Carroll, R., Mystery Deepens Over Unseen Antarctic 'Alps', National Geographic, Nov 2008

Brahic, C., Alpine Mountain Range Revealed Beneath Antarctic Ice, New Scientist, Feb 2009

Doyle, A., Alp-Sized Peaks Found Entombed In Antarctic Ice, Reuters, Feb 2009

Gray, L., Scientists Discover Alps-Scale Mountain Range Under Antarctic Ice, Telegraph, Feb 2009

Strickland, E., Armed With Data Scientists Still Mystified by Antarctica’s Hidden Mountains, Discover, Feb 2009

"When the Soviets discovered the [Gamburtsev] mountains, it was a complete surprise. People assumed East Antarctica was just one big Archaean platform with very few features on it - just like the interior of Canada. It was such a remarkable discovery that you'd have thought people would have been out there investigating straight away; but the Soviets were on a traverse to a place called the Pole of Inaccessibility and that tells you everything you need to know - it's such a difficult place to get to." -- Charles Bentley, professor, December 2006

"They [The Gamburtsev Mountains] are a big puzzle to the scientific community. They are the size of the Alps, so far as we know, and there's really no straightforward explanation as to how you get such high mountains in the interior of a continent." -- Michael Studinger, geologist, December 2006

The Gamburtsev Mountains seem to have made sense to Plato but make no sense to modern scientists.

Edited by Agonaces of Susa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe you will find that these are the mountains you are looking for

No - I don't think so. Unless of course they were called the Atlas mountains in antiquity and only Plato knew about them.

I have to hurry. We're having a hell of a wind storm and the power has gone off once already. Guaranteed it will happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"They [The Gamburtsev Mountains] are a big puzzle to the scientific community. They are the size of the Alps, so far as we know, and there's really no straightforward explanation as to how you get such high mountains in the interior of a continent." -- Michael Studinger, geologist, December 2006

This doesn't make sense. Look on a map or Google earth - there are mountains in places other than coastlines. The Rocky mountains in Alberta are "interior", the Appalacian mountains in Quebec are "interior", what is such a puzzle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eumelus/Gadeirus is the western part of Antarctica on the map above, namely what is today New Swabia

Gadeirus was not a part of Atlantis. It was the land "facing" the extremity of Atlantis, closest to the Pillars of Hercules. The Pillars of Hercules are no where near the Antarctica, and never have been in all the time science says the mid Atlantic Ridge existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless of course they were called the Atlas mountains in antiquity

Indeed they were.

and only Plato knew about them.

Plato was not the only one who knew about them and even if he was it would be irrelevant.

Plato was the only person in antiquity who knew about the Big Bang. Does that mean you don't believe in the Big Bang?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't make sense. Look on a map or Google earth - there are mountains in places other than coastlines. The Rocky mountains in Alberta are "interior", the Appalacian mountains in Quebec are "interior", what is such a puzzle?

You'd have to ask them. The scientists are the ones who are confused. Not me.

Gadeirus was not a part of Atlantis. It was the land "facing" the extremity of Atlantis, closest to the Pillars of Hercules. The Pillars of Hercules are no where near the Antarctica, and never have been in all the time science says the mid Atlantic Ridge existed.

You need to reread it because Plato specifically says that Gadeirus/Eumelus was "the extremity of the island."

Edited by Agonaces of Susa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans are millions of years old.

Homo sapiens (us) have only been around about 200,000 - 250,000 years. Members of the genus Homo, which are designated as human have been around for about 2.5 million years. The current ice cores from Antarctica taken from Vostok, Dome C and Dome F date to 400,000 years, 740,000 years and 720,000 years respectively. The only humans of any significance at those dates were Homo erectus. Add to this that Antarctica has been covered in ice for most of the last 25 million years and you've got a real big problem with it being Atlantis. Are you perhaps suggesting that ancient Egyptians and Athenians went to war against Homo erectus, the Egyptians having lost and the Athenians, nearly so?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's an Egyptian sphinx dated to 9,500 B.C., not incidentally the exact same date as Atlantis.

"Look at this. It's a sphinx, thousands of years before Egypt." -- Klaus Schmidt, archaeologist, April 2008

Except that Klaus Schmidt doesn't claim it's an Egyptian sphinx. You do. He just says "before Egypt". Half-human, half-animal figures aren't exclusive to Egypt.

From Plato’s Critias:

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean…

Also:

…and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.

So, a shoal or sandbar in front of the Straits of Gibraltar that made passage to and from the Mediterranean impossible. Not very likely if Atlantis was Antarctica, as its position would have no effect on the Mediterranean.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homo sapiens (us) have only been around about 200,000 - 250,000 years.

:lol:

The Homo sapiens you think are only 200,000 years old are actually at least 1.2 million years old.

That's because you have to multiply all of your conventional dates by 6: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110135411.htm

In other words, a biological specimen determined by traditional DNA testing to be 100,000 years old may actually be 200,000 to 600,000 years old.

But even by conventional dates, Homo sapiens sapiens are millions of years old.

We have the Hueyatlaco site in Mexico which has Homo sapiens sapiens dated to between 900,000 to 1.3 million years ago.

"I determined fission-track ages on zircons from two of the tephra units overlying the artifacted beds. The Hueyatlaco ash yielded a zircon fission-track age of 370,000+/-200,000 years, and the Tetela brown mud yielded an age of 600,000+/-340,000 years. There is a 96 percent chance that the true age of these tephras lie within the range defined by the age and the plus or minus value. Now, there were four different geological dating techniques that suggested a far greater antiquity to the artifacts than anyone in the archaeological community wanted to admit." -- Charles W. Naeser, chemist, April 2007

264jjmw.jpg

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7068/abs/nature04425.html

A report of human footprints preserved in 40,000-year-old volcanic ash near Puebla, Mexico (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/exhibit.asp?id=3616&tip=1), was the subject of a press conference that stirred international media attention. If the claims (http://www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk) of Gonzalez et al. are valid, prevailing theories about the timing of human migration into the Americas would need significant revision. Here we show by 40Ar/39Ar dating and corroborating palaeomagnetic data that the basaltic tuff on which the purported footprints are found is 1.30 +/- 0.03 million years old.

And we also have the million year old prints in Kenya.

"Scientists have recently announced the discovery in Kenya of some interesting footprints, found in layers of rock about 1.5 million years old. Researchers describe them as anatomically modern. That is to say, the foot structure is the same as in human beings like us. But most scientists today would never even dream of suggesting that the footprints were made by humans like us. According to their understandings, humans like us did not exist 1.5 million years ago. We had not evolved yet. Most scientists now believe the first humans like us came into existence about 150,000 years ago. So the Kenya footprints are ten times too old for modern humans. So the scientists attributed the footprints to the apeman called Homo ergaster, which some scientists believe to be a kind of Homo erectus. The problem is that we do not know what the Homo erectus foot structure was really like. No one has ever found a foot skeleton of Homo erectus. So at the present moment, the only creature known to science that has a foot just like that of a modern human being is in fact a modern human being, like us. Maybe in the future someone will find a foot skeleton of Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) that is fully modern in it’s anatomy. But that has not been done yet. So if we are going to stick to the facts, to the evidence that we really have, then the most reasonable thing we can say is that the scientists in Kenya have found evidence that humans like us existed 1.5 million yeas ago. And this contradicts the current evolutionary accounts of human origins." -- Michael A. Cremo, author, February 2009

Scientists now say that The Great Sphinx of Egypt is at least a million years old: http://mgu.bg/geoarchmin/naterials/64Manichev.pdf

Voluminous geological literature confirms the fact of existence of long-living fresh-water lakes in various periods of the Quaternary and Lower Pleistocene to the Holocene. These lakes were distributed in territories adjacent to the Nile. The absolute mark of the upper large erosion hollow of the Sphinx corresponds to the level of water surface which took place in the Early Pleistocene. The Great Egyptian Sphinx had already stood on the Giza Plateau by that geological (historical) time.

***

Members of the genus Homo, which are designated as human have been around for about 2.5 million years.

:lol:

Members of the genus Homo are hundreds of millions of years old and existed even before the time of the dinosaurs.

Prehistoric petroglyphs of sauropods, theropods, and plesiosaurs have been found in Utah, Arizona, and Australia.

459_dino%20petroglyph%20web%203.JPG

Sauropod Petroglyph found under Kachina Bridge near Blanding, Utah

v8i9g1.jpg

petroglyph (rock art) that was originally discovered in 1879 in the Havasupai Canyon in Arizona. In 1924, a scientific expedition was sent to the canyon to document the artifacts and petroglyphs left behind by the Native Americans.

The director of that expedition, Samuel Hubbard, said the following about the above petroglyph, "The fact that some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a dinosaur on the walls of this canyon upsets completely all of our theories regarding the antiquity of man. Facts are stubborn and immutable things. If theories do not square with the facts then the theories must change, the facts remain." (Discoveries Relating to Prehistoric Man by the Doheny Scientific Expedition in the Hava Supai Canyon Northern Arizona, Oakland Museum, Oakland California, October and November 1924, p. 5)

There is a very heavy desert varnish on this petroglyph, which authenticates its antiquity and thus its authenticity. This is not a modern forgery.

So unless you think there were advanced technological civilizations in the past that had sophisticated paleontological science or means of time travel, this sets man back to 65 million B.C..

Furthermore we have evidence of Homo sapiens sapiens living in the Carboniferous.

"...the suggestion of sentient humans walking about writing on North American walls during the Carboniferous Era, 250 million years ago, simply subjects the orthodox thinking apparatus to more shocks than may be comfortably sustained." -- Brad Steiger, author, October 1978

Human shoes prints have been found in the Triassic.

"In Pershing County, Nevada, a shoe print was found in Triassic limestone, strata indicative of 400 million years, in which the fossilized evidence clearly revealed finely wrought double-stitching in the seams." -- Brad Steiger, author, October 1978

And even in the Cambrian.

"Again on 1st June 1968, William Meister was climbing a cliff searching for trilobite fossils in the Wheeler Formation in Utah. He broke off a 5 cm thick lump of rock that split open in his hand revealing trilobite fossils embedded in the heel of a sandal print that had toe impressions poking over the edge. He called in Dr. Clifford Burdick, a consulting geologist who found several more sandal prints in the shaly limestone, and the footprints of barefoot children, one with a trilobite in the instep." -- Barry Setterfield, geologist, June 1998

"At the very least, human culture reaches much further back in time than conventional history admits." -- Stephen Wagner, author, February 2004

"... we could also consider the shoe print, you know, that was found near Antelope Springs Utah by William Meister. And he found that in the year 1968. He was a researcher, a collector of fossils, and he was breaking open pieces of slate rock at this place Antelope Springs and when he broke open one piece of rock he found a shoe print. You know, my coauthor Richard Thompson went to visit William Meister in Utah and he was able to see this specimen, he was able to take photographs of it, and we did a computer analysis, and we showed that the shape of this impression in the rock is exactly like that of a shoe print. And if you look at your shoe, at the bottom of your shoe, you can usually see where your heel is worn down in a certain place, so this print had that same feature in it and also crushed in the middle of the foot print was the fossil of a trilobyte. Now a trilobyte is a shellfish that existed about 500 million years ago in what's called the Cambrian Period." -- Michael A. Cremo, author, March 19th 2008

Edited by Agonaces of Susa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UM better removes that search tool, people keep ignoring what has already been discussed ad nauseum just to start a discussion all over again with the same fantastic arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's because you have to multiply all of your conventional dates by 6

At best, that would only be relevant for things DNA tested from extremely cold climates. And there is no evidence, currently, that it pertains to anything other than penguins. All of which has nothing to do with HSS since we originated in Africa, which is definitely not an extremely cold climate.

Also, your link doesn’t say specifically 6 times, it says 2 to 6 times. You just went for the bigger number, didn’t you?

From your nature.com link:

We conclude that either hominid migration into the Americas occurred very much earlier than previously believed, or that the features in question were not made by humans on recently erupted ash.

So, it’s either what we think it is, or it’s not. Not really useful.

The problem is that we do not know what the Homo erectus foot structure was really like. No one has ever found a foot skeleton of Homo erectus. So at the present moment, the only creature known to science that has a foot just like that of a modern human being is in fact a modern human being, like us. Maybe in the future someone will find a foot skeleton of Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) that is fully modern in it’s anatomy. But that has not been done yet. So if we are going to stick to the facts, to the evidence that we really have, then the most reasonable thing we can say is that the scientists in Kenya have found evidence that humans like us existed 1.5 million yeas ago. And this contradicts the current evolutionary accounts of human origins." -- Michael A. Cremo, author, February 2009

So because we don’t have a skeletal foot of Homo erectus, it has to be HSS. Making the facts fit his theory, isn’t he? That's about as useful as someone who's never seen an elephant coming across one's skull and claiming that it really was a cyclops.

To the petroglyph, how was it determined that it was a picture of a dinosaur and not, say, a squirrel standing on its hind legs. Also, how was it determined that one is looking at it from the right direction and it’s not upside down or on its side? Sounds more like seeing what one wants to see.

Cremo and Steiger, the new historians. Just what we don't need. Quacks and writers making up history.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you can see Antarctica is the only logical interpretation since Antarctica is the only place on Earth that fits that description.

But Plato never even suggested Atlantis got covered in ice.

And if you now assume that the ancient Greeks didn't know about ice and gletschers, then go Google "Pytheas" (a few hundred years before Plato) who sailed - as an explorer - to the northern seas near Scandinavia (North Sea, Nothern Atlantic, maybe even the Baltic) and reported what he found there. If you believe Plato, then also believe Pytheas (or better, the Greeks quoting his records).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Plato never even suggested Atlantis got covered in ice.

FYI ice is water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just what we don't need. Quacks and writers making up history.

cormac

For this reason I read historians like Plato and not theologians like Darwin.

Edited by Agonaces of Susa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI ice is water.

LOL, really?

So the ancient Greeks went back to Antarctica/Atlantis to see what had happened to their enemy, and said: "No, it's gone, it went under." (all the while looking at a huge continent far above water, covered in ice). "You see, it's now a muddy sea here, where once was Atlantis" (banging with their wooden boats against ice bergs and freezing their b**** off)

Yep, that must be it: they were blind sailors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, really?

So the ancient Greeks went back to Antarctica/Atlantis to see what had happened to their enemy, and said: "No, it's gone, it went under." (all the while looking at a huge continent far above water, covered in ice). "You see, it's now a muddy sea here, where once was Atlantis" (banging with their wooden boats against ice bergs and freezing their b**** off)

Yep, that must be it: they were blind sailors.

As I have already demonstrated, Antarctica was not always in a polar latitude.

1894big.jpg

Warm water coral in Antarctica.

"And immediately there is the problem of the climate. There were ancient climates that were very different from what they are today. If those corals grew where they were found, certainly the Earth was not travelling with the same elements of rotation and revolution which means not in the same orbit, not with the axis directed in the same position as it is today. If you don't believe it, try to cultivate corals on the North Pole." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966

Via The New York Times 1984:

FOR years a few imaginative authors have argued, based on 16th century maps, that the ice-covered continent of Antarctica was discovered and mapped by an ancient civilization, perhaps one from another planet. The latter proposition was dismissed by most geographers and historians as preposterous.

Nevertheless, a careful comparison of information appearing on the maps with what is now known of the continent has led a leading geologist and polar specialist to propose that the outlines of Antarctica may, in fact, have been known long before Columbus reached America.

Sullivan, W., New Analysis Hints Ancient Explorers Mapped Antarctic, The New York Times, Sep 1984

Via Science News 1986:

The new find of roots and stems of wooden plants and of pollen in an area stretching about 1,300 kilometers along the Transantarctic Mountains means not only that the ice retreated but also that the climate was warm enough to support a shrublike beach forest. "The presence of the wood means that there was deglaciation on a major scale, with conditions radically different than they are today," says David Elliot, chief scientist of the recent National Science Foundation polar expedition, of which Webb's group was part. "This is a very significant find." Webb thinks the forest region a few million years ago must have resembled the present-day fjords of Chile and Norway.

According to Webb, before the forest developed, the region was covered by a considerable amount of ice. So an important question is where the forest and pollen came from. "Had the forest been living there all the time, and are we overestimating the severity of the earlier glacial record?" he wonders.

Weisburd, S., A Forest Grows In Antarctica, Science News, Volume 129, Number 148, Mar 1986

Via Terra Antarctica Reports 1999:

The [Antarctic] ice sheet has resulted in one of the most extreme environments on the planet - mean annual temperature in the interior is between -50oC and -60oC - and yet in the distant past 200 million years ago the Antarctic was a continent of forests and plains with temperatures of around 10oC or more. Here we review evidence from the Antarctic continent of changes in climate that have taken place over the last 100 million years, a period that has seen the formation of a mountain range across the middle of the continent, and its change from an ice-free to an ice-covered state.

Barrett, P., Antarctic Climate History Over The Last 100 Million Years, Terra Antarctica Reports, Volume 3, Pages 53-72, 1999

Via Science Daily 2008:

ScienceDaily (July 29, 2008) — A snapshot of New Zealand’s climate 40 million years ago reveals a greenhouse Earth, with warmer seas and little or no ice in Antarctica, according to research recently published in the journal Geology.

The study suggests that Antarctica at that time was yet to develop extensive ice sheets. ...

“This is too warm to be the Antarctic water we know today,” said Dr Catherine (Cat) Burgess from Cardiff University and lead-author of the paper. “And the seawater chemistry shows there was little or no ice on the planet.”

Snapshot of Past Climate Reveals No Ice In Antarctica Millions of Years Ago, Science Daily, Jul 2008

Edited by Agonaces of Susa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have already demonstrated, Antarctica was not always in a polar latitude.

We are talking about 11,000 BP, not many millions of year ago.

So, when the Greeks or Egyptians went back to see what had happened to the Atlantians, the sea had not yet been frozen over?

OK, so then they should have seen Antarctica/Atlantis without ice (impossible, but ok...). In case you didn't know, without ice Antarctica would still be a continent above water,and clearly visible for sailors. In short: they would not have said Atlantis had disappeared beneath the waves.

EDIT:

And oh, I'd like to add: according to Plato's desription, Atlantis must have been sub/tropical, not something like Norway or Sweden (as according to your links Antarctica must once have resembled).

And fyi: even now corals can be found in the seas around Antarctica (as I think I already told you when you were here in a former incarnation, http://ci.nii.ac.jp/...110001078316/en ).

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.