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 -

[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood


Riaan

Recommended Posts

Cormac, I was not talking about the mass or lifetime of Halley's comet, I said it may have been part of a swarm of comets.

Halley's comet may have had the same mass and period of revolution for millennia, but that doesn't rule out it may have been part of a swarm of similar sized comets, and the Orionids as nothing but the debris of those that did impact (or collided with eachother).

.

The problem with this idea though Abramelin is that there is no way of knowing with any specificity that any swarm of other comets has any connection with Halley's Comet as opposed to, for instance, any 'other' comet that happens to be a part of our solar system.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that is what I suggested: someone (a Christian) picked the most accpted (avarage) date of the Flood: 2345 BC.

Then substracted two times the avarage period of revolution of Halley's Comet, and came to 2194 BC.

Then (or even before that) he checked if that date would be 1656 years after the 3850 BC date for the Creation (calculated straightforward), and voila, 2194 BC we have.

Then add a chart like Puzzler posted of the heavens during the Vernal Equinox around 21 September (end of the summer) 2914 BC (nicely close to the Pleiades) and we have a bingo, lol.

.

Interesting, maybe subtracting 2 cycles of Halley's Comet is something or at least subtracting cycles of something, I like that idea. Don't forget Plato says like this too, that there had already been 2 flood events, Atlantis was the 3rd back - so 2 had occurred since Atlantis...it fits right, will think more on it.

I did the calculatiions myself on Halley before and the closest dates I got were 2140BC and 2216BC - on an average of 76 years. I read somewhere once about Proto-Enke being around c. 2193/4BC.

By the way I saw Halley's Comet in 1986, lucky my Dad knew where to look, it was tiny but I did see it through the binoculars at the time. I even kept a mint commemorative stamp from it :yes:

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe take this with a grain of salt but I wonder why the date of 2193BC is mentioned as a by pass of Proto-Encke and how true that is...?

In 3113 BC, the comet, known as Proto-Encke, collided with asteroids in the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars, resulting in the Taurid meteors widely associated with the Bronze Age. As this comet then passed near to the earth it caused massive geological and climatological influences, including destroying an estimated half of the infrastructure of Atlantis. In 2193 BC, the comet Proto-Encke, converging with the comets Oljato and Hale-Bopp, again passed the earth and caused global seismic disturbances, enormous tsunamis and massive socio-cultural changes. In 1628 BC, Proto-Encke and Oljato returned again, causing further destruction. Finally, in 1198 BC, Proto-Encke and Oljato were pushed closer to the earth by Halleys Comet; Proto-Encke entered the planets atmosphere and then impacted in the general region of the island of Atlantis. The towering volcano of Mt. Atlas exploded and Atlantis sank beneath the waves. To read more about these matters, consult the books by Frank Joseph, The Destruction of Atlantis, and Survivors of Atlantis.

http://www.sacredsites.com/europe/sacred_geography.html

I actually haven't read the whole article but will do that now, see what else can be gleaned from it.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, maybe subtracting 2 cycles of Halley's Comet is something or at least subtracting cycles of something, I like that idea. Don't forget Plato says like this too, that there had already been 2 flood events, Atlantis was the 3rd back - so 2 had occurred since Atlantis...it fits right, will think more on it.

I did the calculatiions myself on Halley before and the closest dates I got were 2140BC and 2216BC - on an average of 76 years. I read somewhere once about Proto-Enke being around c. 2193/4BC.

By the way I saw Halley's Comet in 1986, lucky my Dad knew where to look, it was tiny but I did see it through the binoculars at the time. I even kept a mint commemorative stamp from it :yes:

I'm not sure where you got the dates of 2140 BC and 2216 BC using 76 years in your calculations, but I did find it interesting that using the rounded up number 76 instead of sciences more precise 75.32 gives a close date of 2195 BC.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where you got the dates of 2140 BC and 2216 BC using 76 years in your calculations, but I did find it interesting that using the rounded up number 76 instead of sciences more precise 75.32 gives a close date of 2195 BC.

cormac

240BC is the earliest date they have of a possible Halley sighting, I used a calculator and backtracked 76 years from each date...

What year are you starting with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

240BC is the earliest date they have of a possible Halley sighting, I used a calculator and backtracked 76 years from each date...

What year are you starting with?

1986 AD.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, maybe subtracting 2 cycles of Halley's Comet is something or at least subtracting cycles of something, I like that idea. Don't forget Plato says like this too, that there had already been 2 flood events, Atlantis was the 3rd back - so 2 had occurred since Atlantis...it fits right, will think more on it.

I did the calculatiions myself on Halley before and the closest dates I got were 2140BC and 2216BC - on an average of 76 years. I read somewhere once about Proto-Enke being around c. 2193/4BC.

By the way I saw Halley's Comet in 1986, lucky my Dad knew where to look, it was tiny but I did see it through the binoculars at the time. I even kept a mint commemorative stamp from it :yes:

I know where you read about Proto-Encke:

I think if there is a candidate impactor, then it's proto-Encke; it appears to be all over the internet in connection with what happened in the Middle East in the 4d and 3d millenium BC :

Here's something by someone who abviously read the OLB:

In 3113 BC, the comet, known as Proto-Encke, collided with asteroids in the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars, resulting in the Taurid meteors widely associated with the Bronze Age. As this comet then passed near to the earth it caused massive geological and climatological influences, including destroying an estimated half of the infrastructure of Atlantis. In 2193 BC, the comet Proto-Encke, converging with the comets Oljato and Hale-Bopp, again passed the earth and caused global seismic disturbances, enormous tsunamis and massive socio-cultural changes. In 1628 BC, Proto-Encke and Oljato returned again, causing further destruction. Finally, in 1198 BC, Proto-Encke and Oljato were pushed closer to the earth by Halley's Comet; Proto-Encke entered the planet's atmosphere and then impacted in the general region of the island of Atlantis. The towering volcano of Mt. Atlas exploded and Atlantis sank beneath the waves. To read more about these matters, consult the books by Frank Joseph, The Destruction of Atlantis, and Survivors of Atlantis.

http://www.newparadigmjournal.com/Sept2006/sacred-geography.htm

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997CeMDA..69..149A

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g252683h4q15838g/

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc060897.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/comet_bronzeage_011113-1.html

====

Napier thinks multiple impacts, and possibly a rain of other smaller meteors and dust, would have been required. He and his colleagues have been arguing since 1982 that such events are possible. And, he says, it might have happened right around the time the first urban civilizations were crumbling.

Napier thinks a comet called Encke, discovered in 1786, is the remnant of a larger comet that broke apart 5,000 years ago. Large chunks and vast clouds of smaller debris were cast into space. Napier said it's possible that Earth ran through that material during the Early Bronze Age.

The night sky would have been lit up for years by a fireworks-like display of comet fragments and dust vaporizing upon impact with Earth's atmosphere. The Sun would have struggled to shine through the debris. Napier has tied the possible event to a cooling of the climate, measured in tree rings, that ran from 2354-2345 B.C.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/comet_bronzeage_011113-1.html

http://accidentofhistory.blogspot.com/2008/09/impact-event-in-3114bc-beginning-of.html

http://www.amazon.ca/Cosmic-Winter-Victor-Clube/dp/0631169539

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1986 AD.

cormac

Did any of you check if you also end up at 1066 AD if you substract whatever you substract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did any of you check if you also end up at 1066 AD if you substract whatever you substract?

It doesn't hit upon that date Abramelin, as both 75.32 and 76 are averaged estimates. And subtracting multiples of either from 1986 only gets to 1082 AD and 1074 AD, respectively. The dates given, per Wiki, vary from as low as 74 years to as high as 79 years, with no discernible pattern.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did any of you check if you also end up at 1066 AD if you substract whatever you substract?

See cormac's answer then:

Halley's orbital period over the last three centuries has been between 75 and 76 years, though it has varied between 74 and 79 years since 240 BCE

1P/−239 K1, −239 (25 May 240 BCE)

1P/−163 U1, −163 (12 November 164 BCE)

1P/−86 Q1, −86 (6 August 87 BCE)

1P/−11 Q1, −11 (10 October 12 BCE)

1P/66 B1, 66 (25 January 66 CE)

1P/141 F1, 141 (22 March 141)

1P/218 H1, 218 (17 May 218)

1P/295 J1, 295 (20 April 295)

1P/374 E1, 374 (16 February 374)

1P/451 L1, 451 (28 June 451)

1P/530 Q1, 530 (27 September 530)

1P/607 H1, 607 (15 March 607)

1P/684 R1, 684 (2 October 684)

1P/760 K1, 760 (20 May 760)

1P/837 F1, 837 (28 February 837)

1P/912 J1, 912 (18 July 912)

1P/989 N1, 989 (5 September 989)

1P/1066 G1, 1066 (20 March 1066)

1P/1145 G1, 1145 (18 April 1145)

1P/1222 R1, 1222 (28 September 1222)

1P/1301 R1, 1301 (25 October 1301)

1P/1378 S1, 1378 (10 November 1378)

1P/1456 K1, 1456 (9 June 1456)

1P/1531 P1, 1531 (26 August 1531)

1P/1607 S1, 1607 (27 October 1607)

1P/1682 Q1, 1682 (15 September 1682)

1P/1758 Y1, 1759 I (13 March 1759)

1P/1835 P1, 1835 III (16 November 1835)

1P/1909 R1, 1910 II, 1909c (20 April 1910)

1P/1982 U1, 1986 III, 1982i (9 February 1986)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley's_Comet

Since I started at 240BC, I didn't get to see if I landed on 1066AD.

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

Halley's [HAL-lee] Comet has been know since at least 240 BC and possibly since 1059 BC. Its most famous appearance was in 1066 AD when it was seen right before the Battle of Hastings.

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/halley.htm

May have been seen since 1059BC.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a bit off topic but sorry, I'm obsessing somewhat over these planetary alignments.

The date for both these images is 23rd September 2850, that is, the approximate time Wiki gives for the beginning of building the Pyramids. I read the stuff by Bauval etc, I don't think the Correlation they say is correct nor do I believe the Sphinx or Pyramid were built prior to when they say.

This time I have added the Zenith and have taken this from Cairo, looking for the Pyramid theory. I see that Cairo goes directly across the 30 degree line, it's a direct match.

Firstly, I noticed this amazing Planetary conjunction.

Map2392580bcpyramid.jpg

Secondly, I thought about them looking immediately UP, so added the Zenith for that reason...see the picture below...

Map2392580bc2.jpg

Look where Leo is. Right on the Zenith. The planets in the pic above are shown rising at dawn in the East on the pic with Leo. It is right on the Autumnal Equinox line, Mercury, the Sun and Venus rise, and it appears that Venus could even be transiting the Sun..

To me, with Leo right on the Zenith at the Autumn Equinox could be why the Sphinx would be built directly below, with building starting at c.2580BC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I know Abramelin (that's why I said if he believes it himself is antoher question).

If I understood him well, he explains it as a Greac/Latin version of the 'achter land', in a way like "land lying behind ..."

Interesting point here (at least for me, i accept if it's meaningless to others interests/queste), is

that 'behind' the word 'achter' there is a also the more 'hidden' meaning.

Even litteraly: "Als je er-achter, komt het te-voor-schijn" :-) You'll find out the origine of the aboriginal.

From the achterland, people come out. That's obvious: f.e. when they come from behind their defense.

Certainly the indiginous people were always be considered to be living a bit hidden from sight.

Our past (where and how we used to live) is hidden, if you go back (in time) it's like looking for what is behind us.

But here I think we touch the subject of what you mean by Atlantis:

the country-land (if applicable to one single spot, open for debate), or the common (from commune) culture that was more widely spread by the migrations of the same people.

Achter-Grond

Back-Ground

is related

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't hit upon that date Abramelin, as both 75.32 and 76 are averaged estimates. And subtracting multiples of either from 1986 only gets to 1082 AD and 1074 AD, respectively. The dates given, per Wiki, vary from as low as 74 years to as high as 79 years, with no discernible pattern.

cormac

I already knew that it would not work by simply hitting enter on your calculator until you end up somewhere around 2200 BC: it's an avarage, whether you use Halley's 75.5 number or the more exact 75.32 number (or either 76 or 75).

But as I showed you, it does work - using Halley's 75.5 avarage - when you work backwards from a date calculated with Biblical chronology.

And I think that is no coincidence when taking into account that many scientists ages ago considered those Biblical dates to be 'scientific facts'.

+++++++

Summary:

-1- The date of Creation: 3850 BC, using straightforward calculation, and no adjustments or re-interpretations of Biblical ages of the Patriarchs and intervals (like Ussher and others did)

-2- Substracting the generally accepted interval between the date of the Creation and the Flood, 1656 years, gives: 2194 BC

-3- Someone (one of the writers of the OLB?) wanted to know if their date, 2194 BC could be a date when the dreaded comet could also have appeared, and substracted the avarage Halley had calculated for the period of revolution from the generally accepted date for the Flood, 2345 BC, and again come upon 2194 BC (2345-75.5-75.5=2194).

It could all be just a coincidence, a result of happily playing with numbers, but I have seen no better explanation.

It's either this, or the 2194 BC stands for something that actually happened in 2194 BC and was then recorded.

++++

EDIT:

As a reminder:

Noah's Flood: Bible Stories: Bible accuracy: bible calendars: Bible Patriarchs.

According to Antiquities 1:6:5 Abraham was born 292 ARTIFICIAL years after the flood. By this standard the flood occurred in 2184 BCE (unless the data was recorded in true solar years, in which case it will have occurred in 2205 BCE). Josephus reiterates the stipulated Biblical data of 292 years separating the Flood Event and the Birth of Abraham.

http://www.kingscalendar.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=29

http://www.kingscalendar.com/kc_free_files/APPENDIX_17.html

The mean of 2184 and 2205 would 2194.5 BCE. That's what someone would do to be on the 'safe side'.

If anyone wants to check this guys calculations: be my guest, lol.

.

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Achter-Grond

Back-Ground

is related

Van Gorp, we still use the word "achterland". When we talk about 'achterland' when talking about commerce going through (the harbour of) Rotterdam, we mean the rest of Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~SNIP~

-1- The date of Creation: 3850 BC, using straightforward calculation, and no adjustments or re-interpretations of Biblical ages of the Patriarchs and intervals (like Ussher and others did)

-2- Substracting the generally accepted interval between the date of the Creation and the Flood, 1656 years, gives: 2194 BC

-3- Someone (one of the writers of the OLB?) wanted to know if their date, 2194 BC could be a date when the dreaded comet could also have appeared, and substracted the avarage Halley had calculated for the period of revolution from the generally accepted date for the Flood, 2345 BC, and again come upon 2194 BC (2345-75.5-75.5=2194).

It could all be just a coincidence, a result of happily playing with numbers, but I have seen no better explanation.

It's either this, or the 2194 BC stands for something that actually happened in 2194 BC and was then recorded.

~SNIP~

This is at the heart of the problem though Abe. You're accepting the 3850 BC date as if it has any meaning to Jewish Chronology, which is the basis of Christian Chronology. It doesn't, since the Jewish calendar starts with the year 3760 BC. They still use it today. All of the various Biblical Chronologies, of whatever length, were written AFTER the calendar was already in use. 3850 BC is just as meaningless as Ussher's 4004 BC.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is at the heart of the problem though Abe. You're accepting the 3850 BC date as if it has any meaning to Jewish Chronology, which is the basis of Christian Chronology. It doesn't, since the Jewish calendar starts with the year 3760 BC. They still use it today. All of the various Biblical Chronologies, of whatever length, were written AFTER the calendar was already in use. 3850 BC is just as meaningless as Ussher's 4004 BC.

cormac

Lol, *I* am not accepting anything, I have been saying throughout these last 10 pages or so that there must have been people in the 19th century who did their own calculations, and ended up at 3850 BC.

We are not discussing what the Jews believed in or still believe in, this is about what many Christians believed in.

There was an Ussher who twisted and reinterpreted ages and intervals and ended up at 4004 BC as the date of Creation, there were others (apparently Frisians, for 2194 BC only shows up in Frisian almanacs) who straightforward added up any number they encountered in the Bible and arrived at 3850 BC.

But they all agreed upon the period between the Creation and the Flood: 1656 years.

3850 BC is not meaningless, it must have been the date some Frisians calculated and used to arrive at the date - their date - of the Flood.

We are trying to find out how that date of 2194 BC ended up in Frisian almanacs (and subsequently used in the OLB), not whether the Flood or Creation actually happend or even at that date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, *I* am not accepting anything, I have been saying throughout these last 10 pages or so that there must have been people in the 19th century who did their own calculations, and ended up at 3850 BC.

We are not discussing what the Jews believed in or still believe in, this is about what many Christians believed in.

There was an Ussher who twisted and reinterpreted ages and intervals and ended up at 4004 BC as the date of Creation, there were others (apparently Frisians, for 2194 BC only shows up in Frisian almanacs) who straightforward added up any number they encountered in the Bible and arrived at 3850 BC.

But they all agreed upon the period between the Creation and the Flood: 1656 years.

3850 BC is not meaningless, it must have been the date some Frisians calculated and used to arrive at the date - their date - of the Flood.

We are trying to find out how that date of 2194 BC ended up in Frisian almanacs (and subsequently used in the OLB), not whether the Flood or Creation actually happend or even at that date.

We are discussing chronologies that are based on Jewish writings, however. And no, they don't all agree as the Masoretic, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Samaritan texts give dates of 1656, 2262, 2242 and 1307 years respectively. Outside of Jewish belief there's no agreement on the date of Creation nor on the length between it and the flood.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are discussing chronologies that are based on Jewish writings, however. And no, they don't all agree as the Masoretic, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Samaritan texts give dates of 1656, 2262, 2242 and 1307 years respectively. Outside of Jewish belief there's no agreement on the date of Creation nor on the length between it and the flood.

cormac

If you go back far enough, then yes: no agreement on the date for the Flood or for the Creation.

But I tried to focus on the 19th century or what was generally accepted in the 19th century (by Christians in northern Europe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's obvious no one who understands Dutch has been following my reasoning, sigh...

I talked about a generally accepted period of 1656 years between the date of Creation (3850 BC) and the Flood.

Well, some will remember this, an example from a Frisian almanac of 1839:

2193BC-FriescheVolksalmanak-1839.jpg

Wereldschepping, naar onze tijdrekening: 5788

Sedert den Zondvloed: 4032

Translaton:

Creation of the world according to our time reckoning: 5788

Since the Flood: 4032

That results is 1756 years between the Creation and the Flood...

From Otharus' post 1411, page 95 ("FRIESCHE VOLKS-ALMANAK 1846):

5795 Wereldschepping, naar onze tijdrekening

4039 Sedert den Zondvloed

Result: 1766

:unsure:

At least 1839 (publishing date for the almanac)-4032 (date for the Flood) still results in -2193 = 2194 BC.

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, all hope is not lost: if I find the (Frisian) almanac that has a time span between the Flood and the Creation of 1656 (and still has a date for the Flood of 2194 BC), we can maybe pin down the year someone started writing the OLB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go back far enough, then yes: no agreement on the date for the Flood or for the Creation.

But I tried to focus on the 19th century or what was generally accepted in the 19th century (by Christians in northern Europe).

The thing is though, Abramelin, that the Biblical Chronology taken from the King James Bible (1611) is from the Masoretic Text which is in line with the Jewish Calendar and would have been the prevalent chronology adhered to by Christians in the 19th Century AD. So why calculate a date from any of the other texts which didn't have the majority support?

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abramelin, It's time to go back to bussiness.

It is clear, that the calculated year 2193/2194 BC has been derived from the Friesche Almanak, published 1834-1854 and the the calculation is derived from the Statenbijbel and has no relation with disasters or astronomy pertaining to Frisia, but with the Holy Land.

A major problem in the OLB has not yet discussed, namely the misinterpretation of J.G. Ottema (and mainly Wirth) that the Geertmanna would be Germans instead of Groningers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Van Gorp, we still use the word "achterland". When we talk about 'achterland' when talking about commerce going through (the harbour of) Rotterdam, we mean the rest of Europe.

Yes indeed you're right. thnx for noticing.

I noticed also many locations at (previous?) seasides and a bit more land inwaarts with names as Hinterland.

But as you said also in commerce: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinterland

"..

The area from which products are delivered to a port for shipping elsewhere is that port's hinterland

..

"

The land of origine for some, the land behind the water for other? I dunno.

"Exploited area" is also a meaning that comes accross.

In modern times it seems to have a more civilised commercial meaning :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes indeed you're right. thnx for noticing.

I noticed also many locations at (previous?) seasides and a bit more land inwaarts with names as Hinterland.

But as you said also in commerce: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinterland

"..

The area from which products are delivered to a port for shipping elsewhere is that port's hinterland

..

"

The land of origine for some, the land behind the water for other? I dunno.

"Exploited area" is also a meaning that comes accross.

In modern times it seems to have a more civilised commercial meaning :-)

This discussion about "achter land" started when Otharus posted about an ancient manuscript.

In that manuscript a Schriek tried to give some sort of etymology for "Atlantis".

I think we can safely dismiss that etymology.

However, I think Otharus may have been thinking of Frya's empire (which was (in) ancient Europe), and the "achterland" or "hinterland" would have been Asia, Asia which I have tried to equate with the OLB "Aldland".

Van Gorp, I don't know how much you have read of this huge thread (and I can't really blame you if you have not yet read all of it) but my idea about "Aldland" was that it was located somewhere in Asia, near the Pamir/Tarim, and that was based on what the OLB says about the Finda living/originating near the Himalaya (Friso/Geertmannen story).

Don't forget: Aldland was inhabited by the Finda, and the Finda only.

It was far away from Fryan territory (according to the OLB) so it could never have been the former area which is now covered by the North Sea (see the "Doggerland" thread) as many on the internet keep repeating.

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abramelin, It's time to go back to bussiness.

It is clear, that the calculated year 2193/2194 BC has been derived from the Friesche Almanak, published 1834-1854 and the the calculation is derived from the Statenbijbel and has no relation with disasters or astronomy pertaining to Frisia, but with the Holy Land.

A major problem in the OLB has not yet discussed, namely the misinterpretation of J.G. Ottema (and mainly Wirth) that the Geertmanna would be Germans instead of Groningers.

You appear to miss the point..

HOW did they arrive at 2194 BC as the date for the Flood in those Frisian almanacs?

I do hope you remember that Otharus once said they may have been inspired by an 'unknown ancient manuscript'... and then that Frisian date, 2194 BC, may have ended up in a Frisian almanac.

If you, Cormac, Puzzler, me or anyone else cannot show how that calculation based on (some alternative) Biblical chronology was done, then Otharus may even be right.

What we need is some (Frisian?) source that explains in detail how they arrived at the date of 2194 BC.

You ever considered that?

Because if you want to prove someone wrong, then you will have to show how he was wrong.

Saying the date was taken from some almanac won't prove a thing.

An almanac was never meant to be a 'scientific' book, it was meant to entertain people.

But many people - ages ago - considered it to be a true source of 'really important info'.

.

Edited by Abramelin
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.