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 -

Washington 1952 UFO Incidents - Evidence?


ChrLzs
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is the first time I have ever seen this in a UFO thread here at U-M since I have been here....

The site Nibbling Nabobs of Negativism are SHUT DOWN!!!! Nothing to say LOL! They're sitting on their hands - thank God!

That's what a complete and thorough job SkyEagle did presenting evidences. There are simply no holes with wiggle room in them for the hammer swingers do destroy the thread.

I so do miss Bedeskov, Psyche101 and JimOberg :--) LOL! I bet they lurked for a while and decided not to try, eh? LOL

Good job, Sky, we can kiss this thread goodbye, now. No one's going to try to "debunk" it. And they won't spend any time telling you that they agree with you, either

Actually ChrLzs has asked that we allow him to develop his line of reasoning and then jump in but basically not a whole lot happened those few days/nights. Some pilots saw something others on the same flight did not.

This isn't about negativism BTW. What a stupid thing to say anyways. What is negative about debunking your foolishness? Maybe it depresses you to see your fantasies skewered so you perceive it as negative but I see it as a positive when the weavers of woo are proved wrong.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first time I have ever seen this in a UFO thread here at U-M since I have been here....

The site Nibbling Nabobs of Negativism are SHUT DOWN!!!! Nothing to say LOL! They're sitting on their hands - thank God!

That's what a complete and thorough job SkyEagle did presenting evidences. There are simply no holes with wiggle room in them for the hammer swingers do destroy the thread.

I so do miss Bedeskov, Psyche101 and JimOberg :--) LOL! I bet they lurked for a while and decided not to try, eh? LOL

Good job, Sky, we can kiss this thread goodbye, now. No one's going to try to "debunk" it. And they won't spend any time telling you that they agree with you, either

Dearie, we all said our piece pages back and Sky valiantly continued his campaign against the windmills.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dearie, we all said our piece pages back and Sky valiantly continued his campaign against the windmills.

Sky does have a certain Don Quixote charm about him doesn't he? ^_^

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all, first post here. If I can just throw my hat in the ring, has anybody ever heard of Project Palladium?

This, from Mark Pilkington, author of Mirage Men .

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-10/06/mirage-men

Wired: You travel across the UFO heartland of the Southwest US in the book; was there ever a UFO deception operation in Britain?

Mark Pilkington: To some extent yes. For example, in the book I tell the story of Milton Torres, an American pilot based at RAF Manston in Kent. In 1957 he was ordered to intercept what appeared to be a huge UFO on his radar; he armed his missiles -- remember this was over the Kent countryside! -- and approached, only to find that there was nothing there. The next day an American claiming to be from the National Security Agency instructed him to keep mum, which he did, for thirty years. The incident sounds like a demonstration of the CIA and NSA's extremely secret Palladium system for spoofing radar signals, which can account for some UFOs picked up on radar.

But my hunch is that if the Americans were doing it, then at some point we would have been doing it too. I did speak to former employee of the RAF Provost and Security Services -- our equivalent to the USAF's AFOSI. He told me that part of his work had involved generating UFO accounts, but didn't want to go on the record for the book. I am hoping to follow that lead a little further, however.

Does this not seem applicable to the Washington DC sightings? Plant a few 'witnesses', and spoof radar, thereby creating an 'incident' that can grow freely of its own accord.

To paraphrase another poster 'misdirection and sleight of hand, indeed!'

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all, first post here. If I can just throw my hat in the ring, has anybody ever heard of Project Palladium?

This, from Mark Pilkington, author of Mirage Men .

http://www.wired.co....0/06/mirage-men

Does this not seem applicable to the Washington DC sightings? Plant a few 'witnesses', and spoof radar, thereby creating an 'incident' that can grow freely of its own accord.

To paraphrase another poster 'misdirection and sleight of hand, indeed!'

Hey cuckooold, welcome to UM. :tu:

I would say that there are many possibilities that could potentially explain the UFO phenomena including '52 DC case, some more credible than others. With all of these possibilities floating around in order to narrow it down we have to go back to the evidence. As far as I'm aware there isn't much to this case other than the radar returns and eyewitness testimony. If there is anything among that or other evidences yet to be brought forth that can support your idea then we can proceed from there. Do you have anything that can substantiate a claim of subterfuge? I would be interested to see it if you do. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey cuckooold, welcome to UM. :tu:

I would say that there are many possibilities that could potentially explain the UFO phenomena including '52 DC case, some more credible than others. With all of these possibilities floating around in order to narrow it down we have to go back to the evidence. As far as I'm aware there isn't much to this case other than the radar returns and eyewitness testimony. If there is anything among that or other evidences yet to be brought forth that can support your idea then we can proceed from there. Do you have anything that can substantiate a claim of subterfuge? I would be interested to see it if you do. :tu:

Hi S2F, thanks for the welcome.

I found this more substantive article by Mark Pilkington over at Fortean Times.

http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/4027/weapons_of_mass_deception.html

Of interest

“A black box’ in our bombers would pick up the enemy’s radar impulses; amplify and modify them; and send them back, drowning out the normal radar return from the bomber. The modification could be a change in timing or phase and could cause the ‘blip’ on the radar screen to have an incorrect range, speed, or heading.”

The origins of this new technology lay in a wartime incident, when Navy scientists noted that the proximity of several powerful ships’ radars during the South Pacific campaign produced phantom returns known as the “galloping ghosts”. These, the scientists realised, could be put to good use in deceiving the enemy. A March 1957 article from Aviation Research and Development magazine discussed how this ghosting technology had improved and was now entering the civilian domain:

“A new radar moving target simulator system which generates a display of up to 6 individual targets on any standard radar indicator has been developed… to train radar operators… and for in-flight testing of airborne early-warning personnel… Target positions, paths, and velocities can… simulate… realistic flight paths… Speeds up to 10,000 knots are easily generated… The target can be made to turn left or right… For each target there is… adjustment to provide a realistic scope presentation.”

Davidson recognised this description as being close to what was seen on radar over Washington in July 1952 – and he thought he knew just who had been behind it: “Since 1951, the CIA has caused or sponsored saucer sightings for its own purposes. By shrewd psychological manipulation, a series of ‘normal’ events has been served up so as to appear as quite convincing evidence of extra­terrestrial UFOs… [including] military use of ECM on a classified basis unknown to the radar observers who were involved.”

I've only quoted a small piece of the article, and this is as close to any proof I'm likely to provide. I recommend reading the article in its entirety, as it seems both plausible, and well researched.

As to why it was necessary to create such exotic diversions, Pinkington offers this;

The strange brew of technology and paranoia that led to the first outbreak of the UFO bug was fomented by the breakdown of relations between the US Air Force and the Navy. As they fought over post-war funding, each side accused the other of corruption in pursuing government contracts and leaked one another’s internal documents in what was described by some as a civil war. Things deteriorated so badly that a chronically depressed Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, who had previously headed the Navy, leapt to his death from the 16th floor of the Bethesda Naval Hospital, an incident that has launched a thousand conspiracy theories.

The feud also meant that neither side was showing the other its new toys, which in the Navy’s case meant the brand spanking new XF-5U flying flapjack, a saucer-like, propeller-driven Vertical Take Off and Landing aircraft, of which at least two fully functional models were built. The flapjack neatly fits the silhouette of the whooshing, heel-shaped aircraft photographed by William Rhoads over Phoenix, Arizona, on 7 July 1947 (the first photograph of the UFO era) and also the aircraft described in the USAF’s first internal saucer report as a “thin metallic object” seen flying over Muroc Army Air Field (later Edwards AFB) in California the following day.

If looking and likely and less likely options, I tend to look at the UFO mythology as leaning towards a 'created myth' with its heart in the intelligence community, much more so than Greys from Zeta Reticuli are visiting us, and abducting humans and cows to create hybrids for the post apocalypse when they will rule the Earth.

I think if one looks at the UFO mythos as propagated from Adamski's 'Venusians', the Kenneth Arnold Mt Rainier sighting, the Roswell Incident, the involvement of one Richard Doty, the destruction of Paul Bennewitz, and more recently, the Serpo fiasco, the thread seems to be one with no shortage of US Intel connections.

Is this because they are trying to hide the 'alien presence on Earth', or because they are trying to create the impression there really is one?

Edited by cuckooold
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually ChrLzs has asked that we allow him to develop his line of reasoning and then jump in but basically not a whole lot happened those few days/nights. Some pilots saw something others on the same flight did not.

This isn't about negativism BTW. What a stupid thing to say anyways. What is negative about debunking your foolishness? Maybe it depresses you to see your fantasies skewered so you perceive it as negative but I see it as a positive when the weavers of woo are proved wrong.

Oh, please, Merc, it usually IS about negativism.

You've been around. You know how it goes. Open a UFO thread up in here and you have the same cast of characters smashing away. Just not this time.

I noticed, as an example, Badsekov "liked" your post, so he is around. But will he come in here to show why SkyE is in error....? I would have thought he would have but SkyE has apparently made his evidences "air tight". Badeskov must be bumming. But he's a good guy :--)

Of course, I look forward to seeing what ChrLzs has to say in rebuttal, it is his thread.

Until we meet again, mon amis, cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dearie, we all said our piece pages back and Sky valiantly continued his campaign against the windmills.

And exactly what is that supposed to mean??? Did anyone who "said our piece pages back" put so much as a chink in Sky's evidences....? Apparently, NO.

There - in my mind, are three cases to prove that UFO's exist. This is one of them. Yet people who hate the idea that intelligent life does indeed exist in other parts of the galaxy refuse to accept facts.

Example: Merc says that one pilot saw something and another did not. And I say, so....?

One pilot seeing it is enough. If you think the pilot who missed it is right, then you automatically call the pilot who saw it crazy or a liar or something NEGATIVE - which is the per usual.

If civilian and military witnesses on the ground, military pilots in the sky, and radar from two military bases and Washington National are all in agreement on "objects" being there, how could anyone possibly cherry pick the pilots who "missed it" and say they are right, everyone else AND the radar are all wrong?

that is the negativism I talk about. It's insane, how scared people become at the notion that ET life actually exists.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the whole "lights on the ground are directly reflected in the sky in the one photo we have" is s bit of a dent in his argument.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuckooold said: "Does this not seem applicable to the Washington DC sightings? Plant a few 'witnesses', and spoof radar, thereby creating an 'incident' that can grow freely of its own accord.

To paraphrase another poster 'misdirection and sleight of hand, indeed!'"

I suppose, without any evidences to support your theory, you might as well propose we are all living in a computer simulation and UFO's don't really exist.

Proposing "spoof radar" in here without evidence when the actual evidence shows the radar was in working order is easy to say. But now, let me see you back it up.

IOW's, thanks for the waste of time

Oh, and welcome in to U-M

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the whole "lights on the ground are directly reflected in the sky in the one photo we have" is s bit of a dent in his argument.

That was never supported, only proposed. Prove that is the case, show some evidences. Drawing lines on a photo and 'suggesting' that the light reflected as proposed is hardly what I call "evidence". It has never been shown conclusively that the "objects" in that photo are actually reflections. That notion is only the "wet dream" of the biased refusnikks.

Now, even if that photo is proven to be bogus, that does NOT invalidate the military and civilian eyewitness testimony, nor does it invalidate the radar data from three radar installations.

The evidence is overwhelming. There were UFO's in the air that night

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuckooold said: "Does this not seem applicable to the Washington DC sightings? Plant a few 'witnesses', and spoof radar, thereby creating an 'incident' that can grow freely of its own accord.

To paraphrase another poster 'misdirection and sleight of hand, indeed!'"

I suppose, without any evidences to support your theory, you might as well propose we are all living in a computer simulation and UFO's don't really exist.

Proposing "spoof radar" in here without evidence when the actual evidence shows the radar was in working order is easy to say. But now, let me see you back it up.

IOW's, thanks for the waste of time

Oh, and welcome in to U-M

That's a bit rich coming from you EOT, what evidence have you brought forth that rely on anything other than appeals to both authority or ignorance? You tend to favor the "if it isn't this then it must be that" logic, a false dichotomy in other words.

Edited by S2F
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And exactly what is that supposed to mean??? Did anyone who "said our piece pages back" put so much as a chink in Sky's evidences....? Apparently, NO.

There - in my mind, are three cases to prove that UFO's exist. This is one of them. Yet people who hate the idea that intelligent life does indeed exist in other parts of the galaxy refuse to accept facts.

I certainly don't hate the idea that intelligent life exists elsewhere and I am pretty sure most here don't either so you are making things up again to suit your storyline.

Example: Merc says that one pilot saw something and another did not. And I say, so....?

One pilot seeing it is enough. If you think the pilot who missed it is right, then you automatically call the pilot who saw it crazy or a liar or something NEGATIVE - which is the per usual.

Out of all the pilots that flew and it wasn't all that many, a couple thought they saw "something" (not a spaceship not a beam of light, an amorphous blob of light) but most saw nothing. Hardly definitive and seeing odd things at night, while in a cockpit, is not unusual nor indicative of alien visitation.

If civilian and military witnesses on the ground, military pilots in the sky, and radar from two military bases and Washington National are all in agreement on "objects" being there, how could anyone possibly cherry pick the pilots who "missed it" and say they are right, everyone else AND the radar are all wrong?

There were only a very few eyewitnesses that saw something and what they saw was hardly definitive. Lights of some kind is all. Many, many others saw absolutely nothing. The radar can be explained by other things but possibly it was picking up an object. The problem here is this is proof of nothing.

that is the negativism I talk about. It's insane, how scared people become at the notion that ET life actually exists.

Fear has nothing at all to do with it. There is no proof here and sky did post a lot of garbage. You are frustrated because you so want this to be true but a fantastic story requires solid proof and this is not even close.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the whole "lights on the ground are directly reflected in the sky in the one photo we have" is s bit of a dent in his argument.

Thats photo is unrelated to the events. I thought someone else mentioned it so technically it wouldn't be Sky's argument.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, please, Merc, it usually IS about negativism.

You've been around. You know how it goes. Open a UFO thread up in here and you have the same cast of characters smashing away. Just not this time.

I noticed, as an example, Badsekov "liked" your post, so he is around. But will he come in here to show why SkyE is in error....? I would have thought he would have but SkyE has apparently made his evidences "air tight". Badeskov must be bumming. But he's a good guy :--)

Of course, I look forward to seeing what ChrLzs has to say in rebuttal, it is his thread.

Until we meet again, mon amis, cheers.

You are the most negative poster here. No matter what detailed explanation is offered, you offer the stupid response of "Nope Alienz".

I do not have to participate in every thread that exists, and rather than not have anything to say, I respect Sky, and felt the other posters had clarified this well enough, but I should have realised, nothing works for you unless you can pretend Alinz are here and the Government is covering it all up. You're just a CT junkie with nothing more to add than a spoon to stir the pot. Sky is a good man, and he is entitled to think what he wants on this case, fact is facts have been offered that refute the nonsensical notion of aliens buzzing DC.

LIFE Magazine did an article on it of you need a recap of what was happening at the time, which is something you rarely bother yourself with. LINK - Have a look, familiarise yourself with that which you think you can teach others about.

I bet you did not know that the first time that picture appeared, it was in Ray Palmer's Flying Saucers, Edition No. 81, from the Summer of 1973.

Screen%2520Shot%25202014-08-05%2520at%25202.37.42%2520PM.jpg

And it was CROPPED to remove the streetlights. No prizes for guessing why though.

Bruce Maccabee, UFOlogist whom you should have heard of before had a look and could not call it aliens either, as he states in his email:

From: brumac@compuserve.com

To: nicap@insightbb.com

Subject: Re: 1952 Washington D.C. Capitol photo

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:57:27 -0500 (EST)

This picture which shows the Capitol dome and lights at the left side is, I believe, just a fraction of

the total picture which shows the whole Capito building, parking lot lights in front of it and

numerous "UFO" lights in the sky at both the left and right sides of the dome. Coleman

Von Kevicsky (sp?), years ago, showed the "UFO" light images were actually lens "flares"....

reflections within the lens of the bright streetlights and parking lot lights in front of the ==========

Capitol.

More of the complete picture, but not all of it (as I recall) can be seen at

http://truthquake.com/2011/06/28/ufos-flying-over-capitol-building-washington-d-c-photos-resurface/

Note: there is no guarantee that this photo of the Capitol was actually taken during the summer of 1952.

And then we have the staff from the magazine that released the pic speaking about it:

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 04:13:40 -0800 (PST)

From: michael swords <mswords@att.net>

Subject: Re: Fwd: 1952 Washington D.C. Capitol photo

To: francis ridge <nicap@insightbb.com>

Fran, i don't know the exact source [one of our national magazines like LOOK I think], but as you probably remember, the photo is garbage --- the complete photo shows ground street lights in the exact pattern of the so-called UFOs in the sky. An embarrassingly stupid camera reflections photo that persists to give us a bad name with any rational soul.

Mike

So unless UFO Investigators and Magazine Editors are the Ebil Gubbermint trying to suppress visitation, I don't think you have anything more than a wild rumour based on wild rumours.

Of course there is always investigation and or research, but I don't see you take that leap here.

It's been looked at, and it's nothing more than just another alienz story without any substance whatsoever, but a good armful of old wives tales.

Screen%2520Shot%25202014-12-02%2520at%252010.49.31%2520AM.jpg

Think twice before you take my name in vain next time. What this is is an urban legend, not fact by any stretch of the imagination. Ohh I know you want alienz soooo bad you can taste it, but not this time Earl. Old verbal assurances just don't cut the mustard.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose, without any evidences to support your theory, you might as well propose we are all living in a computer simulation and UFO's don't really exist.

What evidence supports Alienz?

Proposing "spoof radar" in here without evidence when the actual evidence shows the radar was in working order is easy to say. But now, let me see you back it up.

Great lets see a RADAR track that goes into space to show one of these UFO's is actually a spaceship, and not something else.

IOW's, thanks for the waste of time

You being the master of wasting time, do we need to buy you a present for your contribution? Cuckooold seems to be offering more substance than you? The problem is you object to the smashing of your fantasy, and react in a manner befitting a small child, as opposed to presenting actual evidences. Foot stamping just does not get papers published you know Earl.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was never supported, only proposed.

Absolute nonsense, please show us where the holes on Maccabees analysis be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is the negativism I talk about. It's insane, how scared people become at the notion that ET life actually exists.

You are scared people will totally knock the alien idea right out of UFO's and then we will have to face the mundane earth process as opposed to the exciting alien fantasy you are dreaming of.

Keep dreaming Earl. It is as close as you are gonna get to your alien fantasy!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuckooold said: "Does this not seem applicable to the Washington DC sightings? Plant a few 'witnesses', and spoof radar, thereby creating an 'incident' that can grow freely of its own accord.

To paraphrase another poster 'misdirection and sleight of hand, indeed!'"

I suppose, without any evidences to support your theory, you might as well propose we are all living in a computer simulation and UFO's don't really exist.

Proposing "spoof radar" in here without evidence when the actual evidence shows the radar was in working order is easy to say. But now, let me see you back it up.

IOW's, thanks for the waste of time

So you know for certain that spoofing the radar means the radar is not in working order?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_counter-countermeasures

In perhaps the first example of ECCM, the Germans increased their radio transmitter power in an attempt to 'burn through' or override the British jamming, which by necessity of the jammer being airborne or further away produced weaker signals. This is still one of the primary methods of ECCM today. For example, modern airborne jammers are able to identify incoming radar signals from other aircraft and send them back with random delays and other modifications in an attempt to confuse the opponent's radar set, making the 'blip' jump around wildly and be impossible to range. More powerful airborne radars means that it is possible to 'burn through' the jamming at much greater ranges by overpowering the jamming energy with the actual radar returns. The Germans were not really able to overcome the chaff spoofing very successfully and had to work around it (by guiding the aircraft to the target area and then having them visually acquire the targets).

As far as I can tell, the radar works as it should, it is merely tricked by 'faking' external returns. Therefore, checking the hardware should show the unit to be functioning correctly.

As Pilkington notes;

http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/4027/weapons_of_mass_deception.html

Adding to the intrigue, days after the incident General Samford told the New York Times: “We are learning more and more about radar… 'which is' capable of playing tricks for which it was not designed.” Was this a tacit admission that someone, perhaps the Air Force, had pulled a fast one over the Capital? Is it a coincidence that four years later Samford became the second director of the National Security Agency, which routinely used the Palladium system alongside the CIA?

The clearest hint that the Washington sightings were no accident was given to Bluebook’s Edward Ruppelt a few days before events kicked off. Ruppelt wrote that he and a scientist “from an agency I can’t name” had a two-hour discussion about UFOs, at the end of which the scientist made a ‘prediction’: “Within the next few days… they’re going to blow up and you’re going to have the granddaddy of all UFO sightings… in Washington or New York… probably Washington.”A few days later it happened, just as the scientist had said it would. As Ruppelt complains in his book, Air Force Intelligence were the last to know about the Washington event and when Ruppelt then tried to get from Wright Patterson (near Dayton, Ohio) to DC to investigate, he found that he couldn’t get a staff car to take him there: “Every time we would start to leave,” he wrote, “something more pressing would come up.”

The ability to perform radar 'tricks' certainly gives food for thought as an alternative explanation for what was detected on radar. If the second paragraph is true, then that gives further credence to the possibility this was a staged event (loathe as I am to use that term considering how it is employed by CT's these days). I don't know that the unnamed scientist's statement can be taken as true or not, but if it is true, then the entire incident should be looked at in an entirely different fashion.

As for this being a waste of time, what is more worthy; looking at possible theories as to what the sightings and radar anomalies could be, or simply ignoring potentially valid data so as to state 'it must be extra-terrestrial craft'?

Edited by cuckooold
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for this being a waste of time, what is more worthy; looking at possible theories as to what the sightings and radar anomalies could be, or simply ignoring potentially valid data so as to state 'it must be extra-terrestrial craft'?

I believe that Psyche raises a good point about the origins and end points of radar images/signatures attributed to UFOs as they never seem to be captured leaving the atmosphere. But such keen observations are folly for some, as well as we who attempt to establish alternative theories that may shed more of a prosaic nature of the phenomena.

Edited by Tim Hebert
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that Psyche raises a good point about the origins and end points of radar images/signatures attributed to UFOs as they never seem to be captured leaving the atmosphere. But such keen observations are folly for some, as well as we who attempt to establish alternative theories that may shed more of a prosaic nature of the phenomena.

Hey Tim,

In all fairness RADAR typically doesn't see everything or into Space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Tim,

In all fairness RADAR typically doesn't see everything or into Space.

Hi LS,

Perhaps so in 1952, but since the advent of NORAD (Pave Paws, Cobra Dane, BMEWs) we are able to track objects in space...all based on radar signature and computer guided analysis.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Tim,

In all fairness RADAR typically doesn't see everything or into Space.

Hi Lost Shaman

If RADAR is evidence of spaceships, one at least should have shown us that is goes into space, what the other side of the coin is that trajectories that are captured state a terrestrial trajectory i.e. East West. What we do have certainly does not indicate spaceships, but a very earthly sounding trajectory - to say RADAR is proof that UFO's are alien spaceships is an astounding leap to make. It;s not at all accurate nor is there any reason to consider aliens as a conclusion in that instance. Natural Phenomena is a far better candidate according to what we have seen to date.

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.