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 -
kmt_sesh

Let's talk history

3,995 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

internetperson
7 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Now you sound like a cranky old professor. "Explain!"

Haha I try.

7 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

These are instantly recognizable: the stoppers to King Tut's canopic chest.

Just wiki'd this. Absolutely fascinating. Gives me the creeps in a good way. Wiki has a pic of exactly what you're saying, the 4 of them in a box. I was going to post the pic here but it's taking longer than 5 seconds so I give up immediately.

I suppose a good follow up would be can you explain the headdresses (or whatever it's called)? Specifically, like in the pic I was just asking about (similar to the classic tut). The giant shape itself is interesting (in another pic from the rear it almost appears to have a pony tail) and of course the icing on the cake is the snake (?) alongside the vulture. 

EDIT: You know what's funny about the pic of the gal being chased by that bird is that actually happens (albeit rarely) where I live. We have huge owls and some jackass started feeding them and a few people have been attacked. One woman was sent to the hospital.

EDITX2: Screw you wiki I gets my pics

P0002574.jpg

Edited by internetperson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totah Dine

Owls are raptors.  What the heck was he feeding them?  Raw human? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
13 hours ago, Taun said:

I have been following a youtube channel for quite some time now, called "The Great War"... The narrator - Historian Indy Neidell - Recounts the events of WWI exactly 100 years to the week later... A really good series that I recommend... I thought i would share this one episode (there are currently 362 episodes in case you are thinking of binge watching - which I did)... He gives an interesting "thumbnail" history of the Cossack people... I would be interested in seeing if any one here can comment on his data..

 

Thanks for that Taun! I didn't know this was out there but am now subscribed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
10 hours ago, Totah Dine said:

Owls are raptors.  What the heck was he feeding them?  Raw human? 

never heard of an owl doing that ! 

Here it happens at nesting time ; magpies and currawongs specifically

 

Image result for bird swoop area sign

 

Related image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Little Back to Earth had a 'Jet Jackson' helmet by the back door of the old family home, and a plastic Ninja sword , some times it was the only way to get up the back yard to the outhouse, under a large ironbark tree with resident magpies   :D . 

I get a LOT better with them nowadays ....    I have trained them to swoop people that might come here ... that I would rather NOT come here     :) 

One sits on a perch a lot I made for him by the front door    ( and it isnt just for food, some times I offer food and he doesnt want it, just wants to hang there .

Maybe call first before you turn up ? 

 

Image result for currawong

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
23 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Now you sound like a cranky old professor. "Explain!"

I go to one thread where someone was throwing around the word "boring" like it was a bad thing, and now see the same thing with "cranky old professor."

It's like you're /trying/ to get rid of me!

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
2 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

I go to one thread where someone was throwing around the word "boring" like it was a bad thing, and now see the same thing with "cranky old professor."

It's like you're /trying/ to get rid of me!

--Jaylemurph

Yeah, but you're very cool at the same time. So cranky and cool is a good thing. I would never try to get rid of you, even if you do swear fealty to those Basset Masters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

 

19 hours ago, internetperson said:

Haha I try.

Just wiki'd this. Absolutely fascinating. Gives me the creeps in a good way. Wiki has a pic of exactly what you're saying, the 4 of them in a box. I was going to post the pic here but it's taking longer than 5 seconds so I give up immediately.

I suppose a good follow up would be can you explain the headdresses (or whatever it's called)? Specifically, like in the pic I was just asking about (similar to the classic tut). The giant shape itself is interesting (in another pic from the rear it almost appears to have a pony tail) and of course the icing on the cake is the snake (?) alongside the vulture. 

EDIT: You know what's funny about the pic of the gal being chased by that bird is that actually happens (albeit rarely) where I live. We have huge owls and some jackass started feeding them and a few people have been attacked. One woman was sent to the hospital.

EDITX2: Screw you wiki I gets my pics

<<Image Snip>>

And a fine pic it is. It shows the whole affair really well, inside and out.

The headdress on the canopic lids is called the nemes. It's a very common part of royal apparel. The first attested version of it is on the serdab statue of King Djoser from the Step Pyramid complex (c. 2670 BCE) in Dynasty 3. From that point you you see it frequently on royal statues, reliefs, wall paintings, and elsewhere.

How it evolved is not entirely clear but originally it almost certainly wasn't exclusively royal. Many men probably wore something like it as they worked the fields in the hot sun. I'm not sure it's even understood why it became the purview of royals, but it's readily recognizable in royal iconography. Probably the single most famous example of it today is the gold and lapis version on King Tut's burial mask. I am not aware of a nemes having ever been found in archaeology—in fact, no real pharaonic crown has ever been found—but it was probably a linen garment with coloration. The thing that looks like a ponytail is best described actually as excess wound cloth that tightened and fastened the nemes to the head, snugly against the brow.

The cobra and vulture on the brow are also royal icons. I can't immediately recall off the top of my head, and it's late and I'm a tired old man, but perhaps someone can fact-check this for me. But I believe Tut was one of few (or the only?) kings whose iconography displayed both the cobra and vulture. Most other kings sported only the cobra on their foreheads. Exactly what these mean is actually the subject of some debate to this day, but I'll stick with academic consensus. The cobra was a sign of protection for the pharaoh and would spit fire at his enemies. Now they knew a leather or gold cobra the king wore on his head wouldn't literally do this, but it's a goof example of the sympathetic or apotropaic magic that was so common in ancient Egypt. The king would be protected.

In Tut's case, with both icons on the brow, there is another overt level of meaning. The cobra stands for Wadjet, the patron royal goddess of Lower (northern) Egypt, and the vulture for Nekhbet, the patron royal goddess of Upper (southern) Egypt. This was a symbol of Tut's control of both parts of the nation.

Thanks again for your questions. Yes, keep 'em coming. And thanks also for the warning about owls. It's not like there are many of them flying around Chicago, but if I see one I'll be sure not to feed it. Owls are so beautiful, but the last thing I need is to see those claws coming at me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

There are other posts to which I intend to respond, but I need to get to bed. I thank everyone for participating so far and really hope we can all keep at it.

giphy.gif

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khaemwaset

What is the current academic suspicion regarding the lack of an embalmed heart inside the chest cavity of Tutankhamun's mummy?  I believe some of his ribs are also unaccounted for.  Thanks! 

 

48-funny-mummy-cartoon.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

Question on Egyptology fringe belief:

I've heard that EF (Egyptology fringe) had a conference in Aleppo recently where they decided that 'fringe' was not an appropriate word for their field of study. Now alternative history, with the 'alt.' in it now has bad connotations. So five new names were picked 

1. 'Intellectual scrapings'

2. 'Prior-orthodoxy' or 'unorthodox orthodoxy' or UO, pronounced 'uuuuuoooooo;'

3. 'Percy'

4. 'The door left unopened because it has a spike thorough it'

5. 'Bowel-brained 'zcience' or 'scienze', note the location of the 'z'

What is your position on this important matter?

 

 

Edited by Hanslune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khaemwaset
11 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Question on Egyptology fringe belief:

I've heard that EF (Egyptology fringe) had a conference in Aleppo recently where they decided that 'fringe' was not an appropriate word for their field of study. Now alternative history, with the 'alt.' in it now has bad connotations. So five new names were picked 

1. 'Intellectual scrapings'

2. 'Prior-orthodoxy' or 'unorthodox orthodoxy' or UO, pronounced 'uuuuuoooooo;'

3. 'Percy'

4. 'The door left unopened because it has spike thorough it'

5. 'Bowel-brained 'zcience' or 'scienze', note the location of the 'z'

What is your position on this important matter?

 

 

6. Unstrung faience beads (never knotted)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

' Rock Melters Anonymous '  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
7 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Question on Egyptology fringe belief:

I've heard that EF (Egyptology fringe) had a conference in Aleppo recently where they decided that 'fringe' was not an appropriate word for their field of study. Now alternative history, with the 'alt.' in it now has bad connotations. So five new names were picked 

1. 'Intellectual scrapings'

2. 'Prior-orthodoxy' or 'unorthodox orthodoxy' or UO, pronounced 'uuuuuoooooo;'

3. 'Percy'

4. 'The door left unopened because it has a spike thorough it'

5. 'Bowel-brained 'zcience' or 'scienze', note the location of the 'z'

What is your position on this important matter?

 

 

LOL This was in Aleppo? Did they rent a town hall from ISIS?

Those are all clever and imaginative names (snicker-snicker), but I would have to vote they stick with "fringe." It just works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

I kind of appreciate the fringe. Much as I've read plenty there is always details I miss or don't know, or don't comprehend properly that get tested by them.

  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
7 hours ago, Khaemwaset said:

What is the current academic suspicion regarding the lack of an embalmed heart inside the chest cavity of Tutankhamun's mummy?  I believe some of his ribs are also unaccounted for.  Thanks! 

 

48-funny-mummy-cartoon.jpg

I would suggest the 2-ply. It will hold up the best to the typical night of wild mummy partying.

Tutankhamun's missing heart.Where did it go? There is no universal agreement on this but two theories are the most popular, as far as I'm aware.

The first theory was presented by a non-specialist named Dr. Benson Harrer. He's a medical doctor who examined Tut's X-rays and CT scans, and although he has no training in Egyptology, he did his homework and refined his work along the way. At first he suggested Tut was killed by a hippo chomping on his chest. The chest wall was so damaged that the ancient embalmers removed it, and the shredded heart with it. This theory was not terribly well thought out, however, because although there is damage to the posterior area of the rib cage, it is certainly not to the degree consistent with death from a hippo. That a hippo could kill someone this way is certainly not in doubt, but the evidence on the human remains does not support it. So later Harrer revised his theory and said it was a horse instead. A rearing horse kicked Tut in the chest and killed him; again, the embalmers had to remove the broken chest wall and heart. This is a better theory and gained more traction in certain circles.

I often recommend Jo Marchant's book The Shadow King because in my opinion it is the most cohesive treatment on all of the science and research (and hokum) that has gone into the study of Tut's mummy. Marchant herself expresses favor in Harrer's theory. I'd mark it as the one and only flaw in her book, but only because I find Harrer's theory to be overly fanciful and not adequately supported. Other than that, however, I can't recommend this book enough. I liked it so much I devised a lecture around it at our museum.

The second theory is what I personally favor, and believe the weight of evidence supports it very well. To understand this theory it is helpful to post the last photo taken of Tutankhamun's body before it was reinterred in the tomb in the late 1920s: see this link. For the moment, just note the array of floral necklaces on the king's chest and the beaded skullcap on his head. Howard Carter and his team opted to leave them in place because the plethora of resins and unguents that had been used in the mummification, had caused the necklaces to be fused against the chest wall. The body was already in numerous pieces from rough handling when Douglass Derry pried it from the innermost coffin, so Carter and his men placed it back together in a tray of sand, lowered it back inside the sarcophagus, and closed the lid. No one saw the king's mummy for another 40-plus years. In 1968 a team went in there to conduct the first X-rays of the king's body, and discovered things to be quite a mess. Here is what they found.

Note that the floral collars are all gone, along with the chest wall. The eyelids are gone, as are the ears. The skullcap is missing. Even the clavicles are missing. Additionally, the arms were now in a different position altogether. (Incidentally, his penis also seems to have fallen off!) Now, the X-ray team did not comment on this because all they were interested in was taking films of the skull, but clearly the mummy was noticeably different from the state in which it had been left by Carter's men back in the '20s. No one can be exactly certain why, but many wondered if this happened during the turbulent years of World War II. People at that time were not terribly concerned with safeguarding ancient tombs, so it would've been relatively simple for raiders to enter KV62 and ravage the mummy to get the skullcap and floral collars. Remember that the collars had been fused to the chest, so the only way they could do this was by sawing away the chest wall.

So on balance Dr. Harrer's theory is not crazy or too far fetched, but I think the second theory of modern tomb raiding explains it a lot more realistically and sensibly.

Now, can we guarantee that the heart was left in place to begin with? No, we can't. We've CT scanned many of our mummies in the Field Museum and have found that some of them have hearts, some do not. Embalmers could get sloppy—and Tut's mummification seems to have gone off less than ideally. Another excellent book I'd recommend is Zahi Hawass and Sahar Saleem's Scanning the Pharaohs. It was one of the last projects Hawass was engaged in prior to his ouster as secretary general, and although I tend to disagree with a lot of Hawass's conclusions in Egyptology, this book is a solid piece of work. It discusses the CT scanning and findings of numerous notable New Kingdom pharaohs, and in the process they discovered that the mummies of Amunhotep III and Merneptah show no evidence of a heart remaining. These two were certainly far greater kings than young Tutankhamun, so it just goes to show how you never know what you might find with mummies.

That sums it up. I know you weren't looking for such a long-winded lecture, so I apologize for that. But yours was an excellent question, and it's something that really interests me personally.

Postscript: To end on a happy note, I should relay that eventually they found Tut's penis (and several other fragments) on the floor of the sarcophagus. All is well.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
27 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

I kind of appreciate the fringe. Much as I've read plenty there is always details I miss or don't know, or don't comprehend properly that get tested by them.

  

The big difference is, by my estimation you're much better read than the average Joe (or Jane) and can distinguish fact from fantastical fringe woo. As I've encountered many times while engaging with people in our Egyptian exhibit, many people don't seem well equipped to exercise critical thinking and take fringe nonsense at face value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gingitsune
On 3/15/2017 at 7:01 AM, Totah Dine said:

I've also heard stories of captive Navajos during WWII were questioned by the Japanese and were thought to be of Japanese descent.  There are some words that seem similar but that happens in any language.  There's a word in Japanese, Nandesuka that is similar to a Navajo word nandeskaadi  which means tortilla

Nan desu ka means "what is [it/this/these] ?" and can extent to "what's going on" and even "what's wrong". The "u" of desu is often not pronounced, so the sentence sounds "nandeska", just like the Navajo language's nandeskaadi. The Japanese phrasing have no relation with any kind of food, so it's no hint of a relationship between the language. Although, I would guess a Japanese guard would have been quite surprised to hear a Navajo ask "what are these?" in mid-speech while in fact he said "it taste a bit like nandeskaadi" or "man, do I miss nandeskaadi? Enough with the rice" . ^_^

Nan is short for nani which is the question word "what".
Desu is ... a kind of verb which isn't a real verb, it's complicated. It indicate the sentence is in the present tense and use the polite form.
Ka is... a word which indicate a question. It's only use in formal language.

About the North being unlucky, it is also the case among East Asians, or more precisely, the North-West. It could simply be because it's the place the sun don't go.

Is there any unlucky association with the South in Australian folklore, back to earth?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gingitsune
2 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

LOL This was in Aleppo? Did they rent a town hall from ISIS?

Those are all clever and imaginative names (snicker-snicker), but I would have to vote they stick with "fringe." It just works.

It's probably Aleppo in Pennsylvania. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
43 minutes ago, Gingitsune said:

Nan desu ka means "what is [it/this/these] ?" and can extent to "what's going on" and even "what's wrong". The "u" of desu is often not pronounced, so the sentence sounds "nandeska", just like the Navajo language's nandeskaadi. The Japanese phrasing have no relation with any kind of food, so it's no hint of a relationship between the language. Although, I would guess a Japanese guard would have been quite surprised to hear a Navajo ask "what are these?" in mid-speech while in fact he said "it taste a bit like nandeskaadi" or "man, do I miss nandeskaadi? Enough with the rice" .

There are only so many sounds humans can make, so you can find false analogs in practically any two languages, if you mine them for meaningless coincidences long enough (not suggesting Gingitsune is saying anything like the opposite here). There's a word in Farsi that sounds roughly "bad" and means something mostly similar. It doesn't mean there's any strong, substantial link between the two languages beyond being basically two disparate ends of the Indo-European language family. 

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
48 minutes ago, Gingitsune said:

Nan desu ka means "what is [it/this/these] ?" and can extent to "what's going on" and even "what's wrong". The "u" of desu is often not pronounced, so the sentence sounds "nandeska", just like the Navajo language's nandeskaadi. The Japanese phrasing have no relation with any kind of food, so it's no hint of a relationship between the language. Although, I would guess a Japanese guard would have been quite surprised to hear a Navajo ask "what are these?" in mid-speech while in fact he said "it taste a bit like nandeskaadi" or "man, do I miss nandeskaadi? Enough with the rice" . ^_^

Nan is short for nani which is the question word "what".
Desu is ... a kind of verb which isn't a real verb, it's complicated. It indicate the sentence is in the present tense and use the polite form.
Ka is... a word which indicate a question. It's only use in formal language.

About the North being unlucky, it is also the case among East Asians, or more precisely, the North-West. It could simply be because it's the place the sun don't go.

Is there any unlucky association with the South in Australian folklore, back to earth?

Not that I can think of  

except as soon as I read that my computer went ... bink ! , black screen and shut down for some reason :huh:

There is a 'sacred direction' to enter some 'bora ' and other special places .   But with over 600 different groups here before white settlement, there is a variety in the systems . The ones I was familiar with had the entrance at the SE I think   But this does not indicate an 'unfavourable direction' . 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bora_(Australian)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
3 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

LOL This was in Aleppo? Did they rent a town hall from ISIS?

Those are all clever and imaginative names (snicker-snicker), but I would have to vote they stick with "fringe." It just works.

Yes they met in a 660kg bomb crater just to the left of 'crazy ahmeds' saurkraut and soup shop

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
30 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

There are only so many sounds humans can make, so you can find false analogs in practically any two languages, if you mine them for meaningless coincidences long enough (not suggesting Gingitsune is saying anything like the opposite here). There's a word in Farsi that sounds roughly "bad" and means something mostly similar. It doesn't mean there's any strong, substantial link between the two languages beyond being basically two disparate ends of the Indo-European language family. 

--Jaylemurph

Ohh ... 'go on with ye now'  .... 

34fc600ab31199dc3f619b34d75664da.jpg

 

Is it a derivative of  'div'     

( see what I did there ;)  )  

 

But this seemed the case with the paper I got comparing Indonesian with a local Aboriginal dialect .  Someone ( local Aboriginal )  was ; " Nah it just sound similar ."

And the guy that wrote the paper was ;  "  Ahhh , but how do you spell it ! "

Koori;  " We dont. "

:D   

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
10 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I would suggest the 2-ply. It will hold up the best to the typical night of wild mummy partying.

Tutankhamun's missing heart.Where did it go? There is no universal agreement on this but two theories are the most popular, as far as I'm aware.

The first theory was presented by a non-specialist named Dr. Benson Harrer. He's a medical doctor who examined Tut's X-rays and CT scans, and although he has no training in Egyptology, he did his homework and refined his work along the way. At first he suggested Tut was killed by a hippo chomping on his chest. The chest wall was so damaged that the ancient embalmers removed it, and the shredded heart with it. This theory was not terribly well thought out, however, because although there is damage to the posterior area of the rib cage, it is certainly not to the degree consistent with death from a hippo. That a hippo could kill someone this way is certainly not in doubt, but the evidence on the human remains does not support it. So later Harrer revised his theory and said it was a horse instead. A rearing horse kicked Tut in the chest and killed him; again, the embalmers had to remove the broken chest wall and heart. This is a better theory and gained more traction in certain circles.

I often recommend Jo Marchant's book The Shadow King because in my opinion it is the most cohesive treatment on all of the science and research (and hokum) that has gone into the study of Tut's mummy. Marchant herself expresses favor in Harrer's theory. I'd mark it as the one and only flaw in her book, but only because I find Harrer's theory to be overly fanciful and not adequately supported. Other than that, however, I can't recommend this book enough. I liked it so much I devised a lecture around it at our museum.

The second theory is what I personally favor, and believe the weight of evidence supports it very well. To understand this theory it is helpful to post the last photo taken of Tutankhamun's body before it was reinterred in the tomb in the late 1920s: see this link. For the moment, just note the array of floral necklaces on the king's chest and the beaded skullcap on his head. Howard Carter and his team opted to leave them in place because the plethora of resins and unguents that had been used in the mummification, had caused the necklaces to be fused against the chest wall. The body was already in numerous pieces from rough handling when Douglass Derry pried it from the innermost coffin, so Carter and his men placed it back together in a tray of sand, lowered it back inside the sarcophagus, and closed the lid. No one saw the king's mummy for another 40-plus years. In 1968 a team went in there to conduct the first X-rays of the king's body, and discovered things to be quite a mess. Here is what they found.

Note that the floral collars are all gone, along with the chest wall. The eyelids are gone, as are the ears. The skullcap is missing. Even the clavicles are missing. Additionally, the arms were now in a different position altogether. (Incidentally, his penis also seems to have fallen off!) Now, the X-ray team did not comment on this because all they were interested in was taking films of the skull, but clearly the mummy was noticeably different from the state in which it had been left by Carter's men back in the '20s. No one can be exactly certain why, but many wondered if this happened during the turbulent years of World War II. People at that time were not terribly concerned with safeguarding ancient tombs, so it would've been relatively simple for raiders to enter KV62 and ravage the mummy to get the skullcap and floral collars. Remember that the collars had been fused to the chest, so the only way they could do this was by sawing away the chest wall.

So on balance Dr. Harrer's theory is not crazy or too far fetched, but I think the second theory of modern tomb raiding explains it a lot more realistically and sensibly.

Now, can we guarantee that the heart was left in place to begin with? No, we can't. We've CT scanned many of our mummies in the Field Museum and have found that some of them have hearts, some do not. Embalmers could get sloppy—and Tut's mummification seems to have gone off less than ideally. Another excellent book I'd recommend is Zahi Hawass and Sahar Saleem's Scanning the Pharaohs. It was one of the last projects Hawass was engaged in prior to his ouster as secretary general, and although I tend to disagree with a lot of Hawass's conclusions in Egyptology, this book is a solid piece of work. It discusses the CT scanning and findings of numerous notable New Kingdom pharaohs, and in the process they discovered that the mummies of Amunhotep III and Merneptah show no evidence of a heart remaining. These two were certainly far greater kings than young Tutankhamun, so it just goes to show how you never know what you might find with mummies.

That sums it up. I know you weren't looking for such a long-winded lecture, so I apologize for that. But yours was an excellent question, and it's something that really interests me personally.

Postscript: To end on a happy note, I should relay that eventually they found Tut's penis (and several other fragments) on the floor of the sarcophagus. All is well.

kmt_sesh,. just speaking for myself but don't sell yourself short, nothing long winded at all about this post as the info is greatly appreciated.  I would guess many, like me, are following and enjoying the reading so indulge yourself!   Great stuff sir.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
17 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Yes they met in a 660kg bomb crater just to the left of 'crazy ahmeds' saurkraut and soup shop

Which, before the crater,   was a fresh cabbage selling    shop .

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.