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 -

Government report into UAP's released


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

... guaranteeing you can claim "I woz right all along!"  C'mon - we expect better from you.  Let's be really brave and say exactly what we think.  Here's my offering:

"I am certain UFOs & UAPs (how long has that been an acceptable acronym?) are NOT alien spacecraft.  I am basing this conclusion on the absolute certainty that if aliens are monitoring Earth they would have the technology to do so without us noticing.  The notion that they have to fly their spaceships inside our atmosphere in order to see what we're up to is farcical and preposterous."

If I turn out to be wrong, it's because the little grey men have very poor eyesight.  That's why they sometimes approach so close.

A very good point.  I've mentioned before - why do these UFOAPs always appear just too far away to be clear and visible?  It's almost as though they don't actually want to be noticed!  If only the highly trained pilots in their $100 million machines had some way of getting closer to these mysterious objects...

I noticed that apparent discrepancy too, so I made up an explanation.  Duckie is using conventional, terrestrial miles but Brassboy is using cosmic miles.  In astrocosmological circles mile stands for my interpolated length estimation, so one cosmic mile might be anything from one to ten thousand miles.  If Brassboy miles are more than about 3400 miles then he's right - it was going faster than light.  So now we have FTLUFOAPs to worry about.

They should have asked the British civil service to draft it.  900 pages would just about cover the title and contents...

Thanks for your observation but, your so off base you have now reached the Multiverse. Please don't attempt to put your labels on me that's ridiculous. Let me be clear, the objects in.question are from Earth, which country that remains to be scene. What you expect from me or anyone else isn't really important because who do you think you are?:unsure:

Do you want to be called a Daddy?:unsure:

Edited by Manwon Lender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

This is not some kind of show that identifies who is the most intelligent person in this thread, if it were based upon IQ score you would lose hands down.

You really believe that?

15 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I have an opinion what they are but I would rather wait to see what happens before I say what I think

A claim to an unexpressed opinion is pretty worthless, wouldn't you agree?

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

Thanks for your observation but, your so off base you have now reached the Multiverse. Please don't attempt to put your labels on me that's ridiculous. Let me be clear, the objects in.question are from Earth, which country that remains to be scene. What you expect from me or anyone else isn't really important because who do you think you are?:unsure:  Do you want to be called a Daddy?:unsure:

Okay, I give in.  I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

You really believe that?

A claim to an unexpressed opinion is pretty worthless, wouldn't you agree?

Okay, I give in.  I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here.

Good morning Ton and thank you for your reply:tu: Apparently you have been chosen to speak for other members of the forum, and that's cool because it makes it easier to respond to one person than to a group!:) As far as proving what our IQ scores are without dropping our usernames and posting as our real life selfs maybe difficult, but if you have a way to do it I am open for suggestions. 

I do agree that it is impossible to debate or provid a valid point with any opinion is worthless. But, it doesn't mean that condescending comments or behavior isn't politically correct either. I don't think that belittling comments or sarcasm is the way to treat anyone whether you agree with them or not. What is your opinion on this subject Tom?

" Your comments that I am referring to above and below, I quote "

... guaranteeing you can claim "I woz right all along!"  C'mon - we expect better from you.  Let's be really brave and say exactly what we think.  Here's my offering:

"I am certain UFOs & UAPs (how long has that been an acceptable acronym?) are NOT alien spacecraft.  I am basing this conclusion on the absolute certainty that if aliens are monitoring Earth they would have the technology to do so without us noticing.  The notion that they have to fly their spaceships inside our atmosphere in order to see what we're up to is farcical and preposterous."

If I turn out to be wrong, it's because the little grey men have very poor eyesight.  That's why they sometimes approach so close.

Tom when you quoted me above you left out a very important part of the original comments I made. I clearly said that I did not believe the Craft that the US Navy was reporting upon were Alien. ( In fact I said that they orginated upon Earth, which , I will translate so there is no more confusion of intentional miss quotes ) I am certain the Craft were built by either the US Government or an enemy Government right here on Earth. If they were built by the US, the purpose of the releases of information and Videos is  to create confusion in the enemy ranks. If they were built by an enemy Government the purpose is same, this is called Psychological Warfare Tom, do you disagree with that theory?

If you do Tom, what do you suggest the purpose of the Videos and information releases are being used for?

Oh and by the way, to all that may read my comments in this post,  I would like to be clear. My comments above do not apply in anyway to The13bats of to Nuclear Wessel these members already understand that it is important to remain respectfully to other Forum members and I personally applaud them for this!:tu:

Respectfully

Manwon Lender

 

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ufoguy said:

they're pretty much saying the public is not ready for the truth yet

They're saying no such thing.

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Good morning Ton and thank you for your reply:tu: Apparently you have been chosen to speak for other members of the forum,

Erm... did I miss something?  I'm not sure that's accurate; nor have I claimed to do so.  I come here to listen to views and, occasionally, to share mine.  Inevitably some people will agree or disagree with my position, which hopefully leads to intelligent and open debate.  At least - that's the noble idea.

13 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I don't think that belittling comments or sarcasm is the way to treat anyone whether you agree with them or not. What is your opinion on this subject Tom?

I think I covered this matter in post #78, in response to your statement (#60) telling Nuclear Wessel "if it were based upon IQ score you would lose hands down".  Many people would consider that falls under the category of "belittling comments or sarcasm", which you like to say you disapprove off.

13 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

As far as proving what our IQ scores are without dropping our usernames and posting as our real life selfs maybe difficult, but if you have a way to do it I am open for suggestions.

This matters to you?  I'm more interested in whether a contributor can string together a coherent argument, than what their ostensible 'intelligence quotient' level has been measured at.  I get adverts on my phone telling me that if I can solve a particular puzzle in a certain time they can measure my IQ on a scale of cabbage to Einstein.  I'll bet you're really good on games like those?

14 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Tom when you quoted me above you left out a very important part of the original comments I made.

In post #66 you said "I Don't Believe that the objects in the Navy Videos are Alien Space Craft, I have an opinion what they are but I would rather wait to see what happens before I say what I think".  My reply (#75) asked you to elaborate upon this.  Or maybe you would give a reason why you would rather wait to see what happens before you say what you think?  Because your evasiveness appears very much like a Monday morning quarterback, if you'll excuse the Americanism.

By post #79 you've moved forward and are now declaring uncritically that these UFO/UAPs are real, flying machines.  Thank you for ruling out all other explanations for us.  Are you absolutely certain none of these are optical illusions, instrument error, human error, meteorological or astronomical phenomena?

14 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I am certain the Craft were built by either the US Government or an enemy Government right here on Earth.

So that narrows the field to barely 190 possible countries to blame.  Good job you cleared that up.1

14 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I do agree that it is impossible to debate or provid a valid point with any opinion is worthless.

Sorry - nope.  Still no idea what that means.  Would you mind trying yet again?

 

1  And thank goodness you've ruled out the possibility of a private company developing advanced aerial technology.  'Cos here's me thinking that one of them might be trying to get the edge on the competition.  Someone like Airbus, Aciturri, Aernnova, Aerojet Rocketdyne, AIDC, Albany Engineered Composites, Amphenol, Arconic, ASCO Industries, Astronics Corporation, ATI (Allegheny Technologies), Aubert & Duval (Eramet), AVIC, BAE Systems, Ball Aerospace, Barnes Aerospace, Boeing, Bombardier, CAE, Chromalloy, Cobham, Constellium, Crane Aerospace and Electronics, Curtiss-Wright, Daher, Dassault Aviation, Diehl Aviation, Ducommun, Eaton, Elbit Systems, Embraer, FACC, Figeac Aero, Garmin, General Dynamics (Aerospace), General Electric (GE Aviation), GKN Aerospace, Hanwha Aerospace, Heico, Heroux-Devtek, Hexcel, Hindustan Aeronautics, Honeywell, Hutchinson, IHI, Israel Aerospace Industries, ITT Corporation, JAMCO, Kaiser Aluminum, Kaman Aerospace, Kawasaki, Kongsberg, Korea Aerospace Industries, Korean Air, L3Harris, Latecoere, Leonardo, Liebherr, LISI, Lockheed Martin, Longview Aviation Capital Corp, Magellan Aerospace, Maxar Technologies Space System, Meggitt, Mitsubishi, Moog, MTU Aero Engines, Nordam group, Northrop Grumman, Panasonic Avionics, Parker Hannifin, Pilatus, PPG Aerospace, Precision Castparts, Qinetiq, Raytheon, Recaro Aircraft Seating, Rolls-Royce, Rostec State Corporation, RUAG, Saab, Safran, Senior, Sierra Nevada Corporation, SKF, Solvay Group, Sonaca, Spirit AeroSystems, ST Engineering, Subaru, TECT Aerospace, Teledyne Technologies, Tesla, Textron, Thales, TransDigm, Triumph Group, Turkish Aerospace, United Aircraft, United Technologies or Woodward, to name just a few.  And how about Stark Industries?  I hear they're working on some really amazing stuff!

  • Thanks 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

Erm... did I miss something?  I'm not sure that's accurate; nor have I claimed to do so.  I come here to listen to views and, occasionally, to share mine.  Inevitably some people will agree or disagree with my position, which hopefully leads to intelligent and open debate.  At least - that's the noble idea.

I think I covered this matter in post #78, in response to your statement (#60) telling Nuclear Wessel "if it were based upon IQ score you would lose hands down".  Many people would consider that falls under the category of "belittling comments or sarcasm", which you like to say you disapprove off.

This matters to you?  I'm more interested in whether a contributor can string together a coherent argument, than what their ostensible 'intelligence quotient' level has been measured at.  I get adverts on my phone telling me that if I can solve a particular puzzle in a certain time they can measure my IQ on a scale of cabbage to Einstein.  I'll bet you're really good on games like those?

In post #66 you said "I Don't Believe that the objects in the Navy Videos are Alien Space Craft, I have an opinion what they are but I would rather wait to see what happens before I say what I think".  My reply (#75) asked you to elaborate upon this.  Or maybe you would give a reason why you would rather wait to see what happens before you say what you think?  Because your evasiveness appears very much like a Monday morning quarterback, if you'll excuse the Americanism.

By post #79 you've moved forward and are now declaring uncritically that these UFO/UAPs are real, flying machines.  Thank you for ruling out all other explanations for us.  Are you absolutely certain none of these are optical illusions, instrument error, human error, meteorological or astronomical phenomena?

So that narrows the field to barely 190 possible countries to blame.  Good job you cleared that up.1

Sorry - nope.  Still no idea what that means.  Would you mind trying yet again?

 

1  And thank goodness you've ruled out the possibility of a private company developing advanced aerial technology.  'Cos here's me thinking that one of them might be trying to get the edge on the competition.  Someone like Airbus, Aciturri, Aernnova, Aerojet Rocketdyne, AIDC, Albany Engineered Composites, Amphenol, Arconic, ASCO Industries, Astronics Corporation, ATI (Allegheny Technologies), Aubert & Duval (Eramet), AVIC, BAE Systems, Ball Aerospace, Barnes Aerospace, Boeing, Bombardier, CAE, Chromalloy, Cobham, Constellium, Crane Aerospace and Electronics, Curtiss-Wright, Daher, Dassault Aviation, Diehl Aviation, Ducommun, Eaton, Elbit Systems, Embraer, FACC, Figeac Aero, Garmin, General Dynamics (Aerospace), General Electric (GE Aviation), GKN Aerospace, Hanwha Aerospace, Heico, Heroux-Devtek, Hexcel, Hindustan Aeronautics, Honeywell, Hutchinson, IHI, Israel Aerospace Industries, ITT Corporation, JAMCO, Kaiser Aluminum, Kaman Aerospace, Kawasaki, Kongsberg, Korea Aerospace Industries, Korean Air, L3Harris, Latecoere, Leonardo, Liebherr, LISI, Lockheed Martin, Longview Aviation Capital Corp, Magellan Aerospace, Maxar Technologies Space System, Meggitt, Mitsubishi, Moog, MTU Aero Engines, Nordam group, Northrop Grumman, Panasonic Avionics, Parker Hannifin, Pilatus, PPG Aerospace, Precision Castparts, Qinetiq, Raytheon, Recaro Aircraft Seating, Rolls-Royce, Rostec State Corporation, RUAG, Saab, Safran, Senior, Sierra Nevada Corporation, SKF, Solvay Group, Sonaca, Spirit AeroSystems, ST Engineering, Subaru, TECT Aerospace, Teledyne Technologies, Tesla, Textron, Thales, TransDigm, Triumph Group, Turkish Aerospace, United Aircraft, United Technologies or Woodward, to name just a few.  And how about Stark Industries?  I hear they're working on some really amazing stuff!

Thanks for clearing everything up Tom, I appreciate the time it took you to this. But, you still didn't answer the question, what do you think is going on and what do you think the object are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2021 at 7:55 PM, Tiggs said:

Any technology beyond our current capacity would qualify as "advanced".

I would argue that anything at or near our current (unclassified) technology is also "advanced", by dictionary definition...  The term was not defined or put into context, so the dictionary definition rules.

On 6/28/2021 at 7:55 PM, Tiggs said:

We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated.

It's kinda stating the obvious - 'we are currently analysing and will continue to do so', is the only sensible way to approach it - new information may come in.  But clearly to date, they don't have anything that shows 'non-terrestrial-ness', or are unwilling to show it.

 

On 6/28/2021 at 7:55 PM, Tiggs said:

Key word here appears to be "breakthrough".
Without evidence pointing to an initial possible interpretation of such, there would be no need for any further analysis.

Exactly - speculating about what they might get later or may be keeping super-secret is pointless.  And remember that the US military is NOT the only potential source.  Just because the US DoD might not release their 'special' information, does not mean that other countries will do the same.  And of course then there is the huge amateur astronomy community.  And of course it seems most of the 'interesting' reports relate to training exercises, where they would, naturally, be testing experimental devices and tech.

On 6/28/2021 at 7:55 PM, Tiggs said:

Currently -- not for public consumption.

It's pretty easy to redact any sensitive stuff...  Don't get me wrong, I agree with the points you made - just clarifying and widening..!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

I would argue that anything at or near our current (unclassified) technology is also "advanced", by dictionary definition...  The term was not defined or put into context, so the dictionary definition rules.

It's kinda stating the obvious - 'we are currently analysing and will continue to do so', is the only sensible way to approach it - new information may come in.  But clearly to date, they don't have anything that shows 'non-terrestrial-ness', or are unwilling to show it.

I read it the other way -- that they have some cases that look as if a breakthrough technology is involved, and are conducting further analysis on those cases.

For example -- no-one's going to do further analysis on an object moving at 300mph, to determine if breakthrough technology is involved.
 

10 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

It's pretty easy to redact any sensitive stuff...  Don't get me wrong, I agree with the points you made - just clarifying and widening..!!

The whole thing's remarkably brief. Looks as if they're not in any rush to release any of the details.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

I read it the other way -- that they have some cases that look as if a breakthrough technology is involved, and are conducting further analysis on those cases.

For example -- no-one's going to do further analysis on an object moving at 300mph, to determine if breakthrough technology is involved.

True enough, but my analytical mind wants to see the 'money shot' (ie the recorded data) so we can check the reality...  Thus far, the FLIR videos and shreds of radar data do not show any 'breakthroughs', and in fact, simply show amateurs at work.  As an example that claim of unexplainable speeds .. when all that happened was the camera zoom changed, or the FLIR lost lock..  I guess these training exercises were also training newbies on the equipment who had little idea of what they were doing.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

True enough, but my analytical mind wants to see the 'money shot' (ie the recorded data) so we can check the reality.

I think we all do.

No data in this particular report, however.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2021 at 7:06 AM, Tom1200 said:

... guaranteeing you can claim "I woz right all along!"  C'mon - we expect better from you.  Let's be really brave and say exactly what we think.  Here's my offering:

"I am certain UFOs & UAPs (how long has that been an acceptable acronym?) are NOT alien spacecraft.  I am basing this conclusion on the absolute certainty that if aliens are monitoring Earth they would have the technology to do so without us noticing.  The notion that they have to fly their spaceships inside our atmosphere in order to see what we're up to is farcical and preposterous."

If I turn out to be wrong, it's because the little grey men have very poor eyesight.  That's why they sometimes approach so close.

A very good point.  I've mentioned before - why do these UFOAPs always appear just too far away to be clear and visible?  It's almost as though they don't actually want to be noticed!  If only the highly trained pilots in their $100 million machines had some way of getting closer to these mysterious objects...

I noticed that apparent discrepancy too, so I made up an explanation.  Duckie is using conventional, terrestrial miles but Brassboy is using cosmic miles.  In astrocosmological circles mile stands for my interpolated length estimation, so one cosmic mile might be anything from one to ten thousand miles.  If Brassboy miles are more than about 3400 miles then he's right - it was going faster than light.  So now we have FTLUFOAPs to worry about.

They should have asked the British civil service to draft it.  900 pages would just about cover the title and contents...

I had to adjust a figure from 60 to 65 and drop the decimals of the speed of light. This is why my math on the comment I made is off, like way off, but the calculator I used doesn't deal in decimals. The adjustment I made was so I could extrapolate the speed without the use of decimals to achieve a number comparable to my original estimation. So it may be off but still FTL either way. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Brassboy86 said:

I had to adjust a figure from 60 to 65 and drop the decimals of the speed of light. This is why my math on the comment I made is off, like way off, but the calculator I used doesn't deal in decimals. The adjustment I made was so I could extrapolate the speed without the use of decimals to achieve a number comparable to my original estimation. So it may be off but still FTL either way. 

Odd with countless eyes on the skies only you saw this event, very odd indeed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Odd with countless eyes on the skies only you saw this event, very odd indeed.

I was in a very rural area and the city closest to me has terrible light pollution, you can't see a star, not even one. And the people I rent from saw it, but I'm wwwaaayyyyy out in the country. Nothing but hillbillies and retirees where I'm at. So most of them probably saw a star bobbling around and assumed it was a satellite, meteor or the like and didn't make a report. I should reach out on my Facebook and see if anyone else saw what I saw. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And nobody said only I saw it. Where TF did you get that from? I'm sure a handful of people in my area saw it, it was pretty hard to miss if you looked up, since it was twice as bright as the brightest star in my visible section of cosmic sky. Rude and condescending, sir! 

Edited by Brassboy86
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brassboy86 said:

I'm sure a handful of people in my area saw it

you are sure- you telling everyone you're sure does it for some- many like to hear a good story.. it sells books

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brassboy86 said:

I was in a very rural area and the city closest to me has terrible light pollution, you can't see a star, not even one. And the people I rent from saw it, but I'm wwwaaayyyyy out in the country. Nothing but hillbillies and retirees where I'm at. So most of them probably saw a star bobbling around and assumed it was a satellite, meteor or the like and didn't make a report. I should reach out on my Facebook and see if anyone else saw what I saw. 

 

1 hour ago, Brassboy86 said:

And nobody said only I saw it. Where TF did you get that from? I'm sure a handful of people in my area saw it, it was pretty hard to miss if you looked up, since it was twice as bright as the brightest star in my visible section of cosmic sky. Rude and condescending, sir! 

Lighten up Francis, its not personal no need to get upset.

There is nothing rude or condesending in questioning an extrodarnary "story" that has no evidence to back it up.

And i wasnt talking about the other hillbillies or banjo players i was talking about astronomers both professinal and hobbyists who are always looking at all the sky,

You say yourself it was twice as bright as the brightest star so if thats the case then this was not only seen by others it was documented,

Why not post the date, time and location so it can be investagated further since you obviously didnt take that next step yourself or you would have posted those reports.

As far as your claims it made some jump to light speed, that remains for you to prove.

Not rude just part of discussion on an open forum.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ufoguy said:

Yes they are….

 

Um no they are not, that case was well explained and debunked, sorry you fell for it how very humiliating for you.

 

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ufoguy said:

Yes they are….

No they're not.  Your video has nothing to do with the report.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, the13bats said:

Um no they are not, that case was well explained and debunked, sorry you fell for it how very humiliating for you.

Are you suggesting that people at NASA might actually know something about 'looking at things in space'?

Why are you so quick to reject the obvious conclusion: as soon as the tether snapped hundreds of miles-wide flying saucers (with holes in them) 'swarmed' to inspect this mysterious new feature?  And then disappeared again just as quickly? 

Surely the real mystery here is: why were the aliens not interested in the experiment before the tether snapped?  I have a theory or two about that (but I would rather wait to see what happens before I say what I think).

6 hours ago, the13bats said:

And I wasn't talking about the other hillbillies or banjo players, I was talking about astronomers both professional and hobbyists who are always looking at all the sky

Astronomers only come out at night.  Aliens have worked this out, so they hide by night and only fly in daylight hours.  (This also saves the batteries.)  That's why there is no corroborating evidence for most UFO sightings so you'll just have to take Brassboy's word for it.  (If he was going to make up a story he would have included battles and laser beams and dead Rancors and dark matter grenades and stuff.)

10 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I have nothing else to say. This will be my last comment

Hope Springs Eternal.

4 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

No they're not.  Your video has nothing to do with the report.

Don't be such a spoilsport!  Why should we let trivial details like facts or logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

As an example that claim of unexplainable speeds .. when all that happened was the camera zoom changed, or the FLIR lost lock.

Don't be such a spoilsport!  Why should we let trivial details like facts or logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tiggs said:

For example -- no-one's going to do further analysis on an object moving at 300mph, to determine if breakthrough technology is involved.

What if the object is travelling in a peculiar path that deserves investigation?  It could be flying in a perfect circle, or a regular polygon?  Or spelling out an entire message in Lucida Handwriting font?  Would you be so quick to dismiss it then?

What if the object was demonstrably something that shouldn't be able to do 300mph?  Like a hot air balloon, or a giant albatross, or my nan in her wheelchair?  Surely then you would want an explanation?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom1200 said:

What if the object is travelling in a peculiar path that deserves investigation?  It could be flying in a perfect circle, or a regular polygon?  Or spelling out an entire message in Lucida Handwriting font?

Believe you've misinterpreted my position -- which was that there's no reason to do further analysis on the possibility of breakthrough technology being involved, unless the object has initially exhibited the characteristics of breakthrough technology.
 

1 hour ago, Tom1200 said:

Would you be so quick to dismiss it then?

I'm not attempting to dismiss anything. What I'm doing is attempting to show that there are apparently cases that have exhibited the characteristics of breakthrough technology.
 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, the13bats said:

Um no they are not, that case was well explained and debunked, sorry you fell for it how very humiliating for you.

 

So wats the explanation for those ufos then?

Why do they look like the dropa stones?

dropa-stones.jpg

 

  • Confused 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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.