Jump to content

Flat Earth: the last thread about this subject on this forum


 Share

Recommended Posts

oddsnsods, the path of the planets is correct. If you plot them out over the years it takes for them to complete their orbits as seen from earth then you really DO gets those patterns. It certainly is not proof of a flat earth.

You could say those squiggly bits are due to the ball earth orbiting the sun. If you wanted to...

 

 

l7lg1rlkf5z21.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, gregory-peccary said:

 

The Coast bar is on the ground floor of the Claremont Hotel so I was sitting 30 to 40 feet above sea level.

Don't know the exact height from sea level to Douglas Promenade, and then half a dozen steps from the pavement into the hotel.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.1508331,-4.4802022,17z

should get you to Google Maps so you can use the street view feature.

 

Oh, and well done on managing to find out where the nearest wind turbine is to Douglas!

I trawled the interweb and Walney Island was the best I could find.

We did pass by turbines in the sea as we cruised by on the Ben My Cree ferry from Douglas to Heysham.

 

Anyway, apart from Ball Earth what other possible explanation could there be for me being able to watch the turbine blades rotate and the bottom third be hidden by the horizon?

The bottom half of the blades weren't visible with your eyes because of the distance. The Nikon camera in the previous video of the boat & buoy showed this. From the beach nothing in the distance was visible, but once the camera zoomed in there they were.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gregory-peccary said:

Jikwan, the Claremont Hotel in Douglas is very nice.

You don't have to book a room to use the Coast Bar, just go camping and then sit in the bar looking out to sea and on a nice clear day you will see the wind turbines with your own eyes. Take binoculars too, starting to wish I did.

On your way out on the ferry take something you trust that measures distance so you can note where the nearest turbine to Douglas is.

 

The distances I found were for Walney Island but that wind farm covers a massive area and no one will tell me exactly where the last turbine is!

More precisely, the distances are to the NEAREST turbines to Walney Island = furthest from Douglas.

Hey greg   so did your experience convince you of flatearth?

Can you give us some numbers

How far from the coast the turbine mast?

And whatever it was im glad you going out testing this theory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

 

 

😂

 

Jikwan, I just pointed out how BFlat was so wrong about the seal & vacuum of space..

but then Bflat doesnt accept gravity exists either.

Posters proved most of his theories wrong you posted above, can easily find on old thread you regurgitated.

BFake like most of the cult isnt that interested in truth, once hes been shown the error of his ways,,5 minutes later he respams the same shit.

 

One point he made that was puzzling to me & I think he was onto something. Doesnt prove a flat earth tho.

 

l7lg1rlkf5z21.jpg

ezgif_com_resize_2.gif

Hey, flatearthers cannot take seriously the side by side of vaccuum and gasses because they believe in a dome. They dont know theres a vaccuum there or not

I dont know enough about gravity to be able to discuss it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, cuboftruth said:

Above this response, it says that you quoted me, but I never wrote those words.  

 

Actually pretending in a quote box that a poster wrote something that he did not is pretty weak and tells us all we need to know. 

I know that mr pecory said that, that was me being lazy and for that I apologize, the post was about the numbers used and the fact that the Fe side of the debate keep using Pythagorean Theorem to prove a point when it works on a perfect sphere which the earth is not. But you quoted my entire response so you must have realized that and to me that tells me all I need to know

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jikwan said:

Hey, flatearthers cannot take seriously the side by side of vaccuum and gasses because they believe in a dome. They dont know theres a vaccuum there or not

I dont know enough about gravity to be able to discuss it

 

If was a dome would be no lack of psi further you go up or change in atmospheric pressure, plus extremely large meteorites would have trouble getting through.🤔

 

The gravity idea of molecules falling back to earth is pretty full proof & explains how it works for me. Why atmospheric balloons can expand to the size of football pitches..Boyles law they call it.

 

Under a dome this wouldn't happen..the atmosphere wouldnt diminish. It would be constant.

 

As he explains in this video, when they balloon expands to much it explodes & then free falls in a semi vacuum.

 

 

I mean I can figure this basic shit out, so why cant a legend like BFlat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

 

If was a dome would be no lack of psi further you go up or change in atmospheric pressure, plus extremely large meteorites would have trouble getting through.🤔

 

The gravity idea of molecules falling back to earth is pretty full proof & explains how it works for me. Why atmospheric balloons can expand to the size of football pitches..Boyles law they call it.

 

Under a dome this wouldn't happen..the atmosphere wouldnt diminish. It would be constant.

 

As he explains in this video, when they balloon expands to much it explodes & then free falls in a semi vacuum.

 

 

I mean I can figure this basic shit out, so why cant a legend like BFlat.

Bflat is not omnicient. Hes a giant compared to the usual researcher

Theres too many fields you have to thoroughly grasp

If he knows 90% thats good enough.

Last time i looked there was still no recorded witnessing of incoming comets in all of recorded history. Not only the seeing of it.....must have some real special debri and not just a few shards

Yes there was that pathetic siberian "comet" exploding in midair look very like a firey rocket detonated in mid air

Comets do not exist

Same as dinasaurs....another hoax. Not a single dinosaur bone exists

Im a FE beginer. There aint too many FE heavyweights around these days

Edited by Jikwan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Jikwan said:

Bflat is not omnicient. Hes a giant compared to the usual researcher

Theres too many fields you have to thoroughly grasp

If he knows 90% thats good enough.

Last time i looked there was still no recorded witnessing of incoming comets in all of recorded history. Not only the seeing of it.....must have some real special debri and not just a few shards

Yes there was that pathetic siberian "comet" exploding in midair look very like a firey rocket detonated in mid air

Comets do not exist

Same as dinasaurs....another hoax. Not a single dinosaur bone exists

Im a FE beginer. There aint too many FE heavyweights around these days

 

Funny coz I read in my Bibull they were the fallen angels from the great flood.

 

So rather than talk about the atmosphere or watch the video I posted you go off on a

 

Meteorites dont exist, they just made them up to cover up the Flerth!

 

Comets dont exist, even tho there was one clearly visible during lockdown!!

 

The Masons put it up there to make out comets exist, like they did Elons Satellites.!!!

 

Backs out of thread slowly.....

 

 

Edited by oddsnsods
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peter said:

I know that mr pecory said that, that was me being lazy and for that I apologize, the post was about the numbers used and the fact that the Fe side of the debate keep using Pythagorean Theorem to prove a point when it works on a perfect sphere which the earth is not. But you quoted my entire response so you must have realized that and to me that tells me all I need to know

You lazily quoted someone else and it just happened to come out coming from me? Seriously?

 

And the flat earthers as you call them use their (the mainstream world's) globe math. Those who already know there is no sphere would never use spherical geometry, because they already know. That is the math that nasa uses, mit... all of 'em.

 

That is simply the math that must be used when discussing where horizons must be on a sphere with any given radius. They claim sea level (that is actually curved, but we just can't see it) is exactly 3,959 miles from the center of our rock. While certainly there is minor differentiation on land, over water, this just cannot be. And that, time and time again, is what we are looking at in these examples.

 

Now, if you want to say we are not on a globe and all the perfect circles that many believe are actual photos... the ones we see from nasa are total bullshit, then we agree for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2021 at 12:41 PM, Jikwan said:

Outside the dome it could be water

What dome? I have yet to see evidence of this and legitimate flat earthers/globe denialists look at what we can prove, what we can demonstrate in this reality.

 

This is not to say that there is no barrier as we are live in a pressurized system, but the dome reference is counterproductive and used by nasa and their mouth pieces for the purpose of mocking the otherwise simple truths we see every day that prove that we do not live on a spinning-water-rock.

 

This barrier was discussed back in 2014 in an mit paper...

 

This natural, impenetrable barrier appears to be extremely rigid, keeping high-energy electrons from coming no closer than about 2.8 Earth radii — or 11,000 kilometers from the Earth’s surface....

https://news.mit.edu/2014/plasma-shield-against-harmful-radiation-1126  

 

 

Now all of the space lunacy from the article is silly, but the idea that a barrier exists is a simple truth and based in scientific law.

 

No barrier = no gas pressure

 

Gas pressure is literally defined by the force that the particles strike the walls of their container.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, cuboftruth said:

What dome? I have yet to see evidence of this and legitimate flat earthers/globe denialists look at what we can prove, what we can demonstrate in this reality.

 

This is not to say that there is no barrier as we are live in a pressurized system, but the dome reference is counterproductive and used by nasa and their mouth pieces for the purpose of mocking the otherwise simple truths we see every day that prove that we do not live on a spinning-water-rock.

 

This barrier was discussed back in 2014 in an mit paper...

 

This natural, impenetrable barrier appears to be extremely rigid, keeping high-energy electrons from coming no closer than about 2.8 Earth radii — or 11,000 kilometers from the Earth’s surface....

https://news.mit.edu/2014/plasma-shield-against-harmful-radiation-1126  

 

 

Now all of the space lunacy from the article is silly, but the idea that a barrier exists is a simple truth and based in scientific law.

 

No barrier = no gas pressure

 

Gas pressure is literally defined by the force that the particles strike the walls of their container.

 

Ive seen many ytube vids of rockets trying to penetrate the dome

They are forced to run along side to it. As they move alongside a wake is formed on the ceiling of the dome just like the wake given off by proppellor driven boats

Theres one of a private rocket with vid cameras bolted to it.

You see its going up very vertically then suddenly stops

It got stuck into the dome

I cant send links becaus my gigabite credit run out. Cant view vids

Edited by Jikwan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also you look at all of the NASA big rocket lauches......the always go up at an angle (approx 130 degrees)

They dont go up vertcal 180

They go 130 and go out of sight then plunge into the ocean somewhere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres no gas pressure at the top of our atmosphere...only gravity or whatever you wish to label it, pulls the gases towards the earth & the lighter gases extend further, even past the moon.

 

No evidence of any container aka dome..semantics.

 

 

Magnetosphere keeps radiation away.

 

You can prove this easy & cheap, watch the video posted.

 

The-atmospheric-density-and-pressure-dis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

Theres no gas pressure at the top of our atmosphere...only gravity or whatever you wish to label it, pulls the gases towards the earth & the lighter gases extend further, even past the moon.

 

No evidence of any container aka dome..semantics.

 

 

Magnetosphere keeps radiation away.

 

You can prove this easy & cheap, watch the video posted.

 

The-atmospheric-density-and-pressure-dis

Ok.   Thanks i ll watch it as soon as my monthly allowance of gigabytes is renewed

Looks like your formula might explain how it is near the ceiling of our dome

I ll send you the wake producing rocket vids soon

Prepare yourself for enlightenment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jikwan said:

Also you look at all of the NASA big rocket lauches......the always go up at an angle (approx 130 degrees)

They dont go up vertcal 180

They go 130 and go out of sight then plunge into the ocean somewhere

Well wouldn't you expect if they plunge into the ocean somewhere ,it wouldn't be hard to work out the approximate area using direction, speed and angle of attack, it surprises me that after all the launches to date that someone hasn't had the idea to out on a boat  to catch them out,it seems to me out of all the claims that the fe side of the debate make, this would be one of the easiest to prove and would give them some credibility at least. However if you continue with the we don't have to offer any proof or ignore and refuse to explain  anything the other side bring up,how can you be taken seriously, your hero Bflat aka amyG was a brilliant exponent of this till people just got bored and gave up and in my opinion you have learnt well because you are exhibiting the exact same traits   

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2021 at 2:56 PM, peter said:

You can talk about it as much as you want I'm not stopping you , after 6 days I will tell you why I think the laser experiment has a fundamental problem then I'm done , maybe you would like to give it some thought as well

Done? As in lasers, the thread or the FE subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BlueSky said:

Done? As in lasers, the thread or the FE subject?

I did it early about 5 days ago because A voice said don't bother

For what its worth this is the explanation,and as I stated I would like some counter arguments because I'm not sure I'm right but so far none have been forthcoming

 

 

I will make you and your brethren  happy this will be my last post on this subject and since you are always bringing up lasers across lakes as evidence that the earth is flat ,I will let you know why I believe there is a fundamental flaw in those experiments. First off I will assume that the basic premise of these videos is that the laser will travel in a straight line to the other side of the lake,not having watched them lets say 20 or 30 miles and since the earth is curved. at that distance, it should be impossible and therefore the earth cant be a globe with curvature so by logical deduction the earth must be flat.

Now look at the scale, a lake no matter how big,it is minuscule to the earth , we have also herd on more than one occasion that water finds it's own level as evidence the earth is flat ,and yes it does in a container ( unless we are talking about the oceans and gravity), so no matter how big a lake is it is essentially just a container for the water and therefore one would expect the level of the water to be flat ,and as such isolated from the curvature of the earth, to me these types of videos are nothing more than a  cleaver magicians slight of hand and the same could be said for your fence  logic as well.

In my estimation the only experiment of this nature that could have any validity what so ever should be held at see level with regards to the ocean, however I can still see problems with ,air pressure, wind, temperature, time of day , mirage , salt content of surrounding air, refraction, reflection, humidity etc etc 

 

 

 

This was my second post

 

Jikwan   as I said that was my last post on the matter regarding evidence ,I don't wish to debate as to weather I'm right or not, however I would be interested in seeing your  counter argument instead of a stupid sarcastic laugh reaction .

The laser across the lake experiment has always been a bit of a bug bare for me till I really thought about it .

I'm not sure if I'm right in my conclusion, that's why I would like some opposing views so I can ponder some more as to weather the laser evidence is valid or not ( at the moment I don't think it is ) ,but of course it's only my opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently watched a quite interesting documentary titled Convex Earth (a.k.a Earth: The Flat Truth). The film is a scientifically based examination of the flat-earth model and I think would appeal most likely to those with mechanically inclined minds.

 

Various experiments are shown being conducted by a Brazilian research team, comprised of a civil engineer, a geographer, a cartographer, a geologist, and other highly skilled & educated investigators.

 

These (for the most part nautical) experiments, using hi-tech equipment, took place back in 2011 and are said by the team to be repeatable if other scientists are interested in reaching the same conclusions for themselves.

 

(For an English-speaking audience, the documentary features a voice-over translator.)

 

This independent research of theirs lasted several years and involved boats, a Newtonian telescope, hi-definition cameras, radio waves, etc. We watch as one experiment is conducted in the blackness of night, at Lake Titicaca, in which laser beams were employed, with researchers located on opposite shores. In another, the result of the experiment revealed that a ship which appears to descend below the horizon line is but a mere optical illusion, in that their hi-tech camera was able to view it sailing on the flatness of the waters despite it appearing to the human eye that the boat looks to be disappearing on account of the supposed curvature of the earth.

 

This is an overly technical examination of the flat-earth model, with interview clips from both an astronomer and a physicist, as well.

 

In this, the very existence of gravity is questioned, if not disputed. Other instruments such as the plumb and the level are used to help demonstrate their convincing hypothesis.

 

This scientific coverup, it is said, has been going on, not just for 500 years, but for 2000 years.

 

The researchers also discuss the relation of satellites to their findings, as well as the implications an official disclosure would have, both in science and within society.

 

A computer-generated image of what they imagine the earth to really look like I would equate to that of one half of a baked potato, with waters encompassing the land mass/continents and a layer of ice surrounding the waters all about the edge.

 

If this fine documentary isn't enough to convert the average viewer who watches this, perhaps it is enough to plant some doubts in the minds of those who hitherto have unquestioningly accepted the ball-earth model.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Hegel Schmegel said:

I recently watched a quite interesting documentary titled Convex Earth (a.k.a Earth: The Flat Truth). The film is a scientifically based examination of the flat-earth model and I think would appeal most likely to those with mechanically inclined minds.

 

Various experiments are shown being conducted by a Brazilian research team, comprised of a civil engineer, a geographer, a cartographer, a geologist, and other highly skilled & educated investigators.

 

These (for the most part nautical) experiments, using hi-tech equipment, took place back in 2011 and are said by the team to be repeatable if other scientists are interested in reaching the same conclusions for themselves.

 

(For an English-speaking audience, the documentary features a voice-over translator.)

 

This independent research of theirs lasted several years and involved boats, a Newtonian telescope, hi-definition cameras, radio waves, etc. We watch as one experiment is conducted in the blackness of night, at Lake Titicaca, in which laser beams were employed, with researchers located on opposite shores. In another, the result of the experiment revealed that a ship which appears to descend below the horizon line is but a mere optical illusion, in that their hi-tech camera was able to view it sailing on the flatness of the waters despite it appearing to the human eye that the boat looks to be disappearing on account of the supposed curvature of the earth.

 

This is an overly technical examination of the flat-earth model, with interview clips from both an astronomer and a physicist, as well.

 

In this, the very existence of gravity is questioned, if not disputed. Other instruments such as the plumb and the level are used to help demonstrate their convincing hypothesis.

 

This scientific coverup, it is said, has been going on, not just for 500 years, but for 2000 years.

 

The researchers also discuss the relation of satellites to their findings, as well as the implications an official disclosure would have, both in science and within society.

 

A computer-generated image of what they imagine the earth to really look like I would equate to that of one half of a baked potato, with waters encompassing the land mass/continents and a layer of ice surrounding the waters all about the edge.

 

If this fine documentary isn't enough to convert the average viewer who watches this, perhaps it is enough to plant some doubts in the minds of those who hitherto have unquestioningly accepted the ball-earth model.

Where could i view this? Looks very interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earth spins because of the way it was formed. Our Solar System formed about 4.6 billion years ago when a huge cloud of gas and dust started to collapse under its own gravity. As the cloud collapsed, it started to spin. ... The Earth keeps on spinning because there are no forces acting to stop it.

 

Since gravity pulls inward from all directions equally, the amorphous clump, if massive enough, will eventually become a round planet. Inertia then keeps that planet spinning on its axis unless something occurs to disturb it. "The Earth keeps spinning because it was born spinning," Luhman said.Aug 6, 2007

 

Scientism's High Priesthood

In The Huffington Post's "Pseudophysics: The New High Priesthood," Amir Aczel writes about the prevalance of physicists who are taking speculation about the world, like the existence of a multiverse, and preaching them as gospel truth to the public: 

But let's now look at the very vocal minority of theoreticians who, without a shred of experimental evidence to support their claims, are now telling us what, in their view, nature is truly made of. They do it through articles in popular magazines and through too many YouTube videos, but mostly through recent books aimed at the average reader....

But the most irritating book of them all, and the best example of the new pseudophysics, has nothing to do with the multiverse. It is about where our single, known universe might have come from. In his 2012 book A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing, the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss informs us that the universe came out of nothing. Sheer nothing. Nada. Zip. How does he know? Every leading theoretical physicist I have posed this question to, including the American Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg and the Dutch Nobel Laureate Gerard 't Hooft, have told me definitively that we have no idea where our universe came from: We can't tell what happened before, or even at, the Big Bang. If Krauss' screed is not pseudoscience, I don't know what is. If I am going to believe him, I could just as well subscribe to the medieval "sciences" of alchemy or astrology. Krauss gives no evidence for his carelessly cobbled-together conjecture, but he makes up for it by his aggressive tone. Studying the book carefully, I found that Krauss implies that the source of his hypothesis is a research paper by the cosmologist Alex Vilenkin. At my request, Vilenkin sent me a copy of his article, and -- not surprisingly -- I found that what he says differs markedly from Krauss' conclusion. Vilenkin's universe does not at all start from "nothingness." It begins from a bubble of a preexisting piece of a very condensed kind of spacetime called a "quantum foam..."

There is absolutely nothing wrong with speculation in physics -- and the correct theories are eventually confirmed by experiment and observation. But it is definitely wrong -- misleading and dishonest -- to preach to an unsuspecting public, mostly uninitiated in science, mere hypotheses as if they were confirmed facts. This isn't science, and it isn't honest scientific reporting. Physicists should be the purveyors of facts, not dreams.

Amir Aczel certainly has a point about how physicists like Lawrence M. Krauss have preyed on the public fascination with scientific discovery by teaching them theories with little foundation as if they were gospel, but Aczel doesn't touch on one of the most disappointing elements of the new high priesthood: Their inability to talk philosophically about their subjects. In A Universe From Nothing, Krauss has  no dialogue with the philosophical treatment of nothingness and even goes as far to say that philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas couldn't have reasoned about nothing because they lack modern physics. That would be fine if he showed how they went wrong; yet, it is Krauss making the mistakes: he even assumes that a universe of nothing comes with the laws of quantum mechanics. That certainly isn't nothing. Krauss' arrogant attitudes towards philosophy are repeated across the high priesthood. Neil deGrasse Tyson, a preacher within this high priesthood, has gone as far as to say that philosophy is essentially futile

 

Ignorance of philosophy is more than an ignorance of the contributions that Plato, Kant and others have made to our understanding of the world. Ignorance of philosophy is an ignorance of the very underpinnings of what we call 'science' today. Science just didn't come out of nothing fully formed, like Athena coming out from Zeus' brow already clad in armor. Instead, it emerged as a gradual process of philosophers coming to a certain understanding of the world, which was informed by a array of different beliefs like the manifestation of divine revelation in the natural world, empiricism, and even the institutions of the university system. To really understand science, we have to understand how it came to be, and all of those factors are assumed away by the scientism's high priesthood. They would like to reject questions about metaphysics as nonsense, but they are themselves participants is an activity itself contingent upon a certain metaphysical understanding of the world. 

Scientism's high priesthood also results in the public having a warped view about what science actually is. In shows like MythBusters and on Facebook pages like "I Fucking Love Science," we see science simply showcased as a simple process of accumulating data and then getting truth at the end. That perspective blinds the public to the importance of paradigms and the importance of speculation to our understanding of the world. Rather than actually getting people to pay attention to how the sausage is made, it simply creates enthusiasm about those small slices of science which are prima facie fascinating. "Cyanide and Happiness" well lampooned this ascpect of scientism in a single cartoon:

Science
 

Overall, the high priests of scientism have not only warped the public understanding of science, but they have warped how science should fit in with the other disciplines we use to study the world. As Amir Aczel pointed out, they sell a faulty notion of science to the public in which speculative notions like the multiverse are sold as science. That is not all they do, though, and by refusing to think philosophically about their subjects, scientists like Krauss ignore that science itself is part of a larger tradition of understanding the world, and thereby warp our image of what science should be. 

 

https://rightreason.typepad.com/right_reason/2014/06/scientisms-high-priesthood.html

Edited by Jikwan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bamboozooka said:

even the hubble space telescope wouldnt pick up any evidence peter has produced.

here is the hubble space telescope

SOFIA-1.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

So this telescope is moving at what.....500mph and how the fuck can it focus on any tiny objects?

This is insane

Ive just had an image in my mind 

 

A special delivery on christmas day to the local lunatic asylum

They unwrap the package

Its a fairly high magnification telescope

As soon as its assembled one of the inmates grabs it and puts it to his eye

He is seen walking through the fields peering up into the sky  into the forest   onto the ground

Swings it this way swings it that way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2021 at 10:08 AM, Jikwan said:

Ive seen many ytube vids of rockets trying to penetrate the dome

They are forced to run along side to it. As they move alongside a wake is formed on the ceiling of the dome just like the wake given off by proppellor driven boats

Theres one of a private rocket with vid cameras bolted to it.

You see its going up very vertically then suddenly stops

It got stuck into the dome

I cant send links becaus my gigabite credit run out. Cant view vids

Well at least we know where the dome is now because there is a rocket stuck in it. I guess we can all look forward to catastrophic flooding now because according to you there is water on the other side  ,one can only hope the rocket forms a perfect seal or we're all fucked  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...