Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Political Manipulation / Cover-Ups / False Flags

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-01-2019, 09:44 PM   #181
skulb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Likes: 35 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
I didn't even realise, seeing your earlier posts in this thread, that you don't believe at all that astronuts actually walked on the moon...
Well, if it's impossible according to NASA...So much cheaper and safer to fake it. People will evidently believe absolutely anything "authorities" tell them anyway. So why bother trying something impossible? And btw, they could prove me wrong any time they like by going back there in a documentable fashion now. But they won't because they can't. Not alive at any rate, which is what they lied about in 1969. This is why all space flight has been unmanned. Except apparently between 1969 and 1972. Anyone who is not highly suspicious of this claim, especially given the source: the US government that lies about everything and anything every day, is an utter fool. If they didn't lie about this issue it would be as rare as seeing a unicorn.

Just give me a break with this moon stuff please. You didn't go because it's impossible. If you had gone you would have returned as a broiled chicken, and almost certainly incredibly dead. Which is why we still don't send people into space. What's the point of cooking people to no avail? There are easier ways to kill people. And cheaper ways.

Last edited by skulb; 10-01-2019 at 09:44 PM.
Likes: (1)
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2019, 10:45 PM   #182
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
Well, if it's impossible according to NASA...So much cheaper and safer to fake it. People will evidently believe absolutely anything "authorities" tell them anyway. So why bother trying something impossible? And btw, they could prove me wrong any time they like by going back there in a documentable fashion now. But they won't because they can't. Not alive at any rate, which is what they lied about in 1969. This is why all space flight has been unmanned. Except apparently between 1969 and 1972. Anyone who is not highly suspicious of this claim, especially given the source: the US government that lies about everything and anything every day, is an utter fool. If they didn't lie about this issue it would be as rare as seeing a unicorn.

Just give me a break with this moon stuff please. You didn't go because it's impossible. If you had gone you would have returned as a broiled chicken, and almost certainly incredibly dead. Which is why we still don't send people into space. What's the point of cooking people to no avail? There are easier ways to kill people. And cheaper ways.
So much fail in one post. But hey, thanks for sharing your bollocky opinion

Got any evidence I can't destroy with 5 seconds of effort
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2019, 04:28 PM   #183
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Got any evidence I can't destroy with 5 seconds of effort
No I need more than 5 seconds...

Oh yeah, you’re “proof” thread, that because NASA couldn’t possibly use special effects technology to give the impression of a lower gravity than on earth.
Because it would be much easier to have astronuts flying and landing on the moon and return them to earth than the special effects!

Every object with a low mass density appears to fall on earth with a lower gravity...
See for example some snowflakes falling (real speed, no slow motion).
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1063055222
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2019, 05:39 PM   #184
noncooperation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 635 (416 Posts)
Default

the real photos of some of the equipment they supposidly used give it away for me, i.e. that they never went to the moon.
__________________
.
Check out Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride's videos on food is your medicine and MUCH more.

There 'should be' 1000's of REAL, high quality photograph's of earth from space/moon all over the internet - WHERE ARE THEY?!
noncooperation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2019, 06:46 PM   #185
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
No I need more than 5 seconds...
To understand English it seems. The five seconds are what I need to destroy any of the pathetic claims. Duhh.

Quote:
Oh yeah, you’re “proof” thread, that because NASA couldn’t possibly use special effects technology to give the impression of a lower gravity than on earth.
This would be the thread that you are cowardly avoiding. And what the fuck? NASA now have magic technology to do speshul effex that create miles wide perfect lunar landscapes and mountains that never get nearer and perfect lunar gravity.

You can't explain any of it. Pathetic!!

Quote:
Because it would be much easier to have astronuts flying and landing on the moon and return them to earth than the special effects!
Moronic statement! The rocks/LROC/LRR/magic speshul efffex/3rd party evidence/ALSEP data and on and on.

Quote:
Every object with a low mass density appears to fall on earth with a lower gravity...
See for example some snowflakes falling (real speed, no slow motion).
That...... just there is one of THE dumbest things I think you've posted. We had your mad "theories" on rockets in space and now we get floating snowflakes.

What the fuck does light material, held up by air resistance, have to do with PROVEN lunar gravity motion involving objects that don't float like fucking snowflakes

Last edited by truegroup; 11-01-2019 at 08:38 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2019, 06:51 PM   #186
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noncooperation View Post
the real photos of some of the equipment they supposidly used give it away for me, i.e. that they never went to the moon.
What a thunderously epic fail of a post. Your proof it was faaaaaaked is that it looks like it to you

Hoax Committee:

Evil perp Boss: I don't want any foul ups. Everything must look perfect.
Evil dumbo: Ok boss. I'll make it all look crap then.
Evil perp Boss: Yeah, that's what I meant. Only really observant "clued up" people will notice

Last edited by truegroup; 11-01-2019 at 08:39 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2019, 07:49 PM   #187
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

Picture/photo quality from 1943 (digitally compressed)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Williamson.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansel_Adams


Last edited by grimstock; 11-01-2019 at 07:49 PM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2019, 08:36 PM   #188
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimstock View Post
Great post, here is another high quality picture with the same relevance as yours....

http://retrieverman.files.wordpress....in-estrous.jpg
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2019, 08:36 AM   #189
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimstock View Post
Oh sorry, I did not realise the bollocks family had been depicted in my photo.
Maybe if you took a few seconds of your busy day to explain what relevance that picture is of yours, it wouldn't seem so absurdly off topic.

The only relevance I personally can see is for confirmation that very distance mountains can appear to be very close if you removed all visual clues.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2019, 04:46 PM   #190
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

It must be easy for NASA to defend their ridiculous stories if they delete information from the internet in 5 seconds...
Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
See for example some snowflakes falling (real speed, no slow motion).
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1063055222

According to NASA, the quality of their videos on the moon is so ridiculously poor as they had to send it live and direct all the way to earth.
At first this sound like a reasonable explanation, but when you think about it, this explanation falls apart like just about any aspect of the story.

If they could have sent the video footage all the way to earth with a delay of only a few seconds, it would have been simple in comparison to tape the videos on the moon and take the tapes back to earth in the module that supposedly also took the astronauts and the rest of the “evidence” back to earth (in a much higher quality).
This becomes even more obvious when you consider that the live transmission of the video signal to earth at a distance of hundreds of thousands of miles, couldn’t even be tested. What kind of idiot would attempt something like that without even a back-up plan of tapes on the moon?!?
Only in a B science fiction movie such a plot would “work”. Or in a situation of complete censorship...


Quote:
Originally Posted by grimstock View Post
Picture/photo quality from 1943 (digitally compressed)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Williamson.jpg
Notice the quality of “Frau in mond”, not compressed, in which later top NASA executives Wernher von Braun and Hermann Oberth participated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
I was shocked to find out how “advanced” the special effects were in Lang’s science fiction movie, 40 years before the Apollo moon landings were staged. Judge for yourself…

Launch scene Frau im mond


Landing on the moon scene Frau im mond
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 12-01-2019 at 04:47 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2019, 06:09 PM   #191
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
It must be easy for NASA to defend their ridiculous stories if they delete information from the internet in 5 seconds...
Gibberish.

Quote:
According to NASA, the quality of their videos on the moon is so ridiculously poor as they had to send it live and direct all the way to earth.
At first this sound like a reasonable explanation, but when you think about it, this explanation falls apart like just about any aspect of the story.
You seem to be concentrating on Apollo 11 only and applying your own clueless spin on it. Using the term "when you think about it" doesn't work when you know jack shit about any of it.

Quote:
If they could have sent the video footage all the way to earth with a delay of only a few seconds, it would have been simple in comparison to tape the videos on the moon and take the tapes back to earth in the module that supposedly also took the astronauts and the rest of the “evidence” back to earth (in a much higher quality).
The "if I ran the zoo" fallacy. It misses the entire point of carrying a lightweight camera and low bandwidth transmission in the first place. It only concentrates on Apollo 11 for some weirdo reason. Maybe Jimbob thinks there was only one mission.

Quote:
This becomes even more obvious when you consider that the live transmission of the video signal to earth at a distance of hundreds of thousands of miles, couldn’t even be tested.
It wasn't tested? You really are so very clueless aren't you. It's like YOU don't understand the transmission of s-band radio signals, therefore nobody does. It's like you fumble and blunder across something therefore everyone does.

Apollo 8 TV....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCVZ-kwl_eY

Apollo 10....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FAYKNsnLgg

Quote:
What kind of idiot would attempt something like that without even a back-up plan of tapes on the moon?!?
What kind of clueless person thinks s-band radio doesn't work perfectly? What kind of short changed thinker doesn't get why they couldn't have simply "pretended" to take one

Quote:
Notice the quality of “Frau in mond”, not compressed, in which later top NASA executives Wernher von Braun and Hermann Oberth participated.
Spam and quite breathtakingly fail speshul effex
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2019, 06:11 PM   #192
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_S-band

Early in 1962, a small group of Lincoln Laboratory staff members was asked to provide a demonstration of the Unified Carrier concept to NASA by December 31, 1962. The demonstration was aimed at providing experimental evidence that the unified carrier concept was feasible. Since manpower was limited, it was decided to concentrate on the space-vehicle-to-earth link, the critical link in the system. The demonstration was available by December 17, 1962. The demonstration was held on January 17, 1963 for NASA (Manned Space Center and Headquarters) and North American Aviation, Inc.[3]

The demonstration of the unified carrier concept for the space vehicle-to-earth link was limited to transmitting a ranging code and wideband telemetry signal on a 47.5-mc carrier by hard wire via a noisy and attenuating medium. The telemetry signal was bi-phase modulated onto a subcarrier. The telemetry subcarrier and the ranging signal were phased-modulated onto the carrier. The receiver decomposed the waveform in a particular way. The transmitted signal was designed in Appendix 1.0 of this report. The simulated ground receiver was equipped with a bandwidth restrictive phase-locked loop which traced the received carrier. The carrier reference generated by the VCO of the carrier phased-locked loop was used to heterodyne the received signal to video. The process described above has been designated as synchronous demodulation in the report. The telemetry signal was separated from the telemetry subcarrier by a process of synchronous demodulation. One of the correlation techniques suggested by JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) was used to match the transmitted and received codes for ranging. As part of the demonstration, doppler and signal-to-noise ratios consistent with the Apollo mission were simulated. The phase-locked loops in the receiver acquired the transmitted carrier, telemetry subcarrier, and code clock components almost instantaneously for the signal-to-noise ratios predicted to exist at maximum Apollo range and for a radial space-vehicle velocity of 36,000 ft/sec. Range code correlation generally took only a few seconds.[3]

In the beginning, it was suggested that the DSIF transponder could be modified and augmented so as to be used for lunar altimetry and rendezvous ranging. However, as increased emphasis was placed on lunar landing and lunar orbital rendezvous techniques, it became apparent that specialized radar and optical equipment would be preferable for those applications. Accordingly, most of the effort at M.I.T Lincoln Laboratory was directed toward the communication and tracking link between the Apollo spacecraft and earth.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-01-2019, 04:09 PM   #193
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
It wasn't tested? You really are so very clueless aren't you. It's like YOU don't understand the transmission of s-band radio signals, therefore nobody does. It's like you fumble and blunder across something therefore everyone does.
The Spamgroup strikes again with the most worthless trash imaginable.

Surely in science fiction stories there would be no need to test the transmission over hundreds of thousands of miles from the moon to earth.
Because NASA had the best science fiction writers...

But in real life it's impossible to test such a wonderful advanced technology as there's no way that radio signals could be transmitted, tested on our globe that's simply way too small!
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-01-2019, 05:12 PM   #194
noncooperation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 635 (416 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
What a thunderously epic fail of a post. Your proof it was faaaaaaked is that it looks like it to you

Hoax Committee:

Evil perp Boss: I don't want any foul ups. Everything must look perfect.
Evil dumbo: Ok boss. I'll make it all look crap then.
Evil perp Boss: Yeah, that's what I meant. Only really observant "clued up" people will notice
Your replies are just becoming a joke now, always the same tone, always insulting, not actually covering the points mentioned - only conclusional, is, you must be clinically dilusional.
__________________
.
Check out Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride's videos on food is your medicine and MUCH more.

There 'should be' 1000's of REAL, high quality photograph's of earth from space/moon all over the internet - WHERE ARE THEY?!
noncooperation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-01-2019, 06:44 PM   #195
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
The Spamgroup strikes again with the most worthless trash imaginable.
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy you must be confusing me with somebody who gives a flying fuck about your useless opinion.

Quote:
Surely in science fiction stories there would be no need to test the transmission over hundreds of thousands of miles from the moon to earth.
Gibberish yet again. WHAT the absolute fuck are you talking about???

You falsely claimed the TV wasn't tested when it was to a considerable level both before and during missions preceding Apollo 11. You are utterly useless at research. You fumble all around the net like a blind man through a swamp and come out with some of the weirdest shite imaginable

Quote:
Because NASA had the best science fiction writers...
If you say so. Prove it you noise maker

Quote:
But in real life it's impossible to test such a wonderful advanced technology as there's no way that radio signals could be transmitted, tested on our globe that's simply way too small!
Well duh Jimmy.....bouncing them off satellites around the globe a few times works. So does sending them from the Moon on Apollo 8 and 10.

Surveyor 7(amongst others!) sent TV pictures from the Moon.

There is a clue shop .....run along and buy one

Last edited by truegroup; 13-01-2019 at 09:40 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2019, 09:16 AM   #196
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noncooperation View Post
Your replies are just becoming a joke now, always the same tone, always insulting, not actually covering the points mentioned - only conclusional, is, you must be clinically dilusional.
I find it just a little amusing that a Flat Earth nut calls me delusional and can't spell it whilst doing so.

Your comment is a total and provable lie. I respond to every single miniscule point raised on this forum - regurgitated by Apollo HB repeaters. If you are referring to my response to YOU.....

You said all you needed to do was look at the "real photos" of the equipment. What possible point is there for me to elaborate on? Your ignorance is not my problem. if you spent any degree of time looking at the development cycle and massive documentation(often footage) it would be just a little more beneficial than doing this...…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdOPBP9vuZA

Last edited by truegroup; 14-01-2019 at 09:16 AM.
Likes: (1)
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2019, 09:54 AM   #197
berten60
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,593
Likes: 578 (361 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noncooperation View Post
Your replies are just becoming a joke now, always the same tone, always insulting, not actually covering the points mentioned - only conclusional, is, you must be clinically dilusional.
You must be talking about yourself
berten60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2019, 01:40 PM   #198
skulb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Likes: 35 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
So much fail in one post. But hey, thanks for sharing your bollocky opinion

Got any evidence I can't destroy with 5 seconds of effort
The evidence is logic, which you are immune to. It would therefore be pointless to engage you. Stop the sophistry you apparently love and answer me one simple question: why did the age of manned space exploration last from 1969 to 1972 and then stop?

But you can't, because it doesn't make any sense within the authority-loving world view you espouse. It makes perfect sense in mine though, which is how you know that my world view is correct while yours is wrong. Logic, see?
Likes: (1)
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2019, 02:39 PM   #199
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
The evidence is logic, which you are immune to.
Nope to either of those.

Quote:
It would therefore be pointless to engage you.
Because I will kick your arse!

Quote:
Stop the sophistry you apparently love
Piffle used by those who don't know, to ignore those who do.

Quote:
and answer me one simple question: why did the age of manned space exploration last from 1969 to 1972 and then stop?
What should they have done and why? You are a parrot of other people's shite. Not a single original thought. The public had tired of it after the USA had landed and effectively beaten Russia in a huge political dick waving exercise.

Later missions were cancelled, funding was pulled and nobody has been prepared to fund it any more.

Quote:
But you can't
I can.

Quote:
, because it doesn't make any sense within the authority-loving world view you espouse.
It makes perfect sense that people care more about things in their daily lives than spending money that gets nothing, a view taken by American politicians to keep them in power.

I don't love authority anymore than I love donuts who think I do.

Quote:
It makes perfect sense in mine though, which is how you know that my world view is correct while yours is wrong. Logic, see?
Moronic self reinforcing circular "logic". You claim that the lack of follow up proves they didn't go in the first place without expending any effort to explain the evidence proving beyond any doubt they went. That isn't logic, that is head up the arseitis.

I wonder what parroted explanation you have for the rocks, or LROC, or 3rd party evidence (etc. etc.) or my thread showing un-fakable footage(yes, none of you lot has the balls to even attempt to explain it).

Get back to me when you have more that hot air

Last edited by truegroup; 14-01-2019 at 03:04 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2019, 02:47 PM   #200
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
So much cheaper and safer to fake it.
So why didn't they fake a few follow ups

Quote:
People will evidently believe absolutely anything "authorities" tell them anyway.
And HBs will believe any old shite without using their brains to check it out.


This sums up something so far above your comprehension it is almost invisible to you...…

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/inde...49169#msg49169

"Those who think a moon-landing hoax is plausible make a mistake that is as common as it is peculiar: They assume that attempting an actual manned moon-landing has a large possibility of failure, but that executing a hoax would somehow be automatically successful.

This makes no sense. Flying to the Moon is an engineering problem with known (or knowable) equipment requirements. You need large, multi-stage rockets, a guidance system that can navigate there & back, a vehicle that can land and take off, and life support systems to keep your crew alive. You can also send unmanned probes to measure the environment between here & there to help define your craft. All of these can be built & tested in a methodical, step-by-step process.

Everything is in the open. Nobody has to be looking over their shoulder or dealing with attacks of conscience . If they fail, the root causes can be found & fixed and they can try again. No honor is lost because everyone knows it is damn difficult. Even if the government decides it's not worth the cost to continue and pulls the plug, everyone knows it was a good try and at least we learned a lot in the effort.

On the other hand, one slip-up when perpetuating a hoax - one turncoat, one leaked document, one communications gaffe (you can't know who will be listening, or with what equipment), one special effect that's less than perfect - and you are the center of a national disgrace for all time. America's credibility is shot and very senior officials in the government will be convicted of felony fraud and go to prison for years. Don't forget that the secret has to be kept for all time: No matter when it's found out, it will still be a world-wide public-relations storm that would make Iraqi WMDs look like an absent-minded goof. It doesn't matter how old you are, you can still be put on trial.

For those who think we faked-it to show-up the Soviets, do they really think that an administration that couldn't cover-up a 3rd-rate hotel burglary could keep this secret from the KGB? Do they think that America's mortal enemy would not use this as the ultimate proof before the entire world of capitalism's perfidity and corruption?

Don't forget that, as far as we knew, the Soviets were also going to land on the Moon, whether we made it or not. They didn't cancel their program until 1976. If we faked it and they did it for real, then who has the technological upper hand?

Any way you look at it, faking it would be more risky and less likely to succeed - with more dire cost to the nation in the event of failure - than actually digging-in, doing the work and going for real."



WHY WON'T YOU EVEN READ THIS?

Last edited by truegroup; 14-01-2019 at 03:12 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:28 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.