It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ancient America’s Giants, Native Legends From Many Tribes

page: 8
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: Harte

Well this is the point of the discussion is it not?

I mean, we have stories of unusually tall specimens being found, legends of such beings existing and yet we lack modern investigation of mound skeletons due to many factors.

Until the hobbit skull was found stories of tiny people were just considered myths/legends.


Refresh my memory. Is Flores in Ireland?

Harte


So smug....

IRELAND: ARCHAEOLOGISTS DISCOVER REMAINS OF NEW HUMANOID SPECIES



Errrr... you do know that's a tabloid, right? And that the photo is a contestant from www.worth1000.com... right?

The original, in fact, is here: www.worth1000.com...




posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
Wrong again... Island isolation can result in small species becoming larger as well, known as insular gigantism, it is the result of decreased predation and excess resources.


You might want to recheck your definition. From several sources, "small species tend to evolve larger bodies, and large species tend to evolve smaller bodies" - and humans (you may not be aware of this) are considered a large species (the number of things bigger than us is a fraction of the number of things (from bugs and fish through rabbits and mammals) smaller than us.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wolfenz
a reply to: Byrd

WOW Enough of the Bone already ...


Well, when you talk with someone who's a biologist, you get biology.
So from me, you get biology (also paleontology because I work with dinosaurs.


Bone Density Drop in Modern Humans Linked to Less Physical Activity
www.livescience.com...

Modern Human Bone Density Drop Tied to Lifestyle Shift
Dec 29, 2014 11:45 AM ET // by Charles Choi, LiveScience
news.discovery.com...


Okay... first off:
That kind of loss of bone density leads to bones breaking more quickly in sedentary people - so a giant wouldn't be able to stand up without shattering his or her hips off.

The "cheeto birdy-bones" of birds and giant animals is structurally different than human bone (and their joints are structurally different. Birds are also much lighter than mammals due to air sacs inside their bodies (this was true of the gigantic sauropods, by the way.)



I would assume a higher Bone Density in some that large if it was remotely possible ..


The problem with this is that you need a lot more muscle to pull around a heavy high density bone. This would change your overall body shape by quite a bit. Some adjustment to the angle of motion and the way they stand would also have to take place to allow the tendons to stay attached and not tear away from the bone.


but the photo is More Like Faked and the Bone Fabricated to make a what IF ?

for that bone to work it would have a high count of Density of Strength , let alone The Person would have to have a High increase quantity amount of Muscle Fiber's, say like Strong man Dennis Rodgers shown in Stan Lee's - Super humans. just my Ignorant guess ..


Very true. The people faking the picture wanted to support a belief and weren't interested in the real mechanics.


but one thing for sure is that a Neanderthal bone has a higher & thicker bone density and a modern Human pretty much similar to a Chimp ,


Yes, but the differences are actually very slight. You probably couldn't tell just looking at the bones... you'd have to measure them. On the other hand, with bird bones you can tell instantly that they're not at all like mammal bones.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Wolfenz
a reply to: Byrd

WOW Enough of the Bone already ...


Well, when you talk with someone who's a biologist, you get biology.
So from me, you get biology (also paleontology because I work with dinosaurs.


Bone Density Drop in Modern Humans Linked to Less Physical Activity
www.livescience.com...

Modern Human Bone Density Drop Tied to Lifestyle Shift
Dec 29, 2014 11:45 AM ET // by Charles Choi, LiveScience
news.discovery.com...


Okay... first off:
That kind of loss of bone density leads to bones breaking more quickly in sedentary people - so a giant wouldn't be able to stand up without shattering his or her hips off.

The "cheeto birdy-bones" of birds and giant animals is structurally different than human bone (and their joints are structurally different. Birds are also much lighter than mammals due to air sacs inside their bodies (this was true of the gigantic sauropods, by the way.)



I would assume a higher Bone Density in some that large if it was remotely possible ..


The problem with this is that you need a lot more muscle to pull around a heavy high density bone. This would change your overall body shape by quite a bit. Some adjustment to the angle of motion and the way they stand would also have to take place to allow the tendons to stay attached and not tear away from the bone.


but the photo is More Like Faked and the Bone Fabricated to make a what IF ?

for that bone to work it would have a high count of Density of Strength , let alone The Person would have to have a High increase quantity amount of Muscle Fiber's, say like Strong man Dennis Rodgers shown in Stan Lee's - Super humans. just my Ignorant guess ..


Very true. The people faking the picture wanted to support a belief and weren't interested in the real mechanics.


but one thing for sure is that a Neanderthal bone has a higher & thicker bone density and a modern Human pretty much similar to a Chimp ,


Yes, but the differences are actually very slight. You probably couldn't tell just looking at the bones... you'd have to measure them. On the other hand, with bird bones you can tell instantly that they're not at all like mammal bones.


Thanks for the info Byrd ,

I knew just some of the small percentage , of Biology, of Dino's it all in the configuration, from the massive Bones of Large Dinos just to carry the Mass Weight, say like a Elephant or a Giraffe of Today, and Speaking of a Dino Like Bird a pterosaur the largest one known to have existed a Size of a Mythical Dragon, Quetzalcoatlus northropi
Immense Size yet its Bone are thin,

For MEGA - Fauna that existed from 20,000 to a Million years Way before the Last Ice Age Wouldn't the Earth , been a place Way Different then it is Now , with Different Formula of Air and a more Oxygen Content , let alone the the Shear a Smaller Earth ( if you Consider the expanding Earth Theory ) and a Short Time Rotation of the Earth another possibility , and a Closer Moon too , ?


What im Talking about is NOT a Humanoid Being the Size of 20 foot to 30 foot Tall,
Im talking about A Humanoid say at Least 8 to 10 foot tall , with the Right Size Matching the Body , The Size Mass of Nords ( Scandinavian /Germanic Tribes ) in the Early 1st to 10th Century is Legendary , over 6 foot and a heavy Stock Burly Build, is probably the Most Known, Through Out Europe, and the Mediterranean.. a Big possibility of what Early Native Americans had Seen. in Their Ancient Legends, but where I am from, that isnt the Case , The case is BIG Huge Hairy Ape Like Men,




Just look at the Bone Mass of a Neanderthal to a Modern day Human
files.abovetopsecret.com...


Human vs Gorilla
files.abovetopsecret.com...

anyhow

when they say that these skulls in peru were Binded
ok as most Pics that I have Seen of the Elongated Skulls
just about all have the Same thing a Slightly larger Eye Socket
and a Slight larger/wider Mandibles ( JAW ) and Large Teeth,




I had a PM Discussion with Brian Forester, about it he also said

the Skull Bone mass is thicker not thinner where it would of been Binded,
and the Ribcage is Slightly thicker and more close together..
and yet there is cases that skull are binded , in the area
more likely to copycat the ones that are not..









edit on 42015ThursdayfAmerica/Chicago12343 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

All this bone density talk with no real data is pretty much pointless.




The average adult male femur is 48 centimeters (18.9 in) in length and 2.34 cm (0.92 in) in diameter and can support up to 30 times the weight of an adult.[1] It forms part of the hip joint (at the acetabulum) and part of the knee joint, which is located above.


Source:

That's 4,989 lbs...

When you say... " a giant wouldn't be able to stand up without shattering his or her hips off." I'm wondering where you get that data from.




A cubic inch of bone can in principle bear a load of 19,000 lbs. (8,626 kg) or more — roughly the weight of five standard pickup trucks — making it about four times as strong as concrete. Still, whether or not bone actually withstands such loads depends heavily on how quickly force is delivered.Feb 3, 2010



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
a reply to: Byrd

All this bone density talk with no real data is pretty much pointless.
[snip]

That's 4,989 lbs...

When you say... " a giant wouldn't be able to stand up without shattering his or her hips off." I'm wondering where you get that data from.


From medical science. As a graduate student, I taught human physiology and anatomy labs.

Thinning of the bones is called "osteoporosis'. Bone thinning without change in bone structure leads to fractures of the vertebra and a 350% (not kidding) increase in the number of hip fractures. www.iofbonehealth.org...

The bone basically shears off at the neck of the tibia.

There's a difference in how much stress a bone can stand when compressed top to bottom as when compressed from the side. Human bones have to take all kinds of stressors. The femur neck on birds is much shorter than in humans.
edit on 10-12-2015 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wolfenz
I knew just some of the small percentage , of Biology, of Dino's it all in the configuration, from the massive Bones of Large Dinos just to carry the Mass Weight, say like a Elephant or a Giraffe of Today, and Speaking of a Dino Like Bird a pterosaur the largest one known to have existed a Size of a Mythical Dragon, Quetzalcoatlus northropi
Immense Size yet its Bone are thin,


Quetzalcoatalus is a Texas critter... I'm famiilar with those.


The bones are very different in all the animals you're talking about. Elephant bone is structurally a bit different from giraffes and both are different from humans. You might think they are all the same when you look at drawings or skeletons, but they really are quite different and adapted for the height and weight of the living creature.


For MEGA - Fauna that existed from 20,000 to a Million years Way before the Last Ice Age Wouldn't the Earth , been a place Way Different then it is Now , with Different Formula of Air and a more Oxygen Content ,


Heh. I don't think you have the same idea of time as I do. Dinosaurs last lived about 65 million years ago, and the Earth is 5 billion years old. A million years ago is just about the time that homo sapiens evolved from other species. Today's earth is not THAT much different. Overall patterns have changed, but you could find places on Earth right now that are the same as environments a million years ago.


let alone the the Shear a Smaller Earth ( if you Consider the expanding Earth Theory )

Can I be unkind and say this is the Stupidest Theory Ever Put Out By An Artist? Get a geologic map of your area and look at the layers of rocks. Notice how the "expanding earth gobbledygook" can't explain the rock layers you can see with your own eyes (and why there's actually fish fossils in the middle of Texas.)


and a Short Time Rotation of the Earth another possibility , and a Closer Moon too , ?

Your understanding of time is probably tripping you up here. The Earth's rotation is always slowing down thanks to the Moon and the Moon is always moving away.

There's a nice subreddit from two years ago on this (sort of) Since the Earth was spinning faster, there were more days in a year (but it was the same distance from the sun as it is today) (reference here)

So over 3-4 billion years, the Earth added two hours to its day (this is at the rate of a few seconds per year). The moon is moving away from the Earth at around one inch per year. So it moves about a mile further from us every 63,000 years or so.


Im talking about A Humanoid say at Least 8 to 10 foot tall ,

Humans that big tend to die early from a lot of things. In the days before decent medical care, they died a lot faster than teeny runts like myself.


The Size Mass of Nords ( Scandinavian /Germanic Tribes ) in the Early 1st to 10th Century is Legendary

Legendary/mythic/folk-tale/urban legend is correct. The average Viking was the same size as my son: 5feet 7 inches


Just look at the Bone Mass of a Neanderthal to a Modern day Human
files.abovetopsecret.com...


Human vs Gorilla
files.abovetopsecret.com...


Indeed. Now -- look at them closely. They're presented without telling you how tall these skeletons are. The average Neanderthal is about 5 feet 5 inches. That's about the height of the average gorilla as well. The thickness and curvature of the bones and the extra ridges and bumps support different kinds of muscles and give strength and power in ways different from wimpy ol' homo sapiens.

Not sure what bound skulls have to do with the discussion, but the practice continues through today in some areas.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


1) I like what you have Said about the Quetzalcoatalus


just imagine one of those flying around in the Dark Ages of Europe and Asia..


Right the Bones are Different from a Elephant ,
Giraffe or a Large extinct Peterosuar
i was just thinking the mass size and Weight
that their Bones would had to Hold Up, wasn't attempting
to compare them sorry didn't explain much in that Specific part.

2) well.. I Agree that is a Big Change ,
I would tend to think that the earth was more rich in Oxygen
20,000 years ago , The reason i think it is because of the
MEGA - Fauna Decrease , let me Explain ,
I seen a Video long ago, where a few Scientist Did a experiment
in a Lab with Fish , What they Created was a Environment
Habitat Tank to simulate what they thought what a Ancient period of
20,000 yrs or give or take a few million of years ago would of been like
( Atmosphere, Pressure,chemical levels in the Air ,)
They Used Modern Common Freshwater Fish ( Bass , Perch,bull head ?)
Sorry not sure what type, anyhow the Experiment showed the results
was a 30 percent increase in size, all from what was pumped into
the Habitat Tank, this stuck in my head,
I wish I knew what the Documentary/Program was Called,

3) well , I thought the expanding earth theory was a Stupid Idea too a lot
of Conjecture & Holes in the theory , and it not plausible in the common
sense Eye and Fish Fossil in Texas, Many repeated Ice Age Glaciers with a
Slow melt, Seeing Period In New York Glaciers were close to a Mile High
and all along the left over Erosion of Wyoming ( Devils Tower ) Arizona ,
Nevada and Texas , is my Lucky Guess, Also you have Dogland AKA
The English Channel that was Dry land 20,00 to 40,000 years ago..
now submerged.with Depths of 200 to 600 feet.

4) Right The moon is moving away , and How close was it say
20 to 40 thousand years ago ? or say 1 to 4 million years ago ,
would the moon cause a effect on Earth , as it still does now
( you known causing tidal waves among other things )
and gravitational Pull , Pressure etc.. in physics would the
Earth rotate faster , but the question is would the gravity in
crease or decrease

5) Im talking if there were any Giants on the Average Size on
Earth the would be no Higher then 10 feet at the extreme ,
right they did die faster and earlier, Lack of Knowledge of medicine? ,,
there was a time when the ancients had Remedy's Cures for healing
and most were died off because they were considered heretic heathens
and witches, also 20 to 40 thousand years ago there were Religious Cults ,
I think it been a proven evidence of that , the famed Venus mother earth Sculptures

6) well the Nordics aka Norse are NOW are the Tallest white Race ,
according to ABC News , I could say just that The Nords are more built
Barrel Chested Stocky more less can withstand the Cold better ,
and the Study of that was proven ,

7) well i was going on by Lloyd Pye's Discussion of Bone Structure,and density .
of a Neanderthal and a Hominid with its hunter gatherer Strength,
and the Weight of its Muscle mass to its Bones , I talked to Lloyd Pye ..
well Texting in Email i should say. and also Giantiusm and
of Course Bigfoot.. and no not the Star child LOL, as how the
discussion started, was with the well known Julia Pastrana , of her
Genetic deformity that resembles a Hominid, and the possible
reason for it , Julia had Missing and Doubling certain genes in her DNA ,
Mr Pye got real interested in it and he said he would get back to me
in what he could find ,, unfortunately ...
he died and never wrote back to me ,
in the Lines of what Julia Pastrana deformity may have been caused

by Atavism activation

( turning the Old Dormant gene on
or the Gene that went ( missing ) that was preventing that Old Gene from turning on
as I said Lloyd Pye was highly interested of what i have said,

who knows of what those Bone and elongated skulls in Paracas Peru...
would show ? a differnt type of Human ?
and what is the Scietific Avreage height those bones would of been ??

just trying to find a explanation of a Possible Giant
that could of been at least 9 feet tall without genetic defects
, organs all in the Norm of it advreage height .. normal pituritary gland etc..

We one thing you would have to admitt is all races of humans on this planet
called earth are are incressing Height ,, of Today ...



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

oh joy - another cherry picking of native american tribal ledgends

or do you believe that maize came from lice picked off ` the corn woman ` too ?



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Yes...

Something like that.

Just wanted to thank everyone for participating both pro and con
As always

Stay tuned



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
This is the bit that has me riled up:



“They excelled every other nation which was flourished, either before or since, in all manner of cunning handicraft—were brave and warlike—ruling over the land they had wrested from its ancient possessors with a high and haughty hand. Compared with them the palefaces of the present day were pygmies, in both art and arms. …”

Link


It was snipped from this, which was written by one Donald Yates:



A story was told by the Comanches in 1857:

Innumerable moons ago, a race of white men, ten feet high, and far more rich and powerful than any white people now living, here inhabited a large range of country, extending from the rising to the setting sun. Their fortifications crowned the summits of the mountains, protecting their populous cities situated in the intervening valleys.

They excelled every other nation which was flourished, either before or since, in all manner of cunning handicraft—were brave and warlike—ruling over the land they had wrested from its ancient possessors with a high and haughty hand. Compared with them the palefaces of the present day were pygmies, in both art and arms.

They drove the Indians from their homes, putting them to the sword, and occupying the valleys in which their fathers had dwelt before them since the world began. At length, in the height of their power and glory, when they remembered justice and mercy no more and became proud and lifted up, the Great Spirit descended from above, sweeping them with fire and deluge from the face of the earth.

The mounds we [i.e. the speaker Chief Rolling Thunder and his Spanish listener] had seen on the tablelands were the remnants of their fortresses, and the crumbling ruins that surrounded us all that remained of a mighty city.

Link


It's silliness is on a par with the story of "Alexander's Flying Shields", and when I have the time I am going to dismantle it. The reason I've been putting it off is because I already know the trouble I'm in for when it comes to trying to track down this "Spanish listener".



P.S. Just for starters? The only reference to a "Chief Rolling Thunder" comes from a tall "tale of the Old West" spun by illiterate "Texas Ranger" Nelson Lee who claimed to have been captured by the Comanches.

There isn't even any proof that Lee was a Texas Ranger at all.

This is likely lower hanging fruit than I at first thought it to be. I am pretty sure that I could snuff the story and anything developed from it in a lazy-weekend.

Oh dear.



P.S.S. Wow, this is coming along quicker than I thought. I am reasonably confident that Donald Yates confabulated the entire thing from Nelson Lee's Three Years Among the Comanches: The Narrative of Nelson Lee, the Texas Ranger which includes a bit where "Chief Rolling Thunder" shows Nelson a city that was "destroyed by a volcano".

I'm pretty sure that wraps it up right there, and it was, in fact, lower hanging fruit than the Alexander bull#.

This will require a thread for sure.


edit on 11-12-2015 by Bybyots because: . : .



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Bybyots
I'm gonna have to disagree with you that this tale is a lower hanging fruit than the Alexander story.

See, the Alexander shields story appears in NO classical literature at all. The source of the story is utterly unknown.

That fruit is already on the ground it's so low.

Harte



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Yeah, you're right, it will be a little more difficult. I tend to come at these things from odd angles and backwards.

It looks like D. Yates lifted the thing entirely from Horatio Bardwell Cushman's “History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Natchez Indians” (1899).

So the key is going to be Cushman and the best I will be able to do is suggest that it is bull#, but I think I can make a very strong case for it being bull#, and whoknows, I might get lucky.



Hey, check it out: Three Years Among the Comanches: The Narrative of Nelson Lee was published in 1859. Cushman published 40 years later.

This is already looking very bad for Cushman.





A story was told by the Comanches in 1857:

-Cushman


Wow. It's already very clear to me what is going on here with Cushman; he took Nelson's popular tale as the truth and he ran with it as "history", he even took out the part about the volcano. If I can prove this to be true, this story is dead meat.

What do you think?



edit on 11-12-2015 by Bybyots because: Hoo Boy!



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: Harte

Yeah, you're right, it will be a little more difficult. I tend to come at these things from odd angles and backwards.

It looks like D. Yates lifted the thing entirely from Horatio Bardwell Cushman's “History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Natchez Indians” (1899).

So the key is going to be Cushman and the best I will be able to do is suggest that it is bull#, but I think I can make a very strong case for it being bull#, and whoknows, I might get lucky.



Hey, check it out: Three Years Among the Comanches: The Narrative of Nelson Lee was published in 1859. Cushman published 40 years later.

This is already looking very bad for Cushman.





A story was told by the Comanches in 1857:

-Cushman


Wow. It's already very clear to me what is going on here with Cushman; he took Nelson's popular tale as the truth and he ran with it as "history", he even took out the part about the volcano. If I can prove this to be true, this story is dead meat.

What do you think?



Difficult to prove, but why bother?

You've cast enough doubt - far more than any provenance the story itself provides.

Harte



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
as seeing theres are some talks about legends, of Native Americans about giants

Of Native American legends Goes from My Area

Giants (Big Foot ? / or a Norse with Armor ? )
Stonecoat (Atenenyarhu, in Mohawk): Mythological giant of the Iroquois tribes, with skin as hard as stone.

Little people ( like Europes Little People )

Stone Throwers (Yakonenyoya'ks, in Mohawk): Little people of Iroquoian folklore. They are dwarf-like nature spirits about 2 feet tall.

(ZARDOZ ) LOL
Flying Head (Kanontsistóntie's, in Mohawk): Monster in the form of a giant disembodied head, usually created during a particularly violent murder.


Monster Bear: A giant, hairless bear monster. Some people associate them with mammoths.

( Like Champ lake Champlain monster )
Onyare: A dragon-like horned serpent of the Great Lakes, feared for its habit of capsizing canoes and eating people.


(Source)
Lesson: Mohawk Culture Through Legends
canadiansfirst.weebly.com...



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Bybyots
I'm gonna have to disagree with you that this tale is a lower hanging fruit than the Alexander story.

See, the Alexander shields story appears in NO classical literature at all. The source of the story is utterly unknown.

That fruit is already on the ground it's so low.

Harte



David Hatcher Childress stole it from Frank Edwards’s Stranger than Science. He popularised it in "Technology of the Gods"
It was completely made up.

edit on 11-12-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Bybyots
I'm gonna have to disagree with you that this tale is a lower hanging fruit than the Alexander story.

See, the Alexander shields story appears in NO classical literature at all. The source of the story is utterly unknown.

That fruit is already on the ground it's so low.

Harte




David Hatcher Childress stole it from Frank Edwards’s Stranger than Science. He popularised it in "Technology of the Gods"
It was completely made up.

Edwards made it up, you mean?


Harte



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

Edwards made it up, you mean?


Harte


Yes
Stranger Than Science has more in common with Ripleys, than it does actual history

edit on 11-12-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Harte

Edwards made it up, you mean?


Harte


Yes
Stranger Than Science has more in common with Ripleys, than it does actual history


Nah, a guy named Alberto Fenoglio made it up.

Edwards swiped it whole-hog from Fenoglio.

You can read the whole breakdown by clicking the link in my signature space.


edit on 12-12-2015 by Bybyots because: .



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte



Difficult to prove, but why bother?

You've cast enough doubt - far more than any provenance the story itself provides.


Well, thanks, n'all, but, gosh, I don't know what to say; I'll just go with, "because it's there".

I have, in fact already smashed it to death. It's just a matter of writing it up and formatting the thread.

Respectfully, Harte, it was not difficult. If I had had to put in the time that Deliyannis did gutting the Alexander story it would have been considerably more than the 45-or-so minutes that it took to behead this Cushman thing.


edit on 12-12-2015 by Bybyots because: . : .




top topics



 
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join