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.

 

Spectacular UFO image

page: 13
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Are you sure? You're taking one heck of a definite positon there

Or, heaven forbid...its a bird.


If you are going to question my perception of reality, thus questioning my integrity, then I would expect you to have the courtesy of providing reasons for it. This is my fourth post on this message board, meaning you could've only read three posts written by me thus far, and you are already questioning my integrity despite having absolutely no reason to! Do you immediately question the sanity and integrity of everyone that disagrees with you? To be painfully honest, I'm having a hard time not questioning your integrity.

I have debunked the bird explanation with a rather thorough examination of the image that any layman can follow and understand if one were to actually read it. The fact the surrounding atmosphere appears to glow from the light reflected off the object proves beyond any reasonable doubt this object is not a bird and is either: one, a metallic object in the sky; or two, the picture is a forgery. Since it has not been positively identified, it's an object, and appears to be flying one can only honestly conclude it is an unidentified flying object or a clever hoax of one.

If you wish to offer a rebuttal then by all means go for it. If you can identify it using sound reasoning then it will no longer be an unidentified flying object. It is truly that simple. That is assuming that your rebuttal would stand up to the scrutiny better than the glowing, fat-booty, missing-tail, broken-neck/paranoid, unidentifiable duck specie explanation.




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Well put Megaman. However, there will be 35,670 post about your last comments. IF you do not agree with the bird theory than by default that makes you an idiot, that is the verdict that has been passed upon myself. I would like for someone to explain to me how 4 links showing the same imagine can all be birds. The coincidence is way too high. I could agree that ONE link can be debunked, but 4 links, with the same object, pretty much same color, shape, glow, and form can all be categorized as flying birds. Than you guys come out making up species of birds that have yet to be identified, although your efforts are sincere and good, you have yet to prove anything yet. By dismissing 4 links with the same object in them to simple birds is plain absurd and have lack of intellect. And don't give me this b.s. about prespective and light and all this other horse crap you guys keep posting, because from my understanding no one that has posted is either a.) a bird expert and b.)a photography expert, therefore making all your claims and speculations incunclusive and ultimatly personal opinions. Anyone with a differing point of view or opinion is therefore an idiot in your eyes. 90% of you are bandwagon jumpers who had no idea what that was untill someone conviently pointed out there opinion and than the storm came. I really wish people would stop posting stupid things such as "That's a bird idiot", why don't you explain why you think and feel as though it's a bird, and for heaven's sake don't use other peoples opinions in your responses, are none of you capable of formulating your own ideas and or opinions? Or are your brains only geared for pety name calling and immature behavior? There is one thing I am SURE of, everyone (except for the few people who were respectfull with there opinions and views) that has posted a bird theory is quite incapable of having mature conversations and your brains are only capable of pety insults. The possibility is always there for little boys who sit at home reading an ATS board who feel they should prove themselves as men on an online forum, who in a million years would never fathom doing so in real life, or is it lack of a social life? any girlfriends? wives? Probably note. Please leave the personal attacks to yourself and only come at me with knowledegable conversation, if I am NOT agreeing with your statement than move on, no need to sit here and post the same comment in 15 different ways, yes I understand you think I am an idiot, no need to reinerate that 500 times, I got it the first time, if anyone here is left who wishes to continue on with a respectfull conversation, I will show you the same respect back, but if you choose to be hostile, than you will recieve the same in return.
Thank you.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by megamanXplosion
The fact the surrounding atmosphere appears to glow from the light reflected off the object proves beyond any reasonable doubt this object is not a bird...





Here is a rock ledge "glowing" in the same manner as the object in the photo. Simply an artifact of digital photography, not an indication of a tecnological object.



Let me explain: chromatic aberration is an optical defect of a lens which causes different colours or wave lengths of light to be focused at different distances from the lens. It is seen as colour fringes or halos along the edges of highly contrasted objects.

Note that the halo or "aura" is visible not just around the flying object in your picture, but also along the stone ledge and indeed on the diffuse edges of the hills in the background. They are the result of CCD physics and sensitivity, produced by image contrast on the pixels of the chip, not by the objects being photographed.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
See people, is that so hard. Eaglewingz came here, made an intresting post and was not rude or condescending, what a concept!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   


A. Head - Notice that the dark area starts narrow (neck) expands into the shape of a bird's skull, then narrows again into the bill area

B. Bill - You need to look close, but there is a lighter area that is triangular shaped, matching a bill

C. The supposedly "missing" tail

D. Feet - Orange, matching the color of a species of white goose - The bird is dark because it is a juvenile or a "blue morph" variation

E. Left wingtip

F. Neck - Craned around 180 degrees - Yes, waterfowl do look behind themselves on occasion, even with their side vision - I've seen it

I only have a problem with the bright flare from the wing/underside. But considering the angle of the sun (directly on the side), and no other clean white in the photo, some sort of flare off feathers is possible.

Now I'm done. Play nice, everyone



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by megamanXplosion

If you are going to question my perception of reality, thus questioning my integrity....This is my fourth post on this message board....and you are already questioning my integrity despite having absolutely no reason to! Do you immediately question the sanity and integrity of everyone that disagrees with you? To be painfully honest, I'm having a hard time not questioning your integrity.


Wow, I posted two sentences in response to your post and somehow I'm putting your integrity and sanity in doubt. Chill dude, the drama is out of place. The post was questioning your decisiveness.


The fact the surrounding atmosphere appears to glow from the light reflected off the object proves beyond any reasonable doubt this object is not a bird ....

Repeat the above phrase to yourself for about a week....It is so dumb, I have no strategy to rebut it. You win. Really, think about it. Reviewed the thread and discovered someone has already pointed out how digital photos cause this effect.


Since it has not been positively identified, it's an object, and appears to be flying one can only honestly conclude it is an unidentified flying object or a clever hoax of one.

You're absolutely right. Its appears to be flying and we can't positively identify the species of bird it is. Therefore, it is an unidentified flying object. And that brings me to the decisiveness part. Your analysis of the photo is very specific, yet at the end of it all, you totally cop-out with an either/or statement. So what is it??


If you wish to offer a rebuttal then by all means go for it. If you can identify it using sound reasoning then it will no longer be an unidentified flying object. It is truly that simple.

Rebuttal? How do I rebut someone who sees tinted windshields and jet intakes in blurry photos of birds? You know, some people are positive they have seen photos of bulldozers and other equipment on the moon.

There are millions of birds on this planet. ( Maybe billions, but millions seems a safe estimate.) Simply based on odds and initial perception...ITS A BIRD.

NC

[edit on 19-3-2006 by NotClever]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Eagle- with all due respect, on your diagram although very well presented, is kind of misleading to say the least. C is just put to a random spot, in reality it would be where the tail would have to be, but nothing is there, now I will argue this to the end, there i s absolutly NOTHING that C is pointing to, except a piece of the object. That's like me pointing to a tree and saying branch ~~~>> here, but nothing is there. Same thing with D, B and F, just arrows to spots where things would be but yet again nothing there but speculation.

[edit on 19-3-2006 by mrjenka]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Thanks, mrjenka, just when I think I crossed all my t's and dotted my i's.
That's even worse than my calling a crow a falcon.


Yes, I was assuming the space below the tail was eclipsed by the feet. You know what happens when you assume! My bad.

Sure, the whole thing may be speculation. But I was merely trying to point out what I see in it in more detail, in case someone couldn't see what I meant. You can believe what you want to believe.

Edit : My diagram, however, is a whole lot less speculative than the one a few posts above it






[edit on 3/19/2006 by eaglewingz]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrjenka
I would like for someone to explain to me how 4 links showing the same imagine can all be birds. The coincidence is way too high. I could agree that ONE link can be debunked, but 4 links, with the same object, pretty much same color, shape, glow, and form can all be categorized as flying birds.


In my opinion, that is not a very smart take on the situation. I will explain myself... there are millions and millions of birds in the world and there are probably millions and millions of pictures of birds or pictures with birds in them. When you look at the big picture, 4 odd looking pictures out of a million isn't that many. These just happen to be taken at a funny looking time in mid-flap. I bet there is tons of these types of pictures that people take and just laugh at it and throw it away. Also, the 4 birds do not have the same color and shape.



Than you guys come out making up species of birds that have yet to be identified, although your efforts are sincere and good, you have yet to prove anything yet. By dismissing 4 links with the same object in them to simple birds is plain absurd and have lack of intellect.


While on the other hand I could say, 4 pictures with objects that look similiar and appear to be a bird, suggests they are all birds by common sense. IMO by dismissing 4 links with the same, bird-like, object in them as UFO's is absurd.



And don't give me this b.s. about prespective and light and all this other horse crap you guys keep posting, because from my understanding no one that has posted is either a.) a bird expert and b.)a photography expert, therefore making all your claims and speculations incunclusive and ultimatly personal opinions.


That is the thing.. you do not need to be an expert to have common sense. Most regular people understand the concept of perspective and lighting so they can put this to use while making there conclusion of what the object is. Its all stuff you should have learned in school.



Anyone with a differing point of view or opinion is therefore an idiot in your eyes. 90% of you are bandwagon jumpers who had no idea what that was untill someone conviently pointed out there opinion and than the storm came.


Say there is one of those magic eye books and you can't make out what the picture is supposed to be because of how obscured or blurry it is. Then someone comes along who knows the answer and tells you. Then you know what obvious identifying marks to look for and you can see it too. Its the same concept.


Or are your brains only geared for pety name calling and immature behavior? There is one thing I am SURE of, everyone (except for the few people who were respectfull with there opinions and views) that has posted a bird theory is quite incapable of having mature conversations and your brains are only capable of pety insults.


So are you forgetting about this?



The possibility is always there for little boys who sit at home reading an ATS board who feel they should prove themselves as men on an online forum, who in a million years would never fathom doing so in real life, or is it lack of a social life? any girlfriends? wives? Probably note.


Are you seriously dumb? or just incompetant?

Notclever- Your name suites you perfecrtly.





[edit on 3/19/2006 by xxblackoctoberxx]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrjenka
Well put Megaman. However, there will be 35,670 post about your last comments. IF you do not agree with the bird theory than by default that makes you an idiot, that is the verdict that has been passed upon myself.


I do not mind people attempting to refute my claims; nor do I mind if they succeed. I simply get tired of baseless remarks and negative implications about me as a person.


I would like for someone to explain to me how 4 links showing the same imagine can all be birds.


The first image does appear to be a bird. One can easily see a long, narrow, slightly-curved beak with an eye ball beside it. Further to the right one can see a dark ring along the neck area. Stemming from the neck there appears to be an oval-shaped body (like one would expect) with two wings protruding from the sides. On the wings one can see there are joints for where the "elbow" of the wing would be found. The coloration does not indicate any kind of shine and only coloring. If the picture truly isn't of a bird then one would still find it hard to explain as anything other than a bird. The other image with a nearly, if not totally, identical objects at an identical perspective makes me suspicious that one of the images is a forgery.

The picture of the object flying over the pyramids also appears to be a bird as one can discern a beak on the left side of the object. Whether or not it is a hooded crow is debatable but I can't see anything that would indicate it was not a bird. The only possible way, as far as I can tell, to differentiate that object from being a bird is to figure out its size but the sun is directly overhead preventing measurements of the distance from the object to the pyramid and from the object to the ground.

The bronze-colored object I analyzed was the only picture I was uncertain about and thought could come to a conclusion and that is the reason I analyzed it; I am still uncertain what the object is though I highly doubt it is a duck.


I could agree that ONE link can be debunked, but 4 links, with the same object, pretty much same color, shape, glow, and form can all be categorized as flying birds.


The object I analyzed does not look like the other objects. The other objects seemed to have a bright coloration but did not glow as if reflecting light. The other objects also had apparent beaks but the object I analyzed does not (at least it is not apparent.) One can see how a bird wing could fit the characteristics of the other objects but I cannot see bird wings fitting the characteristics of the object I analyzed. I think you may want to do a side-by-side comparison of the objects.


And don't give me this b.s. about prespective and light and all this other horse crap you guys keep posting, because from my understanding no one that has posted is either a.) a bird expert and b.)a photography expert, therefore making all your claims and speculations incunclusive and ultimatly personal opinions.


Even amateur artists understand how light shines and casts shadows though. Taking the bronze object as an example since its a good one: one can easily draw lines from the edges of the shadows on the building to the point where the Sun was positioned. All lighting and shadowing is relative to the position of the Sun.

The ancient civilizations that built the pyramids and ziggurats are infamous for this knowledge because the pyramids and ziggurats are sundials. Some ziggurats took the concept further by making a total of 364 steps, with the very top being the 365th step and the shadow would circle the object like a hand on a clock. This summer I plan on taking a trip to Mexico to see some ziggurats in person for the first time and I cannot wait.

Anyways, following this same principle one can see the light hitting the bronze-colored object corroborates the light and shadows on the building and that the object is above, and possibly behind, the building. The other pictures do not indicate the Sun's position or the Sun is directly above the object (such as the one with pyramids so that a sundial shadow is not cast upon the ground) making it impossible to discern any specific details of the object. One cannot determine if they are shiny and shadowy or are simply a placebo of colors.


no need to sit here and post the same comment in 15 different ways


I agree with this specific statement. I have heard the "it's a bird" response nearly 15 times for every detailed response for why it may be a bird. Sounds more like a boycott than a debate in my opinion.


Here is a rock ledge "glowing" in the same manner as the object in the photo. Simply an artifact of digital photography, not an indication of a tecnological object.


I thought the same thing at first. I looked and it seemed like only the top half of the object had an aura around it. Upon further examination by increasing the contrast of the image I can see an aura around the bottom too. I concede that this is, indeed, an artifact from the camera. If this truly is an unidentified flying object then this may lend credibility to the authenticity of the image though so it is still nice to discern the difference. I apologize for the mistake.


D. Feet - Orange, matching the color of a species of white goose - The bird is dark because it is a juvenile or a "blue morph" variation


I certainly do not think a juvenile bird would appear as large as that object. The blue-morph variation of snow goose is, obviously, not bronze-colored. I am also suspicious of whether such a specie could extend its feet beyond its tail like you have illustrated because in nearly all of the images I checked showed the legs were either a few inches short from reaching the end of the tail or they were not tucked in at all. The color and proportions do not seem to match any variation of snow geese I could find.


E. Left wingtip


The "wingtip" appears to be behind the "tail" though. If that is a wing-tip then it is probably the right wingtip on the further side. That begs a question though: where is the wing on the left side closer to the camera? If I am mistaken and it is in front of the tail then that would be to assume a major part of the wing has a "flare," its thickness decreases quickly after the "flare" unlike most birds because the bones gradually becoming smaller in diameter and the feathers are layered less toward the tip, and the wing also seems a little short (though I did not analyze the length and that is just an initial-reaction.) Either way it doesn't seem to make sense.

Overall I can see the perspective you have on the object and it does, for the most part, seem to make sense. I can see how one could get the impression of a neck arching around, the tail, and so forth but the "flare", wing(s), and feet do not seem to fit. It seems you agree with me about the flare not fitting but not the other things so perhaps you may have missed some small details or I am not seeing what you mean.


The post was questioning your decisiveness.


Translation: "The post was questioning your ability to think and your perception of reality."



The fact the surrounding atmosphere appears to glow from the light reflected off the object proves beyond any reasonable doubt this object is not a bird ....


Repeat the above phrase to yourself for about a week....It is so dumb, I have no strategy to rebut it. You win. Really, think about it. Reviewed the thread and discovered someone has already pointed out how digital photos cause this effect.


Repeat my phrase to yourself for about a week. It is obvious I thought the aura only surrounded the top half because I thought it was from light reflecting off of it--the light would be coming from the sun and would only hit the top of the object. I would not have thought the effect was caused by light if I had seen the glow on the bottom half. It was not a dumb remark, it was simply a mistake from not being able to discern the difference between light-light-light-light-light blue from light-light-light-light blue. It was a simple, and understandable, visual error on my part and my intelligence, or lack thereof, played no part in the error that was made.


Your analysis of the photo is very specific, yet at the end of it all, you totally cop-out with an either/or statement. So what is it??


If I had an answer for that question I would have posted it. I have a limited amount of experience with photography. My experience covers the creation of images because I do web design and development but I have never been asked or cared to figure out how to determine the authenticity of a photograph. People who are more experienced in that area of photography should answer the question--which is why I threw the possibility out into the open instead of assuming or speculating it is authentic or not.


Eagle- with all due respect, on your diagram although very well presented, is kind of misleading to say the least. C is just put to a random spot, in reality it would be where the tail would have to be, but nothing is there, now I will argue this to the end, there i s absolutly NOTHING that C is pointing to, except a piece of the object. That's like me pointing to a tree and saying branch ~~~>> here, but nothing is there. Same thing with D, B and F, just arrows to spots where things would be but yet again nothing there but speculation.


C does appear to be pointing at the tail section like it should be. The perspective of an aircraft, mine, also pointed at the same section as a tail but of a different sort. I think we are both right about this specific part but differ in opinion on what composes the part.

I agree and disagree about D. The tail section does appear to have a slight underlining of a redish-orange which could go along with bird feet. I disagree it is bird feet though because the redish-orange underlining/reflection fades directly into the underlining/reflection of the tail section. This continuity of underlining/reflection leads me to believe it a single part and not two individual parts. Giving the angle of the bird explanation one would expect the feet to overlap the wings when looking upward at the bird and not blending right into the underlining/reflection of the tail. The underlining/reflection is also positioned on the object where one would expect the Sun to shine and cast an underlining/reflection. The bird feet seem a bit too coincidental.

I agree completely about B. I cannot see any beak here. There is one shadowy region coming from the flare section that comes up and connecting with the 1/3 mark from the left of the black bulge--even if this were the bottom of the beak it would start at the beginning of the head and not at the end of its face like one would expect from a snow goose whose beak begins nearly 2/3 of the way out from the head. That is assuming, of course, that the top of the beak is present but not visible through the coloration. I do not think this is a beak because the top half would likely have a small color difference from the rest of its body and produce some kind of outline. That is the location one would expect a beak but there doesn't appear to be one there.


That is the thing.. you do not need to be an expert to have common sense. Most regular people understand the concept of perspective and lighting so they can put this to use while making there conclusion of what the object is. Its all stuff you should have learned in school


I agree with you here. Lighting and perspective is a natural cognitive ability and learn how to make it mathematically precise is taught to most people by the time they get in a 7th grade art class. It does not take an expert to judge lighting and perspective.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrjenka
Or are your brains only geared for pety name calling and immature behavior? There is one thing I am SURE of, everyone (except for the few people who were respectfull with there opinions and views) that has posted a bird theory is quite incapable of having mature conversations and your brains are only capable of pety insults.


mrjenka,

Why are you getting worked up man?
It takes all types to make this world- from juvenile delinquents to adults with pre puberty levels of intellect.

You can't stop them from posting on ATS can you?
So just chill and avoid them. That'll keep your blood pressure under control too!

Bird brains, what?!!




[edit on 19-3-2006 by mikesingh]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Here, for all those that think it can't be a seagull.




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Here, for all those who think it can't be a UFO.




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   


Or are your brains only geared for pety name calling and immature behavior?

mrjenka, you need to look in the mirror for a few..........

mythatsabigprobe, the lower seagull in your pic is almost in the same position as the "ufo". Great find!


As to your second pic.....



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I can't for the life of me think why the chap would suggest that the Storm Petrel in the picture is a UFO, unless of course he is:

a) trying to bamboozle folk with his kidology codswallop?

b) is sincerely totally stupid?

c) seeking attention?

Personally, I think it is all three! Ufo my arse! It's a bloody seabird!

Regards



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Thats a good one, mythatsabigprobe!

I'm bummed that this thread is as long as it is, haven't bothered to keep up. I can't imagine what all the debate must be about, when it's so obvious as to what the picture is.
Remember, some people will defend an impossible position just for the sake of the attention of the arguement.
DFTT!



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
are mr jenka and megaman the same person? same tone to posts, same blinkered views to others opinions etc.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

I have debunked the bird explanation with a rather thorough examination of the image that any layman can follow and understand if one were to actually read it. The fact the surrounding atmosphere appears to glow from the light reflected off the object proves beyond any reasonable doubt this object is not a bird and is either: one, a metallic object in the sky; or two, the picture is a forgery. Since it has not been positively identified, it's an object, and appears to be flying one can only honestly conclude it is an unidentified flying object or a clever hoax of one.


Umm, you didn't debunk anything. You gave an extremely detailed version of an air craft straight out of your own imagination. If that is what you see, then so be it. Your opinion is to be respected as much as any but to me and countless others it's still a freaking duck or goose. Unlike the other pics, the problem with this blurred photo is that you can't prove it's an expiremental aircraft any more than I can prove it's a bird. I would be tempted to take your version of the photo to the expiremental military thread and ask the folks there if they think the object you descibe would even be capable of flight or fits the description of a believed to exist secret aircraft but I'm afraid the consensus there would be the same as it is here, it's a duck or a goose. I'm not a lawyer thus it would be difficult for me to defend a position I myself do not agree with.

As for a secret aircraft, they obviously aren't going to any extremes to keep it secret since it's apparently not very high in the sky and is over a well populated area.

Your assertion that it may be a hoax, I can agree with. I believe this person knew it was a bird just like the one that photographed the seagull knew it was a bird but decided it was odd enough to try to pass off as a UFO and make a few bucks. I may be wrong. I believe the person who took the nearly obvious pic of a seagull and tried to sell it for 30k is the same person that took the pic of the duck/goose and if that is true then that immediately places scrutiny on the duck/goose photo. Undoubtedly some of the persons on that website believed they had caught an image of something strange when they arrived home but the truth is, "my family and I were out on a picnic when I took this pic and didn't notice anything odd until we got home" tells me the reason they didn't notice anything odd at the time is because at the time it was a bird and nothing worth remembering. Most of those objects are more than large enough to be noticed in real time.

A blurred pic of a bird at an odd angle in a brilliant rising or setting sun is still far more likely than an expiremental aircraft or spacecraft but if that is your belief then it's your belief. You hardly debunked anything, like the rest of us, you just posted your opinion.

I posted that I believe the object pictured near the pyramids is most likely a crow. Either a hooded crow or (unstated) a house crow, both very similiar to each other and unquestionably to the object in the photo. Both according to the website populate the area quite heavily. Does that mean the pic is debunked? NO. Unfortunately, the only way to completely debunk the pic would be to post a clear pic of the Japanese couple feeding popcorn to the bird on the ground, but it does cast serious doubt in the mind of a reasonable person on it being anything but a crow or atleast a bird.

I personally question the integrity of the person that started this thread. I looked at numerous photos on the website that he retrieved these from. There are a few that I can't identify in any way, to me they are unidentified flying objects but this person seems to be purposely posting blurry bird pics. I think there is something more sinister going on here than an honest quest for opinions. Is there going to be a reversal of opinion on their part followed by posts ridiculing persons who believed these to be UFOs? I also question why someone would even have the absurd notion of a couple hundred of us pitching in a few bucks to buy a "UFO" pic? Call me a pessimist, but anyone I don't know that asks for money, immediately falls into the questionable character catergory. That's my opinion and not fact.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by supersaint
are mr jenka and megaman the same person? same tone to posts, same blinkered views to others opinions etc.


One's better at spelling and know bigger words. Other than that, who knows? I'm not either, however (before the suspicions spread...)



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

maybe the best ones to date.


anyone without glasses or software can see its a seagull while its wings are at its side. this wont be making it to project blue book thats for sure.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join