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.

 

Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

page: 28
3
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   


You've conveniently left out that a mountain in sumerian, akkadian and babylonian texts, was interchangeable with a ziggurat.

Mountain = kur
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
Unir = Ziggurat
psd.museum.upenn.edu...

you're probably thinking of the reference to ekur which actually means institution or prison
or youre thinking of the fact that temples (i.e.ziggurats) were modelled on the holiest thing the people could think of i.e. heaven which in every ancient culture in the ancient world was situated on a mountain top
you heard me say that before I'm sure
doesn't seem to have sunk in yet though because of your agenda does it.

the great mountain is an epithet which means Holy
Sumer is also referenced as the great mountain in Enki and the world order
"Sumer, great mountain, land of heaven and earth, trailing glory, bestowing powers on the people from sunrise to sunset: your powers are superior powers, untouchable, and your heart is complex and inscrutable."
like duh
clutching at straws again Beth
could you try harder

once again you are betraying your sitchenesque roots with Edin
Its Eden
its always been Eden
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
except in akkadian where its Edinu

really starting to see the huge cracks in your assumed knowledge now arent we
go read some more sci fi books youre playing catchup




posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
this is what touregypt.net had to say
"...The Bent Pyramid, though largely intact, owes its preservation to the builder's realization of their errors soon enough to make changes to their initial building plans."
www.touregypt.net...

Yep...The Red Pyramid was Snefru's first usable "success", but his architect (Imhotep) learned a lot from the "earlier versions" as they started revealing problems with weight-shifting, foundation stability & such. The Bent Pyramid still has cedar-wood braces inside, because the weight-shifting was cracking the the walls of the inner burial chamber. Last I heard, those cedar braces are still in place...Pretty sturdy to last the past few thousand years...



Originally posted by denythestatusquo
You are missing the point I believe because if the pyramids were made by the Egyptians then our science should be able to figure out how it was done and there should be information about backing it up. But there is none of that.

Hmmm...That's assuming that the archeologists & Egyptologists have actually succeeded in finding every bit of evidence & also succeeded in correctly decyphering every piece of writing. Egyptology is an evolving discipline that is capable of changing along with new evidence, but the first thing that must be acknowledged is that not all evidence has even been uncovered yet. It's just that there's enough evidence of various kinds to point to the Fourth Dynasty as being the builders of the Giza Pyramids.
As I've said before, Egyptology is like a jigsaw puzzle with some pieces missing...Another problem is that there's no real way to even know how many pieces are missing.


Originally posted by Marduk
you can't prove things with old out of date books Cruizer

Just for point of reference, the books I mentioned as my sources were all published 1998, except for a single book published in 1997. Not exactly "hot off the press" but still relatively recent.



Originally posted by Marduk
you know what makes the world go round don't you ?
its not aliens or master builders from lost civilisations
its Money

Which is why there's still the floating rumor that "no one could build duplicates of the Pyramids, even today"...The truth is more like, "Nobody wants to pay the expense of duplicating the Pyramids today."



Originally posted by undo
the texts claim Enki is the "Great Dragon." The bible refers to Lucifer and Satan as the Great Dragon. And Lucifer is even described as "You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering" (Ezekiel 28)

Even the historical Vladislas Dracula was a member of the Order of the Dragon, a group of Holy Knights in service of the Church. "Dracula", translated, means "little dragon", because his father (known by the title, "Dracul") was also a member of the same Order. Their cloaks, tabards & standards depicted dragons, but does that mean Dracula was a lizard? Probably not. Also, it may be wise to remember that certain types of battle helms worn in ancient times look a lot like the wearer has a "pointed muzzle" on their faces...Sounds like a case of "creative liscensing" here.


Originally posted by zorgon
Its funny though that no one ever answered my question why no blueprints, preliminary sketches etc were ever found... considering they liked sribbling on walls so much...

The hieroglyphs "scribbled" everywhere were for religious purposes (enscribing rituals or prayers) or to enscribe history as the Royal families wanted them. Even though religion was their primary motivation for building the Pyramids, it doesn't mean that they're going to put the blueprints on the walls of the Pyramids. Besides, who says that the blueprints don't exist? Maybe they just haven't been found yet? Or maybe Imhotep drew up his "drafts" on papyrus & it's since aged away to nothing? Maybe, considering the purpose of the pyramids, the blueprints had to be kept secret, only accesable to Pharoah & Imhotep himself, then destroyed after Snefru's family was done building their Pyramids? Or maybe just well hidden? Do you have a time machine handy? If so, I'll go check it out.



Originally posted by Cruizer
Check out your local library.

You should be able to find some book stores too...Or even Amazon.com or Columbia House Book Club or .............. (Get the point yet?)
No one should be relying entirely on the internet for info. Any good researcher will have multiple sources available.


Originally posted by undo
Does anyone besides me think Akhenaton was worshipping saucer UFOs in the guise of the "Sun Disks"?

Well, not here anyway. For one, Egyptian artworks were pretty strictly standardized...Akhenaton was not following any kind of convention whatsoever. Because of him, the religion changed "officially", but the rest of Egypt continued to worship as they always did...Even the people who lived with him in the new capital city still kept the idols & personal shrines for their own use. Because of him, the standardized artwork changed...Most (nearly all) examples prior to & following Akhenaton depicted a more "idealized" version of Pharoah, healthy & vigorous. History shows how fast Akhenaton's religion got slapped down after he died...


Originally posted by undo
But during the "Amarna Period", it was all the rage to show off the elongated skull.

...And the "pot-belly" & the thrusting chin & the spindly legs...Which have been noted on the mummies that were found of the royal family...
When he worshipped the Aton, that was in reference to a single aspect of Ra, as the sun-god. Pharoahs had always been identifiying themselves with Ra (as well as Ma'at, Horus, Osiris, Seth & a whole slue of others), in order to solidify justification over their right to rule & to ensure their place as the top priest of the religion.
And besides that, it's getting the topic waaay off the supposed age of the Giza Pyramids anyway....Undo, if you want to talk about those other theories, it may be wise to start a new thread about it?

[edit on 11-10-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
eden [PLAIN]

(5 instances)

eden [PLAIN] (5x: ED IIIb, Old Babylonian) wr. eden "plain, steppe, open country" Akk. edinu
[1] cuneiform EDIN eden (edimx(EDIN), edin)

Hrm, cuneiform "EDIN" ...

eden is babylonian spelling.
edinu is akkadian spelling.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Even the historical Vladislas Dracula was a member of the Order of the Dragon, a group of Holy Knights in service of the Church. "Dracula", translated, means "little dragon", because his father (known by the title, "Dracul") was also a member of the same Order. Their cloaks, tabards & standards depicted dragons, but does that mean Dracula was a lizard? Probably not. Also, it may be wise to remember that certain types of battle helms worn in ancient times look a lot like the wearer has a "pointed muzzle" on their faces...Sounds like a case of "creative liscensing" here.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]


Dracula, whether he was reptilian or not, is several millenia later. He's only marginally related to the topic of ancient sumer and biblical texts, but it IS interesting.

If you, however, look at my avatar, and the other pictures I provided, those are all from ancient Sumer. Alot of the artwork you see today from that timeframe, is from Akkadia, Babylon and Assyria. Although they may depict sumerian figures, they are not sumerian. it's like saying that artifacts of the islamics from the 1700's are useful for studying the ancient egyptians. Maybe marginally, but not really.

Anyway, if anyone can produce a sculpture, a cylinder seal, a terracotta figurine, or anything from ancient Sumer, that depicts Enki (and it has to be sumer not akkadia not babylon not assyria not persia), that'd be great. That way I could verify his sumerian appearance.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
this is the correct usage of the Sumerian spelling for Eden
note the complete lack of the letter "i"


oh sorry Beth
i forgot
you're not fluent are you
roflmao



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
this is the correct usage of the Sumerian spelling for Eden
note the complete lack of the letter "i"


oh sorry Beth
i forgot
you're not fluent are you
roflmao


That's because they are showing the babylonian cuneiform for it, which is spelled "Eden", not the akkadian, which is spelled "Edinu" or just "Edin." Show me the akkadian cuneiform for it? Gotta be around here somewhere.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Found it:

Collection:British Museum, London, UK
Museum no.:BM 114394
CDLI no.
212967
Provenience:Umma
Genre:Administrative
Period:Old Akkadian

Rev.
1. [x esz2 sig4 gid2]-bi#
2. [...] nag
3. [x esz2 sig4 gid2]-bi#
4. [x gi] 2(u) nag
5. [x esz2 sig4] gid2#-bi
6. [x gi] 1(u) la2 1(asz@c) nag
1 line blank
7. |SZU+NIGIN2| 1(u) 1(disz) esz2 sig4
8. |SZU+NIGIN2| 3(gesz2) 1(u)? esz2 nag
9. esz2 ansze edin-na-ka
10. lugal-[gesz]kiri6 muszen-du3-e
11. szu ba-ti
1 line blank
12. 5(disz@c) mu 5(disz@c) iti

It's on line nine in the image below. Just skip the blank line.



Used "make a shorter link," so that link wouldn't scroll the page over.
makeashorterlink.com...

[edit on 11-10-2006 by undo]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Midnight Destroyer,

You said: Ra, as the sun-god.

My response: Aye, like Hathor, as the Eye of Ra.

To me, this sounds like they've just been equated with their building or vehicle when stated in such a fashion. Could go a long way (in addition to the constellations) in explaining why the Sphnix were depicted with human heads and vehicular bodies (things that move, either on the ground or in the sky), and are human-headed or what appears to be human-headed with the body of something with four legs and/or wings.

Ra in his disk (the Atun).
Hathor in Ra's disk or more specifically, in Ra's weaponized disk.


[edit on 11-10-2006 by undo]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   


That's because they are showing the babylonian cuneiform for it, which is spelled "Eden", not the akkadian, which is spelled "Edinu" or just "Edin." Show me the akkadian cuneiform for it? Gotta be around here somewhere

well that proves you can't read Akkadian either
it is the sumerian cuneiform that is displayed at epsd
look at the date of attestation (3000 -2000bce)
i.e. before Babylonia existed
it is also exactly the same on the tablet you posted
EPSD -
Yours -

why is it that you fail to understand that the spoken language changes while the majority of the written language remained the same
the Akkadians were Semitic
the Sumerians weren't
and neither was their language
the Sumerians used Eden
the Akkadians used Edinu
the Babylonians and the Hebrews who got it from them used Eden
Babylonian if anything represented a return to the old ways, a return to the old faith with a small change in the Head of the Pantheon
and Marduk reigned Supreme
funny how the more different things get the more they seem to remain the same isn't it Beth
hehe


[edit on 11-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I noticed the Eden glyphs in that phrase. That's why I posted it. I tried to find a matching grid for the symbol at the left most position - there wasn't one, but it is closed on the bottom, whereas the Babylonian one isn't. Do you happen to have access to a sumerian dated text that contains the Eden word and are you saying the "Christians" translated it to be Eden when it was actually mountain?

Also, perhaps "Edin" is just a dialect difference. Why would christians who supposedly translated it, deliberately spell it Edin if it was always spelled Eden?

[edit on 11-10-2006 by undo]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   


Why would christians who supposedly translated it, deliberately spell it Edin if it was always spelled Eden?

thats just it Beth
the only person I know who goes on and on about it being spelled Edin is Z.Sitchin
because hes totally clueless
Biblehebrew version
Genesis 2
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed
KJV
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

No Edin anywhere
the only reference is in an article written by Sitchin
www.sitchin.com...
look at the spelling in the link
perhaps he meant EDINburgh eh
hehe
its also a mistake made by David Rohl but Sitchin did it first

nobody mistranslated anything as Eden when they meant mountain
Edin is a noun and as such is untranslatable
so you can imagine Hebrew slaves asking their babylonian overlords to describe what Eden was because they hadn't heard of it
"its a lush place, lots of things grow there, its in the mountains"
"oooh you mean its a garden"
in sumerian texts its always placed in the mountains
on the open country that is on the lower slopes where rivers emerge formed by mountain streams
Genesis 2
"10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. "
two of those four heads are the Tigris and the Euphrates
the Babylonians knew exactly where they came from
Babylon itself was built on the Euphrates
this is still iirc the oldest mapon earth from 600bce


if you look closely you'll see the euphrates goes north from Babylon to a mountain range just north northwest of Armenia
that narrows it down doesn't it

are we there yet

Now if youre really smart you'll ask me about whats so significant about the highest mountain in the northern Caucasus
but you know
maybe not
[edit on 12-10-2006 by Marduk]

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
(we're gonna get in trouble for posting this here. wanna start a new thread on the topic? something like, is it "edin" or "eden"? then we could restate or copy and paste our discussion here, there instead and pickup from where we left off)



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
I've been studying aspects of Egypt and the pyramids since the 1950s when I began obtaining books on the subject.


Impressive


Have you posted your opinion on who when and how the pyramids were built? If so please point me to the quote to save a repeat... I skimmed the posts but did not see it and I would be interested in your take on this...

Finally someone who knows what a BOOK is....





posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Marduk,

Here's the new thread -

Sumerian Edin or Eden?
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Zorgon- The subject of the pyramids and many things Egyptian never used to be touchy subjects until the unabashed crudeness of the web. I've been interested in the mysteries of ancient Earth since I was a kid, and the Giza pyramids fall into that area. Back in the old days we obtained books for information. That doesn't mean I don't give weight to some web information but mostly I find all subjects strewn about the internet to be summaries and condensed outlines at best much of the time. A 1,000 word website summary is a freaking joke compared to William Petrie's precise measurements and well over 100,000 words on Giza alone.

The possibility that the planet has been visited by someone from afar can't be discounted but neither is it the all-in-one answer for every strange thing we find on Earth. I mostly find more questions than answers on these esoteric topics. There is no one answer and I believe all people's theories and concepts should be acknowledged with respect. There is no need amongst civilized people to argue and debate with ferocity. An exchange of ideas is called for, not childishness. Certainly errors in ages and timelines of objects and cultures have been made by the so-called experts in all fields.

The Egyptian civilization pops up into history almost fully integrated with a sophisticated culture, medicine and technology far beyond its peers and most predecessors. It rather trails off after the megalithic Giza accomplishments in relative terms. The technology of artistry continues to advance and in later era cyclopean edifices, tombs, statues and such are seemingly done with grace and beauty in mind plus sound engineering. In terms of mammoth edifices Egypt peaked strangely soon.

The engineering savvy of the Egyptian race is without doubt. While later dynasty building is plausible in its timelines of completion and engineering difficulty, the 2 largest pyramids are not. And the fact that Khafre's barely 15% smaller pyramid is allegedly the product of the very next generation after Khufu's colossal structure is all the more amazing for us to believe. The cost involved would have been enormous. I aforementioned the logistics and organizational activities that are great achievements on their own.

If we look at today’s accepted official sequence of Pharaohs we note that a mere 67 non-concurrent years in the 4th Dynasty are the span that the 3 men allegedly responsible for the Giza pyramids reigned. Khafre's reign is pegged at 24-26 years. And the supposed 23 years of Khufu's reign produced the GP. Herodotus, in his 440 B.C. writings, says Egyptians told him Khufu’s reign was 40-50 years and Khafra’s was 56 years. Of course that is pretty much rejected today but perhaps it would make things more logical in construction time. What is true?

Supposedly every 2.5 minutes one of the 2.3 million stones was moved to its final position. That's how it would have to work out if they labored 12 hours a day, 100,000 stones per year; 273 per day are about 23 per hour. Of course for some months of the year days are shorter and we would imagine working in the dark for some time each day or make up for it working longer hours during summer! We can double, triple and quadruple that for more and more reasonable times.

But if we adhere to the accepted 23 year schedule no matter HOW stones were moved they HAD to fall into final position every 2.5 minutes regardless of logistical problems of any kind. The massively larger stones took longer for sure so unless they could be placed without interfering with the "other" stones' placement the pace had to be sped up! Of course there could be vast amounts of sand fill instead of limestone and granite to "cheat." But so far no pyramid pre or post Giza has been found to have fill.

I'm left with the nagging conclusion that the Giza group was built over a longer period than 67 years. I'm am not convinced that Khufu, Khafra and Mycerinus were more than simply named in passing with terse, scribbles on the structures instead of the normally lavish tributes that every pharaoh covered the walls with bragging it up.

Today's 10,000 workers estimates could be accurate. The old 100,000 men in an area as small as the Giza work site and adjacent quarries is far too many for any type of coherent communication that would consistently produce quality results meeting daily goals. The challenges presented to a 10,000-man force are daunting enough. Most assuredly we know that even with today's mechanization the procedure of lifting a stone from ground level raising it to the concourse of position and carefully easing it down, all the while guided by spotters using radio communication, would take greater than 2.5 minutes.

Dragging a stone up an incline to its placement position, removing it from its sledge and finessing it into is final resting place is going to take more than 2.5 minutes then or now. Get 15 of your friends together, attach a rope to a wheel-less Humvee-weight stone and pull it up a 3,000-foot inclined ramp at an 8 to 1 gradient, like that of the unfinished Mortuary Temple of Mycerinus. (12 to 1 ramp remains have been found also.) You're 375 feet up. Now remove it from its sledge and "park" it with precision alongside the one the proceeding team and get out of the way of the next team.

An 8% or 12% grade requires a forward force equal to 8-12% of the weight of the object above and beyond the force it takes to overcome resistance on flat ground at the same speed. Your 5,200-lb. Humvee-weight stone become 5,616-5,824 lbs. Those 40,000-lb casing stone went from 43,200-44,800 lbs.

A friend of mine in Indiana who worked for a conglomerate of quarries had the estimator work up a 2.3 million stone order. He figured it would take all 32 locations the better part of 20 years to produce them. Yet we still acknowledge that enough 8-guys-per-stone teams produced them with copper tools. No one has calculated firm times to extract and ready them however.

And after Khufu's was finished they basically turned around saying, "let's do it all again!" And we're talking massively expensive projects here in successive generations that would ongoingly tax any nation’s monetary resources then or now.

Remnants of any type of unknown revolutionary mechanical aid device haven't been found or described in any papyrus we're left with the fact that people built these structures. I'd guesstimate 100 years as more reasonable



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
we now interrupt this thread for a random thought


the neolithic revolution began about 8,000 years ago, mostly around the tigris and euphrates, and spread to the nile

so

unless anyone can prove the pyramids are over 8,000 years old, there were more than likely people there, settled along the riverbanks


now back to the regularly scheduled thread



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

unless anyone can prove the pyramids are over 8,000 years old,


Proof smoof.... no one has proof in this room...

They are 10,000 years old
I thought everyone knew that by now...

:shk:



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
Zorgon- The subject of the pyramids and many things Egyptian never used to be touchy subjects until the unabashed crudeness of the web.


The Internet can be a good tool to a persistant researcher. A lot of Universities are putting old documents that are now in the public domain online, documents that I would never have had access to. Project Guttenburg has LOT dealing with Egypt... and Yale has a high res copy of the Voynich manuscript, each page photographed and printable and it comes with the right to sell it. [yes I know Voynich has nothing to do with Pyramids, but it is a great example]

Having said that, I think the internet is the modern "Tower of Babel". One really good help though is type -blog - thread into every serious search.





I've been interested in the mysteries of ancient Earth since I was a kid, and the Giza pyramids fall into that area.


Myself as well... but I also got into the mystical and esoteric sciences and its from these "alterante" sources that the 10,000 years ago date comes from... Seems that this date has been leaking out to the public...





Back in the old days we obtained books for information.


What do you mean "old days"?? I have lots of books, and fining all sorts of rare and out of print ones on the internet... be surprized what you can find on ebay




That doesn't mean I don't give weight to some web information but mostly I find all subjects strewn about the internet to be summaries and condensed outlines at best much of the time. A 1,000 word website summary is a freaking joke compared to William Petrie's precise measurements and well over 100,000 words on Giza alone.



Ah but there is the hitch. A website can be used to give out good info...[ignoring the bad info for now] but for people like you and me who take time to research as much as possible, most people have a short attention span... so the trick is to put as much good and interesting stuff into the 1,000 word summary that they will say "Wow... I want to learn more about that!" As to bad sites.... and I don't mean those that post way out theories... they will usually not last long anyway.... and a true researcher soon ignores them... Sure some may draw a following, like any new fad or "out there" idea, but as long as they are not serving koolaid on a trip on a comet, they are harmless. The sheeple need their entertainment too





The possibility that the planet has been visited by someone from afar can't be discounted but neither is it the all-in-one answer



LOL you are just the type we need at Pegasus... got any articles you would like posted? We have a section on the Ancients and Pyramids... can always use more data and opinions


Especially the short summary you gave in that last post...


Drop me a note if your interested...



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against legitimate internet sources. There are whole books online now.
The decent sites unfortunately have their dark reflections with sites pushing preposterous crapola. My contention is simply why our friend Whatchamacallit is so sarcastic when he doesn't even have correct information about the subject. Anyone that mocks Petrie's and Edwards' careful observations and dismisses basic dimensional data doesn't deserve serious consideration as a participant in a discussion.

There is a lot open for conjecture on the trio at Giza and I don't particularly believe there is only one valid theory behind them. There are many plausible alternatives that we should be open to.

There were no pharaohs entombed in the pyramids a Giza. Female remains were found in Menkure's pyramid. The very fact that someone scribbled the name of Khufu in an obscure place on the GP means little and the name game in Egypts and their translations and interpretations are many. Khufu was known as Cheops to the Greeks. Khufu’s Horus name was Medjedu and his full birth-name was Khnum-Khufu. Same deal for all royals- lotsa names, more confusing. I say this this illustrate the fact that there are many gaps in royal lineage and Egyptian history in all the early dynasties especially.

I may not be convinced that one or all of the pyramids at Giza are way old but I am confident enough to realize that I don't have all the answers and that anything is possible.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



The assumption by archeologists and academics is that ancient people were not practical in their belief systems but wildly exaggerated and made mythic their religious beliefs

in any event it has to be better than your personal belief that the ancients were so stupid that they couldn't put one block on top of another without the help from Alien architects


Just so that we play fair here, this poster did not give me credit for the quote above nor did I say what is ascribed to me here but I will answer his question.

The Egyptians may have been more advanced than we believe for two main reasons: one they may have been the remnants of an earlier advanced civilization and two we don't know enough about their day to day lives to truly know their accomplishments.

All the same, the step and failed pyramids were likely Egyptian attempts to build an inferior copy of the great pyramid (which was built before their culture achieved accendency), and these works show some ability but cannot hope to duplicate the great pyramid and the two lesser installations.

I still contend that we do not know how to build such a structure and we lack ability to do so today.

If it was easy for us to build structures like the great pyramid then we would be doing it on a frequent basis today for obvious advantageous reasons but we do not because we can't and even poor copies would cost too much.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join