Civilization on this Planet

>'An appeal to actual observation is possibly useful.'

Agreed.

>'The study of the explosive breakup of Comet Shoemaker-Levy when it entered Jupiter allowed some progress to be made on this kind of high-energy collision. There is no ground on Jupiter for a comet (fragment) to crash into, and yet the entry resulted in explosive results in the atmosphere. There are various plausible models of how the heating and energetics of material as a body passes through atmosphere could lead to it simply exploding under the pressures before a ground impact on earth. But - if you don't like models - at least we have the observation on Jupiter for this kind of thing. I'm afraid that your either-or situation just does not work in practice, and we have seen it to be the case.'

'Seen it to be the case'?

No really... how was your trip to Jupiter?



>'I don't know what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that we don't know anything? If so, are you proposing an alternative approach, or just preferring not to have an approach? If you could explain perhaps?'

Don't take this as too pointed... But look at the effort you seem to be going to... in a somewhat laughable attempt to make the 'conventional' preconceptions of what mainstream 'science' wants to shackle us with fit the Tunguska incident.



I hope it's not to rude of me to point out that... If you reread what your response, it is self-contradicting... and apparently, you can't seem to make up your mind about the physiology of comets (vs those frozen 'gas giants' ).

>'As for science, the only kinds of theories that get any kind of serious consideration are those that predict as yet untested results. The idea is then to concoct the experiment or search for the effect and see if it is as predicted by the theory. A correct prediction will lend strength to the theory. An incorrect one will require the theory to be changed or abandoned. What else IS proof after all?'

I'm sorry. I have enough cross-discipline exposure to tell you that this 'marketing glossy' viewpoint you're selling is totally vaporware.

For purposes of saving time... If we were to focus a very narrow perspective on just the SETI project... I could make the point without drifting too far afield.

It would demonstrate our almost total flaws...

And is a parallel line into our efforts to establish the basic premise of this thread, and the nature of the geocentric square peg solutions we seem to want to bring to a round hole question.

Originally posted by golemina
>'An appeal to actual observation is possibly useful.'

Agreed.

>'The study of the explosive breakup of Comet Shoemaker-Levy when it entered Jupiter allowed some progress to be made on this kind of high-energy collision. There is no ground on Jupiter for a comet (fragment) to crash into, and yet the entry resulted in explosive results in the atmosphere. There are various plausible models of how the heating and energetics of material as a body passes through atmosphere could lead to it simply exploding under the pressures before a ground impact on earth. But - if you don't like models - at least we have the observation on Jupiter for this kind of thing. I'm afraid that your either-or situation just does not work in practice, and we have seen it to be the case.'

'Seen it to be the case'?

No really... how was your trip to Jupiter?

Oh that's just really silly. How close do you have to get to something to be said to "see" it then? You don't believe in telescopes I suppose. Or that everyone lied about what they saw; forged pictures.

Could you perhaps interact with the discussion instead of pointing and going "nah, nah, nah" with a laugh-out-loud smiley? Perhaps you can engage discussion neurones and say why you disagree, what your own viewpoint is, how you come to that viewpoint, how you respond to the points against what you think, etc. etc.

>'I don't know what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that we don't know anything? If so, are you proposing an alternative approach, or just preferring not to have an approach? If you could explain perhaps?'

Don't take this as too pointed... But look at the effort you seem to be going to... in a somewhat laughable attempt to make the 'conventional' preconceptions of what mainstream 'science' wants to shackle us with fit the Tunguska incident.

I hope it's not to rude of me to point out that... If you reread what your response, it is self-contradicting... and apparently, you can't seem to make up your mind about the physiology of comets (vs those frozen 'gas giants'

)

.

Again, a lot of smileys and no actual interaction with the topic. You don't even bother to say why you think anything is self-contradictory, or show how it is so. I didn't post what I thought comets were. I stated that if they are made of ice then they would have one weight, if made of the heaviest naturally-occurring thing then they would weight something else. I didn't suggest they were made of helium or hydrogen. I didn't suggest they were made of hydrocarbons or hamburgers. You wanted an example of something "heavier than ice" so I told you the heaviest thing it could be, in order to show that even that would not be the several orders of magnitude heavier that you seemed to be looking for to explain your own theories about comet impacts. At least I thought that is what I was providing.

You seem to want to post a lot to this thread, but not to share your views, but just to sneer at others' views, and tell everyone else they are wrong, not venturing your own rationales, not interacting with the issues. Despite some excellent and challenging posts about the maps which I will follow, sadly I am outta this thread now, as I probably can't go on without breaking SkunkWorks rules.

A final smiley from me then as well:

Rob.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by d60944]

Originally posted by d60944
In fact the remains of ships we have are the remains of craft that would not have been large enough to undertake long transoceanic journeys. There is not enough storage space for food and water on them for a start.

i'd recommend more reading on the subject. you might start with the The Kon-Tiki Expedition

After a 101 day, 4,300 mile (7,000 km) journey across the Pacific Ocean, Kon-Tiki smashed into the reef at Raroia in the Tuamotu Islands on August 7, 1947, showing that it was possible that people before the arrival of the Europeans could have accomplished such a journey with relative ease and safety.

I am not sure I understood what you objected in my post about knowledge vs intelligence? Mathematics is not really knowledge. It is logic. The ability to work out a logic puzzle.

i made it very clear that my disagreement was not with you, but with mainstream science's inability to think outside the box. it's pretty arrogant for researchers who have no knowledge of seafaring life to insist that sailors hung in close to shore where the real danger was simply because that is where they find all the wrecks....when a sailor's common sense will tell you that the wrecks are there because that's where the danger lies.

The maps speak for themselves. They were able to map things, to varying degrees of accuracy. But I don't see whay that should be so significant. What are you trying to prove from it? ET-aided cartography?

i very clearly state what my theory is....and it doesnt involve ETs. go back to page one and read it.

I have been extremely explicit in supporting 'my views'.

That you chose to ignore them (and basically engage at what one can only speculate to be your attempt at ad hominem type remarks )... is entirely up to you.

To answer some of your questions...

>' How close do you have to get to something to be said to "see" it then?'

I don't know... maybe closer than something of the order of 350 million miles?

>'... why you think anything is self-contradictory, or show how it is so. I didn't post what I thought comets were.'

Conventional science INSISTS on jamming this comet solution down our throats for the cause of Tunguska...

My observations are more along the lines of...

- We have almost NO first hand knowledge of the composition of ALL of the comets that (we know of ) that venture into our little corner.
- Conventional science has essentially mandated the composition of comets to fit a larger frame of reference that is also essentially total speculation.
- That this TOTAL speculation is then used as a BASIS for a 'comet' that is so massive that is causes a spectacular large explosive zone... Oh no, but it entirely (and OH SO CONVIENIENTLY ) totally vaporizes... leaving no actual impact site.

What does that give you?

Well besides one of these... ( ) It gives you a textbook example of bad science, bad thinking and far worse... BAD METHODOLOGY of forcing the facts to fit the premise...

Versus what is SUPPOSED to happen... which is, of course, the opposite.

The premise NEEDS to fit the facts.

The relevance to the topic of this entire thread... Is that conventional science (and hence historians ) have saddled us with a preconceived (geocentric notion with humanity essentially at the center of the ENTIRE universe... hence the word I've coined SETIesque ) where the only real technology ever experienced on this Earth has occurred in just the last few hundred years...

AND that EVERYTHING that has occurred prior to the present was done by essentially ignorant almost savages.

Using this as a frame of reference... anything AND everything is pounded with huge sledgehammers to fit this idiotic premise.

Running through this see-all know-all mindset fabric is the notion that we have some magically capability to interpolate and extrapolate ridiculous proofs to even more absurd speculations...

And THAT is our 'science'.

This cummulative stupidity runs thru everything man touchs (and 'knows')...

I would be more than happy to go thru ANY area of human expertise (You name it... medicine, architecture, engineering, physics, history, yada yada yada ad naseum... AND the forum )

and I will share with you some of the problems humans have with basic cognizance.

Is that all golem?

Sadly... no.

>Or that everyone lied about what they saw; forged pictures.

If that wasn't bad enough... Scientists DO get into fudging of the facts... the truth... for a HUGE number of reasons.

Sometimes for very human reasons... Avoidance of 'loss of face', the competitive nature of 'schools of thought' (listen to how we talk. We think in terms of 'winning' arguments)... Not to mention institutional dogmas... And then there is the political angle.

Is there anyone here who can say with a straight face that the apex of what would be science, NASA, has not engaged in 'enhancing' photos?

It's tough not to bring some type of (preconcieved) framework when in search of the truth...



(Sorry, I just like to have fun... AND certainly NOT take myself too seriously. It's curiously liberating to be smart enough to know exactly how stupid I really am... It allows you to say things like (gulp)... I don't know. )

Originally posted by d60944



As for science, the only kinds of theories that get any kind of serious consideration are those that predict as yet untested results. The idea is then to concoct the experiment or search for the effect and see if it is as predicted by the theory. A correct prediction will lend strength to the theory. An incorrect one will require the theory to be changed or abandoned. What else IS proof after all?

Predictions? what about comets? we've had the 'snowball' model for ages, it predicted, well, dirty snowballs, turns out comets are quite hard and dark, we have comets glowing on their way out of the system (see hale bopp iirc). in other words, this particular model predicted a lot that did not come true, so it has repeatedly been 'amended' to suit new observations.

www.space.com...

if you remember Hale-Bopp, you'll have noticed that this obect flared while traversing the outer solar system. that's the same region where methane remains liquid on moons with signifcantly smaller gravity than ours, so this explanation strains credulity.

www.v-j-enterprises.com...


then we have asteriods suddenly develop tails www.newscientist.com... but none of this was ever predicted. same for the 'dynamo theory' of planetary magnetism, when has it ever predicted anything? f-ex. that Venus has none?

www.nasa.gov...

PS: a final heretic question: does the 'solar wind' consist of charged particles and if so, why does contemporary astronomy assume electrical neutrality in celestial bodies?

Originally posted by golemina
.

If that wasn't bad enough... Scientists DO get into fudging of the facts... the truth... for a HUGE number of reasons.

yes, did you know that somebody added lava fountains to Io footage and that nasa is employing arists? i wonder why...

[edit on 4-12-2006 by Long Lance]

Since my last reply did not receive much criticism, i feel inclined to adress the issue of outright fraud in science to bring a little balance into this thread

Source#1

ABSTRACT: In the routine practice of scientific research, there are many types of misrepresentation and bias which could be considered dubious. However, only a few narrowly defined behaviours are singled out and castigated as scientific fraud. A narrow definition of scientific fraud is convenient to the groups in society -- scientific elites, and powerful government and corporate interests -- that have the dominant influence on priorities in science. Several prominent Australian cases illustrate how the denunciation of fraud helps to paint the rest of scientific behaviour as blameless.

(comment: it should be noted that fraud or the mere accusation of misconduct can be used to remove and/or silence a targetted individual (like drugs in similar situations) a few well placed pieces of fake evidence and and simple slander are all that is usually needed - LL)
...

Ask most scientists about scientific fraud and they will readily tell you what it is. The most extreme cases are obvious: manufacturing data and altering experimental results. Then there is plagiarism: using someone else's text or data without acknowledgement. More difficult are the borderline cases: minor fudging of data, reporting only the good results and not citing other people's work that should be given credit. Because obvious fraud is thought to be both rare and extremely serious, the normal idea is that it warrants serious penalties.

That is the usual picture, anyway, for public consumption. Probe a bit more deeply into scientific activities, and you will find that fraud is neither clear-cut nor rare. Stories abound of the stealing of credit for ideas. They range from the PhD supervisor who published his student's work under his own name, to the top scientist who, as a referee, delayed publication of a rival's work in order to obtain full credit for it himself -- including a Nobel Prize. There are also stories of various other forms of cheating.

as a rule of thumb, if you can't prove anything, chances are you are out of luck. a good idea is to take a look at personal dependencies and power differentials err, i mean who has it and who doesn't

BBC.co.uk

In 1912, at a meeting of the Geological Society in London, Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward produced fragments of the skull of so-called Piltdown Man, allegedly discovered by workmen in gravel pits in Sussex.
...

Consensus tends to cohere around 'safe' projects, pushing just a little bit further the boundaries of already well-tried methods


Over 40 years later, Piltdown Man was shown to be a composite forgery, put together out of a medieval human skull, the 500-year-old lower jaw of an orangutan, and chimpanzee fossil teeth.

The deception went undetected for so long because it offered the experts of the day exactly what they wanted - convincing evidence that human evolution was brain-led.

(emphasis mine)

this link is about a scnadal in stem cell research, i'll leave it to you to decide who really did what... hint: most of the time, allegations aren't taken seriously in the beginning and an investigation takes considerable time...


PS: (Ab)using modern dogma, i'll have to state the provocative hypothesis that today's societies are driven, by internal selective pressure, to devlop ever better mechanisms of manipulation and deceit.

well, i think the maps have been thoroughly discussed, so let's move on to other anomalous artifacts. the following website presents alot of interesting information, and although i havent had a chance to do anything more than briefly glance over the info, it looks promising.

out of place artifacts

their viewpoint seems to be decidedly slanted towards a fundamentalist christian viewpoint, but they have some very interesting info.

Originally posted by Long Lance

...i'll have to state the provocative hypothesis that today's societies are driven, by internal selective pressure, to devlop ever better mechanisms of manipulation and deceit.

But unfortunately, too true.

more out of place artifacts:

source
BAFFLING BATTERIES OF BABYLON
In 1938, Dr. Wilhelm Kong, an Austrian archaeologist rummaging through the basement of the museum made a find that was to drastically alter all concepts of ancient science. A 6-inch-high pot of bright yellow clay dating back two millennia contained a cylinder of sheet-copper 5 inches by 1.5 inches. The edge of the copper cylinder was soldered with a 60-40 lead-tin alloy comparable to today's best solder. The bottom of the cylinder was capped with a crimped-in copper disk and sealed with bitumen or asphalt. Another insulating layer of asphalt sealed the top and also held in place an iron rod suspended into the center of the copper cylinder. The rod showed evidence of having been corroded with acid. With a background in mechanics, Dr. Konig recognized this configuration was not a chance arrangement, but that the clay pot was nothing less than an ancient electric battery.

THE STRANGE ELECTRON TUBES FROM DENDERA

In one chamber, No. 17, the topmost panel, depicts Egyptian priests operating what look like oblong tubes, performing various specific tasks. Each tube has a serpent extending its full length inside. Swedish engineer Henry Kjellson, in his book Forvunen Teknik (Disappeared Technology), noted that in the hieroglyphs these serpents are translated as seref, which means to glow, and believes it refers to some form of electrical current. In the scene, to the extreme right appears a box on top where sits an image of the Egyptian god Atum-Ra, which identifies the box as the energy source. Attached to the box is a braided cable which electromagnetics engineer Alfred D. Bielek identified as virtually an exact copy of engineering illustrations used today for representing a bundle of conducting electrical wires. The cable runs from the box the full length of the floor of the picture, and terminates at both the ends and at the bases of the tube objects. These objects each rest on a pillar called a djed, which Bielek identified as a high-voltage insulator.

FLIGHT IN ANCIENT EGYPT
In 1898 a curious winged object was discovered in the tomb of Pa-di-Imen in north Saqqara, Egypt dated to about 200 B.C. Because the birth of modern aviation was still several years away, when the strange artifact was sent to the Cairo Museum, it was catalogued and then shelved among other miscellaneous items to gather dust.

A JET FROM SOUTH AMERICA
In 1954 the government of Colombia sent part of its collection of ancient gold artifacts on a U. S. tour. Emmanuel Staubs, one of America's leading jewelers, was commissioned to cast reproductions of six of the objects. Fifteen years later one was given to biologist-zoologist Ivan T. Sanderson for analysis. After a thorough examination and consulting a number of experts, Sanderson's mind-boggling conclusion was that the object is a model of a high-speed aircraft at least a thousand years old.

WHO SHOT NEANDERTHAL MAN?
The Museum of Natural History in London displays an early Paleolithic skull, dated at 38,000 years old, and excavated in 1921 in modern Zambia. On the left side of the skull is a perfectly round hole nearly a third of an inch in diameter. Curiously, there are no radial split-lines around the hole or other marks that should have been left by a cold weapon, such as an arrow or spear. Opposite the hole, the cranium is shattered, and reconstruction of the fragments show the skull was blown from the inside out, as from a rifle shot. In fact, any slower a projectile would have produced neither the neat hole nor the shattering effect. Forensic experts who have examined the skull agree the cranial damage could not have been caused by anything but a high-speed projectile, purposely fired at the prehistoric victim, with intent to kill.

MANUFACTURED METALS MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD
For the past three decades miners at the Wonderstone Silver Mine near Ottosdal in the Western Transvaal, South Africa, have been extracting out of deep rock several strange metallic spheroids. So far at least 200 have been found. In 1979, several were closely examined by J.R. McIver, professor of geology at the University of Witwaterstand in Johannesburg, and geologist professor Andries Bisschoff of Potsshefstroom University.

[edit on 11-12-2006 by snafu7700]

I have been meaning to get into this thread; I subscribed to it quite awhile back, but have not had time to read it all the way through. I got to about the forth page today, but I have to go soon. I thought I would drop this in here, I am not sure if anyone else brought it up or not. If it has come up, then I missed it in skimming the last four pages quickly, sorry.

I think that part of what you’re running into with members such as Byrd and Essan, both of who I respect in their postings on other topics, is that they come from a more scientific slant on things. The main scientific theory on the development of the Earth is Uniformitarianism and what your talking about falls into the category of Catastrophism. Now if you have never heard of these theories, here is the problem.

Catastrophism, grants Christians a foothold on Creationism, which most of your non-Christian scientific people will fight tooth and nail, doing such things as moving your post to SkunkWorks as a theory…

In truth though they can no more prove their stance then you can, both are competing theories, and as a matter of fact Uniformitarianism HAS been proven fallacious enough that most scientists now have merged the two somewhat:

One of the key differences between catastrophism and uniformitarianism is that to function, uniformitarianism requires the assumption of vast timelines, whereas catastrophism can function with or without assumptions of long timelines.
Today most geologists combine catastrophist and uniformitarianist standpoints, taking the view that Earth's history is a slow, gradual story punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events that have affected Earth and its inhabitants.

Now if there is another misunderstanding here I believe it’s that you mentioned that ancient man being as advanced as modern man. With that thought, it is possible that could be as advanced in some areas, but they obviously never had the same type of industrial revolution that we did. As it has been pointed out, such things as plastic may never break down to their natural forms again. So if it was an advanced society, then it was one that lived more in harmony with nature, or was totally alien to us.


Since I do not have much time left to me today, I will leave saying this. Even as a Christian I have no problem with the idea that there was something here before 5000BC. Personally I believe, and can find no Biblical argument against the idea that there was something here before.I believe that the world has been destroyed at least once before by the impact of an comet/asteroid, just prior to the creation of 5000BC.

Let me leave you with a couple of bible verses to think about on this line of thought.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The word “WAS without form” can also be translated to: “BECAME without form”.

Now check this out:

Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Jer 4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
Jer 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

Hm… this is about the end of our world, yet it is strangely reminiscent of the condition of our world at its beginning.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Replenish, meaning to fill it again, as in it was already filled once before…

Anyway there are many more, and some very compelling things that I have come across in the pseudopigraphal texts about the creation, the garden, and the first few generations of the bible.

Let me ask you one more thing before I go...
Why was ancient man so obsessed with astronomy?


[edit on 12/11/2006 by defcon5]

thanks for that defcon. some very interesting info there. especially the parts in which genesis passages can be translated to infer that the world was being remade.

Source
Several historical records claim that Indian culture has been around for literally tens of thousands of years. Yet, until 1920, all the "experts" agreed that the origins of the Indian civilization should be placed within a few hundred years of Alexander the Great's expedition to the subcontinent in 327 BC. However, that was before several great cities like Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro (Mound of the Dead), Kot Diji, Kalibanga and Lothal were discovered and excavated. Lothal, a former port city now miles from the ocean, was discovered in Gujarat, western India, just in the late 20th century.20 These discoveries have forced archaeologists to push back the dates for the origin of Indian civilization by thousands of years--in line with what the Indians themselves have insisted all along.

A wonder to modern-day researchers, the cities were highly developed and advanced. The way that each city was laid out in regular blocks, with streets crossing each other at right angles and the entire city laid out in sections, gives archaeologists cause to believe that the cities were conceived as a whole before they were built--a remarkable early example of city planning. Even more remarkable is that the plumbing/sewage systems throughout the large cities were so sophisticated--superior to those found in Pakistan, India and many Asian countries today. Sewers were covered, and most homes had private toilets and running water. Furthermore, the water and sewage systems were kept well separated.

it gets much better:

Incredible as it may seem, archaeologists have found evidence in India and Pakistan, indicating that some cities were destroyed in atomic explosions. When excavations of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro reached the street level, they discovered skeletons scattered about the cities, many holding hands and sprawling in the streets as if some instant, horrible doom had taken place. People were just lying, unburied, in the streets of the city. And these skeletons are thousands of years old, even by traditional archaeological standards. What could cause such a thing? Why did the bodies not decay or get eaten by wild animals? Furthermore, there is no apparent cause of a physically violent death.

These skeletons are among the most radioactive ever found, on par with those at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At one site, Soviet scholars found a skeleton which had a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal
...
Other cities have been found in northern India that show indications of explosions of great magnitude. One such city, found between the Ganges and the mountains of Rajmahal, seems to have been subjected to intense heat. Huge masses of walls and foundations of the ancient city are fused together, literally vitrified! And since there is no indication of a volcanic eruption at Mohenjo-Daro or at the other cities, the intense heat to melt clay vessels can only be explained by an atomic blast or some other unknown weapon.28, 29, 30 The cities were wiped out entirely.

now take an unbiased look at the following map:

Firstly, Snafu, thanks for attempting to open a thread that was encouraging people to spend a little time in the 'what if' world. I started reading this with interest and found some of the suggestions quite thought provoking.

It is such a pity, as with many other threads, that it degenerated into a slapping match.

I take note in particular to Marduk, is it just me or has he re-defined the term 'obnoxious', is it really necessary to comment on someone elses topic while littering your post with how much more intelligent, well read and knowledgeable you think you are? Your general approach, to me at least, paints a considerably different picture.

I wonder what percentage of time is waisted on these forums simply trying to score points against another poster, rather than having a polite, measured discussion.



[edit on 21-12-2006 by Quackmaster]

well thank you very much QM...i just wish this thread could have continued in the "civilizations" forum where it would see more traffic. as for marduk, well, i finally had enough. so he is now the founder and sole member of "snafu's ignore list." i really hated to take that action, and i've never done it before, but his sarcasm far outways any positive information he might provide.

snafu7700,

I have not read every page of this thread....but there was a thread here on ATS a few months ago which posted a link to an article that stated that it would only take 200,000 years or so to wipe out all vestiges of any prior civilization.

So if thats the case I dont think its a giant leap to conclude there could have been many civilizations over the last millions or even billions of years that rose to or even exceeded our current one.

well if you find it, please feel free to post it (but make sure you credit whichever member originally found the article).

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

Bertrand Russell

Originally posted by snafu7700
well if you find it, please feel free to post it (but make sure you credit whichever member originally found the article).

From grover's thread: Mankind's Trace would Vanish within 200,000 years

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Streets and cultivated fields would be the next to go. Within 20 years village streets and rural roads would have vanished under a matting of weeds; fields would be overgrown within months. Urban streets would take a little longer, but even in huge man-made sprawls, such as London and Birmingham, plants would have taken over in about 50 years.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

interesting thread and an even more interesting article. and note that it was originally an article in New Scientist, which lends a little more credence to the information. good find!

If all traces of civilization would indeed vanish after 200,000 years and the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years....there could literally have been thousands of civilizations in the past.



[edit on 22-12-2006 by etshrtslr]


[edit on 22-12-2006 by etshrtslr]