It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


History Channel's MonsterQuest - Escamillia tonight.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 06:15 PM
Just for the record folks. Gauncents and Mr. Escamilla did settle their differences and Gauncents asked the owners to re-instate Mr. Escamilla, but the three Amigos refused to. My props to Gauncents and Mr. Escamilla for being men about it and apologizing to each other for their wrongs here. As far as the three amigos. They are certainly not amigos of Mr. Escamilla's. He has the whole story coming to his his Rods forum. Pulling no punches as he always does minus the rifts between him and Gauncents. RG

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 11:10 PM

Originally posted by rggeorge
but the three Amigos refused to.

We would never reinstate the member status of someone who used our U2U private messaging system to make offline threats of personal violence... regardless of any apologies that have occurred after the fact.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:54 AM

Originally posted by Johnbro
I have never stated that 'Rods' were not real. I wish they weren't - but I have seen them with my un-aided eye. To me, personally... this ensures ( only ) me- that what I saw was not CCD artifacts - stretched 'fields' - or internal lens refractions/reflections. The following is a pic that I took myself - and is absolutely representative. One would have to take into account - the sharpness of the object... the lighting... and shading. It is exactly what I saw with my eyes.

If folks don't want to believe the legitimacy of the image - it is their choice - and has little impact on me...


I don't have any problem with the "legitimacy" of that image, Johnbro, nor do I doubt that "rods" are "real." I'm just wondering if you notice any similarity between your photo and Dennis White's bee photos (two links on that page), and precisely how you determined that yours is not an insect.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:15 AM
I sort of feel sad for Mr. Escamillia. No, not cause he was banned here, but because he has worked so hard for so many years promoting the supposedly mysterious rods that he somehow supposedly is the lead man to get credit for the discovery only to find out what all the debunkers thought was really true.

Either Mr. Escamilla is lying through his teeth to continue his celebrity & making money (if he's making much) or he's hopelessly lost in his delusion that he can't come to grips with the reality and all the effort he's invested in his failed flop.

All Mr. Escamilla has to do is take a regular camera side by side with a 1000fps camera and spend some time at his magic locations where his magical mysterious rods occur and hit record.

Then once he sees all his rods on the standard camera are well known & explainable insects and birds on the 1000fps camera he will be stuck with the reality of his past delusions.

The History channel people gave him lots of kudo's and credit along with all the benefit of doubt by producing the project. In the end all they had to do is use better equipment for studying the phenomena and bam, suddenly there is nothing special except the fact the flying objects create unusual artifacts on videos & film if they are operating at the normal 30fps.

I can't believe this has gone on for this long and I thank the History Channel for finally putting this matter to rest.

Anyone including Mr Escamillia who wishes to challange those findings only needs to take a 1000fps camera and come up with more rods. Until someone does that the so called Rods are nothing but already known insects.

Are there any unknown insects flying around that haven't been classified yet? Well maybe, but I bet nobody who captures one on film, video or in a net will ever call them a rod nor will any of them probably move between dimensions as told by rods advocates. While there very well may be inter dimensional things around I don't see us capturing or identifying them yet. And if/when we do identify any inter dimensional creatures we will see that what were called "Rod's" now have nothing in common with inter dimensional stuff.

Again for the last time ROD's are nothing but insects that move across the camera with multiple wing beats or horizontal movements while in one frame which creates the illusion of an unknown elongated multi-wing blurry creature. As normal cameras may capture things we miss with the naked eye they also distort images of objects that move through several locations while still in one image capture frame sometimes due to their proximity to the lens & sometimes because their just damn fast and the shutter speed is too slow.

The rest of you who want to attack Mr. E for using your or someone else's footage to promote the delusion of "rods" all I can say is who cares? Your or whoever's footage is as much crap as his stuff is, at least as far as there being anything outlandish as "rod's" on the video/film or what ever the medium is.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by verylowfrequency]

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:10 AM

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
All Mr. Escamilla has to do is take a regular camera side by side with a 1000fps camera and spend some time at his magic locations where his magical mysterious rods occur and hit record.

... In the end all they had to do is use better equipment for studying the phenomena and bam, suddenly there is nothing special except the fact the flying objects create unusual artifacts on videos & film if they are operating at the normal 30fps.

Actually, Escamilla doesn't even have the excuse of not having sufficient equipment (although he was trying to use that excuse back in 2000 when he was soliciting contributions for his "rods research team"). In fact the frames per second don't really matter, so he didn't need a "high-speed" camera. (I know the Monster Quest show made a "deal" about that, but really that show was pretty lame, technically.) The only thing that matters is the shutter speed (or more technically correct for CCD cameras, the exposure time), because motion blur is simply the distance traveled during the exposure time. All Escamilla needed was two standard 30 fps cameras that allowed the auto-exposure to be overridden by a manual setting, and to set one to 1/60 sec (the longest exposure available for NTSC cameras), and one to anything better than 1/500 sec or so. Even before 2000, good consumer cameras had that functionality, and as he posted on this forum, he had one camera back then that could be manually set to 1/2000 sec -- more than fast enough to make a bug identifiable.

So the only thing Escamilla seems to have lacked was any real motivation to investigate "rods" honestly. Even if he had only the one camera, all he had to do was to experiment a little to find that when he shot bugs at 1/60 sec, he got identical results to all the "rods" videos that were cropping up, but when he shot at 1/2000 sec, he couldn't find any "rods" at all. But either he simply didn't do that, or he was less than forthright about his results.

And at the same time, he was trying very hard to ignore that I had found a pattern in the sequential field images that proved that all of the "rods" he already had on his site were just motion blurs: His reaction to my study was to shut down the forum he had on his site, where I was posting my results, and then instead of following through on his claim that he was going to "soon" post evidence that proved me wrong, he started removing all of the evidence that showed the pattern I had discovered.

Even if Escamilla didn't have the inclination to publicly admit that he was mistaken about "rods" being something mysterious (and I wouldn't really be too hard on him for that), he had the option of quietly backing off the whole thing and letting it just fade away. But he didn't do that, either. So no, I don't feel sorry for him at all.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by .Sol.]

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 04:16 AM
reply to post by .Sol.

Well thank you for making both the past results of your contact with Mr. Escamillia and his subject known to us.

Not being a camera buff I failed to separate higher rate FPS capability cameras with just altering the shutter speed of the cameras being used . I had thought you needed a more data thus more fps in order to capture that detail. But instead you can remove the motion blur of the object by using a quicker shutter speed in order that we can identify the object. Even better clarity.

I always wondered what all those manual camera settings did, that I never bothered to learn. Thanks for the lesson.

Regardless I think it's now clear even to those of us who are camera illiterate to understand what's going on here.

Although I was amazed the first time I heard about Rods and went to his link through coast to coast. The next time the subject came up I was easily convinced that they were insects by taking a more careful look - maybe it was even you who convinced me back then - as it's been awhile & I don't remember the details.

I can understand Mr. Escamillia's embarrassment of his blunder as he dug pretty deep and even I can remember telling someone at work about rods before I realized that they were just insects - for that I'm embarrassed myself. I will withhold my judgment of Mr. E's character until after I see an updated response by him by whatever means. I can imagine he feels pretty stupid unless it was a ruse all along.

This should go down as how someone can wrongly alter our perceptions about a subject if even only temporarily when it becomes broadcasted over popular media or the internet until we take a more educated detailed look at the subject and realize we've been duped.

This is how governments, religious leaders or agents can control thoughts through dis-infomation over the media. We should all take this example as a lesson. Though in the long run the Internet allowed us to come to the truth eventually.

I first heard of "Rods" on Coast to Coast AM and even though Art Bell has always stated that he only presents the platform for others to present their subjects and he in no way endorses or necessarily believes what they have to say or present - I can remember even Art was pretty amazed at the time which got me out of bed to look on the Internet as well and for a time I too was quite interested in this new fangled subject "Rods".

I wonder if Art Bell is up on the latest gab about this subject & what his response is as it was his show that I believe gave Mr. Escamillia's subject it's biggest following in the first place.

Art is my all time favorite host and the fact that he was duped as well, I have no problem with. I just wonder if presented with the latest evidence if he would concede that Mr. E's rods are a fraud or not.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by verylowfrequency]

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by .Sol.

Sol, are you the debunker that has Sol's Bugs web site? If so, then how do you explain the Rods on IMAX film shot in 3D where you get "no interlacing" and where a scientific reading can be found out by the data stereo filming of the Rod occurred? Are you willing to contact IMAX and pay for the costs to gather this "real scientific data" or are you settled in your claim that Rods are just CCD artifacts and leave it at that? It seems to me that if you are claiming a real scientific application in closing the book on the Rods, then wouldn't you think you should study all the evidence instead of only one part of what you feel is the only answer to this mystery?

Many people here in these forums think Rods are insects and that's all there is to it. He's in it only for the money. He's making millions. You are kind of narrow minded in your thinking aren't you? In dealing with UFOs, most can be explained away, there is that small percentage that leave people dumbfounded. Well I feel the same applies with Rods. Although there can be some mis-filmed insects in the mix, you cannot write off the "filmed" Rods he has in 16mm, 35mm, and now the IMAX footage of a Rod in 3D and the Rods over the Fjords of Norway at 4800 feet in the snow filled canyons.
No interlaced video folks. This is IMAX film. My opinion is the school of Rods reasoning is not found in these forums here. All of you have closed the book on something that merits more of an investigation than a one-sided "that's all there is to it" lame duck explanation.

For those of you that have made your snide remarks about my being "his voice" or number one fan, I need you to know that the reason I contacted him personally myself, was because of the fact that Gancents was claiming he had threatened his children. I don't give a damn who or what you are, you will not be threatening children under my watch. So I felt compelled to contact him and told him, if I ever find out you are threatening kids, well I won't mention what I said here.

He did contact me, sent me his phone number and we discussed everything. Actually I feel honored he took time out to answer me. He didn't have to. but he did. So I am checking in occasionally and commenting because I feel all of you condeming him and his research here needs to get awakend and really look into his research before calling it all just insects. There is a lot more to it.

Sol, get that IMAX film studied and let us know you are a real scientific investigator and not just another narrow minded debunker. The same goes for the lot of you three amigos included. Rods are real until all research and evidence is proven false. Until then. Wake up ATS! That's my opinions. RG

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by rggeorge

Did you even watch the History Channel special ? Have you read and understood solbugs page ?
Interlacing ? jeez, look at SHUTTER SPEED, seriously. If you like, look at the camera settings for IMAX movies and show me, where the shutter speed is set to 1/2000, please.

Rods are real until all research and evidence is proven false.

Now, if only religions would be allowed to argue that way

No, rods are insects until a scientific proof disproves this.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:15 PM
A few thoughts for those of you who care to search further for the truth.

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

Let's see...hmmm...many of those found here.

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty. (Or: disasters occur because God punishes non-believers; therefore, we should all believe in God) Just because calamities or tragedies occur, says nothing about the existence of gods or that we should believe in a certain way.

So what we have here on these forums are people that follow someone's attack on a person, including input by the owners, then at the same time, discrediting the real evidence as merely something arcane and as simple as people proclaim as "that's all there is to it."

Well there is a lot more to learn folks. John Bro came in here with both barrels gunning for Mr. Escamilla before the fact. Now he's not saying much after he realizes he's being debunked also. Welcome to the ATS hangman's club Mr. Bro. There are no scientists here nor bonafide researchers. Just a bunch of bullies ready to pounce on the brave ones that come into the lions den.

As I mentioned in another posting. I am not here as a fan of Mr. Escamilla. I am an ATS member checking things out. I am very opinionated and I feel I have been censored from some of my my commentary, but I keep people in check. If someone, including the owners, are out of line, I have called them on it and got warned. So this is just the way I am. Not a fan, just an interested observer seeking the truth not BS. RG

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by rggeorge

You have every right to believe what you want to about rods. Nobody is stopping you. So, people who believe it is debunked are allowed to have their own beliefs also.

I don't see why you even care what other people believe. It's not like you are going to get people to change their minds just because you are ranting about it.

Come to think of it, you sound an awful lot like Mr. Escamilla, himself.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:41 PM
reply to post by Phil J. Fry

IMAX is film Phil, not video. Why don't you give us some information on this? Contact IMAX and get the Rod in 3D IMAX film, take it to an analyst and get us the results. Right now you are just like everyone else here talking pseudo conclusions before all evidence is checked. Do you now what I mean Phil? Show me. I don't want to hear a blanket statement with all the other evidence cast aside.

Contact Mr. Escamilla and I'm sure he will give you the evidence for you to take to the next steps. So do us all a favor and contact the man himself, you included Sol. You seem to have the where with all and knowledge to be able to study the materials.

Go and get us some real scientific data off the rest of the evidence he's claiming. Phil, this shutter business you just posted is as senseless as the existence of Rods is to me, but this doesn't mean they don't really exist.

I am just as confused as the next guy. I want the truth. I don't believe Rods are real. I am a skeptic about them but I do believe they might have a probability of existing. I know I am contradicting myself.

I went and purchased the two IMAX DVDs. I am waiting on the Rod in 3D DVD to get here from Amazon, but I can tell you one thing just on the extreme sports DVD high above the Norway snowy cliffs, those things flying through are not insects. You can tell these things are in the distance large and almost invisible. So the IMAX films needs to be studied.

As skeptical as I am I have taken a step forward in opening to the possibility these things might be real. Until all the evidence is debunked I think they might exist. This DVD I just viewed is pretty convincing they are not insects up there. I am no expert. RG

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by Enthralled Fan

I can assure you I am not Mr. Escamilla and this is the typical type of behavior I am talking about. I am really trying get to the bottom of something and now I am being accused of being someone else. I do have my opinions and will make them here because that is my right. I think Rods might be real and have not seen anything posted here that proves they are not. So far my observations in these discussion forums, even those not related to Mr. Escamilla, are the same. A bunch of people attacking others. No science delivered just bad vibes. That is my opinion. RG

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:37 PM
reply to post by rggeorge

RG, if you will look at my study with a more open mind, I believe you will find that it supports my conclusion, which is specifically stated: "Escamilla's 'rods' are motion-blurred bugs." The conclusion is NOT "rods don't exist" because that's an inherently unprovable statement, which is why the burden of proof is on those who claim they do. What my study really does is to explain why Escamilla has completely failed to make a convincing case for the "rods" theories HE advances: All he's presented SO FAR are images that can easily be explained by motion blurring.

I'm strictly an "amateur scientist" who enjoys actually digging into extraordinary claims in cases where it's possible to do useful experiments and studies, and "rods" interested me enough to put a fair amount of effort into understanding them. Clearly, I did not dismiss them out of hand; I did my study BECAUSE I was not satisfied with merely supposing them to be motion-blurred bugs. Your accusation that I'm narrow-minded is, therefore, completely unwarranted and insulting. I do believe that you will find that my study was done is accordance with the "scientific method": I formulated an hypothesis to explain the "rod" images Escamilla was presenting as evidence; I designed experiments which would have disproved the hypothesis if it was invalid; I assimilated the results and further observations from those experiments and the evidence provided by others into a coherent, logical, and TESTABLE theory (i.e. one that makes predictions about future observations, so the theory can be falsified); and I continue to test the theory against any new evidence that's presented.

I believe that my conclusion is well supported by both the available evidence and logical argument, but if you do not, then roll up your sleeves and dig into it. If you can show me where I went wrong, I'd be interested in hearing that. I'm NOT, however, much interested in mere assertions that there might be some evidence somewhere that I can't explain. If you believe there's some new evidence that the theory doesn't explain, then let's see it. Don't ask me to "debunk" evidence that hasn't even been presented.

However, if the claim is that the IMAX images can't be a motion-blurred bug because it was shot with a film camera, then I'm afraid you don't understand motion blurring, and we can indeed dispense with that argument without any further ado: Motion blurring is a function of object speed and exposure time in ALL cameras, up to the resolution limits of the camera, and video interlacing has nothing to do with it.

And, if the claim is that the Norway images can't be motion-blurred bugs because there can't be any bugs flying around there, I'm afraid that's a completely unsubstantiated assertion, not an argument. I'm sorry, but it's far, far more plausible that that assertion is simply wrong than to accept that supposition as proof of such an extraordinary claim.

And finally, Escamilla's current claims that a video shows a "Rod flying out of the water a mile away from the camera" is decidedly unsupported. Flying bugs can change direction extremely quickly, so simply projecting a straight line backward from an observed path does not PROVE that path. And all arguments based on estimates of sizes and speeds automatically fail unless you can CONCLUSIVELY demonstrate that those estimates are valid. These are just more naked assertions, not credible evidence, and they are made extremely dubious by the fact that the actual "rod" images in those videos are completely indistinguishable from known bug pictures.

The ball is in Escamilla's court, RG, or in yours if you care to take a serious whack at it. But we're well past the point where just waving the racket around is useful, or even interesting.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by .Sol.]

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:14 PM
reply to post by rggeorge

There is no need to search further for the truth. Rods have been clearly identified as artifacts created by known flying insects, birds or bats in front of the lenses of our camera's with normal shutter speeds. It matters not whether the storage medium is magnetic media, hard drives, memory cards, vhs tapes, CD, DVD's or film of any dimension. Did you bother to watch the show we are talking about in this thread? You can buy all the videos of Rod's you like, but if they were taken with slow shutter speeds you will see blurry object which have been incorrectly labeled "Rods" instead of blurry insects, birds or bats.

Regardless of who's supporting what argument I could care less about who's behind what here. The only thing that matters is the truth & I let the facts speak for themselves without any attacks on anyone.

If you want to blindly follow someone without caring to look at the facts for yourself - feel free. They say ignorance is bliss - enjoy your bliss.

I follow nobody but the facts and I understand technology enough and thankfully my eyes still function enough to see them for myself. I thank all those that were able to present them so we can make our own minds up with the evidence presented & not be swayed by politics.

It's too bad some folks want to make this politics - just to promote false ideas.

You have been proven wrong time and time again Mr. E and his faithful followers. We have been educated enough to see your mistakes or falsehoods. You will not pull the wool over anyone else's eyes around here, so unless you have something new to present - Caveat emptor.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by verylowfrequency]

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:17 PM
reply to post by .Sol.

Thanks for all your explanations here.

I have found them to even futher clarify what the History Channel already made perfectly clear. That rods are easily explanable.

Somebody mentioned way back in the beginning of this thread that it is going to take a dead carcas of something other than what has been proven to create the rods on film, to put this thing to rest.

Rods are now like an elusive bigfoot. Until there is actual physical evidence of one, like a body, or the capture of a live one - pure fiction!

I suppose it would take a lot more work to find whatever the beast is, supposedly, than to create a few trick photography pictures.

My father used to be by trade a "trick photographer," for a studio, to create special effects, and he's getting old. You put to words what he tried to explain to me after he viewed this program the other evening also.

It beats me why people are still rabidly defending Jose Escamilla!

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:56 PM
Sol your conclusions are not anything I find conclusive. You have made a conclusion that low shutter settings deliver insets as Rods. The History Channel did a night test which is low shutter. As Mr. Escamilla has stated, high shutter settings deliver different results. I will admit I have no clue about all this camera jitter talk it's all chinese to me. I tell what I will do. I am going to ask experts about this. Sol you are an amateur and amateurs make mistakes. I think your mistake is not going further into the research. You have only shown us one possibility. When you can sell me on all the other films being nothing but insects and such I'll listen to you.

You also ignore this photograph he sent me and this was taken by a professional photo analst. You should see this.

I may be appearing as an ignorant fool to you folks here I am going to continue searching to find out about these things. I happen to feel there may be more to it. You sure are bent on proving there is no such thing. This tells me you are missing something and I will contact someone who knows better and don't throw this ignorance is bliss stuff at me it goes two ways the way I look at it.

Sorry if I don't buy all your open and shut case. I just think you missed something. That's just my opinions. RG

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 03:08 AM
reply to post by rggeorge

IMAX is film Phil, not video. Why don't you give us some information on this?

Sure, no problem. Look here for example, but since you self said, that

I will admit I have no clue about all this camera jitter talk it's all chinese to me.

i don't actually see the point in doing so, since you a) won't understand that on IMAX the exact same phenomenon of motion blur occurs and b) won't believe it anyway

And just for the info, shutterspeed on IMAX filming is 1/56, which is not exactly high speed and only contributes to the fact, that "rods" are motion blurred insects.

Sorry, but what you are doing here is promoting ignorance, not denying it.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:15 PM
I can see this thread has reached it's end. Before I depart from this useless thread, I am leaving you folks with John Bro's scientific entries into the field of UFOs. These are the most laughable things I have ever seen. Don't take my word for it see them for yourself they're on John Bros site.

John Bro, I spoke with "him" and he finally read your things here and says he wouldn't waste the time emailing you. You are a flip-flop type of person. You know a turn coat. So in parting folks all I can say its this. I enjoyed reading all your thoughts and your input here even thought a lot of narrow minds as displayed here. Sayonara kids. Over and out. RG

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:10 AM

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
reply to post by .Sol.

I first heard of "Rods" on Coast to Coast AM and even though Art Bell has always stated that he only presents the platform for others to present their subjects and he in no way endorses or necessarily believes what they have to say or present - I can remember even Art was pretty amazed at the time which got me out of bed to look on the Internet as well and for a time I too was quite interested in this new fangled subject "Rods".

I wonder if Art Bell is up on the latest gab about this subject & what his response is as it was his show that I believe gave Mr. Escamillia's subject it's biggest following in the first place.

A couple of years ago, someone sent Art Bell a link to a site (not mine) that showed frame grabs of bugs flying around a street light when the camera was zoomed out, but "rods" when zoomed in. (Sorry, I just did a quick search and can't find the site now.) Anyway, Art had Escamilla on again and was much, much more skeptical about "rods" than he had been. As far as I know, that's where he left it and never had Escamilla on again.

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:49 AM

So, ahh.... 'Reg' -

Thanks for posting links to my artwork... from 10 years ago. Like I said - I eventually saw one of my concepts in a japanese futuristic space cartoon. I thought that was really cool of you. Not sure why they were 'funniest thing you've ever seen.'

Personally, I would have said something like 'Southpark' or 'Robot Chicken' - but they are crude in subject matter, that is for sure.

'Turncoat' - hmmm... no. We were never allies. After I got jerked around enough times by you people - I just shared what I know about the actual state of such 'studies.'

Congrats on your fame. Millions of people now think you look ridiculous.

BTW... most people here are smart enough to know who 'reg' really is.

Adios, amebas.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in