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.


Another Misquote Regarding The Billy Meier Hoax

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:58 PM

I just noticed that there was activity on this thread again. Here is the text of the form letter that I sent to each of the forestry experts that Michael Horn cited in his video that I could locate.


From: Derek Bartholomaus
Date: January 29, 2008
Subject: Forestry Quotation Question

Hello [recipient's name].

My name is Derek Bartholomaus and I am the Lead Investigator into the Billy Meier Case for the Independent Investigations Group located in Hollywood, California.

There is a new DVD about the Billy Meier Case and in it you, and some of your colleagues, are discussed by Michael Horn who says, "Six professors of forestry looked at Meier's photos and looked at the trees and each one determined that the trees are full size mature trees and not models." Your names are then displayed on-screen for the viewer.

I have attached two images of the trees discussed. Can you please confirm or deny that the above statement is accurately describing your view about the trees? I have also attached the frame from the DVD that mentions you, and your colleagues, by name.

Thank you.

Derek Bartholomaus
Independent Investigations Group

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 02:24 PM

Originally posted by gib_niner

The five most important things we can do for the planet:

1. Reduce the population to under 1 billion

2. Stop robbing the Earth of oil, gas, ores, etc..

3. Stop the atom testing, under ground explosions

4. Tear down all dams

5. Tear down the nuclear power stations

look, these steps mean a reversal back to the year 1700, because all our technology means nothing if we can't use it.

no fossil/primordial fuel, no nuclear power, no hydro power either. i know where this is going and before you ask us to destroy this civilisation you'd better present tangible evidence.

if anything, you can tell people with an agenda from truely friendly individuals by their type of advice:

why for example are hydro power dams such a problem? disruption of fish movement? no problem, build ladders, mitigating the effect. stop mining all types of ore? are we supposed to use stone-age tools? give reasons, ffs, what are the detrimental effects like? what can be done to reduce them?

no such luck here and again, whether it's bromide or fluorocarbons, it doesn't matter, if the mechanism is the reduction of ozone in the stratosphere thereby resulting in increased UV radiation, then the ionosphere comment is simply off. if the mechanism is different (ie. electrical in nature, for example) then you'll have to explain that in some detail so we can verify.

otherwise, the list you wrote is incomplete (preserving oceans and forests is the top issue, imho, of course) and revolves around destroying us.

our technology requires heat and electric power sources and while you can sell me the notion that petroleum extraction can cause earthquakes, nothing is risk free and unless a better alternative is developed we'll have little choice. besides, we need those nukes ready just in case BM's aliens or similar actually exist. from the sounds of what i've read, i'd even go as far as advocating the devlopment of more reliable types, preferrably in conjunction with carrier systems capable of stealthy interplanetary intercepts. I wouldn't use them on Earth, though, so i'd fulfill that part of your list, at least.

sorry folks, if you want me to die, you'll have to work for it - and avoid mistakes.

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by Long Lance

hey long lance,

why for example are hydro power dams such a problem? disruption of fish movement? no problem, build ladders, mitigating the effect. stop mining all types of ore? are we supposed to use stone-age tools? give reasons, ffs, what are the detrimental effects like? what can be done to reduce them?

Ok basically I get where you are going with your argument - and from a certain perspective it makes sense - but then from another not so. let me try to explain...

Essentially the solutions being offered by the P's - just because they are extremely difficult to enact or bring about - indeed does not work towards negating them outright for being the possible real deal planet-wide solutions per se.

A simple analogy that just springs into the mind in the immediate now to try to illustrate the point (so perhaps grant a bit of leeway here!) - might be that if a person has cancer - a part of him might be inclined to go - Oh to hell with that chemo treatment - I wont be able to provide for myself at all to subsist, it will be such a pain etc etc - ie he might think to himself - I am not gonig to able to thrive at all whilst stuck in that hospital its going to be such a pain in the A__ - yet however obviously the necessary act for him at that point in his life stage is to undergoe the chemotherapy treatment WHETHER HE LIKES IT OR NOT!

and not trying to tell you your business - but I consider also that just maybe it might well prove to be a premature conclusion to scoff at for example - the proposition the P's take on the dams..

(remember it was not that long ago when mainstream scientists were being very dismissive of global warming in genreal - whereas now of course - it has to be said that in the generarl run of things there seems to be now a consensus at this stage )

anyway to get back to the point - If the P's themselves are passing on this info. then it must be assumed that they are not passing it on for no good reason at all!

Therefore to conclude - it might be said that the advice the P's are giving us is from a certain standpoint - idealistic - in that though difficult and probably unlikey to be enacted - it is nevertheless STILL the right course - irrespective of all that -

it is the same in respect to, for example, when they are talking about how imperative it is for us humans to replace the highly unjust warmongering leaders that currently hold all the channels of power in the world and to replace them with far far wiser and reasonable individuals - though most likely this will absolutely not come about! (McCAin is most prob. dying to get into Iran - and wouldn't put it past Obama either at all) so again - unlikely that this will be put into practice - even though it undoubtedly would be surely the most beneficial path to take for many clear reasons.

sorry folks, if you want me to die, you'll have to work for it - and avoid mistakes.

This is an interesting comment - who said anything about dying - also they lived quite well in the middle ages.

no fossil/primordial fuel, no nuclear power, no hydro power either. i know where this is going and before you ask us to destroy this civilisation you'd better present tangible evidence.

Thats not it at all - There are numerous free energy sources that have been proven to be viable over time but that unfortunately have been supressed - Billy advocates the use of these - again perhaps viewed as idealistic but then perhaps also ultimately the only REAL way out of the mess that we are in - Also billy speaks of an infinite energy source that is available from out of the very ether that is everpresent at all times. Also there is other info. - for example (perhaps surprisingly for some) the P's advocate the use of genetic engineering - (cont'd)

[edit on 11-9-2008 by gib_niner]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by gib_niner]

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 01:03 PM
.... it seems they grow or engineer ther own meat-replacement dishes as it were.

Also you were asking about detrimental effects - (again at the risk of over-generalising here!) Clearly the detrimental effects are very visible the world over - obviously something is going wrong - On the issue of the dams - one would envisage that they further serve to create imbalances in the world on a planet-wide level in some way. In any case - Environmental ssues are a very highly sensitive delicate matter indeed - who is anybody to say that the dams issue is to be negated - current science - as we know it may not have all the answers.

Also returning now briefly to the issue of of the ozone hole - it seems a certain Professor McElroy favors a chemical explanation and he put one forward in the 'British journal nature'. ......thus there is the following from him....The manmade gasses that break down ozone include, most prominently, chlorine, formerly released by spray cans and now by a host of industrial processes. McElroy's theory relies on another element as well: bromine, a much rarer gas used in specialized fire-extinguishing equipment. "In the sequence of chemical reactions he proposes, little bromine produces large ozone depletion. If this theory is correct, policy-makers might find that strictly controlling bromine would be more effective than controlling chlorine.

About the mining of ores - it seems the P's do that on off world moons and dead-world chunks of rock and maybe other planets and so forth - so for us too that would be the ideal - however unfortunately for us - (sorry another idealist one!)

but on that point again - here is another example - something that though is possible - is most likey - very unlikey to occur any time soon - in earth's future- make from it what you will....

'he P's also suggested in another contact that, because of the curve of the growth of knowledge, we mighl be able to achieve many of their capabilities within 300 years of our time, if we would sufficiently concentrate the energies of our planet. They didn't see any possibility of us doing that at this time. They observed that we can't even get along with each other, or nation with nation, very long, and that must be overcome before we can marshall the resources of the world.'

In respect to you saying about the oceans being of concern - of course you are absolutely on track with that - and focussing on meier info. in this context - what must be contemplated here is that because of all the A bomb testing and indeed - the negative effects of nuclear power plants (it seems the splitting of the atom itself has very negative consequences) - unfotunately it seems that the micro-organisms of the oceans are being SEVERLY AFFECTED therefore underming the overall well-being of the oceans themselves...


[edit on 11-9-2008 by gib_niner]

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 01:04 PM
extract from 'Contact from the Pleaides'...


During the process of nuclear fission and fusion an atom is forced open a electrons escape. Science and industry assure us that this process is safe, because even though our knowledge of atomic structure is incomplete, any unforeseen damaging effects are prevented by the massive steel and concrete containment vessels. They are correct insofar as containing electrons is concerned, but what they have yet to realize is there exists much smaller particles of mass and energy which pass easily through the containment walls, and which strip off particles from the containment vessels themselves as they pass through. This results in an unforeseen and rapid decay of the containment structure itself - weakening it greatly within a decade - which in turn allows even larger particles (still smaller than an electron) to escape. Obviously, the problem quickly becomes progressive.

These minute particles released from an atom are negative in respect to planet earth. This means that these particles will be repelled from earth's surface to the outer regions of the ionosphere. Of course these particles are yet more negative in value than solar energy, and are also repelled from the energy emitted from the sun. Because these very negative particles are repelled from solar energy, they move around the earth, staying on the dark side of the planet in order to avoid direct contact with solar energy. These very negative particles tend to 'settle in" at any location which remains in darkness for substantial periods of time. For a part of the year this area is at the Southern Polar region (Antarctica). Accumulating at the South Pole, these particles assemble themselves with the normally positive ions of the ionosphere, which results in the production of an extremely negative plasma.

As the South Pole again begins to face toward the sun (Sept.-Oct.) this highly negative plasma is repelled, and now has nowhere to go but to Earth.

This results in a hole in the ionosphere in the South Pole region. Because of the massive amounts of these very negative particles being released, the hole in the ionosphere will be found to have increased dramatically in size in 1986, possibly as far as the 600 paralell line.

If the phenomena is monitored, it will be noticed that the hole will develop a 24 hour oscillation, and that the oscillation will always be away from the suns light. This again is due to the fact that these very negative particles, now assembled into a very negative plasma, will be repelled from solar energy.

As the South Pole faces toward the sun, the North Pole lies in darkness. Therefore, the negative, unassembled particles in the upper atmosphere will tend to "settle in" near the North Pole, and will assemble with positive ion there. When once again the North Pole faces toward the sun, the resulting negative plasma will be forced to the surface of Earth. Our calculations indicate that in the early months of 1987, a hole in the ionosphere will be found to have appeared over the North Pole.

Some of the results of this disruption of the ionosphere will have immediate effects. For instance, as great shells of this negative plasma are pushed into existing shells of plasma, very adverse and abnormal weather conditions will be experienced world wide. In areas where the ionosphere is thicker, there will be an over filtering of solar energy, causing a reduction of sunlight available on earth and a subsequent increase in rainfall. In areas where the ionosphere has thinned, expect severe heat waves and drought conditions. Also, iron deposits attract these negative particles of mass and energy, and so areas with large deposits of iron can expect drastic changes in their weather cycles. A less immediate effect of this attraction to iron deposits will be that life forms in these areas will experience genetic changes, and an alarming increase in birth defects will be seen in these areas. Likewise, incidents of cancer and other diseases related to a breakdown in immune system activities will be noted.

As the destruction of the ionosphere continues, more drastic effects will be observed. For example, as these undetected particles of mass and energy are accepted at the poles (and elsewhere) they will undoubtedly result in an increase in the energy exchange of our planet. This will cause an increase in the rotation rate of the Earth. At first this increase will be considered a negligible factor, but the increase will be progressive, and will eventually result in the earth changing it's orbit. The elliptic will increase, and the Earth will begin it's drift away from the sun.

The increase in energy exchange will also 'wheat" up the interior of our planet, resulting in great internal pressure. This pressure will be released in the form of great earthquakes and increasingly greater volcanic actions. The end result of these actions will be great continental shifts, and areas lying along existing fault lines will be at great risk. This increase in energy exchange will also cause a warming of the earth's surface, and the polar ice caps will begin to melt. Coastline areas will begin to disappear.

Much more could be said, but this outline of events will give the reader a fair idea of why we say the situation on Earth is critical. To date the focus of the anti-nuclear movement has been to eliminate bombs and testing, control radioactive wastes, etc. Few people have considered that perhaps the splitting of atoms in and of itself is anti-nature. Unless it is stopped and decontamination procedures initiated, our future is bleak. The problems will not go away by themselves. Humankind has done the damage, and now we must repair it.

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:19 PM
reply to post by gib_niner

sorry folks, if you want me to die, you'll have to work for it - and avoid mistakes.

This is an interesting comment - who said anything about dying - also they lived quite well in the middle ages.

earth's human population is often given as 6,6-8 billion people, which is probably a lie, because India, f-ex won't admit or even know how many people live in their country. anyways, 7,4 now, 1 billion then means 6,4 will have to disappear somehow.

do you believe in Santa Claus?

as for the middle ages, i thought the contact reports were about Evo-, rather than DEvolution. needless to say, without using current technologies, we cannot expect to develop new ones, obviously.

Thats not it at all - There are numerous free energy sources that have been proven to be viable over time but that unfortunately have been supressed - Billy advocates the use of these

yes, so we're alledgedly unable to get supressed tech in the open (if you're talking about ZPR, i wonder if they'd advocate its use, becauase of the power it would convey), but we're supposedly able to remove each and every dam, dismantle all nukes (what would that change? we cannot destroy the metals themselves without liberating energy) inbcluding power plants and sit merrily in the dark?

i don't have that power, you don't either (or are refusing to use it) i suggest you stop dreaming for a minute. the majority could not care less about the nonsense we're writing here and they'd gladly kill us if they were told to do it, especially if we gave them a reason. heck, simple politician's BS and a bit of thug massage and brainwash will reliably bring that side out of every society. or so the 20th century has taught us.

sounds out of whack, i know.

it is the same in respect to, for example, when they are talking about how imperative it is for us humans to replace the highly unjust warmongering leaders that currently hold all the channels of power in the world and to replace them with far far wiser and reasonable individuals

ya, you know it seems as if these wiser individuals don't cut the mustard. call it religion's fault (funny stereotyping, eh?) if you must, but it works for them, while what you're saying doesn't appear work for anyone.

these are the facts, deal with them, you can talk about justice and wisdom when you can DO things. until then, your philosophical quest had better include weapons tech and military tactics, because that's predictably going to be only way to get the current system off its tracks before we're all going to hell along with it.

yet however obviously the necessary act for him at that point in his life stage is to undergoe the chemotherapy treatment WHETHER HE LIKES IT OR NOT!

do you know how many people actually survive chemo? a curious statement on a CT board that includes Medical Issues. in fact you DO have a choice, which you have to be willing to use....

...and live and die with the outcome. it's not that hard. it's called making a decision.

many of the things you think are clear cut, in fact aren't, AGW is one of them.

that thread is denoted entirely to AGW and its inherent logical fallacies, the most glaring one being, IF we can't keep the weather within arbitrary bounds, we're at fault, which implies we could do that, which is unproven.

of course it relies heavily on faith, much like many statistically shady medical procedures, i'm afraid. to be brutally honest, that's exactly what i have learned to expect from people who defend this particular story, which is telling enough for me.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 08:13 PM

Making these kinds of HIGHLY TENUOUS!! comparisions between Billy and Charles Manson - is not only ludicrous and preposterous - but also borders on character defamation! - dude you are not really going to achieve anything by going in that direction!!

I appologize for this remark as I neglected to indicate that the comparison 'should' have been made to Charles Manson on 'Valium' as Billy is much more subdued. However, my analogy (Opinion) stands. Their BELIEF in what they say is the same. I have NEVER suggested that Billy did NOT believe what he says. I have said that very clearly in other threads. But just because somebody believes what they say does not make it True. Manson had an entire group of teenagers believing that murder was OK. Manson actually NEVER killed anybody, he just allowed and provoked others to do so. To this day he still BELIEVES that he has done no wrong. And to this day Billy Meier still believes that he is having contacts. Maybe he is.... but his evidence is shoddy and I am with the ones who say it's BS. Meier makes money off of those who choose to follow him and await the next message.. this is a CULT leader, whether he chooses to admit it or not. He is set for LIFE with a home to stay in till his death and even an income from dues and excess from subscription costs and 7% of a months salary per year per member of the FIGU group and people to 'work' the farm. Why would he jeopardize that? He wouldn't. No matter how horrible the men around him treat people around them. There is so very much that people do not know about this group. I did not say Billy, but I am talking about the GROUP that he allows to support him and 'use' his name and etc.

I'm not a dude, by the way, but I too call just about everybody dude whether male or female myself so it's all good.

And thanks Night (whoever) for the ice water. It is pretty hot here in the desert. As far as threads such as these they ARE akin to a DEAD HORSE so I am finished as far as this goes. Everybody can believe as they wish. I wish no harm upon anybody and desire only that each individual come to their own conclusion and be at PEACE with it. It's been a pleasure participating in this thread. Thank you all.

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 07:42 AM

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:48 AM
reply to post by derekcbart

hi derek,
i appreciate ur work as an investigator and also jeff ritzman and all others who try to get to the bottom of the i raised this question to micheal horn in figu forums and thisis what i got in reply...

I actually got the info re Robert Post, as well as the other info, from Gary Kinder's Open Letter to the UFO Community:

So, as I recall, I didn't edit his comments at all.

As far as the claim that Michael Malin disputed the comments attributed to him, Gary Kinder made it clear that before

he published his book, he submitted all of the quotes attributed to the various parties - Malin included - for them to sign

off on, or to correct, etc. Malin SIGNED OFF on the quotes attributed to him. It's most likely a matter of him not now

wanting to be associated with a UFO case (let alone THE UFO case of all times) in order to preserve his precious

reputation, funding, etc.

One thing I do recall was writing to Malin or someone connected to him INVITING him to...SUE if the comments

attributed to him were false and made without his approval.

Naturally, no such suit was ever filed.

Further, Bartholomaus likes to point out that some of the forestry experts denied making the comments that James

Deardoff attributed to them. However, the comments were indeed made, more than 25 years ago, and never retracted.

Let's remember that Deardorff also knew these people and it's most likely another case of some, now much older.

professors not wanting to be involved in a UFO case too. Bartholomaus also deliberately LIED and said that we had

said that the forestry experts had commented on the UFO, which they hadn't and we'd never claimed.

Further, when I wrote to the lead consul for OSU, after Bartholomaus was making all of his noise, I said that I'd be glad

to provide some photos so that a fresh look and evaluation could be made by the forestry experts. The counsel

graciously declind and...wished me good luck with my project.

From: "Fletcher, Charles"
Date: February 25, 2008 4:33:13 PM PST
Cc: "Jensen, Edward C."
Subject: RE: Comment on UFO

Mr. Horn:

Thank you for your prompt response to Dr. Jensen's email. We would like
to take you up on your generous offer to go forward without further
assistance from us. Good luck in your work.


Charles E. Fletcher
Associate General Counsel
Oregon State University
638 Kerr Administration Bldg.
Corvallis, OR 97331-2128
(541) 737-8332 (direct)
(541) 737-0712 (fax)

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 4:09 PM
To: Jensen, Edward C.
Cc: Fletcher, Charles; Jensen, Edward C.
Subject: RE: Comment on UFO

Dr. Jensen,

Thanks for writing. Regarding your first sentence below, I would have to
say that no deliberate misrepresentation of your remarks was made by me
or anyone connected to the study of the Meier UFO case. Nowhere have we
said that you authenticated any photos of UFOs, etc. for anyone. Whoever
may have led you to believe that such representations were made is
misleading you.

So, to be specific and accurate, your statements below that directly
relate to our concerns are:

"An estimate of tree height (actually only the top portion of a single
particular tree) that I made several years ago in good faith ..."

"The photo was of poor quality, but I assumed that the tree in the photo
was real and gave an estimate of the height of the portion of the tree
above the alleged UFO based on that assumption."

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:54 AM
Being an expert regarding trees, I can appreciate that your assumption
about the reality of the tree was based, even considering the quality of
the photo, on significant experience and expertise. I can certainly
appreciate that you not only don't want to be misquoted but that you
wouldn't want to interject yourself into a discussion on UFOs.

However, Since the party in question who has contacted you, presumably
Mr. Derek Bartholomaus, has in our opinion misrepresented many facts in
the whole matter under discussion, should there indeed be an issue
needing resolution I would suggest that very good quality photographs of
the trees and the unknown object can be made available to you for
definitive commentary, a commentary that need only pertain to the
authenticity, or lack of same, of the trees.

Since Mr. Bartholomaus has gone on record as stating that the trees in
the photographs I refer to are - absolutely, without a doubt - model
trees but has been unable to produce any evidence to support that claim,
he is understandably under pressure to divert the attention elsewhere.
Again, none of this may be of the slightest interest or concern to you
and should you wish to not comment further I would certainly respect
that decision.

Also, should you wish a copy of the film in question, that contains the
controversial information, I would be glad to have one sent to you for
review by you and the GC of OSU. I would be equally pleased to make a
presentation to the students and instructors at the university, as it
may pique their interest, for many reasons.

Michael Horn
The Silent Revolution of Truth

i am a neutral far as it seems to me...
its quite reasonable & common in the prevailing world as why the forestry experts,malin,post are unwilling to make a supportive comment on this case now but when they did it 25 years back[gary kinders.light years]...

so my request to u or any serious investigators is to analyse the case on the evidential part but not on the not most important,irelevant part of the investigation procedure...

hope truth wins....

posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 10:35 AM
Hi everyone,

I've just joined this site. I recently made Billy meier's Wedding Cake model. I post here in this thread because I'm very happy to see Derek from iigwest here dealing with the issues that count in the Meier case.

I'm also happy that Jeff Ritzmann is around maybe to talk to. I've never spoken with Jeff or many other people regarding this case and any previous debunks so I would like to say to Jeff, and others, that I personally understand why previous models didn't quite hit the mark. In my mind it's because there is no real need to go too far because all Jeff tried to show is that anyone can stick christmas balls to a plastic or metal surface and so the wcufo is easily made by a guy with one hand. I finished the job to the upmost because it seems that after all these years it's still sold as a genuine ufo and there are still those (many 100's of people) that want it to be true so they'll do what humans do best - fight to the last.

The trees in Billy's photos is something I can add to. I contacted 3 different tree experts in the SE of England including one I was directed to by Kew Botanical Gardens. The first 2 experts told me they simply could not identify positively the WCUFO trees (of which I showed 2 different trees he used) because the resolution on the images were too poor to be accurate. The 2 images were ~250KB in size. The third expert told me what I put in a youtube video concerning the wcufo as a teaser.

[I've now put up a small featurette on youtube if anyone wants to see. It's simply called "The billy meier style wcufo variation 2." My channel is Mrmorlam1]

That third tree expert told me that the tree could easily be created by "pruning & restricting the roots" ..of a tree that normally grows quite large. He said the crown of the tree could easily be manipulated too. I even found twigs and branches on the tree I used (a 7' Norway Spruce cut down to 3') that match the size ratio between the model in the tree and its branches and twigs on Billy's pictures. I made more pictures after the ones shown in the utube teaser that match more readily and show it can even be done by simply messing with the tree itself, if it's bigger than you need. Not too big or the trunk will be too thick.

So there's my 10 cents worth on the tree issue. There are other corroborating issues in Billy's pictures that show a miniature "Billy style" cultivated tree.

If these trees are miniature and the ufo's are fake then the whole case is false. It's as simple as that.

I just want to finally say I do have an open mind on everything but when it comes to the B. Meier case it shows up as fake everytime. I know the arguments for it squeeze believability to its limits and still somehow manage to get away with suggesting there might be some credibility in it but the case as a 'hoax' is how it turns up when real science steps in. It is now a provable fake as this thread, and others, are showing since we've had years now to study and counter study the "evidence".

Unfortunately for believers it is disinformation that lets nonsense continue. Disinformation must have SOME truth somewhere or non of it will stick. Hence Billy emphasises along with Michael Horn anything that does tend to stick and they "stick" to that.

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:59 PM

Don't get me wrong, I thing the whole Meier situation is bunk

Ah, because it's bunk, it needs to be DE-bunked?

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 02:20 PM
Hello Shoujikinal,

Originally posted by Shoujikina

Don't get me wrong, I thing the whole Meier situation is bunk

Ah, because it's bunk, it needs to be DE-bunked?

Doing a little trolling are we?
edit on 7-8-2012 by hiflier because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in