It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

page: 75
77
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Phage

It means the direction of the tail relative to the comet (or the shuttle) has no relationship to the the direction of travel of the comet (or the shuttle).

Parallax is irrelevant.

Perhaps it's not a good idea to create posts at 2 a.m

My point was and still is, the tail follows the comet, and vice versa on the outbound path.
The difference is, the shuttle is not a comet that is affected by solar radiation and starts breaking up in small pieces of dust and ion.

[edit on 31-10-2009 by Balez]

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 01:37 AM

Regarding tail of water/waste dumps going away from the shuttle... Well, this is corect to most of the particles, at short distances, without any forces involved and the trajectories been straight.

But in orbit, things are different. I've done an experiment, an posted on other thread (www.abovetopsecret.com... ), but here it is again:

Originally posted by depthoffield

Here is an experiment i've done:

I used "Gravity" (www.uranisoft.com... ), a software which simulate the motion of a number of objects influenced by their own gravity.
It already has in it's database, the Earth, the moon and other objects.

What i've done, was to use 4 objects:

*Earth
*Shuttle - an object at about 300 km altitude, having a speed 8000 m/sec
*debris1 - a small object suddenly (at moment T) going out from the shuttle perpendicular, toward the Earth, so going down if you want, going away from the shuttle with just a relative speed of 0.1 m/s
*debris2 - another small object suddenly (at the same moment T) going out from the shuttle perpendicular, AWAY from Earth, so going up if you want, going away from the shuttle with just a relative speed of 0.1 m/s

Then i recorded the entire motion, during two revolutions around the Earth.
The animation below shows only shuttle, debris1 and debris2 objects, the Earth is too big and further away to fit on screen.

Also, the entire motion is stick to the shuttle, so the shuttle appears on the center as static. This way, we have the shuttle as reference point, and we will see only the relative motion of the objects in orbit.

The green lines, are the vectors of gravity force of the Earth. So, the green line, points to the center of the Earth.

The red lines are vectors of speed, showing the direction (and size) of the speed relative to the Earth (about 8000 m/s with variations due to motion in orbit).

The zoom factor is 1, meaning one pixel on the screen represent 1 meter.
Again, the animation shows only two revolutions around the Earth.

And here is the animation:

As you see, indeed, the two objects are going away and before respectively after the shuttle for some time for half an orbit or so, then, they go back to the shuttle.

Indeed, motion in orbit could fool us, the novices.

Of course, in reality, there are other forces which could affect the motion, for example atmospheric drag which could influence differently different objects.

As you see, simply because in orbit (so, neglecting other forces), the initial impulse away and up or down on those 2 debris, just deformed their orbits, making more eliptical. One particle goes ahead and the other one goes behind the shuttle, and, after one orbit, they come back to the shuttle. Pretty "strange" no?

Now, in reality we have different forces involved, like atmospheric drag, solar pressure, plumes from RCS maintaining or changing position and attitude of the shuttle etc. Those forces change more the debris (water or other dump particles) trajectories, and therefore, their movements became even more complex.

And here is a NASA study just explaining this complexity:

Originally posted by depthoffield
.. but the NASA study (ntrs.nasa.gov... ) speaks for 19 minutes already (and these 19 minutes just because of sunset, after which paticles can't be seen)

pag 83..84:

Particles were observed promptly in the first frame taken about 1 min after the start of the dump. The optical environment is severely degraded during the dump. Several hundred particles are observed in the 0.13 sr field-of-view. []
The number of visual particles in each 2.7 s exposure is plotted in Figure 2 from the end of the dump until orbital sunset 19 min later.
There is a rapid (nearly 2 orders of magnitude) decrease in the first 6 min followed by a much slower decay.
The water ejection occurs from a jet on the opposite (port) side of the Shuttle well below the opened bay doors.
Ice particles formed in the expansion will undergo complex trajectories due to plume collision effects and atmospheric drag
.

That study allude to one particular event regarding a water dump during one particular shuttle attitude and position.

Essential is that there are tens of minutes of "optical environment degradation" just due to a water dump, and, more, no matter water dump is on oposite direction, particles have complex trajectories in orbit.
So, UFO-advocates, please don't reject this real posibility just saying "ice dissapear in space in a matter of a few seconds". You are wrong.

if you read these quotes from NASA study, then, you realise that they speak about particles appearing in the field of view of camera, despite the water dump beeing released on the oposite side of the bay (where that camera was).

Complex trajectories.

So, while a water dump send the particles away from the shuttle and logically i guess not in the direction where shuttle goes (as a design feature to minimise the optical environment polluting), there are particles going into the field of view of the camera, deteriorating the optical environment. That's why that study was done, to measure and describe the phenomenon.

So, again, in STS-75 tether videos, there could be a water dump or other kind of dump, pollluating the optical environment, no matter you or others fight to dismiss this mundane common posibility.

[edit on 1/11/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 1/11/09 by depthoffield]

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:10 AM

plumes from RCS

despite the water dump beeing released

just for the record, none of that ^^ has been proven to have even occurred in the STS75 video.

please stop using circular logic, thanks

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:24 AM

Originally posted by easynow

plumes from RCS

despite the water dump beeing released

just for the record, none of that ^^ has been proven to have even occurred in the STS75 video.

please stop using circular logic, thanks

To prove it occurred one needs the date/time of the video. None of the UFO proponents have provided that. Martyn tried to give some numbers a few days back that proved to be hopelessly garbled.

By withholding such data for 'shuttle UFO videos' in general, proponents use data coverup to sabotage attempts to obtain prosaic explanations.

Or is it just innocent incompetence? Or something else? What do you think?

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:44 AM

www.abovetopsecret.com...
(that means don't quote the entire post if it's directly above)

None of the UFO proponents have provided that.

wow is that breaking news ?

What do you think?

i think you need to belly on up to the bar and post the supposed data you have. it's already been a couple day's since you claimed you were going to post it. (and you have not posted a link for the claims you made about the Apollo 12 ufo)

how long does it take to scan a page or two and post it ?

months ? ....years ?

please don't give me the gatekeeper speech again thanks

[edit on 1-11-2009 by easynow]

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:47 AM

Originally posted by easynow

plumes from RCS

despite the water dump beeing released

just for the record, none of that ^^ has been proven to have even occurred in the STS75 video.

That doesn't means that they didn't ocurred. Instead they are logical to happen.
There are signs that they instead ocurred right in this sts75 videos (for example the sudden change in trajectories happening simultaneous on multiple particles just shows the RSC in action maintaining the shuttle attitude, i've argumented that before right here in this topic)

Originally posted by easynow
please stop using circular logic, thanks

there is no circular logic. Please stop mock me, thanks.

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:59 AM

That doesn't means that they didn't ocurred.

did i say it didn't occur ?

no i did not

(the one time i did in this thread was a joke directed @ Oberg)

there is no circular logic. Please stop mock me, thanks.

until you can prove your claims with more than just speculation and theory's you need to stop implying it as facts. claiming something from other missions is the cause for what we see in this video is using circular logic. and i am not mocking you i am only trying to find the middle ground and keep this in it's proper unbiased perspective. from all of your posts in this thread i suspect that is something you have no intention of doing.

:shk:

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:30 PM

Regarding tail of water/waste dumps going away from the shuttle... Well, this is corect to most of the particles, at short distances, without any forces involved and the trajectories been straight.

There is always something that interferes with the trajectories.
Even the shuttle has to correct it's course because of this.

Here is an experiment i've done:

I used "Gravity" (www.uranisoft.com... ), a software which simulate the motion of a number of objects influenced by their own gravity.
It already has in it's database, the Earth, the moon and other objects.

That looks like a nice little useful program, if the data input is correct.
Otherwise it will probably just show you what you want to see.....

Now, in reality we have different forces involved, like atmospheric drag, solar pressure, plumes from RCS maintaining or changing position and attitude of the shuttle etc. Those forces change more the debris (water or other dump particles) trajectories, and therefore, their movements became even more complex.

Ofcourse they will be complex.
Ofcourse there are other factors to be counted into this.

But No matter of the thruster firing, collisions by the debris in the spray plume, the debris will not come back to the shuttle.
Unless the shuttle has a 'tractorbeam' installed.
No matter 'How' you wish to see it, the shuttle have it's own momentum, the particles has their own momentum, these two separate objects has been affected by separate forces creating their momentum.
But this does not mean that 'all' particles will go the same way, or that all particles will all have the same momentum.

And here is a NASA study just explaining this complexity:

Hmm, could not read that one, did never get a full download of it, only partially so my commenting on this will be nil.

So, again, in STS-75 tether videos, there could be a water dump or other kind of dump, pollluating the optical environment, no matter you or others fight to dismiss this mundane common posibility.

I'm not dismissing anything.
There is no such thing as 'common possibility'
Or are you with that phrase meaning that 'it' could be like that, but it does not have to be like that. ?
Or are you saying that this commonly happens on these shuttle flights, that it is a well known fact that objects like those in the STS-75 mission happens in, like say 40% of the flights?

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Balez
But No matter of the thruster firing, collisions by the debris in the spray plume, the debris will not come back to the shuttle.
Unless the shuttle has a 'tractorbeam' installed.
No matter 'How' you wish to see it, the shuttle have it's own momentum, the particles has their own momentum, these two separate objects has been affected by separate forces creating their momentum.

You're not opening your eyes, or mind, to sincerely-offered constructive criticism.

You keep imagining that YOUR misinterpretation of spaceflight dynamics is the way the universe MUST behave.

Naturally, you wind up at preposterous conclusions and deductions.

Ejected objects from one satellite can indeed return to impact that object. It's why dropped tools, for example, are such a big deal, and why on occasion the space station has had to fire a rocket engine to change course after such an accident during a space walk (Exp-2, Jim Voss, for example).

This can happen because of orbital mechanics effects, and when air drag effects is added, the possibility gets even higher.

Look, Balez -- you're clearly hightly motivated and fascinated by this subject, and well spoken and intelligent. So stop embarrassing yourself, and wasting our time, and realize you have a little more to learn -- and a lot to UNLEARN -- before anything you say based on your misunderstandings is of any value to others on the thread.

It's not hard. But the hardest part is yourself realizing the need.

An object departing the space station out of plane will return to the space station in about 45 minutes. This has been known since about, oh, 1954. An object departing local 'up' or 'down' will return in about 90 minutes. This goes for any reasonable separation rate -- several feet per second, say, or less.

Equations of motion, and spaceflight experience, verify this. Your view is only verified by your own misplaced self-confidence.

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Balez
There is always something that interferes with the trajectories.
Even the shuttle has to correct it's course because of this.

ok, so we agree about the complexity of the movements.

Originally posted by Balez

depthoffield Here is an experiment i've done:
I used "Gravity" (www.uranisoft.com... ), a software which simulate the motion of a number of objects influenced by their own gravity.
It already has in it's database, the Earth, the moon and other objects.

That looks like a nice little useful program, if the data input is correct.
Otherwise it will probably just show you what you want to see.....

So you implied that i manipulate the software in order to show some faked results???
Well, instead try it yourself the software and feed with your own data!
If you want, i could give you my initial imput data (the software save it as a file).
Don't call me a liar, please...

Originally posted by Balez
Ofcourse they will be complex.
Ofcourse there are other factors to be counted into this.

But No matter of the thruster firing, collisions by the debris in the spray plume, the debris will not come back to the shuttle.
Unless the shuttle has a 'tractorbeam' installed.
No matter 'How' you wish to see it, the shuttle have it's own momentum, the particles has their own momentum, these two separate objects has been affected by separate forces creating their momentum.
But this does not mean that 'all' particles will go the same way, or that all particles will all have the same momentum.

depthoffieldAnd here is a NASA study just explaining this complexity

Hmm, could not read that one, did never get a full download of it, only partially so my commenting on this will be nil.

Well, do somehow to read that paper, it shows exactly what i quoted from it: even if the water dump was in opposite side, the particles came in the FOV of the camera... contradicting your above assumptions (which are indeed logical when we judge them in limited common earthy experience).

by the way, it is nice to receive confirmation from J Oberg, that indeed the software runs well, and, after one orbit, objects come again to the shuttle. I also don't think at all he lies about this.

Originally posted by Balez

depthoffieldSo, again, in STS-75 tether videos, there could be a water dump or other kind of dump, pollluating the optical environment, no matter you or others fight to dismiss this mundane common posibility.

I'm not dismissing anything.
There is no such thing as 'common possibility'
Or are you with that phrase meaning that 'it' could be like that, but it does not have to be like that. ?
Or are you saying that this commonly happens on these shuttle flights, that it is a well known fact that objects like those in the STS-75 mission happens in, like say 40% of the flights?

Yes, debris particles in orbit, generated by the shuttle activities and following it, is a common phenomenon. Read that NASA study. it's a must!

[edit on 1/11/09 by depthoffield]

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:16 AM

Balez wont try that software himself he just likes to make statements that he thinks others of his kind will agree to.
If he was a cop and was shown a deady body with a bullet hole and a smoking gun next to it he would claim the victim may have been stab as

a) that could have killed as well
b) it would also make a hole in the body.

Thats how he works ! he's right your wrong, whatever you claim is not enough for him, he just ignores what you say and any evidence given.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by wmd_2008]

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 05:48 AM

depthoffield

why did you only use a partial quote from the nasa report that also goes on to explain why when and how water dumps are under-taken and crucially the parts that talk about how they time their dumps so as to never interfer with the shuttles experiments, if you are genuine and not just another of jims renta-a-gobs then you would have atleast provided the link to the document.

if your truly here out of interest in finding out what we are looking at then show all relevent factiods and not just them that siut your position a very tenuous position as you already know when examined thoroughly.

jim oberg
you style of expertise is too make claim after unverified claim after unverified claim and to promise links and data that never appear.
to use todays parlance you are all spin.
you think you can say here anything that sounds expertish and we like your television audiences will just swallow your unverified claims.

wrong jim we wont.

why wont you proof anything you write jim..?
is it because statements like the one above are bs like the airdrag line just above and many many more bs lines on this thread alone
air drag in a vacume jim...?

lets have a look at one of your expert opinions the zig zag line you spun is one of my favs.

oberg presented on tv to an american audience as a nasa expert to discuss the apollo sighting from an astronaut.

jims conclusion for his american audience was it was a panel from the module seperation several days earlier that was just simply zig zagging along infront of the capsule as is a regular occurance ladies and gentlemen and this sort of debris accounts for virtually all annommolous activity reported by the astronauts so there it is jim solves all annomolous activity with a few words and a knowing derisory smirk for anyone who thought different.

so stay with me here while i zig zag my way to right a few misconceeptions james and his rent-a-gob crew/aliases have managed to sow here on this thread now i am here i may aswell.

also remember jim at ATS you are not just dealing with americans some of us are not programmed to just accept a pronounced experts opinion.

i would also like to add that you have been sucking on the tax payers teet all your life and you still treat those same people with contempt with your misleading statements and utter contempt with your straight up lies there are no redeeming qualitys in you as you are a company man thats signed the official secrets act and you will do and say whatever is needed to be done and said to further your own reputation with your collegues.
i think the people that have provided you with you income all these years deserve more than your scorn when they question the data you supply.

martin i can think of only one reason nasa have never released that footage and/or given satisfactory explanations of.jim says it was shown live on nasa tv another lie as it was only due to be shown but never was jim could prove me wrong if it was shown live but he wont because it wasnt that is just an example of the deciet jim will spin and the contempt jim holds us in.

nasa fighting tooth and nail to get possesion of the footage you had thru the courts so as to bury it is all the knowledge thats needed to realise that there is more happening in the footage than they Ever intended for us to see.

Maybe jim would explain to us why after nasa were finally beaten in court on the time delayed footage they were showing as live on nasa tv they stopped showing live footage.

Could it be that after they were ordered down from a 20 second delay to just 4 seconds by the court that they ceased live broadcasts because they no longer had 20 secs in which to kill or obscure the footage during anomalous events .. no not nasa perish the thought.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 06:09 AM
and to depthoffield the same nasa documents you quote that were provided by zorgon earlier also detail many other interesting aspects of shuttle/space station activity.

also zorgon provided links to all shuttle data logs earlier which clearly show the last water dump was 2 days prior to the footage shot.

footage jim says was shot on the 5th day and others have it later eitherway its irrelevent as they knew they were going to film it and they took steps to aviod contamination of that footage a fact both you and preacher jim have both conveniently glossed over.

and just to be clear water only exists in space as ice or gas
any talk about ice on the day the footage was shot is total and utter bull and a read thru the mission documents would have shown you that all along.
same as terminator line talk etc as there may well have been the odd bit of debris theoretically but after 2 days of flight adjustments
and no discharges apart from possible gas/chemical leaks the reality is that there was zero nil nadda debris close to the shuttle.
2 days prior was the last water dump just to be clear.
your own quoted data will show you that ice was a virtual impossibility.

so depthoffield if you are not here only to stiffle and long quote this thread to death like the 2 other muppits with the out of focus non existant ice particles please take a closer look at the shuttle logs and re-adjust your theory.

as for the bokah out of focus camera annomolieists HOW can non existant debris be out of focus please..?

no need to quote me in full and no need to repeat what you have already wrote.

as you cannot have non existant particles out of focus.

i am reading this thread not to see if i can find out what is going on in the footage as we will never know fully i expect.
but i can personally elimate what i am not seeing and shorten down the possibilities with others help and genuine interest.

but why the mods let these obvious thread wreckers i.e. long quoters repeat statements over and over for page after page to delibrately sabbotage and distance the conversation away from points of interest that they dont wont discussed is beyond me.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 06:50 AM
Thanks for the detailed response. It is helpful in showing areas of factual disagreement that can be directly addressed. It also helps identify the misunderstandings and fantasies that form the basis for the unreal conclusions of many people, so it is useful and constructive.

The personal stuff, we can just attribute to frustrations in the world not agreeing with favored personal opinions.

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 07:01 AM
Jim Oberg says: (my edit)...
Ejected objects from one satellite can indeed return to impact that object. It's why dropped tools, for example, are such a big deal, and why on occasion the space station has had to fire a rocket engine to change course after such an accident during a space walk (Exp-2, Jim Voss, for example).

Jim...hold on... if what you say is true, why was this not the case during the now legendary 'Vector' "rescue demonstration" spacewalk,......... you know this case very well!

During the spacewalk, we see & hear this discussion...

- "Looks like you've got an object RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU"...
- "I don't know what you're talking about"
- "Never mind"
- "Are we missing something?..."
- "Yea, we think the camera filter came off..."
-"O.K."

WHAT!!!...No "big deal" to NASA on this one!... (?)...an escaped "camera filter" is no big deal?...

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 07:05 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 07:18 AM
quotes are from spacefan post:

depthoffield

why did you only use a partial quote from the nasa report that also goes on to explain why when and how water dumps are under-taken and crucially the parts that talk about how they time their dumps so as to never interfer with the shuttles experiments, if you are genuine and not just another of jims renta-a-gobs then you would have atleast provided the link to the document.

But i've provided the link to the document.... read just a few of my posts before. pay attention.
Partial quote? why not, since i provided link to the document? do you want to post here all the pages??
I agree that they time their water dumps in order to not interfere with the experiments requiring a free optical environment. it is logical.

But, what experiments they done with the tether after 3 days (if i remember) after was lost? and when it was at 100+ miles away? have you any hint of the experiments done in those moments? yes or no?

To me, it looks posible (fifty-fifty if you want) that there were just and only an opportunity to see the tether while in a brief distant rendezvous with it in different orbits, days after the break, and i don't see any scientifical approach there (unless to confirm the position and trajectory of the tehter in order to estimate the drag and motion of a free orbiting tether). I find plausible that this rendezvous was not so important to change the other scheduled events (including neccessary dumps) on the shuttle board/team, except some filmings and aknowledging "here it is, we see it".

if your truly here out of interest in finding out what we are looking at then show all relevent factiods and not just them that siut your position a very tenuous position as you already know when examined thoroughly.

I just try what you say, to explain what we may see there, and i argued most of my explanations. i don't know why my position is more tenous than the others..maybe because i put arguments in my speech?
What are your arguments? two nervous posts? Air drag not exists on the level of the shuttle orbit? well....

air drag in a vacume jim...?

Don't you know this??

also remember jim at ATS you are not just dealing with americans some of us are not programmed to just accept a pronounced experts opinion.

By the way, i'm from Romania, a little obscure country. You may know, Ceausescu, Dracula, Nadia Comaneci....

[edit on 2/11/09 by depthoffield]

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 07:19 AM

Originally posted by JimOberg
Thanks for the detailed response. It is helpful in showing areas of factual disagreement that can be directly addressed. It also helps identify the misunderstandings and fantasies that form the basis for the unreal conclusions of many people, so it is useful and constructive.

The personal stuff, we can just attribute to frustrations in the world not agreeing with favored personal opinions.

detailed response you want jim thats irony at its best coming from you.

i offered you the opportunity to knock me down when i said you were lying about the footage going out live .. you havent.

i offered you the chance to explain airdrag in orbit you havent.

i offered you the chance to humiliate me with your proof of the zig zagging debri explanation you gave to the audience of the tv show you havent.

infact jim i cannot in this whole thread find any corroborating links you have posted to backup your claims excepting a few on side/distraction issues.

ps i still remember the purple shirt and terrible tie you were wearing on that tv show such an impression your zig zagging panel theory made on me.

depthoffield.
did you miss this bit

also zorgon provided links to all shuttle data logs earlier which clearly show the last water dump was 2 days prior to the footage shot.

its not upto me to put information infront of you a second time zorgon has already supplied the data and its obviously you that needs to go back and re-read the thread not me as ive followed intensly.

i know full well about drag in space so a so called space expert talking about !!airdrag!! is bs.

i am not attacking you or your domain i am sure your country is a fine place i am here seeking answers as you are i hope.
i will not let myself get entrenched in any camp as that only stiffles the thought proccesses.

be lucky son.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

[edit on 2-11-2009 by spacefan]

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 07:36 AM
quotes from spacefan:

and to depthoffield the same nasa documents you quote that were provided by zorgon earlier also detail many other interesting aspects of shuttle/space station activity.

indeed.

also zorgon provided links to all shuttle data logs earlier which clearly show the last water dump was 2 days prior to the footage shot.

well, this i missed. I'm not aware of those logs. Can you or anyone which knows better, show me again this, please? i didn't know well when the footage was made, not even Secretnasaman was not sure. Right now i believe it was on 29 feb 1996, but this could be wrong.

and just to be clear water only exists in space as ice or gas any talk about ice on the day the footage was shot is total and utter bull and a read thru the mission documents would have shown you that all along.

well, i expect to see those mission documents. I haven't seen them, as i said above, i didn't know about those logs. So, right now, it looks like claims from your part.

same as terminator line talk etc as there may well have been the odd bit of debris theoretically but after 2 days of flight adjustments
and no discharges apart from possible gas/chemical leaks the reality is that there was zero nil nadda debris close to the shuttle.
2 days prior was the last water dump just to be clear.

again, you can shut up me with clear documents attesting there was no water dumps prior to those films. As i said, i'm not aware of this, and , as long as i remeber many others want the original data.

so depthoffield if you are not here only to stiffle and long quote this thread to death like the 2 other muppits with the out of focus non existant ice particles please take a closer look at the shuttle logs and re-adjust your theory.

Well those are out of focus images (bokeh), i expect from you to show with arguments that those are not bokeh. Not just yell and make offenses here (is this the reason for your subscription here?)

as for the bokah out of focus camera annomolieists HOW can non existant debris be out of focus please..?

again, i expect final proofs that the space near the shuttle was free from any debris during those filmings.

[edit on 2/11/09 by depthoffield]

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 07:38 AM
Even Aliens don't want our garbage in space.

I mean really, if they're advanced why do this? Well, I guess it's the same as covering ant holes and not letting them in...damn, and I thought Humans were jackas*es.

Hell if I was an Alien I'd be messing around with Humans too.

new topics

top topics

77