It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Wes Owsley discusses NASA and UFOs

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

There you go again, scurrying off in a different direction. SBLs and ATLs are two entirely different, unrelated concepts.

The purpose of SBLs is to kill ballistic missles in the boost phase, when they are high in the atmosphere. High in the atmosphere means above weather. It is not a concern.

The maximum range of the ATL, under ideal conditions, is about 9 miles. Weather conditions can completely negate its usefulness. Nine miles is hardly a safe distance for a slug of an aircraft like a C-130 and I wouldn't really want to be riding that stinger bait anywhere near a combat zone. Besides, AGM-65's have twice the range. ATL doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. Did you know that funding has been slashed for it?




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

There you go again, scurrying off in a different direction. SBLs and ATLs are two entirely different, unrelated concepts.



They are related and worth being mentioned together.

We were discussing lasers - AT Lasers and SB Lasers.

Zorgon also addressed the matter as did secretnasaman.


*I must say Phage, your posts certainly are as trite as usual. You've still got it.




[edit on 20-9-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

Yeah, Zorgon likes to throw out diversions too.
From NASA and UFOs to airborne lasers.


[edit on 9/20/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage

Well that was based on several factors but since the new ex NASA guy says in his disclaimer he knows nothing of this... and as Aliens are bunk his UFO reports will be 'tainted' towards military projects he knows nothing about, because they can't be aliens...

So this thread has no value for me... other than what ITF said


TTFN



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg


One way around this is to have a hundred satellites in different orbits --
.....Or Twenty
Maybe even twelve....



It is estimated that a constellation consisting of only 12 satellites can negate 94% of all missile threats in most theater threat scenarios. Thus a system consisting of 20 satellites is expected by BMDO to provide nearly full threat negation.
www.fas.org...

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Exuberant1]


You proposed a ground attack system, which requires a fairly steep downwards beam path -- hence a much smaller effective radius. If you plan to attack targets rising into in space, once they clear the atmosphere they can be hit at much greater ranges than when they are still on the ground (think of the slant range through thick atmosphere).

So you are changing fundamental parameters of the operating requirements -- and it's normal for the constellation size to vary under such differences.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The inverse square law applies to diminished intensity resulting from a spherical emission of electromagnetic radiation, right? A laser is highly directional and thus does not obey the inverse square law. With a "perfect" laser, the intensity would only be diminished by dust, atmospheric distortion, etc, but of course there's no such thing as a perfect laser. Still a laser should maintain intensity far greater than an inverse square calculation would suggest.

If we were to put an electromagnetic emission weapon in space with a spherical emission pattern, that would in fact follow the inverse square law as you suggest. I'm confident we could come up with more directional designs than a spherical emission pattern.


All beams diverge to some extent. Imagine the circular beam at a certain range. At twice the range, the beam will have twice the diameter... and four times the area. Do the math.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The inverse square law applies to diminished intensity resulting from a spherical emission of electromagnetic radiation, right? A laser is highly directional and thus does not obey the inverse square law. With a "perfect" laser, the intensity would only be diminished by dust, atmospheric distortion, etc, but of course there's no such thing as a perfect laser. Still a laser should maintain intensity far greater than an inverse square calculation would suggest.

If we were to put an electromagnetic emission weapon in space with a spherical emission pattern, that would in fact follow the inverse square law as you suggest. I'm confident we could come up with more directional designs than a spherical emission pattern.


All beams diverge to some extent. Imagine the circular beam at a certain range. At twice the range, the beam will have twice the diameter... and four times the area. Do the math.


Here's what the textbook says (but I don't believe the textbook either):



Note the lower left of page 21 from "Principles of Radiological Physics":


A situation where the inverse square law does not apply is in the case of a laser beam.


Now again to repeat my earlier post, they are basing that comment on a "perfect" or textbook laser, and there's no such thing. But they also correctly state the inverse square law applies to isotropic light sources, and lasers are definitely NOT isotropic.

They also mention an assumption of "no absorption or scattering of radiation", for a space source to space target laser application this assumption is probably not too far off, but for ground targets, obviously there will be significantly more dust and atmospheric scattering, even weather completely blocking the source as Phage mentioned.

When I have more time, I'll try to research some experimental evidence on laser intensity as a function of distance, since I'll believe that evidence more than your math, my math, or a textbook. My expectation is it will show the intensity is not constant like the textbook says, and does not follow the inverse square law, but is probably somewhere in-between.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

I did some more research on the inverse square law as applied to lasers, including reading a military research paper on the topic written in 1997 by Mark E. Rogers, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF, called: "LASERS IN SPACE: TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS FOR ENHANCING US MILITARY CAPABILITIES"

After reading that paper, it's apparent to me that space based laser weapons have way too many engineering problems to be very practical. First, you probably need a chemical reaction to generate enough power, then the exhaust from the chemicals can change the satellite's trajectory, and lastly once the chemicals are depleted the weapon is useless. Not impossible but there have to be better alternatives.

Here are my conclusions about power dissipation: If the target is close enough, say within 20 miles of the source (just a rough number that will vary significantly based on type of laser and other factors), and the target is large enough, let's say a tank, it's apparently possible to deliver the vast majority of the laser energy to the target (aside from that lost due to atmospheric interference, etc). The total watts or joules delivered will be close to what's emitted by the source, but spread out over a larger area perhaps the size of a tank instead of the smaller beam emitted from the source laser.

Beyond a distance of about 20 miles (again just a rough ballpark number) the size of the laser beam diameter might exceed the size of the tank and therefore some portion of the original beam is no longer striking the tank but the area surrounding it.

Therefore, Jim Oberg, I think your math is correct for space based lasers dealing with distances roughly greater than 20 miles if the target is the size of a tank or smaller.

I think the textbook's implication that 100% of the laser energy travels in any one direction is really only meaningful so long as the size of the target doesn't exceed the size of the diverged beam at that distance, which in the case of a tank at 20 miles could be the case for certain laser system designs.

I found a lot more math specific to lasers in this source:
www.rp-photonics.com...
I had no idea that increasing the waist radius had such a dramatic effect on the effective range of the laser, as the Rayleigh length (a measure of the effective range of the laser) increases with the square of the waist radius!



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'd personally like to thank Jeremy V, Jeff R, and Wes O for the great podcast on Paratopia, and for following up here with more interesting information. Some people like me really appreciate all of your efforts to bring some credibility to the UFO and paranormal fields.


Thanks for that.

Unfortunately it seems what I said would happen, happened exactly as I described.

It's unfortunate that the less than critical and doe-eyed believers and "Dale Gribbles" seem to be the majority here. Those who swipe for no other reason than to suspect, cause suspect, and accuse of the ridiculous.

One man's (Wes') opinion of the reality of the Secret Space program doesn't make it so. However, it does garner a little more weight in certain aspects than that of the average Zorgon...I mean...Joe. If you're into a secret space program existing as a reality, it'll take a lot more digging than one interview - but my personal outlook is it's irrelevant to the UFO issue, at least for me personally. But, at least we have NASA specialists on the program rather than the same kooks with blurry, fuzzy logic "evidence" or no evidence at all. The focus of the "Secret Space Program" interview wasn't about space based weapons, but vast interstellar travel, and as Richard Dolan said when he was on, the notion that we've gone to every planet we can find and made contact - all under the auspices of some secret space agency. Has that happened? I don't personally think so for obvious reasons that any of you can think of. But what the hell do I know? It's not my primary focus on this subject.

The bigger issue is that few here seem to value educated opinion, or be willing to hear from the very mouth of some who've been inside an agency like NASA that actually entertains this subject...unless it supports their long standing contentions. The issue is not changing public opinion, but looking in new directions. If you've followed Paratopia for any length of time, these new directions have often set new directions in motion.

As much as I hate to say this, I think the critical thinking rational members of this "community" have become a minority. The fringe elements seem to have taken the forum to a new low of deliberate baiting and accusation that I don't find to be productive interaction. When you realize that such interaction is running below the level of functional discussion and above the level of reasonable aggravation - you just drop away, because what else is there to really do. I don't "run" from any argument, when the argument is coherent. I love debate, but I love rational debate - ones without supposition of "facts" on which the entire argument is based. What I don't put up with anymore is intentional baiting and immature nonsense. Why should I bother. Why should anyone? This is why those rational members are a minority. I truly believe that.

And again, in what started out to be a civil discussion, degrades into accusations that I'm a "setup" agent, or the reason John Lear is no longer in the forum. Neither is true, but I'm sure in private messages people enjoy perpetration of the myth. People don't see anyone's point because everyone wants drama and intrigue. Does any of that get anyone closer to anything besides more bull****? Of course not. It's tail chasing garbage - and who needs it. The board has become a place for those who seek negative attention...or any attention to come get into a brawl - and those who like to watch, do so. It's the same as "reality" TV...how outrageous and stupid will it get. The notion of one-upmanship runs at an all time high. Goal post moving is now common place.

And if I don't care to be involved in it (because it's a waste of time), is Wes going to? Of course not. I'll say this apologetically: Jim Oberg is a friggin saint.

I don't know how he puts up with the plethora of nonsense that gets chucked around here. If one gets tired of nonsense and out and out lies being leveled at you...and you disconnect from the conversation, you're considered "running away"...these screwballs actually believe they've attained some sort of victory. Truly, it's mind-blowing. Whats truly sad to me is that Paratopia's message board members and listeners of the show have to ask me "why do you even bother with ATS?"

I would only encourage people to really look at the resource ATS can be, start realizing the ridiculousness it's reached, and turn it around. Step back and actually look at the interaction from a objective viewpoint. A hell of a lot can be accomplished here if people actually spoke to each other rather than at each other.

I can tell you one thing, I certainly won't be directing any more of our guests here to answer questions. I think more of our guests than to expose them to the vitriolic patients that seem to be running the asylum in this forum. I'm very sorry for the rest of you.

I know you're all past this point in the discussion, sorry for the interjection.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Here's what the textbook says (but I don't believe the textbook either):


Well good for you
Maybe there is hope for you yet

But aaybe NASA papers will be helpful, seeing as yawl are NASA groupies here




1. Introduction
The development of the Beam Transmission
Optical System (BTOS) is a portion of a larger
project entitled SpacE Laser Electric ENErgy
(SE1.ENE). The SELENE project utilizes a high
energy, free electron laser to transfer energy from
the ground to orbiting spacecraft or other space targets such as a lunar base .1 BTOS is the systcm
that delivers the beam energy from the laser to the
target,
The primary mission objective of SELENE is to
provide energy for operation of geosynchronous
satellites including steady-state power for operations,
periodic low power for station keeping, periodic high
power during eclipses, and high power for transfer
orbit apogee burn.2 SELENE will also provide
energy for operation at middle and high earth orbits
(ME()) of 3000+ kilometers, Another possible
usage for SELENE will be to provide energy to a
laser-augmented solar-electric orbit transfer vehicle
wherein a low earth orbit (LEO) vehicle transfers to
geosynchronous orbit (GEO) through a spiral trajectory path.
Finally, SELENE will provide continuous steady-state energy for operation of a lunar base.3




Functional design requirements for BTOS arc
drawn from the most taxing case from each intended
mission, The aperture size was determined from power requirements of the lunar mission and is - currently set at 12 meters, The optical design is an”
on-axis Cassegrain system with a baseline f-number
of 1.25.4 Slew rates and accelerations will be set by
MEO missions, To provide for the necessary power
requirements at the target, which include an overall
Strehl ratio greater than 0.5, it is necessary for the
beam path to correct for atmospheric disturbances.s’6
Atmospheric disturbances include natural wind
driven thermal gradients and thermal blooming
effects caused by the beam itself.7
Atmospheric correction for the BTOS project is
accomplished through the usage of an active,
segmented primary mirror. ‘The diagram in Figure I
illustrates how the system works.4 For the current
site location (White Sands, New Mexico) the r. is
estimated to be three centimeters (3 cm). The initial
design for the primary mirror requires the usage of
over 150,000 hexagonal, 3 cm flat-to-flat mirror
segments, each of which is capable of being
commanded in tip, tilt, and piston by utilizing three
voice coil actuators,8’9 These commands will bc
made by a control system with a 300 hertz
bandwidth.


trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov...

Now this is NASA stuff... the Military Space Program is way past this



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Providing power through a ground based laser is a far cry from using a space based laser to kill targets on the surface.

Adaptive optics are fine for correction of atmospheric distortions but do nothing about loss of signal strength due to dust, fog, and clouds.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
One man's (Wes') opinion of the reality of the Secret Space program doesn't make it so.


You got that right
Especially someone not in a capacity to know, as he has admitted




However, it does garner a little more weight in certain aspects than that of the average Zorgon...I mean...Joe.


How so? How does his admitted lack of knowledge on Secret space project garner any more weight? That is a pretty stupid remark really... but considering your views on the majority of posters at ATS it isn't surprising. I could provide a list of names of experts I have spoken to about this but what would be the point? Your already stuck in your ways


but my personal outlook is it's irrelevant to the UFO issue, at least for me personally. But, at least we have NASA specialists on the program rather than the same kooks with blurry, fuzzy logic "evidence" or no evidence at all.

You seem to have a constant need to boost your self esteem by constantly throwing insults out at everyone that doesn't agree with you... yet you are a hypocrite...

The very title of your podcast that is supposedly on "NASA UFO issues" is "Paratopia Episode 23 - Wes Owsley Challenges the Secret Space Program"

Now secret weapons platforms certainly DO go under secret space program DUH!!! but perhaps you don't want to understand that.

Then we get this arrogant statement at your site...

"Wes has long heard talk of the “Secret Space Program”, and is here to educate the UFO and conspiracy communities about the notion."

EDUCATE us? Yet his disclaimer says he knows nothing about the topic
What a joke... nay INSULT this is to ATS users intelligence...

You can call me what you like, I can just laugh it off, because once the opposition resorts to nasty insults and innuendos, you just strengthen my case... you won't be able to drag me into a long feud like you did with another member... but give it your best shot. If such derogatory comments is all you have for the majority of posters here at ATS, I am surprised they still let you run amuck around here...



But what the hell do I know?


Well that is the first thing you have said that makes sense



It's not my primary focus on this subject.


Then perhaps a wiser choice of titles might have been in order... something more UFO related




The bigger issue is that few here seem to value educated opinion, or be willing to hear from the very mouth of some who've been inside an agency like NASA that actually entertains this subject.


I will quote you a section of a letter from someone who has a Ph.D., has worked with NASA and holds secret clearance and secret patents...

I know you will most likely not get the message. I don't care really, because I know many of the silent watchers will...


My Good Man...there comes a time when the 'student becomes the Master...and no longer needs the hand of Mentor. The Mentor provides the foundation from which the student builds and springs to new levels of discovery not contemplated by the Mentor: This is the natural order of things (time, life and learning)'



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
I can tell you one thing, I certainly won't be directing any more of our guests here to answer questions. I think more of our guests than to expose them to the vitriolic patients that seem to be running the asylum in this forum. I'm very sorry for the rest of you.


Thanks for the feedback, that's very unfortunate you won't be bringing any more guests here, but after reading this thread, I certainly understand your position and I did object to the way your guest was treated.

There have been other guests invited to post on ATS, (from other sources), and some of those guests I disagreed with completely, but I tried to show them some respect, by either just reading what they had to say and shaking my head in disbelief (but not posting anything), or maybe asking some non-attacking questions if I wanted them to clarify something. But I don't see that it adds anything to ATS to run any of the guests off, whether it's a guest I mostly disagree strongly with, or a guest I mostly agree with. We are here to get different viewpoints and opinions from our own after all (otherwise we could just talk to ourself, maybe some of us do?
)


Unfortunately it seems what I said would happen, happened exactly as I described.

Hey if your next prediction is that the next guest will be treated better, maybe that one will come true?


reply to post by zorgon
 



Originally posted by Phage
Providing power through a ground based laser is a far cry from using a space based laser to kill targets on the surface.

Yes that's what I was thinking when I said "there have to be better alternatives" (to space based lasers).

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Providing power through a ground based laser is a far cry from using a space based laser to kill targets on the surface.


Well last I checked NASA is not in the business of blasting targets on Earth to smitherines... though there is that "Flyby Shooting of Venus"incidence


But NASA say LUNAR BASE many times in that document



June 5, 2007: Picture this: A spaceship swoops in from the void, plunging toward a cloudy planet about the size of Earth. A laser beam lances out from the ship; it probes the planet's clouds, striving to reach the hidden surface below. Meanwhile, back on the craft's home world, scientists perch on the edge of their seats waiting to see what happens.

Sounds like science fiction? This is real, and it's happening today.


Man if it wasn't for NASA writers, I would be at a loss for such Kewl stories...



[edit on 20-9-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann


BTW why can I not post a comment on your Paratopia?


It says..
"Your tokens have timed out. Reload the page to reset your tokens."

You mean I have to pay to post? Or are you blocking people... Heck I never even visited before


Here is what I attempted to post... in regards to Wes's 'Hydrogen tracking" proof...

BTW what does THAT have to do with UFO's



Not all 'Secret' spaceships require hydrogen in the fuel. That is a mistaken assumption, and I am not even talking exotic things like anti gravity drives, something John Lear's dad was working on in 1952 with the DoD and TT Brown
roject Winterhaven" and Buzz Aldrin is senior science adviser and partner in Gravwave LLC, a company working withe the CHINESE on anti gravity

But the one stage to orbit mini shuttles don't need hydrogen. Those are dropped from the bottom of an airplane


Phil Plait from Bad Astronomy won't let me post either. Seems he screens his replies


At least here at ATS we get to express BOTH sides freely



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Actually still here...as I mentioned before...my work requires near constant travel...and now that I am laptop-less (Thanks to TSA!) I can only post when I have the oppurtunity to catch up. (BTW TSA = Thousands Standing Around!)

To Arbitrageur: I would never rule anything out. My premise is that everyone is seeing something...no? What that something is...who knows. That is why I am researching this stuff.
So, my friends in Bulgaria have over 900 "UFO" reports on file just from Bulgaria's Black Sea Coast, just this for 2009. We are sure that increased US Military activity in the area (The US has formed a black sea fleet with its home port being the currently under construction Navy Homeport Varna) more than likely accounts for alot of the sightings. However, of those cases, some have trace evidence...evidence that is currently being studied. So, I don't discount anything.

To Clarify the "Bunk" Statement...I mean stuff so outrageous that is defies credibility. Moon Bases...Mars Bases...inter-galatic travel has already happened...that kind of stuff.

To Zorgon...thanks for you comments. About Hydrogen though...I seem to have misspoken on the podcast and in some of my paratopia posts and for that I offer my sincere apologies. When I discuss the impact that a secret space program would have on the the Hydrogen supply, I mean the manufacturing process...not for propulsion. Of course, any next-gen space vehicle would not be using hydrogen as a means of propulsion...or at least I hope not. Hydrogen is a key resource used in the manufacturing process of any space-related materials. Here is some info I can use to illustrate my thoughts on this. Intel is one of the biggest consumers of hydrogen in the US...so if Boeing...hydrogen is a key component of their processes. Also let's talk about other things...Aluminum, Steel, oh yeah..and just who is making the space suits? That's a whole other area of discussion. Or the nightmare that is Space Flight Certification of materials (Ask Jim he would be better than me at explaining it)

To think of a space program...any space program outside of the context of that nations foreign policy is really a fool's errand. The International Space Station Program, and especially the NASA/MIR Program, were/are really mere extensions of U.S. Foreign Policy. Right now, the U.S. is busy...very busy with implementing changes suggested by the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation. Study Core/GAP Theory...study base realignments and relocations.
Just because budgets become "Classified," or "Black" (emphasis on the "K"), doesn't proclude those budgets from being misappropriated or even worse...just plain normal stuff. How many ball point pens did Rumsfeld use with at the Pentagon? Its classified. Also, I whole heartedly agree with Jim Oberg about waste and abuse with the budgets for ISS in NASA...I saw it with my own eyes. Don't discount the fact that in some cases, a "Black" budget can by stolen...or pay someones mortgage. My gut feeling tells me that there is a wholelot of that stuff going on.

Once again, my point was trying to tell people to not waste their time was an honest attempt by me to be helpful. That's all it was and nothing more. No lines to read between...just trying to contribute in my own little way.

Until next time, I will be following the thread when I can.

Ciao! (The Bulgarian One)



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by wesowsley
 


Let me comment on this part of your comments: "So, my friends in Bulgaria have over 900 "UFO" reports on file just from Bulgaria's Black Sea Coast, just this for 2009. We are sure that increased US Military activity in the area (The US has formed a black sea fleet with its home port being the currently under construction Navy Homeport Varna) more than likely accounts for alot of the sightings."

I assume (erroneously?) that the possibly not-as-well-informed inhabitants of that region are not familiar with aircraft as say the inhabitants of the US which can see various aircraft flying around all of the time. The Bulgarian inhabitants don't have that much to compare what they see and even if they are military craft, they're flying higher than detail can be made out unless they instantly recognize wings.

As an example of what I'm trying to say (if it's not clear): I'm a UFO "hunter" so that the minute I step out of my apartment building I'm scanning the sky. And being in NYC I see all types of aircraft at all heights. But even the highest passenger or miltary plane is immediately recognized as being human-constructed. However, here is the exception. I wear polarized sunglasses and when I look up at a plane, depending on the angle, sometimes I see only the fuselage - a torpedo shape. As I rotate my head back and forth the wings will become visible. Also, because of my sunglasses the airplane(s) will stand out against the darkened sky making the airplane fuselage eye-catching. Same thing with the white seagulls that fly overhead constantly.

One can't just glance at the sky and make a call on something not immediately recognizable. But UFOs are instantly recognizable!



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by wesowsley Also, I whole heartedly agree with Jim Oberg about waste and abuse with the budgets for ISS in NASA...I saw it with my own eyes.


Well then... I'll toss a star in for that


So about this ISS... why is it on the one hand we hear its obsolete about ready to be scrapped, yet they keep adding new stuff like that expensive Dextre the Robot?

I here he caused trouble right from the gitgo though...

NASA statement:


"In a surprising and potentially troubling request, the new space station robot known as Dextre demanded that astronauts refer to it in the future at "Dextre the Magnificent." Brandishing power tools that would make any handyperson blush, the mobile servicing system thanked humans for creating it and promised a glorious future where humans would retain an important role in the new robot order...."



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Zorgon, have you got a link for that external quote?

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Zorgon, have you got a link for that external quote?


What the April Fool's joke? Sure NASA APOD

apod.nasa.gov...

I just love NASA's sense of humor... such kidders... like Jim Garvin's trilobite on Mars with no image number... that kept us busy a few days


But seriously dood... cut and paste text into search




[edit on 22-9-2009 by zorgon]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join