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.

 

The Secret Behind Radar Based Sightings

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
As I understand it there seems to be some confusion surrounding radar based UFO phenomenon. Not only are average citizens confused, but entire nations have been confounded by this grand illusion. Please allow me to clarify the obvious truth behind these "alien" encounters.

Although it is true that radar can sometimes pick up naturally occurring phenomena the majority of radar based sightings of craft that appear to break the laws of physics are actually stealth craft fielded by the United States. Stealth craft such as the B2 deflect radiation emitted by a radar at a variety of angles, depending on the angle of attack. Sometimes the radar's signal is deflected so that it never returns to the radar, in other instances the signal is returned to the radar, but does not indicate the craft's actual location or size. If the stealth craft tilts perhaps 15 degrees you'll notice that it's radar signature might jump from a thousand feet to ten thousand feet in a matter of seconds, thus appearing to defy the laws of physics. The craft itself is actually flying like any other air craft.

Reports that the B2 electro-statically charges it's skin is only somewhat true. The skin of the B2 does become electrically charged during flight, but this charge has nothing to do with flight and is actually just a side effect of stealth technology. The craft not only deflects a portion of radar signals, but also absorbs a portion of them. The radiation absorbed by the craft is energy, this becomes electrical energy in the craft's skin. Again this has nothing to do with flight, it is merely a side effect of stealth technology.

1337atr.weebly.com...


edit on 13-7-2012 by Symbiot because: Added smiley for the additional middle finger effect





posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Interesting. There's just one slight problem with that. Although the CIA has taken the position that up to 50% of UFO sightings may have been due to classified, top secret stealth craft, is there any documentation or evidence that you can provide that definitively proves these stealth craft fighters were behind the UFO cases that have been tracked on radar, be it from air port radar towers or military bases? I personally find it highly unlikely that experimental air craft would be tested over military installations to be passed off as UFOs, but I am open to the evidence.

Still, that leaves one question unanswered: UFOs have been seen and tracked on radar in many countries throughout the world, countries that range from being the closest allies to the United States to being of no significant foreign policy interest that would warrant spying. Why would the government risk a major diplomatic issue with some of our closest allies? All to test some top secret stealth bombers? It is very doubtful that all of these countries have their own top secret b2 stealth bombers in development or even have a defense budget that is comparable to ours. So, is it possible our stealth bomber is responsible for all of these high profile sightings that have been tracked on radar across the world? Many of which have caused jets to be scrambled to intercept the UFOs?


Still, S&F. I am always open and find it more likely that most if not all of these cases can possibly be explained by mundane phenomenon such as stealth bombers, but many cases still remained unsolved and the technology involved in these UFOs makes a stealth bomber look like a horse and a cart.
edit on 13-7-2012 by Diablos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Interesting info, OP! Then there's also this aspect to consider:


A lone chemist’s quest to expose the UFO cover-up

...At the time, a lot of emphasis was placed on UFO sightings that were confirmed by radar – as late as 1989 and the Belgian UFO wave, specific emphasis continues to be placed on this “technological confirmation”. But Davidson pointed out that as early as 1945, mechanical countermeasures against radar had become publicly known – and used. It was known that these could cause blips on the radar screen, resulting in incorrect range, speed, or heading.

This was called Electronic Countermeasures and Davidson believed this method of counterintelligence was used to present the myth that “UFOs” existed.

Davidson drew the infamous equation: ECM+CIA=UFO, suggesting that the CIA were creating ECM signals on radars, so that people would believe in the presence of UFOs, as they confirmed eyewitness accounts of anomalous objects in the sky.

Furthermore, the anomalous blips were a perfect mechanism to distort the true capabilities of any new aircraft that was being test-flown – occasional sightings of which were passed off as UFOs too...
www.philipcoppens.com...

The whole article is fascinating actually. However, some folk get me wrong when I post links like the above. I'm not debunking. I'm a believer of sorts.

It's just that to be able to separate the chaff from the ufological wheat, I believe it to be necessary to understand the whole-shebang from commonly accepted hoaxes to the intelligence agencies involvement and use of the ufo phenomena for secrecy and psyop purposes.

While I don't find Phillip Coppens very intriguing as an Ancient Alien theorist, I do find him to be an excellent writer with a fascinating series of articles at the following link:

UFO Memes



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
What gets me is...

There is a huge difference between capable human made maneuvers caught by radar then, classified or not, than there are now - than there was in the 50's and 60's. Say - to drones operated like some flippin' video game where no real hard feelings for the deaths of innocence is felt. Some may not notice the distinction but come on....

I think this is where all that everything is happening now syndrome comes in. And yes, it's a psychological syndrome. We are in a state of disease. Or should I clarify - DIS-EASE. If you feel at ease, shame on you. People are still dying of hunger and enslaved here you know...

UFO's are not ALL ours. Case closed. Now the question is what are they and where do they come from? Personally, I think it's one of our most pressing issues. I'd say I know, but you'd call me a quack, so why bother?

Unfortunately, that is where we all are at...

Sorry,, needed a rant, and your thread was what sparked it.

S&F for bringing me back from the grave, and for intruding upon on your thread in such a passionate way. I apologize.




edit on 13-7-2012 by CirqueDeTruth because: fillers



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Symbiot
As I understand it there seems to be some confusion surrounding radar based UFO phenomenon. Not only are average citizens confused, but entire nations have been confounded by this grand illusion. Please allow me to clarify the obvious truth behind these "alien" encounters.

Although it is true that radar can sometimes pick up naturally occurring phenomena the majority of radar based sightings of craft that appear to break the laws of physics are actually stealth craft fielded by the United States. Stealth craft such as the B2 deflect radiation emitted by a radar at a variety of angles, depending on the angle of attack.


Do you mean aircraft pitch, or angle of incidence, or what? (I don't think you mean "angle of attack", which has a precise and common meaning in aviation relating not to radar but to the lift of and airflow over an airfoil.)

More importantly, do you think stealth technology and the concepts from that article were in play in the late 1940's? I ask because of findings like this in Blue Book Special Report 14:
"Speed --The major contribution to chi square for this characteristic is due to a large excess of UNKNOWNS in the over 400-mph class. It can be assumed that some of the excessive speeds are inaccuracies in estimates by observers. However, some radar sightings, which are practically impossible to identify, show objects with speeds of 1,000 to 2,000 mph and over...."

These were late 40's and early 50's UFO sightings. Plus there are plenty of radar reports which are linked to concurrent, correlated visual sightings of the object as well, and that makes it difficult for me to just casually chalk the average UFO/radar case up to the standard explanation of "temperature inversion", shown by James McDonald (and IIRC even some Air Force studies) to have often been an absurd if not literally impossible explanation.

For me, the "top secret military testing" hypothesis doesn't fare much better. Our current aviation tech is a long way from some of the UFO "flight" characteristics that have been (IMO) reliably reported... and, importantly, that remains true even if one assumes we have black projects that are decades ahead of known civilian aviation technology. So, does "top secret military tech" explain some UFO sightings? Surely. Some others... almost surely not.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
This would be the incredibly sophisticated ECM that the Serbs simply outwitted by stringing a mobile phone network together and then shot the Stealth craft down?

In the case if the Belgian UFO flap of the late 80s, the tapes were given to and studied by the country's leading lecturer and expert on such technology I have to say, I tend to believe his thoughts on the subject rather than, random people posting on the net.

I recently spent a good hour or two reading through a very erudite and detailed rebuttal of the famous B47 case from 1957 in the USA. A welter of diagrams and information all designed to show that the author really did know their stuff about the subject. That no-one could deny, only one problem, small one I guess, pleased with his work , he writes off the Radar sighting as a "spoof reading" whilst conveniently forgetting to mention to the reader, who doesn't know better, the object was seen visually, by at least two members of the crew.

More recently, in the case of the "Boston Stump" in Britain, again mysteriously, the Met office records for the night it occurred seem to have changed. A News crew from the local area interviewed their local Met office, at the time and the guy from said office, makes it quite plain that. "On the night of the incident the weather conditions were exactly the opposite of those you'd expect such an anomaly to appear".

That's not to say that, certain so called "UFO" incidents can't be laid at the door of various earthly technology and atmospheric conditions, they most certainly can however, it's becoming almost as boring as listening to swamp gas, in the 50s, to hear people trotting the same old glib explanations, based often on, zero knowledge of a specific incident or even worse. Lackadaisical research, or simply choosing to ignore inconvenient parts of the evidence.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 
FireMoon!! Great to see you. I'm glad you're still alive!!

Reminds me of Snake Plissken from Escape from New York:






posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Symbiot
 


There have been UFO radar sightings long before the B2 and other stealth aircraft were around. These sightings go back into the early to mid 50's, before there were any signficant ECM programs to falsify radar observations (think USAF/CIA programs didn't start until 1958 or later, maybe even 1962).

That said, who's to say that ET craft wouldn't also have stealth technology to avoid radar observation?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Symbiot
 


Nice opinion. And so much for being any more than that.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Refreshing perspective towards questionable radar objects. Before we turn our heads to the heavens for explanations, perhaps it is time we turn them towards those we elect and their superiors for a proper debriefing.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Whoever wrote that got a number of things sort of wrong, especially towards the end.

Although I do agree with some of it. Radar can give you really anomalous returns in some cases.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Do you mean aircraft pitch, or angle of incidence, or what? (I don't think you mean "angle of attack", which has a precise and common meaning in aviation relating not to radar but to the lift of and airflow over an airfoil.)



Angle of attack is the correct terminology.

Aircraft pitch determines angle of attack, angle of incidence (the difference between the angle of wing chord and the longitudinal axis) is a fixed value.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Firemoon, star to you for content, not just love of your avatar. I set Tim's article on the RB-47 incident aside about halfway through. Slick but no cigar. That crew was the best of the best, and those who weren’t instructors became instructors later. Besides, as you pointed out, they had visual in addition to data from the toys. I wasn’t there; neither was he. So no guarantees either way, just the word of those considered well equipped and highly competent at that time.

Larry Robinson tears down the Washington, D.C. case largely on the basis of claiming that because of upgrades to the system going on at the time the radar operators didn't know their jobs as well as they wanted people to think. But that’s not enough for him to give up on citing weather inversion as part of it, which the Weather Bureau denied right after the incident, even though the press lapped it up. I also found it cute that he claimed the reason the UFOs disappeared when the scrambled F-94s got close was that the radar operators turned the gain down because the strong blips from the fighters. Oh! Since it’s not raining airplanes, I have to give the radar operators quite a bit more credit.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   


Most of that, while incredibly interesting, has little to do with this post. The part I'd like to point out is near the beginning, in black and white, where they conduct the experiment with a guy asking questions of an actor and administering fake electric shocks. The gentleman is more than willing to trust the man telling him to continue even against his better judgment simply because the man is wearing a white lab coat.

Very interesting experiment in my opinion. People are more than willing to believe what they are told so long as they believe it is coming from a person smarter than they. Even if it's just a random dude wearing a white lab coat.

Edit: If you've read some of my web-site and other writings you might notice how the rest of this video relates quite well to the things I say. Dr. Zimbardo's experiment shows how generally "good" people will become "evil" when given the chance. It shows that when you give a person the power to control another, such as prison guards, police officers, presidents, CEOs, etc, they will abuse that power in cruel and unusual ways. Those given the role of prisoner naturally rebel, those given the role of master naturally become twisted.

This study shows that it is a very bad idea to give people the power to rule over others, in any fashion. It shows that hierarchy or command structures are not the solution, but in fact the problem.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-7-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)


Edit: By the way I understand that Dr. Zimbardo could be considered figuratively a guy in a white lab coat so why trust his experiment? Because the proof is not only in his experiment, but also all around you. Take a look around, your commanding officers are complete jerks no? I'm sure there are a few "good" COs, but notice how they do nothing to stop the "bad" COs exactly as Zimbardo's experiment concluded.

Zimbardo himself even noted how the "guards" immediately began a campaign of degradation and compared such to what one might experience in the military. They broke the prisoners spirits and then waged a campaign of divide and conquer to completely destroy the will of the "prisoners." PRISONERS


edit on 17-7-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-7-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)


Also good to note is how the "guards" didn't even realize what they were doing. Now interviewed much later in life the worst guard says he realizes now how what he was doing was wrong. In science experiments like this are now considered unethical, but in the military and other outlets it is a way of life. I would call it unethical myself, but to each their own I always say.


edit on 17-7-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-7-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)


Some more interestingness. Zimbardo gave himself the role of prison warden and even he succumbed to it, he became much like the guards in not only allowing such behavior, but fighting to continue it. It took the logical arguments of his colleagues to snap him out of what he had become. He finally realized that these people were suffering and he had to put an end to his experiment.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Symbiot
If the stealth craft tilts perhaps 15 degrees you'll notice that it's radar signature might jump from a thousand feet to ten thousand feet in a matter of seconds


I am no expert in the field of radar but I wonder how this would be possible since radar is really echo location with radio waves so perhaps a stealth aircraft could be invisible to radar or give a bizarre set of radar returns from its actual bearing and range

But I wonder how a stealth aircraft would cause radio waves to eminate from a remote position 9,000 feet above the aircraft itself..



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Thats interesting, as previously mentioned by another poster, can you explain you statement about how a reduced RCS airframe will provide returns to a radar showing fantastic manoeuvring?

An airframe with reduced RCS will provide a much weaker return as the energy is partially absorbed and partially scattered away from the emitter. It wont show a strong return in an erroneous place. They are shaped so you don't see them at all due to the lack of returning energy.

I can see how you could do that deliberately with an EW suite (rumours that some of the more recent AESAs can do it to) but it would have to be deliberate. Actively spoofing civilian radar isn't something i can imagine being done lightly and even if it was why draw attention to it by providing a false signal guaranteed to raise eyebrows?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47

But that’s not enough for him to give up on citing weather inversion as part of it, which the Weather Bureau denied right after the incident..


Xpoq47, good point and it wasn't just the U.S. Weather Bureau who denied it - the CIA, Project Bluebook and the U.S. Government all rejected the 'temperature inversion' theory as well - it's mentioned in Gazrok's thread here that the theory was just an off the cuff remark by Captain Roy James (who hadn't even participated in the investigation) and here's what the senior physicist at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona also had to say about it:




"I have interviewed five of the CAA personnel involved in this case and four of the commercial airline pilots involved, I have checked the radiosonde data against well-known radar propagation relations, and I have studied the CAA report subsequently published on this event. Only an extremely lengthy discussion would suffice to present the serious objections to the official explanation that this complex sighting was a result of anomalous radar propagation and refractive anomalies of the mirage type. The refractive index gradient, even after making allowance for instrument lag, was far too low for "ducting" or "trapping" to occur; and, still more significant, the angular elevations of the visually observed unknowns lay far too high for radar- ducting under even the most extreme conditions that have ever been observed in the atmosphere. Some of the pilots, directed by ground radar to look for any airborne objects, saw them at altitudes well above their own flight altitudes, and these objects were maneuvering in wholly unconventional manner. One crew saw one of the unknown luminous objects shoot straight up, and simultaneously the object' s return disappeared from the ARTC scope being watched by the CAA radar operators. The official suggestion that the same weak (1.7"C) low-level "inversion" that was blamed for the radar ducting could produce miraging effects was quantitatively absurd, even if one overlooks the airline-pilot sightings and deals only with the reported ground-visual sightings".

Dr. James E. McDonald, Senior Physicist at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona


James McDonald, Statement on UFOs to U.S. House Committee on Science and Aeronatics, 1968 Symposium on UFOs


Cheers.




reply to post by Symbiot
 

Symbiot, what about cases where radar operators plot unknown objects on their screens 'in the same area of sky' as to which the eye-witnesses are reporting them?

Here are just three examples and Martin Shough has done some great work on the radar report in the Minot AFB thread if you're interested.


UFOs 'Escort' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed

UFOs Over Edwards Air Force Base

The Minot AFB B-52 UFO Incident

Cheers.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


While there are a significant amount of naturally occurring phenomena around the Earth and, obviously, the universe that remain unknown and yet un-studied there are also a range of man-made possibilities that can account for a variety of UFO encounters. Let us not forget that UFO simply stands for Unidentified Flying Object it does not imply alien or extra-terrestrial as many might assume.

Now here I went and identified the Stealth likelihood behind a number of radar based sightings, and I do find this quite likely especially in foreign territory where the US is likely to spy. As a quick side note if you've ever played a game of Civilization you might notice that spying on your "allies" is actually not a bad idea since you never really know who's actually your ally. Might be hard to accept, but believe it or not trillion dollar nations find it hard to see through lies just the same as zero dollar individuals.

At any rate here's a video I posted a while ago, but since took down to re-work and place back up. I re-worked it because I didn't like the accusative nature of the previous video, also swapped out the sound-track. This video is currently blocked in Germany on copyright grounds so if you're having trouble with it let me know and I might post it up to Vimeo which has less copyright restrictions.



Here's part of the text description from my site:

Vacuum Lift Technology

The original vacuum airship concept was first proposed by Francesco Lana De Terzi, the "father of aeronautics," in the year 1670 AD. The design proposed above is of the unmanned aerial vehicle variety, but the underlying technology, like that of a conventional airship, can come in a variety of shapes and sizes both manned and unmanned. The bulk of craft utilizing vacuum lift technology would be constructed of strong yet light materials such as carbon fiber or perhaps nano-tube materials at some point in the future. Heavier materials would likely be used sparingly in load bearing areas to distribute pressure away from lighter materials, similar to truss structures on the roofs of today's houses.


Surely I understand that anything is possible, but I find that jumping to the "alien" conclusion as a first resort is a bit over zealous. Just my opinion on the matter. The fact is that we live in a world with a lot of lies, many of which are perpetrated by governments and corporations with billion or even trillion dollar budgets capable of making even the most far fetched seem true.

I find that many sightings that you might find on the internet are likely created not by the average hoaxer looking for a laugh, but often by companies looking to spread "alien" fever to increase sales of their sci-fi products such as movies, toys, t-shirts etc...

edit on 17-7-2012 by Symbiot because: Moved link above ex-text


Edit: By the by, one of the most interesting aspects of the UFO phenomenon is the variety of entities involved in hoaxing. Where governments might want to spread the idea of aliens for reasons such as pretending to be more powerful than they are or staving off a revolution by keeping the populace waiting for alien saviors that never come, corporations do so for profit and individuals do so for a laugh or even just to prove their skills.

What's really interesting here is that none of these outlets are working together. So a corporation might pull off a great hoax to spread alien fever and the government doesn't know that it was a hoax, the government might pull off a hoax to hide some of it's own secret technology and the corporations don't know it was a hoax. Paramount might pull of a hoax, but Hasbro doesn't know about it and Microsoft might pull off a hoax that Universal doesn't know about. So they're all hoaxing, but none of them know that the other is hoaxing so none of them know for sure if any "sightings" are actually alien or not.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)


Oh, and in my opinion they're pretty much all hoaxes in some way shape or form and literally everyone is left in the dark on the subject because of the world of lies we live in. Kinda funny when you think about it.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)


Come now...
edit on 17-7-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Angle of attack is the correct terminology.

Aircraft pitch determines angle of attack, angle of incidence (the difference between the angle of wing chord and the longitudinal axis) is a fixed value.


Sorry, but what you say about Angle of Attack (AoA) is simply not correct, and is in fact the kind of misunderstanding that has killed far too many helpless passengers. (See below.) And angle of incidence (incidence angle, better yet) does mean what you say, yes, but the phrase means something different in aviation radar contexts. (It's the angle-to measured from the nadir, IIRC, instead of the horizon.)

As to AoA, I'm afraid that pitch does not "determine angle of attack", as you suggest, though what you're getting at (I think) is pretty commonly misunderstood. I can be in the pilot's seat and fly straight and level (with pitch = 0) with an AoA of 5 degrees... or (with enough thrust) I could also point my aircraft's nose straight up (pitch = +90) and maintain that same AoA of 5 degrees. Same AoA, different pitches.

More commonly, a pilot can maintain a fixed pitch (say +5, as if on approach), and use power to adjust the speed, and thus AoA and rate and angle of descent. Same pitch, different AoA's... So pitch does not determine AoA. And the OP did not mean AoA. The central point of which is that he is probably not an aviation expert....

And for the record, minutely different understandings of the AoA/pitch relationship are not trivial. There is actually a crucial point at the core, and it's one of my pet aviation issues. And that issue is that AoA is so misunderstood -- even by some few % of pilots, in fact, who were apparently also thinking that pitch and AoA are tightly linked -- that it may be the cause of more aviation-related deaths than any other single factor. If not, it's high on the list. But we definitely see this very common and very deadly scenario over and over again:
--the pilot pulls off a bit too much power. The aircraft slows a little more than intended. AoA slowly increases, and the descent becomes slightly rapid / steep. So the pilot (incorrectly, and instead of adding power... but remember, he's very busy at this time!) pulls BACK on the stick to increase pitch and try to arrest that descent and flatten the flight path... but then AoA increases even more, eventually increasing drag and eating up forward speed, and further increasing the angle of descent. The aircraft's true velocity vector is slowly falling lower and lower underneath the nose. And still the pilot keeps pulling BACK, trying to use pitch improperly, further increasing AoA, compounding the problem. And on and on.... A vicious and deadly cycle.

Then finally AoA exceeds its critical value, and the wing stalls. The pilot has literally lost control. And even now, some small % of pilots will keep desperately pulling back on the stick, trying to use pitch to alter flight path instead of properly addressing the AoA deficit... with speed. All lives could've been saved had the pilot simply powered up, pushed the nose down for a bit (which is the really counter-intuitive part), and THEN pulled the nose back up once he had more airflow over his wings.

It's no exaggeration to say that many thousands of deaths have a misunderstanding of AoA, and its relationship to pitch, as their core cause.

Anyway(!!)... I don't think the OP meant angle of attack. Possibly angle of incidence or angle of depression, or something to do with radar cross-section. But the idea and point of my post was that he's likely not an aviation expert or whatever, so his opinions and explanations regarding aviation radar should probably be evaluated with that in mind. That's all. ;-)
edit on 17-7-2012 by TeaAndStrumpets because: typo



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
And for the record I am not an aviation expert, but in my programming experience I've seen the term Angle of Attack used in many instances where one object intersects another. It's not uncommon to use the term Angle of Attack when describing the angle at which something is intersected by something else.

Edit: You really didn't need to discredit me in such ways, you could've asked and I'd just admit that I'm not an aviation expert. Wanna know who I am? I'm just a bum. Just your everyday average no-name bum, like any other. A non-objective third party, an outsider. Just a dude. Just... A random dude.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)


Edit: In addition to my last post on this thread I forgot to mention that some people, believe it or not, some people just want attention.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)


Am I one of those people? Am I a pathological liar too? Maybe, you never know in this world.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join