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.

 

TOP 5 Types of "Good Evidence" -or- What "Undeniable Evidence" of ETs on Earth Would Look Like

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
Sounds like Encounter of the Fourth kind. It classifies alien encounters under four categories.

First is a sighting.

Second is evidence of a visit.

Third is actual interaction with the entities.

Fourth is being abducted.


Fifth: transportation to ET home and back with return evidence

Sixth: official diplomatic relations, and ET with entourage at the Metropolitan Opera, and a permanent, open ET base.

There will be no "disclosure" of ET contact until ET wishes it to be ET policy. At that point, if ET willed it, it would be unmistakeable.
edit on 6-12-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Has anyone even considered WE are the Aliens?

Earth was Just Fine until Man Came along!

Had to say it!

Peace



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Can we prove anything? Can Science disprove a negative? Is our experience good enough for anyone else?

Some have experiences that people next to them did not experience, but would swear the reality. What's that about?

If an extradimensional alien was standing next to you how could you prove anything without access to that extra dimension.

Experience is all we have. All else is hearsay.

Zeroghost



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Ectoplasm8
Believers have claimed for decades that these are physical entities that land, interact with other humans, crash, abduct humans, etc. The answer is an extremely simple one, we demand physical evidence.


Figured you could not resist to bring some sunshine in on this one. Problem is one could land in front of you and you be denying it. Just admit it. Your president of negatives anonymous and skeptics international, a paid disinformation lucky.

Sorry but it is little ridiculous.

The Bot



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Wow, this is arguably the most important topic here, and it languishes!

You all do understand that if you don't ask the questions; you NEVER find answers. I know the usual line is " we don't know what to look for", and other such BS. The reality is that you must ask the questions you don't know.

It is a development process; you ask the stupid, the irrelevant, and begin to refine the list of questions until you have what is required; the list that will determine definitely whether something/someone is/is not extraterrestrial.

A forum like this is the perfect place to begin this process...make a suggestion and let the rest of us "pick it apart". When we are done we b]will have a list of items/questions that will be quite definitive.

So...its all up to y'all; Do you want answers? Start asking!



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

JadeStar
I thought I'd start this thread to gather together some ideas of what I and other people of a skeptical mindset would need to prove evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence on Earth.


Thank you JadeStar! This is perhaps the most important thread here...is a true shame it languishes.



So..... What WOULD be good evidence? Here are the top 5 things which I think would constitute undeniably good evidence of ETs on Earth. I'll start with the most obvious and move to the less obvious.

1. Habeas Corpus - Bring us the body. Or even a tiny piece of one which can be tested. I'm not talking about full on Roswell-like cadavers. Bring us an alien finger nail, scale, hair, or even saliva or other secretions. Something that can be looked at in a lab, thoroughly tested and possibly verified as being not of this earth. For instance all life on Earth uses left-sided proteins. If we found some form of extraterrestrial "DNA" using right sided proteins, that's pretty much an open and shut case provided the chain of custody of the sample went back to a verified "alien encounter".


Are you ready for "ET is indistinguishable from Terrestrial Human?" It is equally as logical that ET would have DNA that is so "Earth like" that y'all can't tell the difference. It could be as small as a "marker" that is "out of place". The repeat count of a marker may be slightly out of the Terrestrial range; course...y'all prolly don't know the appropriate range.

ET may have perfectly "normal" looking DNA, and have a "Y-STR" that is not shared, nor related to any other in "few enough" mutations.



2. Shoplifting - For all the accounts of alien abduction, no one has so much as brought us the alien equivalent of an acupuncture pin, dixie cup, screw or bolt or other small item that could go unnoticed. This is something which would be hard, scientific evidence that something was manufactured off world.


So, considering that when abducted, you were drugged, and rendered..."very relaxed" (unconscious); just how is One to have the presence of mind to "swipe" something? And, then y'all would have to hope that the isotopes used in the manufacture are different than Earth. I'll wish ya luck on that.



3. Alien Newspaper - For all the accounts of extraterrestrial contact with people, we almost never seem to get anything in the way of useful information outside the realm of human knowledge.


Hasn't this already happened at least once?!?? How about the Betty and Barney Hill case? Would seem to fulfill this quite nicely.

Course, it is also a rather special and apparently unique case. But, would this actually work? I can make predictions based solely in logic and probability; IF I am proven correct does that make me ET?

Prediction: Zeta 2 Reticuli...will be shown to have several planets. One of them, either a rocky planet, or a moon will be found in an orbit very much like Earth's. It will be the 4th planet from the star.



4. Show Off! - A pre-planned mass sighting of craft flying at low altitude over say the top 30 cities in the world simultaneously witnessed for several hours by people, news companies, etc would go a long way to establishing that we had company. Even better would be a landing or two in a major place like a football stadium during a match/game or a large tourist attraction.


While this should be considered a very serious "no-no"; I'm game. I've managed to predict UFO sightings twice, not sure if I can do it again; but...

Give me a time and place. No more than 3 "space planes"...will need at least 6 week lead time. (maybe it will work) Would that work for ya?



5. Address the UN. There is an actual office at the UN which will deal with anything of an extraterrestrial intelligence nature should ETs on Earth (or even knowledge of them out in other parts of our galaxy and universe) become known. In 2010 Mazlan Othman an astrophysicist from Malaysia was appointed head of the office that would deal with any earthbound aliens. I'm sure she'd love to have a chat.


You misunderstand the nature of Her office! But that's okay; ET has already addressed the UN; held meetings with G8 and G20, as well as any global governments.


The idea I like are the " Habeas Corpus ", and "Show off"; nothing quite like a good old fashion "Show 'n Tell"!

The next issue is; "Are you ready for ET?"



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   

dlbott

Ectoplasm8
Believers have claimed for decades that these are physical entities that land, interact with other humans, crash, abduct humans, etc. The answer is an extremely simple one, we demand physical evidence.


Figured you could not resist to bring some sunshine in on this one. Problem is one could land in front of you and you be denying it. Just admit it. Your president of negatives anonymous and skeptics international, a paid disinformation lucky.

Sorry but it is little ridiculous.

The Bot

"..one could land in front of you......" The classic caricature definition of a skeptic/debunker/non-believer. I guess you think attempting to make our requirements foolish, distorted, and unrealistic makes believers needs seem reasonable? No, that doesn't work.

I'm not negative or pessimistic, I'm a realist. I have a clear understanding of the enormity and impact that alien visitation on Earth would have. I refuse to trivialize that fact by so easily accepting less-than "evidence". You do nothing in the way of helping this phenomenon along by accepting and/or supporting limited levels of "evidence". You only perpetuate the tin-foil hat mentality. You should be demanding scientifically scrutinized tangible evidence of these supposed physical events.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Ectoplasm8

I'm not negative or pessimistic, I'm a realist. I have a clear understanding of the enormity and impact that alien visitation on Earth would have. I refuse to trivialize that fact by so easily accepting less-than "evidence". You do nothing in the way of helping this phenomenon along by accepting and/or supporting limited levels of "evidence". You only perpetuate the tin-foil hat mentality. You should be demanding scientifically scrutinized tangible evidence of these supposed physical events.


What do you consider acceptable evidence?

I've been trying to pay attention to what is thought of as "acceptable evidence", it seems that many don't really know. This is an issue that feel needs some "work". We will never be able to answer the "question" if we don't properly define the question, and the criteria for a solution.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   

tanka418

Ectoplasm8

I'm not negative or pessimistic, I'm a realist. I have a clear understanding of the enormity and impact that alien visitation on Earth would have. I refuse to trivialize that fact by so easily accepting less-than "evidence". You do nothing in the way of helping this phenomenon along by accepting and/or supporting limited levels of "evidence". You only perpetuate the tin-foil hat mentality. You should be demanding scientifically scrutinized tangible evidence of these supposed physical events.


What do you consider acceptable evidence?

I've been trying to pay attention to what is thought of as "acceptable evidence", it seems that many don't really know. This is an issue that feel needs some "work". We will never be able to answer the "question" if we don't properly define the question, and the criteria for a solution.


No, I think it's fairly clear what we demand. We certainly know. If you read through JadeStar's suggestions again, some are fairly specific and acceptable. There's no ambiguity there. So, I'm not clear on why you're confused, seeing as one of the points of this thread is to mention what evidence. Piece of an alien body, crashed spacecraft, something from inside one of these craft after an abduction case. Travis Walton claimed to pick up a rod-like object from a table to defend himself during his abduction. So if you believe his case, it can be done.

You have to remember, this isn't a phenomenon that's limited to a handful of events spanning several years. They span many decades and number in the thousands. Given those facts, it's not unreasonable to demand physical evidence. I think you undermine the importance of alien visitation by so readily accepting less-than evidence.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


Yes I've seen JadeStar's suggestions; have you read my comments on them?

What I am trying to do is understand "why" no one ever "finds" acceptable evidence. Evidence is all over the place, and it seems that any simply ignore it.

I'd also like to get a handle on "why" everyone's idea of evidence is virtually "unreasonable"; even much of JadeStar's suggestions.

Why; for instance, are some forms of evidence perfectly acceptable when it comes to deciding the fate of a man's life, but, wholly unacceptable when it comes to deciding if that man's life originated off-world.

As I have said before; You all want answers to these questions; yet none of you have any idea "what" the question is. I'm trying to find the question.

Further; JadeStar's suggestions should be only that; suggestions, some of those suggestions aren't so reasonable.

So; yes; it IS fairly clear what you demand. Problem is; what you demand is unreasonable.

edit on 13-12-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 



What I am trying to do is understand "why" no one ever "finds" acceptable evidence. Evidence is all over the place, and it seems that any simply ignore it.


The evidence threshold is much lower for believers. So it's understandable why you would think our requirements are so unreasonable. You'll accept less-than evidence such as stories you read, photographs or videos, or incomplete data. That's simply is not enough when referencing this extraordinary event.


I'd also like to get a handle on "why" everyone's idea of evidence is virtually "unreasonable"; even much of JadeStar's suggestions.


Why are they unreasonable? Many of these are claimed physical cases where there is interaction between aliens and humans. Or space craft that land or crash. Alien bodies that are taken away. Abductions where people are probed or impregnated. All types of physical interactions. This has been reported many times and has been going on decades. Evidence should reflect this, yet it doesn't.


Why; for instance, are some forms of evidence perfectly acceptable when it comes to deciding the fate of a man's life, but, wholly unacceptable when it comes to deciding if that man's life originated off-world.


This is another bad comparison and analogy that believers use. For example, you have a case where someone is murdered. The evidence presented would be the weapon used, or possible type of weapon. The person accused of the crime. Any blood or DNA evidence. Any physical evidence left at the scene. And any associated witnesses. Blood and DNA can be scientifically tested. A weapon can be proven to be used in the crime by way of blood evidence on the weapon, or ballistic fingerprinting with a gun. Physical evidence can be tested to show if it had been worn or had any contact by the defendant. Among other types of real-life evidence.
Now, present a case of alien abduction. What do you have as real-life evidence? The word of the abductee? Is there any evidence that can be scientifically tested? Where's the foundation to build a case of abduction upon? Has there ever been a case with undeniable evidence showing an abduction previously has occurred as in fact? The answer to that, and any other subset of this phenomenon, is no.
So, the courtroom analogies are silly and not relatable.


As I have said before; You all want answers to these questions; yet none of you have any idea "what" the question is. I'm trying to find the question.


The questions? You seem to be feigning confusion for some reason. You're confused as to what we demand for evidence, yet there's the answer in this thread. Now you're confused as to the questions that need to be answered, when the questions are obvious. It's a circle of nonsensical.... nonsense. Defense mechanism? I don't follow.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 




This is another bad comparison and analogy that believers use.

Now, present a case of alien abduction. What do you have as real-life evidence? The word of the abductee? Is there any evidence that can be scientifically tested? Where's the foundation to build a case of abduction upon? Has there ever been a case with undeniable evidence showing an abduction previously has occurred as in fact? The answer to that, and any other subset of this phenomenon, is no.

So, the courtroom analogies are silly and not relatable.


Actually, I wasn't referring to forensic processing. That is missing from abduction and other cases, obviously it should be included. Rather I was referring to the evidence criteria.



The questions? You seem to be feigning confusion for some reason. You're confused as to what we demand for evidence, yet there's the answer in this thread. Now you're confused as to the questions that need to be answered, when the questions are obvious. It's a circle of nonsensical.... nonsense. Defense mechanism? I don't follow.


You are right, I'm less "confused" that I make out. But, you are demonstrating my point rather well; by not defining what evidence / proof is. If you can't do that, you can't get an answer.

Also, you have me confused with those who believe without reason. I can assure you I have plenty of reason; much of it mathematical, and probabilistic in nature.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


Actually, I wasn't referring to forensic processing. That is missing from abduction and other cases, obviously it should be included. Rather I was referring to the evidence criteria.


Yes, but using a death sentence example as you did, the criteria for a conviction in such a case still involves the process of evidence. Including physical evidence that would be scientifically tested. A life term or death sentence doesn't typically rely on less-than evidence, word-of-mouth , or the ability to pick and choose which evidence is used. So again, it's not a good analogy and one that's frequently misused on this forum.


You are right, I'm less "confused" that I make out. But, you are demonstrating my point rather well; by not defining what evidence / proof is. If you can't do that, you can't get an answer.


I see, been down this road as well with other believers. The attempt to side track the issue of having zero physical evidence, for the back and forth "confusing" definition of evidence or proof. I'm not interested in taking that path. You know very well what I'm speaking of when I refer to physical evidence. As I said, it's only the fact that your threshold of evidence is lower than mine.


Also, you have me confused with those who believe without reason. I can assure you I have plenty of reason; much of it mathematical, and probabilistic in nature.


No, I don't know your reasoning behind your belief. Mathematical or otherwise. Most believers have their own level of requirements which they believe is enough to tip the scales. So, however you want to approach it, it still comes down to basically the same conclusion.

You mentioned this in your response to JadeStar:


While this should be considered a very serious "no-no"; I'm game. I've managed to predict UFO sightings twice, not sure if I can do it again; but...Give me a time and place. No more than 3 "space planes"...will need at least 6 week lead time. (maybe it will work) Would that work for ya?


Is that a serious or sarcastic comment? I hope sarcastic.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Ectoplasm8

I see, been down this road as well with other believers. The attempt to side track the issue of having zero physical evidence, . . .

As I said, it's only the fact that your threshold of evidence is lower than mine.


Well, congratulations; you seem to be one of a very few. But, then, your ideas of "no physical evidence" are a bit out of place. Sorry, man, there is actually quite a lot of physical evidence. The range of evidence goes from the inorganic, metallic, and composite, to the organic, and even extraterrestrial DNA.

The only true issue here is all this evidence is scattered and not available for examination.

By the way; the analogy of the court stands as a beacon to your inability to morally judge these issues. Mainly because it remains a fact; that the Human species applies different criteria to the evidence in these cases. The evidence requirements/criteria for ET are greater than for the life of your own.



No, I don't know your reasoning behind your belief. Mathematical or otherwise. Most believers have their own level of requirements which they believe is enough to tip the scales. So, however you want to approach it, it still comes down to basically the same conclusion.


Firstly let's not use the word "belief" in this context. What I have is a bit more than simple belief. While you are not ready to accept this, I have actually done the science and math. And when One is so armed with real data they are able to reach an appropriate and logical conclusion, as opposed to an incorrect guess.



You mentioned this in your response to JadeStar:

[I]"While this should be considered a very serious "no-no"; I'm game. I've managed to predict UFO sightings twice, not sure if I can do it again; but...Give me a time and place. No more than 3 "space planes"...will need at least 6 week lead time. (maybe it will work) Would that work for ya?"[/I]

Is that a serious or sarcastic comment? I hope sarcastic.



No actually, I'm completely serious.

You name a time and place; I'll provide the UFO. Or try anyway, like I said; its worked before, maybe it will again.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Evidence could be of many types
1) Hard physical cast offs. Hard to imagine someone traveling from the stars and not leaving any trash. Unless we don't know how to recognize it.
2) Most valuable but least likely would be digital data. As our methods of data storage keep changing and get smaller it's hard to imagine how small a computer could get in a thousand years let alone a million years. It's possible they can't drop anything like that if it's built into them.
3) Audio? If you don't speak the language or hear in the right frequency it's all a garbled mess. In an encounter we could both be talking but neither one could hear anything. That's a frightening chance for an accident.
4) Where would they leave a Rosetta device?
5) When dealing with primitives how do they choose who or what to talk to?
6) The best method would be a satellite broadcasting on multiple frequencies. It would be found. Can't be hidden unless all the world powers agree on it.
Just for fun
A) How about landing at an experimental airshow
B) Landing on the lawn in front of any world capital
C) Following airforce one in for a landing

All in fun. What happens if they lurk on this board. What kind of info could they give to convince believers and doubters?



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by tanka418
 


tanka418

Well, congratulations; you seem to be one of a very few. But, then, your ideas of "no physical evidence" are a bit out of place. Sorry, man, there is actually quite a lot of physical evidence. The range of evidence goes from the inorganic, metallic, and composite, to the organic, and even extraterrestrial DNA.

The only true issue here is all this evidence is scattered and not available for examination.


On one hand you say there is physical evidence. Then on the other you completely negate that statement by saying it's not available for examination. Is this based on more of the believer methodology of using stories as evidence? Have you examined this physical evidence first-hand and had it tested at an independent unbiased lab? Or is this based off the information written on UFO/alien biased websites or videos?


By the way; the analogy of the court stands as a beacon to your inability to morally judge these issues. Mainly because it remains a fact; that the Human species applies different criteria to the evidence in these cases. The evidence requirements/criteria for ET are greater than for the life of your own.


Of course a different criteria is required for this phenomenon. I never disputed that. That's because there has been absolutely no factual foundation or basis, to any of these stories. For example, if we had undeniable, concrete, physical evidence that we had been visited by alien beings at any time in the past. Then you have a foundation to build abductions, landings, crashes, alien bodies, interaction, etc upon. Then you could have a realistic, plausible conclusion to some of these stories. Otherwise, you only have an assumption about an assumption about an assumption and on and on. It only takes one fringe of this phenomenon to provide us with real scientifically studied evidence, to give a reality to all the other claims. Yet, with the decades it's been going on, the number of reports, and the many different facets of this phenomenon, we still have nothing as in facts.


No actually, I'm completely serious.

You name a time and place; I'll provide the UFO. Or try anyway, like I said; its worked before, maybe it will again.


I'd be glad to provide you with a place and time. But, you seem to qualify it with "maybe it will work". So I guess that gets you off the hook and gives you an out if you can't provide the evidence?



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Ectoplasm8
Believers have claimed for decades that these are physical entities that land, interact with other humans, crash, abduct humans, etc. The answer is an extremely simple one, we demand physical evidence.

on a silver platter
www.starchildproject.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Starchild skull




DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."
Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother


Well..there goes that crap evidence got anything else...



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   

bottleslingguy

Ectoplasm8
Believers have claimed for decades that these are physical entities that land, interact with other humans, crash, abduct humans, etc. The answer is an extremely simple one, we demand physical evidence.

on a silver platter
www.starchildproject.com...

This skull has been around since 1999. DNA was tested early on by Dr. David Sweet, and shown to contain X and Y chromosomes. Showing this was indeed human. The child was estimated to be between 4 1/2 and 5 years old when it died and suffered from untreated hydrocephalus. This condition causes fluid to build on the brain causing the childs developing skull to distort and bulge in the same relative areas of the 'starchild' skull.

Even so, these are a few quotes from the linked site:


When comparing the Starchild's sequences, the search parameter ranged from an exact match of the entire base pair string, to matches that were similar to any segment of any fragment. Using these exceptionally broad criteria, many Starchild fragments could be matched to genetic sequences in the NIH database. Some of those were comparable to human sequences, which meant they were human-like, though not necessarily human.

The human genome has large numbers of corollaries in the world around us. Humans share 97% of our genes with chimps, 95% with gorillas, 70% with rats, 65% with mice, and 26% with yeast! Thus, nearly everything on Earth is, in some way, genetically interrelated with humans, so it is not unusual that some of the Starchild's nuDNA is found to be human-like.

What is unusual, and shockingly so, is that there are segments of many other fragments of the Starchild's nuDNA for which no close matches could be found in the NIH database! This is not unheard of, nor impossible, but it is a significant indicator that something about the Starchild is not entirely human. It strongly suggests that some aspects of the Starchild's DNA might not be found on Earth at all! Again, this is not absolute proof. We need many additional readings through modern sequencing machines to confirm it. However, we take this initial partial result as a strong indication that the Starchild is not entirely human.


So, you have preliminary tests saying it's "human-like".... "nuDNA is found to be human-like".... some segments are found that were no close match to humans. But, the article goes on to admit "that's not unheard of, nor impossible.".. and it's not "absolute proof" of this being alien. They of course need more funding to extract and test. Only then will we have that proof of this being partially alien everyone has been waiting for, for 14 years.

I fail to see proof on a silver platter. If you base things off this starchild biased site, there's still no conclusive evidence. I see the tests definitively proving it's partially human. Then I see this convenient cloudy area where more tests are needed and maybe it could be something unusual, but at the same time it could be nothing and be proven human as well. If you're a believer, I can see how you could stretch this into it being alien. But even according to this site, there is no conclusive evidence of that.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


So now I'm telling stories?

I'm not sure where you failed to understand, but stories, and what ever you are talking about is not how I roll. I apply science, mathematics, established data analysis method to all of my research. I would hope that you do the same.

You are beginning to sound like a pseudo-skeptic; you know, One who only thinks they apply logic, common sense and science.



I'd be glad to provide you with a place and time. But, you seem to qualify it with "maybe it will work". So I guess that gets you off the hook and gives you an out if you can't provide the evidence?


Again; WTF??!!? What Hook? And why would I need let off it? If I fail, I fail; ain't no thing to me. Besides, I confidant. But, I guess you're not interested in the experiment. . .

Oh by the way: Your info on the "starchild skull" is entirely incorrect. More intensive research, subsequent to the reports you read have shown the skull isn't quite terrestrial. The presence of X and Y chromosomes does not make it "Human", though it would make it male. It is entirely possible for ET to have DNA that is virtually indistinguishable for Terrestrial Human.
edit on 15-12-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join