Monday, November 13, 2006

Secrets of Apollo

I was always interested in Space as a kid. I was a huge fan of our Space Program back in the day, and when I was 14, I saw the astronauts in Richard Nixon's Inaugural Parade in Washington, D.C. I can remember reading specific books by people like John Glenn - one was called "P.S. I Listened to Your Heartbeat." Along the way, I also happened to read a UFO book called, "Incident at Exeter" that had a profound impact on me, especially since I ended up in that New Hampshire town for 2 and a half years of boarding school. You could say I became fascinated with the idea of Space Programs in general - ours or otherwise.

One of the better columns I did for the Portland Tribune was about Project Disclosure and Dr. Steven Greer. I was delighted to see it reprinted later on his UFO site. Whenever I get into the topic with someone I always ask the person what the best evidence for UFOs is. My personal favorite: The Belgium Sightings of the late 1980s. That had hundreds of witnesses, ground radar, jet fighter radar, video of the radar instrument readings in the jets showing outrageous altitude movements, and also a picture. The Belgium sightings of a huge, silent, triangular craft that could hover and also fly at incredible speeds, lead to only two real possibilities: It was ours or it was theirs.
I saw the astronauts 6 months before we landed on the moon. There has always been a ton of reporting about sightings of UFOs on the Apollo missions. That is such a rich area because we're not talking about the Jethro-sees-swamp-gas model here. These are American heroes with the Right Stuff. If you want to look into some of the mysterious transmissions between the astronauts and Mission Control, you know where to go. If you're interested in this topic - and I cannot understand anyone who isn't - you've probably already checked them out. As a young boy I was just delighted to see my heroes from the Space Program - they really looked the part by the way. Now I wonder what secrets they would be asked to keep.

Have you ever pondered why we stopped going to the moon? Throughout human history, if we went somewhere we usually stayed there or at least kept going back. We first landed on the Moon 38 years ago next July. Where's our base? How come Neil Armstrong has been so private and mysterious about what happened up there?

As with all my topics of interest, I occasionally see something intriguing. Here's something new from Apollo 16. It's a picture with an unidentified triangular object above the lunar horizon. Warning: The website places the enhanced object on the original photograph, which is a mistake. Check out the lower photos for a better feel. I doubt it's the orbiting part of our mission. From the angle it could be quite huge. You know....sort of like the craft seen over Belgium. Enjoy.

Treasure of the Abyss: Morningstar Discovers Luminous "Sky Object" Above Lunar Surface In Apollo 16 Photograph


At 6:54 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

I think if you researched that picture you'd find out it's a photograph of the earth partially in shadow giving it the strange shape. I was obsessed with the Space Program, U.F.O's, and the Kennedy 'conspiracy' as well . There is nothing I enjoy more then an unsolved mystery it gives life magic. After looking in to these mysteries though I believe that Kennedy was shot by Oswald for no other reason then a desire to be famous, U.F.O's are not piloted by extra terrestrials and we no longer go to the moon because there wasn't much point to going there in the first place. What I find interesting is that we need to find and sustain belief in the unbelievable. We need the 'sweet mystery of life'. It's like religion to the unreligious. Back in the 80's my wife and I rented a large house at 28th and Stark and from the beginning very odd things happened in that house. At first I joked about it but some of the events were totally unexplainable and wonderful. I felt something tug on a dish I was holding almost pulling it out of my hand, I saw sparks once come flying out of the walls, and the scariest thing was a door that shook like something was trying to open it but there was nothing there. To this day I want to believe that all those 'incidents' had no rational explaination.

At 7:27 AM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

The website foolishly superimposed the enhanced object on the picture. The pictures below it are more
accurate. This is a very small dot on the photograph. It looks too small for my idea of the earth's size from the moon.
I also apologize for editing out the Kennedy stuff after you started your response. I got a call from a prominent member of the Portland media this weekend requesting that I edit these things down.
Thanks for the stories from the house. I had one event in a house that I considered paranormal. I know it was weird enough.

At 1:14 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

I went to the web site for Apollo 16 and looked at the picture referenced in the link and there is nothing in the picture but black sky. I guess if you downloaded the file and enlarged it you would probably find something but for all you know you are looking at a piece of dust on a negative or some celestial object like the earth which depending on the type of lens used could be any size.

At 2:34 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

Thanks for pointing me to that site. I enjoyed looking at the moon pictures, and I agree with you - I can't see anything on the picture as it appears on my computer.
I assume this dot is there on the high resolution version, and I doubt it's the earth, based on other pictures of the earth from the moon. Of course it could be dust although I don't know how that would look on this camera lens. It could even be an incoming meteor.
How do you feel about the other picture purported to be of the Belgium sighting?

At 2:46 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

I added what this site claims to have found on the photo using the high resolution.

At 5:07 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Like your idea that heavan would be to know who shot Kennedy I'd like to know about an extra terrestrial civilization or even life form. I go to the JPL sight every day and check out the amazing images of the Mars Rovers who have now been wandering around that planet for 2 earth years, one martian year just hoping they would come across a fossil, or some sign that life existed there. A picture of lights in the sky just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry. I do understand the fascination.

At 5:33 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

Look at it this way: The Rover proves an ET civilization...Us.
I've hesitated to broach this topic but that's over now. I see it as a part of studying the universe.

At 1:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a quite valid interest. 'They' are definitely out there, and 'they' might (have) come here -- probability of extra-celestial life equals 100 percent, given the 'billions and billions' of possibility.

So what? Valid?, yes; worthwhile interest?, uh, it's an acquired taste. It certainly is NOT kooky.

Any 'they' has the same galactic physics requirements to get here, as we face to get there. Listen, in the quantum of it, there is not and never can be the 'pop' transporter-materializer as seen on TV, crossing time/space faster than the speed of light, going backwards in time. Ain't gonna happen. Nice fancy. Good dream. Sorry to bust your bubble.

We all CAN speed through the universe, though, as the Tibetiness gurus report is human astrally possible. Thinking is the best way to travel.

But it seems unlikely 'they' would have any exploitative reason to come here. Maybe on a sight-seeing cruise, cataloguing the neighborhood, but not to logistically haul anything back, and not really strategically worthwhile to 'invade Earth.'

Similar to our considerations of going to the moon: Why? We did it, great. We ain't going to take us, there, (nor to Mars). We ain't going to bring it, here. Do the math, nothing adds up. You could lose a little profit on each trip, I guess, and make it up in volume. 1000 trips? Psyllicibin is a much better bargain.

My Apollo story. (First off, the computer endowment of the Apollo craft was less than you got in your printer today.)

This I got second-hand, believe it or not. I was doing similar work in a nearby place, (how it was that I knew somebody who knew the hero of this story), and I believe it.

Apollo 13 ruptured an oxygen tank on the outbound leg. The problem with that which you might not have thought of is that disintegration changes the mass of the spacecraft.

All the computer guidance programs had been written with the mass as a constant. When coding space is tight tight tight, you do not think to make the mass of the craft a variable. Then Apollo 13 ruptured: BIG VARIABLE.

In comes the head guidance programmer. Houston, we got a problem. He ingests mescaline, (kind of a prevalent cactus in that landscape). He is up 72 hours straight. He reprograms the whole code, putting 'best estimate' figures for the mass into the program, and leaving a little tweaking fiddling fudging factor possibility, very little.

As the trajectory downlinks fill in narrower and narrower eigenvalues, including mass estimates, he tweaks in his best 'Kentucky windage' figures and crosses his fingers. Slingshots that puppy around the moon, brings it back, one orbit, and plops it down within ten miles of the aircraft carrier bull's-eye. I mean freakin god you can't imagine the numbers bull's-eye.

Manager calls Mr. Mescaline Mind, the ultimate 'one take Chucky,' into Manager's office, says, "Thank you very much. You're fired. Don't ever come back, don't ever speak a word of this."

As far as I know he never got a chance to cut a single line of code ever again in 'that DoD town.' Stupids.

At 9:14 AM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

One thing to guard against in thinking of life elsewhere is to project our limits on others. I always hear that the distances are too great - that it would take 10,000 years to get somewhere. Time is relative to the species. Some bugs only last a few days - their whole lives take less than a week of ours. What if there are creatures out there that experience 1000 years the way we experience a month? It's possible. Then you throw in the idea of spreading out across a galaxy like dandelions spreading across a lawn.
The time-distance thing is not a deal-breaker.
The problem is projecting our own limits on everyone else. The sentence "God created the Heavens and the Earth" is one of the most lopsided in history. The earth would have to be a lot bigger just to be a speck of dust in this universe.
UFOs are often attributed to specks of dust on the lens. Meanwhile our whole world doesn't even amount to a speck of dust on the lens.

At 11:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, Bill, what you said. BUT

... the 'laws' of time we 'have,' ordinations that we 'obey,' are universal laws. Time is not different somewhere else, affecting some aliens some where, different from the laws which operate on us here as being the functions of time.

The radioactive decay (half-life) function for uranium, for example, is the same on earth, on mars, on the sun, (that's why you can predict the critical mass necessary for a star to 'spontaneously ignite'), or for any place in the universe.

Except black holes. Which is where gravity force 'exceeds' the atomic forces. Atomic forces OF the atom -- the weak force, strong force, and electromagnetic force; and atomic forces IN the atom's 'constituents' -- the forces coalescing three quarks into one electron, for instance, but that 'glue' is not exactly 'force' in the way you think of energetic action/reaction, not 'force' BECAUSE these (certain) 'constituents' have NO MASS. (Another 'thing' comes in to hold the quarks together, or 'things,' variously called gluons, charm, color, spin, and like that there. My favorite phrasing of it is that the quarks 'whimsy' themselves into mattering. . . all together NOW. Oops, fred wasn't ready. Try again. . . NOW. oops, not ...)

So, no, there is no carbon-based life form on another planet that lives 10,000 years. The carbon chemical bonds ('decaying') deteriorate before that time. Because our carbon is the same as their carbon.

(Sufficiently massive 'planets' generating SuperGravity or something, still does not appreciably disaffect the quantum characteristics of atoms, nor change atomic theory. At the 'size' and mass where gravity DOES distort Newtonian atomics (physics), then you are talking about something that is not a planet and a world where respiration, animation and articulation of 'life forms,' and 'building' spacecraft, and 'flying off their planet,' just none of that is PHYSICSly possible. The rules are the same for them as for us.)

A couple of Gee Whiz's, Mr. Science, that they laid on us one day, (and I'm sorry, sometimess I simply did not, could not, re-step the equations, but oh, it was like listening to a great singer's voice move your emotions, or a great orating preacher carry a sermon that inheres in you, your ear, the peace that passeth understanding, my quantum prof at MIT, David(?) Adler, was maybe the most brilliant mind I ever stood downwind of the mouth of, it was excruciating to be patient and yet keep up while he tried to put his comprehensive knowledge in his mind into the linear form of sequential spoken language, he twitches with a chalk in his hand, facing the class, hand out to the side tapping scratching marking overmarking the blackboard 'behind' his back not looking, chalking greek letters or parts of them faster than he can mentally retrieve or pronounce words orally) (whew), ... a couple of things:

When aliens DO come they will be about our same size, between 1 and 3 meters 'tall', say. No fifty-foot monsters getting out of some megalithic space ship the size of the moon or something. (This science stuff sure is hard on fanciful imagination, isn't it.)

'Life' would not possible anywhere if ice did not float in water, if frozen water sank to the bottom and was 'sediment.' The reason ice floats is because of the quantum 'laws' of the hydrogen/oxygen bonding angle, (allowed energy states), ['allowed' meaning the ones which do it, exist, and the ones which don't do it, don't exist; 'exist' meaning experience time and occupy space; and definition goes back to prior definition goes back to prior definition ... to where it doesn't matter whether you don't or do understand it in enough detail to 'find the hole in the theory,' conjecture an alternative interpretation -- IT. DON'T. EXIST. to you here in time and space waiting to see a space ship ALSO in your time and space, arrive and land in your back yard, THAT time and space. Hell, 'spirits' (alternative 'quantum' existences) are all around your back yard, all the 'time,' go enjoy them, they just don't come in a 'material' 'visual wavelength' (light) form like you are necessarily -- obviously -- expecting, or 'projecting' them to have.]

Here was another mindblower from my experience in that class. Half the time Adler wasn't there. He'd excuse himself saying he'd had to 'catch the shuttle last Monday,' or whenever. Catch the shuttle means fly the Boston-New York-Washington shuttle plane that cycled every hour. That means he was down in D.C. 'consulting to government' I finally figured out. And in those days, what he would be consulting on was the Ronnie Raygun's Star Wars 'zap ray' he (actually, Bush) wanted so much and thought would be so neat. One day in lecture, without connecting the dots for us, Adler goes off on a tangent of frustration, chalking equations so fast the chalkdust floated UP from the heat, actually 'thinking aloud' so to speak, re-convincing himself that it would NOT work, it is a physics impossibility. And this is how he explained to us what he was working on, YOU figure it out: When you have a 'beam' (energy field, 'vectorized' meaning scalar), with as much energy as a bolt of lighting, you can direct the beam only as perfectly as you can direct a bolt of lightning.

Meaning, you can make a 'laser' bolt of lightning, sure, but you can't point it and hit anything.
Or you can have a beam you can point and hit things with, sure, but it ain't got the energy sufficient to do 'damage' (deflect matter) in any way.

Of course, politicians kept on insisting it was such a neat idea and had all this money to spend on it, and keep on spending on it, they just. can't. believe. it can't be done, because it would be sooo neeeeat. What's science know, anyway? (Same as global warming 'denialists.' Same as evolution 'denialists.' It just is sickening, I get sick to my stomach, trying to communicate with someone who freezes their own brain in a box and insists that I come inside (those) their limits to say what I have to say. When, inside that box, what I have to say doesn't exist, cannot be worded. Laughter is the best medicine for sick, I figure, and what I think to do is warm their thoughts, with heart-warming words, until their brainlock freeze-out thaws and loosens, then I can sneak in a zinger. Ah, but it's an art, as you masterfully demonstrate, Bill, and I don't so well. maybe.)

Sorry to go on longwinded. I get some amount of backscatter flack about my run-on comments habit, (or reflex). Look, I'm sorry. Stuff gets thick in Gee Whiz ville. I just always usually feel sorry for the attention-damaged minds who simply can not sustain a 'vector' of thought along its course fifteen, thirty, sixty minutes to its 'holism,' its 'gestalt' 'realization.' The 'ah-Ha' moment is an ignition requiring a minimum accumulation of material thought to combust. Not that my writing is anything to help sustain a straightforward linearity of thought and get. to. the. point! Tensk.

Go read aloud the page at the LINK, above. That's what's going on in the mind of the science person who the religious person or politician person is standing in front of trying to 'persuade' the idiot scientist to believe in god or to vote for a democrat, say.

At 12:09 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Tensk, reading about Physics can make my Brain hurt and you seem to have some understanding of it so can you explain to me in 5000 words or less why we can't have a unifying theory? Why does matter operate on one set of laws in the sub-atomic world and another set of laws for masses made up of the sub atomic (planets, galaxies, etc.). What about String Theory?

At 3:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


No, unified field theory does not conform in a 5000-word limit box.

No, 'matter' doesn't 'operate.' Energy 'operates,' in the sense I think you mean 'operate.'

The ALLOWABLE energies of your 'subatomic world' are different 'energy wells' from those that are the ALLOWABLE energies of your worlds of 'masses made up of the subatomic.'

They are the same (unified in being) 'energy.' Energy is. That's all you can say. Energy is. It is something. There it IS. Viola: us. We sense it since it is there. It is there since we sense it. If it wasn't there we wouldn't be. If we weren't, (being), it wouldn't be.

Subatomic and masses made up of the subatomic are uniform of 'energy.' But not all energy comes in one 'strength' (i.e. 'energy'), not in the same 'levels' or 'wells.'

You can't speak of, or find, one 'law' being common across all the levels.

One of these 'wells's' energy cannot communicate with, or traffic to, another different one of these 'wells's' level of energy -- because THEN it would be a different energy. And obey the laws of the 'another one's' energy level. And it would have left being, (would no longer -- in time -- be), is not, the 'One' (it was to begin with).

Forget string theory. (Dark matter is a little more interesting, but that's an acquired taste, too.) These theories are mostly complex minds looking for soul. (I could say, though, that my mind absolutely rebels at the thought that the universe is noncyclic, one shot and out, and every fiber in my gut -- I eat it daily -- knows, somehow, the universe is not like that, it is cyclical.) And as much these 'theories' are the complex minds trying to find understanding themselves as they are trying to communicate answers to others understanding themselves.

That is, scientists describe string theory, not to teach you what it is, but to share with you that they can do describing and you can too. Facts is a noun, (matter). Describing is a verb, (energy). The theorizing is merely sharing energy with you (two), it doesn't necessarily have any facts in it, or, whatever facts are in it are irrelevant, forgettable, the activity (discoursing, conversation) means nothing more than hi, glad to be alive with you, we are making memories at this time. But it's good sport.

Second metaphor: We go running together. The ground we run across isn't the point to know. We are running together is all.

Someone describes string theory. Bully for them. It is fun to hear and chime in with. So is it fun with someone describing catching fish, (while perhaps a bit more pragmatic).

I got a bone to pick with you, TR: "Kennedy was shot by Oswald."

Whatever. I happen to think the carbine displayed as Oswald's wasn't even fired that day. But that's immaterial for my attack on you.

Photos -- undisputed -- show JFK's head mass jerk back and skull mass eject rearward and skull mass deposited, hefty and visible, on the trunk deck of the limo. Jackie crawls out and picks it up, and brings it back to put back in the cranium. So human, so pathetic it is, heart wrenching.

The physics fact is a ballistic arrived from the front of JFK. Absolutely. (That, Energy IN equals exactly Energy OUT, thing again.)

That's all you got to think, and I stop attacking. JFK was hit by a bullet from the front. (I don't care about Oswald for this point.) JFK was hit from the front.

I don't care how far, if at all, you extend the thought after that. I don't care if you say it, I mean, you don't have to repeat after me. Just KNOW, this thought: It is FACT, JFK was shot from in front of him. A fact of physics.

Maybe it changes or adds to your thoughts and/or behaviors in your life. I don't know.

Just, and justly, when you say "Kennedy was shot by Oswald" you must, in some order, say as well "and Kennedy was shot from the front is a known fact." Without including the fact, you exclude fine quality in whatever you include instead. /ratville /JFK/

Go there, about halfway scrolled down are the photos, the Zapruder frames.

At 3:31 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Thanks Tensk.

At 3:54 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

As far as Oswald shooting Kennedy I believe it because he did it front of all kinds of witnesses as spelled out in the Warren report. I met one of the witnesses in college who was in the crowd at Dealy Plaza across from the book depository and saw along with quite a few others Oswald waiting in the window with a rifle before the President showed up. Those that saw him thought he was part of the security arrangements for the President. Oswald also was a major whack job who months before shooting Kennedy planned and executed another assasination of a right wing political leader in Dallas and fired at him with the same rifle outside his home but missed. Maps and plans of that assasination were found in Oswalds home. You can talk Physics all you want about the bullet coming in the front and blowing out the back but plenty of ballistics studies with cadavears showed the same results conclusive with the bullet, 2 of 4 fired that hit Kennedy and Connally. The Warren Report got it right and all the conspiracy theorists who have for over 40 years made a living off writing, lecturing, and setting up web sites with all kinds of contradictory evidence have made a nice living at keeping the conspiracy alive and I'm happy for them but I don't buy any of it any more. I think Gerald Posner did a very good job in Case Closed laying out the facts, been years since I read it, but I find his line of reasoning that leads to the same conclusion as the Warren Report as being far more logical then a Military/Government conspiracy involving the mafia,Nixon, the military, Cuban Dissidents, etc. etc. etc.

At 9:32 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

If I were to argue the lone-Oswald theory, I'd state everything you mentioned. I'd also throw in the back brace that could have affected how JFK's body reacted.
I'd also point out that the opportunity landed in Oswald's lap. He didn't get the job in the book depository building after he found out the parade route - he was already there.
The main problem that raised suspicions was Oswald's murder later before he could be tried. Then you get into Jack Ruby, and on and on.
I certainly appreciate the time and effort put into this response.
One thing I think we can all agree on: The scrutiny this got is positive in that anyone planning a major conspiracy has to factor in that a huge group of people will spend decades checking it out. Maybe that's a deterrent to any crimes of this magnitude in the future. I've moved on from JFK unless something new breaks. It's all about 9/11 now.

At 1:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indeed, after you can get your mind to think Oswald was framed, as you say, Bill, it is all about 9/11.

tr, you forgot to mention Oswald was CIA-run.

Funny how physics is serious and real when it is string theory, but when the same fact-making model proves your mind is already made up to hold a false sense in a categorical communication-proof box, then "you can talk Physics all you want ... but ..." but what, don't walk the walk?

Name or link ONE single 'study with cadavers that showed the same results.' Mainly impossible because the JFK autopsy results are classified top secret.

I don't doubt your friend's eye-witness account of seeing Oswald. And I share the feeling of overwhelming confusion from all the implications and investigations of minutia and circumstantials. Though I don't quite follow your leap to conclude that some ad hoc cavalcade of limelight opportunists and exploiters have set themself to "make a nice living at keeping the conspiracy alive." Like, no one is acting out of indignation? Violation? They are all gamers with nothing going?

Whatever. I stipulated to begin with that Oswald's part was immaterial to the one single fact of physics. So you start in talking Oswald. And I sounded to me clear that whatever you did or didn't want to make of the physics fact was all beside my point.

The mass of the head jerks back and sizeable skull-material mass explodes ejected rearward. Energy OUT the back necessarily requires Energy IN the front. Period. Absolutely. Every time.

The fact in the real physical world is that JFK was shot from the front in one instance.

If you don't like or choose to think that thought, just say you don't want to think that thought. Save your breath and exasperation looking for loopholes to excuse your obstinancy. Just state it. 'No, you deny thinking that.' Okay, fine, don't think it. Physics is still physics. And true every single time for over 200 years now.

I am not leading anywhere with the following, either, (except to hit it and quit it, at Bill's good suggestion), but this one-time simply is to share the item that gets my award for all-time ultimate investigator's dig up: a photo of the JFK assassination team consumating their brotherhood. In case the outrageousness of such a claim just is farther over the top than you can resist clicking on to glimpse, the photo is HERE, more than three-quarters of scrolldown distance.
For your information or infuriation. Of course, it is ridiculous to contradict something we never heard or read ... we can't prove a negative and we can't disprove a negative.


Bush Jr.'s New CIA Director Porter Goss, 2nd from Left With Black OPS JFK Assassination Team - Mexico City - Feb. 1963!

Editor's Note: This photo was given to me by Debbie Seal, widow of Barry Seal on her visit with me at my home in Enterprise, Alabama. The 2nd man on the left is Florida Congressman and new CIA Director, Porter Goss. Seal 3rd on left was a pilot employed by the CIA and New Orleans Crime Boss Carlos Marcello. Barry was recruited to run George Bush Sr.'s Enterprise, Operation Iran-Contra supply network in which guns and bombs were traded for cocaine in Central and Latin America. Barry was shot 19 times after a Bush federal judge outed him. He was to testify in a Panama City, FL federal case .....

At 6:47 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Tensk. You believe in an ordered universe that ticks along like a watch(very Newtonian). In order for a President to be shot, or a war to be waged it takes a vast and complicated set of chess moves. I believe the universe is chaotic, and unpredictable, and it's more like a craps game (despite what Einstein said). I should have said though that 'I believe that Oswald shot Kennedy all by himself. I believe a small band of Muslim extremists hijacked planes on 9/11.

At 9:01 AM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

What do you think of the Belgium sightings?
Do you believe these UFO sightings are all the result of natural earthly phenomenon that we don't understand yet or Venus, swamp gas, and the various other non-alien explanations?

At 9:23 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

I don't believe the photograph you posted is proof of our planet being explored by intelligent beings from another planet though I secretly wish it was. As far as the Belgium reports the only source I can find about them comes from the people who already believe it and our providing this as proof, I'd like to hear what the skeptics think. I've yet to see a U.F.O picture (and I've seen a lot of them) that convinced me it was an image of a space ship from another world. They always look like what you expect them to look like and that's for me part of the problem.

At 11:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope aliens from space come visit. Some evidence has been powerfully suggestive ....

What about sasquatch or the yeti, anyone jiggy with those?


Post a Comment

<< Home