Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 156

Thread: The Pacific Ring of Fire is a remnant of the Moon-creating impact event

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,388
    As has been said the portion of the crust below the lithosphere deforms plastically (i.e. over long periods of time it flows). So over time cracks will fill in. The deeper mantle is not very suitable for maintaining long term features like this.

    We know the structure of the lithosphere and athenosphere from seismic surveys - if they were rigid enough to keep these cracks then they would have to be rigid enough to propagate wave differently.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Mostly the fact that you want the behavior of the Pacific features of plate tectonics to be the result of something different than the behavior of the same features in other parts of the world.
    No, I don't. I just think that there are probably reasons subduction zones and hotspots exist where they do. Is it possible they are in random locations? Yes. Is it possible they tend to form over cracks deeper in the Earth? Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    The mainstream plate tectonics explains exactly why there is a "ring of fire".
    Ok, I'll bite. Why is there a circular ring of techtonic activity on the surface of the Earth?


    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Those features in the other areas, of the world, are doing precisely what features in the "circle of fire" are doing, so why do we need your idea?
    Because my idea helps explain the formation of our moon and some of the geological features of Earth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Much less the point that the Northwest US part of the "ring of fire"(specifically, the Cascades) didn't even exist more than 40 million years ago, as subduction wasn't occurring at that particular spot. But, the volcanic arcs of eastern Washington, Oregon, etc have volcanoes, where subduction was occurring, but they haven't reached the ring of fire area yet.
    This type of thing with the Northwestern United States is exactly my point. Take Yellowstone, it is sliding over a hotspot caused by a deeper feature in the Earth. The crust slides over the hotspot but the hotspot remains. This would seem to support my point of features below the crust remaining more static.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Exactly when did this collision occur?
    I already answered this question: whenever the mainstream impact moon generation theory says.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Why? And, again, why the other hotspots around the world?
    If I pump a football full of air until it pops, why does the hole appear where it does? If there are no hotspots anywhere near Hawaii, that's probably why there's one at Hawaii.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    I'm sorry, am I under some kind of pressure here? Why are moderators breathing down my throat on this site?
    Because you are posting to the ATM section of the board.

    Lets do a little "tally" here...

    You don't understand the term "pangea", even though it completely destroys your "claim".

    You don't understand the term "plastically", which frankly baffles me....it's meaning can be derived from the root word plastic.

    ....and last but not least, you don't seem to understand the rules pertaining to this section of the board, even though you've been a member here for the last 8 years.



    Anyway...in a nutshell, the continents of the Earth were once a giant super-continent which over time seperated due to volcanism and plate tetonics.

    We know this to be true because all the continents "fit" together...like a jigsaw puzzle.

    Your idea that an impactor caused the "ring of fire" is, frankly, preposterous.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    As has been said the portion of the crust below the lithosphere deforms plastically (i.e. over long periods of time it flows). So over time cracks will fill in.
    Don't you think that could be an oversimplification? Isn't it possible that there are materials below the lithosphere with higher melting points that might remain solid unless subjected to abnormal circumstances like a large impact?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,706
    If I pump a football full of air until it pops, why does the hole appear where it does? If there are no hotspots anywhere near Hawaii, that's probably why there's one at Hawaii.
    uhh...no.

    please see:

    http://www.mantleplumes.org/

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    You don't understand the term "pangea", even though it completely destroys your "claim".
    On the contrary, I'm well aware of "Pangea", what I don't understand is how it relates to my theory. My theory regards things beneath the geological forces that shape the outer layer of the Earth's crust, where "Pangea" inhabits.

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    You don't understand the term "plastically", which frankly baffles me....it's meaning can be derived from the root word plastic.
    Yeah, wow, i'm not up on my "plastic deformation" terms, I must be a real moron!

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    ....and last but not least, you don't seem to understand the rules pertaining to this section of the board, even though you've been a member here for the last 8 years.
    Blah let's just have a nice discussion and not have sticks up our Language about silly rules, eh?



    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Anyway...in a nutshell, the continents of the Earth were once a giant super-continent which over time seperated due to volcanism and plate tetonics.
    This has been stated already in this topic. My response is that the impactor caused effects beneath the upper crust where continents matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Your idea that an impactor caused the "ring of fire" is, frankly, preposterous.
    If there are rules, shouldn't there be rules about this kind of flippant remark? There are in courts of law...
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-Mar-31 at 11:59 PM. Reason: Language

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    This has been stated already in this topic. My response is that the impactor caused effects beneath the upper crust where continents matter.
    Problem with this is that the upper crust, especially in the Pacific, is much newer than the Moon's impact creation, so you're trying to place older structures on something that didn't even exist then.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    Don't you think that could be an oversimplification? Isn't it possible that there are materials below the lithosphere with higher melting points that might remain solid unless subjected to abnormal circumstances like a large impact?

    Lets "play" the "if game".

    If it is an "oversimplication"...and

    If there are unevidenced materials below the Lithosphere...and

    If those "materials" have a high melting point....and

    If those "materials" remain solid...and

    If there was a large impactor...


    Seems like a lot of "if's" for just 2 sentences.

    I freely admit to an extreme "nitpicking", however the questioning of new ideas on this board is NOTHING compared to to rigors new ideas MUST go through before being accepted as mainstream.
    Last edited by R.A.F.; 2012-Mar-31 at 04:49 PM. Reason: slightly changed 2nd "if"

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    On the contrary, I'm well aware of "Pangea"...
    Yet you don't see how that applies, here??

    Yeah, wow, i'm not up on my "plastic deformation" terms, I must be a real moron!
    No, but you do seem to have trouble doing your own "homework", or looking stuff up on google.


    Blah let's just have a nice discussion and not have sticks up our Language about silly rules, eh?
    No comment....



    This has been stated already in this topic.]
    ...and you continue to dismiss that rational explanation "out of hand".


    My response is that the impactor caused effects beneath the upper crust where continents matter.
    When will you be presenting the evidence for that? the onus is on YOU to do that.


    ...shouldn't there be rules about this kind of flippant remark? There are in courts of law...
    Why would what happens in a court of law in any way relate to rules for a internet forum??
    Last edited by R.A.F.; 2012-Mar-31 at 05:00 PM. Reason: removed an "h" from onus

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    500
    Yes RAF logic is based on Ifs, and if it wasn't for a long sequence of ifs, you and I would not be here in this corner of the universe.

    The proper way to address this problem is to assign probabilities to each of the ifs, rather than simply call them "a lot of ifs"

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,085
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    I'm sorry, am I under some kind of pressure here? Why are moderators breathing down my throat on this site?

    My previous comment was as a board member. This post is as a Moderator.

    Yes, you are under 'some kind of pressure'
    Please take some time to read the rules for posting in the ATM Forum. They are linked at the bottom of this post. Also take some time to read the advice for ATM Posters also linked.

    You are obliged to support your ideas and answer any relevant questions.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    The proper way to address this problem is to assign probabilities to each of the ifs, rather than simply call them "a lot of ifs"
    ...and if I access the probabilities as being zero??


    But enough of this "back and forth"...can you present credible evidence for your claim....yes or no.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    Yes RAF logic is based on Ifs, and if it wasn't for a long sequence of ifs, you and I would not be here in this corner of the universe.
    But you can't just assume that all your "if's" are valid without demonstrating that validity with evidence.



    FYI....this post should have been before the post preceeding it, but I'm a big dope.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,350
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    ....and last but not least, you don't seem to understand the rules pertaining to this section of the board, even though you've been a member here for the last 8 years.
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    Blah let's just have a nice discussion and not have sticks up our Language about silly rules, eh?
    Both of you knock it off.

    R.A.F. - You've been here even longer than 8 years, so I thought you'd understand you are not supposed to play moderator, especially when it is clear you know how to use the Report function. You can also take your entire attitude down a notch.

    CaptainToonces - You too can lose the snappy comments and the attitude. Our ATM rules are clear; ATM is not for idle speculation; if that is all you got, then we can close this thread now. You will politely answer questions put to you.

    Last warning, infractions next.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    If it is an "oversimplication"
    alright, chances of our current understanding of the Asthenosphere being over-simplified: 95%

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    If there are unevidenced materials below the Lithosphere
    chances of siesmological data have 100% coverage and showing no evidence of materials with high melting point: 0% (so for my argument 100%)

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    If those "materials" have a high melting point
    chances there are materials below the Earth's crust with a high melting point: 100%

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    If those "materials" remain solid
    well if by definition they have a high melting point, chances of them remaining solid: 100%

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    If there was a large impactor...
    It is currently the leading theory of moon formation, so: 85%

    That's a far cry from your 0%

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    You will politely answer questions put to you.
    I'm happy to, and that's what you can plainly see I'm doing. I do get more than 15 minutes, right? I'm going to have to take a nap soon you know.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,085
    Edited to say, another Mod beat me to it.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,388
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    Don't you think that could be an oversimplification? Isn't it possible that there are materials below the lithosphere with higher melting points that might remain solid unless subjected to abnormal circumstances like a large impact?
    No, I don't. Because if it were then plate tectonics (which requires currents to move and flow) would be in trouble. And seismic surveys would have turned up traces of it.

    If this layer were there then you would have to propose that every plate boundary is a crack - otherwise where does the material for the Mid-Atlantic ridge come from? It is mantle material - and yet it has got through this layer somehow. Then we hit the issue that plate boundaries are not static things, collisions and subductions change them over time.

    I really cannot see that this idea solves more than it raises in terms of questions.

    Enjoy your nap

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    No, I don't. I just think that there are probably reasons subduction zones and hotspots exist where they do. Is it possible they are in random locations? Yes. Is it possible they tend to form over cracks deeper in the Earth? Yes.
    And your proof for those cracks deeper in the earth?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    Ok, I'll bite. Why is there a circular ring of techtonic activity on the surface of the Earth?
    Because the subsections zones are there. There is also tectonic activity in southern Europe, the mideast, and Himalayan regions and all have a subduction zones, without a collision, according to you. How does your collision idea explain these other regions?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    Because my idea helps explain the formation of our moon and some of the geological features of Earth.
    But, according to you, subduction zones should form where cracks are in the mantle, caused by the collision. But why are there subduction zones in other places?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    This type of thing with the Northwestern United States is exactly my point.
    No, the eastern parts of the Northwest have volcanoes that have not reached the locations of the "ring of fire". Not to mention the lava fields of New Mexico.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    Take Yellowstone, it is sliding over a hotspot caused by a deeper feature in the Earth. The crust slides over the hotspot but the hotspot remains. This would seem to support my point of features below the crust remaining more static.
    Ahh, no. Remember, a hotspot, according to your post #10 like the Hawaiian hot spot is due to a little central tower or a build up of pressure, due to the collision.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    I already answered this question: whenever the mainstream impact moon generation theory says.
    Yeah...and your proof that the location of the ring of fire is where the collision took place, other than by assertion?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    If I pump a football full of air until it pops, why does the hole appear where it does? If there are no hotspots anywhere near Hawaii, that's probably why there's one at Hawaii.
    And the other hotspots form, why?

    As far as your comment about Shaula's about oversimplification, I direct you to here . While all the figures are instructive, if you scroll down past the references, you'll see the color enhanced figures showing temperature, P-wave velocity, earthquake location, and composition. Feel free to point out where those cracks are or other studies that do locate those cracks.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    I believe there's a possibility that the moon came into contact with our planet on a few occasions. It certainly would explain the break-up of a super-continent and the wobble and rotation of the Earth. The moon may have been a large slower moving comet.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    Do you see Pangaea as irrelevant to the ring of fire?

    The subduction zones around the Pacific Ocean rim are the cause of the Ring of Fire. Several hundred million years ago, all the continents of the earth were joined together in one continent called Pangaea. Before that, the continents split and reformed many times, according to mainstream science. It appears probable from this scenario that continents drifted randomly, including across the zones that now form the ring of fire around the Pacific Ocean.

    Do you agree?

    Does your hypothesis propose that through all these splits and joinings of continental drift, an original ring of fire caused by the moon separation was constant?
    I would be interested in Captain Toonce's responses to these direct questions.

    As I see it, the OP imagines the Pacific Ocean as a vast scab on the face of the earth dating from four billion years ago when the moon separated. Trouble is, the Ring of Fire is caused by subduction between shifting plates, a process that transforms the entire earth in hundreds of millions of years, leaving no part unscathed as the OP requires.

    This map of world tectonic plates clearly shows the position of the ring of fire around the Pacific Plate, especially where the Pacific Plate is disappearing into the mantle under other plates, as the long term cause of seismic events such as the Japan tsunami.

    If the Pacific Plate is disappearing, then the old pre-drift imagination of it as a constant basaltic scab like the belly button of the moon is not consistent with the evidence.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,350
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    I believe there's a possibility that the moon came into contact with our planet on a few occasions. It certainly would explain the break-up of a super-continent and the wobble and rotation of the Earth. The moon may have been a large slower moving comet.
    Kalopin,

    This is CaptainToonces' ATM thread. If you have your own ATM ideas, start a new thread about them. ATM is not a collaborative effort.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    I believe there's a possibility that the moon came into contact with our planet on a few occasions. It certainly would explain the break-up of a super-continent and the wobble and rotation of the Earth.
    We pretty well understand why things are the way they are...making your "speculative explanation" unnecessary.


    The moon may have been a large slower moving comet.
    No...let me repeat that...no....the Moon was NEVER a comet.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    I would be interested in Captain Toonce's responses to these direct questions.

    As I see it, the OP imagines the Pacific Ocean as a vast scab on the face of the earth dating from four billion years ago when the moon separated. Trouble is, the Ring of Fire is caused by subduction between shifting plates, a process that transforms the entire earth in hundreds of millions of years, leaving no part unscathed as the OP requires.

    This map of world tectonic plates clearly shows the position of the ring of fire around the Pacific Plate, especially where the Pacific Plate is disappearing into the mantle under other plates, as the long term cause of seismic events such as the Japan tsunami.

    If the Pacific Plate is disappearing, then the old pre-drift imagination of it as a constant basaltic scab like the belly button of the moon is not consistent with the evidence.
    The Farallon plate is a good example.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    Trauma in the Earth's mantle, deep fault-lines in materials that could only be cracked by a giant impact event.
    The mantle is fluid at the scales involved, settling to a spherical shape due to Earth's gravity and actually convecting. "Cracking" is not very applicable. Earth's mantle didn't "crack", it splattered and mixed with the impactor's mantle.

    You seem to imagine the collision as two rigid objects bouncing off each other. It was rather more violent than that, more like droplets merging. A Mars-sized body hit Earth and both bodies were largely disrupted, a large portion of their total mass being ejected and most of the impactor being absorbed by the Earth. Earth gained a substantial amount of mass and angular momentum. The isotopic similarity between the Earth and the moon indicates there was a great deal of mixing of materials during and after the event. Since then, continents formed and have repeatedly merged, broken apart, and drifted all over the surface of the planet multiple times. It likely isn't even meaningful to point to any single part of Earth's surface as being associated with the impact.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,706
    The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses by Thomas Chowder Chamberlin

    Hopefully a point in time will occur when a new understanding will come crashing into ones thoughts, an epiphany. The current "ruling theory" has such a huge underpinning of scientific fact that it is not likely to be overturned by conversational speculation. A deeper understanding needs to be attained to even have a hope of constructing a new paradigm. A good place to start may be the very rocks that lay under your feet.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    And your proof for those cracks deeper in the earth?
    Because this is the way that volcanic pressure works. Materials with lower melting points get heated below, expand into a liquid and bubble up through the path of least resistance. The location of these volcanically active regions is determined by deeper features. What else could it be determined by, you are saying pure randomness? Seems doubtful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Because the subsections zones are there. There is also tectonic activity in southern Europe, the mideast, and Himalayan regions and all have a subduction zones, without a collision, according to you. How does your collision idea explain these other regions?
    For the 2nd time, I'm not purporting that the Moon Creating Impact causes all volcanic activity on Earth. Why would you infer that? All I'm saying is that impacts from space objects have the possibility of influencing where volcanic activity can occur on Earth. There have been a lot of impacts over the history of Earth, but even if there hadn't been, I am not proposing an alternate explanation to the cause of all volcanic activity on Earth which is influenced by a great number of things including its mass and the materials it's made of, I am suggesting the possibility that impacts can leave remnants detectable by the location of volcanic activity.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    But, according to you, subduction zones should form where cracks are in the mantle, caused by the collision. But why are there subduction zones in other places?
    For the 3rd time, no, I am not saying that all subduction zones have to be where the Moon Creating Impact occurred. Why do you keep inferring this as my position for no reason?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    No, the eastern parts of the Northwest have volcanoes that have not reached the locations of the "ring of fire". Not to mention the lava fields of New Mexico.
    What does this mean? You've not written this in a way that makes any sense to me.

    I brought up Yellowstone and Hawaii to show how the crust can slide around over a hotspot, proving that hotspots are related to geological features that are deeper than the crust that slides over them. Instead of refuting this, you make a nonsensical statement about lava fields in New Mexico.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Ahh, no. Remember, a hotspot, according to your post #10 like the Hawaiian hot spot is due to a little central tower or a build up of pressure, due to the collision.
    Now you're just twisting my words. You asked how the Pacific Ocean could be influenced by impact history if it has a hotspot like Hawaii. I pointed out a number of possibilities for Hawaii just for the sake of conversation. I was not proposing some comprehensive reason for all hotspots. As far as I can tell, there existence seems to prove how volcanic features can be caused by something underneath the sliding crust, because in Hawaii the crust slides over the underlying cause of the hotspot.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Yeah...and your proof that the location of the ring of fire is where the collision took place, other than by assertion?
    The proof is in the giant circular shape, as mentioned in the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    And the other hotspots form, why?
    Because that's the path of least resistance for pressurized magma to bubble up at.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    Do you see Pangaea as irrelevant to the ring of fire?
    i see them as not mutually exclusive

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    The subduction zones around the Pacific Ocean rim are the cause of the Ring of Fire. Several hundred million years ago, all the continents of the earth were joined together in one continent called Pangaea. Before that, the continents split and reformed many times, according to mainstream science. It appears probable from this scenario that continents drifted randomly, including across the zones that now form the ring of fire around the Pacific Ocean.

    Do you agree?
    yes

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    Does your hypothesis propose that through all these splits and joinings of continental drift, an original ring of fire caused by the moon separation was constant?
    yes

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,198
    Now I have often wondered if the first supercontinent was the stump left behind when the moon was formed by hitting the mars sized planet, and that upwelling is what continued to push away and set the stage. If so, and other superearths have no Moon forming impacts late, they may have little tectonic activity to stir life up.

    Without the moon's formation (we might not need the moon itself) giving some...directionality...to earths geologic forces, I can't but wonder if we would have been like Venus, what with the overturn theory.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    If this layer were there then you would have to propose that every plate boundary is a crack - otherwise where does the material for the Mid-Atlantic ridge come from? It is mantle material - and yet it has got through this layer somehow. Then we hit the issue that plate boundaries are not static things, collisions and subductions change them over time.
    You seem to be under the impression that each layer of the Earth is a homogenous, and unbroken layer? No, it's more complicated than that. Volcanoes are holes in a layer of the Earth, where materials from the layer beneath can seep through. So there's no problem "getting through a layer".

    Yes, where does the mid-atlantic rift come from? What is underneath that area that causes it to be where it is?

Similar Threads

  1. Ring of Fire! Annular Solar Eclipse on May 20
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-May-17, 11:30 PM
  2. The K-T Impact event - How Bright in the Sky??
    By beethovenspiano in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2010-Aug-11, 09:46 PM
  3. What Impact Would Set the World on Fire?
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-10, 11:30 AM
  4. Deep Impact: Extinction Event
    By Zarkov in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 2005-Jun-20, 08:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: