Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 65

Thread: [brilongstaff's UFO thread]

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    ...no research necessary.
    Yep...that's just how pseudo-science "works".

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    18
    eburacum45 - you give skeptics a good name - hold on to your open mind... it's precious.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    ...open your mind...
    Just to clear something up, will you be continuing to question the open-mindedness of posters who disagree with you???

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,043
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    well researched? the aircrew were warned about an object... they then saw said object... whole episode took seconds.... game over - no research necessary - open your mind gillian, even if it takes a crow bar.
    Such a comment is extremely rude and a violation of BAUT's rules on civility. Learn to be polite.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,329
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    well researched? the aircrew were warned about an object... they then saw said object... whole episode took seconds.... game over - no research necessary -
    slang already covered issues with that web page. If this is well researched, perhaps you could at least show a detailed report from the radar operators and careful interviews with the aircrew? (That would be more than just one guy, by the way, and definitely not just second or third-hand claims from some website.)

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    why did you mention what 'typically' happens? when in this case (which you obviously haven't bothered to read about) the radar sighting came first - it was then verified by the aircrew - sorry to burst your little bubble.
    And your evidence that the radar return was actually the object that was verified by the aircrew, is what? At what heading was the object on the radar scope relative to the radar equipment? What was the heading of the object relative to the aircrew? What was the heading of the object seen by the aircrew, relative to the radar equipment? Have you ever operated a radar set, and if you have, what was the spurious return rate for the set?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,000
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    well researched? the aircrew were warned about an object... they then saw said object... whole episode took seconds.... game over - no research necessary - open your mind gillian, even if it takes a crow bar.
    I would turn that around and suggest you practice some critical thinking skills and learn to become less gullible. This mainly means learning how to question information presented.

    What you seem to be saying is that a radar system may (1) have detected something (2) at some location (3) travelling in some direction (4) at some speed (5). The pilots also saw something (6) at some location (7) travelling in some direction (8) at some speed (9) and some distance from them (10). These are assumed to be the same object. (11)

    You appear to accept this unconditionally (12) based purely on the content of a website (13) which is clearly not unbiased (14). You further seem to believe that this is evidence of something unnatural/alien (15).

    (1) How reliable is radar? Does this signal definitely indicate the presence of an object?
    (2) Do we have any indication of the nature of this object, if it did exist?
    (3) Do we have the precise location of the object when it was first detected?
    (4) Do we have the precise bearing of the object?
    (5) Do we have the precise speed of the object?
    (6) To what extent can we trust this visual description of an unrecognised object? For example, how was the size estimated?
    (7) Do we know the precise location when visual contact was made? Was the radar still tracking the object at this point?
    (8) Do we know the precise bearing when visual contact was made?
    (9) Do we know the precise speed when visual contact was made?
    (10) How was the distance from the plane determined?
    (11) Given the level of detail given above, how certain can we be that the two sets of data refer to the same object?
    (12) How much questioning of the story presented have you done? Have you searched for supporting data?
    (13) What does the lack of references to primary sources say about the quality and reliability of the information presented?
    (14) Why is there no analysis or questioning of the sightings? Why do they provide an invented "graphical representation" of this sighting?
    (15) Given the lack of information can we say anything other than "something unidentified was seen"? Is there any evidence to provide a positive identification?

    You know, that sort of thing. I'm sure someone else could come up with many more. How many of those have you asked yourself?

    As they say, it is good to be open minded, but not so much that your brains fall out.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The pilots also saw something (6) at some location (7) travelling in some direction (8) at some speed (9) and some distance from them (10). These are assumed to be the same object. (11)
    Good post, but I would change that line to "The pilots also appeared to have seen something [...]". It might have been some window glare, after all. I don't actually think that's the case here, but the possibility shoudn't be ignored.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,550
    Well, seeing a window glare is still seeing "something" - just not anything tangible, much less a flying object (almost) regardless of how far you stretch the terms "fly" and "object"
    The dog, the dog, he's at it again!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,053
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    garrison - i assume you meant to put the word 'no' between 'was' and 'physical' - irrespective, NO, the more reasonable conclusion is NOT that there was no physical object - the reasonable conclusion is that there WAS a physical object, and every honest, sensible person would agree with this. if this conflicts with your pre-supposed reality then, .... TOUGH ... get over it.
    So a physical object moving at very high speed through air creating no wake or shockwave that could be felt as it passed close to an aircraft is more reasonable than concluding that the lack of such a basic physical phenomena means it was not a physical object? Of course it could be a physical object, simply considerably more distant than Shepherd estimated, oh and how exactly do he measure the distance BTW?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,053
    Stripped of all the rhetoric this is just one person's 40 plus year old recollection of events; big on claims but lacking any corroboration. I keep coming back to the same question, why did all these spectacular sightings happen before the invention of the camera-phone?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,031
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    well researched? the aircrew were warned about an object... they then saw said object... whole episode took seconds.... game over - no research necessary - open your mind gillian, even if it takes a crow bar.
    I agree, they saw something, and it took seconds. It's been documented, and there are no more avenues to follow for further research. But; that also means there are no more avenues to base any speculation on.

    I would like you to answer Strange's post. He's got a lot of good questions.

    Also;
    "I saw something that looked like something else" is not the same as "I saw something that looked like something else that has been proven to be X"

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,447
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    why did you mention what 'typically' happens?
    To illustrate abstractly how the accidental correlation of inputs results in the inappropriate assumption of commonality among them. It works either way; I'm not attempting to explain any one sighting. If radar anomalies come first, then the cherry-picking occurs on the visual side. The searchers, primed with the expectation that something is "out there," are apt to consider any otherwise unexplained visual input as correlating to the sighting. This happens all the time for several types of observation.

    Sorry to burst your little bubble, but I'm talking about a well-known expression of the confirmation bias. The order and types of observations are largely irrelevant.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,985
    ...whole episode took seconds.... game over ...
    Well, this is one problem with some radar-visual sightings; the visual part is brief, and the pilot doesn't have time to fully identify the craft- or it is distant, and the pilot attempts to identify it for a long time without success. Neither is really good enough evidence to confirm advanced technology.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    18
    this is true, however, as you said earlier, this radar-visual encounter is intriguing. the reason he waited til his retirement to recount these stories is because it would have been commercial suicide to reveal them any earlier. as for the comment about why there is so little footage of ufos in an age of camera phones, where is the footage of the airliner smashing into the pentagon? (im not for one minute trying to claim that this didn't happen, but this 'absense of evidence being evidence of absense' argument works both ways.)

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,529
    But that exists.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  17. #47
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    But that exists.
    Indeed. Not to mention that a plane crashing into the Pentagon isn't exactly an everyday event. Yet a surveillance camera still caught it. One would think with the thousands of UFO sightings reported every year there would be a decent digital photo coming to light at some point.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    But that exists.
    what exists?

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Selenite View Post
    Indeed. Not to mention that a plane crashing into the Pentagon isn't exactly an everyday event. Yet a surveillance camera still caught it. One would think with the thousands of UFO sightings reported every year there would be a decent digital photo coming to light at some point.
    please provide me with a link to this footage - and you say 1 (one) surveillance camera caught it? one of the most high profile and well secured buildings in the world (or universe)? why didnt 10's or 100's of people capture this footage? (which would be the case if the argument held any water)

    when you say,"that existed" i assume you mean the pentagon gillian - surely the airliner also'existed' - why no footage of it even approaching the pentagon? the would be photographers would have had far longer to capture this event than they would an average ufo encounter - yet , no footage. thats very strange isn't it?

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,053
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    please provide me with a link to this footage - and you say 1 (one) surveillance camera caught it? one of the most high profile and well secured buildings in the world (or universe)? why didnt 10's or 100's of people capture this footage? (which would be the case if the argument held any water)

    when you say,"that existed" i assume you mean the pentagon gillian - surely the airliner also'existed' - why no footage of it even approaching the pentagon? the would be photographers would have had far longer to capture this event than they would an average ufo encounter - yet , no footage. thats very strange isn't it?
    And yet it isn't a problem because we have a wealth of physical evidence, which would of course be equally acceptable for UFO sightings, got any? The other problem is that we have plenty of claimed UFO sightings that were not brief, where the witnesses provide extensive detail on the UFO and yet all these sightings belong to the pre camera-phone era. Where we do get decent photographs they either lead to plausible mundane explanations or are revealed as hoaxes. Face it in 60 plus years the UFO crowd haven't come up with one decent bit of physical evidence despite our skies allegedly being full of alien spacecraft.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,728
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    when you say,"that existed" i assume you mean the pentagon gillian - surely the airliner also'existed' - why no footage of it even approaching the pentagon? the would be photographers would have had far longer to capture this event than they would an average ufo encounter - yet , no footage. thats very strange isn't it?
    (FYI: 9/11 conspiracy theories are not allowed here.. but I suppose we're ok using this event to comment on observation and photography, as long as we don't go near suggesting things did not happen and/or had other motivations/perpetrators etc.etc.)

    How long would the observers have to grab their cell phone, switch it to camera mode, and take pictures, in this event? I really want you to attempt at least a reasonable estimate. Take into account the airplane's speed, from how far away it could be seen approaching (taking into account the "brick horizon", buildings blocking view/sound), and whatever else you can think of which may contribute to the response time.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,529
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    what exists?
    Footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon. It's also not terribly difficult to find. It isn't good footage, particularly, but the Pentagon's own security cameras aren't aimed at the building. They're aimed outward. This is security footage from a gas station across the road.

    More to the point, what percentage of people had camera phones in 2001? What percentage have them now? How much has the availability of good footage of UFOs increased in the last ten years? The percentage of people who have video cameras on their person essentially at all times just keeps going up, but the quality of UFO footage is not improving. What does that tell you?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,329
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    this is true, however, as you said earlier, this radar-visual encounter is intriguing. the reason he waited til his retirement to recount these stories is because it would have been commercial suicide to reveal them any earlier.
    Looking his name up, most of what I'm seeing are second hand statements on web sites, but it's looking like this wasn't his only claim of a UFO sighting. And I'm not seeing where there is any evidence to back it up.

    (im not for one minute trying to claim that this didn't happen, but this 'absense of evidence being evidence of absense' argument works both ways.)
    Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Just because someone comes up with an idea, whether it be about flying dragons, alien spaceships, or something else, that doesn't mean these things should automatically be assumed to exist without evidence. I've been reading about UFO stuff since I was a kid in the '60s, and the stories were going around long before I was born. I've never seen any real evidence.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,809
    In 2001 I didn't have a mobile. In 2005 I had a mobile with no camera. In 2011 I had one with a camera. Other people would be a few years ahead of me in this regard, but I imagine there were a lot of people without camera phones when the plane approached the Pentagon.

    Nowadays, if I witnessed an extraordinary event that lasted more than a minute, you can be pretty sure I'd have a photo of it. Generally, news items are accompanied by photographs these days, including a woman who was recently attacked by the "tame" big cat she was stroking.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,120
    Just look at Youtube, people video everything. BBC News uses loads of phone camera footage, their news site always has an appeal on every story for video from anyone that was there and they get loads. Seems the aliens must have a ray that makes people forget their cameras or one of those devices from Thunderbirds that stops cameras from working when they arrive at a disaster.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,612
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    as for the comment about why there is so little footage of ufos in an age of camera phones, where is the footage of the airliner smashing into the pentagon?
    A single incident with no precedent, and which left very little time for anyone to get their cameras pointing to the event before it actually happened, hardly makes for a good counter argument. That was also over ten years ago now, when the number of camera phones was much lower than it is now. On the UFo side we have anecdotes including things hovering over places, lingering in the area for minutes at a time, and yet for some reason, despite these sightings giving ample time for people to get their phones out and use them, we are not awash with camera phone footage of these UFOs.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,447
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    the reason he waited til his retirement to recount these stories is because it would have been commercial suicide to reveal them any earlier.
    Well, that's the reason he gave. I have yet to see any evidence for anyone being denied career advancement with the reason given as his having reported a UFO. And yes I anticipate the standard rejoinder: that such denials would be subtle and reasons not generally stated explicitly. Which essentially proves my point that the notion of "career suicide" for UFOs doesn't really have any evidence to support it. It's at best an irrational fear.

    Unfortunately the reasons commonly given for not reporting a UFO when it would have done any good, also convenient serve to make the report essentially uninvestigable when it is eventually reported many years later for fun and profit. And that's really what it's all about in UFO circles: a report that can't be explained. Nevermind that the only reason we can't explain it is because the initial reporter irrationally sat on it until all the proximal evidence disappeared. Sorry, I have zero respect for the claims of people who say they saw something years ago and expect me to get all excited about it today. And I especially refuse to be called closed-minded for not getting all excited about moldy stories.

    as for the comment about why there is so little footage of ufos in an age of camera phones, where is the footage of the airliner smashing into the pentagon?
    Really?

    ...but this 'absense of evidence being evidence of absense' argument works both ways.
    Indeed, but the problem with UFO advocates is that they single out one or two of the literally infinite number of things for whose existence we have no evidence, and chastise people for not taking those one or two things more seriously than some of the others. You don't get to lump your pet theory in with the "can't prove it doesn't exist" category, and then on the other hand say that we shouldn't consider it as farfetched as the company it then keeps.

    Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if the survey of evidence is provably complete. For example, "My grandmother is in her bedroom" can be falsified by an exhaustive search of the bedroom, the physical properties of grandmothers being very well known and the scope of the room limited to that which can be searched to its full extent. Naturally such conditions do not exist for supernatural explanations: their properties are not known a priori and the investigative domain is unbounded. But the Grandma Exception gives rise to a more practical interpretation that says that the greater the expectation that evidence will be available for some proffered explanation, the less likely the public is to believe that explanation without the expected evidence.

    So yes, despite the fact that some happenstance events remain elusive, the explosion in the amount of constant surveillance gives rise to the expectation that if UFOs are alien spacecraft (or some other supernatural phenomenon), then photographic evidence of that explanation should be more available. There is a general increase in the number of happenstance events that are documented photographically owing to the increase in camera surveillance and in the number of people who carry cameras. It is generally less necessary to wonder what happened in any case, because there is an increasing chance the event was caught on video somewhere. Hence there is an increasing expectation that if UFOs are caused by alien spacecraft, more conclusive photographic proof of that suggested cause would be forthcoming.

    I watched on live a drug bust on Friday at the building next door from the comfort of my own office simply by clicking on the web interface to my surveillance system, a system that I installed at nominal expense. My engineering business requires a substantial infrastructure in technical and computing equipment, and it's prudent for me to protect that investment against loss or damage. The cameras are motion-activated, allowing me to click through several months' worth of captured activity in and around my building. If someone had claimed that he saw a space alien walking up 4th Street yesterday, I'd be able to click up camera footage of that street from three different angles. Unless, of course, he waited 20 years to report it, in which case that footage would be long gone.

    The italicized phrase "...of that explanation" above is important, and reveals what I consider to be the nugget of this debate. People tend to use sloppy language when discussing elusive phenomena and their potential explanations. What we desire is not just photos of moving blurry dots, but evidence that those blurry dots are alien spacecraft. That is, evidence for that specific explanation. (I realize not everyone says UFOs are alien spacecraft, so substitute whatever proposition you feel you can argue.) If you want to offer a specific explanation, then the evidence affirming it must be similarly specific. This specificity of evidence eludes nearly all UFO claimants. Physical evidence would be nice. Photographic evidence is often all we get, but the problem is that it doesn't prove the specific conclusion. Yes, in many cases it depicts behavior that seems to evade explanation by some number of prosaic causes, but that isn't specific enough. No amount of evidence disputing some number of prosaic causes is evidence that affirms a specific explanation. That's just fundamental logic and science.

    The reason it's the nugget of the debate is that regardless of the number and quality of cameras available, UFO photos are always the least identifiable of the lot -- sort of by definition. That is, no matter how many cameras you have snapping pictures of the sky, some percentage of them will always depict something that defies easy explanation afterwards simply because of our inability to query the evidence. A recorded image, without further context, cannot expect to be self-evident. Photography has always exhibited this property; we can't always explain everything we see in them. Human vision has always exhibited related properties; we can't always explain everything we see in terms of things we know. Hence the undoctored, non-Photoshopped photographs allegedly of alien spacecraft, ghosts, angels, demons, and so forth will always be indistinct, inconclusive, and wide open to interpretation.

    To attribute this to some supernatural cause without (a) evidence that the cause exists and has known, testable properties, or (b) having any evidence that specifically supports the attribution (i.e., nothing more than, "It doesn't appear to be X, Y, or Z, so it therefore must be W") is simply intellectually irresponsible. Of course photos and videos of behavior that defies easy explanation intrigue us. Of course stories from people who saw extraordinary things interest us. But you'll have to forgive us if we don't follow an irrational path of exuberance for some fantastical possibility.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Thompson View Post
    A single incident with no precedent, and which left very little time for anyone to get their cameras pointing to the event before it actually happened, hardly makes for a good counter argument. That was also over ten years ago now, when the number of camera phones was much lower than it is now. On the UFo side we have anecdotes including things hovering over places, lingering in the area for minutes at a time, and yet for some reason, despite these sightings giving ample time for people to get their phones out and use them, we are not awash with camera phone footage of these UFOs.
    the mid-air collision involving PSA 182 and a cessna172 - from collision to ground impact the incident lasted 17 seconds. a photographer managed to snap 2 shots of the stricken boeing 727 while a film crew captured the cessna falling to earth. this took place in 1978, 23 years before the pentagon incident.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,809
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    the mid-air collision involving PSA 182 and a cessna172 - from collision to ground impact the incident lasted 17 seconds. a photographer managed to snap 2 shots of the stricken boeing 727 while a film crew captured the cessna falling to earth. this took place in 1978, 23 years before the pentagon incident.
    Is this supposed to be evidence of something? Is this supposed to support an argument?

    Sometimes people had cameras on them, even in 1978. And when they had cameras on them, and when something extraordinary happened, and when they remembered they had cameras on them, they used them to record the event.

    The fact is, as cameras become more and more commonplace, one would expect photographs of surprising events to become more and more commonplace. This is what appears to be happening. The fact that surprising events were occasionally photographed in the past does not in any way argue against this.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,612
    Quote Originally Posted by brilongstaff View Post
    the mid-air collision involving PSA 182 and a cessna172 - from collision to ground impact the incident lasted 17 seconds. a photographer managed to snap 2 shots of the stricken boeing 727 while a film crew captured the cessna falling to earth. this took place in 1978, 23 years before the pentagon incident.
    17 seconds is more than enough time for someone with a camera to turn it towards the sound of an impact and capture a couple of images, or follow a falling object to the ground with a film camera. Neither of those two captured the actual impact, did they? The first plane strike on the WTC was caught by a film crew who were in the area and filming at the time, and they literally had just enough time to swing their camera up to capture the incident. That took a lot less than 17 seconds. In fact I think there was less than two seconds between the movement of the camera, which was prompted by people noticing the roar of a very low jet, and the impact. That's not enough time for someone not already filming to get out their camera, aim it in the right direction and snap off a picture or film the event. Ditto with the Pentagon inmpact. The time between the first alert that the impact would occur and the actual event was not sufficient for anything but an already recording static mounted camera that happened to be facing the right way to record the event.

    As I said, some UFO incidents are reported to have lasted minutes, and some are reported to have lasted minutes in places where really good quality imaging apparatus was actually available. And yet none of these things are captured reliably on film or video.

Similar Threads

  1. The "Every thread that's ever annoyed you" thread
    By Paul Beardsley in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 2012-May-05, 08:43 PM
  2. A serious thread about pedal...thread
    By Nicolas in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-11, 05:40 PM
  3. The NBA Thread
    By Maksutov in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2006-Apr-21, 11:24 AM
  4. Flu thread from GA forum HST thread
    By beskeptical in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2005-Jan-23, 08:30 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: