Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 111

Thread: A Revolution in Astronomy

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    144

    A Revolution in Astronomy

    Here is one for you guys to pull apart. Bahram Katirai claimed that Astronomers have the size of the Universe all wrong, that most stars are planets, and things are a lot closer than we believe.

    http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...JkHWl2B3d2pV1A

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Here is one for you guys to pull apart. Bahram Katirai claimed that Astronomers have the size of the Universe all wrong, that most stars are planets, and things are a lot closer than we believe.

    http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...JkHWl2B3d2pV1A
    Two things, are you going to advocate this? If so could you please provide a summary of the arguments to spare people from having to trawl through the PDF?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    144
    Two things, are you going to advocate this? If so could you please provide a summary of the arguments to spare people from having to trawl through the PDF?
    No, I am not advocating it. I am not an astronomer, or a mathematician, so I am looking for the opinion of those who are qualified.
    What Katirai claimed was that the measurements of stellar distances have been subject to a compounding of errors, based on parallax measurements, and that cosmic distances have become hugely inflated. He goes on to claim that at the center of galaxies there is but one Sun, and the billions of suns in a galaxy are planets, and that where we now see planets orbiting Suns, they are really moons orbiting planets. This may sound outrageous, but if it is, then it should be easy to disprove with a couple of statements. I have looked into some of his claims, but can not say he is wrong, I'm an electrical/electronics type, never needed to know about the stars.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,286
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    No, I am not advocating it.
    Solon,

    Our ATM forum is only for people who wish to advocate a non-mainstream idea (usually their own idea). It is not for the general discussion of non-mainstream ideas, particularly to just prove them wrong.

    Since it seems that you just want to ask questions about what this person is claiming, I have moved your thread to Q&A, where you should get some answers. Please be sure you do not advocate this or any other non-mainstream position in Q&A.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    144
    Since it seems that you just want to ask questions about what this person is claiming, I have moved your thread to Q&A, where you should get some answers. Please be sure you do not advocate this or any other non-mainstream position in Q&A.
    Thanks Swift.
    My first question would be to ask if we can state categorically, from observation,
    that our nearest neighbor, Proxima Centauri, is a star and not a planet? That would
    stop Katirais proposal in its tracks.
    Thanks.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,724
    Solon,

    I mean no offense to you, but you are asking others to spend time explaining to you why this fellow's extraordinary claim is not true. That is akin to asking people to explain to you why John Doe's claim that Europe does not exist -- it's just due to an accumulation of legends over the years. Both claims fly in the face of overwhelming evidence, both can evaluated by anyone who is willing to spend several hours in a library.

    It's not worth my time to refute either claim. There are just better things I can do with my life than explain why some random person's extraordinary claim isn't valid.

    Mods -- I understand that this response does not help the OP with his question, but I think that it might be useful for readers who wonder why so few of the experts at this site might be responding to the question.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    171
    Page 10 of Katirai's "book" you linked to contains the following passage:
    What is the maximum distance an object can be seen through the Hubble telescope? The answer is 357.14 times the distance that the naked eye can see.
    Any conjectures that the author makes based on this nonsensical logic is garbage.

    A more complete explanation of what the Hubble telescope can see can be found in the article here: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...eases/2004/07/

    Note the first answer in the Q & A section of the linked page:
    1. How faint are the farthest objects?


    The Hubble observations detected objects as faint as 30th magnitude. The faintest objects the human eye can see are at sixth magnitude...
    I'm not well versed in astronomy, but it's my understanding that the scale used for assigning an (apparent) magnitude to an object (such as a star or a galaxy) is a logarithmic scale. As far as I know, this means that the Hubble telescope can "see" things that are 10^24 times fainter than a person can see.

    I might be wrong about this, so corrections are welcome.

    For the purpose of comparison, I offer the following item taken from a table of apparent magnitudes:
    7.72 (apparent magnitude) - The star HD 85828 is the faintest star known to be observed with the naked eye
    (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_magnitude )

    This star is approximately 800 light years from Earth.
    (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_85828 )

    According to Katirai's logic, the Hubble telescope should only be able to detect objects that are 357.14 x 800 LY = 285,712 LY from Earth. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image resolves objects (galaxies) that are ~13,000,000,000 LY from Earth. The red dwarf UDF 2457, at distance of 59,000 light-years, is the furthest star resolved by the HUDF.
    (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field )

    Chris

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,589
    He does to cosmology what Hoagland does to planetary science. Takes pictures, blows them up past their resolution and then interprets the results to fit his own preconceived notions. If you had to ask me which parts specifically were wrong I would have to say, honestly, pages 1-170.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,495
    OK skim reading: the guy is so wrong it is not even funny. I'd laugh but it is more tragic than funny. His analysis of why stars are not hot is a joke. Apparently all hot things radiate mostly in the IR band. Rubbish. Really hot things radiate more energy in shorter wavelength bands. The hottest things are Gamma and X-ray sources. That single point alone rips a hole in his 'why stars are planets' thread. He then quotes a 1904 paper and makes huge leaps of faith - is a star hasn't got a spectrum JUST like the Sun's then it is a planet (ignoring hotter stars....). He also claims no X-ray surveys have never been done that could distinguish stars from planets (false - but he caveats it with "to the author's knowledge" making him ignorant rather than dishonest - Googling X ray Survey Stars would have been a good start)

    And he Hoaglands his pictures as has been mentioned - blows them up and claims that stars are disks and therefore planets.

    I could go on but I was running at an average of one factual and one third of a logical error per sentence at this point and my patience burned out. Ten minutes reading a basic astronomy text book or even Wikipedia would give counterpoints to most of his arguments.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Here is one for you guys to pull apart. Bahram Katirai claimed that Astronomers have the size of the Universe all wrong, that most stars are planets, and things are a lot closer than we believe.
    I took a quick look, and found multiple problems on each page. One example: He mentioned the Hipparcos mission, but seemed to be unaware that it performed absolute parallax measurement and failed to note that it significantly improved measurement accuracy over ground based parallax measurement. Of course, its measurements are in direct contradiction of his claims.

    Anyway, I gave up reading pretty quickly, but the paper is loaded with nonsense claims.

    "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

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    144
    Thanks csmyth3025 for attmpting to put things in perspective for me, though
    already I run into difficulties with the math.
    Page 10 of Katirai's "book" you linked to contains the following passage:
    What is the maximum distance an object can be seen through the Hubble telescope? The answer is 357.14 times the distance that the naked eye can see.
    Any conjectures that the author makes based on this nonsensical logic is garbage.
    I'm willing to spend the time learning how these figures are derived, so what would
    be a good source of information? I have spent many hours so far, watched Terence
    Tao: The Cosmic Distance Ladder, have been looking at Hubble and Chandra info,
    (I'm an instrumentation tech by trade, so all the gear on these new scopes is
    very interesting)and I know there is a whole lot of learning to do, but I am not
    one just to blindly believe whatever I am told, I want to understand it. Maybe
    I should come back at a later date when I have exhausted all possible avenues under
    my own steam?
    The red dwarf UDF 2457, at distance of 59,000 light-years, is the furthest star resolved by the HUDF.
    Here I am at a loss to understand, as if the furthest resolved star is at such distance,
    why can we not see Proxima Centauri in all its' blazing glory? I see only an indistinct
    object with some imaging artifacts around it, so when you say resolved, you mean a point of light has been observed, not that you can tell it is a star?
    You guys must cringe when a newbie comes along. ;-)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    I could go on but I was running at an average of one factual and one third of a logical error per sentence at this point and my patience burned out. Ten minutes reading a basic astronomy text book or even Wikipedia would give counterpoints to most of his arguments.
    Yes, exactly. It almost looks like an Onion style parody.

    "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

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    14,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    OK skim reading: the guy is so wrong it is not even funny.
    Was. It appears he is no longer among us.
    ____________
    "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: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,675
    Quote Originally Posted by csmyth3025 View Post
    I'm not well versed in astronomy, but it's my understanding that the scale used for assigning an (apparent) magnitude to an object (such as a star or a galaxy) is a logarithmic scale. As far as I know, this means that the Hubble telescope can "see" things that are 10^24 times fainter than a person can see.

    I might be wrong about this, so corrections are welcome
    Close. The difference is 2.512^24

    The number 2.512 is an approximation for 100^(1/5). In other words, every five magnitudes means a hundred times fainter. So 24 magnitudes would be 1005/2.512, or about 4 x 109

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Close. The difference is 2.512^24

    The number 2.512 is an approximation for 100^(1/5). In other words, every five magnitudes means a hundred times fainter. So 24 magnitudes would be 1005/2.512, or about 4 x 109
    His numbers for Hubble appear based on the assumption that inverse square law is the only factor. He takes no account of sensor sensitivity as compared to that of the eye, exposure time, spreading of the star image across the sensor by diffraction and atmospheric distortions, attenuation by the atmosphere, light pollution scattered by the atmosphere, limitations in tracking the target objects, the vast differences in light output of those objects...

    His arguments have practically no relation to reality. He may have said a few things that weren't wrong (for example, his inverse square math is correct, just inapplicable), but these are isolated incidents that would take some work to dig out...overall, he's so wildly, insanely wrong that I also wonder if this is intended as parody.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    'If' in his preposterousness of claim he had said. ' It appears as if.' we might have been more forgiving.
    The manner at which a Galaxy rotates is as if it were.... or just as planets orbit stars so do....
    BUT NO, he said we are wrong.... thats silly and foolish.
    I would balance the ledger with... The universe is bigger than some imagine.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442

    Lightbulb Cosmological Distance Ladder

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    ... I have spent many hours so far, watched Terence Tao: The Cosmic Distance Ladder, have been looking at Hubble and Chandra info, (I'm an instrumentation tech by trade, so all the gear on these new scopes is very interesting) and I know there is a whole lot of learning to do, but I am not one just to blindly believe whatever I am told, I want to understand it.
    Fair enough. Try just reading through the Wikipedia "Cosmic Distance Ladder" webpage, following the other "main article" pages that branch off from it, as well as the external webpages. Then come back and ask specific questions about things you encounter that you don't understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I am not an astronomer, or a mathematician, ...
    OK, but you are an instrument tech, so can you do simple algebra? Very little of this cosmic distance ladder stuff requires anything beyond that. Delving deeply into the mathematical mysteries of the universe will not be required for this task. But if algebra does become an issue for you, then there is no substitute for learning the little math you will need, if you really want to understand.

    There is also an old book: The Cosmological Distance Ladder by Michael Rowan-Robinson (W.H. Freeman, 1985). It may not be in print now, but it must be laying around in some library, or used on Amazon or something like that. Not too old, the basics don't change. There is also a newer book with a Google Books preview: Measuring the Universe: The Cosmological Distance Ladder by Stephen Webb (Springer; 1999, 2001).

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Close. The difference is 2.512^24

    The number 2.512 is an approximation for 100^(1/5). In other words, every five magnitudes means a hundred times fainter. So 24 magnitudes would be 1005/2.512, or about 4 x 109
    Thanks for the correction. As I now understand it (in simple terms), a sixth magnitude star is 100 times fainter than a first magnitude star, an eleventh magnitude star is 100 times fainter than that, etc.

    A star with an apparent magnitude of 31 would be 100 x 100 x 100 x 100 x 100 times fainter than a sixth magnitude star (normally considered the faintest star observable with the naked eye). Thus a star with an apparent magnitude of 31 is ~10 billion fainter than a sixth magnitude star (~2.512^25).

    As you point out, in my original statement the difference I stated was 24 orders of magnitude, or ~2,512^24 = ~4 x 10^9 times fainter.

    Chris
    Last edited by csmyth3025; 2011-Mar-13 at 06:34 AM. Reason: correct spelling error

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    .... And he Hoaglands his pictures as has been mentioned - blows them up and claims that stars are disks and therefore planets. ...


    Never seen his name used as a verb before, I like it. Being Australian though I would contract it to Hoag:-
    Hoag (vb) - to distort data so much it no longer contradicts your pet theory

    example - He Hoaged that picture so much you could actually see the invisible unicorns.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    His numbers for Hubble appear based on the assumption that inverse square law is the only factor. He takes no account of sensor sensitivity as compared to that of the eye, exposure time, spreading of the star image across the sensor by diffraction and atmospheric distortions, attenuation by the atmosphere, light pollution scattered by the atmosphere, limitations in tracking the target objects, the vast differences in light output of those objects...
    I agree that these are all factors contributing to the Hubble (an most other observatory) telescopes' ability to detect and precisely locate faint objects. Mr. Katirai obviously doesn't agree.

    When I see a "book" like the OP originally linked to, I wonder if the author (in this case, Mr. Katirai) is truly delusional or if he just has a lot of time to waste and doesn't mind putting a lot of work into a practical joke.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,495
    Quote Originally Posted by loglo View Post
    Hoag (vb) - to distort data so much it no longer contradicts your pet theory
    example - He Hoaged that picture so much you could actually see the invisible unicorns.
    That works - we could have several:
    He hoaged his data to fit his pet theory (pushing past the limits of accepted techniques to get that vital corroboration)
    He icked his argument until it worked (adding layers of complexity and mystery every time a contradictory fact emerged)
    He bauved (his logic) to get to this point (chain after chain of if statements with no comments as to their probability)
    NB alternative form preferred by younger people: He hancked his logic

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    144
    Preliminary examination on distances, starting with BAUT topics.
    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....ellar-parallax
    and a page linked to from the thread
    http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/parallax.txt
    Here's a table showing the fraction of measured stars which have a
    true distance within 20% of the measured distance:

    D = 5 parcsec 94 % have error < 20% in distance
    10 69
    15 40
    20 32
    50 16
    100 12
    Right off the bat, I'd have to discount any Earth based parallax measurements as
    having serious validity issues. For a start, there are assumptions, firstly
    that we understand light itself, what it is, and how it travels in a vacuum.
    Secondly, that the atmospheric refractive index is known accurately,
    and is consistent over time. No possible corrections can be made when
    there may be changes due to temperature and humidity fluctuation, and
    unrecognised boundary layer effects.

    On Hipparcos:
    Right now, we can measure the distance to stars up to around 300 light years using parallax measurements from space via the Hipparcos satellite. From what I understand, these parallaxes still are derived by using the diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun (2 AUs), the stars' positions measured 6 months apart. Although the optics and viewing conditions are greatly improved over the older ground-based parallax methods, there is still significant margin of error past 300 light years or so, and very great error past 1000.
    http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums...67/269400.aspx

    Significant error over 300 LY. Again, there is the possibility that in
    the space between observer and observed there are some conditions that
    greatly affect measurements. One comes to mind.
    The Gaussian Plasma Lens in Astrophysics: Refraction
    We present the geometrical optics for refraction of a distant background radio source by an interstellar plasma lens, with specific application to a lens with a Gaussian profile of free-electron column density.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/496/1/253
    I'm admittedly just at the start of my investigation, but am not confident
    so far in our ability to reach any firm conclusions on cosmic distances.
    Pointers to relevant sources of data appreciated.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,724
    Dear Solon,

    You admit that you don't know much about the field, and then state:

    Right off the bat, I'd have to discount any Earth based parallax measurements as
    having serious validity issues.
    You are asserting that you know much more about parallax measurements than the people who have spent years making them and studying the uncertainties in them.

    Think about that for a moment. Who is more likely to lack some understanding?

    Suppose I went to a hospital, and asked a doctor "Tell me about blood and its circulation through the body," and he answered, "Well, it is powered by contractions of the heart ..." Suppose further that I read a website about the heart, and then stated "Right off the bat, I'd have to discount any heart-based theories as having serious validity issues ...."

    Would you believe me? Why?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Anzakistan
    Posts
    10,549
    StupendousMan, you are right in that Solon started with "...to pull apart. Bahram Katirai claimed..." but now seems ready to advocate against the mainstream theories that will do that "pulling apart"; however please don't enter into meta-discussion in-thread.

    On that note, Solon, if you are going to advocate against mainstream science, with claims such as "... I'd have to discount any Earth based parallax measurements as having serious validity issues..." then you need to take it to the ATM (Against The Mainstream) forum. Please read the rules and notes linked in my signature.
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.
    Yes, Einstein said "It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid", and he made some good Gedanken experiments. That doesn't mean one can simply drink a few beers, tell a story that makes 'sense', and go ask for a Nobel prize.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Right off the bat, I'd have to discount any Earth based parallax measurements as
    having serious validity issues. For a start, there are assumptions, firstly
    that we understand light itself, what it is, and how it travels in a vacuum.
    Those "assumptions" you speak of are very well researched, evidence supported, science.

    http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums...67/269400.aspx

    Significant error over 300 LY. Again, there is the possibility that in
    the space between observer and observed there are some conditions that
    greatly affect measurements. One comes to mind.

    That "significant error" isn't even close to what would be required for the "stars are really planets orbiting the sun" claim. There is no serious method of distance measurement that supports his claim.

    I'm admittedly just at the start of my investigation, but am not confident
    so far in our ability to reach any firm conclusions on cosmic distances.
    See Tim Thompson's suggestions earlier in thread. That should give you a good start.

    "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

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    144
    On that note, Solon, if you are going to advocate against mainstream science, with claims such as "... I'd have to discount any Earth based parallax measurements as
    having serious validity issues..." then you need to take it to the ATM (Against The Mainstream) forum.
    Have to watch my grammar I guess. I should have said "Based on the accepted margins of error for parallax based distance calculations, I'd have to discount...."
    I am not challenging the mainstream, I am accepting their admission of error margins.

    I have a couple of questions that maybe someone could answer, then I'll
    leave you all alone.
    I've done some math in trying to determine Hubble's resolving power, and
    come up with these figures. Am I anywhere near, or is my math so rusty
    as to be unusable?
    At the distance of Pluto, smallest resolvable feature is 862 miles Dia.
    (to give more than a single pixel display)
    At 4LY (nearest star) it would be 19,695 miles.
    Final question. What method is used to determine that our nearest star,
    or the nearest Sun-like star, is a star?
    Thank you all for your time.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    14,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Final question. What method is used to determine that our nearest star,
    or the nearest Sun-like star, is a star?
    The scientific method. Observe, model, predict, test.
    ____________
    "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: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    What method is used to determine that our nearest star,
    or the nearest Sun-like star, is a star?
    Thank you all for your time.
    Spectrascopic methods. The spectra of Proxima, Alpha and Beta show that they are different objects at different temperatures. They show different chemical abundances too IIRC. Proxima is small and cool, the other two are larger and hotter. If they were reflecting light then why would that be the case? They are in the same place but show very different features.

    Parallax gives us distances. There would have to be a whopping great energy source somewhere nearby to get them be that bright if they were reflective.

    We see stellar flares on Proxima which are very similar to Solar flares.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    ....Final question. What method is used to determine that our nearest star,
    or the nearest Sun-like star, is a star?
    Thank you all for your time.
    Wikipedia has an article on Alpha Centauri which describes much of what is known about this star as well as describing its observational history.
    (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri )

    If you find the explanation offered by Shaula unsatisfactory, you may want to study the 95 references to scientific papers, articles and books on this system that Wikipedia provides.

    Before you attempt such a study, howevever, be warned that you will first need to learn a great deal about physics, astronomy and mathematics in order to understand what these scientific papers, articles and books are actually saying.

    Chris

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,550
    Hmm, this Katirai fella's "theory" looks to have been fairly much touted on teh Interwebz for the last month or so. So much so that the original site for it has exceeded it's bandwidth. Bookmarking this one.
    The dog, the dog, he's at it again!

Similar Threads

  1. A Revolution in Astronomy
    By Solon in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 2011-Mar-30, 10:56 PM
  2. A revolution in the way we get around
    By DrWho in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2009-Sep-26, 02:49 PM
  3. Green Revolution: What does it mean now?
    By PraedSt in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2008-Nov-12, 04:52 PM
  4. Come the Revolution...
    By Glom in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-13, 01:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •