UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

Morphing/Shape-shifting UFOs or “Nuts and Bolts” machines

morpha.jpg

ufonb.jpg

Anthony Bragalia, and I, as is our wont, are having a small debate about the nature -- the essence -- of UFOs.

He thinks they are morphing/shape-shifting vehicles of some kind.

morphb.jpg

morphab.jpg

morphab2.jpg

Here is his view, for example, about the Wanaque UFOs:

The more people that I have talked with or have had email dialog with who were there - the more I am convinced that it was 'unearthly.' The morphing metal and morphing UFO aspect of my research - and the description/s of the UFO at Wanaque as changing from globular to even cigar shape - that is also...weird

And his total view:

UFOs are beyond merely “extraterrestrial.” If such vehicles do bring beings here to Earth, these vehicles much be at once physical and paraphysical. Though comprised of material elements, they must in some way be capable of “changing state” so that they can traverse the cosmos. The true meaning of “ET” is “extra-temporal.” They are beyond time- or certainly a single star. They transcend and manipulate the very space between two places by warping time to their great advantage. They must do so to travel such great distances.

Yet, at their very essence- these remain physical beings in physical craft.

If galactic flight exists, matter must not be immutable. If the alien is coming here, the “alien” must be able to in some way “morph” the matter of which their vehicles are comprised. This allows the “physicality” of the vehicle to modify itself to the rigors of the bending of space and of time.

The material must be “intelligently adaptable” - a “smart material” which can change as the Universe that it traverses changes, in order that it might get here. Shape memory materials that are “future-engineered” would serve an essential purpose. After having been “changed up” by molecular and energetic morphing to traverse the galactic distances- they would then have to “return” to their original “solid” and tangible state. They would have to “remember” themselves in the material world.


-Anthony Bragalia

I, however, think UFOs – the flying saucer kind – are material, tangible objects, of a bolts and nuts kind.

ufonb2.jpg

ufonb3.jpg

Sure, some UFOs are amorphous and seemingly change structural configuration, and have for many years, if witness accounts are accurate.

And UFOs seem to have “evolved” of late into something less tangible than they were once seen as.

Some UFO mavens think UFOs may be living entities.

Click here to read Rob Morphy’s take for Mysterious Universe on that.

But, for me, the flying saucer sobriquet is the one I’m stuck with, mentally, and it represents what I’ve seen and what brought me to the phenomenon in the first place.

Tony’s view is adumbrated, I think, by his research into the malleable metal hints for the alleged Roswell debris. (He has accumulated evidence that is more than circumstantial about such metal and its connection to the 1947 Roswell incident. I remain skeptical about Roswell and the debris story, but I have to admit that Tony has found and raised some intriguing issues that don’t allow me to dismiss the Roswell debris angle out-of-hand.)

The bulk of UFO reports, over the years, indicate, to me, that something hard-constructed has been seen, and sometimes landed or interacted with people.

(Today that isn’t happening, and the reason why eludes. However, I’m apparently stuck back in the 50s, when flying saucers were extant and “real.”)

What’s your take, if you have one?

RR

33 Comments:

  • Why do you think UFOs are less 'real' than they were in the 50s? It was a new phenomenon them, so writers tended much more towards the nuts and bolts 'spaceship' idea, whereas nowadays, and for at least 25 years, we have (mostly) cast off this thesis and found alternatives.

    The early years were dominated by Keyhoe and Adamski, both nuts and bolts ETHers.

    As for the idea of morphing spacecraft, I did read more than once in the past that the saucers were very likely capable of dematerialisation and rematerialising again. Which is a considerable advance on Bragalia's 'morphing' ideas.

    Take your pick!

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, August 09, 2011  

  • Christopher:

    I'd be interested to read what "alternatives" you prefer or like.

    As to why UFOs have changed, I haven't a clue or a real conjecture.

    But they have.

    Is it because the "observers" have altered the things, since some feel that UFOs are a product of observation?

    Or has perception and measurement changed -- more sophisticated or astute?

    Are there different UFOs from different realities, the 50's saucers gone back to where they came from, as it were?

    Or have UFOs evolved into something more advanced, just as Earth's aircraft designs have evolved?

    I dunno.

    But landing traces (indentations), smells, radar traces, all indicated a hard object back in the day, whereas such things are non-existent or so rare as to be, nowadays.

    Since I think that most early (modern) sightings were hysterical observations of mundane things, including prototypical military aircraft, that is my primary belief system, although the intrusion of craft from worlds not Earthly is open in my mind -- and that doesn't mean ET craft necessarily.

    So, CDA, what's your brand of UFO coffee?

    You've been at this a long time, and you don't dismiss UFOs as unreal I think, so what's the scoop from you?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 09, 2011  

  • I think a discussion about saucers being material, or otherwise, is analogous to how many angels can dance on the head of pins. Until we know saucers exist, or the average dress-size of angels, it's just speculation.

    With that caveat out of the way, there's no reason to believe that all UFO or saucer sightings have a single origin. Raising one idea above others is likely to be presumptive, optimistic or ambitious.

    For what it's worth, I think a lot of the reported sightings support the possibility of 'nuts and bolts' craft. Then again, I had to look up the definition of 'adumbrated' and should be leaving this discussion to more articulate commentators. I'll get my coat...

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Tuesday, August 09, 2011  

  • K:

    As a devotee of the Scholastics, angels dancing on the head of a pin is grist for a lot of discussions here.

    And I think your point about UFOs not being from a single source rings a bell with me.

    But we're all in agreement here, aren't we, that UFOs are a real phenomenon, and not a chimera, maintained by goofy people?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 09, 2011  

  • UFOs are a real phenomenon, and not a chimera, maintained by goofy people


    Unless we investigate the people who have witnessed UFOs ourselves, we are left with a rather different sort of problem. Namely: UFOs may be a real phenomenon, observed by non-goofy people, but reported/investigated by goofy people.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Tuesday, August 09, 2011  

  • P:

    Paul Johnson, in his brilliant 1988book, Intellectuals, takes up the issue of morality and ethics in the lives of famous men and women (Rousseau, Marx, Sartre, Hellman, Brecht, et al.) and whether their personal peccadilloes should be counted when we read their advice and philosophies.

    I always want to know what the personal premises are of people I read, letting that provide a corrective to whatever they are spewing.

    So, do we need to investigate persons who report UFOs?

    I'm not so sure.

    The data and information they provide can be investigated aside from their possibly misshapen ethics or lives.

    However, it behooves UFO investigators to look at the motivations of those who say they have seen a UFO or had an incident, especially an abduction.

    One set of data (the UFO or incident itself) can be studied alone, and veneered by the personal make-up of the person providing the data.

    But I can accept a UFO sighting without knowing anything about the person reporting it.

    The UFO information can be evaluated all by itself.

    But if the person providing the information is blatantly mad or besotted in some way, one has to take that into account, dismissing the information provided altogether or assuming the report may be warped accordingly, and given an iffy designation.

    I, generally give UFO witnesses the benefit of the doubt, only acknowledging that time makes memory faulty.

    But then there are such people as Adamski, Meier, and others who have to be held at arms-length, just because they do not invite credibility up front.

    It's problematical.

    My point is that UFO observers and witnesses are generally okay, but the persons investigating them need careful scrutiny.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 09, 2011  

  • My point is that UFO observers and witnesses are generally okay, but the persons investigating them need careful scrutiny.

    There may be real UFOs, or they may be the product of electrochemical/field issues in the brains of those experiencing them. I don't discount either of those as possibilities.

    There will always be a 'seeing' vs. 'seeing as' problem of interpretation -- a problem that is only compounded by the belief systems of those doing the investigations.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • "Reality is not always probable, or likely." -Jorge Luis Borges

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • What the hell does Borges mean?

    I hate abstruse epigrams.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • The conceptual mind in of itself does not contain all the probabilities for defining experiential behaviorism in a single coherent meaning in the word reality. You infer it does by defining this phenomenon in strictly choices embedded in conceptual materialism, and the choices are morphing metal or nuts and bolts?
    Defining an "object" by the subject itself? Didn't you warn us of that?
    "Real solid objects" were defined as a naive reality nearly a century ago by Einstein.
    All I can say is both you and Tony as blacksmiths will never hammer out a coherent solid real objects
    with reductionism because there is no materiality, evidential or otherwise to work with.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    I know you like the "atomic" or quantum reality.

    But it is a reality that we can't contend with in substantial ways.

    Sure, to conjecture about UFOs as quantum phenomenon is fun, and very likely underlies what UFOs are.

    But for those who bump into tables or who have felt the heat of a UFO or even touched one, Einstein's observation that nothing is solid, actually, doesn't reflect what we all deal with everyday: solid, material objects of which we are one.

    We're not dealing with Platonic abstractions when it comes to UFOs.

    Well, maybe we are. What do I know?

    Nonetheless, tackling UFOs as if they are tangible, solid things gives us something to work with.

    Otherwise we'd end up like theoretical physicists, mathing our way through life, ignoring the poetry and beauty of hard-felt, seen, touched things.

    That way leads to plebian madness...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Someone once said that a writer's aim is not to answer questions but to pose them, otherwise they would be politicians. Acknowledging that your reality is as relativistic as my own, I bet you gave the Jesuits a run for their money.

    "Nonetheless, tackling UFOs as if they are tangible, solid things gives us something to work with."

    "As if" in your sentence is the operating term, yes?
    It may give you something to work with that is familiar when everything surrounded this phenomenon is unfamiliar, and so I think you have set yourself toward domesticating a phantom to be trained on your terms by material science, and so since I consider "reality" a plurality, by way of metaphor, your tact reflects the context of times, nothing more nothing less. I think you are in retreat, looking for material spaceships, sort of fed up with what you consider "will o the wisps"..To answer your question I think that UFO's have changed my because we have changed,as to what probabilities are of a societal talisman lodged between potential and a future ( airships, missiles, spacecraft, gravity defying B1's and now quantum plasmas) as they borrow parasitically from this bracketed interval of possibilities, as a camouflage to naively manifest as they have or possess nothing of their own in their own form which is quite different from our own form. Hiding in a translation. Even they have limits although their limits are more expansive than our own, perhaps each sentience has a purgatorial quality encased in varying membranes Dante would comment upon. Perhaps not.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    You're giving sentience to UFOs, I think -- not to what they may encase but to the UFOs themselves.

    Tony Bragalia leans in that direction too, if I'm understanding his position correctly.

    I prefer to think that UFOs encapsulate sentient entities, or are controlled by sentient entities.

    Yah, yah I know....that view is so passe it moulders.

    But UFOs having the essence of being goes against that Jesuitical teaching I was subject to, way back when.

    I can accept that old Grecian view that everything has sentience, to the extent of its worth in the great scheme of things: rocks have sentience, trees, goldfish, et al.

    And even maleable metal perhaps, or transmogrified things we're calling UFOs.

    But sentience for such things is limited by the very nature of the rankings one gives (or the gods gave) to them.

    Rocks don't fall very near the top of the sentience-scale. Nor would the outercasings of UFOs or UFOs themselves.

    But that which controls UFOs, intrinsically or extrinsically, they have high sentience; maybe not cultural sentience but mathematical or cool, unemotional sentience.

    So, we are at an impasse -- me, wallowing in the 1950 scifi aspect of flying saucers, and you (and maybe Tony) besoaked by the idea that UFOs are something transcendent or real in a quantum sense.

    UFOs may be as you say, but once upon a time, they weren't.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • To be more concise and yet ending up vague or as you would put it, obtuse, due to wrestling with the limits of language creating unintended and pretty chaotic associations..I think ( currently) they are a more advanced ghost than the type that are more hoisted by their own petards, grounded in the orientation of a more local molecular environment but ghosts none the less, "advanced" ghosts who didn't quite get around being staked like a kite to conceptual being, and tripped on the last step..atmospheric orbs or ones that are locked onto the familiarity of more densely grounded environments. A average human "ghost" can throw dishes, chairs, make temperatures zoom up and down, make vague appearances, be heard intermittently, etc. A more "advanced ghost" could manipulate and manifest perhaps to a greater extent, but with the proviso that it borrows from the environment itself, our consciousness or lack of it due to the fact it is non conceptual in it's sentience. Strange ghosts in the skies?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • As usual, Bruce, you raise an hypothesis to a worthy level.

    But I'm from the Thomas the Apostle sect: show me the wounds, let me put my hand in his (Jesus) side.

    Ghosts don't do it for me, nor evanescent UFOs, even if they truly exist.

    And ghosts do exist, We have one of two in our place. I've seen them and they have manifested themselves in significant ways.

    But, as an old convict friend of mine use to say, "They (people he dismissed) don't put food on my table or money in my pocket."

    That's how I view ghosts, yours and mine -- they do nothing for me in a pragmatic sense, and so for all practical reasons, I dismiss them, ignore them.

    So, if UFOs are a kind of ghost, I would have to leave them to esoterica.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • I agree that the phenomenon most certainly seems to be a definitive shape-shifter, but I'm less inclined to think it's nuts and bolts.

    Rather, as I noted in my Contactees book, I'm more inclined to think the shape-shifting etc is more suggestive of a phenomenon that is visionary-like in nature.

    There seems to be good evidence that certain key ufo cases and encounters are staged for the benefit of the witness - and that it manifests in a fashion that the people of the era are receptive too.

    Moses on the mountain, Joseph Smith, Orfeo Angelucci - different visionary experiences, same source, with the purpose being to enlighten and upgrade mindset - in my opinion, anyway!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Well, the existence of non conceptual intelligence which is at the heart of what I am thinking toward the nature of the sentience behind these UFOs is a hot topic in cybernetic circles in regard to developing AI.
    While Krishnamurti and David Bohmn among others also tackled this,in regard to the nature of thought, it has a practical or pragmatic side.
    Kandinsky and I had an interesting exchange on the behaviorism or naive intelligence that operates in close encounters, that seems to lack a pragmatic context of utility, like a child imagines the world to be without direct knowledge, which then goes into child development theories, etc.
    At the time I was unaware of this term "non conceptual intelligence" which now seems like a bridge to study why it borrows, mimics, and has behaviorism(s) that is loopy..irrational, random and incoherent vocabulary of an activities, that are of a aimless, pointless nature when studied in depth. Another line of study is in the research by first sources of the concept of Hindu then Buddhist "Devas" which seem to describe a similar situation. Buddhism has an increasing linkage to physics which is also interesting. It may be that the aim of your UFOs may be as pointless as they seem to be.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Okay Nick, let's assume that UFOs are a visionary item, an archetype perhaps.

    Why wouldn't the phenomenon be more lucid, as those visionary artifacts were for the persons who
    Richard Bucke delineates in his monumental work, Cosmic Consciousness?

    Why an amorphous blob of light, with no obvious meaning or symbology?

    You fellows who think that UFOs are harbingers of human edification give the phenomenon too much credit, and more than the phenomenon cals for or indicates, when all the witness reports are evaluated.

    When you peruse the nonsense that UFO witnesses provide -- beyond or beside the actual observational data -- all you have are ramblings that mimic an insane or demented mind.

    No UFO sighting has proffered anything of a perspicacious kind, even back when such accounts as that of Ezekiel or even Joseph Smith were recounted.

    The whole concept of UFOs imparting wisdom and insights if we just pay attention is, for me, laughable -- ludicrous.

    And you know I love you, Nick, and Bruce, too -- but you guys are barking up the wrong tree(s).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    I agree that the aim of the UFO phenomenon may be as pointless as it seems.

    Life, itself, is pointless, and quantum mechanics/theory seems to confirm that.

    But the manifestation may be wrestled to the ground and studied for what little one can derive by subduing at least a bit of the phenomenon.

    (Buddhism, which I used to eschew, has become, for me, a fount of wisdom, and a clue to what reality really is....Fritjof Capra's book aside.)

    But intelligence, all by itself, may not be the mechanism that gets us to the truth of things, as Jung and his disciple Joseph Campbell insisted.

    We have gone far afield here in this discussion and I notice that the usual quidnuncs who visit here have remained unseen and unheard.

    Their reticence to participate is wise, to my way of thinking.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Why an amorphous blob of light, with no obvious meaning or symbology?

    The transition of invisible energetic waves to visible phenomenon is the crux of quantum physics, whose "meaning" has yet to be determined, outside of the observer effect. Again a leading edge bracketing that is in our orientation, between possibilities and empirical results, just as airships, missiles, and spacecraft once were. This is a recurring exploitation by an unknown phenomenon that goes beyond simple coincidence. We won't get the answer without heavy lifting that attempts to peer behind simple effects to their origin. How does nuts and bolts fit into this ex terrestrial theory of visitations and experiential data that seems to have no purpose for decade after decade? Why bother with any of this if they are simply visitors?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    I like the idea of visitation only; tourists lost in space or visitors to the zoo that was set up here by their progenitors.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Rich:

    Well, what I mean is that the pheomenon can have a profound effect on the eye-witness, and can radically affect the life of the person.

    Now, I really do think it's the phenomenon that induces this. However, when I talk about it imparting wisdom etc, I dont view that from a benevolent perspective. More from a control factor. In other words, the wisdom angle is how the recipient perceives it.

    It seems benevolent, and it appears to impart wisdom ("disarm your nukes," images of ecological collapse etc), and that may be the intention from the way we are intended to see it.

    However, if we argue (as I do) that certain religious events may have been UFO-related (not in a literal "ancient astronauts" scenario, but in a vision-like fashion), it could be argued that the phenomenon seems to be imparting wisdom, but - instead - is actually working to control the herd via the creation of fear-driven belief systems - such as "going to hell" if you murder someone.

    In my view, if you murder someone, there's only one place you go: jail.

    But, for those who believe in pits of fire and horned demons etc, that's a powerful tool of control.

    And if that control worms its way in via the means of what some perceive as imparting wisdom, how to live etc, this may explain deep personal interaction with - and change provoked by - the phenomenon, whether its someone whose life is changed by an encounter with a "god, with a "space-brother," a "Djinn," etc etc.

    Whether it's intentional or not, the UFO phenomenon - when its interaction is profoundly personal - is also profoundly life-changing.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Lost planetary tourists being examined by lost tourists,lodged between materiality and potential, each looking to the other for advice in the form of clues as to how they got where they are in order to return. No one wants to admit to being lost. Ask my wife.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Nick:

    Your view of what UFOs have been doing is not far from what Hancock and Bauval say about Freemasonry in their book "The Master Game" which I reviewed (at http://rrrgroup.blogspot.com and elsewhere).

    They say exactly what you're saying but without a UFO tie-in, just a bunch of ethical scalawags who've been around awhile.

    It seems everyone wants to control mankind, for ill mostly.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Fear, guilt, etc are major tools of control. Religion instills both very well - I have to grudgingly admit.

    The Weapons of Mass Destruction issue (regardless of whether there were WMDs or not is actually irrelevant) put the shit up enough influential people to ensure backing for the war.

    I have certain family members I wont name who got in a total panic about bird-flu and anthrax scares.

    And that's the point. Fear = control: get your flu shot, fear people with dark skins and beards, report to the authorities the guy next door who has an anarchy sticker on his car.

    We are, sadly, easy to control as a species. And the UFO phenomenon profoundly knows this.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Or, Nick, are UFOs like that God you don't believe in-- the thing that is hidden and aloof, uncaring, unaware of Its creation?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Possibly! It's pointless being too dogmagtic when, if we're honest, we're still scrambling for answers as to what UFOs even are, never mind their intent!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • I've had similar thoughts to Nick regarding possible motivations behind the disarmament message presented by purported experiencers and suchlike.

    If a masked stranger rides into town and warns everyone to put down their weapons and leave their doors unlocked, questions should be asked.

    Whatever the phenomenon is, or isn't, should be accorded a similar amount of trust we'd give to politicians, religious leaders and PR gurus. That's zero in my experience, but I'm optimistic that one of them could raise the bar higher than a snake's anus.

    To remain on-topic, without knowing if there's one source or many, it's better to suspend judgement and be reticent with an eyebrow raised. :)

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • K, Nick, et al....

    Somehow we've gotten off on a tangent: the intentions of UFOs rather than their construction.

    But as our friend Gilles Fernandez says, "That's ufology."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 10, 2011  

  • Why can't they be both? Shape shifting or taking on the appearance of an object in flight that is morphing in shape is something in no way uncommon to present scientific development. It's certainly quite possible for UFOs to be mechanical, or quasi mechanical devices. We have all kinds of optical technology that is designed to be employed on the exterior of our own military aircraft for camouflage sake. It really does get ridiculous when the "human factor" is out of the equation. I recently heard in an audio interview with Stanton Friedman that he believes, and is fully convicted that, the US is only approx. 1 year ahead of "public awareness". That is THEE STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard someone state that SHOULD know better. How could anyone claim such a ridiculous, if not genuine disinformation based load of hogwash?

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Thursday, August 11, 2011  

  • Just a couple quick bits of trivia:
    The SR-71 may not be a morphing vehicle in the classic sense but it leaks fuel like a sieve on the ground. The fuel tanks don't seal until it's in the air and has achieved enough speed that the titanium it's made of has expanded (morphed?) because of the heat from the air friction.
    The classic saucer shape, without any reference points like paint jobs, wings, nav lights, etc, can look like a few different shapes, spheres, cigars, footballs, depending on the witness' POV and if the vehicle changes angles relative to the witness, that certainly could create the impression the vehicle itself is morphing even if it isn't.
    On a recent episode of Through the Wormhole, star travel was, according to one of the mad scientists interviewed, possible in a nuts and bolts vehicle that was encased in some sort of energy field. I'll have to go back and figure out the details on that, but there you have a bit of both ideas from a real live crazy scientist.
    Some of the best UFO evidence, in my vew, is the radar hits of vehicles at amazing speed doing impossible things and they are hard targets.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Thursday, August 11, 2011  

  • @Frank
    Agreed! Not to mention the fact that on it's RETIREMENT flight in 1990, the SR-71 set and currently holds four new speed records in the process. If it set this record on it's "last flight", what do you think the chances are that we have something about twice that good presently? They are called "Space Planes", and the energy envelopes that you are referring to exist presently, only what you are referring to is beyond anything I have researched. This is "plasma" and is said to reduce external drag in our own atmosphere by up to 85%. There is also the fact that internal G forces are tremendously reduced making maneuverability possible that just 40 years ago would have completely destroyed the craft and it's human occupants.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Thursday, August 11, 2011  

  • @Jeff
    The SR-71 is an amazing plane. It also was somehow more fuel efficient at top speed than it was while cruising.

    The problems involving interstellar travel are still pretty mind boggling. I'm sure there are plenty we haven't considered, but giving the skin of the vehicle the ability to sense damage and repair itself would be pretty useful, plasma bubble or not.

    http://www.you.com.au/news/1693.htm

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Thursday, August 11, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home