UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

The Trent/McMinnville UFO is a Ford Side-View Mirror?

This is one of the McMinnville/Trent UFO photos
While looking through the LIFE magazine photos, taken of the Trents and their farm, I noticed that the Trents had a 1950 Ford coupe, the very same as my first car:
That car had a round, side-view mirror on it, but where is it on the Trent car?
Is this what Robert Sheaffer was referring to in his evaluation of the Trent UFO photos?

"There exists no factual basis for rejecting the following hypothesis: at approximately 8:20 in the morning of May 11, 1950, a small asymmetrical model was suspended from overhead telephone wires by two very thin threads. It was photographed once, then reoriented either by hand or by its assumption of a pendulum-type motion, and photographed again."

Here is his full analysis of the Trent photos:

http://www.debunker.com/texts/trent1969.html

RR

35 Comments:

  • Rich, the side view mirror may have been optional on the 50 Ford. I saw a list of options for them on a classic car forum (as well as the passenger side mirror). Worth checking into.

    Do we know Trent owned a 50 Ford?

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, June 24, 2014  

  • Don:

    That's his car in the photo above.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, June 24, 2014  

  • The Trents were poor and I seriously doubt could afford a new 1950 car. Paul Trent owned a utilitarian truck for hauling things around, which is also pictured in the collection of LIFE photos, some of which are at my website:

    http://www.roswellproof.com/LIFE_Magazine_Trent_Photoshoot_1950.html

    The car was most likely a rental by the LIFE photographer.

    I've actually been to the Trent place twice and done measurements and computer reconstructions of the site. Analysis by me and others like Bruce Maccabee prove Sheaffer's claim that the photos were taken in the morning instead of the evening to be completely bogus. I could go into this in some detail, but am traveling and don't have the time or my research materials at hand.

    Sheaffer, is doing his usual armchair debunking, doing his usual game of trying to cast the veracity of the witnesses in doubt. Because his incorrect shadow arguments, he also claims there is a "knot" of where Trent tied his alleged model to an overhead wire. The truth is, it is a simple, minor photo defect (probably just dust on the negative during development), present in one picture but not the other. Numerous similar splotches can be seen in the two photos, including near a power line 150 feet away, no doubt another of Trent's clever model tie points.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • Hello Rich,

    Why do you are so certain it is Trent'car? That's possible but I wanted to have a real "evidence" for it.

    For example David Rudiak at his site:
    You'll note the upright ladder, the son in the same clothing, and other features appearing in other of the LIFE photoshoot sequences, e.g. the car in the driveway which didn't belong to Trent (probably the photographer's).

    http://www.roswellproof.com/LIFE_Magazine_Trent_Photoshoot_1950.html

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • No, David...

    The Ford is not a rental for the LIFE photographer.....sheesh.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • Gilles...

    Several things:

    First, why would a professional photographer [LIFE] include "his car" in a shot?

    And why isn't the car in an earlier shot? -- because Mr. Trent wasn't there -- as the initial photos show -- but shows up for those final shots.

    The license plate on the front of the car is not a typical rental car plate but an Oregon owner's license plate.

    (And what would a car rental agency in 1950 Oregon be doing with a new Ford as a rental?)

    As for the Trents being poor, Mr. Trent was able to afford his camera, as a hobby or for something nefarious, to bring in some money?

    Look at their house: hardly a hovel.

    David says the car was "probably" a rental for the LIFE photographer, a statement as iffy as my conjecture. He has no proof.

    As for the Trents being poor, does that preclude not owning a 1950 Ford?

    (Gene Steinberg, of the Paracast, has a new car and he is truly poor.)

    So counter my conjecture (and Sheaffer's) with something substantial, rather than theses as arguable as mine.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • Yeah Rich, I was very interested about what could be extracted from the licence plate too, but I'm not "US immersed" and that's difficult for me.
    I agree too about that it could be strange a professional photographer picturing "his" car for a "report" to LIFE, and made myself the more or same thoughts, but well, again, that's conjectures, suspictions, leads, no "evidence" stricto sensu I think.

    I only wanted an evidence stricto sensu (proof) it was Trent's car or not, nothing other, Rich.

    Regards,

    Gilles.

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • Rich: "First, why would a professional photographer [LIFE] include "his car" in a shot?"

    Why did Bond Johnson photograph his hat?

    Side view mirrors were optional on 1950 Fords. There is no passenger mirror, either, nor any evidence of other optional items.

    If it was Trent's car and if he did remove a mirror from it, then he hadn't reinstalled it for what? Six weeks?

    "So counter my conjecture (and Sheaffer's) with something substantial, rather than theses as arguable as mine.)"

    Sheaffer has already been disposed of. What's the point of returning to it?

    However, regarding the Ford mirror...

    "a small asymmetrical model was suspended from overhead telephone wires by two very thin threads."

    1950 Ford side view mirrors were not "asymmetrical".


    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • Merci, Gilles...

    I'm not saying that my conjecture is correct, but is it something to consider.

    David will defend the Trents, as usual, with vitality, but without seeing that a hoax is a possibility.

    I provided Anthony Bragalia with information that would lead him to the Trent son, who is seen on the ladder in one of the photos.

    Tony hasn't followed through so far as I know but it was he, Tony, who raised the idea that the Trents may have created their UFO photos.

    I'd like to think the Trents were honest people, but as I've noted in previous postings, the UFO seen in the Trent photos is moving too slow to be authentic -- the slowness predicated upon the time difference between the two shots and Mr. Trent's foray into the house to get his camera and then prepare it to snap the UFO allegedly flying away.

    The whole sequence doesn't add up for me.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • Don:

    I'll let my reply to Gilles stand as my comment.

    But let me say, that Johnson's hat was involved in a scenario a bit more hectic than the Trent/LIFE episode.

    The LIFE photographer was there to highlight the Trents and their venue.

    I can't imagine him, the photog, being so slovenly as to include something that wasn't part of that purpose.

    I've made my conjecture, and it's only that.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • Gilles: " I was very interested about what could be extracted from the licence plate too, but I'm not "US immersed" and that's difficult for me."

    Don't know how to tell the difference between a rental plate and a regular one, if there was any difference back then.

    I do know that a license plate frame was optional, and this Ford doesn't have one (I'd expect the rental business to have a frame with its name on it). The bumper guards may have been optional. Those would be the only optional items seen in the photo.

    I'm looking at a 1950 Ford Tudor magazine ad. The pictured car doesn't have side mirrors.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • Don,

    As usual you're getting sidetracked by items (minutiae) that is almost forensic but really isn't.

    My point is that there is a possibility for a model object.

    I had that Ford car. It had a round mirror, and the car itself wasn't a costly one, by a long shot.

    That was part of my premise.

    You jump into the fray with sidebars about rental car plates and some Ford Tudor magazine that doesn't have mirrors, ignoring my premise, based on real experience.

    There is a patina of probabilities that the Trents hoaxed their photos -- see Anthony Bragalia's input here about that, along with Sheaffer's disputed but not disproved evaluation.

    Mine is only a conjecture, stimulated by my owndership of the Ford model and the iffyness of the Trent photos as I've noted in previous postings -- the lagging of the UFO while in flight, for example.

    There is a "forest" with which I'm dealing but you are obsessed with one tree.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • Rich, your point was the car was Trents, that the debunkers think his ufo was a car mirror, and that the car in the photo doesn't have a side mirror.

    Setting aside whose car it is, all I am pointing out is that it is very likely that car in the photo never had a side mirror

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • I understand Don...

    But I'm saying the car had a mirror and its gone in the photo.

    You're saying the car never had a mirror, which I find interesting considering the law about such things.

    And it's a point that needs to be considered, but I'm adding my conjecture to the other observations made by Bragalia, Sheaffer, et al.

    So, we have a point of query.

    If you can convince me that my car and the alleged Trent car had no mirror at all, ever, I'll concede the argument.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • "If you can convince me that my car and the alleged Trent car had no mirror at all, ever, I'll concede the argument."

    Get a better photo and we'll see whether a mirror was removed, and not re-installed during the following six-weeks (I think) between taking the photo and Loomis Dean knocking on the Trent's door. There should be bare screw holes or other mounting surfaces.

    In the Ford ads over decades, there are no side mirrors on the cars. It was an optional item. The cars had rear view mirrors (which I assume satisfied the law), but not side view mirrors as standard equipment.

    This may be a good argument for it being Trent's car since it is the bottom of the line Ford with no visible options except perhaps the front bumper guards. It may not have had a radio or a heater (optional), either. So, as inexpensive can be.

    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • Don:

    I have a photo of the car with a round side-view mirror in my posting.

    You'd have me try to get hold of the original car in the photo to see if a mirror was removed.

    That's ludicrous and goes to the heart of my plaint: you side-track the discussion with impossible requests.

    One would have to have a time-machine to go back to the photo date.

    It's just a stupid request.

    Look at the photo, in the post, of the Ford model.

    That makes my point.

    To ask for more is like Thomas asking to put his finger into the side of Christ to prove it was Him.

    Try to stay rational here, please.

    You can't usurp the argument with outrageous and irrational "proof" requests.

    That stymies the debate, as you are wont to do.

    (And yes, I still luv ya, anyway.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • David Rudiak wrote:

    "I could go into this in some detail"

    LOL! Yes, David, we can always count on you to come up with endless made up statements to support your Saucer Jesus.

    Ruidak is always quick to say that other folks are liars and debunkers and so forth.

    Take a look at these comments here at this link---you can skip down to the part where I challenge David to mention just one (as opposed to his typical hundreds of conspiracy ideas) example of how Sheaffer was "lying" about another case. I let him pick whichever one of his conspiracy nut ideas he felt was important:

    https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11558306&postID=702735993824934485

    Notice that Rudiak is revealed (after I did a bit of research and revealed the incontrovertible results) to be completely and utterly wrong.

    David Rudiak is one of the best UFO investigators. I accept this as a fact. And this says a lot about UFO researchers.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • RR -

    OK. The color photo of the Ford you provide seems to show the driver's side mirror mounted on a post attached rather high up (compared to current cars) on the front driver's side window leading edge frame...

    SO.... perhaps it is time for the 'Roswell Dream Team (tm)' to have their expert typist and eyeglasser use their well known 'Ramey Memo Enhancement Software' to simply increase the detail on the Trent auto photo to see the possible mirror attachment screwholes, n'est–ce pas?

    ...I mean, no holes - no mirror... holes - smoking gun, right?

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • Rich: "That stymies the debate, as you are wont to do."

    It just points out that your evidence (the car, the mirror) requires impossible proof. So, maybe it is not a reasonable approach to the case.


    Best Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • I'll give you that Don.

    We are in a situation that is unresolvable.

    But I had hoped Bragalia might follow up on his search for the Trent son, who could, perhaps, enlighten us about the matter: did his mom and dad create a model and hang it from a line to photograph.

    But Mr. Bragalia is not prone to help out here, except then his material is online.

    C'est la vie.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • > If it was Trent's car and if he did remove a mirror from it, then he hadn't reinstalled it for what? Six weeks?

    (I have no opinion of this case, but think I can address Don's question with some hypotheticals -- assuming I understand him correctly.)

    Suppose Trent had used the mirror to hoax a UFO photo, why would he reinstall the mirror and so put it in plain site? Wouldn't he hide it to avoid being caught out?

    And if the mirrors were optional, visitors would not be suspicious that this new car lacked side mirrors. (This presumes Trent removed the mirrors on receipt of the car, and so no one outside the family got familiar with its details to notice the mirrors were now gone.)

    Trent must have been aware that mid-century Americans had been trained by Agatha Christie novels to notice such inconsistencies!

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • Was your car a V6 standard or a V8?
    If it was a V8, it was a Custom Deluxe ( Crestliner) with side mirror as standard. The V6 had no side mirror as a standard feature.
    It had a rear view mirror.
    My Dad had a V6 Mainliner, the 1951 Ford equivalent of the standard model that was essentially the same.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • I had the very same model as that in the Trent photo. It had a side-view mirror, which I knocked off backing out of our driveway, hitting the corner of the house.

    It wasn't a Crestliner, a model I didn't like.

    It was a 1950 model, not a 1951 model.

    Let's not confuse the matter further.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • Did anyone besides Bruce Maccabee consider the involvement of AFOSI and the FBI in this case? The bickering about the photos and a hoax can be entertaining, but the real show is always the official one, and as for that, McMinnville is nearly as obscured as Roswell.

    The skeptics (including Loomis Dean) are latecomers to the show. So are the ET advocates.

    Lawrence J. Hyder of McMinnville, OR died in 2003. Did anyone interview him?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, June 25, 2014  

  • These objections to the Trent photos are all extremely lame. Joel Carpenter (a good researcher) suggested a truck mirror years ago.

    There are inherent problems with any sort of vehicle mirror as model hypothesis, then as now. They are heavy, which would create a significant sag or kink in the overhead wire, which is not remotely evident when you compare Trent's photos to the ones LIFE's Loomis Dean took from approximately the same positions as Trent (the ones with the Ford in them).

    Another significant problem is the light, very evenly illuminated bottom of the object in photo one (one thing that impressed Hartmann of the Condon Commission so much). Carpenter claimed a mirror surface explained the lightness of the object bottom, but mirrors have no inherent brightness. What you see is what they reflect, and what would be reflected in the Trent object, if it was a mirror suspended from the overhead wire, would be the ground, either the dirt of the driveway or lawn of the back yard. You would be very unlikely to have an evenly lit plus light surface.

    Please also remember LIFE's Loomis Dean took about four dozen photos, only one of which (heavily cropped) of Trent in McMinnville actually made it into LIFE Magazine. The two photos showing the Ford were again from about the same vantage points as Trent and to me look like Dean trying his best to reproduce the Trent photos. What possible difference could it make if the car was in the photo?

    As for whose car, it also occurred to me it could easily belong to Bill Powell, the reporter for the McMinnville Telephone-Register who first broke the story. He is also in the photos with Mrs. Trent that Dean took at the Trent farm. It would also make sense that he would pick up Dean (who probably flew into nearby Portland) and take him out to the farm (which isn't that easy to find a dozen miles from McMinnville (as I personally knew). Again, Dean photos at Trent farm showing Powell there:

    http://www.roswellproof.com/LIFE_Magazine_Trent_Photoshoot_1950.html

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • I think it is safe to say there is no empirical evidence either for or against a hoax or a genuine sighting
    of an unknown craft. Opinions flourish. The last time this subject was covered, one more aspect was suggested by someone, which was to contact ( if I remember correctly) the son or some other surviving family member. It seems that suggestion was never followed up on.
    And so it goes..

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • See my current post Bruce.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • Rudiak spews out misinformation like some bizarre UFO text generator.

    Since most UFO believers just nod their heads in slack jawed agreement at David's ravings, I thought I might take one of his pronouncements and show how easy it is to show conclusively that he is (as always) talking out of his ass. I'll do the work so you don't have to.

    Here is one of his paragraphs:

    "There are inherent problems with any sort of vehicle mirror as model hypothesis, then as now. They are heavy, which would create a significant sag or kink in the overhead wire, which is not remotely evident when you compare Trent's photos to the ones LIFE's Loomis Dean took from approximately the same positions as Trent (the ones with the Ford in them)"


    Now watch closely:

    Here is a link for a circa 1948 truck mirror.

    1948 49 50 4" PEEP MIRROR GM CHEVROLET TRUCKS PASSENGER RAT HOT ROD

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/1948-49-50-4-PEEP-MIRROR-GM-CHEVROLET-TRUCKS-PASSENGER-RAT-HOT-ROD/151335417737?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D21249%26meid%3D7900933728089198355%26pid%3D100005%26prg%3D9374%26rk%3D5%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D310986924701&rt=nc

    The owner there says that the mirror AND the large arm weigh almost exactly 1 pound.

    Now do a Google image search for:

    shoes over power lines

    Here you will see hundreds of photos of shoes slung over power lines. Some of them show a kink or bend but MANY MANY of them do not.

    Shoes can weight many different amounts but as an example, my low-cut sneakers shoes weigh well over 2 pounds...much more than the mirror I cited.

    Thus Rudiak's premise is disproven.

    If Rudiak is speculating about anything, you can almost always count on the fact that he is wrong. And he always errs in favor of his Flying Saucer god.

    Having now dealt with UFO "logic" and "debate" for many years, I am compelled to say that I am NOT saying that the mirror I cited is the same as in the Trent photo.

    Your welcome!

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • Lance...buddy...

    You mean "You're welcome."

    As for Mr. Rudiak's (and others) point that the lines visible in the photos do not have a sag in them as if something were tacked on them, it's a legitimate observation.

    One would expect that a model represented by the object in the photos would have some heft and provide a kink in the wires.

    I don't see a kink.

    However, there may be another line we are not privy to in the photos.

    I think there is room to consider the possibility that the Trents created their scenario, but there is also the possibility they did not.

    What was photographed may, indeed, be a strange object (or craft) flying overhead.

    The matter remains open...for me.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • Rich,

    Dang it on the "You're"!

    Cannot understand your other comments.

    A truck mirror, for instance, weighs less than a pound. I showed you tons of photos of shoes hanging from power lines with NO visible kinks at all. Did you see those pictures?

    Shoes weigh much more than 1 pound.

    How can you possibly not understand? Did I not make this clear enough?

    It is NOT a legitimate concern because it is not true. Why would 2+pound shoes not cause a kink in a power line while a mirror less than a pound be expected to have caused one?

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • Lance...

    I'm with you, but in the Trent photos the object has heft. It's large and should displace the line or any line, somewhat at least.

    It's not weight but mass.

    I'm not ready to say that the Trents hoaxed their photos although things do not quite add up for me.

    The kink in the lines isn't the only thing going for the believers.

    The displacement of the object from photo 1 to photo 2 belies something hanging from the wires in the photos or anywhere else.

    The matter remains open for me; it's an iffy episode.

    If it weren't, we wouldn't be debating it in 2014.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 26, 2014  

  • Lance wrote:
    Now do a Google image search for: shoes over power lines

    Here you will see hundreds of photos of shoes slung over power lines. Some of them show a kink or bend but MANY MANY of them do not.


    What Lance left out (or failed to notice): The ones not showing kinks are slung over heavy-duty, thick power lines (typically like those between power poles carrying a lot of juice). The ones showing obvious kinks are slung over thin wires. An example:

    http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-tennis-shoes-gang-territory-image204072

    The two Trent power lines were from the house to the garage/shed. They didn't need to carry a lot of power (just enough for a few light bulbs) and are known from photogrammetric analysis of the various photos to only be 3/16" thick at most, thus akin to the example above which DO show obvious kinks form the weight of the shoes.

    Shoes can weight many different amounts but as an example, my low-cut sneakers shoes weigh well over 2 pounds...much more than the mirror I cited.

    Thus Rudiak's premise is disproven.


    Rubbish! Lance (in his usual rush to judgment) didn't take into account power line thickness and stiffness, so nothing is "disproven".

    The Trent lines were (measurably) thin and long (about 40'). A HEAVY model like a car mirror should have put a kink in the suspension wire. But there is no kink above the object in either of the power lines in the Trent photos. (There were only two, which can also be established from various of the LIFE photos.)

    So does this "disprove" model? No, only evidence against a HEAVY model. A LIGHT model (such as a paper plate) would not bend even thinner wires.

    Also note that I presented two basic arguments against a car mirror, the second one being the mirror would reflect the ground and have an uneven surface. Look at the LIFE photos of the car in the driveway, taken to try to reproduce the perspective of the Trent photos, and you will see lots of grass in the background, which would have been the reflected ground cover, thus producing a very unevenly lit bottom if this really was a mirror used as a model. But the bottom of the object in Trent photo 1 is measurably extremely even in brightness.

    Lance ignored this argument. Maybe he decided he couldn't "disprove" it.

    By Blogger David Rudiak, at Sunday, June 29, 2014  

  • Those are telephone wires, and the truck mirror is suspended by two threads that are draped over and tangled around both wires. Trent couldn't throw the mirror over just one wire.

    The telephone wires are probably a 0.5 inch diameter solid copper with a plastic coating common in the last century. I have a sample here, even a meter-long piece is like a rod. The weight of the mirror is divided by two wires and distributed along their entire lengths from point to point, so no "pinch point" is observed.

    The anomalous brightness of the mirrored glass is measured in relation to the metal body of the object--not what it's reflecting. And what it's reflecting is distant scattered light from an angle opposite the POV of the camera--not the ground it's facing. And as if grass could be resolved by that camera, film, a small surface at that distance....

    Only in the make-it-up fantasies of Saucer-Jesus Land.

    Both of DR's desperate objections to the mirror hypothesis rejected.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, June 29, 2014  

  • I suggest that readers do that search I suggested above.

    Despite what Rudiak dogmatically says above, you will see wires of all different sizes and weights. Some of them show a bend in the wires, some of them don't.

    I am slightly distressed that Rich doesn't understand the basic logic of this (and I think that maybe I need to step away from trying to convince folks that the truth is the truth):

    Things that weigh about the weight (actually much less) of the proposed mirror, do not always cause a bend in overhead wires.

    Rudiak's pious religious claim is disproven (as is his claim that the mirror is heavy (I show you evidence that one would weigh less than a pound).

    Rudiak is always quick to call other people liars.

    As you will see if simply do the search, Rudiak and the truth are not very good friends. By being dishonest for his Saucer Jesus, I suppose that Rudiak feels he is doing the right thing for his nutty cause.

    Lance



    By Blogger Lance, at Sunday, June 29, 2014  

  • Lance,

    I understand your wire explanation and would normally accept your view as it makes sense on the face off it.

    However, in the Trent photos, I do not see a bend or kink in the wires and the second photo seems to show an object beyond the wires.

    The possibility that the Trents placed a mirror or round object in the air somehow to hoax their photos is something my posting implies.

    But the possibility that they actually photographed something odd flying overhead is also acceptable to me.

    The matter remains open, as I keep saying.

    There is no conclusive proof either way.

    As for David Rudiak's and Bruce Maccabee's work on the photos, I find their approach to be exemplary and far more substantial that the glib or facile views of skeptics, excluding Sheaffer's fine work, which is to be applauded for its diligence.

    (Now if Tony Bragalia can track down Mr. Trent's son, we might get a view that helps in the matter, or not.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, June 29, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home