Deep Impact Predictions

dmjspace · Aug 15, 2005

stevehw33 said: Nope. I got the same data confirmed from NASA and the Planetary society. Which reference you wree repeatedly given, and which references AND facts you continue to ignore, deny and avoid. That you use a false statement, is typical of your entire approach. Oh, I'm well aware of your figures. The problem is, they are guesstimates with huge potential errors. Even the authors of the papers (when the source is even given, that is) outline the gigantic variances. The relationship of orbiting moonlets of the asteroids is nothing which Newton could not have predicted as occurring and it's not surprising to see them. What is surprising is that they are rare. That is so opposite of reality, I don't know where to begin. Why don't you write to Don Yeomans. You won't listen to me...maybe you'll listen to him.

dmjspace · Aug 15, 2005

For those interested in the existence of carbonates in meteors, as old as the comets, Ah, tricky. "As old as" comets, eh? I thought we were talking about what's inside the comet. Finding carbonates is NOT therefore, a shock. They are found in carbonaceous chondrites, and in many chondritic meteors, which chondrules are VERY abundant, all the time. And gasp, no real sign of liquid water!! Condensing from the nebular cloud like our solar system did. Which gives the truth against the false claims again being made by someone who will not even bother with an itty bitty search! Once again, these meteorites are usually associated with asteroids, not comets, so your argument does nothing to support the idea that carbonates are expected in comets. You'd better call the scientists at the Spitzer Telescope and set them straight. After all, it's their science team saying that finding carbonates in Tempel 1 is a surprise. Carbonates are not a surprise in the EPH because asteroids and comets are the same entity.

exoscientist · Aug 15, 2005

Stevehw33 said: Finding carbonates is NOT therefore, a shock. They are found in carbonaceous chondrites, and in many chondritic meteors, which chondrules are VERY abundant, all the time. And gasp, no real sign of liquid water!! Condensing from the nebular cloud like our solar system did. Which gives the truth against the false claims again being made by someone who will not even bother with an itty bitty search! I don't agree with you here Stevehw33. The existence of carbonates and several other aqueous minerals is widely interpreted as indicating liquid water alteration on the carbonaceous meteorites parent bodies. Bob Clark <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

exoscientist · Aug 15, 2005

Dmjspace, the prediction of liquid water within the interior of comets early in Solar System history is controversial (probably because it would suggest the possibility of life existing in comets.) It was discussed here with some references: exoscientist rock 02/26/05 07:49 PM Life in comets and asteroids? http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=160336 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Aug 15, 2005

I'll tell you, Dmj, the reason I'm inclined to agree for the moment with Steve is the following: Of Carbonaceous Chondrites, nickel-iron, and rocky meteorites, we have physical evidence. Of physical evidence from comets, we have precisely one: Tempel1. And a huge swath of data has not been released. So, theory notwithstanding, it's a bit early to state that this theory of what a comet is is correct and others wrong, when you have a single data point - and they have numerous. So my objection is based solely on this. If NASA releases data that backs you up, I will be delighted to alter my training on the composition of cometary matter. But there's little data at all, as yet. Wait a while, huh? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

dmjspace · Aug 16, 2005

exoscientist said: Dmjspace, the prediction of liquid water within the interior of comets early in Solar System history is controversial Yes, it is. That's why the vast majority of scientists will, as the Spitzer Telescope astronomer pointed out, be very surprised by the discovery of carbonates. This brings up one very important point--perhaps the most important one, in my opinion: the dirty snowball model does not predict carbonates. Surely, it will try to find a way to accommodate the findings. It will be postulated that carbonates were already formed in the nebula. It will be suggested that "five billion years is a lot of time" for carbonates to form even in 30K-40k temperatures. Either way, snowball proponents will need to introduce a new mechanism, one that likely has no observational evidence to support it. Science shuns such additions, a la Occam's razor, because they loosen the model's restrictions. They add more variables, and Occam warned us to "invent no unnecessary hypotheses." Some will use the same argument to argue that the EPH is unnecessary by the same token. But the difference is that the EPH logically predicts carbonates, due to the differentiation processes that occurred on the parent body. The EPH does not need to invent anything new to explain the data.

dmjspace · Aug 16, 2005

Yevaud said: I'll tell you, Dmj, the reason I'm inclined to agree for the moment with Steve is the following: Of Carbonaceous Chondrites, nickel-iron, and rocky meteorites, we have physical evidence. Of physical evidence from comets, we have precisely one: Tempel1. And a huge swath of data has not been released. Then why, oh why, would you agree with stevehw33? After all, he is the one insisting that the compositions and densities of comets are known. So, theory notwithstanding, it's a bit early to state that this theory of what a comet is is correct and others wrong, when you have a single data point - and they have numerous. The EPH has far more data points in its favor. It's successfully predicted the relatively commonplace presence of satellites around asteroids and comets. It's predicted the intensity and duration of meteor storms. It's predicted the composition and spin rates of asteroids, and the extremely dark albedos of both asteroids and comets. It predicted the observed crusts on comets. It predicted the spike in the distribution of new comet energy parameters. It predicted roll marks (from de-orbited moons) on Eros. And so on. (There are actually more than 100 lines of evidence supporting the EPH, and the list grows with every new observation.) These predictions are significant because they provide a test between the dirty snowball model and the EPH. So far the EPH is busy predicting and the snowball model is busy adding new variables to patch it together. So my objection is based solely on this. If NASA releases data that backs you up, I will be delighted to alter my training on the composition of cometary matter. But there's little data at all, as yet. Wait a while, huh? So we're back to the same ol' question then. What data could NASA release that would favor the EPH

yevaud · Aug 17, 2005

Dmj, I agree with Steve, as his statement is current theory, and is in accordance with the presence of large amounts of water-ice we have already detected. Whereas you're saying this theory is correct, based on the partial and still speculative single piece of evidence. So when there's more to work with, I will reconsider. But I don't just reject the concepts I was taught, based solely on a single datum which is still, theoretically, "up in the air." And that truly is all. If the data ultimately supports you, then fine. However, you *have* no data as yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Aug 17, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I'm not ignoring anything. Someone accused Van Flandern of lying about backtracing orbits, which most certainly can be done. What you are so casually blowing off is that in the statement for which Van Flandern was falsely attacked, he said he was talking about a _probability_ that new comets originated from a common place and time, not a precise calculation:<hr /></blockquote> Frankly, I have read little of Van Flandern. And where did I say he was lying? I said it's a near-impossible thing to predict. By saying what he did, he's effectively stating he knows definitively exactly what every piece of matter it may have interacted with's trajectories and behavior - over a very long time. Not possible. I repeat: not possible. I say three times: NOT POSSIBLE. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Aug 17, 2005

Sorry. Thought that was me, as it was posted RE: yevaud. That is not how peer review works, CS. They don't do your work for you. They publish if the math appears correct, the physics, and for it's general argument. By agreeing to publish a scientist's ideas or theories, what they do not do is make any stand on it's correctness. So don't equate that because his ideas were published in Icarus to mean they're correct. Btw, I have worked with predictions of long period orbits, so I am not unfamiliar with the issue. He can state something is statistically likely as much as he likes, but he can't state this for certain by any means. There are just too many factors over too long a time for an accurate and definitive answer to appear. It cannot be done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

dmjspace · Aug 17, 2005

Yevaud said: Dmj, I agree with Steve, as his statement is current theory, and is in accordance with the presence of large amounts of water-ice we have already detected. WHAT large amounts of water-ice? What data are you referring to? If you can find any, go back to the dirty snowball model's predictions about specific characteristics of comets. Then compare those predictions to observation. Dirty snowball proponents (who are actually ex-snowball proponents, who have recently morphed into snowy dirtball proponents and even "snowy mudball" proponents) expected huge amounts of water out of Tempel, Hale-Bopp and every other comet we've observed. Each time, actual or estimated water amounts were far below expectations. "Current theory," as you put it, has not been borne out by the data. No reasonable scientist sticks with a current theory, just because it's current, when it repeatedly fails to meet expectations. Whereas you're saying this theory is correct, based on the partial and still speculative single piece of evidence. This theory (EPH) is based on a range of evidence, which I recounted for you. The results of Deep Impact are surely preliminary, but there are plenty of data points already from independent observatories. So far they are more consistent with the EPH on all fronts.

dmjspace · Aug 17, 2005

Yevaud said: That is not how peer review works, CS. They don't do your work for you. They publish if the math appears correct, the physics, and for it's general argument. Your post reads like a virtual primer for pseudoskeptics-in-the-making. How do you possibly justify the constant clamor for peer review by "skeptics," and then simultaneously reject papers that pass review? This is a transparent double standard. But if it's true that peer reviewed papers don't establish a measure of correctness (or at least viability), then you must also argue that the peer reviewed papers supporting the dirty snowball model are also dubious. By agreeing to publish a scientist's ideas or theories, what they do not do is make any stand on it's correctness. That's outrageous. If the math is correct and the physics is correct and the argument is coherent, then the paper stands because it cannot be demolished in any easy way. This puts his theory on a par with other theories and papers that are similarly unassailable. This means that the theory is a viable option. At this point, the only true test between competing theories is prediction, and the EPH has easily outpredicted alternatives. The dirty snowball model may have been repeated so many times that it seems like a no-brainer ("repeat a lie often enough and it will eventually become 'fact'" and all that), but the data supporting it are sketchy, at best, in terms of meeting expectations of the original model.

yevaud · Aug 17, 2005

Really? Well, what's *your* data? And what large amounts of water-ice? Now for starters, just how much of the rings of Saturn, just name a single example, is ice? You aren't seeing the trees while forsaking the forest, you don't even see the damned forest. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Aug 17, 2005

Yes, yes, back to your "Pseudo-skeptic" crap. Conversation over. As you are, of course, back to your number one response, which is to refer to anyone who disagrees with you as a pseudo-scientist/skeptic. Nice. What a supreme waste of time to debate you are. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

dmjspace · Aug 18, 2005

Yevaud said: Really? Well, what's *your* data? What do you mean, what's my data? There are 34 pages in this thread, which is full of specific data that I've posted regarding the details of the EPH, as well as all available evidence relating to Deep Impact findings so far. You've already admitted you are not familiar with Van Flandern and, hence, the EPH, despite the fact that I've repeatedly posted details of it and its successful prediction history. Why do you insist on debating something with which you freely admit you haven't taken the time to look at? And what large amounts of water-ice? Now for starters, just how much of the rings of Saturn, just name a single example, is ice? What does this have to do with anything? Snowball proponents insist comets are mostly water-ice. I'm asking for support for that claim. Specifically, I'm asking for historical claims made by dirty snowball proponents, and direct comparisons between what they expected and what observations actually showed. You aren't seeing the trees while forsaking the forest, you don't even see the damned forest. Not quite sure what this cryptic remark means. Are you making some sort of convoluted argument that, since we see ice in other parts of the solar system, comets must be made of ice? If so, I'd prefer (as would most scientists) that we stick with actual observations of comets and asteroids to determine what their makeup is.

yevaud · Aug 18, 2005

You completely misunderstand. 17 pages of verbiage on a message board is *not* "evidence." What do you mean, what's my data? There are 34 pages in this thread, which is full of specific data that I've posted regarding the details of the EPH, as well as all available evidence relating to Deep Impact findings so far. EPH is barely a hypothesis, as: 1. No exploding planet has ever been seen or observed. 2. The mechanisms stated to allow this to occur are so far out there as to be a fantasy story. 3. Orbital mechanics won't allow a planet to have formed where the Asteroid Belt is today. 4. There is only a tiny amount of material in the Belt, compared to say an Earth-sized planet. The explanation that the remainder all "vaporized" is a wet-dream. 5. Huge amounts of water-ice are known to exists in the solar system, yet you deny comets could be comprised of it. Yet, you say they must be rocky bodies, remnants of an exploded planet for which there is zero evidence. That's what I mean by not even seeing the damned trees. You have proceeded to gloss over years of observation and experimentation, in favor of a hypothesis straight out of Star Trek. And your evidence that this is correct is one bizarre and unproveable theory, and some minor data from our one and only one close encounter with a comet. Now if you think that, and a lot of back-and-forth on a message board constitutes "evidence," more power to you. But you have utterly nothing to back up that hypothesis. And finally, why don't you - for once, just for &%$#@!s and giggles, lay off the pseudo-scientists crap. It's tiresome, doesn't prove your point in the least, and is merely a word used to attempt to shut down discussion by insulting people. In fact, it's used in precisely the same way that an arch-rad-lib calls people "Nazis" when they don't want to discuss something anymore. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Aug 18, 2005

By the way - a fine point of language - this is not a "Theory." It's a "Hypothesis." There's a huge difference between the two terms, though non-scientists use them interchangeably. They're not. A Hypothesis is merely an idea that is not even remotely proven. It remains to be tested and experimentally proven. A Theory is a Hypothesis that's been proven to work, time and again, in the real world. It may be inadequate, or not fully explain something, but it WORKS. Please get it right. And, I'm not even remotely sorry to say, all Van Flandern has got is a extraordinarily weak Hypothesis with a single spotty data point, and physical mechanisms to explain it that are right out of a piece of fiction by EE "Doc" Smith. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

dmjspace · Aug 18, 2005

Yevaud said: You completely misunderstand. 17 pages of verbiage on a message board is *not* "evidence." And of course the best way for a "skeptic" to deny evidence is to claim it's not evidence. Or, better yet, be blissfully unaware of it, so that he can safely scream, "Well *I* haven't seen any evidence for that!" EPH is barely a hypothesis, as: 1. No exploding planet has ever been seen or observed. Kind of like the fact that no Oort cloud has ever been observed? 2. The mechanisms stated to allow this to occur are so far out there as to be a fantasy story. Kind of like the Oort cloud? And the idea that carbonates form at 30 Kelvin? 3. Orbital mechanics won't allow a planet to have formed where the Asteroid Belt is today. Prove it. 4. There is only a tiny amount of material in the Belt, compared to say an Earth-sized planet. The explanation that the remainder all "vaporized" is a wet-dream. Very scientific. 5. Huge amounts of water-ice are known to exists in the solar system, yet you deny comets could be comprised of it. Oh, they *could* be composed of it. It's just that there's little evidence to support that hypothesis. Yet, you say they must be rocky bodies, remnants of an exploded planet for which there is zero evidence. There are thousands of pieces of evidence. Literally. They're called asteroids and comets. You have proceeded to gloss over years of observation and experimentation, in favor of a hypothesis straight out of Star Trek. Years of observation and experimentation? I just listed several succe

dmjspace · Aug 18, 2005

Yevaud said: all Van Flandern has got is a extraordinarily weak Hypothesis with a single spotty data point, and physical mechanisms to explain it that are right out of a piece of fiction by EE "Doc" Smith. Yet, somehow, the EPH manages to make accurate predictions that make the snowball/dirty snowball/snowy dirtball/muddy snowball hypothesis look like a cobbled together, non-predictive piece of claptrap. By the way, when you say a theory "works," all you're saying is that it makes successful predictions. By all measures, the EPH does exactly that. Maybe Van Flandern should refer to it as the Exploded Planet Theory?

dmjspace · Aug 18, 2005

stevehw33 said: I gave him repeated, over 4 good refs to the question of cometary densities, data describing that those were consistent with water, esp. with respect to the spectral data of cometary tails, etc. "Over 4"? For someone who pretends to have specific answers, you certainly do tolerate a lot of uncertainty. For example: the claim in one or more of your "more than 4" sources that hypothesized comet densities vary by almost an order of magnitude. As even one of the normally pseudoskeptic-friendly posters pointed out, your sources also made liberal use of wiggle words like "probably," "unknown" and "suspected." The NASA site your provided in your "over 4" sources didn't reference any specific papers. It merely cited a large range for its density guesstimate. In the end, of course, nobody is arguing that comets don't have water in them. Even asteroids are known to contain up to 20% "interstitial" water. The point is that there is no evidence suggesting comets are mostly water (typically, they are suspected to be at least 80% water-ice). On the other hand, there are plenty of indications from Hale-Bopp, Borrelly, Wild 2 and now Tempel 1 that comets share many more characteristics with asteroids than ever expected under dirty snowball premises. Yes, yes, stevehw33 will continue to drone on with his armchair psychoanalysis, and throw thinly veiled insults my way, suggesting I don't know anything about science or the scientific process. There's nothing that can stem that flow except his famous "stevehw33 fade," which I'm hoping will arrive soon. But, luckily, for anyone taking the time to read through this exchange, it will become quite clear that his "facts" are flimsy and his data are largely non-existent.

yevaud · Aug 18, 2005

I believe I will resond to that. you certainly do tolerate a lot of uncertainty. Which is a quite different thing than the fairy-tales you throw around. ...continue to drone on with his armchair psychoanalysis, and throw thinly veiled insults my way... As you drone on ignorant pop science based on nothing. And throw thinly veiled insults around yourself at an astounding rate, but try to call everyone else on them. "probably," "unknown" and "suspected." Words you throw around frequently. ...and throw thinly veiled insults my way... Why, such as "Pseudoskeptic" and "Pseudoscientist?" You should know - you are a past master of them. suggesting I don't know anything about science or the scientific process. You don't know a damned thing, because you have no accreditation, no training and no experience. And like a worm on a hook, you try to wriggle away from that uncomfortable truth each and ever time someone calls you on it. Your constant assertations to expertise are based on your own little fantasies of playing with the big boys, but apparently you weren't and aren't capable of actually doing the work of achieving it. It's all so easy to you...you just pick up on the next little fantasy someone publishes, parrot every word, never budge. And, Lo! You are suddenly am expert. Go back to your spreadsheets and your fuzzy gray cubicles. You know utterly nothing about science. In fact, the level of your competence is clearly indicated by the fact that you never got off of your ass and did the hard work to go to school for it. And that glaring fact will remain, no matter how many thousands of words you always respond with. Frikking verbal avalanche. If you' <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Aug 18, 2005

And you know something, Bucko? I used to come here and similar threads, and give free use to people of my majors and my pushing 30 years in science, technology, and engineering. I don't much, anymore. Know why? Because every time an interesting thread topic appears, some jackass hijacks it, and turns it into one of their little crusades to inform the experienced that they, the ignorant, are far more in the know than anyone else. I am certain that every kid or adult, for that matter, who joins to ask serious scientific questions are thoroughly put off to discover that people like you can post their unscientific gibberish here, and represent it as science. I don't believe I have *ever* seen you enter into a frank scientific discussion of anything that's accepted and normal. Not once. And if you think *that* also glaring aspect of you, Dmjspace, hasn't been noticed, you're deluding yourself. You are exploding planets, and ufo's, and crop circles, and fusion in your freaking bathtub, and that's all you have ever posted. You are a Marvel comic book, not a serious student of science. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

dmjspace · Aug 18, 2005

Yevaud said: [nothing, but I'd guess it violates a lot of message board codes of conduct--where's a good moderator when you need him or her?] Yevaud, you're pure class. For those who are finding it difficult to weed through Yevaud's tantrums to find his argument, allow me to boil it down for you: 1. Yevaud is unfamiliar with the details of the EPH, and freely admits that he's read very little, or nothing, of Van Flandern 2. He's convinced that the EPH is based on "a single data point," despite understanding nothing about the hypothesis and ignoring every single piece of data I've provided in support of it, including several successful predictions, such as: (1) satellites of asteroids; (2) satellites of comets; (3) salt water in meteorites; (4) “roll marks” leading to boulders on asteroids; (5) the time and peak rate of the 1999 Leonid meteor storm; (6) explosion signatures for asteroids; (7) strongly spiked energy parameter for new comets; (8) distribution of black material on slowly rotating airless bodies; (9) splitting velocities of comets None of these characteristics of asteroids or comet are expected in the dirty snowball model. Yet, I am the one who is behaving pseudoscientifically by insisting we compare the competing models? Hmm. 3. He siding with stevehw33, whose only contribution to the "dirty snowball" argument is to provide "over 4" references to density figures which vary so widely, they are virtually worthless. No "skeptic" here has provided any evidence that the dirty snowball model has made any successful predictions that the EPH didn't make. 4. He insists that, since we have not observed an exploded planet, all successful predictions made by the model can be safely ignored. In other words, theory trumps observation. He suggests this even in the face of the fact that the Oort cloud, which is said to be the source of long-period comets, is itself unobservable.

yevaud · Aug 18, 2005

Yevaud's emotions become frayed when Dmj continues to portray hogwash as he simultaneously calls a science, and all it's practicioners, fake. That's you, Bud. Pure class, as you said. And of course, as you have done before, you posted this pithy little, "who me?" immediately after starting in with your "Pseudoskeptic" crap. Of which I called you on, and of which, of course, you failed to answer - just as you've failed to do so before. When called on something, either smear, insult, ignore, or move on to the next point. As well, when asked about your lack of experience, training, or education, you of course act as if you heard nothing, and then march right on to the next whacko unscientific post. So answer the question, if you have any intellectual honesty whatsoever: where do you think you have any expertise to state these things? Answer: you don't. All you're doing is spouting someone else's words. You have no critical ability to think scientifically - as demonstrated by your pursuing yet another bizarre theory to the ends of the Earth as true science. Mass dumps of verbiage and spouting someone else's words aren't science, Dmj. And never have been. You can't even explain to me the underlying physics or math behind these things if your life depended upon it. That's why you're an amateur. All you can do is just continually harp on something that isn't a good hypothesis at all. Junk science being argued by an untrained sophist. And by the way - you simultaneously have, in about three posts, insulted me, Steve, had it pointed out to you, and ignored it - while stating you're being insulted. You are some piece of work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Aug 18, 2005

Here's your track record at SDC, Dmj. These are the false-scientific topics you think are science: 1. Deep Impact predictions. A purely scientific thread about Tempel1, which you have now hijacked into a forum for Van Flandern's non-science. 2. Alien Stories Lead to Some Probing Questions. 'Nuff said. 3. Crop Circle Season Begins. 4. Deep Impact Foul Play. In which the main thrust of the argument is the conspiracy theory of NASA hiding or refusing to release data. 5. Where's the Water? More of the same Van Flandern nonsense. 6. Mass Sightings in Mexico. Whacked UFOlogy at it's finest. 7. Stale Comets. Yet more Van Flandern. 8. How Pseudoskeptics Undermine Science. This must have attracted you like a Moth to an open flame. The thread was a thinly veiled vehicle for CS to call everyone he didn't like a "pseudoskeptic." Just as you do. 9. Seperation Of Pure Science (SETI) From Junk Science (UFO). And of course you argue in this thread all about how sightings of supposed UFO's = proof. 10. Politically Incorrect SETI. More of the same. This is you, Dmj. It's not surprising those of us who worked our tails off to earn degrees and/or work in scientific fields have a real issue with you. Because you're not credible. Everything you have ever posted at SDC falls into these categories. Everything. And then you tell people trained in sciences, "you don't know what you're talking about." You are beyond a laughingstock in this. *You* don't know what *you're* talking about, and more of your 10,000 word posts won't cut it. So pontificate about someone else's bizarre non-science with your MBA. But don't be surprised if you are called on it again and again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Deep Impact Predictions

dmjspace

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

exoscientist

Guest

exoscientist

Guest

yevaud

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page