UFO'S of UAP'S, ASTRONOMIE, RUIMTEVAART, ARCHEOLOGIE, OUDHEIDKUNDE, SF-SNUFJES EN ANDERE ESOTERISCHE WETENSCHAPPEN

In Part One of this article, I presented the inside story of Disney’s 1995 UFO documentary, Alien Encounters from New Tomorrowland, which supposedly was produced with the sole purpose of promoting Disneyworld’s then-new “ExtraTERRORestrial Alien Encounter” attraction in Orlando, Florida. The documentary quickly became engrained into UFO conspiracy lore, with many in the UFO community speculating that it was a sort of “soft Disclosure,” intended as a test of public reaction to a possible future announcement of alien contact. Despite Disney having close historical ties to the US government and military, there is simply no evidence to support the acclimation theory for the Disney documentary, although certainly the specifics of its content served to strongly reinforce ideas that had thus far been sown into the UFO community by disinformation operatives dating back at least to the early-1980s. According to writer/producer, Andrew Thomas, the content of his documentary was crafted entirely by him, and he was given free rein by Disney to make essentially whatever he wanted, which he did.

Still, for reasons detailed in Part One, the Alien Encountersdocumentary remains something of an oddity, both for its content, and for what its director, Andrew Thomas, describes as Disney’s “completely counter-intuitive” TV scheduling. It aired in only a handful of US cities at inopportune times on selected dates in February and March 1995, with no notice. The result, says Thomas, was that “no one would be watching it.” An incredibly odd marketing strategy considering its purpose was to promote a major theme park attraction for families.

Disney’s “ExtraTERRORESTRIAL Encounter” attraction, which closed in 2003.

Disney, one of the world’s largest corporations, is not known for poor marketing strategies, and yet, not only did it display appalling promotional skills for its 1995 UFO documentary, but this same shocking absence of PR know-how had also been exhibited by Disney on another UFO-related project during the same timeframe.

A few months before the broadcast of its Alien Encounters documentary, in January of 1995, Disney made the unprecedented move of staging a major UFO conference at its Orlando resort, titled “UFOs: The Reality of the Phenomenon.” As with the documentary, the official purpose of the conference was to help promote its new “ExtraTERRORestrial” attraction. Disney sought to bring together the world’s leading UFO experts for several weeks. These included major names of the time, like Budd Hopkins, George Knapp, Don Schmitt, Kevin Randle, and Zecharia Sitchin, among others. Such a line-up at the height of UFO hysteria in America would ordinarily have attracted many hundreds, if not thousands, of attendees. Strangely, though, Disney chose not to advertise their costly multi-week event. As a result, the world’s leading UFO speakers spoke to almost no one at all.

The entrance to the 1995 Disney UFO conference. Photo courtesy of Don Ecker.

The man tasked with organizing the conference for Disney was Don Ecker, Director of Research at UFO Magazine, then the world’s most popular UFO publication. I interviewed Ecker in 2015. “In a way,” said Ecker, “the Disney conference is kind of a murky legendary incident in the history of UFOs in the United States.”

Ecker recalled:

This was going to be a two-week event and Disney wanted me to host it. They would fly me down to Orlando. I would be the person choosing all the speakers and organizing the line-up. There were two groups of speakers that came in. One group for week one, the second group for week two. Disney had set aside an auditorium for this whole thing [NOTE: David Halperin, whose work is referenced in Part One, has the event lasting four weeks, not two].

Speakers at the 1995 Disney UFO conference in Orlando, Florida, Left to right: Russ Estes, Vicki Ecker, Yvonne Smith, Don Ecker, George Knapp, Kevin Randle, and Zecharia Sitchin. Photo courtesy of Don Ecker.

It wasn’t until the conference began that Ecker learned of Disney’s non-promotion of the event.

He told me, still in disbelief:

Disney never gave it an ounce of promotion. They did not promote it at all. In the two weeks that we were there, the most highly attended day for speakers in an auditorium that could have seated several hundred, we may have had 10 or 12 attendees at most. We had virtually no audience at all. That Disney didn’t promote it made no sense to me then, and it makes no sense to me now.

Ecker said that abduction researcher Budd Hopkins was particularly outraged by the lack of attendees: “He just upped and left in the middle of the week. Didn’t even say goodbye or thanks.” Despite the almost total lack of attendees, the other speakers (approximately twenty in total) still delivered their prepared lectures each day based on their current research.

More Disney conference speakers. Left to right: Don Ecker (standing), Jesse Marcel Jr., Don Schmitt, Bruce Cornet, William Bramley, Budd Hopkins, Barry Taff, Clifford Stone, Stanley McDaniel. Photo courtesy of Don Ecker.

The conference could not have been cheap. “These speakers had received airline tickets to fly in, free room, board, and meals for two weeks, everything paid for by Disney,” said Ecker.

On the final evening, during a goodbye meal at the resort, Ecker received an official thank you from Disney World.

Ecker told me with disgust:

They presented me with a “Mousker.” This Disney drone—this gofer kid—came running up to me and said, “Mr Ecker, we have something we want to present you with.” So, I followed him literally into a hallway behind one of the big rooms. A Disney executive came up to me, along with another kid carrying a cardboard box. The kid reached into the box, pulled out this statue of Mickey Mouse and they presented it to me. That was their way of saying thanks for the job I did for two weeks putting this thing together. Looking at it in retrospect, I really felt like they took me to the shower, dropped the soap in front of me, and asked me to bend over and pick it up.

The “Mousker” presented to Don Ecker by Disney for his organization of the UFO conference. Its plaque reads: “To Don Ecker, UFO, Thanks from the publicity staff, Walt Disney World Resort, ‘UFO Summit – 1995.”

The whole thing seemed to defy logic from a marketing standpoint. Disney had created a costly alien-themed attraction and claimed to want to promote it through a two-pronged marketing campaign consisting of a multi-week conference at Disney World and a tie-in documentary (Alien Encounters from New Tomorrowland). Yet, inexplicably, Disney promoted neither the conference nor the documentary, rendering both of them entirely useless as marketing tools. “It was basically like Disney taking tens-of-thousands of dollars and burning it on a bonfire,” said Ecker.

Could there have been an ulterior motive behind the conference? It was held in the mid-1990s, before the global dominance of the Internet and email, before ufologists began sharing all their work online. With this in mind, could the conference have been an orchestrated opportunity for intelligence agencies to assemble under one roof the leading figures in ufology for an extended period of time in order to simply take the current pulse of the UFO subculture, and perhaps to further seed and steer it in service of its own psychological warfare goals? We’re in deep into speculative territory here, but logical justifications for the conference are hard to find. It was not promoted. It was not attended. To my mind, it served no obvious purpose, unless its purpose was potential intelligence-gathering and dissemination of disinformation. Given the documented history of intersections between UFOs, Disney and officialdom, this theory may hold at least some measure of water.

In his book, The Trickster and the Paranormal, George P. Hansen observes:

Any legitimate analysis that tries to explain belief about UFOs must recognize that the UFO subculture is awash in disinformation spread by government personnel, and that this has played an enormous role in shaping the subculture. Virtually all UFO investigators who make regular public presentations are from time to time are approached by people who claim to have seen materials or documents while in military service that confirmed that the government has UFO projects… These low-profile informants are a major source of UFO beliefs held by millions of people. Their information circulates quietly throughout the culture…

As with much else in the weird world of UFOs, in the absence of solid answers, we find ourselves wading through what Lorin Cutts terms The UFO Mythological Zone, “the gap between fact and belief, what we see and what we want to see, what we experience and how we interpret it.” In the absence of facts, says Cutts, “many people simply choose what they want to believe.”

When it comes to the curious cases of Disney’s 1995 UFO documentary and conference, all I know is that I don’t know what to believe. I’m perched on a ledge in Undecidedsville, overlooking the sprawl of The Mythological Zone below. I invite you to join me here, to dangle your feet, and to think a while. Shall we jump off the edge, or spit off it? Either way, it’s important that we look with clear eyes, and recognize the spectacle for what it is.

By Alexander Thomas, University of East London

The rapid development of so-called NBIC technologies – nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science – are giving rise to possibilities that have long been the domain of science fiction. Disease, ageing and even death are all human realities that these technologies seek to end.

They may enable us to enjoy greater “morphological freedom” – we could take on new forms through prosthetics or genetic engineering. Or advance our cognitive capacities. We could use brain-computer interfaces to link us to advanced artificial intelligence (AI).

Nanobots could roam our bloodstream to monitor our health and enhance our emotional propensities for joy, love or other emotions. Advances in one area often raise new possibilities in others, and this “convergence” may bring about radical changes to our world in the near-future.

“Transhumanism” is the idea that humans should transcend their current natural state and limitations through the use of technology – that we should embrace self-directed human evolution. If the history of technological progress can be seen as humankind’s attempt to tame nature to better serve its needs, transhumanism is the logical continuation: the revision of humankind’s nature to better serve its fantasies.

As David Pearce, a leading proponent of transhumanism and co-founder of Humanity+, says:

If we want to live in paradise, we will have to engineer it ourselves. If we want eternal life, then we’ll need to rewrite our bug-ridden genetic code and become god-like … only hi-tech solutions can ever eradicate suffering from the world. Compassion alone is not enough.

But there is a darker side to the naive faith that Pearce and other proponents have in transhumanism – one that is decidedly dystopian.

There is unlikely to be a clear moment when we emerge as transhuman. Rather technologies will become more intrusive and integrate seamlessly with the human body. Technology has long been thought of as an extension of the self. Many aspects of our social world, not least our financial systems, are already largely machine-based. There is much to learn from these evolving human/machine hybrid systems.

Yet the often Utopian language and expectations that surround and shape our understanding of these developments have been under-interrogated. The profound changes that lie ahead are often talked about in abstract ways, because evolutionary “advancements” are deemed so radical that they ignore the reality of current social conditions.

In this way, transhumanism becomes a kind of “techno-anthropocentrism”, in which transhumanists often underestimate the complexity of our relationship with technology. They see it as a controllable, malleable tool that, with the correct logic and scientific rigour, can be turned to any end. In fact, just as technological developments are dependent on and reflective of the environment in which they arise, they in turn feed back into the culture and create new dynamics – often imperceptibly.

Situating transhumanism, then, within the broader social, cultural, political, and economic contexts within which it emerges is vital to understanding how ethical it is.

Competitive environments

Max More and Natasha Vita-More, in their edited volume The Transhumanist Reader, claim the need in transhumanism “for inclusivity, plurality and continuous questioning of our knowledge”.

Yet these three principles are incompatible with developing transformative technologies within the prevailing system from which they are currently emerging: advanced capitalism.

Perpetual doper or evolutionary defunct?

One problem is that a highly competitive social environment doesn’t lend itself to diverse ways of being. Instead it demands increasingly efficient behaviour. Take students, for example. If some have access to pills that allow them to achieve better results, can other students afford not to follow? This is already a quandary. Increasing numbers of students reportedly pop performance-enhancing pills. And if pills become more powerful, or if the enhancements involve genetic engineering or intrusive nanotechnology that offer even stronger competitive advantages, what then? Rejecting an advanced technological orthodoxy could potentially render someone socially and economically moribund (perhaps evolutionarily so), while everyone with access is effectively forced to participate to keep up.

Going beyond everyday limits is suggestive of some kind of liberation. However, here it is an imprisoning compulsion to act a certain way. We literally have to transcend in order to conform (and survive). The more extreme the transcendence, the more profound the decision to conform and the imperative to do so.

The systemic forces cajoling the individual into being “upgraded” to remain competitive also play out on a geo-political level. One area where technology R&D has the greatest transhumanist potential is defence. DARPA (the US defence department responsible for developing military technologies), which is attempting to create “metabolically dominant soldiers”, is a clear example of how vested interests of a particular social system could determine the development of radically powerful transformative technologies that have destructive rather than Utopian applications.

Designing super-soldiers.

The rush to develop super-intelligent AI by globally competitive and mutually distrustful nation states could also become an arms race. In Radical Evolution, novelist Verner Vinge describes a scenario in which superhuman intelligence is the “ultimate weapon”. Ideally, mankind would proceed with the utmost care in developing such a powerful and transformative innovation.

There is quite rightly a huge amount of trepidation around the creation of super-intelligence and the emergence of “the singularity” – the idea that once AI reaches a certain level it will rapidly redesign itself, leading to an explosion of intelligence that will quickly surpass that of humans (something that will happen by 2029 according to futurist Ray Kurzweil). If the world takes the shape of whatever the most powerful AI is programmed (or reprograms itself) to desire, it even opens the possibility of evolution taking a turn for the entirely banal – could an AI destroy humankind from a desire to produce the most paperclips for example?

It’s also difficult to conceive of any aspect of humanity that could not be “improved” by being made more efficient at satisfying the demands of a competitive system. It is the system, then, that determines humanity’s evolution – without taking any view on what humans are or what they should be. One of the ways in which advanced capitalism proves extremely dynamic is in its ideology of moral and metaphysical neutrality. As philosopher Michael Sandel says: markets don’t wag fingers. In advanced capitalism, maximising one’s spending power maximises one’s ability to flourish – hence shopping could be said to be a primary moral imperative of the individual.

Philosopher Bob Doede rightly suggests it is this banal logic of the market that will dominate:

If biotech has rendered human nature entirely revisable, then it has no grain to direct or constrain our designs on it. And so whose designs will our successor post-human artefacts likely bear? I have little doubt that in our vastly consumerist, media-saturated capitalist economy, market forces will have their way. So – the commercial imperative would be the true architect of the future human.

System-led evolution

Whether the evolutionary process is determined by a super-intelligent AI or advanced capitalism, we may be compelled to conform to a perpetual transcendence that only makes us more efficient at activities demanded by the most powerful system. The end point is predictably an entirely nonhuman – though very efficient – technological entity derived from humanity that doesn’t necessarily serve a purpose that a modern-day human would value in any way. The ability to serve the system effectively will be the driving force. This is also true of natural evolution – technology is not a simple tool that allows us to engineer ourselves out of this conundrum. But transhumanism could amplify the speed and least desirable aspects of the process.

Information authoritarianism

For bioethicist Julian Savulescu, the main reason humans must be enhanced is for our species to survive. He says we face a Bermuda Triangle of extinction: radical technological power, liberal democracy and our moral nature. As a transhumanist, Savulescu extols technological progress, also deeming it inevitable and unstoppable. It is liberal democracy – and particularly our moral nature – that should alter.

The failings of humankind to deal with global problems are increasingly obvious. But Savulescu neglects to situate our moral failings within their wider cultural, political and economic context, instead believing that solutions lie within our biological make up.

Yet how would Savulescu’s morality-enhancing technologies be disseminated, prescribed and potentially enforced to address the moral failings they seek to “cure”? This would likely reside in the power structures that may well bear much of the responsibility for these failings in the first place. He’s also quickly drawn into revealing how relative and contestable the concept of “morality” is:

We will need to relax our commitment to maximum protection of privacy. We’re seeing an increase in the surveillance of individuals and that will be necessary if we are to avert the threats that those with antisocial personality disorder, fanaticism, represent through their access to radically enhanced technology.

Such surveillance allows corporations and governments to access and make use of extremely valuable information. In Who Owns the Future, internet pioneer Jaron Lanier explains:

Troves of dossiers on the private lives and inner beings of ordinary people, collected over digital networks, are packaged into a new private form of elite money … It is a new kind of security the rich trade in, and the value is naturally driven up. It becomes a giant-scale levee inaccessible to ordinary people.

Crucially, this levee is also invisible to most people. Its impacts extend beyond skewing the economic system towards elites to significantly altering the very conception of liberty, because the authority of power is both radically more effective and dispersed.

Foucault’s notion that we live in a panoptic society – one in which the sense of being perpetually watched instils discipline – is now stretched to the point where today’s incessant machinery has been called a “superpanopticon”. The knowledge and information that transhumanist technologies will tend to create could strengthen existing power structures that cement the inherent logic of the system in which the knowledge arises.

This is in part evident in the tendency of algorithms toward race and gender bias, which reflects our already existing social failings. Information technology tends to interpret the world in defined ways: it privileges information that is easily measurable, such as GDP, at the expense of unquantifiable information such as human happiness or well-being. As invasive technologies provide ever more granular data about us, this data may in a very real sense come to define the world – and intangible information may not maintain its rightful place in human affairs.

Systemic dehumanisation

Existing inequities will surely be magnified with the introduction of highly effective psycho-pharmaceuticals, genetic modification, super intelligence, brain-computer interfaces, nanotechnology, robotic prosthetics, and the possible development of life expansion. They are all fundamentally inegalitarian, based on a notion of limitlessness rather than a standard level of physical and mental well-being we’ve come to assume in healthcare. It’s not easy to conceive of a way in which these potentialities can be enjoyed by all.

Will they come along for the ride?

Sociologist Saskia Sassen talks of the “new logics of expulsion”, that capture “the pathologies of today’s global capitalism”. The expelled include the more than 60,000 migrants who have lost their lives on fatal journeys in the past 20 years, and the victims of the racially skewed profile of the increasing prison population.

Grenfell Tower, London, 2017.

In Britain, they include the 30,000 people whose deaths in 2015 were linked to health and social care cuts and the many who perished in the Grenfell Tower fire. Their deaths can be said to have resulted from systematic marginalisation.

Unprecedented acute concentration of wealth happens alongside these expulsions. Advanced economic and technical achievements enable this wealth and the expulsion of surplus groups. At the same time, Sassen writes, they create a kind of nebulous centrelessness as the locus of power:

The oppressed have often risen against their masters. But today the oppressed have mostly been expelled and survive a great distance from their oppressors … The “oppressor” is increasingly a complex system that combines persons, networks, and machines with no obvious centre.

Surplus populations removed from the productive aspects of the social world may rapidly increase in the near future as improvements in AI and robotics potentially result in significant automation unemployment. Large swaths of society may become productively and economically redundant. For historian Yuval Noah Harari “the most important question in 21st-century economics may well be: what should we do with all the superfluous people?”

We would be left with the scenario of a small elite that has an almost total concentration of wealth with access to the most powerfully transformative technologies in world history and a redundant mass of people, no longer suited to the evolutionary environment in which they find themselves and entirely dependent on the benevolence of that elite. The dehumanising treatment of today’s expelled groups shows that prevailing liberal values in developed countries don’t always extend to those who don’t share the same privilege, race, culture or religion.

In an era of radical technological power, the masses may even represent a significant security threat to the elite, which could be used to justify aggressive and authoritarian actions (perhaps enabled further by a culture of surveillance).

Life in the Hunger Games.

In their transhumanist tract, The Proactionary Imperative, Steve Fuller and Veronika Lipinska argue that we are obliged to pursue techno-scientific progress relentlessly, until we achieve our god-like destiny or infinite power – effectively to serve God by becoming God. They unabashedly reveal the incipient violence and destruction such Promethean aims would require: “replacing the natural with the artificial is so key to proactionary strategy … at least as a serious possibility if not a likelihood [it will lead to] the long-term environmental degradation of the Earth.”

The extent of suffering they would be willing to gamble in their cosmic casino is only fully evident when analysing what their project would mean for individual human beings:

A proactionary world would not merely tolerate risk-taking but outright encourage it, as people are provided with legal incentives to speculate with their bio-economic assets. Living riskily would amount to an entrepreneurship of the self … [proactionaries] seek large long-term benefits for survivors of a revolutionary regime that would permit many harms along the way.

Progress on overdrive will require sacrifices.

God-like elites.

The economic fragility that humans may soon be faced with as a result of automation unemployment would likely prove extremely useful to proactionary goals. In a society where vast swaths of people are reliant on handouts for survival, market forces would determine that less social security means people will risk more for a lower reward, so “proactionaries would reinvent the welfare state as a vehicle for fostering securitised risk taking” while “the proactionary state would operate like a venture capitalist writ large”.

At the heart of this is the removal of basic rights for “Humanity 1.0”, Fuller’s term for modern, non-augmented human beings, replaced with duties towards the future augmented Humanity 2.0. Hence the very code of our being can and perhaps must be monetised: “personal autonomy should be seen as a politically licensed franchise whereby individuals understand their bodies as akin to plots of land in what might be called the ‘genetic commons’”.

The neoliberal preoccupation with privatisation would so extend to human beings. Indeed, the lifetime of debt that is the reality for most citizens in developed advanced capitalist nations, takes a further step when you are born into debt – simply by being alive “you are invested with capital on which a return is expected”.

Socially moribund masses may thus be forced to serve the technoscientific super-project of Humanity 2.0, which uses the ideology of market fundamentalism in its quest for perpetual progress and maximum productivity. The only significant difference is that the stated aim of godlike capabilities in Humanity 2.0 is overt, as opposed to the undefined end determined by the infinite “progress” of an ever more efficient market logic that we have now.

A new politics

Some transhumanists are beginning to understand that the most serious limitations to what humans can achieve are social and cultural – not technical. However, all too often their reframing of politics falls into the same trap as their techno-centric worldview. They commonly argue the new political poles are not left-right but techno-conservative or techno-progressive (and even techno-libertarian and techno-sceptic. Meanwhile Fuller and Lipinska argue that the new political poles will be up and down instead of left and right: those who want to dominate the skies and became all powerful, and those who want to preserve the Earth and its species-rich diversity. It is a false dichotomy. Preservation of the latter is likely to be necessary for any hope of achieving the former.

Transhumanism and advanced capitalism are two processes which value “progress” and “efficiency” above everything else. The former as a means to power and the latter as a means to profit. Humans become vessels to serve these values. Transhuman possibilities urgently call for a politics with more clearly delineated and explicit humane values to provide a safer environment in which to foster these profound changes. Where we stand on questions of social justice and environmental sustainability has never been more important. Technology doesn’t allow us to escape these questions – it doesn’t permit political neutrality. The contrary is true. It determines that our politics have never been more important. Savulescu is right when he says radical technologies are coming. He is wrong in thinking they will fix our morality. They will reflect it.

Alexander Thomas, PhD Candidate, University of East London

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article here.

Photos via Shutterstock (1, 2, 3), EPA/Will Oliver, Lionsgate, Shutterstock., Distant Earth

PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT : AN INVISIBLE BOAT THAT TRAVELED IN TIME THANKS TO EINSTEIN?

08-08-2017 om 15:49 geschreven door peter

Temperature anomalies arranged by country from 1900 - 2016

Category

License

08-08-2017 om 15:35 geschreven door peter

Negenjarige jongen solliciteert als 'Guardian of the Galaxy" bij NASA en krijgt antwoord - HLN.be

Lees ook

NASA: "Doe goed je best op school"

08-08-2017 om 15:04 geschreven door peter

NASA: "Stuur uw boodschap naar verst verwijderde ruimtetuig" - HLN.be

Lees ook

08-08-2017 om 14:57 geschreven door peter

08-08-2017 om 14:42 geschreven door peter

08-08-2017 om 14:34 geschreven door peter

08-08-2017 om 14:25 geschreven door peter

Cabal manipuleert ons door microchips in brein te implanteren. Deze professor onthult onheilspellende toekomstplannen

Dictatuur

Microchips

1000 leugens

08-08-2017 om 14:12 geschreven door peter

Docenten en wetenschappers moeten zich nodig laten bijscholen over complottheorieën. Kijk hier waarom

Bijna alle studenten

‘Allemaal onzin natuurlijk’

Niet verdiept

Touwtjes

False flags

Elite

Olie

Vaccins

08-08-2017 om 13:58 geschreven door peter

Photographer Caught Huge Black UFO Flying Towards the Moon

08-08-2017 om 13:45 geschreven door peter

Report of the mysterious UFOs filmed over Hoia-Baciu haunted forest in Romania

08-08-2017 om 13:42 geschreven door peter

Mystery as massive green UFO shaped like orb spotted in sky above 'sacred mountain'

08-08-2017 om 00:21 geschreven door peter

Close Encounters: About 5 Percent of UFO Sightings Are Real

07-08-2017 om 23:56 geschreven door peter

LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT SOME RECENT UFO SIGHTINGS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY:

07-08-2017 om 23:49 geschreven door peter

UFOs puzzle Camosun neighbourhood resident

07-08-2017 om 23:39 geschreven door peter

Cedar Rapids UFO Sighting 5 Years Ago Today

07-08-2017 om 23:28 geschreven door peter

Competitive environments

Information authoritarianism

Systemic dehumanisation

Progress on overdrive will require sacrifices.

A new politics

07-08-2017 om 23:20 geschreven door peter

07-08-2017 om 23:09 geschreven door peter

07-08-2017 om 21:36 geschreven door peter

THE 6 ALIEN SPECIES CURRENTLY FIGHTING FOR CONTROL OVER EARTH

1. The Sirians

2. The Short Grays

3. The Tall Grays

4. The Alpha-Draconians

5. The Native Reptilians

6. The Anunnaki

07-08-2017 om 21:09 geschreven door peter

MUFON’s New Social Network