Atlantis Online
July 15, 2024, 08:59:16 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Secrets of ocean birth laid bare 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5191384.stm#graphic
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

THE CAROLINA BAYS

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: THE CAROLINA BAYS  (Read 3665 times)
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #30 on: April 17, 2008, 09:48:25 am »









              A RE-EVALUATION OF THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL ORIGIN OF THE CAROLINA BAYS*





by J. Ronald Eyton & Judith I. Parkhurst
Paper Number 9
April 1975



Luis E. Ortiz & Susan Gross, editors
Geography Graduate Student Association



University of Illinois at Urbana  Champaign

* The authors would like to thank Professors Charles S. Alexander and Donald L. Johnson of the Geography Department of the University of Illinois for their interest in this project and for their critical review of the manuscript.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABSTRACT



Controversy as to the origin of the Carolina Bays has centered on terrestrial versus extraterrestrial theories. Meteoritic impact has been considered the primary causal mechanism in extraterrestrial models, but alternatives such as comets and asteroids have not been adequately considered. Comets may explode during fall and produce depressions which would conform to the morphology of the Bays. Only a comet appears to satisfy the constraints imposed both by extraterrestrial requirements and observed terrestrial characteristics.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #31 on: April 17, 2008, 09:50:41 am »









                                                       INTRODUCTION





Scattered along the eastern coast of the United States from southern New Jersey to northern Florida are approximately 500,000 elliptical depressions collectively called the Carolina Bays (Figure 1). The process or processes forming symmetrical, oriented, shallow basins of different sizes has been disputed since the unique character of bay morphology was recognized from aerial photographs during the 1930's (Melton and Schriever, 1933). To date at least sixteen hypotheses involving terrestrial or extraterrestrial processes have been postulated as causal mechanisms. Each theory explains some but not all of the observed morphological and stratigraphic characteristics, and each hypothesis has had varying degrees of acceptance.

Most hypotheses concerning the origin of the Carolina Bays use either marine or subaerial processes. Some use a single process, others require two or more processes operating simultaneously, whereas still others envision a series of processes operating sequentially. The terrestrial hypotheses have been reviewed elsewhere (Johnson, 1942; Prouty, 1952; Thornbury, 1965; Price, 1968), and some of these theories have been proved mathematically or physically impossible whereas others are considered improbable. Nonetheless, several marine as well as subaerial hypotheses listed below still retain supporters. *
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #32 on: April 17, 2008, 09:53:10 am »









* Marine theories include sand bar dams across drowned valleys (Glenn, 1895);

swales in underwater sand dunes (Glenn, 1895);

submarine scour by eddies, currents and undertow (Melton, 1934);

progressive lagoon segmentation (Cooke, 1934);

gyroscopic eddies (Cooke, 1940; 1954); and

fish nests created by the simultaneous waving of fish fins in unison over submarine artesian springs (Grant, 1945).

Subaerial hypotheses include artesian spring sapping (Toumey, 1848);

peat burning by paleo-Indians (Wells and Boyce, 1953);

eolian deflation and/or deposition (Raisz, 1934; Price, 1951, 1958, 1968; and Carson and Hussey, 1962);

solution (Johnson, 1936;
Lobeck, 1939; Le Grand, 1953; and
Shockley and others, 1956);

periglacial thaw lakes tWolfe, 1953);

wind deflation combined with perched water tables and lake shore erosion at a 90o angle to the prevailing wind (Thom, 1970);

artesian spring sapping and eolian deposition (Johnson, 1936); and

progressive lagoon segmentation modified by eolian processes stabilized by climatic changes (Price, 1951, 1958, 1968).
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #33 on: April 17, 2008, 09:55:08 am »









Alternative hypotheses to terrestrial processes thus far have been limited to showers of meteorites impacting in the area (Melton and Schriever, 1933; Melton, 1934, 1950; Prouty, 1952; and Well and Boyce, 1953).

In this case the Carolina Bays represent scars which have not yet been obliterated by terrestrial weathering and erosion. Many people found a meteorite shower to be an appealing explanation because it can explain many attributes of bay morphology and the apparent uniqueness of the Carolina Bays. In addition, the area where Carolina Bays are abundant adjoins a large area from Alabama to Virginia, including much of Tennessee and Kentucky, where meteorites are abundant.

Meteoritic impact is no longer widely regarded as a plausible hypothesis. No meteoritic fragments have been found that are genetically related to the Carolina Bays. No known meteorite falls elsewhere in the world have resulted in approximately half a million depressions over a wide area.

Studies of magnetic anomalies associated with individual bays are not conclusive (MacCarthy, 1936; Prouty, 1952). Shatter cones and high pressure changes in quartz grains associated with known impact craters are absent. The heavy mineralogy of sediments within one bay did not differ from sediments beyond the bay rim (Preston and Brown, 1964).

The selective confinement of Carolina Bays to one physiographic province has also been cited as evidence against any extraterrestrial hypothesis
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #34 on: April 17, 2008, 09:56:09 am »









Recent research in Virginia (Goodwin and Johnson, 1970) located depressions similar in alignment and morphology to the Carolina Bays, 345 to 360 feet above sea level, on deeply weathered Piedmont fluvial gravels. If these depressions are truly Carolina Bays, terrestrial hypotheses can no longer include marine mechanisms, considerably restricting the previous list. No marine terraces are known to be at elevations over 350 feet above sea level along the Atlantic Coastal Plain (Thornbury, 1965). If bays can no longer be restricted to a single physiographic province and the list of potential terrestrial hypotheses is correspondingly reduced to subaerial mechanisms, the extraterrestrial hypothesis gains more credence and warrants additional study.

We do not believe that any existing terrestrial theory fully accounts for all the observed morphologic and stratigraphic characteristics of the Carolina Bays, nor do we believe that extraterrestrial alternatives have been fully explored. The extensive literature on Carolina Bays provides a framework from which we intend to reexamine the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

In particular, we propose to examine the physical and orbital characteristics of extraterrestrial objects available for impact, to determine necessary impact parameters which can be met by these bodies, and to assess the correspondence of Carolina Bay morphometry and impact mechanics.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #35 on: April 17, 2008, 09:56:58 am »

Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #36 on: April 17, 2008, 10:03:45 am »









                                            CAROLINA BAY CHARACTERISTICS





Many of the articles mentioned earlier discussed the morphology of the Carolina Bays and several described the stratiqraphy of one or more bays. Nonetheless, because the terrestrial or extraterrestrial hypothesis which eventually becomes accepted must account for salient features associated with the bays, the characteristics are reviewed. Figure 2, a photomosaic of southeastern Cumberland County, North Carolina, illustrates many characteristic morphologic details of the Carolina Bays:



1. The Carolina Bays are ellipses and tend to become more elliptical with increasing size. Many bays, however, lack true bilateral symmetry along either the major or minor axis. The southeast portion of many bays is more pointed than the northwest end and the northeast side bulges slightly more than the southwest side. Known major axis dimensions vary from approximately 200 feet to 7 miles.

2. The Carolina Bays display a marked alignment with northwest-southeast being the preferred orientation. Although there are minor local fluctuations, deviations from the preferred orientation appear to be systematic by latitude (Prouty, 1952).

3. The bays are shallow depressions below the general topographic surface with a maximum depth of about 50 feet. Large bays tend to be deeper than small bays, but the deepest portion of any bay is offset to the southeast from the bay center.

4. Many bays have elevated sandy rims with maximum development to the southeast. Both single and multiple rims occur, and the inner ridge of a multiple rim is less well developed than the outer rim. Rim heights vary from 0 to 23 feet.

5. Carolina Bays frequently overlap other bays without destroying the morphology of either depression. One or more small bays can be completely contained in a larger bay.

6. Some bays contain lakes, some are boggy, others are either naturally or artificially drained and are farmed, and still others are naturally dry.

7. The stratigraphy beneath the bays is not distorted (Preston and Brown, 1964; Thom, 1970).

8. Bays occur only in unconsolidated sediments. Bays in South Carolina are found on relict marine barrier beaches associated with Pleistoncene sea level fluctuations, in dune fields, on stream terraces and sandy portions of backbarrier flats (Thom, 1970). No bays occur on modern river flood plains and beaches. Bays exist on marine terraces as much as 150 feet above sea level in South Carolina but also occur on discontinuous veneers of fluvial gravels on the Piedmont in Virginia (Goodwin and Johnson, 1970).

9. Carolina Bays appear to be equally preserved on terraces of different ages and formational processes.

10. Bays occur in linear arrays, in complex clusters of as many as fourteen bays, as scattered individuals, and in parallel groups aligned along the minor axes (Figure 2).

11. Bays are either filled or partly filled with both organic and inorganic materials. The basal unit in some bays is a silt believed to represent loess deposited in water.

12. No new bays appear to be forming although Thom (1970) and Frey (1954) cite evidence for recent enlargement of existing Carolina Bays. Price (1968) states that most bays appear to be getting smaller by infilling.

13. Bays are underlain by carbonate, clastic and crystalline bedrock overlain by variable thicknesses of unconsolidated sediments in which the bays are found.

14. Ghosts of semi-obliterated Carolina Bays appear to represent former bays which were filled after formation by terrestrial sediments and organic materials.

15. Small bays deviate further from the mean orientation per region than large bays do.

16. No variation in the heavy mineral suite was found along a traverse of the major axis of one South Carolina bay, even though samples were taken from the bay floor, bay rim and the adjacent non-bay terrace (Preston and Brown, 1964).



In summation, the remarkable regularity with which these characteristics recur suggests that further consideration of a unique, causal mechanism is warranted. With rare exceptions, such as the aligned lakes of the Arctic Coastal Plain (Carson and Hussey, 1962), terrestrial processes do not create widespread, elliptical, aligned landforms. Whereas morphology and alignment are not conclusive proof of an extraterrestrial hypothesis, and although we recognize valid weaknesses in the existing meteoritic swarm or shower hypothesis, we believe that most of these objections should not serve as a deterrent for a re-examination of additional extraterrestrial alternatives.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2008, 10:04:38 am »

Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #38 on: April 17, 2008, 10:05:58 am »









                                OPPOSING EXPLANATIONS OF BAY CHARACTERISTICS





Early researchers, notably Melton and Schriever (1933) and Prouty (1952), inferred an extraterrestrial causal mechanism primarily from the regularity with which elements of bay morphology repeated themselves in the Carolina Bays. They concluded that the list of characteristics was best explained by impact of a meteorite shower (Melton and Schriever, 1933) or its shock wave (Prouty, 1935; 1952; MacCarthy, 1936). They speculated that the meteorite shower or swarm might be related to a degenerate comet perturbed into a low angle, northwest trajectory. This hypotheses accounts for such morphologic characteristics as maximum rim development offset to the southeast end of many bays, variable rim height, bay overlap, bays contained within bays, maximum depth offset southeast from the bay center, variability in bay size, and equal degree of preservation on surfaces of different ages. Because a single meteorite shower could not readily explain ghost bays, Melton (1950) subsequently modified his original impact hypothesis to include aperiodic meteorite showers, possibly beginning during the Cretaceous.

Critics of the extraterrestrial hypothesis have also used bay morphology and morphometry to refute an astronomical origin for the Carolina Bays (Johnson, 1942; Price, 1968). The bays lack the elevated structural rims associated with known meteorite impact craters; craters tend to be deep and round whereas the bays are shallow ellipses; known meteor crater clusters, such as those at Campo del Cielo, Argentina (Cassidy and others, 1965), do not result in thousands of depressions across a wide area; and, as noted previously, no known meteorites are genetically related to bays. Thornbury (1965, p. 43) added that aperiodic Mesozoic and Cenozoic meteorite showers are "difficult to visualize in view of the fact that the bays are present on terrace surfaces that are generally considered to be of Pleistocene age."

The only additional bay characteristic to receive considerable attention has been bay alignment, although a few stratigraphic, mineralogic, or ecologic characteristics have also been studied for individual bays (Frey, 1951; 1954; Preston and Brown, 1964; Thom, 1970). Working in a localized area in South Carolina, Melton and Schriever (1933) found an apparent parallel orientation for the major axes of the bays. They assumed that all bays would display similar orientation because the meteorites in the shower would maintain roughly the same trajectory. Prouty, using a much larger sample of bays with greater areal extent, recognized the radial pattern in bay alignment.

The average local orientation of the bays varies from about south 55o east in the northwestern portion of the area to about south 15o east in the southwestern area. There is thus a divergence of about 40o in the elongation direction of the bays in the two extreme areas. . . . This divergence is due to the fanning-out effect of a group of bodies, the meteorites, passing through the resisting gaseous medium of the atmosphere (Prouty, 1952, p. 186).

Prouty added that variance from the mean orientation for bays in a particular location was caused either by the effects of a "partial vacuum in the air pressure cone accompanying the fall of tandem meteorites" (p. 187) or "mild" explosions of meteorites caused by atmospheric resistance. He suggested that small meteorites would be more affected by this phenomenon than large ones, causing small meteorites to deviate further from the original trajectory.

While some opponents of extraterrestrial hypotheses did not consider bay alignment, others ascribed orientation to a variety of terrestrial causes. For example, Cooke (1934) said that a unidirectional wind had generated near-shore currents which created parallel landforms, accounting for bay alignment and elongation. Johnson (1942) suggested that elongation and parallelism were caused by joint controlled artesian springs along the southeasterly regional dip of the strata. Thom (1970) postulated that southwest winds blowing across preexisting lakes generated currents which eroded the southeast and northwest segments of each lake, creating parallel elliptical landforms. Furthermore, based on evidence from northeast South Carolina, Thom concluded that mean orientations and standard deviations of Carolina Bays differed from beach ridges, dune fields, river terraces, and back barrier flats. Whether this relationship between geomorphology and orientation would remain consistent on a regional level is not known. The degree to which this apparent alignment is a function either of sampling or of bay size per geomorphic setting is also unknown. Small bays do differ more widely in their orientations than large bays do.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #39 on: April 17, 2008, 10:07:26 am »









                                    EXTRATERRESTRIAL BAY FORMING MECHANISMS





With the exception of MacCarthy (1936), who discussed the effects of the shock wave accompanying infall of meteorites, research on the Carolina Bays has been concentrated on terrestrial characteristics. No one has discussed the orbital characteristics of potential impacting bodies, the extraterrestrial mass required to produce half a million bays, the availability of extraterrestrial materials, the bay forming energies available related to different impact velocities and masses, and whether impact morphometry corresponds to Carolina Bay morphology.

Because the probability of inclusion of any body outside the solar system is extremely small, the solar system is commonly regarded as a closed system. If impact of an extraterrestrial body did form the Carolina Bays, the body or bodies must be contained within the solar system. Only three minor members of the solar system can possibly impact on earth: asteroids, comets, and meteoriods. If the Carolina Bays are the result of a singular extraterrestrial event, then bay forming impacts could have been caused by any one of these objects. Examination of the physical and orbital characteristics of these bodies, then, provides one method for selecting from extraterrestrial alternatives the most likely bay-forming mechanism.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #40 on: April 17, 2008, 10:08:43 am »









                                                  ORBITAL CHARACTERISTICS





Tables 1, 2, and 3 indicate salient characteristics for the three extraterrestrial alternatives. Of the three, asteroids (Table 1) appear to be the most predictable with respect to their physical and orbital characteristics. They have more regular orbits than either comets or meteoroids, albeit a few asteroids such as Icarus and Hidalgo have highly eccentric orbits and Hermes passed within 500,000 miles of Earth in 1937. Although it is difficult to determine the actual number of close encounters that have taken place, Wyatt (1966) assumed one impact per 60,000 years to be a crude estimate of the probability of impact by an asteroid one mile or less in diameter. Comets (Table 2), on the other hand, have either parabolic or elliptical orbits, depending on whether or not they have been perturbed and whether the perturbation resulted in short or long period orbits. It is not possible to estimate the probability of impact for comets with parabolic orbits. but the probability is small based on the number of comets known to have parabolic orbits. Meteoroids (Table 3), the mechanism most commonly invoked to explain the Carolina Bays (Melton and Schriever, 1933; Melton, 1934, 1950; Prouty, 1952; and Wells and Boyce, 1953; consist of three types but have orbital characteristics similar to those of either asteroids or comets. Those meteoroids which create meteor showers but produce no finds are believed to be the remains of degenerate short period comets. Although they may be large in numbers with observed rates of 50 per hour, their mass is insufficient to survive atmospheric passage. Sporadic meteoroids which can survive atmospheric passage as stones or irons are probably fragments of asteroids, and fireballs, the remaining class, may be nuclei of small comets.

Meteoroids are the least regular in physical character and origin of the three extraterrestrial alternatives, yet they have been hypothesized as the extraterrestrial causal mechanism responsible for the formation of the Carolina Bays. The authors strongly believe that meteoroids are the least likely among the extraterrestrial alternatives. Although the shower hypothesis (Melton and Schriever, 1933; Melton, 1934, 1950; Prouty, 1952; and Wells and Boyce, 1953) may account for a sufficient number of objects to form half a million bays, it is doubtful that there was sufficient mass to survive atmospheric passage. No finds have been recorded from the meteoroid streams and swarms which are responsible for meteor showers. The larger sporadic meteoroids which probably originated as asteroidal fragments may survive passage through the atmosphere, as attested to by the number of finds. Although they may travel in small groups or may break up into several dozen pieces in the atmosphere, it is unlikely that they existed in sufficient numbers to create half a million Carolina bays. In addition, the orbits of the sporadic meteoroids suggests that their impact on Earth is an individual random process very unlike the impingement of the shower meteoroids.

Only two classes of extraterrestrial alternatives remain. Based solely upon the characteristics previously discussed, Carolina Bays could be the result of either prograde asteroidal bodies perturbed out of orbit, or they could have been formed by collision with a relatively young comet nucleus moving either in prograde or retrograde motion. The probabilities of collision with a retrograde object are somewhat higher than the prograde or directly moving object, because an object perturbed out of a direct orbit will, when crossing planetary orbits, spend more time in the vicinity of the planets which are moving in the same general direction as the perturbed body. Further perturbations are likely and the object will most probably end up in orbit about the sun.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #41 on: April 17, 2008, 10:09:53 am »









                                                              VELOCITIES





In addition to the previous physical and orbital characteristics, a discussion of the impact velocities on Earth is necessary to complete the picture. The minimum and maximum velocity range is easy to determine. Prograde motion, objects which just barely "catch up" to the Earth, will result in impacts on the surface of the Earth at escape velocity (~11km/sec). This is the minimum velocity expected for any impacting body. Objects which have come from the farthest reaches of our solar system may reasonably be expected to have velocities near the escape velocity of the solar system (~2km/sec). If the object exhibits retrograde motion, the impact velocity on Earth will be additive, equal to the velocity of that body plus the velocity of the Earth as it moves in orbit about the sun (30km/sec). For objects such as comets which have retrograde motion, a parabolic orbit and velocities near the escape velocity of the solar system, the maximum impact velocity would then be 30 + 42 = 72km/sec. A comet with a prograde orbit would then impact at 42 - 30 = 12km/sec. Meteoroids would impact at velocities ranging from the minimum (11km/sec) to a maximum (72km/sec). This range is confirmed by observation of meteor velocities. A reasonable impact value for asteroids perturbed out of orbit in direct motion is 16km/sec.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #42 on: April 17, 2008, 10:12:12 am »








                                       TABLE 1: ASTEROIDAL CHARACTERISTICS





Characteristic Descriptions   



Size - Frequency Diameter (miles) Frequency 



  > 200 3

  100 - 200 15

  50 - 100 50

  25-50 400

  12.5-25 2500

  < 12.5 > 1000



Orbits location dominantly between Mars and Jupiter

  motion direct 
  inclination typically up to 30o
  eccentricities range is .1 to .3 



Physical Attributes shape most small asteroids have elongated or irregular shapes
  material colorimetric observations indicate material properties similar to the moon 
  other polametric studies indicate intricate micro-fracturing and possible dust mantles



Possible Origin   

The planetessimal forming process was interrupted from perturbations by the planet Jupiter. The larger asteroids are thought to be remainders of the original planetessimals. Smaller asteroids are the fragmented remains of earlier collisions.




after Wyatt, 1966;

Hartmann, l973


http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbayint.html
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 10:13:03 am by Bianca » Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #43 on: April 17, 2008, 10:14:56 am »









                                             TABLE 2: COMET CHARACTERISTICS 





Characteristic Descriptions   


 
Orbit - Frequency   Short Period Long Period



  total observations 94 472
  prograde # 87 227 
  retrograde # 7 245
  typical inclination 15o random
  typical orbit elliptical 290 (parabolic)-182 (elliptical)
  aphelion 5 A.U. infinity for parabolic orbits up to 2 light years for ellipses



Physical Attributes (Nucleus) density 1 . 00 - 1 . 3g/cm3   
 
  mass 1015 - 1019g   
  diameter < 1 - 10 km   
  composition OH, [OI], CH, CH2, NH, NH2, CN, C2, C3, H2O (spectrophotometer mission bands)


 
Possible Origin   Comets may be the result of planetessimal formations at the outer edge of the solar system which were perturbed out of the solar system by the gas giant planets. The residing location of comets is called Oorts cloud, a reservoir of cometary material from which a comet by chance is perturbed towards the sun. Some of these comets may undergo further perturbation by Jupiter and become short Period comets.   




after Hawkins, 1964;

Wyatt, 1966; and

Hartmann, 1973.

Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #44 on: April 17, 2008, 10:16:29 am »









                                          TABLE 3: METEOROID CHARACTERISTICS 





Characteristic Descriptions
     
Types Sporadic Shower Fireball
  meteorites are possible meteors only low velocity have inclinations from 0 - 30o; with aphelions under 5 A.U.
  prograde orbits either prograde or retrograde orbits high velocity have higher inclinations and much greater aphelions 
  aphelion near asteroid belt aphelions range up to 100's A.U.   



Physical Attributes density type
   
  1.0g/cm3 shower   
  1.0g/cm3 to 8.0g/cm3 sporadic meteorites   
  .4g/cm3 to 1.2g/cm3 fireballs   



Meteoritic Finds class frequency
   
  stones (Aerolites) 92.8%   
  stony-irons (Siderolites) 1.5%   
  irons (Siderites) 5.7%   



Possible Origin Most shower meteors are thought to be the non-volatile remains of degenerate short period comets. Meteorites are probably asteroidal fragments while fireballs are most likely to be small cometary nuclei or fragments of a cometary nucleus.     




after Hartmann, 1973.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy