Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ChrisTP

Pages: < Back  1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26  Next >
461
Flat Earth Community / Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« on: February 01, 2019, 01:38:29 PM »
Well Chris, I can solve the dilemma by saying it is actually this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_La_Hire

It would have defeated the object it I had said what it was at the beginning because I wanted to find out what people saw in the photo on instinct only. This is an example to show how shadows can play tricks with our perception. The left side of the feature looks for all the world like a tall vertical mast of some kind.  However it would have to be huge to be visible this clearly at the scale of the image.  The nearby craters of Lambert and Euler are 30km and 28km wide respectively. The presence of the dark, elongated shadow to the upper left of the 'mast' reinforces that appearance.

A few nights later I checked the same area again and it looked completely different.
Ahh fair play, not a satellite then! :D At least there's a good reason the lighting is the same direction as the moons.


Such an unusual shape and structure compared to the rest of the landmass around it, I have to admit I never would have suspected it to be a mountain on the surface.

462
Flat Earth Community / Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« on: February 01, 2019, 12:49:07 PM »
Well it has the features of a satellite IMO. I'm no professional on satellites but the shape has a cylinder bit attached to a cubish shaped thing, then on the right side sticking out seems to be like a solar panel type thing going on. After googling what satellites might look like you can find similar shapes. Of course I could be wrong. ^^

463
Flat Earth Community / Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« on: February 01, 2019, 08:45:17 AM »
Pete, playing with contrast, hues, levels etc on a lossy compressed photo will present what you describe, shapes and colours are almost squared off, colours will be different, it could be a sign of manipulation but it could also just be a sign of lossy compression so I find that inconclusive.

Also just to be sure, could you provide an example of a digital photo artifact similar to the one above? When I think of digital photo artifacts I think blocks of miscolored, corrupt pixels. I work every day with digital photos, more specifically 3D Scanned data (basically where you take hundreds of images of something at various angles, then using software you can convert these things to 3D meshes for use in games, or similarly just tiling textures). I’ve probably taken thousands of photos by now and used the product of tens of thousands worth of digital photos but I’ve never come across any digital artifacts that look like an object in the image. Hence why I ask if you could give an example so I better understand your point (I’m not ruling it out completely, I’ve just not come across this myself). In the op the ‘object’ in question has somehow picked up what looks like the same lighting angle as the rest of the moon and doesn’t carry the characteristics of the typical blocky, multicoloured corruption artifacts that follow whole squared chunks of pixels.

464
Flat Earth Community / Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« on: January 31, 2019, 03:33:22 PM »
Sure. But I would realise that it was a glitch in the way the photos had been composited.
Only because I picked obvious ones. Allow me to remind you of the countless idiots who think wide-angle lens photography is representative of the Earth's curve. You can only recognise the irregularities you're already familiar with.
I think that's different, it's simply a distortion. It's not like goPros add in UFOs to the image. In the OP image it could be anything from a large structure on the moon, a satellite or a spec of dust on the lense but regardless, there is something there. It's not nothing.

465
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory
« on: January 31, 2019, 10:54:02 AM »
Tom, regarding the 3 body thing~ Here's an interactive simulation where you can even choose to-scale sun, earth and moon orbits and you can even move the objects yourself and see how it plays out, but when you hit play, they begin their orbits at the correct velocity and direction to sustain the orbits. I'm not saying it's 100% accurate to the exact orbit of the earth and moon but the fact that it's orbiting with 3 bodies surely disproves what you're saying.

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html

You can even drag the moon toward the sun to see that it too can be affected, meaning all 3 bodies are affecting each other.

466
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anti-Vaxxers
« on: January 29, 2019, 11:52:47 AM »
I'm against vaccinating low-risk groups unnecessarily, yes. It causes virus immunity that then harms those that would be at severe risk.

Lets take flu shots. Old people queue round the block for these every winter. Not ill people ... old people. Heaven forbid they might have a sniffle. This makes flu resistant and means if someone who may be in hospital with an immune problem needs a flu shot to save their life ... it might not be effective any more.

Couple this with the vast expense (thank you socialist NHS) of providing millions of shots to precious old people who don't want a runny nose and I think mass vaccinations for many diseases are utterly pointless and in many cases dangerous and economically predatory.
As someone who suffers acute asthma a lot, I can tell you now I need a flu shot. Flu can be deadly to me and I've been hospitalised several times from not just flu but also (unrelated) hayfever too. The flu shot isn't 100% effective because the virus changes constantly and so there's a chance you will catch a different strain of the virus but it sure helps.

It's worth mentioning that vaccines for viruses aren't the same as antibiotics for bacteria. flu doesn't get stronger from flu vaccines like bacteria does from antibiotics, one is a preventative measure against viruses while the other fights off and kills bacteria, giving the bacteria a chance to get stronger and more resistant. The real worry is keeping livestock together and having viruses spread between animals before hitting humans.

467
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS
« on: January 28, 2019, 05:39:03 PM »
There's a few out there like this, here's a cool one for example



But I think the answer you'll get is that it's all cgi. And to be fair with todays technology fluid is getting easier to simulate, take this realtime example;

http://david.li/fluid/

in that simulation, the little balls can be rendered as meta balls that morph together, here's an example in blender;



I mean, I personally think the OP video is real but I can see how it's also possible to fake with todays CGI capability and so it will remain a popular argument against zero gravity. :P

Here's another fun example of how a bubbles surface tension might be made in cgi (in real time again) :D

http://www.adultswim.com/etcetera/elastic-man/

468
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: January 24, 2019, 09:56:05 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
But I provided evidence too.
I have repeated your experiment but got very different results. I couldn’t see the beach at all, much less people on it or playing right down the shoreline.
You don’t think we should discuss my evidence and try to understand why I got such different results?

That is nice that you went to the effort to do that. It sounds like the circumstance of your evidence speaks for itself.

That's rich considering how you seem to think all evidence against FET is faked.

I consider NASA's photos of a globe to be evidence. I also consider the evidence that NASA is faking space footage to be evidence.

I see that you didn't even bring that up in your rant. It sounds like only one of us is ignoring evidence here.
You misunderstand me, I'm not ranting and I don't appreciate you claiming as such to diminish my argument. Apologies for the slightly off topic tangent but NASA faking space footage isn't evidence, it's a claim and it's speculation. There are no witnesses, no whistle blowers. Just some people thinking it's not real with silly claims like "where were the stars?" or "shadows are all wrong" the latter being proven a false claim by Nvidia, professionals who analysed and recreated the moon landings using CG recently. A technology I happen to understand well, as I'm also a professional in CGI.

So then why should I believe you, a random person with no credentials making wild claims and speculative accusations based on a preconceived notion that the earth is 'definitely flat' and 'space travel doesn't exist' over professionals who've studied and proven themselves? Your 'evidence' is simply claims, it's not evidence. It's not unfounded, I know you've looked into things and I don't think you're trying to trick anyone, I don't think you're lying. I just think you're incorrect and don't seem realise. I assume you know the Dunning–Kruger effect, basically the less you know, the more you think you know and the more confident you are about your own knowledge. The more you know, the less you think you know and you aren't confident in your own knowledge. I became part of this forum because the more I saw people questioning spheroid earth, the more I realised I didn't know about it and so I set out for answers under the assumption that anything I know or think I know could be wrong. I am trying to learn and understand rather than trying to prove anything but I also find it important to call people out when they spout opinions and incorrect information as correct facts.

You seem extremely sure of yourself and yet time and time again you've shown to be wrong about a lot of things but refuse to acknowledge it. With such an obvious bias, with something to prove, I can't take your speculation as fact or evidence until you prove your findings and publish the data for everyone else to analyse and when you finally do that, you must be able to accept the constructive criticism and feedback you receive from other people who know what they're talking about which is the basic scientific way. Always assume you could be wrong, always try to correct your own bias. Always strive for all knowledge and not just the select information that helps your agenda.

So I say this, you have no proof that will hold up in a court as to whether the earth is flat or round, and you have no proof that NASA faked the moon landings or space travel in general. You have your speculative opinion on the matter which has no standing. On the other hand space agencies have their proof backed up with actual evidence, witnesses and photographic proof. If a fair and unbiased person was presented evidence from you and evidence from an astronaut, they'd win and you'd lose.

I want you to be able to prove yourself because I'm interested in the idea, I'll say again if the earth turned out to be flat, I would have no problem with that.  So far though, all real evidence is saying otherwise. You can't just say "but nasa are liars" because that only proves your bias. And it doesn't prove anything against other space agencies, especially when theres footage from Japanese technology like this;



Anyway, again sorry for the off-topic tangent but you just don't seem see it from your perspective Tom. Please show us actual, flawless proof of the flat earth without trying to avoid or ignore everything that proves otherwise. I would like to see your evidence.

469
Flat Earth Community / Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« on: January 24, 2019, 02:04:07 PM »
Was the object definitely on the moon or was it floating between earth hand the moon? I ask because the thing that looks like a shadow casting on the surface of the moon could just as easily be the dark/shaded part of an object in the sky

470
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: January 24, 2019, 11:41:02 AM »
You want evidence that the evidence is not all faked, which is absurd.
That's rich considering how you seem to think all evidence against FET is faked. And if you don't think it's faked then how would you explain all evidence that proves the earth as a spheroid planet? and the biggest visual evidence of all is photos from america, Japan and china of the earth and the moon from a distance/in space (not including all the photoshop composite images which NASA have openly talked about). My guess is you'd expect evidence this wasn't faked, otherwise you assume it's faked. You can see videos of the satellites from the moon that are officially claimed to be real.

If you don't want evidence of faked evidence then I can only assume you're biased and unwilling to learn truth over your want/need of the earth to be flat. Why do you so badly want it to be flat that you're willing to outright dismiss everything that goes against your belief? If the earth turned out to be proven flat I would be laughing (heck I'd even have to say well done to you guys for knowing all along, you did good), I don't personally need or want the world to be spheroid, it's just proven to be so by multitudes of evidence.

Anyway, we cannot verify your personal claims anymore than we can verify a scientific paper, let alone the claims from your favourite books that say the world is flat. All we can do is understand and make sense of the information we have been given. My understanding, from all of the overwhelming information that we have, seems to be different from yours. I'd like to think that I can understand and make sense of things though (and also very aware of what I do not understand) and one of us has to be wrong. The evidence of evidence being faked is that you and everyone else cannot make sense or use of the evidence given. People that have built all of the technology for space travel understand it to be real and I'd take their word for it over yours, given you have very little credentials in comparison. That's not meant as an insult but I wouldn't trust a 5 year old to present findings on these subjects as much as I would a nasa employee, don't you agree? They're intelligent and smart people who've proven their credentials through actions.

471
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect
« on: January 21, 2019, 06:15:51 PM »
What evidence? Zero evidence has been provided. We've been talking about this for over ten years. You guys consistently struggle to provide evidence on this matter.
Lots of evidence has been provided. You either struggle to understand it or dismiss it as fake. You do this about all evidence which shows you to be wrong.


A single video demonstrating an uncontrolled, non-replicated "experiment" is lots of evidence?
It wouldn't be hard to go do a controlled experiment and prove it wrong if you wanted to, surely? It looks controllable and repeatable to me. I've always been a little dubious of the draining water direction thing but that's mainly because i know sinks and toilets may be directing the flow of draining and flushing. When the simpsons made a whole episode about it I thought it was for jokes. If it actually does happen then I'm as surprised as you are and I'm a "round earther". I'm willing to believe either way regarding water draining directions as I haven't looked much into it. :D

472
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: the ISS light in the sky is fake, right?
« on: January 18, 2019, 03:36:37 PM »
I went into a bit more detail, I assumed that the person got a measurement of 76 degrees from 100km and then did the maths as though that 100km was on a flat earth from the person who saw the ISS directly overhead. I then did the maths for what the height actually was given the same measurement if you accounted for a curve of 1 degree.
I was expecting the discrepancy to be quite small but it was actually much larger than I'd imagined.
I've explained my reasoning above, I may well have made a mistake somewhere (I did the first time!)
Well without moving the point down for curvature the angle was still 76.228 degrees making a right angle triangle. Less than a degree out for that. accounting for the tangent would be half the amount anyway so 0.212
 degrees difference. Sorry I can't be more precise this was just a quick lunch break exercise.

473
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: the ISS light in the sky is fake, right?
« on: January 18, 2019, 03:26:58 PM »
Well accounting for the curvature and assuming that section of earth is a straight line I get these measurements in a triangle for the angles and distances




EDIT I should mention that this is with the assumption that the ISS is 408 km up and the two other points are 100km a part, but I only moved the point directly down for the curvature rather than in tangent to the surface of the earth, so I guess it was a pointless diagram to show as the numbers would still be off by a tiny, tiny fraction. :(

It's hard to determine to distance with such a small degree tbh, it would be better to try with a decent 400km across the earth rather than 100km

474
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: the ISS light in the sky is fake, right?
« on: January 18, 2019, 03:11:34 PM »
100km of distance in curvature is extremely negligible in this case, I mean here's a triangle using 3 points, it was a right angle until I moved the point on the bottom right down precisely to account for curvature and as you can see in this case it's only 2 pixels down in my image, you might end up with a difference of ~.0001 degrees in that angle if you don't account for curvature, I personally don't see the need unless you want to be absolutely perfect..


475
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter
« on: January 18, 2019, 10:08:53 AM »
On the other hand I am currently taking a BSc(Hons) degree course in Astronomy so I guess if I was to ask the same question I think there would be some serious concerns expressed by the course tutors as to whether I was on the right course!
Could you do an experiment and ask anyway? seriously. Ask your astronomy teacher the exact question in a serious tone, see what he says back then explain you were only asking to compare reactions to other teachers. Tell us how he replied to the question. :) My assumption is that he will answer logically or lead you to a way of finding out for yourself the answer... But he could also be a jerk and mock you. Who knows!

476
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon
« on: January 18, 2019, 03:30:52 AM »
Maybe we should use some common sense. To place a man or mechanical craft on the back side of something never seen would take a lot of expertise. Is there a van allen belt? Is there a dome? Has china and the usa faked space walks or travel? Yes, bubble boys, an actual lunar reel discover faking a pic of the earth from the capsule. How many people have died in these space missions? Lets not count the launch pad or couple mile up booms. NONE... How can no one ever die in these en devours? Just monkeys rats and a dog.

Please don't ask me to believe the earth is a globe until these BS scientist can explain how a 1,650 ton stone block is carved with precision and expected to be moved 100's of miles let alone any of the for mentioned items.
Not sure where you got 1,650 tons from because that would be insane, more like 2 to 3 tons and I would imagine with enough slave labour dragging the bricks along using logs and possibly water to ease dragging the bricks along. More importantly, as this is beside the point, if you understand the maths, engineering and physics behind lunar landings it's not that hard to comprehend the possibility. If you don't understand these things you cannot simply say "it's bs". What's bs is claiming something is bs because you lack the understanding.

Also not many astronauts have died because there has not been many astronauts in the first place. There's possibly enough astronauts in all of history to fit on one commercial air flight which really isn't much. Perhaps if manned missions were more frequent there may be more casualties. the number of unmanned mission failures on the other hand is, well, existent at least.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/archaeologists-discover-the-worlds-largest-ancient-ston-1664281050

A few months ago, a team from the German Archaeological Institute conducted excavations at the quarry, and to their amazement they found an ever bigger stone just off to the side and underneath it. It measures 19.6 meters (64 feet) in length, 6 meters (19.6 feet) wide, and is at least 5.5 meters (18 feet) high. Its weight is estimated at a daunting 1,650 tons (that's 3,300,000 pounds, or 1,496,850 kg). Future excavations will confirm its precise dimensions.


Now please ask yourself this question: Have you ever had to reboot your computer, phone, or other devise run on any operating system. 99.99999999% will answer yes. People die when computers freeze on space missions......actually there is a simple answer, the rockets tip over so as not to hit the firmament and explode. The nukes taught us that.
I stand corrected, that's a pretty huge rock. But the article also says it was left in the quarry after getting cut into a brick.


Yes windows gets stalled sometimes, there's a lot more going on with your standard commercial operating system though and generic hardware, as opposed to machines made got vet specific functions of space travel. Less can go wrong if you're only executing a code that does less than a typical home desktop built with function in mind. It's not often software malfunctions in normal air travel. I understand where you're coming from though.

477
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon
« on: January 18, 2019, 02:39:10 AM »
Maybe we should use some common sense. To place a man or mechanical craft on the back side of something never seen would take a lot of expertise. Is there a van allen belt? Is there a dome? Has china and the usa faked space walks or travel? Yes, bubble boys, an actual lunar reel discover faking a pic of the earth from the capsule. How many people have died in these space missions? Lets not count the launch pad or couple mile up booms. NONE... How can no one ever die in these en devours? Just monkeys rats and a dog.

Please don't ask me to believe the earth is a globe until these BS scientist can explain how a 1,650 ton stone block is carved with precision and expected to be moved 100's of miles let alone any of the for mentioned items.
Not sure where you got 1,650 tons from because that would be insane, more like 2 to 3 tons and I would imagine with enough slave labour dragging the bricks along using logs and possibly water to ease dragging the bricks along. More importantly, as this is beside the point, if you understand the maths, engineering and physics behind lunar landings it's not that hard to comprehend the possibility. If you don't understand these things you cannot simply say "it's bs". What's bs is claiming something is bs because you lack the understanding.

Also not many astronauts have died because there has not been many astronauts in the first place. There's possibly enough astronauts in all of history to fit on one commercial air flight which really isn't much. Perhaps if manned missions were more frequent there may be more casualties. the number of unmanned mission failures on the other hand is, well, existent at least.

478
Flat Earth Community / Re: Newbie
« on: January 18, 2019, 01:26:22 AM »
Another misguided loon who uses the Bible as his basis for scientific fact. Solid evidence there.

Can you show us where you have debunked every point and clip used in the video?

Unless you've debunked all evidence it remains as evidence.
Well, for starters the guy who made it has a religious agenda so already he has a reason to go out of his way to try "prove" NASA faked stuff. But I'll ignore the fact that he's quite clearly extremely religious for this.

As for debunking, he shows jpeg pictures with levels turned way up, sees artefacts and that's proof the image is edited? Come on, we all know what a jpeg does to the quality of an image. I happen to have nearly 2 decades of experience using photoshop and I can tell you now if I wanted to fake an earth in a shot from the surface of the moon I could do it without leaving any evidence of tampering, so low quality jpegs aren't proof of anything. The only ones I could see were actually photoshopped have no source, whats to stop some flat earther editing a photo themselves and then making a video about an "obviously edited image from nasa"?

Also the video is misleadingly showing astronauts in training pools, we know they use pools to train in, it's not evidence of any fakery.

And then we have the claims of "harnesses and green screens" on the ISS as well as "bubbles in space". For starters I see no harnesses, point out exactly where you see one because these videos seem to zoom in and circle...nothing.. then claim it's a harness for some reason. And it's safe to assume videos get edited, so when you see someone fade in to view, thats probably because the video was been cut and faded in. What does this prove other than the videos are being trimmed or whatever? Like I wanna look at a blank scene for 15 minutes before the astronauts show up to do whatever it is they're supposed to be doing. Some of the 'transparent' body parts being shown in that video are seemingly just lighting as well. Like the bald astronauts head as he passes close to the ceiling. His head doesn't fade away the lighting changes because ambient occlusion and shadowing. And then he shows scenes from movies or something where people are wearing harnesses to do backflips and such. Cool, but they arent astronauts they are filming movies. You know who else can do flips in mid air? Anyone in zero g conditions.

And the 'bubbles in space' thing is getting old, they could be anything from water droplets to random bits and bobs bouncing around in zero g. They do have water up there for drinking and cleaning etc and the water does form droplets that float around.

The video goes on for a while repeating astronauts random movements. for some reason as if that somehow drives home his point. Cool, a guy looked to the side, it was strange sure but what's that proving? A guy hit a random floating object with his hand, cool, whats that proving?

Let's give a random example. If you're filming a casual walk outside while you're on holiday with a buddy and your friend suddenly trips up, does that immediately mean the holiday is fake? he must have tripped on a wire used to hold up the studio set dressing, it's so obvious! Sometimes I stub my toe on a doorframe as I'm walking through. Must have been my harness getting lose and making me lose balance of course!

At any rate, if you're scrutinising a video with the intentions of looking for anything that could be dubious then chances are you're going to see whatever you want to see. An example of this is people who are scared of dogs. Do you think they pay attention to dogs being cute? Do you think cute dog moments stick in their mind or do you think the only thing they would pay attention to and remember is if they see a dog snarl or bite. In their minds, they only ever see dogs as scary, vicious creatures and they completely ignore the fact that dogs are also loving companions to humans. Funny what the human mind wants to see, right?

479
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flight Paths
« on: January 17, 2019, 05:52:59 PM »
United used to have a nonstop from Milan to SFO. I flew it twice. Neither time did it stop. Crushingly long flight. About 11 hours. Oddly, both times it flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada. Had they been following flat earth flight rules, they just would have done a straight shot West.
You claim it is "odd," the plane, "...flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada." Then claim, "...flat earth flight rules..." dictated, "...a straight shot West."

Funny, all one needs to do is pull up Gleason's Azimuthal and see that is exactly what they did in flying over Greenland and Canada.

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!

What’s hilarious is that your claiming FE victory referencing a globe earth. You do realize the Gleason map is a globe projection?As in, you know, derived from a spherical earth. The irony is that FE uses globe maps. Kills me every time.
All maps, from the dawn of time, have been drawn on flat paper based on the person doing the drawing being on a flat earth plain.
If someone draws a portrait of you does that then mean you are flat?
Do you normally make up false equivalencies?
the point I was trying to make was that just because because someone drew a map on a flat sheet of paper doesn't mean the land is also flat. Mapping out something from a bird's eye view isn't the same as mapping out a 2D object. They didn't draw a flat map because it was flat land. A flat map and the land they are on aren't the same thing and one doesn't mean the other. Do you always assume something is the way it is because of someone's interpretation? Is Picasso's later paintings accurate to reality simply because that's how he painted it?

If I had minimal resources and knowledge right now and about to draw a map of my local land I wouldn't start carving a tiny map out of a giant sphere because that would be impractical and harder to do than say, scratching directions onto the surface of something or anything. A wall in a cave, dirt on the ground, carving into a tree. Any surface really, no need for my local land to be mapped out on a sphere as that has no benefits to me in this case.

Maps aren't drawn on a flat surface because of a flat earth and that shouldn't be an example of flat earth. The same as how we have flat maps of stars/planets yet we know that stars and planets are up in the sky in a 3D space (whether you think it's on a dome, planets in actual  space or whatever).

Your statement that maps are flat because the world is flat is just incorrect. Unless I've misunderstood your meaning? In which case feel free to correct me here.

480
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flight Paths
« on: January 17, 2019, 05:01:14 PM »
United used to have a nonstop from Milan to SFO. I flew it twice. Neither time did it stop. Crushingly long flight. About 11 hours. Oddly, both times it flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada. Had they been following flat earth flight rules, they just would have done a straight shot West.
You claim it is "odd," the plane, "...flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada." Then claim, "...flat earth flight rules..." dictated, "...a straight shot West."

Funny, all one needs to do is pull up Gleason's Azimuthal and see that is exactly what they did in flying over Greenland and Canada.

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!

What’s hilarious is that your claiming FE victory referencing a globe earth. You do realize the Gleason map is a globe projection?As in, you know, derived from a spherical earth. The irony is that FE uses globe maps. Kills me every time.
All maps, from the dawn of time, have been drawn on flat paper based on the person doing the drawing being on a flat earth plain.
If someone draws a portrait of you does that then mean you are flat?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26  Next >