Let's say you're looking at some object 15 billion light years away. When did the light from that object (the one we are seeing now) start its course towards us? Oh, that's right! 15 billion years ago!! Ever heard of cosmic microwave background radiation? The stuff that proved the big bang happened? That light was emitted when the universe was cca. 379,000 years old.
Just because the radiation is 15 billion years old doesn't prove anything about the big bang. It is just radiation from 15 billion years ago. The microwave background radiation was predicted as within a few degrees kelvin before the big bang theory using infinite dynamical models of the universe. While the bbt missed the mark later by almost 20 degrees Kelvin.
For all we know it is old intergalactic radiation. It will be funny when we detect radiation even a bit older.
True, 15 billion year old light does not in itself prove the big bang. The CMBR however, does. It's true that there could be other sources of the black body spectrum of the CMBR, but only the big bang theory can explain the anisotropies in the spectrum.
Only the big bang can explain that?! That statement per se is suspicious. The anisotropy of the background radiation can be explained pretty well by the filamentary nature of the universe. For instance CBR's anisotropy is not random and aligns with the local supercluster, which contradicts bing bang's assumptions on its origin.
Are you suggesting that the big bang never happened? Or just that it didn't happen 13.7 bn years ago? Do you know of any theory that explains the observed data better?
Plasma cosmology? I'm not very familiar with it, but isn't it a mainly qualitative description of the universe with no testable quantitative predictions? As far as I know it's not able to make predictions about the black-body spectrum of the CMBR, galaxy red shift or the abundance of light elements. Weren't these ideas pretty much discarded in the nineties?
Oh it is a purely quantitative cosmology that contrary to the big bang theory does not rely on unobserved hypotheticals to account for inconsistencies in the theory. The plasma cosmology is based on actual data and actually made successful predictions of what is observed.
For example the plasma cosmology predicted the absorption of radio waves by the CMBR, it's alignment and origin, the filamentary structure of the universe that correctly accounts for abundant light elements, the now observed contradictory red shift values etc All this data contradicts the big bang theory and BBT did not predict galactic red shifts or the CMBR. Without a hypothetical non-baryonic matter it is not even able to explain the light elements.
Oh It's very well peer reviewed and by independent scientists too. Unlike the big bang theorists that peer review themselves.
Here's an article published by New Scientist at cosmologystatement*org and the data is readily available. For example, look here for redshift data that contradicts the big bang theory haltonarp*com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclusive_evidence_for_non_velocity_redshifts
And here is a documentary on the dogmatic state of our current cosmology /watch?v=e4Pme3XL1AA
Yeah, so obvious that somehow all the world's cosmologists and astronomers are missing it.
So if there's no big bang, how do you deal w. entropy?
If the gravitation centric model which the big bang is based on is so wrong why has it predicted orbits so precisely on so many different levels (something plasma cosmology has not done)?
First of all a growing number of scientists are realizing that the big bang is flawed and second, it only takes one scientist to prove it wrong.
Gravity works fine without the big bang, and what orbits that it has predicted? It merely relies on ad hoc unproven hypotheticals to balance it's equations that otherwise would flunk. Observations are contradicting the theory all the time.
The plasma cosmology on the contrary is so precise that cosmic objects can actually be simulated in the lab. Look for Birkeland currents for an example.
Oh yeah? Which scientists? Quacksl like Hutchinson and Sansbury? Really, this the argument structure I see here is roughly similar to what I see among creationists. If you want credible sources, Soupdragon is not the way to go.
What orbits? How about all of them. Relativity solved the apparent quirks in Mercury's orbit.
Birkeland currants don't require plasma cosmology to be simulated. Plasma cosmologists use them to try to justify their idea
You know it is a sign of lack of objectivity and honesty when one starts with name calling.
I am talking about scientists like Eric J. Lerner, Halton C. Arp, Wal Thornhill, Immanuel Velikovsky and many others. Look here for a list of scientists that support the plasma cosmology:
cosmologystatement*org or if it's still offline here:
Actually it is the big bang bang that is based on creationist ideas and was proposed by a priest called Georges Lemaitre.
Why is Soupdragon not credible? Is he telling any lies? Or is it because he is not well known? Why don't you check his references? lol Science is not a popularity contest, no wonder like so many others you just assume instead of applying the scientific method.
The big bang has little to do with relativity. It fundamentally violates it actually. Not to mention that the plasma cosmology also uses relativity.
Are you serious? Birkeland currents are observed in space and were named after Birkeland for explaining and reproducing them in the lab. So they are not 'trying', it is fact. Look it up!
Haven't started with it, you just came in late. I've had to waste hours of my time reading up on these people. Thornhill just builds off the ridiculousness of Velikovsky. These people don't just believe that electromagnetism overrides gravity on large scales, but that the sun is fueled by the flow of electrons rather than fusion.
As for the web archive:
"We're sorry, but the URL or date specified were invalid. Please try another request"
Thanks for making my point that now you have no argument and you're just resorting to name calling.
What is ridiculous is that even though the gravity centered cosmology doesn't work and it is patched up with non-existent hypotheticals, you still have the nerve to call it science.
There is no data that the sun is fueled by fusion. I beg you to give me a piece of scientific data to prove it. On the contrary there is overwhelming data that there is no fusion and stars are actually plasma balls and can actually be replicated in the lab.
If the link is not working go to archive*org and look for cosmologystatement*org and open the latest archive they have of the site.
No data? There's the basic theory which fits with the composition of the sun and pressure of the sun's core that we know to be the case. There's the spectrometric observations and the neutrino observations. The creation of plasma balls in the lab has no bearing on the stars as the model would require an electron flux that's not there.
It is the archive link that provided the error message. Given that even Thornton's site has none of the overwhelming data you allude to I remain sceptical.
What have you given me to argue against but to throw out the names of a few people who have no standing in the scientific establishment and the video of Soupdragon, which is rife w. factual errors. Example: the twin "paradox" (verified by experiment and the claim that the Michelson-Morley experiment did not give a null result.
You can create a number of accounts and then automatically have them vote a specific video with lets say 200 one star votes thus negating the idea of one user one vote that is the basis of the rating system.
ignorance alert: may i please ask what the plank (mirror?) being the coolest object in space temperature wise has to do with the object? its magnification power? durability? i sincerely would appreciate some knowledge here. thank you so much for posting! this is interesting even i f i do not fully understand the implications of all you tell me.i love the pictures satellites are taking.very exciting!
The point in cold temperatures is to reduce to a minimum the random noise cased by heat. The colder the sensors and optics are, the less they jiggle and vibrate mechanically and electrically, and the cleaner the signal is (lower SNR, Signal to Noise Ratio), and the better they can see faint photons that have been travelling to us since day 1.
Maybe with these powerful space telescopes, we can finally get a glimpse of this gawd fellow. Lots of delusional people would love to actually see him/her/it. Oh ya, they don't need proof, they just 'know' he's real.
I personally want to see Thor. I think he is a much more interesting god with his BFH and all. Also, the great noise he makes right after lightning is cool.
Oh but us fellow Pastafarians don't need evidence for the FSM. We just have faith he exists and can wrap his noodly appendages around us because we can 'feel' his love. Every time I eat pasta, I say a wonderful prayer. Of course, I don't say it before I eat like others do for their gods, I dig right in and yell at the top of my voice. 'Halleluyah, thems mighty spicy meatballs there FSM. Mind if I indulge myself?' Also, I always say 'rAmen' after I sprinkle the parmesan cheese.
razorflown2 - The average IQ in Texas (if your profile is true) is 97.2. The average IQ in the United kingdom (the first person replying is currently located) is 100-120.
So I'd be careful putting stupid in your sentences when referring to a group more (overall) intelligent than you.
You know what's hilarious? The fact that the people who vote bot these videos don't even care about the content of what is being said here. They just see "FreeThinker", and rage bot it has hard as they can; regardless of the fact that this video is a mirror of someone who is just sharing the knowledge and plans for better technology/understanding of reality; having nothing to do with their beliefs. People who proudly do this don't deserve the benefits these amazing advances will bring.
they dont even deserve the benefits of the society they live in because their actions speak LOUDLY that they are totally against not just the advancement of society.. but the society in general.
they are all waiting for the end times, each believing it will be in their lifetime. kind of humorous how each generation has thought this. but nowadays its scary actually. these R-tards could bring about the end of the world with their Zealousy
The univers had no start! We see further into space every year - which pushes the big bang back by 2 billion years - a year!
JonThm 1 year ago
Quite informing.... :)
RYOGERG 1 year ago
Goodevening, my question is what do we have to do to be able to live upon the moon?
I would really like to be able to live there within the next 70 years.
PonguigPeopinn 2 years ago
Lmao.
n0deity 2 years ago
Is the fact that I am sincere in my question cause you to laugh even more.
I am very much serious in wanting to look upon the jewel that we call earth from the surface of the moon.
PonguigPeopinn 2 years ago
"Is the fact that I am sincere in my question cause you to laugh even more."
Yes :D I find it interesting it's already part of your "life plan."
n0deity 2 years ago
Bah...these silly "high-tech" graphics are ruining the awesomeness of the actual telescopes...
forger42 2 years ago
Great!!
humanist7117 2 years ago
"First light of the universe" What a joke. I guess they would call some light remnant from far away that.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
Let's say you're looking at some object 15 billion light years away. When did the light from that object (the one we are seeing now) start its course towards us? Oh, that's right! 15 billion years ago!! Ever heard of cosmic microwave background radiation? The stuff that proved the big bang happened? That light was emitted when the universe was cca. 379,000 years old.
tomaz2007 2 years ago
Just because the radiation is 15 billion years old doesn't prove anything about the big bang. It is just radiation from 15 billion years ago. The microwave background radiation was predicted as within a few degrees kelvin before the big bang theory using infinite dynamical models of the universe. While the bbt missed the mark later by almost 20 degrees Kelvin.
For all we know it is old intergalactic radiation. It will be funny when we detect radiation even a bit older.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
True, 15 billion year old light does not in itself prove the big bang. The CMBR however, does. It's true that there could be other sources of the black body spectrum of the CMBR, but only the big bang theory can explain the anisotropies in the spectrum.
tomaz2007 2 years ago
Only the big bang can explain that?! That statement per se is suspicious. The anisotropy of the background radiation can be explained pretty well by the filamentary nature of the universe. For instance CBR's anisotropy is not random and aligns with the local supercluster, which contradicts bing bang's assumptions on its origin.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
Are you suggesting that the big bang never happened? Or just that it didn't happen 13.7 bn years ago? Do you know of any theory that explains the observed data better?
tomaz2007 2 years ago
I believe the big bang never happened. I'd suggest the alternative plasma cosmology. It goes hand in hand with the observed data.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
Plasma cosmology? I'm not very familiar with it, but isn't it a mainly qualitative description of the universe with no testable quantitative predictions? As far as I know it's not able to make predictions about the black-body spectrum of the CMBR, galaxy red shift or the abundance of light elements. Weren't these ideas pretty much discarded in the nineties?
tomaz2007 2 years ago
Oh it is a purely quantitative cosmology that contrary to the big bang theory does not rely on unobserved hypotheticals to account for inconsistencies in the theory. The plasma cosmology is based on actual data and actually made successful predictions of what is observed.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
For example the plasma cosmology predicted the absorption of radio waves by the CMBR, it's alignment and origin, the filamentary structure of the universe that correctly accounts for abundant light elements, the now observed contradictory red shift values etc All this data contradicts the big bang theory and BBT did not predict galactic red shifts or the CMBR. Without a hypothetical non-baryonic matter it is not even able to explain the light elements.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
The plasma theory on the other hand models cosmic objects efficiently without any hypotheticals. As you can see PC is very alive and well.
/watch?v=vm3N71iJJzA
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
Can you give me any literature references for your claims? Peer reviewed.
tomaz2007 2 years ago
Oh It's very well peer reviewed and by independent scientists too. Unlike the big bang theorists that peer review themselves.
Here's an article published by New Scientist at cosmologystatement*org and the data is readily available. For example, look here for redshift data that contradicts the big bang theory haltonarp*com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclusive_evidence_for_non_velocity_redshifts
And here is a documentary on the dogmatic state of our current cosmology /watch?v=e4Pme3XL1AA
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
The site cosmologystatement*org has been down since yesterday :O This is very very suspicious.
But thank goodness for the internet archive. Copy of it here: web.archive*org/web/20080804202204/h**p://3W's*cosmologystatement*org/
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
BTW close the spaces in the web link, replace the * with the actual characters and add at the beginning h**p://
Because you know youtube doesn't allow links on the comment section.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
Hand in hand? Only in a completely opposite kind of way.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
Obviously you are mistaken.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
Yeah, so obvious that somehow all the world's cosmologists and astronomers are missing it.
So if there's no big bang, how do you deal w. entropy?
If the gravitation centric model which the big bang is based on is so wrong why has it predicted orbits so precisely on so many different levels (something plasma cosmology has not done)?
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
First of all a growing number of scientists are realizing that the big bang is flawed and second, it only takes one scientist to prove it wrong.
Gravity works fine without the big bang, and what orbits that it has predicted? It merely relies on ad hoc unproven hypotheticals to balance it's equations that otherwise would flunk. Observations are contradicting the theory all the time.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
The plasma cosmology on the contrary is so precise that cosmic objects can actually be simulated in the lab. Look for Birkeland currents for an example.
/watch?v=j6aa4BU9jaI
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
Oh yeah? Which scientists? Quacksl like Hutchinson and Sansbury? Really, this the argument structure I see here is roughly similar to what I see among creationists. If you want credible sources, Soupdragon is not the way to go.
What orbits? How about all of them. Relativity solved the apparent quirks in Mercury's orbit.
Birkeland currants don't require plasma cosmology to be simulated. Plasma cosmologists use them to try to justify their idea
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
You know it is a sign of lack of objectivity and honesty when one starts with name calling.
I am talking about scientists like Eric J. Lerner, Halton C. Arp, Wal Thornhill, Immanuel Velikovsky and many others. Look here for a list of scientists that support the plasma cosmology:
cosmologystatement*org or if it's still offline here:
h**p://web.archive*org/web/20080804202204/h**p://3W's*cosmologystatement*org/
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
Actually it is the big bang bang that is based on creationist ideas and was proposed by a priest called Georges Lemaitre.
Why is Soupdragon not credible? Is he telling any lies? Or is it because he is not well known? Why don't you check his references? lol Science is not a popularity contest, no wonder like so many others you just assume instead of applying the scientific method.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
The big bang has little to do with relativity. It fundamentally violates it actually. Not to mention that the plasma cosmology also uses relativity.
Are you serious? Birkeland currents are observed in space and were named after Birkeland for explaining and reproducing them in the lab. So they are not 'trying', it is fact. Look it up!
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
Haven't started with it, you just came in late. I've had to waste hours of my time reading up on these people. Thornhill just builds off the ridiculousness of Velikovsky. These people don't just believe that electromagnetism overrides gravity on large scales, but that the sun is fueled by the flow of electrons rather than fusion.
As for the web archive:
"We're sorry, but the URL or date specified were invalid. Please try another request"
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
"Ridiculousness"
Thanks for making my point that now you have no argument and you're just resorting to name calling.
What is ridiculous is that even though the gravity centered cosmology doesn't work and it is patched up with non-existent hypotheticals, you still have the nerve to call it science.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
There is no data that the sun is fueled by fusion. I beg you to give me a piece of scientific data to prove it. On the contrary there is overwhelming data that there is no fusion and stars are actually plasma balls and can actually be replicated in the lab.
If the link is not working go to archive*org and look for cosmologystatement*org and open the latest archive they have of the site.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
No data? There's the basic theory which fits with the composition of the sun and pressure of the sun's core that we know to be the case. There's the spectrometric observations and the neutrino observations. The creation of plasma balls in the lab has no bearing on the stars as the model would require an electron flux that's not there.
It is the archive link that provided the error message. Given that even Thornton's site has none of the overwhelming data you allude to I remain sceptical.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
What have you given me to argue against but to throw out the names of a few people who have no standing in the scientific establishment and the video of Soupdragon, which is rife w. factual errors. Example: the twin "paradox" (verified by experiment and the claim that the Michelson-Morley experiment did not give a null result.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
What level is your studies of science?
I am having some difficulties with science and would like some help :)
PonguigPeopinn 2 years ago
She's an amputee. Get over it.
TheLeftHand77 2 years ago
Where did her left foot go?
TheStig000 2 years ago
She only has one foot, obviously.
216trixie 2 years ago
woo lots of cool sounds and graphical pointers. lol
scisex 2 years ago
Sssssssweeeeet!
nishbrown 2 years ago
what are votebots?
psychopathtoine 2 years ago
You can create a number of accounts and then automatically have them vote a specific video with lets say 200 one star votes thus negating the idea of one user one vote that is the basis of the rating system.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
oh i see. how low :s
psychopathtoine 2 years ago
Votebots are programs that systematically vote on videos over and over.
Typically used to "one star" vids of differing opinions or percieved offensiveness.
ReverendAtomSmasher 2 years ago
thank you
VitalApparatuz 2 years ago
The sounds and FX remind me too much of Total Anihilation to concetrate,,,,,,!
elldazzy 2 years ago
ignorance alert: may i please ask what the plank (mirror?) being the coolest object in space temperature wise has to do with the object? its magnification power? durability? i sincerely would appreciate some knowledge here. thank you so much for posting! this is interesting even i f i do not fully understand the implications of all you tell me.i love the pictures satellites are taking.very exciting!
practicalmagic9 2 years ago
The point in cold temperatures is to reduce to a minimum the random noise cased by heat. The colder the sensors and optics are, the less they jiggle and vibrate mechanically and electrically, and the cleaner the signal is (lower SNR, Signal to Noise Ratio), and the better they can see faint photons that have been travelling to us since day 1.
puncheex 2 years ago 6
The Planck may well be the coolest thing in space, but it'd be a lot cooler if it played the bongos and wrote poetry.
GoblinXXX 2 years ago 4
surely you're joking mr goblin!
sheepwshotguns 2 years ago
I would NEVER joke about anything as serious as a beatnik space telescope! ;)
GoblinXXX 2 years ago 2
And don't call me "Shirley".
GoblinXXX 2 years ago 3
"I would NEVER joke about anything as serious as a beatnik space telescope! ;)"
oh, i thought your original comment was referencing richard feynman. "surely you're joking mr. feynman" is a popular biography of him.
again i fail to express the slightest bit of wit... =(
sheepwshotguns 2 years ago
holy shit she's missing a leg
silverkeen07 2 years ago 3
I've got nothing against her right leg...
Unfortunately, neither has she.
GoblinXXX 2 years ago 5
Maybe she was wearing a green shoe.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Anyone know when these bad boys are gonna launch?
InfiniteUniverse88 2 years ago
I want a telescope named after me!
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
cool
stardark113055 2 years ago
None of this matters, in a few minutes Jesus will come back from the dead and kill everyone.
gonyea12 2 years ago
LMAO
hereandnow6002 2 years ago
LOL
Webarton 2 years ago
I can't wait to see the scientific results from the findings!
combatives 2 years ago
What's up with her trousers?
AnarchistDictator 2 years ago
It doesn't matter if you're conservative, liberals can be just as stupid, sometimes more stupid.
Hobble 2 years ago 3
WHERE IS YOUR FOOT WOMAN?
Shad0wack 2 years ago 5
Telescopic legs. Deformation of the trade. Hence the wide trousers.
MrFacet 2 years ago
lmao
chris3443 2 years ago
Coolest object in space....Wow, how do they get the temp so low to absolute 0??? Incredible stuff :P
TurboDally 2 years ago
Maybe with these powerful space telescopes, we can finally get a glimpse of this gawd fellow. Lots of delusional people would love to actually see him/her/it. Oh ya, they don't need proof, they just 'know' he's real.
I personally want to see Thor. I think he is a much more interesting god with his BFH and all. Also, the great noise he makes right after lightning is cool.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
haha still preffering the flying spaggetti monster
pinochska 2 years ago
Oh but us fellow Pastafarians don't need evidence for the FSM. We just have faith he exists and can wrap his noodly appendages around us because we can 'feel' his love. Every time I eat pasta, I say a wonderful prayer. Of course, I don't say it before I eat like others do for their gods, I dig right in and yell at the top of my voice. 'Halleluyah, thems mighty spicy meatballs there FSM. Mind if I indulge myself?' Also, I always say 'rAmen' after I sprinkle the parmesan cheese.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago 7
you don't have to be republican to be retarded
MyCrownOfWorms 2 years ago 5
OMFG!...thats gotta be the quote of the day
bluestrobe1 2 years ago
★★★★★
Katalyzt 2 years ago
"Will capture the first light of the universe"
Fucking hell, now that's something I want to see. Wow.
DeverHB 2 years ago 2
I love this space stuff.
ahdkaw 2 years ago 2
OR we could make the machines to resurrect the dinosaurs. or tupac.
manbearpig91 2 years ago 4
Anyone else notice the Europeans love for putting stupid sound effects on everything?
razorflown2 2 years ago
Anyone ever notice how americans like to pick at stupid things because they cant find anything worth while to moan about.
ThatAtheistGuy20 2 years ago
butt hurt much?
razorflown2 2 years ago
Wow great. You cant think of anything good to say so you fall back on the good old gay insults.
God bless America.
Yee haw
ThatAtheistGuy20 2 years ago 2
razorflown2 - The average IQ in Texas (if your profile is true) is 97.2. The average IQ in the United kingdom (the first person replying is currently located) is 100-120.
So I'd be careful putting stupid in your sentences when referring to a group more (overall) intelligent than you.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago 2
The most impressive thing about this video is...how this lady balances herself so well on one leg. I'd really like to see her try that drunk.
ZepMan63 2 years ago 4
LOL !
razorflown2 2 years ago
Either she's wearing a green or blue shoe, or she hasn't got one foot...
Abengoshis 2 years ago
I wonder if there is a company that makes models of these - it would be cool to make them and hang them in a room
Chibling 2 years ago
bad ass
do0me0nice 2 years ago
wtf! where is her foot?
n1bigdaddy 2 years ago 2
Wtf, where is her foot? Is it wrong to laugh at that, cos i am.
DanJC989 2 years ago 2
YOU'RE MISSING A FOOT DAMMIT
Borostiliont 2 years ago
You know what's hilarious? The fact that the people who vote bot these videos don't even care about the content of what is being said here. They just see "FreeThinker", and rage bot it has hard as they can; regardless of the fact that this video is a mirror of someone who is just sharing the knowledge and plans for better technology/understanding of reality; having nothing to do with their beliefs. People who proudly do this don't deserve the benefits these amazing advances will bring.
ChairmanKiel 2 years ago
they dont even deserve the benefits of the society they live in because their actions speak LOUDLY that they are totally against not just the advancement of society.. but the society in general.
they are all waiting for the end times, each believing it will be in their lifetime. kind of humorous how each generation has thought this. but nowadays its scary actually. these R-tards could bring about the end of the world with their Zealousy
555D3M0N666 2 years ago 2
she should not have worn that green shoe lol
GiftofGod18 2 years ago
I wonder what hardware they use. What kind of processor?
ArtypNk 2 years ago
Probably not a shitty intel.
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
she is good but I hate the way she uses her hands.
Jaksary 2 years ago 2
Is it just me or is her left foot missing?
redone632 2 years ago 11
She's a space pirate ;)
rauron9 2 years ago 2
Indeed.
imarchello 2 years ago
LMAO, yes it is.
Maybe she was wearing a bright green stocking on that leg. XD
easuter 2 years ago
i think they are trying to mess with us, cause she would so have a fake foot instead of being imbalanced all day.
nintendolunchbox 2 years ago
3 gold plates? Man! The pirates will knock it off, man!
ricardas83 2 years ago 4
that temperature would make my nipples soo hard
TheRealBiscuits 2 years ago 11
i agree... so very hard xD
hotcrotch 2 years ago 6
Harder than steel...
dackjaniels555 2 years ago 5
A tad brittle, too...
bushputz 2 years ago
THANK YOU FREETHINKER!
seanbrockest 2 years ago 7