Rey Hernandez, Scientific Study of ET Contact and the Paranormal |412|

#81
ok, I've heard this enough to believe that there's some truth to it, on the other hand, there isn't much discussion after this. I mean, anyone who claims to have a "soul truth" or "divine knowledge" will carry with them the ultimate personal trump card that shuts down any investigation.
Yes, Alex, I hear this BS as well, and we need to call it for what it is - usually rubbish. But let me add a delicate qualifier here. There's some stuff you just can't talk about - in which case it shouldn't be part of any discussion - except maybe rarely. Any claim to have a "soul truth" or "divine knowledge" must be qualified by the disclaimer that its a personal story, not a cosmic truth - and if you can't talk about it, review your motive for raising the subject in the first place. In any case it probably naive BS - that is to say there are folk who sincerely believe they have been exposed to deep truth. But have they?

My personal sense is that you are either part of the community of inquiry who shares the vulnerability of the struggle to know, or you are a wanker who seeks to be highly thought of, but who has no authentic presence. There must always be discussion that flows from an assertion, opinion or revelation.

For me the only people who play trump cards (that's a term forever ruined for me - but I am buoyed only by the understanding that no trumps is better and purer hand) to shut down any investigations are those whose inauthenticity motivates that self-protective ploy. There is no legitimate excuse otherwise. I may decline to answer something you put to me, but I can never play coy and refuse to respond to something I triggered.
 
#82
What I do not understand is what the abductees really mean by being a hybrid. It would seem a plausible implication is alien DNA. Do they not mean that? IT would seem they do. They have clear memories. Its remarkable.
This has always puzzled me. But over the years a few things have struck me about alleged ET - they seem remarkably stupid about human biology, and there seem incapable of empathically understanding physical fear. That doesn't sit well with me, especially when I add the absence of culture. They don't seem like natively physical beings to me.

So are we humans being forcibly bred with a physical ET species? I doubt it. For me it makes more sense that there is a tweaking of our DNA from a metaphysical dimension - in other words playing with the pre-physical metaphysical dimension in order to create a physical vehicle that suits our ongoing needs. That is possibly an immensely difficult thing to do, given the complexity of the human genome and the range of unintended consequences that could arise from fiddling with it. This is just sci fi imagining, nothing concrete.

Here's a question. Imagine humanity 200 years from now on our current technological trajectory. How well do you think our current physicality is suited to that future? If we are to physically venture into space how suited are our bodies to that kind of adventure?

There are a whole bunch of reasons for imagining the current model of the human physical body is at its use by date, and its time for an upgrade. Now I am not saying this is the case. I just asked myself a simple question - if this 'hybridisation' is happening why might it be a good idea?

I have read theories that ET is doing this to take over humanity and I do not buy this for a bunch of reasons. The chief one being that if the claims about reincarnation are real not a lot of us are from 'here' in any case - so the distinctive thing about being human is having a primate body and bugger all else. Are our souls 'human'?

This raises a question we almost never ask - what is human? We have a bunch of derivative words - humane, humanitarian, humanistic - and they all sound good and noble, but what does 'human' actually mean - especially when we tie it to our physical body and then associate a bunch of spiritual ideas with it.

At best we are confused, at worst we are ignorant.

And yet we are exercised by the prospect that we might be hybridised and transformed into other than we are. The evidence that there's some kind of strategy to 'hybridise' humanity seems to be compelling, provided we understand what it means - which we do not, mostly (some may do). Something is certainly going on, but is the 'hybridisation' a literal rendition of whatever that is, or is it a metaphor? Remember so-called abductions do not seem to happen in a purely physical sense.

There seem to be a lot of people with opinions, which is usual, but not a lot of folk with actual knowledge (no barrier to having an opinion).

Personally, I haven't a bloody clue in terms of anything that even vaguely resembles knowledge. And neither do I have an opinion. All I have done is ask whether this all might be a jolly good thing, and if it is why is it that?

I must confess that on a deep intuitive level I feel somewhere between being unconcerned and mildly excited. That may not mean anything at all to you, but it means something to me.
 
#83
I get/like the whole "contact modalities" thing... to a point... but I worry they are missing the bigger picture.

so yeah, there are commonalities re these phenomena... but our vantage point in coming to this conclusion may be clouding our judgement.
You gotta expand on this point.

Several sources I have encountered have indicated that 'contact' is impeded by MBS (massive brain syndrome) which induces self-styled rational people to be so full of information they cannot connect with their own souls. This is exemplified by the human capacity to 'rationalise' intruding and unwanted 'irrational' thoughts. When reason trumps (that word again) intuition we are all screwed.

So 2 consequences. One is that some folk remain mired in the cesspit of their own intellect. The other is that spirit has to take a veritable jackhammer to the mentality of 'sensible folk' just to open a tiny crack of light into their foggy minds. Either way we end up in that sorry consequences of those who are open are also maligned.

A few years back I read a book that reviewed the predictions for our future made by the MBS folk. Wrong to the extent that a chimp with a dart randomly pricking targets would be more accurate. Of course not everyone who is very smart has MBS, and this few are now often very rich.

I get FREE's interest in measuring this kind of stuff, but its not the arbiter of the real, and should never be given that responsibility. 'Contact' is routine. There is a constant interplay between human and other-than-human intelligence (OTHI), but most of it is not available to our conscious awareness. Much of the consequences are subtle - insights and intuitions and inspirations. How do you measure that? Do you disqualify it because you cannot measure it?

Let's accept that contact between humans and OTHI is norm. Two things must happen. The first is that the stigma imposed upon 'contactee's has to be gotten ridden of . The second is that we have to understand that formal academic methods are designed to impress those who have MBS, and not the rest of us.

Despite efforts by the Pope and other despots the Divine is profoundly democratic. You want to talk? It will respond. But never as a free lunch. Always as a relationship.
 
#84
You gotta expand on this point.

Several sources I have encountered have indicated that 'contact' is impeded by MBS (massive brain syndrome) which induces self-styled rational people to be so full of information they cannot connect with their own souls. This is exemplified by the human capacity to 'rationalise' intruding and unwanted 'irrational' thoughts. When reason trumps (that word again) intuition we are all screwed.

So 2 consequences. One is that some folk remain mired in the cesspit of their own intellect. The other is that spirit has to take a veritable jackhammer to the mentality of 'sensible folk' just to open a tiny crack of light into their foggy minds. Either way we end up in that sorry consequences of those who are open are also maligned.

A few years back I read a book that reviewed the predictions for our future made by the MBS folk. Wrong to the extent that a chimp with a dart randomly pricking targets would be more accurate. Of course not everyone who is very smart has MBS, and this few are now often very rich.

I get FREE's interest in measuring this kind of stuff, but its not the arbiter of the real, and should never be given that responsibility. 'Contact' is routine. There is a constant interplay between human and other-than-human intelligence (OTHI), but most of it is not available to our conscious awareness. Much of the consequences are subtle - insights and intuitions and inspirations. How do you measure that? Do you disqualify it because you cannot measure it?

Let's accept that contact between humans and OTHI is norm. Two things must happen. The first is that the stigma imposed upon 'contactee's has to be gotten ridden of . The second is that we have to understand that formal academic methods are designed to impress those who have MBS, and not the rest of us.

Despite efforts by the Pope and other despots the Divine is profoundly democratic. You want to talk? It will respond. But never as a free lunch. Always as a relationship.[/QUOTE
Is Alan hugenot, who had an nde, included in that book chronicling predictions? He appears to have experienced MBS, having had all questions answered. I remember finding a person who claimed to have knowledge of a scientific nature brought back from an NDE. It was in the form of a seemingly simple geometric pattern with surprising properties. Anyone know her name? A paper was published too!

Stigma will end when enough scientists die, or maybe gary schwartz will be gifted with contact of a kind that is replicable.

This link is informative of my question about dna hybrids / strong evidence of ETs. Check it out at timestamp 57:00 or so.

https://explorers.collective-evolution.com/watch-now-susan/

Susan is a collaborator who recently wrote a book chapter with Rey Hernandez. In short, she is a contactee and someone who remembers her "alien" origin for lack of a better word.

I find the pressure points are best squeezed within the business community's materialism. I don't mean profit. I mean competition as a core feature of progress and greed.

It's really true that IP (intellectual property) enhances wealth or does it merely concentrate it and slow down knowledge sharing? Wouldn't open knowledge sharing imply a more loving community rather than the rational self interest our financial institutions are founded upon? Let's be honest. Rational self interest, selfish genes, are all founded on ideas related to social darwinism, colonialism, even american exceptionalism. Economics, the dismal science indeed!
 
Last edited:
#85
his link is informative of my question about dna hybrids / strong evidence of ETs. Check it out at timestamp 57:00 or so.

https://explorers.collective-evolution.com/watch-now-susan/

Susan is a collaborator who recently wrote a book chapter with Rey Hernandez. In short, she is a contactee and someone who remembers her "alien" origin for lack of a better word.
Thanks for this. Susan is saying stuff that clicks with me - and which strengthens the notion that ET is not 'alien' in the sense usually implied. If I take Susan's central theme on face value we seem to be moving toward a transitional catharsis on a planetary scale. That proposition tracks with other information. There are a bunch of themes that seem to be hitting their use by date (political, economic, environmental, intellectual, religious) and emergent trends and potentials that are way pointers.

For example, what we are seeing wide spread, but spectacularly so in the USA (always leading the way it seems) is an apparent crisis in cultural division that is generating a crisis of polarisation. It must break, and it will hurt, at some stage in the not too distant future. The old and the new have never been so contentious as now and to come.

Wouldn't open knowledge sharing imply a more loving community rather than the rational self interest our financial institutions are founded upon? Let's be honest. Rational self interest, selfish genes, are all founded on ideas related to social darwinism, colonialism, even american exceptionalism.
Here you hit the nail on the head. The impetus toward "a more loving community" is plain enough. Susan made an interesting observation about what was "not negotiable" - that move to "a more loving community". Properly rational self interest supports loving communities. The contra ideas such as social darwinism are fictions invented to sustain a passion for radical individualism that includes a separation from the divine - something formulated in humanistic and materialistic thought when the idea of God based on Christian theology was rightly rejected as silly. But the alternative was not just no God but a better idea of God. Somehow, in the way things panned out the no God nonsense was triumphant as a model on which our civilisation was to be grounded. Now that notion permeates our cultural fabric- our politics and our economics. And, sadly, our religion too. Here's a point that might take some thinking about - the Abrahamic religions act as if their God isn't real, is a fiction and a hope.

How would it be if all that changed? It does seem that a radical change is coming and that it is 'not negotiable'. But its not coming in the sense of some distant future event. The tide has changed and the flow is mounting. Can we put a date on the moment things changed? I see evidence going back to the mid 1800s. I see more coherent manifestations in the 1960s. There have been multiple intensifications since then. The next 50 years will rid our culture of generational sea anchors but that's not to say new ones won't emerge. I'd expect things to be radically different by 2070, but is that what Susan is on about? Maybe, timing is not predictable because you can't know exactly how inner potentials will manifest - only that they will.
 
#87
You gotta expand on this point.

Several sources I have encountered have indicated that 'contact' is impeded by MBS (massive brain syndrome) which induces self-styled rational people to be so full of information they cannot connect with their own souls. This is exemplified by the human capacity to 'rationalise' intruding and unwanted 'irrational' thoughts. When reason trumps (that word again) intuition we are all screwed.

So 2 consequences. One is that some folk remain mired in the cesspit of their own intellect. The other is that spirit has to take a veritable jackhammer to the mentality of 'sensible folk' just to open a tiny crack of light into their foggy minds. Either way we end up in that sorry consequences of those who are open are also maligned.

A few years back I read a book that reviewed the predictions for our future made by the MBS folk. Wrong to the extent that a chimp with a dart randomly pricking targets would be more accurate. Of course not everyone who is very smart has MBS, and this few are now often very rich.

I get FREE's interest in measuring this kind of stuff, but its not the arbiter of the real, and should never be given that responsibility. 'Contact' is routine. There is a constant interplay between human and other-than-human intelligence (OTHI), but most of it is not available to our conscious awareness. Much of the consequences are subtle - insights and intuitions and inspirations. How do you measure that? Do you disqualify it because you cannot measure it?

Let's accept that contact between humans and OTHI is norm. Two things must happen. The first is that the stigma imposed upon 'contactee's has to be gotten ridden of . The second is that we have to understand that formal academic methods are designed to impress those who have MBS, and not the rest of us.

Despite efforts by the Pope and other despots the Divine is profoundly democratic. You want to talk? It will respond. But never as a free lunch. Always as a relationship.
I'm concerned the term "contact modalities" may be taking us down the wrong alley. can we really say that being raped by a reptilian ET and meeting jesus are merely two different contact modalities to the paranormal?
 
#88
and we can take the "you" part out of it. I mean, this applies across-the-board with paranormal / traumatic / ordinary experiences.
Ahh, but can we take the 'you' part out of it? If you remove the battery from your smartphone it reduces it to a useless but complex interplay of metal, glass, and silicone. Add the battery and you have a device that facilitates something more than the sum of its parts.

To give this take some more nuance, an episode of high strangeness most likely requires human conciousness as a prerequisite. Given that we're all wired in different flavors of roughly the same configuration, overlayed with environmental imprints, it seems to me that seeking patterns or similarities in the realm of the paranormal is a fools errand, to a large extent. To misappropriate George Bernard Shaw, seeking consensus on paranormal experience is like dancing about architecture.

Given the increasing foray into the UFO subject on Skeptiko, I think an interview with Greg Bishop from the podcast Radio Misterioso would be most interesting. Greg has been formulating his cocreation hypothesis of paranormal experience in recent years and has a very forward thinking take on the subject, removed from dogma and with a healthy skeptical overlay. I think both your podcasts have had shared guests going back some years.
 
#89
I'm going to be interviewing courtney brown in a couple months really like what he said here:
I've read some things about Mr. Brown that I found troubling, but must confess that I have not had the time or inclination to explore their veracity, other than to give me some pause about his projects in the RV field. I'll be looking at the forum posts for his interview with interest to see if someone with more insight into his projects can speak knowledgeably on them.
 
#90
Thanks for this. Susan is saying stuff that clicks with me - and which strengthens the notion that ET is not 'alien' in the sense usually implied.
Here you hit the nail on the head. The impetus toward "a more loving community" is plain enough. Susan made an interesting observation about what was "not negotiable" - that move to "a more loving community". Properly rational self interest supports loving communities. The contra ideas such as social darwinism are fictions invented to sustain a passion for radical individualism that includes a separation from the divine - something formulated in humanistic and materialistic thought when the idea of God based on Christian theology was rightly rejected as silly. But the alternative was not just no God but a better idea of God. Somehow, in the way things panned out the no God nonsense was triumphant as a model on which our civilisation was to be grounded. Now that notion permeates our cultural fabric- our politics and our economics. And, sadly, our religion too. Here's a point that might take some thinking about - the Abrahamic religions act as if their God isn't real, is a fiction and a hope.

How would it be if all that changed? It does seem that a radical change is coming and that it is 'not negotiable'. But its not coming in the sense of some distant future event. The tide has changed and the flow is mounting. Can we put a date on the moment things changed? I see evidence going back to the mid 1800s. I see more coherent manifestations in the 1960s. There have been multiple intensifications since then. The next 50 years will rid our culture of generational sea anchors but that's not to say new ones won't emerge. I'd expect things to be radically different by 2070, but is that what Susan is on about? Maybe, timing is not predictable because you can't know exactly how inner potentials will manifest - only that they will.
I like all that you said. As for timing, well, I present another video:


Mary claims, at about a minute further into that video, she is in contact with geneticists who believe are dna has been spliced. I totally expect weird stuff with our dna.

As for timing of the event predicted by that contactee, i imagine we would need to find the splicing. Why keep it secret? Why a whistleblower? This is a yellow flag for me, but i haven't watched the whole thing. I do like being part of an intelligent alien civilization. Makes some sense.

But we are missing so much history. I just read their are a million undecoded ancient clay tablets.


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

ok watched a bit more. Mary says 'sideways insertion of 200 ish genes related to psychological function no idea how it got there'.

Well that happened in the lowly moths too, remember? But it wasn't genes, it was regulatory code right? i forgot.
 
#91
I'm concerned the term "contact modalities" may be taking us down the wrong alley. can we really say that being raped by a reptilian ET and meeting jesus are merely two different contact modalities to the paranormal?
So if we say 'the experience' of being raped by a reptilian and the 'experience' of meeting Jesus we maybe can say that. I think we need to be careful of the term 'contact modality' in any case. Would you have any problem if the medium of the experience was a dream? Suppose somebody told you they had a dream of being raped by an amphibian or of meeting Jesus? How would you react?

On what basis do you say that a dream and an NDE are not equivalent? I am not saying they are or are not.

The core experience can be overlaid with subjective interpretations in the non-ordinary states of awareness or being as much as they are in our ordinary experience. In certain states of mind we will interpret an act of kindness as an attack, or an act of generosity as an insult.
 
#92
I've read some things about Mr. Brown that I found troubling, but must confess that I have not had the time or inclination to explore their veracity, other than to give me some pause about his projects in the RV field. I'll be looking at the forum posts for his interview with interest to see if someone with more insight into his projects can speak knowledgeably on them.
what have you heard... pls tell me.
 
#93
So if we say 'the experience' of being raped by a reptilian and the 'experience' of meeting Jesus we maybe can say that. I think we need to be careful of the term 'contact modality' in any case. Would you have any problem if the medium of the experience was a dream? Suppose somebody told you they had a dream of being raped by an amphibian or of meeting Jesus? How would you react?

On what basis do you say that a dream and an NDE are not equivalent? I am not saying they are or are not.

The core experience can be overlaid with subjective interpretations in the non-ordinary states of awareness or being as much as they are in our ordinary experience. In certain states of mind we will interpret an act of kindness as an attack, or an act of generosity as an insult.
well I guess the big question is how much confidence do we have in this reality? and what is the relationship between this reality in the larger reality?
 
#94
what have you heard... pls tell me.
Doing a quick search to jog my memory, it's to do with the hale-bopp comet and heaven's gate fiasco back in the late 90s. If you search for commentary on all three terms you get hits on allegations about whether the Farsight institute is culpable in part for their role in hyping the now debunked photo that showed a "companion" UFO ship following the comet and the subsequent suicides of the HG cult.

Obviously, no one can ultimately be held responsible but the cult members themselves for their actions, but the whole affair does not lend much credibility to the Farsight Institute's endeavors at the time and subsequently.

If I recall Art Bell banned Brown from Coast to Coast after the fiasco. Read into that what you will.

Some of the criticism online focuses on "hey, look at this academic doing wacky research!" I'm not referring to that aspect.

I think the RV subject is a valid and serious area of research, and on one end you have folks like the late Ingo Swann and the SRI efforts, and on the other the Farsight Institute, which seems to be doing very click-bait oriented, short term predictions on YouTube. It comes across as a tad insincere, IMHO.

Not exactly the smoking gun you requested, but if I can source the podcast where I heard these allegations and his broader work broken down more succinctly, I'll post here.
 
Last edited:
#96
Doing a quick search to jog my memory, it's to do with the hale-bopp comet and heaven's gate fiasco back in the late 90s. If you search for commentary on all three terms you get hits on allegations about whether the Farsight institute is culpable in part for their role in hyping the now debunked photo that showed a "companion" UFO ship following the comet and the subsequent suicides of the HG cult.

Obviously, no one can ultimately be held responsible but the the cult members themselves for their actions, but the whole affair does not lend much credibility to the Farsight Institute's endeavors at the time and subsequently.

If I recall Art Bell banned Brown from Coast to Coast after the fiasco. Read into that what you will.

Some of the criticism online focuses on "hey, look at this academic doing wacky research!" I'm not referring to that aspect.

I think the RV subject is a valid and serious area of research, and on one end you have folks like the late Ingo Swann and the SRI efforts, and on the other the Farsight Institute, which seems to be doing very click-bait oriented, short term predictions on YouTube. It comes across as a tad insincere, IMHO.

Not exactly the smoking gun you requested, but if I can source the podcast where I heard these allegations and his broader work broken down more succinctly, I'll post here.
That is what I remember.
 
#97
Doing a quick search to jog my memory, it's to do with the hale-bopp comet and heaven's gate fiasco back in the late 90s. If you search for commentary on all three terms you get hits on allegations about whether the Farsight institute is culpable in part for their role in hyping the now debunked photo that showed a "companion" UFO ship following the comet and the subsequent suicides of the HG cult.

Obviously, no one can ultimately be held responsible but the cult members themselves for their actions, but the whole affair does not lend much credibility to the Farsight Institute's endeavors at the time and subsequently.

If I recall Art Bell banned Brown from Coast to Coast after the fiasco. Read into that what you will.

Some of the criticism online focuses on "hey, look at this academic doing wacky research!" I'm not referring to that aspect.

I think the RV subject is a valid and serious area of research, and on one end you have folks like the late Ingo Swann and the SRI efforts, and on the other the Farsight Institute, which seems to be doing very click-bait oriented, short term predictions on YouTube. It comes across as a tad insincere, IMHO.

Not exactly the smoking gun you requested, but if I can source the podcast where I heard these allegations and his broader work broken down more succinctly, I'll post here.
thx. I think I'm more or less up to speed on a lot of that... just wanted to make sure there wasn't something else that I wasn't aware of. thanks again.
 
#98
well I guess the big question is how much confidence do we have in this reality? and what is the relationship between this reality in the larger reality?
Yeah. I agree. That's the big question. I like then theory of the holographic universe. Sometimes I think we need to understand our reality in terms of information theory and not physics. Its like physics tells you about the medium but not the message. And when we look into the motives for studying physics they have more to do with meaning than substance - more about the message than the medium. There may be some autistic minds who are just into the medium.

To illustrate CBC Ideas has recently done a 2 part show called "Finding meaning in the universe with astrophysicist Hubert Reeves'. They are worth a listen. Reeves has a skeptical POV you'd appreciate deeply.

I think then relationship between this and the larger reality is a seamless continuity, but maybe in the way that the relationship between earth and water is - subtle and complex. White's 'The Unobstructed Universe' (1940) is perhaps the definitive modern text (albeit little known). But also look at Vedic, Qabalistic and Hermetic models. In any case the connection between terrestrial systems and the solar system (and let's go galactic too) seems to mirror the Hermetic axiom of "As above, so below". I think that sits well with Quantum thinking too.

In essence I do not see any indication that the relationship between the large and the small is fundamentally different in character in any system we elect to look at. The holographic universe model fits that conception neatly - and shifts our attention to information and away from substance.
 
#99
thx. I think I'm more or less up to speed on a lot of that... just wanted to make sure there wasn't something else that I wasn't aware of. thanks again.
Alex, I wonder if you have heard of this guy and would be interested in interviewing him? You will find quite a lot on the Internet by him or about him. He's also recently published a book.

This is a pretty long video (and the quality is not very good) but if you listen to the last 20 minutes or so, I think you'll get an idea of what he's about. NB: I'm not at all advocating the DMT thing, I just thought this guy is interesting for those who suspect that "E.T.s" are actually interdimensional beings rather than "nuts and bolts" aliens. AND he also refers to the "relationship" of our reality with theirs.


His book:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1527234762/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0

Interestingly, right at the start of his book (in the free sample you can read on Amazon) he quotes McKenna as saying:

"The main thing to understand is that we are imprisoned in some kind of work of art".
 
Just a couple quick thoughts about Rey Hernandez after listening to the show:
  • Did his study take into account any known reluctance to report negative experiences on the part of people who have them? I haven't read the report but I know this kind of bias happens regarding negative NDEs so is it unreasonable to expect it would happen with ET contact? I realize this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

  • IMO the study's "overwhelmingly positive" interpretation of these events is more indicative of what William James called the greatest discovery of his generation -that human beings can alter our lives by altering our attitudes- and NOT necessarily indicative of the intent of any nonhuman intelligence involved. That trauma can be positively transformative should never be taken as the intent of whatever agent, if any, perpetrates the trauma.

  • He said that after the end of the experience he had while driving his car, where he found himself at the hub of a huge ferris wheel-like thing, the program on the radio hadn't missed a beat and continued uninterrupted(couldn't help thinking of the movie 'Contact' here - great film). Was the location of his car similarly unaffected?

  • He mentioned Jacques Vallee a couple of times but he didn't include him in the list of well-known ufo researchers he initially reached out to when he was throwing himself headlong into the study of UFOs. Do we know if he did? For me JV is the high watermark for how to approach the study of the UFO phenomena.

  • I'm troubled by the fact that he comes across like an evangelical. I can appreciate how difficult it must be in the face of events like those he's experienced to remain unswayed and objective(as much as possible anyway) but there's a clear emotional bias that I'm worried could be distorting his view while at the same time winning him followers who don't question that bias. That sounds a bit dramatic I know.
Great show though! ;;/?
 
Top