snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02 July 2007, 11:21 AM
Base Ten
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
Perfectly? How? This other piece of cloth would have absorbed the blood from the facial wounds, preventing them from appearing on the shroud.
I believe it was wrapped loosely around, not used to wipe (or wash) the face.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
(Of course, the body was also supposed to have been washed...
Quote:
The apparent bloodstains on the Shroud conflict with the long-established tradition in biblical exegesis that Christ's body was washed before burial, which was carried out "following the Jewish burial custom" (John 19:40). The phrase, however, refers directly to the deposition of the body in a linen cloth together with spices. All of the Gospels convey the information that Christ's burial was hasty and incomplete because of the approaching Sabbath. In the earlier accounts of Mark and Luke, the women are said to be returning on Sunday morning to anoint the body with ointments prepared over the Sabbath, when washing a body for burial was effectively forbidden by the ritual proscription of moving or lifting a corpse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
And, besides, no one prepared shrouds by doubling them over, smoothly, lengthwise, but instead wrapping them...)
I'm not an expert on 1st century Jewish burial traditions, however I would think they might do that if they were coming back in a few days to finish preparing the body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
It's a piece of artwork.

Silas
Whether artwork, forgery, or genuine, you're free to think whatever you want . IMO, both artwork and forgery* would leave way too many unanswered questions. If it were authentic, however, that would leave the question of the C14 dating.

Base Ten

However, forgery in the very early years (before 544 AD) by actually crucifying someone would answer some of the questions left unanswered by a medieval "painting" forgery. However it would still leave many questions unanswered, (and perhaps introduce a few new ones), including the C14 one.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02 July 2007, 12:07 PM
ElectricBarbarella's Avatar
ElectricBarbarella ElectricBarbarella is offline
 
Join Date: 10 October 2001
Location: Ruskin, FL
Posts: 7,330
Default

the imgaes on the Shroud are just too perfect to be anything but some type of "art". I can't say i believe that the shroud once covered Christ's body.

Yes, the linens would have been left in the tomb. Yes, they could have been collected. But if this were the shroud of Christ, it would have been doubly protected, such as the Arc of the Covenant has.

DaVinci? Don't know. But it is someone, there is some type of blood on it, human or not, don't know. Some artists of the time did paint with real blood (pig and human), so that would entirely explain the blood on the cloth.

But even the layers of blood on the cloth do not penetrate every layer of fabric. For someone as damaged (maimed?) as Christ was, the amount of blood would have been tremendous (unless he bled out on the cross), and it would have soaked each and every layer of the cloth touching him.

As it is, only the first, top most layers of the cloth are wet. Seperate the fibers, and you have clean, white, cotton fibers.

toni
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02 July 2007, 01:58 PM
Base Ten
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by damian View Post
Funnily enough, I watched this doco last night. The cloth contains a front and back image. Except the height of the front image is different to the back image. And the head is out of proportion, suggesting the images were made in three seperate sections.
Well, I didn't see the documentary, and can only comment on the snippet of information in your post.
I'm also not any kind of an expert on projections of 3-D objects onto flat surfaces surrounding them.

However, it would seem to me that if there was a body lying on a flat cloth, and with the rest of the cloth draped over the top of the body, perhaps even with ties around the body in certain places, and then somehow that body projected a permanent image onto the cloth, the height of the back image and the front image when measured on the flattened cloth would be different.
Additionally, if that cloth were wrapped around a round object like a head, complete with projections and bumps such as nose, chin, perhaps even swollen flesh from beatings, there would be distortions in it that were different from either the front or back image.

Perhaps if the shroud were placed around a 3-D body-shaped object, it might be clearer how the images line up.

Base Ten
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02 July 2007, 02:13 PM
hoitoider's Avatar
hoitoider hoitoider is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2001
Location: Beaufort, SC
Posts: 5,998
Default

There's also the Image of Edessa:

Quote:
According to Christian legend, the Image of Edessa ... was a holy relic consisting of a square or rectangle of cloth upon which a miraculous image of the face of Jesus was imprinted — the first icon ("image").

...This legend was first recorded in the early fourth century by Eusebius of Caesarea....
It's obvious these legends of an imprint of Jesus' face on cloth have been around for a while.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02 July 2007, 02:21 PM
Don Enrico's Avatar
Don Enrico Don Enrico is offline
 
Join Date: 05 October 2004
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 7,570
Default

From the Wiki-entry on the "Image of Edessa":
Quote:
The image is said to have surfaced in 525, during a flood of the Daisan, a tributary stream of the Euphrates that passed by Edessa. This flood is mentioned in the writings of the court historian Procopius of Caesarea. In the course of the reconstruction work, a cloth bearing the facial features of a man was discovered hidden in the wall above one of the gates of Edessa.
This ties in with the information Base Ten gave on the first page of a cloth bearing an image of Jesus found above a gate in Edessa in the 6th century - apart from the story Base Ten quoted* talking about a full body image as opposed to a face only image. However, with storys and legends being corrupted over time, the Edessa story doesn't proof that the cloth now known as the Shroud of Turin has been around as early as the 6th century.

Don Enrico

* What are you quoting from, btw, Base Ten?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02 July 2007, 02:25 PM
Base Ten
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by damian View Post
Funnily enough, I watched this doco last night. The cloth contains a front and back image. Except the height of the front image is different to the back image. And the head is out of proportion, suggesting the images were made in three seperate sections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectricBarbarella View Post
the imgaes on the Shroud are just too perfect to be anything but some type of "art".
It's too distorted, ... it can't be real.
It's too perfect, ... it can't be real.
It's too whatever, ... it can't be real.

Everybody's free to believe whatever they want, for whatever reasons. No matter what one believes, there still are, and may always be, unanswered questions and quandaries unresolved. IMO, that set of unknowns is smallest if it were authentic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectricBarbarella View Post
Yes, the linens would have been left in the tomb. Yes, they could have been collected. But if this were the shroud of Christ, it would have been doubly protected, such as the Arc of the Covenant has.
Where's that again? Ah yes, in the non-descript box in the government warehouse.
If The Sudarium of Oviedo were just some blood-soaked cloth, why would it have been kept all these years?
Doubly protected? You mean like hidden away? That would explain the missing history of these items - especially in the early years when Christianity was persecuted so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectricBarbarella View Post
But even the layers of blood on the cloth do not penetrate every layer of fabric. For someone as damaged (maimed?) as Christ was, the amount of blood would have been tremendous (unless he bled out on the cross), and it would have soaked each and every layer of the cloth touching him.

As it is, only the first, top most layers of the cloth are wet. Seperate the fibers, and you have clean, white, cotton fibers.
I'm no pathologist, coroner, nor even a mortician, so again I'm not an expert on the amount of blood that would leak out of a body hours after death.
However, the spear in the side seems to have produced a significant amount of blood, probably by piercing the heart. I'd imagine that a large amount of blood would leak out from this wound either while He was upright on the cross, or immediately after He was removed into a horizontal position. The amount of blood left in His body in the tomb may not have been a lot.

Base Ten
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02 July 2007, 02:39 PM
hoitoider's Avatar
hoitoider hoitoider is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2001
Location: Beaufort, SC
Posts: 5,998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Enrico View Post
However, with storys and legends being corrupted over time, the Edessa story doesn't proof that the cloth now known as the Shroud of Turin has been around as early as the 6th century.
No, but the legends have been around, which could've given Leonardo the idea to paint one. Since there is no image of Christ & they're all fake, of course the stories will be mixed & corrupted (it's hard to tell the same lie twice).

It's kind of interesting that there's a 10th c. image of someone holding the Edessa image (on the wiki page) - kind of an icon of an icon (unless it's a forgery too).
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02 July 2007, 02:49 PM
Base Ten
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Enrico View Post
From the Wiki-entry on the "Image of Edessa":

This ties in with the information Base Ten gave on the first page of a cloth bearing an image of Jesus found above a gate in Edessa in the 6th century - apart from the story Base Ten quoted* talking about a full body image as opposed to a face only image. However, with storys and legends being corrupted over time, the Edessa story doesn't proof that the cloth now known as the Shroud of Turin has been around as early as the 6th century.

Don Enrico

* What are you quoting from, btw, Base Ten?
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/history.htm

I recall reading somewhere a few years ago about the shroud being folded to show just the face.

There's also the legend of Veronica :
Quote:
According to legend, a women named Veronica approached Jesus while he was carrying his cross to Golgotha and wiped his face with her veil. According to this legend, a portrait of Jesus's face was imprinted on the cloth.
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists...s/veronica.htm

And poking around, I found some other legends of His face on a cloth:
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.../mandylion.htm

Since AFAIK, there's no small cloth with only His face in existence (unless it's still hidden away), a folded shroud seems the most plausible for any mentions of a cloth showing only the face.

Base Ten
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02 July 2007, 03:07 PM
Base Ten
 
Posts: n/a
Default

One of the "details" that I question a medieval forger would know or be able to recreate :
Quote:
Dr. Flury-Lemberg found the cloth's finishing, at its
hems, and in the joining seam to have been done using an unusual type of stitching
very nearly invisible on one side, and as such closely resembling that of ancient
Jewish textiles as found at Masada, the Jewish palace-fortress that was overthrown by
the Romans in AD 73, never to be occupied again. This alone, therefore, constitutes
powerful evidence against the carbon dating result of 1988.
And concerning the question of washing and bloodstains:
Quote:
‘The body was washed’ - Dr. Fred Zugibe
One individual whom it was a particular privilege to share this already so privileged
viewing was Dr. Fred Zugibe, whom the longer-serving BSTS members may recall
having given a particularly memorable lecture to the Society in October 1985. In
1973, the last occasion in which I had been able to see the Shroud free of glass, the
cloth had been displayed upright, so that the bloodstains on the feet on the dorsal
image were way above my head. Accordingly what I had failed to see then was now,
in the clear lighting of this year's viewing, readily apparent, that all around these
bloodstains there is a particularly clear yellowish 'halo, one previously only noted via
ultra-violet photography. Dr.Zugibe, with his long professional experience of studying
bloodstained bodies, was able to confirm this as typical of the way that the serum of
such stains separates from the rest. He also explained how although it is natural for
those of us without his forensic experience to suppose that the man of the Shroud has
to have been washed prior to the burial, in fact he is convinced that the body was
quickly sluiced prior to its being enshrouded. In his opinion the bloodstains that we
see are typical of those he observes oozing from similarly sluiced bodies on morgue
slabs.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n51part2.pdf

Base Ten
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02 July 2007, 03:23 PM
Don Enrico's Avatar
Don Enrico Don Enrico is offline
 
Join Date: 05 October 2004
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 7,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Base Ten View Post
And poking around, I found some other legends of His face on a cloth:
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.../mandylion.htm

Since AFAIK, there's no small cloth with only His face in existence (unless it's still hidden away), a folded shroud seems the most plausible for any mentions of a cloth showing only the face.

Base Ten
The Mandylion is the Image of Odessa (wiki). According to the wiki entry, it is kept today in the private chapel of the Pope in the Vatican. According to the Vatican itself, there are even two examples of the "Mandilion of Edessa", kept in Genoa and the Vatican:
Quote:
It will be a significant prelude to the final phase of the exhibitions of the "Bimillenary of Christ", a major show of spiritual significance. The exhibition, organised by the Vatican Apostolic Library, and organised by me, will be entitled "The face of Christ" and will present in the Wing of Charlemagne, in Saint Peter’s Square, from June 1999, an exceptional collection of ancient icons, illuminated manuscripts and paintings by great artists who represented the face of the Saviour.

Through a path marked by the most ancient representations of the human features of Our Lord Jesus Christ and punctuated by finds which the devout tradition of our ancestors considered effigies and have miraculously reached our times, such as the Mandilion of Edessa, kept in the two examples of Genoa and the Vatican, the Veronica, the Acheropita of the Lateran, the Saint Face of Laon and the one of Manoppello, all images in direct relation with the Face of the Shroud, the aim is to offer the visitor nearly a visual meditation on the message and image of the Saviour.
Can both of them be the original? And if only one is original, it is obviously different from the Shroud, because it exists at the same time in another place.

Don Enrico
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02 July 2007, 03:30 PM
Don Enrico's Avatar
Don Enrico Don Enrico is offline
 
Join Date: 05 October 2004
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 7,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Base Ten View Post
There's also the legend of Veronica :
Quote:
According to legend, a women named Veronica approached Jesus while he was carrying his cross to Golgotha and wiped his face with her veil. According to this legend, a portrait of Jesus's face was imprinted on the cloth.
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists...s/veronica.htm
There are at least three images of a face claimed to be the original Veronica, one at the Vatican, one in the Monastery of the Holy Face, Alicante, Spain, and one in the small village of Manoppello, Italy (wiki).

And even according to the legend, the Veil of Veronica is something different from the Shroud.

Don Enrico
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02 July 2007, 03:58 PM
Base Ten
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Enrico View Post
The Mandylion is the Image of Odessa (wiki). According to the wiki entry, it is kept today in the private chapel of the Pope in the Vatican. According to the Vatican itself, there are even two examples of the "Mandilion of Edessa", kept in Genoa and the Vatican:


Can both of them be the original? And if only one is original, it is obviously different from the Shroud, because it exists at the same time in another place.

Don Enrico
I have no knowledge of these, if they actually exist, (as some type of physical relic existing today instead of a legend or recreation), if they're claimed to be "originals" (i.e., some kind of divinely or supernaturally created object) or if they're "examples" (perhaps copies of something or recreations of legends).

I also don't know if any of them, (assuming they exist and are claimed to be authentic), have undergone the kind of extensive scientific examination that the shroud and The Sudarium of Oviedo have undergone. If anyone has links to any scientific analysis on these, please post the links. I'd love to read it. Until I review it, I'd be skeptical.

Base Ten
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02 July 2007, 04:01 PM
Base Ten
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Enrico View Post
There are at least three images of a face claimed to be the original Veronica, one at the Vatican, one in the Monastery of the Holy Face, Alicante, Spain, and one in the small village of Manoppello, Italy (wiki).

And even according to the legend, the Veil of Veronica is something different from the Shroud.

Don Enrico
Again, I'd need to see some scientific analysis to convince me.

Base Ten
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02 July 2007, 04:12 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

OK, I state for the record that I'm Jewish, and I think the shroud is an out-and-out forgery-- not anybody's burial cloth, let alone Jesus's. The provenence of the cloth is quite clear, from the time that Geoffroy de Charny exhibited it (charging an entrance fee, and selling souvenirs) in the mid 1300s to the present. Its history before that is purely speculative, along the lines of "well, there was some kind of cloth in 500 that could have been it, but we have no proof." The cloth that was removed was cleansed in the way always done to items before radiocarbon dating, so the idea that stray fibers, plant franments, etc. contaminated it is wrong. Doesn't anyone think that anything radiocarbon dated would have the same vulnerability to contamination, and a cleaning process would exist?

Repairs were made to the cloth after a fire about 250 years after its first exhibit, but at any rate, the sample wasn't taken from the fire repairs. The sample was, though, unfortunately, IIRC, take from a strip sewn on one side, that either doesn't have the image, or doesn't have the greater part of the image, but microscopic examination shows that the two sewn pieces are the same cloth. The theory is that more width was needed that the width of the cloth as woven, so it was cut at the bottom, and the cut piece sewn onto the side.

Quote:
Supposedly both cloths have stains with AB blood type, but personally I'm not convinced that the blood type from the Shroud was ever confirmed.
Umm, isn't this the least likely to be Jesus's blood type? A person with AB blood has an A-type gene from one parent, and a B-type gene from the other. Since Jesus, theoretically, had only one genetic parent, he couldn't very well have AB blood. Although, I suppose the bigger mystery is where he got his Y chromosome....

Even if you theorize that G-d somehow endowed Jesus with the paternal set of chromosomes, it seems unlikely the they would code for anything but O-type blood, since the likelihood is that O-type blood is from an unmutated gene, and A- & B-types are later developments. Of course, humans are in one sense, mutants....

The image, on the shroud, at any rate, has seriously deteriorated since 1350, because coins that were struck as souvenirs of its first (OK, first known) exhibition, show a much sharper image than the one on the shroud now.

However, to me, the biggest evidence that it's a fake is that there is no image of the top of the head.

And while it's true that people can hold whatever opinions they want, that doesn't mean that all opinions are equally likely to reflect the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02 July 2007, 04:53 PM
Base Ten
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
The provenence of the cloth is quite clear, from the time that Geoffroy de Charny exhibited it (charging an entrance fee, and selling souvenirs) in the mid 1300s to the present.
Charging an entrance fee to see something is not evidence that it's a forgery. Lots of museums do that today.

Quote:
However, to me, the biggest evidence that it's a fake is that there is no image of the top of the head.
As I said before, no matter what theory you believe, there's going to be unanswered questions.

Not that this is the answer - but if the image was created by a reflection of some type of solar ray off the surface, (even the bottom surface, since these hypothetical rays traveled through the rock of the cave (a solid object) to get to the body), then you wouldn't expect reflections from surfaces parallel to those rays (such as the top of the head or the sides of the body) to produce those reflections.

Base Ten
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02 July 2007, 05:55 PM
Base Ten
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
However, to me, the biggest evidence that it's a fake is that there is no image of the top of the head.
For me, the fact that we don't know HOW the image was produced, and have been unable to recreate it, is more an indication that it's real, than fake. I don't know if the way the image was created (assuming it was some sort of radiated energy) should have created top and side images or not. Something missing that I don't know should be there in the first place is not enough proof for me.

Base Ten
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02 July 2007, 06:15 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

Umm, an investigator named Joe Nickell pretty convincingly demonstrated that doing a rubbing onto cloth from a bas relief with powered pigment produces a startlingly close reproduction of the image on the shroud, and this technique was well known in the Middle Ages, as is was used to make, among other things, tombstone rubbings.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02 July 2007, 06:26 PM
ElectricBarbarella's Avatar
ElectricBarbarella ElectricBarbarella is offline
 
Join Date: 10 October 2001
Location: Ruskin, FL
Posts: 7,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
Umm, an investigator named Joe Nickell pretty convincingly demonstrated that doing a rubbing onto cloth from a bas relief with powered pigment produces a startlingly close reproduction of the image on the shroud, and this technique was well known in the Middle Ages, as is was used to make, among other things, tombstone rubbings.
and this is what he used to demonstrate just how someone like Davinci could have faked this.

As for the blood, BaseTen, he was stabbed in the side, piercing his lungs/stomach area--they didn't need to go as far as the heart. Yes, there would have been a considerable amount of blood doing this, not to mention how much he lost during his scourging, so it is conceivable that he lost enough to not make any kind of marking on the cloth (that is, sufficiently soak the cloath) or have it left behind in the tomb.

However and again, considering the damage this man took--the sheer amount of injuries that were given to him, this also means that if he did bleed out, either on the way to or on the cross, and considering that blood clots almost as soon as it bleeds and considering he had "wounds upon wounds" (flesh opened, bled, and then re-opened, maybe deeper), this points me in the direction of the cloth NOT being that of Jesus. There would have been nothing left to leave behind on the cloth or a very miniscule amount.

Veronica's veil is said to be his sweat. She wiped his eyes with it so he could see better.

Just from what I've seen in autopsies and crime scenes, the amount of blood that appears before/during/after death is consistent enough that we can pretty much tell time of death/manner of death/possibly how long it took to die.

That the majority of Christ's blood would have flowed during the scourging, and then after his side was pierced, tells me he had not much left.

Then there is the whole "The blood is in just the exact spots it should be in and no where else" thing. That is, only in the major areas of the shroud is there blood. If Christ was scourged and beaten as badly as is told, there would be or should be blood all over the shroud, even if dried when he was placed on it, it would still remain on the shroud. And considering the level with which the scourging occured, there might even be bits of flesh that would have become part of the cloth.

None of this exists on the Shroud of Turin. I am not sure what you are trying to do in this conversation, but it sure sounds as though you are trying to convince us of your belief in the Shroud being Christ.

As it stands, there is nothing for me to fall solidly in that camp.


toni
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02 July 2007, 06:36 PM
Base Ten
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
Umm, an investigator named Joe Nickell pretty convincingly demonstrated that doing a rubbing onto cloth from a bas relief with powered pigment produces a startlingly close reproduction of the image on the shroud, and this technique was well known in the Middle Ages, as is was used to make, among other things, tombstone rubbings.
Was this reproduction subjected (preferably by someone independent) to similar tests as the Shroud of Turin, (microscopic, chemical, etc. comparisons) to see if the results were the same? If so, can you provide a link? I'd love to read that.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02 July 2007, 07:26 PM
Base Ten
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectricBarbarella View Post
I am not sure what you are trying to do in this conversation, but it sure sounds as though you are trying to convince us of your belief in the Shroud being Christ.

As it stands, there is nothing for me to fall solidly in that camp.


toni
My beliefs are as I stated. That a preponderance of the circumstantial evidence seems to point to it being real, and that assumption seems to me would leave the least amount of unanswered questions. I'm not trying to "convince" anyone of those beliefs. Although that's the way that I'm strongly leaning, I concede the possibility that it could be fake. But a medieval fake, to me, seems unlikely.

Bringing it back to the original post...

Obviously, if it were real, Leonardo da Vinci could not have created it.

If it is a fake, and it was created before Leonardo was even born, again he could not have created it.

It if were a medieval fake, created by da Vinci (or one of his contemporaries), that leaves many questions unanswered.

Such as (among others):
- Can we duplicate that method, and do the results match the shroud in all the different ways?
Quote:
There is no observed microscopic, chemical, or spectroscopic evidence for the presence of any dry powder responsible for the body image on the TS (Adler 1999).
- Why would a forger, trying to make his work appear authentic, change widely believed and accepted details of the body - like the wrists vs. palms, or the Oriental cap of thorns rather than Western circlet crown, or the type of scourging implement that was used.

- Would a medieval forger know about the type of cloth and stiching that was found at Masada, and be able to duplicate it?

- Why is there such as coorelation between the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo, a cloth with much better documented history going back to 614?



As I've stated before, everyone is free to believe whatever they want. No one has to "be convinced" by anything I've posted. It's just my opinion, based on reading a lot on this subject and weighing the evidence (both pro and con) myself.

Base Ten
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.