Sunday, January 27, 2008

Richard C. Hoagland to appear on the Mark and Brian Show

Dark Mission co-author Richard C. Hoagland will appear on the Mark and Brian Morning drive time radio program on Tuesday, January 29th 2008 at 7:30 AM. The show is local to the Los Angeles area on KLOS 95.5 FM and syndicated nationally. The program's official website (where you can listen live) is here.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Upcoming Appearances


Just wanted to drop by and let everyone know that I will be appearing with my co-author, Richard C. Hoagland @ the Conscious Life Expo in Los Angeles, February 9-11, 2008. Richard will be giving two presentations, one on Sunday, Feb. 10th @ 12 noon, and the other on Monday the 11th @ 7PM. Richard and I will be signing books on both days, so if you want to bring your copy of Dark Mission by we'd be glad to sign them for you.

Richard is also appearing in Seattle at the "Psychic Spectrum Expo" at the Double Tree Hotel @ SeaTac Airport on Saturday, Feb. 22nd from 7-9 PM.

I still haven't decided if I'm going to the Seattle event, but it is my hometown and a chance to catch up with family and friends, so I'm leaning that way. It's just that I hate to fly.

Details on all these appearances can be found on Richard's website,

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Revisting the True Colors of Mars

Back in October 2007 we posted a blog entry on the color correction problem NASA has historically had with images taken from the Martian surface. We deal with this specifically in chapter 11 of Dark Mission, and also posted articles on it on the Enterprise Mission web site several years ago.

As we showed in those articles, NASA has deliberately altered the colors of the images to make the Martian sky appear an absurd “Technicolor red,” when in fact all the evidence clearly shows that the true color of the Martian sky is (and must be) blue – just as it is here on Earth. In fact, when we used a simple color correction tool in PhotoShop called the Auto Levels tool, Mars came out looking as Carl Sagan described it after the first Viking images in 1976 – it looked like Arizona.


Now, even though we posted links to the earlier web articles showing the evidence for why Mars skies must be blue and not red, several readers apparently didn’t read those articles and continue to insist either that the color of Mars sky should be red, or that typical auto correction tools are not appropriate for this kind of analysis.

To wit:

“Unfortunately this kind of white balance color correction does not prove anything. It only shows what the Martian landscape would look like on a sunny day under an Earth sky. The only thing we can know for sure about the "corrected" Martian sky in that picture is that it is wrong. Both the color chart and the landscape reflect light, which gets corrected. The sky on the other hand is direct light. The only way to know for sure what NASA has been doing is if we had some direct light source on the rover for which the light spectrum was known … The reason for bringing the color chart to Mars is not to get a corrected picture, but to be able to correct for the Martian light conditions such that the stones can be seen in their true colors as if they had been brought back to Earth. That is a smart thing to do if you have geologists working on classifying the stones. But sorry, this kind of color correction alchemy will never tell us if NASA is fooling us or not.”


“… It would make no sense that the colour of the Martian sky should be blue. The atmosphere on Mars is completely different than the atmosphere on Earth. The light is also traveling a greater distance to reach Mars. I have found the following excerpt on a page which explains, in detail, why the sky is blue on Earth. The page also used Mars as an example to explain why the atmosphere must be the correct composition to result in the bluing of the sky:

“’…Notice that this argument depends very little on the composition of the atmosphere. Any clear atmosphere of more or less Earthlike size and density, lit by a sun whose light appears more or less white, would result in a blue sky.

“’The color pictures from Mars Pathfinder are a spectacular reminder that the sky is not blue on Mars. Instead, it has colors that have been described as everything from "orange-pink" to "gray-tan", as was discovered in the 1970s by the Viking landers. This is because the atmosphere of Mars is very thin and dusty, and atmospheric light scattering is dominated not by the molecules of gas (in the case of Mars, mostly carbon dioxide) but by suspended dust particles. These are larger than the wavelengths of visible light, and they are reddened by iron oxide, like Martian soil. It's not just Rayleigh scattering, so the power spectrum is different…”

There are only three things wrong with these evaluations; they’re wrong, they’re wrong, and they’re wrong.

First of all, as we clearly establish in the color article on the Enterprise Mission web site, the atmosphere of Mars is not “dusty” -- at least not all the time. The article contains several earth bound telescopic images as well as Hubble images and one from Mars Global Surveyor which all show that the scattered sunlight from the air glow limb of Mars is categorically blue. You can see them here, here and here. The fact that they are all blue effectively eliminates the “suspended dust” argument as an explanation for why the sky is red on virtually all NASA images taken from the Martian surface. Clearly, if there was optically significant red dust suspended in the atmosphere of Mars on a consistent basis, the repeated orbital and ground based telescopic photography would reflect this. They do not.

Further, as this NASA press release explains, even the planetary scientists at NASA expected the sky to be blue in the Pathfinder images. To quote: "If dust diffuses to the landing site, the sky could turn out to be pink like that seen by Viking ... otherwise Pathfinder will likely show blue sky with bright clouds.” [emphasis added].

We can also discount the presence of this reddish dust as a factor in the red skies of Mars by using another scientific methodology; simply looking at the shadows that are cast.

If there were vast quantities of reddish dust in the sky obscuring the direct sunlight, then the shadows cast by the rocks and hills would have to be diffuse and fuzzy. In fact, if you look at the majority of NASA surface images of Mars, the shadows are distinct and sharp, meaning the sunlight is not being significantly obscured or diffused – either by clouds or the mythical “reddish dust.” This constitutes an absolute, inviolable proof (based on fundamental optical physics) that “red dust” cannot be the reason that Mars skies appear red in so many NASA processed images.

Now, as to the other statement that “The only way to know for sure what NASA has been doing is if we had some direct light source on the rover for which the light spectrum was known …” Well, we have an answer for that one too.

The fact is, we do have a “direct light source on the rover for which the light spectrum is known...”

It’s called the Sun.

Since, as we’ve already established, dust and clouds are not a factor in the rover images we have posted, then the rover itself (and the color chart on it) are being subjected to “direct sunlight.” Since the Sun is a fairly common “G-class star,” its visible light spectrum is well known (see here). So, in the absence of significant diffusion caused by red dust or heavy clouds, we can expect that the surface of Mars will look pretty much like the surface of the Earth under the same direct sunlight. Therefore, using a tool like the auto balance feature in PhotoShop to correct the color chart so that it appears as it did on Earth is a perfectly valid technique, and one which should produce results that accurately reflect what objects on the surface of Mars truly look like.

But you don’t have to take our word for it. We're not the only ones to have reached this scientifically-based conclusion.

Ron Levin is the son of Viking Labeled Release Experiment Principal Investigator, Dr. Gil Levin. The younger Levin is an MIT-graduate physicist, currently working for Lockheed-Martin, who has, independently, carried out his own analysis of the "color anomalies" seen in the NASA rover images. Ron’s story of how he almost got kicked out of JPL in 1976 for correcting the color on the public monitors is told in Dark Mission.

In one recent paper on the NASA surface color imagery, titled "Color Calibration of Spirit and Opportunity Rover Images," Levin writes:

“... images of the [rover] color calibration chart taken on Mars for the express purpose of verifying calibration seem to be in reasonable agreement with calibration images taken on Earth under Earth-like illumination conditions. However, calibration charts shown inadvertently on production panoramic images are not compatible with those images made for the express purpose of calibration [emphasis added] ...."

In other words, NASA is deliberately altering the colors of the Martian surface and sky, as an examination of the color calibration charts shows.

Which is what we’ve been saying all along here.

Levin's detailed color analysis is presented here:

So, despite what our posters would like to believe, the “suspended dust argument” simply doesn’t fly (pun intended). The only significant factor in the color of the Martian sky is Rayleigh scattering, no matter what the person quoted in the post above wants to believe.

But what about Mars atmospheric density or composition, as the other poster mentioned? Doesn’t that affect Rayleigh scattering?

In a word; no.

Rayleigh scattering is a phenomenon that is a function of sunlight’s interaction with gas molecules of a given size in a planetary atmosphere. Whether those molecules are oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide or something else (like hydrogen or helium) makes no difference. All these molecules are basically the same size ... and thus will scatter blue light most effectively.

Nor does the “distance from the sun” make a difference in the spectra of light that is emanated from our Sun. The fact is the colors on the surface of Mars should look virtually identical to the colors on the surface of Earth to a human observer, because essentially the same direct sunlight is coming from the same sun and passing through a Rayleigh scattering atmosphere, exactly like it does on Earth. Only the intensity of sunlight on Mars is different because of the increased distance from the sun. The colors -- though the same -- are somewhat dimmer due to this minor decrease in total solar luminosity. But this affect is minimal: most sunny days on Mars are far brighter than an average cloudy day in Seattle, for instance.

And, as Dr. Levin points out in another paper on Mars color image calibration (, there is yet another “proof” that skies on Mars are blue, and not red. The source of this “proof” is also unimpeachable –

It is the Rovers themselves.

As Levin points out in his second paper, the current Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity (as well as their predecessor, the Pathfinder rover Sojourner), literally carry on their backs all the proof we will ever need that our thesis is correct. It comes in the form of the solar panels on the rovers themselves.

Unlike the earlier Viking landers, which were powered by a radioisotope thermo-electric generators (RTGs) fueled by plutonium – sort of a mini nuclear reactor -- the current generation of Mars explorers get their energy a completely different way. The Sojourner, Spirit and Opportunity rovers are powered by solar cells that convert light from the sun and sky (i.e. both “direct” and “scattered” light sources) into electrical energy. However, this energy conversion is much more efficient in a specific part of the spectral bands that illuminate Mars, the blue and the green. Red light, in fact, is extremely inefficient for this purpose compared to blue and green light, and if the skies on Mars truly were as red as indicated by the official NASA photographs, this would have resulted in at least a 25% reduction in energy output from the rovers solar panels. This has not occurred on any of the missions (as determined by both direct telemetry of the minute-by-minute power-generation capabilities of all the rover solar panels, as well as monitoring of their overall power consumption curves).

As a result, we can now safely conclude that the skies on Mars must be predominantly blue, and not red.

We can further surmise that NASA technicians and engineers must certainly have known this well before the rover mission were approved, otherwise they would not have chosen to put solar panels on the rovers at all.
There is one final test which can be applied to prove the accuracy of all our technical assertions on this issue.

As it turns out, the sands of Mars are not red, as NASA has consistently asserted with their laughable color correction. In reality, the real surface of Mars tends to be more of flat yellow-red to salmon color, as many independent color corrections show. We can prove this by simply looking at some images of Mars when there is a lot dust suspended in the atmosphere – like during a major dust storm. When we examine these images, the atmospheric limb changes from a pure Raleigh scattered blue to an intense green (see here). As we all know from our experiences in finger painting in Kindergarten, you only get green by adding yellow to blue. Adding red to blue would produce not green, but purple or violet. So that means that the green scattered limb color is a result of yellowish dust interacting with a predominantly blue Rayleigh-scattered Martian sky.

What this also means is that if NASA’s color images from the surface of Mars were really an accurate reflection of a sky filled with dust, then that sky in virtually all the surface images would tend to be tinted green, not “Technicolor red.” Now, has anybody seen an official NASA Rover image with diffuse shadows and a green tinted sky, like a scene out of Forbidden Planet? If so, we’d like to see it.

So not only is our color correction technique scientifically valid, it is just one of many proofs reinforcing our most critical underlying assumption…

NASA lies.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Mike Bara on Shadows in the Dark Radio

Dark Mission co-author Mike Bara will appear on the Shadows in the Dark internet radio program on Thursday, January 17th, 2008 at 10PM Eastern, 7 PM Pacific.


Friday, January 11, 2008

Dark Mission co-author Richard C. Hoagland will appear on the Dennis Miller Radio show Monday, January 14th, 2008

Dark Mission co-author Richard C. Hoagland will appear on the Dennis Miller radio program on Monday, January 14th. The Dennis Miller program runs from 10AM to 1PM Eastern time Monday thru Friday. The program's official web site is here.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

“Professor Fulcanelli” Fails Basic Logic Test

For several weeks in October and November, a negative review on by somebody calling himself “Professor Fulcanelli” hovered near the top of our customer reviews section. Leaving aside for a second the significance of the pseudonym, this person, whoever he is (and we think we know) has chimed in on our very successful book “Dark Mission – The Secret History of NASA” with a review pompously titled “Dark Mission fails basic fact checking.”

In his review he then lays out a series of “facts” that he claims “do not seem to stand up to a pretty basic fact checking.” In reality almost all of his claims of factual deficiencies are either not based on facts at all, but are simply his opinion (and we all know what opinions are like), or they are simply dead flat wrong. Based on this, subsequently removed the “review.” But, since James Oberg has cited it as if he considered it a substantive review, I couldn’t help but respond to the idiocy it contains.

Now, everyone has an opinion and “Professor Fulcanelli” is certainly entitled to his. But to pretend that his anti-Dark Mission diatribe is based on factual errors in the book is quite frankly laughable. Let’s go over his issues with the book one by one and compare his claims with objective reality:

First, he recites a few passages from page 251 of our book concerning Runway 33 at Cape Canaveral, then drags in a few more sentences from an article on the Enterprise Mission web site. Forgetting for the moment it is intellectually fallacious to use passages that aren’t even in the book to attack the book in a “review,” let’s examine what he then goes on to claim.

In the web article, we wrote:

“And the Cape itself, "Cape Canaveral" translates to English as the "Cape of Reeds." And what ancient Egyptian god was associated with reeds?

Osiris, of course. They may have just as well called it the Cape of Osiris.”

Professor Fulcanelli then goes on to make the following citation:

“According to Wikipedia, ‘The name "Canaveral" (Cañaveral in Spanish) was given to the area by Spanish explorers. It literally means "canebrake". The name can be interpreted as "Cape of Canes"

This is of course irrelevant in the extreme, since the passage he cites is from a web article and not our book, but he is still wrong. First off, the Wikipedia article he uses to bolster his claim does indeed contain the quote he included, but like so much of what is on the Wikipedia website, it is unreferenced. So his sole source for claiming that Cape Canaveral means “Cape of Canes” rather than “Cape of Reeds” is a sentence from an article on a web site that is well known for its inaccuracy that does not even contain a reference.

Now, to be fair, we do cite Wikipedia once in the 171 references and citations in Dark Mission, but that was a last minute addition and will be replaced in the revised edition. However, this does not change the fact that an unreferenced Wikipedia citation hardly qualifies as an authoritative source.

Had PF actually been interested in getting to the truth, he might have gone to any number of Florida history sites (like this one: which show that “Canaveral (as in Cape Canaveral) means ‘place of reeds or cane.’” In addition, if he knew anything about reeds or cane, he would know that they grow in identical environments, and are almost always found together, and in fact are from the same general family of flora. In short, where you find cane, you usually also find reeds.

So undeniably, our facts in this case are categorically correct, and his claim is completely wrong, not mention it’s not even in our book.

Next, he cites yet another unreferenced Wikipedia source to claim that the Cape was selected for NASA’s launch site simply because of its southern location. We find that amusing, since we never argued otherwise. However, NASA could have selected any number of spots along the Florida east coast to build their launch facility and still had the same benefit, and they (just by coincidence) selected an area that is symbolically associated with the Egyptian god Osiris.

Again, he is entitled to disagree with us as to whether this is significant, but that is still just his opinion, not a factual deficiency.

PF then goes on to make another spurious “factual finding” regarding the designation of Runway 33 at the Cape:

"The numbering depends on upon the compass headings. The same runway has two different numbers depending upon the direction of approach of the aircraft, in KSC's case, nos. 15 and 33. The entire complex (pads, mobile launch platforms, crawlers, roads, VAB) is designated 39. Unlike the other launch complexes (34, 37, etc.) 39 has more than one pad, hence A & B.

Runway information:

"Runways are identified by numbers that indicate the compass heading of the runway centerline to the nearest 10º. For example, a runway aligned on a heading of 183º (nearly South) would be Runway 18. Its opposite end would be Runway 36, representing the reciprocal of 180 degrees."

(The examples given below are the exact numbers of the KSC runway) "Number designations are painted on each runway. These are determined by the runway's magnetic direction. Assume, for example, that a runway is oriented in a southeasterly direction with a compass heading of 145°. This is rounded up to the nearest ten degree number (145° in this case becomes 150°) and the final zero is dropped.

This runway's number becomes 15. Similarly, if we consider the position that is 180 degrees opposite this, the resultant compass heading is 330°. Because this number doesn't need to be rounded upward, we simply drop the final zero and the runway becomes number 33. An aircraft using this runway would be taking off in the opposite direction from that in the first example." End of Quote.

In short, runways are numbered in reference to magnetic headings and launch sites go from number 1 to over 40, so 39 or 33 or any other number in that range has to come up somewhere. These are not some arbitrary numbers that are picked by NASA to fit some nonexistent Egyptian/Masonic/Nazi symbolism as implied in the book.

It was really great that he could do all that research, but again, it is completely irrelevant to a review of our book, since A) we never said that magnetic headings were not a factor in numbering runways, and B) the pad 39a and 39b references don’t even appear in Dark Mission.

Our point, or course, is that NASA built the runway with a magnetic heading of “33” deliberately, just as the launch pad at White Sands was designated “launch pad 33” deliberately. Once again, he tries to chide us for not fact checking something we never even said.

At least the next claim is about something that is actually in Dark Mission…

Now let's take a look at Page 249, quote: "In fact, throughout antiquity there is a pattern of paying special homage to the number "thirty-three." Clearly, the authors of the Old Testament believed that the number itself was the key to many things, that it somehow held tremendous power. Some Biblical scholars have referred to Jeremiah 33:3 as "god's phone number," the moment of darkness for Jeremiah, where God shows him how he can be reached and how the powers he possesses can be accessed: "Call on me in prayer and I will answer you. I will show you great and mysterious things which you still do not know." End of Quote.

It is called cherry picking, fudging the data, and taking things completely out of context, if the quote above can be called "the data" to begin with. Throughout antiquity, one can find numerous numbers. No credible biblical scholar has ever claimed that number 33 is special in any way. The authors of the Old Testament believed in many things that are gibberish, including that the Earth is flat and that children should be stoned to death for misbehavior. But regardless of any of that, there is absolutely nothing in the Old or New Testaments that gives special treatment to 33 or 19.5.

Why didn't Hoagland and Bara mention that almost every book of the Old or New Testament has 19:5 and or 33:3 chapter/verse combination? Why not quote from those? Almost all of them talk either about God or prayers to God. The majority of text in the Bible is about God's promises, prayer to God, etc. Is this a big surprise? We are talking about the Bible after all. None of it, however, says or even implies that 33 is special.

Once again, in this section he expresses his opinion that the number 33 has no significance in antiquity, along with his obviously intense anti-Semitic bias. But once again, this is not a fact that can be disputed or is in contention; it’s just his ill considered opinion. We simply noted that the famous verse known as “God’s phone number” is numbered 33:3. As to the idea of looking through all the 33’s and 19.5’s in the Bible, that’s a project I’ve had in mind for years and will eventually sit down and do. The point is, this is not “fact” that is in dispute. “God’s phone number” is Jeremiah 33:3, period, just as we wrote in the book.

Now let's take a look at Page 250, quote: "So if "thirty-three" is a key code to figuring out how to access the "power of the gods," why do we see Sirius at 19.5- above the Apollo 11 landing site, instead of 33s? How do the two numbers connect--if at all?" End of Quote.

But 33 is not a key to figuring out how to access the "power of the gods." Where does God say in the Bible that 33 is a key number to anything? Where does God even mention number 33 in the Bible?

If one wants to make a case for access to the power of the God, it makes much more sense to quote Matthew 21:21, quote: "Then Jesus told them, "I assure you, if you have faith and don't doubt, you can do things like this and much more. You can even say to this mountain, `May God lift you up and throw you into the sea,' and it will happen." End of Quote. And Matthew 21:22, quote: "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." End of Quote. But obviously, 21:21 and or 21:22 does not fit into the whole "33 is somehow significant" fantasy, so they cherry picked Jeremiah 33:3 and took it completely out of context.

Unfortunately, here PF really begins to break down. We never said anything in Dark Mission claiming that God said in the bible the number 33 is significant, nor did we make reference to any biblical passages as unlocking the power of the gods or God. The quote from page 250 is a reference to the earlier discussions of tetrahedral or hyperdimensional physics, not biblical passages.

Next, he goes after our reference to one of the mathematical connections between the numbers 19.5 and 33:

Page 250 Continued, quote: "Engineer and probabilities expert Mary Anne Weaver (who would later do some crucial probability work on Hoagland's developing "ritual alignment model") has studied the possible mathematical linkage between the two numbers. She first pointed out that one of the basic trigonometric functions of a circumscribed tetrahedron, the sine of 19.471--the canonical "circumscribed tetrahedral '19.5 angle" at Cydonia--is .3333. That would be merely interesting if it were the only mathematical link between the numbers, but there is another, even more "symbolic" link." End of Quote.

What Mary Anne Weaver said is irrelevant. And here is why. According to Weaver's website, she is NOT a probabilities expert and she has admitted - on that same website - that her paper (the so-called "crucial probability work on Hoagland's developing "ritual alignment model"") is flawed, because it contains mistakes which she does not have resources and or knowledge to fix. It states plainly on her website, quote "I am not a statistics expert." End of Quote, and, quote "THERE ARE ERRORS IN THIS STATISTICS PAPER THAT I HAVE NOT HAD THE CHANCE TO CORRECT. They do undermine the conclusions of this paper." End of Quote.

Of course, there is no mention of any of this in the book, which seriously undermines author's credibility, don't you think?

Sadly, here the “Professor” descends into self-parody. Once again, he cites facts which are indisputable, then seems to want to take issue with them. Whether or not Mary Anne Weaver is or is not a “probabilities expert” is irrelevant to the question of the mathematical link which is cited. The sine of 19.471 is .3333, exactly as we wrote in Dark Mission. Remind me again where this is a failure of “basic fact checking?”

As to Mary’s credibility as a probabilities expert, the fact is in her daily job she calculates probabilities all the time. As to her statement that she is “not a statistics expert,” we never said she was, as the quoted passage from Dark Mission clearly proves. She is however an engineer who does probabilities calculations on an almost daily basis.

Now, as to her quote regarding the conclusions of her paper, PF is right, we don’t deal with it in Dark Mission, but his characterization that her paper “is flawed, because it contains mistakes which she does not have resources and or knowledge to fix” is once again simply fallacious. She spent a great deal of time on the paper and simply doesn’t have more time to spend on a revised version of it.

Now, we actually disagree with her assessment that any minor mistakes she may have made “undermine the conclusions of this paper.” We have no doubt that it is a somewhat flawed piece of research, but the question is, how flawed? PF doesn’t tell his readers that her initial conclusions put the odds in favor of our Ritual Alignment Model being correct at 19 billion to one. Yes, that’s Billion, with a “B”. Or the number 19 followed by nine zeros.

So, let’s assume that her calculations were off by 50%. We personally think the error rate is far smaller than that, but let’s use it anyway. That reduces the odds against chance from 19 billion to one all the way to 9.5 billion to one. As Captain Kirk once memorably put it; those are pretty good odds, Mr. Spock.

But let’s take it further. What if she was off by 70%? Then, the odds drop all the way to 5.7 billion to one. 90%? Only 1.9 billion to one in our favor. I could go on, but you get the point. Even if Mary Anne was 99.999% percent wrong, we still are looking at odds of 19 million to one that the ritual alignments we cited are beyond any chance occurrence. And PF thinks there is something nefarious because we didn’t go into this in depth in Dark Mission? Now that he mentions it, I’m going to make sure I include this study in the revised edition.

Finally, poor Professor Fulcanelli steps into one last logical quagmire of his own creation…

But Hoagland and Bara don't stop there, they go on to claim that NASA has orchestrated two Apollo landings to coincide with, wait for it, Hitler's date of birth of April 20th. (Page 253). How can they prove that? They cannot, of course.

Of all the really stupid things he put in his “review,” this has to be the capper. First, we never said that two “Apollo landings” took place on Hitler’s birthday. On the pages he cites we clearly write that NASA landed two missions on the Moon on Hitler’s birthday, Apollo 16, and Surveyor 3. These are indisputable facts.

Obviously, this poor buffoon hasn’t even read the book, at least not closely. While the title of his review claims to be about fact checking, not one of the “facts” he cites are anything more than his opinion, and all of the actual facts that he quotes from our book are indisputably correct. In the end, his review simply points out his own lack of thoroughness and intellectual acumen, as he consistently misinterprets the obvious and fails to understand what he reads. In fact, it is so utterly stupid, so devoid of anything even approaching intellectual discourse, that I at first thought that expat must be the author.

As the saying goes, I’d match wits with him, but he’s only half prepared. I shall pillory him no further.

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Welcome Back!

And Happy New Year to Everybody. I'll be updating comments and adding new stuff over the next few days. Hope you all had a safe and happy holiday season.