20 Septembre 2017 - 22:10:38
Bienvenue, Invité. Veuillez vous connecter ou vous inscrire.
« Signes des tempsSignesTémoignagesTriangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005 »
 (Lu 37395 fois) [1] 2

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« le: 08 Février 2005 - 22:40:49 » par Mathieu


L'image ci-dessus représente la vision qu'a eu Régis hier soir, le 7 février 2005, vers 21h50.

Ce dessin a été réalisé par mes soins, les couleurs du triangles ne sont donc pas fidèles.

Voici maintenant le dessin que j'ai reçu ce matin de la part de Régis, sans doute plus fidèle donc :

(Cette observation étant relayée sur le site de Whitley Strieber, http://www.unknowncountry.com/, je fais une "petite traduction" simultanée pour nos amis d'un peu partout à travers le monde)

Citation
The picture above is a re-creation of what Regis saw last night, the 02-07-2005, 9h50 pm.

I have made this drawing, triangle colors do not really match what Regis saw.

Below is the drawing Regis emailed me :





En discutant sur place, tout à l'heure, il m'a expliqué que quelqu'un d'éloigné ne l'aurait sans doute pas vu parce que sa couleur se confondait presque avec celle du ciel. Voici donc une image de mon interprétation de ses dires :

Citation
I've talk with him tonight and he explained me that for someone a few distance away from there, this object would have been invisible or so, because the colors were nearly the same as night-sky. Here is a picture I think looks like what could be seen :





Ci-dessous un plan de situation, le nord étant en haut. L'objet allait donc exactement de l'ouest vers l'est (j'ai vérifié avec ma boussole sur place). Régis était placé exactement au milieu du petit square.

Citation
Here is a map of the block, North up. The object went strictly from West to East (I've check with my compass on site). Regis was standing in the middle of the square.




A nouveau le plan de situation, le fond étant éclairci pour offrir une meilleure vision du triangle et de son trajet. La croix représente la position du témoin. Il regardait en direction de l'est, c'est-à-dire vers la droite sur cette image. Sur cette image, le triangle se trouve au-dessus de l'immeuble qui l'a masqué en fin d'observation, comme représenté sur la première photo de cette page.

Citation
Here again the map, background enlightened to better show the triangle and his path. The cross shows witness's location. He was looking toward East, meaning to the right of this picture. On this picture, the triangle is over the building behind witch it went away, as shown on the first photo of this page.




Nous avons donc discuté pendant environ une demie heure sur les lieux, et j'ai noté le maximum de paramètres quant à cette observation. Il est possible que j'oublie d'en mentionner certains, n'hésitez pas à me demander de préciser si nécessaire.

La taille du triangle au moment de sa disparition derrière l'immeuble est estimée par rapport au pignon, en forme de tour carrée. Selon Régis, la base du triangle avait à peu près la taille apparente de l'arrête de cette sorte de tour carrée. Le coin droit "touchait" pratiquement le coin gauche de cette tour. La reconstitution est donc fidèle sur ce point.



Citation
Like every evenings, Regis was walking around with his dog. A friend was sitting behind him, on a bench near the railway. This friend was playing with the dog and Regis was standing in the middle of the square, contemplating the stars in the sky. Nightsky was pretty dark on this night, like tonight, and this is uncommon in Paris.

Not looking back, he told his friend to look at the sky, to admire beauty. Telling this, Regis looked right above him and saw this triangle exactly above his head. It was moving fast, and Regis was so fascinated he couldn't say anything. The object vanished behind the building 2 or 3 seconds later, and then Regis turned back to his friend and asked him if he saw that. But his friend was looking at another azimuth and hadn't seen anything strange !


Régis était comme chaque soir en train de promener son chien dans le square. Un ami était assis derrière lui, sur un des bancs le long de la voie ferrée. Cet ami et le chien jouaient, pendant que Régis profitait de la clareté du ciel pour admirer les étoiles, ce qui n'est pas toujours facile à Paris. Hier soir, comme ce soir d'ailleurs, les étoiles étaient bien visibles, le ciel étant particulièrement sombre.

Sans se retourner vers son ami, il lui a dit d'admirer lui aussi le ciel, tout en levant les yeux vers le zénith. Le triangle était justement en train de passer exactement au-dessus de lui. Il était tellement étonné et fasciné par cette vision qu'il n'a pas dit un mot jusqu'à sa disparition derrière l'immeuble, puis s'est tourné vers son ami et lui a demandé si lui aussi avait vu cet engin. Malheureusement celui-ci regardait un autre endroit du ciel, plus vers le sud !

En levant les bras au ciel pour m'indiquer la taille apparente de l'objet, il écarte les mains d'un mètre. Il dessine ensuite sur le sable du square une projection verticale du triangle : sa base mesure 3m50. Il ne s'agit pas de la taille du triangle s'il s'était posé dans le square, mais son envergure apparente dans le ciel. Certains pourront peut être s'amuser à corréler cette donnée avec le mètre d'écartement entre les mains tendues vers le ciel de Régis qui mesure environ 1m85 et dont les bras mesurent environ 1m (ne pas oublier de retirer la hauteur de la tête et du cou). Mais sur place cela m'a paru cohérent.

La hauteur de l'objet est estimée à deux fois la taille de l'immeuble, soit une douzaine d'étages. J'ai mesuré approximativement l'angle de vision du sommet de cet immeuble vu depuis le centre du square et j'obtiens 30°. Sachant que l'objet a été vu entre le zénith (90°) et ces 30° pendant environ 3 secondes, nous pouvons si nécessaire calculer la vitesse angulaire.

Aucun bruit n'a été entendu. Aucune lumière clignotante ni fixe n'a été notée. Les plaques rectangulaires à chaque angle sont simplement des "plaques" plus claires. La texture de l'ensemble est décrite comme du métal non brillant, mais lisse. L'objet est perçu comme ayant une épaisseur, mais comme s'il était bombé ou en pente sur le dessus (pas une sorte de rebord). La forme triangulaire intérieure est en renfoncement vers l'intérieur de l'objet.

Régis ne m'a pas signalé un comportement anormal de son chien.

Ce petit square est situé le long de la voie ferrée qui part de Montparnasse, a l'angle de la rue d'Alesia et de la rue Vercingetorix, dans le 14eme arrondissement, soit donc au sud de la capitale.

Régis m'a paru parfaitement sincère et sain d'esprit. Evidemment un canular est toujours possible, mais je n'en vois aucun indice pour l'instant. Il a dejà été témoin d'un phénomène ovni qui avait fait l'objet d'un article de L'Yonne Républicaine au printemps 1980 ou 1981 (sans doute en mars). 3 "oeufs" lumineux avaient fait un drôle de parcours dans le ciel, et plusieurs témoins avaient fait déposition à la gendarmerie ou à la police. Une autre fois, en avion au-dessus du Brésil, dans les années 90, il a vu une sphère lumineuse rouge se rapprocher de l'avion puis s'en éloigner à grande vitesse. Dans son enfance, suite à son observation dans l'Yonne, il a lu plusieurs livres sur le sujet, mais ne s'y intéressait plus depuis des années (vie active).

Voila, je ne vois pas quoi ajouter, mais si vous avez des questions...

Mathieu

Citation
Pour la traduction approximative et maladroite, au lieu de rigoler doucement... merci de m'envoyer votre version ;-)
Journalisée

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« Répondre #1 le: 09 Février 2005 - 14:49:45 » par Vincent
Bonjour, je poste une petite réflexion.

Il y a t-il une relation entre le témoignage de "Marc" du 30 06 2004 et cette observation ?

http://signes.coza.net/forum/t52_triangles_au_dessus_Paris_30_06_2004.html

Peut être un couloir de passage.
222 jours entre le passage des triangles.

@ +
Journalisée

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« Répondre #2 le: 09 Février 2005 - 14:55:19 » par Mathieu
hello,

Je ne sais pas, même si je n'ai pas pu m'empêcher de me poser la question moi aussi. "Marc", c'était moi ; mais Régis c'est bien Régis, cette fois. Bon, il y a deux choses qui ne correspondent pas. D'abord la trajectoire, mais ça, ils font ce qu'ils veulent après tout. Et surtout la description de l'objet. Régis est très précis et ça ne correspond pas du tout à ce que j'avais vu de mon coté.

Mais bon, ça reste des triangles au-dessus de Paris...

On me signale aussi par ailleurs que c'était la veille de la visite de la visite de Condoleezza Rice.

A+
Mathieu
Journalisée

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« Répondre #3 le: 09 Février 2005 - 18:31:12 » par gizmo
Citation
On me signale aussi par ailleurs que c'était la veille de la visite de la visite de Condoleezza Rice.


euh...une remarque qui n'est pas une critique:
je serais une nation qui aurait les moyens de faire voler ce genre d'engin, j'irais pas spécialement espionner ma secrétaire d'état...et je serais un petit homme vert aux commandes de cet engin: je regarderais CNN...ça me couterait moins cher en carburant................désolé. Ferais plus de remarque désobligeante...c'est promis...pas frapper, pas frapper missier!
Journalisée

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« Répondre #4 le: 10 Février 2005 - 00:15:01 » par Mathieu
non non, pas de problème gizmo, tes remarques sont les bienvenues et je crois que je pense à peu près la même chose que toi sur cette "suggestion". Tu sais d'où elle venait de toute façon, je n'ai fait que reporter ;-)

A+
Mathieu
Journalisée

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« Répondre #5 le: 10 Février 2005 - 20:48:18 » par urban yogi
Les remarques sont interessante et je pense que l'on ne peut pas sous estimer le lien avec la venue du secretaire d'état des US.
Mais une chose est sure c'est que lorsque j'ai vu cet engin au dessus de ma tete j'ai eu une sensation trés étrange qui me pousse a penser que ce que j'ai vu n'était pas une construction humaine. Même si l'objet était sombre dans le noir je l'ai bien vu. Il ressemble à d'autres obversations de triangle si ce n'est qu'il n'avait pas de lumière activé. J'ai cependant noté des réflecteurs à chaque coin qui pourraient etre des lumières éteintes. Il y avait aussi autre partie au centre que je n'ai pas bien vu a cause de l'obcurité mais cela pourai etre une ouverture un cercle ou une demie sphére (ici je fais juste une suggestion et non une véritable description).
Voila c'est vraiment domage qu'il n'y ai pas eu d'autre observateur ce soir la!
REGIS
Journalisée

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« Répondre #6 le: 10 Février 2005 - 21:37:11 » par Georges2
That flying triangle looks like the US black budget TR-3B, a negative energy (electrogravity) lofted aircraft. See the following website for a report quoting Dr. Edgar Rothschild Fouche, US defense contractor, about how he helped work on the flying triangle. http://robocat.users.btopenworld.com/tr3b.htm

Edgar "Rothschild" Fouche? What, you may wonder, is the Rothschild derivation? Those who know about other Rothschild family involvement in what is known as "the cabal," a narco-dealing criminal enterprise that profits by so-called reverse-engineered technology (and appears to favor Sharon factions in Israel) may wonder whether the TR-3B story is part of a larger plan to draw us all in to a US black budget staging of aerial technology. But why?

Fouche aside (he may be better than most), could it be that the US wants to wow the people of France, like they seem to have "wowed" Tony Blair into allowing basing of the TR-3B in Britain, reportedly, to put up a slightly intimidating display over Paris JUST IN TIME FOR CONDI RICE TO COME TO PARIS and attempt a reapproachment? Imagine, US cronies may even go back to calling their fast food "French fries" instead of the Orwellian "freedom fries" touted by Bush family apologists.

Is the TR-3B being lofted in French skies to draw the French government into the shut-up-and-obey US program of keeping all alien related subjects secret from the public? Fresh on the heels of inviting Chirac into the brutalization of Haiti, Bush seems to be leaving the door open---for elites only. No commoners need apply. The TR-3B, like other COSMIC Top Secret technologies is meant to wow you and tempt you to keep your mouth shut.

What is "negative energy?" Read the January 2000 article in Scientific American titled "Negative Energy, Wormholes and Warp Drive" by two PhD's, one of whom studied under the man who co-authored Einstein's electromagnetic field theory, the other of whom studied under John Archibal Wheeler, co-author with Richard Feynman, of "absorber theory" (part of the basis for a new understanding of negative energy, electrogravity and the new science of condensed state physics. See the writings of Tom Bearden for more details.)

Coming soon to the skies over France: narco shipments, courtesy of Operation Monarch (see the book Disclosure by Steven Greer for details). Also see Welcome to Terrorland, by Daniel Hopsicker. Both are required reading.

Here's one writer's summary of negative energy--to help you get a better understanding of how it occurs (from a book in progress by G. LoBuono, writer and researcher in CA)

"When the Cosmic-scale Meets the Micro-scale

   So, what is this new "electrogravity" that can either make or break the future of an entire planet? First off, it isn't new. It's part of the fundamental basis for many phenomena in our daily lives. Secondly, it frames many alien thought processes in much the same way that electricity frames human thought processes. One note of caution: some hyper-advanced aliens may have exceeded the notion of electrogravity by defining their existence in terms of yet deeper alternative cycles, not just the negative cycle that defines electrogravity. By doing so, they will have made their minds and technology sensitive to multiversal dynamics--which most humans wouldn't understand, at this point.
   
For a more basic understanding of electrogravity, we turn to retired Navy Col. Tom Bearden. Tom Bearden is an engineer, a friendly, bearded older gentleman who has written about his various encounters with electrogravity technology during his career. Here's Bearden's quick summary of electrogravity:  When light waves converge along three different axes so that opposing light waves cancel each other out, they bleed into electrogravity. Simple isn't it?
   
Let's re-state the idea, just to be clear. Remember the x, y, and z axes of those point-coordinate graphs that you did in high school? Bearden says that when two different light waves snake toward each other from opposite directions along each of three axes so that the rolling hump in each light wave exactly mirrors and cancels out the opposing light wave along each axis, the energy "bleeds into electrogravity." All you have to do, says Bearden, is vary the energy potential in such a convergence to produce electrogravity. *Author’s note: you would have to capture the energy with another device and would have to condition the environment to prevent uncontrolled damage of a larger sort.

Remember how your high school science teacher said that, when light waves cancel each other out, they disappear? It's called "destructive interference." That's what Bearden is talking about. Bearden says that if we do it right, the energy bleeds into an extra dimension (as electrogravity). Bearden isn't the only one who says this. In the Jan. 2000 issue of Scientific American is an article on "negative energy" by physicists Lawrence H. Ford and Thomas A. Roman. Both are physics PhD's: Ford was taught by John Archibald Wheeler, and Roman was taught by a co-author and contemporary of Einstein. In the article, Ford and Roman write that scientists can now converge lasers in a vacuum, which causes "squeezed state fluctuations in the vacuum of space-time." Such fluctuations are called "negative energy," places where the energy level is actually "less than zero." So, how can energy be less than zero? Easy, says Bearden---it bleeds into extra dimension---as electrogravity (negative energy).

But that's not all. Bearden says the converse is also true: Destructive interference of electrogravity bleeds back into electromagnetism (light waves). Bearden says that the relationship between electromagnetism (light) and electrogravity is reciprocal, like two fractions that are upside-down reciprocals of each other.

If all of this sounds confusing, try to visualize light waves snaking toward each other, then read the last four paragraphs above again. Electrogravity tucks the converging energy down into rapidly fluctuating, multiple places, in a sense. It goes deeper.

Aliens suggest that when we produce electrogravity it bleeds into the larger space-time--where it does a neat little trick. As Bearden says, electrogravity can actually speed the flow of time in precise, measured amounts throughout that same section of space-time. Bearden goes so far as to re-state Einstein's famous equation as E=Δt c2   In other words, Bearden says that mass is equivalent to Δt, the change in time. Sounds relatively innocuous, doesn't it?

Think again. What Bearden is saying, and what aliens have repeatedly confirmed in explicit communications, is that electrogravity can speed the flow of time, perhaps even allowing for a kind of fluctuation into past time (not concretely, we presume). So, what does that mean? It means that electrogravity isn't "free." It comes at a cost because it speeds the flow of time, ever so slightly shortening the life of the surrounding continuum. This means that a reckless overuse of electrogravity could conceivably shorten the life of our sun, for example.  Some of those "gray" aliens that you may have read about have reported that their original planet was rendered uninhabitable by a large-scale misuse of electrogravity.

So, there are both risks and a larger kind of ecology surrounding the use of electrogravity. It needs to be globally regulated. We need to do so within a better international legal framework, i.e. the World Court, and more. Weapons and greed are no excuse for failing to do so because electrogravity is essentially about human (and other) commonality. Aliens further suggest that Δt effects of electrogravity must be moderated by countervailing negative energy dynamics. In other words, to prevent uncontrolled damage to a given environment, electrogravity must be used sparingly. Aliens suggest that it be used only where necessary, in conjunction with conventional, long-term energy technologies such as solar, and other alternatives. Apparently, the least harmful uses of electrogravity are microgravitic—tiny scale uses of a limited sort, i.e. for medical and other purposes.

Some readers are probably thinking, Now, wait a minute:  if you speed up the flow of time in one place, wouldn’t it slow time down somewhere else? This appears to be the case. Within the focus of electrogravity, time appears to slow down, albeit at a sum total cost to the universe’s lifetime. On the other hand, if we can speed the flow of time, we could use electrogravity to speed the clock on radioactive wastes in order to make them harmless. An advanced use of electrogravity could run the clock on dangerous radioactive isotopes and clear them from the environment and from the human body.
   
If you're still confused, let me offer some easy, visual ways of thinking about electrogravity. Much as you learned in high school, there's a larger conservation within the universe. You just can't get something for nothing. Although the universe has expanded ever since the beginning (and continues to do so), some of the universe is either slowly condensing together (fusion) in stars, or disappearing inward--into black holes. In sum, as space expands, part of the universe is cycling into denser and denser forms--which provide a fundamental underlying basis for all condensed state physics, i.e. electrogravity. The new condensed state physics (lasers, Bose Einstein condensates, dark states, dark energy and black holes) are at the cutting edge of 21st century science. They will probably provide the basis for the most important breakthroughs of our time.

As Steven Hawking writes, the sum total of positive energy of this universe (seen in matter and in the outward movement of energy) is exactly equal to the total negative energy, the inward pull of gravity. In short, the very existence of outwardly flowing energy in seemingly empty space is somehow premised on the simultaneous inward pull of negative energy like gravity. All of the light that we see, for example, is due to the inward pull of gravity in stars that fuse matter into denser and denser elements. It's happening all the time, and it's all premised on the negative energy of a star's gravity. *It can't be modeled solely in terms of what we see now, but must be modeled in terms of the entire "lifetime" of the universe, some of which remains hidden from us, of course.

Now, let's pretend we're aliens for a moment... If we were to produce electrogravity in order to literally pull two distant points (or circles) of space-time together for faster-than-light space travel (as government whistle-blower Bob Lazar says aliens actually do), we would borrow so incredibly much energy from the intervening section of space-time that we would ever-so-slightly speed the flow of time there. And, if you speed the flow of time anywhere, you ever-so-slightly shorten the lifetime of this universe, which could be cause for concern off-world.

If you still don't get the idea, here's another easy way to visualize electrogravity: Light waves are like the waves in a small pond. Throw a stone into the pond and, long before the waves begin to move outward in concentric circles, the determining change of energy (the hurled stone) has hit the water. As it sinks, due to gravity, waves spread on the surface. Negative energy and deeper-dimensional fluctuations are like the stone. They happen on a deeper level, due to a kind of gravity, but we see only the waves on the surface. (If you "see" in negative energy terms, you see in the dark, so to speak---in one most ironic sense it would be like the darkened inner vision of your mind). Like the stone sinking into the pond, deeper dimensional events accompany every light wave. They connect to a larger, universal quantity because each change of energy runs the universal clock toward some end(s), due to a universal conservation of sorts.

If you actually observe the stone in the pond example, you hear the sound of the splash, and, in a larger configuration space (an orb-like space surrounding the whole pond and its evirons), a nearly instant change of energy has occurred when the stone is attracted by gravity. That inward tug and pull, countered by outward wave reverberations, is like the larger universe's energy condition. The universe cycles into black holes and constantly cycles into heavier, denser elements in stars (a kind of negative energy in each case). Meanwhile, those deeper cycles reverberate in the "empty space" all around. So, in order to see the event as it truly is, you need to model gravity in universal terms (the stone goes into the pond, running the universal clock), plus you see the event by the sun's light (caused by a fusion-cycling of matter into denser states) and you hear the sound, then see the surface waves on the water.

In a sense, light waves are like the waves on the pond's surface. Meanwhile more cosmic quantities are playing into the scene in such a big way that, in sum, they are nearly instantaneous: universal gravity, negative energy fluctuations in the empty space all around plus in a universal clock-of-sorts that allows us to even see in the first place, due to a kind of energy condition on the universal scale.
           
Here's another visual metaphor that demonstrates electrogravity. Imagine the universe as being a balloon. Blow the balloon up, then use a brown felt-tipped pen to draw spots on opposite ends of the balloon. Now, squeeze the center of the balloon together between two fingers. In a sense, all atoms and quanta are like the balloon: when you converge light waves together to bounce electrogravity out of atoms and other quanta collectively, you also squeeze the universe together inside the atoms' nuclei, which causes time to flow faster in the rest of the universe (the brown spots on the balloon that speed away from each other).
             
If you think it through carefully, electrogravity is easy to understand. Alien children are introduced to the basics early because, if they don't think in universal terms, they will neither comprehend the nature of their technology, nor the effect that their technology has on the larger universe. If they don't understand alternative cycles like negative energy, they won't understand that a selfish misuse of electrogravity violates the larger universal ecology.
             
Here's another easy metaphor suggested by one crew of "gray" aliens -- Imagine that under every light wave is a negative energy fluctuation, like a little black hole--a dark spot tucked under the rolling crest of every light wave. That's negative energy, but remember---it both tucks into, and cycles faster-than-light through both the beginning point where the light began, and the end point where the light is later absorbed into another atom. How can it do that?
    
It can do so if gravity is marginally faster-than-light, i.e. because gravity is coming and going from so many directions (inside the nucleus of every single atom, plus in every condensed object) at the same time on a summed-over, universal scale. So, in a sense, light waves would be like a nearly-unmoving, seemingly still ocean--compared to the faster tuck of energy and gravity into, or non-locally through the nucleus of every atom, which is almost instantaneous in one basic respect: the sum total of mass and gravity (negative energy) is measured only on a universal scale, i.e. how much fuses together in stars or goes into black holes and is thus lost to our view for the duration. It literally clocks the universe.
   
So, back to the dark spot under every light wave---think of it as empty space that's teeming with bizarre, wormhole-like fluctuations that don't perceptibly connect in a weird far-away manner unless you do what Tom Bearden says---you cause light waves to cancel out and you vary the potential, which bleeds the energy into electrogravity (extra dimension), then you focus the electrogravity on a distant point. To do so creates an effect that's like going through a wormhole because you pull the two points together so fast that it's as though all the empty space in between is standing still, in comparison. You move beyond the intervening space-time by entering a denser and faster, yet more universally-timed and hugely nonlocal dimension. It's as though you went through a black hole faster-than-light---you took a shortcut through deeper dimensions.
   
Aliens further suggest that there is at least one critical irony in doing so. Believe it or not, some aliens suggest that you don't actually "go" as such. Instead, you simply re-dimension within a different sum of perspectives. By doing so, you will have changed yourself and your awareness. Thereafter, if you think about it, you will live within a different kind of universe. Your mind's concepts and your interactions will be different, considerably more intelligent (we all hope). As such, you will be transitioning into a universe of hyper-condensed, collective identities--a higher kind of mindedness. Act accordingly, say various aliens: you're merging into a greater, yet finer kind of existence.
           
Here's a much easier visual metaphor for electrogravity. Light waves are normally modeled as if whole-numbered (one light wave here, another one there, each distinct--as if a whole number 1 here, another 1 there...). The truth is, they aren't whole quantities; they are but fractions of the larger universal whole (which extends from the very beginnings of time to its end(s) and can't be "seen" all as one whole because the universe tends to tuck into itself, to disappear at both ends of time, and in black holes, hence our non-local physics) Each light wave is a bizarre kind of trick that shoots out of an atom's depths (where, ironically, we find a deeper kind of destructive interference). Think of the atom as being frozen in time for an almost unbelievably brief moment when a photon is emitted. At that moment, the atom exists in a weird, otherworldly context alongside black holes--the weirdest of "quanta." (*In a sense, the singularity in the black hole is a tiny particle with extra-dimensional tricks up its sleeve.) When our atom is seen in that brief moment, with the black hole in the not-so-distant background (not so distant because the moment is so brief--which effectively shortens all distances), the atom has fractional waveform/multiple connectedness to a black hole singularity.
   
What's fractional waveform? The answer is easy. Fractional waveform is a wave that goes both forward and backward in time. For example, the model that physicists use is that of a light wave goes to its destination (a future “black-body” absorber), then runs backward in time as a “half-wave” and interferes with itself at its point of origin, causing the electron that originally emitted the light wave/photon to recoil. In other words, an electron that emits a photon recoils like a gun after a bullet fires, but in the electron's case the recoil is caused by a fractional “half-wave” returning from a future quantum absorber and interfering with its own past. Weird, isn't it? Prize-winning physicists Feynman and Wheeler are famous for fractional wave ideas. The light wave is also conditioned by the original singularity from which the universe emerged, and the light wave is further defined by the seemingly-singular time intervals posed by any and every journey that light takes. Somehow, light seems to know, beforehand, the number of intervals (waves) it must divide into in order to be absorbed by a future atom. Light does a similar trick in what are called two-slit experiments.
           
Here's another visual metaphor for electrogravity: Those multiply-connected "fractional waveforms" discussed above all relate to greater, cosmic quantities. With our eyes, we see the light waves (actually not the waves, but the general glow--one irony of being the big, gooey bodies of liquid that we are), but if we could see incredibly much faster, we would see the fractional waveforms emerging from nowhere in empty space and causing weirdly stormy fluctuations in all of the empty space around us---tiny, tiny goings on, with black hole singularities just over there in the background (again due to the fact that the moment is so incredibly brief, hence the distances aren't as important... the faster the moment, the smaller is the universe.) This agrees with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which says that high energy particles can appear out of nowhere in empty space because they can “borrow” increasingly large amounts of energy from “empty” space, provided that they then disappear that much more rapidly. In short, our new negative energy model provides a nice explanation for how empty space can even exist, in the first place--as an irony of our negative cycle. Apparently, seemingly empty space is but one elusive result of the universe discretely cycling into itself everywhere, through gravity--over great periods of time.
           
Without being a physicist, one can easily get a feel for it all. Here's another visual metaphor. Negative energy and electrogravity are all like something that's inside of you, but you never notice it because your awareness is primarily in terms of much longer intervals of time. If you could "see" in terms of those tiny, tiny intervals of time (multiply-connected fractional waveform/negative energy cycles) in which black holes and all atoms' nuclei interact, you'd literally feel electrogravity. You'd probably think that electrogravity framed the only valid outlook, not that weirdly distant, slower-moving "light" stuff. *Of course, I'm simply posing alternative perspective here.
           
Here's a fun-filled mental exercise to help you get a better intuitive feel for negative energy. Forget about tabletop objects and concretes like your hand or a rock, and forget about outwardly moving waves--for a day or two. Instead, think only in terms of deep down inner space, a place where the distances between an atom's nucleus and its electrons and photons is huge--like the distance between the sun and its relatively tiny planets. Now, while you're thinking like that, remember---all of the universe is that way: vast, seemingly empty spaces between atoms traversed by weird fluctuations and strange interactions. Black holes can act on that tiny micro-level, where we define gravity. Stranger still, there's an even deeper kind of inner space that's important in all that we see around us. Some theorists think that, long ago, when the universe first emerged from the bizarrely convoluted black hole(s) that appears to have existed just before the "big bang" (or whatever we call the original event from which we currently speed away), there was an event called “inflation.”
   
Inflation would have been a bizarre process. In less than a fraction of a second, the universe expanded so far and so fast that both the speed and the distance are difficult to comprehend. Why so difficult to comprehend? Because in that tiny fraction of a second the universe went from an almost immeasurably deep kind of inner space, and grew to the size of a basketball. Again, an incredibly deep kind of inner space---a great inner distance, which relates in active, fractional ways to all that we see around us.
   
If that sounds weird (it's one of the leading theories at present), then consider this: Before inflation, even "space" was tucked inside of, or behind, the original singularity
(alt singularities)...
   
How could that be? It had to have been fluctuating in bizarrely non-local ways, like our so-called "quantum cosmology," coincidentally. Clearly, empty space is more complex and enigmatic than humans once thought it to be. To complete the picture, scientists are now certain that seemingly "empty" space isn't really empty. Instead, it teems with particles and negative energy fluctuations that appear, then disappear--faster than we can measure them, individually. Nonetheless, some of the negative energy of those elusive "virtual particles," as they're called, has actually been measured in physics laboratories.
   
In short, we live in a universe that was originally premised upon, and is now deeply integrated by, a newly discovered "negative energy" dynamic. The science of negative energy further suggests that despite the fact that black holes swallow all visible light, black holes do, in fact communicate with each other. Black hole singularities interact as both gravity and time barriers.
   
Meanwhile, within black holes the distances between former atoms is almost nil, which, albeit cold and tiny, suggests alternative dimensions of destructive interference. So, in the new "negative energy" universe, black holes could conceivably act like wormholes---if you were to approach them faster-than-light (you'd be composed of strangely-distributed fractional waveform, not our visible light waves, because you'd be going so darned fast...). Of course, we now know that black holes are all just fractions of the universal whole. If we "look" at them on the tiny quantum level only, as in our "inner space" thought exercise, they probably make more sense.
   
So, please, try thinking in terms of physics' weirdly tiny phenomena only---for a few days, not the familiar terms of light waves and concretes... In the end, you'll be asking yourself which is tinier: the deeply-fluctuating non-local universe, or the idea that our flatland life (locally-sensed concretes, a brief 78 year lifespan) is bigger and more definitive than it actually is?
   
*In one alternative to inflation theory, the universe would not have been “contained” within but one tiny singularity, but would have emerged from a more fuzzy multiplicity of singular conditions, i.e. black holes, that could have communicated with each other in terms of an elusive new physics. Hence, if there were a sudden inflation process, it could have emerged from a variety of (summed over) perspectives. Alternatively, as Stanford theorist Andre Linde has postulated, inflation(s) may yet be occurring on a micro scale, to this very day. If true, that might allow for a universe that continually re-cycles, i.e. within a kind of multiverse that can regenerate, over time, through higher order processes. Indeed, every bit of energy, every movement of atomic quanta may be due to a kind of inflation that smears out and is shared by all quanta in a given context---a basic, universal energy condition premised on a black hole-white hole dynamic that ties large scale cosmic phenomenon to small-scale quantum horizons (as does quantum cosmology).

Further proof of how far science has gone in the basic direction of Bearden's model of destructive interference can be seen in Nobel-prize winning experiments on what are called "Bose-Einstein condensates." Scientists do destructive interference (converging and canceling out light waves) of lasers to cool photons and other particles down to a temperature that is billionths of a degree above absolute 0º Celsius, and, voila, the atoms do something weird. They lose their separate identities and merge into a single super-atom. Recently, in January 2004 scientists at the National Institute of Standards in Boulder, CO announced that they did the same with fermions, which are normal atoms (potassium in this case) containing protons and neutrons. In addition, using destructive interference of light, researchers like Lene Hau at Harvard have produced “dark states,” which can cause light to freeze to a stop--even when one of the interfering beams is turned off! Research of the sort may provide an explanation for what is known as “dark energy” and “dark matter,” which cosmologists say may comprise more than 95 percent of the universe. So, scientists can see that Bearden is definitely onto something re: converging and canceling out light waves."
Journalisée

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« Répondre #7 le: 10 Février 2005 - 22:29:06 » par Mathieu
Hello Georges,

This is funny because we were talking about TR3B hypothesis a few days ago in another message board, and the website you point out is the one we talked about. Your message is quite long, I'll take some time to read it tomorrow and will perhaps come back to answer some points. But, for the moment, do you really thing the triangle Regis saw over Paris this week looks like TR3B drawings ? I do not see any plasma under this one, for example.

Thanks for coming and arguing,

Mathieu
Journalisée

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« Répondre #8 le: 10 Février 2005 - 23:28:36 » par Georges2
The test for the TR-3B would be its size, the larger version being about 400-600 feet long on each side. Bill Hamilton of Skywatch tells me that the Phoenix lights triangle was at least 1 1/2 mile long on each side (he triangulated the reports of Phoenix witnesses), so size is important to note. The Phoenix version may have been other than a human version, but in Paris, the circumstance seems to invite a US version. The plasma seen under a TR-3B may be hard to see when it is above a brightly lit city, which can wash out that more gentle bluish glow. That glowing plasma like ring of color probably relates to how it navigates a negative energy grandient within/across the inner diameter of its rotating, mercury plasma torus. The technology of the plasma torus is inside the TR-3B, not outside, although it may discharge on the underside, to a certain extent. Over Paris, gliding quietly, you may not see the glow.

The TR-3B has special jets at each corner, which help to steer and do some of the maneuvering. The vapor trail that witnesses saw above Paris correspond to that. (the electrogravity part of the TR-3B flight allows for unusually fast and tight high-g maneuvers that no normal craft could achieve--by canceling 80 percent or more of the g's). I suspect that, if it were the TR-3B, it is an attempt to show off the US black budget's achievements, an attempt to buy off the public's silence about the crimes committed to build such a thing using dirty money. The greater the "shock and awe" of seeing such a thing in their skies, the less people will want to look the US gift horse in the mouth and inquire about the larger MAJI black budget doings (murdered witnesses, wholesale corruption, even some permission for certain aliens to operate here, say various sources). It's a theme park approach to public accountability, an anything goes kind of Frankenstein. Makes type A personalities feel proud to be on the inside, looking out.

Meanwhile, Uncle Sam invades Iraq, steals its oil (at great, unsustainable cost based upon sheer, unapologetic lies) so that Europe and Asia can be made to toe the line. It may be a peak oil strategy, but to invade Iran would be a peak-empire denoument. Would Bush lie about Iranian nukes? Certainly. Imagine what an attack on Iran would cause among Moslem peoples---Is that what they really want? Maybe they want a Shia uprising that is so strong that it threatens the Saudi monarchy, allowing the US to then move in there and impose yet another puppet regime. Checkmate, the last mega oil country occupied, once again, and we all lose, "big time."
Journalisée

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« Répondre #9 le: 11 Février 2005 - 00:59:05 » par Vincent
Donc si je comprend bien Georges 2, ce genre de technologie ne sera réservée qu'a une élite
destructrice de notre planète/Soleil

Think again. What Bearden is saying, and what aliens have repeatedly confirmed in explicit communications, is that electrogravity can speed the flow of time, perhaps even allowing for a kind of fluctuation into past time (not concretely, we presume). So, what does that mean? It means that electrogravity isn't "free." It comes at a cost because it speeds the flow of time, ever so slightly shortening the life of the surrounding continuum. This means that a reckless overuse of electrogravity could conceivably shorten the life of our sun, for example. Some of those "gray" aliens that you may have read about have reported that their original planet was rendered uninhabitable by a large-scale misuse of electrogravity.
So, there are both risks and a larger kind of ecology surrounding the use of electrogravity. It needs to be globally regulated. We need to do so within a better international legal framework, i.e. the World Court, and more. Weapons and greed are no excuse for failing to do so because electrogravity is essentially about human (and other) commonality. Aliens further suggest that Δt effects of electrogravity must be moderated by countervailing negative energy dynamics. In other words, to prevent uncontrolled damage to a given environment, electrogravity must be used sparingly. Aliens suggest that it be used only where necessary, in conjunction with conventional, long-term energy technologies such as solar, and other alternatives.

En effet je vois mal ces utilisateurs bruler de l'énergie positive pour contrer cet énérgie négative. Peut être me trompe-je, mais l'humain ne m'a pas habitué à cela.

A bientôt
Journalisée

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« Répondre #10 le: 11 Février 2005 - 09:02:56 » par urban yogi
Hi Georges

Thank you for your interesting comments and sharing that knowledge.
The second virtual representation of the TR-3B on the website you gave is very similar fro mwhat I saw last monday night. But it would be from the other side because they were some thing which look like reflector on each corner.
But on thing is for sure that if the US governement have sent this thing over Paris it was suppose to be very secret and not seen because that thing didn't made on single noise and didn't had he is lights on. The sky was very clear and there were no clouds between the ship and myself and the ship seems to be dangerously low in altitude.
I have a question do you thing to be near such a thing can harm human beeing like our health because of rejection of negative energy or other material?

REGIS
Journalisée

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« Répondre #11 le: 11 Février 2005 - 11:53:12 » par Mathieu
Dear Georges,

I will not try to change your mind, but I answer your message for other people reading this thread and that do not have made their opinion about Flying Triangles (FT) and TR3B. I'm just going to put here some elements that seem important to me.

First is my own feeling about T3RB. I think this is a pretty 3D model appeared on the scene just in time to explain FT. Sceptics were in pain to explain FT observations around the world with F117 project, back in the 90's, because this plane was not able to match witnesses' descriptions. Yes it was something black, flying and triangular. But looking close to reports made clear it was not the solution. So a cease-fire took place during a few years. Then came 3D softwares like 3DStudio and some others, and created a great wave of creativity around the world. Magically, TR3B was born. This is my own feeling, and you're not going to change this by some web pages, as I'm not going to change your mind by the arguments I'm going to but down now.

When Fouche is asked to prove his claims, he answers to have appeared on TV shows many times (BBC). He also claims to have been member of all US fighters studying teams during the last 20 years. This is pure non-sense, engineers do not bounce from a project to another. Fouche also says Corso tell the truth, and this is not really an evidence. He says TR3B datas come from MJ12 documents his friend "Dale" sent to him : MJ12 documents are hard to be considered as genuine, but more important there is no information about secret planes in them, especially about recent secret planes ! Fouche also claims to have worked in AREA51 (he reproduces so accurately Bob Lazar claims that we can name that plagiarism).

In his book, Alien Rapture, Fouche says the MFD generator shrink the craft mass to 89%. But in the same paragraph, he also write 99% ! Is this serious ? As another example of consistency, in his book you learn a B52 was found landed at tree top in a Viet Nam forest, crew been mutilated. But in the previous page the authors mention another case : a B29 in Corea. Is this serious ? Did they check their story before publishing ?

Triangulars secret aircrafts are supposed to be sighted since 1967. This is inaccurate. Summer 2004 CUFO's IUR revue mentions cases before : Maryland 1954, Ohio 1956, Indiana 1957, British Columbia 1960. Peter Davenport database also shows interesting cases (http://www.ufocenter.com).

Fouche says there are a conventionnal reactor in each triangle corner. If we consider the "Petit Rechain" photography to be genuine, it is evident that corners' lights are not reactors. Moreover these reactors would have to be activated when the craft is almost motionless. Can we talk about noise and blast ?

Secret aircrafts disclosed since decades have nothing in common with Flying Triangles seen in Europe since 1989. Developping SR71, F117 or B2 for years would have been absurd if a so powerfull technology was available since 1967 or years before.

I'm sorry to tell you this, and I know this is not going to change your opinion, I am not going to buy this...

However, thanks to you for coming and put this on the table, it is important to consider every hypothesis !

Mathieu
Journalisée

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« Répondre #12 le: 11 Février 2005 - 18:38:07 » par Georges2
Numerous other reports suggest a non-terrestrial, more advanced than human, origin for certain flying triangles. They go as far as to suggest that the US may have copied an alien version, loosely. Of course, any US/Euro version would be less capable and less safe than an alien version (assuming such, for the sake of the argument). I've never seen one, but live near Sacramento--which is just 40 miles from Beale Air Force Base, where a two-seater, orb-shaped electrogravity craft called the X-22A is reported to have been seen. If such is the case, then the TR-3B, if it exists, might link up for joint maneuvers, hence the various reports in this part of California about flying black triangles, gliding silently, often very low in the skies.

My guess is that such a craft could hover without much noise, since an electrogravity torus in its interior would not emit gas, would not be propulsion, per se, but would be based upon a negative energy gradient (essentially a manipulation of gravities, rather than "anti-gravity). If it flew directly overhead, the short exposure of its proximity would probably not affect your health. If you were to linger, prolongedly, beneath the center of its diameter at close range, it would be bad for your health. When it is flying and is at least 200 feet up, you probably have no reason to worrry.

Again, as the moderator says, there will always be debate about the triangle's origin and manufacture. The reactors at the corners are reported to be an advanced kind of jet or rocket nozzle, which might be electronically activated so that it wouldn't make a loud pop or bang when it ignites. If, for example a high temperature ion beam was combined with an electronically pulsed fuel, the jet could be fairly quiet. Add to that the electrogravity loft, which lifts up most of the weight, and the nozzle could be that much more discreet.

Roswell happened in 1947. 58 years later, a crash program like the Manhattan Project may have developed technologies that defy conventional analysis. The central premise of the TR-3B is reportedly a torus of mercury plasma rotating at 50,000 rpm, and spiralling or electromagnetically activated in a way that creates a negative energy gradient, to create "lift." The larger the diameter of the torus, the greater the negative energy effected (apparently because the larger the space-time volume within the torus, the more negative energy effected), supposedly. So, rather than being a contrived multimedia fiction, it's possible, possible that the triangular shape is the simplest, most efficient way of housing a large torus. Oil tankers are much larger. Built of aluminum girded with high strengh alloys, a triangle could be made that might be 1.5-2 times the weight of the new Airbus passenger jet, for example. With electrogravity and three jets/nozzles, it could maneuver in strange, new ways.

So, the technology certainly exists to make a craft like the TR-3B, yet the debate about its existence and/or nature will continue.
Journalisée

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« Répondre #13 le: 11 Février 2005 - 19:24:21 » par Mathieu
I paste here some reports from NUFORC :

http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/037/S37042.html
Citation
I saw a silent exhaustless golden glowing slow flying triangle on a late summer afternoon In 1954 or 1955.

Peter, this is the sighting that I spoke to you about last week on the Jef Rense show. On event duration I put in 15 seconds but I left and ran home (through trees) before the craft, which moving and turning slowly, left view. This triangle was not a sharp arrowhead type but just the opposite: a wing-like triangle much shorter than its width. Its appearence was wider than the moon, maybe two and a half moons. It was bright gold colored and there was no variation that would give a clue as to any curvature or depth to it. It could have been a flying flat two dimensional object for all I could tell. It was turning slowly without banking and there was no sound nor exhaust. The turning was gradual and I assumed it was a small directional correction rather than a complete change but I didn't observe the final direction.


http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/037/S37369.html
Citation
8/15/1957. My uncle and I were standing outside on a warm summer evening. We were talking about unions and looking up at the stars. It was about 1 in the morning and the sky was very clear. We were facing south. There was a garrage in fron of us and a pear tree behind. North to South we had about 60 degrees of sky visable. To the West and East most of the sky was visable. Suddenly the stars disappeared. There was no noise. The hair on my neck stood up. All I could yell was "Did you see that?" My uncle and I compared observations, we had the same impressions. What appeared to be a trianglar shaped, unlit, solid object had block out the stars, all of the stars. The duration of the blockage was very short. The object had to be large and very close to completely block out the stars (there was no noise) or massive! I was about 12. My uncle was about 30 years older. We often spent hours night after night during the summer talking outside. Never before or after seen such an object. My uncle was unemployeed at the time but had previously worked as a surveyor for the city. I was, of course a student.


http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/003/S03532.html
Citation
3/12/1960 23:00. I saw the object coming from the south, from the direction of the gulf of mexico. It was lighting up the whole sky, whole neighborhood. Curiously no one seemed to notice but me. I was outside with my telescope. I trained telescope on the object and saw triangular shaped object sitting on platform on top of the trinagle was a light flashing gold and white. Along the bottom of the platform was a row of blue and gren lights blinking in alternate succession. I tcame to stop across the street from where I was standing, approximately 75 feet away and about 60 feet up in the air. It was making no sound. I saw it clearly with the telescope. It left after about five minutes, shooting straight up into sky like rocket taking off and was gone in less than a second. Later it came back, the whole house lit up in inside with this bright golden light like you saw in episode of X files where mulder's sister is taken. Remember this was thirty years or more before the X files was even heard of. I saw three figures in our house, the classical big eyed, slant eyed greyish white aliens. But at that time I had never even heard of such a thing! my father saw these figues too, up closae since they were in his bedroom.


http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/037/S37478.html
Citation
6/15/1961 12:00. I was roller skating with a friend in the back alley behind our house in the early summer of 1961. School was out so this was early in the day. It was a clear day with no clouds in the sky. When a shadow came over us we thought it was a summer thundercloud. We looked up and a large triangular object was just sitting there. It was a matte silver-gray, the tips more rounded instead of sharp, with no lights visible to the eye. There were no seams in the craft, it made no sound at all and there was nothing to indicate there was any type of an entry. It was very close, about 200 feet or so above us. We were only about 10 so the distance is hard to judge. My friend became extremely frightened and went home. I ran to my back door where my mother was coming out. I told her to come and look but when I turned to point it out, it had disappeared.


http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/022/S22703.html
Citation
10/1961 22:00. 3 flat, large white lights in delta pattern, no sound, flying at tree-top level at 35-40 mph

As I exited my car and was walking toward my front door, I glanced up to the sky and was surprised to see three large circles of white light in a triangular pattern sailing tree-top level over some trees in my side yard. I walked out into the yard for a better view and didn't feel fearful since "it" was flying away from me in a southwest/northeast direction at approximately 35-40 mph. The light was a flat type with no projection. Perhaps the strangest thing I noticed, in addition to the whole senario, was the absence of any sound. I didn't see any structure around the lights but they were in a triangular/delta pattern. I watched it until it disappeared, then went into the house and called my boyfriend who lived 1-2 miles away in the direction that the ufo was traveling. He looked out but saw nothing. For a day or two, I watched the newspaper for any other reported sightings, but saw none. All I can say is, I know what I saw and I don't care if anybody believes me or not.


http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/008/S08381.html
Citation
4/1963 07:00. Observed in western sky @ about 100 ft. flying to the south at about 10 to25 mph Flying in formation as geese would fly

We lived on the south side of Tucson about 1 mile from the Papago indian reservation.I went outside to feed our pigeons at about 7:00am before I went to school. I saw them to the west flying in formation like geese fly. They were about 100 ft. above the ground flying at about 10 to25 mph. I was very excited and started yelling for my mother and brothers. 2 of my brothers and mom came outside as we saw them move to the south. They were triangler shaped with rounded edges, grey in color, and seemed to be about 30 ft. or so. They proceeded towards the reservation slowly until they came to a small mountain where the reservation hospital is located. Behind the mountain is the Santa Cruz River which is dry most of the year. This is about 3 mi. from our home. They then stopped and hovered for a bit, then dissapered behind the mountain into I belive the Santa Cruz. After school that day my 2 brothers and I went to see if we could find any traces but didn't find any. That was 34 years ago and is just as vivid as then.



I'll stop here, we're reaching late 60's and Fouche said black projects started there.

For anyone wanting to launch a new 3DStudio black program,
please have a look on the great shapes catalog : http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/ndxshape.html

Do not forget to check to the drawings on the page "Case Briefs" : http://www.nuforc.org/CBIndex.html

After explain these reports, just one more question. I these are ours (or should I say "yours"), why not use them in Irak, Iran, North Korea ? Why not taking over the world ? This would be the absolute weapon. Why not accept to stop nuclear tests (this one was unfair, sorry) ? Why keep launching high cost spy satellites ?

Please, no kidding

Mathieu
Journalisée

  Triangle au-dessus de Paris le 7 février 2005
« Répondre #14 le: 21 Février 2005 - 20:10:03 » par Retxed
J'habite a environ 300m du square ou a été vu cet ovni, et la nuit derniere vers 23h j'ouvre les volets par ce que quelqu'un m'avait conseillé de surveiller le ciel cette nuit. et a un moment je vois une espece d'avion passer. je n'ai pas bien le temps de voir avant qu'il passe deriere mon imeuble, mais l'avion me paraissait bizarre: il rassemblait 4 lumieres pas symetriquement positionnées il clignotait et se dirigeait dans la meme direction que l'ovni du 7 fevrier, c'est a dire vers l'est. Je pense que c'était juste un avion de ligne comme il y en a beaucoup à Paris, mais dans le doute je tenantis quand meme a le signaler.
Journalisée

And an girl say I'm pretty fly for a rabby

 (Lu 37395 fois) [1] 2
Aller à:  


Accueil
Aide
Rechercher
Liste des membres

Identifiez-vous
Inscrivez-vous





SMF - Just Installed!



728 Messages
154 Fils de discussion
42 Membres
Dernier membre: jeanreve

Propulsé par PHP
Propulsé par MySQL
XHTML 1.0 Transitionnel valide !
CSS valide !



Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines LLC
Simplicity design by Bloc