Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - zarg

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 38
61
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 08, 2012, 09:02:17 PM »
His post-history prior to joining, or his post-history since joining?

Actually, the point at which he "joined" the Society doesn't enter into the equation; what's relevant is the time at which he actually produced the map. You will find RE sentiments both before and after the posts wherein he refers to his map. Thus he, at the very least, was a RE'er at the time that he produced the map; ergo, your map was produced by a RE'er.


First of all, can we see some evidence substantiating the bolded claim?

Of course.

May 4th, 2007: Trekky posts the original version his map. [link]

October 1st, 2007: Trekky argues against FET. [link] Refers to RET as "our theory".

March 31st, 2008: More arguing against FET. [link] "Flat Earth Theory has NO PROOF"; "The Earth is not special, it is like all other planets.  The sun is not special, it is like all other stars, etc."

December 28, 2008: He clarifies that his pro-FE posts are devil's advocacy. [link]


Secondly, this shift in goalposts is frankly laughable. The poll in the OP, which you created, presents the following options: 1) FES, and 2) Elsewhere. Either way, you're wrong - as usual.

Yes. The poll answers are and always were what I am looking for: Does the map design originate from within or without?

Please show me where I moved the goalposts. What I'm saying now is in line with my OP, which remains unedited:

designed by Flat Earthers and that all maps which resemble it were stolen from the FES, and even that the geometrical transformation formulae which project the globe into this configuration were actually concocted after the fact

Funny how Cat Earth Theory, Tom Bishop, and Emperor Zhark all understood where I was coming from before I supposedly moved the goalposts -- did they see into the future? If you were too lazy to read anything beyond the thread title and and the poll choices, that's your problem.

62
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 08, 2012, 07:21:16 PM »
His post-history prior to joining, or his post-history since joining?

Actually, the point at which he "joined" the Society doesn't enter into the equation; what's relevant is the time at which he actually produced the map. You will find RE sentiments both before and after the posts wherein he refers to his map. Thus he, at the very least, was a RE'er at the time that he produced the map; ergo, your map was produced by a RE'er.


Well, I never claimed that it was created by FEers.  My sole claim was that the map was created here, and indeed, it was.

Of course, which is why I had to clarify the question for you. This is not about who was directly responsible for bringing this particular image file into being, it's about the lineage of its development:

The question is, did the FES copy that map out of laziness, or did you invent it before it was discovered by RE'ers that by pure coincidence it fits their ideas perfectly?

James tells me "Our cartography is derived from the actual shape and form of the Earth." From this statement and Trekky0623's statement, we can infer three possibilities: Trekky0623 lied about his authorship or method of producing the image; James is telling us that the actual shape and form of the Earth is a globe; or James lied about what their cartography is derived from.

63
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 08, 2012, 02:50:02 PM »
Trekky0623 is an Official Member and Friend of the Flat Earth Society.

So is squevil. Your point? A review of Trekky's post history quickly demonstrates that he's a RE advocate.


No-one is lying, you're just wrong (as usual).

Yes, someone is certainly lying. On the one hand we have Tom Bishop saying that the FAQ's map was designed by FE'ers from scratch and the azimuthal projection was later derived from their map. On the other, we have a FE denier claiming that it's a RE azimuthal projection from its inception.

64
That could disprove the accuracy of the results of using a map, but it does not guarantee to disprove inaccurate maps (which indeed are all them all by nature)  or results equivalent / functionally different maps even if you travel every path available on said map.
Use math to show, if possible, how this is indeed a proof or disproof of a "map".

What is this nonsense? You're saying it's impossible to "disprove a map", yet admit it's possible to disprove the accuracy of a map's results? That is what we mean when we talk about disproving "a map". You're just playing with words, trying to brush the issue under the carpet through obfuscation.


The possible of existence of functionally different yet equally accurate maps make the whole point moot though.

If you are referring to different projections, you are wrong and once again demonstrating your mathematical illiteracy. They all equally map a globe.

my interest is not in cartography

It shows.



Actually, I do have a functional flat earth map that ties in with my theories soon to be published hopefully.

Basically, we are looking at what I've causely dubbed at times a fractal, recursive, and or "quantum" (all used incorrectly but to illustrate the concept) topology.  We have layers of north pole and south pole centric states that are experienced as such they were the "average", again so to speak,  of the states.  Here is a simple graphic illustrating the basic concept.  From there with minimal effort one could produce mercator or whatever project of map you would want with desired functional accuracy.  However, my interest is not in cartography so I have not done the mundane work of this, but would rather settle for the results (and modeled mathematical ) equivalent round earth maps that would be the end.

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/871/fractalearthbf8.jpg

As you can obviously see, it would fit perfectly within the model for an infinite flat earth.

A masterpiece of convoluted nonsense, but it still fails to explain east-west distances. Bravo.

65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The horizon is curved.
« on: May 08, 2012, 01:39:15 AM »
I tend to think we are seeing the actual edge of the disc

Then, would you mind telling me why we aren't seeing anything resembling your avatar? And why does the curvature look the same in all directions if I am not above the center of the disc? As I move outward (south), one side should appear closer than the rest.


The difficulty with such an assumption as you've made lies in that I don't believe the atmosphere  prevents the sun from reaching the dark areas. So it's not fairly analogous. Further, the "sea of haze" (which certainly exists) lies directly behind that more brightly lit portion of the atmosphere against the horizon. At such heights and distances (and hence angles) involved, the sea of haze (and the darkness beyond) does exist behind the lit area (or glare) of atmosphere, just as the hazy depths and inky darkness of the ocean exist behind the blue-greens of the ocean -- invisible to the viewer on the boat.

I'm sorry... what?

Please, did anyone understand this??

66
As far as never disproved by FET, how does one disprove a map?  A map is by nature its own representation with its own flaws and benefits inherent to its design.  Unless one were to create a 1:1 map, such a disproof would be meaningless, much for reasons explained above.

Do you know how to multiply? Divide? Yes? Then what is the problem? How to disprove a map: Indicate points A and B on a map. Go to the location the map represents at A. Travel in the direction of B the proper distance according to the map's scale (this is where you get to use your math skills!). Demonstrate that the location you stop at is different from the location represented at B.

Oh, and before you reiterate your "Just because they function does not mean they are accurate" argument, notice that I am telling you how to disprove a map, not prove one. While it's true that pointing out paths that are accurate does not prove a map's accuracy, it can be disproved by pointing out inaccurate paths. You insinuate that disproof is inherently impossible; you are incorrect.

So the question remains of why you have never succeeded in disproving a RE map. Not only that, you fail to provide any alternative map that can account for all the paths that have been confirmed accurate on the RE map (as a matter of fact, such a flat map's existence is geometrically impossible, but the FE advocates here are too mathematically illiterate to comprehend that).

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The horizon is curved.
« on: May 07, 2012, 10:40:06 PM »
It's a sphere. Most of the time.

68
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 07, 2012, 10:34:21 PM »
No, that map was definitely created here.

Or so the story goes.  This guy claims to be the creator. From the Wikimedia upload page:

Quote
2008-11-14 14:33 Trekky0623 543543 (405315 bytes) {{PD-self|date=17 August 2007}} I made this map myself by creating an azimuthal projection of the entire Earth.

Yet according to Tom it was invented by FE'ers (which Trekky0623 is not) and without using globular projections (which Trekky0623 claims to have done).

So someone is lying. Who?

69
That certainly raises the question of whether an accurate map can exist in general, or in this specific case.

The question though of course is silly: you might as well have asked Napolean when the personal computer would be engineered.  If we could know when such a map could exist, we likely could create it now.

Why is it silly? What tools do you need to produce accurate maps, and how are they not yet available?

Also, what method do you use to determine whether a map is accurate?

71
Flat Earth General / Re: Is Flat Earth Society Going Viral?
« on: May 06, 2012, 02:10:11 PM »
I've seen him explain the sinking ship effect with my own explanations verbatim.

The mark of a true free-thinker.

72
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The horizon is curved.
« on: May 06, 2012, 11:25:39 AM »
In order to continue using the illumination excuse for photos like the one in the OP, one would need to provide an explanation for why the "spotlight" is crescent-shaped half of the time.

73
That leaves me with two options

Three, use greasemonkey. I just wrote a script for this:

http://ideone.com/KcJmp

Click "get quote markup" next to a post title. It's pretty crude but it gets the job done. Formatting won't be included inside the quote.

74
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The horizon is curved.
« on: May 06, 2012, 01:42:32 AM »
Alright, now tell me why the curvature looks the same 75,000 feet above Australia as it does 75,000 above Canada.
Because you're only looking at the illuminated portion of the disk, of course.

Except when it's not illuminated, which happens to be the topic at hand. Stop trolling my threads please.

75
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 05, 2012, 10:31:52 PM »
So you're saying that this FE map is based on a FE map and you can prove it?

Did you mean "based on a RE map"? Yes, I would say that's thoroughly self-evident at this point.



I never questioned your motives.

Yes, you did. Earlier you accused me of purposefully distorting Tom's claim, and now you are insinuating that I have "re-shaped" the map "many times" to make it match. These are accusations of premeditated deception. Please defer your attacks on my character until you have a shred of evidence to support them.


Also, your "original" map is still of visibly worse quality. In the last picture, where you intentionally lower the FAQ map's quality (not accusing you of anything here, you said that's what you're doing), they look pretty much the same. As you're constantly unable to produce a map of comparable quality from the rectangular map you propose as the "source" of this rendition, I'm afraid that it simply can't be the source.

Good grief, what a load of rubbish. Stop wasting everyone's time whining about jpeg compression artifacts or whatever it is you're seeing. The quality of my screenshot is perfectly fine for the purpose of demonstrating how blindingly obvious it is that the Hastings-Trew texture is the source of the FAQ map. But since you insist on being a weenie about this, I'll export one to the exact specifications of the FAQ map. Observe:





And here is the resulting file uncompressed: http://i.cubeupload.com/itgM2C.png

Compare with the FAQ: http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png


Now, back to the point - this rendering was something made from illustrative purposes. I don't know how, and I don't know by whom. However, it has little to do with Rowbotham's/Voliva's/other historic FE'ers' maps, which are what Tom was originally talking about. As you can see, it's not only that you're wrong/lying about how the particular picture was produced, but also the fact that it's of no relevance at all.

For what I sincerely hope will be the last time, "how the particular picture was produced" is the whole point of this thread, and your insistence that Tom has not made these claims remains unfounded. If you aren't interested in the topic, kindly leave the thread rather than telling me that it's of no relevance.

76
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 05, 2012, 01:53:01 PM »
We can clearly see that the map you've "personally produced" is of significantly lower quality. Perhaps this is because it has been re-shaped so many times?

Actually, no it's not lower quality, it's higher. The original can be viewed here. The only reason it's lower quality in the side-by-side shot is because I had to shrink the screenshot to match the size of the FAQ map. Here it is again, this time with my version unmodified and the FAQ's enlarged to fit:



And what exactly are you trying to say? That I've deceptively modified the output? You can easily do this in 2 minutes and see for yourself. You can download the texture here, and download the tool here. All you need to do is load the file, set the projection to "Azimuthal Equidistant", set the long/lat to 0 degrees east / 90 degrees north, and radius to 180 degrees. Boom, instant FES merchandise. No tricks here.

When will you tire of making baseless accusations of my motives and sincerity? This is really getting old.

77
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: How is this low content?
« on: May 05, 2012, 01:26:30 PM »
Key word there: "also". Your rationalizations need to be defended individually, not by deflecting focus onto another. Are you conceding the rest?

78
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 04, 2012, 08:46:47 PM »
it is not surprising there are similarities.

But we're talking more than mere "similarities" here, Jim. This is blatant ripping off.



I personally produced the map on the left using a tool from NASA that works based on spherical geometry.

The map on the right is the one on display in your FAQ.


the Round Earther's empirical maps can never quite add up to his spherical model. He must distort either the true size, shape or spacing of the continents to accommodate his faulty sphere. A flat empirical map which does not presuppose that the Earth is a globe is not subject to such constraints and can therefore be 100% accurate.

Utterly false. When viewed as a representation flat surface, the above map is not accurate. If it were a 2D projection, then it could be relied on for distances between any two points, but it can't. It can however be relied on for any path that crosses through the center.

In Flat Earth terms, only one of these two maps can be correct (this one or this one). In reality, both are correct when measuring through the center. They have been successfully relied on for years.

Refer to my still-unanswered challenge:

I measure the distance from the center of that map to any other point on it; for example, let's say the southeastern corner of Australia. Now if I take a globe which has a circumference equal to the diameter of your map, and wrap a string from the north pole of that globe to the southeastern corner of Australia, the length of the string will be exactly the same measurement. This will work for a line from the north pole to anywhere else on the map. How do you explain this phenomenon?

79
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: How is this low content?
« on: May 04, 2012, 08:14:58 PM »
Anyway, the difference is that when being witty you're trying to prove a point.

What? No, not at all in fact. Particularly in written communication, it's good form to learn what things mean before spouting your uninformed opinions: Wittiness has nothing to do with proving a point (although that may be a side effect). It generally means humor, particularly humor delivered cleverly or off-the-cuff.


just make people angry.

So, who exactly is angry, and why are they? Remember, from 17 November's point of view, the post was a legitimate and correct answer to the question. To everyone else, it's either an honest answer from someone as misguided as 17 November, or it's a joke. Why the anger?


I can't really defend why, but something about it feels different to me.

Oh. Well, I stand reassured of your competence (sarcasm).

Oh don't get me wrong, I know there's a fuzzy grey area, but if you actually have a legitimate reason for your apparent hypocrisy, you should be able to articulate on some level what it is.

Let's compare:

Mixing up inertia and friction to get a rise out of CT is a bit different from talking about subterranean dragons causing volcanoes (unless you're 17, who seems to genuinely believe that).
The decision regarding SCVs was that he was not trying to prove a point, just make people angry.

Gosh! Sounds pretty similar to me.

80
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: How is this low content?
« on: May 04, 2012, 05:52:42 PM »
he wasn't being witty, he was just being a troll. That in itself is the difference.

That's awfully vague, bro. Why don't you outline for us exactly what the difference is? And while you're at it, please explain why "mixing up inertia and friction to get a rise out of CT" falls into the category of witticism (and is therefore acceptable) as opposed to trolling (which is evil, evil, evil).

81
Flat Earth map:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EiaIHMcIlpc/TmopqTOh8OI/AAAAAAAAAmA/nogHk_Szs5A/s1600/modern+flat+earth+map.png


Round earth map

http://www.gearthblog.com/images/globalcloud.jpg

Sigh.  Those are the same.

This has been explained countless times. For those who still don't understand, observe what happens when we use the so-called "Flat Earth" map as a texture for a sphere in a 3D modelling application like 3DS Max (click for full-size):


82
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 04, 2012, 05:27:50 PM »
These disputes over intellectual ownership are not useful - nobody owns these maps, they are representations of the actual Earth.  One can no more claim dominion over the idea or form of these maps than one can do for the Earth.

That's not really what I'm getting at, and my comment about disputing IP with James Hastings-Trew was meant mostly as a joke.

What I'm trying to determine is the evolution behind the map in the FAQ. It's clearly a pixel-perfect copy of a modern Round Earth map. The question is, did the FES copy that map out of laziness, or did you invent it before it was discovered by RE'ers that by pure coincidence it fits their ideas perfectly?

83
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: How is this low content?
« on: May 04, 2012, 05:06:35 PM »
Lots of talk here about whether our brother Dr. Rush was "legitimate" or not, but not much on the root issue: Is witticism not allowed? That seems to be the underlying principle for defending such warnings. If a thread as a whole starts off or ends up revolving around such nonsense, then you have a problem, but what's the matter with the occasional interjected wisecrack? You guys must be fun at parties (oh, that was a wisecrack, by the way).


Mixing up inertia and friction to get a rise out of CT is a bit different from talking about subterranean dragons causing volcanoes

Oh? Go on. I'd love to hear in detail how you support this point of view.


Stop complaining about the moderation team; we've been far more lenient with you than you had any reason to deserve.

"We"? You're a fairly new inductee to be acting as a spokesman, aren't you? And, y'know, you all could save yourselves a lot of trouble by renaming this forum to "Status Quo Appreciation Station" or some such.

84
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 03, 2012, 11:05:59 PM »
Perhaps you've been reading too closely. Try moving your eyes away from the screen so that you can distinguish letters. You have posted people's quotes in a sequence that suggests they're replying to each other. They're not. You are attempting to shove distortion down our throats, even after I called you out on it. Clearly you do not wish to be taken seriously.

You're the only one denying the fact that the claim's been made. Unless you're prepared to answer this question clearly, please stop trolling this thread:

This accusation is made without any support. Please show us how you came to a different conclusion from these quotes than what I'm presenting them as.


No, I have already shown that Rowbotham's map and RE'ers' azimuthal projections are different maps.

Um, I know they're different. Tom is the one who's claiming that they are similar enough that Rowbotham gets credit for both.  I really don't understand why you're pointing out the fact that the two are different maps as if it's not something I'm already supporting. If I thought they were the same, what case would I have that Flat Earthers were not the original source? In fact, I even said the very same thing that you're saying in the original thread. Behold:

Read Earth Not a Globe, please. The same model was used 150 years ago.

I have, and this:



is not the same map at all.

To which Tom replied:

Yes it is. With the exception of Australia and New Zealand it's nearly exactly the same.

Are you still going to accuse me of not paying attention? ::)



I find it interesting that you found it possible that I'm playing devil's advocate, but haven't even stopped to consider the fact that the website's owner might too. Also, a member of the Flat Earth Society need not be a Flat Earther. See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=66

To whom might he be playing devil's advocate? He is not involved in a debate. He makes maps. Globular ones. That's pretty much the only data we have on the man. Now tell me: Based on this data, which speculation about his beliefs, RE vs FE, is most reasonable to presume?



If you're arguing against anyone, it's Tom and not zarg.
I'm arguing against both of them, although much more so against zarg, because he tries to lie to people about what they said in this very thread.

Oh, really? You're arguing against both me and Tom, are you? ;D So if I'm lying about Tom's stance, what stance of Tom's is it that you are arguing with? You can't have it both ways, my carbonated friend.

85
Flat Earth General / Re: Is Flat Earth Society Going Viral?
« on: May 03, 2012, 10:19:00 PM »
There are an abundance of user submitted videos on YouTube in the last few months alone all discussing Flat Earth Theory.

Oh iWitness, you're so cute sometimes.

The videos that have been submitted in the last few months scarcely even approach 1000 views, while the others which approach 50,000 (which still is nothing in youtube terms) have taken about 2 years to do so. This is not what we call "Going Viral".

Search any topic on youtube, set the filter to results within a month, and you'll find very similar viewing trends.
Example: http://www.youtube.com/results?uploaded=m&search_type=videos&uni=3&search_query=unibrow
Here we have a video about unibrows gaining over a thousand views in just 2 weeks, and countless other unibrow hits in the last month alone. Are Unibrows Going Viral?

86
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 02, 2012, 07:44:36 PM »
And what's the use of latitudes on FE maps!?

I think they help Tom brainstorm plot devices for his made-up Flat Earth stories. For instance, he noticed that the lines on the equatorial aspect, shown here:



... bear some resemblance to magnetic field diagrams, like this one:



... which got the creative juices flowing and resulted in this quality bullshit:

The magnetic field lines blossom outwards from the North Pole as well as the South Pole. Imagine that the distorted longitude lines on the above map are magnetic field lines which the compass aligns with. In the North the compass will align with the field lines and take the user around the North Pole while traveling Eastwards or Westwards. Likewise, in the South the compass will align with the field lines and take the user around the South Pole while traveling Eastwards or Westwards.

Well, that's my guess anyway. :)

87
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 02, 2012, 07:25:05 PM »
Tom's original claim was regarding Voliva's map (Judging by the fact that he posted a picture of it in the link provided in the OP), which is not the map from the FAQ.

Actually, he did make a claim about the map in the FAQ, as well as many others, not just Voliva's, and not just Rowbotham's. I don't understand why you're pursuing this, as Tom has already had the opportunity to correct my interpretation of his claim and he instead confirmed it. Your speculation on that matter is moot.


The map from the FAQ just happens to be a re-rendering of the original map, and it may have been generated in numerous ways. Quite possibly in a way similar to what you've described.

... Except the exact opposite was claimed to be the case. I thought I spelled this out very plainly. Again, read closely:

Tom claimed that the map in the FAQ was not produced by -- nor based on something produced by -- the formula which produces a map that looks exactly like it. Rather, they invented it from scratch on their own, and then after it already existed, Round Earthers cleverly devised a formula to transform the globe into that configuration.
The map and the formula is based on the original flat earth map.
Yes, that's correct.


The quotes you have provided are taken out of context and distort the conversation massively.

This accusation is made without any support. Please show us how you came to a different conclusion from these quotes than what I'm presenting them as. I really don't see how you could have unless you didn't consider the whole context.


... I CAN fire up an IDE of my choice and write an application that will generate a brand new animation of nyan cat, but that doesn't make me the creator of nyan cat.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be paraphrasing this argument that Tom made:

I can make a mathematical formula to draw swastikas on graphic calculators. It doesn't mean that I invented the swastika.

Are you supporting the assertion that a formula could have been fabricated to produce an existing human-invented map layout, and it's just a coincidence that said design was a mathematically perfect representation of the globe in the first place? The nyan-cat comparison doesn't even come close to representing the ludicrousness of this claim.


I had bothered to do that. His website (including, but not limited to the web page you have linked us to) contains absolutely no mention of FES, his allegiance to FES or lack thereof, be that in the present, past, or even the future. To make this simpler: You have absolutely no reason to speculate that he is, or is not, a member of FES.

What?  ???  Are you serious? Yes, I do have a very strong reason to speculate that he doesn't subscribe to FET: How about the fact that the entire website is devoted to Round-Earth astronomy and geography? If you're playing devil's advocate, I'm afraid you're not very good at it.

88
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: May 01, 2012, 06:07:17 PM »
How does the method in which these particular renderings of the maps were created affect the fact that they were created by FES members?

The method by which they were created is the whole point.  You evidently have not been following this thread:

Tom claimed that the map in the FAQ was not produced by -- nor based on something produced by -- the formula which produces a map that looks exactly like it. Rather, they invented it from scratch on their own, and then after it already existed, Round Earthers cleverly devised a formula to transform the globe into that configuration.
The map and the formula is based on the original flat earth map.
Yes, that's correct.



How did you establish that James Hastings-Trew is not and was not a member of FES?

If you had bothered to refer to the sources I provided, you would not be asking this question for any reason other than to troll. Look at his website.

89
What will happen when they find out atmospheric ejection is not possible?

The Flat Earth Society gains public validation -- you should be thrilled.

Or maybe The Conspiracy will once again use its omnipotence to employ foolproof censorship and cleverly-placed blimps, and everyone will be none the wiser.

90
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The source of FES's map
« on: April 30, 2012, 10:39:46 PM »
Alright, so apparently at least 3 others besides Tom Bishop claim that the map originates from the FES. Interesting. Who created it? How did it come about? Tom Bishop posted a similar map; is he the mystery designer, perhaps?

Well, actually, with the help of another user here, I was able to find the tools used to create these maps:

So, here we have the map created by James Hastings-Trew:



(full size)


And, when loaded into GProjector and re-projected as azimuthal equidistant, we get an exact replica of the "Flat Earth" map:



(full size)


Tweaking the variables a little, we get the version posted by Tom:



(full size)


Care to explain, anyone?

By the way, James Hastings-Trew is clearly not a member of the Flat Earth Society. If this is your map, why don't you file a copyright dispute against him?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 38