Claim:Natural Covid-19 broke out of Wuhan lab (not man-made)

vooke

Active Member
The evidence that it didn't come from the lab is
a) word of the researchers themselves (they presumably know the genomes of the viruses they have),
b) analysis of SARS-CoV-2, and that itself is evidence of the development effort and knowledge that must have gone into it if it was artificially created (e.g. adaptation to an immune system).
”Come from the lab” phrase is vague, or could mean many things;

1. Genetically engineered and then release from the lab intentionally or otherwise

2. Collected from the wild and then released from a lab intentionally or otherwise

3. Collected and manipulated through either cell culture or animal passage processes before being released either intentionally or otherwise.

The word of the scientists who worked in the lab need corroboration especially seeing they may have been culpable for the leak if indeed it came from there.

The ‘analysis’ so far has only ruled out genetic engineering or #1 and not #2 or #3.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
How did you determine 96% is not ‘very similar’ enough for purposes of Andersen’s paper?
Because RaTG13 is mentioned in that paper; if it was sufficiently similar, they'd have mentioned it.
The research cited on Avian Flu using ten ferrets does not need ten generations of ferrets.
What ferrets are you talking about?
‘prolonged passage’ is not defined so you decided to fill it up with ‘many generations’.
Yes. many generations of virus so that the virus can mutate and adapt. Why else would it need to be prolonged?
I have no ides why you are intentionally conflating these two.
I am not conflating these two, I am accepting that cell culture is off the table.

what’s the basis for your assumption? Are you appealing to your ignorance?
The basis is that this is the evidence for GOF research that I know of that involves Dr Shi. If you have other evidence, please present it.
I'm trying to be friendly and not dismiss this claim outright as not being supported by evidence.
These are cell culture experiments, they're not GOF experiments? What claim do you want this source to prove?
How did you figure who led the research?
The authors listed first are the primary researchers; most of the others authors also come from Chapel Hill.
The point was not who ‘led’ the research but whether WIV has ever conducted such experiments or research.
Exactly. So what meaning do you associate with "the WIV has conducted GOF research"? My mental image of that is not "two researchers from Wuhan consulted on experiments done in North Carolina" (and it's not "examined the genes of wild bats in cell culture"). If that's the same to you, language breaks down here.
”Come from the lab” phrase is vague, or could mean many things;
1. Genetically engineered and then release from the lab intentionally or otherwise
2. Collected from the wild and then released from a lab intentionally or otherwise
3. Collected and manipulated through either cell culture or animal passage processes before being released either intentionally or otherwise.

The word of the scientists who worked in the lab need corroboration especially seeing they may have been culpable for the leak if indeed it came from there.

The ‘analysis’ so far has only ruled out genetic engineering or #1 and not #2 or #3.
#2 is pretty much ruled out by the 2017 paper you cite, unless they went and caught themselves some more bats?
#3 is ruled out by the paper that said cell culture passage is impossible and animal passage is improbable.
And anyway, it's the accuser who has to bring evidence, not the defendant. There is no evidence.
 

vooke

Active Member
Because RaTG13 is mentioned in that paper; if it was sufficiently similar, they'd have mentioned it.
If it was not sufficiently similar they would not have mentioned it either. The paper says ‘ it has not been described’ which probably means they are unaware of any research on this. Ignorance of research is no proof it does not exist. Newsweek interviewed virologists who questioned this line of thinking.

Point is, the paper is not beyond reproach.

The authors listed first are the primary researchers; most of the others authors also come from Chapel Hill.
WIV was involved. Do a word search for WIV in the article

Yes. many generations of virus so that the virus can mutate and adapt. Why else would it need to be prolonged?
Animal passaging does not require ‘generations’ of animals. Did you read the Newsweek article especially the bit about Avian Flu and ten ferrets? I will not paste the article nor it’s link again as I have done this.

These are cell culture experiments, they're not GOF experiments? What claim do you want this source to prove?
GOF experiments uses either cell culture or live animals. How different are cell culture passaging experiments from what the paper is describing?

#2 is pretty much ruled out by the 2017 paper you cite, unless they went and caught themselves some more bats?
#3 is ruled out by the paper that said cell culture passage is impossible and animal passage is improbable.
And anyway, it's the accuser who has to bring evidence, not the defendant. There is no evidence.
What part of the 2017 paper rules out #2?

Andersen paper never ruled out #3 unless you can show me where. The paper admitted the possibility but pleaded ignorance of studies to this effect.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
WIV was involved. Do a word search for WIV in the article
I did.
The WIV provided some of the cells that were used (along with other types from other sources) in North Carolina, and had two contributing authors (9th and 14th). I still say that's not "conducting research", that's consulting on research someone else does.
And next time, please make your point straight: don't say "do a word search", quote what you are referring to.

From the newsweek article:
You were using this to object to my use of "multiple generations" when it seems clear this Dutch scientist has passed this virus through ferrets for 10 generations. Now if that's normal passage, how long is "prolonged passage", and how fast do coronaviruses mutate compared to the avian flu?

I showed you where the Andersen paper ruled this out. The paper is virological evidence against the idea that SARS-CoV-2 came from the lab; and there is no evidence, virological or otherwise, for the idea that it did.
What part of the 2017 paper rules out #2?
The paper describes the relevant bat genes that they had in the lab at the time, and they don't fit this virus. So you'd have to show that they collected new bats since then? You were going to link the field research evidence?
Btw, the editor of that journal, Christian Drosten, is head virologist at the Charite in Berlin, which has their own bat virus lab. He or his colleague have definitely reviewed the data that the paper was based on.
 
Last edited:

vooke

Active Member
The WIV provided some of the cells that were used (along with other types from other sources) in North Carolina, and had two contributing authors (9th and 14th). I still say that's not "conducting research", that's consulting on research someone else does.
And next time, please make your point straight: don't say "do a word search", quote what you are referring to.
That is still participating in the research. They did their bit

You were using this to object to my use of "multiple generations" when it seems clear this Dutch scientist has passed this virus through ferrets for 10 generations. Now if that's normal passage, how long is "prolonged passage", and how fast do coronaviruses mutate compared to the avian flu?
Those are not ten generations of ferrets but ten ferrets in different cages.You need to revisit definition of a generation. My point remains; your claim of generations of animals in animal passaging is baseless.
The paper is virological evidence against the idea that SARS-CoV-2 came from the lab; and there is no evidence, virological or otherwise, for the idea that it did.
Yes it is, its an argument against genetic engineering of SARS-Cov-2 and not cell culture nor animal passaging, or accidental leak of the virus from a lab, No evidence is not the same as evidence against. Stop stretching the scope of the paper with unfounded claims.

The paper describes the relevant bat genes that they had in the lab at the time, and they don't fit this virus.
No it doesn’t. They were not studying relationship between RATG13 and SARS-Cov-2. They collected SARS-Cov-2 and only mentioned RATG because it is similar. I’m waiting for the minutest proof that for purposes of their paper ‘very close similarity’ is anything higher than 96%. You have none ,because the paper is silent on that.

I shared a link on another GOF paper and you disputed that Insisting it was all about cell culture. That’s like saying you are not Canadian, you are a man.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/
These are cell culture experiments, they're not GOF experiments? What claim do you want this source to prove?
Could you demonstrate what elements of a research paper qualify it to be a GOF research and show which elements this particular paper is lacking?
 
Last edited:

vooke

Active Member
Pompeo is at it again
“I can tell you that there is a significant amount of evidence that this came from that laboratory in Wuhan,” Pompeo said on ABC’s “This Week.” “These are not the first times that we’ve had a world exposed to viruses as a result of failures in a Chinese lab.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...mous-evidence-links-virus-to-wuhan-laboratory


The ABC link has the video and I don’t know how to embed it:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05...coronavirus-emerged-from-chinese-lab/12210882
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
This Newsweek article describes some of the research that Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted on Coronaviruses known as ‘gain of function’:
Newsweek writes "scientists have for the past five years been engaged" and the evidence we have is "five years ago", not "for the past five years", but that's close. This covers the two scientists from WIV being consulting authors on the Chapel Hill study.

Your phrasing is "the WIV conducted", and that's not covered by the Chapel Hill paper, because that research was conducted by the U of NC at Chapel Hill, and the Wuhan institute itself was not involved (but two scientists who work there were).

The difference is that "the WIV conducted" implies that there was GOF research in Wuhan, and that isn't what happened. The Newsweek article tries very hard to create the same impression with their phrasing, but almost manages to stay on the right side of the truth. You don't. Your phrasing was a simplification that was wrong and misleading. Just acknowledge that and move on.

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

I shared a link on another GOF paper and you disputed that Insisting it was all about cell culture. That’s like saying you are not Canadian, you are a man.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/

Could you demonstrate what elements of a research paper qualify it to be a GOF research and show which elements this particular paper is lacking?
You led this with "Here's another example" (of what?) and I asked "These are cell culture experiments, they're not GOF experiments? What claim do you want this source to prove?" It wasn't clear to me whether you want this paper to be evidence that they're doing animal passage (but it's a cell culture experiment) or whether you think it shows GOF (it doesn't), because that's what we've been discussing; or if you're after something else entirely.

But here's the thing: if YOU want this paper to be evidence that the WIV does GOF research, then YOU have to prove that claim. The paper doesn't have the word "gain" in it a single time, so it's not obvious. YOU need to make the argument that this is GOF research, which means that YOU have to find an authoritative definition of GOF and apply it to this paper and show that that's what they're doing.

The author summarizes this paper as "In addition, we found bat SARSr-CoV strains with different S proteins that can all use the receptor of SARS-CoV in humans (ACE2) for cell entry, suggesting diverse SARSr-CoVs capable of direct transmission to humans are circulating in bats in this cave." They did work to show that these S-proteins can infect cells via the ACE2-receptor, which they demonstrated using the WIV ACE2 cells. Their aim is to document a function that the bat viruses already have, not to change a virus to make it more functional. The research objective is not GOF.

"They collected SARS-Cov-2" is straight up wrong. This is a 2017 paper, any reference to SARS-CoV is to the 2003 epidemic virus, which differs a lot from SARS-CoV-2. They didn't collect SARS-CoV either, they collected SARSr-CoV, which are "SARS-related coronaviruses".

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

Those are not ten generations of ferrets but ten ferrets in different cages.
My words were "This virus must have been bred from a very similar virus in animals for many generations." Grammatically, we can shorten this to "this virus must have been bred for many generations". This does not involve generations of ferrets, but generations of viruses. You need a new ferret for each generation, so it's not just "ten ferrets in different cages" that you could infect simultaneously and see what happens, you have to infect them one after the other so you get a new generation of the virus for each animal, therefore 10 generations.

The term "prolongued passage" in the nature letter is linked to a study from Tottori, Japan and Wisconsin:
Article:
After 24 consecutive passages by air sac inoculation, followed by five passages in chicken brain, the avirulent virus became highly pathogenic in chickens

Fouchier was studying the avian influenza A/H5N1 in his ferrets. Influenza viruses mutate faster than coronaviruses.
Over in the other thread ( https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...hors-other-man-made-claims.11103/#post-238095 ), we've been discussing https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.015008v1 , which states that it takes ~40 years of mutation to get from RaTG13 to SARS-CoV-2 -- and RaTG13 is the closest match that we've found so far.
Article:
Specifically, SARS-CoV-2 seems to have a mutation rate of less than 25 mutations per year, whereas the seasonal flu has a mutation rate of almost 50 mutations per year.

Given that the SARS-CoV-2 genome is almost twice as large as the seasonal flu genome, it seems as though the seasonal flu mutates roughly four times as fast as SARS-CoV-2.

So if you wanted to do the same type of animal passage GOF research in Wuhan that Fouchier did in the Netherlands, you'd need 40 animals (which species?) that develop an immune reaction to this virus, and with the incubation period and time for the infection to develop and natural selection to do its thing, I estimate at least 2 weeks per generation, so 80 weeks at least. If you're taking the 29 passages in chickens as benchmark, we might be looking at ~120 coronavirus generations, taking ~240 weeks, so about 5 years.

We know that the WIV has good international connections to other virologists around the globe, Australia, Texas, North Carolina, Berlin. I know that researchers like to talk amongst each other about their projects. I absolutely can't imagine that Dr Shi would have kept a project as big and as long as this a secret while it was ongoing. Some of her international colleagues would know. But nothing in the current situation indicates that they do.

----------

The nature letter was written by a group of virologists from the US, the UK, and Australia. My quote is heavily excerpted, I'm not indicating elisions.
Article:
1. Natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer
This clearly shows that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein optimized for binding to human-like ACE2 is the result of natural selection.

For a precursor virus to acquire both the polybasic cleavage site and mutations in the spike protein suitable for binding to human ACE2, an animal host would probably have to have a high population density (to allow natural selection to proceed efficiently) and an ACE2-encoding gene that is similar to the human ortholog.

2. Natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer
Sufficient opportunity could have arisen if there had been many prior zoonotic events that produced short chains of human-to-human transmission over an extended period.
Further serological studies should be conducted to determine the extent of prior human exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

3. Selection during passage
In theory, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 acquired RBD mutations (Fig. 1a) during adaptation to passage in cell culture, as has been observed in studies of SARS-CoV11​. The finding of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses from pangolins with nearly identical RBDs, however, provides a much stronger and more parsimonious explanation of how SARS-CoV-2 acquired these via recombination or mutation19​.

New polybasic cleavage sites have been observed only after prolonged passage of low-pathogenicity avian influenza virus in vitro or in vivo17​. Furthermore, a hypothetical generation of SARS-CoV-2 by cell culture or animal passage would have required prior isolation of a progenitor virus with very high genetic similarity, which has not been described. Subsequent generation of a polybasic cleavage site would have then required repeated passage in cell culture or animals with ACE2 receptors similar to those of humans, but such work has also not previously been described.

In short, to create SARS-CoV-2 via animal passage, you'd have to find a lab animal where natural selection works to make the bat virus more efficient for humans, and nobody's done that before. You'd need to start with a virus that's close to SARS-CoV-2 so you don't take 40 years to do it, and nobody's seen a virus like that. And then you'd still need to run the equivalent of 29 chicken influenza passages, so ~120 coronavirus passages, which takes years.

What we do know is that people in the villages near the bat caves have bat-cov antibodies, which means 2 can't be ruled out (and people should probably stop going into bat caves repeatedly to hunt them).

So, to summarize this letter:
  1. SARS-CoV-2 could've entirely evolved in animals, we see one part in pangolins, another part in bats, they come together sometime and we get Covid. This is likely.
  2. SARS-CoV-2 could've evolved in a back-and-forth selection via human bat hunters. This is unproven and needs more research.
  3. SARS-CoV-2 could only have evolved in a lab if we assume several leaps in research that all would have been publishable in their own right, but weren't, and would have taken a very long time project running in secret. This is quite improbable.
To attack this evidence, you need to show that the WIV has made these leaps in research.
You would have to provide a strong motivation to keep this reasearch a complete secret for a long time, in an academic field where there is strong incentive for researchers to publish their findings, and for a group of researchers who have close contact with many colleagues across the world.
The letter has been published on the 17th of February on virological.org and on the 17th of March in Nature, and no such counterevidence has been forthcoming.

This is strong evidence that this virus evolved naturally, and it is also strong evidence that it did not evolve in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

To question this, you have to either discover new evidence (hasn't happened), or you have to assume a number of unlikely things that we have no evidence for, in the face of a likely explanation that we do have evidence for. In short, this question is not driven by evidence, but rather by wishful thinking that assumes the worst of fellow humans without any evidence to back it up.
The bold part is why conspiracy theorists are often depressing me.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
In short, to create SARS-CoV-2 via animal passage
this thread is about not-manmade virus escaping the lab. There is another thread to discuss whether the virus was created or modified in some way by humans in the lab.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
this thread is about not-manmade virus escaping the lab. There is another thread to discuss whether the virus was created or modified in some way by humans in the lab.
I am not sure there is a clear line between "manmade" and "not manmade" when talking ab out viruses in research labs:

In my semantic dictionary, "man-made" invokes the idea that there was a directed production process towards a pre-described result.

What they do at Chapel Hill or WIH is not that. Viruses in such research are neither "created" nor "modified" by humans. Instead, they mutate / modify themselves (both in nature and in lab experiments), and researchers observe those modifications (again, both in nature and in lab experiments).
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Instead, they mutate / modify themselves (both in nature and in lab experiments), and researchers observe those modifications (again, both in nature and in lab experiments).
I think if they modify themselves in lab experiments, then this means man-made. at least as far as keeping these different threads on topic.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The WHO spoke on this topic in the Q&A section of their May 4th press briefing. First, Maria van Kerkhove said that it is important to identify the true orgin of the epidemic and the intermediate hosts that may be involved so that we can prevent future outbreaks, citing MERS and dromedary camels as an example. Then Michael Ryan spoke on the political issues:
Article:
MR Just a supplement on your first question; no, we have not received any data or specific evidence from the US Government relating to the purported origin of the virus so from our perspective this remains speculative gut, like any evidence-based organisation we would be very willing to receive any information that purports to... the origin of the virus because, as Maria said, the origin of the virus is a very important piece of public health information for future control.

So if that data and evidence is available then it will be for the United States Government to decide whether and when it can be shared but it's difficult for WHO to operate in an information vacuum in that specific regard.

So we focus on what we know, we focus on the evidence we have and the evidence we have from the sequencing and from all that we have been advised is the virus itself is of natural origin and we need to understand more about that natural origin and particularly about intermediate hosts.
[..]
We have offered - as we do in every case with every country - assistance with carrying out those investigations and I'm sure colleagues in OAE and FAO are equally keen to offer that support. But again, a bit like the mission in February, we need to understand that we can learn from Chinese scientists, we can learn from each other, we can exchange knowledge and we can find the answers together.

If this is projected as an aggressive investigation of wrongdoing then I believe that's much more difficult to do. That's a political issue, that is not a science issue. We see scientists in China communicating and collaborating around the world right the way through this pandemic. We would like to see that spirit continue and we would like to see scientists at the centre of the exploration of the source of this.

Science needs to be at the centre. Science will find the answers. The implications of those answers can be dealt with from a policy and political perspective. So if we have a science-based investigation and a science-based inquiry as to what the origin species and the intermediate species are then that will benefit everybody on the planet and we believe that can be achieved with the appropriate approach to that very important question.

I can read this two ways:
  • if it didn't come from the Wuhan lab, then this asks whoever is pushing that theory to drop it, as it impedes necessary investigations
  • if it did come from the Wuhan lab, then this asks those who know to come forward with this information so that the origin of this epidemic can be properly understood. Politicizing the issue would presumably prevent this from happening as well.
Basically, the WHO says that political pressure won't achieve anything (and tends to be harmful) as long as nobody has any evidence to share.
 
Last edited:

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
The Editorial in Science magazine on the subject published online 8 May 2020.
Full text is here:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/early/2020/05/08/science.abc6859.full.pdf
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Qualiall Claim: Mike Adams of Natural News behind Monsanto Collaborators website Health and Quackery 4
Critical Thinker Claim: Correlations Between Media Preference and Coronavirus Infection Rates Coronavirus COVID-19 11
L Claim: NASA is doctoring an image [Scanner Dirt] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 7
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Martin Gugino Was Using a "Police Tracker." Conspiracy Theories 42
Rory Claim: A dog in Manchester could sense its owner's return by unknown means UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 20
jarlrmai Claim: UFO following jet into landing at JFK on 11/11/19 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 15
Dingo Claim: U.S. Covid-19 Deaths are being Artificially Inflated Coronavirus COVID-19 38
W Claim: The Heart Is Not A Pump Health and Quackery 6
J Another sun path claim Flat Earth 4
J Claim sun paths prove flat earth Flat Earth 41
R Claim: Apollo 15-17 Live TV Feed - Antenna signal would be interrupted from all the violent shaking when Astronauts touch the buggy General Discussion 26
Rory Claim: Spanish flu caused by radio waves Coronavirus COVID-19 3
J [False] Claim that Scale Model of 2017 Eclipse Disproves the Heliocentric Model Flat Earth 29
Rory Claim: UK Coronavirus Bill (HC Bill 122) means "bad things" Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West Claim: China Mobile loses 8.116 Million subscribers because of Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 2
Agent K Claim: Harvey Weinstein has coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West Claim: Julian Assange offered pardon to "Lie" for Trump Current Events 20
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Wiggles Claim: Distant Objects Being Obscured Is Due To the "Mirror Blocking" Effect of Inferior Mirages Flat Earth 7
Mick West Claim: Section 13.1 on Vaccine Inserts Removed to Hide that Vaccines not Tested to Cause Cancer Conspiracy Theories 7
Rory Claim: footage of Great South Bay Bridge supports flat earth Flat Earth 11
mudr0 Claim: Australia was not visible from the moon for Apollo 11 Broadcasts Conspiracy Theories 7
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Moon Passing The Meridian Disproves Globe Earth Flat Earth 0
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Seeing The Same Stars All Year Disproves Globe Earth Flat Earth 20
Mick West Claim: Fertility Clinics are a new thing (David Icke) Conspiracy Theories 12
Rory Claim: Nasa' in Hebrew means "to deceive" Flat Earth 11
Leifer Claim: magnetic dust on cars proves chemtrail fallout Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Neil Obstat Claim: zooming in on setting sun proves flat earth Flat Earth 23
Marin B Claim: Passenger luggage limited to make room for chemical tanks Contrails and Chemtrails 15
MikeG Claim: DC officials are "flocking" to "Doomsday Camps" Conspiracy Theories 4
StarGazer Convex Earth Claim: Ships Disappear Below The Horizon Due To A Optical Phenomena Flat Earth 3
Nth Claim: 146 Mile Microwave Transmission Proves Flat Earth Flat Earth 26
FlightMuj Apollo 12 photo analysis shows Sun as bulb [claim] Conspiracy Theories 19
inkwell American Airlines Flight 77 Missing from Bureau of Transportation Departure Report 9/11 12
ConfusedHominid Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
derwoodii Claim Melania Trump has a double, will the real 1st lady please stand up Conspiracy Theories 11
StarGazer Claim: First Image of Space Taken from V-2 Rocket Proves the Earth is Flat Flat Earth 17
Z.W. Wolf Claim: The Moon's Shadow During The Solar Eclipse Disproves Sphere Earth Flat Earth 97
B Claim: Flu vaccine from multi-dose vials Use Too Much Mercury Health and Quackery 19
SR1419 Claim: 757s cant dump fuel. (True) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
ki_cz Claim: Satellite imagery showing 'sheet' of contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job 9/11 336
vaccine papers Claim: flu vaccine increases risk of non-influenza infection Health and Quackery 8
Rory Claim: Japanese man puts animals to sleep with chi UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 23
MikeC Claim: FAA conspiring with Police to limit news access to Black Rock General Discussion 3
derwoodii Claim The seabed around Kaikoura, New Zealand has risen by up to 1.8 m earthquake General Discussion 20
Abishua Claim: water in moonlight cools faster than water not in moonlight [False] Science and Pseudoscience 160
MikeC Claim: New Zealand quakes man made...... Conspiracy Theories 4
TEEJ Claim of "UFO" interacting with "Chemtrail", Paris, France, 28th September 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Provemewrong Explained: Why flying isn't impossible on a globe Flat Earth 106
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top