Cryptomundo » Race Card in Bigfootry = “likely Caucasoid skin”?

Race Card in Bigfootry = “likely Caucasoid skin”?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 14th, 2008

Bigfoot likely Caucasoid skin

M. K. Davis began releasing information publicly on November 26, 27, 30, and on December 3, 2006, to promote a film project he reportedly was doing with Pat Holdbrook. Concurrently, Davis and a filmmaker began discussing and promoting to the public another film project.

I found that the Patterson subject was carrying…a stick. ~ M. K. Davis, December 3, 2006.

The following details the 2006 release of Davis’s information leaks of what he and his associates mutually said they were seeing in the Patterson-Gimlin footage. Such material included postings on sticks, the unfortunate “digger Indian” episode, responses and apologies. This is not about re-opening old wounds. Instead, it is about checking in, in quiet pursuit of knowledge, months later.

No one forced them to release any of their alleged information or their statements, of course. While patience was being asked in 2006 by them, Davis’s continued release of parts of what he promised to present in both films was for public consumption by Davis, Holdbrook, and the filmmaker (who doesn’t want his name even mentioned any longer).

Their releases of this information is part of the public record.

Read of this now, reflectively, to decide if any of the “evidence” presented in the last 18 months has confirmed the earlier promised claims. With M.K. Davis hitting the spring and summer Bigfoot lecture circuit anew (from Ohio next weekend to California in August), he needs to answer questions he raised in the fall of 2006. Where is his promised alleged startling evidence for Bigfoot being some type of “Caucasoid” subhuman, with a digging stick in its hand?

discoveryday2

Please read below closely, as some of what you will read is the filmmaker’s, not Davis’s, interpretations, within that individual’s release, including the quote in the title above.

Bigfoot likely Caucasoid skin

This person behind the initial claims is the “producer, videographer and editor of the upcoming Davis release,” as he has noted above his name via his comments sent in to Cryptomundo, also as “wildphotographer” - which if sent in are thus released for use on Cryptomundo. (Read your “Terms of Use.”)

This person has also publicly posted (Dec 6, 2006, 3:09 PM) as Wildphotographer, the following paragraph, under the heading “Concerning MK’s evidence” - reposted here according to “fair use” for rebuttal commentary below:

mk has suggested to me that ALL be made known prior to the DVD release through [a] secured chat room.

He has, in my opinion, solid evidence that this is no man in a suit. He has, again in my opinion, solid evidence that this is no ape or ape like creature as we know apes. It is DEFINITELY NOT Gigantopithecus blacki. His color enhancements CLEARLY show what is believed by MK to be a fabricated tool in the left hand of the creature which is dropped. His closeups of the body of the creature, in my opinion, shows what is likely Caucasoid skin showing through a ragged, patchy covering of hair, not a smooth, continuous coat of fur as is usually deduced by most when viewing the film. And, there are facial and cranial features that virtually eliminate any speculation as to the creature’s true classification.

whitefacedchimp

In rebuttal, here are some helpful facts from Cryptomundo:

(1) The implied logic in these series of statements convey that something is to be deduced in the name of Gigantopithecus blacki.

Of course, nothing other than mandibles (jawbones) and teeth have been found for Gigantopithecus. No one knows what a Gigantopithecus looks like, really. No cranial or facial features for Gigantopithecus can be fully assumed from the teeth and mandibles that have been found, despite Dr. Grover Krantz’s and others’ reconstructions, which all are based on thoughtful speculation.

Chimp With Stick

(2) Some great apes carry sticks and manipulated sticks that do not translate into them having any culture. Read more about this aspect here.

Bigfoot likely Caucasoid skin

(3) The scientific name Gigantopithecus blacki, of course, has nothing to do with the color of Gigantopithecus, its fur or its skin, as such details are impossible to tell from the fossils found.

In 1935, German paleontologist Ralph von Koenigswald discovered the teeth that led him to declare his find a new primate. The species name von Koenigswald picked, G. blacki, was bestowed in honor of the discoverer of the so-called “Peking Man” (Homo erectus), Davidson Black (1884–1934), a Canadian paleoanthropologist, who spent most of his adult life digging for fossils in China. The species specific portion of the name, simply stated, Gigantopithecus blacki, is after a famed colleague, not the color of the great ape’s skin tone.

Bigfoot likely Caucasoid skin

(4) White or pale skin color is found in various species of primates. It has nothing to do with these primates having “Caucasoid skin,” which may be a misnomer in this usage, as the affinity for Bigfoot is not established, for a variety of reasons. Indeed, in great apes, some chimpanzees - depending on factors related to age, range, and subspecies - have “white skin.”

The photographs posted within this blog illustrate this point specifically for chimpanzees.

Okay, eighteen months later, in all calmness, where’s the evidence for the earlier claims of “new discoveries” seen in the Patterson-Gimlin footage by M. K. Davis and his associates?

Real science is not advanced by DVD sales. - Spoon Nose

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am encouraged by the thoughtful responses to this blog. As an update, everyone may wish to examine in some depth Roger Knights’ full comment below, of which I wish to point out this sentence:

I can say with assurance that they’ll be not just surprised but mind-blown by one particular “find” he’s made, which he just divulged to me. Roger Knight

Of course, the promises of much to come is to be read in what we hear indirectly from Davis again, and I look forward to seeing and hearing more about this after Davis’s “surprises” are revealed at Don Keating’s gathering on May 17th.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 14th, 2008 at 12:01 am and is filed under Bigfoot, Breaking News, Conferences, Conspiracies, CryptoZoo News, Cryptomundo Exclusive, Cryptotourism, Cryptozoologists, Cryptozoology, Evidence, Forensic Science, Media Appearances, Men in Cryptozoology, Sasquatch, Videos. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

24 Responses to “Race Card in Bigfootry = “likely Caucasoid skin”?”

CamperGuy responds: May 14th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Previously never thought of Bigfoot in human racial terms.

Ok, thought about it and the answer is nope.

The young chimp is way cute.

Wasn’t the bigfoot with a stick completely dismissed as not being correct?

Is the theory being put forth that in north America there is a current situation that parrallels Europe at the time of the Neanderthals ( I like the old spelling) ?

Loren has a valid point. Where is the promised proof from so many months ago?

Maybe I am just not getting it. I look forward to the posts on this one.
jayman responds: May 14th, 2008 at 8:34 am
As noted, Davis will be speaking in Ohio May 17th. Maybe he will present more evidence then.
I feel “caucasoid” was an unfortunate choice of a synonym for “lightly pigmented” (and inaccurate - many so-called “caucasoids” have dark skin) and was not deliberately used with racist connotations.
I am personally coming to the conclusion that if Bigfoot does exist, it’s not just an ordinary animal.
Roger Knights responds: May 14th, 2008 at 9:39 am
MK does have new evidence, in the form of five new transparencies taken from the original film. One of them was shown on page 1 of the most recent (April) Bigfoot Times. He obtained these within the past month from Patty Patterson, and discussed his initial findings in Portland three weeks and 3 days ago. I attended and talked to him later about them–that evening and the next day–at Ray Crowe’s, but at that time he’d had only a few days to look them over.

He called me ten hours ago (before this thread was posted) and told me not to say anything about his material, so I won’t. He wants his audience in Ohio this weekend to be surprised. I can say with assurance that they’ll be not just surprised but mind-blown by one particular “find” he’s made, which he just divulged to me. It’ll knock all of us butt over teakettle. I think that on its account his presentation will be a historic event. I wish I could be there. I hope Perez gets a tape of his talk and prints the highlights.

In physics there are two categories of workers: theorists and experimentalists. I think MK is a great experimentalist–i.e., data discoverer. He deserves the Bigfooter of the Year award he got last year–and he’ll deserve another one this year. However, like nearly every Bigfooter, I have a more reserved judgment about his theorizing. And I’m even more “reserved” about the impetuousness and assertiveness of his theorizing. He lacks the “maybe-ism” and “model agnosticism” that my mentor, Robert Anton Wilson, advises in such matters.

I’ve told him that he needs a PR person. He agreed, but didn’t get my drift. What I meant was that he should run his opinions by some third party and get feedback as to how sensible his views would to sound to others–and heed that feedback. (In a nutshell, it amounts to “tone it down.”)

But he’s not the only big-name Bigfooter who needs a keeper, present company not excepted. (Sometimes I think we all do.)

Putting on my PR cap, MK may be objectively wrong about a Caucasoid skin-color being unusual in apes, and about Patty carrying a stick, and having a hair braid, etc. But there’s a reason it’s positive that he’s put that stuff on the table. I just “can’t go there” yet.
graybear responds: May 14th, 2008 at 11:03 am
In the film clip shown, I see no stick, I see no braid, I see no caucasoid skin. I do see living muscles working beneath a thick pelt, sunlight glinting off dark fur (something I have often seen on my old black Chow, long gone and still missed), and palms of the hands and soles of the feet which display lighter coloration than the face of the subject. If the lighter palms and soles are the basis for the caucasoid skin claim, then its an extremely poor one. Many very dark humans have very light palms and soles. In fact, if you look, the coloration of the palms and soles of humans vary only a little regardless of race.
Loren Coleman responds: May 14th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Of course, is Davis/Knight talking about “new evidence” or what was discussed as having been found in 2006? It doesn’t seem to be that what will be presented is from 2006, does it?

When Knight writes that “MK does have new evidence, in the form of five new transparencies taken from the original film…obtained…within the past month from Patty Patterson,” what happened to the “new findings” from 2006? What of past promises for startling results to be produced?

There is a firm foundation for confusion here, and a new round of distractions about new transparencies does exist. Though the former claims have not been proven or produced for others to review, are we not being asked to wait for yet brand “new evidence” to be shown?
Alton Higgins responds: May 14th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Roger, you wrote, “I can say with assurance that they’ll be not just surprised but mind-blown by one particular ‘find’ he’s made, which he just divulged to me.”

Am I to understand that you have not personally seen this “historic” bit of newfound evidence? That you are taking MK at his word regarding its significance and plausibility?
wtb1 responds: May 14th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Roger Knights wrote ~ “I can say with assurance that they’ll be not just surprised but mind-blown by one particular “find” he’s made, which he just divulged to me. It’ll knock all of us butt over teakettle.”

One can HARDLY rest assured. Things like what Roger wrote are just hype, as evidenced by countless similar claims made ceaselessly through the years.
PhotoExpert responds: May 14th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
As for my two cents: I can not judge the evidence unless I can examine the evidence. I think herein lies the problem. We are not able to judge the evidence. And if one has evidence that is very important to the BigFoot and scientific community, most would think one would want to disclose that information as quickly as possible.

I, like many have been patient. I am still patient. Yes, I could wait another year if need be because I see no new evidence in the PG footage that is availabe to the public. But perhaps Mr. Davis has some new evidence. And if he wants to disclose that in Ohio, that is his perogative. However, we have not forgotten the promise made in 2006. It is now 2008. Patience for some is a month. Patience for some can be years. The question is: where is the evidence promised back in 2006? I have not seen it or read about it and now Mr. Davis is moving on to new evidence. That is the problem in a nutshell. For two years, we have been waiting for the old evidence. We gave Mr. Davis plenty of leeway on that promise. In court, when someone owes someone such as money, and no time frame is given, the court decides the case on “a reasonable amount of time” to pay back the promisory debt. Most judges would agree that time frame is a year. We have waited double that amount of time, two years. So it has been a reasonable amount of time in most people’s opinion to come forth with the evidence of claims from 2006. I am more patient than most and can wait a bit longer. But seriously, ample time has passed for the promise to show evidence that was made in 2006. Hopefully, that will be done. And if it is tied in with the new evidence because Mr. Davis needed more definitive proof from the originals, that is fine by me. But why not just come out and say that? Why not say, I am clarifying my claims made in 2006 and waiting on the new transparencies. Almost all would be fine with that and take that as a satisfactory explanation. But with no satisfactory explanation forthcoming during the last two years and now, by coincidence, new information is announced, it appears as a marketing ploy. If it is not a marketing ploy, than it appears as arrogance on the part of Mr. Davis. He makes a promise to people, the general BF public, and then does not feel the need to clarify. That is arrogance or perhaps just oversight. But it sure makes the BF community feel as if we are subordinates.

So we are now relegated to waiting on the stick info once again. Fine, no problem.

And now we have the caucasoid issue to ponder as well. That is going to have to be fine too, we guess.

I guess we’ll just have to wait patiently once again. I’m OK with that but others may not be fine with that. So for me, I will wait.

I am thinking of other claims that were made during that time frame. I am not sure if they were by Mr. Davis or not, but I have not forgotten what I read at that time. I remember reading that Patterson and Gimlin were very lucky. Someone had written that there was a baby BF seen hiding in that film. It was proposed by the author that the female documented in that footage was leading the men away from the baby BF to supposedly protect it. And in that same article, it was furthered implied that the female BF was trying to lead the men into an “ambush” by a male BF waiting behind a tree. I must have watched that film or variations of it hundreds of times, and I never saw any such evidence.

Do you remember reading that somewhere Loren? I could have sworn I read that somewhere and now I can not recall where I read it. That’s another piece of evidence I have been waiting for along with the stick evidence.

Thank you!
red_pill_junkie responds: May 14th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
That third “thinking” chimp photo, man… LOL
cryptidsrus responds: May 14th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Interesting situation—fraught with confusion, as Loren said.

Like CamperGuy, maybe I’m not getting it.
AlbertaSasquatch responds: May 14th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
PhotoExpert, good point. I believe it was Ray Crowe who made the claim that Patty was leading the men away from the baby Bigfoot and possibly to Papa Bigfoot, but I might be wrong. I too have watched that film hundreds of times and watched every tree, bush, stick, etc, and not been able to see a baby BF, let alone Papa Bigfoot hiding behind a tree. I have a tremendous amount of respect for MK but enough is enough, let’s see/hear about this old/new evidence. Just my two cents.
Roger Knights responds: May 14th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
wbt1 wrote: “One can HARDLY rest assured. Things like what Roger wrote are just hype, as evidenced by countless similar claims made ceaselessly through the years.”

Very true, as long as you insert “usually” before “just hype.” (FWIW, I personally haven’t made such claims in the past.) Sometimes, rarely, they’re true. Hang on to your teakettle.

Alton Higgins wrote: “Am I to understand that you have not personally seen this “historic” bit of newfound evidence? That you are taking MK at his word regarding its significance and plausibility?”

At the time I wrote it I hadn’t seen them–and I didn’t want to see them. I have no background in photography, photoshop enhancements, biology, costume design, special effects, etc., so I give my opinion about what’s happening in fine points of detail in the PGF little weight. I follow the lead of others who sound like they know what they’re talking about and who’ve established their level-headedness and insightfulness in posts on the topic. What MK described, though, was something really extreme–something I couldn’t imagine there being much dispute about. As for what it implies, and then what that in turn implies, that’s another matter.

A word of background: I haven’t had much contact with MK (a couple of brief e-mails) until the past six months, and that has been only on a tangential matter related to Heironimus, not to the interpretation of the PGF itself. I’m not in his camp or cheering section. Instead, I’ve criticized (in moderate tones) some of his interpretations on BFF. So I wouldn’t just take his word for it about what he’s come up with. And I’m not asking anyone here to do so. All I was trying to do here was respond to Loren’s asking whether MK had come up with anything new. Since MK will be speaking with four days, asking the gang here to hold their horses for that long isn’t unreasonable.

Speaking as a senior-citizen-to-be (in three months), I consider MK’s flaws to be partly those of boyish enthusiasm, especially after talking to him. Put that aside. He’s a real discoverer, like Columbus. Columbus was doggedly insistent, in the face of the evidence, that he’d discovered the East Indies. I bet that crackpot theory ticked off lots of people who knew better. But that didn’t mean that his finds on his subsequent voyages weren’t of value. Ditto MK.

Getting back to what he’s got, I’ve now seen some of his animations comparing PGF frames to those in the new Patty-transparencies. Only those Bigfooters who are more expert than I in photo interpretation will be able to give a “weighty” opinion on them. And even that will hardly be very conclusive–what’s needed is examination by photo-analysis professionals. I’ve told MK that, and he’s agreed.

Having said that, however, one of these animations, which has been contrast-enhanced to bring out the main features, is just staggering. In light of it, I now consider my first post here to be an understatement. You’ll see. This will be historic.

Incidentally, the quality of these transparencies is excellent–it shows what we’re missing by not having the original (sob). I hope that, through his contact with Patty Patterson, he can come up with more photo evidence. That’s what could really advance things.
SOCALcryptid responds: May 14th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I have read comments on Patty’s hair being braided. Upon a little bit of investigating here is what I have found. Let me tell you I am a little disappointed for I can not see This braiding.
I went to http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/facialprofile.htm

This is what is said word for word. Stabilized Patterson film enhancements by M.K. Davis– Here we see at varying speeds, the Patterson subject’s facial profile, her hair is pulled back and appears to be twisted upwards on the side of her head in a roll upwards again into plaiting or braiding in the back of the head where it falls in long lengths down the back of her neck, spilling on to her shoulders and back….

The head is round, not pointed; the crest of her head consists of not bone but hair only….

Again I found this very disappointing because the enhanced footage, in my eyes, does not show this being solid evidence. I hope he will be able to back his claims up this weekend.
Roger Knights responds: May 14th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
PS: Where most of this new evidence points is at “right angles” to where MK has been going before. (I can’t give you more of a hint than that.) This should make it more generally acceptable.
PhotoExpert responds: May 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Thank you AlbertaSasquatch! I thought I had read that somewhere before and now you confirmed my memory.
jules responds: May 14th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Well, this has been fun reading.
Polar bears have all black skin;
only the fur is white.
Finback responds: May 15th, 2008 at 6:11 am
“Right angles”?

Oh my, you mean Patty was on the grassy knoll?!
cmgrace responds: May 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I do not claim to be overly knowledgable about anything (much less an unproven creature), but am I reading all of this right? Is somebody making the claim that Bigfoot may be some form of “caveman” with a culture and braided hair?

As for the mind-blowing evidence, I just hope one day it happens and the evidence is worthy of the phrase.
DWA responds: May 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Sheesh.

Am I the only one who feels huckstered-to here?

Let me just say this: anything that comes from a third-generation re-analysis of stills derived from a fourth-generation copy of transparencies provided immediately, OK not quite, following…

Getting tired yet?

This is the guy who said it’s an Indian with a stick.

Why am I bracing for a historic setback for sas research? Just idly wondering.

If he can show it’s a fake: GREAT. No really; I would cheerfully stand corrected. Now we can all move on. To the eyewitness evidence, which is truly where it’s at with the sas.

(Calling all women: this is why we need you in sas research. Men can get SO wrapped around Photoshop and irrelevant details.)
DavidFredSneakers responds: May 16th, 2008 at 2:35 am
“solid evidence that this is no ape or ape like creature as we know apes. ”

I’m assuming he means non-human apes?
This whole “ape v. man” debate is terribly dated I think, in terms of the semi-recent molecular evidence that puts us right there next to chimps. Where is he drawing the line?
noobfun responds: May 16th, 2008 at 5:28 am
ooo thats a bit of an iffy statement DWA

i agree with you about the phototshop comment if you think you see somthing so filter it some more you can end up filtering somthing you thought you saw to BE what you thought it was- were all familiar with the term matrixing by now

as for the swipe ALL men get stuck on this thats why women are better for this …. this face says it all really -> -_-

eyewitness statements suffer the same problems as image matrixing the mind adds a bit here takes a bit away so it makes sense to that person in thier own unconcious mind

then retelling adds flurish to the tale turns it to what you wanted it to be

i worked in a store and there was an armed robbery 5 memebers of staff in the store

the manageress in the story would tell you she heroicially faced down the robbers after making sure all members of staff were safe in the office locked the door

3 of us will say she saw them and ran into the offfice straight away without saying a word

the cashier who ran past us when we all went to see what the commotion was and was first in the office will tell you the manageress tried to lock us all out as soon as she got through the door and it was the cashier that stopped her

5 people 5 slightly different tellings of the same event even with 4 of us saying she was the first to run she still believes that she didnt run and wasnt scared

witness statements are just as liable to a form of mental matrixing as video/photo evidence

caucasoid skin ….. as shown chimps can exibit very light skin but can almost be black too

as mentioned above there is a wide variation in in caucasoid humans too examin an average mediteranean complexion to that of skandanavia

as for the above new evidence etc guess we will wait a few days then pick it apart or agree wit it as we each see fit

although the stick/braid id heard before but not the baby bigfoot and ambush dad ……. maybe we cant see them because they are hiding

would be a terrible ambush if we could see him stood there with 1/2 a tree to give them a beating with lol
Roger Knights responds: May 16th, 2008 at 7:56 am
DWA: You wrote: “third-generation re-analysis of stills derived from a fourth-generation copy of transparencies provided immediately, OK not quite, following…”

Actually, these were taken from the original shortly after the filming, and are better, imo, than the cibachromes (made in 1981).

What I meant by “right angles” is that the mind-blowing stuff he’s got doesn’t have anything to do with MK’s idea that Patty is some sort of human. (Well, it’s sort of related, but pretty tangential.) There’s really wild new stuff. The wildest ever, by far.

It does seem to me, as it does to many ‘footers, that MK has an unfortunate tendency to go well beyond the evidence in forming his conclusions, and that he can be annoyingly headstrong. But a lot of great men have this a-social I’m-right characteristic. From talking to him, I find this is made tolerable by his generosity of spirit, enthusiasm, and desire to find answers.

And his skill and dedication. It takes a great deal of time and technique to create some of the stabilizations and animations he’s created, and to notice the little details that are worthy of such attention. He’s really a standout there. So I think his critics should groan and bear it for the sake of his “finds,” and for his praiseworthy dedication to the quest, which may well bring in more discoveries, directly and indirectly.

“Take what you can use and let the rest go by.” –Ken Kesey

PS: I agree only with part of what he sees in this upcoming round, and some of that I’m not completely sure of. It’s going to take independent professional analysis to evaluate this stuff more confidently, because it’s so extreme. If I were in MK’s shoes, I’d have had such independent evaluations done first. (But who’d pay for them?)

Hopefully this controversy will have the effect of unearthing the original film and getting a neutral team of photo-analysts on the case. (That’s what should have happened in 1967.) Even if they disagree with everything he contends, Davis’s claims will still be valuable for having provoked such an examination. It may be that nothing else would do the job.
DWA responds: May 16th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Roger Knights:

OK, so MK reminds me of me.
It’s just that - in the same way that preconceptions flavored scientists’ perceptions of Patty - what I’ve seen of Davis’s opinions wrinkles my nose here.

But I always have felt -as you do - that our tendency to expect perfection in order to assert goodness is poisonous. I won’t say one negative thing about what he’s done for the Patty footage per se, that’s for sure. Looking at the stabilized footage is all one needs to do there.

So, point made. I just want to hear what THIS one’s gonna be.

Open mind. All ears. As any good skeptic should be.
DWA responds: May 16th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
noobfun:

Points taken, except for one it sounds as if was being made (so let me check).

In the robbery example, things happened bangbang, people had a deep need to justify their behavior in terms of the life-threatening nature of the experience, and the gloss-over of the manager’s behavior is just what a psychologist would expect from her.

In the case of sas sightings (which it sounded to me are being directly compared to this incident):

1) There are way way WAY too many of them to ascribe the above to even a significant minority of them;
2) Many had the opportunity for long observations, totally NON-bangbang, unthreatened by the animal, which gave them a very good opp to form an opinion shared across the spectrum of encounters - including a lot of bangbang ones;
3) Many witnesses, MOST in fact, have NOTHING to gain from their sighting, and in the main are reluctant to even say anything at all.

I could go on.

But if the psychologist that the skeptics keep calling for were put on this case, as a witness for their cause, I have a funny feeling they’d be very gravely disappointed.

“Sorry. But these people are seeing what they say they did. Every professional bone in my body says so.”

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Spread the Word!

24 Responses to “Race Card in Bigfootry = “likely Caucasoid skin”?”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

microsoft office 2003 oem,

cheap software downloads,

The Logo Creator MEGA pak 3.6;

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

software oem cd line business;

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

oem software bundle

"Buy cheap PhotoShop CS 2"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

oem software bundle

software oem cd line business;

inkjet definition oem software

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

"locate software oem files"

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

adobe any cs2 from photo photo shop shop upgrade version

"how to activate reget deluxe"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

"locate software oem files"

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training