Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    Re-Check/Weird Scenes    The "Futurama's origins" paradox. « previous next »
Author Topic: The "Futurama's origins" paradox.  (Read 4019 times)
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Metalhead308

Crustacean
*
« on: 10-17-2008 20:48 »

First off I'm only 14 so I could be wrong, although I highly doubt it, but I think I pretty much proved that Fry never should have been sent to the future in the first place.

Okay, let's go back to "Roswell that ends well", this episode ended with Fry being his own grandfather, and in "The why of Fry" we learn that Nibbler shoved Fry in the cryogenics tube, pretty simple until now right?

Now, there's the matter of "why did he shove Fry and not some other person?" and we got the answer to this too, it was because Fry lacked the delta brain wave, rendering him stupid and therefore unable to be detected by the floating brains. We should note that he lost the delta brain wave by becoming his own grandfather.

So, until now that seemed pretty plausible to me...but I've come around to think about it a little more and came up with this neat paradox, Fry was pushed into the cryogenics tube because he lacked the wave he lost only after being sent to the future...okay this might not even sound like english...even to me it just looks like a bag of words so I'm probably gonna have to try and detail a bit more.

So here's how it goes, Fry only lacks the delta brain wave because he's his own grandfather, he impregnated his grandmother because his original grandfather died, his grandfather died because Fry killed him, Fry killed him accidentally after being stranded in the past for a couple of days, he was lost in the past because he put a metallic pop-corn container in the microwave while watching a supernova from up-close, Fry only got to see this because he was in the future, Fry was sent to the future by Nibbler, Nibbler sent him to the future because he lacked the delta brain wave.

So Nibbler sent fry to the future based on the fact that he lacked the delta brain wave, which he lost after a succession of events started by being sent to the future, sure it still can makes some sense now...but I'm not done yet.

Since I just (kind of) proved that Fry should have the delta brain wave before being frozen then this also proves he wouldn't be this..stupid...so "Smart Fry" wouldn't put a metallic popcorn container in a microwave oven because he wouldn't do something so dumb, and if he had out of inattention he wouldn't leave his grandfather in a soon-to-be-nuked house either. So he never would've lost the delta brain wave and Nibbler would have no interest in shoving Fry in a cryogenics tube for shits and giggle. The Nibblonians probably would've worked on an alternative to Fry like a uhh...Nerd-seeking Missile of some sort...anyways I'm drifting off-topic...

Basically if we were 100% scientific about this (and if I'm actually right) the origin of Futurama makes no sense.
And yes, I do have too much free time on my hands...that doesn't mean I can't waste it on trivial facts and proving the existence of paradoxes.
futz
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #1 on: 10-17-2008 22:49 »

I think you are viewing it as a straight line rather than a closed loop. The Fry Nibbler shoved into the cryo tube is his own grandfather. Likely there would be no Fry if he wasn't his own grandfather since he would be genetically quite different.
Metalhead308

Crustacean
*
« Reply #2 on: 10-17-2008 22:59 »

I guess so, the way I see it, something happens first, in the original timeline, then when someone goes to the past, it's altered but has the same conclusion, like the paradox-solving time-travel code in bender's big score. Only this time I don't see how it could have happened in the original timeline so I have a paradox because it happens anyways ^^ btw, would you mind clearing things up yourself?
futz
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #3 on: 10-18-2008 04:45 »

I can't because it's really just an elaborate "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?"
question.
Metalhead308

Crustacean
*
« Reply #4 on: 10-18-2008 11:03 »

So...what you're saying is that, until further notice, this is both true and false due to lack of evidence to either answer right?
hobbitboy

Sir Rank-a-Lot
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #5 on: 10-18-2008 13:07 »

either that or 'if your usual way of thinking about things doesn't work, consider finding another way'.

Don't hate me, Trinity.  I'm just the messenger.
Cinimod

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #6 on: 10-19-2008 09:24 »

If Fry had become his own Grandfather in 1947. Then the Fry in the episodes will always have been his own Grandson, even if he hasn't performed the actions that made him so yet.
Metalhead308

Crustacean
*
« Reply #7 on: 10-19-2008 16:22 »

Wait...I came around to think of it another way, so basically it's possible if the Fry who isn't his own grandfather yet still somehow got to the past, became his own grandfather and, everything happened again another way with the same consequences...it's pretty unlikely but hey, he could've froze himself on purpose this time ^^well anyways...I should stop going on about this, I sound (and feel) crazy.
human horn

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #8 on: 11-11-2008 05:06 »

Well, the general thought/acceptance of this is that Fry always posessed the Delta Brainwave issue, as he was always his own Grandfather.

If you note, Enus was not too terribly interested in Fry's Grandma, because, he had other interests.

When the brainwave issue was first put to use, it was before Fry had been sent back in time, but he still had it, so he already had to be his own grandfather.

It is why the producers always tried to avoid time travel episodes, as they always bring up so many questions, but in this case, with the "Why of Fry" they actually went back to specifically answer previously unanswered questions.

So, there was never a Fry that wasn't his own grandfather.
Metalhead308

Crustacean
*
« Reply #9 on: 11-11-2008 14:59 »

Pretty much...but if I'm not mistaken, gays did it with gals anyways, it's just that I find it hard to believe that Fry could exist in the first place, what are we to believe that this is some sort of a magic cartoon character? I sure hope someone got fired for that...

Sorry for using that but seeing what I wrote almost a month ago made me feel like quoting this...
ChewToy

Poppler
*
« Reply #10 on: 11-13-2008 06:47 »

I think you should think about it like this:
Nibbler said that it was only a prophecy of his peaple that fry would come important 1000 years in the future.
That is the reason he was frozen, not because they knew exactly why he would be so important. And once he was frozen, he could become his own grandfather.  cool
robertojamison

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #11 on: 12-11-2008 00:22 »

This issue of time space paradox has come up in several episode. As i've learned from episode commentaries this issue is very interesting to the writers. I have a feeling that more time travels episodes will come. I'm betting that the writers will not answer the Fry grandfather paradox, but rather create more to keep fans talking/guessing.
freddo

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #12 on: 02-20-2009 15:23 »

ChewToy. you spelt people wrong

I think you should think about it like this:
Nibbler said that it was only a prophecy of his peaple that fry would come important 1000 years in the future.
That is the reason he was frozen, not because they knew exactly why he would be so important. And once he was frozen, he could become his own grandfather.  cool

how would nibbler know that fry would become his own grandfather unless he already was
in that case fry was destined to go to the future in the first place meaning nibbler acted on fate when he pushed fry into the tube?
teif
Poppler
*
« Reply #13 on: 02-20-2009 18:02 »

Paradoxes like this are pretty common in science fiction stories. The grandfather paradox is probably the most famous of them, although usually in reverse (the main character kills their grandfather and so should no longer exist (how were they born?)).
This one is more of the type where you go back in time and save your own life, or the life of any one of your ancestors.

I wouldn't say it was a weakness of a writer to put a paradox like this in a story, they are usually designed to make us think or in this case to make us laugh.
I think the idea is that the loop has always been in place. There can never have been anything to start the sequence off because each event is always dependent on something else happening elsewhere in the sequence of events.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #14 on: 02-20-2009 19:28 »

Fry never "lost" the Delta Wave, Metalhead. He was born without it. The timeline works as a closed loop rather than anything with a beginning or an end. This is what links Fry to the "nexus" point in 1999, as it is around the event of him being frozen that the loop (or wheel if you prefer) turns.

Even the events in Bender's Big Score don't ruin it... in fact they re-inforce the "nexus" theory by adding the tattoo which shares a similar origin paradox to Fry. It too is part of a closed loop. As are all the "paradox" events. It would seem that according to the laws of the Futurama universe, if you travel in time, you cause a paradox of some sort. The universe is not affected by the paradox, because the paradox was (paradoxically) part of the chain of events all along.

It makes perfect sense, if as Doc Brown said in Back to the Future II, you think fourth-dimensionally. big grin tongue
Your Standard BendingUnit

Crustacean
*
« Reply #15 on: 02-23-2009 06:50 »

I would say that Nibbler didn't push Fry in the tube because he didn't have the delta brain wave. If I recall, he says something like their sages forsee that in a thousand years, the fate of the universe will depend on Fry. The sages forsaw Fry being the one they needed, possibly because he lacked the delta brain wave, but they didn't just see someone who lacked the delta brain wave and figure they needed them. Their sages must have just "sensed" with their sage powers that they would need Fry to be there in a thousand years (where he wouldn't have the delta brain wave, or ever have had it because of the cyclical nature of time travel). Therefore, Fry always had the delta brain wave as he was always destined to be pushed into the tube.

$.02
Jezzem

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #16 on: 02-23-2009 08:00 »
« Last Edit on: 02-23-2009 08:11 »

It also makes sense if you look at the timeline like this:

--------1947----------------------------------------1999-------------------------3003
Fry does the "nasty in the pasty"                 Fry is pushed into the              Fry goes back
Making him his own grandfather                           freezer                               to 1947

You see, he had the brain thing when he was pushed into the freezer because he had already become his own grandpa. Although, like what has already been said, Nibbler didn't say that they knew specifically how he would be able to save the universe so none of it really matters that much does it?

(edited so that the timeline would fit onto one line)
upside_ur_head

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #17 on: 02-26-2009 23:44 »
« Last Edit on: 02-26-2009 23:46 »

Wait but in 'The Why of Fry' Fry ends up putting himself in the freezer tube and in the pilot it just has Nibbler's shadow.

EDIT: Does that mean the events shown to Fry when making the query to the gigantic brain and what's shown in the pilot are erased from the timeline where Nibbler no longer pushes Fry into the tube and Fry does it himself?

iceiwynd

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #18 on: 02-27-2009 02:00 »
« Last Edit on: 02-27-2009 02:02 »

No... I don't think so. All of the events probably would have still played out the same way; it's not like Fry pushing himself into the tube is actually going to affect how he meets Leela and Bender, or any of the PE crew's subsequent adventures beyond that. The only thing that changes as a result of this meeting is that the Nibblonians give Fry a different scooter, since that was actually directly addressed.

Unless... I'm a little confused as to what you're actually asking about, so to cover another base here, if you're talking about Fry learning about the way he came to the future, I think that would be erased but Fry would still have some memroy of it - except then Nibbler blanked his memory, so the point kind of becomes moot anyway.
upside_ur_head

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #19 on: 02-27-2009 11:47 »

Yeah I quess its like asking about where the time tattoo in Score came from as Bender put it on Fry from Lars it means that Fry had always had the tattoo until it was removed by Nibbler.
dr.bender nye

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #20 on: 02-27-2009 12:13 »

Now you know why they tried to save Time Travel for the later series.
freddo

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #21 on: 02-27-2009 16:03 »

they had time travel in roswell that ends well
Scruffy@Jail

Crustacean
*
« Reply #22 on: 05-06-2009 16:15 »

Time travel always creates paradoxes duhhh
Harold Ziod

Crustacean
*
« Reply #23 on: 06-21-2009 02:47 »

it could just be to do with the writers own theorys on space and time..
There is a theory that everything is already planned out, so fry could have been his own grandfather from the begining, if that makes sense


wow i dont even know what i said there :|
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #24 on: 06-21-2009 03:05 »

There is a theory that everything is already planned out,

That isn't a theory so much as a desire held by pissweak spiritualists to absolve them of any responsibility to the world or their own lives.
hobbitboy

Sir Rank-a-Lot
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #25 on: 06-21-2009 12:58 »

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #26 on: 06-21-2009 16:21 »

Yeah sure, okay. Well theoretically I'm a giant pink fluffy teddy-bear with death-rays for eyes.

People are free to call anything a theory, but many are only doing it to lend credence to something which is otherwise unverifiable nonsense dreamed up out of some personal need rather than an observed phenomenon. That's the difference between a proper theory and something constructed to fit a person's whims - observation.

Example:
Theory of evolution - fossil evidence and measured alterations of existing species in real time.
Theory of spontaneous manifestation - nil evidence; overwhelming evidence to the contrary; theory created to suit pre-existing belief.

As for everything being 'planned out'...? There has never been any evidence of this, only of Universal chaos - things just happen. No master plan has been observed. That isn't to say that it doesn't exist, since we can't know that, but calling it a 'theory' besmirches the reputation of real science, which formulates theories to explain things which have been observed.

Yes, probably unnecessarily deep for this thread, but I just went through a bottle of wine.
hobbitboy

Sir Rank-a-Lot
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #27 on: 06-22-2009 17:28 »


   People are free to call anything a theory


Agreed. They may be wrong, of course. Not everything is a theory, in the same way that not every word is a noun. But that wouldn't stop them from making the claim.

Quote

   but many are only doing it to lend credence to something which is otherwise unverifiable nonsense


   Well if you can convince people of something they wouldn't otherwise accept merely by associating the word 'theory' with it then you'd be stupid not to.

Quote

   dreamed up out of some personal need rather than an observed phenomenon.


   How is this a useful distinction? As you are about to say, theories stand or fall on obsevations. So whether or not those observations bear the theory out, the 'how' or 'why' of the theory's origin is of no scientific importance.

Quote

   That's the difference between a proper theory and something constructed to fit a person's whims - observation.


"Proper theory"? Sounds suspiciously like religious-speak to me (c.f. "true science"). Are you sure you're not just making up artificial categories after the fact to enable you to classify those theories you like differently from those that you don't? Even if you could define it precisely enough, how would such a classification be useful (from a scientific point of view)?

Quote

   Example:
   Theory of evolution - fossil evidence and measured alterations of existing species in real time.
   Theory of spontaneous manifestation - nil evidence; overwhelming evidence to the contrary; theory created to suit pre-existing belief.


So? Which one is prevalent in scientific journals? Which one is being tested and refined via scientifically valid methods the most? Which one is being the most sucessful at expanding our scientific knowledge? The process of science (overall) is relatively impartial and theories stand or fall on their scientific merit. Knowing which interest groups support what theories and why is of no concern.

Quote

   As for everything being 'planned out'...? There has never been any evidence of this


Oh, come now. Now you're just being silly. Given the number of decimal places you have to tune the universal constants to just to get a universe that supports the existance of matter, let alone life, the very fact that we are here at all is as much evidence that those numbers were deliberately chosen (i.e. "planned") as it is a consequence of the fact that if it were otherwise we wouldn't be here to have this discussion. A claim of "no evidence" is worse than hyperbole, it's false.

Quote

   only of Universal chaos - things just happen.


Uh, no. universal chaos would mean no laws (e.g. conservation of momentum), no forces (e.g. gravity),  and nothing working the same from one moment to the next. This is not what we observe at all.

Quote

   No master plan has been observed.


And if beings were capable of "planning" and creating a universe, what sort of thing should its inhabitants be looking for? Or is this one of those 'we don't know what we're looking for but we'll know it when we see it' kind of deals?

Quote

   That isn't to say that it doesn't exist, since we can't know that, but calling it a 'theory' besmirches the reputation of real science, which formulates theories to explain things which have been observed.


Good grief! Besmirch? Science doesn't stop working just because non-scientifically minded people don't understand it. Science is (in my opinion) the scientists, the work that they do, and the way they do it. You can promote any number of inane theories but that won't affect the vast majority of scientists (not in their field of expertise or interest) and even those who do pause to consider some new theories aren't going to spend so much time doing so that it negatively impacts on the work they're already involved with. So you're possibly left with a handful of people who have the time and the inclination to waste their time investigating some patently stupid ideas but science has always had people like these and while most either see the light and return to the fold or take themselves outside the realm of science completely, very occasionally one of them turns up a discovery of real merit in spite of initial apperances.

And that's the essence of my issue* with your post. This concept of 'proper theory' and 'real science' is a non-scientific distinction which only serves to support the status quo and marginalize anything else. Its a form of censorship based on current knowledge and conventional wisdom. Sure, we would prefer to not have to listen to ignorant crackpots push their personal agendas in spite of the facts but how many crackpot-like theories which would actually turn up useful information if they were allowed to see the light of day are you prepared to sacrifice in the drive to protect the purity and honour of science's good name? Especially when science doesn't need defending, even if it could be.


* Well, the main one, anyway. Change the subject of your post and a few of the nouns and it would be suspiciously close to the sort of thing you would find in a pamphlet of some fanatical religious group or other.  wink

Peace, Love, and Mung Beans

Don't hate me, Trinity.  I'm just the messenger.
Harold Ziod

Crustacean
*
« Reply #28 on: 06-22-2009 18:05 »



As for everything being 'planned out'...? There has never been any evidence of this, only of Universal chaos - things just happen. No master plan has been observed. That isn't to say that it doesn't exist, since we can't know that, but calling it a 'theory' besmirches the reputation of real science, which formulates theories to explain things which have been observed.


i was not saying that this is certain but im just saying that some people take this as thier theory of the universe
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #29 on: 06-23-2009 02:34 »

Jesus, I said I was drunk, Hobbitboy. mad
Now you've just gone and made my headache worse.

Quote
Given the number of decimal places you have to tune the universal constants to just to get a universe that supports the existance of matter, let alone life, the very fact that we are here at all is as much evidence that those numbers were deliberately chosen

Well not really. There could easily be an infinite number of wholly-inhospitable Universes. We observe this one because it happens to be the one we appeared in due to the fact of it being the one to support us. From the observer's perspective that can appear as providence, but it's just cause and effect.
Fungus will appear on a rotting half-slice of pizza behind my sofa and not the various pens and coins that are also back there, not because the offending foodstuff was created specifically for the purpose but because it just happened to be ideal. The fungus may think otherwise, but it's an idiot.
So the pizza slice (our universe), is one object among many (other universes), and it was the only one to spawn life (possibly). The idea that it was tailored specifically for us is arrogant presumption and ignores the fact that it created us - we weren't introduced to it pre-formed. We obey its parameters, not the other way around.

There is no providence. No higher being is looking out for us. We're on our own. ANd I need to clean up behind my sofa.
hobbitboy

Sir Rank-a-Lot
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #30 on: 06-23-2009 12:30 »
« Last Edit on: 06-23-2009 12:32 »


Quote

      Given the number of decimal places you have to tune the universal constants to just to get a universe that supports the existance of matter, let alone life, the very fact that we are here at all is as much evidence that those numbers were deliberately chosen


   Well not really.


Not really what? Are you disagreeing with my contention that observation A can be used as evidence to support theory T or are you just introducing additional theories that A also supports? Because no matter how many other theories (U, V, W etc) there are which are supported by A, it doesn't change the fact that A also supports T and hence the contention that there is no evidence for T is still false.

Quote

   There is no providence. No higher being is looking out for us. We're on our own.


Is that an article of faith or (given that neither side finds the other side's "evidence" particularly compelling) do you actually have proof? You weren't quite so domatic about it yesterday...


   No master plan has been observed. That isn't to say that it doesn't exist, since we can't know that


Don't hate me, Trinity.  I'm just the messenger.
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #31 on: 06-23-2009 14:56 »

Not really what? Are you disagreeing with my contention that observation A can be used as evidence to support theory T or are you just introducing additional theories that A also supports? Because no matter how many other theories (U, V, W etc) there are which are supported by A, it doesn't change the fact that A also supports T and hence the contention that there is no evidence for T is still false.

I was trying to say that we are only able to observe the universe because we are in it. Surmising that its capacity to support us is evidence of it having been tailored to us specifically is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. If it wasn't able to support us then we wouldn't observe it. Am I articulating it correctly? We are a product of the existing Universe as it is, with its aforementioned 'rules', so it was not made for us, we are simply a component of it. Therefor pointing out its suitability to us as evidence of some (divine?) providence doesn't make any sense.

Quote
Is that an article of faith

Only probability. Although at a certain point I have to give up on the qualifying statements, otherwise I'd have to walk around accepting the possibility of Fairies and Unicorns and such. Then you'd call me a loonie. But not if I spoke about God, for which there is a similar absence of evidence. Curious that, don't you think?
Wonderpants

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #32 on: 06-23-2009 15:48 »



I was trying to say that we are only able to observe the universe because we are in it. Surmising that its capacity to support us is evidence of it having been tailored to us specifically is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. If it wasn't able to support us then we wouldn't observe it. Am I articulating it correctly? We are a product of the existing Universe as it is, with its aforementioned 'rules', so it was not made for us, we are simply a component of it. Therefor pointing out its suitability to us as evidence of some (divine?) providence doesn't make any sense.


Or to put it another way, thinking like the earth is just right for us is like seeing a puddle and thinking that the hole is just the right shape for the water to fit into!
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #33 on: 06-23-2009 16:08 »

Oh thank you! I was trying really hard to get a more obvious analogy. You summed it up perfectly. smile

And I call myself a writer. no no
Wonderpants

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #34 on: 06-23-2009 21:10 »

To be honest, it's not my analogy. I've seen it elsewhere (possibly in Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion).
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #35 on: 06-23-2009 21:27 »

Wait but in 'The Why of Fry' Fry ends up putting himself in the freezer tube and in the pilot it just has Nibbler's shadow.

EDIT: Does that mean the events shown to Fry when making the query to the gigantic brain and what's shown in the pilot are erased from the timeline where Nibbler no longer pushes Fry into the tube and Fry does it himself?



Closed loop within a closed loop. Wheels withing wheels. The universe is a great big fractal. big grin cool
hobbitboy

Sir Rank-a-Lot
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #36 on: 06-24-2009 17:25 »
« Last Edit on: 06-24-2009 17:26 »

Imagine, if you will, three scenarios:

A) The universe came into being (for the purposes of this discussion) at the big bang through entirely 'natural' processes and proceded to evolve without any 'outside' interference.

B) The universe is an artificial phenominon specifically designed to spawn homo sapiens after having run for some 14 billion years or so.

C) Homo sapiens are an artificial creation and the universe has been constructed to house them. Both are no more than a few thousand years old and anything that appears older was fabricated to just appear that way to the inhabitants, i.e. the first humans were given created with memories of their 'past lives', rocks were created with fossils already in them, light (supposedly from distant stars) actually started with most of its journey already completed, etc.

If the creators of the universes in scenarios B and C did a good enough job, none of the inhabitants of A, B, or C would be able to distinguish which scenario they were in.

Statements like "We are a product of the Universe." would be true for A and B but not true for C, while "The Universe was not made for us." would be true for A but not true in either B or C.


I was trying to say that we are only able to observe the universe because we are in it. Surmising that its capacity to support us is evidence of it having been tailored to us specifically is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. If it wasn't able to support us then we wouldn't observe it. Am I articulating it correctly?


Yes, but that merely shown that the probability argument doesn't prove that the universe was 'tailored'. (It certainly doesn't disprove it.) But I didn't claim that anyway. I said it was evidence, I didn't say it was strong evidence, or conclusive evidence or anything like that.

Quote

We are a product of the existing Universe as it is, with its aforementioned 'rules', _ so _ it was not made for us, we are simply a component of it.

[Emphasis mine]

You say there is no evidence to support the alternatives (to scenario A) but what evidence is there that the second part of the preceding quote logically follows from the first part (i.e. what evidence is there that scenario B is not true)? Similarly, what evidence is there that even the first part of the quote is true (i.e. what evidence is there that scenario C is not true)?

[Though perhaps this discussion and any potential continuation of it would be better suited in a different thread.]

Don't hate me, Trinity.  I'm just the messenger.
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #37 on: 06-25-2009 01:52 »

I said: Only probability. Although at a certain point I have to give up on the qualifying statements, otherwise I'd have to walk around accepting the possibility of Fairies and Unicorns and such.
Books

Near Death Star Inhabitant
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #38 on: 06-25-2009 02:44 »

Or that there is another earth on the other side of the sun
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #39 on: 06-25-2009 04:00 »

Or Xenu and Thetans...
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.221 seconds with 17 queries.