Dave Greer Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 (edited) Applying the Concept I've attempted to show that there is a reasonable straight line correlation between lightsource, object and it's shadow on an Apollo visor, providing they aren't too close to the edges of the visor (there will still be a correlation, only not straight line). I'll now try and transfer this concept to some of the Apollo 12 photos to show why they can't be caused by the "artefact" under discussion, and where I believe the shadows are coming from. AS12-48-7071 A high-resolution version of this image can be found here. Firstly, let's look at the claim being made. Duane has made the claim that the artefact has cast a shadow which appears to be "on" the reflected image of Al Bean. I don't believe that this can be the case for several reasons. Firstly, look at the relative sizes of the artefact and it's alleged shadow. I can see no way to extrapolate to a light source that could cast this shadow, especially when compared to other shadows in the scene. Duane then claims that in photo AS12-48-7134, the astronaut has turned his head, and the object's reflection has moved further to the centre. However, 7071 was taken at a different location to 7134, and at mission time 133:15:32 (7134 was taken at 134:16:54, over an hour later). Furthermore, since the astronaut has turned his head, you would expect a surface feature on his helmet to move, but you wouldn't expect a reflected image to move, all other factors being equal. (Quick thought experiment - imagine a goldfishbowl in front of you. If you rotate the bowl, then the price tag you forgot to remove will obviously rotate - but your reflection stays the same - providing your are stationary, and the bowl is rotated, not translated). Nonetheless, let's look at the photo itself for clues. The alleged shadow now seems far larger than in the 7071 image. Again, I can discern no correlation between the artefact, the shadow, and the light source, as demonstrated below. (The reflected light source is toward the RHS of the helmet as we look, probably centred somewhere on the side eyeshade). As shown in the proof of concept section, I would expect a much closer "straight line" correlation than is apparent. EDIT Re the edit in previous post: in the last image it is clear that there isn't a linear relationship between the salient data points (sun, artefact, shadow), and that any relationship between them would in fact be curvilinear. However, given the convexity of the visor and the location on the visor of the data points, I can see no way that they would match up. For example, see the curved feature on the LHS of the visor as we look at it. It is even closer to the edge, and further away from the orthogonal point of the visor, but is not curved enough to be able to link the three features (sun, artefact, shadow). Thus, a better diagramme than the one above would be this one (I've highlighted the curved feature in red for comparison):- Edited January 24, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Some Conclusions So what is causing the shadow? I believe at least part of the shadow is that of the astronaut taking the photo. See the crop below, taken from AS12-48-7133. It's difficult to be absolutely certain where the reflection of the astronaut taking the picture is, but we know that his reflection is there, and that is must be quite centrally located on the visor (strictly speaking, where the surface of the visor is orthogonal to the direction of the reflected astronaut). There are three "hot spots" in this area which I suspect correspond to highlights on the astronaut's suit and helmet. See an enlargement below, position where I believe the astronauts reflection to be is directly under the red arrow - his shadow is highlighted by the yellow arrows. Matching up the tip of the shadow, tip of astronaut, and reflection of sun shows a good line fit, as expected given the proof of concept earlier. This leaves us with the following shadow unexplained by either a ceiling fan, or the astronaut. I'm unsure exactly what this shadow is at present, though suspect it is shade caused by a small crater. I've not been able to find any corroborative evidence yet, but am confident it cannot be caused by the visor artefact, and I don't believe it's cast by the astronaut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 23, 2007 Author Share Posted January 23, 2007 (edited) This is almost too funny for words ! Herr lamson wants me to take photographs of astronot's visors with reflections in them and smudges on them to prove my point !! .... Now I really am ROFLMAO !!! Evan wants me to post my "original work" so it can be ripped apart by Herr lamson and Co. .... and thinks that the evidence that Apollo was a hoax , provided by PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS and SCIENTISTS is NOT proving my point , but rather makes it weak ?? ... I can hardly believe what I'm reading . Then we have Dave posting more anomalous photos from Apollo 17 which shows what looks like a spotlight and he wants everyone to believe that it's just more smudges on the visor ! Then he alters that other weird looking black thing at the bottom of this visor reflection and wants us to think it's the shadow of the astronot taking the photo !! ... And if that isn't funny enough , he continues to post the Apollo 12 fan blade reflection anomaly and pretends that's it's four bladed shadow belongs to the astronot taking the photo ....UNBELIEVABLE ! Evan ... We all know what the original Apollo 12 photo looks like ... It is astro-actor Conrad standing next to the Surveyer III stage prop .... But the Surveyor prop is NOT causing the anomalous fan blade object that is reflected in Conrad's visor , for the simple reason that there is nothing on that Surveyor prop which looks like the reflected artifact .... The Surveyor has two large WIDE pieces at the top of it which in no way could have morphed into those four slender fan blades . Well, maybe in Dave's world it could morph into sometinhg it isn't ... But only after he has very cleverly ( NOT ) altered the photo .. You guys are getting more desperate every day with your lame attempts to suppress the Apollo hoax evidence ... I guess when scientists , physicists, and professional photographers finally speak out against nasa's phony moon trips , everyone does back flips to pretend to refute their evidence ..... I hope all you all flunkies are being well paid by nasa because if not , you are really wasting your time . The hoax evidence has been classified top secret until the year 2026 and most likely won't even be released then , if the military /industrial complex has anything to do with it ... The fact that Evan wants us to believe that the only evidence being held classified is the medical records of the Apollo astro-actors , is beyond ridiculous .... You know , I really expected more from the nasa defenders here ... Your arguments are just as lame as on every other forum I have posted the conspiracy evidence on . Edited January 23, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 (edited) Then we have Dave posting more anomalous photos from Apollo 17 which shows what looks like a spotlight and he wants everyone to believe that it's just more smudges on the visor ! You either didn't bother reading my posts, or you completely misread it. The Apollo 17 photos were used to show that the reflections of sun, astronaut and shadow match up linearly. I showed that using two photos, which I had clearly cropped and edited to show the point I was making - you have nothing to counter this with except for MORE baseless accusations of lying. Then he alters that other weird looking black thing at the bottom of this visor reflection and wants us to think it's the shadow of the astronot taking the photo !!I highlighted it to make it clear what features I was referring to. Why do you think it strange that an astronaut should cast a shadow, exactly where it should be given the light source? Do you not think it more strange if he didn't cast a shadow? What do you think it is? Evidence to support your opinion?... And if that isn't funny enough , he continues to post the Apollo 12 fan blade reflection anomaly and pretends that's it's four bladed shadow belongs to the astronot taking the photo ....UNBELIEVABLE ! Again, you didn't bother reading my analyis properly. I very clearly pointed out which part of the shadow I think is cast by the astronaut - and even highlighted a part that wasn't cast by him. Either you're not interested in hearing alternative and plausible explanations to your "fan blade" hypothesis, or you're just flame-baiting. Evan ... We all know what the original Apollo 12 photo looks like ... It is astro-actor Conrad standing next to the Surveyer III stage prop .... But the Surveyor prop is NOT causing the anomalous fan blade object that is reflected in Conrad's visor , for the simple reason that there is nothing on that Surveyor prop which looks like the reflected artifact .... The Surveyor has two large WIDE pieces at the top of it which in no way could have morphed into those four slender fan blades .Well, maybe in Dave's world it could morph into sometinhg it isn't ... But only after he has very cleverly ( NOT ) altered the photo .. I really think you should read what people post before you try to attempt to dismiss it out of hand - anyone who properly read my three posts and your subsequent replies will know that you haven't even tried addressing my points. I never ONCE mentioned the surveyor craft causing the "fan blade object".You guys are getting more desperate every day with your lame attempts to suppress the Apollo hoax evidence ... I guess when scientists , physicists, and professional photographers finally speak out against nasa's phony moon trips , everyone does back flips to pretend to refute their evidence ..... I hope all you all flunkies are being well paid by nasa because if not , you are really wasting your time . I hope you read this thread properly and appreciate the irony in this sentence. I've presented evidence which you've laughingly ignored, then either lied or assumed I said something I didn't, then accused me of a lame attempt to suppress hoax evidence? You haven't even tried to answer the evidence. If that's because you don't know how to, that's nothing to be ashamed of. Yet you can offer no evidence at all, other than "it looks like XYZ to me, therefore anyone who disagrees is a lying NASA disinfo agent". That is NOT evidence. I've presented evidence which I believe supports my position. I'll happily withdraw or alter it if anyone can falsify it. You know , I really expected more from the nasa defenders here ... Your arguments are just as lame as on every other forum I have posted the conspiracy evidence on . You wouldn't know, as your reply demonstrates you didn't read it. Duane - what happened to shooting the message, rather than the messenger? Without handwaving, strawmen, ad homs, and disinformation? Or are you not interested in debate any more? Edited January 23, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 This is almost too funny for words ! Herr lamson wants me to take photographs of astronot's visors with reflections in them and smudges on them to prove my point !! .... Now I really am ROFLMAO !!! Evan wants me to post my "original work" so it can be ripped apart by Herr lamson and Co. .... and thinks that the evidence that Apollo was a hoax , provided by PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS and SCIENTISTS is NOT proving my point , but rather makes it weak ?? ... I can hardly believe what I'm reading . Then we have Dave posting more anomalous photos from Apollo 17 which shows what looks like a spotlight and he wants everyone to believe that it's just more smudges on the visor ! Then he alters that other weird looking black thing at the bottom of this visor reflection and wants us to think it's the shadow of the astronot taking the photo !! ... And if that isn't funny enough , he continues to post the Apollo 12 fan blade reflection anomaly and pretends that's it's four bladed shadow belongs to the astronot taking the photo ....UNBELIEVABLE ! Evan ... We all know what the original Apollo 12 photo looks like ... It is astro-actor Conrad standing next to the Surveyer III stage prop .... But the Surveyor prop is NOT causing the anomalous fan blade object that is reflected in Conrad's visor , for the simple reason that there is nothing on that Surveyor prop which looks like the reflected artifact .... The Surveyor has two large WIDE pieces at the top of it which in no way could have morphed into those four slender fan blades . Well, maybe in Dave's world it could morph into sometinhg it isn't ... But only after he has very cleverly ( NOT ) altered the photo .. You guys are getting more desperate every day with your lame attempts to suppress the Apollo hoax evidence ... I guess when scientists , physicists, and professional photographers finally speak out against nasa's phony moon trips , everyone does back flips to pretend to refute their evidence ..... I hope all you all flunkies are being well paid by nasa because if not , you are really wasting your time . The hoax evidence has been classified top secret until the year 2026 and most likely won't even be released then , if the military /industrial complex has anything to do with it ... The fact that Evan wants us to believe that the only evidence being held classified is the medical records of the Apollo astro-actors , is beyond ridiculous .... You know , I really expected more from the nasa defenders here ... Your arguments are just as lame as on every other forum I have posted the conspiracy evidence on . Why do you have a problem doing the experiment and simply proving us wrong and you right? If you were really interested in the truth that would be the correct course of action. After all YOU made these silly claims supported only by what your untrained eyes tell you. You have no way of knowing if the "experts" you are so fond of quoting are indeed telling the truth or if they are simply blowing smoke up your behind. All you have is your "belief" and your "worldview" neither of which is compelling given your track record. I've come to the opinion that you really are not seeking the truth, you simply want to make your fantasy seem real. There is no problem with the arguments being presented to refute your silly claims. The problem is you simply don't understand them, and rather than actually learn WHY the arguments are correct, you continue to stick your fingers in ears and pretend you don't hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 The hoax evidence has been classified top secret until the year 2026 and most likely won't even be released then , if the military /industrial complex has anything to do with it ... The fact that Evan wants us to believe that the only evidence being held classified is the medical records of the Apollo astro-actors , is beyond ridiculous .... Do you have any evidence whatsoever that anything more is classified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) I don't have the time or the resources to photograph stage light fixtures and ceiling fans in astronot's visors ... If you can't see what is right before your eyes , and want to pretend that the Apollo 12 visor reflected anomaly is just a smudge on the visor , then go right ahead ....But as far as I'm concerned , you are wasting everyone's time with your silly claims .... Am I supposed to recreate the conditions of nasa's moon set photo shoot ? ... Are you clavius clones for real ? ... Or maybe you just want me to draw some clever little diagrams of where the ceiling fan, or stage lights and their shadows were on the moon set ? It's hard enough just reading the lies you geeks post without having to waste my time defending the obvious ... But it's all just a game anyway , isn't it ? .... You all pretend that something is not what it obviously is .. Then you all expect me to draw pretty pictures for you , of something you refuse to see or believe in the first place . Okay , let me put this simple terms that you all can understand .... The photo speaks for itself ... There is an anomaly reflected in the Apollo 12 visor which looks like either a stage light or a celing fan and this object also causes a shadow on the moon set floor ..... It is NOT a smudge and you do NOT need a picture or a diagram from me to prove this point .... Just open your blind eyes .... Open your closed minds .... and then look at the truth .... The Apollo photos are studio fakes shot on moon sets . Edited January 25, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 The hoax evidence has been classified top secret until the year 2026 and most likely won't even be released then , if the military /industrial complex has anything to do with it ... The fact that Evan wants us to believe that the only evidence being held classified is the medical records of the Apollo astro-actors , is beyond ridiculous .... Do you have any evidence whatsoever that anything more is classified? Matt ... Are you for real ? .... If something is CLASSIFIED it is a SECRET . How could I possibly know what nasa is hiding about Apollo ? .... I was hoping that in my lifetime nasa would fess up to faking the Apollo moon landings ... but of course that was just wishful thinking on my part because that is something they are never going to admit to ... Even when 2026 rolls around , I'm sure they will find a good reason to continue the cover-up .... Just the way the corrupt American government continues to keep the truth of JFK's assassination classified and covered up . Unfortunately most of the Apollo evidence has already been destroyed that could expose nasa's deceit ... The LM and lunar buggy blueprints were ordered destroyed by the FBI ... and the "lost" telemetry tapes will most likely never be found because they have either been hidden away under lock and key and gun point or they have been flushed down the toilet , where they probably belong anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I don't have the time or the resources to photograph stage light fixtures and ceiling fans in astronot's visors ... If you can't see what is right before your eyes , and want to pretend that the Apollo 12 visor reflected anomaly is just a smudge on the visor , then go right ahead ....But as far as I'm concerned , you are wasting everyone's time with your silly claims .... Am I supposed to recreate the conditions of nasa's moon set photo shoot ? ... Are you clavius clones for real ? ... Or maybe you just want me to draw some clever little diagrams of where the ceiling fan, or stage lights and their shadows were on the moon set ? It's hard enough just reading the lies you geeks post without having to waste my time defending the obvious ... But it's all just a game anyway , isn't it ? .... You all pretend that something is not what it obviously is .. Then you all expect me to draw pretty pictures for you , of something you refuse to see or believe in the first place . Okay , let me put this simple terms that you all can understand .... The photo speaks for itself ... There is an anomaly reflected in the Apollo 12 visor which looks like either a stage light or a celing fan and this object also causes a shadow on the moon set floor ..... It is NOT a smudge and you do NOT need a picture or a diagram from me to prove this point .... Just open your blind eyes .... Open your closed minds .... and then look at the truth .... The Apollo photos are studio fakes shot on moon sets . Duane It's a smudge - or a scratch - or both. It's not a reflection. How do I know this? By examining the evidence. Just like the visor artefact in as17-134-20387 is clearly a smudge/scratch. You can see the position of the sun change between frames from 20385 to 20387 - the artefact doesn't change size, shape or position - hence it's exactly what it appears to be - smudges/scratches on the surface of the visor. Just like the three artefacts in as17-134-20380 are not stage lights, but scratches. How closed was your mind when you insisted they were stage lights? Or were you just blind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I don't have the time or the resources to photograph stage light fixtures and ceiling fans in astronot's visors ... If you can't see what is right before your eyes , and want to pretend that the Apollo 12 visor reflected anomaly is just a smudge on the visor , then go right ahead ....But as far as I'm concerned , you are wasting everyone's time with your silly claims .... Am I supposed to recreate the conditions of nasa's moon set photo shoot ? ... Are you clavius clones for real ? ... Or maybe you just want me to draw some clever little diagrams of where the ceiling fan, or stage lights and their shadows were on the moon set ? It's hard enough just reading the lies you geeks post without having to waste my time defending the obvious ... But it's all just a game anyway , isn't it ? .... You all pretend that something is not what it obviously is .. Then you all expect me to draw pretty pictures for you , of something you refuse to see or believe in the first place . Okay , let me put this simple terms that you all can understand .... The photo speaks for itself ... There is an anomaly reflected in the Apollo 12 visor which looks like either a stage light or a celing fan and this object also causes a shadow on the moon set floor ..... It is NOT a smudge and you do NOT need a picture or a diagram from me to prove this point .... Just open your blind eyes .... Open your closed minds .... and then look at the truth .... The Apollo photos are studio fakes shot on moon sets . No its not the time nor the resources you lack Duane, its the brains and ability. The SIMPLE experiment that YOU need to conduct to back up YOUR claims about how reflections and surface smudges react on a convex sutrface, requires only a few household objects...a camera of any kind, a reflective convex object (like a chistmas ornament), something to to create a Smudge" on the surface of the convex object (like some paint) and anything to to hold above the convex object to create a reflection. Simple. I'm sure a teenager could do it...CAN YOU? Back up your clims FOR ONE IN YOUR LIFE with real emperical evidence instead of running your mistaken mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) I thought we were discussing the Apollo 12 visor ceiling fan /stage light reflection , not the Apollo 17 spotlight reflection .. Oh and there's the other Apollo 17 photo again also ... Talk about DISTRACTION TACTICS ! .. You are the champ of that geek greer . Herr lamson ... If reproducing the photos is so easy using simple household objects , then you photograph it ... Or don't you have the time or resources either ? ... This has nothing to do with "lack of brain power" ... but everything to do with wasting my time on dishonest liars who will just play more games with anything I post . So go ahead Mr. Big Shot Photographer ... Show us all how smudges on a convex reflective surface can look like four bladed ceiling fans and stage lights and also cast shadows the same shape on the floor . Edited January 25, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I thought we were discussing the Apollo 12 visor ceiling fan /stage light reflection , not the Apollo 17 spotlight reflection .. Oh and there's the other Apollo 17 photo again also ... Talk about DISTRACTION TACTICS ! .. You are the champ of that geek greer .Herr lamson ... If reproducing the photos is so easy using simple household objects , then you photograph it ... Or don't you have the time or resources either ? ... This has nothing to do with "lack of brain power" ... but everything to do with wasting my time on dishonest liars who will just play more games with anything I post . So go ahead Mr. Big Shot Photographer ... Show us all how smudges on a convex reflective surface can look like four bladed ceiling fans and stage lights and also cast shadows the same shape on the floor . As stated in the previous thread - you have prior history of mistaking smudges and scratches for reflections of fans, lights etc. So it's completely relevant. And I've already devoted far more time on this thread to debunking your "shadow" theory than you have defending it. Once again, you can't defend your position so you go on the offensive. YOU are using distraction tactics, YOU are hurling the insults about, because YOU cannot defend your claims. Duane - scratches or reflection of stagelights? Duane - scratches/smudges or reflection of a fan? See the recurring theme here? THAT'S why I brought up the Apollo 17 photo. When you fail to provide ANY evidence re the Apollo 12 photos except your own interpretation and accuse others of being blind or liars for not agreeing with you, the Apollo 17 photo becomes COMPLETELY relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I thought we were discussing the Apollo 12 visor ceiling fan /stage light reflection , not the Apollo 17 spotlight reflection .. Oh and there's the other Apollo 17 photo again also ... Talk about DISTRACTION TACTICS ! .. You are the champ of that geek greer .Herr lamson ... If reproducing the photos is so easy using simple household objects , then you photograph it ... Or don't you have the time or resources either ? ... This has nothing to do with "lack of brain power" ... but everything to do with wasting my time on dishonest liars who will just play more games with anything I post . So go ahead Mr. Big Shot Photographer ... Show us all how smudges on a convex reflective surface can look like four bladed ceiling fans and stage lights and also cast shadows the same shape on the floor . Sorry Duane, you made the claim, you back them up. I DO have the time aqnd resources but its not my job...ITS YOURS. You like to claim we are all liars and here you have a chance to do some simpler science ( you know that "over-rated stuff) than could make all of us "geeks" look like morons and you you can't. Come on Mr. Big Mouth...put up or shut up! BTW the A 17 example is perfect to describe you lack of understanding when it comes to light and photography. To this day you have yet to learn why your silly claim that the scratches were actully lights was so wrong it was not even funny. Quite a few people went to great lengths on a number of forums to explain the science to you yet your mind faild to grasp some very simple physics that come into play in your everyday life. You rejects these attempts to educate you time after time.....thats really sad Duane and it makes you very closed minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 You are so typical of all who defend nasa's lies ... Use any unethical means necessary to try to the prove the hoax evidence wrong ... I'm sorry I ever conceded one point in arguing with dishonest geeks like you ... I thought I was doing the right thing in being honest about my misinterpretation of that photo .. But it's very apparent that you don't even know the meaning of the word honest . Stop pretending that the Apollo 17 photo has anything to do with what is reflected in the Apollo 12 visor ... Dr. David Groves sees it ... Jack White sees it ... I see it ... Everyone I know sees it .... and everyone who knows nasa faked the Apollo moon landings sees it for what it really is ... So the only one's who continue to pretend not to see it , or worse , pretend it's a just a smudge on the visor , would be you and the other liars who defend the biggest liars of all ... nasa & co . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I don't have the time or the resources to photograph stage light fixtures and ceiling fans in astronot's visors ... If you can't see what is right before your eyes , and want to pretend that the Apollo 12 visor reflected anomaly is just a smudge on the visor , then go right ahead ....But as far as I'm concerned , you are wasting everyone's time with your silly claims .... Am I supposed to recreate the conditions of nasa's moon set photo shoot ? ... Are you clavius clones for real ? ... Or maybe you just want me to draw some clever little diagrams of where the ceiling fan, or stage lights and their shadows were on the moon set ? It's hard enough just reading the lies you geeks post without having to waste my time defending the obvious ... But it's all just a game anyway , isn't it ? .... You all pretend that something is not what it obviously is .. Then you all expect me to draw pretty pictures for you , of something you refuse to see or believe in the first place . Okay , let me put this simple terms that you all can understand .... The photo speaks for itself ... There is an anomaly reflected in the Apollo 12 visor which looks like either a stage light or a celing fan and this object also causes a shadow on the moon set floor ..... It is NOT a smudge and you do NOT need a picture or a diagram from me to prove this point .... Just open your blind eyes .... Open your closed minds .... and then look at the truth .... The Apollo photos are studio fakes shot on moon sets . Duane...there is no doubt that it is the reflection of SOMETHING, not a smudge nor scratch. I favor it being a studio light. A ceiling fan makes little sense in a photo studio, because wind would be a nuisance to the photographers, and not necessary for cooling. More efficient would be refrigerated air conditoning. I agree it may LOOK like a ceiling fan, but I believe it is lighting equipment. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now