Terry Adams Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Thomas Evan Robinson was the mortician. 1) Mr. Robinson said there was a "large gaping wound in the BACK OF THE HEAD." He told Joe West that “stretching a piece of rubber over it” had covered it. He also felt the skull was "full of Plaster of Paris."2) He noted a "smaller wound in the right temple" (1/4" across) that was so near the hairline that it was covered from sight. He would plug this wound with wax. (Remember Malcolm Kilduff’s pointing to the temple?)3) He said he patched two shrapnel wounds to JFK's face with wax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Adams Posted February 19, 2014 Author Share Posted February 19, 2014 The reason for the topic name is I just could not imagine any 'normal' person who had the President of the United States in his mortuary and not taking pictures. Certainly sounds morbid, but not inconceivable by any means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Davies Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Cameras were not as all pervasive then, and why would a mortician have one at work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Thomas Evan Robinson was the mortician. 1) Mr. Robinson said there was a "large gaping wound in the BACK OF THE HEAD." He told Joe West that “stretching a piece of rubber over it” had covered it. He also felt the skull was "full of Plaster of Paris." 2) He noted a "smaller wound in the right temple" (1/4" across) that was so near the hairline that it was covered from sight. He would plug this wound with wax. (Remember Malcolm Kilduff’s pointing to the temple?) 3) He said he patched two shrapnel wounds to JFK's face with wax. If you read the records carefully you'll find that Robinson did not do the skull reconstruction, and that the man who did the skull reconstruction was never interviewed. This reconstruction was done in the Bethesda morgue, and not at the mortuary. So, yeah, plenty of people were watching... As I recall, moreover, Robinson noted but one small wound on the face, and felt certain that this was not an entrance wound, but perhaps a shrapnel wound or an exit of a fragment. A lot of nonsense has been spewed about Robinson. Those desperate to believe Kennedy's wounds were altered, cite Robinson as Exhibit 1A. in Horne's book, he unintentionally reveals the silliness of all this. He has Robinson see an orange-sized hole on the back of Kennedy's head, Humes expand this into a big hole, then the morticians reconstruct the head so that it once again has an orange-sized hole on the back of Kennedy's head, which is then observed by Robinson's co-worker, and photographed. These photographs are then developed by Saunda Spencer. This is as illogical as can be. 1. If they were gonna photograph an orange-sized hole on the back of the head, why not just take a photo of the orange-sized hole at the beginning of the autopsy? 2. Why assume the orange-sized hole observed by Robinson and the orange-sized hole observed by his co-worker were observed at different times? They came together. They worked together. They left together. They gave the same description for the wound. (It seems clear from this, moreover, that Horne was trying to avoid the obvious--that the orange-sized hole observed by Robinson was observed during reconstruction--when the morticians were trying to make Kennedy presentable for an open-casket funeral.) Anyhoo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Has anybody read the book about John Liggett? Maybe he could have had a sinister role. Every picture I see of JFK`s right ear looks fake. Edited February 20, 2014 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Thomas Evan Robinson was the mortician. 1) Mr. Robinson said there was a "large gaping wound in the BACK OF THE HEAD." He told Joe West that “stretching a piece of rubber over it” had covered it. He also felt the skull was "full of Plaster of Paris." 2) He noted a "smaller wound in the right temple" (1/4" across) that was so near the hairline that it was covered from sight. He would plug this wound with wax. (Remember Malcolm Kilduff’s pointing to the temple?) 3) He said he patched two shrapnel wounds to JFK's face with wax. If you read the records carefully you'll find that Robinson did not do the skull reconstruction, and that the man who did the skull reconstruction was never interviewed. This reconstruction was done in the Bethesda morgue, and not at the mortuary. So, yeah, plenty of people were watching... As I recall, moreover, Robinson noted but one small wound on the face, and felt certain that this was not an entrance wound, but perhaps a shrapnel wound or an exit of a fragment. A lot of nonsense has been spewed about Robinson. Those desperate to believe Kennedy's wounds were altered, cite Robinson as Exhibit 1A. in Horne's book, he unintentionally reveals the silliness of all this. He has Robinson see an orange-sized hole on the back of Kennedy's head, Humes expand this into a big hole, then the morticians reconstruct the head so that it once again has an orange-sized hole on the back of Kennedy's head, which is then observed by Robinson's co-worker, and photographed. These photographs are then developed by Saunda Spencer. This is as illogical as can be. 1. If they were gonna photograph an orange-sized hole on the back of the head, why not just take a photo of the orange-sized hole at the beginning of the autopsy? 2. Why assume the orange-sized hole observed by Robinson and the orange-sized hole observed by his co-worker were observed at different times? They came together. They worked together. They left together. They gave the same description for the wound. (It seems clear from this, moreover, that Horne was trying to avoid the obvious--that the orange-sized hole observed by Robinson was observed during reconstruction--when the morticians were trying to make Kennedy presentable for an open-casket funeral.) Anyhoo... Why Pat? Cause all of the Medical Evidence from the WCR was staged to support a shot from the rear exiting the front right of the skull... and putting one LHO in a place he never was. That you remain so tied to evidence that is so obviously NOT indicative of JFK's wounds in Dallas... and that you spread this "conclusion" to each and every thread you come to is simply unbelieveable... Ask Sandra Sepencer about an orange sized hole in JFK's head... or Robert Knudsen... or those in the room taking photos and xrays prior to 7pm.... Here, use this to illustrate how the 2-3 inch right rear wound seen and described by virtually everyone in Dallas, is accurately represented by the autopsy evidence: Explain to us how the drawings on the bottom from DALLAS are represented in the medical evidence : It was O'Connor who tells us they needed to fill his head with plaster of paris to keep it together for the embalming... One last thing Pat... there is obviously bone to the LEFT REAR on the anterior xray and RIGHT REAR on the lateral... why is there no bone behind the gaping absence of bone forward and on the right of the Frontal Bone suture? Your touting of the "official autopsy evidence" as authentic has to be one of the greatest ongoing presentations of organized disinformation seen since Cinque/Fetzer.... tried to prove methematically that they were correct about Doorman.... voodoo logic and a complete disregard for the actual evidence... When did you start believing the official evidence in this case Pat? - given not a single piece can be authenticated, while most of the medical evidence has already been discredited as being either altered, copied, or of a skull which had been badly smashed prior to the "official" images being taken... Sorry but I'm simply not going to let this lay... you're promoting a conclusion which enables the cover-up... and that just wont do. And finally... please point to the person holding his hand over the 19x10cm absence of skull at the top of the head (where surgery was performed), and then explain why there is a surgical cut thru the spinal cord at the base of the brain, given where the fragment trail is... a bullet in and ourt of the back of the head crushed the vomer as well as fracture the floor of the skull, while ALSO taking a 1" by 2.5" inch gouge running from occipital to eye socket out of the TOP of the skull AND curtting all the connections of the brain, skull and scalp on the LEFT SIDE of the head so the brain just falls into Humes' hands... Should be easy, right? I'll be waiting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) My response in bold. Thomas Evan Robinson was the mortician. 1) Mr. Robinson said there was a "large gaping wound in the BACK OF THE HEAD." He told Joe West that “stretching a piece of rubber over it” had covered it. He also felt the skull was "full of Plaster of Paris."2) He noted a "smaller wound in the right temple" (1/4" across) that was so near the hairline that it was covered from sight. He would plug this wound with wax. (Remember Malcolm Kilduff’s pointing to the temple?)3) He said he patched two shrapnel wounds to JFK's face with wax. If you read the records carefully you'll find that Robinson did not do the skull reconstruction, and that the man who did the skull reconstruction was never interviewed. This reconstruction was done in the Bethesda morgue, and not at the mortuary. So, yeah, plenty of people were watching... As I recall, moreover, Robinson noted but one small wound on the face, and felt certain that this was not an entrance wound, but perhaps a shrapnel wound or an exit of a fragment. A lot of nonsense has been spewed about Robinson. Those desperate to believe Kennedy's wounds were altered, cite Robinson as Exhibit 1A. in Horne's book, he unintentionally reveals the silliness of all this. He has Robinson see an orange-sized hole on the back of Kennedy's head, Humes expand this into a big hole, then the morticians reconstruct the head so that it once again has an orange-sized hole on the back of Kennedy's head, which is then observed by Robinson's co-worker, and photographed. These photographs are then developed by Saunda Spencer. This is as illogical as can be. 1. If they were gonna photograph an orange-sized hole on the back of the head, why not just take a photo of the orange-sized hole at the beginning of the autopsy? 2. Why assume the orange-sized hole observed by Robinson and the orange-sized hole observed by his co-worker were observed at different times? They came together. They worked together. They left together. They gave the same description for the wound. (It seems clear from this, moreover, that Horne was trying to avoid the obvious--that the orange-sized hole observed by Robinson was observed during reconstruction--when the morticians were trying to make Kennedy presentable for an open-casket funeral.) Anyhoo... Why Pat? Cause all of the Medical Evidence from the WCR was staged to support a shot from the rear exiting the front right of the skull Nonsense. The head wound on the top of the head was almost certainly a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, which meant that the entrance on the back of the head was a second shot to the head And then you add in the back wound that did not traverse the body. That's three hits on Kennedy. That doesn't suggest Oswald as the sole assassin. And why, oh why, if it was all faked to show Oswald did it, did Humes and Finck et al announce and then testify that they could find no entrance into the body from the back wound? That's one heckuva strange way of framing Oswald, wouldn't you say? ... and putting one LHO in a place he never was. That you remain so tied to evidence that is so obviously NOT indicative of JFK's wounds in Dallas... The top physicians at Parkland--those most intimately involved in Kennedy's treatment--ALL signed off on the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays. So why shouldn't I? and that you spread this "conclusion" to each and every thread you come to is simply unbelieveable... Thread I come to? Where do you get these ideas? I've been discussing the medical evidence on this forum for 10 years now, and have been defending the authenticity of the medical evidence for most of that time. It's really rather simple. The evidence suggests a conspiracy. Always has. Always will. SO WHY PRETEND IT"S FAKE? This simple idea, moreover, has caught the attention of many researchers and readers. If you ever give in and read my book you'll see that I have received plenty of hate mail over the years. But I have also received hundreds of supportive emails, many if not most from the readers of this forum, who encourage me to stand up to the alterationist bullies who years ago drove assassination research into a ditch.. Ask Sandra Sepencer about an orange sized hole in JFK's head... 1. Why should we believe the recollections of someone 30 years after the fact? 2. Even Doug Horne believes the photos observed by Spencer were photos taken at the end of the autopsy, and not reflective of the damage observed at the beginning of the autopsy. or Robert Knudsen... Robert Knudsen was not present at the autopsy, although he did develop some of the photos the next morning. or those in the room taking photos and xrays prior to 7pm.... Although Stringer, at the age of 78, no longer recognized the brain photos, Stringer, Riebe, Ebersole, Custer, and Reed, all ultimately signed off on the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays. I don't recall any of them saying they saw an orange-sized hole on the back of the head. Here, use this to illustrate how the 2-3 inch right rear wound seen and described by virtually everyone in Dallas, is accurately represented by the autopsy evidence: Explain to us how the drawings on the bottom from DALLAS are represented in the medical evidence : Crenshaw was in the room for a short period and never wrote anything down for decades afterward. There's no evidence Audrey Bell was ever in the room. They are far from credible witnesses. Even worse, the rear-view and side-view drawings of skulls they marked for the ARRB didn't match up with each other, and demonstrate that neither Crenshaw nor Bell had a very good grasp of skull anatomy. It was O'Connor who tells us they needed to fill his head with plaster of paris to keep it together for the embalming... One last thing Pat... there is obviously bone to the LEFT REAR on the anterior xray and RIGHT REAR on the lateral... why is there no bone behind the gaping absence of bone forward and on the right of the Frontal Bone suture? What are you asking? Why is there no bone behind the absence of bone? Does that make sense? If you're asking me if the x-rays reflect the condition of Kennedy's skull at the beginning of the autopsy, and as depicted in the photos taken at the beginning of the autopsy, the answer is of course they do. The fractures on the x-ray suggest conspiracy. The fragments on the outside of the skull suggest conspiracy. The x-rays you think are fake will ultimately prove to be the evidence that convinces the scientific world there was a conspiracy. I've been spreading this message for nearly a decade, and found a very receptive audience at the Cyril Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law last November. Your touting of the "official autopsy evidence" as authentic has to be one of the greatest ongoing presentations of organized disinformation seen since Cinque/Fetzer.... Now, David, such niceties would normally get a post deleted... tried to prove methematically that they were correct about Doorman.... voodoo logic and a complete disregard for the actual evidence... When did you start believing the official evidence in this case Pat? - I started out believing the Parkland witnesses, etc, then read some of their retractions, etc, and ended up on a fence. I then devoted myself to reading everything I could both on the case, and on wound ballistics, the radiology of gunshot wounds, etc... This investigation, which lasted about 3 years full time, and continues after 8 years part time, led me to believe the evidence is legit, but that it has been badly misinterpreted, and at times deliberately so. So the answer is that I started believing the medical evidence was authentic but wrongly interpreted over 10 years ago--before you ever joined the forum. given not a single piece can be authenticated, Except most all of it has been authenticated. Emergency room doctors don't "authenticate" autopsy photos and x-rays, those present at the autopsy do. And they have. Heck, even Mantik agrees that the x-rays are of Kennedy. while most of the medical evidence has already been discredited as being either altered, copied, or of a skull which had been badly smashed prior to the "official" images being taken... Wrong. Having perhaps as much as 20% of the layman studying a piece of evidence not believe it is authentic does not "discredit" it, particularly when the number of eyewitnesses and "experts" not believing it is far smaller--probably less than 5%, Saying the JFK medical evidence has been discredited is pretty much like saying the evidence for evolution or global warming has been discredited. Oh, REALLY? Tell that to the scientists. Sorry but I'm simply not going to let this lay... you're promoting a conclusion which enables the cover-up... Hog wash. My presentation on Kennedy's back wound in Dallas received a rousing ovation, and dozens of people followed me out into the lobby to tell me how powerful it was. Now, why was that, exactly? Because I succeeded in what I set out to do (for once in my life). I used the official evidence and the official record to demonstrate how the government (or at least people working for the government) have been lying about the location of the back wound in order to sell the single-bullet theory. and that just wont do. Orwell would be horrified. Here come the thought police. And finally... please point to the person holding his hand over the 19x10cm absence of skull at the top of the head (where surgery was performed), and then explain why there is a surgical cut thru the spinal cord at the base of the brain, given where the fragment trail is... a bullet in and ourt of the back of the head crushed the vomer as well as fracture the floor of the skull, while ALSO taking a 1" by 2.5" inch gouge running from occipital to eye socket out of the TOP of the skull AND curtting all the connections of the brain, skull and scalp on the LEFT SIDE of the head so the brain just falls into Humes' hands... Some of this is hard evidence observed at the autopsy and some of it is the recollections or conjecture of one person decades later. There's no reason to believe these pieces would fit. I'm sorry you have such difficulty the all this... Should be easy, right? I'll be waiting Edited February 22, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Yeah Pat... and people believed Saddam was behind 9/11 too... cause that's what they were repeatedly told until it was assumed true... That they bought yellow cake from Niger... another lie Colin Powell stood up and told these lies to the UN...(I realize that's not the Wecht conference but,y'know what I mean) doesn't make them the truth... it is the prima facia evidence of the conspiracy to invade Iraq without real cause or reason other than to free up access to the oil reserves.. READ the Iraqi Oil Act, and the events leading to it to learn the real reason for the Bush ad campaign to convince you otherwise... $50 TRILLION in oil profit in the ground... and BP is at the top of the list. ...... without the presentation of FRAUDULENT EVIDENCE like the autopsy films, photos, and report... what perpetrates the cover-up? Testimony? The autopsy evidence IS the permanent record... and this evidence does NOT suggest multiple shooters - only one from behind... but a very specific act of treason... bring that up with Cyril next time... you're the one bringing up the missed shot from the front ala the HSCA... and the only reason you do this is because you actually believe this evidence to be true... and you set the case back 45 years every time you do so. ====== I have not said a word about Oswald or any theories... you want readers to believe the Autopsy evidence is indicative of the wound from Dallas... that's ALL we are talking about... so use the evidence to prove your point... The evidence suggests a conspiracy. Always has. Always will. SO WHY PRETEND IT"S FAKE? I never said it was FAKE - you keep telling me so, but I never said that in the way you mean... use the terminology I use please... I said it was CREATED TO REMOVE SIGNS OF A SHOT FROM THE FRONT... that it was altered and added to... that is taken at a time AFTER Humes altered their appearance.. other than the lateral xray which puts bone of the wrong density in a place that was devoid of bone... I know of no other "fakes", only a permanent record of a fraudulent set-up. (note: your AUTHENTIC autopsy evidence states: Skeletal System - Aside from the above described skull wounds there are no significant gross skeletal abnormalities. Pat... from this one sentence alone we can raise serious issues as the either 1) was it JFK on the table, or 2) how unbelievably inept and dishonest the rest of the autopsy was... Everyone knew the PT story of their President... EVERYONE. Have you SEEN his back xrays? This is on the same par as the 1500cc brain... another piece of AUTOPSY EVIDENCE you are willing to claim is true? The same evidence which builds your case, destroys it, over and over... The fact that is was CREATED to support only shots from behind is one of the pillars of the conspiracy Pat... what planet are you on? The evidence itself PROVES what was done to remove all evidence of a frontal shot... Why else does Elmer Todd hound Perry? I wrote: Here, use this to illustrate how the 2-3 inch right rear wound seen and described by virtually everyone in Dallas, is accurately represented by the autopsy evidence: Why can't you do a single honest thing here and use some of the AUTOPSY EVIDENCE to prove your point.... about the autopsy evidence instead of everything but... ?? why do you keep bringing up what was said and drawn in Dallas as being suspect... while you accept hook-line-and-sinker the evidence from Bethesda...? Why notmentiopn the Admirals saying... DO NOT TOUCH THAT, DO NOT PROBE THAT, DO NOT CUT THAT.. and yet believe the results are authentic? and finally... back to you avoiding even an attempt to deal with the subject matter - the AUTOPSY EVIDENCE.. Boswell's drawing constitutes autopsy evidence, does it not? why is there not a single soul holding the TOP of their heads in the photos Pat... Why do you not focus on your subject matter... ADDRESS THE EVIDENCE and what it says occurred... it says the base of the skull and top of the spinal cord were cleanly cut completely thru disconnecting JFK's brain from the rest of the body (#4) It also says that it affected the mid brain at the third ventricle (#3) it also says there was a 2.5cm x 4.5cm x occipit to eye socket TROUGH running the entire right side of the skull as we see in the frontal xray... (#1) I draw you pretty pictures and show you... yet the one thing in all of these threads and posts you have yet to do is address the evidence you are calling authentic and indicative... Last but not least, again... the fragment line... the ONLY significant fragments in the xrays... travel from the right front temple to the middle occipital... there is no hole to the rear of said trail... yet there is a hole to the front of said trail... (the 2nd image from previous post above) Tell us how a fragment trail is created extending from the rear when there injury as YOU describe was an in and out only on the right top of the man's skull... You can download my graphics and mark right on them yourself Pat, I know you know how... That xray at the top of my previous post showing how absurd your presentation of fact as fiction really is... Don't talk about what he said or she said... tell us how THAT PIECE OF AUTOPSY EVIDENCE supports an exit from anywhere but the front.. How the Autopsy report itself does the same... What are you asking? Why is there no bone behind the absence of bone? Does that make sense? If you're asking me if the x-rays reflect the condition of Kennedy's skull at the beginning of the autopsy, and as depicted in the photos taken at the beginning of the autopsy, the answer is of course they do. The fractures on the x-ray suggest conspiracy. The fragments on the outside of the skull suggest conspiracy. The x-rays you think are fake will ultimately prove to be the evidence that convinces the scientific world there was a conspiracy. I've been spreading this message for nearly a decade, and found a very receptive audience at the Cyril Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law last November. No sir... I am asking why we see bone in the lateral at the right rear - low to high... while that same bone is not there in the anterior... there is no bone to the right rear... it is GONE. See how there is bone in the anterior on JFK's LEFT is running all the way from front to back? the density of the margins and the depth of the skull... What conspiracy are YOU suggesting... none of the shots hit from the front, is your MAIN conclusion... and yet that was the key aspect of the shooting... a kill shot from the right front... and you stand there and deny it... yet that is NOT fostering information that hides the true nature of the conspiracy to cover-up... You actually and honestly believe that a bullet wound could dislodge a person's entire brain... even though one entire side was relatively untouched... you didn't address that either at Wecht I bet... Everyone else understands this it seems... Brains do not FALL OUT Pat... that's not how the body works... for the last time.. explain how any number of bullets (which if you say happened would also prove the Zfilm and others to be altered) enters the skull and completely recreates the necessary incisions to accomplish a clean craniotomy... here yet again is anatomical representation of the AUTOPSY EVIDENCE you call authentic and indicative of multiple shooters ergo conspiracy... as opposed to multiple shooters, one from the front, (as the original intent was to suggest a Cuban/Russian conspiracy and unleash the dogs of war) and the wholesale destruction of evidence of said frontal shot sufficient to get the WCR published and the cover-up initiated. Please oh please... just this once address this procedure and how the bullets performed it... Brains don't fall out... Skull does not self detach from scalp... Address this with some honesty Pat...using what you have as autopsy evidence... show us how this was accomplished: Start with Brain removal #1 and #2... and then look at what Boswell wrote about the "Superior longitudinal sinus" the "sagital (sic) sinus" Sorry Pat, one need not be a brain surgeon to smell rotten fish... The steps to remove the brain are almost an exact recreation of the condition of the body as described at the autopsy... prove otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 FWIW) I read somewhere that they set-up for a craniotomy at Parkland. To me it sounds like they moved it to Bethesda slightly before the official autopsy. Probably what Humes meant when he answered "certain preliminary inspections" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) One more thing... I wanted to say thank you to David for pointing out where the 6.5 object was located on the JFK x-rays. Thanks Dave. Edited February 22, 2014 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) Amazing and well presented responses Dave. Edited February 22, 2014 by B. A. Copeland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 (edited) Thanks B.A... here and elsewhere. your posts have inspired many hours research and have helped me see clearly in so many directions... Something I'd like to offer now... the right temple bullet hole on the anterior xray... I did not retouch anything other than the reversal image... if not a bullet hole... it certainly appears darker than dark and not "part" of the original xray - thoughts? instead we're given the Ebersole 6.5mm tape job... have you read his story about the bust to be made and the need for measurements?... his HSCA discussion I think... before you pass any judgement READ the entire testimony of everyone who was there that you can find... not the reports about what they said... unless you check them against what they actually said... ARRB changed everything.... and to think that what the HSCA hid that Bill found in State Secret is mind blowing... The HSCA Segregated CIA files at MFF... as devious as man's mind may be... and as serious a matter it was... your average man, IMO, does not incriminate his perceived "superiors" either on government or military or profession... we defer to authority. think of the story these people have to tell in order to be any more interesting to history than they already were... and how ignored they were by the first 30 years of our government's so-called investigations... an innocent government does not do that... V.S.'s words ringing true. Maybe they used the same thing on the xray as they did on the photo? Edited February 23, 2014 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.cc9b0aa249119586291d4af00483c3d2.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now