Bill Miller Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) I hope these examples help those who find it difficult to understand how perspective works and how it can be applied when researching out a possibility thought to be seen within an image.Bill Miller[/b] The whole point of the matter is that the shooter is not out of perspective. You are the only one who has said so. Your analysis of all the areas shown have absolutely no bearing on the shooter issue. Now when are you going to tell us all how you can see a hand on the rifle which you are using to try to justify your analysis, yet at the same time say the figure isn't real. Something does not compute Will Robinson. Duncan Duncan ... someone wrote to me about this thread and they said, "I've been reading it -- you will not get anywhere with them because they are determined to misinterpret what you're saying." No truer words can be said when reading your response above. There is no way that I am buying that you are so stupid as to not know what I am talking about. YOU are the guy who drew in the size of the alleged shooters head. All I have done is point out that when its cropped and placed next to Hudson's head - they are basically the same size on the photo. You keep failing to apply the greater distance that your subject is from the camera than what Hudson is. If you would get someone to mathematically increase the size of your alleged shooters head to show how big it would be had he been standing next to Hudson - it would be gigantic ... so much so that it would be ridiculous!!! To prove my point I have shown with other photographs how people's heads get smaller/and at what ratio by showing people who were not 20 feet further from the camera than the next person was. I can you help but not notice that Newman's head is not as big as McKinnon's head in (example two) of my previous post? How can you not see how much bigger the Hargis cycle and helmet looks compared to the Channey cycle and helmet in Moorman's photo? If you want someone to blame here, then blame yourself for not drawing in a smaller head at the fence or not to have looked for a floating cop that was much closer to Hudson's location ... that's not my fault. The rules of perspective are scientifically solid. If you look around you - you will find that no one else is pretending not to understand these points. As far as not seeing a hand on the rifle in my post #91 ... maybe we should start a poll to see how many people cannot see the hand at the end of the large red arrow. However, the last part of that reply makes it sound as if I have been talking about your cartoon's hand, but the photo I used has nothing to do with your cartoon drawing other than to show how perspective works in the real world. I don't see a hand, a rifle, or a person in the foliage in Moorman's photo where you drew in the outline of an alleged figure. The reasons why it cannot be what you claim are well documented here for those who can understand what has been written. Bill Edited June 21, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Reduced your post so as not to waste space. Assumed you would remember your own post. No, this trout ain't takin this bait... Notice the metaphor here. Somebody's in a rowboat trolling, trolling with the lure of specious, silly arguments. [/b] Aside from not being as busy with more important matters as you have previously claimed ... you think that decreasing the font size of that one particular response I gave will save forum space, but your idiotic say nothing reply above is not a waste of forum space ..... how ridiculous that some overstuffed joker can turn a forum into a place to xxxxx and piss around with such nonsense. The time you have wasted just today could have been better used addressing the evidence and questions that were presented to you. I am wondering just how long the moderators will allow you to get away with such crap! Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) Duncan ... someone wrote to me about this thread and they said, "I've been reading it -- you will not get anywhere with them because they are determined to misinterpret what you're saying." I notice in many of your posts, when you have your tail between your legs, mysterious unknows who never show face or contibute to threads have written to you with their words of wisdom praising your analysis and putting down the work of others. This doesn't wash with me or any other lucid individual here. Paste copies of emails from them won't wash either. They either come here and put up or shut up. The opinions of these faceless non entities are worthless. Duncan, I hardly find being illogical in the face of logic as work. The quote I gave was from a personal message sent to me and I think it only fair that I not give out their name unless they have told me in advance that it would be ok to do so. They are reading this thread and can verify the quote if they wish to. By the way, you say that in many of my post that I cite unknowns ... please feel free to add them up and post them. BTW, any more questions about "perspective" and how size decreasing works in relation to distance from the camera? Bill Edited June 21, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Reduced your post so as not to waste space. Assumed you would remember your own post. No, this trout ain't takin this bait... Notice the metaphor here. Somebody's in a rowboat trolling, trolling with the lure of specious, silly arguments. [/b] Aside from not being as busy with more important matters as you have previously claimed ... you think that decreasing the font size of that one particular response I gave will save forum space, but your idiotic say nothing reply above is not a waste of forum space ..... how ridiculous that some overstuffed joker can turn a forum into a place to xxxxx and piss around with such nonsense. The time you have wasted just today could have been better used addressing the evidence and questions that were presented to you. I am wondering just how long the moderators will allow you to get away with such crap! Bill Miller It's perfectly obvious to the moderators & every other reasonable member of the form & they are adults in a vast majority here. You are obviously trying, by silly & childish & insulting means, to provoke me (and other members, I might note) into responding to your ad hominem attacks in a way that the moderators might indeed find not consonant with the forum rules. It's your little trap & an obvious one. You're playing the old troller's game. When I realized this, I invited you to simply avoid reading my posts. That way conflict is avoided. Any mod who fairly reviews this thread will agree, I dare say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 But my argument is that even if Dodd was tardy (he did pause to see the action of the motorcycle), he, nevertheless, did proceed in short order to the steam pipe area, as Dodd says he did do. There he met the Katy special officer. It is reasonable to conclude that that officer had been in the steam pipe area since before Z-313. The Bell film shows the underpass just under a minute after the shooting ... looks like Dodd is still on it. Care to add to that? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) It's perfectly obvious to the moderators & every other reasonable member of the form & they are adults in a vast majority here. You are obviously trying, by silly & childish & insulting means, to provoke me (and other members, I might note) into responding to your ad hominem attacks in a way that the moderators might indeed find not consonant with the forum rules. It's your little trap & an obvious one. You're playing the old troller's game. When I realized this, I invited you to simply avoid reading my posts. That way conflict is avoided. Any mod who fairly reviews this thread will agree, I dare say. I will let the archived post speak for themselves. Such as in just one of your respones you wrote ... "Bilbo, there you are again. Sorry, no time to waste on silly sophistries, the staple of your posts. Bilbo, looks like you're squirming like a garter snake under a jack boot. I know, I know, a life time of being wrong & wrong in many ways. It's pretty clear, Bilbo, that you spend most of your daily & nightly time here on the Forum. Has it become a way for you to spit at people in derision? You know, "I'm big Bill & I know what's what & you do not." You mentioned some disability. OK, benefit of the doubt, maybe you are limited in your activities & must xxxxx as a survival device (read vice). Don't know. Well, I'm sorry for you, but judging from your last post which squeals like a baby deprived of a pacifier, I must beat an embarrassed retreat from the spectacle of a mind becoming unbalanced. Not a pretty sight. Best thing to do is to simply avoid replying to your posts, thus avoiding conflict. Will do. Hope you avoid replying to mine. That's good, now... ' Another response of yours said, "So, I'll make a quick response, but you'll have to understand that I simply do not have the time to devote to a topic that is tangential to my central research pursuits." When asked for you to just answer the questions and to address the points, you wrote .... "As I said to you before, I simply don't have the time to answer your distortions & preposterous, inane arguments. Let's just leave it that you are provably wrong & that I don't have the time to waste on such nonsense. If you don't like my posts, just don't read them. Try it." And again in another reply you posted ... "Reduced your post so as not to waste space. Assumed you would remember your own post. No, this trout ain't takin this bait...fish2.gif Notice the metaphor here. Somebody's in a rowboat trolling, trolling with the lure of specious, silly arguments." And yet again in another reply you posted ... "It's perfectly obvious to the moderators & every other reasonable member of the form & they are adults in a vast majority here. You are obviously trying, by silly & childish & insulting means, to provoke me (and other members, I might note) into responding to your ad hominem attacks in a way that the moderators might indeed find not consonant with the forum rules. It's your little trap & an obvious one. dry.gif You're playing the old troller's game. When I realized this, I invited you to simply avoid reading my posts. That way conflict is avoided. Any mod who fairly reviews this thread will agree, I dare say." Several responses you gave that didn't offer anything in the way of facts or data pertaining to the topic and after you said you were too busy to waste time on this topic. Now who is trolling and wasting time here? One has to love the archived responses! Bill Miller Edited June 21, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) It's perfectly obvious to the moderators & every other reasonable member of the form & they are adults in a vast majority here. You are obviously trying, by silly & childish & insulting means, to provoke me (and other members, I might note) into responding to your ad hominem attacks in a way that the moderators might indeed find not consonant with the forum rules. It's your little trap & an obvious one. You're playing the old troller's game. When I realized this, I invited you to simply avoid reading my posts. That way conflict is avoided. Any mod who fairly reviews this thread will agree, I dare say. Bill Miller I will allow that in the past, before I belatedly realized that you were playing a hidden trolling game which had the masked motive on your part of aggrandizing your silly vanity at the hurting expense of unsuspecting, innocent & sincere members such as myself, Duncan, Jack & others who are here on the forum merely with an academic interest, yes, I spoke intemperately then. For that, I apologize. As I say, when I finally, belatedly realized what your game really was, I immediately started to withdraw from your game because, as I have repeatedly said, playing your game is for me a waste of my time,... a waste for many reasons, one among which is that what you say is not fact based in my opinion. Plus, of course, what you say is obnoxiously insulting in tone. Now, you seem to want to insist that others I play your game, or else! Now, you are ranting & arguing about who insulted whom & diving back in the archives to yet again enforce on others your silly one-up-manship xxxxx game. Sorry, no. If you don't like my posts simply don't read them. Your last spate of posts here on this thread show to the mods who is causing this conflict & who should stop causing it. Edited June 22, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 To all posters of this thread. I have received 2 moderation reports concerning this thread. I honestly hope I won't receive any more. Members who result in insulting others, cursing or otherwise repeatedly fail to follow Forum rules will be placed on "permanent moderation". This means their posts will be revised by administrators and or moderators before they will be posted (if at all). The following step will be even more severe. I suggest a rapid change in the tone of posts and language that has been used here. Respect each other and address each other in an appropriate way. Thank you. Antti Hynonen Moderator JFK Forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 (edited) As I say, when I finally, belatedly realized what your game really was, I immediately started to withdraw from your game because, as I have repeatedly said, playing your game is for me a waste of my time,... a waste for many reasons, one among which is that what you say is not fact based in my opinion. Plus, of course, what you say is obnoxiously insulting in tone. You mean like spelling "dildo" by flipping the "b" and replacing my name with it. You are not fooling anyone. You withdrew from the so-called game when you were discovering that the information you were giving was exposed as your assumptions and not the actual facts as they were. Bill Miller Edited June 22, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 (edited) To all posters of this thread.I have received 2 moderation reports concerning this thread. I honestly hope I won't receive any more. Members who result in insulting others, cursing or otherwise repeatedly fail to follow Forum rules will be placed on "permanent moderation". This means their posts will be revised by administrators and or moderators before they will be posted (if at all). The following step will be even more severe. I suggest a rapid change in the tone of posts and language that has been used here. Respect each other and address each other in an appropriate way. Thank you. Antti Hynonen Moderator JFK Forum Antti Hynonen, Thank you for your admonition. If you review this thread you will see that after the initial incident, for which I have apologized, I have realized that the best policy for me, in order to always be in conformity with forum rules, is to simply disengage from debate with Bill Miller. I have pointed out to Bill Miller that I will not reply to his posts here on the forum. I have pointed out to Miller that such a course should result in a cessation of conflict. I have pointed out also to Miller that if he does not reply to my posts and/or not even read my posts, then there will be no occasion for conflict. As you can see from Miller's post No. 152, which was posted subsequent to your post of admonition, post No. 151, that Miller continues to insult me. I believe that he is insulting me with the purpose provoking me to counter insult him & so by this ploy to inveigle me to be in violation of the very forum rules that he is braking. This is clearly a taunting & baiting of me by Miller. And rather strange, in my view. It was my mistake, an innocent one, to refer to Bill Miller as "Bilbo." I assumed that everyone knew of Tolkien's famous character the Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilbo_Baggins ) from Tolkien's classic The Lord of the Rings. The name "Bilbo"" is a universally known name which is even found in my Internet Explorer spell checker utility called ieSpell. ( http://www.iespell.com/ ) You can see from Miller's post No. 152 how Miller treats the innocent name Bilbo. The sexual slur is obvious. You can see from Miller's post No. 152 that Miller maneuvers to provoke a continuation of conflict even after your admonition. I'd like to go on the record here that I am requesting that you monitor Miller's posts in future & mine as well for forum rule violation. Thanks for your patience! Miles Scull Edited June 22, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 If you carefully cross reference Ed's TMWKK segment, you can plot it to a tolerable accuracy, point to point. ... The location you drew in, if you were correct, must have been for convenience because then billboard was also an issue and the LOS you have given Ed would not have been effected by the billboard at all. In fact, in Ed's story he was standing along the road, not sitting. I also know he said the limo passed below him on the on-ramp, thus it is these types of things that made me suspicious that you wewre only assuming things that may not have been exactly right. Isn't it so that he'd told the Feebs at one point that he was "a few feet" from the railroad overpass over Stemmons? If so, then Miles' position is clearly in error. My recollection from walking with him to his alleged position on Stemmons is that he was much closer to where the on-ramp merges with the highway proper, but not all the way to that point. Wasn't he also supposedly standing there for thirty minutes on the side of the highway (assuming that, at the time, there was a shoulder there for him to have parked on, as there is NOT today) that was about to be closed down to traffic until the presidential motorcade had passed before the parade actually arrived? I'll have to swing by there some time and take a picture to post here, let y'all judge for yourselves what he could or couldn't have seen, billboard or no. Does anyone have a particular preference for camera settings and lenses to make it as realistic as possible? Right, it's Ed's LOS if he were standing nearby to where he was sitting in the segment. From that point Ed could have seen the passing Limo, and as I have posited may well have done. I believe you are incorrect once again. Gary Mack is well aware of that location and he has said that Ed could have seen down in the car from that elevated location. The point I am raising is that the location you have attributed to Ed does not allow him to look down and see the President directly below him as the limo comes out from under the freeway and it does not align with the billboard which has always been understood to be a factor with critics who thought it would have blocked Ed's view. The critics, of course were proven in error on that point because the billboard was not high enough on the day of the assassination to have prevented Ed from seeing into the RR yard. ... of which there is a photographic record, is that correct? From that spot or reasonably nearby? OK, fair point. In counter, of course, one might reasonably ask, since polygraph techniques have been available in increasing availability since the late 1960s, why then hasn't Ed who can afford one,... why hasn't he just gotten someone like yourself to help him get one? It isn't complicated. ... I took the time and expense to research this matter and discovered that there was a place in Chicago that had the means to give a lie detector to a deaf mute. Ed was happy to hear this and was anxious to go forth and prove to people once and for all that he told the truth. The test was said to have to be done in Chicago and the cost to get Ed there and to do the test was around $5000.00. I volunteered to pay the money to make it happen. At the eleventh hour (so to speak) the examiner discovered that Ed took a certain medication for his heart and said that it could effect the test and make it unreliable. I never found a way to get around that obstacle because Ed needed that medicine to survive. Am I following this right, that Ed changed his story at least a couple of times during the first dozen or so years, his own family didn't believe him (at least until he gained notoriety over this, and maybe a few bills paid to boot?), and the proof of it all is in a polygraph test that he can't take because of medication? Bill, people that I know think that you're a competent researcher and finder of facts. I can maybe understand how you can swallow this story, but I'm not sure how you're able to keep it down. This fits right there with Roscoe White being a shooter because his wife and kid wouldn't lie about such a thing, not even for all the money on Matsu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 (edited) ... I took the time and expense to research this matter and discovered that there was a place in Chicago that had the means to give a lie detector to a deaf mute. Ed was happy to hear this and was anxious to go forth and prove to people once and for all that he told the truth. The test was said to have to be done in Chicago and the cost to get Ed there and to do the test was around $5000.00. I volunteered to pay the money to make it happen. At the eleventh hour (so to speak) the examiner discovered that Ed took a certain medication for his heart and said that it could effect the test and make it unreliable. I never found a way to get around that obstacle because Ed needed that medicine to survive. Am I following this right, that Ed changed his story at least a couple of times during the first dozen or so years, his own family didn't believe him (at least until he gained notoriety over this, and maybe a few bills paid to boot?), and the proof of it all is in a polygraph test that he can't take because of medication? Bill, people that I know think that you're a competent researcher and finder of facts. I can maybe understand how you can swallow this story, but I'm not sure how you're able to keep it down. Ed has never changed his story from what I can tell. There have been interpreters who could only guess at what Ed was saying. Keep in mind that Ed did not have a good comprehension of the English language. I saw this for myself when he was arguing with his daughter - to her frustration - over things that had nothing to do with the assassination. Interpretation is one thing, which involves some guess work on the part of the interpreter .... but then Ed has a hard time getting the correct signs to relay exactly what it is that he is trying to say. The latter is the problem I witnessed between he and his daughter which had nothing to do with the assassination. It is my purpose to relay some of this information along because I think some people think that sign language is a cut and dry thing when it is not. Bill Edited June 22, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 (edited) In my view Duncan's shooter's head complies perfectly with the laws of perspective. The shooter's head is totally consistent with its distance from the camera. It is patently obvious that Duncan's shooter's head in the background is smaller (in perspective terms) than those of three individuals in the foreground. Which is,of course, exactly as it should be. I hope this clarification helps. EBC Apologies for the triple post. I am unable to delete these for some reason. Edited June 22, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 (edited) In my view Duncan's shooter's head complies perfectly with the laws of perspective.Duncan's shooter's head is totally consistent with its distance from the camera. It is patently obvious that Duncan's shooter's head in the background is smaller (in perspective terms) than those of three individuals in the foreground. Which is,of course,exactlyas it should be. I hope this clarification helps. EBC Thx EBC. Your comparison illustration sorts things out clearly. Duncan's shooter is the goods. One might say D's shooter gains in stature, not in the perspective, but in the sense of being the real thing. I believe Duncan asked about the distance between the corner of the picket fence & the Hudson tree. Here's a crop of Don Roberdeau's map: The Hudson tree is the brown dot marked "trunk bent south." From the 20' scale legend it looks like about 10' or slightly less. As an aside, Don's map shows something interesting with a baring on the Hoffman credibility question. Just above the steam pipe Don has set two dots showing two of the four men Bowers saw. Don marks them with two little black stick men figures. ( ) Don, in the lower right hand of this crop says that these two men may have moved from a point in time before before Z-313 down to the balustrade to become B-1 & B-2. Ed said that the sniper's assistant went to the switch box which is directly above the number 4 in Don's line that reads "2 OF THE 4 MEN BOWERS." (Evidently Don has GKA going to the wrong switch box.) This crop show this area, the switch box, the steam pipe & the cars; And here's Robin's bomb: In Robin's shot you can double the number of cars in the parking lot (Holland's testimony) & the set forward a time progression of key actor's movements in imagination. Let's say that Ed's sniper fires at Z-313 from Sam Holland's spot. He then turns & begins to walk to the steam pipe, but is impeded by parked cars. At this point where is Ed's sniper assistant? Hiding behind the switch box? Now at Z-313, where are the two spectators who are seen in Bell at the balustrade? It seems logical that they would be at the balustrade at Z-313. However, if they were not there & if they were the two men Bowers had seen earlier, then they might, for example, be ducking under or hopping over the 3' steam pipe. Meanwhile Ed's sniper is walking down to the steam pipe himself. According to Ed he is not proceeding down along the fence close to the fence (as Ed pantomimes in TMWKK). As Ed's sniper weaves through the parked cars (Holland's sea of cars, bumper to bumper) with rifle held at port arms (Ed's pantomime), how many seconds are going by until this sniper reaches the steam pipe? 30 sec.? 45 sec.? 60 sec.? Now, the men at the balustrade have heard a loud rifle crack at Z-313. For them seconds now begin to quickly pass by. They see the limo go through the under pass. Seconds pass. The men at the balustrade are attracted by the rifle report. They also are attracted by a man standing at or moving toward the west side of the steam pipe. Another man approaches the east side of the steam pipe from between the cars jammed in the parking lot. He is carrying a rifle. He throws the rifle to the first man, the assistant. They see the assistant move to the switch box & attempt to hide behind it. But they can see him bending over. What's he doing with this rifle? Now, a Katy RR special agent was also in this area. What does he see? A note: if the rifle toss occurred east of the steam pipe & not over the steam pipe, then the toss would have occurred in the car jam. This would have required the assistant to have then ducked under the 3' steam pipe or to have jumped over it with the rifle in hand, with everybody staring at him. Edited June 22, 2007 by Miles Scull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 (edited) In my view Duncan's shooter's head complies perfectly with the laws of perspective.The shooter's head is totally consistent with its distance from the camera. It is patently obvious that Duncan's shooter's head in the background is smaller (in perspective terms) than those of three individuals in the foreground. Which is,of course, exactly as it should be. EBC, I'm curious about something .... In post #76, I showed the outline that Duncan had drawn in for this alleged individual and at no time have you disputed his outline. I then took that outline and pulled it over and placed it next to Hudson and have been since that time explaining why the two heads cannot be the same size and still comply with the laws of perspective. In response #129, you posted an animation showing where you believed Duncan's shooter to be which wasn't even close to where we have been talking about throughout the thread. In fact, your location was so close to the corner of the fence that it didn't even make it to the Hat Man location. This incredible error evidently wasn't "patently obvious" as the perspective issue all of a sudden had come to be. Now in response #156, you have somehow done a comparison, not with the Duncan outline, but rather with only a portion of this alleged figure without the Duncan lines and only then do you finally make the claim that it falls within the laws of perspective. Did I cite the trail of post correctly so far? If so, then is it your position that you do not agree with Duncan's outlining of the alleged figure?? Now I want to show you all something that I have been holding back for quite some time because I didn't want it to interfere with what I was trying to convey concerning the laws of perspective. (see animation below) If it isn't bad enough that such an alleged assassin would want to choose a location along the fence that would cause him to have to shoot between the only three spectators between he and the President ... maybe you should look at Duncan's illustration a little closer. (Duncan's illustration can be seen in post #51) In that Illustration it would appear that Duncan drew in a line of sight to the President to show the path that the bullet would have taken. The path appears to go between the heads of Hudson and the man just to his left (our right as we look at Moorman's photo). Then there is the enlargement crop that Duncan used where he also places a line down what he says is the gun barrel. The gun barrel of course has to be there for without it there can be no alleged assassin with a floating torso that has the Dallas sky seen between it and the top of the fence. When I first seen that illustration, I noticed that the two lines of sight didn't look the same, so I checked them and the animation shows the results of that inquiry. It seems that the alleged gun barrel is aimed at an angle that would come closer to shooting one of the two men on the steps in the back than shooting the President, so what does one do ... one merely changes the angle in the wide view so to make it appear that the line of sight leads more to JFK's head. Anyway, I just thought I'd mention this seeing that there are a couple of people who aren't going to accept the problem with perspective and how it works, so maybe they would like to address the angle change on the LOS matter. Any questions??? Bill Miller Edited June 28, 2007 by Bill Miller 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