Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Assassination Film Hoax


Recommended Posts

[Editor's Note: Research on the recreation of the home movie of the death of JFK attributed to Abraham Zapruder continues to this day. Here, the leading technical expert on the film provides an introduction to some of the most important indications of fakery. Those who would like to pursue this complex and fascinating subject may want to consult the studies found in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX.]

http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro

Link to post
Share on other sites
[Editor's Note:  Research on the recreation of the home movie of the death of JFK attributed to Abraham Zapruder continues to this day.  Here, the leading technical expert on the film provides an introduction to some of the most important indications of fakery.  Those who would like to pursue this complex and fascinating subject may want to consult the studies found in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX.]

http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro

I have a number of concerns with this seminar material on TGZFH. I am sure that is no great surprise to John Costella, since I was a member of the group who initially criticised the book when it was first published. Hopefully he will agree to debate this issue, thereby allowing members to see both why he holds the positions he does as well as the reasons why members like me have concerns with this theory.

Can I begin by looking the sections “The Wound Mistake” and “The Fast Forward Mistake”.

One of the central issues in “The Wound Mistake” is the problem of the forward movement of JFK and his head after the head shot. As he points out, such a movement would be compatible with a shot from the rear. As researchers like Josiah Thompson have observed, in the past, that could very well explain the forward movement. I would point out that Josiah no longer holds that view.

In this chapter [“The Wound Mistake”] my first concern is the statement at the top of page 3.

Here John Costella says: “ The Zapruder film is telling us that the whole front-top of JFK’s head gets blasted away. There is a huge crater where his forehead used to be, through which we can see his wife.”

I don’t see how he can say that. That part of JFK’s head is not visible to Zapruder at Z 314. JFK is looking at approximately a 40 degree angle to his left. In addition he appears to be looking downwards at approximately a 40 degree slope. Hence given the position of the car and Zapruder’s angle and Zapruder’s position from JFK, Zapruder cannot see his forehead at this point in time. At this point we simply do not see JFK’s forehead. In addition, in Moorman #5, which equates with Z 315.6, we can see this area of the head that he are proposing is actually missing. It is true that we don’t see the complete forehead in Moorman #5, but we do see the upper edge of it. However we do see the front top of the head and Moorman #5 clearly establishes it is intact.

So I don’t see how John can argue that this area has now been blasted away. In Zapruder Z 314 we cannot see the area in question and in Moorman #5 the said area is actually shown to be there and intact.

In his chapter “The Fast Forward Mistake” there are a number of comments I would like to make.

The Zapruder sequence from Z 223 – Z 230 is a very curious one with respect to John Connally. Bill Miller contends that around Z 223/224 John Connaly was hit in the chest. Bill points to the change in Connally’s facial expression and the movement of his shoulder as indicators. I have sympathy for this view because after Z 223 Connally’s arms move all over the place. However I believe the “Hat Trick”, as John Costella refer to it, is actually an optical illusion. If you look at the section from Z 223 to Z 230 what Connally appears to be doing is moving his hat from his left hand to right hand. John Costella is right, there appears to be a “flip” of the hat but actually what is happening is that Z 227 + Z 229 are very blurred frames. So we see the hat moving from Z 223 to Z 226 we see very little clearly again until Z 230 when the hat is now in position and stationary. So looking at the sequence from Z 223 to Z 230 it does appear that his hat does indeed flip. However I would suggest that it does not flip, the hat continues to move from his left hand to his right hand but through Z 227 – Z 229 we cannot see the hat: the frames are too blurred.

At frame Z 227, is where I believe you suggest the hat flips. Because it is a very blurred frame it is not possible to see what is happening. However it can be noted that it looks like Connally suddenly moves forward just as JFK does. However when you look at Z 228 he is sitting back on his seat, it is the blurring of the frame Z 227 that has suggested this forward movement as well as the sudden hat movement. However it is clear that Connally has moved his position between Z 226 and Z 228. In Z 226 Connally is sitting looking towards his right at an angle of around 20º. In Z 228 he is facing in a forward direction.

Therefore I suggest that what, to John Costella is an anomaly in the film, is a movement by Connally to turn from his right to the forward position while, and at the same time switching his hat from his left hand to his right hand. I suggest what creates the idea of an anomaly is that within this same sequence are two blurred frames that distort the image and allow ambiguity to enter the interpretation of the film.

On page 3 of this same chapter John Costella comments on the sudden turn made by Nellie Connally. I would comment on this if he had provided the frame references. John suggests that Nellie’s turn is not as curious as that of Bill Greer. If it is anything like the Bill Greer head turn then there is no suspicious problem here: just a misinterpretation of the photographic evidence.

Bill Greer’s was the subject of my contribution to the critique of TGZFH. If members want to read what I wrote they can find it at:-

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...greer-turn.html

The clearest example of this misinterpretation is the second turn after the head shot. The theory is that this turn took place between Z 315 and Z 317. Well at the very bottom of that article by me you will find a very clear copy of Z 317 when, according to John Costella and others who support this theory, Bill Greer is facing forward. I can’t see how anyone can suggest that Bill Greer is facing forward at Z 317. It takes another 3 frames before he is facing forward.

John did reply to our critique and for members who wish to read what he had to say they can find it at:-

http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/hoax/costella1.html

The section that deals with my contribution is about three quarters down the page. True John had some fun at my expense, maybe even a little too much fun, but I would make this point in my defence.

Just taking the second head turn, the theory goes that this was completed between Z frames 315 and 317. Well I ask members to look at the copy of Z 317 in my article and decide for themselves. Is Bill Greer facing forward at this point or is he facing towards his right? My interpretation is that he is facing towards his right. I say it is not until Z 320 that he is actually facing forward. I will allow members to judge for themselves.

On Page 4 of “The Fast Forward Mistake” John makes the following comment about the why the occupants of the car all move forward after Z 313. He said:- “ You don’t need to know the laws of physics to know this means: the car must have braked suddenly at that time.” The sequence that he highlights appears to be between Z317 and Z 325.

John Costella quite correctly points out that the Zapruder film does not appear to show the car breaking. However the car did break. Although Zapruder does not appear to show this, Marie Muchmore does. Frame M 49, which equates with Z 320, clearly show the break lights on. Nor is this similar to Z 372 which also shows the break lights on. In this frame it is clear it is the sunlight shining through the break light glass and is suggesting the light is on, when infact it is not. Where Zapruder was to the right of the car thereby allowing sunlight to shine through the glass and suggest the light is on, Marie Muchmore was behind the car and filming from behind it. This time it is not sunlight playing games: this time the brakes really are on.

So the forward movement of the occupants is not the result of frames being removed or editing of the film, it is the result of Bill Greer applying the breaks to allow Clint Hill to be able to catch the car and get onto it.

Hopefully John Costella will agree to debate these issues and other issues regarding the Zapruder film. I believe it might well be helpful to members to see why people like me believe the film is authentic as well as allowing members to see why people like John believe the film is a fabricated document.

James Gordon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

Very well said. I completely agree with the points you made, especially:

"Hopefully John Costella will agree to debate these issues and other issues regarding the Zapruder film. I believe it might well be helpful to members to see why people like me believe the film is authentic as well as allowing members to see why people like John believe the film is a fabricated document."

Interesting also that at the time of the Great Zapruder Film Debate that you mentioned, Jim Fetzer had indicated that he wasn't responsible for what went into his book, claiming he was just the "editor", and didn't edit content.

RJS

Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the central issues in “The Wound Mistake” is the problem of the forward movement of JFK and his head after the head shot. As he points out, such a movement would be compatible with a shot from the rear. As researchers like Josiah Thompson have observed, in the past, that could very well explain the forward movement. I would point out that Josiah no longer holds that view.

James Gordon.

James,

What is the source for your assertion that Josiah Thompson no longer holds the view that the forward movement of JFK's head for one Zf frame prior to the back and to the left movement is compatible with a shot from the rear. Further, how would that explanation be incompatible with a two shots to the head, the one from the rear preceding the one from the front by one Zf frame?

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Gordon expects us to believe that he cannot detect the braking effects of the limo pointed out by Dr. Costella... when Mr. Gordon cannot even spell "BRAKE" correctly:

quote:

John Costella quite correctly points out that the Zapruder film does not appear to show the car breaking. However the car did break. Although Zapruder does not appear to show this, Marie Muchmore does. Frame M 49, which equates with Z 320, clearly show the break lights on. Nor is this similar to Z 372 which also shows the break lights on. In this frame it is clear it is the sunlight shining through the break light glass and is suggesting the light is on, when infact it is not. Where Zapruder was to the right of the car thereby allowing sunlight to shine through the glass and suggest the light is on, Marie Muchmore was behind the car and filming from behind it. This time it is not sunlight playing games: this time the brakes really are on.

So the forward movement of the occupants is not the result of frames being removed or editing of the film, it is the result of Bill Greer applying the breaks to allow Clint Hill to be able to catch the car and get onto it.

unquote...

Then he says the LIMO DID BRAKE (break) for Hill to get on, but the Z film just does not appear to show it. Dr. Costella's treatise is extremely well written and well presented science. Mr. Gordon's response is a hodgepodge of personal attacks and

unfounded opinion which is unresponsive factually to the excellent presentation.

Jack White :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the central issues in “The Wound Mistake” is the problem of the forward movement of JFK and his head after the head shot. As he points out, such a movement would be compatible with a shot from the rear. As researchers like Josiah Thompson have observed, in the past, that could very well explain the forward movement. I would point out that Josiah no longer holds that view.

James Gordon.

James,

What is the source for your assertion that Josiah Thompson no longer holds the view that the forward movement of JFK's head for one Zf frame prior to the back and to the left movement is compatible with a shot from the rear. Further, how would that explanation be incompatible with a two shots to the head, the one from the rear preceding the one from the front by one Zf frame?

Tim

Tim the main sources for this view by Josiah Thompson is a revision of the mathematics of the head movement which was initially published in Six Seconds in Dallas. I'll try and lay my hands on my copy. I have it somewhere. My second source is that the topic of the these head movements came up in the group ( the group I was involved in that that published a criticism of TGZFH ) and Josiah along with the rest of group discounted a second shot to the head as being the source of this movement.

For us a real problem is believeing it was a shot from the rear between Z 312 and Z 313 ( when we first see JFK's head move forward ) is that during the frames Z 313 onwards Jackie, John Connally, Nellie Connally and Roy Kellman also show a forward movement. Now we know none of them were were struck with a bullet at this point. Yes John Connally was struck with a bullet, but not at this point. It was at this point one of the group brought up the notion of the car breaking and that causing all to move forward.

Are we right? I don't know. I will say this though, Muchmoore shows the lights were on during this period and the we know Greer was looking towards his rear at Z 312/Z 313 and maybe was applying the breaks even then. What I can say it is a more satisfactory explanation for all four moving at this point in time.

You ask:- Further, how would that explanation( Josiah changing his opinion ) be incompatible with a two shots to the head, the one from the rear preceding the one from the front by one Zf frame?

It would not. Maybe I was foolish to raise the point. I was simply pointing out that in 1967 Josiah Thompson also believed in the twin head shot. Since then he has come to revise his opinion.

Hope that helps.

James.

Edited by James R Gordon
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Gordon expects us to believe that he cannot detect the braking effects of the limo pointed out by Dr. Costella... when Mr. Gordon cannot even spell "BRAKE" correctly:

quote:

John Costella quite correctly points out that the Zapruder film does not appear to show the car breaking. However the car did break. Although Zapruder does not appear to show this, Marie Muchmore does. Frame M 49, which equates with Z 320, clearly show the break lights on. Nor is this similar to Z 372 which also shows the break lights on. In this frame it is clear it is the sunlight shining through the break light glass and is suggesting the light is on, when infact it is not. Where Zapruder was to the right of the car thereby allowing sunlight to shine through the glass and suggest the light is on, Marie Muchmore was behind the car and filming from behind it. This time it is not sunlight playing games: this time the brakes really are on.

So the forward movement of the occupants is not the result of frames being removed or editing of the film, it is the result of Bill Greer applying the breaks to allow Clint Hill to be able to catch the car and get onto it.

unquote...

Then he says the LIMO DID BRAKE (break) for Hill to get on, but the Z film just does not appear to show it. Dr. Costella's treatise is extremely well written and well presented science. Mr. Gordon's response is a hodgepodge of personal attacks and

unfounded opinion which is unresponsive factually to the excellent presentation.

Jack White :D

Jack,

I accept that it is better to ensure spellings and other such mistakes are removed prior to posting.

Because Zapruder is unable to capture the break lights going on does not mean they did not go on? Now one thing I do know about you is that you have spent a large portion of your life studying the photographic evidence of the JFK assassination. You are very familiar with the Muchmore film. You know that M 49 shows the car lights are on. Rather than being side on, as Zapruder is to the car, Muchmore is filming from the rear. So this time we can discount sunlight as an explanation. Therefore how do you explain Muchmore showing the break lights being on at that the same point that John Costella points out John Connally is being thrown forward? What explanation do you have for that.

I am sorry you believe that a large portion of my initial posting was a "hodgepodge of personal attacks." That was certainly not my intent nor do I believe I did that. Yes I believe John Costella was in error in much that he writes in that presentation, but in pointing that out, I do not believe I have NOR DO I INTEND to insult the man.

May I end on this point. Like me you were in a very privilaged position by being privy to the discussions and thoughts on how TGZFH was put together. Would it not be a more positive contribution to argue where and why you believe I am wrong and thereby show members how you and your group came to the opinions that you did when together you wrote TGZFH.

James.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fetzer's Film Hoax is available on the web in abbreviated form. It is not very convincing. He believes the entire Zapruder film is a special effects project, with pasted figures of JFK, Jackie and the Connallys placed over a limousine filmed empty, etc. It hinges on some less than convincing problems with the exact angle of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the lamp post. I reviewed the entire site carefully. While I believe the key Headshot Frames may have been doctored in a similar manner to the autopsy films, and the provenance and authenticity of the publicly available prints are highly problematic, the Fetzer theory is not supported by the evidence. This thread only makes sense if you have reqad the book or clicked through the HOAX site. I was not convinced that the film was one big special effect. I do believe the wounds may have been retouched, and that frames were removed to downplay the 1963 Secret Service braking to a near stop in the middle of the ambush.

Shanet

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fetzer's Film Hoax is available on the web in abbreviated form.

It is not very convincing. He believes the entire Zapruder film is a special effects project, with pasted figures of JFK, Jackie and the Connallys placed over a limousine filmed empty, etc.  It hinges on some less than convincing problems with the exact angle of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the lamp post. I reviewed the entire site carefully.  While I believe the key Headshot Frames may have been doctored in a similar manner to the autopsy films, and the provenance and authenticity of the publicly available prints are highly problematic, the Fetzer theory is not supported by the evidence. This thread only makes sense if you have reqad the book or clicked through the HOAX site. I was not convinced that the film was one big special effect.  I do believe the wounds may have been retouched, and that frames were removed to downplay the 1963 Secret Service braking to a near stop in the middle of the ambush.

Shanet

Shanet... in general you have been making some very intelligent postings. However, the above shows a scientific lack of understanding of the brilliant work of Dr. Costella...whose work will withstand peer review of other optics and physics experts.

1. As hard as it is to believe, the entire "Zfilm" IS a special effects project.

2. It is incorrect to speak of "pasted in" figures. Animation is a more apt term.

3. The Stemmons sign WAS inserted without pincushion distortion...a positive proof of alteration. If you do not understand pincushion distortion, no meaningful discussion can be held.

4. This thread is devoted to Dr. Costella's website evidence...not to "Fetzer theories".

Dr. Costella spent about four years making this flawless scientific study, yet you dismiss much of it on a single reading, just because you "don't find it convincing". I suggest that is a shortcoming on your part... not Costella's

I suggest that you reread his information, and then try to address perceived flaws POINT BY POINT, SCIENTIFICALLY...not just state that you are not convinced.

Thanks for your response.

Jack ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Fetzer's Film Hoax is available on the web in abbreviated form. It is not very convincing. He believes the entire Zapruder film is a special effects project, with pasted figures of JFK, Jackie and the Connallys placed over a limousine filmed empty, etc. It hinges on some less than convincing problems with the exact angle of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the lamp post.

dgh01: "less than convincing..." are you suggesting the 'physics' are incorrect, or just difficult to believe?

I reviewed the entire site carefully. While I believe the key Headshot Frames may have been doctored in a similar manner to the autopsy films, and the provenance and authenticity of the publicly available prints are highly problematic, the Fetzer theory is not supported by the evidence.

dgh01: What evidence might that be? Surely not Gary Mack, Tink Thompson told me so....?

This thread only makes sense if you have reqad the book or clicked through the HOAX site. I was not convinced that the film was one big special effect. I do believe the wounds may have been retouched, and that frames were removed to downplay the 1963 Secret Service braking to a near stop in the middle of the ambush.

dgh01: something is better than nothing, I suppose! There is something WRONG with the Z-film, if it's altered, the whole world has been lied too, WHY?

David Healy

Shanet

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Gordon expects us to believe that he cannot detect the braking effects of the limo pointed out by Dr. Costella... when Mr. Gordon cannot even spell "BRAKE" correctly:

quote:

John Costella quite correctly points out that the Zapruder film does not appear to show the car breaking. However the car did break. Although Zapruder does not appear to show this, Marie Muchmore does. Frame M 49, which equates with Z 320, clearly show the break lights on. Nor is this similar to Z 372 which also shows the break lights on. In this frame it is clear it is the sunlight shining through the break light glass and is suggesting the light is on, when infact it is not. Where Zapruder was to the right of the car thereby allowing sunlight to shine through the glass and suggest the light is on, Marie Muchmore was behind the car and filming from behind it. This time it is not sunlight playing games: this time the brakes really are on.

So the forward movement of the occupants is not the result of frames being removed or editing of the film, it is the result of Bill Greer applying the breaks to allow Clint Hill to be able to catch the car and get onto it.

unquote...

Then he says the LIMO DID BRAKE (break) for Hill to get on, but the Z film just does not appear to show it. Dr. Costella's treatise is extremely well written and well presented science. Mr. Gordon's response is a hodgepodge of personal attacks and

unfounded opinion which is unresponsive factually to the excellent presentation.

Jack White :(

Jack,

I accept that it is better to ensure spellings and other such mistakes are removed prior to posting.

Because Zapruder is unable to capture the break lights going on does not mean they did not go on? Now one thing I do know about you is that you have spent a large portion of your life studying the photographic evidence of the JFK assassination. You are very familiar with the Muchmore film. You know that M 49 shows the car lights are on. Rather than being side on, as Zapruder is to the car, Muchmore is filming from the rear. So this time we can discount sunlight as an explanation. Therefore how do you explain Muchmore showing the break lights being on at that the same point that John Costella points out John Connally is being thrown forward? What explanation do you have for that.

I am sorry you believe that a large portion of my initial posting was a "hodgepodge of personal attacks." That was certainly not my intent nor do I believe I did that. Yes I believe John Costella was in error in much that he writes in that presentation, but in pointing that out, I do not believe I have NOR DO I INTEND to insult the man.

May I end on this point. Like me you were in a very privilaged position by being privy to the discussions and thoughts on how TGZFH was put together. Would it not be a more positive contribution to argue where and why you believe I am wrong and thereby show members how you and your group came to the opinions that you did when together you wrote TGZFH.

James.

Gentlemen:

Vehicles brake, and have brake lights. When vehicles break, you take them to a garage to fix! Perhaps a minor spelling error but given the seriousness of this research we ought to be careful of spelling errors. (Shanet has it correct in his post.) Thanks!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that David Healey and Jack White agree with Costella and Fetzer:

the zapruder film as a special effects propaganda creation.

It's possible, but not probable, and who knows?

And no Jack, I am not unable to understand the pincushion effect.

But the degrees of difference in the uprights was not that compelling.

Dr. Wimp's analysis on CSPAN of why everyone bobbed forward in 313 area was, braking. JFK bobbed forward, then Kellerman and then the women all rocked forward.

Zapruder doesn't show me anything like the occipital right large lower head wound, so I am uninclined to believe the temple wound is unretouched.

It might just be a fake..........

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shanet wrote:

I see that David Healey and Jack White agree with Costella and Fetzer:

the zapruder film as a special effects propaganda creation.

dgh01: other than the obvious, and our history of creating propoganda films dating back to WW2 -- what you see may not be correct. Who said I agree with with Dr. Fetzer and Costella? About anythiing

It's possible, but not probable, and who knows?

And no Jack, I am not unable to understand the pincushion effect.

dgh01: its a condition long known by professional cameramen and acutely known by those that do compositing, especially compositors where tolerences beyond 0.001 is unacceptable

But the degrees of difference in the uprights was not that compelling.

dgh01: see above

Dr. Wimp's analysis on CSPAN of why everyone bobbed forward in 313 area was, braking. JFK bobbed forward, then Kellerman and then the women all rocked forward.

dgh01: Dr. Wimp? Now that's new! braking - accelerating all come into play within a few frames in the alledged camera original.

Zapruder doesn't show me anything like the occipital right large lower head wound, so I am uninclined to believe the temple wound is unretouched.

It might just be a fake..........

dgh01: exactly, what got me started and I'm still there, primary reason forensic testing of the alledged camera original Zfilm is needed....

BTW, it's Healy not HEALEY -- wouldn't want Al the Cop thinking I'm not on the job...

David Healy

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
Fetzer's Film Hoax is available on the web in abbreviated form. It is not very convincing. He believes the entire Zapruder film is a special effects project, with pasted figures of JFK, Jackie and the Connallys placed over a limousine filmed empty, etc.  It hinges on some less than convincing problems with the exact angle of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the lamp post.

dgh01: "less than convincing..." are you suggesting the 'physics' are incorrect, or just difficult to believe?

I reviewed the entire site carefully.  While I believe the key Headshot Frames may have been doctored in a similar manner to the autopsy films, and the provenance and authenticity of the publicly available prints are highly problematic, the Fetzer theory is not supported by the evidence.

dgh01: What evidence might that be? Surely not Gary Mack, Tink Thompson told me so....?

This thread only makes sense if you have read the book or clicked through the HOAX site. I was not convinced that the film was one big special effect.  I do believe the wounds may have been retouched, and that frames were removed to downplay the 1963 Secret Service braking to a near stop in the middle of the ambush.

dgh01: something is better than nothing, I suppose! There is something WRONG with the Z-film, if it's altered, the whole world has been lied too, WHY?

David Healy

Shanet

Hi all

Time to revive this thread.

Having also read the Hoax site but not, I admit, having read Fetzer's Film Hoax book, I don't find the arguments on the website too convincing.

Jack White seems to imply that the whole Zapruder film is a hoax but I would say to that there is simply far too much to fake: all the people standing on the grass, the car, the secret service and police as well as the principles in the car. The idea of propaganda films or Mary Poppins being "proof" that the Zapruder film was faked in its entirety will not wash.

I agree that there are oddities about the film which might point to manipulation of the images in certain frames, similar to the probable doctoring of the JFK autopsy photos and the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald with the rifle, and possibly frames missing, but again there is too much in the Zapruder film to fake to claim that the entire film is a hoax to the extent that it could take in my myself and other reasonably minded observers such as Congressional committees or other investigators.

Best regards

Chris George

Edited by Christopher T. George
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris George wrote:

[...]

Having also read the Hoax site but not, I admit, having read Fetzer's Film Hoax book, I don't find the arguments on the website too convincing.

Jack White seems to imply that the whole Zapruder film is a hoax but I would say to that there is simply far too much to fake

[...]

________________

Might want to read the book before making to conclusions...

I suspect there are more contributors on the site that agree the 'entire' film is a fraud...

as to too much to fake -- your knowledge of the timeline - your experience in film compositing is?

Bet we get to the bottom of the JFK assassination before you finish thrashing out Jack 'da Ripper -- :rolleyes:

David Healy

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...