Jump to content
The Education Forum

Which came first, the bus or the Rambler?


Recommended Posts

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

in addition to already having a working knowledge of Russian language and culture, the Oswald impostor (and, of course, the real Oswald) together provided the opportunity to plausibly deny almost anything either Oswald did

As for producing a future defector with a working knowledge of Russian, I've already pointed out numerous times that the OSS or the CIA could have achieved this without going to all the trouble of setting up a long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers.

If they wanted a false defector with a working knowledge of Russian, someone who could understand what would be said around them in the Soviet Union, all they needed to do was recruit one American and get him to learn Russian. It's a far simpler, cheaper and more obvious way to achieve their goal.

The real-life, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald defected a decade and a half after Jim's imaginary project is supposed to have been set up. That would be more than enough time to learn Russian to the necessary level.

Jim still hasn't explained why those masterminds would have decided to go for the doppelganger solution when they would surely have been aware that a far simpler, cheaper and more obvious alternative existed. No explanation appears to exist for this decision, which indicates that the decision didn't happen.

Until Jim or anyone else can come up with a credible account of why those masterminds decided to go for the complicated solution over the simple solution, he isn't justified in claiming that they did so.

As for plausible deniability, I've already pointed out that this would only apply if doppelgangers existed. Without doppelgangers, there would be nothing that needed to be plausibly denied. It's a solution to a self-generated problem.

Quote

Are you determined to discuss philosophy instead of actual EVIDENCE in this case?

I'm determined to find out why any rational organisation would have set up such a ridiculously complicated scheme, when it's clear that they didn't need to do so. If there was no good reason for their supposed decision to use doppelgangers, they didn't use doppelgangers.

This is something that needs to be sorted out before discussing EVIDENCE, because the EVIDENCE has more than one explanation.

As I've also pointed out numerous times, all or almost all of Jim's 'Harvey and Lee' talking points possess plausible explanations that don't require doppelgangers and certainly don't require a long-term scheme involving two pairs of the things.

Does Jim accept that all or almost all of his talking points have plausible, alternative explanations? A straightforward answer to this question would be appreciated.

If he does accept this obvious fact, it is up to him to explain why we should prefer his doppelganger-based explanations. To do this, he needs to explain why a complicated double-doppelganger scheme would have been set up when there was no need to set it up. What would have been the thinking behind the decision to set it up? Why would the masterminds not have decided to recruit one American instead of four doppelgangers?

If he doesn't accept the obvious fact that plausible alternative explanations exist, there is no point in discussing the matter. Jim will be just like a flat-earther or a religious fundamentalist, pretending that his EVIDENCE can only be explained in the way he wants to explain it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 310
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

Sandy what are you doing? You said this in your last post to me: “Your statement that I don't know what I'm talking about is merely your opinion. Which is fine -- believe what you want -- but you should make clear it's your opinion.“

did you read that last sentence after you wrote it? It’s directly contrary to what you just said:

“Half the things I say about the JFK assassination are my opinion. Same is true with most people here. It's sort of understood..”

 

Allen,

The following two paragraphs distinguish between when the phrase "in my opinion" (or equivalent) is necessary and when it is not. It depends upon what the person is talking about.

1.  On this forum, when people describe something they believe happened about the JFK assassination, they don't always remind the reader which parts of what they say is their opinion. This practice is understood.

2.  But when they make a claim about another member, they should always say it is their opinion unless they know for sure it is correct.

 

You claimed that I didn't know what I was talking about. But that was not true. I got my information from a person who was apparently an expert on the topic. That's the reason I told you that you should have said that it was your opinion that I didn't know what I was talking about. Had you done so, your statement would have been correct.

Please note that in my very first post to you, I said that I didn't think you knew what you were talking about. I implied the words "my opinion" when I said "I don't think..."

I hope this clears things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Jim still hasn't explained why those masterminds would have decided to go for the doppelganger solution when they would surely have been aware that a far simpler, cheaper and more obvious alternative existed. No explanation appears to exist for this decision, which indicates that the decision didn't happen.

Jeremy Bojczuk keeps asking the same questions again and again and acts as if they haven’t been answered already numerous times. For example, I have answered the question above HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE, among other places. 

Now that I’ve answered your question yet again, Jeremy, will you FINALLY answer mine? 

For the EIGHTH time now, I’ll ask Jeremy:

Will you EVER share with us the earliest date you believe LHO was impersonated?  

If you ever answer this question, we could then take a look to see if there is strong evidence of an earlier impersonation.

And now, let’s get back to discussing the evidence relative to this very thread….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DID ONE OSWALD TAKE THE BUS AND TAXI WHILE THE OTHER GOT INTO A NASH RAMBLER?

In THIS POST, Jeremy Boczuk proclaimed the following:

Quote

 

Milton Jones's description of the man did not match the real-life, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald.

In CE 2641, Jones described the man as:

  • aged 30-35 (Oswald was 24 years old),

  • 5' 11" tall (Oswald was 5' 9" tall),

  • 150 pounds in weight (Oswald was weighed that very day at 131 pounds),

  • and wearing a blue jacket (Oswald's blue jacket was in the book depository).

If Jones's description is accurate, the man on the bus was not Oswald.

 

And in THIS POST, I responded with the following:

Quote

 

Really?  According to his Marine Corps discharge data, Oswald was 5’11” (71”) tall and weighed 150 lbs., EXACTLY matching the estimates by Jones.  Earl Rose’s autopsy report estimated Oswald’s weight at 150 pounds, also EXACTLY matching the estimate by Jones.  (Rose measured Oswald’s height a 5’9”.)

Height_23:74_Discharge.jpg

Height_autopsy.jpg

....

By the way, since Mr. B. believes that an eyewitness estimate of a man’s height that is off by 2 inches means it must be a different person, no doubt Mr. B. will agree that the LHO who left the Marine Corps measured at 5’11” tall simply cannot be the same LHO who was measured on a slab by Earl Rose at 5’9”.  These are measurements by medical professionals, not estimates by casual eyewitnesses.

I'm sure Mr. B. will agree that the height distinctions indicate there were two different LHOs!

 

According to the Official Story®, the transfer was found just after 4 pm on 11/22.  Dallas Transit System Division Superintendent F.F. Yates immediately indicated that transfer #004459 came from a book of transfers issued that morning to Cecil McWatters.  Was Yates part of the conspiracy?  This hardly seems to be made up because…..

Just two hours later, McWatters was staring at LHO in a police lineup.  Regardless of what you think of the bus and taxi evidence, if this was all invented, how did it start so quickly in the way it apparently did?  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Allen,

The following two paragraphs distinguish between when the phrase "in my opinion" (or equivalent) is necessary and when it is not. It depends upon what the person is talking about.

1.  On this forum, when people describe something they believe happened about the JFK assassination, they don't always remind the reader which parts of what they say is their opinion. This practice is understood.

2.  But when they make a claim about another member, they should always say it is their opinion unless they know for sure it is correct.

 

You claimed that I didn't know what I was talking about. But that was not true. I got my information from a person who was apparently an expert on the topic. That's the reason I told you that you should have said that it was your opinion that I didn't know what I was talking about. Had you done so, your statement would have been correct.

Please note that in my very first post to you, I said that I didn't think you knew what you were talking about. I implied the words "my opinion" when I said "I don't think..."

I hope this clears things up.

Forget it. That has nothing to do with what I said. Read my last post. Otherwise I give up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

acts as if they haven’t been answered already numerous times. For example, I have answered the question above HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE, among other places.

Jim has replied to my question several times, but he hasn't answered it.

Let's look at Jim's replies and see if he really has provided credible, honest answers to the question I asked. Here's each reply in turn:

1 - https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27729-which-came-first-the-bus-or-the-rambler/?do=findComment&comment=461957 on page 20:

Quote

The purpose of the Oswald project was to give a Russian-speaking youth an American identity so he could eventually travel to Russia and secretly understand  more of what was being said in Russian by people around him.  As almost everyone except Jeremy understands, starting with a youth who already understood the Russian language had a huge advantage over anyone who might begin taking instructions as an adult or near adult.

2 - https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27729-which-came-first-the-bus-or-the-rambler/?do=findComment&comment=461817 on page 19 is an exact copy of the previous non-answer:

Quote

The purpose of the Oswald project was to give a Russian-speaking youth an American identity so he could eventually travel to Russia and secretly understand  more of what was being said in Russian by people around him.  As almost everyone except Jeremy understands, starting with a youth who already understood the Russian language had a huge advantage over anyone who might begin taking instructions as an adult or near adult.

3 - https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27729-which-came-first-the-bus-or-the-rambler/?do=findComment&comment=460564 on page 12 is a passage from holy scripture, written by the Venerable Master himself, the prophet Armstrong (doppelgangers be upon him!), about plausible deniability:

Quote

The use of twins allows an intelligence agency to place "one person" in different places at the same time. The first twin could be involved in an illegal or clandestine
operation, while the second twin was in a different location with people who could provide an alibi if necessary.

4 - https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27729-which-came-first-the-bus-or-the-rambler/?do=findComment&comment=460563 on page 12 also mentions plausible deniability:

Quote

one of the major advantages of doubling political operatives is total DENIABILITY for any and every action taken by either player.  The example I gave is that one LHO couldn't possibly have been at Bolton Ford in New Orleans because he was in Russia at the time. [There's no good reason to suppose that any LHO was at Bolton Ford, because a plausible alternative explanation exists for the evidence Jim keeps regurgitating. See e.g.: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1408-the-bolton-ford-incident.]

As I've already explained, these replies do not answer my question. Jim makes three points:

  1. The doppelganger who defected could "secretly understand  more of what was being said in Russian by people around him."
  2. Recruiting "a youth who already understood the Russian language had a huge advantage over anyone who might begin taking instructions as an adult."
  3. Using doppelgangers provides "total DENIABILITY for any and every action taken by either" doppelganger.
  • Point 1: Understanding Russian can be done just as well by a native English-speaking American who had learned a reasonable amount of Russian. You don't need doppelgangers for this, because you don't need to be a native speaker of Russian in order to understand Russian.
  • Point 2: There was no "huge advantage" in using doppelgangers. There was no advantage at all, because the hypothetical "youth who already understood the Russian language" must have known exactly the same amount of Russian as the real-life Oswald. The real-life, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald's Russian was entirely consistent with that of someone who had begun learning Russian in his late teens. Again, you don't need doppelgangers for this.
  • Point 3: Plausible deniability is only necessary if you have doppelgangers. It is a solution to a non-problem. If you don't have doppelgangers, you don't have any need for plausible deniability. And because plausible non-doppelganger explanations exist for the incidents in question, there's no good reason to believe that any doppelgangers were involved.

Jim still hasn't answered my question. He still hasn't explained why his OSS or CIA masterminds would have decided to recruit doppelgangers rather than choose the utterly obvious and far simpler alternative: just recruit one American and get him to learn Russian.

Why would they not have done that?

There's no answer to that question, is there? If, as Jim proposes, his OSS or CIA masterminds had planned in the 1940s to send to the Soviet Union several years in the future a false defector who understood Russian, they would simply have recruited an American and got him to learn sufficient Russian.

Jim's double-doppelganger project could never have happened.

--

I'm curious to find out why Jim hasn't acknowledged that plausible alternative explanations exist for most or all of the talking points he has been regurgitating over the past few years. Does he think they don't exist? They've been pointed out to him numerous times, so he must be aware that they exist.

If Jim knows that plausible alternative explanations exist for his talking points, why doesn't he accept them?

He surely understands that when an item of evidence has both a complicated, unrealistic explanation (big project involving lots of doppelgangers!) and a simple everyday explanation (no project, no doppelgangers, just one person!), it's irrational to prefer the complicated explanation over the simple explanation.

As I pointed out in an earlier comment:

Quote

Does Jim accept that plausible alternative explanations exist for most or all of his 'Harvey and Lee' talking points? If he doesn't accept this obvious fact, there really isn't much point in continuing this discussion, because he will have admitted that he is just a closed-minded propagandist.

Is Jim just a closed-minded propagandist? Or will he admit that plausible alternative explanations exist for his talking points?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Point 3: Plausible deniability is only necessary if you have doppelgangers. It is a solution to a non-problem. If you don't have doppelgangers, you don't have any need for plausible deniability. And because plausible non-doppelganger explanations exist for the incidents in question, there's no good reason to believe that any doppelgangers were involved.

Does Mr. Bojczuk deliberately misunderstand the advantages of an intelligence project involving doubles?  Total deniability via the existence of a continuous and automatic alibi is only POSSIBLE via the use of an impostor. 

Again, as John A. wrote nearly two decades ago:

The use of twins allows an intelligence agency to place "one person" in different places at the same time. The first twin could be involved in an illegal or clandestine operation, while the second twin was in a different location with people who could provide an alibi if necessary. If the first twin was identified by witnesses as having committed a crime, then he/she could be apprehended by authorities. When questioned by authorities, the first twin would simply provide the names of witnesses who were with his twin in a different location when the crime was committed. When authorities interviewed those witnesses, and verified the story, the first twin would be released. Unless the authorities knew about the second twin, it would be very difficult to charge the first twin with a crime. In a professional and carefully planned covert operation no one would realize what had happened, and both twins would walk away. [H&L p. 8]

Mr. Bojczuk is apparently only interested in trying to misrepresent the obvious advantages of this total deniability that is often so important in intelligence operations.  And he apparently is going to ignore my destruction of his total mishandling of Milton Jones’s description of the LHO on McWatters’ bus.  He does not want to discuss how it was possible that bus driver McWatters was looking at Oswald in a police lineup on the very day of the assassination.  

Why won’t Mr. Bojczuk discuss his disastrous handling of Milton Jones and the bus evidence?  It appears that he is afraid. And, lest we forget….

For the NINTH time now, I’ll ask Jeremy:

Will you EVER share with us the earliest date you believe LHO was impersonated?  

If you ever answer this question, we could then take a look to see if there is strong evidence of an earlier impersonation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Total deniability via the existence of a continuous and automatic alibi is only POSSIBLE via the use of an impostor.

Deniability of what? The actions of two people who use the same name. But if your goal is to produce a lone defector to the Soviet Union, you don't require two people to use the same name. You only require one person. The problem of having to create deniability doesn't arise, because there's nothing that needs denying.

There was no need for any plausible deniability in the Oswald case. None of the imaginary activities of the imaginary non-defecting doppelganger need to be explained as the plausibly deniable actions of a doppelganger. Likewise, the defection of the real-life, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald does not need to be explained by inventing any doppelgangers.

I take it that Jim finally accepts that there was no need for anyone to set up a long-term project involving doppelgangers in order to obtain a false defector who could understand what would be said around him. Jim must accept by now that you don't need to invent doppelgangers in order to explain Oswald's knowledge of Russian, because that knowledge was exactly what we should expect of an American who had begun learning Russian in his late teens. Oswald was neither a native speaker of Russian nor a pair of doppelgangers.

It would be nice if Jim would acknowledge this fact. Repeat after me: You don't need doppelgangers; all you need is one American with a knowledge of Russian. There! That feels better, doesn't it?

Can we assume that Jim also accepts the existence of plausible non-doppelganger explanations for most or all of his 'Harvey and Lee' talking points? If he does, why does he not accept them? Pretty much any explanation that doesn't require doppelgangers is going to be more believable than one that does require doppelgangers.

Since alternative explanations exist that are more plausible than Jim's doppelganger explanations, there's no good reason for him to behave like a closed-minded propagandist, repeating the same old talking points over and over again, is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 9:55 PM, Allen Lowe said:

Sandy what are you doing? You said this in your last post to me: “Your statement that I don't know what I'm talking about is merely your opinion. Which is fine -- believe what you want -- but you should make clear it's your opinion.“

did you read that last sentence after you wrote it? It’s directly contrary to what you just said:

“Half the things I say about the JFK assassination are my opinion. Same is true with most people here. It's sort of understood..”

 

Allen,

I'll try again to answer your question, this time in a different way.

You say that these two statements I made earlier are contrary to one another:

  1. “Half the things I say about the JFK assassination are my opinion. Same is true with most people here. It's sort of understood.”  [Which is why we do not always state when something is our opinion.]
  2. “Your statement that I don't know what I'm talking about is merely your opinion. Which is fine -- believe what you want -- but you should make clear it's your opinion.“

In #1 I am talking about assassination theories. When sharing our theories, it is understood that what we are giving are our opinions. So we don't always point out when something is our opinion.

In contrast, in #2 I am talking about when one member makes a statement about another member. When others read a statement like that, they may assume it to be factual if the person doesn't make clear it's their opinion.

So the reason the two statement don't contradict is because their contexts are different.

 

Now I will give two opposing examples of one member making a statement about another member. Here is what I said about you:

On 6/15/2022 at 9:14 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

And here is what you said about me:

On 6/15/2022 at 1:20 PM, Allen Lowe said:

....you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Notice that I said my statement was my opinion. In contrast, you did not say that your statement was your opinion. You should have pointed out that it was.

It turns out that what you said was factually incorrect. Had you said it was your opinion, it would have been factually correct.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Can we assume that Jim also accepts the existence of plausible non-doppelganger explanations for most or all of his 'Harvey and Lee' talking points?

No!

Attempting to have a substantive debate with Jeremy Bojczuk is impossible.  He totally ignores issues that are uncomfortable for him and endlessly repeats his doppelganger arguments that have been answered time and time again on this very discussion thread.

I won’t bother asking Jeremy, for the tenth time, if he will share with us the earliest date he believes LHO was impersonated. He clearly will not discuss the issue.

I won’t bother asking Jeremy, again, about his foolish post saying bus passenger Milton Jones simply had to be describing someone other than Classic Oswald®.  I destroyed his argument just a few pages back on this very thread and he obviously wants to ignore the debacle he created with his ridiculous post(s).

And I certainly won’t bother asking Jeremy, again, to debate HERE any of the evidence for the long-term existence of an LHO impostor.  In all those cases, he merely posts a few links and pretends someone else somewhere else has debunked it all.  It is not true!

Little of the EVIDENCE John Armstrong collected for his book Harvey and Lee has been debunked anywhere.  If it had been, Mr. Bojczuk surely would have made his arguments here, rather than hide behind a flurry of links that prove nothing.

I will wait and wait for Jeremy or anyone else to debate on this forum the H&L evidence, but I won’t hold my breath.  Jeremy probably knows all too well that the evidence for two Oswalds is so substantial it is nearly impossible to explain it all with “alternative explanations.”  For example:

  • The Social Security Administration refused to corroborate the official story of "Oswald's" pre-1962 income, offering instead "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report regarding employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps."
  • Way back in 1948, one LHO was living at 101 San Saba in Benbrook while the other was at 3330 Willig St. (and then 7408 Ewing) in Fort Worth.
  • In 1953 the Russian-speaking LHO (Harvey) was sent to Youth House for truancy, fled to Stanley, North Dakota to avoid further entanglement with the NYC legal system, and started attending Beauregard JHS in New Orleans that fall, all the while the American-born LHO (Lee) had good attendance both semesters at PS 44 in NYC.
  • During the fall semester of 1954, Harvey attended Stripling School in Fort Worth while Lee attended Beauregard School in New Orleans,.
  • By the mid-1950s, both Oswalds had various sometimes conflicting jobs, which eventually required the FBI to destroy all the original employment (and school) records for both young men and to create a false employment and education legend.  The Social Security Administration refused to corroborate the Official Story® of "Oswald's" pre-1962 income, offering instead "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report regarding employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps."
  • The Marine Corps records are a gold mine: My favorite chronicles Harvey Oswald's trip to Formosa (Taiwan) while Lee was being treated for VD in Japan.  Other examples from USMC unit diaries and testimony show how the two LHOs associated with completely different groups of Marines both early and late in their enlistment periods.
  • While Russian-speaking HARVEY was in the Soviet Union, American-born LEE was active briefly as an agent provocateur in NYC, working with Marita Lorenz and anti-Castro Cubans in and around Florida, visiting Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans, and much more.
  • One Oswald never had a driver’s license and could not drive while the other had a valid Texas driver’s license and could drive, including doing work for Jack Ruby in 1963 involving cars.
  • American-born LEE Oswald appeared in Baytown, TX on Labor Day weekend in 1963 attempting to purchase rifles from Fidel Castro’s friend and gun supplier Robert McKeown.  At the time, Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald and his family were on holiday with the Murrets at Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana.

I won’t bother listing all the times one LHO set up the other in the weeks preceding the JFK assassination.  There is an entire Hollywood motion picture named Executive Action that describes that situation.

Other than providing links claiming that all the above has been debunked elsewhere, Jeremy simply won’t debate HERE any of the evidence above, and, therefore, I don’t see much point debating him any more.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

I will wait and wait for Jeremy or anyone else to debate on this forum the H&L evidence, but I won’t hold my breath.

Plenty of people, including me, have debated Jim's 'Harvey and Lee' talking points on this forum. We have done this over and over and over again, for years and years. It goes like this:

  1. Jim starts a new thread, in which he raises a talking point, usually by quoting a passage from scripture.
  2. Someone explains why the evidence in question isn't particularly convincing: the evidence may comprise documents that can be interpreted in ways that don't require doppelgangers; witnesses may be recalling events from decades earlier; witnesses may not actually have stated what 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine claims they stated; other evidence may exist which contradicts the evidence Jim has put forward; and so on.
  3. Debate ensues. Usually, Jim fails to convince his critics.
  4. Everyone loses interest, and the thread fizzles away.
  5. After a while, Jim brings up the same talking point again, usually by quoting exactly the same passage of scripture, but without acknowledging the existence of the criticisms others have already raised.
  6. People see through this technique. They dismiss Jim as a closed-minded propagandist. The 'Harvey and Lee' cult loses a few more potential converts.
  7. After a while, Jim brings up the same talking point yet again, quoting the same passage of scripture yet again. without acknowledging the existence of the criticisms others have already raised, yet again.

Anyone who has debated religious fundamentalists will recognise the pattern.

Quote

Jeremy probably knows all too well that the evidence for two Oswalds is so substantial it is nearly impossible to explain it all with "alternative explanations." For example:

Apart from the first one, all of the examples Jim gives are claims, interpretations of evidence. For each of those claims, the actual primary evidence (witness statements, documents such as school records, etc) can be interpreted in ways that do not require the invention of doppelgangers. Those alternative explanations are always more plausible than Jim's interpretations, not least because they do not require the invention of doppelgangers.

It really isn't controversial that alternative explanations exist for the evidence behind Jim's talking points. If Jim were genuinely interested in finding out the truth, he would acknowledge the obvious fact that these alternative explanations exist. He doesn't, because he is a closed-minded propagandist.

Jim describes his "evidence" as "substantial". By this he means that there are a lot of 'Harvey and Lee' talking points. But if the evidence for each talking point is weak, and can be more plausibly explained in other ways, the amount of such evidence is immaterial. Quality beats quantity. Flat-earthers can probably come up with plenty of talking points too.

Quote

Other than providing links claiming that all the above has been debunked elsewhere, Jeremy simply won't debate HERE any of the evidence above, and, therefore, I don’t see much point debating him any more. 

Again, I and others have discussed and criticised Jim's talking points on this forum many times. We've given the matter far more time and attention than it deserves.

We have shown that there's no need to believe any of Jim's claims, because more plausible interpretations exist. Until Jim can show that his interpretations of the evidence are more plausible than everyone else's, there is indeed no point in carrying on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...