Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

.... in my opinion Sandy you and Keven are out of line with this treatment of Pat.

 

Oh really? So you are in favor of Pat's lying?

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

The bludgeoning of Pat Speer into being forbidden to speak his argument or express his interpretations or exegesis of texts (the texts being the testimonies verbal and visual of witnesses) on this forum is not right. It would be a huge loss if Pat's voice were gone. It is clear that is what Keven is after, but the moderators--all of you--is that what you are after too? 

 

Greg,

If you had a genuine interest in this topic and the serious nature of it, you would have read the whole thread and you would know that:

  1. It has been established that Pat has been and continues to lie about what James Jenkins said regarding the location of the gaping wound on JFK's head.
  2. I as administrator have not forbidden Pat from stating his opinions and interpretations.
  3. There is no evidence that Keven is attempting to get Pat banned.
  4. The only thing I want is for Pat to discontinue stating things as if they are facts when in reality they are not.
  5. I've said multiple times now that Pat is free to say these things, but he must treat them as being his opinions or interpretations. (Though he would be intellectually dishonest in doing so.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 684
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I'm fairly certain the wound Jenkins depicted for the HSCA was the wound he saw after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. This is essentially what is shown in the mystery photo. 

 

How can you be so certain? Did Jenkins ever say that the scalp was peeled back before his seeing the large wound on the back of the head?

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

He told researchers in 2013, after all, that the original hole was "somewhat larger than a silver dollar."

 

No, he didn't say the original hole was the size of a silver dollar. He said that that was the size of the hole after the morticians were finished reassembling the skull and scalp. He was talking about the hole that the morticians said they closed up with and orange-sized rubber dam.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The hole in the HSCA drawings is several times that of a silver dollar.

 

That was the original hole before the skull was reconstructed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

How can you be so certain? Did Jenkins ever say that the scalp was peeled back before his seeing the large wound on the back of the head?

 

 

No, he didn't say the original hole was the size of a silver dollar. He said that that was the size of the hole after the morticians were finished reassembling the skull and scalp. He was talking about the hole that the morticians said they closed up with and orange-sized rubber dam.

 

 

That was the original hole before the skull was reconstructed.

 

No, that was Robinson who said that was the appearance at the end.  

Here is Horne on his blog working from Mantik's notes on Jenkins' 2013 appearance...


JENKINS RECALLED THE APPROXIMATE SIZE OF THE LARGE WOUND IN THE POSTERIOR CRANIUM: Twice during his talks at JFK Lancer, Jenkins recalled that he did observe the large wound in the right rear of the head, and that its approximate size was "somewhat larger than a silver dollar." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

It’s also against forum rules to repeatedly call someone a fraudulent liar. “You keep listening to their lying ass anyway”? Where does it say you can use memes to blatantly violate forum rules? 

Are you on a crusade to get Pat banned so you can turn this forum into an alterationist echo chamber or something? People have different views on the medical evidence. Get over it. Having different opinions expressed in a debate forum is supposed to be a good thing. 

I couldn´t agree more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

There is an effort behind the scenes to push Mantik's new book as the final word on the medical evidence. If this is so, well, I am rightly seen as an obstacle. 

 

Interesting, if so that could explain what the heck is going on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 Look at the second photo from Law's book that you posted... As Jenkins says "with the open hole in this area" he points to the top of his head. 

Here is Horne pointing out what he claims was the hole as first viewed by Humes. This is not where Jenkins pointed out an "open hole." And that's okay. Horne and Mantik claim Jenkins viewed the wound AFTER Humes performed the post-mortem surgery.

 . image.png.7284cfc9d23048f07e5e306dc0ff0676.png

Mr. Speer, correct me if you think that I am wrong, but the totality of your argument that James Jenkins ever claimed there was an open hole in the top of JFK's head appears to amount to the following:

QUyrOKr.png

Law, William Matson. In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (p. 252). Trine Day. Kindle Edition. 

This image was taken from the 1998 videotaped interview of James Jenkins by William Law which appears in written form in Law's book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence. I was unable to locate the videotape of the interview itself online, and when I contacted William Law seeking to get access to the video, he told me that he is unable to physically locate the video, and also does not know of a place it can be accessed online.

In the Kindle Edition of Law's book, the image in question is the third of four images of James Jenkins that appears on page 252 as follows:

V70HPJd.png

oXVrj0qh.png

Law, William Matson. In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (p. 252). Trine Day. Kindle Edition.

The transcribed segment of the videotaped interview from which the descriptions for the screenshots are derived appears on page 224 of the Kindle Edition of the book as follows (highlighted in red box):

MrLR9ut.png

William Law is a reputable researcher and author who can be counted on to have precisely aligned James Jenkins's verbal statements to the correct screenshots of the video, but as is so often the case with these hand gesture demonstrations of wound locations, it is the hand movements of the gesturer that are so often imprecise, and we are at a loss to assess the amount of imprecision involved in this particular set of hand gestures of James Jenkins in the absence of the video itself with which to refer to in order to conduct a careful analysis.

However, James Jenkins has been interviewed numerous times, and is remarkably consistent in his descriptions from interview to interview, notwithstanding Speer's fraudulent claims to the contrary. If one of the claims that Jenkins makes is that there was a "hole on the top of JFK's head," as Mr. Speer asserts Jenkins has claimed, then we should be able to find examples of Jenkins making this claim in other interviews.

And here is the problem:

There is not a single instance in which James Jenkins has ever claimed that there was a "hole on the top of [JFK's] head" in any of his other interviews, and the burden is on Mr. Speer to provide even one such example but he has as yet been unable to do so.

* James Jenkins did not claim that he had seen a "hole on the top of [JFK's] head" during his 1977 HSCA interview. THE 1977 HSCA INTERVIEW OF JAMES JENKINS -- https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md65/html/md65_0001a.htm

* James Jenkins did not claim that he had seen a "hole on the top of [JFK's] head" when he was interviewed by David Lifton in 1979. DAVID LIFTON'S 1979 INTERVIEW OF JAMES JENKINS -- https://archive.org/details/best-evidence-disguise-and-deception-in-the-assassination-of-john-f.-kennedy-by-/page/n1/mode/2up

* James Jenkins did not claim that he had seen a "hole on the top of [JFK's] head" when he was interviewed by Harrison Livingstone in 1990, and in fact twice affirmatively told Harrison Livingstone that he did not see such a "hole on the top of [JFK's] head." HARRISON LIVINGSTONE'S 1990 INTERVIEW OF JAMES JENKINS -- https://archive.org/details/hightreason2grea0000livi/page/282/mode/2up

* James Jenkins did not claim that he had seen a "hole on the top of [JFK's] head" when he was interviewed by Harrison Livingstone during the Dallas Medical Witnesses Conference in 1991. APRIL 6, 1991 INTERVIEW OF JAMES JENKINS AT THE DALLAS MEDICAL WITNESS CONFERENCE -- https://youtu.be/t_FY2loSOZY?si=SNTRGVBpdo4hBWOX

* And James Jenkins did not claim that he had seen a "hole on the top of [JFK's] head" when he was interviewed by William Law in 1998. WILLIAM LAW'S 1998 INTERVIEW OF JAMES JENKINS -- https://www.amazon.com/Eye-History-Disclosures-Assassination-Evidence/dp/0965658287

Let us not forget that the fraudulent story Mr. Speer has been telling about James Jenkins for at least a decade now is that Jenkins had always maintained that he had seen a hole on the top of JFK's head -- and not in the back of JFK's head -- until William Law, Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser convinced him to change his story around 2015, and there is no evidence other than Speer's sleight of hand deceptive storytelling, and this one screenshot from William Law's book that Speer has seized upon, to support such a narrative.

While we cannot locate the video of William Law's 1998 interview of James Jenkins, there is other video evidence from the 1991 Dallas Medical Witnesses Conference that shows James Jenkins demonstrating that "the large gaping head wound" he saw was in the back of JFK's head, not on the top of JFK's head:

fEb2AjF.gif

And here is the same segment on video allowing you to hear what James Jenkins was saying while demonstrating the location of the large head wound to be on the back of the head:

 

Throughout these multiple interviews of James Jenkins there are at least fifty examples of James Jenkins referring to what he calls the "large gaping wound in the back of the head," most of them being in the interview by William Law, and there isn't a single one of them in which Jenkins says ANYTHING that can be construed as a reference to "a hole in the top of [JFK's] head." Not one, Mr. Speer.

IF I AM WRONG IN MAINTAINING THAT JAMES JENKINS HAS NEVER ONCE IN MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN INTERVIEWS EVER REFERRED TO THERE BEING ANY KIND OF "HOLE ON THE TOP OF [JFK'S] HEAD," THEN I'M SURE YOU WILL BE HAPPY TO MEET YOUR BURDEN AND POST IT FORTHWITH MR. SPEER, RIGHT?

YOUR FAILURE TO DO SO WILL COUNT AS AN IMPLICIT ADMISSION THAT YOUR "TOP OF THE HEAD WOUND" CLAIM IN REFERENCE TO JAMES JENKINS IS A FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION, JUST AS I AM ALLEGING.

KXXdFfk.png

 

Edited by Keven Hofeling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Except... His post proved me correct. James Jenkins said...numerous times...that the open hole was at the top of the head...

 

Screenshot 2024-05-28 at 9.51.18 AM.png

Mr. Speer, you have written: "Except... His post proved me correct. James Jenkins said...numerous times...that the open hole was at the top of the head..."

I'm absolutely certain that you cannot post even ONE example from any interview of James Jenkins ever conducted in which Jenkins states, as you put it, "...the open hole was at the top of the head..."

Yet I can easily post the following in which James Jenkins in 1990 repeatedly told Harrison Livingstone that he did not see any such "open hole at the top of the head."

Explain that Mr. Speer.

_______________

Harrison Livingstone wrote that the HSCA people showed James Jenkins the Rydberg drawings of JFK's head wound and talked to him about a hole in the top of the head and, according to Jenkins "there was nothing whatsoever like that."

James Jenkins reported to Harrison Livingstone that:

"I looked at the back of the head, but all I saw was the massive gaping wound..."

Harrison Livingstone wrote "[i]n response to my questions on October,8, 1990, as to whether or not there was enough intact scalp on the back of the head to completely cover up the large hole described by all witnesses, Jenkins said, "No. 

"There was a hole in all of it [the scalp and the bone]. There was a hole in the occipital-parietal area. I had seen a wound similar to that before.

"I just never could understand how they came up with the conclusions that they did.

"The other thing that they told me was that there was a wound on the top of the head. I don't remember that. I could almost say that there was none."

BiKNKCfh.png

James Jenkins said to Harrison Livingstone: "Looking at the photos in your book, the large defect seems to have slid forward toward the frontal area of the head, too. I can't say that I'm absolutely right, but I feel like if it had been really that far forward in the head, certainly we would have seen it. And I would not have focused on .. ."

"You certainly would have-what?"

"The large defect. That's almost on the top as opposed to the area where we saw it."

a9kcGLIh.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I remember going back and reading the early statements from the NPIC people. They were not at all sure when they saw the film. Horne et all have insisted they viewed the film on different days and that the film was whisked off to be altered in between. But there is no evidence for this outside of speculation. Pure speculation.

As you have acknowledged, moreover, Brugioni remembered tissue and blood exploding high into the air. Horne and his gang claim this was added by evil bad guys AFTER Brugioni viewed the film, correct? So their "star witness" actually suggests the exact opposite of what they claim he suggests. 

And this is not a surprise, really. If you go back and read the testimony of Tom Robinson you will see that he insisted the small wound he saw on the temple oe cheek was NOT a bullet hole. So, of course, the Mantik/Horne clan claim he said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead. 

Or what about Ed Reed? He claimed he took x-rays, and watched Humes begin the autopsy from the stands. And was then asked to leave. But Horne claims  he saw Humes begin post-mortem surgery, was asked to leave, and was then brought back to take the x-rays.

It's a con. And Mantik knows it because he always cites Horne's claims about Ed Reed rather than Reed's actual testimony,

It's sad. And the only person who could have put a stop to this madness, IMO, has just passed on. 

 

I'm not aware of Horne claiming anything was added to the Z film after Brugioni viewed it. Has not the Z film as we know it been available for many years and prior to Brugioni having viewed it?  Did not Dennis  David claim to have seen a right forehead entry wound with gray smudge surrounding it? I'm not sure if that was a direct observation or whether via a photo and/or film shown him by William Pitzer. We also have the story of Clarence Israel telling Janie Taylor of the NIH that his brother, an orderly at Bethesda, witnessed a physician working on JFK's head. I do not readily dismiss this kind of anecdotal information as I would find it difficult to believe that someone would lie and then give this information in such a limited and private manner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

There is an effort behind the scenes to push Mantik's new book as the final word on the medical evidence. If this is so, well, I am rightly seen as an obstacle. 

 

 

Edited by Keven Hofeling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

No, that was Robinson who said that was the appearance at the end.

 

What I said is correct. James Jenkins was describing the mortician-reconstructed wound when he described it as being the size of a silver dollar.

I transcribed it from the first video below. Here is what he said:

"After the plaster was placed by the mortician ... in the head, it was remolded... there was an area in the back of the head that had -- it was actually a hole in the back of the head that was approximately the size of the silver dollar."

 

Later, he went back chronologically and described the original wound when they first took the towels off:

"I would like to kind of reverse a little bit and go back to what the wound looked like when we actually took the towels off the head at the initial. The wound was a massive type of wound where it was an open gaping wound approximately the size of a closed fist or maybe a little larger, more similar to what Dr. McClelland says in his drawing. ...as far as the area that it was in, I remember the wound a little higher maybe than in the drawing."

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Here is Horne on his blog working from Mantik's notes on Jenkins' 2013 appearance...

 

Horne is wrong about this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Now that is the stuff of batshit crazy and paranoid fantasy land, Pat.

Has it ever occurred to you that some of us are just offended when people like you regularly employ deception to make a mockery of the JFKA research community, as well as to take advantage of the low hanging fruit, like your bootlickers on this thread?

Your lies about James Jenkins have nothing to do with Dr. Mantik (it is an entirely different array of lies that you employ against him), and I haven't even read Mantik's most recent book, much less had any discussions with him or anyone else about this thread.

You are obviously a legend in your own mind...

 

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What I said is correct. James Jenkins was describing the mortician-reconstructed wound when he described it as being the size of a silver dollar.

I transcribed it from the first video below. Here is what he said:

"After the plaster was placed by the mortician ... in the head, it was remolded... there was an area in the back of the head that had -- it was actually a hole in the back of the head that was approximately the size of the silver dollar."

 

Later, he went back chronologically and described the original wound when they first took the towels off:

"I would like to kind of reverse a little bit and go back to what the wound looked like when we actually took the towels off the head at the initial. The wound was a massive type of wound where it was an open gaping wound approximately the size of a closed fist or maybe a little larger, more similar to what Dr. McClelland says in his drawing. ...as far as the area that it was in, I remember the wound a little higher maybe than in the drawing."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horne is wrong about this.

 

Horne is wrong about a lot of things.

He asserted in JFK: What the Doctors Saw that Jenkins saw a bullet hole high on the forehead. 

My first reaction was that this was a deliberate falsehood on his part, but now I'm thinking it was just a colossal brain fart.

If he acknowledges his mistake, I will 1) be surprised, and 2) re-write some of the negative stuff I've written since viewing that film. 

Now, to Jenkins...

From Chapter 19g: (Note that although Jenkins had lowered he location of the hole for his book, he still insisted it was not as large as made out by Lifton and Horne.)

Jenkins spoke at the 2018 JFK Lancer conference, and said, to the horror of a at least one member of the audience, James Fetzer: "The wound that I saw was pretty much in agreement with the Parkland doctors." Well, this caused Fetzer to scream at Jenkins from the audience, and insist (because David Lifton and Doug Horne said so) that the wound at Bethesda was much bigger than the wound Jenkins saw at Parkland. Jenkins then offered that "when the scalp was reflected, bone adhering to the scalp fell away and fell into the cranium, which gave the wound an appearance of being larger than it really was." 

So, yes, Jenkins refused to support Lifton and Horne's theories holding that the head wound he first  observed at Bethesda was many times the head wound observed at Parkland. 

And yes, this leads me to believe the wound depicted on the HSCA's drawings--which is far larger than the wound in the McClelland drawing--represented an attempt to depict the skull after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table, i.e., the skull as it is shown in the mystery photo. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Horne is wrong about a lot of things.

He asserted in JFK: What the Doctors Saw that Jenkins saw a bullet hole high on the forehead. 

My first reaction was that this was a deliberate falsehood on his part, but now I'm thinking it was just a colossal brain fart.

If he acknowledges his mistake, I will 1) be surprised, and 2) re-write some of the negative stuff I've written since viewing that film. 

Now, to Jenkins...

From Chapter 19g: (Note that although Jenkins had lowered he location of the hole for his book, he still insisted it was not as large as made out by Lifton and Horne.)

Jenkins spoke at the 2018 JFK Lancer conference, and said, to the horror of a at least one member of the audience, James Fetzer: "The wound that I saw was pretty much in agreement with the Parkland doctors." Well, this caused Fetzer to scream at Jenkins from the audience, and insist (because David Lifton and Doug Horne said so) that the wound at Bethesda was much bigger than the wound Jenkins saw at Parkland. Jenkins then offered that "when the scalp was reflected, bone adhering to the scalp fell away and fell into the cranium, which gave the wound an appearance of being larger than it really was." 

So, yes, Jenkins refused to support Lifton and Horne's theories holding that the head wound he first  observed at Bethesda was many times the head wound observed at Parkland. 

And yes, this leads me to believe the wound depicted on the HSCA's drawings--which is far larger than the wound in the McClelland drawing--represented an attempt to depict the skull after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table, i.e., the skull as it is shown in the mystery photo. 

Quote

 

Horne is wrong about a lot of things.

He asserted in JFK: What the Doctors Saw that Jenkins saw a bullet hole high on the forehead. 

My first reaction was that this was a deliberate falsehood on his part, but now I'm thinking it was just a colossal brain fart.

If he acknowledges his mistake, I will 1) be surprised, and 2) re-write some of the negative stuff I've written since viewing that film.

 

Are you attempting to deny that James Jenkins spoke of his belief that there was probably an entry wound in JFK's right temple prior to 2015, or are you playing the semantics game again on the basis that a right temple wound is not the same as "high on the forehead?"

Jenkins spoke of a bullet entry wound at JFK's right temple at least as early as his 1990 interview by Harrison Livingstone, and stated the basis for his belief in this regard to David Lifton in 1979.

 

Quote

 

Now, to Jenkins...

From Chapter 19g: (Note that although Jenkins had lowered he location of the hole for his book, he still insisted it was not as large as made out by Lifton and Horne.)

Jenkins spoke at the 2018 JFK Lancer conference, and said, to the horror of a at least one member of the audience, James Fetzer: "The wound that I saw was pretty much in agreement with the Parkland doctors." Well, this caused Fetzer to scream at Jenkins from the audience, and insist (because David Lifton and Doug Horne said so) that the wound at Bethesda was much bigger than the wound Jenkins saw at Parkland. Jenkins then offered that "when the scalp was reflected, bone adhering to the scalp fell away and fell into the cranium, which gave the wound an appearance of being larger than it really was." 

So, yes, Jenkins refused to support Lifton and Horne's theories holding that the head wound he first  observed at Bethesda was many times the head wound observed at Parkland. 

And yes, this leads me to believe the wound depicted on the HSCA's drawings--which is far larger than the wound in the McClelland drawing--represented an attempt to depict the skull after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table, i.e., the skull as it is shown in the mystery photo.

 

 

At 26:56 of the following video (which I have cued for you in advance), James Jenkins stated the following to Patrick Bet-David:

"...You know the description of the head wound that is in the autopsy report -- hesitate to use the word "spin" --  but I think it's a spin on what we really saw ... Well it's actually the size of the wound, location of the wound, I believe that the measurement that is in the autopsy report actually is the measurement of the wound not of the opening where the bone and scalp was missing, but actually was a measurement of the total wound shown after the scalp was reflected..."

 

But does that mean that your contention that Jenkin's HSCA sketch is of the back-of-the-head wound with the scalp reflected?

Not when you take into consideration the dimensions of the autopsy description of the large head wound which, as J. Thornton Boswell demonstrated to the ARRB, is gargantuan:

HHqumFE.png

 

James Jenkins sketched the following -- representing the open hole in the back of JFK's head -- in 2018, and I am convinced that this is the same as what Jenkins sketched for the HSCA in 1977:

KXXdFfkh.png

Note also in the above Jenkins's marking for the entrance wound at the right temple.

 

Now you may be triggered by the above sketch of the occipital-parietal wound on the basis that it differs from the sketch that is customarily attributed to Dr. Robert McClelland, but in actuality, it is remarkably similar to the actual sketch of the occipital-parietal wound that Dr. McClelland drew by his own hand on The Men Who Killed Kennedy in 1988:

xzUHWFGh.png

Edited by Keven Hofeling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Now that is the stuff of batshit crazy and paranoid fantasy land, Pat.

Has it ever occurred to you that some of us are just offended when people like you regularly employ deception to make a mockery of the JFKA research community, as well as to take advantage of the low hanging fruit, like your bootlickers on this thread?

Your lies about James Jenkins have nothing to do with Dr. Mantik (it is an entirely different array of lies that you employ against him), and I haven't even read Mantik's most recent book, much less had any discussions with him or anyone else about this thread.

You are obviously a legend in your own mind...

Keven.  Sandy, Mark and I agree on pretty much everything since they asked me to join them.  I've purposely tried to stay out of this fray.  But please try to refrain from the "batshit crazy paranoid fantasy", "bootlicker", and "legend in your own mind" comments.

These could be construed as personal insults to another member.  I'm not a bootlicker for Pat or anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read the first page of this thread. So far, what I see is a dispute over semantics. Allow me to explain my point.

The phrase, "the scalp was attached to the bone," seems to imply an interpretation that the scalp was attached to bone that was not displaced from its normal position by a gunshot wound.

It also seems that the phrase, "the bone was attached to the scalp," is being used to imply that bone, i.e. fragments of gunshot-shattered bone, were attached to the scalp, implying torn, lacerated, and damaged portions of the scalp.

So this part seems to be more of an argument about semantics. Was the bone attached to the scalp, or was the scalp attached to the bone? Can anyone really describe this distinction without an apparent difference?

I sure as hell can't.

After I read another page, I'll check back in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Keven.  Sandy, Mark and I agree on pretty much everything since they asked me to join them.  I've purposely tried to stay out of this fray.  But please try to refrain from the "batshit crazy paranoid fantasy", "bootlicker", and "legend in your own mind" comments.

These could be construed as personal insults to another member.  I'm not a bootlicker for Pat or anyone else.

Amen.

Let's walk it back out of that territory. It serves no useful purpose.

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

×
×
  • Create New...