Larry Peters Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) Larry er, yeah.... wrote: Mr. Fetzer, can you provide this forum with any names of photographic experts who have peer reviewed Costells'a work and agreed with it? It seems to me that I read once that his formula for how he reached is conclusions was solicited so it could be validated, but he had declined to share it. __________________ Mr. Peter's it is incumbent on YOU to find a photo expert and/or Physicists that will dispute Dr. Costella,s work. As of this date in time, you've had well over two going on 3 year's to produce ONE --In all your efforts you can't produce one that'll go on the record ---- Noise Mr. Peter's..... Get to work champ! David, I see that you are still the same loud mouth you were when I responded on this forum the last time. You bad mouth those who stand-up to the false claims of alteration while you support alterationist because you have not been allowed to examine the Zapruder film original. That is about as silly as someone saying they can see the moon, but until they actaully can stand on it themselves, they will consider it suspect as not being real. I might also tell you that when a scientist comes forward with alleged new discoveries, it is they who seek peer review and not up to the rest of the world to chase them around in cirlces trying to get them to show their work. It is my understanding that Mr. Costella has refused to show his work so it can be tested, so if that is the case - how can any expert validate it? And if this is so, then why would you sanction such behavior? To criticize the party responsible for not allowing just anyone to have access to the Zapruder film only to not feel that Costella should make his work available for study is being what most would call a hypocrite. Larry Edited January 18, 2006 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I get sick feeling when I see people like yoyrself flaming others for showing a little common sense as if it takes some vast knowledge of the Kennedy case to do so. It's a black eye on this forum and a black eye on yourself in my view. The points made above are things we all were taught in high school, so why does one need to be a seasoned researcher to understand these simpple principals? Now prove me wrong and address the issues or prove me right and just continue on as nothing more than a mouth piece. Larry ____ Oh come on Bill -- where'd you go to high school again.....? So, 6 continuous frames out of a 18.3 fps film -- let's see, do the math -- ah, that's just under 1/3rd of a second right? Show it to the lurkers in REALtime, what the real debate is -- wouldn't want others to think you're up to something, now would we - Most of us don't need slo-mo, what's that about (our viewing pleasure? LOL) there's no suggestion the Warren Commission viewed the film in slo-mo either. Oh -- and have these frames been de-interlaced? You do know if these frames came from a video? There's two fields to a single frame, btw.... Still ill? Need a bowl? Bernice let the clowns go -- they're not worth your time... Lancer forum as a photo venue is on the wayout - these dudes are looking for green pastures -- bumbling efforts at forum ettiquette displayed here announces their arrival.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 (edited) Bernice - I'm glad you found my posts amusing - the simple minded it seems are easily entertained. If you had been paying attention you should have realized that the points I have been raising don't require intricate knowledge of the case. As Larry indicated they have more to do with common sense. I have questioned the plausibility of the alteration claims made by Fetzer's camp. You share their tendency to insult anyone who disagrees with you. As for ego, are you going to tell me that you really don't think that Fetzer's comments were over the top? Calling myself a "debunker of nonsense" is on the same scale, I don't claim any extra ordinary skills or expertise. I don't really think I'm out of my league debating these guys because they can't come up with straight answers to my questions, Fetzer fled two forums rather than debate me and a couple of other debunkers regarding the Wellstone case. I challenged him to debate me live but he didn't reply. I got the impression that most serious researchers dismiss Fetzer's claims from lurking on several forums. He is by his own admission persona non grata at JFK events in the US that he hasn't organized himself. Can you tell me which serious researchers outside of his little circle take him seriously? Pat did (I think) but I imagine he has changed his mind. Unlike your previous posts on this subject my posts have certainly been a lot more than 'cut and paste jobs'. Dave - I'm still waiting for you to get back to me on any of those 12 questions/points I raised. Hopefully you can do a little better that smug remarks and irrelevant questions, but since it seems that's all you are capable of I don't expect much of anything else. Maybe you can get your friend the high school teacher to help you out. Len Colby:Quote..""First of all I never claimed to be a JFK researcher. I think of myself as a debunker of nonsense and it is very self serving of Jack to state that "all real JFK researchers have read" a book to which he is a contributor. I doubt ALL real researchers have read it from what I gather most serious JFK researchers dismiss all of Fetzer's books as junk so they are not exactly first on my reading list. I am sure Fetzer, White and Healy would use circular logic and say anyone who hasn't read their books isn't a "real researcher" by definition. "" Len Colby:"Quote.. "Speaking of arrogance or more accurately over inflated egos, here is what Fetzer had to say about himself and his own work on another forum recently." LOL........You speak of arrogance: You admit ,you have not the knowledge of a JFK researcher, yet presume to be a "debunker of nonsense" and continue to attack those that do, and have researched and obtained such....??? Are you presuming that you are being open minded ?? You presume to know how many serious researchers have read "The Great Zaprduer Hoax"...??? You also presume "gather " to know that most serious researchers regard all of Dr.Fetzer's books as junk.".??? So because you presume such they are not on your reading list...??? To continue to ignore, any information in any book, any evidence, documentation, witnesses recollections, of first day....regarding the Assassination of the President.....and yet presume that you have the knowledge to rebut same... Is the epitomy of "arrogance"....Touche' you win the prize of the day, for the most nonsensical post, I have read in a long, long time...... Congratulations.. Keep up the good work Mr.Colby....you are way out of your league..as you have admitted...and are capable of showing you have the ability to copy and paste...... and have many "thinkies".... Thanks for the best laugh I have had in many a day.. page 10.... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pic=5708&st=135 B....... Edited January 18, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Larry er, yeah.... wrote: Mr. Fetzer, can you provide this forum with any names of photographic experts who have peer reviewed Costells'a work and agreed with it? It seems to me that I read once that his formula for how he reached is conclusions was solicited so it could be validated, but he had declined to share it. __________________ Mr. Peter's it is incumbent on YOU to find a photo expert and/or Physicists that will dispute Dr. Costella,s work. As of this date in time, you've had well over two going on 3 year's to produce ONE --In all your efforts you can't produce one that'll go on the record ---- Noise Mr. Peter's..... Get to work champ! David, I see that you are still the same loud mouth you were when I responded on this forum the last time. You bad mouth those who stand-up to the false claims of alteration while you support alterationist because you have not been allowed to examine the Zapruder film original. That is about as silly as someone saying they can see the moon, but until they actaully can stand on it themselves, they will consider it suspect as not being real. I might also tell you that when a scientist comes forward with alleged new discoveries, it is they who seek peer review and not up to the rest of the world to chase them around in cirlces trying to get them to show their work. It is my understanding that Mr. Costella has refused to show his work so it can be tested, so if that is the case - how can any expert validate it? And if this is so, then why would you sanction such behavior? To criticize the party responsible for not allowing just anyone to have access to the Zapruder film only to not feel that Costella should make his work available for study is being what most would call a hypocrite. Larry Good grief...PETERS/MILLER is back! I thought John had banned him from participation. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I get sick feeling when I see people like yoyrself flaming others for showing a little common sense as if it takes some vast knowledge of the Kennedy case to do so. It's a black eye on this forum and a black eye on yourself in my view. The points made above are things we all were taught in high school, so why does one need to be a seasoned researcher to understand these simpple principals? Now prove me wrong and address the issues or prove me right and just continue on as nothing more than a mouth piece. Larry ____ Oh come on Bill -- where'd you go to high school again.....? So, 6 continuous frames out of a 18.3 fps film -- let's see, do the math -- ah, that's just under 1/3rd of a second right? Show it to the lurkers in REALtime, what the real debate is -- wouldn't want others to think you're up to something, now would we - Most of us don't need slo-mo, what's that about (our viewing pleasure? LOL) there's no suggestion the Warren Commission viewed the film in slo-mo either. Oh -- and have these frames been de-interlaced? You do know if these frames came from a video? There's two fields to a single frame, btw.... Still ill? Need a bowl? Bernice let the clowns go -- they're not worth your time... Lancer forum as a photo venue is on the wayout - these dudes are looking for green pastures -- bumbling efforts at forum ettiquette displayed here announces their arrival.... David, I would appreciate it if you called me by my name. If Bill or someone else wishes to put up with your game playing, then play with them, until then I will ask that you address me by my name - Larry. I would also appreciate that if you are going to stand-up and support the alteraionist, despite your claiming to have never seen evidence of alteration to the Zapruder film yourself, that you at least respond to the alteration claims being presented. The issue I have raised is over the allegations being made that have been easily proven inaccurate by those who sought to test them. I would enjoy seeing it shown that the Zapruder film was altered, but I want to know that it was shown to be done by solid evidence. I might also add that if you think the frames need to be de-interlaced, then by all means you want to be sure to remind the alterationist of this for we don't want them making false claims by using faulty evidence - do we? Again, you come across as a hypocrite for sitting back and say nothing about your concerns for accuracy when alteration claims are being made, but rather only when the very evidence that was used to make an alteration claim is now being debunked do you seem to worry about such details. And that is good advice that you have for Bernice. It is always best to say nothing when you don't have anything to counter with. How proud Mr. Simkin must be to have your input on this forum. Larry Good grief...PETERS/MILLER is back! I thought John had banned him from participation. Jack Well Mr. White, like everything you claim about Zapruder film alteration - you are wrong once again. Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 (edited) Aw......yepper that is me, I am the alterationists housewife spokewoman... I am a great danger..to all who do not think for themselves....burn me at the stake with the rest of them...then we may all disappear......not until..and not likely.. You do not affect me Mr. Peters nor Mr.Colby too bad..see I think for myself, scarey thought huh...? I see that Mr.Peters is back amongst the living.... and is sounding the same, boring. ....Nice to know that Larry can read, and that is fine, as I have already read all of his posts, tit for tat is fair...and so is the fact that Mr.Colby had his say, I had mine, and now Mr. Peters has also had his.. All somewhat different, but that is what this is all about...or is it??... the right to our opinion.. I do hope Mr.Peters keeps reading until he comes to the first day evidence Zapruder information, and then hestitates long enough to read some documentation and real information, not mine, but the witnesses, Doctors and such from Parkland ..he may even learn a few things. Fine "overreaction", gee I do wonder why?? the truth must hurt... This is known as "over kill" some seem to think that the louder and nastier they are, the more scared others will be, so that they will hush and disappear...been there, seen that, and read it all before.... it doesn't work with all...never has...some even have the intelligence to ask and wonder "Why" ?? and come back, Lord forbid...with perhaps even more information, and reasonings.. Mr.Peters, and Mr.Colby......Calm down...I don't stress much on anything now because, "A" Type personalities such as you are exhibiting ,die young..... I have lived quite a long time now, too late for me to concern myself about such, but not too late for you..so do take a deep breath and get over it, you would think that this is the very first time on a Forum that Mr. Colby had been called on what he stated...and or the first time that Mr Peters has read a post that he did not agree with..?? Good for you that you stick up for your friend, Mr.Peters, and nice to see after you have done so, that Mr. Colby becomes brave enough to have his say and reply to moi.. Continue and keep in mind, that after all we alterationists housewives are a dangerous lot .... we will not be shut up... "Tawanda"............lol..... B.. Edited January 18, 2006 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I see that Mr.Peters is back amongst the living.... and is sounding the same, boring. ....Nice to know that Larry can read, and that is fine, as I have already read all of his posts, tit for tat is fair...and so is the fact that Mr.Colby had his say, I had mine, and now Mr. Peters has also had his.. All somewhat different, but that is what this is all about...or is it??... the right to our opinion.. The differences lie in that I presented evidence, Mr. Colby called for the discloser of evidence, and you didn't address either, but just ran up replies like this one - no pictures - no facts - just cheerleading from the sidelines. I do hope Mr.Peters keeps reading until he comes to the first day evidence Zapruder information, and then hestitates long enough to read some documentation and real information, not mine, but the witnesses, Doctors and such from Parkland ..he may even learn a few things. Anytime you wish to address Zapruder film alteration by way of the Parkland doctors statements or any other means, please feel free to and I will gladly respond accordingly. Fine "overreaction", gee I do wonder why?? the truth must hurt... This is known as "over kill" some seem to think that the louder and nastier they are, the more scared others will be, so that they will hush and disappear...been there, seen that, and read it all before.... it doesn't work with all...never has...some even have the intelligence to ask and wonder "Why" ?? and come back, Lord forbid...with perhaps even more information, and reasonings.. Mr.Peters, and Mr.Colby......Calm down...I don't stress much on anything now because, "A" Type personalities such as you are exhibiting ,die young..... You must have our post mixed up with David Healy's. You have been presented information, if you disagree with it, then offer a sensible debate and stop wasting everyones time. You people continually respond with ramblings that never once address the actual alleged alteration evidence and I am somewhat surprized that Mr. Simkin allows it to go on. I have lived quite a long time now, too late for me to concern myself about such, but not too late for you..so do take a deep breath and get over it, you would think that this is the very first time on a Forum that Mr. Colby had been called on what he stated...and or the first time that Mr Peters has read a post that he did not agree with..?? Good for you that you stick up for your friend, Mr.Peters, and nice to see after you have done so, that Mr. Colby becomes brave enough to have his say and reply to moi.. Continue and keep in mind, that after all we alterationists housewives are a dangerous lot .... we will not be shut up... If by calling yourself "dangerous" and by that you mean someone who replies to this forum with ridiculous say-nothing responses that offer not a single piece of data one way or the other concerning the actual alleged alteration claims being presented, then I agree with your assessment of yourself. Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 (edited) ..... At a time when Fetzer and White were saying that Moorman and Hill were in the street, Altgens photo which they claim is genuine proves them to be in serious error, yet they ignored this evidence when presented to them and they pushed a known falsehood in their book. Study the photo for yourself. There are three shadows in the lower right hand corner. One belongs to Charles Brehm, the other two belong to Hill and Moorman. Some time ago I posted the above information on this forum and added that Jean Hill was on record as saying that she stepped back out of the street by the time Mary took her photograph. I even gave the reference to Jean Hill's interview on Black Op Radio where Jean was asked point blank by a caller if she was standing in the street when the President passed her? Jean replied that she had stepped in the street, but before the first shot sounded she had gotten back out of it. .........Jack countered with a carefully edited film clip where Jean told someone she had stepped into the street. Jack made sure to have stopped the clip before one could see what point in time Jean was talking about, as well as he totally ignored Jean's own words telling the listener to the radio show that she was back out of the street before the first shot was fired. ...Larry Larry, I did say I'd comment when the temp went down a bit. (I'm hesitant to comment at all because there are so many things being said that I have no interested being involved with in any way whatsoever. But I try to separate what I see as relevant and deal with that. This means I speak politely to what seems to be 'the two camps' because I'm basically interested in graphics and in learning as much as is possible about such things as analysis.) If what you posted in the first post related to this particular point represents the point that was made about the positions of these people by Jim et al. then your answer seems good. I don't think I have anything to add, I try to think of reasons how this Altgens could NOT be a proof that the positions of people is as you say and cannot for the moment think of any. I'd like to see what the counter answer to that is. Edited January 18, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 (edited) Nowhere in the book does anyone refer to filming the pilot film on a DIFFERENT STREET! That would make NO SENSE!!!! Apparently the pilot film was taken from the Zapruder pedestal perhaps 20 minutes before the motorcade arrival. It was NOT doctored, but shows the crowd as they were 20 minutes before the arrival of the limo. That is why the spectators on the north sidewalk SHOW ABSOLUTELY NO EMOTION NOR MOVEMENT DESPITE THE PRESIDENT PASSING BY. NOBODY WAVES, NOBODY MOVES. This is completely abnormal. If Colby wonders why his asinine challenges go unanswered, he should consider the ineptness of his questions. Jack Mr, White, I am shocked that Mr. Simkin allows you to get away with talking down to another forum member the way you did here, especially when he has to know that you are in error yourself. You just told this forum, without a shred of evidence to support it, that the alleged "pilot film" was taken 20 minutes before the motorcades arrival. So you have just implied that you have evidence that all those people seen in the Zapruder film were already at the curb just as we see them as the limo comes down Elm Street some 20 minutes later. Do you care to tell this forum just what you did to be able to make such a statement? Let's start with A.J.Millican - Are you saying that Millican is on record somewhere saying that he stood at the curb with arms his crossed and looking at the street some 20 minutes before Kennedy's arrival ... of course he didn't say this - you just made that up! How about Mary Woodward ... where is she on record saying that she too stood along Elm Street's curb looking at the street some 20 minutes before Kennedy's arrival ... of course she didn't say this - you just invented that scenario off the top of your head. Something else in what you said in your response doesn't make sense to me. You said when talking about the people seen along the sidewalk in the Zapruder film that "NOBODY MOVES". Not only is that statement false, but you are implying that those people stood along the Elm Street curb 20 minutes before Kennedy's arrival and did so while standing motionless. Now why would people stand along the curb and not move 20 minutes before the President arrived? And just how close have you looked at the Zapruder film to make such a statement that these people didn't move. I have posted a clip here that I got off another forum that exposed this claim of yours as also being in error. Both the man in the hat and the woman next to him move in the Zapruder film. This forum also showed other women's heads turning and it pointed out some witnesses hands moving as they clapped. Now having seen this information, please tell this forum why Mr. Colby's challenges are asinine and why your claims are not? Larry Edited January 18, 2006 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I am a great danger..to all who do not think for themselves....burn me at the stake with the rest of them...then we may all disappear......not until..and not likely.. You do not affect me Mr. Peters nor Mr.Colby too bad..see I think for myself, scarey thought huh...? Think for yourself? All you seem capable of is insulting those who don't share your views and doing cut n' paste jobs. I've brought up points that I haven't seen anyone else raise before – which is sign of independent thought – can you say the same for yourself? Until you can come up with something original you are neither 'scary' nor a 'danger' to anyone you over estimate yourself. All somewhat different, but that is what this is all about...or is it??... the right to our opinion. You are certainly entitled to that, unlike you I don't attack people simply because they disagree with me. Fine "overreaction", gee I do wonder why?? the truth must hurt... I think my reply to you was inline with your provocation. This is known as "over kill" some seem to think that the louder and nastier they are, the more scared others will be, so that they will hush and disappear...been there, seen that, and read it all before.... it doesn't work with all...never has...some even have the intelligence to ask and wonder "Why" ?? and come back, Lord forbid...with perhaps even more information, and reasonings.. If you want to debate this civilly, I'm willing to comply. Ironic that you complain of nastiness and attempts at intimidation considering your post near the top of the page, it was rather nasty and could be interpreted as an attempt to shut me up. PS – 'reasonings' isn't a word. Good for you that you stick up for your friend, Mr. Peters, and nice to see after you have done so, that Mr. Colby becomes brave enough to have his say and reply to moi.. Continue and keep in mind, that after all we alterationists housewives are a dangerous lot .... we will not be shut up... - Larry and I are not acquainted. - You believe that you are "a great danger" and "scary" and that I need courage to respond to you? You truly do over estimate yourself. That's quite an ego you got. Larry replied to you less than 2 hours after your post. I'm not online and monitoring this forum 24/7. I have no intention of getting in to a 'tit for tat' exchange with you. As long as you don't say anything too outrageous I'll let you have the last word. Now do you have anything to actually contribute to this debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 "I have posted a clip here that I got off another forum that exposed this claim of yours as also being in error. Both the man in the hat and the woman next to him move in the Zapruder film. This forum also showed other women's heads turning and it pointed out some witnesses hands moving as they clapped." Mr. Peters, The site you mentioned looks like an interesting one. Could you share it's name/address? I'd like to check it out. Thanx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 (edited) the spectators on the north sidewalk SHOW ABSOLUTELY NO EMOTION NOR MOVEMENT DESPITE THE PRESIDENT PASSING BY. NOBODY WAVES, NOBODY MOVES. Jack Jack, The following is a good way of illustrating what is different between two images. If one takes one image and sets its transparency at 50%. Place this on top of the second one and line up the two. Invert the colors of the second one. (It actually doesn't matter which one has its colors inverted as long as its one of them.) Two colors (or grayscale) values when one is the negative or inverse of the other will cancel each other out to a gray. Therefore those things on the two images that are the same will show up as gray. ____________________________________ Here are 2 frames 1 second apart.* Frame 1 has had its colors inverted and is underneath frame 2, which is at 50% transparency. The item that has changed most is the limousine. The little girl running along can be seen in two positions. Many individuals are moving around as can be seen by the splashes and streaks of color all over. The grayest areas are buildings and structures. The vegetation is slightly moving in the wind. The lens is tilting so the perspectives are changing slightly so things closer to the camera in particular such as the sign edges appear to change compared to edges of structure in the rear. One can see this at the very edges of these stationary items. This is simply because of the way light is refracted by a lens when the lens changes its aspect in relation to these things and the film surface. So : there is much movement of people. edit:: my frame viewer set in reverse, however they are 1 sec apart, and that's the important thing. Edited January 18, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 John, Interesting post as always. However, to be fair, if I understood Jack's statement correctly, there was little/no movement on the NORTH side of the street. If you note the people on the north side (the same side as the Stemmons sign), they *are* mostly grey in your image. The motion is more noticeable on the south side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 (edited) John,Interesting post as always. However, to be fair, if I understood Jack's statement correctly, there was little/no movement on the NORTH side of the street. If you note the people on the north side (the same side as the Stemmons sign), they *are* mostly grey in your image. The motion is more noticeable on the south side. The statement by Jack is 'absolutely no emotion no movement'. My understanding is that this is an argument for a manufactured film, therefore this is important. ____________________ I get you. Yes, one can say there is less movement north, but not 'no movement'. There are reasons to consider. 1. Some individuals shown in other photos are probably deliberately not clapping hands in protest. One individual for example stands still turned away with arms folded. 2. The people on the upper portion of the frames are further away and the limo is moving away from them and one would expect them to want to move to better sight. 3. Some people on the upper portion are moving less than some on the lower(north) and some on the north are moving more than some on the upper. By looking at the edges (light and dark gray white black) one can see that there is movement. Larger areas such as uniformely colored dress can appear grey even if moving if the color itself is not changing. So : definitely movement, some of it a lot. Edited January 18, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 John,Interesting post as always. However, to be fair, if I understood Jack's statement correctly, there was little/no movement on the NORTH side of the street. If you note the people on the north side (the same side as the Stemmons sign), they *are* mostly grey in your image. The motion is more noticeable on the south side. Gentlemen, here is an example of movement going on with the witnesses who stood along Elm Street as the President passed by them. I will list these movements and reference them by the colored arrows on the animation. Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator White arrow - The gap between the two women's heads changes. Black arrow - Shows the head turn of a woman in a read head scarf. (Her head turns right) Red arrow - The man in the hat turns his head to the left in the direction of the follow-up car. Green arrow - The woman in the peach colored dress pivots her body towards the President. (Note the shadow change on her back and the purse on her hip between these selected frames) Gray arrow - This dark haired woman turns her head left towards the approaching President. Blue arrow - This woman's hands can be seen over her right shoulder as they are clapping. The shadow of her raised arm and hands can be seen moving on the woman's body to her left. Purple arrow - This woman's head shifts slightly between frames as her scarf flaps in the wind. 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