|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
26th August 2017, 11:16 AM | #1401 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
"Near" like "Slightly" are vagueries that (despite all other evidence) Micha Java believe can only have one meaning, and by golly, it is the one that suits him.
It's almost as though he can not stretch his imagination to concede that such vague words might also include his being plain wrong. |
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
26th August 2017, 11:45 AM | #1402 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
26th August 2017, 12:00 PM | #1403 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
I'm not confused.
1. Any medical staff or bystanders who saw JFKs body from the time it was placed on a stretcher COULD HAVE NOT HAVE SEEN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD UNLESS THEY LAID HIM ON HIS STOMACH. 2. Prove Humes was coerced. Prove it. I'll save you some time - he wasn't. I think you're confused. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
26th August 2017, 01:05 PM | #1404 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
Why are you ignoring this question?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1388 Cite, and you still haven't answered my earlier question: What's backspatter in relation to the JFK GSW? |
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
27th August 2017, 10:49 AM | #1405 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Discussing the EOP wound with conspiracy theorists:
Discussing the EOP wound with lone nutters: |
27th August 2017, 11:06 AM | #1406 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
27th August 2017, 11:12 AM | #1407 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
I was going to post Robert Duvall and the "Smells Like Victory" meme, but this works better. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
27th August 2017, 11:35 AM | #1408 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 425
|
Fetchez la vache!
Are you saying that JFK was actually hit by a cow catapulted from the Texas Schoolbook Depository, and all the pictures altered?
Somebody is going to be putting that up seriously by this time next year. |
27th August 2017, 11:40 AM | #1409 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
27th August 2017, 11:52 AM | #1410 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,556
|
So anyway, I always wondered (didnt read up on it) what was the explanation for 'back and to the left' ?
'Not unusual' seems best guess for answer. |
27th August 2017, 12:14 PM | #1411 | |||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
A body will collapse according to what ever posture they were in at the moment of death, or will move as the result of whatever forces are acting upon it.
He was riding in a vehicle. His head moved accordingly to the movement of the vehicle - bullets don't knock people down as depicted in popular fiction.
|
|||
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
||||
27th August 2017, 12:53 PM | #1412 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
|
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
27th August 2017, 12:56 PM | #1413 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
|
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
27th August 2017, 01:02 PM | #1414 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
I'd forgotten about the brace, so thanks!
Folks are just so conditioned by popular fiction to believe that there is an immediate dramatic reaction to a projectile impact that when they observe the real thing they can't reconcile reality with their conditioned expectation. My father was still alive when Stone's movie was released. He alternated between laughing under his breath and whispering "********," but when they got the "back and to the left" nonsense he couldn't help but say ********! right out loud. He had no regard for Garrison before the movie, and as hard as it might be to explain he had even less when we walked out of that theater. |
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
27th August 2017, 01:30 PM | #1415 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
What I didn't get about the logic of the movie:
If the conspiracy can silence David Ferrie, by somehow giving him a brain aneurism, (and there is no known viable method of inducing an aneurism that appears natural and leaves no other trace) why waste it on a schlub nobody would believe, who is only suspected because he was in the civil air patrol at a different time to LHO, (and a photograph of him with a bunch of kids, one of whom somebody mistook for LHO)? Why not use the Amazing-Natural-Causes-O-Matic-Ray on JFK, instead of a spate of shootings that leaves not only JFK, but Tippit and LHO dead? |
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
27th August 2017, 02:41 PM | #1416 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
So why do you act that way? Just lay out your theory and discuss the repercussions of your arguments rather than turning your head from anything you don't care to see or taste. We've already pointed out numerous examples of your propensity to ignore any evidence or arguments you don't care for.
Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
27th August 2017, 02:47 PM | #1417 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
27th August 2017, 04:07 PM | #1418 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
And how did this small conspiracy in the summer of 1963 in New Orleans supposedly involving three men (Ferrie, Oswald, and Clay Shaw) become a massive conspiracy involving almost the entire U.S. Intelligence Apparatus -- to the point where they are shooting JFK from multiple locations, planting a weapon in the Depository and a bullet in Parkland to frame Oswald, shooting Tippit to draw the police to Oswald in the theatre, creating fake photos of Oswald with the weapon, planting Oswald's fingerprints on the weapon, creating a fake paper trail to Oswald purchasing the weapon, lying about what the autopsy determined, altering the autopsy x-rays and autopsy photos, and altering JFK's body?
I mean, didn't Oliver Stone leave out a small step where we find out how and why the U.S. Government decided to back this small conspiracy (which was described by the eyewitness Perry Raymond Russo in the courtroom as having all the earmarks of a B.S. session - and he didn't mean Bachelors of Science). https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=126&tab=page So how does it suddenly become a conspiracy and cover-up everyone in the U.S. Government is willing to buy into? Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
27th August 2017, 05:10 PM | #1419 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
27th August 2017, 05:32 PM | #1420 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,556
|
|
27th August 2017, 05:37 PM | #1421 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,556
|
|
27th August 2017, 05:39 PM | #1422 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
What's your explanation for it, and what's your best evidence for it?
'Not unusual' is not an explanation for the mechanism by which JFK's head moves backward. I'm looking for your explanation, and your evidence supporting it. If you have no idea why JFK's head moves backward, say that. If you think it moves backward because of a shot from the front, say that. If you think it moves backward because of a shot from the side, say that. If you think it moves backward because of a shot from the rear, say that. Saying 'not unusual' is neither an explanation or evidence, and not even enough information to deciper exactly what you're suggesting. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
27th August 2017, 05:40 PM | #1423 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
27th August 2017, 06:03 PM | #1424 | |||
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
|
Indeed.
|
|||
27th August 2017, 06:12 PM | #1425 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
27th August 2017, 09:25 PM | #1426 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,556
|
|
28th August 2017, 01:16 AM | #1427 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
I rolled a dice this morning. It came up 3. Do I need a detailed explanation of the exact mechanics of how it struck the ground, rolled and came to rest with the 3 face upwards, or is it simply the case that nothing unusual happened and therefore there's nothing that actually requires a detailed explanation?
So it is with Kennedy's movements after being shot; there's nothing unexpected about him happening to move in any direction, and certainly no reason to expect an overwhelming or even strong probability of his head recoiling in the direction of the bullet. If his head had moved back and to the right, or directly to the left, these would not be unusual movements either. The movement of Kennedy's head after being shot simply carries no information at all as to the direction of the shot. Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
28th August 2017, 06:50 AM | #1428 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Somehow we always end up with the JAQing crowd suggesting multiple guns.
Thanks, that's exactly what I thought you were trying to suggest with your initial post on this subject above. Bubba, you have a history here of "Just Asking Questions" here, that somehow always suggest conspiracy. For example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=660 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=623 Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
28th August 2017, 07:33 AM | #1429 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
Full disclosure, I have never watched JFK.
[not my position]From what I have read, I believe Jim Garrison, DA incorrectly postulated that the head would move opposite the trajectory of a bullet. He believed the Zapruder film indicated a shot from the right front(perhaps the grassy knoll) and the head moved back and left.[/not my position] The experts have studied animals shot in the head and the initial reaction is for the muscles to stiffen from the impact and thus you have back and left movement of JFK. The experts have got it correct the CT's don't understand or fail to comprehend the real nature of events, especially when those results disprove their novice ideas and beliefs. |
28th August 2017, 08:28 AM | #1430 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,175
|
I'll be charitable and assume that your usual intellectually rigorous debating style is being dragged down into what we see here by the demands of posting on this forum.
Would you mind posting a link to an example of a learned debate, worthy of Aristotle, that you have had with conspiracy theorists? This will give us something to aim at. |
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer |
|
28th August 2017, 10:28 AM | #1431 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
You haven't missed much. You can count me among those who believe Oliver Stone got only two things correct in his movie, the date of the assassination and the victims.
He incorrectly postulated that the bullet would move in the same line as the trajectory of the bullet that struck JFK in the head, but the "back-and-to-the-left" theory predates the Clay Shaw trial put on by Garrison. The movie is wrong to put the "back-and-to-the-left" into Garrison's mouth. It's for the jury to decide what's pertinent in the viewing of the film. The state doesn't get to tell the jury what to look for or what it means. You can read what actually transpired starting here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....Id=96&tab=page Yes. Many CTs argue for that, but they've done no studies, cited no experts, and simply argue that's the why it must have happened, citing their own understanding of how physics works. Mark Lane was among the first to bring this up, in 1967 in his book RUSH TO JUDGMENT (two years before the Shaw trial). Lane wrote, on page 55 of the hard copy version: By the time the fatal shot was fired, the limousine had reached a point on Elm Street alongside the knoll, which was to the right. When the bullet struck the President's head, as one can see from the photographs, he was thrown to his left and toward the rear of the limousine. How could the Commission explain the sudden violent move of the President's body directly to the left and to the rear ? So long as the Commission maintained that the bullet came almost directly from the rear, it implied that the laws of physics vacated in this instance, for the President did not fall forward. They cite physics but that's not even the correct field of study. Fluid dynamics would be a more appropriate field of study to cite, but of course, Mark Lane and the CT posse couldn't believably cite their own understanding of fluid dynamics, and then they'd actually have to listen to some experts. It's also important to note that about five different causes for the movement back has been cited, and the CTs never tell us how they eliminated the other four to settle on a gunshot from the right front being the cause. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
28th August 2017, 12:09 PM | #1432 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,589
|
Translation. When I discuss my silly ideas with other conspiracy theorists, we all tell each other how smart we are and nobody calls anybody else on their ********.
When I post here, everybody asks questions that I (or more specifically, the website or book I'm pulling everything from) can't answer and expects me to cite actual evidence to support my silly ideas. |
28th August 2017, 02:48 PM | #1433 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 186
|
|
28th August 2017, 03:35 PM | #1434 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,556
|
Quote:
I think you may have jumped the gun there Hank. Or perhaps you're a little gun shy. (just funnin ya a little there.) Actually Hank, if I had said "lest it imply the impossible" instead of saying "lest it imply multiple guns" it would have meant roughly the same per what I had in mind. Thats why I said I dont have an explanation (or a theory or an axe to grind). I simply wanted to know the explanation for 'back and to the left'. Thanks. |
28th August 2017, 04:31 PM | #1435 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,451
|
Their understanding of how physics work is of course based on Hollywood movies and not on any knowledge of how physics actually work. In Hollywood films you often see people thrown back etc., after being hit by a bullet. This is utter nonsense It would require very special circumstances for a bullet to knock someone backwards. Why? Because the energy, (Inertia), in the bullet would have to overcome the inertia in the person it struck. Given that bullets usually weigh less than a ounce, (Under 50 grams), and an adult human being weighs usually more than 40 kilos, (More than 80 lbs), the amount of energy required to overcome that inertia would be enormous and a bullet usually doesn't have anything like that force. One can illustrate this notion by hanging a carcass of a pig and firing bullets into it via a machine gun. It will barely move despite being hit by many bullets.
The same principles apply to Kennedy's head. The intertia in the head vastly exceeded the inertia in the bullet that struck Kennedy. So that the head movement proves little about where the bullet came from. Basically people like Lane have accepted the cartoon physics of Hollywood movies has true and used it to erect a strawman. Personally I think the Head movements were largely the result of spastic movements of Kennedy's neck muscles produced by the bullet tearing through Kennedy's brain. |
28th August 2017, 04:35 PM | #1436 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,451
|
|
28th August 2017, 04:43 PM | #1437 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
As it's a tough thing to replicate (nobody is exactly stepping forward to volunteer to be shot in the head), the explanations on the table will have to suffice. First off, consider that there are TWO reversals of motion in the Zapruder film, but the second is seen as unremarkable and not considered evidence of conspiracy - as that reversal happens when JFK rebounds off the back of the limo seat. The physics of that reversal is well known and readily accepted.
And secondly, although the refrain has always been "Back and to the Left", there's no evidence the body of JFK moves to the left at all. It appears that JFK, upon rebounding off the back seat, winds up no closer to Jackie than he was at the time of the head shot. So where's the evidence of movement to the left? It appears from here to be an illusion caused by JFK's leaning leftward toward JFK at the time of the headshot. JFK's leftward movement has always been *assumed*, not established. So this backward motion has been explained in a number of ways: 1. As pointed out above by Sandy McCroskey, the head actually moves forward noticeably for one frame at the time of the impact of the bullet. This movement was discovered by Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman and discussed at length in David Lifton's book, BEST EVIDENCE. 2. The backward movement which starts only after the bullet has exited the head (and therefore cannot be due to the impact of the bullet, as the momentum would be transferred instantaneously) can be due to a neuromuscular reaction, as pointed out above by BKnight. This was tested by experiment using live goats and demonstrated in films shown to the Warren Commission. 3. The estimated mass carried forward by the cavitation of the head (times the speed pf the mass) is greater than the mass of the bullet (times the speed of the bullet) that struck the head. The physics of this exchange says, as I understand it, that the head should therefore move backward to maintain the stability of the system. This was determined by Nobel Prize winning physicist Luis Alvarez. This has been called "the Jet Effect". 4. The head can only go so far forward before it will reverse its motion. It appears JFK's chin is compressed pretty much as far as it can go into the chest by Zapruder frame 313. Like the physics of a basketball hitting a backboard and reversing its flight direction, JFK's head can be considered to be rebounding off the chest of JFK by Z-frame 313. 5. The rigid back brace held JFK upright, but prevented his body from moving forward too far. Once it reached the limits, it rebounded the body backward. This was mentioned by Tomtomkent above. 6. A bullet from somewhere to the front (not the knoll) caused the head to move backward. Let's examine this in detail: (a) There's no evidence of a shooter in front of JFK, as there were a dozen men on the overpass directly in front of JFK at the time of the shooting, and none of them saw a shooter anywhere on the overpass. (b) Further, there's no evidence of a shot striking JFK in the head from anywhere except from behind (as determined at the autopsy) and this finding was confirmed by neutral expert forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials in 1978 at the behest of the HSCA. (c) There is also no damage evident to the skull from a shot at Z314, and no ejecta from a shot from the front. (d) And all the fragments found anywhere that were large enough to be ballistically traceable where traceable to Oswald's weapon, so there's no evidence of a bullet fired from another weapon. (e) The movement is too large to be caused by a bullet. It's not even close to the appropriate magnitude. So it's my opinion this suggested explanation of a shooter striking JFK in the head from anywhere but the sixth floor southeast corner window of the Depository can be eliminated, as a shooter elsewhere in the plaza is the only one that has ZERO evidence in support, and no experts claiming this is what would happen. So I eliminate this explanation from consideration. What explanations do you eliminate (if any) and why? Please be expansive in your response. Thanks in advance. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
28th August 2017, 04:56 PM | #1438 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Absolutely. The movement of JFK's head has a whole chapter (13: "JFK AND MOMENTUM - Hollywood's Conspiracy to Assassinate History", see" https://www.amazon.com/Insultingly-S.../dp/1402210337 ) devoted to it in the book, Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics: Hollywood's Best Mistakes, Goofs and Flat-Out Destructions of the Basic Laws of the Universe by Tom Rogers.
It's really that stupid. Unfortunately, the "Back and to the Left" is pretty ingrained into the American psyche by conspiracy authors like Mark Lane and Oliver Stone's film, JFK, and most people are not about to let the facts confuse them any. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
28th August 2017, 05:14 PM | #1439 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Not only that, but the expanding gasses of the gunpowder that expel the bullet out of the barrel of the weapon not only push the bullet forward, but they also push the rifle backward with the same force. A bullet that could knock a man down or backward a significant distance upon impact would likewise knock the shooter down or backward by the same amount. This simply doesn't happen in real life.
The actual force is enough to move the shooter's shoulder back an inch or two, and the bullet impact on the head would be therefore sufficient to move the head forward an inch or two --- and as pointed out by Sandy McCroskey above, that's *exactly* what we see in the Z-film between Zapruder frames 313 and 313. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
28th August 2017, 06:50 PM | #1440 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
ERRATA: Underlined should read Rockefeller Commission.
Here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier_a.htm Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|