|
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. |
21st October 2017, 04:51 PM | #2161 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
21st October 2017, 05:02 PM | #2162 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
22nd October 2017, 12:27 AM | #2163 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
Non responsive reply noted.
How does a subsonic projectile not cause fractures at the the point of penetration of the skull but cause fractures in another area of the skull? Another opportunity for you to to exhibit your expertise in the science of terminal ballistics. The forum members await your response with breathless anticipation. |
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
22nd October 2017, 12:34 AM | #2164 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
22nd October 2017, 03:27 AM | #2165 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,668
|
|
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
22nd October 2017, 04:40 AM | #2166 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Tomtomkent, what do you mean when you say "what the autopsy claims"? This problem is not based on nit-pickers haggling over an inch or two, you are the one pushing the positive assertion. You have been haggling forever that the autopsy doctors somehow misremembered or lied for some reason by a factor of 4-5 inches higher on the head. Not just the autopsy doctors, but the photographer, as well as five to six other autopsy witnesses, made statements strongly supporting a small wound low near the base of the head. You are asserting that these people all misremembered or lied in a way that perfectly corroborates the autopsy report passage "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm.".
When you say "What the autopsy claims" as if you're referencing a wound 4-5 inches above the external occipital protuberance on the top of the head, that is disingenuous. If you think your interpretations of the X-rays and photographs are correct, you must compare that to a matching number of expert testimony on the X-rays which discredits the cowlick entry theory if they even noticed the defect on the X-rays claimed to be an entry wound by the Clark Panel and HSCA. Nobody who was at the autopsy ever viewed the Back-Of-Head photos and agreed that the "red spot" high in the scalp was the small wound (presumably of entry) they claimed to see. The "red spot" on the Back-Of-Head photographs was described by Humes to the HSCA and ARRB a relatively insignificant wound in the scalp related to the large defect, not an entry wound. |
22nd October 2017, 04:47 AM | #2167 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Subsonic bullets can and do exit parts of the skull. That is documented in medical journals searchable through Google Scholar (free scientific papers can also be downloaded reliably on libgen.io). A subsonic bullet could have entered near the EOP and exited the base of the skull within the body.
|
22nd October 2017, 04:50 AM | #2168 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
22nd October 2017, 07:21 AM | #2169 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
In short I am referencing that “red mark”, that you consider to be too high.
I ignore you personal analysis, because I read the whole autopsy, and I read the testimony to the WC, that make it clear exactly where the wound is. I mean the wound that is verified by the X-ray and photographs, that matches the conclusions of experts you ignore. I mean the location that fits the “impossible” brain damage. I mean the wound location that you totally fail to discredit. I mean the one that makes sense, and best fits the totality of evidence. It may not be a perfect fit, but it remains the best fit, and the only viable explanation, by any common sense measure. |
__________________
@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). |
|
22nd October 2017, 07:23 AM | #2170 |
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). |
|
22nd October 2017, 07:33 AM | #2171 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
While the autopsy is probably an important life event, however you still don't understand the memory recall degradation with time. You have been presented more than once this fact of life, yet you ignore it, why? Because it fits your CT belief. Take the original statements with much more accuracy.
But nit-picking where the entry hole is exactly what you have done for the few months I have been posting to this forum. As if the exact location between 15 years and several investigations really matters. Bottom line all investigations have noted one GSW to the head, causing all the damage, and fired behind and above the victim. You have no evidence of lying or misremembering(especially after a number of years has dulled the memory). Whether the individuals "strongly support" a small wound low near the base of the scalp, the autopsy report indicated ONE GSW. And I repeat all the doctors had the chance to report an exception to findings, and none did so. The autopsy report indicated one entry hole was noted, after the brain was removed(with what ever procedure), you can't escape that fact. In addition one of the skull pieces shipped from Dallas had an exit wound characteristic.
Quote:
|
22nd October 2017, 09:48 AM | #2172 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
I have a question.
If Micha Java has a point, and his "EOP" wound is valid, why has he not posted a single definitive location. Think about the "evidence" he has posted, from the photographs, the x-rays, the bullet fragments, and such forth, and even the model marked by doctors based on their memories... If that added up to what Micha Java thinks, he should have been able to provide a definitive location. He should be able to identify it on the photographs of the back of JFK's head, on the x-rays, and to tell us which of the doctors remembered right. But when I look back through this thread, I see that when I asked him to show us the actual wound, he drew several circles on the back of JFKs head photo, identifying potential locations. Now, I don't want to suggest I have unreasonable expectations of other's ability to read x-rays, or what have you, but if the x-ray evidence did indeed suggest a lower entry wound, and if Micha could say for certain that it discredited the received wound, would it not follow that one could use the x-ray to definitively mark the actual wound? If I'm missing a post where Micha achieves exactly this, I am sorry, but I can't see one, where Micha can point to a place on the photograph of the back of the head, and show us a more convincing wound than the "splotch". |
__________________
@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). |
|
22nd October 2017, 10:03 AM | #2173 |
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 |
|
22nd October 2017, 10:17 AM | #2174 |
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 |
|
22nd October 2017, 10:24 AM | #2175 |
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 |
|
22nd October 2017, 10:29 AM | #2176 |
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 |
|
22nd October 2017, 10:35 AM | #2177 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
Let's remind you of something. Remember this?
So, by your own admission, no matter how important it was, they placed the hole in different places. You may not like the entry wound being a few inches higher than your pre-conclusions require it to be, but... human memory is just flawed. Those memories you rely on more than contemporary records, are just as flawed as any other human memory would be, years, or decades, later. |
__________________
@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). |
|
22nd October 2017, 11:18 AM | #2178 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
The only voices that matter are Humes and Finck. They laid hands on the man.
The other witnesses do not count once you factor in the human element. The photographer? He's looking at a dead POTUS, he's trying to keep it together. He was focused on his job with the camera and was not a pathologist - doesn't matter what he thinks he saw, only what is in his pictures. Your cherry-picking blindness is your failure.
Quote:
That's called science, that's why you record data on the spot instead of trying to remember it later. This is true for every science discipline. Only in CT World is decades old recollecting held equal to real-time, hands-on data. It is why nobody takes you seriously.
Quote:
Quote:
Everything points to Oswald and his 6.5x52mm Carcano. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
22nd October 2017, 11:20 AM | #2179 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
22nd October 2017, 11:25 AM | #2180 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Okay Skippy, what calibers are we talking about here?
What was the range the bullet was fired from that passed through the skull? What angle? How many of these bullets entered the back of the head? What was the minimum range from your fantasy silenced rifle to the car? What kind of subsonic round would have the capability at that range to enter and exit a skull at any angle? If you cannot answer all of these questions you need to shut up about subsonic rounds. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
24th October 2017, 12:04 AM | #2181 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 28,961
|
Saw this article in Politico. Apparently some people are worried about this:
The JFK Document Dump Could Be a Fiasco
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare |
|
24th October 2017, 01:13 AM | #2182 |
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 think there's a misapprehension somewhere that releasing evidence that JFK's assassination was not the result of a conspiracy will lead people who currently believe in the conspiracy to change their beliefs. Conspiracist belief systems don't work like that, as this thread demonstrates; contrary evidence is ignored, handwaved away, spuriously discredited or distorted so as to support the belief system. Anything any particular conspiracy theorist doesn't like in this document release will immediately be proven fake by assertion ('what, you mean the CIA couldn't generate fake documents given 50 years and Photoshop? Wake up, sheeple!'), anything even vaguely ambiguous will be assigned the most nefarious possible meaning, and the whole merry-go-round will keep turning.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
24th October 2017, 07:01 AM | #2183 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,833
|
|
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!" |
|
24th October 2017, 09:26 AM | #2184 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 182
|
|
24th October 2017, 09:47 AM | #2185 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Seven pages ago I asked MicahJava a simple question.
Despite my reposting it an additional three times, he avoided responding to the point, changing the subject, answering different questions, and attempting to deflect the conversation each time. Each time he employs these tactics, he shows he cannot answer simple questions asking him to reach reasonable conclusions. Here's now the fifth time I am asking MicahJava the same simple question. Remember, MicahJava, I am only looking for your most reasonable conclusion here. Forget we're talking about the assassination at all for a moment. Pretend this is another crime. Can you answer the question? Given two separate facts, I am wondering if you can tell us the most reasonable conclusion. Now, I am not looking for the most outlandish conclusion, the conclusion that most points to a lone shooter, or to a conspiracy. Just the most reasonable. Assume for the sake of discussion these two facts are true: 1. 90% of the witness stated they heard exactly three shots, no more, no less. 2. Three shells were recovered from a building overlooking the shooting about 40 minutes after the shooting. What is the most reasonable conclusion you can come up with here? Hank PS: For the curious, the same point (in a slightly different form) was made in these four posts below: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1897 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1916 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1920 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1936 |
__________________
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 |
|
24th October 2017, 10:13 AM | #2186 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
1. There were three loud noises in Dealey Palza, contrary to the medical evidence which indicates more than three shots were fired.
2. You don't need any shells to know that. What do you have to say about the autopsy report, three autopsy doctors, and 6+ autopsy witnesses who all gave statements indicating that Kennedy had a small wound near the external occipital protuberance? Do you think the people who examined every corner of Kennedy's body don't know the difference between the base of the head and the top of the head? With the occipital-blowout theory, at least you could say maybe the witnesses saw Kennedy's head at an odd angle which created a sort of optical illusion. The EOP wound concerns people who examined the body, peeled back the scalp, messed with the skull and the brain, etc. |
24th October 2017, 10:24 AM | #2187 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
What part of "Forget we're talking about the assassination at all for a moment. Pretend this is another crime" did you not understand? Try again. Here for the SIXTH time: Here's now the Can you answer the question? Given two separate facts, I am wondering if you can tell us the most reasonable conclusion. Now, I am not looking for the most outlandish conclusion, the conclusion that most points to a lone shooter, or to a conspiracy. Just the most reasonable. Assume for the sake of discussion these two facts are true: 1. 90% of the witness stated they heard exactly three shots, no more, no less. 2. Three shells were recovered from a building overlooking the shooting about 40 minutes after the shooting. What is the most reasonable conclusion you can come up with here? |
__________________
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 |
|
24th October 2017, 10:32 AM | #2188 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
We can deal with your arguments this way:
Have it your way, "loud noises" vs "heard three shots". I don't see the difference, except you are changing the witness testimony. It was they, not I, that characterized the three loud noises they heard as shots. If they called it "shots", shouldn't we call it "shots"? You are back to ignoring the testimony and arguing with the witnesses perceptions, after telling us the witnesses who picked the grassy knoll as the source of ALL the shots were reliable in picking the grassy knoll as the source of SOME of the shots. Are they reliable or not? Can we trust their perceptions or not? Why are your ignoring what they said when it suits your purposes? How come you contradict your own arguments so frequently? PREDICTION: You will ignore all the above. The "contrary to the medical evidence which indicates more than three shots were fired" is false. No pathologist who examined the extant autopsy evidence ever concluded there were more than three shots. This is simply an assertion by you backed by nothing except your own opinion. You won't be able to cite any medical evidence that indicates four or more shots. NONE. You just made up that claim. What part of "Assume for the sake of discussion these two facts are true" did you not understand? What part of "Despite my reposting it an additional three times, he avoided responding to the point, changing the subject, answering different questions, and attempting to deflect the conversation each time. Each time he employs these tactics, he shows he cannot answer simple questions asking him to reach reasonable conclusions" did you not understand? You're avoiding responding to the point, deflecting, answering different questions not asked, and changing the subject once more. In the autopsy report, and all the subsequent testimony and medical reviews, I not once came across the language that the autopsists "messed with the skull and the brain". Is this an official conclusion, or just you exposing your lack of medical expertise, and giving us yet another reason to question the conclusions you've reached? Now, try again. For the seventh time: Here's now the Can you answer the question? Given two separate facts, I am wondering if you can tell us the most reasonable conclusion. Now, I am not looking for the most outlandish conclusion, the conclusion that most points to a lone shooter, or to a conspiracy. Just the most reasonable. Assume for the sake of discussion these two facts are true: 1. 90% of the witness stated they heard exactly three shots, no more, no less. 2. Three shells were recovered from a building overlooking the shooting about 40 minutes after the shooting. What is the most reasonable conclusion you can come up with here? 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 |
|
24th October 2017, 11:10 AM | #2189 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Psst, MicahJava:
It's a test. To see if you know what it means to reach a reasonable conclusion. It's not a test to see how well you can deflect, or answer other questions not asked, or change the subject, or avoid the point entirely. If it was a test of those qualities, you'd be getting an A+. But you're failing badly, because it's a test to see if you know how to reach a reasonable conclusion. Seven times and counting, and you can't do it? It's open book, and you've tried five times and failed five times. How many more hints do you need? 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 |
|
24th October 2017, 11:54 AM | #2190 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
What "logical conclusion" do you want if the shooting must have involved more than three gunshots?
|
24th October 2017, 12:04 PM | #2191 |
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). |
|
24th October 2017, 12:17 PM | #2192 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
24th October 2017, 12:20 PM | #2193 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
That's no big mystery as three empty shell casings were found on the floor of the 6th floor TSBD. One miss two hits, that's what all of us have been attempting to pound into your head.
You continue to evade answering the questions by asking more questions attempting to move the goal posts. |
24th October 2017, 12:22 PM | #2194 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
24th October 2017, 01:12 PM | #2195 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Not the actual evidence, just your gross, willing misinterpretation of medical data that points to a single GSW to the head, and one to the back exiting the throat.
How long before you bring Bigfoot into this?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
24th October 2017, 01:13 PM | #2196 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
24th October 2017, 01:24 PM | #2197 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
The file release will come and go. Scholars will pour through them and write books. The JFK-CT crowd was mostly silent on the advance document-dump from this summer containing the deposition of a KGB agent, and the internal CIA memos speculating if Oswald had been working with someone after his Mexico City adventure, or if their ongoing assassination attempts on Castro became a motive to kill JFK.
We're hoping for the CIA's Mexico City files, and the rest of the FBI's post assassination files which might include an internal investigation. CTers are immune to facts of any kind, and millions of people have been raised to believe all kinds of nonsense about the assassination based on hearsay, and bad TV. There are dozens of authors who have made a career out of the event, happily spreading the latest lies. Every November there are at least two new additions to the JFK CT-loony library. In two days the wait will be over. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
24th October 2017, 01:45 PM | #2198 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
As Tomtomkent pointed out above (and I before that), you're ignoring the central premise. What part of "Forget we're talking about the assassination at all for a moment" did you not understand? This is a test of your reasoning ability, which you are failing miserably. It's not a test of how many logical fallacies you can introduce (like begging the question above). I'm not asking for new, inventive ways you can avoid responding to the point, change the subject, answer different questions not asked, or attempt to deflect the conversation. Just for the most reasonable conclusion, assuming for the sake of discussion two facts are true. Remember: Forget we're talking about the assassination at all for a moment. Pretend this is another crime. This is now the EIGHTH time I am posting this. Given two separate facts, I am wondering if you can tell us the most reasonable conclusion. Now, I am not looking for the most outlandish conclusion, the conclusion that most points to a lone shooter, or to a conspiracy. Just the most reasonable. Assume for the sake of discussion these two facts are true: 1. 90% of the witness stated they heard exactly three shots, no more, no less. 2. Three shells were recovered from a building overlooking the shooting about 40 minutes after the shooting. What is the most reasonable conclusion you can come up with here? 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 |
|
24th October 2017, 02:09 PM | #2199 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
MicahJava,
If you can't pass a simple reasoning test, why should anyone listen to your arguments about how you interpret the evidence? 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 |
|
24th October 2017, 02:14 PM | #2200 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 472
|
There were only 3 shots. The recovered bullets and fragments support that conclusion. The recovered shells in the depository support that conclusion. The wounds on both men support that conclusion. The earwitnesses support that conclusion. The autopsy report and medical records support that conclusion. The Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films support that conclusion.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|