Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 34   Go Down

Author Topic: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937  (Read 444022 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5923
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #330 on: August 27, 2012, 08:26:05 PM »

The people you need to convince are people like myself who have expertise (however modest) in those disciplines in which aspects of the investigation are carried out - not people who don't and therefore may not understand the complexities underlying the claims made for or against the material evidence.

For once I am speechless.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #331 on: August 27, 2012, 10:42:06 PM »

The people you need to convince are people like myself who have expertise (however modest) in those disciplines in which aspects of the investigation are carried out - not people who don't and therefore may not understand the complexities underlying the claims made for or against the material evidence.

For once I am speechless.

Why - I would have thought that if the evidence is accepted by those who can actually evaluate the various aspects of the evidence with some informed knowledge then your task is much nearer to a happy conclusion, one which I for one hope you achieve. I am not being boastful, nor am I attempting to set up my rather modest abilities as the benchmark, which seems to be the implication of your reply, all I am saying is that if someone like myself who has some professional experience with human remains in an archaeological setting can see that a hypothesis has some merit and says so and why then that makes, albeit in small way, TIGHAR's task of convincing others hopefully a little easier. Now it may transpire that I am wrong about the skeleton's identity but at the least I can see when further data is presented where I am wrong - and I will freely admit I was wrong. That is just how a professional works.   

That is why people with the necessary qualifications don't get involved with lunatic fringe theories about how the pyramids were built by spacemen with matter transfer technology or how Noah's Ark can be seen sitting on the side of Mt Ararat. But, as we are aware, there are apparently millions of people who take the word of a document like the Bible for example, which as biblical scholars can demonstrate irrefutably is a very deliberate compilation of ancient stories, as completely true and reject evolution, embrace the fact that Noah and his Ark existed and many other assorted fairy tales all based on the willingness to believe rather than the capacity to understand that the compilation was made at the direction of various powerful special interest groups and political leaders over a space of 2000 years.

Now speaking for myself I accept that people are allowed to believe what they will but if I want a proper assessment of something I will seek the opinion of someone who has the proper training to evaluate the evidence. Accordingly I would think that TIGHAR would prefer that their Nikumaroro hypothesis is accepted as proven by people who actually understand the complexities of the evidence offered rather than simply accepted by people, no matter how well meaning or interested, who don't understand the complexity. But that's just me I guess.

That is also why people like myself interrogate the evidence offered. That is why I ask about seemingly small details like the other anomalies in the Bevington photo and why I am sceptical about the interpretation of the partial skeleton recovered by Gallagher. After all a short stocky male of Islander origin is, as anyone can observe, completely different to a tall gracile female of Northern European heritage. Doubt based on that simple premise is not unfounded or simply being negative for negative's sake, nor is it a slur on anyone who supports the reassessment, it is an honest reaction and one I would hope that most people would have the sense to feel. 
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 10:45:20 PM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #332 on: August 28, 2012, 01:03:08 AM »



John,

The story that accompanied the video made the statement about the 'supposed' loss of their Cambridge Fuel Analyzer and "That would mean an unavoidable, nearly 48% reduction in fuel reserves upon reaching Howland’s vicinity." "ridiculous poppycock"

This instrument is an aid in precisely setting mixture and its loss would just mean that you would need to adjust the fuel mixture for which ever engine that lost it manually. It is true that you can damage an engine by setting the mixture excessively lean at high (over 65% of maximum power) power settings, but at max range power settings, you can safely lean an engine to the point of roughness and then en-richen to the point of smoothness. and the loss of that instrument would not prevent you doing that.  You also have other instruments, like Fuel Flow Rate (pressure) that aid in setting, after you have been flying that aircraft for a while, you get to know what Fuel Flows to expect.  At high power settings, especially in a climb, you would need to keep it on the 'rich-side' for increased engine life.  This would not reduce your fuel reserve at Howland by 4% never mind 48%....


Amazing, ain't it, that we have all managed to get along without the Cambridge instrument, a device who's time came and went in the 30's. I have never seen one, have you? anybody else on the forum ever see one of these in real life? Using just the "lean til rough, then enrich til smooth" seems to work out ok. Even better, but not necessary, it the exhaust gas temperature gauge might give you more confidence in your leaning procedure but probably doesn't save you much fuel in real life.

As you wrote, Earhart also had a fuel flow gauge (this was not a pressure gauge because she did not have fuel injection) that also gave her a reasonably accurate measure of her fuel usage but probably not used for leaning the engines. And she should have had a good handle on her fuel state with all the tanks that she would know when each was emptied so could calculate her fuel flow on how long each tank lasted.

gl
« Last Edit: August 28, 2012, 03:32:44 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #333 on: August 28, 2012, 02:56:35 AM »

The people you need to convince are people like myself who have expertise (however modest) in those disciplines in which aspects of the investigation are carried out - not people who don't and therefore may not understand the complexities underlying the claims made for or against the material evidence.

For once I am speechless.

Why - I would have thought that if the evidence is accepted by those who can actually evaluate the various aspects of the evidence with some informed knowledge then your task is much nearer to a happy conclusion, one which I for one hope you achieve. I am not being boastful, nor am I attempting to set up my rather modest abilities as the benchmark, which seems to be the implication of your reply, all I am saying is that if someone like myself who has some professional experience with human remains in an archaeological setting can see that a hypothesis has some merit and says so and why then that makes, albeit in small way, TIGHAR's task of convincing others hopefully a little easier.

That's an awesome armchair.  And you're rockin' that guitar solo, too.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #334 on: August 28, 2012, 05:04:51 AM »


That's an awesome armchair.  And you're rockin' that guitar solo, too.

Perhaps you might like to explain that remark? You take something out of context and create your own meaning, is that what you do.
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #335 on: August 28, 2012, 05:45:52 AM »


..........  And you're rockin' that guitar solo, too.


Not at all.  In fact there are several of us who question pieces of the puzzle as they appear to be forced into the semi-finished product.  Just an example is the Bevington Object.  Dr. Groven Krantz ( professor of physical anthropology at Washington State University) and now deceased (2002- his skeleton and his dog's skeleton on display in the Smithsonian) and another scientist debunked Jeff Glickman's photo analysis of "Bigfoot" in Glickman's 1998 NASI Report re the Patterson-Gimlin film.  Glickman is a computer programmer with photo analysis as a sideline.  Glickman had erred in his analysis of Bigfoot - it's certainly possible that he forced his analysis of the Bevington Object to make it the under carriage of Earhart's Electra. 
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 357
  • member #4155
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #336 on: August 28, 2012, 06:47:13 AM »

Bill
I looked up Glickman's "nasi" report at ( this is the abridged version)

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm ( I'm rather embarrased to have that site on my browser history)

He goes through the difficulty of measuring the movements of the sasquatch ( or if you like the guy in the ape costume) because of the many unknowns and low quality of the film, in the discussion he says it if is a fake it is a very good one requiring considerable time  knowledge and expense to create but the last line is very telling, "despite three years of rigorous examination by the author, the Patterson film cannot be demonstrated to be a forgery at  this time."  As far as I can tell (so far I have only found second hand references, if you have a link to Krantz's debunking please send it to me) Krantz objected to details of Glickman's analysis ( ie estimated body mass) and technical details that varied with his own cryptozoological findings.  Personally I find Glickman's honest statement that evidence is not sufficient to reach a definite conclusion  as reassuring of his integrity, no evidence of "forcing the analysis" at all
« Last Edit: August 28, 2012, 06:54:27 AM by Matt Revington »
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #337 on: August 28, 2012, 07:32:23 AM »

Quote
"despite three years of rigorous examination by the author, the Patterson film cannot be demonstrated to be a forgery at  this time."

Never a wiser word spoken. Se the following link regarding Nessie (the original one not the Bevington Photo one). That photograph was accepted for many years as being a 'genuine' picture taken of the Loch Ness monster. After many decades the truth emerged. So the words 'at this time' have real meaning.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_surgeons_photo/
This must be the place
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #338 on: August 28, 2012, 07:40:00 AM »

Bill
I looked up Glickman's "nasi" report at ( this is the abridged version)

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm ( I'm rather embarrased to have that site on my browser history)

He goes through the difficulty of measuring the movements of the sasquatch ( or if you like the guy in the ape costume) because of the many unknowns and low quality of the film, in the discussion he says it if is a fake it is a very good one requiring considerable time  knowledge and expense to create but the last line is very telling, "despite three years of rigorous examination by the author, the Patterson film cannot be demonstrated to be a forgery at  this time."  As far as I can tell (so far I have only found second hand references, if you have a link to Krantz's debunking please send it to me) Krantz objected to details of Glickman's analysis ( ie estimated body mass) and technical details that varied with his own cryptozoological findings.  Personally I find Glickman's honest statement that evidence is not sufficient to reach a definite conclusion  as reassuring of his integrity, no evidence of "forcing the analysis" at all

You know, I'm not trying to take anything away from Glickman.  My biggest problem is that I'm not the best communicator in the world.  Things come out that others take out of context. 

All I'm saying is that  - the Bigfoot film was a whole lot better quality than the Bevington photo.  The Bigfoot film contained clearly defined images that could be measured and analyzed.  The Bevington photo was extremely poor quality to begin with, an object the size of a pinhead and just barely visible on the photo was interpreted to be an Electra undercarriage.

It certainly is possible, if not probable, that the analysis of the Bevington photo was forced to be an airplane part.  After all, that's what we all want so that's what we all see.  Glickman said that he couldn't prove the film to be a forgery.  However he did analyze the being as weighing 1957 lbs.  Being 7'3.5" tall, etc.  Krantz said that the being was no taller than 6'6' and could weigh no more than 820 lbs.  That's quite a difference and what I termed a "debunking".  {So there!  :D}

Anyway, I'm too old to have people mad at me or not like me.  Can I buy you a beer and have some fun with ya?

Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 357
  • member #4155
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #339 on: August 28, 2012, 08:03:19 AM »

When saw your post and thought "on no, the whole Bevington issue has been based on the work of discredited Bigfootologist" I was a bit worried and those are big differences.  I guess since I think that the sasquatch is american indian legend combined with near sighted people misidentifying bears that there is not a correct height or weight for him/her.  I don't have the time or stamina to go through the technical details of their relative arguments.

Anyways no problem, its always good to be aware of the track record of the experts that are being relied upon.  I'll take you up on that beer
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 357
  • member #4155
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #340 on: August 28, 2012, 08:34:53 AM »

[
 I would not then in order to further strengthen the limb to bear this gymnastic exercise then claim that the notes were by an examining physician whose ability is conveniently labelled as below par, because that raises the inconvenient question that if the physician and his notes are substandard then how can they then be used to assert that the skeleton is not a stocky Islander but a thin tall woman of Northern European heritage. If they are substandard for one conclusion than they are substandard for the other.

Malcolm
I realize you were giving the back of the envelope history of the bones but you maybe been a bit too free with the facts of their history here. 
looking back at the summary in the tighar tracks
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1998Vol_14/bonesandshoes.pdf
No one described the bones as coming from a stocky islander, Dr Isaac the first to look them said they were from an "elderly Polynesian male".  I note that the average height of a polynesian man from sources I found online was 5'3" to 5'6" and that the "tall thin" AE was either 5'7" or 5'8" tall. Dr Hoodless indicated that the bones came from a "stocky european" male possibly a half-breed with the islanders.  The modern forensic experts doubt that he could have gotten any idea of the weight or build of the individual from the bones so stocky is probably just based on the remains being a bit on the short side for a european male.  What I see from the differences in these two physicians interpretaion of the forensic evidence is both the remains were very incomplete and not in optimal condition and that forsenic identification was not as advanced then as it is now.  Of course the fact that original evidence is missing makes all conclusions based on the bones subject to a lot of uncertainty
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #341 on: August 28, 2012, 08:42:14 AM »

  The Bevington photo was extremely poor quality to begin with, an object the size of a pinhead and just barely visible on the photo was interpreted to be an Electra undercarriage.

It certainly is possible, if not probable, that the analysis of the Bevington photo was forced to be an airplane part.

Bill, if you are going to critique an expert's interpretation of something then you should at least be accurate in what you quote them as saying. Jeff Glickman did not say that "Nessie", the object, was anything. What he said was the object "is consistent with Lockheed installation 40650, the main landing gear of a Lockheed Electra aircraft." The emphasis is mine and the analysts in the State Department agreed with his opinion, "verified his findings", as stated here.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #342 on: August 28, 2012, 09:20:18 AM »

  The Bevington photo was extremely poor quality to begin with, an object the size of a pinhead and just barely visible on the photo was interpreted to be an Electra undercarriage.

It certainly is possible, if not probable, that the analysis of the Bevington photo was forced to be an airplane part.

Bill, if you are going to critique an expert's interpretation of something then you should at least be accurate in what you quote them as saying. Jeff Glickman did not say that "Nessie", the object, was anything. What he said was the object "is consistent with Lockheed installation 40650, the main landing gear of a Lockheed Electra aircraft." The emphasis is mine and the analysts in the State Department agreed with his opinion, "verified his findings", as stated here.

You're right and my apologies.  I should have said - "consistent with".  But, again, we all hear or read the interpretation that it's an undercarriage.  Also, I couldn't find State Department verification other than Tighar's statement. 

Anyway, semantics aside, the "gist" of my post remains.  And, Woody, you're invited to join Matt and I for that beer.  But your both gonna have to wait till I get back from our Lake cottage.  Leaving tomorrow am.
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #343 on: August 28, 2012, 09:27:27 AM »

You sure are spending a lot of time there. Must be nice. :)

I'm not allowed to drink beer. :(
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #344 on: August 28, 2012, 12:36:39 PM »


What you did was to question Jeff Glickman's qualifications and try to ascribe something very negative to him - essentially that he was a charlatan.  You clearly implied, IMHO, that Glickman likely did a force-fit of his photo analysis to support TIGHAR's hypothesis (from your previous post):

Quote
........................  Glickman had erred in his analysis of Bigfoot - it's certainly possible that he forced his analysis of the Bevington Object to make it the under carriage of Earhart's Electra.




Actually Jeff - I did not imply.  I merely suggested that it was "POSSIBLE"...............  So, you see - even you have taken my postings out of context.  And you're forgiven. ;)


Further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film
{snip}
"Philip Morris

In 2002, Philip Morris of Morris Costumes (a North Carolina-based company offering costumes, props and stage products) claimed that he made a gorilla costume that was used in the Patterson film. Morris says he discussed his role in the hoax privately in the 1980s but first admitted it publicly on August 16, 2002, on Charlotte, North Carolina, radio station WBT-AM.[49] Morris claims he was reluctant to expose the hoax earlier for fear of harming his business: giving away a performer's secrets, he said, would be widely regarded as disreputable.[50]

Morris said that he sold an ape suit to Patterson via mail-order in 1967, thinking it was going to be used in what Patterson described as a "prank"[51] (ordinarily the gorilla suits he sold were used for a popular side-show routine that depicted an attractive woman changing into a gorilla.) After the initial sale, Morris said that Patterson telephoned him asking how to make the "shoulders more massive"[52] and the "arms longer."[53] Morris says he suggested that whoever wore the suit should wear wide football-type shoulder pads and hold sticks in his hands within the suit. His story was also printed in the Charlotte Observer.[54]

As for the creature's walk, Morris said:

    The Bigfoot researchers say that no human can walk that way in the film. Oh, yes they can! When you're wearing long clown's feet, you can't place the ball of your foot down first. You have to put your foot down flat. Otherwise, you'll stumble. Another thing, when you put on the gorilla head, you can only turn your head maybe a quarter of the way. And to look behind you, you've got to turn your head and your shoulders and your hips. Plus, the shoulder pads in the suit are in the way of the jaw. That's why the Bigfoot turns and looks the way he does in the film. He has to twist his entire upper body.[55]

Morris' wife and business partner Amy had vouched for her husband and claims to have helped frame the suit.[55] Morris offered no evidence apart from testimony to support his account."

{snip}

{snip}
Bob Heironimus

"Bob Heironimus claims to have been the figure depicted in the Patterson film, and his allegations are detailed in Long's book. Heironimus was a tall (6' 2), muscular Yakima, Washington, native, age 26, when he says Patterson offered him $1000 to wear an ape suit for a Bigfoot film. Bob Gimlin was on Bob Heironimus' horse, Chico, when the PGF was being filmed. Heironimus is one of numerous people who are claimed to be visible in an unreleased second reel of the film. It is unclear which, if any, of these claims are authentic.[citation needed]

Eventually Long uncovered testimony that corroborates Heironimus' claims: Russ Bohannon, a longtime friend, says that Heironimus revealed the hoax privately in 1968 or 1969.[56] Heironimus says he did not publicly discuss his role in the hoax because he hoped to be repaid eventually and was afraid of being convicted of fraud had he confessed. After speaking with his lawyer he was told that since he had not been paid for his involvement in the hoax that he could not be held accountable. In separate incidents, Bernard Hammermeister and Heironimus' relatives (mother Opal and nephew John Miller) claim to have seen an ape suit in Heironimus' car. The relatives say they saw the suit two days after the film was shot.[57] No date was given by Long for Hammermeister's observation, but it apparently came well after the relatives' observation, as implied by the word "still" in the justification Heironimus gave Hammermeister for requesting his silence: "There was still supposed to be a payola on this thing, and he didn't have it."[58]

Long argues that the suit Morris says he sold to Patterson was the same suit Heironimus claims to have worn in the Patterson film. However, Long quotes Heironimus and Morris describing ape suits that are in many respects quite different from one another; Long speculates that Patterson modified the costume, and offers corroborating evidence and testimony to support this idea. Among the notable differences are:

    Heironimus says he was told by his brother Howard that Patterson claimed he manufactured the suit from a "real dark brown" horse hide.[59]
    Morris reports that the suit was a rather expensive ($450) dark brown model with fur made of Dynel, a synthetic material. Long writes that Morris "used Dynel solely in the sixties--and was using brown Dynel in 1967".[60]
    Heironimus described the suit as having no metal pieces and an upper "torso part" that he donned "like putting on a T-shirt."[61] At Bluff Creek he put on "the top."[62] Asked about the "bottom portion," he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring.
    Morris made a one-piece union suit with a metal zipper up the back, and into which one stepped.[63]
    Heironimus described the suit as having hands and feet that were attached to the arms and legs.
    Morris made a suit whose hands and feet were separate pieces. Long speculates that Patterson riveted or glued these parts to the suit, but offers no evidence to support this idea.

Heironimus' statements about the multiple pieces and upper torso part is promoted by "Bigfoot-Sewing it Up", a video study of M. K. Davis' enhancement about how the costume is put together. He made the comment that he wore football shoulder pads which, according to Heironimus, explains why the shoulders and arms appear to be out of proportion to the rest of the body. The zipper of the suit was in front and could not have been seen from the back. The position of the zipper would raise a question about Morris' participation or his recollection.

Some skeptics say that Heironimus' arms are too short to match that of a bigfoot and that he was a few inches shorter than the creature on the film, but "Bigfoot-Sewing it Up" explains that the relative position of the elbows and hips are those of a human. Also it has been speculated that the Bigfoot appears to be nearly seven feet tall when Heironimus was only six foot two and Heironimus was also not as bulky as the creature but a suit would prohibit a reasonable comparison."

{snip}

{snip}
"Ray Wallace

After the death of Ray Wallace in 2002, following a request by Loren Coleman to Seattle Times reporter Bob Young to investigate, the family of Wallace went public with claims that he had started the Bigfoot phenomenon with fake footprints (made from a wooden foot-shaped cutout) left in Californian sites in 1958. In addition, David Daegling stated that Wallace "had a degree of involvement" with the Patterson-Gimlin film, and that this gave grounds for suspicion of it.[64]

The evidence for this involvement is Wallace's alleged statement, "I felt sorry for Roger Patterson. He told me he had cancer of the lymph glands and he was desperately broke and he wanted to try to get something where he could have a little income. Well, he went down there exactly where I told him. I told him, 'You go down there and hang around on that bank. Stay up there and watch that spot.'"[this quote needs a citation]

Coleman has written that Patterson was an early Bigfoot investigator, and that it was only natural that he sought out and interviewed older Bigfoot event principals, which included Wallace, because of the 1958 Bluff Creek incidents. Coleman has asserted that Wallace had nothing to do with Patterson's footage in 1967, and has argued in an analysis of the media treatment of the death of Wallace that the international media inappropriately confused the Wallace films of the 1970s with the Patterson-Gimlin 1967 film.[65]

Dr. Meldrum has written extensively about Wallace, his allegations (continued by his family after his death), and the significant problems with them in his book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.[66]

{snip}

Now, I believe these guys.  And if what they claim is true Then Mr. Glickman not only erred in his photo analysis of bigfoot's specifications, he also erred in the authenticity of the film as being genuine.  And you will note that his analysis is not even mentioned in the Wiki article. 

So, yes I believe that Glickman is an expert.  Also that he is not infallible.  No scientist is - but most scientists revise their position once being proven incorrect.  Glickman has not.  He has a history of mistakes, therefore his conclusions of "possible" ......etc. should be checked by others in private industry.  And, last, as much as I'd like to believe that the "object' is Earhart's undercarriage, I don't believe that it can be considered as a clue - such as the bottle, knife, shoe leather, bones, etc. for that reason.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2012, 12:40:21 PM by Bill Roe »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 34   Go Up
 

Copyright 2021 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP