Please explain how the Sun and Moon always appear the same diameter no matter where they are viewed from on Earth, nor at what time of day or night they are viewed, because they are obviously not in the same place, therefore simple geometry says that as whatever rotates is rotating the distances would change in any model other than one in which both Sun and Moon orbit the Earth, hence maintaining constant distance.
By constant distance I mean ignoring the long term fluctuations due apogee and perigee, before anyone gets to splitting semantic hairs. I am talking about per diem.
Rodin, I didn't think there was anything to the Flat Earth claims, because I would expect there to be a single credentialed scientist blowing the whistle on it, as we have several with the AIDS scam.
Plus, this matter was supposedly settled over two thousand years ago by classical thinkers who didn't seem to have a whole lot to gain by engaging in disinfo or fraud, as we have today.
While Holocaust denial has been used to whip up people's emotions the most, the Flat Earth concept is held up as an analogy of the epitome of stupidity.
Regarding Dubay's "200 proofs," they should more appropriately be called "200 assertions" or "200 pieces of evidences," as there's no way each one of them could serve as a proof by itself.
On a Fakeologist thread, Ab said to start refuting the claims, but it's actually up to Dubay and anyone else challenging the current scientific notion of an spherical Earth to show how science purportedly doesn't adequately address his 200 critiques.
If he's not doing that, then it's just a hobby and the source of independent, layman investigation and musing.
But what do you say about Charlie Giuliani's recent condemnation of those promoting a Flat Earth, and specifically where he challenged anyone promoting it to call up various people along the same longitudinal line, but further south, say in Argentina, and ask them about the angle of the shadow that the sun casts at midday on a big pole, implying that it will be different with a spherical Earth. He seems to hold that up as a definitive argument against a Flat Earth, though he referenced other ways without going into details. Do you find that to be definitive proof of a spherical Earth?
I'm not into the stupid "Flat Earth" theory but ...
The Sun's diameter at sunrise and sunset is much larger than at mid-day. So what is Rodin talking about?
Giuliani's suncast angle could obviously always be modeled in a flat model. This is so obvious, he and you should be embarrassed to think otherwise.
Proof enough for me is the manner a ship disappears hull first over the horizon. Or just the way the water looks curved over the horizon to me. Or the spheroidal look of other heavenly bodies.
I don't like the way you'd have to change Physics in a Flat Earth model and see the Physics as fine as is. It strikes me as a waste of time to look into Flat Earth models - although it might be intellectually stimulating for the mathematically inclined.
"Giuliani's suncast angle could obviously always be modeled in a flat model. This is so obvious, he and you should be embarrassed to think otherwise."
He's basing it on what an ancient Greek mathematician did. He said Archimedes, but it seems to have been Eratosthenes. And I haven't performed the experiment myself, nor have I run a mathematical model on it to counter either Charlie or Eratosthenes.
"It strikes me as a waste of time to look into Flat Earth models"
Agreed, until a credentialed scientist steps up, except as a hobby.
Though, such a scientist might pop up at some point, and then the question becomes whether they are controlled opposition.
In the meantime, this whole issue is a great study case of how various alternative research movements can be diverted, side-tracked and split up.
The whole timing of this Flat Earth meme is something worthy of study, and Negentropic put forward the point that it seems to have been made big after Simon Shack of September Clues was to have been interviewed on some big internet show, and nothing happened with it.
Not sure that has anything to do with it, specifically. One big difference I see is Eric Dubay talking about Jewish power and Mark Sargeant saying nothing about it, getting onto Coast to Coast AM, and making ridiculous claims elsewhere, based on a show I heard with Dubay, pointing things out that Sargeant said, whcih seemed ridiculous on their face.
For me, it's just yet another escalation of what I have dubbed the hyperfakery meme being increasingly promoted out there, though in all these cases, I don't say definitively either way that what is being said isn't true, but we have to judge based on certain principles, and in matter of science, you need to consider whether there are any credentialed scientists speaking out about it.
Regarding other supposed established theories, with the Big Bang, we have scientist Halton Arp, who has pointed out redshift anomalies and pretty much been ignored, despite those seemingly completely challenging the whole notion of the age of the universe being what they say it is and the redshift being related to the distance of various heavenly bodies.
With global warming, you have Dr. Tim Ball. And speaking of taking things even further, he says that CFCs don't cause the big ozone holes, which seems wacky to say, given what various seemingly scientific findings have had to say and how the problem was easily and cheaply solved by banning CFCs compared to this global warming scam.
With vaccines, you have several doctors like Dr. Russell Blaylock, Dr. Sherry Tenpenny, the late Dr. Stan Monteith and several others who dispute their safety and effectiveness.
But I'm waiting to hear the name of one credentialed scientist taking apart the spherical Earth model. It's just like with the claim that nuclear power is a hoax. I'm also hearing crickets with any name being given of a scientist arguing that case, either, which makes me take those and put them in a box aside from things that can be proven or are being seriously questioned by those with expertise.
Scientists do argue the case against Flat Earth. Google around.
Eratosthenes ASSUMED he was measuring a meridian arc. One could just as easily assume you are measuring straight lines - and if necessary throw in some topology. The experimental errors and local topology considerations are on the same order of magnitude as any flat/spheroid differences. You'd get nowhere with the meridian arc measurement strategy on its face. It would all be in how you handled the measurement data. There is no way you could determine sphericity from it alone - that is an assumption in your model which could just as well be assumed otherwise.
Regarding Nick's "Moon is a round sphere". Actually we can't say that since we always see one side. It could be a disc for all we know. :P
Where are the ends (edges) of the Earth in a Flat Earth model?
fauxcapitalist questions why no one is debunking Flat Earth. That's backwards. Flat Earthers need to prove Flat Earth. Show us the edges.
blake121666 said... I'm not into the stupid "Flat Earth" theory but ...
The Sun's diameter at sunrise and sunset is much larger than at mid-day. So what is Rodin talking about?
You are wrong. 100%
Google "The Moon Illusion", heck we even wrote a song about it once... Sun is same deal.
Flat Earth is a "Holocaust Denier" smear by association. Dubay knows it, prolly a Jew, Del, well who knows, he is Irish after all. prone to feckin this and feckin that and deleting my comments, feck 'im lol. Ringo his mate? Dunno, lotsa Jews in Ireland... CG, biggest Christ basher in the Troof Movement... Some of the stuff Foon puts up us sus and as for Scorp... have to wonder - is he the same gatekeeper Scorp from the Gold is Money forum? I could go on...
But what do you say about Charlie Giuliani's recent condemnation of those promoting a Flat Earth, and specifically where he challenged anyone promoting it to call up various people along the same longitudinal line, but further south, say in Argentina, and ask them about the angle of the shadow that the sun casts at midday on a big pole, implying that it will be different with a spherical Earth. He seems to hold that up as a definitive argument against a Flat Earth, though he referenced other ways without going into details. Do you find that to be definitive proof of a spherical Earth?
CG is right on this, on first consideration, but then it is past wine-o-clock here in Scotland (What no whisky I hear you say... I have seen what the big W can do,,,)
@Rodin - I've Never been on 'Gold is Money Forums'. Weren't you on TIU years ago? Gatekeeping? Exactly what agenda do you think I am gatekeeping for?? - lol
You've been drinking rodin. The "moon illusion" could be seen anyway one chooses. The fact is, sunrise and sunset (and moonrise and moonset) show visibly larger orbs. This is a fact. Explain it away however you wish, but that is a fact.
And CG is so obviously wrong about meridian measurements I have to assume you've been drinking to not see it. Didn't you say you had a PhD in Chemistry? Do you think they would "prove" sphericity over ANY other model (let alone a Flat Earth model). Measuring suncast gives you squat in this regard ... very obviously so.
At sunrise, the sun is far away from us, heading our way... at sunset, the sun is going out of the range of our vision. The sun and moon appear larger at those times because the moisture in the atmosphere is having a magnifying effect on them.
Here is an simple experiment you can prove right on your kitchen table... fill a clear glass full of water... hold a coin up on the other side of the glass and it will, indeed look larger. I have a hard time believing you deep thinkers couldn't figure that out for yourselves.
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." How true. A recent comment made here in which it was suggested that those (muffled gafaw) "fakeologists" were morons (a clinical term superior to imbecile and idiot) was deleted ( by someone who probably drinks green beer), so I'll try to be less hateful here.
Perhaps a better label would have been"sophomore," a wise fool who, like those second year students no "know it all" but are actually very immature and over foolish.
They have been taken in by sophistry--unsound misleading but clever plausible and subtitle argument.
This is s sophisticated (pun intended) psy-op---merge correct information (Holohoax) with outrageous steroidal retardation (flat earf) and thoroughly discredit the truth tellers.
No, everything you were taught wasn't a lie, only a small percentage. That's how psy-ops work. You're being played.
Please note that some of my words were changed without my noticing it.
To someone like me, in my seventh decade around the Sun, who spent time I USAF aerospace, who talked to x-15 astronauts (yes, they were astronauts) that witnessed the Earth's curvature from the edge of space and who:
1. Understands scalar and vector mechanics 2. Integral and differential calculus 3. university physics 4. Solid and plane geometry 5. Spherical trigonometry 6. Applied synergetics and the geometry of nature 7. Is trained in aerial navigation and has demonstrated the difference between geodesic arcs and lesser circle chords by laying out a spherical triangular course over CONUS by calculating the spherical excess of said trigon and then navigating a twin turbojet (pratt&Whitney J-60s) USAF Sabreliner along said course showing that Lattitudinal (lesser circle) travel was not the shortest distance between two points while Longtudinal (geodesic) travel was. The Earth is an approximate spheroid. QED
Crap! More of my words were changed by this infernal anticipatory text engine!
Moving right along, don't take my word for it, get yourself 12" school globe and some 1/16" architectural tape and lay out a class I method 3 geodesic grid ( per Joseph Clinton) such that the lesser circle chordal vertices lie circumferentially on the lines of lattitude. It will immediately become apparent that East- west travel is never the shortest distance between two points as the geodesic arcs are not coplanar. These distances were verified using airframe-mounted Doppler radar (radio detecting and ranging). Only possible on a bassa baw earf, mo fo!
Again, QED
PS, it might be helpful when applying your global grid to study first the Expo Sphere in Toronto as it is 16 frequency class I method 3 truncated sphere laced to a 32 frequency triacon
Wanda, what bullcrap you are spouting, you too Blake. Sorry.
Scorp, OK maybe I have confirmation bias built into the name, yes of course I posted on TIU and usually am down with Ognir's views, but this Flat Earth thing has me all Sandy Hooked up lol
@Rodin - Well, you should already know that I posted at TIU for years, so my views should be well known to you. As far as flat earth goes. I've never posted an opinion on the matter. I still would like to know what agenda you think I might be gatekeeping for. It's quite an accusation to make because it implies several layers of intentional deceit.
Rodin... what do you mean i am bullcrap? Are you saying that when you fill a glass with water and view an object on the other side of it, you do not witness a magnifying effect? That does not sound sober to me.
I don't know if the earth if flat, but it certainly looks flat. I didn't believe the earth was a spinny ball when i first heard of it in the first grade. They showed me an illustration of water in a bucket being swung around on a tether. What was wrong with that was the water was inside the bucket... and i wondered where on earth was the tether... are you telling me you buy that story? If so, then you don't have the intelligence of a six year old. Back then i couldn't fathom the adults would lie to me... now i have a different perspective.
No Globe... No Global-ism. Let me know when NASA can provide one clear image that is not an artist rendition or CGI... then we'll talk.
If i were being gang raped, in the place where the sun don't shine, i don't think i'd be too concerned at that time whether it was in the bedroom or the kitchen but rather how the hell to get out of the immediate situation.
Rodin... i can say, beyond a shadow of any doubt... you know fvck all. You, for instance, seem to think i said the sun changes size at some point in the day... and i don't say that at all... i don't even hint at it. The criminals are in charge of the show and they prophet by keeping us ignorant and filling our heads with just the sort of bullsh*t you are spewing forward... you're so full of it, it is brimming over.
Don't watch this video... or do watch it... i don't, frankly, give two sh*ts what you do or say. To anyone else, who is not owned outright and is still at liberty to speak freely and honestly... this is a fascinating video on some known, but suppressed science... and no magic tricks, you can repeat them on your own... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7hxbAiq_Yo&feature=em-uploademail
23 comments:
Please explain how the Sun and Moon always appear the same diameter no matter where they are viewed from on Earth, nor at what time of day or night they are viewed, because they are obviously not in the same place, therefore simple geometry says that as whatever rotates is rotating the distances would change in any model other than one in which both Sun and Moon orbit the Earth, hence maintaining constant distance.
By constant distance I mean ignoring the long term fluctuations due apogee and perigee, before anyone gets to splitting semantic hairs. I am talking about per diem.
And I can say the Sun orbits the Earth, if I choose the Earth as my frame of reference :)
Rodin, I didn't think there was anything to the Flat Earth claims, because I would expect there to be a single credentialed scientist blowing the whistle on it, as we have several with the AIDS scam.
Plus, this matter was supposedly settled over two thousand years ago by classical thinkers who didn't seem to have a whole lot to gain by engaging in disinfo or fraud, as we have today.
While Holocaust denial has been used to whip up people's emotions the most, the Flat Earth concept is held up as an analogy of the epitome of stupidity.
Regarding Dubay's "200 proofs," they should more appropriately be called "200 assertions" or "200 pieces of evidences," as there's no way each one of them could serve as a proof by itself.
On a Fakeologist thread, Ab said to start refuting the claims, but it's actually up to Dubay and anyone else challenging the current scientific notion of an spherical Earth to show how science purportedly doesn't adequately address his 200 critiques.
If he's not doing that, then it's just a hobby and the source of independent, layman investigation and musing.
But what do you say about Charlie Giuliani's recent condemnation of those promoting a Flat Earth, and specifically where he challenged anyone promoting it to call up various people along the same longitudinal line, but further south, say in Argentina, and ask them about the angle of the shadow that the sun casts at midday on a big pole, implying that it will be different with a spherical Earth. He seems to hold that up as a definitive argument against a Flat Earth, though he referenced other ways without going into details. Do you find that to be definitive proof of a spherical Earth?
I'm not into the stupid "Flat Earth" theory but ...
The Sun's diameter at sunrise and sunset is much larger than at mid-day. So what is Rodin talking about?
Giuliani's suncast angle could obviously always be modeled in a flat model. This is so obvious, he and you should be embarrassed to think otherwise.
Proof enough for me is the manner a ship disappears hull first over the horizon. Or just the way the water looks curved over the horizon to me. Or the spheroidal look of other heavenly bodies.
I don't like the way you'd have to change Physics in a Flat Earth model and see the Physics as fine as is. It strikes me as a waste of time to look into Flat Earth models - although it might be intellectually stimulating for the mathematically inclined.
"Giuliani's suncast angle could obviously always be modeled in a flat model. This is so obvious, he and you should be embarrassed to think otherwise."
He's basing it on what an ancient Greek mathematician did. He said Archimedes, but it seems to have been Eratosthenes. And I haven't performed the experiment myself, nor have I run a mathematical model on it to counter either Charlie or Eratosthenes.
"It strikes me as a waste of time to look into Flat Earth models"
Agreed, until a credentialed scientist steps up, except as a hobby.
Though, such a scientist might pop up at some point, and then the question becomes whether they are controlled opposition.
In the meantime, this whole issue is a great study case of how various alternative research movements can be diverted, side-tracked and split up.
The whole timing of this Flat Earth meme is something worthy of study, and Negentropic put forward the point that it seems to have been made big after Simon Shack of September Clues was to have been interviewed on some big internet show, and nothing happened with it.
Not sure that has anything to do with it, specifically. One big difference I see is Eric Dubay talking about Jewish power and Mark Sargeant saying nothing about it, getting onto Coast to Coast AM, and making ridiculous claims elsewhere, based on a show I heard with Dubay, pointing things out that Sargeant said, whcih seemed ridiculous on their face.
For me, it's just yet another escalation of what I have dubbed the hyperfakery meme being increasingly promoted out there, though in all these cases, I don't say definitively either way that what is being said isn't true, but we have to judge based on certain principles, and in matter of science, you need to consider whether there are any credentialed scientists speaking out about it.
Regarding other supposed established theories, with the Big Bang, we have scientist Halton Arp, who has pointed out redshift anomalies and pretty much been ignored, despite those seemingly completely challenging the whole notion of the age of the universe being what they say it is and the redshift being related to the distance of various heavenly bodies.
With global warming, you have Dr. Tim Ball. And speaking of taking things even further, he says that CFCs don't cause the big ozone holes, which seems wacky to say, given what various seemingly scientific findings have had to say and how the problem was easily and cheaply solved by banning CFCs compared to this global warming scam.
With vaccines, you have several doctors like Dr. Russell Blaylock, Dr. Sherry Tenpenny, the late Dr. Stan Monteith and several others who dispute their safety and effectiveness.
But I'm waiting to hear the name of one credentialed scientist taking apart the spherical Earth model. It's just like with the claim that nuclear power is a hoax. I'm also hearing crickets with any name being given of a scientist arguing that case, either, which makes me take those and put them in a box aside from things that can be proven or are being seriously questioned by those with expertise.
Moon is a round sphere Sun is round, why the fuck would the earth be any different.
Scientists do argue the case against Flat Earth. Google around.
Eratosthenes ASSUMED he was measuring a meridian arc. One could just as easily assume you are measuring straight lines - and if necessary throw in some topology. The experimental errors and local topology considerations are on the same order of magnitude as any flat/spheroid differences. You'd get nowhere with the meridian arc measurement strategy on its face. It would all be in how you handled the measurement data. There is no way you could determine sphericity from it alone - that is an assumption in your model which could just as well be assumed otherwise.
Regarding Nick's "Moon is a round sphere". Actually we can't say that since we always see one side. It could be a disc for all we know. :P
Where are the ends (edges) of the Earth in a Flat Earth model?
fauxcapitalist questions why no one is debunking Flat Earth. That's backwards. Flat Earthers need to prove Flat Earth. Show us the edges.
blake121666 said...
I'm not into the stupid "Flat Earth" theory but ...
The Sun's diameter at sunrise and sunset is much larger than at mid-day. So what is Rodin talking about?
You are wrong. 100%
Google "The Moon Illusion", heck we even wrote a song about it once... Sun is same deal.
Flat Earth is a "Holocaust Denier" smear by association. Dubay knows it, prolly a Jew, Del, well who knows, he is Irish after all. prone to feckin this and feckin that and deleting my comments, feck 'im lol. Ringo his mate? Dunno, lotsa Jews in Ireland... CG, biggest Christ basher in the Troof Movement... Some of the stuff Foon puts up us sus and as for Scorp... have to wonder - is he the same gatekeeper Scorp from the Gold is Money forum? I could go on...
...and probably will lol
But what do you say about Charlie Giuliani's recent condemnation of those promoting a Flat Earth, and specifically where he challenged anyone promoting it to call up various people along the same longitudinal line, but further south, say in Argentina, and ask them about the angle of the shadow that the sun casts at midday on a big pole, implying that it will be different with a spherical Earth. He seems to hold that up as a definitive argument against a Flat Earth, though he referenced other ways without going into details. Do you find that to be definitive proof of a spherical Earth?
CG is right on this, on first consideration, but then it is past wine-o-clock here in Scotland (What no whisky I hear you say... I have seen what the big W can do,,,)
@Rodin - I've Never been on 'Gold is Money Forums'.
Weren't you on TIU years ago?
Gatekeeping? Exactly what agenda do you think I am gatekeeping for?? - lol
You've been drinking rodin. The "moon illusion" could be seen anyway one chooses. The fact is, sunrise and sunset (and moonrise and moonset) show visibly larger orbs. This is a fact. Explain it away however you wish, but that is a fact.
And CG is so obviously wrong about meridian measurements I have to assume you've been drinking to not see it. Didn't you say you had a PhD in Chemistry? Do you think they would "prove" sphericity over ANY other model (let alone a Flat Earth model). Measuring suncast gives you squat in this regard ... very obviously so.
As a matter of fact, I propose that the Earth is in the shape of Bob's Big Boy sign - as in that Austin Powers movie. PROVE ME WRONG! LOL :)
At sunrise, the sun is far away from us, heading our way... at sunset, the sun is going out of the range of our vision. The sun and moon appear larger at those times because the moisture in the atmosphere is having a magnifying effect on them.
Here is an simple experiment you can prove right on your kitchen table... fill a clear glass full of water... hold a coin up on the other side of the glass and it will, indeed look larger. I have a hard time believing you deep thinkers couldn't figure that out for yourselves.
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." How true. A recent comment made here in which it was suggested that those (muffled gafaw) "fakeologists" were morons (a clinical term superior to imbecile and idiot) was deleted ( by someone who probably drinks green beer), so I'll try to be less hateful here.
Perhaps a better label would have been"sophomore," a wise fool who, like those second year students no "know it all" but are actually very immature and over foolish.
They have been taken in by sophistry--unsound misleading but clever plausible and subtitle argument.
This is s sophisticated (pun intended) psy-op---merge correct information (Holohoax) with outrageous steroidal retardation (flat earf) and thoroughly discredit the truth tellers.
No, everything you were taught wasn't a lie, only a small percentage. That's how psy-ops work. You're being played.
Please note that some of my words were changed without my noticing it.
To someone like me, in my seventh decade around the Sun, who spent time I USAF aerospace, who talked to x-15 astronauts (yes, they were astronauts) that witnessed the Earth's curvature from the edge of space and who:
1. Understands scalar and vector mechanics
2. Integral and differential calculus
3. university physics
4. Solid and plane geometry
5. Spherical trigonometry
6. Applied synergetics and the geometry of nature
7. Is trained in aerial navigation and has demonstrated the difference between geodesic arcs and lesser circle chords by laying out a spherical triangular course over CONUS by calculating the spherical excess of said trigon and then navigating a twin turbojet (pratt&Whitney J-60s) USAF Sabreliner along said course showing that Lattitudinal (lesser circle) travel was not the shortest distance between two points while Longtudinal (geodesic) travel was. The Earth is an approximate spheroid. QED
Crap! More of my words were changed by this infernal anticipatory text engine!
Moving right along, don't take my word for it, get yourself 12" school globe and some 1/16" architectural tape and lay out a class I method 3 geodesic grid ( per Joseph Clinton) such that the lesser circle chordal vertices lie circumferentially on the lines of lattitude. It will immediately become apparent that East- west travel is never the shortest distance between two points as the geodesic arcs are not coplanar. These distances were verified using airframe-mounted Doppler radar (radio detecting and ranging). Only possible on a bassa baw earf, mo fo!
Again, QED
PS, it might be helpful when applying your global grid to study first the Expo Sphere in Toronto as it is 16 frequency class I method 3 truncated sphere laced to a 32 frequency triacon
OK folks I have sobered up lol
Wanda, what bullcrap you are spouting, you too Blake. Sorry.
Scorp, OK maybe I have confirmation bias built into the name, yes of course I posted on TIU and usually am down with Ognir's views, but this Flat Earth thing has me all Sandy Hooked up lol
@Rodin - Well, you should already know that I posted at TIU for years, so my views should be well known to you. As far as flat earth goes. I've never posted an opinion on the matter. I still would like to know what agenda you think I might be gatekeeping for. It's quite an accusation to make because it implies several layers of intentional deceit.
Rodin... what do you mean i am bullcrap? Are you saying that when you fill a glass with water and view an object on the other side of it, you do not witness a magnifying effect? That does not sound sober to me.
I don't know if the earth if flat, but it certainly looks flat. I didn't believe the earth was a spinny ball when i first heard of it in the first grade. They showed me an illustration of water in a bucket being swung around on a tether. What was wrong with that was the water was inside the bucket... and i wondered where on earth was the tether... are you telling me you buy that story? If so, then you don't have the intelligence of a six year old. Back then i couldn't fathom the adults would lie to me... now i have a different perspective.
No Globe... No Global-ism. Let me know when NASA can provide one clear image that is not an artist rendition or CGI... then we'll talk.
If i were being gang raped, in the place where the sun don't shine, i don't think i'd be too concerned at that time whether it was in the bedroom or the kitchen but rather how the hell to get out of the immediate situation.
@ Wanda : Sun is exactly same size all day, easily proved
@ Scorp : Be Seeing You
Rodin... i can say, beyond a shadow of any doubt... you know fvck all. You, for instance, seem to think i said the sun changes size at some point in the day... and i don't say that at all... i don't even hint at it. The criminals are in charge of the show and they prophet by keeping us ignorant and filling our heads with just the sort of bullsh*t you are spewing forward... you're so full of it, it is brimming over.
Don't watch this video... or do watch it... i don't, frankly, give two sh*ts what you do or say. To anyone else, who is not owned outright and is still at liberty to speak freely and honestly... this is a fascinating video on some known, but suppressed science... and no magic tricks, you can repeat them on your own... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7hxbAiq_Yo&feature=em-uploademail
Post a Comment