Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« on: April 03, 2017, 10:11:40 PM »
If NASA faked the moonshots, they sure went to a lot of trouble making pictures:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums

And they have also gone to a lot of trouble to store the film:
http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/ABOUT_SCANS/index.html

You would think hollywood producers could stage the shots well enough to get by with a lot less pictures, but there are thousands of them. Here is one album of shots:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157658982137872

And this album has a lot of really crappy shots:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656754109323
I wonder why NASA spent so much time staging and taking lousy pictures (without photoshop techniques as they were using film)? It seems kind of stupid....unless of course they really were snapping pictures in space, and did not have digital cameras so they could not delete all of the lousy shots.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2017, 03:55:57 AM by Nirmala »

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2017, 01:48:42 PM »
This is one of the many flaws in the FE moon refutations. They only look at the supposed flaws in the pictures that "Top 10 moon fake proofs" show, and no other evidence. All of the engineering numbers and such work, and the Russians said it happened, why would they say that?

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5543
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2017, 09:00:46 PM »
I wonder why NASA spent so much time staging and taking lousy pictures (without photoshop techniques as they were using film)?
How did you establish when these recently-made-available (and very much digital) "photos" were generated?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 09:51:51 PM by SexWarrior »
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2017, 10:14:02 PM »
The link  provided describes when and how some of the photos were scanned: http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/ABOUT_SCANS/index.html

And if they are faked, it still is a lot of trouble to go to. Wouldn't a few faked photos have done the trick? And for that matter, wouldn't one faked trip to the moon have been enough? And just to be clear, I do not think the moonshots or these photos are fake.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 10:15:43 PM by Nirmala »

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5543
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2017, 11:03:22 AM »
The link  provided describes when and how some of the photos were scanned: http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/ABOUT_SCANS/index.html
I didn't ask what the authors claim. I ask how you established the age of the photographs. If your answer is "I took these guys' word for it", it's important that you make it explicit.

And if they are faked, it still is a lot of trouble to go to.
Not really. Many of these photos are blank. Others are trivial exercises in procedural imagery generation. They almost look like rejects from an algorithm that was still a WIP. Almost.

Wouldn't a few faked photos have done the trick?
By your own admission, no. A few faked photos are easy to focus on. Having an enormous archive of "photos" that nobody will ever look at takes very little effort (you can just make a whole bunch of your "photos" pure grey and it's still fine! It still contributes to the count!) and provides those incapable of critical thought with the "rock hard evidence" they so desperately needed. You're a prime example of this mechanism in action.

And for that matter, wouldn't one faked trip to the moon have been enough?
Enough to achieve what, exactly?

And just to be clear, I do not think the moonshots or these photos are fake.
The concept of "fake" is epistemologically meaningless when the "moonshots" look like this:



Even if you pick a more generous example, it's really unimpressive.

<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2017, 01:10:00 AM »
Exactly! Why would they fake a bunch of lousy shots? And you realize that there were not a lot of algorithms for digital photography back in the time of the moonshots?

As for being explicit about how the digital versions were created, the info was in the links I posted. If you do not trust any sources or authorities that I refer to, that is your prerogative. But it does make it pretty difficult to have reasoned discussions when one side simply discounts all sources the other side presents.

One or maybe two faked trips to the moon would have convinced a lot of people that they had been there. And in that same vein, why would they fake a failed mission: Apollo 13? That is pretty twisted logic, even if you believe it is all a conspiracy.

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5543
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2017, 01:22:14 AM »
Exactly! Why would they fake a bunch of lousy shots?
Computer-generated data sometimes goes awry, especially at early stages. It benefits from manual (or part-automated) sanitisation. Clearly this was not done here, probably because they didn't bother.

And you realize that there were not a lot of algorithms for digital photography back in the time of the moonshots?
Well, I already asked you if you could explain how you determined when the time these were generated was. Your response:

As for being explicit about how the digital versions were created, the info was in the links I posted. If you do not trust any sources or authorities that I refer to, that is your prerogative. But it does make it pretty difficult to have reasoned discussions when one side simply discounts all sources the other side presents.

boils down to "I took their word for it". So, this discussion boils down to:

N: What about this evidence? Pretty conclusive, huh? And look at how much of it there is! And look at how old it is!
S: I question this. If anything, the amount and quality of this evidence makes it inconclusive. As for the age: how do you know how old it is?
N: Same way I know the evidence is true, of course! The nice man who provided it in the first place said so!

My criticism of your logic is essentially the same as the most common criticism of circular logic among religious fundamentalists: "The Bible is true because the Bible says so" is not a good argument.

One or maybe two faked trips to the moon would have convinced a lot of people that they had been there. And in that same vein, why would they fake a failed mission: Apollo 13?
Right, so you think the goal of the conspiracy (or at least the Apollo missions) is to "convince a lot of people". That explains a lot about your reasoning.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 01:24:22 AM by SexWarrior »
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2017, 01:43:34 AM »
I am not sure why you respond in such cryptic manner, but it seems common among flat-earthers on here. Maybe you think it makes you sound clever, but it actually just tends to stifle the conversation. If you have a better idea for why NASA repeatedly faked the moonshot including a completely failed mission, just spit it out already.

I offered evidence for the photos provenance. Do you have any evidence that they were faked? If not, then we are back to being limited to having a reasoned discussion. Or if you simply will not consider the possibility that they are genuine, then there is no point in discussing them any further with you. Your logic is equally limited if you answer every question with an implication that the pictures are fake. I am still curious as to why they would fake so many pictures and make so many lousy ones if that is the explanation. Or maybe these are real photos taken on film in outer space and on the surface of the moon. You attack my evidence. Where is yours? And what possible reasons do you offer for such extreme faking?

By the way, a lot of the pictures were published at the time of the moonshots, so obviously not all of them could have been digitally created when these versions were supposedly scanned from the film. Again, what are your suggestions for possible reasons that someone would go back 45 years after the moonshots were over and then digitally create a bunch more images? Do you believe they are that scared of being caught out 45 years later that they would start making new fake pictures? When the project is done, they supposedly will have scanned over 30,000 images. Again, what is the point of faking that many "scans"?

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5543
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2017, 01:58:19 AM »
I am not sure why you respond in such cryptic manner, but it seems common among flat-earthers on here. Maybe you think it makes you sound clever, but it actually just tends to stifle the conversation.
If you think I haven't spoken clearly enough about something, or if you found any particular part of my post to be "cryptic", just ask me to clarify. I probably just misspoke or made a poor assumption about how much of the conversation's context is immediately clear.

If you have a better idea for why NASA repeatedly faked the moonshot including a completely failed mission, just spit it out already.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

I offered evidence for the photos provenance.
Your evidence is "I took some man's word for it". With a standard of evidence this low, a reasoned discussion is not just limited - it's impossible.

Do you have any evidence that they were faked?
I see you're doubling down on religious fallacies. This time it's "Can you prove God doesn't exist? No? Then he must be real!"

It's a poor attempt at shifting the burden of proof, and so I won't entertain it.

Or if you simply will not consider the possibility that they are genuine
I've considered it, but I was presented with absolutely no evidence. Meanwhile, the data you've presented me with checks all the boxes for procedurally generated content.

I am still curious as to why they would fake so many pictures and make so many lousy ones if that is the explanation.
Because the easiest, cheapest and most time-efficient method of producing them would yield that kind of result.

You attack my evidence.
You literally came here asking why we don't think much of NASA's photos. Now you're getting agitated because I'm answering your questions. If you think that constitutes an attack, you're going to have a rough time when someone does actually attack you.

By the way, a lot of the pictures were published at the time of the moonshots
Could you back this claim up? This is what I originally asked of you.

Again, what are your suggestions for possible reasons that someone would go back 45 years after the moonshots were over and then digitally create a bunch more images?
Why do you think they were generated 45 years later?

Again, what is the point of faking that many "scans"?
The same as anything else the Conspiracy does.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2017, 03:06:42 AM »
By your standards of proof, neither of us could ever present any proof for any of our statements on this forum that qualifies. Unless I show up at your house with the film originals and some lab equipment that would convince you that they are 45 years old, we will always be left with referring to second hand evidence. This again makes it difficult if not impossible to discuss, but if you do not believe my evidence (which is not just "one guy said so" as it is a collective of many people and organizations involved in this scanning project) then you simply do not believe my evidence. You clearly have your own reasons for not believing and that is your right.

Again, this might make it pointless to discuss further, which is fine with me. I was not trying to shift the burden of proof onto you, but simply asking if you had any evidence that these particular photos were faked. I also did not suggest you attacked me (I only said you attacked my evidence which is fair game). If you do attack me, I will stop discussing this or anything else with you.

I was alive at the time of the moonshots and saw many pictures that were published in newspapers and magazines at that time, as well as watched the televised broadcasts along with millions of others.

As for the Wiki about the conspiracy, I did not find it very convincing. If the purpose of the conspiracy was and is to convince people that the US has militarized space, then they are doing it in a most ridiculous and obtuse manner. Here are my questions regarding that assertion:
1-Why would they fake a manned mission to the moon? It does not seem to implant or support the idea that they have militarized anything, since there has been no mention of any weapons they installed on the moon, or on the ISS for that matter. And how about unmanned missions all over the solar system? I have never seen anything that suggested a military component to Voyager. Why fake all of that also? Are we trying to prove something to the inhabitants of other planets?
2-Why not just fake some weapons in space? They could fake a few missiles that seem to have been launched from outer space and maybe fake a demonstration of a Star Wars laser type weapon zapping something on earth. That would seem to suffice.
3-And why even bother at all? If ICBMs are capable of reaching every potential target on earth, then would space based missiles theoretically be enough faster in delivery to scare the Russians? And if the Russians and Chinese are faking all of their space exploration also, don't you think they might have figured out that we are faking ours also? Has this whole space race really been a race to see who could do a better job of faking their exploration of space?
4-If NASA quickly realized that all of their efforts were for naught and that no one else would ever reach space also, then why not reveal that info and then pour all of those billions into actual weapon systems? If you ask me, it requires an almost unimaginable level of stupidity to go to all of that trouble to create the fake impression that we have some kind of advantage in space (without ever revealing exactly what that advantage entails since no weapons systems in space have ever been demonstrated, claimed or even faked), when forever afterwards, it would be subject to the easiest counter measure of simply revealing the truth and thereby making the conspirators look like the biggest idiots ever born. Good luck hiding a secret that big for the last 60 years or so with the cooperation of unfriendly foreign governments and computer hackers and all the other parties who might benefit from revealing the truth. Ever heard of the Pulitzer Prize?
5-Finally, these grand conspiracies eventually fall down in my reasoning simply because they would require the cooperation of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of co-conspirators at all levels of many different governments and also scientific organizations all over the world....including Arizona State University which carried out the scans that are the subject of this post. It would also require the cooperation of all of the organization listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings. And how about these guys: http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/ Are they in on this grand conspiracy? In this day and age of Wikileaks and whistle blowers of all stripes, don't you think someone would have leaked some damning evidence by now if any truly existed?

If that is the reason behind the conspiracy, then our government is even dumber and more inept than most people think it is. And by the way, if you were arguing that our government has actually put some weapons into space and are hiding that fact from us, I would have a much easier time believing in such a conspiracy than this one.

PS: And back to one of my earlier questions: how would faking multiple moon missions (six successful ones and one failed mission) further the purpose of the conspiracy more than a couple of successful missions? And how does faking photos today of a series of non-military missions 45 years ago further the suggested purpose of this conspiracy?








« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 03:28:11 AM by Nirmala »

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 283
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2017, 03:23:20 AM »
Did you mean ISS instead of ISIS?
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2017, 03:24:10 AM »
Did you mean ISS instead of ISIS?
Thanks, yes. I will correct it in the post above

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2017, 01:14:20 PM »
Star Wars laser type weapon zapping something on earth
The Star Wars program was designed to zap missiles as they flew towards the US, not to zap something on the ground.

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5543
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2017, 01:46:13 PM »
By your standards of proof, neither of us could ever present any proof for any of our statements on this forum that qualifies
You are absolutely correct. This is why I maintain a rigid distinction between proof (which I didn't ask you to provide), evidence (which I did ask for) and reasoning (which I also asked for). Of course, you refuse to provide any of the above and then whine about how proofs are hard, so the benefit of this distinction is somewhat limited. Nonetheless, I remain confident that you'll sort yourself out any moment now... aaany moment now...

Unless I show up at your house with the film originals and some lab equipment that would convince you that they are 45 years old, we will always be left with referring to second hand evidence.
No, that's not what's happening here at all. Allow me to remind you: You came to us asking why we don't consider NASA's photos to be particularly convincing. I explained that, as far as I'm concerned, it boils down to two things: the absence of evidence pointing towards the authenticity of these photos, and the simple matter of fact that they raise multiple red flags which immediately point towards (poorly) procedurally generated content.

This is where your reasoning turns a bit hairy. You respond to me pointing out that the pictures were likely procedurally generated with (paraphrasing) "Exactly! There are so many of them! Surely this means they must be real since no one would bother faking so many!" - the only way I can interpret this without accusing you of being internally inconsistent is to conclude you didn't know what "procedurally generated" means. In which case: you could have just asked.

simply asking if you had any evidence that these particular photos were faked
Yes. They follow regular patterns which are indicative of procedurally generated content. That, combined with an absence of evidence on your side, leads me to conclude that the simplest explanation is that they were, in fact, procedurally generated.

I was alive at the time of the moonshots and saw many pictures that were published in newspapers and magazines at that time, as well as watched the televised broadcasts along with millions of others.
How many is "many"? 5? 20? 30,000? Give us a ballpark estimate to work with.

On to your questions:

1 - If you think technology cannot be reused or repurposed, then you're beyond reasonable help.
2 - They tried that, and they still claim to be trying to do it. Because of that, answering your question of "why aren't they doing it?" is unanswerable; it relies on a false premise.
3 - This one seems to perpetually confuse you. NASA, in its prime, was making an absolute bank. Of course, now that their funding is dwindling the whole operation is bound to eventually fall on its face, but we might not live long enough to see its demise.
4 - Because pouring them into their Swiss bank accounts was just so much more appealing. As for your vision of "the government never holds any secrets from us because something something the media" - again, this is beyond reasonable help. Think about any scandal that the media has uncovered after it's been going for multiple years. The fact that they only get uncovered years later necessarily implies that they were not uncovered for years. Once again your logic turns to religion. The Big Man in the Sky is watching over us, and he'd never lie to us.
5 - Ah, yes, Wikileaks, the group whose idea of the "truth" just happens to perfectly align with Russian national interests. But, more seriously: No, I do not see why it would have to happen by now. There is no doubt in my mind that the issue will eventually be uncovered, but you've presented no reasoning to suggest a schedule or timeframe.

If that is the reason behind the conspiracy [...]

[...]the purpose of the conspiracy
I've asked you so many times what you think the purpose of the Conspiracy is, and your answer is "that". Fantastic, that gives me a lot to work with, doesn't it? I speculate that you don't understand what the purpose of the Conspiracy is, but you're simply refusing to tell me.

For someone who keeps complaining about obstructions to discourse, you sure introduce quite a few of them.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 01:48:44 PM by SexWarrior »
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2017, 02:21:11 PM »
5 - Ah, yes, Wikileaks, the group whose idea of the "truth" just happens to perfectly align with Russian national interests. But, more seriously: No, I do not see why it would have to happen by now. There is no doubt in my mind that the issue will eventually be uncovered, but you've presented no reasoning to suggest a schedule or timeframe.
And Russian national interest would DEFINITELY benefit from the moon landing fake being uncovered. IMAGINE the propaganda coup that would be! America isn't on the forefront of research and technology, they're just a bunch of liars!

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5543
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2017, 02:29:43 PM »
And Russian national interest would DEFINITELY benefit from the moon landing fake being uncovered. IMAGINE the propaganda coup that would be! America isn't on the forefront of research and technology, they're just a bunch of liars!
Ah, yes, the worldwide propaganda coup that would completely topple America, Russia, China, and probably half of the EU. Yes, I'm sure a Russian coup is exactly what Russia wants.

Is your username self-referential by any chance?

Also, America is no longer on the forefront of science and technology. Sorry to remind you. Turns out the coup was unnecessary.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2017, 04:36:27 PM »
Thanks for clarifying your terms. That was helpful to distinguish proof, evidence and reasoning. I offered evidence and my reasoning for thinking it was genuine. You offered your reasoning for thinking it was not genuine. It seems we simply disagree on that point.

I saw hundreds of photos during the Apollo missions and watched hours of television coverage. I did not see all of the pictures that are being released now as they were not all released back then.

And now to your numbered responses to my points:

1-You suggest technology can be re-purposed, but it seems to me that you are arguing that the technology does not really exist and was all faked. Are you saying that NASA could re-purpose the fake moonshots to make them seem to have a more military implication? Do you think anyone would believe them if they suddenly now said that they put warheads on the moon during the Apollo missions?
2-The link you offer says that their testing failed and the project was canceled due to present day technology not being advanced enough. But again, under the conspiracy theory, we are talking about faking all of the evidence anyways. Do you think that they could fake the moonshots, other space exploration, satellites and the ISS and yet they somehow could not fake evidence of a missile defense system? If they are faking all of this to pocket the money, wouldn't they have faked some success with Reagan's Star Wars program in order to pocket the billions and maybe trillions that would have enabled?
3- Not sure what this is evidence for one way or the other. But as in #2, if they are so good at faking things, why can't they fool us into increasing their funding every year?
4-I did not say the government never hides anything from us, but this would be the mother of all secrets, again involving hundreds of thousands of individuals, and government has not had a particularly good record of hiding stuff, especially over the very long term. I said later in the post that I would believe it more if you were claiming that the militarization of space has actually happened and that is being kept hidden.
5-Again my point was not that secrets are not kept from us, but simply that the scale of this one is so beyond anything else that it stretches credulity.

My use of the word "that" was referring to the reason for the conspiracy offered in the Wiki. I do not believe that the space program is a conspiracy, so I have never offered a reason for such a conspiracy.

I am not sure if you saw this as I added it to the post later:
PS: And back to one of my earlier questions: how would faking multiple moon missions (six successful ones and one failed mission) further the purpose of the conspiracy more than a couple of successful missions? And how does faking photos today of a series of non-military missions 45 years ago further the suggested purpose of this conspiracy?
Note: I am again referring to the purpose of the conspiracy posited in the Wiki.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2017, 05:45:58 PM by Nirmala »

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2017, 03:06:41 PM »
And Russian national interest would DEFINITELY benefit from the moon landing fake being uncovered. IMAGINE the propaganda coup that would be! America isn't on the forefront of research and technology, they're just a bunch of liars!
Ah, yes, the worldwide propaganda coup that would completely topple America, Russia, China, and probably half of the EU. Yes, I'm sure a Russian coup is exactly what Russia wants.

Is your username self-referential by any chance?

Also, America is no longer on the forefront of science and technology. Sorry to remind you. Turns out the coup was unnecessary.
Since when are we not on the forefront?

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 547
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2017, 04:45:51 PM »
One or maybe two faked trips to the moon would have convinced a lot of people that they had been there. And in that same vein, why would they fake a failed mission: Apollo 13?
Right, so you think the goal of the conspiracy (or at least the Apollo missions) is to "convince a lot of people". That explains a lot about your reasoning.
Are you saying the "fake" Apollo missions WEREN'T about convincing a lot of people?  What else could they have been for?  I mean, I have an answer, they were about actually going to the moon, but I know that's not your answer.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2017, 01:06:57 AM »
Here is a youtube video that, among other things, compares film footage of various space missions with the space films of much later years that were nominated for or awarded Academy Awards for their special effects. Either NASA was way ahead of the movie studios and had developed incredibly advanced CGI (that is better than what we have today) years or decades before anyone else, or maybe...just maybe...the film was shot in space:



Note: The space footage starts at about 7:40.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2017, 04:44:46 PM by Nirmala »