Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Oldest Americans 1.3 millon years???

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
Hello Scott,
Forgive my lack of clarity, brevity is an aspiration I fall short of...

Do you think the footprints are from 1.3 million years ago? If so why?




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,


Forgive my lack of clarity, brevity is an aspiration I fall short of...

Do you think the footprints are from 1.3 million years ago? If so why?


SC: I have given you my answer. What I 'believe' or what I 'think' is quite immaterial. It's what can be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) that actually counts.

Hope that's brief enough.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
Hello Scott,
I was cautiously trying to work out your view on the OP's question. Other than a cursory acknowledgment of the 40ky, your replies have somehow eluded any reference to the footprints or their age. Would a polyphylogenetic model support the 1.3million ya or the 40ka conclusion?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Come dude,
If your opinion is immaterial then why offer one at all.
Sorry but that last reply was a real cop out.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


First lets define Polyphylogeny so were all on the same page


Polyphylogeny is a term used in the science of systematics. It describes a group of species that are classified in the same taxon, but do not share a single ancestor. Systematics is the study of biological diversity looked at through an evolutionary perspective. It was an outgrowth of taxonomy and has slowly become more sophisticated since the time Charles Darwin posed the evolutionary theory. Scientists who pursue this subject attempt to group organisms based on probable evolutionary relationships. They create genealogy diagrams, called phylogenic trees, that graphically show these relationships.

A polyphylogenic group would contain species that seem related, but have different evolutionary ancestors. These species are grouped using a variety of characteristics such as fossil records, comparative anatomy and DNA and protein analysis. While most phylogenic trees contain polyphylogenic groups, the ideal in systematics is for each group to have a common ancestor or be monophylogenic. Unfortunately, a large amount of conflicting data is often collected. For example, two unrelated organisms may be grouped together because they independently evolved similar traits. Incidents of this type of convergent evolution create errors in phylogenic trees. However, as more data is collected about various species, scientists hope to achieve the goal of a unified phylogenic tree.




So what the folks here are eluding too is co-evolution while humans were evolving in Africa with no connection whatsoever Humans started to evolve here in the Americans as well... versus Land Bridge where they walked here...

Because modern Science has set a date for humans arrival in the new world and we know how deep into the ground to dig and look for clues to these ancient peoples it's rare anyone ever digs deeper looking for even older remains... in other words no real search for older Americans has been been done simply because the texts book all say they couldn't be here... so why bother looking?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
are they accounting for the possibility of time travel, or a random wormhole from future to past..poor guy or gal must have been terrified to suddenly appear in the woods or something..



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastermind77
are they accounting for the possibility of time travel, or a random wormhole from future to past..poor guy or gal must have been terrified to suddenly appear in the woods or something..

Funny you said that as in recent times they have found remains of Caucasian-like people that predate what is generally accepted as Native Americans... if true where did they come from? how did they get here, and where did they go?
Narrow skulls clue to first Americans



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 



So what the folks here are eluding too is co-evolution while humans were evolving in Africa with no connection whatsoever Humans started to evolve here in the Americans as well... versus Land Bridge where they walked here...

That's a fair summary of the poly phylogenetic position DB
. It isn't a theory I subscribe to for at least one reason...haplogroups.


In the study of molecular evolution, a haplogroup (from the Greek: ἁπλοῦς, haploûs, "onefold, single, simple") is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor with a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation. Because a haplogroup consists of similar haplotypes, this is what makes it possible to predict a haplogroup from Haplotypes. A SNP test confirms a haplogroup. Haplogroups are assigned letters of the alphabet, and refinements consist of additional number and letter combinations, Example: R1b1.
Wiki for us non-genetic scientists


The indigenous populations of the Americas all fall within the haplogroups A2, B2, C1, and D1. These genetic markers can be linked and traced through the haplogroups of the rest of the world. They actually prove a common ancestry and support the theories that we crossed over the Beringia land/ice bridge up to around 23ka. No haplogroups have been found that indicate a different evolutionary path. Anyone interested should read that paper because it raises a couple of mystery points...

Peñon woman is unusual without causing any reasons to challenge established thinking, 13ka is within the period of American population. She apparently has Caucasian features, but several explanations are possible. One is an earlier crossing by Europeans and another is misinterpreting a slightly anomalous skull. If you read the link above and the Solutrean Hypothesis, you might be intrigued.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,


Kandinsky: I was cautiously trying to work out your view on the OP's question. Other than a cursory acknowledgment of the 40ky, your replies have somehow eluded any reference to the footprints or their age.


SC: As I said - I go with the evidence and more specifically the scientific analysis of that evidence. If that science is carried out with due care and dilligence and the results are not later fudged by the scientist then I have to accept the date. If the science (not the scientist) says unequivocally 1.3 million years then why shouldn't that date be correct? If we are to then conclude that the science must be wrong then we have to throw out all past findings and conclusions based on that flawed scientific rigour.

In this particular example the science says one thing (1.3 million yrs) but the evolutionary/historical model we have constructed for ourselves forces us to conclude it must be flawed. Why not trust the science? Why not conclude that the evolutionary/historical model we have constructed might actually be flawed? As I have previously said - the present consensus view of evolution has effectively placed a straight-jacket over itself. You are asking me to answer a question that science itself cannot provide a definitive answer to. Don't you consider that a tad unfair?


Kandinsky: Would a polyphylogenetic model support the 1.3million ya or the 40ka conclusion?


SC: Polyphylogentic evolution is not about accepting one date over another but a means through which we can make sense of what are otherwise regarded as 'anomalous artefacts' and, of course, maintaining the integrity of the scientific method.

That such artefacts are regarded as anomalous is done simply by virtue of the fact that they do not fit into the cosy, linear evolutionary path that the prevailing monophylogentic evolution model insists they must. Some of these artefacts are forced to fit into the model - square peg in a round hole. Ultimately this only serves to construct a history of our past that is severely wanting and fundamentally flawed.

Regards,

Scott Creighton


[edit on 27/5/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,


Kandinsky: They actually prove a common ancestry and support the theories that we crossed over the Beringia land/ice bridge up to around 23ka.


SC: That homo sapiens spaiens share a common ancestry and crossed to the New World via a land bridge is not actually in dispute. I think there is sufficient evidence to show that we probably did so but how long ago remains an open question.

But I fail to see how this precludes the possibility that other intelligent hominid species could have evolved separately in the Americas (or elsewhere) millions of years ago but became extinct or, who knows, were perhaps wiped out by the arriving, more 'technically advanced' hominid species (us) crossing over the land bridge.


For in the course of the last few years, a number of mostly young experts have become convinced that biogenesis, the origin of life, is to be understood polyphylogenetically (from many sources) rather than monophylogenetically (all life stemming from one primeval cell). So today well-informed experts exist who no longer believe that all species originated from one primeval cell by means of transformism. They believe in no common biological family tree for all species, possessing a single root for all forms of life. Rather, they hold the opinion that life resembles a field in which many organisms flourish side by side without necessarily being connected phylogenetically.

G. A. Kerkut, Professor of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton, England, is one of the Professors who has questioned the old Neo-Darwinian transformism. Professor Kerkut writes: "The attempt to explain all living forms in terms of an evolution from a unique source, though a brave and valid attempt, is one that is premature and not satisfactorily supported by present day evidence."(2) Kerkut adds that, personally, he would never state that evolution "has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt." He admits finding depressing the dogmatism of evolutionary theorist in many scientific circles.


Source: emporium.turnpike.net...

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
Hello Scott,



In this particular example the science says one thing (1.3 million yrs) but the evolutionary/historical model we have constructed for ourselves forces us to conclude it must be flawed. Why not trust the science? Why not conclude that the evolutionary/historical model we have constructed might actually be flawed?


Since when did you trust science?! The results of the scientific analyses mentioned in a previous post offered two possible dates. Between the two possible dates one date was aligned to all other theories including geological, geomagnetic, paleomagnetic, genetic, migrationary and evolutionary timelines. The outside dates of the haplogroups of indigenous Americans also fall within the dates suggested of up to 40ka.

The other date was only supported by the paleomagnetic data. So given the option between Choice 1 (corroborated by diverse independent disciplines) or Choice 2 (corroborated by one scientific discipline)...they opted for Choice 1.

Scott, try to imagine a set of scales like we might find in a kitchen. Not the electric ones, but the ones with a mechanical scale on each side like a balance. Each side of (two) scales represents a choice of conclusion. Now, imagine each point of evidence is a small bag of sugar. On one side of the scales we have more bags of sugar than the other side. Our researchers decided that the side of our scales that had the greatest weight (evidence) was probably the more likely choice of conclusion



alternative interpretation suggests that the intermediate polarity of the Xalnene ash and the reversepolarity of the volcanic lava both originated during the Laschamp geomagnetic event, 45 ka to about 39 ka ago.The Laschamp geomagnetic excursion was fi rst discovered in the Massif Central, France, in the 1960s (5). It remains one of the best-documented recent geomagnetic excursions and has worldwide expression (6). Our interpretation would suggest that Valsequillo is one of the earliest sites of human occupation in America and that it represents significant evidence of early arrival of humans. The origins, the timing, and the route followed by the first colonizers of the American continent remain one of the important topics in human evolution (7-8).
SOURCE


The discovery by Bonhommet and Babkine (1967) of almost reverse directions of magnetization recorded by the Laschamp and Olby lava flows triggered a wide interest. This was indeed the first significant observation supporting the existence of a short geomagnetic event referred as a geomagnetic excursion. Subsequent studies established that these flows were 30 and 40 kyrs old (Gillot et al, 1979) in coincidence with a period of low dipole field intensity.
Laschamp event

Yours
K



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,


SC: In this particular example the science says one thing (1.3 million yrs) but the evolutionary/historical model we have constructed for ourselves forces us to conclude it must be flawed. Why not trust the science? Why not conclude that the evolutionary/historical model we have constructed might actually be flawed?

Kandinsky: Since when did you trust science?!


SC: I have absolutely no problem with trusting science. What I do have a problem with are those scientists who cannot accept the results their own science produces and who proceed to massage such results in order to get it to conform to the prevailing historical paradigm. But we have been here before - no need to go over old ground.


Kandinsky: The results of the scientific analyses mentioned in a previous post offered two possible dates.


SC: Which means that one date is right and the other wrong. You see the 40kya date as more likely to be correct because:

a) You are looking at this particular example in complete isolation from all the other available evidence that indicates an intelligent hominid species in the Americas hundreds of thousands of years ago, if not indeed, millions of years ago. This example in the OP is not the ONLY example of such 'anomalous evidence'.

b) Other evidence from other fields (paleomagnetic, genetic, migratory and evolutionary timelines) are inextricably hidebound to the prevailing monophylogenetic evolutionary model thereby automatically precludes the possibility that such a footprint could have been created by anything other than homo sapiens sapiens. This simplified view of evolution may be fundamentally flawed and, therefore, any evidence presented based on this premise must also be flawed.

If the monophylogenetic evolutionary model can be proven over the polyphylogenetic model then I would say you have a strong case. Alas, however, the polyphylogenetic model is growing in favour amongst scientists and is doing so because it has strengths that the current evolutionary model simply cannot address.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
Hello Scott,

Imagine we have two pallets of bricks. One represents the evidence for 1.3 million ya. The other (of two) represents the evidence for 40ka. The one for 40ka has a lot more bricks on it. The one for 1.3million ya has fewer bricks on it. Gonzalez looked at the 'pallets of bricks' and concluded that the one with the most 'bricks' had the most evidence and was therefore the choice to take. In her subsequent paper The Late Pleistocene Human Occupation of Mexico she refers to around fifty sources to draw and support her conclusions.



If the monophylogenetic evolutionary model can be proven over the polyphylogenetic model then I would say you have a strong case. Alas, however, the polyphylogenetic model is growing in favour amongst scientists and is doing so because it has strengths that the current evolutionary model simply cannot address.


The 'polyphylogenetic' model isn't growing in favor amongst scientists, furthermore there isn't really a 'monophylogenetic'....just a phylogenetic model.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


All night long I was troubled by a comment you made.



Basically, a volcanic event from the the period 45ka - 39ka would account for the reverse polarity of the rock layers the footprints were found in

As a freshmen engineering student I was taught heat pressure and shock all destroy magnetism...So the ejected ash had to come out with all the ferric materials randomized and were deposited as such... With that being a given I next had to ponder how one could get a reversed field in relation to the earths. that took me to a paper...Proceedings of the Japan Academy
Vol.28 , No.6(1952)pp.277-281
----Reverse Thermo-Remanent Magnetism. II
Takesi NAGATA1), Syun-iti AKIMOTO1) and Seiya UYEDA1)
1) Geophysical Institute, Tokyo University

[Released: 2006/09/12]

link to the paper

Basically they claim for this to be possible the material must be cooled in a controlled manner under a very narrow temperature range and even then it must be done in absence of any other magnetic fields and we all know the earth is one big magnet...Okay so stranger things have happened before but how could you separate that ash from the earths magnetic field when it was just lying there on the ground in the open air?... therefor I have to conclude volcanic activity could not have caused the reversal taking us back to the 700,000 + age of the last event... quite a bit older than the 40,000 years proposed...



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,

Thanks for your post. You write:


Kandinsky: Imagine we have two pallets of bricks. One represents the evidence for 1.3 million ya. The other (of two) represents the evidence for 40ka. The one for 40ka has a lot more bricks on it. The one for 1.3million ya has fewer bricks on it.


SC: But what you are failing to realise is that whilst you might have 2 pallets upon which to place evidence, you are not actually treating the 2 pallets with the same rules. You are not, in fact, allowing that any evidence can actually be placed on one of the pallets. Your rules have effectively placed a fence around one pallet, closed and padlocked the gate. The scales are loaded, so to speak. And they are loaded by virtue of present evolutionary dogma that will not allow the gate of polyphylogenetic evolution to be open. The evidence is simply being stacked in favour of the prevailing view because it is 'prohibited' to open the gate to the other pallet.


SC: If the monophylogenetic evolutionary model can be proven over the polyphylogenetic model then I would say you have a strong case. Alas, however, the polyphylogenetic model is growing in favour amongst scientists and is doing so because it has strengths that the current evolutionary model simply cannot address.

Kandinsky: The 'polyphylogenetic' model isn't growing in favor amongst scientists, furthermore there isn't really a 'monophylogenetic'....just a phylogenetic model.


SC: Not so:


Kerkut is one of the scientists in the USA, Europe, and England who is "on the move" regarding evolutionary theory. They no longer accept the old biogenetical dogmas concerning evolution. They regard them in the light of new knowledge in the fields of information theory and molecular biology. Against this background they examine the old theories. Highly qualified academics and professors of reputable universities in the Anglo-Saxon world and in Europe today no longer believe in a transformism of the old Neo-Darwinian type, where a primeval cell is supposed to have changed into all the species of our present biology solely through the forces of chance and natural selection. Today it is clearly not objective to state that only ignorant people refute the Neo-Darwinian theories. To classify doubting academics as ignorant is an emotional matter. Such outbreaks of emotion occurred many years ago in the defense of the Phlogiston theory which was formerly accepted by nearly all "educated" persons.


Source: emporium.turnpike.net...

Regards,

Scott Creighton




[edit on 27/5/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyBare
Funny you said that as in recent times they have found remains of Caucasian-like people that predate what is generally accepted as Native Americans... if true where did they come from? how did they get here, and where did they go?


Couple of things...
First off, Kennewick man is not regarded as Caucasian...the correct term is Caucasoid. He shares morphological characteristics with the Japanese indigenous people, know as the Ainu. They, incidentally, are no better treated than our own First Nations.

Secondly, the word that comes sideways out of Dillehay's Monte Verde site in Chile is 40kya...so Kandinski's discussion of those numbers in Mexico has merit.

Remember, bunkies...horses, not zebras!!



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
Hello Scott,
It's refreshing to see a supporting link
Are you aware the author believed that God created the world some few thousand years ago? That would rather undermine many of our ideas...opposing or not. He was also associated with unsubstantiated claims about the Paluxy footprints. Wilder's rhetoric that...


Highly qualified academics and professors of reputable universities in the Anglo-Saxon world and in Europe today no longer believe in a transformism of the old Neo-Darwinian type, where a primeval cell is supposed to have changed into all the species of our present biology solely through the forces of chance and natural selection


This is unsupported in his book, his references or an online search through academic sites like Springerlink, Lancet or Evesier. Also G.A. Kerkud never made claims of polyphylogenetics either and is merely referred to by Wilder. Do you have a more neutral reference or source to support his or your claims that polyphylogenetics is becoming favored?



SC: As I said - I go with the evidence and more specifically the scientific analysis of that evidence.


I've given you several sources direct from Silvia Gonzalez (that's the person who discovered the footprints and published the results). I've given you supporting sources. I've demonstrated that the haplogroups display common genes that are shared by all humans (phylogenetics). I've given you explanations for the Las champ event and how it relates to the dating of the footprints. I've indicated where you may check Gonzalez' sources and references.

It's often difficult to define your position on any given subject. In this case, is it that (although you don't believe or think) the footprints are 1.3 million years old and possibly created by a (bipedal humanoid) species that evolved separately from a different ancestor? Is it also that Gonzalez has been dishonest in her conclusions?

If you offer the 'possibility' that this is true (footprints being 1.3 million years old etc) whilst not being committed either way, I suggest you at least click on some of the links. If I've misunderstood your position, please correct me and be quite clear



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
The rock is definately much older than 40,000 years.

So the footprints are much older as well.

But who says they are human EARTHLING footprints?

Others could have been visiting ... doing scientific work ... etc ....



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyBare
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I have read the papers and when I was done I had to wonder if rather than stick to the original findings of 1.3 million years they edited themselves to prevent being ostracized and keep their funding...

No. The papers were published after the funding for the expedition was long over. Nor would it prevent future funding.



that is how modern science is done you know... keep the foundations and peers happy ya know... publish or Parrish... have others confirm your findings...

The basis of science is "do other people find the same things that you do" -- eliminate bias.



that wasn't going to happen when the so called experts were already dismissing the prospect out of hand... I think there's a hidden story here but for sake of conforming no ones willing to go out on that limb


Actually, we see this a lot in the sciences where someone has a theory and it's controversial (the "ice age meteor" is a very recent one, as is "is the Hobbit a real human or a deformed human?") We get things kicked around and evidence is pulled in from a number of disciplines until there's a general agreement.

In this case, the evidence for 1.7my is nonexistent. Things that WOULD make for a more solid case are things like the artifacts and evidence found in Africa: stone tools (distinctive), bones, traces of butchered animals, middens (garbage heaps) all dated to 1my or older. There's none of that.

Second measures on the ash showed that it was from a younger flow (this is why you don't race out to publish without getting second opinions.)

Economic and social problems in the Central America area have made it hard for their scientists to get tools and researchers into the field. There's a wealth of material there but it's hard to get to because of these factors.

In any case, there isn't any evidence for hominids in the Americas before 20,000 years... the evidence for them being here as early as 40,000 years is starting to get very solid. But there's none of the things we expect to find earlier than that, and the Native American genetic groups are NOT different enough to indicate such a division.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,


Kandinsky: Are you aware the author believed that God created the world some few thousand years ago?


SC: I fail to see how Dr Smith's religious views have anything to do with the discussion of a scientific theory?? A scientific theory will stand or fall on the evidence that can be found in support of the theory. If evidence is found in support then it is right that the theory should prevail. If evidence is lacking then it is right that the theory should be disregarded.


Highly qualified academics and professors of reputable universities in the Anglo-Saxon world and in Europe today no longer believe in a transformism of the old Neo-Darwinian type, where a primeval cell is supposed to have changed into all the species of our present biology solely through the forces of chance and natural selection.

Kandinsky: This is unsupported in his book, his references or an online search through academic sites like Springerlink, Lancet or Evesier. Also G.A. Kerkud never made claims of polyphylogenetics either and is merely referred to by Wilder. Do you have a more neutral reference or source to support his or your claims that polyphylogenetics is becoming favored?


SC: Alas I do not have his book so I cannot shed any more light on this or confirm that it is "unsupported". If you have the full book and confirm this is indeed the case then I will gladly accept that.


SC: As I said - I go with the evidence and more specifically the scientific analysis of that evidence.

Kandinsk: I've given you several sources direct from Silvia Gonzalez (that's the person who discovered the footprints and published the results). I've given you supporting sources. I've demonstrated that the haplogroups display common genes that are shared by all humans (phylogenetics). I've given you explanations for the Las champ event and how it relates to the dating of the footprints. I've indicated where you may check Gonzalez' sources and references.


SC And I am not saying you are categorically wrong. But neither will I easily roll over and openly accept that the evidence provided conclusively proves the 40k date. As such, I think it more prudent for me to consider other possibilities, including the merits of disparate, polyphylogentic evolution before drawing a firm conclusion.


Kandinsky: It's often difficult to define your position on any given subject.


SC: I think my position here is quite clear. I don't think the available evidence sufficiently proves the 40ky date. 1.3 mya or 40kya? Why not split the difference - 650kya. That's how absurd this is. Now, given my views on polyphylogenetic evolution, the 1.3mya date has to remain a possibility. Of course, as I said, if monphylogenetic evolution can be proved over polyphylogenetic evolution then I would be compelled to accept the 40kya date due to the other scientific evidence that would then come into play (as you have pointed out).


Kandinksky: In this case, is it that (although you don't believe or think) the footprints are 1.3 million years old and possibly created by a (bipedal humanoid) species that evolved separately from a different ancestor?


SC: Given other evidence from other sites in the Americas, I think it must remain a possibility.


Kandinsky: Is it also that Gonzalez has been dishonest in her conclusions?


SC: I'm not aware of this.


Kandinksy: If you offer the 'possibility' that this is true (footprints being 1.3 million years old etc) whilst not being committed either way, I suggest you at least click on some of the links. If I've misunderstood your position, please correct me and be quite clear


SC: I've read the links you provided. But as I have explained to you, given the possibility (if not indeed probability) of polyphylogenetic evolution, the prevailing model of evolutionary theory cannot - IMO - be 'casually' used as evidence to bolster this 40K date. The picture may not be as simple as monophlylogenetic evolution suggests.

Let me put it to you this way. I take the view that it is more than likely that many other lifeforms (some intelligent) exist in our galaxy and indeed, the wider universe. Such life forms developed entirely separately from life on Earth (though some might argue with that). If life can occur independently at disparate locations all over the universe then I see no reason why life could not have taken root at disparate locations here on Earth and evolved different lifeforms from many "trees of life".

Think about it - does it really make sense to you that just ONE such 'tree of life' took root on the Earth?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 27/5/2009 by Scott Creighton]





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join