Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is HAARP feeding SANDY? (The Conspiracy Side)

page: 36
34
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by chr0naut
 


The "Linear Phased Array" for HAARP consists of multiple tuned dipoles. Please read the HAARP specs on the website. MOOB (which is a "boom" reflected back at you).

HAARP doesn't have a linear phased array, it has a matrix phased array.

So.... take your moob, or whatever, and.... I don't know... do something with it.

Inductive reactance implies coiled elements where the magnetic field lines can interact with each other, inducing a phase delay as electromotive force is converted to magnetic field and then back to EMF - what part of the word "linear" did you not understand? MOOB, MOOB.


... (video removed) ...

You suck at this game.

Due to the wonderful weirdness of superconductors, only the top (approx.) 100 nm of a superconductor can actually provide any useful reactance at all (this is called the London distance, which is due to the Meissner effect, which expels magnetic field lines, making inductive reactivity impossible within the bulk of a superconductor). Put simply, coupled with the problem of measuring any potential difference across a superconductor (because they superconduct!), means that superconductors make pretty lousy inductors. MOOB, MOOB, MOOB!

www.google.com...

You are embarassing yourself.

Honestly, I'd just stop if I were you.

HAARP's array consists of multiple tuned dipoles. I was calling it a "linear phased array" because that was the term you were using in previous posts (as anyone following the topic thread will see). Apparently you change your nomenclature on a whim to support your views.

I agree that the video you posted does show how magnetic inductance may happen in situations without a coil but it does not relate at all to superconductors and is a rather more expensive and inefficient way to achieve inductance than a simple coil (static wiring as opposed to a moving magnetic field in a paramagnetic sheath).

The links you gave were for conventional inductors coated with a thin film superconductive layer. In this instance, the Meissner effect in the superconductor constrains the magnetic field within the conventional inductor, thereby increasing the efficiency of the conventional inductor. This is exactly why superconductors alone make poor inductors, as I previously stated.

But all this is beside the point as the dipoles used in HAARP are not likely to be superconductive or coated in a superconductor. I state this because the insulation required would add considerable bulk to the array elements and the freely available photos and specifications show no such bulk or pipework to feed the antennas with supercooling liquids or gasses. The whole superconductor issue is a red herring and is irrelevant to HAARP.

I'm not embarrassing myself. I have not abruptly changed nomenclature when my previous argument was dis-proven, as you have. Nor have I thrown up spurious arguments to support my case.

edit on 9/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
...
You suck at this game.

....

You are embarassing yourself.

Honestly, I'd just stop if I were you.
....
You people are just transparent, honestly...
.....
Are you having a complete mental breakdown?
....
Christ... what is wrong with you?
....

You are disinfo agents and you don't even know it...



I do enjoy the CONTENT-BASED back and forth between you guys, but do you really have to be such a snarky jerk all the time? You come off as an arrogant yob drunk on your own cleverness, which as each rebuttal to your sarcastic point scoring turns out, isn't actually so clever.
You can challenge and disagree without being a douche.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Not for beam forming or antenna geometry.


Would you like to explain how electromagnetic waves reflect off of surfaces then?


It's more critical than that...you need to get the array members positioned to a fraction of a wavelength.


We are dealing with wavelengths on the order of tens of meters....

I'm pretty sure that military grade GPS is accurate to far less than that.


among them bad lobe control and ambiguities that can generate two beams at once.


Well, I guess it's a good thing that our target is hundreds of miles across, eh?


The article refers to an array where the individual elements are non-uniform.


Are you stating that interference patterns only work when emitted from uniform matrix sources?


"we can use the ships themselves" .. you've demonstrated a distinct lack of understanding of the basics, why should I feel there's a lower limit to it?


This isn't actually a response to what I said.... try again.


Polarization is an attribute of the signal, like frequency. Polarization type does NOT affect the wavelength. It also does not affect the focal properties of the dish.


Explain how a surface reflects electromagnetic waves, then... if you're so confident.


Polarization, seperate ship mounted arrays.

Polarization doesn't matter, the arrays HAVE to be spaced and arranged in a precise way. The arrangement part you can somewhat compensate for.


Again, explain how a surface reflects an electromagnetic wave.... if you dare.


Mind control satellites. Get a grip. Everyone knows that mind control is done by the traffic light cameras.


Nah bro.... sattelites



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 



HAARP's array consists of multiple tuned dipoles. I was calling it a "linear phased array" because that was the term you were using in previous posts (as anyone following the topic thread will see). Apparently you change your nomenclature on a whim to support your views.


Very well... a 1 dimensional linear phased array, as opposed to HAARP's 2 dimensional MATRIX phased array.


I agree that the video you posted does show how magnetic inductance may happen in situations without a coil but it does not relate at all to superconductors and is a rather more expensive and inefficient way to achieve inductance than a simple coil (static wiring as opposed to a moving magnetic field in a paramagnetic sheath).


I referred to inductive reactance when you stated a need for an antenna to have some resistance.

at high frequencies, superconductors HAVE inductive reactance, as all conductors do at high AC frequencies.

Normally we refer to this as a "Skin Effect", and it is a form of self induction.


The links you gave were for conventional inductors coated with a thin film superconductive layer. In this instance, the Meissner effect in the superconductor constrains the magnetic field within the conventional inductor, thereby increasing the efficiency of the conventional inductor. This is exactly why superconductors alone make poor inductors, as I previously stated.


And I suppose that the core of the superconductive coil can't be non superconducting?

Again, eddy currents in conductors (and superconductors) create inductive reactance.

The purpose of making the superconductors "Thin Film" is to reduce the inductive reactance of the superconductor to a point where frequencies of >1htz can be achieved.

In a typical superconductor, changing the magnetic flux density is DIFFICULT because the inductive reactance is POWERFUL. (A superconductor normally resists a change in current with all of it's might)


But all this is beside the point as the dipoles used in HAARP are not likely to be superconductive or coated in a superconductor. I state this because the insulation required would add considerable bulk to the array elements and the freely available photos and specifications show no such bulk or pipework to feed the antennas with supercooling liquids or gasses. The whole superconductor issue is a red herring and is irrelevant to HAARP.


I wasn't referring to HAARP, I was trying to design a system that can pump EM radiation into a hurricane at high efficiency and high power.


I'm not embarrassing myself.


You sure about that?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by delusion
 



I do enjoy the CONTENT-BASED back and forth between you guys


HAHAHAHAHA


but do you really have to be such a snarky jerk all the time?


You have no idea....



You come off as an arrogant yob drunk on your own cleverness


Stone cold sober on my own cleverness, actually.... it's non alcoholic.... but filling.


which as each rebuttal to your sarcastic point scoring turns out, isn't actually so clever.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


You can challenge and disagree without being a douche.


IS that what I was doing?

You sure about that?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Would you like to explain how electromagnetic waves reflect off of surfaces then?


If the surface is small compared to the wavelength...it won't.



We are dealing with wavelengths on the order of tens of meters....

I'm pretty sure that military grade GPS is accurate to far less than that.


Holding position is the issue



Well, I guess it's a good thing that our target is hundreds of miles across, eh?


If you don't really care, then just broadcast...



Are you stating that interference patterns only work when emitted from uniform matrix sources?


Misread your cite, didn't you. If you use nonuniform arrays, you end up with blind spots and a big misshapen lobe that varies in size and shape as you swing the beam. Again, if you're going to do a crap job, why not just radiate?



Explain how a surface reflects electromagnetic waves, then... if you're so confident.


Explain how you think polarization affects that. "If you dare." Geez, so melodramatic.

edit to add: of course, the big unanswered question here is - how do you think your nuclear transmitter fleet is radiating hundreds of MW in HF into the storm and isn't noticed by anyone with a receiver.

edit to add more: on second thought, save it. I'm outta here again for the salt mines, see you guys somewhere around Wednesday of next week. I don't have internet out there.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

...

HAHAHAHAHA

...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

...


Glad to have been of service. Carry on.

edit...


Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
...

IS that what I was doing?

You sure about that?


Well you sure as hell aren't AGREEING with people. You seem to be arguing the possible technical details of some highly speculative hypothetical scenario that is entertaining to one watching from the sidelines. You say 'this is possible and has merit as a scenario that is do-able', they say 'no, your understanding is lacking', or 'it may be possible but not under those conditions,' to which you say, 'your knowledge is poor and mine is awesome and you're too stupid to understand what I'm really saying', and then slightly change what you're saying, etc.
If this is the wrong impression and my summary is incorrect I apologise, my understanding may be poor but so may your communication be lacking effectiveness. Hence, subtracting the snark may help.
edit on 9-11-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



If the surface is small compared to the wavelength...it won't.


So, you don't want to explain how EM waves reflect off of a surface?


Holding position is the issue


It's not an issue at all...

All you have to do is alter the phase of each transmitter on the fly, according to some positional program linked to the GPS system.


If you don't really care, then just broadcast...


Generally speaking, That would probably be the best way to do it.... I thought about using Masers, but there are technical difficulties in doing so that would be difficult to get assistance on solving.

As opposed to all of the "Radio Experts" that are easy to contract effort from on ATS.


Misread your cite, didn't you. If you use nonuniform arrays, you end up with blind spots and a big misshapen lobe that varies in size and shape as you swing the beam. Again, if you're going to do a crap job, why not just radiate?


Well, considering the practical application, the beam shape doesn't matter to a great extent... we are, after all, trying to shine, more or less, a giant spotlight onto the side of a 500 mile wide barn.....


Explain how you think polarization affects that. "If you dare." Geez, so melodramatic.


You still don't see what I'm doing, do you?


how do you think your nuclear transmitter fleet is radiating hundreds of MW in HF into the storm and isn't noticed by anyone with a receiver.


How many people use radio in the 1-5 Mhz range?


I'm outta here again for the salt mines


I don't understand that reference.

Are you actually going to salt mines?



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by delusion
 



Glad to have been of service. Carry on.


I fully intend to... thank you.


Well you sure as hell aren't AGREEING with people.


I'm not nessecarily here to agree with them, honestly.... I'm here to find out if HAARP was feeding Hurricane Sandy.

In case you haven't noticed.


You seem to be arguing the possible technical details of some highly speculative hypothetical scenario that is entertaining to one watching from the sidelines.


Yes, and thank you.


You say 'this is possible and has merit as a scenario that is do-able', they say 'no, your understanding is lacking', or 'it may be possible but not under those conditions,' to which you say, 'your knowledge is poor and mine is awesome and you're too stupid to understand what I'm really saying', and then slightly change what you're saying, etc.


That's because I'm designing the system in this thread, with their help.

Duh.

I don't really know ALL that much about the specifics of Radio... I have a background in electricity, and electronics, but there are certain aspects of radio technology and terminology that I am unaware of.

Honestly, My behavior shouldn't be all that suprising, since IN this thread, the topic is the question if there is a technological device capable of Steering a Tropical Cyclone.

And to this effect, I am attempting to create a plausible technological explanation for a device that can do just that.

The people that I am arguing against, are arguing from a perspective of "Deny the possibility at all costs"

As I knew they would, so instead of actually "Arguing the point" I am using their knowledge to expand my own, and further flesh out the concept and idea, in the hopes of explaining the technique and technology.

Unfortunately, the obvious response (that you may be formulating at the current time) of "Then why don't you just ask them how it could work?"

And the reason is, they wouldn't play that game, because their game is denial of possibility, as opposed to the expansion of knowledge, and the denial of ignorance.

Do you understand now?



If this is the wrong impression and my summary is incorrect I apologise, my understanding may be poor but so may your communication be lacking effectiveness. Hence, subtracting the snark may help.


Unfortunately, the snark is necessary... it's the bait.
edit on 10-11-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

In 1990’s, MIT’s Atmospheric Laboratory conducted field trials in non-conventional weather modification technologies.

Through further studies, atmospheric researchers developed a theory that identified macro‐scale weather chaos as ‘the key’ to influencing weather. During late 1990's an independent research team in Australia stumbled on an 'atmospheric mechanism' whilst exploring origins of this theory (link). Experimental trials revealed that “small amounts of electromagnetic energy, applied intelligently,” could force change into weather, based on atmospheric sine wave patterns. This research culminated in the development of an atmospheric resonance technology, represented by Aquiess International (aquiess).

Electromagnetic wave forms are utilized to deliver signals toward a target weather system, that may be as remote as beyond the visible horizon. Proprietary technologies which draw upon data from locally applied hardware and software as well as disparate sensors, are deployed to modify the patterns forming 'oceanic corridors' that deliver rain. Scientific analysis of aquiess' results, shows what is described as 'resonance technology', has both a vast reach and incremental scalability.

www.aquiess.com...




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
 


OK, back to basics:

An aerial is designed to receive or transmit electromagnetic energy by having an electrical potential difference at either end, that oscillates at the frequency fundamental to the EM and spatially conforms to the wavelength of that frequency (or significant harmonic size like 1/2 or 1/4 wavelength).

A system which does not have an electrical potential difference cannot be used as an aerial.

Superconductors do not have an electrical potential difference. That is the nature of superconduction.

Similarly, superconductors have a property where they eject magnetic field lines (the Meissner effect, as mentioned previously). This means that the flow of current in a superconductor (???) could create magnetic field lines, but that these field lines, on collapse, being external to the superconductor, could not induce current back into the superconductor. (Actually, it does slightly, as a skin effect on the surface of the superconductor, but this effect is usually only nanometers thick and not electrically measurable due to superconduction).

But despite any inductive reactance that MAY theoretically occur, the superconductive effect overrides this and there is NO potential difference in a superconductor (You need to have an internal resistance to get a potential difference).

In the instances of using thin film superconductors that you found in Google, the Meissner effect was utilized to constrain the induced magnetic field lines to remain within conventional inductors, thereby increasing their efficiency. The superconductor film HAS to be electrically insulated from the inductor or the superconductor will conduct away any potential difference that may be caused by the induction. In the cases you found in Google, the superconductor is not used to conduct at all.

Please also note that these are scientific papers, not practical applications. Engineers perform cost-benefit analysis when they design their systems and if a cheaper solution will suffice within specification, they will always choose it.

Superconduction theory (Phonons mediated by Cooper pairs) is still not completely accepted but we do know the measured values of superconductors sufficient to use them in engineering applications. The very nature of superconduction precludes many of the effects that we would expect using more mundane substances and based upon known electronic theory.

Unfortunately, in the public mind, words like "superconduction" and "quantum" have a science-fictiony (sic) feel to them and so are misapplied as if they would solve problems for which that they are simply unsuitable.

edit on 10/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia


That's because I'm designing the system in this thread, with their help.

....
And to this effect, I am attempting to create a plausible technological explanation for a device that can do just that.

The people that I am arguing against, are arguing from a perspective of "Deny the possibility at all costs"

As I knew they would, so instead of actually "Arguing the point" I am using their knowledge to expand my own, and further flesh out the concept and idea, in the hopes of explaining the technique and technology.
....


Haha, that's rather ingenious.
Sorry for doubting the efficaciousy of your jerkiness.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Tesla based some of his tech off it and HAARP is Tesla tech at it's heart.
I find this meme to be confusing. Can you explain in what way HAARP has anything to do with the work of Tesla?

Did Tesla invent the phased array? Did Tesla know anything about the heating of plasma with electromagnetic radiation? Do you think that he invented the idea of resonance? It's ironic, Tesla did not believe that the ionosphere (in his day, called the Heaviside layer) existed at all and yet the claim is that he has something to do with a device used to study and manipulate it.

Terrestrial phenomena which I have noted conclusively show that there is no Heaviside layer, or if it exists, it is of no effect.


Tesla did not believe that radio waves (which HAARP uses) were capable of doing anything useful.

The Hertz wave theory of wireless transmission may be kept up for a while, but I do not hesitate to say that in a short time it will be recognized as one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history.


Tesla did not believe that radio would even be of much use for communications.

As regards signaling without wires, the application of these radiations for the purpose was quite obvious. When Dr. Hertz was asked whether such a system would be of practical value, he did not think so, and he was correct in his forecast. The best that might have been expected was a method of communication similar to the heliographic and subject to the same or even greater limitations.


www.tfcbooks.com...
edit on 10/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

LoL wow Phage Here have a look at my avatar tesla showing wireless transmission of power . Or maybe look up his patents. I have to ask do you get paid for what you do here on ATS ?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedomSlave

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Tesla based some of his tech off it and HAARP is Tesla tech at it's heart.
I find this meme to be confusing. Can you explain in what way HAARP has anything to do with the work of Tesla?

Did Tesla invent the phased array? Did Tesla know anything about the heating of plasma with electromagnetic radiation? Do you think that he invented the idea of resonance? It's ironic, Tesla did not believe that the ionosphere (in his day, called the Heaviside layer) existed at all and yet the claim is that he has something to do with a device used to study and manipulate it.

Terrestrial phenomena which I have noted conclusively show that there is no Heaviside layer, or if it exists, it is of no effect.


Tesla did not believe that radio waves (which HAARP uses) were capable of doing anything useful.

The Hertz wave theory of wireless transmission may be kept up for a while, but I do not hesitate to say that in a short time it will be recognized as one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history.


Tesla did not believe that radio would even be of much use for communications.

As regards signaling without wires, the application of these radiations for the purpose was quite obvious. When Dr. Hertz was asked whether such a system would be of practical value, he did not think so, and he was correct in his forecast. The best that might have been expected was a method of communication similar to the heliographic and subject to the same or even greater limitations.


www.tfcbooks.com...
edit on 10/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

LoL wow Phage Here have a look at my avatar tesla showing wireless transmission of power . Or maybe look up his patents. I have to ask do you get paid for what you do here on ATS ?


Tesla believed that power could only be delivered "wirelessly" with one side of the current loop being through the ground, the other through the air.

He did not envision much for standing wave, vacuum propagating, radio waves, as he wanted to be able to deliver more power than pure radio could achieve.

Tesla's interest in radio only really peaked when he realized that Marconi had commercialized "Hertzian" waves by utilizing ideas and equipment that Tesla had used previously but at the time had not foreseen the viability of the application.

edit on 11/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by delusion
 



Haha, that's rather ingenious.


Thank you very much!


Sorry for doubting the efficaciousy of your jerkiness.


It's all a part of my manly essence!



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia


The people that I am arguing against, are arguing from a perspective of "Deny the possibility at all costs"




Well yes, lol,that's there job, I mentioned this about 30 pages ago, and not just that but to try and steer anyone away from even looking in the first place. While obviously there are people simply trapped in their small bubble worlds, there are also people paid for by the military and gov. interests to set in on social media sites and try and steer the herd away, especially on these topics of military weapons systems and how they are being used. I think these hacks and aplogists are failing miserably though, no matter how much time and effort they spend, whenever I go to about any site now on the net now, whether financial, medical, political, etc. the gatekeepers seem to be having little to no effect, they can try to obfuscate, deny, derail, flat out lie, belittle, name call,lol all to no avail, word is getting out, people continue learning and asking even more questions and encouraging others in the process. Great isn't it? Keep on keeping on, never let their pathetic tag team efforts wear you down, they are wasting their time, they just haven't figured it out yet
edit on 11-11-2012 by Tecumte because: shorten text
edit on 11-11-2012 by Tecumte because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte
...
... they can try to obfuscate, deny, derail, flat out lie, belittle, name call,lol all to no avail, ....


I've seen no evidence of this, can you point out where on this thread anyone supporting the non-doomsday weapon capabilities of HAARP has gone out of their way to harrass or insult (other than the normal cut and thrust of internet debate), or in particular said anything demonstrably false or blatantly a lie? If not, isn't what YOU said a lie?
Or are you talking about some other sites? And if so, how is what you said relevant?
What if they're not paid servants but just knowledgable amateurs, or even experts, in this field, in a position to answer the questions from the less well informed (or more often the ignorant yet smugly self-satisfied hysterical claims of persecution from 'evil science')?
It happens, not everyone who disagrees with your world view is in on the conspiracy. That way mental-illness lies.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
That looks like a silly proposition to me. I wouldn't rule out these kinds of attacks by the government on their own people in the case of massive civil unrest. In this case, however, it seems preposterous to suggest that the intelligence community/military would cause so much suffering in order to influence the election.

Oh, they (the american intelligence community) are keen on influencing other people's elections. Their own? I doubt it matters to them, at least in this case. Maybe if Ron Paul was running...

You know intelligence/military are supposed to be subject to congress and the executive branch. You also know it has been working the other way around. I don't know how much of a bad thing that is - sounds only barely bad to me considering the widespread corruption of career politicians. I do know that if it came down to influencing an election they could just leak dirt on anybody. Much less bloody and much more thrilling. Eventually they will be able to rig it electronically if it's ever needed. That one needs not be mentioned, but let's just mention it for paranoid's sake.

On the other hand, I would guess a major disaster that left so many without electricity would much interest the government in order to feed their disaster scenarios. In the same vein, remote denial of electrical devices is pretty much the only thing I'm completely convinced HAARP can do very, very well.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by Tecumte
...
... they can try to obfuscate, deny, derail, flat out lie, belittle, name call,lol all to no avail, ....


I've seen no evidence of this, can you point out where on this thread anyone supporting the non-doomsday weapon capabilities of HAARP has gone out of their way to harrass or insult (other than the normal cut and thrust of internet debate), or in particular said anything demonstrably false or blatantly a lie? If not, isn't what YOU said a lie?
Or are you talking about some other sites? And if so, how is what you said relevant?
What if they're not paid servants but just knowledgable amateurs, or even experts, in this field, in a position to answer the questions from the less well informed (or more often the ignorant yet smugly self-satisfied hysterical claims of persecution from 'evil science')?
It happens, not everyone who disagrees with your world view is in on the conspiracy. That way mental-illness lies.



Well... anyway, heres a thread I started where the topic is about weather mod. some old methods some newer ones using radio waves etc. to modify weather. Can the big interests accelerate, or decrease, or even engineer a hurricane, well I would say theoretically, sure, why not, the skies the limit on options to do so, alot of work heard of, and likely not heard of regarding weather mod in 2012. It's not 1940 anymore.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by Tecumte
...
... they can try to obfuscate, deny, derail, flat out lie, belittle, name call,lol all to no avail, ....


I've seen no evidence of this, can you point out where on this thread anyone supporting the non-doomsday weapon capabilities ... said anything demonstrably false or blatantly a lie?


Yes.

I illustrated a couple for you.





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join