| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 2:39 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
That depends on if you fit that description or not. DO oyu? DOn't naswer me, answer yourself! I already know the answer.
You already know the answer... well, knowing how biased you are it's rather pointless to continue trying to discuss with you. But I'll try (I've got nothing better to do at this moment anyways).
Let's say you came to a forum, and saw someone say, for instance, "The sky is blue because of the reflection of the water". Something which we both know is incorrect. You then type out a post to explain how it works (scattered air). Remember, you and this person have never met each other, nor know each other.
The reaction? "Shut up, you paid-shill bastard."
Would that reaction be justified? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 289861
no, but if you had already destroyed your own credibility and exposed your agenda , youve earned the criticsm. Maybe its harsh, but thats what you get paid for isnt it?
See how THAT works with me? Sympathy is to be metered out carefully, and never to the enemy. If your stomach cant handle the truth, maybe its because youre not really happy with yourself. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 2:40 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Barls is right. Neither the Hubble Space Telescope, nor the Clementine probe that recently maped the Moons surface, failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions.
Why is that?
Neither has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware.
This is what I mean.
We are expected to believe the Hubble can see into other galaxies, (and I have no reason to doubt that it does) , but then when someone asks to show pics of what was left on the moon, the answer they give is, "Well its just too darn close. We cant see it. You know how it goes".
We can make great pics, extremely far away, but that stuff we left on the moon, ummm no, you cant see that.
(And we could go back there, ya know, we just dont want to)
Do they think we are 3 years old?
You obviously are. Do the math. What is the angular diameter of a 13 foot wide object at a distance of 235,000 miles? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
My point exactly. You expect me to accept that we cannot take a photo or film of something on the moon.
Sorry, not buying it.
The Defense corporate industry could take a photo of a snails rectum on the moon in great detail, I have no doubt of this.
We can film human sperm.
We can take excellent photos from Hubble.
We likely can film a yak in Tibet, or a camel in Egypt, from a satellite.
But the moon is elusive.
It is in that magical area where they just cannot get good photos or film. It is either too close, or too far away, or too something.
Do ya see why a street smart person smells BS on this? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 2:40 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
When did the courts become the sole arbiter of truth? How many published scientific papers have to be examined in court before they are accepted as truth? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
You must not be an American. In the United States, a court case with sworn testimony and cross-examination is the closest we have to an arbitration of truth. Would you prefer the Pope to make a dogmatic pronouncement in the matter?
I have already patiently explained to you that the alleged moon landings do not meet any scientific standard because they are not reproducible experiments. They are, however, fit for publication in this journal:
[link to www.jir.com]
Please read up on the scientific method. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 2:43 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Jim Irwin founded the High Flight ministry, and used his experiences during his preaching. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Preachers often use stories (e.g., parables) to illustrate their preaching. The listener is not supposed to take such stories as literal truth. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/15/2007 2:43 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
no, but if you had already destroyed your own credibility and exposed your agenda Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312662
Ah, in that case the person's reaction was not justified, as credibility was not a matter, and neither was my "agenda". The only experience he had with me was me showing his thoughts on how shutter speeds work incorrect.
Thanks for agreeing with me. At least I'm not the only one who sees that person was not out to see the truth. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 2:44 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Here are other pictures of the landers on the surface (or their shadows, which are longer than the landers themselves) taken from lunar orbit.
[link to www.tass-survey.org] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 2:45 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Barls is right. Neither the Hubble Space Telescope, nor the Clementine probe that recently maped the Moons surface, failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions.
Why is that?
Neither has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware.
This is what I mean.
We are expected to believe the Hubble can see into other galaxies, (and I have no reason to doubt that it does) , but then when someone asks to show pics of what was left on the moon, the answer they give is, "Well its just too darn close. We cant see it. You know how it goes".
We can make great pics, extremely far away, but that stuff we left on the moon, ummm no, you cant see that.
(And we could go back there, ya know, we just dont want to)
Do they think we are 3 years old?
You obviously are. Do the math. What is the angular diameter of a 13 foot wide object at a distance of 235,000 miles?
My point exactly. You expect me to accept that we cannot take a photo or film of something on the moon.
Sorry, not buying it.
The Defense corporate industry could take a photo of a snails rectum on the moon in great detail, I have no doubt of this.
We can film human sperm.
We can take excellent photos from Hubble.
We likely can film a yak in Tibet, or a camel in Egypt, from a satellite.
But the moon is elusive.
It is in that magical area where they just cannot get good photos or film. It is either too close, or too far away, or too something.
Do ya see why a street smart person smells BS on this? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
Your inability to recognize the limitations of angular diameter definitely takes you out of that category. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 2:46 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
One last thing to consider is that some Christians refuse to swear on the Bible, citing verses that proscribe such swearing. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
In court, anyone can take an "affirmation" instead of a genuine oath to God, but a smart jury will heavily discount anything such a person says, because by definition he does not want to take responsibility before God for his truthfulness. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/15/2007 2:47 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
In court, anyone can take an "affirmation" instead of a genuine oath to God, but a smart jury will heavily discount anything such a person says, because by definition he does not want to take responsibility before God for his truthfulness. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
What if the person isn't religious? Wouldn't that person be horribly screwed? |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 2:48 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT! Go look at the alleged landing site photograph! The error was in the effort to highlight the shape and allow the eye to easily percieve it, they darkened it past the point where it matches any of the background.
Proof? DONT MAKE ME LAUGH, FUCKTARD!
I can see cars on my block and even in some cases even determine the type of vehecle with google earth , i would think we could see a lunar lander on the moon by now!
Its a crock and you know it. You should be ashamed of yourself. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 2:51 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
From the music group REM. (Even these guys know something is up with the moon deal)
"Man On The Moon"
Mott the Hoople and the game of Life. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Andy Kaufman in the wrestling match. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Monopoly, Twenty one, checkers, and chess. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Mister Fred Blassie in a breakfast mess. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Let's play Twister, let's play Risk. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
See you heaven if you make the list. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Hey, Andy did you hear about this one? Tell me, are you locked in the punch?
Hey Andy are you goofing on Elvis? Hey, baby. Are we losing touch?
If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon.
If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool.
Moses went walking with the staff of wood. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Newton got beaned by the apple good. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Egypt was troubled by the horrible asp. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Mister Charles Darwin had the gall to ask. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Hey Andy did you hear about this one? Tell me, are you locked in the punch?
Hey, Andy are you goofing on Elvis? Hey, baby. Are you having fun?
If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon.
If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool.
Here's a little agit for the never-believer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Here's a little ghost for the offering. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Here's a truck stop instead of Saint Peter's. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Mister Andy Kaufman's gone wrestling [wrestling bears]. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Hey Andy did you hear about this one? Tell me, are you locked in the punch?
Hey Andy are you goofing on Elvis, hey baby, are we losing touch?
If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon.
If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool. |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 2:55 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The disruption in the structure of the lunar regolith is caused by the landing, Kreslavsky said. He contends that the alteration has been created by the lunar modules engine during touchdown. Quoting: NASA PROPAGANDA
Here we see essentially the admission that Kreslavsky (note sirname)was looking for blast crator from the rocket engine, and found it!
Does this seem like changing the story to fit the arguement again? THINK! WHat did you say when we asked you why there was no blast crator from the rocket motor. Does levae blower ring a bell? WHich is it? It is said a liar best have a good memory. |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 312570
10/15/2007 3:03 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I wouldn't rest your case on "well, we don't have any telescope pictures of stuff at the landing sites" -- obviously NASA has the ability to send unmanned equipment to the moon and mars and it wouldn't surprise me if they already have equipment at the Apollo landing sites (like the laser ranging retroreflector).
If they don't, they could either send some up there before snapping a photo and declaring "see, I told ya so", or they could just photoshop it in.
Anyway, I see that argument getting debunked eventually and I would rest on it -- even if it is debunked with bullshit.
This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 3:04 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The Clementine probe did spot the Apollo 15 landing site.
[ link to www.space.com]
WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT! Go look at the alleged landing site photograph! The error was in the effort to highlight the shape and allow the eye to easily percieve it, they darkened it past the point where it matches any of the background.
Proof? DONT MAKE ME LAUGH, FUCKTARD!
I can see cars on my block and even in some cases even determine the type of vehecle with google earth , i would think we could see a lunar lander on the moon by now!
Its a crock and you know it. You should be ashamed of yourself.
So, let's get this clear...you think that seeing a car from 100 miles up is comparable to seeing a 13 foot wide lander from a quarter-million miles? You're dumber than even I though! |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 312570
10/15/2007 3:06 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Here are other pictures of the landers on the surface (or their shadows, which are longer than the landers themselves) taken from lunar orbit.
[ link to www.tass-survey.org]
If Hoagland had pointed to those same spots and said it was proof of intelligent manipulation of the moon's surface you would have laughed him out of existence.
This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 3:06 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The disruption in the structure of the lunar regolith is caused by the landing, Kreslavsky said. He contends that the alteration has been created by the lunar modules engine during touchdown.
Here we see essentially the admission that Kreslavsky (note sirname)was looking for blast crator from the rocket engine, and found it!
Does this seem like changing the story to fit the arguement again? THINK! WHat did you say when we asked you why there was no blast crator from the rocket motor. Does levae blower ring a bell? WHich is it? It is said a liar best have a good memory. Quoting: IDW 312662
There is no "blast crator". Only a disturbance of the dust and exposure of the regolith. What a dumbass! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3222
10/15/2007 3:07 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Does this seem like changing the story to fit the arguement again? THINK! WHat did you say when we asked you why there was no blast crator from the rocket motor. Does levae blower ring a bell? WHich is it? It is said a liar best have a good memory. Quoting: IDW 312662
"Alteration" does not mean "blast crater".
You've already been told how dust under the lander was known to be disturbed (why shouldn't it be?); but that there was no blast crater.
There is no anomoly here - you are simply clutching at straws. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 3:08 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Look up the Jodrell Bank record of their unsolicited tracking of the LM all the way to the surface, including the doppler shift they noticed as Armstrong piloted over a crater. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
This is an unsubstantiated legend which Jodrell Bank itself reportedly denied in 1997. This URL should show page 317 of a particular book:
[link to books.google.com]
---
However, in September 1997, Jodrel Bank told us there was neither the interest nor the possibility of following 'Apollo 11' as NASA had not supplied them with the pointing data.
---
If you read other Google references to Jodrell Bank, you will find that it was very much a Cold War observation post for the American-British side. Its primary goal was apparently to watch Soviet space activities, not American ones. |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 3:11 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The Clementine probe did spot the Apollo 15 landing site.
[ link to www.space.com]
WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT! Go look at the alleged landing site photograph! The error was in the effort to highlight the shape and allow the eye to easily percieve it, they darkened it past the point where it matches any of the background.
Proof? DONT MAKE ME LAUGH, FUCKTARD!
I can see cars on my block and even in some cases even determine the type of vehecle with google earth , i would think we could see a lunar lander on the moon by now!
Its a crock and you know it. You should be ashamed of yourself.
So, let's get this clear...you think that seeing a car from 100 miles up is comparable to seeing a 13 foot wide lander from a quarter-million miles? You're dumber than even I though!
No sir, but i think seeing from 30 miles up oughta be a snap. Youre forgetting the orbital probes... |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 3:18 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Look up the Jodrell Bank record of their unsolicited tracking of the LM all the way to the surface, including the doppler shift they noticed as Armstrong piloted over a crater.
This is an unsubstantiated legend which Jodrell Bank itself reportedly denied in 1997. This URL should show page 317 of a particular book:
[ link to books.google.com]
---
However, in September 1997, Jodrel Bank told us there was neither the interest nor the possibility of following 'Apollo 11' as NASA had not supplied them with the pointing data.
---
If you read other Google references to Jodrell Bank, you will find that it was very much a Cold War observation post for the American-British side. Its primary goal was apparently to watch Soviet space activities, not American ones.
That house of cards is starting to topple.
You have to wonder why Barls and Hazzard are here.
If something is blatantly obvious, there is no need to defend it.
If someone started a thread, saying "International air travel is impossible", well, I wouldnt even bother to open that thread.
I wouldnt defend and respond on that thread, since its ridiculous.
Yet these guys operate like it s a religion.
 |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 3:42 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Does this seem like changing the story to fit the arguement again? THINK! WHat did you say when we asked you why there was no blast crator from the rocket motor. Does levae blower ring a bell? WHich is it? It is said a liar best have a good memory.
"Alteration" does not mean "blast crater".
You've already been told how dust under the lander was known to be disturbed (why shouldn't it be?); but that there was no blast crater.
There is no anomoly here - you are simply clutching at straws. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3222
Well, if you can see it from orbit it must have been enough to kick some dust up onto the landing pads.Whether you describe it as a crator or a depression or whatever you choose to call it, the two stories DO NOT MATCH. Seeing a dperession where soil was blown away , and Right at the foot of the ladder was soil as deep as NASAs data indicates it is elsewhere on the surface in the vicinity. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 299322
10/15/2007 3:52 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If one is honest with one's self, you have to admit there's a lot that doesn't add up. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 4:01 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If one is honest with one's self, you have to admit there's a lot that doesn't add up. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 299322
But you would then have to admit you were lied to.
Thats a tough nut to crack. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 4:02 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If one is honest with one's self, you have to admit there's a lot that doesn't add up. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 299322
Such as? And please spare us the so-called "discrepancies" that have been debunked a thousand times over. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/15/2007 4:07 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
ESA mapped the areas with two meter resolution and found nothing. The Japanese have alot of interest in the moon, and so do the Chinese. It is a matter of time before it is proved Apollo was hoaxed. Quoting: IDW 312662
That goes both ways. What will you do if/when the Chinese shows you the hardweare exactly were its supposed to be??
Will you claim that they are faked aswell?
How will you face your children when they know the lie you have knowingly perpetrated? Quoting: IDW 312662
I will never have that problem, you will.
Its kind of like bragging about being a hero when youre really contemptuous liar defending the brainwashing of the human collective conscience. Quoting: IDW 312662
Time will tell, right! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 4:08 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If one is honest with one's self, you have to admit there's a lot that doesn't add up.
But you would then have to admit you were lied to.
Thats a tough nut to crack. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
How tough is the nut going to be to crack when the hardware on the moon is photographed by the Japanese or Chinese? |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 4:33 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Two Important points to consider
1) presence of a lunar lander does not automatically mean a manned mission took place
2) no evidence has yet been discovered to prove a manned mission occured. To prove a manned mission occured will require a fairly close up and detailed analysis of the surface around an alleged landing site. The vidence would still be there, preserved in perfect pristine condition. The footprints should still be there, and scientific equipment should be in positions that correlate with the photgraphs and video'evidence'.The presence of hardware on the moon is in of itself evidence of a landing there, not a manned mission.
The NASA photographs are known to be fakes, there is really no sense arguing that point any longer as far as I am concerned and I WILL NOT do so, but that in ofitself does not disqualify the validity of the OS. My personal conclusion is carved in stone, the photgraphs and video are bad fakes, and the physical evidence in the form of lunar soil and rocks is at best highly questionable considering recent revelations that the samples do NOT represent the surface composition of the moon. I know how the missions were faked, Ive already told you my scenario in a fairly detailed description
I dont think film could survive the lunar enviroment in an aluminum bodied camera. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 4:36 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If one is honest with one's self, you have to admit there's a lot that doesn't add up.
Such as? And please spare us the so-called "discrepancies" that have been debunked a thousand times over. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
If they were debunked, you wouldnt be here. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 4:38 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If one is honest with one's self, you have to admit there's a lot that doesn't add up.
But you would then have to admit you were lied to.
Thats a tough nut to crack.
How tough is the nut going to be to crack when the hardware on the moon is photographed by the Japanese or Chinese? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
So your entire theory rests on the Japanese or Chinese photographing the moon?
Your people cannot do it?
Interesting. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 4:41 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Two Important points to consider
1) presence of a lunar lander does not automatically mean a manned mission took place
2) no evidence has yet been discovered to prove a manned mission occured. Quoting: IDW 312662
Getting your excuses ready ahead of time, I see.
The NASA photographs are known to be fakes, there is really no sense arguing that point any longer as far as I am concerned and I WILL NOT do so, but that in ofitself does not disqualify the validity of the OS. My personal conclusion is carved in stone Quoting: IDW 312662
This is the definition of illogical thinking. If nothing can change your mind, then you have lost touch with reality...but we all have known that for quite some time, haven't we.
I dont think film could survive the lunar enviroment in an aluminum bodied camera. Quoting: IDW 312662
That's your problem, IDW...you don't think. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
