Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
98 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 94 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,059 Year: 6,171/6,534 Month: 364/650 Week: 134/278 Day: 2/30 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)
Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5077 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 1 of 346 (469124)
06-03-2008 11:19 PM


Why Lie?

If evolution is such a sound science, why are there such rampant overstated speculations? It seems that one misrepresentation on top of another, is piled up in our science textbooks. I notice how huge a headline is when a new so called discovery is made, but when it turns out to be a fraud, or a mistake, it takes sometimes decades to for it to work its way out of the textbooks and for the scientific community to acknowledge it. I am going to cite a few examples.

Piltdown man: In Sussex England in 1912, a fossil of what was to be called the second most important fossil of the evolution of man, was found in a gravel pit. Some 41 years later the skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age and the teeth had been filed down.

Orce man: Hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe, said to belong to a 17 year old man who lived 1.6 million years ago. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had very detailed drawings done to represent what he would have looked like, and of course, it looks like an intermediary.

Ardilipithecus Ramidus: One tooth? Exactly where this primitive species belongs and whether it walked upright is unknown. How can this even be a part of the fossil record that proves we evolved from a common ancestor?

Australopithecus Afarensis or “Lucy”. A couple teeth, cheekbone fragments, and an incomplete skeleton with no hands or feet bones found, yet they have a full display in the St. Louis Zoo with human feet and hands walking upright. If there is no proof of this, why the elaborate display? Why try to prove what isn’t there? There is much controversy surrounding this “missing link”.

Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis: A fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate. National Geographic was all over this discovery, but when it was found to be a fraud, it seemed like a quite little uh-oh on the back pages. I was at the Museum of Natural History just last year and they still have the banner of Archaeoraptor hanging outside. WHY?

What about Haekel’s embyoes? He was called a fraud in 1874 and it took until 1998 to update some biology textbooks to reflect the truth. It only took 124 years to correct this. I guess in the millions of years of evolution, this isn’t much time.

With so many frauds, the evolutionary family tree is thinning of the fossil evidence necessary to give credence to their theories.

There are many more.

My question is why? Why the rampant overstated speculations? Why the lies? I find it hard to believe that scientist can be so pure at heart that they always stay objective and never let money or fame influence their findings.

I ask again....why lie?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)" to the topic title.

Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : Just to make everyone happy, I am replacing the word "forgeries" with "rampant overstated speculation"


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by The Matt, posted 06-04-2008 8:40 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied
 Message 4 by Stile, posted 06-04-2008 8:54 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-04-2008 9:37 AM Dont Be a Flea has replied
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 06-04-2008 9:54 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied
 Message 7 by Rahvin, posted 06-04-2008 10:39 AM Dont Be a Flea has replied
 Message 9 by Wumpini, posted 06-04-2008 11:04 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2008 11:04 AM Dont Be a Flea has replied
 Message 11 by AZPaul3, posted 06-04-2008 11:20 AM Dont Be a Flea has replied
 Message 69 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-05-2008 9:13 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied
 Message 150 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 1:09 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12814
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 2 of 346 (469158)
06-04-2008 8:14 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

The Matt
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 3 of 346 (469161)
06-04-2008 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea
06-03-2008 11:19 PM


quote:
My question is why? Why the fraud? Why the lies? I find it hard to believe that scientist can be so pure at heart that they always stay objective and never let money or fame influence their findings.

I ask again....why lie?


I think you've answered your own question there. Some people will lie for some kind of personal gain, or maybe just their own amusement.

Be careful not to dismiss perfectly valid science because forgeries have occurred in the past.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-03-2008 11:19 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4077
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 4 of 346 (469164)
06-04-2008 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea
06-03-2008 11:19 PM


Need more scientists
Dont Be a Flea writes:

My question is why? Why the fraud? Why the lies? I find it hard to believe that scientist can be so pure at heart that they always stay objective and never let money or fame influence their findings.

I ask again....why lie?

Like The Matt said... most likely for whatever personal gain they are seeking.

Of course, we need to remember that all of these lies have been uncovered and shown to be fraud by the scientific community following the scientific method. The were not discovered by creationists. They were not discovered by priests or religious figures. They were not discovered by ID proponents. They were discovered through more scientists following the scientific method.

Therefore, in order to prevent any additional frauds our best course of action is to get more people involved as scientists following the scientific method. I think that's a great idea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-03-2008 11:19 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 366 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 346 (469166)
06-04-2008 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea
06-03-2008 11:19 PM


If evolution is such a sound science, why are there so many forgeries?

There aren't.

You have managed to come up with a grand list of three actual forgeries and three things which, in fact, are not forgeries, over a period of over 130 years. Compare that to the total number of fossils discovered. (At a conservative estimate, about 100,000 species.) On the evidence, therefore, such hoaxes are extremely rare.

They are, on the other hand, practically the only fossils that creationists dare to discuss, because real fossils don't support their fantasies.

With so many frauds, the evolutionary family tree is thinning of the fossil evidence necessary to give credence to their theories.

The number of fossils found per year is enormous. You have pointed out three found to be fraudulent in 130 years. At this rate, obviously, the evidence for evolution is constantly increasing, not "thinning".

Why the lies, Don't Be a Flea? Can't you argue for creationism without telling whoppers?

... oh, I forgot. No, you can't.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-03-2008 11:19 PM Dont Be a Flea has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 10:55 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20957
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 6 of 346 (469168)
06-04-2008 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea
06-03-2008 11:19 PM


You ask a great question, "Why lie?" The reason this is a great question is because lying in science is so futile. Replication is a requirement for any research result to become validated, and if other scientists can't replicate it then that can't happen. Any scientist who lies will always be eventually found out. There's just no point to it.

Science studies the real world, and the real world is always out there for anyone to study. Making claims about the real world that aren't true is a loser's game.

Probably the evolutionist lie that lasted the longest was Piltdown man, because the original fossils were kept closeted for many years. Once made available to study the fraud was quickly revealed. But it didn't take many years after their original "discovery" in Piltdown for them to become ignored. Even though the original fossils were rarely made available for study, the claims about them just didn't fit any of the other discoveries of ancient hominid fossils that were being made during that period, nor did it fit with what was known of British paleontology and geology. In other words, the real world was saying, "Nuh-uh!"

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-03-2008 11:19 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by molbiogirl, posted 06-05-2008 3:15 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 151 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 1:11 PM Percy has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 7 of 346 (469171)
06-04-2008 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea
06-03-2008 11:19 PM


Why Lie?

If evolution is such a sound science, why are there so many forgeries? It seems that one lie on top of another, is piled up in our science textbooks. I notice how huge a headline is when a new so called discovery is made, but when it turns out to be a fraud, or a mistake, it takes sometimes decades to for it to work its way out of the textbooks and for the scientific community to acknowledge it. I am going to cite a few examples.

You and others have already pointed it out: there are some very few) scientists who do try to put forward forgeries as a way to gain prestige or money or any of the other reasons human beings give in to greed.

But ask yourself this question:

Who exposes forgeries?

Do Creationists expose them? Nope.

Other scientists do.

It's a very large part of the purpose behind the peer review process to uncover faulty or even fraudulent methodology.

Of course, several of the "forgeries" you mentioned are not forgeries at all, but are simply fossils that are "inconvenient" for Creationists.

But of the ones that were frauds, they were exposed by the scientific community itself.

You seem to be claiming that the Theory of Evolution is weak because a few fraudulent fossils have been put forward over the years. This completely ignored the millions of fossils that have been discovered that support the Theory of Evlution, the direct observations in nature and the laboratory that support the Theory of Evolution, the genetic data that supports the Theory of Evolution...

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Fraud happens, even in science. Nobody is claiming that scientists are all saints. But the scientific method is very good at uncovering fraudulent and inconsistent claims.

Do you even realize that fossils like Orce Man would have completely upset evolutionary theory, rather than supporting it? The couple of fraudulent cases you've put forward are not even forgeries designed to support the Theory of Evolution! You're basing your argument on a gigantic red herring - these fossils are not, and never were, the basis of the Theory of Evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-03-2008 11:19 PM Dont Be a Flea has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 11:22 AM Rahvin has replied

Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5077 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 8 of 346 (469173)
06-04-2008 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Adequate
06-04-2008 9:37 AM


Dr Adequate is in the house!
Thanks for your reply Doc,

I am not arguing anything that has to do with creation or ID. My point is more, if it happened in the past, it more than likely is still happening. A great example would be Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis. Its still hanging around even though it is a huge fraud. I don’t know who to trust. I am not going to blindly accept what a “scientist” says just because he is a scientist. If they forged evidence before for financial or political gain, they are still doing it. Remember Doc, I am talking about lies in evolution, not the validity of creation or ID.

In response to your statement “there aren’t”, I would disagree wholeheartedly. They find fossils and assign assumptions without the full picture. “Lucy” for example, who has no hands or feet bones but is claimed to walk upright. They have no proof of this, so why commission a museum to build a half man, half ape model for the world to ogle at when they have no proof only assumptions. Anthropologist argue that Lucy is no more than a primate knuckle dragger. To me, this is a false representation of the evidence to support their theory. Its no better than a lie or a forgery.

Why make displays and draw pictures of entire races of intermediaries that are merely fragmented incomplete fossils, for the laymen to misunderstand and just “believe” what they are told. I think these are calculated moves, done deliberately to insure further funding for their studies.

PEACE!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-04-2008 9:37 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by bluegenes, posted 06-04-2008 12:16 PM Dont Be a Flea has replied
 Message 16 by Larni, posted 06-04-2008 1:31 PM Dont Be a Flea has replied
 Message 44 by Nuggin, posted 06-05-2008 2:54 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied
 Message 56 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2008 6:59 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5078 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 9 of 346 (469174)
06-04-2008 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea
06-03-2008 11:19 PM


Why Lie?
Hi Don’t Be a Flea,

If evolution is such a sound science, why are there so many forgeries?

Maybe evolution is not a sound science.

It seems that one lie on top of another, is piled up in our science textbooks.

It seems that scientists keep saying that the evidence is overwhelming. Maybe this is why most scientists think the evidence is overwhelming. They grew up with these textbooks with all of these lies in them. I know that when I was a child they had pictures of apes turning into humans. I don’t know if it was a lie, but now they say it was not true. They actually had drawings that made it appear they knew what they were talking about. It makes you wonder whether much of the evidence that scientists claim to have today is a figment of their imagination or an outright fraud.

I notice how huge a headline is when a new so called discovery is made, but when it turns out to be a fraud, or a mistake, it takes sometimes decades to for it to work its way out of the textbooks and for the scientific community to acknowledge it.

Are any of these examples of fraud or mistakes still in textbooks today?

With so many frauds, the evolutionary family tree is thinning of the fossil evidence necessary to give credence to their theories.

Actually, they need more than a bunch of old bones to give credence to their theory. They need some real scientific evidence that macroevolution is even possible. They need to observe this process before they claim it as a fact. Every time they find a fossil, it seems they want to say “here look this proves the "theory of evolution.” You could just as easily say “here look this proves Creation.”

My question is why? Why the fraud? Why the lies? I find it hard to believe that scientist can be so pure at heart that they always stay objective and never let money or fame influence their findings.

There is no such thing as true objectivity in science. Every theory is based upon evidence that is interpreted through an individual’s belief system. Our entire makeup influences how we view the world, and how we view physical evidence. You couple this with the opportunity for financial gain and/or prestige then you could have a real problem. Obviously, you have looked at a number of those problems as it relates to the field of evolution.


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-03-2008 11:19 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 06-04-2008 1:31 PM Wumpini has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1420 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 10 of 346 (469175)
06-04-2008 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea
06-03-2008 11:19 PM


Why Lie?

If evolution is such a sound science, why are there so many forgeries?

If there is any lying it is from the creationist websites from which you cribbed your material.

Most of your "fakes and frauds" center around fossils, so lets concentrate on those.

I challenge you to name five forgeries in the fossil literature. And I'll even spot you the first two: Piltdown Man (a hoax) and Archaeoraptor (a forgery).

So, since there are so many it should be easy for you to come up with just three more forged fossils.

(Hint: avoid the creationist websites -- when it comes to science they lie.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-03-2008 11:19 PM Dont Be a Flea has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 2:01 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 70 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-05-2008 10:59 PM Coyote has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6833
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 11 of 346 (469179)
06-04-2008 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea
06-03-2008 11:19 PM


Why Lie?

Excellent question, Flea.

Why lie about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proving evolution is false when in fact it does not?

Why lie about some mythical flud when all evidence is to the contrary?

Why lie about the supernova data by invoking absurd concepts like “mature light?”

Why lie about the universe being only 6,000 years old when all evidence is to the contrary?

Why lie about dinosaurs on some mythical ark?

Why lie about radiometric dating and the fine structure constant and the speed of light?

Why lie about Einstein’s belief in your god when his own words prove otherwise?

Why lie about there being a god?

Excellent question, Flea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-03-2008 11:19 PM Dont Be a Flea has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 11:29 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5077 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 12 of 346 (469180)
06-04-2008 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rahvin
06-04-2008 10:39 AM


Rahvin
Thanks for responding.

I beg to differ, anytime you put the title “missing link” on something, it becomes “evidence” for evolution.

Look how long Haekle’s embryos were in science textbooks for the up and coming students to just “believe” in. How long will Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis hang around in the mainstream before it is completely removed. Remember, I just saw a banner hanging in the Museum of Natural History last year! Its FAKE! Remove it. How long is fake Lucy going to be on display? How long are pictures of Piltdown man going to be around? The list goes on. Anthropologist are butting heads with paleontologists all the time on whether or not certain fossils are “human” or “ape” or “intermediary”, yet to insure public attention and funding, they roll with controversial evidence.

Out of the “millions” of fossils found, how many actually support macro-evolution and how many are just incomplete bone fragments? There are a lot of assumptions made based on a single tooth, a footprint or one leg bone.

PEACE!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rahvin, posted 06-04-2008 10:39 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rahvin, posted 06-04-2008 2:37 PM Dont Be a Flea has replied
 Message 45 by Nuggin, posted 06-05-2008 3:11 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5077 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 13 of 346 (469182)
06-04-2008 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by AZPaul3
06-04-2008 11:20 AM


I appreciate your reply, AZPaul3.
This thread however has nothing to do with creation or Intelligent design. It has to do with lies in evolution. Please stick to the topic and not try to take us down a rabbit hole. I was looking for defense of what you believe not an attack at what others may believe. We can post up another thread on creation or ID somewhere else. Besides, arguing what may be lies in creation or ID does not erase them from evolution.

PEACE!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by AZPaul3, posted 06-04-2008 11:20 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Nuggin, posted 06-05-2008 3:19 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 06-05-2008 10:50 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1791 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 14 of 346 (469188)
06-04-2008 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 10:55 AM


Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis.
Don't be a Flea writes:

A great example would be Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis.

A great example of what? A Chinese farmer wanted to make money, a dubious American private museum owner fell for it, and National Geographic unwisely published an article on it without peer review then retracted their article just two months later when the fraud was exposed, and published an article about the fraud when they had researched it (within a year of the original article).

An interesting fraud case, but that's all.

I am not going to blindly accept what a “scientist” says just because he is a scientist.

And so you shouldn't. He should present evidence for his claims, and the evidence should be reviewed by other experts in his field whom he has not chosen, and even then, you do not accept it as probable fact unless it's been confirmed by other routes, and even then, it's only tentative.

This story is actually the story of how a good Chinese scientist exposed a fraud by a Chinese farmer as soon as he got a chance to examine the fossil (or fossils, as it was made up of two).

Here's Scientific American in January 2000 strongly suggesting the fraud just "three short months" after the claim was made. Is that your idea of an attempt by the evolutionary scientific establishment to fool the public, Flea? Really?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-jigsaw-fossil

Or is it that you desire evolution to be a fraud? Try being honest with yourself on that one, as we're talking about lies on this thread, aren't we?:)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 10:55 AM Dont Be a Flea has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 1:31 PM bluegenes has replied

Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5077 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 15 of 346 (469194)
06-04-2008 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by bluegenes
06-04-2008 12:16 PM


Re: Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis.
Hey Bluegenes, great to hear from you again

In response to Archaeoroaptor

This story is actually the story of how a good Chinese scientist exposed a fraud by a Chinese farmer as soon as he got a chance to examine the fossil (or fossils, as it was made up of two).

An interesting fraud case, but that's all.

Then why was the banner still hanging in the Museum of Natural History last year? Why was National Geographic so anxious to publish this find?

He should present evidence for his claims, and the evidence should be reviewed by other experts in his field whom he has not chosen, and even then, you do not accept it as probable fact unless it's been confirmed by other routes, and even then, it's only tentative.

I would love to believe that this is how it actually happens, but I find it hard. It seems more likely that whatever evidence would further a foundations’ funding would be more acceptable. I know this is a pretty tuff accusation, but I see it in the cases that I presented.

I see pictures of Velociraptor with feathers now. WHY? There is no hard evidence supporting a Velociraptor having feathers! They lack quill knobs and feathers do not fossilize. The same exists with Gigantoraptor. It is suggested that the POSSIBILITY exists, so now all Velociraptor and Gigantoraptor pictures have feathers to prove what…that Dinosaurs “evolved” into birds. That dinos and birds have a common ancestor? This is using assumption not true science to further the proof of evolution. This IS INDEED fooling the public.

Or is it that you desire evolution to be a fraud? Try being honest with yourself on that one, as we're talking about lies on this thread, aren't we?

Honestly Bluegenes, I find a plethora of holes, deception and lies in Darwinian evolution or “macro” evolution. It makes it hard for me to believe in any of it. How in the heck are we to believe the validity of claims and data, from a group of scientists voting on what other groups of scientists claim to have found? Sounds more like politics to me!

Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : Just needed to add one more little thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by bluegenes, posted 06-04-2008 12:16 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Brian, posted 06-04-2008 1:35 PM Dont Be a Flea has replied
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2008 2:38 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 06-04-2008 2:44 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied
 Message 38 by Jaderis, posted 06-04-2008 7:12 PM Dont Be a Flea has replied
 Message 48 by Nuggin, posted 06-05-2008 3:33 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 06-05-2008 12:28 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022