This fact was finally brought home to us by two other students, John F. Malsbenden and George Batchelder Fig. They had been bending over the map during one of our long night sessions 10 when suddenly Malsbenden straightened up and exclaimed indignantly that all our work had been wasted, that the line we had picked out was not the right one.
In an inscription on his map which we had overlooked Piri Re'is had himself indicated an entirely different line. It was the first line, the line of , and it did not go through the wind rose at all. The mistake, however, had served its purpose. It was true enough that the line we had picked out on the Piri Re'is Map represented neither line; nevertheless it was close enough to the position of the Demarcation Line of to give us a first clue to the longitude.
Another error that turned out to be very profitable was the assumption we made, during a certain period of time, that perhaps our map was oriented not to True North, but to Magnetic North. Later, we were to find that many, if not most, of the portolanos were indeed oriented, very roughly, to Magnetic North.
Some writers on the subject had argued, as already mentioned, that the lines on the portolan charts were intended only for help in finding compass directions, and were therefore necessarily drawn on Magnetic North. In the interest of maximum precision, I wanted to find out how the question of Magnetic North might affect the longitude of the Second Demarcation Line, which now determined our radius.
If the Demarcation Line lay at 46 30' West Longitude at the Cape Verde Islands, it would, with a magnetic orientation, lie somewhat farther west at the latitude of the northern wind rose, and this would affect the radius. We spent time trying to calculate how much farther west the hne would be. This in turn involved research to discover the amount of the compass declination the difference between True and Magnetic North today in those parts of the Atlantic, and speculation as to what might have been the amount of the variation in the days of Piri Re'is or in ancient times.
We found ourselves in a veritable Sargasso Sea of uncertainties and frustrations. Fortunately, we were rescued from this dead end by still another wrong idea. I noticed that the circle drawn with Syene as a center, and with a radius to the intersection of the supposed Second Demarcation Line with the northern wind rose, appeared to pass through the present location of the Magnetic Pole.
We then allowed ourselves to suppose nothing being impossible that somebody in ancient times had known the location of the Magnetic Pole and had deliberately selected a radius that would pass through it. Shaky as this assumption might have been, it was at least better than the Demarcation Line, since in ancient times. The Magnetic Pole is, however, very unsatisfactory as a working assumption because it does not stay in one place.
It is always moving, and where it may have been in past times is anybody's guess. In the middle of this I read Nordenskiold's statement that the portolan charts were drawn on True North, and not on Magnetic North In this Nordenskiold was really mistaken, unless he meant that the charts had originally been drawn on True North and then had been reoriented in a magnetic direction.
But his statement impressed us, and then I observed, looking again at the globe with our circle drawn on it, that the circle that passed through the Magnetic Pole also passed very close indeed to the True Pole. Now, you may be sure, we abandoned our magnetic theory in a hurry, and adopted the working assumption that perhaps someone in ancient times knew the true position of the Pole, and drew his radius from Syene on the Tropic of Cancer to the Pole.
Again, hindsight came to our support. As in the case of the Tropic of Cancer, the Pole was astronomically determined: It was a precisely located point on the earth's surface. It appeared to us that we had swum through a murky sea to a safe shore. We had now reached a point where it would be feasible to attempt a confirmation of the whole theory by trigonometry. We were proceeding now on the following asumptions: 1 The center of the projection was at Syene, on the Tropic of Cancer and at longitude 32Y:!
By comparison with the African coast of the Gulf of Guinea, this line, indeed, appears to be very close to the position of the equator. Nevertheless, this was not merely an assumption but also guesswork. We could not know, either, that the ancient mapmaker had precise information as to the size of the earth, which would be necessary for correctly determining the positions of the poles and the equator.
Such assumptions could be only working assumptions, to be used for purposes of experiment and discarded if they proved wrong. They were, however, the best assumptions we had been able to come up with so far, and assumptions we had to have to work with.
We could now give our mathematician, Strachan, the data he required for a mathematical analysis. He calculated the positions of all the five projection centers on the Piri Re'is Map to find their precise locations in latitude and longitude. I have tried to explain this in Fig. Here I have drawn the first radius from the center of the projection to the point of intersection of the assumed equator with the perimeter of the circle.
I then have laid out the other radii at angles of 22Y:! For the calculations see Appendix. In this way, our assumption that this equator is precisely correct controls the latitudes to be found for the other four projection points. The assumed equator is the base line for latitude, just as Syene is the reference point for longitude. Strachan initially computed the positions of the five projection points both by spherical and by plane trigonometry. At each successive step, with varying assumptions as to the radius of the projection and the position of its center, he did the same thing, but in every case the calculations by plane trigonometry made.
A diagram of the hypothetical Piri Re'is projection, as based on the equator. It became quite clear that our projection had been constructed by plane trigonometry. The total difference of latitude between Point I and Point V, divided by the millimeters that lay between them on our copy of the map we used a tracing of our photograph of the map , gave us the length of the degree of latitude in millimeters.
To check on any possible irregularities we measured the length of the degree of latitude separately We followed the same procedure with the longitude, as illustrated in Fig. The lengths of the degrees of latitude and longitude turned out to be practically the same; we thus appeared to have a square grid. In doing this we disregarded the scales actually drawn on the map, since there was no way of knowing when or by whom they had been drawn, or what units of distance they had represented.
The next step was to learn how to draw a grid, not at all an easy task. It was not a particularly complicated task, but it demanded a very high level of accuracy and an extreme degree of patience. Fortunately, one of my students, Frank Ryan, was qualified for the job.
Command, known as SAC. Later, it was attached to the 8th Air Force. Needless to say, the personnel of that unit were competent to serve the demanding requirements of the Air Force, as far as mapmaking was concerned, and Frank Ryan had been intensively trained in the necessary techniques.
He had had the experience of being drafted into the Air Force: now he had the experience of being drafted again, to draw our grid. The captain offered us his fullest cooperation in preparing a draft map with the solution of the projection, and virtually put his staff at our disposal. The co-operation between us lasted more than two years, and a number of officers and men gave us very valuable assistance. Ohlmeyer reviewed and endorsed our work Note The procedure for drawing the grid was as follows: All the meridians were drawn parallel with the prime meridian, at intervals of five degrees, and all parallels were drawn parallel with the assumed equator, at intervals of five degrees.
These lines did not turn out in all cases to be precisely parallel with the other lines of the big grid traced from the Piri Re'is Map, but this was understandable. The effect might have resulted from warping of the map, or from carelessness in copying the lines from the ancient source map Piri Re'is used. We had to allow for a margin of error here, for we could not be sure that no small errors had crept in when the equator or the prime meridian was recopied.
Here, as in other respects, we simply had to do the best we could with what we had. We identified all the places we could on the map and made a table comparing their latitudes and longitudes on the Piri Re'is Map with their positions on the modern map.
The errors in individual positions were noted and averages of them made Table 1. The Table is, of course, the test of our solution of the Piri Re'is projection. But I must not get ahead of my story. We found that some of the positions on the Piri Re'is Map were very accurate, and some were far off.
Gradually we became aware of the reasons for some of the inaccuracies in the map. We discovered that the map was a composite, made up by piecing together many maps of local areas perhaps drawn at different times by different people , and that errors had been made in combining the original maps.
There was nothing extraordinary about this. It would have been an enormous task, requiring large amounts of money, to survey and map all at once the vast area covered by the Piri Re'is Map. Undoubtedly local maps had been made first, and these were gradually combined, at different times, into larger and larger maps, until finally a world map was attempted.
This long process of combining the local maps, so far as the suru u. This theory will, I believe, be established by what follows. What Piri Re'is apparently did was to combine this compilation with still other maps-which were probably themselves combinations-to make his world map.
The students were responsible for discovering many of the errors. Lee Spencer and Ruth Baraw examined the east coast of South America with great care and found that the compiler had actually omitted about miles of that coastline. It was discovered that the Amazon River had been drawn twice on the map.
We concluded that the compiler must have had two different source maps of the Amazon, drawn by different people at different times, and that he made the mistake of thinking they were two different rivers. We also found that besides the equator upon which we had based our projection so far as latitude was concerned there was evidence that somebody had calculated the position of the equator differently, so that there were really two equators. Ultimately we were able to explain this conflict. Other important errors included the omission of part of the northern coast of South America, and the duplication of a part of that coast, and of part of the coasts of the Caribbean Sea.
A number of geographical localities thus appear twice on the map, but they do not appear on the same projection. For most of the Caribbean area the direction of North is nearly at right angles to the North of the main part of the map. As we identified more and more places on our grid, and averaged their errors in position, we found all over the map some common errors that indicated something was wrong with the projection. We concluded that there must still be errors either in the location of the center of the map, in the length of the radius, or both.
There was no way to discover these probable errors except by trying out all reasonable alternatives by a process of trial and error. This was time consuming and a tax on the patience of all of us.
With every change in the assumed center of the map, or in the assumed radius, Strachan had to repeat the calculations, and once more determine the positions of the five projection points. Then the grid had to be redrawn and all the tables done over. As each grid in turn revealed some further unidentified error, new assumptions had to be adopted, to an accompaniment of sighs and groans.
We had the satisfaction, however, of noting a gradual diminution of the errors that suggested that we were approaching our goal. Among the various alternatives to Syene as the center of the map we tried out, at one stage, the ancient city of Berenice on the Red Sea.
This was the great shipping port for Egypt in the Alexandrian Age, and it, too, lay on the Tropic of Cancer. Berenice seemed to be a very logical center for the map because of its maritime importance. We studied the history of Berenice, and everything seemed to point to this place as our final solution. But then, as in an Agatha Christie murder mystery, the favorite suspect was proved innocent. The tables showed the assumption to be wrong, for in this case the errors were even increased.
We had. Now we went back to Syene, but with a difference. The tables showed that the remaining error in the location of the center of the map was small.
Therefore we tried out centers near Syene, north, east, south and west, gradually diminishing the distances, until at last we used the point at the intersection of the meridian of Alexandria, at 30 East Longitude, with the Tropic. This finally turned out to be correct. Immediately hindsight began to make disagreeable comments. Why hadn't we thought of this before? Why hadn't we tumbled to this truth in the beginning? It combined all the most reasonable elements: the use of the Tropic, based on astronomy, and the use of the meridian of Alexandria, the capital of ancient science.
Later we were to find that all the Greek geographers based their maps on the meridian of Alexandria. Remaining errors in the tables suggested something wrong with the radius. We knew, of course, that our assumption that the mapmaker had precise knowledge of the size of the earth was doubtful. It was much more likely that he had made some sort of mistake.
We therefore tried various lengths. We shortened the radius a few degrees, on the assumption that the mapmaker might have underestimated the size of the earth, as Ptolemy had. This only increased the errors. Then we tried lengthening the radius. The entire process of trial and error was repeated with radii r, 5, zo, and 1o too long. Finally we got our best results with a radius extended three degrees. This meant that our radius was not A matter of great importance, which we did not realize at all at the time, was that we were, in fact, finding the length of the radius and therefore the length of the degree with reference mainly to longitude.
I paid much more attention to the average errors of longitude than I did to the errors of latitude. I was especially interested in the longitudes along the African and South American coasts. Our radius was selected to reduce longitude errors to a minimum while not unduly increasing latitude errors.
As it turned out, this emphasis on longitude was very fortunate, for it was to lead us to a later discovery of considerable importance. With regard to the overestimating of the circumference of the earth, there was one geographer in ancient times who made an overestimate of about this amount.
This was Eratosthenes. Does this mean that Eratosthenes himself may have been our mapmaker? Probably not. We have seen that the Piri Re'is Map was based on a source map originally drawn with plane trigonometry. Trigonometry may not have been known in Greece in the time of Eratosthenes.
It has been supposed that it was invented by Hipparchus, who lived about a century later. Hipparchus discovered the precession of the equinoxes, invented or at least described mathematical map projections, and is generally supposed to have developed both plane and spherical trigonometry 58 ; We must interfere in this dispute between Hipparchus and Eratosthenes to raise an interesting point.
Did Hipparchus criticize his predecessor for not using mathematically constructed projections on which to place his geographical data? If so, his criticism looks unreasonable. The construction of such projections requires trigonometry. If Hipparchus himself developed trigonometry, how could he have blamed Eratosthenes for not using it a century before? Hipparchus' own books have been lost, and we really have no way of knowing whether the later writers who attributed trigonometry to Hipparchus were correct.
Perhaps all they meant, or all he meant or said in his works, was that he had discovered trigonometry. He might have discovered it in the ancient Chaldean books whose star data made it possible for him to discover the precession of the equinoxes. But this is speculation, and I have a feeling that it is very much beside the point. If Hipparchus did in fact develop both plane and spherical trigonometry, the Piri Re'is Map, and the other maps to be considered in this book, are evidence suggesting that he only rediscovered what had been very well known thousands of years earlier.
Many of these maps must have been composed long before Hipparchus. But it is not possible to see how they could have been drawn as accurately as they were unless trigonometry was used. See Note 7. We have additional confirmation that the Piri Re'is projection was based on Eratosthenes' estimate of the size of the earth.
The Greeks had a measure of length, which they called the stadium. Greek writers, therefore, give distances in stadia. Our problem has been that they never defined this measure of length. We have no definite idea, therefore, of what the stadium was in terms of feet or meters. Estimates have varied from about feet to over Further, we have no reason to even suppose that the stadium had a standard length. It may have differed in different Greek states and also from century to century.
A great authority on the history of science, the late Dr. George Sarton of Harvard, devoted much attention to trying to estimate the length of the stadium used by Eratosthenes himself at Alexandria in the 3rd Century B. He concluded that the "Eratosthenian stadium" amounted to feet l U The solution of the Piri Re'is projection has enabled us to check this.
However, a knowledge of plane trigonometry has been attributed to Appolonius, an earlier Greek scientist, by Van der Waerden The date of its origin appears, then, unknown. Presumably, it proves the amount of the overestimate of the earth's circumference to be 4:!
Eratosthenes gave the circumference of the earth as , stadia. We checked the length of his stadium by taking the true mean circumference of the earth 24, miles , increasing this by 4:!
We got a stadium feet long. Now, if we compare our result with that of Sarton, we see that there is a difference of only 12 feet, or about 2 per cent. It would seem-again by hindsightthat we could have saved all our trouble by merely adopting Eratosthenes' circumference and Sarton's stadium. We could then have drawn a grid so nearly like the one we have that the naked eye could not have detected the difference.
The next stage, which came very late, was our realization that if Eratosthenes' estimate of the circumference of the earth was used for drawing Piri Re'is' source map, and if it was 4:! It was now necessary to redraw the whole grid to correct it for the error of Eratosthenes. We found that this resulted in reducing all the longitude errors until they nearly vanished. This was a startling development. It could only mean that the Greek geographers of Alexandria, when they prepared their world map using the circumference of Eratosthenes, had in front of them source maps that had been drawn without the Eratosthenian error, that is, apparently without any discernible error at all.
We shall see further evidence of this, evidence suggesting that the people who originated the maps possessed a more advanced science than that of the Greeks. But now another perplexing problem appeared. The reduction of the longitude errors left latitude errors that averaged considerably larger.
Since accurate longitude is much more difficult to find than accurate latitude, this was not reasonable. There had to be some further undetected error in our projection. We started looking for this error, and we found one. That is, we found an error. It was not quite the right one; it did not solve our problem, but it helped us on the way.
As already mentioned, we had found the positions of the five projection points by laying out a line first from the center of the projection to the intersection of the circle with the line on the Piri Re'is map running horizontally through the middle projection point, Point III, assuming this to be the equator. We had used this assumed equator as our base line for latitude.
When we laid out the projection in this way, we had not yet realized that the mapmaker was much more likely to have drawn his first radius from the center of the map directly to the pole and not to the equator.
If he did this, since his length for the degree was wrong, then his equator must be off a number of degrees. This required new calculations, and still another grid.
At first, this new grid seemed to make matters worse, especially on the coast of Africa. The equator seemed to pass too near the Guinea coast by approximately. A diagram of the hypothetical Piri Re'is projection as based on the North Pole.
My heart sank when this result became apparent, but I am thankful that I persisted in redrawing the grid despite the apparent increase in the errors, for the result was a discovery of the very greatest importance. At first I thought that the African coast and that of Europe had simply been wrongly placed too far south on the projection. But I soon saw that if the African coast appeared too far south on the corrected projection, the French coast was in more correct latitude than before.
There was simply, I first concluded, an error in scale. Piri Re'is, or the ancient mapmaker, had used too large a scale for Europe and Africa. But why, in that case, though latitudes were thrown out, did longitudes remain correct?
I finally decided to construct an empirical scale for the whole coast from the Gulf of Guinea to Brest to see how accurate the latitudes were relative to one another.
The result showed that the latitude errors along the coasts were minor. It was obvious that the original mapmakers had observed their latitudes extremely well.
From this it became apparent that those who had originally drawn this map of these coasts had used a different length for the degree of latitude than for the degree of longitude. In other words, the geographers who designed the square.
What kind of projection was it? Obviously it was one that took account of the fact that, northward and southward from the equator, the degree of longitude in fact diminished in length as the meridians drew closer toward the poles.
It is possible to represent this by curving the meridians, and we see this done on many modern maps. It is also possible to represent this by keeping the meridians straight and spacing the parallels of latitude farther and farther apart as the distance from the equator increases. The essential point is to maintain the ratio between the lengths of the degrees of latitude and longitude at every point on the earth's surface.
Geographers will, of course, instantly recognize the projection I have described here. It is the Mercator projection, supposedly invented by Gerard Mercator and used by him in his Atlas of Note 5. For a time we considered the possibility that this projection might have been invented in ancient times, forgotten, and then rediscovered in the 16th Century by Mercator Note Further investigation showed that the device of spreading the parallels was found on other maps, which will be discussed below.
I was very reluctant to accept without further proof the suggestion that the Mercator projection in the full meaning of that term had been known in ancient times. I considered the possibility that the difference in the length of the degree of latitude on the Piri Re'is Map might be arbitrary. That is, I thought it possible that the mapmaker, aware of the curvature of the earth, but unable to take account of it as is done in the Mercator projection by spherical trigonometry, had simply adopted a mean length for the degree of latitude, and applied this length over the whole map without changing the length progressively with each degree from the equator.
Strangely enough, shortly after this, I found that, according to Nordenskiold, this is precisely what Ptolemy had done on his maps see Note 9. This is, of course, another indication of the ancient origin of Piri Re'is' source map. This is not quite the end of the story. We shall see, in subsequent consideration of the De Canerio Map of , that the oblong grid, used by Ptolemy and found on the Piri Re'is Map, has its origin in an ancient use of spherical trigonometry.
These successive discoveries finally enabled us to draw a modern grid for most of the Piri Re'is map, as shown in Figure Here the Pnme Meridian of Grid B. These changes were no doubt the work of later geographers. The northward shift of the geography of the main grid had the effect of pushing the geography of Grid B westward about 4 , thus increasing the longitude errors of that part of the map.
Grid B is determined both as to latitude and longi tude by the trigonometry of the projection based on the pole. Both the prime meridian and the equator of Grid B can be considered extensions of the lines of Grid A.
For a list of the numbered geographical points , see below. For a list of the numbered geographical points with comparative tables of their latitudes and longi tudes , see Table 1. Grids C and D represent errors in compilation, Grid C having an error in scale, and Grid D being unrelated to the trigonometric projection. Templars in America is a wild ride through the golden age of exploration to the founding of the United States of America.
One of the most beautiful maps to survive the Great Age of Discoveries, the world map drawn by Ottoman admiral Piri Reis is also one of the most mysterious. Gregory McIntosh has uncovered new evidence in the map that shows it to be among the most important ever made. This detailed study offers new commentary and explication of a major milestone in cartography.
Correcting earlier work of Paul Kahle and pointing out the traps that have caught subsequent scholars, McIntosh disproves the dubious conclusion that the Reis map embodied Columbus's Third Voyage map of , showing that it draws instead on the Second Voyage of He also refutes the popular misinterpretation that Reis's depictions of Antarctica are evidence of either ancient civilizations or extraterrestrial visitation.
McIntosh brings together all that has been previously known about the map and also assembles for the first time the translations of all inscriptions on the map and analyzes all place-names given for New World and Atlantic islands. His work clarifies long-standing mysteries and opens up new ways of looking at the history of exploration.
Return to the fray of the Afrocentrist movement in the second volume of White Athena. Walter Slack follows up his first volume, which took to task those who claim that the Greeks and others stole their philosophy, science, and culture from black Africans—arguing that the world needs to give credit to the right people.
This volume is much less a comparison of diverse philosophies and cosmologies, and much more an evaluation of claims regarding imagined imports of technical, cultural, religious, and practical artifacts. Slack examines numerous Afrocentrist claims, including that cultural tutors from black Africa roamed early Europe, Muslim Spain, and pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and even traveled to ancient China with all sorts of cultural, intellectual, and scientific contributions.
The author concludes that most damaging to the credibility of Afrocentrists is their willingness to adopt any and every theory that supports their ideological thesis of African cultural supremacy—overtly or covertly—based upon race. Open your mind to an honest and impartial view of world history with White Athena, Volume 2. Did the ancients have the technology of flight?
In this incredible volume on ancient India, authentic Indian texts such as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, are used to prove that ancient aircraft were in use more than four thousand years ago.
Also included are chapters on Atlantean technology, the incredible Rama Empire of India and the devastating wars that destroyed it. Also an entire chapter on mercury vortex propulsion and mercury gyros, the power source described in the ancient Indian texts. Not to be missed by those interested in ancient civilizations or the UFO enigma.
It also predicts future pole shifts: a planetary alignment will cause the next one on 5 May ! The collection shows humans interacting with dinosaurs and various other 'monsters' such as horned men.
Both Hapgood and Earl Stanley Gardner were convinced that the figurines from Acambaro were authentic ancient artifacts that indicated that men and dinosaurs had cohabited together in the recent past, and that dinosaurs had not become extinct many millions of years ago as commonly thought. David Hatcher Childress writes a lengthy introduction concerning Acambaro, the latest testing, and other evidence of 'living' dinosaurs.
Using archival and archaeological sources, Tim Wallace-Murphy and Marilyn Hopkins reveal the Venetian connection between the Knights Templar and pre-Columbian America and prove the continuous history of such exploration from the time of ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome, through the Viking explorations. Told in fascinating detail, this story takes as many twists and turns as a historical mystery novel. Templars in America takes readers through the many possible early explorations of America, which set the stage for the real mystery: the tale of how various dealings between Venice and Normandy resulted in the Templars coming to America.
Two leading European Templar families, nearly years before Columbus, combined forces to create a new commonwealth in America. This is the story of Henry St. These early explorers made peaceful and mutually beneficial contact with the Canadian Mikmaq people. Although the voyage had little immediate political or commercial impact, it acts as a signpost to a centuries-long process that culminates in the beliefs and traditions of the Templars and Freemasonry, shaping the thinking of the founding fathers of the United States and the American Constitution.
Templars in America is a wild ride through the golden age of exploration to the founding of the United States of America. Gregory McIntosh has uncovered new evidence in the map that shows it to be among the most important ever made.
This detailed study offers new commentary and explication of a major milestone in cartography. Correcting earlier work of Paul Kahle and pointing out the traps that have caught subsequent scholars, McIntosh disproves the dubious conclusion that the Reis map embodied Columbus's Third Voyage map of , showing that it draws instead on the Second Voyage of He also refutes the popular misinterpretation that Reis's depictions of Antarctica are evidence of either ancient civilizations or extraterrestrial visitation.
McIntosh brings together all that has been previously known about the map and also assembles for the first time the translations of all inscriptions on the map and analyzes all place-names given for New World and Atlantic islands.
His work clarifies long-standing mysteries and opens up new ways of looking at the history of exploration. Walter Slack follows up his first volume, which took to task those who claim that the Greeks and others stole their philosophy, science, and culture from black Africans—arguing that the world needs to give credit to the right people. Both Hapgood and Earl Stanley Gardner were convinced that the figurines from Acambaro were authentic ancient artifacts that indicated that men and dinosaurs had cohabited together in the recent past, and that dinosaurs had not become extinct many millions of years ago as commonly thought.
David Hatcher Childress writes a lengthy introduction concerning Acambaro, the latest testing, and other evidence of 'living' dinosaurs. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible.
Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world , and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity individual or corporate has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
Author : J.
0コメント