47 47
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

the road is called the Lewis river road that runs along the river. that is what the black line represents on the maps. if that is the random lines you are talking about?
"It is surprising how aggressive people get, once they latch onto their suspect and say, 'Hey, he's our guy.' No matter what you tell them, they refuse to believe you" Agent Carr FBI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do we know if they used the data flight recorder to get any of the flight data for the flight path? They didn't specifically mention that in the dropzone map document.

I read that digital data flight recorders with expanded parameters were developed and in scant use in early 70s, but not required until maybe 72 or 74? --but the oscillographic ones that recorded airspeed, altitude, direction, vertical accelerations and time were required to run during entire flight since the late 50s.
but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Source Unknown - sent to me by a very old aeronautical engineer - I cannot say who he worked for.

The ability to intercept communications depends on the medium used..... be it radio, satellite, microwave, cellular or fiber-optic.[8] During World War II and through the 1950s, high-frequency ("short-wave") radio was widely used for military and diplomatic communication,[17] and could be intercepted at great distances.[8] The rise of geostationary communications satellites in the 1960s presented new possibilities for intercepting international communications.

He just told me this is actually old STUFF! It was in its infancy and only advanced after 1971 - but the capability was there - for the microwave towers to communicate with someone on the plane with a sensor.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrshutter45

the road is called the Lewis river road that runs along the river. that is what the black line represents on the maps. if that is the random lines you are talking about?



Yes. I can see that on the hig res copies.

The random lines that I was talking about were what you drew on the jumpzone map and called power lines. I just can't make out those lines on the original jumpzone document.

But I can make out those details on the color copy and now the copy that Georger posted. So all is good. Thanks
but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smokin99

Maybe, for once, we could just hypothesize and discuss without someone having to be the winner. I'd kind of like to try to understand something before I try to challenge it.

Here are some thoughts and questions on the issue of the flight path - some have been brought up before by others...... and some questions for R99 or whoever else wants to discuss..

1. This is just my personal opinion based on stuff I've read, but I don't think the FBI had anything to do with coming up with the flight path or the dropzone. Why would they - it's not their area of expertise?..

2. We don't know if the one we are referring to is the true flight path that NW/FAA gave the FBI. Is this the final product or draft 1, 2, or 3? There are other plotted areas (red x) on there, so that in itself is confusing.
Additionally if I understand correctly, there are points on it that don't jive with the times that we do know (assuming moderately constant speeds), but could that be because we don't have enough data points to verify the flight path -- versus that the path is essentially non-flyable (as written in the time period specified)?

3. The document laying out the basis for the presumed jump zone/search area is full of words like probable and assume and plus/minus communication tolerances of 1 min and plus/minus .5 on the radar -- so there's that. (Though they include the outermost limits in the jumpzone, the immediate search area was based on assumptions that did not include the possible deviations.)

4. I understand the need for something tangible, but to include the placard as a reference point, you have to presume that the placard was found where it fell.

5. If those red marks do mean anything and the flight path and drop point is to the west -- I'm no expert on wind drift or flight paths or drop zones -- but it looks to me that the money could end up at Tena Bar without human intervention and not necessarily require a direct overfly of Tena bar.

6. Even allowing for a different size grid, it doesn't appear that the plane's path on the flight path document correlates with the ground track C-D-E-S line on the dropzone map. So there's that. (As in....who you gonna trust)

So now question time for those who do not trust the flight path as we know it....

Is there any other basis for not going with the flight path other than the times not matching up with the data and the belief that they would not have flown over Vancouver/Portland?

If you would go around Vancouver/Portland, why would one assume that they would go west and not east when their destination was in an easterly direction? Is it related to the altitude that they had to maintain?

What about flights into and out of PDX while 305 was in that area - I can't remember the status of that?

Thanks



Read carefully:

"... The positions were determined by computations, by the
84th Radar Evaluation Squadron, using the coordinates and
associated time stamps obtained from the Mt. Hebo site, plus
the surveyed location of the Mt. Hebo site and the earth model
of the time. The 84th still has a detachment at McChord and
doing such analyses was and remains part of their official
function. The McChord Direction Center, as opposed to the 84th
Eval Sq., used the SAGE system in their normal function of
tracking practically everything airborn but did not, stress did
not
engage in the analysis work of the 84th squadron. They
did not analyze the system or data from the system. The
original plots came from the 84th."

How this analysis work was disseminated, to whom and in what
order, and in what form, is another subject.

It must be obvious at this point that the FBI turned to MCChord
early, as distinct from NWA, for help in important phases of the
hijacking.

As I first said when I originally joined this thread, "my interests
are historical and concern evidence in the case" ...., as
opposed to suspects.

(source: Interviews with former members of the 84th and 25th
NORAD HQ at McChord Fiel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
georger

******"And so my same concerns - the path on the dropzone looks different than the one on the flightpath document. So which one do you go with?"

I have to disagree with the two maps not lining up. to date I believe we are looking at two different maps in two different scales. when I first looked at the two, I thought the same thing. when you scale them up they seem to match up. the original FBI drop map is zoomed in much closer than the scale of the flight path map itself. I could be wrong, but it seems to match pretty good.

the 8:10 location seems to line up pretty good to the M location on the original drop map.



You might be right - I could not get a great resolution and couldn't find a magnifying glass.

And though the two flight paths might be the same - I haven't checked that closely yet - but I was not looking at the one with the pins. I was looking at this one below in comparison with the LINE c-d-e-s on jumpzone attached.
But I didn't try to overlay them. I was going off of a couple of landmarks and measurements, and the resolution is not so great so I could be wrong. It happens occasionally. ;):)
http://n467us.com/Data%20Files/FBI%20Flight%20Path%20PDX.jpg

better copy -

That helped a lot! Thanks :)
but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok on the lines, the flight recorder data would only be good if the pulled the breaker on the recorder, it runs on a loop so if they didn't stop it, the data would be lost.
"It is surprising how aggressive people get, once they latch onto their suspect and say, 'Hey, he's our guy.' No matter what you tell them, they refuse to believe you" Agent Carr FBI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrshutter45

ok on the lines, the flight recorder data would only be good if the pulled the breaker on the recorder, it runs on a loop so if they didn't stop it, the data would be lost.



I know that's what has been said on here, but from what I read it looked like the requirements at that time were that the recorder had to record the entire flight and there was a retention period of 60 days. ??

"In September 1959, these regulations were revised to
establish a retention period of 60 days for records and to clarify the time period that the flight recorder must be in operation, that is, continuously during flight, from the beginning of the takeoff roll until the end of the landing roll. These requirements, together with subsequent amendments to the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), resulted in the recording of flight records continuously during flight of all turbine powered
transport category aircraft operated by air carriers of United
States registry. (See Appendix A.)"

but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobertMBlevins

I ran up a copy of the map in 150dpi @ 24 x36 inches. This file runs a lot more than the 1000KB limit allowed by Dropzone. Let me know if you want to examine a copy.



Funny! Examine a copy? Does it vanish after 50 seconds?

Are you claiming you own these maps!?

Is your optical pipe and Security Clearance at Adventure Books
& Housecleaning - licensed and registered with Homeland
Security ?

Do you share by the minute or square inch? Any charge?

:S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smokin99

***ok on the lines, the flight recorder data would only be good if the pulled the breaker on the recorder, it runs on a loop so if they didn't stop it, the data would be lost.



I know that's what has been said on here, but from what I read it looked like the requirements at that time were that the recorder had to record the entire flight and there was a retention period of 60 days. ??

"In September 1959, these regulations were revised to
establish a retention period of 60 days for records and to clarify the time period that the flight recorder must be in operation, that is, continuously during flight, from the beginning of the takeoff roll until the end of the landing roll. These requirements, together with subsequent amendments to the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), resulted in the recording of flight records continuously during flight of all turbine powered
transport category aircraft operated by air carriers of United
States registry. (See Appendix A.)"



correct, it runs continuously, but on a loop. the main objective of the black box is to retrieve the last part of a flight so they can see and hear what happened before impact. as long as it's running all the time and a plane crashes shortly after take off they still have the data. so yes it's running all the time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockpit_voice_recorder
"It is surprising how aggressive people get, once they latch onto their suspect and say, 'Hey, he's our guy.' No matter what you tell them, they refuse to believe you" Agent Carr FBI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
georger

***Maybe, for once, we could just hypothesize and discuss without someone having to be the winner. I'd kind of like to try to understand something before I try to challenge it.

Here are some thoughts and questions on the issue of the flight path - some have been brought up before by others...... and some questions for R99 or whoever else wants to discuss..

1. This is just my personal opinion based on stuff I've read, but I don't think the FBI had anything to do with coming up with the flight path or the dropzone. Why would they - it's not their area of expertise?..

2. We don't know if the one we are referring to is the true flight path that NW/FAA gave the FBI. Is this the final product or draft 1, 2, or 3? There are other plotted areas (red x) on there, so that in itself is confusing.
Additionally if I understand correctly, there are points on it that don't jive with the times that we do know (assuming moderately constant speeds), but could that be because we don't have enough data points to verify the flight path -- versus that the path is essentially non-flyable (as written in the time period specified)?

3. The document laying out the basis for the presumed jump zone/search area is full of words like probable and assume and plus/minus communication tolerances of 1 min and plus/minus .5 on the radar -- so there's that. (Though they include the outermost limits in the jumpzone, the immediate search area was based on assumptions that did not include the possible deviations.)

4. I understand the need for something tangible, but to include the placard as a reference point, you have to presume that the placard was found where it fell.

5. If those red marks do mean anything and the flight path and drop point is to the west -- I'm no expert on wind drift or flight paths or drop zones -- but it looks to me that the money could end up at Tena Bar without human intervention and not necessarily require a direct overfly of Tena bar.

6. Even allowing for a different size grid, it doesn't appear that the plane's path on the flight path document correlates with the ground track C-D-E-S line on the dropzone map. So there's that. (As in....who you gonna trust)

So now question time for those who do not trust the flight path as we know it....

Is there any other basis for not going with the flight path other than the times not matching up with the data and the belief that they would not have flown over Vancouver/Portland?

If you would go around Vancouver/Portland, why would one assume that they would go west and not east when their destination was in an easterly direction? Is it related to the altitude that they had to maintain?

What about flights into and out of PDX while 305 was in that area - I can't remember the status of that?

Thanks



Read carefully:

"... The positions were determined by computations, by the
84th Radar Evaluation Squadron, using the coordinates and
associated time stamps obtained from the Mt. Hebo site, plus
the surveyed location of the Mt. Hebo site and the earth model
of the time. The 84th still has a detachment at McChord and
doing such analyses was and remains part of their official
function. The McChord Direction Center, as opposed to the 84th
Eval Sq., used the SAGE system in their normal function of
tracking practically everything airborn but did not, stress did
not
engage in the analysis work of the 84th squadron. They
did not analyze the system or data from the system. The
original plots came from the 84th."

How this analysis work was disseminated, to whom and in what
order, is another subject.

It must be obvious at this point that the FBI turned to MCChord
early, as distinct from NWA, for help in important phases of the
hijacking.

As I first said when I originally joined this thread, "my interests
are historical and concern evidence in the case" ...., as
opposed to suspects.

(source: Interviews with former members of the 84th and 25th
NORAD HQ at McChord Field)

Mine too, Georger. I don't have a suspect.

There is a document, prepared by someone at NWA, name redacted, that outlined the basis for the dropzone calculations for a potential search field. I believe I mentioned that the radar data was one parameter they used. It did not specify who analyzed the radar data. But it was a Northwest document. But to your point and to further my own, to get the calculations for a dropzone, they first had to have a valid path, right....?

My primary point of the post is not to challenge anyone's theory of the flight path, but rather to understand why - if one disagrees with the flight path as prepared by the guys with the slide rules, what is that based on?
Several things have already been mentioned by R99 that make sense - the extra marks and the fact that the crew would not overfly a major city for safety reasons. (I'm paraphrasing here). Then there's the money.

Just trying to understand the rationale behind an alternate path so I can look at the evidence with that knowledge in hand. :)
but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hominid

The recorder Smokin's referring to is not the voice recorder.




Hi, Hominid. you are correct, I gave the link to the voice recorder, but it's appears both are on a loop?

"All airliners are required to carry flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders that run on a loop, preserving all flight parameters and conversation for short periods of time, usually one to several hours."

could they record that long in the 70's?
"It is surprising how aggressive people get, once they latch onto their suspect and say, 'Hey, he's our guy.' No matter what you tell them, they refuse to believe you" Agent Carr FBI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrshutter45

***The recorder Smokin's referring to is not the voice recorder.




Hi, Hominid. you are correct, I gave the link to the voice recorder, but it's appears both are on a loop?

"All airliners are required to carry flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders that run on a loop, preserving all flight parameters and conversation for short periods of time, usually one to several hours."

could they record that long in the 70's?

Yes. Just looking at one brand in the document - lasted for 200 hours, but it was only good for one use, so it couldn't loop.
The data was engraved (for want of a better word) on metallic tape.
If I can find the document I will link it. It is too large to post. It was a study that was done on the benefits, effectiveness, failure rates, etc on the DFRs used right before the time they were to begin requiring digital DFRs.
but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smokin99

******Maybe, for once, we could just hypothesize and discuss without someone having to be the winner. I'd kind of like to try to understand something before I try to challenge it.

Here are some thoughts and questions on the issue of the flight path - some have been brought up before by others...... and some questions for R99 or whoever else wants to discuss..

1. This is just my personal opinion based on stuff I've read, but I don't think the FBI had anything to do with coming up with the flight path or the dropzone. Why would they - it's not their area of expertise?..

2. We don't know if the one we are referring to is the true flight path that NW/FAA gave the FBI. Is this the final product or draft 1, 2, or 3? There are other plotted areas (red x) on there, so that in itself is confusing.
Additionally if I understand correctly, there are points on it that don't jive with the times that we do know (assuming moderately constant speeds), but could that be because we don't have enough data points to verify the flight path -- versus that the path is essentially non-flyable (as written in the time period specified)?

3. The document laying out the basis for the presumed jump zone/search area is full of words like probable and assume and plus/minus communication tolerances of 1 min and plus/minus .5 on the radar -- so there's that. (Though they include the outermost limits in the jumpzone, the immediate search area was based on assumptions that did not include the possible deviations.)

4. I understand the need for something tangible, but to include the placard as a reference point, you have to presume that the placard was found where it fell.

5. If those red marks do mean anything and the flight path and drop point is to the west -- I'm no expert on wind drift or flight paths or drop zones -- but it looks to me that the money could end up at Tena Bar without human intervention and not necessarily require a direct overfly of Tena bar.

6. Even allowing for a different size grid, it doesn't appear that the plane's path on the flight path document correlates with the ground track C-D-E-S line on the dropzone map. So there's that. (As in....who you gonna trust)

So now question time for those who do not trust the flight path as we know it....

Is there any other basis for not going with the flight path other than the times not matching up with the data and the belief that they would not have flown over Vancouver/Portland?

If you would go around Vancouver/Portland, why would one assume that they would go west and not east when their destination was in an easterly direction? Is it related to the altitude that they had to maintain?

What about flights into and out of PDX while 305 was in that area - I can't remember the status of that?

Thanks



Read carefully:

"... The positions were determined by computations, by the
84th Radar Evaluation Squadron, using the coordinates and
associated time stamps obtained from the Mt. Hebo site, plus
the surveyed location of the Mt. Hebo site and the earth model
of the time. The 84th still has a detachment at McChord and
doing such analyses was and remains part of their official
function. The McChord Direction Center, as opposed to the 84th
Eval Sq., used the SAGE system in their normal function of
tracking practically everything airborn but did not, stress did
not
engage in the analysis work of the 84th squadron. They
did not analyze the system or data from the system. The
original plots came from the 84th."

How this analysis work was disseminated, to whom and in what
order, is another subject.

It must be obvious at this point that the FBI turned to MCChord
early, as distinct from NWA, for help in important phases of the
hijacking.

As I first said when I originally joined this thread, "my interests
are historical and concern evidence in the case" ...., as
opposed to suspects.

(source: Interviews with former members of the 84th and 25th
NORAD HQ at McChord Field)

Mine too, Georger. I don't have a suspect.

There is a document, prepared by someone at NWA, name redacted, that outlined the basis for the dropzone calculations for a potential search field. I believe I mentioned that the radar data was one parameter they used. It did not specify who analyzed the radar data. But it was a Northwest document. But to your point and to further my own, to get the calculations for a dropzone, they first had to have a valid path, right....?

My primary point of the post is not to challenge anyone's theory of the flight path, but rather to understand why - if one disagrees with the flight path as prepared by the guys with the slide rules, what is that based on?
Several things have already been mentioned by R99 that make sense - the extra marks and the fact that the crew would not overfly a major city for safety reasons. (I'm paraphrasing here). Then there's the money.

Just trying to understand the rationale behind an alternate path so I can look at the evidence with that knowledge in hand. :)
You are referring to these pages -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrshutter45

***The recorder Smokin's referring to is not the voice recorder.




Hi, Hominid. you are correct, I gave the link to the voice recorder, but it's appears both are on a loop?

"All airliners are required to carry flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders that run on a loop, preserving all flight parameters and conversation for short periods of time, usually one to several hours."

could they record that long in the 70's?

That is what is missing and it was lost because of the time limit....I didn't understand it - but this is what Himmelsbach was referring to.

In the event anyone needs to know Duane had a stepson stationed at McChord & I believe he was still there in 1971.....
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrshutter45

ok on the lines, the flight recorder data would only be good if the pulled the breaker on the recorder, it runs on a loop so if they didn't stop it, the data would be lost.



Are you referring to flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder?

I thought FDRs (71 vintage) recorded on something permanent like foil or film rather than an endless loop tape. Maybe I'm thinking of earlier vintage FDRs.

Here's the latest NTSB protocols for recovering FDRs.

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/manuals/FDR_Handbook.pdf

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobertMBlevins

I ran up a copy of the map in 150dpi @ 24 x36 inches. This file runs a lot more than the 1000KB limit allowed by Dropzone. Let me know if you want to examine a copy.



That might be a bit large for my needs. I'm trying to match scale on the drawn flight path and dropzone map without losing resolution and to try to overlay that on a regular atlas/street map. We'll see how it goes.

But the offer is appreciated. I'm definitely into the whole preserving energy and non-wheel reinventing thing lately.
but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyjack71


Source Unknown - sent to me by a very old aeronautical engineer - I cannot say who he worked for.

The ability to intercept communications depends on the medium used..... be it radio, satellite, microwave, cellular or fiber-optic.[8] During World War II and through the 1950s, high-frequency ("short-wave") radio was widely used for military and diplomatic communication,[17] and could be intercepted at great distances.[8] The rise of geostationary communications satellites in the 1960s presented new possibilities for intercepting international communications.

He just told me this is actually old STUFF! It was in its infancy and only advanced after 1971 - but the capability was there - for the microwave towers to communicate with someone on the plane with a sensor.



Keep believing this Jo. I give up trying to convince you that this power grid microwave tower to Cooper aircraft communication is not even remotely practical.

It's as impractical as your idea that Duane had corset stays that vibrated in the vicinity of a VOR station.

Don't let science get in the way of bias.

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smokin99

Long document, but actually kind of interesting.....

http://prcarc1.erau.edu/awweb/main.jsp?flag=browse&smd=1&awdid=150



Well, apparently the site does not want to play nice. The title is
"Flight Data Recorder readout Experience in Aircraft Accident Investigations 1960 - 1973". It is an NTSB document.
It gives a very good history of the regs, the current (then) FDRs and the features of the new DFDRs before it gets into the body of the report. Also had the current (then) regulations and upcoming ones with a copy of the fed register code that related to the new requirements.

Here's another site with a copy ..... Google site
https://www.google.com/search?q=flight+data+recorder+readout+experince+1960-1973&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

Or direct to download.......

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flibraryonline.erau.edu%2Fonline-full-text%2Fntsb%2Faviation-special-studies%2FAAS75-01.pdf&ei=30LSUu6jCpLgsASukoDgCw&usg=AFQjCNH09IYmuwgluL3eOZ64A6o262mwcg&bvm=bv.59026428,d.cWc&cad=rja
but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jo,

The info that you say came
Quote

Source Unknown - sent to me by a very old aeronautical engineer - I cannot say who he worked for.

is straight word for word in Wikipedia.

Quote

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
The ability to intercept communications depends on the medium used, be it radio, ... During World War II and through the 1950s, high-frequency ("short-wave") radio was widely used for military and diplomatic communication, and could be ...



377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377

***ok on the lines, the flight recorder data would only be good if the pulled the breaker on the recorder, it runs on a loop so if they didn't stop it, the data would be lost.



Are you referring to flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder?

I thought FDRs (71 vintage) recorded on something permanent like foil or film rather than an endless loop tape. Maybe I'm thinking of earlier vintage FDRs.

Here's the latest NTSB protocols for recovering FDRs.

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/manuals/FDR_Handbook.pdf

377


well it appears I was favoring the voice recorder over the flight data recorder. also appears it wouldn't help much. it records airspeed, magnetic heading, altitude and vertical acceleration. I don't think it would help much if they retrieved anything from it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlY5W7be5jU
"It is surprising how aggressive people get, once they latch onto their suspect and say, 'Hey, he's our guy.' No matter what you tell them, they refuse to believe you" Agent Carr FBI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377

Jo,

The info that you say came

Quote

Source Unknown - sent to me by a very old aeronautical engineer - I cannot say who he worked for.

is straight word for word in Wikipedia.

***en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
The ability to intercept communications depends on the medium used, be it radio, ... During World War II and through the 1950s, high-frequency ("short-wave") radio was widely used for military and diplomatic communication, and could be ...


377

Another confirmation on a theory.[:/]

Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

47 47