Harte Posted November 8, 2007 #76 Share Posted November 8, 2007 its far easier to be a armchair pseudo whateverologist apparently. All you need to do is research using outdated and fabricated material and not bother to learn any ology at all Kerky, You certainly got that right! For every piece of scientific information out there on the internet, there must be a thousand pieces of pseudoscientific crapola available on the web. A google search on any subject found at U-M will support this claim. In fact, and I've said this before, this "thousand to one" ratio is my raison d'etre here, at ATS and any other place you can find me on the web. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Lord Posted November 9, 2007 Author #77 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Kerky, You certainly got that right! For every piece of scientific information out there on the internet, there must be a thousand pieces of pseudoscientific crapola available on the web. A google search on any subject found at U-M will support this claim. In fact, and I've said this before, this "thousand to one" ratio is my raison d'etre here, at ATS and any other place you can find me on the web. Harte Actually, I am not the one who is doing his research over the internet. Nevertheless, I would be very glad if somebody, possibly with a specialization in geology, could discuss the topic of erosion and alluvial sedimentation at Tiwanaku, also without quoting articles which have very little, if nothing at all to do with this subject. Moreover, I am still waiting for proof which could dispute the fact that pre-inca ruins actually exist beneath lake Titicaca. As a matter of fact, while I quoted articles from the international press in support of my assertions, the only evidence to disprove the finding seems to be Kerkinana's own word that the discovery is actually a fraud. It seems to me you are merely trying to make sterile counter-arguments without even considering the evidence I provided in support of the idea of a much greater antiquity of the Tiwanaku site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerkinana walsky Posted November 9, 2007 #78 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Moreover, I am still waiting for proof which could dispute the fact that pre-inca ruins actually exist beneath lake Titicaca. As a matter of fact, while I quoted articles from the international press in support of my assertions, the only evidence to disprove the finding seems to be Kerkinana's own word that the discovery is actually a fraud. It seems to me you are merely trying to make sterile counter-arguments without even considering the evidence I provided in support of the idea of a much greater antiquity of the Tiwanaku site. you are the one claiming there are pre inca ruins in titicaca and you have no evidence of it whatever the onus of proof is on you. wheres the photos and video you claimed existed. where are the follow up news reports describing the find in more detail. 2 minutes googling would show you that it was a complete fabrication on the part of the Akakor company whatever my arguments seem like to you is coloured by your inability to accept empirical data over your personal belief. This is like arguing religion with a fundementalist totally pointless because your entire belief structure is based on your belief and not evidence. Its a totally circular argument for which you have not one piece of evidence and for which you have denied all the real evidence exists this means that its a waste of time debating anything with you because you prefer ignorance over knowledge this says far more about you than it does about Tiwanaku Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Lord Posted November 9, 2007 Author #79 Share Posted November 9, 2007 you are the one claiming there are pre inca ruins in titicaca and you have no evidence of it whatever the onus of proof is on you. wheres the photos and video you claimed existed. where are the follow up news reports describing the find in more detail. 2 minutes googling would show you that it was a complete fabrication on the part of the Akakor company Actually, a major follow up took place in 2004, when a second expedition found evidence of a large submerged temple together with several idols and pottery fragments. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_ame...000/3587708.stm The discovery was also made public during a conference held by the bolivian vice-ministry of Culture in La Paz. Also, the main results and findings of the 2004 expeditions are briefly summarized at the expedition's own website www.akakor.com http://www.akakor.com/english/tiwabrief-uk.html http://www.akakor.com/english/tiwa-uk.htm Also with images of the actual findings: http://www.akakor.com/english/tiwa-uk.htm Still, I would like to see that evidence about the whole finding being a fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capeo Posted November 9, 2007 #80 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Actually, a major follow up took place in 2004, when a second expedition found evidence of a large submerged temple together with several idols and pottery fragments. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_ame...000/3587708.stm The discovery was also made public during a conference held by the bolivian vice-ministry of Culture in La Paz. Also, the main results and findings of the 2004 expeditions are briefly summarized at the expedition's own website www.akakor.com http://www.akakor.com/english/tiwabrief-uk.html http://www.akakor.com/english/tiwa-uk.htm Also with images of the actual findings: http://www.akakor.com/english/tiwa-uk.htm Still, I would like to see that evidence about the whole finding being a fraud. Here: http://www.nyas.org/publications/sciences/pdf/ts_01_01.pdf Akakor is a total fraud. This has been known for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Lord Posted November 9, 2007 Author #81 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) Here: <a href="http://www.nyas.org/publications/sciences/pdf/ts_01_01.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nyas.org/publications/sciences/pdf/ts_01_01.pdf</a> Akakor is a total fraud. This has been known for a long time. Thank you for posting this information. Allow me a few further considerations: - The article quotes claims which first appeared in the international press in 2000. After that, two further expeditions did reach the bottoms of lake Titicaca in 2002 and 2004, gathering further evidence in support of the existence of vast underwater structures beneath the lake itself. While it is indeed true Akakor lacks strong academic credentials, it was nevertheless supported in its efforts by the bolivian Ministry of Culture, which also confirmed the discovery during a press conference held in La Paz in the month of october of 2004. Results of a third expedition early in 2007 still await publication, while another expedition is planned for the next year. - Also, the article dates to January 2001 and does not therefore consider results of further expeditions. - It seems to me the article mainly criticizes the methods and lack of academic qualifications of the Akakor expedition, while it only cites the opinion of various archaeologists that such a temple as that whose existence has been reported by the Akakor expedition could never exist beneath Lake Titicaca. It also states, however, that the Akakor expedition could count on far larger financing than previous expeditions. It is therefore possible if not probable that if nothing has ever been found before, it is mainly due to lack of funds rather than to the whole discovery actually being a fraud. At present, I think judgement on the whole matter should be suspended until results of the 2007 expedition are published, while I myself will contact Akakor to obtain more information and possibly images or videos of the actual finding. Edited November 9, 2007 by Dark_Lord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylemurph Posted November 9, 2007 #82 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I just want to throw out (yet again) that anyone waiting for negative proof for something -- for proof something /doesn't/ exist -- is making a fundamental mistake of logic that burdens thier entire argument. --Jaylemurph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerkinana walsky Posted November 9, 2007 #83 Share Posted November 9, 2007 At present, I think judgement on the whole matter should be suspended until results of the 2007 expedition are published, while I myself will contact Akakor to obtain more information and possibly images or videos of the actual finding. I think seeing as you just claimed they had proof from 6 years ago and 3 years ago that you should present it immediately I am not prepared to wait for information that you cannot quantify which has never been proven actually that last statement describes everything you've come out with so far did you notice yet that you are the only person here who is making these claims and you haven't produced a shred of scientific evidence to prove it so I'll ask you again do you think there is a global conspiracy by archaeologists and historians to cover the truth because if not your claims unlike Lake Titicaca don't hold water haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted November 9, 2007 #84 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Also, let's consider the above picture I took of the main entrance to the Kalasasaya. You can easily see different erosion patterns on andesitic stone and red sandstone. While the two andesite pillars in front of the main stairway show very bad weathering, the bordering sandstone blocks look pretty intact. Since andesite is an extremely hard stone, while sandstone is relatively softer, we would expect sandstone to be much more weathered than andesite, while in fact the contrary seems to be true in the case of Tiwanaku. Either we assume for some obscure reasons the Kalasasaya eludes the laws of physics, or we must recognize the megalithic architectures had been already standing for thousands of years (judging on erosion patterns) before Tiwanaku was built. I'll readily admit to being no scholar on Tiwanaku, however there are leaps of logic being taken that don't seem to be justified. You make a point about the erosion at the top of the andesite pillars on either side of the entranceway. I agree, they are eroded, but that does not mean they were eroded while standing as megaliths in this structure, or any previous structure if one existed. To me it appears the eroded portion of the megaliths was that protruding from the ground/water when they were extracted to be used as entrance pillars. Is there any evidence they were ever totally regular in shape or made smooth to serve as such pillars? Also, as you rightly point out, sandstone erodes more readily than andesite. So the steps could have been replaced at a much later time and therefore be more recent than the pillars - but this does still not mean the pillars have been standing there for thousands of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted November 9, 2007 #85 Share Posted November 9, 2007 [did you notice yet that you are the only person here who is making these claims Dark Lord is making the case for a VERY old Tiwanaku VERY well. I have no information to add....but I'm reading the thread.... I think that Tiwanaku is probably thousands of years old....just like the Egyptian and Mayan Pyramids.....not just 2, 3, 4 thousands of years old.....more like 10, 15, (or even more) years old.... and you haven't produced a shred of scientific evidence to prove it I think he's producing a lot of 'evidence'....but I think that it's safe to say that nothing he is producing....or saying, will satisfy you....or one or 2 others! But that doesn't matter. The pros and cons are presented....the 'audience' will make up their own minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Lord Posted November 9, 2007 Author #86 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) I'll readily admit to being no scholar on Tiwanaku, however there are leaps of logic being taken that don't seem to be justified. You make a point about the erosion at the top of the andesite pillars on either side of the entranceway. I agree, they are eroded, but that does not mean they were eroded while standing as megaliths in this structure, or any previous structure if one existed. To me it appears the eroded portion of the megaliths was that protruding from the ground/water when they were extracted to be used as entrance pillars. Is there any evidence they were ever totally regular in shape or made smooth to serve as such pillars? Also, as you rightly point out, sandstone erodes more readily than andesite. So the steps could have been replaced at a much later time and therefore be more recent than the pillars - but this does still not mean the pillars have been standing there for thousands of years. Very good point indeed. I hope you could judge by yourself from the following pictures. Pillars on top of the Akapana pyramid: compare the neatly squared and polished stone in the foreground with the badly weatherd pillars behind it: while the base of the pillar shows very little erosion, its upper part has almost completely weathered. Very heavy weathering on stones from the first platform of the Akapana pyramid is also clearly visible. Actually, There is very little doubt the stones were actually polished and perfectly square, as might also be inferred from the tightness of the joints as well as from the bottom part of the stones making up the first masonry course, showing little if no erosion at all. Detail of a pillar from the Kalasasaya enclosure wall. While the pillar, also of andesitic stone, shows very heavy weathering, its base going below ground is almost intact. thus proving the pillar was actually finely polished and dressed and not merely left unfinished. Also note the very incoherent masonry forming the lower enclosure wall of the Kalasasaya. It is absolutely evident event to the untrained eye that looted stones from various pre-existing buildings were used to build the wall during the earliest Tiwanaku phases. Another pillar forming the angle of the Kalasasaya lower enclosure wall. Note very heavy weathering if compared to nearby sandstone masonry and also square bottom of pillar going below ground. Other pillars were appearently encased in later, incoherent masonry. One of the pillars has appearently completely weathered away in its upper part while showing rather neatly defined outbounds in its lower, less eroded, part. Very eroded pillars on the back side of the Kalasasaya temple, the concrete wall being a modern reconstruction. The pavement upon which rests the great temple of Kalasasaya. The pavement shows remarkably little erosion, looking extremely well polished and dressed in comparison with the pillars and side walls. This seems to be due to the fact that the pavement was actually preserved from erosion by a thick layer of alluvial deposits. Here are some examples of Tiwanaku stone workmanship showing very little if no erosion at all due to the fact of having been buried under thick silt alluvial layers. Only a sudden burial could account for such a remarkable preservation state. Another example of a remarkably well preserved stone element, showing a cilindrical paraboloid. The techniques employed to carve such perfect right angles and complex geometric figures in hard andesitic stone with use of mere stone chisels are largely unknown. Edited November 9, 2007 by Dark_Lord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerkinana walsky Posted November 9, 2007 #87 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) Dark Lord is making the case for a VERY old Tiwanaku VERY well. I have no information to add....but I'm reading the thread.... I think that Tiwanaku is probably thousands of years old....just like the Egyptian and Mayan Pyramids.....not just 2, 3, 4 thousands of years old.....more like 10, 15, (or even more) years old.... I think he's producing a lot of 'evidence'....but I think that it's safe to say that nothing he is producing....or saying, will satisfy you....or one or 2 others! But that doesn't matter. The pros and cons are presented....the 'audience' will make up their own minds. his total evidence so far consists of the claims made by two people around a century ago before scientific methods were invented and his own unqualified opinion about the geology of the site and links to pseudo websites if you think that will satisfy anyone but the type of person who puts belief before empirical data then you'd be wrong he has also ignored every single piece of data prsented to him that proves he is wrong this isn't a discussion its the ravings of a pseudo fundementalist if you want to know about real history I'm afraid you actually do have to study it, repeating what authors who are making a fast buck from your own gullibility say is not evidence, its fiction Personally I have posted link after link of credible data from experts in their fields which has been totally ignored, clearly Bee you're only reading the posts that agree with your own imagination tell me how much time have you spent studying any mesoamerican culture and then tell me how that qualifies you to say that all the data I have presented from people who have is invalid you love sci fi don't you his last post for example is just hysterical. its the ravings of a member of the public on different types of stones accompanied by the claim that some aren't weathered because they were buried and others are wethered because they were not. there is no evidence of silt remaining on these "unburied" stones yet Dark Lords imagination tells him that is the only hypothesis that fits his claim so hes grasping for it. He hasn't analysed the stone to see what each is made from. He hasn't studied the context of the positioning of the blocks, he hasn't studied geology of any kind yet he feels qualified to make spurious claims about a subject which he knows nothing at all this is like going to see your local mechanic for an opinion on operating on a brain tumour that your gardener has told you in his expert opinion you have developed stupid and pointless I suggest that if Dark Lord wants to carry on with his fantasy he does it by writing e mails full of this useless evidence to himself, that way at least the readers of the data he provides would all unanimously agree with him Edited November 9, 2007 by kerkinana walsky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Lord Posted November 9, 2007 Author #88 Share Posted November 9, 2007 (edited) his total evidence so far consists of the claims made by two people around a century ago before scientific methods were invented and his own unqualified opinion about the geology of the site and links to pseudo websites if you think that will satisfy anyone but the type of person who puts belief before empirical data then you'd be wrong he has also ignored every single piece of data prsented to him that proves he is wrong this isn't a discussion its the ravings of a pseudo fundementalist if you want to know about real history I'm afraid you actually do have to study it, repeating what authors who are making a fast buck from your own gullibility say is not evidence, its fiction Personally I have posted link after link of credible data from experts in their fields which has been totally ignored, clearly Bee you're only reading the posts that agree with your own imagination tell me how much time have you spent studying any mesoamerican culture and then tell me how that qualifies you to say that all the data I have presented from people who have is invalid you love sci fi don't you his last post for example is just hysterical. its the ravings of a member of the public on different types of stones accompanied by the claim that some aren't weathered because they were buried and others are wethered because they were not. there is no evidence of silt remaining on these "unburied" stones yet Dark Lords imagination tells him that is the only hypothesis that fits his claim so hes grasping for it. He hasn't analysed the stone to see what each is made from. He hasn't studied the context of the positioning of the blocks, he hasn't studied geology of any kind yet he feels qualified to make spurious claims about a subject which he knows nothing at all this is like going to see your local mechanic for an opinion on operating on a brain tumour that your gardener has told you in his expert opinion you have developed stupid and pointless I suggest that if Dark Lord wants to carry on with his fantasy he does it by writing e mails full of this useless evidence to himself, that way at least the readers of the data he provides would all unanimously agree with him Dear Kerkinana, I think science would make very little if no advancement at all if all scientists were to agree upon the same opinion or theory. This is the reason why I am still posting here. Also, altough not being a trained geologist, I have quite an experience of ancient sites. Moreover, I did not engage in a professional debate about geology, but merely pointed out something which is absolutely evident even to the untrained eye. In your case, I think you are however so blinded by your prejudices about science you would not even consider what would be evident also to the lowest of laymen. Also, I don't think I would need a trained geologist to discern between andesite and mere sandstone, in the same way I would not need an engineer to discern between wood and concrete. Edited November 9, 2007 by Dark_Lord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted November 9, 2007 #89 Share Posted November 9, 2007 [he has also ignored every single piece of data prsented to him that proves he is wrong You can't prove that he is wrong...try as you might. Like I said...people will make up their own minds... its the ravings of a member of the public Thats funny.... Nice pictures Dark Lord......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerkinana walsky Posted November 9, 2007 #90 Share Posted November 9, 2007 You can't prove that he is wrong...try as you might. Like I said...people will make up their own minds... It is not for me to prove something that is already known and proven it is for dark lord to prove he knows more than all the experts who have examined the site itself I just want to throw out (yet again) that anyone waiting for negative proof for something -- for proof something /doesn't/ exist -- is making a fundamental mistake of logic that burdens thier entire argument. --Jaylemurph so far all hes proved is his inability to produce anything but hearsay he has no argument all he has is a hypothesis that was suggested 100 years ago and which has been debunked on numerous occaisons since with empirical data the sooner he accepts that the sooner his therapy bills will go down (sorry couldn't resist that one) I would suggest that according to the latest data South america was unpopulated at the time he is claiming there was a city with thousands and show him the data but whats the point, in his mind the Atlanteans were there then so its pointless to discuss things with someone who doesn't understand the reality of historical truth ce la vie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capeo Posted November 9, 2007 #91 Share Posted November 9, 2007 You can't prove that he is wrong...try as you might. Like I said...people will make up their own minds... Yes, actually, you can very much prove Dark Lord is wrong. Walsky has already done a fine a job of that. The dating of Tiwanaku is very well established. There is nothing for people to make up their minds about, unless it's deciding to ignore evidence and simply make stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted November 9, 2007 #92 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Yes, actually, you can very much prove Dark Lord is wrong. The dating of Tiwanaku is very well established. Like all the other things that are well established....until new theories/discoveries/developments come along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerkinana walsky Posted November 9, 2007 #93 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Like all the other things that are well established....until new theories/discoveries/developments come along? Bee the idea that Tiwanaku is thousands and thousands of years old is the old theory the proven fact that it isn't is the new theory. It is the result of new discoveries and developments why are you commenting on a subject that you know nothing about, the evidence has already been posted that has proven Dark Lords posts erroneous again and again I suggest you go read it instead of slapping him on the back for what is actually old hat and unoriginal thinking as it is your current stance isn't doing your own credibility any favours Dark Lord lost his on page 2 when he proved he had no interest in scientifically collected empirical data and preferred his imagination by claiming that only someone who had been there was qualified to comment. that was it back then 4 pages ago GAME OVER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted November 10, 2007 #94 Share Posted November 10, 2007 [why are you commenting on a subject that you know nothing about, the evidence has already been posted that has proven Dark Lords posts erroneous again and again I suggest you go read it instead of slapping him on the back for what is actually old hat and unoriginal thinking You're showing yourself up now... Nothing has been proven by you. But we wouldn't want to get side-tracked into tittle tattle.....would we? So carry on with your insulting remarks..... ...and cheers Dark Lord for some great posts and pictures... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johan67 Posted November 10, 2007 #95 Share Posted November 10, 2007 You're showing yourself up now... Nothing has been proven by you. But we wouldn't want to get side-tracked into tittle tattle.....would we? So carry on with your insulting remarks..... ...and cheers Dark Lord for some great posts and pictures... I have to agree with darklord & bee.. (i've read the whole thread) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted November 10, 2007 #96 Share Posted November 10, 2007 (edited) You can't prove that he is wrong...try as you might. Like I said...people will make up their own minds... But DL can't prove that he's right The only available evidence points to Tiwanaku being 1500 years old. There is no evidence it is any older. None. btw if someone wants to pay me, I'm happy to spend a couple of months doing a proper geological survey of the site to ascertain once and for all what sediments cover the ruins, how they were deposited and over what time scale Edited November 10, 2007 by Essan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Lord Posted November 10, 2007 Author #97 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Actually, I do not know why Kerkinana Walsky seems to be so obsessed by Atlantis. As a matter of fact, she is the only one on this thread to have named Atlantis as a possible explanation of the origins of the Tiwanaku culture. Probably, this is due to the fact that she wants this thread to degenerate into a discussion about ancient mithology. In my opinion Kerkinana is not much different from a doctor pretending to make his diagnosis without having ever seen the patient. What I am just pointing out is that symptoms might actually contradict the widely accepted diagnosis, either because they have been largely ignored by previous research, or because somebody seems to be more comfortable with a recent Tiwanaku rather than with a site thousands of years older than accepted chronology. Also, I have pointed out that radiocarbon dating might not be as reliable a method as, for instance, optical luminescence (which has however never been tried at Tiwanaku), while geological evidence also points to a much older Tiwanaku. In brief, research at Tiwanaku has been to say the least incomplete, while all evidence pointing to an older Tiwanaku has been largely ignored. Moreover, Kerkinana has been completely unable to cite any article or piece of scientific data dealing with erosion patterns at Tiwanaku. Kerkinana is right when she says geological evidence for an older Tiwanaku dates back to at least 60 years ago. But she also forgets to mention no further research has ever been carried out into this subject after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledgant Posted November 28, 2007 #98 Share Posted November 28, 2007 (edited) DrkLord there is probably no point in arguing with people who are slaves to reason. I myself have never understood the school yard archaeological obsession with who is older who is grander, high school all over again :-),all ancient cultures tribal and urban have value. For me the most interesting discovery in what you posted was the link to the aymara concepts of time.That they view the future as behind us and the past as infront of us,it was a great read.I suspect whoever created the Ti****a culture would not have cared much for our linear view of time anyway or where we sought to place them on it. I've read alot on african concepts of time [they view time as generated] and I'd never read anything on Andean concepts of time so thanks for that :-) Edited November 28, 2007 by ledgant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted November 28, 2007 #99 Share Posted November 28, 2007 DrkLord there is probably no point in arguing with people who are slaves to reason. I myself have never understood the school yard archaeological obsession with who is older who is grander, high school all over again :-),all ancient cultures tribal and urban have value. For me the most interesting discovery in what you posted was the link to the aymara concepts of time.That they view the future as behind us and the past as infront of us,it was a great read.I suspect whoever created the Ti****a culture would not have cared much for our linear view of time anyway or where we sought to place them on it. I've read alot on african concepts of time [they view time as generated] and I'd never read anything on Andean concepts of time so thanks for that :-) Welcome to the forum Ledgant. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Lord Posted September 10, 2008 Author #100 Share Posted September 10, 2008 (edited) An Italian Expedition has recently penetrated in a previously unknown tunnel within the Akapana pyramid in Tiwanaku. Though the tunnel was discovered in 2005, it could never be entirely explored due to the many debris and obstructions encountered. Here you can find a few pictures of the finding and the tunnel interior (just click on the image to refresh and see next picture): http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/...-bolivia/1.html I am still looking for a full article in English, that one (in italian) dates to September, 9: http://www.repubblica.it/2008/09/sezioni/s...html?ref=hpspr2 The team, part of a joint italian-bolivian project, hopes the discovery might lead to a still untouched burial chamber located within the pyramid. They also questioned the conduit might have served drainage purposes, as it was previously assumed. They will also be looking for proofs which might help supporting the theory that the ruins of Tiwanaku are indeed over 10,000 years old by analizing the stalactite formations within the tunnel. Edited September 10, 2008 by Dark_Lord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now