|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jan 18, 2023 12:26:29 GMT
I think it would take a pretty serious pod of orcas to kill a megalodon, but I also think meg could only kill orcas by ambush, and orcas would have harrassed it without really being in danger if they met face to face (the way sea lions actually harass GWS if they see them). I can't reasonably believe megalodon was a fast manuveurable shark while being that size, and even much smaller sharks like the great white aren't mobile enough to contend with the killer whale in just a movement-skirmish. It's too tall of an order, and too hazardous of an order, for orcas to realistically even try to kill meg IMO but hypothetically they concievably could I guess wear it down and ram it's gills and accumulate bite wounds and etc etc over time and maybe eventually over come it. It would be a monumental effort by a big team of orcas, one they would never do, but also meg needs ambush to catch a killer whale IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2023 12:35:18 GMT
Megalodon was not slow. This is what I've been trying to say forever. No way in hell would it have been a successful predator if it was slow and lousy. It isn't rocket science. These articles are just the icing on the cake. I still believe it MUST have been slowish. Seems it hunted whales, primarily, and extinct giant sirenians (like massive manatees). Therefore it would be maybe a little faster than it's prey, like basically every predator ever. It is also physically impossible for an animal that size to zip around with quickness and agility, it defies the physical laws of the universe and makes zero sense. As icing on the cake, it was also almost assuredly an ambush predator, so being significantly faster than the big whales it hunted simply wasn't necessary. More than that the whales HAD to have a chance to evade predation. The best of them HAD to make megalodon miss repeatedly and go on to live a successful life and breed and raise offspring. Impossible if megalodon was fast AS WELL AS gigantic with a mega mouth of infinite destruction. How the hell could a whale or gigantic manatee possibly survive and raise their offspring (one at a time btw, and slow maturing) in such a hostile environment with such a nightmarish OP predator? They would frankly be better, if megalodon was half the monster he is frequently portrayed to be. The way the cheetah sculpted the thomsen's gazelle into the most alert speedy juke-stepping athletic freak of nature, so too would the meg have sculpted whales and giant manatees into sleek masterful speedsters zipping through the seas, OR mega-tanks that can smash giant sharks to smithereens the way a cape buffalo can a lion or a ussuri boar can a tiger. There has to be a way in which the baleen whales and sperm whales and giant manatees of the era could "best" meg, and meg fans (including the scientists, who often seem like infantile fanboys themselves) have never offered any explanation to cover this issue. Just "it was way OP, don't worry about it". Well sorry I'm very worried, very concerned that this portrayal is clearly bullshit. It defies nature and the universe we exist in. "Fossil evidence indicates that megalodon preyed upon many cetacean species, such as dolphins, small whales, cetotheres, squalodontids (shark toothed dolphins), sperm whales, bowhead whales, and rorquals. In addition to this, they also targeted seals, sirenians, and sea turtles. The shark was an opportunist and piscivorous, and it would have also gone after smaller fish and other sharks. Many whale bones have been found with deep gashes most likely made by their teeth. Various excavations have revealed megalodon teeth lying close to the chewed remains of whales, and sometimes in direct association with them." "There is also evidence that a possible separate hunting strategy existed for attacking raptorial sperm whales; a tooth belonging to an undetermined 4 m (13 ft) physeteroid closely resembling those of Acrophyseter discovered in the Nutrien Aurora Phosphate Mine in North Carolina suggests that a megalodon or O. chubutensis may have aimed for the head of the sperm whale in order to inflict a fatal bite, the resulting attack leaving distinctive bite marks on the tooth. While scavenging behavior cannot be ruled out as a possibility, the placement of the bite marks is more consistent with predatory attacks than feeding by scavenging, as the jaw is not a particularly nutritious area to for a shark feed or focus on. The fact that the bite marks were found on the tooth's roots further suggest that the shark broke the whale's jaw during the bite, suggesting the bite was extremely powerful. The fossil is also notable as it stands as the first known instance of an antagonistic interaction between a sperm whale and an otodontid shark recorded in the fossil record." "During the Pliocene, larger cetaceans appeared. Megalodon apparently further refined its hunting strategies to cope with these large whales. Numerous fossilized flipper bones and tail vertebrae of large whales from the Pliocene have been found with megalodon bite marks, which suggests that megalodon would immobilize a large whale before killing and feeding on it." "One particular specimen–the remains of a 9-meter (30 ft) long undescribed Miocene baleen whale–provided the first opportunity to quantitatively analyze its attack behavior. Unlike great whites which target the underbelly of their prey, megalodon probably targeted the heart and lungs, with their thick teeth adapted for biting through tough bone, as indicated by bite marks inflicted to the rib cage and other tough bony areas on whale remains. Furthermore, attack patterns could differ for prey of different sizes. Fossil remains of some small cetaceans, for example cetotheres, suggest that they were rammed with great force from below before being killed and eaten, based on compression fractures." www.bio-nica.info/Biblioteca/Wroe2008GreatWhiteSharkBiteForce.pdfDeméré, Thomas A.; Berta, Annalisa; McGowen, Michael R. (2005). "The taxonomic and evolutionary history of fossil and modern balaenopteroid mysticetes". Journal of Mammalian Evolution. www.vmnh.net/content/File/Research_and_Collections/Jeffersoniana_Number_16.pdfbooks.google.com/books?id=QjkjBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA96Collareta, A.; Lambert, O.; Landini, W.; Di Celma, C.; Malinverno, E.; Varas-Malca, R.; Urbina, M.; Bianucci, G. (2017). "Did the giant extinct shark Carcharocles megalodon target small prey? Bite marks on marine mammal remains from the late Miocene of Peru". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. web.archive.org/web/20160722045756/https://www.priweb.org/files/pubtext/item_pdf_289.pdfbooks.google.com/books?id=2My8M5tL-KIC&pg=PA9www.fossilguy.com/topics/megshark/megshark.htmAugilera, Orangel A.; García, Luis; Cozzuol, Mario A. (2008). "Giant-toothed white sharks and cetacean trophic interaction from the Pliocene Caribbean Paraguaná Formation". Paläontologische Zeitschrift. Megalodon probably would've ate anything really. I also don't 100% get what you're trying to say. "Baleen whales were nigh defenseless from Megalodon, how could they even survive" ... "Those attributes are too much for any predator" - and the like. Deer for example, pretty much only serve as prey to other animals, and yet, they seem to get on perfectly well in their environments. Multiple animals specialise on prey that are defenseless from them, more.common than rare to be honest. So I don't see what you're trying to get at here. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jan 18, 2023 13:19:10 GMT
Zero animals have prey that are defenseless. In one way or another, the prey has the advantage. There are many ways this can be achieved, the prey animal might just expel thousands of spores into a current knowing that most will die, but surely the odd one by sheer chance and luck will survive. That's one strategy. Another might be just living where there aren't predators, like mouflon and bezoar ibex that hide up the most steep and rocky desolate cliffs and predators mostly can't get up there, those that can (like snow leopards) have to deal with the climbing ability of the herbivore (which is legendary- scaling vertical walls). Down on a flat field these ungulates would be weirdly defenseless against predators, but they found a strategy to best predators (like all prey animals must) and it's to climb up the cliffs where the food (lichen) sucks, but at least you can survive and breed without definitely being killed.
Even hogs, which have good defense against predators, they can fight off their predators when they mature and evade them with quickness and agility when young, even they have to also add the additional insurance of having large litters and breeding regularly and quickly and having off spring that can take care of themselves fairly quickly. Knowing that they are gonna lose offspring to predators, they stack up on numbers.
Even sloths... seem totally defenseless, but they are actually camouflaging by growing green algae on their fur and moving so slowly they don't get noticed. Also live so high in the canopy they only have to worry about Harpy eagles, but yes at least they are hiding. That's another strategy (they do also swing their claws at harpy eagles, and surprisingly it sometimes does work).
Every prey animal has to have a strategy to be successful. Some avenue of success where the best individuals who do everything right to a high level aren't preyed upon until after their offspring are well and truly set to fend for themselves.
For whales this is a pretty epic statement because it takes them an extremely long time to mature to breeding age, it then takes a very long time for them to gestate their offspring in the womb, they then have 1 baby, just one, and then it takes a really long time to raise that single baby to the point of independence, and then after being independent that baby then has to survive to breeding age, and gestate and raise it's own baby to independence and etc etc.
So, somehow, whales need to be especially good at not being preyed upon by their predators. They're not "sacrificing" some babies to the predator gods like hogs and rabbits and rats and etc do. No. They strongly expect their one baby to live, it's a huge investment with a monumental amount of time and effort behind it. They would simply not be viable animals in a world where there's a predator that can fairly easily kill them. They couldn't exist, and wouldn't. I don't know anything about megalodon, other than the fact it's prey bettered it, most of the time, one way or another.
I struggle to understand how a baleen whale, or even a sperm whale, or an oversized manatee, could do that if the meg was as portrayed in the popular hype machine narrative. These animals simply aren't good enough, as prey, to allow for the existence of a predator as good as megalodon supposedly was. How does a baleen whale grow up and raise a baby into adulthood in an ocean with megalodons? How? A shark that's supposedly super fast and BTW can chomp a slow moving whale essentially in half easily, as well. Cool story, But no. It doesn't align with the laws of reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2023 14:33:25 GMT
Zero animals have prey that are defenseless. In one way or another, the prey has the advantage. There are many ways this can be achieved, the prey animal might just expel thousands of spores into a current knowing that most will die, but surely the odd one by sheer chance and luck will survive. That's one strategy. Another might be just living where there aren't predators, like mouflon and bezoar ibex that hide up the most steep and rocky desolate cliffs and predators mostly can't get up there, those that can (like snow leopards) have to deal with the climbing ability of the herbivore (which is legendary- scaling vertical walls). Down on a flat field these ungulates would be weirdly defenseless against predators, but they found a strategy to best predators (like all prey animals must) and it's to climb up the cliffs where the food (lichen) sucks, but at least you can survive and breed without definitely being killed. Even hogs, which have good defense against predators, they can fight off their predators when they mature and evade them with quickness and agility when young, even they have to also add the additional insurance of having large litters and breeding regularly and quickly and having off spring that can take care of themselves fairly quickly. Knowing that they are gonna lose offspring to predators, they stack up on numbers. Even sloths... seem totally defenseless, but they are actually camouflaging by growing green algae on their fur and moving so slowly they don't get noticed. Also live so high in the canopy they only have to worry about Harpy eagles, but yes at least they are hiding. That's another strategy (they do also swing their claws at harpy eagles, and surprisingly it sometimes does work). Every prey animal has to have a strategy to be successful. Some avenue of success where the best individuals who do everything right to a high level aren't preyed upon until after their offspring are well and truly set to fend for themselves. For whales this is a pretty epic statement because it takes them an extremely long time to mature to breeding age, it then takes a very long time for them to gestate their offspring in the womb, they then have 1 baby, just one, and then it takes a really long time to raise that single baby to the point of independence, and then after being independent that baby then has to survive to breeding age, and gestate and raise it's own baby to independence and etc etc. So, somehow, whales need to be especially good at not being preyed upon by their predators. They're not "sacrificing" some babies to the predator gods like hogs and rabbits and rats and etc do. No. They strongly expect their one baby to live, it's a huge investment with a monumental amount of time and effort behind it. They would simply not be viable animals in a world where there's a predator that can fairly easily kill them. They couldn't exist, and wouldn't. I don't know anything about megalodon, other than the fact it's prey bettered it, most of the time, one way or another. I struggle to understand how a baleen whale, or even a sperm whale, or an oversized manatee, could do that if the meg was as portrayed in the popular hype machine narrative. These animals simply aren't good enough, as prey, to allow for the existence of a predator as good as megalodon supposedly was. How does a baleen whale grow up and raise a baby into adulthood in an ocean with megalodons? How? A shark that's supposedly super fast and BTW can chomp a slow moving whale essentially in half easily, as well. Cool story, But no. It doesn't align with the laws of reality. Frogs eat flies. Also some baleen whales weren't totally defenseless from Megalodon. Some could grow to lengths exceeding 9 m (the average meg was 10 m long). That's also just lousy imo. Megalodon wasn't the only giant back then, they were tons of ginormous animals similar in size to the shark like livyatan, the biting sperm whale, chubutensis, sokolovi, angustidens, obliquus and etc. While I do agree that Megalodon can be overrated, it's kinda hard to argue against how insanely powerful a 103 ton shark would be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2023 14:43:31 GMT
Zero animals have prey that are defenseless. In one way or another, the prey has the advantage. There are many ways this can be achieved, the prey animal might just expel thousands of spores into a current knowing that most will die, but surely the odd one by sheer chance and luck will survive. That's one strategy. Another might be just living where there aren't predators, like mouflon and bezoar ibex that hide up the most steep and rocky desolate cliffs and predators mostly can't get up there, those that can (like snow leopards) have to deal with the climbing ability of the herbivore (which is legendary- scaling vertical walls). Down on a flat field these ungulates would be weirdly defenseless against predators, but they found a strategy to best predators (like all prey animals must) and it's to climb up the cliffs where the food (lichen) sucks, but at least you can survive and breed without definitely being killed. Even hogs, which have good defense against predators, they can fight off their predators when they mature and evade them with quickness and agility when young, even they have to also add the additional insurance of having large litters and breeding regularly and quickly and having off spring that can take care of themselves fairly quickly. Knowing that they are gonna lose offspring to predators, they stack up on numbers. Even sloths... seem totally defenseless, but they are actually camouflaging by growing green algae on their fur and moving so slowly they don't get noticed. Also live so high in the canopy they only have to worry about Harpy eagles, but yes at least they are hiding. That's another strategy (they do also swing their claws at harpy eagles, and surprisingly it sometimes does work). Every prey animal has to have a strategy to be successful. Some avenue of success where the best individuals who do everything right to a high level aren't preyed upon until after their offspring are well and truly set to fend for themselves. For whales this is a pretty epic statement because it takes them an extremely long time to mature to breeding age, it then takes a very long time for them to gestate their offspring in the womb, they then have 1 baby, just one, and then it takes a really long time to raise that single baby to the point of independence, and then after being independent that baby then has to survive to breeding age, and gestate and raise it's own baby to independence and etc etc. So, somehow, whales need to be especially good at not being preyed upon by their predators. They're not "sacrificing" some babies to the predator gods like hogs and rabbits and rats and etc do. No. They strongly expect their one baby to live, it's a huge investment with a monumental amount of time and effort behind it. They would simply not be viable animals in a world where there's a predator that can fairly easily kill them. They couldn't exist, and wouldn't. I don't know anything about megalodon, other than the fact it's prey bettered it, most of the time, one way or another. I struggle to understand how a baleen whale, or even a sperm whale, or an oversized manatee, could do that if the meg was as portrayed in the popular hype machine narrative. These animals simply aren't good enough, as prey, to allow for the existence of a predator as good as megalodon supposedly was. How does a baleen whale grow up and raise a baby into adulthood in an ocean with megalodons? How? A shark that's supposedly super fast and BTW can chomp a slow moving whale essentially in half easily, as well. Cool story, But no. It doesn't align with the laws of reality. "Although these sharks were massive, they did not appear to frequent cool waters, making them less likely to attack animals in or near these environments." "As a result, some areas and species are the "exception to the rule". Regardless, categorisation by thermal strategy does show some interesting patterns of species diversity, and accounts for animals like whales and seals largely avoided the warmest waters." phys.org/news/2019-02-marine-life-typically-tropics-whales.amp |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jan 18, 2023 15:28:20 GMT
Zero animals have prey that are defenseless. In one way or another, the prey has the advantage. There are many ways this can be achieved, the prey animal might just expel thousands of spores into a current knowing that most will die, but surely the odd one by sheer chance and luck will survive. That's one strategy. Another might be just living where there aren't predators, like mouflon and bezoar ibex that hide up the most steep and rocky desolate cliffs and predators mostly can't get up there, those that can (like snow leopards) have to deal with the climbing ability of the herbivore (which is legendary- scaling vertical walls). Down on a flat field these ungulates would be weirdly defenseless against predators, but they found a strategy to best predators (like all prey animals must) and it's to climb up the cliffs where the food (lichen) sucks, but at least you can survive and breed without definitely being killed. Even hogs, which have good defense against predators, they can fight off their predators when they mature and evade them with quickness and agility when young, even they have to also add the additional insurance of having large litters and breeding regularly and quickly and having off spring that can take care of themselves fairly quickly. Knowing that they are gonna lose offspring to predators, they stack up on numbers. Even sloths... seem totally defenseless, but they are actually camouflaging by growing green algae on their fur and moving so slowly they don't get noticed. Also live so high in the canopy they only have to worry about Harpy eagles, but yes at least they are hiding. That's another strategy (they do also swing their claws at harpy eagles, and surprisingly it sometimes does work). Every prey animal has to have a strategy to be successful. Some avenue of success where the best individuals who do everything right to a high level aren't preyed upon until after their offspring are well and truly set to fend for themselves. For whales this is a pretty epic statement because it takes them an extremely long time to mature to breeding age, it then takes a very long time for them to gestate their offspring in the womb, they then have 1 baby, just one, and then it takes a really long time to raise that single baby to the point of independence, and then after being independent that baby then has to survive to breeding age, and gestate and raise it's own baby to independence and etc etc. So, somehow, whales need to be especially good at not being preyed upon by their predators. They're not "sacrificing" some babies to the predator gods like hogs and rabbits and rats and etc do. No. They strongly expect their one baby to live, it's a huge investment with a monumental amount of time and effort behind it. They would simply not be viable animals in a world where there's a predator that can fairly easily kill them. They couldn't exist, and wouldn't. I don't know anything about megalodon, other than the fact it's prey bettered it, most of the time, one way or another. I struggle to understand how a baleen whale, or even a sperm whale, or an oversized manatee, could do that if the meg was as portrayed in the popular hype machine narrative. These animals simply aren't good enough, as prey, to allow for the existence of a predator as good as megalodon supposedly was. How does a baleen whale grow up and raise a baby into adulthood in an ocean with megalodons? How? A shark that's supposedly super fast and BTW can chomp a slow moving whale essentially in half easily, as well. Cool story, But no. It doesn't align with the laws of reality. Frogs eat flies. Frogs miss flies most of the time. Ever tried to catch a fly? It's difficult, and it's even more difficult for a doofus frog hopping around at ankle level. Flies pwn frogs, basically. You won't find an exception, you won't find a predator that easily obliterates it's prey at will. It's just obvious evolution. Once a predator is good enough to acquire enough food from it's prey source to survive, it won't continue elevating and improving as a predator. You can survive failing most predation attempts, picking off the loser dud specimens and failing against the quality prime specimens, that's good enough to live, so why would a predator evolve to be more than that? They don't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2023 15:42:48 GMT
Frogs miss flies most of the time. Ever tried to catch a fly? It's difficult, and it's even more difficult for a doofus frog hopping around at ankle level. Flies pwn frogs, basically. You won't find an exception, you won't find a predator that easily obliterates it's prey at will. It's just obvious evolution. Once a predator is good enough to acquire enough food from it's prey source to survive, it won't continue elevating and improving as a predator. You can survive failing most predation attempts, picking off the loser dud specimens and failing against the quality prime specimens, that's good enough to live, so why would a predator evolve to be more than that? They don't. "Although these sharks were massive, they did not appear to frequent cool waters, making them less likely to attack animals in or near these environments." "As a result, some areas and species are the "exception to the rule". Regardless, categorisation by thermal strategy does show some interesting patterns of species diversity, and accounts for animals like whales and seals largely avoiding the warmest waters." phys.org/news/2019-02-marine-life-typically-tropics-whales.amp |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2023 15:04:38 GMT
Some cool info I found. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abm9424+7 authors involved "...extrapolations of the relationship between tooth crown height and total length (i.e., length from the snout to the tip of the tail; herein TL) in C. carcharias (12) have suggested a maximum TL of 14 to 18 m for O. megalodon (6, 7, 13). More recently, however, a maximum TL of 20 m has been calculated on the basis of the tooth crown width of associated dentitions of other lamniform sharks (14). The dimensions of O. megalodon body parts have also been estimated using multiple lamniform analogs, suggesting that an adult ~16-m O. megalodon would have had a head 4.7 m long, a dorsal fin 1.6 m tall, and a tail about 4 m high (15)." "In 2021, Shimada and colleagues calculated the growth rate of an approximately 9.2 m (30 ft) individual based on the Belgian vertebrate column specimen that presumably contains annual growth rings on three of its vertebrae. They estimated the individual died at 46 years of age, with a growth rate of 16 cm (6.3 in) per year, and a length of 2 m (6 ft 7 in) at birth. For a 15 m (49 ft) individual—which they considered to have been the maximum size attainable—this would equate to a lifespan of 88 to 100 years. However, Cooper and his colleagues in 2022 estimated the length of this 46 year old individual at nearly 16 m (52 ft) based on the 3D reconstruction which resulted in the complete vertebral column to be 11.1 m (36 ft) long; the researchers claimed that this size estimate difference occurred due to the fact that Shimada and his colleagues extrapolated its size only based on the vertebral centra." "Larger O. megalodon centra have been reported elsewhere, with the largest measuring 230 mm in diameter (16). Our O. megalodon 3D reconstruction is also larger than a maximum size of 14.2 to 15.3 m previously proposed based on upper anterior teeth (13). The model’s large size combined with the existence of known vertebral centra ~50% larger than those of IRSNB P 9893 (16) supports a more recent suggestion that O. megalodon may have reached a maximum TL of 20 m (14) ."
"Here, we create the first three-dimensional (3D) model of the body of O. megalodon and use it to infer its movement and feeding ecology. We first reconstructed the axial skeleton using 3D scans of the exceptional vertebral column IRSNB P 9893 from Belgium, an associated dentition from the United States, and a C. carcharias chondrocranium (Fig. 1 and figs. S1 and S2). We completed the model by adding “flesh” around the skeleton using a full-body scan of C. carcharias (Fig. 1) and adjusted it based on a 2D reconstruction of O. megalodon that accounts for other analogs [i.e., Isurus and Lamna spp.; see Materials and Methods; (15)]. We quantified TL, volume, and gape size from the complete 3D model. Volume was then used to calculate body mass. Last, we estimated the model’s swimming speed, stomach volume, daily energetic demands, and prey encounter rates based on their mathematical relationships with mass in extant sharks. Our results reveal the potentially distinctive ecological role that O. megalodon played in the global oceans, advancing our knowledge of the impacts of megafaunal species on marine ecosystems in deep time and the potential ecological consequences of their extinctions."  "Our prey size and intake results suggest that a ~16-m O. megalodon could completely ingest, and in as few as five bites, prey as large as O. orca (i.e., 8 m), a top consumer in modern marine food webs (63). The macroraptorial sperm whale Zygophyseter varolei occupied a similar ecological niche to modern orcas in the Miocene and likely overlapped with O. megalodon (64, 65). Z. varolei is only known from a holotype specimen from Italy and has been estimated to reach 7 m of length (64, 65). Accordingly, O. megalodon could potentially have fully consumed this large predator. Such a predatory behavior would be similar to that of large extant predators such as C. carcharias, which can fully consume dolphins in two pieces (24). The potential ability of O. megalodon to fully consume large predators has two main ecological implications. First, it supports previous findings of O. megalodon sitting at a higher trophic level than apex predators today based on calcium isotopes (22), further implying an important ecological function as an apex superpredator. Second, when also considering the potential competitive interactions from our swimming speed analyses, it further suggests the possibility of a dietary preference for large prey. Although it has been previously hypothesized that O. megalodon preferred prey of 2 to 7 m (19, 20), empirical studies have shown that large sharks prey upon a broader range of sizes than their smaller counterparts (66). Moreover, one of the benefits of gigantism in macropredatory marine taxa is the ability to exploit less competitive niches by consuming large prey (29, 35, 67). For example, while toothed whales tend to feed on large patches of small prey, the largest sperm whales can acquire similar amounts of energy from eating just a few large, high-energy items (67). Similar energetic gains from frequent but small prey relative to less frequent but large prey were also found in our O. megalodon prey encounter analysis (Fig. 3). Hence, it is possible that large O. megalodon individuals may have minimized competition by targeting large prey."
Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2023 16:13:43 GMT
|
|
