Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Quote

Loveritas: Mother of God!

Do you really think that people are so dumb as to fall for this sidestep?

Ok. Let's unpack this mendacity.



The text clearly says,"the mystery of the Khufu cartouche." Not markings close by, or any other markings in the chamber. It specifies one cartouche and one cartouche only - the Khufu cartouche.

Ironically, the blurb finishes with "a must read book for all seekers of truth."

SC: Let’s deal in facts shall we rather than your unfounded and somewhat feverish innuendo. Robert Bauval can speak for his own comments. All I will say here is that he made his comment having fully read HOAX and he says precisely nothing about chemical analysis of anything in his brief comment.

Quote

SC: Nowhere does the book blurb specifically state "...chemical analysis of the Khufu cartouche..." as you claim above.

Loveritas: No, it doesn't specifically state that the chemical analysis is of the Khufu cartouche. That's the whole point. That's the deception. That's the false and misleading statement. "He examines recent chemical analysis of the marks." And you knew that!

You knew that you DID NOT HAVE any chemical analysis of the Khufu cartouche because (a) it doesn't exist, or, (b) it's not available to you.

Let’s see:

...tied to only one piece of evidence: the crudely painted marks [note plural]. . . high definition photos of the actual marks [note plural]. . . and why the marks [note plural] were faked. . . orthography of the quarry marks [note plural]...

I’m sure you get the idea. The marketing blurb speaks not of a ‘single cartouche’ but of “marks” (plural). Now, most people i.e. those folks who don’t actually have an axe to grind would, quite reasonably, conclude from the plural that more than one mark was being presented/discussed in the actual book. So, on that basis alone, it is also reasonable that the fair-minded reader would also conclude that “chemical analysis of the marks” may apply to some other mark and not necessarily the Khufu cartouche. This is especially so given “He explains how the orientation of the Khufu cartouche contradicts ancient Egyptian writing of this time and how one of the signs is from a later period.” In other words – the blurb specifically states what is being considered in the book with regards to the actual cartouche itself. No mention there of the chemical analysis of the cartouche. Were the chemical analysis associated with the cartouche itself then the marketing blurb would have read something like: “He explains how the orientation of the Khufu cartouche contradicts ancient Egyptian writing of this time, how one of the signs is from a later period as well as recent chemical analysis of the cartouche.”

That you wish to take 2 and 2 and come up with 5 is all down to YOUR OWN IMAGINATION. But I suspect your motive is more malicious than that and that your engagement here is nothing more than an exercise in deflection from the elephant in the room (we’ll come back to that). Oh and mud-raking and grievance mongering too. You have little to actually say about the content within the book and so desperately try to find something – ANYTHING – outside the book in order to try and discredit it. Your tactic is as transparent as a broken window.

Quote

Loveritas: But the average consumer browsing through the bookstore reads the blurb and is MISLED into thinking that this highly promoted chemical analysis which, if it dates to the 19th Century, is a slam dunk for your claims.

Surely, you can't honestly expect the readers to believe that you really meant that the chemical analysis, as advertised in the blurb, was of a completely different graffiti?

SC: See above. The “average consumer” has very little knowledge of this subject and could probably care less. It’s only anoraks like us that understand the detail. But us anoraks know what Gorlitz took and had tested and that it wasn’t paint from the cartouche. So, an anorak reading the blurb would automatically conclude that ”chemical analysis of the marks” could not refer to the actual cartouche and must be some other marks. Indeed, some on this very forum – even before the book was published – knew what paint mark I was talking about (and wrongly believed that I was talking merely about radiocarbon dating analysis – which I wasn’t). But, of course, you won’t conclude that if your agenda is more to do with mud raking, mischief-making and manufacturing petty grievance. In short - deliberate shit-stirring.

Quote

Using evidence from the time of the discovery of these “quarry marks”--including surveys, facsimile drawings and Vyse’s private field notes--along with high definition photos of the actual marks,

Loveritas: So, when you stated that you were including "high definition photos of the actual marks, were you referring to secondary marks quite apart from the cartouche? If you were, this again is misleading the consumer. If you were referring to the Gorlitz marks, then why didn't you make this clear instead of attempting to induce the consumer into buying your book by means of a misleading statement?

No – this was of the cartouche. The Patrick Chapuis photo of the Khufu cartouche used in HOAX is one of the highest resolution images ever taken of the cartouche, showing detail in the cartouche never before seen in other photographs of it. See HOAX p.143 for the full image of the Chapuis photo of the cartouche. You cannot see the small stone detail in that zoomed out image but when you zoom into the Chapuis image (go to HOAX p.136) you will see detail that is simply not present in other images of the cartouche (because the resolution in most other images is just too low). I hope this clarifies this for you but I am certain you will come up with something else to whinge about.

Quote

If you doubt the findings presented in HOAX of the chemical analysis of this mark then there is little I can do about that other than to suggest, if you can, find a way to get your own chemical analysis done.

Loveritas: I am not interested in the findings of the chemical analysis. I couldn't care less. It's irrelevant.

SC: Which entirely contradicts your statement below: “You appealed to all seekers of truth. Now you've got one.” So you’re not really a seeker of truth, are you? You’re just a silly little mud-raking, grievance manufacturing blowhard. That’s how you come across.

And one that is determined to ignore the elephant in the room here. Let’s remind ourselves what you said above:

Quote

Loveritas: . . .this highly promoted chemical analysis which, if it dates to the 19th Century, is a slam dunk for your claims.

SC: You have yourself stated the importance of this chemical analysis. It proves the marks in this area of Campbell’s Chamber are painted onto a layer of plaster (which is a reasonable indicator that the cartouche itself may also be painted onto a layer of plaster). So answer me this question: accepting that the 'lesser' marks in are indeed painted onto a layer of plaster then it seems likely that this painting would have been done in-situ. Why would the scribe paint these marks onto the in-situ roof block sideways? Perhaps because the scribe didn’t do that and it was done much more recently by Vyse & Co and painted sideways to merely give the illusion that it was painted outwith the chamber (ergo must therefore be genuine). And if Vyse & Co could fake those (relatively) insignificant marks, do you seriously consider that it would have been beyond him to fake the much more important cartouche? Seriously? Indeed, if the cartouche was already in the chamber, why would he even feel the need to fake the 'lesser' marks at all?

That’s the importance of the chemical analysis, Loveritas. It proves the marks are on a layer of plaster which is highly unlikely to have occurred outside the chamber.

I think I can understand why you’re not interested in the chemical analysis findings because those findings challenge everything about those painted marks, including (indirectly) the Khufu cartouche itself (of which there is considerable evidence from other sources to raise serious questions about its provenance); this chemical analysis, indirectly, challenges everything you believe in with regards to this issue. In short – if Vyse & Co could fake these ‘lesser’ marks then he most certainly could have faked the cartouche itself. That’s the elephant in the room that you don't want to look at, Loveritas.
Quote

Loveritas: It's your misleading statements in the blurb which are the focus of my attention.

SC: In other words - you can’t find anything within HOAX to quibble about so you manufacture a grievance about the blurb on the outside of the book. See above.

Quote

Loveritas: The rest of the blurb further confirms the deception.

SC: Only to those who are not actually interested in the actual evidence and who merely have a grievance agenda and deliberately do not want to properly read what the blurb actually says.

Quote

Loveritas: I am not desisting from anything. You appealed to all seekers of truth. Now you've got one.

SC: See above. By your own admission you’re not interested in seeking truth at all. No – all we have with you is your determination to conflate separate statements into one imaginary statement and to insist that 2 and 2 equals 5. Here’s the simple facts for you:

1) The book blurb talks of “marks” (plural).
2) Nowhere does the blurb state the chemical analysis was of the cartouche.
3) The book blurb specifically identifies other issues with the cartouche and keeps “chemical analysis” comment separate from this.

That the blurb does not spell out precisely what has and has not been chemically analysed is YOUR problem. Typically in book marketing blurbs publishers do not have the luxury to spell out in great detail exactly what is being said – that’s what the book’s for. With limited space the marketing people have to be very concise in order to give a flavour of the book’s overall content. That’s just how it is.

Quote

Loveritas: This whole hoax thing is really a non-starter for me. Even if the cartouche is a forgery, it will not change the true history of Egypt, as you claim.

SC: You’re entitled to your opinion.

Quote

Loveritas: My viewpoint is that the methods whereby you attempt to persuade the book buying public into purchasing your book equate to deceptive conduct. If you had just been honest and written the book asking questions about this chapter in Antiquarian history and not tried to fool the public into believing that you had definite proof (the chemical analysis of the Khufu cartouche), but did have have other evidence - even if not prima facie - I wouldn't have bothered to start this thread.

SC: Of course you wouldn’t have started this thread. You’d have had faux outrage and started a thread about some other manufactured grievance. I say that because that’s all I ever see from you.

Quote

Loveritas: But you didn't. And you still are maintaining your innocence.

Not impressed.

SC: I'm not here to impress you.

SC



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 14-Feb-19 13:25 by Scott Creighton.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Pyramid Hoax Observations 2620 Barbelo 05-Feb-19 03:51
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 390 Racho 05-Feb-19 03:55
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 372 Barbelo 05-Feb-19 04:16
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 427 DUNE 05-Feb-19 08:22
Who was Thoth? serious question... 345 Racho 05-Feb-19 16:12
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 359 LonelyAngel 05-Feb-19 20:19
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 362 cladking 05-Feb-19 20:29
Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 305 Racho 05-Feb-19 20:47
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 311 cladking 06-Feb-19 01:01
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 335 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 01:02
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 247 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:52
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 271 Warwick 05-Feb-19 21:01
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 283 Corpuscles 05-Feb-19 21:23
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 310 cladking 06-Feb-19 01:08
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 282 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 01:46
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 216 cladking 06-Feb-19 04:26
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 241 Corpuscles 06-Feb-19 02:17
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 221 cladking 06-Feb-19 04:17
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 217 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 08:48
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 212 cladking 06-Feb-19 14:08
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 234 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 14:20
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 259 Lee McGiffen 08-Feb-19 10:20
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 248 cladking 08-Feb-19 15:03
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 231 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 15:29
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 207 cladking 08-Feb-19 16:42
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 336 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:03
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 247 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 17:10
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 246 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:12
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 258 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 17:25
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 263 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:36
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 191 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 18:35
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 191 cladking 08-Feb-19 17:19
Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 231 Barbelo 08-Feb-19 20:17
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 272 cladking 08-Feb-19 21:36
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 217 Barbelo 08-Feb-19 22:14
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 187 cladking 08-Feb-19 22:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 193 Warwick 09-Feb-19 03:26
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 224 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 22:06
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 253 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 23:43
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 201 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 06:25
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 208 cladking 09-Feb-19 15:28
gunpowder 188 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:08
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 205 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 21:05
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 187 cladking 09-Feb-19 21:26
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 211 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 21:41
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 204 cladking 09-Feb-19 21:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 206 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:29
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 192 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 22:32
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 182 cladking 09-Feb-19 23:25
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 199 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:47
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 191 cladking 10-Feb-19 01:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 197 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 181 cladking 09-Feb-19 23:26
Research methodology 168 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:06
Happy news on the Furphy front 207 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 20:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 233 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 13:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 237 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 18:33
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 194 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:12
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 206 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 20:36
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 194 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 21:21
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 176 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 283 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 13:32
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 201 Warwick 11-Feb-19 18:02
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 219 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 19:03
The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 215 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:05
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 210 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 18:25
Elbonian methodology 184 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:50
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 224 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:38
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 188 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:46
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 198 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:50
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 182 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:52
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 221 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:58
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 201 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:08
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 207 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:19
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 195 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:23
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 190 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:28
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 190 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:33
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 209 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:36
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 194 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:47
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 217 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:48
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 195 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:55
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 205 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 20:04
Scott wipes the floor with them again 206 LonelyAngel 11-Feb-19 21:03
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 261 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 21:31
Get the hell out of dodge and go write another book... 217 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 22:04
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 213 Scott Creighton 11-Feb-19 22:08
Aye - facts are chiels that winna ding. 193 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 22:15
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 208 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 22:51
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 181 cladking 11-Feb-19 23:09
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 201 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 23:35
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 178 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 11:07
Oooooh Scott... 217 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 11:35
Re: Oooooh Scott... 219 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 14:06
Re: Oooooh Scott... 223 Martin Stower 13-Feb-19 14:40
Re: Oooooh Scott... 208 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 20:47
Re: Oooooh Scott... 197 Corpuscles 13-Feb-19 22:01
Re: Oooooh Scott... 199 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 20:11
Re: Oooooh Scott... 193 LonelyAngel 15-Feb-19 15:35
Re: Oooooh Scott... 196 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:45
Re: Oooooh Scott... 209 LonelyAngel 16-Feb-19 18:24
Re: Oooooh Scott... 195 Martin Stower 16-Feb-19 19:33
Re: Oooooh Scott... 194 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:02
Re: Oooooh Scott... 162 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 20:55
Re: Oooooh Scott... 182 Warwick 21-Feb-19 20:59
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 204 Warwick 11-Feb-19 22:20
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 223 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 14:45
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 246 Martin Stower 13-Feb-19 15:12
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 208 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:21
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 213 WonderWho 13-Feb-19 16:44
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 168 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:18
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 188 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:31
Angel wishes to wallow in the past 210 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:58
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 198 WonderWho 13-Feb-19 17:58
A Perfect example of Obfuscation 188 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:00
The Charlatan and the Truckler 215 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 20:25
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 234 Scott Creighton 13-Feb-19 23:15
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 213 Barbelo 14-Feb-19 01:28
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 312 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 11:26
excerpt from the New Age Dictionary 196 Warwick 14-Feb-19 17:30
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 190 Barbelo 14-Feb-19 21:03
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 168 Corpuscles 14-Feb-19 21:07
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 215 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 21:34
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 172 Martin Stower 15-Feb-19 15:52
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 197 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 22:37
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 196 Corpuscles 14-Feb-19 23:02
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 243 Morten 15-Feb-19 12:01
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 218 Scott Creighton 15-Feb-19 14:19
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 238 Martin Stower 15-Feb-19 16:21
Vyse's Journal and the Mason's Marks 186 Warwick 15-Feb-19 18:23
His podcast lies 234 Martin Stower 16-Feb-19 20:00
Re: His podcast lies 169 Warwick 17-Feb-19 16:44
Re: His podcast lies 190 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 16:54
Re: His podcast lies 188 Warwick 17-Feb-19 18:06
Re: His podcast lies 182 Corpuscles 17-Feb-19 20:07
Re: His podcast lies 180 Warwick 17-Feb-19 20:28
Re: His podcast lies 178 Corpuscles 17-Feb-19 21:30
Re: His podcast lies 188 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 22:00
Re: His podcast lies 175 Corpuscles 18-Feb-19 03:57
Re: His podcast lies 242 Warwick 18-Feb-19 16:47
Re: His podcast lies 172 Warwick 17-Feb-19 22:07
Re: His podcast lies 199 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 21:46
Re: His podcast lies 156 Corpuscles 18-Feb-19 03:47
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 210 sfbey 14-Feb-19 16:58
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 204 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 17:40
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 187 Warwick 14-Feb-19 18:10
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 194 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 18:37
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 167 Warwick 14-Feb-19 18:58
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 188 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 19:09
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 173 Warwick 14-Feb-19 19:35
curious minds want to know 192 Warwick 14-Feb-19 19:56
Re: curious minds want to know 214 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 21:03
Re: curious minds want to know 180 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:13
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 181 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 20:39
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 183 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:30
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 187 Scott Creighton 15-Feb-19 17:42
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 171 Warwick 15-Feb-19 18:01
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 204 Corpuscles 16-Feb-19 01:02
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 210 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:14
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 188 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:23
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 197 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:04
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 204 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:20
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 220 R Avry Wilson 10-Feb-19 19:17
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 201 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:22
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 194 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:59
It Is Not Evidence - It's False & Misleading 186 Barbelo 10-Feb-19 20:17
Re: It Is Not Evidence - It's False & Misleading 229 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 21:16
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 200 R Avry Wilson 10-Feb-19 20:12
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 181 Warwick 10-Feb-19 20:39
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 195 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 20:49
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 184 Warwick 10-Feb-19 21:15
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 223 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 23:40
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 184 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 11:00
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 276 Corpuscles 12-Feb-19 01:03
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 187 Merrell 12-Feb-19 09:44
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 282 Martin Stower 12-Feb-19 12:00
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 204 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 22:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 209 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:45
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 251 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 22:51
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 177 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 23:05
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 218 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 186 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 23:24
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 188 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:30
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 211 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 23:34
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 180 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:39
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 209 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:22
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 193 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:06
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 188 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:28
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 182 Barbelo 09-Feb-19 23:33
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 215 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:43
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 196 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:58
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 188 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 00:20
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 224 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:29
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 175 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 00:35
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 203 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 207 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 01:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 213 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 01:16
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 207 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 01:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 217 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 01:55
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 221 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:19
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 255 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 23:29
Intro for new tv show 203 Warwick 09-Feb-19 03:31
Re: Intro for new tv show 199 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 10:39
Re: Intro for new tv show 177 Warwick 09-Feb-19 19:58
Re: Intro for new tv show 197 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 20:12
Re: Intro for new tv show 176 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:15
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 239 Corpuscles 05-Feb-19 21:13
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 216 Warwick 05-Feb-19 21:19
The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 266 Barbelo 06-Feb-19 04:16
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 226 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:57
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 198 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 17:53
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 184 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:29
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 183 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:31
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 196 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 18:48
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 172 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:54
A Soft Cock 202 Barbelo 10-Feb-19 20:29
Keep it Civil 194 Scott Creighton 11-Feb-19 09:57
Re: Keep it Civil 212 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 10:48
Re: Keep it Civil 208 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 11:38
Re: A Soft Cock 183 LonelyAngel 15-Feb-19 15:28
Re: A Soft Cock 251 Barbelo 15-Feb-19 20:31
Re: A Soft Cock 173 LonelyAngel 16-Feb-19 18:10
Re: A Soft Cock 225 Barbelo 16-Feb-19 20:44
Re: A Soft Cock 191 LonelyAngel 17-Feb-19 11:45
Re: A Soft Cock 184 Corpuscles 20-Feb-19 20:19
Re: A Soft Cock 186 Warwick 21-Feb-19 18:01
Re: A Soft Cock 182 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 18:37
Re: A Soft Cock 186 Martin Stower 21-Feb-19 18:49
Re: A Soft Cock 177 Warwick 21-Feb-19 19:42
Re: A Soft Cock 177 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 20:16
Re: A Soft Cock 182 Martin Stower 21-Feb-19 20:30
Re: A Soft Cock 183 Warwick 21-Feb-19 20:33
Completely Flaccid 199 Corpuscles 22-Feb-19 05:59
Re: Completely Flaccid 189 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 12:48
Re: Completely Flaccid 159 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 12:53
Re: Completely Flaccid 208 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 13:03
Re: Completely Flaccid 193 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 13:27
Re: Completely Flaccid 189 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 13:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 213 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 14:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 183 Corpuscles 22-Feb-19 19:06
Re: Completely Flaccid 189 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 19:17
Re: Completely Flaccid 207 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 22:44
Re: Completely Flaccid 176 LonelyAngel 23-Feb-19 11:16
Re: Completely Flaccid 190 Martin Stower 23-Feb-19 12:40
Re: Completely Flaccid 218 Corpuscles 23-Feb-19 02:35
simply put 163 Warwick 24-Feb-19 16:48
Re: Completely Flaccid 178 LonelyAngel 23-Feb-19 10:49
Re: Completely Flaccid 189 Martin Stower 23-Feb-19 12:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 184 Corpuscles 23-Feb-19 17:47
Re: Completely Flaccid 181 LonelyAngel 24-Feb-19 15:39
Re: Completely Flaccid 173 Corpuscles 24-Feb-19 15:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 175 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 18:42
Re: Completely Flaccid 180 Scott Creighton 26-Feb-19 19:03
Re: Completely Flaccid 174 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 20:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 166 Scott Creighton 26-Feb-19 21:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 201 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 22:07
factoid 180 Warwick 24-Feb-19 17:03
Re: factoid 175 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 18:31
Re: factoid 199 Warwick 26-Feb-19 19:39
Re: factoid 175 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 10:09
Re: factoid 215 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 11:00
Re: factoid 164 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 13:35
Re: factoid 225 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 14:33
Re: factoid 196 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 16:24
Re: factoid 190 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 16:52
Re: factoid 175 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 16:55
Re: factoid 184 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 17:11
Re: factoid 202 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 17:18
Re: factoid 208 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 17:42
Re: factoid 167 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 09:49
Re: factoid 169 Martin Stower 28-Feb-19 13:12
Re: factoid 194 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 13:21
Re: factoid 215 Martin Stower 28-Feb-19 15:19
Re: factoid 186 Warwick 27-Feb-19 20:11
Dusty? 180 Warwick 27-Feb-19 20:05
Re: Dusty? 166 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 09:52
Re: Dusty? 186 Warwick 28-Feb-19 17:56
Re: Dusty? 209 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 17:59
Re: Dusty? 198 Warwick 28-Feb-19 18:36
Re: Dusty? 192 LonelyAngel 01-Mar-19 12:05
Re: Dusty? 191 Warwick 01-Mar-19 18:14
Re: Dusty? 175 LonelyAngel 01-Mar-19 21:57
Re: Dusty? 172 Warwick 01-Mar-19 22:11
Re: Dusty? 182 LonelyAngel 02-Mar-19 12:58
unbelievable 189 Warwick 02-Mar-19 15:27
Mod Caution > Warwick Off-Topic Posts 173 Dr. Troglodyte 02-Mar-19 15:57
I apologise 189 LonelyAngel 02-Mar-19 16:59
Re: I apologise 255 Warwick 02-Mar-19 17:48
Mod Caution > LonelyAngel Off-Topic Posts 180 Dr. Troglodyte 02-Mar-19 15:54
Re: A Soft Cock 203 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 12:09
Re: A Soft Cock 194 LonelyAngel 17-Feb-19 12:44
Re: A Soft Cock 225 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 13:11
Re: A Soft Cock 186 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 16:02
Re: A Soft Cock 182 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:12
Re: A Soft Cock 185 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 15:53
Re: A Soft Cock 161 Warwick 19-Feb-19 17:37
Re: A Soft Cock 201 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:06
Re: A Soft Cock 189 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:16
Re: A Soft Cock 186 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:23
Re: A Soft Cock 193 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:28
Re: A Soft Cock 213 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:31
Re: A Soft Cock 218 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:40
Re: A Soft Cock 243 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 22:11
Re: A Soft Cock 217 LonelyAngel 20-Feb-19 12:52
Re: A Soft Cock 194 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 18:14
Re: A Soft Cock 163 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:22
Re: A Soft Cock 164 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:05
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 252 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 00:46
Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 256 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 06:14
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 257 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 08:50
I am not surprised at all 213 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 15:41
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 245 Scott Creighton 06-Feb-19 16:39
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 300 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 18:10
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 207 cladking 06-Feb-19 19:24
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 201 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 23:00
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 208 cladking 07-Feb-19 01:55
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 224 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 04:51
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 234 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:49
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 216 Martin Stower 07-Feb-19 15:24
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 214 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 20:10
Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 219 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 20:07
Re: Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 254 Scott Creighton 06-Feb-19 22:31
Re: Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 299 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 23:12
More .. 218 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 23:00
Re: More .. 226 sfbey 07-Feb-19 23:13
Re: More .. 209 Martin Stower 07-Feb-19 23:33
Re: More .. 245 Corpuscles 08-Feb-19 01:01
Re: More .. 228 sfbey 08-Feb-19 02:42
Re: More .. 211 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 00:26
Re: More .. 199 Corpuscles 08-Feb-19 01:26
Re: More .. 215 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 02:39
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 233 Corpuscles 06-Feb-19 23:03
Why is it so IMPORTANT? 250 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 01:45
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 208 cladking 07-Feb-19 01:52
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 228 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 04:48
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 255 cladking 07-Feb-19 14:30
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 268 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 18:08
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 254 cladking 07-Feb-19 22:27
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 297 Warwick 08-Feb-19 19:24
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 255 JuhaS 13-Feb-19 22:03


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.