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 2514 Barbelo 05-Feb-19 03:51
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 343 Racho 05-Feb-19 03:55
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 320 Barbelo 05-Feb-19 04:16
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 377 DUNE 05-Feb-19 08:22
Who was Thoth? serious question... 310 Racho 05-Feb-19 16:12
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 311 LonelyAngel 05-Feb-19 20:19
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 308 cladking 05-Feb-19 20:29
Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 265 Racho 05-Feb-19 20:47
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 267 cladking 06-Feb-19 01:01
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 275 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 01:02
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 221 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:52
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 230 Warwick 05-Feb-19 21:01
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 243 Corpuscles 05-Feb-19 21:23
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 267 cladking 06-Feb-19 01:08
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 236 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 01:46
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 174 cladking 06-Feb-19 04:26
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 202 Corpuscles 06-Feb-19 02:17
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 182 cladking 06-Feb-19 04:17
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 172 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 08:48
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 170 cladking 06-Feb-19 14:08
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 196 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 14:20
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 218 Lee McGiffen 08-Feb-19 10:20
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 198 cladking 08-Feb-19 15:03
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 192 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 15:29
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 162 cladking 08-Feb-19 16:42
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 279 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:03
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 200 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 17:10
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 199 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:12
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 201 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 17:25
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 217 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:36
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 150 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 18:35
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 154 cladking 08-Feb-19 17:19
Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 191 Barbelo 08-Feb-19 20:17
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 223 cladking 08-Feb-19 21:36
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 175 Barbelo 08-Feb-19 22:14
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 150 cladking 08-Feb-19 22:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 153 Warwick 09-Feb-19 03:26
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 179 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 22:06
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 217 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 23:43
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 164 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 06:25
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 169 cladking 09-Feb-19 15:28
gunpowder 151 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:08
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 164 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 21:05
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 135 cladking 09-Feb-19 21:26
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 168 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 21:41
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 163 cladking 09-Feb-19 21:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 168 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:29
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 155 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 22:32
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 139 cladking 09-Feb-19 23:25
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 159 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:47
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 152 cladking 10-Feb-19 01:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 154 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 138 cladking 09-Feb-19 23:26
Research methodology 141 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:06
Happy news on the Furphy front 159 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 20:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 188 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 13:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 189 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 18:33
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 154 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:12
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 165 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 20:36
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 154 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 21:21
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 138 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 237 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 13:32
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 161 Warwick 11-Feb-19 18:02
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 177 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 19:03
The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 171 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:05
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 165 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 18:25
Elbonian methodology 137 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:50
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 194 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:38
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 144 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:46
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 157 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:50
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 142 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:52
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 180 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:58
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 149 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:08
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 166 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:19
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 151 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:23
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 151 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:28
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 146 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:33
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 168 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:36
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 153 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:47
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 173 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:48
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 150 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:55
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 165 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 20:04
Scott wipes the floor with them again 165 LonelyAngel 11-Feb-19 21:03
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 213 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 21:31
Get the hell out of dodge and go write another book... 171 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 22:04
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 173 Scott Creighton 11-Feb-19 22:08
Aye - facts are chiels that winna ding. 153 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 22:15
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 170 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 22:51
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 154 cladking 11-Feb-19 23:09
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 163 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 23:35
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 152 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 11:07
Oooooh Scott... 174 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 11:35
Re: Oooooh Scott... 177 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 14:06
Re: Oooooh Scott... 183 Martin Stower 13-Feb-19 14:40
Re: Oooooh Scott... 164 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 20:47
Re: Oooooh Scott... 152 Corpuscles 13-Feb-19 22:01
Re: Oooooh Scott... 159 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 20:11
Re: Oooooh Scott... 146 LonelyAngel 15-Feb-19 15:35
Re: Oooooh Scott... 152 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:45
Re: Oooooh Scott... 159 LonelyAngel 16-Feb-19 18:24
Re: Oooooh Scott... 155 Martin Stower 16-Feb-19 19:33
Re: Oooooh Scott... 153 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:02
Re: Oooooh Scott... 122 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 20:55
Re: Oooooh Scott... 142 Warwick 21-Feb-19 20:59
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 164 Warwick 11-Feb-19 22:20
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 169 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 14:45
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 200 Martin Stower 13-Feb-19 15:12
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 159 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:21
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 167 WonderWho 13-Feb-19 16:44
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 141 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:18
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 147 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:31
Angel wishes to wallow in the past 163 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:58
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 159 WonderWho 13-Feb-19 17:58
A Perfect example of Obfuscation 150 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:00
The Charlatan and the Truckler 179 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 20:25
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 188 Scott Creighton 13-Feb-19 23:15
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 181 Barbelo 14-Feb-19 01:28
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 261 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 11:26
excerpt from the New Age Dictionary 158 Warwick 14-Feb-19 17:30
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 152 Barbelo 14-Feb-19 21:03
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 141 Corpuscles 14-Feb-19 21:07
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 173 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 21:34
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 134 Martin Stower 15-Feb-19 15:52
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 154 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 22:37
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 157 Corpuscles 14-Feb-19 23:02
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 184 Morten 15-Feb-19 12:01
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 182 Scott Creighton 15-Feb-19 14:19
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 191 Martin Stower 15-Feb-19 16:21
Vyse's Journal and the Mason's Marks 146 Warwick 15-Feb-19 18:23
His podcast lies 180 Martin Stower 16-Feb-19 20:00
Re: His podcast lies 128 Warwick 17-Feb-19 16:44
Re: His podcast lies 151 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 16:54
Re: His podcast lies 145 Warwick 17-Feb-19 18:06
Re: His podcast lies 140 Corpuscles 17-Feb-19 20:07
Re: His podcast lies 141 Warwick 17-Feb-19 20:28
Re: His podcast lies 138 Corpuscles 17-Feb-19 21:30
Re: His podcast lies 152 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 22:00
Re: His podcast lies 150 Corpuscles 18-Feb-19 03:57
Re: His podcast lies 198 Warwick 18-Feb-19 16:47
Re: His podcast lies 134 Warwick 17-Feb-19 22:07
Re: His podcast lies 162 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 21:46
Re: His podcast lies 131 Corpuscles 18-Feb-19 03:47
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 168 sfbey 14-Feb-19 16:58
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 158 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 17:40
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 149 Warwick 14-Feb-19 18:10
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 147 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 18:37
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 130 Warwick 14-Feb-19 18:58
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 147 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 19:09
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 136 Warwick 14-Feb-19 19:35
curious minds want to know 145 Warwick 14-Feb-19 19:56
Re: curious minds want to know 169 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 21:03
Re: curious minds want to know 138 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:13
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 154 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 20:39
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 144 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:30
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 143 Scott Creighton 15-Feb-19 17:42
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 142 Warwick 15-Feb-19 18:01
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 164 Corpuscles 16-Feb-19 01:02
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 166 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:14
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 152 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:23
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 154 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:04
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 153 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:20
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 173 R Avry Wilson 10-Feb-19 19:17
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 160 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:22
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 155 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:59
It Is Not Evidence - It's False & Misleading 151 Barbelo 10-Feb-19 20:17
Re: It Is Not Evidence - It's False & Misleading 185 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 21:16
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 161 R Avry Wilson 10-Feb-19 20:12
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 144 Warwick 10-Feb-19 20:39
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 152 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 20:49
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 145 Warwick 10-Feb-19 21:15
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 176 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 23:40
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 159 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 11:00
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 231 Corpuscles 12-Feb-19 01:03
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 153 Merrell 12-Feb-19 09:44
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 229 Martin Stower 12-Feb-19 12:00
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 167 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 22:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 169 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:45
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 206 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 22:51
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 140 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 23:05
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 173 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 162 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 23:24
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 148 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:30
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 172 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 23:34
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 154 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:39
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 170 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:22
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 157 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:06
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 151 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:28
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 138 Barbelo 09-Feb-19 23:33
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 174 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:43
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 158 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:58
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 152 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 00:20
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 174 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:29
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 151 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 00:35
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 158 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 161 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 01:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 162 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 01:16
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 170 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 01:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 175 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 01:55
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 175 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:19
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 215 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 23:29
Intro for new tv show 157 Warwick 09-Feb-19 03:31
Re: Intro for new tv show 157 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 10:39
Re: Intro for new tv show 141 Warwick 09-Feb-19 19:58
Re: Intro for new tv show 160 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 20:12
Re: Intro for new tv show 139 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:15
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 200 Corpuscles 05-Feb-19 21:13
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 167 Warwick 05-Feb-19 21:19
The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 221 Barbelo 06-Feb-19 04:16
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 181 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:57
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 154 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 17:53
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 143 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:29
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 147 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:31
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 155 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 18:48
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 133 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:54
A Soft Cock 166 Barbelo 10-Feb-19 20:29
Keep it Civil 171 Scott Creighton 11-Feb-19 09:57
Re: Keep it Civil 172 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 10:48
Re: Keep it Civil 177 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 11:38
Re: A Soft Cock 142 LonelyAngel 15-Feb-19 15:28
Re: A Soft Cock 212 Barbelo 15-Feb-19 20:31
Re: A Soft Cock 137 LonelyAngel 16-Feb-19 18:10
Re: A Soft Cock 184 Barbelo 16-Feb-19 20:44
Re: A Soft Cock 151 LonelyAngel 17-Feb-19 11:45
Re: A Soft Cock 148 Corpuscles 20-Feb-19 20:19
Re: A Soft Cock 144 Warwick 21-Feb-19 18:01
Re: A Soft Cock 131 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 18:37
Re: A Soft Cock 145 Martin Stower 21-Feb-19 18:49
Re: A Soft Cock 138 Warwick 21-Feb-19 19:42
Re: A Soft Cock 141 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 20:16
Re: A Soft Cock 138 Martin Stower 21-Feb-19 20:30
Re: A Soft Cock 142 Warwick 21-Feb-19 20:33
Completely Flaccid 163 Corpuscles 22-Feb-19 05:59
Re: Completely Flaccid 144 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 12:48
Re: Completely Flaccid 126 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 12:53
Re: Completely Flaccid 162 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 13:03
Re: Completely Flaccid 152 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 13:27
Re: Completely Flaccid 148 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 13:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 163 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 14:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 141 Corpuscles 22-Feb-19 19:06
Re: Completely Flaccid 154 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 19:17
Re: Completely Flaccid 169 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 22:44
Re: Completely Flaccid 134 LonelyAngel 23-Feb-19 11:16
Re: Completely Flaccid 149 Martin Stower 23-Feb-19 12:40
Re: Completely Flaccid 165 Corpuscles 23-Feb-19 02:35
simply put 129 Warwick 24-Feb-19 16:48
Re: Completely Flaccid 141 LonelyAngel 23-Feb-19 10:49
Re: Completely Flaccid 139 Martin Stower 23-Feb-19 12:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 146 Corpuscles 23-Feb-19 17:47
Re: Completely Flaccid 137 LonelyAngel 24-Feb-19 15:39
Re: Completely Flaccid 139 Corpuscles 24-Feb-19 15:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 136 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 18:42
Re: Completely Flaccid 141 Scott Creighton 26-Feb-19 19:03
Re: Completely Flaccid 130 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 20:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 128 Scott Creighton 26-Feb-19 21:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 158 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 22:07
factoid 154 Warwick 24-Feb-19 17:03
Re: factoid 137 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 18:31
Re: factoid 150 Warwick 26-Feb-19 19:39
Re: factoid 138 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 10:09
Re: factoid 175 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 11:00
Re: factoid 128 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 13:35
Re: factoid 176 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 14:33
Re: factoid 148 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 16:24
Re: factoid 149 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 16:52
Re: factoid 135 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 16:55
Re: factoid 147 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 17:11
Re: factoid 148 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 17:18
Re: factoid 165 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 17:42
Re: factoid 126 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 09:49
Re: factoid 133 Martin Stower 28-Feb-19 13:12
Re: factoid 153 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 13:21
Re: factoid 166 Martin Stower 28-Feb-19 15:19
Re: factoid 140 Warwick 27-Feb-19 20:11
Dusty? 143 Warwick 27-Feb-19 20:05
Re: Dusty? 143 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 09:52
Re: Dusty? 145 Warwick 28-Feb-19 17:56
Re: Dusty? 169 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 17:59
Re: Dusty? 150 Warwick 28-Feb-19 18:36
Re: Dusty? 150 LonelyAngel 01-Mar-19 12:05
Re: Dusty? 135 Warwick 01-Mar-19 18:14
Re: Dusty? 138 LonelyAngel 01-Mar-19 21:57
Re: Dusty? 133 Warwick 01-Mar-19 22:11
Re: Dusty? 139 LonelyAngel 02-Mar-19 12:58
unbelievable 144 Warwick 02-Mar-19 15:27
Mod Caution > Warwick Off-Topic Posts 140 Dr. Troglodyte 02-Mar-19 15:57
I apologise 152 LonelyAngel 02-Mar-19 16:59
Re: I apologise 206 Warwick 02-Mar-19 17:48
Mod Caution > LonelyAngel Off-Topic Posts 146 Dr. Troglodyte 02-Mar-19 15:54
Re: A Soft Cock 164 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 12:09
Re: A Soft Cock 153 LonelyAngel 17-Feb-19 12:44
Re: A Soft Cock 179 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 13:11
Re: A Soft Cock 159 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 16:02
Re: A Soft Cock 142 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:12
Re: A Soft Cock 133 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 15:53
Re: A Soft Cock 123 Warwick 19-Feb-19 17:37
Re: A Soft Cock 153 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:06
Re: A Soft Cock 140 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:16
Re: A Soft Cock 140 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:23
Re: A Soft Cock 150 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:28
Re: A Soft Cock 170 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:31
Re: A Soft Cock 173 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:40
Re: A Soft Cock 193 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 22:11
Re: A Soft Cock 159 LonelyAngel 20-Feb-19 12:52
Re: A Soft Cock 148 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 18:14
Re: A Soft Cock 126 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:22
Re: A Soft Cock 127 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:05
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 212 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 00:46
Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 201 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 06:14
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 198 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 08:50
I am not surprised at all 174 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 15:41
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 200 Scott Creighton 06-Feb-19 16:39
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 229 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 18:10
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 170 cladking 06-Feb-19 19:24
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 171 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 23:00
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 167 cladking 07-Feb-19 01:55
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 182 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 04:51
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 189 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:49
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 162 Martin Stower 07-Feb-19 15:24
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 172 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 20:10
Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 177 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 20:07
Re: Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 219 Scott Creighton 06-Feb-19 22:31
Re: Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 235 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 23:12
More .. 177 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 23:00
Re: More .. 166 sfbey 07-Feb-19 23:13
Re: More .. 178 Martin Stower 07-Feb-19 23:33
Re: More .. 197 Corpuscles 08-Feb-19 01:01
Re: More .. 183 sfbey 08-Feb-19 02:42
Re: More .. 169 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 00:26
Re: More .. 161 Corpuscles 08-Feb-19 01:26
Re: More .. 166 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 02:39
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 192 Corpuscles 06-Feb-19 23:03
Why is it so IMPORTANT? 197 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 01:45
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 170 cladking 07-Feb-19 01:52
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 185 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 04:48
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 200 cladking 07-Feb-19 14:30
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 228 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 18:08
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 209 cladking 07-Feb-19 22:27
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 255 Warwick 08-Feb-19 19:24
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 202 JuhaS 13-Feb-19 22:03


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.