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 2688 Barbelo 05-Feb-19 03:51
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 417 Racho 05-Feb-19 03:55
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 405 Barbelo 05-Feb-19 04:16
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 457 DUNE 05-Feb-19 08:22
Who was Thoth? serious question... 372 Racho 05-Feb-19 16:12
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 406 LonelyAngel 05-Feb-19 20:19
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 390 cladking 05-Feb-19 20:29
Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 335 Racho 05-Feb-19 20:47
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 340 cladking 06-Feb-19 01:01
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 371 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 01:02
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 271 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:52
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 299 Warwick 05-Feb-19 21:01
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 313 Corpuscles 05-Feb-19 21:23
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 339 cladking 06-Feb-19 01:08
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 308 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 01:46
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 238 cladking 06-Feb-19 04:26
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 264 Corpuscles 06-Feb-19 02:17
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 241 cladking 06-Feb-19 04:17
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 239 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 08:48
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 232 cladking 06-Feb-19 14:08
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 258 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 14:20
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 281 Lee McGiffen 08-Feb-19 10:20
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 275 cladking 08-Feb-19 15:03
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 253 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 15:29
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 245 cladking 08-Feb-19 16:42
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 364 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:03
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 298 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 17:10
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 272 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:12
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 294 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 17:25
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 290 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:36
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 220 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 18:35
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 231 cladking 08-Feb-19 17:19
Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 255 Barbelo 08-Feb-19 20:17
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 296 cladking 08-Feb-19 21:36
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 247 Barbelo 08-Feb-19 22:14
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 209 cladking 08-Feb-19 22:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 217 Warwick 09-Feb-19 03:26
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 261 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 22:06
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 279 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 23:43
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 230 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 06:25
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 238 cladking 09-Feb-19 15:28
gunpowder 218 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:08
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 236 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 21:05
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 219 cladking 09-Feb-19 21:26
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 233 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 21:41
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 231 cladking 09-Feb-19 21:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 229 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:29
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 214 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 22:32
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 203 cladking 09-Feb-19 23:25
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 231 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:47
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 220 cladking 10-Feb-19 01:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 218 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 205 cladking 09-Feb-19 23:26
Research methodology 189 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:06
Happy news on the Furphy front 247 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 20:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 262 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 13:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 278 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 18:33
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 216 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:12
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 227 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 20:36
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 222 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 21:21
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 201 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 310 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 13:32
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 227 Warwick 11-Feb-19 18:02
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 245 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 19:03
The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 239 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:05
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 231 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 18:25
Elbonian methodology 209 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:50
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 267 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:38
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 213 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:46
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 221 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:50
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 205 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:52
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 253 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:58
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 229 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:08
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 229 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:19
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 216 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:23
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 214 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:28
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 217 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:33
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 231 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:36
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 223 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:47
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 248 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:48
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 218 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:55
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 233 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 20:04
Scott wipes the floor with them again 239 LonelyAngel 11-Feb-19 21:03
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 286 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 21:31
Get the hell out of dodge and go write another book... 250 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 22:04
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 254 Scott Creighton 11-Feb-19 22:08
Aye - facts are chiels that winna ding. 215 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 22:15
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 235 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 22:51
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 204 cladking 11-Feb-19 23:09
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 236 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 23:35
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 204 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 11:07
Oooooh Scott... 247 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 11:35
Re: Oooooh Scott... 239 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 14:06
Re: Oooooh Scott... 252 Martin Stower 13-Feb-19 14:40
Re: Oooooh Scott... 230 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 20:47
Re: Oooooh Scott... 225 Corpuscles 13-Feb-19 22:01
Re: Oooooh Scott... 228 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 20:11
Re: Oooooh Scott... 226 LonelyAngel 15-Feb-19 15:35
Re: Oooooh Scott... 218 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:45
Re: Oooooh Scott... 230 LonelyAngel 16-Feb-19 18:24
Re: Oooooh Scott... 215 Martin Stower 16-Feb-19 19:33
Re: Oooooh Scott... 221 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:02
Re: Oooooh Scott... 183 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 20:55
Re: Oooooh Scott... 205 Warwick 21-Feb-19 20:59
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 232 Warwick 11-Feb-19 22:20
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 256 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 14:45
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 276 Martin Stower 13-Feb-19 15:12
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 249 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:21
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 235 WonderWho 13-Feb-19 16:44
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 197 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:18
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 211 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:31
Angel wishes to wallow in the past 233 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:58
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 222 WonderWho 13-Feb-19 17:58
A Perfect example of Obfuscation 211 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:00
The Charlatan and the Truckler 236 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 20:25
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 255 Scott Creighton 13-Feb-19 23:15
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 237 Barbelo 14-Feb-19 01:28
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 343 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 11:26
excerpt from the New Age Dictionary 220 Warwick 14-Feb-19 17:30
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 215 Barbelo 14-Feb-19 21:03
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 215 Corpuscles 14-Feb-19 21:07
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 236 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 21:34
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 193 Martin Stower 15-Feb-19 15:52
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 241 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 22:37
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 217 Corpuscles 14-Feb-19 23:02
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 277 Morten 15-Feb-19 12:01
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 243 Scott Creighton 15-Feb-19 14:19
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 281 Martin Stower 15-Feb-19 16:21
Vyse's Journal and the Mason's Marks 210 Warwick 15-Feb-19 18:23
His podcast lies 265 Martin Stower 16-Feb-19 20:00
Re: His podcast lies 206 Warwick 17-Feb-19 16:44
Re: His podcast lies 211 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 16:54
Re: His podcast lies 217 Warwick 17-Feb-19 18:06
Re: His podcast lies 204 Corpuscles 17-Feb-19 20:07
Re: His podcast lies 201 Warwick 17-Feb-19 20:28
Re: His podcast lies 200 Corpuscles 17-Feb-19 21:30
Re: His podcast lies 216 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 22:00
Re: His podcast lies 199 Corpuscles 18-Feb-19 03:57
Re: His podcast lies 278 Warwick 18-Feb-19 16:47
Re: His podcast lies 193 Warwick 17-Feb-19 22:07
Re: His podcast lies 230 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 21:46
Re: His podcast lies 178 Corpuscles 18-Feb-19 03:47
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 234 sfbey 14-Feb-19 16:58
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 228 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 17:40
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 219 Warwick 14-Feb-19 18:10
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 223 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 18:37
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 187 Warwick 14-Feb-19 18:58
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 212 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 19:09
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 196 Warwick 14-Feb-19 19:35
curious minds want to know 219 Warwick 14-Feb-19 19:56
Re: curious minds want to know 237 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 21:03
Re: curious minds want to know 203 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:13
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 211 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 20:39
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 211 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:30
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 210 Scott Creighton 15-Feb-19 17:42
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 192 Warwick 15-Feb-19 18:01
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 238 Corpuscles 16-Feb-19 01:02
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 230 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:14
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 209 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:23
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 217 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:04
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 232 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:20
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 251 R Avry Wilson 10-Feb-19 19:17
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 225 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:22
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 221 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:59
It Is Not Evidence - It's False & Misleading 217 Barbelo 10-Feb-19 20:17
Re: It Is Not Evidence - It's False & Misleading 252 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 21:16
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 223 R Avry Wilson 10-Feb-19 20:12
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 204 Warwick 10-Feb-19 20:39
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 226 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 20:49
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 210 Warwick 10-Feb-19 21:15
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 261 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 23:40
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 204 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 11:00
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 304 Corpuscles 12-Feb-19 01:03
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 210 Merrell 12-Feb-19 09:44
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 311 Martin Stower 12-Feb-19 12:00
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 226 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 22:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 238 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:45
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 282 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 22:51
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 202 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 23:05
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 246 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 209 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 23:24
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 207 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:30
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 232 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 23:34
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 212 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:39
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 233 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:22
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 224 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:06
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 234 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:28
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 204 Barbelo 09-Feb-19 23:33
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 251 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:43
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 217 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:58
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 213 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 00:20
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 246 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:29
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 196 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 00:35
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 224 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 232 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 01:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 239 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 01:16
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 231 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 01:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 240 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 01:55
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 252 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:19
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 278 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 23:29
Intro for new tv show 233 Warwick 09-Feb-19 03:31
Re: Intro for new tv show 223 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 10:39
Re: Intro for new tv show 200 Warwick 09-Feb-19 19:58
Re: Intro for new tv show 217 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 20:12
Re: Intro for new tv show 198 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:15
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 263 Corpuscles 05-Feb-19 21:13
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 239 Warwick 05-Feb-19 21:19
The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 306 Barbelo 06-Feb-19 04:16
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 250 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:57
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 237 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 17:53
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 206 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:29
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 218 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:31
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 221 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 18:48
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 195 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:54
A Soft Cock 225 Barbelo 10-Feb-19 20:29
Keep it Civil 219 Scott Creighton 11-Feb-19 09:57
Re: Keep it Civil 234 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 10:48
Re: Keep it Civil 229 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 11:38
Re: A Soft Cock 206 LonelyAngel 15-Feb-19 15:28
Re: A Soft Cock 283 Barbelo 15-Feb-19 20:31
Re: A Soft Cock 196 LonelyAngel 16-Feb-19 18:10
Re: A Soft Cock 257 Barbelo 16-Feb-19 20:44
Re: A Soft Cock 213 LonelyAngel 17-Feb-19 11:45
Re: A Soft Cock 206 Corpuscles 20-Feb-19 20:19
Re: A Soft Cock 206 Warwick 21-Feb-19 18:01
Re: A Soft Cock 203 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 18:37
Re: A Soft Cock 207 Martin Stower 21-Feb-19 18:49
Re: A Soft Cock 204 Warwick 21-Feb-19 19:42
Re: A Soft Cock 199 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 20:16
Re: A Soft Cock 205 Martin Stower 21-Feb-19 20:30
Re: A Soft Cock 212 Warwick 21-Feb-19 20:33
Completely Flaccid 221 Corpuscles 22-Feb-19 05:59
Re: Completely Flaccid 212 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 12:48
Re: Completely Flaccid 183 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 12:53
Re: Completely Flaccid 247 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 13:03
Re: Completely Flaccid 217 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 13:27
Re: Completely Flaccid 211 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 13:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 234 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 14:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 203 Corpuscles 22-Feb-19 19:06
Re: Completely Flaccid 209 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 19:17
Re: Completely Flaccid 231 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 22:44
Re: Completely Flaccid 207 LonelyAngel 23-Feb-19 11:16
Re: Completely Flaccid 212 Martin Stower 23-Feb-19 12:40
Re: Completely Flaccid 241 Corpuscles 23-Feb-19 02:35
simply put 186 Warwick 24-Feb-19 16:48
Re: Completely Flaccid 202 LonelyAngel 23-Feb-19 10:49
Re: Completely Flaccid 218 Martin Stower 23-Feb-19 12:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 211 Corpuscles 23-Feb-19 17:47
Re: Completely Flaccid 203 LonelyAngel 24-Feb-19 15:39
Re: Completely Flaccid 200 Corpuscles 24-Feb-19 15:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 199 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 18:42
Re: Completely Flaccid 203 Scott Creighton 26-Feb-19 19:03
Re: Completely Flaccid 196 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 20:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 186 Scott Creighton 26-Feb-19 21:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 225 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 22:07
factoid 209 Warwick 24-Feb-19 17:03
Re: factoid 199 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 18:31
Re: factoid 228 Warwick 26-Feb-19 19:39
Re: factoid 198 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 10:09
Re: factoid 236 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 11:00
Re: factoid 187 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 13:35
Re: factoid 247 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 14:33
Re: factoid 218 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 16:24
Re: factoid 211 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 16:52
Re: factoid 201 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 16:55
Re: factoid 205 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 17:11
Re: factoid 224 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 17:18
Re: factoid 230 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 17:42
Re: factoid 189 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 09:49
Re: factoid 190 Martin Stower 28-Feb-19 13:12
Re: factoid 217 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 13:21
Re: factoid 235 Martin Stower 28-Feb-19 15:19
Re: factoid 217 Warwick 27-Feb-19 20:11
Dusty? 201 Warwick 27-Feb-19 20:05
Re: Dusty? 190 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 09:52
Re: Dusty? 216 Warwick 28-Feb-19 17:56
Re: Dusty? 240 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 17:59
Re: Dusty? 221 Warwick 28-Feb-19 18:36
Re: Dusty? 215 LonelyAngel 01-Mar-19 12:05
Re: Dusty? 213 Warwick 01-Mar-19 18:14
Re: Dusty? 197 LonelyAngel 01-Mar-19 21:57
Re: Dusty? 195 Warwick 01-Mar-19 22:11
Re: Dusty? 204 LonelyAngel 02-Mar-19 12:58
unbelievable 212 Warwick 02-Mar-19 15:27
Mod Caution > Warwick Off-Topic Posts 208 Dr. Troglodyte 02-Mar-19 15:57
I apologise 220 LonelyAngel 02-Mar-19 16:59
Re: I apologise 280 Warwick 02-Mar-19 17:48
Mod Caution > LonelyAngel Off-Topic Posts 200 Dr. Troglodyte 02-Mar-19 15:54
Re: A Soft Cock 225 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 12:09
Re: A Soft Cock 217 LonelyAngel 17-Feb-19 12:44
Re: A Soft Cock 249 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 13:11
Re: A Soft Cock 220 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 16:02
Re: A Soft Cock 203 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:12
Re: A Soft Cock 204 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 15:53
Re: A Soft Cock 182 Warwick 19-Feb-19 17:37
Re: A Soft Cock 235 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:06
Re: A Soft Cock 211 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:16
Re: A Soft Cock 208 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:23
Re: A Soft Cock 221 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:28
Re: A Soft Cock 244 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:31
Re: A Soft Cock 237 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:40
Re: A Soft Cock 274 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 22:11
Re: A Soft Cock 244 LonelyAngel 20-Feb-19 12:52
Re: A Soft Cock 230 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 18:14
Re: A Soft Cock 184 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:22
Re: A Soft Cock 185 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:05
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 276 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 00:46
Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 278 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 06:14
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 286 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 08:50
I am not surprised at all 233 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 15:41
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 297 Scott Creighton 06-Feb-19 16:39
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 354 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 18:10
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 228 cladking 06-Feb-19 19:24
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 225 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 23:00
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 229 cladking 07-Feb-19 01:55
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 251 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 04:51
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 257 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:49
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 246 Martin Stower 07-Feb-19 15:24
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 235 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 20:10
Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 240 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 20:07
Re: Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 316 Scott Creighton 06-Feb-19 22:31
Re: Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 328 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 23:12
More .. 241 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 23:00
Re: More .. 250 sfbey 07-Feb-19 23:13
Re: More .. 236 Martin Stower 07-Feb-19 23:33
Re: More .. 266 Corpuscles 08-Feb-19 01:01
Re: More .. 252 sfbey 08-Feb-19 02:42
Re: More .. 236 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 00:26
Re: More .. 220 Corpuscles 08-Feb-19 01:26
Re: More .. 237 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 02:39
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 255 Corpuscles 06-Feb-19 23:03
Why is it so IMPORTANT? 277 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 01:45
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 228 cladking 07-Feb-19 01:52
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 259 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 04:48
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 278 cladking 07-Feb-19 14:30
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 290 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 18:08
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 278 cladking 07-Feb-19 22:27
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 318 Warwick 08-Feb-19 19:24
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 278 JuhaS 13-Feb-19 22:03


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.