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 2417 Barbelo 05-Feb-19 03:51
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 302 Racho 05-Feb-19 03:55
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 273 Barbelo 05-Feb-19 04:16
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 316 DUNE 05-Feb-19 08:22
Who was Thoth? serious question... 271 Racho 05-Feb-19 16:12
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 261 LonelyAngel 05-Feb-19 20:19
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 263 cladking 05-Feb-19 20:29
Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 219 Racho 05-Feb-19 20:47
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 226 cladking 06-Feb-19 01:01
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 229 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 01:02
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 167 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:52
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 192 Warwick 05-Feb-19 21:01
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 204 Corpuscles 05-Feb-19 21:23
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 210 cladking 06-Feb-19 01:08
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 183 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 01:46
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 147 cladking 06-Feb-19 04:26
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 157 Corpuscles 06-Feb-19 02:17
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 153 cladking 06-Feb-19 04:17
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 138 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 08:48
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 141 cladking 06-Feb-19 14:08
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 147 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 14:20
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 167 Lee McGiffen 08-Feb-19 10:20
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 152 cladking 08-Feb-19 15:03
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 160 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 15:29
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 126 cladking 08-Feb-19 16:42
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 219 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:03
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 160 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 17:10
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 158 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:12
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 162 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 17:25
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 168 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:36
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 123 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 18:35
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 125 cladking 08-Feb-19 17:19
Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 151 Barbelo 08-Feb-19 20:17
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 184 cladking 08-Feb-19 21:36
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 138 Barbelo 08-Feb-19 22:14
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 125 cladking 08-Feb-19 22:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 123 Warwick 09-Feb-19 03:26
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 141 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 22:06
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 185 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 23:43
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 134 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 06:25
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 133 cladking 09-Feb-19 15:28
gunpowder 122 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:08
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 118 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 21:05
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 106 cladking 09-Feb-19 21:26
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 129 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 21:41
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 109 cladking 09-Feb-19 21:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 137 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:29
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 125 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 22:32
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 104 cladking 09-Feb-19 23:25
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 129 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:47
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 123 cladking 10-Feb-19 01:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 122 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 111 cladking 09-Feb-19 23:26
Research methodology 114 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:06
Happy news on the Furphy front 122 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 20:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 155 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 13:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 147 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 18:33
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 123 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:12
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 135 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 20:36
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 125 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 21:21
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 108 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 174 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 13:32
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 126 Warwick 11-Feb-19 18:02
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 138 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 19:03
The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 122 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:05
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 118 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 18:25
Elbonian methodology 109 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:50
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 166 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:38
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 115 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:46
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 126 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:50
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 118 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:52
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 140 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:58
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 118 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:08
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 132 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:19
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 117 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:23
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 127 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:28
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 117 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:33
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 138 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:36
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 120 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:47
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 139 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:48
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 116 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:55
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 130 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 20:04
Scott wipes the floor with them again 134 LonelyAngel 11-Feb-19 21:03
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 167 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 21:31
Get the hell out of dodge and go write another book... 135 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 22:04
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 138 Scott Creighton 11-Feb-19 22:08
Aye - facts are chiels that winna ding. 125 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 22:15
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 137 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 22:51
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 123 cladking 11-Feb-19 23:09
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 132 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 23:35
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 123 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 11:07
Oooooh Scott... 141 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 11:35
Re: Oooooh Scott... 130 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 14:06
Re: Oooooh Scott... 137 Martin Stower 13-Feb-19 14:40
Re: Oooooh Scott... 130 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 20:47
Re: Oooooh Scott... 114 Corpuscles 13-Feb-19 22:01
Re: Oooooh Scott... 123 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 20:11
Re: Oooooh Scott... 116 LonelyAngel 15-Feb-19 15:35
Re: Oooooh Scott... 120 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:45
Re: Oooooh Scott... 129 LonelyAngel 16-Feb-19 18:24
Re: Oooooh Scott... 115 Martin Stower 16-Feb-19 19:33
Re: Oooooh Scott... 108 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:02
Re: Oooooh Scott... 96 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 20:55
Re: Oooooh Scott... 109 Warwick 21-Feb-19 20:59
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 136 Warwick 11-Feb-19 22:20
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 136 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 14:45
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 163 Martin Stower 13-Feb-19 15:12
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 119 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:21
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 129 WonderWho 13-Feb-19 16:44
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 111 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:18
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 113 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:31
Angel wishes to wallow in the past 120 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:58
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 125 WonderWho 13-Feb-19 17:58
A Perfect example of Obfuscation 121 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:00
The Charlatan and the Truckler 149 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 20:25
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 160 Scott Creighton 13-Feb-19 23:15
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 155 Barbelo 14-Feb-19 01:28
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 215 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 11:26
excerpt from the New Age Dictionary 119 Warwick 14-Feb-19 17:30
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 117 Barbelo 14-Feb-19 21:03
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 116 Corpuscles 14-Feb-19 21:07
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 129 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 21:34
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 110 Martin Stower 15-Feb-19 15:52
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 117 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 22:37
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 128 Corpuscles 14-Feb-19 23:02
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 136 Morten 15-Feb-19 12:01
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 142 Scott Creighton 15-Feb-19 14:19
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 136 Martin Stower 15-Feb-19 16:21
Vyse's Journal and the Mason's Marks 113 Warwick 15-Feb-19 18:23
His podcast lies 138 Martin Stower 16-Feb-19 20:00
Re: His podcast lies 102 Warwick 17-Feb-19 16:44
Re: His podcast lies 112 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 16:54
Re: His podcast lies 113 Warwick 17-Feb-19 18:06
Re: His podcast lies 105 Corpuscles 17-Feb-19 20:07
Re: His podcast lies 109 Warwick 17-Feb-19 20:28
Re: His podcast lies 105 Corpuscles 17-Feb-19 21:30
Re: His podcast lies 121 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 22:00
Re: His podcast lies 121 Corpuscles 18-Feb-19 03:57
Re: His podcast lies 155 Warwick 18-Feb-19 16:47
Re: His podcast lies 107 Warwick 17-Feb-19 22:07
Re: His podcast lies 130 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 21:46
Re: His podcast lies 104 Corpuscles 18-Feb-19 03:47
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 131 sfbey 14-Feb-19 16:58
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 120 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 17:40
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 117 Warwick 14-Feb-19 18:10
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 116 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 18:37
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 103 Warwick 14-Feb-19 18:58
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 120 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 19:09
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 108 Warwick 14-Feb-19 19:35
curious minds want to know 115 Warwick 14-Feb-19 19:56
Re: curious minds want to know 130 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 21:03
Re: curious minds want to know 102 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:13
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 121 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 20:39
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 112 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:30
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 107 Scott Creighton 15-Feb-19 17:42
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 112 Warwick 15-Feb-19 18:01
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 133 Corpuscles 16-Feb-19 01:02
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 121 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:14
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 122 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:23
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 126 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:04
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 116 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:20
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 129 R Avry Wilson 10-Feb-19 19:17
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 129 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:22
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 126 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:59
It Is Not Evidence - It's False & Misleading 125 Barbelo 10-Feb-19 20:17
Re: It Is Not Evidence - It's False & Misleading 149 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 21:16
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 122 R Avry Wilson 10-Feb-19 20:12
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 115 Warwick 10-Feb-19 20:39
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 119 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 20:49
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 119 Warwick 10-Feb-19 21:15
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 144 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 23:40
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 129 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 11:00
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 187 Corpuscles 12-Feb-19 01:03
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 121 Merrell 12-Feb-19 09:44
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 190 Martin Stower 12-Feb-19 12:00
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 138 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 22:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 122 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:45
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 163 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 22:51
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 111 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 23:05
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 136 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 131 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 23:24
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 119 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:30
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 137 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 23:34
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 124 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:39
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 135 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:22
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 132 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:06
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 120 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:28
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 107 Barbelo 09-Feb-19 23:33
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 133 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:43
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 118 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:58
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 127 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 00:20
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 133 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:29
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 122 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 00:35
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 120 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 128 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 01:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 127 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 01:16
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 137 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 01:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 143 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 01:55
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 113 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:19
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 167 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 23:29
Intro for new tv show 124 Warwick 09-Feb-19 03:31
Re: Intro for new tv show 123 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 10:39
Re: Intro for new tv show 109 Warwick 09-Feb-19 19:58
Re: Intro for new tv show 120 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 20:12
Re: Intro for new tv show 106 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:15
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 155 Corpuscles 05-Feb-19 21:13
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 139 Warwick 05-Feb-19 21:19
The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 172 Barbelo 06-Feb-19 04:16
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 150 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:57
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 121 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 17:53
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 111 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:29
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 119 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:31
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 122 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 18:48
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 109 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:54
A Soft Cock 137 Barbelo 10-Feb-19 20:29
Keep it Civil 138 Scott Creighton 11-Feb-19 09:57
Re: Keep it Civil 137 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 10:48
Re: Keep it Civil 147 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 11:38
Re: A Soft Cock 108 LonelyAngel 15-Feb-19 15:28
Re: A Soft Cock 151 Barbelo 15-Feb-19 20:31
Re: A Soft Cock 105 LonelyAngel 16-Feb-19 18:10
Re: A Soft Cock 143 Barbelo 16-Feb-19 20:44
Re: A Soft Cock 118 LonelyAngel 17-Feb-19 11:45
Re: A Soft Cock 121 Corpuscles 20-Feb-19 20:19
Re: A Soft Cock 110 Warwick 21-Feb-19 18:01
Re: A Soft Cock 99 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 18:37
Re: A Soft Cock 116 Martin Stower 21-Feb-19 18:49
Re: A Soft Cock 99 Warwick 21-Feb-19 19:42
Re: A Soft Cock 104 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 20:16
Re: A Soft Cock 103 Martin Stower 21-Feb-19 20:30
Re: A Soft Cock 106 Warwick 21-Feb-19 20:33
Completely Flaccid 129 Corpuscles 22-Feb-19 05:59
Re: Completely Flaccid 107 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 12:48
Re: Completely Flaccid 100 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 12:53
Re: Completely Flaccid 119 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 13:03
Re: Completely Flaccid 108 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 13:27
Re: Completely Flaccid 112 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 13:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 111 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 14:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 112 Corpuscles 22-Feb-19 19:06
Re: Completely Flaccid 113 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 19:17
Re: Completely Flaccid 141 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 22:44
Re: Completely Flaccid 102 LonelyAngel 23-Feb-19 11:16
Re: Completely Flaccid 115 Martin Stower 23-Feb-19 12:40
Re: Completely Flaccid 125 Corpuscles 23-Feb-19 02:35
simply put 102 Warwick 24-Feb-19 16:48
Re: Completely Flaccid 110 LonelyAngel 23-Feb-19 10:49
Re: Completely Flaccid 101 Martin Stower 23-Feb-19 12:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 118 Corpuscles 23-Feb-19 17:47
Re: Completely Flaccid 108 LonelyAngel 24-Feb-19 15:39
Re: Completely Flaccid 107 Corpuscles 24-Feb-19 15:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 103 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 18:42
Re: Completely Flaccid 107 Scott Creighton 26-Feb-19 19:03
Re: Completely Flaccid 102 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 20:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 101 Scott Creighton 26-Feb-19 21:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 119 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 22:07
factoid 118 Warwick 24-Feb-19 17:03
Re: factoid 107 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 18:31
Re: factoid 108 Warwick 26-Feb-19 19:39
Re: factoid 105 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 10:09
Re: factoid 129 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 11:00
Re: factoid 99 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 13:35
Re: factoid 130 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 14:33
Re: factoid 104 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 16:24
Re: factoid 106 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 16:52
Re: factoid 104 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 16:55
Re: factoid 114 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 17:11
Re: factoid 111 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 17:18
Re: factoid 128 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 17:42
Re: factoid 91 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 09:49
Re: factoid 98 Martin Stower 28-Feb-19 13:12
Re: factoid 110 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 13:21
Re: factoid 106 Martin Stower 28-Feb-19 15:19
Re: factoid 102 Warwick 27-Feb-19 20:11
Dusty? 100 Warwick 27-Feb-19 20:05
Re: Dusty? 112 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 09:52
Re: Dusty? 102 Warwick 28-Feb-19 17:56
Re: Dusty? 119 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 17:59
Re: Dusty? 116 Warwick 28-Feb-19 18:36
Re: Dusty? 114 LonelyAngel 01-Mar-19 12:05
Re: Dusty? 110 Warwick 01-Mar-19 18:14
Re: Dusty? 105 LonelyAngel 01-Mar-19 21:57
Re: Dusty? 106 Warwick 01-Mar-19 22:11
Re: Dusty? 107 LonelyAngel 02-Mar-19 12:58
unbelievable 110 Warwick 02-Mar-19 15:27
Mod Caution > Warwick Off-Topic Posts 112 Dr. Troglodyte 02-Mar-19 15:57
I apologise 99 LonelyAngel 02-Mar-19 16:59
Re: I apologise 168 Warwick 02-Mar-19 17:48
Mod Caution > LonelyAngel Off-Topic Posts 107 Dr. Troglodyte 02-Mar-19 15:54
Re: A Soft Cock 128 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 12:09
Re: A Soft Cock 116 LonelyAngel 17-Feb-19 12:44
Re: A Soft Cock 144 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 13:11
Re: A Soft Cock 110 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 16:02
Re: A Soft Cock 116 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:12
Re: A Soft Cock 107 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 15:53
Re: A Soft Cock 96 Warwick 19-Feb-19 17:37
Re: A Soft Cock 112 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:06
Re: A Soft Cock 104 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:16
Re: A Soft Cock 99 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:23
Re: A Soft Cock 107 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:28
Re: A Soft Cock 114 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:31
Re: A Soft Cock 120 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:40
Re: A Soft Cock 141 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 22:11
Re: A Soft Cock 121 LonelyAngel 20-Feb-19 12:52
Re: A Soft Cock 107 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 18:14
Re: A Soft Cock 98 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:22
Re: A Soft Cock 101 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:05
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 170 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 00:46
Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 165 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 06:14
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 158 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 08:50
I am not surprised at all 145 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 15:41
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 165 Scott Creighton 06-Feb-19 16:39
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 170 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 18:10
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 144 cladking 06-Feb-19 19:24
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 137 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 23:00
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 130 cladking 07-Feb-19 01:55
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 143 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 04:51
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 145 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:49
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 124 Martin Stower 07-Feb-19 15:24
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 136 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 20:10
Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 137 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 20:07
Re: Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 170 Scott Creighton 06-Feb-19 22:31
Re: Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 177 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 23:12
More .. 131 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 23:00
Re: More .. 121 sfbey 07-Feb-19 23:13
Re: More .. 140 Martin Stower 07-Feb-19 23:33
Re: More .. 155 Corpuscles 08-Feb-19 01:01
Re: More .. 144 sfbey 08-Feb-19 02:42
Re: More .. 135 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 00:26
Re: More .. 131 Corpuscles 08-Feb-19 01:26
Re: More .. 128 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 02:39
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 146 Corpuscles 06-Feb-19 23:03
Why is it so IMPORTANT? 160 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 01:45
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 146 cladking 07-Feb-19 01:52
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 155 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 04:48
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 157 cladking 07-Feb-19 14:30
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 189 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 18:08
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 177 cladking 07-Feb-19 22:27
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 213 Warwick 08-Feb-19 19:24
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 172 JuhaS 13-Feb-19 22:03


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.