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 2557 Barbelo 05-Feb-19 03:51
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 366 Racho 05-Feb-19 03:55
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 345 Barbelo 05-Feb-19 04:16
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 397 DUNE 05-Feb-19 08:22
Who was Thoth? serious question... 323 Racho 05-Feb-19 16:12
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 335 LonelyAngel 05-Feb-19 20:19
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 332 cladking 05-Feb-19 20:29
Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 285 Racho 05-Feb-19 20:47
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 287 cladking 06-Feb-19 01:01
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 309 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 01:02
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 232 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:52
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 249 Warwick 05-Feb-19 21:01
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 262 Corpuscles 05-Feb-19 21:23
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 289 cladking 06-Feb-19 01:08
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 256 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 01:46
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 195 cladking 06-Feb-19 04:26
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 222 Corpuscles 06-Feb-19 02:17
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 201 cladking 06-Feb-19 04:17
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 193 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 08:48
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 190 cladking 06-Feb-19 14:08
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 214 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 14:20
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 235 Lee McGiffen 08-Feb-19 10:20
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 223 cladking 08-Feb-19 15:03
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 213 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 15:29
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 185 cladking 08-Feb-19 16:42
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 306 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:03
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 222 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 17:10
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 219 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:12
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 225 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 17:25
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 234 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:36
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 168 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 18:35
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 169 cladking 08-Feb-19 17:19
Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 210 Barbelo 08-Feb-19 20:17
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 245 cladking 08-Feb-19 21:36
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 195 Barbelo 08-Feb-19 22:14
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 167 cladking 08-Feb-19 22:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 170 Warwick 09-Feb-19 03:26
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 199 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 22:06
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 234 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 23:43
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 180 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 06:25
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 186 cladking 09-Feb-19 15:28
gunpowder 167 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:08
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 182 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 21:05
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 159 cladking 09-Feb-19 21:26
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 188 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 21:41
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 181 cladking 09-Feb-19 21:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 186 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:29
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 171 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 22:32
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 161 cladking 09-Feb-19 23:25
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 176 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:47
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 170 cladking 10-Feb-19 01:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 175 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 157 cladking 09-Feb-19 23:26
Research methodology 152 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:06
Happy news on the Furphy front 177 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 20:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 207 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 13:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 214 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 18:33
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 166 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:12
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 182 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 20:36
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 171 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 21:21
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 155 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 257 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 13:32
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 177 Warwick 11-Feb-19 18:02
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 196 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 19:03
The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 191 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:05
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 187 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 18:25
Elbonian methodology 156 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:50
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 204 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:38
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 166 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:46
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 175 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:50
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 161 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:52
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 200 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:58
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 168 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:08
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 183 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:19
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 171 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:23
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 168 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:28
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 165 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:33
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 186 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:36
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 169 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:47
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 193 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:48
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 174 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:55
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 183 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 20:04
Scott wipes the floor with them again 182 LonelyAngel 11-Feb-19 21:03
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 232 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 21:31
Get the hell out of dodge and go write another book... 192 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 22:04
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 190 Scott Creighton 11-Feb-19 22:08
Aye - facts are chiels that winna ding. 172 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 22:15
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 187 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 22:51
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 162 cladking 11-Feb-19 23:09
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 180 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 23:35
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 162 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 11:07
Oooooh Scott... 195 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 11:35
Re: Oooooh Scott... 195 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 14:06
Re: Oooooh Scott... 201 Martin Stower 13-Feb-19 14:40
Re: Oooooh Scott... 180 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 20:47
Re: Oooooh Scott... 176 Corpuscles 13-Feb-19 22:01
Re: Oooooh Scott... 179 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 20:11
Re: Oooooh Scott... 164 LonelyAngel 15-Feb-19 15:35
Re: Oooooh Scott... 172 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:45
Re: Oooooh Scott... 183 LonelyAngel 16-Feb-19 18:24
Re: Oooooh Scott... 175 Martin Stower 16-Feb-19 19:33
Re: Oooooh Scott... 173 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:02
Re: Oooooh Scott... 139 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 20:55
Re: Oooooh Scott... 158 Warwick 21-Feb-19 20:59
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 182 Warwick 11-Feb-19 22:20
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 194 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 14:45
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 222 Martin Stower 13-Feb-19 15:12
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 184 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:21
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 186 WonderWho 13-Feb-19 16:44
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 149 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:18
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 165 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:31
Angel wishes to wallow in the past 184 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:58
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 177 WonderWho 13-Feb-19 17:58
A Perfect example of Obfuscation 167 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:00
The Charlatan and the Truckler 198 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 20:25
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 207 Scott Creighton 13-Feb-19 23:15
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 198 Barbelo 14-Feb-19 01:28
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 285 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 11:26
excerpt from the New Age Dictionary 179 Warwick 14-Feb-19 17:30
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 168 Barbelo 14-Feb-19 21:03
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 153 Corpuscles 14-Feb-19 21:07
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 192 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 21:34
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 151 Martin Stower 15-Feb-19 15:52
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 177 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 22:37
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 175 Corpuscles 14-Feb-19 23:02
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 211 Morten 15-Feb-19 12:01
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 199 Scott Creighton 15-Feb-19 14:19
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 216 Martin Stower 15-Feb-19 16:21
Vyse's Journal and the Mason's Marks 164 Warwick 15-Feb-19 18:23
His podcast lies 203 Martin Stower 16-Feb-19 20:00
Re: His podcast lies 145 Warwick 17-Feb-19 16:44
Re: His podcast lies 170 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 16:54
Re: His podcast lies 163 Warwick 17-Feb-19 18:06
Re: His podcast lies 156 Corpuscles 17-Feb-19 20:07
Re: His podcast lies 157 Warwick 17-Feb-19 20:28
Re: His podcast lies 157 Corpuscles 17-Feb-19 21:30
Re: His podcast lies 169 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 22:00
Re: His podcast lies 158 Corpuscles 18-Feb-19 03:57
Re: His podcast lies 218 Warwick 18-Feb-19 16:47
Re: His podcast lies 153 Warwick 17-Feb-19 22:07
Re: His podcast lies 174 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 21:46
Re: His podcast lies 139 Corpuscles 18-Feb-19 03:47
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 187 sfbey 14-Feb-19 16:58
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 181 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 17:40
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 167 Warwick 14-Feb-19 18:10
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 169 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 18:37
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 149 Warwick 14-Feb-19 18:58
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 165 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 19:09
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 152 Warwick 14-Feb-19 19:35
curious minds want to know 163 Warwick 14-Feb-19 19:56
Re: curious minds want to know 187 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 21:03
Re: curious minds want to know 157 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:13
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 163 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 20:39
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 158 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:30
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 164 Scott Creighton 15-Feb-19 17:42
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 153 Warwick 15-Feb-19 18:01
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 182 Corpuscles 16-Feb-19 01:02
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 185 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:14
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 169 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:23
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 175 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:04
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 180 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:20
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 190 R Avry Wilson 10-Feb-19 19:17
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 178 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:22
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 173 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:59
It Is Not Evidence - It's False & Misleading 168 Barbelo 10-Feb-19 20:17
Re: It Is Not Evidence - It's False & Misleading 204 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 21:16
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 177 R Avry Wilson 10-Feb-19 20:12
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 161 Warwick 10-Feb-19 20:39
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 171 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 20:49
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 164 Warwick 10-Feb-19 21:15
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 196 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 23:40
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 170 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 11:00
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 252 Corpuscles 12-Feb-19 01:03
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 168 Merrell 12-Feb-19 09:44
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 254 Martin Stower 12-Feb-19 12:00
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 184 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 22:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 189 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:45
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 226 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 22:51
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 158 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 23:05
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 190 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 172 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 23:24
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 168 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:30
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 190 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 23:34
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 167 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:39
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 189 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:22
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 173 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:06
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 170 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:28
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 159 Barbelo 09-Feb-19 23:33
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 192 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:43
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 174 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:58
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 169 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 00:20
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 195 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:29
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 160 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 00:35
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 183 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 179 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 01:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 182 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 01:16
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 187 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 01:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 196 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 01:55
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 198 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:19
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 233 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 23:29
Intro for new tv show 175 Warwick 09-Feb-19 03:31
Re: Intro for new tv show 178 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 10:39
Re: Intro for new tv show 159 Warwick 09-Feb-19 19:58
Re: Intro for new tv show 178 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 20:12
Re: Intro for new tv show 157 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:15
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 218 Corpuscles 05-Feb-19 21:13
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 184 Warwick 05-Feb-19 21:19
The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 241 Barbelo 06-Feb-19 04:16
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 201 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:57
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 172 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 17:53
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 162 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:29
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 164 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:31
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 175 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 18:48
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 153 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:54
A Soft Cock 183 Barbelo 10-Feb-19 20:29
Keep it Civil 181 Scott Creighton 11-Feb-19 09:57
Re: Keep it Civil 192 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 10:48
Re: Keep it Civil 190 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 11:38
Re: A Soft Cock 162 LonelyAngel 15-Feb-19 15:28
Re: A Soft Cock 231 Barbelo 15-Feb-19 20:31
Re: A Soft Cock 154 LonelyAngel 16-Feb-19 18:10
Re: A Soft Cock 205 Barbelo 16-Feb-19 20:44
Re: A Soft Cock 171 LonelyAngel 17-Feb-19 11:45
Re: A Soft Cock 165 Corpuscles 20-Feb-19 20:19
Re: A Soft Cock 163 Warwick 21-Feb-19 18:01
Re: A Soft Cock 150 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 18:37
Re: A Soft Cock 163 Martin Stower 21-Feb-19 18:49
Re: A Soft Cock 156 Warwick 21-Feb-19 19:42
Re: A Soft Cock 156 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 20:16
Re: A Soft Cock 159 Martin Stower 21-Feb-19 20:30
Re: A Soft Cock 162 Warwick 21-Feb-19 20:33
Completely Flaccid 180 Corpuscles 22-Feb-19 05:59
Re: Completely Flaccid 164 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 12:48
Re: Completely Flaccid 139 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 12:53
Re: Completely Flaccid 182 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 13:03
Re: Completely Flaccid 169 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 13:27
Re: Completely Flaccid 165 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 13:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 184 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 14:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 161 Corpuscles 22-Feb-19 19:06
Re: Completely Flaccid 169 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 19:17
Re: Completely Flaccid 188 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 22:44
Re: Completely Flaccid 154 LonelyAngel 23-Feb-19 11:16
Re: Completely Flaccid 166 Martin Stower 23-Feb-19 12:40
Re: Completely Flaccid 189 Corpuscles 23-Feb-19 02:35
simply put 145 Warwick 24-Feb-19 16:48
Re: Completely Flaccid 157 LonelyAngel 23-Feb-19 10:49
Re: Completely Flaccid 159 Martin Stower 23-Feb-19 12:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 165 Corpuscles 23-Feb-19 17:47
Re: Completely Flaccid 155 LonelyAngel 24-Feb-19 15:39
Re: Completely Flaccid 155 Corpuscles 24-Feb-19 15:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 154 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 18:42
Re: Completely Flaccid 159 Scott Creighton 26-Feb-19 19:03
Re: Completely Flaccid 150 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 20:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 145 Scott Creighton 26-Feb-19 21:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 176 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 22:07
factoid 163 Warwick 24-Feb-19 17:03
Re: factoid 154 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 18:31
Re: factoid 171 Warwick 26-Feb-19 19:39
Re: factoid 155 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 10:09
Re: factoid 194 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 11:00
Re: factoid 143 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 13:35
Re: factoid 201 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 14:33
Re: factoid 173 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 16:24
Re: factoid 167 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 16:52
Re: factoid 154 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 16:55
Re: factoid 163 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 17:11
Re: factoid 173 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 17:18
Re: factoid 182 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 17:42
Re: factoid 143 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 09:49
Re: factoid 150 Martin Stower 28-Feb-19 13:12
Re: factoid 171 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 13:21
Re: factoid 187 Martin Stower 28-Feb-19 15:19
Re: factoid 156 Warwick 27-Feb-19 20:11
Dusty? 159 Warwick 27-Feb-19 20:05
Re: Dusty? 152 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 09:52
Re: Dusty? 164 Warwick 28-Feb-19 17:56
Re: Dusty? 191 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 17:59
Re: Dusty? 167 Warwick 28-Feb-19 18:36
Re: Dusty? 166 LonelyAngel 01-Mar-19 12:05
Re: Dusty? 163 Warwick 01-Mar-19 18:14
Re: Dusty? 153 LonelyAngel 01-Mar-19 21:57
Re: Dusty? 151 Warwick 01-Mar-19 22:11
Re: Dusty? 160 LonelyAngel 02-Mar-19 12:58
unbelievable 164 Warwick 02-Mar-19 15:27
Mod Caution > Warwick Off-Topic Posts 154 Dr. Troglodyte 02-Mar-19 15:57
I apologise 168 LonelyAngel 02-Mar-19 16:59
Re: I apologise 226 Warwick 02-Mar-19 17:48
Mod Caution > LonelyAngel Off-Topic Posts 160 Dr. Troglodyte 02-Mar-19 15:54
Re: A Soft Cock 184 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 12:09
Re: A Soft Cock 172 LonelyAngel 17-Feb-19 12:44
Re: A Soft Cock 203 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 13:11
Re: A Soft Cock 170 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 16:02
Re: A Soft Cock 162 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:12
Re: A Soft Cock 159 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 15:53
Re: A Soft Cock 142 Warwick 19-Feb-19 17:37
Re: A Soft Cock 171 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:06
Re: A Soft Cock 159 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:16
Re: A Soft Cock 161 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:23
Re: A Soft Cock 169 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:28
Re: A Soft Cock 190 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:31
Re: A Soft Cock 190 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:40
Re: A Soft Cock 216 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 22:11
Re: A Soft Cock 182 LonelyAngel 20-Feb-19 12:52
Re: A Soft Cock 167 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 18:14
Re: A Soft Cock 144 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:22
Re: A Soft Cock 144 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:05
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 228 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 00:46
Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 224 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 06:14
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 220 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 08:50
I am not surprised at all 191 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 15:41
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 220 Scott Creighton 06-Feb-19 16:39
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 247 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 18:10
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 187 cladking 06-Feb-19 19:24
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 184 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 23:00
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 187 cladking 07-Feb-19 01:55
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 199 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 04:51
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 211 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:49
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 184 Martin Stower 07-Feb-19 15:24
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 190 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 20:10
Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 195 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 20:07
Re: Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 229 Scott Creighton 06-Feb-19 22:31
Re: Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 251 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 23:12
More .. 197 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 23:00
Re: More .. 195 sfbey 07-Feb-19 23:13
Re: More .. 188 Martin Stower 07-Feb-19 23:33
Re: More .. 222 Corpuscles 08-Feb-19 01:01
Re: More .. 201 sfbey 08-Feb-19 02:42
Re: More .. 187 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 00:26
Re: More .. 178 Corpuscles 08-Feb-19 01:26
Re: More .. 189 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 02:39
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 211 Corpuscles 06-Feb-19 23:03
Why is it so IMPORTANT? 219 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 01:45
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 191 cladking 07-Feb-19 01:52
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 201 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 04:48
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 223 cladking 07-Feb-19 14:30
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 248 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 18:08
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 225 cladking 07-Feb-19 22:27
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 275 Warwick 08-Feb-19 19:24
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 218 JuhaS 13-Feb-19 22:03


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.