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 2493 Barbelo 05-Feb-19 03:51
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 333 Racho 05-Feb-19 03:55
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 304 Barbelo 05-Feb-19 04:16
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 363 DUNE 05-Feb-19 08:22
Who was Thoth? serious question... 302 Racho 05-Feb-19 16:12
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 296 LonelyAngel 05-Feb-19 20:19
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 295 cladking 05-Feb-19 20:29
Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 254 Racho 05-Feb-19 20:47
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 254 cladking 06-Feb-19 01:01
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 261 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 01:02
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 207 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:52
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 220 Warwick 05-Feb-19 21:01
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 231 Corpuscles 05-Feb-19 21:23
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 253 cladking 06-Feb-19 01:08
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 220 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 01:46
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 167 cladking 06-Feb-19 04:26
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 192 Corpuscles 06-Feb-19 02:17
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 171 cladking 06-Feb-19 04:17
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 162 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 08:48
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 160 cladking 06-Feb-19 14:08
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 184 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 14:20
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 206 Lee McGiffen 08-Feb-19 10:20
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 184 cladking 08-Feb-19 15:03
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 184 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 15:29
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 152 cladking 08-Feb-19 16:42
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 261 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:03
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 189 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 17:10
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 186 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:12
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 193 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 17:25
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 197 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:36
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 142 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 18:35
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 145 cladking 08-Feb-19 17:19
Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 179 Barbelo 08-Feb-19 20:17
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 212 cladking 08-Feb-19 21:36
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 167 Barbelo 08-Feb-19 22:14
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 141 cladking 08-Feb-19 22:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 146 Warwick 09-Feb-19 03:26
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 167 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 22:06
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 211 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 23:43
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 154 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 06:25
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 158 cladking 09-Feb-19 15:28
gunpowder 139 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:08
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 154 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 21:05
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 125 cladking 09-Feb-19 21:26
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 158 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 21:41
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 149 cladking 09-Feb-19 21:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 161 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:29
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 146 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 22:32
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 129 cladking 09-Feb-19 23:25
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 149 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:47
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 143 cladking 10-Feb-19 01:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 147 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 128 cladking 09-Feb-19 23:26
Research methodology 133 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:06
Happy news on the Furphy front 149 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 20:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 177 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 13:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 179 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 18:33
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 145 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:12
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 156 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 20:36
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 145 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 21:21
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 127 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 224 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 13:32
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 150 Warwick 11-Feb-19 18:02
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 163 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 19:03
The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 162 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:05
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 142 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 18:25
Elbonian methodology 129 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:50
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 184 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:38
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 135 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:46
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 145 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:50
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 136 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:52
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 168 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:58
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 139 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:08
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 155 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:19
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 137 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:23
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 143 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:28
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 137 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:33
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 159 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:36
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 145 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:47
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 159 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:48
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 142 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:55
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 152 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 20:04
Scott wipes the floor with them again 152 LonelyAngel 11-Feb-19 21:03
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 200 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 21:31
Get the hell out of dodge and go write another book... 162 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 22:04
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 162 Scott Creighton 11-Feb-19 22:08
Aye - facts are chiels that winna ding. 142 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 22:15
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 161 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 22:51
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 144 cladking 11-Feb-19 23:09
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 152 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 23:35
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 139 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 11:07
Oooooh Scott... 164 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 11:35
Re: Oooooh Scott... 160 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 14:06
Re: Oooooh Scott... 172 Martin Stower 13-Feb-19 14:40
Re: Oooooh Scott... 152 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 20:47
Re: Oooooh Scott... 141 Corpuscles 13-Feb-19 22:01
Re: Oooooh Scott... 146 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 20:11
Re: Oooooh Scott... 135 LonelyAngel 15-Feb-19 15:35
Re: Oooooh Scott... 141 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:45
Re: Oooooh Scott... 146 LonelyAngel 16-Feb-19 18:24
Re: Oooooh Scott... 141 Martin Stower 16-Feb-19 19:33
Re: Oooooh Scott... 142 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:02
Re: Oooooh Scott... 116 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 20:55
Re: Oooooh Scott... 130 Warwick 21-Feb-19 20:59
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 153 Warwick 11-Feb-19 22:20
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 156 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 14:45
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 188 Martin Stower 13-Feb-19 15:12
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 146 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:21
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 156 WonderWho 13-Feb-19 16:44
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 129 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:18
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 136 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:31
Angel wishes to wallow in the past 150 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:58
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 152 WonderWho 13-Feb-19 17:58
A Perfect example of Obfuscation 139 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:00
The Charlatan and the Truckler 170 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 20:25
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 178 Scott Creighton 13-Feb-19 23:15
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 172 Barbelo 14-Feb-19 01:28
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 245 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 11:26
excerpt from the New Age Dictionary 143 Warwick 14-Feb-19 17:30
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 137 Barbelo 14-Feb-19 21:03
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 133 Corpuscles 14-Feb-19 21:07
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 161 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 21:34
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 127 Martin Stower 15-Feb-19 15:52
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 140 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 22:37
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 147 Corpuscles 14-Feb-19 23:02
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 173 Morten 15-Feb-19 12:01
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 171 Scott Creighton 15-Feb-19 14:19
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 175 Martin Stower 15-Feb-19 16:21
Vyse's Journal and the Mason's Marks 132 Warwick 15-Feb-19 18:23
His podcast lies 166 Martin Stower 16-Feb-19 20:00
Re: His podcast lies 118 Warwick 17-Feb-19 16:44
Re: His podcast lies 135 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 16:54
Re: His podcast lies 132 Warwick 17-Feb-19 18:06
Re: His podcast lies 129 Corpuscles 17-Feb-19 20:07
Re: His podcast lies 130 Warwick 17-Feb-19 20:28
Re: His podcast lies 124 Corpuscles 17-Feb-19 21:30
Re: His podcast lies 139 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 22:00
Re: His podcast lies 138 Corpuscles 18-Feb-19 03:57
Re: His podcast lies 182 Warwick 18-Feb-19 16:47
Re: His podcast lies 124 Warwick 17-Feb-19 22:07
Re: His podcast lies 154 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 21:46
Re: His podcast lies 120 Corpuscles 18-Feb-19 03:47
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 155 sfbey 14-Feb-19 16:58
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 146 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 17:40
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 140 Warwick 14-Feb-19 18:10
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 138 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 18:37
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 123 Warwick 14-Feb-19 18:58
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 136 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 19:09
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 125 Warwick 14-Feb-19 19:35
curious minds want to know 135 Warwick 14-Feb-19 19:56
Re: curious minds want to know 155 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 21:03
Re: curious minds want to know 123 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:13
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 143 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 20:39
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 134 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:30
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 128 Scott Creighton 15-Feb-19 17:42
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 131 Warwick 15-Feb-19 18:01
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 152 Corpuscles 16-Feb-19 01:02
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 155 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:14
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 141 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:23
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 145 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:04
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 141 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:20
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 160 R Avry Wilson 10-Feb-19 19:17
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 149 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:22
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 143 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:59
It Is Not Evidence - It's False & Misleading 142 Barbelo 10-Feb-19 20:17
Re: It Is Not Evidence - It's False & Misleading 174 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 21:16
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 151 R Avry Wilson 10-Feb-19 20:12
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 135 Warwick 10-Feb-19 20:39
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 140 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 20:49
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 136 Warwick 10-Feb-19 21:15
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 163 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 23:40
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 148 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 11:00
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 218 Corpuscles 12-Feb-19 01:03
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 142 Merrell 12-Feb-19 09:44
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 221 Martin Stower 12-Feb-19 12:00
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 158 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 22:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 154 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:45
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 191 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 22:51
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 131 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 23:05
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 157 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 150 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 23:24
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 136 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:30
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 158 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 23:34
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 144 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:39
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 157 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:22
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 149 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:06
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 141 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:28
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 125 Barbelo 09-Feb-19 23:33
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 159 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:43
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 147 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:58
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 144 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 00:20
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 162 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:29
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 138 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 00:35
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 138 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 149 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 01:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 151 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 01:16
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 158 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 01:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 167 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 01:55
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 154 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:19
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 204 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 23:29
Intro for new tv show 146 Warwick 09-Feb-19 03:31
Re: Intro for new tv show 145 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 10:39
Re: Intro for new tv show 129 Warwick 09-Feb-19 19:58
Re: Intro for new tv show 148 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 20:12
Re: Intro for new tv show 126 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:15
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 189 Corpuscles 05-Feb-19 21:13
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 160 Warwick 05-Feb-19 21:19
The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 203 Barbelo 06-Feb-19 04:16
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 171 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:57
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 144 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 17:53
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 132 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:29
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 139 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:31
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 144 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 18:48
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 125 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:54
A Soft Cock 157 Barbelo 10-Feb-19 20:29
Keep it Civil 160 Scott Creighton 11-Feb-19 09:57
Re: Keep it Civil 161 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 10:48
Re: Keep it Civil 164 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 11:38
Re: A Soft Cock 129 LonelyAngel 15-Feb-19 15:28
Re: A Soft Cock 188 Barbelo 15-Feb-19 20:31
Re: A Soft Cock 127 LonelyAngel 16-Feb-19 18:10
Re: A Soft Cock 172 Barbelo 16-Feb-19 20:44
Re: A Soft Cock 138 LonelyAngel 17-Feb-19 11:45
Re: A Soft Cock 140 Corpuscles 20-Feb-19 20:19
Re: A Soft Cock 135 Warwick 21-Feb-19 18:01
Re: A Soft Cock 119 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 18:37
Re: A Soft Cock 132 Martin Stower 21-Feb-19 18:49
Re: A Soft Cock 123 Warwick 21-Feb-19 19:42
Re: A Soft Cock 132 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 20:16
Re: A Soft Cock 127 Martin Stower 21-Feb-19 20:30
Re: A Soft Cock 130 Warwick 21-Feb-19 20:33
Completely Flaccid 151 Corpuscles 22-Feb-19 05:59
Re: Completely Flaccid 132 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 12:48
Re: Completely Flaccid 118 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 12:53
Re: Completely Flaccid 146 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 13:03
Re: Completely Flaccid 138 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 13:27
Re: Completely Flaccid 137 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 13:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 145 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 14:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 130 Corpuscles 22-Feb-19 19:06
Re: Completely Flaccid 139 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 19:17
Re: Completely Flaccid 162 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 22:44
Re: Completely Flaccid 125 LonelyAngel 23-Feb-19 11:16
Re: Completely Flaccid 138 Martin Stower 23-Feb-19 12:40
Re: Completely Flaccid 148 Corpuscles 23-Feb-19 02:35
simply put 118 Warwick 24-Feb-19 16:48
Re: Completely Flaccid 128 LonelyAngel 23-Feb-19 10:49
Re: Completely Flaccid 126 Martin Stower 23-Feb-19 12:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 136 Corpuscles 23-Feb-19 17:47
Re: Completely Flaccid 128 LonelyAngel 24-Feb-19 15:39
Re: Completely Flaccid 126 Corpuscles 24-Feb-19 15:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 123 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 18:42
Re: Completely Flaccid 126 Scott Creighton 26-Feb-19 19:03
Re: Completely Flaccid 118 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 20:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 119 Scott Creighton 26-Feb-19 21:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 149 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 22:07
factoid 141 Warwick 24-Feb-19 17:03
Re: factoid 125 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 18:31
Re: factoid 134 Warwick 26-Feb-19 19:39
Re: factoid 125 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 10:09
Re: factoid 154 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 11:00
Re: factoid 117 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 13:35
Re: factoid 163 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 14:33
Re: factoid 125 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 16:24
Re: factoid 134 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 16:52
Re: factoid 128 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 16:55
Re: factoid 136 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 17:11
Re: factoid 135 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 17:18
Re: factoid 152 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 17:42
Re: factoid 112 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 09:49
Re: factoid 120 Martin Stower 28-Feb-19 13:12
Re: factoid 139 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 13:21
Re: factoid 146 Martin Stower 28-Feb-19 15:19
Re: factoid 128 Warwick 27-Feb-19 20:11
Dusty? 124 Warwick 27-Feb-19 20:05
Re: Dusty? 130 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 09:52
Re: Dusty? 133 Warwick 28-Feb-19 17:56
Re: Dusty? 154 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 17:59
Re: Dusty? 138 Warwick 28-Feb-19 18:36
Re: Dusty? 135 LonelyAngel 01-Mar-19 12:05
Re: Dusty? 126 Warwick 01-Mar-19 18:14
Re: Dusty? 127 LonelyAngel 01-Mar-19 21:57
Re: Dusty? 122 Warwick 01-Mar-19 22:11
Re: Dusty? 126 LonelyAngel 02-Mar-19 12:58
unbelievable 133 Warwick 02-Mar-19 15:27
Mod Caution > Warwick Off-Topic Posts 132 Dr. Troglodyte 02-Mar-19 15:57
I apologise 135 LonelyAngel 02-Mar-19 16:59
Re: I apologise 194 Warwick 02-Mar-19 17:48
Mod Caution > LonelyAngel Off-Topic Posts 135 Dr. Troglodyte 02-Mar-19 15:54
Re: A Soft Cock 155 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 12:09
Re: A Soft Cock 143 LonelyAngel 17-Feb-19 12:44
Re: A Soft Cock 168 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 13:11
Re: A Soft Cock 143 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 16:02
Re: A Soft Cock 132 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:12
Re: A Soft Cock 123 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 15:53
Re: A Soft Cock 114 Warwick 19-Feb-19 17:37
Re: A Soft Cock 139 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:06
Re: A Soft Cock 126 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:16
Re: A Soft Cock 126 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:23
Re: A Soft Cock 136 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:28
Re: A Soft Cock 156 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:31
Re: A Soft Cock 160 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:40
Re: A Soft Cock 170 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 22:11
Re: A Soft Cock 145 LonelyAngel 20-Feb-19 12:52
Re: A Soft Cock 135 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 18:14
Re: A Soft Cock 117 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:22
Re: A Soft Cock 118 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:05
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 201 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 00:46
Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 189 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 06:14
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 187 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 08:50
I am not surprised at all 163 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 15:41
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 187 Scott Creighton 06-Feb-19 16:39
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 220 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 18:10
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 162 cladking 06-Feb-19 19:24
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 160 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 23:00
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 158 cladking 07-Feb-19 01:55
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 168 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 04:51
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 177 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:49
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 149 Martin Stower 07-Feb-19 15:24
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 164 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 20:10
Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 167 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 20:07
Re: Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 204 Scott Creighton 06-Feb-19 22:31
Re: Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 225 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 23:12
More .. 163 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 23:00
Re: More .. 153 sfbey 07-Feb-19 23:13
Re: More .. 167 Martin Stower 07-Feb-19 23:33
Re: More .. 181 Corpuscles 08-Feb-19 01:01
Re: More .. 169 sfbey 08-Feb-19 02:42
Re: More .. 157 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 00:26
Re: More .. 151 Corpuscles 08-Feb-19 01:26
Re: More .. 152 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 02:39
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 181 Corpuscles 06-Feb-19 23:03
Why is it so IMPORTANT? 182 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 01:45
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 163 cladking 07-Feb-19 01:52
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 175 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 04:48
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 182 cladking 07-Feb-19 14:30
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 218 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 18:08
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 197 cladking 07-Feb-19 22:27
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 243 Warwick 08-Feb-19 19:24
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 190 JuhaS 13-Feb-19 22:03


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.