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
Thanos5150 wrote:

>Archae Solenhofen wrote:

>>Moores (1991) presents evidence that they were used at Giza
>>from the tool marks on the basalt pavement.

>He presents a theory from the marks to match the saw he
>invented for them. There is evidence of saw marks but not his
>saw. These saws would certainly have been quite the spectacle
>with saw overseers and the like. No carvings, paintings,
>titles, or evidence of the saw itself or the workers? I'm not
>saying they couldn't have had a saw as he envisions, but you
>are stating it as point of fact when it simply is not, and the
>point is that it does not explain the different kinds of cuts
>that are seen as I said.

It explains the saw cuts for the basalt pavement which a giant circular saw does not......... so why are the others saw cuts not explained by other adaptations of this simple sawing process? I have stated something like "possible" for Moores' saw a number of times in this thread........

>>Why is it unlikely.....

>For a corner cut to have been made with a pendulum drag saw?

It does not need to be in that position, it can be cut in another orientation before placement in the pavement......... the evidence clearly shows they were using the saw mainly for trimming of these blocks so that they would fit together better not cutting at them after the blocks were in place.

>>A drag saw blade shaped like the curve of a circle on a single
>>pendulum could produce curricular arcs too when drawn back and
>>forth........ Hey, I am not against small hand-powered circular
>>saws, it's a pretty simple concept...... it's the absurd 11
>>meter in diameter pyramid-powered ones of Dunn (2008) that I
>>have a problem with. That is what that second image you posted
>>is trying to suggest..... since it is from that article.

>Come on Archae. Be honest with yourself. When you ignore the
>obvious just to save face so you can debunk anything and
>everything it doesn't make you seem very intellectually honest.

"Obvious"? I guess, as in an 11 meter high curricular saw blade and all that goes along with it...... that's absurd, you really should already know that. So it's not a giant circular saw that cut that block..... it's something else.

>Those cuts are made from a circular saw as is what is seen at
>Abu Roash. Instead of pretending it didn't exist why not figure
>out how it did?

I did in the original text above....... "A drag saw blade shaped like the curve of a circle on a single pendulum could produce curricular arcs too when drawn back an forth........". Does that not better explain what is claimed in Dunn (2006) than an 11 m high curricular blade, weighting tons of some advanced metal, mounted on some giant advanced bearings, and powered by the Great Pyramid's Earth vibration energy generator? After all, if they mount a copper blade in the form of a segment of the periphery of a circle to the length of a single pendulum equal to the circles radius, when it is swung in one direction it makes a circular arc just like a giant circular blade would. Of course, this simpler version does not need to be spun, it can be swung back and forth and it can be powered by people and not some imaginary advanced power supply.

>A circular wet saw solves a lot of problems, as
>does hand powered circular grinding wheels, and is a very
>simple concept so there shouldn't be much of a hang up about
>it.

These are not 11 meter circular saws....... Small circular saws only solves the "problem" for the very few examples of claimed circular striations which are a small minority.

>I am not part of the Dunn discussion-I just saw that you
>presented the lamest pictures possible to prove your point and
>offered a more honest alternative so that a real discussion
>could be had.

Tell that to Mr. Dunn because all those examples I posted are claimed/insinuated to one degree or another to be advanced machining........... involving sonic drills and saws

>>So...... 10 years of work on granite casing stone (they would
>>work on stone casing procurement and dressing while the pyramid
>>was being built) yields 30 blocks one meter cubed for the
>>first-time amateur team that never improves. Do you really
>>think the multible teams of workers were not better trained and
>>better skilled than Stocks (2001) was?

>Of course-so it only took the Egyptians 1 month to cut one
>block with a copper saw instead of 4 months? Absurd. Replace
>copper with bronze and it at least makes a little more sense.

Why....... it's still needs the copper to make the bronze, and it's actually the quartz sand that does the cutting not the bronze? What improvement do you think they are going to get there other than a small reduction in the rate of wear? It's not going to influence the cutting rate that much, if at all.

>I
>don't understand the insistence at every turn of imposing the
>most impractical means on the AE requiring the most amount of
>effort when it is completely unnecessary to do so given we
>already know they used bronze and had the wheel. The number one
>thought on any craftsman's mind is to find the right tool for
>the job to eliminate as much unnecessary effort as possible
>while maximizing proficiency for the task

Then why do modern lapidary industries not use diamond for all their rock working....... they usually use abrasives like synthetic aluminum oxide or silicon carbide which are both more than considerably less hard than diamond.... and therefor less efficient? For heaven's sakes, they're still using quartz sand to work rock even today.

>which is the opposite
>of what is being imposed on the Egyptians whom we know were
>highly intelligent and innovative. I really don't see what the
>big deal is about a circular saw especially considering that is
>what the saw marks require.

Again, the image you provided was claiming the saw marks indicated a circular saw that was not a foot in diameter, or a meter...... it was 11 meters. That is completely absurd.......

>>Other than hollowing sarcophagi, door sockets, and a few other
>>tasks the coring of granite and other hardrocks was not that
>>widely used in masonry. It was used mostly in stone vessel
>>manufacturing.

>So, because it wasn't used much it was ok to be as inefficient
>and time consuming as possible by insisting on using the worst
>material possible for job?

It's not the worst material....... it's still used today as a lapping material.

>>Where does he claim this because in Lehner (1997 p211) he
>>states hundred to thousand were needed to finely dress the Tura
>>limestone casing on the 4th dynasty pyramids (copper and copper
>>alloy chisels don't work on granite)? The vast majority of the
>>core limestone masonry is not finely dressed so chisels were
>>not much used there either.......

>I thought this is what he said on a recent Nova special
>regarding carving the Sphinx. I believe he said millions but I
>reduced it to hundreds of thousands so I guess I misquoted him.

>Pounding stones are even more inefficient not to mention back
>breaking labor.

Well, it's more then quite clear that it was used to work rock on a regular basis..... it's how they quarried limestone by trenching.

>They obviously used pounders, but I find it
>hard to believe they would have used them to a fraction of the
>extent that would have been required in lieu of other tools
>better suited for the task.

Like what specifically? And make sure that is actually constant with the tool marks on the limestone blocks.

>Copper and copper alloy chisels don't work on granite and yet
>there is Stocks and Moores telling us they used copper drills
>and saws?

Copper and copper alloy chisels are percussion tools. Lapidary means..... it's cut with an abrasive (i.e. quartz sand). The copper is the lapping material it holds the abrasive in place as it is pushed over the cut surface of the rock. The lapping material needs to be softer than the abrasive and rock being cut for it to work effectively. That is why they are using copper...... because it actually works well for such.

>>>we are to add hundreds if not thousands of 13ft copper saws
>>>to this total?

>>So....... it's not like it was a wasted.

>But the point is that they would have needed too much of it.
>And the wood constantly reshape them.

Based on what..... Just like a copper saw it's not going to bend if it is used properly. A bronze saw is going to wear away too, and it's only about 30% harder than copper and copper arsenic alloy can be very close to the hardness of bronze. Remember, that the block that was in that photo above was supposed to be cut with an 11 meter high circular saw. How many of these considerably smaller saws could they make from just one of those ridiculously absurd ones? BTW, Egypt was wetter than it is today during the Old Kingdom, they has a lot more trees and they had not yet been all cut down. The Nile Valley has a lot of land........

>>The technological level to produce them was know and the marks
>>they produce are evidenced on artifact, after artifact, after
>>artifact. It is pretty clear that the coring drill arose out of
>>stone mace and vessel manufacturing that was going on for about
>>500-1000 year before the Great Pyramids was built.

>But once again the tool itself is nowhere to be found which is
>the point-the tools are gone.

So what..... clear evidence of the technological knowledge to produce such is still in the archeological; record. So what do you think..... that if the tool is not there anymore this somehow opens a void for any claim can now fill it? We have already seen how that lead absolutely nowhere of relevance with that 11 meter high saw.

>>>And why is it the carpentry tool kit is present since
>>>pre-dynastic times in relative abundance either physically or
>>>pictorially, and yet this same tool kit Egyptologists modify to
>>>try and impose on stone working is nowhere to be found?

>>Some of it is..... for example the hieroglyphic symbol for
>>"craft/art" during the Old Kingdom is a stone boring tool
>>(Stocks 1993).

>So basically none of it is, like I said.

There is actually quite a bit of it...... I'm not going to list every example it would fill up this messageboard. I suggest you do a bit more research on this subject before you start claiming " basically none"......

>And this is for bead,
>vase making, and the like is it not and has nothing to do with
>construction stone masonry.

Since both involve the lapidary and percussion cutting of rock one might think otherwise.

>>No, it's based on the fact that the ancient Egyptian understood
>>what a saw was and the hieroglyphic above indicated that they
>>understood that rock could be cut by grinding...... it's not
>>that much of a leap to imaging they had the intellect to put
>>these 2 simple concepts together to produce the cut rocks with
>>tool marks that are completely consistent with such.

>So, they have the intellect to support the use of the tools you
>want them to use despite the fact they were not invented in
>China for several hundred years later,

So........ were the ancient Chinese building stone pyramids at 2500 BC or making stone vessels? When the Chinese needed such technology they were quite capable of figuring it out for themselves, as they clearly did....... the ancient Egyptians seem to not be able to for some reason, at least for some here.

>but not the intellect to
>use the tools you don't want them to use? None of these tools
>have been found and regardless are not indicative of what is
>seen in many of the saw marks.

How so..... straight striation, sweeping striations, circular striations, smooth surfaces....... how are these not consistent with various adaptations of a copper drag saw and sand abrasive?

>>It's not all missing a lot of the other less expensive tools
>>are still around.... At least the ancient Egyptians understood
>>what saws and drills were and how to make copper and bronze
>>tools during the 4th dynasty. There is absolutely no evidence
>>other than the blocks themselves that 11 m in diameter
>>mega-saws, powered by the pyramid, and made of advance metals
>>ever existed at all...... absolutely nothing.

>Where did I say anything about these tools being "powered by
>the pyramid"?

You are the one who posted an image from an article claiming 11 meter high circular saws..... how was that powered...... by a giant treadmill? It was called GizaPowerPlant for a reason.......

>In fact you quote me directly below where I
>clearly state I do not support the use of "power tools"? Is
>bronze or iron an "advanced metal"? I'm not going to argue with
>you about something that is not my argument again so if this is
>what you are all about all the time I guess the best thing to
>do is just ignore you.

Again you posted an image from Dunn (2006) which is claimed to show the result of such. If you don't except that it was made with an 11 meter high circular saw blade then what was it made with? I gave you a reasonable explanation as to how such an object could be made..... you choose to ignore it.

>But regardless, by your own admission
>other than the marks on the block there is no evidence for the
>circular saw but there is also no evidence for your pendulum or
>bow saw either other than the cuts so what is your point?

Drag saws and bow drills were known to the ancient Egyptian. We know that because they are depicted in tomb representation and we also have examples of these tools from the archeological record. Both of these tools can be adapted to the working of rocks quite easily.

>Yes,
>they understood drills and saws and they also understood the
>wheel. If these cuts were made by a circular saw then that is
>what it was. Not that difficult all things considered.

An 11 meter high one? I have already stated that they could have had small hand-powered circular saws since it is a simple concept. Not a lot of saw cuts are circular or sweeping, they are usually straight. There are a number of different drag saw adaptations that they are using including ones without the aid of a pendulum, or a jig to hold the saw.

>>There are known bronze and arsenic copper alloy tools and other
>>artifacts from the Old Kingdom, and a depiction of a wheeled
>>scaling ladder (with axle) from the 5th dynasty as well.

>But they say all they used were copper tools and did not use
>the wheel or beasts of burden.....

Because there is not much evidence for it......

>>No one believes what Petrie claimed in his early book in this
>>regards and since he never claimed that again, even in his
>>other books on rock worked objects, one would think he no
>>longer did either. Petrie makes a number of other claims in
>>that early book in regards to worked rocks, some of them are
>>not correct......

>No one? You mean no pseudoskeptic.

I mean "no one" who is qualified to make comments about such........

>Let's see what Petrie says:

>"The methods employed by the Egyptians... snip>"

That's Petrie (1883)...... that's 130 years ago!

Petrie, W.M.F. (1883) The pyramids and temples of Gizeh. Field and Taer. London, 250 p.

>"The typical method of working hard stones..... snip>"

Petrie (1883) didn't appear to understand that diorite and basalt and a lot if those other extras don't have any quartz in them.

>" Many nations,..., snip>"

Petrie (1883) didn't appear to understand that quartz sand abrasive can cut granite..... which is telling because it was commonly used for such in the late 1800s.

>"That the Egyptians were acquainted with a cutting jewel.... snip>"

Stone vessel making tools are now used for masonry....... above you stated something like they were irrelevant to the discussions about such. Remember "And this is for bead, vase making, and the like is it not and has nothing to do with construction stone masonry". However, there is no problem if you wish to change your mind for some reason. Do you have an image of any of these diorite bowls because I have been looking for one for years..... so I can determine its validity. The problem is that he also make claims about the grooves on this object and what is claimed is not necessarily there:


(height. 11 cm. The Petrie Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth (The Egypt Archive)

However..... if it is true, so what? During the Old Kingdom the ancient Egyptians were importing lithic materials from quite far from Egypt so the odd diamond or corundum is certainly a possibility. There is apparently not a lot of examples of this type of work, so it's not like it was a commonly used tool, whatever it was. BTW, as I pointed out to you about a month ago the only diorite vases that are known were made out of hornblende diorite which is actually softer in 2 of its 3 varieties since they were quarried from a deposit that was hydrothermally altered (Aston 1994). These diorites have very little to no quartz so it really should be easier to work than granite considering that its primary minerals plagioclase feldspar and hornblende have hardness less than 6-6.5 on Mohs scale (less when altered with clay minerals). Maybe by "diorite" he meant diorite gneiss or anorthosite gneiss which are different rocks, but again the mineralogy does not contain any quartz and the minerals are all less than 6-6.5 on Mohs scale. Quartz will be able to scratch all these rock........

Aston, B.G. (1994) Ancient Egyptian stone vessels: materials and forms. Heidelberger Orientverlag, Heidelberg, 196 p.

As for scratches on granite, quartz abrasive can scratch granite.

>"We therefore need have no hesitation ... snip>"

Again, they were not using powder..... it's quartz sand. The same thing that was routinely used to cut granite in the late 1800s, The use of quartz produces horizontal striations when cut with just a drag saw.

Do you know of any examples of anyone, anywhere in the entire real history of lapidary cutting of rock ever using this type of saw........ the answer is no and for a good reason, it does not work well at all. Remember, when you stated this above "lamest pictures possible to prove your point"....... you do understand that those are all described in Petrie (1883) as being cut with those jewel incrusted tools right, including that core above?

>"That the blades of the saw were of bronze,.... snip>"

Copper saws leaves green stains too...... No 6 is a pretty small sample from a small stone vessel...... if that case that circular saw was not 11 meters in diameter, it was more than considerably smaller.

>"These tubular drills vary in thickness...... snip>"

So........ here is an image of one that is considerably smaller. It's travertine, calcite is slightly harder than your fingernail so it's not that hard to carve by lapidary working.


Unfinished travertine stone vessel marked with red paint for coring with drill, possibly 6th Dynasty (height c. 7 cm. The Petrie Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth (The Egypt Archive)

>"At El Bersheh... snip>"

So........ again it's coring limestone.

>"...the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument ..... snip>"

The only prerequisites for a lapidary lathe is that the object being worked and the grinding tools be held ridged as the object is rotated. Doesn't have to be high speed or high pressure type tool, only enough pressure to cause abrasion between the grinding surface and the object being worked, which really isn't that, much. All that would be needed is an adaptation of the potter's wheel, stone borer, or the bow-drill. Pole-lathes are tools that rotate the object back and forth rather than spinning it. If a simple lathe was used by the ancient Egyptians, I would suspect that it was used as just a finishing tool. All the rough work would be done by percussion and other types of lapidary techniques for rough shaping stone objects. The problem with the lathe as a regularly used tool is the general lack of evidence of such from woodworking (there are only a few possible examples of such before the Graeco-Roman Period).

Petrie (c1977) states they were made mostly by grinding, that for both predynastic and dynastic vessels the outer forms were first rough shaped by chipping (percussion) and then rubbed down with blocks of emery (grinding (these would have actually been made of sandstone)). Predynastic stone vessels were shaped by rubbing the grinding blocks diagonally in an up and down type motion. In dynastic bowls the grinding was done "circularly in a block". Petrie (c1977) mentions lathes twice, and in both these cases it is in the context of modern forgeries..... he uses the less specific "turned" to describe some ancient Egyptian stone vessels' worked interiors. The problem as I see it, is the observations Petrie (1883) was using to come to the conclusion that lathes were used. It seems that most of it is based on the inner surfaces of bowls that exhibited striations. These can be more easily explained by the stone boring tools which is spun inside of the vessel that is held in place. Stocks (1993) demonstrates this method for the hollowing out of vessels with sand abrasive. For the purpose of hollowing other vessels Petrie (c1977) states for most they first used a coring drill and then the stone boring tool not a lathe.

Petrie, W.M.F. (c1977 (1932)) The funeral furniture of Egypt: with stone and metal vases. Aris & Phillips, Wiltshire, 65 p.

Stocks, D.A. (1993) Making Stone vessels in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Antiquity, 67, 596-603.

>Sounds reasonable enough to me. I'm sticking with Petrie on
>this one.

It's from 1883...... more than a lot more research been done on many of thee objects since then.

>>Pounded quartz..... how is that suppose to work?

>Coating the blade. Just spitballing as an alternative to
>"jewels".

Do you understand how exactly abrasives work? A quartz coated blade is not going to work very well for such..... it's the sharp edges on the quartz sand grains that do most of the cutting. The grains fracture in the process to produce new sharp edges but these edges quickly wear off and as a result new sand must be added periodically for the process to work effectively.

>>Bronze may help a bit with the limestone chisels.

>Just a "bit"? If Lehner shows you get 5-10 minutes chisel time
>on limestone per copper chisel then how many copper chisels
>does one bronze chisel replace? And wood to heat the furnace to
>make and constantly them?

Copper and copper alloy chisels would be used for fine dressing. The underside of the uraeus of the Sphinx still has tools marks on it from a percussion tool. That TV show also calculated it would take 3 years to quarry and carve the Sphinx with the tools known to the 4th dynasty ancient Egyptians based in part on the rates they obtained for their experimenting with modern replicas of such. BYW do you remember if they were using arsenic copper in those tests?

>>Lapidary saws
>>work well with copper, it's an ideal lapping material still
>>used today. Do you really think that extreme added expense is
>>going to help that much here? Remember, it's not the metal that
>>does the cutting it's the abrasive that the metal drags along
>>with it that does.

>Does it look like the AE were too worried about the "extreme
>added expense" to you? And this isn't just one construction job
>we are talking about but hundreds of years of monumental stone
>working before this technology supposedly appears around
>2000BC.

A bronze object was found in one of the Queen's Chamber airshafts when it was first opened along with a stone ball used for weight measurement. It appears to have been a small grapnel hook of some kind. It's possible they had some bronze chisels and use them (bronze objects are extremely rare)...... however, we know for a fact they were using copper chisels because pieces of them have been found imbedded in 4th dynasty limestone blocks on the Giza Plateau (Arnold 1991).

Arnold, D. (1991) Building in Egypt: pharaonic stone masonry. Oxford University Press, New York, 316 p.

>All things considered this is a wise if not required
>investment and in the long run would save an infinite amount of
>"expense". They imported the finest most expensive cedar wood
>boats yet couldn't cough up the extra dough for some bronze to
>haul back on these boats from the people they were already
>trading with who had bronze knowing full well it would make
>their job of monumental stone working infinitely easier?

Where are they getting the tin from and what evidence is there that this occurred on a vast scale? You are arguing that they did not have enough copper for the saws, so they need to be made of the more expensive bronze so they lasted longer....... but they are not going to because bronze is really not the much harder than copper and it's going to wear away too almost as fast. Do you really think they are going to blow all the wealth on just a small decrease in wear rate.

>Come
>on. The Egyptians were notorious for taking the technologies of
>others and making them better so it stands to reason they
>easily understood the value and potential of bronze which would
>have been pennies on the dollar compared to manufacturing and
>maintaining copper tools alone. And how is it more expensive to
>import say, 1000 bronze chisels (or the raw material to make
>them) than it is to mine, forge, and gather the tons of wood
>(in a desert) to make 10,000 copper ones?

You have stated you have read the part of Nicholson & Shaw (2000) that states that the 4th dynasty Egyptians had arsenic copper alloy tools right?

>Figure 9
><[www.oocities.org]
>you show a bronze chisel found at Medum that the placard says
>"was probably lost by workmen of Rameses II when stripping the
>pyramid", but why Rameses II? Just because its bronze? Maybe it
>was used by the workers at Medum and is an example of one of
>these "lost" tools. And concerning abrasive materials, this
>obviously accomplishes next to nothing as Stocks has plainly
>shown. All it does is make the copper able to be used at all
>but its still absurdly inefficient if the tool is copper.

And how is bronze going to change what you believe is "absurdly inefficient"? Again, bronze is not really that much harder than copper, hammer copper, or arsenic copper alloy, like about 0-30% depending on that they are using. Hardness is not the only thing bronze is useful for or why it was used over copper or copper arsenic alloy.

>>They are not..... since stone precaution tools can be used for
>>most of the rough dressing of rocks (and in some cases fine
>>dressing...... this has been shown by a number of experimental
>>researchers such as Stock (2003) and Zuber (1956). The chisels
>>were mostly used for fine dressing of limestone.

>But they are. Insisting on pounders and copper implements alone
>with no wheel or beasts of burden is untenable and the simple
>fact is they didn't have to and must have used more efficient
>tools and methods.

Pounders and copper implements work....... and there is actual evidence supporting their use.

>>>How many copper chisels does one bronze chisel replace? 10?
>>>100? 1000?

>Seriously-how many? I would be interested to know.

You tell me.... I have no idea? How about for the arsenic copper which they also used?

>>It's called a flint pecking hammer (its a simple version of
>>the modern bush hammer used in stone carving) and the AEs used that
>>simple but effective tool as well as others to finely carve
>>statues, hieroglyphics. etc..

>What does a flint pecking hammer have to do with replacing
>copper tools with bronze, the wheel, or beasts of burden?

Didn't understand what "pounded quartz" was. A flint pecking hammer is an actual example of quartz being used to effectively pound something as demonstrated in the granite statue carving experiment of Zuber (1956)

>>I suggest you read Nicholson & Shaw (2000) it will help you
>>fine tune your common sense since it discusses in considerable
>>detail the material and technologies known to the ancient
>>Egyptian civilization.

>>Nicholson, P.T. & Shaw, I. (2000) Ancient Egyptian materials
>>and techniques. Cambridge University Press, New York, 702 p.

>You mean like on p.7 where they talk about the uncertainty of
>the tools used and the problems with the theory of copper
>chisels and the controversy surrounding what tools were used
>for the extraction of granite and other hard stones,

Actually, it was for limestone and it's pointing out that harder copper alloys (arsenic) artifacts were known during the Old Kingdom as opposed to just soft copper...... which I pointed out to you in a number of my previous posts. I suggest reading the section on metal production like it tells the reader to do.

>and that
>there is evidence of some form of pick axe among other now
>missing tools?

Ya, in the quarries..... a lot of the limestone used in the GP is not that hard when it is first quarried; it's when it's been sitting out on the surface and it dries and casehardens so it becomes more difficult to work.

Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@hotmail.com)

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 1677 Richard Fusniak 04-Jan-13 20:02
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 382 Citizen Attorney 05-Jan-13 00:24
Debunker debunked? 421 drrayeye 05-Jan-13 05:15
Aliens is making people re-evaluate certain paradigms 493 Ratcho 05-Jan-13 06:22
How is it possible? 378 gulsbo 05-Jan-13 16:16
Entertainment industry rules OK; thumbs down to education 323 Richard Fusniak 05-Jan-13 16:57
Re: Entertainment industry rules OK; thumbs down to education 448 gulsbo 06-Jan-13 08:03
Re: Entertainment industry rules OK; thumbs down to education 378 Richard Fusniak 06-Jan-13 08:59
Re: Entertainment industry rules OK; thumbs down to education 401 gulsbo 07-Jan-13 21:07
Re: Entertainment industry rules OK; thumbs down to education 444 Richard Fusniak 08-Jan-13 00:36
Fuzzy 330 Dan Mc F 08-Jan-13 12:49
Re: Fuzzy 423 Richard Fusniak 08-Jan-13 13:12
Re: Entertainment industry rules OK; thumbs down to education 345 gulsbo 09-Jan-13 21:36
Re: Smithsonian never lies.... 541 Thunderbird 23-Mar-13 03:39
who said aliens 395 Citizen Attorney 05-Jan-13 16:42
Re: who said aliens 383 David L 05-Jan-13 17:42
Re: who said aliens 438 Citizen Attorney 05-Jan-13 21:23
Agreed 410 NetWorkAngel 05-Jan-13 22:05
Re: Agreed 367 Citizen Attorney 06-Jan-13 19:16
Re: who said aliens 424 David L 07-Jan-13 01:16
Re: who said aliens 477 Thanos5150 06-Jan-13 18:38
Re: who said aliens 365 Citizen Attorney 06-Jan-13 19:17
Re: who said aliens 482 Thanos5150 06-Jan-13 22:45
Ancient Aliens' Debunked - Review 753 Thanos5150 07-Jan-13 02:23
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 411 MJT 08-Jan-13 13:58
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 408 Susan Doris 08-Jan-13 14:33
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 433 Richard Fusniak 08-Jan-13 15:19
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 465 Bobajot 10-Jan-13 04:01
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 464 wordsmyth 13-Jan-13 03:26
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 397 Archae Solenhofen 13-Jan-13 04:53
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 404 wordsmyth 15-Jan-13 01:44
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 447 richarddullum 15-Jan-13 03:28
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 382 wordsmyth 15-Jan-13 07:12
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 418 michael seabrook 15-Jan-13 10:48
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 438 Merrell 15-Jan-13 10:55
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 455 Archae Solenhofen 15-Jan-13 05:21
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 488 wordsmyth 15-Jan-13 08:24
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 382 Merrell 15-Jan-13 09:55
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 471 wordsmyth 15-Jan-13 10:26
Re: Archae Solenhofen = "Ancient Limestone" 498 Thanos5150 15-Jan-13 17:39
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 448 Archae Solenhofen 15-Jan-13 19:09
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 409 wordsmyth 15-Jan-13 22:26
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 379 Archae Solenhofen 16-Jan-13 03:29
Re: So...its very time consuming 360 Thunderbird 16-Jan-13 05:22
Re: So...its very time consuming 402 wordsmyth 16-Jan-13 06:32
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 468 Thunderbird 15-Jan-13 18:30
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 408 Martin Stower 23-Feb-13 15:38
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 358 wordsmyth 23-Feb-13 22:10
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 494 Thanos5150 24-Feb-13 00:33
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 433 wordsmyth 24-Feb-13 03:42
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 396 Thanos5150 24-Feb-13 06:16
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 382 wordsmyth 24-Feb-13 22:48
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 415 Scott Creighton 24-Feb-13 20:05
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 433 wordsmyth 24-Feb-13 22:36
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 421 Ratcho 24-Feb-13 22:49
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 444 Thanos5150 24-Feb-13 23:50
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 390 Scott Creighton 25-Feb-13 00:18
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 512 Martin Stower 25-Feb-13 17:57
Re: desperation.... 443 Thunderbird 25-Feb-13 21:20
Re: desperation.... 390 Martin Stower 26-Feb-13 15:47
Re: Khufu cartouche Cambell's chamber 486 Thunderbird 18-Mar-13 17:33
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 400 wordsmyth 25-Feb-13 22:25
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 423 Martin Stower 26-Feb-13 15:59
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 414 wordsmyth 26-Feb-13 21:41
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 453 Thanos5150 26-Feb-13 18:57
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 453 Martin Stower 27-Feb-13 18:46
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 374 Thanos5150 27-Feb-13 21:26
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 462 Martin Stower 28-Feb-13 16:57
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 388 Thanos5150 28-Feb-13 17:19
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 394 Martin Stower 28-Feb-13 18:08
Re: Vyse Good.....alternative....Evil 429 Merrell 28-Feb-13 09:33
Re: Can we seriously believe that Alford has a clue.... 420 Thunderbird 25-Feb-13 16:41
Re: Can we seriously believe that Alford has a clue.... 472 Martin Stower 25-Feb-13 18:29
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 423 Archae Solenhofen 15-Jan-13 18:41
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 417 Thanos5150 15-Jan-13 22:13
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 388 Archae Solenhofen 15-Jan-13 22:44
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 476 Thanos5150 16-Jan-13 04:40
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 383 Archae Solenhofen 16-Jan-13 06:02
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 435 Thanos5150 16-Jan-13 06:54
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 449 Archae Solenhofen 16-Jan-13 09:09
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 379 Thanos5150 16-Jan-13 17:52
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 420 Archae Solenhofen 16-Jan-13 20:21
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 430 Thanos5150 16-Jan-13 21:21
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 340 Archae Solenhofen 17-Jan-13 04:57
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 443 Thanos5150 17-Jan-13 05:42
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 408 Archae Solenhofen 17-Jan-13 07:05
Fingerprints 1996 - 200 ton blocks 514 Merrell 17-Jan-13 11:22
Re: Fingerprints 1996 - 200 ton blocks 372 Archae Solenhofen 17-Jan-13 16:18
Re: Fingerprints 1996 - 200 ton blocks 418 Merrell 17-Jan-13 16:39
Re: Fingerprints 1996 - 200 ton blocks 429 Archae Solenhofen 17-Jan-13 17:44
Re: Fingerprints 1996 - 200 ton blocks 259 Archae Solenhofen 17-Jan-13 22:41
Re: Fingerprints 1996 - 200 ton blocks 451 Merrell 17-Jan-13 23:38
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 477 Thanos5150 17-Jan-13 23:46
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 414 wordsmyth 18-Jan-13 03:45
Mod Warning #2 > wordsmyth – Name-calling 457 Dr. Troglodyte 18-Jan-13 15:12
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 409 Archae Solenhofen 18-Jan-13 03:57
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 394 Thanos5150 18-Jan-13 05:32
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 347 Archae Solenhofen 18-Jan-13 06:04
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 365 Thanos5150 18-Jan-13 06:40
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 395 Archae Solenhofen 18-Jan-13 07:31
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 409 Thanos5150 18-Jan-13 18:02
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 306 Archae Solenhofen 18-Jan-13 18:19
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 387 Bobajot 20-Jan-13 02:08
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 387 Archae Solenhofen 20-Jan-13 03:16
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 445 Susan Doris 03-Feb-13 06:49
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 447 Thanos5150 05-Feb-13 20:00
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 452 Susan Doris 06-Feb-13 06:50
Mod Caution > Language Edit - Thanos5150 407 Dr. Troglodyte 16-Jan-13 20:39
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 359 David L 18-Jan-13 15:40
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 467 Thanos5150 18-Jan-13 17:59
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 405 wordsmyth 16-Jan-13 06:30
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 451 Thanos5150 16-Jan-13 07:03
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 380 richarddullum 17-Jan-13 03:42
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 409 Archae Solenhofen 17-Jan-13 05:10
Mod Caution > Language Edit - wordsmyth 429 Dr. Troglodyte 16-Jan-13 00:30
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 439 wordsmyth 15-Jan-13 22:23
Mod Warning #1 > wordsmyth 447 Dr. Troglodyte 16-Jan-13 00:44
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 379 Archae Solenhofen 16-Jan-13 03:11
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 413 wordsmyth 16-Jan-13 05:56
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 418 Archae Solenhofen 16-Jan-13 08:06
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 389 cladking 16-Jan-13 15:54
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 422 Archae Solenhofen 16-Jan-13 17:11
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 420 cladking 16-Jan-13 17:40
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 416 Archae Solenhofen 16-Jan-13 17:58
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 400 cladking 16-Jan-13 21:06
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 327 Archae Solenhofen 16-Jan-13 21:17
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 411 cladking 16-Jan-13 21:31
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 397 wordsmyth 20-Jan-13 01:56
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 403 Archae Solenhofen 21-Jan-13 02:36
Re: Considerations..... 396 Thunderbird 16-Jan-13 20:27
Re: Considerations..... 439 cladking 16-Jan-13 21:12
Re: Considerations..... 402 Thanos5150 16-Jan-13 21:48
Re: what bumpkins ...could do : ) 416 Thunderbird 17-Jan-13 05:05
Re: Considerations..... 467 loveritas 16-Jan-13 22:46
Re: design specs 397 Thunderbird 17-Jan-13 04:29
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 445 Anomalies 16-Jan-13 18:19
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 364 Workjay 18-Jan-13 19:16
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 396 Susan Doris 20-Jan-13 07:00
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 382 wordsmyth 20-Jan-13 08:08
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 422 Susan Doris 20-Jan-13 08:58
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 407 wordsmyth 20-Jan-13 18:31
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 420 Thanos5150 20-Jan-13 19:10
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 421 wordsmyth 22-Jan-13 16:38
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 400 Workjay 22-Jan-13 21:16
Artificial Moon 427 Thanos5150 25-Jan-13 05:28
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 365 wordsmyth 25-Jan-13 07:54
Mod Warning #1 > Language - Thanos5150 409 Dr. Troglodyte 25-Jan-13 14:04
REALLY REALLY EXCEPTIONAL POST 406 drrayeye 25-Jan-13 14:37
Re: REALLY REALLY EXCEPTIONAL POST 420 Thanos5150 25-Jan-13 19:38
Re: REALLY REALLY EXCEPTIONAL POST 498 drrayeye 26-Jan-13 07:46
Re: REALLY REALLY EXCEPTIONAL POST 462 wordsmyth 26-Jan-13 19:51
Re: REALLY REALLY EXCEPTIONAL POST 463 Thanos5150 26-Jan-13 22:27
Re: REALLY REALLY EXCEPTIONAL POST 465 wordsmyth 27-Jan-13 02:41
Re: REALLY REALLY EXCEPTIONAL POST 487 Thanos5150 27-Jan-13 05:06
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 383 carolb 25-Jan-13 21:26
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 306 Thanos5150 26-Jan-13 00:56
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 448 carolb 26-Jan-13 02:23
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 395 Thanos5150 27-Jan-13 04:50
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 564 carolb 28-Jan-13 00:31
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 368 Thanos5150 28-Jan-13 03:12
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 376 Aine 28-Jan-13 12:38
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 359 Thanos5150 28-Jan-13 20:18
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 402 Aine 28-Jan-13 20:25
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 435 Thanos5150 28-Jan-13 22:09
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 420 carolb 28-Jan-13 20:28
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 372 Thanos5150 28-Jan-13 23:41
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 419 carolb 29-Jan-13 01:23
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 439 wordsmyth 29-Jan-13 01:31
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 381 carolb 29-Jan-13 02:11
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 367 wordsmyth 29-Jan-13 03:08
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 404 wordsmyth 29-Jan-13 05:31
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 445 Thanos5150 29-Jan-13 22:53
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 425 Susan Doris 26-Jan-13 06:55
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 394 ray wakila 28-Jan-13 18:30
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 416 wordsmyth 29-Jan-13 00:39
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 368 Susan Doris 13-Feb-13 06:48
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 390 wordsmyth 13-Feb-13 23:04
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 435 Archae Solenhofen 14-Feb-13 15:37
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 389 wordsmyth 19-Feb-13 01:29
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 395 Archae Solenhofen 19-Feb-13 04:29
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 392 wordsmyth 19-Feb-13 07:25
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 376 Thanos5150 20-Feb-13 00:25
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 356 Bobajot 20-Feb-13 02:09
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 369 Archae Solenhofen 20-Feb-13 03:54
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 384 Bobajot 20-Feb-13 13:35
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 398 Archae Solenhofen 20-Feb-13 18:01
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 370 Bobajot 20-Feb-13 23:29
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 395 Archae Solenhofen 21-Feb-13 16:17
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 418 Bobajot 22-Feb-13 23:08
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 370 Archae Solenhofen 22-Feb-13 23:55
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 369 wordsmyth 23-Feb-13 00:24
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 394 cladking 23-Feb-13 00:41
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 367 wordsmyth 23-Feb-13 05:10
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 349 cladking 23-Feb-13 05:40
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 406 Bobajot 23-Feb-13 01:04
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 394 Archae Solenhofen 23-Feb-13 04:49
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 420 Bobajot 23-Feb-13 12:31
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 401 Archae Solenhofen 23-Feb-13 20:25
Science Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 404 cladking 23-Feb-13 21:29
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 392 Bobajot 24-Feb-13 02:34
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 379 Archae Solenhofen 25-Feb-13 20:21
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 382 Bobajot 26-Feb-13 03:01
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 339 wordsmyth 23-Feb-13 21:21
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 375 Thanos5150 23-Feb-13 21:32
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 344 Thanos5150 23-Feb-13 22:10
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 366 wordsmyth 23-Feb-13 22:18
We would probably be amazed 302 Ratcho 24-Feb-13 00:52
Re: We would probably be amazed 308 wordsmyth 24-Feb-13 03:48
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 373 Archae Solenhofen 24-Feb-13 01:50
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 375 wordsmyth 24-Feb-13 02:44
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 357 wordsmyth 23-Feb-13 05:18
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 343 Archae Solenhofen 23-Feb-13 04:41
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 306 Archae Solenhofen 20-Feb-13 02:11
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 406 cladking 20-Feb-13 04:08
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 428 Thanos5150 22-Feb-13 05:31
I've tried hardened steel chisels 367 Ratcho 22-Feb-13 06:15
Re: I've tried hardened steel chisels 350 Susan Doris 22-Feb-13 07:15
Re: I've tried hardened steel chisels 398 Ratcho 22-Feb-13 17:51
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 394 Archae Solenhofen 23-Feb-13 05:15
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 406 cladking 23-Feb-13 15:13
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 234 Thanos5150 23-Feb-13 20:57
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 529 Archae Solenhofen 25-Feb-13 20:14
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 385 Susan Doris 24-Feb-13 15:49
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 390 wordsmyth 24-Feb-13 22:30
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 413 wordsmyth 20-Feb-13 02:22
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 391 Archae Solenhofen 20-Feb-13 03:47
How many swings would it take 412 Ratcho 20-Feb-13 06:29
Re: How many swings would it take 362 Susan Doris 20-Feb-13 17:31
Re: How many swings would it take 393 cladking 20-Feb-13 21:24
If you have the time... 350 Ratcho 22-Feb-13 22:48
Re: How many swings would it take 415 Archae Solenhofen 20-Feb-13 18:14
Re: How many swings would it take 340 cladking 20-Feb-13 21:30
Re: How many swings would it take 428 wordsmyth 21-Feb-13 08:39
Re: How many swings would it take 431 Scott Creighton 21-Feb-13 08:45
Re: How many swings would it take 364 Archae Solenhofen 21-Feb-13 17:32
Re: How many swings would it take 384 Scott Creighton 21-Feb-13 18:04
Re: How many swings would it take 337 Archae Solenhofen 21-Feb-13 19:55
Re: How many swings would it take 356 Scott Creighton 21-Feb-13 21:40
I'd still like to know 349 Ratcho 21-Feb-13 22:02
Re: I'd still like to know 396 Archae Solenhofen 21-Feb-13 22:43
Re: I'd still like to know 346 wordsmyth 21-Feb-13 23:47
Re: I'd still like to know 355 wordsmyth 22-Feb-13 00:10
Re: I'd still like to know 380 Archae Solenhofen 22-Feb-13 00:11
Re: Unfortunately, I'd still don't care... 388 wordsmyth 22-Feb-13 00:31
Re: Unfortunately, I'd still don't care... 389 Archae Solenhofen 22-Feb-13 00:47
Re: Unfortunately, I'd still don't care... 364 wordsmyth 22-Feb-13 07:47
Re: Unfortunately, I'd still don't care... 388 Archae Solenhofen 22-Feb-13 16:42
Re: How many swings would it take 435 wordsmyth 22-Feb-13 00:20
Re: How many swings would it take 309 Susan Doris 21-Feb-13 13:44
Re: How many swings would it take 318 Archae Solenhofen 21-Feb-13 16:09
Re: How many swings would it take 370 Scott Creighton 21-Feb-13 18:59
Re: How many swings would it take 392 Archae Solenhofen 21-Feb-13 20:06
Re: How many swings would it take 366 Scott Creighton 21-Feb-13 21:43
Re: How many swings would it take 376 Archae Solenhofen 21-Feb-13 22:22
Re: How many swings would it take 383 Scott Creighton 21-Feb-13 22:30
Re: How many swings would it take 364 Archae Solenhofen 21-Feb-13 22:48
Re: How many swings would it take 388 Morten 22-Feb-13 10:52
Re: How many swings would it take 360 wordsmyth 22-Feb-13 23:30
Re: How many swings would it take 485 Scott Creighton 21-Feb-13 22:55
Mod Note > Off Topic Sub-Thread 257 Dr. Troglodyte 22-Feb-13 00:01
Re: How many swings would it take 376 richarddullum 22-Feb-13 03:20
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 319 Audrey 13-Feb-13 23:21
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 385 Susan Doris 14-Feb-13 14:59
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 326 cladking 14-Feb-13 16:07
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 388 Archae Solenhofen 14-Feb-13 15:29
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 370 cladking 14-Feb-13 16:14
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 405 Archae Solenhofen 14-Feb-13 16:41
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 350 cladking 14-Feb-13 18:57
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 387 Thanos5150 20-Jan-13 19:04
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 298 Workjay 21-Jan-13 02:42
Re: Myth and Truth 376 Thunderbird 20-Jan-13 17:33
Re: Myth and Truth 384 wordsmyth 20-Jan-13 18:34
Re: Myth and Truth 417 cladking 20-Jan-13 22:30
Re: Myth and Truth 430 Glorious 20-Jan-13 23:31
Re: Myth and Truth 399 cladking 21-Jan-13 00:26
Re: Perception 509 Thunderbird 21-Jan-13 04:15
Re: Perception 395 Glorious 21-Jan-13 05:34
Re: Perception 342 Chris Jordan 21-Jan-13 07:45
Re: Perception 383 loveritas 21-Jan-13 11:32
Re: Change of Perception 399 Chris Jordan 21-Jan-13 16:20
Re: words/music /NT 316 Thunderbird 21-Jan-13 04:45
Re: words/music /NT 395 wordsmyth 23-Jan-13 08:14
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 385 Anomalies 21-Jan-13 16:53
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 377 Workjay 21-Jan-13 17:59
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 377 Anomalies 21-Jan-13 18:13
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 432 Susan Doris 28-Jan-13 16:29
Who knew? 401 cladking 28-Jan-13 22:07
Re: Who knew? 520 Susan Doris 01-Feb-13 18:25
Re: Who knew? 362 cladking 01-Feb-13 20:42
Egyptology Debunked; they wouldn't know a snake if it bit them. 459 cladking 28-Jan-13 21:04
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 364 cladking 21-Jan-13 18:16
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 367 Anomalies 22-Jan-13 15:09
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 298 cladking 22-Jan-13 15:39
'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 386 Anomalies 22-Jan-13 15:54
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 403 Workjay 22-Jan-13 16:10
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 279 Anomalies 22-Jan-13 16:32
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 363 Workjay 22-Jan-13 21:06
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 420 Anomalies 23-Jan-13 14:53
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 376 Workjay 23-Jan-13 21:10
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 379 Anomalies 23-Jan-13 21:51
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 375 Workjay 23-Jan-13 22:58
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 331 richarddullum 24-Jan-13 02:21
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 362 Workjay 24-Jan-13 02:46
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 293 richarddullum 24-Jan-13 14:33
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 377 Aine 24-Jan-13 13:00
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 370 richarddullum 25-Jan-13 01:57
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 337 Susan Doris 27-Jan-13 13:02
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 407 Susan Doris 02-Feb-13 14:01
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 367 Anomalies 05-Feb-13 15:41
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 358 Workjay 05-Feb-13 17:39
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 387 Anomalies 05-Feb-13 21:25
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 393 Workjay 06-Feb-13 17:31
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 382 Ratcho 06-Feb-13 19:02
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 337 Anomalies 06-Feb-13 21:54
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 333 Workjay 06-Feb-13 22:19
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' - Why crazy now? 273 cladking 22-Jan-13 16:29
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 268 Anomalies 21-Jan-13 16:07
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 273 Workjay 21-Jan-13 16:13
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 247 carolb 21-Jan-13 17:52
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 250 Anomalies 21-Jan-13 18:00
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 291 carolb 21-Jan-13 18:05
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 254 Anomalies 21-Jan-13 19:01
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 293 carolb 21-Jan-13 19:07
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 262 Anomalies 21-Jan-13 19:21
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 314 carolb 21-Jan-13 19:42
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 273 Anomalies 21-Jan-13 19:58
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 278 carolb 21-Jan-13 20:17
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 238 Anomalies 21-Jan-13 20:27
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 266 Susan Doris 14-Feb-13 14:42
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 281 Anomalies 22-Jan-13 14:50
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 237 wordsmyth 23-Jan-13 08:35
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 272 Workjay 22-Jan-13 02:20
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 277 richarddullum 22-Jan-13 14:31
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 298 Aine 22-Jan-13 14:49
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 286 Anomalies 22-Jan-13 14:56
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 314 Aine 22-Jan-13 15:29
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 335 Aine 22-Jan-13 15:47
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 241 Anomalies 22-Jan-13 16:08
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 345 Aine 22-Jan-13 16:23
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 325 Aine 22-Jan-13 16:24
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 301 richarddullum 23-Jan-13 04:50
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 258 wordsmyth 23-Jan-13 08:52
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 273 richarddullum 23-Jan-13 14:28
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 290 wordsmyth 23-Jan-13 15:19
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 323 Aine 23-Jan-13 15:42
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 275 richarddullum 24-Jan-13 02:03
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 285 Aine 23-Jan-13 14:39
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 296 wordsmyth 23-Jan-13 15:09
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 338 Aine 24-Jan-13 13:19
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 284 wordsmyth 25-Jan-13 05:08
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 283 Glorious 25-Jan-13 05:49
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 339 Susan Doris 25-Jan-13 06:47
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 284 wordsmyth 25-Jan-13 07:03
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 277 Glorious 25-Jan-13 07:32
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 246 wordsmyth 25-Jan-13 08:09
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 238 cladking 25-Jan-13 16:32
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 255 Susan Doris 23-Jan-13 06:54
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 283 Glorious 23-Jan-13 07:43
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 315 Aine 23-Jan-13 14:47
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 296 BobbyH 22-Jan-13 19:21
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 300 Aine 22-Jan-13 19:41
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 283 BobbyH 22-Jan-13 19:56
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 317 Aine 22-Jan-13 19:59
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 350 Aine 22-Jan-13 20:09
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 311 Glorious 22-Jan-13 20:52
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 282 BobbyH 22-Jan-13 14:57
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 272 Workjay 22-Jan-13 15:08
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 278 BobbyH 22-Jan-13 15:41
Episode: "Destination Orion" was very well done 280 David L 17-Jan-13 17:35
Re: Episode: "Destination Orion" was very well done 270 Thomas Brophy 03-Mar-13 23:30
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 166 wordsmyth 23-Jan-13 08:10
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 313 Archae Solenhofen 25-Jan-13 03:28
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 301 wordsmyth 25-Jan-13 06:32
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 383 Thanos5150 25-Jan-13 18:22
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 278 Sangreal Sea 25-Jan-13 19:11
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 289 Warwick 11-Feb-13 22:32
The latest episode "Alien Abductions" is the most absurd yet 253 David L 23-Feb-13 23:41
Re: The latest episode "Alien Abductions" is the most absurd yet 271 Anomalies 25-Feb-13 19:00
Re: The latest episode "Alien Abductions" is the most absurd yet 194 David L 26-Feb-13 01:44
Re: 'Ancient Aliens' Debunked - how Megalithic sites were built 188 LanceHall 23-Mar-13 00:28


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.