Misc. :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

A social and/or notice board and is not so much for discussing Grahams work, or related topics as covered by the other boards, but more like a place where people can share other things.

drew Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Of course you can’t add, bless your heart. Of

> course...here, let me help you.

>

> 1238 views at 10:04 am

> 1245 views 14 hours later when I made my last

> post

> 7 people coming in

>

> You twice and me once equals 3, so 4 other people

> came in in 14 hours.

>

> 1273 total views at 8 1/2 hours later, after my

> last post

> 28 viewers came in

> You once and me once and 26 other viewers

>

> Viewers of your posts: 107

> of mine: 22

> minus ourselves viewing: 2x3 + 2x2 = 10

> 129 – 10 = 119

>

> Bear with me now...this is where it gets really

> fun…

> Of the 35 viewers who came in total, we were 2 of

> them and we did it 5 times in total to read what

> the other wrote. Which means possibly 30 came in

> and read the initial post, but the numbers say 28.

> Of those, minus you, 13 made it to my 10:04 post

> and 7 to my last post...13 out of 30 then 7 out of

> 30 means 6 didn’t go past my second last post,

> which means 17 or 15 didn’t go past the initial

> post of this topic.

>

> Let’s just say that for curiosity and because

> some numbers did go up, you kept jumping back in

> here to see if I had responded, so you have added

> your own views to this topic...so how about we

> take you out of the equation again for...hmm...4

> times?

>

> 26 or 24 unique viewers...half of which saw my

> second last post and half of those my last post.

>

> Let’s stick with 26 unique viewers, and you have

> them viewing your largest post 54 times...well, I

> read it twice, so 52 times. The same with your

> other posts...minus me once or twice each.

>

> If half the people coming in are getting to my

> second last post, and half again getting to my

> last post, then odds are the same is happening to

> your posts...

>

> ...do you see something wrong with this picture,

> Martin?

>

> 29 ( - me) – 13 = you

> 54 ( - me) – 7 = you

> 24 (- me) – 4 = you

>

> Do you like the numbers now, Martin?

>

> And I bet that if anyone wants to go and check any

> of your posts that you nicely provided, they would

> see something similar happening to your very own

> posts, where folk who get 4 views are next to you

> getting 30 views...and folk who are getting 15

> views are next to you getting 50 views...and all

> kinds of strange things appear where your posts

> appear to be so much more popular compared to the

> number of people actually visiting.

>

> That seems like a head full of fun, wouldn’t you

> say Martin Stower?

>

> MSHFOF ;)

Apart from the lie in the subject line, what do we find here?

Utter nutjobbery!

M.

-------------------------------------------------------

> Of course you can’t add, bless your heart. Of

> course...here, let me help you.

>

> 1238 views at 10:04 am

> 1245 views 14 hours later when I made my last

> post

> 7 people coming in

>

> You twice and me once equals 3, so 4 other people

> came in in 14 hours.

>

> 1273 total views at 8 1/2 hours later, after my

> last post

> 28 viewers came in

> You once and me once and 26 other viewers

>

> Viewers of your posts: 107

> of mine: 22

> minus ourselves viewing: 2x3 + 2x2 = 10

> 129 – 10 = 119

>

> Bear with me now...this is where it gets really

> fun…

> Of the 35 viewers who came in total, we were 2 of

> them and we did it 5 times in total to read what

> the other wrote. Which means possibly 30 came in

> and read the initial post, but the numbers say 28.

> Of those, minus you, 13 made it to my 10:04 post

> and 7 to my last post...13 out of 30 then 7 out of

> 30 means 6 didn’t go past my second last post,

> which means 17 or 15 didn’t go past the initial

> post of this topic.

>

> Let’s just say that for curiosity and because

> some numbers did go up, you kept jumping back in

> here to see if I had responded, so you have added

> your own views to this topic...so how about we

> take you out of the equation again for...hmm...4

> times?

>

> 26 or 24 unique viewers...half of which saw my

> second last post and half of those my last post.

>

> Let’s stick with 26 unique viewers, and you have

> them viewing your largest post 54 times...well, I

> read it twice, so 52 times. The same with your

> other posts...minus me once or twice each.

>

> If half the people coming in are getting to my

> second last post, and half again getting to my

> last post, then odds are the same is happening to

> your posts...

>

> ...do you see something wrong with this picture,

> Martin?

>

> 29 ( - me) – 13 = you

> 54 ( - me) – 7 = you

> 24 (- me) – 4 = you

>

> Do you like the numbers now, Martin?

>

> And I bet that if anyone wants to go and check any

> of your posts that you nicely provided, they would

> see something similar happening to your very own

> posts, where folk who get 4 views are next to you

> getting 30 views...and folk who are getting 15

> views are next to you getting 50 views...and all

> kinds of strange things appear where your posts

> appear to be so much more popular compared to the

> number of people actually visiting.

>

> That seems like a head full of fun, wouldn’t you

> say Martin Stower?

>

> MSHFOF ;)

Apart from the lie in the subject line, what do we find here?

Utter nutjobbery!

M.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.