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 2724 Barbelo 05-Feb-19 03:51
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 437 Racho 05-Feb-19 03:55
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 424 Barbelo 05-Feb-19 04:16
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 486 DUNE 05-Feb-19 08:22
Who was Thoth? serious question... 391 Racho 05-Feb-19 16:12
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 428 LonelyAngel 05-Feb-19 20:19
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 411 cladking 05-Feb-19 20:29
Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 352 Racho 05-Feb-19 20:47
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 362 cladking 06-Feb-19 01:01
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 402 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 01:02
Re: Does wike reflect consensus...reality? 289 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:52
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 324 Warwick 05-Feb-19 21:01
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 332 Corpuscles 05-Feb-19 21:23
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 356 cladking 06-Feb-19 01:08
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 333 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 01:46
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 260 cladking 06-Feb-19 04:26
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 283 Corpuscles 06-Feb-19 02:17
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 261 cladking 06-Feb-19 04:17
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 258 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 08:48
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 254 cladking 06-Feb-19 14:08
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 278 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 14:20
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 306 Lee McGiffen 08-Feb-19 10:20
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 292 cladking 08-Feb-19 15:03
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 274 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 15:29
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 265 cladking 08-Feb-19 16:42
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 383 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:03
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 333 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 17:10
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 291 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:12
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 326 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 17:25
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 306 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 17:36
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 249 eyeofhorus33 08-Feb-19 18:35
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 248 cladking 08-Feb-19 17:19
Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 272 Barbelo 08-Feb-19 20:17
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 316 cladking 08-Feb-19 21:36
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 269 Barbelo 08-Feb-19 22:14
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 229 cladking 08-Feb-19 22:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 239 Warwick 09-Feb-19 03:26
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 281 Scott Creighton 08-Feb-19 22:06
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 296 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 23:43
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 247 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 06:25
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 259 cladking 09-Feb-19 15:28
gunpowder 243 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:08
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 259 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 21:05
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 242 cladking 09-Feb-19 21:26
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 254 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 21:41
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 261 cladking 09-Feb-19 21:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 248 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:29
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 240 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 22:32
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 222 cladking 09-Feb-19 23:25
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 252 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:47
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 236 cladking 10-Feb-19 01:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 236 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 224 cladking 09-Feb-19 23:26
Research methodology 207 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:06
Happy news on the Furphy front 274 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 20:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 283 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 13:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 303 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 18:33
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 235 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:12
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 246 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 20:36
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 249 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 21:21
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 217 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 327 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 13:32
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 255 Warwick 11-Feb-19 18:02
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 265 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 19:03
The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 258 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:05
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 246 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 18:25
Elbonian methodology 237 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:50
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 296 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:38
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 233 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:46
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 241 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:50
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 223 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:52
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 271 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 18:58
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 249 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:08
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 248 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:19
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 235 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:23
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 231 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:28
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 242 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:33
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 255 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:36
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 237 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:47
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 274 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:48
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 237 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:55
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 257 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 20:04
Scott wipes the floor with them again 258 LonelyAngel 11-Feb-19 21:03
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 308 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 21:31
Get the hell out of dodge and go write another book... 268 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 22:04
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 275 Scott Creighton 11-Feb-19 22:08
Aye - facts are chiels that winna ding. 237 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 22:15
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 259 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 22:51
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 221 cladking 11-Feb-19 23:09
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 255 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 23:35
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 224 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 11:07
Oooooh Scott... 264 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 11:35
Re: Oooooh Scott... 257 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 14:06
Re: Oooooh Scott... 272 Martin Stower 13-Feb-19 14:40
Re: Oooooh Scott... 243 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 20:47
Re: Oooooh Scott... 243 Corpuscles 13-Feb-19 22:01
Re: Oooooh Scott... 244 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 20:11
Re: Oooooh Scott... 254 LonelyAngel 15-Feb-19 15:35
Re: Oooooh Scott... 237 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:45
Re: Oooooh Scott... 251 LonelyAngel 16-Feb-19 18:24
Re: Oooooh Scott... 237 Martin Stower 16-Feb-19 19:33
Re: Oooooh Scott... 242 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:02
Re: Oooooh Scott... 202 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 20:55
Re: Oooooh Scott... 222 Warwick 21-Feb-19 20:59
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 247 Warwick 11-Feb-19 22:20
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 271 LonelyAngel 13-Feb-19 14:45
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 295 Martin Stower 13-Feb-19 15:12
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 269 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:21
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 253 WonderWho 13-Feb-19 16:44
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 219 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:18
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 229 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:31
Angel wishes to wallow in the past 250 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:58
Re: Scott wipes the floor with them again 239 WonderWho 13-Feb-19 17:58
A Perfect example of Obfuscation 227 Warwick 13-Feb-19 17:00
The Charlatan and the Truckler 254 Barbelo 13-Feb-19 20:25
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 269 Scott Creighton 13-Feb-19 23:15
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 253 Barbelo 14-Feb-19 01:28
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 358 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 11:26
excerpt from the New Age Dictionary 241 Warwick 14-Feb-19 17:30
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 232 Barbelo 14-Feb-19 21:03
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 230 Corpuscles 14-Feb-19 21:07
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 256 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 21:34
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 215 Martin Stower 15-Feb-19 15:52
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 261 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 22:37
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 237 Corpuscles 14-Feb-19 23:02
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 303 Morten 15-Feb-19 12:01
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 261 Scott Creighton 15-Feb-19 14:19
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 299 Martin Stower 15-Feb-19 16:21
Vyse's Journal and the Mason's Marks 227 Warwick 15-Feb-19 18:23
His podcast lies 292 Martin Stower 16-Feb-19 20:00
Re: His podcast lies 224 Warwick 17-Feb-19 16:44
Re: His podcast lies 225 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 16:54
Re: His podcast lies 238 Warwick 17-Feb-19 18:06
Re: His podcast lies 223 Corpuscles 17-Feb-19 20:07
Re: His podcast lies 219 Warwick 17-Feb-19 20:28
Re: His podcast lies 217 Corpuscles 17-Feb-19 21:30
Re: His podcast lies 230 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 22:00
Re: His podcast lies 215 Corpuscles 18-Feb-19 03:57
Re: His podcast lies 298 Warwick 18-Feb-19 16:47
Re: His podcast lies 212 Warwick 17-Feb-19 22:07
Re: His podcast lies 252 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 21:46
Re: His podcast lies 197 Corpuscles 18-Feb-19 03:47
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 256 sfbey 14-Feb-19 16:58
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 247 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 17:40
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 235 Warwick 14-Feb-19 18:10
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 238 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 18:37
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 202 Warwick 14-Feb-19 18:58
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 230 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 19:09
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 213 Warwick 14-Feb-19 19:35
curious minds want to know 233 Warwick 14-Feb-19 19:56
Re: curious minds want to know 258 Scott Creighton 14-Feb-19 21:03
Re: curious minds want to know 218 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:13
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 232 Martin Stower 14-Feb-19 20:39
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 227 Warwick 15-Feb-19 17:30
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 225 Scott Creighton 15-Feb-19 17:42
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 209 Warwick 15-Feb-19 18:01
Re: The Charlatan and the Truckler 264 Corpuscles 16-Feb-19 01:02
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 247 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:14
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 225 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:23
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 233 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:04
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 254 Warwick 10-Feb-19 19:20
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 275 R Avry Wilson 10-Feb-19 19:17
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 243 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 19:22
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 238 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 19:59
It Is Not Evidence - It's False & Misleading 233 Barbelo 10-Feb-19 20:17
Re: It Is Not Evidence - It's False & Misleading 273 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 21:16
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 248 R Avry Wilson 10-Feb-19 20:12
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 219 Warwick 10-Feb-19 20:39
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 243 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 20:49
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 225 Warwick 10-Feb-19 21:15
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 286 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 23:40
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 221 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 11:00
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 326 Corpuscles 12-Feb-19 01:03
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 228 Merrell 12-Feb-19 09:44
Re: The Key Sentence for Corpuscles 327 Martin Stower 12-Feb-19 12:00
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 248 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 22:18
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 253 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 22:45
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 298 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 22:51
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 215 Corpuscles 09-Feb-19 23:05
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 267 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 225 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 23:24
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 222 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:30
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 247 Scott Creighton 09-Feb-19 23:34
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 229 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:39
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 259 Warwick 10-Feb-19 15:22
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 247 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:06
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 252 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:28
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 223 Barbelo 09-Feb-19 23:33
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 272 Jon Ellison 09-Feb-19 23:43
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 232 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:58
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 231 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 00:20
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 261 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:29
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 210 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 00:35
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 240 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 00:57
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 249 Jon Ellison 10-Feb-19 01:07
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 261 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 01:16
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 248 Corpuscles 10-Feb-19 01:27
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 257 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 01:55
Re: Are These The Words Of A Pseudologist? 271 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 23:19
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 294 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 23:29
Intro for new tv show 254 Warwick 09-Feb-19 03:31
Re: Intro for new tv show 239 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 10:39
Re: Intro for new tv show 216 Warwick 09-Feb-19 19:58
Re: Intro for new tv show 237 Martin Stower 09-Feb-19 20:12
Re: Intro for new tv show 214 Warwick 09-Feb-19 20:15
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 278 Corpuscles 05-Feb-19 21:13
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 253 Warwick 05-Feb-19 21:19
The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 328 Barbelo 06-Feb-19 04:16
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 265 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:57
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 262 Scott Creighton 10-Feb-19 17:53
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 222 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:29
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 235 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:31
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 238 Martin Stower 10-Feb-19 18:48
Re: The Evidence Would Put Paid To The Hoax : Who Wants That? 210 Warwick 10-Feb-19 18:54
A Soft Cock 247 Barbelo 10-Feb-19 20:29
Keep it Civil 232 Scott Creighton 11-Feb-19 09:57
Re: Keep it Civil 252 Martin Stower 11-Feb-19 10:48
Re: Keep it Civil 246 Barbelo 11-Feb-19 11:38
Re: A Soft Cock 224 LonelyAngel 15-Feb-19 15:28
Re: A Soft Cock 303 Barbelo 15-Feb-19 20:31
Re: A Soft Cock 212 LonelyAngel 16-Feb-19 18:10
Re: A Soft Cock 272 Barbelo 16-Feb-19 20:44
Re: A Soft Cock 230 LonelyAngel 17-Feb-19 11:45
Re: A Soft Cock 224 Corpuscles 20-Feb-19 20:19
Re: A Soft Cock 225 Warwick 21-Feb-19 18:01
Re: A Soft Cock 218 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 18:37
Re: A Soft Cock 222 Martin Stower 21-Feb-19 18:49
Re: A Soft Cock 225 Warwick 21-Feb-19 19:42
Re: A Soft Cock 218 LonelyAngel 21-Feb-19 20:16
Re: A Soft Cock 223 Martin Stower 21-Feb-19 20:30
Re: A Soft Cock 227 Warwick 21-Feb-19 20:33
Completely Flaccid 237 Corpuscles 22-Feb-19 05:59
Re: Completely Flaccid 230 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 12:48
Re: Completely Flaccid 200 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 12:53
Re: Completely Flaccid 270 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 13:03
Re: Completely Flaccid 233 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 13:27
Re: Completely Flaccid 228 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 13:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 258 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 14:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 220 Corpuscles 22-Feb-19 19:06
Re: Completely Flaccid 227 LonelyAngel 22-Feb-19 19:17
Re: Completely Flaccid 248 Martin Stower 22-Feb-19 22:44
Re: Completely Flaccid 221 LonelyAngel 23-Feb-19 11:16
Re: Completely Flaccid 230 Martin Stower 23-Feb-19 12:40
Re: Completely Flaccid 257 Corpuscles 23-Feb-19 02:35
simply put 204 Warwick 24-Feb-19 16:48
Re: Completely Flaccid 220 LonelyAngel 23-Feb-19 10:49
Re: Completely Flaccid 234 Martin Stower 23-Feb-19 12:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 228 Corpuscles 23-Feb-19 17:47
Re: Completely Flaccid 227 LonelyAngel 24-Feb-19 15:39
Re: Completely Flaccid 217 Corpuscles 24-Feb-19 15:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 216 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 18:42
Re: Completely Flaccid 219 Scott Creighton 26-Feb-19 19:03
Re: Completely Flaccid 216 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 20:54
Re: Completely Flaccid 203 Scott Creighton 26-Feb-19 21:11
Re: Completely Flaccid 247 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 22:07
factoid 230 Warwick 24-Feb-19 17:03
Re: factoid 217 LonelyAngel 26-Feb-19 18:31
Re: factoid 243 Warwick 26-Feb-19 19:39
Re: factoid 216 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 10:09
Re: factoid 250 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 11:00
Re: factoid 204 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 13:35
Re: factoid 262 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 14:33
Re: factoid 243 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 16:24
Re: factoid 229 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 16:52
Re: factoid 217 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 16:55
Re: factoid 218 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 17:11
Re: factoid 240 LonelyAngel 27-Feb-19 17:18
Re: factoid 246 Martin Stower 27-Feb-19 17:42
Re: factoid 207 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 09:49
Re: factoid 206 Martin Stower 28-Feb-19 13:12
Re: factoid 236 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 13:21
Re: factoid 251 Martin Stower 28-Feb-19 15:19
Re: factoid 233 Warwick 27-Feb-19 20:11
Dusty? 213 Warwick 27-Feb-19 20:05
Re: Dusty? 208 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 09:52
Re: Dusty? 235 Warwick 28-Feb-19 17:56
Re: Dusty? 273 LonelyAngel 28-Feb-19 17:59
Re: Dusty? 237 Warwick 28-Feb-19 18:36
Re: Dusty? 235 LonelyAngel 01-Mar-19 12:05
Re: Dusty? 231 Warwick 01-Mar-19 18:14
Re: Dusty? 214 LonelyAngel 01-Mar-19 21:57
Re: Dusty? 212 Warwick 01-Mar-19 22:11
Re: Dusty? 222 LonelyAngel 02-Mar-19 12:58
unbelievable 226 Warwick 02-Mar-19 15:27
Mod Caution > Warwick Off-Topic Posts 224 Dr. Troglodyte 02-Mar-19 15:57
I apologise 245 LonelyAngel 02-Mar-19 16:59
Re: I apologise 297 Warwick 02-Mar-19 17:48
Mod Caution > LonelyAngel Off-Topic Posts 219 Dr. Troglodyte 02-Mar-19 15:54
Re: A Soft Cock 246 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 12:09
Re: A Soft Cock 235 LonelyAngel 17-Feb-19 12:44
Re: A Soft Cock 268 Martin Stower 17-Feb-19 13:11
Re: A Soft Cock 240 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 16:02
Re: A Soft Cock 220 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:12
Re: A Soft Cock 223 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 15:53
Re: A Soft Cock 195 Warwick 19-Feb-19 17:37
Re: A Soft Cock 266 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:06
Re: A Soft Cock 230 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:16
Re: A Soft Cock 229 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:23
Re: A Soft Cock 241 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:28
Re: A Soft Cock 260 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 18:31
Re: A Soft Cock 256 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:40
Re: A Soft Cock 292 Martin Stower 19-Feb-19 22:11
Re: A Soft Cock 262 LonelyAngel 20-Feb-19 12:52
Re: A Soft Cock 249 LonelyAngel 19-Feb-19 18:14
Re: A Soft Cock 202 Warwick 19-Feb-19 18:22
Re: A Soft Cock 201 Warwick 17-Feb-19 17:05
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 297 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 00:46
Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 301 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 06:14
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 305 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 08:50
I am not surprised at all 253 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 15:41
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 325 Scott Creighton 06-Feb-19 16:39
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 387 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 18:10
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 244 cladking 06-Feb-19 19:24
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 244 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 23:00
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 250 cladking 07-Feb-19 01:55
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 273 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 04:51
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 274 Warwick 07-Feb-19 08:49
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 265 Martin Stower 07-Feb-19 15:24
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 252 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 20:10
Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 255 Hanslune 06-Feb-19 20:07
Re: Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 344 Scott Creighton 06-Feb-19 22:31
Re: Scott why DID you forget about those builders marks? 347 Martin Stower 06-Feb-19 23:12
More .. 263 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 23:00
Re: More .. 272 sfbey 07-Feb-19 23:13
Re: More .. 258 Martin Stower 07-Feb-19 23:33
Re: More .. 283 Corpuscles 08-Feb-19 01:01
Re: More .. 277 sfbey 08-Feb-19 02:42
Re: More .. 259 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 00:26
Re: More .. 242 Corpuscles 08-Feb-19 01:26
Re: More .. 255 Martin Stower 08-Feb-19 02:39
Re: Goyon and Ginsells builders mark 270 Corpuscles 06-Feb-19 23:03
Why is it so IMPORTANT? 293 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 01:45
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 245 cladking 07-Feb-19 01:52
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 285 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 04:48
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 294 cladking 07-Feb-19 14:30
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 309 Corpuscles 07-Feb-19 18:08
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 295 cladking 07-Feb-19 22:27
Re: Why is it so IMPORTANT? 337 Warwick 08-Feb-19 19:24
Re: Pyramid Hoax Observations 295 JuhaS 13-Feb-19 22:03


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.