You can suck a primate.

Your post is inept. If you're arguing nonsense. I debated soundly Hancock isn't as opposed to giants as you have obtusely claimed. He left it open to interpretation agreed. His interpretation is denial because of establishing it into the current paradigm. It presented an oxymoron. How can he argue those stories but discard others. This is while he is recanting the stories. Oxymoronic. No, subtle. Interpretation.

Easter Island this post. Tell me about those statues?

You can suck a primate.

Your post is inept. If you're arguing nonsense. I debated soundly Hancock isn't as opposed to giants as you have obtusely claimed. He left it open to interpretation agreed. His interpretation is denial because of establishing it into the current paradigm. It presented an oxymoron. How can argue those stories but discard others. This is while he is recanting the stories. Oxymoronic. No, subtle. Interpretation.

Easter Island this post. Tell me about those statues?

You can suck a primate.

Your post is inept. If you're arguing nonsense. I debated soundly Hancock isn't as opposed to giants as you have obtusely claimed. He left it open to interpretation agreed. His interpretation is denial because of establishing it into the current paradigm. It presented an oxymoron. How can argue those stories but discard others. This is while he is recanting the stories. Oxymornic. No, subtle. Interpretation.

Easter Island this post. Tell me about those statues?

You can suck a primate.

Your post is inept. If you're arguing nonsense. I debated soundly Hancock isn't as opposed to giants as you have obtusely claimed.

Easter Island this post. Tell me about those statues?