"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

Well, well I must be hitting a nerve since you are continuing your tactics of misrepresentation.TO start with our discussion is specifically about the evidence for Wyatt's rewriting of Egyptian history. That is what I asked you about.And I have to say that somebody like Lysimachus who posts links without even carefully reading them is hardly being open-minded.And if you don't know how Lysimachus' evidence is supposed to support his claims then that shows that he hasn't made his case. And by pointing out that, I show that there is no double standard.And you make it quite clear that your accusation of following a "double standard" is in NOT giving the same credence to the claims of religious apologists as those of recognised experts. (And let us point out that there is sufficient evidence to suspect Wyatt of being at best incompetent and at worst a fraud - and Moller has been shown to be less than reliable, too).And now you are complaining that I actually answered one of your questions. Which goes to show that it was your post that dragged up a trivial matter to try to make a point - and there was nothing more to it. Double standards again. And I bet that if I had not answered you would be using that as ammunition.And apparently answering yet another question is "overly aggressive" - never mind that the question itself was based on a clear misrepresentation - which you choose to repeat again. As is perfectly clear I did NOT place on expert above all the rest - I simply referred to an expert who disagreed to indicate that the matter was uncertain. How difficult is that to understand ? After it's been explained to you TWICE you still don't get it !And isn;t your repeated insistence on attacking me over this point a clear example of YOUR agression ? Double standard againAnd yet again you insist on ignoring the major part of my response to the actual point Lysimachus made.And you call a direct quote form one of your own posts "semantic jargon"

PaulK, Hydarnes is right. It is "semantic jargon". You're just trying to outwit us through philosophical words and nitpicky attacks to try to divert us from the main issue: The Exodus.

---

~Lysimachus

Going over the points you raise here:1) - 3) indicate that there is no significant evidence for Wyatt's hypothesis in any of these.5) Hatshepsut would have been dead by the time ANYONE started defacing her monuments. Certainly if the defacement is not to be corrected. She was ruling as Pharoah up until her death. I have already raised reaosns why Amenhotep II might do this - and consider also the importance the Egyptians attached to monuments and their beleif in immortality.6) I have already answered this in a reply to Lysimachus. And none of this shows any significant evidence for Wyatt's hypothesis.7) I am not being technical. Lysimachus claimed that the paper proposed different orders of succession. It did not. A clear misreading on Lysimachus part. Moreover it contradicted his claims listed in point 1)8) Hypotheses are not evidence.9) As I pointed out in a later reply to Lysimachus statues of the adult Senmut alone resemble the adult in the statues of Senmut and Nefure - to point out one very obviosu feature they include the same hairstyle which is the most feminine thing about the statues. Those that show the body as opposed to just the head are not noticably feminine either. The statues of Hatshepsut I found are different - more obviously feminine.11) I am not feigning certainty. I produced the evidence in the reply to Lysimachus. The child is a daughter named Hatshepsut. If I have to guess why the child is neverhteless depcited as a boy I would say that it was Egyptian unease at the idea of a female Pharoah.And with that your accusation of libel is yet another baseless attack.

You have passed off Wyatt's rewriting as fact to the point of assuming Wyatt's hypothesis while supposedly trying to make a case for it.As Ihave stated the discussion of Wyatt's rewriting of the 18th Dynasty provides a test where Wyatt and Moller's claims can be checked independantly. Several times it has turned up that they have misrepresented the evidence - whether by incompetence or dishonesty does not matter at this point.Having shown that they are unreliable where they can be checked - and on matters that can quite easily be checked by anyone with access to the internet I am not inclined to trust them where their claims cannot be adequately checked. If God was involved in the way you claim he would have done far better to keep Wyatt and Moller - and you - away from the obvious errors we have seen.

I thought I would remain out but..... Only when it's proven that, without a shadow of doubt, all coral shapes are Egyptian wheels or have some chariot piece sticking in them.
The visible wheel is very very likely not Egyptian (have seen no prove of the contrary) The bones cannot be attributed to anything without C14 dating. The animal bones specifically can not be Egytptian, according to the bible.There's a historical debate here that can go either way, discussing things which historians and archaeologists are clearly not in agreement with. Such things then have to be sorted out.
Example:
I remember a documentary where a French laboratory was convinced that they had prove that homeopathic medicine making was provable. They seemed to have a strong case, but after a neutral check later on, it was proven not to be the case.So, to remain open minded to an archaeological excavation which was very bad, I'm willing to listen to;
C14 dating which Moller seems to be a specialist in. Preferably done by a neutral laboratory.
An excavation of the region, done by a team which isn't looking for something, just documenting the area and finds.Otherwise, this discussion isn't going anywhere.LucyThis message has been edited by Prince Lucianus, 07-30-2004 10:09 AM

No, Moller isn't a specialist in C14 dating. His speciality is Environmental Medicine.

Lysimachus asserts But that is simply not the case. First, there is no clear evidence that the wheels even exist. Second, even if they existed, there is nothing to link them to the Exodus rather than any of the hundreds of campaigns that raged up and down that area over many centuries. If that is the case, and there is no evidence to back that up, it strongly implies that there is no connection to Exodus. IIRC, Solomon did not live untill around 970-930 BCE.Finally, questioning the Biblical accounts such as Exodus have NOTHING to do with either Christianity or belief in God. To imply that such literal belief is part of Christian Dogma is both incorrect and deceitful.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ooops, I thought I heard such a claim seeing the videoclip on the exodus website. I must have misheard .Lucy

quote:

---

You mean like when W.A.R. tried to get help from other expeditionary teams and they denied them help? Don’t quote me on this, but I heard somewhere that W.A.R. once tried to either contact the guy who was in charge of finding the Titanic with the submarines, or Jack Coustau. W.A.R. really wanted aid in getting into the deeper waters to see if there were remains washed by the current to the sides of the underwater bridge (or scrapeyard rather). No one seemed to show any interest in helping W.A.R. out.

---

Lys, you're beating a dead horse. Obviously Jaques Cousteau and Bob Ballard were unwilling to help. And that unwillingness stems directly from the points I raised, which interestingly enough you ignore completely save for the divining rod.

quote:

---

1. According to Saudi law, no coral is to be taken from the area, a classic catch-22.

---

Which does not address the points I raised. Furthermore, this is not an uncommon occurence in digs and can be worked around easily enough if you have a trained team. This is for all intents and purposes a totally meaningless statement on your part.

quote:

---

2. Although Ron did get away with bringing up the 8 spoke wheel, obviously the Egyptians were not very cautious in their handling of it. We have Nassif Hassan ON VIDEO TAPE stating that this was a wheel from the 18th dynasty Egypt. Ron left the coral covered wheel with the Antiquities, and since Nassif died, no one has been able to account for it. This has frustrated W.A.R., as they thought they could trust them. I have a feeling there is a lot of thieves in Egypt, and this wheel could have been considered a prize.

---

Which does not address the points I raised, once more. Further, we get back into the Indiana Jones nonsense you raised at SPSW. Lys, could you tell me about that whole bit where Wyatt was the target of other scientists' attempts to imprison him in Saudi Arabia?

quote:

---

3. The gold gilded wheel that lies at the bottom of Aqaba is still sitting there for three reasonsa) It was stuck, as if completely cemented into the sand b) It was extremely brittle, as the wood had deteriorated insideleaving only the gold shell c) W.A.R. did not have the funds nor the necessary equipment to properly dig up the wheel.

---

Which does not address the points I raised.

quote:

---

4. This IS the reason why W.A.R. has had to ask explorers/scientists for help to come THERE! W.A.R. CANNOT submit the chariot wheels to any other authorities, since it is illegal to bring them UP! How can you submit stuff that you can’t even touch? It was back in 78 when Ron made the FIRST right MOVE! He and his two sons went diving for the first time, and as soon as he came across that wheel, he did what he though was the best thing to do by submitting it to the Director of Antiquities in Cairo Egypt. I have even seen films where he is walking in the parking lot in front of the Antiquities buildings in Egypt.

---

You don't need to hand physical artifacts over to every scientist you want to have verify them. That's not what submitting evidence is. So, again, you totally ignore my points and instead chose to add meaningless statements on an entirely different topic while pretending to respond to me.

quote:

---

5. Whenever W.A.R. does ask for help, no one seems to act interested in it enough to respond. Most of these large-badge scientists are unbelievers, so it doesn’t seem surprising that they wouldn’t show much interest.

---

And, again, you ignore my comments and instead restate the issue, but this time with a flourish: the oft-heard but never-substantiated Big Atheist Conspiracy claim.

quote:

---

3) CLAIM THAT THE MOLECULAR FREQUENCY GENERATOR IS "DIVINING ROD": Page 29- Trying to claim that the molecular frequency generator is nothing but a "divining rod", they state:

​

"Qualified scientists have been independently consulted about this gadget, which is generally advertised in treasure-hunting magazines, not scientific journals. They are unanimous that there are no scientific principles employed. Indeed, two of these scientists built and tested working models. The results of this technique can hardly be considered trustworthy, that brass welding rods being used in essence as divining rods, similar to the use of a forked stick to search for water."

​

RESPONSE- In 1988, Ray Brubaker, of "God's News Behind the News" in St. Petersburg, FL., asked an electrical engineer to research Ron's claims. This independent, non-biased research on the part of Terry Johnson of Tampa, FL, included research on the molecular frequency generator.

​

"The device is essentially a frequency generator (Ron's first was a HeathKit) that is linked with a frequency counter - this enables the user to set different frequencies for the different types of metal the user wishes to locate. The signal is then amplified and propagated electromagnetically through the ground.

​

When it hits the target metal, this excites its electron spin resonance, and this resonance causes an electromagnetic disturbance which propagates from the target metal back to the sender. The user receives this electromagnet wave back onto his body.

​

In this device, the human body is used as a living conductor or antenna in the same way your reception improves when you touch the rabbit ears or antenna contact on the back of your television. The receiver holds in his hands, two wands that attract to each other when the electromagnetic field of his body is disturbed in the proper direction.

​

The human body has two electromagnetic fields - one positive, one negative. In Ron's case, he used a battery and coils to increase this body field. In the "Filter King" device,...the wands are specially selected to be more responsive to the electromagnet disturbance....

​

This device was invented by H. G. Heranimus, who worked for the government and patented the molecular frequency concept 11 years ago. He has since died and now others are manufacturing his invention."

​

Also, the EX NIHILO article condemning this device gives no names of the scientists who supposedly built and tested these devices. This instrument is not "divining" but works on very solid scientific principles. Many scientists, archaeologists, engineers, etc. use them. The molecular frequency generator we use is manufactured by Cochran and Associates of Bowling Green, Ky. and costs $6,500.00 -- quite a high price for a "divining rod".

​

Also, the location of metal on the site with the molecular frequency generator was identical to those located by ferromagnetic and pulse induction detectors, as well as the sub-surface interface radar. So, if you want to eliminate the molecular frequency generator scans, the results are still the same.

​

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

​

Obviously, regardless how farcical and foolish the accusations regarding this divining rod may be, thickheaded individuals as yourself will continue to repeat this stupidity no matter how many times it has been thoroughly refuted

---

See PaulK's response.

quote:

---

The 5 points I mentioned earlier in this post should cover this. You seem to ignore the fact that W.A.R. has done everything they can to make this available to the public. They’ve documented every find, but are unable to bring it to the front. Seeing we have enough witnesses from simple adventurers and scientists alike that the wheels are down there, there should be no doubt whatsoever to their existence. It may be helpful to create a map as you demand identifying where each object has been spotted, but has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps the reason this has not been done is because the extremely strong current in Aqaba poses some difficulty?

---

They have not done everything they could because they have not provided the most basic archaeological evidence, a point you REPEATEDLY brush aside. The fact that there is a current does not affect this at all. All they need to do is mark down on a map where they find these things, it's not as though the current is sending the chariot wheels rolling along the bottom of the sea floor in some Looney Toones version of an archaeological excavation. Get a cheap GPS system, mark down the points on a map, present maps and detailed diagrams of finds, and boom, you have the basic evidence that is lacking and that will, if continuing in it's absence, mean that no professional is going to give more than a second's thought before declining to spend their time and resources diving.

quote:

---

We have the films, the pictures, and the testimonies. That should be enough to convince anyone. Plus, we have every reason to trust Dr. Lennart Moller. He is a credentialed scientists, although not in the particular field of archaeology. But then again, one should ask, does one need to be a credentialed scientists in the area of archaeology when it comes to marine biology?. This is one question you seem to completely ignore, as Lennart Moller has been trained in the field of Marine Biology. Not only that, he has brought his finds to other marine biologists, and has been able to successfully utilize his same approaches in the study of cells and DNA with that of the bones that have been excavated.

---

We may be able to trust him when he is dealing with cells in a lab. But being trained as a Marine Biologist means surprisingly little when you're dealing with things that a) were never alive and b) did not arise in a marine environment. That rather hampers the application of Marine Biology, wouldn't you say?

quote:

---

The particular knowledge needed in these areas tounderstanding underwater petrification (calcium carbonate replacement), understanding coral structures (identifying the difference between an object and a natural growth formation), understanding the size, shape, and numbers of spokes on chariot wheels, and understanding that they could have ONLY been Egyptian employed by their variety DOES NOT require an extensive amount of knowledge. You can be trained in these areas, but not necessarily credentialed for them.

---

Lys, you have a vast lack of knowledge when it comes to how science works. I can be an expert with a doctorate in Marine Biology, but that doesn't mean that just because I'm a scientist, I can read a dozen books and suddenly become a reliable archaeologist. That's precisely WHY degree programs are in place. It takes intensive training to become an expert in a scientific field. You just don't seem to understand that because to you a scientist is a scientist and it doesn't matter what field they study. There is a reason that credentials are important: it's not because you can put a Dr. before your name, it's because when you have that credential, others know that you've spent years of your life in focused study of the field at hand, learning from experts in the same field.Now, as that's over with, could you respond to my other points, those raised in the post you ignored except for the divining rod, before you continue to complain about how scientists are ignoring Wyatt/Moller?

quote:

---

The particular knowledge needed in these areas tounderstanding underwater petrification (calcium carbonate replacement), understanding coral structures (identifying the difference between an object and a natural growth formation), understanding the size, shape, and numbers of spokes on chariot wheels, and understanding that they could have ONLY been Egyptian employed by their variety DOES NOT require an extensive amount of knowledge. You can be trained in these areas, but not necessarily credentialed for them.

---

So where can we find his studies of petrifaction and his methods of preparing the sample for testing.Also, please direct us to where he honestly attempts to falsify that the found coral samples cannot simply be natural formations. Something along the lines of: This cluster of coral is of X variety, which takes on Y formations and only Y formations.

quote:

---

1. Do you believe the wheels photographed in the Gulf of Aqaba actually exist at Nuweiba or do you think the video is a fraud?

---

The one ‘gold’ wheel that is shown the clearest does not seem to representative of an Eqyptian chariot wheel. The sources seem to be in agreement that a defining characteristic of Egyptian chariot wheels are thin spokes.Also note the segmented wheels on the Egyptian chariot in the link below:http://www.wyattmuseum.com/images/wpe95.jpgWe’re told the wood of this wheel has rotted away leaving a thin veneer of gold, yet there is coral which is either growing out of, dropped or rolled upon, or was placed on top of the wheel. Still, the wheel looks pristine. If the coral is growing out of the wheel, why didn’t the thin gold get displaced in some manner? If the object if just resting on the wheel, why wasn’t it removed for a better photo?http://www.wyattmuseum.com/images/wpe2E1.jpgWhile the image could be better, the above photo doesn’t show any of the type of segmenting that the chariot in the earlier museum photo exhibits. Nor does it seem to have the types of joins shown in drawings of Eqyptian chariot wheels. Someone else has already mentioned that the hub of the ocean ‘wheel’ is greatly different then the one in the museum. The style seems more modern and looks as if the edges are milled to be beveled.As to the coral formations. I don’t think anyone has brought up that coral often is spherical and or radial. I haven’t seen any convincing arguments that the formations aren’t natural. Keep in mind that different types of coral grow on top of each other. So given enough coral, time, and space all sorts of shapes are possible.Cnidarians are simple, radially symmetrical, animals. Radial symmetry means that the body is a hub, like a bicycle wheel, and tentacles are spokes coming out of it. Sabung SV388 Ayam OnlineEven if it turns out that the formations aren’t natural it doesn’t mean they’re chariot wheels. There is certainly more than one ship that has been lost in the Red Sea. Google shipwreck red sea 5,790.I’m at a complete loss as to how a Saudi Law prevents anyone on the Egypt side of the sea [am I missing something here?]. If they do not bring up items out of respect/fear for Saudi Law, then how did they bring up the bone?

quote:

---

2. If you believe they exist,

---

I have not been presented with enough reason to believe they [wheels] exist, so the rest is moot for now.

The crux of the argument (at the moment) seems to be the existance of those wheels - Buzz can you do a summary of your evidence for their existance?

I agree, Charles. The wheels are what I consider to be the imperical evidence. I have either stated or implied this several times. The other factors are important for adding corroborative support to that evidence nevertheless, and certainly warrant the debate this thread has afforded.The video is available to all who care enough to spend a few bucks to examine the evidence in it. The book, of course would go into the researched evidence more conprehensively. You've been able to see the excellent photography presented in this thread. I'm quite sure there are many who, were it possible, would go out to prove they do not exist. Since denial is impossible, and they know it, nobody's even attempting to do so. They don't want their pet ideologies destroyed or damaged by what their research would likely produce. So far as I'm aware, National Geographic's Dr. Ballard, world famed marine explorer and scientist, has never investigated the site. Why not? Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.

quote:

---

The video is available to all who care enough to spend a few bucks to examine the evidence in it. The book, of course would go into the researched evidence more conprehensively. You've been able to see the excellent photography presented in this thread. I'm quite sure there are many who, were it possible, would go out to prove they do not exist. Since denial is impossible, and they know it, nobody's even attempting to do so.

---

The video doesn’t present the evidence well. It won’t convince those that require scientific evidence to be presented scientifically and with peer review. Still, few documentaries reach that level of presenting evidence. Anyone who watches documentaries should consider further research and anyone making a documentary to persuade others should always make real research available and should make it relatively easy to get a hold of that research. The very least Moller should do is prepare a web site to in depth present his claims and counter those of his critics.Oddly enough with all the Michael Moore bashing that goes on, he at least presents his evidence and addresses rebuttals.The book may make a better case and if it does, why buy the video which clearly does not? Even then the book seems to contain little primary material. It may contain a few printed results, but does it list for instance the methods under which the sample was obtained and prepared before it was tested? Does it list the entirety of the lab reports or simply exerpts?Contrary to what some have suggested here, Buy my book and buy my video is not the way to get other scientists interested in supporting one’s hypothesis. It is a way to get scientists not to take you seriously at all though. It is a way to make your name as a joke in any field.No one has presented anything even ‘resembling comprehensively researched evidence’ on the wheels, the bones, the pillars, the mountain, the drawings, the cave, etc. If you leave out evidence, such as what everyone else thinks those finds mean, then it can hardly be called comprehensive.As to excellent photography, just last night I was looking at the underwater shots and thinking just how poor they really were. The shots I have seen of the ‘gold’ wheel have a large area entirely blown out. The details are obscured. There is no scale shown, nor have I seen a close up photo of the wheel. This is not excellent photography. Looks to me that the jpgs are from video or perhaps film. Since the hypothesis hinges on the wheels, then shots of the wheels are the photos that many would rather see clearly and in detail.Denial is hardly impossible. The ‘gold’ wheel may not even be a chariot wheel. The coral shots are not inconsistent with what we know about coral formations. There have been shipwrecks in the area. If there is even much of anything there, it could be, just that, almost anything.

If anyone in this thread has perpetuated a misrepresentation and distortion of reality, it has been most assuredly you, but don’t just take my word for it this time,I’ll let the weight of your accusations and the actual documentation of events speak for themselves:MAJOR DISTORTION/MISREPRESENTATION #1.(In Chronological order)You said in post #462:We know that someone chiselled out any of Hatshepsut's inscriptions although it is not certain if Thutmosis III was actually responsible.(NOTE: I decided to randomly extract a statement you made for satirical purposes directed at crashfrog)I said:You better quickly provide a credentialed source for that statement before mr. frog jumps on you.(NOTE: I then wanted to point out how your comment was unnecessary by clarifying)I said: Most sources do agree btw that Thutmosis III WAS responsible, although how is it possible to get unmitigated proof for any similar finds?(NOTE: You then replied with (the following quote) a sentence that contained, in my estimation, an excessive amount of verbal ambiguity as to make what you were saying difficult to ascertain)You said:Since the question is only whether it is UNCERTAIN that Tuthmosis defaced Hatshepsut's inscriptions there is no need to give Tyldesly's opinion that he did not precedence over the majority opinion that he did.(NOTE: I now have a much better understanding of what you were trying to say, my point notwithstanding, and it makes more sense than it initially did after retrospective reviewing. I responded nevertheless)I said:Would you mind elucidating for us, or at least reduce the convolution inherent in that comment so that the less academically fortunate among us can clearly know what you're saying? GraciasYou said:It seems simple enough to me. If i wished to argue that Tyldesley was correct then I would need to support her view over the others. Since I only wish to argue that the matter is uncertain I do not need to do that - all I need is a credible source arguing against the consensus. Tyldesley will do very nicely.
And no, I have not relied on uncertainties to make my point. Indeed the point you are disputing is a side comment- I did offer an explanation of why Thutmosis III might do such a thing - and I note that you did not dispute that. Indeed pointing to a single uncertainty is not itself a problem. It is the heavy reliance on uncertainty to dismiss all contrary evidence that is the problem. Because if there is no reliable evidence then how can we come to any conclusions at all ? You guys need to produce strong supporting evidence - and so far we haven't seen even one significant piece of evidence for Wyatt's rewrite of Egyptian history. Invoking uncertainty to dismiss the stronger evidence against you isn't enough but it seems to be the best Lysimachus can manage.(NOTE: Instead of recognizing that I wasn’t even originally making a serious detraction from your assertion, as well as the transient POINT I was trying to make with your comment to Lysimachus, you continued to construe my position to mean that I was just nit-picking on one passing comment you made and ignoring the rest.I said:Since you obviously aren't understanding what I meant, let me make it black and white.
You countered Lysimachus with a "possibility" in order to refute his placement of events. The fact is, more people agree that Thutmosis was responsible for erasing Hatshepsut's memory, unless of course you have a more viable candidate.(NOTE: You continue to miss my point by spewing out non sequiturs--below)You said:You might as well say that Lysimachus only threw in the defacement of the inscriptions because he was short of real evidence. He certainly didn't try to build any case from it.
You might as well say that your own choice to argue the issue was because you wanted to argue about SOMETHING. Certainly there doesn't seem to be any other reason. Why else would you want to only answer part of ONE point where there was nothing important at issue ?
I could point to Moller's list of "similarities" between Moses and Senmut and find more padding.
And you complain that Crashfrog isn't applying his complaints evenly ?
But you still haven't addressed the fact that you tried to dismiss a direct response to your own words as "not understanding".
And despite complaining about the thread "deteriorating" you are still the major contributor to that deterioration and apparently you refuse to stop.(NOTE: Not only have you repeatedly failed to get my point, and persist in accusing me of nit-picking, but you then decided to concoct an imaginary reason for why I wasn’t responding to your post in its entirety (not to mention that I was planning to respond to your whole post, but hadn’t been afforded enough time yet), at the same time forgetting that my initial comment was only jocular and that the rest of my remarks were merely letting you know that your statement was unnecessary because it just exacerbated confusion to an already complex issue)You said: But you still haven't addressed the fact that you tried to dismiss a direct response to your own words as ‘not understanding’.’(NOTE: At this point I couldn’t figure out what you were talking about anymore, and I still don’t know precisely, but I’ll respond according to what I can discern. I was REDIRECTING the relevant issue to the ACTUAL POINT I was making, not dismissing anything of validity.The reason for my periodic misunderstanding of certain things (which you have labeled misrepresentation on my part) was actually due to your earlier combination of distortion/misinterpretation with what I was in fact really saying, and refusal to understand the point I was trying to get across to you [as I’ve already shown].MAJOR DISTORTION/MISREPRESENTATION #2(NOTE: Seeing that I was getting nowhere with you, I then decided to salvage the issue to a level that was more pertinent to the WHOLE of this discussionTHE EXODUS EVENT--NOT Wyatt’s hypothesis)I said:Can't you see that nothing is going to cut it for you? You are endlessly going to take advantage of the fact that our actual knowledge about ancient Egypt is largely dubious when it comes down to the more intricate details about events. You can't even seem to agree on the basics for which we have sufficient evidence.
Just because someone with credentials makes a speculation about an Egyptian event, why must it be recognized as the word of God (aka: fact)? But when certain tendencies in the data seem to possibly lend credence to a hypothesis that supports the Bible, all of a sudden we need a myriad of unequivocal evidence in order for it to even be considered a possibility.
I'm not saying you have to agree, but all you can do is dismiss it as "foolishness" while ignoring the double-standard.You said:Oh please spare us. The evidence produced by your side so far is owhere near as strong as the contrary evidence. How is the short duration of Tuthmosis II's reign supposed to be a significant point in favour of Wyatt's hypothesis ? How is the relative reign lengths of consecutive Pharoah's supposed to be significant evidence even if it were true ? (Here's a hint - the length of a Pharoah's reign and the length of his successor's reign are not entirely independent - and if you don't see why then consider how long the current Queen of England has reigned - and how long Prince Charles is likely to reign if he comes to the throne).(NOTE: Perhaps you didn’t realize the shift in topic, or preferred to stick to Wyatt’s hypothesis (that firstly, NOBODY HERE IS TOUTING AS FACT, and secondly I’ve admittedly REPEATEDLY that it has severe probability barriersAfter all, you keep pretending to discredit Wyatt’s discoveries relating to the EXODUS EVENT by alluding to flaws inherent in a side-line hypothesis that Wyatt doesn’t even support dogmatically as a fact, but rather a serious possibility in his estimate, Nevertheless you PREFER to focus on the problems with the hypothesis in order to continue manufacturing, and in turn, demolishing your own series of bloated straw men supposedly undermining the evidence for an EXODUS EVENT.And while it is true that the above statement on my part lacked to properly indicate that I was referring to the Exodus Event rather than the hypothesis in question---and therefore puts a degree of blame on me---Nonetheless, AFTER I had already adequately clarified with you as to what I really meant you STILL PERSISTED in accusing me of misrepresenting despite the correction made, and therefore it made no real difference as far as your vindictive agenda was concerned.You said:Of course the fact is that is NOT what you said in post 465 or post 474. Nor was it true - the fact that you choses to address only a part of my answer to that point does not make it the whole. Nor was it the point being addressed - which goes back to your demand for support back in post 465.
And of course we see another about-face in post 493 where you present the point as a bit of trivial padding. Which begs the question of why you chose to demand that it - out of the entire post - should be supported - and continued to argue after it was. Especially after *I* had pointed out that it was a side issue in post 483(NOTE: Observe carefully how you continued to DISTORT and ADULTERATE my original purpose for picking on your passing comment with Thutmosis III and Hatshepsut---when it was (as stated) merely to get a point across to crash frog and imply on the way how unnecessary it was for you to even mention that divergence at all, regardless of whether or not it was a point of serious disagreement on your part.)I said:Excuse me, but would you mind being more explicit when you’re talking about our evidence being less, for what? The event of the Exodus in its entirety, or were you meaning this extra hypothesis regarding a new scheme for the kings of Egypt?
My comment was exclusively concerning evidence for the entire Exodus event, but it seems as though you’re adhering to this sideline issue as the only decisive matter demanding our undivided attention.(NOTE: You apparently ignored this and continued trucking away with your mass misconceptions)After making such blatantly deceptive allegations about someone else it must be utterly chagrining to have yourself exposed as the brazen liar you’ve tried so hard to pin on somebody else (in this case, me). I’m almost tempted to feel sorry for you, but then again, you incurred this torrent of embarrassment all by yourself.Unless you can bring yourself to subscribe to at least some echelon of decency, I’m afraid I’ll have to henceforth ignore you as a legitimate presence in this thread.Finally, I’ve had enough of your red herring for one thread and I don’t want to see ANY MORE of this rubbish from you. Do I make myself clear?