"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"

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.

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

You've made yourself very clear.At least you have finally admitted that you were the one trying to score a cheap point. And as I said it was the entiiryty of your post - while the issue you picked on was only a small part of my response to a single point. And that really shows up your whole tactic. Accuse others of acting as you do.For instance in your "MAJOR DISTORTION MISREPRESENTATION #1" you carefully omit your question:
"So is she [Tyldesley] to be granted more credence than the majority?"
while quoting the answer - which you then call ambuiguous. Of course if you take the answer out of context by ignoring the question it addresses it will naturally be harder to understand.Then as is quite clear you attempted to change the point by ignoring the major part of my response to the point Lyssimachuis was attempting to make. Of course you did not jump on Lysimachus when he appealed to uncertainty to attempt to rescue one of his points. Exactly the same behaviour as you complained of in Crashfrog.And then again you accuse me of non-sequiturs on the basis of omitting the point - in this case the entire post I was responding to:
"The fact is, you apprently just said it so you could have something to dispute on and add ammo to your morass of skeptical questions."
post 493As to your secodn accusation you have confessed to attempting to change the subject withput indicating that you were doing so. Moreover you have chosen to repeat baseless accusations against me.Your bully boy tactics don't work on me. If you want to stop this then stop your misrepresentations and unfounded attacks. I will not stop defending myself so you can claim some false "victory" with your amoral tactics.

Guess that you didn't notice that the "semantic jargon" was a quote of Hydarnes own words. Even after I pointed it out.You really are getting desperate.

SO lets get this straight. You failed to quote a point I was replying to. As a result of this failure you claimed that my response was a non-sequitur. And you say that you did not omit anything of relevance ? And you expect people to beleive you ?No, both the items I quoted were directly relevant - and you omitted both.ANd you miss both the other points I mentioned.1) Lysimachus tried to argue that there were missing mummies - and that this supported Wyatt's claims. When it was pointed out that the identification of the mummies did NOT support Wyatt's claims (e.g. accordign to an article Lysimachus himself referred to the mummy of Tuthmosis IV was one of the more certain identifications) he appealed to problems identifying the mummies. That is exactly the same tactic you are trying to accuse me of - a misrepresentation you repeat over and over again.And if you are waiting to hear about things you have already been told then I suggest that you consider paying attention.

The "Molecular Frequency Generator" is just another name for the old Hieronymous machine. It doesn't work. Regardless of whatever pseudo-scientific explanations you happen to bring up.This message has been edited by PaulK, 08-02-2004 07:36 AM

We've already discussed the issue of the "land bridge". It turns out that it was just a hole in the database Wyatt was using. It simply isn't true that the area is that much less shallow than the rest of the Gulf of Aqaba.

Here's an advert for one.Needless to say I don't recommend buying.http://www.geocities.com/hieronymous_machine/

Of course it doesn't matter whether Fasold introduced it to Wyatt.But Wyatt went on using itRed Sea Crossing"Above, left, reconstruction of a photo taken of a gilded chariot wheel that remains on the sea floor. It was found by Ron Wyatt using a molecular frequency generator from his boat above"

No, I'm not.Based on the charts posted by Lysimachus - who is on YOUR side we have:1) There is no crossing at Nuweiba that does not require going through a region that is 850m deep.2) Only a small part of the Gulf of Aqaba is more than 1000m deep. One of the "Deeps" adjacent to the claimed location of the crossing is only 100m deeper.It just isn't especially shallow.http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

I notice that you don't dispute any of the points I raised.I also note that all you offer in addition is speculation that applies equally to the rest of the Gulf.I was right - and your calling me a liar will not change that truth.

No, Carbon 14 dating does not rely on ASSUMING that the influx of cosmic rays was constant. It has been reliably calibrated for greater ages than the 3500 years Before Present required to determine if the bones found agree with Wyatt's Exodus date.

Material leaching out shouldn't matter - only a mechanism that favoured the C14 isotope over others would affect the dating.I'm no expert and I don't know whether C14 dating of bone would be affected by prolonged exposure to seawater - but that doesn't change the fact that the argument raised was completely bogus.Regarding the depth of the Gulf of Aqaba I have already stated that I am relying on the chart provided by Lysimachus. Everything I have said is consistent with that chart. I'm not ignoring the evidence - you're attacking me for NOT ignoring evidence. And misrepresenting what I did say as well - you show me where I said that the Gulf of Aqaba is *all* the same depth !