Gwyddyon
quote:
Who would want to, though? You want archaeologists to get expeditions approved (these things aren't cheap), then go out and spend a few months examining Wyatt's/Moller's finds when A) Wyatt's associates have a history of witholding vital evidence from the scientific community
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. You sound rather ridiculous when you talk like this, for you seem to completely ignore some very important points here:
1. According to Saudi law, no coral is to be taken from the area, a classic catch-22.
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.
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.
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.
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.
quote:
B) Have a history of using extremely questionable, if not outright laughable techniques (the divining rod)
These are the times when I am compelled to wonder as to what sort of intelligence level your are exercising. None of the data outputted was based on this divining rod. David Fasold brought them to the site, but Ron had NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE DIVINING RODS! Did you even read what I said to PaulK concerning the divining rod? I will repeat Mary Nell’s response to this appalling accusation:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
quote:
C) Will continue to refuse the release of information given the reasons Lys has passed along for that refusal. So, in other words, experts should spend time and money to help people who are likely cons prove that finds they claim to have made are real, and then NOT PUBLISH VITAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA because Wyatt's people don't want it released. The scientific community would therefore gain absolutely nothing (still vital data missing) and expend resources to do so.
Wow.
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? 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.
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.
quote:
There's still more to it.
If the wheels are there, there is still nothing that would connect them with the Exodus rather than any of the hundreds of campaigns over about a thousand years that took place in that general area.
If the bones are there and authentic, there is still nothing to connect them with the Exodus.
The reason folk are not running off shouting about these alleged discoveries is that even if true, they don't offer any connection to the Exodus.
There is simply no evidence that what has been alleged to have been found has any connection whatsoever with the Biblical Exodus.
Oh really? You mean like none of the facts that we have mentioned? If you watched the Exodus Revealed video, I guarantee you that you would be forced to completely obliterate that statement.
There is a PATTERN developing out of all this!!!! We have Mt. Sinai (Jebel Al Lawz) in Saudi Arabia, the same place where Midian is! Midian is ON THE EAST COAST OF THE GULF OF AQABA! We have the pillars erected by Solomon!!! It is now CONCLUSIVE that there indeed WAS an Israelite population in Egypt.
We have the 12 springs of Marah, the bitter springs, the description of Josephus (high ridge of mountains terminated at each end of the beaches), the biblical description (entangled in the land, wilderness hat shut them in), the ONE cave of Elijah, the split Rock of Horeb, the bull creatures inscribed on an alter (one bull shows the exact drawing of that of an Egyptian drawing, an individual holding up the bull from under the belly, EXACTLY Egyptian. These inscriptions have been shown to EXPERTS, and they even declared that they were of Egyptian origin), the blackened peak on the tip of Mt. Sinai (obsidian rock with no volcanic activity in the area and a pure dividing line that distinguishes the black side from normal colored rocks, as well as the fact that these rocks have been taken to LABS)reflecting Exodus 19:18:
And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.
The
connection goes on and on.
Jar, not only are you completely blind when it comes to discerning matters like this, you are
willfully blind and deceived.
PaulK
quote:
Indeed the article you link to claims that Thutmose IV's mummy has better identiifcation than most.
Does that equate conclusiveness? I’m afraid not. Even Thutmosis IV’s mummy is debatable. Just go to some other sources and you will see that it isn’t conclusive anywhere.
quote:
2) Short reign of Thutmosis II. So he had a short reign ? How does THAT prove that Thutmosis was a title ?
Not directly, but indirectly. It has to do with the pattern of their reigns. Did you even read the evidence of how oddly the years are connected between the Thutmosis’ and Amenhotep’s? This was posted about 10+ pages back. There is EVERY reason to believe that based on the inscriptions of Thutmosis II and Hatshepsut, that they were indeed coregents together, and NOT husband and wife. The falcon bird, representing power and efficiency, is right over
both Thutmosis II and Hatshepsut, possibly representing an
equal position. Pharaohs and their wives did not rule equally. The Pharaoh was always the head when basing upon the common tradition.
It is also interesting to note that Senmut was the builder of the Deir El Bahri temple
for Hatshepsut. Moses possibly built this building for his mother.
quote:
4) We know that someone chiselled out any of Hatshepsut's inscriptions although it is not certain if Thutmosis III was actually responsible. But there are obvious reasons for doing so - she effectively usurped the throne from the young Thutmosis III, and presented herself as Pharoah.
Obviously? Or perhaps? I say perhaps it was because relationship between Hatshepsut and Thutmosis II. One theory does not disqualify the other, as long as there are no definite answers for either. Yet again, there is nothing wrong with providing a hypothesis for trying to fit in the lineages with a 1446 BC Exodus. However, the lineages is a non-salvational issue, as the main point emphasized here has to do with archaeological remains pointing to an Exodus.
quote:
5) That Amenhotep II should continue two of his father's policies is hardly evidence that they were the same person. It is hardly unusual behaviour
What in particular leads you to believe that Amenhotep II would have anything personal against Hatshepsut? To me it doesn’t make any sense that Amenhotep II would continue on the exact pattern.
Another thing, to me it makes no sense that Hatshepsut would transfer from Royal Wife of Thutmosis II to coregent of Thutmosis III, since
according to tradition Thutmosis III’s son was Amenhotep II who should have been immediately considered coregent in her place. The notion that she was a usurper is only a wild speculation in part held by the scholars. The fact is, no one really knows for sure.
quote:
6) Your claim that we never find an "adjcent" Tuthmosis and Amenhotep where both have long reigns is false. Tuthmosis IV and hs son Amenhotep III both ruled for about 40 years.
False, Thutmosis IV is know to have reigned about 10 years, and his son Amenhotep III was known to have reigned for about 40 years.
Wow, I see you really do your research:
Ancient Egypt - Dynasty XVIII
There is an interesting comment on the top of that web page:
Under Amenhotep III the Egyptian empire grew in significance that will never happen again in future. However the wealth in royal court leads finally to religious schism under Akhenaten and this is beginning of Egyptian empire’s downfall. Weakness of Amenhotep III’s successors is exploited by kingdoms of Asia and Nubia which throw off Egyptian yoke. Under Horemheb, the last pharaoh of this dynasty, this decay is stopped, however the empire faces long way to its reconstitution.
quote:
7) Your claim that Page Not Found | The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago presents different schemes of succession is false. It is about mummy identification and the "schemes" represent alternative identifications of mummies. If you look at the table the sequence of Kings is given as a list (leftmost column) and the three schemes (remaining columns) are labelled "Royal Mummies".
Do not mock my intelligence. You know exactly what I meant. Based on the schemes, the identifications of these mummies pose problems in properly aligning the Pharaohs, and it can be tempting to form different opinions about the possible relationships between these mummies.
quote:
8) You have NO evidence that Senmut was adopted.
Once again, I will quote from Moller:
The wording on these statues indicates that it is Nefure and Senmut. The child is wearing a royal ornament on its head indicating royalty, in this context a future heir to the throne. An heir to the throne was always a man, hence these statues represent a little boy.
Nefure is known as a princess and the daughter of Pharaoh Amenhotep I. It is then probable that it is princess Nefure who found the baby Moses in the Nile reeds and adopted him to have an heir to the throne. Other hypotheses claim that these statues represent a man (Senmut) who is responsible for the child Nefure, which the statues do not imply since it is difficult to understand how the older person in these statues can be seen to represent a man.
Similarly it is unlikely that the child was a girl as this would be contrary to the custom in Egypt that the heir to the throne was always a man.
Senmut is an important name for Moses as it has special meaning, namely mother’s brother. This name goes back to the Egyptian gods (and royal family according to the Egyptian custom) Osiris, Isis and Horus. In this family in a complicated way, the son of Isis, Horus, becomes his mother’s son and his mother’s brother since he was a reincarnation of Isis’ dead husband, who in turn was Isis’ brother. In other words, Horus was also the brother of Isis (his mother’s brother). This was to show that Isis was the rightful heir to the throne in spite of the fact that his father was dead when he was born.
Editors note: Based on this logical reasoning, it might be interesting to note that two inscriptions at the Deir El Bahri show both Thutmosis II and Hatshepsut together with Horus (the falcon bird) either above or beside them.
In the SAME WAY Moses needed to have a rightful identity in order to be heir to the throne. His adoptive mother is thus depicted with Moses, who is then called his mother’s brother (Senmut) and thereby receives the right to inherit the throne since his mother is the bearer of this right (although she cannot become Pharaoh). It is another way of saying that Moses, in the same way as Horus, was born into the royal family without a father. In this hypothesis Senmut is not a formal name for Moses but could perhaps be translated as adopted son in our everyday language. In another bible passage (Heb. 11:24) it is related that as an adult Moses refused to call himself the son of Pharaohs daughter, which is understandable in view of his adult life.
There is an interesting comment about Senmut in the literature (37. F. Tiradritti (1999) The Cairo Museum Master Pieces of Egyptian Art, Thames and Hudson, London, England.); It is probably that Senmut abused his power and that at a particular point in the reign of Hatshepsut he fell into disgrace, as demonstrated by the damage done to most of his monuments. This is EXACTLY what happened to Moses according to the Bible text: From an Egyptian perspective he fell into disgrace when he escaped from Egypt and it is obvious that a person, the heir to the throne, doing this would have everything in terms of monuments, statues, scrolls etc., destroyed. A person doing what Moses did, must, according to Egyptian traditions — be erased from the history.L. Moller, (2000), The Exodus Case, p114, 115.
quote:
9) The statues with Nefure sitting in Senmut's lap does NOT clearly show a woman - the seated person appears to be a man. Neither is the adult in the block statues clearly a man. On both the inscriptions indicate that Senmut is an adult and that he has the keeping of the Pharoah's daughter.
The statues with Nefure sitting in Senmut’s lap DOES resemble a women with a baby boy seated in her lap. As for these inscriptions indicating that Senmut is an adult in keeping of Pharaoh’s daughter, please quote the exact inscriptions to me. I want to see if this is exactly what it says.
quote:
10) You will have to give clear references to these inscriptions of a child growing up alongside Hatshepsut not least because of the repeated confusion between Hatshepsut and her daughter Nefure
I have to, hey? I trusted that you would accept their existence without me having to go through extra work scanning them in. I’ve already scanned in hours upon hours worth of information in, and you haven’t appreciated one bit of it, nor even acknowledge it. I suppose if you are this demanding, I will have to do some more scanning. It would be rather ridiculous to just make this stuff up. I do not know of the particular name of this inscription, but I do know that there is a long wall at Deir El Bahri illustrating this, and if you go there you will see it. Moller has some pictures of parts of these inscriptions.
quote:
11) We have gone over the mural at Deir-El Bahir before. As you know it depicts Hatshepsut's conception and birth. Although depicted as a boy the child is clearly identified as being a daughter. That you repeat this false claim is simply another example where it is YOU ignoring the evidence.
Bogus! How has it been clearly identified as a daughter? To make an inscription depicting a boy, and then someone not noticing it during this time period is beyond all reason. Egyptologists ignore this sort of stuff when they realize that it begins to interfere with their theories. Inscriptions are serious things, and you don’t take them lightly by just throwing it out.
A women could not embody the gods but could be the wife of a Pharaoh and, if there were no heir, could carry out the functions until an heir had reached a mature age. In Hatshepsut’s temple, Deir El Bahri, there is a wall where the birth of the heir to the throne is portrayed. Certain hypotheses claim that this is the birth of Hatshepsut, which becomes complicated since the child is a boy which one source tries to explain by saying that the one who made the inscription was confused. Another illustration on this wall shows the child in Hatshepsut’s arms.L. Moller, The Exodus Case, p119.
Do you think our hypothesis is just based on thin air? Obviously, we all have a right to come up with hypothesis’ based on various indications such as these.
quote:
So again we see the pattern of either pitifully weak evidence - or outright falsehoods. No rational person could accept Wyatt's hypothesis if this is the best you have
With the pitifully weak and contentious evidence all other traditional scholars have produced, it is not surprising that even this one may appear weak as well. It is a known thing, of all the civilizations from the Ancient world, the history of Egypt is the
most uncertain.
quote:
Meanwhile you continue to ignore the stronger contrary evidnece that has been brought up such as the evidence that Thutmosis I and Amenhotep I had different mothers and that Thutmosis I succeeded Amenhotep I - both directly contrary to Wyatt's hypothesis.
I have not ignored it. I will admit, that seems to be one of the holes in our hypothesis, which is why I have been studying out this matter. To accept this problem factor in our hypothesis is no different than what other scholars admit to doing in their hypotheses. However, I personally believe that this so called problem may not pose a real problem as supposed. After all, has it not already extensively been established that individuals throughout the era of ancient Egypt have been known to have multiple names attributed them? In most cases, an individual would have multiple names assigned to him, yet in other cases different names were assigned depending on the different levels of ones’ life. When it comes to Egypt, two different female names do not necessarily equate two different women, as is also the case with males. This trend is manifested throughout ALL the Egyptian dynasties.
And my final point:
Once again, I repeat. The issue as to the 18th dynasty’s lineage, or which Pharaoh was of the Exodus will never be completely solved. The fact is, we know an Exodus happened based on a pattern of archaeological remains. Fitting history into archaeology with precision is not always possible, especially in the case of Egyptian history. The one central issue that this whole thread revolves around is, did the Exodus happen? Buzsaw, Willowtree, Hydarnes, and myself have all provided compelling reasons why we believe it happened based on the archeological finds. Pointed flaws in a hypothesis does not necessarily negate the evidence of an event. Perhaps it may destroy the theory as to when it took place, but not whether it took place. I have seen a great deal of energy put into destroying Ron’s and Moller’s hypothesis of the 18th dynasty lineages. I gather these critics feel that if they are successful in this, they can destroy the possibility of the Exodus event. I will repeat that this is not the case. Whether this hypothesis is destroyed or not, it will virtually bear no effect on the archaeological data provided on this board.
This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 07-29-2004 05:17 PM
~Lysimachus
™ Version 4.2