"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

quote:

---

As I have already pointed out I did NOT rely on uncertainty to counter the point. Moreover there wasn't a significant point to counter in the first place.
On the other hand when I introduced Tydesley as source you did indeed ask :
"So is she to be granted more credence than the majority?"

​

So no, it is not a semantic issue. There is no doubt over what you said or that my point directly responds to your statement.

​

And yes this thread is going downhill because you are dragging it down. If you want it to be otherwise then drop the ill-founded attemtps at nitpicking and produce some real evidence for Wyatt's rewrite of Egyptian history.

---

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.Gotta go to work, I'll address some other things that I missed this evening.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-30-2004 08:55 PM

Paulk,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.

quote:

---

Why else would you want to only answer part of ONE point where there was nothing important at issue ?

---

Why else? Because I simply haven't gotten to it, your baseless allegations notwithstanding.

quote:

---

But you still haven't addressed the fact that you tried to dismiss a direct response to your own words as "not understanding".

---

I'm "not understanding" is right. Refresh my memory.

quote:

---

And despite complaining about the thread "deteriorating" you are still the major contributor to that deterioration and apparently you refuse to stop.

---

Retorting that placement isn't going to render it any less false.I'm late for work again, I'll try to address some of the things I missed tonight.

quote:

---

Ok:
http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO
http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO
http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO
http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO
http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO
Ok, that's 5 posts where assertions were supported with sources, which substantiates my claim. Doubtless one could identify many, many other posts.

---

Your original tone seemed to strongly indicate that you wanted strictly credentialed authors to be cited, now you’re shifting gear to less authoritative ones. Your first link, for example has Amlodhi merely referring to an already thoroughly refuted article written by some ignoramus. I thought your qualifications would be stricter.Now on to your requests for sources:I’m rather disappointed that you would even consider the statement made by me (about the prolific use of propaganda in the Ancient world) to even necessitate a proper sourcing, as it would seem already quite evident to you, even from a cursory knowledge of behavior from ancient Empires.But if you insist, let’s take the Assyrian Sennacherib for example. He was proverbial for proclaiming his defeats into glorious victories. I don’t have all of the numerous sources that attest in precisely the way I’ve read but it wasn’t hard to find several online sources that serve to corroborate my point:Against Babylon:Again, there was a general upheaval of the inhabitants of Babylon against the Assyrians. In 689 B.C. they. used the treasures of Marduk's temple to buy. the help of the then new King of Elam, Umman-menanu (Humban-nimena). A great battle took place at Hallul, on the Tigris. Described as a victory in the Assyrian records, it was in fact a near-defeat.13 Blind with rage, Sennacherib avenged himself on Babylon-- http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/...uction/assyriankings.htmAgainst Judah:This beautifully preserved six-sided hexagonal prism of baked clay, commonly known as the Taylor Prism, was discovered among the ruins of Nineveh, the ancient capital of the Assyrian Empire. It contains the victories of Sennacherib himself, the Assyrian king who had besieged Jerusalem in 701 BC during the reign of king Hezekiah, it never mentions any defeats. On the prism Sennacherib boasts that he shut up "Hezekiah the Judahite" within Jerusalem his own royal city "like a caged bird." This prism is among the three accounts discovered so far which have been left by the Assyrian king Sennacherib of his campaign against Israel and Judah. Oriental Institute Chicago, IllinoisInteresting note: Egyptian sources make mention of Sennacherib’s defeat in the conflict with Judah, but gives the credit for the victory to an Egyptian god who sent field mice into the camp of the Assyrians to eat their bowstrings and thus they fled from battle.-- Bible History, Maps, Images, Articles, and Resources for Biblical History - Bible History (it would be nice to have further sourcing on that though, I’m still looking)Furthermore:We have Rameses II proclaiming his draw with the Hittites at Kadesh as a glorious victory.We have Akhenaten erasing the name of Amun from not only every monument he could, but from his own Father’s name. And then after Akhenaten passed away, we have the priests of Amun doing the same thing to Akhenaten’s name.Then we have Thutmosis III manifesting an almost identical behavior towards HatshepsutWe have Horemheb trying to erase the whole Amarna revolution with all of its controversial characters, and proclaimed himself the immediate successor of Amenhotep III..and on and on and on.How many more events do I have to cite in order for a pattern to emerge here with ancient historical record policies?I would cite sources for the above assertions, but in light of the fact that time doesn’t come as a limitless commodity and the act is rather time consuming for relatively common facts, suffice it to say that you will be able to find ample sources for the above assertions merely by typing in key words on the web if you so wish to do, it’s fine by me.As for corroborating the Amarna letters:Under Amnehotep III (C. 1411-1375 B.C.) The Empire reached a dazzling height. Tribute flowed in from conquered lands; and Thebes, the imperial capital, became the most magnificent city in the world.During the reign of the succeeding Pharaoh, Amenhotep IV (C. 1375-1358 B.C) however, the Empire began to decline.Akhenaten neglected his kingdom, and Egypt’s Asiatic provinces gradually collapsed, despite urgent appeals for assistance.Civilization: Past and Present--T. Walter WallbankProfessor of History, University of Southern CaliforniaCritical Readers:Professor W. C. Gabel, Boston University
Professor James E. Gillespie, Emeritus, Pennsylvania State University
Professor L. Carrington Goodrich, Emeritus, Columbia University
Professor Harold J. Grimm, Ohiio State University
Professor Alfred Guillaume, University of London
Professor H. W Janson, New York University
Professor Arden S. King, Tulane University
Professor Hans Kohn, Emeritus, The City College of New York
Professor T. F. Mayer-Oaks, Wayne State University
Professor Franklin C. Palm Emeritus, University of California\
Professor Stuart Piggot, University of Edinburgh
Sir Maurice Powicke, Emeritus, Oxford University
Professor C. A Robinson, Jr, Brown University
Professor Franz Schulze, Lake Forest College(Is the list exhaustive enough for thee? )The Amarna letters themselves pleading for military aid:http://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/a-abdu-heba1.htmhttp://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/a-rib-addi.htmhttp://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/a-yapahu.htmhttp://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/a-abdu-heba3.htmIt's also worth noting that Tushratta king of Mitanni sent numerous letters to Akhenaten and also to his mother Tiy,...but because no help arrived, Mitanni was sacked and destroyed by the Hittites and Tushratta murdered (hardly insignificant squabbles).This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-30-2004 07:27 AMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-30-2004 08:50 AM

Paulk,

quote:

---

Oh please spare us. The evidence produced by your side so far is owhere near as strong as the contrary evidence.

---

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.You just seem to blab without even knowing for sure what someone is saying.The reason why Lysimachus keeps elaborating on it is to inform you that there IS MORE potential basis for the hypothesis than you think, although it remains the victim of serious barriers. I’m confident that he doesn’t embrace it dogmatically, as you would have us to believe.

quote:

---

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).

---

And why are you asking me? I’ve hardly been promulgating this theory as infallible.

quote:

---

I'm not settign the standard of a "myriad of uniquivocal evidence" - just some SIGNIFICANT evidence would be enough to have it taken as a serious possiblity. But so far all the significant evidence is on the contrary side. There is no double standard.

---

The double-standard becomes apparent in the fact that you are far more willing to accept suppositions made by Egyptologists--largely based on educated speculation---as [almost?] authoritative, but when potential evidence is cited to support the biblical record, you so conveniently raise a plethora of objections and inconsistencies in order to justify a caustic dismissal. I’m not denying that the hypothesis in question has severe flaws, but there aren’t many that don’t.I wasn’t basing this off of some statement you particularly made, but rather the tendency.You are a real piece of work.

quote:

---

In post 465 you requested that I provide a source to support my claim that it was uncertain that Tuthmosis III was responsible for the defacement of Hatshepsut's monuments.

---

How many times do I have to repeat that my original comment saying that crashfrog was going to jump on you unless you provided a source was merely sardonic for crashfrog’s sake, and I guess it ended up evolving into a full-blown contentionThe instance simply demonstrated your tactics in quibbling over issues with virtually no significance to the thread.

quote:

---

When I answered that (post 470) by naming an expert you rejected it you - for some reason - asked why I would prefer that experts opinion over the majority (post 474).

---

I didn’t reject it. I merely wondered why you were so willing to accept what one expert has to say over all the rest JUST so you can DISAGREE with Lysimachus. That’s IT.

quote:

---

When I pointed out that I did not need to do so (post 476) you demanded a further explantion (post 479). When I produced that you claimed that I did not understand and that your point was 'You countered Lysimachus with a "possibility" in order to refute his placement of events'
(post 485).

---

But you DID decide to counter Lys on a petty matter. Perhaps it was merely a passing statement as you claim, but it still left a bad impression.

quote:

---

you demanded a further explantion (post 479)

---

Wrong. I only requested that you clarify the inherent obfuscation that was in your sentence structure. But I’m not at all surprised that you’re trying to adulterate how I said it. It wouldn’t be the first time you’ve been less than truthful. But then again, you might just be a little overly aggressive.

quote:

---

When I produced that you claimed that I did not understand and that your point was 'You countered Lysimachus with a "possibility" in order to refute his placement of events'

---

Exactly,.so?And what point are you trying to make exactly with all this semantic jargon? The only one I remember raising was that you were, by all appearances, trying to find an expert that seemed to differ with the majority on that point simply so you could falsify[?] some minor passing inclusion made by Lysimachus. That’s it, nothing more. It just wasn’t called for. So what part of this can’t you understand, or don’t you want to understand?

quote:

---

And it is only now that you have offered any indication that you intend to respond to any other point - even though I asked you that in post 474.

---

How can you say this after I mentioned yesterday twice that I needed to be off to work, but would try to respond that evening. I didn’t get back until late and therefore haven’t been granted enough time to address all the pertinent questions and objections in this thread.Not only did I initially extract that one comment made by you simply for jocular purposes with regard to crashfrog, but this discussion is going afully fast, so failure to address everything directed towards me in a punctual manner shouldn’t be any reason for alarm.You just love divining negative conclusions about others for your own critical agenda. But don’t worry, you’re forgiven and I hope that we can move on to something of greater conversational value.I really hope you don’t object if I quit paying precious attention to this red herring, and I’m not going to continue to try and dispute you on a matter with little bearing on the thread.If you sincerely only made a passing comment with what you said, what else can I do but accept what you’re telling me? But that doesn’t negate the impression you left, and is why I said what I did.‘Nuff said.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-30-2004 07:12 AMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-30-2004 08:47 AM

quote:

---

This is incorrect, the Merneptah Stele DOES NOT indicate that Israel was already occupying Canaan, in fact it actually indicates that they weren't.

---

Unless of course you can offer me some sort of plausible explanation (based on something substantial) for why Israel would be mentioned in context of his Canaanite victories if it proves that they weren’t occupying it.

quote:

---

The Merneptah Stele mentions AN 'Israel', not necessarily the 'Israel' of the Bible.

---

What sheer poppycock and you know it. Not only is there no justification for such a blind and unwarranted extrapolation, but I think it serves as a testament to how far you’re willing to go, even if it means contradicting the majority of scholars.I would be greatly obliged if you could reference me to at least one source that doesn’t agree on the placement of the word in Merneptah’s victory stele as Israel.

quote:

---

The 'Israel' of the Stele does not have to be read as 'Israel' at all (it can equally read 'Jezreel),

---

Because I’ve seen a host of material pertaining to this stele, and have not seen even one that would be suggestive of what you’re proposing, I will need some sort of source from you on that. I assure you, however, that most scholars and educational references concur on interpreting the word in the stele to mean Israel.

quote:

---

and most importantly, the name is preceded by the determinative for 'people' and not for an area of land as all the other lands in the Stele are preceded by, indicating that the Israel of the Stele were not a settled people.

---

Correct, and would be an accurate placement on Merneptah’s part if we consider that Israel was in a state parallel with the time of the Judges. This doesn’t detract from the point that they were already a people inhabiting Canaan.Here is an excerpt from the victory stele:Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
Canaan is captive with all woe.
Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
Yanoam made nonexistent;
Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.Source: Egypt: Merenptah's Victory SteleNotice the context, he’s clearly talking about inhabitants of Canaan, nothing coming out of Egypt at the time. And as Gary Greenburg puts it:The inscription does not tell us what language Israel spoke but it does imply that Israel, despite its lack of identification with a specific territory, stood as a powerful military force. The text places it among several major political entities. (Hatti is the Hittite kingdom, Hurru is the Hurrian kingdom, Ashkelon and Gezer are two of the most substantial city-states in Canaan.) The context suggests that it wouldn't have been listed if it weren't thought to have been worthy of mention as a defeated force.The Moses Mystery by Gary Greenburg. (Emphasis, mine)Moreover, the reason why this conclusively rules out Rameses II OR Merneptah is quite simple, really. The Pharaoh who supposedly built Pithom and Raamses according to the Bible would have been before the birth of Moses, and since the Exodus occurred in the 80th year of Moses as well as considering that Rameses II reigned only 67 years (hardly enough time to fulfill the role), it simply doesn’t add up. Because of this, many scholars and exponents of the new chronology place Merneptah, Rameses’ son as Pharaoh of the Exodus. But in further light of Merneptah’s victory stele, it demonstrates that there was already an Israelite presence in Canaan, and simply doesn’t afford enough time for the event to occur. Therefore an earlier date makes far more sense, and is in harmony with Biblical dating.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-30-2004 08:08 AMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-30-2004 08:40 AM

quote:

---

I didn't say only

---

By that I meant "until Rameses II". I apologize for it being misstated.

quote:

---

1) Uncertainty in identifying mummies. THis is simply irrational. There is nothing to indicate that the mummies of the rulers named Thutmosis are systematically missing - only that there is a problem in identification (mainly because of mummies being moved). Indeed the article you link to claims that Thutmose IV's mummy has better identiifcation than most.

---

Correct, but the confusion and uncertainty everywhere about identification can introduce room for questioning the legitimacy of the purported kings.

quote:

---

) Short reign of Thutmosis II. So he had a short reign ? How does THAT prove that Thutmosis was a title ?

---

It doesn't "prove" anything alone. It would merely "fit in" with the proposed hypothesis, nothing more.

quote:

---

3) It is far from certain that Hatshepsut co-ruled with Tuthmosis II. And under Wyatt's hypothesis we really need to ask why a co-ruler needs another co-ruler.

---

And more evidence needs to be produced. While most scholars believe that she was the wife of Thutmosis II.

quote:

---

But there are obvious reasons for doing so - she effectively usurped the throne from the young Thutmosis III, and presented herself as Pharoah.

---

Usurped? Her position was merely circumstantial. Her husband passed away with no heir to the throne. Some revolution apparently forced her to accept Thutmosis III as regent until he was old enough to take the throne.The fact that she actually made herself a king (independent of an heir) is questioned by the wyatt hypothesis.

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

---

But indeed it does, because what direct reason would Amenhotep II have to retaliate against Hatshepsut? She was already dead apparently.

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.

---

First of all, we get the 40+ years for the reign of Amenhotep III from Manetho, who is known to have manipulated Egyptian chronological dating. Secondly, Thutmosis IV only ruled 10, not 40 as you so confidently allege.

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".

---

Same clown with a different hat. Don't be so technical. The fact is, there's a great deal of confusion and nobody knows for sure, because the mummies just aren't adding up in the order of succession that is traditionally proposed.

quote:

---

8) You have NO evidence that Senmut was adopted.

---

But the hypothesis offers several clues that could possibly lead one to that conclusion. Far from proof, admitted.

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.

---

Actually, to me it does look like a woman, so I guess we disagree. It could very well be a man though, but according to the hypothesis, it would be a woman.

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.

---

Don't feign such certainty. The fact is that we have conflicting data. Why would the girl be portrayed as a boy, and for what reason? Stop acting like the "evidence" is black and white and "obviously" on YOUR side.

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

---

There you go again with your libel.

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?

quote:

---

Who would want to, though?

---

People interested enough to see for themselves instead of sitting back and assuming presumptuously that Wyatt is a fraud.

quote:

---

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)

---

Lame and you know it. None of the ones who have seen these discoveries for themselves would spend a fortune to visit sites that they know are fake. Enough evidence has been provided to excite an interest in it.

quote:

---

Wyatt's associates have a history of witholding vital evidence from the scientific community

---

You are so full of it. To begin with, you must think that money just falls from the sky to support private and small scale expeditions (you even admitted that it’s expensive for organizations)? Do you have no regard for the difficult and adverse circumstances that such a limited number of researchers must be subjected to for this kind of expedition?Needless to say, it is vastly easier for reputable organizations to present a satisfactory amount of data for an expedition than for a team of unrecognized archaeologists to supply equally acknowledged information. Without any of the protection or support inherently granted in large scale expeditions to a foreign country, how do you expect them to have the ability to preserve every piece of evidence they find without disturbance or hostile circumstances to contend with? How callous and unsympathetic of you to pretend that these expeditions should afford equal luxury.You don’t seem to have a remote clue about how these men have dedicated their lives, finances and untold effort trying so perseveringly hard to show the world these things, only to be carelessly disparaged by those who are unwilling to investigate for themselves the substantial evidence to be had.Much crucial information for a number of these sites was lost due to robbers and militant men that are rampant in these countriesnot to mention a host of other things that I don’t have time to elaborate on in a detailed fashion.Again, you should realize that it is much easier for organizations to protect their material. How do you expect independent researchers to preserve everything without even sufficient protection in an unstable region? But notice that if they DON’T give everything on a silver platter (something virtually impossible to do without the proper means), the larger organizations dismiss them as fraudulent and unworthy of their time. Why are you so unwilling to see this?The fact is, ENOUGH evidence and video has been presented that should stir more of an interest in these finds, instead people like you resort to the most prejudiced assumptions by insinuating that perhaps all these finds were fabricated. What a crock of foolishness and you know it.

quote:

---

Have a history of using extremely questionable, if not outright laughable techniques (the divining rod) C)

---

I think the above exemplifies all too strikingly well how grotesquely misconstrued and uninformed your arraignments are becoming.Contrary to your beyond words the evaluation and ultimate identification of the site was confirmed repeatedly via the latest (up-to-date) and most advanced equipment then in availability. The site was also tested and verified by a number of independent archeological research organizations, including a completely unaffiliated Turkish funded one. They were also followed closely by ABC’s 20/20, and the data was presented as worth considering. ALL of the sources PROVED that the object WAS and IS indeed the remains of a huge ancient boat. The minor instance where the divining rod was employed (merely used in addition to the host of professional tests that were conducted) had NOTHING to do at all with proving the identity of the site. The actual occurrence of these legitimate procedures can be thoroughly documented with sources. I don’t know exactly when I can get this for you, as much of the info is provided on video and will need to be transcribed to a document-- but I suppose it could be collected with some effort---if you’re interested and sincere enough to know the truth about these discoveries, rather than clinging on to a bunch of mendacious second-hand accusations you’ve been so willing to disseminate without even carefully researching the matter for yourself.

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, all of your specious accusations don’t take into consideration any of the above in order to construct a legitimate case against these discoveries. The Likely cons insert only further demonstrates the persistence to excuse yourself from responsibility by invoking a prejudiced assumption in order to NOT have to investigate the matter further. This is not even to mention the fact that a HOST of solid archaeological evidence has been provided for EVERY discovery made by Wyatt (with the exception of the Ark of the Covenant, which has yet to be ratified) and by those that have contributed to the finds (keeping in mind your incessant denials and adamant insistence otherwise).Ah, but it’s so much easier to take a detractor’s word for it than to actually apply yourself to honest verification. Why can’t you just be truthful to yourself and everyone here by just admitting that you don’t really have a leg to stand on.

quote:

---

Wow.

---

Wow is right. Words can’t do justice for my indignation at how untenable everything you’ve spouted has actually been. It doesn’t even endure under the most basic scrutiny. And pretending to know what you’re talking about only makes your case worse.Last suggestion: Next time think before making such a perfect travesty of your reliability.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-31-2004 11:45 PM

Buzsaw, I would just like to briefly commend you for your efforts in this thread, they have and are being appreciated.

quote:

---

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.

---

That assertion certainly isn’t sanctioned by anything more than your own arbitrary [mis]placement of the chariot wheel as most likely not Egyptian.Not only does our knowledge of Ancient Egyptian chariot wheels from the 18th dynasty contradict your less than cogent appropriation for the gold veneered wheel in question, as we shall discover, but it seems that your anxiety to disprove these findings are premature and demonstrably a priori.Denying the fact that ancient Egyptian chariot wheels varied substantially in their design is to oppose the data. Let’s take a look: We have this 18th dynasty mural painting on a tomb wall, which depicts six-spoke wheel with both thin rims and spokes. But to conclude (myopically) by this and other select depictions that all chariot wheels were of this nature is to clearly ignore other designs present during the New Kingdom. And here we have a slightly differing design, apparently thicker at the rims. Yet here we have a relief showing Egyptians building chariots, and we can clearly see that the design for these four-spoke wheels do not exude the same thin characteristics manifested by other versions in simultaneous use. SOURCE: J. G Wilkinson (1837) Manners and Costoms of Ancient Egyptians, London, England. Here we have the precise reproduction drawing versions of the parallel 18th dynasty four-spoke wheels shown above (the two right compared to the one found in Aqaba). SOURCE: (M. Healy and A. McBride) (1992) New Kingdom Egypt"--Osprey Publishing Ltd, London, England. (I’ve personally read this book)Notice the striking resemblance between the gold-veneered wheel found at Aqaba and this Egyptian chariot wheel: Notice some striking similarities between the middle design, as well as the almost parallel detail in the spokes beginning thicker from the center and slightly tapering to a thinner look. Further observe also that the centered chariot wheel illustration in the figure above, also seems to clearly resemble in the middle and rimmed portions.The apparent discrepancy observed in the lack of segments for the Aqaba version as compared with the description could very well be accounted for by the wheel resting on its opposite/inner side.(And now the above wheel illustration and inscription together: ) (Sources previously provided)For larger version: http://img.photobucket.com/...hariotwheelcomparisonlarge.jpgFurthermore, there is an inscription concerning Thutmosis III (18th Dynasty) which records the existence of golden chariots in many different circumstances. This is reiterated several times in the document.---SOURCE: J.K Hoffmeier (1976) Observations on the Evolving Chariot whWheel in the 18th Dynasty, JARCE, 13.Ipso facto, there is clearly no merit to the purportedly exclusively thin designs claim you’ve attributed to Egyptian chariot wheels.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 10:25 AMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 10:27 AMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 06:07 PM

Trae,

quote:

---

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.

---

Does not seem my foot. Whoever you are, you’re clearly only parroting the mislead conclusions raised by certain other individuals already in this thread (namely, Lucianus). And your assertions rest on the same unfounded weaknesses.

quote:

---

The video doesn’t present the evidence well.

---

BAH, I highly doubt you’ve even seen it before masquerading in here as though you know what you’re talking about.Read my response to Lucianus’ false claims, and deal with it.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 01:14 AM

quote:

---

I haven’t seen it. I even gave the reasons why people like me don’t need to see it. If you disagree with those reasons then feel free to correct me.

---

What "reasons"? The echoed objections you spewed out about the chariot wheels?

quote:

---

Reproductions taken from what souce? What is the primary source material? You have to realize that a 64pg pulp book by an author with a Master’s degree in Political Theology isn’t enough for the level of evidence we ask for around here. Don’t get me wrong, what you posted is interesting; so please now bring us the original evidence/sources.

---

I provided the source loud and clear, something you shouldn't have missed if you were doing more than a cursory examination of my post.P.S. You might be overjoyed to know that the book is solely dedicated to Egypt's military and non-theological in nature.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 09:27 AMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 11:55 AM

The accusation of your first statement was already addressed repeatedly. I will only deal with the relevant ones:

quote:

---

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.

---

I omitted nothing of relevance. That statement was merely advocating the same point (not actually questioning you) about your comment.

quote:

---

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.

---

To tell you the truth, since I know this hypothesis well enough, I haven't been reading in entirety all of Lysimachus' posts pertaining to that issue, so I really wouldn't know precisely what phraseology he's using.From what I do know, he's ADMITTEDLY promoting a HYPOTHESIS. A hypothesis is naturally full of speculation.

quote:

---

As 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.

---

What was the "baseless accusation"?

quote:

---

Your bully boy tactics don't work on me. If you want to stop this then stop your misrepresentations and unfounded attacks.

---

I'm still waiting to hear about these "misrepresentations" and "unfounded attacks".This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 11:13 AM

You really have to wonder though, is the density genuine? Or just feigned in order to not be publicly compelled.BTW, my rebuttal to Lucianus was updated with a little extra info and according sources, in case you might want to give it another perusal.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 10:34 AM