"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

The original discussion was initiated by Buzsaw in support of Moller. Given that it is up to your side to produce the evidence to support the assertions you make.However we know that Moller is not competent in Egpytology. We can be sure that many of Lysimachus false and misleading arguments for the rewrite of Egyptian history come from Moller even if Lysimachus made up some of the himself.We also know that the peopele on your side are all too prone to misrepresenting your sources - it appears to be a failure to read and understand rather than dishonesty - but it means that we cannot accept you as reliable sources. And from the evidence already produced it seems that Moller and Wyatt are also unreliable for similar reasons. That means that it is very important to actually see the lab reports rather than be told what the lab reports say - because we cannot rely on the accuracy of what is said.

As I have already said:1) It's the responsibility of the Moller supporters here to back up their claims. If you can't then too bad for you2) I don't trust Moller to report things accurately - Lysmiachus has already given enough evidence that he is unreliable.Given these facts I'm not about to waste money on Moller's book.

So what you are saying is that I'm not allowed to reply to posts made here unless I pay money to Moller ?It doesn't work that way. If you post anything here it is up for discussion.And unless you want to accuse Lysimachus of seriously misrepresenting what Moller claims I've seen enough of what the book says to justify the comments I've made about Moller. And if you do want to take that tack I suggest that you take it up with Lysimachus.

I'm not refusing to READ the book - I am refusing to pay money for it.And of course I am not ignorant of the material from the book that has been posted here. And it is from that material that I know that Moller is unreliable. And there is nothing to stop you from using the book to answer Charles' questions. If the material is there.Is it there ?

quote:

---

I've forwarded the pic to a friend for his assessment (but not to Lennart Moller) -- but I hope you realize that we would also need to know the exact location of this petroglyph, plus study the surrounding area to see what else is in the area around it -- then after being able to do this, then we can write a reply to it.

---

So why don't you just buy the book ?

Brian did not misquote the Bible. Did you forget that there are differnet translations ?Here are some of themYoung's Literal Translation:
`Speak unto the sons of Israel, and they turn back and encamp before Pi-Hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-Zephon; over-against it ye do encamp by the sea,New American Standard Bible:
"Tell the sons of Israel to turn back and camp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea; you shall camp in front of Baal-zephon, opposite it, by the sea.Amplified Bible:
Tell the Israelites to turn back and encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the [Red] Sea, before Baal-zephon. You shall encamp opposite it by the sea.English Standard Version:
"Tell the people of Israel to turn back and encamp in front of Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, in front of Baal-zephon; you shall encamp facing it, by the sea.

I hope that this time you've done your homework and actually found genuine evidence.

I don't know how you can say turning back is just an "assumption" - especially not when one of the translations is supposedly a literal translation. But the verse certainly seems to indicate that instead of going into the wilderness they headed back towardfs Egypt, and that rules out Aqaba which requires that they track across Sinai.

Well then while there's still time I would like to post some reminders of just how faulty the "evidence" and arguments put forward concerning the rewrite of Egyptian history. Since these are the claims that are easiest to check the errors are quite astonishing and adequately show that the source of the claim cannot be relied on.http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEOhttp://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEOhttp://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEOAs for the statues of Senmut, does the adult in the block statue of Senmut and Nefure look like the statues of Hatshepsut ?http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/18d.htmOr like the adult Senmut shown here ?Attention Required! | CloudflareSo why try to argue that a statue of Senmut and the infant Nefure is of Hatshepsut and Senmut as an infant ?

I will just note that Jim didn't know that the idea that the Gulf of Aqaba being about 100m deep had bene refuted, and even claimed that Moller supported it. Lysimachus' quote from Moller's book supported the 850m figure so unless Lysimachus was lying Jim is out of touch and doesn't really know the contents of the book (and may not even have a copy - there's no good reason for not checking if he has the book to hand).

When you refer to the "land bridge" do you mean the alleged maximum depth of ~100m or do you mean the claimed ability to walk across the area of the water is removed ? The former has been shown false and I don't see an awful lot of significance in the latter, even if the tight contour lines on he further side did not call it into question anyway.

Charles can look after himself.As for your attempt to defend the 100m depth, as you know the original data was simply lacking. Trying to blame the US National Geophysical Data Centre for Wyatt's error in interpretation is simply wrong. Nor does Wyatt's error make Moller more credible than the US National Geophysical Data Centre.And when you tell me that Moller rejects the best data available to avoid siding with "extremes" all I can say is what extremes ? We have the Israeli survey which seems to be the only source with useful data and that's it.And two further questions that need answering1) How can you answer a question addressed to Jar asking him what HE means ? Without reading his mind how could you know ?2) WHere is this data that you claim supports the 100m depth. If you are going to accuse me of ignoring data the least you can do is provide it. This would not be the first tiem that you had made a false accusation of this sort.

Is it an enhanced image of the wheel in the other photograph in Trae's post ?

I can't believe that you're still trying to push the "molecular frequency generator". Your own sources admit that it is a Hieronymous machine (even if they spell the name incorrectly). And the Hieronymous machine just doesn't work. It's just a pseduo-scientific gimmick that works off the same principles as dowsing - a subconscious reaction from the mind of the operator.On to the mummies - as the page you quoted points out the identification of the mummy of Tuthmosis IV is more certain than that of Amenhotep II.Page Not Found | The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago"...the Thutmose IV mummy is one of the better identified ones, with dockets inscribed both on his mummy and coffin." - looks like that mummy was probably in the proper coffin after all. The dockets match.
And the two schems which reassign that mummy reidentify the mummy previously thought to be Amenhotep II to Tuthmosis IV and have no mummy for Amenhotep II.As for the co-regency you completely fail to understand the problem.
THe issue as I have said is why would Tuthmosis II reigning as co-regent under Amenhotep I ALSO have a another co-regent ? That IS your hypothesis. Moreover you have produced no evidence for the identification of Senmut as Tuthmosis II.Your answer to 4 is inadequate - since the context has been lost there is no indication as to what is being discussed. If we go back to the post in question we see that you had admitted that the evidence was compatible with the convnetional view and therefore cannot support Wyatt's hypothesis over that view
http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEOYour answer to 5 is in error. Aside from the need for support for your interpretation of the name there is more evidence. Hatshepsut is depicted as Pharoah. Hatshepsut identified herself as the daughter of Amun, born to be King as Deir El-Bahri. We have her cartouche givng her Horus name as well as her Throne name and identifying her as Pharoah http://www.bediz.com/hatshep/cartouche.htmlClaiming that a woman could not be Pharoah explains why Hatshepsut was often depicted as male - but adhering to it as an absolute is contradicted by the evdence that she was called Pharoah and took the names and titles of a Pharoah and claimed that her father named her as heir.6) If you are forced to "crunch" the reigns together so much the worse for your hypothesis. We are still awaiting any significant evidence on that front.7) The schemes presented are explicitly identifications of the mummies. And all of them contradicted your hypothesis. You don't have good evidence for your scenario at all here.8) The block statue of Senmut without Nefure lists Senmut's titles - it cannot be of Nefure. YOu can clearly see that it is heavily inscribed.
http://www.maat-ka-ra.de/...h/personen/senenmut/sen_karr.htmThe second of the two statues of Hatshepsut is more clearly feminine than the other (we can see an "hour-glass" figure, unlike the stautes of Senmut) - but both appear more so than the statues of Senmut
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/18d.htmAs for the final statue although the name has been erased that does not meen that the identification as Senmut rather than Nefure is in doubt. There is more to the inscription as can clearly be seen.11) Here you are again appealing to uncertainty as evidence FOR your view. But the fact is that so far the evidence against your view is of better quality than that you have offered.As to the inscription at Deir El-Bahri it has NOT been established that the translation is confused nor that the reading you offered has any validity. I can find no source that suggests that the child is anyone other than Hatshepsut herself.And I really can't beleivthat you are trying to dismiss the fact that the child is identified as a daughter with "So just because she has a daughter means she does not have a son? " There's only one child in the mural so if that child is a daughter named Hatshepsut it is not an unnamed son.And if you didn't notice that all the sites I referred to were talking about the same mural that you are referring to - well you need to do a bit more research.Well that leaves uis with your refusal to support your claim that Egyptian women changed their names in the way you said they did. Surely you must see that if you cannot we should accept that they are different women ? Especially as you have no other evidence and the evidence already produced supports Tuthmosis I as succeeding Amenhotep I directly contrary to Wyatt's hypothesis.Finally you did indeed use the phrase "compelling evidence" in regard to the Exodus - and what I said is still true.

I've already provided a reference - the Hieronymous (or Hieronymus) machine is a joke. It "works" without the circuitry - to the point where "Hieronymous machine" is even used as a term for "mockups of real machines which worked by analogy, being directed by psi" ("worked" should be in inverted commas...) Page not found – Web Dictionary
http://www.gocs1.com/Psionics/Hieronymous-Pattern.htm
The last few paragrahs of this page comment on the Hieronymous machine:
Martin Gardner Evaluates Dianetics
Here are some relevant extracts

quote:

---

...It tells how
to build a Hieronymous machine, patented in 1949 by one Thomas G. Hieronymous, at that time a resident of Kansas City, Mo., and tested with positive results by "nuclear physicist" (see above) Campbell. The machine was designed by the inventor to analyze the "eloptic radiation" of minerals, a new type of radiation discovered by Hieronymous. Among electronic engineers, Hieronymous' patent (No. 2,482,773) is passed around for laughs, and considered in a class with Socrates Scholfield's famous patent of 1914 (No.1,087,186), consisting of two intertwined helices for demonstrating the existence of God.

​

...Hieronymous claimed that his detector
worked on photographs of minerals. Campbell hasn't bothered to test that. Nevertheless, the machine Campbell built did detect something "not detectable by any standard form of meter," and he knows there is no "jiggery-poker" because he constructed the thing himself.

​

...In a lecture on psionics at the New York Science Fiction Convention, 1956, Campbell displayed his second and "more precise" version of the Hieronymous machine. It works just as well, he claimed, without the electric power supply. But it won't work, he added, if there is a burned-out vacuum tube!...Campbell solemnly informed his audience that
the machine does not work well with either scientists or mystics. Five mystics tried it, he stated, and got only random responses.

---

On to mummies - you misrepresent the article. As I have already pointed out, none of the alternate schemes accept that the mummy identified as Amenhotep II really is that of Amenhotep II. And Tuthmosis IV is not singles out as being one of the better identified "Tuthmosis" mummies - it is one of the better identified mummies full stop. Don't try to mislead by adding in qualifiers that are not in the article.And I'm certainly not suggesting that the fact that Wente's conclusions contradict Wyatt's in any way changes the evidence. It does show that the evidence is very far from offering significant support for Wyatt's claims. And it is on the basis of cranio-facial evidence that Wente rejects the identification of the Amenhotep II mummy
Page Not Found | The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago

quote:

---

The mummy that caused me the most consternation is that considered to be Amenhotep II's. Jim's conclusion was that his craniofacial morphology does not suit his being the son of Thutmose III and father of Thutmose IV, both of which Amenhotep II should be on the basis of textual evidence.

---

Let me note that the mummy had been removed at some point and later rewrapped and returned - or perhaps not. It is the restorers of the mummy who wrote the name on the shroud and who placed the mummy in Amenhotep II's coffin. If they made a mistake then all the evidence identifying the mummoy as that of Amenhotep II follows from that mistake.On Hatshepsut your claim that the Egyptians would not accept a female as Pharoah is contradicted by the evidence that Hatshepsute identified herself as the Pharoah and as her father's heir to the kingship. Repeating your opinion does not make that evidence go away.On to the numbered points6) If you cannot understand that the need for extra assumptions - which have significant evidence against them and none for them - weakness your case then you neither understand science nor rational argumentAnd no, I do not have to shoehorn the reigns into the period you want I'll just stick with the standard view and reject your datings, thank you very much. It's your problem, not mine.7) I suggest that you reread the article and cease to misrepresent it.8) You respond to my comments on the first two links with a comment on the third ! And you chose to "remind" me of your comment on that statue without addressing (or even quoting) my response to it.And you presume to say "I see you do not read my material carefully" - when you yourself omit the fact that you commented all three links and I provided responses to the comments on all three links. The fact that you choose to quote only my responses on the first two - and only your comment on the third and last hardly indicate that it is my reading that is at fault.10) The context was my pointing out that you need to provide evidnece for your view. Your response was to imply that there was no evidence supporting any view11) You are still badly confused about the mural at Deir El-Bahri. We are talking about a single mural dealing with the conception and birth of a single child. That child is identified as a daughter and is named Hatshepsut. We are not talking about two separate inscriptions.12) Your claim about EEyptian women chanigng their names is in relation to the mothers of Amenhotep I and Tuthmosis I who if Wyatt's hypothesis is correct must be the same woman since the two Kings are supposedly the same person. I'm not even asking for evidence that they were the same woman - but if you are going to dismiss the differnet names as evidence the least you need to do is offer evidence to make that dismissal plausible.And there doesn't have to be any crunching. Your hypothesis needs it. That doesn't mean that anybody else does.