We've already got reports that the "spokes" of the coral formation wheels (if they are wheels) were or included metal (positive metal detector readings) and of rust being associated with the remains coming from the Wyatt camp. But 1446 BC is too early for extensive use of iron and Egyptian chariots didn't use much metal. Small amounts of iron had been available to the Egyptians for a long time but we should not be seeing much, if any, at an 18th Dynasty site.
We really do need better evidence of the date than counting the number of spokes a coral formation appears to have.
"Iron was first employed as a technology of war about 1300 B.C. by the Hittites. Within a hundred years the secret of iron making and cold forging had spread at least to Palestine and Egypt and, perhaps, to Mesopotamia as well."
Just finished re-reading both threads (yes,I know, I`ve got to get a life). The Video pushers keep repeating that the 'wheels' can`t be disturbed because the wood has completely rotted away, replaced by coral. So they have to be examined in situ. The question is (drum roll)just what did Honest Ron present to Hassan, Director of Antiquities so he could identify it at a glance? Did he show a hunk of coral? A wood wheel that escaped the ravages? How does one lift a fragile wheel-shaped section of reef? Maybe it was fossilised?
If you can access the Cornuke/Williams expedition as described in Howard Blum`s Gold of Exodus, look at the black and white photos of Jabal al Lawz. Same lightish colour from the bottom to the top. No blackened crest.
I agree we are going on for 1000 posts and still have not see a shread of evidence - what do we do wait till 3000? 5000?
To say there's not a shread of evidence, Charles, proves that no amount of evidence would make a bit of difference to you. Your mind is set and made up. The majority of your input is hollering for more evidence all the while the evidence is being presented. No, it's not all proved, but neither is the alleged evidence for evolution proved. This's why nobody cares to debate you. It's a futility trip.
What are the differences that make it "obvious" to you? If you put two samples in front of me, how can I tell the difference between rock that appears to have been eroded or preformed with a split and one that is a one time solid boulder split down the middel thousands of years ago?
The shape of the boulder, position of the split and appearance of a split rather than erosion.
What is this "obvious" water flow evidence?
What does it look like, what are it's typical characteristics, does it appear anywhere else in the world, etc.?
It looks like a waterflow little dry creek bed of sorts. It is mainly significant because of the wheels and other corroborating evidence pertaining to the Biblical record. If it existed elsewhere it would be unique, but especially here because of it's significance. This has been covered elsewhere so please don't bug me for more on it. Get the video if you want more.
As for post 90's yada I see nothing in it of significance that has not been covered.
quote:We will also be providing data that will analyze the blackened peak on Jebel Al Lawz, and how we believe it cannot be volcanic, yet burnt by severe temperatures. All the negative articles in the world arn't going to make a dent on the overall picture. We have to weigh the facts.
Actually, I'm still in the middle of researching the subject (another reason why it's taking me so long to get back to this thread), as I don't know enough about petrology to be able to just make assertions. But the evidence so far is indicating that nobody is being able to explain Maqla in completely natural terms.
This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-11-2004 08:32 AM
On diving down to the sea bed, in 1978, Ron Wyatt and his two sons found and photographed numerous coral encrusted chariot parts. Several dives since then have revealed more and more evidence. One of his finds included an eight spoke chariot wheel, which Ron took to the director of Egyptian Antiquities, Dr. Nassif Mohammed Hassan. After examining it he immediately announced it to be of the eighteenth dynasty, dating the exodus to 1446 BC. When asked how he knew this Dr. Hassan explained that the eight spoke wheel was only used during this period, the time of Ramases II and Tutmoses (Moses).
One thing that I would like to know here, as the structure of the paragraph is a bit ambiguous, is who said that the 18th dynasty was the period of Rameses II and Tutmoses (sic)? It looks as if Hassan said the wheel was only used during the eighteenth dynasty, but to place Rameses II into the eighteenth dynasty alongside any of the Thutmosis’ is a schoolboy error that I don’t think someone in Hassan’s position would make. Perhaps it is just the way the sentence is structured, and Hassan said it was a 18th Dynasty wheel, and the info about Rameses II and Tutmoses is an addition by the good folks at wyattarchaeology. But, I find it extremely difficult to believe that Hassan could have said the final part of that sentence, anyone with the faintest clue about Ancient Egypt knows that Rameses II was a 19th Dynasty pharaoh.
Anyway, the conflicting information about what Ron took to Hassan is at this website:
She (Ron’s wife) cites Ron's discovery of a wheel hub that he brought to the surface in the late 1970s as proof. The hub had the remains of eight spokes radiating outward and was examined by Nassif Mohammed Hassan, director of Antiquities in Cairo. Hassan declared it to be from the 18th Dynasty of ancient Egypt, explaining the eight-spoked wheel was used only during that dynasty around 1400 B.C.
Curiously, no one can account for the precise whereabouts of that eight-spoked wheel today, though Hassan is on videotape stating his conclusion regarding authenticity.
Apparently, Ron only took a wheel HUB to Hassan and not the entire wheel as claimed by Wyattarchaeology. Note that Hassan has now dated the wheel to 1400 BCE.
But, not only is there no sign of the wheel, or the hub, poor old Hassan is dead as well. But, there’s allegedly some footage taken by Ron of Hassan’s testimony, which is useful as all Wyatt’s friends have to do is to show the film footage to a few Egyptologists and they can verify it for them, Hassan’s testimony is not needed.
Finally, perhaps there are some photos of the wheel/wheel hub available for these experts to examine, I mean Ron wouldn’t have taken the wheel/wheel hub out of the sea and went straight to Hassan without taking a great many pictures of it would he?
We know that Ron wasn’t the sharpest tack in the box, but surely he wouldn’t be stupid enough not to take as many precautions as he could just in case something happened to the artefact. Taking photos of and drawing a picture of a find is one of the first things an archaeologist would do, didn’t anyone tell Ron that at nursing college?
There may be a way to harmonise this conflict, for example, the wyattarchaeology site may be calling the partial wheel find a 'wheel', when they should really say that it was was 'part of a wheel'.
PS, is it me, or does anyone else hear the distant 'clip clop' of a Gish Gallop that will arrive shortly?
Recently I've been researching up on the blackened peak for jabal al lawz and the apparently similar california mountain. Seeing I'm no connoisseur at geology or rocks. This has also contributed to the delay with responding here.
Thank you for your civility, btw. The ideological and insultive accusations (inherent in your first post on this thread) notwithstanding,....but I will be posting a reply as soon as I can.
No need to worry yourself, I WILL be addressing it.
But I think its wise to research a subject before making blind assertions, something you seem either incapable or unwilling to do yourself (an exhibition of almost the entirety of your contribution to this thread).