"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

quote:

---

Moller said he has travelled a lot, he said he'd been to 60 countries -- he described how difficult it was to dive in the Gulf of Aqaba (as anyone who has been there will tell you)

---

Again what does this mean? Looks pretty easy to go diving there.Google Aqaba dive 4,930 hits.Here’s just one.II. NuweibaNuweiba is about 185 km north of Sharm El Sheikh and nestles between the deep blue of the Gulf of Aqaba and the high desert mountains of the Sinai. Nuweiba is a quiet getaway famous for its magnificent beaches and offers easy access to the cultural sites of St Catherine’s Monastery and Petra in Jordan, also just 80 km away to the north is the busy seaside resort of Eilat, Israel. The diving in the area runs from Devils Head and in the north to Abu Gallum in the south and is mainly accessed from the shore by jeep or even camel due the lack of jetty facilities or safe anchorages for boats. Page Not Found - Emperor DiversOrAs a beautiful and relaxed diving holiday destination, Nuweiba will appeal to those looking for calm away from the crowds and a return to the virgin face of the Red Sea. http://www.goredsea.com/EN_nuweibadiving.aspxIs this a chariot wheel? Sure you’ll probably say no, I would, but what if it were shot from the other side?http://www.goredsea.com/.../Large/Ulysses-1-Stoll-Kefrig.jpg

So, the Red Sea Crossing site happens to be a big resort destination in the middle east known for it's beaches and DIVING.Yet, only Wyatt sees chariott wheeles?

Wow, all those holiday dive locations listed online look really fun. Maybe the Wyatt/Moller bunch and get together long enough to tell us what popular dive location at Nuweiba is closest to all their evidence.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

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.

quote:

---

jar, how about just posting the instructions of how to post pics on the forum so I can do it myself?

---

Simplest way might be to post them on your own web site and then use the image tag.

< img src="http://www.arkdiscovery.com/exwheel3.JPG" alt="Chariot Wheel" >

Here is why in part this is just a mess. Are these two shots of the same wheel or of different wheels? If you have an answer, how do you know conclusively it correct?Why is the coral in different positions in both of the shots? If both of these shots were of the same wheel, even if taken a few years apart, then it would not seem reasonable that both lumps of coral were natural growths on the wheel.There is an additional point of interest in the clearer image (the top one of the pair, odd that the clearer the evidence the easier it is to find fault with the wheels). Here the shape is clearly three-dimensional. See how the darker sides extend a geometrical pattern (depth), at least on the inner facing surfaces, even as the surrounding sands are uneven in places. The object clearly has depth to its shape.The very darkness of the sides is curious, if there were no light source and we are only seeing the ambient light, we would expect the sides to match or nearly match in hue, tone, and reflections that of the top surface of the wheel. Oddly, we have some specular highlights, suggesting a light source from above and either to the front or angled from what would be SW to NE on a compass. That neither the light source nor the ambient light illuminates any of the seven various side (depth) surfaces is very odd.In the other thread, Hydarnes indicated that the spokes taper and offered some drawings to support his claim. While in the second image you can be lead to believe that the spokes taper, I suggest that is due more to camera angle, the way the light is playing over the spokes, and the obfuscation of the wheel. Looking at the clearer top wheel any tapering would seem to be insignificant.Looking at the upper-right corner of the wheel, the space between the top of the ‘wheel’ and sand indicates the wheel being wider than the hole in the presumed hub.We are still faced with the implausibility of a fragile hollow gold shell of a wheel showing no signs of wear, trauma, or warping. Even after coral moves over its surface or was placed on top of it.Does anyone familiar with ancient Egypt even want to address the likelihood of the use of this much ‘gold’ to produce such an obviously plain object? There might be fine traceries, but how much of personal decoration was limited to traceries or etching? All in all this looks exceedingly modern. Note the beveled edges, is that supported by any found Egyptian artifacts?

quote:

---

I think we'll find LOTS of people who will want to particpate in a serious, honest discussion of the evidence --

---

Hard to have an honest discussion about anything when the evidence is withheld. Where is report on the bone found? Where is a Cairo Antiquites’ statement on the wheel? Where is a lab report on Christ’s blood? Where are the formal findings or even emails from any of the dozens of scientists supporting these claims? Etc. Etc. Etc.

quote:

---

What we found out later was that ice fracturing had taken its effect upon lots of the petrified wood in the structure -- "ice fracturing" is when rain water seeps into the petrified wood and FREEZES, thereby fracturing everything into tiny pieces!

​

That is clearly what happened to the rib timbers that we photographed along one side of the formation -- the wood is GONE, and you just have the remains of the fractured stone left in its place.

​

This is "science" happening to a 4,500 year old wooden boat structure, something that you repeatedly say we don't deal with.

​

But we deal with it just fine, and have been doing so for years.

​

Isn't it interesting how the critics always post their criticisms, but they hardly ever acknowledge our answers to their criticisms? And then YOU come along 10-15 years later and read their stupid comments and you start thinking that they are current on-going "honest" criticisms -- when they are nothing but extremely dishonest web postings made by very dishonest people!

---

You’re honestly trying to tell us that this boat lasted for over 4000 years then ice came in and wiped out the evidence, but only did so within the last 30 years and only after you photographed them? If all this petrified wood just disappeared, how is there evidence of nails, brackets, and other metalwork (since the material holding them would have disappeared as well)?They are current honest criticisms. If they had been addressed properly then you might have a valid point, but as long as the material is never presented properly and with its criticisms, as long as the same material continues to be presented without those corrections, then everyone who comes after should point out every mistake in the methodology they can find. You don’t like what they have to say, then clean your own home. The fault lies not with your critics.

quote:

---

And people like Lennart Moller decided that the evidence was convincing enough that they chose to do MORE WORK on the various sites -- because in the long run, unless somebody does the work, NOBODY learns the Truth -- so while people here like Charles want to criticize the evidence, it would be nice to hear them compliment Ron and Lennart for MAKING THE EFFORT TO DO THIS WORK, you know?

---

What exactly if anything new has Moller come up with other than testing a bone? It really does seem like he is only parroting known information, what is he bringing to the table that is new?[Fixed typo]This message has been edited by Trae, 08-09-2004 05:02 AM

quote:

---

Btw, have you read the book?

---

I did flip though it, it seemed to me tailored to convince believers and those who do not understand science or evidence.

Ah yes - I'm a fool for asking to know what tests have been conducted, but thanks for giving the game away - "no lab tests have been conducted". It sums up your attitude to science that you think that a picture and video footage prove anything.

Indeed I can Paul, but let's face it, they are just trying the standard creationist tactic of attacking the man. It's like water off a duck's back to me, most creationists revert to type once their "evidence" has seen the light of day.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-09-2004 09:34 AM

Hi Charles,There's no lab tests been done and these guys wonder why real archaeologists and bible scholars are not interested at all in this 'evidence'?Man, it must be so easy to make a lot of money out of some Christians.This stuff has been touted for 25 years, if it had any substance it would have been strongly argued for by Christian archaeologists within the first year or two, no professional (Christian or other)involved in archaeology or theology is interested in this at all.I, for one, am extremely bored and would love to debate the Exodus from Egypt in a thread where primary sources are cited, academic quality books and journals are cited, and the participants have a good background knowledge of the sunject. The Wyatt/Moller?Mickey Mouse Aqabah proposal is mindblowingly guff.Brian.

Trae wrote: "As the curator for a/the Wyatt Museum how is it possible that you’re not qualified to undertake a debate? You gave tours and spoke on the finds, did you not?"I worked directly with Ron Wyatt and managed the museum from 1994 until 1996. That was 8 years ago.I never worked with Lennart Moller, or any of the people in Australia who did the most recent work on the crossing site -- so, yes, I have been "out of the loop" regarding their work, all I have access to is what they have published and posted on their websites.If you folks want to know information that has not been included in Moller's book or video, then you would have to ask him about it.That's just common sense, guys.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trae

​

What do you have to show anyone that the entire top is burned black of the mountain?

---

Hi Trae,They have a picture. But it is well known that this mountaintop is not "burned black". Its appearance is due to a well known geological effect.Amodhi

quote:

---

We fully expect people to offer alternative interpretations -- that is normal and acceptible -- but at the same time there is a point reached when the alternative ideas are just being STUBBORN and FOOLISH DIVERSIONS that are nothing but persistent sorry attempts at disagreeing!

---

You don't understand.I am wondering where are the possible alternative explanations which the researchers present themselves in their reporting of their research?This is SOP in real science. In real scientific papers, the scientists bend over backwards, within the paper itself, to explain what all of the problems with their hypothesis are, and how they could be wrong, and how other research contradicts theirs, and what further research needs to be done.Where have these researchers done this? What are the probelms they have identified with their theory? What other research contradicts theirs?If this is absent from their report, it is highly likely that they are not performing a scientific investigation.It is highly likely they are just "finding" what they wanted to find, even if it isn't there.