"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

Chariot wheel (3) — Faked wheel used in video (supposedly acknowledged as fake in the video, but presented as real on websites).

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.

Hold your horses, we DON'T require an essay, we require a table - it just require some very simple answers in a straightforward format.Item, test, who, result. item 2,test,who,result etc.Oh and this thread is about the exodus, any other finds should not be presented here.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-10-2004 04:52 AM

In case a few are getting excited about the coming 'Wonders of Egypt' scientific documentary in four parts (with a possibility of three more), read this and see how a really,really scientific approach should be done.
http://www.easystreetstudio.com/egypt/egypt.htm

I agree with Ned - just give us what you think is your strongest single piece (so we can make a start).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-10-2004 06:06 AM

quote:

---

This is feeble stuff! - the dog ate it!

---

And yet it happened, so what can we do about it?

quote:

---

Chariot wheel (3) — Faked wheel used in video (supposedly acknowledged as fake in the video, but presented as real on websites).

---

lol...the criticism keeps getting more decrepit and ill-learned everytime.

Hi Hydarnes,Hope you are well.Do you know if Ron took photos of the wheel before he took it to the Egyptian guy that died?Cheers.Brian.

I don't why you are addressing that to Brian - that quote is from me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trae

​

. . . the photos do not clearly show that (Jabal al Lawz) has been changed (recently "burnt"). It just at clearly may have always been that color. (parentheticals added)

---

I agree, Trae. This claim seems to be refuted by every geological survey of the area.". . . Geologists, who are familiar with the geology of the area, in which Cornuke and Halbrook (2000) claimed to have found Mt. Sinai, would certainly not regard their ideas about Jabal al Lawz being Mt. Sinai a "remarkable geological find." Rather, they would regard their interpretation that the top of Jabal al Lawz had been both melted and charred by any event during the last few thousand years to be a remarkable geological blunder on the part of Cornuke and HalbrookAny geologist looking at the pictures of Jabal al Lawz readily recognizes that the dark-colored rocks shown in the pictures of Jabal al Lawz shown at Bob Cornuke's web page are quite clearly roof pendants of darker-colored rocks intruded by younger, light-colored rocks. In fact if a person examines the published geological maps of the Jabal al Lawz, i.e. Bramkamp et al. (1963) and Trent and Johnson (1967), they would find that these geological maps confirm this interpretation. These maps show the bulk of Jabal al Lawz to be composed of light-colored granite and red or salmon granite. The dark-colored rocks comprising the summits are small areas mapped as (older) greenstone. These greenstone outcrops are roof pedants of older rocks that have been intruded by the red or salmon granite. North of this mountain are additional outcrops of older gabbro into which the granites have intruded."And again:"The descriptions of the units from youngest to oldest in the stratigraphic column within the in the Jabal al Lawz area as given by Bramkamp et al. (1963) are:"gm = Granite. Massive, light-colored calc- alkaline granite, mostly without large dikes, in large discordant stocks and batholiths on the flanks of Jabal al Lawz, Jabal Rawa, and Jabal ash Shati.gr = Granite. red or salmon, coarse-grained, commonly highly altered espcially in the mountains on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba; widely scattered throught the Underlying granite and granodiorite and cut by many dikes of basalt, rhyolite, and diabase. (This unit intrudes an older granite and granodiorite, unit gg in places).gb = Gabbro. In stocks and sills associated with the greenstone. Some basic intrusives may be younger than the granite and granodiorite unit, gg.gd = Greenstone. Diabase, andesite, and basalt; mostly flows, somewhat metamorphosed to greenschist facies, locally to amphibolite."The greenstone (gd) overlies older folded calcareous and siliceous schist and slate Silasia formation elsewhere in the area. Bramkamp et al. (1963) regards these rock units to be Pre-Cambrian age. It is intruded by the red or salmon (gr) and preserved as roof pendants as observed by both Bramkamp et al. (1963) and Trent and Johnson (1967)."Thus, the darker colored rock at the top of Jabal al Lawz are classic roof pendants. This same geological formation is demonstrated in the picture reproduced in my post # 254. Incidentally Trae, this mountain is not too far away from you. It is just north of Interstate Highway 40 at a point just west of South Pass and Needles, California and due south of the community of Goff, California. It demonstrates the same roof pendant formation as does Jabal al Lawz. In fact, the geological formation is so similar that most simply assumed that it was Jabal al Lawz in a lighter exposure."(Thus), essentially, direct observations by both "secular" and religious geologists of the Jabal al Lawz region readily refute the argument by Cornuke and Halbrook (2000) that the top of Jabal al Lawz has been either charred or recently melted. If the rocks on the summit of Jabal al Lawz look "melted" it is because they consist of metamorphosed lava and other extrusive igneous rocks called "greenstone", formed from the cooling of once molten rocks billions of years before the Israelites even existed. This "remarkable find" is actually a remarkable blunder on the part of people, who obviously didn't understand anything about the geology of the area that they were studying."This allegedly "burned" mountain-top, the date and origin of the glyphs, and most of the other "proofs" of the exodus origin of these artifacts has been called into question repeatedly. Yet, the argument still seems to go essentially like this:"We can't actually demonstrate that the Nuweiba site is the exodus crossing, but when taken in conjunction with the Jabal al Lawz site, the combined evidence is overwhelming . . .. . . well, no, we can't actually demonstrate that Jabal al Lawz is Mt. Sinai, but when taken in conjunction with the Nuweiba site the evidence is overwhelming . . .. . . well, no, we can't actually demonstrate that the Nuweiba site is the exodus crossing, but . . . ad infinitum, ad nauseum.At a personal level, I would have no problem with Jabal al Lawz being Mt. Sinai or with Nuweiba being the exodus crossing. But it has certainly not been demonstrated that they are.References: quoted, excerpted & cited:Paul Heinrich Author of: The South African SpheresTalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for December 2003Bramkamp, R. A., Brown, G. F., Holm, D. A., and Layne, N. M., Jr., 1963, Geologic Map of the Wadi As Sirhan Quadrangle Kingdom of Suadi Arabia. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-200A. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Scale: 1:250,000.Cornuke, B., and Halbrook, D., 2000, In Search of The Mountain of God. Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.Shelton, John S., 1966, Geology Illustrated. Freeman Press. San Francisco, California.Trent, Virgil A., and Johnson, Robert F., 1967, Geologic map of the Jabal al Lawz Quadrangle, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; U.S. Geol. Survey, Mineral Investigation Map MI-13, 1:100,000.http://www.ldolphin.org/sinai.htmlhomepages.mohave.edu/science/fieldtrip/marblemtnsAmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-10-2004 09:12 AM

Ah, yes, you've found a nice example of "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo."lfen

I just don't want post 330 to get lost in the back messages.

---

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

Hey Asgara, do you think we should be opening Part III soon?

I believe Percy has decided that we can safely go to 600. Our old stopping point was 300 and the first Exodus Video thread bombed at over 800, leaving us with just over 600 good posts. At the speed this thread has moved in the past I don't see it being too much longer before III is needed.Thanks for the concern though.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Well, there was nothing in Video I, so far nothing in Video II.Maybe it's about time to put this to bed for good.Them what believe in the video will continue to do so.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion