"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

quote:

---

You want to know which scientists with full blown credentials state that these are chariot wheels from the drowned Egyptian army at the Exodus crossing from the 18th dynasty, right? Your answer: None that I know of. However, it surprises me that you continue to be locked on this question, as I have answered this question in other various forms in the past. However, not one, NOT ONE full blown credentialed scientist has disputed these claims as proven falseeither. Only other non-credentialed archaeologists/scientists have disputed them.

---

Burden of proof is not on those attempting to disprove. At least now you'll have to stop saying, "Egyptologists are starting to agree!" As for the math, the investigation, and the coincidental remains, I still have to ask: how do we know those remains are there? We don't have maps. If they are there, how do we know that they aren't all over the place, not just in that straight line? We don't have maps. How can Moller/Wyatt Archaeology Inc. claim to be pursuing reputable archaeology while disregarding the most basic fundamentals of the field? We don't have maps.And, just so that you know for the future, if you ever plan on writing serious works regarding history or archaeology for college/whatnot, Paramount Pictures, 20/20, and Unsolved Mysteries are NOT credible sources nor are they reliable determinants of anything archaeological. Use the AIA or Zahi Hawass, not movie execs. If I try to make a claim about the Bible's authenticity, would you accept my use of the re-animated corpse of Nostradamus as a reliable source?

You're welcome, but you still didn't do it right. I'm talking about the "reply" button immediately below the post you're replying to. It has a little red arrow. When you click this button instead of the white one at the bottom of the page it makes links back to the original post. The white button at the bottom of the page does not.Use the button with the red arrow. Yours, as seen by the link at the bottom of my post. You can see it again in this post.AbE: Never mind, as I've been getting caught up on the thread I see you've caught on to the red arrow thing. Good job.But it would be nice, from my spectator point of view, if you could provide more sources in your posts. You're making a lot of claims that contradict others, but it's not yet clear why I should take your word over anybody else's. Some sources would help with that.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-28-2004 04:33 PM

Please see http://EvC Forum: Assistance w/ Forum Formatting for formating information and help.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

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

quote:

---

I just can't believe people have gone to 400+ posts on something that does not exist.

---

And it incenses me to no end how you keep ranting about something you know nothing about.

quote:

---

The fact that this has not been the biggest story on the planet (perhaps with the Iraq war) for 2 or 3 years tells anyone with common sense that it is a fraud.

---

That's a bald-faced assumption.

quote:

---

This would be about the biggest find in archeological history yet somehow nobody has bothered to bring these chariots to the surface.

---

Saudi law strictly prohibits any coral covered artifact from being removed.The question to be asked is: Why haven't more archaelogists been curious enough to actually go observe and evaluate for themselves what's at the bottom of Aqaba. No, instead everybody sits on their rear wondering why this isn't making constant headlines. Because obviously nobody has the nerve to get the ball rolling.In case you might have missed this, provided earlier by Lysimachus:Page not found - WNDI guess things are getting noticed by the film producers.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-28-2004 08:18 PM

Film producers????What's that mean to be evidence of?That's you will never go broke underestimating the stupidity of the public?

quote:

---

But it would be nice, from my spectator point of view, if you could provide more sources in your posts. You're making a lot of claims that contradict others, but it's not yet clear why I should take your word over anybody else's. Some sources would help with that.

---

And is completely understandable. Taking much of the information as granted knowledge should more or less account for why I haven't supplied sources in greater abundance. The lack of on-hand sources for the plethora of information that I'm constantly encountering is another reason for the absence of direct links.If there is anything you would like a source for from what you have read, please let me know and I will be happy to provide you with them as best I can.In any event, thank you for your assistance and help.

It doesn't mean a hoot. I only decided to re-mention it because apparently Eta believes that some sort of authority is associated with that ilk of information.

quote:

---

That's you will never go broke underestimating the stupidity of the public?

---

Nice, I like it.

That's based on a proper quote - anyone remember it?

*Ooops...sorry folks, this is Lysimachus. I did not realize Hydarnes had been logged on this other networked computer, and when I posted, I assumed I had been logged in*This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-28-2004 11:45 PM

PaulK

quote:

---

I am sorry to inform you that Lysimachus HAS touted this idea as fact - and HAS produced spurious "evidence" to support it. An obvious examples have been the "unique" alternation of names found in the 18th Dynasty Pharoahs - which is easily seen to be non-unique just by examining the list of Pharoahs he provided as evidence. Then there is is claim that the "Dream Stele" supported his case which relied on identifying the Throne Name as the nomen. Then there is the misrepresentation of the "birth myth" of Hatshepsut.

​

Moreover Lysimachus has rejected contrary evidence out of hand, The best answer we get is to point to uncertainties (which somehow don't matter when he is making claims).

​

Moreover he has not produced anything close to adequate evidence.

​

I was not asking a leading question - I was pointing out plain facts and requesting an explanation.

​

I have to say that I do not find an assertion on arkdiscovery.com that there is evidence convincing in the light of these facts.

​

Nor do I find the claim concerning the "principle God" convincing. It seems that repeating names was quite common within a Dynasty. On Wyatt's hypothesis we could reasonably expect Ahmose, Hatshepsut and Tutankhamun to adopt the Amenhotep title - but they did not.

​

Now I've already done some investigation and found evidence contradicting Wyatt's hypothesis. And none supporting it. If you can name reasonably accessible sources that support Wyatt's claim even in part then I am prepared to go further.

​

On the basis of what I have seen the scenario is very far-fetched and can be dismissed without any hypocrisy.

---

I find it rather shameful that you have been severely lacking in comprehension level, for if you will go back to near the beginnings of this thread, the word hypothesis has been repeated on a number of accounts throughout this thread. I have thoroughly provided reasons as to why the Thutmosis/Amenhotep scenario seems to fit, and you have ignored everyone of them. This has all been based on various scenarios and dating procedures that fit into the Exodus account, yet in many respects still holds merit as it holds no less errors than all the hypotheses proposed by traditional Egyptologists. We believe we have nailed only the mummies of Amenhotep I and Amenhotep II with 100% certainty, and the rest are extremely debatable based on X-ray analysis. This leads us to question whether there is such thing as a mummy of a Thutmosis, since if Thutmosis I became Amenhotep I, then obviously there would be no mummy for him. Next we see an extremely short reign of Thutmosis II, and we have evidence that Hatshepsut co-ruled with both Thutmosis II and III. Seeing that Thutmosis II was cut so abruptly, it seems to indicate that Thutmosis III took the place of the male heir co-regent, since Thutmosis II vanished (according to Egyptologists, died). Then we have evidence that Thutmosis III chiseled out inscriptions of Hatshepsut (possibly due to the relationship between her and Thutmosis II, Moses). But what takes place after Thutmosis III’s reign is rather queer, as the so-called successor Amenhotep II continues on the EXACT same premiseschiseling out the Hatshepsut’s names and continuing the EXACT same conquest as that of his assumed father, Thutmosis III. Another thing to note is that when you connect the reigns of the Amenhotep’s and Thutmosis’, the Thutmosis and Amenhotep that ruled subsequently to one another (which ever direction you want to go) never both had long reigns. We have either a case scenario where Thutmosis ruled for some short years and Amenhotep ruling long years, or the reverse. This seems to indicate some sort of segment within the big house (Pero). Various scenarios all over sources seem to question the successions between the Thutmosis’ and Amenhotep’s, as indicated quite elaborately by Edward F. Wente, Professor, The Oriental Institute, of which presents various schemes of the 18th dynasty successions based on the enormous amount of confusion and contention that persists in identifying the mummies:Page Not Found | The Oriental Institute of the University of ChicagoThe list goes on in quite length, but at this point I will end by stating that we now have evidence that there was an adoption involved with both Senmut (most likely the son of Nefure, NOT the other way around, as it completely defies Egyptian tradition of a mother nursing her son, plus the fact that the person holding the child is clearly a face of that of a woman, not a male. But Egyptologists in my opinion got it backwards) and with that of the child of Hatshepsut, as we have numerous inscriptions of a child growing up beside Hatshepsut. We see a long wall at Deir-El Bahir illustrating how Hatshepsut touches the hand of a god (=sexual relation). The next illustration shows her being pregnant, followed by a series of illustrations of a small boy growing up to become a teenager. This is according got the tradition to explain an adoption. Our hypothesis is that Hatshepsut’s son could have been Moses.Lucy

quote:

---

Of course I saw it was from the Cairo Museum, but I meant was, which pharaoh is it representing! The name on the left seem to represent Thutmosis, but I can see no feature that specifies which Thutmosis.
About the picture. Although it does show 4 and 8 spokes being used simultaneously, it doesn't show they were used by the same people.
The 4 spoked wheels are fleeing from the pharaoh who's crushing them with his superior 8 spokes chariot.
It looks like a propaganda drawing, showing an opponent who is technically inferior to the Egyptians, crushed by the Pharaoh.

---

Even if Pharaoh was chasing down the enemy (with 4 spoked chariot wheels), this argument is immaterial. The fact is, this inscription is given with an 8 spoke wheel of Thutmosis IV, and inscriptions elsewhere depict ones of 4 spokes during his reign. This is substantiated by the facts presented in the numerous sources I provided earlier regarding the evolving chariot wheels and Egyptian travel. You prefer to hear from the credentials scholars, do you not? Now that we give you them, this is when you seem to dismiss them in favor of your own theory that the 8 spoked wheel of the Pharaoh is representative to that of ‘power’ over his foes. As I can see, flip flopping is convenient when the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise, does it not?

---

~Lysimachus

Since you've regularly detracted your opponents as "ignorant" and their positions as "rubbish", you'll pardon me if I have a hard time believing that you think these things are "general knowledge".Now, I'm not one to write somebody off right away, but you're starting to look like you're either hoping no one calls you on your assertions, or else you don't hold your audience in enough regard to believe that they should do anything but accept your word as gospel. Well, ok, why don't you start with the names and credentials of the people whose information you're relying on, or the sources from which you were able to come to these conclusions. If you yourself have done the research you could give us the journal issues and volumes in which your research appears.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-29-2004 12:37 AM

quote:

---

The question to be asked is: Why haven't more archaelogists been curious enough to actually go observe and evaluate for themselves what's at the bottom of Aqaba. No, instead everybody sits on their rear wondering why this isn't making constant headlines. Because obviously nobody has the nerve to get the ball rolling.

---

Who would want to, though? 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) Wyatt's associates have a history of witholding vital evidence from the scientific community B) Have a history of using extremely questionable, if not outright laughable techniques (the divining rod) C) 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.Wow.

There's still more to it.If the wheels are there, there is still nothing that would connect them with the Exodus rather than any of the hundreds of campaigns over about a thousand years that took place in that general area.If the bones are there and authentic, there is still nothing to connect them with the Exodus.The reason folk are not running off shouting about these alleged discoveries is that even if true, they don't offer any connection to the Exodus.

There is simply no evidence that what has been alleged to have been found has any connection whatsoever with the Biblical Exodus.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well for a start you've insisted in the past that I qualify any claims coming from mainstream sources as being less than fact. If you fail to do so - as you have often done - then I am simply applying your own standard to your words.As for your "evidence" I notice that you are still refusing to deal with the fact that some of you "evidence" turned out to be false.TO deal with the specific issues: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.2) Short reign of Thutmosis II. So he had a short reign ? How does THAT prove that Thutmosis was a title ?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.4) We know that someone chiselled out any of Hatshepsut's inscriptions although it is not certain if Thutmosis III was actually responsible. But there are obvious reasons for doing so - she effectively usurped the throne from the young Thutmosis III, and presented herself as Pharoah.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 behaviour6) 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.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".8) You have NO evidence that Senmut was adopted.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.10) You will have to give clear references to these inscriptions of a child growing up alongside Hatshepsut not least because of the repeated confusion between Hatshepsut and her daughter Nefure11) 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.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 haveMeanwhile you continue to ignore the stronger contrary evidnece that has been brought up such as the evidence that Thutmosis I and Amenhotep I had different mothers and that Thutmosis I succeeded Amenhotep I - both directly contrary to Wyatt's hypothesis.

.....was proof of 4 and 8 spoke wheels during the reign of Thutmosis III.
Again you give me evidence concerning Thutmosis IV.Futhermore, if this was a picture of Thutmosis III, then it is not proving that the Egyptians had 4 spoke wheels during their time (although I admitt that others pictures did, but this is not proving 4 and 8 in one picture, belonging to the Egyptians). It only proves that both wheeltypes existed, not that the Egyptians had them.This wheel debate is getting us nowhere.
All I would like to know now is one question which hasn't been answered yet.
How could the Pharaoh have horses when the livestock plague apparently killed them all?LucyThis message has been edited by Prince Lucianus, 07-29-2004 06:08 AM

---

Bible
Search Results
"Death & Dead" were found 827 times in 751 verses.Thats a Whole Lotta Suffering"Dear God, I understand that if I fail to believe in you, I'll burn in Hell for all eternity. Thanks for being such a good sport about it." -- Dr. Oswald Pratt