"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

Yawn., The fact is that you DID twist my words and you got caught. I on the ohter hand have not twisted yours in any similar way. Hopw then can I be "playing psychpology on myself" ? Of course I can't.As for your previus comments you may "scream inside" whenever you encounter someone who dares to criticise Wyatt but thats your problem. I stand by all the points I raised.(Just for your information Martin Gardner states that electronic engineers pass around the patent for the Hieronymous device "for laughs". John Campbell built such a device and found that it "worked" - and it sill "worked" when he followed a suggestion that he remove the components and replace them with a circuit diagram [_The New Apocrypha_, Sladek 1974] Page not found - Anchor Stone International . Looks like you have - as usual - failed to do YOUR research).

Since I've been given to understand that you have a reasonable knowledge of Egyptian history perhaps you can explain something:Why are the arguments for the idea that Tuthmosis and Amenhotep titles at best based on questionable interpretations of evidence and at worst completely spurious ? Why is the contrary evidence ignored ? If there is adequate evidence to support it, why has it not been produced ?

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 tobe 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 false either. Only other non-credentialed archaeologists/scientists have disputed them.

---

i.e. no experts have commented at all. Well we have to ask why not ? Is it because neither Moller nor Wyatt have submitted their finds to a thorough examination by the experts ? It certainly is no reason to assume that Wyatt's and Moller's claims should be accepted at face value - and the less so when even amateurs can find serious problems in some of their claims.

quote:

---

We have done our job to show you that there are historical documents out there that recorded an event. These historical documents have been assembled into one big book called the "Bible".

---

Well I'm afraid that you've done a very poor job. The evidence provided is weak at best. Some of it turned out to be false -when subjected to basic checks. Why we should place more faith in evidence we have less opportunity to check is something you have yet to address.

quote:

---

What is rather breathtaking about all of this is that why would coincidentally chariot wheels, twisted wreckage, human, horse, and cattle bones be found lieing right on this underwater scrapeyard between the two columns? There can only be one answer. These arethe archaeological remains of an event of which this certain particular historical document (do you remember that one document I mentioned?)recorded. Noneother.

---

Given that it has yet to be confirmed that much of the "wreckage" is "wreckage" and there is no firm datign evidence for much of it I have to disagree. Concluding that all these things - even if genuine - come from a single event is completely unwarranted. For the human remains, alone - do you really beleive that nobody drowned near there in the last three thousand years ? Because without that assumption there is no evidence to link any human remains to the Exodus unless and until the bones are properly dated to that period.

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.

According to my reading Amenhotep III's greatness was in building monuments - not conquest. He mainly kept the armies home in Egypt. The ebb in Egypt's military started there. Akenaten had internal problems in his conflict with the priests of Amun and moving the capital to Amarna.

The military action in Nubia was early in the reign of Amenhotep III. Later in his reign Egypt was at peace.It is entirely possible that Akenaten was not concerned with the internal squabbles of the petty Canaanite kings being more concerned with affairs internal to the administration of Egypt. The Empire itself was not in danger - only a small part of it, if any.

No, the "petty squabbles" come from reading some of the Amarna letters, which are the only source so far which has been referred to in this thread. They show Canaanite rulers fighting each other and blaming each other while proclaiming loyalty to Egypt. No specific evidence of anything more has bene produced in this thread.We both know that you have no direct evidence for the conclusion you are trying to work towards. Nor do you have a good explanation for the absence of such evidence.

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.

I haven't time to check it out now but I beleive that Tyldesly rejects the idea that Thutmosis III was responsible in her book on Hatshepsut. Not to mention that Lysimachus goes on and on about uncertainties whenever he is exposed to evidence contrary to his claims (e.g. if we find mummies for two people that the Wyatt hypothesis clims were the same person).No comment on any of the important points I raised ?Any comment on any of the other problems ? (e.g. that by all reputable sources Senmut was around long after Tuthmosis II died).

Since the question is only whether it is UNCERTAIN that Tuthmosis defaced Hatshepsut's inscriptions there is no need to give Tyldesly's opinion that he did not precedence over the majority opinion that he did.When you understand that fallacious reasonign and appealing to uncertainties cannot make your case then we will have made real progress.

It seems simple enough to me. If i wished to argue that Tyldesley was correct then I would need to support her view over the others. Since I only wish to argue that the matter is uncertain I do not need to do that - all I need is a credible source arguing against the consensus. Tyldesley will do very nicely.And no, I have not relied on uncertainties to make my point. Indeed the point you are disputing is a side comment- I did offer an explanation of why Thutmosis III might do such a thing - and I note that you did not dispute that. Indeed pointing to a single uncertainty is not itself a problem. It is the heavy reliance on uncertainty to dismiss all contrary evidence that is the problem. Because if there is no reliable evidence then how can we come to any conclusions at all ? You guys need to produce strong supporting evidence - and so far we haven't seen even one significant piece of evidence for Wyatt's rewrite of Egyptian history. Invoking uncertainty to dismiss the stronger evidence against you isn't enough but it seems to be the best Lysimachus can manage.

As I have already pointed out I did NOT rely on uncertainty to counter the point. Moreover there wasn't a significant point to counter in the first place.On the other hand when I introduced Tydesley as source you did indeed ask :
"So is she to be granted more credence than the majority?"So no, it is not a semantic issue. There is no doubt over what you said or that my point directly responds to your statement.And yes this thread is going downhill because you are dragging it down. If you want it to be otherwise then drop the ill-founded attemtps at nitpicking and produce some real evidence for Wyatt's rewrite of Egyptian history.

You might as well say that Lysimachus only threw in the defacement of the inscriptions because he was short of real evidence. He certainly didn't try to build any case from it.You might as well say that your own choice to argue the issue was because you wanted to argue about SOMETHING. Certainly there doesn't seem to be any other reason. Why else would you want to only answer part of ONE point where there was nothing important at issue ?I could point to Moller's list of "similarities" between Moses and Senmut and find more padding.And you complain that Crashfrog isn't applying his complaints evenly ?But you still haven't addressed the fact that you tried to dismiss a direct response to your own words as "not understanding".And despite complaining about the thread "deteriorating" you are still the major contributor to that deterioration and apparently you refuse to stop.

Oh please spare us. The evidence produced by your side so far is owhere near as strong as the contrary evidence. How is the short duration of Tuthmosis II's reign supposed to be a significant point in favour of Wyatt's hypothesis ? How is the relative reign lengths of consecutive Pharoah's supposed to be significant evidence even if it were true ? (Here's a hint - the length of a Pharoah's reign and the length of his successor's reign are not entirely independent - and if you don't see why then consider how long the current Queen of England has reigned - and how long Prince Charles is likely to reign if he comes to the throne).I'm not settign the standard of a "myriad of uniquivocal evidence" - just some SIGNIFICANT evidence would be enough to have it taken as a serious possiblity. But so far all the significant evidence is on the contrary side. There is no double standard.And in the face of that to complain of "baseless allegations" is clearly hypocritical - particularly as you don't consider truth an adequate base ! The fact is that you decided to focus on one entirely minor point - one which even you have tried to dismiss as trivial. And it is only now that you have offered any indication that you intend to respond to any other point - even though I asked you that in post 474.And I note that apparently you feel no repsonsibility for your own actions. If you complain about a problem then your own actions that contribute to that problem - and your refusal to cease - are surely relevantNow to refresh your memory.In post 465 you requested that I provide a source to support my claim that it was uncertain that Tuthmosis III was responsible for the defacement of Hatshepsut's monuments.When I answered that (post 470) by naming an expert you rejected it you - for some reason - asked why I would prefer that experts opinion over the majority (post 474).When I pointed out that I did not need to do so (post 476) you demanded a further explantion (post 479). When I produced that you claimed that I did not understand and that your point was 'You countered Lysimachus with a "possibility" in order to refute his placement of events'
(post 485).Of course the fact is that is NOT what you said in post 465 or post 474. Nor was it true - the fact that you choses to address only a part of my answer to that point does not make it the whole. Nor was it the point being addressed - which goes back to your demand for support back in post 465.And of course we see another about-face in post 493 where you present the point as a bit of trivial padding. Which begs the question of why you chose to demand that it - out of the entire post - should be supported - and continued to argue after it was. Especially after *I* had pointed out that it was a side issue in post 483And now I have refreshed your memory - and since you keep talking about "double standards" I will quote you (post 472)"I'm sorry, I was assuming that you were tracking with this thread. You might want to retreat in your reading a bit. I can see how it would be confusing."Perhaps you shou;d take your own advice.

I note that despite the fact that I have already pointed out that the "molecular frequency generator" does not work (and your source cannot even sell the name of the "inventor" correctly - it's "Hieronymous")you still post this pseudo-scientific nonsense justification.
Perhaps you would like to explain how it still works if the electronic components are replaced by a drawing of the circuit diagram.As to your reply to me1) Thanks for proving to Hydarnes that you are the one who relies on uncertainty - it is rather amusing to see you appeal to it when you are trying to present evidence FOR your case. However the page you referenced denies your claim that the identification of Amenhotep II is certain (none of the alternate schemes retains that identification and one denies that we have a mummy for Amenhotep II). Your claim that Amenhotep II's mummy is identified with 100% certainty is contradicted by the very article you cited.2) The possible co-regency of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis II is less of a problem for the conventional view which has Tuthmosis II as Pharoah - and not as a co-regent himself. Even if you are right you are not addressing this issue4) By your comments it appears that you concede that there is no evidence for Wyatt's hypothesis here.5) You have to stop assuming Wyatt's views. Under the conventional view Amenhotep II would have been born and raised during Hatshepsut's regency and could easily have picked up his father's bitterness. Or even resented the situation himself. Hatshpesut took over as regent and then proclaimed herself Pharoah even while Tuthmosis III was offically Pharoah - sounds like an usurpation to me.6) If you had done your research you would have seen that one of the sets of dates given by the page you cite for Tuthmosis IV is 1419-1386 (attributed to Wente and van Siclen III) This is about 35 years and the figure used by the source I discovered. Even if you are right there is another problem you have to deal with, that I have raised in another post. The length of reign of successive Pharoahs is not independent - the longer the Pharoah reigns the more likely his successor wil have a shorter reign. This appears to account for the pattern you describe better than Wyatt's hypothesis7) I know what you said. Don't insult my intelligence by trying to pretend otherwise."Various scenarios all over sources seem to question the successions between the Thutmosis and Amenhoteps, 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"You clearly claim that the article questions the order of succession on the basis of identification of the mummies. That is false.The article states
"From textual sources we know that the second half of the Eighteenth Dynasty line ran from father to son as follows: Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep III, Akhenaten. However, a comparison of the craniofacial morphologies of the mummies that have been attributed to these kings would suggest a sequence more like Thutmose III, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep II, Amenhotep III. Obviously something is wrong here, and a possible solution lies in questioning the veracity of the dockets of some of these mummies."And the article goes on to do just that - it does not reject the order of succession between these Pharoahs at all. The schemes simply reidentify the mummies - they are NOT "schemes of succession" as you said.8) and 9) Senmuts titles are given on the statues - including those that identify him as tutor to the Pharoah's daughter. And statues identified as Senmut that do not feature Nefure look much like the adult figure in the statues you refer to - unlike the statues of Hatshepsut.The statues in question are depicted on the follwoing pages:
http://www.maat-ka-ra.de/...h/personen/senenmut/sen_karr.htmWhich also discusses the titles.http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/18d.htmWhich also shows two statues of Hatshepsut - which are clearly of a woman - unlike the Senmut statuesAnd another statue of Senmut without Nefure is here
Attention Required! | CloudflareGiven this evidence I do not see how Mollers identification can stand. We have an adult who looks like the Senmut of the other statues - and who by his titles must be an adult when the statues were carved.That the child is dressed as the heir is interesting but far from conclusive - especially as Senmut is clearly not identified as royal while Hatshepsut claimed that she herself was made heir by he father, Thutmosis I. It would not be surprising if she made a similar claim on behalf of her daughter.10) If you won't provide the evidence to support your assertions then your assertions are empty. I m certainly not demanding scans - indeed since all your scans seem to be from Moller's book I suggest that you don't bother. I don't consider Moller a reliable source - and see my comments on the next point for one reason why.11) How has the child been identified as a daughter ? By the text ! You do know that there is a considerable amount of text in that muralThe following sites discuss the mural:
http://members.tripod.com/~ib205/hatshepsut_temple.html
"Before he leaves, Amun-Re reveals his true nature to Ahmose and then that she will give birth to a daughter who will live to rule Egypt"被老师抱到没人的地方怎么办,巨爆乳寡妇中文无码,绿巨人麻豆草莓丝瓜秋葵18禁,免费能直接看黄的网站
Amun states
"The time has come for me to father a great king, who shall govern over Egypt, Syria, Nubia and Punt, so that all lands may be united under her rule. Worthy must the maiden be of her great dominions, for she shall rule the whole world.""Amun-Ra tells Ahmose that she is to bear a daughter, who will be a great king of Egypt and she is to be name Khnemet-Amun Hatshepsut"And a number of sites confirm that it is Hatshepsut's birth that is depicted.Egypt: Deir el-Bahri, Valley of the Kings, Luxor, A Feature Tour Egypt Story
"...on the north side of this portico are depicted the birth scenes showing Hatshepsut’s divine conception as daughter of Amun himself."http://www.egyptsites.co.uk/...es/hatshepsut/hatshepsut.html
"In the northern portico we see scenes of the queen establishing her right to rule by illustrating her divine birth. The reliefs are shallow and not well-preserved, but show the divine union of Hatshepsut's mother Ahmose with Amun"Please support your claim that women changed their names in a way that could permit the mothers of Thutmosis I and Amenhotep I to be the same woman.And you mistake the reason for lookiing at the claimed rewrite of Egyptian history. Nobody has made the claim that it destroys the Exodus. It does call into qustion the dating of the (alleged) chariot wheels. But then nobody here has claimed that proving those were nothing to do with the Exodus would be a disproof of the Exodus itself either.There is a very good reaon for looking at the rwrite of Egyptian history proposed by Wyatt. Unlike the archaeological claims we CAN make checks against independent sources. This is a test of the credibility of Wyatt and Moller - and they fail. And if they cannot be trusted on claims we can check then surely they cannot be trusted on claims we cannot.But that is your "compelling evidence" - claims made by Wyatt and Moller which cannot be checked - and I have seen enough questions about those and I have not seen enough supporting evidence to find it compelling at all.