Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "The Exodus Revealed" Video II
Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 340 of 603 (132140)
08-09-2004 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by PaulK
08-09-2004 8:04 PM


PaulK,
quote:
I can't believe that you're still trying to push the "molecular frequency generator". Your own sources admit that it is a Hieronymous machine (even if they spell the name incorrectly). And the Hieronymous machine just doesn't work. It's just a pseduo-scientific gimmick that works off the same principles as dowsing - a subconscious reaction from the mind of the operator.
Prove to me that they don’t work? According to a TLC program I just watched, they were using the latest---state-of-the-art equipment on Noah’s Ark at the time. This Radar Scanner would show positive results of chambers and shafts throughout the ark (could easily see the rooms and timber lines), but when they passed the machine over regular ground off the site itself, it gave no readings whatsoever. This in itself is proof that this was a good working device for the time.
quote:
"...the Thutmose IV mummy is one of the better identified ones, with dockets inscribed both on his mummy and coffin." - looks like that mummy was probably in the proper coffin after all. The dockets match.
Thutmose IV is one of the better identified ones OF the Thutmosis mummies. However, of ALL the mummies, the ones of Amenhotep I and II match the closest to the individuals of whom they are associated.
quote:
And the two schems which reassign that mummy reidentify the mummy previously thought to be Amenhotep II to Tuthmosis IV and have no mummy for Amenhotep II.
And? How does this alter anything regarding the craniofacial morphologies?
quote:
As for the co-regency you completely fail to understand the problem.
THe issue as I have said is why would Tuthmosis II reigning as co-regent under Amenhotep I ALSO have a another co-regent ? That IS your hypothesis. Moreover you have produced no evidence for the identification of Senmut as Tuthmosis II.
Because Hatshepsut, as I’ve pointed out a thousand times, was a woman who could not embody the gods. She was the only heir to the throne, and in order for a male heir to take her place, she prepared her adopted son Moses to become co-regent with her in order to legally have him ascend the throne. As for Senmut and Thutmosis II relationship, go read all that I have provided regarding the similarities between these two figures as well as the inscriptions with Horus the falcon bird. There is no possible way we can say these two people are the same person. Once again, we are dealing with the inextricable history of Egypt.
quote:
Your answer to 5 is in error. Aside from the need for support for your interpretation of the name there is more evidence. Hatshepsut is depicted as Pharoah. Hatshepsut identified herself as the daughter of Amun, born to be King as Deir El-Bahri. We have her cartouche givng her Horus name as well as her Throne name and identifying her as Pharoah http://www.bediz.com/hatshep/cartouche.html
Claiming that a woman could not be Pharoah explains why Hatshepsut was often depicted as male - but adhering to it as an absolute is contradicted by the evdence that she was called Pharoah and took the names and titles of a Pharoah and claimed that her father named her as heir.
That’s right, because she was Pharaoh. Like we stated before, co-regents were considered Pharaoh’s too---thus her Pharaoh style of dress fits perfectly. She was a co-ruling Pharaoh, but not supreme Pharaoh. Women were not known to be co-regents either, so thus the male depiction as she is co-regent.
quote:
6) If you are forced to "crunch" the reigns together so much the worse for your hypothesis. We are still awaiting any significant evidence on that front.
How is it so much worse? First, logically try and fit the reigns of the Amenhoteps and Thutmosis’ between the year 1518 B.C. and 1446 B.C. You will try and say that Amenhotep III extended into the 1300rds, and I will soon show you how that is absolutely impossible.
quote:
7) The schemes presented are explicitly identifications of the mummies. And all of them contradicted your hypothesis. You don't have good evidence for your scenario at all here.
Answer to 7 supported our hypothesis strikingly, and you know it. Read again the relationships between the mummies. The relationships between the mummies, indeed, have everything to do with altering the original chronology.
quote:
8) The block statue of Senmut without Nefure lists Senmut's titles - it cannot be of Nefure. YOu can clearly see that it is heavily inscribed.
http://www.maat-ka-ra.de/...h/personen/senenmut/sen_karr.htm
The second of the two statues of Hatshepsut is more clearly feminine than the other (we can see an "hour-glass" figure, unlike the stautes of Senmut) - but both appear more so than the statues of Senmut
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/18d.htm
As for the final statue although the name has been erased that does not meen that the identification as Senmut rather than Nefure is in doubt. There is more to the inscription as can clearly be seen.
I see you do not read my material carefully. My answer to number eight was:
In link #3, I believe that statue is probably the statue of Senmut (however the inscription of Senmut has been erased, so this cannot be proven with 100% certainty). The headdress is very similar on the adult holding the child in the adult/child statue. But can we know for certain that this is indicative for the statues being the same person? No.
of which was in response to this:
quote:
And another statue of Senmut without Nefure is here
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
Since if you will carefully read your own article, it says:
The name of Senenmut has been intentionally erased from the inscription, probably in the aftermath of Hatshepsut's demise or by priests hostile to Amun.
I would not have just blindly stated that if I had not gathered it from somewhere. I did not deny that the names Senmut and Nefure are inscribed on the other statesonly in the statue from your above link.
quote:
11) Here you are again appealing to uncertainty as evidence FOR your view. But the fact is that so far the evidence against your view is of better quality than that you have offered.
And yet again, you are assuming that I am claiming this to be evidence. We feel it is only a hypothesis which fits the Exodus account. Nowhere have we stated this view as fact.
quote:
As to the inscription at Deir El-Bahri it has NOT been established that the translation is confused nor that the reading you offered has any validity. I can find no source that suggests that the child is anyone other than Hatshepsut herself.
It is clear that the individual inscribed on the wall is a boy. This individual is attributed to Hatshepsutin that it is her growing up. Scholars agree that the inscription depicts a boy, but state it as a mistake and assert that they meant to draw a girl-child and that the painters were confused.
quote:
And I really can't beleivthat you are trying to dismiss the fact that the child is identified as a daughter with "So just because she has a daughter means she does not have a son? " There's only one child in the mural so if that child is a daughter named Hatshepsut it is not an unnamed son.
We know that Hatshepsut had a son and a daughter. We do not know however within what proximity the children were born. If an inscription in one place is talking about Hatshepsut having a daughter, and then in another inscription (painting) we see her holding a male child, does this necessarily mean we must connect the two? Why wouldn’t different inscriptions talk about both events at different times?
quote:
And if you didn't notice that all the sites I referred to were talking about the same mural that you are referring to - well you need to do a bit more research.
Of course I know this is all from the same mural. But does this mural all correlate with the same paintings? There are many depictions (paintings) on these walls. Is the particular section that describes Hatshepsut’s birth specifically referring to the painting where the child is growing up? How can we know this?
quote:
Well that leaves uis with your refusal to support your claim that Egyptian women changed their names in the way you said they did. Surely you must see that if you cannot we should accept that they are different women ? Especially as you have no other evidence and the evidence already produced supports Tuthmosis I as succeeding Amenhotep I directly contrary to Wyatt's hypothesis.
But I never say they weren’t different woman. All I’m saying is there are a number of clues that suggest co-regencies between the Thutmosis’ and Amenhotep’s. There must be some sort of crunching in order to fit the time span between 1518 B.C. and 1446 B.C.
quote:
Finally you did indeed use the phrase "compelling evidence" in regard to the Exodus - and what I said is still true.
I may have used the phrase compelling evidence in regard to the Exodus, but did I use it in regard to our hypothesis of the 18th dynasty? That there is compelling evidence that the Thutmosis’ and Amenhoteps’ are the same individuals? If I said that, then I take it back, because there is no compelling evidence for this hypothesis. What is compelling evidence, in my opinion, is the archaeological remains of Red Sea Crossing and Mt. Sinai. But for trying to solve the chronology of a dynasty, no way!
This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-09-2004 09:04 PM

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by PaulK, posted 08-09-2004 8:04 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2004 4:22 AM Lysimachus has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 342 of 603 (132147)
08-09-2004 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by CK
08-09-2004 8:34 PM


Re: (ADMIN: I am going to get rude in about ten-posts)
quote:
I think I am being very calm here but how much more of this am I expected to take - I'm called an idiot, accused of being in league with the devil and now the above.
Are we honestly saying that the following represents honest debate?
quote:
You're on a down-hill slope to perdition if you continue on your demonic crusade--this I know
[/quote]
You may be calm, but you are being very irritating about it. You remind of Cherryfunk from SPSW--where you constantly ask something that requires a moutain load of explanation, without doing some research on your own. It's like you almost enjoy watching us suffer if we can't give you a straight forward answer just the way you like. You intentionally ask your questions in ways that you know could trap us--and leave us no room to describe circumstances. My statement was a bit rash--and uncalled for--and for this I apologize.
However, I do ask of you that you be a little more kind with your questions. My statement was based on how I perceive your motives---as if you almost can't stand the thought that these discoveries were true. You give the impression that if they were proven true, you'd crawl in a hole and try to run away from God.
This is how I know when a person is sincerely honest about knowing true. When someone says something more of this nature:
"Are you serious? Chariot remains have been found at the bottom of the Red Sea? Wow, that is very interesting. Maybe there is something to this in confirming the validity of the Bible. We'll see what comes out of this"
But NO!! Instead, a GEYSER-LOAD of angry negativity just overflows from you--revealing your character. Put yourself in my shoes Charles, and you'll clearly see where I'm coming from. You really don't want these discoveries to be true. Admit it.
Would you have exercised this much energy to try and disprove a discovery that supported the theory of Evolution? Seriously, if you saw flaws in the data, would you have actually gone this far out of your way to try and smother it?

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by CK, posted 08-09-2004 8:34 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by CK, posted 08-09-2004 10:05 PM Lysimachus has replied
 Message 430 by Trae, posted 08-11-2004 8:02 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 344 of 603 (132151)
08-09-2004 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Eta_Carinae
08-09-2004 10:01 PM


Re: Molecular frequency generator - LOL LOL LOL
Alright folks, let me correct an error on my part.
A Molecular Frequency Generator and a Radar Scannar are two different things. A MFG is not a Radar Scanner, but the Wyatt team used BOTH devices, and BOTH gave the desired results. All of you can down the MFG all you want, but it will not negate the results of the Radar Scanners.
The MFG matched the metal detector and the radar results. The MFG in itself is a metal detector, but the Radar Scannar results confirmed the validity of the outputted data. This is where they acquired their machinery:
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Equipment | GSSI Inc. | Georadar
LOL...here we are talking about a company that is WORLD LEADING in GROUND PENETRATING RADAR, and you guys are going to rehash old silly arguments about the Molecular Frequency Generator??!
This really goes to show how far you people will go to discredit these claims.

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Eta_Carinae, posted 08-09-2004 10:01 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 345 of 603 (132152)
08-09-2004 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by CK
08-09-2004 10:05 PM


Re: (ADMIN: I am going to get rude in about ten-posts)
quote:
OK - please list the pieces that have been submitted to labs for examination and let us know what the conclusions of those tests were? Oh and could you please tell us what the names of the labs involved were?
Just for your sake, my brother Hydarnes (I really appreciate his help) is typing out a massive essay that will be responding to everyone of your questions, with every lab test, and the results of every one of these lab tests, etc.. So please be patient...it's not easy keeping up with everything.
However, can I ask you just one question? Are your questions referring only to the Exodus, are to Ron Wyatt's discoveries on a whole? Because Hydarnes is responding in regard to all of the discoveries as a whole.
This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-09-2004 09:17 PM

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by CK, posted 08-09-2004 10:05 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by jar, posted 08-09-2004 10:19 PM Lysimachus has not replied
 Message 347 by NosyNed, posted 08-09-2004 10:30 PM Lysimachus has not replied
 Message 362 by CK, posted 08-10-2004 5:51 AM Lysimachus has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 348 of 603 (132160)
08-09-2004 10:54 PM


Alright then. I'll have to let him know. At least Mt. Sinai can be considered part of the Exodus video. I think he has some things about Noah's Ark too, however. I'm not sure I should tell him to just scrap all he's written on Noah's Ark now.

~Lysimachus

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Eta_Carinae, posted 08-09-2004 11:11 PM Lysimachus has not replied
 Message 431 by Trae, posted 08-11-2004 8:07 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 378 of 603 (132416)
08-10-2004 3:35 PM


Just be patient. It takes time to write articles.

~Lysimachus

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 379 of 603 (132418)
08-10-2004 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Amlodhi
08-10-2004 10:06 AM


Re: Moller's video...
Amlodhi,
I strongly recommend that you read these articles regarding Jebal Al Lawz.
Cornuke and Williams address many of the issues you have presented. I sure would quote the highlights if I had the time...but I have too many projects on the burner.
WHAT DO THE MOST ANCIENT SOURCES SAY ABOUT THE LOCATION OF HISTORICAL MT. SINAI?
Access denied
WHAT DID THE FIRST-CENTURY HISTORIAN JOSEPHUS SAY ABOUT THE LOCATION OF MOUNT SINAI?
Access denied
WHERE WAS THE "ARABIA" OF PAUL'S ARGUMENT IN GALATIONS 4?
Access denied
DID PAUL MEAN LITERAL "ARABIA" IN GALATIONS 4:25?"
Access denied
WHO BUILT THE ALTAR TO THE GOLDEN CALF AT THE BASE OF MT. SINAI?
Access denied
WHAT WAS JETHRO'S "LAND" IN EXODUS 18:27?
Access denied
You know what I say? Get a hold of what true research is and quit wasting your time primarily focusing on negative articles that are old-rehashed arguments thoroughly refuted. The above articles were written specifically to refute the links you provided. These are very long articles, and show with great certainty that Jebel Al Lawz is Mt. Sinai.
One reason you probably come to the conclusions you do is because you sit down and take the time to thoroughly read the negative articles on the net. My research is based on reading BOTH the negative and the positive. After reading most of the articles above, I was thoroughly convinced that Jebal Al Lawz can be non-other than the Mt. Sinai of scripture.
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. Carefully.
My suggestion is to take a few hours to go over these links and then come back and show me what you think is wrong with them. They are absolutely LOADED,...much longer than any of the links you provided.
This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-10-2004 02:45 PM

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Amlodhi, posted 08-10-2004 10:06 AM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by CK, posted 08-10-2004 3:59 PM Lysimachus has replied
 Message 391 by Amlodhi, posted 08-10-2004 9:11 PM Lysimachus has not replied
 Message 399 by Hydarnes, posted 08-11-2004 9:32 AM Lysimachus has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 381 of 603 (132431)
08-10-2004 4:35 PM


Concerning the "Molecular Frequency Generator" arguments that have been raised. Has anyone taken the time to read this?:
------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been those who have been critical of Ron's discoveries. Honest criticism (when informed of the evidences) and personal opinion are the right of every individual. However, untruths and "half-truths" told by those who dispute the validity of the discoveries MUST be countered with the real and "whole" truth. Why? Because we believe that God has revealed these things for a purpose- HIS purpose, and that purpose is to vindicate His Word and His Truth. We have seen many people's lives changed after seeing these evidences, and we cannot allow others to speak words of deceit against them without making the truth available.
Recently a book came out called "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark" by Sellier and Balsiger of "Sun International"- the same people who produced the documentary of the same name which aired on CBS in Feb. 1993. It is full of twisted tales and untruths clearly designed to try to discredit the real Noah's Ark. And I am sorry to have to present just a few evidences to show how completely unreliable this book is.
In 1992, we received numerous calls from Mr. Balsiger's office requesting the use of some of our photos and video in a "documentary" they were making on Noah's Ark. We told them we were not interested. In this "documentary", they featured all of the usual eye-witness "ark stories", none of which was backed-up by a single piece of hard evidence, except for one- the story of "George Jammal". I will now quote from TIME MAGAZINE, July 5, 1993, page 51, under title, "Phony Arkaeology" in one of many news reports about this documentary:
"`This piece of wood is so precious- and a gift from God.' These moving words were spoken reverently by George Jammal as he displayed the relic that he said had come from Noah's ark.... What the network didn't know- and didn't bother to find out- was that Jammal was a hoaxer and that large segments of its program were based on blatant and ludicrous pseudo science.... In fact, Jammal... has never been on Mount Ararat. ....[Jammal's] supposed venerable chunk of "ark" wood is a piece of contemporary pine Jammal soaked in juices and baked in the oven of his Long Beach, California, home.... But Jammal's tall tale was not the only misleading part of the special. Sun filled the two hours with a mixture of fact, conjecture, fantasy and arrant nonsense, while offering no clues as to which was which.... ...Larue [Gerald Larue, a professor emeritus of biblical history and archaeology at the University of Southern California] had been interviewed for an earlier Sun International production, and, after seeing that show, felt he had been set up as a straw man. It inspired him to coach George Jammal, an acquaintance, to perpetrate the hoax, intended to expose the shoddy research of Sun International... CBS defended it's role. `When we bought the special,' says a spokeswoman, `it was as an entertainment special, not a documentary.'..."
All through this book can be seen the same stories, (with Jammal's left out)- every kind of "word of mouth" claim is dramatically presented without tangible evidence. Then, in chapter 13 the tone changes from one of objectivity to disdain when speaking of Ron:
"The claims of self-proclaimed biblical archaeologist Ron Wyatt are nothing short of astonishing...."
They then list Ron's discoveries, the last of which reads-
"Noah's wife's grave. He claims he dug her up and found $75 million worth of gold in her grave-unfortunately later stolen by another."
Ron has NEVER claimed he dug up this grave. See page 23 of his book, "Discovered: Noah's Ark". These authors quote from Ron's book (their footnote on p. 293) which shows that they had the true facts but chose instead to make this libelous remark.
This book, while presenting all the theories about Noah's Ark which are based on no evidence other than eye-witness claims, (none of which agree with each other), then states about Ron,
"The bottom line seems to be that no hard evidence exists to prove any of his claims. When contacted during the preparation of this book, he refused to cooperate by supplying any evidence supporting his claims, whether related to the alleged ark site or any of his other finds."
This is simply not true. They never contacted us again after 1992 (when they ONLY asked for pictures and video of Noah's Ark for use in their documentary, which we refused to provide). They NEVER contacted us asking for information on ANYTHING ELSE for a book. And it is not true that "he [Ron] refused to cooperate by supplying any evidence supporting his claims, whether related to the alleged ark site or any of his other finds. These are simply false claims. No information was ever requested, nor were we even contacted.
Editors note: Now pay ATTENTION to the following regarding the Molecular Frequency Generator:
They go on to quote other people to refute the "evidence" which they claim Ron didn't have to start with. They quote John Baumgardner as saying that he doesn't believe in the pattern of metal lines in the site because he doesn't believe in the technique David Fasold used, which he called "a form of dowsing"- this refers to the molecular frequency generator. We have no problem with his stating his opinion; however, we want ALL of the facts told. What they DON"T tell you is that Ron found the metal lines in 1984 using conventional White's metal detectors AND that John and Ron used conventional metal detectors to verify the readings of the molecular frequency generator (mfg), (and this can be seen in both David's video, "1985 and 1986 Field Surveys", and our video, "Discovered- Noah's Ark." If you completely discount the use of the "mfg", the evidence of the metal lines is still present and verified by the conventional metal detectors.
Then, they quote him talking about the results of some later tests he participated in at the site using radar and taking core drills specimens, which led him to state:
"I've concluded that it's only a natural formation".
Yet, in his official report dated November 1987 on radar scans in July of that year, he wrote:
"We conclude that the data from our geophysical investigation in no way conflict with the proposition that the unusual boat-shaped site near Mahser village contains the remains of Noah's Ark."
After the core drills done in 1988, in his Aug. 19, 1988 form letter, he discussed finding "limonite" which is "hydrated oxide of iron" in the core drill specimens taken from the site:
"...during the months I have worked at the site, I have never seen this bright yellow material [limonite] anywhere in the fissures or exposures in the mudflow clay [the area around the ark site]. Because earlier investigations led us to suspect unusual amounts of iron in the site, these occurrences of limonite are of special interest as they could represent the rusted remains of metallic iron objects."
Furthermore, in this letter, written AFTER the tests which he claims led him to no longer believe in the site, he writes:
"We still cannot rule out the scenario that the ark of Noah had landed previously higher on the slope and during the mudslide event was swept downslope and caught on this ridge-shaped island of basement rock."
AFTER he had completed these tests, he still maintained that the results did not disprove that the site DID contain the ark.
They again quote him regarding a specimen he took from the site in 85, analyzed and reported was almost pure iron oxide- he sent the the analysis to Dave Fasold, which showed 60% - 91.84% FE2O3. Now keep in mind that he stated in his 1988 letter that he saw NO limonite (oxidized iron) OUTSIDE of the site and that it's presence IN THE SITE was :
"of special interest as they could represent the rusted remains of metallic iron objects".
But now, his conclusions are all different:
"There's absolutely nothing about this sample that would suggest it has anything to do with human activity or that it's man-made."
He has a right to his opinion, however the true facts are NOT presented to the reader. The test results have not changed. The pattern of metal readings is still present whether he believes the mfg is "dowsing" or not. Iron is found within the site but NOT directly outside of it.[
Then, there is the claim that
"Dr. Shockey, ark expeditioner and cultural anthropologist",..."actually clandestinely tested a chip off the `petrified wood exhibit' Wyatt shows at his speaking engagements.... The lab test results: `This is a sedimentary rock that has undergone metaporphism. It consisted of three distinct layers."
Now for the complete story. In July 1992, we saw a video program in which Carl Baugh of Glenrose, Texas, showed a fossilized human footprint (removed from the Paluxy River bed). The fossilized footprint had been cut into two sections, showing the inner compression marks. When Ron saw the quality of the cut, he called this man, whom we did not know, and asked him what facility sectioned his specimen. We had been unable to find a someone we felt comfortable enough with to allow them to cut a section off of the deck timber. Carl Baugh wouldn't tell Ron where he had this done, but he agreed to arrange to have our specimen sectioned if we brought it to Glenrose.
So, on July 21, 1992, Ron, Richard Rives, Randy Osborn and I all went to Texas. When we arrived, we found that no arrangements had been made to cut our deck timber. Carl then told us he had a friend who could cut it, but before we left to do this, he also said he would be happy to have the specimen tested for us at a "certain university" which did free testing for him. Since the specimen had already been tested and we knew the results, we were more than happy to allow him to do this. He then told us that the only stipulation was that we couldn't tell anyone the name of this "university" or else they would not continue to do free work for him. We all four agreed to keep the "university's" name confidential.
We then went to his friend's garage and I have 2 hours of video of them trying to cut the deck timber with every kind of saw imaginable, but with no success. Finally, a small ragged section was removed after going through 19 hacksaw blades. Carl agreed to send the specimen to the certain "university", have it tested, and return the specimen to us. When several months passed and nothing was heard from him, Richard Rives called him. He told Richard that "they" hadn't been able to determine what the specimen was and were now doing what was called, "the extra-terrestrial analysis", which he explained was a "test" performed on substances that couldn't be identified with conventional analyses. He said it was the most "thorough testing" a specimen could undergo.
More time passed. Richard called again and Carl said the tests were STILL not complete. Then, 6 months after our trip to Texas, we received a flimsy envelope in the mail. In it was a shattered glass slide and 2 letters- one from Carl Baugh and another proposing to be a "lab analysis". The slide with the thin-section of our specimen was shattered since it had been mailed unprotected in a paper envelope. The "analysis" was NOT from the "university" he had claimed he was going to send it to, but INSTEAD was from "Universal Petrographic, Geologic & Geochemical Consultants, Inc., 48 Rockridge Drive, N.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87122." It was NOT addressed to Carl Baugh but to "Dr. M.D. Shockey, 7210-B Menaul Blvd., N.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87110". It did NOT state that ANY analysis had been done but that the specimen had been given to them to be "thin sectioned".
Here is the entire "report"- "Dr. Shockey, Please be advised that the rock which was GIVEN TO ME FOR THIN SECTIONING APPEARS TO BE a meta-sediment. That is, a sedimentary rock that has undergone metamorphism. It consisted of three distinct layers." Signed, "Thomas Servilla, Director". Yet, in this book, the report is claimed to state: "`This IS a sedimentary rock that has undergone metaporphism.... There's a BIG difference between "IS" and "APPEARS TO BE".
Our complete specimen has never been returned to us by Carl Baugh and we have heard reports of Don Shockey and Carl Baugh appearing on TV programs displaying a piece of "wood from Noah's Ark", which they claim is laminated wood. Is this piece of "ark wood" the missing section from our deck timber? And remember that these men are actively involved in raising money to continue looking for Noah's Ark.
One last comment about this book- the next to the last photo in the photo section is claimed to have been taken "In 1986" when:
"...Colonel James Irwin returned to Mount Ararat having obtained a permit to fly a light plane around the mountain. A Dutch National Television crew headed by Jan Van der Bosch went with Colonel Irwin and shot a documentary. This amazing photograph was taken of what Dutch National Television believes is a portion of the ark protruding out of the icy snow."
This SAME PHOTOGRAPH is shown on p. 31 of John D. Morris' book, "Noah's Ark and the Lost World", 1988. But let's read what HE says about the same photo:
"A friend of mine took this photo by holding his camera out over the edge of a cliff. It was too dangerous for him to reach the edge and look over, but he was able to take several pictures of the hidden canyon below. When the film was developed and the pictures examined, a strange object that looks like Noah's Ark could be seen, just as these enlargements show...."
Friends, those who accept the "word" of ANYONE, regardless of their "credentials", without seeing THOROUGH documentation WILL BE DECEIVED.
http://www.wyattnewsletters.com/articles/bythywords.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
The above post was provided primarily on the basis regarding the arguments made about the Molecular Frequency Generator. The above article establishes the fact that the Hieronymous machine was not all that was utilized on the site. So whether the Hierronymous machine is a joke or not, it is irrelivant in regard to the synonymous outputs made by the White's metal detectors and conventional versions.
This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-10-2004 03:42 PM

~Lysimachus

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2004 4:58 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 382 of 603 (132434)
08-10-2004 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by CK
08-10-2004 3:59 PM


Re: Moller's video...
quote:
You are still missing the point - we don't want an article, we don't want a lengthy essay - we just want a really simple list of the primary evidence and where it had been tested.
That will give us a basic to take this forward.
It is short compared to what it could be. We're stressing ourselves enough as it is to not overdue the article. There is just too much valuable info to disregard. It's not so much lengthy, but time consuming. A lot of highlights must be presented in systematic order. It's pretty basic.

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by CK, posted 08-10-2004 3:59 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Asgara, posted 08-10-2004 4:45 PM Lysimachus has replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 385 of 603 (132440)
08-10-2004 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Asgara
08-10-2004 4:45 PM


Re: Moller's video...
quote:
I would be interested in exactly how far south from the main resort area this would be. Exactly how far out are we talking? How deep were the waters the wheels were found in?
I don't know. Email W.A.R., Bill Fry, Aaron Sen, Jonothan Grey, Moller...or anyone of them. I'm sure they know the exact spots. I've never been there.
If they don't give you an answer, it's probably because they don't want people disturbing the data until they've gotten the chance to get the appropriate permission to excavate the stuff. That would be devistating if someone went out there and broke all the parts to pieces--making it impossible for the researchers to properly investigate the material.
There are future plans regarding this stuff you know. If I were them, I wouldn't just blab out to the public the location of these wheels...would you really want careless people messing with them? Now I'm not saying you are careless...but you get my point, right?
This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-10-2004 04:03 PM

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Asgara, posted 08-10-2004 4:45 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Asgara, posted 08-10-2004 5:01 PM Lysimachus has replied
 Message 389 by CK, posted 08-10-2004 5:08 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 387 of 603 (132444)
08-10-2004 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Asgara
08-10-2004 5:01 PM


Re: Moller's video...
Reread Message 385. I edited it.

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Asgara, posted 08-10-2004 5:01 PM Asgara has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 388 of 603 (132446)
08-10-2004 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Asgara
08-10-2004 5:01 PM


Re: Moller's video...
quote:
In other words, your claim that their dives were farther out, farther south, and deeper were just a guess? Thanks for verifying.
No, that's what I read somewhere. However, just because I was informed they were off the south end of the beach, and in deeper waters, does not mean I was informed exactly how far south, or how far out.

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Asgara, posted 08-10-2004 5:01 PM Asgara has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 475 of 603 (133249)
08-12-2004 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by jar
08-12-2004 11:45 AM


Re: E v i d e n c e .
My dear friend Jar,
Thank you for trying to disprove the bulvine creatures. However, we'll see if your analysis really stands to the test.
First of all, the images you posted are clearly "the biased" ones. Why do I say this? simply for the fact that you are leaving out a whole bunch of pictures that distinctly show clear similarities between these engraved bulls and the Egyptian Apis bull inscriptions.
I might also remind you that the Saudi Archaeologist that investigated this area stated CLEARLY that "these are DISTINCTLY Egyptian and these engraving exist no other place in Saudi Arabia"--yes, that is just what they said. And guess what jar? They know more about their country than YOU! So who should I trust? You who is looking at pictures? or the Saudi Archaeologists who clearly said this?
We have clear images of individual holding up these bulls:
quote:
First, there are also drawings of people, hunting, antelope like creatures and phallic symbols, something similar to dogs or cats, a very definite Ibex like critter and other markings. Note the variety of distinctive horns on the drawings and that none of them show a classic bovine horn.
Hunting antelope my footsie. We are talking about a MIXED culture here! These are HEBREWS who made the Inscriptions who have EGYPTIAN INFLUENCE! The people were in a frenzy...other people were probably having fun adding to these engravings. Whether they are hunting or not bears no merit...did not the Israelites have to hunt in these areas to stay alive?
Moller has about a total of 15 pictures of Egyptian bulls, and this bull matches SEVERAL of them:
Everything matches up Jar...not just the bulls. This is Mt. Sinai, where the Israelites encamped. No other mountain fits the description...but here at Jebel Al Lawz, everything that exists was preserved by God.
I suppose you're going to go on the rest of your life disbeleiving, no matter how much we do to show you that you are simply wrong. You're fighting a losing battle.

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by jar, posted 08-12-2004 11:45 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by CK, posted 08-12-2004 1:41 PM Lysimachus has replied
 Message 512 by jar, posted 08-12-2004 4:59 PM Lysimachus has replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 477 of 603 (133251)
08-12-2004 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by PaulK
08-12-2004 1:32 PM


Re: E v i d e n c e .
PaulK,
I can't believe how much you are going out of your way to nitpick and poke at the Bible...
You don't need a specefic verse to your liking about these engraving. For you to think that the Bible was supposed to record every cotton-pickin' detail about things like this is simply unreasonable.
It's as simple as this:
The Israelites made a golden calf. Would it not be reasonable to think that the people around this alter would have made inscriptions in relation to the golden calf?

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by PaulK, posted 08-12-2004 1:32 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by PaulK, posted 08-12-2004 2:02 PM Lysimachus has not replied
 Message 563 by Trae, posted 08-13-2004 4:53 AM Lysimachus has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 478 of 603 (133252)
08-12-2004 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by CK
08-12-2004 1:41 PM


Re: E v i d e n c e .
It's the large horns depicted on some of the Egyptian bulls I see right here in Moller's book...it looks very similar. Remember, there were a lot of people dancing around that alter...and I'm sure many of them weren't artists. But clearly, we see Egyptian influence here.
Enough nitpicking. The Saudi Archaeologists know MORE THAN YOU CHARLES!

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by CK, posted 08-12-2004 1:41 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by Asgara, posted 08-12-2004 1:57 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024