Subject: Re: Mummies Flesh sold in Europe:
From: "Stephen Porter"
Date: 22 Sep 1996 08:55:54 GMT
Grooveyou wrote:
> The word mummy, derived from the persian word Mummia(mumija in Arabic),
and
> is a term which means pitch or bitumen. Bitumen was one of the substances
> used by the people of Kemet in the Ancient embalming process as well
know.
> Bitumen was similar in appearance to pissasphalt, which had long been
> regarded as a cure for nausea, cuts, bruises and a variety of other
> ailments. During the times when pissasphalt, was in short supply, mummies
> were used as a convenient substitute. Before long, businesses were
> established in cairo and Alexandria where "mummified human flesh" was
being
> packaged and exported throughout Western Europe. So, the motivation
behind
> this barborous behavior was not superstition(though Europeans are very
> superstitious), but it was big business at the expense of a culture that
at
> that time it was understood was not their own. Now, I am not protesting
that
> this was done simply because they were black, but what I am saying is
that
> this type of barbarous , cannibalistic commercialism would not have been
> tollerated if it was a European civilization in no shape or form
> whatsoever. I can site a modern example, the remains of the titanic
could
> bring in great revenues, but westerners won't alow it!...they say "let
those
> people rest in peace!"......My point is that this type of exploitation
> perpetrated by western cultures only effect people's of color.
I responded:
I beg to differ, and I think the French, the Scottish, the Irish and others
would agree. The British in particular did not only practice exploitation
upon people of color different than theirs, although in their desire to
assert their supremacy skin tone often made it easier for them to justify
their actions. I can't think of any specific times when so called
civilized Europeans practiced cannibalism upon any other people, but as I
tried to point out, it is easy for us to think of the remains of people who
lived and died several millenia prior as something less than human.
Granted, the British (again in particular) looked down on those they
conquered or were seeking to conquer as peoples inferior to themselves, if
even people at all, but if you go to England today, they still have the
same attitude about ANYONE who isn't English, regardless of skin tone. And
Europeans today are far better at accepting as equal those immigrants of
darker skin who have sought citizenship in their borders than we in the US
have been. One rarely hears anymore (I'm talking about Western Europe
here) about conflicts arising because of ethnic disagreements. And they
did disband slavery of any sort long before we did. In a perfect world we
would all see each other as equal children of humanity, and viva la
differance! I hope that we as archaeologists are evolving from our early
barbarism into people who can respect the dead no matter where they lie;
who can learn what we can from them with the utmost respect, disturbing
their rest as little as possible. Instead of raising the Titanic, why not
develop the capability of exploring the Titanic where it lies. What good
would bringing it up do? And once we did, where would we put the thing.
The important thing to remember about people is that as long as there is
someone who remembers the person who died while he was alive, as long as
that person is still alive in the hearts and minds of any person, as long
as anyone REMEMBERS, to disturb the rest of the dead -- no matter who they
are -- is a form of sacrilege to those still living. Why don't we learn
from those who came before us, and instead of bemoaning the fact that they
had no respect for people different from them, make things different today.
Why don't we begin to show respect for any and all, different or same,
alive or dead, mummified or trapped in a watery grave? It is an essential
science to learn what we can from those who have come before us, but we
should strive do so with the utmost respect for who they were and what
they believed, and should do everything in our power to restore their
resting place to the condition in which we found it. Because grave robbers
had already broken the seal to Tut's tomb before we found it doesn't
justify our removing his burial items to put on display before the curious
eyes of the world. Drawings and photographs should be sufficient. And it
certainly doesn't justify what we, the so-called civilized modern man, have
done to his body. I guess what I'm really trying to say here is: Who cares
if ninteenth century Europeans were bigotted jerks? Are you?
M.
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 96 09:28:34 GMT
In article <3241BAFB.23F8@ucsd.edu>, Vladimir Vooss wrote:
>Ann McMeekin wrote:
>>
>> > Ann, if I remember your original post asked for information
>> > - or sources - on aliens building the pyramids
>>
>
>body snipped
>
>
>>
>> This is really starting to become rather boring. I'm not sure how many
>> times I have to make this point, but I DID NOT SAY THAT ALIENS BUILT THE
>> PYRAMIDS! Got that? Good. Then maybe I can get on with what I came here
>> for in the first place, which was to find out the most up to date facts
>> information that I could.
>>
>> Thank you
>
>signature snipped
>
>____________________
>
>
>Give it up, Ann. Those whom you have enraged with your question, and
>most importantly with your persistence to defend your position, are
>going to wear you down, and heap more insult upon you than you think
>imaginable. You haven't yet been hit by the second wave major
>sci.archi.dreadnaught. They're just waiting... In the wings... First to
>be sent out are the academics, academic-wanna-bes and scientific method
>sympathizers - this is the technical and politically correct hit. The
>first wave. Then will come the hordes of punks with massive computing
>power, but little linguistic finesse, absolutely septic with sophistry,
>and containing, certainly no humanity. Then, and only then you may
>decide to finally give up. This (news?)group is programmed to destroy at
>the mere mention of the word - Atlantis. They, according to the other
>Scripture - being Atlanteans all. Giggle. If you've got the stomach for
>violence, however, hang on. It may get very interesting.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Vladimir
Hey Ann, if you want an alternative view on the pyramids and what they might
have meant to the people who built them, take a look at the solos sight at
http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/solos. Whatever the "academics" might say or
whatever "consensus" opinions they might subscribe to, the fact remains that
nobody knowns how they were built. They are only guessing. They certainly
haven't explained how sixty ton blocks of granite were raised up to the King's
Chamber and set with an accuracy that would do justice to Christopher Wren.
Cheers!
Adrian G. Gilbert (co-author of "The Orion Mystery")
Subject: Re: Anthropology resources on the net
From: Doug Weller
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:51:13 +0100
In article <522por$85s@holly.cc.uleth.ca>
gilljd@hg.uleth.ca wrote:
> jwbst22+@pitt.edu (John W Bornmann) wrote:
>
> >In article <51vkav$ru7@orb.direct.ca>, Ashli Gasten wrote:
> >>I'm looking to find any sort of anthropology newsgroups/web sites out
> >>there. I'm editing our university anth department newsletter, so I'm
> >>looking for interesting info to put in there. Specifically, are there
> >>any sites out there that have weekely "what's new" updates? ANy leads
> >>would be appreciated,
> >> -Ashli
> >>
>
>
> >
> >This information would be valuable to myself as well, and probably a number
> >of lurkers. If anyone has this, please post it, and don't hoard the
> >information . . . :)
> >Angstboy
>
> Try ArchNet, sci.anthropology, sci.anthropology.paleo, or any
> university dept anthro page.
The FAQ ANTHROPOLOGY RESOURCES ON THE INTERNET is available as
follows:
FTP from
ftp.neosoft.com/pub/users/claird/sci.anthropology/Anthropology_network_FAQ
Web version at http://www.nitehawk.com/alleycat/anth-faq.html
European mirror: http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/afaq.html
*Archaeology* main sites that are updated regularly include
ArchNet
http://spirit.lib.uconn.edu:80/ArchNet/
Archaeological Resource Guide to Europe
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/ARGE/
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Subject: Re: Conjectures..A Response To Ignorance
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 22 Sep 1996 10:56:53 GMT
In article <199609220035445911664@mousa.demon.co.uk>, billb@mousa.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
>> Steve,
>>
>> What you're saying makes sense. The diffusion across the N. Pacific, as
>> you described, is no longer a slim hypothesis. I think the diffusion in
>> this case is accepted by most people who bothered to look at the
>> evidence. There are way too many cultural connections between the peoples
>> of American N. Pacific coast and the peoples of East Asia, to suppose
>> they had no contact.
>>
>> But what I'm talking about in these threads is something quite different.
>> The main hypothesis, as I see it, is that there were many South Pacific
>> Islanders who, while travelling between islands, were driven off course
>> by storms and landed in S. America. This must have been a constant and
>> recurring phenomenon that contributed to culture diffusion.
>>
>
>You are not taking in to account thew weather systems. These are
>predominately east-west in the latitudes the polynesians operated in.
>The chances of canoes being storm driven eastwards across the Pacific
>are very slim.
The prevailing weather systems don't work well for trans Pacific
transit inside the tropics. It is more likely that people from the
Americas would have been blown off course and ended up hitting
Polynesia than the other way around.
Only in the Northern Pacific are there currents which do carry you
across from west to east.
>--
>Bill Bedford
steve
Subject: Re: Noah's Ark Rebuttal (part 1) - Rev. Baugh
From: pspinks@vegauk.co.uk (Paul Spinks)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:36:01 GMT
On Sat, 21 Sep 1996 20:53:44 GMT, Dave Washburn wrote about
"Re: Noah's Ark Rebuttal (part 1) - Rev. Baugh":
[snip]
> >> I find it interesting that nobody seems to want to answer my actual
> >> question...shall I try it again? I have no reason to believe Baugh,
> >> and I never said I did. My question is, why should I believe Paul
> >> Spinks over someone else?
> >Because:
> >(a) I'm not trying to make money or a reputation from the issue
> That's definitely in your favor, all right.
> >(b) I can recognise rocks when I see them (you'll have to take my word),
> I'm going to play devil's advocate here for just a moment and push
> this to what I see as its logical conclusion: other people can't?
> >or (c) you are able to excercise a little common sense about the matter.
> Common sense as defined by you and some others, of course :-) Let me
> narrow my question a little more, because so far plenty of people have
> torn down Baugh's credibility (of which he had precious little or none
> in the first place, so it really wasn't necessary): what are Paul
> Spinks' qualifications to make judgments about this formation?
Dave, I think you've got me. Since I was a very little kid, I've always
thought that I could look at a rock and say "hey, that's a rock". I
don't remember being taught to do it at kindergarten, nor at any later
stage. So you're right, I have no formal qualifications to back up my
claim. If your implication is that what is common sense to me may not
be common sense to you, then perhaps you are right :-)
Let's agree to differ.
Paul (pspinks@vegauk.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Sweet Potatos and Silver Bullets
From: Paul Kekai Manansala
Date: 21 Sep 1996 15:57:54 GMT
Yuri wrote:
> Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
> : In article (Frank Joseph Yurco) writes:
>
> : [deletions]
> : >As for the possible Polynesian contact with
> : >South America, to the doubters, I would note, how then, did the sweet
> : >potato, a distinct South American crop reach the Polynesian and Melanesian
> : >cultures?
>
> : After doing some further research into the sweet potato, Ipomoea Batatas,
> : the case doesn't seem to be as clearcut as you make out:
> : "There are 5 major hypotheses to explain the introduction of I Batatas
> : to the central and western Pacific, none of which can be either
> : summarily dismissed or neatly confirmed:
> : 1. prehistoric introduction by South American Indian rafts drifting
> : downstream and downwind
> : 2. prehistoric introduction on Polynesian canoes returning from a round
> : trip to South America
> : 3. historical introduction by the Portuguese from the Atlantic
> : 4. historical introduction by Spaniards from the Pacific
> : and
> : 5. natural dispersal by drifting capsules"
> : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : Of course hypotheses 3&4 can be dismissed if the Hather and Kirch article
> : I cited earlier is correct and they identified a 900 year old I. Batatas
> : specimen on a Polynesian island.
>
> These hypotheses are not serious contenders.
>
> : "Purseglove (1968) suggests introduction ... by natural dispersal; the
> : seeds are viable for more than 20 years; they are hard and dormant
> : unless sacrificed; they are impervious to salt water; and they are not
> : buoyant, but the capsule is. I doubt that the seedlings could survive
> : in the drift zone on an ocean beach, but conceivably capsules could
> : have been picked up by some Polynesian beachcomber, or seeds might
> : have germinated along the banks of a tidal estuary."
>
> : Above quotes are from:
> : Sauer, Jonathan D.
> : 1993 Historical Geography of Crop Plants. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
>
> Peter, this is a MINORITY view in the field. To say that a capsule will be > picked up by a beachcomber seems so far-fetched... Ho=
w are they going to > recognize this unknown plant? How would they know about its benefits?
First, one would have to demonstrate that such a proposition were
possible before considering it a viable theory. That would require
demonstration. Another type of proof would be showing that sweet potato
pods actually do wash up fairly regularly on Pacific islands from S.
America. This seems not to be the simplest, and thus preferable,
solution to the problem.
Paul Kekai Manansala
Subject: Re: Egyptian standards of measure: Was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 22 Sep 1996 14:54:18 GMT
In article <51uin0$fe7@shore.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net says...
>
>
>
>>>The Greeks used Egyptian unit fractions to make their calculations.
>>
>>So? What would be interesting would be if they used the same
>>decompositions whenever there would be more than one possible
>>decomposition.
>
>They typically used the same system which resulted in generally
>the fewest terms. Milo Gardiner, Kevin Brown and a growing
>field of other highly respected mathematicians have been
>studying this looking for the algorithms which they used
>recently Kevin Brown made a breakthrough of sorts which
>has been discussed elsewhere on the net. The thing which
>made it interesting to them was its degree of accuracy.
>>
>Milo Gardner
>Steve Whittet
On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Steve Whittet wrote:
> At 03:24 PM 9/21/96 -0700, you wrote:
> >Hi Steve:
> >
> >I thought tht a couple of very reecent sci.math discussion points
> >might be of interest, based on your following discussion.
> >
> >Milo Gardner
> >Sacramento, CA
> >
> >
>
> Hi Milo,
>
> These are very interesting posts. May I have your permission to repost them
to
> sci.archaeology? How do they affect your algorithms? Is this perhaps a
simpler
Yes, you have my permission. Kevin Brown's recent work shows that
the Akhmim P., 500 AD- 800 AD n/17 and n/19 tables are as small
as any modern mathematician can compute. In addition Kevin shows
that the earlier algorithms that I suggest, that go back to 1850 BC
were still in use -- though generlized from 2/p and 2/pq to n/p and
n/pq respectively.
> methodology, or is it useful in certain circumstances only? Does such a
method
> suggest that the Egyptians might have been familiar with the relative
> proportional relationships of reciprocity such as phi? Does this suggest a
> use of continued
> fractions?
It shows that Egytpians in 1850 BC paritioned 2/pq by proportions, such
as:
2/pq = (1/q + 1/pq)2/(p + 1) and
2/pq = (1/p + 1/q)2/(p + q),
the later the product of 2/AH, where
A = arithmetic mean and H = harmonic mean.
That is about as far as I can go with the RMP, and 1650 BC
copies.
Might it lead to series, both arithmetic and geometric, pascals
> triangle, that sort of thing?
>
> steve
>
>
Note, Egyptians did not use irrational numbers ,and thus
continuing fractions were not in use (as far as I have seen).
Have a great day,
Milo
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Milo Gardner
To: Steve Whittet
Subject: Egyptian standards of measure: Was Re: Egyptian Tree Words
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Milo Gardner
To: Steve Whittet
Subject: Re: Conjecture On Unit Fraction Expansions
Hi Steve:
I may be able to find one more in this thread that may be of
interest.
Again, have a great week-end,
Milo Gardner
Sacramento, CA
From: ksbrown@seanet.com (Kevin Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 04:37:26 GMT
In a recent article I described a recursive method of expanding
a simple fraction n/p into a sum of distinct unit fractions by
forming the sums of the reciprocals of the first k integers modulo
the prime numerator p. The first sum that equals the denominator n
yields an expansion of the form
n 1 / 1 1 1 \ u
--- = --- ( --- + --- + .. + --- ) + ---
p p \ x1 x2 xj / v
where 0 < x1 < x2 ... < xj <= k and v is not divisible by p. I
said that this method gives the expansion with the least possible
max denominator, p*xj. Of course, this assumes the remainder u/v
can be expanded into a sum of unit fractions with max denominator
less than p*xj, which is ordinarily the case, because v can only
be a product of divisors of the x's, each of which is smaller than
roughly log(p).
eppstein@wormwood.ICS.UCI.EDU (David Eppstein) wrote:
> I am not convinced however that this idea necessarily always gives
> the expansion with the minimum denominator... It gives some multiples
> of 1/p together with a remaining term in which no factors of p appear.
> But how do we know that remaining term has a good expansion?
You're right, there are cases in which the remainder of the first
solution produced by the recursive formula requires a denominator
greater than p*xj in its expansion. For example, if we search
recursively for an expansion of 3/2221 the first solution is occurs
with k=11, namely
3 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1
---- = ---- ( 1 + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -- ) + -----
2221 2221 \ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 / 27720
but in this case p*xj = 24431, which is less than the remainder's
denominator of 27720. What we've shown is that the greatest
denoninator in an expansion of 3/2221 must be at least 24431,
and need be no greater than 27720. To determine if there is an
expansion with max denominator between 24431 and 27720 we must
proceed to the next solution in the recursion, which occurs at k=13:
3 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1
---- = ---- ( 1 + - + - + - + - + -- + -- ) + ----
2221 2221 \ 2 5 6 7 10 13 / 2730
This shows that the next smallest possible value of p*xj is 28873,
and no later expansion in the recursion sequence can have a lesser
max denominator than this. Therefore, the preceeding solution is
optimum.
In general, this method of determining the optimum (least max
denominator) expansion consists of recursively generating the
solutions in increasing order of p*xj until finding one for which
the remainder can be expanded with a max denominator less than p*xj.
This almost always occurs on the first solution, but if it doesn't
the process continues until such a remainder is found.
Roughly speaking you will always find solutions with k less than
O[log(p)^(1+delta)], and the recurrence involves 2^k trials, so
the number of trials is very roughly on the order of p. This
approach is even more efficient for finding the limiting expansion
for ALL the numerators for a given denominator p, becauase this
can be computed in essentially the same time required to solve
for a single numerator.
Of course the above algorithm applies only to expanding fractions
with prime denominators. From the standpoint of determining the
upper bound on max denominators this is not a serious limitation
because the greatest values of (max denom in expansion)/(denom) are
known to occur for prime denominators. However, it could be a
limitation in carrying out the above algorithm in cases were the
remainder u/v is non-trivial. Fortunately the fact that v is
necessarily the product of many distinct small primes implies
that it's usually quite easy to find a robust expansion of u/v
simply by partitioning u into divisors of v.
_____________________________________________________________
| /*\ |
| MathPages / \ http://www.seanet.com/~ksbrown/ |
|_______________/_____\_______________________________________|
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Milo Gardner
To: Steve Whittet
Subject: Re: Conjecture On Unit Fraction Expansions
Hi Steve:
Kevin makes an excellent point. Bleicher and Erdos did not grasp the
simplicity of the 5/121 example, a point Stan Wagon also overlooked
in his book on Unsolved Problems in Plane Geometry and Number Theory.
Milo Gardner
Sacramento, CA
> ksbrown@seanet.com (Kevin Brown) wrote:
> >The 1976 paper of Bleicher and Erdos concludes "with a numerical
> >example which illustrates that the algorithms to date [for
> >expanding fractions into sums of unit fractions minimizing the
> >largest denominator] leave something to be desired." ...
> >
> >It's interesting that, at recently as 1976, people evidently weren't
> >familiar with the simple recursive algorithm for finding the unit
> >fraction expansion with the absolute smallest max denominator
> >
> > 5 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1
> > --- = --- ( - + - + - + - + - + - + - ) + --- + ---
> > 121 121 \ 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 / 84 120
> >
>
> David Eppstein has pointed out that since 121 is composite the
> above expansion of 5/121 isn't optimum, because the recursive
> algorithm can be applied to (1/11)(5/11) to give the almost trivial
> expansion 5/121 = 1/33 + 1/121 + 1/363. This makes it even more
> surprising that 5/121 was selected by Erdos and Bleicher to exemplify
> a "hard" fraction.
>
> By the way, I've done some more checking and found that the lowest
> order fraction n/d such that D(d)/d = 20 is 1097/14939, which expands
> to 1/14939 times
>
> / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \
> ( - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- )
> \ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 /
>
> plus a remainder of 41/560 = 1/14 + 1/560. Interestingly this is back
> in agreement with my original conjecture that D(d)/d < 2 log(d) + 1.
> Another interesting point is that the only four numerators for which
> f(n,14939) equals 20 are 1097, 1927, 13235, and 14065. Notice that
> both pairs differ by 830. Evidently these are the only four numbers
> that can't be expressed as sums in terms of the reciprocals of the
> first 20 integers modulo 14393.
>
>
Hi Steve:
I thought tht a couple of very reecent sci.math discussion points
might be of interest, based on your following discussion.
Milo Gardner
Sacramento, CA
...snip...
>
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Subject: Re: Sphinx chamber
From: Doug or Kathy Lowry
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 13:22:43 -0400
Paul V. Heinrich wrote:
>
> In article <51thlf$i67@news.enterprise.net>,
> solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert) wrote:
>
> > In article <51m5ni$1p7@soap.news.pipex.net>,
> > brother_wolf@dial.pipex.com (Andy) wrote:
> > >It says in the lastest (october) edition of encounters magazine that
> > >Dr Zahi Hawass (some bod in the eygptian goverment) said in may this
> > >year that the door will be opened in september by a canadian team.
> > >I shouldn't believe everything you read in Encounters Magazine if I were
> > you! As far as I know Dr Hawass is Director of the Giza Necropolis and is not
> > in the Egyptian Government, though he obviously has great influence. We are
> > all waiting to hear if the Canadian tema gets permission to investigate the
> > secret chamber at the end of the southern shaft of the Queen's chamber. (If
> > you don't know about this then read the article in the solos site
> > http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/solos Whether they are also going for secret
> > chambers under the Sphinx is, I suspect, unlikely. Especially after the
> Hawass
> > has been accused of cover-ups in a recent bestseller.
>
> Given the character assination that Dr. Zahi Hawass has had to endure
> from various parties, I not surprised that he being careful about
> how he handles the excavations going around the Giza Necropolis. If
> I had people making unfounded and slanderous accusations about me, I
> make sure everything is in writing and by the rules regardless of how
> friendly or unfriendly the involved parties seem to be. If things are
> going slow it is because Dr. Hawass needs to make sure he has himself
> covered from any malicious slander and gossip to spread about him. The
> people accusing him of cover-ups and such wrong-doing are whom to
> blame for much of the slow going.
>
> Yours,
> Paul V. Heinrich
> heinrich@intersurf.com
> Baton rouge, LA
>
> Standard Disclaimer Applies
> Paul V. Heinrich
In reading articles, in the "Illustrated London News", from the twenties
the camber was opened then. It consisted of a short tunnel dug under
the Sphinx by Arabs in the middle ages. There is also a hole in the top
of the Sphinx's head dating from this same period. The hole in the head
was covered by an iron plate and the chamber was blocked when
restoration work was done. This restoration was the one that added the
concrete "collar" at the neck and removed the "bobbed-hair" look the
statue had for centuries. At the same time other work was carried out
in the area and portions of the beard were found and sent to the British
Museum.
Subject: Re: Sphinx chamber
From: heinrich@intersurf.com (Paul V. Heinrich)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:13:06 -0600
In article <51thlf$i67@news.enterprise.net>,
solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert) wrote:
> In article <51m5ni$1p7@soap.news.pipex.net>,
> brother_wolf@dial.pipex.com (Andy) wrote:
> >It says in the lastest (october) edition of encounters magazine that
> >Dr Zahi Hawass (some bod in the eygptian goverment) said in may this
> >year that the door will be opened in september by a canadian team.
> >I shouldn't believe everything you read in Encounters Magazine if I were
> you! As far as I know Dr Hawass is Director of the Giza Necropolis and is not
> in the Egyptian Government, though he obviously has great influence. We are
> all waiting to hear if the Canadian tema gets permission to investigate the
> secret chamber at the end of the southern shaft of the Queen's chamber. (If
> you don't know about this then read the article in the solos site
> http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/solos. Whether they are also going for secret
> chambers under the Sphinx is, I suspect, unlikely. Especially after the
Hawass
> has been accused of cover-ups in a recent bestseller.
Given the character assination that Dr. Zahi Hawass has had to endure
from various parties, I not surprised that he being careful about
how he handles the excavations going around the Giza Necropolis. If
I had people making unfounded and slanderous accusations about me, I
make sure everything is in writing and by the rules regardless of how
friendly or unfriendly the involved parties seem to be. If things are
going slow it is because Dr. Hawass needs to make sure he has himself
covered from any malicious slander and gossip to spread about him. The
people accusing him of cover-ups and such wrong-doing are whom to
blame for much of the slow going.
Yours,
Paul V. Heinrich
heinrich@intersurf.com
Baton rouge, LA
Standard Disclaimer Applies
Paul V. Heinrich
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: Doug or Kathy Lowry
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 13:29:36 -0400
August Matthusen wrote:
>
> Baron Szabo wrote:
>
> > I warn you, the resident stiffies are a terribly paranoid lot. Always
> > rambling on about fabulous things like trolls, pyramidiots and even
> > Invisible Pink Unicorns(TM)! ;>
> > Sorry August, I couldn't resist!
>
> No problemo, Peter. Just keep in mind that Invisible Pink Unicorns(tm) do
> not like to be mocked and you can never tell when one is right behind
> you. But don't let that get you paranoid; if they're really out to get
> you then you're not paranoid.
>
> Regards,
> August MatthusenAugust Matthusen wrote:
>
> Baron Szabo wrote:
>
> > I warn you, the resident stiffies are a terribly paranoid lot. Always
> > rambling on about fabulous things like trolls, pyramidiots and even
> > Invisible Pink Unicorns(TM)! ;>
> > Sorry August, I couldn't resist!
>
> No problemo, Peter. Just keep in mind that Invisible Pink Unicorns(tm) do
> not like to be mocked and you can never tell when one is right behind
> you. But don't let that get you paranoid; if they're really out to get
> you then you're not paranoid.
>
> Regards,
> August Matthusen
They called Hitler paranoid...was he? The whole world was out to get
him. :-)
Subject: Re: A Harem For the Next World?
From: grenvill@iafrica.com (Keith Grenville)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 96 18:40:47 GMT
> On Sep 20, 1996 08:01:05 in article ,
> 'Saida ' wrote:
>
> >Yesterday I tried writing to Serge Rosmorduc of Paris, but his E-mail
> >address is no longer valid. I wanted to ask him if he had access to any
> >French books by or about Victor Loret, who explored the tomb of >Amenhotep
> II, so we could find out if Loret had any comments about the >occupants of
> this tomb. Perhaps someone else out there has something by >Loret.
> (snip)
> In Dynasty XVIII, there is zero
> evidence for women being sacrificed. What Budge claimed about Amenhotep
> II's tomb is now explained by the fact that his tomb became one of the
> caches where the royal plundered mummies were reburied. That accounts for
> the stray male and female mummies, one of whom indeed turned out to be
> the famous Queen Tiye......
>
> Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
> Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
For direct quotes of Loret from his excavation journal and a description of the investigation of the
tomb of Amenhotep II, refer to "Valley of the Kings" by John Romer, Published by Henry Holt & Co, New
York, 1981. See pages 162-4.
----
Keith Grenville
Cape Town, South Africa
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: matthuse@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen)
Date: 22 Sep 1996 18:41:10 GMT
In <32457780.111D@worldnet.att.net> Doug or Kathy Lowry
writes:
>August Matthusen wrote:
>>
>> Baron Szabo wrote:
>>
>> > I warn you, the resident stiffies are a terribly paranoid lot.
>> > Always rambling on about fabulous things like trolls, pyramidiots
>> > and even Invisible Pink Unicorns(TM)! ;>
>> > Sorry August, I couldn't resist!
>>
>> No problemo, Peter. Just keep in mind that Invisible Pink
>> Unicorns(tm) do not like to be mocked and you can never tell when
>> one is right behind you. But don't let that get you paranoid; if
>> they're really out to get you then you're not paranoid.
>They called Hitler paranoid...was he? The whole world was out to get
>him. :-)
Sigh. Can't even have a pleasant discussion about Invisible Pink
Unicorns (tm) without Godwin's Law being invoked. ;-)
Regards,
August Matthusen
PS Godwin's Law:
/prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability
of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a
tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over,
and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
Subject: Re: A Harem For the Next World?
From: Doug or Kathy Lowry
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:04:14 -0400
Saida wrote:
>
> I previously wrote:
>
> > According to Peter Clayton in "Chronicle of the Pharaohs", here is the
> > list of persons found in the tomb of Amenhotep II (KV35):
> >
> > Amenhotep II
> > Amenhotep III
> > Merenptah
> > Ramesses IV
> > Ramesses V
> > Ramesses VI
> > Seti II
> > Siptah
> > Tiye (?), the "Elder Woman"
> > Thutmose IV
> > 6 anonymous human remains, not all necessarily royal
> >
> > Among these last six were a young prince, a bald-headed woman, a man
> > lying in a funerary boat to which he was stuck with pitch. That
> > accounts for thirteen. Who else? I'll try to find out. That certainly
> > doesn't leave room for many harem ladies, unless there were bodies lying
> > about that Clayton doesn't know about. That is why I would like to know
> > what the full account of Loret's impressions of the tomb says.
>
> Found in this tomb in a side-chamber with eight kings was an anonymous
> woman, now conjectured to be Queen Tausret of the 19th Dynasty. This
> mummy is remarkable for her unique hairstyle among Egyptian female
> mummies, an upswept coiffure of sausage curls commonly found in the 19th
> Century but quite a surprise in the 19th Dynasty. In my view, this is
> simply another example of how much is absent from our understanding of
> what really went on in ancient Egypt.
>
> Out of the sixteen reported, then, that leaves two people unaccounted
> for. Who are they and why have we never seen photos of their mummies?
> Perhaps it is not whole mummies but just pieces of human remains we are
> speaking of here, which may be what led Budge and others to the
> conclusion about the "human sacrifices".C.N.Reeves in his book "Valley of the Kings - The Decline of a Royal
Necropolis" (1990), gives a reconstruction of the location of each
body. The anon.s are listed as follows:
CG no.
61071 Unwrapped. Large gash in left side of neck and thorax.
Large oval hole in right side of frontal bone.
61072 Unwrapped. Exterior wall of chest smashed;left side of
mouth broken away; right arm torn off just below the
shoulder.
61082 Unknown woman D. Disturbed. Bandages applied very
carelessly. Hole in abdominal wall in epigastrium.
Body otherwise intact.
- (the body on the boat) Unwrapped. Hole in sternum;skull
pierced. Body otherwise intact.
(this body was stolen from the tomb shortly after its
opening)
- Skull only. Hatshepsut-Meryetre? Webensenu?
- Skull only. Hatshepsut-Meryetre? Webensenu?
As you can see the list of the anons doesn't seem to support a
sacrifice. Two skulls in a coffin with two names. The others had all
been mummified. The body on the boat was a child no older than 6 years.
Unless Amenhotep II was into little boys..... (I'm not getting into that
here). He took a pretty crappy harem with him when he went. :-)
Doug L.
Subject: Re: Mummies...
From: "Stephen Porter"
Date: 22 Sep 1996 19:03:49 GMT
I have a few obscure references by Nicholas Grimal ("A History of Ancient
Egypt" 1993)
that may help concerning Ahmose (one of them anyway.) He talks about an
Ahmose but does not give any other name, whose rule began approx. 1570 BC.
He was aparently one of the mummies "saved" by Ramesses IX, and makes
reference to an autobiography written by this Ahmose, a portion of which he
quotes from "Ancient Egyptian Literature, A Book of Readings II: The New
Kingdom" printed in 1976. Perhaps you could find more about him there.
Grimal also states that this Ahmose's mother was Ahhotpe I, that he was
married to Ahmose Nefertari, and that his successor was his son Amenophis
I.
I am not an Egyptologist, and have questioned some of Grimal's facts in the
past, but this may give you some ideas of where to go from here. I
couldn't find any reference to any other of the individuals you asked
about. I do have some small stuff RE several individuals by the name of
Tuthmosis, if it turns out that that is who you are looking for. I found
brief references of two Thutmoses, one was a treasurer to Hatshepsut, and
the other a sculptor in whose workshop the famous bust of Nefertiti was
found.
I just remembered an article in the September/October "Archaeology"
magazine in which they're discussing DNA sampling of Egyptian mummies. Not
much has been determined so far, but they do mention an Ahmose I, son of
Seqenere Tao II, whose mummy was found in 1881. They believe that
Amenhotep I was his son, and that he also had a daughter by the name of
Mutnofret. They then suggest that (this is not yet based on DNA evidence)
that Amenhotep I had a daughter by the name of Ahmose Meriatmun, and was
the grandfather of Tuthmosis II. Amenhotep II is supposed to be the son of
Tuthmosis III, who fathered Tuthmosis IV. Anyway, it's convoluted and
mostly speculation that they would like to verify with DNA testing, but it
may be profitable if you can get your hands on a copy. At least you'll
know it's up-to-date information.
Did I help or make things worse?
M.
Subject: Re: Conjectures..A Response To Ignorance
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 22 Sep 1996 19:33:14 GMT
Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
: In article <5201rj$q87@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
: >The fact that Polynesians were all over the Pacific islands at rather
: >early dates should indicate clearly that they were perfectly able to make
: >it further East to the Americas.
: Yuri, no one is arguing that they were not *able* to arrive in the
: Americas, I think everyone would stipulate that it is a possibility.
: What is being discussed is whether they *did* arrive in the Americas.
Well I think they simply had to arrive to America for the reasons I
outlined.
: >This should be the default hypothesis, really.
: Let me see if I can explain the most basic point of the scientific
: method to you.
You can, but you don't have to. I learned about this stuff years ago.
: The most critical factor for a hypothesis to be
: considered useful is that it must be falsifiable, if it is not
: possible to falsify a hypothesis then it is completely useless.
: That is why you are incorrect when you say that the working hypothesis
: should be that contacts occurred. Let me go through this by example
: for you.
: The default hypothesis of no contact occurred is easily falisifiable.
: All you need to find is one authenticated Polynesian object, of pre-16th
: century date, which could not have arrived by natural means, at a
: pre-16th century New World site. If an object satisfying these criteria
: was, or is, recovered then I (and any honest scientist) will be convinced
: that contact occurred - of course we would then need to look into the
: scale and impact of that contact. I think that you understand how this
: works
Sure do.
: and that's why you've gotten so uppity
Well, this is your interpretation of my response, and you're entitled to
it. Others may have formed a different opinion.
: about the recognition that
: the sweet potato could have arrived in Polynesia by non-human processes
: (a fact that even you grudgingly admitted to).
: On the other hand the default hypothesis of contact did occur can never
: be falsified. Archaeologists have been doing work for 100+ years in
: the New World. I maintain that no objects satisfying the criteria
: outlined above have been recovered (at least none I'm aware of). If I
: am correct does this prove that no contacts occurred? The answer is
: *no*, all it means is that so far none have been found. What if we
: worked for another 100 years and still didn't find such objects, would
: this prove contacts didn't occur? *No*. How about another 100 years? No.
: Are you starting to get the idea?
So, according to you, if I offer a hypothesis that, let's say, there was
cultural traits diffusion between China and Japan, and I suggest that
this should be a default hypothesis, rather than to suppose that no
diffusion took place, this would be incorrect and illogical?
: This is why your "logic" regarding what is an appropriate working
: hypothesis is illogical.
Waiting for further refreshers about method...
Cheers,
Yuri.
--
#% Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto %#
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness === W. Allen
Subject: Re: Conjectures..A Response To Ignorance
From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter Van Rossum)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 20:20:57 GMT
In article <52449q$caa@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
>: Yuri, no one is arguing that they were not *able* to arrive in the
>: Americas, I think everyone would stipulate that it is a possibility.
>: What is being discussed is whether they *did* arrive in the Americas.
>
>Well I think they simply had to arrive to America for the reasons I
>outlined.
Here's the crux of the problem with the way you are approaching the topic.
You assume that they simply had to have arrived, yet so far you have not been
able to provide conclusive evidence that they did. At present I see no
evidence of contact yet. I can be proved wrong, and if you or anyone else
can find the type of evidence that is necessary I will change my opinion. You,
however, apparently can *never* be persuaded that they did not make
contact because you have already decided that this had to have occurred.
>: Let me see if I can explain the most basic point of the scientific
>: method to you.
>
>You can, but you don't have to. I learned about this stuff years ago.
Then please explain to me how your default hypothesis (contact occurred)
can ever be falsified. If you cannot do this then you are being unscientific.
[deletions]
>So, according to you, if I offer a hypothesis that, let's say, there was
>cultural traits diffusion between China and Japan, and I suggest that
>this should be a default hypothesis, rather than to suppose that no
>diffusion took place, this would be incorrect and illogical?
Yes, this would be an unscientific way to have begun the investigation
because if you had specified contact occurred as the original default
hypothesis it could never be disproved. The original default hypothesis
should have been "contact never occurred." Research would rapidly
show this hypothesis to be false - leading to the conclusion that contact
did occur. Get it?
>Waiting for further refreshers about method...
>Yuri.
Science progresses more by the discarding of hypotheses that are shown to
be false than it does by the proof that a hypotheis is true (and actually the
way I learned true science, the position is that no hypothesis can ever be
completely proved, only disproved). Again, Yuri unless you can specify to me
how your default hypothesis of "contact did occur" can be disproved, you are
still without a valid working hypothesis.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU
Subject: 2200 BC
From: timo.niroma@tilmari.pp.fi (Timo Niroma)
Date: 22 Sep 1996 20:49:46 GMT
Hi!
I thank you for the material I have received concerning the 2200 BC
issue. Despite of what I have received and despite the tens of books I at
the moment are reviewing, I need more information from the time period
2200-1800 BC (calendar date, not raw radiocarbon date). I would like it
posted to e-mail. I will publish my theory in detail after some weeks, or
it seems, after some months.
Especially I want to thank SIS for valuable material. The dating of Pepi
II for 2280-2190 BC is especially interesting. I calculated for over a
month ago that the Akkadian Sumer was suddenly destroyed in 2193 based on
backward counting from Hammurabi.
I suggested already ten years ago, that the southern part of the Dead Sea
is a meteor crater. And that the meorite that made the crater may have
destroyed also Sodoma and Gomorrah. In 1995 the investigations of two
Swedish archeologists brought into daylight some material on its shore,
which is now radiocarbon dated 1900+-x (depending on sigma), which
corrected is in the range of the 2200 BC event.
But the greatest surprise is a manuscript of the 13th century that seems
to be independent of Plato and says that a great island named Atland sank
into the ocean in 2193 BC (!). I have reread Plato and his story makes
much more sense, if we give up the notion that he had some radiocarbon
dating, dendrochronology or any other way of counting 9000-10000 years
backward.
But at the moment I need all information I can get about the 23rd century
BC.
Timo
Subject: Re: Conjectures about cultural contact
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 22 Sep 1996 20:37:15 GMT
Peter,
Here's a reply to your earlier post that I couldn't answer before because
of other commitments.
Peter Van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
: In article <51gs28$6c6@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
...
: O.k., I'm getting bored with arguing a non-specific theory. If you want to
: argue about trans-pacific contacts leading to cultural development you need
: to minimally specify the following:
: 1. Who do you think traveled
I am arguing that diffusion from Asia contributed to S. and N. American
prehispanic civilizations. This is a general thesis. More specifically, I
think there were many travellers from Asia over the centuries who brought
new ideas and technologies.
About the Olmecs, as I understand, much new information has been emerging
in the last few years. The theories popularized by Campbell were neat and
tidy, by they will have to be revised substantially in light of new
evidence. So I will actually retreat on the Olmec front.
Let someone else who is more familiar with the recent research take this
up...
I will have to limit myself to specific areas of diffusion that I've
researched, and where the evidence is very substantial, and sometimes
overwhelming, IMO.
- botanical evidence
- sailing craft
- pottery
- culture traits diffusion (clothes-making, blow-gun complex, etc.)
- mythology and religion
- artistic ideas
: 2. Who do you think they contacted in Mesoamerica
We can only make educated guesses about it on the basis of where the
cultural elements in question emerged in the New World.
: 3. When do you think this occurred
The time period is very broad.
I include parts of a file from my webpage that deals with some of your
questions. This is from the file named _historical stages of diffusion_.
I admit in advance that some of these ideas need to be revised in light
of new evidence. But much of this still stands.
Best,
Yuri.
*********
So what exactly are the diffusionists saying about these matters?
First of all, this is not the question of a single event when Asian
or Polynesian influence came into S. and C. America. In fact, the
diffusionists are saying that this is the matter of a _continuous
influence_ that came over a long period of time.
Most of the following is based on the work of Robert Heine-Geldern, and
of Ford, as summarised by Joseph Campbell. Apparently these scholars
identified no less than nine (!) different stages of influence, divided
into 3 major phases. I quote from THE MYTHIC IMAGE, 1974, pp. 130 ff.:
1. Colonial Formative Phase.
= Ca. 3000 b.c.: Valdivia Culture, Coastal Ecuador.
Middle Jomon ware from Kyushu, Japan; ceramic and stone
figurines.
= Ca. 2000 b.c.: Machalilla Culture, Coastal
Ecuador. A second colonising venture from some unknown
part of Asia. Another pottery style.
= Ca. 1500 b.c.: Horinouchi Type Ceramic, West Coast
Guatemala. New Japanese influences.
2. Theocratic Formative Phase.
= Ca. 1200-500 b.c.: Olmec Culture, Tabasco and
Veracruz. See Ford, p 188.
= Ca. 800-200 b.c.: Chavin Culture, Coastal and
Highland Peru. Influence from Olmecs going to the Chavin
area.
= Ca. 800-333 b.c.: Chinese Influences Evident.
Middle and Late Chou Dynasty contributions. Metal work
and weaving first appear in S. America.
= Ca. 333 b.c. - a.d. 50: Dong-son Influences. When
the coastal state of Yueh lost its independence in 333
b.c., the trans-Pacific voyages were taken up by their
neighbours in northeastern Indochina, the Dong-son.
= Ca. a.d. 50-220: Han Chinese Influences. The Dong-
son voyages may have come to an end with the final
conquest of Tonkin and North Annam by China. Pottery
types of Guatemala, in particular, closely resemble
those of Han. The dissolution of the Han empire seems to
have terminated China's trans-Pacific role.
3. Classic and Postclassic Mesoamerica (Maya, Toltec, Aztec, etc.)
= Ca. a.d. 220-1219: Southeast Asian, Hindu-Buddhist
Influences. Influences seem to have been particularly
strong from Cambodia to the Maya and Olmec areas between
the 7th and 10th centuries. A number of statues of
Buddha were found.
Joseph Needham doesn't believe that there were any relations as such
between Asia and the Americas.
But although we believe that people from East and South-
east Asia did reach the American continent on various
occasions through the ages, we are not inclined to
believe that any of them ever got home. (op. cit. p. 6)
Some other diffusionists differ on this.
********
The world is governed more by appearance than by realities, so
that it is fully as necessary to seem to know something as it
is to know it ==== Daniel Webster
Subject: Re: New Pharohs tomb found?
From: Doug or Kathy Lowry
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 19:41:35 -0400
Saida wrote:
>
> Paul C. Dickie wrote:
> >
> > In article
> > grenvill@iafrica.com "Keith Grenville" writes:>
> > >> >This fellow who built the house, his name didn't happen to be Rassoul
> > >> >by any chance?
> >
> > Why "Rassoul"?
>
> The Rassoul family were the ones who had discovered the Deir el Bahari
> cache of royal mummies, quietly selling their grave goods on the
> antiquities market for several years before the authorities got wind of
> it and made them devulge the location of their find.
> >
> > >It was also reported on South African radio news - only on one bulletin 0800
> > >last Sunday morning. Nothing else. If there's a house built on top of the
> > >tomb it cannot be in the Valley of the Kings!
> >
> > The news reports here said it was about a mile from the Valley of the Kings
> >
> > >The only place where that frequently happens is on the west bank at Qurna
> > >- and those are the tombs of the Nobles.
> >
> > Let's leave to one side the matter of the body being from the XIXth dynasty.
> >
> > The apparent discovery of a Pharoah's body in what may turn out to be a noble's
> > tomb makes one wonder if the identification of the body has been completely
> > mistaken (ie it's simply a noble that has been found), or if a Pharoah's body
> > was placed there, either in antiquity or more recently.
> >
> > If it was placed there more recently, that might imply that there is another
> > cache of mummies elsewhere in the Valley; if it was placed there in antiquity,
> > it could either have been a hasty internment like that of Tutanhkamun, or from
> > the work of the reburial commission that we know was responsible for some of
> > the caches of bodies in and around the Valley.
> >
> > How certain is the evidence that the mummy was XIXth dynasty -- and is it
> > possible that one of the XIXth dynasty rulers was exhumed in antiquity from a
> > tomb that had already been partially plundered and interred in a noble's tomb,
> > some distance away from the Valley and its known riches?
> >
> > < Paul >
>
> As I said in an earlier post, all the tombs of the 19th Dynasty pharaohs
> are accounted for--but not the mummies! Ramesses I is still missing and
> so is Amenmesse, a shadowy king who reigned between Merenptah and Seti
> II.
> >
> >
Every tomb in Egypt appears to be called a 'king's tomb' by the natives.
Adds to the prestige I guess. I've seen a couple of TV programs
recently that show a villager going to the back of his storeroom and
opening a blocked up hole in the cliff-face. He called it, "an ancient
king's tomb". The opening appeared to be about 6 feet square, if that.
Not a great king. Could this be what they're talking about? The
villager had blocked up the open tomb when his livestock kept drifting
into the empty and unsafe crypt.
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: gans@acf2.nyu.edu (gans)
Date: 22 Sep 1996 22:10:14 GMT
Dan Barnes (dbarnes@liv.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <51fi9b$r0q@news.nyu.edu>, gans@scholar.nyu.edu says...
: >
: >William R. Belcher (wbelcher@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
: >: Matt:
: >:
: >: Thank goodness - I thought that you were serious (about the post that is).
: >
: >For shame. How little we know our fellow posters. I'll be
: >glad to certify Matt's sane-ness. In fact, I suspect that
: >he is a member of the International Archaeological Conspiracy.
: >
: > ----- Paul J. Gans [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
: >
: Being an Archaeologist myself (researching Human Evolution) I would
: appreciate it if someone could point me in the direction of the IAC.
Of course we can, but then we'd have to kill you.
: If I ever
: discover something radical and theory-busting in the course of my
: work I would need a number of like-minded individuals to help me
: cover it up quickly.
Oh? No problem. All you have to do is publish it in peer-reviewed
journals. Nuts and crackpots *never* read peer-reviewed journals.
You don't need the IAC for something as trivial as that.
The IAC is devoted to REALLY BIG COVERUPS, such as hiding the
evidence that space aliens built the Pyramids and navigation
beacons. Our best job to date is the total dismantling of the
entire continent of Atlantis, which we have cleverly hidden in
one of the store rooms of the British Museum.
: From what the God fearing Christians who post to talk origins
: (for one) seem to be saying, there must be a large group of
: like-minded individuals out there who can help. i
Well, this isn't talk.origins. Talk.origins has a fair number
of nuts and crackposts posting to it. Not at all like this
group.
I've tried to be a crackpot, but I read a book once by a person
who did actual research, so I'm disqualified.
: I am also
: seeking a way of getting elected to the One World Government
: (who - I assume sponsor the IAC) as I'm sure they have better funding
: programmes than the ordinary ones.
You can't get elected. You get selected. Wait at home for the
secret knock.
----- Paul J. Gans [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Subject: Re: Robert the Bruce - Half Man, Half Arthropod?
From: pegasus@easynet.co.uk (pegasus)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 06:16:34 GMT
Dominic Green wrote:
Hello Dominic, my name is Andrew and I'm from Scotland and I am your
blind date for the evening.
The reason Robert the Brucey Wallace was chopped into bits was because
of English Nationalism, the upper class cads were afraid of us working
class Jocks, and didn't want to piss us off, especially since we're a
good source of cannon fodder to defend the English Empire with.
Over 50% of the troops supplied by the 'Crown' during the gulf war
were Scottish, which even to an English twit like yourself, ought to
point to a bias of nationalaties in the British contingent somewhat in
favour of preserving English manhood, and continuing with the age old
campaign of genocide,jealousy and fear against the Scottish people.
I don't know why, because when the world runs out of Scotsmen and
women, there will be a major dearth in British cannonfodder and
therefore less military participation in the world by the disunited
Kingdom, and also the same Intelligent and hard wearing stock that
gave you T.V, Computers and a whole pile of inventions that are part
of the Western infrastructure, the whole place will simply collapse.
to quote a popular Scottish ballad.
'and stood against him, proud edwards army,
and sent him homewards to think again'
Pray that we never run out of Bravehearts to die for the English
Empire.
>Dear Friends
>I am profoundly Glad that Mr. The Bruce's (apparently conical) heart has
>been located. Now we can set our sights on uncovering the rest of him.
>Evidently the good King's unfortunate leprous affliction led to Bits of
>Him Dropping Off From Time to Time requiring separate burial before he
>could be Wholesomely Inhumed. Possibly the Winkie Of The Bruce itself
>still awaits discovery and ceremonial unearthing to a solemn
>accompaniment of bagpipes.
>However, the very nature of the Heart itself craves discussion. What
>manner of brave heart requires to be buried in not merely one, but two
>heavy leaden caskets? Surely the answer is a Dangerously Radioactive
>one. Is it possible that The Bruce possessed Radioactive Blood, having
>been bitten by that same Spider which he observed perseveringly spinning
>its web, and that from that day forward he became possessed of the
>Powers of the Spider and rode out to Fight Evil in All Its Forms,
>becoming able to Swing from a Thread? Take a Look Overhead, his
>claymore-wielding supporters would have yelled, Hey There, There Goes
>the Spider Man. By day, he would have been a mild-mannered Scottish
>Freedom Fighter; by night, a masked Scottish Freedom Fighter with the
>power to ride his horse up tall buildings. Possibly the Spider also
>contracted Leprosy from the encounter. However, I have experimented
>with ordinary domestic rabbits, and discovered that a Bite cannot pass
>on characteristics between Man and Animal. No matter how many times I
>Bite the rabbits, they remain herbivorous rodents with virtually no
>typing skills.
>Yours
>Reverend Colonel Ignatius Churchward The Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.) Oxon.
>(Oklahoma)
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: gans@acf2.nyu.edu (gans)
Date: 22 Sep 1996 22:16:13 GMT
Vladimir Vooss (vvooss@ucsd.edu) wrote:
: Ann McMeekin wrote:
: >
: > > Ann, if I remember your original post asked for information
: > > - or sources - on aliens building the pyramids
: >
:
: body snipped
:
:
: >
: > This is really starting to become rather boring. I'm not sure how many
: > times I have to make this point, but I DID NOT SAY THAT ALIENS BUILT THE
: > PYRAMIDS! Got that? Good. Then maybe I can get on with what I came here
: > for in the first place, which was to find out the most up to date facts
: > information that I could.
: >
: > Thank you
:
: signature snipped
:
: ____________________
:
:
: Give it up, Ann. Those whom you have enraged with your question, and
: most importantly with your persistence to defend your position, are
: going to wear you down, and heap more insult upon you than you think
: imaginable. You haven't yet been hit by the second wave major
: sci.archi.dreadnaught. They're just waiting... In the wings... First to
: be sent out are the academics, academic-wanna-bes and scientific method
: sympathizers - this is the technical and politically correct hit. The
: first wave. Then will come the hordes of punks with massive computing
: power, but little linguistic finesse, absolutely septic with sophistry,
: and containing, certainly no humanity. Then, and only then you may
: decide to finally give up. This (news?)group is programmed to destroy at
: the mere mention of the word - Atlantis. They, according to the other
: Scripture - being Atlanteans all. Giggle. If you've got the stomach for
: violence, however, hang on. It may get very interesting.
Vladimir is right. We can all find information on these questions
by channeling or, better, smoking good stuff.
Damned ignorant scientists are part of an international
conspiracy (organized by space aliens) to pervert and hide
the basic knowledge of our planet and our lives.
Only one thing bothers me Vlad? Why didn't you answer her
question?
----- Paul J. Gans [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]