Subject: Re: New discovery of Pharaohs tomb
From: Greg Reeder
Date: 27 Sep 1996 05:37:53 GMT
fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu (Frank Joseph Yurco) wrote:
>This story looks suspicious on several grounds. All the 19th Dynasty
>pharaohs are known from monuments and inscriptions. We have mummies of
>all but two: Ramesses I and Amenmesse. Both, however, have known tombs
>in the Valley of the Kings. The tomb described in Al-Ahram, secondly,
>is more akin to early Dynasty 18 tombs, such as Hatshepsut's which does
>indeed have a long winding corridor. Dynasty 19 tombs were straight,
>with a sequence of chambers ending in the burial chamber. All were located
>in the Valley of the Kings, also. So, are we dealing with a post Dynasty
>reburial perhaps, akin to the caches discovered in 1881 and 1901? As to
>who this could be, that's the real mystery. Another problem in the story:
>There's no marble in the Valley of the Kings, or in the Qurna necropolis,
>anywhere, only limestone of varying quality. So, there's a mixture of
>facts and fictions in this story, and a lack of squaring with the known
>Dynasty 19 mummies, unless this be either a reburial of Ramesses I or
>Amenmesse.
>
>Most sincerely,
>Frank J. Yurco
>--
>Frank Joseph Yurco fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu
Sources I have from Egypt indicate that it is not a royal tomb but a
noble's tomb, in El Qurna, that had been robbed in antiquity but has some
artifacts left plus a sarcaphapus. I agree with Yorco that marble makes
no sense. Why all the false information in the reports? More soon.
--
Greg Reeder
On the WWW
at Reeder's Egypt Page
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
reeder@sirius.com
Subject: Are Mainstream Linguists Nothing More than Orthodox Oxen?
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 06:12:19 GMT
In article <52coe9$t3g_003@news.cyberix.com>, wrote:
>In article ,
> petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>In article <51uijt$fe7@shore.shore.net>,
>>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>>The Egyptians concieved of living the life in Ma'at or doing what
>>>was right and proper as a way of becoming one with Neter (nature).
>> There you go again. English "nature" is from Latin natura, what
>>something has built-in, from nasci, to be born, ultimately from
>>Indo-European *gen@- "to generate, beget, ..."
>Of course, nobody who understands the history, philosophy, or methodology of
>the empirical sciences would continually attempt to refute hypothesized
>cognations of real words by parroting as if they were axioms what are
>ultimately nothing more than different hypothesized cognations.
"There is no ox so dumb as the orthodox" -- the words of the
crackpot George Francis Gillette, in response to the lack of enthusiasm
for his "Spiral Universe" theory (Martin Gardner, _Fads and Fallacies in
the Name of Science_, http://www.webcom.com/petrich/misc/Gillette.txt).
Seriously, there are *numerous* correspondences between words
that are too much to be coincidence, and it is for that reason that some
Proto-Indo-European language, or at least collection of dialects, is
hypothesized.
... This,
>notwithstanding the fact that the parroted cognations have been declared "O.K.
>to parrot" by the etymology board of the American Heritage Dictionary.
The AHD does *not* represent some Party Line, but one of the most
accessible documents on Indo-European linguistics I have been able to find.
>So, to axiomatically invoke, as Mr. Petrich has, that a real word like Latin
>"natus" was derived from in the accepted way -- from a hypothetical form
>*gna-sko- of a hypothetical zero-grade form *gö@-sko- a hypothetical
>Indo-European root gen@- -- as a basis for refuting Mr. Whittet's hypothesis
>-- i.e., "natus" reveals its cognation with the semantically and phonetically
>very close Egyptian word Neter -- is nothing but shear and utter lunacy --
>given especially the wealth of evidence that Egyptian words could easily have
>and did move prehistorically into the so called Indo-European lexicon.
That's bullpoop. Semantically, the two words don't fit, and why
doesn't the Latin word have that r that's in the Egyptian one?
And Mr. Berlant does seem to have access to an AHD of his own,
which means that he could see the numerous words that have been derived
from that root, at least those that have gotten into English. Not only
native ones, but also German, Latin, Greek, and even Sanskrit ones.
[Some appeals to Galileo, the patron saint of self-pitying crackpots...]
I have no intention of making a bonfire out of Mr. Berlant :-):-):-)
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Michael Hanks
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 23:28:49 -0700
> >In smiling with amusement - even if you can push or pull or roll
> >large weights on straight low friction surfaces, when you try to
> >solve the problem of How and with What knowledge the pyramid was
> >constructed - you run into insurmountable problems with your methods
> >in no time flat.
>
> I don't have any problems at all. It's simple to do, especially with
> several thousand people working at it. I've seen twenty people put up a
> house in 24 hours. What's so hard for thousands of people working over
> quite a few years? I fear the only difficulties are your lack of
> imagination and unwillingness to understand what's been told to you.
>
>
> >> If one man can lift 50 pounds, then 1000 men can lift
> >> 25 tons. (The problem is finding a way for them all to be able to work at
> >> the same time.)
> >
> >Really? I thought I have been saying that all along..
>
> No, you just keep saying it can't be done. But there *is* a simple way
> around the problem: it's called organization.
>
Kevin,
Your patience and sincerety are appreciated in dealing with some of the
more rigid and hostile elements which emerge in any discourse. However,
organization isn't the magic pill which gets 1,000 men moving
400,000-pound blocks into precisely hairpin positions, sometimes at
well over 300 feet vertically into the structure. 1,000 men is a lot
of bodies to "organize" in the small space it takes to manipulate a 5-foot
block with precision. Reason tells us that something else was operating
beyond the "Organization Man."
Likewise, the whole of the project requires something more of a
megalomaniac taskmaster. All of the evidence indicates that it is unique
to Giza (the Khufu pyramid) in its design and function (whatever that
was), and that in all probability is much older -- estimates range between
two to ten millenia -- than anything on the plateau.
This is an anomaly which begs explanation beyond the ordinary, but how far
beyond is up for debate. Aliens? Probably not, but maybe. Homo sapiens
sapiens? Probably, but not Homo as we've thought of him in the past.
Graham Hancock, following Hapgood and others, says Alanteans may have
built the pyramids. Many laugh, but many laughed when Homer talked about
Troy. Many people still living had a good Trojan chuckle until very
recently. Ask them about the possibility of Atlantis.
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: gans@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 27 Sep 1996 03:39:42 GMT
August Matthusen (matthuse@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Paul Gans writes:
: >
: >August Matthusen (matthuse@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >:
: >: Below is the IAC(tm) FAQ:
: >:
: >: The IAC(tm) is just one of the many branches of the International Science
: >: Conspiracy(tm). In all cases, "scientists" and/or "academicians" of some
: >: "ilk" or another are conspiring to prevent critical information being
: >: allowed to reach *those who would really know best what to do* with this
: >: information (TWWRKBWTD). These same "scientists" are also *not*
: >: investigating things which would supply much needed information for
: >: TWWRKBWTD. Should any of TWWRKBWTD seek to spread the "word" regarding
: >: anything being hidden, then the "scientists" make use of the dreaded "peer
: >: review" to prevent the "word" from being effectively spread. Examples of
: >: things which the ISC(tm) is hiding or is not investigating are: space
: >: ships being back-engineered in Area 51; space aliens being held captive in
: >: Area 51; perpetual motion machines (the patent office sends out members of
: >: the ISC(tm) to confiscate them); the 1000 mile/gallon carburator; claims
: >: for the existence of Atlantis, Mu, Lemuria, et al.; amorphous silica
: >: crystallizing to form sandstone strata; carbon dating of the wood from the
: >: Pyramid; the Sea People(tm) dyeing salt pink; the Sphinx being carved by
: >: Atlanteans; Celts, Egyptians, Basques, Polynesians, Oghams et al. invading
: the new
: >: world to teach the early peoples everything; collisions of the Earth with
: >: Venus being responsible for hydrocarbons on Earth and everything else in
: >: the Bible (while Einstein thought God does not play dice with the Universe,
:
: >: Velikovsky was sure He plays billiards with it); the Great Flood; Marduk;
: >: psychics; Uri Geller; the Atlantean mathematics of the Nazca Monkey,
: >: Carboniferous fossil hominids and axe handles, etc., etc., etc.
: >:
: >:
: >: Regards,
: >: August Matthusen
: >: [Recording Secretary, ISC(tm);
: >: Treasurer, International Geological Conspiracy(tm)]
: >
: >Now we're going to have to kill you.
:
: Over my dead body!!!
Exactly.
------ Paul J. Gans [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: gans@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 27 Sep 1996 03:48:28 GMT
Vladimir Vooss (vvooss@ucsd.edu) wrote:
: gans wrote:
:
: body snipped
:
:
:
: >
: > Vladimir is right. We can all find information on these questions
: > by channeling or, better, smoking good stuff.
:
: I never said that. I never advocated smoking (good) STUFF. But having
: spent more than thirty years of my life in academia, I speak of
: academics as though I know them well. And I do know the modus of the
: ivory tower - very well.
:
: > 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.
:
: Most of the scientists I have met before and know today are very
: intelligent, hardworking people. Many are very artistically inclined and
: very sensitive - this latter part is most carefully hidden. The
: academic/scientific straight-jacket they all work in and within which
: they must function is - well - perhaps this system could do with smoking
: a little good stuff. I don't know. You know what they say about the
: religionists - where bishops and priests go, so follow the pigs and
: wine.
:
:
: > Only one thing bothers me Vlad? Why didn't you answer her
: > question?
:
:
: I did. You didn't see it. That's OK. All I can say, Paul, is that your
: reaction, is derived from a system which tolerates no other thought or
: deed other than its own.
: And the sickening accusation tht any thought other than yours is due to
: smoking stuff - is really regrettable. Which is why others see (most) of
: science trapped in its own little bubble, unable to deal with the (real)
: world out there.
:
: Salud!
:
: Vladimir
Gee Vladimir, I'm sorry you've had such a bad experience with
academics. Those poor confused folks seem to think that they
*do* deal with reality.
For example:
I recall a recent post by Frank Yurco, a trapped academic at
the University of Chicago in which, the poor deluded man,
actually urged folks to GO AND LOOK AT THE PYRAMIDS before
espousing theories about them.
Can you imagine such delusion.
Since I know that academics are as prone to smoking good stuff
as anyone else, it is clear that it has gone to their heads.
------- Paul J. Gans [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: blair@trojan.neta.com (Blair P Houghton)
Date: 27 Sep 1996 00:56:33 -0700
Michael Hanks wrote:
>Your patience and sincerety are appreciated in dealing with some of the
>more rigid and hostile elements which emerge in any discourse. However,
>organization isn't the magic pill which gets 1,000 men moving
>400,000-pound blocks into precisely hairpin positions, sometimes at
>well over 300 feet vertically into the structure. 1,000 men is a lot
>of bodies to "organize" in the small space it takes to manipulate a 5-foot
>block with precision. Reason tells us that something else was operating
>beyond the "Organization Man."
(5 ft)^3 = 125 cu.ft.
limestone =~ 200 lb/cu.ft.
125 cu.ft * 200 lb/cu.ft = 25,000 lb.
25,000 != 400,000.
Reason took a walk somewhere in the middle of that paragraph.
>Likewise, the whole of the project requires something more of a
>megalomaniac taskmaster. All of the evidence indicates that it is unique
>to Giza (the Khufu pyramid) in its design and function (whatever that
>was), and that in all probability is much older -- estimates range between
>two to ten millenia -- than anything on the plateau.
Except the Sphinx, which likewise appears to some to
predate the rest of the constructs by millenia.
>This is an anomaly which begs explanation beyond the ordinary,
>but how far beyond is up for debate. Aliens? Probably not, but maybe.
>Homo sapiens
>sapiens? Probably, but not Homo as we've thought of him in the past.
You give our species far too little credit.
>Graham Hancock, following Hapgood and others, says Alanteans may have
>built the pyramids.
And what sort of supermen are these who could lift,
microsmooth, and polar align huge blocks of rock
with but the power of their John Deeres, but not
notice that their entire civilization was domociled
on a soap bubble?
>Many laugh, but many laughed when Homer talked about Troy.
Many laughed, but Paris burned.
>Many people still living had a good Trojan chuckle until very
>recently. Ask them about the possibility of Atlantis.
There are two kinds of "many" at work, here. The "many"
who have a legitimate gripe, and the "many" who make up
a strawman. The first kind are people, and the second
kind are dead, dried grass.
--Blair
"Someone tell Lois that Clark's
tights are showing again..."
Subject: Re: Sumerian etymology of the word Lugal
From: Berlant@cyberix.com
Date: 26 Sep 1996 18:25:42 GMT
In article ,
piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>In article <3242F5C8.5210@nic.smsu.edu> Marc Cooper
writes:
>Steve,
>
>I don't know whether or not Piotr Michalowski was baiting anyone when he
indicated that there may be alternative etymologies for lugal.
Mr. M. may or may not have been baiting Mr. Whittet. However, Mr. M. never
indicated that "there may be alternative etymologies for LUGAL". What he did
indicate was that "it is not used by more than one language. . .only . . . in
Sumerian".
So, when he went on to challenge Mr. W. to "Show us one instance of LUGAL
being borrowed into another language, if you please!", it seemed to me that he
was implying he already knew for certain that it wasn't -- notwithstanding
what, imho, should have appeared to Mr. Whittet and others as the "potential"
cognation of LUGAL, leg-al, and reg-al.
i, therefore, could not help but suspect that Mr. M.'s "challenge" -- if, you
will -- to Mr. W. was being perceived as "bait" by the philologically naive
who were afraid to get pounced on for having broken a taboo against suggesting
that two sacred -- but, nonetheless hypothetical -- Indo-European roots could
possibly be replaced by a real, extra- Indo-European word. As i've recently
pointed out here and elsewhere, an etymology that traces a real word back to
another semantically and phonetically identical real word is scientifically
far sounder than an etymology that relies on one or more hypothetical words
and sound shifts to trace the same real word back to a hypothetical
Indo-European root.
>I thought that he was being careful, since etymology, particularly in a
>language in which the phonetic value of many words is at best tentative, is
>always difficult.
As I agree whole-heartedly, i often wonder why philologists repeatedly attempt
to defend hypothetical, Indo-European etymologies -- overburdened, as they
clearly are -- by strictly hypothetical terms, against a more parsimonious,
extra-Indo-European alternative using very real words that are phonetically
and semantically identical, virtually so, and/or otherwise associable.
>"Big man" is a reasonable and direct translation of the two signs which
>combine to form lugal. In fact, in proto-literate pottery and seals there are
>images of a "big man" who holds a spear and seems to be in charge of others
>who are drawn smaller. That said, the Sumerian word "gal" also means "cup".
>Sumerian kings and gods are occasionally shown in seals offering a cup of
>beer or wine to a lesser party. Hence, another possible etymology is "Man (or
Lord) of Cups." >
The idea of "king" may have originally inhered in Sumerian GAL as Gal and
Gal-Gal, mean "Great"; and, in Mr. Michalowski's recent "gloss" which -- if i
understand it correctly -- indicates that a third millennium gloss nu-gal
relates to "king".
in either case, the association that Gal had with the pictograph of a cup
evidently caused a "k" variant of it to come into, for example:
1) Latin as "calix", "cup"; French chalice; Swedish "kalk", etc., etc; but
Finnish "kalja" for "beer", which is now explainable in light of your analysis
of the pictograph for Sumerian GAL. Also, Biblical Hebrew gol, gole for an
annointing cup of oil.
Returning to additional, potential cognates of LUGAL and/or reg-:
1) Hebrew "rosh", "head" and "resh", "first", "top" -- phonetically very close
especially to, e.g., Sanskrit "rajah" and Latin "reg-", respectively; and,
2) Egyptian "rutch", overseers, inspectors.
Given that ancient kings regarded themselves as priest kings and men of
outstanding intelligence, also potentially cognate is the Egyptian root for
knowledge "resh". Then, when Egyptian "resh" is taken together with the its
variant "rekh", which similarly means "wisdom", "wisemen", "seers", these
variants parallel the hard and soft forms of the hypothetical Indo-European
root "reg-" found in, e.g., regime and regal.
I can state with impunity that the etymologies of LUGAL, and GAL are far, far,
far more extensive, complicated, interesting, and more important than anyone
and, especially, Mr. M. can imagine; for as he recently wrote, "I am sorry to
disagree, but this is hardly an important debate."
Because he also recently wrote, "This is a red herring, or, I suspect, a issue
that started as a joke", i shall also state -- as i believe Rosemary, played
by Mia Farrow in the movie "Rosemary's Baby" stated emphatically -- "This is
real."
Stephen R. Berlant
"It is impossible to dissociate language from science or science from
language, because every natural science always involves three things: the
sequence of phenomena on which the science is based; the abstract concepts
which call these phenomena to mind; and the words in which the concepts are
expressed. To call forth a concept a word is needed; to portray a phenomenon,
a concept is needed. All three mirror one and the same reality. Antoine
Laurent Lavoisier, Traité Elémentaire de Chimie [1789]
Subject: Re: Origins of Europeans..
From: grifcon@usa.pipeline.com(Katherine Griffis)
Date: 27 Sep 1996 07:49:53 GMT
On Sep 26, 1996 21:07:07 in article ,
'grooveyou@aol.com (GROOVE YOU)' wrote:
>With that in mind , then how come these white Egyptians
>didnt build thier civilization at home in the caucus mountains, or in the
>eurasian steppes?...why go to a land of people that you hate to build your
>civilization?
While I am *not* commenting on white "Europeans", there has been some
intriguing information coming from Asia that now seems to cast doubt on
Africa as the base of man's origins. In an article published last week in
the news here, archaeological finds in areas of China indicate that the
remnants of man there predate the African remains by about 20,000-50,000
years.
If substantiated, there appears to be some argument for migrations from
Asia *to* Africa, with the older *Chinese* man as the possible *originator*
of African inhabitance and civilizations, and/or (in the alternative)
possible *parallel* developments of man and his civilization (making 3
known points of ancient man: China, Indus Valley, and Africa). It has also
been asserted that the Asian development is **far older** than the African
one, which means that GY's assertions lose in "we was here first" contest.
Has anyone else a comment on this article (looking for AP/UPI report to
post here)?
Katherine
Subject: Re: Linguistic stabs-in-the-dark???
From: Saida
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 08:26:24 -0500
I wrote:
> "Est-ce toi, Marguerite...." Saida, *smeing* to herself as she sings
> the "Mirror Song" from "Faust". Probably, at some later date, she may
> have the last *smei*--(laugh).
Pardonez-moi, make that the "Jewel Song" sung by Marguerite in this
opera while gazing into a mirror.
Perhaps, if I can find a little time this weekend, I will look at some
Egyptian "jewel" words.
Meanwhile, while searching out the "monkey" business, I came across a
couple of items in the "h's".
Yet another word for ebony --hebin.
Another word for heart besides "ab"--ha-t.
"He-ta'at", meaning great house, palace. Estate?
"Hat", a place behind or outside--(maybe the "outhouse") or where we get
the word "hut".
"Ha-f-em-ha-f", the god with the back of the neck in front. No wonder
people like Herodotus wrote that Egypt was an odd country.
Subject: Re: Sumerian etymology of the word Lugal
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 10:17:20
In article <52d72k$t3g_004@news.cyberix.com> Berlant@cyberix.com writes:
>F
>Mr. M. may or may not have been baiting Mr. Whittet. However, Mr. M. never
>indicated that "there may be alternative etymologies for LUGAL". What he did
>indicate was that "it is not used by more than one language. . .only . . . in
>Sumerian".
>So, when he went on to challenge Mr. W. to "Show us one instance of LUGAL
>being borrowed into another language, if you please!", it seemed to me that he
>was implying he already knew for certain that it wasn't -- notwithstanding
>what, imho, should have appeared to Mr. Whittet and others as the "potential"
>cognation of LUGAL, leg-al, and reg-al.
snip
No, it never entered my mind that someone could associate lugal with legal,
not at all..
>Returning to additional, potential cognates of LUGAL and/or reg-:
>1) Hebrew "rosh", "head" and "resh", "first", "top" -- phonetically very close
>especially to, e.g., Sanskrit "rajah" and Latin "reg-", respectively; and,
>2) Egyptian "rutch", overseers, inspectors.
This is all really too much. Languages actually do change, and they change in
ways that are regular. This was the great discuvery of the neo-grammarians
ages ago and it stnads, with some modifications, today. A good
Indo-europeanist can show you very nicely how, for example, Hittite hara(sh),
"eagle," underwent regular sound change through various languages, to become
Russian orel or Polish orzel, words that on the surface would seem completely
unrelated. Stab in the dark similarities between words thousands of years
apart are of little use. Also, semantics that are streched to the limit do
not help. Hebrew resh is common Semitic, in fact it is cognate to Akkadian
reshum, which has absolutely nothing to do with Sumerian lugal, which was
always translated by Akkadians as sharrum. Moreover, Sumerian has perfectly
good terms for legal matters, including nig-si-sa, "justice," and one would
first look there for such a loan. The fact that a very ancient word, in
conventional transliteration, looks very much like a modern one in an
unrelated language, is the best proof that it is not a loan. It is also
rather strange to find direct loans between Sumerian and IE, as there is no
evidence that they could ever have been in direct contact, Sumerian having
died out before the Hittites came to Asia Minor. There are cognates between
ancient Near Eastern languages and European ones, but these are usually
"culture words," and they come into European languages through modern NE
vernaculars, primarily Arabic, but also Turkish and Persian. Dragoman, in
the meaning translator, guide, is one such word, as it is related to Akkadian
targumanu, itself not a native word, but it is not a loan from that language
but from Arabic. The same is true for words such as naphta, etc.
There are very few established loans from Sumerian and any other language but
Akkadian. One problematical one is hebrew haikal, "palace," which many have
associated with Sumerian e2-gal (lit. big house), since e2 is in reality `a,
or the like, that is a CV word. It is also likely that--if it is at all
related--that it came through Akkadian egallu or the like.
The problem is that using chance similarities and stretching semantic
association results in a completely haphazard methodology in which anything is
possible and it explains nothing. There are many, many books out there that
are filled with this kind of thing, but as sensational as some of these things
might be, few people are convinced by this kind of non-systematic free
association.
Subject: Re: Stop trashing Henry Lincoln!
From: Claudio De Diana
Date: 27 Sep 1996 15:59:45 GMT
davep@corp.netcom.net.uk (Dave Parry) wrote:
>
>Whatever the 'truth' of books by people like Lincoln, Hancock, Bauval
>or Gilbert for example, in my opinion they perform a very valuable
>service, they stir the interest and the imagination of people who,
>perhaps, find the more technical or academic tomes inaccessible and
>who perhaps might not otherwise be drawn to examine and speculate on
>our ancient past and origins.
Well, perhaps I have got some problem with my English but
as a matter of fact I would not use the term "examine" and
"speculate" when an author proposes extraterrestrial origin
for many monuments of the past.
We should draw a line between what is "inaccessible" because
of a lack of capacity and what is "inaccessible" because of lazyness.
As an example some people here have got mainly a scientific
education and take history/archaelogy as an "hobby"
(I am one of these) they (we) cannot, for example, interpret
original historical sources because, for example, they (we) are
not able to interpret hyeroglyphs or read ancient Greek.
What is left to the reader is a global judgement about
the work that is going to read. Talking about myths,
for example, I know that if I take a book of Mircea Eliade
or K.G. Jung I'll proceed at the amazing speed of 4-6 pages
per hour and I am not surprised about this.. these people
dedicated their life to these topics and communicating the results
will take time and, in a certain sense, the time is a measure
of the value of the results!! Even a basic explanation
of, for example, the way in which it works the CPU of the PC that you
are using to read this post of mine will take some days..
or would you trust a five page booklet about how your PC works?
>
>Whatever 'professional' historians say, a lot of our conclusions on
>our distant past are based on scanty or controversial evidence and so
>re-examination of what evidence exists and other interpretations are
>valid so long as they do not fly in the face of incontrovertible
>evidence.
So this phrase sounds to me as a clear example of the mistake
some people do: "whatever 'professional' historian say" ah, ah!
At least professional historians (1) try to interpret the findings
and do not invent them (2) have to find an interpretation
which fits the work of other people.
Let's take "Atlantis" often correlated with the "P.B.A. syndrome (Pyramids
Built by Aliens - a very dangerous physicological disease)" etc..
It is a pit that the bunch of people who dreams about this
forget about the connections with the rest of the history of the
world..
=== Atlantis, a great civilization sunk in the Sea..
mmh, fine! Where are the Atalantean Artifacts?
=== eh, all losts in the disasters ..
mmh, well maybe we can trace a sudden increase of the technological
level in some area.. after all if it was an advanced civilization
they could have escaped by means motor boats, helicopters, airplane,
submarine etc.. etc.. come on, even a single Atlantean washed
upon a shore with an automatic gun and a box of bullet would have
created an empire in the Egyphtians time..
=== yeah! in fact of can you explain the building of the pyramids?
We were created by an advanced technology!!
seeh, and why they did not used this technology to fight the Romans
that after conquered them using swords and arrows?
..but usually at this point people affected by P.B.A. syndrome
talk about the International Archeological Conspiration (TM).
bah!
Claudio De Diana
*******************************
>The speculative authors (I use the term speculative as a conveniance
>here) have their place as I believe that any attempt to open up
>history to the layman, such as myself, is a good thing.
Listen, go into your local bookstore and find a translated
copy of the "War in Peloponneso" by Tucidide and you will
understand what does it mean 'open up history to the layman'..
I am sorry, no starships there.. if you are looking for them
take a look in the science fiction shelf.
Subject: Re: Sweet Potatos and Silver Bullets
From: fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu (Frank Joseph Yurco)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 17:47:35 GMT
Several points need stressing. First while early in their history, the
Polynesians did make the lapita pottery cited by many, later they ceased
making it, primarily because many of the islands they settled are volcanic
and lack clays, or are atolls where only coral based limestone was avail-
able. Likewise, they did not have metal, and so neither pottery nor metal
can be expected from their culture. What they used was coral and fish
bone, or teeth, wood, and palm fiber, but most of these items do not
survive longterm. The navigation techniques are known because they
survived into the modern era in Micronesia, and the film I referred to
in fact used a Micronesian navigator. Despite the nearness of the
Micronesian islands, the traditional navigators sailed to far distant
places in the course of local trade, and so they still learned the
traditional navigation skills that I've cited. The Polynesians made their
great voyages of discovery between about the 3rd century B.C. and the
late 15th century or so. As one poster noted correctly, people from
the East Indies, ancestors of the Polynesians, settled in Madagascar
before anyone else, as attested still by the languages spoken there,
closest to Sumatran and Javan languages, and also cultural and other
items. The great Pacific voyages that located Hawaii, and New Zealand,
as well as the Marquesas and Easter Island were all made within the past
2,000 years. After reaching these farthest flung island groups, the
tranoceanic voyaging died down. Thus, if the Polynesians did indeed
touch South America and acquired the sweet potato there, it had to be
in the exploratory phase of their voyaging, and that was before the
Europeans reached the islands. So the idea that the Spaniards trasmitted
the sweet potato is not valid. The transmission occurred earlier, but
the sweet potato did not propogate well on coral atoll islands, so the
transmission went through the high volcanic islands, and that pattern
of use still is extant.
Most sincerely,
Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago
--
Frank Joseph Yurco fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Rey Hyper
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 21:50:07 +0200
In article <32483328.54116926@news.pacificnet.net>, "Kevin D. Quitt"
writes
>On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:53:49 -0700, Jiri Mruzek
>wrote:
>>It's harder
>>to stand up a single ten-ton wheel.
>
>Let's try again. I know you don't really try to understand anything that
>appears to disagree with you, but I'll give it a shot.
>
>
>|--| |--|
>| | -------------------------------- | |
>| | | | | |
>| | | | | |
>| | | | | |
>| | | | | |
>| | -------------------------------- | |
>|--| |--|
>
>That's am exploded view. The thing in the middle is the stone block. The
>things on the ends are wheels. You're looking at this from above. The
>wheels fit over the ends of the block. The wheel now moves quite easily
>(compared to sliding it or moving it on rollers). OK? No balance problems,
>no problems making a non-existant ten-ton wheel stand up. In case you're
>still having problems wisualizing this, go to the back of your car and look
>at your real axle.
>
>
>>> >> Third, it's no harder to make a large wheel round than a small one.
>>> >Then make me a wheel mile-high!
>>> While you're being an ass, why not ten miles?
>>While? Meaning never?
>
>
>No, meaning making stupid comments that don't contribute to the discussion.
>
>
>
>>Huh? Pardon me? You were talking about a single wheel, or cylinder.
>
>No, I never was. I guess you just weren't paying attention.
>
>
>>How wide are you becoming,
>
>The width of the block
>
>
>> and does this width not
>>place voluminous demands on the accesss-ramps? Sure, it does.
>
>Not really.
>
>
>>In smiling with amusement - even if you can push or pull or roll
>>large weights on straight low friction surfaces, when you try to
>>solve the problem of How and with What knowledge the pyramid was
>>constructed - you run into insurmountable problems with your methods
>>in no time flat.
>
>I don't have any problems at all. It's simple to do, especially with
>several thousand people working at it. I've seen twenty people put up a
>house in 24 hours. What's so hard for thousands of people working over
>quite a few years? I fear the only difficulties are your lack of
>imagination and unwillingness to understand what's been told to you.
>
>
>>> If one man can lift 50 pounds, then 1000 men can lift
>>> 25 tons. (The problem is finding a way for them all to be able to work at
>>> the same time.)
>>
>>Really? I thought I have been saying that all along..
>
>No, you just keep saying it can't be done. But there *is* a simple way
>around the problem: it's called organization.
>
>--
>#include
> _
>Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
>Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list
--
Hypers talk...
>> I'd like to ask what this newsgroup is about...
> Is see some questions...
> Isn't there something else to talk about?!
> For example: We are fucking up this planet...You knew this one.
> How about making a starship with a few hundred maybe thousends of men?
> Make it a deal that lasts a few decates.
> How do we think about that?
>>
>> Why don't we try to make something we eatchother...
>> Or am I just dreaming?!