Newsgroup sci.archaeology 52360

Directory

Graham Shields  wrote to talk.origins, etc.:
>edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>>Science, if you really want to know, was never intended to
>>be stuffy and stagnant. It's supposed to be be exciting, invigorating,
>>laden with controversy and definitely full of pep.
>>
>You are quite right, of course. My old supervisor, Ken Hsu, always says
>that the good scientist is the Don Juan type, picking up one theory
>while abandoning another and bedhopping from the fires to the frying pans
>of furious husbands. Now where does your sticking to the same old
>hypothesis come in? You say one thing but do another entirely.
Graham, I'm NOT Charlie McCarthy so please don't attempt
 to put words in my mouth.
I have never once wavered from my statement that not a pindot of
evidence backs up the theory of man's evolution from any inhuman
primate -- and from anything lower than that.
As Stephen Jay Gould said -- or didn't say -- the theory is nothing
more than ``an adult's fairy tale."
Fortunately, the vehicle that has been transporting such a ridiculous
misconception -- a baldface lie -- for so many miles finally has begun
to sputter and soon will run out of gas.

Dan Ullén  wrote:
>Julia, welcome to our world. However, it's not one bit like the quarrels
>you see in this newsgroup. Please visit an ongoing excavation in your
>vicinty and you'll see that we're normal people, dedicated to our work,
>not a part of some great historical and archaeological conspiracy. Once
>again, welcome! (Oh, Ed, you're welcome too.)
>Dan Ullén
>Stockholm
>Sweden
Dan, 
I agree wholeheartedly that you and many, many others around the world
are ``normal  people, dedicated to our work, not a part of some great
historical and archaeological conspiracy."
My longstanding argument is NOT with you or them (except in
self-defense).
It is against the bigwigs of your profession who, for years, have been
treating you like first- and second-graders, forcing you to accept a
theory -- of man's inhuman origin -- that is totally absent of any
corroborating scientific evidence.
Yet, while sucking up every erroneous word of deceit and deception,
almost everyone out there is snarling at the presentation of an
overwhelming amount of evidence on Ted Holden's home page about 
my discoveries of petrified bone, (etc.) between coal veins.
No one in the history of the world has ever discovered so many
compelling specimens to prove -- far in excess of reasonable doubt --
that creatures of substantial size had inhabited the earth while coal
was being formed (and, quite probably, even earlier).
Critics and hate-mongers insist they don't look like bone, etc. But
they're ignoring the fact that these specimens -- if they ARE bone
(etc.), which indeed they are -- cannot possibly be expected to look
exactly like non-petrified bones found on the skeleton hanging in your
doctor's office.
The bottom, BOTTOM line in this entire argument is whether the cell
structure of bone is visible under microscopic scrutiny (but only with
the knowledge that the petrification process leaves only the Haversian
canals as the proof, since the surrounding structure of the complete
Haversian systems had vanished with time).
My grevious fault with Andrew Macrae's Hollywoodesque home page
is that he has been playing games -- perhaps through ignorance, since
he is only a grad student -- with his weird and totally off-the-wall
explanation of the miniscule ``circles" -- the Haversian canals --
visible in my specimens.
All of his explanations in that regard are wrong (and I'm pretty sure
he knows it.).
Meanwhile, the fact that large land animals -- and even man, in almost
our present form -- existed during the Carboniferous, a minimum of 280
million years ago -- is neither flight of fantasy nor pipe dream.
It's high time some of the honest men and women out there finally
come to their senses and weighed the situation objectively, honestly
and courageously.
I am truly confident this eventually will happen because so much
scientific evidence simply cannot be denied.

In article ,
   petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <592o5j$emp@news.ramhb.co.nz>,
>Pat Zalewski  wrote:
>
>>That would not, but the model airplane found in the late 1890's in an 
>>Egyptian tomb
>
>	A statue of a bird with outstretched wings more likely. The 
>bigger ones especially tend to have an airplane-ish shape (long thin 
>wings straight out).
>
Maybe, maybe not. There was quite was bit of study done on this 
model, especially by the Egyptians themselves.  What is not generally known is 
that in the tail section of this model (bird-plane)there is a slot for a fin 
(which birds do not have)which would make it like the tail section of an 
aeroplane. In my post I said a few steps along the way an ancient astronaut 
theory, but not the whole ball of wax. The Dendrah light bulbs are in fact a 
mind blower.If I had not seen the inscriptions carved into the temple walls I 
would not have believed it. Again though, just a few steps only! 

>                                    PREFACE
Dave Fellin was one of two miners entombed for 14 days inside an
anthracite mine near the village of Sheppton, Pa., in  August 1963
until he and Hank Throne were miraculously rescued by being pulled to
the surface through a borehole.
Only in the final years of his life did Mr. Fellin, who died six years
ago at age 84, reveal that he had countless out-of-body experiences
while he and Throne were without any contact whatsoever with the
outside world for five days and were simply waiting to die.
During some of these experiences, Mr. Fellin revealed he had been
taken back in time to witness the actual occurrence of pertinent
historical events in the earth's history -- for example, being aboard
Columbus' ship (although unseen by the crew) on the journey in which
America was discovered.
In one of these out-of-body experiences, Mr. Fellin testified that he
had seen the pyramids being built.
Mr. Fellin's signed affidavit about his visit to the construction site
of the pyramids appears below.
Meanwhile, it should also be noted that Mr. Fellin had taken two
different polygraph tests about his out-of-body experiences, and the
certified polygraphist who administered them stated there was no sign
of deception.
In addition to the polygraphs, Mr. Fellin also testified -- with his
right hand on the Bible -- that every word he had revealed about his
numerous out-of-body experiences was true.
                                          ------
>                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                  HOW THE PYRAMIDS WERE BUILT
>                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 17, 1986
Sheppton, Pa.
To Whom It May Concern:
I, David S. Fellin, being of sound mind despite my 81 years of age,
hereby attest that what is written here is the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
During one of my countless out-of-body exceriences during my life --
this particular one occurring while Hank Throne and I were waiting for
death to take us while entombed in an anthracite mne back in August
1963 -- I was sent back in time to the period of the construction of
the pyramids.
The scene was nothing as it is today in the vicinity of Egypt where
the pyramids now stand. That is, it was not a desert. It was covered
with vegetation and I even saw trees which had trunks more than
three-feet thick.
The blocks for the pyramids were not hauled from any distance,
whatsoever. I saw men had constructed a mold -- a pattern -- in the
place where the next block was to go, then carry buckets of sand-like
material to the mold and dump it inside the mold.
Each bucket contained either grains of sulphur, grains of iron or a
mixture of both.
Approximately 20 men were working on the construction fo one
particular block -- but a number of blocks were being made at various
intervals.
Of these 20 or so men, all except one looked Egyptian -- that is,
resembled the people of ancient Egypt whose pictues we see in books.
But the other man looked somewhat different than the others and he was
the person who was supervising the construction of a particular block.
This person carried no weapon -- no whip or anything like that, and
there appeared to be a rather cheerful atmosphere among all of the
workers. In fact, ther person who was supervising the opeation could
also be seen to pitch in and do some of the work.
The person who looked different than the others and undoubtedly was
the boss of the crew was not of the earth but was an extraterrestrial.
The purpose of the construction of the pyramdis, based on what I had
observed, was two-fold. First, it was to serve as a calendar regarding
the planting and harvesting seasons. Second, it was to serve as a
guideline on earth so it could be viewed a great distance from earth.
I swear on the Holy Bible that what is written here is the truth and
there is not one word of fabrication.
                                                    (Signed)
                                                    David S. Fellin
                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note: Mr. Fellin later described the extraterrestrial as being human
-- ``exactly like us" -- but physically larger than the Egyptians. He
described him as being Caucasian with an extremely dark tan.

Steve Whittet wrote:
> The Arabian peninsula is an interesting place to look at early sites.
> It extends south 1500 km from Mesopotamia to the southern coast of Oman.
> 
> The first half of this was the territory of Dilmun and the second half
> was contriolled by Makkan after the third millenium BC. 
This division in two geographical areas (i.e. Dilmun in the Central Gulf 
and Magan in the Lower Gulf) seems already to be present in the fifth 
millennium B.C. on the basis of differences in the found set of lithic 
tools. However, then these two groups already maintained contacts with 
each other and with other groups present on the Arabian Peninsula.
Richard

In article , dated Sat, 14 
Dec 1996 18:38:28 -0800, Larry Caldwell of 
larryc@teleport.com broke his fingers while typing ---
->With all the disruption caused by creationist postings in the sci.*
->newsgroups lately, I thought I would take a shot at explaining to 
->scientists why creationists are so stubbornly irrational.
->
->The whole point of Christian theology is that mankind is in need of
->salvation.  This stems directly from the original sin of disobedience
->in the Garden of Eden.  If there was no Garden of Eden and no original
->sin, then the whole mission of Jesus becomes unnecessary.
->
->Careful investigation has demonstrated that the creation myth is just 
->that - a myth, with no basis in fact.  Faced with the choice between
->religion and reality, many people choose religion.  They will simply
->reject any reality that conflicts with their belief.
->
->It does no good to debate the point with them, because they will not
->engage in honest discourse.  They have already issued a blanket rejection
->of reality before ever encountering evidence.  Any attempt to enlighten
->them will be an exercise in futility.
->
->-- Larry
If I may Larry, IMHO the division appears to be something 
entirely else.  
Evolution studies the differences of species from 
generation to generation.  Creation does not.  And 
for me, this division between the two is important. 
the two are basically seperate. 
If a creationist is a literalist, i.e. by the letter 
of the bible, then they have to assume god created 
everything and everything was on the ark.  Assuming 
we're talking "only" the christian side of things. 
And if the person wants to be a literalist, there are 
plenty of problems and contradictions that follow.
If interpretation is allowed, then I see no contention 
between the two.  And actually both can exist mutually 
exclusive of one another. 
Just my two bits. 

Now for the first time you can explore the Jerusalem Temple
and see what the biblical prophets saw 2,000 years ago. Explore
the grounds, visit the inner sanctuary, partake in its various
rituals, discuss religion with the clergy, all in multimedia and
virtual reality. Fully interactive.
Visit our site: "http://www.decoweb.com/templecd" and see for
yourself!

In <850779846snz@bozzie.demon.co.uk>, djohn@bozzie.demon.co.uk (Dunkin' John) writes:
>In article 
>           shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk "Shez" writes:
>
>>In article <850619388snz@bozzie.demon.co.uk>, Dunkin' John
>> writes
>>
>>>godless will be swept into the ocean depths and Vegas will fall into the dirt 
>>>whence it came and the millenium of the LORD will begin!
>>>
>>What a nasty person you are, you wish death on millions for your own
>>ego, and the glory of your god.
>
>No, ye have me wrong. God does not wish death on the godless Californians 
>and neither do I. 
??? Las Vegas, California?
Wayne Delia, redsox3@ibm.net
"Don't eat me! I have a wife and kids! Eat them!"  - Homer Simpson

Phillip Assaad  wrote:
>Ok ladies, chill out.  
>
>You wanna know the true origirns of ALL Egyptians?  Throw away all your
>histpry and geological books, forget all those hieroglyphics, and forget
>all that gibberish.  You wanna know the origins of us Egyptians?  Just
>pick up a Bible and read the book of Genesis, the part right after the
>Flood (I believe after Chapter 6).  I'll summarize it for you, plain and
>simple:  Noah had 3 sons, Ham, Sham and Japheth.  Ham, his youngest son,
>had several sons, one of which was called Mizraim who is the father of
>the Egyptians.  Ham had other sons as well who are the ancestors of the
>blacks and the Palestinians (yes, believe it or not, the Palestinians
>are Hamitic, not Semitic :-)
>
>You can argue and discuss all sorts of other archaeological evidence and
>what not, but I'm sure that you will all come to the conclusion that the
>real truth about ALL human origins was already stated in the Book of
>Genesis :-)
You can't argue with that.
The Hab

Saida  wrote:
>This is what I found in my mailbox from Katherine Griffis.  Maybe 
>posting this here will teach her to stay out of my mailbox once and for 
>all.

Normally, I would not respond in any manner to such rudeness, but I
post this to say to *anyone* who wishes to know the truth of my
background and credential in this area, they may contact MY Dean of
the Department of Special Studies at the University of Alabama at
Birmingham to find out the REAL story.  That telephone number of the
US is 205/934-7451.
Saida has made it clear that she is *out to get me*, and for what
reason, I do NOT care.  
Regards --
Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies
http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/ccer/PEOPLE2.HTML  

agdndmc@showme.missouri.edu (DomingoMartinez-Castilla) wrote:
: In article <5940oc$1as@news1.io.org>, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: >It's a big deal because here was an early observer who thought the
: >chickens were pre-Spanish.
: Acosta, Mr Kuchinsky, is NOT, repeat , NOT an early observer for South 
: American standards: 1590 is late, very late.
Yes, but he was an early observer in _that area_.
: >: to dismiss it : as non-important as soon as others notice its
: >flaws. 
: >
: >And where did you take this from? Are we seeing one more case of the usual
: >twisting of evidence by certain parties here? All too common... I am not
: >surprised. 
: I took it from the following, Mr Kuchinsky (that I am pasting from Deja, 
: because I do not store some things):
The following does not say what you claim it says. I don't dismiss any
relevant arguments. Certainly not about early European witnesses of
chickens in America. On the other hand, I point out that _etymological
connections with the Old World_, although extremely interesting, are not
central to Carter's argument. Got it now? 
: In article <58umjj$q4s@news1.io.org>, you, Mr Kuchinksy, of all people, wrote:
: >Greg,
: >I don't feel like getting into these linguistic arguments at this >point. I
: >simply reproduced Carter's findings and it would take me a major effort to
: >try to verify them. The linguistic evidence for Old World connections >is
: >not central to Carter's hypothesis, in any case. (The fact that S.
: >American names are not based on Spanish is, though.)
: If I may be guilty of the verb "dismiss" (I humbly recognize that, in the 
: little time of our "acquaintance", it is true that I have not seen you 
: dismissing a single case of "evidence" advanced by you, no matter how bad it 
: was beaten by other people), but you clearly say that Carter's hypothesis 
: (which in the case of early --underline, early-- chickens is entirely 
: linguistic)
Here you go. You try to prove one thing, and meanwhile add another
distortion. Cater's hypothesis IS NOT based on only linguistic arguments.
He gives plenty of info from cultural evidence (e.g. the ritual use of
chickens in cock-fighting), and from zoological record, etc..
: is not centrally based on the linguistic evidence.
Try to read more carefully in the future.
: P.S. You should really jump of happiness and use the "evidence" I
provided : from the Diego de Trujillo quotation:  it is better, by almost
60 years, than : that of Acosta's, and it truly tells about first contacts
of Spaniards with : natives.  That will confirm your "beliefs" beyond your
wildest dreams.  I will : pass you every piece of original information I
can find in the chronicles, so : perhaps you can convince Carter and
Needham to sound a little more assertive : that they are as of late...
NOT! 
I am grateful to you for finding that quote from Trujillo. But that quote
doesn't exactly disprove what I said. It may indeed add weght to it...
Best,
Yuri.
            =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
  --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
Diffusionist studies are not, as they are sometimes said to be,
attempts to depreciate the creativity of peoples; rather they are
efforts to locate and specify this creativity. D. Frazer,
THEORETICAL ISSUES IN THE TRANS-PACIFIC CONTROVERSY, Social
Research, 32 (1965) p. 454, as quoted by J. Needham.

Mr. Conrad:
Just a single question....where do you find the time to constantly write to
this and many other newsgroups? 
William R. Belcher
Ph.D. student and cab driver

Toby:
Another good retort (that I'm surprised Mr. Conrad hasn't used yet) is:
Make me....
I don't make monkeys, I just train them....
Oh wait, isn't this whole thing about Mr. Conrads aversion to simians?
Hmmm...
William R. Belcher
Ph.D. student and cab driver in Madison, WI

Hi,
I am making enquires for a friend concerning the recent discovery of
nine undisturbed etruscan tombs in Italy.  My friend heard about the
discovery through a Reuters news report around Nov 26 th.  If any one
could add to this meager amount of information I (we) would certainly
appreciate it.   Wishing one and all the best of the season,
Stren@auracom.com

In article <596s9h$hi3@halley.pi.net> mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) writes:
>I have seen Starostin's list of Proto-Yeniseian roots, with proposed
>Dene-Caucasian cognates, as it appears in Ruhlen's "On the Origin of
>Languages", plus some other scattered materials on Dene-Caucasian in
>that book.  Based on that, I'd say Yeniseian-Caucasian seems a likely
>connection.  I'm not convinced about Yeniseian-Caucasian - Sino-Tibetan,
>or Y-C - Na-Dene, but I'm not discarding it either.  The connections
>with Burushaski and Nahali are nonsense, I think, but I hardly know
>enough about those two languages, and the Sumerian and Basque
>connections that Ruhlen makes I *know* are nonsense.
I recently bought this book by Ruhlen with the 330 proto-Yeniseian words, 
which are for a language family spoken in Siberia.  Very few of these words 
have Caucasian cognates suggested for them.  Many of these 330 words are for 
basic items.  It is hard to believe in a connection when there are few 
cognates to basic items and when the cognates that are suggested have such 
poor phonetic correspondence to the proto-Yeniseian phonemes.   I found most 
of the cognates in Allan Bomhard's The Nostratic Macrofamily to be more 
convincing.
Regards,
John Halloran

In article <32B781BA.4E69@erols.com>, Rodney says...
>
>armata@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:
 >> Again, what does "accurately" mean?  These figures are degrees only.
>> Is the lack of minutes and seconds significant (are the minutes and
>> seconds all 00)?  I doubt it. Yet to match star angles to pyramid angles
>> for "precisely" 10,500 BC we'd need both these angles down to the
>> minute, if not the second, something that can't be done. My point is if
>> Bauval and Hancock are going to claim a "precise" match of star angles
>> to pyramid angles in a certain year centuries ago, they will need to
>> back it up with "precise" measurements, down to minutes/seconds of
>> arc, that work only for that year, and not for, say, 1,000 years before or
>> after (ok, I'll grant them a 25-year leeway either side). Otherwise, they
>> will need to admit that the match is only "approximate", tell us how
>> much leeway they're allowing, and accept the consequences.
>
>I don't think it makes sense to talk of matches closer than the human eye 
>can resolve.  Besides, there is the practical matter of having to build 
>huge pyramids and even with advanced technology, some minor errors will 
>undoubtedly creep in.
So let me get this straight...
At the end of the ice age someone poked 3 small holes in a piece of 
papyrus and stuck it in his pocket. And then 6000-7000 years later 
someone found the piece of papyrus and saw some profound importance in 
it and decided to expend the GNP of an entire nation for 50 years to 
preserve it.
Hmmmm.... not bloody likely.
David Carrara 
>
>Regards,
>
>Rodney

In article <850779846snz@bozzie.demon.co.uk>, Dunkin' John
 writes
>In article 
>           shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk "Shez" writes:
>>
>>>godless will be swept into the ocean depths and Vegas will fall into the dirt 
>>>whence it came and the millenium of the LORD will begin!
Hmmmm I think it began in your mind and spread no further than that.
>>>
>>What a nasty person you are, you wish death on millions for your own
>>ego, and the glory of your god.
>
>No, ye have me wrong. God does not wish death on the godless Californians 
>and neither do I. If they will but repent and turn unto the LORD they will
>be rewarded richly with life everlasting.
Repent unto a lord they do not belive in . I think you have the cart
after the horse here. You either beleive or you dont.
and if you refering to hale bop the comet, then there is mo chance it
will hit earth, you are just scaremongering.
>
>> No you will continue to prey on peoples fears and worries like a
>>vampire. a beast feeding on insecurity and fear.
>
>Nor do I pray on fears for I pray for their wellbeing and redemption 
>because of my certainty of the goodness of the LORD.
>
>>If the millenium of your lord starts in such horror for millions of
>>people, then I personally would deny him, and call him a murderer to his
>>face.
>
>Read Job 2:9,10 and see your folly in print.
Why, I dont not beleive in your bible, I do hower belive in something
that has been proved , Hale bop will miss the earth by millions of
miles.
Come back when your disaster has not happened I would love to hear the
excusis,
 No 1 will no doubt be your god decied not to kill us at the last
minuite.
Your god have forgiven us, for the moment.
You got it wrong and so did your god.
I know which I beleive.
>
>--
>The voice of one sobbing in the Wilderness; Matthew 3:3
>
-- 
Shez                                      shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady               http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------

In <597qcq$9v4_001@dialin.csus.edu> pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) writes:
>It really bothers you when some challenges your Euro lies, doesn't it?
What you have "presented" is not a challenge.....it is either a troll or
blatant, ignorant nonsense.  The following is a challenge, however....put
up, or shut up.
   You said that the "Greenland" of the Icelandic Sagas and Annals is
   not the Greenland of today, right ?  Then where was it ?
   What is your evidence for the above claim ?
   The Sagas talk of Greenland being west of Iceland.   How do you
   propose to explain that ?   Have you even bothered to read the Sagas
   at all ?
   The Sagas say that Greenland is a place of many glaciers - how does
   that apply to "your" Greenland ?
   The remains found in the graves that have been excavated in 
   Greenland have been dated to be from the period 1000-1400 AD,
   and any objects found are clearly not of Iniit origin.   How do
   you explain this.
-frisk
-- 
Fridrik Skulason      Frisk Software International     phone: +354-5-617273
Author of F-PROT      E-mail: frisk@complex.is         fax:   +354-5-617274

Chris Hickman (hickman@murdoch.edu.au) wrote:
: Is it only me, or has anybody else noticed that the person who seems to make sense, of 
: all the posters beginning threads in this group over the last month, is the Reverend 
: Colonel Ignatius Churchward Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.) Oxon. (Oklahoma)?
: 
: Chris H.
:
No, it is not only you.  Many of us have noted it.  We hang on
every word written by the good Colonel.  
    ----- Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

Bud Jamison (bud.jamison@thekat.maximumaccess.com) wrote:
: PJG> What does reading Velikovsky have to do with being a scientist?
: PJG> One can add to the list of his stupidities his ignorance of
: PJG> chemistry (confusing carbohydrates with hydrocarbons) and
: PJG> of astrophysics (planetary pinball violating the law of conservation
: PJG> of energy).
: 
: If you haven't READ him, how the hell would you KNOW he'd confused anything? 
: Take someone else's word for it?  That's NOT 'science'.
: 
: ... The UART's will'na take this speed cap'n
In fact, I *have* read Velikovsky, but that's beside the point.
The point is that nobody has time to read everything.  We all
depend on reviews and word of mouth.  Insisting that someone has
to read a particular book before that person can make any 
comments at all is silly.
Folks, even scientists, have to take other folks word for things.
You do, all the time.  Or don't you think the world is round?
    ----- Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

Traditional Chinese compasses point south and are still used in feng shui (geomancy).
I would have guessed a north bias would be a result of navigating by
the fixed north star.

In article <19961212132000.IAA00788@ladder01.news.aol.com>, skupinm@aol.com (SkupinM) writes:
|> In my limited experience with the aborigines of Taiwan, the language
|> question is answered strictly along generational lines:  the older ones
|> speak Chinese haltingly, the young ones fluently; I would assume the
|> inverse for the native languages, since that is the way of the world.
Not necessarily. It all depends on whether the subculture is viable.
You seem to be saying that the taiwanese aboriginal subculture is
*not* viable, and is doomed to inevitable extinction. You may well be
right, but I'd like to understand how you come to that conclusion. 
The question of which factors contribute to the viability of
aboriginal subcultures is also interesting. Population size is a major
factor; aboriginal population size in taiwan is pretty low, as I
recall: 30,000 comes to mind, though I could be way off. Economics is
another factor: one of the aboriginal groups has taken up farming,
which provides a barrier to land appropriation. Tourism can provide an
economic incentive to preserve at least the outward forms of the
hunter-gatherer lifestyle, at the risk of draining the life from them.
Take the maori as a counter-example. There does appear to be a future
for the maori language, and maori culture appears to be viable as a
new zealand subculture. I would like to be able to say the same of the
taiwanese aborigines; they may have much to teach us about the history
of asian settlement.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=----   Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf

brockstroh@aol.com (Brockstroh) wrote:
>Hello everyone-
>
>Does anyone know if Peter Tomkins's "Secrets of the Great Pyramid" is
>considered to be a "good" source on information on the Great Pyramid? 
>
>Thanks.
I'd suggest looking also at Leonard Cottrell's book `The Mountains of
Pharaoh' - if you can find a copy.  (It was published some time ago, and
is now out of print.  I don't know if it was published in the USA, but
there was a Pan paperback edition here in the UK.)
Tompkins covers similar ground, but with an `equal time amendment' for
Pyramidology.  (His grandfather or great-grandfather was a follower of
Piazzi Smyth.)
Sometimes Tompkins follows Cottrell very closely.
`The Mountains of Pharaoh':
    Colonel Richard Howard-Vyse, son of General Richard Vyse . . . came
    of a military family with a country seat at Stoke, in Buckinghamshire.
    From his writings he appears to have been a man of cultivation, though
    somewhat deficient in humour and - one suspects - rather a martinet. . . .
    [footnote]
    General Sir Richard Howard-Vyse, descendant of the Colonel, tells
    me that the great pyramid-explorer was better at archaeology than
    soldiering, and was `rather a trial to his family'.
Peter Tompkins, `Secrets of the Great Pyramid':
    Colonel Howard-Vyse, son of General Richard Vyse . . . was a martinet
    with little humor . . . A trial to his family, who were pleased to
    have him away from the country seat in Buckinghamshire, . . .
Tompkins follows Cottrell's wording, but turns what he said into something
cruder and more prejudicial.  (Cottrell's remark is pretty silly, anyway.
Vyse was an officer in the British Army of the early 19th century; he seems
in fact to have been less of a martinet than one could reasonably expect.)
On examination, Tompkins' erudition begins to crumble - I'd certainly
treat his _opinions_ with caution - but there are some things in there
worth following up.  (I found the bibliography useful.)
Steve Whittet will disagree, but IMO the Stecchini appendix only
confuses the issue.
Martin Stower
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/

In article <32B71910.4DEA@monsoon.colorado.edu>,
Aaron Brasket   wrote:
>Having said that, there's considerable evidence that the present day
>continents of South America, Africa, Antarctica, Australia as well
>as present day India, were all part of a super-continent called 
>Gondwanaland.  Antarctica was connected to the southern tips of 
Stop the injustice!  Write to your local government in support of the
movement to reunite Gondwanaland!  Donations accepted.
-- 
        "But you can't let the package hide the pudding; evil is just
plain bad.  You don't cotton to it.  You've got to hit it in the nose
with the rolled-up newspaper of goodness.  Bad Dog!  BAD! DOG!"
     - The Tick

Katherine Griffis wrote:
> 
> Saida  wrote:
> 
> >This is what I found in my mailbox from Katherine Griffis.  Maybe
> >posting this here will teach her to stay out of my mailbox once and for
> >all.
> 
> 
All written by you, Katherine, O Queen of Prevaricators.  I don't blame 
you for wanted to snip it out.  You really embarrassed yourself.
> 
> Normally, I would not respond in any manner to such rudeness, but I
> post this to say to *anyone* who wishes to know the truth of my
> background and credential in this area, they may contact MY Dean of
> the Department of Special Studies at the University of Alabama at
> Birmingham to find out the REAL story.  That telephone number of the
> US is 205/934-7451.
That's probably Katherine's home number.  Try (205) 934-8740.  Katherine 
Griffis teaches an adult education course for persons not actually 
enrolled at the University of Alabama.  Her class is in "Grant 
Writing".  It has absolutely nothing to do with Egyptology.  Anyway, the 
University of Alabama does not have a department of Near Eastern 
studies, as far as I know.  Griffis touts herself as an Egyptologist, 
which most definitely she is not.  Even an "armchair Egyptologist", as 
she calls me, can tell that.  That fact is abundantly clear--even were 
she to show me a sheepskin as big as a Navajo blanket, I would still 
never believe Katherine Griffis is an Egyptologist.  Nevertheless, she 
has listed herself on Nigel Strudwick's Egypt pages as an Egyptologist 
out of the University of Alabama on a list of e-mail addresses of 
Egyptologists around the world.  Strudwick, however, being no fool, 
prints a disclaimer at the start of this list, saying that he feels sure 
that not all the persons therein are accredited in this field.  Griffis 
has also placed herself on a list of North American Egyptologists on the 
web pages of the OI, I believe, and has actually been advising people to 
go to the site and see her name.  I have known about this for a long 
time and have said nothing until Griffis began to use her "credentials" 
and started to drop the names of actual Egyptologists she "hobnobs with" 
to attack me, I got fed up.  I asked her just what her position was at 
the university she always puts after her name.  The result was the 
vicious e-mail I posted at the start of this thread.  Not content to 
perpetuate falsehoods concerning herself, she is now spreading lies 
about me and my activities in the newsgroups.  She was asking for a dime 
to be dropped on her.  This is it.  People work hard and make many 
sacrifices to earn their PhDs.  Why a person like Katherine Griffis 
feels she has the right to circumvent all this and simply pluck a degree 
out of Cracker Jack box in order to lend herself some sort of cachet in 
a science-oriented newsgroup, is incomprehensible to me.  It implies a 
basic lack of self-confidence that seems odd in such an arrogant 
individual.
> 
> Saida has made it clear that she is *out to get me*, and for what
> reason, I do NOT care.
> 
> Regards --
> 
> Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
> Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
> 
> University of Alabama at Birmingham
> Special Studies
> 
> http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/ccer/PEOPLE2.HTML
I am out to get you? You con-artist!  You should have dropped this like 
a hot potato, but it looks like you want to continue.  Nobody could do 
your reputation more damage than you are currently doing to yourself.  
Here--in case anybody missed your letter to me--is what you wrote.  It 
looks to me like the person who was out to "get" somebody, to do a good 
job of slandering, is none other than yourself!  So why don't you tell 
us where you got your degree in Egyptology, which year, and where you 
completed your studies.
This is what I found in my mailbox from Katherine Griffis.  Maybe
posting this here will teach her to stay out of my mailbox once and for
all.
ue, 17 Dec 1996 17:06:38 GMT
    From:
         grifcon@mindspring.com (Katherine Griffis)
Reply-To:
         grifcon@mindspring.com
      To:
         Saida , Marc Line

On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:38:28 -0600, you wrote:
>> I think that you misinterpret the issues of Egyptology, Saida, if you
>> think that it is of primary interest as to what "race" the Egyptians
>> were.
>"Primary" is your word, not mine.
>  It is NOT a primary concern to anyone that *I* am aware of in
>> the field,
>You are not in a position to know.  You are not an Egyptologist.
You know, lady, and I use this term quite loosely here, you wouldn't
know a real Egyptologist should one bite you: that is apparent from
the trash YOU read.   I have pointed out that some of your ideas are
*off the mark*: you take umbance: fine.  However, if MY e-mailbox is
to be believed, I find that YOU are not believed in half of what you
say, and that you have more gall than anyone I have ever met in this
area of "armchair Egyptologists".  I read far more than you have, or
>likely ever will, and my credentials are known.  YOURS?
Saida:
What are your credentials?  You advertise yourself as an Egyptologist on
at least two sites on the web.  In order to do that, you ought to have a
PhD in Egyptology.  Well, from your posts, a student in Egyptology 101
would know that you don't.  Underneath your signature, you claim to be
affiliated with the University of Alabama.  According to your superior,
you teach an adult education course in "Grant Proposal Writing".  That's
it.
>but that the issue has been blown out of proportion by both
>> Afrocentrist and Eurocentrist thought (better called Ameri-centrist,
>> as Miguel pointed out on sci.arch some months ago).  Having just spent >> a better part of the month with several European and Canadian
>> Egyptologists, I can say, with some certainty, that they find this
>> whole issue somewhat confusing and *definitely* not an issue that
>> **they** are and will be concerned with.
>Tell that to Dr. Rosalie David of Manchester University.  Also, did you
>happen to read the issue of Archaeology ( Sept./Oct.) dedicated to the
>study of DNA?  Did you happen to see the article "The Great DNA
>Hunt--Genetic archaeology zeroes in on the origins of modern human."?
>Did you see the article by Prof. Scott Woodward?  Here is an e-mail I
>received from him a while back:
>Organization:
>            Brigham Young University
>         To:
>            Saida 
>Dear Saida,
>We do have enough information that we will probably publish within
>the next couple of months concerning the mitochondrial DNA of some of
>the 18th and 19th Dynasties.  We do not yet have a comlete sampling
>of all of the available mummies but do have an interesting group at
>the beginning of the 18th and surrounding Rameses II in the 19th.
>Concerning the ethinic origins of the rulers of the dynasties.  One
>of the things that we are trying to do is to determine just what
>exactly is an Egyptian.  It well may be that an Egyptian was a very
>mixed and cosmopolitian group.  Egypt has always been a place of
>refuge from famines and other natural disasters.  Peoples from a wide
>area have always moved into the Nile valley.  There is probably a
>good chance that we will find a wide mix of people in the genealogies
>of ancient Egypt.
>I will keep you informed as soon as the paper is accepted for
>publication.  (end of letter)
And Scott is telling you what here, Saida?
Scott?  Now you are claiming a personal relationship with Dr. Woodward,
too?  Dr. Woodward is telling me his aims.  That the populace of ancient 
Egypt was mixed, I already know.
Katherine:
 Nothing that indicates
that *ethnicity* is a real concern, but that he acknowledges that "an
Egyptian was a very mixed and cosmopolitian group.  Egypt has always
been a place of refuge from famines and other natural disasters.
Peoples from a wide area have always moved into the Nile valley."
Tell me *where* this indicates an overwhelming interest in the very
issues that YOU have talked about with your "white"/Caucasian
Egyptians and other weird concepts that you have been espousing the
past few days.
Saida:
Egyptians are varied.  Many of them, past and present, have every right
to call themselves Caucasian, because they were and are.  Even your
friend, the Hab, admits that much.  Let's hear a few of my other "weird"
concepts.
>  God, you sound worst than Seligman, and I thought**those** days were over.
What days are those? What in the hell are you spouting off about?
>I can't imagine which "Egyptologists" you were talking to.  Perhaps they >had the same credentials as yourself.
Katherine:
Yeah, well, your fantasy may continue as long as you wish.  I could
bite back as to what Yurco and others have said about you to my face,
but why bother?  YOU have such airs about you that it's pathetic.
Saida:
You fucking, crazy bitch.  Now you have compromised Professor Yurco.
I'm sure he'll thank you for that.
>>  If the American line of
>> thought to *you* seems predisposed to it, it is primarily in response
>> to allegations made by the Afrocentrist scholarship, which is a
>> uniquely American phenomenon.
Saida:
>Nonsense!  Afrocentrist "scholarship" has nothing to do with any of the
>studies now going on.
No, but YOUR interpretation of them certainly is the *opposite mirror*
of the Afrocentric ideology.  Truly bizarre, Saida, and I think you
harbor some stange racist tendencies of your own: your attitude to the
modern Egyptians is appalling, to say the least.
Saida:
You're insane.  My father was a survivor of the Holocaust.  What right
would I have to be racist against any people?  Show me one racist remark
I have ever made!
Katherine:
>>
>> When I stated earlier that the US Census defined term "white" was not
>> properly used in talking about Egyptians of ancient times, you came
>> back with the term "Caucasoid" as a reference to a group of people,
>> and equating them as the same.  This is fairly vague as a "racial"
>> designation, as in speaking of remains, the term "caucasoid" refers
>> primarily to bone and physical characteristics of groups of people who >> came (possibly) from a certain location (the Caucasus Mtns), and 
NOT >> to any *detailed* and definite "race" of people.
Saida:
>Wrong again.  My dictionary says this:  "designating one of the main
>ethnic divisions of the human race; it includes Mediterranean, Alpine
>and Nordic subdevisions and is loosely called the 'white race'.  When
>was the last time you heard somebody say, :I am a Caucasian--I come from >the Caucasus Mountains?
>And such designation is outdated: has been for about 40-50 years.  Getbetter books.
Saida:
It looks to me like your dictionary was printed in the Caucasus 
mountains!
Such terms as these are used in default of better ones.  They are only
bad when used in hate or as a means of descrimination.
Anthropologically, they are harmless.
Katherine:
>>  Race, as far as > Egyptology has been concerned, is a term of **modern** socio-political > importance,
Saida:
>I thought you just said that it has no importance whatsoever.  The above >statement is false.
>Read it again, Saida:  I said that the **concept** of "race" is ofmodern socio-political importance and NOT one that concerns people in
Egyptology.
I read it right the first time.
Katherine:
  It is primarily a US concept, and its usage is particular
to the US, as the European and Canadians tend to find it just of NO
importance whatsoever: if I am to believe Marc Line's comments, I
would venture to say that that it really doesn't concern the Brits as
well.  So, what does that say to YOU?
Saida:
You are so full of manure you could fertilze the entire Nile Valley.
Katherine:
>> and not one of concern BY the ancient Egyptians (and
>> likely the modern ones as well), who were know for their ability to
>> assimilate peoples,
Saida:
>The ancient Egyptians are concerned about nothing.  They are long dead.
>As for the modern Egyptians, their ability to "assimilate peoples" has
>its limits, too.  Or have you forgotten all the persons who were forced
>to leave Egypt during the Nasser era?
Katherine:
Yeah, troll on.  Ain't biting: who cares?
>> and yes, this includes the Nubian groups you refer
>> to earlier.  The "fighting" you refer to is an ancient tussle over the >> use of the waterways and trade routes between the ancient
Egyptians >> and Nubians, and I sincerely doubt (as would Bruce
Williams, Lanny > Bell, Donald Redford, among others), that it was based
upon any >> so-called "racial hatred" of peoples, as you have somewhat
implied, >> from what I have seen of your most recent posts.
>Name-dropping again!  I have implied nothing of the sort.  Show me where I have said any such >things.  And don't ever try to associate me 
with "racial hatred".   I>have no interest in this topic.
Katherine:
Really?  I see you begin fights with modern Egyptians on NG's because
you don't like them *as Egyptians*, and make some of the most
outrageous statements to the likes of Everett Battle (Groove You) that
are truly embarrassing to read.  No racial hatred?  Then, proofread
before you post.
Saida:
You are not only a fraud, but a shameless liar.  I have never picked a
fight with anyone in any newsgroup.  I like Egyptians just fine, BTW.
The only ones I object to are rude, boorish people like your soulmate, 
the Hab.
Katherine:
>>
>> Further, you make reference in another post to Shaw and Nicholson's
>> definition within "The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt" wherein they
>> recount the **various theories** of where the ancient Egyptians have
>> been theorized as coming from.  Please note that this definition does
>> NOT (repeat: NOT) say anything definitive as to any sort of "race"of
>> the ancient Egyptains, but discusses merely the various theories that
>> have been postulated over the many years of Egyptology, ie. from the
>> 19th century CE onward.  The so-called "dynastic race" theory of
>> Emery, BTW, was disproved by Egyptologists in the early 1960's, and
>> has not been considered a *valid theory* for many years.
>Well, at least you have read my quote from the "Dictionary correctly. I find it an excellent summary of the topic of the ethnicity of the 
ancient Egyptians and I concur with it to the last semi-colon.
>Katherine:
>> So, if you have *YOUR* theories as to your origin of the Egyptians,
>> fine. 
She hasn't the slightest notion what my "theories" are.
> But I find little evidence within your posts that reflect much
>> of the *real* issues that concern Egyptologists.
Take those *real* issues and stick them.  Why don't you be specific so 
people will know which posts you're referring to?
>Again, how would you know the *real* issues that concern Egyptologists?
> The airs you give yourself are really quite ludicrous, Katherine.
Katherine:
And YOU do? Give me a break, Saida: you still buy into Budge, for
God's sake.
I'm not buying and I'm not selling.  There are plenty of good things in 
Budge's writings.  I also read Heroditus, Diodorus Siculus, Josephus, 
etc.  They predate Budge by a few millenia.  Are they no good, as well?
Katherine:
  When your readings tke you into the 20th century
scholarship issues, I'll listen to this trip you have been putting
out.  You haven't a clue, as far as I see.
As I said, you wouldn't know.  I don't see you participating in any of 
the discussions I take part in here and I hear that you don't know 
ancient Egyptian at all--strange for an Egyptologist.  Give it up, 
Katherine, while you have some face to save.
>>
>> Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
>> Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
>In case anyone believes otherwise, the ARCE is an organization anyone
>can join without having any particular knowledge of Egypt whatsoever.
Yeah: you are not obviously a member, either.  Honestly, Saida: get a
better hobby: this one has made you bitter.
Saida:
It is your "hobby" as well as mine.  I think it's a pretty good one.
Katherine:
KMT is a popular magazine that *anybody* can subscribe to as well: so
is Archaeology, and BAR.  JARCE is, at least, peer reviewed.  However,
since THAT publication could give two flips about your theories, why
*would* you bother??
>>
>> University of Alabama at Birmingham
>> Special Studies
>What are "Special Studies" and what have you to do with them?
I would warrant you a real answer here, but why bother?  Suffice to
say that I have been with them for over 16 years as an
instructor/consultant, in this field and others.  Live with it.
>>
>> http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/ccer/PEOPLE2.HTML
Now from hereon, if you have problems with what I post, deal with
*that* issue, madam.  I have seen what you post to others online and
off, and should you wish to flame me again, better do it to my mailbox
and deal with my response.  I WILL take action should you post it to
the NG's again.
Saida:
So THAT's your real occupation--running an espionage ring!  Who would 
show you my off-line correspondence?  Is everyone you know as phoney as 
you are?
Katherine
I told you quite awhile ago to stay out of my mailbox.  I have no desire
to write you anything.  I'll answer you in the newsgroups, if I feel
like it.  Your threats don't worry me in the least.

Did Schliemann in fact discover Homer's Troy?  I'm fairly sure I've seen
people say that the link hasn't been proven yet.
Thanks.
--
Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-moderators@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details

You mean the building of the Pyramids were supervised by 
George Hamilton???

George Hamilton did this??? And we thought that he couldn't act!!!

>                                    PREFACE
Dave Fellin was one of two miners entombed for 14 days inside an
anthracite mine near the village of Sheppton, Pa., in  August 1963
until he and Hank Throne were miraculously rescued by being pulled to
the surface through a borehole.
Only in the final years of his life did Mr. Fellin, who died six years
ago at age 84, reveal that he had countless out-of-body experiences
while he and Throne were without any contact whatsoever with the
outside world for five days and were simply waiting to die.
During some of these experiences, Mr. Fellin revealed he had been
taken back in time to witness the actual occurrence of pertinent
historical events in the earth's history -- for example, being aboard
Columbus' ship (although unseen by the crew) on the journey in which
America was discovered.
In one of these out-of-body experiences, Mr. Fellin testified that he
had seen the pyramids being built.
Mr. Fellin's signed affidavit about his visit to the construction site
of the pyramids appears below.
Meanwhile, it should also be noted that Mr. Fellin had taken two
different polygraph tests about his out-of-body experiences, and the
certified polygraphist who administered them stated there was no sign
of deception.
In addition to the polygraphs, Mr. Fellin also testified -- with his
right hand on the Bible -- that every word he had revealed about his
numerous out-of-body experiences was true.
                                          ------
>                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                  HOW THE PYRAMIDS WERE BUILT
>                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 17, 1986
Sheppton, Pa.
To Whom It May Concern:
I, David S. Fellin, being of sound mind despite my 81 years of age,
hereby attest that what is written here is the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
During one of my countless out-of-body exceriences during my life --
this particular one occurring while Hank Throne and I were waiting for
death to take us while entombed in an anthracite mne back in August
1963 -- I was sent back in time to the period of the construction of
the pyramids.
The scene was nothing as it is today in the vicinity of Egypt where
the pyramids now stand. That is, it was not a desert. It was covered
with vegetation and I even saw trees which had trunks more than
three-feet thick.
The blocks for the pyramids were not hauled from any distance,
whatsoever. I saw men had constructed a mold -- a pattern -- in the
place where the next block was to go, then carry buckets of sand-like
material to the mold and dump it inside the mold.
Each bucket contained either grains of sulphur, grains of iron or a
mixture of both.
Approximately 20 men were working on the construction fo one
particular block -- but a number of blocks were being made at various
intervals.
Of these 20 or so men, all except one looked Egyptian -- that is,
resembled the people of ancient Egypt whose pictues we see in books.
But the other man looked somewhat different than the others and he was
the person who was supervising the construction of a particular block.
This person carried no weapon -- no whip or anything like that, and
there appeared to be a rather cheerful atmosphere among all of the
workers. In fact, ther person who was supervising the opeation could
also be seen to pitch in and do some of the work.
The person who looked different than the others and undoubtedly was
the boss of the crew was not of the earth but was an extraterrestrial.
The purpose of the construction of the pyramdis, based on what I had
observed, was two-fold. First, it was to serve as a calendar regarding
the planting and harvesting seasons. Second, it was to serve as a
guideline on earth so it could be viewed a great distance from earth.
I swear on the Holy Bible that what is written here is the truth and
there is not one word of fabrication.
                                                    (Signed)
                                                    David S. Fellin
                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note: Mr. Fellin later described the extraterrestrial as being human
-- ``exactly like us" -- but physically larger than the Egyptians. He
described him as being Caucasian with an extremely dark tan.

In message <199612181031.KAA20180@mail.enterprise.net> 
solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert) writes:
> >In article <19961212164600.LAA07178@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> >           brockstroh@aol.com "Brockstroh" writes:
> >
> >>Does anyone know if Peter Tomkins's "Secrets of the Great Pyramid" is
> >>considered to be a "good" source on information on the Great Pyramid? 
> >
> I think it is a very good book, full of masses of useful information and, 
> mercifully, without too much bias. It's a little dated now as there have been 
> some important discoveries made since it was first published, however I think 
> you would still find it enjoyable.
But he did not calculate the coming of the comet that will obliterate the 
godless and the faithless heathens ready for the coming of the millenium
of the LORD.
> and you might like to also read "The Orion Mystery" which I co-authored 
> with Robert Bauval and which was first published in 1994.
I have read that book.  It was a load of pagan garbage.
--
The voice of one sobbing in the Wilderness; Matthew 3:3

This is a follow-up to the posting, ``How the Pyramids Were Built,"
since there is a definite connection . . .       -- Ed Conrad
                                         +++
The following lengthy article appeared in the Hazleton (Pa.)
Standard-Speaker on May 30, 1990, shortly after David Fellin's
death two weeks before his 85th birthday.
The cave-in and miraculous rescue had been featured in
 the ``Coal Mine Rescue'' episode on the documentary 
TV series ``Spirit of Survival" which had been featured on the
Discovery Channel at least a dozen times over the past four years.
                           ---------------------------------
>                          Copyright  (c) 1990
>                                 Ed Conrad
>                          All Rights Reserved
                           --------------------------------
                             By ED CONRAD
Conclusive evidence of life after death actually has been available
for more than a quarter-century.
This opinion is shared by two of the world's foremost authorities on
death and dying, Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross and Dr. Bruce Greyson.
They agree that the proof had been provided by a pair of Pennsylvania
coal miners who, back in 1963, revealed that Pope John XXIII had
appeared to both of them at the same time during their 14-day
entombment following an underground cave-in near Hazleton, Pa.
Pope John had died in a hospital in Rome, Italy, on June 3, 1963, some
10 weeks before the cave-in.
> David Fellin, one of the miners, personally had told Dr. Kubler-Ross
> about the appearance of the deceased pontiff and provided details of
> other mysterious, supernatural experiences which he, then 58, and
> Henry ``Hank" Throne, then 28, had shared while cut off from the rest
> of the world during the first five days of their grueling ordeal.
Among the remarkable things Fellin had told Dr. Kubler-Ross during a
day-long conversation in her home in Headwaters, Va., were the two
separate occasions that he insisted he and Throne had been out of
their physical bodies at the same time, during which they actually had
engaged in conversation.
Dr. Kubler-Ross, the internationally acclaimed author of numerous
books on death and dying, said she believed Fellin and stated that the
miners' miraculous rescue, the appearance of the deceased pope and the
out-of-body experiences shared by two persons at the same time --
never before documented -- is ``the evidence . . . that life does not
end when our physical body dies."
Dr. Greyson, then a psychiatrist at the University of Connecticut
Health Center and an official of The International Association for
Near-death Studies, had become acquainted with the incredible details
of the supernatural events connected with the cave-in only in the last
year of Fellin's life but had found them fascinating.
>  ``I am most intrigued by the simultaneous experiences of David Fellin
>  and Hank Throne, who apparently conversed while out of their bodies,"
>  he stated. ``If they can corroborate each other's accounts, they could
>  provide evidence for the reality of `The Other Side' beyond anything
>  yet available."
When making that statement, Dr. Greyson, then the editor of The
Journal of Near-Death Studies, hadn't been aware that such
corroboration actually had taken place soon after Fellin and Throne
had been dramatically rescued.
After being pulled to the surface through a 17 1/2-inch bore hole on
Aug. 27, 1963, the two miners had been interviewed individually, then
together, by a pair of psychiatrists and a third staff member from the
Institute of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
These intriguing interviews, the subject of an article in the American
Journal of Psychiatry, offered the evidence that both men undoubtedly
had been mutual participants in a series of mysterious, supernatural
events, including the appearance of the late pontiff, and their joint
out-of-body experiences.
> The Journal article stated that ``neither man exhibited evidence of
> psychosis or marked mental abnormality when examined,'' yet dismissed
> their similiar experiences as ``fantasies" and ``hallucinations." The
> authors felt they had been caused by the miners' life-threatening
> situation when entombed.
This was their conclusion even through both men independently had
described a variety of similiar unexplained occurences underground.
They had mentioned, among other things, that their darkened chamber
suddenly was illuminated with a bluish light; the deceased pontiff
appearing to them; and seeing a large number of men who were neither
miners nor members of the rescue party.
Fellin also revealed that, shortly after being rescued, he had been
interviewed for more than seven hours by the U.S. Navy Survival Team
headed by Lt. Richard Anderson, a medical doctor and psychiatrist.
Fellin said the day after his interview, Lt. Anderson visited his
hospital room and told him he was absolutely certain his experiences
were factual because Throne also had been interviewed for several
hours -- something Fellin hadn't even been aware of -- and their two
stories had meshed perfecltly.
>  ``Dr. Anderson told me that our story MUST be true because it would be
>  impossible for two people to concoct a story that would stand up so
>  well during such lengthy interviews," said Fellin.
>  "In fact, he told me if the President (Kennedy) or the pope (Pope Paul
>  VI, who succeeded Pope John XXIII) would say our story wasn't true, I
>  shouldn't argue with them but simply walk away because he KNOWS it's
>  true."
It should be noted that all attempts to obtain a copy of Fellin's
taped interview or a transcript from the U.S. Navy in recent years has
been unsuccessful. In fact, Navy officials first denied knowledge of
Lt. Anderson but later -- in response to a request for information by
a U.S. congressman -- admitted that he had resigned from the Navy in
1964, the year following the cave-in and rescue..
Dr. Kubler-Ross said Fellin's revelations are ``obviously true'' and
emphasized that she is convinced that Pope John XXIII had much to do
with their survival.
``From the moment of the late pope's appearance until they were moved
out of the drillholes, he illuminated their cave with a bluish light
radiating from him," she stated.
>  Dr. Kubler-Ross also was greatly impressed by the manner in which the
>  two miners had survived the first five days following the cave-in,
>  calling it ``a guideline for our miners, soliders, mountain climbers
>  and all those at risk to face a similiar ordeal one day."
>  She referred to their battle to stay alive as ``a story of faith,
>  courage, and mutual care and respect . . ."
Concerning Fellin's claims of having shared two out-of-body trips with
Throne at his side, Dr. Kubler-Ross said she is certain they indeed
had taken place, calling them ``very real, as I am happy to witness
form my own life experiences."
Throne actually was the first to reveal the supernatural experiences
after being rescued, even though Fellin emphatically had warned him
not to do so. He said, just before Throne had been hauled to the
surface, he had grabbed him by the shirt and told him he'd better not
say a word about them because ``If you do, right away they'll say
you're nuts."
Throne failed to heed the advice and, in fact, had told several nurses
and attendants at Hazleton State General Hospital about a few of the
mysterious occurences soon after being flown there in a U.S. Navy
helicopter.
Throne also mentioned some of these mysterious events during an
exclusive interview he had granted to The Associated Press which had
appeared in newspapers worldwide. Fellin also had been interviewed by
the AP, during which he corroborated some of the things his companion
had related.
Commented Throne while being interviewed by AP:
> ``There were times we saw people who weren't there and lights that
>  weren't there and doors that weren't there. Imagine seeing a regular
>  house door down in the bottom of a mine.
>  ``I'd sleep! I'd wake up. I'd see all kinds of lights and the actual
>  figures of people. They now tell me these were hallucinations but the
>  crazy thing is that Davey would see the things the same as I did."
Commented Fellin during his interview:
>  ``Now they're trying to tell me those things were hallucinations, that
>  we imagined it all. We didn't! Our minds weren't playing tricks on us.
>  I've been a practical hard-headed miner all my life. My mind was clear
>  down there isn the mine. These things happened! I can't explain them.
>  I'm almost afraid to think what might be the explanation."
Fellin said just after granting these interviews to the wire service,
psychiatrists and psychologists began inferring that Throne, whose
interview was published first, temporarily had lost his sanity inside
the mine. This undoubtedly explains why Throne, who is still living,
had been reluctant to discuss these experiences after freely talking
about them in the first few days following his rescue.
Fellin decided to say nothing further about them for years because he
said he had become extremely angry that his companion's sanity had
been seriously questioned.
``If they wouldn't believe Hank (back in 1963), they sure as hell
wouldn't have believed me," said Fellin.
However, over the past five years before his death, Fellin had left
numerous notarized letters and taped conversations -- both audio and
video -- in which he vividly detailed a number of supernatural events
in which he insisted he had participated.
Fellin said he was absolutely certain he and Throne had been out of
their physical bodies because, the first time it happened, they
suddenly found themselves STANDING some 40-50 feet from the refuge
area with a crowd of normal-looking men on both sides of them. He said
he then looked over his shoulder and saw him and Throne still SITTING
back in the enclosure.
Fellin said he needed additional proof that it wasn't a dream or a
hallucination, therefore extended his right hand in front of one of
the men standing next to him to see if it would cast a shadow, which
it did.
>  ``That's when I knew for sure I wasn't going crazy," said Fellin.
>  ``If that hadn't happened, I never would've mentioned a word
>   about the strange things which had taken place."
Due to Fellin's age and very poor eyesight, the letters had been
written on his behalf by veteran newsman Ed Conrad of the Hazleton
Standard-Speaker, who had met the longtime miner for the very first
time a week before his 80th birthday at the wake of a mutual friend.
Conrad had been greatly impressed with Fellin's almost total recall of
events concerning the cave-in and rescue and also was impressed with
his intelligence and tremendous humility.
When Fellin revealed some of the strange events which had transpired
while he and Throne were entombed, Conrad pursued the role of an
investigative reporter.
Fellin's letters had been based strictly on what he had told Cornad
during their conversations, the vast majority of which had been taped.
Each letter had been read to Fellin, who signed it and had it
notarized only after it had met his complete satisfaction as being
totally accurate.
Conrad also arranged for Fellin to take a polygraph concerning his
revelations about the validity of his experiences and he emphaticlaly
agreed to do so.
>  One question asked of Fellin was: ``After your chamber suddenly
>  lit up with a mysterious bluish light, did you and Hank see Pope John
>  XXIII, then Hank asked you `Who's that fella?'  " 
>  He answered ``Yes."
>  Fellin also was asked: ``When you and Hank were out of your enclosure
>  for the first time, did you find yourself walking among a large crowd
>  and then look back and see you and Hank still sitting in the chamber?
>  He answered ``Yes."
Ann Marie Panishak, the certified polygraphist who had administered
the test, had stated in writing that the answer  to both questions had
revealed ``no reactions indicative of deception."
In one of his letters, Fellin testified that when it was apparent that
neither he nor Throne would get out of the mine alive, he had gotten
angry with God and said a ``prayer'' in which he had demanded that the
Creator at least have the decency to let him know what evil he had
done in his lifetime that he was being forced to die ``a thousand
deaths''  while facing mental and physical torture inside the mine.
He said a short while later, what appeared to be three tiny bluish
fireflies suddenly appeared in the total darkness, began expanding and
soon filled the entire chamber with a bluish light.
Fellin testified that the bluish light, which cast no shadow, had
provided perfect visibility. He also said the small enclosure where
they had been trapped expanded, enabling them to move around.
Fellin further testified that, when the bluish light enabled them to
see, he noticed Pope John XXIII at an elevation in the distance,
visible only from the waist up.
He said the pontififf, who was 81 when he died, appeared to be about
half that age, his arms were folded in front of him and he was
grinning at them.
Fellin said Pope John, who had been elected the Catholic church's
262nd pontiff in 1958, was wearing a black cassock ``like that of a
poor parish priest.
> ``It wasn't a vision and it wasn't a picture," he remarked. ``It was
>  him: Pope John! I'd have recognized him anywhere."
Fellin said he hoped Throne wouldn't see the pope -- fearing Hank
would go berserk if he realized a dead man was with them -- but the
younger man definitely saw him because he had pointed at the pontiff
and excitedly asked: ``Who's that fella?"
Fellin also testiified that Pope John remained with him and Throne
right up to the time they were hauled to the surface (a week later)
wearing parachute harnesses and football helmets while newspapermen
from around the world were assembled at the mine site.
Pope John, one of 13 children of an Italian sharecropper, was admired
for his tremendous humility. In his first appearance to a huge crowd
assembled in the Vatican courtyard following his election, he came out
wearing only a cassock and surplice to the great surprise of the huge
crowd and the utter shock of church hierarchy.
Fellin, during the last years of his life, insisted he had made
numerous incredible journeys to ``The Other Side" of death.
> ``I was shown `The Other World'," he stated. ``This is NOT the real
>  world. We have to earn our place in the real world. I KNOW
>  because I made the whole trip."
Fellin, interestingly, said a multitude of persons who have come close
to death and later insisted they had traveled through ``a tunnel of
light" are mistaken.
``This is because they're unknowledgeable about tunnels." he
explained. ``I spent more than 50 years working inside tunnels in the
mines and even helped build many of them, so I should know a lot about
tunnels -- and I do!
``These people didn't travel throught a tunnel. Actually, there's an
umbrella of light over their head and it moves along with them as they
move along in the darkness."
Much of what Fellin had seen and experienced during his journeys to
``The Other Side" is detailed in additional notarized letters.
> It should be noted that, during their second joint out-of-body journey,
> Fellin and Throne had come across beautiful marble doors
> which were open and revealed stairs.
Throne told Fellin they should walk up the stairs because they would
lead to the surface and safety. However, when Throne was in the
process of taking his very first step toward the doors, they suddenly
closed and he became extremely angry, threatening to break down the
doors. When he did, he and Fellin were returned to their physical
bodies.
Following that incident, Throne made no additional out-of-body trips,
although Fellin insisted he made many, many others past the marble
doors.
Among Fellin's most remarkable revelations were journeys he insisted
he had taken back in time which had afforded him an opportunity to
witness monumental events of history as they actually occured.
He tesitifed, for example, that he had watched the construction of the
pyramids in Egypt and had been aboard Christopher Columbus' ship --
unseen by Columbus and his crew -- during his journey to discover
America.
As for the time-honored question of how the pyramids were built,
Fellin said, based on what he had observed, it was nowhere near the
gargantuan task as is generally theorized. He emphasized that it did
not require thousands of men working for hundreds of years because not
a single multi-ton rock had to be hauled to the site from a great
distance.
Meanwhile, Fellin said Columbus -- whom he described as having yellow
hair and a red beard -- was Tyrolean, not Italian, and that the secret
of his success was simply because he had mastered the use of the
compass.
The compass assured Columbus that, if he didn't reach land by the time
half of the crew's food supply was depleted, he'd simply turn his
vessel around and head in the opposte direction to make it back to his
home port.
Fellin told Conrad that he had learned that Columbus' real name wasn't
even Columbus.
> ``He was called Columbo, which is Latin for pigeon, but it was only his
>  nickname," he explained. ``Columbus had earned the nickname
>  by sailing to points unknown and always returning safely. So people
>  around the docks started calling him Columbo -- meaning that he was
>  a homing pigeon that always returned to its nest.
"Of course, they didn't realize Columbus was using the compass -- a
very large compass which was right in the middle of his very small
cabin -- to earn his reputation as an excellent seaman. Back then, the
compass had been regarded as nothing more than a child's toy, not as a
navigating instrument."
Explicit details of Fellin's out-of-body journeys which enabled to
watch the pyramids being built as well as to observe Columbus during
his trip across the Atlantic to discover America in1492 are revealed
in several of his notarized letters.
The mine rescue operation, unprecedented in the annals of mining
anywhere in the world, had become a top news story only after contact
had been made with Fellin and Throne who had been given up for dead.
The two miners had been discovered to be alive after a six-inch bore
hole had been drilled into the earth in a million-to-one shot. The
objective had been to reach an area where three men who had been
inside Oneida No. 2 mine might have found shelter if, indeed, they
hadn't perished in the cave-in.
> ``MINE MIRACLE," headlined the Los Angeles Times in its edition
>  of Monday, Aug. 19, 1963, although erroneously reporting that all
>  three miners -- including Louis Bova, 54 -- were alive.
The rather incredible news that two of the men were still alive after
five days underground was major news and remained so until their
rescue.
Mining officials, engineers and men who had worked inside that
particular mine had helped determine the placement of a stake at the
most probable location where the original bore hole should penetrate
the earth a distance of more than 300 feet.
Only in the last years of his life did Fellin learn that the
bull's-eye hole, which had enabled contact with the outside world,
hadn't even been drilled at the original stake.
One of the men in charge of the rescue operation had admitted n a
newspaper article on the fifth anniversary of the cave-in that the
heavy rig containing the drill, which had been driven to the mine site
from a distance of many miles, actually had experienced mechanical
failure some 20-30 feet from the stake.
It was then decided, since the unprecedented attempt to reach the men
through a bore hole bordered on the impossible, that drilling be done
precisely where the truck had broken down.
Once contact had been made with Fellin and Throne, the only hope of
rescuing them was to drill a much larger bore hole, through which the
men could be pulled to the surface.
The bit used to drill the 17 1/2-inch-wide hole, through which they
eventually were hauled to the surface, had been flown to the site free
of charge by one of billionaire Howard Hughes' drilling companies in
Texas.
Bova died as a result of the cave-in in the mine located only a
half-mile from Fellin's home and his body was never recovered. A
tombstone had been erected above the area where the cave-in had
occurred.
Fellin and Throne, who had been underground a total of 329 hours and
17 mintues, had received a telegram from President Kennedy, who would
be assassinated in Dallas less than three months later.
> ``Congratulations," JFK had wired them. ``The stamina, courage and
> spirit which you and your rescuers have exhibited in recent days have
> earned the admiration of all  Americans. I wish to join with them
> in expressing my heartfelt good wishes for your speedy recovery."
The cave-in and rescue had been featured as part of the ``Survival!"
television documentary series in the mid-1960s and the program --
complete with actual film clips of the rescue -- had been telecast
several times.
                           ===================
> (Portions of the material in this article are fully protected
> by previous U.S. Copyrights -- in 1985, 1986 and 1987
> -- that had been acquired by Ed Conrad.)

Laurie Davison (ldavison@pop.uky.edu) wrote:
: brockstroh@aol.com (Brockstroh) wrote:
: >Hi everyone-
: >
: >Since I'm studying archaeology in college, my friends and co-workers
: >assume that I'm the guy to ask when they have a related question. Usually
: >that's the case, but then one of them asked me, "So. Where does all this
: >dirt come from?", referring to all of the dirt and debris that piles up on
: >top of an archaeological find. 
: >It suddenly occurred to me that that subject had never come up in my
: >classes and I'd never wondered about it before. 
: >It might be a dumb question, but I've got to ask... Where DOES all the
: >dirt come from?
: >Thanks,
: >Bryan
: 
: Bryan,
:    There's no such thing as a dumb question - I don't care what anyone 
: says:) The "dirt" may come from any number of sources. If a site is along 
: a floodplain, years of flooding and shifting of river/stream beds would 
: deposit quite a lot of dirt. Dirt covering sites at the base of a 
: mountain may come from erosion of the mountain itself. Volcanoes are 
: responsible for the "dirt" (lava and ash) over Pompei. In deserts you 
: have dust storms... Aside from that, "dirt" is really the product of the 
: erosion of rock and decomposition of organic mater over a great deal of 
: time. You'll get more or less dirt covering a site depending upon the 
: type and location of a site. I grew up on the site of a stone-age 
: soapstone quarry in SC and can remember finding many half-finished stone 
: bowls without having to dig at all. In this case the matter covering the 
: site over time was largely organic (it's an oak-hickory forrest) 
: consisting of tree leaves, rotting stumps, etc. I've no doubt, however, 
: that the original quarry was tree-free and that it took many many years 
: for the current trees to become established and to begin dropping a 
: significant number of leaves. Also, there's been little erosion "into" 
: that spot. 
:    One thing I haven't mentioned it human intervention. Many cultures 
: have actively covered old sites and built on top of them - often 
: repeatedly, such that the "dirt" is actually many layers of civilization. 
: The list goes on...
:    Hope this helps:)
It is also true that some sites are not covered by dirt.  Various
natural causes keep them clean (wind, erosion, etc.).  The
factors that tend to keep the sites clear of dirt also tend to
erode the site itself, which is after all, open to rain, snow,
etc.  The result is that uncovered sites are not well preserved,
while covered ones have a much better chance of being preserved.
This gives us the subjective impression that old sites are
dirt covered.
    ------ Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

Jonathan Stone (jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <594e8a$dtj@news.nyu.edu>, gans@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes:
: > 
: > What does reading Velikovsky have to do with being a scientist?
: > One can add to the list of his stupidities his ignorance of
: > chemistry (confusing carbohydrates with hydrocarbons) and 
: > of astrophysics (planetary pinball violating the law of conservation
: > of energy).
: 
: Paul, I thought the violation of conservation of (angular)
: __momentum__ was a more basic problem with Velikovsky's interplanetary
: billiards?
Both, actually.
: 
: But yes, in principle, a good high-school education is sufficient
: to make Velikovsky's ideas look ridiculous.  I was advised not to
: waste my time on such nonsense; and that advice was correct.
Good advice.  But he is a case study in nut-science.  It is 
important to remember that, in person, he was a genuine nice
guy (I have that from several who knew him) and that he really
believed what he wrote.
I'm not sure that some of the nut-science folk who followed
him were interested in anything other than the money.
One could probably write a book about the curse of the Pharohs
affecting Hillary Clinton and make a bundle of money.
     ------ Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

Doug (doug_mckean@paragon-networks.com) wrote:
: In article , dated Sat, 14 
: Dec 1996 18:38:28 -0800, Larry Caldwell of 
: larryc@teleport.com broke his fingers while typing ---
: ->With all the disruption caused by creationist postings in the sci.*
: ->newsgroups lately, I thought I would take a shot at explaining to 
: ->scientists why creationists are so stubbornly irrational.
: ->
: ->The whole point of Christian theology is that mankind is in need of
: ->salvation.  This stems directly from the original sin of disobedience
: ->in the Garden of Eden.  If there was no Garden of Eden and no original
: ->sin, then the whole mission of Jesus becomes unnecessary.
: ->
: ->Careful investigation has demonstrated that the creation myth is just 
: ->that - a myth, with no basis in fact.  Faced with the choice between
: ->religion and reality, many people choose religion.  They will simply
: ->reject any reality that conflicts with their belief.
: ->
: ->It does no good to debate the point with them, because they will not
: ->engage in honest discourse.  They have already issued a blanket rejection
: ->of reality before ever encountering evidence.  Any attempt to enlighten
: ->them will be an exercise in futility.
: ->
: ->-- Larry
: 
: If I may Larry, IMHO the division appears to be something 
: entirely else.  
: 
: Evolution studies the differences of species from 
: generation to generation.  Creation does not.  And 
: for me, this division between the two is important. 
: the two are basically seperate. 
: 
: If a creationist is a literalist, i.e. by the letter 
: of the bible, then they have to assume god created 
: everything and everything was on the ark.  Assuming 
: we're talking "only" the christian side of things. 
: And if the person wants to be a literalist, there are 
: plenty of problems and contradictions that follow.
: 
: If interpretation is allowed, then I see no contention 
: between the two.  And actually both can exist mutually 
: exclusive of one another. 
: 
: Just my two bits. 
You are right.  But the problem goes deeper than that.
I don't think anyone has any problem with folks who
want to believe in the inerrency of the Bible and (to
them) the fact that God created Man, etc.  The problem
is twofold:  first, they insist that this belief is
science and second, they want to change the way science
is taught in our schools.
I believe that creationism is not science, but that's
not my main problem.  The second item is.  To rid our
schools of every bit of science that contradicts
creationism because it must therefore be wrong is to
rid our schools of chemistry, biology, physics,
astronomy, archaeology, and others.  Various school
boards around the country with creationist majorities
(and there are more of them than you think) have
basically tried to edit out of all of these subjects
anything they find objectionable.
Biology suffers the worst.  And archaeology is not
often taught in U.S. High Schools, but if it were, it
would be doomed in such school districts.
This is where the real fight is.  Nobody cares if
Ed Conrad (just to name one example) believes in his
bones or not.  I *do* care when folks want to teach our
kids that evolution never happened, that the earth 
was created 6000 years ago, and that radiodating of
samples is wrong because physicists are wrong about
radioactivity.
Then *their* problem becomes *my* problem.
     ----- Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
    ----- Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

Marc Line wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, at 15:32:41, Saida cajoled electrons into this
> 
> >Marc Line wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, at 22:30:39, The Hab cajoled electrons into this
> >>
> >> >Marc, I was wondering what your take on the subject of race/ethnicity in >
> >>Egypt is.
> >>
> >> Hello Hab.
> >>
> >> Not 3 hours ago I posted a little something about that.  These servers
> >> are a little slow having been legs up for most of the weekend.
> >>
> >> In reply to your question, I must say that I find the whole topic rather > a
> >distraction from the serious work of understanding the
> >culture which > was and is Egyptian.  To become tied up in those endless
> >and fruitless > arguments is as much use as weighing the Great Sphinx or
> >counting the > grains of sand in the desert.
> >
> >The arguments here are probably fruitless but I cannot agree that those
> >involved in determining the ethnic makeup of the ancient Egyptians are
> >"a distraction from the serious work of understanding the culture which
> >was and is Egyptian".
> 
> Topic, not praxis.
> 
> >These people are quite serious and motivated by a
> >wish to know the truth.  In your country, Dr. Rosalie David at the
> >University of Manchester is busy working with mummies at this time,
> >trying to shed light on such question "Who were the ancient Egyptians?"
> >An acquaintance of mine on the Net put it like this:
> >"The first project planned is an epidemiological study of
> >schistosomiasis in Egypt, to be carried out with St Mary's hospital in
> >Manchester, with the aim of estimating the prevalence of the disease
> >over time.  The second planned project is a DNA fingerprinting study on
> >the royal mummies, aiming to plot the extent of incest, and to determine
> >the extent of genetic mixture between the pharaoahs and the general
> >population.  The reporter has some comments on Frohlich's disease and on
> >determining the parentage of Tutankhamen."  American scientists are
> >doing DNA studies of Egyptian mummies as well.
> 
> I know.
> 
> >>There is an ultimate answer to the > question but no-one alive for the next
> >generation at least is going to > have it.
> >
> >I am very surprised that you say this, Marc.
> 
> Really?
> 
> > Further, there are enough things on which we would likely all > agree
> >to enable us to put the elements of disagreement to one side and > get
> >on with the more important work of learning to live and work > together,
> >appreciating our various cultures for what they are, an > inspiration of
> >the human spirit rather than ammunition in a kind of > pissing contest.
> >
> >Some people tend to get easily "pissed off", wouldn't you say?  That is
> >the whole trouble with trying to discuss anything with them--no matter
> >what it is.
> 
> So it would seem.
> 
> >> We are really only just beginning to seriously address the question of
> >> human origins
> >
> >How utterly untrue!
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> >> and until there is definitive and irrefutable evidence
> >> which maps, in both space and time, the progression of humankind from
> >> emergence to present day, the whole thing is really little more than
> >> idle speculation.
> >
> >Again, not so.  Progress is being made in genetics that is quite
> >astonishing.
> 
> It would have to be.
> 
> >> To me, the question of race, ethnicity, national identity etc. is
> >> largely a tool of those who would seek to dominate us ordinary folk and >
> >give
> >US a "good" reason to go off and fight THEM.  They are the
> >tools > equally of those who wish to raise armies in defence of the
> >status quo, > and those who would seek revolution against that.
> >
> >Nonsense!  Which anthropologists in your acquaintance are trying to
> >raise armies?
> 
> None.  Did I say anthropologists?
> 
> >> Don't misunderstand me here.  I know that you, as an Egyptian, feel very >
> >strongly about your cultural identity and your heritage.  It's
> >something > you would wish to defend against what you take to be
> >insults.
> >
> >Everything that argues against what he feels the need to believe he
> >construes as an insult, no matter how strong the evidence.
> 
> Opinions vary.
> 
> >  At the > end of the day though, the truth is the truth and that is all
> >it needs > to be.
> >
> >The truth is only good for those who want to believe it.
> 
> Exactly my point!
> 
> >> Other than that, I don't know what I can say.
> 
> I stand by my words, as written.
> 
> I have not committed sins against men.
> I have not opposed my family and kinsfolk.
> I have not acted deceitfully in the Seat of Truth.
> I have not known men who were of no account.
> I have not wrought evil.
> I have not made it to be the first consideration daily that unnecessary > work should be done for me.
> I have not brought forward my name for dignities.
> I have not attempted to direct servants.
> I have not belittled God.
> I have not defrauded the humble man of his property.
> I have not done what the Gods abominate.
> I have not vilified a slave to his master.
> I have not inflicted pain.
> I have not caused anyone to go hungry.
> I have not made anyone to weep.
> .............
> ...... ......
> .....   .....
> ....  I  ....
> ...   O   ...
> ..         ..
> .           .
> .............
> 
> Marc
> 
> "this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, > because they will not use their memories; they will trust to 
the external, > written characters and not remember of themselves...your 
disciples (will be > given) not truth but the semblance of truth; they 
will be hearers of many > things, and will have learned nothing." - 
Plato, re: Amun to Tehuti, on writing.
Marc, are you bucking for sainthood?  What is all this in aid of and 
what does it have to do with the science of genetics?