Subject: Re: operation upuaut
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 03:24:07 GMT
On Sun, 05 Jan 97 17:08:50 -05, Don Judy wrote:
>I suggest that the miniplug will be there, tomorrow, or the day after, and
>maybe even beyond that; there are those who think this is such a compelling
>issue that it has to be done now, this instant, immediamente. The question is
>why they would think so. Of course, some monumental pyramidal, mathematical,
>asstronomical, asstrophysical, asstrological truth could be waiting down the
>hall, but more likely it will be a disappointment that will be dismissed with
>the usual "So, what, that doesn't prove anything, we still know the importance
>of:
list of inanities snipped, but widely available at non peer reviewed
checkout stand journals....
don,
after reading your above post, i went back and reread a number of your
others to assure myself that you are not as stupid as this post would
indicate...do you seriously mean to indicate that anyone curious as to
what, if anything, might lay on the other side of the stone must be
some sort of nut case??...
frank
Subject: Re: operation upuaut
From: akaulins@aol.com
Date: 6 Jan 1997 02:57:47 GMT
In article <32CEDB49.31DE@erols.com>, Rodney Small
writes:
>Subject: Re: operation upuaut
Rodney,
Bravo! You write:
> In any event, I
>hope that you might agree that the handling of Gantenbrink's
>discovery by the German Archaeological Institute bordered on the
>bizarre. But what is infinitely worse is that almost four years
>after Gantenbrink's discovery, Egyptian authorities still have
>not permitted further exploration to determine what -- if
>anything -- is behind the "door". Perhaps this is not the result
>of "The International Archaeological Conspiracy" but rather
>bureaucratic incompetence, but it is shameful nonetheless.
Rodney,
Benjamin Disraeli once wrote, "there are no permanent alliances, only
permanent interests". What are the "vested interests" here?
The discovery has been made. But who is going to cash in the chips? That
is the question and the reason for the delay.
- Andis Kaulins (J.D. Stanford University, 1971)
Subject: Re: operation upuaut
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 04:28:56 GMT
On 6 Jan 1997 02:11:00 GMT, gans@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>He's on to us folks! I told you it wouldn't work. There are
>too many archaeologists competing for too few jobs and one of
>them was bound to blow the thing. Make his career and all
>that.
>
>We need a new policy if we intend to keep major archaeological
>finds a secret in the future. I suggest that we keep ALL
>grad students off ALL digs in the future. You never know what
>the buggers will leak just to get a competitive advantage.
>
>By the way, would somebody remind me WHY we are keeping all
>this secret?
a closer reading of my post will reveal that it had nothing to do with
the assinine little kiddie's game on which you, rather like the drunk
who insists on telling his same one joke over and over, seem
fixated...my point was the lack of curiosity, and constructive
activity based upon that curiosity, among egyptologists...
btw...your post included a question, if only a rhetorical one...please
be careful...questions feed curiosity...
frank
Subject: Re: 40 years and I havent seen a Flood yet
From: sudsm@aol.com (SUDSM)
Date: 6 Jan 1997 05:19:42 GMT
David (sci.arch.):
.
>Shaw (1989) for example has suggested that some of these floods
>increased eustatic sea level by several meters in less than a few
>years
.
Widespread flooding has nothing whatever to do with the biblical
flood which was certainly NOT widespread. It was confined to "the
face of the earth" from which Cain (the Kenites) had been expelled
(Gen. 4:14) and had settled in the land of Nod. Aden, Eden, or Edinu
was the name of Mesopotamia, so the land of Nod was between the so-
called "face of the earth" and Mesopotamia. It is believed that "the
face of the earth" was next to what we now call "the roof of the
world" (Tibet).
The biblical flood occurred in the 600th year of Noah, and
counting the epoch of the dynasty of Adam as the Autumnal Equinox of
4000 BC, that would make the 600th year of the dynasty of Noah 2345
to 2344 BC, from the start of the flood to the grounding of the ark on
"ARRT" = "highlands" of "the face of the earth: -- there was no
mountain nor territory so named at that time. "The face of the earth"
was what we now call the Tarim Basin (Long. 75 to 95; Lat. 34 to 44).
The flood (and earthquake such that "were all the fountains of
the great deep broken up -- Gen. 7:11) was a local affair but it was
and, for that matter still is) a global catastrophe, because the
nation destroyed there had become the world's ancient cultural center
-- which is how it came to be called "the face of the earth". It was
the earlier and more advanced civilization and source referred to by
the Sumerians, Babylonians, and early Egyptians. The Sumerians didn't
invent it as adherents to the Wellhausen "cult" (including most of our
current academics) like to claim.
Suds
To: David Carrara (jmcarth1@gtn.net)
Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey with Church of England Greats
Subject: Re: What is this, Biblical Archaelogy?
From: sudsm@aol.com (SUDSM)
Date: 6 Jan 1997 05:36:51 GMT
Janet:
.
>Or you could see that early Judaic myths were borrowed from the
>Gilgamesh * * *
.
Yes, but you can't now say which way the borrowing went. If you
insist like Sarton that:
.
"The early Sumerians did not think of themselves as upstarts, but
rather as the late recipients of a glorious tradition. They
originated the tale of man's golden age."
Geo. Sarton, A HISTORY OF SCIENCE (Harvard, 1952) p. 96
.
You are more or less forced to conclude that the Messianic religion
was borrowed from earlier myths. But, if you do not accept that the
Sumerians made it all up, and the Babylonian and Egyptian references
to an earlier and more advanced civilization were only following
what the Sumerians invented, then there really was an earlier and more
advanced civilization that they all depended on. Either way it is
clear that the Messianic religion permeated all ancient myths.
That explains the rapid rise of culture in Egypt and why that
culture was rising up to Dynasty 4 and the Great Pyramid in Egypt, and
why it was all downhill from there. It would mean that the deified
Imhotep, responsible for the pyramid design and construction logistics
was from the more advanced civilization. It would also confirm
Herodotus' report that the Egyptian temples were closed during the
building of the GP. And it would explain why their were no
decorations on or in the "sacred" GP and its many copies (equally
"sacred") built as tombs or cenotaphs. Plus it would explain a whole
lot more that Egyptologists carefully ignore.
But, as I said, it is not possible to now determine which way the
borrowing went -- only that there was universal borrowing. And the
Hebrews, who may have been descendants of that earlier and advanced
civilization, had allowed their own traditions to degenerate, until
Moses (like King James) got them restored, as much as possible, and
preserved in the Torah.
Suds
To: jubran@coyote.csusm.edu (Janet Jubran)
Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey with Church of England Greats
Subject: Re: biblical truth regarding ancient Egypt's race
From: Siro Trevisanato
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 22:01:43 GMT
On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, John the ForeRunner wrote:
> The biblical source of Egypt's race are the sons of Ham who were dark,
> including the Cushites (from Sumerian city Kish) who were black. They
> settled at Giza in 2170 BC perhaps earlier at Thebes *IF* they had taken
> the Arabian coast to Africa. It wasn't until 140 years later that Shemites
> (Chaldeans) who were kings deserted Ur in 2030 BC due to its planned suicide
> (finally inacted on Koiak 21-25, May 2-6 as the original christ-mass
> Osiris/Isis).
Let's even say for argument's sake that it is so (which still needs
some data), so what?
Siro
> They arrived at Memphis on the May 8 setting of Sirius and observed the absence
> of Sirius (Anubis) for 70 days til July 17 when they inaugurated the 365-day calendar
> with the New Year Phamenoth 1 (later becoming the 7th month).
> 10 years before Mena in 2020 BC at Noah's death
> united these Shemite kings into a HOUSE (Pharaoh) with the Hamitic kings
> claiming that Noah's curse between the two races should end with his death.
> But Noah's curse was a prediction of moral behavior which isn't going to clean up
> merely because Noah has now died. Thus the Shemites had defiled their own
> set of morals with those of the Hamites thru compromise. Shemetic kings controlled
> the HOUSE until Joseph died in 1657 BC and Jannes who was born in 1650 BC
> was raised to hate Shemites as being Hyksos intruders of government.
> Since the Shemite-Egyptians were now genetically mixed as Hamitic/Shemetic,
> they are referred to as Egyptians leaving with the Israelites in the Exodus.
> The Hyksos 517 years in Egypt permits the number of the nation of Israel to be so
> high when Israel left only 215 years after entering Egypt.
>
> J Shearer wrote:
> > fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray) writes: > On 5 Jan 1997 01:59:51 GMT, J Shearer wrote:
> > > > Folks, the whole concept of "race" is completely unscientific nonsense!
> > > >It is a social construct invented to justify being nasty to people from
> > > >other places/cultures!
> > > hmmm...please state your evidence of where, when, and by whom the
> > > concept of "race" was invented along with your proof of their
> > > motivation in so inventing...science demands evidence...
> > > frank
> > Hi, Frank. Well, you called me on that! I cannot remember the author's
> > name ("Barbara" something), or the exact source--the article was in _New
> > Left Review_ in the late '80's, I believe. I do have a copy of the article
> > _somewhere_ --we just moved from Illinois to Wash. state, so it could be
> > "anywhere"! Sorry about that! If I find the article anytime soon, I'll
> > post the author/source. __Jan
>
> ************
> A voice crying out and going unheard,
> (40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
> God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
> The 144,000 will rule before this first year ENDS.
> http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
>
> Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
> http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
>
>
Subject: Re: What were the Maya really like?
From: rdm8049@utarlg.uta.edu
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 00:37:15 CDT
Bjorn,
there as been much work from a variety of angles and sites on the Ancient
Maya since the time of Thompson. You might look at the recent
publications of Freidel, Schele, Houston, Bassie-Sweet, Bricker,
Chase(s), among others. Try to confine your research to writings from
around the last 10-15 years. The best reference to recommend to you
would most likely depend on the type of article you hope to produce, ie.
point of view, geographic setting, temporal setting, activity emphasis, etc.
RD Milhollin, Arlington Texas
Subject: Re: The Tiles of Ramses III: Another Answer
From: akaulins@aol.com
Date: 6 Jan 1997 07:49:17 GMT
In article , bb089@scn.org (James Conway) writes:
> I don't think the problem is so impossible, but you have to ask
>yourself why so much resistance exists for suggestions to be made. That
>egyptian chronology is 'used' to date other cultural artifacts only
>intensifies the resistance to accept different conclusions. BTW the
>beginning nor the ending of the dynasties are in conflict. The problem
>of egyptian chronology starts after the end of the Middle Kingdom 12th
>dynasty to the 26th dynasty or the period of 11 centuries from about
>1770 - 670 BCE. The 'placement' of each dynasty in the time line is the
>question not the internal years in each dynasty itself.
>
>
James,
The resistance is to be expected. People are used to working with a system
which works "for them", so why should they change. This is the old problem
of "we have always done it this way". And there will be no change until
the evidence and the arguments are not only persuasive but "massive" - and
we are getting there.
I must disagree, however, that the chronology of the Old Kingdom is in
order.
Nothing there is in order. There is even no assurance that most of the
Pharaohs of the Old Kingdom even lived - how many mummies of them do we
have??? Because of the grave robbers, the priests collected the mummies
at the depots at Deir el-Bahari (discovered 1881 at DB 320) and in the
tomb of Amenhotep II (discovered 1898 at KV 35). There is not a single Old
Kingdom Pharaoh among them, is there?
A case of the vanishing Pharaohs?
Or, are those of us on the right track, who suggest that the Old Kingdom
represents an astronomical "Sothic Year" system in which many of the kings
listed there only have a mythological, i.e. astronomical significance?
This is what Newton claimed, and he may be right.
As I show at my web site
http://members.aol.com/akaulins/expak/expak1.htm (expak one not letter
L)
the pyramid complexes on the Nile all related to the same astronomical
system and to the same date, namely ca. 2340 BC.(this was a "perfect"
heaven for astronomers at that date in terms of Equinoxes, Solstices,
Ecliptic, etc., as Werner Papke has demonstrated, and led to the building
of the pyramids) - hence there was only one master architectural
construction plan. Many of the pyramids were thus built all at the same
time.
Bauval and Gilbert have already shown that the Giza pyramids related to
Orion, and this is correct, but the pyramid of Cheops also triangulates
most of the heavens on its own. (Just view the Queen's and King's Chambers
as Leo/Regulus).
The complex of pyramids formed by Pepi (Merire), Merenre I and Djedkare
triangulated the actual Autumnal Equinox (2340 BC) and the "astronomical
Vernal Equinox" 15 days prior to the actual Vernal Equinox (this was the
same system used by the Babylonians, i.e. the 1st of Nissan vs. the 15th
of Nissan, according to Werner Papke, Die Sterne von Babylon, for the
reasons given there).
The complex of pyramids formed by Pepi II (Merenre II), Schepseskaf and
Ibi triangulated the actual Vernal Equinox rising 2340 BC and the actual
Autumnal Equinox setting 2340 BC.
The complex of pyramids fromed by Djoser, Unas, Teti and Userkaf
triangulated the Summer and Winter Solstices in 2340 BC
- Andis Kaulins (J.D. Stanford University, 1971)
Subject: Re: HOW THE PYRAMIDS WERE BUILT
From: NotPublic@Nowhere.net (Bjorn Pedersen)
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 23:49:29 GMT
On Thu, 02 Jan 97 16:08:23 GMT, solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert)
wrote:
> >>
> It never ceases to amaze me that people carry on associating the event of the
> explosion of Santorini with Plato's description of Atlantis. It's like us
> saying that the American Civil War took place Britain or vice versa. Plato
> states quite categorically that Atlantis lay beyond the Pillars of Hercules in
> the Atlantic Ocean and that beyond it lay another continent (America). As a
The text which we're talking about here is two dialogues between
Timaeos and Critias. The island was described to the statesman Solon
as being larger than Asia Minor and Libya put together and that it was
a utopian commonwealth of some sort that existed 10 000 years before
Christ. Perhaps based on an Athenean desire for closer integration of
the city states?
Some have forwarded that the myth is a remnant of a real event. Some
people say it was Santorini, other say it was an island in the Aegean
called Thira. Yet others claim it was America, and as "credentialous"
would be our claim that Atlantis was in Scandinavia.
This is was the Encarta 95 says Thira, which I suppose is as good a
candidate for being Atlantis as anything: "Delos, Mílos, and Thíra
contain numerous ancient remains, many of which have been excavated by
archaeologists." Apparently Thira was buried by a volcano in 1500 BC.
> Greek he would have known about Santorini, Crete and the other islands in the
> neighbourhood. The Greeks were great sailors and their civilization was
> maritime. Surely if he had wanted to talk about a little local trouble with
> Santorini he would have said so and got his geography correct?
Off course he knew about Santorini. But Santorini is only what remains
after a much bigger island was blown to bits by an underwater vulcano.
I'm not sure when this happened, but I'm pretty sure it happened
before the Mycaenean age and before the Minoan age. I saw the theory
aired on the Discovery Channel once, and it seems much more likely
than most other "theories", especially the ones that claim that
America or Scandinavia would be Atlantis. But having looked into it
now, it might as well be the Thira theory. Or it all might be pure
fiction - which is what I lean toward, having seen no evidence to
convince me otherwize.
> In my opinion the Atlantis issue is still an open question. One day we will
> find the answer to this connumdrum, most likely in the West Indies. But don't
> let's keep on mixing Santorini into the story. Let's keep looking for the real
> thing.
I really don't think there has ever been an entity known as Atlantis.
Why? Because there are no evidence what so ever of it: no jugs, no
amphoras, no ships or armours, or ruins. If the egyptians knew about
Atlantis for real, then they would have traded with them and would
have items to display.
But there is nothing, except Plato's tales.
Take Care Now,
Bjřrn
Subject: Re: The Tiles of Ramses III: Another Answer
From: bb089@scn.org (James Conway)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 00:09:32 GMT
In a previous article, akaulins@aol.com () says:
Date: 6 Jan 1997 07:49:17 GMT
>In article , bb089@scn.org (James Conway) writes:
>
>> I don't think the problem is so impossible, but you have to ask
>>yourself why so much resistance exists for suggestions to be made. That
>>egyptian chronology is 'used' to date other cultural artifacts only
>>intensifies the resistance to accept different conclusions. BTW the
>>beginning nor the ending of the dynasties are in conflict. The problem
>>of egyptian chronology starts after the end of the Middle Kingdom 12th
>>dynasty to the 26th dynasty or the period of 11 centuries from about
>>1770 - 670 BCE. The 'placement' of each dynasty in the time line is the
>>question not the internal years in each dynasty itself.
>>
>James,
>
>The resistance is to be expected. People are used to working with a system
>which works "for them", so why should they change. This is the old problem
>of "we have always done it this way". And there will be no change until
>the evidence and the arguments are not only persuasive but "massive" - and
>we are getting there.
The degree of resistance isn't based on data but old ideas with no
foundation of fact. That makes justification nonsense particularly
when other paths are more reliable. But that is not the path being
taken which is that the most unreliable chronology is forcing the
more reliable ones to bend and be twisted to unrecognizability.
>I must disagree, however, that the chronology of the Old Kingdom is in
>order.
>Nothing there is in order. There is even no assurance that most of the
>Pharaohs of the Old Kingdom even lived - how many mummies of them do we
>have??? Because of the grave robbers, the priests collected the mummies
>at the depots at Deir el-Bahari (discovered 1881 at DB 320) and in the
>tomb of Amenhotep II (discovered 1898 at KV 35). There is not a single Old
>Kingdom Pharaoh among them, is there?
If memory serves, there is one old kingdom mummy, just bones tho.
Besides the problem of egyptian chronology isn't in the area of the
old kingdom which is as reliable as they can ever get as stone monument
lists exist and no counter lists to suggest they might be wrong.
>A case of the vanishing Pharaohs?
>
>Or, are those of us on the right track, who suggest that the Old Kingdom
>represents an astronomical "Sothic Year" system in which many of the kings
>listed there only have a mythological, i.e. astronomical significance?
>This is what Newton claimed, and he may be right.
The problem of sothic is that there is no evidence of it ever having been
used in ancient times. Yes, inscriptions exist but the "method" isn't
documented at all and without that proof we have nothing.
>As I show at my web site
>http://members.aol.com/akaulins/expak/expak1.htm (expak one not letter
I tried to get there but it didn't make it. Will try again.
>L)
>the pyramid complexes on the Nile all related to the same astronomical
>system and to the same date, namely ca. 2340 BC.(this was a "perfect"
>heaven for astronomers at that date in terms of Equinoxes, Solstices,
>Ecliptic, etc., as Werner Papke has demonstrated, and led to the building
>of the pyramids) - hence there was only one master architectural
>construction plan. Many of the pyramids were thus built all at the same
>time.
Interesting.
>Bauval and Gilbert have already shown that the Giza pyramids related to
>Orion, and this is correct, but the pyramid of Cheops also triangulates
>most of the heavens on its own. (Just view the Queen's and King's Chambers
>as Leo/Regulus).
I stick to the fact that the three great pyramids are not of the same
age as all the others so I take the view that Cheops merely repaired
and built chapels for his wife on the site.
>The complex of pyramids formed by Pepi (Merire), Merenre I and Djedkare
>triangulated the actual Autumnal Equinox (2340 BC) and the "astronomical
>Vernal Equinox" 15 days prior to the actual Vernal Equinox (this was the
>same system used by the Babylonians, i.e. the 1st of Nissan vs. the 15th
>of Nissan, according to Werner Papke, Die Sterne von Babylon, for the
>reasons given there).
>
>The complex of pyramids formed by Pepi II (Merenre II), Schepseskaf and
>Ibi triangulated the actual Vernal Equinox rising 2340 BC and the actual
>Autumnal Equinox setting 2340 BC.
>
>The complex of pyramids fromed by Djoser, Unas, Teti and Userkaf
>triangulated the Summer and Winter Solstices in 2340 BC
>
>- Andis Kaulins (J.D. Stanford University, 1971)
I look forward to when I can view your homepage.
Best to you
--
James Conway bb089@scn.org
Seattle, WA 98101 USA
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/kjh/
Subject: Re: hale-bopp as 3600-year Marduk (nephilim & tiamat)
From: malkinb7@mindspring.com (Michelle Malkin)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 02:41:42 GMT
geo@3-cities.com wrote:
>John the ForeSkin wrote:
>>Become an archeologist will know this.
>And ForeSkin is an archelogist?
>Not possible.
>Geo
You mean you've never heard of the world famous archaeologist Alphonse Pierre
Fouresquin? He was the one who found both missing briss foreskin burial places
hidden for centuries just outside the ruined and buried walls of ancient Israel
and Judah. Even the Assyrians didn't know where they were or they would have
destroyed the sites. Jeeze, Geo, I thought everyone knew that! ;-)
Mickey
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Shake off all fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on
her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness
even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more
approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson to his nephew Peter Carr - August 10, 1787
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: operation upuaut
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 01:54:02 GMT
On 6 Jan 1997 21:38:49 GMT, gans@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>A calm reading of this suggests that you feel that the lack of
>interest among the worldwide community is abnormal. My paranoic
>brain translates that to the assumption that you think there
>is some sort of conspiracy. Since I *know* that there is
>a conspiracy out there, I replied as I did.
>
>I'm glad that you don't think that there is a conspiracy. In
>that case perhaps you'd consider that there might be rational
>reasons for that "lack" of curiosity. If you pursue that line
>perhaps the folks at the IAC won't have to stop your internet
>access.
paul,
please excuse my previous tone...i had thought you were just
attempting to be a smart ass...had i been informed of your condition i
would have spoken more gently...hopefully, you're treatment has not
been slowed by any remark of mine...
best wishes for your recovery and eventual release...perhaps when you
are well enough, they will reduce the dosage to a level which will
allow curiosity to again spring through your brain...
live carefully, and hope for that day,
frank
frank
Subject: Re: Are Egyptologists Interested In Ethnicity (was "A Question For Marc Line)
From: pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala)
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 97 21:43:16 GMT
In article <5apg5a$b0m@news.inforamp.net>,
The Hab wrote:
>pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) wrote:
>>I promised Ihab to give some quotes regarding the Copts, but I can't
>>remember whether it was in this thread or another. So I'll post to
>>both.
>>
>>Ibn Qutayba (828-89) wrote:
>>
>> Wahb ibn Nunabbih said: Ham the son of Noah was a white man,
>> with a handsome face and a fine figure, and Almighty God changed his
>> color and the color of his descendants in response to his father's
>> curse. He went away, followed by his sons, and they settled by the
>> shore, where God increased and multiplied them. They are the blacks.
>> ...Some of his children went to the West. Ham begat Kush ibn Ham,
>> Kan`an ibn Ham, and Fut ibn Ham. Fut settled in India and Sind
>> and their inhabitants are his descendants. Kush and Kan`an's
>> descendants are the various races of blacks: Nubians, Zanj, Qaran,
>> Zaghawa, Ethiopians, Copts, and Berbers. (Kitab al-Ma`arif, ed.
>> Tharwat `Ukasha, 2nd ed., Cairo, 1969, p. 26)
>>
>>
>>The same story of the curse of Ham can be found in other works like
>>Sirat Saif ibn Dhi Yazan. A work covering this topic from the Jewish
>>perspective is Ephraim Isaac's _Genesis, Judaism and the 'Sons of Ham._
>>
>>Copts were commonly called "blacks" in Arabic literature. For example,
>>the works of Jahiz of Basra (776-869).
>
>Interesting quotes, but I can find no quotes like this in the Koran. In
>fact, the Prophet preached racial tolerance. The only intolarance I have
>read in the Koran was between believers and non-believers (such quotes as
>"When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you
>have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining
>captives", sura 47.4).
>
>Further, this does not prove that the Copts (the term meant all Egyptians
>at the time) and Berbers were actual blacks as we know the term. It is
>well known that a people who are lighter generally call darker peoples
>than themselves "dark", "brown", black". I will give you an example: the
>Persian Afshin (833) was well known to have called his people "white" as
>apposed to the "dark" and "black" Arabs and North Africans. This does not
>mean that the Arabs were actually black, but just that they were darker
>than the Persians.
>
>As well, the Arabs themselves have a rivallry between themselves: the
>Qaysite (northern Arab) and Yemenite (southern Arab) have always been
>atagonistic to each other. This does not mean that they are of a
>different race.
>
>Sheikh Rifa al-Tahtawi (1868) was probably the first in Egypt to define
>the Egyptian identity along nationalistic rather than religious terms. He
>united Coptic and Muslim Egyptians and considered teh Egyptian identity
>as distinct. He was the first trully nationalistic Egyptian since the
>Arab invasion.
>
>Also, the Berber Kateb Yacine (1929-1989 or 1990? I am not sure) in 1989
>said "there is no Arab race and no Arab nation". He was a true Berber
>nationalist if there ever was one.
>
>Modern Egyptians call the Asian Arabs "shamy" (from Shem) and we define
>this mostly (if you can believe it) by their nose ("meneghiroo shamy"
>and "sheklo shamy" is often said). We also call teh Nubian "iswid" or
>"sood"...in other words we define ourselves as unique among our
>neighbours.
>
>What all this means is that terms used by people may not be an accurate
>indication of racial, ethnic or even cultural affiliations.
>
>
>
>
>The Hab
>
From your previous posts, you seem to have no problem classifing
Egyptians as Caucasians, following the Eurocentric literature, but
object to their classification as Africoid. However, Keita and
Angel have suggested that the ancient Egyptians were tropical
Africans. Again, what percentage of the Copts do you think are
black? Are any of them black?
Paul Kekai Manansala
Subject: Re: 40 years and I havent seen a Flood yet
From: heinrich@intersurf.com (Paul V. Heinrich)
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 22:05:47 -0600
In article <5ap42q$g4h@lana.zippo.com>,
David Carrara (jmcarth1@gtn.net) wrote:
>In article ,
>heinrich@intersurf.com says...
>>In message <5akauh$5rh@lana.zippo.com>
>>David Carrara (jmcarth1@gtn.net) wrote:
>>>In article ,
.....points well made and agreed to deleted....Oh well, some
reading that I need to do this weekend about structural geology.
>You still haven’t answered my question. How much of
>North America was isostatically subsided by glaciation in
>your figure? What were you using to infer the extent of
>isostatic subsidence.
I was, *until reading the above*, saying the United States south
of the southern Wisconsinan glacial maximum. Unfortunately, I
really do not have the time calculate an exact percentage. That
should clearly define the area. Basically, I was using the surface
of Wisconsinan valley trains and (tributary) slackwater lakes and
Holocene floodplains along the Wasbash, Ohio and Mississippi
Rivers. Also, I was looking at the distribution of the A, B, and C
grouping of sea level curves by Stright (1995).
>>Also, there are many processes, e.g. pluvial lakes, loading of
>>sediments in sedimentary basins, etc., of nonglacial origin that
>>cause subsidence and gravitational anomalies. Not all
>>subsidence is caused by glaciation.
>I am a structural geologist and I am well aware of this. All of
>these things are known and can be corrected for. I do not
>think you completely understand the overwhelming
>deformational effect that the glaciation had on much of the
>crust of North America.
......point well taken and agreed upon......
Live and learn :-( :-(
>the crust to be around 10^24 to 10^25 N-m (Walcott,
>1970) this means that one would expect subsidence for
>a distance of 300 to 500 km past the area of direct loading.
Some Random Thoughts and Wild Ideas
1. Any idea as to the magnitude of the subsidence at 200 km?,
300 km?, 500 km? It would really be interesting to calculate
it for southern Illinois (Saline County), because there are
some well-preserved and large slackwater lake deposits that
date to the time that this subsidence should have occurred.
They should be within the zone of subsidence being about
200 km from the edge of the ice sheet.
2. Recently, the presence of paleoliquefaction structures
have shown that there has been significant earthquakes in
southwestern Indiana during the middle to late Holocene
and earlier. Given that the estimated location of these
epicenters lies at or within 100 km of the Wisconsinan
ice front, could such isostatic subsidence have resulted
in Pleistocene movement along these faults from which
they were still readjusting during the Holocene? Or are
these quakes just the regular build-up of intraplate stresses?
This is significant because the earthquake hazards are
calculated based upon the latter cause and, thus, the
presumption that stress is being renewed after each
quake.
>> If it has occurred south of the
>>glacial limit, then known Wisconsinan terraces should be
>>uplifted or warped, which they are not. If you have citations
>>for warped fluvial terraces south of the maximum extent of
>>glaciation during the Wisconsinan, please, post them.
>Recovery of isostatic subsidence in this area would have
>been rapid and almost all would have occurred in less
>than 1000 years. (Remember that the larger the horizontal
>scale of the load the faster the relaxation time) Would your
>Wisconsinan terraces reflect such a rapid uplift?
Yes and no, for different reasons in different areas.
1. One problem is that the terraces for that interval are either
nonexistent or so fragmentary, it would be very difficult
to observe warping. Also, the Maumee (Flood) terraces,
as others, formed too late and mostly destroyed the
contemporaneous terraces.
2. Where contemporaneous terraces exist in the Upper
Mississippi Valley and Kankankee River, they all have
been correlated with the assumption of the lack of such
subsidence and presumed to be unwarped terrace surfaces.
Being within 150 km of the edge of the ice sheet, such
subsidence, if great enough, could really do some obscene
things to the accepted Wisconsinan terrace correlations in
that area. :-) :-) Among other reasons, that might explain
why, that the terrace stratigraphy is so confused in that area.
:-) Regardless, it is very interesting that the possibility
of warping of the terraces in the St. Louis region has been
neglected in their correlation. If warping is present, the
correlations might have to be redone.
3. The sea level curves of Stright (1995) are too young
to detect such a brief period of isostatic depression during
the glacial maximum.
4. The majority of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley terraces
are too far south.
5. Finally, a careful examination of the elevation of the
slackwater lakes (lakes formed by the damming of tributary
valleys by the valley trains) might show something. To
get a good clear picture of such subsidence, a person
would likely have to look at the Wabash River. Also,
there might be terraces of suitable age along either the
Des Moines or Missouri Rivers where they are almost
perpendicular to the ice sheet and to the gradient of any
subsidence. That would take some original and very
careful study. The gravity anomalies would be the
main evidence at this time. Sighh.
I will have to go look at Walcott (1972, 1973).
Likely, this weekend.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich All comments are the
heinrich@intersurf.com personal opinion of the writer and
Baton Rouge, LA do not constitute policy and/or
opinion of government or corporate
entities. This includes my employer.
"Afterall, if the present is *not* the key to
the past, it is at least *a* key to the past."
-Flessa (1993) in Taphonomic Approaches to
Time Resolution in Fossil Assemblages (The
Paleontological Society)
Subject: Re: 40 years and I havent seen a Flood yet
From: akaulins@aol.com
Date: 7 Jan 1997 04:46:40 GMT
In article <19970106051800.AAA17677@ladder01.news.aol.com>, sudsm@aol.com
(SUDSM) writes:
>The biblical flood occurred in the 600th year of Noah, and
>counting the epoch of the dynasty of Adam as the Autumnal Equinox of
>4000 BC, that would make the 600th year of the dynasty of Noah 2345
>to 2344 BC, from the start of the flood to the grounding of the ark on
>"ARRT" = "highlands" of "the face of the earth: -- there was no
>mountain nor territory so named at that time. "The face of the earth"
>was what we now call the Tarim Basin (Long. 75 to 95; Lat. 34 to 44).
Suds,
If you insist on using that date of 2345 BC for "the flood", then you are
losing any chance of people taking your work seriously since no actual
"earthly" flood took place in Mesopotamia or your "face of the earth" at
that time. There may have been an actual earthly flood (such as the
glacial melt) prior to that, but at least 1500 years previous or more.
Your date of 2345 BC relates to the special orientation of the stars in
the heavens at this date in terms of Equinoxes, Solstices, Ecliptic and so
on - so that circa 2340 BC is an eminently important ASTRONOMICAL date on
which a "flood" of sorts may have incurred, in that the ancients "redrew"
the heavens and "flooded" the old calendric system down the tubes, which
had "gone underwater" due to precession of the equinoxes.
If there was an ancient "real" flood on earth, the ancients, including the
Bible, redrew that "flood" in this manner in the heavens. There is no
other rational explanation.
Besides, for all of you out there relying on the Bible - this means you
have always been partially right and that the Bible does retain this
ancient history, only in a chronological manner somewhat different than
you expect. And this is not unusual. Consider, rationally, that the
ancients may not even have had a long-term system of chronology before the
flood - but that its occurrence may have caused the creation of such a
system. Hence, any long term calendration could only go back to the
inception of such a system during such a flood period - and in that case,
taking the date of "creation" of this long-term calender somewhere around
4000 BC, then you do have an argument. Otherwise, you are arguing for a
flood - chronologically seen - which never occurred 2345 BC. Now what is
the point of that?
- Andis Kaulins (J.D. Stanford University, 1971)
Subject: Re: pyramids ceasing abruptly (not by a Noah's Flood)
From: Doug Bailey
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 17:53:46 -0500
John the ForeRunner wrote:
>
> Kerry A. Northrop wrote:
> > Dunkin' John wrote:
> > > >Ed Conrad wrote:
> > > >> Jiri:
> > > What's the mystery? It is all there at Genesis 6:4 if ye will only read.
> > > The mighty men of old who built the pyramids were the unclean progeny
> > > of illicit couplings between the daughters of the Earth and the Nephilim.
> > >
> > > That is why the building of the pyramids ceased so abruptly. All the
> > > Nephilim half-breeds perished in the Great Flood. That is also why it
> > > is so dangerous for man to be experimenting to find ways of extending
> > > life and strength by genetic research on people.
>
> If the pyramids stopped construction because of a global Flood, they
> would have been destroyed by that Flood. Rather the lie you have heard
> is corrected by the following truth.
>
> The pyramids ceased abrubtly because they were built post-Flood,
> and society refused to see that we were not guaranteed a life as long
> as 930-year Adam or 940-year Noah (his age when the world started dying)
While this may soothe the zealot there is littl historical or
archeological basis for this (vacuous) statement. The prevailing theory
that best explains the apparent diametric opposite of Egyptian
technological 'progess' is that the knowledge (architecture, astronomy,
etc.) is a legacy from a predecessor civilization based in the same
general region. No, I'm not talking about people who mated with angels
or lived 900 years or Lemurians or any of that other fluff. Again, it
is a theory and anyone speaking of the phenomenon should have the
discretion to state it as speculation, not with the intoxicated hysteria
that 'John' dressed his post in.
> Rather while making people zealous to see pyramid projects (observatories)
> as a necessity to count time and seasons to make the world safer from death
> (the way we have satellites and astro-observatories observing weather,
> and computers, and seismic observatories for quakes
> all in the name of safety we pay these classifications).
This is not even a complete sentence so I assume it parallels that fact
there was no complete thought here to state.
> Nimrod is the one who is accredited with The City, which since cities
> existed before the Flood, this can only refer to the SYSTEM of control,
> when SUDDENLY people were too old to work at a mere 240 years of age
> and dying as if they had reached the normal 900. THAT is why they stopped.
> Evidence proves that the 5th dynasty death caused the pyramid plan to
> dwindle to a size 4x smaller as life was 4x shorter.
This is incorrect. The genesis of the city concept of organization
(economic, social, political, etc.) is generally accepted to have begun
in the Early and Middle Uruk periods (6300 BP - 5450 BP or 4300-3450
BC). In fact, Uruk was occupied for some five millenia from the Early
Ubaid period to the 3rd century AD and is the site where the earliest
examples of writing can be found (dating from 5300 BP or 3300 BC). As
for the people living for nine centuries, there is no evidence to show
anyone in history has lived for so long and so conjecture based on such
presumption has no value.
> Other delays or stops before this global recognition of short longevity
> were due to insisting they knew HOW to build these towers
> being know-it-all authorities.
"Know-it-all authorities"? You mean like you? Aside from that
observation... that sentence does not make any sense. Attempting to
examine your logic you are saying since they thought they knew how to do
it they stopped? Sorry to inform you but generally when people feel
they know how to do something, they tend to do it and continue to do so
as long as they can see progress (whereas in Egypt we see the pyramid
structures actually become worse in terms of technology as time
progresses - a reinforcement of the legacy theory).... like land on the
Moon, or build a Cathedral. Its called reality.
> The towers kept collapsing
> due to horizontal slide as the height increased the weight. These are all
> traditions claimed to refer to the TOWER ever since Babel. Today we
> see that the CAR has caused confusion and destruction just as that tower did.
> You see, the confusion and destruction accredited to the tower was NOT
> a mere accusation against the first one; it was an allegation against the
> product itself (all towers), just as we can also blame our future mass of deaths
> in the billions upon The Car.
> (as well as all other mass production causing pollution by making a mass
> of vain objects we discard or bury)
I agree that the industrial age has done extreme damage to the
environment but relevance to the Pyramids? This is what happens when
you take a grain of fact and then build upon it a mountain of
speculation based on what you'd like to see or your own preconceived
notions. That, of course, is not science but merely zealous
histrionics. The basis behind impartial unbiased discovery is to let
the evidence lead you... not you take what bits of evidence you want and
piece them together to fit your preconceived notion of how things are...
and of course when there is no evidence to support your (usually) wild
statements, you simply manufacture evidence or modify existing
evidence. Lets discuss the issues, not construct dreamworlds to our own
liking.
