Subject: Re: Ramses III. /Velikovski
From: bb089@scn.org (James Conway)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 21:34:33 GMT
In a previous article, ian@knowledge.co.uk (Ian Tresman) says:
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:48:39 GMT
>100714.1346@compuserve.com (GuR) wrote:
>
>>Mr. Velikovski made in his book "The people of the sea" the statemant,
>>that the Egyptian Pharao Ramses III. has not lived in the 1200BC, but
>>around 375BC. Together with this statements he arrangend the sequence
>>of the Egyptian kings since the Hyksos in a new way.
>>
>>I have never heard, if his sequence has been proved with
>>radioncarbon, thermoluminescens or any other physical method, or if
>>his ideas found their way to Egyptology.
>
>This is from SIS Review 6:1-3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESIDENTIAL WEEKEND
>CONFERENCE, GLASGOW, 7-9 APRIL 1978 (Publ. 1982), "Radiocarbon Dating
>and Egyptian Chronology" by DR EUAN MACKIE
>
>" An even more striking result is provided by the temple complex
>which we have already heard about: the buildings at Medinet Habu. We
>have a date for the part built under Ramesses III, whose historical
>position is shifted even more drastically by Dr Velikovsky's revision,
>from the 12th century down to the 4th [10]. Here, although the
>radiocarbon date is much younger than those obtained from the
>Ramesseum, the sample from the mud-brick bonding gives a result of 860
>± 50 bc (Fig. 2) - which is many centuries earlier than can possibly
>be right for the very drastic revision proposed by Dr Velikovsky.
>
>" And I think you will agree, too, that the tombs of the two
>officials, Tjanefer and Roma Roy, also fall at a very much earlier
>date than could possibly be consistent with the revised chronology.
>The dates for Tjanefer, Third Prophet of Amun, who held office from
>the time of Seti II to the reign of Ramesses III, are 1110 ± 60 bc,
>1130 ± 60 bc, 1040 ± 50 bc and 1060 ± 50 bc; again, these would be
>about 200 years older if corrected by the tree-ring factor. These four
>dates are remarkably consistent, and average at 1085 ± 28 bc, giving a
>very precise indication of the age of the building. Even if we
>discount the tree-ring calibration as non-proven, there is no way that
>this tomb can be dated to the 6th century BC."
While interesting it proves nothing. There is no reason to
believe that the structures used were "built" from scratch by
them. The old invaders built structures also which officials
would have no problem in reusing for their own purposes by
refitting the structures as they pleased. Since the period given
by Manetho of foreign domination was 511 years, the structures
they built would be considerable. But the most commonly reused
would be the least old so the age would be a better indication
of the later years of foreign kings. This agrees with V revision
where the last foreign kings rule ends in the tenth century BCE.
>[..]
>
>" You'll be wondering, of course, what effect this tree-ring
>calibration has on the C14 dates I mentioned earlier. The immediate
>effect, of course, is that the C14 dates for the Ramesseum and the
>temple of Ramesses III appear to be younger than they should be,"
>
>Reference
>10. I. Velikovsky: Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History
>(New York /Jerusalem: Scripta Academica Hierosolymitana, 1945), p.24.
>
>
>Ian Tresman, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
>http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/sis/
Peace
--
James Conway bb089@scn.org
Seattle Washington USA
Chronology: http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/kjh/
Subject: Re: Skull in Boulder images
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 06:11:37 GMT
"Michael D. Painter" wrote:
>Steve Jones - JON wrote...
>> Ed Conrad wrote:
>> >
>> > scottb@ucr.campus.mci.net (Scott Begg) wrote:
>> >
>> > >Strange... And how could a comparatively fragile bony structure like a
>> > >human skull become fossilized in a SOLID BOULDER without being filled
>> > >or rendered solid itself?
>>
>> > For crying out loud, Scotty, how the hell do I know?
>> > Ask Macrae and Myers. They seem to have all the answers.
>>
>> So you don't know how this happened then... but you refuse to listen to
>> people who have studied in this field ?
>>
>> Sounds a little strange to me, if I don't understand something I read up
>> on it and learn, ask questions of those that have studied and expand my
>> knowledge. Never thought of pig-headed arrogance as an approach to
>> learning before.
>> Steve Jones
>Not clear what you mean here Steve. There is no skull. The people who have
>studied it and myriad other rantings of Mr Ed have time and time again
>shown what these are.
>They are rocks. They are not skulls, bones, kidneys or anything else.
Steve Jones:
If you really knew the scope of deceipt, dishonesty, collusion and
conspiracy that exists in the scientific community relative to
perpetrating the hoax of man's link to inhuman primates, you wouldn't
consder my stance as ``pig-head arrogance."
You'd find -- as I have -- that it would do no good to ask legitimate
questions of those who ``have studied" it because, the sad fact is,
they'd be filling your brain with garbagy nonsense that has no
substance in fact.
+ + + + +
Michael Painter:
You, sir, unfortunately, are a perfect example of what a steady dose
of brainwashing can do.
``The people who have studied it" -- and deny it's a human skull --
most certainly are not operating as honest scientists seeking the
truth at all costs, no matter the consequences.
Instead, they resort to a platitude of dirty tricks and Gestapo-type
propoganda in a never-ending effort to vehmently protect their
erroneous party line and thus prevent mankind from becoming fully
aware of the VERY SPECIALl creature we really are.
Subject: Re: Skull in Boulder images
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 04:18:29 GMT
bmw@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Ben Waggoner) wrote:
>WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE QUIT CROSSPOSTING
>THIS CRAP TO SCI.BIO.PALEONTOLOGY?
Ben:
Truer words were never spoken.
I, too, am getting tired of all the idiotic crap that's being spouted
here and elsewhere in total denial of the most important discovery
of the 20th century.
You'd think, Ben, that, by now, your colleagues would've come to
their senses -- as, thank goodness, you have -- and concede that man,
in almost his present form (but perhaps 20 percent larger), had indeed
existed way, way back while coal was being formed.
Meanwhile, I'd like to commend your intestinal fortitude in calling
their rantings ``crap."
Personally, I think you could've been more diplomatic, considering
your present stature at U. of C./Berkeley and obviously your vested
interests.
But, then again, I can understand and appreciate why you've taken such
a hard stance. In our past dealings, it was obvious to me that you
undoubtedly are the type of person who likes to call a spade a spade.
Ed Conrad
Subject: Re: Skull in Boulder images
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 06:38:17 GMT
"henry l. barwood" wrote:
>Ed Conrad wrote:
>> Not once -- ever -- did I state anywhere at any time that the
>> specimens of petrified human bone and soft organs were ``found in
>> anthracite coal."
>> I have stated time after time that they were found in the shale (or
>> slate) between anthracite seams.
>>
>Well, Conrad caught me in a huge conspiratorial lie! I did confuse his
>constant rants about "Carboniferous human/hominind fossils" and his
>"anthracite coal" posts and for this I most humbly apologise to Mr.Ed.
>Your skull-shaped concretion did not come out of the anthracite coal, but
>from the shale between coal seams.
You're right AND you're wrong, Henry!
You've finally got it right that the specimen was removed from between
two anthracite veins, not from the coal itself.
And you're dead wrong when calling it a ``skull-shaped concretion"
when its actually a petrified human skull, much as you tend to
disagree.
Granules removed from various areas of the skull-like protrusion
have revealed, during microscopic examination, the presence of
Haversian canals (the distinguishing difference between my petrified
bones and your concretions).
In any event, I accept your apology for admitting that you were wrong
about where the specimen came from.
Meanwhile, be prepared to write another apology -- perhaps sooner than
you think -- for recklessly and callously calling The World's Most
Important Fossil a rock.
Subject: Re: Skull in Boulder images
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 07:13:19 GMT
ljusselm@amp.com (Larry Usselman) wrote:
>Interesting, Ed. When someone stumps you
> and you can't answer you defer to the
>experts, but when the experts tell you your "fossils" are nothing but
>concretions, you raise holy hell, claiming a sinister conspiracy by the
>scientific community to supress the facts. Oh well, I guess logic
>has no place in your arguments anyway, so why cloud the issue?
Larry:
You're new (to this debate) but, for the longest time, I've been
fielding infield zingers like Phil Rizzuto used to.
But right now I'm tired and I want to go to bed.
Let me put this machine on automatic pilot and let Ian Taylor do my
dirty work with a few choice words of response to your comment:
> ``The situation was no different from a university
> or government research laboratory of today.
> The candidate for employment first had to show
> evidence of conforming to the idea of the
> establishment: once accepted, conformity
> was expected in order to ensure continuation
> of salary and promotion.
> "The system virtually guarateees maintenance
> of any theory -- regardless of whether the theory
> is sound or not -- held by the man with ultimate
> authority.
> ``Not only that, but in a hierarchical system
> promotion from within ensures that the theory
> is perpetuated generation after generation."
> Ian Taylor
> ``In the Minds of Men:
> Darwin and the New World Order,"
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: Mike Wright
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 21:17:28 -0700
John A. Halloran wrote:
>
> In article <56dpr3$r14@news.ycc.yale.edu> bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold) writes:
>
> >Anyway, your word number arguments should not be accepted. Miguel has
> >posted several excellent posts demonstrating why your repeated claim that
> >word count is isomorphic with language sophistication is bunk.
>
> This is not true. It is easier to learn Biblical Hebrew than it is to learn
> Modern Hebrew because they had a smaller vocabulary back then.
Peninsular Arabic had a much more sophisticated vocabulary with regard
to camels that any of the modern dialects. When I started teasing one of
my Jordanian instructors by using words from a very old dictionary, he
said, "The only time I have ever even seen a camel was when my wife and
I went to Egypt for our honeymoon and had our pictures taken sitting on
camels in front of the pyramids." He also knew none of that specialzed
vocabulary.
Now most of those words do not appear in the Koran, or else my
instructor would have known about them. That's just one example, but I'd
be willing to bet that there are lots of Hebrew words that never made it
into the Bible or other writings of that period.
Furthermore, how important is the number of lexical items in figuring
the sophistication of a language? If I have a larger vocabulary than you
do, is my English more sophisticated than yours? Surely structure is
much more significant.
> At the time that the Sumerians invented writing (ca. 3200 B.C.), they had a
> vocabulary somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 words. And a number of these
> words describe Bronze Age inventions, so earlier the word count was smaller.
Is there some reason to believe that the Sumerians started off writing
their entire spoken vocabulary? This certainly did not happen in the
case of Chinese. This seems like a very dangerous assumption.
> >Also, Steve's "theory" (I think it lacks enough supporting data to even
> >make this level), does not account for the incredible variety of human
> >language, such as the some 60 *families* of languages in New Guinea
> >*alone* (a group of societies that never really urbanized, by Steve's
> >standards, until historic times, if then).
>
> >Naturally, a conception of language as predating all those things would
> >have no difficulty whatsoever with any of these objections.
>
> This is also not true. Lacking any other model for language origin than the
> descent model perfected by scholars of Indo-European, linguists operating in
> the current paradigm can see no way for a language to arise other than by
> permutation of an older language, so they extend this ad infinitum back into
> the past. Actually, the more economical explanation for 60 families of
> languages on a small island is that the concept of language diffused to
> separate clans each of whom basically invented their own vocabulary
> and grammar.
Is that sixty families totally unrelated by descent? More widely
separated than Chinese is from Tibetan or Burmese? Any sources on this
(especially on the Web)?
The CIA (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/pp.html) says there
are 715 indigenous languages.
http://www-ala.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rap/Ethnologue/wgt.html lists the following
under New Guinea and Australia:
Amto-Musan, Australian, Awera, BIBASA, BURMESO, BUSA, East Bird's Head,
East Papuan, Geelvink Bay, KARKAR-YURI, KIBIRI, Kwomtari-Baibai, Left
May, PAUWI, Sepik-Ramu, Sko, Torricelli, Trans-New Guinea, WAREMBORI,
West Papuan, YADE.
The all-upper-case names are isolated languages. The others are language
families. There are also about 20 languages of New Guinea listed as
unclassified.
I haven't been able to find any further details on the Web, but from
looking at the above sources, it doesn't look like the languages have
been studied in sufficient detail to say much about relationships among
them, in which case arguments based on assumptions about those
relationships would seem to be premature.
--
Mike Wright
____________________________________
email: darwin@scruznet.com
WWW: http://www.scruz.net/~darwin/language.html
Subject: Re: Rescuing History From Fundamentalists: Biblical Chronologies vs. Archaeological History Part 1
From: pspinks@vegauk.co.uk (Paul Spinks)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:38:28 GMT
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Timothy Sutter wrote:
>Xina wrote:
>> History and archaeology have in place several determining factors in
>> order to prove whether or not events actually took place or not.
>> Recently, information has been provided online that attempts to displace
>> the dendrachronology and archaeological data that traditionally has been
>> used to pinpoint a date that an event or suspected event may have or
>> certainly did (or did not) happen.
>> Recently, religious fundamentalists, and different approaches used in a
>> psuedo-scientific manner in order to "prove" the bible and its stories
>> as literalisms have come up with some very interesting approaches.
>
>I like the one where astronomers, who are supposedly scientists,
>make the claim that they
>"know there is life on other planets inm the universe."
>How do they know this? Where is there any evidence for this?
>The closest you get is this;
> There is life on earth.
> Earth is in the Universe.
> There is life in the Universe.
>There is no statistical evidence in the
>world that can support a false premise. Namely,
> There is life on earth, therefore there must be life
> elsewhere in the universe.
>This is not only pseudoscience, it is just plain naive.
>[snip rest]
Surely the strongest evidence for the existence of intelligent life
elsewhere in the Universe is that it has not tried to contact us
(I'd include an attribution if I could remember who said it first).
Could it be that the naive beliefs of many Earthfolk, such as the
perpetuation of the Noah's Ark myth, are contributing factors?
Paul
Subject: Re: Rescuing History From Fundamentalists: Biblical Chronologies vs. Archaeological History Part 1
From: Marc Line
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:04:27 +0000
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, at 16:28:42, Timothy Sutter cajoled electrons into
this
snipabit
>Believe me, many fine scientists believe in God.
Belief in Deity is not the issue. Science and religion are not IMHO
incompatible. However, problems arise when people make religion a
science and science a religion. Similarly, problems arise when people
trot blithely and blindly down the path over which hangs a sign upon
which is scribed the words, "says here......must be true."
>Was you der sweetheart, how do you know what was available to Noah?
>You don't. you are just operating under the quite erroneous assumption
>that ancient man was equipped with a lesser mentality and inferior
>tools than so called modern man. This is poppycock.
Presumably, you _were_ there? Otherwise, how do _you_ know what was
available to Noah? If you were not there, then surely you are also
operating under an assumption. So, we have two assumptions here.
One is based on observable material evidence, albeit fragmentary,
supplemented by a good deal of corroborative evidence in respect of the
common sense gained by sustained observation of the general principles
of the technological developmental processes. Essentially, iron
precedes steel!
The other is based on what? It seems to me that your assumption is
based on the assumption that the words you read in the Biblical account
of "the flood" are _literally_ true. Assumptions based on assumptions
can hardly be said to provide a firm foundation for rational contention,
can they?
Your use of the words, "quite erroneous assumption" and, "poppycock",
indicate that you are aware of an entirely different case. If you would
be so kind as to share your unique knowledge with the world, such that
us mere mortals are delivered from our ignorance of the reality with
which you seem to be so intimate, you would be spared any further
exposure to our rampant stupidity. Light our path, O bearer of the
truth, that we may share in your glorious enlightenment. Readers should
not hold their breath!
In the end of it, blind faith and blind scepticism aside, we are left
with essentially two visions.
One is that there was a major flood event which devastated a large area
of the then known world, recorded in the Bible as a mnemonic and
symbolic metaphor, having been handed down verbally through many
generations, each adding, interpreting and adapting the story according
to individual taste.
Two is that Noah and his family built a ship large enough to carry, for
the duration, viable populations of every species of animal and plant on
God's Earth (gee those sequoias must have been fun), along with habitat
etc. Not only that but they also had the ability to travel around the
world in order to collect the specimens, then to do so again in order to
redistribute the survivors. Hardworking lot in that family no?
You must believe what you will.
Marc
XX