Originally posted by sy.gunson
In one of the earlier pages in this thread Marduk's objection to Cocaine in Egypt was that the plant could not grow there... Well duh!
If this is such convincing evidence of contact with the Americas, then why haven't the original researchers ever made this claim? You can read a
sane discussion of the coc aine/nicotine mummies, including Q.&A. with the original (surviving) researchers that made the discovery, at the
After reading this, then perhaps you'd like to opine on exactly why it is that you think you can draw conclusions that even the original researchers
Originally posted by sy.gunsonI guess your assurance Marduk that all American Indian DNA was Asian in origin was also selectively based
on the Hopi too ?
There is no Amerindian DNA that cannot be explained through the Arctic land bridge theory. It's just simple fact. That doesn't mean that there was
no contact - it does
mean that no DNA survives from such contact if it ever happened.
Originally posted by sy.gunsonThewalkingfox, you reveal your ignorance of those 18th century parties which you refer to. At those
parties the mummies were crushes and ground up. Their ground dust was infused into drinks and consumed because it was said to have medicinal quality.
These mummies would not have survived intact had they been at such parties. Cocaine and tobacco was found inside the intestines of such mummies.
Again, read the link I gave you. The mummies in question, every single one of them that seem anomalous, were all
privately held for decades.
Yet somehow they escaped being ground up and ingested. They were
, however, featured at mummy "unwrapping parties." It was a status thing,
not a homeopathic thing.
Originally posted by sy.gunsonBefore Heinrich Schliemann dug up Troy, it was denounced as a myth pedaled by a pseudohistorian.
Troy was never "denounced" as a myth. It was thought that it was likely
to be mythical. The main point of the archaeologists (they weren't
called that back then) that thought Troy might be real was that it was featured so often in Greek culture that perhaps it may have
been a real
place. That is the reason people went out looking for it. Schliemann was the last one, but he didn't really "discover" Troy, though he is
credited with it. Troy was actually
discovered by Frank Calvert:
Away from performing his consular duties, Frank carried on careful, exploratory excavations on the family-owned land which incorporated the mound of
Hisarlik. He was convinced that this was the site of the ancient city of Troy. After the Crimean War he confided his views to Heinrich Schliemann.
Calvert owned the eastern half of the Hisarlik mound, site of the ancient city, and the Turkish government the western half. During his 1873-1890
excavations, Schliemann recovered artefacts from the mound of Hisarlik and was subsequently credited with the discovery of Troy.
the average weight of the blocks in the great pyramid at Giza is 2.5 tonnes I would love to know how they moved 400 tonne slabs of stone,and then
lifed them 100's of ft into the air as well but as they didn't i don't spend too much time worrying about it
Nice to hear Marduk admit he doesn't know everything or care much about what he doesn't know. Very selective of him. Is that what they call a
pseudohistorian approach ?
To reject whichever does not fit your theory ?
The average weight is
estimated to be 2.5 tons. The blocks from the upper two-thirds of the G.P get progressively smaller and smaller as you
go up. Given the average, you should be able to see that near the top the blocks are considerably less than one ton each.
So no, they really didn't
lift "400 tonne (dang Brits) slabs of stone 100's of ft into the air."
Not that there weren't some rather large granite stones in the G.P.
Originally posted by sy.gunsonBy Marduk's reckoning since we have no proof how it got there, should we just pretend it never happened,
or vigorously argue that they don't really weigh 400 tons ?
A couple of stones in the G.P. are pretty big. The vast
majority are not all that big. Do you know the density of limestone? I don't - but
a good estimate for dirt is one ton per cubic yard. I assume that limestone is denser, so 2.5 tons is only 2.5 yards by one yard by one yard in
dimension. A little longer than an average man's height in length, and only a yard high and a yard deep. That's more
than 2.5 tons in
limestone. Not all that big when you think about it.
Originally posted by sy.gunsonActually the slabs at Baalbeck, weighing 1,000 tons each are so troublesome I doubt Marduk will ever get
around to considering those either.
There just no trouble at all with Baalbek and the fact that you think there is shows your lack of curiosity regarding some of the more extreme of
these sorts of pseudohistorical (or alternate history) claims.
Baalbek is a Roman site. Through and through. Been excavated.
The Romans had some rather sophisticated cranes. There are more startling constructions in Rome
than anything you find at Baalbek.
In the end, no one can say if some ancient culture or another sometime in the past did or did not ever visit the Americas. But what can
said is that there no reason to believe
that they did. At least, not so far.