posted
Slow on the draw this time TL. Hottest thread in the AE section.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. So the Egyptian SCA is ready to expose the genetic info on Tut. Of course such info will only relate to familial ties. I doubt the SCA is bold enough to still come forth with population ties of Tut and his people. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They already know what those ties are Djhuti, as does every rational educated person.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Why of course! And those genetic ties are AFRICAN considering that the Egyptians are African. Only uneducated irrational people would believe otherwise.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you're talking about familial ties already being known--which is what the data will likely reveal as noted--well then again you show yourself to be the ignorant one...
quote:The announcement will be "about the secrets of the family and the affiliation of Tutankhamun, based on the results of the scientific examination of the Tutankhamun mummy following DNA analysis," Hawass said....Hawass said then the DNA tests also would determine Tutankhamun's lineage, and whether the foetuses were the offspring of Tutankhamun and Ankhesenpamon, the daughter of Nefertiti who is renowned as one of history's great beauties. He had said the results of the studies would also help in identifying the mummy of queen Nefertiti. Mystery has surrounded the identities of Tutankhamun's own parents: while his father was the Pharaoh Akhenaton, his mother remains unknown.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mindover, Nobody who promotes the goofey afrocentric garbage you push should ever call anyone ignorant. You guys are the butt of jokes in every liberal arts department in the world. Even the left wing guys have figured out you people are nuts.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Interesting. So the Egyptian SCA is ready to expose the genetic info on Tut. Of course such info will only relate to familial ties. I doubt the SCA is bold enough to still come forth with population ties of Tut and his people.
Some writers assert that the revelation will show Tut was a descendant of whites, based on blood type A2, since type A2 appears only among whites. Alas, the reputed 'white blood' of Tut is complete nonsense.
---------------------
The touted A2 blood type is found in Africa not only in Europe, allowing more than enough scope for Tut to acquire it within Africa, without the need for "wandering Caucasoids" to explain why. A2 makes up only a minor frequency of Type A, chiefly among outlier populations like Lapps, Blackfoot Indians or Australian Aborigines. Does this make King Tut was a Lapp? or Blackfoot Indian? The highest frequencies of A2 are found in small, unrelated populations, especially the Blackfoot Indians of Montana (30-35%), the Australian Aborigines (many groups are 40-53%), and the Lapps, or Saami people, of Northern Scandinavia (50-90%). The A allele apparently was absent among Central and South American Indians. A2 is ALSO found in Africa, well within the scope of distribution to the Nile Valley area over the millennia from within Africa, without the dramatic presence of Blackfoot Indians, reindeer herding Lapps, or boomerang wielding Australian Aborigines. King Tut then had more than enough scope to pick up A2 within Africa without needing the presence of "wandering Caucasoids" in the Nile Valley. Source: Daniels 2006, Essential Guide to Blood Groups).
Blood Type B, considered "sinful" by Aryan writers of the Hitler era, seems to have been forgotten by "white Egypt" advocates. Said Blood Type B occurs at higher levels in Egyptians and Africans than in Europeans or Middle Easterners, indicating an ancient link between Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa. Indeed, one of the oldest Egyptian mummies ever examined as found to be of Type B blood, not the alleged "Aryan" settlers with blood type A2 sweeping into the Nile Valley. Examination of a 3200-year old mummy of a 14-year-old Egyptian boy named Nakht, was conducted by Hart et al (1978). Serological results revealed his blood group as type B. -- G.D. Hart, I. Kvas, M. Soots, Blood group testing of ancient material with particular reference to the mummy Nakht, Transfusion 18 (1978) 474–478.
Mainstream scholars note that Type B indicates a clear link between Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa. [quote]:
"Interestingly, Africa in general (independent of any racial categorization) has a higher incidence of group B than Europe or the Middle East. Whether this is the result of intermingling or the original B gene pool is unknown, however it does imply that the links between ancient Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa are deeper and older than generally recognized. " --D'Adamo (2002) "The Complete Blood Type Encyclopedia. pg 14
Still, Aryan proponents desperately hope that the revelation on Tut will provide a "final answer" to their fantasies of a "white Egypt". We shall see.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammered: Mindover, Nobody who promotes the goofey afrocentric garbage you push should ever call anyone ignorant. You guys are the butt of jokes in every liberal arts department in the world. Even the left wing guys have figured out you people are nuts.
Yet this so-called "goofy garbage" is not based on some "liberal arts" but actual SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE such as that cited by Zarahan above! Or do you want Zarahan to cite the dozens of the hundreds of data that show the obvious-- that Egyptians as NATIVE AFRICANS were black! Indeed, if I didn't know any better I'd say it was YOU who teaches in a liberal arts college since I have never encountered a teaching or educating faculty staff member let alone 'professor' that is so deliberately oblivious to scholarly evidence when it continually hits his face day after day! Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammered: Mindover, Nobody who promotes the goofey afrocentric garbage you push should ever call anyone ignorant. You guys are the butt of jokes in every liberal arts department in the world. Even the left wing guys have figured out you people are nuts.
Yet this so-called "goofy garbage" is not based on some "liberal arts" but actual SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE such as that cited by Zarahan above! Or do you want Zarahan to cite the dozens of the hundreds of data that show the obvious-- that Egyptians as NATIVE AFRICANS were black! Indeed, if I didn't know any better I'd say it was YOU who teaches in a liberal arts college since I have never encountered a teaching or educating faculty staff member let alone 'professor' that is so deliberately oblivious to scholarly evidence when it continually hits his face day after day!
If Hammer really is a college professor, he must teach in a completely different field than the ones relevant to discussing the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians. Maybe he teaches a low-level English class or something.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hammered ain't no libral Arts teacher...Librals Arts folks can think and reason, he is a wood-shop teacher,who subs as a history teacher..to baby sit when the real professor is ill... Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love this. you guys are so predictable. You come on here day after day making crazy looney claims about world histoy with convaluted thinking, distorted and fradulent evidence all for radical political reasons. You then personally attack anyone who does not agree with you. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ No we don't attack just anyone who disagrees, just the lunatics who are in serious denial of reality like YOU. There is nothing loony or crazy about our claims about world history since it is based on actual historical scholarship as well as common sense, and there is nothing distorted or fraudulent about the evidence we present which we gather from valid mainstream scientific sources. Despite all your years of exposure to proofs of our claims in this forum you still deny the obvious. Your mentality is no different raving nutcase who still insists the world is flat even though he took a trip around the world in a space shuttle!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do not gather mainstream scientific information. That is why you have been relegated to egyptsearch, one of the few places where this kind of information is even discussed.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
"In 2007, the reconstructed face of Tutankhamun was revealed to the public for the first time since he died as the 12th and last pharaoh of the 18th dynasty. He is believed to have reigned from around 1333 BC to 1324 BC."
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC! (With an eye on the extremely lucrative Western tourism to Egypt?)
...and it wasn't the first time reconstruction...
One earlier reconstruction, publicly revealed, was done by the Science Museum in London
but all this DNA stuff, ignoring the simple and conclusive melanin dosage test of Diop, but also ignoring this obvious and authentic reality:
...I wouldn't sit on the edge of my seat, awaiting some remarkable "revelations" from the government of the Arab Republic of Egypt...Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The top face is accepted by most as king Tut, most especially by hawass and the experts in egypt. The second and hird face is just a pesentation of nutty afrocentric crap.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about this face; does "most" accept it?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
To The Explorer and other intelligent people here:
The fool’s emotions are consistently uncontrolled; A wise person will avoid debate with a fool - from Proverbs
---
a) The second and third images are those produced by The Science Museum in South Kensington, London:
"(About Us) - The Science Museum was founded in 1857 with objects shown at the Great Exhibition held in the Crystal Palace. Today the Museum is world renowned for its historic collections, awe-inspiring galleries and inspirational exhibitions." --to which our resident Looney accused them of offering the public a "presentation of nutty afrocentric crap"
b) the 'Boy George' image of Tut is a parody, indeed a self-parody of the old-school of Egyptology; it is laughable, more laughable than the fake Tetisheri image, and even moreso than the fake 'Berlin' bust of Nefertiti.
This 'Boy George' image is not representative of Ancient or even modern Egyptians... Maybe, perhaps a Norwegian or Frenchman...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammered: You do not gather mainstream scientific information. That is why you have been relegated to egyptsearch, one of the few places where this kind of information is even discussed.
Oh really?! So where do you think all of the sources we cite everyday in this forum come from-- things like craniometrics, skeletalmetrics, DNA analyses, and even melanin level tests of skin?? You are only deluding yourself if you think all these scientific and even historical sources stating the obvious-- that Egyptians as native Africans were black-- are all from some fringe Afrocentric group. LOL
quote:The top face is accepted by most as king Tut, most especially by hawass and the experts in egypt. The second and third face is just a pesentation of nutty afrocentric crap.
Nope. The top face is just one of about 7 different reconstructions done in over a decade of the boy king. They all differ from each other in one or more ways but they all share the basic features. As was explained to you innumerable times, the science of facial reconstruction is not exact. The only thing definite are hard bone structures, but the soft tissue parts like lip shape and the shape of the tip of the nose is left up to imagination since such features did not survive. Skin color is definitely open to question. The 2nd and 3rd pics that Wally posted are part of the same reconstruction, by the way. That particular reconstruction was not done by 'Afrocentrics' but by a team of white American scientists who were hired by the Discovery Channel! But apparently you've forgotten that fact as was explained in this forum when Discovery first aired that reconstruction years ago. These scientists were double-blinded meaning they did not know who the skull they were working on belonged to. This was so there was no bias in their work. According to their own analysis, the skull belonged to someone of African descent particularly one from east or north Africa hence their results which you call "Afrocentric"! LOL The latest reconstruction done by National Geographic and hailed by Hawass was done by a French team that was NOT double-blinded and thus prone to more bias. The irony is that despite their attempts to white-wash him, the best they could do is make him look more mixed.
^ It's obvious the Natgeo's reconstruction makes Tut look like a person of mixed-black descent or as you would know as "mulatto" than any "Mediterranean" white! LOL In fact, it reminds me of a Puerto-Rican classmate of mine back in highschool. Another thing is that the French team and Hawass's claim of him being "caucasian" is a false presumption as was explained by the forensic scientist who foresaw the project. I'm sure you remember Susan Anton whom Ausar wrote a letter to.
Yet no matter how many reconstructions are done, apparently they and YOU just ignore the obvious as many have stated:
I suppose the Egyptians were "mistaken" when they made the painted bust of their king when he was alive. LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
djehuti, the facts are that none of your garbage manages to make it into our history books. That is the bottom line. When you learn how to gather and process historical research you might have an opportunity to make a contribution. Emotionalism and ideology will never be a substitute for properly done research.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originallt posted by Hammer: The top face is accepted by most as king Tut, most especially by hawass and the experts in egypt. The second and hird face is just a pesentation of nutty afrocentric crap.
Notice how he conveniently skips over the bottem representation of king Tut made during his lifetime, that has the same skin colouration as the darker British reconstruction.
Yes, hammer is a correct name, because it seems only a hammer could get this through his thick dense skull
There is a psychological term for people like him, it is called being in denial. There is a funny story circulating in psychology, that illustrates how far people can actually take this.
There was a guy who believed he was a corpse, and he was going around telling people he was actually dead. One day, a doctor came along and asked him, sir, I'd like to ask you, do corpses bleed? He goes, of course not, corpses are dead. The doctor asked him, to prove you are alive, may I poke your finger with this needle to see if you'll bleed? Sure, the man said. The doctor proceeded to poked him with the needle and a little red drop appeared on his finger. The man looked baffled at his finger and said, Oh my god!! Corpses DO bleed.
LOL
It doesn't matter what you'll say to him, his view of the world is distorted beyond repair. Any normal functioning person would've agreed or at least have given up by now. The poor thing has even given up on posting studies that back him, he is reduced to his little way outs, and baiting manouvers. When was the last time an anthropologist made a case for ''Caucasoid'' Egypt, or preferred that over extensive skeletal, cultural relationship with southerners? Hell, even Coon believed the relationship was with Africans. Now that the Africans he thought the relationships were with were proven to have been in Africa all along, everything that comes out of Hammers mouth is debunked from the moment he even thinks of having those thoughts thought up
posted
Kalonji, The face made during his lifetime is a work of art. In the first place it could just as easily reflect an arab and a black african. Seondly, we have his body and modern reconstruction thus we do not have to depend on 3000 year old art work. The problem you have is that you do not know how to process research. i can understand that those concepts may not be fully iunderstood by non professionals but after I tell you how to do it there is no excuse for shoddy scholarship.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Hammer: Kalonji, The face made during his lifetime is a work of art. In the first place it could just as easily reflect an arab and a black african.
An Arab? Yes it could, just like there could be a comet within 5 meters of the earth right now. Science isn't based on ''coulds'', especially if there is no evidence in Ancient Egypt nor in Tuts family tree that could justify such a ''could''. Again, you're showing how distorted beyond repair your view of how things work is.
quote: Originally posted by Hammer: Seondly, we have his body and modern reconstruction thus we do not have to depend on 3000 year old art work.
Secondly, we have his reconstructionS, noticed that little S behind that big word? Why should the one YOU CHOOSE be more authentic over the other ones? Curious how you will worm your way out of this. Note that there is nothing wrong with the shape of that reconstruction, and no one is arguing that. It's about the color, which by the way, is admittedly said several times to be justified based upon the average skin colour in modern Egypt. Does that tell your dense head something?
quote: Originally posted by Hammer: The problem you have is that you do not know how to process research.
Oh, is that why you were unable to answer my questions in our little discussion? Don't know when was the last time you opened it, but you should take a look, a left a little message for you. LOL. By the way, what makes you think the cited research needs processing? The researchers are pretty direct in stating and emphasizing the Africanity of ancient Egyptians. It doesn't need processing, it doesn't need interpreting, it doesn't need defining. Unless the used words are too big for you.
quote: Originally posted by Hammer: I can understand that those concepts may not be fully iunderstood by non professionals but after I tell you how to do it there is no excuse for shoddy scholarship.
More worming out of this, and more projecting. Your argument basically is, ow, all the studies you guys keep debunking me with is not reflected in my history book. Idiot, since when do historybooks have authority over recent studies? Your other little distorted view is that because of the limited amout of followers these researchers have, their work is invalid. That is basically all you have to offer. Both of those statements are fundamentally flawed which shows me that you're really projecting when you say things like:
quote: The problem you have is that you do not know how to process research.
posted
You have not presented a single researched study that proves any of the points you have advocated. my belief is that you honestly do not know how to do it. Cut and paste is not scholarship. Those who are critical of afrocentrics and the cxrazy views you promote make some good points. Your style of thinking is political, rather than academic. What you do is scour the net in search of scraps that be fused together to support a position YOU HAVE ALREADY ARRIVED AT. This is exactly why we have a form of afrocentric think speach here that has convinced a small number of people that these ideas are correct. I honestly believe that when you asked me the goofey questions about Greece the other day that you honestly believed you could make a point.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Hammer: You have not presented a single researched study that proves any of the points you have advocated. my belief is that you honestly do not know how to do it. Cut and paste is not scholarship. Those who are critical of afrocentrics and the cxrazy views you promote make some good points. Your style of thinking is political, rather than academic. What you do is scour the net in search of scraps that be fused together to support a position YOU HAVE ALREADY ARRIVED AT. This is exactly why we have a form of afrocentric think speach here that has convinced a small number of people that these ideas are correct. I honestly believe that when you asked me the goofey questions about Greece the other day that you honestly believed you could make a point.
Who is this guy? No seriously, does anyone know who he is? First you show something to him, then he says we don't know how to process it. When you tell him the information is quite clear, he starts all over again by saying we didn't give him any research.
First he says we don't know how to process research, then he turns around and says we never gave him research.
You remind me of a goldfish, they have a memory of couple seconds. I once heard someone say that its not cruel to keep goldfishes in small fish tanks, because the minute they discover they're trapped inside the tank, they forget about it. LOL, you truly are a goldfish. This metaphor suits you perfectly, not only because you're trapped from all angles by research, like the fish is by the walls of his tank, but because you seem to contstantly find your self in a vicious cirle of asking for evidence and denying it. There is something seriously wrong with him, I'm telling you. Hammer is not like you and I, I know that for sure now.
Assembled random vague accusations that from his last 4 posts that reveal what a sick irrelevant douchebag he is, who is not to be taken serious:
-The top face is accepted by most as king Tut, most especially by hawass and the experts in egypt -You have not presented a single researched study that proves any of the points you have advocated. -The problem you have is that you do not know how to process research. -i can understand that those concepts may not be fully iunderstood by non professionals but after I tell you how to do it there is no excuse for shoddy scholarship -my belief is that you honestly do not know how to do it -Your style of thinking is political, rather than academic. -The second and hird face is just a pesentation of nutty afrocentric crap -Emotionalism and ideology will never be a substitute for properly done research. -When you learn how to gather and process historical research you might have an opportunity to make a contribution. -This is exactly why we have a form of afrocentric think speach here that has convinced a small number of people that these ideas are correct. -I honestly believe that when you asked me the goofey questions about Greece the other day that you honestly believed you could make a point.
Anyone see a pattern here? I've never seen so many random acusations being thrown around, yet nothing of this is true or if it could be true, is irrelevant to the fact that virtually all respected anthropologists are saying about the Africanity of ancient Egyptians and the non European genes of a significant portion of Greeks.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Who is this guy? No seriously, does anyone know who he is? First you show something to him, then he says we don't know how to process it. When you tell him the information is quite clear, he starts all over again by saying we didn't give him any research.
LOL indeed, that's "Hammers" game, he has posted here doing the same thing for years under different pseudonyms such as Celt/Horemhab/American Patriot etc...
What's funny is that he claims to be a high school American history teacher as well... Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: LOL indeed, that's "Hammers" game, he has posted here doing the same thing for years under different pseudonyms such as Celt/Horemhab/American Patriot etc...
What's funny is that he claims to be a high school American history teacher as well...
He is something different, he truly is. He seems to care nothing about reality. He'd rather stay in his little bubble where everything is the way he wants it to be. What do you think, you've been here longer, does he do this on purpose or is he suffering from some kind of mental illness? I get the impression that he just doesn't want to face the facts, mayb it is some sort of coping mechanism or something where he has blindspots that he created unconciously because the truth hurts him. Maybe he has alot invested in the idea that the ancient Egyptians were ''caucasians''. I tried to distill what the case was by asking him questions but he avoids answering them when it gets too heated. I ran out of patience and I cussed his a** out.
quote:Originally posted by Hammered: djehuti, the facts are that none of your garbage manages to make it into our history books. That is the bottom line. When you learn how to gather and process historical research you might have an opportunity to make a contribution. Emotionalism and ideology will never be a substitute for properly done research.
LMAO You are obviously delusional. There is nothing "emotional" or "ideological" about the hundreds of scientific and historical data we cite everyday here in this forum which merely confirms and supports the common sense fact that the Egyptians as indigenous African population were black. On the other hand, emotion and ideology, specifically that of white supremacist euro-imperialist thought is ALL that we hear from you without any objective evidence whatsoever! By the way, all of our material IS expressed in history books from encyclopedias to every other major published work especially that of Egyptologists! Perhaps I should cite examples, but then again I have before and that still hasn't shut you up now has it?
quote: Kalonji, The face made during his lifetime is a work of art. In the first place it could just as easily reflect an arab and a black african. Seondly, we have his body and modern reconstruction thus we do not have to depend on 3000 year old art work.
LOL @ "Arab"! First of all, the bust made during his lifetime is nothing ambiguous. It is obvious to anyone sane that it depends a black person as Tut and his people are Africans! Second, it was made apparent to you that the original Arabs of southern and western Arabia WERE black and not the light-skinned non-black Arabs you probably favor. And lastly, it was explained to you the flaws in reconstruction. Forensic reconstruction can only provide features based on hard bone, not soft features like lips shape, eye shape, or nose. That is exactly why the Natgeo reconstruction is just the 7th in a whole line of reconstructions!
quote:The problem you have is that you do not know how to process research. i can understand that those concepts may not be fully i understood by non professionals but after I tell you how to do it there is no excuse for shoddy scholarship.
LOL Processing research is a matter of pure logic sense. Some traits which YOU lack.
From forsensic artist Dr. Susan Anton:
"Based on the physical characters of the skull, I concluded that this was the skull of a male older than 15 but less than 21, and likely in the 18-20 year range and of African ancestry, possibly north african... Tut's head was a bit of a conundrum, but, as you note, there is a huge range of variation in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins - the nose was a bit unusual. Because their is latitudinal variation in several aspects of the skull (including nose size/shape), the narrowness of the nose suggested that he might be from a northerly group. This is also, I presume, what the French focussed on. I have not been in direct contact with the French group, but my understanding is that by their definition of 'caucasoid' they include Peoples from North Africa, Peoples from Western Asia (and the Caucasus, from where the term derives), and Eureopean peoples. So I don't think that they were referring to a specific set of those peoples. I personally don't find that term all that useful and so I don't use it. That it was attributed to me by the media is an incorrect attribution on their part. I also never said he had a European nose, although I am sure I did say that the narrow nose was what led me to suggest North Africa as a possibility and that a narrow nose is more typically seen in Europe.
Of course it is a well established fact that narrow shaped noses occur widely in Africa not only in North Africa but in East Africa, West Africa, and even Central Africa! I believe Ausar or others pointed this out to her, to which she agreed.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: LOL indeed, that's "Hammers" game, he has posted here doing the same thing for years under different pseudonyms such as Celt/Horemhab/American Patriot etc...
What's funny is that he claims to be a high school American history teacher as well...
Actually, he claims to be a college professor!!
If this is true, I can definitely see why the American education system is going down the drain! You either have the left-wing nuts or in the case of Hammered, the right-wing nuts! Whatever happened to moderate (and sane) professors who don't have any political or social agenda and just want to teach the facts as they are?!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti wants to be critical of me when he offers six lines from a 1997 study to make his point. You guys are the tail wagging the dog. I am beginning to think there is too much raw ignorance here to learn.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: I am beginning to think there is too much raw ignorance here to learn.
You bitch and moan all the time about how we're all a bunch of wackos and ignoramuses, yet you never actually refute anything we say. You have nothing intelligent to contribute to this board.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course. Those six lines I cited are just the abstract showing the results of the analysis. I seriously doubt citing the whole study will make a difference with Hammered-brains. I mean, it's not like he's intelligent enough to understand it anyway. LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hammer says, ''djehuti, the facts are that none of your garbage manages to make it into our history books. That is the bottom line.'''
Yes that will be the bottom line, for Hammer that is. Hammer thinks that by saying ''our history books'' that gives it more authority than it actually has. (Chances are economics will prevent some of those books from being rewritten to reflect the truth.) I'm willing to bet Hammer cringes when he reads history books written by white people who actually know what the real history of white management and their chicanery and skullduggery have produced throughout history (in addition to their technology). And they do reveal it because they have a much different mindset than Hammer; Hammer has no guilty conscience when it comes to what side of history he assigns himself to.
''When you learn how to gather and process historical research you might have an opportunity to make a contribution.''
...might have an opportunity? What does that mean? If the truth doesn't mesh with the standard fit then discard it?
Considering that you have used this ''gather and process'' approach on several occasions over the past many months maybe you can explain exactly how it is supposed to be done. From what I see your questions and nagging have been answered many times in the past year. Yet I can understand your denial because if there is this method you refer too and no one else knows about it except you, and those whom you think agree with you, then I can definitely see why you wouldn't reveal it considering how it will further damage your position.
''Emotionalism and ideology will never be a substitute for properly done research.
Listen to 'im talking to himself.
Hammer, how long will you continue to embarrass yourself; everyone here knows it. Yet you plod right along. First you stamp embarrassment on your forehead, then you aren't satisfied with that. Then what do you do. You tie a string to several metal cans and drag them along behind you when you walk, drawing yet more embarrassment to yourself. You ought to stop this foolishness Hammer.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Grumman: Considering that you have used this ''gather and process'' approach on several occasions over the past many months maybe you can explain exactly how it is supposed to be done.
We have to admit we were wrong all along Grumman, and not only that, we'll have to apologise to Hammer, for he has shown us the holy grail of ''gathering and processing historical research''.
quote: Originally posted by Commander Flamboyant: First, any research you do has to include multiple papers from scholars IN THAT FIELD. I other words if you to a piece you have to use sources from scholars who are greek specialists. Secondly you need to point out any other possible alternative view that exists and contrast that to other viewpoints you have collected. Thirdly, you need to refrain from giving your point of view unless you are a degreed specialist in the field. Fourthly, you should use only the latest information. Data from the 19th century is almost worthless. Fifthly, refrain from posting modern pictures to make a point about soemthing that happened 3000 years ago, they have no value. Sixthly, do not advocate a position yourself but rather let the data speak for itself.
All these points are very cute indeed, but they're also highly irrelevant. They make no attempt to validly criticize the research already done by several scientist. They're just directed to the messengers who post the research here on this forum, and who have no intentions of doing the fieldwork his critique pertains to. Hammer is the equivalent of the cleaning lady who in her panicking emotional state tries to wipe the floor clean with a mop while the faucet is still open, and water is still flowing. Instead of focusing on the source (closing the faucet) and then continue mopping, he is so dumb that he thinks removing the water on the floor will actually make it stop. The research is bursting in by the minute, and barricading the influx of studies supporting the Africanity of ancient Egyptians will only get you run over.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic