HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: capn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Steve Thurston)
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:48:09 GMT

In article <BxzKzG.2EI@acsu.buffalo.edu> v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar) writes:
>In article <Bxyq15.6zL@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar) writes...
>>	"The natural tendency of a traditionally trained archeologist is to fit
>>
>> .... <etc.> ....
>>
>>for the appeasement of the gods'." -unknown author
>
>	Still, it seems no one would like to address the above passage.  Does
>anyone have any thoughts about this?

Stupid.

-- 
Steve Thurston
capn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Nov 3rd NOVA on pyramids
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:29:31 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov17.005707.21536@spectrum.xerox.com> chris@eso.mc.xerox.com writes:
>In article 19782@digi.lonestar.org, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>>.... Such ostentatious burial of 
>>Pharaohs was no more a good reason then than it would be today,
>>and it was not the reason why they were built (IMO).
>
>
>Well, then, what was the reason?
>
>				Chris

Chris,

My answer will only beg more questions.  But I will tell you
in a word that they were places of initiation.

Cordially,
Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls again
Date: 18 Nov 1992 02:14:14 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov18.000437.27301@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>I have heard claims that the scrolls are being suppressed because they offer
>dramatic confirmation of the New Testament and vice versa, because they 
>contradict it.  By the way, I thought that the scrolls were largely under
>control of the Israelis. I was not aware that the Roman Catholic Church
>has any authority over their publication or witholding.  Who does control
>them?
>
>Gerry Palo (73237.2006)

It depends on whether you mean legal or practical control. The 
original Dead Sea Scroll finds, as well as later discoveries were
divided. In some cases, Israelis were able to find and/or buy 
the documents. However, a very large portion of the finds never
left the Jordanian sphere of influence and were assigned to an
international scholarly committee. These scrolls resided in the
Rockefeller Museum in the Moslem Quarter of the old city of 
Jerusalem. The committee primarily worked out of their home
bases in Europe, but came to Jerusalem to meet and to examine
the original documents. All but two of the members were Catholics.
One of the non-Catholics was assigned to the non-sectarian (that is,
Biblical) documents. The other was soon discredited by his fellows.
In 1967, Israel gained control of the Rockefeller Museum, but 
decided not to interfere with the committee. Therefore, although
it might be said that all of the scrolls were under Israeli
authority, nothing had actually changed in terms of the working
procedures on scroll publication--that is until the storm of
a couple of years ago. Currently, the Israeli authorities have
acted to reassign some of the publication rights. But this
article is getting too long...

Jack F. Love
From: mantel@adcalc.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Dead Sea Scrolls again
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:12:36 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: adcalc.fnal.gov

Sorry to chime in at such a late date about the Dead Sea Scrolls but I just
got back to reading this list and came across a few items concerning fraud 
and the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Just what was the fraud concerning?  And is there 
a translated version of the Dead Sea scrolls available?

					Mantel@adcalc.fnal.gov
From: mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Roman Treasure Found
Date: 20 Nov 1992 17:46:03 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.82

There's an article about this hoard in today's (20 Nov) Washington Post,
somewhere in the A section.
From: woody@knapper.cactus.org (Woody Baker)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Pyramids/saucers
Date: 20 Nov 1992 09:49:09 -0600
Organization: Aurora Contracting
Reply-To: "Woody Baker" <woody@knapper.cactus.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Oh but they have :^)  Don't you read the World News etc?  There was a report
in it some months ago about a saucer found in the lower levels of one of the
pyramids.  It was/is still running (emitting a slight humming).......
Grin ;^)

Seriously, these large monoliths do pose a problem. There is a temple in
south america somewhere, that I have heard about.  It is situated on the
top of a peak somwhere in the 15-20,000 ft range if I remember right
(it may be lower than that).  It has large blocks that wiegh 20 to 50
tons. The quarry where these came from, is on an ajacent mountain peak.
There is something like a 7000 foot valley between the quarry site
and the temple, and no damage showing on the slopes to indicate that the blocks
were drug up the mountain.  I am trying to remember the name of the temple,
and the actual heights.  I'll try to dig the info up, but it is my understanding
that the facts are well documented.  Secondarily, some of the stones
in some of the Aztec pyramids appear to have "sagged" into place, suggesting
to some that they were somehow made semi-plastic....right...sure...I've
got a bridge in the Nevada desert to sell you also...

Cheers
Woody
-- 
Woody Baker Postscript consultant/Flint knapper  512-837-8317 (Austin, Tx)

"If you ain't bleedin' you ain't knappin'" ---> go ahead, ask me...

woody@knapper.cactus.org
woody@chinacat.unicom.com (temporary) is forwareded to woody@knapper
From: anzalone@acsu.buffalo.edu (Phillip Anzalone)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Nov 3rd NOVA on pyramids
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:48:42 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Nov15.153157.20505@yang.earlham.edu> gregb@yang.earlham.edu writes:
>
>The clever engineer whose name started with an 'I' was Imhotep.  I can't
>recall his exact occupation (maybe he was a vizier?) but he served under
>the Old Kingdom ruler Djoser (or Zoser) in the Third Dynasty.  Not only

Imhotep is considered by architects to be the father of our
profession.  At least that's what I have learned in my
architectural history classes.  Although, I will say that his
knowledge of engineering must have been impressive for his time.

					Phil
>
>======================================================================
>Greg Braswell         Earlham College
>gregb@earlham.bitnet
>gregb@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:10:15 GMT

In article <BxzKzG.2EI@acsu.buffalo.edu> v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar)
quotes:
>	"The natural tendency of a traditionally trained archeologist is to fit
>his finds into the fashionable preconcieved matrix of ideas regarding the shape
>of prehistory that it is a long, slow, upward gradient leading inexorably from
>primitive man to the summit of modern society's achievements.  It is his very
>ability to do so that has gained him his qualifications as an archeologist. 

How about presenting some evidence that 20th-century archeologists really 
believe this?  I suspect most of them would admit that European civilization, 
for instance, experienced a bit of a dip in the gradient during the Dark Ages.

>Consequently, had earlier civilizations left behind aircraft runways, say, then
>it is likely that they would be classified as 'ritual causeways'; an
>earth-and-stone-built chamber for screening off radioactive waste or machinery
>would of course take on an unintended role as a 'tomb'; an astronomical
>observatory-cum-computer would immediately start a new life as a temple; and
>skyward-facing navigational markings for airships would become 'magic designs
>for the appeasement of the gods'." -unknown author

The missing question here is, what should convince an archeologist that an 
ancient road-like surface *was* an aircraft runway?  I think digging up some
ancient aircraft would do pretty well.  Ancient aircraft parts, scrolls
describing aircraft construction and maintenance, or ancient little foil bags 
of peanuts would be nice too.  Failing all this the archeologist has no
reason to believe in ancient runways.

The "screening off radioactive waste" theory would likewise get some support
if there were in fact radioactive waste on the other side of the wall--
if not, not.  

The observatory example is a red herring.  Archeologists *have* described
some ancient structures as observatories.
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: jwindley%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls again
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:49:08 MST
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>I have heard claims that the scrolls are being suppressed because they offer
>dramatic confirmation of the New Testament and vice versa, because they 
>contradict it.

The only reason for their suppression which has any kind of plausible
proof is that the scholars who have yet to publish their scrolls are
keeping them under wraps to protect their exclusive access, thus
ensuring themselves a place in the Dead Sea Scrolls saga.  As soon as
the scrolls are public, they have no more clout as the "experts" on
those documents since everyone will be able to read and study them.

This started as the conventional courtesy among scholars of right of
first publication.  Rather than simply publish new documentary finds,
one scholar (or team) is chosen to do the initial work of
reconstruction, transcription, and interpretation.  This scholar can
then publish his initial work along with the photographs of the
document for the rest of the scholarly community.

However, I think that in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this
priviledge has been grossly and intentionally misused by the scholars
of the Ecole Biblique and other such institutions.  I don't believe
any of the stories that the scrolls are being suppressed for
idealogical reasons.  I think the scholars are just selfish.

I am fervently in favor of making the "suppressed" scrolls public.  I
think several decades is far longer than a reasonable time to wait for
first publication.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Jay Windley  *  University of Utah  *  Salt Lake City
                    jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls again
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:19:08 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1ec8tmINNlp5@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.000437.27301@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>>I have heard claims that the scrolls are being suppressed because they offer
>>dramatic confirmation of the New Testament and vice versa, because they 
>>contradict it.  By the way, I thought that the scrolls were largely under
>>control of the Israelis. I was not aware that the Roman Catholic Church
>>has any authority over their publication or witholding.  Who does control
>>them?
>>
>>Gerry Palo (73237.2006)
>
>It depends on whether you mean legal or practical control. The 
>original Dead Sea Scroll finds, as well as later discoveries were
>divided. In some cases, Israelis were able to find and/or buy 
>the documents. However, a very large portion of the finds never
>left the Jordanian sphere of influence and were assigned to an
>international scholarly committee. These scrolls resided in the
>Rockefeller Museum in the Moslem Quarter of the old city of 
>Jerusalem. The committee primarily worked out of their home
>bases in Europe, but came to Jerusalem to meet and to examine
>the original documents. All but two of the members were Catholics.
>One of the non-Catholics was assigned to the non-sectarian (that is,
>Biblical) documents. The other was soon discredited by his fellows.
>In 1967, Israel gained control of the Rockefeller Museum, but 
>decided not to interfere with the committee. Therefore, although
>it might be said that all of the scrolls were under Israeli
>authority, nothing had actually changed in terms of the working
>procedures on scroll publication--that is until the storm of
>a couple of years ago. Currently, the Israeli authorities have
>acted to reassign some of the publication rights. But this
>article is getting too long...
>
>Jack F. Love

It is certainly a discredit to all concerned that their publication
should drag out so long.  How can the scholars continue to do this
without being reduced to utter shame?

Also, what about that fellow who decoded them with a computer program
that analyzed the concordance.  I thought it was a pretty detailed
concordance, indicating the exact position of every occurrence of every
word.  That should at least give some idea of the content.  How many
of the total documents were included in that concordance?
Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: sasquatch
Subject: Re: Kirsten Anderson
Originator: young@sasquatch
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 22:57:10 GMT

   This is being re-posted to the proper group from sci.anthropology...
   ...probably for the 965th time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am trying to find the current snail mail address of a friend from High
School Who went into Archeology.  (I know that there is a difference, but
there is no Archeology news group)  If anyonw knows her, I would appreciate
it if you would send me her address.  Thank you.  If you don't know her, sorry
for bothering you

Peter John Hill
PJHST10@VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU
From: gregb@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: The controversy over the Gizeh pyramid
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:23:57 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

Why is it that so many people on this newsgroup doubt that the Great
Pyramid at Gizeh functioned as a tomb?  Skeptics consider the following
facts:

1)  The Great Pyramid, like other pyramids, is connected to a funerary
temple complex.
2)  The pyramid is surrounded by the tombs of the king's wives and nobility.
3)  There is undeniable evidence that pyramids built before and after those
at Gizeh wer used as tombs.  Why would the Great Pyramid be any different?
4)  The texts inscribed on the walls of pyramids (including the Great Pyramid)
clearly show that the structure had a funerary purpose.

Just a little information for your intellectual palettes.  I hope this
newsgroup can be used for constructive discussions, and not wild speculations
and "flames".

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Greg Braswell
Earlham College
gregb@yang.earlham.edu
gregb@earlham.bitnet
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: jfb@draco.macsch.com (John Baskette)
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 20:49:20 GMT


In article <BxzKzG.2EI@acsu.buffalo.edu> v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar) writes:
>>	"The natural tendency of a traditionally trained archeologist is to fit
>>his finds into the fashionable preconcieved matrix of ideas regarding the shape
>>of prehistory that it is a long, slow, upward gradient leading inexorably from
>>primitive man to the summit of modern society's achievements.  It is his very
>>ability to do so that has gained him his qualifications as an archeologist. 
>>Consequently, had earlier civilizations left behind aircraft runways, say, then
>>it is likely that they would be classified as 'ritual causeways'; an
>>earth-and-stone-built chamber for screening off radioactive waste or machinery
>>would of course take on an unintended role as a 'tomb'; an astronomical
>>observatory-cum-computer would immediately start a new life as a temple; and
>>skyward-facing navigational markings for airships would become 'magic designs
>>for the appeasement of the gods'." -unknown author
>
>	Still, it seems no one would like to address the above passage.  Does
>anyone have any thoughts about this?

You may have read my earlier post refuting the junk about the sacred cubit
and pi and days-in-a-year in the pyramid.  I will comment on this quote now, but 
I am not a archaeologist.  I would like to hear what archaeologists have to say
also.

It is true that scientists in general interpret data in light of certain ruling
paradigms in a given field.  The error in the Von Daniken like unknown author's 
logic is in the statement, "Consequently, had earlier civilizations left behind 
aircraft runways, say, then it is likely that they would be classified as 'ritual
causeways'; ... ".  

Had earlier civilizations left behind aircraft runways etc. then the ruling
paradigms of the field would have been different.  Scientists hold to certain
paradigms because the evidence in favor of these interpretations is extremely
good.  

The odds of some individuals (aka crackpots) coming from outside the field of 
study without the advantages of years of study and research devoted to the field 
expounding some radical new theory that is amazingly supported by lots of obvious 
facts that somehow got overlooked is somewhere between zero and null.  The odds 
are a little better (but still low) when the "heretic" in question actually knows 
something about the subject.  The odds are much worse when the "heretic" is 
blatantly dishonest with the facts which I believe is the case with pyramidologists.

John
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: jfb@draco.macsch.com (John Baskette)
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 20:44:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.174405.8834@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:

>>If you choose an arbitrary unit, you can measure anything so it comes out
>>as a function of pi and 365.242.  You could define a Sacred Stadia so that
>>an ancient hippodrome is exactly pi stadia around if you wanted.  This proves
>>nothing.

>If the sacred stadia and cubit were widely used measures then their precise
>incorporation into the structure of the pyramids is not a circular or self
>defining thing.  Likewise, if the same proportions hold sway to the same
>degree of accuracy in just two pyramids, then that reveals an impressive
>precision and purpose in their design and construction. However, both the
>units of measure and the actual measurements of the pyramids needs some 
>kind of verification.  Zerxes, can you help us here?

I think you may have missed my post explaining the origin of the pyramid 
inch and sacred cubit.  I will email you a copy if you like.  In summary
the pyramid inch and sacred cubit are the invention of 19th century 
Anglo-Israelites who believed that the ancient builders (or at least 
designers) of the pyramid were Hebrews who used primitive versions of 
English units of measure.  Their pyramid inch is just a thousandth of an
inch longer than the modern British inch and was derived in _precisly the
way that Chris Heiny_ describes.  It was redefined arbitrarily to fit the
365.242 idea.  The sacred cubit was pure fabrication.

These units of measure were invented to make 365.242 sacred cubits (or 
9,131 pyramid inches) equal 9140 inches which is what these 19th century
Anglo-Israelites thought the pyramid baseline measure equaled.  They used 
inaccurate data.  The pyramid baseline measures as given in the second
edition of _The Pyramids and Temples of Ghizeh_ by Sir William Flinders 
Petrie (2nd edition London: Histories & Mysteries of Man Ltd., 1990, p 11. 
This is a reprint of the 1885 book published by the Royal Society.  The  
first edition was published in 1883.) are as follows: 

  SIDE  BASELINE (in)   SOCKET (in)    CORE (in) 
    
   N      9069.4          9129.8        9002.3
   E      9067.7          9130.8        8999.4
   S      9069.5          9123.9        9001.7
   W      9068.6          9119.2        9002.5

John
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Qimron's suit against BAR
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:00:59 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Jack Love (jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu) wrote:
>  
> Qimron is alleging damages in excess of $200,000. The case is being
> tried in the Israeli courts, and Qimron was successful in getting
> an injunction against the distribution of the BAR book anywhere in
> the world (although I'm not sure I understand how this can be
> enforced). BAR has indicated that the cost of litigation, not to
> mention any settlement, may put it out of business. I think it's
> worth mentioning that the editor (Shanks) is an attorney.

As I understand it, BAR has removed the offending material and
republished the books. It would seem to me that nice scholars should
be reasonably happy with that. BAR's actions in publishing the particular
text does not appear to me to have been a malicious act, and their
willingness to remove it seems to me to be a sign of good faith.
I have read the articles in BAR about the Qimron suit and I am
mystified as to why he wants $200,000 when BAR's actions plus 
an apology would satify most reasonable people.

> Jack F. Love

--
                                                                     ___
Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:48:06 GMT


	And if there ever is a Great Pyramid FAQ, then it should
discuss some of the fallacies of Pyramidology, like trying to obtain
numbers of cosmic significance out of it. I'm sure that it has been
satirized repeatedly by getting similar numbers out of other
structures; any good ones?

	And such a FAQ might contain Bertrand Russell's response to
Pyramid enthusiasts. He professes admiration of the Great Sphinx. More
seriously, he has commented that he has read many books purporting to
deduce the history of the world from the Great Pyramid; they always
give _very_ good results up to the date of publication of the book,
but not such good results afterward. Usually, he notes, the authors
predict wars in Egypt and the coming of the Antichrist, but so many
men have been recognized as the Antichrist (any female ones?), as he
points out, that the reader is reluctantly led to skepticism.

/Loren