Forum

CONTINUE FROM "KING TUT PRIMARILY CAUCASIN"

It's not letting me respond with a full message for some reason

LOL!!! I thought you would you like the "chucky" and none of my responses are meant to have a "dark" or "angry" tone but rather a quizically "confused" one would be more accurate. As far as tut's skull being primarily caucasian by a "hand picked" team the French team was the ONLY team that said he was primarily caucasian. The other teams called him North African and Dr. Susan Anton a forensic anthropologist even said he had progathism(negroid trait) not to mention James E Harris and Kent Weeks undoubtably said the 18th dynasty pharoahs were of the same stock as modern Nubians based on skeletal AND dental remains you may want to check them out. The dynasty came from Thebes so it makes perfect sense to me especially with the siding of Nubians that Hyksos took and the other side of Nubians the Egyptians took during the end of the 17th dynasty. So, this is not a racial emphasis as it is a historical one especially if the Egyptians of the 18th are that of the same people as the ta-setians. It all depends on the perspective of the racial issue. I very much understand what racists on both white and black sides take, but in my perspective that is no where near the case, my case is ACCURACY and thats it! Now as far as the phut/japeth thing which I was extremely pleased in your results and effort, which was why I was so disappointed in your comments, punt/phut would be ancient Ethiopians not caucasoids. Ta-netjer(land of the Gods/giants) is a little area around Eretia/Somalia/Ethiopia in modern day boundaries; Hathepsut is shown going back to puntland/Ta netjer in a heiroglyph, now why would Egyptians be caucasoid if their ancestors were black ethiopians and is this not a midway point between Mesopotamia and Africa??!?!? Ta-anku(ancestors/land of men/little people) is where the nile starts in Uganda. The incredible thing is that this fits your model of the two God lines..Giants and Men/son of men. Especially if shem/semerkhet is from the north and is of the giant line(ethiopian/somali) and Ham/khasekhemwy the horus/cush/nubian type slaying the giants being of the ta anku little people(uganda) how does that not make common sense as well as fit your model of ancient GOD lineage. Now do you throw this out because these would be blacks?? I told you about the puntite beard being of Ethiopian influence and Imhotep being a typcast of phut/iepatos/ptah/joseph so how is it wrong to say that the ethiopians were the japethites and not caucasoids to be the third line added because of the unsuccessful inbreeding?

Responses To This Message

Skull of Tut, Secondarily not Caucasoid?