|
|
Post by maya55555 on Nov 10, 2019 20:00:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 10, 2019 20:10:24 GMT
Pretty sloppy conclusion on his part if so, considering how mummification and dessication distort the features.
From an aesthetic standpoint, it's an oddly beautiful thing, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Nov 10, 2019 22:40:49 GMT
Pretty sloppy conclusion on his part if so, considering how mummification and dessication distort the features. I completely agree... Time after time, people will see a person, like a celebrity, and say that person looks exactly like another "celebrity"... It has also been proven that two similar looking people can be incorrectly "identified" as the same one (Amelia Earhart & Irene Craigmile Bolam, for example) by using the morphing technique of two photos... You can't just look at their similarities, you also have to look at their differences.... And you have to look at the data and facts too... NO ONE should look at a 4,000 year old mummy, and assume that it IS NEFERTITI, because the mummy looks like a piece of artwork from 4,000 years ago... That is about as accurate as looking at a cloud, which is shaped like a butterfly, and then claiming that huge butterflies made of cotton are flying in the skies... Come on, get real... No one in their right mind will accept that as fact. Show us the data and the evidence... If this mummy was found in a sarcophagus that was stamped with the name NEFERTITI on it... or this mummy was randomly found in the tomb that belong to NEFERTITI's husband... Well, then, this might be an entirely different claim. As far as I am concerned, this mummy is NOT NEFERTITI, because as far as I know, there hasn't been one shred of any possible undeniable proof put forth that it is her.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 11, 2019 0:47:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Nov 11, 2019 1:36:21 GMT
I am very familiar with that article and program with Josh Gates. Aidan Dodson, PhD in Egyptology, believes that YL 35 is Nefertiti. He did not view/understand the CAT scans of the sagittal section on that mummy. I tried to reproduce them here for your viewing, but no go. They were taken from the text "Scanning the Pharaohs". I sent my findings in a document to KMT's editor Mr. Dennis Forbes, along with other forensic data. If you were to view those graphs they clearly show that only the enamel of the third molars was formed at death. This would place the mummy's age at 13-14.
It could NEVER be Nefertiti. Dr. Dodson did not acknowledge my findings. Funny how Egyptologists want to be considered scientists.
|
|
Aidan Dodson, PhD in Egyptology seems to think so WITHOUT studying the forensic evidence
