Piney Posted August 21, 2019 #76 Share Posted August 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Awlsew said: 2. OPINION - the only reason why is they might find a Caucasian mummy in there and the other one is deterioration, booby traps and mercury fumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylemurph Posted August 21, 2019 #77 Share Posted August 21, 2019 Just now, Awlsew said: Lol. Your rhetoric is on one track. Shall I spell it out for you? 1. FACT - they won't open the tomb of Qin. 2. OPINION - the only reason why is they might find a Caucasian mummy in there Isn't that what I have said with every post in this thread? No. You keep saying the second part as if it’s true and provable. You certainly aren’t marking the difference very well — hence my comment. You’ve behaved similarly in other threads, too, hence my confusion. —Jaylemurph 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awlsew Posted August 21, 2019 #78 Share Posted August 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Piney said: and the other one is deterioration, booby traps and mercury fumes. Riiight….folks today can't handle mercury, and ancient booby traps too complex for us modern folk to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylemurph Posted August 21, 2019 #79 Share Posted August 21, 2019 21 minutes ago, Awlsew said: It is the only reason why they won't open the tomb of Qin today. This is in no way marked as opinion. If it were, it might read “In my opinion...” or “I think...” It looks like you’re making a statement of unquestioned fact, and you have nothing to back it up ad such. And the voice of your verb is indicative, not subjunctive. —Jaylemurph 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awlsew Posted August 21, 2019 #80 Share Posted August 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, jaylemurph said: No. You keep saying the second part as if it’s true and provable. You certainly aren’t marking the difference very well — hence my comment. You’ve behaved similarly in other threads, too, hence my confusion. —Jaylemurph Behaved similarly? You have me classified in the proper cladogram do ya? My post are very succinct, they are suppositions. Perhaps a more succinct supposition would sufficiently suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awlsew Posted August 21, 2019 #81 Share Posted August 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, jaylemurph said: This is in no way marked as opinion. If it were, it might read “In my opinion...” or “I think...” It looks like you’re making a statement of unquestioned fact, and you have nothing to back it up ad such. And the voice of your verb is indicative, not subjunctive. —Jaylemurph You must have missed post #34 and post #38 of this thread. Clearly I am stating an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted August 21, 2019 #82 Share Posted August 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, Awlsew said: Riiight….folks today can't handle mercury, and ancient booby traps too complex for us modern folk to understand. There are sites here in the Eastern U.S we won't touch for fear of deterioration and harm. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awlsew Posted August 21, 2019 #83 Share Posted August 21, 2019 (edited) On 11/1/2016 at 8:26 AM, Cryptid_Control said: Are there other issues with entrance besides this and the Chinese gov? Would just our presence in the tomb be enough to start damaging the inside? Post #1 of this thread. I am presenting a possible ish-shoe as to why they won't open the tomb, as asked. On topic, on point. Edited August 21, 2019 by Awlsew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awlsew Posted August 21, 2019 #84 Share Posted August 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Piney said: There are sites here in the Eastern U.S we won't touch for fear of deterioration and harm. Are those the only reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted August 21, 2019 #85 Share Posted August 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Hanslune said: Yeah one of the book I wrote was set during the time of the Russian invasion of 'Independent Tartary or Central Asia. The Russian sweep east was going on at the same time the Americans were sweeping west. Missed this. The genocide on Siberian Tribes committed by the Cossacks was brutal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted August 21, 2019 #86 Share Posted August 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Awlsew said: Are those the only reasons? I preserved some myself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awlsew Posted August 21, 2019 #87 Share Posted August 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Piney said: I preserved some myself. Keep them berried 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted August 21, 2019 #88 Share Posted August 21, 2019 Just now, Awlsew said: Keep them berried Graves were involved. My ancestors. Reburials turn into a zoo. Having grave goods laying around the library also upset the grandchildren. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted August 21, 2019 #89 Share Posted August 21, 2019 25 minutes ago, Awlsew said: Lol. Your rhetoric is on one track. Shall I spell it out for you? 1. FACT - they won't open the tomb of Qin. 2. OPINION - the only reason why is they might find a Caucasian mummy in there Isn't that what I have said with every post in this thread? Why would that be troubling? They've faked artifacts before. If you get an inconvenient mummy, the state just makes up an excuse and runs in a ringer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awlsew Posted August 21, 2019 #90 Share Posted August 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Kenemet said: Why would that be troubling? They've faked artifacts before. If you get an inconvenient mummy, the state just makes up an excuse and runs in a ringer. Well there is more than one inconvenient mummy in China. And if the tomb of the 'Greatest Chinese Emperor' of them all contained an inconvenient mummy...better that they don't open it as to not take that chance.(opinion) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted August 21, 2019 #91 Share Posted August 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Kenemet said: Why would that be troubling? They've faked artifacts before. If you get an inconvenient mummy, the state just makes up an excuse and runs in a ringer. Those friggin maps? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted August 21, 2019 #92 Share Posted August 21, 2019 Just now, Awlsew said: Well there is more than one inconvenient mummy in China. And if the tomb of the 'Greatest Chinese Emperor' of them all contained an inconvenient mummy...better that they don't open it as to not take that chance.(opinion) He'll be replaced with a dummy mummy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awlsew Posted August 21, 2019 #93 Share Posted August 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Piney said: He'll be replaced with a dummy mummy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted August 21, 2019 #94 Share Posted August 21, 2019 18 minutes ago, Piney said: Those friggin maps? And dinosaurs. We've seen some real fakes there. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted August 21, 2019 #95 Share Posted August 21, 2019 18 minutes ago, Awlsew said: Well there is more than one inconvenient mummy in China. And if the tomb of the 'Greatest Chinese Emperor' of them all contained an inconvenient mummy...better that they don't open it as to not take that chance.(opinion) How would we know? Seriously. If they control the excavation, they could say they found no mummy or any type of remains that they liked, including his entire court. State archaeologists would go along with that and there wouldn't be any outsiders there. Heck, they could stage an entire tomb in there and we wouldn't know. And the "inconvenient mummies" don't seem terribly inconvenient to them. Heck, they've allowed DNA testing on some of these pale skinned mummies and they're even displayed in national museums: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awlsew Posted August 21, 2019 #96 Share Posted August 21, 2019 13 minutes ago, Kenemet said: How would we know? Seriously. If they control the excavation, they could say they found no mummy or any type of remains that they liked, including his entire court. State archaeologists would go along with that and there wouldn't be any outsiders there. Heck, they could stage an entire tomb in there and we wouldn't know. And the "inconvenient mummies" don't seem terribly inconvenient to them. Heck, they've allowed DNA testing on some of these pale skinned mummies and they're even displayed in national museums: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies Scholars generally agree that Uighurs did not migrate to what is now Xinjiang from Central Asia until the 10th century. But, uncomfortably for the Chinese authorities, evidence from the mummies also offers a far more nuanced history of settlement than the official Chinese version. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/world/asia/19mummy.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted August 21, 2019 #97 Share Posted August 21, 2019 Plus, I seriously doubt there's anything odd (or non-Chinese) about the first Qin emperor. He comes from known family lines AND both his father and mother are recorded. Given the tenor of the times, if he had not been Chinese, he would never have gained or stayed on the throne. There's a lot of interesting drama around him, but as far as I can see, all the depictions of him are pretty standard Chinese and there's no hint that his mother (whose birthplace was known) was Caucasian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted August 21, 2019 #98 Share Posted August 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Awlsew said: Scholars generally agree that Uighurs did not migrate to what is now Xinjiang from Central Asia until the 10th century. But, uncomfortably for the Chinese authorities, evidence from the mummies also offers a far more nuanced history of settlement than the official Chinese version. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/world/asia/19mummy.html As I said, they'd just cover it up... because they would have been in control of the excavation. And the mummy could be lost or simply not there. Not a problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptid_Control Posted August 21, 2019 Author #99 Share Posted August 21, 2019 Well, glad to see I’ve started some discussion 3 years later. Didn’t realize I had email notifications on until I came home to 100 emails :’) . I honestly didn’t even think of the Caucasian mummy possibility so I guess I’ve got some reading to do tonight 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted August 21, 2019 #100 Share Posted August 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, Awlsew said: Scholars generally agree that Uighurs did not migrate to what is now Xinjiang from Central Asia until the 10th century. But, uncomfortably for the Chinese authorities, evidence from the mummies also offers a far more nuanced history of settlement than the official Chinese version. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/world/asia/19mummy.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göktürks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashina_tribe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xianbei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yancai There's a lot more 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now