Wlad is not a top 20 HW, he has never beaten anyone of significance

Well he said Ancient Egypt=Black Africa and offers the same generalized links yet can't debate a specific mummy in question...due to lack of links probably.

I know Ramses II is an interesting mummy, even moreso than Tut. A huge hook nose with short legs in constrast to the so called "tropical" limbs of his peers.

Ramesses II reconstructed given his cranial measurements, his mummy is noted for its preserved hook nose. I know black Africans vary but that is some nose, in fact its really only found in Southern Europeans or Arabic peoples.....uh oh.

This content is protected

 

I love this.

A thread about Klitschko being a **** boxer, and you see pictures of egyptian statues, talk of ramses, black people, and mummies.

 

well, the thread seems to have some entertainment value:yep

 

The hair thing is sketchy and there is cause to doubt but also cause to consider it. Nay-Sayer actually argued the hair thing pretty well a long time ago though obviously you can't prove he didn't have red hair. Just an explantation as to how a possible black mummy might have red hair, typical backwards Afrocentrism however. And natural red hair would explain their association with Seth.

 

If they proved he had an Afro, that nose is still cause for concern.

I'm certainly open to the possibility.

I lean towards Brace's 1993 findings, certainly some of the more detailed and intresting ones yet. He found that egyptians of all eras are more closely related to each other than any other group. And of course most recently it was found that "Invander" DNA only makes up 10% of the contempary Egyptian. Egyptians are Egyptians and have always been. Who would have thought? It all depends on what a contemporary Egyptian is to you because they aren't that much different from the ancients.

 

Lennox Lewis was HATED by every one of my boxing firends back in NY. Mainly because he wasn't an American & he spoke proper English. Average American fight fans like to worship more thuggish fighters like Tyson, Bowe, etc. Holyfield wasn't "gangsta" enough for them but at least he was American. That's exactly my point, The Klitschko bros have 3 strikes against them: Not American, white & with good manners. :yep Just like Lennox though, I believe they'll be fully appreciated after they retire.

 

Ramses II is a Pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty;

Feel free to take your head out of your ass anytime you get ready...

 

I'm impressed with vitali. Not many people have 4 years out before they even seal their legacy and comeback the way he has done.

Granted he'll never be a dominant king of the division but he'll have racked up some decent victories for a man his age.

Probably h2h the greatest 40+ fighter in history.

 

He's older than Foreman when he started his comeback and looks 10 years younger. Much better shape to be sure.

I think the Arreola and Adamek wins are not far removed from Foreman and Holmes' big wins over Moorer and Mercer.

 

Why not tell the whole of the story?

Did you catch that last sentence, Genius? You do know what it means to infer, right?

However, the good doctor does draw some conclusions [*not* inferences] re Tut;

Which, again, seeing that Tut was a royal of the 18th Dynasty, brings us back to;

When are you idiots going take your heads out of your asses?

 

haha, I think the intellectual debate in this thread has killed KOMAN!!! Nice work! he hasn't made a thread since.......

but seriously, take this **** to the history channel

 

@ Nay_Sayer

I wasn't talking to you, little one. I was having a conversation with the adult who doesn't copy and paste the same links and bad insults over and over again.

I said WE ARE DONE! How sad and pathetic that I have to tell you again. If me discussing Egypt with someone else upsets you, don't read my posts.

 

You really are clueless on this matter. Brace's "study" has been thoroughly debunked by the guy *you* quoted earlier in this thread, SOY Keita. The fact that you cite Brace's study - and from a Wikipedia article at that - only shows your complete and utter ignorance on the subject. Wikipedia is a **** source.

Again, here is what *your* source Keita says;

And don't think I haven't noticed how you FAIL to provide links for your "sources". Been on Stormfront a lot, have we?

Head.Ass.Take.OUT!

 

Still butt hurt?

 

The debate is simple surely?

Noone has been able to conclusively prove that tut was a negro.

That is correct is it it not?

It doesn't really change anything tho does it? The egyptians were still a great civilization regardless of their skin colour.

This is almost as bad as western europe portraying jesus as a white man just so he looks similar to them.

Skin colour makes no difference to anything of any importance.

Does anyone dispute egypts greatness? That is a more relevant debate.