dartagnan wrote:Thanks for sharing that Brent. Wow. What a revelation.
This pretty much kills the apologetic argument that says the characters had no correlation to any part of the text. Will's claim that they were thrown about at "random" is refuted by this single photo. What could possibly be his explanation for this I wonder. Is suspect they'll leave it alone as another "unanswered" question.
But perhaps more importantly, this goes to reinforce what I said earlier about Will not being trustworthy in anything he offers. Virtually any analysis will be apologetically motivated. Clearly Will, Brian and even Nibley had already noticed this erasure. With their first hand access and their super duper 100mb hi-res scans, how could they have possibly missed it? I don't believe they did. Not with Will having analyzed these texts as "carefully and thoroughly as anyone" as he frequently gloats.
I simply believe they were taking advantage of the fact that the majority of us were working with microfilm scans that didn't reveal this textual phenomenon.
Again, thanks so much for sharing this!
It is no wonder that the Mormon Cult buys up every single document they can get their hands on, and locks them in Vault F. Because of people like Brody and Hoffman, those documents will never see the light of day again. The Cult is wise to do this in order to keep members in the dark and keep the money flowing in.
Dart, I'd like to put together this entire set of posts into one document and place them on the Mormon Curtain - replacing the current article "Challenge For Will Schryver". I have two other articles of yours:
One follows the other, however, this latest set of correspondences between you, Metcalfe and Schryver I would like to archive. If you find some time, could you please place it together in one document and send it to me? I would appreciate it.
dartagnan wrote:Thanks for sharing that Brent. Wow. What a revelation.
This pretty much kills the apologetic argument that says the characters had no correlation to any part of the text. Will's claim that they were thrown about at "random" is refuted by this single photo. What could possibly be his explanation for this I wonder. Is suspect they'll leave it alone as another "unanswered" question.
But perhaps more importantly, this goes to reinforce what I said earlier about Will not being trustworthy in anything he offers. Virtually any analysis will be apologetically motivated. Clearly Will, Brian and even Nibley had already noticed this erasure. With their first hand access and their super duper 100mb hi-res scans, how could they have possibly missed it? I don't believe they did. Not with Will having analyzed these texts as "carefully and thoroughly as anyone" as he frequently gloats.
I simply believe they were taking advantage of the fact that the majority of us were working with microfilm scans that didn't reveal this textual phenomenon.
dartagnan wrote:Thanks for sharing that Brent. Wow. What a revelation.
This pretty much kills the apologetic argument that says the characters had no correlation to any part of the text. Will's claim that they were thrown about at "random" is refuted by this single photo. What could possibly be his explanation for this I wonder. Is suspect they'll leave it alone as another "unanswered" question.
But perhaps more importantly, this goes to reinforce what I said earlier about Will not being trustworthy in anything he offers. Virtually any analysis will be apologetically motivated. Clearly Will, Brian and even Nibley had already noticed this erasure. With their first hand access and their super duper 100mb hi-res scans, how could they have possibly missed it? I don't believe they did. Not with Will having analyzed these texts as "carefully and thoroughly as anyone" as he frequently gloats.
I simply believe they were taking advantage of the fact that the majority of us were working with microfilm scans that didn't reveal this textual phenomenon.
Well, I am not an expert by any means, but the blotter can leave an imprint unintentionally. I've done it.
It seems that if a correction was wanted here it would have been far easier simply to cross out the mistake.
One proof that it would be a blotter would be to determine if the spacing between the "erasures" on the two marginal entries is identical to the spacing of the marginal entries.
As far as Chap's comment about the "missing blotter," perhaps he is not familiar with this form of writing. The blotter would never be retained.
rcrocket wrote:As far as Chap's comment about the "missing blotter," perhaps he is not familiar with this form of writing. The blotter would never be retained.
I prefer to think that rcrocket has a finely developed sense of irony, and decided to cap my little joke with one of his own.
One proof that it would be a blotter would be to determine if the spacing between the "erasures" on the two marginal entries is identical to the spacing of the marginal entries.
I agree, which is why I think the blotter theory fails.
You can easily tell the "blot" from the first character is just below the original, whereas the "blot" from the second character is much further down from the original. (Brent's green arrows are much longer in the second)
Plus, a blotter theory requires the two sets of characters to be perfectly identical. It seems the two sets are slightly different.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
One proof that it would be a blotter would be to determine if the spacing between the "erasures" on the two marginal entries is identical to the spacing of the marginal entries.
I agree, which is why I think the blotter theory fails.
You can easily tell the "blot" from the first character is just below the original, whereas the "blot" from the second character is much further down from the original. (Brent's green arrows are much longer in the second)
Plus, a blotter theory requires the two sets of characters to be perfectly identical. It seems the two sets are slightly different.
I did indeed notice that the characters did not appear to be identical, but that could be from smudging. I am interested in the spacing of the characters.
As far as Chap's comment following mine about the missing blotter, perhaps he does not realize (because perhaps he hasn't read much) that before the ball point pen (a steel or plastic ball rolling in a fluted cylinder) there were quivers and ink pots and that as easily as he could be blotted out of the Book of Life, so could drying ink leave a reverse imprint on blotting paper -- particularly if somebody chose merely to use parchment or paper as a blotter. His attempt to nail down his joking comment reminds me of the comedian who has to explain his joke.
I did indeed notice that the characters did not appear to be identical, but that could be from smudging. I am interested in the spacing of the characters.
But the spacing difference is clear, is it not? The second set is anywhere from four to six times further than the first set.
Brent's green arrows don't really do this gap much justice because the shorter arrows run all the way through the "blotted" character. The second set of arrows doesn't even reach the top of the second "blotted" character. In other words, if the green arrows were from end to end, the gap ratio would be much more obvious.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
dartagnan wrote:Thanks for sharing that Brent. Wow. What a revelation.
This pretty much kills the apologetic argument that says the characters had no correlation to any part of the text. Will's claim that they were thrown about at "random" is refuted by this single photo. What could possibly be his explanation for this I wonder. Is suspect they'll leave it alone as another "unanswered" question.
Indeed. Brent has found some fantastic stuff in his study of these papers and I, for one, feel thoroughly honored that he's shared as much with us as he has.
