John Gee's FAIR Presentation

[Guest]

I'd like to know the answer to both those.

Of course the outside diameter of the roll made by the surviving papyrus is a simple matter of calculation from the winding length, which may be ascertained from the longest spaced break marks.

I take it however that you are wondering whether there could have been any lost papyrus outside the roll we can reconstruct today. Is that right?

I do basic CAD work for construction projects. If I know the max OD of the scroll as Joseph Smith received it and the thickness of the existing portions I can actually draw the scroll and figure out what the max length could have been. I know it would be rough but I imagine it still would show the Gee's length is simply not possible by a long shot.

I am not sure what you mean by lost papyri outside the roll. As far as I know the discussion between Gee and MM/CK focuses on how much scroll is missing between X and Fac#3. MM stated above that only a short section is missing between X & XI and the rest (larger portion?) is missing between X and Fac#3.

[_Mortal Man]

I may have missed this but was Chris able to determine the actual thickness of the Hor papyri he was allowed to examine and if so has Gee stated any reasons he thinks the subsequent missing portion of the scroll reduces in thickness so dramatically?

Other than visual observations, Chris didn't try to measure the physical thickness directly. That is a very difficult task, since the fragments are encased in mylar, placed inside the sheets of the book and glued to backing paper. Furthermore, the physical thickness doesn't enable you to calculate the missing length (other than perhaps setting an upper bound on the upper bound) because: (A) the change in radius per winding can be significantly greater than the physical thickness and (B) dessication and millenia of wear and tear have thinned the once-living hydrated papyrus (is mummy skin as thick today as it was when buried?).

When Egyptologists (e.g., Stegemann, Hoffmann) speak of "thickness" they are typically referring to "effective thickness" inferred from the winding lengths; i.e., the change in radius per winding. This is what can actually be measured for scrolls mounted in museums. Gee actually talks about this in his paper but then accuses us of using physical thickness (which is what William Schryver apparently did) and then guessing at "air-gap size" etc.

Also is there an agreed upon maximum outside diameter of the scroll as it was received by Joseph Smith?

The original outside diameter of the Hor scroll was 3.39 cm, give or take 0.016 cm. According to Gee's "puzzle" paper, the outside diameter was 3.09 cm. According to William, Gee no longer stands by the measurements in his paper, but he hasn't issued corrections.

[_Chap]

I agree with what Mortal Man says about the thickness of papyrus setting upper bounds to upper bounds. It just tells you the maximum original papyrus thickness you can have if the roll was originally tightly wound, and you want a certain total length of scroll within a given outside roll diameter.

The point about the difference between fresh papyrus (when the roll was first wound) and extremely aged and therefore dessicated and thinned papyrus as we have it today is new to me.

It seems to make Gee's position worse. If the maximum thickness he needs to get the length he wants from a roll of known outside diameter is less than that of most if not all surviving papyrus (which I gather it is), then it is way beyond what one could have got with fresh undessicated papyrus when the original roll was prepared.

Do I have that right?

[_Mortal Man]

I do basic CAD work for construction projects. If I know the max OD of the scroll as Joseph Smith received it and the thickness of the existing portions I can actually draw the scroll and figure out what the max length could have been. I know it would be rough but I imagine it still would show the Gee's length is simply not possible by a long shot.

That would be extremely useful, FS. There is a nearly linear progression of winding lengths but our measurements also show a very slight increase in the T parameter as you go from I/XI to X (toward the inside). The Toronto scroll exhibits this same linearity with a very gradual increase in the T parameter. If I sent you a complete set of windings from our analysis of the Hor scroll, a set corresponding to Gee's numbers, and the winding lengths of the Toronto scroll, could you draw all three scrolls for us?

[_CaliforniaKid]

I think everyone agrees that Facsimile 1 was "at the commencement" of the scroll, and thus there is no additional papyrus missing from the outside of the scroll.

[_Ludd]

The pictures I have seen of the papyrus seem to show that is almost as thick as cardboard. Maybe not typical box cardboard, but almost. I can't even imagine how it could be rolled, being that thick. Maybe it was more pliable when it was fresh.

[_Mortal Man]

I agree with what Mortal Man says about the thickness of papyrus setting upper bounds to upper bounds. It just tells you the maximum original papyrus thickness you can have if the roll was originally tightly wound, and you want a certain total length of scroll within a given outside roll diameter.

The point about the difference between fresh papyrus (when the roll was first wound) and extremely aged and therefore dessicated and thinned papyrus as we have it today is new to me.

It seems to make Gee's position worse. If the maximum thickness he needs to get the length he wants from a roll of known outside diameter is less than that of most if not all surviving papyrus (which I gather it is), then it is way beyond what one could have got with fresh undessicated papyrus when the original roll was prepared.

Do I have that right?

Yes, you have it right.
In analyzing the Toronto scroll, I've been working with (among other people) Prof. Irmtraut Munro, who is currently heading up the Book of the Dead project. She is more familiar with these funerary papyri than probably anyone else on the planet. She told me that the Toronto scroll "is the thinnest material [she] has ever seen". Gee really cherry-picked this one but it's still not enough. The effective thickness of the Toronto scroll is 175 microns, which is 4-5 times thinner than the papyrus Dead-Sea scrolls and (Hoffmann's) pSpiegelberg. According to Gee's "puzzle" paper, the effective thickness of the Hor scroll is 53 microns.

[_Fence Sitter]

That would be extremely useful, FS. There is a nearly linear progression of winding lengths but our measurements also show a very slight increase in the T parameter as you go from I/XI to X (toward the inside). The Toronto scroll exhibits this same linearity with a very gradual increase in the T parameter. If I sent you a complete set of windings from our analysis of the Hor scroll, a set corresponding to Gee's numbers, and the winding lengths of the Toronto scroll, could you draw all three scrolls for us?

I sent you a PM

[_Kishkumen]

Why does this kind of scholarly fudging make my blood boil?

It really does.

I don't care who does it, and for what reason, but I just see this kind of fudging as extremely problematic in terms of scholarly ethics.

Grrrrrrr.....

[_Cicero]

Why does this kind of scholarly fudging make my blood boil?

It really does.

I don't care who does it, and for what reason, but I just see this kind of fudging as extremely problematic in terms of scholarly ethics.

Grrrrrrr.....

I'm sure that John Gee doesn't believe that he is lying (or "fudging") at all. We've talked about probability versus possibility many times before, but the game for an apologist is always to enlarge the circle of "what's possible" as much as they credibly can in order to counter any critic. With respect to the Book of Abraham, the circle of what's possible is pretty small given what he have so Gee and others are really straining the limits of credibility to increase the bounds of possibility as much as they can (or to simply blow it wide open with something like the catalyst theory).

As the OJ Simpson defense team showed, anyone clever enough at obfuscation can throw up all kinds of smoke screens to help a predisposed audience ignore fairly simple, basic facts.

Oh sorry, I forgot, there are no facts.