Swindled by FAIR!!

[_evolving]

I have no Idea what you are talking about. I saw the hi-res pictures just fine, they were fabulous. Of course, before watching Book of Abraham apologetics -- I always sacrifice a sheep(preferably black), draw a circle using the blood, chant abracabara 15 times... and watch it through my top hat :)

[_dartagnan]

Hey - tell me something. Did hauglid ever say something along the lines of "the 2 ink theory is dead"? I swear he said that, but Will assures me he said nothing of the sort. In my notes, I have it that he said it when he was talking about "myth #2". And that he said something like 'for mss3, at least, the 2 ink theory is dead".

Can you confirm one way or the other?

edit - oh, and I have it in my notes that he said when he made his original claim, that he didn't have access to the actual kep, but now he's convinced his 2 ink theory is dead.

Here is the portion fo his talk addressing this. I transcribed it word for word:

"Let me just throw something out here that John Gee wants me to tell you. He wants you to spread it around, right, and that is, that when he was arguing for a two ink analysis, the two ink theory, OK, that many of you know about, and the two ink theory says that the characters were in a different ink than the text, therefore the characters were put on the paper after the text was already there. That was the way John was kinda thinking about tha. And when he was thinking through that he did not have access to the originals, he did not have access to the newly digitized images, he only had what basically everyone else has. Ok, and so he just made a judgment call there. Well John and I have been working together on some of this, and uh, he's totally convinced now that the two ink theory on manuscript 3 is dead. There is no two ink. Aren't you sad?

You shouldn't, you shouldn't be sad because, thsi particular manuscript here is used as an example OK, to shoot down the two ink theory, when in reality there's three other manuscripts still. Two others with characters on them that are not analyzed on the web with these critics here. And when we get to manuscript two you'll see that the two ink theory is not dead, all the way, yet. Somebody will kill it I'm sure. But uh, and here's Book of Abraham manuscript two, and you see the characters over here, OK, you'll notice that there's no margin line on this one. Ok, and that there's lots of space between the text and the characters, OK, and we have to figure out why that is. Ok, there's several conclusions one could come to about that, but uh, and here's the newly digitized image. Now I have done enough looking at this under a microscope to determine with absolute certainty, OK, that these characters here are in a different ink than the text. I know that, OK? I can magnify things from 6 times sto 50x. OK? And look at the fibers even, (giggle) OK? And I can see that there are different inks there.

Yeah the two ink theory is dead with manuscript 3, but manuscript 2 is yet to be disproved. Which I'm sure they'll do (the critics), uh, somehow."

[_Gadianton]

You paid twelve dollars for it? That's a hefty chunk of change.

[_Mercury]

Sounds like you got Gypped. They saw you coming a mile away though. Its pretty easy to spot the sucker. Adherence to symbolic canibalism and end times philosophies are the mark of the gullible.

Remember, I didn't call you stupid, I called you gullible.

[_Who Knows]

Hey - tell me something. Did hauglid ever say something along the lines of "the 2 ink theory is dead"? I swear he said that, but Will assures me he said nothing of the sort. In my notes, I have it that he said it when he was talking about "myth #2". And that he said something like 'for mss3, at least, the 2 ink theory is dead".

Can you confirm one way or the other?

edit - oh, and I have it in my notes that he said when he made his original claim, that he didn't have access to the actual kep, but now he's convinced his 2 ink theory is dead.

Here is the portion fo his talk addressing this. I transcribed it word for word:

"Let me just throw something out here that John Gee wants me to tell you. He wants you to spread it around, right, and that is, that when he was arguing for a two ink analysis, the two ink theory, OK, that many of you know about, and the two ink theory says that the characters were in a different ink than the text, therefore the characters were put on the paper after the text was already there. That was the way John was kinda thinking about tha. And when he was thinking through that he did not have access to the originals, he did not have access to the newly digitized images, he only had what basically everyone else has. Ok, and so he just made a judgment call there. Well John and I have been working together on some of this, and uh, he's totally convinced now that the two ink theory on manuscript 3 is dead. There is no two ink. Aren't you sad?

You shouldn't, you shouldn't be sad because, thsi particular manuscript here is used as an example OK, to shoot down the two ink theory, when in reality there's three other manuscripts still. Two others with characters on them that are not analyzed on the web with these critics here. And when we get to manuscript two you'll see that the two ink theory is not dead, all the way, yet. Somebody will kill it I'm sure. But uh, and here's Book of Abraham manuscript two, and you see the characters over here, OK, you'll notice that there's no margin line on this one. Ok, and that there's lots of space between the text and the characters, OK, and we have to figure out why that is. Ok, there's several conclusions one could come to about that, but uh, and here's the newly digitized image. Now I have done enough looking at this under a microscope to determine with absolute certainty, OK, that these characters here are in a different ink than the text. I know that, OK? I can magnify things from 6 times sto 50x. OK? And look at the fibers even, (giggle) OK? And I can see that there are different inks there.

Yeah the two ink theory is dead with manuscript 3, but manuscript 2 is yet to be disproved. Which I'm sure they'll do (the critics), uh, somehow."

Thanks man! Wow, I took pretty damn good notes! Now i've got to go find that thread where Will has no idea what i'm talking about, and assures me hauglid didn't say what i thought he said.

[_dartagnan]

You paid twelve dollars for it? That's a hefty chunk of change.

After shipping it was. I didn't mind paying it until I found out what I was paying for. An hour of Brian Hauglid tearing down straw men and bearing his testimony.

[_Gadianton]

wow, he sold his testimony for 12 dollars with shipping?

[_Who Knows]

I think this is the post i'm remembering:

Who Knows wrote:
I remember Hauglid's FAIR presentation last year. He said how bad Gee felt because of all of the attacks he had undergone - and how unfair he thought it all was - and that he hadn't taken it very well.

He then said how Gee had made a mistake regarding the 2 ink theory, and that the 2 ink theory (that Gee promoted) was officially dead.

Maybe Gee should have undergone some sort of 'ink analysis' test before including it in his book? Or was it perhaps unfair for us ignorant critics to say his 2 ink theory was a bunch of bullcrap (since we hadn't taken any ink analysis test)?

You apparently don't remember Hauglid's presentation very well. He didn't say that the "2 ink theory" was officially dead. He said exactly the opposite. He only acknowledged (as has Gee) that the photos in The Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri were not the valid examples of the argument. Then he went on to say that, in fact, he and others believe that the Egyptian characters, in many instances, were written after the English text -- especially in Williams' Ms. #2. I know for a fact that they continue to adhere to that argument, and will elaborate on it further in the future.

By the way, CK, I think most people who have been paying attention to things are aware of your real name (C.S.) and that you live in the Sacramento area. I'm not sure why Gee thinks having real names is so important, but I'm quite confident that, at this point, there is no legal action contemplated. I think he was just tired of being called a "liar" on issues of opinion. Gee has given sincere arguments for why he thinks Seyffarth's papers suggest a second text on the scroll of Hor. People are free to disagree (as I think Kevin Barney has), but that doesn't mean that Gee is "lying" about it.

That post is here:
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... ght=#43890

Then Schryver said this:

Who Knows:

I have it written in my notes that I just referred to. Hauglid said exactly what I said - 'the 2 ink theory is dead'.

Well, considering the fact that I have his presentation on video, I can tell you quite confidently that you're mistaken. You simply misunderstood what he was saying. He actually said "people believe the two ink theory is dead ..." and then went on to explain why it isn't. Anyway, it's not that big of a deal. But the only thing Gee has regretted is that the photos weren't the ones he wanted to use. He couldn't persuade the church archives, at the time, to release a full set of images of the KEP.

That was Schryver's last post. Here was my last post to him:

I looked at my notes again, and noticed that next to my note of "gee convinced the 2 ink theory is dead" I wrote in parentheses "mss 3 only".

It was in the section where hauglid was talking about 'myth #2'. Please listen to that portion, and let me know exactly what he said.

Wow. Schryver did the freaking video and has probably seen this presentation multiple times. I saw it live once, and my interpretation was better than his. Either he's an idiot and just plain screwed up, or he was lying here.

Which is it will?

[_dartagnan]

As I keep listening to this over and over, I'm reminded of all the hype about this presentation a month in advance. BRian presents not a single new thing to the table. He even plays ignorant by saying he doesn't even know what the evidence is for dictation.

He doesn't?

I personally spelled it out to him several times on the forum, and so did Brent.

Brian addressed none of these evidences.

Not a single one!

What a fraud.

[_dartagnan]

This is more from Hauglid's opening rant:

I'm totally biased that it is the word of God - totally biased. I really believe with all my heart that this is the word of God. Ok, if that offends anybody, then good (crowd laughter). Because that is the way it is. Because its the holy spirit that's told me it is true. So everything that I tell you today, whether its this evidence or all this technical stuff, Ok, really doesn't convince me one way or the other, because if it is what the critics say, then I still believe the Book of Abraham is true. That's not ever going to change, because I've had that witness, and I think I have some people out here that feel that too. I know I do. Uh, that it doesn't matter what they say, we still know its true all the way (roaring applause).

Now if keeping my solemn covenant, and I say solemn covenant, to sustain and defend the kingdom of God upon this earth makes me an apologist so be it. Now you can call me an apologist all day long (jaded applause) because I'm gonna keep that covenant.

Hauglid essentially admits what Pacman admitted two years ago. He was asked what amount of evidence could be produced tod issuade him from his current belief. He responded: "No amount of evidence."

Hauglid essentially said the same thing above. He said that even if the Book of Abraham is what the critics say, he won't change his mind!!!!

Why?

Because truth isn't really as important as a testimony.

So tell me who is unreasonable and irrational here? Brian essentially admits that he is entering the debate with a closed mind. It is beyond being persuaded. Yet, this is always how he describes the critical perspective, in mocking terms.

Elsewhere he said:

Dean Jesse assigned Phelps to that, but we've figured out in recent, actually months, that it is in the handwriting of Fredrick G. Williams.

Actually Edward Ashment made this discovery back in 2001. Why didn't Hauglid give him the credit?