An evening with Dr. Gee

[_Gadianton]

They've finally allowed linking to Shades's summary, indirectly with much qualification. There are concerns about rules being violated, your notes being "off topic", of all things, and it would appear only the helpless self-admission that your notes possibly Trump the lecture itself that force them to do it. It's almost a slap in the face really. Instead of saying, "Hey, a critic has put up an excellent set of notes and we are most grateful to have this fantastic material made available to United Airlines for free" you get a "oh, can we do this guys? here's a link. Here's a link to a link. don't ask questions, we don't support it. we don't want to give credit where it is due. just, you know, click here if you must (know what actually went on because our notes suck)"

Since we know some apologists are browsing, let's get something out in the clear. Dr. Shades, if you were asked for a copy of your notes to post on FAIR's website so that fragile TBM's would not have to view our board shining with the truth, would you allow it?

If NO. Good answer. They don't deserve your notes. They aren't willing to even speak your name let alone give you a direct link.

if YES. I recommend the relevant parties show some honor and love of the truth, and contact Shades, ask his permission, post the notes, and then preface with something like, "Dr. Shades has provided a valuable and comprehensive set of notes on Gee's presentation and has been kind enough to share with us" -- in their own words.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I got banned from that specific thread over at MAD. Oh well...

[_Trevor]

If I'm not mistaken, the gentleman to whom the papyri were sold by Charles Bidamon (Emma's second husband) bequeathed part of them to the Wood Museum but hung on to the rest, which were inherited by his housekeeper and later acquired by another museum. I'm working from memory, so the details may be off, but that's the gist of it.

Thanks, CK.

Is it possible that Chandler cut up the papyri and sold some of it off before he sold them to Joseph?

[_Dr. Shades]

Dr. Shades, if you were asked for a copy of your notes to post on FAIR's website so that fragile TBM's would not have to view our board shining with the truth, would you allow it?

You know, I think the odds of that happening are precisely nil, so I think it's a moot issue. :-)

But to answer your question for your benefit, I'd probably allow it, with the caveat that I'd require proper citation--yes, they'd have to "speak my name" at the barest minimum. I highly doubt that they'd ever provide a link, but ideally that's what I'd wish for in addition to the citation.

I got banned from that specific thread over at MAD. Oh well...

What did you say that prompted the ban?

Is it possible that Chandler cut up the papyri and sold some of it off before he sold them to Joseph?

I'm glad you asked. Although this is something else I forgot to mention originally, Dr. Gee made it clear that as the mummies and other antiquities travelled around, bits and pieces of the display were sold off to people as they went.

So Joseph getting to buy them was merely part of a larger pattern. (That last sentence was from me, not from Gee.)

[_Trevor]

I'm glad you asked. Although this is something else I forgot to mention originally, Dr. Gee made it clear that as the mummies and other antiquities travelled around, bits and pieces of the display were sold off to people as they went.

So Joseph getting to buy them was merely part of a larger pattern. (That last sentence was from me, not from Gee.)

So it is possible that the scrolls were shorter by the time they reached Joseph. If so, any calculations of their original length are potentially compromised by Chandler's selling strategy.

[_CaliforniaKid]

If I'm not mistaken, the gentleman to whom the papyri were sold by Charles Bidamon (Emma's second husband) bequeathed part of them to the Wood Museum but hung on to the rest, which were inherited by his housekeeper and later acquired by another museum. I'm working from memory, so the details may be off, but that's the gist of it.

Thanks, CK.

Is it possible that Chandler cut up the papyri and sold some of it off before he sold them to Joseph?

I doubt Chandler cut them up. But the rolls were falling apart, so it is conceivable that Chandler sold fragments of the rolls to other buyers-- or, in the cases of the Amenhotep and Neferirnub rolls-- that he sold the larger roll to other buyers and Joseph Smith only got fragments.

[_William Schryver]

If I'm not mistaken, the gentleman to whom the papyri were sold by Charles Bidamon (Emma's second husband) bequeathed part of them to the Wood Museum but hung on to the rest, which were inherited by his housekeeper and later acquired by another museum. I'm working from memory, so the details may be off, but that's the gist of it.

Thanks, CK.

Is it possible that Chandler cut up the papyri and sold some of it off before he sold them to Joseph?

I doubt Chandler cut them up. But the rolls were falling apart, so it is conceivable that Chandler sold fragments of the rolls to other buyers-- or, in the cases of the Amenhotep and Neferirnub rolls-- that he sold the larger roll to other buyers and Joseph Smith only got fragments.

Right.

Except that it's only "conceivable" if you entirely ignore or universally discredit the numerous eyewitness testimonies that have survived.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Right.

Except that it's only "conceivable" if you entirely ignore or universally discredit the numerous eyewitness testimonies that have survived.

And which eyewitness testimonies did you have in mind?

[_dartagnan]

ROFL..

Here is the part where Will runs back to his safety zone, over to the ironically named "pundits" forum.

[_Trevor]

Except that it's only "conceivable" if you entirely ignore or universally discredit the numerous eyewitness testimonies that have survived.

We can put aside the question of a missing scroll and consider the question of the length of the scroll to which the fragments we do have were attached. It is worth considering whether the something larger to which they were once attached never made it into Joseph's possession. There "numerous eyewitness testimonies" which you claim for the existence of the large scroll would perhaps not be pertinent.