by the way - this reply to the article cited by Dan should not, under any circumstances, be interpreted as an "invitation" or "demand" to Dan to respond to my points. I understand that Dan refuses to interact with me on points of substance. However, his lack of interest is not going to prevent me from responding to points he has raised. I do not care if Dan responds to me, but I think it's quite unreasonable for him to expect the privilege of responding to my points as he sees fit while simultaneously seeming to expect me to ignore those same points.
I was already aware of the physical descriptions offered of the plates. However, they’re not always consistent. I have several citations on my website page here addressing this concern:
http://mormonmesoamerica.com/metallurgy ... 0artifactsCompare, for example, Oliver’s description:
These records were engraved on plates, which had the [p. 12] appearance of gold. Each plate was not far from seven by eight inches in width and length, being not quite as thick as common tin. They were filled on both sides with engravings, in Egyptian characters, and bound together in a volume, as the leaves of a book, fastened at one edge with three rings running through the whole. This volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed. The characters or letters upon the unsealed part were small, and beautifully engraved.
With Emma’s description:
Emma Smith Bidamon Interview with Joseph Smith III, February 1879 p 539
The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at con=cealment, wrapped in a small linen <table> cloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I have felt of the plates, as they lay on the table, tracing their outline [p. 8] and shape. They seemed to be pliable like st thick paper, and would rustle <with a mettalic sound> when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.
Numerous accounts also stated that there were engravings on both sides. Gold that can be engraved on
both sides has to be of a minimum thickness In order to avoid the “negative” being impressed on the other side of the plate. This would indicate a certain prerequisite thickness. Yet Emma claimed that the pages would “rustle” when the “edges were moved by the thumb”.
How in the world could metal plates that were thick enough for engravings on both side at the same time be thin enough to allow the thumb to flip through them, making them “rustle”?
I’ll come back with some other points later.