Book of Abraham Scroll Length

[_Carton]

Is it a review of the Cook/Smith article in Dialogue?

Yes. Dr. Gee basically uses our formula and Friedhelm Hoffmann's formula on a scroll of known length, and finds that Hoffmann's is generally close to the correct length, whereas our formula vastly underestimates it. Since our formula basically is Friedhelm Hoffmann's formula, I'm puzzled by the discrepancy, and tempted to chalk it up to mathematical error. I also note that Gee didn't use our autocorrelation method for measuring the winding lengths, which was essentially the whole point of our paper.

I visited the Maxwell Institute the other day and had an unexpectedly amiable conversation with him about the paper. It gave me great hope for the prospect of better relations and communication between the two of us in the future. Generally speaking, though, I wasn't able to get much clarification concerning his specific method. He doesn't show his work in the article, and he said he did this work a year and a half ago and isn't sure where he filed it. Without more information, I'm not sure how to respond to this critique. The ideal response would be for us to apply our method to the scroll Gee used, and see if our results differ from the results he obtained. But that would be a very time- and energy-intensive project, and I'm not sure it's worth going to all that trouble.

You've got to be kidding me!!!

As I understand it, this is a topic where "showing your work" is the only way to determine who is right and who is wrong.

Are we just supposed to take Gee's word for it that the Cook/Smith formula was wrong, and yet he can't even be troubled to demonstrate the reasons why?

[_Carton]

As I recall, Schryver was bragging up the fact (a year or so ago) that Gee's paper tested the Hoffmann formula, the Cook/Smith formula, and the Schryver formula against some scroll. Schryver claimed that Gee found that the Schryver formula was the most correct of the three when tested against an actual scroll.

Looks like Schryver was filling us all full of BS .................. yet again!

Surprise, surprise.

This is why I wondered (in another thread) if anyone had ever really confirmed that Schryver had been given access to the papyri and the KEP. As much as the guy has just plain LIED over the years, I would not be surprised at all that this is just another tall tale he has spun to make people think he is an "insider".

Didn't he also claim that the First Presidency had approved his work on the KEP? If they did, why hasn't it ever been published? Why do people believe ANYTHING this guy says?

[_brade]

Is it a review of the Cook/Smith article in Dialogue?

Yes. Dr. Gee basically uses our formula and Friedhelm Hoffmann's formula on a scroll of known length, and finds that Hoffmann's is generally close to the correct length, whereas our formula vastly underestimates it. Since our formula basically is Friedhelm Hoffmann's formula, I'm puzzled by the discrepancy, and tempted to chalk it up to mathematical error. I also note that Gee didn't use our autocorrelation method for measuring the winding lengths, which was essentially the whole point of our paper.

I visited the Maxwell Institute the other day and had an unexpectedly amiable conversation with him about the paper. It gave me great hope for the prospect of better relations and communication between the two of us in the future. Generally speaking, though, I wasn't able to get much clarification concerning his specific method. He doesn't show his work in the article, and he said he did this work a year and a half ago and isn't sure where he filed it. Without more information, I'm not sure how to respond to this critique. The ideal response would be for us to apply our method to the scroll Gee used, and see if our results differ from the results he obtained. But that would be a very time- and energy-intensive project, and I'm not sure it's worth going to all that trouble.

This is blowing my mind. I'm having a difficult time believing that this is really the case. You're telling me that he essentially just asserts that your method underestimates and his gets it right?

[_Kishkumen]

This is blowing my mind. I'm having a difficult time believing that this is really the case. You're telling me that he essentially just asserts that your method underestimates and his gets it right?

Welcome to the world of LDS apologetics, Gee style.

[_Bond James Bond]

Whoever has Gee for Secret Santa this year...calculator.

[Guest]

This is blowing my mind. I'm having a difficult time believing that this is really the case. You're telling me that he essentially just asserts that your method underestimates and his gets it right?

Uhm. Well, he does illustrate his results with a graph. But yeah, he doesn't say much about how he got those results. And to be honest, his explanation of our method doesn't show much understanding of how it works. He says we used the thickness of the papyrus, which he says we didn't measure, but rather simply estimated. Actually, what we did was derived the average effective thickness (change in scroll radius) of a single wrapping from the change in winding lengths, which we did measure using a computerized method invented by Andrew. (Andrew, by the way, is a computational physicist, and the paper received positive peer reviews from an Egyptologist, a statistician, a physicist, and two mathematicians. The purpose of the computerized method of measurement was to minimize human error and subjectivity.)

All Dr. Gee says about how he obtained his results is that he "applied each of the mathematical formulas, using the assumptions made by the authors of the formulas concerning papyrus thickness, air-gap size, and size of smallest interior winding." This is a bit of a head-scratcher, because we didn't really make any assumptions about those things. We derived those values. So if Dr. Gee didn't use our method of measurement, then did he just take the thickness value we derived for the Hor scroll and stick it into the equation for the Toronto scroll? Or what? I really have no idea. Hopefully Dr. Gee will come forward with some more explanation of his method.

In the meantime, my defense of our paper is basically this: if Dr. Gee didn't use our autocorrelation method for measuring winding lengths, then he didn't really do a test of our method. Because that's what our method was all about.

[_Kishkumen]

All Gee says about how he obtained his results is that he "applied each of the mathematical formulas, using the assumptions made by the authors of the formulas concerning papyrus thickness, air-gap size, and size of smallest interior winding." This is a bit of a head-scratcher, because we didn't really make any assumptions about those things. We derived those values. So if Gee didn't use our method of measurement, then did he just take the thickness value we derived for the Hor scroll and stick it into the equation for the Toronto scroll? Or what? I really have no idea. Hopefully Gee will come forward with some more explanation of his method.

Keep hoping. It looks like monkey business to me.

[_brade]

This is blowing my mind. I'm having a difficult time believing that this is really the case. You're telling me that he essentially just asserts that your method underestimates and his gets it right?

Uhm. Well, he does illustrate his results with a graph. But yeah, he doesn't say much about how he got those results. And to be honest, his explanation of our method doesn't show much understanding of how it works. He says we used the thickness of the papyrus, which he says we didn't measure, but rather simply estimated. Actually, what we did was derived the effective thickness (change in scroll radius) of a single wrapping from the change in winding lengths, which we did measure using a computerized method invented by Andrew. (Andrew, by the way, is a computational physicist, and the paper received glowing peer reviews from an Egyptologist, a statistician, a physicist, and two mathematicians. The purpose of the computerized method of measurement was to minimize human error and subjectivity.)

All Gee says about how he obtained his results is that he "applied each of the mathematical formulas, using the assumptions made by the authors of the formulas concerning papyrus thickness, air-gap size, and size of smallest interior winding." This is a bit of a head-scratcher, because we didn't really make any assumptions about those things. We derived those values. So if Gee didn't use our method of measurement, then did he just take the thickness value we derived for the Hor scroll and stick it into the equation for the Toronto scroll? Or what? I really have no idea. Hopefully Gee will come forward with some more explanation of his method.

In the meantime, my defense of our paper is basically this: if Gee didn't use our autocorrelation method for measuring winding lengths, then he didn't really do a test of our method. Because that's what our method was all about.

Chris, thank you for the information. This is incredible. I would really like to see a response from Gee on this. I guess, I hope he finds all that stuff he filed away and can't find..?

[_SteelHead]

Gee: 60 Feet cuz Nibley said so. THHHHRRRPPPTTTT!

[_Joe Geisner]

Without more information, I'm not sure how to respond to this critique. The ideal response would be for us to apply our method to the scroll Gee used, and see if our results differ from the results he obtained. But that would be a very time- and energy-intensive project, and I'm not sure it's worth going to all that trouble.

The main tactic of Mormon apologetics is diversion and Gee is a master of this method. His mentor, Hugh Nibley was also a master of diversion, he did not want to tackle difficult questions or provide real analysis.

From your description of Gee's paper, I am glad you are not going to waste your time with Gee on his measurements. Your comments in this thread have been excellent and informative. The FARMS/MI guys diversion tactics are developed to waste peoples time. Yours and Andrew's article will stand on its own as Gee's papers and apologetics falls by the way side.

You have produced wonderful papers that have honest Book of Abraham scholarship and present the evidence accurately. This cannot be said for Gee's work.

Those many years ago that I decided I was going to tackle the Book of Abraham issue I read everything I could get my hands on. I was completely confused and found the information from FARMS no more helpful than watching static on television. Stephen Thompson's article was then published in Dialogue. It was like the heavens opening up for me and at that point I realized that the FARMS people were trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Thompson's article place the round peg smoothly in the hole and all the questions I had developed were answered. Amazing what happens when a scholar presents the information honestly.