John Gee's FAIR Presentation

[_Philo Sofee]

We have Facsimile 3 and its translation/explanation in the Book of Abraham. None of it translates to what Joseph Smith says it did. Joseph Smith has gender wrong, confuses a god for Abraham, confuses a god for a slave, calls a god a waiter, use Pharaoh as a proper name, etc etc etc. Facsimile 3 is a holy mess.

http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/book ... ile-3.html

Better than the erasure of the phallus off of Min in facsimile 2 in most editions.

Interesting link, thank you. Didn't Hugh Nibley address these translations in one of his numerous publications?

[_Chap]

by the way, for those interested in this topic, I recommend this post by Chap, which contains many salient points.

Gosh, I am blushing.

Re-reading that post, I think its value, if it had any, was in showing that it was possible to talk fairly precisely about scroll length without using algebraic formulae. I was trying to write a kind of Scroll Length for Dummies. (NB - I am happy with formulae myself, but I know that lots of people aren't. Including Gee, I suspect.)

The take-home point, so far as I could see, was that Gee's work (as it was then) seemed to require papyrus that was implausibly thin, in order to get all the windings he needed for his preferred total length into the space available.

Is it possible to summarize the current Mortal Man/CK position on that latter point, I wonder? Or has the papyrus thickness point gone away after further analysis?

[_DrW]

ETA: Serious question: have any Egyptian funerary papyri been found that are significantly larger (longer) that the extant Joseph Smith papyri?

Yes, the Toronto scroll is one of them.

If not (and I think not but don't know for sure) how can Gee reasonably stand on the assumption that the original Joseph Smith papyri unrolled to room (rooms) length?

There is no reasonable set of assumptions that allows any more than 60 cm of missing papyrus.

Mortal Man,

Thank you for the information. Appreciate it.

Was glad to see that Ritner agreed with, and cited, Chris' paper on the subject. As far as the legitimate peer reviewed scientific literature is concerned, that should about put a lid on it.
_______________________________

ETA:

Chap,

Kudos on your earlier explanatory post as cited by Mortal Man above.

Enjoyed it. Well done.

Isn't math wonderful?

[_Kishkumen]

Well, this is my cue to exit the thread. Dr. Gee strikes me as a good man who doesn't deserve this sort of abuse.

Andrew or Chris, if you have any other questions or comments feel free to pm me.

Regards

It was good to see you again, J Green. I am sorry that I was unpleasant with you the last time you and I interacted here.

Please accept my apologies.

All best,

K

[_sock puppet]

Well, this is my cue to exit the thread. Dr. Gee strikes me as a good man who doesn't deserve this sort of abuse.

Andrew or Chris, if you have any other questions or comments feel free to pm me.

Regards

Nor have the good men, Robert Ritner included, deserved this sort of abuse--as Gee has shoveled for years.

[_sock puppet]

Why is facsimile 3 the silver bullet? I honestly don't understand.

Every single aspect of Joseph Smith's revelations and translations of the Explanation have been proven false. Hence, Joseph Smith has been proven a fraud scientifically -- thanks to modern Egyptology.

Paul O

Oh, O.K., I think I understand now. Thanks for the explanation.

Facsimile 2, its 'restoration' and explanations fair no better, in my opinion.

[_Kishkumen]

Nor have the good men, Robert Ritner included, deserved this sort of abuse--as Gee has shoveled for years.

Very well said, sock puppet. Many a good person has been savaged by the fauxpologists, but there have been no retractions or apologies. No, they are unrepentant of having mistreated so many decent people unfairly, up to the point of threatening their employment.

[_Mortal Man]

Re-reading that post, I think its value, if it had any, was in showing that it was possible to talk fairly precisely about scroll length without using algebraic formulae.

Yup, the spiral formula is just a convenient way of adding up all the missing windings. A simpler method, albeit more cumbersome, is to write them out by hand (or use a spreadsheet like Chris originally did).

I was trying to write a kind of Scroll Length for Dummies. (NB - I am happy with formulae myself, but I know that lots of people aren't. Including Gee, I suspect.)

Gee has trumpeted the accuracy of the Hoffmann formula in his "puzzles" paper, in his 2009 FAIR talk and on the FAIR Wiki. He thought we were using a different formula because of our different notation and centered convention for the winding numbers. This misperception inspired him to demonstrated that there is something wrong with the Cook/Smith formula, that it is based on incorrect assumptions etc. The fact is, the formulas are mathematically equivalent; they give identical predictions if correctly applied. Nevertheless, Gee managed to generate a difference by feeding the formulas different inputs. Chris actually discovered this right away.

The take-home point, so far as I could see, was that Gee's work (as it was then) seemed to require papyrus that was implausibly thin, in order to get all the windings he needed for his preferred total length into the space available.

Yes, Gee's Hor papyrus from the "puzzles" paper is impossibly thin.

[_Fence Sitter]

The take-home point, so far as I could see, was that Gee's work (as it was then) seemed to require papyrus that was implausibly thin, in order to get all the windings he needed for his preferred total length into the space available.

Yes, Gee's Hor papyrus from the "puzzles" paper is impossibly thin.

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?

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

[_Chap]

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?

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

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?