Andrew's rebuttal to John Gee

[_Ludd]

What I haven't been able to do is find where Schryver's "thickness method" is described. Where can I find that?

He's been talking about it in various threads on the other board for a few years. His paper on the subject was killed by Jerry Bradford.

I haven't been able to find anything over there where he describes the methodology you're talking about. If someone knows where his method is described, I would appreciate a link.

[_dblagent007]

Great article Mortal Man! I think I finally understand what Gee was talking about in his paper.

Let me pose a further question. Gee clearly thought that the effective thickness value (T) was an INPUT to your equation, which is incorrect. It is an output derived from the winding lengths. However, if Gee thought it was an input, wouldn't he have realized that it must have some basis in actual fact meaning that you or Chris must have measured the thickness of the scroll or had some other objective reason to use this effective thickness value for the Hor scroll?

Gee, must have known that this effective thickness number was uniquely tied to the Hor scroll, yet he then finds the absolute thinnest ptolemaic papyrus he can, calculates the length of the scroll using the effective thickness value for the Hor scroll, and shows that, surprise, surprise, the equation vastly underestimates the length of the scroll.

Is there any scenario where he could have done this in good faith? The only good faith explanation I can think of is that he is wholly and completely incompetent. Even that is tough to believe because the required degree of incompetence is so very, very high. Willful deceit seems to be a more likely answer.

[_Fence Sitter]

What I haven't been able to do is find where Schryver's "thickness method" is described. Where can I find that?

I am sure if you email Bill Hamblin he can explain it to you since it is "very strait forward."

Says Bill

Will has explained the measuring methodology to me in a private message. It will eventually be published in a forthcoming article. It seems to me the methodology is very clever, very strait forward, and absolutely empirical. It was undertaken by an independent third party (i.e. not Gee or Schryver) with PhD-level, technical and commercial expertise in the field of metrology.

[Guest]

I haven't been able to find anything over there where he describes the methodology you're talking about. If someone knows where his method is described, I would appreciate a link.

Your method developed over the course of this thread, where you were essentially equating measured thickness with change in radius, such that measured thickness and outer circumference can be used to extrapolate scroll length.

By the end of the thread you were telling us about a new methodology developed by George and Howard Fisher, which did not use measured thickness as an input, but rather merely as a control. But you also seemed to say that you would still be publishing your unamended paper using the earlier thickness method. Here are some relevant quotes:

[Professor Gee's] measurements showed seven total windings, with the initial winding totaling 9.7 cm and the final winding 9.5 cm, which ultimately produces an "S" factor of 0.03333.

A simpler formula is available, based on the thickness of the papyrus material in combination with the known circumference of a single winding. If the initial winding circumference is known and if a constant papyrus thickness is assumed, then the calculation of the spiral becomes a rudimentary application of mathematics.

The two formulae should be mutually supporting. The Hoffmann formula ought to accurately predict the relative thickness of the papyrus material; the spiral calculation, armed with a single accurate circumference measurement and a known papyrus thickness, ought to confirm the results of the Hoffmann formula. However, in practice the Hoffmann formula predicts a longer scroll length than the simple spiral calculation. The discrepancy appears to be due to the acute sensitivity to measurement errors inherent in the formula. (See footnote 23 below.)

The Hoffmann formula returns a missing scroll length result of ~1250 cm (41 ft.), which seems to suggest a papyrus thickness of ~53 microns. Known papyrus examples of traditional manufacture range between 100 - 200 microns in thickness. Utilizing Gee's initial winding measurement of 9.7 cm in conjunction with the lower limit of this range, the spiral calculation returns a missing scroll length of ~750 cm (~25 ft.). Using the upper limit of the range, the formula returns a value of ~380 cm (~12.5 ft.). In either case, this range of lengths is consistent with the known eyewitness testimony of a "long roll." . . .

Professor Gee's assertion that the total length of the scroll of Horos greatly exceeds the total length of the extant fragments is vindicated. Using Gee's 9.7 cm circumference measurement in conjunction with a papyrus thickness of 100 microns—the lowest value in the range of known samples of traditionally manufactured papyrus—the missing length of the scroll of Horos would have been ~750 cm, or ~25 ft.

The contemporary eyewitness reports of a "long roll" are confirmed.

Even assuming the highest value in the range of known samples of traditionally manufactured papyrus (200 microns in thickness), the extant fragments of the scroll of Horos represent only 25% of the original length of the whole.

For those who are interested, Brian Hauglid and I spent part of today in a private room at the new Church History Library. The Kirtland Egyptian Papers were our primary focus of attention. More to come later on that.

We also spent a considerable amount of our allotted time examining the Joseph Smith Papyri. We requested and were granted permission to make precision measurements of several fragments of the papyri. We employed a micrometer and measured two samples still attached to the thick backing paper. They measured 394 and 368 microns, respectively. We were not able, at this time, to isolate a sample containing only backing paper in order to measure it and, by subtraction, determine the thickness of the attached papyrus. But we were able to measure two samples no longer attached to the backing paper. Those two samples meaured 97 and 127 microns, respectively, about half the thickness of the "average" of Greco/Roman papyri for which I have previously been able to obtain measurements (see above for details). Combined with John Gee's initial measurement of the outermost winding of the scroll of Horos (9.7 cm), the simple calculation of a spiral returns an upper-bound length of approximately 18-25 feet for the missing portion of the scroll.

The outer winding length is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 cm, by your own admission.

The intact portions of the papyri we have measured attest to a very thin stock of papyrus used for all of the extant scroll remnants.

The combination of a 10 cm outer winding circumference with a very thin stock of papyrus equates to a substantially long scroll, assuming it was a typical example of comparable Ptolemaic-era documents, which, in all material respects, it appears to be.

Until just recently, no one in the field of Egyptology had ever really concerned themselves with things such as the thickness of papyrus, the length of windings, or the length of missing portions of scrolls for which only fragments remain. As a result of the controversy surrounding the Joseph Smith Papyri (specifically the original length of the scroll of Hor), impetus has now been given for more systematic study of these questions. Consequently, it has been possible, through a comparative analysis of scrolls of known lengths, to not only develop a reliable methodology for estimating the missing length of a papyrus scroll, but also to test the methodologies employed by the competing Schryver and Cook/Smith teams. I can therefore report, absent any detail or further elaboration at this juncture, that the methodology I describe in my forthcoming paper has been shown to produce reasonably accurate results. My having averaged all the papyrus thickness measurements, instead of using only the ones from undamaged areas of the papyrus, caused me to underestimate the original length of the scroll of Hor by about 1 meter.

As I presently understand it (and I must emphasize that I have not yet had the opportunity to sit down with the papyrologist to discuss the specifics) the thickness of the papyrus is not a necessary measurement in the methodology that has been developed. However, the formula does give a reasonably accurate estimate of the papyrus thickness. Therefore, knowing the thickness of the papyrus is an important element of confirming data. Furthermore, as I illustrate in my forthcoming article, if you do know the thickness of the papyrus and at least the first three winding lengths, you can very accurately estimate the original length of the scroll. The original length was in the neighborhood of 500 cm. . . . The method I describe in my paper actually rests on no assumptions at all. It is based on nothing more than four objective measurements: the thickness of the papyrus and the length of the first three windings. Its simplicity is its virtue, and explains why it is superior (by several orders of magnitude) to the methodology you and Cook employed.

In short, your method was apparently to average the outer windings in order to get an outer circumference, and then plug this value and the measured thickness of the papyrus into the spiral formula in order to get an estimate of papyrus length. Although Andrew and I repeatedly pointed out that you were assuming a rough equivalency between measured and effective thickness, you persisted in arguing that your method rested on "no assumptions at all." You clung to your method even when some papyrologists with whom you were collaborating developed a different method, which used measured thickness only as a control.

By the way: as usual, your "Ludd" pseudonym's fixation on all things William Schryver is a dead giveaway.

[_Fence Sitter]

Just out of curiosity, if there is 12' or 21' or 25' or 41' of missing scroll from the Hor scroll which is in bad shape, why are over 90% of the identifiable pieces that fell off the scrolls from the much better condition Book of the Dead?

[_Mortal Man]

Let me pose a further question. Gee clearly thought that the effective thickness value (T) was an INPUT to your equation, which is incorrect. It is an output derived from the winding lengths.

That's a good way to state it dblagent. T is an output not an input.

However, if Gee thought it was an input, wouldn't he have realized that it must have some basis in actual fact meaning that you or Chris must have measured the thickness of the scroll or had some other objective reason to use this effective thickness value for the Hor scroll?

No, "dissenters and anti-Mormons" never base anything in actual fact; that would undermine Gee's whole thesis. According to Gee, Chris and I sat around imagining what the thickness might be and inventing a healthy "air-gap" as an adjustable parameter.

Gee, must have known that this effective thickness number was uniquely tied to the Hor scroll, yet he then finds the absolute thinnest ptolemaic papyrus he can, calculates the length of the scroll using the effective thickness value for the Hor scroll, and shows that, surprise, surprise, the equation vastly underestimates the length of the scroll.

Is there any scenario where he could have done this in good faith?

I don't see one.

The only good faith explanation I can think of is that he is wholly and completely incompetent. Even that is tough to believe because the required degree of incompetence is so very, very high. Willful deceit seems to be a more likely answer.

Yup, which is really bizarre, because his misrepresentations are so flagrant and transparent. Nonetheless, from the recent posts on MDDB, they're having the desired effects on his audience.

[_Ludd]

I haven't been able to find anything over there where he describes the methodology you're talking about. If someone knows where his method is described, I would appreciate a link.

Your method developed over the course of this thread, where you were essentially equating measured thickness with change in radius, such that measured thickness and outer circumference can be used to extrapolate scroll length.

By the end of the thread you were telling us about a new methodology developed by George and Howard, Fisher, which did not use measured thickness as an input, but rather merely as a control. But you also seemed to say that you would still be publishing your unamended paper using the earlier thickness method. Here are some relevant quotes:

[Professor Gee's] measurements showed seven total windings, with the initial winding totaling 9.7 cm and the final winding 9.5 cm, which ultimately produces an "S" factor of 0.03333.

A simpler formula is available, based on the thickness of the papyrus material in combination with the known circumference of a single winding. If the initial winding circumference is known and if a constant papyrus thickness is assumed, then the calculation of the spiral becomes a rudimentary application of mathematics.

The two formulae should be mutually supporting. The Hoffmann formula ought to accurately predict the relative thickness of the papyrus material; the spiral calculation, armed with a single accurate circumference measurement and a known papyrus thickness, ought to confirm the results of the Hoffmann formula. However, in practice the Hoffmann formula predicts a longer scroll length than the simple spiral calculation. The discrepancy appears to be due to the acute sensitivity to measurement errors inherent in the formula. (See footnote 23 below.)

The Hoffmann formula returns a missing scroll length result of ~1250 cm (41 ft.), which seems to suggest a papyrus thickness of ~53 microns. Known papyrus examples of traditional manufacture range between 100 - 200 microns in thickness. Utilizing Gee's initial winding measurement of 9.7 cm in conjunction with the lower limit of this range, the spiral calculation returns a missing scroll length of ~750 cm (~25 ft.). Using the upper limit of the range, the formula returns a value of ~380 cm (~12.5 ft.). In either case, this range of lengths is consistent with the known eyewitness testimony of a "long roll." . . .

Professor Gee's assertion that the total length of the scroll of Horos greatly exceeds the total length of the extant fragments is vindicated. Using Gee's 9.7 cm circumference measurement in conjunction with a papyrus thickness of 100 microns—the lowest value in the range of known samples of traditionally manufactured papyrus—the missing length of the scroll of Horos would have been ~750 cm, or ~25 ft.

The contemporary eyewitness reports of a "long roll" are confirmed.

Even assuming the highest value in the range of known samples of traditionally manufactured papyrus (200 microns in thickness), the extant fragments of the scroll of Horos represent only 25% of the original length of the whole.

For those who are interested, Brian Hauglid and I spent part of today in a private room at the new Church History Library. The Kirtland Egyptian Papers were our primary focus of attention. More to come later on that.

We also spent a considerable amount of our allotted time examining the Joseph Smith Papyri. We requested and were granted permission to make precision measurements of several fragments of the papyri. We employed a micrometer and measured two samples still attached to the thick backing paper. They measured 394 and 368 microns, respectively. We were not able, at this time, to isolate a sample containing only backing paper in order to measure it and, by subtraction, determine the thickness of the attached papyrus. But we were able to measure two samples no longer attached to the backing paper. Those two samples meaured 97 and 127 microns, respectively, about half the thickness of the "average" of Greco/Roman papyri for which I have previously been able to obtain measurements (see above for details). Combined with John Gee's initial measurement of the outermost winding of the scroll of Horos (9.7 cm), the simple calculation of a spiral returns an upper-bound length of approximately 18-25 feet for the missing portion of the scroll.

The outer winding length is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 cm, by your own admission.

The intact portions of the papyri we have measured attest to a very thin stock of papyrus used for all of the extant scroll remnants.

The combination of a 10 cm outer winding circumference with a very thin stock of papyrus equates to a substantially long scroll, assuming it was a typical example of comparable Ptolemaic-era documents, which, in all material respects, it appears to be.

Until just recently, no one in the field of Egyptology had ever really concerned themselves with things such as the thickness of papyrus, the length of windings, or the length of missing portions of scrolls for which only fragments remain. As a result of the controversy surrounding the Joseph Smith Papyri (specifically the original length of the scroll of Hor), impetus has now been given for more systematic study of these questions. Consequently, it has been possible, through a comparative analysis of scrolls of known lengths, to not only develop a reliable methodology for estimating the missing length of a papyrus scroll, but also to test the methodologies employed by the competing Schryver and Cook/Smith teams. I can therefore report, absent any detail or further elaboration at this juncture, that the methodology I describe in my forthcoming paper has been shown to produce reasonably accurate results. My having averaged all the papyrus thickness measurements, instead of using only the ones from undamaged areas of the papyrus, caused me to underestimate the original length of the scroll of Hor by about 1 meter.

As I presently understand it (and I must emphasize that I have not yet had the opportunity to sit down with the papyrologist to discuss the specifics) the thickness of the papyrus is not a necessary measurement in the methodology that has been developed. However, the formula does give a reasonably accurate estimate of the papyrus thickness. Therefore, knowing the thickness of the papyrus is an important element of confirming data. Furthermore, as I illustrate in my forthcoming article, if you do know the thickness of the papyrus and at least the first three winding lengths, you can very accurately estimate the original length of the scroll. The original length was in the neighborhood of 500 cm. . . . The method I describe in my paper actually rests on no assumptions at all. It is based on nothing more than four objective measurements: the thickness of the papyrus and the length of the first three windings. Its simplicity is its virtue, and explains why it is superior (by several orders of magnitude) to the methodology you and Cook employed.

In short, your method was apparently to average the outer windings in order to get an outer circumference, and then plug this value and the measured thickness of the papyrus into the spiral formula in order to get an estimate of papyrus length. Although Andrew and I repeatedly pointed out that you were assuming a rough equivalency between measured and effectively thickness, you persisted in arguing that your method rested on "no assumptions at all." You clung to your method even when some papyrologists with whom you were collaborating developed a different method, which used measured thickness only as a control.

By the way: as usual, your "Ludd" pseudonym's fixation on all things William Schryver is a dead giveaway.

You normally impress me with your intelligence and objectivity, so your continuing to push this Ludd=Schryver thing is a little discouraging. Oh well. Thanks for the information you posted. That's helpful. I don't see a methodology described, but I think I understand better what Mortal Man means when he says "thickness method". I do think it's too bad the Schryver paper got stopped by Bradford. I always think it's a good thing to have all sides to consider, especially in an issue like this one. It will be interesting to see if the new "Mormon Interpreter" journal will publish the Schryver paper.

[_sethpayne]

You normally impress me with your intelligence and objectivity, so your continuing to push this Ludd=Schryver thing is a little discouraging. Oh well. Thanks for the information you posted. That's helpful. I don't see a methodology described, but I think I understand better what Mortal Man means when he says "thickness method". I do think it's too bad the Schryver paper got stopped by Bradford. I always think it's a good thing to have all sides to consider, especially in an issue like this one. It will be interesting to see if the new "Mormon Interpreter" journal will publish the Schryver paper.

Will,

You normally impress us all with your writing skill and wit. Your half-hearted effort at acting is discouraging.

Come out of the closet, Will! Be loud! Be proud!

Oh, I'm curious, what happened with your friend's investigation discussed a while back? Did they finally learn how to use Google?

Seth

[_Fence Sitter]

You normally impress me with your intelligence and objectivity, so your continuing to push this Ludd=Schryver thing is a little discouraging. Oh well. Thanks for the information you posted. That's helpful. I don't see a methodology described, but I think I understand better what Mortal Man means when he says "thickness method". I do think it's too bad the Schryver paper got stopped by Bradford. I always think it's a good thing to have all sides to consider, especially in an issue like this one. It will be interesting to see if the new "Mormon Interpreter" journal will publish the Schryver paper.

I believe I speak for the majority here, if not everyone when I say that we would all like to see a publication from Schryver and we too were disappointed when Bradford put a stop to any publication by him.