Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

53 Excellent

About blarsen

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Here's a rather thoughtful and insightful piece from Ed Goble he produced at my request for his response to the Kellan article posted on this thread and his approach to parsing out the whole Book of Abraham controversy,. He asked me to present it here, not having an MDD account, himself. FWIW. Also located here: https://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blog ... -book.html
  2. Perfect response. A strange lack of humor, or recognition of same, seems to be decidedly lacking in those who are wont to engage in TDS. Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, seems to get it. Why not others?
  3. Chill, Nehor. 'twas a joke. Though I would like you to respond to my latest post in reply to yours on the 'It's "Let's roll" day' thread, which was moved to the Social Hall forum for some odd reason . . . but of course, only if you care to . . .
  4. It's comforting to know, Nehor, that you 'get the chills' every time the Pledge Allegiance is recited. 😉
  5. Angela Davis! My, my. First hand experience, yet. I saw an interview she gave just 1, 2, maybe 3 years ago. Still in harness. Other than that, my acquaintance with her was through newspaper headlines/articles in the Bay Area.
  6. Noam Mizrahi seems to be suggesting that the introduction of domesticated camels came late to the Canaan region, not necessarily to Egypt or the southern parts of Arabia. Though it does seem that if they were present for transport earlier in these areas, the use would rapidly spread to the Land of Canaan. Isn't the 3rd letter of the modern Hebrew alphabet derived from or cognate w/our word for camel? I.e., gee'mel? Does this go back to proto-Hebrew writing, and are there any examples of proto-Hebrew that are earlier than the 10 Century BCE? From an LDS position, with our awareness of Lehi/Nephi and his brethren being up to speed with Egyptian writing of some sort, and with Moses coming from the court of a Pharaoh, it doesn't make much sense to me that they would not have committed the stories of Abraham, etc., to writing fairly early, using Egyptian if nothing else, or the early Hyksos/Phoenician alphabet.
  7. But this is a typical response of far too many people regarding a topic of utmost import and seriousness. It has the effect of creating a climate of ridicule directed against anyone doubting the official 9/11 scenario and undercuts those actually studying it, to include studying those events in a scientific manner. And I didn't "put forth a . . . theory". What I did is present access to the results of a study that used engineering tools and concepts. The study was conducted to test the hypothesis that the conclusions of the NIST WTC 7 report were in gross error. The study produced data and engineering analysis to include a model with 'visuals' that do explain the collapse of WTC 7; i.e., that mirror what was actually seen as this building collapsed, among other things. The visuals produced by the NIST Bldg 7 study did not do this, but instead claimed that small office fires on 6-7 floors were able to cause a 47 story, steel-framed high rise to totally collapse, essentially into its own footprint, and in the near free-fall time of 6-7 seconds, 2.5 seconds of which were actually in free-fall time. Office fires simply can't do this . . . for multiple reasons.
  8. Cute 'theory', Nehor, but it reeks of straw man argumentation. There really is a legitimate scientific effort investigating the events of 9/11, primarily the collapses of the 3 WTC towers that came down on that day. Why is that? Because these efforts look strictly at the data generated by those collapses and has nothing to say about who planned and executed the events of that day, which is where you would get into 'conspiracy theory'. I'm sure you understand the difference . . . or do you?
  9. Careful, Let's Roll, you're getting political. I just had a 9/11 engineering/science thread shut down (I assume because of its alleged political implications), though 9/11 science and engineering is not political in and of itself, though it does have political implications as well as implications across the board; and SHOULD be of supreme importance to LDS in view of the Book of Mormon emphasis in being aware of such things.
  10. Here's a podcast where a fellow named Ed Goble (related to Clark?) is being interviewed on his views of JS's Egyptian 'Alphabet' located here: https://pleaseleaveamessage.simplecast.com/episodes/37 and which may be of interest to some of you here. He gives further explication of his views here: https://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/ I'm just getting interested again in this whole Book of Abraham topic, and have no point of view on Goble's information . . . yet. Still surprised that no one has replied to my questions about the Kelan article, etc. There seems to be a 'collective conscious' to this board that I don't quite understand yet.
  11. I'm really curious what kind of traction/reaction this topic will get on this forum. Why is it important? Because the official story of what happened on 9/11 is largely false. Why important to this forum? Four individuals involved in significant 9/11 scientific research are active LDS. Does this mean they are crazy? Many will think so, and be quick to relegate them to Mormon-related quackery. But this will be a false judgement coming from people too quick to judge, who have not properly vetted/assimilated contrary information/evidence/analysis. A very sad situation imho. How else does it relate to LDS/Mormons? It has to do w/the actions of secret combinations in the last days that Moroni warned us about. Should present day LDS members be concerned about such things? Yes. Why? Because Moroni warned us in Ether 8:24 that the Lord has commanded us to wake up to our awful situation when we become aware of such groups getting above us. I.e., we are commanded to be aware of and be concerned about such things. This new thread has been started to get out the information recently published by UAF, 3 September 2019, about the completion of their engineering study modeling the collapse of WTC 7. What are the conclusions of this study? That the previous conclusions of the NIST report on the collapse of WTC Bldg 7, namely that the collapse was due to sparse office fires, is false, and that the likely cause was the placement of high explosives on all of the main bearing columns of the building. I.e., the official story regarding the collapse of Bldg 7 is false. Does this have implications about the rest of the story. Yes, indeed. Peruse the following information if you are so inclined: Project Summary: A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Project Summary. Located here: http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 PDF of UAF study of the collapse of Bldg 7: http://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf Downloadable Article by Tyler Durden, on zerohedge.com on this news event: Major University Study Finds "Fire Did Not Bring Down Tower 7 On 9/11" at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/major-university-study-finds-fire-did-not-bring-down-tower-7-911 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: Fire Did Not Cause 3rd Tower’s Collapse on 9/11, New Study Finds at: https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7 Progress report, 2017, by Dr. Holsey on his Bldg. 7 study: WTC 7 Did Not Collapse from Fire" - Dr. Leroy Hulsey, UAF, Sept. 6, 2017 at: Corbett Report on this event: This is specifically for mfbukowski , who has wondered why he has never heard of the contrary science of 9/11 . Att
  12. Care to elaborate? I would be interested to learn what you think about Steve Jones' 9/11 science. PM me, if you would . . . not wanting to hijack a memorial thread.
  13. Thanks for checking. Just another loose end. No bigee, but amplified for me when I learned of his physics/math background, in the face of his expressing a jaundiced opinion of Steve Jones in an earlier post . . . which you may remember. Still, RIP. He seemed to be very assiduous in his investigations and deliberations. A trait that always impresses me.
  14. Interesting problem I'd never thought of before. The incense trade was apparently flourishing beginning from about 6,000 years BP. Hard to believe camels weren't being used in that trade for most of this time. They're all over the place and used for food and milk through much of southern Arabia, Oman/Yemen; and are a prime currency of ownership for many of the citizens of these countries. Even more are found in Somalia. What are we talking about for Joseph? 1600 to 1800 yrs BC? My intuitive guess is they've been around and domesticated, a long, long time. Certainly Lehi had them. I don't quite buy the 1200 BC domestication advent.
  • Create New...