138 replies to this topic

[helix]

Sitting back as an observer, it's precisely threads like this that make me love this board.  I know there will be a conversation years from now in which someone will remark "If only we had the days when John Gee even made a post here, and numerous critics responded, including Dan Vogel."  I know a lot of emotions get stirred up in such threads.  But for people like me, they are sure fun to watch.  

That being said, I do understand some of John Gee's motivations (he does seem to be the favorite punching bag of critics, and it looks like it finally brought him to the point of responding).  And I also some of the critics reservations of this test (Dan Vogel did a nice job explaining why you don't need to know everything about Egyptology to give relevant opinions on the Book of Abraham).  

That said, I do think there are some important reasons for the questions.  One portion of the BoA debate revolves around whether Joseph Smith translation of the facsimiles are acceptable or just pure bunk.   Another is whether explaining text must be attached immediately adjacent to (or even on the same roll of) the vignette.  Another is whether vignettes can have more than one direct meaning.  Another is whether various types of Egyptian books are even culturally capable of containing something like the Book of Abraham on them.  This is where John Gee can show that his background allows him to better answer these questions than most of us are.

Edited by helix, 07 June 2007 - 12:08 AM.

[Chris Smith]

Chaos, on Jun 6 2007, 11:13 PM, said:

Apologies are more convincing when you aren't continuing the slander on other boards.

1) Accusing someone of telling a lie is not prima facie slander, especially if I back up the claim.
2) I have withdrawn my bald accusation that John Gee told a lie, but I have not withdrawn either my criticisms of his book and article or my conviction that he misrepresented the facts-- intentionally or unintentionally.
3) I have not "continued the slander" on "other boards".  I explained over there to Will Schryver why I "suspect [Gee] of duplicity" (and I do suspect him of duplicity), but I have not declared him a liar there or here since apologizing for that bald accusation.

Quote

He sure has.  You took on Seyffarth and you now get to deal with Seyffarth's translations and standard translations if you want to be taken seriously while you badmouth somebody who can.

I "took on Seyffarth"?  And now I have to deal with "Seyffarth's translations and actual translations"?  You don't seem to understand the nature of the discussion.  I have criticized Gee's work for two reasons: 1) his extrapolation from Seyffarth's statement is desperate and frankly incorrect, and 2) his book presents his conclusion from said extrapolation as if it were self-evident fact.  I only minimally have to deal with "Seyffarth's translations" to know how to respond to Gee's argument, and I certainly don't have to deal with "actual translations" except insofar as they have already been provided by competent scholars.
  

Quote

How convenient since you can't pass the literacy test that would be standard for anyone expecting to be involved in a corner of Egyptology.

I have criticized Gee's history, not his Egyptology.

Quote

Sure you can talk about the BOA without Egyptian but the minute the translation comes up the one who doesn't know the it can only parrot those who do.

Translation hasn't come up, so this is a non-issue, but perhaps you could explain to us why it's a bad thing for us to refer to the translations of scholars like Michael D. Rhodes, Robert K. Ritner, Klaus Baer?  Do you doubt that their translations are competent?  They are certainly more than sufficient for the purposes of evaluating a statement by Gustavus Seyffarth that has little to do with issues of translation.

-CK

[charity]

CaliforniaKid, on Jun 7 2007, 12:42 AM, said:

I have not "continued the slander" on "other boards".  I explained over there to Will Schryver why I "suspect [Gee] of duplicity" (and I do suspect him of duplicity), but I have not declared him a liar there or here since apologizing for that bald accusation.
-CK

It looks to me like you are continuing the slander here, ck.  Duplicity.  Do you understand what the word means?

I am offended on Dr. Gee's part.  If you cannot deal with ideas without slandering people you should move on to something else.

[Dan Vogel]

calmoriah, on Jun 6 2007, 09:06 PM, said:

What exactly do you mean by a "one-of-a-kind" document here?

While there are many examples of Books of Breathings, the Book of Abraham is one of a kind. So, to avoid the fallacy of possible proof, how does one argue that the BOA was probably in the missing portions of the JS papyri?

[Sentinus]

While to me it all seems pretty cut and dry, I NEVER claim expertise. Mr Gee, And DCP were mentioned in a post I read on another board. And it seemed to me that at least on the surface their argument is valid, and relevant to the topics in this thread. I would like to hear, Mr. Gee's (Or DCP's) response to some of these very specific questions/concerns/facts. Please if you choose to respond, keep the points to the facts. I really only want to hear WHY they are wrong or right. I am not interested in hearing how poor their scholarship is, let your answer do the talking. If you do not have time or are unable to answer these concern's I will understand.

Regards,
Sentinus

Most LDS Apologists of the Book of Abraham believe, maintain, and proclaim that the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text) is Not the source from which the Book of Abraham. Hugh Nibley maintained and proclaimed this. John Gee maintains and proclaims this. And of course, Even the 'Chief' LDS Apologist Daniel C. Peterson maintains and proclaims this.

Here is what Daniel C. Peterson wrote in the January 1994 Ensign:
"Critics have long attempted to make a case against the book of Abraham. They argue that some ancient texts do not support the book. They point to the fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri that we now possess and claim that since the contents of these papyri bear little obvious relationship to the book of Abraham, the book is a fraud; but Hugh Nibley has made an exhaustive study of these claims and has shown that the papyri we now have were probably not the ones from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham." http://library.lds.o...xt/gateway.dl...
Despite Daniel C. Peterson, wanting the readers of the Ensign to not believe that the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text) is not the source for the Book of Abraham (by providing a footnote to some of Hugh Nibley BofA Apologetics, which had a lot of it already been refuted before the year of 1994 (1)), the evidence is very overwhelming that the Book of Breathings text is indeed the source for the Book of Abraham.

Here is what Kevin Graham wrote and quoted from Brent Metcalfe on the â??FAIR"/MA&D Message Board many, many months ago there:
We also get all these wild excuses as to how the Breathings text couldn`t have possibily been the source for the BoA translation, but not one single LDS apologetic even acknolwedges the many reasons to believe it was. Here is a list provided by Metcalfe:
Facsimile 1 is the opening vignette in the Breathing Permit of H�??�?´r.
Facsimile 3 is the closing vignette in the Breathing Permit of H�??�?´r. (The H�??�?´r papyrus fragment for Fac. 3 is not extant. Still, the Fac. 3 woodcut preserves the identity of the deceased�?¢â?¬â?H�??�?´r�?¢â?¬â?confirming that it too belongs to H�??�?´r's Breathing Permit.)
The BoAbr identifies Facsimile 1 (the opening vignette in H�??�?´r's Breathing Permit) as an illustration placed at the "commencement" (Abr. 1:12) or "beginning" (Abr. 1:14) of patriarch Abraham's record.
Vignette Facsimile 3 (from the Breathing Permit of H�??�?´r), according to Smith, also illustrates scenes from Abraham's life.
In keeping with the BoAbr claim that Facsimile 1 opened the record, all extant dictated BoAbr manuscripts (MS 1a [fldr. 2], MS 1b [fldr. 3], and MS 2 [fldr. 1]) contain authentic hieratic copied sequentially from the contiguous portion of the Breathing Permit of H�??�?´r only. (There are two minor exceptions to sequence, but those characters too originate from H�??�?´r's Breathing Permit. Invented, non-authentic Egyptian characters also appear on the manuscripts at points where the papyrus fragment has a lacuna.)
All authentic Egyptian characters in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts and the bound Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language were copied from the Breathing Permit of H�??�?´r.
Aside from hypocephalus Facsimile 2 (the original of which is no longer extant), H�??�?´r's Breathing Permit is the only papyrus that is associated with Joseph Smith's BoAbr�?¢â?¬â?an association that is attested to repeatedly in the BoAbr text and its antecedent manuscripts.
Point #5 is the true kicker, and to explain exactly how this worked, here is a photo of a KEP manuscript to the right.
(The Bold Emphasis is Mine here; It is Kevin quoting from Brent.)

Well Anyways then, despite what Daniel C. Peterson and John Gee believing and Maintaining, and them wanting a lot of people to believe that the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text) is Not the source for the Book of Abraham, The evidence is indeed very, very Overwhelming that the Book of Breathings text is indeed the very source for the Book of Abraham.

Please See for example: 'Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study' by Edward H. Ashment. http://www.xmission....~research/cen...

[LifeOnaPlate]

CaliforniaKid, on Jun 6 2007, 09:47 PM, said:

I do not challenge Gee's competence.  I challenge his conclusions and the way he presents them.  His book presents itself as a guide to basic information about the papyri, but it proceeds to state matters of opinion as if they were matters of fact.  It also omits or glazes over important pieces of information.  No indication is given that certain important claims made in the book are hotly contested by people on both sides of the faith-commitment fence.  I have identified a number of specific problems with the book during my posting history on this forum, so please don't tell me to "put up or shut up" (as one poster did earlier in the thread); I have most certainly "put up."  

I have already apologized for asserting that Gee "lied".  That statement was inappropriate.  However, I do think that my specific criticisms of Gee's book should either be answered or conceded; I don't see the bearing of the present "Challenge To Critics" on the validity of my criticisms.

As for my own credentials, I have a bachelor's degree in Biblical studies and am enrolled in a Christian History MA program.  I have read a lot on Mormon history and the Mormon scriptures, including a large quantity of material about the Book of Abraham.  I have studied photocopies of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers extensively on my own.  I am well-versed in the basics of historical methodology.  I have checked quite a few of John Gee's facts and footnotes, and have done a little browsing in books on Egyptian texts, religion and history.  I own Michael Rhodes' critical edition of the papyri and am familiar with its contents, and also have copies of all the other translations that have been made of the Book of Breathings.  I have demonstrated my grasp of the issues I've commented on, I think, on this and other forums.  So Gee hasn't called any "bluff" of mine.

I don't intend to take up Dr. Gee's challenge.  This is a transparent attempt to silence critics by holding them to outrageous standards defined by his own areas of interest and expertise (despite their irrelevance to the issue at hand).  In other words, he's making a power play: attempting to set himself up as the sole authoritative interpreter of what the historical record has to say about the Joseph Smith Papyri.  I will not be subjugated by Gee's Alabama literacy test.

-CK

You list a lot of credentials, none of which seem to make you any sort of expert on egyptology, which, I believe, is the crux of Gee's dispute; that non-experts are acting as experts; and falsely-so.

Edited by LifeOnaPlate, 07 June 2007 - 07:18 AM.

[Chaos]

DUPLICITY  1 : contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action.

Thesaurus Entry Word: duplicity
Function: noun
Text: the inclination or practice of misleading others through lies or trickery <we were lucky not to be taken in by his duplicity> -- see DECEIT

It is a jaw dropper that you can put it in print that calling somebody duplicitious isn't calling them a liar CK.  

Quote

I "took on Seyffarth"? And now I have to deal with "Seyffarth's translations and actual translations"? You don't seem to understand the nature of the discussion. I have criticized Gee's work for two reasons: 1) his extrapolation from Seyffarth's statement is desperate and frankly incorrect, and 2) his book presents his conclusion from said extrapolation as if it were self-evident fact. I only minimally have to deal with "Seyffarth's translations" to know how to respond to Gee's argument, and I certainly don't have to deal with "actual translations" except insofar as they have already been provided by competent scholars.

You don't understand the nature of this board.  I'll explain it one more time for you.  You have taken it upon yourself to judge an experts competence when all you can do (by your own admission) is parrot other people.   You think you are qualified to judge an expert's evaluation of Seyffarth when you admit that you are only using somebody else's words and you admit you have to use translations provided by 'competent scholars' which means you have no way of knowing anything for yourself, your only criteria is putting competent in front of what you use and liar in front of what you don't use.   How convenient and how easy and how arrogant and how outrageous.   It isn't going to happen on this board anymore and anybody who thinks they can continue to use gutter tactics against Mormons on a Mormon board is going to get a wake up call.  You have been given an opportunity to deal with the 'incompetent, duplicitious, desparate' Dr. Gee head on and you have refused it!  'Nuff said, keep the gutter tactics on boards where name calling is considered a fine and dandy substitute for knowledge.

[Dan Vogel]

Sentinus, on Jun 7 2007, 06:39 AM, said:

While to me it all seems pretty cut and dry, I NEVER claim expertise. Mr Gee, And DCP were mentioned in a post I read on another board. And it seemed to me that at least on the surface their argument is valid, and relevant to the topics in this thread. I would like to hear, Mr. Gee's (Or DCP's) response to some of these very specific questions/concerns/facts. Please if you choose to respond, keep the points to the facts. I really only want to hear WHY they are wrong or right. I am not interested in hearing how poor their scholarship is, let your answer do the talking. If you do not have time or are unable to answer these concern's I will understand.

Regards,
Sentinus

I agree! There is no harm in incorrectly assuming your opponent is sincere.

[jimmyspa]

Chaos, on Jun 6 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

Dear Moderators,

All persons should submit a statement truthfully stating that
their submission is their own work. I will evaluate the results and send to the moderators, the pseudonym and the test results in the form of a score. My answers coincide with the standard published
Egyptological versions of these texts and images, so I am not introducing anything that is idiosyncratic.
[/color]

  

With all due respect for Prof. Gee, I don�?´t think that in order to
decide whether some of the claims made in the BoA taken at face
value are acceptable or not you must pass a test in egyptology or
ancient Egyptian philology at the pleasure of that scholar.

If a person uses a picture taken from a 16th century European
book on witchcraft and writes that it is rather part of an ancient
Chinese manuscript or a WWII propaganda poster and writes
that it is rather an American Civil War poster, I don�?´t have to
be an expert on any of those historical subjects and just have
a good general cultural background to decide that such claims
are nonsense.

Such an attitude by Prof. Gee looks more like an attempt to
silence critics imposing very difficult requirements to enable
a dialogue,  but in view of the dismissal (privately because
most scholars don�?´t want to get involved in religious controversies)
by most professional egyptologists of fundamentalist LDS claims
of the accuracy of JS comments on the facsimiles in the BoA, this
demand of expertise is superfluous and unnecessary.

I agree that people who don�?´t accept the traditional views on
JS writings in the BoA about such facsimiles should avoid
using derogatory terms for the LDS scholars who still accept
such views, but on the other hand, I think that LDS scholars
who take that position are like ostriches that stick their heads
in the sand and ignore facts obvious to almost everyone else,
thus bringing discredit for the LDS church instead of accepting
that JS could have very well been inspired directly by God what  
he wrote under those facsimiles, even if it had little to do with
the true egyptological meaning of such scenes.

Tactics like this one or others such as seeking mentions of
the name Abraham in late magical papyri and try to pass that
as confirmation of the presence of the biblical Abraham in
such documents, hiding the true nature of such mentions of
many exotic names and words and the magic nature of the
documents, is IMHO misleading and cheap and unworthy
of BYU scholars who should instead be setting world standards
for intellectual honesty and scholarly accuracy.

Sincerely,

Jimmy

[Tarski]

LifeOnaPlate, on Jun 7 2007, 07:18 AM, said:

You list a lot of credentials, none of which seem to make you any sort of expert on egyptology, which, I believe, is the crux of Gee's dispute; that non-experts are acting as experts; and falsely-so.

Then the audience for the book is only those that can pass the challenge? Are we not competent to check foot notes, historical assertions and cases where opposing expert opinion is maybe inappropriately left out of the presentation.

Lets turn the tables with a hypothetical and see what you think.

Suppose that I am an academic that is also a faculty at Maharishi University. Suppose that I have some physical arguments to show that the mystical field theory promoted by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi  might have something to it and so maybe his disciples really can levitate etc.

I write a book about it but I don't make most of my claims too controversial but some parts are very controversial.

Now suppose you read my book and find that is seems that my theories rely on some ideas about the nature of gravity that have been claimed debunked by Steven Hawking and other but I don't mention this. You also notice that some of my sources don't seem to say what I claim.

Not suppose that you ask me about in some forum and to your surprise my reaction is to ask what your credentials are and then throw out the equations below and demand that you interpret their significance and translate them into classical tensor notation.

Am I being a bully?
Maybe I actually was remiss in not mentioning that my theory goes against standards physics. Maybe my bad references really were suspicious. In any case, should I not just respond to the questions in a way suitable to my audience?

Edited by Tarski, 07 June 2007 - 09:42 AM.

[Dan Vogel]

LifeOnaPlate, on Jun 7 2007, 07:18 AM, said:

You list a lot of credentials, none of which seem to make you any sort of expert on egyptology, which, I believe, is the crux of Gee's dispute; that non-experts are acting as experts; and falsely-so.

Would you apply this criticism to apologists, like Kerry Shirts and Mike Ash, who defend the BOA?

[JNclone]

I have been following this and related posts for some time.  I suggest we should not distract ourselves from the substantive issues about the text called the 'Book of Abraham' by:

(a) Calling people liars (for which I believe CK has apologized already - if not he certainly should)

(b) Imposing linguistic tests which do not seem to be relevant to the great majority of issues about the 'Book of Abraham' raised on this board.


A substantive point by CaliforniaKid seems to be set out in this part of an earlier post by him, which also refers to a fairly measured and detailed statement of his position elsewhere:

Quote

... But there is no such phrase at the end of the preserved fragment. Gee's statement is merely an extrapolation from a statement by Gustavus Seyffarth. Seyffarth noted that the papyrus in the St. Louis Museum was "not a record, but an invocation to the Deity Osirus, in which occurs the name of the person, (Horus,) and a picture of the attendant spirits, introducting the dead to the judge, Osirus." Gee argues that since Seyffarth elsewhere translated "the beginning of the book of" as "the book of hymns"-- and since he calls the present roll an "invocation"-- the fragment in the museum must have had the phrase "the beginning of the book of" on it. This is obviously an unwarranted conclusion.

Sometime back I wrote the following summary of why the missing papyrus theory doesn't really get off the ground:

http://www.mormonapo...mp;p=1208098112

Does John Gee not intend to defend the proposition that "the fragment in the museum must have had the phrase "the beginning of the book of" on it."?   CK's argument against that point is one that seems prima facie cogent, and it does not appear to depend for its evaluation on its reader possessing expertise in  translating ancient Egyptian.

[LifeOnaPlate]

jimmyspa, on Jun 7 2007, 10:23 AM, said:

With all due respect for Prof. Gee, I don�?´t think that in order to
decide whether some of the claims made in the BoA taken at face
value are acceptable or not you must pass a test in egyptology or
ancient Egyptian philology at the pleasure of that scholar....

Such an attitude by Prof. Gee looks more like an attempt to
silence critics imposing very difficult requirements to enable
a dialogue,  but in view of the dismissal (privately because
most scholars don�?´t want to get involved in religious controversies)
by most professional egyptologists of fundamentalist LDS claims
of the accuracy of JS comments on the facsimiles in the BoA, this
demand of expertise is superfluous and unnecessary.

...Tactics like this one or others such as seeking mentions of
the name Abraham in late magical papyri and try to pass that
as confirmation of the presence of the biblical Abraham in
such documents, hiding the true nature of such mentions of
many exotic names and words and the magic nature of the
documents, is IMHO misleading and cheap and unworthy
of BYU scholars who should instead be setting world standards
for intellectual honesty and scholarly accuracy.

Sincerely,

Jimmy

And further:

Dan Vogel, on Jun 7 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

Would you apply this criticism to apologists, like Kerry Shirts and Mike Ash, who defend the BOA?

First, to Dan Vogel, I haven't read any of Shirts' or Ash's works, so I can't answer the question.
I do get the feeling that I failed to fully express my point, as several responses to me missed my point. To clarify; Dr. Gee has been questioned in his attempts, intent, scholarly credibility [ie, indirect comparisons to osterich heads in the sadn, etc.] and his works content. His personal theories on WHERE the text in the POGP include, but are not limited to, textual examination. However, critics of the translation have been quick to point out that the sections in the POGP which smith said he translated from papyrus don't match what current Egyptologists interpret the fragments assert they contain. Unless I'm wrong, and I could be, Dr. Gee is addressing the arguments related to actual translation and knowledge of the Egypt language and translation of it. He is not addressing other arguments for or against the POGP selections which rely on the menthods of translation, etc. It seems a very small "red herring" is being brought into the picture. Dr. Gee is pointing to the actual Egyptian documents and asking if any of the critics who use this information as evidence are basing their arguments on their own understanding, or the understanding of other scholars.

[Chris Smith]

Chaos, on Jun 7 2007, 08:37 AM, said:

DUPLICITY  1 : contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action.

Thesaurus Entry Word: duplicity
Function: noun
Text: the inclination or practice of misleading others through lies or trickery <we were lucky not to be taken in by his duplicity> -- see DECEIT

It is a jaw dropper that you can put it in print that calling somebody duplicitious isn't calling them a liar CK.

I am not calling Gee duplicitous.  I am saying I still suspect him of duplicity.  That is altogether my right as a free-thinking being.  Nor is it my intent to continue broadcasting my suspicion, but other people keep bringing it up.
  

Quote

You have taken it upon yourself to judge an experts competence when all you can do (by your own admission) is parrot other people.

I have not questioned Gee's competence.  In fact, I explicitly affirmed it.

Quote

you admit you have to use translations provided by 'competent scholars' which means you have no way of knowing anything for yourself,

Gee, Nibley, Rhodes, Baer, and Ritner all essentially agree on the translation of the BoB (with minor but irrelevant exceptions).  If they are wrong, then getting an education in hieratic writing is not going to help me "know for myself," as I would be relying on the same education system and the same authorities they all relied on in producing their translations.  In any case, one can only be an expert on so many things; other things one has to take on faith.

Quote

your only criteria is putting competent in front of what you use and liar in front of what you don't use.

Quite to the contrary, I have provided explicit and lengthy rationales for all the aspects of Gee's work I have problems with, and none of those problems have been addressed.

Quote

How convenient and how easy and how arrogant and how outrageous.   It isn't going to happen on this board anymore and anybody who thinks they can continue to use gutter tactics against Mormons on a Mormon board is going to get a wake up call.  You have been given an opportunity to deal with the 'incompetent, duplicitious, desparate' Dr. Gee head on and you have refused it!  'Nuff said, keep the gutter tactics on boards where name calling is considered a fine and dandy substitute for knowledge.

I clearly am not the only person on this board who thinks that Dr. Gee's challenge is a poor substitute for "dealing with Dr. Gee head on".  No offense, but perhaps you should take stock of your moderatorial detachment.  People here disagree with "experts" on a daily basis.  Are you going to start requiring that posters be credentialed in evolutionary biology before they can claim to believe in intelligent design?  I have at least provided straightforward reasons for why I believe what I believe.  Is it really a rule of this board that I must back those reasons up with a P.hD in the field under discussion?

-CK

Edited by CaliforniaKid, 07 June 2007 - 10:42 AM.

[structurecop]

Why are all these new people coming out of the woodwork for this thread?

[LifeOnaPlate]

structurecop, on Jun 7 2007, 11:41 AM, said:

Why are all these new people coming out of the woodwork for this thread?

My guess is, a somewhat direct response/challenge from Dr. Gee has increased interest.
As for myself, I've been lurking for a few months, and recently started posting.

[Alf O'Mega]

Dr. Gee's challenge here reminds me of God's grand non sequitur in response to Job's plea of innocence.  Job knows that he is righteous and deserves none of the affliction that comes upon him, so he demands a justification (several of which his "friends" helpfully suggest).  When God finally responds in person, he pointedly avoids answering the question.  Instead, he invokes his own magnificence and power and cows Job into submission.  Job's solution is to renounce questioning this bullying God at all, which seems to have been just the response God was looking for.

Bad critic, CaliforniaKid!  Down, boy!

Edited by Alf O'Mega, 07 June 2007 - 11:17 AM.

[cksalmon]

I missed this the first time through, but upon re-reading Gee's challenge I was struck by the fact that he never hints that he would actually be willing to address criticisms of his writings raised by critics in this forum--even if someone did pass his test. So, what, in fact, really is the point of the challenge?

It appears to be an attempt to silence criticisms, rather than respond to them.

CKS

[Chaos]

Alf O'Mega, on Jun 7 2007, 01:17 PM, said:

Bad critic, CaliforniaKid!  Down, boy!

It looks like to me that this is the level of response we will have to be satisfied with when those who rely on badmouthing instead of demonstrating their knowledge can't put out what they demand from others. It is unfortunate that posters with no background in what they are criticizing resort to this instead of facing the problems with their approach with the same honesty they claim is lacking in others.  Claiming that a critic doesn't need to know what an Egytologist knows to determine if that Egyptologist is lying or interpreting obscure translations correctly is laughable and pathetic.  I don't know how to say what needs to be said about what we have seen nicely and we have been given no reason to try to.  Dr. Gee has been a poster here and the scoffers will talk about what he says instead of throwing out schoolyard taunts when they are in our house.  Critics can use all the phoney baloney justifications they can muster but the challenge stands unanswered and that tells us what we need to know.

[Zeta-Flux]

CaliforniaKid,

While it is "altogether [your] right as a free-thinking being" to suspect someone of duplicity, the minute you have expressed that thought to others you are engaging in something altogether different.  The difference between calling someone a liar and thinking they might be lying is clear.  The difference between calling someong a liar or calling someone a person you think is probably a liar, are not so far apart.