Ink Flow Analysis

[Mortal Man]

In regards to the debate concerning the order in which the â??(â?? and â??hâ? were written, are any nonpartisans involved? Are there any neutral experts in this type of analysis who could conduct a blind test?

[William Schryver]

In regards to the debate concerning the order in which the â??(â?? and â??hâ? were written, are any nonpartisans involved? Are there any neutral experts in this type of analysis who could conduct a blind test?

Let me assure you that your opinion on my recent update would be more than welcome.

I assume you have examined the images I posted and been able to consider the analysis I offered. If you find the analysis defective in some way, please feel free to indicate your reasons.

In my estimation, the images speak for themselves. If you have reason to believe "neutral experts" (assuming, of course, there is such a thing) will come to a different conclusion, I am certainly interested in your reasoning. However, in the interest of full disclosure, you should know that there are several "credentialed" individuals who have examined these documents in the past year, and who are prepared to defend their findings in formal academic publications. In rejecting my admittedly "amateur" analysis, you may very well find yourself in the position of explaining why they would put their professional reputations at risk supporting conclusions that you consider unsupportable.

[Tribunal]

A little background please!

[Calm]

See this thread: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=35608

In particular the last post by Will.

[William Schryver]

Bumped so Mortal Man can be reminded of the sincere request for his analysis.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Will,

I seem to have been demoted from punditry for some reason, and a PM to Skylla has been of no avail, so I suppose I'll reply here.

The significance of your analysis seems to me to rest on the question of whether the "ridge" of ink you identified is in fact a "ridge" on the surface of the paper, or whether it is more like the edge of a coffee stain, which is inside the paper and thus cannot be affected by subsequent passes of the quill. Such a thing could probably only be determined by an analysis of the originals documents.

I was also a bit confused by your remarks concerning the darker ink at the apex of the ascender of the "h". Surely you're not suggesting that that is part of the "parenthesis"? The "parenthesis" appears quite clearly to terminate just short of that darker area.

Best,

-Chris

[Mortal Man]

Let me assure you that your opinion on my recent update would be more than welcome.

I assume you have examined the images I posted and been able to consider the analysis I offered. If you find the analysis defective in some way, please feel free to indicate your reasons.

In my estimation, the images speak for themselves. If you have reason to believe "neutral experts" (assuming, of course, there is such a thing) will come to a different conclusion, I am certainly interested in your reasoning. However, in the interest of full disclosure, you should know that there are several "credentialed" individuals who have examined these documents in the past year, and who are prepared to defend their findings in formal academic publications. In rejecting my admittedly "amateur" analysis, you may very well find yourself in the position of explaining why they would put their professional reputations at risk supporting conclusions that you consider unsupportable.

Will,

I have examined the images you posted and considered your analysis. I do not claim to be an expert in this area but I believe that the pooling of ink at the edges is a robust feature of flows through porous media. The cohesive and adhesive properties are such that the ink diffuses more readily through wetted areas than through dry areas. Thus the increased concentration at the boundaries appears to be an accumulation effect; i.e., the result of a slow diffusion process that continued long after the characters were written. I think Chris' coffee stain is a good example. If this is what's going on, then the "(" and "h" would look the way they do regardless of the order in which they were written. I'm not sure that the order can be determined through ink analysis alone; it may require microscopic examination of the nap of the fibers. That would require sending the originals to a lab.

I'm not rejecting your analysis and I don't have a position on this other than wanting to know what actually happened. I appreciate the work you and others have put into this and the information you've thus far presented us with. I'm just hoping that the science can be established before the bickering ensues. I don't know about you but I get the feeling that something's going to hit the fan when this goes public.

MM

[Joseph Antley]

What's the significance?

[William Schryver]

CS:

I seem to have been demoted from punditry for some reason â?¦

Maybe it has something to do with that recent chimp attack?

Iâ??ve heard chimp bigotry is on the rise.

The significance of your analysis seems to me to rest on the question of whether the "ridge" of ink you identified is in fact a "ridge" on the surface of the paper, or whether it is more like the edge of a coffee stain, which is inside the paper and thus cannot be affected by subsequent passes of the quill.

Call it what you will â?? ridge, coffee stain â?? it doesnâ??t really matter. The fact remains that the quill passing over it to write the letter â??hâ? would have left a track. It doesnâ??t. In fact, the â??(â?? leaves a clear track over the â??hâ?, and you can even see the stem of the ascender of the â??hâ? underneath the â??(â??, partially obscured by its path.

Such a thing could probably only be determined by an analysis of the originals documents.

Uh? Donâ??t you understand that that is precisely what has been done? Not just once, but multiple times, the most recent being this past Friday.

I was also a bit confused by your remarks concerning the darker ink at the apex of the ascender of the "h". Surely you're not suggesting that that is part of the "parenthesis"?

Thereâ??s no need for any confusion. Thatâ??s precisely what Iâ??m saying. The dark blob of ink at the top of the â??hâ? was made by the same pen, in the same stroke, as the â??(â??. It is also quite manifestly â??on topâ? of the â??hâ? underneath.

Tell you the truth, Chris, Iâ??m just a little surprised that you, of all people, didnâ??t just come right out and say, â??Yep, youâ??re right. Itâ??s pretty obvious when you see the thing magnified.â? Instead, you seem to be fishing for some alternative explanations. Problem is, in this particular case, there ainâ??t any. It is what it is. Not only can an amateur hack like myself see it (and remember that I proposed this long before anyone had ever even attempted to look at the locus under magnification or any other kind of imaging) but itâ??s nothing less than a no-brainer for anyone with document forensics training and a magnifying glass.

The longer you (and presumably Brent) cast about for straws on this particular locus, the more I think it will reflect poorly on your objectivity. As hard as it may be, I think youâ??re just going to have to swallow this bitter pill and move on to different battles.

.

.

.

Joseph Antley:

What's the significance?

If you haven't followed along over the course of the past three years or so, you'll need to get up to speed. Reading the Abr. 1:12 thread in the Pundit's forum will be a good start.

Mortal Man, I appreciate your reply. I can't respond right now, as I am heading out the door, but I will take a little time later this evening to reply to your seemingly well-considered comments.

(Removed altered image per Chris' wise suggestion)

[Chris Smith]

Will,

By characterizing my reaction as "casting about for straws" you demonstrate only that you are incapable of reading my posts charitably. I am not surprised to see you leaping to unwarranted conclusions about me as you have about so many other things over the course of our discussions, but I am disappointed that we have not made more progress toward sympathetic mutual understanding.

In truth, I find your analysis very intriguing and perhaps even compelling. But of course I (and I suspect also you) know next to nothing about ink flow analysis, and I also cannot tell from the photograph you provided whether the "ridge" is on the surface of the paper or how this locus compares with other examples of overwriting. I simply do not want to leap to a final judgment on the basis of so little information. So I am asking questions about your analysis and making suggestions about how to strengthen it. This has nothing to do with my motives or biases, and everything to do with the rigor that an analysis like this one demands.

The crossbar on the "t" in your image above, I think, illustrates how complex ink flow analysis can be. I think we can probably agree that the crossbar was drawn after the apex, but there is nevertheless a "ridge" of ink that crosses the crossbar. I'm not quite sure how or why this happens, but it may result from a coalescing of ink that has soaked into the paper, sort of like when two droplets of water coalesce to create a single, larger droplet.

Uh? Don’t you understand that that is precisely what has been done? Not just once, but multiple times, the most recent being this past Friday.

I do understand that, but it doesn't do us much good if we don't know what, precisely, the examination of the originals has determined. (And I don't mean what conclusions have been drawn from said analysis. I mean the raw observations that led to those conclusions.)

There’s no need for any confusion. That’s precisely what I’m saying. The dark blob of ink at the top of the “h” was made by the same pen, in the same stroke, as the “(“.

I'm curious to hear why you think so.

Incidentally, I advise against doing things like boosting contrast and applying unsharp masks, even if you indicate that that is what you are doing. The results are not likely to be representative of the original documents.

Best,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

I'm not rejecting your analysis and I don't have a position on this other than wanting to know what actually happened. I appreciate the work you and others have put into this and the information you've thus far presented us with. I'm just hoping that the science can be established before the bickering ensues.

Iâ??m afraid itâ??s far too late for that. Very little â??scienceâ? has been employed in the study of the KEP to date, and yet the â??bickeringâ? has been going on for over forty years.

I don't know about you but I get the feeling that something's going to hit the fan when this goes public.

I canâ??t imagine what you envision. Perhaps you could elaborate for us.

As one convinced of the authenticity and antiquity of the text of the Book of Abraham, and as one who is moderately well-informed concerning the contents of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, I am extremely enthusiastic about their upcoming publication. I think the only things at risk consequent to their publication are several flawed theories, advocated by LDS critics, that will not survive long once the KEP are available for anyone to study.

.

.

.

Chris,

I guess, when it comes right down to it, I can only say that it looks clear to me what weâ??re dealing with here.

Nevertheless, aside from my questionable autodidactic credentials, my opinion really doesnâ??t matter much. While messing with this image in my photo editor, I noticed the factors Iâ??ve cited. I posted the image for others to see, and to make their own judgments of the matter. To me, it seems conclusive. But I am willing to let bona fide experts in document forensics make the scientific case for what appears obvious to my naked eye.

Thanks for your typically irenic replies. I hope all is well with you and yours.

[Chris Smith]

Thanks for your typically irenic replies.

How could you say such a terrible thing about me?? I'm shocked and hurt and dismayed!!

(Just kidding, of course. My best to you as well!)

-Chris

[Mortal Man]

The crossbar on the "t" in your image above, I think, illustrates how complex ink flow analysis can be. I think we can probably agree that the crossbar was drawn after the apex, but there is nevertheless a "ridge" of ink that crosses the crossbar.

A very interesting observation.

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

I have examined the images you posted and considered your analysis. I do not claim to be an expert in this area but I believe that the pooling of ink at the edges is a robust feature of flows through porous media. The cohesive and adhesive properties are such that the ink diffuses more readily through wetted areas than through dry areas. Thus the increased concentration at the boundaries appears to be an accumulation effect; i.e., the result of a slow diffusion process that continued long after the characters were written. I think Chris' coffee stain is a good example. If this is what's going on, then the "(" and "h" would look the way they do regardless of the order in which they were written. I'm not sure that the order can be determined through ink analysis alone; it may require microscopic examination of the nap of the fibers. That would require sending the originals to a lab.

I've had to read this a couple times and give my middle-aged brain a little while to let it coalesce. I think I understand what you're saying, and I will consent that it seems a logical argument. If the ink from the strokes of both letters tends to diffuse and accumulate "long after the characters were written" then I can see that "the '(' and 'h' would look the way they do regardless of the order in which they were written." I don't know enough about the way ferrous inks act in 19th century papers in order to respond to your observation. But I do know some people who are qualified to do just that. It very well could be that this question has been or will be submitted to such experts in order to obtain their opinions on the matter.

Indeed, it's a good thing that this locus has been subjected to other imaging methods and forensic examinations. In fact, the analysis continues as we lengthen out this thread with our posts. So I'm confident that we will yet be able to consider a more authoritative conclusion than I can offer -- notwithstanding my shameless tendency to "bombastic certitude."

When all is said and done, I suppose all we can do is look forward together to the publication of the various findings of those who have been carefully studying these documents for the past three years or so.

[Mortal Man]

Mortal Man:

I've had to read this a couple times and give my middle-aged brain a little while to let it coalesce. I think I understand what you're saying, and I will consent that it seems a logical argument. If the ink from the strokes of both letters tends to diffuse and accumulate "long after the characters were written" then I can see that "the '(' and 'h' would look the way they do regardless of the order in which they were written." I don't know enough about the way ferrous inks act in 19th century papers in order to respond to your observation. But I do know some people who are qualified to do just that. It very well could be that this question has been or will be submitted to such experts in order to obtain their opinions on the matter.

Indeed, it's a good thing that this locus has been subjected to other imaging methods and forensic examinations. In fact, the analysis continues as we lengthen out this thread with our posts. So I'm confident that we will yet be able to consider a more authoritative conclusion than I can offer -- notwithstanding my shameless tendency to "bombastic certitude."

When all is said and done, I suppose all we can do is look forward together to the publication of the various findings of those who have been carefully studying these documents for the past three years or so.

Will,

Can you give us some idea of who will be publishing what and when?

MM

[William Schryver]

Will,

Can you give us some idea of who will be publishing what and when?

MM

I don't think that's my place. What is my place? Well, just consider me one of the many autodidacts who have presumed to speak to this issue, with the obvious exception that I have had some high quality images to view for the past few years.

I have previously said that there will be a critical edition of the KEP forthcoming. I stand by that claim.

cdowis:

William, interersting stuff. Last year I gave a prediction regarding the BOA translation, and it is coming to pass. I believe the current view by apologists of the translation process is going to get blown it away.

Now, for what it is worth, your conclusion regarding the real origin of the BOA is also based on a flawed assumption. I have talked about that several times in the past.

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, Charles. Perhaps you could elaborate again for those of us with fading memories. How do you envision "the real origin of the BoA"? And how would you characterize "the current view by apologists of the translation process," and how do you foresee it being "blown ... away"?

[William Schryver]

Your reply leads me to believe that you havenâ??t understood the import of anything Iâ??ve written in the past 2

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]I think Iâ??ll retreat again into self-imposed silence â?¦ someone promise to shake me by the shoulders when the millennium arrives.

I'll hook you up with a cup of bootlegged Postum when the time comes.

[William Schryver]

I'll hook you up with a cup of bootlegged Postum when the time comes.

Hey, brother, just dump half a jar of Maxwell House instant into a 24oz. mug of hot cocoa, and I'll be ready to rumble.

For now ... I'm feeling pretty old.

I think perhaps I'll fire up The Wall and a skinny bone, and then ponder the pointlessness of my existence for a couple hours.

[William Schryver]

OK, we agree that we are ships passing in the night.

In the midst of an impenetrable Wasatch fog.

Mother, did it need to be so high?

[William Schryver]

Will,

I have examined the images you posted and considered your analysis. I do not claim to be an expert in this area but I believe that the pooling of ink at the edges is a robust feature of flows through porous media. The cohesive and adhesive properties are such that the ink diffuses more readily through wetted areas than through dry areas. Thus the increased concentration at the boundaries appears to be an accumulation effect; i.e., the result of a slow diffusion process that continued long after the characters were written. I think Chris' coffee stain is a good example. If this is what's going on, then the "(" and "h" would look the way they do regardless of the order in which they were written. I'm not sure that the order can be determined through ink analysis alone; it may require microscopic examination of the nap of the fibers. That would require sending the originals to a lab.

I'm not rejecting your analysis and I don't have a position on this other than wanting to know what actually happened. I appreciate the work you and others have put into this and the information you've thus far presented us with. I'm just hoping that the science can be established before the bickering ensues. I don't know about you but I get the feeling that something's going to hit the fan when this goes public.

MM

Perhaps I shouldn't have seemed to grant so much deference to your comments above -- you apparently found nothing in my initial reply to which you desired to provide a counter-argument. Either that or you got bored with the entire discussion.

In any case, after further examination, as well as carefully examining a MS image (Multi-Spectral) of the locus, I have identified contradictions to your theory. Both the MS image (and the magnified image to a less-pronounced extent) exhibit stark distinctions between the stroke of the "(" and the ascender of the "h" in the area of their intersection. There is no discernible evidence of the "diffusion" you suggest as an explanation, except as is seen in the heavier ink flow of the "(". The ascender of the "h" appears consistent and distinct from its length outside the intersection with the "(" through the length visible in the area of intersection. Indeed, it gives the appearance of having been completely dried prior to the "(" being written over it.

Therefore I remain convinced that the "(" was written after the "h" below -- in fact, considering the undisturbed nature of the ascender of the "h" by the heavy ink flow of the "(", there may well have been a considerable period of time that transpired before the phrase "I will refer you to ..." was inserted in the space it occupies.

I will say that the locus is among those things being examined by a highly-respected document forensics expert. I've even specifically requested that he consider the locus in light of the observation Chris makes above concerning the "t" and its crossbar.

I am uncertain as to the time frame required for his analysis, or how it will be reported, and whether or not I will be permitted to cite that report previous to its formal publication, but I will report on his findings if and when I am able.

[Helorum]

although I am an admirer of much of Johnâ??s work over the years, I will say I find his â??mnemonic deviceâ? theory unpersuasive. In fact, I consider it to have been ill-advised to publish such a speculative notion.

I asked John (a few years ago) point blank about how he currently viewed his dated mnemonic theory.

Anybody who wants to utilize that theory for any reason might want to have a chat with him.

He retired from the Maxwell Institute not too long ago but he can probably be contacted through his website.

[William Schryver]

I asked John (a few years ago) point blank about how he currently viewed his dated mnemonic theory.

Anybody who wants to utilize that theory for any reason might want to have a chat with him.

He retired from the Maxwell Institute not too long ago but he can probably be contacted through his website.

Hey, Helorum, how are things? I trust all is well with you and yours. I didn't know you still tainted your reputation by frequenting the message boards.

And what's with you teasing us with this report of your conversation with John, and then not leaving even a hint of his current sentiments vis-a-vis his old "mnemonic device" theory? Come on! At least tell us if he is more or less enthusiastic about it now than he was when he first proposed it.

[e=mc2]

Hey, Helorum, how are things? I trust all is well with you and yours. I didn't know you still tainted your reputation by frequenting the message boards.

And what's with you teasing us with this report of your conversation with John, and then not leaving even a hint of his current sentiments vis-a-vis his old "mnemonic device" theory? Come on! At least tell us if he is more or less enthusiastic about it now than he was when he first proposed it.

I also talked with him, and he says basically it doesn't pan out, unfortunately. The idea was rather cool I thought.

[William Schryver]

I also talked with him, and he says basically it doesn't pan out, unfortunately. The idea was rather cool I thought.

Color me not surprised, and yet my respect for John is augmented by his willingness to abandon a once-cherished theory in the face of additional knowledge. I wonder if our critic friends will be so inclined when the KEP Abraham manuscripts they have touted as "simultaneous transcriptions of an oral dictation" are concluded to be something else? Of course, when that happens, the very motivation for John's theory will disappear as well: the assumption that Joseph Smith considered the Sensen document to be the Egyptian text of his translation of the Book of Abraham. Many things are coming into focus that will militate against that assumption, this discussion concerning the insertion at Abr. 1:12 included.