Viable Nephite colonies

[notHagoth7]

:::duplicate post:::

[notHagoth7]

Not sure whether your post was tongue-in-cheek or not, but just for fun either way:

NotHagoth7 is it possble to get back on track with this thread?

What part about looking in the mirror for elves and Nephites isn't on track?

Jeff_Ricks and freethinker seem to have derailed it.

I actually like freethinker's contribution. It has led to some worthwhile discussion.

And I can understand why Jeff doesn't want to address the evidence (because it's a bit too undercooked for his tastes this early in the game).

But I'm actually beginning to find his input here quite pertinent.

How about back to Nephites in Europe?

OK. How about direct evidence for Hagoth in Europe?

I'm working on a thing or two for another thread right now, and have a few other commitments tonight, but my next contribution in this thread will likely be on that evidence/topic. Probably sometime tomorrow or Sunday.

Some of you may have already gotten to it in your readings, so no rush.

Tenna' san'

[notHagoth7]

For Stout's argument to hold sway, we start with 50% probability. But there are added requirements: the Detroit manuscript actually contained these characters (we can guess, but not know, since it's missing). Call that a 50% chance. And then Joseph's uncle must have had access, another 50% probability. And finally, Joseph must have had access: 50% chance. That totals to 6.25%, or 1 in 16 chance.

...The debate isn't over, of course. But I'm putting my money on Stout.

--Gary@rics

Let's see how strongly you really believe in your proposed heuristic. How sturdy you think it really is.

Your wife works in a nice office. One day she comes back to work after lunch to find a beautiful bouquet of roses on her desk. No note. Nobody will say a thing about how they got there.

Although the guy sitting in the desk next to hers smiles knowingly.

He's somewhat handsome. And has always been nice to her. In the past, he has spoken up in department meetings with views that almost always corroborate and defend hers.

Worse yet, you and your wife had a tiff recently, so she's looking for validation of some sort.

So she starts to examine two possibilities:

1) His knowing smile is a hint that he sent the flowers as a secret admirer.

OR

2) You sent the flowers as an initial apology.

So she comes up with a heuristic.

She's going to apply a 50% probability for the origin of the flowers to inform her conclusion, and how she responds.

The simplest answer is that her coworker simply pulled the flowers out of his desk drawer, placed them on her desk, and sat back down. He's closest in proximity to her. And that would also explain why no one else could remember seeing anyone bring the flowers during lunch. She applies a 50% probability to that explanation for the flowers' origins.

Then, she examines the plausibility of the roses being due to your kindness. Assuring herself that she's being fair, she figures there's a 50% chance you felt bad about the tiff. And a 50% chance you decided to do something about it. And a 50% chance that flowers were your solution of choice. And a 50% chance that today was the day you sent them. And using your model, she does the math and sees that there's only a 6.25% chance that you sent those flowers. Which is fine, 'cause she's mad at you anyway.

Please excuse me for utilizing an emotionally-charged, high-risk scenario to make my point.

But are you sure you want to stand behind your logical construct?

Because it's unfortunately very poor logic.

You get an email that afternoon that it's over.

Of course it would have all been resolved if she had simply asked you if you had sent it.

Which is actually the central point.

[notHagoth7]

Then why base an entire logical construct on a total arbitrary metric?

If it's inaccurate, it compounds error, upon error, upon error. And skews your "findings" exponentially.

Are sure your construct itself isn't the result of a false heuristic?

And that it compounds the representative heuristic you intended to warn us about?

Gary,

Based on its sequel, was the post I've cited here a fair and reasonable response to your assertion?

Your model is the very thing you warned us against. Is it not?

[notHagoth7]

[notHagoth7]

It would depend on the similarities and whether or not any other explanation could account for the existence of those people. Its one of those things where proving the BofM might not be false used to be enough to keep believing to now needing very convincing evidence to even consider it isn't a fabrication.

Hi Step,

Are you still with us?

[Gary@rics]

Gary,

Based on its sequel, was the post above a fair and reasonable response to your assertion?

Your model is the very thing you warned us against. Is it not?

No and no. But you did hit on a related point: if she had just asked me (e.g., sought direct data) the misunderstanding could have been avoided. That need for corroborating data is critical here. Comparing the data presented by Stout and the data you have presented, I would say that while your conviction remains high, the more rigorous and concise data are with Stout.

By the way, the representativeness heuristic (a source of error in making judgments) is a genuine decision-making phenomenon. It is not something unique to people considering religious issues. I don't believe it would differentially affect believing Mormons versus doubters. I think it is relevant here. You might not. I just thought it added an interesting way of reconsidering the questions presented here.

In my earlier post I mentioned the arbitariness of the probability because it was only way I could think of to illustrate how improbability accumulates with additional links, while our intuition is to have increasing confidence. An example I recall from my college days: there is a slender, short American man who wears glasses and enjoys poetry. Is he more likely to be (1) a professor of classical literature at an Ivy League school or (2) a truck driver? The immediate impulse is to choose the Ivy League professor: all the characteristics fit the stereotype. But then we bring in the baserates and odds, in this case not totally arbitrary. How many Ivy League schools are there? Let's say 20. Of those 20, how many male professors of classical literature are there? Maybe there are 10 per school. How many are slender? Half, so we're down to a pool of about 100 people. How many are short? We cut the pool to 50. How many wear glasses? I'd guess 75% of them, so we have a remaining pool of 40. Now how many male truck drivers are there in America? We can make a rough guess: how about 250,000? Of those, if half are short, half are slender, and 75% wear glasses, giving us a pool of about 47,000. The odds are hugely in favor of the truck driver, even though most people are drawn to the Ivy League professor.

A good point you make is that the calculations are heavily dependent on assumptions and judgment about when to include a probability estimate. One can always disingenuously argue against the disfavored hypothesis by merely adding additional required links.

Out of curiosity, I have three questions for all participants (or viewers) on this thread. #1: Considering only the evidence presented by Stout and NotHaggoth7, which hypothesis--Stout's or NotHaggoth7's--do you personally think is better supported by the data?

#2: If you presented the case for each hypothesis to a bright and open minded person with no strong feelings favoring or opposing LDS theology, which hypothesis would win?

#3: Of the two explanations for similarities between the Anthon characters and Tironian script, which seems more fanciful?

I know this won't surprise anyone, but my votes are Stout, Stout, and NotHagoth7.

This is horribly presumptuous of me, but I want to predict NotHagoth7's votes. NotHagoth, I think you would vote for yourself, Stout, and yourself. (I'm curious if I'm reading you right.)

Gary@rics

[notHagoth7]

This thread originated in your at first quite intriguing posts - in the other thread - suggestive of an Irish connection to the Nephites , alongside a mention in the discussion of Joseph Smith's own Irish ancestry.

I too am waiting for this. I'm a university student currently doing Scottish History at a Scottish University, and conducting research into the precise identity of Joseph Smith's Scottish ancestor John Mack, but what you originally said sounds equally interesting.

I've been sitting here following this discussion very happy to pull up a chair and reason with you - and to "engage with the evidence". But so far this whole thread you've started seems to be based on a falsely held out promise of an interesting theory backed up by evidence it would be worth examining and discussing, when in fact there is not only no evidence, there appears not even to be a viable theory.

If you've actually got a theory and some evidence related to Ireland, Joseph Smith and the Nephites please present it. Otherwise, with all due respect, I don't need your guidance for the kind of meandering yet hollow thought experiment this tangent appears to have turned into.

Bam,

Are you still here?

How are we doing so far?

Are you getting what you came for?

[notHagoth7]

Comparing the data presented by Stout and the data you have presented, I would say that while your conviction remains high, the more rigorous and concise data are with Stout.

It's not rigorous at all. It can't emerge from rational scrutiny with its apparent potency intact.

Let me demonstrate

Stout has roughly five main data points.

A) Joseph's Uncle

B ) His former business associate

C) Joseph

D) An Irish manuscript

E) The Book of Mormon

Assertion 1) The link between A and B is extremely tenuous.

To demonstrate that, of the hundreds of people you've probably worked with in your career, outside of enabling technologies they didn't have (fx. facebook and phone calls) how many have you kept in touch with years after parting company? What's the percentage? 1%?

Assertion 2) The link between A and D is unlikely

To illustrate that, how many former business associates have ever left something physical at your house for you to keep ::: and here's the clincher::: years after you parted company? 2%? 1%? Less?

Assertion 3) The link between B and C is quite tenuous.

To demonstrate that, how many times in the last twenty years has any of your aunts or uncles told you about anything about what a former business associate did :::and here's the clincher::: when the event described occurred at some point after that business relationship ended. Once? Never?

Assertion 4) The link between D and C is tenuous.

To demonstrate that, how many times has an uncle or aunt ever given you something that a former business associate gave them?

Assertion 5) The appearance of a correlation between D and E is expected whether the correlation is actual or merely appears to be actual.

Because Stout has thousands of Tironian snippets to draw from, multiplied by scores of different handwriting styles, from a consciously selected subset of Anthon characters, what would be surprising is if he could NOT find apparent overlaps between two cursive scripts.

In other words, it's like multiplying a number by 1. Since such a comparison almost guarantees a match, it doesn't add a level of certainty to the analysis of whether the correlation is coincidental or not. It merely tells you if there is a correlation.

So on the surface, his argument seems pretty damning.

But take a closer look at each of the assumptions built into his argument, and it's beyond improbable.

Use your previous heuristic to do the math on that one, and let us know what number you come up with.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Now you are the one making claims that I say are false. The burden of proof lies with you but do it in another thread.

ERayR, here's what I said in a recent post, to which you responded above with a demand to meet burden of proof:

"Wade, there are plenty of claims that Mormonism has made and now makes that can be demonstrated are factually false, and others they make that can be demonstrated have a high probability are false. So why then does Mormonism get a bye on the requirement to be ethical when they represent those demonstrably false claims as true?"

Below I think I meet my "burden of proof."

There are lots of examples where Mormonism misrepresents the facts to the public. The first one that comes to mind is the way the Church misrepresents Smiths's method of producing the Book of Mormon. On the Church's website there are at least four or five different paintings showing Smith poring over the gold plates line by line, while he or someone else writes down what he dictates, as if he's acting as a translator. But the church admits, when pressed, that Smith's actual method of producing the Book of Mormon was looking at a rock in a hat. Hmmmm....so the church has on its site at least four paintings that misrepresent Smith as a translator, while they don't have a single painting that I can find that shows him doing it by looking at a rock in a hat.

This is not a minor oversight. Church leaders have said that the Book of Mormon is the foundation of the Church, and the Church will admit that the book was produced by looking at a rock in a hat. Therefore, if the Church were more honest about its origins, that rock would be a centerpiece of the Church's story to the public. Instead, it continues to knowingly misrepresent Smith as a translator.

Let's summarize: The Church knowingly misrepresents its 'product' to the public, as we speak, and it takes in massive sums of money that's aided, in part, by that misrepresentation (I'm sure the Church's conversion rate, and therefore income stream, would reduce if the dorky rock-in-hat method were more honestly represented). In the real world, that's a serious matter. It's an ongoing willful misrepresentation that, by normal standards is unethical and immoral, and is a matter that, in there real world, possibly merits prison time, yet the Church gets a bye on that kind of dishonest, unethical, immoral behavior. Why?........ "Truth Restored"?? I think not. It's more like, "Truth Distorted."

[notHagoth7]

A Glimpse of Hagoth

We've examined Lombard (Gambara) and Anglo-Danish (Shield) origin accounts.

All three of them attest to their arrival via boat.

The Saxon origin account tells a similar story.

It tells of their initial arrival on the coast of Europe.

However their leader has a name approximating Hadugoth.

(There is no standard spelling for his name,

since it's spelled differently in various manuscript accounts,

and so few historians are familiar with the chronicle.)

Keep in mind, however, that Clovis was spelled Chlodovich.

So the middle consonant appears to be optional.

If the Clovis example applies, Hadugoth would be pronounced more along the lines of Hagot or Hagoth.

This may be 'Aggo, one of the migration leaders mentioned in the Lombard accounts.

Although I have reason to believe he is the Nephite Hagoth, I will refer to the Saxon leader as Hadgoth.

Basically, a Lombard and a Saxon and a Dane had overlapping ancestry.

So their origin accounts may simply be providing us different perspectives on the same cultural event.

Aggo's arrival, and Hadgoth's arrival and Shield's arrival could very well be a prism.

The refraction of history showing us three different viewpoints.

For we can trace the proto-Lombards to the coast of Europe in 56 BC via Caesar's account.

And we can place Shield on the coast of Europe also in the 1st century BC, via Icelandic accounts.

The Saxon chronicle tells Hadgoth's arrival by boat. Of the natives' decision to kill and drive the newcomers out.

And of the newcomers learning about the pending ambush a day in advance.

The newcomers were already starving, winter was approaching, and if driven out, they would likely die.

So Hadgoth assembled the people, donned his war gear, grabbed their standard, and told them to stand and fight out of respect for their heritage - promising them victory if they followed him.

He outlined his strategy, and they agreed to fight instead of flee. They approached the enemy's stronghold,

let themselves down over the walls of the enemy's fortification by night,

and earned their victory without a single one of their own men being slain.

It is a striking parallel to the Moroni/Teancum strategy.

And not losing a single man is an echo out of the Ammonite narrative.

By way of comparison, the Nephite Hagoth left Nephite shores shortly after Teancum's last wall-climbing escapade.

Such a strategy would have been "current events", common knowledge, for those aboard Hagoth's ships.

So in the seafaring, wall-scaling Hadgoth, I believe we have a glimpse of the Nephite Hagoth.

[thews]

ERayR, here's what I said in a recent post, to which you responded above with a demand to meet burden of proof:

"Wade, there are plenty of claims that Mormonism has made and now makes that can be demonstrated are factually false, and others they make that can be demonstrated have a high probability are false. So why then does Mormonism get a bye on the requirement to be ethical when they represent those demonstrably false claims as true?"

Below I think I meet my "burden of proof."

There are lots of examples where Mormonism misrepresents the facts to the public. The first one that comes to mind is the way the Church misrepresents Smiths's method of producing the Book of Mormon. On the Church's website there are at least four or five different paintings showing Smith poring over the gold plates line by line, while he or someone else writes down what he dictates, as if he's acting as a translator. But the church admits, when pressed, that Smith's actual method of producing the Book of Mormon was looking at a rock in a hat. Hmmmm....so the church has on its site at least four paintings that misrepresent Smith as a translator, while they don't have a single painting that I can find that shows him doing it by looking at a rock in a hat.

This is not a minor oversight. Church leaders have said that the Book of Mormon is the foundation of the Church, and the Church will admit that the book was produced by looking at a rock in a hat. Therefore, if the Church were more honest about its origins, that rock would be a centerpiece of the Church's story to the public. Instead, it continues to knowingly misrepresent Smith as a translator.

Let's summarize: The Church knowingly misrepresents its 'product' to the public, as we speak, and it takes in massive sums of money that's aided, in part, by that misrepresentation (I'm sure the Church's conversion rate, and therefore income stream, would reduce if the dorky rock-in-hat method were more honestly represented). In the real world, that's a serious matter. It's an ongoing willful misrepresentation that, by normal standards is unethical and immoral, and is a matter that, in there real world, possibly merits prison time, yet the Church gets a bye on that kind of dishonest, unethical, immoral behavior. Why?........ "Truth Restored"?? I think not. It's more like, "Truth Distorted."

Another point of contention is they have the actual rock that Joseph Smith used to translate the BOM. If they wanted to, they could put it on display for members to view the mystical magical object. They also have the papyrus Joseph Smith used to

[Jeff_Ricks]

Thews, thank you for your enlightening contribution to this discussion!

[wenglund]

Hmmm....when Daniel says, "I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims," that determination was derived objectively, was it not? I don't think that's a subjective determination, do you? You see, there are plenty of opportunities for objectively evaluating truth claims of a religion. For example, did Joseph Smith talk with God? If he can't meet the burden of proof to establish such a fantastic claim then we objectively determine that he probably did not talk with God.

Wade, there are plenty of claims that Mormonism has made and now makes that can be demonstrated are factually false, and others they make that can be demonstrated have a high probability are false. So why then does Mormonism get a bye on the requirement to be ethical when they represent those demonstrably false claims as true?

Since this is way off topic, and is muddying the waters of an otherwise fascinating thread, I will open a new thread (titled: "A violation of truth in advertising?")to continue this discussion. I look forward to seeing you there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

Out of curiosity, I have three questions for all participants (or viewers) on this thread. #1: Considering only the evidence presented by Stout and NotHaggoth7, which hypothesis--Stout's or NotHaggoth7's--do you personally think is better supported by the data?

#2: If you presented the case for each hypothesis to a bright and open minded person with no strong feelings favoring or opposing LDS theology, which hypothesis would win?

#3: Of the two explanations for similarities between the Anthon characters and Tironian script, which seems more fanciful?

I know this won't surprise anyone, but my votes are Stout, Stout, and NotHagoth7.

This is horribly presumptuous of me, but I want to predict NotHagoth7's votes. NotHagoth, I think you would vote for yourself, Stout, and yourself. (I'm curious if I'm reading you right.)

Gary@rics

#1 Stouts arguements are only strong until a viable alternative is presented. How viable notHagoth7's alternative is, depends on 1st - how much credibility you place in legends and beginings stories. There are those who find these accounts very credible and those that don't. 2nd - you have to decide how much credibility you want to place on notHagoth7's interpretation of them. Being just a little familiar with the legends and myths he is citing and a lot more familiar with the Book of Mormon at this point to me he has certainly cast some doubt on Stout.

#2 Stout's hypothesis is only as strong as his ability to answer all viable alternatives. In my mind notHagoth7 has a viable alternative that gives a rational explanation to Stout's hypothesis. This would be true even if I did not know any LDS theology. Stout has claimed that Joseph Smith used an ancient language script to compose the Anthon characters. notHagoth7 gives a reasonable explanation as to why, even if the Anthon transcript were made up from these scripts, why they were. To maintain any credibility Stout's position must overcome this explanation.

#3 I would say that a statment such as, "Where did Joseph Smith obtain these characters? Probably from Stephen Mack, who was known to have interest in, and access to, a manuscript or its facsimiles that was, at the time...", leaves a lot of 'fanciful' speculation hanging out there. Until you can show me where Joseph Smith got the ancient script (without a probably or a maybe) then one is no better than the other.

Stout and others are based on probablys and maybes. notHagoth7's premise is based on probablys and maybes. About a draw I would say.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Here's a link to the new thread Wade started as explain in his post above.

[Arc]

Stout and others are based on probablys and maybes. notHagoth7's premise is based on probablys and maybes. About a draw I would say.

From DCP

[notHagoth7]

Overall probability estimate for notHagoth7: 0.5 X 0.5 X 0.5 X 0.5 = 6.25%

Overall probability of the Stout hypothesis: 50%

Keep on saying that guys. Like a mantra.

Put it to music with a funky beat, if that helps.

If it brings you comfort, so be it.

Onwards.

[Arc]

Keep on saying that guys. Like a mantra.

Put it to music with a funky beat, if that helps.

If it brings you comfort, so be it.

Onwards.

Rather than continue on for the sake of continuing on, why not make an objective assessment of where you have been and how you are doing so far?

Why not have a look at the contingencies involved and make an honest assessment of your thesis using your own probability assignments?

Why not look for a logical flaw in my reasoning?

Suggesting that the opponent sing or chant while you continue to try and convince them seems a little bit disingenuous, don't you think?

[notHagoth7]

Kings and Queens

Are the Shield accounts, which combine to tell of the arrival of the founding of Anglo-Scandinavian dynasties, the tip of the iceberg for offering a viable explanation for the origin of European nations? Of kings and queens?

As we will see, the royal traditions extend beyond origin accounts and dynasty founders. It also extends to the very symbols of royal legitimacy.

1) The Canne-nefate tradition of lifting an elected leader up on a shield had enough widespread respect that it was adopted in ceremonies electing emperors in the Roman Empire, and in France.

2) The long-haired tradition of the seafaring Lombards/Winnili/Venelli, the ringleaders of the Gallic fight for freedom spread through northern Europe. The vector of the long-haired tradition traces to 56 BC in northern Gaul (called Gallia Comata "long-haired Gaul" by Caesar) amid a rebellion and sea battle. After a military setback shortly afterward, Caesar himself briefly adopts the tradition. It spread among the Germanic peoples as a badge of honor by 100 AD, and emerged as a visible feature of Frankish kings.

One can contrast that long-haired tradition to the short hairstyle known to hairstylists to this day as the Caesar Cut, a short style which is named after Julius Caesar himself.

3) Also, the capstone of European coronation ceremonies included the new ruler being handed a metallic orb. Which parallels the Liahona that was passed down from generation to generation among the leading families of the Nephites.

So the Liahona, the Nephite orb. The raising on a shield among the Canna-nefates. The long hair of Lombards/Frankish kings. And the origin account of Shield from across the ocean, forefather of Anglo-Scandinavian kings. Not that such offices and status matter in an age of constitutional democratic/republic rule.

But it is a historic feature from Europe's past which suggests that former kings and queens owed both their existence, and their symbols/traditions of office to the arrival of Shield's people from across the sea in the 1st century BC, a people associated with the Canna-nefates.

[ERayR]

From DCP

[notHagoth7]

Rather than continue on for the sake of continuing on, why not make an objective assessment of where you have been and how you are doing so far?

How do you propose one would make an objective assessment?

What assessment, other than a subjective one, can be made here?

Why not have a look at the contingencies involved and make an honest assessment of your thesis using your own probability assignments?

What contingencies? Either the people said to have come from across the sea were Nephites. Or they weren't. It's no more complex than that.

Why not look for a logical flaw in my reasoning?

The flaw is this.

Math can't address the fact that such people claimed to have come from across the sea. Period.

Throw up all the equations you'd like. Algebra. Trig. Calc. Whatever suits you.

Math won't force tradewinds and ocean currents to reverse direction.

Math won't obliterate the demonstrated focus in European origin accounts on ocean currents.

Math doesn't address the evidence of Semitic influence in northern Europe.

If you think (and choose to assert) that math is somehow a reliable compass in such waters, I think that's your logical flaw.

Suggesting that the opponent sing or chant while you continue to try and convince them seems a little bit disingenuous, don't you think?

You think I'm the one being dismissive?

Yesterday, I provided two straightforward responses to Gary's proposed logical model.

I haven't yet seen a substantive response. (If I missed it, feel free to point it out.)

So if you want me to take your objections seriously when you don't return the favor, engage with my responses.

When you don't, I move on. Fair enough?

And finally, this kind of math can't answer the Nephite question.

But I'm certainly willing to listen to your basis for claiming that it somehow can.

[ERayR]

Rather than continue on for the sake of continuing on, why not make an objective assessment of where you have been and how you are doing so far?

Why not have a look at the contingencies involved and make an honest assessment of your thesis using your own probability assignments?

Why not look for a logical flaw in my reasoning?

Suggesting that the opponent sing or chant while you continue to try and convince them seems a little bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Why are you trying to shut this thread down? If it is not to your liking then goodby. Have a nice day. There are some of us who are interested. Some of us would like to have the information to evaluate. If your your own ego is enough for you then I wish you great happiness.

You may even be a great fellow to know in person but you are coming on as quite arrogant to suggest that someone shut down a thread because you disagree with it.

[notHagoth7]

...but it all depends on what criteria one wants to deem significant.

Bizactly. One can bend light by subtly shifting which criteria one deems significant.

Which is why I don't put much reliance in such "logical" models which merely posture as rational and objective.

Seriously guys. It sure looks like smoke and mirrors from the peanut gallery.

I invite Gary or Arc to apply their mathematical prowess to the factors in this post - and report their findings (please show your work behind those numbers for the rest of us).

I'm at the edge of my seat.

Reminds me of an adage I picked up in college. There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics.

Mark Twain was quite the wit.

Here's what the world of wiki has to offer:

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments...

So do you guys actually have any interest in engaging with the actual evidence?

Or are sleight-of-hand math games more to your liking?

Sudoko anyone?

Despite the ribbing - I want both of you to know that I care about you. About your opinions. And about this process.

But when you guys start pulling garbage like this, I have to call you on it.

And by garbage I mean flawed, garbage-in-garbage-out models being pawned off as reasonable, objective, scientific, and logical.

Your math really is sleight of hand. I'm not insisting that it's intentionally that way.

But sleight of hand is what's happening with every single one of your mathematical assertions.

If you wish to dispute that, again, the line in the sand is here.

Engage that, and I'll gladly come back to this issue.

I enjoy having a bit of fun with you in the process.

So feel free to return the favor.

[Arc]

Why are you trying to shut this thread down? If it is not to your liking then goodby. Have a nice day. There are some of us who are interested. Some of us would like to have the information to evaluate. If your your own ego is enough for you then I wish you great happiness.

You may even be a great fellow to know in person but you are coming on as quite arrogant to suggest that someone shut down a thread because you disagree with it.

I mentioned nothing about shutting down the thread.

If you understood that I was suggesting the thread be shut down, then I apologize. My apparently offending comments were to suggest that notHagoth7 simply take sometime to look objectively at his evidence and hypothesis chain.

You can bet that others are doing so.