Gold Plates discovered in Hill Cumorah

[Ed Goble]

14 hours ago, cinepro said:

I recognize that people have to come up with reasons for the plates to have disappeared, and your list of theories is certainly impressive. 

I was just pointing out that for the most part, God seems content to let the source materials for scriptures to remain.  Joseph Smith and the Church kept many valuable manuscripts and artifacts on hand through the Kirtland, Missouri, Nauvoo and trek periods; I have no doubt they could have easily carried the gold plates, Laban's sword, breastplate, liahona and other artifacts with them had God seen fit to allow them to remain.

Again, I can't see any spiritual difference between the source for the Book of Abraham and the source for the Book of Mormon.  And it could be argued that the papyri were more in need of divine protection since the translation wasn't completed, and they were much more fragile than metal plates.

There is an actual difference between what we have for the Book of Abraham and the plates.  What we have for the Book of Abraham is actually a papyrus that was used that has little pictures and big pictures on it that were repurposed to go along with the Book of Abraham text.  These pictures did not start out being associated with the text of the Book of Abraham, but were something that became associated after the fact, by people that wanted to create a hybrid composition that employed the pictures that started out as illustrations for something else entirely, but were then later employed to go along with the Book of Abraham text.  The Sensen Papyrus itself does not have the text of the Book of Abraham on it.  Everyone, LDS Egyptologists and Non-LDS Egyptologists alike are agreed that the text of the Book of Abraham does not exist on the Sensen Papyrus.  Missing Papyrus Theorists believe that the Book of Abraham text was on a section of papyrus or a separate papyrus entirely that we don't have now, but that Joseph Smith had his hands on it.  I agree with Missing Papyrus Theorists that Abraham wrote the text of the Book of Abraham himself anciently.  I just don't believe that Joseph Smith ever had his hands on that document.  I believe that Joseph Smith only ever had the ILLUSTRATIONS to the Book of Abraham in his hands by way of what is on the Sensen Papyrus, and recognized by the Spirit that the pictures were used that way.  And so, I don't believe in a "Missing Papyrus" in modern times.  I believe that there is an ancient source for the Book of Abraham text that is lost, and that the text was received essentially by revelation.  But it is representative mostly of the content that was on the ancient source that is now not extant.  Now, linkages between the Book of Abraham text and the Illustrations can be demonstrated.  But we simply do not have the source of the text.

And so, there is a big difference between what we have now for the Book of Abraham, and what was on the plates for the Book of Mormon.  Because the plates for the Book of Mormon actually give the source text for the English text of the Book of Mormon.  We are in exactly the same position with the Book of Abraham.  We do not have the papyrus on which the source text was found.

[Ed Goble]

17 hours ago, waveslider said:

I don't think that the brass plates would retain a physical brightness, unless they were polished, and untouched by even one fingerprint, or contaminated by water, minerals or oil, of any type, and were sealed away from any oxigen by having some kind of clear coating on them..... or by some kind of miracle that God set in place. They would patina, but they would remain physically intact, since the patina protects the brass beneath the layer of patina from further oxidation. The brightness referred to in Alma 37:3-5 is most likely referring to the brightness from light of Christ, not a physical attribute of the actual material the holy writ is written upon:

".....they will retain their brightness; yea, and also shall all the plates which do contain that which is holy writ."
Alma 37:5

Or, we could just say that some physical change came upon the plates akin to a change in the human body like translation that changed their properties so that they would not degrade.  I'm not satisfied with just the "patina" explanation.

[Ed Goble]

On 9/5/2016 at 6:23 PM, JAHS said:

Joseph Smith did indeed give them back to the angel Moroni:

When, according to arrangements, the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him; and he has them in his charge until this day (JSH 60)

I would assume that in order for Moroni to be able to handle the plates and give and receive them to Joseph Smith he must have been a resurrected being. If he is a resurrected being and the plates are a real solid material they must be able to exist in  real way somewhere? Or could Moroni have taken them somewhere else or to a different place on the earth? There is the story of how Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery took the plates into a cave. Brigham Young supposedly said:

" Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph when he deposited these plates. Joseph did not translate all of the plates; there was a portion of them sealed, which you can learn from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did. Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room. He says he did not think, at the time, whether they had the light of the sun or artificial light; but that it was just as light as day. They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and thee were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls.
The first time they went there the sword of Laban hung upon the wall; but when they went again it had been taken down and laid upon the table across the gold plates; it was unsheathed, and on it was written these words: "This sword will never be sheathed again until The Kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our God and his Christ"' (Journal of Discourses, 19:36-39)

If we can believe this story how does this cave exist in this world? If someone happened to be digging in the same spot as where the plates were first found or where this cave was, would they find them? If not why would they not find them? How can these places be there but not be there in the physical world? They must be real places where real physical objects can exist, yet can only be found or seen if it is God's will.

 

Yes, that is why I opt for the explanation that the cave is "cloaked" in some spiritual way, but that it is physically in the hill.

[Ed Goble]

On 8/31/2016 at 7:20 PM, Bobbieaware said:

I guarantee you that if you were allowed to see the plates you would have no idea if they were real or if they were fake, and then you'd be right back where you started. I can also guarantee you if the Lord allowed the plates to be shown to the world most people would say they were either clever fakes or the work of the devil. Also, there would hardly be any new converts once the mainstream media got done "debunking" the authenticity of the plates.

I don't think I agree with this.  Rather, I think that the plates would pass all the tests for being ancient, and scholars would actually be able to find relationships between the "reformed Egyptian" and regular Egyptian with a lot more content.  In other words, having both the English text of the Book of Mormon and the Egyptian text, we would have one huge thing like a rosetta stone, where we had examples of texts in multiple languages.  With the rosetta stone, it was just a small amount of text.  Witih the book of Mormon plates, it would be a huge amount of text.  It would actually prove the Book of Mormon to be true without question, to where it would be something that the world could not deny, that it is indeed an ancient artifact, and of course, this would prove Joseph Smith to be real.  There would be no reason for faith, and for that reason, the Lord is withholding the proof, because it would actually be proof.

[Ed Goble]

On 9/1/2016 at 9:17 AM, Stargazer said:

Your guarantee is unconvincing, I am afraid, as I don't think you're quite able to make such a warrant (can you bind the Almighty? I don't think so)!  That being said, you could be right that they might be shown in such a way as to preserve me from utter certainty.  Yet, I am certain that if the Lord wanted me to be utterly certain, He could do it.  But even if He did, my testimony would still have to be taken on faith by those to whom I attested it.

Do you not think that, after the First Vision, Joseph Smith knew it had been real?  I don't think he went through the rest of his life wallowing in doubt about what he had seen.  The same would apply to the Brother of Jared.

 

Yes, I believe that these men were entirely without doubt afterward..  Yes, to have more witnesses that know of a surety would not help, because that would just mean that people still have to have faith in someone else's word, just like the situation we are in now.  Thankfully, however, we have the manifestations of the Holy Ghost along with that, and not just Joseph Smith's word and the word of his associates. 

[cdowis]

37 minutes ago, Ed Goble said:

This is pretty amazing.  Am I reading this right?  Are you actually suggesting that there is a portal like a stargate/wormhole in the New York Hill to some other Hill Cumorah where the plates actually reside?  I think I'd rather put my faith in something like a spiritually "cloaked" room inside the hill near Palmyra rather than a stargate.  I mean, as Mormons, we are willing to have a lot of faith in a lot of things, but let's not get into science fiction now.

Do you really think that Moroni transported all those records several thousands of miles to NY?  Thru Lamanite territory.  I imagine there were many trips made to do this.  Or were all those records beamed by a transporter to the NY location.

Really?

Edited September 7, 2016 by cdowis

[Ed Goble]

11 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Do you really think that Moroni transported all those records several thousands of miles to NY?  Thru Lamanite territory.  I imagine there were many trips made to do this.  Or were all those records beamed by a transporter to the NY location.

Really?

No.  The Nephites perished at Cumorah in NY.  And in his wanderings he basically stayed mostly in the Great Lakes Region.  There isn't much reason to believe that Moroni visited Utah during his wanderings, but rather, he visited it to dedicate temple sites before the destruction.

[Anijen]

5 minutes ago, Ed Goble said:

No.  The Nephites perished at Cumorah in NY.  And in his wanderings he basically stayed mostly in the Great Lakes Region.  There isn't much reason to believe that Moroni visited Utah during his wanderings, but rather, he visited it to dedicate temple sites before the destruction.

Yet, there is absolutely no trace of evidence or any type of remainder to show a battle at or around that hill. Maybe that was cloaked too.

[Ed Goble]

2 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Yet, there is absolutely no trace of evidence or any type of remainder to show a battle at or around that hill. Maybe that was cloaked too.

Yep, we have been over and over this over the years my friend.  My religious conclusion on this is not going to have the type of evidence to back it up that you would hope for.  That's the nature of religion.  Yet it is interesting that fellow Latter-day saints do this to fellow latter-day saints.  You, my friend, being Mormon, accept it on faith that there were plates, but you and the rest of your Mesoamericanist associates want proof for the battle around the hill.  Quite an interesting irony, that you are perfectly willing to allow for faith and lack of evidence on the one hand, where you are in the role of an apologist.  But when the tables are turned, and you are in the role of a critic, and your opponent is in the role of apologist, you are the one to require proof before your acknowledgement of the validity of another's belief.  That is an interesting bit of a Mormon Double Standard that has always irked me about my Mesoamericanist brethren.

[Rajah Manchou]

7 minutes ago, Ed Goble said:

Yep, we have been over and over this over the years my friend.  My religious conclusion on this is not going to have the type of evidence to back it up that you would hope for.  That's the nature of religion.  Yet it is interesting that fellow Latter-day saints do this to fellow latter-day saints.  You, my friend, being Mormon, accept it on faith that there were plates, but you and the rest of your Mesoamericanist associates want proof for the battle around the hill.  Quite an interesting irony, that you are perfectly willing to allow for faith and lack of evidence on the one hand, where you are in the role of an apologist.  But when the tables are turned, and you are in the role of a critic, and your opponent is in the role of apologist, you are the one to require proof before your acknowledgement of the validity of another's belief.  That is an interesting bit of a Mormon Double Standard that has always irked me about my Mesoamericanist brethren.

In fairness, isn't that what you just did to cdowis?
What is the difference in proposing a spiritual wormhole to a cave vs. proposing a spiritual invisibility cloak over a civilization?

[cdowis]

38 minutes ago, Ed Goble said:

No.  The Nephites perished at Cumorah in NY.  

OK, so we are coming from very different assumptions.

 

Edited September 7, 2016 by cdowis

[Ed Goble]

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

In fairness, isn't that what you just did to cdowis?
What is the difference in proposing a spiritual wormhole to a cave vs. proposing a spiritual invisibility cloak over a civilization?

We aren't talking about civilization.  We are only talking about one battle site.  We have all sorts of forts in the great lakes region from the Hopewell that date to the right time period.  We have all sorts of evidence for migration from the Maya culture into the Hopewellian domain.  I have all kinds of evidence that are on the same par with anything that a Mesoamericanist can muster for pretty much any site in Mesoamerica for the claim that there was Nephite domain in the great lakes region in general.  I'm talking about a specific uber-hypocritical requirement of Mesoamericanists for specific battle evidence at the Hill Cumorah in New York.  Well, sorry, that is true hypocrisy, because the same exact type of evidence exists for Nephite habitation in the Great Lakes region exists as it does in Mesoamerica.  We are talking about specific evidence for a specific event, which is the height of hypocrisy of Mesoamericanists to require of New York Cumorah theorists.  I want specific evidence for battles with steels swords and horses around Mesoamerican sites then before we can consider them to be actual Book of Mormon sites.  Gimme a freaking break.

[Ed Goble]

4 minutes ago, cdowis said:

OK, so we are coming from very different assumptions.

 

It would seem so.

[Anijen]

16 minutes ago, Ed Goble said:

  You, my friend, being Mormon, accept it on faith that there were plates, but you and the rest of your Mesoamericanist associates want proof for the battle around the hill.  Quite an interesting irony, that you are perfectly willing to allow for faith and lack of evidence on the one hand

Just to clarify: I do not accept any setting for the Book of Mormon by faith alone, and never have. My faith accepts the Book of Mormon as scripture. An ancient record of peoples from somewhere on this continent.

As far as as my opinions on settings, it is purely academic speculation on my part. I know a lot more about the Clovis, Adena, Mississippian Valley, and Hopewell than I do of Mesoamerica. My major was History and Anthropology, from my studies of these people I side with Brant Gardner that there is very little to match the Hopewell to the Nephites, other than time and that is also arguable if you accept that the Hopewell are evolved Adena.

There is simply no relevant evidence tying the people of the Book of Mormon to a group of people who at their very peak numbered approximately 50K  and that was around 1150-1200 AD, that is only about  800 years off. 

Not to mention the lack of a writing system. From the Book of Mormon we read about a literate society. That is only found in one area during the time of the Book of Mormon. Why would Captain Moroni write on his coat (the title of liberty) if nobody [Hopewell resident] could read it. With those written words he rallied his people.

Many, many other facts are more numerous compared to the utterly lack of any of the Hopewell kind.  These are scholarly findings and not partisan dedication to a an old theory. My faith has nothing to do with me subscribing to a Mesoamerican setting over a Great Lakes setting. My faith has everything to do with my belief in the Book of Mormon.

[Ed Goble]

1 minute ago, Anijen said:

Just to clarify: I do not accept any setting for the Book of Mormon by faith alone, and never have. My faith accepts the Book of Mormon as scripture. An ancient record of peoples from somewhere on this continent.

As far as as my opinions on settings, it is purely academic speculation on my part. I know a lot more about the Clovis, Adena, Mississippian Valley, and Hopewell than I do of Mesoamerica. My major was History and Anthropology, from my studies of these people I side with Brant Gardner that there is very little to match the Hopewell to the Nephites, other than time and that is also arguable if you accept that the Hopewell are evolved Adena.

There is simply no relevant evidence tying the people of the Book of Mormon to a group of people who at their very peak numbered approximately 50K  and that was around 1150-1200 AD, that is only about  800 years off. 

Not to mention the lack of a writing system. From the Book of Mormon we read about a literate society. That is only found in one area during the time of the Book of Mormon. Why would Captain Moroni write on his coat (the title of liberty) if nobody [Hopewell resident] could read it. With those written words he rallied his people.

Many, many other facts are more numerous compared to the utterly lack of any of the Hopewell kind.  These are scholarly findings and not partisan dedication to a an old theory. My faith has nothing to do with me subscribing to a Mesoamerican setting over a Great Lakes setting. My faith has everything to do with my belief in the Book of Mormon.

I could get into a deep argument with you on these points as I have in the past, but I respect your credentials, but once again, you are also deeply wrong on these points as being specifically prohibitive of Nephite dominion of the great lakes region.  And I still consider you a friend.  The Great Hopewell Road of Ohio as a Mesoamerican sacbe is just one of the multitudes of evidence, and it is only because you set up your own PERSONAL list of requirements, not because the evidence is actually prohibitive, that you will not consider my point of view valid.  Its not that you specifically must agree with me.  Its that you are hard headed about not extending plausibility to my point of view that is the most irritating part of my interactions with you historically.  Yes indeed, this is all about your own PERSONAL list of requirements for the fact that you will not extend plausibility to my point of view.  It has nothing to do with your credentials, or your list of facts.

[Rajah Manchou]

5 minutes ago, Ed Goble said:

We aren't talking about civilization.  We are only talking about one battle site.  We have all sorts of forts in the great lakes region from the Hopewell that date to the right time period.  We have all sorts of evidence for migration from the Maya culture into the Hopewellian domain.  I have all kinds of evidence that are on the same par with anything that a Mesoamericanist can muster for pretty much any site in Mesoamerica for the claim that there was Nephite domain in the great lakes region in general.  I'm talking about a specific uber-hypocritical requirement of Mesoamericanists for specific battle evidence at the Hill Cumorah in New York.  Well, sorry, that is true hypocrisy, because the same exact type of evidence exists for Nephite habitation in the Great Lakes region exists as it does in Mesoamerica.  We are talking about specific evidence for a specific event, which is the height of hypocrisy of Mesoamericanists to require of New York Cumorah theorists.  I want specific evidence for battles with steels swords and horses around Mesoamerican sites then before we can consider them to be actual Book of Mormon sites.  Gimme a freaking break.

From my vantage point the Heartland model has strengths that cannot be found in the Mesoamerican model, and vice versa. Specific requirements that can never be met seem to be one thing both camps have in common.

[Ed Goble]

1 minute ago, Rajah Manchou said:

From my vantage point the Heartland model has strengths that cannot be found in the Mesoamerican model, and vice versa. Specific requirements that can never be met seem to be one thing both camps have in common.

Well, you see, my model is NOT the North american one.  My model is the idea of Cumorah in New York with a Northern Nephite domain, coupled with a Land Southward in Mesoamerica, is where I'm coming from.

But it is precisely my point that the area of North America as an EXTENSION to Mesoamerica is summarily dismissed by Mesoamericanists is deeply problematic, precisely because the data set for the area is not the same.

And why the hypocrisy of the Mesoamericanist requirements against the NY hill as not being a plausible location is such a problem.

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, Ed Goble said:

 I want specific evidence for battles with steels swords and horses around Mesoamerican sites then before we can consider them to be actual Book of Mormon sites.  Gimme a freaking break.

Were there cavalry units mentioned in any Book of Mormon battle? Or mass production of steel swords?

Edited September 7, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Rajah Manchou]

10 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Not to mention the lack of a writing system. From the Book of Mormon we read about a literate society. That is only found in one area during the time of the Book of Mormon. Why would Captain Moroni write on his coat (the title of liberty) if nobody [Hopewell resident] could read it. With those written words he rallied his people.

Interesting point, but makes me wonder: did Moroni write in Reformed Egyptian or Mayan Glyphs? 
If its the former than you've got the same problem as the Heartland camp.
Where did it go?

It almost strikes me as less likely that the Nephites would have two scripts running at the same time. There's no evidence of that in Mesoamerica.

[Ed Goble]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Were there cavalry units mentioned in any Book of Mormon battle? Or mass production of steel swords?

Actually, I am not personally actually requiring this for Mesoamerican cities or Mesoamerican proposed battle sites for plausibility.  I was making a sarcastic remark to make a point.

[Anijen]

11 minutes ago, Ed Goble said:

  Its that you are hard headed about not extending plausibility to my point of view that is the most irritating part of my interactions with you historically.  Yes indeed, this is all about your own PERSONAL list of requirements for the fact that you will not extend plausibility to my point of view.  It has nothing to do with your credentials, or your list of facts.

Perhaps I am "hard headed." In fact, I will admit I have been and I apologize. Hard headed means to me a mind set that refuses to change. A stubbornness that wont allow me to see the "plausibility to [your] point of view."

This closed-mindedness  I do not believe I have. Let me explain; A closed-minded person refuses to change however, I have changed my views many times. I admit these changes that I have had were the product of my studies. For example; I must have argued with Brant Gardner for weeks about elephants in Mesoamerica. he gave me sources that started me on my studies of this topic. I also spoke with Mesoamerican archaeologist, some LDS, most not. All (every single one) told me I was wrong and Brant was right the elephants I saw were in fact Macaws. I changed my mind because of my studies.

I continue to do so. I have changed my mind from against global freezing, global warming, to almost accepting climate change. Heaven knows I have changed my mind concerning politics. I have changed my mind regarding the flood and evolution, all from the result of my studies. Thus, I believe I am not as "hard headed" as you think I am.

I have kept my faith, in fact it has grown. Thank you for your patience with me. I am still a work in progress.

[Rajah Manchou]

32 minutes ago, Ed Goble said:

Well, you see, my model is NOT the North american one.  My model is the idea of Cumorah in New York with a Northern Nephite domain, coupled with a Land Southward in Mesoamerica, is where I'm coming from.

But it is precisely my point that the area of North America as an EXTENSION to Mesoamerica is summarily dismissed by Mesoamericanists is deeply problematic, precisely because the data set for the area is not the same.

And why the hypocrisy of the Mesoamericanist requirements against the NY hill as not being a plausible location is such a problem.

Alt-models aren't ever going to have the mass appeal of the Meso model. You've got to accept the reality that people of faith aren't going to reject the majority view for an alternative that isn't backed up with hundreds of publications. It doesn't matter whether the majority view is correct or not, its the majority view. 

For example, my model is is the idea that Cumorah is in Burma. Are you now a hypocrite for not investing the hours required to understand my opinion on the matter?(nope)

Edited September 7, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Ed Goble]

25 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Perhaps I am "hard headed." In fact, I will admit I have been and I apologize. Hard headed means to me a mind set that refuses to change. A stubbornness that wont allow me to see the "plausibility to [your] point of view."

This closed-mindedness  I do not believe I have. Let me explain; A closed-minded person refuses to change however, I have changed my views many times. I admit these changes that I have had were the product of my studies. For example; I must have argued with Brant Gardner for weeks about elephants in Mesoamerica. he gave me sources that started me on my studies of this topic. I also spoke with Mesoamerican archaeologist, some LDS, most not. All (every single one) told me I was wrong and Brant was right the elephants I saw were in fact Macaws. I changed my mind because of my studies.

I continue to do so. I have changed my mind from against global freezing, global warming, to almost accepting climate change. Heaven knows I have changed my mind concerning politics. I have changed my mind regarding the flood and evolution, all from the result of my studies. Thus, I believe I am not as "hard headed" as you think I am.

I have kept my faith, in fact it has grown. Thank you for your patience with me. I am still a work in progress.

Well, I recognize that we are all in a path of where we hope to all progress, and we are all works in progress.

I try to have more patience with my brethren that are of a different opinion.  I just am constantly dismissed summarily by made up requirements.  I have never and will never say that the data set for the New York hill and the Great Lakes region is anything more than what it has been shown to be academically. (well, actually, back in my Heartlander days I did, but let's not get technical...  I'm talking about my more recent research.)  Yet, the acceptance or rejection of the plausibility of an option is always about ideological point of view.  It is never about evidence.  Evidence can be mustered and argued over forever and in a multitude of ways.  Things that are real evidence can be presented in a poor fashion or they can be presented in an extremely sophisticated fashion.  The Great Lakes region is not wanting for evidence.  It is merely wanting for advocates with the sophistication required to bring it out of the abyss that it finds itself in as a result of being the red headed stepchild of Book of Mormon archaeology.  It is in need of people that are willing and able to defend it on a level that will make the best of what it has going for it.  It is simply not a lost cause, nor is the evidence or lack thereof prohibitive.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Ed Goble

[Ed Goble]

7 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Alt-models aren't ever going to have the mass appeal of the Meso model. You've got to accept the reality that people of faith aren't going to reject the majority view for an alternative that isn't backed up with hundreds of publications. It doesn't matter whether the majority view is correct or not, its the majority view. 

For example, my model is is the idea that Cumorah is in Burma. Are you now a hypocrite for not investing the hours required to understand my opinion on the matter?(nope)

You miss the point, really.  Actually, yes, people ought to invest the hours required to be aware of all of the pertinent argumentation and scholarship in a certain area before they think that they can dismiss it on the same old grounds that it has always been dismissed on.  And sorry, academics that are guilty of this, especially have no excuse about this.

Anijen is actually aware of my research and has studied it.  That is a good thing, and he finds himself in a better position than most Mesoamericanists that are dismissive of my material.  Most are not in that good of a position.

However, I am specifically focusing on the made-up requirements that Mesoamericanists have that they try to leverage against the NY Cumorah in particular that are not requirements from the text of the Book of Mormon for the land Northward, but are actually made up things from a ideological belief system that has arisen in the last part of the 20th century to uphold the Mesoamericanist establishment choke hold on BOM archaeology.

[Rajah Manchou]

17 minutes ago, Ed Goble said:

You miss the point, really.  Actually, yes, people ought to invest the hours required to be aware of all of the pertinent argumentation and scholarship in a certain area before they think that they can dismiss it on the same old grounds that it has always been dismissed on.  And sorry, academics that are guilty of this, especially have no excuse about this.

Great, i'll be sending my research notes over to you soon. It may require a few days for you to go through them. Thanks in advance.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Rajah Manchou