Codex Sinaiticus - the facts
- Thread starter cjab
- Start date
Yes, you did.
You asked an IRRELEVENT and STUPID nonsensical question because even you understand it blows what you're saying to pieces.
Thus - like pretty much everyone else - you are confronted by the facts that refute your position and rather than simply be a big enough man to own up to it and say, "I'm sorry for trying to sneak it past you guys," you throw in an irrelevant question.
Because you know full well what's being said - and it's nothing to do with Hermas being 200 years older.
You. KNOW. this.
You just pretend you don't so you can keep up the ruse.
Last edited:
Incidentally, folks, if you're wondering how much time you're wasting with "The Rain Man" here....just yesterday this pile of misinformation appeared on his page:
Yet if you go to the Facebook page where he cites this, two scholars tell him this didn't start in 1993 with Fee but in 1734 with Bengel. Avery continues on his little "no, that's not correct" path and insults Fee (e.g. he sticks with the tiny bit he knows but doesn't know accurately) and finally gets blasted by Gerhard Schmid, who says quite clearly, "Bengel says that to discover which reading from which the others arose is the primary method, and other observations are subsumed under this one. You can't understand, because, by own admission, you can't read Bengel. You can't read Latin, so you are, by definition, a dilettante in textual criticism."
This did not stop him from yesterday - nearly eight years after the fact - posting this misinformation.
It gets better, though, because even the Fee article he cites isn't from 1993, either, that's the date Fee and Epp's PREVIOUS ARTICLES were compiled into one place.
It is this level of non-thinking we are dealing with. Again - he's a big, tough talker here on a discussion forum - but he sure doesn't know much about the subject when trying to discuss it with people who ACTUALLY KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT. That's ongoing here, too.
A person with a scintilla of knowledge of interactions would be embarrassed. He just comes right back with the same "Rain Man" nonsense.
Yet if you go to the Facebook page where he cites this, two scholars tell him this didn't start in 1993 with Fee but in 1734 with Bengel. Avery continues on his little "no, that's not correct" path and insults Fee (e.g. he sticks with the tiny bit he knows but doesn't know accurately) and finally gets blasted by Gerhard Schmid, who says quite clearly, "Bengel says that to discover which reading from which the others arose is the primary method, and other observations are subsumed under this one. You can't understand, because, by own admission, you can't read Bengel. You can't read Latin, so you are, by definition, a dilettante in textual criticism."
This did not stop him from yesterday - nearly eight years after the fact - posting this misinformation.
It gets better, though, because even the Fee article he cites isn't from 1993, either, that's the date Fee and Epp's PREVIOUS ARTICLES were compiled into one place.
It is this level of non-thinking we are dealing with. Again - he's a big, tough talker here on a discussion forum - but he sure doesn't know much about the subject when trying to discuss it with people who ACTUALLY KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT. That's ongoing here, too.
A person with a scintilla of knowledge of interactions would be embarrassed. He just comes right back with the same "Rain Man" nonsense.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
So there are no characteristically "round" Greek letters of the alphabet in the Codex Sinaiticus??? None?
So your excuses can all be reduced to historical agnosticism, which is the refuge of the awful argument.
- we don't know what all might be on Mt Athos
- we need someone with familiarity with Arabic scripts
The latter one is hilarious - you're demanding an EXPERT on a subject and YOU REJECT EXPERTS when they tell you Sinaiticus isn't some 19th century teenager's dream. You reject experts on the moon landing, building 7, atomic bombs, and infectious disease.
But NOW....YOU want an EXPERT!!!
LOL!!!
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Right on the nail. ??????????
In his 1863 preface to Dressel's PAO, Tischendorf does point out some places where the Leipzig text agrees with the Latin, more than with the Sinaiticus, (see below), which is suggestive of a corruption in the Leipzig text. Yet this is to say nothing of Sinaiticus which he accepts as genuine - I didn't state Tischendorf's views clearly: post 1863 he saw Sinaiticus as completely authoritative (see earlier in the same preface Studiis circa patrum apostolicorum opera nihil ex longo tempore gravius accidit quam quod in codice bibliorum Sinaitico inventa est integra Barnabae epistola cum priore Pastoris parte. ): it is only as to the corruptions in the Leipsig Hermas Greek text as to which Tischendor said "What, in these and similar others, is rejected by the authority of the Sinaitic code, no doubt depends on another review, but whether they (i.e. the corruptions) were first instituted in the Latin or in Greek is ambiguous".
As to his original linguistic arguments on his first sight of the Leipsig text in ignorance of SInaiticus: since you are the one who praises Tischendorf, it's up to you to explain why his arguments are still valid, even when no scholar today sees anything in them.
So as I said above, this now only applies to the corruptions to the Leipsig Greek text:
PAO 1863 (Dressel/Preface): Idem de Pastore praedicandum esset, si integrum praeberet codex noster. Attamen et ipsis quae praebet fragmentis maxima vis critica inest. Quod anno 1856. censebam, textum Lipsiensem potius e Latinis media actato conversum quaro ex ipso anliquissimo fonte Gracco derivatum esse, qua de re praeter alios consentientem habui summum Constantinum Oeconomum [1] illud quidem, si totum atque universum spectas, non confirmatum est. Quem vero locum, in historia Simonidea famosum illium quidem, ad docendam originem Latinam inprimis urgendum duxeram, Visio 3, 3 πανοῦργοσ εἶ περὶ τὰσ γραφάσ (ex Guilielmi Dindorfii coniectura περὶ τὰ ἄγραφα), eum revera ex Latinis fluxisse quum ex interprete Aethiope tum ex codice Sinaitico fit clarissimum. Quocum nescio an alia componenda sint, quae textus Lipsiensis cum Latinis plerisque communia habet invitis Sinaitico Aethiope et Palatino. Eiusmodi sunt quae Vis. 3, 6. leguntur, ubi Latine vulgatum est: qui cognoverunt veritatem nec permanserunt in ea, nec coniuncti sunt sanctis; propter hoc inutiles sunt. His textus Lipsiensis, apprime respondet, in quo est: οί ἐγνωκότεσ τὴν ἀλήϑειαν, μὴ ἐπιμείναντεσ δὲ ἐν αὐτῇ μηδὲ κολλώμενοι τοῖσ ἁγίοισ᾽ διὰ τοῦτο ἄχρηστοί εἰσιν. Sinaiticus vero codex, Aethiops el Palatinus consentientes post μὴ επιμενοντεσ δὲ ἐν αυτη nihil additum habent. Quae in his similibusque aliis ab auctoritate Sinaitici codicis destituuntur , ab alia haud dubie recensione pendent, quam utrum in Latinis an in Graecis primum aliquis instituerit ambiguum est. Sed de his proxime alii videbunt, nec nobis ipsis, ut iam indicatum est, singula accuratius indagandi locum defuturum speramus. Nunc satis habemus editioni Dresselianae, diuturnis amici doctis laboribus plenae, lectionibus Sinaiticis additis consuluisse, quae ut satis docent quantopere textus Lipsiensis, quamvis haud contemnendus sit, ab antiqua veritate deflexerit ita totam eam quam praebent Pastoris partem exceptis paucis antiquo nitori reddunt. Constantinus Tischendorf
You asked me for my explanation.... the source is me. But there aren't any alternatives: if "maximw" in Greek isn't taken as a name, it could only be translated as magna/maximus. Since a "maximus tribulation" is most unlikely, the adjective becomes magna. However the initial error arises in not seeing, or being unwilling to see, a name in "maximw." The source for such unwillingness is YOU.
It also arises in assuming Donaldson and Tischendorf were omniscient about Greek.
They got things wrong - not because they were dumb - but because they'd never seen them. Problem is, we now know those words that "weren't in Greek until late" WERE, in fact, in Greek early, they just didn't know it. It's no reflection on them, they weren't omniscient.
He's sticking with "but these writers from 160 years ago" because he doesn't know anything else. He's like an autistic child - no social skills whatsoever, repetition of the few things he THINKS he knows, and a raging, screaming, insulting fit when he doesn't get his way.
Hence, "the Rain Man."
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Wrong. ?
You would need a person who could live forever.... i.e. live for centuries...
For the SAME person's handwriting to be used over/for centuries ???
He replicates that foolishness at every level of his Sinaiticus "studies." The following is some of what transcription EXPERT Timothy Arthur Brown, from the CSP, had to say to Mr. Conspiracy, in response to some of his oft-repeated and ignorant questions to Amy Myshrall regarding "coloring," "suppleness," etc.:
"I did not notice any difference in color between the Leipzig University and British Library leaves."
"This is more of a conservation question, and we were tasked with the transcription. Our time with the manuscript was given almost entirely to textual issues. But based upon the couple of years I spent poring over the digital images, I never noticed any difference in color variations that might distinguish the Leipzig from the London leaves, nor do I see any telltale differences now as I reexamine the images. (I have copies of the full set of the high-resolution digital images we used for transcription, not just the printed images of the 2010 facsimile or the lower-resolution images available online.)"
"I saw nothing that would suggest that any of the leaves I examined were not as old as their assigned age, i.e. the mid-fourth century."
And this is my favorite part, which came from Brown after he got hit with more ignorance from Avery - via his "researcher on color issues" Mark Mitchie - regarding the color key in the Sinaiticus images, as well as who took the pics:"You can be assured that I have no intention of ever engaging in a debate with you in a public forum, online or otherwise, but I would offer some advice in private. Ordinarily, people do their research first and afterwards publish their conclusions. It appears that you have chosen to publish your conclusions first, and are doing your research afterwards."
"I saw nothing that would suggest that any of the leaves I examined were not as old as their assigned age, i.e. the mid-fourth century."
Btw, that reply above was in response to the following questions from Avery:
Btw, that reply above was in response to the following questions from Avery:
If you compared Sinaiticus (either location) with other ancient parchment uncials (this could be Alexandrinus, Bezae, Fuldensis and many more) would there be any reason to think of it as a heavily used ms that is 1650 years old? ... (putting aside the accepted palaeographic date.) The ms. has never been tested. Without presupposition, would you think it might be a young ms?
So I ask the following: If Avery refuses to accept the findings of Brown, an expert at the CSP, why would he think we'd believe for one second that he'd actually accept the findings of an expert in Arabic...especially if those findings don't fit into his 19th century composition fantasy?And since Avery has now basically admitted that he is not averse to deferring to an expert on the Arabic note issue in Sinaiticus, would he likewise defer to - and follow - the findings or opinions of an expert in another field surrounding manuscript studies....like, say, the 2015 testing that was to be performed by BAM?
Here is what Avery has said about the issue recently at this forum:
From the Is the World’s Oldest Bible a Fake? thread:
Post# 70
Leipzig cancelled the tests planned in 2015, the day BAM, the testing group, arrive.
Do you think perhaps those "who are in possession" are a bit reluctant to have a real examination?
————————————————————————
Post# 83
BAM from Berlin, under a lady named Dr. Ira Rabin, worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Most of their testing is totally non-destructive.
In 2015, they were invited to test Leipzig Sinaiticus.
The Leipzig library changed their mind the day they arrived.
—————————————————————————
Post# 98
If Sinaiticus was to finally have objective parchment & ink analysis, it would make sense to have it done by a world-class testing outfit that had worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Leipzig got cold feet.
————————————————————————
Post# 116
Actually, the type of parchment and ink testing done by BAM can be very helpful.
Think of Prussian blue and Archaic Mark.
The chances of Leipzig or the British Library allowing tests is close to zero, they would likely end up with a lot of egg on face. If somehow the tests were allowed, and actually showed ancient parchment and ink, I would give the tests acknowledgment and careful consideration.
However, it is not likely to happen, both major libraries, I believe, sense the real problem.
————————————————————————
Post# 273
No such tests on Sinaiticus.
They were planned in Leipzig in 2015 but the Leipzig University Library backed out the day of the tests.
Malfeasance, it is.
————————————————————————-
Post# 277
That is true. Extensive testing by BAM should differentiate natural parchment yellowing from staining by lemon juice, coffee, tea and/or herbs.
So we should watch for those tests ….
Oh, wait, Leipzig pulled out. Hmmmmm
—————————————————————————
Post# 279
However, the British Library has not done any significant tests, not even on the ink. They did have a bit of ultra-violet to see the under-letters, e.g. there was a question at the last verse of John.
If they had done any tests, they had plenty of time to inform scholars and the public. I think they just took the "discretion is the better part of valor:" approach. Let's not open up a can of worms.
Plus the comparison with really old mss. like Alexandrinus was staring them in the face every day. In fact, until 2009, very few people outside library staff had any access to the ms.
Remember, the few hour return window ended in 1933. Any scientific problems would be egg on the face.
————————————————————————-
Post# 308
... so they (now the British Library and the CSP) assume the ancient age, lest they look a little foolish.
————————————————————————-
Post# 317
It is more a confirmation that the British Library knows there is a problem, with the exceptional, phenomenally good condition, manuscript, but they do not want any testing done. (That is why they do a little bait-and-switch over to C-14 testing, which they can paint as destructive.)
BAM, under Dr. Ira Rabin, would be happy to do substantial non-destructive testing on the manuscript, she even mentioned that hope on the Brent Nongbri Zoom call in 2021, after she discussed how Leipzig pulled out of the 2015 tests, on the day they arrived to do the testing.
————————————————————————
Post# 421
Here is where once can talk of malfeasance, since the opportunities from modern science are deliberately rejected.
e.g. Leipzig in 2015, when the BAM tests were canceled on the day they arrived.
————————————————————————
Post# 534
The curators are obviously not an objective party.
They know that any efforts to determine its actual age could be very embarrassing.
The Brits put a lot of prestige and $ on the purchase, and the Museum and Library like to play it up.
-———————————————————————-
Post# 678
Dr. Ira Rabin specifically said they were turned down and away that day at the Leipzig library. She spoke about it at the Zoom conference on Sinaiticus hosted by Brent Nongbri. She did not talk about whether they showed up with heavy equipment, and I would not presume that BAM brought heavy equipment that day. It is also possible that some testing would have been brought back to the BAM labs. Again, not discussed.
—————————————————————————
From The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus thread:
Post# 275
And nobody ever tested the parchment or ink. Not even today. Leipzig ducked out the day of the tests!
[…]
However, for the textcrits there was a problem, the 4th century date was too deeply entrenched to allow an honest reevaluation. So they watch parchment and ink science change to match Sinaiticus, and put their hands over their eyes.
—————————————————————————
Post# 410
So you go with the experts, despite the fact that solid tests have been blocked and they generally ignore and are ignorant of salient information.
It really has nothing to do with the British Library, who clearly will favor the conclusion that gives them a priceless manuscript over that which makes them look a tad foolish for being the Russian marks in 1933 and are still avoiding tests in 2022.
————————————————————————
Post# 418
I've complimented the British Library on their openness. The Leipzig Library is another story, even more so when they cancelled the 2015 BAM tests.
—————————————————————————
Post# 419
…the Leipzig Library has run away from the real tests
—————————————————————————
Post# 468
Leipzig cancelled superb tests planned by the independent group BAM from Berlin in 2015.
Why?
Simple enough, they have a vested interest in avoiding any analysis that might devalue their manuscript.
————————————————————————
Post# 607
Do you really thing an administrator at the British Library can question Sinaiticus authenticity in a public talk?
———————————————————————---
Post# 643
My major point is that C-14 tests are not really the important tests, for many reasons. And since they destroy a tiny piece of parchment, they are used as an out by the British Library as to why they have not done any testing
————————————————————————
Here is what Avery has said about the issue recently at this forum:
From the Is the World’s Oldest Bible a Fake? thread:
Post# 70
Leipzig cancelled the tests planned in 2015, the day BAM, the testing group, arrive.
Do you think perhaps those "who are in possession" are a bit reluctant to have a real examination?
————————————————————————
Post# 83
BAM from Berlin, under a lady named Dr. Ira Rabin, worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Most of their testing is totally non-destructive.
In 2015, they were invited to test Leipzig Sinaiticus.
The Leipzig library changed their mind the day they arrived.
—————————————————————————
Post# 98
If Sinaiticus was to finally have objective parchment & ink analysis, it would make sense to have it done by a world-class testing outfit that had worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Leipzig got cold feet.
————————————————————————
Post# 116
Actually, the type of parchment and ink testing done by BAM can be very helpful.
Think of Prussian blue and Archaic Mark.
The chances of Leipzig or the British Library allowing tests is close to zero, they would likely end up with a lot of egg on face. If somehow the tests were allowed, and actually showed ancient parchment and ink, I would give the tests acknowledgment and careful consideration.
However, it is not likely to happen, both major libraries, I believe, sense the real problem.
————————————————————————
Post# 273
No such tests on Sinaiticus.
They were planned in Leipzig in 2015 but the Leipzig University Library backed out the day of the tests.
Malfeasance, it is.
————————————————————————-
Post# 277
That is true. Extensive testing by BAM should differentiate natural parchment yellowing from staining by lemon juice, coffee, tea and/or herbs.
So we should watch for those tests ….
Oh, wait, Leipzig pulled out. Hmmmmm
—————————————————————————
Post# 279
However, the British Library has not done any significant tests, not even on the ink. They did have a bit of ultra-violet to see the under-letters, e.g. there was a question at the last verse of John.
If they had done any tests, they had plenty of time to inform scholars and the public. I think they just took the "discretion is the better part of valor:" approach. Let's not open up a can of worms.
Plus the comparison with really old mss. like Alexandrinus was staring them in the face every day. In fact, until 2009, very few people outside library staff had any access to the ms.
Remember, the few hour return window ended in 1933. Any scientific problems would be egg on the face.
————————————————————————-
Post# 308
... so they (now the British Library and the CSP) assume the ancient age, lest they look a little foolish.
————————————————————————-
Post# 317
It is more a confirmation that the British Library knows there is a problem, with the exceptional, phenomenally good condition, manuscript, but they do not want any testing done. (That is why they do a little bait-and-switch over to C-14 testing, which they can paint as destructive.)
BAM, under Dr. Ira Rabin, would be happy to do substantial non-destructive testing on the manuscript, she even mentioned that hope on the Brent Nongbri Zoom call in 2021, after she discussed how Leipzig pulled out of the 2015 tests, on the day they arrived to do the testing.
————————————————————————
Post# 421
Here is where once can talk of malfeasance, since the opportunities from modern science are deliberately rejected.
e.g. Leipzig in 2015, when the BAM tests were canceled on the day they arrived.
————————————————————————
Post# 534
The curators are obviously not an objective party.
They know that any efforts to determine its actual age could be very embarrassing.
The Brits put a lot of prestige and $ on the purchase, and the Museum and Library like to play it up.
-———————————————————————-
Post# 678
Dr. Ira Rabin specifically said they were turned down and away that day at the Leipzig library. She spoke about it at the Zoom conference on Sinaiticus hosted by Brent Nongbri. She did not talk about whether they showed up with heavy equipment, and I would not presume that BAM brought heavy equipment that day. It is also possible that some testing would have been brought back to the BAM labs. Again, not discussed.
—————————————————————————
From The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus thread:
Post# 275
And nobody ever tested the parchment or ink. Not even today. Leipzig ducked out the day of the tests!
[…]
However, for the textcrits there was a problem, the 4th century date was too deeply entrenched to allow an honest reevaluation. So they watch parchment and ink science change to match Sinaiticus, and put their hands over their eyes.
—————————————————————————
Post# 410
So you go with the experts, despite the fact that solid tests have been blocked and they generally ignore and are ignorant of salient information.
It really has nothing to do with the British Library, who clearly will favor the conclusion that gives them a priceless manuscript over that which makes them look a tad foolish for being the Russian marks in 1933 and are still avoiding tests in 2022.
————————————————————————
Post# 418
I've complimented the British Library on their openness. The Leipzig Library is another story, even more so when they cancelled the 2015 BAM tests.
—————————————————————————
Post# 419
…the Leipzig Library has run away from the real tests
—————————————————————————
Post# 468
Leipzig cancelled superb tests planned by the independent group BAM from Berlin in 2015.
Why?
Simple enough, they have a vested interest in avoiding any analysis that might devalue their manuscript.
————————————————————————
Post# 607
Do you really thing an administrator at the British Library can question Sinaiticus authenticity in a public talk?
———————————————————————---
Post# 643
My major point is that C-14 tests are not really the important tests, for many reasons. And since they destroy a tiny piece of parchment, they are used as an out by the British Library as to why they have not done any testing
————————————————————————
Last edited:
So now that Avery has made his conspiracy theory regarding Sinaiticus testing well known here, does his expert Dr. Ira Rabin from BAM - whom he invokes several times above - agree with him on the matter? Would he defer to her expertise? Here's what she had to say:
To which Avery replied with:
Dr. Rabin rejoins:
So what do any of you honestly think Avery would say, were he to find an expert on Arabic to write and tell him what he doesn't want to hear about the Arabic notes in Sinaiticus?
Despite what Timothy Arthur Brown told him about the images and coloring, Avery persists with the same uninformed lies.
Despite what Dr. Rabin told him about the testing and her own view on Sinaiticus authenticity, Avery persists with the same uninformed lies.
Ditto for McGrane, Hixson, and others.
Expertise is ignored.
No matter what expert is consulted on any issue surrounding Sinaiticus, Avery defers to no one but himself. EVER.
To which Avery replied with:
"Very interesting. One possible motive, and I highlight possible, would be discomfit if the tests showed some surprising things. Even if they showed that the ms. was ancient, but not fourth century. The groups caught on in the last year that the parchment condition was an issue, especially since there was some correspondence with the Brits. On a totally unrelated field, some skeptics asked for C-14 dating on a web
petitions. (About which I am skeptical .) So they might have just decided, let's not take any risks, let's not rock the boat. Science can wait."
Dr. Rabin rejoins:
So what do any of you honestly think Avery would say, were he to find an expert on Arabic to write and tell him what he doesn't want to hear about the Arabic notes in Sinaiticus?
Despite what Timothy Arthur Brown told him about the images and coloring, Avery persists with the same uninformed lies.
Despite what Dr. Rabin told him about the testing and her own view on Sinaiticus authenticity, Avery persists with the same uninformed lies.
Ditto for McGrane, Hixson, and others.
Expertise is ignored.
No matter what expert is consulted on any issue surrounding Sinaiticus, Avery defers to no one but himself. EVER.
Last edited:
Proving that Avery is nothing but a gasslighter.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Clarifying the quote, this was taken from cjab's post:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/codex-sinaiticus-the-facts.12990/page-29#post-1026186
https://forums.carm.org/threads/codex-sinaiticus-the-facts.12990/page-29#post-1026186
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The most important information from Dr. Ira Rabin came in the 2021 Zoom meeting with Brent Nongbri. That is when she explained that Leipzig pulled out of the testing on the day that BAM arrived at Leipzig. There was quite a bit of emotion, and some hope that tests will take place, somewhere, perhaps at the British Library.
And I never said that Rabin has a position on Sinaiticus, other than a willingness to do world-class testing. One place we definitely agree, testing would be excellent.
Guess what everyone?
Now that everyone knows about his NOT TELLING US THE TRUTH about the earlier Rabin letter, Avery NOW goes "Full Joe McCarthy" with "oh, this other thing was more important."
It will NEVER end with this guy, folks.
He will ALWAYS have some sort of convoluted explanation to cover the fact he's wasted his golden years.
Truly pathetic. I'd say "sad," but it really isn't. Someone this strident, arrogant, and pushy deserves a death bed meltdown about how his life was nothing but wasted time. Maybe put on a little Eagles.
Well, why not provide us with something more than just your say so? Like a transcript? Those of us who know you learned long ago that we can't take you at your word. What "important information" was provided?
And I’m sure her explanation wasn’t anything close to the conspiratorial misinformation you’ve been spouting. You're constantly making the mistake of thinking that the mere fact that testing was stopped is proof in and of itself of a cloak and dagger conspiracy to keep the world from knowing the truth about a single manuscript. What happened to your "Logic 101?" Again, give us a transcript of her explanation, instead of just your say so.
So?
Again, so? That's all worthless verbiage in light of the fact that your "witness" isn't really a witness for your conclusion.
Nice try. I never said you said anything about Dr. Rabin having a position on Sinaiticus. By invoking her name here on the topic of Sinaiticus authenticity, you're purposely trying to fool the uninformed into thinking she's a like-minded witness to your conspiracy theories and an ally to your position of a 19th century Sinaiticus.
Was she ever to drop in and see all the ridiculous postings you've made here on this forum, you'd probably never hear from her again.
As I've shown with her own words, she is far from your conclusions.
So is Timothy Arthur Brown, by his own words.
So are others, by their own words.
You are a master at misrepresenting and misappropriating the words of experts. Why? Because your position is so weak, ridiculous and untenable that you desperately need some sort of validation from someone, somewhere.
The words of some other experts will be placed in the spotlight here soon enough. Though we all know it doesn't matter one whit what any expert tells you. I wish Dr. Rabin would drop in here and "correspond" with you regularly for 2 weeks. I can predict exactly what would happen: you'd scare her away forever by inevitably calling her a Tischen-dupe for the crime of demolishing your insane theories and making you look like an uninformed troll.