Fauci isn't a neuroscientist, he's an infectious disease specialist.
Do you seriously not know medicine has different categories - as does science?
Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
Fauci isn't a neuroscientist, he's an infectious disease specialist.
Do you seriously not know medicine has different categories - as does science?
Unbound posted it. Look at it.
It's on BVDB (It wasn't on CARM).
Do you not remember that, either?
So we continue to demonstrate who has the FAULTY memory (it wasn't on CARM) and who has the reliable one.
We thank you for clarifying this for the rest of us.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Lots of possibilities, regional, national, international.
Also various Journals.
Within some months to a year, I would be more interested in these venues.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Fauci says he is Mr. Science. "I am the Science."
Since you are so concerned about "anti-vaxx" .. have you seen the new movie "Died Suddenly"?
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
If I was not on BVDB at the time, the post is worthless, it does not show what were your words to me.
Your memory fails again, since your words to me were on CARM in Feb. 2018.
The thread was:
Who Darkened Sinaiticus? - colour variance - white parchment Frederico-Augustanus
Granted, your debate challenge memory failings are much worse.
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
It would be interesting to get all documented instances of Simonides using, or trying to use the same basic hidden stash of manuscripts sales pitch found by my uncle in x monastery storyline (either successfully or unsuccessfully).
He used the same basic sales pitch with slight variations which he adapted to his individual target (victims).
I've only been researching this a very short time. Help, or contributions (excepting any ingrained and/or twisted conspratorialist fantasy theories - of course) on this, is appreciated.
Update, other instances, one in Greece, reported in an 1851 issue of Pandora, (a Greek magazine) also.
He used the same basic sales pitch with slight variations which he adapted to his individual target (victims).
- He used it on the King of Greece.
- He used it (slight variant) in Turkey.
- He used it about the Sinaiticus.
- He used it (with slight variations) in Cairo after being only slightly dead.
- He also used it in Russia in another instance (I'm not sure of the exact timeline of this yet. It's in German. It could have been prior to the Sinaiticus debacle, or it could have been after being only slightly dead). [Okay, update, this took place in 1851, real time (not Simonides fictional timeline)]
I've only been researching this a very short time. Help, or contributions (excepting any ingrained and/or twisted conspratorialist fantasy theories - of course) on this, is appreciated.
Update, other instances, one in Greece, reported in an 1851 issue of Pandora, (a Greek magazine) also.
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Patterns of behavior emerge.
Various references/articles critical of Simonides in The Athenaeum 1861-1863 (googlebooks). Not sure if these are of value to you.
The Athenaeum
www.google.co.uk
The Athenaeum
www.google.co.uk
The Athenaeum
www.google.co.uk
Steven Avery
Well-known member
To you, Daniels, Pinto, Cooper and Ross.....and you all bought it.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
In 1851 there is a Pandora article referenced by James Anson Farrer.
Literary Forgeries (1907)
https://books.google.com/books?id=4lgLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA41
In 1851 Mr. Rancabes, the Greek poet, condemned all Simonides’ MSS. as forgeries, in the Pandora; he thought they all bore traces of having been composed by one hand, and he calculated that the whole collection might have been produced in about a year and a half. But there was strong political antagoism between Rancabes and Simonides, and this probably coloured the criticism. In any case the verdict.
More here:
Neohellenica, an introduction to modern Greek in the form of dialogue containing specimens of the language from the third century B.C. to the present day; to which is added an appendix giving examples of the Cypriot dialect
Constantinides, Michael; Rogers, H. T. (Henry Thomas), 1830-1898
https://archive.org/stream/neohellenicaintr00consiala#page/378/mode/2up/
https://books.google.com/books?id=oCkTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA378
Steven Avery
Well-known member
There may also be a reference on p. 66 of
Die Odyssee des Fälschers (2011)
Rüdiger Schaper
I'll try to check the 2015 book if I have a few minutes, too.
Die Odyssee des Fälschers (2011)
Rüdiger Schaper
I'll try to check the 2015 book if I have a few minutes, too.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Various references/articles critical of Simonides in The Athenaeum 1861-1863 (googlebooks). Not sure if these are of value to you.
The Athenaeum
www.google.co.uk
A better url:
(Google Play is annoying)
Athenaeum July 6, 1861
https://books.google.com/books?id=fY8eAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA755
Also p. 731, p848-849 and 882 might be relevant.
The second one has a better url here:
Athenaeum Jan 25, 1862
https://books.google.com/books?id=yBJEAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA11
These might be relevant.
p. 51
p. 84
p. 117-118
p. 193-194
p. 226
And there is lots more Athenaeum
Last edited:
With all Avery's diversionary talk of Sinaiticus's white colored leaves being some sort of supposed proof of 19th century composition, ask him why he hasn't told anyone that his precious 6th century Fuldensis is WHITE!
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Good question.
But Slime-on says...
But the Monasteries said... about Slime-on... that (in essence) he told a whole truckload of twisted lies about everyone and everything he came into contact with while in the Monasteries... 💥💥💥👈👀
Instead of, "I had no idea what I was talking about," we get - as is the custom - the pretense you were talking about something else even though YOU brought up Dr. Robinson, and I honestly doubt he was talking about "a bunch of places all over the place."
Has nothing at all to do with the point.
Yet another assertion...
Nope.
The stupidest claims in the world - as I noted earlier - seem to all being with "I found this on the Internet" and "I watched a You Tube video," of which a movie is essentially the same thing.
How would you being there or not being there have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with your FALSE CLAIM that I somehow had influence with SBL?
It's not like anyone stops you from reading it.
It's still on BDVD
Nope.
The thread REGARDING SBL (which was your previous whine) is from 2016, not 2018, and is on BVDB.
Notice the words:
The call for papers for SBL typically opens around mid-December 2016 and you will know if you are selected by March 2017.
Now I don't know how they keep calendars in Queens, okay?
I have no way of knowing what brain damage the water may cause or the toxic fumes.
In the real world, though, 2016 is prior to 2018.
You keep telling us CARM threads aren't here, then you say you have them.
Is your life really this boring?
And whom precisely has the obsession?
Again- I can understand completely why you are terrified of saying the words, "I'm sorry, I was wrong."
Guy who asked me for evidence now claims he had it - but ignores the reality of the 2016 post.
THIS is the ahem "researcher" who has dated a manuscript he's never seen and can't read.
More gaslighting.
Remember folks - there's a difference between the TRUTH and HIM ADMITTING THE TRUTH.
Are you referring to OJ Simonides, his self-appointed pro bono attorney, or both?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Simonides (alias Kallinikos) said that the Sinaiticus:
How, when, and why did he/they change from "MUCH INJURED BY TIME", to injured by Tischendorf?
Simonides originally said (effectually) that the manuscript material was ancient "PREPARED...MANY CENTURIES AGO"
Three questions I want convincing answers to, in Simonides' and/or Kallinkos' own unambiguous words (not made up or distorted/twisted stories by latter 20th/21st century conspiracists)!
"had been PREPARED apparently MANY CENTURIES AGO [...] MUCH INJURED BY TIME"
How, when, and why did he/they change from "MUCH INJURED BY TIME", to injured by Tischendorf?
Simonides originally said (effectually) that the manuscript material was ancient "PREPARED...MANY CENTURIES AGO"
Three questions I want convincing answers to, in Simonides' and/or Kallinkos' own unambiguous words (not made up or distorted/twisted stories by latter 20th/21st century conspiracists)!
- Where did Simonides (or his alter-ego Kallinikos) them/him-self actually say that the parchment skin for their bazar-Tsar-project was actually grown, tanned, (i.e. manufactured) in the 19th century?
- How do we get from a carefully-selected ancient materials story, to a newly grown and tanned parchment story?
- Where, and when did that change take place?