Maybe it really does all come to character. Maybe I have bad character and so I persist in debating someone who has a clear pathos about this situation. But character is destiny as they say and I will persist.
In the Academic Group Ken has apparently "solved" the problem of his earlier statement that the first word in the Greek phrase formerly translated by amateurs as "naked man with naked man" "might have a terminal iota/might have a terminal sigma" to a full throated "confirmation" that it is sigma by using a methodology already extensive documented in the literature as being the preferred methodology of the cabal at Duke University i.e. preferring low resolution printed pages over high resolution imagery.
The example I am speaking of was the well received journal article 6 Roger VIKLUND and Timo S. PAANANEN, “Distortion of the Scribal Hand in the Images of Clement’s Letter to Theodore,” VC 67 (2013): 235–247. Wikipedia notes:
As Ken doesn't seem to read things or is good ignoring things which contradict his entrenched presuppositions I will cite from the conclusions of that study:
Ken is doing it again in this forum. When he consulted the high resolution digital images made from Quesnell's negatives at the Jerusalem Patriarchate he didn't see what he hoped to see. He said maybe iota/maybe sigma. But lo and behold Ken certainly got the results he wanted from the scanned dot printed images from Morton Smith's book (you can see the dot printed image quality) from what he says is Wieland Wilker's website. Not only was the original image of low quality, scanning technology in Wieland Wilker was way worse than today. Stephen Carlson references Wieland Wilker website in 2005. My guess is that the scans were made at the turn of the millennia.
So we have a very intelligent articulate man in Ken Olson at first refusing to see the implications of admitting "maybe iota/maybe sigma" on the Duke University conspiracy theory and then "correcting" his position by even make more of a fool of himself, in preferring inferior evidence to superior evidence mere to assure the desired outcome.
Ken isn't too good for this forum. He is a perfect embodiment of the eisegesis that goes on here. Congrats for being one of us, Ken.![:cheers:]( "Cheers")
![Image]()
So we went from "yeah it could be a sigma or it could be an iota" and not recognizing what that does to the Duke University conspiracy to "well it's more clearly a sigma the worse the image resolution is" once I drew his attention to the problem.
Maybe this explains why Tselikas read "nakeds with naked." He certainly wasn't using the dotted images of Smith's 1973 and likely the high resolution photographs and perhaps, we'll never know, the original manuscript.
In the Academic Group Ken has apparently "solved" the problem of his earlier statement that the first word in the Greek phrase formerly translated by amateurs as "naked man with naked man" "might have a terminal iota/might have a terminal sigma" to a full throated "confirmation" that it is sigma by using a methodology already extensive documented in the literature as being the preferred methodology of the cabal at Duke University i.e. preferring low resolution printed pages over high resolution imagery.
The example I am speaking of was the well received journal article 6 Roger VIKLUND and Timo S. PAANANEN, “Distortion of the Scribal Hand in the Images of Clement’s Letter to Theodore,” VC 67 (2013): 235–247. Wikipedia notes:
Apparently Ken doesn't hide the fact that he can "see" things "clearer" (= can see what he wants to see) from low resolution images because he writes:Carlson chose "to use the halftone reproductions found in [Smith's book] Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark" where the images were printed with a line screen made of dots. If the "images are magnified to the degree necessary for forensic document examination" the dot matrix will be visible and the letters "will not appear smooth". Once the printed images Carlson used were replaced with the original photographs, the signs of tremors also disappeared. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark
"Clearer"? How? How can inferior be better unless you are seeking out scribbly wobbly images to accent the sigma appearance of the terminal letter? This is science? This is scientific methodology?I think this is one of the black and white images Morton Smith took, but it may be clearer than the color image I posted earlier.
As Ken doesn't seem to read things or is good ignoring things which contradict his entrenched presuppositions I will cite from the conclusions of that study:
Stephen Carlson decided there were "forger's tremors" based on low resolution black and white reproductions of Smith's inferior black and white photos from the printed pages of Morton Smith's Clement of Alexandria. He had the color reproductions made of Quesnell's commissioned photos but decided he got the result he "liked better" by using low resolution images.In sum: all the signs of forgery Carlson unearthed in his analysis of the handwriting in Clement’s Letter to Theodore disappear once we replace the [low resolution] printed images Carlson used with the original photographs ... Though Carlson is to be commended for his insight that the tools of forensic document examination could advance the debate, the execution of his project has left much to be desired. Based on the comparison of the images presented above we suggest that there is no “forger’s tremor” or any other “signs of forgery” to be found in the script of Clement’s Letter to Theodore. Consequently, one of the key arguments in Carlson’s The Gospel Hoax can be finally laid to rest.
Ken is doing it again in this forum. When he consulted the high resolution digital images made from Quesnell's negatives at the Jerusalem Patriarchate he didn't see what he hoped to see. He said maybe iota/maybe sigma. But lo and behold Ken certainly got the results he wanted from the scanned dot printed images from Morton Smith's book (you can see the dot printed image quality) from what he says is Wieland Wilker's website. Not only was the original image of low quality, scanning technology in Wieland Wilker was way worse than today. Stephen Carlson references Wieland Wilker website in 2005. My guess is that the scans were made at the turn of the millennia.
So we have a very intelligent articulate man in Ken Olson at first refusing to see the implications of admitting "maybe iota/maybe sigma" on the Duke University conspiracy theory and then "correcting" his position by even make more of a fool of himself, in preferring inferior evidence to superior evidence mere to assure the desired outcome.
Ken isn't too good for this forum. He is a perfect embodiment of the eisegesis that goes on here. Congrats for being one of us, Ken.
So we went from "yeah it could be a sigma or it could be an iota" and not recognizing what that does to the Duke University conspiracy to "well it's more clearly a sigma the worse the image resolution is" once I drew his attention to the problem.
Maybe this explains why Tselikas read "nakeds with naked." He certainly wasn't using the dotted images of Smith's 1973 and likely the high resolution photographs and perhaps, we'll never know, the original manuscript.
Statistics: Posted by Secret Alias — Thu Mar 21, 2024 10:33 am