That Sinaiticus Show

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Maestroh
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Maestroh » Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:20 am

Ulan wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:47 pm
Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:35 pm
And I see this as a rather absurd conclusion based on the minor differences on the colour bar.

The Codex Sinaiticus Project folks had a special committee for photography accuracy and standardization and oversight, and there is ZERO indication that anything was "color-corrected...to make the parchment look whiter".
This, according to you, means "minor differences" (Leipzig color bar on the left, British Library color bar on the right; repeating KK's image from the other thread):

Image

You have to be willfully blind to not see that the differences are indeed massive.

1. Look at the yellow color. The yellow of Leipzig is desaturated and bleached out. The yellow on BL photos is garishly oversaturated. This means that the parchment of Leipzig images will look much whiter even if they are yellow, while the yellow of the BL parchment will be vastly exaggerated on photographs.

2. Look at the greyscale. The "dark part" of the Leipzig greyscale reaches roughly half way up, while the dark part of the BL images reaches only a quarter up. On the white end of the greyscale, you see that the Leipzig color bar is lighter (look at the third and fourth bars from the top). This shows us that Leipzig images have much higher contrast than BL images. Higher contrast means that dark parts, which on these pages consist of the letters, will look darker than they are in reality, while the background, in this case the parchment, will look lighter. On the other hand, the BL images show a rather even greyscale, which means they use a flat color correction and not a curved one, like the Leipzig images do.

Which, in the end, means that all those quotes you make become meaningless. Everyone with eyes in their head can look at those color bars and knows that you cannot make image comparisons without processing the images in a way to make those color bars look exactly the same. Those simple image comparisons regarding parchment color are completely worthless.

And that's basically the gist of it. Unless someone makes an image with both parts of the Codex on the same image, in the same room, under the same light, you won't have anything to talk about. Even the human eye alone cannot really judge colors in different environments correctly.

Of course, that's just the beginning of all the issues with your proposal. There's no need to repeat the whole other thread though.
Btw - this same thing has been explained to him AT LEAST two other times yet he continues to pontificate about it. Folks have even used the same pictures you have.

Steven Avery
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:30 am

Ulan wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:47 pm
This, according to you, means "minor differences" (Leipzig color bar on the left, British Library color bar on the right; repeating KK's image from the other thread) ... You have to be willfully blind to not see that the differences are indeed massive.
Not at all in the context of looking at the specific differences in Leipzig and the British Library on the CSP. You might account for a small pct of the difference, and close to zero pct of the differences in staining and streaking.
Ulan wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:47 pm
Which, in the end, means that all those quotes you make become meaningless.
Which of course is total nonsense. A gentleman like Gavin Moorhead of the British Library saw both the comparative manuscript sections and the comparative pictures. His affirming that:

"the Leipzig folios are notable for their whiteness."


basically destroys the argument that the colour bars account for the difference. And your totally unsupported accusation that the Leipzig pages were color-corrected (i.e. photoshopped) to make them look whiter.

This is why the British Library writers, like David Parker, did not take this absurd position, but simply vaguely alluded to storage conditions.
Ulan wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:47 pm
Everyone with eyes in their head can look at those color bars and knows that you cannot make image comparisons without processing the images in a way to make those color bars look exactly the same. Those simple image comparisons regarding parchment color are completely worthless. .
Again, total nonsense. You obviously do not look at the actual page differences. Sure, the more exact the equipment and colour bars the better, but the massive differences in Leipzig 1844 to British Library 1859 are many times any difference from the colour bar inexactitude.

Steven

Maestroh
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Maestroh » Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:45 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:30 am
Which of course is total nonsense. A gentleman like Gavin Moorhead of the British Library saw both the comparative manuscript sections and the comparative pictures. His affirming that:

"the Leipzig folios are notable for their whiteness."
Is this the same Gavin Moorhead who dates it to the FOURTH century?????
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:30 am
basically destroys the argument that the colour bars account for the difference. And your totally unsupported accusation that the Leipzig pages were color-corrected (i.e. photoshopped) to make them look whiter.
Actually, it doesn't, but I can't expect someone who:
a) has never photographed a MS
b) has never seen this one other than online

to know it.

I CAN wonder why he insists on being so obtuse and arrogant, but what the hey.
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:30 am
This is why the British Library writers, like David Parker, did not take this absurd position, but simply vaguely alluded to storage conditions.
Which refutes your contention here but...whatever.
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:30 am
Again, total nonsense. You obviously do not look at the actual page differences.
And neither do you - you're looking at it online. (Fish in a barrel, folks, fish in a barrel)
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:30 am
Sure, the more exact the equipment and colour bars the better, but the massive differences in Leipzig 1844 to British Library 1859 are many times any difference from the colour bar inexactitude.

Steven
Remind me AGAIN how much experience you have photographing manuscripts...?????

(Since you like to play the "you didn't answer my question" game, certainly this shouldn't be too difficult for a scholar as accomplished as yourself).

Steven Avery
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

the colour bar difference

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:41 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:30 am
Ulan wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:47 pm
This, according to you, means "minor differences" (Leipzig color bar on the left, British Library color bar on the right; repeating KK's image from the other thread) ... You have to be willfully blind to not see that the differences are indeed massive.
Not at all in the context of looking at the specific differences in Leipzig and the British Library on the CSP. You might account for a small pct of the difference, and close to zero pct of the differences in staining and streaking.
Mark Michie has done the most on our team with the colour analysis and the numbers given with the CSP (which are not based on the photographs). Mark summarized it as follows.

"I do think that the equipment differences are a major source of the differences between the BL and LUL colour bars. Lighting, page angle....possibly a different camera. But obviously the difference introduced to the images by the equipment is minor compared to the actual difference in the pages. The manual colour characterization makes that clear."

David made up the composite pic, Mark collated and analyzed the numbers given on the CSP. The pictures on the sinaiticus.net site come from the Codex Sinatiicus Project.

Codex Sinaiticus Authenticity Research
http://www.sinaiticus.net/

Steven

Ulan
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Ulan » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:04 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:30 am
Ulan wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:47 pm
This, according to you, means "minor differences" (Leipzig color bar on the left, British Library color bar on the right; repeating KK's image from the other thread) ... You have to be willfully blind to not see that the differences are indeed massive.
Not at all in the context of looking at the specific differences in Leipzig and the British Library on the CSP. You might account for a small pct of the difference, and close to zero pct of the differences in staining and streaking.
Those color bars are internal standards. By this their very nature, they trump any statement anybody has ever made regarding this. Sorry.
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:30 am
This is why the British Library writers, like David Parker, did not take this absurd position, but simply vaguely alluded to storage conditions.
Storage conditions are certainly important and, of course, weaken your position even further. The British Library performed extensive research into parchment aging and preservation conditions because they, during World War I, made the unfortunate decision to store many of their parchments in subway tunnels, which led to rapid aging and deterioration of quite a few of their manuscripts.
Last edited by Ulan on Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Maestroh
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: the colour bar difference

Post by Maestroh » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:33 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:41 am
"I do think that the equipment differences are a major source of the differences between the BL and LUL colour bars. Lighting, page angle....possibly a different camera. But obviously the difference introduced to the images by the equipment is minor compared to the actual difference in the pages. The manual colour characterization makes that clear."
And WHEN did he view the ACTUAL pages to make this sort of assessment??????


Oh yeah - he never did.


(The game is over, we're just running up the points and using up the bullets now).

Steven Avery
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:59 am

Ulan wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:04 am
Those color bars are internal standards. By this their very nature, they trump any statement anybody has ever made regarding this. Sorry.
Sure, if the colour bars reversed the colors, everything would be up in the air.
Everything would have to be revisited.

All they do is modestly lessen the degree of an obvious, huge:

acknowledged by the British Library expert that has seen the pics and the manuscript
supported by the numbers that are not based on the pics

also
consistent with the staining and streaking difference in the sections
consistent with the historical report

difference.

See how Mark Michie puts it again.

Steven

Maestroh
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Maestroh » Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:22 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:59 am
Ulan wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:04 am
Those color bars are internal standards. By this their very nature, they trump any statement anybody has ever made regarding this. Sorry.
Sure, if the colour bars reversed the colors, everything would be up in the air.
Everything would have to be revisited.

All they do is modestly lessen the degree of an obvious, huge:

acknowledged by the British Library expert that has seen the pics and the manuscript
supported by the numbers that are not based on the pics


also
consistent with the staining and streaking difference in the sections
consistent with the historical report

difference.

See how Mark Michie puts it again.

Steven
Who dates the manuscript to the fourth century.....amazing how you keep leaving that part out....this is NOT the find you keep wishfully thinking it is oh KJVOist...

Steven Avery
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

comparing the same folio, Jeremiah, Leipzig 1844 and British Library 1859

Post by Steven Avery » Sat Apr 14, 2018 12:34 am

Published on:

Facebook
Eureka! Medieval Manuscripts on the Web
Library of Stains Project
https://www.facebook.com/groups/digital ... 22R2%22%7D
Here is an example of why Sinaiticus would be a fertile field for looking at stains and colour. What we have here are continuous pages in the ms.
One went to St. Petersburg, and is now in London.

Quire 46, Folio 8v
British Library
Jeremiah, 9:20 - 10:25 library: BL
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscrip ... omSlider=0

One page went to Leipzig:
Quire 47, Folio 1r
Leipzig University Library
Jeremiah, 10:25- 11:23 library:
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscrip ... omSlider=0

Contiguous pictures at: http://www.sinaiticus.net/four%20contig ... oints.html
Image

Stains, colour bars and other issues all in one pic.

And let us remember also:

Forensic Chemistry, p. 79 (1921)
Alfred Lucas
https://archive.org/stream/forensicchem ... 8/mode/2up
"Discoloration due to age is largely a process of oxidation brought about by natural means and it takes place in proportion to the extent to which the paper has been exposed to the air and light, and hence the outsides and edges of old documents, which are the most exposed, become the most discoloured, the discoloration progressively diminishing towards the less exposed parts."
And that pesky Sinaiticus, it just decided to overhaul parchment science.
Well, not exactly, Lucas mentions another vector of coloration.
"Artificial discoloration made to simulate age is produced by means of a coloured solutions .. coffee .. teas .. tobacco .. potassium permanganate"
https://archive.org/stream/forensicchem ... 0/mode/2up
“the same Codex was cleaned, with a solution of herbs, on the theory that the skins might be cleaned, but, in fact, that the writing might be changed, as it was, to a sort of yellow colour.”
"The MS. had been systematically tampered with, in order to give it an ancient appearance, as early as 1852"
“had also been cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of washing the vellum, but, in reality, to weaken the freshness of the letters.”
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... 05#post605
Maybe the new forensic chemistry book will come out and say that the outsides and edges really do not get discoloured, the parchment does not really lose suppleness in the dry heat over 1500 years .. after all, look at Sinaiticus .. circularity, the jewel.

Maestroh
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Maestroh » Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:36 am

Here is an example of why Sinaiticus would be a fertile field for looking at stains and colour. What we have here are continuous pages in the ms.
One went to St. Petersburg, and is now in London.

Quire 46, Folio 8v
British Library
Jeremiah, 9:20 - 10:25 library: BL
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscrip ... omSlider=0

One page went to Leipzig:
Quire 47, Folio 1r
Leipzig University Library
Jeremiah, 10:25- 11:23 library:
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscrip ... omSlider=0

Contiguous pictures at: http://www.sinaiticus.net/four%20contig ... oints.html
Image

Stains, colour bars and other issues all in one pic.

And let us remember also:

Forensic Chemistry, p. 79 (1921)
Alfred Lucas
https://archive.org/stream/forensicchem ... 8/mode/2up
"Discoloration due to age is largely a process of oxidation brought about by natural means and it takes place in proportion to the extent to which the paper has been exposed to the air and light, and hence the outsides and edges of old documents, which are the most exposed, become the most discoloured, the discoloration progressively diminishing towards the less exposed parts."


Quoting from a Chemistry book that is nearly a century old (are you actually THIS dumb?)......even if the information is accurate proves absolutely nothing about Sinaiticus.


This is what is called a colossal popcorn fart.

"Hey, folks, here's how I'm gonna prove Sinaiticus was stained - I'm gonna quote a Chemistry book!"

No, what you have to actually do is.......test it for the chemicals you claim did this.

And that pesky Sinaiticus, it just decided to overhaul parchment science.
This is nothing but a rhetorical comment.
Well, not exactly, Lucas mentions another vector of coloration.
"Artificial discoloration made to simulate age is produced by means of a coloured solutions .. coffee .. teas .. tobacco .. potassium permanganate"
https://archive.org/stream/forensicchem ... 0/mode/2up
Again - saying something CAN happen is not the same as saying it is what DID happen. Even a brain dead non-scientist like yourself knows this.


“the same Codex was cleaned, with a solution of herbs, on the theory that the skins might be cleaned, but, in fact, that the writing might be changed, as it was, to a sort of yellow colour.”
"The MS. had been systematically tampered with, in order to give it an ancient appearance, as early as 1852"
“had also been cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of washing the vellum, but, in reality, to weaken the freshness of the letters.”
I reiterate that Steven Avery has now had THREE YEARS to come up with a BELIEVABLE scenario where this happens - he has yet to do so, which is why he alters the dates and exaggerates them (e.g. LIES about them).

You, quite frankly, are an ignorant putz with no balls.

Post Reply