Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am
The difference was clearly acknowledged by the British Library, after we found it on the CSP site, after we were led to research this based on the "white parchment" comment of Uspensky.
Notice the parts he just left out:
1) Uspenski dated it to the FIFTH century when he actually handled it
2) The British Library, whom he suddenly thinks is infallible on the color difference, also dates it to the fourth century.
And also notice that Avery is MISLEADING you with the words "acknowledged by the British Library" because this color difference is actually very easily explained if you read their books.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am
The 1844 Leipzig first batch of 86 pages is white/cream and unstanined.
The 1859 British Library later batch is yellow-coloured and stained.
This colouring was specifically pointed out publicly as having occurred -we have the quotes from as early as 1862.
Once again, Steven Avery Spenser is leaving out IMPORTANT DETAILS and making arbitrary connections of dots.
1) 1862 is when Simonides wrote his letter to the Guardian (9/3 to be precise)
2) Simonides very specifically states he saw this stained in 1852; of course in the same letter, he ALSO says he saw his entire work there and never once mentions the missing pages of CFA....because this lie never actually happened
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am
There is no other explanation for why the staining was highlighted by Simonides and Kallinikos, other than the fact .. it happenned.
There's a reason he is NOT quoting what these guys actually said, so I'm going to do this and expose this fraud for what he is. Here are some of the ridiculous claims of the LETTER of Kallinikos (that was written by Simonides):
1) "this (Sinaiticus) is a genuine work of the indefatigable Simonides. For I saw him myself wth my own eyes in February 1840 writing it in Athos"
2) "Tischendorf...in May 1844...having examined the MS carefully...tore off a small part of it privately and went his way..."
3) "..coming again to the same monastery, he also took the remaining portion of the MS..."
4) "All these things, then, I know, being on the spot...."
5) "I know too, still further, that 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."
Now you have to admit this Kallinikos guy is absolutely the most incredible person who ever lived. He manages somehow to be on Athos in 1840 to see Simonides writing this thing and then to somehow just be in the perfect spot on Sinai in both 1844 and 1859 to see Tischendorf take it. Better yet, he knows them because (point 4) he is an ACTUAL EYEWITNESS and saw these things!!!!
He further "knows" that this codex was altered....and he knows with what substance.
The fact this makes Kallinikos a co-conspirator and now we have a conspiracy theory.......doesn't help the case.
What sinks it, however, is the fact that Simonides never produced Kallinikos; he just produced a series of letters that are CLAIMED TO BE from Kallinikos. Those are not the same thing - Avery is pretending they are.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am
It would be absurd to make such a claim blind.
OJ Simpson claims to this day he didn't kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, too; science says otherwise.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am
And it is amazing that were given a truly astounding before-and-after - hidden till 2009 CSP made it available, studied c. 2013.
The fool is praising when he became aware of it - he still hasn't read it because he cannot.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am
As for the stumbling, attempted physical explanations (storage, etc.) they are EXTREMELY weak, and do not offer any type of consistent explanation.
This anti-vaxxer (Avery IS both an anti-vaxxer, a 9/11 truther, and recently wrote that we should consider the theory that atomic bombs may not exist......so this is the mentality of the dude.....
He thinks a guy writing a letter and signing another guy's name to it constitutes ironclad proof.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am
And there are various major additional physical condition elements that are corroborative to the late dating. These apply to 1844 and 1859, such as the easay-peasy page turning of a supposed 1650+ year ms. And amazing ink preservation, without acid eating into parchment.
Just note that several people INCLUDING MYSELF have informed Spenser for Hire here that he has never handled a manuscript and has not a freaking clue what he's talking about.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am
You asked me, I answered.
To me, it is not a matter of faith, it is a study of evidences.
I fully understand that it is difficult to see the full body of evidences in view, and thus it would be easy for someone to say, eg.
"50-50, we need testing!"
Just reminder that he recently wrote:
Steven Avery
about 3 months ago
"trickery is the way of war"
The claims that there is a Nuke Hoax, that really there are not nuclear weapons that destroy cities, should be given real consideration. A big element of these studies involve looking closely at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the test sites like in NM and Bimini.
You'll need a Facebook account but:
https://www.facebook.com/steven.avery.7 ... 6263992557
Conspiracy theorist - nothing more.