notes on the Kevin McGrane paper - review of Bill Cooper

[Steven Avery]

In the Preface:

a particularly repugnant aspect of the thesis is its reliance upon the false testimony of a notorious fraudster and perjurer who gloried in his role of viciously persecuting the Protestant Reformed cause, and shrank not from attempting to destroy the lives and reputations of the saints

To a large extent, this is simply a diversion red herring. The participation of Simonides in the creation of a replica or forgery text in Mt. Athos c. 1839-1840 stands or falls on the evidences, not e.g. how Simonides behaved years later in the Jonas King affair.

WIP

[Steven Avery]

Scholars have been unable easily to compare the state of the various parts of the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript held in Leipzig, London, St Petersburg, and Sinai, all the more so since photographic facsimiles adjusted the tone to give a uniform page coloration, minimizing their differences and obviating colour comparison. - Introduction p.3

Here we need exact information.
Which ones? Why? No footnote.

===========

We have emphasized this point. And this is, from memory, messed up completely from top to bottom by Bill Cooper.

[Steven Avery]

Wip

in the introduction

[Steven Avery]

Introduction (swap with post above.) more later

On this topic, we have an incredible irony in the approach of Kevin.

On one hand he wants to claim that the CSP difference is virtually all photography. (Without any proper discussion of streaks, stains and lack of colour consistency, all of which is 1859nBritish Library, not 1844 Leipzig.).

On the other hand Kevin theorizes some (unknown, no evidence) cleansing, bleaching, lightening of the Leipzig leaves.

hmmm,