Fence Sitter wrote:
He fails to mention the Charlot Haven account regarding the long scroll theory.
The account is not useful as evidence for scroll length. A layman such as Charlotte seeing a papyrus scroll and calling it simply a "long roll of manuscript" does not tell you anything about the scroll length, other than that it is presumably long compared with "manuscript" paper sizes she is familiar with. As this could just as easily describe the known contents of the Horus Scroll as Nibley's mystery scroll, it is therefore irrelevant.
Wise or not, the author's "failure" to devote time to the Charlotte Haven quote was an intentional choice, as he did not see how its implications were even pertinent to the question. [Source: I am the author's evil twin.] Nibley's quote is far more explicit about length, and is the only known "account" with truly relevant implications to the question.
If it turns out to be a bone of contention, perhaps some day the author will make a brief addendum addressing it.
Fence Sitter wrote:
Gee estimate of 42 feet is not physically possible inside a 1.3 inches diameter scroll (about the size of an empty toilet paper roll) and is indefensible. Furthermore Gee doesn't even understand the math behind the Hoffmann formula nor does he understand how Smith & Cook applied the Hoffmann formula, instead he claims they are using a different formula derived from the thickness of the papyri.
I remember reading Mr. Gee's response in FARMS last year and feeling really embarrassed for him. Here he was, the would-be challenger, and his criticisms showed a catastrophic (and public) failure to understanding some of the most basic aspects of the study's methodology and formulae, e.g. "effective thickness". Even I, a mere lay reader, had understood that much from my own reading of the paper and readily caught this fundamental mistake. Either he hadn't carefully read it, or he had and failed to understand it. (It's hard to say which is more embarrassing. I was amazed that FARMS let it go to press like that without making sure that someone, anyone, understood the paper properly first.) Then he carried this unfortunate failure over into a public presentation at FAIR. Andrew Cook's eventual response paper in Dialogue deftly exposed Mr. Gee's errors and was a thrashing that FARMS has yet to recover from. I don't know how Mr. Gee can possibly be considered a credible authority on the subject any more, at this point.
The Smith and Cook study was well thought out and rigorously executed, with sound methodology. The data set is publicly available. Still nobody at FARMS or otherwise has ever properly refuted its methodology or findings. It therefore still stands as the definitive work on the subject. (Nor has FARMS acknowledged their mistakes, as far as I know. [Correct me if I'm wrong.] Best to let past errors remain out there when they work in your favor, I suppose.)