Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. 53 pieces of Evidence against Oswald.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Right. And there is virtually no conspiracy theory and wacky belief you won't latch onto. Golden plates. LOL. Lost Cause. Pearl Harbor. What an id--t.

Let's start with your anti-religious bigotry. So I suppose that in your view, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a "wacky belief" too, since it involves the supernatural and a resurrected being, right?

I'm not a Lost Causer. I've corrected you on this lie several times. Lost Causers don't maintain websites that praise Lincoln and McClellan. Are you just clueless about Civil War scholarship?

Pearl Harbor? Well, a whole bunch of admirals, members of Congress, and even a former president said there was evidence that FDR had advance knowledge that the Japanese would attack. And with the release of formerly classified files, we now have clear evidence that some senior military leaders and FDR administration officials knew the Japanese fleet was heading toward Pearl Harbor before it attacked.

The Bobby Kennedy Assassination Tape: Were 13 Shots Fired or Only 8? Link

    "After listening to the recording, some acoustic experts say Van Praag
     misidentified some sound impulses as gun shots and that only seven
     or eight shots could be heard on the low-fidelity tape. Forensic acoustics
     engineer Philip Harrison said, “I can’t find any more than the seven shots
     that are there.” In 2013, comments by Harrison and others helped
     convince U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich that the tape was no
     smoking gun. “Van Praag’s opinion is far from ‘conclusive’ evidence of a
     second gunman,” Wistrich wrote, “because other experts analyzing the
     Pruszynski recording have reached contrary conclusions.”

So you take Harrison's analysis over that of Van Praag and over that of the four other experts who have confirmed that the tape contains more than 8 shots? The presence of more than 8 shots on the tape has been confirmed by forensic audio specialists Wes Dooley and Paul Pegas of Audio Engineering Associates in Pasadena, California; by forensic audio and ballistics expert Eddy B. Brixen in Copenhagen, Denmark; and by audio specialist Phil Spencer Whitehead of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia. But, nah, you'll take Harrison's word over Van Praag's, Dooley's, Pegas's, Brixen's, and Whitehead's.

Furthermore, Harrison merely used a copy of the tape, didn't use any of the specialized equipment that Van Praag used, didn't use any of the test or enhanced recordings that Van Praag made, didn't address the two 120-150-millisecond double-shot groups, and admitted there were several other impulses on the tape whose sources he could not identify. Also, it turned out that Harrison was not even aware of Pruszynski's movements and did not know where the microphone was. Apparently, conspiracy denier Mel Ayton did not give Harrison all the facts when he asked him to analyze the tape. For once, just for once, educate yourself before you comment further:

Of the several experts who have studied the tape, Van Praag is the most qualified, just FYI.

That's like saying "every" witness to the JFK assassination said the limousine came to a complete stop during the shooting. Or every Parkland observer saw a hole at the very back of the President's head.

No, it is not. It just so happens that every single witness in the pantry who commented on Sirhan's and RFK's relative positions said that Sirhan never, ever, ever got closer than 3-4 feet to Bobby.

And I have not even mentioned the ballistics evidence yet, which strongly supports the conspiracy conclusion. You're aware that the LAPD criminalist, DeWayne Wolfer, who handled the ballistics evidence in the RFK case, was later exposed as a quack and a fraud, right? You know this, right?

[Jerry Organ]

Let's start with your anti-religious bigotry. So I suppose that in your view, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a "wacky belief" too, since it involves the supernatural and a resurrected being, right?

I'm not alone in casting huge amounts of doubt on Angel Moroni directing Joseph Smith to a hill in Upstate New York in 1823 to find golden engraved plates that were translated using seer stones. It's a con. That area was rampant with religious nuts and extremists. Presidential assassin Charles J. Guiteau joined a cult in that area and he claimed God told him to kill Garfield.

I'm not a Lost Causer. I've corrected you on this lie several times. Lost Causers don't maintain websites that praise Lincoln and McClellan. Are you just clueless about Civil War scholarship?

One can admire Lincoln and claim the South had a just cause.

Pearl Harbor? Well, a whole bunch of admirals, members of Congress, and even a former president said there was evidence that FDR had advance knowledge that the Japanese would attack. And with the release of formerly classified files, we now have clear evidence that some senior military leaders and FDR administration officials knew the Japanese fleet was heading toward Pearl Harbor before it attacked.

Well, of course you believe it.

So you take Harrison's analysis over that of Van Praag and over that of the four other experts who have confirmed that the tape contains more than 8 shots? The presence of more than 8 shots on the tape has been confirmed by forensic audio specialists Wes Dooley and Paul Pegas of Audio Engineering Associates in Pasadena, California; by forensic audio and ballistics expert Eddy B. Brixen in Copenhagen, Denmark; and by audio specialist Phil Spencer Whitehead of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia. But, nah, you'll take Harrison's word over Van Praag's, Dooley's, Pegas's, Brixen's, and Whitehead's.

Furthermore, Harrison merely used a copy of the tape, didn't use any of the specialized equipment that Van Praag used, didn't use any of the test or enhanced recordings that Van Praag made, didn't address the 120-millisecond double shot, and admitted there were several other impulses on the tape that he could not identify. Also, it turned out that Harrison was not even aware of Pruszynski's movements and did not know where the microphone was. Apparently, conspiracy denier Mel Ayton did not give Harrison all the facts when he asked him to analyze the tape. For once, just for once, educate yourself before you comment further:

Of the several experts who have studied the tape, Van Praag is the most qualified, just FYI.

LOL. Academic ranking coming from you?

No, it is not. It just so happens that every single witness in the pantry who commented on Sirhan's and RFK's relative positions said that Sirhan never, ever, ever got closer than 3-4 feet to Bobby.

That would be nice if the witnesses were braced against the opposite wall knowing the assassination was to occur. Then they could be prepared to record every nuance of the incident. But they were in a crowded poorly-lit hallway when something unexpected suddenly happened. I would bet most didn't turn to look towards RFK until 3 or 4 shots were fired and they initially just saw bodies intertwined in a struggle.

And I have not even mentioned the ballistics evidence yet, which strongly supports the conspiracy conclusion. You're aware that the LAPD criminalist, DeWayne Wolfer, who handled the ballistics evidence in the RFK case was later exposed as a quack and a fraud, right? You know this, right?

I associate quack and fraud more so with you.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I'm not alone in casting huge amounts of doubt on Angel Moroni directing Joseph Smith to a hill in Upstate New York in 1823 to find golden engraved plates that were translated using seer stones. It's a con. That area was rampant with religious nuts and extremists. Presidential assassin Charles J. Guiteau joined a cult in that area and he claimed God told him to kill Garfield.

You didn't answer my question.

If the Book of Mormon is a "con," how do you explain the evidence of its authenticity, such as the Hebraisms in the book, the discovery of the town of Nahom in Arabia (which was unknown in Joseph Smith's day), the discovery of an amazing candidate for the Land Bountiful in Yemen (which was unknown until the 1990s), the huge amounts of chiasmus in the book, the computer wordprint analyses that prove that many different authors wrote the book (just as the book claims), etc., etc.?

One can admire Lincoln and claim the South had a just cause.

LOL! Okay, partner, I'll tell you what: You go on any of the major online Civil War discussion forums and you find me such a person! Better yet, go find me a person who not only admires Lincoln but who defends and praises George McClellan but who also claims the South had a just cause! As usual, you have no clue what you are talking about.

By the way, I do not believe the South had just cause to secede. I used to argue this, but I changed my mind a few years ago. I still believe they had a constitutional and natural right to secede, but that they had no valid reason to secede.

Well, of course you believe it.

Well, yeah, I believe it because we now have released files that prove it. I'm guessing that, as with most other issues you discuss, you've done very little reading on this subject. Have you, by chance, heard of the Hoover-Ladd memos, where they discuss the fact that the chief of Army Counterintelligence worriedly had informed the FBI on December 10, three days after the attack, that Army intelligence knew at least two days before the attack that the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor? Mind you, these memos were never intended to see the light of day--they were not released until the 1990s and were apparently released due to a clerical error.

How about OP-20-G message 7001? Heard of that? It proves that the East Wind Rain message that signaled war was in fact intercepted, contrary to the Truman administration's later denials. The message was discovered by two eminent Pearl Harbor scholars, Roger Pineau and John Costello, both of whom had previously denied there was any evidence of advance knowledge.

How about the TESTM and COMSUM records that were finally pried loose by FOIA suits, which prove that Navy Intelligence was able to read quite a bit of the Japanese naval code, that they were tracking the Japanese task force heading toward Pearl Harbor, and that they knew that the task force was not in Japanese home waters but in the North Pacific?

Any clue about any of this stuff?

LOL. Academic ranking coming from you?

So obviously you have no idea about who Van Praag is and about his qualifications and standing in the field of acoustics and audio recording technology. If you ever gather up the integrity to read the other side, you would discover that, yes, he is the most qualified of the experts who have analyzed the tape.

That would be nice if the witnesses were braced against the opposite wall knowing the assassination was to occur. Then they could be prepared to record every nuance of the incident. But they were in a crowded poorly-lit hallway when something unexpected suddenly happened. I would bet most didn't turn to look towards RFK until 3 or 4 shots were fired and they initially just saw bodies intertwined in a struggle.

This is beyond lame. We're talking about their universal recollection of where RFK and Sirhan were located in relation to each other. Some of them were standing within a few feet of Bobby and/or Sirhan. Every single one of them independently recalled that Sirhan was never closer than 3-4 feet to RFK.

I associate quack and fraud more so with you.

Yet you're the one who has been repeatedly caught making utterly erroneous claims? Shall we revisit the howlers you penned about the backyard rifle photos and the single-bullet theory?

Anyway, so you just don't care to know that the ballistics evidence supports conspiracy. Nor do you care that the LAPD criminalist who made the bogus ballistics claims was later exposed as a charlatan. Who cares, right?

[Jerry Organ]

You didn't answer my question.

If the Book of Mormon is a "con," how do you explain the evidence of its authenticity, such as the Hebraisms in the book, the discovery of the town of Nahom in Arabia (which was unknown in Joseph Smith's day), the discovery of an amazing candidate for the Land Bountiful in Yemen (which was unknown until the 1990s), the huge amounts of chiasmus in the book, the computer wordprint analyses that prove that many different authors wrote the book (just as the book claims), etc., etc.?

• Hebraisms were known in Smith's time and many lay people back then read a great deal of scripture. There's plenty of 18th- and 19th-Century style writing in the Book of Mormon.
• Nehhm was drawn on a map in the late 1700s. No one knows for sure how the site called NHM is pronounced.
• The "Bountiful" site was known for centuries; you mean the 1990s was when a "scholar" made his determination.
• Welch, who popularized the notion about chiasmus, cautioned:
  
      "Some people, of course, have gone overboard with this search, and
       caution must be employed; otherwise, it is possible to find chiasmus
       in the telephone book, and the effort becomes meaningless."
  
  Some other writings by Smith contained chiasmus, meaning it was a style of writing he was familiar with.
• Could be the "different authors" are actually Smith's writing style evolving along with his fantasies.

LOL! Okay, partner, I'll tell you what: You go on any of the major online Civil War discussion forums and you find me such a person! Better yet, go find me a person who not only admires Lincoln but who defends and praises George McClellan but who also claims the South had a just cause! As usual, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Southern crackers (who have assumed the self-serving notion that coastal "elites" are the racists, not them) like the idea that Lincoln wasn't a Democrat, the party they single out for slavery. Of course you like Lincoln and would love to absolve the South.

By the way, I do not believe the South had just cause to secede. I used to argue this, but I changed my mind a few years ago. I still believe they had a constitutional and natural right to secede, but that they had no valid reason to secede.

Well, you certainly know how to split a hair.

[Michael T. Griffith]

• Hebraisms were known in Smith's time and many lay people back then read a great deal of scripture. There's plenty of 18th- and 19th-Century style writing in the Book of Mormon.

No, they were not, not the kind of Hebraisms that are in the Book of Mormon. And, yes, given that the book is a translation. And, no, there is not "plenty" of 18th/19th-century-style writing in the Book of Mormon. I see you went running to Wikipedia and/or anti-Mormon sites, but obviously did not bother to read the other side. That seems to be a habit of yours.

• Nehhm was drawn on a map in the late 1700s.

LOL! You are a joke. You're obviously talking about the 1763 map drawn by a German surveyor Niebuhr that mentions a place called name "Nehhm," but "Nehhm" was nowhere near the site of Nahom that was found along the Frankincense Trail in Arabia. Niebuhr's "nehhm" was about 25 miles northeast of Sana'a. You might wanna check a map next time before you embarrass yourself again.

Educate yourself just a bit:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/history-nahom

No one knows for sure how the site called NHM is pronounced.[/li][/list]

Humm, I guess you don't know that I was an Arabic and Hebrew linguist for 25 years in the military and as a federal contractor. In Arabic and Hebrew, the consonants are the key, while the vowels can vary by locale or dialect. If you follow the Book of Mormon's description of Lehi's journey down the Arabian coastline and calculate the average travel time for that size of a party, you end up in the exact same area where Nahom was discovered.

• The "Bountiful" site was known for centuries; you mean the 1990s was when a "scholar" made his determination.

"Known for centuries" by the the locals there in the area? Yes, of course. "Known for centuries" in the West? No. Joseph Smith certainly had no knowledge of ancient Arabian geography. The site isn't even visible from the sea unless you get close enough, and the land path to it is difficult.

• Welch, who popularized the notion about chiasmus, cautioned:
  
      "Some people, of course, have gone overboard with this search, and
       caution must be employed; otherwise, it is possible to find chiasmus
       in the telephone book, and the effort becomes meaningless."

Dishonest cherry-picking. Welch was explaining that simple chiasmus proves little but that complex chiasmus, such as the kind found in the Book of Mormon, will not be found in English-language texts unless the authors knew of chiasmus and purposely wrote in chiastic style. Here's one of Welch's articles on chiasmus in the Book of Mormon:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/chiasmus-book-mormon

Read this article, folks, and then you'll see how dishonestly and misleadingly Organ has quoted Welch.

Some other writings by Smith contained chiasmus, meaning it was a style of writing he was familiar with.[/li][/list]

Hogwash. That anti-Mormon myth has long since been debunked.

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/how-much-could-joseph-smith-have-known-about-chiasmus-in-1829

• Could be the "different authors" are actually Smith's writing style evolving along with his fantasies.

Wow, there's a powerful argument. Here's another chance to educate yourself before you make more embarrassing comments:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Wordprint_studies

Southern crackers (who have assumed the self-serving notion that coastal "elites" are the racists, not them) like the idea that Lincoln wasn't a Democrat, the party they single out for slavery. Of course you like Lincoln and would love to absolve the South.

You are just ignorant on this issue. Again, go to any of the major Civil War online forums, all of which I have dialogued in, and find me just one Lost Causer who praises Lincoln and also McClellan.

"Like the idea that Lincoln wasn't a Democrat" Boy, this is really, really silly. Clearly, this is not an issue you have studied. Lost Causers ardently defend 19th-century Democrats and they are very aware that the modern Democratic Party bears no resemblance to the 1800-1932 Democratic Party.

You should just admit that you blundered (again).

Well, you certainly know how to split a hair.

I noticed you snipped all the evidence of advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor. Be advised that there's plenty more where that came from. If you want yet another chance to educate yourself, you might start with the scholarly article "Signals Intelligence and Pearl Harbor: The State of the Question," written by historians Dr. Brian Villa and Dr. Timothy Wilford, and published in Intelligence and National Security, Vol.21, No.4, August 2006:

http://miketgriffith.com/files/villa-wilford.pdf

And I see you punted on further discussion about the RFK case. Well, here is more reading for you, on the off chance that you want to educate yourself (these are extracts from some of the legal briefs that were submitted to support Sirhan's appeals):

All 12 of the pantry witnesses who commented on Sirhan's position in relation to RFK said Sirhan was never behind Bobby but always in front of h im, and was always at least, at the bare minimum, 3-4 feet from him.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/12witnesses.pdf

All five of the pantry witnesses who commented on how quickly Sirhan was pinned after he opened fire said he only fired two or three shots before he was pinned down.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/5witnesses.pdf

The RFK assassination tape (the Pruszynski tape) contains more shots than Sirhan could have fired.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/vanpraagstatement.pdf
https://miketgriffith.com/files/bradjohnsonstatement.pdf

The ballistics evidence in the RFK case.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/ballisticsevidence1.pdf
[/list]

[Jerry Organ]

No, they were not, not the kind of Hebraisms that are in the Book of Mormon. And, yes, given that the book is a translation. And, no, there is not "plenty" of 18th/19th-century-style writing in the Book of Mormon. I see you went running to Wikipedia and/or anti-Mormon sites, but obviously did not bother to read the other side. That seems to be a habit of yours.

What Mormons have to say on specific points of contention is given accurate quotation on Wiki and "anti-Mormon" (LOL) sites. Now I can't vouch for every source or blogger.

Compare the parallel syntax in the 1816 mainstream book The Late War with the BoM. Link

LOL! You are a joke. You're obviously talking about the 1763 map drawn by a German surveyor Niebuhr that mentions a place called name "Nehhm," but "Nehhm" was nowhere near the site of Nahom that was found along the Frankincense Trail in Arabia. Niebuhr's "nehhm" was about 25 miles northeast of Sana'a. You might wanna check a map next time before you embarrass yourself again.

Then again, we don't know exactly where Nahom was. Here's what we have for placing the party (and "Nahom" as if it's the same as NHM) in Yemen:

     “In a compendium of doctrinal subjects published by the late Elders
     Franklin D. Richards and James A. Little, the following item appears:
     ‘Lehi’s travels.—Revelation to Joseph the seer: The course that
     Lehi and his company traveled from Jerusalem to the place of their
     destination: They traveled nearly a south, southeast direction until
     they came to the nineteenth degree of north latitude; then, nearly
     east of the Sea of Arabia, then sailed in a southeast direction, and
     landed on the continent of South America, in Chili, thirty degrees
     south latitude.’

        "The only reason so far discovered for regarding the above as a
     revelation is that it is found written on a loose sheet of paper in the
     handwriting of Frederick G. Williams, for some years second
     counselor in the First Presidency of the Church in the Kirtland
     period of its history, and it follows the body of the revelation
     contained in Doctrine and Covenants, section vii., relating to John
     the beloved disciple, remaining on earth, until the glorious coming
     of Jesus to reign with his Saints. The handwriting is certified to be
     that of Frederick G. Williams, by his son Ezra G. Williams, of Ogden;
     and endorsed on the back of the sheet of paper containing the above
     passage and the revelation pertaining to John. The indorsement [sic]
     is dated April, the 11th, 1864. The revelation pertaining to John has
     this introductory line: 'A Revelation Concerning John, the Beloved
     Disciple.' But there is no heading to the passage relating to the
     passage about Lehi’s travels. The words 'Lehi’s Travels,' and the
     words 'Revelation to Joseph the Seer,' are added by the publishers,
     justified as they supposed, doubtless, by the fact that the paragraph
     is in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams, Counselor to the prophet,
     and on the same page with the body of an undoubted revelation, which
     was published repeatedly as such in the life time of the Prophet, first in
     1833, at Independence, Missouri, in the 'Book of Commandments,' and
     subsequently in every edition of the Doctrine and Covenants until now.
     But the one relating to Lehi’s travels was never published in the life-time
     of the Prophet, and was published nowhere else until published in the
     Richards-Little’s Compendium."

Did this come from Smith? If so, Smith changed the landing site to Chile from "a little south of the Isthmus of Darien" in  Panama (1842), a variance of 2000 miles. Which makes any reasonable person wonder about the rest of the Williams note.

Educate yourself just a bit:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/history-nahom

Humm, I guess you don't know that I was an Arabic and Hebrew linguist for 25 years in the military and as a federal contractor. In Arabic and Hebrew, the consonants are the key, while the vowels can vary by locale or dialect. If you follow the Book of Mormon's description of Lehi's journey down the Arabian coastline and calculate the average travel time for that size of a party, you end up in the exact same area where Nahom was discovered.

You make it sound like Google Maps. They traveled for years, supposedly staying put for months while crops grew.

"Known for centuries" by the the locals there in the area? Yes, of course. "Known for centuries" in the West? No. Joseph Smith certainly had no knowledge of ancient Arabian geography. The site isn't even visible from the sea unless you get close enough, and the land path to it is difficult.

The BoM just isn't that specific. Nahom could even be a term meaning mourning because of the death of Ishmael.

Dishonest cherry-picking. Welch was explaining that simple chiasmus proves little but that complex chiasmus, such as the kind found in the Book of Mormon, will not be found in English-language texts unless the authors knew of chiasmus and purposely wrote in chiastic style. Here's one of Welch's articles on chiasmus in the Book of Mormon:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/chiasmus-book-mormon

"Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm" by Earl M. Wunderli Link

    "After examining the evidence, I take Wunderli’s side in concluding
     that the extended chiasmus of Alma 36 owes more to Welch’s
     construction than to the plate text..."
          Brant Gardner, Mormon researcher

And this from Gardner:

    "Chiasmus can also be found in some nineteenth-century works,
     including the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Abraham
     (D&C 88:34-38; 98:18-38; 132:19-26; Abr. 3:16-19). Thus, the
     assumption that chiasmus is an exclusively ancient poetic device
     appears to be false. Further, many Book of Mormon chiastic
     passages presuppose a doctrine of Christ developed beyond
     anything found in the Old Testament (Mosiah 3:18-19; 5:10-12;
     2 Ne. 25:2-27; Alma 36; 41:13-15)."

On to some anachronisms in the Book of Mormons:

• Horses: No horses in the New World then; apologists suggest tapirs.
• Elephants: None in the Americas then. Mammoths were extinct.
• Cows or cattle: None then; apologists suggest mountain goats, llamas and bison.
• Goats: No domesticated goats in the Americas then; apoligists suggest mountain goats and brocket deer, neither known to have been domesticated.
• Barley and wheat: apologists suggest Hordeum pusillum grass, or "little barley".
• Chariots: LOL. Wheeled transportation was unknown in the pre-Columbian period.
• Cimeters: A curved sword. The word "scimitar" (adopted from an italian word) doesn't date to ancient times.

[Michael T. Griffith]

What Mormons have to say on specific points of contention is given accurate quotation on Wiki and "anti-Mormon" (LOL) sites. Now I can't vouch for every source or blogger.

Compare the parallel syntax in the 1816 mainstream book The Late War with the BoM. Link

Then again, we don't know exactly where Nahom was. Here's what we have for placing the party (and "Nahom" as if it's the same as NHM) in Yemen:

     “In a compendium of doctrinal subjects published by the late Elders
     Franklin D. Richards and James A. Little, the following item appears:
     ‘Lehi’s travels.—Revelation to Joseph the seer: The course that
     Lehi and his company traveled from Jerusalem to the place of their
     destination: They traveled nearly a south, southeast direction until
     they came to the nineteenth degree of north latitude; then, nearly
     east of the Sea of Arabia, then sailed in a southeast direction, and
     landed on the continent of South America, in Chili, thirty degrees
     south latitude.’

        "The only reason so far discovered for regarding the above as a
     revelation is that it is found written on a loose sheet of paper in the
     handwriting of Frederick G. Williams, for some years second
     counselor in the First Presidency of the Church in the Kirtland
     period of its history, and it follows the body of the revelation
     contained in Doctrine and Covenants, section vii., relating to John
     the beloved disciple, remaining on earth, until the glorious coming
     of Jesus to reign with his Saints. The handwriting is certified to be
     that of Frederick G. Williams, by his son Ezra G. Williams, of Ogden;
     and endorsed on the back of the sheet of paper containing the above
     passage and the revelation pertaining to John. The indorsement [sic]
     is dated April, the 11th, 1864. The revelation pertaining to John has
     this introductory line: 'A Revelation Concerning John, the Beloved
     Disciple.' But there is no heading to the passage relating to the
     passage about Lehi’s travels. The words 'Lehi’s Travels,' and the
     words 'Revelation to Joseph the Seer,' are added by the publishers,
     justified as they supposed, doubtless, by the fact that the paragraph
     is in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams, Counselor to the prophet,
     and on the same page with the body of an undoubted revelation, which
     was published repeatedly as such in the life time of the Prophet, first in
     1833, at Independence, Missouri, in the 'Book of Commandments,' and
     subsequently in every edition of the Doctrine and Covenants until now.
     But the one relating to Lehi’s travels was never published in the life-time
     of the Prophet, and was published nowhere else until published in the
     Richards-Little’s Compendium."

Did this come from Smith? If so, Smith changed the landing site to Chile from "a little south of the Isthmus of Darien" in  Panama (1842), a variance of 2000 miles. Which makes any reasonable person wonder about the rest of the Williams note.

You make it sound like Google Maps. They traveled for years, supposedly staying put for months while crops grew.

The BoM just isn't that specific. Nahom could even be a term meaning mourning because of the death of Ishmael.

"Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm" by Earl M. Wunderli Link

    "After examining the evidence, I take Wunderli’s side in concluding
     that the extended chiasmus of Alma 36 owes more to Welch’s
     construction than to the plate text..."
          Brant Gardner, Mormon researcher

And this from Gardner:

    "Chiasmus can also be found in some nineteenth-century works,
     including the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Abraham
     (D&C 88:34-38; 98:18-38; 132:19-26; Abr. 3:16-19). Thus, the
     assumption that chiasmus is an exclusively ancient poetic device
     appears to be false. Further, many Book of Mormon chiastic
     passages presuppose a doctrine of Christ developed beyond
     anything found in the Old Testament (Mosiah 3:18-19; 5:10-12;
     2 Ne. 25:2-27; Alma 36; 41:13-15)."

On to some anachronisms in the Book of Mormons:

• Horses: No horses in the New World then; apologists suggest tapirs.
• Elephants: None in the Americas then. Mammoths were extinct.
• Cows or cattle: None then; apologists suggest mountain goats, llamas and bison.
• Goats: No domesticated goats in the Americas then; apoligists suggest mountain goats and brocket deer, neither known to have been domesticated.
• Barley and wheat: apologists suggest Hordeum pusillum grass, or "little barley".
• Chariots: LOL. Wheeled transportation was unknown in the pre-Columbian period.
• Cimeters: A curved sword. The word "scimitar" (adopted from an italian word) doesn't date to ancient times.

Sigh. . . .  You clearly did not bother to read any of the links that I provided on chiasmus, Hebraisms, wordprint analysis, and Nahom.

Your claims about Nahom are refuted in the article I linked, but you obviously did not bother to read it. Actually, the Book of Mormon text is quite specific about where Nahom was because it gives the travel times for Lehi's party, and, as I mentioned, if you track those times with a reasonable assumption about how quickly Lehi's party could have traveled, you end up with Nahom being exactly where Nahom/Neham/NHM was discovered. Here's another article to read, for those who, unlike you, prefer to read both sides before drawing conclusions:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World/Nahom

And the idea that the Book of Mormon's chiasmus can be traced to 19th-century sources/knowledge is absurd once you understand the complex nature of that chiasmus and understand what is and is not really chiasmus. Here are more sources on this issue:

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/content/chiasmus-in-the-book-of-mormon

https://evidencecentral.org/#/public/evidence_form?te=105&class=evidence

I notice you ignored the evidence regarding computer wordprint analysis of the Book of Mormon.

As for your list of alleged anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, these items have all been addressed in great detail by LDS scholars. I have to giggle at your inclusion of "chariots" as an alleged anachronism and your claim that wheeled vehicles were unknown in the pre-Columbian period. Humm, then why did they build wide cement highways between cities--just to walk on? Why have we found toy replicas of wheeled vehicles in numerous pre-Columbian Mesoamerican sites? For the sake of others, since I know you won't bother reading anything LDS, here are some sources on those alleged anachronisms:

https://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/rappleye/2015-12-21/rappleye_a_scientist_2014.pdf

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/qa/was-there-barley-in-pre-columbian-america

https://miketgriffith.com/files/bomancient.htm

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/anachronisms-wrong-things-wrong-time

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-are-horses-mentioned-in-the-book-of-mormon

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/what-is-the-nature-and-use-of-chariots-in-the-book-of-mormon

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/five-compelling-archeological-evidences-for-the-book-of-mormon