Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13559Re: [XTalk] James ossuary determined "fake"- Frank Moore Cross concurs

Expand Messages
  • beefnboots
    Jul 1, 2003
      As a follow-up, I am heartened to see that Frank Moore Cross, Jack's
      touchstone on this issue, has revised his opinion. Remarkably, that
      revised opinion matches the suspicions I've maintained since the BAR
      ran the original article by Lemaire.

      See the BAR "breaking news" page at
      http://bib-arch.org/bswbbreakingHSALFMC.html , where, in
      correspondence with Hershel Shanks dated June 26, Cross states,

      "You seem to be confused about my statement, "The same team of
      Israeli geologists declared both the Ossuary inscription and the
      Jehoash inscription authentic according to their tests of the patina
      on each. My perverse conclusion was that both were forgeries and I
      could no longer 'sit on the fence' in the matter of the ossuary
      inscription." I said nothing about "the conclusion of the 'Israeli
      geologists' that both inscriptions are forgeries"—to quote your
      letter. I referred to the original team of three who declared both
      were authentic. My logic seems clear to me. If the Jehoash
      inscription was a forgery and they declared it genuine, then their
      declaration that the ossuary inscription was genuine was suspect. The
      team was either incompetent or even in collusion with the forger. In
      any case there ceased to be credible scientific support of the
      authenticity of the ossuary inscription."

      The "team", being the first three geologists at GSI to pass on the
      ossuary, were "either incompetent or even in collusion with the


      Yep... That's what I suspected as well.


      Kelly Wellington
      Portland, Oregon

      --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "beefnboots" <wellingk@o...> wrote:
      > --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@h...>
      > >
      > > I do not believe the IGS geologists were morons. I do not
      > the ROM
      > > analysts were blind. I do not believe a forger would use "chalk
      > soup."
      > > Have you not noticed that the only qualified palaeographers and
      > Aramaicists
      > > lean for authenticity and those issuing opinions on the
      > palaeography and
      > > Aramaic syntax are not even competent in 1st century Aramaic
      > dialects? This
      > > artifact needs to be placed in the hands of a group of
      > and
      > > qualified scientists whose first analysis will be to determine
      > that
      > > "chalk soup" was applied...probably AFTER the box left the ROM.
      > >
      > > Jack
      > Well, Jack, if we are to believe the reports on the Jehoash Tablet,
      > I'm not too sure that the IGS geologists weren't morons. Vetting a
      > piece of Cypriot metamorphic rock as Palestinian sandstone is a
      > and egregious mistake for a geologist and strikes me as moronic. I
      > fully expect heads to roll at IGS over the IAA findings, where,
      > incidently, a more senior geologist from IGS agreed with the IAA
      > findings.
      > Then, what's the IGS doing passing on the authenticity of an
      > antiquity when there's a more appropriate and more expert group of
      > specialists readily available? Why didn't it go to the IAA before
      > was rushed out of Israel?
      > I read the report as published in the BAR article, I challenged
      > factual aspects of it and I got a partial retraction from one of
      > the "geologists" that penned it. I note that that revision has
      > seen publication.
      > Y'know, Jack... I agree with you that something stinks, but it
      > at IAA, it's at IGS.
      > Lastly, your attitude, as expressed in this post is less than
      > professional. You claim to be a scientist...What kind? And, what
      > credentials?
      > Kelly Wellington
      > Portland, Oregon
    • Show all 34 messages in this topic