gnosis92

Professor Krumbein is considered one of the world's leading experts on stone chemistry and biology. He has been a visiting professor at numerous universities, including Harvard, and has conducted post-doctorate research at Hebrew University.

here's a link
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuar...einsummary.asp

"Krumbein also examined the patina on the ossuary far from the inscription. His conclusion:

"The patina covering several of the inscription letters is no less authentic than the patina covering the other parts of the ossuary, which, according to the IAA team, is authentic."

"Patina sampled from the surface of the ossuary, far away from the inscription, was found to be identical to the microscopic traces of patina, which I found inside the ossuary inscription and sites sloping from the surface into the inscription grooves (and no indication of any kind was found of any adhesive on this patina). Therefore, we must conclude that the patina formed over the entire ossuary and the remains of patina in the inscription area were formed over the same period of time."

with a rebutall to IAA claims including the oxygen isotope test

What about the examination and reports by Tel Aviv University Professor Yuval Goren and his colleague Avner Ayalon of the Geological Survey of Israel on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), concluding without doubt that the inscription is a modern forgery?

Professor Krumbein directly addresses their reports:

"The conclusions noted in the reports by Goren, Ayalon and their colleagues, originate from a series of errors, biases, mistaken premises, use of inappropriate methodology, mistaken geochemistry, defective error control, reliance on unconfirmed data, disregard of information (such as the cleaning and preservation actions performed [on the ossuary], and the use of a comparative isotope methodology despite the fact that the [James ossuary] inscription fail[s] to meet the cumulative prerequisite conditions for such tests and comparisons." Each charge is documented in detail in Krumbein's report.

I have no particular expertise in this field, but he does dispute the official IAA conclusion point by point. :huh:

S.C.Carlson

Don't rely on a third party's summary of an expert's report if you can read it yourself. Actually, Krumbein does not opine that the James Ossuary is authentic. Here's what he said on page 20 of the report:

A substantive thread on IIDB discussing other aspects of Krumbein's report is called, BAR at it again with Ossuary.

Stephen

gnosis92

Thanks :wave: