Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 06-20-2003, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran

Here is the very unfortunate and frustrating JesusMysteries exchange:

Altman's first surreptitious post (she had no idea I lurked there)
Not nice... Lemaire was supposedly using my "trash" (yeah right, he was using my stuff...) and "scraping the bottom of the barrel" in doing so.

What did I do to deserve this cruel talk?? Why did she not express how she felt in our several private correspondences (on topics) or on a public forum that she knew I frequented??

I found out and responded:

Defending myself...

Altman
ALTMAN: "Nowhere in any article do I say "Fake." I feel that she changed her story quite a bit...

Me

Altman

Few people will be able to access these articles.

Don't worry Haran - we still have a genuine 1st-century ossuary with the name 'Jesus, son of Joseph' on it.

At first, I thought the new ossuary was genuine, but blown up out of all significance. But then I could not believe what was coming out! Golan with a forgery workshop.... The box damaged, signs of the inscription being done on the back of the box. Another forgery with a very similar tale of discovery.

The whole saga has done great damage to the reputations of Shanks and Lemaire.

Haran · 06-21-2003, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Steven Carr
Few people will be able to access these articles.

In other words, if one is sincerely interested, then one will have to get a yahoo account and (I think) join the JM list.

Quote:

Don't worry Haran - we still have a genuine 1st-century ossuary with the name 'Jesus, son of Joseph' on it.

Quote:

At first, I thought the new ossuary was genuine, but blown up out of all significance. But then I could not believe what was coming out! Golan with a forgery workshop.... The box damaged, signs of the inscription being done on the back of the box. Another forgery with a very similar tale of discovery.

The whole saga has done great damage to the reputations of Shanks and Lemaire.

Golan collected antiquities, so I can understand why he would have a "workshop". Could it have been a "forgery workshop"? Sure. I just can't for the life of me understand why Golan hasn't been brought in and put behind bars already if all of this information against him is true and not assumed. If he admits wrongdoing or they find a 'smoking gun', then I'll have no problem believing any of this. Otherwise it still seems like something of a possible smear campaign to me. Obviously this ruffles feathers and I'm sorry, but that the way it comes across to me at the moment. Golan's admission or conviction = change in my opinions.

Does anyone question the IAA data in the least? No doubts at all?

I believe the IAA was after Golan before the comission (whether he was right or wrong).

Their analysis was done after the ossuary was repaired at ROM. Could this repair have produced any of the anomalies they saw?

I still wonder about this patina of "hot water" and "chalk". Why on earth would this combination be used in a forgery and why only on the inscription? This just doesn't make sense to me. If Golan did it and he only did this, then he was dumb. It does, however, seem to me that hot water goes along better with a cleaning of some sort, possibly with a rag that for some reason had chalk on it (from wiping down some other artifact in his collection? From wiping down the inside of the ossuary? etc.). Someone mentioned "baking", but I didn't see this in the report. If someone would point it out to me that would be helpful since I have to go somewhere in a moment and don't have time. Could sitting in direct sunlight form a patina from this? If it is not in the report, then the IAA left out a detail that would interest me.

And more questions that I'm sure I'll be hammered on for asking for some reason...

*sigh* I'd like to question many assumptions that I see in the thread but I just don't have the time.

Vorkosigan · 06-21-2003, 06:40 AM

Golan collected antiquities, so I can understand why he would have a "workshop". Could it have been a "forgery workshop"?

That was how the police described it.

problem believing any of this. Otherwise it still seems like something of a possible smear campaign to me.

Golan is now connected to two forged artifacts. He has changed his story many times. Your conclusions?

Does anyone question the IAA data in the least? No doubts at all?

No. The analysis was thorough and competent, and was the first to cover relevant tests, including the patina itself and removal of the patina.

I believe the IAA was after Golan before the comission (whether he was right or wrong).

Certainly. The Israeli Antiquities Authority takes a dim view of forgers. It doesn't much like private collectors either, come to think of it.

Their analysis was done after the ossuary was repaired at ROM. Could this repair have produced any of the anomalies they saw?

Baked on patina made of chalk? The microfossils don't lie, Haran. Remember, the IAA has to publish this stuff. In order for you to dismiss this report, you have to claim that the IAA has faked all of its data an analysis.

Also, you are aware that the breakage went right through the controversial portion of the inscription, and that the Ossuary arrived at the shipping firm already packed? Both Jack Kilmon (pro-authenticity) and John Lupia (anti) have noted that the breakage appears to have been deliberately inflicted.

I still wonder about this patina of "hot water" and "chalk". Why on earth would this combination be used in a forgery

Because this object was probably never meant to reach the general public; but instead was meant to be sold privately to a private collector and disappear out of sight. The Jehoash Inscription first appeared in 2001. This team has been forging artifacts for at least three years, and probably much longer, and selling them privately.

Indeed, the fake patina on the Jehoash Inscription shared the most telltale characteristics of the "James Bond" on the James Ossuary." The presence of undissolved microfossils in the mixture showed that it was made from powdered chalk, not natural crystallization and its isotopic ratios of oxygen for the calcite in the fake patina of the Jehoash inscription indicated again the crystallization was produced in hot water--not in the ground.

The two artifacts are from the same forger. They both passed through Golan's hands. The Jehoash Inscription also contains fresh engraving marks.

and why only on the inscription?

Because that is the only part the forger altered.

This just doesn't make sense to me. If Golan did it and he only did this, then he was dumb.

No, just cheap. The forger mentality is like the serial killer mentality. It is reckless and once it starts consistently fooling others, it doesn't believe it can get caught. Haran, please, do me a favor, if ever you and I were friends, please, I beg you, go out and get a copy of Trevor-Roper's study of the forger Edmund Backhouse entitled The Hermit of Beijing. Also, find a copy of Selling Hitler. Then you will understand why the forger has behaved in this inexplicable way. Simply put, spectacular forgers like this are not entirely sane, and they are not entirely sane in very predictable ways. Here's the obit for Konrad Kujau, the Hitler Forger.

Remember, this artifact was meant to be sold to a mark on the private market. The mark was selected because he was thought to be too dumb to spot the bad fake. The IAA noted that it and the Jehoash Tablet have similar patinas

Finally, remember, the forger has two other allies, in this case a powerful ones. First, people want to believe him. They want to believe that Hitler left diaries, that James really was the brother of Jesus, that a clod like me can be offered genuine Ding Ware over the internet, that Cyril Burt's twin studies really say something about IQ, that van Meergen's Vermeer's were real Vermeers ("I paid full price, dammit!") and so on. People will believe forgeries no matter how much evidence is assembled to the contrary.

Second, the forger has many to cooperate in bringing his forgery along. Usually people get heavily invested right away. In the Hitler Diaries case there is a whole crew of experts who authenticate Hitler stuff (for a fee) and make a lot of money authenticating fakes. Similar to the Backhouse case, where his forged Chinese stuff soon acquired powerful backers in the form of men whose academic careers depended on their analysis of bogus artifacts. In the Ossuary case the obvious parallel is Shanks and Witherington, who have six-figure incentives to impugn the IAA report and advance the Ossuary as genuine.

It does, however, seem to me that hot water goes along better with a cleaning of some sort, possibly with a rag that for some reason had chalk on it (from wiping down some other artifact in his collection? From wiping down the inside of the ossuary? etc.).

Haran, as Lupia pointed out, patina is a coating hardened over time. It cannot be wiped off with water or other ordinary solvents. Golan's mother could not have wiped it off while cleaning the ossuary; that is, sadly, the kind of pathological lie forgers tell. Note how it involves his sainted mother.

Someone mentioned "baking", but I didn't see this in the report.

From the Archaeology.org site above:

Ayalon determined in his analysis that while the calcite of the patina from the uninscribed surface of the James ossuary, and indeed the surfaces and inscriptions of other authentic ossuaries that he examined, had ratios that were normal for average ground temperature of the Jerusalem vicinity, the ratios of the "James Bond"--that strange mixture that covered only the letters of the inscription--was entirely different. In fact, they suggested that the crystallization took place in heated water, not the "cave environment" that the earlier geologists had claimed. The evidence pointed to an intentional faking of the patina over the letters of the "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" inscription--and nowhere else.

The patina was baked on, as the crystalization temperature shows.

If someone would point it out to me that would be helpful since I have to go somewhere in a moment and don't have time. Could sitting in direct sunlight form a patina from this?

No. As the IAA said, it took place in heated water.

*sigh* I'd like to question many assumptions that I see in the thread but I just don't have the time.

Please do. I'll be nice.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr · 06-21-2003, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
In other words, if one is sincerely interested, then one will have to get a yahoo account and (I think) join the JM list.

Judging be what I have read, the Jesus Mysteries list is not one I want to join. It is a lot of work to register for Yahoo grouops, join lists, wait for moderator approval (if needed), then unsubscribe - just to read a link to an article.

godfry n. glad · 06-21-2003, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr
Judging be what I have read, the Jesus Mysteries list is not one I want to join. It is a lot of work to register for Yahoo grouops, join lists, wait for moderator approval (if needed), then unsubscribe - just to read a link to an article.

Although you'll need to sign up for Yahoo!groups and join JM, there's no moderator approval to search the archives once you've joined. The moderators only moderate when posters go off-topic or just "go off". Civility matters and faith statements, ranting and personal attacks are strictly verboten.

If historical Jesus studies are an interest, you might find you enjoy more than just a link to an article.

godfry

06-21-2003, 10:32 AM

Steven is quite right. He would not want to join the JM group. One moderator was forced out for asking too many questions of Earl Doherty, most historicists get banned and then Godfry comes here and lies about why after all the relevant posts have been deleted.

Certainly, any group where one of the moderators uses the name "God free and glad" has even less credability as a neutral forum for ideas than BAR.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

godfry n. glad · 06-21-2003, 03:45 PM

Thank you for your resounding endorsement, Bede. I couldn't have hoped for better.

Here's another reason for sampling JM: Bede's been banned; he couldn't maintain civility. Is it any surprise?

I'll just let Steven make his own decisions.

godfry

Vinnie · 06-21-2003, 04:53 PM

I just joined!

06-21-2003, 06:40 AM	#23
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Golan collected antiquities, so I can understand why he would have a "workshop". Could it have been a "forgery workshop"? That was how the police described it. problem believing any of this. Otherwise it still seems like something of a possible smear campaign to me. Golan is now connected to two forged artifacts. He has changed his story many times. Your conclusions? Does anyone question the IAA data in the least? No doubts at all? No. The analysis was thorough and competent, and was the first to cover relevant tests, including the patina itself and removal of the patina. I believe the IAA was after Golan before the comission (whether he was right or wrong). Certainly. The Israeli Antiquities Authority takes a dim view of forgers. It doesn't much like private collectors either, come to think of it. Their analysis was done after the ossuary was repaired at ROM. Could this repair have produced any of the anomalies they saw? Baked on patina made of chalk? The microfossils don't lie, Haran. Remember, the IAA has to publish this stuff. In order for you to dismiss this report, you have to claim that the IAA has faked all of its data an analysis. Also, you are aware that the breakage went right through the controversial portion of the inscription, and that the Ossuary arrived at the shipping firm already packed? Both Jack Kilmon (pro-authenticity) and John Lupia (anti) have noted that the breakage appears to have been deliberately inflicted. I still wonder about this patina of "hot water" and "chalk". Why on earth would this combination be used in a forgery Because this object was probably never meant to reach the general public; but instead was meant to be sold privately to a private collector and disappear out of sight. The Jehoash Inscription first appeared in 2001. This team has been forging artifacts for at least three years, and probably much longer, and selling them privately. Indeed, the fake patina on the Jehoash Inscription shared the most telltale characteristics of the "James Bond" on the James Ossuary." The presence of undissolved microfossils in the mixture showed that it was made from powdered chalk, not natural crystallization and its isotopic ratios of oxygen for the calcite in the fake patina of the Jehoash inscription indicated again the crystallization was produced in hot water--not in the ground. The two artifacts are from the same forger. They both passed through Golan's hands. The Jehoash Inscription also contains fresh engraving marks. and why only on the inscription? Because that is the only part the forger altered. *This just doesn't make sense to me. If Golan did it and he only did this, then he was* dumb.** No, just cheap. The forger mentality is like the serial killer mentality. It is reckless and once it starts consistently fooling others, it doesn't believe it can get caught. Haran, please, do me a favor, if ever you and I were friends, please, I beg you, go out and get a copy of Trevor-Roper's study of the forger Edmund Backhouse entitled The Hermit of Beijing. Also, find a copy of Selling Hitler. Then you will understand why the forger has behaved in this inexplicable way. Simply put, spectacular forgers like this are not entirely sane, and they are not entirely sane in very predictable ways. Here's the obit for Konrad Kujau, the Hitler Forger. Remember, this artifact was meant to be sold to a mark on the private market. The mark was selected because he was thought to be too dumb to spot the bad fake. The IAA noted that it and the Jehoash Tablet have similar patinas Finally, remember, the forger has two other allies, in this case a powerful ones. First, people want to believe him. They want to believe that Hitler left diaries, that James really was the brother of Jesus, that a clod like me can be offered genuine Ding Ware over the internet, that Cyril Burt's twin studies really say something about IQ, that van Meergen's Vermeer's were real Vermeers ("I paid full price, dammit!") and so on. People will believe forgeries no matter how much evidence is assembled to the contrary. Second, the forger has many to cooperate in bringing his forgery along. Usually people get heavily invested right away. In the Hitler Diaries case there is a whole crew of experts who authenticate Hitler stuff (for a fee) and make a lot of money authenticating fakes. Similar to the Backhouse case, where his forged Chinese stuff soon acquired powerful backers in the form of men whose academic careers depended on their analysis of bogus artifacts. In the Ossuary case the obvious parallel is Shanks and Witherington, who have six-figure incentives to impugn the IAA report and advance the Ossuary as genuine. It does, however, seem to me that hot water goes along better with a cleaning of some sort, possibly with a rag that for some reason had chalk on it (from wiping down some other artifact in his collection? From wiping down the inside of the ossuary? etc.). Haran, as Lupia pointed out, patina is a coating hardened over time. It cannot be wiped off with water or other ordinary solvents. Golan's mother could not have wiped it off while cleaning the ossuary; that is, sadly, the kind of pathological lie forgers tell. Note how it involves his sainted mother. Someone mentioned "baking", but I didn't see this in the report. From the Archaeology.org site above: Ayalon determined in his analysis that while the calcite of the patina from the uninscribed surface of the James ossuary, and indeed the surfaces and inscriptions of other authentic ossuaries that he examined, had ratios that were normal for average ground temperature of the Jerusalem vicinity, the ratios of the "James Bond"--that strange mixture that covered only the letters of the inscription--was entirely different. In fact, they suggested that the crystallization took place in heated water, not the "cave environment" that the earlier geologists had claimed. The evidence pointed to an intentional faking of the patina over the letters of the "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" inscription--and nowhere else. The patina was baked on, as the crystalization temperature shows. If someone would point it out to me that would be helpful since I have to go somewhere in a moment and don't have time. Could sitting in direct sunlight form a patina from this? No. As the IAA said, it took place in heated water. sigh I'd like to question many assumptions that I see in the thread but I just don't have the time. Please do. I'll be nice. Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-21-2003, 10:32 AM	#26
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Steven is quite right. He would not want to join the JM group. One moderator was forced out for asking too many questions of Earl Doherty, most historicists get banned and then Godfry comes here and lies about why after all the relevant posts have been deleted. Certainly, any group where one of the moderators uses the name "God free and glad" has even less credability as a neutral forum for ideas than BAR. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

06-21-2003, 03:45 PM	#27
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Thank you for your resounding endorsement, Bede. I couldn't have hoped for better. Here's another reason for sampling JM: Bede's been banned; he couldn't maintain civility. Is it any surprise? I'll just let Steven make his own decisions. godfry

06-21-2003, 04:53 PM	#28
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	I just joined!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.