Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 07-13-2003, 09:37 AM

Did someone mention dropping this?

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba2904f2.html

godfry n. glad · 07-15-2003, 02:16 PM

Wait...wait...

Excuse me, but did not the original IGS report state, rather unquivocally, that the ossuary in question was "untouched by modern tools"?

Yet... This article claims that the inscripton was recently "vigorously cleaned with a sharp implement"....

Have I misinterpreted or are the folks at BAR indecisive about what they want to claim?

Also, I don't think anyone here has claimed that the ossuary does not date from the period in question. It's the inscription that is dubious. Whether the claimants of the "two hand theory" or the "one hand theory" are correct, both arguments are now moot. If the inscription cuts through the patina, it's a modern fraud. It does; it is. That is my understanding of the IAA findings.

Thus, the ossuary is "authentic"...but, so what?

godfry n. glad

Steven Carr · 07-16-2003, 05:08 AM

Clearly the people who said there was no trace of the use of modern instruments were incompetent if they never detected this recent cleaning by person or persons unknown.

Vorkosigan · 07-16-2003, 03:47 PM

Not if the Ossuary was "cleaned" after it was returned to Golan. The guy is a forger. That might explain a lot of things that the GIS missed. The arguments for the incompetence of the GIS hinge on the honesty of Oded Golan, that once he got the thing back, he made no further adjustments in it before he sent it on to the ROM. I wonder if the GIS went through its photos, they would find that there were some minor differences. That would explain a lot.....

07-13-2003, 09:37 AM	#1
Sauron Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: In the dark places of the world Posts: 8,093	BAR article, Jul/Aug 2003: New tests bolster case for authenticity of ossuary Did someone mention dropping this? http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba2904f2.html

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

07-15-2003, 02:16 PM	#2
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Wait...wait... Excuse me, but did not the original IGS report state, rather unquivocally, that the ossuary in question was "untouched by modern tools"? Yet... This article claims that the inscripton was recently "vigorously cleaned with a sharp implement".... Have I misinterpreted or are the folks at BAR indecisive about what they want to claim? Also, I don't think anyone here has claimed that the ossuary does not date from the period in question. It's the inscription that is dubious. Whether the claimants of the "two hand theory" or the "one hand theory" are correct, both arguments are now moot. If the inscription cuts through the patina, it's a modern fraud. It does; it is. That is my understanding of the IAA findings. Thus, the ossuary is "authentic"...but, so what? godfry n. glad

07-16-2003, 05:08 AM	#3
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Clearly the people who said there was no trace of the use of modern instruments were incompetent if they never detected this recent cleaning by person or persons unknown.

07-16-2003, 03:47 PM	#4
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Not if the Ossuary was "cleaned" after it was returned to Golan. The guy is a forger. That might explain a lot of things that the GIS missed. The arguments for the incompetence of the GIS hinge on the honesty of Oded Golan, that once he got the thing back, he made no further adjustments in it before he sent it on to the ROM. I wonder if the GIS went through its photos, they would find that there were some minor differences. That would explain a lot.....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.