Fakes Revisited.

[Anijen]

Wayne May in his newly released video is misleading his audience so much to the point I need to vent hence this thread. On his you-tube here he makes claims such as he has been studying archaeology since third grade, he blatantly uses fraudulent artifacts to support his claims. Not only does he use fraudulent artifacts he uses fake experts as well i.e. Dr. Hurtak. Here is a write up on the so called expert (Hurtak). This a James White trick to use fake collegiate  credentials to gain some form of credibility. May also uses temple changes (about the 22 minute mark) also as a support for his theories. Amateurish sharks making videos and displaying them as proof and using membership as a way to give credence is plainly wrong. It simply makes my blood pressure rise because I know the damage that this could cause in the long run to somebodies testimony.

 

 I feel bad for those who are duped by May and his ilk. Here is a list of fakes;

Michigan tablets

Bat Creek Stone

Davenport tablets

Crystal skulls

Cardiff Giant

Los Lunas Stone

and many others

 

I would be willing to discuss these fakes or others you might suspect. Also what is your opinion for fellow LDS (who knowingly know they are fakes) yet still use them to back up there ideas?

[thesometimesaint]

Wayne May in his newly released video is misleading his audience so much to the point I need to vent hence this thread. On his you-tube here he makes claims such as he has been studying archaeology since third grade, he blatantly uses fraudulent artifacts to support his claims. Not only does he use fraudulent artifacts he uses fake experts as well i.e. Dr. Hurtak. Here is a write up on the so called expert (Hurtak). This a James White trick to use fake collegiate  credentials to gain some form of credibility. May also uses temple changes (about the 22 minute mark) also as a support for his theories. Amateurish sharks making videos and displaying them as proof and using membership as a way to give credence is plainly wrong. It simply makes my blood pressure rise because I know the damage that this could cause in the long run to somebodies testimony.

 

 I feel bad for those who are duped by May and his ilk. Here is a list of fakes;

Michigan tablets

Bat Creek Stone

Davenport tablets

Crystal skulls

Cardiff Giant

Los Lunas Stone

and many others

 

I would be willing to discuss these fakes or others you might suspect. Also what is your opinion for fellow LDS (who knowingly know they are fakes) yet still use them to back up there ideas?

 

That they do no credit to the LDS faith.

[Calm]

What are the crystal skulls used for by May?

[Ahab]

Haven't you seen the latest Indiana Jones movie?

Same thing.

[Bob Crockett]

Whereas I think the Bat Creek stone and the Las Lunas tablet are fakes, I don't think it really possible to prove it one way or the other.

It's like the various cave drawings in the U.S. found which show Native Americans on and pursuing horses. Barry Fell's acolyte (I can't recall her name) published a book on them, claiming they were precolumbian. I can't see how you could prove it one way or the other.

[Brant Gardner]

Whereas I think the Bat Creek stone and the Las Lunas tablet are fakes, I don't think it really possible to prove it one way or the other.

It's like the various cave drawings in the U.S. found which show Native Americans on and pursuing horses. Barry Fell's acolyte (I can't recall her name) published a book on them, claiming they were precolumbian. I can't see how you could prove it one way or the other.

In the case of the Bat Creek stone, the inscription is copied from (if I remember correctly) a Masonic document that attempted to create a paleo-Hebrew phrase. Much of it was a good guess, but some was not consonant with paleo-Hebrew. Nevertheless, the errors are replicated on the Bat Creek stone. While falling short of proof, it is very strong evidence.

[cinepro]

In the case of the Bat Creek stone, the inscription is copied from (if I remember correctly) a Masonic document that attempted to create a paleo-Hebrew phrase. Much of it was a good guess, but some was not consonant with paleo-Hebrew. Nevertheless, the errors are replicated on the Bat Creek stone. While falling short of proof, it is very strong evidence.

 

Wow.  Are you saying that the writer of the Masonic document was inspired by the same deity that revealed the text of the Bat Creek Stone?

 

Because there is no way he could have known what was on the stone before it was discovered.  So did he just make a lucky guess?  The odds of that happening are so slim as to make it impossible.

 

I used to think the stone was a forgery, but I didn't know about this.  I can't explain how that might happen, so it must be authentic.  Logically, there's no other way. 

Edited January 14, 2014 by cinepro

[Anijen]

What are the crystal skulls used for by May?

My bad. The list are a list of fakes that many are duped by, some of these are not in Mays video (i.e. Crystal Skulls, Cardiff Giant). I just listed a bunch off the top of my head to possibly discuss, we could discuss others too. 

 

 

 

 

Whereas I think the Bat Creek stone and the Las Lunas tablet are fakes, I don't think it really possible to prove it one way or the other.

 

I agree however, the plausibility of them being fraudulent is magnificently high. Reasonable research, scientific comparison, character agenda and study all point to being fake. When I claim they are fake I am asserting my own opinion yet, one that is shared by most archaeologist.

I can not prove that psychic pets exist yet because it was a subject of a special on the History Channel does not give it credibility either. I can yell tell I am blue in the face of the fictional account that the Mayan prophesied of the end of the world in 2012, yet people still believe or not, but will still profit on the subject. 

[Anijen]

Shinichi Fujimura had a remarkable ability to find artifacts that would thrust Japan into the birthplace of humans. In fact he was so adept with the diving power of finding archaeological remains that he was dubbed "Gods hand" Fujimura had no professional degree and very little training (if any). He was a liar and planted all of his evidence. Why? He wanted to promote Japanese nationalism and set it apart and above the rest of the world.

 

Because the Bible mentions giants, George Hull and Stub Newell created the Cardiff Giant for one purpose only, money. Regardless if giants existed or not, theirs was a fake and was used to make them a lot of money.

 

Piltdown Man was used to thrust a prideful Great Britain as claiming evolution started within the borders of Mother England.

 

Many other fakes, frauds, forgeries...

 

Wayne May uses fraudulent artifacts for what reason? Why does he resort to have enlisted the support of the dubious James Hurtak to bolster his claims? Why if his theories are true would he even need to do this? I venture to say if one needs the support of fakes and fake experts then what he is positing is suspect as well.

[Sevenbak]

The biggest question I have about the Bat Creek Stone debate is the fact that the Smithsonian archeologist who dug it up in the 1880's, and who is accused of being the fraudster by some modern investigators, never claimed it was hebrew, he speculated it was Cherokee.  He's not around to defend himself, or his methods.

 

Whether or not it's a form of "altered hebrew" that Mormon describes or not, the one big grain of sand I take with this, as well as all claims to fraud, is that there is a law of opposition in all things.  

 

I don't know if it's real or not, but I do know that the same power and influence that tried to stop Joseph in the grove, is still strong and very much real in derailing truth.   

 

For me, the debate continues on the BC stone, as I don't believe it to be such a cut and dry case.

[Robert F. Smith]

The biggest question I have about the Bat Creek Stone debate is the fact that the Smithsonian archeologist who dug it up in the 1880's, and who is accused of being the fraudster by some modern investigators, never claimed it was hebrew, he speculated it was Cherokee.  He's not around to defend himself, or his methods.

 

Whether or not it's a form of "altered hebrew" that Mormon describes or not, the one big grain of sand I take with this, as well as all claims to fraud, is that there is a law of opposition in all things.  

 

I don't know if it's real or not, but I do know that the same power and influence that tried to stop Joseph in the grove, is still strong and very much real in derailing truth.   

 

For me, the debate continues on the BC stone, as I don't believe it to be such a cut and dry case.

As I recall, it was published by the Smithsonian upside down in the excavation report.  No one at that time recognized it as paleo-Hebrew.  That remained for Cyrus H. Gordon of Brandeis Univ. to discuss over a half-century later.

[Robert F. Smith]

Here is a list of fakes and purported fakes:

 

1. Tom Horn Papers.

2. Pseudo-Ignatius

3. Archko Volume

4. Book of Jasher

5. Ossian and the James Macpherson forgeries

6. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain

7. John Arthur Goodchild and The Book of Tephi

8. Sir Francis Drake Brass Plate.

9. Thomas James Wise

10. Vinland Map

11. Davenport Conspiracy

12. Padilla Plates

13. Manti Tablets

14. Six Kinderhook Plates.

15. Six Rajah Manjou Plates.

16. Epistle of Kallikrates

17. Protocols of the Elders of Zion

18. Enola Gay Navigator’s Log.

19. Gospel of Barnabas.

20. Anti-Satanist, anti-Masonic, and Anti-Mormon forgeries of “Dr. Bataille” and “Léo Taxil.”

21. Various Israeli rabbis’ condemnatory prophecy on the BYU Jerusalem Center.

22. Grolier Codex.

23. The Kensington Stone.

24. The “Blau Monuments.”

25. Various Anti-Semitic/Anti-Jewish Blood Libels.

26. Shapira MSS.

27. Michigan Mound Tablets.

28. Hitler Diaries.

29. JFK Papers.

30. Great Fivers Plot.

31. The Getty Kouros.

32. Dama de Elche sculpture.

33. Bust of Plato in Hearst Museum.

34. Jehoash Inscription.

35. The “Three Shekels” and “Widow’s Plea” Ostraca.

36. “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” Ossuary Inscription.

37. John D. Lee Scroll.

38. Ten Commandment Rock.

39.  Emily ****inson Poem.

40. Ivory Pomegranate Inscription.

[cinepro]

Shinichi Fujimura had a remarkable ability to find artifacts that would thrust Japan into the birthplace of humans. In fact he was so adept with the diving power of finding archaeological remains that he was dubbed "Gods hand" Fujimura had no professional degree and very little training (if any). He was a liar and planted all of his evidence. Why? He wanted to promote Japanese nationalism and set it apart and above the rest of the world.

 

Because the Bible mentions giants, George Hull and Stub Newell created the Cardiff Giant for one purpose only, money. Regardless if giants existed or not, theirs was a fake and was used to make them a lot of money.

 

Piltdown Man was used to thrust a prideful Great Britain as claiming evolution started within the borders of Mother England.

 

Many other fakes, frauds, forgeries...

 

Wayne May uses fraudulent artifacts for what reason? Why does he resort to have enlisted the support of the dubious James Hurtak to bolster his claims? Why if his theories are true would he even need to do this? I venture to say if one needs the support of fakes and fake experts then what he is positing is suspect as well.

 

 

Just so I'm clear, Joseph Smith brings forth The Book of Mormon which specifically mentions him as being "great like unto Moses", and also tells us America's destiny as the promised land and that doesn't seem to fit in with the pattern you're laying out?

[cdowis]

Just so I'm clear, Joseph Smith brings forth The Book of Mormon which specifically mentions him as being "great like unto Moses", and also tells us America's destiny as the promised land and that doesn't seem to fit in with the pattern you're laying out?

 

Can you tell me the tie between Joseph Smith and mesoamerica?  (this is not a serious question)

[Anijen]

Just so I'm clear, Joseph Smith brings forth The Book of Mormon which specifically mentions him as being "great like unto Moses", and also tells us America's destiny as the promised land and that doesn't seem to fit in with the pattern you're laying out?

You might be clear, but I am not. How does this thread fit in with the pattern? This thread is about frauds and those who use them and fake experts as well. I don't understand where you are going with a "promised land" or "great like unto Moses"

 

 

 

Sevenbak: The biggest question I have about the Bat Creek Stone debate is the fact that the Smithsonian archeologist who dug it up in the 1880's, and who is accused of being the fraudster by some modern investigators, never claimed it was hebrew, he speculated it was Cherokee.  He's not around to defend himself, or his methods.

 

Sevenbak Cyrus does not gets accused, but his hired hands are the ones who get accused in particular there are three suspects Luther Blackman, John Rogan, and John Emmert. IMO it was in all likelihood Emmert with help from Blackman that should get accused.

 

Cyrus Thomas was not an Archaeologist, but a retired lawyer who was commissioned by his old friend John Wesley Powell to be in charge. Thomas hired on John Emmert. Emmert was a hired hand and also had no Archaeological schooling. Thomas fired Emmert in 1887, for many reasons, the biggest for his drinking problem. Thomas rehired him in 1889 mainly because he was told to by President Cleveland who received a bunch of letters from Emmert. Emmert knowing he had a short time to make an impact hired some others to help in some of the excavating. One of the persons hired by Emmert was a marble and tomb engraver named Luther Blackman. Both Emmert and Blackman needed the job and to keep it they both knew they needed to impress Thomas. Cyrus Thomas was a huge advocate for the theory that the Ancient inhabitants of the mounds were perhaps the lost tribes of Israel. Emmert knowing this had quite the motivation for the forgery. A month after Emmerts rehire he [Emmert] brought the Bat Creek Stone to Thomas. No one was with him and this left the discovery with out any witnesses. Emmert described where it was in the mound, but it can never be verified by any witness. Additionally Emmert was not trained in Archaeology and the site was left in a bad condition. Add on to this Emmert was known from his job before for sending in forgeries to his previous bosses. It is not a difficult assumption to make that he would do it again. Blackman the tomb engraver was a Mason and was reported by neighbors and relatives had a book on the subject. An old Masonic book has been found that has the same engraving as on the Bat Creek Stone.

 

Now Bob Crockett states we can not prove it and he is right, but this comes close if you ask me. That and the curator for both the Smithsonian and the Museum in Tennessee label it as a forgery. Not just them but every archaeologist that I personally know do as well. I myself have held that small stone in my hands when I was visiting Tennessee and I do not believe it is genuine.

 

It was Cyrus Thomas  who said it appeared to be Cherokee and it wasn't till 1970 when Cyrus Gordon said it was Paleo-Hebrew.

[Anijen]

This is my opinion however, it is one based from in depth study on the matter, and one that is collaborated by evidence and backed by professional archaeologist. IMO Emmert recovered a stone that was placed under the jaw of one of the skeletons found in mound three, he took that stone and had his friend Luther Blackman engrave on it. Blackman was an honest person and probably did it because he was hired by Emmert and did not want to lose his job. Yes I believe the stone is old and perhaps placed there with the original bodies, but I also believe the engraving on that stone is late 19th century.

[Sevenbak]

Regardless of opinions and theories in this debate, the stone is currently on loan from the Smithsonian and is on prominent display at the McClung Museum in Knoxville.  The museum's mission is not to perpetuate hoaxes, so obviously not everyone thinks it is a fraud or a closed case, they continue to do research on the stone. The carbon dating on the polished wood fragments found with the stone date to the right time period too, so what's in question by some here is Emmert's honesty as an employee of the Smithsonian via Thomas as his supervisor, the one who was adamant it was Paleo-Cherokee.  He's become the fall guy, but as many of these cases happen, his trial didn't start until he was no longer able to testify.  Circumstantial evidence never holds up in court very well, as it often works both ways.

 

Here's the rub for the hoax theorists to explain, as I'm sure the debate will continue in much larger and knowledgeable circles than any of us here.

 

In June 2010 the stone underwent Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) examination by Forensic Geologist Scott Wolter of American Petrographic Services at the McClung Museum.  After examining the stones inscribed grooves and outer weathering rind using standard and SEM, and researching the historical documentation, the team of Scott Wolter and Richard Stehly of American Petrographic Services conclude that the inscription is “consistent with many hundreds of years of weathering in a wet earth mound comprised of soil and hard red clay” and that the stone “can be no younger than when the bodies of the deceased were buried inside the mound.”

 

 

These findings were done only 3 years ago. They were subsequently published and an online version is available on their website at http://www.ampetrographic.com/files/BatCreekStone.pdf

 

And if you read the actual smithsonian dig report, (Page 392) the bodies it was found buried with were crumbling, "much decayed".  The copper earrings were oxidized heavily.  It was an old mound, and the stone was at the bottom if we take the report as genuine.

 

No, it's not a cut and dry case, no matter how many theories or ideas to the contrary pop up.

[Sevenbak]

And if you don't want to read the entire report from the electron microscope scan done in 2010, here's the conclusion of the research.

 

6. Based upon the results of our investigation the following sequence of events occurred:

   a. The at least nine character inscription was carved into the dark brown iron-rich siltstone concretion on the side with the weathered rind intact.

   b. The entire inscription side was polished, smoothing out the dark brown surface and rounding the sharp edges of the grooves of the carved characters.

   c. The inscribed stone was placed behind the skull of the deceased (identified as skeleton No. 1 in Mound No. 3) at the time of burial with the inscription side down.

   d. The back side of the inscribed stone was hit and scratched by the metal prod used by John Emmert at the time of excavation of the mound.

   e. The two vertical scratches on the inscribed side of the Stone were made after 1891 and before January, 1971.

   Conclusions

Based on the review of the historical correspondence and the reflected light and scanning electron microscopic examinations of the artifact on May 28, 2010, the following conclusions are appropriate:

1. Our geological findings are consistent with the Smithsonian Institute’s field report written by John W. Emmert.

2. The complete lack of the orange-colored silty-clay residue in any of the characters of the inscription is consistent with many hundreds of years of weathering in a wet earth mound comprised of soil and “hard red clay.” 7

3. The inscribed stone and all the other artifacts and remains found in the mound with it, can be no younger than when the bodies of the deceased were buried inside the mound. 

[Anijen]

The museum's mission is not to perpetuate hoaxes, so obviously not everyone thinks it is a fraud or a closed case

 

Your statement is a bit obscure since the McClung Museum itself labels the Bat Creek stone as a forgery when it is on display. 

 

 

The carbon dating on the polished wood fragments found with the stone date to the right time period too,

 

 

The right time period for what? They have been dated to 1300. I am sure the stone itself could be a million years old...

 

 

 

Thomas as his supervisor, the one who was adamant it was Paleo-Cherokee.  He's become the fall guy,

Not by me. And besides it was only Cherokee. There is no such thing as Paleo-Cherokee (as far as Cherokee being a written language).

 

 

but as many of these cases happen, his trial didn't start until he was no longer able to testify.

There is no trial or testifying, there never was. This is a scholarly discussion on the Bat creek stone plain and simple.

 

 

 

 

Circumstantial evidence never holds up in court very well

It holds up very well when there is a lot of it.

All the rest of your reports I agree with. I am not arguing the stone is old I am saying the engravings on it are not.

 

 

 

And if you read the actual smithsonian dig report, (Page 392) the bodies it was found buried with were crumbling, "much decayed".  The copper earrings were oxidized heavily.  It was an old mound, and the stone was at the bottom

 

I have read I think almost every published article on the matter. The reason for the decay was yes they were on the bottom, but what you failed to mention is that the mound is right next to the Little Tennessee River and they were very wet. So when the polished wood was pulled out they crumbled instantly in Thomas's  hand (they were wooden ear spools by the way). The brass was also near the bottom and because of the moisture and oxidation caused the wood to be stained green. Some say this moisture has altered the carbon dating results. It does not matter to me if they were or they were not. The evidence is highly suggestive that though the stone is old the engravings are late 19th century and probably from Emmert, Blackburn, and/or Rogan. Cyrus Thomas has never been blamed/accused for the forgery.

 

 

 

No, it's not a cut and dry case, no matter how many theories or ideas to the contrary pop up.

 

To the archaeologist and museum curators it is pretty much cut and dried and settled, and that is; the writing on the stone is a forgery.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Anijen

[Nofear]

I don't know if it's real or not, but I do know that the same power and influence that tried to stop Joseph in the grove, is still strong and very much real in derailing truth.

While opinions may vary on specifics (I side much more closely with Anijen's take on artifacts and geology), I do agree with this statement. Indeed, I think one of the Adversary's more clever ruses is to provide a faked document or artifact, which very much seems to be real, let people put some measure of faith/trust in it and then disillusion them. The disillusioned individuals who once trusted in the false sometimes then extend that doubt to true things and fall away. This was a pattern I saw numerous times in my once-upon-a-time reading of ex-mormon letters.

The converse, however, is not nearly as effective. One can be skeptical of an artifact and later it is found to be authentic. The believer in the Gospel then may have little trouble adopting the new information. Yet another application of the adage, "Pessimists are never disappointed."

[williamsmith]

Wayne May in his newly released video is misleading his audience so much to the point I need to vent hence this thread. On his you-tube here he makes claims such as he has been studying archaeology since third grade, he blatantly uses fraudulent artifacts to support his claims. Not only does he use fraudulent artifacts he uses fake experts as well i.e. Dr. Hurtak. Here is a write up on the so called expert (Hurtak). This a James White trick to use fake collegiate  credentials to gain some form of credibility. May also uses temple changes (about the 22 minute mark) also as a support for his theories. Amateurish sharks making videos and displaying them as proof and using membership as a way to give credence is plainly wrong. It simply makes my blood pressure rise because I know the damage that this could cause in the long run to somebodies testimony.

 

 I feel bad for those who are duped by May and his ilk. Here is a list of fakes;

Michigan tablets

Bat Creek Stone

Davenport tablets

Crystal skulls

Cardiff Giant

Los Lunas Stone

and many others

 

I would be willing to discuss these fakes or others you might suspect. Also what is your opinion for fellow LDS (who knowingly know they are fakes) yet still use them to back up there ideas?

 

All of these are not "fakes".....

 

For example, the Los Lunas Stone had Indian oral history and legends that existed long before about the rock and those who wrote it before any white man saw it.

And this is blatantly clear evidence, there are other evidences.

Edited January 14, 2014 by williamsmith

[cinepro]

 

Here is a list of fakes and purported fakes:

 

1. Tom Horn Papers.

2. Pseudo-Ignatius

3. Archko Volume

4. Book of Jasher

5. Ossian and the James Macpherson forgeries

6. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain

7. John Arthur Goodchild and The Book of Tephi

8. Sir Francis Drake Brass Plate.

9. Thomas James Wise

10. Vinland Map

11. Davenport Conspiracy

12. Padilla Plates

13. Manti Tablets

14. Six Kinderhook Plates.

15. Six Rajah Manjou Plates.

16. Epistle of Kallikrates

17. Protocols of the Elders of Zion

18. Enola Gay Navigator’s Log.

19. Gospel of Barnabas.

20. Anti-Satanist, anti-Masonic, and Anti-Mormon forgeries of “Dr. Bataille” and “Léo Taxil.”

21. Various Israeli rabbis’ condemnatory prophecy on the BYU Jerusalem Center.

22. Grolier Codex.

23. The Kensington Stone.

24. The “Blau Monuments.”

25. Various Anti-Semitic/Anti-Jewish Blood Libels.

26. Shapira MSS.

27. Michigan Mound Tablets.

28. Hitler Diaries.

29. JFK Papers.

30. Great Fivers Plot.

31. The Getty Kouros.

32. Dama de Elche sculpture.

33. Bust of Plato in Hearst Museum.

34. Jehoash Inscription.

35. The “Three Shekels” and “Widow’s Plea” Ostraca.

36. “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” Ossuary Inscription.

37. John D. Lee Scroll.

38. Ten Commandment Rock.

39.  Emily ****inson Poem.

40. Ivory Pomegranate Inscription.

 

 

No love for Melvin Dummar?

[Anijen]

All of these are not "fakes".....

 

For example, the Los Lunas Stone had Indian oral history and legends that existed long before about the rock and those who wrote it before any white man saw it.

And this is blatantly clear evidence, there are other evidences.

This is not true. The first person ever to see and show the stone was Frank Hibben. It is by Hibben's own account that the stone had a history and legend. I have searched for any record regarding the stone prior to Hibben "cough" discovering "cough" it. I have found nothing, zero, nada. Before Hibbens alleged discovery of it there is not one iota of a legend of it, let alone history.

 

Hibben although a decent archaeologist I am afraid he sought glory and reputation over truthful accounts. Hibben wanted to increase his academic reputation and did so by introducing some fakes. See here an article titled, "University buildings named on shaky ground"  http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/426374a Once an archaeologist goes down that road its hard to come back. The Los Lunas stone was not Hibbens first foray into questionable artifacts.

 

So no I cant prove it, but yes all archaeologist that I know either choose it was a fake or not yet made up their minds, but generally lean toward fake. Not a single archaeologist I know believe it to be the real deal.

 

Look at it this way if it is the real deal, then where is any secondary evidence that would support for it. Not one thing has come up to verify it. Now for a short lesson in archaeology when a dig is done on all known sites that have accumulated any type of remains in every single one there is secondary evidence to support it. None has ever been found to support the Los Lunas Stone. Where are the midden deposits? Where is the garbage that group left behind? Where are the clothing, party remains, other writings? Where? I tell you where, no where, because the Los Lunas stone is a forgery (in my opinion).

[Anijen]

If a single artifact is the only thing found at a fixed site such as the Los Lunas Stone then that by itself is questionable.

 

For example with the discussion on the Bat Creek stone in the above comments it was from the studying and excavation of three mounds along the Little Tennessee river. along with the BCS other artifacts were found also such as wooden artifacts, brass beads, and skeletal remains. And yes I believe the BCS to be fake.

 

The Los Lunas stone has no history before Hibbens claims, The Indians did not talk about it before Hibbens claims, There simply was no legends it least not until Hibben discovered it then yes afterwards there were claims (all suspect because of their timing).

[rick7475]

 

Here is a list of fakes and purported fakes:

 

1. Tom Horn Papers.

2. Pseudo-Ignatius

3. Archko Volume

4. Book of Jasher

5. Ossian and the James Macpherson forgeries

6. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain

7. John Arthur Goodchild and The Book of Tephi

8. Sir Francis Drake Brass Plate.

9. Thomas James Wise

10. Vinland Map

11. Davenport Conspiracy

12. Padilla Plates

13. Manti Tablets

14. Six Kinderhook Plates.

15. Six Rajah Manjou Plates.

16. Epistle of Kallikrates

17. Protocols of the Elders of Zion

18. Enola Gay Navigator’s Log.

19. Gospel of Barnabas.

20. Anti-Satanist, anti-Masonic, and Anti-Mormon forgeries of “Dr. Bataille” and “Léo Taxil.”

21. Various Israeli rabbis’ condemnatory prophecy on the BYU Jerusalem Center.

22. Grolier Codex.

23. The Kensington Stone.

24. The “Blau Monuments.”

25. Various Anti-Semitic/Anti-Jewish Blood Libels.

26. Shapira MSS.

27. Michigan Mound Tablets.

28. Hitler Diaries.

29. JFK Papers.

30. Great Fivers Plot.

31. The Getty Kouros.

32. Dama de Elche sculpture.

33. Bust of Plato in Hearst Museum.

34. Jehoash Inscription.

35. The “Three Shekels” and “Widow’s Plea” Ostraca.

36. “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” Ossuary Inscription.

37. John D. Lee Scroll.

38. Ten Commandment Rock.

39.  Emily ****inson Poem.

40. Ivory Pomegranate Inscription.

 

 

 

36. “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” Ossuary Inscription

 

I argue for its authenticity

 

http://io9.com/this-ancient-burial-box-contains-the-earliest-known-ref-1490333224