Fakes Revisited.

[Brant Gardner]

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.

For example, soon after I moved to Albuquerque there was an article that had a photograph of the Los Lunas stone without any engravings.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

You're supposed to think hemispherically . . .   

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Most experts tend to agree.

A better and more informative source (including a free eBook about it) is at http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/israel-antiquities-authority-returns-jesus-brother-bone-box-to-owner/?mqsc=E3673595&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHDDailyNewsletter&utm_campaign=E3BN14 .

[Sevenbak]

 

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

 

Its still on prominent display in a museum of it's caliber, why?  What exactly does the display say, and are they dealing with the modern studies, (Radiocarbon and Electron micriscope) is that why it's still there?

 

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

 

32 AD - 769 AD is the radiocarbon dates reported by McCulloch in1988.  Has there been other tests that differed from that?

 

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).

 

Paleo =  Ancient; prehistoric; old  Nothing to see here, move on.  Thomas was convinced it was older Cherokee than the standard language.

 

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

 

Trial by internet, without all the players present.   Not enough for truth to be known, either way.  It's often how the Anti sites do their best work.  That's why the debate will continue on the BCS.

 

 

 

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.

 

According toe the electron microscope research done 3 years ago, the engravings are consistent with the Smithsonian dig report, and show an ancient date.  Here's the PDF report link again.  

 

 

 

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.

 

What evidence do you have that says the engravings are late 19th century, that contradicts the electron microscope scans done in 2010?  I know there are theories, but has there been other official research that states otherwise?

 

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.    

 

If so, they're making hay with a forgery on public display.  No, I disagree, it's still very controversial and debatable.

 

[Bob Crockett]

That 2010 electronic microscope report of the Bat Creek stone is foolish. I see such foolishness among experts like this all the time.

They note that there are scratches on the stone which occurred during the stone's discovery or after. They note the absence of weathering and the absence of polishing. In those modern scratches are deposits of silty clay.

They then compare those scratches to the inscriptions. Those are polished; i.e., somebody inscribed them and then polished the stone. The expert thus concludes that because the inscriptions lack the silty clay deposit, they must have predated the modern scratches which have the deposit. And then the huge leap of faith; the stone must be hundreds of years old.

However, had a forger inscribed the stone one week earlier, polished and washed it so that silty clay deposits would not be in the inscription, and then forced the stone into the mound with a probe, the stone would meet the experts' description. The experts fail to rule out the possibility that the stone was inscribed, polished and washed days before the discovery.

[Sevenbak]

Other than generalities, have there been specific studies to disprove the scans?   I'm open to the possibilities that the scans are bogus, but I've not seen any proof that that end.

[Bob Crockett]

Other than generalities, have there been specific studies to disprove the scans?   I'm open to the possibilities that the scans are bogus, but I've not seen any proof that that end.

It is impossible to date the stone with "scans" or any other kind of dating technology, as there is no carbon-14 to deteriorate. The expert report you cite concluded that the inscription pre-dated the excavation and, ergo, the inscription pre-dated the excavation by hundreds of years. No way can that conclusion be legitimately derived.

One can date something like this by a stratum analysis (where is it in the strata), as has been done for the stone. For instance, the horse finds in the Yucatan have been dated by a stratum analysis to have been deposited a few hundred years before Columbus, but the archeologists who have opined on that find say that it is aberrational. So, go figure.

I'd say at this point it is really impossible to prove or disprove the Bat Creek Stone.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

Its still on prominent display in a museum of it's caliber, why?

 

Because the forgery has a historical significance of its own as a forgery?

[Anijen]

Sevenbak~ Paleo =  Ancient; prehistoric; old  Nothing to see here, move on.  Thomas was convinced it was older Cherokee than the standard language.

 

I was speaking of Cherokee as a written language (as I indicated in my post). The written language of Cherokee was developed about 1824, some experts believe much later (late 19th century). There are some books that have Cherokee before this but it is not from the written language it is either in  English, French, or Spanish and using their own language and writing it, i.e. writing the French word oui as we.

 

 

 

According toe the electron microscope research done 3 years ago, the engravings are consistent with the Smithsonian dig report, and show an ancient date.

 

There is no system to date stone. The engravings also are consistent with me scratching up a rock and placing it inside a 1000 year old mound and then excavating it a week later.

 

 

 

What evidence do you have that says the engravings are late 19th century, that contradicts the electron microscope scans done in 2010?  I know there are theories, but has there been other official research that states otherwise?

The same evidence as you do. From archaeologist studying the mounds and the artifacts found within, soil samples.

 

 "that contradicts the electron microscope scans done in 2010" You keep citing this as proof, it is not. It is an opinion based on the carbon dating of the artifacts found with the BCS. Again you cannot date stone by carbon dating, and you need external factors to theorize the date you posit. That date is posited because of the outside artifacts where the stone was allegedly found, remember no one seen it come out of the mound and it was Emmert who brought the stone to Thomas, (Thomas did not go to the mound and see it being excavated). If I scratched up a stone today and buried the stone in my back yard with some 20th century stuff then those same microscope scans would find it to be similar with the dating of the 20th century stuff. Why? Because you cannot date stone nor can one date inscriptions engraved in stone the only way is by sing the outside external evidences. 

 

 

but has there been other official research that states otherwise?

And there has been more official research to state that it [bCS] is a fake.

 

 

If so, they're making hay with a forgery on public display.

 

No they are not. They are displaying the artifacts that come out of the three mounds along the side of the Little Tennessee river. The beads, the wood, and other things, and since the stone allegedly came out with the other stuff it is on display with them with the disclaimer that it is a forgery. There is no "making of hay" period. It is a museum that is displaying items that reflect on Tennessee's past, simple as that, no mystery involved.

 

 

No, I disagree, it's still very controversial and debatable.

 

Yes it is debatable still. But there is no controversy, except from those who cling to the lost tribes in America theory, who many happen to be LDS,  people like Wayne May, Rodney Meldrum etc.

[Sevenbak]

 

"...there is no controversy, except from those who cling to the lost tribes in America theory…"

 

What point is there in discussing this further, on any of the points, if this is your assertion?  I find this approach troubling on many levels.  No offense, but I disagree completely, and don't see the value in spending time in pointless back and forth.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sevenbak, the clinger.

[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.

 

Just so we're clear, the wikipedia article has pictures of both the stone (discovered in 1889) and the "Masonic artist's impression of a Biblical phrase", first published in 1868 in a "Masonic reference book". 

 

Here's the stone:

 

Here's the artist's illustration from 1868:

 

 

Can anyone guess the odds of such a similar inscription being published in 1868, and then a stone being found also bearing the almost identical inscription?

 

Keep in mind that the illustration is described as an artist's impresion of how the phrase "Holiness to the Lord" would appear in Paleo Hebrew.  So it is the artist's creation to some degree. And then 20 years later, it's discovered as the sole script to be recovered on a small stone in Tennessee. 

 

What are the odds of that?

Edited January 16, 2014 by cinepro

[Sevenbak]

Just so we're clear, the wikipedia article has pictures of both the stone (discovered in 1889) and the "Masonic artist's impression of a Biblical phrase", first published in 1868 in a "Masonic reference book". 

 

...

 

Can anyone guess the odds of such a similar inscription being published in 1868, and then a stone being found also bearing the almost identical inscription?

 

Keep in mind that the illustration is described as an artist's impresion of how the phrase "Holiness to the Lord" would appear in Paleo Hebrew.  So it is the artist's creation to some degree. And then 20 years later, it's discovered as the sole script to be recovered on a small stone in Tennessee. 

 

What are the odds of that?

Isn't that like saying because the temple ceremony has many similarities to Masonic rituals, it must have been faked or copied?  

 

There is something to be said for ancient sources diverging into the future.

 

Not all the characters are the same, there's altered ones and completely different ones.  (Reformed hebrew as described by Mormon?  Possibly)

And if Emmert did perpetuate a hoax, he certainly did his homework for someone who never claimed it was hebrew.  The stone was found underneath the skull.  The inscription was to be worn on the forehead of the High Priest, according to the Masonic text.  

 

Same ancient source, law of witnesses, etc, etc??  Possibly

 

Fraud?  Possibly.

 

Debatable and Controversial?  Most definitely.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2014 by Sevenbak

[Tiki]

Everyone knows that early American Setters knew not only Hebrew, but Paleo-Hebrew.

But this is a forgery because every Mormon knows that Nephites wrote in Maya.

[Anijen]

What point is there in discussing this further, on any of the points, if this is your assertion?  I find this approach troubling on many levels.  No offense, but I disagree completely, and don't see the value in spending time in pointless back and forth.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sevenbak, the clinger.

I apologize I didn't mean to offend. I have studied anthropology and many fakes, I have held the BCS in my hands, I have personally spoke with Iseminger, Lepper, Feder and other experts on the Hopewell (You wont get a more who's who in the Hopewell than those three). I go to Ohio every single summer and part of that trip I visit the mounds there. I spend some time in St. Louis also and visit Cahokia. And every time  (so far) when the BCS is brought up in conversation all of the above speak in terms of it being a fake and to these experts and many others there truly is no controversy, and the only time it is brought up in the context that it is genuine is when they are talking about either religion and those who follow May, Meldrum, Olive, Beck etc..

 

Sevenbak, seriously I did not state that there is no controversy to get your goat. I am stating that among the experts of the BCS and the Hopewell and Adena there is no controversy. It is still my assertion, but can't reckon for the life of me why it troubles you on so many different levels?

 

I guess if you wish to ignore me because it troubles you, I guess I can respect that, but I must say from my end it seems like we were discussing it on some sort of academic level of discussion and my point of view on the subject is that reaction is a bit less mature approach than I would expect. I would hope we all (myself included) can discuss differing opinions and theories and keep in on a intellectual plane and attempt to avoid  inserting a view from arguments of emotion. I include myself there as well.

 

Jeff

[Anijen]

Although there were questions about the Bat Creek stone's origins, these were strengthened by a 2004 paper by Mainfort and Kwas. In it, they demonstrate that the text for the stone was copied from an 1870 book on Freemasonry: Robert Macoy, General History, Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of Freemasonry (New York, Masonic Publishing Co., 1870), 169. [see Figure 2.] The Masonic use of the inscription comes from a Jewish coin, reading "Holiness to the Lord," or "Holy to Yahweh."^[6]

The man who discovered the Bat Creek Stone did so alone, and was not a professional archaeologist in the modern sense. He also seems to have "discovered" other artifacts that are clearly forgeries.^[7] His problems with alcohol led to him being fired for a period; political pressure was necessary for him to regain his job, and his forgery may have been motivated by a desire to ensure his continued employment.^[8] Others have argued that the evidence is not as air-tight as these authors believe.^[9]

The bracelets

The Bat Creek Stone was also found with two bracelets, but these were dated to the eighteenth or nineteenth century.^[10] This heightens the evidence of fraud still further.

 

This has been my argument all along.

 

^{from the FAIR Moherermon site here}

Edited January 19, 2014 by Anijen

[Tiki]

Anijen:

"I am stating that among the experts of the BCS and the Hopewell and Adena there is no controversy."

 

What's your point about "experts?"

Experts on Mesoamerica don't agree with the LDS Mesoamerica apologetic claims for Central America, also.

[Anijen]

Anijen:

What's your point about "experts?"

Experts on Mesoamerica don't agree with the LDS Mesoamerica apologetic claims for Central America, also.

Tiki, I am speaking about people who are experts of the Hopewell and Adena traditions. I was attempting to make the point and failed miserable that these archaeologist/experts believe the BCS is a fake, I stated that there is "no controversy." I should have been more considerate it came out more snarky. Those who find the BCS credible are those who hold on tightly to the theory that ancient Hebrews or Nephites brought the stone to America. I used the word "cling" and in doing so offended Sevenbak. Although I agreed with him that the BCS was still debateable but that there is no controversy. I still feel that way. Even Cyrus Thomas and the Smithsoniean leaned toward it being fake at the end and they all but said so. They had published too much about it so they let it go quietly.

 

 

 

And to answer your other part, I am fully aware there is disagreement between heartland and Mesoamerica. I consider myself to be a semi-expert on the Hopewell, Adena, Clovis as well, yet I subscribe to a Mesoamerican setting.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Anijen

[cinepro]

 

Isn't that like saying because the temple ceremony has many similarities to Masonic rituals, it must have been faked or copied?  

 

There is something to be said for ancient sources diverging into the future.

 

Not all the characters are the same, there's altered ones and completely different ones.  (Reformed hebrew as described by Mormon?  Possibly)

And if Emmert did perpetuate a hoax, he certainly did his homework for someone who never claimed it was hebrew.  The stone was found underneath the skull.  The inscription was to be worn on the forehead of the High Priest, according to the Masonic text.  

 

 

 

 

No, it's not the same at all.  There is an acknowledged transmission between Masonry and the Temple (i.e. Joseph Smith has familiar with Masonic rituals before he revealed the Temple ceremony).  Whether you believe the Masonic rituals resemble the Temple because they stem from the same source (i.e. ancient pure Temple ceremonies), or because Joseph Smith adapted them under inspiration, there is no denying that direct connection.

 

The Bat Creek Stone is very different.  How can you account for a magazine article creating a specific set of characters and publishing them, and then a few years later those same characters (almost identically) being found on a purportedly ancient stone?  What's the "transmission" between the two?  Or is it just a coincidence?

[Anijen]

The Bat Creek Stone is very different.  How can you account for a magazine article creating a specific set of characters and publishing them, and then a few years later those same characters (almost identically) being found on a purportedly ancient stone?  What's the "transmission" between the two?  Or is it just a coincidence?

A good point. I would like to add that Blackburn (Emmerts pal) was not only an experienced marble engraver, but also a Mason and I have read he had a source for the Jewish coin that had that similar inscription (although I can't find it in the mess of papers I have). Not to mention that Emmert had faked other artifacts before he allegedly discovered the BCS. To me it isn't that confusing, IMO the BCS is fake.

[Robert F. Smith]

Anijen:

What's your point about "experts?"

Experts on Mesoamerica don't agree with the LDS Mesoamerica apologetic claims for Central America, also.

Not so.  For the experts you theoretically cite to have rejected Mormon claims, they at least need to address those actual claims, which they do not.  They deal in generalities, ignoring any specific claims (such as John Sorenson, Brant Gardner, or Mark Wright make), and instead rejecting out of hand the notion that the Book of Mormon could  be true.  A knee-jerk reaction, if you will.

 

Once these experts (say for example Mike Coe) reject the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I would expect them to at least address the archeology and anthroplogical reality of Mesoamerica and systematically compare it with the Book of Mormon.  This they have not done, and they make an automatic, apriori assumption that there is nothing substantive behind Mormon claims anyhow -- so why bother?!

Edited January 19, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[cinepro]

Not so.  For the experts you theoretically cite to have rejected Mormon claims, they at least need to address those actual claims, which they do not.  They deal in generalities, ignoring any specific claims (such as John Sorenson, Brant Gardner, or Mark Wright make), and instead rejecting out of hand the notion that the Book of Mormon could  be true.  A knee-jerk reaction, if you will.

 

Once these experts (say for example Mike Coe) reject the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I would expect them to at least address the archeology and anthroplogical reality of Mesoamerica and systematically compare it with the Book of Mormon.  This they have not done, and they make an automatic, apriori assumption that there is nothing substantive behind Mormon claims anyhow -- so why bother?!

 

So, what specific claims does the Book of Mormon make that non-LDS Mesoamerican experts would find convincing if they only looked into them?

[Tacenda]

So, what specific claims does the Book of Mormon make that non-LDS Mesoamerican experts would find convincing if they only looked into them?

Ditto