Verdict in "Forgery Trial of the Century" Coming Wednesday, March 14

[SolomonW]

Judge Aharon Farkash of the District Court in Jerusalem has announced that
a verdict on the alleged forgery of several items including the James
"brother of Jesus" Ossuary and the Ivory pomegranate will be given on
Wednesday, March 14.

I have been following this case with much interest over its seven years.

The implications of this verdict are considerable.

You can read some details here.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/biblical-archaeology-topics/date-set-for-james-ossuary-verdict/?mqsc=E3066328

[Peter Jason]

Why has it taken all of seven years?

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> Judge Aharon Farkash of the District Court in Jerusalem has announced that
> a verdict on the alleged forgery of several items

Wrong. The verdict will be on a man, not on items. There is
a man on trial for the forgeries. Even if he is found innocent
that will not in any way, shape or form suggest that the items
are not forgeries. It will only suggests that he may not be the
man responsible.

[SolomonW]

A combination of reasons but much of the reason is because of the
complexity of the case, the wish by the judges that the issue be settled
and because long civil cases tend to be given low priority.

[SolomonW]

You are wrong.

[Matt Giwer]

A judge is not qualified to determine the legitimacy of artifacts nor a court
the venue for such determination. You propose the Scopes monkey trial could
determine the validity of evolution.

--
The extreme settlers have already murdered a Prime Minister.
What does a red line mean to them?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4373
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Wed Mar 7 06:44:52 EST 2012

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> JTEM wrote:

> > Wrong. The verdict will be on a man, not on items. There is
> > a man on trial for the forgeries. Even if he is found innocent
> > that will not in any way, shape or form suggest that the items
> > are not forgeries. It will only suggests that he may not be the
> > man responsible.

> You are wrong.

No, a person is on trial, not inanimate objects as you keep
claiming.

When a person is found not guilty of murder this does not mean
that there was no murder, only that there was not sufficient
evidence to convict the person charged.

The same is true here. Whether or not he is found guilty
doesn't change the fact that the items were forged.

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>         A judge is not qualified to determine the legitimacy
> of artifacts

He's not being asked to. No artifact is on trial. An
accused forger is.

If he is found "not guilty" it would no more mean that the
item isn't forged than O.J.'s acquittal meant there was
never a double homicide.

[Eric Stevens]

The body of a man who has been hacked to death is found in a field.

Joe Bloggs has been accused of his murder and put on trial.

According to your logic, the body in the field will return to life if
Joe Bloggs is found innocent of the murder ... or have I
misunderstood you?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Weland]

Here JTEM is actually right. The trial is of Golan, and his associates
and whether they are guilty of forgery. JTEM of course overstates his
case, because of course a significant portion of the evidence of his
guilt or innocence are the items and whether in fact they are forged: if
the items are forged,

[Weland]

On 3/7/2012 4:12 AM, SolomonW wrote:

....as I was saying, if they are established as forgeries, then the
prosecution has to connect the defendant to those forgeries; if the
items are not forgeries, than they are not guilty of forgery. While the
question of guilt or innocence is not entirely decided on the stance one
takes on the items, it is a significant part. JTEM is right in saying
that the verdict however is on the men involved primarily, and wrong to
say that they have nothing to do with one another.

[SolomonW]

To continue your example, this case depends on whether the body was hacked
and then if Joe Bloggs did the hacking.

What the prosecution has to prove is that the items in question are beyond
a reasonable doubt fakes and whether these people faked them.

[Weland]

On 3/7/2012 5:46 AM, Matt Giwer wrote:
> On 03/06/2012 05:22 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>> Judge Aharon Farkash of the District Court in Jerusalem has announced
>> that
>> a verdict on the alleged forgery of several items including the James
>> "brother of Jesus" Ossuary and the Ivory pomegranate will be given on
>> Wednesday, March 14.
>>
>> I have been following this case with much interest over its seven years.
>>
>> The implications of this verdict are considerable.
>>
>> You can read some details here.

>> has

>> http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/biblical-archaeology-topics/date-set-for-james-ossuary-verdict/?mqsc=E3066328
>>
>
> A judge is not qualified to determine the legitimacy of artifacts nor a
> court the venue for such determination. You propose the Scopes monkey
> trial could determine the validity of evolution.
>

Nonetheless, the prosecution spent a great deal of time and energy with
experts and expert opinion on whether the objects were forgeries: after
all, if they aren't, they can't very well accuse the man of forgery. So
the judge has to make some determination on the authenticity of the
objects before he can determine if a crime has been committed and that
the man on trial before him is guilty. He may not be right or
qualified, but he has to make such a call anyway.

[Eric Stevens]

Two separate points. Failing to prove that these people faked them has
no bearing on whether or not they are faked.

Of course, failing to prove they are fakes means that nobody can be
shown to have faked them.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[bill]

Of course they're fakes.

The idea that someone could turn stuff up of this level of significance
more than once a lifetime is absurd.

What's incredible is that nobody noticed for so long.

As a rule a decent forger either has one good strike with a world shaking
find or they sell only into the dodgy collectors market where few
questions are asked and the level of expert consulted tends to be lower.

There's no way to get away with what Golan tried to get away with.


--
"Hopefully the fair wind will resume, or this may well take all day."

Admiral Collingwood on being becalmed under the guns of six French ships-
of-the-line at Trafalgar

[SolomonW]

Yes

>
> Of course, failing to prove they are fakes means that nobody can be
> shown to have faked them.
>

Yes.





> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens

[SolomonW]

No he is wrong because the first step is whether the judge rules they are
fake beyond a reasonable doubt.

[SolomonW]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:48:47 +0000 (UTC), bill wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:13:32 -0600, Weland wrote:
>
>> On 3/7/2012 4:12 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 22:25:06 -0800 (PST), JTEM wrote:
>>>
>>>> SolomonW<Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Judge Aharon Farkash of the District Court in Jerusalem has announced
>>>>> that a verdict on the alleged forgery of several items
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. The verdict will be on a man, not on items. There is a man on
>>>> trial for the forgeries. Even if he is found innocent that will not in
>>>> any way, shape or form suggest that the items are not forgeries. It
>>>> will only suggests that he may not be the man responsible.
>>>
>>> You are wrong.
>>
>> Here JTEM is actually right. The trial is of Golan, and his associates
>> and whether they are guilty of forgery. JTEM of course overstates his
>> case, because of course a significant portion of the evidence of his
>> guilt or innocence are the items and whether in fact they are forged: if
>> the items are forged,
>
> Of course they're fakes.
>

I think everyone accepts the items are real, what is disputed is the
whether the inscriptions have been added?

I have quite mixed views on this subject, often it depends which expert
witness I am reading currently.

> The idea that someone could turn stuff up of this level of significance
> more than once a lifetime is absurd.

Golan argues that he has nothing to do with the other items, so it is only
one for him.

>
> What's incredible is that nobody noticed for so long.

Why Golan argument was until the writings on the Ossuary were explained to
him, he did not understand its significance.

>
> As a rule a decent forger either has one good strike with a world shaking
> find or they sell only into the dodgy collectors market where few
> questions are asked and the level of expert consulted tends to be lower.
>

I met a few dodgy dealer in India, one point for sure the money is much
less with them.

> There's no way to get away with what Golan tried to get away with.

This I doubt I am sure many forgers get away with it.

[JTEM]

Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:

> ....as I was saying, if they are established as forgeries, then

You're mistaken. They have been stablished as forgeries,
hence the trial.

Yes, "They're not forgeries" is an obvious DEFENSE strategy,
and the prosecution no doubt had to invest considerable effort
into countering defense claims, but the entire process BEGAN
with a determination that they are forgeries.

FIRST it was determined that they were forgeries.

NEXT it was determined that a crime had been committed.

FINALLY, the defendants were charged with a crime and
prosecuted.

Again, the very first step in this process was determining
that the items were forgeries.

So I'm not over stating anything. The "SolomonW" posts,
on the other hand, grossly mischaracterized the case
though....

[bill]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 22:52:35 +1100, SolomonW wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:48:47 +0000 (UTC), bill wrote:
>

>>> Here JTEM is actually right. The trial is of Golan, and his
>>> associates and whether they are guilty of forgery. JTEM of course
>>> overstates his case, because of course a significant portion of the
>>> evidence of his guilt or innocence are the items and whether in fact
>>> they are forged: if the items are forged,
>>
>> Of course they're fakes.
>>
>>
> I think everyone accepts the items are real, what is disputed is the
> whether the inscriptions have been added?

OK so far.

> I have quite mixed views on this subject, often it depends which expert
> witness I am reading currently.
>
>
>> The idea that someone could turn stuff up of this level of significance
>> more than once a lifetime is absurd.
>
> Golan argues that he has nothing to do with the other items, so it is
> only one for him.

The others just got passed through him...

Yeah, right...

>> What's incredible is that nobody noticed for so long.
>
> Why Golan argument was until the writings on the Ossuary were explained
> to him, he did not understand its significance.

The phrase 'I can't read the Gothic script' springs to mind.

>> As a rule a decent forger either has one good strike with a world
>> shaking find or they sell only into the dodgy collectors market where
>> few questions are asked and the level of expert consulted tends to be
>> lower.
>>
>>
> I met a few dodgy dealer in India, one point for sure the money is much
> less with them.

And they don't even pretend the item is real these days.

Go down Mutton Street in the Thieves Bazaar in Mumbai these days and
nobody even pretends that the stuff is real.

>> There's no way to get away with what Golan tried to get away with.
>
> This I doubt I am sure many forgers get away with it.

Not in public they don't.

A lot of them sell stuff privately to collectors but getting more than
one item of historical significance into a museum is something that
should ring alarm bells all over the place.

That it didn't with this lot of old tat does rather indicate that he'd
worked out exactly what people wanted, or even possibly needed, to see
and made it.

I have yet to work out exactly what crime he has committed.

Who did he sell this stuff to who paid him a lot of money?

It's not illegal to make fakes and give them away while pretending that
they're real.

[Weland]

Glad to have your expert testimony. Thing is, last I heard the judge
cautioned the prosecution to prove their case or drop the charges and
gave them a time limit in which to do so....interesting for something so
obvious, eh.

[Weland]

I may be misunderstanding, but I don't believe the judge is actually
doing that. If he is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that they are
forgeries and that Golan can be connected to one or more of the
artifacts as forger, then he rules guilty. If he isn't so convinced,
then not guilty....that is the verdict concerns the man but has
significant implications for the objects.

[Weland]

On 3/8/2012 5:53 AM, JTEM wrote:
> Weland<gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>> ....as I was saying, if they are established as forgeries, then
>
> You're mistaken. They have been stablished as forgeries,
> hence the trial.

Wrong again, as the trial itself illustrated. While the Israeli
Antiquities Authority may be satisfied and so brought charges, the
defense was able to produce a significant number of leading experts that
argued for authenticity, or if not for authenticity at least that out
and out post-2000 forgery was the case as the prosecution argued. The
judge even remarked at one point that how could he make a decision if
the world's leading experts can not agree. So no, they have not been
established as forgeries; the IAA convinced the prosecutor's office that
they were forgeries and that charges should be brought...not at all the
same thing.

>
> Yes, "They're not forgeries" is an obvious DEFENSE strategy,
> and the prosecution no doubt had to invest considerable effort
> into countering defense claims, but the entire process BEGAN
> with a determination that they are forgeries.
>
> FIRST it was determined that they were forgeries.
>
> NEXT it was determined that a crime had been committed.
>
> FINALLY, the defendants were charged with a crime and
> prosecuted.
>
> Again, the very first step in this process was determining
> that the items were forgeries.

Actually the very first step in this particular process was the head of
the IAA declaring the bone-box a forgery before ANYONE had actually
examined it or done any tests on it. In the end, this might turn out to
be as much about one man's ego and political ends as anything else.

> So I'm not over stating anything.

Yes you are. A great deal of the trial and one of the reasons it has
taken years (the indictment came down in late 2004, the trial began the
next year if I recall correctly) is the great deal of testimony on both
sides from experts in various fields arguing over whether the
inscriptions were indeed forgeries.

[SolomonW]

Which is what I said. First he has to rule on the items.

[SolomonW]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:14:37 +0000 (UTC), bill wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 22:52:35 +1100, SolomonW wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:48:47 +0000 (UTC), bill wrote:
>>
>
>>>> Here JTEM is actually right. The trial is of Golan, and his
>>>> associates and whether they are guilty of forgery. JTEM of course
>>>> overstates his case, because of course a significant portion of the
>>>> evidence of his guilt or innocence are the items and whether in fact
>>>> they are forged: if the items are forged,
>>>
>>> Of course they're fakes.
>>>
>>>
>> I think everyone accepts the items are real, what is disputed is the
>> whether the inscriptions have been added?
>
> OK so far.
>
>> I have quite mixed views on this subject, often it depends which expert
>> witness I am reading currently.
>>
>>
>>> The idea that someone could turn stuff up of this level of significance
>>> more than once a lifetime is absurd.
>>
>> Golan argues that he has nothing to do with the other items, so it is
>> only one for him.
>
> The others just got passed through him...
>
> Yeah, right...
>
>>> What's incredible is that nobody noticed for so long.
>>
>> Why Golan argument was until the writings on the Ossuary were explained
>> to him, he did not understand its significance.
>
> The phrase 'I can't read the Gothic script' springs to mind.

(a)
My view on this question is that I am going to wait for a few days till the
judge makes known his decision and whatever it is I agree with.

>
>>> As a rule a decent forger either has one good strike with a world
>>> shaking find or they sell only into the dodgy collectors market where
>>> few questions are asked and the level of expert consulted tends to be
>>> lower.
>>>
>>>
>> I met a few dodgy dealer in India, one point for sure the money is much
>> less with them.
>
> And they don't even pretend the item is real these days.
>
> Go down Mutton Street in the Thieves Bazaar in Mumbai these days and
> nobody even pretends that the stuff is real.
>

The items often are real, I have been to archeological sites in many
countries including India. Security is often extremely weak. The
shopkeepers nearby often sell genuine items and the guides can arrange for
you to get real stuff. I just refuse to buy such items.

Although to be fair to India, in the West Bank in Palestine, I was told by
the guide just take whatever I want from the site.

>
>>> There's no way to get away with what Golan tried to get away with.
>>
>> This I doubt I am sure many forgers get away with it.
>
> Not in public they don't.
>
> A lot of them sell stuff privately to collectors but getting more than
> one item of historical significance into a museum is something that
> should ring alarm bells all over the place.
>
> That it didn't with this lot of old tat does rather indicate that he'd
> worked out exactly what people wanted, or even possibly needed, to see
> and made it.
>
> I have yet to work out exactly what crime he has committed.
>
> Who did he sell this stuff to who paid him a lot of money?
>

see (a) above

> It's not illegal to make fakes and give them away while pretending that
> they're real.
>
>

I would think it would be illegal. It is false representation.

[Matt Giwer]

What Israelis do in their courts is their business. Specifically I presume it
to be showing a crime was committed in terms of the laws of Israel which I
have not read. It is a court case. It is to show the violation of specific
laws in light of prior court decisions more or less as in the West.

To be only partly facetious, I have no idea how their courts define forgery
in law. And if you think that is simple I can look up a book on forgery in
antiquity which gives so many possibilities you might decide forgery is
impossible.

Take for example the "pomegranate" which was always absurd but believed. It
is a genuine artifact, the inscription was added making it appear younger than
it is. Forgery? Of what?

Now legally I would consider the pomegranate to be fraud rather than forgery
as it was added to increase its selling price.

As to the mechanics of expert testimony science is never final. Can the
verdict say, Guilty or not guilty as of 2012 but that may change? Can the
penalty be applied retroactively or compensated in the future?

Frankly I have never found enough coverage of the case to see what is going
on. When I first heard it the reports were of finding artifacts half finished.
That should have been enough to ruin his reputation and get him out of the
business. Going for a conviction in a land where fake artifacts has been a
cottage industry for 1700 years should not be undertaken without well defined
laws and charges.

From my understanding of the law I would have prosecuted under the assumption
they were authentic because the export is illegal. Let him prove they are
fake. If he proves they are fake then prosecute for fraud. It seems obvious
but the laws of Israel are their own and baby prosecutors are a dime a dozen.

--
Hodie sexto Idus Martias MMXII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Sat Mar 10 07:38:05 EST 2012

[Matt Giwer]

Look into the complexities of real law before you mouth off.

If the artifact is legitimate he is not a forger in any sense.

--
In politics if you do not have the initiative
you are losing.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4378
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Sat Mar 10 08:02:06 EST 2012

[William Black]

On 10/03/12 11:32, SolomonW wrote:

>
>> It's not illegal to make fakes and give them away while pretending that
>> they're real.
>>
>>
>
> I would think it would be illegal. It is false representation.

Now where is that a crime?

Certainly not in the UK, on which Israeli law is based.

If it was about 50% of people who applied for a job would be up on charges.

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

[William Black]

On 10/03/12 13:01, Matt Giwer wrote:

> To be only partly facetious, I have no idea how their courts define
> forgery in law. And if you think that is simple I can look up a book on
> forgery in antiquity which gives so many possibilities you might decide
> forgery is impossible.

> Now legally I would consider the pomegranate to be fraud rather than
> forgery as it was added to increase its selling price.

Everyone should be aware that this creature defines The Holocaust as
'forgery' and 'fake' and so isn't really a good judge of anything.

[Matt Giwer]

On 03/10/2012 11:45 AM, William Black wrote:
> On 10/03/12 13:01, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> To be only partly facetious, I have no idea how their courts define
>> forgery in law. And if you think that is simple I can look up a book on
>> forgery in antiquity which gives so many possibilities you might decide
>> forgery is impossible.
>> Now legally I would consider the pomegranate to be fraud rather than
>> forgery as it was added to increase its selling price.

> Everyone should be aware that this creature defines The Holocaust as 'forgery'
> and 'fake' and so isn't really a good judge of anything.

Everyone should be aware that Godwin's Law is intrinsically antisemitic.

In this specific case, I do not see why you find it necessary to LIE about
what I have said just to lose by virtue of Godwin's Law.

You know for a fact I have never said what you claim I have. So why do you
find it necessary to lie?

--
I consider it 1000% reasonable to demand a sign from heaven for anyone
claiming to know what god wants to save them from the stake for blasphemy.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4388
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Sat Mar 10 21:46:36 EST 2012

[SolomonW]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:42:07 +0000, William Black wrote:

> On 10/03/12 11:32, SolomonW wrote:
>
>>
>>> It's not illegal to make fakes and give them away while pretending that
>>> they're real.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I would think it would be illegal. It is false representation.
>
> Now where is that a crime?
>
> Certainly not in the UK, on which Israeli law is based.
>
> If it was about 50% of people who applied for a job would be up on charges.

Making fakes is not a crime but knowing selling them as originals, I am
sure is a crime. My wife threatened an antique dealer once with a court
over a carpet that was claimed to be Iranian, but she claimed was not.








http://www.archaeology.org/0905/etc/insider.html

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> The items often are real, I have been to archeological sites in many
> countries including India. Security is often extremely weak. The
> shopkeepers nearby often sell genuine items and the guides can arrange for
> you to get real stuff. I just refuse to buy such items.

Yes. And the forgers often start with genuine items. They
add text and symbols that were never there. It's still a
forgery though, the same way putting somebody else's
name on a check is forgery.

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>         Look into the complexities of real law before you mouth off.

Okay. Done. Everything I said is still true.

>         If the artifact is legitimate he is not a forger in any sense.

And if he is found not guilty that no more requires the
item to be legitimate than the O.J. verdict required his
ex wife to still be alive...

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> Everyone should be aware that Godwin's Law
> is intrinsically antisemitic.

Utterly useless...

[Matt Giwer]

Things are never that simple. What is writing a check on your own account
which does not have enough money to cover? A civil matter.

A check on someone else's account? Forgery.

A check on a non-existent account? Uttering a false financial instrument.

What is passing a $20 bill you made yourself that looks like a real $20?
Counterfeiting.

What is passing a $35 bill? Uttering a false financial instrument.

You say selling as an original. An original what? In this context if one were
to sell inscribed pomegranates like the fake one what is a copy of a fake? A
copy of the original fake?

Your example is a claim of place of manufacture. It might have been better
than one made in Iran just over the border in Iraq or Afghanistan. What does
Iranian mean? Place of manufacture? Style? Quality? Were I in antiques I would
not argue with litigious very EX customers. Trying to make a case in civil
court is not worth the earnings on the sale.

--
If there is a dispute over the West Bank being occupied or not then there is
a dispute over whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4384
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Sun Mar 11 06:16:56 EDT 2012

[Matt Giwer]

On 03/11/2012 01:10 AM, JTEM wrote:
> Matt Giwer<jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Look into the complexities of real law before you mouth off.

> Okay. Done. Everything I said is still true.

Care to post the URL to the Israeli law in English? In Hebrew if that is the
best you could find. I'll deal with it.

>> If the artifact is legitimate he is not a forger in any sense.

> And if he is found not guilty that no more requires the
> item to be legitimate than the O.J. verdict required his
> ex wife to still be alive...

If he is charged with manufacturing an ancient artifact and he is acquitted
what does that say about the artifact? Seems only if he got it from a
manufacturer who did not work for him in any way could the implication of the
validity of the items in question not be a subject of judicial finding.

You are free to post a reasoned response as well as an unreasoned response.

--
If there are an infinite number of parallel universes then there
* is one in which there are no parallel universes.
* are an infinite number in which there are no parallel universes.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4374
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Sun Mar 11 06:32:57 EDT 2012

[Matt Giwer]

The old joke was Italians could not talk without using their hands and Jews
could not debate without using their hands. Today Jews, even fake Jews cannot
debate without using Hitler. Godwin's Law prohibits even you fake Jews from
winning debates.

--
What idiot thought there could be a decrease in smoking that would not cause
an increase in obesity? Does second hand smoke really control obesity?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4383

http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7

Sun Mar 11 06:37:27 EDT 2012

[William Black]

That's fraud.

However I see no reports of money changing hyands here.

[William Black]

On 11/03/12 05:45, SolomonW wrote:

In carpets 'Iranian' (or more properly 'Persian') Afghan and a couple
of others relate to design rather than place of origin.

What are known as 'Persian carpets' are longitudinally asymmetric in
design rather than coming from a specific location

[Yusuf B Gursey]

in fact, most of the rug making is done by the Turkic population.

[William Black]

I have no idea where they're made or who makes them. As I said, the
names describe the different types of carpet.

It was never a part of the antiques business I was in, it came up on a
course I went on once.

My interests are in metalwork and arms although the most money I ever
made was on a book...

[SolomonW]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:35:35 +0000, William Black wrote:

> On 11/03/12 11:09, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 6:59 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/03/12 05:45, SolomonW wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:42:07 +0000, William Black wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 10/03/12 11:32, SolomonW wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> It's not illegal to make fakes and give them away while pretending that
>>>>>>> they're real.
>>>
>>>>>> I would think it would be illegal. It is false representation.
>>>
>>>>> Now where is that a crime?
>>>
>>>>> Certainly not in the UK, on which Israeli law is based.
>>>
>>>>> If it was about 50% of people who applied for a job would be up on charges.
>>>
>>>> Making fakes is not a crime but knowing selling them as originals, I am
>>>> sure is a crime. My wife threatened an antique dealer once with a court
>>>> over a carpet that was claimed to be Iranian, but she claimed was not.
>>>
>>> In carpets 'Iranian' (or more properly 'Persian') Afghan and a couple
>>> of others relate to design rather than place of origin.
>>>
>>> What are known as 'Persian carpets' are longitudinally asymmetric in
>>> design rather than coming from a specific location
>>>
>>
>> in fact, most of the rug making is done by the Turkic population.

I am not sure if the Turkic people in Iranian make the most, but they
certainly do make the best.

>
> I have no idea where they're made or who makes them. As I said, the
> names describe the different types of carpet.
>
> It was never a part of the antiques business I was in, it came up on a
> course I went on once.
>
> My interests are in metalwork and arms although the most money I ever
> made was on a book...

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


I have been to India many times. I have never been offered Persian carpet
as a brand name. It is always is stated as Indian.

I brought recently at a show what to me was a very expensive carpet, it was
stated by the salesman as an Indian carpet with a Persian design.

[SolomonW]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 22:08:33 -0800 (PST), JTEM wrote:

> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>
>> The items often are real, I have been to archeological sites in many
>> countries including India. Security is often extremely weak. The
>> shopkeepers nearby often sell genuine items and the guides can arrange for
>> you to get real stuff. I just refuse to buy such items.
>
> Yes. And the forgers often start with genuine items.

Most forgers do not as it costs a lot of money to buy the original compared
to making it.

http://www.archaeology.org/0905/etc/insider.html

> They
> add text and symbols that were never there. It's still a
> forgery though, the same way putting somebody else's
> name on a check is forgery.

I think so too.

[SolomonW]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:23:07 -0600, Weland wrote:

> On 3/7/2012 5:46 AM, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On 03/06/2012 05:22 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>>> Judge Aharon Farkash of the District Court in Jerusalem has announced
>>> that
>>> a verdict on the alleged forgery of several items including the James
>>> "brother of Jesus" Ossuary and the Ivory pomegranate will be given on
>>> Wednesday, March 14.
>>>
>>> I have been following this case with much interest over its seven years.
>>>
>>> The implications of this verdict are considerable.
>>>
>>> You can read some details here.
>>> has
>>> http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/biblical-archaeology-topics/date-set-for-james-ossuary-verdict/?mqsc=E3066328
>>>
>>
>> A judge is not qualified to determine the legitimacy of artifacts nor a
>> court the venue for such determination. You propose the Scopes monkey
>> trial could determine the validity of evolution.
>>
>
> Nonetheless, the prosecution spent a great deal of time and energy with
> experts and expert opinion on whether the objects were forgeries: after
> all, if they aren't, they can't very well accuse the man of forgery. So
> the judge has to make some determination on the authenticity of the
> objects before he can determine if a crime has been committed and that
> the man on trial before him is guilty. He may not be right or
> qualified, but he has to make such a call anyway.

The judge is qualified, as he has a degree in archaeology

[SolomonW]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 06:32:17 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:

> On 03/11/2012 12:45 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:42:07 +0000, William Black wrote:
>>> On 10/03/12 11:32, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>> It's not illegal to make fakes and give them away while pretending that
>>>>> they're real.
>>>> I would think it would be illegal. It is false representation.
>>> Now where is that a crime?
>>> Certainly not in the UK, on which Israeli law is based.
>>> If it was about 50% of people who applied for a job would be up on charges.
>
>> Making fakes is not a crime but knowing selling them as originals, I am
>> sure is a crime. My wife threatened an antique dealer once with a court
>> over a carpet that was claimed to be Iranian, but she claimed was not.
>
> Things are never that simple. What is writing a check on your own account
> which does not have enough money to cover? A civil matter.

Generally yes.

>
> A check on someone else's account? Forgery.

A crime.

>
> A check on a non-existent account?

Fraud

> Uttering a false financial instrument.
>

Depends on many factors here.

> What is passing a $20 bill you made yourself that looks like a real $20?
> Counterfeiting.

Yes.

>
> What is passing a $35 bill?

Very difficult.

> Uttering a false financial instrument.

Depends on many factors here.

>
> You say selling as an original. An original what? In this context if one were
> to sell inscribed pomegranates like the fake one what is a copy of a fake? A
> copy of the original fake?

I doubt there is copyright on the pomegranates so along as you sell it as
a copy, there should be no problem.

>
> Your example is a claim of place of manufacture. It might have been better
> than one made in Iran just over the border in Iraq or Afghanistan. What does
> Iranian mean? Place of manufacture? Style? Quality? Were I in antiques I would
> not argue with litigious very EX customers.

Then I would argue it is not Persian. It probably means as the seller a
major drop in price.

> Trying to make a case in civil
> court is not worth the earnings on the sale.

That is why I believe my wife won. The dealer did not even question it just
picked up the carpet and returned the money.

[JTEM]

Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:

> Wrong again, as the trial itself illustrated.  While the Israeli
> Antiquities Authority may be satisfied and so brought charges, the
> defense was able to produce a significant number of leading experts

Those "leading experts" have been pulverized here.

For the Pomegranate, for example, the "Leading
Expert" was a Professor Yitzhak Roman, who makes a
lot of good points EXCEPT is you don't assume that
the forger had a scanning electron microscope.

Oh. No such microscope is described by the prosecution
or the defense at what was called the forgery workshop.

So, if we don't assume a scanning electron microscope
was present, Professor Yitzhak Roman's "Expert" testimony
is actually a load of pig shit. Because, yeah, he was
examining it under an electron microscope, and those
breaks that the forger crossed were not detectable with
the human eye.

[William Black]

On 11/03/12 12:11, SolomonW wrote:
>
>
> I brought recently at a show what to me was a very expensive carpet, it was
> stated by the salesman as an Indian carpet with a Persian design.

I was at the annual Bandra 'handloom fabrics' exhibition last week and
there were a couple of guys selling rugs and carpets from Rajastan in
various designs, none of them were what I'd call 'Persian' in design.

However this was a government exhibition and only legitimate traders
registered with the Khadi Commission were allowed.

Khadi Bhandar on DN Road in Mumbai sell nice but expensive hand made
carpets all year round thorough and you KNOW you're getting the real
deal because the shop is owned by the Indian government and only sells
hand-crafted items manufactured under Indian government supervision.

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> > And if he is found not guilty that no more requires the
> > item to be legitimate than the O.J. verdict required his
> > ex wife to still be alive...
>
>         If he is charged with manufacturing an ancient
> artifact and he is acquitted what does that say about
> the artifact?

Nothing. O.J. was charged with murder and he was
acquitted of murder so what does that say about
Nicole and Ron Goldman? Nothing. They're still just
as dead.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Mar 11, 8:11 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:35:35 +0000, William Black wrote:
> > On 11/03/12 11:09, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >> On Mar 11, 6:59 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>> On 11/03/12 05:45, SolomonW wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:42:07 +0000, William Black wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 10/03/12 11:32, SolomonW wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> It's not illegal to make fakes and give them away while pretending that
> >>>>>>> they're real.
>
> >>>>>> I would think it would be illegal. It is false representation.
>
> >>>>> Now where is that a crime?
>
> >>>>> Certainly not in the UK,  on which Israeli law is based.
>
> >>>>> If it was about 50% of people who applied for a job would be up on charges.
>
> >>>> Making fakes is not a crime but knowing selling them as originals, I am
> >>>> sure is a crime. My wife threatened an antique dealer once with a court
> >>>> over a carpet that was claimed to be Iranian, but she claimed was not.
>
> >>> In carpets 'Iranian' (or more properly 'Persian')  Afghan and a couple
> >>> of others relate to design rather than place of origin.
>
> >>> What are known as 'Persian carpets' are longitudinally asymmetric in
> >>> design rather than coming from a specific location
>
> >> in fact, most of the rug making is done by the Turkic population.
>
> I am not sure if the Turkic people in Iranian make the most, but they

you mean "in Iran".

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Mar 11, 8:11 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:35:35 +0000, William Black wrote:
> > On 11/03/12 11:09, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >> On Mar 11, 6:59 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>> On 11/03/12 05:45, SolomonW wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:42:07 +0000, William Black wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 10/03/12 11:32, SolomonW wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> It's not illegal to make fakes and give them away while pretending that
> >>>>>>> they're real.
>
> >>>>>> I would think it would be illegal. It is false representation.
>
> >>>>> Now where is that a crime?
>
> >>>>> Certainly not in the UK,  on which Israeli law is based.
>
> >>>>> If it was about 50% of people who applied for a job would be up on charges.
>
> >>>> Making fakes is not a crime but knowing selling them as originals, I am
> >>>> sure is a crime. My wife threatened an antique dealer once with a court
> >>>> over a carpet that was claimed to be Iranian, but she claimed was not.
>
> >>> In carpets 'Iranian' (or more properly 'Persian')  Afghan and a couple
> >>> of others relate to design rather than place of origin.
>
> >>> What are known as 'Persian carpets' are longitudinally asymmetric in
> >>> design rather than coming from a specific location
>
> >> in fact, most of the rug making is done by the Turkic population.
>
> I am not sure if the Turkic people in Iranian make the most, but they
> certainly do make the best.
>

thanks. Lurs and Baluch also have famous rugs.

also "Bukhara carpets" are not mad in Bukhara. they are Turkmen rugs
(made in Turkmenistan), particularly of the Teke tribe. they are known
as such because they used to be sold in Bukhara (Uzbekistan).

[Weland]

On 3/10/2012 10:42 AM, William Black wrote:
> On 10/03/12 11:32, SolomonW wrote:
>
>>
>>> It's not illegal to make fakes and give them away while pretending that
>>> they're real.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I would think it would be illegal. It is false representation.
>

> Now where is that a crime?fake antiquities unless you declare them ill

>
> Certainly not in the UK, on which Israeli law is based.
>
> If it was about 50% of people who applied for a job would be up on charges.
>

But it is against Israeli law to deal in fake antiquities, unless
licensed to do so and ts declared as a fake, and Golan did receive money
from the box when it went on dispay at the Royal Ontario museum.

[SolomonW]

I remember reading somewhere that pre-revolutionary Russia produced some of
the best rugs in the world in these regions, and this trade was almost
killed by the communist.

Today I believe it as the best quality comes from the Azerbaijan region in
Iran, although I think that some Indian carpets are just as good and
overall provide better value for money.

A beautiful carpet is a work of art.

[Weland]

On 3/11/2012 5:32 AM, Matt Giwer wrote:
> On 03/11/2012 12:45 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:42:07 +0000, William Black wrote:
>>> On 10/03/12 11:32, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>> It's not illegal to make fakes and give them away while pretending
>>>>> that
>>>>> they're real.
>>>> I would think it would be illegal. It is false representation.
>>> Now where is that a crime?
>>> Certainly not in the UK, on which Israeli law is based.
>>> If it was about 50% of people who applied for a job would be up on
>>> charges.
>
>> Making fakes is not a crime but knowing selling them as originals, I am
>> sure is a crime. My wife threatened an antique dealer once with a court
>> over a carpet that was claimed to be Iranian, but she claimed was not.
>
> Things are never that simple. What is writing a check on your own
> account which does not have enough money to cover? A civil matter.

Actually, a federal crime, seldom prosecuted these days, but a federal
crime nonetheless.

[SolomonW]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:55:05 +0000, William Black wrote:

> On 11/03/12 12:11, SolomonW wrote:
>>
>>
>> I brought recently at a show what to me was a very expensive carpet, it was
>> stated by the salesman as an Indian carpet with a Persian design.
>
> I was at the annual Bandra 'handloom fabrics' exhibition last week and
> there were a couple of guys selling rugs and carpets from Rajastan in
> various designs, none of them were what I'd call 'Persian' in design.

Some of them seem like they are influenced by the old British Raj with the
royal reds and the designs.

>
> However this was a government exhibition and only legitimate traders
> registered with the Khadi Commission were allowed.

Those shows are good, I brought some scarves for my wife, friends and
relatives in these shows. They cost me not so much and the women in
Australia just love the silk scarves. What I really love in India is not so
much the carpets as the silk.

>
> Khadi Bhandar on DN Road in Mumbai sell nice but expensive hand made
> carpets all year round thorough and you KNOW you're getting the real
> deal because the shop is owned by the Indian government and only sells
> hand-crafted items manufactured under Indian government supervision.

With a bit of experience you can tell the real thing anyway beside I reckon
if it can fool you what do I care?

[SolomonW]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 20:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

>> I am not sure if the Turkic people in Iranian make the most, but they
>
> you mean "in Iran".

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Weland]

On 3/10/2012 5:09 AM, SolomonW wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 01:16:50 -0600, Weland wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/2012 5:34 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:16:17 -0600, Weland wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/7/2012 4:12 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 22:25:06 -0800 (PST), JTEM wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>>> SolomonW<Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Judge Aharon Farkash of the District Court in Jerusalem has announced that
>>>>>>> a verdict on the alleged forgery of several items
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Wrong. The verdict will be on a man, not on items. There is
>>>>>> a man on trial for the forgeries. Even if he is found innocent
>>>>>> that will not in any way, shape or form suggest that the items
>>>>>> are not forgeries. It will only suggests that he may not be the
>>>>>> man responsible.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> ....as I was saying, if they are established as forgeries, then the
>>>> prosecution has to connect the defendant to those forgeries; if the
>>>> items are not forgeries, than they are not guilty of forgery. While the
>>>> question of guilt or innocence is not entirely decided on the stance one
>>>> takes on the items, it is a significant part. JTEM is right in saying
>>>> that the verdict however is on the men involved primarily, and wrong to
>>>> say that they have nothing to do with one another.
>>>
>>> No he is wrong because the first step is whether the judge rules they are
>>> fake beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>
>> I may be misunderstanding, but I don't believe the judge is actually
>> doing that. If he is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that they are
>> forgeries
>
> Which is what I said. First he has to rule on the items.
>
>
>
>
>> and that Golan can be connected to one or more of the
>> artifacts as forger, then he rules guilty. If he isn't so convinced,
>> then not guilty....that is the verdict concerns the man but has
>> significant implications for the objects.
>

"by ruling" I understand you to mean that he is rendering an official
verdict on the matter of whether those items are forgeries. If so, I
don't believe that is the case. He does have to make up his own mind as
to the state of the evidence to render a ruling on the charges against
the man, but he needn't, and according to Israeli law isn't, delivering
a verdict on the evidence of the case. If I've misunderstood what you
mean "to rule on the items" I apologize.

One of the things that makes this judge interesting is that he also has
a degree in archaeology.

[Weland]

On 3/11/2012 2:52 PM, JTEM wrote:
>
> Weland<gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>> Wrong again, as the trial itself illustrated. While the Israeli
>> Antiquities Authority may be satisfied and so brought charges, the
>> defense was able to produce a significant number of leading experts
>
> Those "leading experts" have been pulverized here.

Well, "pulverized" by someone who doesn't know jack about archaeology,
the languages, or the issues involved is hardly worth the claim.

>
> For the Pomegranate, for example, the "Leading
> Expert" was a Professor Yitzhak Roman, who makes a
> lot of good points EXCEPT is you don't assume that
> the forger had a scanning electron microscope.
>
> Oh. No such microscope is described by the prosecution
> or the defense at what was called the forgery workshop.
>
> So, if we don't assume a scanning electron microscope
> was present, Professor Yitzhak Roman's "Expert" testimony
> is actually a load of pig shit. Because, yeah, he was
> examining it under an electron microscope, and those
> breaks that the forger crossed were not detectable with
> the human eye.

Which proves the point. The argument was that the forger did NOT cross
an ancient fracture in the pomegranate so as to avoid damaging it
further....and to avoid it would have need a high power tool like an
SEM....which even the prosecution admits Golan didn't have. The defense
wins the point. So much for your pulverization of defense witness since
your "pulverization" assumes the conclusion (Golan is a forger).

[Weland]

On 3/10/2012 7:01 AM, Matt Giwer wrote:

> On 03/08/2012 02:23 AM, Weland wrote:
>> On 3/7/2012 5:46 AM, Matt Giwer wrote:

>>> On 03/06/2012 05:22 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>>>> Judge Aharon Farkash of the District Court in Jerusalem has announced
>>>> that

>>>> a verdict on the alleged forgery of several items including the James
>>>> "brother of Jesus" Ossuary and the Ivory pomegranate will be given on
>>>> Wednesday, March 14.
>>>> I have been following this case with much interest over its seven
>>>> years.
>>>> The implications of this verdict are considerable.
>>>> You can read some details here.
>>>> has
>>>> http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/biblical-archaeology-topics/date-set-for-james-ossuary-verdict/?mqsc=E3066328
>>>>
>>> A judge is not qualified to determine the legitimacy of artifacts nor a
>>> court the venue for such determination. You propose the Scopes monkey
>>> trial could determine the validity of evolution.
>
>> Nonetheless, the prosecution spent a great deal of time and energy with
>> experts and expert opinion on whether the objects were forgeries:
>> after all,
>> if they aren't, they can't very well accuse the man of forgery. So the
>> judge
>> has to make some determination on the authenticity of the objects
>> before he
>> can determine if a crime has been committed and that the man on trial
>> before
>> him is guilty. He may not be right or qualified, but he has to make
>> such a
>> call anyway.
>

> What Israelis do in their courts is their business.
Indeed, and since this is an Israeli trial of an Israeli citizen by the
Israeli government regarding potentially illegal activities in Israel
regarding artifacts allegedly found in Israel or made in Israeldepending
on the side of the case, what they do in their courts is absolutely
germane to the questions we're discussing in this thread.

The prosecution must show that a crime has been committed and that the
defendant is beyond a reasonable doubt the perpetrator of the crime.
The defense in this case has chiefly sought to demonstrate that no crime
has been committed. Or in other words, much of the discussion and
testimony etc has revolved around the authenticity of the inscriptions
on the objects in question. If the judge's verdict is that no crime has
been committed and dismisses the charges on that account, that says a
great deal on the nature of the arguments favoring forgery.


Specifically I
> presume it to be showing a crime was committed in terms of the laws of
> Israel which I have not read. It is a court case. It is to show the
> violation of specific laws in light of prior court decisions more or
> less as in the West.
>
> To be only partly facetious, I have no idea how their courts define
> forgery in law. And if you think that is simple I can look up a book on
> forgery in antiquity which gives so many possibilities you might decide
> forgery is impossible.
>
> Take for example the "pomegranate" which was always absurd but believed.
> It is a genuine artifact, the inscription was added making it appear
> younger than it is. Forgery? Of what?
>
> Now legally I would consider the pomegranate to be fraud rather than
> forgery as it was added to increase its selling price.
>
> As to the mechanics of expert testimony science is never final. Can the
> verdict say, Guilty or not guilty as of 2012 but that may change? Can
> the penalty be applied retroactively or compensated in the future?
>
> Frankly I have never found enough coverage of the case to see what is
> going on. When I first heard it the reports were of finding artifacts
> half finished. That should have been enough to ruin his reputation and
> get him out of the business. Going for a conviction in a land where fake
> artifacts has been a cottage industry for 1700 years should not be
> undertaken without well defined laws and charges.
>
> From my understanding of the law I would have prosecuted under the
> assumption they were authentic because the export is illegal. Let him
> prove they are fake. If he proves they are fake then prosecute for
> fraud. It seems obvious but the laws of Israel are their own and baby
> prosecutors are a dime a dozen.
>

[Weland]

Yes, he does, and he's a smart chap. Still, he's not an expert in
ancient Hebrew epigraphy. His archaeological knowledge makes him more
qualified than you and me...but even he has recognized that he isn't
qualified to make such a determination.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

well, I had visited a carpet factory, where the carpets were made by
hand, in Turkmenistan SSR and they were producing beautiful carpets.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

well, obviously it became state controlled and some outlets bacame
closed due to political reasons.

[William Black]

Goodness that's a bit of a stretch isn't it?

If that's the best they can do then the prosecution is pretty obviously
politically motivated.

[William Black]

On 12/03/12 05:51, SolomonW wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:55:05 +0000, William Black wrote:
>

>> However this was a government exhibition and only legitimate traders
>> registered with the Khadi Commission were allowed.
>
>
> Those shows are good, I brought some scarves for my wife, friends and
> relatives in these shows. They cost me not so much and the women in
> Australia just love the silk scarves. What I really love in India is not so
> much the carpets as the silk.

Having just come home with half a dozen beautifully made bespoke silk
shirts that cost me about £20 ($30) each I'm inclined to agree...

>> Khadi Bhandar on DN Road in Mumbai sell nice but expensive hand made
>> carpets all year round thorough and you KNOW you're getting the real
>> deal because the shop is owned by the Indian government and only sells
>> hand-crafted items manufactured under Indian government supervision.
>
> With a bit of experience you can tell the real thing anyway beside I reckon
> if it can fool you what do I care?

I can spot the real thing, as I said, I did a course once. It's just
not my field except when I step on mine when I get out of bed...

[William Black]

On 12/03/12 06:22, Weland wrote:

> If the judge's verdict is that no crime has been
> committed and dismisses the charges on that account, that says a great
> deal on the nature of the arguments favoring forgery.
>

Forgery in itself is not a crime, forgery with intent to defraud
someone IS a crime.

If you put a banknote through a photo-copier to see how good the copy is
you haven't committed a crime, indeed in about 1981/2 when the 'Canon
colour engine' was introduced it was used by just about every salesman
selling the things to demonstrate the equipment.

I saw a reproduction of a five pound note produced on such a device at
ICL Retail Systems at Arlesey in Bedfordshire about then.

[JTEM]

Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:

> > Those "leading experts" have been pulverized here.
>
> Well, "pulverized" by someone who doesn't know
> jack about archaeology,

What a deliciously retarded thing to say!

> > For the Pomegranate, for example, the "Leading
> > Expert" was a Professor Yitzhak Roman, who makes a
> > lot of good points EXCEPT is you don't assume that
> > the forger had a scanning electron microscope.

As you know so much, and have no doubt read his
defense affidavit, please explain the scanning electron
microscope, retard.

> Which proves the point.

....that the defense is comprised of a load of
fuckwits who, for political and or religious reasons
(in the middle east those are usually one and the
same), made a bogus determination.

> The argument was that the forger did NOT cross
> an ancient fracture in the pomegranate

No. That wasn't it at all. You honestly are ignorant
of the claims, it's not just an act....

They actually claim that the forger caused the
modern breaks (which do exist) by crossing
VISIBLE fractures, while the defense liar was
using a scanning electron microscope to view
fractures that can NOT be seen with even an
optical microscope.

>....and to avoid it would have need a high power tool like an
> SEM...

Nobody made this claim. Nobody. It exists nowhere
in the scientific literature.

As I said, the have a confession from an Egyptian
hired to work on these forgeries, and they even
have the workshop, but nobody anywhere is claiming
that an electron microscope was involved.

[JTEM]

William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If that's the best they can do then the prosecution is pretty obviously
> politically motivated.

The prosecution did a lot better, a lot.

And the defense, well, talk about politically
motivated... Sheesh!

As I mentioned in the example of one defense
"Expert"....

For the Pomegranate, for example, the "Leading
Expert" was a Professor Yitzhak Roman, who makes a
lot of good points EXCEPT is you don't assume that
the forger had a scanning electron microscope.

Oh, NOBODY is claiming that he did -- not the
prosecution, not a confessed forger, NOBODY.
The state even raided what they said was the
workshop used to produce fakes -- no electron
microscope.

Yet, the defense's "Exert" is claiming that the
fact that carvings cross fractures that can only
been seen using such a device is proof that it
isn't a forgery... because a forger would have to
be using an electron microscope... and he would
stop at the fractures... even though he didn't
and even caused modern breaks...

People WANT these items to be real. They want
Grandma and their dead cousin to be up in
Heaven. They want life to be about more than our
miserable lives followed by nothing. They want a
supernatural power that punishes a Hitler or a
Stalin. And, yeah, they want "evidence" of these
things to be real. It's not a tough sell. And, quite
frankly, the defense is dialing it in because they
know two things:

#1. That's the best they can manage.

#2. It very well may be good enough, given the
great desire in people to believe.

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> Which is what I said. First he has to rule on the items.

That is not how "Justice" usually works. You rule on an
item BEFORE it is submitted in court. EVIDENCE is
ruled on before the jury every gets to see it.

Words can not be unsaid, impressions can not be
unmade. If you wait to the end of the trial it's too
late, the "Evidence" has already influenced the jury.

[SolomonW]

Never been although one day I would like too. A friend offered to invite me
so one day I must go.

What I do know is that when I went to China, I saw a silk factory. The silk
was okay, but the designs had no soul. Then I went to India, and I could
see the craftsman's work. It was alive. It was wonderful just to walk
around their studio. I came back. My wife took first choice and took only
stuff from India. The rest I presented to a few people family and friends.
The stuff from China, people were polite and thankful when they received
it, the stuff from India, they were deeply impressed; you could see it in
their eyes. Long afterwards they were still talking about it.

Similarly, I can feel the silk carpets from Iran.

[William Black]

On 12/03/12 09:56, SolomonW wrote:
>
> What I do know is that when I went to China, I saw a silk factory. The silk
> was okay, but the designs had no soul. Then I went to India, and I could
> see the craftsman's work. It was alive. It was wonderful just to walk
> around their studio. I came back. My wife took first choice and took only
> stuff from India. The rest I presented to a few people family and friends.
> The stuff from China, people were polite and thankful when they received
> it, the stuff from India, they were deeply impressed; you could see it in
> their eyes. Long afterwards they were still talking about it.

I was lucky enough to get a tour around the technical centre for the
Khadi Commission in Mumbai last year where they do fabric designs and
train weavers.

Indians tend to be passionate about fabrics and it shows.

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> What I do know is that when I went to China, I saw a silk factory. The silk
> was okay, but the designs had no soul. Then I went to India, and I could
> see the craftsman's work. It was alive. It was wonderful just to walk
> around their studio. I came back. My wife took first choice and took only
> stuff from India. The rest I presented to a few people family and friends.
> The stuff from China, people were polite and thankful when they received
> it, the stuff from India, they were deeply impressed; you could see it in
> their eyes. Long afterwards they were still talking about it.

Well, once tie-dyed a few T-shirts if that counts.

[Weland]

What's a stretch? That an Israeli citizen purportedly was profiting
from passing fake artifacts on an international scale? Or because it
was international are they supposed to look the other way?

[Matt Giwer]

On 03/11/2012 08:25 AM, SolomonW wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 06:32:17 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:,,,

>> Trying to make a case in civil
>> court is not worth the earnings on the sale.

> That is why I believe my wife won. The dealer did not even question it just
> picked up the carpet and returned the money.

Good sir, I only joined this thread because I saw false implications of law
impinging upon scientific fact. While I agree this is not quite a Scope's
Monkey Trial all false conclusions are to the same absurd end.

--
How would a sovereign state of Utah differ from
the sovereign state of Israel?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4386
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Tue Mar 13 04:52:55 EDT 2012

[Matt Giwer]

On 03/12/2012 01:47 AM, Weland wrote:
> On 3/11/2012 5:32 AM, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On 03/11/2012 12:45 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:42:07 +0000, William Black wrote:
>>>> On 10/03/12 11:32, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>> It's not illegal to make fakes and give them away while pretending
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> they're real.
>>>>> I would think it would be illegal. It is false representation.
>>>> Now where is that a crime?
>>>> Certainly not in the UK, on which Israeli law is based.
>>>> If it was about 50% of people who applied for a job would be up on
>>>> charges.
>>
>>> Making fakes is not a crime but knowing selling them as originals, I am
>>> sure is a crime. My wife threatened an antique dealer once with a court
>>> over a carpet that was claimed to be Iranian, but she claimed was not.
>>
>> Things are never that simple. What is writing a check on your own
>> account which does not have enough money to cover? A civil matter.
>
> Actually, a federal crime, seldom prosecuted these days, but a federal crime
> nonetheless.

I will defer to that but I would be surprised to learn it applied to other
than the transfer of gold.

--
Who really believed putting pennies in a blue box would cause the
land fairy to leave a country under their pillow?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4375
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12
Tue Mar 13 04:57:56 EDT 2012

[Matt Giwer]

On 03/11/2012 03:55 PM, JTEM wrote:
>
> Matt Giwer<jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> And if he is found not guilty that no more requires the
>>> item to be legitimate than the O.J. verdict required his
>>> ex wife to still be alive...
>>
>> If he is charged with manufacturing an ancient
>> artifact and he is acquitted what does that say about
>> the artifact?
>
> Nothing. O.J. was charged with murder and he was
> acquitted of murder so what does that say about
> Nicole and Ron Goldman? Nothing. They're still just
> as dead.

I suggested you post either or both a reasoned or unreasoned response and you
post off the wall.

Still no physical evidence of anything to translate into Greek. What a tool.

--
What idiot thought there could be a decrease in smoking that would not cause
an increase in obesity? Does second hand smoke really control obesity?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4383
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Tue Mar 13 05:01:56 EDT 2012

[Matt Giwer]

And I point out, regardless of the verdict, it has no bearing upon the
validity of the object in an archaeological sense.

--
Philosophy is to science as astrology is to astronomy.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4387
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Tue Mar 13 05:03:56 EDT 2012

[William Black]

Because, at best, he's getting some of his expenses paid.

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> > Nothing. O.J. was charged with murder and he was
> > acquitted of murder so what does that say about
> > Nicole and Ron Goldman?  Nothing. They're still just
> > as dead.
>
>         I suggested you post either or both a reasoned or unreasoned response and you
> post off the wall.

It's not just reasoned, but it presents an example
familiar to everybody, frames the question in terms
that everybody already understands. Seriously, you
need to up them meds...

[Weland]

On 3/12/2012 4:00 AM, JTEM wrote:
>
> Weland<gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>>> Those "leading experts" have been pulverized here.
>>
>> Well, "pulverized" by someone who doesn't know
>> jack about archaeology,
>
> What a deliciously retarded thing to say!
>
>>> For the Pomegranate, for example, the "Leading
>>> Expert" was a Professor Yitzhak Roman, who makes a
>>> lot of good points EXCEPT is you don't assume that
>>> the forger had a scanning electron microscope.
>
> As you know so much, and have no doubt read his
> defense affidavit, please explain the scanning electron
> microscope, retard.

You are responding to yourself there. Not the brightest thing to do.

What's to explain? One team of experts said X. Roman using a SEM
proved Y. That shouldn't be hard to grasp.

>
>> Which proves the point.
>
> ....that the defense is comprised of a load of
> fuckwits who, for political and or religious reasons
> (in the middle east those are usually one and the
> same), made a bogus determination.

Based on what? Your opinion? We know what that's worth.

>
>> The argument was that the forger did NOT cross
>> an ancient fracture in the pomegranate
>
> No. That wasn't it at all. You honestly are ignorant
> of the claims, it's not just an act....

Yes. Goren and his team claimed that the letters did not fall into or
cross the fractures and that there was a gap between the letters and the
fisure. Roman's examination showed the letters go INTO the fissure, in
fact that the fissure cuts across the letters indicating the letters
predate the fissure and the patina that Goren's team posited as being
glued into the inscription was not glued. Don't believe me? Here's a
translation of Roman's report:
a600304.us.archive.org/8/items/RomanEnglish/ProfRomanExpEnglish.pdf

>
> They actually claim that the forger caused the
> modern breaks (which do exist) by crossing
> VISIBLE fractures, while the defense liar was
> using a scanning electron microscope to view
> fractures that can NOT be seen with even an
> optical microscope.

Goren, the prosecution witness, concluded that the inscription is a
forgery because three of the letters stop short, meaning in his view
there's a gap, of an ANCIENT fracture, meaning the letters were added
after that fracture. Two areas along the ancient fracture are
considered new, modern breaks, but they aren't in question when
examining the three letters crossed by the ancient break....but were
posited by the prosecution to have been made when the inscription was
added by the forger.

> As I said, the have a confession from an Egyptian
> hired to work on these forgeries, and they even
> have the workshop, but nobody anywhere is claiming
> that an electron microscope was involved.

Which doesn't add up to you "pulverizing" the defense witness in any
way, shape, or form.

[Weland]

And is a false analogy, a fallacy.

[Weland]

On 3/12/2012 3:00 AM, William Black wrote:
> On 12/03/12 06:22, Weland wrote:
>
>> If the judge's verdict is that no crime has been
>> committed and dismisses the charges on that account, that says a great
>> deal on the nature of the arguments favoring forgery.
>>
>
> Forgery in itself is not a crime, forgery with intent to defraud someone
> IS a crime.

Sure. But again, a large part of the prosecution's case has been to
prove that the inscriptions on these artifacts are forgeries...if they
haven't made that case, then no forgery means no forger. Whether that
was the best way to go about prosecuting the case is a different
question, but that's what they focused on.
>

[Weland]

On 3/13/2012 6:12 AM, William Black wrote:
> On 13/03/12 06:19, Weland wrote:
>> On 3/12/2012 2:48 AM, William Black wrote:
>>> On 12/03/12 05:39, Weland wrote:
>>>> On 3/10/2012 10:42 AM, William Black wrote:
>>>>> On 10/03/12 11:32, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not illegal to make fakes and give them away while pretending
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> they're real.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would think it would be illegal. It is false representation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now where is that a crime?fake antiquities unless you declare them ill
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly not in the UK, on which Israeli law is based.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it was about 50% of people who applied for a job would be up on
>>>>> charges.
>>>>>
>>>> But it is against Israeli law to deal in fake antiquities, unless
>>>> licensed to do so and ts declared as a fake, and Golan did receive
>>>> money
>>>> from the box when it went on dispay at the Royal Ontario museum.

>>>will.

>>> Goodness that's a bit of a stretch isn't it?
>>>
>>> If that's the best they can do then the prosecution is pretty obviously
>>> politically motivated.

>>ld a

>>
>> What's a stretch? That an Israeli citizen purportedly was profiting from
>> passing fake artifacts on an international scale? Or because it was
>> international are they supposed to look the other way?
>
> Because, at best, he's getting some of his expenses paid.
>
>

Yes and no. For example, he sold the pomegranate, and was in process of
selling other goods. The ossuary was still "in process" if you will.

BTW, I would agree that the prosecution is politically motivated.

[William Black]

So they went into court not realising that they hadn't got a watertight
technical case?

They must have been mad.

[Weland]

Some think that. They thought it was watertight and had been assured
that there was no doubt by the IAA. Regrettably the IAA was never
interested in dialogue on the question, so assumed there was no one who
held a different view that could possibly dent their air tight case.
They were wrong.

[Matt Giwer]

Ditto Weland

--
At least 35% of Israelis are anti-Zionists. What's the big deal?
The Iron Webmaster, 4379
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo2/ a11
Thu Mar 15 02:21:08 EDT 2012

[Matt Giwer]

On 03/14/2012 02:05 AM, Weland wrote:...

> Yes and no. For example, he sold the pomegranate, and was in process of
> selling other goods. The ossuary was still "in process" if you will.

> BTW, I would agree that the prosecution is politically motivated.

I missed something. What is this political? Politically Israel should love
artifacts like he was producing. The investigation might have had a political
motivation but when the search discovered clear evidence prosecution becomes a
requirement.

--
At least 35% of Israelis are anti-Zionists. What's the big deal?
The Iron Webmaster, 4379

http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Thu Mar 15 04:58:43 EDT 2012

[William Black]

On 15/03/12 09:01, Matt Giwer wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 02:05 AM, Weland wrote:...
>> Yes and no. For example, he sold the pomegranate, and was in process of
>> selling other goods. The ossuary was still "in process" if you will.
>
>> BTW, I would agree that the prosecution is politically motivated.
>
> I missed something. What is this political? Politically Israel should
> love artifacts like he was producing.

In a case like this, 'Israel' is not a single entity.

[Weland]

On 3/15/2012 4:01 AM, Matt Giwer wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 02:05 AM, Weland wrote:...
>> Yes and no. For example, he sold the pomegranate, and was in process of
>> selling other goods. The ossuary was still "in process" if you will.
>
>> BTW, I would agree that the prosecution is politically motivated.
>
> I missed something. What is this political? Politically Israel should
> love artifacts like he was producing. The investigation might have had a
> political motivation but when the search discovered clear evidence
> prosecution becomes a requirement.
>

Well, yes, you have missed something. To oversimplify, the IAA wants to
control everything regarding antiquities. These guys were operating
outside of the IAA and making headlines and money. That caught
someone's attention and there you go: an politically motivated
investigation resulting in a politically motivated trial.

[Matt Giwer]

Since I regularly read Israeli newspapers I am not surprised by much of
anything their government does as it operates like 1920s Chicago. That said I
can't think of a country that has antiquities and does not have a government
run equivalent of the IAA. Further there is some international convention or
other which establishes the nature of the laws its signatories must have to
comply with the convention.

How does enforcing the IAA enforcing the law qualify as political?

--
Listen up, assholes. My people were holocausted so I can mouth off to you
like Jeremiah. Got it?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4391
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Fri Mar 16 03:40:03 EDT 2012

[Weland]

Were they enforcing the law? What law was broken? When the head of the
IAA declares the artifact is a fake BEFORE anyone examined it, and lo,
behold IAA tests later proved it a fake. Huh. According to the court,
after YEARS of testimony, the prosecution failed to make a case that
Golan was a forger or involved in trafficing forged artifacts. If the
IAA had less than good evidence going in, what motivated the trial and
charges? Politics? Personal political gain?

[Matt Giwer]

As I read the circumstances of discovery there was every reason to believe
the items found were manufactured or in the process of being manufactured.

As I questioned your conclusion of political motivation and all you do is ask
question do not appear in any rhetorical I still do not see your point.

--
How would a sovereign state of Utah differ from
the sovereign state of Israel?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4386

http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Fri Mar 23 05:12:57 EDT 2012

[Weland]

What discovery? Golan had a world renowned expert examine an ossuary he
had owned for some time, the inscription was deciphered, an announcement
made, the IAA declared it a fake sight unseen. Now either they had
inside information that they haven't yet brought forward even after
years of trial, or there were other, less altruistic motivations. The
pomegranate had been known for 20 years and was never thought to be a
forgery until the IAA started to accuse Golan. The Jehoash Inscription
is another matter, but also didn't begin until after the IAA declaration
that the ossuary was a fake...so if the original investigation was
motivated by something other than evidence, then subsequent
investigations are tainted as well...even if they should prove correct.

[JTEM]

Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:

> What discovery?  Golan had a world renowned expert examine an ossuary he
> had owned for some time, the inscription was deciphered, an announcement
> made, the IAA declared it a fake sight unseen.

The ossuary was real, as was part of the inscription.

There was never a time when even the "Biblical
scholars" who pretended that it was real didn't
find great issues with the inscription. It wasn't carved
(scratched, more like it) all at once. Part of it was added
later. And, yes, this alone is nearly impossible to explain
if it were real.

Secondly, it's unprovenanced, which makes it worthless
by any true archaeological standards. An unprovenanced
item which had it's "Historically Significant" text
inexplicably added some time after the rest of the text
does spell "Forgery."

>  The pomegranate had been known for 20 years and was
> never thought to be a forgery until the IAA started to
> accuse Golan.

Wrong again. It was always known to be a forgery. It
dating is way off, for starters, and who ever carved it
broke it in the process and glued it back together. And
it appears to be a household item, it's impossible that it
was found in relation to any "Solomon's Temple" and
it is completely unprovenanced -- archaeologically
worthless.

And even if nobody every doubted it until 10 seconds
before the trial, it can't change the fact that is is a
forgery. Period.

Seriously, you're demented...

[Weland]

On 3/26/2012 7:21 AM, JTEM wrote:
> Weland<gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>> What discovery? Golan had a world renowned expert examine an ossuary he
>> had owned for some time, the inscription was deciphered, an announcement
>> made, the IAA declared it a fake sight unseen.
>
> The ossuary was real, as was part of the inscription.

LOL! Good ol' JTEM! You never fail to disappoint!

You're babbling about things that have nothing to do with the issue
Giwer raised and asked me about.

>
> There was never a time when even the "Biblical
> scholars" who pretended that it was real didn't
> find great issues with the inscription. It wasn't carved
> (scratched, more like it) all at once. Part of it was added
> later. And, yes, this alone is nearly impossible to explain
> if it were real.

Actually that isn't true. It was the contention of the prosecution that
there were two parts to the inscription, they failed to make their case.
Some others thought so, but the process before the contention of 2
halves made at different times was longer in the making than your over
brief claim makes out.

>
> Secondly, it's unprovenanced, which makes it worthless
> by any true archaeological standards. An unprovenanced
> item which had it's "Historically Significant" text
> inexplicably added some time after the rest of the text
> does spell "Forgery."
>
>> The pomegranate had been known for 20 years and was
>> never thought to be a forgery until the IAA started to
>> accuse Golan.
>
> Wrong again.

Nope. The Ivory Pomegranate was sold to a French collector in 1979 and
purchased by the museum in Jerusalem in 1988. It was considered
authentic until after the IAA began investigating Golan when it was
reexamined and declared a forgery, and reexamined again and declared
genuine.

>It was always known to be a forgery.

Strike 3. No, it was considered genuine until 2004 when upon
reexamination the object was redated to 3-4 centuries prior to the date
of Solomon's Temple. So the object itself isn't a forgery, and for more
than 20 years was considered to be an important find.

It
> dating is way off, for starters, and who ever carved it
> broke it in the process and glued it back together. A

A claim now disproven.

nd
> it appears to be a household item, it's impossible that it
> was found in relation to any "Solomon's Temple" and
> it is completely unprovenanced -- archaeologically
> worthless.
>
> And even if nobody every doubted it until 10 seconds
> before the trial, it can't change the fact that is is a
> forgery. Period.
>
> Seriously, you're demented...

I'm glad you think so. If you didn't I would worry.

[JTEM]

Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:

> > The ossuary was real, as was part of the inscription.

> LOL!  Good ol' JTEM!  You never fail to disappoint!

Great. You're demented. The ossaury was real as far
as anyone knows. Nobody is disputing it. What was
always under dispute was the part of the inscription
that was only added later.

> You're babbling about things that have nothing to do with the issue
> Giwer raised and asked me about.

No, you stupid jackass, YOU raised the ossaury yourself,
and I was responding to what YOU said.

Here, you fucking idiot, I quote you:

: Golan had a world renowned expert examine an ossuary he

: had owned for some time, the inscription was deciphered,
: an announcement made, the IAA declared it a fake sight unseen.

There. What you said is untrue. Nobody claimed that the
ossaury was a forgery, but EVERYBODY noted the problems.
The very first stories I read on the subjected noted that it
would have been quite unusual for a "Brother of..." to appear
on an ossaury in the first place, and the fact that it is completely
unprovenanced automatically rings alarm bells. The final nail
on the coffin was always the fact that the "significant" part of
the text was added later, and this was always clear.

So shut your idiotic pie whole, shit head.

> > There was never a time when even the "Biblical
> > scholars" who pretended that it was real didn't
> > find great issues with the inscription. It wasn't carved
> > (scratched, more like it) all at once. Part of it was added
> > later. And, yes, this alone is nearly impossible to explain
> > if it were real.
>
> Actually that isn't true.

No, dip shit, it's true.

>  It was the contention of the prosecution that
> there were two parts to the inscription, they failed to make their case.

No, it was the contention of everybody.

Go on, cite some "Experts" who say that's not the case.

> >>   The pomegranate had been known for 20 years and was
> >> never thought to be a forgery until the IAA started to
> >> accuse Golan.
>
> > Wrong again.
>
> Nope.

Yup. Many experts even automatically reject any ivory artifact,
and there have been so many forgeries over the years.

This particular item dates to the wrong time, and appears to
be a household item, something used in an upscale home
for spinning cloth.

> The Ivory Pomegranate was sold to a French collector in 1979 and
> purchased by the museum in Jerusalem in 1988.

So it's existence begins in 1979. That's one of the points. It
is completely unprovenanced. This alone makes it archaeologically
worthless and automatically suspect. Well, to non-morons....

>  It was considered authentic until after the IAA began investigating
> Golan

This doesn't mean what you think it means.

It was considered "Authentic" for two reasons: The object appeared
to be truly ancient, and the writing seemed to have a patina
consistent
with the rest of it. It is interesting to note that neither of these
addresses the actual question of authenticity.

New inscriptions are placed on old objects, and patinas are
easily duplicated in the lab. This is why you need a well
provenanced item. "A" patina is a great deal easier to accomplish
than matching the patina on items found in the same place of
the same age...

> when it was reexamined and declared a forgery,

Again, there was never a time when there weren't more doubters
WITHIN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMUNITY than there were
believers. Sure, amongst the lay people and the "biblical" scholars it
might have been popular, but it was always challenged.

> and reexamined again and declared
> genuine.

Again, this is meaningless. It is a genuine antiquity. That's all
they were noting -- real ancient item whose patina seems to
be consistent. BUT IT'S THE WRONG AGE! We know for a
fact it can't be an artifact from any Solomon's temple, and not
just because there was never a Solomon. We also know that,
even if there had been a Solomon, this is too old.

> >It was always known to be a forgery.
>
> Strike 3.  No, it was considered genuine until

Only idiots and the uniformed thought it was genuine. Of
the none idiots, nobody thought an unprovenanced item
belonging to the period of an imaginary king was real.

Nobody.

And I hate to keep pointing it out, but it is not real. It
is a forgery. So, even if nobody suspected a thing until
yesterday it still wouldn't matter.

It. Is. A. Forgery.

[Weland]

On 3/27/2012 3:14 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Weland<gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>>> The ossuary was real, as was part of the inscription.
>
>> LOL! Good ol' JTEM! You never fail to disappoint!
>
> Great. You're demented. The ossaury was real as far as anyone knows.
> Nobody is disputing it. What was always under dispute was the part of
> the inscription that was only added later.

Yep, that's our JTARD, never on topic. And uh, that isn't true either.
At various early stages the whole inscription was accepted, and the
whole inscription rejected.

>
>> You're babbling about things that have nothing to do with the
>> issue Giwer raised and asked me about.
>
> No, you stupid jackass, YOU raised the ossaury yourself, and I was
> responding to what YOU said.

No, JTARD, we were talking about the trial and Giwer wanted to know why
I think the whole was politically motivated.

>
> Here, you fucking idiot, I quote you:
>
> : Golan had a world renowned expert examine an ossuary he : had owned
> for some time, the inscription was deciphered, : an announcement
> made, the IAA declared it a fake sight unseen.

Which is only part of what I said and out of context.

>
> There. What you said is untrue.

No it isn't. Golan owned an ossuary, he had Lemaire examine it, Lemaire
did, an announcement released of this find. IAA declared it fake before
any tests had been done.

Nobody claimed that the
> ossaury was a forgery, but EVERYBODY noted the problems.

Not true. In fact, the first tests on the ossuary were not performed on
the inscription but on the box itself determining that it was genuine.
By the way, this bandwagon fallacy will get you nowhere. In fact, not
only 9 years ago when the controversy first came up as well as through
the trial, not EVERYBODY noted the problems, since the defense in part
argued for the authenticity of the objects and presented expert opinion
that indeed they were genuine.

> The very first stories I read on the subjected noted that it would
> have been quite unusual for a "Brother of..." to appear on an ossaury

Yep, unusual but not entirely unknown.

> in the first place, and the fact that it is completely unprovenanced
> automatically rings alarm bells. The final nail on the coffin was
> always the fact that the "significant" part of the text was added
> later, and this was always clear.

SO clear that even experts like Lemaire and Frank Cross were fooled (the
former argued and still argues for authenticity, the latter thought the
inscription likely a forgery but utterly rejected the notion of "2
parts" based on a flawed conclusion by a self-proclaimed expert who
hadn't even seen the box.

>
> So shut your idiotic pie whole, shit head.

Aw, JTARD, such language. Momma not calling you anymore? Poor baby.

>
>>> There was never a time when even the "Biblical scholars" who
>>> pretended that it was real didn't find great issues with the
>>> inscription. It wasn't carved (scratched, more like it) all at
>>> once. Part of it was added later. And, yes, this alone is nearly
>>> impossible to explain if it were real.
>>
>> Actually that isn't true.
>
> No, dip shit, it's true.

No, shit eating dumb ass, it isn't. There were a number of scholars
early on who rejected the whole "2 parts" nonsense, most of whom argued
for forgery, some argued for authenticity. But there were sufficient
numbers of scholars who didn't find great issues to enliven debate in
2002 at the Society for Biblical Literature conference (a huge
conference in the field). So claiming that Biblical scholars always had
problems with it just doesn't fit the evidence.

>
>> It was the contention of the prosecution that there were two parts
>> to the inscription, they failed to make their case.
>
> No, it was the contention of everybody.

Ok, let's play. Show me the defense arguing that there two parts to the
inscription.

>
> Go on, cite some "Experts" who say that's not the case.

Frank Moore Cross, Ada Yardeni, Andre Lemaire, Joseph Fitzmeyer to name
four who went on record publicly.

>
>>>> The pomegranate had been known for 20 years and was never
>>>> thought to be a forgery until the IAA started to accuse Golan.
>>
>>> Wrong again.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Yup.

Nope. Anyone can easily look up the history of the ivory pomegranate,
sold in 1979, bought the museum in Jerusalem in 1988, on display as an
object connected with Solomon's temple until 2004 when its authenticity
was questioned.

> Many experts even automatically reject any ivory artifact,

Name one.

and
> there have been so many forgeries over the years.

And fakers who pretend they know what they're talking about.

>
> This particular item dates to the wrong time,

A redating occuring in 2004, now dated to the 13th century BCE rather
than the 10th century BCE.

and appears to be a
> household item, something used in an upscale home for spinning
> cloth.

Maybe. Maybe not. That was the suggestion of one archaeologist, but
not everyone agrees.

>
>> The Ivory Pomegranate was sold to a French collector in 1979 and
>> purchased by the museum in Jerusalem in 1988.
>
> So it's existence begins in 1979.

No, 13th century BCE.

That's one of the points. It is
> completely unprovenanced. This alone makes it archaeologically
> worthless and automatically suspect. Well, to non-morons....

Archaeologically, but not historically.

>> It was considered authentic until after the IAA began
>> investigating Golan
>
> This doesn't mean what you think it means.

It's a simple recounting of the sequence of events.

>
> It was considered "Authentic" for two reasons: The object appeared
> to be truly ancient, and the writing seemed to have a patina
> consistent with the rest of it. It is interesting to note that
> neither of these addresses the actual question of authenticity.

It was also considered authentic on paleographic and linguistic grounds.

>
> New inscriptions are placed on old objects, and patinas are easily
> duplicated in the lab.

Not in the 70s.

This is why you need a well provenanced item.
> "A" patina is a great deal easier to accomplish than matching the
> patina on items found in the same place of the same age...
>
>> when it was reexamined and declared a forgery,
>
> Again, there was never a time when there weren't more doubters WITHIN
> THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMUNITY than there were believers.

When did you poll them? ANd where did you publish the results? Yes,
it's true that there were doubters, but that doesn't change a whit of
what I said.

Sure, amongst
> the lay people and the "biblical" scholars it might have been
> popular, but it was always challenged.

By whom? Point to someone challenging the authenticity between 1979 and
1999.

>
>> and reexamined again and declared genuine.
>
> Again, this is meaningless. It is a genuine antiquity. That's all
> they were noting -- real ancient item whose patina seems to be
> consistent. BUT IT'S THE WRONG AGE! We know for a fact it can't be an
> artifact from any Solomon's temple, and not just because there was
> never a Solomon. We also know that, even if there had been a Solomon,
> this is too old.

Which has nothing to do with the brief history I gave. I'm not claiming
it was from Solomon's Temple, merely reporting that it was thought to
have been. And that is true no matter how much you stamp your wee feet
and insist it's false.

>
>>> It was always known to be a forgery.
>>
>> Strike 3. No, it was considered genuine until
>
> Only idiots and the uniformed thought it was genuine.

Ah, you mean idiots and uninformed like the Jerusalem museum curators
who hired Avigad, and the IAA, and Andre Lemaire among others. Got it.
That's what I like about you JTARD: anyone who disagrees with your
opinion is always an idiot, uninformed, something or other.....never
back down no matter how many times you've been proven wrong.

Of the none
> idiots, nobody thought an unprovenanced item belonging to the period
> of an imaginary king was real.
>
> Nobody.

Except those already mentioned. In fact, some even thought it adorned
the high priest's staff. Oh, they musta had a good laugh at how they
were fooling everybody about an object they knew wasn't real 30 years ago!

> And I hate to keep pointing it out, but it is not real.

Well, it is real. The question is whether object and inscription are
genuine. They are. The object was wrongly dated. The latest
examination of the inscription indicates that it too is genuine.

[JTEM]

Shit for brains, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:

JTEM:

> > Great. You're demented. The ossaury was real as far as anyone knows.
> > Nobody is disputing it. What was always under dispute was the part of
> > the inscription that was only added later.

> Yep, that's our JTARD, never on topic.  And uh, that isn't true either.

And then....

> Not true. In fact, the first tests on the ossuary were not performed on
> the inscription but on the box itself determining that it was genuine.

Which is exactly what I said.

The original determination that it was not a forgery was boxed on
the authenticity of the box itself, and so is irrelevant to the court
case.

You're just too stupid to understand this.

> not EVERYBODY noted the problems, since the defense in part
> argued for the authenticity of the objects and presented expert opinion
> that indeed they were genuine.

....the authenticity based on the box itself, not the
inscription.

So we have people basing the claim of authenticity on the
box, and yet the issue was never the box.

See the problem with your idiocy?

> SO clear that even experts like Lemaire

He's not an expert, he's an apologist:

: The problem with the uncontested finding of a
: modern cleaning is that there is nothing left of
: the physical evidence for the antiquity of the
: inscription. As I argued earlier, the initial IGS
: report was insufficient to authenticate the
: inscription in the first place. The status quo
: ante therefore continues to be that the James
: ossuary is yet to be validly authenticated, so
: Lemaire’s finding that “little confidence can be
: placed in the IAA’s conclusion” is not a
: substitute for actual physical evidence.

http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2003/10/andre-lemaire-on-the-james-ossuary.html

There are rules. This is an unprovenanced item.
It is automatically suspicious. There is no physical
evidence to suggest the inscription is old. None.

Get over it.

[JTEM]

Here's an interesting little cite that claims
that...

#1. Lemaire first determined the ossuary was
genuine by examining a photograph, not the
ossuary.

#2. He immediately contacted no legitimate
archaeologists but "Biblical Archaeologists."

#3. It was "Biblical Archaeologists" who decided
that it was genuine.

#4. The Israeli government wanted to confiscate
the item because it was illegal, not because of
any forgery concerns.

#5. It was the Canadians who raised the concerns
over the inscription, not the IAA..

#6. As an illegal and totally unprovenanced item,
there was every reason to suspect that the
inscription was a forgery even before the Canadians
had determined that the "Biblical Archaeologists"
were over zealous in their findings.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_36.htm

[Weland]

On 3/29/2012 4:45 AM, JTEM wrote:
> Shit for brains, Weland<gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
> JTEM:
>>> Great. You're demented. The ossaury was real as far as anyone knows.
>>> Nobody is disputing it. What was always under dispute was the part of
>>> the inscription that was only added later.
>
>> Yep, that's our JTARD, never on topic. And uh, that isn't true either.
>
> And then....
>
>> Not true. In fact, the first tests on the ossuary were not performed on
>> the inscription but on the box itself determining that it was genuine.
>
> Which is exactly what I said.

You weren't on topic. Giwer asked me about why I claimed the trial was
politically motivated. You chimed in with claims about no one ever
questioned the authenticity of the box. You were off topic and your
claim is erroneous. Initially, there were many who questioned whether it
was a real 1st century ossuary. That's why they tested it. And
initially for *some* the authenticity of the box indicated authenticity
of the inscription.

>
> The original determination that it was not a forgery was boxed on

> the authenticity of the box itself, and so is irrelevant to the courtregardless of whether

If only it were that simple. Since the head of the IAA publicly stated
it was a forgery before any tests were done, and then lo, behold, the
IAA tests showed it was a forgery and they proceeded to trial, even you
should find something problematic in the chain of events...at the very
least the evidence for forgery was muddied.

>
> You're just too stupid to understand this.
>
>> not EVERYBODY noted the problems, since the defense in part
>> argued for the authenticity of the objects and presented expert opinion
>> that indeed they were genuine.
>
> ....the authenticity based on the box itself, not the
> inscription.

Wrong again. The defense argued for authenticity of not just the box
but of the inscription.

>
> So we have people basing the claim of authenticity on the
> box, and yet the issue was never the box.
>
> See the problem with your idiocy?
>
>> SO clear that even experts like Lemaire
>
> He's not an expert, he's an apologist:

Actually he is an expert, and certainly has better credentials than you.
Steven's comments do not however illustrate that Lemaire's an apologist,
nor that Lemaire's comments regarding the IAA report were wrong. Only
that Lemaire's comments on that issue didn't establish authenticity.

>
> : The problem with the uncontested finding of a
> : modern cleaning is that there is nothing left of
> : the physical evidence for the antiquity of the
> : inscription. As I argued earlier, the initial IGS
> : report was insufficient to authenticate the
> : inscription in the first place. The status quo
> : ante therefore continues to be that the James
> : ossuary is yet to be validly authenticated, so
> : Lemaire’s finding that “little confidence can be
> : placed in the IAA’s conclusion” is not a
> : substitute for actual physical evidence.
>
> http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2003/10/andre-lemaire-on-the-james-ossuary.html
>
> There are rules.

One wishes you would observe them.

This is an unprovenanced item.
> It is automatically suspicious. There is no physical
> evidence to suggest the inscription is old. None.

Wrong again. If that were the case, there wouldn't have been a decade
long debate and 8 year trial that in the end resulted in acquittal.
Whether the evidence that exists, or rather existed, is sufficient to
prove anything beyond the plausibility of an authentic inscription is a
different matter. But to claim that no physical evidence exists
demonstrates an ignorance of the evidence.

[Weland]

On 3/29/2012 5:08 AM, JTEM wrote:
> Here's an interesting little cite that claims
> that...

Do you ever bother to check your sources? Please do on this one...is
our JTARD a believer that the Stuart Royal house descended from Jesus
and King Arthur? Because the author of this "interesting little cite"
does....that's as good as Antero citing people who believe Star Gate the
movie and subsequent TV series is actual history as experts on Mithraism.

> #1. Lemaire first determined the ossuary was
> genuine by examining a photograph, not the
> ossuary.

False. Lemaire was first shown a photograph by Golan, Lemaire then
asked to see the object in person, which Golan then invited Lemaire to
his home to examine the box and inscription.

> #2. He immediately contacted no legitimate
> archaeologists but "Biblical Archaeologists."

That assumes that those who work in biblical archaeology aren't
archaeologists, which is rather silly. Kind of like claiming that a
brain surgeon in a religious hospital isn't a real brain surgeon even if
he did graduate from Harvard medical.

Nor did Lemaire "immediately" contact "Biblical Archaeologists", he
wrote a preliminary report and description and contacted Hershel Shanks
who publishes a widely disseminated and read magazine titled Biblical
Archaeology. It was one of the quickest ways to disseminate the
information. BTW, your source doesn't claim what you say it does.

>
> #3. It was "Biblical Archaeologists" who decided
> that it was genuine.

Not quite. Lemaire felt it was genuine after his examination. Others,
including some within the IAA, had at the time and since found it to be
genuine (while others that it wasn't). BTW, your source doesn't claim
what you say it does.

>
> #4. The Israeli government wanted to confiscate
> the item because it was illegal, not because of
> any forgery concerns.

Yes, a 1978 law that forbade the purchase of antiquities from unlicensed
dealers.

>
> #5. It was the Canadians who raised the concerns
> over the inscription, not the IAA..

BTW
Nope. The Canadians as you call them gave a careful study to the
inscription. Doubts about the inscription had already been raised in
rather sensational ways by, well, "a scholar" who has since been proven
utterly wrong on every detail. BTW, the ROM has supported then and now
the likelihood that the inscription is authentic. BTW, your source
doesn't claim what you say it does.

> #6. As an illegal and totally unprovenanced item,
> there was every reason to suspect that the
> inscription was a forgery even before the Canadians
> had determined that the "Biblical Archaeologists"
> were over zealous in their findings.

Except the Canadians concluded it was probably genuine, their analysis
had nothing to do with Israeli law. In fact, here you will find a
statement that they think it authentic:
http://www.rom.on.ca/news/releases/public.php?mediakey=vhggdo3048
"Until the ROM receives convincing evidence to the contrary, we stand by
our opinion that the James Ossuary is not a forgery. We had a limited
amount of time to study it because of the amount of conservation work
that was required after the Ossuary arrived at the Museum after being
damaged in transit. The studies that were carried out on the inscription
and broken fragments of the Ossuary, however, satisfied the ROM’s
investigative team that it was an authentic artifact with an authentic
inscription that might make it the Ossuary of James, the brother of Jesus."

BTW, your source doesn't claim what you say it does.