From debruces@teleline.es Fri Nov 1 02:47:23 2002 Received: from mailscan4.cac.washington.edu (mailscan4.cac.washington.edu [140.142.33.15]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.09) with SMTP id gA1AlMFD043064 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 02:47:22 -0800 Received: FROM mxu2.u.washington.edu BY mailscan4.cac.washington.edu ; Fri Nov 01 02:47:21 2002 -0800 Received: from tsmtp4.mail.isp (smtp.terra.es [213.4.129.130] (may be forged)) by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.09) with ESMTP id gA1AlKqk002786 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 02:47:21 -0800 Received: from 110.Red-80-33-142.pooles.rima-tde.net ([80.33.142.110]) by tsmtp4.mail.isp (terra.es) with ESMTP id H4W8MS00.XYX for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:47:16 +0100 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:32:09 +0000 From: "Luis H. Aguilar Polo" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: "Luis H. Aguilar Polo" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <170217265517.20021101103209@teleline.es> To: Isidoros Subject: Re[2]: Fwd: Re: [ANE] Ossuary of James In-Reply-To: References: <17782414756.20021030210459@teleline.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hola Isidoros, Con fecha viernes, 01 de noviembre de 2002, 0:44:58, escribió: I> Dear Luis, I> glad you sent in this in. I felt it was important for the list members to have at hand more factual data about the source article of this subject. >>There is more from this letter (BAR 28:6 (November/December 2002), p.29): >> >>[...] Analytic results: The EDS analyses [...] >>The soil is composed mainly of CaCO3 (85%) and contains Si -7.4%; Al [...] >> >>The patina is enriched with silica (about 5.0%) relative to the >>original stone (about 1.5%). [...] I> These analyses prove next to nothing about the date of the patina. I> And certainly do not speak any about the said case of tampering. I> That is why the analysts refrain from providing any conclusions I> about the patina and the question of forgery. But of course, BAR only and initial intention was to show the international community that the ossuary in question: a) has not plastic paint sprayed on it. (i.e.: BAR reviewers are serious folk) b) comes from a certain localized spot in Israel. (i.e.: it is not made in Taiwan so... i.e.2 : BAR reviewers are also geographically serious folk) No conclusions are given in these analysis cause no conclusions are wanted nor known at first, anyway BAR exposed a "find" and imo wanted us to . >>It is worth mentioning that the patina does not contain any modern >>elements (such as modern pigments) and it adheres firmly to the stone. >>No signs of the use of a modern tool or instrument was found. [...] I> It is precisely about these references, of the patina not being "modern" I> that I spoke against earlier. This initial non judgemental observation is preferable than the "Look! if you turn it upside down you can make a mould for chocolate chip cookies for your oven" kind. In my profane and untrained self with all the learned opinions gathered I guess this ossuary (an actual one) is a fake (as Jesus' brother relative one) and there may be some individuals in the Middle East zone laughing their ***** out on this whole matter while tasting a strong tea. But then for beleivers/unbeleivers this ossuary find and subsequent empirical certainty argument shouldn't change a single centimeter their stand, mind or religious faith, imho. I> Thanks. You are welcome. I> Isidoros Kalinychta Isidoros, Luis mailto:debruces@teleline.es .