… There are other reasons why the conclusion of the IAA should at least be further explored before accepting it without discussion. For example, when the announcement was made the final report of the committee was not ready for distribution. Why was the announcement not made when the final report was ready to be released?

Can the IAA really be so sure of its conclusion? They seem to have no doubt whatever. In a Washington Post story on June 19, an IAA official is quoted as saying, “We’re sure about it.” Yet this same official later in the article is quoted as saying, “There is some doubt ” about whether the word Yeshua (Jesus) is a forgery. As one scientist told us, “This is a very unprofessional way of doing things.”

The committee never called in the scientists from the two other teams-the Geological Survey of Israel and the Royal Ontario Museum-that had examined the ossuary to see why their conclusion differed and to see what they had to say regarding the IAA’s conclusion. For example, a handout the IAA gave out at its press conference states that the letters of the inscription “cut through” the patina. It is astounding that the two other scientific teams that examined the ossuary didn’t notice this. The absence of patina in some of the letters may in fact have had something to do with the cleaning of the inscription; it had been partially scrubbed (apparently by the owner’s mother). Shouldn’t this have been at least discussed with the other teams before an announcement was made, especially since the Geological Survey of Israel’s report specifically stated that it found “no evidence that might detract from the authenticity of the patina”?…

More… (source)

Advertisements