Jesus Christ I've heard everything now. Glen Beck is such a slap dick. I can't believe he is trying to peddle this bullshit

Bat Creek Stone all over again. Will this thing never die?

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4128448

So at the risk of killing that gray striped little fuzzball, does the Beckmeister go on to tell us or hint that this supposed Hebrew is proof of his church?

Thanks for identyfing this "relic"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Creek_inscription?wasRedirected=true

Did he just say that it was Phonician and Hebrew at the same time....in the same breath?

Sweet...that means I can read Mandarin Chinese...as long as it looks like English...

Phoenicia and Israel were two small nations right next to each other. The written languages were initially quite similar. Even today there are plenty of similarities among Phoenician-derived alphabets.

Example - first three letters of modern Hebrew and Greek alphabets - aleph, beth, gimel and alpha beta gamma. Also, the fact that ph is pronounced like 'f' in both languages is a direct carryover from Phoenician.

That said, Beck is still nuts, and the stone is still a fraud.

Or the stone is nuts, and Beck is a fraud.

I think Beck, like many new gung-ho wantabelievers, is working his way through all the TBM mythology. Eventually he will come to the inevitable conclusion that it is BS and will decide to stay or leave. My $ is on him deciding to stay.

The Bat Creek Stone is claimed by some to prove that Cherokee have Hebrew ties.

Here is an interesting link to a website of a Cherokee scholar. He kindly states that things like this are nonsense. Check out what he says at the bottom of the page about Mormons who swear at him!

http://www.native-languages.org/iaq9.htm

"I have been receiving quite a bit of profanity laced email from Mormons for showing that those word lists are not real Algonquian words. Please think before you hit the 'send' button: is cursing at people who don't tell lies to make it easier for you to believe things really the image of your church you want to be sending out?"

I thought he was going to cry at the end. It's a hoax, dude. Really. It really, really is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2011 11:12AM by Makurosu.

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/bat1.html
http://www.ramtops.co.uk/bat2.html
Summary (from bat2):
Tennessee Anthropologist Vol. XVIII, No. 2, Fall 1993
The Bat Creek stone is a fraud. Other related issues raised by stone proponents, including the radiocarbon date, are therefore irrelevant. The current leading proponent of the stone's authenticity is an economist, lacking professional credentials in paleography, ancient languages, and archaeology.

http://www.telliquah.com/Batcreek.htm - why the forgery was concocted

Glenn Beck is so full of shit and a douche bag.

New Dog, Same Old Trick...

I handed the book to the Prophet, and begged him to explain its contents. He asked me if I had any idea of its meaning. I replied, that I believed it to be a Greek Psalter; but that I should like to hear his opinion. "No he said; "it ain't Greek at all, except, perhaps, a few words. What ain't Greek, is Egyptian; and what ain't Egyptian, is Greek. This book is very valuable. It is a dictionary of Egyptian Hieroglyphics." Pointing to the capital letters at the commencement of each verse, he said: Them figures is Egyptian hieroglyphics; and them which follows, is the interpretation of the hieroglyphics, written in the reformed Egyptian. Them characters is like the letters that was engraved on the golden plates." Upon this, the Mormons around began to congratulate me on the information I was receiving. "There," they said; "we told you so -- we told you that our prophet would give you satisfaction. None but our prophet can explain these mysteries."


--Rev. Henry Caswell,
"Three Days At Nauvoo" (1842)

and the Los Lunas Stone is a matter of serious debate. Don't what the first thing with the little figure he showed was. Anyone?

Wouldn't matter anyway if there was a sample of Hebrew here in the New World. There's little to nothing to support the BoM narrative of millions writing in reformed egyptian riding around in chariots pulled by horses with swords of steel.

Beck is an idiot, but the stone was proven to be a real artifact in 2010 by Scott Wolker's examination and testing, but the time line does not match with those of mormons. Also Phoenician and Paleo Hebrew use the same alphabet (Aleph Bet). Also Aramaic is very close to them. Also Luther Blackman did not forge the stone. That is such a stretch. Read "Bat Creek Stone: At a Glance" by Mandel Cook. He is married to Luther Blackman's Greaa Great Grandaughter.

Wolter did not prove anything.

His study can be read at this link.
http://www.ampetrographic.com/files/BatCreekStone.pdf

More about him can be read at wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_F._Wolter

None of his testing has been submitted to professional journals of science for scholarly peer review. No mention is made about what the 12th Annual Report says on page 347. Mr. Emmert was sent to Haywood County, North Carolina to expose a hoax. It was there he learned how to give hoax artifacts the appearance of age. This was before he "found" the Bat Creek Stone.

"Mr. Emmert was sent into that region to procure, if possible, some specimens of this singular class of articles and to ascertain whether they were ancient or modern. After considerable difficulty he was entirely successful in his effort. He ascertained that these articles were made from the soapstone found in that region by some persons
who had learned how to give them the appearance of age. This is done by placing them, after being carved, in running water which is tinctured with iron, as most of the streams in that region are. As a proof of the correctness of his statement Mr. Emmert had the same parties who stated they had made some articles for Mr. Valentine make quite a number of similar articles for the Bureau."

The entire twelfth annual report can be read at this link.
http://www.archive.org/details/annualreportofbu1218901891smit

Wolter's analysis mentioned aging of the stone as support for it being authentic but did not bring out the fact of 19th century "aging" methods known to be used to create hoax artifacts.

More info about hoaxes exposed:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,368430,368430#msg-368430

I have read is findings many times. I have even spoken with him and the Smithsonian many times. I also have examined the stone myself. There's no doubt that it is an artifact. However, there is no proof of it being older than the 15th Century. It's not a 19th Century Fraud. Emmert did not forge the stone. Emmert was a drunk and had forged stuff in the past, but not the stone. No evidence can prove it's a fake over it being real. Scott Wolter's examination was good, and he even admits more tests need to be done, but it does prove it's not a 19th century fraud. And I am so not a mormon! In fact the time line doesnt match up for the mormons to use the stone as proof. So there's no sense in saying it's a fraud just to make mormon's sound stupid.

"So there's no sense in saying it's a fraud just to make mormon's sound stupid."

That is not why I say it is a fraud.

THE BAT CREEK FRAUD: A FINAL STATEMENT
http://www.ramtops.co.uk/bat2.html

Wolter should submit his work to a professional journal for peer review in order for it to be considered. Alternate (pseudo) archaeology otherwise needs to be exposed.

That was written by Robert Mainfort, a friend of mine. Mainfort and Kwas have had no reply to Wolter's findings. Read J.Houston McCulouch's finalresponses. Or email him and talk to him yourself. I use to believe it was a fake too. Not after knowing Robert and J Houston. Plus I have personally seen the smithsonian papers and the stone which is currently at the McClung Museum, but is in the works of trying to be moved to a Cherokee Museum in North Carolina by the Eastern Band of the Cherokee. Wolter's findings are very accurate and just because they have not been in a professional journal doesn't really mean much. Look at all the inaccurate findings in the Anthropolgy reports. You know your stuff and I see why you think it is a fraud, but in comparison it is more likely a true artifact than a fraud.

You should ask yourself something very serious before deciding that it is not a hoax. Ask yourself this: Can it be duplicated? Can the "aging" be done with 19th century methods that are well known? If you are honest you will admit that this particular artifact could be duplicated right now and findings of Wolter would be the same.

It cannot be done with the same results. Try it. Once you duplicate it, I'll believe it. Go ahead. I've tried. I didn't really know what I was doing, but I still tried. You've read how to do it and you are 100% convinced that it can be done. Do it and prove Scott wrong. In fact, the day you prove it I will tell Scott and Houston to their faces that they're morons. Till then I will believe Scott and Houston over Robert. No offence to Robert obviously. Robert is a great guy and normally I would believe anything he wrote. Anyways, post your results and let us know what you find.

From the 12th Annual Report, page 347.

"Mr. Emmert was sent into that region to procure, if possible, some specimens of this singular class of articles and to ascertain whether they were ancient or modern. After considerable difficulty he was entirely successful in his effort. He ascertained that these articles were made from the soapstone found in that region by some persons who had learned how to give them the appearance of age. This is done by placing them, after being carved, in running water which is tinctured with iron, as most of the streams in that region are. As a proof of the correctness of his statement Mr. Emmert had the same parties who stated they had made some articles for Mr. Valentine make quite a number of similar articles for the Bureau."

Wolter never addressed this, and did not address the possible ways that someone could duplicate it today. Your claim that it cannot be done flies in the face of the 19th century hoaxes that can be duplicated. There was nothing so special in Wolter's report that excludes the possiblity of duplication.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2011 11:28PM by Hoggle.

Are you sure it's the 12th annual. I'm reading my copy and I can't find that. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong one. I'm sure it's there. Nonetheless, that proves frauds could been discovered. Why would he use a method that everyone knew about to fake a stone? And why would he use Paleo Hebrew instead of Cherokee? He was trying to prove Cherokee was the mound builders, not the lost isrealites or any other Hebrews.

I am sure.

http://www.archive.org/stream/annualreportofbu1218901891smit#page/346/mode/2up

You can read the entire 12th annual report or download it from this link.
http://www.archive.org/details/annualreportofbu1218901891smit

It might be good for you to read "The Peculiar Phenomenon of Pseudoarchaeology" by Kenneth L. Feder. His article begins on page 39 at this link.

http://www.americanarchaeology.com/images/Magazine%20files%20for%20index/9.1%20Sprg%2005%20singles%20LR.pdf

Page 44 addresses the problems with pseudoarchaeology.

"Ultimately, how troublesome is pseudoarchaeology? Consder that a low opinion of the capabilities of ancient peoples—or, at least some ancient peoples—seems to reside at its core. The archaeological record is filled with examples of spectacular architectural achievements, sophisticated technologies, wonderful artwork, and glimmerings of science. Much of pseudoarchaeology is based on the belief that indigenous peoples were incapable of producing these things. Needless to say, this reluctance to give much of ancient humanity its due is troubling to scientists who have devoted their professional lives to illuminating the accomplishments of those people."

"Fascination with and acceptance of pseudoarchaeological claims also seems to be part of a broader inability on the part of the public to distinguish science from pseudoscience."

You made an earlier comment "Wolter's findings are very accurate and just because they have not been in a professional journal doesn't really mean much. Look at all the inaccurate findings in the Anthropolgy reports." It is important to distinguish science from pseudoscience.

He also confused the words "evacuation" and "excavation."

He is such a scholar. (NOT!)

My guess is eventually he will run into something damning. Converts have no business digging about. Converts have much less to lose when they eventually find out things don't add up after all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2011 07:18PM by suckafoo.

If God really wants us to know something, as a loving parent, wouldn't he fill us all in? Not leave us depending on the likes of Glenn Beck as a source of information from Gods mouth to our ears. To me that seems crazy. Another self appointed (narcissistic) dude who is going to tell us what God is up to. He is an alarmist in a suit with a clown persona.

God wants us to learn for ourselves that he's an asshole.

He doesn't want us to read he's an asshole.

Wait. Unless you read the bible.

Then maybe....

Ok ok ok. I got it.

God wants us to read, hear, see, and experience that he's an asshole.

Does Glenn Beck need medication or an ego adjustment? I'm leaning toward a chemical imbalance, but perhaps he's got some sort of audience-build-up-associated insanity?

No, seriously, what the hell is wrong with him?