A GRAVEN IMAGE? OR JUST A STATUE? JOSEPH P. FARRELL for Giza Death Star
Judging from the articles I’ve received, this week may turn out to be a more than unusual week, and that’s saying something since I specialize in “strange stuff.” And one of this week’s stranger articles was so strange I decided to lead off this week’s blogs with it. It was shared by my colleague-in-strangeness, Bernard Grover, whom many of you are probably familiar with for his excellent posts and analyses of the Q phenomenon, or as we like to call it, the Qult (his term).
Now, as regular readers here know, I usually will link the article first, then cite a few passages I think are important, and then talk about them and offer my high octane speculation of the day. Sometimes, I precede the article link with a bit of “background context” preparation.
Not so today. Today I am breaking with tradition, and quoting the article, without so much a hint of context as to what the uproar is about. So without further ado, here’s the uproar:
“Unfortunately, this article is pure sensationalism that caters to popular, money-generating, demand, in presenting an unfounded and (at best) tentative identification as factual as he ignores existing professional research and studies, including avoiding reference to any of the publications by the excavators,” wrote Tel Motza excavation co-directors Shua Kisilevitz (Israel Antiquities Authority and Tel Aviv University) and Oded Lipschits (Tel Aviv University), whose finds served as a major basis for Garfinkel’s article.
That’s all the following article is: “pure sensationalism” that is nothing but a shameless grab for attention to generate some money. Worse than that, the Sensationalist-in-chief here is a professor at the Hebrew University, Yosef Garfunkel, and the purely sensationalist money-generating article he published was in Biblical Archeology Review, which is, of course, not a mainstream academic journal at all, but more of a magazine:
His theory was firmly rejected by all archaeologists who agreed to respond to Garfinkel’s premise. Some would not give it the time of day, while others said it is not coincidental that his article was printed in a mainstream magazine and not an academic journal.
So what’s all the controversy about? Well, finally, here’s the article: