Mike McChesney wrote:Why have ASU look at them? They already have the expert opinions the professionals at Desert Archaeology Inc.
But I guess we have a quandry here, don't we? We have an FBI Agent stating that the stones are least 100 years old (according to Bob), a forced donation of the stones by MOEL, and a museum that thinks they are frauds.
We also have Jane Dana, who, while not remembering all the details of what her late husband did with the stones, she does remember her husband having them. That, at least, tells us that part of the story is true. Now, for all we know, Steve Dana might have told Mitchell the stones were from Zeta Reticuli 5 and gave directions to a time portal. All we have to go by is the story from Mitchell.
As soon as I, or anyone else, has the kind of credentials that the folks at Desert Archaeology, Inc. have, and are willing to put there names to their opinions, I may change my opinion.
They were very limited in the amount of time that they were allowed to examine the stones. That, by the time constraints, limited any tests that might have been possible under different circumstances.
They were not asked for opinions that would be critiqued by their peers, but would be printed in a, basically, Arizona travel magazine. In other words, it was for entertainment rather than scientific study. I appreciate your concerns for their professional abilities, based on this kind of "fluff" work, but will wait for you to publish your own credentials in this line of work, before I discard their opinions....for yours.
One other thing.......They had no axe to grind with the stones, you do.
Not saying there's anything wrong with that, but it is what it is.
My personal opinion is that the only way those stones can be dated, is exactly the way that Desert Archaeology did it. For experts in the field, I should think that could be done very quickly. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with providing the stones to ASU, just to see what they can come up with. I certainly have no fear that they will come up with an opinion that negates my own, or anyone else's for that matter.
My guess is that it has already been done, and the results were unpublished. Beyond that, the folks at the museum probably could make a pretty good judgement on their authenticity.