The first is that the main knockdown of Simcha's theory ('Divine Jehovah, raise up, raise up') by Kloner, the "fish", which was that the illustration is actually an amphora ("he says that he believes that the fish image is really an “amphora”), which Simcha - in the Haaretz story and in the Daily Mail - presented as if it was horizontal:
when it was actually vertical on the ossuary,
is not mentioned.
Simcha simply writes:
He started the presentation in front of a packed audience of some 300 people by reviewing a front page article in the Israeli daily “Ha’aretz” which featured our finding of the “Sign of Jonah” on an ossuary in the Patio tomb. Thereafter, his entire talk was aimed at stating that only Prof. Tabor and I think that the fish is a fish and that the inscription is noteworthy.
As Simcha was there, as he claims, why does he leave his readers in the dark about the wrong direction in which the image was presented to the world? Why doesn't he refute that he purposely mislead or that the newspapers erred or something to cover up what would seem to be a glaring example of misrepresentation?
Here is Kloner's original drawing impression from 1981:
Can Simcha blame the camera angle?
The second surprise is that no comments are permitted.
So how can one argue and discuss the matter with Simcha?
For example, on the meaning of the inscription
that Kloner favors Rollston's interpretation (see D.) and here which has no connection with raising up.
Odd those surprises.
From Times of Israel.