Talk:Burrows Cave

languages

Hi Gaijin, this is a good start. I have looked into the claims actually, and know that the vast majority of the alleged inscriptions are actually said to be in Latin that has been translated, using some kind of supposedly archaic Iberesque script, but hardly any in Greek or Ancient Egyptian. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

ep

on phone please excuse brevity. America unearthed episode s2e05 Grand Canyon treasure. I have some sources covering, including newspaper warning from Illinois officials warning about hoax Gaijin42 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

official link

TheRedPenOfDoom how is the link removed not valid under WP:EL as the "link to the official page of the subject" ? Gaijin42 (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not the official link to the burrows cave. its just some hucksters. And their flinging accusations of stalking and criminal threats at someone do not give them any more credence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Confused - Are you saying that this is not a site operated by Burrows and the others promoting the hoax? Gaijin42 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am saying it is NOT the or an official site of the subject of the article. and that it is full of bumpus not any relevant encyclopedic materials. and that the truly atrocious claims they are flinging about make it a site that we should NOT in any way be linking from this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell it is one of a number of competing sites claiming to be "official", and squabbling with each other over the find. And it does include atrocious claims, but it also seems to have the most detailed info on the identification with Alexander Helios. The theory in its fullest form (based on these supposed inscriptions) is that Helios conspired with Juba to take various treasures and a large number of refugees away from the Roman Empire, even including the remains of Alexander the Great, and that his domain in America was known as "Aderion" and "The Happy Land" and extended over the entire eastern US and St Lawrence valley. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's Harry Hubbard's page, not at all an official site. Hubbard and Paul Kelly (a.k.a. Schaffranke) invented the Alexander the Great's tomb stuff and I'm removing it from the lead. I was in the process of gathering material for an article on this when Gaijin42 pipped me to the post and will be expanding it over the next few weeks. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

the Alexander the Great claim does not actually appear to be related to Burrows Cave even in hoax form. That cave was "discovered" in 1925 by Orville Lowery, or his daughter Fern, in Olney 100+ miles away. (Burrows cave appears to be claimed to be near Vincennes Indiana?) illinoiscaves.com does appear to be promoting both legends/stories but there are no explicit claims linking them I think. (Though obviously if one of them could be proved conclusively to not be a hoax it would make the other more plausible) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I never heard about an "Alexander the Great cave" being discovered in 1925, that's new to me... But Schaffranke and Hubbard are clearly claiming on their "Illinois caves" site that specifically "Burrows cave" housed the remains of Alexander the Great along with all these other alleged "artifacts". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the anon IPs edit may shed some light on this. My (unsourced) interpretation is that Hubbard is claiming that Burrows rediscovered the Lowery cave systems (or caves furnished/used by the same population), so therefore Burrows cave is Alexander (great & Helios?) tomb. If however Burrows cave is not in Marion County, then that changes things. Of course with any assumed hoax, there is no "truth" and the statements from the participants change significantly over time, so we may have issue sticking to one set of alleged facts. (None of this of course has any effect on if we should have an article or not on the hoax, which has clearly passed any reasonable level of GNG) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

convenience link to sentinel article

Surprisingly hosted by the cave facebook page, even though the article basically calls them a scam to their face. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=707411015945461&set=pcb.707422965944266&type=1&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=707411019278794&set=pcb.707422965944266&type=1&theaterGaijin42 (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That's again Harry Hubbard's page. I guess at some point I'll have to write about Hubbard/Schaffranke (who arrive on the scene around 1994 with their Alexander's tomb idea) and Burrows. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

from the screeds on the web page, it sounds like its a fascinating story, but its not ours to tell. We need to wait until a reliable source does the investigating and analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Helios

I take it that according to Doug, we are not allowed to mention the name of Alexander Helios in the article, nor explain that he has anything whatsoever to do with this theory as the A&E Network show did, because that's "too sensitive"... Or because what? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that per WP:ONEWAY we should be able to link to the Helios article, it is a documented part of the hoax is it not? Gaijin42 (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There goes Til again attacking people and misrepresenting them. No, we are not supposed to claim that this was Burrows' idea. That's why my edit summary said "not Burrows' claim". I think of course it can be mentioned in the article but we need to attribute it to the inventors of the claim. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, sticking to facts, Burrows is who claims he found the cave in 1982 and won't tell anyone exactly where it is. Soon after that all of these inscribed 'artifacts' started turning up, and another fact being ignored is that a substantial number of them seemed to be made of gold rather than clay, suggesting that it would cost infinitely more to hoax. Another fact is that most of the alleged inscriptions are in a mysterious script that nobody proposed a reading for until 1994 with Schaffranke who claims to be able to make sense of it in Latin, leading to the Helios theory. I gather that Schaffranke and Hubbard don't get along with Burrows to put it mildly, but I don't know enough to be able to say what Burrows' take is on the Helios connection, whether he denies this, accepts it or ignores it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

the "gold" thing does not appear to be true actually. Burrows admits making gold plated/colored reproductions for sale, so any analysis of pictures is WP:OR since we do not know which are allegedly authentic and which are his reproductions. Further, if he has a market for the artifacts, the cost is irrelevant, since he can easily set the price of the artifact above the cost of the bullion (or make them on demand). If we can source it, it would probably be valuable to the article to identify Hubbard and Schaffranke and how they are involved. Ill read through our existing sources and see if their relationship is clearly spelled out anywhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Website link

What exactly was wrong with: " According to the now defunct official website, "In 1982, Russell E. Burrows reported finding several thousand carved and inscribed pieces of polished dark rock in a cave along waters of the Little Wabash River.""? I'd say it's a better source than 'Haunting the Prairie: A Tourists Guide to the Weird and Wild Places of Illinois (no insult intended to anyone using this, just that we shouldn't use tourist guides for this and don't need to). Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I added that source, it was one of the earlier ones I came across. It was just indented to show notability of the hoax, and that even among sensational pop-culture sources that often exaggerate claims, its clearly identified as a hoax.

Regarding the other source, there is an issue I have long had with WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. If we are in a fringe dedicated article, it seems perfectly acceptable to me to use fringe sources to accurately describe the claims of the fringe group. These of course must be taken as claims of the fringe group and not facts in wiki-voice, and should be balanced/countered with the mainstream view - but if you are writing about homeopathy, or accupuncture, or astrology, it seems asinine that you cannot quote adherents about what they claim. I support use of the defunct site, although I am not sure I see the relevance of the content above unless it is linked more explicitly to the Burrows cave.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I see your point about the tourist guide. I was only using the defunct site until I get hold of other material written by Burrows, but as a source it still seems fine to be. And there may be material there that can't be sourced elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I found this on the illinois caves site, that claims to be written by burrows, with handwritten annotations from the state archaeologist mentioned in the article already. http://www.illinoiscaves.com/discoveryBcave.htm Gaijin42 (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

We do not use primary sources in that manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

1) There is no "manner" proposed. I found it and thought the other editors might be interested in reading it. 2) there are numerous purposes that a primary source such as that could be used for, including documenting claims by quoting burrows directly. It is certainly a primary SPS, but to document the mans own words about his own hoax is well within the bounds of policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

" primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" here its not even reliably published - a defunct website et al. Where is the care? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Which link are you referring to? The Illinoiscaves link or the BCC link? In any case, you'd need consensus here to keep it out of the article or agreement at RSN. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless you mean the handwritten notes. Those we can't use. Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The relevant policy is:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

uhhh, it seems to me he is making some PRETTY DAMN EXCEPTIONAL claims.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Phoenician ship

I've just added a section on this. I've got more to come -- eg on the artifacts - more details about them and about the sale of artifacts, which is a major component of the saga. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This section was inexplicably edited at some point, resulting in the substitution of "Numidian" for "Phoenecian". This was not what my 2012 article used. The dates of the friezes used by the artist(s) as inspiration do not support the name change and the literature does not use the newer term. I have "undone" the change. Joawilso (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Discovery

I think we need a section on this, eg: Burrows wrote that he discovered the cave while metal detecting in north-east Richland County, Illinois, near the Embarras River. He fell into a pit after stepping on a flat rock which was designed as a pivot to drop victims into the pit and trapped them. Instead it slipped to the side, leaving the pit open. He immediately saw on a wall a face with thick lips, a flat nose and wide-set eyes. He then discovered a skeleton on a block of stone accompanied by ax heads of marble, stone and bronze as well as bronze spears. The skeleton itself was wearing gold armbands and headbands (plural?). Further exploration uncovered 13 (or was it 12 -I've found different figures) burial crypts, a library of stone tables, many other inscriptions and thousands of artifacts, many made of gold. These include full-size statues, some made of gold and others of black stone, thousands of gold coins, diamonds, parchment scrolls, weapons of various types and more skeletons. The scrolls were written in a variety of languages including Egyptian, Etruscan, Sumerian, and Greek. The statues and other portraits were what were described as ‘an impossible mix of apparent Romans, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Christians, American Indians, and even Black Africans’ (this is from Joseph's King Juba book).

Note that Joseph also reports a different story about the discovery based on a presentation by Burrows. In this one Burrows wanders into a cave (no pit), discovers what he calls Indian signs, tries to remove some of these from the cave wall, which gives way revealing perfectly hewn stone steps, dozens of oil lamps and the residue of innumerable torches. Then of course there's Burrows explaining to fans of the paranormal his discussions he held with the ghost of a dead woman whose skeleton he found. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Joseph is not a reliable source to be giving so much ink to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

He is one of the major sources for Burrows Cave. Of course he's fringe, but we can't write an article about the cave without substantial mention of him. Burrows is as bad, but the same point holds. Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not actually going down the "There's no reliable sources about the subject so we MUST use non reliable sources" path are you? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm going down the road of Joseph is one of the major participants and is discussed by a clearly reliable source (Wilson) so we can't avoid him. And so far I haven't used Joseph as a source, but I don't think you've noticed that. I've used Wilson. And be careful, you are starting to make it look as though I'm a Joseph supporter, which I'm not (although I think people should be called by the name they use). Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

barry fell

I think the fell addition and source are fine, but we should add back in the source that was removed. Notably, that source is by Wolter, the host of the H2 shows, and his book calls the thing a hoax (the show pretty much does too). When even the sensational media true believers call something a hoax, its well and truly debunked. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Self-published book though. Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it? North Star press may be small, but they dont appear to be a "pay to publish" site, and Wolter is not listed on their "about" page http://www.northstarpress.com/pages/meet-the-north-star-family Gaijin42 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You did not get to the "about us" page: "We have also helped hundreds more realize this dream through our Guided Self-publishing program." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Mormons

Sorry Gaijin42, that's not a link I think we should use, and Diane Wirth, a major LDS writer on such issues, thinks it's a hoax. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Im ok with dropping the link, but and perhaps qualifying the Mormon thing to "some" or some-such, but I've come across numerous links bringing up the Mormon archeology connection, so I think it should be mentioned in some fashion. (The Flavin links you just posted bring it up as an epithet repeatedly).

• https://www.google.com/search?q=burrows+cave+mormon&oq=burrows+cave+mormon&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i60.2737j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=burrows+cave+mormon&tbm=bks
• https://www.google.com/search?q=burrows+cave+mormon&oq=burrows+cave+mormon&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i60.2737j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

In particular http://books.google.com/books?id=6l5QeLNc328C&pg=PA74&dq=burrows+cave+mormon&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8B3hUqGpNZOksQSR64GACw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=burrows%20cave%20mormon&f=false Published by Cedar Fort publishers, which seems to be an LDS focused publisher. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh I'm not against mention of the LDS views, but the link itself. And we need to show Wirth's view - an RS for this. I can do that later. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burrows Cave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213090245/http://www.ancientamerican.com/aa/index.php/book-store to http://www.ancientamerican.com/aa/index.php/book-store

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

in popular culture/in fiction

It seems to me, that the idea of egyptian colonization of america originated from the hoax being the subject of this article. The idea shows up in the novel: American Gods by Neil Gaiman (Part One - Chapter 8.)

"Shadow stopped in the street, and stared.

“Are you trying to tell me that ancient

Egyptians came here to trade five thousand

years ago?”

Mr. Ibis said nothing, but he smirked loudly.

Then he said, “Three thousand five hundred

and thirty years ago. Give or take.”"

It seems that the cave-story is interconnected with some claims of ancient egyptians visiting america, like on the blacklisted "before it's news" webpage here: .com/prophecy/2014/04/ancient-egyptians-came-to-america-and-so-did-joseph-of-the-bible-who-was-king-of-a-second-egyptian-empire-in-the-usa-video-evidence-and-detailed-pictures-2460666.html and here: https://sites.google.com/site/ancientegyptiansinamerica/ancient-egyptian-discoveries-in-america

It would be much easier to find this article if it contained the keywords: Egypt+America (just as the sites spreading the hoax seem to contain them). 176.63.176.112 (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC).

Burrows was just regurgitating older fringe claims, e.g. this 1909 one.[1] Doug Weller talk 06:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Everyone,

The coordinates I added to this article are those for Olney, Illinois. They are not the location of the alleged cave. I hope the coordinates are sufficiently imprecise and the scale small enough to make this clear. If this is not clear, then hopefully this note will help. If still not clear, then I wish you well on your excavation of Downtown Olney. GeorgeofOrange (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)