Oh Nooooees! Teh Rawk Cud Be Fony!

U cud remembr dis post on teh rawk. Thar haz benz severl new developments on teh story. From the Plain Dealer:

“The problem is I could not prove that this was indeed, beyond a reasonable doubt, the work of a Native American-or a pioneer,” Greenup County prosecutor Cliff Duvall said.

Meanwhile, a lawsuit filed by Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway seeking the rock’s return to Kentucky is still pending in federal court.

Duvall said there’s no doubt the rock Shaffer pulled from the river has historic value to the area. What’s uncertain is whether the carvings were done by American Indians or early pioneers, or if they were relatively more modern, such as from the 1800s or later, he said.

It’s also possible there is another rock somewhere upstream that “has a likeness of an Indian with a headdress of feathers,” Duvall said in court papers.

Oh noooeees! They be stealin teh fony rawk! Thar iz maor. Rawkstealr doesn’t finkz teh 2 rawks iz da same:

Nevertheless, attorney Mike Curtis, who represents Shaffer, said he doesn’t believe prosecutors could have proven Shaffer’s rock to be the “Indian Head Rock” talked about in history books. Curtis said the description of the rock given in more than one book describes the carving as that of a “colossal human head.”

That description does not fit with the rock involved in this case, Curtis said.

Others finkz teh rawk iz teh same rawk:

George Crothers, the director of the University of Kentucky’s William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology and Office of State Archaeology, said he believes the rock is the same one that was registered and protected by the state in 1986.

“Based on the descriptions that we have of it, I’m pretty confident,” Crothers said. “I was willing to testify to that fact.”

A fird group finkzs it doesnt mattr if it iz correct rawk, it iz still protectd. Mayb we shud cut teh rawk in half liek in story book bout ceiling kitteh.

%d bloggers like this: