Not too surprising, but David Elkington has popped up again on Facebook to briefly attempt to stoke the fires of interest in his codices. He posted a series of articles about political unrest in Jordan. Someone asked how the situation would affect the codices and he responded with this:
The Team is indeed concerned by the series of delays that have prevented a formal announcement thus far, due to political turmoil within Jordan and the Middle East; however, we would like to reassure our supporters that there has been considerable work on behalf of the codices behind the scenes that understandably must remain confidential for the moment. Some of the codices are currently undergoing a further series of sophisticated and detailed tests, the results of which will be announced in due course. In the meantime, we will continue to keep our followers informed on any new developments.
Daniel O. McClellan 
May 1st, 2012 at 9:17 am
Well, it does take time to make up good quality forgeries, so I can understand them taking their time to bring these to light….
May 1st, 2012 at 11:34 am
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
May 1st, 2012 at 11:36 am
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” He is becoming tangled up in this web of his own making.
June 8th, 2012 at 9:44 am
http://www.colinandrews.net/Lead-Codices-Colin_Andrews-Exclusive.html
This seems to be a really good article? did you ever contact this guy–?
June 8th, 2012 at 10:35 am
Thanks for the comment, kate. This author, or someone associated with him, contacted me long ago, but the article does not seem to take very seriously the concerns that have been brought up regarding the codices’ provenance. I think it furthers the misunderstanding of the codices more than anything.
January 1st, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Here is a good example of why I have a problem with people like Dr. Rollston and others who study ancient writings. They fail to make a distinction between professional writing and its rules from non-professional and its flaunting of any grammatical rule that may be in place at the time.
Monuments, steles, and other publicly displayed inscriptions are done by professionals who have a set and restrictive set of rules they have to follow. Those items are meant to impress people and must be done with the greatest of care in order to look good. No mistakes are allowed and each letter must be perfect and similar to the rest (one style).
Different styles of inscriptions simply mean that a different look was required by the person comissioning the project and these professional pieces of work are not a reflection of how the people wrote in general.
Having lived in a country that is filled with ancient and modern inscriptions in different languages for a long time now, it has been easy to study this field. What one learns is that the people do not write like the professional inscriber.
They also do not write exactly the same way as each other. People write according to their own ideas and influences thus to use handwriting as evidence for forgery is misleading and most likely wrong. Since no one knows who worte those codices nor do we have sample sof the author’s handwriting, it would almost be impossible to declare the works as forgery. You would need other indicators to make that determination.
Such as: age of the ink & paper, maybe some vocabulary, signs of wear and tear etc. Right now all you have is someone’s thoughts on paper which reveal only his thoughts nothing else.
January 1st, 2013 at 9:21 pm
Thanks for posting here. Could you cite a publication or some text that backs up the notion that “No mistakes are allowed and each letter must be perfect and similar to the rest (one style)”? Also, could you show me where Dr. Rollston has ever failed to distinguish between professional and amateur scribal hands where the distinction has been pointed out by others, or necessitated by your own observations?
Next, with the codices it’s not a matter of grammatical indiscretions or anything like that. The problem is that the texts are absolutely meaningless. They mean nothing. There are no actual words anywhere on them. They are gibberish. Distinction between professional and amateur hands has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on these texts. The script has no analogue in antiquity. Also, their iconography is demonstrably modern. These considerations all combine to make it unquestionable that the codices are modern forgeries.