Re: KRS - Possible news to come

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 09/14/04 

Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:58:02 +1200

On 13 Sep 2004 16:49:41 -0700, icycalmca@yahoo.com (Daryl Krupa)
wrote:

>"Martin Reboul" <martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> wrote in message news:<Vhl0d.510$lz4.272@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>...
>
> Martin:
>
><snip>
>> Once again we are going into Roswellesque side alley, dead ends and
>> backwaters of irrelevance.
><snip>
> Agreed.
>
>> 2) The carved surfaces are universlly acknowledged to have been
>> dressed, i.e., chiselled flat before the inscription was done.
>
> Not by me; the surfaces which have been altered by inscription
>are not necessarily of human origin.
> IIRC, even the earlier researchers noted that the inscribed surfaces
>("frontside" and left side") were split along fracture planes.
> The frontside even has a calcite crack-infill indicating that
>the frontside is indeed a fracture plane.
> It is entirely possible that neither the frontside nor the left side
>were created by human action.
> I acknowledge that some of the corners, e.g. the corner between the
>frontside and the left side, have been altered ("hammered" is the term
>usually applied to them, again IIRC), but that could have been done
>millennia after those corners were created, e.g. by frost action.
> And even if teh frontside and left side were anthropogenic, that
>does not mean that they were "chiselled": they could merely have been
>split, say, by installing the stone in a burning pile and then dousing
>it with icewater after it got good and hot. (The coefficients of
>expansion of the greywacke and the calcite would surely have been
>different, if for no other parts of the stone.)
>
>> Conclusion: Discussion of the age/diameter of the tree that Olaf
>> found the KRS beneath is irrelevant, as it was not that tree that
>> made the root marks - it hadn't been there long enough. If it had,
>> there would also be marks on the inscribed surfaces.
>
> This is a good point; I'm ashamed that I had not pointed it out
>myself.

If you had, I would expect Philip to point out that the roots would
not be expected to contact the inscribed underside of the stone.
>
><snip>
>> Olaf mentions it was very near the surface. This was unfarmed land,
>> and covered with deciduous trees presumably for centuries.
>> If the KRS had been there for four centuries, it wasn't very deep,
>> even on a hillside. Natural growth (Flaten mentions heavy underbrush)
>> would tend to bury it in leaf mold each year.
>> Even if it were only one inch per decade, that would be several feet
>> of soil (archaeologists?).
>
> Not necessarily several feet.
> That rate would only apply in areas undergoing sedimentation, like
>alluvial plains, and one inch per decade would only apply if the leaf
>litter was not broken down by animals, bacteria, fungi, and
>weathering.
> On a hillside, there would be soil creep and other transportation
>processes operating, and occasional fires might well burn away the
>organic matter at the surface, leaving only mineral soil.
> More pertinent would be the activities of rodents and earthworms
>as they moved mineral soil from depth towards the surface.
> But in any case, fronst-push and frost-pull tend to move stones
>near the surface closer to the surface, especially if the soil is
>disturbed by, say, toppling trees (naturally or un-naturally) or
>cultivation.
>
>> Of course, there could have been erosion and landslips, but....
><snip>
>
> Nearly constant erosion, I fear.
> The side of a hill is known as the "transport zone", in the
>classical interpretation.
>
>http://dn.redwoods.edu/coursenotes/renner/geo_images/strat_sed_wx_transport/soil_creep.jpg
>
> And this is the result:
>
>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=134016
>
>http://www.stockpix.com/stock/nature/geology/9410.htm#text
>
>http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/geophoto/soilweth/Creep1.jpg
>
> Note here the figures for "Creep" and "Gravity and Slope Gradient":
>
>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo2xx/geo218/UNIT6/lecture18.html
>
>> Whatever, none of it adds up, and the root marks may date from
>> any tree in the age between the stone being made, and the hoaxer(s)
>> selecting it for their purpose. In other words, entirely irrelevant!
>
> Yes indeed, especially as the interval between "the stone being
>made"
>and "selecting" might have been 20,000 years.
>
>Daryl Krupa

Eric Stevens

Quantcast