Re: KRS - artificial weathering

From: zolota (zolota3_at_REMOVEshaw.ca)
Date: 09/17/04 

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:51:43 GMT

"I E Johansson" <ingerxjohanssonx@telia.com> wrote in message
news:Lhx2d.103519$dP1.373252@newsc.telia.net...
>
> "zolota" <zolota3@REMOVEshaw.ca> skrev i meddelandet
> news:%_v2d.31317$%S.13731@pd7tw2no...
>>
>> "I E Johansson" <ingerxjohanssonx@telia.com> wrote in message
>> news:Hqv2d.3441$d5.26437@newsb.telia.net...
>> > zolota,
>> > the suggested method of yours is one of the easiest to detect of all
>> > according to scientists here.
>> >
>>
>> Everything snipped so top posting is correct.
>>
>> How to detect please, that's why I posted it, to find the detection
> method.
>> You claim to know how to do it, tell me.
>
> That's only to use one of the modern electron-microscope. We could do it
> back in 1976 -79 when I worked with salt on ice using the best microscope
> then. Actually we had to do it because there was an accusation from some
> we
> today should call 'Green' propagandist that the salt on ice had this and
> that effect on stone, asfalt and concrete. Of course it had and of course
> it
> was detectable. For the effect of combination salt, sea-wind resp acid
> rain
> on stone, graywake and other, as well as soil, ground, growth and fauna my
> own father worked in the so called 'blue' (water-related weatering,
> erosion
> and polution) field from 1954 till he retired - I helped him with tests
> from
> 1957. The laboratarium they used could detect all non-normal ageing in
> 1960's. It didn't look the same.
> It still doesn't according to the geochemist I met with, as so many times
> each year, last week.
>
> Inger E
>>

I would agree in the sense that an electronic instrument is the most likely
device to find a tampered surface. But you have said nothing about what the
scientist would be looking for with this instrument. Your 1976 EM could only
scan physical appearances. While it may prove some frauds it cannot confirm
that other surfaces are frauds, or ancient, and it cannot put a date on
them. "It didn't look the same" is not a scientific observation, differences
must be quantified. I repeat my question "what method"? (Not, what
instrument)". What quantifiable chemical or physical marker would prove the
age or fraudulence of an apparently old mineral surface, what minerals would
you look at?

As I noted to Eric, do you think that anyone would ever allow a cut through
a letter of the KRS so that a cross section of the surface can be studied?

Z

Quantcast