Re: KRS - artificial weathering

From: zolota (zolota3_at_REMOVEshaw.ca)
Date: 09/18/04 

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:49:37 GMT

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:e8blk0pgfqd6s5jo8nhi2iehkttvg51r7d@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:51:43 GMT, "zolota" <zolota3@REMOVEshaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"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?
>
> They already have allowed a sample to be cut from it. In any case, the
> fact that it might not be permissible to take a piece from the KRS
> does not mean that nothing would be found if a piece was taken.
>

Your words/meaning are not clear here. Of course a piece was cored out of
the back, a scientific study would have been almost impossible without it.
But can you imagine a group allowing a core that intersects one of the
runes? I can't. Without that cross section through a letter you would have
little to go on re the date of the carving. As for the vacuum requirements,
a small core would not take that long to vacate, greywacke is not exactly
sponge despite what Phillip seems to think.

Z

Z

Loading