Re: KRS - artificial weathering

From: zolota (zolota3_at_REMOVEshaw.ca)
Date: 09/21/04 

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:19:22 GMT

"Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c70365ef.0409201910.2adea636@posting.google.com...
> "zolota" <zolota3@REMOVEshaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:<h8H3d.461498$M95.87581@pd7tw1no>...
>
> <snip>
>> The KRS has a curved back surface. That surface was once
>> the exposed outcrop of a greywacke deposit
>> before the glaciers sheared it off the bedrock
>> (along the pre-existing fron surface fracture) and
>> transported it hundreds of kilometers.
>> Despite the grinding in the ice,
>> thousands of winters since the ice age, etc,
>> that surface is still smooth.
> <snip>
>
> Z:
> It is my sad duty to point out that the scenario you outline above
> is not necessarily the true history of the KRS stone.
> The backside need not have been the surface of a bedrock exposure;
> a piece of bedrock could have been plucked off of the parent bedrock
> by glacial ice, then abraded, split, and rounded thereafter to
> produce its present appearance.

***, close enough for government work!

> The front surface fracture might not have been sheared until
> many thousands of years after the stone was detached from bedrock.
> Its smoothness might be the result of protection from erosion
> until relatively lately, e.g. until the 19th Century C.E..
>
> I fear that your hypothetical history, while plausible, is
> unproven, and if unchallenged might lead you towards untenable
> conclusions. So I feel constrained to point out these anomalies,
> to save you some unproductive effort.

>
> This all would not be very important, save for the [supposed]
> fact that Wolter is presuming that the frontside and left side
> of the KRS are contemporaneous in origin with the inscription.
> They may be.
> Equally valid is your scenario above, in which the frontside
> is older than the last glacial advance.
> Because we do do not know the history or cause of exposure
> of the frontside and the backside, we cannot know if weathering
> dates derived from either of those surfaces can be used to date
> the inscription.
> All that we can say is that the left side and frontside are
> relatively younger than the backside and right side.
> Your scenario fits into that relative chronology, but then
> so does Wolter's.
> What we need is a better handle and the magnitude of the
> relative time spans involved between formative events affecting
> those two classes of surfaces, i.e. better than Winchell's
> scheme.
> As yet, we do not even know the genesis of any of the surfaces
> with any certainty. We can probably rule out anthropogenesis
> for the right side and backside, and can assume anthropogenesis
> for the "hammered" edge between the frontside and the left side,
> but that's about as far as we can go.
> And yes, the inscription is certainly anthropogenic, barring
> the appearance of irrefutable evidence of past visitations by
> intelligent enities of extraterrestrial origin.
>
> Sorry to go on at such length,
> Daryl Krupa

So what you are saying is that the extraterrestrial theory is no longer in
the running, but that the caveman/Ingerthingie is.
Oh well, i tried!

Z

Quantcast