Whether or not weathered.?

From: Martin Reboul (martin.reboul_at_SPAMFUKvirgin.net)
Date: 09/29/04 

Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:26:45 GMT

Whether or not weathered.?

Okay, we've gone through this subject in minute detail now, and I remain of the
same opinion - there is no possible way to date the inscription on the KRS
reliably or accurately, by any method or technique known at this time.

Why not? Simple answer - there are too many variables.

If the KRS had been carved by roving vikings in the C14, we do not know if it
had been under trees (what type, and if so, for how long), what weather
conditions it had been subjected to, how long it had been underground (as it
must have been for at least a short while), what way it faced originally, if it
moved or was moved. all these things would greatly affect the rate of erosion of
the surface.

If the KRS is a hoax, and had been artificially aged by some means in the late
1800's to make it look old, we can only guess at what might have been done to
it, and whether such techniques could be detected today. As far as we know, no
experiments have been done to investigate this to date.

The KRS is made of greywacke stone, which is notoriously difficult to predict
erosion, decay rate and the effects of weathering upon - whether natural or
accelerated (i.e., artificial). There is a mass of tiresome information
reguarding this subject on the web and in libraries, it is a geologists'
nightmare.

Finally, since its' discovery, the KRS has been subject to harsh and vigorous
cleaning and abuse, using corrosive and invasive chemicals, some documented,
some not. These alone make any estimate of the age of the inscription based upon
the condition of the surface impossible to predict with any accuracy.

I rest my case, and suggest we close this subject. This 'evidence' is null and
void - no satisfactory judgement can be made about the age of the carving from
such analysis.

Cheers

Martin