Re: Vineland
From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 02/18/05
- Next message: mikelist: "Re: *Boycott* liberals!"
- Previous message: Steve Marcus: "Re: Vineland"
- In reply to: Eric Stevens: "Re: Vineland"
- Next in thread: Eric Stevens: "Re: Vineland"
- Reply: Eric Stevens: "Re: Vineland"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:44:47 -0500
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5tra11plhrkn2kuhqu6mkdjm5s9nq183qj@4ax.com...
> On 18 Feb 2005 03:23:00 GMT, Philip Deitiker <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I don't know that the parchment is 17th century.
>
> I understand that it is generally accepted that the parchment comes
> from this period.
>
>>It doesn't
>>seem to me conclusive. Troubling with this document is the
>>nature of the Ink and differences in the inks used in the
>>document.
>>
>>> I would quibble with the word "necessry", saying instead
>>that the the
>>> failure to provide provenance should alert the interested
>>purchaser to an
>>> increased possibility that the document *may not* be
>>authentic. Nota bene
>>> the qualifier "may not."
>>
>>Right, may not, but you are not a buyer, you are looking at
>>this from a scientific point of view, should it be added to
>>the knowledge database or rejected.
>>
>>> Agreed, but that wasn't the burden of Seppo's original post,
>>or my reply
>>> thereto, or Eric's reply to my reply.
>>
>>It doesn't matter what the burden of Seppo's post was, the
>>reality is that there are independent factors that create
>>reasoning for not entertaining this map as of scientific
>>value.
>>
>>> No. At least I'm not. I'm participating in this branch of
>>the thread
>>> because of Seppo's obviously erroneous post, and Eric's
>>equally obvious
>>> attempt to cloud the issue regarding the meaning of the
>>anatase crystals
>>> that are present, solely in the yellow lines, on the VM.
>>
>>I don't think this time he is clouding it, and in any case I
>>am unclouding the issue by arguing that the map lacks proper
>>historical documentation to take seriously. In any case there
>>are scenarios in which it was forged, and that is a great
>>matter for a historical group to discuss, but this is
>>archaeology and the map pertains to settlement, and in this
>>regard it becomes a bit impertinent.
>>
>>>> So we can heed Eric's
>>>> point for the moment,
>>>
>>> I think not, since Eric's point was that saying that the ink
>>hasn't been
>>> dated is an absurd statement. It certainly has been dated
>>in the sense that
>>> many archaeological/anthropological artifacts have been
>>dated.(See * below)
>>> Specifically, it was dated to a range: not older than the
>>20th century. As
>>> per info provided by Doug McDonald, I'll generously claim
>>the range to be
>>> not older than the 17th century.
>>
>>I don't disagree with that but the papers I read did not set
>>an exact date,
>
> That was the point made by Seppo.
But since setting an exact date is something that quite often isn't done
when dating an artifact (dating is often given as a range of dates), and is
wholly irrelevant to the present scientific evidence quite clearly
demonstrating that the VM is a fake, what precisely was the value or purpose
of Seppo's point other than to mislead?? For that matter, what was the
value or purpose of your defense of Seppo's point, other than to mislead??
>
>
> --- snip ---
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve
-- The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
- Next message: mikelist: "Re: *Boycott* liberals!"
- Previous message: Steve Marcus: "Re: Vineland"
- In reply to: Eric Stevens: "Re: Vineland"
- Next in thread: Eric Stevens: "Re: Vineland"
- Reply: Eric Stevens: "Re: Vineland"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
