Re: The Vinland Map Find Or Fraud?
From: Seppo Renfors (Renfors_at_not.com.au)
Date: 03/11/05
- Next message: Franz Gnaedinger: "Re: hypothetical Yangshao calendar (early China)"
- Previous message: Seppo Renfors: "Re: The Vinland Map Find Or Fraud?"
- In reply to: David B: "Re: The Vinland Map Find Or Fraud?"
- Next in thread: I.E_Johansson: "Re: The Vinland Map Find Or Fraud?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:27:28 GMT
David B wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote in message <422FF5D7.A4F44C2@not.com.au>...
> >
> >ken.towe@alumni.duke.edu wrote:
>
> ...followed by reams of Seppoism, completely missing the point as usual.
....and total EVASION of the issues once more from you. Nor do I see
a response from Ken - is he too running away from the issues? But
then, perhaps HE is actually scratching his head and pondering about
the issues, and will respond before he ends up getting splinters under
his fingernails.
> As I explained a couple of days ago,
You mean the ABUSE you resorted to don't you, and the continuing
evasion of the issues I raise. I point out you found it necessary to
delete ALL of my text in order to resort to abuse as your opening
remarks.
There IS a consistency among the true believers, they ALL seem to
resort to abuse when their castles in the sky are shown to be a
mirage!
> the question of the VM anatase being
> possibly related to clay was raised in the aftermath of the original 1974
> McCrone report to Yale
So..... and that is relevant? What is relevant is it offers an
alternative possibility of how the TiO2 got into the ink!
> (if anybody's interested, the 1988 McCrone report in
> Analytical Chemistry is effectively an attempt to write a public version of
> the 1974 report, direct from the original notes, with new material about
> Cahill's findings added at the end- hence it contains certain details,
> including the reference to clay, which represent the state of knowledge in
> 1974, rather than 1988).
...and THAT is merely an off the cuff personal opinion of yours that
has nil analytical credibility.
> Once again: although the VM ink contains the elements which make up clay
> minerals,
...and clay.... why did you elect to NOT recall that one?
> examination of McCrone's diffraction images by a clay expert
But NOT examined further by McCrone apparently so there was nothing
much for that mystery "expert" to analyse. It was not of interest to
McCrone, because it can equally as well be modern as medieval. You are
resorting to that same bogus trick of conflating different points of
the map into one. I have noted this tendency of yours already.
> confirmed that the very distinctive molecular signature of clay minerals
> was absent- the silicon, aluminium etc. are present as components of
> completely non-clay-related molecules.
Really! Are you calling people like Hu and the McCrone as "liars" and
"frauds", are you? Let me refresh your memory:
"McCrone and McCrone (1974, Table I) provide detailed elemental
analyses of 16 titanium-bearing particles that they found ......
Thirteen of the 16 particles also contain perceptible aluminum, with a
median value of 1-2%, and every particle contains at least as much
silicon as aluminum. Silicon by itself could be silica, but aluminum
with silicon is consistent with kaolinite." - As per Huston
McCulloch Feb 2005.
The preliminary McCrone PLM examination of their ink samples found,
"low refractive index particles, probably ... minerals like quartz,
clays, feldspars, etc." - (McCrone 1988, p. 1011)
Funny that but it is attributed to the 1988 report you go on about, it
just happens to NAME "clay" as a component.
> This is the fundamental point that
> the clay theorists, particularly Hu McCulloch, have been trying to hide
> from all these years...
If this claim of yours was indeed as "strong" as you make out (and now
we know it is bogus) - then you would have run this as your first line
of defence - you haven't - therefor I doubt even you actually BELIEVE
it. Isn't it then pure desperation to even suggest that nonsense?
However THE most pertinent point once more, is the total EVASION and
refusal to actually deal with the issues identified once again. You
have nothing to prove the anatase was in fact from a manufactured
source as claimed. Not a shred of proof whatever - therefor the
claimed "date" (or "date range") for the so called "forgery" goes out
the window, as in fact does the whole claim of "forgery".
At the very, very best all you can do is say, "there is anatase in
SOME parts of the ink" - that's it. What you CANNOT say is that the
"source is manufactured", because you refuse to ever deal with that
issue. Should you deal with it, you then have to acknowledge that
anatase as found on the map CAN be found and DOES exist in nature.
THAT is the reason for your refusal to deal with the issue - it is
much simpler to just blindly assert unproved hypothesis as fact.
"The element titanium has been identified in a number of inks from
historical documents. However, no further analyses of these inks have
been carried out in order to determine in what molecular form the
titanium is present." - (Jacqueline Olin; Pre-Columbiana, Vol. 2,
No. 1, June 2000, pp. 27-36)
So TiO2 in genuine document inks is quite OK and not questioned at all
on many other documents. So what is it about THIS document that makes
the TiO2 so "controversial" suddenly?? Everything is kosher either
side of the map. Even the parchment for the map is genuine, but NOT
the map itself showing part of PRE-COLUMBIAN North America.....
apparently. That is where the shoe pinches, isn't it - the
"pre-Columbian North America" - had it been anywhere else in the
world, nobody would even have blinked an eye over the TiO2. Only this
artefact has trodden on forbidden ground and its credibility must be
destroyed!
Again there is an identifiable consistency of denial of anything that
includes "pre-Columbian" + "North America" in particular (with the
exception of LAM that is discounted to "a few years" at best or simply
ignored). The really pertinent point is that the FOCUS is solely on
painting pre-columbian artefacts to be "fakes". *IF* it was a fake the
questions on: How - doesn't matter. Who - doesn't matter. Why -
doesn't matter. The KEY point any historical researcher, including
archaeologist, wants to establish as facts. The ONLY thing that
matters is to destroy the artefact's credibility by whatever means. It
doesn't matter that it is not proven to BE a fake. Enough mud slinging
achieves the same end. It is NOT part of the academic field of
endeavour of establishing factual history.
Doesn't that strike as REALLY very, very odd indeed! It is to THIS
background you verbal gymnastics are seen.
The more convoluted your claims of "fake" become the LESS believable
they become. When NO alternative explanation, established via research
is provided or even attempted, then the focus is obviously on
destruction alone again - and it loses even more credibility.
-- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. -----------------------------------------------------------------
- Next message: Franz Gnaedinger: "Re: hypothetical Yangshao calendar (early China)"
- Previous message: Seppo Renfors: "Re: The Vinland Map Find Or Fraud?"
- In reply to: David B: "Re: The Vinland Map Find Or Fraud?"
- Next in thread: I.E_Johansson: "Re: The Vinland Map Find Or Fraud?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
