Re: The Vinland Map's Ink


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9n31511rt79ln3v44trco2cud1aah37ntt@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 18:05:12 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:pbi051psl664kkrgf3j2lr20fssm8b11pe@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 12:59:54 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Ken Towe" <ken.towe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:1112385625.726713.14570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Mr. Marcus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Back to square one, are we? The tape of the recent televised special
>>>>> on the VM clearly shows a person reininking over a previously drawn
>>>>> line. He, for it was a man, had absolutely no problem doing this, your
>>>>> experience as a draftsman notwithstanding."
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but we never saw the finished product did we? Given enough time
>>>>> and the extra care needed to re-ink a document the question of
>>>>> accuracy
>>>>> seems less of a problem. But, if the VM is genuine one needs to
>>>>> explain
>>>>> why any scribe would want to go to the significant trouble of
>>>>> re-tracing his steps over an entire document. Why should a scribe good
>>>>> enough to have been given the honor of drafting a world map have
>>>>> started with a weak non-iron-gall ink in the first place? And then
>>>>> having done so never noticed the difference until the ENTIRE project
>>>>> was completed...map and legends! Then, instead of pulling out a new
>>>>> piece of parchment and using a normal iron-gall ink to redo the thing,
>>>>> he chooses to spend the extra time and care to re-ink the whole map
>>>>> with another non-iron-gall material...a carbon-based ink. Parchment
>>>>> was
>>>>> not that expensive or difficult to obtain. That a medieval scribe did
>>>>> all that seems like a non-starter as an explanation. The explanation
>>>>> offered by McCrone seems much more plausible, especially if the forger
>>>>> had plenty of time to go over his first effort carefully. And, of
>>>>> course, a medieval scribe is not going to have access to
>>>>> commercial-grade anatase anyhow. Because there is no evidence (XRD,
>>>>> SAED, TEM) for any clay minerals associated with the anatase on the VM
>>>>> a natural clay source (where anatase is typically less than 3% of the
>>>>> whole) is out of the question. Paint chips falling off the ceiling or
>>>>> anatase bleeding off of a bleached coated paper must (a) stick only to
>>>>> the ink and not the parchment and (b) somehow wiggle under the black
>>>>> and come to rest on the yellow. Come on now!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Towe, I agree 100%. My posts in this thread (and on the endless
>>>>threads
>>>>on this topic that have appeared off and on in sci.arch over a period of
>>>>years) are intended to convey the position that while nothing is ever
>>>>100%
>>>>certain, the current state of the evidence (the ink evidence as well as
>>>>the
>>>>cartograhical and linguistics evidence), as well as logic, compels a
>>>>conclusion that the VM is a fake. I am glad that your post (and the
>>>>others
>>>>you've written in the last several weeks) clearly lays out the current
>>>>state
>>>>of the evidence and the conclusion compelled thereby because I have been
>>>>posting to that effect for quite a while (and providing links to
>>>>material
>>>>you've written on the topic), but your credentials in the field are, of
>>>>course, vastly superior to mine.
>>>>
>>>>You evidently didn't undestand my position from my last post, and I'll
>>>>assume the blame for that because you don't know the complete posting
>>>>history between Eric Stevens and me. In the face of the evidence that
>>>>the
>>>>VM appears to have been drawn by placing a black pigment containing
>>>>"ink"
>>>>over a yellowish "ink" of some sort in an attempt to simulate the
>>>>appearance
>>>>of a document drawn on parchment using iron gall ink several hundred
>>>>years
>>>>ago, Stevens took the position (not just recently, but quite a while
>>>>ago)
>>>>that it would be "impossible" for a forger to "trace over" the lower
>>>>line
>>>>as
>>>>accurately as it would appear to have been done on the VM. I laughed at
>>>>that statement then, and I laugh at it now.
>>>
>>> Steve Marcus appears to regard derision as a scientific argument.
>>
>>No. But before I can engage in "a scientific argument", I have to have
>>someone put forward "a scientic proposition." This, of course, you did
>>not
>>do. Moreover, you cannot deny that your position was in fact accurately
>>stated, and that it is in fact laughable.
>>
>>>
>>>>Ultimately it appeared that
>>>>Stevens had come off his position on the "impossibility" of reinking.
>>>
>>> I have never said it was impossible. I have quoted someone else who
>>> said it was impossible. I have *explained* why I think it would be
>>> very difficult to apply a second layer of ink indetectably.
>>
>>As usual, you are either an out-and-out liar, or you have a memory that is
>>extremely selective. Here is precisely what you wrote (nota bene: it's a
>>direct quotation of your position) regarding the lines on the Vinland Map
>>and not a quotation of someone else who said it):
>>
>>"Sidestep - sidestep. The question is not one of establishing identity but
>>of the difficulty of drawing a second set of lines of exactly the same
>>shape
>>as the first. _It is **humanly** impossible_." (Emphasis supplied.) Here
>>is the post that you wrote it in:
>
> Well Shyster, you now have the task of explaing how the use the term
> 'humanly' makes no modification to the sense of 'impossible'.

No, ***. You have the task of explaining how calling something done by
people (as per the context of your post) "impossible" differs in the calling
it "humanly impossible." You clearly stated that drawing a second set of
lines exactly the same shape as the first something that is impossible, and
the context of the discussion was in terms of drawing the second set of
lines over a first set of lines.

Proof of the above? From the post of yours that I linked:

""Another expert on the map, Thomas A. Cahill, a professor of atmospheric
science and physics at the University of
California at Davis, also has debunked Clark's idea of two inks.

It would be impossible for a forger, no matter how clever, to draw the
map in titanium-based ink and draw over those lines,
perfectly, in black ink, Cahill said.

"The wildly improbable double inking proposition should have died a
violent death 100 years ago," said Cahill."

Then the discussion devolved to duplication of signatures. And in the
context of that, and of Cahill's non-expert opinion on drawing over lines,
you wrote:

"Sidestep - sidestep. The question is not one of establishing identity but
of the difficulty of drawing a second set of lines of exactly the same shape
as the first. _It is humanly impossible_."

You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. It is not humanly impossible
for someone with sufficient talent who has honed the skill, and by that I
mean, it is not impossible for the person to do it without the aid of
mechanical devices. Neither is it impossible for someone to trace over a
previously drawn set of lines. I've in fact seen counterfeit currency drawn
by pen and ink. Look carefully at US paper currency sometime (I've no
experience with New Zealand currency), and then imagine someone skillful
enough to produce a counterfeit of the bill solely with pen and ink. Your
claim of impossibility was B.S. then, and it's B.S now. Your "evidence"
based upon your "observations" and your "experience" is totally
unpersuasive. As to what you can do, what is your native talent in the
area, and how long did you work to hone your skill?

>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/4erq8
>>
>>And yes, you quoted a source or two. However, as demonstrated by the
>>quoted
>>material, you then adopted what the source wrote as your own position. As
>>an aside, it is interesting that you have criticized Brown/Clark and
>>McCrone
>>as not being experts vis-a-vis medieval ink, and therefore being
>>ill-equipped to offer the double-inking explanation for the lines they
>>observed on the Vinland Map, but one of your sources for the position you
>>adopted was Thomas A Cahill, a professor of science and physics. The last
>>time that I checked, Prof. Cahill did not purport to be an expert on
>>medieval ink or draftsmanship.
>
> Quite rightly too. But one does not have to be able to lay an egg to
> be qualified to know that person offering you one does not know how to
> lay one either.

As usual, you demonstrate an inability to read for content. My point wasn't
whether Cahill was capable of offering an opinion. My point was that you
criticized Brown/Clark (and by inference McCrone) for offering an opinion
that the lines on the VM appear to have been drawn separately and
superimposed over one another. Your criticism was on the basis of these
people not being experts in medieval inks. But you had no trouble, and
apparently still have no trouble, in offering up the opinion of another
non-expert in medieval inks, just so long as that non-expert's opinion
supports your preconceived notion.

>>
>>>
>>>>Stevens has now gone back somewhat to his original "impossible" position
>>>>by
>>>>askng whether it would be possible to do the reinking "indetectably."
>>>>My
>>>>post referred to that history; hence the "full circle" comment. I was
>>>>trying to make the point that it was not impossible that a *forger*
>>>>could
>>>>have done the VM by "tracing over" or "reinking" an underlaying
>>>>yellowish
>>>>binder layer with a black pigment containing upper layer. I've posted
>>>>quite
>>>>often that if "reinking" was the method used by the *forger*, it was in
>>>>fact
>>>>done in a way that apparently *was* very difficult to detect circa 1956,
>>>>and
>>>>which was more easily detected in the 70's when McCrone applied the
>>>>right
>>>>technology.
>>>
>>> I've never seen any work by McCrone which leads directly to the
>>> conclusion that the map was reinked. Marcus has several times made
>>> this claim but never given a link or reference to the relevant work by
>>> McCrone, even when asked.
>>
>>As usual, you don't read what others post, and you certainly don't bother
>>to
>>do any research in primary sources. I have repeated linked this
>>reference:
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/66gwj
>>
>>and here is the relevant quotation from it:
>>
>>"As a possible explanation for the microscopic characteristics of the
>>Vinland Map ink lines, McCrone Associates3-5 offered the suggestion that a
>>forger very skillfully applied a double application of ink, carefully
>>putting down a black line over the top of an earlier applied
>>brownish-yellow
>>line."
>
> Shyster again. This statement does not lead directly to the
> "conclusion that the map was reinked",. McCrone merely offered it as a
> hypothesis.

Idiot. The statement is a conclusion based upon his observation. Exactly
as Cahill's statement, quoted above from a post of yours that relied upon
it, was a conclusion based upon Cahill's observations. Both conclusions
were offered as working hypotheses. That you fail to understand that
indicates that you know even less about the scientific method than I've
given you credit for knowing, and frankly, that wasn't very much.

>>
>>I've left the superscript footnotes intact to illustrate that by 1990 (the
>>date of the linked article by Dr. Towe), McCrone published no less than
>>three papers which lead him to the above hypothesis (yes, a hypothesis,
>>not
>>a 100% irrebutable position, ...
>
> So, now you are relucatntly confirming what I wrote. But still you
> want to argue that the case is somewhat different.

Nothing reluctant about it, moron. I directly linked Dr. Towe's article
(and other like articles) a large number of times (no, I'm not going to
Google to count them up; that's something that you, on a good day, might be
capable of doing accurately). Each time the article contained what it
contained, footnotes inserted by Dr. Towe to support what he was writing.
Anyone going to the link and actually reading it would have found the
footnotes.

As to confirming what you wrote, you again demonstrate that very much like
Inger Johansson, you don't know science from applesauce. McCrone's
conclusion was that the black line had been traced over the yellow line.
That conclusion was arrived at directly from his observations. And the
conclusion, like all conclusions arrived at from observed dated, was nothing
more or less than a working hypothesis.

Bonus ifnormation for you, you might learn something: Once the working
hypothesis is tested over time, and proves capable of explaining additional
observed data over time, and is not contradicted by observed data, the
hypothesis becomes a theory. And no, a theory is no inviolate. It often
requires modification based upon new data. And sometimes it is so
contradicted by new data that it must be discarded.

Currently, one hypothesis that addresses the data observed by scientists who
have brought the right equipment to bear on the problem is that the Vinland
Map was created by someone who applied a yellowish layer of "ink" to
parchment, and drew the map lines, then inked over the yellowish layer with
a black carbon containing pigment. The explanation fits the observed data
and is not contradicted by any data. The yellowish line contains anatase
unavailable circa 1440, demonstrating that to the extent that the map is
purported to be a 13th century artifact, it is a fake. Note should be taken
that the reinking hypothesis is not necessary to the conclusion that the map
is a fake, but it does explain the data, which includes the fact that
actually documents drawn in the 13th century would appear to have a line
that is black but overlies a yellowish-brownish line that has resulted from
iron gall ink "burning into" the parchment.

>
>> ... and clearly the hypothesis stems directly from
>>his observations). Are you seriously alleging that McCrone didn't have
>>data
>>that led him to offer up the above hypothesis, or that the hypothesis
>>doesn't follow directly from such data??
>
> Yes.

Well, you truly are an idiot. You clearly don't understand the concept of a
hypothesis.

>
>>Since you apparently never read
>>McCrone's papers, I guess that you can say with a straight face that
>>you've
>>"never seen any work by McCrone which leads directly to the conclusion
>>that
>>the Vinland Map was reinked", but McCrone's position, as it appears in Dr.
>>Towe's paper, was clearly linked by me at least a dozen times over the
>>years.
>>
>>>>
>>>>I have posted several times in this thread to the effect that it is
>>>>nonsensical (or at least illogical and in contradiction to Occam) to
>>>>assume
>>>>that a scribe who wanted to draw the VM circa 1440 would have either
>>>>intentionally omitted the iron component from an iron gall ink, or would
>>>>have continued to draw the entire VM using a "spoiled" or "defective"
>>>>ink
>>>>once he or she had discovered that the ink being used was "defective."
>>>>I'm
>>>>glad that you agree.
>>>
>>> Careful analysis of what Ken Towe has written will not show that he he
>>> exactly agrees with your statement above.
>>
>>He agrees well enough, I think.
>
> More Shyster. Three times is more than enough. 'Well enough' does not
> establish 'exactly'. Now you don't want to discuss the actual VM but
> instead play your usual game of debating tricks and twisting words and
> arguments.

Exactly is the weasel word *you* used. Careful analysis (of which you
incapable; generation of squink is your specially and does not represent
careful analysis) shows that his comments agree indicate agreement with my
position regarding the illogic of a scribe doing what Enterline wrote, and
with which you promptly expressed agreement.

Sadly, interested parties will have to dredge up my post (the post to which
you replied), because Stevens, as is usual with him, has snipped the
portions of my post showing my comments and quoting Dr. Towe's agreement
with them. Even more sadly, Stevens did the editing without indication that
he did so.

>
> I'm not going to play. You are back on ignore.

Undoubtedly there's as much truth in that as your previously posted comment
that you would not be posting again in this thread. I count at two such
posts by you (not including the one I'm replying to) since you said you
wouldn't be posting in this thread again.

>
> --- unpleasantness snipped unread ----
>
>
>
> 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


.