Re: The Vinland Map's Ink



Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 03:12:43 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:03:38 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:10:53 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 07:04:24 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> McCrone's discovery of anatase in the ink of the Vinland Map appears
> >> >> >> >> to provide an almost insurmountable hurdle for those who argue for the
> >> >> >> >> map's authenticity.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --- snip ----
> >> >> >
> >> >> >[restore text]
> >> >> >That statement is seriously faulty. It is no such thing - UNLESS inks
> >> >> >on a raft of other medieval documents from the same era are tested as
> >> >> >exhaustively as the VM has been. Till then, all we can say is anatase
> >> >> >is not unknown in the ink of other documents. There are no exhaustive
> >> >> >studies to compare it with to make the claims you have made.
> >> >> >[end restore]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That still remains true - you removing it doesn't alter that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Where we are still woefully lacking in knowledge is the true nature of
> >> >> >> >> the VM map's ink. As far as I know we do not really have much idea of
> >> >> >> >> its composition or whether or not Enterline's suggestion that the
> >> >> >> >> binder of the ink may be alkali-soluble is correct. Until we can
> >> >> >> >> answer at least this question, it seems to me that Enterline's
> >> >> >> >> hypothesis must remain open as a viable explanation for the presence
> >> >> >> >> of anatase in the Vinland Map.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >As potentially plausible as this seems to be there is one glaring
> >> >> >> >error in this theory - the variable quantity of the anatase on the
> >> >> >> >map. If the theory was the case, a far less variance of anatase qty
> >> >> >> >found would be expected. The whole theory also hinges on "if"
> >> >> >> >statement(s). Nor does the theory reason why the anatase would NOT
> >> >> >> >attach onto the bare parchment - a critical point to the theory.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Dear Seppo,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You say "a far less variance of the anatase qty would be expected".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I can only ask you, what is the variance of the found anatase, how do
> >> >> >> you know, and what is the basis for you claiming that far less
> >> >> >> variance would be expected?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If you think about the proposition put -the "if" situation. It
> >> >> >required the paper filler's bonding material to become dissolved, as
> >> >> >the article stated: "The coating or filler was held to the tissue by a
> >> >> >binder of starch or casein. These are poorly soluble in water but are
> >> >> >readily alkali-soluble." Meaning that the washing solution moves the
> >> >> >bonding agents from the paper onto the parchment with the fillers.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You realise that "blotting paper" cannot be used to remove excess
> >> >> >washing liquids, as it would also remove the inks ("the ink may be
> >> >> >alkali-soluble"), in that "if" scenario - therefor it required air
> >> >> >drying.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The assumption is that the anatase came from these fillers - BUT it is
> >> >> >not believable that so minute particles as the anatase were all chased
> >> >> >onto the ink lines with a brush, without some being attached to the
> >> >> >blank areas of the parchment via the drying bonding material ("starch
> >> >> >or casein") used on the paper. That is to say it should be found in
> >> >> >larger qty's elsewhere on the parchment other than in the "yellow
> >> >> >lines". It isn't.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A comparison would be you attempting to blindly "sweep" very fine
> >> >> >perfectly dry sand on a glass pane with a coarse wire brush (without
> >> >> >scratching the glass) and expect to move all the sand onto specific
> >> >> >areas!
> >> >>
> >> >> You have very conspicuously failed to answer my question.
> >> >
> >> >Well, I suggest you read it again - more slowly this time.
> >>
> >> You originally made claims about variance. I asked you about variance.
> >> Neither the word 'variance' or a related term appeared anywhere in
> >> your reply.
> >
> >Indeed not, as you are as much aware of it as I am. Therefor it was
> >seen as a rhetorical question of no real value. It refers to the
> >difference in the qty of TiO2 found on the parchment (no text areas)
> >as compared to that in the so called "yellow ink". I responded to the
> >one question of value: "what is the basis for you claiming that far
> >less variance would be expected?".
>
> A simple question and I get a complex answer. Why do you make it so
> hard to discuss things with you?

??? Sorry Eric, I though you were capable of grasping concepts
involving a cause and effect.

> What it really means is that you cannot really deal with questions
> with a potentially numerical base. I should not be surprised.

No, "what it really means is that you cannot really deal with" the
answers, them being too complex for you, as you said. The reason that
appears so to you is you being hung up on that one single word
"variance".

The issue that surfaced from the article you quoted was, "why isn't
there more TiO2 present in other parts of the document" - I gave you
the reasoning behind WHY one should expect there to BE more IF that
methodology had been used to clean the parchment. The very point of my
post.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.

Loading