Re: The Vinland Map's Ink

Thank you, Tom. I'm still reading alot of bobbing-and-weaving and some
incredibly misinformed "arguments" and assertions, but no answer to my
request. If the VM is authentic there must be some rational explanation
for it. Those who support that point of view are free to use whatever
sources of information that they feel are valid to explain the
APPEARANCE and the COMPOSITION of the ink, but so far, I've not seen a
coherent scenario presented that does this. I've seen a blizzard of
criticisms of those who question the map, their motives, their studies,
but no logical, coherent alternative scenario. Bear in mind, of course,
that whatever alternative explanation is offered will, itself, be "fair
game" and will be subject to scrutiny in the same way as the works of
McCrone or Cahill or others who have actually seen the map and
published on it. Alternatives will not be immune from questions of
their own. For example, if one wishes to use a 1-3% material from a
kaolin clay sediment to explain the anatase in the underlying ink,
that's fair. However, it will be equally fair for others to ask how
this anatase can be completely freed from the kaolinite (97-99%) in the
TEM photos of McCrone and in the X-ray diffraction patterns of McCrone.
The clay mineralogists (e.g., Weaver) who have attempted to isolate
this natural anatase have not been able to do so. They can, of course,
upgrade it, but even their best attempts (using multiple techniques and
methods that were not available in medieval times) will still have
kaolinite flakes attached. These are seen in their electron microscope
photos. They are NOT seen in McCrone's. They are not seen in the XRD or
SAED patterns of McCrone. How, then, does one expect to find the
anatase "needles" in the kaolin haystack without finding any of the
kaolinite "hay" next to it? Again, where are the rationale
explanations? Go ahead...use any "evidence" that you find to be valid,
but don't expect it to be accepted free of critical evaluation. Perhaps
that's the reason why nothing has been offered? It's much easier to sit
back and throw verbal bricks than it is to offer a logical, internally
consistent explanation for authenticity.

.