Re: The Vinland Map's Ink

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 06:53:50 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:disb51dt7pb0iqt2sp0baivkthd608rv3h@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 19:47:15 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Philip Deitiker" <Nopdeitik@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns96317F5C4178prd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> In sci.archaeology, Tom McDonald created a message ID
>>>> news:hT95e.2060$mo2.1029@xxxxxxxx:
>>>>
>>>>> well as appearance. Don't let's get mired in the muck right
>>>> out
>>>>> of the gate.
>>>>
>>>> The worduse is wrong. replace "Muck" with "squink"
>>>>
>>>>>>>And, please...no more name-calling, gutter langauage, ad
>>>> hominem
>>>>>>>criticisms, or diversions from this point. Thanks, KEN
>>>>
>>>> In sci.archaeology? Please, can you ask crabs to fly. Maybe
>>>> 100 million years of evolution, but given the state of some of
>>>> the critters that crawl around here, it might take a little
>>>> bit longer.
>>>>
>>>> Here are some of the Modus Operandi of the Hyperdiffusionist.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Diversionary tactics and thread distruction.
>>>> 2. Ad Hominem attacks
>>>> 3. Name Calling (liabeling and defaming)
>>>> 4. Baiting and Running (Eluding to a reference and not
>>>> providing it)
>>>> 5. Title dropping (A famous professor freind of mine dropped
>>>> me an email at 3 A.M.)
>>>> And many more techniques.
>>>>
>>>> Propoganda in this newsgroup has elevated itself to an
>>>> artform. Its too bad that Xnews has not elevated itself to the
>>>> provision of a propoganda filter for its reader.
>>>>
>>>> Eric's specialty is the serpentine argument, also
>>>> confuscation of the facts, theories, hypotheses, alias
>>>> 'squink'. He selectively applies these to arguments which he
>>>> does not like. To give you at least some Idea, Eric beleives
>>>> the celts discovered the new world, and traveled as far as new
>>>> zealand, did circum polar navigations traveling to asia and
>>>> along the west coast of the america c.500 to 800. He does not
>>>> publically reveal these things anymore as it sort of ends the
>>>> argument.
>>>
>>>Now, now, Philip. Can't have you posting in that vein. Alaca will have
>>>to
>>>accuse you of sucking up to Dr. Towe.
>>>
>>>For those keeping score: So far Eric has responded twice to Dr. Towe
>>>without coming close to addressing his questions. He accepts that the
>>>anatase on the VM is authentic, but must await the results of Olin's
>>>latest
>>>attempt to obtain such anatase on a document by applying a specially
>>>formulated ink to parchment before being convinced that anatase which is
>>>only known as modern could have been produced in the 15th century.
>>>
>>
>> With respect to Ken Towe, I must introduce an ad hominem.
>>
>> Steve, you are a liar.
>>
>> You may also be thick, but you definitely are a liar.
>>
>> Prove me wrong by producing a quotation where I can clearly be seen to
>> be saying what you have just implied.
>
>There's no "quotation", only your exact words, and what they mean. Here's
>your entire post:
>
>===========================================================
>
>"On 7 Apr 2005 08:07:57 -0700, "Ken Towe" <ken.towe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>Should we not accept that the anatase is modern and go on from there?
>As far as I can see, Olin's thesis in this regard has been shown to be
>wrong.
>
>
>
>Eric Stevens
>
>==============================================
>
>You accept the anatase is modern, and then proceed to state that Olin's
>"thesis in this regard" needs to be proven wrong.

This is why I hate getting involved in discussions with you. You are
so prone to claiming that when I said 'white' I meant 'black' and then
arguing the matter to death.

If you read what I wrote you will find that I said that Olin's thesis
has aleady been shown to be wrong. How you can construe from that,
that I think it "needs to be proven wrong" is utterly beyond me. It's
been done already. If you don't believe me, ask Ken Towe.
>
>Now please explain how this comment by me: "He accepts that the anatase on
>the VM is authentic, but must await the results of Olin's latest attempt to
>obtain such anatase on a document by applying a specially formulated ink to
>parchment before being convinced that anatase which is only known as modern
>could have been produced in the 15th century."
>
>differs in any way from what you stated in the above post. You accept the
>anatase on the VM is authentic, that is modern, but you need Olin's
>hypothesis as to how something that is can only be produced in modern times
>could have been produced in the 15th century by producing a specially
>formulated ink (which is what Olin's hypothesis* requires) that was applied
>to parchment (which her hypothesis requires, to wit, the VM was drawn with
>that ink).
>
>I can't help it that you don't even understand the meaning of what you
>write, but when I call you on that meaning, your deficiency in understanding
>what you yourself wrote does not make me a liar.

I think you are confusing what I wrote about Enterline with my
response to Ken Towe (above).

It is possible to think along (evaluate) several lines at once without
ever accepting any of them as necessarily correct. You seem to be
treating what I have written as all part of the one long line - as
though I am pushing a particular argument to a preferred end. Well, I
can assure you that that is NOT what I am doing.

Line of argument 1.

... A then B then C then D then ... then Q..

Hey! It can't be Q. That line of argument is wrong.

Line of argument 2.

... A then B then C then D then ...

Along comes someone with evidence that shows that A cannot be.
Therefore that line of argument is wrong.

By working away on all the separate aspects one reduces the problem to
either that which is known or that which is not yet known. The various
lines of argument may be parallel or at cross purposes but it is a
mistake to cut and paste from one to another without making sure the
operation is valid. I think that you may have cut and pasted
inappropriately on this occasion

>
>*I leave it to you as a practice exercise in using Google to look up Olin's
>hypothesis, per Dr. Towe's post describing it, to confirm or rebut this
>statement.

I'm avoiding this kind of argument with you. It's utterly
unproductive.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: V.M. last word
    ... > Circa 1974 McCrone et all was engaged to do a study of the Vinland Map. ... > Anatase and it's polymorphs. ... > Towe says: ... > concentrated in the ink and not distributed over the parchment" Towe 2004 ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • V.M. last word
    ... Circa 1974 McCrone et all was engaged to do a study of the Vinland Map. ... Anatase and it's polymorphs. ... Towe says: ... concentrated in the ink and not distributed over the parchment" Towe 2004 ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... >>>kaolin clay sediment to explain the anatase in the underlying ink, ... >>>this natural anatase have not been able to do so. ... >>You accept the anatase is modern, and then proceed to state that Olin's ... The difference is, that when I make a mistake, I admit it. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Scholars and Theory of Science former Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... >>But I have found that Mr Towe himself is unwilling to see that he doesn't ... >>First Mr Towe, and others, said that anatase didn't exist before 1920. ... > anatase on the VM was an accidental by-product of ink manufacture. ... the scholar allowed to lack inter-rater reliability. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... does is establish that the anatase is modern. ... that the anatase is an original part of the ink. ... yellow ink. ... yellow ink UNDERLYING the black carbon ink as a "contamination"? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading