Re: The Vinland Map's Ink

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:57:56 GMT, "David B" <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
>>
>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 22:09:25 -0500, Tom McDonald
>><tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> We have come a long way toward describing 'the process followed
>>>to produce it' wrt the GP, taking all of its properties into
>>>account.
>>
>>All of which is true but we are still far from being able to describe
>>the process followed to produce it.
>
>Not necessarily. A variety of plausible scenarios have been developed
>within the limits of what was possible with known ancient Egyptian
>technology, and the limits of what we can know without dismantling the
>pyramid. One of them (or quite probably a combination of elements from
>several) may be pretty much correct. With the VM, there are no plausible
>mid-15th-century scenarios at all.
>
>

With respect David, a plausible scenario is not necessarily the same
as knowing the process followed to produce it (whatever 'it' may be).
If there are several plausible scenarios then, at the most, only one
is correct, but how do you know which one? If you, so far, have only
the one plausible scenario, how do you know that there are not others
and that the one you have is wrong?

I think the test of knowing "the process followed to produce it" is
neither necessary nor sufficient to establish authenticity.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... Eric Stevens wrote in message ... ... >>to produce it' wrt the GP, taking all of its properties into ... A variety of plausible scenarios have been developed ... and the limits of what we can know without dismantling the ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >>A variety of plausible scenarios have been developed ... and the limits of what we can know without dismantling the ... >With respect David, a plausible scenario is not necessarily the same ...
    (sci.archaeology)