Re: The Vinland Map's Ink

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 10:06:43 GMT, "David B" <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote in message
><5oog51lt02l5q2jb759raf5s5cfnafpu7j@xxxxxxx>...
>>
>>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:57:56 GMT, "David B" <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>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).
>
>True, but I must remind you of the question Ken posed:

>>>>If the map is really medieval, what is a PLAUSIBLE explanation
>>>>for the appearance AND composition of the inks that is consistent
>>>>with the age of the parchment? Can Mr. Stevens, Mr. Renfors or
>>>>Ms. Johansson answer this question without digressing onto other
>>>>topics or making further ad hominem comments?
>

Your reminder is misplaced. First, I was responding directly to you. I
used the term 'plausible scenario' as this was the term used by you in
the article to which I was responding.

Second, we started heading down this particular branch of the
discussion when Thomas Zahr wrote:

"If the map is authentic, it must be possible to describe the
process followed to produce it, taking all it's properties
into account."

In Message-ID: <1112967497.241957.62820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Ken Towe immediately picked it up and wrote:

"Now it is up to those who believe in this map to provide a simple
but internally consistent scenario. The fact that this has not been
done speaks volumes. One must suspect that they don't really have
any idea how to explain it so that it will make sense. Isolated
(and unreferenced) comments about sand, carbon, etc. are not a
scenario. Diversion to another topic is not an explanation.
Continued criticism of previous work or workers is not an
explanation.

"If the map is authentic, it must be possible to describe
the process followed to produce it, taking all it's properties
into account."

How about it?"

It seemed to me that the fundamental premise is flawed, which is why I
raised the question about the pyramids. It is neither necessary nor
sufficient to be able to describe the process by means of which an
object was produced when deciding whether or not that object is
genuine. There is the added handicap that in the case of the VM there
is so much that we do not know about it's nature that much of what we
might conclude about the process can only be speculation.



Eric Stevens

.