Re: The Vinland Map's Ink

Seppo Renfors wrote: 

Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

David B wrote:


Eric Stevens wrote in message ...


none of the unbelievers "can come up with even a primitive
start-to-finish model of what happened" either.


Rubbish.
I presented a primitive start-to-finish model in 2003;
but if you insist, here's a new version:

1) A smart prankster, having seen news items about the wondrous new
carbon-14 dating technique, decides to put it to the test




Well, well.... here we see the incredible lengths the True Believers
go to, to claim a "fake". This time Dave would have the forgery made
AFTER the map had been discovered!!


       Look up the history of 14C dating. Then look at the first date
that the VM is known to have existed. Do the math. Then apologize
to David.



For what exactly - for him being incredibly silly, or for your
nonsensical comments? That is up to you and him!

Are you suggesting it was either Hill, Ruben or Kamen who did the
forgery? They discovered the various C* carbons in the early 1940's.
However further study by Schultz and Watson on C14 suggested its half
life was 100 years or shorter! - therefor it doesn't even fit the
bill. Even more noteworthy is that a "dating technique" as David
claimed, didn't even exist back then. 

Libby (in USA) developed a method of C14 dating using a Geiger counter
in 1947. Yeah right..... fat lot of good that would have been on ink!
Not that it would have made the news (specially in Europe) being soon
after the war. That is to say there was no "common knowledge" among
the people at that time - not even in the academia. That came much
later! Further more it required the AMS to be invented before
something like the ink COULD be tested (but is a destructive test). It
can test samples as small as about one milligram of carbon.

However I do take your point that -*IF* it is a forgery, it is highly
probably that ACADEMICS did in fact engage in the forgery (as some
definitely do even today), specially judging by the claimed
"academics" on this group - to whom "whatever it takes" seems to be
the motto!!

Of course if you claim that, you also have to NAME them! So lets hear
it Tom, who was it, hmmm? Of course you can also point to those "news
items" David claims "the prankster" saw, right! Or is it not necessary
to verify claims made as long as they are made by True Believers and
upholders of that pre-Columbian brick wall, eh?!?


Seppo,

	Beautiful squink. Absolute failure to answer my questions.

Try again. As a hint, 14C was introduced as a useful technique (some years after it began to be discussed as a possible dating technique) in the early 1950's. Very early. Now when was the VM first *known* to have surfaced? Is that date after, say, 1952?

	After you answer my questions, you should apologize to David.

--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
.