Re: The Vinland Map's Ink



Ken Towe wrote:
>
> David wrote:
>
> "I took that to mean that McCrone's evidence was suspect :-) "
>
> David is right! That's the correct interpretation. There was a feeling
> that McCrone may have made some mistakes (which he did) and that was
> part of the reason that Cahill et al. were retained by Yale to
> reevaluate the Map using a different approach. They could have shown
> that McCrone was wrong but, in fact, they provided him support even,
> though they got the quantitative aspects of their analysis wrong.

How do you know WHO got what wrong - isn't it true that you are
seriously BIASED in favour of a fake - no matter what it takes?

You sure mess up the language so that it is difficult to tell from
your text what you intend. It looks like "they" refers to "Cahill et
al." only it isn't consistent with the statement "They could have
shown that McCrone was wrong" - therefor presumably the "was wrong"
refers to the "quantitative aspects" McCrone had produced - and indeed
that would be consistent with the later findings.

> They
> found Ti as the most common element in the ink (of the elements above
> sodium) and also that it was consistently present in higher amounts in
> the ink than on the parchment.

This is what makes your claims so bloody untrustworthy and downright
untruthful. In an earlier post you state:

<1113527408.289851.191600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"..McCrone's observation of anatase (TiO2) in the ink of the Vinland
Map, but not on the parchment, ....." - a deliberately misleading
statement. Here in this post you acknowledge that TiO2 was indeed
found on the parchment itself - something you denied elsewhere.

> In fact, only 5 of 33 ink-parchment
> pairs had Ti on the parchment above the minimum detectable limit. If
> there is any anatase on the parchment it is trivial compared with that
> in the ink.

IF you are going to rely on Cahill for the quantum on one part, then
you have to rely on it for the quantum in the ink too (trace amounts)
- else you confuse the teapot with the chamberpot again.

Lets face it, Cahill COULD find TiO2 on the parchment, McCrone could
not - therefor Chaill's study is more reliable on the score of
exitence/quantum of TiO2 than McCrone's.

> Brown & Clark subsequently reconfirmed this observation.

That paper isn't even suited for toilet paper - but then, you do talk
a lot of ***....

> It
> is difficult to see how this anatase with a modern appearance (free of
> clay minerals) and present in the yellow organic binder UNDERLYING the
> black carbon component, could have been added later, even if such a
> bizarre and atypical combination had been a medieval concoction.

Well now this is interesting - DID McCrone remove carbon, test that
for TiO2 and on the SAME PLACE the carbon was removed also test the
"yellow line" for existence of TiO2 - and found it there?

IS it not true that the there is nothing that says the "yellow line"
was "underlying" anything when the TiO2 potentially came to be on the
map? That there is NO PROOF you can point to, to say, it MUST have
crept UNDER an existing carbon layer if it came to be on the map after
it was made.

Further more, are you not advocating the impossible to achieve "double
inking" garbage again, with your statement?

--
Petty Criminal Stalkers need not reply
http://tinyurl.com/d2h2u
.

Loading