Re: The Vinland Map's Ink

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:07:00 GMT, "David B" <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote in message
><40k061psmq73b6j6lu08ogmuhmqccu0fd6@xxxxxxx>...
>>
>>On 15 Apr 2005 13:19:00 -0700, "Ken Towe" <ken.towe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>It wasn't that it was thought that he had made a mistake but that
>>there were practical limits to what he could achieve with optical
>>microscopy.
>
>Ermmm, Eric-
>Ken is the actual person who was initially called upon to check whether the
>McCrone team could possibly have made significant mistakes...
>

OK. Let me rephrase that. There were criticisms of what and how
McCrone chose to examine. There were aspects of the VM which McCrone
did not examine. AFAIK there were no faults in his actual observations
which could be classed as errors. There were criticisms of some of the
conclusions he drew from his observations. But all of these criticisms
can be directed at evereyone who has examined the VM.

In any case, I am not aware the McCrone's work was significantly
criticised by those who examined it.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >>There was a feeling ... McCrone team could possibly have made significant mistakes... ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... >David is right! ... >that McCrone may have made some mistakes and that was ... >pairs had Ti on the parchment above the minimum detectable limit. ...
    (sci.archaeology)