Re: The Vinland Map's Ink

Sorry I sent my answer before I written any comment. Below please find my
comment./IEJ

<nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:q3f6719lbmphf5rqgvvndt2rc3vhr1vqbc@xxxxxxxxxx
> Apparently on date Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:00:44 +1200, Eric Stevens
> <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> said:
>
> >On 29 Apr 2005 18:14:45 -0700, "Ken Towe" <ken.towe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Mr. Stevens:
> >>
> >>I'm truly sorry that you have concluded that I have resorted to ad
> >>hominems. I hope I have not. If you will reread what I wrote you will
> >>see that I asked you a question...essentially wouldn't one be justified
> >>in drawing such a conclusion from your reluctance to provide answers
> >>one way or the other.
> >
> >I did not appreciate you referring to me as a 'gad fly'. I
> >particularly did not appreciate it when the only reason I keep
> >responding in this thread is that you pose me yet another question.
>
> No, Ken's "gad fly" is probably an accurate description of your approach
in
> this debate. "Persistent, irritating critic" sums it up very nicely.
>
> You contribute no information to the debate but want to speak for the
group in
> rejecting any evidence that weakens the case for the VM to be authentic.
What's
> most irritating about your approach is that you reject the case on the
strength
> that it isn't absolute proof of the matter - which is inevitably true of
all
> archaeological evidence ever dug up throughout the world. No matter what
the
> quality of the evidence, it's always "not proven" in the Steven's
Courtroom.
>
> But when Inger produces some incoherent babble that she claims proves
there can
> be no more doubts, now or ever, in the authenticity of the VM, where is
the
> stern test of unquestionable evidence? Strangely absent.

Sorry but that's not what I claim. I claim two things, the first I have sent
you information and ref to many times over by now and I will return to it in
Greenland, Vinland and Vinland map part 5 - the article as soon as the
present discussion has finished, the second I claim from logic grounds:
1. There was a very good reason why a map containing exact what's on VM was
drawn in 1430's from the map which in discussions been called Nicholas of
Thingeyre's map. The later and the former were kept together in Villa Medici
in 1939 and the history behind them are well known.

2. None of the so called evidence against VM has the validity to be called
proof.

That's said I like to add that I am personally not sure that all texts on VM
were written when it was drawn.
Nor am I sure that the 1430's map and VM are one and the same - but I am
100% sure that all the so called evidence presented against it aren't able
to be used as proof one way or an other.

Inger E


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Piri Reis Map details support 2350 BC to 1500BC Ice Age
    ... it's an inference drawn from rather dubious evidence. ... of the Piri Re'is Map reveals that those that drew the Piri Re'is Map ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Alaska on Ancient maps
    ... > Mercator/Janssonius 1648 map. ... You have no evidence of that, Inger. ... from someone having recognized credentials and in doing so, and in doing so, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Turn of the 20th century documents on Vinland - Shipley, Fischer & Jelic
    ... >> Doug, ... >> anyone else subjective view of the scholar, ... > I don't believe it until I see evidence. ... > Maps, Myths, and Men: The Story of the Vinland Map ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Has he published it yet?
    ... but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. ... Ray? ... Your insult indicates rage caused by the evidence and your inability ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Has he published it yet?
    ... map is endorsed by many credentialed persons including Einstein. ... fallacy of appeal to authority and it is a blatantly example of quote ... is based on an abundance of empirical evidence that you ...
    (talk.origins)