Re: More anatase myth killing. Re: More anatase
- From: Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 08:01:01 GMT
Ken Towe wrote:
>
> It is very obvious from many posts that the mere presence of anatase in
> some natural material is all that a small minority of people needs to
> confirm in their own minds that the Vinland Map is authentic.
Well well, now that is interesting. After all the "defence" by some
True Believers is it does NOT exist in nature. But be that as it may.
*IF* the mere existence is NOT enough to prove (whatever) - then Ken
CANNOT claim anatase in the ink = "modern manufactured" solely for the
reason "it existed" somewhere at some time. Ken is running the
IDENTICAL argument to claim "fake" on - no difference whatever.
> No
> further evidence, no further description, nothing else at all is needed
> by these people.
Indeed the True Believers do indeed need no facts or proof - reality
plays a vanishingly small part in their conspiracy theories.
> They continue to miss the point entirely! They
> continue to ignore the fact that all of these natural occurrences are
> mixed with other minerals, and except for clays and soils, most of
> these occurrences would be seen (if they studied them or read more
> about them) to contain anatase with morphologies, particle sizes, and
> particle size distributions different from and in excess of what is
> seen in the VM ink.
About 1/2 of the above has been made bogus by Ken himself in an
admission that anatase LIKE that on the map DOES exist in nature.
Again the very same argument can be turned against Ken himself. Why
does he NOT recognise the established existence of minerals associated
WITH anatase in the ink - and more importantly WHY are expected
minerals totally MISSING, *IF* the claim of "manufactured anatase" was
indeed correct?
Here we see a total failure by Ken to address these very real issues.
> This major difference in anatase particle size and
> size distribution rules them out instantly!
....and this is now contradicting himself where he has stated:
"anatase similar to that seen in commercial products can also be found
in natural sediments..." - Ken Towe.
So, then the question becomes WHICH statement is the LIE - one of them
has to be. Considering the PAIN he went through to actually finally
admit the existence of it in nature, then that has to be taken as the
TRUE statement.
So what else can be derived from this statement of his? That Ken is
not overly fussed about the truthfulness of his statements.
> That leaves us with the
> quantitatively trivial anatase found in clays and soils, most notably
> kaolins. The problem here, of course, is that the anatase seen on the
> map does not have any clay minerals associated with it nor even the
> chemicals needed (Al, Si) in the amounts necessary.
First of all the above is predicated on VERY selective
"interpretation". The term "trivial" is his own invention and one he
has been unable to back up as the generality he poses it as. The Al
has indeed been found, cannot recall the Si at the moment, but NEITHER
are the issue. The real issue is this portion of the claim:
"in the amounts necessary" - which means Ken himself accepts SOME Si
and Al has indeed been found - else he would have not said what he
did. Even that isn't the point - the point is WHAT does Ken base the
claim "in the amounts necessary" on?
It isn't hard to figure out. He relies in erroneous quantity estimates
by McCrone of the anatase found. McCrone believes (as Ken reiterates)
in the two line myth. McCrone believes ALL the yellow line is anatase
- this is not true.
Cahill's study, a later, more accurate study quantified the TiO2 as
"trace amounts" only. Therefor, the admitted by Ken, amounts of Al and
Si are sufficient to indicate kaolinite when related to Cahill's study
- only it doesn't suit Ken's agenda!
So it is by this selective use of evidence Ken is able to make the
bogus claims he does.
> I have requested
> several times that those who advocate a natural source offer an
> explanation for how their natural anatase could be so completely
> separated from the bulk of the material with which it is found and yet
> appear as seen on the Map.
Again - the above is demanding certain fallacies presented by Ken are
accepted as "truth" and thereof it cannot be answered because of his
presentation of fiction as fact.
> So far, they have not done so. Until they do
> so most people will see immediately that their "explanation" (= it's
> found in nature!) is laughable.
.....as is Ken's equally "laughable" - he merely states "manufactured"
without the required PROOF - where are the missing materials from the
ink? WHO made this "commercial product" he claims it is? HOW did it
get into the ink? None of these matter to a True Believer, and one
thing us absolutely GUARANTEED - Ken will NOT address these issues at
all. He will resort to some ad hominem and run a mile at best!
> Based on past performance, we need not
> expect them to provide anything but more fog and more heat, but no
> light.
Based on KEN's performance all we have ever seen from him is nothing
"but more fog and more heat, but no light". No wonder they put him out
to pasture!
--
Petty Criminal Stalkers need not reply
http://tinyurl.com/d2h2u
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The Vinland Map's Ink
- Next by Date: Re: The Vinland Map's Ink
- Previous by thread: Re: More anatase myth killing. Re: More anatase
- Next by thread: Re: More anatase myth killing. Re: More anatase
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
