Re: KRS: Final thoughts

On 25 Jun 2005 06:21:56 -0700, "m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx"
<m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
>Philip Deitiker wrote:
>> "m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx" <m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx> says in
>> news:1119644031.743453.158580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Philip Deitiker wrote:
>> Yes but you have only reported 3 observations that were
>> contemporarily reported (not a recollection 10 years later)
>> 1 of which in neutral and 1 contradictory.
>>
>
>Let's see, you posted:
>"Except the first people to examine the stone, who claim the
>stone had a fresher appearance than those who examines the
>stone 10 years later."
>
>and I gave you the reports of the the first people to examine the
>stone, those who would have thought it had a "fresher appearance". Now
>you say that those people's reports should be ignored, because they
>weren't made contmeporary? WHY? You are changing the rules here
>because they dont fit what you want. You want there to be a distinct
>change in the opinion of the people who first saw the stone and those
>who viewed it 10 years later, and just want to throw out anything that
>doesnt fit with your desire.
>This is good science? This is objectivity? This is how You want the
>KRS to be examined?
>
>"But the fact that the upper edge of the incised lines is rough
>and rounded as a result of the disintegration of the stone... shows
>plainly that many years must have elapsed since the inscription was
>cut. In other words, the external appearance of the Kensington rune
>stone, so far from speaking against it, is such that the inscription
>may well be six hundred years old." Curme, Skandinavian, May 3
>and
>"The grooves show no more newness than the natural surfaces of the
>rock; on the contrary all show age." Steward.
>
>One of these two must be tne neutral comment you were talking about -
>now remember, before you change the rules again, that we are talking
>specifically about whether the stone appeared weathered to the initial
>observers. Think carefully - which of these two statements above is
>neutral on that point?
>
>> It should be noted you very carefully have decided which early
>> accounts to include and exclude. The two earliest professsional
>> accounts are the two you decided to exclude. Why is that?
>>
>
>My God. I dont believe it. Do you read your own posts? You ask for
>what the first observers thought of the stone, not what "the
>professionals" (and Flom was not a geologist, by the way) thought 10
>years later. In fact, that was your very point. You were suggesting
>that the first observers did not see a patina, that the stone was not
>weathered.
>I showed that the vast majority of the early observers said that it DID
>appeared weathered. What do you want? Are you changing the rules here?
>Is there any reason to get into a discussion of any sort on the KRS
>with you if you keep doing this ?
>
>Michael
>

Michael,

This is typical of what PD does with regard to the KRS and related
subjects. His articles on the subject are full of distortions, false
allegations, shifting of ground and preaching from on high. The
problem is that he sounds so good to those who don't know much about
the KRS. Thank you for taking those points above and carefully
dissecting them but I bet he pays no attention to what you say but
bounces back and expands the argument ten-fold.

IMHO he's a troll.

By the way, I see from his latest post that he *still* does not seem
to know the difference between a weathered crust and a 'patina'.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KRS: Final thoughts
    ... >> Philip Deitiker wrote: ... "Except the first people to examine the stone, ... you say that those people's reports should be ignored, ... what the first observers thought of the stone, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >The reports have been quoted here quite recently ... ... We are not relying on the wielder of the nail to tell us what damage ... he inflicted on the stone. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: "stone thrown west goes further"
    ... > When I throw a stone, it is usually with respect to a point on earth. ... > Observers with respect to the Sun would need to take into account ... No matter where you are on the Earth, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: KRS: Final thoughts
    ... > "Except the first people to examine the stone, ... Now you say that those people's reports should be ... stone could have said patina in 80 years. ... You know what an account is. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Online observing journals and/or blogs?
    ... The Small Dob web site has a number of reports by observers with 10" ... and under Newtonians. ... Kelly Beatty wrote: ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)