Re: Vinland map and Historia Tartarorum, question
- From: Seppo Renfors <sirseppo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 03:08:16 GMT
Ken Towe wrote:
>
> I had thought that the Vinland Map game was over. Guess not!
Of course not while there are snake oil salesmen around like you, Ken!
But hey, that's my view. Lets see what some others have thought about
Ken's notions.
As James Enterline said on 19 Jan 2004 about Ken's claim "VM is not
Medieval" that it "...is still a claim rather than an established
fact." only Ken portrays it as a "fact" despite him evading key issues
that fail to stand up to scrutiny.
In private e-mails Ken has indicated the desirability of finding "...
one plausible, consistent story for how the Vinland Map ink was
actually made. In fairness, ... nobody has put any of these various
theories into one internally consistent model that will explain all
that is known about the ink of the VM." - and in "fairness" to Ken,
this is true but it includes Ken himself - that is to say he CANNOT
honestly make the claim he did in the Subject for his article in
"Analytical Chemist", Volume 76 / 03, pages 863 - 865.
Of course Jim has his own "theory" that he claims to be more plausible
than McCrone's impossible to achieve claims for "forgery". Enterline
also says Ken repeatedly makes statements like, "... titanium as a
major element concentrated in the ink and not distributed over the
parchment," and, "... the anatase is indeed restricted to the ink."
Yet Cahill says "We find titanium (probably anatase) in almost every
sample taken in our clean area." That is to say NOT on the ink lines.
So there is blatant misrepresentation from Ken to start with.
Of course Enterline claims his own method of how TiO2 can occur and
transfer into the ink - and claims to have proven it via his
experiments. Still, Jim's idea is probably marginally less implausible
that that of McCrone's idea.
> I've been
> asked to read over and comment on some of the posts in this latest
> attempt to resurrect the Vinland Map. I will address JackL's concerns
> first.
>
> JackL writes:
>
> "The importance of Towe's paper is what he ignores not what he says. He
> ignores Weaver's paper on kaolin clays ( Weaver, Charles E. "The Nature
> of TiO2 in Kaolinite," Clays and Clay Minerals 24 (1976): 215-8.)
> despite the fact that Towe is a specialist on clays. Towe and the
> others have had 25+ years to address Weaver's paper and either dismiss
> it with cause and demonstration or accept it. Towe also omits any
> mention of how the elements copper, aluminum, zinc and gold that are
> present in the VM ink strongly suggest impurities that would have
> arisen during genuine medieval ink production methods, but not in a
> modern replica of medieval ink. Since his 2004 paper which you ask me
> to read, even though I had already, is a direct response to Olin (2003)
> I would expect each of Olin's points to be addressed. I am not too busy
> and I would think that Towe if he going to write on the subject at all,
> being the sole ink man on the fake side, he should cover all points of
> contention. Otherwise don't bother. It is, ironically, a waste of ink.
> "
>
> I am heartened by the fact that JackL does not take significant
> exception to what I have said. He does appear to be concerned about
> what I have supposedly ignored.
I would note that "JackL" has observed similar tendencies by Ken as I
have - a "convenient" ignoring of things he has difficulty refuting -
or supporting.
> It is too bad that he hasn't read some
> of the earlier posts here. As HAL's August 27th re-post of my March 9th
> post illustrates I have NOT ignored Weaver's 1976 paper and have not
> done so since this bogus issue was raised by Ardell Abrahamson at the
> infamous Yale meeting in New Haven in 1996.
Ohh...... now there is a bit of emotive writing :-)
Of course if THAT is the sort of things Ken calls "not ignoring" he
might just as well do so, as the end result is the same. Then Weaver
isn't the only one to state Ti (and other minerals) exists in clays,
is he.
> I wrote several letters to
> Mr. Abrahamson prior to that meeting, and following the meeting I
> mailed copies of these letters to many of the attendees. I also wrote
> letters that were published in the Washington Post and the Washington
> Times that address this absurd claim. If you will re-read what I wrote
> earlier (see HAL, item 72) I think you will agree that I have not
> ignored this topic.
I for one sure as hell cannot see anything at all there addressing
Weaver's findings - the little that Ken has claimed in the past had
NOTHING to do with refuting the existence of TiO2 in Kaolinite, quite
the opposite (eventually that is) in fact - Ken smartly side-stepped
that issue to deal with the process of separation of the TiO2 in
Weavers determination of the existence of the TiO2 in the clay. It
was a "How are you" greeting with an "Axe handle" as reply!
The claim was it takes extreme measures with modern equipment to
SEPARATE anatase from the clay, and the suggestion was that it was
impossible to do back in those days! Not that it was even necessary
for the quantity found on the VM but it happens all the time that
people of today do NOT appreciate the ability of earlier people. A
substance, BaCuSi2O6 (Han Purple), that is hard to produce even today
was already being manufactured by the Chinese in 200 BC!!
> McCulloch has found this issue to be a last-gasp
> straw to hold onto and continues to be intellectually dishonest in his
> treatment of it. Guess that's why he has never published his work in a
> peer-reviewed journal.
Sorry but someone "intellectually dishonest" here is one Ken Towe the
snake oil salesman.
> Moving on to the trace elements mentioned by Olin (2003),
....oh well, there we go! The accusation stands proven. Ken does NOT
address issues as accused!
> I will repeat
> what I wrote to McCulloch...the ACS gave me only 3000 words to respond
> to her paper and I couldn't address everything.
Oh and that is a valid "excuse"? Hardly! There are many forums to
write as much as you want or need to address the issues fully.
> Mrs. Olin knows very
> well that both of the elements copper and gold are present in McCrone's
> analysis because of the sample holder and the sample coating used by
> the energy-dispersive electron probe.
Now what the hell does THAT supposed to mean? What has the "sample
holder" etc got to do with the "analysis"? Is Ken attempting to claim
them to be the source of the various elements found? That they don't
really exist on the map? Does it in fact have any meaning at all?
> She and I examined McCrone's work
> and even corrected a mis-assignment in his original report. She must
> have forgotten this "finer point". When I was asked to evaluate the
> original McCrone Report by the Yale Beinecke Library I pointed this out
> specifically.
Yeah well... where does this sit? How does it relate to only 3000
words claim? After all can Ken actually point to an Olin and Towe
paper establishing the claim he makes - even if considerably less than
3000 words? Of course not - but it really isn't important IF what he
says was even understandable!
But another interesting thing is that Gold, Cavell, and Smith have
come to the conclusion that: "Accurate analyses of clay minerals and
clay mineral mixtures can be obtained using a specially developed,
energy-dispersive electron microprobe technique. The analytical data
from mixtures can be interpreted by computer programs which use simple
statistical procedures to obtain a best estimate of the proportions of
the possible clay mineral components in the mixture."
Isn't that what McCrone used - an "energy-dispersive electron
microprobe" or at least that IS the claim by Ken. Notice how later on
he IGNORES McCrone's equipment but resorts to focus on Cahill et al's
PIXE analysis instead...... Is that honesty? HAH!
As one sample of a clay (Fithian illite) produced the following
substances: Al, Fe3+, Fe2+, Mn, Mg, Ca, K, Ti..... so why wouldn't
some other minerals also exist in other clay's?
What's more their research also supports Weavers findings. So the
huffing and puffing by Ken, trying to blow his own strawman over was a
waste of time.
> When I visited his lab in Chicago, McCrone agreed! Later,
> Cahill et al. reported finding copper only 12% of the time and a
> correlation with iron only 9% of the time. This stands in marked
> contrast to the iron-gall inks of the Tartar Relation and the Speculum
> Historiale where a very strong correlation exists. Ironically, Mrs.
> Olin reproduces Cahill's figure in her 2000 paper...see Figure 6, page
> 34.
Convention for a news group is to provide a LINK to such claims. Where
is it?
Still I found a VERY interesting article that sort of deals with Ken's
position.
http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2161.html
> Aluminum is a separate issue. If this common element were a significant
> component of the ink it might be important.
As I recall McCrone did indeed find such in the ink.
> Cahill et al. analyzed both
> the ink and the parchment in their "global" PIXE analysis. They did not
> find aluminum above the limit of detection in ANY sample.
Here is another of those cases where a very selective use of findings
has been made.
> They did find
> silicon in one sample (and one each on the TR and SH). The importance
> of this non-finding is that it provides no support for the bizarre
> claim that the anatase came from kaolinite (or other clay minerals)
> because these are all aluminosilicates.
Oddly enough the CLAY mentioned earlier contains NO silicon at all,
but does contain Al. So lets not take that above as gospel at all. I
observe that AL has indeed been found, but Ken is using his favourite
trick, poking his fingers in his ears shouting "LALALALALALALALAL..."
to prevent hearing that which does NOT support his bogus claims.
> No clays have ever been seen by
> transmission electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction or electron
> diffraction on the VM.
Now there is a BLATANT LIE!! He is well aware and has been reminded of
it several times only recently, that McCrone DID indeed find CLAY in
the ink, but did NOT pursue it further as it cannot date the ink or
the map! So here Ken Towe has been caught by the short and curlies,
really good and proper. How can such a person be believed by ANYONE
when he resorts to outright LIES - and this isn't the first time I
have caught him out resorting to deliberate lies!
> As I have repeatedly said (and Mr. Marcus has
> reemphasized) if the anatase had come from clays there should be
> evidence of their presence. There is none!
Again that is an absolute bare faced LIE. It really is sad to see
people resorting to such underhand tactics.
> Hopefully, this will help to clarify some of these points for JackL.
No, the INTENT was to do a snow job.
> The issues raised by Mr. Mousse are so totally misinformed and
> inaccurate that it will require a separate post to deal with these
> incredibly bad posts. He OBVIOUSLY has read almost NOTHING in the
> primary literature on the subject...or has deliberately chosen to
> completely ignore it.
Ken's "logic" (in the few places he uses such) can be illustrated
thus: "As the item is not green it is therefor blue".
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: tupas on Easter Island
- Next by Date: Re: tupas on Easter Island
- Previous by thread: Calf Creek Culture
- Next by thread: Re: Vinland map and Historia Tartarorum, question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
