Re: Vinland map and Historia Tartarorum, question



Ken Towe wrote:
>
> Perhaps It is time for Mr. Maison Mousse to undergo an internet
> "colonoscopy" in order to remove some intellectually malignant polyps?

....and lets face it Ken should know - after all he has been diagnosed
with that affliction himself, after all how else could he know?!?
>
> MM writes...
>
> "Your statements are the babble of someone who does not have or ever
> will have the ability to understand what you have read."

That part of the claim is indeed true in part at least.

> " The original
> claim was made that anatase was not found in nature. A quick trip
> Dana's manual would have disproved this."
>
> AND....

So is that last part - it was so at least till he was FORCED to
acknowledge the fact that it was indeed found in nature AND of the
correct size as found on the VM (something he is still gnashing his
teeth over).

[..]
>
> The original claim statement is so patently false that it is an
> embarrassment for Mr. Mousse.

WRONG! Earlier in this thread I identified a passage of text that was
all but totally incomprehensible written by KT himself.

> Clearly, he has read nothing of the
> original claims. Nobody has said that anatase was not found in nature.

In essence he IS correct - let me remind you of your correspondence
with Professor McCulloch on Feb 3, 2004 where you claim Professor
McCulloch "takes issue with a statement that rounded anatase particles
do not appear in nature".

But lets examine that statement a bit closer. It is in itself is an
oxymoron as "anatase" = "a crystal formation of a specific type" - if
it is NOT that specific type, then it isn't anatase either, simple as
that! So if he wants "anatase" and "rounded" to be inclusive, then we
are NOT talking of "crystals" but clumps of crystals - an aggregate.
Again an intelligent person would indeed object to the statement by
Ken -specially involving "clay" of any kind.

As Julius Sumner-Miller used to say "Why is it so" - it really is VERY
simple. Clay is the process of erosion of materials, something ground
ever finer due to friction and more and more rounded in shape the
smaller it gets. Therefor it is quite unbelievable to claim (A) while
anatase exists in nature in clay (B) that it cannot be in a "rounded"
aggregate form.

So immediately Ken's groupies will want to point to large sharp
cornered crystals found in nature like this:
http://www.webshop.neab.net/geoshop/Pictures/2002/20021208-002.jpg

Yeah, right - was that found as part of a sediment known as CLAY? No
it wasn't - nor is it in reality a SINGLE crystal, but a COLONY of
crystals. This shows the size of the "building blocks":

http://www.mindat.org/min-213.html

Note that the measurements are in "Angstroms" where 1 Angstrom is 10
million times smaller than a millimetre! A "micron" is 1000 times
smaller than a millimetre - so a crystal measurement with Cell
Parameters: a = 3.78, c = 9.51 "Angstroms", it really takes some
detecting. This is a case where the English language is very confusing
as these "colonies of crystals" are still called "crystals". Even more
confusion (and opportunity to misrepresent) comes from the fact that
"anatase" is not the name of a CRYSTAL, but the crystal STRUCTURE.
However it shows that "rounded anatase" aggregate can indeed exist and
be called "anatase" (as per the crystal STRUCTURE). If in fact it was
NOT rounded in CLAY - a sediment - it would indeed be suspicious!

But for a simple example of "rounded" in nature, just look at the
rounded stones on a sea shore! These alone are PROOF that Ken makes
bogus claims in a desperate bid to claim "forgery" against all sense
and reason.

But of course whenever Ken is caught he resort to being abusive as a
"defence" and a mechanism to bury the embarrassing (to him) bits. Such
antics only results in further analysis of his own "tactics" and
claims and the resultant exposure as seen in message
<423282E6.E543B837@xxxxxxxxxx>!!

[..]

> Bottom line about Mr. Mousse? I think we may safely ignore whatever
> drivel he may continue to put out. He simply doesn?t know what he is
> talking about!

......now where have we see that sort of statement before, eh?

There really is nothing new with Ken Towe - the same old bogus
material and the same old abusive replies, in place of addressing the
actual ISSUES he is running away from! Of course he is followed by the
usual groupie mob of arse kissers seeking a pat on their head.....

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.