Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kadkq1ln9tee5ucpm8ra2jbbgi5n49dgne@xxxxxxxxxx
> On 21 Dec 2005 18:06:22 -0800, "Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Eric:
>> Hokay, "Flame On!"
>>< ... ,just kidding ... >
>> You don't need to break oput the welding glasses
>>to read what I've written below, because I have no intention of
>>trying to imitate The Human Torch.
>> I.e., please don't take what i've written below as
>>an attempt to flame you.
>> It's just fairly-well-natured banter, okay, please?
>> No offense meant, I promise.
>> And I hope that your cats are still ageing gracefully, out of the
>>weather.
>>< ... okay, that was a stupid pun, i admit ... >
>>
>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> "David B" <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> >> "David B" <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>> >>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>8. Wolters touches on the examination of the weathering of
>>> >>>>tombstones
>>> >>>> but other than stating the broad results he goes into no great
>>> >>>> detail.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>That alone makes the book not worth buying for me.
>>> >>>Until I see convincing evidence that the aging of the runes
>>> >>>could not be partly artificial, I'd have to say that all the rest of
>>> >>>the, no doubt fascinating, arguments are
>>> >>>only as relevant to real medieval history as The Da Vinci Code.
>>
>> I must second those opinions.
>> The lack of convincing arguments buttressed by reference to
>>observations of weathering is very disappointing; all else is mere
>>opinion.
>
> I didn't say he gives no arguments, (whether convincing or otherwise).
> He does give arguments and summarises his work on the weathering. He
> also gives a few micrographs. He explains why he has concluded that
> the inscription was more than 2 centuries old at the time of finding.
> The reason I said 'no great detail' is that I have a copy of his
> earlier article on the weathering and know how much more detail there
> is to give..
>>
>>> >>I'm not quite sure where, but Wolters somewhere states in his book
>>> >>that artificial aging of the surface of the stone can be excluded. As
>>> >>you know, I made enquiries of geo-technical experts about this some
>>> >>years ago and reached the same conclusion. I know you (and others)
>>> >>like the idea of artificial aging but until you can come up with a
>>> >>mechanism which will withstand the close examination of an expert
>>> >>armed with all the tools of modern science, I don't think the idea
>>> >>will fly.
>>
>> But your requirement for proof just gets back to the old
>>"Show that what you say is true" / "No, you show that what I say
>>is _not_ true, and if you can't then that means that what I say is
>>true"
>>altercation that can just as easily be applied to psychopathic ranting
>>as to
>>the speculations of materials engineers.
>
> I would have thought that in a 'sci' group of any kind it would long
> ago have been accepted that you can never prove that something is
> true. All you can do is post a hypothesis and show that it is
> consistent with what is known. It is ridiculous for the opposition to
> ask that the proponent 'prove' that something is true. When all the
> facts are known its up to the opposition to falsify the argument.
>
>> To that I must respond that if you want ask me to show that the KRS
>>was artificially weathered, I must in return ask you to show that the
>>KRS
>>was _not_ artificially weathered.
>
> Which is a waste of time as you should know.
>>
>> "Automatic gain-saying of what the other person says is not an
>>argument."
>>- Col. Graham Chapman (deceased)
>
> Then why employ the method.
>>
>>> >But that's exactly why your point (8) makes the book such a letdown for
>>> >me.
>>> >If Wolter had presented a convincing explanation of _how_ his
>>> >examination
>>> >of the KRS ruled out artificial weathering to disguise freshly-exposed
>>> >mica, I'd have been interested. This also brings me back to the dating
>>> >of
>>> >the "newly-discovered aspects of the runes" (by which I meant the
>>> >additional marks which changed the interpretation of some runes). If
>>> >those
>>> >marks cannot _physically_ be proved to be of the same era as the
>>> >previously
>>> >known carving, then they must be treated with great suspicion.
>>
>> Indeed, if the only evidence of their age is that they are older than
>>a photograph dated to 1899, then that does not mean that they were
>>created at the same time as was the inscription.
>> That sort of dating control does not rule out the possibility that
>>they were created at the same time as the runes were cleaned out,
>>after the discovery.
>
> The 'cleaning out' marks are readily distinguishable so it may be
> possible to show that the various newly identified markings predate
> the cleaning.
>
> As far as the general weathering of the markings is concerned, that is
> a matter which can be resolved by further examination.
>
>> And if they are visible in an 1899 photo, why would Wolters, et al.
>>say that they were previously undiscovered?
>
> Very simple. Many of the markings change the meaning of the runes and
> for more than a century the runes have been discussed on the basis
> that the marks are not there. Quite literally, nobody seems to have
> seen them

Which, considering that Nielsen, and Knirk, two "experts" have published
material about the runes and their meaning, is an incredible statement.
Mighty suspicious.

>>
>> "It is a puzzlement."
>>- Gilbert O'Sullivan (extent of animality unknown)
>>
>>> He does explain enough of the process of weathering of the mica which
>>> he was examining to give you an idea of the complexity of faking the
>>> weathering. It's not just the question of loss of mica: the mica
>>> exfoliates in the process of natural weathering and any accelerated
>>> weathering process would have to produce similar exfoliation.
>>
>> Fine. So, how long does it take natural weathering processes to
>>create the sort of exfoliation that has been observed?
>> Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
>> If that timeline can't be determined, then weathering cannot be used
>>to determine the age of the KRS.
>
> Oh but it can. Wolters has examined weathering of similar mica on
> tombstones of an average of 200 years. Their mica has weathered,
> started to exfoliate and deposit rust stains around them. In the case
> of the KRS the mica and rust stains have almost entirely gone. Clearly
> the KRS is much more weathered than the tombstones. Wolters has not
> attempted to extraoplate the tombstone weathering to estimate the age
> of the KRS weathering. All he is prepared to say is that the KRS
> weathering is more than 200 years.

And if artificial weathering never produced rust stains??

>>
>> And yet, the matter is not as simple as that, even.
>> Riddle me this:
>> Once the surface has been aritificially mechanically weathered,
>>how much time is required to produce the observed weathering effects
>>using only "natural" forces?
>> Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
>
> You are starting to both fantasize and speculate about something you
> literally know nothing about. I say that you know nothing about it for
> the simple reason that to my knowledge you have seen virtually none of
> the micrographs etc of the KRS. You are asking me to engage in a
> hypothetical argument about unspecified material. Apart from that, I'm
> not a geologist/geochemist and am not qualified to carry out a
> specialist discussion on the subject with you.

Yet you feel qualified enough in geology to apparently accept Wolter's work
without question. One would think that you would have been cured of that
sort of thing after being schooled accepting work such as Enterline's
"transfer mechanism" for getting anatase on the Vinland Map (and for that
matter McCulloch's work in general), but no, you keep chugging along.

>
>> After the surface has been artificially chemically weathered,
>>how much time is required to produce the observed weathering effects
>>using only "natural" forces?
>> Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
>> Both these artificial weathering processes have been known to have
>>occurred. It has not been shown the observed weathering occurred
>>prior to the application of the known artificial weathering processes,
>>so
>>it has not been shown that the observed weathering is the result of
>>purely natural forces, so the problem for Wolter, et al. is to show
>>that
>>the observed weathering was not "faked".
>
> You are jumping to conclusions. What artificial weathering is known to
> have occurred? Is this your generic term for the various attempts at
> cleaning of the surface?

Artificial weathering either has occurred, or it hasn't. Natural weathering
has either occurred or it hasn't. You are prepared to accept Wolter's work
hook, line and sinker, after having written "... I'm not a
geologist/geochemist and am not qualified to carry out a specialist
discussion on the subject with you." Your (in)famous skeptical approach
seems to have been tossed onto the trash heap.

>
>> The onus is upon them to show that
>>processes that are known to have occurred are
>>less likely agents of creation of
>>the observed physical character of the KRS than
>>processes that have not been demonstrated to have occurred.
>
> Hang on a minute. You know something about these things yourself. Why
> can't you explain how the various processes may have accelerated the
> weathering of the surface of the KRS?
>>
>> As an analogy, if I am told that the lines in my face are
>>the result of many centuries of exposure to cosmic radiation,
>>I must retort that my tobacco habit is a much-more-likely
>>explanation, and that the onus is on the cosmic-ray enthusiast to
>>prove me wrong, _not the other way 'round_.
>>
>>> There is more. For example mica also leaves iron stains when it first
>>> weathers
>>> and these iron stains also weather away. Your fake weathering would
>>> have to not only weather the mica in a way indistinguishable from
>>> natural weathering but it would have to weather away the iron stains
>>> in a way indistinguishable from natural weathering.
>>
>> No, the requirement would be to not have any iron-staining remaining
>>after the artificial weathering process.
>> To satisfy that requirement, one need only weather the mica
>>in such as way as to not leave any iron-staining at all.
>> There is no need to remove iron-staining if it never existed.
>> The above requirement does not stand as being a necessary proof,
>>unless it is shown that suchiron-staining is the necessary outcome of
>>any and all possible artificial weathering processes.
>> Rather, it is more in the nature of a false analogy.
>
> It's not a false analogy but I take your point that the iron stain
> eventually disappears. But by then a pronounced weathering crust has
> formed and this too has to be faked. I know that Wolters remarked
> about the crust somewhere in the book. How do you propse to do that?
> Bear in mind the artificial crust has to be indistinguishable from a
> natural crust under an electron microscope with EDX and all the other
> fancy tools.
>>
>>
>> Another analogy is an argument that because
>>cosmic rays produce unstable nuclei that
>>naturally become stable again over centuries, then in order to
>>reproduce the wrinkling effects of cosmic rays by smoking tobacco,
>>I must somehow render those atomic nuclei stable again within
>>the half-century iclaim as my lifespan. My retort is that
>>my atomic nuclei have never been unstable, so there was
>>never any need to restabilise them in order to create wrinkling effects
>>
>>by smoking tobacco that are indistinguishable from the effects of
>>centuries of exposure to cosmic rays.
>>
>>> It would be extraordinary if any would-be forger of the past knew
>>> (in the past) enough about the weathering of the particular greywacke
>>> to be able to fool a determined expert armed with the knowledge and
>>> technology of the present. Without intending to be rude, you certainly
>>> couldn't get away with it even now.
>>
>> And I must retort that you have not proven that
>>I could not get away with it now.
>> A major requirement of your gedanken-experiment is the existence of
>>an expert on artificial weathering of metagreywacke
>>found in the Minnesota area.
>> You have not demonstrated the existence of such a creature, or
>>how such a creature might come into existence today, though
>>there are some indications that onesuch may have existed
>>late in the penultimate century.
>> I would retort that the most likely explanation of the existence of
>>such anexpert is that it has displayed unprecedented longevity
>>sufficient to allow it to survive from the presumed time of artificial
>>weathering of the KRS by such an expert up to the present day.
>> No other qualified candidate has yet appeared, so
>>the onus is upon you to demonstrate that an as-unyet-unheard-of
>>more-recently-nascent expert is more likely.
>>
>> i'm not trying to be obstreperous, as i hope you realise,
>>but i hope that i have shown you that some of the
>>"prove that I's wrong" arguments are not sufficient responses to
>>those asking for proof of as-yet-unfounded claims.
>
> It seems to me that you are raising entirely speculative objections to
> technical conclusions without ever having looked at any details of the
> argument. That you have at this early stage said that you are not
> interested in learning more (by buying the book) gives due weight to
> your arguments.
>>
>> Thank you for reviewing Wolter's book for me.
>> I am now secure in the reasonable supposition that
>>Wolter has no convincing arguments to present
>>regarding using weathering to securely date
>>the inscription on the KRS.
>
> I'm glad you think I've confirmed that you were right. Life would be
> easy if we could all reach valid conclusions without going to the
> trouble of first obtaining the facts.
>
>>
>>If he had such, he would present them,
>>Shirley.
>>
> Shirley?
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3


.