Re: The KRS - some answers from Scott Wolter


<m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137348429.429617.136890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Steve Marcus wrote:
>> Why would you think that? ISTM that the best basis for proving the KRS
>> most
>> likely authentic would be to show that the inscription is as old as its
>> text
>> asserts that it is. Why wouldn't Wolter have started with a study of the
>> weathering?
>
> To be clear, Wolter was payed to analyse the stone, an object that he
> knew nothing about. At the outset he told the people paying him that
> they might not like what the results were.
> The first step in any such process is to gather evidence - this was
> done in a number of ways including using an SEM on specimens taken from
> the stone. It is only after the evidence was taken that analysis began.
> This raw evidence is availible to anyone who cares to take the time to
> ask, and they can perform thier own analysis.
> It is in the analysis that one considers whether the stone may have
> been artificially weathered - the evidence did not point in that
> direction, rather it pointed to a high degree of natural weathering and
> this is what Wolter reported. If the evidence had pointed to artifical
> weathering, I am sure Wolter would have reported that. He had no
> reason to report otherwise [and as his reputation is important in his
> work, substantial reason not to misreport his findings].
>
> This is called science, not speculation. This is the way that
> scientists work.
>
> The mica in the samples taken from the engraved side of the stone is
> totally degraded.
> The mica in samples taken from other stone which were weathered for
> about 200 years are not totally degraded (and please note, Wolter did
> not know to what extent the degredation of the mica would be - this is
> called experimentation to test a hypothesis - this too is science.)
> The results are not absolute proof but are highly indicative.
> Wolter agrees that more testing along these lines should be done

Why do you find it necessary to edit my post without so indicating, and to
rant on about matters not implicated by the single question I asked in my
original post?

Stevens wrote, regarding Wolter's study:

"I think by the time he got to the stage of studying the weathering he was
not being paid for his work."

I then asked:

"Why would you think that? ISTM that the best basis for proving the KRS
most likely authentic would be to show that the inscription is as old as its
text asserts that it is. Why wouldn't Wolter have started with a study of
the weathering?

Your post simply does not address the simple and direct question I asked
Stevens. If your intent was to demonstrate that Stevens' statement was
inaccurate, why not just say so?


>
>
> Michael

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
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The KRS - some answers from Scott Wolter
    ... >>> To be clear, Wolter was payed to analyse the stone, an object that he ... >>> this is what Wolter reported. ... >>> weathering, I am sure Wolter would have reported that. ... > be found in both the fresh rock and weathered surfaces. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The KRS - some answers from Scott Wolter
    ... To be clear, Wolter was payed to analyse the stone, an object that he ... It is only after the evidence was taken that analysis began. ... rather it pointed to a high degree of natural weathering and ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The KRS - some answers from Scott Wolter
    ... >>taken from the stone. ... It is only after the evidence was taken ... >>weathering and this is what Wolter reported. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The KRS - some answers from Scott Wolter
    ... >To be clear, Wolter was payed to analyse the stone, an object that he ... It is only after the evidence was taken that analysis began. ... >this is what Wolter reported. ... >weathering, I am sure Wolter would have reported that. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone
    ... > " For comparison, Wolter sampled inscribed tombstones in Hallowell, ... that were subject to similar weathering conditions as the ... > stone also showed no signs of mica, ... > that Ohman did not carve the inscription; ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Quantcast