Re: Geology Question (KRS related)


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4lo8u1hmpd271b3jvi9bqrc2ovnbh37msf@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:11:20 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:



"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:45i7u19da3nl2b5n8trsivqlf1bqlu6cj4@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:36:10 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:



"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jbd5u11jasfs8bnou46p62fkb1ucn64oal@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:27:16 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:



"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1bo4u1dhu4kvj5aviqrphgvkhf5phutja8@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 05:39:02 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:



"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ass2u1pmq8mk9bm5kbjp9qhctdfv1o6mqv@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 17:37:33 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

--- snip ---

The KRS was discovered buried in soil that one might safely
predicate
was
a
bit "swampy" or "boggy"; that condition was used to support
consideration
of
Runestone Hill as fitting the term "island" which appears on the
KRS.

Aren't you jumping to a conclusion here? The runestone was found
on
the side of a hill of 'glacial till'. Somebody (Daryl?) has
already
pointed out that the term 'glacial till' covers a wide range of
possible materials but I am not aware that anyone has suggested
that
the particular site ever was swampy or boggy. As far as I know,
the
description of swampy/boggy has been applied to the conditions at
the
foot of the hill but not the hill itself.

LOL. Wasn't the argument that the hill was "this island" (as which
is
how
the inscription reads) because the land is boggy and swampy?

I don't know why you feel the urge to 'LOL'. Are you trying to
minimise my point?

Not at all. I'm simply trying to engender a discussion. The LOL was
at
the
caveat that begins the last sentence. Oughtn't we to know the answer,
since
Wolter clearly knows what the pH is on Runestone Hill?

What is there about a discussion of your claim that the hill was
swampy or boggy that justifies a switch to a discussion of the pH?

First, let me preface this post with noting that you are the one who
always
takes a position that questions must always be asked and answered, even
when
evidence tilts strongly in one direction. You are constantly going on
about
how you do this in the course of working in your professional capacity.
Your foot dragging on this sort of issue is, quite frankly, very
telling.

One of the differences between us is that I prefer to deal with a
problem one item at a time while you tend to respond with a whole
cloud of issues. There is a term for this ...

All of this started when you wrote

"The KRS was discovered buried in soil that one might safely
predicate was a bit "swampy" or "boggy";"

Sorry, you're incorrect.

You are fudging.

No. I don't know what "safely predict" means. It is clear from a site that
you linked that the soil, glacial till notwithstanding, might well be
acidic.


The discussion re sandstone, limestone ect vs greywacke is a different
sub-thread. In this patricular branch I have been trying to pin you
down and get you to give a source for your claim that "The KRS was
discovered buried in soil that one might safely predicate was a bit
"swampy" or "boggy";"

You have not been able to do that and now you want to pretend we have
really been talking about something else entirely.

This started when someone posted Peter posted
information re decay and control mechansims and you argued that his
article
dealt with rocks other than granite or slate, and I asked why you felt
that
it didn't matter that Wolter was comparing greywacke to slate in order to
date the greywacke. My posts re acid encouraging biotite erosion (which
is
stated in the book itself) preceeded my posts vis-a-vis comparing biotite
erosion on two different types of rock.

The KRS was found near the top of a hill and I have never previously
heard the point of discovery discovered as either swampy or boggy.

Blegen, for example has it that the KRS was discovered on a knoll "above
swampy ground."

See - when provoked, you can provide a source. Do you really think
that this is evidence that the knoll itself is boggy? I very much
doubt that it is.

But the point, my dear Eric, he of the "there's always more questions to be
asked", is that it would appear that Wolter knows, at least the pH of the
soil, but didn't tell us, notwithstanding that something about the pH of the
soils in Hallowell and Kensington caused him to abandon a planned protocol.
Probably, there's an inocuous reason for this. But I'm amazed that you, the
biggest skeptic posting to this newsgroup, a fellow who won't accept the
equation "anatase of type X, having a certain crystalline size range and
shape to the exclusion of other sizes and shapes, dates no earlier than
1910, anatase of type X was found only in certain inked areas of the Vinland
Map, but the VM could still be an authentic 15th century artifact", doesn't
care to find the answers here.


The issue is whether the knoll itself has acidic soil,
which may be a result of mechanisms associated with the swampy ground.
It's
not as though we are discussing finding the KRS at a 1,000 foot elevation
above a swamp.

I
then suggested that you might be jumping to a conclusion here and gave
my reasons why. (see above)

You then asked me:

"LOL. Wasn't the argument that the hill was "this island" (as which
is how the inscription reads) because the land is boggy and
swampy?"

In another stage of this discussion (see below) part of this
discussion I wrote:

If you wan't to continue to claim that someone has
argued that the hill was boggy and swampy, I suggest that you get up
off the floor and find a credible source for that allegation.
otherwise it makes no sense."

You responded:

"I feel otherwise."

I in turn replied:

"So, you are prepared to introduce the claim that the hill was
swampy and boggy without you being under any obligation to
introduce evidence to that effect. We are not discussing a work
of fiction you know. I suggest you apply the same standards of
evidence to yourself that you generally requite of others."

At this point you introduce a whole cloud of obscuring issues - as
follows:

No. At this point I introduced the following:

"7. The authors state that the Maine tombstones showed evidence of lichen
growth and that acid produced by the lichens accelerates biotite
weathering.

8. Bogs and swamps are typically acidic.

9. Runestone Hill is thought to have been an island surrounded by boggy
or
swampy land.

10. Aren't *you* curious what the pH of the soil in which the slate
tombstones were erected is, and how it compares to the pH of Runestone
Hill?" and then later stated:

"Let's modify the claim by saying that the hill is at least adjacent to
land
that, historically, was acidic."

Now I'll lay it out for you very simply:

1. The authors state that they originally intended to take below ground
samples of the tombstones.

2. From this I infer that they originally intended to compare those
samples
with the above ground samples and with the KRS (which the authors
believe
to
have spent at least 30 years below ground).

3. From this I infer that the authors felt that there was some value to
making that comparison.

4. The authors did not take those samples due to the fact that the
ground
in which the tombstones were embedded was frozen and covered in a foot
of
snow.

5. The authors subsequently changed their minds about collecting the
below
ground samples because of "the difference in pH of the soil in
Hallowell,
Maine (?? do they mean in the cemetery located in Hallowell) and the
Kensington Rune Stone discovery site." Page 39.

6. The data by which the authors determined that the KRS is at least
200
years old had to do with the weathering of biotite.

7. The authors state that the Maine tombstones showed evidence of
lichen
growth and that acid produced by the lichens accelerates biotite
weathering.

8. Bogs and swamps are typically acidic.

9. Runestone Hill is thought to have been an island surrounded by boggy
or
swampy land.

10. Aren't *you* curious what the pH of the soil in which the slate
tombstones were erected is, and how it compares to the pH of Runestone
Hill?

11. Aren't *you* curious as to why the difference in pH indicated that
taking below ground samples in Hallowell was no longer necessary?

If you answered 10 or 11 "no", why? I would like to be educated.


If you wan't to continue to claim that someone has
argued that the hill was boggy and swampy, I suggest that you get up
off the floor and find a credible source for that allegation.
otherwise it makes no sense.

I feel otherwise.

So, you are prepared to introduce the claim that the hill was swampy
and boggy without you being under any obligation to introduce evidence
to that effect. We are not discussing a work of fiction you know. I
suggest you apply the same standards of evidence to yourself that you
generally requite of others.

... and finally you got to the point where you in effect admitted that
you had no evidence to support your suggestion that the place where
the KRS was found was either swampy or boggy.

But, nevertheless, the question remains. For example, is precipitation in
the area typically acidic as a result of evaporation off the swamp being
acidic? I don't know.

http://tinyurl.com/87k4x

You apparently don't want to know. More to the
point, Wolter apparently does know the pH of the soil in which the KRS was
buried. But he isn't telling, at least not in the book. Your explanation
is that he didn't want to put his readers to sleep. As Bob Dylan wrote,
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."


Okay. Let's modify the claim by saying that the hill is at least
adjacent
to land that, historically, was acidic.

You don't really know that either. I have already referred to
http://www.agviselabs.com/tech_art/grdsolph.php which suggests that
the subsoil pH is likely to be >6 and possibly in excess of 8.

I read the page, and it says nothing about the soil pH in Kensington, or
of
Runestone Hill.

It does tell you something of the pH of the soil based on glacial
till.

Yep. "In the glacial till areas of North Dakota, where the average field pH
is >8.0, it is not unusual to find areas in each field with a pH of 6.0 or
lower." (Assuming areas of North Dakota have ought to do with Minnesota,
that says that acidic pH is not unusual.)

It also says:

"In southern Minnesota, Eastern South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa and other areas
with low soil pH, crop production will increase when lime is applied to
areas within fields with low soil pH in the topsoil. Soils in these areas
usually have acidic sub-soil." Kensignton, last time I looked, was a bit
closer to sourthern than northern, although it's more accurate to say it's
in central Minnesota. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington,_Minnesota


That
is, it may range from weakly acidic to weakly basic. In other words it
is approximately neutral subject to the normal range of natural
variation.

Try a google search on swamps and bogs and pH. Then reread your page
wherein it's stated:

"In the glacial till areas of North Dakota, where the average field pH is
8.0, it is not unusual to find areas in each field with a pH of 6.0 or
lower." Didn't you tell me that Kensington's soil is "glacial till"?

I've already corrected that. This suggests that the soil of the hill
where the KRS was found will be far from acidic.

Why?



See the above enumerated items 7-9,
and especially the items numbered 10 and 11. Don't you think that they
deserve to be answered before one simply accepts Wolter's dating? If
not,
I
have to ask whether you're feeling okay, because your typical (and self
promoted) bulldog approach to tie everything up 100% completely, even
when
the evidence seems 95% certain, suddenly seems to be lacking.

We've already discussed most of the points of your question and I see
no point in going around them again.

Undoubtedly others will see the point, even if you refuse to acknowledge
that you do.





Assuming that
the hill was not swampy or boggy, doesn't a rigorous analysis demand
comparison of below ground samples from the Maine tombstones with
the
KRS?

No useful conclusion could be drawn from such a study if the
conditions are significantly different, as they seem to be.

How can you claim this without taking a crack at explaining why the
original
intent was to obtain samples of the slate tombstones from below
ground,
if
those samples were of no value to the weathering issue, and why minds
got
changed about that importance due to different pH values betweenn
Hallowell
and Kensington.

Don't you think that *if* an acidic pH accelerates
weathering, that it might be important to compare both samples of the
rocks
being compared taken from below ground, and test the soils in which
they
were found for pH values? Or do you know that being buried for 30
years
in
acidic soil cannot possibly account for an acceleration of the
weathering
of
the KRS? If so, please cite the passage in the Nielsen/Wolter book
that
so
states.

We don't know the pH values.
We don't know which is the more acid soil.

But Nielsen/Wolter know. Wouldn't you like to know too, given the
enumerated
items above?

Read my past posts.

They don't answer the question. It seems that you don't care that Wolter
hasn't given you all of the data to support his conclusions, even where it
is indicated in the book that the data was initially thought to be
important. Again, "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind
blows."


I agree it would be nice to know this but it is one of the many items
of technical information which the authors omitted from what was
intended to be a book rebutting the idea that the KRS was a forgery.

Well first, it's clear that the authors have this data. And second,
it's
but one of several omitted items that are critical to their conclusion.
It's no good saying that it's "technical information", thereby implying
that
it doesn't belong in a "popular" book intended for laymen. People
interested in the book's topic are not confined to people uninterested
in
technical science (even if currently ignorant of the details regarding
certain aspects thereof). If you are implying that the authors withheld
information that would have supported their technical conclusions, I
think
that you ought not to defend them having done so. I know beans about
geology, but when given A+B =>Conclusion C, I have enough mental
capacity
to
understand when A+B don't necessarily imply C without consideration of
certain other variables, and I am not afraid to have the information
regarding those variables supplied, explained, and shown to C.

How about you?


Apparently, you lack the mental capacity to recognize when a conclusion is
reached based upon factors that don't entirely explain the conclusion, or
else you just don't wish to quarrel with this particular conclusion.

I don't want to follow you into the metaphorical swamps of you
hypothetical arguments.

It's about time, isn't it, for you to "put me on ignore"? Perhaps that's
for the best, because there will be some questions arising re Nielsen's
linguistic analysis and the conclusions reached therefrom. I'm sure that
you will find those questions unpalatable too.

Its not the questions that I find unpalatable. Its what you tend to do
with them.



Eric Stevens



.