Re: Problems with the radio carbon dating of the Newport Tower


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1rqbl3dqn7jusfkvoucj1h5tdrs5h12pjr@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:41:24 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:41dbl3pu8k80m671vueo1ichgbsmlue6pk@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:33:12 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d85al358b9lsqikoimn07a9f61t4dha5iv@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 09:10:50 +0100, "Peter Alaca"
<p.alaca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hnj9l3h1f2kc0tem57kcc7n0jckle20ga0@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 18:10:12 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

An important diference between us is that you have taken a position
on
the age of the tower and are trying to defend it. I have taken no
position and want to investigate further. I don't know why that
should
worry you so much.


And that is exactly the problem.
The Newport Tower /is/ dated
but you refuse to accept that.
You call that taking no position?
I call it ignoring the evidence.

That last sentence is strange when you consider that you are objecting
to me carefully examing another part of the evidence.

What's strange is that you've managed to compose a post that was built on
something Peter Alaca posted, without having attributed the position to
Peter. Specifically, the comment preceded by >>>> that the Newport Tower
/is/ dated is Peter's, not mine. The response preceded by >>> is your.

I think you are getting confused. When I made that response it was in
an article where the first line was "On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 09:10:50
+0100, "Peter Alaca"<p.alaca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:"


So you would propose to examine a DNA sample that is hopelessly
corrupted

Presumably, if I know that it is hopefully corrupted it will be as a
result of a thorough examination of the sample which has already been
carried out.

Nope. You need to study up a bit on DNA. The DNA in a blood sample left
that has been left outside in the elements for an extended period of time
will often become hopelessly (not hopefully) corrupted. Period. Ditto re
a
blood sample that includes blood from multiple sources.

If those facts are known then a sufficiently thorough examination of
the sample has been carried out. Are you trying to say that a
sufficiently thorough study of the H&J radiocarbon dating has been
carried ou?


My point is that the H&J radiocarbon dating appears to be corrupted
but the examination is not yet sufficiently thorough to allow a
decision as to whether it should be accepted, modified or thrown out.

But my point is that at present, radiocarbon dating of mortar from a site
adjacent to the location of a reservoir effect, and/or when the mortar was
made from sea shells, is hopelessly corrupted. You can't go back and
"adjust" for the reservoir effect because you don't know precisely what it
may have been or earlier in the 17th century at that particular site, and
you also don't know how large, or small, the effect of the use of sea
shells
to make the mortar was.

You clearly don't know what they did. You are not aware of the
techniques they used to separate old -CO3 from new -CO3. In fact I
strongly suspect you don't know a damned thing about what they did.

Are you seriously contending that they could accurate calibrate those
chemicals? Or that they can know for a fact the source of the shells used
in the mortar (if any), and to what extent the original mortar was mixed
using sea shells znd to what extent lime was obtained from other sources?
All of these things will have an effect on the percentages of the carbonate
and hence the radiocarbon dating.

Furthermore, it is also quite clear, that as in the rest of my
hypothetical
(and who but you replies to a portion of someone else's expressed thought,
such as to a portion of the first sentence of a multi-sentence
hypothetical), the present evidence is essentially conclusive as to the
17th
century date. No artifact that has been found (despite multiple
investigations) at the Newport Tower site dates earlier than the 17th
century. No record indicates that the Newport Tower was present prior to
the arrival of the Newport colonists in 1636. Surely the colonists would
have reported, and marvelled at, the existence of such a structure on the
site of their new colony. Verrazano failed to describe anything like the
Newport Tower, despite having visited Naragansett Bay (where Newport is
located on Aquidneck Island) in 1524. (His description of normanvilla is
a
place name from his 1527 map, just as longavilla is a place name. Neither
Verrzazno's maps or logs describe anything like the Newport Tower.)

I am still waiting for you to address the issue of the deafening silence
of
the English colonists, and their immediate progeny, with respect to the
Newport Tower being in existence when they arrived at the colony.

Its the same deafening silence about their efforts to build the
Newport Tower.

Nonsense. Benedict Arnold mentions "my stone built windmill." Streets are
named Mill Street.

And how do you equate even the lack of any comments about building the
windmill, with the lack of comments by a group of 17th century colonists
who, upon arriving at a site upon which they intend to establish a colony,
and knowing that the "locals" are Native Americans ("Indians" to them),
discover a tower built of dressed stone that resembles something that could
have been built in Europe by Europeans?

Again, it is absolutely clear that you are bent on ignoring the import of
the evidence, and that you will refuse to apply any logic to the analysis of
the evidence.



and can yield no results, notwithstanding that fingerprints, motive,
means,
opportunity and the security cameras clearly showed who committed the
rape
and robbery? Well, I suppose you would if you needed the culprit to be
Mr.
X, instead of Mr. Y, just as badly as you need the Newport Tower to be a
Viking artifact rather than a 17th century construction by English
colonists
in need of a windwill.


You are hopeless Steve. With every article you write you demonstrate
that you regard personal prejudice and bias as the driving force in
every analysis..

With every article I write, I demonstrate that logic and honest evaluation
of evidence is important to me, and unimportant to you. Do I rule out
that
future evidence might prove the Newport Tower to have been in existence
prior to the 17th century? No. Do I think that the probability of that
is
other than microscopic? No. Would I put my faith in trying to
rehabilitate
(my word) radiocarbon dating of the Newport Tower mortar or determine
whether the radiocarbon dating of the Newport Tower evidence "should be
accepted, modified or thrown out" (your phrase)? No, because doing so can
never be other than speculative at best (as discussed above).

Am I as hopelessly invested as you are in getting to an absolute answer on
this issue? No, because unlike you, I am not heavily invested in trying
to
establish alternative history theories, (I am not at all invested in doing
that, but would have no problem accepting such a theory if the evidence
dictated that it was rational to do so).

At the end of the day, you constantly claim to be interested only in
reaching an honest and absolutely conclusive answer, presumably as a
matter
of science. I doubt that your interest is really that; you want to
establish alternative history theories and since it is very rare that
anything is 100% certain, you will always raise that 0.000001% chance that
a
given alternative history theory is really the truth. And because you
profess to be looking for that absolutely conclusive answer, you
demonstrate
with crystal clarity that you either don't really understand science at
all,
or that you are simply being dishonest when express a desire to arrive at
that absolutely certain result in order to mask your true motive, which is
to establish any given alternative history theory.

All arguments with you quickly become interminable unless I take the
steps necessary to terminate them - which I am now doing.

What do you expect out of a discussion (or an argument)? That you (or I)
simply capitulate after a given number of posts?

No, by dear, dishonest correspondent. Your technique of "terminating the
discussion" when you simply are unable to respond cogently to logical
arguments that do not cut the way that you want them to is well known. It
won't mask the fact that you simply have nothing on your side of the
discussion except a hope that radiocarbon dates that have, to date, agreed
with the dating of the artifact evidence on the site, and the absence of any
discussion about a stone tower being in existence when the Newport colonists
arrived to begin their colony. Your evaluation of the evidence is biased,
and your holding out of a hope that the radiocarbon evidence can somehow be
calibrated to arrive at a pre-17th century date for the mortar,
notwithstanding the unknowns regarding conditions at the site in pre-17th
century times or whether the mortar was made exclusively with shell lime, or
exclusively with lime obtained from other sources, or a mixture of the two,
is a position of someone who is desparately hoping for a particular result,
rather than the position of a scientist who acknowledges a result has been
established even if not the one that was hoped for.






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


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Newport Tower - some reflections, and a question
    ... here about the recent work on the Newport Tower. ... What, if any, hard archaeological or other evidence (evidence, not ... say twenty miles) of the Newport Tower before 1800? ... Journal/Paper there do exist a drawing from where they had to stay ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • The Newport Tower - some reflections, and a question
    ... here about the recent work on the Newport Tower. ... What, if any, hard archaeological or other evidence (evidence, not ... British settlers, were active - at any time - at, or near to (within ... say twenty miles) of the Newport Tower before 1800? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Newport Tower and windmills - some comparisons
    ... remarkably similar in scale and proportions to the Newport Tower. ... not a prerequisite of use as an observatory) that the Newport Tower ... But by introducing a bit of mediaeval astronomy, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Alignments of the Newport Tower
    ... lecture, "Astronomical Alignments in the Newport Tower," on ... windmill built by Newport Gov. ... It wasn't built with "sophisticated measuring ... case for Newport Tower who ever built it and whenever it was built. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Alignments of the Newport Tower
    ... 15 years he has studied the tower and he'll present those findings ... "I'm going to try to emphasize that the case of the Newport Tower is ... a cold case like you see on TV these days," Penhallow explained. ... It wasn't built haphazardly. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading