 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / October 2004Iron Pyrite...
Have a look at this... http://www.minerals-n-more.com/Pyrite_Info.html I quote.... "TESTS: Fuses easily. Becomes magnetic and gives off SO2 fumes. Insoluble in HCl, but a fine powder will dissolve in concentrated HNO3. " What this meaans in layman's (or laywoman's!) terms is that iron pyrite (iron suphide) is vulnerable to heat and nitric acid... the sort of things someone artificially ageing something would probably use.... "ENVIRONMENT: There are other shiny brassy yellow minerals that might be mistaken for gold. But pyrite is the most common and the most often mistaken for gold. Hence The name "Fools Gold". It also has a beautiful luster and interesting crystals. Pyrite is found in almost every possible environment, there for it has many forms and varieties. Pyrite is a frequent associate of all sorts of metal ores. In addition, it forms concretionary masses in sedimentary rocks. It is common in coal, and in slates and other metamorphic rocks. Pyrite can be altered to an oxide of iron, becoming limonite. Although pyrite is more stable than marcasite, pyrite is easily oxidized. Veins of pyrite are commonly found with overlaying cellular deposits of limonite called gossan. The ready oxidation of pyrite both disintegrates and stains. Making rocks containing pyrite ineffective for any structural purposes. " Note the words "pyrite is easily oxidised". Nitric acid or an open flame... oxidising agents. Weathering accelerators. Now, who would have believed that Venusian weather condins could have anything to do with the KRS? Well they do, look at this - http://solarsystem.wustl.edu/95abstracts.htm#five Heavy stuff, but what it boils down to is this. If the KRS was treated with oxidising agents or cooked on a fire as part of attempts to artificially age it after in was carved in the late 19th century, all this stuff about pyrites is entirely irrelevant. The mistake that all the geologists and investigators seem too be making, is that they are not aware they are looking at something that was meant to fool them. They have assumed that nobody tampered with the KRS before its discovery - as a result, their results don't fit in with any possibility. Someone needs to point this out! Cheers Martin >Have a look at this... > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >after in was carved in the late 19th century, all this stuff about pyrites is >entirely irrelevant. The question is, could you do any of the above without leaving evidence of what you had done? >The mistake that all the geologists and investigators seem too be making, is >that they are not aware they are looking at something that was meant to fool >them. They have assumed that nobody tampered with the KRS before its discovery - >as a result, their results don't fit in with any possibility. Someone needs to >point this out! Umm. You are jumping to conclusions. As I have already told the news group, I KNOW that this has been considered from an early stage for the simple reason that my input was sought. I made enquiries of geologists/geochemists/mining-engineers and none of them could think of a process for artificial aging which could not be later detected. Eric Stevens > >Have a look at this... > > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > geologists/geochemists/mining-engineers and none of them could think > of a process for artificial aging which could not be later detected. Nitric Acid.... I assume they scrubbed it well afterwards...? If they did, there is no way on earth anyone could tell, especially if they neutralised it with bicarb and they left it to fester for a while. >> >Have a look at this... >> > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >If they did, there is no way on earth anyone could tell, especially if they >neutralised it with bicarb and they left it to fester for a while. And what makes you think the nitric acid would affect only the pyrites? Have you any real idea of what can be done with techniques like a scanning electron microscope with X-Ray diffraction, or ablative laser spectroscopy or even good old fashioned microscopy? If its any consolation to you, I don't know very much about it either but I'm assured by the experts that any method of artificial weathering they can think of would be readily identified by the anomalies it would create. In fact, I was told the only way to obscure the anomalies would be to expose the stone to natural weathering for several centuries. :-) Eric Stevens Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >>Nitric Acid.... I assume they scrubbed it well afterwards...? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >And what makes you think the nitric acid would affect only the >pyrites? >If its any consolation to you, I don't know very much about it either >but I'm assured by the experts that any method of artificial >weathering they can think of would be readily identified by the >anomalies it would create. In fact, I was told the only way to obscure >the anomalies would be to expose the stone to natural weathering for >several centuries. :-) What nobody has really mentioned here is the main product of pyrite oxidation in humid conditions: sulphuric acid, which will do a very nice natural erosion job on some other minerals. The reaction is accelerated by heat, but inhibited in the long term by the formation of a coating over the pyrite surface which tends to prevent further oxidation. If the surface is exposed to processes which inhibit the formation of such a coating (such as sluicing down with water, and freezing to break the surface up) the reaction should be accelerated still further. I'd be fascinated to learn how analysts would distinguish such treatment from natural rain and frost action. David B. David B, as usual you haven't done your homework - the thing you say no one mentioned has been thought of from 1900 on forward. Don't try to walk in too big shoes - they neither suits you nor do you know anything about them. All you and Martin have presented in thoughts are at best a what if which never ever could have happened - thus the so called hypothesis of Martin's and yours are invalid due to the simple fact that you start from an assumption which have been proven invalid and impossible long before you were born and the invalidity of your assumptions have grown because later testings shown that you aren't anything more than strawmen. Inger E > Eric Stevens wrote in message ... > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > David B. >Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >how analysts would distinguish such treatment from natural rain and frost >action. Which I take means you don't know either :-) But I am told, the experts could assuredly tell. Eric Stevens Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >>What nobody has really mentioned here is the main product of pyrite >>oxidation in humid conditions: sulphuric acid, which will do a very nice [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Which I take means you don't know either :-) No. I know one or two standard tests which certainly wouldn't work in this case, such as flourescence under UV, but given the known history of the KRS (definitely over 100 years old, thoroughly and by no means sensitively cleaned at least twice, kept in a shed and possibly used as a floor slab for several years) I'd need to see details to understand what methods could lead to such a firm conclusion. >But I am told, the experts could assuredly tell. As I've mentioned before, that is exactly the sort of mindset that forgers rely on. However, if anybody can provide further information on ways to detect accelerated weathering of greywackes using water and temperature variations (with an unknown amount of superimposed natural weathering) I'd love to read it. Some day, too, I'd love to read more about the weathering of the calcite on the KRS, which is another thing we haven't been discussing enough. David B. David B, you actually show yourself as the strawman you are by refering to two standard tests. You simply don't know what you are talking about - there have been made multiple tests and analyses including under electronmicroscope. You better listen to those who knows instead of pretending you know what you never been able to comprehend! There is no possibility what so ever that the Kensington Runestone wasn't carved before 1700 AD. If it was carved in 1500's or in 1362 is the only remaining question! Inger E > Eric Stevens wrote in message ... > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > David B. > David B, > you actually show yourself as the strawman you are by refering to two [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > carved before 1700 AD. If it was carved in 1500's or in 1362 is the only > remaining question! Inger, I'm afraid to tell you that an electron microscope may reveal erosion and destruction in marvellously fine detail, but cannot ascertain how it occured or over how long. Any geologist worth his salt will confirm this. This nonsense that you keep repeating will not become acceptable fact because you keep regurgitating it! The KRS may be worn down, but we will not be. You'd better listen to one who knows - me. I wouldn't like to see you make a fool of yourself, and become a laughing stock.... Cheers Martin >Eric Stevens wrote in message ... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >variations (with an unknown amount of superimposed natural weathering) I'd >love to read it. On this front, it is worth considering the serious difference between two classes of investigator: 1) Those who are good at determining the age of an object by scientific tests. 2) Those who are good at detecting forgeries and being skeptical about objects. Debunking is a different skill. A magician can often fool scientists, but not other magicians. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1997/50.html > >Eric Stevens wrote in message ... > >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > But I am told, the experts could assuredly tell. Experts do tend to say that of course, whatever field they work in! The obvious thing to do is to double blind test the experts with samples, but somehow I don't think anyone will get funding for that, and the 'experts' would refuse. May be worth an approach even so....? You have to ask yourself this - what causes weathering? That has been known for many years, freeze/thaw cycles, chemical reaction and abrasion. How would you accelerate it? It really isn't difficult (I used to work in a very similar field, doing reliabilty testing of electronic hardware - and still sometimes work in an even more relevant field, restoring antiques - artificial ageing is possible to do undetectably, I assure you!) Cheers Martin <snip> > >I'd be fascinated to learn > >how analysts would distinguish such treatment from natural rain and frost [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But I am told, the experts could assuredly tell. What experts, exactly? Do any exist? Daryl Krupa > Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > David B. Last month I was working with a material that is 20% pyrite and much of the rest is calcite, aka limestone or Ca(CO3)2. The upper levels of this deposit, while still mostly limestone, are completely oxidized. This is the typical pattern of pyrites; when exposed to oxygen and water near surface they decompose completely to form iron oxides and sulphuric acid. The typical iron oxide produced is Goethite FeO(OH). Limonite is the common name for the mineral assembly that replaces pyrite in crystals of the same shape and it is mostly Goethite. The reaction is self stimulating, once there is Fe ion in solution the decomposition accelerates. The sulphuric acid produced combines with calcite to produce gypsum or CaSO4. Because the acid travels to the calcite no coating forms on the pyrite. Can you please give a reference for a mineral that forms a permanent protective coating on pyrite, and the chemistry involved? Parts of that same deposit were mined around 1200 AD by ancient miners. The material they left in the dumps was exposed to the air and completely converted to oxides despite being in a dry desert (non humid) environment. As far as your statement about "I'd be fascinated to learn how analysts would distinguish such treatment from natural rain and frost action", so am I. As a rule of thumb chemical reactions double in rate for every 5deg C increase in temperature. Then there are threshold temperatures that if exceeded cause other reactions, like farenheight 451 for paper. Pyrite will oxidize in the absence of water at elevated temperatures, a process known as roasting in the smelting industry. Keeping a slab of greywacke in the back of a fireplace for a week would mimic years of exposure to a few weeks of 30 degree weather every summer. I know of no way that someone could tell the treatment history of a crystal that was once a pyrite crystal if it was aged at elevated temperatures. Z >> Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >>> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >treatment history of a crystal that was once a pyrite crystal if it was aged >at elevated temperatures. Z, I accept the fact that you know what you are talking about, which is more than I do in this field. However, from my now several-year old discussions with geochemists etc, I understand the problem for a would be forger is in the matter of transitions (such as your Fahrenheit 451 example). There are so many materials in so many structures within meta-greywacke such as the KRS that if someone attempts to subject them to artificial aging by dousing with horse piss, baking in a fire, accelerated artificial weathering cycles etc, they are not all going to react in the way they would if the KRS had spent years/centuries quietly weathering on a hill in Minnesota. My sources say that if their (or their specialist technician's) suspicions were raised they would look for anomalies in the fine details and they could not tell me of an artificial weathering process in which glaring anomalies could not be found. One must not forget that if forgery took place, it occurred at least 110 years ago and probably 150 years ago. The knowledge of geochemistry, crystallography and in fact, chemistry in general would not arm a would-be forger of those day to defeat a modern critical examination. Even if they did have that knowledge, they also would have to have anticipated electron microscopes, X-rays, X-ray diffraction, lasers, stimulated fluorescence - not to mention the invention of transistors and the construction of computers to process the complex data produced by these technologies. The only way an forgery of the KRS could escape detection would be if no suspicions were raised and nobody subject it to critical examination. I do know that suspicions have been raised (who doesn't know that?) but I don't know what has been done in the way of examination. Eric Stevens >>> Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > > Eric Stevens To the best of my knowledge there are no anamolies that could be detected by modern science that would unequivocably show that the KRS was artificially aged or not. Absent another identical piece of the same outcrop that is. With the metamorphic origin of greywacke there is little that could be unique or odd. There are others here that know more about mineralogy than I do, if they say otherwise and give the chemistry I'll agree. Can you at least hint at what could be detected by technlogy? Even Wolter has said nothing AFAIK except about the micas. There is a second half to this discussion that keeps getting forgotten. All that is known officially is that the stone was underground until 1895. What is it's supposed history prior to that? What would be the difference if it was buried as soon as it was carved vs it was placed in the sunshine and ice of the praries then accidentally knocked over by an itchy buffalo in 1743 and burried by sucessive generations of prarie dogs and the badgers that ate them cira 1806-1827 before a tree finally sprouted on that site in 1834? Or any other sequence you care to name? You give too much credit to the need for knowing science to forge something. If, for example, I wanted to age a slab mechanically I'd leave it in a fast flowing stream (a rapids or waterfall) where a year would mimic centuries of exposure to the air. There is no way that later investigation would reveal the velocity of the water that wore the surface down. Z zolota, 'to the best of' your knowledge is far from the best of today's geochemisters knowledge - far from. Not only can it be shown if someone tempered with the stone but it has been shown more than once that it didn't happen. Inger E > >>> Eric Stevens wrote in message ... > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > > Z >> zolota, > 'to the best of' your knowledge is far from the best of today's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Inger E Then tell me what can be detected and perhaps a citation ot two. NOTHING has been shown about the stone because nothing has been published. Z > >> zolota, > > 'to the best of' your knowledge is far from the best of today's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Then tell me what can be detected and perhaps a citation ot two. NOTHING has > been shown about the stone because nothing has been published. Well the older testings have been published with results, thought you knew, the later years testing by several are about to be published, thought you knew that as well. As for what can be found - every single trick up your armsleves according to a geochemist I have known since we were in High School and who I speaks to every now and then - most now since we are writing on a book together. Inger E > Z > zolota, > 'to the best of' your knowledge is far from the best of today's > geochemisters knowledge - far from. > > Not only can it be shown if someone tempered with the stone but it has been > shown more than once that it didn't happen. Where "has it been shown" Inger? Until I see evidence, it has NOT been shown! --- snip --- >> Z, >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >modern science that would unequivocably show that the KRS was artificially >aged or not. Nothing is unequivocal but some things are anomalous. I can't give youan example in metamorphosed greywake :-) but I can cite a similar example in a feild closer to my own work. A large galvanising bath had cracked and filled with molten zinc. There was a very expensive argument over when the crack developed based on theories as to when the zinc entered the crack and started doing what overly-hot molten zinc does in these circumstances.. A research metallurgist had a good look at the material just below the crack surface and went through a complex analysis which led him to conclude that certain manganese carbides were consistent with one theory but not another. Rates of diffusion were a key part of his analysis. The KRS is a much more complex structure than the low-carbon steel of a galvanising bath and I would be astonished if there were not processes involved in weathering which were dependent on factors independent of mere surface exposure or even number of temperature cycles. Based on my own experience in the fields familiar to me, and the discussions I have had in the past, I would expect that there would be detectable subsurface anomalies if someone had attempted to accelerate the weathering process. >Absent another identical piece of the same outcrop that is. >With the metamorphic origin of greywacke there is little that could be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >them cira 1806-1827 before a tree finally sprouted on that site in 1834? Or >any other sequence you care to name? I agree with you over that. People talk to glibly of 'weathering' as though the KRS has been exposed on a hill side for all (or most) of its known life. >You give too much credit to the need for knowing science to forge something. >If, for example, I wanted to age a slab mechanically I'd leave it in a fast >flowing stream (a rapids or waterfall) where a year would mimic centuries of >exposure to the air. There is no way that later investigation would reveal >the velocity of the water that wore the surface down. I don't know that either of us will ever have an opportunity to collect but, if you are talking about artificial aging, I would be willing to bet you are wrong. While, I tend to agree with you over the velocity of the water, I expect that examination could show that the surface was worn rather eroded from exposure to the surface. Eric Stevens Eric, writing on top because I answer to all text below. The chances of someone in 1898 knowing the acid and non acid components of for example 1700 to 1898 is zero. Same goes for earlier periods. Today we know. What we do know is that KRS have been out under 'normal' weathering conditions for more than 200 years before it came to the ground. Which gives us a more complex picture than what the naysayers seems to understand. The chemical figures for contents in rainwater give us result for a longer aging then the period of 1700 to 1898; but not for all the period 1362 to 1898. Which would have been nice had the stone been found standing up out in the air all the time. Then we know that the stone was found in 1898. As presented above we know that the carvings show that the stone had been out in wind with weathering for at least 200 years. The stone is proven to have been found inside a root. The minimum period the stone been inside the root after falling down in the earth has been shown to be more than those 200 years. Inger E > --- snip --- > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > Eric Stevens > --- snip --- > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > velocity of the water, I expect that examination could show that the > surface was worn rather eroded from exposure to the surface. There is another vital point here - the period 'above ground' as opposed to underground (were it from 1362) is unknown, and yet another variable to be taken into account. There are just too many variables to make *reliable* dating based on surface erosion accurate, never mind adding the complexities of possible artificial erosion by a forger. That's why I say, and continue to say, there will be no resolution of the issue from any such investigations, unless thoroughly, comprehensively and completely undertaken. Cheers Martin > --- snip --- > [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > Eric Stevens Your example of a metal failure to me is not that different from the greywacks while you think the latter are far more complex. As for aging using water, yes, I can detect the difference from air aging. What I cannot tell is the time and slurry conditions that caused a given amount of weathering that is obviously from water based abrasion. As a forger I would also include freeze-thaw cycles, from fireplace to snow bank daily as I posted here months ago. This would serve to burn the sulphides (not really significant in greywacke anyhow) and abrade the other minerals via thermal shock. When the winter is over I'd drop the rock into a rapids where it could be attacked mechanically. By the following fall IMHO I'd have a rock that I could place on a hill and fool any Swede willing to believe. Lets not forget that no one claims to know where the rock was after 1362 and do a little psychological forensics on top of our mineralogy. A group of europeans has just discovered 1/3rd of their party dead from hostile locals. Are they going to leave a runestone on the surface where some killer can see it and destroy or bury it? Are they naieve enough to think that if they bury it then at some time in the future someone who recognizes writting will unearth it? The incongruity of spending time carving a rock that the enemy will destroy is to me more damning proof of a forgery that any geologist can ever present. Z >> --- snip --- >> [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] >could be attacked mechanically. By the following fall IMHO I'd have a rock >that I could place on a hill and fool any Swede willing to believe. Aah yes, but could you fool the Scott Wolters of this world? >Lets not forget that no one claims to know where the rock was after 1362 and >do a little psychological forensics on top of our mineralogy. A group of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >will destroy is to me more damning proof of a forgery that any geologist can >ever present. Alternatively, it may just mean we have the wrong take on what it is all about. Eric Stevens > On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 08:35:30 GMT, "zolota" <zolota3@REMOVEshaw.ca> SNIP > Aah yes, but could you fool the Scott Wolters of this world? Why not? Remember Piltdown man? ever notice how fast some ideas are changing (despite yuri's blather about fixed ideas)? >>Lets not forget that no one claims to know where the rock was after 1362 >>and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>can >>ever present. > Alternatively, it may just mean we have the wrong take on what it is > all about. You get the booby prize for that statement. But in saying so you recognize that the provenance has to be taken into account. Most of us are still waiting to see an explanation of why the so called survivors wrote what they did on a rock. (Z does not stand for zealot) Z >> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 08:35:30 GMT, "zolota" <zolota3@REMOVEshaw.ca> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >waiting to see an explanation of why the so called survivors wrote what they >did on a rock. I don't think it warrants a booby prize. If after 100 years we acn't work out exactly what the message meant in terms of the superficially obvious explanation it may be we should stop and try to work out what else it might mean. As for provenance? What is its original provenance. Just because it was found in Kensington it doesn't mean it started off there. >(Z does not stand for zealot) > >Z Eric Stevens > >> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 08:35:30 GMT, "zolota" <zolota3@REMOVEshaw.ca> > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > As for provenance? What is its original provenance. Just because it > was found in Kensington it doesn't mean it started off there. It probably did. Given the artifacts that are found and definitely are Pre-Columbian. PS for BW's information her assumption that the other artifacts only are axes - that's completely wrong. While there are discussed axes, not the ones BW put forward btw, there are much more qualified artifacts found. Inger E > >(Z does not stand for zealot) > > > >Z > > Eric Stevens (Snip) >It probably did. Given the artifacts that are found and definitely are >Pre-Columbian. PS for BW's information her assumption that the other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Inger E What do you mean by the term qualified artifact? Are you accepting some evidence and rejecting the rest? And what is the basis of the rejection. > (Snip) > >It probably did. Given the artifacts that are found and definitely are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > some evidence and rejecting the rest? And what is the basis of the > rejection. I can't argue for or against ALL axes. I have knowledge of some - never discussed in this group - which definitely might be genuine, but until 'their' case is settled; iron analysed for origin type of procedure style etc etc I will not say that I accept them. There are however many other I accept due to three main reasons - contents, context and that they add up with written documents as well as oral tradition. I will not discuss this part here and now. There are main works underway from many scholars which will present a full picture. My part is in an article waiting to be published and in a manuscript where I am waiting for some special photos to be taken. Inger E Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >> IMHO I'd have a rock >> that I could place on a hill and fool any Swede willing to believe. > >Aah yes, but could you fool the Scott Wolters of this world? The trouble is that there is only one Kensington Runestone, so even the best experts struggle to interpret the evidence of its unique history, whatever that history may be. It will be interesting to see how far the Swedish analysts have been able to work independently, as opposed to merely providing a critique of Wolter's work. David B. Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >>Can you please >>give a reference for a mineral that forms a permanent protective coating on >>pyrite, and the chemistry involved? http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/abstract_43592.htm states the principle: "The rate slows with time because a thin layer of ferrous sulfate + sulfuric acid solution grows on pyrite and retards oxygen transport to the pyrite surface." For the (bacterial) mechanism, see http://www.geo.uw.edu.pl/ZASOBY/PYRITE/pyrite6.htm >There are so many materials in so many structures within >meta-greywacke such as the KRS that if someone attempts to subject [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >me of an artificial weathering process in which glaring anomalies >could not be found. I'd still like to see some evidence that this could be done where significant natural weathering was superimposed on an artificial technique that stuck as closely as possible to natural processes. >One must not forget that if forgery took place, it occurred at least >110 years ago and probably 150 years ago. The knowledge of >geochemistry, crystallography and in fact, chemistry in general would >not arm a would-be forger of those day to defeat a modern critical >examination. See above- in this scenario the forger's lack of sophistication turns out to be an advantage. It seems most unlikely that any metagreywacke forgery with such a combination of accelerated and natural weathering has been detected, because the KRS, forged or not, has a unique and very complex history. As I think I suggested months ago, the way forward is probably to collect samples of the same type of rock as the KRS for testing, but not to expect meaningful results any time this century. David B. David B, now you proven that you know nothing - stop pretending you know anything at all about KRS, 1354's voyage from Bergen via Iceland, or the voyages in Vinland between 1358 and 1362. Nor have you shown that you know anything what so ever when it comes to the chemical contents in the rain and wind in Minnesota from 1360's up to 1898 AD. How on earth do you believe that anyone in 1898 could know anything at all about acid and non-acid elements in the air of Kensington prior to 1898???????????????? You David B are a strawman. Inger E > Eric Stevens wrote in message ... > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > David B. > David B, > now you proven that you know nothing - stop pretending you know anything at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in 1898 could know anything at all about acid and non-acid elements in the > air of Kensington prior to 1898???????????????? You David B are a strawman. Welcome to the Brotherhood of Strawmen David! (What is a strawman I wonder?) All David is saying is that there is no reliable way of taking into account all the possibilities of real and artificial weathering that may have occured, that will allow the date of the carving to be accurately assessed. Perhaps we shouls approach this from another angle... Say you had carved a nice, pristine runestone, and wished to make it look old. How would you do it, using simple chemicals, abrasives and techniques? Cheers Martin >> David B, >> now you proven that you know nothing - stop pretending you know anything at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Welcome to the Brotherhood of Strawmen David! (What is a strawman I wonder?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man >All David is saying is that there is no reliable way of taking into account all >the possibilities of real and artificial weathering that may have occured, that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Say you had carved a nice, pristine runestone, and wished to make it look old. >How would you do it, using simple chemicals, abrasives and techniques? Just making it 'look old' is not the real problem. The real problem is making it look old using techniques which are indetectable. Eric Stevens > >> David B, > >> now you proven that you know nothing - stop pretending you know anything at [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Just making it 'look old' is not the real problem. The real problem is > making it look old using techniques which are indetectable. Not to mention using techniques available in 19th century and with 19th century knowledge(if any) of how acid rain and weatheringimpacts were to look like in 21th century electronmicroscop, laser tests, X-rays and how sample taken in 21th century from the stone should show same surface as the surface 'above' and around the carvings as the sample ..... not to mention a lot of other test that have been made over the years in 20th and 21th century. Inger E > Eric Stevens > >> David B, > >> now you proven that you know nothing - stop pretending you know anything at [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Just making it 'look old' is not the real problem. The real problem is > making it look old using techniques which are indetectable. No it's not. Age it, then bury it where it was dug up. A period of four or five years in moist soil will undoubtedly erase the traces of forgery. If you claim otherwise, prove it. > Eric Stevens Steve >> Just making it 'look old' is not the real problem. The real problem is >> making it look old using techniques which are indetectable. > >No it's not. Age it, then bury it where it was dug up. A period of four >or five years in moist soil will undoubtedly erase the traces of forgery. >If you claim otherwise, prove it. Steve - boy. That questions just a lawyers debating trick. Have you actually got a technically competent person who says they can artificially age the KRS with the knowledge and techniques available in the 19th century to achieve results which are indetectable today? Are they prepared to explain the geochemistry of how they are going to do it? FYI, Martin Reboul does not qualify. (Sorry Martin). Eric Stevens > >> Just making it 'look old' is not the real problem. The real problem is > >> making it look old using techniques which are indetectable. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > FYI, Martin Reboul does not qualify. (Sorry Martin). Have you actually got a qualified *and disinterested" technically competent person who says otherwise? Inger's imaginery friends, and Scott Wolter don't count. If so, give us the name(s), the qualification(s), and a synopsis of his/her/their reasoning. Absent that, the speculation I've published is just as good as the speculation you've published, and a lot more logical into the bargain. > Eric Stevens Steve  SignatureThe 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 >> >> Just making it 'look old' is not the real problem. The real problem is >> >> making it look old using techniques which are indetectable. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >published is just as good as the speculation you've published, and a lot >more logical into the bargain. You first. Its YOUR claim I was questioning. You were the one in the current round to make a blanket statement without explanation or justification. I've called you on it. You don't get out of it by trying to turn it around on me. You said there would be traces of forgery to erase but they would be erased by a period of four or five years in moist soil. What traces of forgery will there be left to erase and how will they be erased by a period of four or five years in moist soil? How is that you, as a patent attorney, know this? Eric Stevens > >> >> Just making it 'look old' is not the real problem. The real problem is > >> >> making it look old using techniques which are indetectable. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > justification. I've called you on it. You don't get out of it by > trying to turn it around on me. Bullshit. You've been posting claims on sci.archaeology for at least a week (if not more) purporting to know that a forger could not artificially age the KRS without leaving traces behind. Now put up,or shut up. Otherwise, my claim is just as good as you claim, and needs no more backing up than you do. > You said there would be traces of forgery to erase but they would be > erased by a period of four or five years in moist soil. What traces of > forgery will there be left to erase and how will they be erased by a > period of four or five years in moist soil? Reaction products on the surface of the stone. > How is that you, as a > patent attorney, know this? Assuming that I am a patent attorney, what do you think the background of a patent attorney would be? Do you think that *a few* geologists and chemists might work at a firm of patent attorneys? Or that a patent attorney might have some contacts at the patent office? Do you imagine that a few geologists and chemists might work at a first rate patent office examining patent applications in those fields? Now, what precisely would an accident reconstructor know of geology, chemistry and artificial aging of stone? > Eric Stevens Steve SignatureThe 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 -- 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 >> >> >> Just making it 'look old' is not the real problem. The real problem >is [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >my claim is just as good as you claim, and needs no more backing up than you >do. You never challenged me on these until I challenged your assertion above. Now you want to try and change the subject. >> You said there would be traces of forgery to erase but they would be >> erased by a period of four or five years in moist soil. What traces of >> forgery will there be left to erase and how will they be erased by a >> period of four or five years in moist soil? > >Reaction products on the surface of the stone. Got you first time! You don't know what you are talking about. Weathering is not just reaction products on the surface of a stone but penetrate the surface of the stone. In some cases it can be *metres* thick. >> How is that you, as a >> patent attorney, know this? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >geologists and chemists might work at a first rate patent office examining >patent applications in those fields? Yes, they might, but from your response you obviously haven't consulted them. >Now, what precisely would an accident reconstructor know of geology, >chemistry and artificial aging of stone? Obviously more than you, but still very little, which is why some years ago I consulted those who do. Eric Stevens > >> >> >> Just making it 'look old' is not the real problem. The real problem > >is [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > You never challenged me on these until I challenged your assertion > above. Now you want to try and change the subject. No. I don't want to change the subject. *You* made certain claims. I challenged them. It is up to *you* to defend *your* claims. Attacking my counterclaim does not in any way buttress *your* claim. Suppose my challenge is wrong. How does that support *your* claim? > >> You said there would be traces of forgery to erase but they would be > >> erased by a period of four or five years in moist soil. What traces of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reaction products on the surface of a stone but penetrate the surface > of the stone. In some cases it can be *metres* thick. Moron, weathering produced with chemicals will indeed leave reaction products on the surface, and may or may not leave reaction products beneath the surface. Just as surface contact with soil and the chemicals therein, as well as subsurface water, may wash traces of the reaction products off the surface of the stone, the subsurface water and chemicals carried thereby may also penetrate beneath the surface of a porous stone. > >> How is that you, as a > >> patent attorney, know this? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yes, they might, but from your response you obviously haven't > consulted them. Bullshit. It is becoming more apparent that it is you who have fabricated a story, taking a page from Inger's playbook. You haven't consulted anyone credentialed in the field, and have forayed into the discussion armed only with your own opinion. Again, *you've* made a claim. Now give us references; names, credentials, reference books to support your blathering. > >Now, what precisely would an accident reconstructor know of geology, > >chemistry and artificial aging of stone? > > Obviously more than you, but still very little, which is why some > years ago I consulted those who do. Oh, now it's some years ago you did the consulting?? Well, since the discussion re artificial weathering of the KRS has essentially (you will note that word) been confined to the last year to 18 months, I doubt that you consulted anyone re the KRS. Again, *you've* made a claim. Now give us references; names, credentials, reference books to support your blathering. Or are your "sources" just as imaginery as Inger's are? > Eric Stevens Steve >> >> >> >> Just making it 'look old' is not the real problem. The real >problem [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >No. I don't want to change the subject. *You* made certain claims. I >challenged them. But only AFTER I challenged yours. Your's was a defensive challenge. I bet you don't have an answer to my original challenge of you. >It is up to *you* to defend *your* claims. Attacking my >counterclaim does not in any way buttress *your* claim. Suppose my [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >products on the surface, and may or may not leave reaction products beneath >the surface. Thank you for giving an example of how crude attempts to fake aging can easily be detected. >Just as surface contact with soil and the chemicals therein, >as well as subsurface water, may wash traces of the reaction products off >the surface of the stone, the subsurface water and chemicals carried thereby >may also penetrate beneath the surface of a porous stone. But oh-so-slowly Steve, oh-so-slowly. That's one of the ways in which diffusion rates can help unearth attempts at artificial aging. --- usual snip ---- Eric Stevens <snip> > >> >Bullshit. You've been posting claims on sci.archaeology for at least a > >week [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > But only AFTER I challenged yours. Your's was a defensive challenge. I > bet you don't have an answer to my original challenge of you. So what? Challenging my claims in no way supports your claims. > >It is up to *you* to defend *your* claims. Attacking my > >counterclaim does not in any way buttress *your* claim. Suppose my > >challenge is wrong. How does that support *your* claim? No clever answer here, eh Eric? Oh I know, what I posted was too much for you to read. > >> >> You said there would be traces of forgery to erase but they would be > >> >> erased by a period of four or five years in moist soil. What traces of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Thank you for giving an example of how crude attempts to fake aging > can easily be detected. Disingenuous, Eric. Try reading the above sentence with the next sentence. > >Just as surface contact with soil and the chemicals therein, > >as well as subsurface water, may wash traces of the reaction products off > >the surface of the stone, the subsurface water and chemicals carried thereby > >may also penetrate beneath the surface of a porous stone. > But oh-so-slowly Steve, oh-so-slowly. That's one of the ways in which > diffusion rates can help unearth attempts at artificial aging. Hmmm..... It seems that suddenly what I wrote doesn't seem so desperately wrong to you, eh Eric? Slowly under what conditions, Eric? Depends entirely upon the soil in which the stone is buried, and the rate at which the subsurface water runs. Wolter do any measurements on Runestone Hill, which is, being a hill, likely to have somewhat high rates of flow in any subsurface water, particularly if only lightly treed. > --- usual snip ---- Of stuff that Stevens simply cannot answer on the merits. > Eric Stevens Steve ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >So what? Challenging my claims in no way supports your claims. I never said it did. All I intended was to put your claim to the question, which you have been assiduously evading ever since. >> >It is up to *you* to defend *your* claims. Attacking my >> >counterclaim does not in any way buttress *your* claim. Suppose my >> >challenge is wrong. How does that support *your* claim? > >No clever answer here, eh Eric? Oh I know, what I posted was too much for >you to read. No, I'm letting you justify your claim first. After all, I asked for you to do that before you asked me. --- evasion snipped --- Eric Stevens > ><snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > --- evasion snipped --- Evasion snipped? That's a good one, since you've been doing the evading. As I've posted, my claim is based on logic that I dreamed up myself. I vetted it with knowledgeable people in relevant disciplines, who did not contest the logic. Now, support your claim, or shut the hell up. Steve SignatureThe 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 > > Eric Stevens > >> Just making it 'look old' is not the real problem. The real problem is > >> making it look old using techniques which are indetectable. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > FYI, Martin Reboul does not qualify. (Sorry Martin). My qualifications may be somewhat lacking in geology, I admit, but my chemistry, physics, history and experience of art forgery will suffice - is this a challenge? <snip> >> You David B are a strawman. > > Welcome to the Brotherhood of Strawmen David! (What is a strawman I wonder?) Martin, Johansson knows that, in discussion/debate, a 'strawman' is a bad thing. You and David B. are bad things. Ergo, completing her munged syllogism, you and David B. are 'strawmen'. She is not clear on the concept. But she is absolutely certain she's right. Isn't it fun learning another culture? :-) <snip> SignatureTom McDonald > Isn't it fun learning another culture? :-) Different newsgroup(s). SignaturePhilip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/ Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/ Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Sci. Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/ >"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@notelia.com> wrote in message >> air of Kensington prior to 1898???????????????? You David B are a strawman. > >Welcome to the Brotherhood of Strawmen David! (What is a strawman I wonder?) In a limited sense, Inger's words have a sort of meaning. I think you know the normal sense, though. Some don't. For most of us, a "Strawman Argument" is a technique for buffing up a failed assertion by the law of the excluded middle. It's rhetoric in its nature. You change their argument and insist either your version of it, or your actual theory, must be correct, then disprove the one you chose to argue against, leaving only your own to stand alone as the "correct one." There are two "errors", one is misrepresenting the argument against you, and the other is of excluding all possible arguments aside from your own and what you say is the alternative. It can be done by fairly profound ignorance or misunderstanding, but it is usually pure deception and a tactic employed by someone who knows they are just dead wrong. The strawman in this case, is the fictional person you invent to make the false assertion, since you have actually made up the whole thing - nobody really is making that assertion. It's a strawman because it can't fight back, defend the assertion or anything like that. Really, really wooly thinkers can be mugged like this. You misrepresent their argument and although everyone else knows it is not how things were, the opponent can sometimes adopt the faulty version and attempt to defend it. Since it is deliberately chosen to be faulty, you should now be able to disprove it. Course, sometimes the faulty version is entirely true, e.g. you are arguing against someone who knows QED and you've just said "Person B says that uncertainty means it is possible for Beethoven seated at a grand piano and playing the ending to his unfinished symphony, can just pop into existence out of thin air..." Person B, then says "Actually..." But these are special cases. A good fictional analogy is a prize fight. Martin "Pictbane" Reboul is renowned around the market towns of Old Sussex for prize fighting, and over for the bareknuckle boxing season is Inger "Berserker" Johannson. Many people are placing bets on which prize fighter will turn out to be the best on the day. Come the day of the great fight, Martin arrives, and facing him in the ring is a suspiciously silent Swede, the bell rings, and he moves forwards, the Swede does not move and merely stands there while Martin lands blow after killer blow, until the Swede literally falls to bits in a shower of straw. Afterwards, there is a stewards' enquiry and all bets are cancelled as they rule that Martin has actually been fighting a strawman rather than the real "Berserker", who has ended up in Dundee or something due to a mixup with the train platforms at King's Cross. In the case of the assertions from Inger regarding DavidB, she says he is a strawman. In this case, she is refusing to acknowledge he is presenting an argument at all, a sort of "inverse" strawman claim as only Inger is in a position to create a strawman for her to fight in the first place. This is a bit like turning up to the Big Fight and saying she won't take on DavidB because he is a strawman, not the real thing. He can jump about and prove otherwise, but this won't sway Inger's resolve. We might all say she was a coward on the day and bottled it, and from then on, we all think we know who would have won if the fight had gone ahead, and we think Inger thought the same, hence the reluctance. So it makes some sense, in that way. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1997/50.html > >"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@notelia.com> wrote in message > >> air of Kensington prior to 1898???????????????? You David B are a strawman. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > making that assertion. It's a strawman because it can't fight back, defend the > assertion or anything like that. Awww... I'm not a strawman then.... > Really, really wooly thinkers can be mugged like this. You misrepresent their > argument and although everyone else knows it is not how things were, the [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Inger thought the same, hence the reluctance. So it makes some sense, in that > way. Phew, this is complicated stuff! What happens when a strawman faces another strawman I wonder? Not much of a scrap I'd imagine... I shall keep punching... not even started yet! > http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1997/50.html That Learned Magistrate can be the ref. - respect! Cheers Martin >Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >significant natural weathering was superimposed on an artificial technique >that stuck as closely as possible to natural processes. I've already said: "I'm assured by the experts that any method of artificial weathering they can think of would be readily identified by the anomalies it would create. In fact, I was told the only way to obscure the anomalies would be to expose the stone to natural weathering for several centuries. :-)" ... so it seems that in this respect we are all mainly in agreement. >>One must not forget that if forgery took place, it occurred at least >>110 years ago and probably 150 years ago. The knowledge of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >collect samples of the same type of rock as the KRS for testing, but not to >expect meaningful results any time this century. Using chemical means to mimic real weathering would be real minefield for a forger of the 19th century. I expect that acclerated thermal cycles would also be detectable in that the rate of surface loss would be faster than in the natural case. This means that components immediately below the surface would not have time to be affected by diffusion of chemicals from the surface as would be the case with natural weathering. That is, the chemically weathered layer would be too thin. Eric Stevens > >Eric Stevens wrote in message ... > >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > only way to obscure the anomalies would be to expose > the stone to natural weathering for several centuries. :-)" Name the experts, and report their specific comments. BTW, did any of them discuss what would happen if one aged the stone, and then buried it in moist soil, where it might have laid for up to 20 years? > ... so it seems that in this respect we are all mainly in agreement. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Using chemical means to mimic real weathering would be real minefield > for a forger of the 19th century. Why? Because you say so? > I expect that acclerated thermal cycles would also be detectable in > that the rate of surface loss would be faster than in the natural > case. This means that components immediately below the surface would > not have time to be affected by diffusion of chemicals from the > surface as would be the case with natural weathering. That is, the > chemically weathered layer would be too thin. Nice try, but far from certain. What you "expect" is not evidence. If natural exposure to heat and cold over a period of centuries would have produced weathering and an effect on components beneath the surface, there is no reason to believe that months of exposure to temperatures very much higher than "natural" high temperatures followed by chilling would not have obtained similar effects on components immediately below the surface. > Eric Stevens Steve SignatureThe 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 Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >Using chemical means to mimic real weathering would be real minefield >for a forger of the 19th century. Agreed. If the KRS was forged and artificially weathered, I prefer to assume it would be based on acceleration of "normal" weathering processes (I just thought of another that would be fun- filling shotgun cartridges with sand and blasting away at the stone to simulate wind erosion!) >I expect that acclerated thermal cycles would also be detectable in >that the rate of surface loss would be faster than in the natural >case. This means that components immediately below the surface would >not have time to be affected by diffusion of chemicals from the >surface as would be the case with natural weathering. That is, the >chemically weathered layer would be too thin. The catch with that is, we have just established that one important chemical process in the KRS, pyrite oxidation producing sulphuric acid, would itself be accelerated by a weathering process involving heat and moisture (and freeze-thaw would also open up micropores in the outer layer of the rock, which would aid diffusion). However, I agree that investigation of that sort of process, rather than simply the mica and pyrite degradation, is important when trying to establish the true age of the KRS carving. By the way, it occurs to me that carving the runes on freshly cleaved surfaces would be rather a clever move for a forger- applying artificial weathering just to the runes without affecting the surrounding surface would be very tricky indeed. David B. > Eric Stevens wrote in message ... > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > pyrite degradation, is important when trying to establish the true age of > the KRS carving. HAS BEEN DONE. Information will be awailable later. > By the way, it occurs to me that carving the runes on freshly cleaved > surfaces would be rather a clever move for a forger- applying artificial > weathering just to the runes without affecting the surrounding surface > would be very tricky indeed. The KRS runes have been proven to have been carved earlier than 200 years before they were found. Make no mistake about that. Inger E > David B. > > Eric Stevens wrote in message ... > > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > HAS BEEN DONE. Information will be awailable later. Not good enough sweetie! There IS NO information, is there :¬) None that will support your onsensical claims. Admit it. That's why it "can't be released", even the crap you have can't be bent to suit. You have lost. > > By the way, it occurs to me that carving the runes on freshly cleaved > > surfaces would be rather a clever move for a forger- applying artificial [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The KRS runes have been proven to have been carved earlier than 200 years > before they were found. Make no mistake about that. Proven by whom? When? We want URL's, we demand an answer - saying "I posted it last year..." or "it's secret..." just will not do Inger. Get your hat ready you silly, arrogant woman, and prepare your felt feast! Cheers Martin >> > Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >> > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Not good enough sweetie! There IS NO information, is there :¬) There seems to be. See my post of today re the meeting at Kensington. >None that will support your onsensical claims. Admit it. That's why it "can't be >released", even the crap you have can't be bent to suit. You have lost. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Cheers > Martin Eric Stevens > >> > Eric Stevens wrote in message ... > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > There seems to be. See my post of today re the meeting at Kensington. There ARE such information. Martin made a fool of himself once again. > >None that will support your onsensical claims. Admit it. That's why it "can't be > >released", even the crap you have can't be bent to suit. You have lost. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > >Proven by whom? When? By more scholars of geology than you would like to think of and by scholars of geochemistry.... Martin never learns to check background information before he speaks. > >We want URL's, we demand an answer - saying "I posted it last year..." or "it's > >secret..." just will not do Inger. Get your hat ready you silly, arrogant woman, > >and prepare your felt feast! > > Cheers > > Martin I am neither silly nor ignorant but Martin himself is. I suggest that he buy chili-pepper he will need it. Inger E > Eric Stevens "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@notelia.com> wrote (snip) We shall see... and maybe even you will, at long last. >Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >(I just thought of another that would be fun- filling shotgun cartridges >with sand and blasting away at the stone to simulate wind erosion!) That might be OK in a region where rapid wind erosion from flying sand is to be expected. I doubt if that applies to Minnesota :-) >>I expect that acclerated thermal cycles would also be detectable in >>that the rate of surface loss would be faster than in the natural [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >weathering just to the runes without affecting the surrounding surface >would be very tricky indeed. The forger would have to deal with the whole lot - including the calcite. Eric Stevens Eric Stevens wrote in message <49rlj0pv07qn7a26ikot66brk4na09k6e3@4ax.com>... >>By the way, it occurs to me that carving the runes on freshly cleaved >>surfaces would be rather a clever move for a forger- applying artificial [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The forger would have to deal with the whole lot - including the >calcite. Which brings me back to my comment a few days ago that we haven't discussed the calcite enough. On the one hand, we have Winchell claiming that it wasn't in the open air more than a few decades; on the other hand, the erosion it does show on photos includes the flaking off of fairly large pieces adjoining some letters, suggesting that it may have been subject, either naturally or artificially, to pretty severe freeze-thaw. David B. >Eric Stevens wrote in message ><49rlj0pv07qn7a26ikot66brk4na09k6e3@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the calcite enough. On the one hand, we have Winchell claiming that it >wasn't in the open air more than a few decades; Did he? He may have, but I don't remember where. Can you give me a pointer? > ... on the other hand, the >erosion it does show on photos includes the flaking off of fairly large >pieces adjoining some letters, suggesting that it may have been subject, >either naturally or artificially, to pretty severe freeze-thaw. > >David B. Eric Stevens Eric Stevens wrote in message ... >>we haven't discussed >>the calcite enough. On the one hand, we have Winchell claiming that it >>wasn't in the open air more than a few decades; > >Did he? He may have, but I don't remember where. Can you give me a >pointer? His comments on "The Slight Weathering of the Rune Stone", as transcribed by the ever-handy Michael Z: http://www.geocities.com/thetropics/island/3634/weathering3.htm (about half-way down the page). >> ... on the other hand, the >>erosion it does show on photos includes the flaking off of fairly large >>pieces adjoining some letters, suggesting that it may have been subject, >>either naturally or artificially, to pretty severe freeze-thaw. David B. > His comments on "The Slight Weathering of the Rune Stone", > as transcribed by the ever-handy Michael Z: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>>that it may have been subject, either naturally or >>>artificially, to pretty severe freeze-thaw. This however does not make any sense. Unless the person who found the stone and stored it was the hoaxer, why would anyone go through all the trouble of 1. Creating a hoax in the mid 19th century when the levels of detection are so poor. 2. Burying it in such a way it would likely never be found. I am in partial agreement with Eric, the meaning of the stone does not seem to be clear. There is a prankish element or amatuerish element to the stone, that is clear, but the actual reasoning . . . . . Could this stone have been place there to mark or commemorate an event, such as at a festival, some guy scores with his girlfriend on top of a hill, . . . . . . The other possibility is the fact that the stone was entangled in tree roots. If this were a burial the stone might have been placed there next to a young tree, as is the custom for some 19th and 20th century rural peoples. I wonder if anyone ever checked the vicinity of where the stone was found for human remains. What I would say is that the condition in which the stone was found suggests that its placement may not have been a hoax, unless the purpose of the hoax was to dubiously be discovered. In which case the finder of the runestone is a collaborator in the hoax (either willing or unwilling 'as in duped' by someone else). SignaturePhilip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/ Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/ Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Sci. Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/ Philip Deitiker wrote in message ... >Unless the person who >found the stone and stored it was the hoaxer, why would anyone >go through all the trouble of >1. Creating a hoax in the mid 19th century when the levels of >detection are so poor. >2. Burying it in such a way it would likely never be found. In my 1860s "ancestral rights" conspiracy scenario, it's placed in a soon-to-be-settled area among the flexible roots of a young tree on a small hill which provides better land than the surrounding bogs, so somebody is likely to want to use it (and therefore to clear away the trees). Then the plot containing the stone is deliberately held back from settlement (as "Internal Development Land" on the 1880s plat map) until such time as it seems politically expedient to discover the stone (or, as may actually have happened, until all the conspirators were dead and nobody alive knew why the land couldn't be settled). David B. > Philip Deitiker wrote in message ... > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > David B. That's a fascinating conspiracy scenario... Does it come together with a tin-foil hat, or is that extra? Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto You will remember, Watson, how the dreadful business of the Abernetty family was first brought to my notice by the depth to which the parsley had sunk into the butter upon a hot day -=O=- Sherlock Holmes > > Philip Deitiker wrote in message ... > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > That's a fascinating conspiracy scenario... Does it come > together with a tin-foil hat, or is that extra? I'd not wear one of those if I were you Yuri - very hard to swallow, never mind digest! > > Philip Deitiker wrote in message ... > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > That's a fascinating conspiracy scenario... Does it come > together with a tin-foil hat, or is that extra? Double layer of tin foil required to counter the black helicopters hovering over their heads. One has to wonder how long these conspiracy theorists are going to be banging away at these same old discredited fantasies. Common sense has vacated this crowd long ago and frankly they are now merely boring. SignatureSIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Philip Deitiker wrote in message ... > > > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > banging away at these same old discredited fantasies. Common sense has > vacated this crowd long ago and frankly they are now merely boring. Seppo, one of the persons behind all this, not David B and Martin, is a descendant to Paul Knutsson's wife. Born closer to 7 month than 8 month after the voyage returned home. I can't understand what it matters today if the ancestor were born inside wedlock and if so which wedlock, but looking at the abuse I have had sent from the person's private mailbox that seems to matter a lot..... :-) Inger E > -- > SIR - Philosopher unauthorised > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is > misled. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Philip Deitiker wrote in message ... > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > the abuse I have had sent from the person's private mailbox that seems to > matter a lot..... :-) A current claimed descendant (real or not doesn't matter) is of nil relevance and cannot know anything more about the stone than the rest of us. FACT: there is not a single piece of so called "evidence" that stands scrutiny brought forward by those that claims it as fake. It is just the same people thrashing the same nonsense claims as before, from racism to artificially aged stone. I'm waiting for it to come around to "A magician did it" again. SignatureSIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Philip Deitiker wrote in message ... > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > relevance and cannot know anything more about the stone than the rest > of us. Agreed. But he has tried to make my life a hell sending me and my daughter the worst kind of sexabuse. Not to mention that he sends abuse now and then in the groups. Especially in soc.culture.nordic...... > FACT: there is not a single piece of so called "evidence" that stands > scrutiny brought forward by those that claims it as fake. Agreed. > It is just the same people thrashing the same nonsense claims as > before, from racism to artificially aged stone. I'm waiting for it to > come around to "A magician did it" again. Well 'he' must have been, mustn't he :-) Inger E > -- > SIR - Philosopher unauthorised > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is > misled. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message