Latest KRS information
Inger E Johansson
© Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2004 - All rights reserved. Which
includes that No one is allowed to write inside my text.
Some in the groups have made an issue over the weathering, some have dreamt
dreams about an earlier 1800's runemaster/carver, some have hard to
understand the additional photometric detail-study of each runes which is
underway.
That the Linguist Helmer Gustavsson hasn't moved from his position that he
from an linguistic point has hard to believe it to be from 1362 is a
wellknown fact. Which he still maintain. Professor Williams hasn't to my
knowledge been involved with the tests and discussions at Historiska Museet
after the thing that the Director of Historiska said about the significant
differences between Humanistic Science and Technical Science.
The Geologist Runo Löfvendahl aren't that certain, he thinks that most
points to a late 1800's carving but he aren't absolutely certain. His main
objections against a 1362 carvings is:
* It's not been possible to repeat Scott Wolter's testresults regarding the
mica.
If same type of analyses have been made or not hasn't been said. To that can
also be added that up to now no comparing and consideration to Professor of
Geology and Geophysics Paul W Weiblen's "Report on a Partial Mineralogical
Characterization of the Kensington Rune Stone". For a complete picture I
assume that every scholar realise that to has to be added to the final
conclusions.
* It's not proven that the runes on one of the sides is made at the same
time as the stone was dressed to become flat. Thus the weathering in the
runes on that side haven't been able to be as old as the weathering in the
surrounding surface on same side.
My comments:
To that one can add one thing: How likely is it that someone took his time
several hundred years ago to dress a stone, that part hasn't been disputed,
and that one other person in 1800's found a stone dressed on one side?
* The tests at Historiska Museet hasn't been able to prove that the white
tracks on the Kensington runestone are identical to Olof Ohman's affidavits
about the aspen roots.
My comments:
To that one can add that no other affidavit what so ever regarding the roots
seems to have been taken into consideration up to this point but they must
be in the full analyse-conclusions.
Those affidavits include:
a) Affidavits by several who saw the roots among them Mr Samuel Olson and Mr
Johan E Johnson.
b) Affidavits given by those who excavated the place where the stone was
found and thus also saw the stump of the tree that according to their
testamony showed signs of having had a stone above - for example the
affidavit of Mr Joseph Hotvedt. Letters were written by the Minnesota
Historical society to the party that participated in the excavation:
Among them executive clerk Cleve Van Dyke, J P Hedberg; John M Olson; Albert
larson; Fulick Landsvark and others. "Answers were received from several of
the party, all of them confirming the describtion of Mr Olson". Source 'The
Kensington Rune Stone, Preliminary Report to the Minnesota Historical
Society", Museum Committee of the Minnesota historical Society 1915,
Minnesota Historical Society Collection V. 15, pp 221-286
Other information:
Some have wondered why the tests in Stockholm have included photometric
tests of micro-details in each runes. Those tests have been done because the
tests made has resulted in a need to preform a close photometric analyse
using the latest micro-topographic analyse methods. What's possible to
establish will be if the runemaster was an experienced runemaster or not. In
other words did he hold the chisel in same angle each time he carved a
certain rune; how deep did he cut down in the stone's surface; did he make
mistakes and if so how many and where; if the hand that hold the chisel was
a hand of a left- or righthanded person; to what extant the runes have been
'filled' in long after the runes were carved. All conclusions drawn will be
presented in 'Fornvännen' a Swedish Journal of Science when the analyses are
finished.
According to information I have had Professor Williams and Dr Nielsen
continue their linguistic discussions and the problem that they are facing
is whether or not Ohman could have had access to a book where figures in
1840 was editet in same pedantic form as on KRS. They know now that a book
with such was edited. Whether or not Ohman, observe none else is discussed
as a plausible carver, had had access to that information or not is
according to the information Nielsen gave me in October one Gordian knot.
The yoke from 1907 can't be used neither for or against KRS, which so many
scholars correctly have said.
Some scholars who have seen the Kensington Runestone has said that they
might consider it to be genuine if additive artifacts and or remains in
ground will add to the context. Observe that neither has the 'e-dialect' nor
the in earlier discussioned rised against Scandinavians being in the middle
of North America in 1360's been discussed for or against. Nor has Paul
Knutson and Ivar Bardson's voyage been included in what's told me, any one I
know or printed after the final tests have been done. There are a lot of
concrete analyses to be made by Laila Kitzler, specialist in runemaster's
carving-techniques, working at Stockholm's University who is to analyse all
the advanced micro-topographic pictures of the Kensington runestone's
carvings.
Also please observe that three articles presenting a context showing that
Ivar Bardson did return and delivered the tithes for all dioceses under
Gardar. (Diplomatarium Norwegicum Bind 4 nr 442, original in Dipl. Arn.
Magn. fasc. 35. No. 13.) and that the tithes from the years in question
1354-1364(delivering date always same as the year which is set for the
tithes) included tithes from Vinland and presentation of other facts will be
in the full text of the three articles to be edited within months.
(Original about the tithes in Vatican archieve, works about the originaltext
's content can be found in: Shipley, Marie A. [Brown]. The Norse
Colonization in America by the Light of the Vatican Finds. Lucerne: H.
Keller's Foreign Printing Office, [1899]. ; Recent Disclosures Concerning
Pre-Columbian Voyages to America in the Archives of the Vatican By William
Elerot Curtis ; Recent Disclosures Concerning Pre-Columbian Voyages to
America in the Archives of the Vatican-Jan. 31, 1894 National Geographic
Society) More referenses will be presented within articles.
My conclusion: I agree with Professor of Art History Brunius who argued for
the stone not being carved in 1800's. As said by those who at present
studies the stone - the debate isn't over at all. What's been acchived so
far is that the focus returns to the roots. Before all the affidavits re.
them and Professor Weiblen's report have been included in the total picture
nothing regarding when the stone was carved can be said. It's worth pointing
to the fact that no one else but Ohman has been considered by scholars at
Historiska Museet and that Professor Williams has expressed that he is
certain that Ohman didn't do it.
Inger E
© Johansson Inger, 1st February 2004 - all rights reserved.
PS. I will not discuss my text above before all reports and articles have
been edited.
Alan Crozier
news:ju2Tb.47248$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net...
<snip>
> (Original about the tithes in Vatican archieve, works about the
originaltext
> 's content can be found in: Shipley, Marie A. [Brown]. The Norse
> Colonization in America by the Light of the Vatican Finds. Lucerne: H.
> Keller's Foreign Printing Office, [1899]. ; Recent Disclosures Concerning
> Pre-Columbian Voyages to America in the Archives of the Vatican By William
> Elerot Curtis ; Recent Disclosures Concerning Pre-Columbian Voyages to
> America in the Archives of the Vatican-Jan. 31, 1894 National Geographic
> Society) More referenses will be presented within articles.
Inger says she isn't going to discuss this yet, so my question must be
directed at all the other readers here. Any theories/explanations as to why
these Vatican finds have not been cited by any scholars since the 1890s -
that memorable decade when so much evidence came to light? I mean, if these
Vatican documents exist, then it's nothing less than sensational stuff. Why
then have they been ignored until now?
Alan
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alan Crozier
Skatteberga 1392
247 92 Södra Sandby
Sweden
TO REPLY BY E-MAIL: change Crazier to Crozier
David B.
>
>Also please observe that three articles presenting a context showing that
>Ivar Bardson did return and delivered the tithes for all dioceses under
>Gardar. (Diplomatarium Norwegicum Bind 4 nr 442, original in Dipl. Arn.
>Magn. fasc. 35. No. 13.)
I and others have stated here before that the above document from 1364 has
nothing to do with Gardar. Ivar Bardsson (who certainly had in earlier
years been connected with Gardar) is in this case acting as a witness in
connection with tithes for the diocese of Stavanger.
David B.
David B.
>
>"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
>news:ju2Tb.47248$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net...
><snip>
>> (Original about the tithes in Vatican archieve, works about the
>originaltext
>> 's content can be found in: Shipley, Marie A. [Brown]. The Norse
>> Colonization in America by the Light of the Vatican Finds. Lucerne: H.
>> Keller's Foreign Printing Office, [1899]. ; Recent Disclosures
Concerning
>> Pre-Columbian Voyages to America in the Archives of the Vatican By
William
>> Elerot Curtis ; Recent Disclosures Concerning Pre-Columbian Voyages to
>> America in the Archives of the Vatican-Jan. 31, 1894 National Geographic
>> Society) More referenses will be presented within articles.
>
>Inger says she isn't going to discuss this yet, so my question must be
>directed at all the other readers here. Any theories/explanations as to
why
>these Vatican finds have not been cited by any scholars since the 1890s -
>that memorable decade when so much evidence came to light? I mean, if
these
>Vatican documents exist, then it's nothing less than sensational stuff.
Why
>then have they been ignored until now?
Perhaps they haven't. Perhaps they have been used by a great many
researchers, but nearly all have failed to find in them any firm evidence
for tithe payments from Vinland itself, as opposed to the Gardar
(Greenland) diocese.
David B.
Erik Hammerstad
> "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
> news:ju2Tb.47248$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net...
> <snip>
>
>>(Original about the tithes in Vatican archieve, works about the
>
> originaltext
>
>>'s content can be found in: Shipley, Marie A. [Brown]. The Norse
>>Colonization in America by the Light of the Vatican Finds. Lucerne: H.
>>Keller's Foreign Printing Office, [1899]. ; Recent Disclosures Concerning
>>Pre-Columbian Voyages to America in the Archives of the Vatican By William
>>Elerot Curtis ; Recent Disclosures Concerning Pre-Columbian Voyages to
>>America in the Archives of the Vatican-Jan. 31, 1894 National Geographic
>>Society) More referenses will be presented within articles.
>
>
> Inger says she isn't going to discuss this yet, so my question must be
> directed at all the other readers here. Any theories/explanations as to why
> these Vatican finds have not been cited by any scholars since the 1890s -
> that memorable decade when so much evidence came to light? I mean, if these
> Vatican documents exist, then it's nothing less than sensational stuff. Why
> then have they been ignored until now?
>
> Alan
It might very well be that the texts mentioned in the Shipley
books are not at all sensational in a scholarly context, and that
while the texts are quoted or mentioned as existing in later
works, they do not give any information in addition to that of
other sources. Observe that whatever Inger writes regarding these
is hardly believable, see for example how much she reads into the
diploma regarding Ivar Bardarson that is not there at all (the
diploma only refers to tithes collected in Stavanger with IB being
one of the two witnesses to its transfer to the papal
representative - no Greenland/Gardar tithes mentioned at all, nor
that IB has any connections to Greenland).
For an example with regard to Vatican material a 1990 Norwegian
Masters thesis by Frode Fyllingsnes states that they are mostly
papal bulls with Gardar being mentioned in lists, or Gardar
bishops participating in gatherings with other church leaders, or
the appointment of new Gardar bishops. The Shipley books are not
included in the bibliography of the thesis which has app. 500 entries.
Of course to get any further one would need to read the Shipley
books and find out exactly what Vatican material they refer to.
Erik Hammerstad
<snip>
Helmer Gustavson is not a linguist as Inger claims. He is a
runologist, and furthermore an expert on Dalrunor. So his opinion
that the KRS is written in Dalrunor should not be taken lightly.
His scheduled talk on the KRS 17 February at the Ekerö library
might be a very enlightening one.
Erik Hammerstad
<snip>
Disregarding Inger's ramblings, the source of what she writes
about the (preliminary) results of the Swedish investigations of
the KRS seems to be an article in today's Dagens Nyheter:
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1058&a=228771
"Runologen Helmer Gustavsson tycker att det var värdefullt att för
första gången närmare kunna studera runtexten och verkligen få
umgås med stenen. Han anser att ristningen av runologiska och
språkliga skäl med största sannolikhet inte gjordes på 1300-talet.
Geologen Runo Löfvendahl vill inte vara lika tvärsäker men anser
att det mesta tyder på att stenen ristades någon gång i slutet av
1800-talet. Han tillbakavisar flera av de indicier som en
amerikansk geolog, Scott Wolter, anfört för att ristningen skulle
vara medeltida.
Ett av dessa indicier handlar om vittringsgraden av glimmer i
stenen. Ett annat om att runorna på en av stenens sidor ristades
vid den tid då samma sida bearbetades för att bli slät, vilket
enligt Scott Wolter gjordes flera hundra år före 1800-talets slut.
Ett tredje indicium handlar om att de vita spår som finns på
Kensingtonstenen överensstämmer med Olof Ohmans vittnesmål om att
stenen när den påträffades i jorden var omsluten av asprötter.
- Men vi tycker nog att vi har tryckt hål på dessa indicier, säger
Runo Löfvendahl."
Note that Helmer Gustavson is a runologist, not a linguist as
claimed by Inger. That he is also an expert on Dalrunor implies
that his opinion that the KRS runes are Dalrunor should not be
taken lightly. Hopefully we will get a report on the talk on the
KRS he will give at the Ekerö library February 17, that could be
enlightening.
Allthough the article shows the geologist Löfvendahl to be a
scholar in not being 100% sure, he does dismiss Wolter's claim
regarding the mica weathering showing the runes to be carved
several hundred years ago. And he now concurs with the lingustic
and runic expertise that almost everything points to the KRS
having been carved towards the end of the 19th century.
Have a good meal on your hat, Inger ;-)
Doug Weller
For 'Elerot' read 'Eleroy' -- a typo I presume.
http://www.sacklunch.net/biography/C/WilliamEleroyCurtis.html
As for Marie Shipley:
http://www.vnlnd.net/author/SM01A887.htm
Abstract
Insists that "justice" must be done to the Norse discoverers. "The Church
of Rome" knew about those discoveries but concealed knowledge of them; that
organization has, after all, "the genius for deceit, for trickery," etc.
Properly "the Scandinavian North will . . . resume its true rank" as the
"intellectual and moral leader of the civilized world," as in Leif's day.
[Sorenson]
The immediate necessity of establishing the truth p. 1-34, The manifest
duty of the United States in this question p. 35-52, The evidence that the
Norsemen discovered America in the tenth century p. 53-69, Roman Catholic
cognizance of the fact at the time of the Norse discovery p. 70-76, All the
motives for the concealment and fraud p. 77-99, Columbus' visit to Iceland
p. 100-110, The Scandinavian North and Spain contrasted p. 111-146, The
Norse discoverers and Columbus contrasted p. 147-164, The beneficial
results to the present age and posterity (!?!) of attributing this
momentous discovery to the true persons p. 165-184, The celebration of it
in 1985! p. 185-194 and The righted position of the Scandinavian North
after this justice has been accorded to it p. 195-208 are the 13 chapters
of this book. The bibliography p. 209-213 has 99 entries, including Adam of
Bremen, Ortelius, Grotius, Torfæus, Mallet, Cranz, Forster, Malte-Brun, and
Abraham Mylius 1611 "Treatise de Antiquitate Linguæ Belgicæ". [Bergersen]
Bibliography: p. [209]-212.
The 1890 printing contains a 27-page appendix: "Confirmation from Roman
Catholic authorities of the statements made in this book; namely, that in
the Vatican and other monastic libraries of Europe, are the records and
documents that will fully establish the fact that America was discovered by
Leif Erikson in the year 1000, and that Norse colonies existed there for
several centuries; extracts from Centennial discourse delivered by Rev. Wm.
F. Clark, S.J., at St. Joseph's Church, Philadelphia, July 4th, 1876."
[Sorenson]
[A]ppendix entitled "Suppressed historical facts" (by Roman Catholic
Authorities) added to this edition. [Bergersen]
For Bergersen, see:
Bergersen, Robert. Vinland Bibliography: Writings Relating to the Norse in
Greenland and America. Series: RAVNETRYKK Eds. Helge Salveson and Sigmund
Nesset. Vol. 10. Tromsø: Universitetsbibblioteket I Tromsøs, 1997. 411
pages. (SDS / SDS)
Here are loads of resources on the Vinland question from a Harvard course
on the subject:
http://www.hum.ou.dk/projekter/h-skand/disclist/cnfmay5.htm
Doug
Steve Glines
> Inger says she isn't going to discuss this yet, so my question must be
> directed at all the other readers here. Any theories/explanations as to why
> these Vatican finds have not been cited by any scholars since the 1890s -
> that memorable decade when so much evidence came to light? I mean, if these
> Vatican documents exist, then it's nothing less than sensational stuff. Why
> then have they been ignored until now?
The simple answer is that the study of Norse in North America hit a
zenith about 1900. No one seriously studied the topic again till the
early 1950's. Everyone knows that science in the 19th century was full
of crackpots so why bother reading any of it.
I sat in on a PhD orals once where the student "discovered" all the same
ideas of the "fully discredited" economist Parado (I hope I spelled his
name right). When I grilled the student I discovered that he had never
read Parado because everyone knew his ideas were discredited.
I would suggest that there is a bias in science that no work done more
than 50 years ago is credible, except, of course, for the great
luminaries. I suggest that it might be a better exercise to start with
these 19th century researchers and examine their work and data in the
light of modern tools and techniques.
Cheers
SG
Martin Reboul
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
news:ju2Tb.47248$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net...
> © Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2004 - All rights reserved. Which
> includes that No one is allowed to write inside my text.
>
> Some in the groups have made an issue over the weathering, some have dreamt
> dreams about an earlier 1800's runemaster/carver, some have hard to
> understand the additional photometric detail-study of each runes which is
> underway.
You mean 1890's chiseller I presume. If not Inger, I am myself a 'Runemaster' by
your definition. Is there some sort of outfit that goes with this station? I
rather like dressing up, but there are limits even to my dignity - no lederhosen
for example.
> That the Linguist Helmer Gustavsson hasn't moved from his position that he
> from an linguistic point has hard to believe it to be from 1362 is a
> wellknown fact. Which he still maintain. Professor Williams hasn't to my
> knowledge been involved with the tests and discussions at Historiska Museet
> after the thing that the Director of Historiska said about the significant
> differences between Humanistic Science and Technical Science.
No luck there either then, eh? Don't worry, I'm sure some kook will turn up to
give you hope sooner or later Inger. Shame about the 'weathering' too - but I'm
afraid I did warn you....
> The Geologist Runo Löfvendahl aren't that certain, he thinks that most
> points to a late 1800's carving but he aren't absolutely certain. His main
> objections against a 1362 carvings is:
> * It's not been possible to repeat Scott Wolter's testresults regarding the
> mica.
Why not? They were 'inconclusive' were they not?
You should be very relieved and happy, if not delighted with merely 'inconclusive'
Inger - any scientist will tell you that is the very best you can hope for.
> If same type of analyses have been made or not hasn't been said. To that can
> also be added that up to now no comparing and consideration to Professor of
> Geology and Geophysics Paul W Weiblen's "Report on a Partial Mineralogical
> Characterization of the Kensington Rune Stone". For a complete picture I
> assume that every scholar realise that to has to be added to the final
> conclusions.
>
> * It's not proven that the runes on one of the sides is made at the same
> time as the stone was dressed to become flat. Thus the weathering in the
> runes on that side haven't been able to be as old as the weathering in the
> surrounding surface on same side.
Aha... it all becomes clear....
> My comments:
> To that one can add one thing: How likely is it that someone took his time
> several hundred years ago to dress a stone, that part hasn't been disputed,
> and that one other person in 1800's found a stone dressed on one side?
My comment:
I see desperation setting in here.
> * The tests at Historiska Museet hasn't been able to prove that the white
> tracks on the Kensington runestone are identical to Olof Ohman's affidavits
> about the aspen roots.
>
> My comments:
> To that one can add that no other affidavit what so ever regarding the roots
> seems to have been taken into consideration up to this point but they must
> be in the full analyse-conclusions.
> Those affidavits include:
> a) Affidavits by several who saw the roots among them Mr Samuel Olson and
> Mr Johan E Johnson.
> b) Affidavits given by those who excavated the place where the stone was
> found and thus also saw the stump of the tree that according to their
> testamony showed signs of having had a stone above - for example the
> affidavit of Mr Joseph Hotvedt. Letters were written by the Minnesota
> Historical society to the party that participated in the excavation:
> Among them executive clerk Cleve Van Dyke, J P Hedberg; John M Olson; Albert
> larson; Fulick Landsvark and others. "Answers were received from several of
> the party, all of them confirming the describtion of Mr Olson". Source 'The
> Kensington Rune Stone, Preliminary Report to the Minnesota Historical
> Society", Museum Committee of the Minnesota historical Society 1915,
> Minnesota Historical Society Collection V. 15, pp 221-286
My comments:
No roots, no pictures, photos or evidence of any kind other than a few laymen
basically saying "they saw it tangled in some roots".
I'm sure most of them did..... unfortunately for you Inger, there is no chemical,
physical or structural evidence on the stone itself - no roots, no case.
> Other information:
> Some have wondered why the tests in Stockholm have included photometric
> tests of micro-details in each runes. Those tests have been done because the
> tests made has resulted in a need to preform a close photometric analyse
> using the latest micro-topographic analyse methods.
A way of saying "have a close at them" designed to sound impressive and
scientific.
> What's possible to
> establish will be if the runemaster was an experienced runemaster or not. In
> other words did he hold the chisel in same angle each time he carved a
> certain rune; how deep did he cut down in the stone's surface; did he make
> mistakes and if so how many and where; if the hand that hold the chisel was
> a hand of a left- or righthanded person; to what extant the runes have been
> 'filled' in long after the runes were carved. All conclusions drawn will be
> presented in 'Fornvännen' a Swedish Journal of Science when the analyses are
> finished.
And be quite pointless and irrelevant. Stonemasons throughout history have had
varying degrees of skill and ability, just as they did in late 19th century
Minnesota - so what?
Mind you, if the mason *was* left handed, you really are seriously f***ed aren't
you! Perhaps I shall order a copy after all...?
> According to information I have had Professor Williams....
Still speaking to you is he?
>.... and Dr Nielsen
> continue their linguistic discussions and the problem that they are facing
> is whether or not Ohman could have had access to a book where figures in
> 1840 was editet in same pedantic form as on KRS. They know now that a book
> with such was edited. Whether or not Ohman, observe none else is discussed
> as a plausible carver, had had access to that information or not is
> according to the information Nielsen gave me in October one Gordian knot.
> The yoke from 1907 can't be used neither for or against KRS, which so many
> scholars correctly have said.
What is this continuing obsession with poor old Olaf? He quite obviously didn't
carve it, this old chestnut has surely been cast aside by now?
I'm not stupid Inger - I know why I got such a massive amount of flak from you and
the rest of the runeheads when I took him 'out of the loop' - one of your last,
desperately absurd defences demolished. I didn't realise what I'd actually done -
not until I came under sustained, determined and never ending attack from Yuri
Konspiracy, Seppo the Clown, yourself and the late Larry Athy... then the penny
dropped.
You should be ashamed of yourselves, as poor old Olaf Ohman was a decent man,
whose reputation has been callously sacrificed in order to try and confuse,
obfusticate and prop up your ridiculous claims for the KRS being a pukkah 14th
century artefact, which it clearly isn't. In my opinion, that's not only dishonest
and deceitful, but downright despicable too, using a good, honest man so. One who
can't answer back of course - so I feel a duty to answer for him. I'm *soooo*
sorry you don't like it!
> Some scholars who have seen the Kensington Runestone has said that they
> might consider it to be genuine if additive artifacts and or remains in
> ground will add to the context.
Which they are not.
> Observe that neither has the 'e-dialect' nor
> the in earlier discussioned rised against Scandinavians being in the middle
> of North America in 1360's been discussed for or against. Nor has Paul
> Knutson and Ivar Bardson's voyage been included in what's told me, any one I
> know or printed after the final tests have been done. There are a lot of
> concrete analyses to be made by Laila Kitzler, specialist in runemaster's
> carving-techniques, working at Stockholm's University who is to analyse all
> the advanced micro-topographic pictures of the Kensington runestone's
> carvings.
Unfortunate to mention 'concrete' when you are on thin ice Inger - or is this a
reference to Wolter? It doesn't matter how beautifully, carefully and immaculately
recorded the visual details of the actual carvings are recorded, it means nothing
when considering *when* they were done - only how well they were done. This is
neither science, archaeology or historical investigation - art appreciation at
best. And you have the nerve to accuse me of being "unscholarly" too - the mind
boggles at your arrogance, silliness, naivety and hypocrisy Inger!
> Also please observe that three articles presenting a context showing that
> Ivar Bardson did return and delivered the tithes for all dioceses under
> Gardar. (Diplomatarium Norwegicum Bind 4 nr 442, original in Dipl. Arn.
> Magn. fasc. 35. No. 13.) and that the tithes from the years in question
> 1354-1364(delivering date always same as the year which is set for the
> tithes) included tithes from Vinland and presentation of other facts will be
> in the full text of the three articles to be edited within months.
> (Original about the tithes in Vatican archieve, works about the originaltext
> 's content can be found in: Shipley, Marie A. [Brown]. The Norse
> Colonization in America by the Light of the Vatican Finds. Lucerne: H.
> Keller's Foreign Printing Office, [1899]. ; Recent Disclosures Concerning
> Pre-Columbian Voyages to America in the Archives of the Vatican By William
> Elerot Curtis ; Recent Disclosures Concerning Pre-Columbian Voyages to
> America in the Archives of the Vatican-Jan. 31, 1894 National Geographic
> Society) More referenses will be presented within articles.
>
> My conclusion: I agree with Professor of Art History Brunius who argued for
> the stone not being carved in 1800's. As said by those who at present
> studies the stone - the debate isn't over at all. What's been acchived so
> far is that the focus returns to the roots. Before all the affidavits re.
> them and Professor Weiblen's report have been included in the total picture
> nothing regarding when the stone was carved can be said. It's worth pointing
> to the fact that no one else but Ohman has been considered by scholars at
> Historiska Museet and that Professor Williams has expressed that he is
> certain that Ohman didn't do it.
My conclusion:
The game is all but over Inger - you have lost. Now you face the unpleasant
prospect of having to organise some sort of 'face-saving' retreat. Unfortunately
for you, your natural hysteria, rudeness, arrogance, pomposity, plus your
insulting, patronising manner, combined with your recent deviousness and
dishonesty, are unlikely to encourage your numerous opponents to be magnanimous -
and it's your own fault.
Being a gentleman, I will try not to crow too cruelly at your impending
humiliation, though I'm afraid others less forgiving and good-natured than myself
may well not be so generous. In the spirit of chivalry, I will also forward some
useful recipes for the up-and-coming 'Hatfest' you will be doubtless soon be
participating in, which may help you not to choke too badly on whatever woolly
contraption surrounds your brain.
> PS. I will not discuss my text above before all reports and articles have
> been edited.
Hardly surprising really - there's nothing to discuss, is there?
Cheers
Martin
Tedd Jacobs
"Steve Glines" wrote...
<snip>
> I would suggest that there is a bias in science that no work done more
> than 50 years ago is credible, except, of course, for the great
> luminaries. I suggest that it might be a better exercise to start with
> these 19th century researchers and examine their work and data in the
> light of modern tools and techniques.
one of my advisors strongly stresses upon us the ability to connect ideas to
historical contexts. as he puts it; "there are no new ideas under the sun".
everything can be connected on one level as just a new hat to an old face.
tedd.
Erik Hammerstad
You might be right about _North America_ but certainly interest in
the Greenland Norse did not die at all around 1900. To some extent
the large interest was probably due to the nationalistic sentiment
in Norway as it became independent in 1905, and then later by the
rivalry between Norway and Denmark regarding which country
Greenland (or parts thereof) should belong to. And after the Hague
court gave Denmark the jurisdiction in 1933, Denmark probably felt
compelled to show that decision right and hence there has been a
continuous Danish archeologic work going on in Greenland.
Perhaps there is a grain of truth in your theory though, but it
should be directed to the Vatican sources, they are perhaps not
very many nor very enlightening.
George
> "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
> news:ju2Tb.47248$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net...
> <snip>
> > (Original about the tithes in Vatican archieve, works about the
> originaltext
> > 's content can be found in: Shipley, Marie A. [Brown]. The Norse
> > Colonization in America by the Light of the Vatican Finds. Lucerne: H.
> > Keller's Foreign Printing Office, [1899]. ; Recent Disclosures Concerning
> > Pre-Columbian Voyages to America in the Archives of the Vatican By William
> > Elerot Curtis ; Recent Disclosures Concerning Pre-Columbian Voyages to
> > America in the Archives of the Vatican-Jan. 31, 1894 National Geographic
> > Society) More referenses will be presented within articles.
>
> Inger says she isn't going to discuss this yet, so my question must be
> directed at all the other readers here. Any theories/explanations as to why
> these Vatican finds have not been cited by any scholars since the 1890s -
> that memorable decade when so much evidence came to light? I mean, if these
> Vatican documents exist, then it's nothing less than sensational stuff. Why
> then have they been ignored until now?
1) They do not contain the information Inger claims they contain
2) Inger squink
3) They are spurious documents written by a church that, at the time,
was attempting to claim lands that it had never been to and they know
the documents would never stand up to close scrutiny.
4) They do not exist in the claimed context.
5) Alternate universe
Alan Crozier
news:qzcTb.33$_R1....@news.uswest.net...
>
> one of my advisors strongly stresses upon us the ability to connect ideas
to
> historical contexts. as he puts it; "there are no new ideas under the
sun".
> everything can be connected on one level as just a new hat to an old face.
Must *you * talk about hats too?
Tedd Jacobs
"Erik Hammerstad" wrote...
> Inger E Johansson wrote:
>
> <snip>
> Allthough the article shows the geologist Löfvendahl to be a
> scholar in not being 100% sure, he does dismiss Wolter's claim
> regarding the mica weathering showing the runes to be carved
> several hundred years ago. And he now concurs with the lingustic
> and runic expertise that almost everything points to the KRS
> having been carved towards the end of the 19th century.
>
> Have a good meal on your hat, Inger ;-)
there is a strong enough case to be presented for a pre-Columbian norse contact
with the americas without tying it to the KRS. the controversy surrounding the
debate, one would think, would render the article as more non grata than of
boon. by associating with it the case becomes on one level inexplicably
inseperatable from the pitfalls and hazards linked to it. why use disputed
evidence when there is ample evidence elsewhere of higher repute that is less
damaging to the credibility? (or worse yet, why continually argue it?)
Tedd Jacobs
"Alan Crozier" wrote...
> "Tedd Jacobs" wrote...
> > everything can be connected on one level
> > as just a new hat to an old face.
>
>
> Must *you * talk about hats too?
sorry, i jest *hat* to do it. ;)
Inger E Johansson
You will be in for a big surprise.
I told you that I do know that there is much more to be told about
Scandinavians inside Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and also in Virginia and
Kentucky from 1200 on. I will not discuss the analyses in Stockholm before
the result is edited. Please remember that it's not the stone that has been
questioned in the tests, it's if Wolter's results prove that it's Medieval
or not. Nothing else has changed. And as so many scholars has said: they
would like more context to be presented. That will be the case.
Inger E
Inger E Johansson
"Alan Crozier" <alan.c...@telia.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:RKcTb.47368$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net...
> "Tedd Jacobs" <Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
> news:qzcTb.33$_R1....@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > one of my advisors strongly stresses upon us the ability to connect
ideas
> to
> > historical contexts. as he puts it; "there are no new ideas under the
> sun".
> > everything can be connected on one level as just a new hat to an old
face.
>
>
> Must *you * talk about hats too?
If he has then he still better see to it that he has enough pepper to go by.
The context is about to be presented not in full but enough.
Inger E
Inger E Johansson
thanks for your fine answer. Exactly my own point. Never the less I can
answer Alan's question - there was a lot work going on with the Vatican
vaults papers in 1937-1939 especially from English Historians and scholars
of Religion. Here in Scandinavia most debate about the Viking - Late
Medieval Scandinavian contacts had died out, feeded away when 'the old'
Professors who not only were specialist in History and Archaeology(!) but
also knew how to read Latin and Classic Greek had had their debates from
1910 - 1950's which almost killed the Icelandic Sagas as trustworthy
sources. And that's correct, they are neither contemporary nor reliable,
but they were easy for many of 'the new' scholars to get hold of. The hard
working scholars who stood inside archieves weren't as popular as you might
understand during wartime,
nor was there many of the Historians here in Sweden who specialist
themselves in period 400 AD-1400 AD. There aren't many of those. At the
moment we have two real good Historians. Professor Dick Harrison, who I have
had the pleasure to discuss and also sent sources and findings I have made
more than once over the years. I haven't spoken to him the last 8 months. He
is doing more than fine presenting information which will change the
paradigm more than anyone of you can believe.
The other real good Historian specialist in that period we have is Ph.D
Henrik Janson here in Gothenburg. He is as good in Religion of the time as
in History. Probably a Professor to be.
Anyhow it was in a book written by old Chadwick I found my first clue.
Second and third was found in two books I managed to find in an Antiquariat,
Regesta Norvegica edited by Gustav Storm and an 19th century edition of Olav
den Hellige. Both books had been owned by one of the Professor Weibull and
there were some notes on a paper in them.
Inger E
"Steve Glines" <sgl...@is-cs.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:212jvb...@mail.is-cs.com...
Martin Reboul
> Martin,
> You will be in for a big surprise.
> I told you that I do know that there is much more to be told about
> Scandinavians inside Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and also in Virginia and
> Kentucky from 1200 on.
There is indeed... an awful lot. I know Scandinavians are tidy by nature, but they
really did a good job there - left no trace at all.
> I will not discuss the analyses in Stockholm before
> the result is edited. Please remember that it's not the stone that has been
> questioned in the tests, it's if Wolter's results prove that it's Medieval
> or not. Nothing else has changed. And as so many scholars has said: they
> would like more context to be presented. That will be the case.
Well, good luck Inger. Would you like those recipes now?
Cheers
Martin
Inger E Johansson
sorry for your mistake but they did leave graves behind in Kentucky. They
did leave other things in Wisconsin and Michigan. Not to mention in other
parts of US. What so many missed is that there have been a pre-assumption
that since there were no Scandinavians here this and that must either be
from after Columbus had sailed westward or if not 'it must be native'.
Most artifacts and graves have been found by non-Scandinavian scholars. The
rethinking new analyse of old 'stuff' has officially started in Arctic
Canada. There are other areas in NA where new analyse of old conclusions and
old remains have started. Much will be out in the open in the next year or
two. Before that you will hear a lot more about the written documentation.
Inger E
"Martin Reboul" <mar...@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> skrev i
meddelandet news:bvjrk2$d05$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Martin Reboul
Homberg! Sorry, that was out ofedorah... just brim full of it, all this titfer
tat nonsense. Oh deer - stalker she'll call me now, but I'll never go cap in hand.
Better to bowl 'er over with facts, don't try and trapp 'er... and whatever you
do, don't topp'er postings, or we'll never hear the last of it.
Cheers
Martin
Michael Zalar
> PRESENT STAGE IN KRS QUEST
> © Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2004 - All rights reserved. Which
> includes that No one is allowed to write inside my text.
>
> points to a late 1800's carving but he aren't absolutely certain. His main
> objections against a 1362 carvings is:
>
> * It's not been possible to repeat Scott Wolter's testresults regarding the
> mica.
>
> If same type of analyses have been made or not hasn't been said. To that can
> also be added that up to now no comparing and consideration to Professor of
> Geology and Geophysics Paul W Weiblen's "Report on a Partial Mineralogical
> Characterization of the Kensington Rune Stone". For a complete picture I
> assume that every scholar realise that to has to be added to the final
> conclusions.
>
> * It's not proven that the runes on one of the sides is made at the same
> time as the stone was dressed to become flat. Thus the weathering in the
> runes on that side haven't been able to be as old as the weathering in the
> surrounding surface on same side.
>
I am really not sure what Lofvendahl means about the test results -
did they examine the stone and not find the mica degradation (which
would be a very bad sign for the runestone)? - did they not have a
piece of the runestone to work with? were they unable to find the
same kind of mica degradation in 200 yr old stones, such as Wolter
found with the gravestone study? Technically Scott Wolter did not
actually "test" the runestone as much as make a detailed examination
of it.
The second point is truely as hair-splitting an argument as I have
ever seen. It requires someone to have visited the area, dressed a
large stone for some unknown reason, and then abandoned it. If even
the most conservative estimates of 50 years hold up this would have
been prior to settlement, and if 200 years is correct, then prior to
known exploration. After which the presumed forger would have had to
somehow come upon it before he inscribed the message.
Occam's razor must surely cut strongly in favor of the stone being
dressed at the same time the inscription was cut. While it is not the
only possible answer, surely it is the only reasonable one.
While it is possible that the newspaper was exagerating this poin, I
feel that anyone who would rely on such strained arguments to be
viewed at with some scepticism. It is the same thing I have seen time
and again in regards to the KRS, on both sides of the question - the
attempt to expand a minor point, often contradicted by the majority of
the evidence, to attempt to create a substantial argument for or
against the KRS. It usually indicates some considerable bias on the
subject.
Is Lofvendahl part of the geological group involved in the major study
of the KRS, or is he an independant researcher?
Michael
Erik Hammerstad
Runo Lofvendahl is employed by the Swedish National Heritage Board
in its Rune Department as a geologist. He also holds a position as
Assistant Professor in geochemistry at the University of Åbo in
Finland. He has been described as an expert on (rune)stone
weathering. He is the geologist in the expert group studying the
KRS. While previously he has declined to give an opinion regarding
the age of the KRS, he is now according the Dagens Nyheter article
(which seems to be the source of Inger's post) stating that most
points to the stone having been carved in the late 19th century,
thus agreeing with the linguist Henrik Williams and the runologist
Helmer Gustavson (who is a colleague of Lofvendahl).
Lofvendahl's three points refered to by Inger (see also
translations of the DN article by Martin Reoul posted today) are
refutations of indications presented by Scott Wolter as supporting
that the carving of the KRS had been done much earlier, i.e. 1362
(Lofvendahl is cited as having blown holes in them). It has been
reported that the study group spent one whole day investigating
the KRS down to the smallest microscopic rock species after the
Historiska exhibition ended, but not which methods they used.
The study group's results remain to written up and published of
course, but its conlusion seems to have been made: The KRS runes
were most probably carved in the late 19th century.
Eric Stevens
'One whole day"! Gee!! I'm impressed.
Weiblen spent several days just completing his initial
characterisation. I look forward to reading what they actually did in
their 'one whole day'.
Ok, I sound sceptical, and I am, but I'm not prepared to deny their
conclusions merely on this basis.
>
>The study group's results remain to written up and published of
>course, but its conlusion seems to have been made: The KRS runes
>were most probably carved in the late 19th century.
I would be grateful if you could keep an eye on this and let us all
know when an english-language version of their report comes available.
Eric Stevens
Michael Zalar
X> Runo Lofvendahl is employed by the Swedish National Heritage Board
> Assistant Professor in geochemistry at the University of Åbo in
> Finland. He has been described as an expert on (rune)stone
> weathering. He is the geologist in the expert group studying the
> KRS. While previously he has declined to give an opinion regarding
> the age of the KRS, he is now according the Dagens Nyheter article
> (which seems to be the source of Inger's post) stating that most
> points to the stone having been carved in the late 19th century,
> thus agreeing with the linguist Henrik Williams and the runologist
> Helmer Gustavson (who is a colleague of Lofvendahl).
>
> Lofvendahl's three points refered to by Inger (see also
> translations of the DN article by Martin Reoul posted today) are
> refutations of indications presented by Scott Wolter as supporting
> that the carving of the KRS had been done much earlier, i.e. 1362
> (Lofvendahl is cited as having blown holes in them). It has been
> reported that the study group spent one whole day investigating
> the KRS down to the smallest microscopic rock species after the
> Historiska exhibition ended, but not which methods they used.
>
> The study group's results remain to written up and published of
> course, but its conlusion seems to have been made: The KRS runes
> were most probably carved in the late 19th century.
One thing I am still confused on is whether Lofvendahl is stating that
the geochemical indications show a 19th century date for the
inscription (say by a lack of weathering), or whether he was simply
refuting Wolter's work. Further, if it is a refutation, is it an
entire dismissal of what was done by Wolter, or a differnt
interpetation of the evidence, or merely suggesting other
possibilities (such as the seemingly unlikely occurance of the stone
being dressed long before the inscription was made.) In short did
Lofvendahl "blow holes" in Wolter's arguments, or were they mere
pinpricks.
I am also curious as to what kind of tests they ran. Were they given
access to the chips that were taken from Wolter's examination of the
runestone? - this could confirm or deny the mica deterioration in the
dressed side of the stone at least. What sort of instruments were
used? What sort of new information was generated? One question that
I hope is asked of Lofvendahl is what tests he can suggest to further
resolve the issue. Weiblen, Wolter, and Hansen have all made such
suggestions, and in the light of good science, I hope that Lofvendahl
will make similar suggestions.
I had, of course, hoped that Lofvendahl's research would confirm
Wolter, and it is possible that there may be confirmation of some of
the aspects of his resarch that will be confirmed (such as the
deterioration of the mica in the dressed side of the stone, regardless
of interpetaton). Hopefully though, this will stir further debate -
such is the nature of science. My worry, though, is that Lofvendahl's
finding will be presented in such a way as to make it appear to be a
closed book, and that no further research is needed.
Michael
Inger E Johansson
since Erik H hasn't the information you are asking for. Erik H isn't a
scholar of History, Archaeology or any of the subjects involved in this, I
will brake my silence in this case. It's been stated absolutely clear from
everyone who spoken out in this subject here in Sweden that it's Wolter's
testresults they belive aren't showing what he and other geologists have
said. Nothing else!!!
The three main objections is that they in the one-day geologic study didn't
find mica to that extant Wolter did.
They looked in the white lines(no where else) for traces of aspen and they
didn't find it,
and one of the sides of the stone seems according to them to have been
dressed at one time long ago, which in itself sounds queer and is one of the
reasons why I will wait for the final report, and carved at a later time.
Since they haven't taken any other possibility into consideration then Ohman
or 1362 the linguist Helmer Gustavson is certain that it was done in 1800's.
Lofvendahl isn't absolutely certain that he expressed. Lofvendahl believes
Wolter's indicie not to be able to show a Medieval connection.
Inger E
He is a Norwegian technician
"Michael Zalar" <m_z...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:a458909b.04020...@posting.google.com...
Alan Crozier
> Michael,
> since Erik H hasn't the information you are asking for. Erik H isn't a
> scholar of History, Archaeology or any of the subjects involved in this, I
> will brake my silence in this case. It's been stated absolutely clear from
> everyone who spoken out in this subject here in Sweden that it's Wolter's
> testresults they belive aren't showing what he and other geologists have
> said. Nothing else!!!
>
> The three main objections is that they in the one-day geologic study
didn't
> find mica to that extant Wolter did.
> They looked in the white lines(no where else) for traces of aspen and they
> didn't find it,
> and one of the sides of the stone seems according to them to have been
> dressed at one time long ago, which in itself sounds queer and is one of
the
> reasons why I will wait for the final report, and carved at a later time.
>
> Since they haven't taken any other possibility into consideration then
Ohman
> or 1362 the linguist Helmer Gustavson is certain that it was done in
1800's.
> Lofvendahl isn't absolutely certain that he expressed. Lofvendahl believes
> Wolter's indicie not to be able to show a Medieval connection.
Inger, remind us again when you think the KRS was carved. You are sure it
wasn't the 19th century and you don't believe it was 1362 either. Was it the
16th century you advocated?
Inger E Johansson
I have at least thought it possible that it was carved by a Danish priest
who had worked for King Hans of Denmark before he worked for King Christian.
He was known to have forged a paper from the Pope and in his days a lot of
the documents which wasn't available in 1800's for any of the Swedes or
Norwegians who moved to NA, because the documents around 1500 were in
Archieves in Mechlenburg, Lübeck, owned by a Norse Nobleman living outside
Bergen with close contact to the Catholic Church and in Stockholm's Castle
Three Crowns respectively in an Royal Archieve in Copenhagen. The priest did
visit all places, he also did visit Iceland and he is said to have had
knowledge of Greenlandic texts as well.
Problem is that I found a work the other week which say that he didn't make
it to NA on the ship that sailed in 1521. Actually there is no report
anywhere but in the Vatican for any returners. Which is a complication but
might be explained due to the religious disputes in Scandinavia after Martin
Luther nailed his thesis.
A lot of documents from those days went missing when the Protestantism
'arrived'.
Inger E
David B.
>
>Erik Hammerstad <egeha.is.a...@start.no> wrote in message
news:<bvm1t1$tnuth$1...@ID-47941.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>>
>> translations of the DN article by Martin Reoul posted today) are
>> refutations of indications presented by Scott Wolter as supporting
>> that the carving of the KRS had been done much earlier, i.e. 1362
>> (Lofvendahl is cited as having blown holes in them).
>
>the geochemical indications show a 19th century date for the
>inscription (say by a lack of weathering), or whether he was simply
>refuting Wolter's work. Further, if it is a refutation, is it an
>entire dismissal of what was done by Wolter, or a differnt
>interpetation of the evidence, or merely suggesting other
>possibilities (such as the seemingly unlikely occurance of the stone
>being dressed long before the inscription was made.) In short did
>Lofvendahl "blow holes" in Wolter's arguments, or were they mere
>pinpricks.
To be fair, Löfvendahl's statement in the news article about the three
physical indications (mica degradation, dressing/carving times and
"root-marks") was:
"Men vi tycker nog att vi har tryckt hål på dessa indicier"- which I would
translate as "but we think probably that we have made a dent in these
'indications' " ("tryckt" has more the sense of "pressed" than "blown").
However, the fact that the team chose to make these preliminary statements
does tend to suggest that they have found what they consider good reasons
to doubt the authenticity of the stone, which they will explain in detail
later.
David B.
Daryl Krupa
> To be fair, Löfvendahl's statement in the news article about the three
> physical indications (mica degradation, dressing/carving times and
> "root-marks") was:
> "Men vi tycker nog att vi har tryckt hål på dessa indicier"- which I would
> translate as "but we think probably that we have made a dent in these
> 'indications' " ("tryckt" has more the sense of "pressed" than "blown").
> However, the fact that the team chose to make these preliminary statements
> does tend to suggest that they have found what they consider good reasons
> to doubt the authenticity of the stone, which they will explain in detail
> later.
David B.:
It is also possible that "dressed" is a poor translation of a word
for something like
"flattened" or "leveled off" or "modified".
They might only be indicating that the carving of the runes are not
contemporaneous with the surface around them, which might well have a
completely natural, non-man-made origin (e.g. frost-shattering,
falling down the moulin in which the Runestone Hill kame was
deposited, etc.).
Daryl Krupa
Michael Zalar
questioned.
Wolter suggested that the marks on the back of the stone might be
caused by tree root leaching, and has, to the best of my knowledge,
always suggested that further inquiries should be made along this
line, such as discussing the matter with an expert from the botanical
field. It has never been considered conclusive proof of root growth,
merely suggestive of such.
Also, it does not appear the Lofvendahl is questioning Wolter's work
with the chip taken from the side of the stone - that there was mica
deterioration within the sample taken, and that this expressed some
considerable weathering of that section.
What appears to have happened, based on what I have seen here, is that
Lofvendahl has found a descrepency in the mica between the sample and
the actual inscription - I assume that he believes he has found
relatively undeteriorated mica in the inscription. If it is true that
in the unretouched (scraped by a nail) inscription there is
undeteriorated mica, the same sword that Wolter uses to cut against
the probability of a modern inscription must now cut strongly against
an ancient origin.
If this is the correct scenario (as best I can determine from this
thread) then several questions arise:
1) Was Lofvendahl looking in the right area - large sections of the
inscription have been retooled since the discovery of the runestone.
Such retooling might create new surfaces that show undeteriorated
mica. Obviously the only valid points of examination would be the
more or less pristine ares of the inscription.
2) How reliable were the methods used to determine the amount of mica
in the inscription. To the best of my knowledge, the stone has been
gone over only by various visual means. While an expert could with
credibility make the claim that it 'looks' like there is
undeteriorated mica in such and such an area, it is still necessary to
ask how subjective is this opinion, what are the factors found in the
examination that support it and so on.
The best resolution, of course, would be to take a sample directly
from the inscription. However, there was a great deal of clammoring
against the samples taken from the stone by Wolter. Scientifically,
taking the sample would be a no-brainer, politically it would be a hot
potato.
3) Is there another explaination for the apparent lack of
deterioration in the mica. I have no idea whether there is - I don't
even have enough bacround in geology to make a guess, but it should
still be asked.
4) What about the "dressed" side of the stone from which Wolter took
his sample. Were Wolter's conclusions about the sample valid? Was is
the explaination for the "dressing" of the stone. I believe that there
were some indicators that this was indeed dressed by humans, possibly
even using chisels - has this been examined?
--
to be continued...
icyc...@yahoo.com (Daryl Krupa) wrote in message news:<c70365ef.04020...@posting.google.com>...
Michael Zalar
Several eye-witnesses claimed that the inscription was as weathered as
the uniscribed surface of the stone. If so, then it would appear that
the stone had been burried long enough for a patina to form both on
the dressed edge and the inscibed runes (which I understand generally
takes several decades). If there was little deterioration in the mica
over a period of, say, 20 years that it required for a patina to form
on the inscribed runes, the near complete deterioration of the mica
shown by Wolter on the "dressed" side, it would seem to indicate that
that side had been split apart from the main stone a considerable
length of time before (100s of years??).
This could then create a second, almost equally interesting question
about the KRS - who dressed the stone and how. This would require a
different examination of the stone, one to determine how the spit side
was formed. As I recall, there appears to be a squaring off of the
corner between the face and side of the stone. Also, the face of the
stone seems to have been definately split from the rest of the stone
by a chisel - there appear to be points along the top of the stone to
indicate where the chisel strokes were performed (obviously these
points should be double checked).
It seems entirely possible that the KRS, even if the inscription is a
forgery, could indicate a non-native incursion into the region years
(perhaps centuries) before the earliest known explorations. At any
rate, more information would need to be generated on the subject.
Michael
icyc...@yahoo.com (Daryl Krupa) wrote in message news:<c70365ef.04020...@posting.google.com>...
David B
>
>questioned.
Ha ha- I wouldn't bet on that. We're all working from the same short news
article. My inclination is to wait for further anouncements from the
Swedish team; at present I think all we can say is that they have indicated
certain grounds to doubt the validity of earlier research, but have not
specified the all-important reasoning behind these indications.
David B.
David B
>
> It is also possible that "dressed" is a poor translation of a word
>for something like
>"flattened" or "leveled off" or "modified".
> They might only be indicating that the carving of the runes are not
>contemporaneous with the surface around them, which might well have a
>completely natural, non-man-made origin (e.g. frost-shattering,
>falling down the moulin in which the Runestone Hill kame was
>deposited, etc.).
Martin Reboul's translation "at the time that side was being dressed to
make it smooth" is if anything slightly understated. The Swedish is "vid
den tid då samma sida bearbetades för att bli slät", in which "bearbetades"
means "was worked", with the specific implication of human agency, so
Martin's "dressed" is a very sensible word to use.
David B.
Inger E Johansson
no we are not all working from same short newsarticle. Definitely not me and
I know that Michael Z has had more information then presented in group.
Inger E
"David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:626Ub.437$e83...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
Martin Reboul
"David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:D26Ub.438$e83...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
'Dressing' a stone means exactly that really - levelling or flattening a rough
surface, either to make it suitable for inscribing, fit it into place neatly in a
wall etc., or to level off the surface to fit in with surrounding stones if part
of a structure. A rather old fashioned stone-masons' term... 'smoothing off' or
'surfacing' are just as good, and perhaps more self-explanatory.
It is done with a broad braded chisel by tradition, though angle and bench
grinders are sometimes used, as it isn't easy (though I'm not a brilliant mason,
but can do it with a hammer and chisel fairly well)
Cheers
Martin
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--- snip ----
>It seems entirely possible that the KRS, even if the inscription is a
>forgery, could indicate a non-native incursion into the region years
>(perhaps centuries) before the earliest known explorations. At any
>rate, more information would need to be generated on the subject.
That seems rather improbable to me. Not impossible but improbable.
What you seem to be suggesting is that at some time in the past humans
wielding (steel?) chisels dressed a slab of greywacke and then left
it. Many years later a person or persons unknown just happened to pick
that slab of greywacke out of many and carved a forged message into it
which just happened to pretend to come from the same era as that in
which the stone was faced.
I think I prefer the simple explanation, that the stone was faced and
the message carved at the same time.
Eric Stevens
Daryl Krupa
That may be, but it pre-supposes that the article writer
wanted to imply anthropogenesis of that surface, and
by extension that the interviewees
wanted to imply anthropogenesis of the surface.
I prefer "was worked", because it still allows the possibility
of a non-anthropogenic origin for the surface.
In the physicist's usage, "work" can be done by inanimate objects;
otherwise there would be no use for a water-powered mill,
which is what glacial moulin is named after.
In my world, a glacial meltwater stream can do the work of
creating a flat side on a greywacke boulder, by
carrying it to the edge of a hole in the ice (moulin) and
flushing it over the edge so that it can fall several metres
to the debris pile below,
cracking off one or two sides of the stone along
pre-existing fracture planes, one of which is still
marked by a calcite deposit.
No Norse need be applied.
Daryl Krupa
Seppo Renfors
...OR that the paper, being inherently and traditionally biased
against the KRS, elected to report that part only from a lengthier
statement.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
The examination carried out by Wolter is destructive. This is probably
the reason it has not been repeated. This assumes that Wolter has kept
the sample he took from the stone as part of his work.
> > The second point is truely as hair-splitting an argument as I have
> > ever seen. It requires someone to have visited the area, dressed a
> > large stone for some unknown reason, and then abandoned it. If even
> > the most conservative estimates of 50 years hold up this would have
> > been prior to settlement, and if 200 years is correct, then prior to
> > known exploration.
Indeed the find site evidence is sufficient to date it to about 50
years old as a minimum age. This fact excludes any genuine claims of
"forgery".
> > After which the presumed forger would have had to
> > somehow come upon it before he inscribed the message.
> > Occam's razor must surely cut strongly in favor of the stone being
> > dressed at the same time the inscription was cut. While it is not the
> > only possible answer, surely it is the only reasonable one.
> > While it is possible that the newspaper was exagerating this poin,
I'll comment later on the paper. However the side dressed would indeed
appear younger than the non dressed side. There is nothing mysterious
about that, and is as should be. As far as the runes and the ageing of
the stone in the cut part of the runes, well I really see nothing in
Inger's article that contradicts them having been made at the same
time. The wording is "not proven... at the same time" which just
happens to incorporate "not disproved... at the same time" as if it
had been "disproved", that would be the end of the story.
> > I
> > feel that anyone who would rely on such strained arguments to be
> > viewed at with some scepticism.
I would view the article with scepticism on this point. It doesn't
ring true coming from someone who knows their subject.
> > It is the same thing I have seen time
> > and again in regards to the KRS, on both sides of the question - the
> > attempt to expand a minor point, often contradicted by the majority of
> > the evidence, to attempt to create a substantial argument for or
> > against the KRS. It usually indicates some considerable bias on the
> > subject.
> >
> > Is Lofvendahl part of the geological group involved in the major study
> > of the KRS, or is he an independant researcher?
> >
> > Michael
>
> Runo Lofvendahl is employed by the Swedish National Heritage Board
> in its Rune Department as a geologist. He also holds a position as
> Assistant Professor in geochemistry at the University of Åbo in
> Finland. He has been described as an expert on (rune)stone
> weathering. He is the geologist in the expert group studying the
> KRS. While previously he has declined to give an opinion regarding
> the age of the KRS, he is now according the Dagens Nyheter article
> (which seems to be the source of Inger's post) stating that most
> points to the stone having been carved in the late 19th century,
> thus agreeing with the linguist Henrik Williams and the runologist
> Helmer Gustavson (who is a colleague of Lofvendahl).
Here is a fabrication! Williams has NOT stated they are 19th century
runes. He has in fact stated that if the find site evidence proves
that it was NOT fabricated by the discoverers (Ohman), then he would
have to accept the 1362 date. FACT: Nobody can legitimately challenge
the veracity of the evidence of the find that places it beyond any
settlement in the area. This activates Prof William's conditions that
triggers his acceptance of the stone as genuine.
It is sad indeed, but if this article originates from Dagens Nyheter.
They are heavily biased against the KRS. Every article I have seen is
leaning heavily toward claiming (and they frequently claim it) the KRS
to be a fake. The links they provide are to like negative articles.
Why the paper, or the jurno's of the paper suffer from a cultural
cringe that prevents them being unbiased, is beyond me. Nor do their
reporting fill me with confidence that they know what they are talking
about. Recently they reported, IF the KRS is found to be genuine, then
it *might* be evidence that Norse discovered North America first - or
words to that effect.
TWO points.
Norse had already discovered NA LONG before 1362 already. There is NO
QUESTION that they were in NA again in 1362 if the KRS is genuine. The
KRS tells a story about then Norse being there after all! Why on earth
did they then have to say it MIGHT be evidence for... it seems to
stick in their throat to acknowledge even that much, when in their
scenario it is beyond any doubt!
>
[..]
>
> The study group's results remain to written up and published of
> course, but its conlusion seems to have been made: The KRS runes
> were most probably carved in the late 19th century.
THAT is a biased conclusion by Erik, not the authors of the paper yet
to be written!
Daryl Krupa
Martin, it might also be done with a granite cobble,
thrown repeatedly at the stone to one side of a fracture plane.
Tradition need not enter into the process.
Nor a stone-mason.
Nor a human being, for that matter.
Also, "dressing" need not be done with the intention of
producing a planar surface. It may be intended to
produce a rounded surface. "Smoothing off" could apply to
rounding sharp corners, for example.
And the word has many, many other meanings in different contexts.
"Dressing" does not mean exactly anything, except
altering something with the intention of producing
a more convenient condition.
Which necessarily involves consciousness, and hence probably human agency.
Is it really clear from the original article that Runo and Co.
intended to dress the meaning of their interpretation thusly?
Is the use of "dressed" not an insertion on your part,
given that the literal meaning derives from the word for "work",
and is not necessarily indicative of conscious intention?
Where else did you insert alternate translations?
I would say that a correct, accurate and direct translation
would have been the simplest:
"was worked".
Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
Yet an even simpler situation is one in which the message
was carved into flat surfaces that existed for millennia
before the carver saw them.
I.e., the carver found a stone with two flat surfaces that
could be conveniently carved, a stone that had not been
altered by human activity before the carver started carving.
That situation involves much less work for the carver.
One must not assume that the two flat surfaces on the KRS
are of anthropogenic origin, especially when one shows clear evidence
of a previously-existing fractured planar surface.
There is no evidence that they are of anthropogenic origin.
Assuming that they can lead to false testing results re: weathering
dating.
Assuming that they are will definitely lead to unreliable testing
results.
Assuming that they are leads to untestable hypotheses re: their
origin.
Much simpler to assume that they formed naturally.
Daryl Krupa
David B.
>
message news:<bvr6mm$obl$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>
>> "David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote in message
>> >
to
>> > make it smooth" is if anything slightly understated. The Swedish is
"vid
>> > den tid då samma sida bearbetades för att bli slät", in which
"bearbetades"
>> > means "was worked", with the specific implication of human agency, so
>> > Martin's "dressed" is a very sensible word to use.
>>
>> 'Dressing' a stone means exactly that really - levelling or flattening a
rough
>> surface, either to make it suitable for inscribing, fit it into place
neatly in a
>> wall etc., or to level off the surface to fit in with surrounding stones
if part
>> of a structure. A rather old fashioned stone-masons' term... 'smoothing
off' or
>> 'surfacing' are just as good, and perhaps more self-explanatory.
>>
>producing a planar surface. It may be intended to
>produce a rounded surface.
> Is it really clear from the original article that Runo and Co.
>intended to dress the meaning of their interpretation thusly?
> Is the use of "dressed" not an insertion on your part,
>given that the literal meaning derives from the word for "work",
>and is not necessarily indicative of conscious intention?
The phrase used by the Swedish geologist was "bearbetades för att bli
slät", which would translate as "was worked in order that it become
flat/smooth* " (and not, for example, "was worked so that it became
flat/smooth"). Even leaving aside my belief that "bearbetades" itself is
not used of inanimate forces, I am pretty sure he intended to imply human
agency.
* the word "slät" is of course directly related to the English "slate", as
formerly used by children to write on in schools, and has various related
meanings implying evenness/ lack of features. No curves, no bumps...
David B.
Martin Reboul
"Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c70365ef.04020...@posting.google.com...
That'll do! I was 'Anglicising' it unduly perhaps... and probably 'stonemasoning'
it to excess. We all know what it means anyway, that's the main thing...
"preparing the surface for carving".
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
This is the trouble with translations. There is a question of 'style'. My English
tends to be 'old-fashioned', maybe even 'quaint' to some across the pond, but I
hope the essential meaning is there... perhaps 'flattened' would have been the
best word?
Cheers
Martin
Eric Stevens
Apparently there are chisel marks showing where the front face was
originally dressed.
See http://www.geocities.com/m_zalar/epig.html
> There is no evidence that they are of anthropogenic origin.
> Assuming that they can lead to false testing results re: weathering
>dating.
> Assuming that they are will definitely lead to unreliable testing
>results.
> Assuming that they are leads to untestable hypotheses re: their
>origin.
>
> Much simpler to assume that they formed naturally.
That's what I thought originally but apparently that is not the case.
Eric Stevens
David B.
>
>"David B." <dav...@tronospamchos.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bvu5j9$kuj$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> slät", which would translate as "was worked in order that it become
>> flat/smooth* " (and not, for example, "was worked so that it became
>> flat/smooth"). Even leaving aside my belief that "bearbetades" itself is
>> not used of inanimate forces, I am pretty sure he intended to imply
human
>> agency.
>>
>> * the word "slät" is of course directly related to the English "slate",
as
>> formerly used by children to write on in schools, and has various
related
>> meanings implying evenness/ lack of features. No curves, no bumps...
>
>This is the trouble with translations. There is a question of 'style'. My
English
>tends to be 'old-fashioned', maybe even 'quaint' to some across the pond,
but I
>hope the essential meaning is there...
Careful- we wouldn't want to exaggerate the difference between British
English and America English! I'd say more "elegant" than "quaint" myself.
>perhaps 'flattened' would have been the
>best word?
Nope, don't like that one- I'd say there's a subtle difference between
"made flat" and "flattened", which makes me think more of stomping on an
Irn Bru can. I reckon your first instincts on the matter were right.
David B.
Martin Reboul
You are a gentleman sir... and a scholar. Ahem... (ask Inger for definition of
'scholar')
Cheers
Martin
Daryl Krupa
> > I would say that a correct, accurate and direct translation
> > would have been the simplest:
> > "was worked".
>
> That'll do! I was 'Anglicising' it unduly perhaps... and probably 'stonemasoning'
> it to excess. We all know what it means anyway, that's the main thing...
> "preparing the surface for carving".
That is only so if the possibility that
the surface was not prepared for carving
was not considered.
And that we do not know. Yet. I await the un-journalised report.
Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
Yes, I am familiar with that second-hand report.
> > There is no evidence that they are of anthropogenic origin.
> > Assuming that they can lead to false testing results re: weathering
> >dating.
> > Assuming that they are will definitely lead to unreliable testing
> >results.
> > Assuming that they are leads to untestable hypotheses re: their
> >origin.
> >
> > Much simpler to assume that they formed naturally.
>
> That's what I thought originally but apparently that is not the case.
But I see no mention in Zalar's report that
chisel marks were found that
indicate that the stone was intentionally split.
From the site you cited:
"- The inscribed face of the stone appears to have been
split off from a larger boulder.
This was the first action taken on the stone by
whoever carved the inscription."
Alternatively, the inscribed face of the stone was
split off from a larger boulder
before the carver was born.
"- The stone was then layed face down, and
the inscribed side split off from the boulder.
[note: afterward, someone brought in a similar stone
about a foot in diameter - it took Janey four strong taps
to split the stone and provide a fairly even face on the stone.
This same action caused a side of the stone to split off
fairly neatly as well]"
Okay, a good and plausible explanation of how
the inscribed face(s) of the stone may ahve been created
by human action.
But that is not proof that such a demonstration did not
just mimic a natural occurrence.
Also, there is no indication of where the
tapping and/or chiselling and/or wedging was done,
either on the KRS or on the demonstration stone.
Also, I see no indication of what evidence is evident
on the KRS that this is what actually happened to it.
I.e., no chisel marks are noted.
"- the edge of the stone between these faces was then
dressed and properly squared off -
this allowed for runes to be carved right up to
the edge of the stone without fracturing the edge."
By "edge" I take it that Zalar means the corner
common to the two inscribed surfaces, his
"inscribed face" and "inscribed side".
I see no mention of chisel marks; such a dressing
might have required only a hammer.
Also, this is not an indication that the carver did not
find a stone with two already-available flat surfaces,
which he then dressed only to the extent that he modified
that corner between the two inscribed surfaces.
"- whoever dressed the stone
was very familiar with working with stone, however;
- whover carved the runes
was entirely unfamiliar with cutting inscriptions"
That is an odd sort of discrepancy,
which might alternatively be explained as the difference between
the result of natural processes and
later rune-carving, if
the rune-carver did not dress the stone at all.
It might also be explained as the difference between
the result of natural processes and
later corner-hammering and rune-carving, if
the rune-carver knew just enough about dressing a stone
to get the corner done rightly.
Sorry, I see no such indication of
chiselling-for-dressing as you mentioned.
Daryl Krupa
Eric Stevens
Eraly on in Barry Hanson's book there is a photograph of the KRS with
various points annotated. At the top there are two points marked
"Fracture points are visible from where the stone was originally
dressed".
I think you would have to examine the stone yourself to reach any
conclusion.
Eric Stevens
Daryl Krupa
> On 5 Feb 2004 17:19:30 -0800, icyc...@yahoo.com (Daryl Krupa) wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message news:<l96520lghe8kpjk7t...@4ax.com>...
> >> Apparently there are chisel marks showing where the front face was
> >> originally dressed.
> >>
> >> See http://www.geocities.com/m_zalar/epig.html
<snip>
> > But I see no mention in Zalar's report that
> >chisel marks were found that
> >indicate that the stone was intentionally split.
>
> Eraly on in Barry Hanson's book there is a photograph of the KRS with
> various points annotated. At the top there are two points marked
> "Fracture points are visible from where the stone was originally
> dressed".
Was that at the site you cited?
If not, do you have a page number, from within another citation?
> > From the site you cited:
<snip>
> > Sorry, I see no such indication of
> >chiselling-for-dressing as you mentioned.
>
> I think you would have to examine the stone yourself to reach any
> conclusion.
Does that mean that the site you cited
does not have a mention of chisel marks you mentioned?
What, exactly, in the site you cited was I supposed to see
re: chisel marks?
Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
> Eraly on in Barry Hanson's book there is a photograph of the KRS with
> various points annotated. At the top there are two points marked
> "Fracture points are visible from where the stone was originally
> dressed".
So hokay, I sought, and found an annotated KRS photo on
the third page of this pdf:
http://www.kensington-runestone.com/images/Volume%201.pdf
The indicated features are not necessarily chisel marks,
nor are they visible in the image.
A label lower down on the image asks us to see Chapter Six
for more details.
So, if we go to the next volume:
http://www.kensington-runestone.com/images/Volume%201b.pdf
On Page 348 there is a mention of a single practise chisel cut,
but that was made after the inscribed face was created, and so
is not associated with the creation of the inscribed face.
On Page 349:
"7) Fracture Points
There are numerous fracture points that appear to
have been created in dressing the stone surface
at the time it was originally carved."
Those are not chisel marks. And they are not depicted.
What exactly, are you referring to?
Daryl Krupa
Seppo Renfors
Michael Zalar wrote:
>
> Okay, recent posts seem to have resolved exactly what is being
> questioned.
>
> Wolter suggested that the marks on the back of the stone might be
> caused by tree root leaching, and has, to the best of my knowledge,
> always suggested that further inquiries should be made along this
> line, such as discussing the matter with an expert from the botanical
> field. It has never been considered conclusive proof of root growth,
> merely suggestive of such.
Michael, why on earth should actual eyewitness evidence be discarded
in the manner suggested above?
> Also, it does not appear the Lofvendahl is questioning Wolter's work
> with the chip taken from the side of the stone - that there was mica
> deterioration within the sample taken, and that this expressed some
> considerable weathering of that section.
Hmmm.... I thought it was not a "chip" but a round core sample i.25
inches diameter that was cut and used by Wolter to get at
undeteriorated part from the interior of the stone. Wolter did a
comparison of the undeteriorated surface with the runes known to not
have been touched, and has based his informed opinion on those
results. Further to that he is doing a tombstone study on key
materials in an attempt to gather a time line for deterioration os
said key materials.
http://www.amengtest.com/amengtest/news/newsletters/am%20edg-wint01-pdf%20ver.pdf
"Photo left: A freshly fractured surface of a core sample obtained
from the Kensington Runestone, at 500x magnification. Note the
well-defined, sharp mica crystals. Photo right: The mica crystals on
this surface, created at the time the stone was originally carved,
have completely weathered away (500x magnification). The weathering
condition indicates the stone and runeforms spent a long time in the
ground. "
> What appears to have happened, based on what I have seen here, is that
> Lofvendahl has found a descrepency in the mica between the sample and
> the actual inscription - I assume that he believes he has found
> relatively undeteriorated mica in the inscription. If it is true that
> in the unretouched (scraped by a nail) inscription there is
> undeteriorated mica, the same sword that Wolter uses to cut against
> the probability of a modern inscription must now cut strongly against
> an ancient origin.
I have seen nothing to support this to be so. Lofvendahl, as far as I
know, hasn't said enough to conclude anything much from it at all.
> If this is the correct scenario (as best I can determine from this
> thread) then several questions arise:
> 1) Was Lofvendahl looking in the right area - large sections of the
> inscription have been retooled since the discovery of the runestone.
> Such retooling might create new surfaces that show undeteriorated
> mica. Obviously the only valid points of examination would be the
> more or less pristine ares of the inscription.
> 2) How reliable were the methods used to determine the amount of mica
> in the inscription. To the best of my knowledge, the stone has been
> gone over only by various visual means. While an expert could with
> credibility make the claim that it 'looks' like there is
> undeteriorated mica in such and such an area, it is still necessary to
> ask how subjective is this opinion, what are the factors found in the
> examination that support it and so on.
Not knowing anything about the testing instruments used by Lofvendahl,
if any, it is difficult to say, even if a claim if "looks like" can be
valid.
> The best resolution, of course, would be to take a sample directly
> from the inscription. However, there was a great deal of clammoring
> against the samples taken from the stone by Wolter. Scientifically,
> taking the sample would be a no-brainer, politically it would be a hot
> potato.
I don't see the need to take a sample at all from the runes. After all
it is the surface that is of interest and it is accessible enough
already. A comparison sample from the interior already exists. Such a
sample needs not be from the runes themselves. I see it as odd that
there has been no mention (published at least) of re-tooling by
Lofvendahl, that was so evident to Wolter, and is known to have
occurred from witnesses. There exists a "H" carved into the stone by
Holland IIRC, that is of a known age (about a century old). Why has
nothing been said about this as a possible "clock" for dating the
runes?
> 3) Is there another explaination for the apparent lack of
> deterioration in the mica. I have no idea whether there is - I don't
> even have enough bacround in geology to make a guess, but it should
> still be asked.
> 4) What about the "dressed" side of the stone from which Wolter took
> his sample. Were Wolter's conclusions about the sample valid? Was is
> the explaination for the "dressing" of the stone. I believe that there
> were some indicators that this was indeed dressed by humans, possibly
> even using chisels - has this been examined?
I find it odd to question the validity of the determination if the
stone was "dressed" or not. It isn't that this sort of determination
is new! Nor has anyone questioned this in the past, despite the
controversy about the stone. That is to say, nobody has seen that to
be able to be questioned - not even by the most ardent fake merchants
(and I don't mean here on this group).
[..]
Seppo Renfors
Daryl Krupa wrote:
>
[..]
> In my world, a glacial meltwater stream can do the work of
> creating a flat side on a greywacke boulder, by
> carrying it to the edge of a hole in the ice (moulin) and
> flushing it over the edge so that it can fall several metres
> to the debris pile below,
> cracking off one or two sides of the stone along
> pre-existing fracture planes, one of which is still
> marked by a calcite deposit.
This is not possible.
There is a very simple test that shows it is impossible. Take a piece
of paper, make two parallel cuts in it, leaving as little as you like
(or are able to) joining the cut pieces. Hold the extreme outside
pieces and pull apart - you WILL NOT get the centre piece to separate
from the two outside pieces. It will *always* remain attached to one
or the other outside pieces. This shows why it is quite impossible for
TWO sides to simultaneously become "dressed" in the manner you
describe.
Tom McDonald
>
> Daryl Krupa wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>> In my world, a glacial meltwater stream can do the work of
>>creating a flat side on a greywacke boulder, by
>>carrying it to the edge of a hole in the ice (moulin) and
>>flushing it over the edge so that it can fall several metres
>>to the debris pile below,
>>cracking off one or two sides of the stone along
>>pre-existing fracture planes, one of which is still
>>marked by a calcite deposit.
>
>
> This is not possible.
>
> There is a very simple test that shows it is impossible. Take a piece
> of paper, make two parallel cuts in it, leaving as little as you like
> (or are able to) joining the cut pieces. Hold the extreme outside
> pieces and pull apart - you WILL NOT get the centre piece to separate
> from the two outside pieces. It will *always* remain attached to one
> or the other outside pieces. This shows why it is quite impossible for
> TWO sides to simultaneously become "dressed" in the manner you
> describe.
>
>
Seppo.
Oddly enough, we are talking about stone, not paper; and real,
chaotic, contingent conditions, not on a kitchen table.
There is no reason to suppose that the subject stone strikes
only one stone at the end of its fall. There is even less reason
to suppose that the stone it strikes has only one bit sticking up
upon which the falling stone, well, falls. I'm not even sure
that it is necessary for the two sides to be 'dressed' in the
same event.
You have not shown that "it is impossible for TWO sides to
simultaneously become 'dressed' in the manner [described]...."
Tom McDonald
Martin Reboul
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote in message
news:1028kp2...@corp.supernews.com...
The word "impossible" does not exist in the vocabulary of Seppo 'Dogfood'
Renfors, unless it is applied to something he does not wish to believe in. A
sad case...
Cheers
Martin
Daryl Krupa
The main trouble with that interpretation is that the statement
is not attributed directly to a geologist.
Those are the words used by Kurt Mälarstedt, who seems to be
a journalist, the sort who would interview a soft rock star
with a Nordic background, not the sort who would be wont to do
a petrographic analysis of an hard rock with a Nordic background:
http://www.abbamail.com/news/dnbenny.htm
The quotation of Löfvendahl comes _after_ the description of the
"indicier" that Wolter had relied upon:
"Geologen Runo Löfvendahl vill inte vara lika tvärsäker men anser
att det mesta tyder på att stenen ristades någon gång i slutet
av 1800-talet. Han tillbakavisar flera av de
indicier som
en amerikansk geolog, Scott Wolter,
anfört för att ristningen skulle vara medeltida."
Martin's translation:
"Geologist Runo Löfvendahl didn't want to be quite as sure as that,
but he believes most indications are that the stone was carved
some time in the end of the 1800's. He rejects several of the
indications which
the American geologist, Scott Wolter,
alleged indicated the carving was medieval."
"Ett av dessa indicier
handlar om vittringsgraden av glimmer i stenen.
Ett annat om att runorna på en av stenens sidor ristades vid den tid
då samma sida bearbetades för att bli slät,
vilket enligt Scott Wolter
gjordes flera hundra år före 1800-talets slut.
Ett tredje indicium
handlar om att de vita spår som finns på Kensingtonstenen
överensstämmer med Olof Ohmans vittnesmål om att
stenen när den påträffades i jorden var omsluten av asprötter.
- Men vi tycker nog att vi har tryckt hål på dessa indicier,
säger Runo Löfvendahl.
Martin's translation:
"One of those indications
concerns the disintegration of quartz/mica(?) in the stone.
Another is that the runes on one of the sides of the stone were
carved at the time that side was being dressed to make it smooth (flat),
which according to Wolter
had been done several hundred years before the late 1800's.
The third (refuted) indication
is that white traces on the Kensington stone
confirm Olof Ohman's testimony that the
stone was surrounded by aspen roots when it was unearthed
- we have been able to reject these indications"
It was an ABBA fan who said that the stone was
"worked" or "dressed", not a geologist, except maybe Scott Wolter,
but not Runo Löfvendahl.
Martin unfortunately omitted the "säger Runo Löfvendahl" attribution,
which was for the last line only, and might even be taken to indicate
that Löfvendahl even rejects the idea that the stone had been worked
and/or dressed to make it flat, or smooth, or ...
> * the word "slät" is of course directly related to the English
> "slate", as formerly used by children to write on in schools,
> and has various related meanings implying evenness/ lack of features.
> No curves, no bumps...
But "make it flat" would seem to be a procedure that would produce
opposite results to "give it that sexy slaty cleavage", were it to be
performed on this Swedish rock star by a backwoods clastic surgeon ...
[sorry, couldn't resist]
Please, let me have the last word on this bit of journalistic fluff,
and let's just wait for a report from Runo Löfvendahl directly.
Anybody have any idea about when that might be forthcoming?
Daryl Krupa
Eric Stevens
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message news:<9mt5209eamdlcekm5...@4ax.com>...
>> On 5 Feb 2004 17:19:30 -0800, icyc...@yahoo.com (Daryl Krupa) wrote:
>>
>> >Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message news:<l96520lghe8kpjk7t...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >> Apparently there are chisel marks showing where the front face was
>> >> originally dressed.
>> >>
>> >> See http://www.geocities.com/m_zalar/epig.html
>
><snip>
>
>> > But I see no mention in Zalar's report that
>> >chisel marks were found that
>> >indicate that the stone was intentionally split.
>>
>> Eraly on in Barry Hanson's book there is a photograph of the KRS with
>> various points annotated. At the top there are two points marked
>> "Fracture points are visible from where the stone was originally
>> dressed".
>
> Was that at the site you cited?
> If not, do you have a page number, from within another citation?
Sorry. That site refres only to dressing.
>
>> > From the site you cited:
><snip>
>> > Sorry, I see no such indication of
>> >chiselling-for-dressing as you mentioned.
>>
>> I think you would have to examine the stone yourself to reach any
>> conclusion.
>
> Does that mean that the site you cited
>does not have a mention of chisel marks you mentioned?
Now you have seen it you know as much about it as I do.
> What, exactly, in the site you cited was I supposed to see
>re: chisel marks?
>
Dressing, that's all. Done with bare hands? :-)
Check your mailbox.
Eric Stevens
David B
>
>"worked" or "dressed", not a geologist, except maybe Scott Wolter,
>but not Runo Löfvendahl.
OK, though I took it as a fairly no-nonsense summary of Löfvendahl's
claims, not overloaded with journalistic license.
>Please, let me have the last word on this bit of journalistic fluff,
>and let's just wait for a report from Runo Löfvendahl directly.
Yeah, that'll probably save us all a load of time!
> Anybody have any idea about when that might be forthcoming?
I don't, but somebody else may claim to...
David B.
Inger E Johansson
of course you have no idea. Others do.
Fornvännen, the Journal where the essays from the tests will be published is
edited 4 times each year. I doubt that it will be in the first issue 2004,
as I understand the texts for that were accepted in 2003 and we are close to
print-time. for subscription: http://www.raa.se/kvhaab/fornvann/e-subscr.htm
for following the essays in the netedition:
http://www.raa.se/kvhaab/fornvann/e-index.htm
Inger E
"David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:QX3Vb.60$IA3...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
Michael Zalar
>
> Oddly enough, we are talking about stone, not paper; and real,
> chaotic, contingent conditions, not on a kitchen table.
>
> There is no reason to suppose that the subject stone strikes
> only one stone at the end of its fall. There is even less reason
> to suppose that the stone it strikes has only one bit sticking up
> upon which the falling stone, well, falls. I'm not even sure
> that it is necessary for the two sides to be 'dressed' in the
> same event.
>
> You have not shown that "it is impossible for TWO sides to
> simultaneously become 'dressed' in the manner [described]...."
>
> Tom McDonald
Actually it is possible for a right angled section to cleave from the
main surface when the original surface is worked. After the
statements maide by Westin, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, a
local resident showed up with small stone, perhaps 1-2ft in length if
my memory serves. I am not sure if it was greywacke, but Ms Westin
provided a example of how the KRS woudl have been dressed by giving it
a couple of wacks at one end. The stone cleaved off cleanly and
completely along the side being worked. However, much to the surprise
of all, one of the sides of the stone cleaved off with the same
stroke, along the length of that side of the stone, leaving two
relatively flat sides.
I don't know how likely this is to occur in nature, buy I must
certainly think that it is possible.
Seppo Renfors
Martin Reboul wrote:
>
Listen you bloody lunatic! Give yourself an enema with a pineapple -
the rough end first! It will clear your filthy racist brain!
Seppo Renfors
Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
[..]
> > This is not possible.
> >
> > There is a very simple test that shows it is impossible. Take a piece
> > of paper, make two parallel cuts in it, leaving as little as you like
> > (or are able to) joining the cut pieces. Hold the extreme outside
> > pieces and pull apart - you WILL NOT get the centre piece to separate
> > from the two outside pieces. It will *always* remain attached to one
> > or the other outside pieces. This shows why it is quite impossible for
> > TWO sides to simultaneously become "dressed" in the manner you
> > describe.
> >
> >
> Seppo.
>
> Oddly enough, we are talking about stone, not paper; and real,
> chaotic, contingent conditions, not on a kitchen table.
>
The principle is IDENTICAL to whatever material you elect to test it
on - it is impossible!
[..]
Seppo Renfors
Note: "a couple of wacks" is not ONE wack (a single fall, one
landing), as was suggested originally. The experiment I proposed works
to separate them into individual pieces with more than one attempt
too!
Martin Reboul
Seppo "Dogfood" Renfors wrote...
>
>
> Martin Reboul wrote:
> >
>
> Listen you bloody lunatic! Give yourself an enema with a pineapple -
> the rough end first! It will clear your filthy racist brain!
Well, I didn't write that Seppo - trim your headers before you snip and spin.
And try to control your filthy, incontinent temper.
I assume you have tried this? Since it obviously failed to clear yours, or
even kick start it, I think I'll give it a miss thanks all the same.
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
news:402647D2...@not.pollis.net.au...
>
>
> Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> [..]
>
> > > This is not possible.
> > >
> > > There is a very simple test that shows it is impossible. Take a piece
> > > of paper, make two parallel cuts in it, leaving as little as you like
> > > (or are able to) joining the cut pieces. Hold the extreme outside
> > > pieces and pull apart - you WILL NOT get the centre piece to separate
> > > from the two outside pieces. It will *always* remain attached to one
> > > or the other outside pieces. This shows why it is quite impossible for
> > > TWO sides to simultaneously become "dressed" in the manner you
> > > describe.
> > >
> > >
> > Seppo.
> >
> > Oddly enough, we are talking about stone, not paper; and real,
> > chaotic, contingent conditions, not on a kitchen table.
> >
>
> The principle is IDENTICAL to whatever material you elect to test it
> on - it is impossible!
You, ahem, haven't worked much with stone, have you Seps?
Cheers
Martin
Eric Stevens
<Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>> Actually it is possible for a right angled section to cleave from the
>> main surface when the original surface is worked. After the
>> statements maide by Westin, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, a
>> local resident showed up with small stone, perhaps 1-2ft in length if
>> my memory serves. I am not sure if it was greywacke, but Ms Westin
>> provided a example of how the KRS woudl have been dressed by giving it
>> a couple of wacks at one end. The stone cleaved off cleanly and
>> completely along the side being worked. However, much to the surprise
>> of all, one of the sides of the stone cleaved off with the same
>> stroke, along the length of that side of the stone, leaving two
>> relatively flat sides.
>> I don't know how likely this is to occur in nature, buy I must
>> certainly think that it is possible.
>
>Note: "a couple of wacks" is not ONE wack (a single fall, one
>landing), as was suggested originally. The experiment I proposed works
>to separate them into individual pieces with more than one attempt
>too!
Only a collision between billiard balls results in one perfect impact.
Collisions between most real-world objects result in multiple
collisions within the one event as their respective structures
crumble.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>Tom McDonald wrote:
>>
>> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>>
>[..]
>
>> > This is not possible.
>> >
>> > There is a very simple test that shows it is impossible. Take a piece
>> > of paper, make two parallel cuts in it, leaving as little as you like
>> > (or are able to) joining the cut pieces. Hold the extreme outside
>> > pieces and pull apart - you WILL NOT get the centre piece to separate
>> > from the two outside pieces. It will *always* remain attached to one
>> > or the other outside pieces. This shows why it is quite impossible for
>> > TWO sides to simultaneously become "dressed" in the manner you
>> > describe.
>> >
>> >
>> Seppo.
>>
>> Oddly enough, we are talking about stone, not paper; and real,
>> chaotic, contingent conditions, not on a kitchen table.
>>
>
>The principle is IDENTICAL to whatever material you elect to test it
>on - it is impossible!
>
Seppo, you are wrong but, based on past experience, I'm not going to
waste time on trying to explain it to you beyond suggesting you look
at principal stresses and strains in
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/klmno/linton_ralph.html
and consider the possible effect of the dissipation of strain-energy
after an impact.
Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
>
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>>Seppo Renfors wrote:
>>
>
> [..]
>
>
>>>This is not possible.
>>>
>>>There is a very simple test that shows it is impossible. Take a piece
>>>of paper, make two parallel cuts in it, leaving as little as you like
>>>(or are able to) joining the cut pieces. Hold the extreme outside
>>>pieces and pull apart - you WILL NOT get the centre piece to separate
>>>from the two outside pieces. It will *always* remain attached to one
>>>or the other outside pieces. This shows why it is quite impossible for
>>>TWO sides to simultaneously become "dressed" in the manner you
>>>describe.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Seppo.
>>
>> Oddly enough, we are talking about stone, not paper; and real,
>>chaotic, contingent conditions, not on a kitchen table.
>>
>
>
> The principle is IDENTICAL to whatever material you elect to test it
> on - it is impossible!
>
> [..]
>
Seppo,
Apparently Michael Zalar has evidence that this is not
necessarily true for the material under consideration.
Also, of course, you replied to my introduction, while snipping
my rationale. I noted that there is no reason for only one
strike during the fall, or only one striking surface on the
stationary anvil stone. So even were Michael to be incorrect,
even by your thought-experiment it is possible, not impossible,
for a stone like the KRS blank to be made by natural processes.
Perhaps you would do everyone the favor of not snipping text
that you don't like when it is germane to your reply. But I
won't hold my breath.
Tom McDonald
Seppo Renfors
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:32:28 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>
> >> Actually it is possible for a right angled section to cleave from the
> >> main surface when the original surface is worked. After the
> >> statements maide by Westin, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, a
> >> local resident showed up with small stone, perhaps 1-2ft in length if
> >> my memory serves. I am not sure if it was greywacke, but Ms Westin
> >> provided a example of how the KRS woudl have been dressed by giving it
> >> a couple of wacks at one end. The stone cleaved off cleanly and
> >> completely along the side being worked. However, much to the surprise
> >> of all, one of the sides of the stone cleaved off with the same
> >> stroke, along the length of that side of the stone, leaving two
> >> relatively flat sides.
> >> I don't know how likely this is to occur in nature, buy I must
> >> certainly think that it is possible.
> >
> >Note: "a couple of wacks" is not ONE wack (a single fall, one
> >landing), as was suggested originally. The experiment I proposed works
> >to separate them into individual pieces with more than one attempt
> >too!
>
> Only a collision between billiard balls results in one perfect impact.
...and many more items than that.
> Collisions between most real-world objects result in multiple
> collisions within the one event as their respective structures
> crumble.
Yes, but for such an event the probability of it occurring is
minuscule to infinitesimal to get two sides dressed on a stone in that
manner. Other ways are far more likely - eg freezing with resultant
flaking.
Seppo Renfors
Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> >
> > Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> >>Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >>
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >
> >>>This is not possible.
> >>>
> >>>There is a very simple test that shows it is impossible. Take a piece
> >>>of paper, make two parallel cuts in it, leaving as little as you like
> >>>(or are able to) joining the cut pieces. Hold the extreme outside
> >>>pieces and pull apart - you WILL NOT get the centre piece to separate
> >>>from the two outside pieces. It will *always* remain attached to one
> >>>or the other outside pieces. This shows why it is quite impossible for
> >>>TWO sides to simultaneously become "dressed" in the manner you
> >>>describe.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Seppo.
> >>
> >> Oddly enough, we are talking about stone, not paper; and real,
> >>chaotic, contingent conditions, not on a kitchen table.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The principle is IDENTICAL to whatever material you elect to test it
> > on - it is impossible!
> >
> > [..]
> >
> Seppo,
>
> Apparently Michael Zalar has evidence that this is not
> necessarily true for the material under consideration.
...and a modification to how it occurs. The statement of mine is true
irrespective of material.
>
> Also, of course, you replied to my introduction, while snipping
> my rationale.
When you shift goal posts to claim different and on that different
basis simultaneously claim I'm wrong with what I have said, it
deserves snipping, to retain the conditions I have stated.
Should you wish to disagree, and base it on the conditions being
different from those stated by me, THEN you say, "..but those are not
the conditions, they are xxxxx.... and therefor yyyyyyyy....". THAT is
the right way, not alter conditions and declare me wrong on the
altered basis!
> I noted that there is no reason for only one
> strike during the fall, or only one striking surface on the
> stationary anvil stone.
You see YOU redefined the circumstances from those alluded to
originally - therefor you cannot claim I'm wrong, as YOU refer to
different conditions.
> So even were Michael to be incorrect,
> even by your thought-experiment it is possible, not impossible,
> for a stone like the KRS blank to be made by natural processes.
Oh dear.... "even by your thought-experiment it is possible".... You
know, this is the second little experiment that is well known from
primary school times. The experiment I referred to, it is quite
impossible to separate the paper into tree pieces by one single
action. Quite impossible - equally as impossible as it is for the
water level in a glass of water to rise as an ice cube floating in the
glass of water melts! The other impossible argument you have
supported!
>
> Perhaps you would do everyone the favor of not snipping text
> that you don't like when it is germane to your reply. But I
> won't hold my breath.
The relevant text was left behind, as always.
Seppo Renfors
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:31:12 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Tom McDonald wrote:
> >>
> >> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >>
> >[..]
> >
> >> > This is not possible.
> >> >
> >> > There is a very simple test that shows it is impossible. Take a piece
> >> > of paper, make two parallel cuts in it, leaving as little as you like
> >> > (or are able to) joining the cut pieces. Hold the extreme outside
> >> > pieces and pull apart - you WILL NOT get the centre piece to separate
> >> > from the two outside pieces. It will *always* remain attached to one
> >> > or the other outside pieces. This shows why it is quite impossible for
> >> > TWO sides to simultaneously become "dressed" in the manner you
> >> > describe.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Seppo.
> >>
> >> Oddly enough, we are talking about stone, not paper; and real,
> >> chaotic, contingent conditions, not on a kitchen table.
> >>
> >
> >The principle is IDENTICAL to whatever material you elect to test it
> >on - it is impossible!
> >
> Seppo, you are wrong but,
I'm not wrong - when you shift the conditions from those defined by me
and argue something else, it CANNOT mean I'm wrong.
> based on past experience, I'm not going to
> waste time on trying to explain it to you beyond suggesting you look
> at principal stresses and strains in
> http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/klmno/linton_ralph.html
> and consider the possible effect of the dissipation of strain-energy
> after an impact.
I think you goofed. That URL points to some bragging about wall paper,
university attendance and how many books have been written as well as
how a person died. It says nothing about what you suggest it does. In
any event it would not have dealt with what I dealt with, but
something else I had not addressed.
Martin Reboul
It's "dogfood time" again....
Eric Stevens
<Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
I knew it wouldn't be worth trying to explain ........ :-(
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:32:28 GMT, Seppo Renfors
>> <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> >> Actually it is possible for a right angled section to cleave from the
>> >> main surface when the original surface is worked. After the
>> >> statements maide by Westin, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, a
>> >> local resident showed up with small stone, perhaps 1-2ft in length if
>> >> my memory serves. I am not sure if it was greywacke, but Ms Westin
>> >> provided a example of how the KRS woudl have been dressed by giving it
>> >> a couple of wacks at one end. The stone cleaved off cleanly and
>> >> completely along the side being worked. However, much to the surprise
>> >> of all, one of the sides of the stone cleaved off with the same
>> >> stroke, along the length of that side of the stone, leaving two
>> >> relatively flat sides.
>> >> I don't know how likely this is to occur in nature, buy I must
>> >> certainly think that it is possible.
>> >
>> >Note: "a couple of wacks" is not ONE wack (a single fall, one
>> >landing), as was suggested originally. The experiment I proposed works
>> >to separate them into individual pieces with more than one attempt
>> >too!
>>
>> Only a collision between billiard balls results in one perfect impact.
>
>...and many more items than that.
First define a 'perfect impact' and second give me a real-world
example.
>
>> Collisions between most real-world objects result in multiple
>> collisions within the one event as their respective structures
>> crumble.
>
>Yes, but for such an event the probability of it occurring is
>minuscule to infinitesimal to get two sides dressed on a stone in that
>manner. Other ways are far more likely - eg freezing with resultant
>flaking.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>> Apparently Michael Zalar has evidence that this is not
>> necessarily true for the material under consideration.
>
>...and a modification to how it occurs. The statement of mine is true
>irrespective of material.
It might be true but its not relevant.
Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:45:17 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:32:28 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> >> <Ren...@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
[..]
> >> >Note: "a couple of wacks" is not ONE wack (a single fall, one
> >> >landing), as was suggested originally. The experiment I proposed works
> >> >to separate them into individual pieces with more than one attempt
> >> >too!
> >>
> >> Only a collision between billiard balls results in one perfect impact.
> >
> >...and many more items than that.
>
> First define a 'perfect impact' and second give me a real-world
> example.
Now how did I know you were going to come back with that! :-)
You see, "perfect" depends on the circumstances and not all play
billiards, you know! So, as you want a "real life example" and you
have elected sport as a reference, here it is.
India is bowling and there is only 3 balls left to go in the match.
Aussies still need 7 runs to win. Fast bowler Bret Lee is at the
crease, he is the second last of the tail end. As the bowl come
hurtling down at some 130 -> 140 mph at Bret, he swings the bat and
hits a magnificent drive into the fourth row of the spectators and
scores a six. On the very next ball Bret manages to get another run.
Australia wins with one ball to spare... again.
Now, that six was a "perfect impact" between the ball and the bat, as
without it Australia would have almost certainly lost. It was indeed
"perfect" in anyone's language! So you see, you not having defined
exactly what you mean with "perfect" or "perfect impact" already, it
is a bit late to come back now and claim a VERY narrow definition as
I'm sure you are about to do.
"Perfect", in relation to an act (eg playing billiards), is that which
achieves the intended outcome without any complications.
> >> Collisions between most real-world objects result in multiple
> >> collisions within the one event as their respective structures
> >> crumble.
> >
> >Yes, but for such an event the probability of it occurring is
> >minuscule to infinitesimal to get two sides dressed on a stone in that
> >manner. Other ways are far more likely - eg freezing with resultant
> >flaking.
>
> Eric Stevens
--
Seppo Renfors
There - was - no - explanation at that URL, as I said!!
I also repeat:
"I'm not wrong - when you shift the conditions from those defined by
me and argue something else, it CANNOT mean I'm wrong."
Seppo Renfors
Neither was the original claim that had that effect - hence the
statement "impossible".