Help with Reading Old Gravestones
Brooks Peters
difficult to read. (See example) Sometimes I've tried to change the
angle of camera, put the subject in shade, or something else to increase
the contrast. Do experienced hands in this group have any other
suggestions to try?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15879144@N00/2393397307/in/set-7215760441411
2776/
Thanks in advance.
Brooks Peters
----
brooks....@NOSPAMverizon.net
(Please remove NOSPAM to reply.)
Hugh Watkins
> I've occasionally run into gravestones on which the inscriptions the are
> difficult to read. (See example) Sometimes I've tried to change the
> angle of camera, put the subject in shade, or something else to increase
> the contrast. Do experienced hands in this group have any other
> suggestions to try?
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/15879144@N00/2393397307/in/set-7215760441411
> 2776/
google is your friend
gravestones photograph technique
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=gravestones+photograph++technique&btnG=Search
a. If at all possible, take a photograph without doing ANYTHING to
stone. My favorite technique is to always use a detachable flash
(even on sunny days). I direct my flash at a low angle to the stone
to enhance the lettering. Some people like to use mirrors or flashlights
to enhance the inscriptions.
b. I don't mind taking a rubbing of the stone. Some people claim that
even a rubbing may damage the stone, if you don't do it right.
Association for Gravestone Studies founded in 1977
http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Association%20for%20Gravestone%20Studies
there has been endless discussion of this in the archives since 1996
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gravestones+soap&btnG=Google+Search
Gravestones are like antiques and should not be over-cleaned.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=gravestones+photograph&btnG=Search
enjoy
Hugh W
--
For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and
district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
Lesley Robertson
"Brooks Peters" <Brooks....@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:Brooks.Peters8-93B...@news.verizon.net...
> I've occasionally run into gravestones on which the inscriptions the are
> difficult to read. (See example) Sometimes I've tried to change the
> angle of camera, put the subject in shade, or something else to increase
> the contrast. Do experienced hands in this group have any other
> suggestions to try?
Spraying the stone with water, and then getting a friend to hold a reflector
or a torch at an angle sometikes helps. Playing with the colours in
photograph-handling software can also be very effective (eg removing green,
making it black&white). I've had good results with Photoshop's "emboss"
command a could of times.
If all else fails, close your eyes and trace the letter lightly with your
fingertips.
Lesley Robertson
singhals
Those who can get hysterical about it all would suggest
using DISTILLED water. The technique is to LIGHTLY spritz
-- do NOT soak! -- the uncarved surface.
What is known in the US as a Coleman Lantern (a pressure-fed
lantern with a mantle?) set at a 45-degree angle to the
stone has been known to be effective with mildewed stones.
Put a sheet of paper (I've use gift wrap in a pinch, with
the white side toward me) over the stone and do a rubbing,
then take your picture of the stone.
If you MUST use chalk don't use the sidewalk sort and rub
the flat of the chalk across the flat surface. use an
expensive paint brush to flick it all off before you leave, too.
And don't *EVER* put anything but light on a wet stone! If
nothing else, it's self-defeating.
Cheryl
Lesley Robertson
"singhals" <sing...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:HeSdnYZmsIq_v2fa...@rcn.net...
>
> If you MUST use chalk don't use the sidewalk sort and rub the flat of the
> chalk across the flat surface. use an expensive paint brush to flick it
> all off before you leave, too.
>
on the wearther, it often cooks onto the stone and doesn't come off.
Take a look at stone number 7 on my website. We don't know what was used,
but there was whirte powder on the ground around the stone. This photo was
taken more than a year after the damage was done.
http://homepages.ipact.nl/~robertson/whitsome%201%20place%20study/burial_ground/west/index.html
Needless to say, the old lady who was the last member of the family in the
area was heartbroken. The stoe isn't even especially eroded.
Lesley Robertson
Texas Gen
what can happen.
This is a lovely old cemetery. I like to see the old-fashioned ones so
cared for. I grow up just down the road from the old community cemetery
where many of my folks on both sides are buried---several of them babies, as
my grandmother lost three herself.
There is an association that sees to the care. [Which reminds me, I need to
send some money.]
Warmest Regards,
Donna
clifto
> I've occasionally run into gravestones on which the inscriptions the are
> difficult to read. (See example) Sometimes I've tried to change the
> angle of camera, put the subject in shade, or something else to increase
> the contrast. Do experienced hands in this group have any other
> suggestions to try?
In addition to the good stuff already posted, I say take the picture anyway.
I had some pretty hard-to-read stones that I snapped a while back, and I
found once I got home (of course) that the reflections were just right at
some particular angle to show me about half of what was on the stone, but
PERFECTLY, with contrast I never would have dreamed.
--
$109,000,000 in income! Capitalism works GREAT for Billary...
...why does she want Marxism for us?
Allen
you get a cheap photo editing program and play with the contrast and
brightness to see if you can improve the images. Irfanview is a free
program that might do everything you need. If they are digital photos,
that will simplify the process; if film, you won't be able to do as much
as you will have to scan the print. Just remember two rules of photo
editing:
Rule One: _Always_ work with a copy of the original file.
Rule Two: Don't ever forget Rule One.
Allen
JJ206
> I've occasionally run into gravestones on which the inscriptions the are
> difficult to read. (See example) Sometimes I've tried to change the
> angle of camera, put the subject in shade, or something else to increase
> the contrast. Do experienced hands in this group have any other
> suggestions to try?
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/15879144@N00/2393397307/in/set-7215760441411
> 2776/
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Brooks Peters
If you live near the Association for Gravestone Studies in Greenfield,
Mass. You might be able to get your mystery solved. Cutting edge
software is being used to read old gravestones.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08011/848345-115.stm
Jonathan
Keith nuttle
In addition to the contrast and brightness, you can also work with
changing the color and making negatives of the digital image. To read
one stone I had to go to a negative image and mess with the color, but
was finally able to get good letters that was easy to read.
Lesley Robertson
"Keith nuttle" <keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:x%HKj.869$pS4...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> In addition to the contrast and brightness, you can also work with
> changing the color and making negatives of the digital image. To read one
> stone I had to go to a negative image and mess with the color, but was
> finally able to get good letters that was easy to read.
One point I forgot to add before - it's always worth checking whether the
stones in the burial ground have been transcribed earlier, before acid rain.
Any local history club, or FHS should be able to tell you if transcriptions
exist.
Lesley Robertson
Brooks Peters
tips. They help but I haven't yet found the combination that answers
with the worst areas. While I keep trying different image-processing
recipes, I'll revisit the gravesite and follow the tips for making
originals with higher contrast in the inscriptions.
Again, many thanks.
Brooks
In article <Brooks.Peters8-93B...@news.verizon.net>,
CWatters
> Those who can get hysterical about it all would suggest
> using DISTILLED water. The technique is to LIGHTLY spritz -- do NOT
> soak! -- the uncarved surface.
I suspect one more application of rainwater wouldn't do much harm either.
CWatters
"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:b23a6$47fa348b$83b4502b$16...@news2.tudelft.nl...
That's so bad it almost looks like someone has made had a half hearted
attempt to repair the stone with plaster or something like that. Most
strange.
singhals
No, but a rural cemetery with a rainbarrel is pretty hard to
find these days ... and sure as you start trying to collect
rainwater at home for your trip, your area will begin a
dry-spell that lasts until the day after you leave. (g)
Cheryl
singhals
Yes, understood. But then again there are situations where
future damage is secondary. A gravestone being used as a
step in a barn isn't in the same category as one in a nice
neat well-kept cemetery?
Cheryl
Lesley Robertson
"CWatters" <colin....@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
news:5KidnTnjypRmymLanZ2dnUVZ8qOknZ2d@plusnet...
inclining towards chalk since flour would have encouraged the growth of
algae or lichens. However whoever did chose a day with a very wet morning,
followed by 2 very sunny days which seem to have baked the stuff onto the
stone. You can just about see where the last relative of the family tried to
scrub it, before being persuaded to stop in case she did more damage.
I was up there last summer, and it's slowly getting better.
Mind you, there's been vandals of the more common sort up there and another
couple of stones are now down. It's really important that if people have
such burial grounds in their area they get them recorded and, hopefully,
photographed before their condition worsens. You don't have to put the pics
on the web - just deposit copies with the local FHS or local history group.
Lesley Robertson
Lesley Robertson
Lesley Robertson
>
> Yes, understood. But then again there are situations where future damage
> is secondary. A gravestone being used as a step in a barn isn't in the
> same category as one in a nice neat well-kept cemetery?
>
Lesley Robertson
CWatters
They sell it in my local supermarket. Best use the still/non-sparkling
version :-)
Hugh Watkins
LOL all water in the ground is rainwater
Huh W
Charles Ellson
<hugh.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>CWatters wrote:
>> "singhals" <sing...@erols.com> wrote in message
>> news:Zqednfau2L2572La...@rcn.net...
>>> CWatters wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Those who can get hysterical about it all would suggest
>>>>> using DISTILLED water. The technique is to LIGHTLY spritz -- do NOT
>>>>> soak! -- the uncarved surface.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect one more application of rainwater wouldn't do much harm either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, but a rural cemetery with a rainbarrel is pretty hard to find these
>>> days ... and sure as you start trying to collect rainwater at home for
>>> your trip, your area will begin a dry-spell that lasts until the day after
>>> you leave. (g)
>>>
>>> Cheryl
>>>
>>
>> They sell it in my local supermarket. Best use the still/non-sparkling
>> version :-)
>
>LOL all water in the ground is rainwater
>
You are forgetting about seepage.
Christopher Jahn
news:lqvvv3p70b5eulrap...@4ax.com:
No, he's not. How do you think rainwater becomes groundwater?
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
The Heirophant is Disguised and Confused.
Charles Ellson
wrote:
Groundwater is not 100% rainwater.
Hugh Watkins
LOL
the simplistic water cycle >> ocean >> cloud >> rain >> human use and
river or ground >> ocean
obviously does not include distillation and evaporation from lakes and
kettles which cuts out the ocean
Hugh W
Brian
<cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Groundwater is not 100% rainwater.
It was at one time although it may have been a long time ago.
Charles Ellson
wrote:
Before there was animal life adding to the content.
Robert Melson
trapped underground in previous ages as the result of geologic
events. Might've been rainwater once-upon-a-time, but ...
Soggy Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford
Christopher Jahn
All the water in the ground and the seas was once water in the
air. Even the "fossil water" was atmospheric water millions of
years ago.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
BE ALERT!!!! (The world needs more lerts ...)
Charles Ellson
wrote:
As was some proportion of the animal urine often found in the
substance loosely described as "ground water".
Christopher Jahn
>>>>> You are forgetting about seepage.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, he's not. How do you think rainwater becomes
groundwater?
>>>>
>>> Groundwater is not 100% rainwater.
>>
>>All the water in the ground and the seas was once water in the
>>air. Even the "fossil water" was atmospheric water millions of
>>years ago.
>>
> As was some proportion of the animal urine often found in the
> substance loosely described as "ground water".
Now you're forgetting "seepage" and the effects thereof.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Love is a many-splintered thing
Charles Ellson
wrote:
>Charles Ellson <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:g9k404lbk2af5usde...@4ax.com:
>
>>>>>> You are forgetting about seepage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, he's not. How do you think rainwater becomes
>groundwater?
>>>>>
>>>> Groundwater is not 100% rainwater.
>>>
>>>All the water in the ground and the seas was once water in the
>>>air. Even the "fossil water" was atmospheric water millions of
>>>years ago.
>>>
>> As was some proportion of the animal urine often found in the
>> substance loosely described as "ground water".
>
>Now you're forgetting "seepage" and the effects thereof.
>
ITYF groundwater has no trouble "seeping" from fields containing
cattle etc. to adjacent streams, taking with it such organisms as e.g.
leptospirosis, E.coli and C.difficile.
Christopher Jahn
You're describing run-off, not seepage.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Silence descended like an anvil...only much softer.
Simon Hawke
Charles Ellson
wrote:
>Charles Ellson <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:8225041usttmi239b...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:05:35 -0500, Christopher Jahn
>> <xj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Charles Ellson <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>>news:g9k404lbk2af5usde...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>>>>> You are forgetting about seepage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, he's not. How do you think rainwater becomes
>>>groundwater?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Groundwater is not 100% rainwater.
>>>>>
>>>>>All the water in the ground and the seas was once water in
>>>>>the air. Even the "fossil water" was atmospheric water
>>>>>millions of years ago.
>>>>>
>>>> As was some proportion of the animal urine often found in
>>>> the substance loosely described as "ground water".
>>>
>>>Now you're forgetting "seepage" and the effects thereof.
>>>
>> ITYF groundwater has no trouble "seeping" from fields
>> containing cattle etc. to adjacent streams, taking with it
>> such organisms as e.g. leptospirosis, E.coli and C.difficile.
>>
>
>You're describing run-off, not seepage.
>
I'm describing groundwater which is not 100% water.
CWatters
My point really is that I don't think there is any point in using distilled
water. Bottled water or even plain tap water is going to be plenty pure
enough not to harm a grave stone that is exposed to acid rain.
Christopher Jahn
Actually, you're demonstrating that you're a pedantic jackass.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Bullshit makes the flowers grow and that's beautiful.
Charles Ellson
wrote:
Actually [TM], you are demonstrating that you cannot have a polite
conversation.
Kurt
Please stop this thread. It has gone far beyond anything of interest
for genealogy.
Kurt F
Hugh Watkins
>> I'm describing groundwater which is not 100% water.
>
> Actually, you're demonstrating that you're a pedantic jackass.
Charles you sre drowning in bad semantics
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins
sorry Kurt
just delete it unread
Hugh W
manaia alofa
Hugh?
<grin>
--Manaia
+++++
--- Hugh Watkins <hugh.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Christopher Jahn wrote:
> > Charles Ellson <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote
> in
> > news:h4k504tgb6opu6k5m...@4ax.com:
>
> >> I'm describing groundwater which is not 100%
> water.
> >
> > Actually, you're demonstrating that you're a
> pedantic jackass.
>
> Charles you sre drowning in bad semantics
>
> Hugh W
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Hugh Watkins
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:13:56 -0400, singhals <sing...@erols.com>
> sharpened a new quill and scratched:
>
> ---> bobbit
>
>> No, but a rural cemetery with a rainbarrel is pretty hard to
>> find these days ... and sure as you start trying to collect
>> rainwater at home for your trip, your area will begin a
>> dry-spell that lasts until the day after you leave. (g)
>>
>> Cheryl
>
> made of stone. About fifty years ago this was moved into the church
> and is now claimed to be an original Saxon font :-)
picture? - or palce (have google can look)
one danush church has one thought to be a viking pagan sacrificial bowl
(recycled)
JJ206
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:20:24 -0400, singhals <sing...@erols.com>
> sharpened a new quill and scratched:
>
>
>> Yes, understood. But then again there are situations where
>> future damage is secondary. A gravestone being used as a
>> step in a barn isn't in the same category as one in a nice
>> neat well-kept cemetery?
>>
>> Cheryl
>
> A couple of years ago I visited a church I hadn't been to for ten
> years and found that it had been turned into a 'garden' with all the
> headstones chopped up and used as steps and crazy paving. The church I
> was baptised at, St Matthews, Hayfield, has all the stones cleared to
> make way for a nursery school, the stones neatly stacked against the
> walls, only the top ones readable. The chap who runs the newsagents,
> still the same man I bought my sweets off as a child, said it was all
> those bl**dy incomers from the city who put their career before their
> kids :-(
>
> Kay
So they moved all the graves to a new cemetery and everyone got new
markers ?
Jon M.
Hugh Watkins
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:46:07 -0700, JJ206
> <jj...@remooooooooooooooovethisdrizzle.com> sharpened a new quill and
after 30 years unless unusual soil there is little remaining
Texas Gen
> after 30 years unless unusual soil there is little remaining
>
> Hugh W
To me it is not so much the condition of the bodies have been built over,
although in any condition this is tragic and an insult that they weren't
moved and/or the families notified if possible. For the family researcher,
even though [probably not all] the stones are stacked against a fence [to
deteriorate], it would have been helpful to know family groupings in the
cemetery---and their proximity to allied family plots. Very good clues
sometimes that help us honor their lives by documenting their family
relationships. I hope the church had good and complete cemetery records and
accurate plot diagrams to overcome this loss, but I doubt it.
singhals
If only all cemeteries were created equal ... Cemeteries I
search, like land records I search, just aren't like they
seem to be in other areas. It can get downright discouragin'.
Cheryl
JJ206
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:46:07 -0700, JJ206
>
> Kay
Wow, sorry to hear that. Are there any local laws concerning moving a
cemetery or removing one ?
Jon M.
singhals
In the US, moving a KNOWN cemetery requires reams of
paperwork. Even moving a suspected cemetery generates a
month's worth of paper.
Moving a grave requires opening it. Opening a grave
requires permission of the family, permission of the
local-level coroner, the county's coroner, AND the State
medical examiner. It also requires permission from about a
dozen other people, in various not-obvious agencies, such as
the Health Dept, Archeology, History, etc. (Seems to me I
counted 27 different agencies.) Notice that the first item
required is permission of the family -- without permission
they can't open it. If there's known family, you're home
free; if not, the people wishing to open a grave must
advertised for 3 to 6 weeks in the newspaper of legal record
in the locality where the grave is located.
FWIW (tuppence in a seller's market).
Cheryl
Sir Creep
wrote:
> I've occasionally run into gravestones on which the inscriptions the are
> difficult to read. (See example) Sometimes I've tried to change the
> angle of camera, put the subject in shade, or something else to increase
> the contrast. Do experienced hands in this group have any other
> suggestions to try?
Brook:
We've had this discussion a couple years ago and it ceratinly put
folks into two camps, one sensible and one on the lunatic fringe.
I always carry CHALK with me, and there is nothing to rubbing a light
bit on the letters to raise up an image, no different than taking a
light lead pencil on a notepad to see the imprint of the message
written on the paper that was last used. Good for photographing and
-- this is most important -- HARMLESS. Among other things I am a
degreed geologist, and if someone says that a natural substance like
chalk, which mind you is SOFTER than either granite or marble or
concrete, will damage the stone, I say pshaw. It makes no sense
chemically or physically. I doubt one who cares about their family
genealogy suddenly 'doesn't' care when gently rubbing a family
memebr's headstone with a minute bit-o-chalk, but just wait, cuz
someone will profer THAT argument next.
diatribe over.....
actually, I carry a spritzer spray bottle of water too and that is my
FIRST means of trying to 'lift' the image from the stone. To be
honest that works enough in many cases, but when it doesn't chalk is a
very reasonable alternative. Apart from those two I know of nothing
if the image is 'too far gone'.
And I mean rubbing chalk on the raised/outer portion of the stone, or
the stone's 'face' as it were. I am NOT suggesting that one chalks in
the grooves of the letters/numbers. you are trying to see the
REMAINING image, not chalk it in. As in my original example, you
don't try to lift the letters of a notepad using a pencil lead by
drawing in the letters, but rather rubbing all around and seeing the
indentations that ARE the letters. There, nipped THAT argument
against using chalk in the bud....
Anyway, best of luck.
SC
Sir Creep
wrote:
> "singhals" <singh...@erols.com> wrote in message
>
> news:HeSdnYZmsIq_v2fa...@rcn.net...
>
> > If you MUST use chalk don't use the sidewalk sort and rub the flat of the
> > chalk across the flat surface. use an expensive paint brush to flick it
> > all off before you leave, too.
>
> Any use of material such as chalk, flour, etc is not a good idea - depending
> on the wearther, it often cooks onto the stone and doesn't come off.
> Take a look at stone number 7 on my website. We don't know what was used,
> but there was whirte powder on the ground around the stone. This photo was
> taken more than a year after the damage was done.http://homepages.ipact.nl/~robertson/whitsome%201%20place%20study/bur...
> Needless to say, the old lady who was the last member of the family in the
> area was heartbroken. The stoe isn't even especially eroded.
> Lesley Robertson
#7 looks to me like nothing but natural weathering. In fact, seeing
as the 'problem' that you presume was created by a human doesn't seem
to effect the wording on the stone, it defeats the argument against
using whatever the product was you think was used. We are talking
about using something to discover the IMAGE that is virtually
gone....your stone #7 isn't an exhibit that is relevant to the
discussion. No offense.
SC
Sir Creep
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:18:27 -0500, Christopher Jahn <xj...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> >news:lqvvv3p70b5eulrap...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:13:09 +0200, Hugh Watkins
> >> <hugh.watk...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>>>news:Zqednfau2L2572La...@rcn.net...
> >>>>> CWatters wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Those who can get hysterical about it all would suggest
> >>>>>>> using DISTILLED water. The technique is to LIGHTLY
> >>>>>>> spritz -- do NOT soak! -- the uncarved surface.
>
> >>>>>> I suspect one more application of rainwater wouldn't do
> >>>>>> much harm either.
>
> >>>>> No, but a rural cemetery with a rainbarrel is pretty hard
> >>>>> to find these days ... and sure as you start trying to
> >>>>> collect rainwater at home for your trip, your area will
> >>>>> begin a dry-spell that lasts until the day after you leave.
> >>>>> (g)
>
> >>>>> Cheryl
>
> >>>> still/non-sparkling version :-)
>
> >>>LOL all water in the ground is rainwater
>
> >> You are forgetting about seepage.
>
> >No, he's not. How do you think rainwater becomes groundwater?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh my....this should be good....
Lesley Robertson
"Sir Creep" <sirc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c69b02c-42fa-46cb...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Why would I lie? And why accuse me of lying if you're offering "no offense"?
It's not natural weathering - look at the other stones nearby - none of them
have suddenly gone white and streaky. It wasn't like that the week before
(I have a photo to prove it) AND, as I said above, there was also white
powder to be seen on the ground. It's defaced the stone, and left a
long-lasting mess. AND caused serious upset to the one family member left in
the village.
I see that in another post you say that you use chalk - I assume that the
tone of your reply here was an attempt to justify that?
No offense, of course.
Lesley Robertson
Sir Creep
wrote:
> "Sir Creep" <sircr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where did I use the word, or even elude to a 'lie' being told? I said
the stone wasn't relevant to the discussion of decay or damage to the
images (letters/numbers/etc) trying to be read on a stone. The damage
to the stone in #7 is on the outer surface of the tablet, and all the
needed information is 100% intact. Not relevant. I didn't say
anthing about a lie. But as to 'no offense', apparenlty that met with
a low self-esteem. To that end, I apologize.
SC
JJ206
Hey Hugh,
I thought of you and this thread when I saw this article.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004418396_remains16m.html
cheers,
Jonathan M.
Hugh Watkins
> Hugh Watkins wrote:
>
>> after 30 years unless unusual soil there is little remaining
>>
>> Hugh W
>
> Hey Hugh,
>
> I thought of you and this thread when I saw this article.
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004418396_remains16m.html
thanks
am I that gruesome :-)
well I was a taxi driver from hell for some people
Hugh W
cecilia
>Hugh Watkins wrote:
>>>> markers ?
>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004418396_remains16m.html
(The following 3 links point to URLs with pictures.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2682697.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1710492.stm
http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/nwh_gfx_en/ART56936.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=22883
An indication of the exciitement that can be caused when bodies are
found
http://tinyurl.com/3vcj74