Chromatography and the Vinland Map
Paul J Gans
only person interested. So here goes...
CHROMATOGRAPHY
Chromatography is a technique for separating
mixtures of molecules. It involves two separate
things: a stationary phase and a sample, often
called the mobile phase.
Phase here refers to a solid, liquid, or gas.
One example is a drop of a water-soluble mixture
on a strip of filter paper, one end of which is
immersed in a pot of water. The water rises by
capillary action up the filter paper, engulfs the
drop of mixture, and continues to rise. As
the water rises, the mixture is carried along
with it, but the components move at different
speeds and thus, in time separate.
This happens because the molecules in the water
spend part of their time "stuck" to the solid
(stationary) phase and the rest of their time
moving with the water (the mobile phase).
The time the molecules spend "adsorbed" (note
the "d", this is not "absorbption" with a "b")
to the stationary phase varies; each molecule
spending a characteristic fraction of the time
spent adsorbed.
Thus different molecules move up the filter paper
with different rates. This results in a separation
of different molecules.
If the molecules are colored, this separation can
easily be seen with the naked eye. That's why the
process is called "chromatography".
A full discussion is given at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatography
which shows, among other things, a picture of a
separation of black ink into its components using
a type of chromatography (thin layer.)
Another useful site (well, the first part anyway)
is
http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/BCH4053l/Lecture04/Lecture04.htm
which has another illustration of the separation of
pigments in an ink.
The point here is that an ink made up of several
components can be separated into those components by
chromatography.
But note how it is done. The ink is on the stationary
phase. The separation is done by a steady application
of a continuous flow of solvent (water in this case) past
the drop of ink to be separated.
If the strip of filter paper is long enough (one doesn't
have to use filter paper as the stationary medium, all
sorts of things are used -- see the Wiki article above)
one can often get a clean separation of the components
with "empty" space between them. But most often there
is an overlap among the various colors.
There is one drawback. A given component almost
always becomes "spread out" on the stationary medium.
That can be seen in both illustrations in the URLs above.
Thus it is a race between getting a total separation
between components and smearing out the components so
much that they are hard to see.
APPLICATION TO THE VINLAND MAP
The ink lines on the Vinland map seem to be made up of
more than one component. There is clearly a black
component and a yellow component. The yellow component
seems to have spread away from the black component, and
in at least one case, there is a clear separation between
the two.
Could this separation be chromatographic?
On first thought the answer is no. There is no
mechanism that allows a continuous flow of water
along the parchment surface (which acts as the
stationary medium in this case).
But consider: the ink coming off the pen is wet. The
water in the drop tends to spread out on the surface
of the parchment. Could not *that* flow effect a separation?
In theory, yes. In practice, no. The total amount of liquid
at a spot in a drawn ink line is very small. Further,
medieval inks (like modern ones) are formulated NOT to spread.
Spreading makes an ink useless since letters close by would
diffuse into each other. And the medievals had had hundreds
of years of experience in the preparation of inks that
did not spread.
Even so *IF* we had a situation in which there was a clear
separation of a yellow and a black line AND IF the yellow
line was spread out (diffuse) one MIGHT think that this
could happen chromatographically.
But is this really so? If there was chromatographic
spreading, no matter how it happened, would it really
leave a clear space between the yellow component and
the black component?
The answer to that is almost certainly NO. As was mentioned
above, it takes a stationary phase of great length and a
continuous flow of solvent to do that, if one was lucky,
And worse, the moving ink component would spread out and blur.
And we should see that "blurring" of the yellow line
everywhere.
This is NOT what we see on the Vinland map. We see
clearly delimited lines (clear at least in comparison
to the chromatographs in the URLs above.) This is
even true in the one spot where there is a clear
separation between the lines.
Thus we are forced to the conclusion that the yellow and
black components on the Vinland map are NOT the result of
a chromatographic separation of the ink used.
DISCUSSION
With that as background, one can see why, from the start,
I have insisted that there are two different ink lines
and that the Vinland Map is a forgery.
Further, there is a serious problem with the spot
on the map with the two lines separated by a clear
space.
It has been stated by several people, mostly quoting Cahill,
[Anal. Chem. 59, 829 (1987) -- page 832, right hand
column down near the bottom] that OTHER manuscripts
show total separation between a yellow line and a
black line.
While I have no doubt whatsoever that Cahill et al. did
indeed observe this, the observations are, in my opinion,
misleading.
First, though not stated by Cahill, these manuscripts
were almost certainly written using iron gall ink.
Iron gall inks have different behavior than that
discussed above since the coloring is not present in
the initial ink, but develops over time due to the
oxidation of at least one component of the ink and
subsequent reactions that take place. Further,
the yellowing seems to be caused by chemical action
on the parchment.
Sine the Vinland Map was not drawn using iron gall ink
and so it is not clear what relevance Cahill's observations
have.
Second, even if we disregard the first point, the
"misalignments" reported by Cahill are be very small,
as they are noted using a 16 power magnifier. Nevertheless,
the general diffusion of one material away from another
(be it chromatographic or due to another cause) is not
uniform. It is very hard to get molecules to march
in unison. Almost always there is spread along the
march. [The laws governing this are known as "Fick's
Laws" and can be Googled.]
Thus it is essentially *impossible* for the components
of an ink to spread coherently enough to leave a visible
separation ESPECIALLY over such a small distance.
Knowing this one is forced to conclude that the
separation observed by Cahill is the result of
other processes, probably flaking of the iron
gall ink before the characteristic yellow line
has had a chance to form.
Third, there is an open question that I can raise but
not answer as definitively as the other questions in
this discussion.
In the Vinland Map, the yellow ink contained anatase
crystals. *IF* the yellow ink had moved from its
original position, would the anatase have moved with
it?
If the movement was chromatographic, the answer is
almost certainly no unless the yellow component of
the ink is due only to the anatase. I do not know
if this is the case. Perhaps others do.
But, if the color of the yellow line is due entirely
to anatase, another question is raised: where did
the yellow anatase come from? This is a rather rare
form of anatase which itself is a rather rare form
of titanium dioxide. But that's another question
entirely.
CONCLUSION
I have discussed chromatography, particularly as
applied to an ink of more than one component. The
characteristic patterns of chromatographic
transport are NOT seen in the Vinland map. Nor is
it possible to come up with a plausible mechanism
by which chromatographic transport could have taken
place.
Other forms of transport (solid state migration,
applications of electric fields, and the like) have
not been considered in any detail because it is
again not possible to imagine any scenario in which
they could have taken place.
In particular it is essentially impossible to see
how a double line with a clear space between
can have occurred.[*]
Last: since Cahill dealt with iron gall inks and
the Vinland Map is not done in iron gall ink, his
observations are not particularly relevent. Further,
it is very likely that his "clear separations" are
due to flaking *prior* to the development of the
characteristic color surrounding many (but not all)
iron gall writing.[**]
FOOTNOTES
[*] I am aware of Seaver's treatment of this
problem and think that the possibility that
the artist's pen ran dry followed by an ink
application that used only one color of a two
color ink is inherently implausible, not only
because of the physical actions involved, but
because her ink theory is implausible. A
skilled artist did not do ink experiments on
a manuscript being produced for a paying customer.
[**] The chemistry of the development of the
brown-yellow stain around some, but not all,
iron gall ink is very complex. About the only
thing agreed to is that it is produced over time
at a rate depending on the parchment (or paper),
the exposure to light and to humidity, and to
the detailed composition of the ink. Some feel
that it is due to the formation of copper vitriol
and not iron vitriol, others have other ideas.
Googling for this yeilds a number of pages from
reputable institutions that do not agree on the
cause of the yellowing.
However, all agree that it is indicative to damage
to the underlying medium and is *in* the medium
and not on it.
None of this applies to the Vinland map, so while
interesting in its own right, has no bearing on
any discussion of the map itself.
------ Paul J. Gans
Larry Swain
inger
while you are writing a good analyse below. Thanks for that. There is one
thing I guess you have missed. I am not talking about the chromatraphy in
which question there is more to be said.
BUT
it's documented that Nicholas Germanus DID 'better' the lines on some
maps(!) in the castle archieve where he was working with his Ptolomy map
collection. AND
it's the same archieve where the Tartardocuments were during the years in
question.
Thus the chance that Nicholas Germanus is the person behind what you believe
to be two ink lines, I don't agree but let's leave that for the moment.
I believe it's time to take that possiblity into consideration.
Inger E
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:dhi8f0$ef7$2...@reader1.panix.com...
maison.mousse
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> skrev i
>diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:dhi8f0$ef7$2>> CHROMATOGRAPHY
>>
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatography
>>
SNIP
>> ------ Paul J. Gans
>
Your understanding of chromatography is almost nill.
Anyone who cites ."wikipedia" as giving more than a lay
explanation obviously has very little chemical back ground.
The statement which you seemed to miss was that the process on the map was
similar to chromatography
taking place over several hundred years
http://orgchem.colorado.edu/hndbksupport/chrom.htm
is a better source of information on chromatography.
For those who bother to read the citation the parchment
serves as the stationary phase and the ink as the mobile
phase. The separation takes place by differential molecular attraction
this process continues at a very slow pace even after the ink appears "dry".
This process is very common on old parchment. As has been noted this
separtion of ink components is common on old parchment where there is no
question of the validity of the material. This is one of the main validity
tests of old ink on old parchment.
http://www.sciences-en-ligne.com/lic/chimie/chi_exp/chromatographie/c_excl_s
teriq.htm
http://www.sciences-en-ligne.com/lic/chimie/chi_exp/chromatographie/chromato
_colonne.htm http://www.sciences-en-ligne.com/lic/chimie/accueil.htm
http://www.sciences-en-ligne.com/lic/chimie/chi_exp/chromatographie/meth_chr
omato_animation.htm
http://www.sciences-en-ligne.com/lic/chimie/chi_exp/chromatographie/chromato
_couch_mince.htm
http://www.sciences-en-ligne.com/lic/chimie/chi_exp/sommaire.htm
http://www.sciences-en-ligne.com/lic/chimie/chi_exp/chromatographie/chromato
_ioniq.htm
http://www.sciences-en-ligne.com/lic/chimie/chi_exp/precipit/sommaire.htm
http://www.sciences-en-ligne.com/lic/chimie/chi_exp/materiel/montages/hydrod
istil.htm
JL
Alaca
> I'm doing this for Larry Swain who seems to be the
> only person interested. So here goes...
>
> CHROMATOGRAPHY
> [...]
Thanks Paul. I never though of chromatography
other than gaschromatography.
> Knowing this one is forced to conclude that the
> separation observed by Cahill is the result of
> other processes, probably flaking of the iron
> gall ink before the characteristic yellow line
> has had a chance to form.
It is not clear to me whitch separation you are
talking about here. On the VM or on other documents?
A more general question for better understanding.
I f you are writing or painting on wet paper, there
is spreading. Is that a chromatic proces?
Using watercolours you often see 'blots' with a
sharp concentration of pigment on te outside.
The (same?) effect is very clear if you add (or spill)
a drop of water on dry paint.
This are clearly pigment concentrations, but is the
proces chromatic?
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
Alaca
>> Paul J Gans
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatography
>>>
> SNIP
> Your understanding of chromatography is almost nill.
> Anyone who cites ."wikipedia" as giving more than a lay
> explanation obviously has very little chemical back ground.
It is clear that is was Paul's intention to explain
chromatography for a lay public, and I am sure
that is appreciated by many.
Now back in your sewer, Ratt
Larry Swain
Does the effect of the acid of iron gall inks have anything to do with
this? That is, the effect of the yellowing on mss is most often due to
the acid of the ink eating into the parchment, now I'm an ignorant sod
when it comes to the science of this, but is the effect of the acid
considered a separation of the components?
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote: dhi8f0$ef7$2...@reader1.panix.com,
>> I'm doing this for Larry Swain who seems to be the
>> only person interested. So here goes...
>>
>> CHROMATOGRAPHY
>> [...]
>Thanks Paul. I never though of chromatography
>other than gaschromatography.
You are welcome.
>> Knowing this one is forced to conclude that the
>> separation observed by Cahill is the result of
>> other processes, probably flaking of the iron
>> gall ink before the characteristic yellow line
>> has had a chance to form.
>It is not clear to me whitch separation you are
>talking about here. On the VM or on other documents?
I'm talking about the other documents. For example
we start with this:
GGGGGG
--------
where G is the iron gall ink and --- is the parchment.
The ink is flaky. After it has dried and before the
yellowing starts (which might be years), some of the
iron gall ink flakes off giving us
GG GGG
--------
Now the chemical reaction starts to produce some yellow
GG GGG
-YY-----
and in time there is more flaking:
GGG
-YY--Y--
Note that the yellowing started later on the right.
Now what we have is a yellow line, a black line,
and nothing between them.
This is, of course, a very oversimplified presentation
of what is a very complicated chemical process (which
even today is not fully understood). But you can see
how it can lead to what Cahill observed.
The Vinland map is different. The yellow is NOT
acid destruction of the underlying parchment. It
is a yellow ink line.
>A more general question for better understanding.
>I f you are writing or painting on wet paper, there
>is spreading. Is that a chromatic proces?
It can be the same physical principle. In chromatography
there is not a "flood" of water and the colored material
alternates (you can't see this with the naked eye) between
being attached to the paper and being carried by the water.
If there is a large amount of water, the ink can be simply
carried along with it and there is no adsorption on the paper
until the water evaporates.
If you do the experiment with black ink (not India ink!)
and let the water seep up the filter paper (that's why
it is done that way) you will see that the water moves
faster than the color.
But if the ink is caught up in too much water, it keeps
up with the water and there is little separation of colors.
>Using watercolours you often see 'blots' with a
>sharp concentration of pigment on te outside.
>The (same?) effect is very clear if you add (or spill)
>a drop of water on dry paint.
>This are clearly pigment concentrations, but is the
>proces chromatic?
It is a combination of the two effects I mentioned
above. The sharp concentration at the outside is
due in part to there being too much water and the
colored material is just carried along with it.
There is no magic about chromatography. It happens
even with transparent materials except that we can't
see them. In the lab one often "develops" the material
after the separation is done by letting the material
react in place with something that makes it visible.
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Yes and no. The process seems to be very complex. And, as
you know, iron gall manuscripts do not always develop the
yellow-brown marks.
The iron gall ink reacts with itself, with oxygen, with the
underlying paper or parchment, and with the moisture in the
air. There seems to be no agreement on exactly what the
reactions are except that they cause the ink to darken
and, as an entirely separate thing, often also cause acids
to form that react with the paper or parchment, resulting
in the yellow-brown bordering of the black lines.
There's no doubt that the chemicals involve move not only
down from the ink into the parchment but also sideways
(through the parchment) into bordering areas.
I don't know the actual mechanism for the motion. Nor,
it seems, does anyone else. What is known is that it
results in destruction that increases with time. This
indicates that the reaction continues over time. The
motion, however, is a bit of a mystery. There's not
nearly enough moisture for a chromatographic-type of
motion. That needs a relatively large amount of water,
more I'd think than the atmosphere would provide.
I say that because we don't observe this sort of separation
with age in other inks made up of several different components.
So the motion is likely due to slow creep inside the
parchment.
It is quite likely that a good bit more is known about
this. I've checked web sites for the BM, the BN, and
one that was, I think, in Germany. Each had a different
opinion about the case and the proper treatment for
preservation. And each cited various "learned texts"
for corroboration.
It is a very muddy area.
Luckily the Vinland map is NOT iron-gall ink so we
need not worry much about it.
----- Paul J. Gans
Doug Weller
>maison.mousse wrote: 433d0603$0$17225$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr,
> >> Paul J Gans
>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatography
>>>>
>> SNIP
>
>> Your understanding of chromatography is almost nill.
>> Anyone who cites ."wikipedia" as giving more than a lay
>> explanation obviously has very little chemical back ground.
>
>It is clear that is was Paul's intention to explain
>chromatography for a lay public, and I am sure
>that is appreciated by many.
And he's the guy who insisted that a French tourist site had more accurate
archaeological information that archaeological textbooks.
Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Seppo Renfors
Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> I'm doing this for Larry Swain who seems to be the
> only person interested. So here goes...
>
> CHROMATOGRAPHY
>
> Chromatography is a technique for separating
> mixtures of molecules.
Properly called "Molecular Exclusion Chromatography" as it is a
specific type Chromatography...
> It involves two separate
> things: a stationary phase and a sample, often
> called the mobile phase.
>
> Phase here refers to a solid, liquid, or gas.
>
> One example is a drop of a water-soluble mixture
> on a strip of filter paper, one end of which is
> immersed in a pot of water. The water rises by
> capillary action up the filter paper, engulfs the
> drop of mixture, and continues to rise. As
> the water rises, the mixture is carried along
> with it, but the components move at different
> speeds and thus, in time separate.
Well, gets spread out at least according to that..... and he failed
to tell WHY the result is "different speeds" ..... but then I can fill
in the gap - it is dependent on the molecular size, a porous material
will trap some of the smaller molecules, and this allowed the larger
to flow faster in relation to the smaller - that tend to lag behind as
they untangle themselves from the porous mess..... only not all small
molecules get trapped, a number of them manage to escape with the big
ones too.
> This happens because the molecules in the water
> spend part of their time "stuck" to the solid
> (stationary) phase and the rest of their time
> moving with the water (the mobile phase).
You stuffed up there didn't you Paul - it isn't "the molecules in the
WATER" but those in the "water-soluble mixture" that is affected -
after all that IS what one is attempting to analyse after all.
> The time the molecules spend "adsorbed" (note
> the "d", this is not "absorbption" with a "b")
> to the stationary phase varies; each molecule
> spending a characteristic fraction of the time
> spent adsorbed.
>
> Thus different molecules move up the filter paper
> with different rates. This results in a separation
> of different molecules.
Well, partially at least..... nor does it separate different molecules
of the same size... this is NOT a very robust technique!
> If the molecules are colored, this separation can
> easily be seen with the naked eye. That's why the
> process is called "chromatography".
>
> A full discussion is given at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatography
Yeah... a "great" source.... where anyone can edit it to suite their
views... even Gans himself!
>
> which shows, among other things, a picture of a
> separation of black ink into its components using
> a type of chromatography (thin layer.)
>
> Another useful site (well, the first part anyway)
> is
>
> http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/BCH4053l/Lecture04/Lecture04.htm
>
> which has another illustration of the separation of
> pigments in an ink.
ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz.........
> The point here is that an ink made up of several
> components can be separated into those components by
> chromatography.
No bloody kidding! As if we didn't already know that.....
sheeeeezzz......
> But note how it is done. The ink is on the stationary
> phase. The separation is done by a steady application
> of a continuous flow of solvent (water in this case) past
> the drop of ink to be separated.
>
> If the strip of filter paper is long enough (one doesn't
> have to use filter paper as the stationary medium, all
> sorts of things are used -- see the Wiki article above)
> one can often get a clean separation of the components
> with "empty" space between them. But most often there
> is an overlap among the various colors.
YYYYYAAAAAWWWwnnnn....... who woke me up? I had a dream someone was
about to say something profound, and now I've missed it!
>
> There is one drawback. A given component almost
> always becomes "spread out" on the stationary medium.
> That can be seen in both illustrations in the URLs above.
> Thus it is a race between getting a total separation
> between components and smearing out the components so
> much that they are hard to see.
Like DUH..... isn't that obvious for blotting paper, hmmm?
>
> APPLICATION TO THE VINLAND MAP
>
> The ink lines on the Vinland map seem to be made up of
> more than one component. There is clearly a black
> component and a yellow component.
No, they are components of the INK, dufus. Nor does this have ANYTHING
AT ALL to do with any "Molecular Exclusion Chromatography".
> The yellow component
> seems to have spread away from the black component, and
> in at least one case, there is a clear separation between
> the two.
>
> Could this separation be chromatographic?
>
> On first thought the answer is no. There is no
> mechanism that allows a continuous flow of water
> along the parchment surface (which acts as the
> stationary medium in this case).
No it isn't "Molecular Exclusion Chromatography" or any other form
either. The parchment isn't a special filter paper either.
>
> But consider: the ink coming off the pen is wet. The
> water in the drop tends to spread out on the surface
> of the parchment. Could not *that* flow effect a separation?
No. Parchment isn't blotting paper you know. In any event you have
missed the point a while ago already.
> In theory, yes. In practice, no. The total amount of liquid
> at a spot in a drawn ink line is very small. Further,
> medieval inks (like modern ones) are formulated NOT to spread.
> Spreading makes an ink useless since letters close by would
> diffuse into each other. And the medievals had had hundreds
> of years of experience in the preparation of inks that
> did not spread.
So far we see a lot of flapping of the jaw for the sake of the
breeze....
> Even so *IF* we had a situation in which there was a clear
> separation of a yellow and a black line AND IF the yellow
> line was spread out (diffuse) one MIGHT think that this
> could happen chromatographically.
....and the Easter bunny is real too....
>
> But is this really so? If there was chromatographic
> spreading, no matter how it happened, would it really
> leave a clear space between the yellow component and
> the black component?
See the thing here falls down badly. First of all there is an invalid,
and quite erroneous assumption that the so called "yellow line" is
formed by a single molecule - no no no no NO, that is definitely not
true, and therefor IF there was an effect that Molecular Exclusion
Chromatography gives then the line could NOT be "yellow" either, but
"rainbow" coloured.
Secondly, and a serious blunder is that the "filter" (the parchment in
this case) is neither the "stationary phase" nor the "sample" - it
requires a solution to move TROUGH the ink to separate it - this does
not exist so the whole thing is flawed from start to finish!
Bad theory.... very BAD as it suggest not understanding the Molecular
Exclusion Chromatography being referred to. As this kills that so
called "theory" stone dead, there is no point in continuing -
Here lies the shredded remains of Paul J Gans' Chromatography theory -
RIP!
sound of the last post being played in the distance]
[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
inger wrote:
>
> Paul,
> while you are writing a good analyse below.
Psssssstttttt...... just quietly, Inger, HE STUFFED UP!
Odysseus
>
> Paul J Gans wrote: dhi8f0$ef7$2...@reader1.panix.com,
>
> > I'm doing this for Larry Swain who seems to be the
> > only person interested. So here goes...
> >
> > CHROMATOGRAPHY
> > [...]
>
> Thanks Paul. I never though of chromatography
> other than gaschromatography.
While the term is now applied to any technique for separating (and
identifying) the components of a mixture according to their various
rates of diffusion through a medium, it actually originated with the
phenomenon under discussion. The oldest such analytic methods involve
allowing a solution to soak up into vertically suspended pieces of
blotting paper, which are then dried and treated with indicators or
stains to reveal the deposited solutes as bands of colour -- hence
the "chromato-" part -- each a characteristic distance from the
bottom of the paper. The results of a DNA 'fingerprinting' procedure
are often obtained in a similar way; the patterns of stripes have
become a familar image from their appearance on TV and film
crime-dramas featuring forensic investigations.
--
Odysseus
maison.mousse
Odysseus a écrit dans le message <43403DED...@yahoo-dot.ca>...
that wool yarn left with one end dipped in dye would cause a separation of
different colored dyes into distinct
bands. This of course had to with the different polarity of the dyes.
Search the web using Chemistry Chromtography
and you "all" will learn. Better yet take a basic chemistry course.
JL
Alaca
Why then is it not called woolyarntograpy?
> This of course had to with the different polarity of the
> dyes. Search the web using Chemistry Chromtography
> and you "all" will learn. Better yet take a basic chemistry course.
it is clear that you only had a basic knitting course.
maison.mousse
Alaca a écrit dans le message <4340f13b$0$24886$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl>...
What's a "grapy"? No never taken a course in knitting.
Have authored a book on applied chemistry tho'.
How are getting along in your special Ed class?
JL
Alaca
> Alaca a écrit
>> maison.mousse wrote:
>>> Odysseus a écrit
>>>> Alaca wrote:
>>>>> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>>> I'm doing this for Larry Swain who seems to be the
>>>>>> only person interested. So here goes...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CHROMATOGRAPHY
>>>>>> [...]
>
>>>>> Thanks Paul. I never though of chromatography
>>>>> other than gaschromatography.
>>>> While the term is now applied to any technique for separating (and
>>>> identifying) the components of a mixture according to their various
>>>> rates of diffusion through a medium, it actually originated with
>>>> the phenomenon under discussion. The oldest such analytic methods
>>>> involve allowing a solution to soak up into vertically suspended
>>>> pieces of blotting paper, which are then dried and treated with
>>>> indicators or stains to reveal the deposited solutes as bands of
>>>> colour -- hence the "chromato-" part -- each a characteristic
>>>> distance from the bottom of the paper. The results of a DNA
>>>> 'fingerprinting' procedure are often obtained in a similar way;
>>>> the patterns of stripes have become a familar image from their
>>>> appearance on TV and film crime-dramas featuring forensic
>>>> investigations.
>>> Close! Chromtography got it's name from the discovery
>>> that wool yarn left with one end dipped in dye would cause a
>>> separation of different colored dyes into distinct
>>> bands.
>> Why then is it not called woolyarntograpy?
>>> This of course had to with the different polarity of the
>>> dyes. Search the web using Chemistry Chromtography
>>> and you "all" will learn. Better yet take a basic chemistry course.
>>
>> it is clear that you only had a basic knitting course.
> What's a "grapy"?
What is Chromtography?
BTW. What is iron gaul ink?
> No never taken a course in knitting.
> Have authored a book on applied chemistry tho'.
> How are getting along in your special Ed class?
> JL
--
P.A.
David B
<4340f71f$0$27422$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr>...
>
> never taken a course in knitting.
>Have authored a book on applied chemistry tho'.
Do feel free to dazzle us with the ISBN. We like ISBNs.
David B.
maison.mousse
Alaca a écrit dans le message <434123c1$0$81184$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl>...
Iron gaul ink was ink made from gaul nuts.
Look it up!!
You never did say how your special ed classes were going..
JL
Julian Richards
wrote:
Aren't they nuclear missiles?
--
Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Michael Hopper
"maison.mousse" <maison...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:43412ffa$0$988$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr...
>
> Alaca a écrit dans le message
> <434123c1$0$81184$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl>...
>>maison.mousse wrote:
>>> Alaca a écrit
>>>> maison.mousse wrote:
>>>>> Odysseus a écrit
>>>>>> Alaca wrote:
>>>>>>> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> I'm doing this for Larry Swain who seems to be the
>>>>>>>> only person interested. So here goes...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CHROMATOGRAPHY
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Paul. I never though of chromatography
>>>>>>> other than gaschromatography.
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>> What's a "grapy"?
>>
>>What is Chromtography?
>>BTW. What is iron gaul ink?
>>
>>> No never taken a course in knitting.
>>> Have authored a book on applied chemistry tho'.
>>
>>> How are getting along in your special Ed class?
>>> JL
>>
>>--
>>P.A.
> Chromtography is Chromatography less one a.
>
> Iron gaul ink was ink made from gaul nuts.
> Look it up!!
> You never did say how your special ed classes were going..
>
> JL
>
It is Iron Gall Ink in English. The gall is from an oak tree which has been
attacked by a wasp. It is the source of both Gallic acid and tannic acid.
mike
Alaca
> "David B" wrote:
>> maison.mousse
>>> never taken a course in knitting.
>>> Have authored a book on applied chemistry tho'.
>> Do feel free to dazzle us with the ISBN. We like ISBNs.
> Aren't they nuclear missiles?
Nuclear missiles usually come in numbers.
David is refering to books without usual numbers.
Doug Weller
Self-published? Nothing shows up on Google. Or Abe.books to try to get
used stuff.
David B.
>
>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:00:14 GMT, in sci.archaeology, David B wrote:
>
>>maison.mousse wrote in message
>><4340f71f$0$27422$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr>...
>>>
>>> never taken a course in knitting.
>>>Have authored a book on applied chemistry tho'.
>>
>>Do feel free to dazzle us with the ISBN. We like ISBNs.
>>
>Self-published? Nothing shows up on Google. Or Abe.books to try to get
>used stuff.
That shouldn't make a difference; it's not exactly hard to get an
allocation of ISBNs (or then again, maybe it is in France, given the
apparent popularity of corrupt state institutions over there).
David B.
David B.
>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:00:14 GMT, "David B" <tronos...@tesco.net>
>wrote:
>
>>maison.mousse wrote in message
>><4340f71f$0$27422$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr>...
>>>
>>> never taken a course in knitting.
>>>Have authored a book on applied chemistry tho'.
>>
>>Do feel free to dazzle us with the ISBN. We like ISBNs.
>
>Aren't they nuclear missiles?
Only in Sweden, I believe.
David B.
nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.com
<tronos...@tesco.net> said:
He he he, such a simple task. He doesn't even need to own said book, of course,
but...
Sadly I shall miss the game being played out because I have Froth, like a few
more, set to "mark already read". :)
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>I'm doing this for Larry Swain who seems to be the
>only person interested. So here goes...
>
>CHROMATOGRAPHY
>
>Chromatography is a technique for separating
>mixtures of molecules. It involves two separate
>things: a stationary phase and a sample, often
>called the mobile phase.
>
>Phase here refers to a solid, liquid, or gas.
>
>One example is a drop of a water-soluble mixture
>on a strip of filter paper, one end of which is
>immersed in a pot of water. The water rises by
>capillary action up the filter paper, engulfs the
>drop of mixture, and continues to rise. As
>the water rises, the mixture is carried along
>with it, but the components move at different
>speeds and thus, in time separate.
>
>This happens because the molecules in the water
>spend part of their time "stuck" to the solid
>(stationary) phase and the rest of their time
>moving with the water (the mobile phase).
>The time the molecules spend "adsorbed" (note
>the "d", this is not "absorbption" with a "b")
>to the stationary phase varies; each molecule
>spending a characteristic fraction of the time
>spent adsorbed.
>
>Thus different molecules move up the filter paper
>with different rates. This results in a separation
>of different molecules.
>
>If the molecules are colored, this separation can
>easily be seen with the naked eye. That's why the
>process is called "chromatography".
>
>A full discussion is given at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatography
>
>which shows, among other things, a picture of a
>separation of black ink into its components using
>a type of chromatography (thin layer.)
>
>Another useful site (well, the first part anyway)
>is
>
> http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/BCH4053l/Lecture04/Lecture04.htm
>
>which has another illustration of the separation of
>pigments in an ink.
>
>
>The point here is that an ink made up of several
>components can be separated into those components by
>chromatography.
>
>But note how it is done. The ink is on the stationary
>phase. The separation is done by a steady application
>of a continuous flow of solvent (water in this case) past
>the drop of ink to be separated.
>
>If the strip of filter paper is long enough (one doesn't
>have to use filter paper as the stationary medium, all
>sorts of things are used -- see the Wiki article above)
>one can often get a clean separation of the components
>with "empty" space between them. But most often there
>is an overlap among the various colors.
>
>There is one drawback. A given component almost
>always becomes "spread out" on the stationary medium.
>That can be seen in both illustrations in the URLs above.
>Thus it is a race between getting a total separation
>between components and smearing out the components so
>much that they are hard to see.
>
>
>APPLICATION TO THE VINLAND MAP
>
>The ink lines on the Vinland map seem to be made up of
>more than one component. There is clearly a black
>component and a yellow component. The yellow component
>seems to have spread away from the black component, and
>in at least one case, there is a clear separation between
>the two.
>
>Could this separation be chromatographic?
The answer is clearly NO and it has nothing to do with your reasoning
below. The yellow phase has clearly separated from the black phase and
has preferentially wet the parchement. It is almost as though the
yellow and black are to some degree imiscible and that the yellow has
prefrentially wet the surface of the parchment.
>
>On first thought the answer is no. There is no
>mechanism that allows a continuous flow of water
>along the parchment surface (which acts as the
>stationary medium in this case).
>
>But consider: the ink coming off the pen is wet. The
>water in the drop tends to spread out on the surface
>of the parchment. Could not *that* flow effect a separation?
>
>In theory, yes. In practice, no. The total amount of liquid
>at a spot in a drawn ink line is very small.
That's why ink lines don't spread when written on blotting paper.
>Further,
>medieval inks (like modern ones) are formulated NOT to spread.
>Spreading makes an ink useless since letters close by would
>diffuse into each other. And the medievals had had hundreds
>of years of experience in the preparation of inks that
>did not spread.
Are you arguing that this is a medieval ink?
>
>Even so *IF* we had a situation in which there was a clear
>separation of a yellow and a black line AND IF the yellow
>line was spread out (diffuse) one MIGHT think that this
>could happen chromatographically.
>
>But is this really so? If there was chromatographic
>spreading, no matter how it happened, would it really
>leave a clear space between the yellow component and
>the black component?
>
>Knowing this one is forced to conclude that the
>separation observed by Cahill is the result of
>other processes, probably flaking of the iron
>gall ink before the characteristic yellow line
>has had a chance to form.
>
>
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Depending on circumstances, both surface tension and gravity can play
a part.
Eric Stevens
Paul J Gans
>On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 02:38:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>wrote:
[snip]
>>APPLICATION TO THE VINLAND MAP
>>
>>The ink lines on the Vinland map seem to be made up of
>>more than one component. There is clearly a black
>>component and a yellow component. The yellow component
>>seems to have spread away from the black component, and
>>in at least one case, there is a clear separation between
>>the two.
>>
>>Could this separation be chromatographic?
>The answer is clearly NO and it has nothing to do with your reasoning
>below. The yellow phase has clearly separated from the black phase and
>has preferentially wet the parchement. It is almost as though the
>yellow and black are to some degree imiscible and that the yellow has
>prefrentially wet the surface of the parchment.
That postulates a two-phase ink. Now nobody authentic
would try to write with a two-phase ink because they
would note what you say right away.
So if a two-phase ink was used, the map is a forgery,
and the ink designed to mimic an iron gall ink.
------ Paul J. Gans
Ken Towe
Eric responds...
"The answer is clearly NO and it has nothing to do with your reasoning
below. The yellow phase has clearly separated from the black phase and
has preferentially wet the parchement. It is almost as though the
yellow and black are to some degree imiscible and that the yellow has
prefrentially wet the surface of the parchment."
Eric...Doesn't that equally apply to the suggestion that the lines were
drawn twice? Only difference is that no imiscibilty is required, and
that sort of total imiscibility seems un-medieval. At least it hasn't
been observed elsewhere, as Yuri has said. That's one of the puzzles
about the map...nothing like it anywhere else.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I agree. My problem about the double inking is the physical difficulty
of the task from the point of view of laving almost no trace capable
of being detected by modern techniques. I know that there is one part
claimed to be evidence of double inking but that there is only one
raises my doubts.
Eric Stevens
Ken Towe
"I agree. My problem about the double inking is the physical difficulty
of the task from the point of view of leaving almost no trace capable
of being detected by modern techniques. I know that there is one part
claimed to be evidence of double inking but that there is only one
raises my doubts."
What trace or evidence would you look for?
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric writes:
I would examine several aspects of the inked lines. The first appears
to already have been covered by Cahill and was set out in the
following Message-ID: <pRBAizKd...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk>
Begin quote
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Simon Pugh <N...@mrzsp.demonX.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.history.medieval
Subject: Re: Determination of the Radiocarbon Age of Parchment of the
Vinland Ma
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 14:43:41 +0000
--- snip ---
<Total snip as I'm piggybacking>
I am somewhat surprised that people have allowed themselves to be
suckered into discussing how the map might have been faked. There is
absolutely no requirement to show how it was done in order to prove
that
it is a fake.
Still, entering into the spirit of things I would like to pose a
question. Those who assert that double inking is impossible, base the
assertion on measurements made by Cahill, who found that the black and
yellow lines tracked each extremely accurately.
Quote from: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/today/aug7.html
Cahill also carried out a study on how closely the black and yellow
lines on the map tracked each other spatially and found the variations
were 100 μm or less, based on perhaps 100 measurements. The idea that
double-inking could be done so precisely "was wildly improbable, and
in
this we were supported by a forgery expert from the Secret Service,"
Cahill says. "To draw freehand what amounts to roughly 30 meters of
lines and writing and average less than 0.1 mm error--it can't be
done."
--- snip ---
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
End quote.
The problem for the forger would not end with their accuracy of
tracing.
[1] Because of the way they are split, quills and similar pens make
contact with the writing surface at two points. The distance between
the contact points, and hence the width of the line, varies according
to the pressure being placed upon them by the scribe. It will be
necessary for the scribe to not only accurately trace the first line
with the second but to accurately mimic the pen pressure of the first
with the pen pressure of the second.
[2] The points of pens can disturb the fibres of the writing surface.
It may be possible to detect the two different passages of a pen by
the separate trails of disturbed fibres left in the parchment.
[3] The rate at which pens lay down ink depends upon how full they
are. That is they lay down a heavier line initially and this slowly
tapers off as the ink is emptied. Careful examination of the line
enables the points at which the pen was removed and filled to be
determined. A would be double-inker has to be able to match the
reinking points of the first line with those of the second.
Even if the forger was knowledgable about all these and related
problems, it would be astonishing if they could double-ink both the
text and the lines of the map without leaving multiple indications of
their forgery for detection by microscopic examination.
Eric Stevens
Ken Towe
"Still, entering into the spirit of things I would like to pose a
question. Those who assert that double inking is impossible, base the
assertion on measurements made by Cahill, who found that the black and
yellow lines tracked each extremely accurately.
Quote from: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/today/aug7.html
Cahill also carried out a study on how closely the black and yellow
lines on the map tracked each other spatially and found the variations
were 100 µm or less, based on perhaps 100 measurements. The idea that
double-inking could be done so precisely "was wildly improbable, and
in this we were supported by a forgery expert from the Secret Service,"
Cahill says. "To draw freehand what amounts to roughly 30 meters of
lines and writing and average less than 0.1 mm error--it can't be
done."
The problem for the forger would not end with their accuracy of
tracing.
[1] Because of the way they are split, quills and similar pens make
contact with the writing surface at two points. The distance between
the contact points, and hence the width of the line, varies according
to the pressure being placed upon them by the scribe. It will be
necessary for the scribe to not only accurately trace the first line
with the second but to accurately mimic the pen pressure of the first
with the pen pressure of the second.
[2] The points of pens can disturb the fibres of the writing surface.
It may be possible to detect the two different passages of a pen by
the separate trails of disturbed fibres left in the parchment.
[3] The rate at which pens lay down ink depends upon how full they
are. That is they lay down a heavier line initially and this slowly
tapers off as the ink is emptied. Careful examination of the line
enables the points at which the pen was removed and filled to be
determined. A would be double-inker has to be able to match the
reinking points of the first line with those of the second.
Even if the forger was knowledgable about all these and related
problems, it would be astonishing if they could double-ink both the
text and the lines of the map without leaving multiple indications of
their forgery for detection by microscopic examination."
At one time I, too, didn't think that a forger could do all that you
describe. However, if I considered that the forger was under no
particular deadline and time-constraint, each and every letter and line
could be done with extraordinary care...done very slowly and
deliberately. I'm sure that the Secret Service expert was considering a
normal freehand attempt, not one that was done over months, or even
years? In addition, as I have pointed out elsewhere here, there are
people who have been writing very detailed messages, and even drawings,
on single grains of rice. They do this (a) freehand, (b) with an
ordinary pen, and (c) often with no magnification. They have been doing
this for thousands of years. Here is one ULR...
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/apr062004/spt10.asp
Now, I'm not suggesting that some guy who can write a thousand words on
a single grain of rice drew the Vinland Map. But I am not so quick to
pass such skill off as "it can't be done". Most people couldn't do it,
and I'm sure that the VM wasn't done "overnight", but the detail seen
on the Vinland Map isn't "impossible" or even "wildly improbable." But,
if Eric's proposed detailed studies revealed that it was all done with
one stroke, that still leaves us to explain the unusual flaking
black-over-yellow, non-iron-gall ink with its modern-appearing anatase
free of associated clay. minerals.
Steve Marcus
"Ken Towe" <ken....@alumni.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:1128880649.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Eric writes (without venom or personal attack)...
"Still, entering into the spirit of things I would like to pose a
question. Those who assert that double inking is impossible, base the
assertion on measurements made by Cahill, who found that the black and
yellow lines tracked each extremely accurately.
Quote from: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/today/aug7.html
Cahill also carried out a study on how closely the black and yellow
lines on the map tracked each other spatially and found the variations
were 100 ç— or less, based on perhaps 100 measurements. The idea that
Ken, as long as we are discussing Usenet trolls like Yuri, meet Eric
Stevens.
Eric is a well meaning sort, far more of gentleman than Yuri, and he doesn't
post with a smirk on his face. However, he's never met the "alternative
history" theory that he hasn't adopted and cannot defend in the face of
overwhelming contrary evidence, because, well, "anything's possible." (The
fact is that the NOVA TV program contained a brief, but nevertheless quite
clear, illustration of a gentleman doing double inking. And he knows that
because he's been told several times.) In this he reminds me ofHe is a lot
like Fred McCall; it impresses him not that the evidence on any given matter
is weight 95-5 in favor of a particular conclusion, he'll point out that the
evidence isn't 100%, and that "anything is possible" and, therefore, no one
should ascribe to that particular conclusion. In doing that he will discard
the truism that one can never prove a scientific matter to a 100% certainty;
tomorrow can always bring new evidence. NOTA BENE: Both Fred and Eric
have admitted that the doubt the VM is authentic. Nevertheless, we keep
facing posts such as the post by Eric to which you responded.
The fact is that people have passed counterfeit US currency which was
*entirely drawn* freehand, not printed from a plate. Artists are extremely
talented, and to simply post an "ipse dixit" quote from Cahill as though it
was evidence of something is worthless. It's quite clear that there is at
least one area of the VM in which the yellow and black are out of register.
That someone could have drawn the map using the yellow pigment, and then
gone over the yellow with black using a writing instrument with a finer
"point" than was used for the yellow (because the yellow needs to "stick
out" from the black to simulate iron gall ink, and it is immaterial if the
amount by which it does varies a bit).
Those who choose to disbelieve in the double inking theory need to explain
how the VM could appear as it does otherwise, and also contain anatase of
the sort found on the VM and only in the locations in which it's found, and
lack significant. That's true of those (like Ms. Seaver) who do not believe
the VM is authentic, and those who do believe that it's possible that the VM
could be authentic. I recommend not holding one's breath waiting.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
Eric Stevens
Ken, meet Steve's standard of proof. :-)
>And he knows that
>because he's been told several times.) In this he reminds me ofHe is a lot
>like Fred McCall; it impresses him not that the evidence on any given matter
>is weight 95-5 in favor of a particular conclusion, he'll point out that the
>evidence isn't 100%, and that "anything is possible" and, therefore, no one
>should ascribe to that particular conclusion. In doing that he will discard
>the truism that one can never prove a scientific matter to a 100% certainty;
>tomorrow can always bring new evidence. NOTA BENE: Both Fred and Eric
>have admitted that the doubt the VM is authentic. Nevertheless, we keep
>facing posts such as the post by Eric to which you responded.
>
>The fact is that people have passed counterfeit US currency which was
>*entirely drawn* freehand, not printed from a plate.
I bet they never dealt with a cashier who examined the bank notes with
a microscope, at least, not more than once.
>Artists are extremely
>talented, and to simply post an "ipse dixit" quote from Cahill as though it
>was evidence of something is worthless. It's quite clear that there is at
>least one area of the VM in which the yellow and black are out of register.
>That someone could have drawn the map using the yellow pigment, and then
>gone over the yellow with black using a writing instrument with a finer
>"point" than was used for the yellow (because the yellow needs to "stick
>out" from the black to simulate iron gall ink, and it is immaterial if the
>amount by which it does varies a bit).
>
>Those who choose to disbelieve in the double inking theory need to explain
>how the VM could appear as it does otherwise, and also contain anatase of
>the sort found on the VM and only in the locations in which it's found, and
>lack significant. That's true of those (like Ms. Seaver) who do not believe
>the VM is authentic, and those who do believe that it's possible that the VM
>could be authentic. I recommend not holding one's breath waiting.
Eric Stevens
Paul J Gans
>"Ken Towe" <ken....@alumni.duke.edu> wrote in message
>news:1128880649.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>Eric writes (without venom or personal attack)...
>"Still, entering into the spirit of things I would like to pose a
>question. Those who assert that double inking is impossible, base the
>assertion on measurements made by Cahill, who found that the black and
>yellow lines tracked each extremely accurately.
>Quote from: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/today/aug7.html
>Cahill also carried out a study on how closely the black and yellow
>lines on the map tracked each other spatially and found the variations
>were 100 ?m or less, based on perhaps 100 measurements. The idea that
***** end of Ken's material, start of Steve's material ******
>Steve
Let me add some personal experience here. I've done
inking (with modern India ink, to be sure). Hardly
anyone does it any more, but I'm of an ancient generation
and had to draw all my own graphs and diagrams for
publication.
The thickness of a drawn line depends primarily on
the point used. Pen points are, as all I am sure
know, split, with the split running down from the
"eye" (a small hole in the center of the face of
the point) down to the nib, which can be anything
from a ball-like bit at the bottom of the nib to
a simple rounding of the nib at the bottom.
If one does not press enough to spread the nib,
the thickness of the line is primarily determined
by the size of the nib.
If there is pressure and the nib spreads, the ink
like will broaden.
Thus, as one can see in caligraphy, a given line
drawn with a single pen point, can be broad in
one direction and thin in a direction perpendicular
to the first.
With a thin point (of the sort still called a
"crow-quill" point) one can *easily* draw a line
inside a previously inked more broad line.
While I have never personally done this to any
great extent, I have seen it done as it is the
basis for much fancy caligraphic penmanship --
often a silver line inside a black or something
similar. Thus I have never doubted that the
double inking theory could be true.
Some, such as Seaver, do not agree. But I feel
that Seaver's "two phase ink" theory has serious
problems of its own.
All this has, of course, nothing to do with the
fact that the map is almost certain to be a forgery.
----- Paul J. Gans
David B
>On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 18:55:52 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
><smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>The fact is that people have passed counterfeit US currency which was
>>*entirely drawn* freehand, not printed from a plate.
>
>I bet they never dealt with a cashier who examined the bank notes with
>a microscope, at least, not more than once.
But always remember that the first experts to examine the Vinland Map with
a microscope were the originators of what became the "double inking"
theory.
David B.
Steve Marcus
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:qphjk19tfcjhv7306...@4ax.com...
Indeed. One sees on videotape that a single person is capable of laying
down an ink line on top of another line. The question is whether doing so
is "impossible." What's *your* standard of proof?? From where I sit, it
consists of drawing up caveats and then insisting that they must be
satisfied, even though you really have no idea of whether your caveat is in
any way logical, at all probable, or has in fact already been answered. A
great example, concerning the "impossibility of the "double inking" theory,
appears below.
>
>>And he knows that
>>because he's been told several times.) In this he reminds me ofHe is a
>>lot
>>like Fred McCall; it impresses him not that the evidence on any given
>>matter
>>is weight 95-5 in favor of a particular conclusion, he'll point out that
>>the
>>evidence isn't 100%, and that "anything is possible" and, therefore, no
>>one
>>should ascribe to that particular conclusion. In doing that he will
>>discard
>>the truism that one can never prove a scientific matter to a 100%
>>certainty;
>>tomorrow can always bring new evidence. NOTA BENE: Both Fred and Eric
>>have admitted that the doubt the VM is authentic. Nevertheless, we keep
>>facing posts such as the post by Eric to which you responded.
>>
>>The fact is that people have passed counterfeit US currency which was
>>*entirely drawn* freehand, not printed from a plate.
>
> I bet they never dealt with a cashier who examined the bank notes with
> a microscope, at least, not more than once.
And what does that have to do with whether people have the skill to have
drawn the Vinland Map using "double inking"? Your response is a great
example of you taking an illogical caveat, to go along with your absurd
"double inking" would be impossible" caveat.
I in fact have seen a "hand drawn" counterfeit bill on display. The lines
were fairly crisp and the color of the ink correct. The counterfeiter even
imitated the threads that were embedded in the paper of the bill. I do not
know whether the bill I saw was the product of the gentleman discussed here:
http://tinyurl.com/893aw
I think that the material from that site, quoted below, might be interesting
in the context of the discussion of the Vinland Map. I've emphasized some
portions of particular interest:
"Another notable coney man was Emanuel Ninger, a German immigrant and sign
painter by trade. He was a solo practitioner who drew his fakes by hand on
high-quality bond paper, which he bought from the same company that supplied
the government. The paper was not the same as that used for currency, but it
was as close as he could get. He cut the paper to note size and soaked the
pieces in weak coffee to give them an aged appearance. (The psychology of
counterfeiting has always dictated that bills that look used are easier to
pass than new ones.)
While the paper was still wet, Ninger laid it over a genuine bill-twenties
and fifties were his favorites-and mounted them on a sheet of glass with a
light behind it. **He could now trace the design of the original in pencil.
Once the paper had dried, he carefully went over the pencil marks in ink.**
He didn't try to copy the intricate scrolling but merely suggested it with
deft touches. With a fine brush, he added tiny colored lines to imitate the
threads found in government bills.
It probably took Ninger the better part of a week to complete a copy. On the
last Friday of every month he traveled from his New Jersey farm to New York
City and made small purchases with his bills. His forgeries began to be
noticed and even admired midway through his career, usually long after he
had spent them, but his identity remained unknown. In 1892 The New York
Times described a "particularly fine counterfeit of a 50-dollar bill," which
had been inspected by bankers and "received the respectful consideration it
deserved." Newspapers dubbed the forger Jim the Penman. Some who received
the artistic copies had them framed and even sold them for more than their
face value. Examples still exist and are prized by collectors, though they
cannot be bought or sold openly, since the Treasury Department has the right
to seize all counterfeit notes, no matter how old."
Ninger's efforts pointed up a flaw in the government's strategy for fighting
counterfeits: Finely detailed and hard-to-copy engraving and lathework went
for naught if citizens didn't check for them. The biggest tip-off has always
been the paper. If it doesn't feel right, a cashier will become suspicious
and take a closer look. Like facial expressions on the portraits, the feel
of the paper is something that people notice without trying.
In 1896 Ninger was finally caught when he made the mistake of laying one of
his bills on a wet counter in a bar. The ink ran, and the bartender alerted
the police, who caught Ninger as he was boarding the ferry back to New
Jersey. He was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison, a light
sentence that served as recognition of his artistic flair. He served a
little more than four years."
You will note, of course, that the VM could have been produced by simply
drawing the map on a piece of paper to use as a "master", and then doing
what Ninger did, first with the underlying "ink", and then with the
overlying "ink."
Lest you think that Ninger was unique, see: http://tinyurl.com/8ocb7 This
gentleman's hand drawn bills are even better than Ninger's, including the
scroll work that Ninger chose to omit.
>
>>Artists are extremely
>>talented, and to simply post an "ipse dixit" quote from Cahill as though
>>it
>>was evidence of something is worthless. It's quite clear that there is at
>>least one area of the VM in which the yellow and black are out of
>>register.
>>That someone could have drawn the map using the yellow pigment, and then
>>gone over the yellow with black using a writing instrument with a finer
>>"point" than was used for the yellow (because the yellow needs to "stick
>>out" from the black to simulate iron gall ink, and it is immaterial if the
>>amount by which it does varies a bit).
>>
>>Those who choose to disbelieve in the double inking theory need to explain
>>how the VM could appear as it does otherwise, and also contain anatase of
>>the sort found on the VM and only in the locations in which it's found,
>>and
>>lack significant. That's true of those (like Ms. Seaver) who do not
>>believe
>>the VM is authentic, and those who do believe that it's possible that the
>>VM
>>could be authentic. I recommend not holding one's breath waiting.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
True, but they found (as far as I know) only one location in the 30'
of ink-line where there may be evidence of double-inking.
Unfortunately I have never seen it in enough detail to let me reach a
conclusion as to whether it is evidence of double-inking or there may
be some other explanation.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
I would like to see someone lay down a double-inked line of a length
and complexity comparable with that of the VM and then have the line
thoroughly examined by an expert for evidence of double inking. If
somebody could pass that test I would be impressed. I wouldn't even
ask for a double-blind test if the expert could make clear the
evidence upon which he based his opinion.
--- snip ---
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:06:52 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:qphjk19tfcjhv7306...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 18:55:52 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Ken Towe" <ken....@alumni.duke.edu> wrote in message
>>>>news:1128880649.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>Eric writes (without venom or personal attack)...
>>>>
>>>>"Still, entering into the spirit of things I would like to pose a
>>>>question. Those who assert that double inking is impossible, base the
>>>>assertion on measurements made by Cahill, who found that the black and
>>>>yellow lines tracked each extremely accurately.
>>>>
>>>>Quote from: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/today/aug7.html
>>>>Cahill also carried out a study on how closely the black and yellow
>>>>lines on the map tracked each other spatially and found the variations
Ah, the famous Stevens snip of material which puts paid to one of his
"assumed as true" caveats.
What's the matter, Eric, don't you have an answer for what you snipped?
Just for the convenience of those who came in late, here's what Eric chose
to delete with no reply (it follow directly after the above Tiny URL):
Begin restored material:
==================================================
===============================================================
End restored material
Interested readers will note that Stevens wrote above:
"I would like to see someone lay down a double-inked line of a length and
complexity comparable with that of the VM and then have the line thoroughly
examined by an expert for evidence of double inking. If somebody could pass
that test I would be impressed. I wouldn't even ask for a double-blind test
if the expert could make clear the evidence upon which he based his
opinion."
It seems to me that what Stevens snipped goes a long way to answering his
long standing caveat regarding the "impossibility" of doing double inking of
the sort that many claim to exist on the Vinland Map (which he has posted in
previous Vinland Map "cycles" on sci.archaeology). Stevens simply took his
caveat while having no clue regarding what talented "scribes" could do, and
as his habit, when confronted with evidence that he can't deal with, went
into "denial mode" and simply snipped the evidence. I predict he'll be back
claiming my post was "too long" for him to read so he just snipped it. At
least he had the grace to indicate his edit; often, he doesn't even bother
doing that.
David B.
>
>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:07:43 GMT, "David B" <tronos...@tesco.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>a microscope were the originators of what became the "double inking"
>>theory.
>>
>True, but they found (as far as I know) only one location in the 30'
>of ink-line where there may be evidence of double-inking.
You see- you're a careful and cautious investigator, but you've fallen for
the trick.
The person who found only one location with evidence of double-inking was
Ken Towe, in December 1974, nearly eight years after the first experts to
examine the Vinland Map with a microscope had found multiple- but very
subtle- indications that the black and yellow lines had been applied at
different times. Because what Ken found was so much more dramatic, and easy
to photograph, people have been looking for similarly dramatic phenomena
elsewhere, and failing to find them. The Cahill team, who seem to have
suffered exactly that problem, showed no awareness of the January 1967
study at all in their published report.
>Unfortunately I have never seen it in enough detail to let me reach a
>conclusion as to whether it is evidence of double-inking or there may
>be some other explanation.
There's always some other explanation (although in this case, it seems to
be that the "Welsh wobble" is the exception that proves the rule, the only
double-inked section of the map). But until somebody spends a lot of time
with the Vinland Map and a good microscope, analysing the positions of all
the surviving black particles relative to the yellow line, all we can say
is that no Vinland Map observation by the 1967 British Museum team has ever
been shown to be mistaken (and even their educated guesses as to the
significance of those observations have rarely been far off the mark).
David B.
Eric Stevens
<dav...@tronospamchos.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
-- snip ---
>The person who found only one location with evidence of double-inking was
>Ken Towe, in December 1974, nearly eight years after the first experts to
>examine the Vinland Map with a microscope had found multiple- but very
>subtle- indications that the black and yellow lines had been applied at
>different times.
In all the ballyhoo that has been shouted around about the VM, this is
the first time I have heard of 'first experts' finding indications
"that the black and yellow lines had been applied at different times".
Are you able to expand upon this?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:3fllk15vhkoku6ac8...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:06:52 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>news:qphjk19tfcjhv7306...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 18:55:52 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
>>>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Ken Towe" <ken....@alumni.duke.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1128880649.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>Eric writes (without venom or personal attack)...
>>>>>
>>>>>"Still, entering into the spirit of things I would like to pose a
>>>>>question. Those who assert that double inking is impossible, base the
>>>>>assertion on measurements made by Cahill, who found that the black and
>>>>>yellow lines tracked each extremely accurately.
>>>>>
>>>>>Quote from: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/today/aug7.html
>>>>>Cahill also carried out a study on how closely the black and yellow
>>>>>lines on the map tracked each other spatially and found the variations
>>>>>were 100 ç— or less, based on perhaps 100 measurements. The idea that
Ink over a pencil line isn't the same thing as ink over ink. Quite
apart from that, is there any evidence that the notes were examined
under a microscope with only 'very subtle' indications of the
over-inking being found?
I thought not.
>
>Lest you think that Ninger was unique, see: http://tinyurl.com/8ocb7 This
>gentleman's hand drawn bills are even better than Ninger's, including the
>scroll work that Ninger chose to omit.
>===============================================================
>End restored material
>
>Interested readers will note that Stevens wrote above:
>
>"I would like to see someone lay down a double-inked line of a length and
>complexity comparable with that of the VM and then have the line thoroughly
>examined by an expert for evidence of double inking. If somebody could pass
>that test I would be impressed. I wouldn't even ask for a double-blind test
>if the expert could make clear the evidence upon which he based his
>opinion."
>
>It seems to me that what Stevens snipped goes a long way to answering his
>long standing caveat regarding the "impossibility" of doing double inking of
>the sort that many claim to exist on the Vinland Map (which he has posted in
>previous Vinland Map "cycles" on sci.archaeology). Stevens simply took his
>caveat while having no clue regarding what talented "scribes" could do, and
>as his habit, when confronted with evidence that he can't deal with, went
>into "denial mode" and simply snipped the evidence. I predict he'll be back
>claiming my post was "too long" for him to read so he just snipped it. At
>least he had the grace to indicate his edit; often, he doesn't even bother
>doing that.
I snipped it the first time round because it wasn't relevant. It still
isn't.
Eric Stevens
David B
>
>the first time I have heard of 'first experts' finding indications
>"that the black and yellow lines had been applied at different times".
>
>Are you able to expand upon this?
I have done so in the past, but because the information doesn't fit
people's preconceptions about the VM story, it has tended to be ignored.
Here's a quotation from Baynes-Cope's summary (Geographical Journal, 1974):
Under low-power microscopic examination, his team find that the ink
"consists of a pale-brownish colour that has been absorbed absorbed into
the parchment accompanied by numerous darker particles having a greyish
almost metallic lustre; also in many cases these dark particles are outside
the brownish contour and lie directly on the parchment. It is interesting
to note that the ink in the areas of fine writing on the map had a
pale-brownish colour only and none of the dark particles were present."
He goes on to suggest that these particles could be the remains of a
preliminary pencil line, which was inked over then rubbed out as far as
possible- but observes that graphite pencils are a post-medieval product.
The problem the British Museum team had was that they were not able to send
the manuscripts out for higher resolution microscopic examination, so they
could not tell for certain whether the yellow really was on top of the
black, or vice versa- a question settled by the McCrones several years
later, eliminating the possibility of a preliminary pencil line, though of
course Brown & Clark confirmed that the black was indeed carbon.
David B.
Steve Marcus
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:18:50 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:3fllk15vhkoku6ac8...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:06:52 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>news:qphjk19tfcjhv7306...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 18:55:52 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
>>>>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ken Towe" <ken....@alumni.duke.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:1128880649.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>Eric writes (without venom or personal attack)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Still, entering into the spirit of things I would like to pose a
>>>>>>question. Those who assert that double inking is impossible, base the
>>>>>>assertion on measurements made by Cahill, who found that the black and
>>>>>>yellow lines tracked each extremely accurately.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Quote from: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/today/aug7.html
>>>>>>Cahill also carried out a study on how closely the black and yellow
>>>>>>lines on the map tracked each other spatially and found the variations
If you construe things literally, I can agree. However, you need to explain
why the identical technique "could not" have worked; could not the
underlying yellow line have served in the same manner as Ninger's pencil
line? If not, why not?
Moreover, you have neatly tried to change my point, which was that people of
sufficient skill clearly have the ability to do double inking on extremely
fine work, much finer in fact than that appearing on the Vinland Map.
> Quite
> apart from that, is there any evidence that the notes were examined
> under a microscope with only 'very subtle' indications of the
> over-inking being found?
> I thought not.
Evidently you didn't bother to read about Boggs. Start with the link in the
quote below, and then do a bit of research on your own.
Of course it's relevant to my point. Your position is that double inking is
essentially "impossible" (because you've never seen it and never spoken to
anyone who thinks it's possible). The information that I posted
demonstrates that some people are extraordinarily gifted artistically. Dr.
Towe made the same point regarding people who can write on rice grains. The
examples above, in particular the information about Boggs (which I doubt
that you read), demonstrates that he posseses more than sufficient skill to
do the type of double inking that probably was done on the Vinland Map.
Once again, you are simply in denial, having been caught with your ipse
dixit down.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
Unfortunately that's not really helpful. Not only did Baynes-Cope
report that their microscope was not up to the job but you have not
found a relevant quote from the person (McCrone) whose microscope was
good enough.
You had me going there for a minute but upon reflection it is apparent
that there would have been much more discussion had someone seen
something really definitive.
One reason I would like to know more about the compostion of the ink
is that I would like to know whether the two components (black and
yellow) could be expected to separate when applied to the parchment.
If they share a common base or bases which are mutually soluble, their
apparent separation on the parchment will pose a problem. On the other
hand, if they could only have been simultaneously applied as an
emulsion their separation is to be expected.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
--- snip ---
>>>You will note, of course, that the VM could have been produced by simply
>>>drawing the map on a piece of paper to use as a "master", and then doing
>>>what Ninger did, first with the underlying "ink", and then with the
>>>overlying "ink."
>>
>> Ink over a pencil line isn't the same thing as ink over ink.
>
>If you construe things literally, I can agree. However, you need to explain
>why the identical technique "could not" have worked; could not the
>underlying yellow line have served in the same manner as Ninger's pencil
>line? If not, why not?
THat's what has been argued by others. I persoanlly think the task is
so technically difficult that it could not escape detection if the ink
lines are thoroughly examined under a microscope. For the reasons I
have already given, the double inking is much more complex than merely
accurately tracing an ink line over a pencil line.
>
>Moreover, you have neatly tried to change my point, which was that people of
>sufficient skill clearly have the ability to do double inking on extremely
>fine work, much finer in fact than that appearing on the Vinland Map.
Well no. Your point was that people could accurately trace pencil
lines by over-writing with ink. As to whether or not they could do
that accurately, the extent of their accuracy has not been
established. Hence my original comment about a cashier with a
microscope.
>
>> Quite
>> apart from that, is there any evidence that the notes were examined
>> under a microscope with only 'very subtle' indications of the
>> over-inking being found?
>
>> I thought not.
>
>Evidently you didn't bother to read about Boggs. Start with the link in the
>quote below, and then do a bit of research on your own.
Boggs doesn't say anything about the ability to accurately undertake
double inking.
Eric Stevens
Paul J Gans
But did not McCrone also suspect double inking as a result
of his microscopic look at the lines?
------ Paul J. Gans
David B.
There's a simple reason for that. The British Museum study concluded with
three questions:
1) What explanation is there for the appearance of the sheet of parchment
upon which the map is drawn being different from that of the parchment of
the related documents?
2) What is the nature of the ink used, and why was a conventional iron
gallotannate ink not used?
3) What is the material of the black specks and are they in fact part of a
pencil outline which was later inked over?
The first half of question 2 and all of question 3 (and perhaps some of
question 1, with luck) could potentially be answered by the McCrone lab, so
they were approached in 1968. You'll notice, however, that none of the
questions involves checking things the British Museum staff had been able
to ascertain to their own satisfaction, so the McCrones did not gather
additional data on the locations where black specks were visible outside
the yellow lines.
Quite possibly if the British Museum had been allowed to publish their full
report in 1967, instead of having to content themselves with a couple of
pages on the coat-tails of the McCrone announcement in 1974, they would
have been able to present some photographic evidence of their own. As it
is, if the new Danish study doesn't settle the question, I guess one of us
is just going to have to book some time in the Beinecke Library with a
camera-microscope.
>You had me going there for a minute but upon reflection it is apparent
>that there would have been much more discussion had someone seen
>something really definitive.
By the time the British Museum findings were made public, someone had seen
something else really definitive- manufactured anatase in the ink. That was
what made the headlines, while behind the scenes Laurence Witten apologised
for lying to Yale and tricking Paul Mellon- and Paul Mellon, for his own
good reasons, wasn't a bit concerned, despite having almost certainly been
involved with the earlier ban on publication of the British Museum results.
>One reason I would like to know more about the compostion of the ink
>is that I would like to know whether the two components (black and
>yellow) could be expected to separate when applied to the parchment.
>If they share a common base or bases which are mutually soluble, their
>apparent separation on the parchment will pose a problem. On the other
>hand, if they could only have been simultaneously applied as an
>emulsion their separation is to be expected.
Best of luck. If there was an original fluid ingredient that has completely
evaporated, you may well never get your wish.
David B.
David B.
>
>did not McCrone also suspect double inking as a result
>of his microscopic look at the lines?
As I note in my reply to Eric sent about the same time as this message, the
McCrones to some extent took the double inking for granted. It seems likely
that they saw the same phenomena as the British Museum team, but it wasn't
part of their brief to repeat the B.M. work, and they barely discuss it in
their early reports. Their important contribution in that respect was to
establish that the black particles were not underneath the yellow (so could
not be the remains of a preliminary pencil line) or intermixed with the
yellow.
David B.
Paul J Gans
>David B.
Let me be less polite. Yale has acted throughout
like a guilty party with something to hide. For
years they did not allow real examination of the
map. They did not trust even the British Museum
to check it out in any detail.
In fact, those who were allowed even a quick look
at it were *prohibited* from publishing their findings
until Yale said that they could.
The result was that for years there were whispers
but very little made public. Even now the full
reports of a number of investigators are being held
by Yale and one needs permission to see them.
The second edition of the book on the map and the
Tartar Relation, published long after a fair amount
of critical material had been published, does not
include any seriously critical articles. It is,
in other words, a carefully crafted love fest.
This is not how historians or librarians normally
operate. My personal feeling is that if the Vinland
Map were subject to a full scale investigation it
would be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the
map is a fake.
Serious reputations are (or were) at stake in this
debate. Scholars make mistakes. Thus there is
a tendency to be nice to folks who make them so
that they perhaps will be nice to you when you
make one.
A few reviews have taken the gloves off. One
is by Paul Saenger (available on the web though
I don't have the URL handy). You can tell
his status in the appropriate fields by the
intensity with which he has been and will be
attacked on line by die-hard defenders of the
Vinland map.
Ken Towe has been subject to the same sort
of attack. If there is one thing loons cannot
stand it is having what one of them might call
a "real expert" posting on this subject.
The Shroud of Turin, another fake (and one that
was KNOWN to be a fake within a few years of its
discovery in the Middle Ages), is strongly defended
by some. These are mainly folks who want very
much to believe it for religious reasons.
But there are no religious connections to the
Vinland map. What there is, is an almost
religious reverence for Yale on the part of
at least one staunch defender. Yale being
wrong about something is akin to a kick in
the stomach to some.
But even institutions make mistakes. The
Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, right
up there with the top prestegious institutions
of the world, has made some howlers. They
admitted it and went on. It happens.
----- Paul J. Gans
Alaca
"Vinland Re-read" by Paul Saenger (Newberry Library)
(Review Article on the Vinland Map)
Imago Mundi Vol. 50 (1998), pp.199-202
http://www.maphistory.info/saenger.html
--
P.A.
Steve Marcus
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 05:15:51 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> --- snip ---
>
>>>>You will note, of course, that the VM could have been produced by simply
>>>>drawing the map on a piece of paper to use as a "master", and then doing
>>>>what Ninger did, first with the underlying "ink", and then with the
>>>>overlying "ink."
>>>
>>> Ink over a pencil line isn't the same thing as ink over ink.
>>
>>If you construe things literally, I can agree. However, you need to
>>explain
>>why the identical technique "could not" have worked; could not the
>>underlying yellow line have served in the same manner as Ninger's pencil
>>line? If not, why not?
>
> THat's what has been argued by others. I persoanlly think the task is
> so technically difficult that it could not escape detection if the ink
> lines are thoroughly examined under a microscope. For the reasons I
> have already given, the double inking is much more complex than merely
> accurately tracing an ink line over a pencil line.
>>
>>Moreover, you have neatly tried to change my point, which was that people
>>of
>>sufficient skill clearly have the ability to do double inking on extremely
>>fine work, much finer in fact than that appearing on the Vinland Map.
>
> Well no. Your point was that people could accurately trace pencil
> lines by over-writing with ink.
I'll thank *you* not to tell *me* what *my* point was. Again, my point was,
and remains, there is clear evidence that demonstrates that there are highly
skilled artisans out there who could certainly do the sort of double inking
that appears to have been done on the Vinland Map.
You are still in denial; it is absurd of you not to concede the point that
merely because *you* don't think that the skill to double ink the Vinland
Map lines is plausible, the fact is that there are people out there who have
demonstrated sufficient artistic skill such that it is clear that what *you*
think is wrong.
> As to whether or not they could do
> that accurately, the extent of their accuracy has not been
> established. Hence my original comment about a cashier with a
> microscope.
Again, it's clear that you haven't read about Boggs.
Once again, you are simply in denial, having been caught with your ipse
dixit down.
>>
>>> Quite
>>> apart from that, is there any evidence that the notes were examined
>>> under a microscope with only 'very subtle' indications of the
>>> over-inking being found?
>>
>>> I thought not.
>>
>>Evidently you didn't bother to read about Boggs. Start with the link in
>>the
>>quote below, and then do a bit of research on your own.
>
> Boggs doesn't say anything about the ability to accurately undertake
> double inking.
The information on Boggs (there are more links than the one link I
previously posted) clearly demonstrate that Boggs' skill is more than
sufficient to accurately undertake double inking of the sort that appears to
have occurred on the Vinland Map.
Paul J Gans
>David B.
I don't have access to the earlier reports written by McCrone.
But his 1988 Analytical Chemistry paper clearly says:
"Examination of the map lines showed that the black
line had been carefully drawn over and, more or less,
down the middle of a previously drawn yellow line.
There was evidence of some human wobble in the
placement of the black line relative to the
yellow line and in, at least, one area (West Coast
of England) the second (black) line applied over
the yellow line had "cut corners" and missed its
registration with the yellow line."
The last sentence is, of course, a reference to Ken Towe's
discovery of the Mismatch off Wales.
Perhaps in his original reports McCrone did not stress the
double line idea as he did in this one, I don't know. Your
input on this would be appreciated.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Thanks. It is definitely worth reading. Saenger doesn't
pull punches.
----- Paul J. Gans
William Black
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dijbbt$kev$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> >http://www.maphistory.info/saenger.html
>
> Thanks. It is definitely worth reading. Saenger doesn't
> pull punches.
An interesting bit is the reference to trying to sell this obvious dud to
the British Library.
At the time the BL was part of the British Museum and so it sort of explodes
the idea that this crock had been tested and accepted by that institution.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:dijbbt$kev$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>> >http://www.maphistory.info/saenger.html
>>
>> Thanks. It is definitely worth reading. Saenger doesn't
>> pull punches.
>An interesting bit is the reference to trying to sell this obvious dud to
>the British Library.
>At the time the BL was part of the British Museum and so it sort of explodes
>the idea that this crock had been tested and accepted by that institution.
I've been reading Kirsten Seaver's "Maps, Myths, and Men". It
is a very polite book, but as a map expert herself and as a
personal friend of a number of the anti-authenticity people,
her outrage over how all this was handled is palpable.
Once questions were raised, and they were raised even *before*
Yale took possession of the map, their duty (a word rarely used
in the US) was to have the map vetted by experts in every field
that was pertinent to the map.
A number of such folks *were* consulted. They were forced to
operate under secrecy agreements and their objections were
never published by Yale.
Meanwhile, things that you would not believe in a movie were
part of the story. My favorite is that the manuscript and map
were bought by Laurence Witten and show to his good friend
Tomas Marsden, then employed in the Library at Yale. By one
of those blinding accidents that amaze us in fiction, Marsden
happened to notice in a book catalog an interesting book that
had just come on the market. He bought it and showed it to
Witten. And guess what? It was clearly a missing section of
the manuscript and map already in the hands of Witten! (Actually,
at one remove. They were technically the property of his wife...)
What great fortune!
Of course there was no possible way that the missing manuscript
was fed to the firm of Orioli and Davis by someone who knew
about the map. It just isn't possible that the volume containing
the two manuscripts was dissassembled to remove a double sheet
of parchment, the map drawn on it, and the volume partially
reassembled. Could then one part have come home with Witten
and the other sold to Orioli and Davis only to be noticed by
the one man on earth in a position to give the part to Witten
to match up with what he had?
Could never happen. Who could have been so dishonest.
As you often say, if you don't know the provenance, treat
it like a fake.
It's a fake.
We've not been talking about these other aspects (there are
more) about the map because the presence of modern titanium
dioxide clinches it without anyone needing to strain their
minds. But it doesn't mean that there isn't tons of other
evidence all screaming FAKE!
----- Paul J. Gans
David B.
>
>But his 1988 Analytical Chemistry paper clearly says:
>
> "Examination of the map lines showed that the black
> line had been carefully drawn over and, more or less,
> down the middle of a previously drawn yellow line.
> There was evidence of some human wobble in the
> placement of the black line relative to the
> yellow line and in, at least, one area (West Coast
> of England) the second (black) line applied over
> the yellow line had "cut corners" and missed its
> registration with the yellow line."
>
>The last sentence is, of course, a reference to Ken Towe's
>discovery of the Mismatch off Wales.
>
>Perhaps in his original reports McCrone did not stress the
>double line idea as he did in this one, I don't know.
Only the first of McCrone's three published reports (Geographical Journal,
1966, pp212-4) predates Ken Towe's involvement. It contains no reference to
anything like the "Welsh wobble", but states that:
"The ink, both map line and legend, consists of a relatively thick
yellow-brown line sparsely covered with thin shiny black flakes apparently
making up a second ink application. Subsequent flaking away of more than 90
per cent of this black coating and consequent exposure of the yellow-brown
line accounts for the faded ink appearance."
Note that this can be construed as disagreeing with the B.M. team, who
found that in the legends, only the larger writing had black traces.
Incdentally, McCrone also comments:
"The difficulty of laying down a second line over the first is formidable
but subsequent removal of well over 90 per cent of the black line makes it
impossible to see how precise the alignment of the two lines might have
been."
And finally, in rebutting a suggestion by George Painter that the anatase
in the ink was due to a 20th century restoration, McCrone observed that
that was inconsistent with the fact that the anatase was found in the
yellow under the black line, and that:
"Finally, careful microscopical study of every millimetre of map line and
letter showed no evidence of a line earlier than the yellow-brown line."
I think that indicates that when the McCrone team examined the line
microscopically, they were looking for something very specific- an
explanation of the anatase that would still leave room for a medieval
origin of the map. They simply didn't take much interest in the black
particles, because they thought (probably correctly) that they had found
the smoking gun.
David B.
David B.
>
>An interesting bit is the reference to trying to sell this obvious dud to
>the British Library.
>
>At the time the BL was part of the British Museum and so it sort of
explodes
>the idea that this crock had been tested and accepted by that institution.
Reading up on that little episode in one of the most useful bits of Kirsten
Seaver's "Maps, Myths and Men", I've noticed something peculiar about the
1957 visit to the B.M.:
George Painter, later co-author of the notorious VMTR book, seems to have
been the first BM expert to see the Map/TR volume- but strictly speaking
that makes no sense. He worked for the Department of Printed Books,
specialising in incunabula: early Printed Books. But there is no printing
in the Map/TR volume, so how did it get to him first, or indeed at all? The
London-based dealer would have known very well that he should be contacting
somebody in the Department of Manuscripts or the Map Room (though the
latter was, admittedly, part of the Department of Printed Books, it was
functionally unconnected with Painter's section)- so did he either
a) know enough about Painter's ways of thinking to ask for him personally,
or
b) decide to ask simply for an expert on "early books" in hopes of keeping
the Department of Manuscripts out of the way for a while (which would have
been a wise course, as they were quite contemptuous of the map, though
Skelton of the Map Room was fascinated).
David B.
lora...@cs.com
Paul J Gans wrote:
> I'm doing this for Larry Swain who seems to be the
> only person interested. So here goes...
> Could this separation be chromatographic?
>
> On first thought the answer is no. There is no
> mechanism that allows a continuous flow of water
> along the parchment surface (which acts as the
> stationary medium in this case).
>
> But consider: the ink coming off the pen is wet. The
> water in the drop tends to spread out on the surface
> of the parchment. Could not *that* flow effect a separation?
>
> In theory, yes. In practice, no. The total amount of liquid
> at a spot in a drawn ink line is very small. Further,
> medieval inks (like modern ones) are formulated NOT to spread.
> Spreading makes an ink useless since letters close by would
> diffuse into each other. And the medievals had had hundreds
> of years of experience in the preparation of inks that
> did not spread.
>
> Even so *IF* we had a situation in which there was a clear
> separation of a yellow and a black line AND IF the yellow
> line was spread out (diffuse) one MIGHT think that this
> could happen chromatographically.
Thank you. But wouldn't it be necessary to know the chemical compostion
of the ink used in order to arrive at definitive conclusion?
Paper or parchment staining ('yellow' margins) can occur over long
periods of time - I've witnessed it. It depends on the ink's or
binder's formulation.
(or have I missed some other (key information?)
William Black
"David B." <dav...@tronospamchos.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dijrdh$uf3$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> William Black wrote in message ...
>The
> London-based dealer would have known very well that he should be
contacting
> somebody in the Department of Manuscripts or the Map Room (though the
> latter was, admittedly, part of the Department of Printed Books, it was
> functionally unconnected with Painter's section)- so did he either
> a) know enough about Painter's ways of thinking to ask for him personally,
> or
> b) decide to ask simply for an expert on "early books" in hopes of keeping
> the Department of Manuscripts out of the way for a while (which would have
> been a wise course, as they were quite contemptuous of the map, though
> Skelton of the Map Room was fascinated).
I know a number of people involved in the production of reproductions of
historical artefacts including documents (and non historical ones come to
think of it) for legitimate commercial reasons.
The academics who work in the field and their publications are a matter of
great interest to such people.
I also know a number of people involved in the antiques trade, most of them
read up on the 'expert academics' who work at the major academic
institutions in the UK because if you have an item of great potential value
then the major auction houses usually employ a senior academic to vet such
items.
If you're selling fakes you need to know who your enemy is.
The crooks selling the Vinland Map will have known exactly who everyone at
the BM was, what they did, what they knew, and had probably read their
latest publications.
They knew exactly who they were showing it to, someone who would know it
was of very great interest, but who didn't know enough about medieval maps
to spot it as a fake.
It's like showing a sword to a firearms curator at an arms museum. He'll
know it's a sword, can see it's well made, and can probably put an
approximate date to it, but he'll give it to an edged weapons man before
he'll give you an opinion.
Mind you, these days the edged weapons man will give it to a metallurgist
before he'll give you an opinion.
Ken Towe
call at the '96 New Haven meeting, that Painter wrote this:
"I accept the microchemical findings, but not the inference drawn from
them. I think that Mr. McCrone's results are only another, though
unusually important, episode in the continuing dialog between
genuineness and forgery, and that once again an explanation consistent
with authenticity will emerge and prevail. I, personally, intend to
stick to my guns."
Note that in the 30 years since he wrote those words there has emerged
no explanation consistent with authenticity. I have repeatedly asked
for such. Silence! Nothing but a non-answer like "it's not up to us."
McCulloch has been asked to come up with one. His reply? "That's too
much to ask." Painter has certainly stuck to his guns, but he hasn't
seen the explanation that he desired. Indeed, the additional evidence
since his statement has only added to the forgery interpretation.
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
And you did it by citing the work of someone who you claim accurately
over-wrote a pencil line with ink.
>
>You are still in denial; it is absurd of you not to concede the point that
>merely because *you* don't think that the skill to double ink the Vinland
>Map lines is plausible, the fact is that there are people out there who have
>demonstrated sufficient artistic skill such that it is clear that what *you*
>think is wrong.
>
>> As to whether or not they could do
>> that accurately, the extent of their accuracy has not been
>> established. Hence my original comment about a cashier with a
>> microscope.
>
>Again, it's clear that you haven't read about Boggs.
Again, yo evade the point I have made.
>
>Once again, you are simply in denial, having been caught with your ipse
>dixit down.
>
>>>
>>>> Quite
>>>> apart from that, is there any evidence that the notes were examined
>>>> under a microscope with only 'very subtle' indications of the
>>>> over-inking being found?
>>>
>>>> I thought not.
>>>
>>>Evidently you didn't bother to read about Boggs. Start with the link in
>>>the
>>>quote below, and then do a bit of research on your own.
>>
>> Boggs doesn't say anything about the ability to accurately undertake
>> double inking.
>
>The information on Boggs (there are more links than the one link I
>previously posted) clearly demonstrate that Boggs' skill is more than
>sufficient to accurately undertake double inking of the sort that appears to
>have occurred on the Vinland Map.
That's your claim. It's a pity you haven't cited anything which
directly addresses the point.
Steve Marcus
First, it's not someone that *I* claim to have overwritten anything. The
claim is historically documented.
Second, you are still in denial. The people (I referred to more than one
perso) in question clearly possessed sufficient artistic skill to draw a map
in yellowish pigment, place the parchment on a glass sheet, place
sufficiently intense light behind the glass, and then trace over the
yellowish line with a black pigment.
>>
>>You are still in denial; it is absurd of you not to concede the point that
>>merely because *you* don't think that the skill to double ink the Vinland
>>Map lines is plausible, the fact is that there are people out there who
>>have
>>demonstrated sufficient artistic skill such that it is clear that what
>>*you*
>>think is wrong.
>>
>>> As to whether or not they could do
>>> that accurately, the extent of their accuracy has not been
>>> established. Hence my original comment about a cashier with a
>>> microscope.
>>
>>Again, it's clear that you haven't read about Boggs.
>
> Again, yo evade the point I have made.
You haven't made any point that was responsive to my point. Again:
People in fact exist who have sufficient artistic talent to draw a map in
yellowish pigment, and then overwrite the yellow with a black pigment. The
two individuals that I provided information on was (Ninger and Boggs)
clearly possessed that sort of talent. This simply puts paid to your
position that it would have been impossible for someone to have drawn the
Vinland Map in yellowish pigment and then "traced over" that pigment with a
black pigment.
In addition, it is clear that you haven't even done any research on Boggs as
I invited you to do. If you had, you would have seen examples of his work.
It would be clear, even to someone as entrenched as you are, that Boggs has
sufficient skill to have drawn a map in one pigment, and then traced over it
with another pigment.
You are simply in denial, having been caught with your ipse dixit down.
>>
>>Once again, you are simply in denial, having been caught with your ipse
>>dixit down.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Quite
>>>>> apart from that, is there any evidence that the notes were examined
>>>>> under a microscope with only 'very subtle' indications of the
>>>>> over-inking being found?
>>>>
>>>>> I thought not.
>>>>
>>>>Evidently you didn't bother to read about Boggs. Start with the link in
>>>>the
>>>>quote below, and then do a bit of research on your own.
>>>
>>> Boggs doesn't say anything about the ability to accurately undertake
>>> double inking.
>>
>>The information on Boggs (there are more links than the one link I
>>previously posted) clearly demonstrate that Boggs' skill is more than
>>sufficient to accurately undertake double inking of the sort that appears
>>to
>>have occurred on the Vinland Map.
>
> That's your claim. It's a pity you haven't cited anything which
> directly addresses the point.
Do you really think that the squink you are generating is persuading
anyone?? If you define evidence "directly addressing" the question of
whether *anyone* has the skill to do the sort of double inking that seems to
be on the Vinland Map, then you have to find someone who has drawn a map
using double inking technique. In your case, I hope that you *do* hold your
breath until such evidence turns up.
But, if one takes a reasonable approach to evidence, and frames the question
as being whether anyone has sufficient skill to draw a map using double
inking (i.e. applying one pigment over another pigment), it is clear that
what I've cited is relevant, material and reasonable evidence of people who
quite easily qualify as having sufficient skill to have done that sort of
thing.
You are simply in denial, having been caught with your ipse dixit down, and
as usually happens, you've cranked up the squink generator. It truly is sad
that seem to think that you would persuade anyone other than the Seppos,
Hineys and maissonmousses of the world.
>
> --- snip ---
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Steve
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
You are backing off. You are now giving us your opinion that they
could have done this, if anyone ever presented them with the
opportunity. You have been unable to present any evidence that they
actually have done anything directly comprable with double-inking the
VM.
>
>>>
>>>You are still in denial; it is absurd of you not to concede the point that
>>>merely because *you* don't think that the skill to double ink the Vinland
>>>Map lines is plausible, the fact is that there are people out there who
>>>have
>>>demonstrated sufficient artistic skill such that it is clear that what
>>>*you*
>>>think is wrong.
>>>
>>>> As to whether or not they could do
>>>> that accurately, the extent of their accuracy has not been
>>>> established. Hence my original comment about a cashier with a
>>>> microscope.
>>>
>>>Again, it's clear that you haven't read about Boggs.
>>
>> Again, yo evade the point I have made.
>
>You haven't made any point that was responsive to my point. Again:
>
>People in fact exist who have sufficient artistic talent to draw a map in
>yellowish pigment, and then overwrite the yellow with a black pigment. The
>two individuals that I provided information on was (Ninger and Boggs)
>clearly possessed that sort of talent.
THat is merely an assertion. You have no direct evidence to support
it. Both Ninger and Boggs are candidates for a trial to determine
whether or not they could double-ingk a document such as the VM to the
point where the double inking is not immediately obvious as such under
a microscope. But there is no evidence that have ever previously
confronted such a task, nor that they have done it succesfully.
--- thrashing of dead horses snipped ---
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
Your inability to read/think is astonishing.
> You are now giving us your opinion that they
> could have done this, if anyone ever presented them with the
> opportunity.
No, that't the opinion that I was *always* giving you. And I was giving you
that opinion in response to *your* position that it was *impossible* for
anyone to have double inked something such as the Vinland Map. Interested
readers can use Google to confirm that this was your position; you cited
some FBI agent, IIRC, to the effect that such double inking was an
"impossibility" and you also rambled on about drafting and draftsmen.)
> You have been unable to present any evidence that they
> actually have done anything directly comprable with double-inking the
> VM.
If you are so knowledgeable about evidence, then you ought to understand
that "indirect" evidence is often as valuable as direct evidence. Moreover,
I wasn't attempting to claim that Ninger or Boggs (or any other talented
artist) had ever done a double-inked map. I was simply pointing out that
your claim that it would be impossible to double-ink something like the
Vinland Map was wrong because there are clearly people out there who are
sufficiently talented such that they could easily accomplish double-inking,
particularly where the underlying line is supposed to be wider than the
overlying line.
>>
>>>>
>>>>You are still in denial; it is absurd of you not to concede the point
>>>>that
>>>>merely because *you* don't think that the skill to double ink the
>>>>Vinland
>>>>Map lines is plausible, the fact is that there are people out there who
>>>>have
>>>>demonstrated sufficient artistic skill such that it is clear that what
>>>>*you*
>>>>think is wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> As to whether or not they could do
>>>>> that accurately, the extent of their accuracy has not been
>>>>> established. Hence my original comment about a cashier with a
>>>>> microscope.
>>>>
>>>>Again, it's clear that you haven't read about Boggs.
>>>
>>> Again, yo evade the point I have made.
>>
>>You haven't made any point that was responsive to my point. Again:
>>
>>People in fact exist who have sufficient artistic talent to draw a map in
>>yellowish pigment, and then overwrite the yellow with a black pigment.
>>The
>>two individuals that I provided information on was (Ninger and Boggs)
>>clearly possessed that sort of talent.
>
> THat is merely an assertion. You have no direct evidence to support
> it.
1. Go to the Internet
2. Click on google.com
3. Search for currency, drawing and Boggs.
4. View photo of a Boggs drawn paper currency
5. Draw the inference
Then explain why indirect evidence and inferences therefrom are impotent
with respect to this issue.
> Both Ninger and Boggs are candidates for a trial to determine
> whether or not they could double-ingk a document such as the VM to the
> point where the double inking is not immediately obvious as such under
> a microscope. But there is no evidence that have ever previously
> confronted such a task, nor that they have done it succesfully.
That's like claiming that Picasso could not have drawn an excellent
reproduction of the Mona Lisa because you are not aware that Picasso had
ever done anything in the "realistic" style in which DaVinci worked. Or
that a competent safety engineer cannot have an expert opinion regarding the
safety of a meat packing plant because s/he had never done a design for one,
but had only done safety designs for canneries
>
> --- thrashing of dead horses snipped ---
There's a difference between thrashing dead horses and clearing away clouds
of squink. With you, it's necessary to always do the latter. For example,
in response to this query by Paul Gans:
"BTW, Eric, do you know how to use evidence?"
you replied: "I wasn't going to answer this one but, I'll give you a hint.
Just look at the header on my emails."
So you claim some sort of expertise re evidence; yes, even to the point that
you claim to make your living by handling and analyzing evidence. Yet here
you are, going on about a lack of "direct evidence", as though "indirect
evidence" and the inferences that can be drawn therefrom are somehow
irrelevant, or inferior to "direct evidence."
If there were even one example of someone who was known to have drawn a
double-inked map, there would be no discussion, would there? So as yet,
there's no direct evidence that such a thing has ever been done, or is even
possible. But that's a wholly different thing than claiming that doing a
double-inked map is "impossible." In the face of your claim that
double-inking the Vinland Map would have been "impossible", I have shown you
evidence regarding the skill and talent level of two artists (and they are
not, by any means, the most highly skilled of all the hundreds of thousands
of artists on the planet) that clearly establishes an ability to draw
crowded masses of very fine, detailed lines with astonishing accuracy in
mimicry of a printed document. And your conclusion is that establishing
that this sort of skill exists "proves nothing" regarding the ability to
double-ink a map such as the Vinland Map.
Dishonesty, followed by clouds of squink. You should register it as a
trademark. Or perhaps design it as a motto on a coat of arms.
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
Which I have consistently pointed out to you is not proof that they
could actually double-ink a long complivcated line in the fashion of
the VM.
>And I was giving you
>that opinion in response to *your* position that it was *impossible* for
>anyone to have double inked something such as the Vinland Map. Interested
>readers can use Google to confirm that this was your position; you cited
>some FBI agent, IIRC, to the effect that such double inking was an
>"impossibility" and you also rambled on about drafting and draftsmen.)
Interested readers can find my actual statement in Message-ID:
<1128880649.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>. The word
'impossible' appears twice in the article but neither time was it used
by me.
The reason you have not cited anything from Google which shows me to
have made that claim about the fBI is that I have never made that
claim. I remeber somebody has, and quite recently too. I have asked
about it but never made it.
>
>> You have been unable to present any evidence that they
>> actually have done anything directly comprable with double-inking the
>> VM.
>
>If you are so knowledgeable about evidence, then you ought to understand
>that "indirect" evidence is often as valuable as direct evidence.
Your 'indirect evidence' has no value on this occasion.
> Moreover,
>I wasn't attempting to claim that Ninger or Boggs (or any other talented
>artist) had ever done a double-inked map. I was simply pointing out that
>your claim that it would be impossible to double-ink something like the
>Vinland Map was wrong because there are clearly people out there who are
>sufficiently talented such that they could easily accomplish double-inking,
>particularly where the underlying line is supposed to be wider than the
>overlying line.
You have continually failed to show that their talent might extend to
undetectable double-inking.
--- waffle snipped ---
You have now got to the stage of having to make things up. I will put
you back on ignore for the time being.
I expect it will take you several paragraphs to slow down and stop.
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
Ho, hum. See: http://tinyurl.com/7mut6 which is just a single example.
> The reason you have not cited anything from Google which shows me to
> have made that claim about the fBI is that I have never made that
> claim. I remeber somebody has, and quite recently too. I have asked
> about it but never made it.
You are correct. You claimed an anonymous Secret Service agent as your
source.
>
>>
>>> You have been unable to present any evidence that they
>>> actually have done anything directly comprable with double-inking the
>>> VM.
>>
>>If you are so knowledgeable about evidence, then you ought to understand
>>that "indirect" evidence is often as valuable as direct evidence.
>
> Your 'indirect evidence' has no value on this occasion.
Ah, another Stevens ipse dixit.
>
>> Moreover,
>>I wasn't attempting to claim that Ninger or Boggs (or any other talented
>>artist) had ever done a double-inked map. I was simply pointing out that
>>your claim that it would be impossible to double-ink something like the
>>Vinland Map was wrong because there are clearly people out there who are
>>sufficiently talented such that they could easily accomplish
>>double-inking,
>>particularly where the underlying line is supposed to be wider than the
>>overlying line.
>
> You have continually failed to show that their talent might extend to
> undetectable double-inking.
You have continually failed to explain why you think that it does not.
>
> --- waffle snipped ---
>
> You have now got to the stage of having to make things up. I will put
> you back on ignore for the time being.
Translation from the Stevenese: I've lost another round, so I'll just place
my hands over my hears, screw my eyes tightly shut, and chant my usual
mantra.
>
> I expect it will take you several paragraphs to slow down and stop.
>
You would lose.
Ken Towe
"The reason you have not cited anything from Google which shows me to
have made that claim about the fBI is that I have never made that
claim. I remeber somebody has, and quite recently too. I have asked
about it but never made it. "
This is trivial, but wasn't this (below) from one of your posts, Eric?
Clearly, you are correct that you, yourself, didn't make the claim, but
you did cite it in support of your view that it can't be done, didn't
you?
>Cahill also carried out a study on how closely the black and yellow
>lines on the map tracked each other spatially and found the variations
>were 100 ?m or less, based on perhaps 100 measurements. The idea that
Paul J Gans
No. I don't think so.
My point focusses on the gap between the black (presumeably
original) line and the yellow (supposed stain) line. Without
special treatment, I cannot think of a way for the yellow
material to start at the black line and diffuse away from it
leaving a blank space.
----- Paul J. Gans
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>And I was giving you
>>>that opinion in response to *your* position that it was *impossible* for
>>>anyone to have double inked something such as the Vinland Map. Interested
>>>readers can use Google to confirm that this was your position; you cited
>>>some FBI agent, IIRC, to the effect that such double inking was an
>>>"impossibility" and you also rambled on about drafting and draftsmen.)
>>
>> Interested readers can find my actual statement in Message-ID:
>> <1128880649.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>. The word
>> 'impossible' appears twice in the article but neither time was it used
>> by me.
>>
>
>Ho, hum. See: http://tinyurl.com/7mut6 which is just a single example.
I invite those who haven't already died of bordom to visit the site
and confirm that shyster Marcus is trying to deceive them by a subtle
shift of context. Yes, I plead guilty to using the word 'impossible'
in that article but nowhere did I say that the double inking was
impossible. In fact the quote is neither from this argument or even
this thread.
>
>> The reason you have not cited anything from Google which shows me to
>> have made that claim about the fBI is that I have never made that
>> claim. I remeber somebody has, and quite recently too. I have asked
>> about it but never made it.
>
>You are correct. You claimed an anonymous Secret Service agent as your
>source.
You won't find me saying that either.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Thank you Ken. I knew I had seen it somewhere?
In fact, that appeared in my Message-ID:
<fk1ek1l9lunbctgu6...@4ax.com> Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005
12:54:11 +1300 which contained a quote from Simon Pugh's Message-ID:
<9FNFnwFq...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:40:42 +0000 in the thread Re: Determination
of the Radiocarbon Age of Parchment of the Vinland Map.
So it wasn't me who made that claim. I have in fact read that
somewhere else but right now I'm not sure where it was. VMTR2?
Eric Stevens
Ken Towe
"So it wasn't me who made that claim. I have in fact read that
somewhere else but right now I'm not sure where it was. VMTR2?"
Yes, Eric, I believe it was in VMTR2. This stuff was from the same
article wherein Cahill and Kusko wrote that the [medieval] scribe was
having difficuly getting the ink to stick to the slick parchment and
therefore added the finest black powder he could to give the ink
"bite". He chose a material rich in titanium. (ref. pages xxxvii and
over to xxxviii).
Rich in titanium! Problem? Cahill also wrote this in his report to Yale
(page 20): "A series of 5 ink analyses down the very black northwest
coast of Europe showed no titanium above background levels..."
Black powder? Rich in titanium? But none in five "very black" areas?
Something's amiss. [How about this, Hines?]
Seppo Renfors
"David B." wrote:
>
> Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
> >
> >On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:07:43 GMT, "David B" <tronos...@tesco.net>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>always remember that the first experts to examine the Vinland Map with
> >>a microscope were the originators of what became the "double inking"
> >>theory.
> >>
> >True, but they found (as far as I know) only one location in the 30'
> >of ink-line where there may be evidence of double-inking.
>
> You see- you're a careful and cautious investigator, but you've fallen for
> the trick.
>
> The person who found only one location with evidence of double-inking was
> Ken Towe, in December 1974,
Listen, HE could find his arse with both hands! As for your statement
of "fact" of "double inking" it has to be proven first and that is the
trouble with your religious fervour for a fake, you use the method
"Bugger the facts, just BELIEVE..."
When other causes are MORE likely than "forgery" then "forgery" has to
be the LAST in line for the gong, not the first just because that is
what you want to BELIEVE - and I don't care to see unsubstantiated
claims made by others - they amount to absolutely NO MORE than your
unsubstantiated BELIEF.
[snip the rest of the fantasy]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
David B wrote:
>
> Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
> >
> >In all the ballyhoo that has been shouted around about the VM, this is
> >the first time I have heard of 'first experts' finding indications
> >"that the black and yellow lines had been applied at different times".
> >
> >Are you able to expand upon this?
>
> I have done so in the past, but because the information doesn't fit
> people's preconceptions about the VM story, it has tended to be ignored.
> Here's a quotation from Baynes-Cope's summary (Geographical Journal, 1974):
> Under low-power microscopic examination, his team find that the ink
> "consists of a pale-brownish colour that has been absorbed absorbed into
> the parchment accompanied by numerous darker particles having a greyish
> almost metallic lustre; also in many cases these dark particles are outside
> the brownish contour and lie directly on the parchment. It is interesting
> to note that the ink in the areas of fine writing on the map had a
> pale-brownish colour only and none of the dark particles were present."
Oh well there goes the "yellow line" claim......
> He goes on to suggest that these particles could be the remains of a
> preliminary pencil line, which was inked over then rubbed out as far as
> possible- but observes that graphite pencils are a post-medieval product.
...and you wonder why nobody takes that crap seriously! Something from
UNDER the ink line is "rubbed out".... fantastic!
> The problem the British Museum team had was that they were not able to send
> the manuscripts out for higher resolution microscopic examination, so they
> could not tell for certain whether the yellow really.....
WHAT bloody "yellow", eh? THEY didn't find any "Yellow" at all - you
quote them stating "pale-brownish colour" - as I have said you use the
method "Bugger the facts, just BELIEVE..." and are doing so again.
> .....was on top of the
> black, or vice versa- a question settled by the McCrones several years
> later, eliminating the possibility of a preliminary pencil line, though of
> course Brown & Clark confirmed that the black was indeed carbon.
Now we see REAL insanity - first you write a line with a graphite
(something not found on the VM - and YES I am aware it is a carbon but
of a specific morphology) pencil then an ink line drawn on top of the
pencil line. When the ink line has dried, then the pencil line is
RUBBED OUT from UNDER the ink line.... and you are nutty enough to put
this nonsense forward as "evidence of forgery" - Man, but THAT is
LOONY!
Oh, and your so called "welsh wobble" in you earlier post refers to a
soccer match, where Manchester United lost a game to Liverpool in
Cardiff, back in 2003. Nothing to do with any "ink"! But then not a
lot is surprising coming from you.
Seppo Renfors
"David B." wrote:
>
> Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
> >On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:10:44 GMT, "David B" <tronos...@tesco.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
[..]
> >Unfortunately that's not really helpful. Not only did Baynes-Cope
> >report that their microscope was not up to the job but you have not
> >found a relevant quote from the person (McCrone) whose microscope was
> >good enough.
>
> There's a simple reason for that. The British Museum study concluded with
> three questions:
> 1) What explanation is there for the appearance of the sheet of parchment
> upon which the map is drawn being different from that of the parchment of
> the related documents?
> 2) What is the nature of the ink used, and why was a conventional iron
> gallotannate ink not used?
Oh dear!! So now they have to determine a reason for something not
yet determined! Please point out who did the determination it was NOT
an iron gal ink?
> 3) What is the material of the black specks and are they in fact part of a
> pencil outline which was later inked over?
Again this "question" is really a STATEMENT OF FACT - when such cannot
be the case. It is resorting to a circular argument - the
determination is already in the question, for christ sake! How crook
can you get?
[..]
>
> Quite possibly if the British Museum had been allowed to publish their full
> report in 1967,
This indicates how impossible it is for there to have been a
pre-existing determination of "not iron-gall ink" - I don't think this
determination has actually been made to date. Therefor we see David
resort to placing the wanted answer into the question - a circular
argument once more!
If that is indeed a true and accurate representation of the questions
posed to the British Museum (and I doubt it) then their findings were
NOT worth putting on paper as it would have been a REAl embarrassment
to the museum!
[snip remainder of the snake oil]
Steve Marcus
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 05:41:53 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>>And I was giving you
>>>>that opinion in response to *your* position that it was *impossible* for
>>>>anyone to have double inked something such as the Vinland Map.
>>>>Interested
>>>>readers can use Google to confirm that this was your position; you cited
>>>>some FBI agent, IIRC, to the effect that such double inking was an
>>>>"impossibility" and you also rambled on about drafting and draftsmen.)
>>>
>>> Interested readers can find my actual statement in Message-ID:
>>> <1128880649.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>. The word
>>> 'impossible' appears twice in the article but neither time was it used
>>> by me.
>>>
>>
>>Ho, hum. See: http://tinyurl.com/7mut6 which is just a single example.
>
> I invite those who haven't already died of bordom to visit the site
> and confirm that shyster Marcus is trying to deceive them by a subtle
> shift of context. Yes, I plead guilty to using the word 'impossible'
> in that article but nowhere did I say that the double inking was
> impossible. In fact the quote is neither from this argument or even
> this thread.
It really is a pleasure "doing business" with someone like you, Eric, who
either simply cannot comprehend simply English which you have, yourself,
written, or is unable to express yourself to write what you mean.
Here's the relevant portion of the linked usenet post, that *you* wrote:
<N...@mrzsp.demonX.co.uk> wrote:
><Total snip as I'm piggybacking>
>I am somewhat surprised that people have allowed themselves to be
>suckered into discussing how the map might have been faked. There is
>absolutely no requirement to show how it was done in order to prove that
>it is a fake.
Stevens: I am not sure that I agree. The argument is that
(1) the appearance of the lines is such that they **appear** to be
double inked.
(2) The lines **are** double inked to produce a fake ancient document.
(3) Therefore the map is a fake.
Step (1) to (2) takes us from "appears" to "are". This may or may not
be a legitimate step. If it can be shown that the lines are not
actually double inked then the step is unjustified. **If it cannot be
shown that double inking is possible, the step from (1) to (2) remains
entirely speculative and no firm conclusion can be drawn from it.**
==================================================
"If it can not be shown that double inking is possible"??!! What does that
mean, other than you don't think it to be; (it needs to be proven possible
and hasn't been). But, let's say that you didn't mean what your words
clearly implied. Let's start from a clean slate, Eric. What could be
fairer than a second chance?
Do you, or do you not believe that the double-inking a document such as the
Vinland Map is possible?
If you do believe it to be possible, then precisely what are you going on
about? There *is* evidence that the Vinland Map was quite possibly double
inked in the form of out of register lines. Coupled with the fact that all
of the anatase is found in one layer of the "ink", while none of it is found
in the second (upper) layer of the "ink" or on the parchment, double inking
is consistent with such evidence. NOTA BENE: Double inking per se doesn't
necessarily mean that the Vinland Map is a fake.
If you don't believe double inking of a document such as the Vinland Map to
be possible, is that an "unqualified impossible", or is it a "qualified
impossible", i.e., "not possible to double-ink it so as to avoid detection"?
NOTA BENE: If your position is that it's "not possible to double-ink a
document such as the Vinland Map well enough to avoid detection", what are
you going on about? The double-inking has apparently been detected (out
of register lines).
So, if your position isn't really that it would be flat out impossible to
double-ink a document such as the Vinland Map, just what are you going on
about? You spend all of your time dancing around the evidence, claiming
that we don't really know what the ink is, don't have enough
evidence/information about this and that regarding the Vinland Map, etc.
Just what precisely is your point? Remember, a 15th century document could
be authentic and still be double inked.
As pointed out by David B., Gans, Towe, and others, **the totally of
information/evidence available today overwhelmingly points to the conclusion
that the Vinland Map is "fake."** That evidence includes the physical
evidence, but also includes palaeographical evidence and codicological
evidence. Plenty of reasonable people who are experts in these areas see no
reason to behave as though the Vinland Map is other than a fake. That's how
science works; there's almost never an end to evidence, but one goes with
what one has, and as probabilities get higher, one behaves so as to honor
the probabilities. One doesn't look for certainties, because one can almost
never find them. And, if new evidence upsets the applecart and tips the
probabilities in an opposite direction, then one tips one's hat to the folks
who have uncovered the evidence, changes one's behavior, and moves on.
>>
>>> The reason you have not cited anything from Google which shows me to
>>> have made that claim about the fBI is that I have never made that
>>> claim. I remeber somebody has, and quite recently too. I have asked
>>> about it but never made it.
>>
>>You are correct. You claimed an anonymous Secret Service agent as your
>>source.
>
> You won't find me saying that either.
You may be correct. You morphed Secret Service agent to CIA agent:
However, there's this post as well:
Care to explain what this means??:
=============================
Athy) wrote:
>Hello:
>-
>There seems to be considerable confusion in the attempts of those
>unqualified persons posting here to draw conclusions regarding the various
>tests that have been made in the past.
>-
>According to the very recent articles by Dr. James Guthrie, research
>chemist, those various tests have complemented one another, rather than
>conflicting with one another.
>-
>The tests of the Cahill group are by far the most extensive and are a
>continuation of such tests that they have made on hundred of various
>medieval documents. They found anatace crystals on the surface of the map
>(not in the ink) and concluded that it was from very small flakes of modern
>paint that had fallen onto the map. They found trace amounts of
>titanium in the carbon ink, as is typical of the documents of the time even
>though iron is not present. Cahill published in August 2002 that his group
>had checked the variations in register between the yellow and black
>portions of the lines throughout the 30 meters of length and found those
>variations to be too small for freehand double inking. He says
>that this conclusion was confirmed by a forgery expert from the Secret
>Service.
To which you replied:
"This last is important. I've always thought the idea of undetectably hand
tracing a double line to be far fetched (and I have spent many many hours on
a drawing board) and I am glad to hear of the confirmation."
Are you really saying that one can't double-ink a line without it being
detectable? If so, then see my comments above. There is no reason to
conclude that the Vinland Map wasn't, or at least could not have been,
double-inked, since it appears that there's evidence** that the black and
yellow lines are out of register.
Steve Marcus
Yeah, you just bought into it, hook, line and sinker:
Seppo Renfors
So out with it - what are you saying - that Cahill, Kusko & Co are
incompetent bunglers who don't know what they are doing? Perhaps you
are pointing to something SANE for a change - if so what is it? Of
course we can't see the context you refer to and it is highly probably
you have taken then out of context as is your want, to fabricate
something out of nothing.
It should be noted, we CAN see that using something that could be said
to be "rich in titanium" of some form, doesn't equate to "Ink being
rich in titanium" of any sort as you suggest. So it is the "fabricate
something out of nothing" that we see again.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Renfors) wrote:
> SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
Philosophers, authorised or not, make sense. You sir give village
idiots a bad name.
Ken Young
Philip Deitiker
news:F_-dnf0QK5_jCs_e...@pipex.net:
Officially, Tom has decided he is the village idiot MVI or VMI or
something. I warned him he wasn't qualified, but whoa, no, he
wouldn't listen to me.
Tom McDonald
Man, who would have thought it would be such a job of work trying
to claim to be Resident Village Idiot #1? You tell me I am not
adequate to the task, while you mung the designation itself. It's
properly shortened to "RVI #1" or "RVI1."
Then another would-be RVI designation-giver-outer entirely denies
my claim of priority, and tries to give RVI1 to *Seppo Renfors*!
Hell, Seppo is one of the guys I claimed the RVI #1 for in the first
place; it will shorten up a lot of the threads where someone calls
me an idiot. If I'm already certified (certifiable I am, Phil D to
the contrary notwithstanding!), I won't have to reply to being
called an idiot; it's already been done.
Can't we please just all get along?
Tom McDonald
RVI #1 (Provisional)
Philip Deitiker
news:FRy4f.12673$nE2....@fe03.lga:
> Then another would-be RVI designation-giver-outer entirely
> denies
> my claim of priority, and tries to give RVI1 to *Seppo Renfors*!
> Hell, Seppo is one of the guys I claimed the RVI #1 for in the
> first place; it will shorten up a lot of the threads where
> someone calls me an idiot. If I'm already certified (certifiable
> I am, Phil D to the contrary notwithstanding!), I won't have to
> reply to being called an idiot; it's already been done.
You just can't be an idiot of Prime account overnight. It takes years
and years of buggering a newsgroup. Even if you pretend to act insane
you still have to do it for 5 or 6 years. And look, its clear in the
above you forgot to use your ALLCAPS and !!!!!!, the schoolmaster is
definitely going to dock you for that.
Tom McDonald
I want a second opinion.
Seppo Renfors
Talk about an expert at content/logic/knowledge free posts - that is
one certain Ken Young........ it must have something to do with that
name..... "ken" means a persons range of knowledge or sight or "to
understand" (Scottish - North English use). Here we see a demo of how
much has been "kenned" by one Ken... so "ken" as a name does that
refer to some who does NOT "ken"? Perhaps it is implied by the lack of
defining how much they "ken" -ie nothing?