Re: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates

From: IE Johansson (inger_x_e.johansson_at_telia.com)
Date: 11/29/04 

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:23:25 GMT

"Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:41AB1F4E.121BF7B1@not.com.au...
>
>
> IE Johansson wrote:
> >
> > "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:41A9CB27.504C1627@not.com.au...
> > >
> > >
> > > IE Johansson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
> > > > news:41A98231.33E9AAF2@not.com.au...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > IE Johansson wrote:
> > >
> > > [..]
> > > >
> > > > > > We also know that there were a ship in the inner parts of Hudson
Bay
> > in
> > > > > > 1470's. One of the noblemen onboard is said to have written a
diary.
> > I
> > > > > > tracked it's where-abouts but haven't had time to contact the
> > private
> > > > > > owner(a descendant to the Dutchman who became a Swedish
Nobleman).
> > > > >
> > > > > None of that matters as it isn't proof of any rune stone at all.
It
> > > > > would take a written confession or like and that doesn't exist.
> > > >
> > > > But there are enough hard facts for him being a possible carver
> > >
> > > ....and that is a "what if". The "what if XXX had carved the
> > > stone?"..... The person who carved the stone is unknown - and it need
> > > not BE known for the stone to be authentic. That is another issue
> > > again.
> >
> > There are three types of 'what if':
>
> Well there are probably more if one wants to start categorising
> them.... I'm happy to lump them all into one.

That's what I once believed possible and that was long ago.... :-)
>
> > a) what if this or that happened, which didn't happen in real life,
could
> > that have changed history. We are not dealing with this here.
>
> Correct - a total waste of time in any event.
> >
> > b) you have a known existing phenomena(in the case we discuss KRS) which
> > have been found, and you speak in general 'what if' terms around when
and
> > how it was made. We are not dealing with that here - the naysayers are.
They
> > use the assumption that 'since the Larsson papers'[still hold high among
> > most linguists here] exist the same runealphabeth 'must' have been known
in
> > the Kensington area. Their following discussion goes like- "If" the
> > runealphabet was known in 1890's in Kensington area then they conclude
it to
> > be a fake.
> > This type of 'what if' always starts from general assumptions never
proven
> > to have existed as a possible and plausible factor and it never take any
> > kind of hard evidence against their 'deduction' into consideration.
>
> ...and more often rejects/ignores known evidence that contradicts
> their "what if" claims and makes them impossible.

Agreed

> >
> > c) There is a known timetable for a special event not to have occured.
This
> > could be the time of a murder and in that case it would have been known
that
> > it couldn't have taken place after this or that relating to the
evidence. In
> > KRS case we have a timetable where we know that the stone wasn't carved
> > after 1700 AD. The what if in this case is an other type of what if
since
> > the timetable it could have been carved include all years between 1362
and
> > 1700 AD. Further more you need to have a person on situ who could have
> > carved it with the knowledge he had in that time span - 1362 and 1700
AD.
> > The what if for 1520's has that as do the 'what if' for 1362. Neither of
> > them can be ruled out from present knowledge.
>
> This is where you run into trouble. There is nothing at all to suggest
> the date (very strong evidence) on the stone should be rejected -
> nothing.

Could have been true, can be true, but I am not convinced since the person I
had in mind most certainly would have carved either 1361 or 1362 due to his
specific knowledge of the Knutson voyage. I am talking of a reputed forger
born in 1480's.

>The date 1362 exists - no date for 1520's exists. You can't have much
stronger evidence than the date itself being carved on the stone!

Could have been true but don't necessarily have to be true. That's where you
and I disagree completely. We agree that it's proven that KRS was carved
before 1700 AD and that the date on the stone is 1362 AD. The later can't be
used as a proof but the former can.

The 1362 carving can't be used as a proof for that it was carved that
specific year. It can be assumed but not used as a proof. Only as an
indication of what might be true. It's the same thing as in every other case
where an unproven assumption is what you have the only definite conclusion
one can arrive at from a philosophic argumentation analyse is: KRS was
carved before 1700 AD.

>To claim a different date, you have to REJECT existing evidence
> - (see my response to 2 above, same thing). There is NO evidence at
> all for the 1362 stone to be a forgery from the 1520's - none
> whatever. Some person on a ship, that isn't even know to ever have
> made it to North America, is certainly no proof for a 1520's forgery.

Sorry if you missed that - the person did arrive. He sent a mail/message
home which caused his relatives's descendant to go there looking for the NA
relatives in late 1600's. I must have been unclear on that point.

<snip the rest>

Inger E

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
    ... using runic full-stops as a preecedent for KRS ... Unless, of course, you believe that some evidence conclusively supports ... exclaiming that there is conclusive evidence to support the authenticity ... The AVM stone presents the rare exception (the hoaxers admitted the hoax, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
    ... using runic full-stops as a preecedent for KRS ... Unless, of course, you believe that some evidence conclusively supports ... exclaiming that there is conclusive evidence to support the authenticity ... The AVM stone presents the rare exception (the hoaxers admitted the hoax, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
    ... using runic full-stops as a preecedent for KRS ... Unless, of course, you believe that some evidence conclusively supports ... exclaiming that there is conclusive evidence to support the authenticity ... The AVM stone presents the rare exception (the hoaxers admitted the hoax, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
    ... I cherry-pick what I read (on the grounds that the ... using runic full-stops as a preecedent for KRS ... Unless, of course, you believe that some evidence conclusively supports ... The AVM stone presents the rare exception (the hoaxers admitted the hoax, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates
    ... > ...and more often rejects/ignores known evidence that contradicts ... >> KRS case we have a timetable where we know that the stone wasn't carved ... I am talking of a reputed forger ...
    (sci.archaeology)