Re: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates

From: IE Johansson (inger_x_e.johansson_at_telia.com)
Date: 11/28/04 

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:35:10 GMT

"Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:41A98231.33E9AAF2@not.com.au...
>
>
> IE Johansson wrote:
> >
> > "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:41A7CA98.4D2FB6C3@not.com.au...
> > >
> > >
> > > IE Johansson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Seppo,
> > > > "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
> > > > news:41A6D738.A6D2E1EF@not.com.au...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I E Johansson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
> > > > > > news:41A6B797.305CB71E@not.com.au...
> > >
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > > > As I suggested, there are a whole raft of artefacts, and evidence
that
> > > > > points to pre-Columbian contact - the view I tried to show is
> > > > > non-specific of any particular item, artefact etc. It is the
whole -
> > > > > all of them together that makes the claim "no pre-Columbian
contact -
> > > > > barring LAM" implausible. There is just too much of it for it ALL
to
> > > > > be fake - just too much, even if SOME are found to be fakes (and
> > > > > probably are).
> > > >
> > > > But definitely not the majority. Had they been brought over by later
> > > > settlers, as some try to make belive, there wouldn't have been
enough
> > room
> > > > for the people who emigrated nor for their food in the ships sailing
> > with
> > > > migrants over the Atlantic .... :-)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think there are much better bits of evidence than the axe cut to
> > > > > rely on - The KRS is such, it cannot be refuted - sanely that is.
> > > > > There is no point in going over the same ground, round and round
in
> > > > > circles with the same naysayers who have no genuine interest in
> > > > > anything much at all.
> > > >
> > > > Had it only been one axe cut and not other artifacts and more ax
cuts
> > > > turning up, I might have agreed. As for KRS I will not say that it's
> > > > definitely from 1362 since I have good documented named person who
> > sailed on
> > > > a ship from Copenhagen via Marstrand in 1521 among the group of
seven
> > named
> > > > persons and a lot of unknown to retake lost land.
> > >
> > > Inger THAT scenario is relying on exactly the same kind of "what if"
> > > claims the nay-sayers use to claim it is a fake - we have gone through
> > > this scenario and it simply is not plausible for numerous reasons
> > > already mentioned in the past.
> >
> > No it isn't. He travelled there - to the mid of NA. At least it was to
that
> > area his relative tried to go in late 17th century 'since the relatives'
in
> > NA hadn't been heard of for 150 years. Thus we know he aimed for that
area
> > and that there were other relatives then him living there at the time he
> > travelled. What we don't know from his relative's diary notes is if the
> > later made it there in late 17th century. The ones written before
departure
> > are here, and we know he travelled from Scandinavia, but we don't know
if
> > the later arrived and such.
> >
> > 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 - location
reason for being there when and for him one single known person to have
carve the runes. That's the difference compared with the naysayer - we know
that it was carved before 1700 - they never been able to present one single
hard proof that it would have been possible for anyone in 19th century to
carve the stone in a way which not even the best analysemethods of today
could 'see' that their 'assumption' could be correct. - The naysayers also
haven't been able to name a person who could possibly have been there and
carved the stone before 1898. O they have tried - but failed over and over.
Their 'best' suggestion didn't make it to Kensington area because he
actually was doing time elsewhere..... deserter....

Inger E
>
> > > There are only TWO options - the KRS is genuine for the year on it
> > > 1362 - else it is fake. Now, the nay-sayers & Co have been UNABLE to
> > > prove it to be a fake - then it is genuine fo the year carved on the
> > > stone. Williams is in agreement with this too.
> >
> > Not entirely. Williams once has argued that the runes looks more like
1500's
> > than 1360's. You can read about it in 'Historiska Forum' at Historiska
> > Museet's site.
>
> I rely on his statement that in his view if it isn't an 19th century
> forger then it is a genuine article of the date indicated. Well, it
> isn't a 19th century forgery!!
>
> [..]
>
> --
> SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
> misled.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

Relevant Pages

  • Re: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates
    ... > None of that matters as it isn't proof of any rune stone at all. ... That's the difference compared with the naysayer - we know ... Williams once has argued that the runes looks more like ... > forger then it is a genuine article of the date indicated. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: U of South Carolina Releases Topper Radiocarbon Dates
    ... > None of that matters as it isn't proof of any rune stone at all. ... That's the difference compared with the naysayer - we know ... Williams once has argued that the runes looks more like ... > forger then it is a genuine article of the date indicated. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... >>>message is identical to the message plainly inscribed on the stone, ... >>>presumably available to anyone who could read the runes. ... it is amazing that someone could allege that the dots on the KRS ... >No. I'm arguing from the fact that the KRS was inspected by Holand ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... >>> the Easter Table). ... >>message is identical to the message plainly inscribed on the stone, ... >>presumably available to anyone who could read the runes. ... it is amazing that someone could allege that the dots on the KRS ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Spirit Pond, Maine
    ... >> runes which were curved and rounded. ... It is also a memorial stone, ... >> Indeed I find the dissimilarities between the KRS and runestones can ...
    (sci.archaeology)