Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press

Eric Stevens wrote: 
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:45:37 -0500, Tom McDonald
<tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:37:51 -0500, Tom McDonald
<tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:


On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:40:48 -0500, Tom McDonald
<tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<snip>

It isn't, in any case, very important whether it is genuine or a joke.


That's one area where you and I differ. *IF* the norse had a
significant presence in NA for even a relatively short time, it is
disingenuous that they had no significant effect.

Show me the effect, with hard evidence. 


I put up a logical proposition. I didn't say that the Norse were
present but, if they were present, they must have had an effect and
that effect is part of the history and archaeology we study now.

Evidence of same is required before anyone has to care.


Emoting now? 

	Some. You?


The archaeology of the areas these Norse were supposed to have been in and/or through shows no variation that might be ascribed to them. There are purported OOP artifacts; but they have proven very thin on the ground in proper archaeological survey and excavation reports. Can they *all* have been discovered in situations where the context is suspect to non-existent? 


It is possible. I'm not saying that that is the case. But, you say
'they have proved very thin on the ground' which suggests you accept
that they do exist.

No, I don't. AFAIK, evidence with adequate context and professional investigation that supports Inger's fantasies are thin enough on the ground to the point of non-existence. 


If you are prepared to concede that under particular circumstances, no
matter how teensy weensy, there could be evidence for something then
you cannot say there is NO evidence for that particular something.

In osme respects, this is a futile discussion. I am prepared to
concede that the evidence for OOP norse in NA is 'very thin on the
ground' but that is not the same as conceding/claiming there is no
such evidence. As you say ...

I want to see some real, solid evidence that passes the 'shyness factor' test. That is required to shift the current working presumption that none has been shown to have been found.


I know of no such evidence. Doesn't mean it isn't there, or that it may not have been misinterpreted. 


I am trying to find out more about the artifacts Gloria Farley has
reported but right now, second-hand copies of her books seem to be
non-existant.


I have issues with Gloria Farley; much as Inger has with Wallace. That wouldn't stop me looking into it if it has adequate context and chain of custody.

<snip>
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... significant presence in NA for even a relatively short time, ... that effect is part of the history and archaeology we study now. ... evidence with proper context. ... If such evidence in such context is ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Ahmadinejad a Troofer?
    ... You want evidence that Bush lied to justify the invasion of Iraq? ... lies your problem. ... So are you claiming that Al Qaeda had a significant presence in Iraq before ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: Angelina Jolie has large lips
    ... the evidence will show that Obama ... has thin, blue, wormlike lips. ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
Quantcast