Re: What's So Important About KRS?


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fq8jc19cdqaj3ro8r3unld05ktajrn1p3n@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 10:25:36 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:34ghc15f1tfeekchml0egkf2r29kg1kq6u@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:26:44 -0500, Tom McDonald
>>> <tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:58:19 -0500, Tom McDonald
>>>>> <tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>maison.mousse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Soren Larsen a écrit dans le message
>>>>>>><42c70931$0$63694$edfadb0f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>george wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>snippage
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It is already known that the Scandinavians reached the Americas
>>>>>>>>>(once)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>At least 4 expeditions is known from the sagas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You may add the note about the Markland ship in the Icelandic
>>>>>>>>annals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>at L'Anse aux Meadows and settled for a few years
>>>>>>>>>(unsuccessfully)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>LAM was most likely a forward operations base not a
>>>>>>>>settlement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>just as they did in Greenland and Iceland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In what way unsuccesful in Greenland and Iceland?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>They stayed in Greenland as long as it was profitable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>To claim that the settlement in Iceland was unsuccesful
>>>>>>>>is simply grotesque.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Soren Larsen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Some years ago I took a trip aboard a ship from the U.S.A to Europe.
>>>>>>>The
>>>>>>>ship went up the east coast
>>>>>>>of the US before turning east just below Greenland. While in the
>>>>>>>shadow of
>>>>>>>Greenland the trip was
>>>>>>>very smooth. However, once past Greenland and in the open sea it
>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>somewhat of a wild ride until
>>>>>>>Ireland.
>>>>>>> The point of that little story is this. Many people seem to have
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>problem excepting the fact that the
>>>>>>>Scandinavians (Vikings) had colonies in Iceland (still there) and in
>>>>>>>Greenland until the
>>>>>>>cooling of the planet around 1500 but seem to get very upset at the
>>>>>>>idea
>>>>>>>that the "Danes et al" could have traveled around the North American
>>>>>>>continent. It is difficult to imagine the Scandinavians
>>>>>>>being able to navigate many hundreds of miles through open seas to
>>>>>>>Iceland
>>>>>>>and the Greenland
>>>>>>>but it is not hard to imagine them "day sailing" in protected waters
>>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>Greenland to the North American
>>>>>>>continent. If what is thought to be known about the Vikings boats is
>>>>>>>true
>>>>>>>then they could have
>>>>>>>had no problem sailing from the west tip of Greenland to North
>>>>>>>America
>>>>>>>in 24
>>>>>>>hours. When one
>>>>>>>compares this type of trip to the one from Iceland to Greenland it
>>>>>>>would
>>>>>>>seem likely that the Vikings
>>>>>>>would have done the "Greenland to N.America run" as recreation if
>>>>>>>nothing
>>>>>>>else.
>>>>>>> My question then is this! What is the reason many people have in
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>accepting as very likely the presents of the Scandinavians
>>>>>>> in many parts of North America long before C. Columbus?
>>>>>>>JL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not know, or know of, anyone who "get very upset at the
>>>>>>idea that the "Danes et al" could have traveled around the North
>>>>>>American continent." I certainly don't think that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you not yet encountered Philip Deitiker? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, of course you have.
>>>>
>>>> Even he does not deny their *capacity* to do the thing. Too many
>>>>yea-sayers conflate 'deny such Norse presence is proven' with
>>>>'deny such Norse could have made the journey.'
>>>
>>> You are quite correct.
>>>>
>>>> Can you say 'straw man'?
>>>>
>>>> I knew you could.
>>>
>>> It wasn't really a straw man. I was n't saying that he couldn't accept
>>> their capacity to ... etc. I was merely making the point that he
>>> *does* indeed "get very upset at the idea that the "Danes et al" could
>>> have traveled around the North American continent.".
>>
>>Standard non sequiter. How do you write that you weren't saying Deitiker
>>couldn't accept someone's capacity to have done something, and in the next
>>sentence write that Deitiker gets very upset at the idea?? I believe that
>>Deitiker gets upset at the illogic of some proposals how things could have
>>been done, not that they might have been done.
>
> Read what I wrote in the beginning. Then read what Tom wrote when he
> responded. Then read what I responded to Tom. Finally, read what you
> wrote and you will see that you are off the beam.

Upon re-reading as recommended, I disagree with your conclusion.

>>
>>>
>>> Never mind. Philip is always getting in little digs at me (because I
>>> don't get upset at the idea .. and want to consider the evidence) and
>>> I could resist the opportunity you gave me.
>>
>>Are you being overly pompous here, or overly pious? Let's take a poll.
>>
>>It isn't that anyone here begrudges you the desire to "consider the
>>evidence." It's that your consideration always reflects an enormous bias
>>in
>>a given direction. No matter how silly or illogical a position you take
>>(and you've taken some silly/illogical ones, such as the KRS being a
>>message
>>to the missing Greenland colonists that that the KRS party was searching
>>for), you'll always take the position that unless someone proves the
>>position untenable to a 100% certainty, then it's still "possible." On
>>the
>>other hand, no matter how sparse a piece of evidence that seems to tilt a
>>discussion in the direction of your bias, you'll jump on it with both
>>feet,
>>without waiting for confirmation of its validity. Witness your post re
>>the
>>so-called AVM runestone. Contrast that with your position on the Larsson
>>runes; all anyone ever said was that they show that the KRS could have
>>been
>>carved circa 19th century, notwithstanding the unfamiliarity with some of
>>its runes allegedly displayed by late 19th/early 20th century "experts" on
>>runes. You were unwilling to concede that the Larsson runes put paid to
>>that argument (which is really all that they definitively prove), dredging
>>up all kinds of squink re Masons and runes, and remain today unwilling to
>>concede that if nothing else, the Larsson runes show that the KRS might
>>have
>>been carved in the 19th century. You post scathing criticisms of certain
>>people whom you allege have taken biased (and dishonest) positions re the
>>KRS, such as Hall. Yet you resist criticisms of Nielsen and Wolter; the
>>latter certainly appears to be headed off the deep end because a
>>relatively
>>simple proposition advanced by him (test the age of the inscription, show
>>that it could not have been carved circa 19th century has now devolved
>>into
>>a discussion of the Templars).

What? No comment? No witty reply? Could it be that you have no rejoinder?

>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What people I know and know of want is valid evidence of such an
>>>>>>expedition, or expeditions. So far, the evidence is just not
>>>>>>there. I am aware of much, possibly most, of the claimed evidence
>>>>>>for pre-Columbian Scandinavian presence in the middle of North
>>>>>>America. There is a lot of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that none of it has come from normal,
>>>>>>well-conducted and well-analylized archaeological contexts. Nada.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the problem is that most of the stuff which hints at possible
>>>>> norse presence is based on random finds with many of them being of
>>>>> doubtful reliability - aka 'fakes'.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I think based on what I know now.
>>>
>>> No argument there.
>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the problem is that
>>>>> potentially valid evidence is variously, denied, denigrated or
>>>>> demolished by earthmoving machinery.
>>>>
>>>> Most of what is 'denied' by scientists is the validity of the
>>>>known fakes. I suppose some bits that may be valid evidence of
>>>>the Norse thingie (N.T. from now on) are denied by many due to
>>>>the way yea-sayers have presented them. Archies are human.
>>>>Calling them names, belittling their science, accusing them of
>>>>racism; I can understand throwing the notional baby out with the
>>>>grimy bathwater.
>>>
>>> It works both ways. Its only human to call people names if they refuse
>>> to properly look at the evidence before calling it fake. This is 90%
>>> of the trouble with the KRS.
>>
>>Yet you allegedly remain firmly on the fence regarding authenticity. That
>>fact must meas that there is no *convincing* evidence tending to show that
>>it's authentic.
>
> **Bingo!**

LOL. No comment on the immediately following paragraph, which is all
important with respect to the paragraph that you agreed with?
>
>>Since the burden of proof of authenticity rests with those
>>who propose authenticity, it is hardly unreasonable for people to take the
>>position that the default position of fake remains the "best bet." Which
>>is
>>what most people who post on the topic and are skeptical of the
>>authenticity
>>of the KRS believe. Trying to paint a picture that all of (are even more
>>than a sparse handfull of) the skeptics "refuse to properly look at the
>>evidence (and who, pray tell, gets to define "properly"??) is a serious
>>exaggeration.

No comment, eh Eric?
>>
>>>>
>>>> What is denigrated is generally worthy of denigration.
>>>>
>>>> Anymore, stuff is less often than before demolished than before,
>>>>and more often brings in the archaeologists. Not often enough;
>>>>but bulldozers do have their place in discovery.
>>>>
>>>>> However, I suspect there is still
>>>>> significant quantity waiting to be properly identified.
>>>>
>>>> Would you put this personal opinion of yours in the category of,
>>>>say, the LAM investigations? Of course not.
>>>
>>> I would put it in the same position of the LAM investigations in, say,
>>> 1935.
>>>>
>>>> This is one of those 'where do you stand' questions, and is
>>>>interesting in a subjective way. However, it isn't more than
>>>>opinion.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> L'anse aux Meadows is accepted as Norse because the archaeology
>>>>>>supports it. (This being an *archaeology* newsgroup, I think it
>>>>>>fair that we give at least a nod towards archaeology as being of
>>>>>>some use in these discussions.) Archaeology does not support
>>>>>>other Norse presence. Yet. Some is very intriguing (e.g.: Lee's
>>>>>>work on Norse vs. Inuit occupation of a high arctic site).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, Lee was almost destroyed professionally before he died.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you misunderstand the situation. You seem to think that
>>>>>>the opposition is to the idea that Norse could have been running
>>>>>>around North America before Mr. C.; and that resistance is based
>>>>>>on thinking that they were not capable of doing so. You also seem
>>>>>>to be swayed by the claimed Norse material without decent
>>>>>>archaeological context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first is a misunderstanding of the facts; we know the Norse
>>>>>>were capable of doing what you seem to think they did. The second
>>>>>>is a misunderstanding of the science; we don't make scientific
>>>>>>judgments based on unverified data.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, in the absence of data, many people seem prepared to
>>>>> make very positive negative judgements when a 'show me the evidence'
>>>>> is the correct response.
>>>>
>>>> For ***'s sake; the minority opinion in science nearly always
>>>>results in casualties before it is accepted, if it is accepted,
>>>>*by being supported in later investigations*.
>>>
>>> Why are you getting upset? I'm not. I'm merely stating it as a
>>> regretable fact. I wasn't even making the point to which you
>>> responded. I'll use the subject of this thread as an example.
>>>
>>> I've already said many times that I don't believe the KRS is
>>> authentic. Some people think that means I must think it is a fake.
>>> Well, I don't think that either. What it means is that I have put it
>>> on the back burner and I will allow it to simmer along gently on its
>>> own unless some new information comes along to throw into the pot. Too
>>> many people seem unable to do this and, to them, if I'm not for it,
>>> I'm agin it, or more often the other way around. I've got many things
>>> bubbling away on the back of the metaphorical stove and I get more fun
>>> finding more ingredients to throw into the pot than I do from the
>>> (half) baking competition which some of the more vociferous
>>> subscribers to s.a seem to think is the purpose of it all.
>>
>>The current importance of the KRS is simply this:
>>
>>It demonstrates how some are willing to totally distort (and in some
>>instances fabricate) evidence to advance their position.
>
> There has been plenty of that, starting in the 19th century.

Indeed. On both sides of the issue.
>>
>>It demonstrates how people are willing to disregard logic in general, and
>>logical principles such as Occam's Razor in particular, when they cut
>>against a preconceived desired result.

No comment once again, eh Eric?

>>
>>The KRS may well turn out to be important; if it's ever shown to be
>>authentic, it will definitely cause some rethinking of the history of
>>Norse
>>exploration and it may turn out to require some rethinking vis-a-vis the
>>Native Americans. If it is ever definitively shown to be a fake, it will
>>be
>>as important as the Piltdown Man in the sense of teaching yet another
>>object
>>lesson regarding the necessity for objectivity in scientific
>>investigation,
>>as well as yet another lesson in how to approach the question of burden of
>>proof in a scientific investigation.

>>
>>
>>>>ck of a mechanism; when
>>>>one was discovered and supported, P.T. was accepted with
>>>>reasonable alacrity. This example can be multiplied many times.
>>>
>>> The interesting thing about Wegener was that his theory of continental
>>> drift was accepted by paleontolgists some 30 years before geologists
>>> came up with plate tectonics to explain it. When it first appeared, it
>>> solved problems for the paleontologists while making life difficult
>>> for the geologists.
>>>>
>>>> What comes to mind is the Sagan brilliance: "They laughed at
>>>>Galileo; they laughed at Einstein; but they also laughed at Bozo
>>>>the Clown."
>>>
>>> Which seems to say that the laughter of the masses is not the
>>> criterion to use when judging concepts (unless you are a deliberate
>>> clown, of course).
>>>
>>> ------ snip -----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric Stevens
>>>
>>
>>Steve

> Eric Stevens
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


.

Quantcast