Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- From: nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:34:52 GMT
Apparently on date Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:49:24 -0400, Horace LaBadie
<hwlabadiejr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>In article <rcmuf1hg73j6tva59todtur4t47ok0r9f2@xxxxxxx>,
> nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Well it's mentioned in here - "Le Nord: paysage imaginaire"
>> http://www.collectionscanada.ca/nord/h16-4223-f.html
>
>How does this put Norsemen in Minnesota, which is nowhere near Ellesmere
>Island? Your claim: "pretty convincing archaeological evidence exists
>for the Norse to have gotten as far west as Minnesota." There is no
>evidence to support that claim, only evidence that the Norse could
>travel long distances in other directions.
Ellesmere island is as far west as Minnesota, as per my original statement, up
to 92 W as compared to 89 W onwards.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- From: Doug Weller
- Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- From: Horace LaBadie
- Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- From: Erik Hammerstad
- Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- References:
- Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- From: Horace LaBadie
- Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- Prev by Date: Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- Next by Date: Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- Previous by thread: Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- Next by thread: Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading