originally posted by: badw0lf
a reply to: JoshuaCox
You didn't even watch the video. The book had a limited number of words used in the rune stone, was not complete compared to the runes carved in the
stone, and the main sceptic was considered a joke by the end as he clutched at straws to deny things.
I know you didn't as your post time is less than half an hour after the OP, for an hour long video. Perhaps you've seen it before. But tell me, how
does the evidence by modern investigations concluding the stones age and the carvings to go with it, hold up to being fake?
Any WHY would it be so hard to conclude that Vikings, who did traverse the seas in very capable ships, with very capable navigational skills, be out
of the question? Considering there is other evidence that they did indeed make it to North America long before Columbus?
It isn't. And if it was a hoax, scam, by the one farmer, well it did him soooo very well, yeah?
I give more credit to those who took it upon themselves to seek out new ideas, who perhaps may have encountered new lands and cultures, who were at
the will of those lands and cultures, than some derelict professionals who would maintain the status quo of written history - when that history is
deemed the be all and end all for the sake of their own continued professionalism. That to me, is the antipathy of the scientific method.
I've watched 5 (guessing) documentaries on the Kensington runstone..
And didn't need to watch it to understand what point you were going for nor to point out that this is a bad example because the system worked here..
To prove your point you would have to prove something beyond a doubt, and the mainstream still deny it..
Not point to a questionable find they later authenticated as proof of shinanigans. That kinda disproves your point off the bat.
The mainstream followed the evidence and has accepted the runstone.. so your point about "the ms denying evidence" doesn't work, when they have
accepted said evidence..
If they refused to believe anything new, then they would not have accepted this, would they??
Also assuming that the one group of Vikings we know made it here , also hiked 1500 miles inland is an extraordinary claim..
Columbus didn't hike to Kansas after making landfall.. it was long after the initial colonization before Lewis and Clark made the trip, and they had
WAY more inferstucture.
Also assuming the stone is legit, the Indians could have walked it inland.
You want the mainstream to be skeptical and require proof... literally the definition of science is "we really tried hard and can't disprove our
theory.." because that is the whole point..
The scientific theory is not to help you find out what you want to know.. it is to make sure your not fooling yourself..
There is no vast conspiracy in the scientific community.. they are not paying off every math and science student who graduates to push some agenda..
the logistics of that are just ridiculous...
Any person who can provide proof that overturns a long held scientific belief gets fame and fortune..
Faith in things is for the religions.
Any person who provides proof of a religion being fake, is excommunicated..
We want our scientists and historians to be skeptics..
If not young earth creationism and anchient aliens would be taught in every school.
edit on 10-6-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)