It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Kensington Rune Stone, with regards to how historians work.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   
This is an interesting update on this Rune stone, and what happens when a potentially genuine artifact is discovered, when it shouldn't under the excepted paradigm. I think they might have been from the failed Greenland colony looking for fresh safe land.





posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Isn't that the way you want science to work??

Don't you want remarkable claims, to require remarkable evidence.



If I'm right the rune stones are presently fairly accepted, so didn't the system work??

If the runstones themselves are still questioned, the fact the Vikings made it to America is widely accepted..

Also if we are assuming the rune stones are legit, and I don't doubt they could be..

The circumstances of them were very questionable..

Farmer finds the stone, supposedly under a 100 year old tree, it becomes a big hit media wise nationally.. scientists come to investigate..and what do they find on the book shelf of this back woods dirt farmers book case??


A book translating Viking runes...


Now he could have bought the book after finding it as part of his own research.. but to an investigator that is red flag city..

All of that is from memory, but I watched a documentary from a guy who believed it was real, but even he conceded it would look fishy.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Only recently its been accepted as real, because the forensics and the science has taken over from the so called experts that would have clung to the original paradigm in face of the evidence.
The book on the Runes he had, only had six of the twenty or so words written on the stone.
edit on 9-6-2017 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:39 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Fair enough, but isn't that the system working as it should...

Or should the mainstream just buy any bs they hear...

Also the point was not that the book proves it's a forgery.. but that the book is more than enough reason for doubt .. espeacilly before any real investigation had been done..

If there is a murder and then you catch a guy running around the corner gun in hand, your not crazy for assuming that is your killer.. it might not be, but it's understandable why we might think it was.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 06:55 AM
link   

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)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Ok, a migrant with limited knowledge, found a stone in a tree root, decided to get filthy rich, carved accurate runes into it that match all other weathering of the stone (maybe he was a wizard), yet never got rich, died poor and ridiculed, all the while the plethora of viking history lends itself to the story.

As long as some pompous European says "Umm nah" we'll stick to that..

Yeah, lets stick to the story men who have no hard evidence, have to say.

Why is it, by the way, such an impossibility? it was even mentioned that yes, Indian tribes may have moved the stone. Considering the runes state that 10 people were murdered at the time, I see no issue with that.

Is America, as it was in the 1300's so precious that it could never have been visited by people who took it upon themselves to sail the seas?



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
PS yes we need sceptics. But not deniers. a big difference. and there is little consideration towards wanting to know, with this, and wanting to honestly know.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


The whole point of the Viking Ship was that it could cross Oceans and then go up rivers, and be dragged across land to another water source as required. Where the stone was found, was roughly at the headwaters of getting just about everywhere in the USA by water. Actually the rivers were the highways not barriers.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Still a logistical nightmare in a fairly populated likely totally hostile land.

Not against the laws of physics or nothing, but very unlikely the one guy who ever made the trip would go that far...



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join