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.

 

1362-The Kensington Runestone

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by clandestiny
 


great.....you sound interesting. Hope to read and be part of your future threads.....good luck!




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufoptics
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


been one of the folks that were afraid to sail too far out to sea, fearing falling of the edge of the earth. It sometime takes common sense to figure out where science won't let you go.....


Nope it was people (Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth and determined it was round during the classical period) using the scientific method. While the believers thought it flat and full of monsters, demons and the odd mad god.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
This may all be mote point if they ever find a good Clovis Culture burial site.

There are a growing number of archaeologist that believe that the Clovis people came from what is now france.
The clovis points that are found at sites all over the new world match the type of points made by the Solutrean people who lived in southern Europe.

They do not match points made by cultures that were in eastern asia and came down through Alaska.

They have found Clovis sites in south america 13,000 years before present at a minimum.
Meadowcroft Rockshelter in southwestern Pennsylvania, excavated 1973-78, with evidence of occupancy dating back from 16,000 to 19,000 years ago.[29]

These people were moving across the Americas fast
They have found sites that are 13,000 to 19,000 years old, way before the vikings.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


What does that have to due with kensington?


That belongs here
in slayers killer thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please lets try to maintain a connection with the orginal post



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
To hans, byrd, harte, JC, and others you guys and gals do a really good job keeping the discussion within the realm of possibility and I have thouroughly enjoyed the discussions in this section of the site, it is my favorite.
And I am taking my life in a new direction right now, due to personal and economic challenges I have recently shut down my business.
Now that I wont be on call 24/7/365, Im going to have time to pursue other things, like finishing my education, I quit my mech eng degree to start my company.
During my lower div classes I had a couple of history professors that urged me to change my major to something along those lines.
i am seriously considering changing my major know.
So maybe with a little luck and hard work you'all will be reading a paper of mine in a peer reviewed journal in the future.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
For all my expertise I will say that the stone is 'authentic' but not 'Norse', it is very clearly a form of Christian runics and not Norse, the AVM the obvious, not to mention the AD dating year.

Those who said it is templar or something may be right, it is not a Viking stone but a Christian one, who followed the old viking routes through Americas.

The same goes for the Vinland map it is not Norse, it is Christian, but based on the legendary Norse version... just look it is not runic even.

Leiv The Lucky Eiriksson knew there was land west because of oral tradition not because he had been, and after his exile decided to find out for himself and they found what had been told through tale to be true!!



Originally posted by Razimus
the icelandic language is supposedly the most pure viking language alive today.

True, Iceland was the last christianised, thus the culture remained, they even still use the TH rune in modern alphabet.


Originally posted by Hanslune
A study of the native Americans reaction to large groups of armed men traveling thru their territory is one of hostility~as the stone belatedly relates.

This does not mean they did not make it. They traded much with the locals and only certain groups are known as skraelings! Plus they have the advantage of iron weaponry and armour vs native stone.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 


no its christian norse,
its not pagan viking.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   
What the two guys said above ^^

Interesting stone never the less, but it's not a traditional Viking stone!



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks
 

Thats exactly what I just said...
Christian Norse is an oxymoron though Norse is a culture including religion (Odinism), conflicts with Christianity... the stone is not Norse... it is Christian. Made by Norwegians, Nordmenn, but not Norse.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks
To hans, byrd, harte, JC, and others you guys and gals do a really good job keeping the discussion within the realm of possibility and I have thouroughly enjoyed the discussions in this section of the site, it is my favorite...
So maybe with a little luck and hard work you'all will be reading a paper of mine in a peer reviewed journal in the future.


Discussions with you have also been enjoyable, and I wish you the best back at school. Do yourself a favour...take an archaeology field school. It might change your life...it will certainly enrich it!

Stay Cool, JC



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Howdy Punkinworks



During my lower div classes I had a couple of history professors that urged me to change my major to something along those lines.
i am seriously considering changing my major know.
So maybe with a little luck and hard work you'all will be reading a paper of mine in a peer reviewed journal in the future.


Excellent, I'd recommend an archaeology degree with a specialization in urban recovery (for checking sites before they are built over) not as exciting as history but more valuable for getting a job.

General comment on how to change the consensus on the Newport tower

1. Assemble a group of working scientists who've work with AMS or New England Archaeology. Have them support publication of a paper showing the alleged deficiencies of the previous dating procedure - or at least get a letter signed by all of them into - a peer-reviewed publication.

Next

2. Arrange a conference on the Newport Tower and invite all the consensus makers (the key people in Archaeology within New England will know who these people are) and debate the issue, probably on site.

This is one way to do it. However I don't think you'll get to stage 1. In 18 years no one has been able to get any scientist to put their reputation on the line to say the dating is suspect. I don't suspect they will in the future either.

Nor do I believe you'll get any believer group to pay for another dating procedure as the Viking group did.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Scientists who are prevented from thinking or speaking their minds without jeopardizing their futures is a serious problem. Scientists should not let politics undermine their quest for answers. Ah, but then there is funding for research to consider. And very often the people that supply that money like things the way they are.

Change has a nasty little side effect of shifting resources around, which often follows new information being discovered. Change often benefits society as a whole, and of course someone will get rich and powerful from it, but it likely won't be the people who are getting rich and powerful from the way things are now.

The trick is to sell who is in now control on the idea that they can come out more in control if new evidence arises that causes a shift in the flow of resources. But then that’s always hard to do because it requires those with wealth and power to become proactive when the whole point of having wealth and power is to not have to really care about much except living beyond your wildest dreams.

I gotta get going guys. I am a little perplexed by all the new posters since I said goodbye. It makes me think there were a lot of people sitting on the fence watching our little debate not saying anything. I wonder if they afraid to put their status in this thread on the line by saying they wanted to hear more about what I was talking about. That kind of says a lot about those who did not and were outspoken about it.

Look for my post perhaps later today. I can tell you one thing - When my story gets out, I will have no problem whatsoever in getting credible testing done on the tower, in fact there will be a mad rush to have it done.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   


BTW the viking explorers left a trail of evidence of their presence in America, several rune stones in the vicinity of Newport Tower support theories the tower may be of their origin.


Excellent! Could you provide the scientifically validated information for us?


Cunuck you seem to have a short memory. After talking up L'Anse aux Meadows in the earlier part of this topic your now playing dense on the proof of their (Viking) presence in the Americas.

en.wikipedia.org...'Anse_aux_Meadows

Interesting, a Norse settlement in N. America with no sign of fortification, circa 1000 AD. Following Hansluns logic, this site must not be credited to the Norse because no fortification means no way to keep out hostile indians. That was Hans logic to "prove" the Newport tower couldn't be pre-colonial becasue there's no fortification wall around it - and therefore must have been built in the "safer" colonial times.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by frankensence


BTW the viking explorers left a trail of evidence of their presence in America, several rune stones in the vicinity of Newport Tower support theories the tower may be of their origin.


Excellent! Could you provide the scientifically validated information for us?


Cunuck you seem to have a short memory. After talking up L'Anse aux Meadows in the earlier part of this topic your now playing dense on the proof of their (Viking) presence in the Americas.


My memory is pretty good thanks...I was in L'ans aux Meadows two months ago. I was asking for evidence connecting the runestones to a pre-Columbian Norse presence. I can see where my response may have caused a little confusion. I don't doubt the possibilities inherent in the runestones...I just object to them being considered a done deal.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


it will take me a while to get to that point , but i plan on taking a field school, in fact i met some students from a university, i forget which one, on a field study two summers ago, in the middle of nowhere, they were lost and looking for the site, a mono indian site on the upper san joaquin river.
I tried to give them directions to a secret place i know of, where artifacts can still be found lying on the ground.

Infact the place was on an episode of survior guy, although he had no idea that he was in a former indian camp area.


[edit on 7-10-2009 by punkinworks]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   


en.wikipedia.org...'Anse_aux_Meadows


Hans: Your link doesn’t work




Interesting, a Norse settlement in N. America with no sign of fortification, circa 1000 AD.


Hans: Which I noted when I brought it up, did you miss that?




Following Hansluns logic,


Hans: Not my logic your just making stuff up




this site must not be credited to the Norse because no fortification means no way to keep out hostile indians.


Hans: At that time there were no native Americans in that area – or the Norse would have put up a wall. Unlike the tower there is a plethora* of artefacts and buildings – all in Norse style to show who built it plus carbon 14 testing. Oh care to take a look at those dates and look at the range of dates?




That was Hans logic to "prove"


Hans: Hmmmm you don’t seem to understand the use of the term; proof, observation, evidence or even logic. I made an observation about the lack of wall, ie if there are no small stone points in a culture once can point to this as possibility of no bows and arrows. A lack of fortification meant it wasn't built when the NA were a threat




- and therefore must have been built in the "safer" colonial times.


Hans: Exactly right. So other than misinterpreting what others have said do you have any real evidence?

*There is lots of evidence associated with the tower but its all 17th century

[edit on 7/10/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by frankensence
 


I think what Hans meant, is that it is a tower in the middle of nowhere, not a homestead, if it is a Norse watchtower, which I am certain it is not, it most likely would have had an outer wall, would be my guess.

At any rate it does not look Norse to me, as someone else noted it could very well be a templar building and the strange runes and style support that... I guarantee you it is Christian though.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by punkinworks
Do yourself a favour...take an archaeology field school. It might change your life...it will certainly enrich it!



It might enrich your life, but it won't enrich your bank account!

PW, good luck with whatever you choose. My degree is in mech engineering, btw.

Hey, I'm not rich either!

Hey, I'm not even an engineer anymore!
LOL

Harte

[edit on 10/7/2009 by Harte]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


hi harte

ive basically been an eng for the last 10 years without a degree

i have designed and mfg'd parts for several major nationwide food proccessors.
almost every tomato product in this country has gone through a piece of my machinery, and several large wineries and cheese makers and industrial bakers.

After 20yrs in the business im ready for a change



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks
reply to post by Harte
 

After 20yrs in the business im ready for a change

P-Dub,
Been there too.

That's why I'm teaching math now.

In case you didn't know, that won't enrich your bank account either!

Harte




top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join