1362-The Kensington Runestone

Yeah...umm...like...what he said. It's common wisdom where I'm from.
2nd Line
3rd if necessary

reply to post by sharps

---

It's known they were here, but this was in a different, more northern part of the country.

These stones may be evidence of them moving further through the country, but there are enough indiscrepancies to cast doubt against the stones.

Unless....you work in the Persian Gulf there you can make some money and its tax free. Generally short of native English speaking math teachers.

Rates go from 3,500 to 6,500 a month BUT you have to live in the Persian Gulf!

But we go off subject

Back on subject

Yep the Norse were bouncing around the NE corner of NA for a century or two and Greenlander are thought to have continued to have come to Labrador for wood once the colonization attempt had failed.

One is talking very small numbers and limited contact-AFAIK

reply to post by Hanslune

---

A buddy of mine is trying to talk me into going to dubai with him to work.


I dont think id like the humidity though, or thr lack of a good sierra nevada pale ale.

reply to post by punkinworks

---

Dubai is very modern and you can get alcohol there but the traffic is hideous and the city is very expensive to live in. This means you have to live in Sharjah or Ajman and the traffic from there to Dubai is basically evil. Humidity isn't that much a problem - more a problem in Manama and Doha (IMHO). You can get nearly the same pay by going to Abu Dhabi, RAK, Fuji or Al Ain - if anyone mentions Sheikh Zayed city - run. (on the Saudi border and the empty quarter)

I lived in Dubai for 14 years, left in Feb 2008

[edit on 8/10/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Such is why it was called Markland, for the trees, it was their major supply of wood, and supposedly they even brought back saplings to plant..? Dunno if true though.

reply to post by Ridhya

---

They use to get a lot of drift wood - which is one reason they went looking for the source. Sapling? Hadn't heard of that but with the cooling period that started circa 1450 none of them would have survived for very long. IWT

I just caught up to this report again, from May '09:


It remains interesting to note that this is not without debate:

...which only goes to show that the bar is set high...even amidst the academic community. So, if some of us come off sounding like Eeyore, we're not alone.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

---

Yes this is how it works, battle and debate within peer-review publications. You can see that in the case of the Hobbit with tempers flaring!

Based solely on the evidence in the news article I'd say it was Norse-but I'd have to read the actual published site report. Odd no mention of fire and that useful carbon stuff.

Start humor mode

It amazes me that the NWO would allow the concept of more Norse habitations on the NA to be found...their entire evil plan could collapse!

End humor mode



[edit on 8/10/09 by Hanslune]

When we say someone 'discovered' such-and-such, it is a relative statement. For example, who discovered North America? The first people to step foot upon it's shores of course. So who was that exactly? Most likely the discoverers were Asians because that is the genetic trail leading backwards from the natives of North America.

So, you see, the idea of who discovered what is not really a relevant idea at all. This concept is what we call a 'nationalistic ideal'. To think of ourselves as Canadians, Americans, Chinese, etc. has got to go! We are Humans of the planet Earth and until all of us begin to think as such we will be hindered greatly in our progress!

True, but what I find fascinating about the Norse visits to North America goes deeper than that. When you consider that Mankind (gender-neutral) left Africa and dispersed, the Native discovery of North America represents the flow of Humanity heading east. Our species also went north, into Europe and eventually west to North America, and completed the circle. This, to me, is a profound achievement.

Hmmmm... I haven't seen anyone mention it yet, but didn't anyone see the History Channel special they did on this subject? I think it was like 2 hours long, and totally intriguing. I think it was called "Holy Grail in America".

Look it up, it was a great show =]

Interesting read, there are a lot of possibilities brought up here.

Does anyone have any idea how many of these rune stones exist? I wonder why they would take the time to carve such a stone with such a basic story, especially it the story of the dead men indicates they were killed by native Americans. I would think they would be in too much of a hurry to leave the area before the attackers returned to carve a story into a stone. It hardly seems reasonable that the guy who found this stone would go to such an elaborate extent to create such a hoax.

As far as the carbon dating of the Newport tower, it is pretty solid evidence that the tower's mortar hardened in 1680, but that doesn't necessarily prove that is is when the tower was actually built, has has been shown. Here is an interesting article on how this carbon dating process for mortar was developed.

www.americanscientist.org...

However, on the first page, there is a picture of the Newport tower, and when you click on it to get a better view, the link clearly states:

www.americanscientist.org...



It has been noted that mortar deep inside a structure can take a very long time to harden.

This was an extremely new process when the Newport tower was tested, and the people who did the testing are not the people who took the sample, so there is considerable room for debate as to how accurate the testing was, and so old the tower really is. It seems that a far larger sample would be needed to get a scientifically accurate date, which would be very destructive to the small structure.

Hanslune keeps saying 95% certainty, but from what peer reviewed journal does this number come from?

Blackmarketeer does a very good job of providing credible evidence to demonstrate possible problems with the carbon dating referencing credible sources. Isn't anything published by someone with a reputation at stake peer reviewed?

It seems to me that there is still quite the mystery here.