Six Friday Odds and Ends

10/14/2016

I've now become one of "those people" who fiddles around on his phone in the checkout line or while waiting for water to boil. I save links to interesting things I'd like to explore further and possibly write about, but I usually don't get back to them. The back-up is immense at this point. I'm going to park some of the recent ones here in the hope that others might see something of interest. And maybe I'll circle back around to some of these some day.

Lichen Growth on the Remains of Homo naledi

Discussion and debate about interpretation of the anatomical remains of Homo naledi (i.e., what is it) and the context of those remains (how did they get there) continues in both traditional scientific journals and online. This is fascinating to watch, as the online element adds a new dimension to the "standard model" of paleoanthrnopological discourse (paralleling, perhaps, departures from the "standard model" of fieldwork, publication, and analysis marked by the Rising Star Expedition). I wrote about initial reaction to the Rising Star results here. You can get hooked into the latest debate -- concerned with whether manganese deposits on the bones show that the "chamber" the bones were found in was once open to light -- on John Hawks' blog.

What's in a Name?

Brad Lepper's column in Sunday's Columbus Dispatch discussed the Wyandotte Nation’s Cultural Center (Wyandotte, Oklahoma), describing exhibits that embrace the prehistoric cultural-hisotorical timeline developed by archaeologists but rename the periods with Wyandotte names and incorporate them into a Wyandotte narrative. Lepper writes:

"What I find particularly significant about this exhibit is that the Wyandotte Nation considers the culture history developed by archaeologists to be useful for telling their story. Also, by applying their own names to the various cultural periods, the Wyandotte take ownership of that history."

Very interesting story.

Climate Change Timeline

This climate change timeline lets you graphically scroll through 22,000 years of human-environment interaction. It depicts changes in the mean temperature of the earth at a scale that demonstrates how abnormally sudden and severe the warming trend has been over the last 100 years. The depiction is simple, requires no advanced math or imagination to understand, and nicely makes the point. Bravo.

The Hope for Another Viking Site: Point Rosee, Newfoundland

Many of us are watching for results from excavations at Point Rosee, Newfoundland, a site identified as a possible pre-Columbian Norse habitation site based on analysis of images from satellites. The last I read, nothing that would definitively indicate a Norse presence at the site had been located. That doesn't mean it's not there, of course, and that doesn't mean that there aren't possibly other Norse in other parts of the region. This is a fun story to watch from my perspective because it's got the attention of both academic archaeologists and those on the "fringe" who are hungry for any piece of evidence that they think will legitimize their claims. This is a good demonstration both of how actual archaeology is used to search for empirical evidence to evaluate a claim/interpretation: either the Norse were at the site or they weren't -- so how can we tell? We go and look and do the work properly, that's how.

Another Neanderthal Child

It's not my primary line of work, but I'm very interested in the understanding the deep prehistory of human families. That interest has several dimensions. While I was in graduate school at Michigan I did a project where I collected data on parietal thickness of every Late Pleistocene infant I could find to try say something about birth among those populations. I've done some modeling work (e.g., described here and here) trying to understand the relationships between fertility, mortality, and family size/composition among Middle Paleolithic humans. It's exciting when new infant/child remains are announced, such as the parietal from this 7-9-year-old Neanderthal child from Spain. There have been probably been others in recent years that I'm not aware of, so I'll have to do a drag net again if I'm able to focus on this topic in any serious way.

Knights Fighting Snails

Finally, there's this Smithsonian article about depictions of medieval knights fighting snails. It pretty much speaks for itself.

Bob Jase

10/14/2016 10:52:13 am

Snails? I guess one dragons went extinct...

Looking forward to the digs at Point Rosee - it sounded promising when I heard about it a month or two ago.

Killbuck

10/14/2016 06:34:36 pm

I prefer to limit my comments to the snails, which I shall do as EVD.

Vis:

"Zis is veddy interesting, As we know, schnails do not fly, but in zis image they are flying! How can zis be? Zehr cab be no ozer expleenashun but it deepeects extrrraturrestial spacecroft...zer iz no ozer way to explain. Ze shells are ze spaceshzip, vit ze aliens looking out, zey have antennas...."

"...on ze right we see an alien erthzlin hybreed, wearing a space zoot mit ze helmet, carrying zome sort of vepon, and ze vings showing he iz flying."

It goes on from there to include the Nazca Lines, golden tablets in caves and the uncanny similarity to pre-Columbian peoples riding dinosaurs.

Andy White

10/16/2016 05:10:54 am

Well, we are constantly assured that all of these ancient depictions are to bs taken literally. So ask yourself who is suppressing the evidence of giant snails (or tiny knights, I suppose) and why?

Killbuck

10/16/2016 07:45:47 pm

Replying in imitation of David Childress:

"So, you have to asssssk yourself....wwwwwhy ? Could they be......

... (required long pause before saying) ...extraterrestrials?"

Gunn

10/14/2016 02:58:11 pm

Andy says: "...either the Norse were at the site or they weren't -- so how can we tell? We go and look and do the work properly, that's how."

Andy, I guess you and I are more alike than I thought. This is the exact sentiment I came to you with, months before I became involved in your blog here, about stoneholes, which overall I thought was a great experience--just that it seemed to veer off in an odd direction that I didn't care much for.

Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree that "we" do need to go and look and do the work properly. Yes, this is how "we" can tell whether Norsemen were at a particular site or not. Yes, I agree. I also agree that the work should be done properly, which I've been striving for.

However, this formula suffers a quick breakdown when dark skepticism crowds in at the so-called "fringes." Because of this overshadowing mindset in Minnesota--the professional and academic mindset, I cannot evoke any of these people to seriously consider the likelihood that Norsemen traversed into this region a few hundred years before the time of Columbus, and an added few hundred more years before the French arrived.

This overly-skeptical mindset is a palpable barrier to ever "doing the work" at all. Meanwhile, history remains buried.

From my own experience with NOT having the proposed Norse Code-stone site I discovered looked at, there is no conspiracy at play here...only a reluctance, then an unwillingness, to become involved in what might be considered a worthwhile project. But, from the onset, it has already been deemed to be an un-worthwhile project, because of built-in academic and professional bias against the notion of medieval Norse explorations into America's heartland.

I have offered to pay for archaeological services, to no avail so far. I have been unsuccessful in coaxing State officials to feel responsible for conducting even just a cursory exploratory dig, in consideration of how I've been trying to keep the site's location vague while also trying to describe why the site was and is now significant, in terms of waterway surveying (in two different eras).

It's a catch-22: I have presented my observations to various State officials and to various archaeologists in hopes of attaining a professional dig, but my very observations can never be good enough, because of this inherent bias against the very idea of Norse expeditions into this region. The notion of Norse activity here is made to look preposterous, in the face of plenty of collective, credible evidence indicating otherwise, beginning with the Kensington Runestone.

Andy, think: Norse-recognized ocean-to-ocean waterway circle completion, in far-inland medieval America...one specific geographical/waterway location...the reason for the location being held as "special." The playful Norse Code-stone is located near this special spot.

At the present time, I can't think of anything else to do in an attempt to move my goal forward, but, oh well, at least the huge number of medieval stoneholes in this region have never been adequately explained away or discredited--even though representatives of academia have from time-to-time made repeated attempts to do so....

Gunn

10/15/2016 11:00:40 am

I enjoyed looking at the climate change map. It was interesting to see the medieval warm-up in Europe and her northern reaches at around the time of Lief Eriksson's "founding" of Vinland the Good. I didn't realize there was this obvious warm-up several hundred years before the obvious mini-ice-age, which helped to eliminate both Greenland and Vinland from an earlier existence.

So, we might see that journeys down into America's heartland from Hudson Bay were likely assisted by warmer than usual temperatures for these proposed Norse expeditions before the mini-ice-age struck.

I guess we might also see that land-hungry Norsemen were spreading out in search of new lands to settle around the time of this warm-up, such as from Iceland. Then disease struck...over and over, eliminating a third or more of Europe's population. Suddenly, land was plentiful in the homeland.

Earlier explorations looking for new lands to settle were now almost forgotten, but not completely: hence, the "late-arriving" Kensington Runestone party of Norsemen. I speculate that the KRS party were following-up on a multiplicity of previous medieval expeditions into this area of far-inland future America...from a time when temperatures were more favorable and when certain populations had been land-hungry.

This may help explain the proposed medieval Norse Code-stone I found, which may date to around the time of the Crusades, or even before, closer to Leif Eriksson's discoveries on America's east coastline. I propose that Norse exploration of the Chippewa River (KRS) came much later than explorations more closely related to this spot where the dwindling oceanic sources merge...where there are many Norse-appearing evidences on display for those willing and able to see them....

John (the other one)

10/16/2016 11:16:05 am

Gunn - here is an excerpt from the article Andy posted with regards to the new "Norse" site. It is a quote from the lead researcher on the project.

"If you're going to undertake this journey, as it were, you have to do it and be a skeptic. That's good science. When we first undertook this project, my hypothesis was that we wouldn't find anything."

You can either do science or you can do arbitrary statements where you say this is Norse and that is Norse and that means the other thing is Norse. If you want to work with scientists my guess is you will have to do science.

Gunn

10/16/2016 12:20:31 pm

Wrong. One doesn't have to be a skeptic to do good science. That's only one person's primitive viewpoint, an overly-cautious viewpoint. I prefer to be an optimist in my endeavors, believing the glass is plenty full enough at all times. I must usually pull myself up by my own bootstraps.

My hypothesis is that when an exploratory dig is conducted on the ridge near Appleton, MN, something of a medieval and Norse origin will be unearthed. Whatever is unearthed will be a surprise, no matter what it is. I believe that whatever is still buried there deserves to see the light of day, in a professional manner.

Speaking of science, what do you make of the overwhelmingly obvious difference in the type and aging of the two stoneholes given in the nearby example? Maybe science is in the eye of the beholder, just as history truth is. Maybe, John, the meaning of fringe is being twisted around. Maybe on some things the so-called professionals are the ones on the fringe....

(At this point, I would caution you not to let that egg accumulate too thickly...unless you're willing to change your online name to a different John.)

richard

10/16/2016 11:59:05 pm

Gunn:

You clearly don't understand how science works, and it is small wonder you have been unable to interest any professional in your pipe dream.

You also completely lack any understanding of the process of persuasion. Pedantic repetition of the same circular arguments--no matter how zealously recited--makes most people less sympathetic to the views expressed.

After several months of seeing your comments--but before I saw one where you described yourself as ex-military--I truly assumed you were a boy of about 14 with way more enthusiasm than sense.

Seriously, have someone you trust to be honest with you, and whose opinion you respect, read through your serial comments to this or any other blog and I believe he or she will suggest that you drastically modify your approach if you wish to persuade anyone that your theories might hold water.

Gunn

10/17/2016 09:15:31 am

Troll Richard, I'm trying to find where you added anything to the discussion...besides attacking the presenter. You might recall me saying plenty of times that one can always recognize a troll because they attack rather than add. Your viewpoint here is only an opinion.

The circular, repeatable information you most need to re-consider is the completion of the ocean-to-ocean waterway circle deep in America's interior, where a great number of authentic Norse evidences reside. I have gladly re-supplied you with the very reason for Norse evidences in a specific region of America.

Consider that Vinland the Good existed as a very real place longer than America has been a country. What was it to shoot down southward of Hudson Bay during this "expansive" period of time?

Troll Richard, consider that in Scott Wolter's hooked X book, assigned reading for Andy's class, in a photo of what for all intents and purposes appears to be a medieval forge most likely intended for use in a future medieval home. What Wolter seems to have misidentified as an altar, I would like to go on record as identifying as a likely medieval blacksmithing works--however, never put into use.

This proposed quenching basin with worked, attached anvil is also surrounded with stonehole rocks, of the proposed medieval variety. If she would kindly do so, Judi Rudebusch can vouch for the existence of this site, pictured in Wolter's hooked-X book.

In reading a portion of Gwyn Jones' remarkable book "The Norse Atlantic Saga," this morning, I noticed in the Appendixes section, page 289, that a reference is made to "in-building" forges, such as was in use at L' Anse aux Meadows:

"The fourth room was used as a workshop,"..."Clearly smithing took place here. This is wholly in line with West Norse practices where forges were frequently incorporated into dwellings...."

You are wrong about me not adding anything new to my offerings. I have just identified for you a likely medieval, intended future Norse forging site located near Wilmot, SD...a pleasant, short drive from the Norse Code-stone site I've been constantly reassuring you about.

I'm glad you've been paying attention, Troll Richard, and learning new things along the way. Repetition works, too. Yes, I am military-minded in trying to attain a goal, and I feel that I am slowly reaching my goal, in spite of being goaded by occasional blog trolls.

Jim

10/17/2016 10:00:24 pm

Yup, nothing says forge like a rock with 4 holes in it. They surely would have needed a blacksmith to make bog iron chisels, what with the amount of holes they needed for whatever mysterious purpose they had. Perhaps the rock was intended to be a church/smithy and the priest/blacksmiths home as well. This has Vikings chiseled all over it.

richard

10/18/2016 02:00:18 am

Gunn:

I think you just proved my point but i can't be certain because my eyes glazed over about halfway through your well-worn litany.

You are correct that my comment added nothing to the discussion at hand--it was made in an effort to raise the caliber of future discussions on the same topic.

The predictable name-calling undoubtedly confirms your stature as a mature, serious scholar whose views should receive serious consideration.

Gunn

10/18/2016 09:33:07 am

Troll Richard, I wasn't merely name-calling...I was confirming your status here as a veritable troll. To redeem yourself, you could add something meaningful, or even ask a forward-moving question that wouldn't cause a repetitious response. Be more like Winnie-the-Pooh: "Think, think, think...."

Jim, you lost me again. Rock with four holes in it? Look at the photo in Wolter's X book, if you have a copy. You will see something America's archaeology world should be very interested in looking at: is this not a prospective medieval Norse metalworking quenching basin, with attached anvil?

I'm saying that in addition to the Whetstone River area being thoroughly marked-up with medieval stoneholes, usually in the vicinity of precious, clear, fresh, cold spring water to drink, there are other Norse-appearing evidences in the same general area, such as this proposed, planned blacksmithing site.

Jim, sometimes your overwhelming innate skepticism makes you look foolish, as though you mainly want to criticize me and my findings. Yet, it is not al all preposterous to consider that daring, land-hungry Scandinavians came down past Hudson Bay in search of new lands...and found a great spot, where they early-on recognized the significance of this area where beginning ocean sources merged together.

Instead of being skeptical, you should wonder more about these many evidences, like the deeply carved and extremely aged petroglyph of the Norse drinking horn, exactly like those in Swedish museums. I think this is in Andy's required-reading book, The Hooked X, also. People have to almost be blind to not see these things in a likely medieval, historic setting deep in America's interior. I am left to think that the academics and so-called professionals simply don't care to help upset the history-applecart. (Think Appleton.)

Jim

10/18/2016 04:32:59 pm

Gunn, Perhaps I wouldn't be so skeptical if you could show some real evidence. I am not talking about speculation and fictitious stories !
There is no evidence of the Norse coming down from the Hudson Bay, or ever having been in Hudson Bay. None !
There is no evidence of the Norse making those stone holes. None !
There is no evidence of the Norse Making an altar or forge in Minnesota. None !
There is no proven evidence whatsoever that the Norse were ever in Minnesota in that era. None !
The KRS is considered a hoax by linguistic experts, experts in runes, geologists, historians, well, pretty much everyone except a few like yourself and Scott Wolter.
Your Norse drinking horn is no evidence whatsoever unless you can prove its age or Norse authenticity.
Number of proven Norse rune stones or petroglyphs,,,,zero !
Number of attempted hoaxes,,,many !
Kensington Runestone - Hoax
AVM Runestone - Hoax
The "Elbow Lake" Runestone - Hoax
Beardmore Relics - Hoax
Heavener Runestone - Hoax- (modern creation)
Poteau Stone - Hoax
Shawnee Stone - Hoax
Pawnee Stones - Hoax
Narragansett Runestone - Assumed hoax
Spirit Pond runestones - Hoax
etc, etc, etc.
Gunn, show me some real evidence! Not speculation and fiction. " Norse-appearing evidences" what is Norse-appearing evidences ??? Holes in stones ? You say my overwhelming innate skepticism makes me look foolish, lol, it's simply me not being gullible.
You show me zero evidence and call me a skeptic for not buying this ? Come on !!!

Gunn

10/19/2016 06:26:11 am

Simply put, it seems that evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Not all of the medieval Norse-appearing evidences in this MN/Dakota are invalid. I should probably repeat that it seems foolish to offhandedly disregard all of these many evidences, from the several categories: KRS; metal weapons and items; petroglyphs; stoneholes galore. Would you now like to divide and conquer? It can't be done.

The academics and so-called professionals associated with this contest are on the fringe, in my humble opinion, and my own views are associated with history truth connecting the medieval Norse to this region. Time will tell. Until then, again, evidence is surely in the eye of the beholder...not only in the eyes of a few supposedly select barons of acceptable history-truth.

Open your eyes, Jim, if you want to represent the "fringe" (cusp of truth) with me. I will welcome you aboard with an always forgiving spirit!!!

Andy White

10/16/2016 05:08:14 am

Gunn,

Archaeologists base their decisions about fieldwork based on a number of factors. One of the biggest, of course, is whether or not excavating can address a legitimate question. My guess is that the archaeologists that you have talked to don't find your case for a Norse occupation at that spot to be compelling. The stone holes can be more simply explained in other ways, as can a the presence of a buried ferrous object. Believe me, if a professional archaeologist thought there was a good case for an actual Norse site in Minnesota, he/she would be all over it.

Gunn

10/16/2016 11:48:11 am

Andy, from my viewpoint, the professionals I've contacted don't want to find a case for Norse visitation because they are in a current state of denial and being self-blinded, I guess out of equally blind and misplaced loyalty to the "established" view. Case in point: the French were the first Europeans into the upper Great Lakes/Midwest region. This is simply false, based on accumulated evidences, which for the most part are being unfairly discredited...legitimate medieval stoneholes being a prime example...and the KRS itself, too.

I feel that I have gone to great lengths to show that there is an observable difference between the two main eras of stoneholes in contention. The simplest comparison is here, where I have shown an easily observable difference between "medieval" and "modern" stoneholes. If you were to show this photo comparison to 100 students, I think 90% will exclaim that it is easy to see which is an older example...that being the very aged-appearing Sauk Lake Altar Rock stonehole, over the obviously machine-made and fresh-appearing "star-shaped" stonehole. I personally don't think the obvious contrast in types and aging should be so easily ignored:

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id42.html

Also, you are wrong in your personal belief that these stoneholes can be more simply explained in other ways. You haven't explained the legitimate medieval stoneholes in other ways. All you did was discredit the histories of local citizens, as with the Altar Rock, basically thinking their viewpoints are unworthy compared to the notion of massive forgetfulness. (Not purposely overlooking, as Only Me tried his best to suggest...thanks, Judi.)

Andy, no professional archaeologists have been "all over this" finding of a medieval Norse Code-stone, not because I haven't made a good case for an actual Norse site in Minnesota, but rather instead, because they don't wish to go against the academic viewpoint...such as how you and Calavito don't wish to go against the improper views of Tom Trow in regards to "unblasted" stoneholes. I have gone out of my way to prove that Trow's views are hazardous to true history.

I'm sorry to need to state that it appears to me that "forbidden archaeology" is actually being practiced by you here on your blog, which seems quite ironic.

Andy, the professionals are constipated when it comes to appreciating any "fringe" views, even when a good case is made, such as I have done. I wish you were more willing to consider early pioneering letters and records when assessing the issue of stoneholes. You could come to a fresher understanding, instead relying on the now thoroughly discredited viewpoints of just one tarnished individual...that being the mischievous academic, Tom Trow. He is certainly no friend to those of Scandinavian heritage in this region, as he is also no friend to the truth about medieval stoneholes. You can continue to join this "academic" with his erroneous viewpoints if you wish to, just as Calavito has apparently done...even though I have completely discredited Trow's theory of massive forgetfulness. Conversely, Andy, you have done nothing to discredit authentic medieval Norse stoneholes with your history of breaking apart rocks. By the way, how do you account for the small, portable size of these several rocks making up the encoding, and the fact that each has more than one stonehole? I have laid out the encoding in simple detail, showing a good case for an actual Norse site in Minnesota. You are missing a great opportunity, Andy.

If you would like, I am willing to meet you on location before the snow flies, to show you that the Norse encoding is real. I can show you how the encoding works, and then I can give you a demonstration with both regular and ferrous-only metal detectors to show that whatever is buried is buried very deeply. The modern technology of an expensive metal detector agrees with the purposeful, playful, Norse encoding going back several hundred years.

Do you want to "The Man" or not?

Gunn

10/16/2016 07:50:51 pm

It would be okay with me if someone came along to explain what the stoneholes on the remote ridge near Appleton mean. I wouldn't mind seeing an explanation besides my own, so I wouldn't feel the need to persuade others to my own way of thinking on the subject.

In the meantime, we can perhaps take another approach, which involves recognizing that the stonehole rocks in question (five) are manmade and not natural; I believe we are beyond this question. Then, we should be able to come up with some ideas of what these several stoneholes mean, right? Okay, well, except for my own notions, this has not been done. No one has come forward to give an opinion about these stoneholes in question.

Obviously, the several rocks are too small to consider putting holes into them for breaking the rocks apart. In all the surrounding terrain of several hundred yards, nothing appears to have ever been disturbed, including the many, many rocks--except for the stoneholes made into many of them in one precise location.

I have come up with a learned explanation of what these several stonehole rocks mean, because I was able to recognize the man-made implications of obvious, purposeful patterning, which exposed a precise spot of interest...even before being double-checked with the deep-penetrating ferrous-only metal detector.

These several stonehole rocks in question should be looked at by a professional, to see that they actually do, in fact, make up a proposed code. The obvious code in stone is not my fantasy or imagination. The rocks are embedded in the ground, waiting for any professional to check them out, to see that they are real. Next, any professional worth his or her salt would be able to understand that the proposed Code-stone, discovered 25 paces over the ridge, west from the ridgeline, was intended as a "backup" to show in miniature the encoded line of stonehole rocks on the ridgeline.

Bottom Line: I learned about stoneholes in this region and then discovered a Norse Code-stone and broke its code showing exactly where something was purposely buried.

Andy, if you wish, you may show the "Code-stone Legend" I sent you by email attachment, and you may also show the photo I took showing the stakes in the line of small-diameter, multiple holehole rocks making up the encoding. This photo also shows the rock with the chunk cracked off from a stonehole, with my yellow ferrous-only metal detector laying across two rocks. These two images used together shows why I am so audacious in desiring a professional dig. I have good reasons for what I have come to believe and expect.

The reality is that I'm a 21st century stonehole code-breaker, wanting to let you in on the likelihood of finding very real history treasure. If only you could see the reality of what I've attempted to show you. Otherwise, what do these several stonehole rocks showing decayed, irregular, small-diameter stoneholes mean? And why do they appear to be encoding something purposely buried, as verified by modern technology?

This tension needs to be paid. (Death of a Salesman.)

Only Me

10/19/2016 08:12:21 pm

And once again, Gunn, you are deliberately twisting another's comments. I didn't "try my best" to suggest anything.

I'll even provide my full comment:

[Andy, just wanted to say I appreciate what you're trying to do here. I'd like to bring to the attention of my fellow readers what Tom Trow actually said:

"The mystery of the small holes in many large rocks left on the landscape can be easily explained: the ones we find today are simply those that were left unblasted, either forgotten or intentionally passed over."

Notice the second part, "intentionally passed over"? Lillian Kratzke's story supports that conclusion. I don't find it helpful when Trow is misrepresented as ONLY attributing "forgotten" as a reason for the existing holes that have been found. This applies to Jason Colavito, too, since he discussed Trow's article on his blog and found it reasonable.

I think you've opened the discussion in a way that not only explores a part of Minnesota history, but also offers a way to approach the subject with the intent to explain why these holes exist.]

After Judi informed us the Kratzke story was fake, I asked her help in finding the information that proved it. Seems you conveniently forgot that part.

You can misrepresent what others have said if it tickles your fancy, but you won't do that with me.

Gunn

10/20/2016 10:46:22 am

Only Me, you got caught being a trouble-maker, then you tried to be casual about it. "You won't do that with me."

Why don't you just consider not being a nuisance, then you won't have to try to clean things up....

Only Me

10/20/2016 11:34:33 am

"Only Me, you got caught being a trouble-maker"

Except, I didn't.

"Why don't you just consider not being a nuisance, then you won't have to try to clean things up...."

Why don't you stop misrepresenting what other people have *actually* said? Then you won't keep being embarrassed.

Gunn

10/23/2016 07:45:58 am

Only Me, it must be that embarrassment is in the eye of the beholder, just as evidence seems to be. I certainly have no second-thoughts about anything I've said here...even those parts concerning you and your attempted mischief in trying to shoot down authentic medieval Norse stoneholes...just what would be expected of a nuisance skeptic trying desperately to hold the "established" line.

Forget it...Norse history rules up here where all the collective evidences reside in good,historical matrimony; stoneholes and Norse medieval history and evidences up here in this region are a match made in Heaven, a true delight to those "in the know."

I possess something you don't, Only Me--history truth. Sooner or later, you will catch up with good ole Gunn on these things. Until then, Only Me, you are currently in a state of being snared by the words of your mouth. You are suffering the consequences of attempting to attack my theories. You got no foothold...you have no foothold...you had no foothold. You wasted your time on the "forgetfulness theory", just as Trow did, and Colavito, and then (sadly) Andy. This was a backfire of sorts from what was supposed to be a finely-tuned history-engine. But the so-called fringe, represented by me in this case, will be your mechanic to help diagnose and repair this hiccuping "academic" engine, if you wish to proceed down the waterway highway with me...come along, Only Me...no need to be a blog Rude-Boy.

Only Me

10/23/2016 09:25:13 pm

Gunn, you have many things I don't: namely, the mindset, attitude and behavior of fringe historians.

You were openly invited to guest write a post laying out your hypothesis for open debate, an invitation you seemed happy to accept. Instead, you've wasted everyone's time with accusations, insults and outright misrepresentation of what was actually said. Why? Because you continue to fail to provide any evidence for your claims. You'd rather entertain conspiracy theories, assign nefarious motives or take personal affront from any and all criticism of your hypothesis.

YOU are suffering the consequences of attempting to attack legitimate criticism. YOU got no foothold...YOU have no foothold...YOU had no foothold. Turn out the lights. The party's over.

Gunn

10/24/2016 12:30:54 pm

Uh, no, Only Me, the party's only over for you, if you will finally accept your reputation here...that of being a Gunn stonehole theory attacker. You gladly showed up to attack my theory by assuming the position of advocate for another very lame theory which I already blew out of the water...many times over.

DNA Scandinavian forgetfulness is out for legitimate counter-reasoning for dozens upon dozens of medieval Norse stoneholes, Only Me, why don't you accept the best verdict? Instead you want to justify your purpose for being here...still.

This has to do with you being in the attack mode, not in the sharing or adding-to mode. For all intents and purposes, you seem to fit somewhat the definition of a blog-attacker-troll. On a nearby blog, you were constantly an irritant to me in the past, so I'm not at all surprised you showed up here for that same old lame reason: shoot down something, anything, Gunn is hyped-up about.

Well, this time you caught attempting to support a lost cause...something you (many others, too, of course) received warning a few years ago...authentic medieval Norse stoneholes simply cannot be explained by pioneer settlers forgetting to blast, enmass. You, along with aforementioned others would like to magically turn these many unexplained stoneholes into Scandinavian forgetfulness, but I've adequately showed and explained over and over again that this cannot be done.

Only Me, forgetting to blast is out. Accept this, so that by good example, Andy might too, and then also Jason, and then, finally, even Tom might.

I wish you were on my side, Only Me, advocating vociferously for history truth supporting the conclusion that Norsemen were well acquainted with this MN/Dakota region hundreds of years before Columbus, showed up. Give history-truth a chance. You don't need to go along with the party-line. In this case, the party-line is wrong.

Andy started out with great intentions with the idea for a forbidden archaeology class, but then I think he got sidetracked by the same thing you did: chasing after unblasted stoneholes.

That's like chasing after the rainbow, gentlemen. Here is something for you Only Me: I consider you to be on the fringe...in challenging my stonehole theories, you are a fringe-thinker. How does it feel being named a fringe-thinker? By supporting Trow's position, that's what you are. Trow, in fact, should apologize to Minnesota's many citizens of Scandinavian heritage for the DNA-related slur. (And to think he was representing professionals...academics.)

Certainly, he should not be defended--as you and Andy and Jason have tried to do, all in your turn, and in spite of my many warnings that these many authentic stoneholes are the very glue holding all this very real Norse history together.

Why don't you bugger-off now, since, yes, your party is over...actually, it barely even got started before you were fronted-off so nicely. By the way, you're the one with a truly nasty attitude, and historically directed at me. Here, I'll shut the light off for you...click....

Only Me

10/24/2016 01:54:08 pm

Thank you once again for proving my point, Gunn.

Have fun sitting in the dark.

John (the other one)

10/24/2016 07:36:54 pm

Gunn - every time you make up a phrase like "history truth" you sound even less competent. Get a hypothesis, trust the scientific method, stop being so damned paranoid, quit the personal attack BS, and trust actual data then maybe people will take you seriously.

There are actual scientists, including me, contributing to these discussions.

I have asked you a series of simple questions including how I can identify stone holes that I found on the coast of New England where Norse activity would be more probable then the upper Midwest and you have failed to answer. You seem to think other "Norse things" mean the stone holes are "Norse". This is illogical.

You supply stories and empty rhetoric. You claim I add nothing to the discussion or to further the discussion, this means you are either a liar or too dumb to understand what the hell you are typing since that is exactly what I do.

You are also a troll, this blog had nothing to do with stone holes but here you go again with your holes, always drawing the discussion back to what you think is interesting. I'm actually beginning to think you may have objectophilia. Posting unrelated information on a different posting is the sign of a troll, this post related to a confirmed Norse site in Canada.

I'm not sure that you understand that many people here are not on "sides" I actually don't care if the KRS is real or fake, or what the verdict of the stone holes is. I would like nothing more then for a new site of Norse expedition into North America to be discovered in my lifetime so I can see it for myself. I just don't want people to think that an "artifact" is real when someone is being disingenuous or bad science is being done. Science is always changing, when people cite old works they are not being honest to current information and techniques. Go ahead continue using 100 year old books, ignoring current research, proving things are "Norse", and having fun with your stone holes.

Next time you threaten to leave and not post anymore please take yourself more seriously I was sad when your website came back online and you returned here to continue to be a troll and add nothing new to the discussion. Children have hissy fits, adults who do are just losers, grow up and learn something. I suggest you start with middle school science they cover the scientific method most years...

Gunn

10/25/2016 12:45:06 am

I just find it funny that you guys are trying to pin conspiratorial thinking and paranoia on me. I have already said I see no conspiracy, just neglect on the part of so-called professionals.

Where is this paranoia you speak of? You trolls are so used to saying these lines to truly fringe folks that you try to assign them to anyone you yourselves peg as fringe. Well, as I've said, fringe has done a flip-flop. Welcome to fringe thinking, gentlemen. Believing in and advocating for Inherent Scandinavian forgetfulness is fringe thinking, is it not? Do you even see what you were attempting to defend, Only Me? Or, have you been too busy trying to defend yourself?

Maybe it's time for you two to lay down by your proverbial doggy-bowls and be quiet, before you make even bigger fools of yourselves. What, you wanna defend the indefensible, just to get at good ole Gunn and his authentic medieval Norse stoneholes? Go ahead, continue to be losers here if you can't manage to clam-up.

Only Me and John, I think you may both be jealous of me for escaping from the kind of fringe thinking you are presently engaged in...for to be on the side of history error is to be fringe. Please accept your defeat here now, since I am on the cusp of history truth while you are representing error and failure.

DanD

10/17/2016 11:41:36 am

I'm not going to live by their rules anymore. ( Groundhog Day- 1993 )

Gunn

10/17/2016 02:09:29 pm

The Devil Wears Prada

Miranda Priestly: “Is it impossible to find a lovely, slender, female paratrooper? Am I reaching for the stars here? Not really.”

Joe Scales

10/25/2016 07:15:44 am

Getting back to Odds and Ends, perhaps I could make this observation in an appeal for better judgment. The more you insist upon arguing with an idiot, the more likely those observing will be unable to tell the difference. This is akin to wrestling with a pig; you both get dirty and the pig loves it.

Gunn

10/25/2016 09:08:32 am

Hi-ya Joe! (Crazy Guggenheim.)

I don't understand why you are coming here and calling yourself a pig. I would never do that, myself...though I would normally say something about casting pearls before swine.

Joe Scales, did you give up on Only Me and that other John? Is this--like--a troll relay? Where and when does Mike Morgan and EP and Mr. Lister come in? I thought this poor blog was rid of you, but I guess you want to step into it again, huh, West Coast Motorcycle Man.

Tired of harassing Wolter? Well, just remember this: Wolter does represent the extreme fringe; I don't.

Fake names are easy for trolls to come up with once one is exhausted. Joe, aren't you getting exhausted with this hidden blog-troll relay-race?

The final score is in: you lose, I win. Authentic medieval Norse Stoneholes deep in America's interior rule! Attacks against both me and these precious stoneholes will continue to be in vain...because they are the very glue holding this very real history up here together. No wonder we come under such desperate attacks from those on the fringe of history-truth.

Andy White

10/25/2016 09:16:13 am

Okay . . . I'm closing the comments on this post. It isn't about stone holes. If you want to argue about stone holes, I invite you to go someplace else.

Gunn, I think I speak for many of my readers when I say that this is getting tiring. In my opinion you have done little to support your case, relying instead on repeating the same assertions over and over again. I (and several others here) attempted to investigate stone holes and put some effort into actually developing a falsifiable hypothesis about them (note: not a conclusion, but a hypothesis that could be evaluated). In return I get insulted. You have provided no positive evidence that the holes are Norse - if they're not modern, they could just as easily have been made by aliens or unicorns as by Viking expeditions. Time to move on.

Comments are closed.

Six Friday Odds and Ends

Archives

Categories