Again insulting me doesn’t help your case!
Well you mentioned Polynesians.
I have read Barry Fall’s books and am somewhat sympathetic to his viewpoint. I met him 30+ years ago at a couple of conferences. I had some interesting and POLITE discussions with him. I still think some of his American Ogam translations seem like wishful thinking. His claims for Phoenician, Hittite, well needed much much more proof.
I still think there’s more evidence for Solutrean migration then any other serious pre-Viking European contact. Though the case is weakening. The possible exception is Basque fishing off the coasts of Newfoundland.
You notice I wrote three paragraphs and didn’t launch one personal attack. I encourage you to try it in future response.
Well you mentioned Polynesians.
I also mentioned Vikings, Templars, Aztecs and Incas. You didn’t say anything about their DNA being found in Ohio. I also mentioned trade was here before the Vikings which if you know a smidgeon of the Miamisburg Mound history you would know it predates the Vikings. The point of the discussion, which does include the people’s of the Pacific, is that ancient historical man was on the move long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 and possibly even much much earlier. The discussion about the second Snake Mound found in Scotland points to this premise. Archeology was built on circumstantial evidence when there are no written records to go off of. And that is the point. We find artifacts and we speculate why they were there and how they got there. The history of North America does not begin with the voyage of Columbus and it doesn’t begin with the Vikings nor the Templars. There was global trade routes, not just the Mediterranean and not just landlocked countries, probably going back way before Jesus was born. I haven’t even discussed trade in the Asiatic area for they were known to travel vast distances by sea.
The animmal mounds found in the midwest that are not Miamisburg mound also date pre-vikiing trade (the Lodestone is a peice of evidence Eric the Great explored as far west as Wisconsin).
You have Viking buildings on an Island at the mouth of the St Lawrence River. The Viking settlement had food that was not native to Canada. It was speculated that the structures were there as stopping point before heading further West.
Oak Island is NOT the only evidence that Europeans came to North America. The evidence found on Oak Island date from the early 1500’s to today. The island has a documented history and evidence soldiers at the time of the American Revolution.
Alas you forget, that Oak Island was mentioned several times in this thread as being in Reader’s Digest back in the 60’s. Also you forget that the age of documentation on the computer is still young. The world does not even have one-tenth of all documents uploaded to the computer. There are more findings when you visit an archive of documents than you could ever find on a computer using google-like search. The US National Archives project is still ongoing in this regard. The ship logs were done by hand and pencil. You think they would be in any computer. Not in the slightest chance. So the “tv evidence” as was so ignorantly put out by a previous thread it showed how ludicrous the argument was that the show was a fraud.
Again not knowing history of something you supposedly knew something about does not help your case. The discovery of history evolves through discovery not through revisionist history. It would behoove you to come up to speed with the Miamisburg Mound current revelations before you spout inaccurate information.