NordP
Posted on 08/25/2007 12:21:22 PM PDT by BGHater
NordP
ping!
I’m not convinced either way, but I do find it quite plausible. If they could make it to Greenland, I see no reason they couldn’t go further from there.
I don’t know. Minnesota’s a pretty good ways from the beach.
They would've proceeded up the Nelson River to Lake Winnipeg. There is an island in the lake which also bears rune-like markings on a rock cliff.
From Lake Winnipeg, the explorers would have proceeded up the Red River (up, in this case, being south), then followed a tributary into Western Minnesota.
A topographic map of the area around Ohman's farm reveals it is on a hill -- and that the land between the hill and the streams feeding the Red is flat as a billiard table. It's not difficult to imagine the entire area under water during the Spring thaw -- easily navigable by a shallow draft boat. The troup could well have "beached" at the base of Ohman's Hill.
Point being: the geography of the area doesn't preclude a Viking visit in 1362. Indeed, it's quite feasible.
Wow..such an impressive rebuttal. I guess that settles the argument..the rune is real!.
See post #5.
It's not far-fetched, at all.
It’s pretty reasonable. No different than the Spanish explorers a few hundred years later. The Vinland story has a lot of evidence behind it and that was 300 years prior to this. I also think there is strong evidence that ice-age europeans made it to NA up to about 50,000 years ago.
I don’t understand what geologic evidence is involved.
there might be chemical or even isotopic evidence but geologic?
Correct me if I’m wrong, please. But I had been taught that the northern coast of the “new world” was well known to europeans long before Columbus’s voyages.
The northern european nations had fishing fleets fighting over control of the fisheries off of Newfoundland and some trading posts were established on the coasts.
Columbus was attempting to pass under the New World’s southern edge and bypass it to the eastern spice islands.
That’s what I/we were taught.
Is that wrong?
Breaking news
Interesting post. Thank you.
That's part of the problem. Many "scientists" are too quick to label anything that doesn't match "what we know to be true" as a hoax. A Canadian friend told of a buddy who was on an archaeological native indian dig and found something that "didn't belong". He excitedly showed it to the head guy, a professor, who took the item and told the kid his career would be ruined if he said anything about it.
There appears to be a concerted effort by Canadian and American governments to suppress ANY indication that others were here before the so-called "Native Americans". Look at what happened to the "Kennewick Man" site.
All kinds of anomalies pop up, like a gold chain half embedded in a lump of Pennsylvania anthracite (the "experts" say it was dropped by miners) or the finely crafted vase that fell out of a quarried block of pudding stone (limestone?) in 1888. It was handed over to a museum where it promptly disappeared. The Accretion theory wins out over Catastrophism every time.
The ending of Indiana Jones was intended as a joke but anomalies of history have a habit of disappearing into a box in the basements of museums. Granted hoaxes abound aka the Piltdown Man, but all too often real evidence is ignored or destroyed, many times because reputations and careers have been built on flawed theories.
The last marriage performed in the church in the Norse (Viking) settlement in Greenland occurred prior to 1492, although the attempt to colonize Greenland was even then failing due to a cooling climatic trend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.