Vikings in the upper midwest?

[Tom_in_CA]

......

......Claims of past events also does not logically imply they didn't happen.

Good point [ and I should have anticipated that , haha].

Okay, let me just put it this way: the burden of proof , for somebody conjecturing non-conventional unrecorded history, falls on the person making the claim.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[galenrog]

This thread started because the OP linked to a fake item on a site that willingly admits that all of their stories are fake. Can we simply agree that World News Daily, The ONION, and other similar websites are not legitimate sources of information?

I will not enter the argument of how far south or west the Vikings made it before the end of the midevel warming period which, among other reasons, ended their exploration of North America.

I will, however, point out fake news items, from fake news sites, when someone else does not do so before me.

May this thread now end.

Time for coffee. And probably something else.

 

[digger460]

This thread started because the OP linked to a fake item on a site that willingly admits that all of their stories are fake. Can we simply agree that World News Daily, The ONION, and other similar websites are not legitimate sources of information?

I will not enter the argument of how far south or west the Vikings made it before the end of the midevel warming period which, among other reasons, ended their exploration of North America.

I will, however, point out fake news items, from fake news sites, when someone else does not do so before me.

May this thread now end.

Time for coffee. And probably something else.

And I will certainly pay more attention to sources

 

[Tom_in_CA]

This thread started because the OP linked to a fake item on a site that willingly admits that all of their stories are fake. Can we simply agree that World News Daily, The ONION, and other similar websites are not legitimate sources of information?

I will not enter the argument of how far south or west the Vikings made it before the end of the midevel warming period which, among other reasons, ended their exploration of North America.

I will, however, point out fake news items, from fake news sites, when someone else does not do so before me.

May this thread now end.

Time for coffee. And probably something else.

ok.

 

[seekerGH]

Image of artifacts look familiar?

Viking-age silver button and balance scales found | ScienceNordic

We all know that Columbus discovered America, just get over any factual information.

 

[Deft Tones]

I don't think Columbus discovered America if America was already occupied...oh, the natives were not human, I'd forgotten.

 

[Hitndahed]

Muddy, your input and participation on the Forum is much respected. I like reading your inputs on various topics. But do a Wikipedia search on the Kensington stone, and you will see that it has been dismissed as a hoax. Start with that, and follow the links, and you will see.

=====================================================
Ummm,,
ANYTHING WIKI has been dismissed as counter-info by me anymore.
Back when it was good,,,and real information was dessiminated I was a fan.
But since anyone can edit it,,, it has become a quagmire of bulls**t.
Just my .02

 

[Coach Stack]

Search "Copper Culture" on Youtube...sit back and enjoy the entertainment.

 

[Dave Rishar]

Indeed, anyone can edit an entry, just as anyone can flag an entry for being lacking sufficient or valid references to support the claims in said entry. The entry on the Kensington stone cites 40 something references as justification for the statements made in it. Frankly, I wish that more people justified extraordinary theories with multiple citations.

Is your issue with Wikipedia in general, the wiki entry on the Kensington stone in particular, or the sources cited as proof? Have you checked any of those references? Did you find any in error? If so, did you mention this on the talk page for the article?

While it's perfectly true that anyone can edit a wiki entry, don't think that there's no oversight of any sort. Not every entry is 100% correct (particularly when it's a subjective topic by nature, as we may have different opinions of what's truly correct in such cases), but the signal-to-noise ratio on Wikipedia is nearly always significantly higher than it is on blogs, Internet forums, and other social media where no justification is required and peer review is impossible.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Indeed, anyone can edit an entry, just as anyone can flag an entry for being lacking sufficient or valid references to support the claims in said entry. The entry on the Kensington stone cites 40 something references as justification for the statements made in it. Frankly, I wish that more people justified extraordinary theories with multiple citations.

Is your issue with Wikipedia in general, the wiki entry on the Kensington stone in particular, or the sources cited as proof? Have you checked any of those references? Did you find any in error? If so, did you mention this on the talk page for the article?

While it's perfectly true that anyone can edit a wiki entry, don't think that there's no oversight of any sort. Not every entry is 100% correct (particularly when it's a subjective topic by nature, as we may have different opinions of what's truly correct in such cases), but the signal-to-noise ratio on Wikipedia is nearly always significantly higher than it is on blogs, Internet forums, and other social media where no justification is required and peer review is impossible.

Well said Dave. When I read hitndahed's comment, I was trying to formulate a response. But you did a good job.

I would add the following: The part of the wiki article on the kensington stone, WHEN IT COMES TO ALLEGATIONS of not authentic, are NOT modern accusations/observations . The observations/claims they are citing (about non-authenticity) DATE BACK to when it was first found over 100 yrs. ago. Which was before the invention of wiki.

So while something inaccurate can be on wiki, well SO TOO can something be inaccurate in an encyclopedia, or any link that anyone can send me. Those claims of "inaccurate" are never-ending finger-pointing, by anyone who doesn't like the evidence/statements shown to them.

Also I would add that if *not* just wiki where this info on the stone appears. You can do a google word search on "kensington stone" + "fraud" (or "scam" or whatever), and find multiple references of what evidence points that direction. Not just wiki.