Fred W. Lucas' Powerful Debunking of the Henry Sinclair and Zeno Narrative Myths

4/4/2013

I’ve been talking quite a bit about the Zeno Narrative recently because it is of primary importance as the sole piece of actual evidence that Henry Sinclair ever visited America. As it turns out, I shouldn’t have wasted so much time working on analyzing the Zeno Narrative point by point because someone else has already done so. In 1898 Frederic W. Lucas (1842-1932) published a “criticism and indictment” on the Zeno Narrative—a full length book—analyzing the Zeno story in extensive detail. A copy of the book has been posted on Archive.org.

Lucas was a solicitor whose hobby was studying the early history of voyages to America. He was flabbergasted that anyone would take Richard Henry Major’s fanciful and highly speculative claims about the Zeno Narrative seriously, and he sought to analyze the narrative down to its origins, finding the literary sources Nicolò Zeno the younger used in compiling it, particularly the works of Olaus Magnus.

Lucas brings up some interesting points that I think are worth emphasizing. In the Narrative, Zichmni is never said to have reached the far-distant lands of Estotiland and Drogeo, which some have tried to identify with North America. This means that Zichmni, by the narrative’s own claims, never made it to America. Only by Major explicitly rejecting the Narrative’s own claim that Zichmni sailed to Greenland can Zichmni be taken from Greenland to America. Lucas also notes that the Zeno Narrative has Zichmni explicitly tell Nicolò Zeno the elder that he (Zichmni) is a fellow Italian—and therefore not a Scot! (Major claims this is simply a “mistake” introduced by the 1558 author.) Lucas further notes that this entire passage is borrowed directly from as Spanish writer named Jeronimo Aguilar, who included an identical scene.

In discussing the alleged identity of Zichmni with Henry Sinclair, who was bound to the King of Norway by restrictions of fealty, I love the fact that Lucas actually notes that Thomas Sinclair was a leading force behind this nuttiness and calls him out on his hypocrisy. He notes that Thomas Sinclair wants to recognize his ancestor as a hero, while the “proof of this would involve the conviction of [Henry] Sinclair of grave and disgraceful crimes; for if he had done what Zichmni is said to have done, in despite of his oaths of fealty, he must have been a perjured rebel and traitor, a hypocrite and imposter” (p. 97).

But for our purposes, Lucas’ most interesting claim is his tentative identification of Zichmni’s original. It was not, he said, Henry Sinclair but rather a well-known Baltic pirate named Wichmannus (Latinized from Wichmann), whose name is nearly identical to the fictional prince. This pirate was known to have menaced the seas from 1388 to his death in 1401, and Lucas notes that Zichmni’s history of raiding small islands is a very close analog to the piratical activities of Wichmannus. Just as Norway tried to destroy Zichmni’s small force, the Hanseatic League did the same with Wichmannus’ crew. Lucas notes that Renaissance Italian did not contain a letter to represent “W,” and “Z” would have been an appropriate substitute—at least as much as Fred Pohl’s later suggestion that Zichmni was a misreading of the unattested name “d’Orkney” due to bad handwriting. However, Lucas, unlike other writers, recognizes this is speculation.

Later Holy Bloodline-Templar Conspiracy writers hated this idea. Tim Wallace-Murphy and Marilyn Hopkins, in Templars in America (2004), caricatured Lucas’ suggested as his “peculiar belief,” and they failed to recognize that it was a suggestion, not a declaration. Outraged that the noble story of the Templars in America could be ascribed to such low-class savagery as piracy, they dismissed Lucas’ entire book-length exposé on the strength of this one line, arguing that Venetian nobles would never have consented to consort with pirates and therefore the Zeno narrative was true (p. 188). Wallace-Murphy and Hopkins, of course, failed to address the complaint that the narrative was a complete fiction and that Zeno was drawing on literary sources for a fictional narrative—after all he promoted his fictional Zichmni to the rank of Prince, hardly a direct adaptation of Wichmannus’ life.

Sadly, Lucas’ fell out of print despite critical acclaim, while Major’s book remained in print under the auspices of the Hakluyt Society, leading astray generations of researchers who had easy access to the false information of Major but limited access to its debunking by Lucas. Until the advent of electronic texts, this unfortunate bias in library collections and book catalogs shaped the Sinclair-Zichmni debate.

32 Comments

Gunn Sinclair

4/4/2013 05:07:48 am

Jason, if you change your name to Columbus, I'll change my (pen) name from Sinclair.

Just kidding. I'm glad you brought up this line of discussion, because it's helping me to see the difference between challenging document sources and challenging actual artifacts.

A good example is the "Italian" cannon, which, if accurate, you have shown to be both misidentified as an artifact and misidentified in past so-called source material.

Like a Native American thinking in circles (may I say this without recrimination?), I cannot now help thinking how it is that many of the perceived "medieval Scandinavian evidences" I've spoken about around MN and SD are not yet up for both examinations.

The general Kensington Runestone history and arguments are pretty well documented, except that the general public view is that its a big fake. For instance, the State Archaeologist here in MN takes this view, I guess out of some kind of necessity. The "Maine" runestones are hidden from public view...I know, I wasted my time last year going there to see them, only to end up flabbergasted.

But whereas the KRS has had plenty of study, including Scott Wolter's turn at it, much of the other "evidence" as a grouping has not. There are distinctive groupings of evidences which should be looked at more closely in possible association with the KRS:

Rock carvings made with iron chisels.

Hundreds of triangulated, unblasted stoneholes made with iron chisels.

Many medieval-looking iron weapons.

ALL of the above categories reek of a possible connection to medieval-era Scandinavias.

And of course, the KRS is Scandinavian, obviously.

Also, I've proven that a complete water route was available from Vinland to Runestone Hill.

To sum up, some things can currently be examined through documentation, such as Jason is good at doing, but other things are still coming to light and need to be examined and more fully considered, too. I've tried to do both with the KRS and the seemingly associated evidences all around me up here. I'm trying to pull everything together in my mind so I can behold everything in one place.

Mandans, anyone?

CFC

4/4/2013 08:36:00 am

Great new information Jason! I'm so impressed with your ability to go in-depth on many different topics.

Tom

4/4/2013 12:01:03 pm

So, Gunn, you believe the KRS is real, huh? I'd love it if you could tell us what specific clues you find most compelling for it's authenticity; It's very interesting, and it would be cool if it were real, but I need hard proof.

"Rock carvings made with iron chisels.

Hundreds of triangulated, unblasted stoneholes made with iron chisels.

Many medieval-looking iron weapons."

Sources, please! And an evaluation by someone who actually knows what they are talking about! For instance, someone who actually is knowledgable about real medieval weaponry, not just someone who only works with this supposed evidence; aka not a Scott Wolter-ite. I don't mean to be offensive to you personally, I just hoped to spark an open minded conversation about these things. Again, it would be very cool if these were proved to be authentic, but they are extraordinary claims, so I hope you have extraordinary evidence. Thank You.

4/4/2013 12:07:05 pm

Edit: Sorry, Gunn, after reading your comment more carefully, I realized that you ARE saying that you realize that more research needs to be done on these things, which I agree on. I was being a bit ignorant perhaps. However, if there is, say, an article about those weapons, or some sort of legitimate documents about them, please refer me to them.

4/4/2013 12:07:42 pm

4/4/2013 12:08:57 pm

Oops, sorry about the double post.

Mike M.

4/4/2013 02:15:00 pm

I would like to respond to the claim that "more research needs to be done" on the Kensington Stone related artifacts. These items have been examined. In the 1970's the sword from Ulen was shown to be a 19th century artifact. A letter from a Scandinavian Medieval weapons expert was even published in the Ulen paper. People just ignored it. Scott Wolter was recently told the same thing by a weapons expert in Minneapolis on the "America Unearthed" series. Note that Wolter was apparently not even aware that the sword had aready been examined by an expert (that would require some research). The stone holes have been shown over and over again to be blasting holes from the 19th and early 20th century. I refer to letters to local papers in Minnesota where farmers actually wrote in to say THEY, not Medieval exploreres, drilled the holes. You can see this as well in a published article from the 1980's in "Minnesota History". No matter how thorough their studies will be ignored. The same is true of the other artifacts in the Runestone museum. The fire steels attributed to the 'Runestone expedition' are not old. In fact, you can still buy them today at black powder rendezvous in the region. There are axes found in Minnesota that are called old, but this is lumbering country. Of course there are old axe heads laying around. You don't need to do scientific experiments on them--just look in some antique manuals or catalogs. Those forms were used right into the 20th century. I showed one of these to a historic archaeologist. He shrugged and asked what was unusual about it; it was from Minnesota's lumbering past. On another occasion I was asked why I didn't radiocarbon date one of these axes. My first thought was, why don't YOU date it since you want to call it Medieval? But I called a lab in Florida and asked if steel (which does contain some carbon) could be dated. Yes, it could, but it would have to be dissolved in acid to remove the carbon, and it would cost a lot (probably over $1000). Why bother? But if someone wants to raise the money and do it, I'll look forward to seeing the results. I know that Minnesota's State Archaeologist has spent many days dealing with this issue. But when you lay out evidence in front of people and they just wave it away, what can be done?

As for the Kensington Stone itself, it's a fake. The language problems are fatal (according to runic experts like Jansson, Moltke, Wahlgren, Liestol, Knirk, Williams) and the geological study done by Wolter was not accepted as adequate by the very team of Scandinavian geologists he chose to examine his work.

4/5/2013 04:47:22 am

Mike, clearly you are only partially informed about most of the subjects you brought up. Yes, the Ulen sword was de-bunked a long time ago. I wondered why Wolter even had it on the show, even though I was glad to see it debunked publicly, finally. My own cursory research a few years ago satisfied me that it was not from a medieval period. Frankly, I don't know why you even lumped it in the the KRS.

I was in no way suggesting that the metal objects be carbon dated. Carbon dating requires that the object being tested was once living, as far as I know. I was referring to a metal analysis, where an exact composition can be realized to make comparisons to other like items, back in Scandinavian museums, for example.

Perhaps you were confused about my suggestion that a stonehole be tested by finding and testing a viable carbon dating sample within the accumulated chips, which I believe can be done, as mentioned above in the blog.

I don't wish to be harsh with you in any way, as I'm a patient man, but you are also confused about many of the other issues you brought up, too. You just need to bring yourself up to speed.

Tom had brought up the question about why I, personally, believe the Kensington Runestone is real. Well, it's because of the total package deal of accumulated information associated with the runestone. I have processed all the available information I could locate about the subject, and it comes down to this:

Medieval Scandinavians were in MN and SD. There is too much accumulated evidence (actual evidence) to dismiss the idea. If I were stupid, I could ignore everything...but it wouldn't go away, including the KRS, the best evidence of all. 19th century immigrants didn't get together to plot planting all of these things to fool everyone.

Mike, I'm glad you are interested in the subject, but you need to put some new, fresh information in your brain in order to keep up with what's happening. Out with the old, in with the new. Be like an owl and wise-up!

N L

4/5/2013 05:58:49 am

I think the KRS will never be totally debunked, nor will it ever be completely authenticated. For every one runologist willing to label it a hoax another will pop up and claim that the language used was possible. Runic characters used to "prove" a hoax shortly after it was discovered are now being used to argue the authenticity of the stone thanks to newer knowledge of the runic languages. The stone has never been totally debunked on its own merits. Instead, anti-KRS advocates rely on the accompanying evidence or lack thereof to disprove the stone. Such facts as "no other period related Scandinavian artifacts with provenance have been discovered in the surrounding area" have been used to "prove" a hoax. Of course the coincidence that the stone was found in an area heavily populated by Scandinavian immigrants at a time when Italian pride in Columbus' discovery of America was at a high also raises eyebrows.

In my OPINION, these pieces of circumstantial evidence are not enough to label the KRS a hoax. Thomas Reiersgord wrote a very interesting book a while back that argues that the KRS may have traveled with Native Americans for years before finding its final resting place near Kensington, Minnesota. The conclusion is that it could have been carved virtually anywhere. This would explain the lack of other Scandinavian artifacts and the highly disputed lack of clear waterway travel access to Kensington. It would also explain the lack of "garbage" Norse explorers left behind everywhere they went.

Gunn, up until recently I also thought that some of the stone holes might be associated with the KRS. Now, however, my mind has changed. Partially thanks to Jason's blog, I have read much more of the stone holes than I knew before. For instance, did you know that Hjalmar Holland first associated the holes with the KRS in 1933? That is 35 years AFTER the KRS was discovered. Did you also know that prior to Holland's mooring stone idea in 1933 the stone holes were not unique enough to garner any attention on their own? Try finding any mention of the stone holes in the literature prior to 1930. You can't because there is none. Only after Holland made mention of the mooring holes on Ohman's property were hundreds of others discovered in the surrounding area. Couple this with all of the first-hand accounts of blasting holes, and the medieval Scandinavian mooring holes start looking more like common run-of-the-mill blasting holes.

Could the KRS be a hoax? Yes. Could it be authentic? Absolutely. We need to accept that the jury is still out until new information comes to light.

The whole Templar connection....pure fantasy. Great story, but pure fantasy.

4/5/2013 08:58:05 am

NL:

"The conclusion is that it could have been carved virtually anywhere. This would explain the lack of other Scandinavian artifacts and the highly disputed lack of clear waterway travel access to Kensington. It would also explain the lack of "garbage" Norse explorers left behind everywhere they went."

NL, I think you made some very good points in the beginning of your comment, but then it kind of fell apart. There is no reason to suppose that the KRS may have been moved a great distance by Native Americans. I, myself, am a runestone message purist, so I ten to believe that it was made on location. The latest and best runic interpretation, from 2010 experts, is that the end of the message refers to this "peninsula-island."

I am completely familiar with Runestone Hill and I've offered readers of Jason's blog nice photos to look at. The hill is almost completely surrounded by water, somewhat unconnected pools of water that make up almost a natural moat-like setting. Runestone Hill to me looks like a perfect natural setting to convert into a medieval defensive position.

Lack of other artifacts?

Lack of a waterway?

At first I found myself liking what you were saying, then came the frowns. But at least you seem very open-minded, and I thank you for that. Please go back through the blogs here and you'll find that I addressed most of what you commented on. Everything will then make better sense to you, including any "garbage" issue. Everything's covered. Peace, Bro'

The Other J.

4/7/2013 03:52:00 am

I'm not sure how Gunn's rejoinder to Mike M. disproves or even challenges anything. It does demonstrate what I find frustrating about this entire KRS, etc. argument: Mike M. brought up five points of contention, cited some outside sources, and is told he doesn't know enough and needs to brush up on his facts. None of what he's brought up is actually challenged, just his intellectual capacity is. Although it was pleasant, it was bordering on insulting.

(Gunn brought up medieval weapons, which is why Mike M. mentioned the Ullen sword; you can't bring up a category and then claim the counter-evidence doesn't matter. That's like a kid taking his third strike and yelling "That doesn't count!")

There's a hoarder mentality at play here: Accumulation of evidence doesn't mean much if the evidence isn't solid. It's not like the accumulation of crap eventually equals gold -- it equals the accumulation of a lot of crap. And that doesn't just come down to perspective.

Something about the 'accumulation of evidence' line also, to my ears, smacks of a kind of messianic method, the kind of apologist scholarship that claims the divinity of Christ because so many people talked about the divinity of Christ, and that many people can't be wrong. This isn't to get into a religious debate - I really don't care about that; it's simply to raise a point about the method of argumentation, which wouldn't be accepted in other spheres. If we applied the same logic to other stories, Paul Bunyan and elves would be real. Epilepsy would be caused by demonic possession. The sun would still revolve around the earth.

It's not the job of the people challenging the claim to prove to themselves why someone's claim might be true; it's the job of the subject making the claim to provide outside evidence -- meaning evidence that exists with or without the argument -- that proves the claim. It can't be evidence that has to be looked at with the left eye squinted, on the solstice, when the sun is just peaking over an oak tree. Telling a person they just don't know enough when they've provided a fairly comprehensive argument (for a blog comment) doesn't help make a claim.

Gunn

4/7/2013 05:01:04 am

The Other J., the five points of contention are outdated. There is new information about the subjects. What use are old, outdated arguments? For example, there is now a known water-route. Why even lump the Ulen sword in with the metal artifacts, if it was dismissed years ago?

I hope by asking these questions, you haven't gotten me in trouble for talking about the KRS again. Free speech seems to be somewhat up for grabs here. Every time I seem to make good progress at possibly persuading someone of its authenticity, Jason steps in. For someone whose job it is to de-bunk alternative history, the KRS is a major threat, as are the many unblasted stonehole rocks.

If you want to discuss this further, just send me an email. You can get my address off the website I gave here on the blog.

4/4/2013 01:22:19 pm

Tom, thanks for inquiring further, and I'm glad for the opportunity to suggest a possibility for scientific study relating to the Runestone Museum's collection of iron artifacts. Each one has a different story of being found in different places around Minnesota. The museum has been able to gather many of them together, along with a collection of fire-steels. I think the museum may be able to direct you to specific information regarding each one, if you are keen enough in asking.

I believe it could be extremely helpful to have these items tested for an EXACT metallurgy analysis in order to help determine, if possible, the iron's origin...most likely in all cases from Europe. I have read somewhere that comparisons of these items at the museum have been made to Scandinavian of-like items from the medieval period. The bottom line here, Tom, is that the weapons can and should be further studied.

Being from MN myself, I will soon endeavor to email the Runestone Museum with the suggestion that the items be tested, and I will offer to help where I can in the process, including financially. I had already thought of doing this, so thanks for pushing me to move forward with the idea.

I also believe a valuable carbon dating test can be done on a particular rock near Sauk Lake, MN. Age-test a hole in a rock? Yes, but by a totally different method involving a professional archaeologist digging down to the level of rock chips to find suitable carbon dating samples. The above-mentioned rock has particularly large holes, along with a nice slope for the chips to have fallen to the ground...I believe several hundred years ago.

I've mentioned this before a few times, but now I am going to contact Scott Anfinson (remember him) by email to request that the state of MN get involved in an attempt at testing the age of the Sauk Lake Altar Rock's holes.

I had been in contact with him concerning the mysterious iron object I found at Runestone Hill by accident a few years ago, to see if he was willing to help identify what it is. The answer ended up being, no. (The object can be seen at my website given above, and BTW I would appreciate any helpful attempts at finding out what it is.)

But you are right, Tom, about a need for additional, acceptable information concerning the KRS and its "accessories." I'll try harder do my part up here, moving some of this from my mind and heart to direct action, if possible. Thanks for the unintended boost!

I plan to get back out in the field again, too, as soon as the remainder of snow is gone...another week or so. Can't wait!

Jens

4/4/2013 10:26:16 pm

Don't bother? Numerous people have dunked this. It's clearly fake. It's so close to modern swedish that I can read almost every word quite easily, this in itself shows it is 19c. Take the look at the wiki page of the stone, only in Minnesota is it considered genuine. I as a dane would love for it to be real however it clearly is not.

4/5/2013 04:56:54 am

You sound like a biased Dane, jens. For all intents and purposes, it appears that Swedes were involved with most of this medieval exploration and carving up of land in the middle of North America. Gotalanders galore! Clearly, many steps ahead of the Danes. I can see why you wouldn't want the KRS to be real...but it is. The evidence is mounting against you....

Eric Kimminau

4/5/2013 05:02:15 am

A few random comments from a fly by anonymous reader. The oldest known pirates come from Phoenecia, alegedly the termination point of the summer solstice line in "Amercas stone henge", passing through stonehenge and ending in Beirut (Phoenicia). The skull and cross bones used by pirates allegedly stem from the discovery of the skull and femur bones of Jaques DeMolay after his burning at the stake - when the Templars, their "hoard" and their "navy" disappeared in 1307, purportedly becoming a "pirate armada". Personally, I just think its all cool..

4/5/2013 09:16:40 am

I like N L's mindset. It's a good balance between "I want to believe it!" and "No way!". I agree, currently I don't think it is possible to be completely sure if it's real or fake. I also agree with you that the templar bloodline thing is utter BS. Jason has thoroughly debunked it in past articles.

4/5/2013 09:46:29 am

Yes, the bloodline mischief is where, in my opinion, many writers went wrong, including Dan Brown, Wm Mann, Scott Wolter, etc. Overall, this was a fish-bone stuck in my throat when reading The Hooked X, and my own personal view is that conjoining the duel "bloodline and sacred feminine" mischief with the Kensington Runestone was a bad idea: one has complete credibility (in my mind), and one doesn't.

I'm going to post my two emails to public figures now, one to the Runestone Museum's director, and the other to Minnesota's State Archaeologist, each one suggesting ways of testing possible "medieval Scandinavian evidences."

BTW, I think I mentioned it before, but I like it when people call me "Gunn." Self-empowerment? Why not?

4/5/2013 09:50:55 am

Hello ----- (Runestone Museum Director),

I trust you received the coffee mug unbroken, and I hope you or someone else is using it occasionally...perhaps that lady in the store who thought I was trying to sell her a mug I was merely showing her...that way pretty funny!

Anyway, I've been giving the museum's metal combat items some thought again. I've come to believe that some historical insight can be added to the overall KRS picture by getting more scientific information about these individual objects of interest. It's true that none have acceptable provenance, but of course we both know that that doesn't necessarily eliminate them as true, medieval artifacts.

I have a serious proposition to make to you and the museum. I will pay up to $300.00 to help defray costs relating to the metallurgy testing of the main battle items. Additionally, if necessary because no one would care to do it, I will search for a suitable, local lab to do the testing, though it would probably look better overall if the museum located a lab to work with on its own.

What would be needed is a very small fragmentary chip of metal from each item. I would be willing to assist in this, too, although, again, it would look better if I weren't involved unless no one else desired to help. If you don't mind, I would like you to do me a favor and obtain (from Al Lieffort) that metal object I found a few years ago at Runestone Hill, so that it can be tested as well. As the object's finder (if that means anything at all), I think the Runestone Museum would be the best place for that possibly meaningful object to reside, since it was found within paces of where the KRS was discovered. I still have a complete accounting of the finding of it on my website at:

www.hallmarkemporium.com/discoveries

Please consider this an official request, both that the museum's weapon collection be tested, and that the metal object I found be tested as well, and then also retained by the museum.

I trust everything is going well for you and the museum. I think I've been making some progress in trying to show folks that the stoneholes were not for mooring ships, and that a quarter of a millennium separates the KRS from Vikings...though I see that some of the "evidences" may be from a slightly earlier period. It's fun to speculate, but right I'm intent on some new scientific insight, if possible. I'm also going to write to the state Archaeologist to see if I can convince him to do a professional dig at the Sauk Lake Altar Rock site. There may be some carbon dating material in with the rock chips from those two very large holes, in which case those stoneholes may be able to be dated.

New information from dating the stoneholes, and new information from analyzing the museum's weapon collection may go a long way (especially combined) towards helping to corroborate the reality of the KRS. -----, perhaps working together, we can further promote this cause of trying to help the KRS out with its ongoing identity crisis. I'll very much appreciate your help in this, and I look forward to hearing back from you! - Bob (aka Gunn)

4/5/2013 09:54:13 am

Today's email to the MN State Archaeologist:

Hello a year later, Mr. Anfinson. I saw you on America Unearthed trying to retain a dignified appearance. Good job. I think the program missed the ten giants found in a grave mentioned in another 19th century article by Pioneer Press. Oh well. By the way, there is a humorous Runestone Hill "dowsing" story on my website, on the Two Al's Don't Make a Right page, which I welcome you to read. There are quite a few updates, too, and some things you may find interesting or curious as an archaeologist. Strange things in SD, for example:

www.hallmarkemporium.com/discoveries

I'm wondering if you might be interested in trying to carbon date those two large holes in the so-called Viking Altar Rock? I haven't given up on this idea, as described below in one of my first emails to you. The owner of the property lives "out East" somewhere, but I can get the address and try to get permission. If allowable by law and if you are willing to pursue this test, I am willing to chip in up to $300.00 towards this effort, and I'm also willing to donate some of my own time to assist in the dig, under professional supervision.

I've just made a similar offer to the Runestone Museum in Alexandria in regards to having the metal weapon collection tested for exact composition. It is my hope that either one or both of these efforts could help establish the KRS as a genuine medieval document, though I realize you believe it is just a big fake. I'm hoping additional background information might be helpful in establishing "a bigger picture," so to speak.

Please take this offer seriously, and I look forward to hearing back from you. Also, thanks for your nearly-infinite patience last year, as I see going over our past communications! - Bob

Jason Colavito link

4/5/2013 10:03:11 am

Gunn, I'd like to respectfully ask that you move your discussion of stone holes and the Rune Stone to your own website. You're welcome to comment on the actual topics of my blog posts, but I don't want every thread to be about stone holes.

Kim

4/5/2013 09:58:17 am

I'd suggest that Gunn / Bob put this type of correspondence on his own website. I'm getting sick of this droning on and on and on....

Matt Mc

4/5/2013 02:40:39 pm

Agreed, Kim.

4/5/2013 04:48:21 pm

What did you add? At least Christopher taught me how to use paragraphs.

I notice that Jason respectfully asked me to move my conversation to my website five minutes after you complained. Kim, if you weren't reading my posts, you wouldn't have been getting sick of the droning on and on, so I hope you at least learned something. Repetition is a good teaching aid.

But now, this image comes to mind: You kind of remind me of a seagull that swoops in, poops, and then flies away without really adding anything...much. Good shot though, target bombing .

4/5/2013 04:03:45 pm

"I'm glad you brought up this line of discussion, because it's helping me to see the difference between challenging document sources and challenging actual artifacts."

Okay, Jason, although I opened up with the above line included, which was on subject. Some here may disagree with this (Jason, Kim and Matt), but I have seen that other people are still interested in the subject of the KRS, and progress was being made. I can see that my letters, posted above after mentioning to Tom that I intended to write the letters, have annoyed some. It's scarey, huh, seeing established history being challenged head on?

I tried to pour a bit of water into your blog-pump, but someone else can help you get your blogs going from now on, Jason, and I don't regret naming a stonehole after you. Obviously, these stoneholes are a real threat to you.

"The horror...the horror."

Adam W.

4/6/2013 02:59:43 am

So, anyone who wants to come to Jason's website wanting to read his articles and the often interesting discussions they spark, but not come here and read your droning on about stoneholes and KRS is somehow wrong and threatened by you, Gunn? Come on. I'm totally with Kim here--it grows tiresome to see you hijack every thread on this website with the same ideas. You have posted more than enough information about your own blog in old threads. Hopefully, anyone interested in it would have moved over there by now to continue to pore over these stoneholes with you. If you want to talk about correspondences you've had with the KRS museum with people interested in such a thing, your blog would be the place to do that. This is a space for people to talk about Jason's posts. It isn't a space for you to proselytize your belief in the KRS.

4/6/2013 04:24:49 am

Well, at least I was attracting seagulls, besides a few people who were genuinely interested...and learning something new.

I had posted the letters for Tom's benefit. I don't have a blog on my website. A few people came on before making jabs about not doing anything, just talk, talk, talk, so I was showing Tom and a few of these others that someone out here is actually doing something. That was the overall purpose of posting the letters. You took offence, but you didn't add anything. It's easy to join a flock of seagulls dropping poop-bombs.

4/6/2013 07:13:47 am

Nice to see that you wouldn't resort to insulting people who have a difference of opinion with you about your posting habits. Classy stuff.

By the way, my objection isn't to you posting letters, or having a discussion with Tom. Far from it. I'm just saying two (related) things here:

1.) If you want to post those letters, do it on your website (and if you don't have a blog section there, perhaps consider starting one. You certainly have enough to say). Or, try to keep the discussion about KRS and your stoneholes going on Jason's posts explicitly about those topics. That way, people with interest in that topic can read about it and comment on it in a space where that discussion is most appropriate.

2.) This isn't your website. It's Jason's. The people who come here aren't doing so to see what Gunn Sinclair has to say about stoneholes. They're interested in what Jason has to say about a wide range of topics concerning alternative history. Most of us, whether we want to join the discussion or we just want to read it, want to talk about and read about the topic of Jason's articles and posts. I may be speaking for myself here, but it has started to become rather grating that you try to tie everything on this blog to your own interest in stoneholes and the KRS. Jason has an open policy about comments here, which we all appreciate. It opens up real debate and discussion, and I've learned a lot from Jason and many commenters here. But your posts, no matter what the topic of Jason's article, are always about the same things. If anything, this shuts down discussion by taking advantage of the openness of this site to pursue your own interests. You want to talk about stoneholes. Fine. We all get it. I'd just kindly ask that you start your own blog, or expand your own webpage, to pursue those interests.

4/6/2013 07:47:09 am

If I had been talking about geese instead of seagulls, I guess you just moved to the lead position in the gaggle. Wow, you sure told me, didn't you? True, this is Jason's blog, but it's also a public blog, and some people coming here were interested in talking more about the KRS and its accessories. Most of the last few months centered around America Unearthed, which centered on Scott Wolter. Wolter's claim to fame was his authentication of the KRS, and therefore the KRS and its package of accessories was open for discussion. In case you didn't notice, people were commenting right up until "Kim" swooped in to drop her load. So then, brave you joined the gaggle, dropped a load of your own, and then moved into the forward position. Insulting? No, more like the truth. Next time, just hit the scroll button. Nobody made you read anything.

4/6/2013 08:32:02 am

You're not wrong: this is a public blog and anyone can comment here if they want. That, to me, is part one of the great things about this site. Anyone can post comments here, and that leads to some really interesting discussions from intelligent commenters. But your posts are always about the same things, and that's become a problem in my view. Not every post Jason writes, and that includes posts about AE, are about the KRS or stoneholes. Again, you seem to want to talk about that. Fine. Just do it where it's appropriate. The fact that you attempt to turn every discussion here back to the KRS and stoneholes serves to limit the discussion on this blog. I'd love to just scroll through your posts. Really. But when every article and comment section here gets turned into something about stoneholes through your frequent posts, it becomes a major distraction and takes away for the overall high quality of Jason's work and the thoughtful discussions held in this forum. Move that discussion to your website. That way, people who are interested in the stoneholes have a place to go discuss them without disrupting conversations about other topics.

Also, though I respectfully disagree with you on the nature of stoneholes, the KRS, and your posting habits on this blog, I never once insulted you personally, or compared your opinions on this blog to bird crap. That has no place in a polite disagreement. It's dismissive and rude. Most of your posts are rather thoughtful even if they're off topic. And, as I'd rather not take away from the intended purpose of this blog any further, I'm signing off on this thread as well to leave it to parties who are interested in discussing the intent of this post--which would be a discussion of Lucas's debunking of the Zeno narrative.

4/6/2013 09:55:43 am

Okay, I'm glad you're signing off, especially since you haven't added anything but a load of bird crap here. Happy trails to you as you move your happy butt along. You want respect that you don't deserve, in my opinion. You are not the final "decider" when it comes to my free speech, nor are you the appointed one to value what I say. Who are you, anyway, to question my audacity!

Sticker

4/8/2013 04:10:00 am

Wow.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.