What Happens When an African American Watches "America Unearthed"

8/26/2013

Today I have two topics to discuss, though they aren’t particularly closely related.

Jerusalem Syndrome
In Salon yesterday, Christine Montross has an interesting piece on “Jerusalem syndrome,” an unofficial and disputed psychiatric condition whereby a certain number of individuals with “unusual ideas” about the Bible become obsessed with Jerusalem, visit the city, and have a psychotic episode while there. More concerning, seemingly-normal people visiting the city can become susceptible to similar episodes, developing psychosis in identifiable stages: They first declare their intention to explore the city by themselves, walking the streets alone. Next, they become fixated on purity and hygiene. After purifying themselves, they will typically dress in pseudo-Biblical clothing, frequently made of bed sheets, and then proceed to a holy place to deliver a ranting sermon about morality and simplicity. Within five days, the syndrome subsides and the otherwise normal person returns to ordinary life as though nothing had ever happened.

This happens frequently enough (42 times in 13 years) to lead some psychologists to consider it a bona fide disorder, while others suggest that extreme belief, even if hidden in “normal” life, is the root cause of its manifestation when outside the “normal” environment during a visit to the city.

Apparently, though, Jerusalem is not alone. Japanese tourists in Paris experience psychotic breaks due to highly romantic expectations of Paris clashing against the banality of everyday Parisian life. They became agitated, violent, and sometimes suicidal. In Florence, tourists become hysterical, violent, and paranoid while viewing Renaissance art, with one man claiming that the art revealed the empty hoax that was his life and several other tourists losing their sense of time or identity.

In these cases, deeply held beliefs provoked extreme reactions, and I wonder if there isn’t an “alternative history syndrome” to explain why so many who begin exploring alternative history become obsessed with defending low-evidence hypotheses, describe alternative history in religious or belief-oriented language, and become combative and extremely hostile when their deeply-held ideologies face evidence-based challenges. I’m not seriously arguing that alternative history creates psychosis, but it is interesting that cases like Jerusalem syndrome indicate just how deeply affected the brain can become when ideology and emotion collide in precisely the right way.

Most interesting, I think, is that these various syndromes are associated with specific groups. In Paris, it is almost always Japanese tourists because the Japanese have a particularly strong belief about Paris as a center of culture. In Jerusalem, it is almost always Western Christians. In other words, the syndrome has a cultural aspect—Hindus are not generally terribly interested in Jerusalem, for example.

What Happens When an African American Watches America Unearthed?
On a somewhat related note, it is interesting to see what people from outside the target audience for alternative history think about it. I don’t imagine it surprises anyone to know that the audience for America Unearthed is very heavily weighted toward white viewers. H2 does not break down their audience by race, but a review of cable viewing numbers for African American and white audiences shows significant divergence across all television programs, with the two audiences sharing very little in common. For example, no History Channel shows appear on the most recent list of the most popular cable programs for all African American adults (exception: one, Swamp People, appears on the list for African American men 25-54), while four appear on the list for overall viewers, nearly three-quarters of whom are white. The obvious conclusion is that African American audiences do not watch the History Channel in significant numbers, and therefore not its more specialized sibling H2.

This is a lot of set up for a brief bit of humor. What happens when a non-white viewer stumbles across America Unearthed? Recently an African American viewer tuned in to America Unearthed for the first time, and she immediately detected a racial component to the show’s version of American history that has gone largely unnoticed among white viewers:

Watching America Unearthed and the white guy was like ‘the history we learned in school is wrong’ tell me more Tombs and catacombs and pyramids? Ancient languages? No one can read them? Maybe if ya’ll didn’t murder millions of natives we would know a lot more of “American” history And then they wanna act like native attacks are wrong bitch you came onto their land trying to make towns and shit, you can’t do that Stand your Ground remember? ugh im babbling because its like 3 am but whatever

(spelling and punctuation as in original)

Now, granted, this writer has an interest in social justice issues; however, this viewer immediately recognized the lack of Native American perspectives, the lack of understanding of Native American contributions to American pre-history, and the program’s ethnocentrism.

I am, of course, not suggesting that race defines how we react to history. Rather, each of us approaches claims about history with certain assumptions and values. When we see how those who do not share all of the same assumptions and values view a claim, we gain a new perspective and new insight. Just to show that it isn’t all about race: I’ve heard from many white Australians who are just now getting America Unearthed on their televisions, and the reaction has been almost uniformly the same. Australia doesn’t share America’s negative historical relationship with Native Americans (though Australia has its own complex history with its Aboriginal peoples) and therefore the lack of Native Americans on the show is just as obvious there.

Compare, however, our writer’s reaction to that of Scott Wolter himself, as he related it on the radio with Tim Shaw a few weeks ago, when he proclaimed that he was fighting against

…the post-Manifest Destiny period where, you know, I mean, let’s be honest, you know, we committed genocide against the Natives because they were not Christian, they were pagan, and not worthy of owning this land, so we took it from ’em, and, I mean, you know, it’s virgin land, right? It’s basically free for the taking. And when they were finding evidence—cause you know they did—of previous contact with all kinds of cultures, some of them land claims like the Kensington Rune Stone, what would this do to Manifest Destiny? [Shaw (cross-talk): “Exactly, exactly.”] It would create a problem, wouldn’t it? So what do you do? You just make it go away. I mean, it was the simplest, it was the easiest explanation. And some people would say, well, you’re talking about a major conspiracy. In some ways, I think there is a conspiracy going on until people can explain to me things like the Bat Creek Stone.

In the statements of Scott Wolter, Native Americans appear as collateral damage in a grand conspiracy by some white people to cover up the actions of other white people to hide the truth from still more white people in the name of political power. It’s never stated that way, and I doubt Wolter thinks of it in those terms, but as you can see, when you don’t share the Eurocentric viewpoint, it sure looks that way.

68 Comments

Isaac

8/26/2013 07:49:47 am

(I'm sorry to drag this conversation over from another post, but I think it is relevant enough...)
Jason, you make some very good points about the ethnocentrism apparent in America Unearthed (and a lot of alternative history), and I'd like to relate it to something Gunn responded to me with.
Gunn, you say of the Mandan "there is enough written evidence of European-like behaviors to suggest European influence...". Could you find me any evidence of European like behaviors given by the Mandan themselves? Did any Mandan make these claims or notice these similarities? Or is it only men with knowledge of the lost Welsh Indians who ever observed this behavior?
My point, Gunn, is that you are rewriting the history (and genetics) of a whole people based on nothing but 18th century hearsay, and you find it remarkably easy to do that because you don't consider Native American history to be as important as the history of white Europeans in America.

Gunn

8/26/2013 12:44:24 pm

Isaac, my good man, I absolutely do consider Native American history to be as important as the history of white Europeans in America. Only peer back a few blog subjects, and you will see my challenge to take Native Americans seriously as they relate their histories.

As for Mandan evidence, please refer back (search?) to past discussions about Mandan evidence. The evidence is abundant and much of it comes from knowledgeable observers, including Native Americans. The Mandans were very real, very different from those around them. Look them up. Study them intensely and you may become impressed by the supply of actual evidence linking them to "outsiders" such as I hypothesized about.

My observations have been acute, in the field and as a bookworm in modern form. Begin your own journey into enlightenment, perhaps by first reading the book "Sheheke, Mandan Indian Diplomat, The Story of White Coyote"...etc.

I easily forgive, as life is a circle, and a serpent ready to bite my own butt when I step out of line...karma...what comes around, goes around.

I began my own study of Native Americas after finding arrowheads lying on the ground in a Christmas tree plantation. Redrum again? No, seriously. Every place I moved to, I would learn as much as I could about the local Native American history. For example, I lived in Sault Ste. Marie, MI, where there is much known history. Copper? Hot water was used to superficially mine copper. Copper was somewhat sacred, as were bears. Copper was widely traded but not used that much locally.

A carving of a Nordic, Viking-type ship can be found near Copper Harbor, MI. The carving is further evidence of far-inland exploration by Scandinavians during the medieval period.

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/discoveries/id21.html

Is this, like, religious zeal?

No, it's more like more evidence mounting like a pimple, ready to burst upon the "official" history viewpoint. Isaac, will you attempt to learn more about Native Americans, yourself? Will you at least occasionally believe their stories? I do, and I wonder about the Chippewa migration story, and about the East Coast warnings to move inland...about the time of Sir Henry Sinclair, possibly aka Glooscap. Isaac, are you willing to believe the Native Americans, as I am?

Religion has nothing to do with evidence? Skeptics can't have it both ways.

Tara Jordan link

8/26/2013 03:38:49 pm

Gunn
Personally I am not hostile to the idea of "early transatlantic journeys to America" (as long as we define exactly what we mean by that).I am perfectly comfortable with the theories of "contacts" & (or) explorations by ancient seafarers,but there is one major problem.Aside from what we already know,there is nothing in the historical records.The idea of a particular cover up is nonsensical because we have extensive written accounts documenting every aspects of the life of generations of individuals going back as far as the Sumerian civilization.Vasco da Gama left truckloads of documents relating to his travels,why should we expect less from Prince Madoc?.

I categorically reject the claim of Knights Templar transatlantic journey,because there is no way such major event could have slipped away through the records (this is precisely why I challenge Scott Wolter to prove it otherwise).

8/27/2013 04:59:47 am

So your evidence is a warning to move inland possibly maybe around the same time as Sir Henry Sinclair never went to America (I may not be an expert on Native histories, but I know the Zeno Narrative)? You'll have to do better than that.
Can you provide me with any actual references, or am I just supposed to trust in your authority and the one book you mentioned?
Okay, so you cant show me any real references to Native Americans explaining European-influenced behaviour, nor do you have any specific examples of European-like things they did. That's alright, you can go and look them up if they exist, I'm not in any hurry. But until you show them to me, I can't just take your word for it, I am afraid.

On the other hand, like your best friend Tara here says, where are the records of their voyage from the European side? Where are the epic poems about beardy heroes conquering the midwest? Where are the flowery letters to kings talking about all the awesome new land claimed in their name? Or have they all been swept under the rug by the Smithsonian-Freemason-Serpent Brotherhood conspiracy?

(PS What has religion got to do with anything I asked? It seems like you are trying to build a little strawman wherein everyone who disagrees with you, or even shows healthy skepticism, is a self-righteous, anti-Christian atheist struggling to maintain the status quo. That's silly, inaccurate, and very telling.)

Gunn link

8/27/2013 05:16:21 am

Major attempt slip through the record? At least you see it as major, not minor, like the Blog Host. Wow. How much has happened of a major nature that we don't know about? This is why we are all interested in history, because it can and is changing. Some are skeptical and want change to be slow, while some are perhaps insightful (even if only in their own eyes) and want change to take place more rapidly...especially when new evidence is discovered and recognized.

This was pretty good, from the African-American above:

Maybe if ya’ll didn’t murder millions of natives we would know a lot more of “American” history And then they wanna act like native attacks are wrong bitch you came onto their land trying to make towns and shit, you can’t do that Stand your Ground remember?

Tara, imagine this: a group of men sail an actual ship west to Duluth, then most of them disembark and begin a two-week river journey down the St. Croix River down to the Mississippi, back-track a short distance to the Minnesota River, then end up at the mouth of the Chippewa River (not in WI), whereupon they paddle northward until reaching within a few miles of where a Scandinavian stone document dated 1362 was discovered in 1898.

Here is where the "bitch" part comes in.

In my view, based on only precisely what the KRS actually says, the group of 20 men ended up venturing too close to Native American habitation. Again, because I've read and studied Native American history, I know that they tended to congregate near waterways, especially during pleasant weather months. In the winters, many moved inland. Some more-or-less permanent structures would be located near good water sources, which offered fish, wild rice, pelts and plenty of meat coming to have a drink.

If anyone cares to look at a map of this central MN location, he or she will see that the further one gets away (north) from Kensington Runestone Hill, the closer one will get to a Happy Hunting Ground, offering, especially, fish. (Walleye, $14.99 a pound in the local store.)

Excuse me, but what did the KRS say the 20 men ventured northward for? Fish. Precisely. Could they catch an adequate supply on the Chippewa River? No. Did they need plenty of dried and smoked fish to carry them back two weeks travel, upstream most of the way? Yes, protein please. Red meat? Good luck. Fish, the best bet. Yah, ya betcha by gollie, eh?

Sven, let's follow this river up and see if we can find a good fishing source. Eh? Yah, ya betcha, by gollie. Say, what about the possibility of hostiles...this fishing expedition could turn into a real bitch, ya know. Yah, well, we need fish and plenty of it. We're 20 strong. Look at us. Look at our weapons? What could possibly go wrong?

Switch to the Native American side:

White Fox, did you see something flashing through the trees up ahead? Yes, let's approach silently, unseen. Wow! Do you see what I see? What should we do? Well, they're only a few hours (or such) away from our best camps. What do you suppose they want? Let's kill them, since our war-party far out-numbers them. Perhaps when they see our numbers, they will surrender and make this "bitch situation" a little easier to overcome. For the good of our people. End of story for the ten men not away fishing that day.

So then, as the KRS states, ten men were found covered with blood...and not from disease, for the squeamish or overly politically correct. In a past blog here, I proved through archaeological documentation that scalping took place during the SD medieval period. MN is right next door. Scalping causes a lot of bloodshed, I would imagine, which would account for being red and covered with blood.

REDRUM, for real. We have this authentic 1362 stone document that relates the true story a real bitch situation that was overcome with "Stand Your Ground." (Even if slightly twisted around, right Sister?) Not you Tara, the other one.

8/27/2013 05:21:19 am

The above was meant for Tara's comment, not Isaac's.

Isaac, do your own searching and research, then. I'll leave the door open for the eventual apology.

Jason Colavito link

8/27/2013 05:53:41 am

Technically, the KRS says nothing about Native Americans. It could have been Hebrews, Romans, Welsh, bears, ghosts, Windigos, or anyone else for all the information the KRS provides. Additionally, it doesn't say they went in search of fish but rather that they were fishing... the fishing could have been incidental to any other purpose. If you want us to take the KRS seriously, you can't make assumptions without evidence.

8/27/2013 06:53:13 am

I know, Jason, we both want to be logical.

I think my assumptions came closer than yours, though. Of course, it's all speculation, but I've tried to base my speculation on what the runestone says, not what it doesn't say.

What's wrong with just taking "went fishing" at face value? Given the circumstances and geography, it makes perfect sense without needing to add in abstracts.

Of course, the KRS does have something to say about Native Americans when it mentioned ten men being murdered. It's just that I'm interpreting the message for the most likely meaning, while you apparently wish to leave room for more abstract and unlikely interpretations.

What's wrong with going with what's most likely, or most logical if one reads the runestone simply for what it says, rather than for what it does not say? Add together logic and good information, and that's what I've been trying to do, honestly.

They went fishing for fish, if you take the message a face value, adding nothing in. That's the simple and most logical approach. That's not saying I'm right, but it is saying I'm not adding anything to it. Everyone goes astray by adding to the message. The message, to me, says ten men were killed. By bears, etc. No, by Native Americans defending their habitation. A simple matter.

8/27/2013 07:13:45 am

I'm afraid I don't see anything I should apologize for, Gunn.
You are presenting your hypothesis about the KRS and Scandinavian cultural and genetic influence on Native Americans, and I am asking you to provide evidence to back your claims. If you have knowledge of, or access to, that evidence, I can see no reason that you wouldn't provide me with it. I'd like the names of books or reports which contain written accounts of European behavior in Natives, and contemporary European accounts of the voyage, if you are aware of their existence.

You are obviously knowledgeable about your local history (much moreso than I am), so by asking you for these things, I can do my own research and reach my own conclusions assessing the same evidence as you. If you want me to believe you, you can't just say "this is how it is do your own research".

But you don't seem to want to show me anything except a carving of maybe a boat, and a biography of a Mandan chief. I have to wonder why that is. If it is simply that you cannot be bothered looking up the references, then I'll accept that (I'm sure you are a busy man with a life outside these comments), but I get the feeling it is because the things which I am asking for do not exist.

Please, make me look a fool and show me up with a bibliography of reports, historical documents, and research which tell the story, from both sides of the Atlantic, of the land claiming trip described on the KRS. I wont be holding my breath.

Clint Knapp

8/27/2013 08:00:04 am

I thought we were done with this KRS nonsense? Didn't Gunn promise he was done pushing this crap a couple months ago? I seem to remember a very lengthy post about how he was tired of being persecuted by unbelievers (but I'm not so concerned I'm going to go dig up a link to the blog post itself).

Yet, here we are again embroiled in one more comment-thread hijacking by Bob "Gunn Sinclair" Voyles pushing all manner of assumptions with absolutely no evidence given beyond "My reading of the KRS says so!" in a blog post that has nothing to do with the stupid rock in the first place.

This is Jason's blog, and I don't intend to start a war over this or presume to tell anyone what they can or cannot say on it- that's his job and he doesn't censor anyone- but do we really have to devolve into this topic every day? How much more debunking is necessary to put this KRS garbage behind us entirely? How many ways do holes in rocks have to be demonstrated to have much more logical purposes than the anchoring of boats that never came anywhere near them?

Why is it logical at all to assume the alleged men were murdered by Native Americans? Isn't it entirely possible they turned on themselves while the natives sat back and laughed?

If the intent in all of this is to give Bob "Gunn Sinclair" Voyles' site some exposure; goal achieved. I've been there, I've looked at the "evidence" and I've seen nothing but the same shoddy scholarship and assumptions based on "it looks like..." that we see from the AA crowd.

Even the carving of the supposed Viking ship doesn't prove anything without proper analysis. It's shallow enough it might as well be a child's doodling made in completely modern times; maybe even scratched with the same pocket knife Bob uses to demonstrate the scale of one of his beloved stone holes.

The only analysis of this image given is a link to a page talking about Viking ships depicted on stamps conveniently in the same misappropriated quotation style of our AA friends: "...both bow and stern were decorated by ornamental carvings. Dragon heads were the most common designs, closely followed by bulls, snakes and worms..."

So there you go, Bob, the most you'll ever get out of this Jason Colavito reader on the KRS topic. Are we done yet?

Varika

8/27/2013 08:26:03 am

Gunn, WHERE ARE THE BODIES? The stone says ten men "were red from blood and dead," so WHERE ARE THE BODIES? The stone also uses Christian terminology, so presumably they were Christian and would have buried those bodies. In pre-refrigeration days, they certainly wouldn't--couldn't!--have hauled them home. If they weren't Christian, they STILL would have buried them in a mass grave, probably in one of the fishing vessels, as was recently discovered in the Baltic. (http://www.archaeology.org/issues/95-1307/features/941-vikings-saaremaa-estonia-salme-vendel-oseberg)

Show me the bodies, Gunn. Show me the bodies. THEN I'll believe in the Runestone. Maybe it'll prove to be a lowland gorilla...but more likely it's still just a bigfoot.

8/27/2013 12:44:46 pm

I guess it won't do any harm to thwart some shallow thinking here.

Isaac, do your own research. You are severely lacking in knowledge and I won't supply any information to you. I've supplied it to this blog in the past, very adequately. I have no responsibility for your personal education. Wise up.

Clint steps forward with his emotionally-charged blunderpuss, spreading ill-will in all directions. Clint, you seem to be some type of fool and I want nothing to do with you. To me, you are a Blog Rat preying on an earnest alternative history thinker. You have no appreciation for critical thinking, and you don't seem able to follow a flow of conversation...only to the point of being obnoxious, making this an unfortunate place to visit during your attacks. Did you notice no one else stooped down to your level of poop-slinging? Yes, yes, Clint, again, you are the proverbial poop-slinging Blog Rat, not adding anything but criticism.

Where were you? Where did you swoop in from? Why did you wait so long to declare your presence? Do you feel like the disappointing Blog Rat you are?

8/27/2013 01:08:49 pm

Varika, you have little imagination. Where are the bodies...from 1362?

Given the circumstances, I don't think the surviving ten men spent much time taking care of the dead. Since they numbered the same number as the dead men, they knew they had better make a fast retreat. They stopped about a day's travel downstream, to Runestone Hill, to carve the memorial stone. The area of Runestone Hill was probably already known about, since the area is encircled by more than a dozen stonehole rocks. Perhaps remnants of bodies can be found, but perhaps not, too. You can't dismiss my speculations just because no bodies can be found today. Let's at least be real, okay? The Brandon Ax came from my approximation of where the men were murdered, near Brandon, MN, which is about a day's travel north (upstream) of Runestone Hill. This is only one of several medieval-era weapons found throughout the region over time. None have provenance, but they can and should still be considered in the overall picture.

Yes, the expedition was part of a land grab that didn't work out. Ten men died. It's right there on the runestone, put very simply. Everyone wants to make up abstract, fanciful stories, or get rude over it, instead of just taking the runestone for what it says. Not much interpretation is needed.

Clint got rude about my website, which I put up with no expectation of gain. I only put up the information and photos so folks can have other, or additional information to consider. I've been getting between 80 and 120 page views per day, so some folks must be appreciating it. I consider myself a good photographer, and I uploaded many photos for people to enjoy, like of the so-called Viking Altar Rock.

Here's some photos I recently took of a hawk visiting my backyard parakeets; my wife put it together for me:

http://youtu.be/J45KbaZ3Ua8

8/27/2013 01:36:46 pm

Gunn, I eagerly await a reply containing;
a) the name and author of a contemporary European document describing a trip to America by the Norse which can be linked to the KRS
b) the name and author of any reliable report describing European-influenced building, behavior, or genetic characteristics in Native peoples

Those should be simple things for you to provide. Since you would obviously be familiar with the documents, you wouldn't have to look anything up, it would simply be a matter of taking perhaps a minute to type the information and check it is spelled correctly. I'm not asking you to personally educate me, but I have absolutely no desire to trawl through hundreds of comments on old blog posts of Jason's to find these things.

I believe you are unable, not simply unwilling, to provide me with those two basic pieces of information. I believe that if you could, you would have already done so; as it would be the simplest and most effective way to silence my dissent.

Christopher Randolph

8/27/2013 02:23:16 pm

"Where are the bodies...from 1362?"

I believe this is the second time I'm doing this, but this is what archeological sites from then and earlier actually look like:

http://www.livescience.com/27932-14th-century-black-death-burial.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44960443/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/archaeologists-find-viking-burial-site-scotland/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/A-Viking-Mystery.html

All that farming and fishing, building and hunting for centuries in the upper Midwest and no one has ever found one bone..?

Only Me

8/27/2013 02:29:47 pm

Gunn, you mad, bro?

Look, you believe the KRS is real. I accept that. Others do not; I accept that, too. I have beliefs that others don't share and vice versa. That doesn't excuse boorish behavior and name calling. You can't expect others to take your word at face value if you're going to go beast mode every time someone takes a poke at your personal Holy Grail and expresses disbelief in its authenticity. I came to expect more maturity from you than that.

As to the KRS, the specific problem with it, is the fact it is mired in so much controversy. Even experts can't agree as to whether it is authentic or not. As long as the debate continues, no one can proclaim, with absolute certainty, that it is genuine. Then we have to consider Wolter's ham-fisted abuse during his examination. How severe is the damage, and how will it affect the final verdict concerning its authenticity? I wish I knew. Even if it's proven to be genuine, this isn't exactly earth-shattering. The Norse founded Lanse-aux-Meadows in 1,000 A.D., so the idea other Scandinavians could make and leave the KRS over 200 years later, further inland, is logical.

The only thing that bugs me about your response to Varika, is that you said the survivors hauled ass a day's journey downstream out of fear of becoming victims themselves. If they didn't have time to tend to the dead, why would they take time to carve something that would have required days, or even weeks, to complete? They were in mortal danger, were they not? I'm sure the natives could have found them easily, and finished what they started.

8/27/2013 02:59:12 pm

"Yes, the expedition was part of a land grab that didn't work out. Ten men died. It's right there on the runestone, put very simply. Everyone wants to make up abstract, fanciful stories, or get rude over it, instead of just taking the runestone for what it says. Not much interpretation is needed."

Clearly some interpretation IS necessary. Was it a land grab, or a fishing expedition? And what was your post earlier, about "Sven" and "White Fox," if not abstract, fanciful stories?
Absolutely I can dismiss your speculations because no bodies have been found. The runestone supposedly tells you right where to find them; where are they? You have what you claim to be medieval-era weapons, but without provenance, they CAN'T be considered in conjunction with the runestone. There are too many ways they could have gotten there and too many ways they could be fakes.
Like I said before, though clearly in a metaphor you didn't grasp, I don't dismiss the possibility that the KRS is genuine--but a handful of local tales do not make proof. Give me something that HAS provenance. Give me a grave. Give me traces of the camp, or of ANYTHING between L'anse-aux-meadows and Minnesota that belongs to Vikings. Until then, I cannot seriously consider the KRS as anything but "questionable."

8/27/2013 05:23:10 pm

I called into question only the motivations for the continued diatribe regarding a topic Jason himself has expressed displeasure in, and the quality of the evidence supplied by the site in question. I'm sorry if my language offended you, but it had to be said.

This is not an alternative history forum. It is the blog of a man who spends his days doing actual research and providing fact-based insight and information who has supplied a comment ability to make comments regarding the articles he puts his hard work into. I try to keep to this principal, as do many others, but it can be rather difficult when you're treating it as your personal platform to push another KRS agenda.

You will notice that I did not stoop to name calling. That was all you, Bob. You're welcome to hold whatever beliefs you wish, and if you took my comment as a personal attack on these beliefs you are mistaken.

Jason, I apologize for this sidetrack and do not mean to appear to attack anyone or moderate your comment threads. I wish only to see fewer of these rambling discussions about things unrelated to the work you put in on any given day. I enjoy the blog and putting in my two cents where applicable, and will refrain from any further exacerbation of Gunn's KRS fixation.

8/27/2013 06:21:24 pm

"the idea other Scandinavians could make and leave the KRS over 200 years later, further inland, is logical."

Is it necessarily? Societies have periods of expansion and contraction, of greater and lesser exploration.

Scandinavians seem to have been doing a great deal more exploring and expanding in the 11th than the 14th century. Iceland even went through some low-contact periods with mainland Europe.

I would actually find the claim that Vikings poked around in Minnesota c. 1000 slightly more viable than proto-Swedes knocking about in the 1360s. Of course there's no actual proof of any of this either way.

8/27/2013 06:56:35 pm

Good points, Christopher.

I was just trying to place into context (however poorly) the reaction that would come, IF, the KRS is proven genuine. It may very well be more viable for an earlier inland expedition to have occurred than a later one. Like you said, neither case has definitive proof .

John McKay link

8/26/2013 03:58:58 pm

When are you people going to get over your romanticized vision of early European seafarers and admit the obvious truth that it was the Mandans who colonized Wales. The relevant geology is all in their favor. Rivers flow away from Mandan-land, not to it. The Missouri flows into the Mississippi. The Mississippi flows into the Gulf. The Gulf gyre leads to the Florida Straits and the Gulf Stream gently crosses the Atlantic to the British Isles. Sure, this course leads to Ireland before Wales but, as The Other J. points out below, Ireland has a bad rap for being a land of violent drunken louts. Unless the Mandans were looking for a Spring Break blow out, it makes sense that they would have continued on to someplace more serious. I'm sure a careful study of Morris Dancing will support my thesis.

8/26/2013 04:15:43 pm

Indeed,I once mentioned the Gulf stream issue when discussing the claim of ancient Africans traveling to America with large canoes.Can we expect John Henrik Clarke & Cheikh Anta Diop Aficionados to solve this mystery?.

8/26/2013 04:46:30 pm

My secondary field of study in grad school (after Balkan History) was Colonial Africa. Naturally, with my love of forbidden knowledge literature, I came across Diop almost immediately in my studies. He was too peripheral to my main work for me ever to do more than look at him for entertainment. I think there is great potential in doing a work on alternative history in non-European literature. Diop and Vine DeLoria leap to mind. Hindu nationalists provide some wonderful material. I'm not familiar with it, but I'm sure East Asia must have some doozies. The only danger in such a study would be that it would taken over by Post Colonialists.

The Other J.

8/26/2013 07:18:23 pm

The Mandans colonized Wales -- I like it. (My wife's part-Native American, part-Welsh; she also approves.)

I have a friend from India who sometimes fills me in on Hindu nationalist wackiness, like how they invented everything in Greece before the Greeks (I think that was mentioned here before). In another universe, there's a concrete analyst named Sandeep Walla who's trying to convince a producer that ancient Indians occupied New Zealand before the Maori, and how that creates a problem.

8/27/2013 11:31:18 pm

As Clint notes, this blog was not about the KRS, and I would prefer if the discussion had something to do with the topic of the blog post. I have repeatedly suggested that Gunn host his own forum for discussing his beliefs about the KRS and pre-Columbian European colonization. If this sort of thing continues, I'm going to have to start locking comments or going to a cumbersome pre-approval system, which is going to take a lot of extra time that I already spend deleting the SEO optimization advertising comments that Indian companies flood me with every night.

8/28/2013 12:34:05 am

I'm sorry, Jason, this whole derailing was pretty clearly my doing. I tried to make my original comment at least partly on-topic, but it rather quickly got out of hand.
I can assure you that I wont be engaging Gunn in any further discussion; not only because it is clearly just going to go in circles forever, but because I am a fan of yours, I enjoy reading your blog, and I would hate to think that I was a contributing factor in any kind of decline in its quality.

But, have I told you about the free apple ipad I got for filling out this definitely not a trojan online survey, or how I make $1800 a month working from home using these 5 easy steps to get rock hard abs and add inches to my length AND girth?

8/28/2013 12:42:56 am

Don't worry about it. It keeps happening across every blog post no matter who says what.

8/28/2013 03:07:28 am

You make life tough on yourself.

Blake

8/26/2013 07:54:59 am

Of course though what it all boils down to is white privilege which shows like "America Unearthed" and such is all part of it.

8/26/2013 10:30:50 am

"Apparently, though, Jerusalem is not alone. Japanese tourists in Paris experience psychotic breaks [...]. In Florence, tourists become hysterical, violent, and paranoid while viewing Renaissance art [...] In these cases, deeply held beliefs provoked extreme reactions [...]"

Oh, this is a good one: Here's another example -- the English in Ireland, specifically Dublin. When people think of Ireland, they think of sidewalk-clutching, scar-inducing oblivion drinking. That's the stereotype, but it's not that apt. The Irish are excellent drinkers, but very mature about it.

In the late 1990's/early 2000's, though, the English who were coming over to Dublin for get-togethers, bachelor and bachelorette parties, reunions and the like were getting so black-out drunk and destructive on such a regular basis that travel agencies and the authorities had to ban such groups coming over. The pubs even had to start refusing entry. Fights, broken tables, chairs, plate-glass windows, etc. -- they were losing more in costs than they were making in the English drinking them dry.

But that wasn't a secluded historical moment. Declan Kiberd at UCD has done some great work on tracking a kind of English derangement syndrome with the Irish (my term, not his). It goes back to at least Matthew Arnold his study of Celtic literature and society. There was an attempt at that time to identify and define the English character and locate it within the emerging modern world, but they had this pesky Celtic fringe to deal with -- different language, different history, different religion, etc.

What you find is that 19th century English tended to identify how they would LIKE to identify themselves (masculine, sober, logical), and then project the OPPOSITE onto the Celtic fringe, which the English in turn could use to define themselves against. That was problematic enough, but it compounded when English then began to interact with Celts through that narrowly-determined specific framework, and when that didn't go over so well, they would almost psychosomatically perform being the kind of Celt they thought these Celts should be according to their own weird definitions. More English were in Dublin than anywhere else because for centuries Dublin was a kind of experimental political outpost for London, and you ended up getting English who were trying to be more Irish than the Irish, a la "Dances With Wolves" (Dances With Leprechauns), but through a kind of funhouse-mirror vision of what "Irishness" was -- including the oblivion drinking. That specific kind of odd relationship some English have with the idea of Irishness certainly popped up in earlier 20th century moments -- soccer fights, the Troubles, etc. -- and persisted into the early 21st century with the English behavior in Dublin pubs (what some of my Irish friends called "assholing the place").

The thing is, Dublin doesn't have this kind of trouble with any other group that I know of; it was just the English, who after a few pints of the black stuff became sideshow versions of their own inaccurate assumptions -- unconscious or otherwise -- about the people and the place they were visiting. Not that the English are known to be quiet drinkers at home, but they certainly lived up to the stereotype of the Irish more completely than the Irish did.

(To be fair, I have English friends and know plenty of English living in Ireland who were not that bad. The Australians, on the other hand...)

8/26/2013 03:57:50 pm

J.
I`d respectfully disagree.Aussies are probably the coolest people you'll ever meet.
I remember the first time I visited Queensland & spent time in Palm cove & Port Douglas, I felt inclined to stay (mainly due to the living conditions & the Nautilus Restaurant gastronomic delight;).

8/26/2013 05:33:44 pm

Tara,
I'd sarcastically disagree, mate. They won't walk in cricket but complain about others who don't; can't play a rugby test match without the entire game being an officiating disgrace and whingeing about infringements that they themselves are also guilty of; and once when I was a kid, my cousin who lived in Sydney made me sit in a closet with a giant stuffed gorilla and a red light, and he said if I waited long enough, it'd talk to me. It didn't talk, and I was very disappointed. Never take an Aussie on his word.

(I don't have that much against them -- they are some of my family. But I really wanted to see that gorilla talk.)

8/27/2013 08:27:31 am

Maybe it just didn't have anything to say that day, J.

8/27/2013 12:30:58 pm

Varika, I have no evidence to dispute that. Maybe the stuffed gorilla just didn't have anything to say, especially to a 5-year-old. Good point.

Darius

8/29/2013 06:52:02 pm

If an Australian tried to prank someone's gullibility it is not an act of hostility, but one of bonding and affection. If you can see the joke and have a laugh you are a good sort, if you don't fall for the trick you are a smart one. The wrong response is to get butt-hurt about it. It is also fine to prank them back in a similar fashion if it has been done to you. It is generally best to fall for it...

We once had Germans staying with out neighbors who refused to listen to any advice because they had heard that Australians like to prank people. They refused to believe that there was such a temperature on earth as 40 degrees celcius and were burned to a crisp watching Davis Cup Tennis. They also wouldn't listen when they were warned about there being crocodiles in the Northern Territory. Thankfully they weren't eaten, but their kangaroo skin money pouch with all their cash and travel documents are now in the belly of a 6 meter long salt water croc.

Australians in the main won't kid you about anything life threatening.

8/28/2013 03:05:34 am

I guess it's okay for Jason to speculate and dance around the rim of the KRS, constantly making jabs at the runestone and Scott Wolter, without adversarial comment? Jason brings the subject up more than one visiting here would think. Look at the blog heading: bringing up America Unearthed again, then including the Afro-American bitch comment, which can easily be related to the KRS scenario. Off topic? I don't think so.

Jason then put forth his wildly speculative views to contrast with my own, which make more sense than his. Then, as usual, he waits until folks attack me, then piles onto their rude behavior. Has anyone noticed that I will defend myself when negatively attacked?

Some of you are asking for unreasonable proofs. Bodies, after 650 years. No bodies does not equal no expedition. Perhaps remains will one day be found up near Brandon. I think it is likely some blank spots will be filled in over time, showing the message on the runestone to be accurate.

Jason likes to attack Scott Wolter, so it is natural for him to attack Wolter's claim to fame, his work with the KRS. It is also natural for Jason to attack me as a believer in the KRS--but not as a coward, usually after someone else has flipped the negativity switch on me.

In my opinion, most of what Jason deals with is crap, teenage stuff, or material nerds would be interested in. Alternative history is different, and when he opens the debate, I sometimes jump in, but not without a beginning reference.

Jason is the person who is constantly attacking mainstream Christianity on this blog, just as he constantly attacks alternative history thinking. Sometimes, his opinions are worthless, like trying to make the KRS say something it doesn't say, the same as others do, including Wolter, about the men dying of disease. Folks are free to express their opinions, even when going against what the stone document actually says.

The KRS is important to this blog, because, God willing, it will be Jason's Waterloo one day.

Jason, why don't you try real hard to leave God alone for awhile, and also Scott Wolter? They will not help make you famous, as long as many of your words are putrid. Never mind how I come across...take your "powers of censorship" into your own brain. You do come across as egotistical. You want to dance on that KRS/Wolter rim, make your comments, then back away.

You aren't the bearer of truth here; nobody is. We all have opinions, some more worthy than others. I am finished casting my pearls before swine. You have played your "hate God" card on me for the last time. In my opinion, you deserve failure, not success, and I take back my "congrats" on your new book that egotistically carries your name.

Your skepticism is leading you to hell. It will be worse for those who influence others away from their Creator, such as you are attempting to do. In this regard, you and Scott Wolter are in the same boat...heading straight for hell. Your anti-God, anti-white, anti-America influence will cost you in the end. It's not fashionable, it's brazenly stupid.

Bye, un-Godly lame-brains. I'm fresh out of pearls. Go express your faithlessness and your worldly sorrows to someone else here on this platform for fools.

8/28/2013 03:17:20 am

Wow. Farewell, and please do not come back. The insult toward the African American writer as a "bitch" was uncalled for, and your further claim that I am "anti-white" is similarly uncalled for, though it says more about you than about me.

You seem also to have missed my point, which was not that your inferences about the KRS were wrong but that they were INFERENCES which you stated as fact. I was not proposing any alternative but merely pointing out the difference between a fact and an inference.

As I have mentioned many time, the KRS, even if real, does not change the history of America at all. At very best, it suggests that some Scandinavians may have explored a bit farther than they are known to have done.

You seem to believe that anyone who does not share your particular brand of Christianity is "anti-God," and you are welcome to go forth and evangelize elsewhere. There are surely some Mormon missionaries who would be happy to debate God and American prehistory with you.

8/28/2013 12:25:47 pm

"The insult toward the African American writer as a "bitch" was uncalled for."

Jason: You misinterpreted something (again). I only referred to a bitch or bitch situation in regard to the heavenly runestone. You're the insensitive person who decided to quote an ill-speaking African American. Shame on you...and then trying to pin some racial nonsense on me. Put Your Last of the Mohican Woodcutter Safety Glasses Back On and do a re-read.

Over and out.

8/28/2013 12:45:22 pm

I'm not sure how you expected "including the Afro-American bitch comment" to be read. If you did not mean for Afro-American to modify bitch, then you ought not to have written it that way. I also fail to see how the writer's grammar is relevant to the point she was making, or how it is insensitive to quote her to discuss her opinion, not her grammar. But if by "over and out" you mean you are leaving, by all means Godspeed.

8/28/2013 01:41:46 pm

I suppose if you try to, you can take it both ways. I didn't think I would have to put quotation marks around bitch for someone to follow that I meant the "bitch" comment by the African-American woman. Nice try at feigning ignorance. But it was you who quoted, thereby highlighting, the language of the Black woman for a purpose, and now you should back away? Good idea.

You should put a disclaimer on your blog stating that you like to disrespect God, and that you're flabbergasted by the success of Mr. Wolter...like, you just can't get over it. But, didn't someone else already make jabs at you about jealousy? It's a good thing Wolter wears field shorts instead of coat-tails, Lumberjack.

Goodbye Columbus

(Steve, your turn for a while)

8/28/2013 03:23:00 am

Yes, bodies after 650 years. That's quite common in archeology, as is finding older remains. So common in fact that a lot of the time the initial finds are simply people doing construction. Twice now at least in this forum when you've made that comment others (including me) have called you out on it, and you never find time to respond. You have time to bang out complaints about how poorly you're treated and how you're the only person dealing with the issues, and yet you dodge this issue repeatedly. You can't expect to be taken seriously and be ignorant of the fact that 600 or 1000 year old remains are studied all of the time.

Here's an Icelandic dig focused on the 11th century, with plenty of photos of remains discovered:

http://www.viking.ucla.edu/archaeology/viking_age_valley_mosfell_hrisbru_archaeology_byock_rg09.pdf

"when negatively attacked" - What are the options? Attacked positively..?

If this message is meant to win people over to what a boon to the planet white Christian Americans are I'd suggest rethinking a few a things.

8/28/2013 04:35:59 am

I'm going to try attacking you positively, see if it works.

Hey, Christopher, you fat sack of adorable kittens! Why don't you just piss off back to your beautifully furnished home?

8/28/2013 05:15:14 am

You can do better than that, Isaac. Allow me to demonstrate. Ahem...

Christopher, you stalwart defender of factual accuracy, I take umbrage at your unassailable application of reason to rebuke my flawed fantastical view of reality. How dare you use the higher education you rightly earned through hard work! Away, I say! Back to your Ivory Tower of critical thinking and logic, you incredibly learned Renaissance Man!

Aaaaaaaand...I'm done. Sorry, Jason, I couldn't resist.

8/28/2013 03:47:27 am

Gunn.
I am afraid you wont make your case through emotionalism.Don`t take the critics so personally,this is just a platform for exchanging ideas & opinions.Why should you care about what people think about you.Do your thing,live your life and be happy.You & I went through a cycle of antagonisms & we happen to disagree on everything but I have no animosity for you.You pretty much behave like an old bear but you are very sensitive,probably too sensitive for your own good;)

8/28/2013 01:25:20 pm

I'm not sure your wisdom will help this time, Tara.

I suppose a part of me was waiting for this to come to a head. Good-natured ribbing is one thing, but I guess the veneer has finally fallen away with his moment of emotional self-immolation. I hate to say it, but I think for some, who were victims of his surly outbursts, the grieving process will be brief, if there is one.

Will Gunn be back? Only he can say. This indignant butthurt, however, is childish. As I've posted before, I came to expect more maturity from a man his age. It's a sad day, really.

8/28/2013 02:01:06 pm

I guess I owe you a goodbye, Tara. I've got some free time coming up, and I'm thinking about making another trip up to Brandon, where I figure those bodies once were, or still are. One of the problems in the translations on "The Stone" was over exactly where the men were camped. One translation talked about skerries, sort of stony places in water, while another talked about shelters. A more exact or perfect translation would help. The men were camped between such two places. Perhaps such places could be found near Brandon, which, as "The Stone" describes, is about a day's travel by water. This time I'll take my trusty metal-detector with me.

Yes, my mother once mentioned that I seemed very sensitive. I warned people here long ago that I have Tourette Syndrome and OCD, but then, I can't expect anyone to go back and read very far. Like about the Mandans. People like Isaac come here with rudeness, then expect me to provide information I already provided because they don't want to do any work, except for taking the time for being antagonistic. Farewell, Fair Dame. I hope to have good news from the field to report later this year, but we can't expect too much from those bodies after 650 years!

Until the next America Unearthed!

8/28/2013 08:01:18 pm

Only Me.
Gunn is Gunn he is not perfect but aren`t we all?.
We have to be honest,it is not easy for someone like Gunn to interact on this type of blog.Most of us are debunkers & "critical thinkers" (at least we love to pretend we are).The man stands alone against the majority,he takes a lot of flack,eventually he will break.I dont consider that a victory or an achievment from our part.

Like I said before, I disagree on just about everything with Gunn but I respect his motivation & his passion (especially since he does it from a Pro bono base).I show no mercy with professional charlatans who make a living out of intentionally deceiving people,but Gunn is just a man with a secret garden.I`d love to convince him or lead him to a more rational way of thinking, but this not going to happen

8/28/2013 08:30:35 pm

Gunn.
If you are suffering from Tourette Syndrome & Obsessive–compulsive disorder, it doesn't transpire through your comments;).Forget about the wrong sides & focus on the positive.I don't care about your values & belief system,I think you are perfectly capable of having "rational" conversations.You only need to learn how to control your emotions, especially when dealing with debunkers & skeptics (most of them are not half as smart as they think they are;).Everything is in your mind.I told you once, you will eventually learn from an anti social,sarcastic,manipulative little bitch like myself;)

Dan D

8/28/2013 10:42:29 am

Gunn wrote:

"You have played your "hate God" card on me for the last time. In my opinion, you deserve failure, not success, and I take back my "congrats" on your new book that egotistically carries your name."

Deserve failure? Harsh words for Jason who has shown much restraint to you with your constant off-topic comments concerning rune stones and such on any given blog post.

Taking back your congrats? Is "Indian giver" appropriate here?

Looks to me like your taking your bat & ball and going home.

8/28/2013 11:15:06 pm

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." - Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in Matthew 5:38-9

"I will defend myself when attacked... what Jason deals with is crap... material nerds would be interested in... you deserve failure" - Gunn turning that other cheek like a true pro

8/29/2013 10:59:04 am

I say Jason deserves failure because of his constant attacks against God. This was a good thing for me to say, as he's actively hardening hearts against God. His punishment will be more severe, and he should take warning.

Self-defense is subjective. If I were perfect, I'd already be in Heaven. I guess I'll nickname you Rude Boy, Isaac. Are you really Opher under another email? Now there's a true Blog Rat. "The word rat don't bother me." Clint is a classic Blog Rat, too. There seems to be a collective of Blog Rats here. Opher always wants explorers to hang around long enough to leave plenty of signs of non-habitation, a foolish notion. Yet, he scoffs at other evidence.

Thanks, Tara, for your kind words. You seem to be changing for the better. Please try to avoid the hardening heart. The heart can actually become hard toward God, or the notion of God, as seen here. Being overly-skeptical can be bad, too, just as "without faith it is impossible to please God." For some reason, human faith is important to God...probably as acknowledgement of His reality.

(Bye again, maybe...bad habits are hard to break.)

8/29/2013 11:20:56 am

"Opher always wants explorers to hang around long enough to leave plenty of signs of non-habitation"

You're the one claiming they were around long enough to be carving land claims in stone and leaving thousands of stone holes all over the Midwest, not me.

This is what explorers leave behind:

http://www.thc.state.tx.us/preserve/archeology/la-salle-archeology-projects

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/colonial/cordoba.htm

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2009/11/620001261/1#.Uh_ILn9OKf8

etc etc etc

8/29/2013 04:39:31 pm

As a Christian, I find your words and attitude insufferable. Its people like you that give Christianity a black eye. Because of your recent tirades, I'm beginning to think there needs to be a Gunn control policy implemented.

Do I agree with everything Jason says, or for that matter, what the other contributors say? No. Unlike you, however, I don't consider everyone here to be fools, nor Jason as leading the charge against God. If you truly have faith, then you don't need to become God's self-appointed public defender; He is quite capable of taking care of Himself.

Everything that has happened, is because of you. Coming to this site, hijacking blogs to rant incessantly about the KRS and stone holes, bitching and moaning when your called out on it, lashing out with insults, getting preachy...this is all your doing. I don't give a damn if you have Tourettes or OCD; you have absolutely NO RIGHT to act like a prick to Jason and the others who come here to share in knowledge, experience and research.

If you're going to leave, then stop stringing it out and do it. Stop coming here just to stir up shit and disappear, proud of yourself. Follow your own advice and try real hard to leave Jason alone. It's obvious your "flabbergasted that others don't believe as you do...like, you just can't get over it." Call me what you will, rant away, add me to your shit list...I honestly can't muster the strength to care anymore. I've tried to be polite and engage you rationally, only to be subjected to your sophomoric derision. I chose to ignore it, hoping that we could have a civil exchange. Steve St. Clair and I had a contested exchange not long ago, but we worked through it. I chose to set aside my emotions and checked my ego at the door. I thought you and I could do the same, but I see now, that's not possible.

I'll finish with this final thought; for some reason, the KRS is important to you...probably as an attempt to be taken seriously.

Despite your harshness, I will wish you success in your future research. God bless, and good luck.

8/29/2013 04:56:42 pm

Only me.

As an atheist I am not offended, because you may find the same level of intolerance,arrogance & sheer stupidity among & peculiar to the new school of activist atheists.I have always been atheist & I pity the nitwits who discovered atheism through Bill Maher or christopher Hitchens, and wear atheism as a badge of honor.These idiots are as intolerant & proselytizing as Christian fundamentalists.I consider there is enough space for us to live alongside each other.We only need to acknowledge & get over our differences.I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to live and let live.

8/29/2013 05:24:35 pm

Thank you, Tara. Our choices to believe or disbelieve in the divine should be irrelevant to our discussions. Your tolerance and willingness to share both insight and personal experience is appreciated, at least by me. I'm grateful to you.

8/30/2013 05:23:46 am

Only Me, you are a pretty shallow Christian to not see how smug Jason is against God, very openly, and not care an ounce.

As for reflections of God, take the board out of your eye, poop-slinger. I don't care about your darts and false piety, all mixing together. Bottom line, you are a Blog Rat.

Don't compare my faith and stand with God with your shallow worldliness. You are a Jason-enabler and a Christian attacker. When are you planning to appear on Bill Mahr, who once actually said on TV:

"...like some asshole with Tourette Snydrome."

As a Christian, I'd like to have 5 minutes alone with him.

8/30/2013 10:16:26 am

You're still here? Bless your heart:)

Titus pullo

9/1/2013 07:31:24 am

Why would a proto Swedish expetidtion around 1300 be looking for land so far inland? Upstate ny has thousands of good furtile and south of lake Ontario. Sorry if you look hoe long Europeans took to settle in the Ohio valley from columbus landing...the kris just doesn't make sense.

9/2/2013 05:55:32 am

Titus pullo, you have managed to ask the right question, which automatically flips the door open for a side-debate to the infamous Kensington Runestone, a troublesome matter here. Usually, though, a poop-slinger comes in after I try to address someone's further curiosity...as though everything has already been discussed? Hardly. The questions and answers can go on almost unending, and someone can perhaps learn something new, but only if the debate continues.

But you must keep in mind that Jason first of all does not believe in God, and his various theories often reflect this point of view. Realistically, he does sometimes taint subjects on purpose with ridicule towards God. The problems arise when I also do a return-tainting, back in the direction of God. Such is a public debate, though some here have said there should be no connection. Obviously, it can't be helped...by either of us, apparently.

Now, Titus pullo, you may better understand my answer to your question: Why would a proto Swedish expedition around 1300 be looking for land so far inland? Again, this question itself may hold the key to the KRS mystery.

You must ask yourself the further question: Is there anything in particular in this spot so far inland that would attract explorers here? Unfortunately for some here, I think Scott Wolter adequately explained the reason, though in too-vivid speculation for some. Without going into his details, which may or may not be correct, I think he hit upon the "original attraction" for wanting to come, specifically, to the region of America which represents the center of North America.

Not America, as geography wasn't so neatly defined in medieval times, but North America. For this hypothesis to work, one would have to believe that the general shape of NA was known at the time, of course. Also, one would have to believe that various methods of guidance was available at the time. For example, there is a very real mapped (by me), geographical line that runs from Duluth to KRS hill, then to the exact, very site where the Whetstone River is located in nearly SD. This is the area with abundant stoneholes, which I believe are associated with the KRS in some way, since the KRS was found surrounded by such rocks. Is this too much to be coincidence, is the question?

Titus pullo, for all this to make sense, one would then have to conclude that a group of medieval explorers came to find the center of North America. Otherwise, is all this coincidence? In my own mind, this is too much to be coincidence. Therefore, it looks like some kind of "proto-Swedish" or Scandinavian group came here with the idea of first exploring, then settling, but from the center of the land mass rather than an edge. There is a definite Swedish connection, because the KRS mentions Gataland, a province or county of Sweden.

I think this group of obviously Scandinavian people thought they could go to the very center of the New Land and make a grab from the very center. Who would think this way? Not necessary the Knights Templar, but military remnants could have been involved to protect the higher interests...perhaps monks who enjoyed working with so-called sacred geometry. Perhaps sacred geometry would have desired a central beginning point, rather than a more usual coastal invasion, or land grab.

You are astute in wanting to know why an expedition would go so far inland. It makes no sense whatsoever...but it seems to have happened.

There is nothing wrong with looking for further answers about the KRS, but a certain amount of patience is required.

Thanks for your question, poised with patience and without malice.

Who will now bring forth the necessary Skeptic's Blog Malice for us daring to delve "too deeply" into the KRS? The subject is not taboo as long as someone wants to learn, and it is my prerogative to join in a public debate on the KRS; take some flak and then move on. I like to teach people what I've learned when they're open to it.

Gunn control? Forget it...for one thing, I like it when folks call me Gunn. What say we talk more about Jason's Waterloo? All it takes is the right question to flip the door open again. Thanks, Titus pullo!

Craig

9/5/2013 09:13:52 pm

While I rarely post here, I am a daily visitor. One of the things I do enjoy is the comments section. Almost daily it is filled with intelligent posters who give me cause to evaluate many of my own biases and opinions.

Having said that, it should be noted that most of the posters here do support Jason and are aggressive and somewhat intolerant toward those with different views. In other words, it does not come across as a fair fight.

Even though I consider myself a skeptic, I am disappointed that Jason and others seem to be content with what seems to be one of the last dissenting opinions leaving the site.. Do I believe everything (or even anything) Gunn writes? No, but he is intelligent and is one of the few posters here that can get me to spend the next couple hours researching some of these topics.

Jason, to be clear, I have learned much from your blog and think you are brilliant in many areas. I also believe you try to be fair in how you treat those that participate here. However, in my opinion, people like Gunn, Wolter when he was posting here, and others, actually enrich the site.

Just my opinion.

9/5/2013 11:33:02 pm

I've never censored other viewpoints, and I'm happy to let people post as they'd like. In the case of "Gunn," the problem is twofold: First that he has become particularly aggressive in attacking people, including me, personally. How happy should I be to receive daily attacks telling me I'm going to hell? I could do without the daily condemnation. Second, that he hijacks every topic to discuss his pet idea, even when it is irrelevant or inappropriate.

It's not about his point of view but rather how he goes about advocating it.

9/6/2013 02:59:29 am

I don't think anyone's being "intolerant to people with different views." Making up fairy tales out of whole cloth and insisting that this is factual, objective reality is not a 'different view,' it's being factually incorrect.

No one needs to tolerate abuse. For decades now there's been this bizarre movement to suggest that not letting someone tell you you're going to hell or letting someone hijack a conversation or not intruding on someone's fantasy world with facts is being 'intolerant.'

I have no idea what part of anyone who doesn't want to discuss how correct Gunn is about the KRS being stupid hellspawn is considered intelligent, charming or valuable. I have no idea why after someone spends hours typing about leaving that people shouldn't look forward to that actually happening.

Jadwega

9/26/2013 04:11:21 am

After finding this show through YouTube and having watched a few episodes, I can't believe this show is allowed to be on the air. It is absolutely ridiculous and moreover, for all of Wolter's assertions of being a qualified forensic geologist, very little geology actually goes on at all. The was one of the first red flags I found with this show. The other problem I have with this show is how Wolter is obsessed with proving that any unique or mysterious artifact found in the United States couldn't possibly have come from the Native Americans. Instead, it must have some origin with pre-Columbian conquests by Europeans. I find that extremely offensive, and I will admit to being white. How dare he make such assumptions? In one episode, he was claiming that a hidden chamber in Connecticut was created by the Irish, yet in the same episode, that chamber was dated to almost 2000 years ago, when if the Irish had arrived, according to Wolter, it would have been in the 6th century. The facts don't even add up. America does have a hidden history. That history is how we subjugated native people, did horrible things to them, and stole their land all because of Manifest Destiny. Listening to Wolter, his terrible science, and his ridiculous theories are enough to make a sane and educated person go crazy. I'm sorry that this show has been allowed to air and that people actually watch and believe it.

If...

9/5/2014 12:23:17 am

If the deep currents were 1/2 understood in the North Atlantic
since the ending of the YOUNGER DRYAS... travel was not
succinctly simply one way. Travelers left the George's Bank
area behind either way, whether coming or going. We know
that in 6,000 B.C Doggerland is finally flooded. The KRS is
now inside a stage play, as Scott Wolter has high hopes for
A.U's third season. This is one big conjectural IF that asks for
a weighing of many factors and factoids. A.U has an unspoken
context, yes, that is derailing an attempt to sense things that
be actually earlier than Folsom or Clovis. I visit this anew now.

Hypothetically...( yes !)

9/5/2014 12:28:08 am

"Indeed,I once mentioned the Gulf stream issue when discussing the claim of ancient Africans traveling to America with large canoes.Can we expect John Henrik Clarke & Cheikh Anta Diop Aficionados to solve this mystery?" Tara Johnson 8/25 at 11:15

were there earlier voyages in a similar manner...? link

9/5/2014 12:38:51 am

http://video.pbs.org/video/2365213438/

near the Equator at a loose mid-point

between Africa and Brazil's tip, there are

southerly trade winds. how bold the early

people were is conjecture. death rewards

a lack of planning with the hereafter. this

is very speculative, but then Crete has very

ancient boats or ships and humans leaving

behind Neandertal artifacts in 130,000 B.C!!!

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/middle/crete-implements-strasser-2010.html

lets be more flexible when deeply speculative... link

9/5/2014 12:54:40 am

Tara Johnson from much earlier...

"Personally I am not hostile to the idea of "early transatlantic journeys to America" (as long as we define exactly what we mean by that).I am perfectly comfortable with the theories of "contacts" & (or) explorations by ancient seafarers,but there is one major problem.Aside from what we already know,there is nothing in the historical records.The idea of a particular cover up is nonsensical because we have extensive written accounts documenting every aspects of the life of generations of individuals going back as far as the Sumerian civilization."

Really do not yell at me for a further speculative excursion,
but in 1912 poor ill-fated Mr. Scott and friends found fossils
that suggested to modern eyes the flora and fauna from a
time~frame that is over 3 mkillion years earlier. truly the very
wise Turk and his map imply contours, but to think that the
Antarctic was surveyed before the endless cold snap arrives
is the stuff of fantasy or science fiction. clearly there was an
abundance of animals in those ancient verdant forests...as
a forgotten continent grows colder and colder. Poor Mr. Scott.

"Scott’s expedition, which reached the pole on 17th of January 1912, delivered examples of 2,109 animals and fish, 401 of which had never been seen before. They also brought a huge number of rock samples, as well as Emperor penguin eggs and plant fossils.
Her grandfather was not only interested in racing to the South Pole but was also meticulous in documenting the scientific research that was done during the trip.
“They spent whole days looking for fossils when they could have been travelling on (to the pole),” she said."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/robert-falcon-scott/9018463/Scott-expedition-not-just-about-reaching-the-pole.html

[jad]

9/5/2014 12:58:47 am

South America has a southerly tip,
Africa has a southerly tip and we
know Tasmania was one of the last
land areas that connected Australia
to the Antarctic. Poor poor Mr. Scott.
He did have them stop and collect
all those samples and fossils, yes...