America Unearthed goes to find Vikings with me in Baja California!

Jun 2017
220
maine
#11
"Ancient aliens" seems to be a broadening study too these days, doesn't mean I have to believe it ;)

All I'm saying is, I haven't seen anything yet on this topic that appears to be more than vague "could haves" and "might have beens", so I'm remaining a skeptic for the time being. That doesn't mean that I'm deriding anyone who believes in this theory.

"Ancient aliens" on the other hand... :p
One of the hallmarks of a historian is the ability to research--the ability to make assessments based on evidence and not on preconceptions. I don't know which of the two arguments you disdain more--that Vikings might have sailed beyond Oslo or that women sailed on voyages of exploration--but there is a growing body of evidence that both were the case. There is nothing vague or "might-have-been" about the analyses and studies being done. If historical studies become mired down in knowing only what we already know, we must all then join the Flat Earth Society and we must accept everything on face value only.
 
May 2019
65
Earth
#12
One of the hallmarks of a historian is the ability to research--the ability to make assessments based on evidence and not on preconceptions. I don't know which of the two arguments you disdain more--that Vikings might have sailed beyond Oslo or that women sailed on voyages of exploration--but there is a growing body of evidence that both were the case. There is nothing vague or "might-have-been" about the analyses and studies being done. If historical studies become mired down in knowing only what we already know, we must all then join the Flat Earth Society and we must accept everything on face value only.
Did you just compare me to a Flat Earther because I don't believe that Vikings reached California...?

And when did I give the impression that I wasn't willing to believe that women accompanied voyages of exploration? I just gave an example of a Spanish one doing so.

So far, you haven't added anything new to this conversation in the way of evidence for the Viking theory; you've merely claimed that the theory is more solid than I believe.

No offence, but I'm not interested in listening to you make assumptions about my beliefs or what theories I'm willing to accept. If that's the way this conversation is headed, then I'm out.
 
Jun 2017
220
maine
#14
Did you just compare me to a Flat Earther because I don't believe that Vikings reached California...?

And when did I give the impression that I wasn't willing to believe that women accompanied voyages of exploration? I just gave an example of a Spanish one doing so.

So far, you haven't added anything new to this conversation in the way of evidence for the Viking theory; you've merely claimed that the theory is more solid than I believe.

No offence, but I'm not interested in listening to you make assumptions about my beliefs or what theories I'm willing to accept. If that's the way this conversation is headed, then I'm out.
Membership in the Flat Earth Society is voluntary--not an imposition--and if you aren't volunteering, I'm not putting you there. What I said was that historians research and do analysis based on the evidence at hand. Yes, there has been work done in this field and the theory is more solid than that of ancient aliens.
 
May 2019
65
Earth
#15
Yes, there has been work done in this field and the theory is more solid than that of ancient aliens.
If you say so. What I'm saying is, you haven't provided any evidence that it is, so I'm going to remain skeptical for the time being.

Just as you rightly pointed out that we should not discount every theory simply because it's different from what we know, we should also not jump to believing that a theory is solid just because someone says it is without providing hard evidence to back it up. So far, AlpinLuke's description of MesoAmerican vessels seems more plausible to me than a Viking ship.
 
Jun 2017
220
maine
#16
If you say so. What I'm saying is, you haven't provided any evidence that it is, so I'm going to remain skeptical for the time being.

Just as you rightly pointed out that we should not discount every theory simply because it's different from what we know, we should also not jump to believing that a theory is solid just because someone says it is without providing hard evidence to back it up. So far, AlpinLuke's description of MesoAmerican vessels seems more plausible to me than a Viking ship.
Sightings of the ship go back to the 1870's. Actual research began in 1933 with the report of the Bottses. Desert Magazine published findings in 1939. The studies have continues and are the subject of books and articles--including Mancini's "Vikings of the Desert". Even Newsweek has run an article on them (2 Feb 2017). Perhaps the MesoAmerican vessels have dragon-headed prows. You don't have to believe every theory you hear--that is no more logical than discounting any theory that is unfamiliar. But you do need to research the theory before accepting, rejecting or withholding judgement pending one's own analysis.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,918
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#17
Sightings of the ship go back to the 1870's. Actual research began in 1933 with the report of the Bottses. Desert Magazine published findings in 1939. The studies have continues and are the subject of books and articles--including Mancini's "Vikings of the Desert". Even Newsweek has run an article on them (2 Feb 2017). Perhaps the MesoAmerican vessels have dragon-headed prows. You don't have to believe every theory you hear--that is no more logical than discounting any theory that is unfamiliar. But you do need to research the theory before accepting, rejecting or withholding judgement pending one's own analysis.
I'd like to see sources about that ship. Usually [I've spent years in the field of alternative history, so I know how these things work ... similarities and coincidences become evidences ...] I tend to prefer a local explanation when it's available ... and Mayan ships looked like the one engraved on the rock [which doesn't look exactly like a drakar ...].

So now, out of curiosity, I'm going to look for some sources about "Vikings of the Desert".
 
Likes: hyuzu
May 2019
65
Earth
#18
Sightings of the ship go back to the 1870's. Actual research began in 1933 with the report of the Bottses. Desert Magazine published findings in 1939. The studies have continues and are the subject of books and articles--including Mancini's "Vikings of the Desert". Even Newsweek has run an article on them (2 Feb 2017). Perhaps the MesoAmerican vessels have dragon-headed prows. You don't have to believe every theory you hear--that is no more logical than discounting any theory that is unfamiliar. But you do need to research the theory before accepting, rejecting or withholding judgement pending one's own analysis.
And that's why, if you read my earlier post (#8), I said that I wasn't shooting down the op's theory, I was just voicing my opinion, based on what I'd seen so far. And so far, the evidence I have seen still leaves me skeptical.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,918
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#19
Likes: hyuzu

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,918
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#20
So that, to sustain that on that rock we can see a depiction of a Viking drakkar, we have to imagine that, after meeting the Mayans, the vikings begun to represent their own ships like the Mayans did!
 

Similar History Discussions