Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:40:20 GMT From: still me <wheeledBobnospamo.com> Subject: Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth?
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:33:20 -0000, Gary Fritz <fritzxxxnospamrii.com> wrote: >* The Zeno map was "found" by a descendent of the Zeno brothers, and is >widely regarded as a fraud. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_brothers First, wikipedia is not an authoritative or accurate source for anything. It's an interesting starting point to stimulate real research. If you trace the arguments "disproving" the Zenos, you find that, as with most matters of historical discussion, the arguments of the later researchers are all based on the work of earlier researchers. With the Zenos, the key definable issue ends up back at a dating question concerning the original document's production date. An examination of that argument shows that the original researchers work is flawed and the earlier date is correct. I confess to not recalling the specifics of the dating issue. I can dig out my notes some time. I do agree that there is no conclusive evidence that the voyage they speak of can be shown to be to the "new world" and it may in fact be voyages to Greenland or Iceland . However, it does demonstrate Venetian knowledge (Southern Europe) of Norse journeys. Most historians agree the vikings at least reached New Foundland. Southern European knowledge of that makes it highly unlikely that Columbus would not have known of these voyages. >* The "Norse tower" at Newport RI has been archaeologically investigated. >The mortar was C14 dated to roughly 1680, and only 17th-century artifacts >were found in the soil when they excavated around it. I don't know what >Verrazano's and Mercator's maps were talking about, but according to the >evidence it couldn't have been the tower. >http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/other_artifacts.htm#n >ewport Well, the argument is that the mortar that was tested was mortar used in repairs in the late 1600's - the building is acknowledged of having been used during those times. Regardless, if that is not the Norse tower, we still have the verified issue of the maps to deal with. Most historians have chosen to ignore that issue since it does not fit with their accepted theories of who was in the new world and when. >* The Rosslyn Chapel carvings are very stylized, and have been interpreted >by various specialists as wheat, strawberries or lilies. (I grew up on a >farm in Iowa and it doesn't look like corn to me. :-) >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosslyn_Chapel Again, wikipedia. There are several carvings (three plants as I recall) commonly concluded as coming from North America and nowhere else. There's more to it that you will see at wiki. The bottom line is that most people continually discount any suggestion that Christopher Columbus first "discovered America" - even though few even know that he never even saw North America. They recount this religiously since they've been told over and over that it is so. They discount facts that don't fit and choose to ignore them, simply because they don't fit.
