1500 year old Christian church in Conneticut?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


www.ancientlosttreasures.com... I am happy to be of assistance, here is the link to the site which contains photographs, diagrams and history. It is interesting and i feel worthy of more research.

Originally posted by debris765nju
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

www.ancientlosttreasures.com... I am happy to be of assistance, here is the link to the site which contains photographs, diagrams and history. It is interesting and i feel worthy of more research.

Yes, I read that. The key phrase here is

"Recent epigraphic evidence found here suggests that it is 1500 years old"

.

A suggestion is not proof. In fact, one date is not proof. There is certainly reason for a further look around, but let's keep that question mark at the end of the thread title for now, shall we?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
I am of the mindset that the carved rock was not accomplished by human hands, would you be interested in the evidence that gives me this inclination?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by fraterormus
The most important connection that lends credence to the possibility that Columbus was using pre-existing charts was the chart drafted by the Zeno brothers who accompanied Prince Henry St. Clair (the later of which was the Grand Master of the Knights of Christ) to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia in 1380.

Proof, please?

This account can be found in "The Voyages of the Venetian Brothers Nicolo & Antonion Zeno to the Northern Seas in the XIVth Century" edited by Cooper, Robert L. D.

The Zeno brothers map, as copied by one of their grandsons, Nicolo Zeno, was published in 1558 and the island of Frisland (sometimes called Frischlant, Friesland, Freezeland, Frislandia, or Fixland) contained in this map appears on almost every nautical chart and map published between 1560 and 1660 (including charts by Mercator). There are many scholars who are dismissive of the entire Zeno brothers map as a fraud perpetuated by either the elder Nicolo Zeno, or his grandson, Nicolo Zeno the Younger (the former assumed entirely intentional and the later could have been unintentional fraud). As the elder Nicolo was put on trial for embezzlement, it isn't a leap for many to be dismissive of his accounts. Some dismiss this simply as an attempt of the Genoese to stake a retroactive claim on the New World (as the British did with claims of the Explorer-Prince Madoc after attempts made by Queen Elizabeth to stake a claim on the New World under the premise that King Arthur discovered the New World in the fourth century failed to convince anyone). Some scholars accept their account as factual but regard Frisland as the Faroe Islands rather than Nova Scotia. Only a small handful consider this account as potentially having credence.

The attribution of Prince Zichmni as accounted in the notes and letters of the Zeno Brothers being Henry St. Clair is a more recent attribution that comes from modern research done on Rosslyn Chapel, and although most scholars don't dispute the attribution (only the descendants of Sinclair family disputes this), this too has fallen into speculative pseudo-history in light of the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail being debunked as a fraud (even admitted to being such by it's authors) which started the initial interest in Rosslyn Chapel and the St. Clair family. Whether or not this is an academic throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater is still open for debate (only one scholar that I am aware of has provided an plausible argument that the carvings in Rosslyn Chapel are not actually depictions of flora from the New World, and that argument is just as tenuous as the assumption that these depictions are of flora from the New World.).

So, the map and the account do exist (there are even Wikipedia entries on all of what was mentioned above, if you are still in doubt), but whether or not it was a fraudulent hoax or potentially valid is a disputed point.

The reason I mentioned it was to provide yet another possibility among three others to support the premise that Columbus could have indeed had crude, pre-existent charts, and was not sailing entirely blind. Whether or not this specific possibility is pseudo-history and a hoax, or whether it is rooted in veracity is for the reader to decide.

reply to post by fraterormus

I appreciate your having presented this information as admittedly speculative. Too often it breathlessly comes forward as fact. There is much to investigate on this subject, and all the answers are not in. In fact, speculation and intuitive leaps are behind most discoveries of fact. The key is not to confuse them. I've poked around, myself and expressed opinions regarding Oak Island, and the Norse as well, based upon some interesting opportuniities I've had. I know there is no castle at New Ross, but I also know that a butternut was found at L'an aux Meadows.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by fraterormus

 

I appreciate your having presented this information as admittedly speculative. Too often it breathlessly comes forward as fact. There is much to investigate on this subject, and all the answers are not in. In fact, speculation and intuitive leaps are behind most discoveries of fact. The key is not to confuse them. I've poked around, myself and expressed opinions regarding Oak Island, and the Norse as well, based upon some interesting opportuniities I've had. I know there is no castle at New Ross, but I also know that a butternut was found at L'an aux Meadows.

Just as the old saying goes that a Christian who attends Seminary can no longer possibly believe in Christianity, the same goes for History and Archaeology in my own experience.

History and Archaeology are equally as flawed as Religion, as it takes a certain amount of "Faith" to believe in what is predominantly accepted as "Canon".

History and Archaeology both are not absolute Truths. They are the preponderance of evidence filtered through the lens of the scholar and their own "biases" and "beliefs". Although both use Scientific Method, they are dealing with subjects that are not as easily demonstrable in the same respect as the "hard" sciences, such as Chemistry and Physics are.

A more honest Historian considers all possibilities and accepts that which is more likely a probability, rather than shoe-horn evidence into their premise. The problem is that what is accepted as Historical "Canon" has often been shoe-horned and not necessarily any more true or possible than other possibilities.

For example, if I were to discover a map I could subject it to various methods of dating. Carbon Dating would give me a ballpark figure, I could subject the map to a critical paleographic analysis and determine the date to within a generation or two, and I could even do a cross-comparison with other maps to determine pre-existing sources or derivative works wherein which I could more accurately date the map. However, all of these methods take into account assumptions that only rule for the greatest possibility but do not specifically negate, or rule out, other possibilities.

And there is nothing wrong with this method in and of itself. The problem lies when the results are taken as "Canon" and all other possibilities are no longer considered (or worse yet, when the findings do not easily fit into the Historical puzzle and are then shoe-horned to fit irregardless of what the findings may have been). Scientific Method should require that these possibilities remain in potentia until they are comprehensively ruled out. Instead, the Academic world takes the path of least resistance and accepts what is posited as the most likely as historical "fact", rather than rule out other possibilities until only one possibility remains.

It is easy for the Academic world to dispute findings that challenge Historical "Canon" rather than have to reconsider the implications which may put all subsequent Historical events into question. Historical Anomalies are so commonplace because of this. Rather than consider the possibility of these anomalies in their own individual context, based on their own merits under Scientific Process, we regard them in light of whether they fit or don't fit into the Historical "Canon". When they do not fit into this context then we relegate them to "Pseudo-history" if we cannot definitively discount them as a "hoax"...although that later word is often overused when the jury still should be out still in deliberations.

Take for example Roanoke. Look up Roanoke in any reference and you'll hear tale of the "mystery" when in all actuality we have plenty of evidence to tell us precisely what happened at Roanoke. The problem is that the evidence points to a conclusion that does not fit within the Historical "Canon". Matter of fact, it downright defuses the political agenda that was used for several hundred years if one were to regard where the evidence points instead of disregarding the evidence and glossing over the entire subject as "unexplained". As such, "official" History presents an inaccurate story about Roanoke irregardless of all historical and archaeological evidence to the contrary.

As such, I try to take every historical "fact" or "evidence" with a grain of salt, but unless there are specific and valid reasons to discount any one particular piece, I'll continue to consider it a possibility even when it may not be a probability. I'd rather be guilty of presenting all possibilities rather than be guilty of exclusion for the sake of either simplicity or convenience.

reply to post by fraterormus

First Line: Monte Verde.
Second line: Folsom.
Third Line: L'ans aux Meadows

Three good examples of how you are wrong.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by fraterormus

 

First Line: Monte Verde.
Second line: Folsom.
Third Line: L'ans aux Meadows

Three good examples of how you are wrong.

Although the second line is contrary, the first and third do show the predisposition to adhere to the historical Canon.

The preponderance of evidence lead W.A. Munn in the 19th century to posit the Wineland/Vinland to be Newfoundland. His book "Wineland Voyages: Location of Helluland, Markland & Vinland" was primarily relegated to Pseudo-history until the find of L'ans aux Meadows in 1961. Although by the 1980s the majority of scholars no longer contested the Viking presence in Canada, it is still hotly debated just how far south along the Atlantic seaboard the Viking exploration had gone. Most draw the line concretely at L'ans aux Meadows, while some will debate Maine and a scant few for New York City. Although some evidence exists of even more southern voyages by the Vikings, this is still firmly regarded as Pseudo-history almost universally.

The assertions of findings, although empirically sound, at Monte Verde were entirely dismissed for almost 30 years. It wasn't until 2008 that the find has been gaining acceptance in some circles, and still the debate rages on in others...fiercely contesting evidence that does nothing more than change a branch of a timeline by 1000 years. Monte Verde has been a testament of how resistant the academic community can be even when given "How much evidence do you need?"

However granted, these are both instances where truth eventually started to triumph, welcoming what was once regarded as Pseudo-history into the Hallowed Halls of History...but they also go to show just how difficult it is, with plenty of "concrete" evidence that it takes to get there, if ever at all.

Although I do understand your point with the second line. Folsom is a prime example of what not to do in an Archaeological dig, yet despite little or no Scientific Method being used what was said about the Folsom culture was accepted wholesale, with little question, as historical fact even though there was little to no evidence to reinforce those conclusions. Although do you think it would be easier for a scholar to reinforce what is widely accepted about the Folsom culture with their findings or for that scholar to provide evidence to the contrary?

Originally posted by fraterormus

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by fraterormus

 

First Line: Monte Verde.
Second line: Folsom.
Third Line: L'ans aux Meadows

Three good examples of how you are wrong.

Although the second line is contrary, the first and third do show the predisposition to adhere to the historical Canon.
Although by the 1980s the majority of scholars no longer contested the Viking presence in Canada, it is still hotly debated just how far south along the Atlantic seaboard the Viking exploration had gone. Most draw the line concretely at L'ans aux Meadows, while some will debate Maine and a scant few for New York City. Although some evidence exists of even more southern voyages by the Vikings, this is still firmly regarded as Pseudo-history almost universally.

Sorry...the butternut at L'ans aux Meadows speaks to more southerly travel but that's it. The Maine Penny has been shown to be part of a First Nations toolkit from Labrador. Nothing more at this point.

The assertions of findings, although empirically sound, at Monte Verde were entirely dismissed for almost 30 years. It wasn't until 2008 that the find has been gaining acceptance in some circles, and still the debate rages on in others...fiercely contesting evidence that does nothing more than change a branch of a timeline by 1000 years. Monte Verde has been a testament of how resistant the academic community can be even when given "How much evidence do you need?"

Sorry, Monte Verde is now a gimmee for all the right reasons and it shattered the 12.5 kya paradigm.

Although I do understand your point with the second line. Folsom is a prime example of what not to do in an Archaeological dig, yet despite little or no Scientific Method being used what was said about the Folsom culture was accepted wholesale, with little question, as historical fact even though there was little to no evidence to reinforce those conclusions. Although do you think it would be easier for a scholar to reinforce what is widely accepted about the Folsom culture with their findings or for that scholar to provide evidence to the contrary?

Folsom proved a Pleistocene human occupation in North America, shattering yet another paradigm in its day.

Proof is proof. Conjecture is conjecture. Ya can't build a history out of poo.

Originally posted by fraterormus

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by fraterormus

 

As such, I try to take every historical "fact" or "evidence" with a grain of salt, but unless there are specific and valid reasons to discount any one particular piece, I'll continue to consider it a possibility even when it may not be a probability. I'd rather be guilty of presenting all possibilities rather than be guilty of exclusion for the sake of either simplicity or convenience.

edit on 8-11-2010 by fraterormus because: (no reason given)

I thought this was a thread about what is purported to be a 1500 year old christian church in Connecticut. If this is the case, the only hard and physical evidence that should be addressed at this point are the stones themselves. The stones are the reason for the claim, the way they are carved, etched, engraved. There is also the matter of what was written, if anything. The is a good possibility that there is plant matter beneath the smaller stones that could date accurately when they were placed in their current position. At least as accurate as carbon-14 dating can be. There are issues about the images within the stone similar to the Ica stones.

There is plenty of evidence of Pre-Columbian visitation to North America by European and perhaps even Asian explorers. Only Scientific dogmatism keeps such visitations from becoming official history.

Throughout North America, there are massive ground structures that cannot be attributed to any known indigenous tribes; in fact the indigenous tribes have no oral tradition describing such massive (and even megalithic) structures. Mystery Hill in New Hampshire is one such structure — often attributed to colonial "pranksters," the site predates colonial habitation and even indigenous tribal habitation.

Giant mounds and ground structures in Ohio are actually larger in area than the Great Pyramid in Egypt.

Other Pre-Columbian oddities include the various "runestones" and inscriptions of a decidedly runic nature that can be easily attributed to ancient Viking visits (but are NOT attributed to Vikings, thanks to hardheaded modern archaeologists).

The extensive prehistoric copper mines around Lake Superior, which can be attributed to no known North American indigenous people, tell us that upwards of 100 MILLION POUNDS of native copper was excavated there at one time — yet all the copper trinkets and tools discovered on this continent do not amount to a fraction of that weight. So, WHERE did the copper go?

Out West, in Colorado, there is evidence that coal mining at depths of up to 800 feet deep took place in the distant past. Who the miners were or how they accomplished such extraordinary excavations in pre-history are a complete mystery.

So, the possibility (likelihood) of an ancient Christian church in North America is really no surprise at all; except, perhaps, for those who are still entrenched in the myth of "no non-natives before Columbus"...

Anyone with a lick of common sense can recognize that SOMEONE was exploring and exploiting the resources of this continent hundreds or thousands of years before Columbus "discovered" North America.

— Zesko Whirligan

reply to post by Zesko Whirligan
I agree with you on many levels. I just do not attribute the mounds, mines and pyramids to the human species. I do believe that they are the product of human labor, but under duress. Native American cities of tens of thousands inhabitants would require the same infrastructure then as it does now. The organization had to be enforced over many different tribes over vast reaches of land. It had to be a force that the natives could not rebel against and that filled them with fear. I say this because the people did not flee. The Maya diaspora and the mesoamerica downfall reflect the same event, the withdrawal of that controlling force. I think an understanding of the sanskrit Vedas is a key to understanding the early history of Man.

Oak Island Treasure. I have a different explanation for what is in the money pit. No treasure nor Ark of the covenant nor any other item of intrinsic value. It is an inverted mound, to make it harder for inquisitive humans to find. This photograph from the front page of the OIT shows the opening to the pit, it also shows the inhabitants. Nearly invisible and without a physical form, they helplessly watch as their home is systematically dismantled. This is important enough to verify for yourself. download the picture, enlarge it. I use a highlighter set to the same size of the face. The coloration is optional. This is for educational purposes only and is not to dissuade anyone from investing in this venture.

Originally posted by debris765nju
reply to post by Zesko Whirligan

 

I agree with you on many levels. I just do not attribute the mounds, mines and pyramids to the human species.

Oh, I think humans are entirely capable of all these remarkable construction sites and oddities found all over this planet. Anything we can conceive is attainable, and we are a CRAFTY species, unlike any other animal on this globe.

Yes, I might as well get this out of the way, I'm pretty sure we were "assisted" by interdimensional entities. I know these entities exist, and you know it, too, and the ancients knew it. We have identified them as "angels" and "demons" and "allies" and all sorts of other-worldly names all throughout our species history.

Actually, I think there are superior intelligences living here on Earth with us, and that those intelligences originated on Earth in ages past. We call them UFOs today, but they're not visitors from the stars; rather, they evolved right here on Earth, long ages before us, and possibly attained a "perfect" technology the like of which we have yet to attain.

— Zesko Whirligan

reply to post by Zesko Whirligan
Good to know where we stand..

reply to post by debris765nju


I've "viewed" Oak Island clairvoyantly and I see no massive treasure vault; but I have received an impression from that site that it wants to be left alone to heal. I'm not cueing off the above post — I started trying to probe the Oak Island sites back in the 70s, using only clairvoyance. It's an empty site. The overwhelming impression I get from Oak Island is that it's tired of the abuse and it wants to peacefully grow-over for a few decades.

— Zesko Whirligan

I'm really, really in touch with the living Earth, and I know it is capable of generating all manner of phenomena. In fact, we're going to go visit one of Earth's longtime favorite phenomena: The Brown Mountain Lights in North Carolina. It's right in our backyard, really, and the view is spectacular.

— Zesko Whirligan

reply to post by Zesko Whirligan

I concur, i think if they persist more people will die. This is true for the rest of the mounds and pyramids these grave-robbers are seeking to loot under the guise of science. Did you catch the influx from deepwater in the GoM? Their presence is magnifying exponentually. How long with the clear seeing?

reply to post by debris765nju


It's in my family, going back through bloodlines that stem from Germany and England. Many Clairvoyants and Sensitives in my family, as well as royalty. Which goes hand-in-hand, you know.

Regarding the oil spill: it was assimilated, metabolized and degraded by the living ocean. The Ocean Ingested DeepWater Horizon, burped, and it's done. Not even a problem. Merely a factor.

— Zesko Whirligan

Originally posted by debris765nju
I just do not attribute the mounds, mines and pyramids to the human species. I do believe that they are the product of human labor, but under duress. Native American cities of tens of thousands inhabitants would require the same infrastructure then as it does now. The organization had to be enforced over many different tribes over vast reaches of land. It had to be a force that the natives could not rebel against and that filled them with fear. I say this because the people did not flee. The Maya diaspora and the mesoamerica downfall reflect the same event, the withdrawal of that controlling force. I think an understanding of the sanskrit Vedas is a key to understanding the early history of Man.

You might want to study a little anthropology, because the issue of complex societies is covered in 101. There's no mystery.