Re: The Vinland Map Find Or Fraud?

In soc.history.medieval Eric Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:56:12 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:

>>In soc.history.medieval hippo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
>>
>>>> In soc.history.medieval hippo wrote:
>>
>>>> >A fun site but not convincing either way. The site's main concern with
>>>the
>>>> >authenticity of the map seems to be that Greenland correctly appears as
>>>an
>>>> >island with a similar shape to what is known today. What is not mentioned
>>>is
>>>> >the disparity in scale and that N. America is also shown as an island.
>>>What
>>>> >is shown of Greenland is probably only the southernmost explored areas
>>>with
>>>> >the north fudged just as the west side of 'Vinland' Island is fudged. We
>>>do
>>>> >know that the west coast of Greenland was well known since the settlers
>>>> >regularly went hunting for bear and seal there in the summer months. What
>>>I
>>>> >find intriguing is that the White Sea does not appear on the map. It was
>>>> >well known to Norwegians from at least the ninth-tenth centuries with
>>>> >trading/raiding expeditions for firs recorded in the Sagas. What then was
>>>> >the experience of the cartographer who knew Iceland and Vinland well
>>>enough
>>>> >but not the Norwegian coast or the Baltic? -the Troll
>>>>
>>>> I gave you the reference so that you might discover some
>>>> reasons for the forgery other than money.  I guess I did
>>>> not make myself clear.
>>>>
>>>>    ---- Paul J. Gans
>>>>
>>>> PS:  Stop figuring out reasons for thinking the map a fraud.
>>>> If you continue you'll find yourself agreeing with me.
>>
>>>If I did my friends would never invite me for tea. I'd have to bleach out my
>>>black shirt. They would cancel my subscription to 'Yoke and Arrows' and take
>>>back my autographed photo of Jose Antonio. There would be no other recourse
>>>but suicide. It is definitely not a fake. -the Troll
>>
>>What isn't a fake?  The map?  You may believe what you wish but
>>the majority of scientific and scholarly opinion differs with you.
>>You can tell by the hysterical nature of the defense.

>You as a chemist should know that truth is rarely established by
>majority views alone. Think phlogiston and caloric.

Quite to the contrary.  That is mostly exactly what happens.
Only the majority is a majority of the specialists in the
field.  On rare occasions that majority is wrong.  Those
occasions make headlines.


>>
>>Yale has spent much time and money attempting to get to the 
>>bottom of this.  They'd not bother if the consensus was on
>>the side of authenticity.

>My guess is they are looking for the killer argument to settle the
>matter one way or another.

Then you admit that there is an argument strong enough to
make Yale spend money?

>>
>>But as I say, you may believe what you wish.

>'believe'. Are you now recommending we enter the realms of faith?
>>
>>I had my say on this a year ago.
>>


   ---- Paul J. Gans




>Eric Stevens