|
|
Post by kel on Aug 14, 2019 20:55:11 GMT -5
Is there anyone out there who can tie all this together ? Mike ?
This one is giving me a headache.....
So who wrote those sagas ? More lies ?
The 'Vikings' or Norse are credited with founding a number of Euro monarchies and states.... not white ?
And where are their 'not white' descendants ?? Killed off ? Intermarriage ? Etc..?
Did 'whites' simply co-opt Viking identity as they have for any number of other nonwhite populations ??
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Aug 14, 2019 22:24:44 GMT -5
"So who wrote those sagas ? More lies ?
HE! HE! HE! Catching on
|
|
|
|
Post by kel on Aug 22, 2019 13:01:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Aug 22, 2019 19:37:16 GMT -5
I looked hard and wide throughout the web. There is no verifiable evidence that the Vikings ever entered the Americas. No human remains were ever found. Therefore no genetic evidence. Even on the archeological front. No substantial peiece of evidence was found. No shield, no verified Viking weapons, No ships. All this stuff about Vikings in America is just ……BS. I am all for debunking lies but archaeo data is a valid subset of a package of lines of evidence. What you say may be true and there have been a number of fakes and forgeries. But how do you react to what several scholars say is archaeological data at say L’Anse aux Meadows? You say there is no whatsoever, but a number of scholars in the field contradict this. How do you reconcile your view with this? Are they wrong? If so, how? And Greenland which has substantial evidence is technically a part of North America. How do you react to these differences? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Anse_aux_Meadows |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Aug 23, 2019 15:06:08 GMT -5
I looked hard and wide throughout the web. There is no verifiable evidence that the Vikings ever entered the Americas. No human remains were ever found. Therefore no genetic evidence. Even on the archeological front. No substantial peiece of evidence was found. No shield, no verified Viking weapons, No ships. All this stuff about Vikings in America is just ……BS. I am all for debunking lies but archaeo data is a valid subset of a package of lines of evidence. What you say may be true and there have been a number of fakes and forgeries. But how do you react to what several scholars say is archaeological data at say L’Anse aux Meadows? You say there is no whatsoever, but a number of scholars in the field contradict this. How do you reconcile your view with this? Are they wrong? If so, how? And Greenland which has substantial evidence is technically a part of North America. How do you react to these differences? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Anse_aux_MeadowsDid you read the entire thread? I don't post on a whim...everyone knows that. I can provide data to prove what I am saying. If a newbies asked that question my reply would be.....can't you fkin read? But I will be nice. I repeat, there is no genetic or archeological evidence the so called Vikings ever visited North America. It is another lie. In fact I am beginning to believe the Vikings were a few hundred people that were made larger than life. Just like Rocky....get it? Europeans do shyte like that. To those who don't get it. There is a huge statue of Rocky n Philly but none of Joe Frazier....Rocky as you know if fictional. In a hundred years he will be larger than life. European People pay good money to see lies. To enhance their delusion of grandeur. Don't believe me? Check it Neanderthal. There no genetic proof they were white with red hair , if fact the contrary black skin with black hair. Go to the Smihtsonian website and see what they look like. SMH. That VAMT1 gene is a bitch! ============================= from earlier in this thread.... Again – here is further proof that the Vikings as described in “history books” never existed. It is all lies!!!! In fact it is becoming evidently more clear that one cannot tell truth from the lies in “documented” European history books. The authors also conclude that there was only ONE migration event by Inuit-like people to Greenland. Goes to show the amount of BS is written/documented in “history ‘or archeological books. Here are the main points. ------- Uncovering the Genetic History of the Present-Day Greenlandic Population - Ida Moltke,JAN2015 Quote --- through Canada in the 12th century, and archaeology has provided evidence of the coexistence of the two groups in this area.2,3 In 985, the Norse Vikings settled in the southern part of West Greenland, where they remained until about 1450 AD. Archaeology has provided substantial evidence of contact between Norse, Late Dorset, and Inuit pioneers.2,3 xyyman comment: Really??? Read onQuote --- For example, it is still unknown whether the Norse Vikings are among the ancestors of the Greenlanders. No physical or dental anthropological evidence has been found in support of admixture between the Inuit and the Norse,11 but the two populations were in Greenland at the same time, and sagas, Papal briefs,12 and archeological findings suggest that contact took place.2 A few attempts were made to answer this question with genetics, but all were unsuccessful; part of the reason is that the Norse Vikings came from the same or similar geographical regions as the later European colonizers, making it difficult to answer this question by inferring the source country of the European ancestors of the Greenlanders.6Moreover Xyyman comment: So the Pope is in on the lies?Quote ---- Third, we found no support for previous hypotheses suggesting multiple migration events.Xyyman coment: they are speaking about Inuit-like people.Quote---- Likewise, we did not find evidence of interbreeding between Inuit and Norse Vikings. Because the largest Viking settlement was located in Southwest Greenland, we would expect such interbreeding to have left a genetic signature in the individuals in the South villages, and we would not expect it to be present in Qaanaaq. However, we observed no more European ancestry in the South villages than in Qaanaaq. On the contrary, more than half of the individual Individuals were inferred to have ***no**** European ancestry at this location, unlike at most of the other locations, including Qaanaaq. Additionally, all individuals with more than 5% European admixture harbored long (>39 cM) ancestral European tracts, which we would expect from very recent admixture. Thus, the most parsimonious explanation is that the admixture in these individuals was caused by very recent admixture and not Norse Viking gene flow. Other results, such as the lack of Norse Viking admixture, are well in line with previous studies that have found no genetic evidence of such admixture10 and thus provide further support for their conclusions. In conclusion, we have presented the largest genetic data set to date for an Arctic population. Our findings complement the recent ancient-DNA-based study by Raghavan et al.10 and provide knowledge about the history of the present- day Greenlandic population Xyyman comment: so, other studies also concluded the Norse Viking occupation is also fantasy. Ie lies!!! |
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Aug 24, 2019 8:56:59 GMT -5
I repeat, there is no genetic or archeological evidence the so called Vikings ever visited North America. It is another lie. In fact I am beginning to believe the Vikings were a few hundred people that were made larger than life. Just like Rocky....get it? Europeans do shyte like that. To those who don't get it. There is a huge statue of Rocky n Philly but none of Joe Frazier....Rocky as you know if fictional. In a hundred years he will be larger than life. European People pay good money to see lies. !
I know white people pay to be fed falsehoods. True enough, but what about the
Norse archaeological evidence at L’Anse aux Meadows in Canada asked about before?
I am not talking Greenland. Is this evidence is forged or fake? If so how?
Your argument that all is false sweepingly includes all of North America.
Yet you don't specifically say how all this arcaheo evidence is false. In
fact you avoid addressing it specifically.
NOW LET'S LOOK AT GREENLAND.
Your quoted study says:
"Likewise, we did not find evidence of interbreeding between Inuit and Norse Vikings. Because the largest Viking settlement was located in Southwest Greenland, we would expect such interbreeding to have left a genetic signature in the individuals in the South villages, and we would not expect it to be present in Qaanaaq. However, we observed no more European ancestry in the South villages than in Qaanaaq."
This is OK. Good find. The study found no admixture between Norse and the Inuit.
Nothing spectacular there- different peoples, separate cultures and settlements. Fine.
But still, the same study you are using as evidence says that there were
some Norse settlements in place.
QUOTE:
" In 985, the Norse Vikings settled in the southern part of West Greenland,
where they remained until about 1450 AD. Archaeology has provided substantial
evidence of contact between Norse, Late Dorset, and Inuit pioneers.2, 3 "
You say no visits whatsoever, but the same study you are using in support says that
there were visits and contacts. I have no problem with a general argument as far as
debunking claims of sweeping European colonization and mixes. But there seems to be a
big gap in your argument, which various opponents will easily spot. How do you reconcile
this contradiction? You say it is all fantasy, but your supporting evidence contradicts
this. All I am saying is tighten up these obvious gaps ..
|
|
|
|
Post by thereal on Aug 24, 2019 11:13:31 GMT -5
If L'anse aux meadows was/is the only site of possibly contact by Euros in North America then I'm sure it would've been tested so there's only two possible assumptions. The site is a lie or the Euros are lazy to conduct a thorough investigation,the latter has to be lie because they control the media and create the narratives behind these archeological finds.
|
|
|
|
Post by yumadro on Aug 30, 2019 15:23:43 GMT -5
I think these screenshots belong to this discussion even though it is about Vikings. Saami people are indigenous people of Scandinavia and they were dark skinned people before mixing and killing.    The British Quarterly Review from 1845 calls Laplanders dark-complexioned:  Encyclopædia Britannica 1824 calls Laplanders having swarthy (black or brown) skin:  Link to discussion where I posted pictures of Saami people from late 19th & early 20th centuries: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/3028/black-saami-peopleThere is a story of black Viking who settled Iceland. He was called Geirmundur Heljarskinn (Dark-skinned and with Mongolian facial features): immaterial.no/books/the-black-viking/ |
|
