Peter Alaca wrote:
Alan Crozier wrote: news:wAxog.6625$E02.1955@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In other words, your interpretation of the saga is very selective. Not
many details support you. You have to ignore too many other details
which contradict your theory.
She only uses a mentioning of a ship ending up in
Ireland, ignores the wind, and tracts the Gulfstream
back to where she says a norse settlement was.
That is not just selective, but a selective contsruction
of evidence for a preconception.
A deadly sin for any scholar.
Of course here we see IEJ's standard procedure, first the
conclusion (which usually is that Norse but especially Swedes have
done something great, not recognized by anyone but kooks), then
find anything that might support the conclusion, disregarding any
uncertainty and anything that speaks against it, declare the
conclusion proven - and then violently ignore any contra
arguments, quite often in a very abusive fashion.
You are so right, IEJ is definitely _not_ a scholar.
And by the way, her drift origin theory is as stupid as it gets,
it ignores wind and assumes that all capability for sailing has
been lost. Actually being blown downwind due to a westerly gale
would move the origin Northwards, making Labrador or Newfoundland
the most probable origin if we assume sailing capability to have
been lost - and if not, any origin is of course possible. IEJ's
origin would place a drifting ship's eastern landing in the
Azores, Canaries, Africa or possibly even in the Caribbean -
definitely not Ireland.