donald r raab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is no secret on this board that I tend to the
> alternative side. I find it grating that the
> mainstream develops a chatechism and expects it to
> be believed like an imprimaur from the Pope. The
> Amazon for a generation or more was captive to
> this kind of chatechism. And of course
> Valsequillo and Calico and others to numerous to
> mention. I have a real problem when every
> anamolous piece of evidence is a priori a hoax.
> NOTHING in human experience is 100%.
>
> And I have a real problem when the mainstream not
> only choose to ignore what they don't like (that
> is fine for them) but then they impose a gate on
> others doing the research who may not be of the
> same mind. That is the true pseudoscience. One
> can just imagine a doctoral candidate proposing a
> dissertation on Valsequillo and early entry. It
> is quite possible that the candidate if allowed
> might even make the airtight case that it just
> didn't happen. But the gatekeepers want more
> certainty than that.


I like to look at the odds.

What are the odds that an ancient trading ship got blown off course while poking around in the Western Mediterranean and ended up in England? Pretty good. England is reasonably close, and when you desperately need land, there it is. It's also close enough you could get back to tell the tale.

What are the odds an ancient trader in the Atlantic got blown off course & ended up in the Americas? Well, it's certainly possible, and that might explain some anomalous finds. Could such a ship then make it back home? Less possible, though it might happen. Make that trip many times? Not likely, given the ships of the time and the relative worthlessness of what they might find.

So while it's possible that an ancient trader ended up in the new world, it's not likely.