Friday, July 29, 2016


When is “Punched in stone” NOT?

When people with the PRISTINE WILDERNESS paradigm manipulate the stone to preserve the paradigm and DENY the message "punched in stone."
Did you learn what message might have been carved on the HANNO stone?
Did you ever know about the HANNO stone?
In AD 1348 The LENAPE huddling in James Bay KNEW. 
They knew how to get to the vicinity of the HANNO stone.  
Do you know that?

But never fear. We have the INTERNET.  We can find out—IF we know what to search for.

When we search for the HANNO stone, we find find Chinese Symbols on top of the list.  Huh?  Did the people with the PRISTINE WILDERNESS paradigm do THAT deliberately?

The third listing is:

Bourne Stone continues to baffle the experts

BOURNE Stone?  What the ...?  I remember the stone having an inscription about HANNO.  Who would even investigate a "BOURNE Stone?  Well, I was desperate enough to try.

Six paragraphs down i found:

"The Hanno theory, courtesy of Howard Barraclough "Barry" Fell, the late Harvard University biology professor who gained widespread notoriety in the 1970s with his theories about pre-Columbus visits to the Americas by folks from the Old World. In Fell's book, "America B.C.," Fell translated the Bourne Stone thusly: "A proclamation of annexation. Do not deface. By this Hanno takes possession."
NOTICE:  The author with the PRISTINE WILDERNESS paradigm in his head labeled Barry Fell with the adjectives "widespread notoriety."  Fell was tried and convicted by someone with the PRISTINE WILDERNESS  paradigm in his head, but not the lifelong experience Fell had gained studying his passion in Europe and the South Pacific!

Fell's conviction should be properly labeled.  Fell had violated the PRISTINE WILDERNESS paradigm.

So let us search for the BOURNE stone.

The listing "The BOURNE stone" on top of the list.

But, look, even if the web site is by a “Historical Society” something is missing.  We are NOT told what was “punched in stone.”  People with the PRISTINE WILDERNESS paradigm are more comforable that way.
The Wikipedia item comes closer:
Wikipedia reports that Barry Fell wrote that the stone said:
 "A proclamation of annexation. By this Hanno takes possession".[3] 

The result of whoever created the modern name for the stone--Bourne--is to obscure the HANNO name and the historical importance of the artifact.  

Why is the HANNO stone "hidden away" under the windows of an obscure museum in New England?  People with the PRISTINE WILDERNESS in their heads do NOT want other people to find an artifact that exposes the PRISTINE WILDERNESS paradigm.

I think the stone is a sure indicator that ancient boats from Spain and North Africa rowed to America hundreds of years before the English Invaded.  The LENAPE were following the route pinoeering by millions of people before them.
But then the Wikipedia Author muddies things up a bit by citing other researchers, which he implies that Fell dud NOT have the right translation.  The Wikipedia Author implies that nobody does.

I disagree with the Wikipedia Author.

Remember I tried to understand what Barry Fell was thinking on the Smithville Rune Stone.  I convinced myself that Barry Fell knew his symbols and languages long before anyone else in America did.
The WICKED YANKEE uses his blog to get closer:
But the author still leaves us wondering if Barry Fell was correct.  My hypothesis is that Fell has the best translation until some one can provide evidence to improve the understanding.

If engineers were running history instead of those Social Science guys with the PRISTINE WILDERNESS paradigm in their heads then:

      1.  A qualifying group of five experts would monitor the
           latest best understanding of an artifact like the HANNO

     2.  Anyone with a new way of explaining the artifact would
           get a fair hearing before the qualifying group.

    3,  The qualifying group would revise or retain the best
          explanation of the artifact.  

     4.   Publishers and academics would be informed about
           the best understanding of the artifacts.

As a member of the HANNO qualifying experts, I remained convinced that BARRY FELL has the best hypothesis.

I recommend the qualifying group take deliberate action to replace the Bourne names, wereever found, to HANNO banes.

If you were on the qualifying grop for the HANNO stone, which hypothesis would you chooe to put into a schoolbook for kids?

No comments:

Post a Comment