Dragnix.Net

In my daily web surfing have discovered something about humans existing millions and billions of years before we are supposed to exist according to evolution/ As i understand we arent allowed to post links outside the site so pm me if youd like to see the movie.

You are allowed to post links if it's to illustrate a point.

aaaaah I see. well here ya are: http://jellotv.com/node/2382

wow now i dont know what 2 believe lol! film was a bit long but while watching it i couldnt help but think there is a resonable explaination;


the time period that was establised was based on a limited amount of artifacts, if ALL artifacts were found and carbon-dated then it would easy to work out the real time line but perhaps scientist only found the latest ones and thought that they wouldnt date back any further, thats why this has come as a big shock, they based their theory on limited data.


either that or are whole existance is impossible to record and its one of those things where it's better not knowing!!!

I have watched the whole thing; there are no lack of fallacies and irrational explanations.


Example 1: The dinosaur/human tracks explanation can be found there:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html
It's an argument that have long been debunked. Carl Baugh, whose techniques of excavation as long been considered substandard, is one of the few people left that still think those are human footprints. Personally, I think the poor guy doesn't want to admit that he wasted 12 years trying to see things that didn't exist in the first place.

Example 2: They compare two map of Antarctica, that show remarkable differences (missing the lower right of a massive peninsula) but because both map show some sort of gulf in the upper middle, then the actor pretending to be a scientist quickly conclude that those mysterious humans had the same technology as us (disregarding the fact that if they had, the maps should look the same but apparently the producers didn't bother to explain why it isn't so). Anyone reasonable can understand that it's a biased conclusion.

Example 3: They put a lot of emphasis on the so called missing link, and as good creationists and conspiracy theorists they are, they quickly disregard the vast amount of transitional species clearly showing the evolution of human/horse/dinosaur/you-name-it. Moreover they conclude that if no one bring a 30 FPS slideshow of an ape morphing into a human, then evolution doesn't exist. This alone is sufficient to qualify them as nutballs. According to the same logic, there is no such thing as "atoms" until someone come with a perfect atomic model representation. This is irrational since science tweaks and make small modification to many things that is taught in schools today (that a bit why someone shouldn't be surprised to find thing that weren't correctly explained in a '60 biology textbook, compared to a recent publication).

Example 4: Mammoths frozen with vegetation in their gut were caused by a... sudden "shift": Earth crust just moved 2000 miles suddenly like that. Yes, this is what those guys actually believe. Ice on polar cap, create a gravitational pressure that make the cap fall toward the equator (making the whole Earth crust to move suddenly). Okay, my explanation aren't as nice as their little video but you get the point. Well, the only thing I thought at that moment is: wow, their hypothesis is so stupid, it's unbelievable. Not only their own video shows that it isn't possible since there is no "side gravity"; gravity always aim toward the center of the Earth and if you draw a dot at the center, in their video and keep in mind that everything above is falling toward that point, you can clearly see that the polar cap can't "fall" or "shift" (I over simplify since there is a gravitational force between any objects no matter their size but this gravity isn't strong enough to be taken in consideration). Moreover, ice have roughly the same density of water (around 1g/cm3), meaning that mountain should cause sudden "shifts" too (especially when rock are about three time heavier). I would certainly have liked to know why mount Everest isn't giving the Earth crust a lateral "push".


All this to say that this video is a good example on how easy it is to sound convincing there is no one else to point the out the flaw in their reasoning.

Wow, Tempest you really know your stuff . Ok here is my response to each of your points.

1. It appears i was correct about this according to some of the pages. i thought it was a baby brachiasaur or brontasaur or maybe apotasaur footprint having been stretched and thinned throughout time.

2. Though I strongly doubt they had the same level of technology as us, is it not possible they sailed and mapped it when there was a higher sea level? this would account for the penninsula missing.

3. I agree. There is to much archeological evidence hinting at evolution to deny it. However this is a moderately old movie so they were kind of ignorant of modern thinking.More proof of this is a movie from the 60's about vikings where they are spouting stupidity. Suggesting what we now know was currency was a sewing thing. Also saying they were barbarians who killed for fun and were unclean. Nowadays we know tht scandinavia was overcrowdedand the vikings were colonizing new land and killed when they had too or when they would make money for food or because they had been offended or finally when at war.

4. I agree completely. However i see one possibility for giant ice to move earth. A closer moon could provide sideways gravity enough to rotate earth slightly.

Lastly, i want to say that i never said itwas true. I just put it up here cause it got my mind thinking and bescause we seemed to be sitting on the same topics forever.

emerald_draco wrote:wow now i dont know what 2 believe lol! film was a bit long but while watching it i couldnt help but think there is a resonable explaination;


the time period that was establised was based on a limited amount of artifacts, if ALL artifacts were found and carbon-dated then it would easy to work out the real time line but perhaps scientist only found the latest ones and thought that they wouldnt date back any further, thats why this has come as a big shock, they based their theory on limited data.


either that or are whole existance is impossible to record and its one of those things where it's better not knowing!!!

You are right emerald, basing the age of either the South American site or the sphinx based on projected Astronomical locations is pure speculation. Now if they found a body of a crushed worker under either of these sites, and carbon dated the skeleton, then we really could accurately date these edifices. There are many things we still don't know of the people who built the well dated Megalithic structures like Stonehenge, but it is safe to say they were not super-advanced. But yes, they could have had ships well-built enough to travel to the New World, and indeed, there is good evidence that they did. But none of this challenges the theory of evolution, or suggests dinosaurs and humans were contemporary. Many people think legends of dragons prove dinos and men lived at the same time, but it is very clear that intelligent, even talking "dragons" who brought technology to humans in so many cultures, cannot be walnut brained dinosaurs, for which there is no archaological evidence after the KT event 65 million years ago.

I have visited the Paluxy tracks, and agree they are all made by dinos. As for other analomies, most date from the 19th century when archaeological methods were not very refined. For example, a modern human skull or stone tools could have been deliberately six feet deep as a votive offering, going through 100,000 years of geologic strata. Poor excavation methods might suggest these things had always been in those stratas.

Still, there are some very strange things, like the metal spheres in pre Cambrian rock. I would like to see a more detailed study of these things. Meteors are sometimes fragments of other planets. Perhaps these spheres came to earth in a meteor.

As for people moving huge blocks of stone, modern experimental archaeology proves this could be done without the aid of aliens. The only real question is why these ancient peoples would spend such incredible amounts of time and labor to use such huge stones for apparently no practical reason. There is an interesting anecdote in the ancient "Testament of Solomon" about a huge winged dragon that helped cut and move the enormous blocks to build the king's temple, but humans of the time were quite capable of doing the work themselves.

Although in the case of Stonehenge, of course, the reason is clear. This was a favorite gathering place of dragons where they accepted sacrifices of food and drink on the Summer and Winter solstices. But no self-respecting dragon cares to sit with his butt in the dirt when consuming sacrifices. Therefore these massive stone "perches" were built, strong enough to support the weight of dragons, and in a convenient circle so they could socialize. There are similar megalithic "dragon perches" scattered throughout Europe, though Stonehenge was the biggest, and most popular gathering place. The humans that went to the great expense of building it then, were assured the protection of these creatures as long sacrifices were made there. These practices largely ceased when most of the Druids were exterminated by the Romans, and ended altogether when the land became Christianized, for real dragons cannot harm "people of the book" unless they prove unrighteous.

Manofthewolf, there is no dispute that the Vikings were an incredibly violent and bloodthirsty people. One of their favority tortures was to break open the back ribs of still living people, and pull their lungs out of their body, which as they inflated with air, looked like bloody wings. This was done to Christian monks in a pardoy of the winged angels these Christians believed in. According to a contemporary muslim account based on meeting the Vikings, yes, they were an incredibly gross and filthy people. Modern revisionism by "Viking fans" has tried to distort the truth, but sometimes the original perceptions remain the most accurate. And there is a good reason that Vikings decorated their ships with dragons, as my upcoming book explains.

I will not comment on anyting else you have said ,save the last paragraph, because you cant prove to me that dragons perched on stonehenge like birds on branches unlike the fact i can prove to you that stonehenge is aligned with the sun

However on your last comment i have a few tings to say. When you describe the vikings as dirty, malicious people who killed for the hell of it ten you insult myancestors and i back nearly 500 years. They bathed when they could, had a fully developed written and spoken language, and when all they mini-kingdoms were brought together by some guy whose name i forget they even had a government. AND THATS JUST NORWEIGAN VIKINGS. Also prove they ripped out monks' lungs and inflated them. One more thing, when dragons were on boats , which not all boats had, they were designed to scare enemies s**tless.


I get a feeling you are a 12 year old with a thesaurus sitting in your basement makeing stuff up as you go.

The method of cracking open the ribs and such was called the 'Blood Angel'. And yes Tyler, the Vikings had a good government system and a way of living.

manofthewolf wrote:I will not comment on anyting else you have said ,save the last paragraph, because you cant prove to me that dragons perched on stonehenge like birds on branches unlike the fact i can prove to you that stonehenge is aligned with the sun

However on your last comment i have a few tings to say. When you describe the vikings as dirty, malicious people who killed for the hell of it ten you insult myancestors and i back nearly 500 years. They bathed when they could, had a fully developed written and spoken language, and when all they mini-kingdoms were brought together by some guy whose name i forget they even had a government. AND THATS JUST NORWEIGAN VIKINGS. Also prove they ripped out monks' lungs and inflated them. One more thing, when dragons were on boats , which not all boats had, they were designed to scare enemies s**tless.


I get a feeling you are a 12 year old with a thesaurus sitting in your basement makeing stuff up as you go.

Like you, I have Norwegian Viking ancestry as well. But unlike you, I am a real Historian who has had some of by books printed in four languages and even sold in the British Museum.

Just becasue they were my ancestors doesn't mean I am going to sugar-coat the fact that they were murdering pirates with filthy habits. Anything they could steal by force they stole. But if they wanted goods from more powerful nations like Byzantium, then they traded, or they would have been captured and executed for the bloody pirates they were. The account of their filthiness is from an authentic arabic journal based on eyewitness accounts of Vikings. It is pretty obvious you have never seriously studied your "ancestors", or you would have known what the Blood Angel was. What are you, twelve, thirteen years old?

And do read people's posts more carefully before you make yourself look foolish. I stated very clearly that stonehenge indicated the Summer and Winter Solstices. After all, that's so everyone knew which day the dragons would come. I realize you do not know what the word Solstice means, but I think you have a vague idea by your mentioning of an "alignment with the Sun".But did they need to make the massive dragon perches just for show?. No, they were unnecessary if the point was just to determine the Solstices. But no, I cannot prove dragons perched there, but people who have read the manscript of my next book, are convinced that the original Jews and Chistians who wrote the Bible understood and believed that dragons are the highest heavenly servant creatures. I don't have to prove God exists either, for billions of people already believe it, though most do not understand how dragons fit into the picture until they read my book.

I do hope you all realize that it was four in the morning when i typed that. And no im not sugar coating anything, I know the vikings killed and they were good at it which is why im quite proud of them and strangely I only am more proud when I have further indication that they ripped upon the monks. Also, outside renassaince fairs sword fighting with friends and sleep I live in places with many many books(though not the library as i can't read "adult" books yet) and while I claim to know everything about nothing i know my fair share about many things. Also my friend no worthy viking would steal, It is honorless. Trade with them or kill them were they options. And to say I know nothing of my ancestors is a mark of your ignorance of who I am. I'll give you my address if you want and can come see my several thousand book collection and i have read every letter in every word in every sentence in every paragraph on every page in every chapter and I know, believe me my friend, I know.

Also dont refer to the bible as i care nothing for your bible.

I studied the vikings more as people then warriors. If all you know of your enemy is haw fast his axe is or how accurate his bow then you know nothing of your anemy. I know many of the day to day habits of the vikings, how they lived, why the germanic tribes moved north to scandinavia, how they were formed as countries, why norways flag looks suspiciously like swedens flag, so more than just the vikings i know about scandinavia. I know of the neanderthals. Nor do i only know the fact but i also read many legends of the land (my favorite being beowulf of course). I also am researching the more modern facts of scandinavia, namely norway and sweden,. Furthermore I would call you an ignorant fool for suggesting i dont know what im talking about but i cant as i did the same thing to draconic chronicler.

not to mention the 30 something books i have about my anglo-saxon, I could put british but they arent exactly the same thing and anglo-saxon sounds cooler, heritage.

I know good and well what solstice means.

Though when i re-read the post i realize i did look like an idiot in some places.Oh i apologise if it hard to understand nd lotta misspellings im kindain a hurry here and already over the limit.

manofthewolf wrote:I do hope you all realize that it was four in the morning when i typed that. And no im not sugar coating anything, I know the vikings killed and they were good at it which is why im quite proud of them and strangely I only am more proud when I have further indication that they ripped upon the monks. Also, outside renassaince fairs sword fighting with friends and sleep I live in places with many many books(though not the library as i can't read "adult" books yet) and while I claim to know everything about nothing i know my fair share about many things. Also my friend no worthy viking would steal, It is honorless. Trade with them or kill them were they options. And to say I know nothing of my ancestors is a mark of your ignorance of who I am. I'll give you my address if you want and can come see my several thousand book collection and i have read every letter in every word in every sentence in every paragraph on every page in every chapter and I know, believe me my friend, I know.

Also dont refer to the bible as i care nothing for your bible.

I studied the vikings more as people then warriors. If all you know of your enemy is haw fast his axe is or how accurate his bow then you know nothing of your anemy. I know many of the day to day habits of the vikings, how they lived, why the germanic tribes moved north to scandinavia, how they were formed as countries, why norways flag looks suspiciously like swedens flag, so more than just the vikings i know about scandinavia. I know of the neanderthals. Nor do i only know the fact but i also read many legends of the land (my favorite being beowulf of course). I also am researching the more modern facts of scandinavia, namely norway and sweden,. Furthermore I would call you an ignorant fool for suggesting i dont know what im talking about but i cant as i did the same thing to draconic chronicler.

not to mention the 30 something books i have about my anglo-saxon, I could put british but they arent exactly the same thing and anglo-saxon sounds cooler, heritage.

I know good and well what solstice means.

Though when i re-read the post i realize i did look like an idiot in some places.Oh i apologise if it hard to understand nd lotta misspellings im kindain a hurry here and already over the limit.

Let me get this straight. If a boatload of pillaging Vikings raid an Irish monastary, rape the nuns, torture and kill the monks, and take everything of value, that doesn't qualify as "stealing" becasue they killed helpless men and woman to get their loot? What an interesting concept.

Vikings were good warriors, but they would rather burn and loot helpless monks than a foritified city becasue it was less risky to themselves. Vikings had an honor code among themselves, but not when it came to murdering and pillaging ther helpless victims. They didn't count because they were foreigners. Quit pretending you know something about Viking history, becasue you obviously do not.

And guess what, your precious, pagan, vikings adopted Christianity, so who ulitmately was more powerful, the monks with the word of God, or the murdering Vikings who accepted their religion and gave up being murdering pirates becasue Christianity taught them right from wrong? (And having the dragons stop bothering them once they became Christians had something to do with it too, but that's another story).

Maybe you play with swords at Rennaissance fairs, but I do it for real. This is my horse and armor, and I have done demonstrations at major museums and on the history channel. I have complete viking gear too. In fact, as a norman Knight, I captured the Saxon Dragon standard at the reenactment of Hastings, on the original battlefield a few years ago.

Oooh some asotrus wussed out, big woop noone cares. I also say vikings were good people because I dont care what they did to the the worthless pigs who couldnt defend themselves. Much the same way as if you saw one of my people being burned at the stake you wouldnt care. Dont bash my religion.
I
could own you with a sword or large single bladed battle axe, i believe they are called gothic axes but i know little of weapons except how to use them.

One last point: I'm not gonna argue anymore because I know im right and you know you are right and thats obviously not gonna change. Although you did stick with what you said and i respect that a little even if i think your full of s**t.

However I do have a gut feeling you googled that picture. If you wish we can further this discussion but I refuse to argue and do not bash my religion again or I'll have to say some nasty things about you and your religion.

manofthewolf wrote:Oooh some asotrus wussed out, big woop noone cares. I also say vikings were good people because I dont care what they did to the the worthless pigs who couldnt defend themselves. Much the same way as if you saw one of my people being burned at the stake you wouldnt care. Dont bash my religion.
I
could own you with a sword or large single bladed battle axe, i believe they are called gothic axes but i know little of weapons except how to use them.

One last point: I'm not gonna argue anymore because I know im right and you know you are right and thats obviously not gonna change. Although you did stick with what you said and i respect that a little even if i think your full of s**t.

However I do have a gut feeling you googled that picture. If you wish we can further this discussion but I refuse to argue and do not bash my religion again or I'll have to say some nasty things about you and your religion.

I don't believe I said what I was a member of any religion. You made that assumption. What I did say, was the historical fact that the Vikings disowned their powerless, pagan Gods, and willingly accepted Christianity because they believed its God was real. Nobody forced the Vikings to do that (except the terror they had of dragons, but this can only be speculation).

Yes, it is true that confused Children nowadays have dredged up the nonsensical false Gods that the REAL Vikings all rejected once they were introduced to Christianity. It is very possible that the bravery of the unarmed Monks and Nuns that the Vikings slaughtered and raped proved to them the power of that God they they soon accepted themselves.

Even your Hero Beowulf accepted Christianity, though God still allowed the dragon to kill and devour him for the blasphemy of invoking Gods name to kill a Heavenly Seraphim that was testing this converted Pagan. But I am sure you know too little about Anglo-Saxon culture to discuss this, so I would say just wait for my book which has a whole chapter devoted to the "true" story of Beowulf.

I can prove that is my photo because all of the armor is in the same room that I am typing this. That photo was taken when I still worked in Germany as a military Historian in the U.S. Army, so no longer have the same horse, but I could post an image of any piece of armor that you see in the picture, just to prove again that you don't know what you are talking about. I could tell you what books I have written, and what history channel productions I have helped produce, but the last thing I need is some geeky little kid on a computer to find out my address, and screw with my identity because you give me every indication that you are some kind of sick, devil-worshipping, juvenile delinquent.

I know you are just a little kid who thinks he knows a lot. But you don't know anything. But I will give you a piece of advice. Give up your little game of believing in the Pagan Norse Gods, your Viking forbears all had the sense to throw away, but they had the advantage of seeing things back then that you do not.

Mmhm I never said I was an asotru. Im wiccan, believe it or not there is a difference. Beowulf isnt my hero, I said I liked the story. Oh and yeah I believe you own armor, I could too if i wanted to eBay it. I have a sever problem beleiving you could actually survive a face to face fight with me without your precious little horse and the tin can you call armor. A real warrior doesnt need steel coating on his skin. Oh and before my god and my goddess your itty bitty god would cry in a corner. Oh and the story of jesus? seems to happen in alot of religions. Just a few I know off the top of my Osiris and krishna, Generally i'm a very tolerant person but to call pagans ,especially wiccans, nonsenseical and devil worshippers is the same as if you had kicked me in the nuts. It was a low and cowardly move which I have returned in kind. Oh and wiccans are not children. 30,000 years of worship to the real god and the real goddess. Hmm how much older is that than christianity? 26,000 years i believe it is. Oh and before you tell me that im gonna burn in hell I have something to say to you:

He is your god, they are your rules SO YOU BURN IN HELL.And were it not for the Rede and the Three fold law I would hex your ass so bad.

Also I'd like to apologize to all whom I have offended all of you except He whom i refuse to name

...yeah, Im going to burn in Hell too. But then again, how can you burn in something you believe does not exist. "Hell doesn't exist- its right here on Earth."

Manofthewolf Please desist the flaming. Doing so is simply making you appear more immature that the person I am sensing you are trying to flame. Please keep it to at least a civil debate level

Draconic chronicler Sadly I am one of those who rarely believes a single thing written on the 'net. If you really were all of these then you'd at least provide us with a few programs that you have so said 'produced'. Then at least there's the chance for us all to do a little ip-checking to see if you're really who you say you are.
Please keep, as I said to manofthewolf, this to a civil debate level. I cannot lock topics but I strongly encourage you keep it to a better level than this.

Thank you,
Silv

Mmm.. since you put it so nicely I will try to remain calm.

Thank you

Nice new avvy by the way. I sense you like the bad guy from the patriot. I t was a cool movie except he threw the tomahawk wrong.

Tavington didn't throw the tomahawk, that was Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson). Yes, of course I like the bad guy I always have done. But the Green Dragoons are especially drool-worthy.

-ahem-

End off-topic

I have returned....BEWARE!

After careful *cough* analysis of this thread, I think that I should listen to Silv and shut you up before this gets even MORE out of hand.

draconic chronicler wrote:And guess what, your precious, pagan, vikings adopted Christianity, so who ulitmately was more powerful, the monks with the word of God, or the murdering Vikings who accepted their religion and gave up being murdering pirates becasue Christianity taught them right from wrong?
...
I don't believe I said what I was a member of any religion. You made that assumption. What I did say, was the historical fact that the Vikings disowned their powerless, pagan Gods, and willingly accepted Christianity because they believed its God was real. Nobody forced the Vikings to do that (except the terror they had of dragons, but this can only be speculation).

Okay, your post is dangerously close to be considered as preaching and this is not the kind of discussion I want on this board.

First of, the Vikings had many gods, and it was no problem for them to accept the Christian's god alongside their own. In fact, you can still find gravestones in England with both the Thor's hammer and a cross (showing that Vikings must have thought it was better to be safe than sorry). Second, there was considerable pressure to convert to Christianity if they wished to have more peaceful relations with the Christians (ex: Treaty of Wedmore in 878). Moreover, it was frowned upon for Christians to trade with people of other faith. Lastly, Viking's settlements converting or not, was most of the time dependent on whether the local chieftain converted. The same idea can also be seen on a larger scale.

How quick people/Vikings converted to Christianity is meaningless. This has nothing to do with "my god is better than yours" because as far as I aware, no god showed him/herself up to the Vikings to enlightened them; it was the plain man-made preaching that win the day. How this happen is a question of politics. For example, Harald Bluetooth of Denmark supported both conversion by using Christian imagery on Danish coins during his reign and by establishing bishops in various Danish towns. Simply put, Vikings were raised with Christianity all around them and there were few to defend the old beliefs. Like with anything else, if you were raised in Iran, you would probably think Islam is THE religion and more likely to support Sharia Laws and if you are born in Texas, you are more likely to support capitalism, capital punishment and so on.

A modern example of "un" conversion can be found in the quiet revolution of Quebec from 1960 to 1966, where one of the most religious population switched side to be on of the less religious one in North America. How did this happen, simple... they removed religion from school, hospital, and secularized the government. Basically, once your institutions (schools, government, etc..) began to promote a particular ideology, a majority of people will follow within a generation or two. This however has nothing to do with the validity or even value of a particular faith.

draconic chronicler wrote:Yes, it is true that confused Children nowadays have dredged up the nonsensical false Gods that the REAL Vikings all rejected once they were introduced to Christianity.

Not really, they just faced determined people who wanted to convert Vikings to their faith, while Viking didn't had this "go out and spread the word of god" mentality. The people sending out spam and advertisement picked up on the concepts long ago, proving that repeating the same message over and over is actually quite effective to convince people that your brand/ideology is the best.

draconic chronicler wrote:It is very possible that the bravery of the unarmed Monks and Nuns that the Vikings slaughtered and raped proved to them the power of that God they they soon accepted themselves.

Okay, let get serious for a moment, are we speaking about the Middle Ages? Because today if such story may outrage people, back then I seriously doubt so. You see, back in those times before widespread usage of guillotine, the common execution methods were: the breaking wheel (breaking every bone of the victims and leaving it to die or to be eaten alive by birds), burning at the stake, drowning, boiling to death (legal form of capital punishment during the reign of Henry VIII), sawing (where they hang you upside down and saw you in two parts from top to down... since you are upside down, your brain still receive blood and you are conscious the whole time), to name a few and these were *execution* methods. Now with a bit of imagination you may be able to picture what torture may have looked like.

Now don't tell me that non-viking Europeans were mercy-killer, or that their torture methods were more humane. Vikings slaying monks and making "Blood Angel" doesn't sound any worst than what European did publicly in the rest of Europe. Moreover, you make it sound like Vikings raided a monastery every day before breakfast. True, some Vikings indeed attacked monastery because they were often quite wealthy and poorly defended, but that was not a common practice. Also, Vikings were not Saints, there were Christians, Jews, Muslims thieves, murderer and rapist too. Just recently a handful of US soldiers on duty decided it may be fun to raped and killed some Iraqis people (some of them little girls), history will remember these acts but that doesn't mean a majority of American soldiers are like that.

Beside in that time, armies were much more tolerant toward soldiers who wanted the warrior reward by looting and using the local population for their own enjoyment. So to claim that all Vikings were suddenly stricken by remorse because of a few monastery were raided, doesn't make much sense since most Vikings wouldn't even heard of the deed anyway (words to mouth distorts facts and I seriously doubt that a raider would give himself the bad role in all this).

Speaking of the pious Christians, you have heard of the Crusades? Those virtuous crusaders didn't hesitated to rape, murder and exterminate complete population in the name of their enlighten belief. Some believe that it was a purely was a defensive war, but this explanation is flawed since the crusaders where often on the offensive and also committed atrocities against Jews in the towns of Germany, France, England, Palestine, Syria and Hungary (to name a few).

All this to say that if you want to catalogue the atrocity committed during human history, you won't have to look very far. But I don't think Vikings were any worse or any more filthy than any other European at that time.


BTW: This is perhaps the thread that moved the most quickly off-topic, I had to seen in a long time.

WOOT! Go tempest oh master of the board, oh wise one, the scholar, conquerer of un-truths (geez talk about being a kiss butt huh?) you will be forever rememberd as he who slew the viking lies! And yeah it did get off topic pretty fast but hey I found it fun ,havent had a good argument in months.

Tempest,
I don't believe I said anywhere in my posts that "Christians were better", or more humane. Nor did I ever say I was a Christian. I made the very accurate statement that the Pagan Vikings were savage pirates that stole from and murdered the weak, and traded when the other culture proved too powerful to safely get away with plunder and slaughter. And I believe are are familar enough with the historical record to know this is fact.

I am well-aware of the Christian atrocities and that really has nothing to do with the basic discussion. History reveals that the Vikings themselves decided the Christian God was superior to their old panalopy. Otherwise they would still be worshipping Odin and Thor. And it only goes to show how much shallower their beliefs were too. Christians died horrible deaths in Roman Ampitheaters for their beliefs. Vikings betrayed their old beliefs just to be more succesful traders. Hmmmm, what dedication.

And you seem to be mistaken about Vikings being "less filthy" than other Europeans. In southern Europe, regular bathing remained a popular concept even after the fall of the Roman Empire for it was part of that region's culture. This is attested by archaeology as well as surviving literature. Does the fact that contemporary records suggest the Vikings were filthy reported by Muslim and Southern European standards make them more barbaric? No, I didn't say that either. I was merely reporting the facts.

+ Silver - Orbs + wrote:Tavington didn't throw the tomahawk, that was Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson). Yes, of course I like the bad guy I always have done. But the Green Dragoons are especially drool-worthy.

Yes, "green" dragoons are cool, I did Napoleonic French Dragoons when reenacting this period in Europe. Still have the uniform kicking around someplace. 18th Regiment with yellow facings, 1808-1812 uniform. i cast the buttons myself based on originals I found on one of my "battlefield archaeology" expeditions.

But Patriot was a disgraceful movie, depicting the British as unspeakable savages in the AWI, for which there is no historical documentation. Mel Gibson never made a historically accurate movie. His latest, Apocolypto, was no exception.

Do you deny being christian?

Maybe christian converting was only a charade to help them trade?

Don't know much about ancient england but I seem to remember reading something about them throwing they're waste ointo the streets as well as when there was no chamber pot available just "went" in the streets nor do I remember anyone not even royalty bathing regularly.

Also, why do christian cruelties not apply here? Do you wish to hide they're cruelty to witches as well as to muslims?And blacks?

Also wouldnt you rather raid defenseless villages, boats and monasteries rather than a heavily defended capital city?
___________________________________________________________

Uh, I said the patriot movie was good. Not historically accurate. This is why it is called Historical-fiction. If I were a director I would prefer making a movie innacurate rather than get all the facts right so I could sell to the idiots we call consumers today.