moloch-hai

Apparently the real problem is the Firewire hardware in the scanner fails.

If you read back in the thread you will see that you have tried to change the subject at every point, and I have each time steered it back to the actual topic.

I do not know why you insist on arguing against something no one has suggested, or what so terrifies you about the simple idea I wrote that you are motivated to vicious accusations of "edenism", but I no longer care. You have revealed all we need to know.

That, anyway, is not a mystery.

Heinlein had a medical condition that progressively blocked blood flow in his brain. He increasingly needed themes that would increase his blood pressure to be able to write at all. He finally got surgery.

Maybe read up just a bit? It is the biggest open question.

Comparing scripts is the only way to identify similarities and differences. We can be confident Korean is not an influence just on geographic grounds, but all Mediterranean scripts are in play, because whoever started using runes could have been exposed to any or all of them.

You may say nobody can prove a negative, but cocksure deniers are fairly swarming out of the woodwork, here.

There is plenty of old evidence. We call them runestones. The glyphs on them have disputed origin. Nobody seems to imagine they were made up from whole cloth. But they don't resemble any other alphabet closely enough to nail down how they did develop.

Older examples would generally be expected to more closely resemble whatever they came from. Is this unfamiliar reasoning?

It is right there at the top of the window you are looking at right now. They call it TFA around here.

At issue is that there is now new evidence. It should be obvious that conclusions reached in its absence do not incorporate any evaluation of the new evidence.

The conclusion might be strengthened, unaffected, weaker, or even reversed. That is the point. There is no value in new evidence other than that it might make a difference. What is difficult about this?

The origins of the runic script are not established. If they resembled something else strongly enough to say there was just the one, we would not be discussing this.

Denmark is at the threshold of the Baltic sea. Anyone who, like the Carthaginians, could have sailed to the Baltic sea would get there via the North Sea (or down the Oder River). Such quibbling is beneath you.

Carthaginian influence might or might not be more relevant than Tartessian. It depends on the facts. Explorers are much less likely to affect origins of a script than settlers or refugees who were there at the formative time. Has anyone suggested a Tartessian influence, or are you just making shit up?

Hostility to revisiting old conclusions in the face of new facts is anti-science, but common, maybe moreso in history than in other fields.

That work was all done without this new evidence. New evidence might reinforce old conclusions, or undermine them. Nobody knows without the work having been done.