Talk:Lake Winnipesaukee mystery stone

United States: New Hampshire Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	New Hampshire portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (assessed as Mid-importance).

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources

CNN article on the Mystery Stone

I don't know how to cite sources, but I think of CNN as a very trustable source. I was checkin that statement on google (67 pages as a result) and all of them make the same statement. --Arturo #7 20:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the WP citing how-to. It's not a matter of CNN being trustworthy - it's a matter of patently lifting their material. It's fine if CNN's information is used, we just can't copy and paste - that's plagiarism. And speaking of plagiarism, I'm not sure the images from the New Hampshire Historical Society are public domain, either. Could we do a check on those?--TurabianNights 20:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could. We should ask the NHMH or whatever if it is public domain! =P --Arturo #7 00:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until we do, I'm going to remove them. If we get their permission to use them, we can revert. --TurabianNights 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've emailed them. We'll see.--TurabianNights 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go!--TurabianNights 15:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols

I wonder if we could find a source discussing the symbols' similarities to Masons' marks. The parallels are striking.--TurabianNights 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if it was odd that there are too many 'indian' symbols on the stone. For example, the tipi was used by the plains tribes and the spiral was a symbol of the southwestern cultures. IN the late 1800's, BUffalo Bills show tapped into the obsession that Americans and Europeans had with the west. If you look at native American symbols, they were a bit more abstract. (Corn, for example) http://www.indiansun.net/symbols_images.htm But as kids, we were presented with images of 'Indians' giving us corn, Tipis, hunting and fishing people (see the canoe symbols and bow and arrows) Besides the machining of the piece, the symbols are overflowing and a bit too obvious to be real.

I don't like the tipi in particular. Looks like lifted out of a kids' book. Quite different from tipis in 19th century Native art. Dysmorodrepanis 21:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal belief is that the stone, like many mystery stones, is a fat hoax. It certainly is odd, you might say, that so many stereotypical American Indian symbols are on the stone. Particularly since tipis were certainly not used in the Northeast.--TN | ! 09:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that Talk pages are for discussing the *article*, not just the topic. Otherwise wikipedia would drown in a sea of gabble. - DavidWBrooks 12:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously a hoax, and that's relevant to this article, which is an embarrassment, citing a letter from an "unknown author" talking about mythical "thunderstones". That's about as far from a "reliable source" as you can get. -- Jibal (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source that says this and it could go in the introduction. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why an OOPart?

The article should clarify why it is thought that the object is somehow Out of Place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.165.245 (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lake Winnipesaukee mystery stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100914204903/http://www.nhhistory.org:80/museumexhibits/mysterystone/mysterystone.htm to http://www.nhhistory.org/museumexhibits/mysterystone/mysterystone.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no one mentioned the face

Do I have pareidolia or has no one mentioned the face on the stone? Teastain (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny the article hadn't mentioned the face. I added it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]