Monday, May 23, 2016
This experience and notoriety in the construction industry is why American Petrographic Services Inc., was assigned to perform all the forensic analysis work on the fire damaged concrete at the Pentagon after 9-11. It was truly an honor to be involved that work which will likely define my legacy more else I have done or ever might do.
In the late 1990's I was approached by the lead editor for a book project, Robert Ratay, to write the chapter about concrete for a book published in 2005 titled, Structural Condition Assessment Handbook. Bob had a lot of people he could have asked to write that chapter and it was an honor and a privilege to be selected. For those interested in learning more about the process of forensic investigation I encourage you to read the chapter I wrote in this book. Keep in mind the process of investigation into the Kensington Rune Stone, and other mysterious artifacts and sites, is no different than process of investigating problems with concrete, mortar, rock etc. You can read more about the book at the following link.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Literally yards from the north side of the Capitol building sits a quiet, unassuming red brick structure called the Summerhouse. It was built in between 1879-1881 and designed by the famous landscape architect, Frederick Law Olmsted.
Alan Butler and Janet Wolter stand on either side of the southwest entrance to the summerhouse. The drinking fountain can be seen in the middle of the structure where mounted police still water their horses while patrolling the Capitol grounds.
Janet Wolter peers into the grotto build into the ground on the east side of the structure where a spring constantly flows from the grotto. On the winter solstice, the rays of the setting sun enter the cave in an allegorical union between the male Deity in the heavens and Mother Earth.
The subject of his blog post is about what my wife, Janet, Alan Butler, and I consider to be the hidden crown jewel of Washington D.C. It's called the Summerhouse and resides on the northwest side of the Capitol grounds. It was constructed of red ochre brick in 1879 and was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, who was the landscape architect who designed the Capitol grounds. Olmsted was also on the team that designed Central Park in New York City. This unassuming structure goes virtually unnoticed by the millions of visitors to the city every year, yet it is arguably one of the most important historical structures in the entire city.
Janet and I had first noticed the structure during a shoot for the documentary film for History Channel, Holy Grail in America, several years ago and knew immediately it was something special. But it wasn't until we were filming an episode for America Unearthed, with Alan Butler, that we had time to investigate it. It didn't take long before its complexity and importance became apparent. While the three of us all put our heads together to unravel it's secrets, it was Janet and Alan who really dug in to flesh out the bulk of the important historical details. For the those interested in reading more about their discoveries as to what the Summerhouse does, please click on this link to their website: http://www.nationofthegoddess.com/the-summerhouse.html
One of the important discoveries we made together directly connects to research I've presented in one of my previous books, The Hooked X: Key to the Secret History of North America, and will be presented in detail, and in proper historical context, in my upcoming, yet untitled, new book I hope to publish in early 2017. Many of the subjects I've posted blogs about in the past year will be discussed in the new book and put into proper perspective relative to the incredible story all three of us have published several books on that rewrites not only the history of the founding of the United States, but important aspects of world history. I encourage the reader to look at Janet and Alan's new book, America: Nation of the Goddess, for other important discoveries they have made in Washington D.C., New York City, and other cities across the U.S. For copies of any of our autographed books go to: www.hookedx.com
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Figure 1. Swedish Professor, Henrik Williams, and I posed for a photograph after a public debate he moderated that Dick Nielsen and I participated in with Swedish scholars about recent discoveries concerning the Kensington Rune Stone. The debate took place in Hudiksvall, Sweden, in February of 2004.
Figure 3. Page 218 of our Compelling New Evidence book includes oversized runic fonts of the modified characters on the first six lines I documented microscopically in 2002. These dots or short strokes were added by the carver after carving the original inscription. Both Dick Nielsen and Henrik Williams reviewed the physical modifications and agreed they existed when the book was published in 2006.
Figure 4. At a book release party for our book, The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence, at the Wolter home in November of 2005, Dick Nielsen (far left) explains our joint discovery of the Dating Code, Grail Code and the Dotted R to friends and family. Pictures of the characters modified by the medieval carver, that I photographed in 2002, were taped above the windows for Dick to use as visuals as he explained the discoveries. Specifically, pictures of the three Dotted R's can be seen above my head.
Figure 6. This internal document was generated by Runestone Museum board members immediately after Henrik Williams angrily departed from the museum after Dick Nielsen had been denied access to see the Kensington Rune Stone. Both had been warned, in writing, a month prior that Nielsen would not be allowed to see the artifact after denying the Museum access to the Kensington Rune Stone 3D imaging data they had allowed Nielsen to generate in November of 2008.
Figure 8. This photograph of the notes made by Henrik Williams of the first three lines of the actual Kensington Rune Stone was taken in November of 2003. One can plainly see three of the four modified "Grail Prayer" runes ("g", "r" and "l") were observed and documented by the professor (circled in red). He and Nielsen apparently now believe these features don't exist. The obvious question is why?
Figure 9. The top image in low angle reflected light is of the word "waR" on line 6 of the Kensington Rune Stone inscription. It has a man-made, diamond shaped punch mark in the upper loop of the "r" rune which is called a “Dotted R.”
Figure 10. Using the Keyence 3D digital microscope, I mapped and measured the dimensions and depths of the man-made depression in the upper loop of the “Dotted R" in line six. It measured 555 microns in depth and this extremely rare rune all by itself, proves runologically, the Kensington Rune Stone is a genuine medieval artifact all by itself. Williams agreed with this conclusion in 2005, yet has since changed his mind after trying to make this man-made punch mark, and many other physical features on the artifact, go away. The question is: Why the sudden reversal and attempt to remove these physical features from the historical record?
For those of you who are familiar with my work on the Kensington Rune Stone, you are well aware my opinion is the stone is a genuine medieval written record, carved in stone as a memorial and a land claim that also chronicles a journey made by ideological descendants of the Knights Templar and at least one Cistercian monk, to what is now Minnesota in 1362, as dated by the carver. The stone was discovered in 1898 wrapped in the tree roots by a Swedish immigrant farmer named Olof Ohman. I am one of two geologists, the other being Newton H. Winchell, to have studied the weathering of the inscription and declared it a genuine medieval artifact. Because the inscription is highly weathered, this makes it impossible for anyone in the settlement years of the late 19th Century to carved it as a hoax.
The primary subject of this blog is the publication of a transcription of the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS) inscription by Professor Henrik Williams and Richard Nielsen that intentionally omits certain man-made features previously documented and adds others that are not present on the stone. Based on this flawed document, Professor Henrik Williams and Richard Nielsen then published a series of papers with new interpretations of various aspects of the inscription. Most notably they have “flip-flopped” from their previously published interpretations saying now the "Dating Code," the "Grail Code," and the "Dotted R" no longer exist. The crux of the issue is there are physical features within two dozen carved characters within the KRS inscription that Nielsen and Williams have deceptively tried to remove from the historic record, and in other cases have added features that simply don't exist. The obvious question is why?
There are likely multiple reasons for this carefully crafted plan to try and alter their acknowledgement of the physical characteristics of the KRS inscription which they both previously agreed were present, but apparently now are trying to make the "Dating Code" and the "Grail Code" disappear from the historical record. You would have to ask them what purpose is served by doing this, but I suspect it was for personal reasons and/or to conform to some arbitrary academic standard. In any case, the two codes were based on sound speculation that Dick Nielsen and I proposed and published in our 2006 book, The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence. These two codes are relatively straightforward, and consistent within the known context of the inscription; a medieval land claim and a memorial carved by a Cistercian monk. We could certainly be wrong, but the Dating and Grail codes account for all the modified runes and Pentadic numbers as they must, if we are correct. However, the point of this posting is not to argue the veracity of these two codes, it is to bring attention to the fact that Nielsen and Williams have conspired to publish a document that effectively erases these important codes they apparently no longer agree with.
Most disturbing of all is their claim the man-made dot in the rare “Dotted R” rune on line six, which proves the KRS is a medieval artifact all by itself, doesn’t exist. Reversing their opinions as to what the physical marks on the stone imply is certainly their prerogative, but to now deny the still physically present marks were ever there is not. As a licensed professional geologist with full knowledge of the physical aspects of the KRS inscription I cannot sit idly by and tolerate two non-geologists make such physically impossible claims.
To fully understand and unravel this convoluted story one has to go back to 2002 when I generated the first microscopic photo-library of the entire KRS inscription using both high and low angle reflected light. I took a total of over 600 photographs and created a separate folder for what I called, "odd runes" that I discovered as I was taking pictures.
Several characters contained punch marks and short lines, both adjacent to and within the already carved grooves of the inscription. As a geologist, my job was to simply document ALL the man-made marks present on the surface of the stone. It was upon detailed examination and study of these purposeful modifications to certain characters, a number of important interpretations were made. In addition to the Dating and Grail Codes, a number of very important runological and linguistic discoveries were also made by Nielsen and Williams which included, "har", the "Dotted R" and the "Dotted Thorn." It was Nielsen, in fact, who originally speculated these marks were a Dating and Grail codes imbedded within the inscription by the carver. While Williams fully acknowledged the presence of the physical modifications, he did not endorse they were secret codes. I suspect this was due to his concern about how he would be viewed by his ultra-conservative colleagues, but I don’t know that for sure. However, Williams did agree the Dotted R existed and proved the KRS was a medieval artifact. Regardless, Nielsen enthusiastically published the codes in our Compelling New Evidence book in 2006. He also enthusiastically showed them in a presentation he made to 30+ friends and Wolter family members at our book release party.
After a series of events in 2006 that included personal difficulties between us, Nielson made an announcement to me that our personal and professional relationship was over. The reality was he had “switched sides” and likely hoped to be accepted into the academic community and by Williams, so he had to renounce his belief in the KRS codes. It has been well demonstrated that academicians like Williams, simply will not accept there was pre-Columbian contact in North America by the Cistercians/Templars, whom the codes clearly imply authored the stone.
Footnote: For those interested in reading more about the interpretations of these discoveries please read the following sources: The "Dating Code," pages 59-64 in Compelling New Evidence and pages 34-37 in The Hooked X: Secret History of North America; the "Grail Code," pages 62-67 in The Hooked X; the word "har", see Williams' discussion on page 536 in Compelling New Evidence; the "Dotted R," pages 49-58 in Compelling New Evidence and pages 31-33 in The Hooked X; the "Dotted Thorn," page C-1 in Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers: The Mysteries of the Hooked X.
The first step in the apparent plan to erase the record of the codes, and the Dotted R, started when Nielsen approached the Runestone Museum about having a low resolution 3D imaging study performed on the artifact in 2008. He then submitted a contract that gave himself exclusive access to the imaging data while at the same time denying anyone else access including the Runestone Museum. Unfortunately, because of their misplaced trust in Nielsen, the contract was not reviewed carefully enough by the museum and they did not realize they would have no access to the data until it was too late. Subsequently, this was why the Museum denied Nielsen access during Henrik Williams’ visit to the museum in September of 2010. Prior to that visit, Nielsen and Williams had written a series of "academic" papers based on the 2008 3D imaging study that to this day, only Nielsen and Williams have been allowed access to, and then published the papers on Nielsen's personal website. These papers tried to essentially “unacknowledge” the physical modifications I had previously documented thereby making the codes go away.
Most disturbing of all is they have tried to erase all three Dotted R’s in the inscription that by themselves, prove the KRS is a medieval artifact. In my opinion, these “scholars” are trying to reverse all the important progress made in our study of the KRS, in an apparent attempt to manipulate history.
Prior to Williams’ 2010 visit, they even tried to recruit the grandson of the KRS discoverer, Darwin Ohman, into helping get Nielsen into the museum. When Darwin reached out to the Museum attempting to help Nielsen gain admission, they responded with a list of demands he refused to comply to. These events prompted an angry email by Williams upon his return to Sweden. A copy of the original email sent to Darwin can be read here:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wolter/Darwin+Document+12-17-10.JPG Shortly thereafter, Darwin became so disenchanted and frustrated he decided to write about his feelings regarding the conduct of Nielsen and Williams: http://www.kensingtonrunestone.us/Take_A_Stand.pdf Here is another link to a response by Darwin to a blogger's questions about the conduct of Williams and Nielsen:
One can see in the attached handwritten review of the KRS runes and language chapter in our Compelling New Evidence book that Professor Williams was in agreement the modified runes existed back in 2005, as well as what the implications were for the Dotted R’s. Williams himself said the man-made dot in the Dotted R proved it was, "...a medieval artifact." For those interested in reading several reviews of the manuscript which included three linguists and runologists, Henrik Williams, Professor Michael Barnes and John Bengston. The links are here:
Because of all this deception, I re-examined the physical
modifications on the KRS including the all-important Dotted R, using the latest
high resolution microscopic 3D imaging in 2011/2012. Based on these results it is my professional
opinion these physical features are definitely a man-made. A link to my report on the Dotted R
examination can be seen here:
The overriding question is why did Williams and Nielsen suddenly change their minds and set out to try to reverse their prior acknowledgement of the physical marks using deceptive tactics veiled as academia? Instead of respectfully considering my report on the high resolution 3-D imaging work performed on the Dotted R, Williams wrote an angry response that summarily dismissed the factual evidence. Again the question is why?
By altering their opinions of previously-accepted man-made markings on 25 characters, and by not sharing their 3D imaging “evidence” they claim justifies these alterations, Nielsen and Williams open themselves up to accusations that they are more concerned with “being right” than “getting it right.” As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. The KRS deserves better, especially from those who hold themselves out to be “experts in the field.” Although the true reason as to Henrik Williams’ alteration of his initial findings may never be known, his actions are all too typical of what has occurred through academia whenever an unorthodox conclusion is put forth.
For far too long, formal institutions have demanded retractions from both individual researchers and tenured professors and the like, whenever their conclusions have not conformed to an accepted historical fact or theory. As a result, many professional careers have been ruined, along with the lives of those individuals and family members who unknowingly have been swept up into this ever-increasing trap of non-conformity. This behavior is exactly what I witnessed in my interactions with Swedish scholars during my five trips to Sweden between 2003 and 2006. This is the exact opposite of what academic institutions should be encouraging.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
This alphabet from 1780 contains yet another apparent Hooked X symbol for "a."
These are only nine of at least one hundred and twenty examples of the "X" symbol being used for the letter "a." Below is the only example I had previously seen of the "X" symbol used for "a" in a secret coded alphabet from a 15th Century Cistercian Germanic manuscript I published in my "Hooked X" book in 2009.
Two examples of complicated sigil drawings from the Icelandic manuscripts that incorporate runes and Masonic box code symbols (left), and a heavily Christian influenced drawing (right) that were both used for witchcraft and ritual magic.
These sigil drawings incorporate heavy Masonic symbolism (left) and what appear to be two Hooked X symbols in the upper right part of the upper arm (right).
One of the two Larsson Papers, dated to 1883 and 1885, using the same pentadic numbering system as found on the Kensington Rune Stone, which also contains two runic alphabets written in the "Secret Style." These alphabets which include the Hooked X for "a", along with the alphabetic box code were clearly Masonic and prove the Larsson Papers are related to both known medieval Cistercian secret coded alphabets and the recently published Icelandic secret alphabets that lean heavily on ancient runes.
These two examples of the Hooked X are found in medieval Icelandic manuscripts from 14th (Right, 1300-1400) and 15th Centuries (Left, 1490-1510).
This circa 6th century Anglo-Saxon brooch with eight symbols carved into the outer ring include a Hooked X at the 2:00 o'clock position. It was excavated next to a skull in Old Hunstanton, in Norfolk, England in 1900.
Little did I realize that while on my trip to Rhode Island for the dedication of the new home for the Narragansett Rune Stone, I was just being introduced to the tip of an important iceberg of new information that is going to rock the skeptics, debunkers, and disbelievers of the five North American rune stones with the Hooked X, to their core. Before the ceremony started, Steve DiMarzo and Valdimar Samuelsson visited briefly with me concerning a recently discovered cache of Icelandic manuscripts dating back to the tenth Century that contained literally hundreds of secret coded alphabets, many using unique and mysterious runes. Since the dedication, Steve, with his dogged determination has been scouring every page of every manuscript, and Valdimar, with his historical knowledge of the use of runes in Iceland, and ability to read the Icelandic text, has led to several important discoveries. As of this past weekend, Steve has already found 120 examples of secret alphabets that use the “X” symbol for “a”, as well as all the runes on the Narragansett Rune Stone.
days after initially posting this blog, I received additional information from Valdimar
after he had researched the history of the use of runes in Iceland. He then sent me the following:
after reading on runes, especially from the book ‘’Galdrar á Íslandi‘‘,
chapter ‘‘Rúnir og rúnagaldrar‘‘, by Matthías Viðar Sæmundsson, he says:
Scholars have denied that use of runic letters in Iceland were used as much as
Björn M Olsen claimed. Olsen (14 July 1850 – 16 January 1919) was an Icelandic
scholar and politician. If he is right,
then Runic letters have been used from the time of early settlement, around
870, to what we call brennuöld 1674 when they burned people with runic
knowledge. In 1641 another scholar
‚‘‘Jon The Learned‘‘, said that many runic books had been in use before our
famed Snorri Sturluson (1179 – 23 September 1241). He wrote most of our Icelandic sagas some
believe from old rune books. Based on
this, it is only the mainland European academics, both then and today, who deny
that Iceland had, in fact, used runes even longer than written in this
book. Now we see evidence today this is
true with all these manuscripts dated after those claims mentioned here."
This is important new information as it shows the ongoing attempts by scholars to stubbornly maintain an untenable position about not only the continued use of runes (and the Hooked X) which began in at least the 9th Century, by individuals and secret societies not only in Iceland, but no doubt in mainland Scandinavia and other parts of Europe.
What has me excited is they have also found at least two undeniable examples of the Hooked X symbol being used for the letter “a.” One of these two alphabets uses the Hooked X as the symbol for “aleph”, the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet. This alphabet might be the most exciting of all because it provides a direct link between the same Hooked X seen on five North American rune stones, with Hebrews in Jerusalem where we recently found the Hooked X on the lid of the “Yeshua, son of Joseph” ossuary in the Talpiot Tomb. Is this conclusive evidence of a link between the sect of Jesus and his followers in the First Century, and the Templars who carved the five North American rune stones? Not yet, but this alphabet in particular is a huge piece of evidence that is consistent with this thesis.
I consulted with a friend in Arizona named Ed Martinez, a Freemason and an Eastern Mystic, who looked at some the manuscripts with complicated symbols using ligatures and offered the following insights, “They are complicated symbolic instructions for magic, incantations, and rituals that were very Christianized, yet retained Pagan traits. These are sigil drawings using ancient Germanic and Nordic runes for witchcraft and ritual magic.” He also said, “There are obviously Hebrew influences along with both Pagan and neo-Pagan ritual influences, and also very clear Masonic connections.” Ed also pointed out there are both Nordic/Swedish and Germanic influences in the manuscripts which we also have within the Kensington Rune Stone inscription. According to Samuelsson, "These coded “invisible” alphabets and complex ritual magic symbols were used for centuries by certain groups of people in Iceland, but were hidden away when Bishop Odd Einarson made it illegal to use runes. In 1625, the Roman Catholic Church began burning people who used witchcraft runes." Considered heretical by the Church, these documents were hidden from Church authorities only to surface again now for the world to see. There is a lot of research to be done on these documents, but even with this initial study some incredible new knowledge is coming to light.
It’ll be interesting to see what scholars like Henrik Williams, Professor of Runology in Sweden, will say about these mysterious runic alphabets. He is already on record saying the Hooked X is modern despite being aware of numerous examples that date back at least two millennia. The Larsson Papers, which first surfaced in early 2004, contained similar secret alphabets with the Hooked X and proved scholars for the past century were wrong that the Hooked X never existed. Instead of admitting it, they claimed an immigrant could have had these documents and carved the KRS inscription. Never mind that you still couldn’t carve the KRS with the Larsson Papers, the consistent position of Williams and his colleagues is to ignore hard science and maintain the KRS is a hoax at all costs. These newly published Icelandic alphabets and the other documented examples prove definitely the Hooked X is not only medieval, but is the key to amazing hidden history whose time has come to be revealed.
My guess is the linguists will stubbornly remain entrenched in the foxhole of denial that to date has been rooted in non-scientific thinking and arrogance. I would love nothing more than to see them prove me wrong. For those interested, the manuscripts can be viewed here: http://handrit.is/en/
Thursday, November 5, 2015
The final resting place of the Narragansett Rune Stone in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, after it's unveiling at the dedication ceremony held on October 30, 2015. A secured gazebo will be constructed to enclose the artifact in the spring of 2016.
This is a panoramic view of the Narragansett Rune Stone Dedication Ceremony held in North Kingstown on October 30, 2015. (Photo courtesy of Tim Cranston)
I would also like to comment on a recent article published by Professor Henrik Williams, a runologist at Uppsala University in Sweden. The paper can be read at the following link:
While Professor Williams is a very bright man and certainly an accomplished runologist, he seems to be out of his element when dealing with the five mysterious runic inscriptions discovered in North America that include the Hooked X symbol, because they do not fit the standard runic record of Scandinavia. They are the Kensington Rune Stone, discovered in Minnesota in 1898, the three Spirit Pond Rune Stones, discovered together in Maine, in 1971, and the Narragansett Rune Stone first discovered in the early 1940s. In this attached article on the Narragansett Rune Stone Williams concludes, "It seems likely that it was carved sometime between the 1890s and the 1940s." This being based on the unsaid, but his apparent "belief" that the Hooked X symbol was copied from the Kensington Rune Stone and/or the Spirit Pond Rune Stones. There is no factual evidence for this assertion and indeed there is evidence that refutes it.
Williams' conclusion is both incorrect and irresponsible. The truth is the professor is carrying on the century-plus long tradition of many "soft science" scholars, both in Scandinavia and in North America, of claiming the North America rune stones with the Hooked X are of modern origin. While I applaud the professor for making the effort to personally examine these inscriptions, which linguists in the past have not bothered to do, the reality is he didn't need to travel to three states to see the artifacts because his area of expertise did not require it. The physical state of the weathering of the inscriptions is not something he was required to evaluate to render an opinion on authenticity since he is not qualified to do so. He could have stayed in his office and rendered the same erroneous conclusions by looking at photos of the inscriptions. The irresponsible mistake that Williams and other "soft science" scholars continue to make is they believe their opinion-driven disciplines are the only ones that can answer the question about the authenticity of these artifacts. Further, for over a century they have intentionally ignored the "hard" scientific evidence of geologists who have emphatically concluded the weathering of these inscriptions are centuries old.
I have known Professor Williams for 13 years and have personally presented the details of both my own and other geologist's scientific work performed on these artifacts. The facts are he has chosen to ignore these findings instead of working together to find the answers as to what the messages mean by figuring out who carved them, when, and why. This behavior is simply the latest example of the way many scholars (not all) have treated hard scientists whose factually supported conclusions have been at odds with their beliefs. This is not the way historical truth should be decided and it is not what the people who care about the truth about our history should accept. Shame on Williams for issuing another horribly flawed, and factually unsupported opinion that it at odds with hard science. The only way we are going to get the story straight is to demand certain scholars conduct themselves ethically and responsibly. What he should have concluded based on the lack of evidence presented in his paper is what too many soft science scholars seem incapable of saying, "I don't know." Logic dictates that if hard science data is generated that is conclusive about the age of weathering of inscriptions carved in stone, than there has to be an explanation that supports the conclusion that people of that time period were here and they carved the inscriptions with an intended message for others who could also understand them. Scholars of all pertinent disciplines should work side by side to comb the historic records to unlock the keys that will shed light on these early visitors to North America. I am confident that rapid progress could be made if only this collaborative effort could become a reality instead of the current ego posturing taking center stage.
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
The implications of this discovery are potentially huge and certainly supports my past fifteen years of research. I'm pretty damned excited about this and I hope you will be too!
Figure 1. Photograph of the front of the Yeshua (Jesus) ossuary (IAA accession no. 80-503). Its perimeter dimensions are 62.7-65.0 x 25.4-26.0 30.5-31.0 centimeters. (Internet)
Figure 2. The “Hooked X/Tau Cross”
monogram carved on the lid of the Yeshua (Jesus) ossuary. (Photograph courtesy
of Charles Pellegrino)
Figure 4. A second photograph of the
“Hooked X/Tau Cross” monogram carved on the lid of the Yeshua (Jesus) ossuary
that includes the faintly visible second symbol which is a low-angle chevron
(circled in red). (Photograph courtesy of Charles Pellegrino)
Figure 7. The inscription carved in Aramaic on the narrow side of ossuary IAA #80-503 reads “Yeshua bar Yehosef”, (Jesus, son of Joseph) and has a large “X” carved at the beginning of the name as Hebrew and Aramaic are read right to left. (Internet)
 The details of the investigation into the geological aspects of the Kensington Rune Stone performed by Wolter can read in his 2006 book listed in the bibliography.
 Hundreds of articles, papers and books have been published about the Kensington Rune Stone since its discovery, but the geological findings led geologist, Newton H. Winchell, the first State Geologist of Minnesota (1875-1900), to conclude the artifact was genuine. On December 15, 1909, he wrote to the Museum Committee of the Minnesota Historical Society, “I have personally made a topographical examination of the place where the Kensington rune stone was found, and of the region northward to Pelican Lake where the skerries are located, to which the inscription refers, and I am convinced from the geological conditions, and the physical changes that the region has experienced probably within the last five hundred years that the said stone is not a modern forgery and must be accepted as a genuine record of an exploration in Minnesota at the date stated in the inscription.”
 Wolter, 2009, Pages 71-96.
 Wolter, 2009, Pages 76-78.
 Wolter, 2009, Pages 34-37.
 Wolter, 2013, Page 214.
 Jones, 1957/1991, Page 235.
 Mackey, 1921, Page 244-5.
 At least five examples of the Triple Tau symbol were found by the author on early to mid-1600’s era grave slabs in the ruined church in the St. Augustine Monastery (four examples), and in the St. Francis of Assisi Church (one example) in Old Goa, India, in May of 2015. Both churches and the monastery were built by the Portuguese Templars then called the Order of Christ.
 Charlesworth, 2013, Pages 43-45.
Jacobovici, Simcha and Charles Pellegrino, The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence that Could Change History, Harper Collins Books, New York, N.Y. 2007.
Jones, Bernard E., Freemasons’ Book of the Royal Arch, AERRP Books Limited, Kent, Britain, 1957/1991.
Mackey, Albert G. M.D., Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and its Kindred Sciences Comprising the Whole Range of Arts, Sciences and Literature as Connected with the Institution, The Masonic History Company, New York, N.Y., and London, England, 1921.
Rahmani, L.Y., A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel, Jerusalem, The Israel Antiquities Authority; The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994.
Wolter, Scott F., The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence, Lake Superior Agate Inc., Chanhassen, Minnesota, 2006.
Wolter, Scott F., The Hooked X: Key to the Secret History of North America, North Star Press of St. Cloud, Inc., St, Cloud, Minnesota, 2009.
Wolter, Scott F., Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers: Mysteries of the Hooked X, North Star Press of St. Cloud, Inc., St. Cloud, Minnesota, 2013.