Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Kensington Rune Stone Deception Disguised as "Scholarship"


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 2. This is the first of forty pages of Professor Henrik Williams' written peer review of the runes and language chapter of the book I co-authored with Richard Nielsen titled, The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence.  In 2005, the professor was in complete agreement the Dotted R on the Kensington Rune Stone proved runologically the artifact was of medieval origin.  Williams' entire peer review can be seen here:
 

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 5. At book signings, Dick Nielsen occasionally dotted the "R" in his first name due to his great pride in the discovery that authenticated the Kensington Rune Stone all by itself.   


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 7. There are at least 25 symbols in the transcription of the Kensington Rune Stone inscription that have been intentionally changed by Professor Henrik Williams and Richard Nielsen and then published on Dick Nielsen's personal website in May of 2010.  Several physical aspects of the inscription, such as punch marks and short lines intentionally made by the carver, have been removed (14 circled in red) and others have been added that simply don't exist (11 circled in yellow).  The alleged basis for these changes is the 2008 3D imaging data that to this day, Nielsen and Williams will not allow anyone else to review.  A clean version of this document can be seen here: http://www.richardnielsen.org///PDFs/Inscription%20Panel.pdf 


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.  

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wolter/KRS+Photo-library+12-30-02.pdf  

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:

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wolter/Henrik+Williams.pdf

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wolter/Michael+Barnes.pdf

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wolter/John+Bengtson.pdf
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wolter/Russ+Fridley.pdf
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wolter/Alice+Kehoe.pdf
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wolter/Richard+Stehly.pdf

 

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:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wolter/3D+Imaging+Report+2-23-11.pdf

   

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?

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wolter/Williams+Response+May+5%2C+2011.pdf

 

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.  

346 comments:

  1. so much for a quiet night by the fire with my favorite "Scottish"...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave,

      You'll need the Scotch to get through this mess; ugh...

      Delete
  2. This is my interpretation of what happened.

    It is my understanding that when “The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling new Evidence” was published, authors Scott Wolter and Richard Nielsen agreed to split up front costs of $75,000. As the deadline for that project neared, Nielsen backed out of his financial commitment ($37,500) and left Wolter to bear the full cost of publication. Understandably, Wolter was upset with this development and felt he could no longer trust Nielsen. Subsequently, they had a professional “falling out”.

    From that time forward, as Wolter enjoyed the rewards and notoriety from that publication and several others, and from his involvement with several TV series, America Unearthed, The Holy Grail, etc…,he elected not to invite Nielsen to participate in any of those projects – and the networks were not interested in Nielsen’s participation. Apparently Nielsen felt unfairly excluded, and has embarked on a personal vendetta to discredit Wolters’ investigations to exact revenge.

    Nielsen’s efforts to manipulate contracts, and blatantly ignore his own previous findings, makes one wonder if he has any credibility whatsoever? Obviously his dislike for Wolter has completely clouded his scientific objectivity. What a shame…

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charlie,

      Most of what you've written is correct. Nielsen did back out on his financial commitment and I sold $40,000 worth of my Lake Superior agate collection to cover his share. I don't regret doing this as I felt it was worth it to get the work we have done published and out to the world.

      I can't read a person's mind and don't know what motivated Dick and Henrik to pull off this elaborate stunt. However, since Nielsen had no financial investment in the book, it was easy for him to try and renounce important parts of it in an apparent attempt to get back at me. What exactly he was getting back at me for I still don't fully understand.

      In any case, what these two clowns have tried to pull off is nothing short of academic fraud. In Henrik's case, as evidenced by the supporting documentation, his biggest problem is his gigantic ego that apparently makes him believe he can say and do whatever he wants.

      Delete
    2. Simple question for Professor Williams, because I know you're trolling this blog: Will you make public the 3D imaging study upon which you base your conclusions?

      Delete
    3. Steve,

      The simple answer is of course not. He and Nielsen haven't allowed anyone else to peer review the 3D imaging data for the past seven years so you know it'll never happen, and the reason is patently obvious.

      Delete
  3. I'm a big fan of yours, Scott Wolters! I'm 59 yes old & would really love to know the truth about who was here before Columbus, & why! I hope these fraud a don't stop you from wanting to find the truth!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bobbie,

      I can assure this type of behavior will never stop me; it only spurs me on even more. Thanks for all you support.

      Delete
  4. Nielsen has irreparably compromised his integrity as a researcher and writer. For nearly three decades, by himself and working with others, Nielsen’s research demonstrated itself to be both meticulous and innovative. He steadfastly constructed arguments attesting to authenticity of various North American runestones. Then, shortly after the joint 2006 book by Nielsen and Wolter was published, Nielsen, who had steadfastly maintained a position of authenticity for the various runestone artifacts, inexplicably adopted a stance in complete opposition of his previous viewpoints.
    Nielsen, who is more than willing to inform everyone who reads his website bio that the Navy Times once described him as “the most educated officer in all the armed services,” should consider updating the bio entry to “most self-absorbed.” Unfortunately, this Shakespearian character flaw - the trait that compelled Nielsen to post unsavory legal documents on his web site that mark him as an embittered man, the trait which compelled him to effect a contract with the RSM for sole ownership of the 3D-Imaging results – has severely tarnished Nielsen’s legacy. Life is best lived with steadfast integrity, honor, and humility.
    It matters little if one changes a reasoned judgment, even one they have held to since the 5th grade, provided that integrity and objectiveness are not compromised.
    Nielsen’s work prior to and up to 2006 had been used by others as building blocks to further understand the North American runestones; however, by virtue of his abrupt reversal, and if Nielsen cannot adequately address the inexplicable revisions that Wolter has pointed out, Nielsen’s recent body of work supporting a 19th century origin for the KRS, must be considered fraudulent.
    Nice job, Dick. You have shifted the runestone conversation squarely onto you and your partner, Henrik Williams. You have become this generation’s Wahlgren.
    The most relevant question isn’t whether the KRS is a forgery - it is whether you are a fraud. Nice work, buddy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NOCG,

      This is a well written post and after reading it I can't help but feel sad. The three of us were friends at one time all working together to find the truth, and we found it. The Dotted R is the ‘magic bullet’ that proves the KRS is medieval, and both Henrik and Nielsen fully endorsed it as can be seen in the posted documents.

      The answer to the question of "what changed" is simple; their egos got in the way. A few years ago, a person whom I greatly respect told me story about a meeting he had with Nielsen where he asked him, "Dick, what do you want your legacy to be?" Dick reportedly responded with, "I want to be remembered as the guy who solved the Kensington Rune Stone."

      This response speaks volumes and I believe is at the heart of the current problem. Dick made similar statements when we worked together to which I would remind him that Newton H. Winchell already had the title sewed up when he concluded the stone was genuine in 1909. Since that time, Nielsen has tried to undermine both mine and Winchell’s geological work in an apparent twisted attempt to elevate himself.

      It appears he now realizes he will never be “the guy,” and has resorted to trashing the stone like a jealous lover with the mindset of, “If I can’t have her (KRS), no one will.”

      Delete
  5. I think you are uncovering something historical that isn't supposed to be known. It reveals the origins of the United States and the truth about early history as you suppose. So it is no surprise the academic community is not getting on board with your ideas. They do not understand the hidden nature of what you have found and how to interpret it. They have been trained not to see many of the things you are supposing Scott. Hang in there and forget about this. Just keep doing your thing etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      History is history and no one should ever feel they are in a position to decide what should or should not be known. These guys certainly can't be trusted to use good judgment.

      Unfortunately, I could not forget about this travesty as it is too important not to shed light on. I'll let justice take it's own course, but it is now time for the academic community to accept the authenticity of the KRS. The who, from where, and why questions we can continue to investigate, but the authenticity question is now answered.

      Delete
  6. It's what happens when you hang your hat on one dodgy peg.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Scott---Kristine here.
    I just read this, not once, not twice, but three times. I am left bereft and a bit vexed... How can they remove man made marks off of an artifact? How can this be legal?
    As an academic, I cannot see how these men arrogantly assume they can remove historical evidence and NOT be held accountable.
    Being a scholar means researching without bias in order that self-interest does not interfere with factual evidence---whether these people like it or not, facts prove and disprove theories. One needs to remember that the point of scholarship is to uncover facts despite personal theories. If one's theory aligns with the facts fantastic! However, if the facts disprove one's theory you can't just go around skewing perception and withholding crucial evidence that disproves a personal theory just because one doesn't like the outcome.
    I would like to think that when word reaches whatever academic institution these cuckolds are affiliated with that they be discredited and removed from their positions as researchers.
    I am appalled at these men's behavior and even more vexed knowing that they are attempting to deface an historical artifact.
    My question is why? What's in it for them? An "honorable" reputation? Their reputation will be anything but honorable, or credible when word promulgates of their vandalism.
    Anyhow, my apologies for the rant, but it is appalling to know that people who are held in high scholarly regard would ever stoop to these types of criminal behavior.

    Best,
    Kristine

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kristine,

      Just to be clear, they didn't physically deface the artifact. They are trying to erase these marks from the historical record AND the important interpretations they represent. Regardless, what they are trying to do still constitutes criminal academic behavior in my opinion.

      Delete
    2. Scott,

      How will the erase the historical record when your work is out there in many places - books, internet, television. Such an endeavor may prove fruitless by these two.

      Sam

      Delete
    3. Sam,

      They will not erase anything in the historical record on the KRS no matter how hard they try. these two have such inflated egos they believe that their word is the Gospel despite the lack of facts to support their claims. Williams is bound and determined to uphold the paradigm in Swedish academia, and apparently American academia, that the American Rune Stones with the Hooked X are all fake. It's mind-boggling really, but it's the truth and we are all kept in the dark because of it.

      Delete
  8. I can't get the doc "Williams response" to open.. is it me or ????

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Scott Wolter...the pursuit of light and truth is never easy brother...stay strong and keep traveling east...
    ---Bro.Kern(205)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bro Kevin,

      East it is! Thanks for the support.

      Delete
  10. Your work always makes me stop and ask questions, which is why I truly love reading/watching it. I think if we stop asking 'why' we have last something so important as to what makes us human. In a side note when is America Unearthed coming back, if is it, please say yes!? As I'm not always 'in the loop' with this stuff, but it sure seems like is been awhile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. k78,

      It has been a while due to H2 being sold to Vice about a year ago and America Unearthed being put on hold. H2 will be going away soon and we are hopeful of getting a new home. We should know very soon.

      The two highest rated episodes of all three seasons were the last two shows of season 3. This bodes well for us and that people are thirsty for the truth which I will do my best to bring anyway I can.

      Stay tuned.

      Delete
  11. Well done Scott. Keep up the fight. As you well know your fans can learn more about the Kensington Runestone at http://www.thekensingtonrunestone.com .

    ReplyDelete
  12. Scott,

    It is always tricky business going after those who have made an effort to either destroy your reputation and research or have made a deliberate attempt to rewrite history by either destroying evidence or hiding it. However, your blog post with all of its detailed EVIDENCE and other material from others, especially the affidavit concerning Henrik's behavior and actions, goes a very long way to showing concerned researchers just where the TRUTH lies, and that is with you, my friend. Sometimes, in the heart of the battle in upholding the TRUTH, your enemies will be be seen for who they are, wolves in sheep's clothing, who pretend to defend the truth but in reality only want to defend their TRUTH despite it being totally wrong! It is about time these two got what they have sowed: defeat and disgrace!


    ReplyDelete
  13. Scott,

    It is always tricky business going after those who have made an effort to either destroy your reputation and research, as well as made a deliberate attempt to rewrite history by either destroying evidence or hiding it.

    However, your blog post with all of its detailed EVIDENCE and other material fom others, especially the affidavit concerning Professor Henrik's behavior and actions, goes a very long way to showing concerned researchers just where the REAL TRUTH lies, and that is with you, my friend!

    Sometimes, in the heat of the battle in upholding the TRUTH, your enemies will be seen for who they really are, wolves in sheep clothing, who pretend to defend the TRUTH but in reality only want to defend their version of the TRUTH despite it being totally wrong! It is about time these two supposed pillars of accurate research receive exactly what they have sowed: defeat, disgrace and dishonor, which they richly deserve!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Scott,

    One more thing here to discuss is that I found your evidence not only overwhelming but extremely compelling. To actually see all the attempts Williams and Nielsen made to, hide, destroy or change those symbols really made me angry to see professional people like these two because of ego, status, elitism and supposed superior intellect and knowledge willing do anything to keep the real TRUTH from coming out and in the process trying to show themselves as being the only true "Beacons of Truth". I certainly hope they get what they deserve, which is absolutely nothing!

    We expect better from those in acedemia, like Williams and those in the research field, like Nielsen by expecting them to strive to find the TRUTH at all costs and not try to enrich themselves or their reputations at the expense of denying to the world that the KRS is indeed a real medieval artifact! Shame on them!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      I can sense the outrage in your posts and can totally understand and appreciate your frustration. The arrogance and hubris of these two is palpable and it's amazing how they can't even see the folly of their actions. Mind-boggling really.

      You are 100% correct the truth will conquer in the end. Academia doesn't have a monopoly on historical truth as much as they like to think they do. This is a classic example of the fallibilities of the human condition over-riding scientific method and facts, but it will only be temporary.

      I have tried for three years to ignore the destructive actions of these two in regard to the KRS, but felt compelled recently to try and set the record straight when they ventured into academic fraud. Let's let future researchers ponder the evidence and decide the fate of their legacies.

      Delete
  15. Hi Scott, it looks to me like the runic hero in all this is the dotted R, seen so clearly and crisply on line 6 of the KRS's inscription.

    To this, add the current best information that the dotted R was unknown before the 1930's, and we end up with an indisputably authentic KRS: a late-1800's hoaxer would not have had knowledge of the existence of a dotted R runic character, so he could not have used it in a fraud. This is simple enough for any simple-minded naysayers to understand.

    So, even just from a purely runic point of view, the KRS has been firmly established as being genuine; this must certainly be to the chagrin of those "foreign runemasters" who would wreak mischief on our true American history.

    Scott, I'm glad you took the time to clarify the situation. Frankly, I don't see how our errant friends expected to back-peddle on the dotted R, as it is so clearly and "scientifically apparent" on the KRS.

    I find this back-peddling to be quite astonishing, but no more so than our recently departed State Archaeologist's insistence that the French made it up here to the Upper Midwest before the Norse.

    Don't let the "academic fringe thinkers" get you down! You--along with the dotted R and the hooked X--are on top of things.

    (Now, if you'll just stop looking for Jesus' bones....)

    - Gunn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gunn,

      You are quite correct the Dotted R is the star of the show that absolutely proves the KRS is medieval; game, set, match. There's no getting around it and all the back-peddling in the world isn't going to change it.

      As for those bones; you know I'll never stop looking.

      Delete
  16. Wow. That is a sad story. Is it just ego and peer acceptance? Could research grants and livelihoods been threatened if they did not tow the line. Your time & energy goes into defense mode instead of advancing into new frontiers... However it obviously didn't slow you down much. Probably thought you would never come up with the extra forty grand. And everything quietly disappears. Look forward to more !
    Kathy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kathy,

      It is all of the above and more that drives these people, but mostly plain and simple overinflated ego. I took no pleasure in posting this blog, but it had to be done to expose the fraud disguised as "academia" to protect the integrity of the KRS and the history it represents.

      Sad indeed...

      Delete
  17. Scott, You're the rune man, so I will leave that up to you. However, I have a serious criticism concerning the reviews of your work by Swedish scholars. It is very clear that they only considered dialects of the Scandinavian languages within the boundaries of present day Scandinavian countries. There is nothing on the Kensington Stone's text that states the travelers came from those nations. During the past year, we have identified numerous other Scandinavian colonies on the western edge of Europe, but outside Sverige, Norge, Danmark och Island, where many types of Scandinavians blended together. Those colonies include parts of Ireland, Scotland, Yorkshire, Northumberland, Essex, Estonia and Byzantium. There is absolutely no reason to preclude the possibility that the North American travelers were from these colonies and spoke assimilated languages instead of there ancestral tongues. In other words, the Swedish scholars cannot claim that the KRS is a fake just because the words or runes are different than those of the four mother countries.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Notice how the "traffic" has sort of disappeared. It does take a little bit of patience to go through the paperwork, but I'm working on it. I think the noisemakers are off guard here because now they know the "peer review" was completely above board, on target, documented, and vetted. Tough act to follow; which they can't. No less then the ORIGINAL DOCS for the proof. So how does a "noisemaker" call out Scott when their own references and researchers were the ones who wrote part of the book. From what I see so far, the makers of the "hooked X" and the "dotted R" were the last show before Columbus blew the bubble. Did the church know about this. In my little bubble, I'm going to say "yes, they did". But they were "hogtied" until Columbus, the Spanish and the church teamed up. But first the Spanish had to get rid of the "Moors", then all hell broke loose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave,

      I really don't know what people like Joe Scales and the other debunkers can say. They will defend Williams of course, because they have no choice. They haven't demonstrated the integrity to admit one of their own stepped over the line. Most importantly, they wouldn't dare bring up the Dotted R fiasco for it's the death knell to their long standing belief the KRS is a hoax.

      My understanding is they are commiserating on debunker blog sites. I highly doubt we'll hear from them.

      Delete
    2. Well, if you wish to call me out by name, please don't assume my silence up this point is due to some sort of befuddlement at your claimed victory. I just didn't think it would be worth the effort to take this one apart, as it doesn't stand on its own merit. To begin with, your dotted R is questionable as a matter of fact, and even if intentionally dotted, does not necessarily lead to your predetermined conclusion. You simply cannot choose one aspect of the KRS, the legitimacy of which remains highly in doubt, and rule out all the overwhelming conflicts that lean far more against you. This is no smoking gun. It is pure non sequitur.

      I actually appreciate that you took the time to link the resounding criticism of your work from those whose input you sought. Unfortunately however, you did not seem to take their well intended advice. Now this isn't "peer review" as you claim it to be in Professor Williams' case, as he is a world renowned expert in Swedish runes and your status for same is strictly at the amateur level. What this is, is that you simply sought advice from those with superior academic credentials, they replied as if to be taken seriously and then you ignored them. Perhaps your fans exclaiming agreement with you here should actually read what you've linked to rather than accept your own interpretations as gospel.

      I just don't think you've quite made the case you were attempting to make. In fact, quite the opposite.

      Delete
    3. “Joe”,

      Let's be brutally honest here. You’re exhibiting the same lack of academic integrity as Williams. Fact, the technical reviews I posted by Williams and the other academics were hardly ignored, they were respectfully considered, appropriate changes made, and then published. I have also acknowledged that Williams did not agree with the interpretations of the Dating and Grail codes which is his prerogative. His reticence was simply to cover his own ass because he knew it was academics suicide to even consider a Cistercian/Templar possibility. I actually don’t fault him for that; he had no choice. However, he cannot summarily dismiss physical realities of the inscription with an arm wave or is this acceptable in the academic world?

      With regard to the Dotted R, neither Williams or Nielsen are in any position to comment on any geological aspects of the KRS. The dot in the word “waR” has been proven to be man-made; fact. Therefore the KRS is genuine; fact. It was reviewed and accepted by Williams and now he wants to claim, “I was just kidding.”

      It’s simple and straight-forward, Williams and Nielsen have perpetrated academic fraud and felt embolden to do so in large part due to the lack of any kind of standard of accountability in soft-science academia. And here you are being an apologist for them trying desperately to maintain the academic status quo. We all see through the façade Joe.

      Now run along back to the debunker site and tell Henrik how you “showed him who’s boss.”

      Delete
  19. I completely agree with MountainLion. We know that the Scandinavians had branched out far and wide by medieval times. They would have indeed had different variations of their mother dialect. Just look at how many languages evolved from Latin do to Roman occupation! That in itself is reasonable proof that there would have been variations of the Scandinavian language in the various regions they occupied.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jenn,

      The linguistic possibilities are endless and you would think scholars like Williams would be open-minded and excited about exploring a unique document like the KRS. Instead, he and Nielsen are bound and determined to kill it.

      There a myriad of historical possibilities the KRS could open the door to. All it takes is an inquisitive and humble mindset.

      Delete
  20. Here is a part of Williams' recent posting on a nearby blog of ill-repute:

    "2. I noted the presence of dot-shaped depressions on many runes at my inspection of the Kensington stone in 2003, 2010, and 2015. I have consistently stated that even when these are man-made and intentional, they serve no linguistic purpose. This is why they are not marked in a my transrunification, where only meaningful(!) features are included."

    What? "Where only meaningful (!) features are included."

    You've got to be kidding. I would say a dotted R on the KRS is very meaningful, especially since other dotted R's have cropped up in Scandinavia to give it more meaning.

    Obviously, Williams is choosing to ignore the dotted R as meaningful in his "transrunification," which I think is the academic crime being committed here. I also think that Professor Williams cannot pick and choose his dotted R's this way.

    Anyone with eyes can see that there are dotted R's here on an American runestone, just as there are dotted R's in Scandinavia. The dotted R on line 6 of the KRS is unmistakable as purposely man-made. Dr. Williams is saying there is no linguistic value to this, which sounds to me like a nonsensical comment.

    What are runes all about, if not for linguistic value? Decoration? Okay then, we see the same decoration within a runic inscription here in America and in Europe.

    I think Dr. Williams wants to do away with the dotted R on the KRS the same way naysayers have always wanted to do away with...stoneholes?

    - Gunn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gunn,

      Apparently, Williams not only thinks he's a geologist, but he can apparently read the mind of the medieval carver as well. In fairness to Williams, many of physical modifications present on the artifact are not "linguistic features." As we published in our Compelling New Evidence book, they are codes. It is also fine for Williams to not believe or accept the speculation of the “Dating” and “Grail” codes, consistent and convincing as they may be. However, the Dotted R is a runic feature of vital importance and for Williams to dismiss the critically important manmade feature when neither he or Nielsen are qualified do to do so is simply wrong.

      In any case, it is totally irresponsible and unethical for Williams to not document the physical features solely because he doesn’t “believe” they are important. In my opinion, this whole episode meets the standards of academic fraud and he should be held accountable.

      Think about this, Williams has resorted to posting on a sympathetic “debunker” blog site to try and refute the facts of his unethical behavior. You’d think that would be beneath him?

      To me, it reeks of desperation.

      Delete
    2. "Apparently, Williams not only thinks he's a geologist, but he can apparently read the mind of the medieval carver as well."

      Actually Scott, I found you doing exactly what you are complaining about while reading your work. In said work, you admit the dot on the line 6 R is faint. Your explanation for this is that the carver had to be more careful with this one particular dot to avoid a mistake as you believe he did in a line above. Upon this pure supposition on your part into the mind of the carver, you draw your distinct conclusions... which do not necessarily follow.

      Delete
    3. Joe,"

      In fact, I said the carver used "less force" in making the dot in the "r" on line 6 after he blew off the small plateau of rock in the first Dotted R in line 1 by using too much force.

      This has nothing to do with reading the mind of the carver. It’s an interpretation of the physical aspects of inscription made by a geologist with extensive experience carving in stone and with the KRS rock type that is indigenous to Minnesota. The Thomson Formation is one I mapped and studied in college.

      What was the point you were trying to make Joe?

      Delete
  21. Hi Scott,

    Your work on the KRS is unimpeachable science. So that is fact
    number one. These gentlemen who are refusing to share their "3D" results with the Museum or with anyone have entered into the realm of the impeachable- as their scientific results are not available; only their supposed learned/reformed opinion.

    Science prevails, as it provides the proof regardless of what these so called scholars opine.

    Now we all know that there are scientific proofs available that change the so called historical/academic paradigm - and academia rails against these as hoaxes, baseless assertions, and coming from unrecognized sources that academia rejects.

    Some of these academics would still be clinging to the, "... earth is flat" if they thought it would work to their advantage.

    You have done extraordinary work on the KRS - and now you are its Champion! The less courageous have fallen by the way side.

    Dorothy McCarthy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dorothy,

      Well said, and thank you. This is a classic case of academia "run amok." The sad part is these yahoo's are now circling the academic wagons trying to attack me personally when they can't refute, or in this case, "change" the facts.

      When they’re done throwing their darts, I'll still be here ready to discuss the facts when they decide to act like adults.

      Delete
    2. Take solace in the lowest form of "argument " is personal attack. In formal academic debating forums it is prohibited!

      You will prevail

      All the best,

      Dorothy

      Delete
  22. Scott,

    It has been a while since I read "the Hooked X" and correct me if I am wrong. But did you not find the dot R and hooked X in Scandinavia in some grave yards and churches?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sam,

      We did find numerous examples of the Dotted R in Scandinavian grave yards and in churches. I did not find the Hooked X on grave slabs, but we have found them in Scandinavian Masonic documents and in secret coded alphabets in Iceland. See my earlier blog about them.

      Delete
  23. I have known Scott Wolter for a long time, as well as dealt with Dr. Henrik Williams over a period of time in the recent past. Quite frankly, in an email that was sent to me concerning his email sent to you back in November about Scott's appearance at your wonderful university, I was shocked by his tone, his accusations and his unprofessional attitude towards Scott Wolter.

    Dr. William's objections to Scott Wolter's appearance reminds me of those who back in the 1500's were using strong arm tactics, to put it mildly, against those who dare believe that the earth was round just because
    these individuals had a different theory about such a possibility. Even though Dr. Williams is a renown runologist in Sweden and more than likely in Europe, too, he has now decided to condemn Scott's research in a
    venomous way, especially his research on the Kensington Rune Stone, who with his own research alongside that of Scott's at the time, helped prove that this stone was indeed a real Medieval artifact. However, now he is withdrawing his support or having second thoughts for unknown personal reasons and even denying that he even helped to prove that this stone was indeed real and authentic.

    In recent weeks, my own research has given Scott more and more valuable information that is helping him to prove his theories about the validity of the "Hooked X", as having been in use from at least the time period after the death of Jesus right up through the present time, evidenced on
    the Talpiot Tomb Lid on Jesus' tomb. Also, having looked through 100's of documents at the (www.handrit.is) website, which is an Icelandic website, we located several Hooked X's, a few of which were used for the letter "a", proving once again of its use well into the mid 17-18th centuries in different alphabets. We also located 120 instances where the letter X was used for or substituted for the letter "a", as well in our research. I can guarantee that more exciting information will be coming out through Scott's research over these new discoveries found in those Icelandic runic manuscripts in the coming weeks.

    As one might remember, the discovery of the Larsson Papers several years ago dating to 1883 or so, showed the use of the "Hooked X" as the letter "a" in this one alphabet or cipher. Of course, part of Dr. William's criticism of Wolter's theory on the Hooked X has been that it has not
    been found nor was it ever used prior to 1883 and that no letter "X" has been used for the letter "a" anywhere in history from Medieval times throughout the 19th century. However, I have found several instances of this Hooked X being used prior to 1883, thereby dismissing his accusations completely in the hundreds of Icelandic manuscripts that were studied.

    My only hope is that if you ever have any doubts about ever inviting Scott back to speak at your university in the near future, please know that the free expression of ideas, theories and research help to stimulate the minds of those who are so ever curious. To deny such a speaker on the grounds because of opponents, like Dr. Williams, who want to be politically correct here or because some of the same researchers again, like Dr. Williams, who do not like Scott's methods of research or his work itself, would be taking all of us back to the Dark Ages. I know for a certainty that Scott Wolter would never stoop to such an
    unprofessional level in writing to you if you ever decided to have Dr. Williams talk at your university just because he disagreed with another researcher over their own research. In fact, knowing Scott as I do, he would always be willing to discuss his differences in a professional way with such a person, always taking the high road in all things pertaining to history and its discoveries.

    Steve DiMarzo Jr.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve,

      I appreciate your supportive comments and the examples of the unprofessional conduct of Professor Williams who apparently thinks he can control what American Universities can and can't do from Sweden.

      What I think is getting lost in all this is what is the most disturbing aspect in this sad affair. We can't forget that Williams and Nielsen have made these fraudulent claims based on a 3D imaging study they obtained through deceptive means, and then refused to let anybody else see for the past seven years. Supporters like "Joe" rail on and on about "academic peer review" yet say nothing about the academic criminal behavior of these two who claim to be scholars.

      One of my research colleagues, Jerry Lutgen, called Dick Nielsen this summer and asked him point blank if he could review the 3D imaging data and Nielsen refused to grant him access. To me, this fact represents the most egregious example of their outrageous unethical behavior.

      Delete
  24. Scott, I re-read the material about the dotted R, and it seems to me that the dotted R may be a linguistic feature, after all...and called a palatal R sound for a good reason: because the dotted R linguistically refers to a particular sound having to do with the tip of the tongue on the roof of one's mouth.

    I don't understand why this has been de-emphasized as a code or as decoration, by either you, Scott, or by Dr. Williams. Frankly, I disagree with Dr. Williams that the dotted R served no linguistic purpose...but I find myself also disagreeing with you, Scott, about the dotted R representing coding, though I'm not sure how you're applying it.

    Usually, runes are mostly about linguistics, and I think it might be best for everyone to look at the dotted R as mostly being an actual linguistic feature, not to be so misunderstood--or even discarded.

    The dotted R, after all, helps to prove the KRS's authenticity, so I think it would be a shame for "both camps" to end up being confused about this very important rune...which does seem to be intended, historically, (may I say, usually?) to convey a certain linguistic sound.

    - Gunn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gunn,

      To be clear, I have never said the dot in the "R" was a code. I think it's both a runological and linguistic feature and refers to a particular way of saying the "R" sound. It's called a palatal "R" which my understanding was a late medieval linguistic feature that wasn't known by modern scholars until it was discovered on a bone (two examples) excavated from a site in southern Sweden, and on the Ukna Parish Grave slab (two more examples) again discovered in southern Sweden.

      In my opinion, Williams and Nielsen are playing fast and loose with the "Dotted R" as they both know it's the smoking gun that proves it's authenticity. What they claim is some twisted form of "academic rigor" is nothing more than they detest the idea of sharing credit for this discovery with me as I was the one who first saw the man made dot during the 2002 photo study.

      I firmly believe this 3D study deception was due in large part to their wanting to try and erase my contributions (discovery of the dots and short strokes) and then reinvent the KRS evidence in their image. You have to keep in mind that I worked closely with both of these guys for five years and I understand how their minds work.

      Delete
  25. For clarification, Scott, I don't discount the codes...I just didn't want the codes to interfere with the simple, basic dotted R, as seen on line 6 of the KRS, in case a discussion about codes were to distract people from seeing the dotted R as a historically linguistic feature.

    Williams has said he doesn't see linguistic value in the dotted R, which is the apparent reason he left the dot off in his "transrunification".

    I'm trying to look at the dotted R with all distractions left behind, for the sake of the discussion. I'm trying to emphasize here that the dotted R is in fact a linguistic feature and that Dr. Williams is wrong.

    So, he is also wrong to attempt to strip away an important feature of the KRS, using "transrunification" as a vehicle of excuse. One cannot magically get rid of the pure dotted R with hocus-pocus words. Science doesn't work this way...only fringe science does...using made-up excuses.

    - Gunn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gunn,

      Williams is simply trying to play God with the inscription. He has anointed himself the “all-knowing one” who thinks he can pick and choose what is and isn't significant on the artifact. The reality is he CANNOT agree with the Dating and Grail codes because it would be academic suicide in the U.S. and more especially in Sweden. He and Nielsen conspired to commit academic fraud by generating a 3D study, they refuse to allow anyone else to see, to serve as the basis for dismissing numerous physical features made by the carver, thereby dismissing the two codes along with the Dotted R.

      Of course Williams is dead wrong, but people have figured out the deception and he’s now being called onto the carpet. Nielsen was rendered irrelevant years ago. It is Williams who now needs to be held accountable. I wonder what academics at the Universities in this country will think about all this?

      Delete
    2. Well, I can tell you what I HOPE the universities in this country will think about all this--but also, the universities in Scandinavia. (And I'd like to include the Minnesota Historical Society in this, specifically.)

      I hope at least some professionals will notice that this has become a case of "linguistics" vs. "geology," and that this is bad; the two professional areas of study should be used together, more united, in the study of the KRS.

      But, this can only be meaningful if all the professionals involved are honest.

      Looking back at the local Minnesota history of this problem, I'm quite frankly surprised to see a repeat of this same problem taking place again, now...where linguistics is trying to overwhelm geology in the KRS discussion.

      We can see that the KRS lost miserably in the first round of this linguistics-distortion problem back around 1910, when linguistics was allowed to reign supreme over geology, apparently because of an improper weighing of personality input.

      No, we don't want that to happen again, now. Geology told us early on, and now again with you, Scott, that the inscription on the KRS is at least a few hundred years old.

      The linguists somehow won-out with the Minnesota Historical Society back over a hundred years ago, and I think that was the original shame on the universities and academic world at the time.

      It looks like history might be trying desperately to repeat itself, and once again through an attack coming from linguists...or, at least one in particular, trying to override what the KRS is so clearly telling us about its genuineness.

      Scott, I hope America's current academics will think differently this time around about not allowing the linguists to have a louder voice in the KRS debate than they should have. We see now the mistake of the past in giving the linguists too much credibility.

      I'm glad to see you taking a direct and strong stand against this improper rune-tampering, as the current "modern" geologist defending the legitimacy of the KRS.

      You should've been around back a hundred years ago!

      - Gunn

      Delete
    3. Gunn,

      I have also thought about your point of history repeating now itself in this very same way. I know the hard science of geology will win out in the end, but why should we let an academically corrupt linguist/runologist delay the pursuit of historical truth about this artifact.

      It wouldn’t be appropriate for me, but there's nothing stopping you or someone else from bringing this academic fraud to the attention of the local universities, the Minnesota Historical Society, and the American Swedish Institute.

      Let's all keep in mind that Williams posted a couple days ago the following comments on a debunker's website where he admits to unilaterally deciding what factual evidence is and isn't valid within the KRS inscription:

      "I noted the presence of dot-shaped depressions on many runes at my inspection of the Kensington stone in 2003, 2010, and 2015. I have consistently stated that even when these are man-made and intentional, they serve no linguistic purpose. This is why they are not marked in a my transrunification, where only meaningful(!) features are included."

      My question is, if he brazenly admits the carver put these physical features there intentionally, how does he know they don’t serve an important function other than a linguistic one? The answer is he doesn’t, and it’s completely unethical to conspire to try to remove factual data from the historical record that he doesn’t understand.

      Delete
    4. Dr. Williams' inspiration seems to be clear, but exact intentions are sometimes hard to know.

      As you know Scott, there has been a lot of shifting around with the KRS's inscription interpretation over the years, leading up to the 2010 version by Williams and Neilsen. For instance, there is the slightly different earlier version in Kehoe's powerful little 2005 book about considering the KRS holistically. I think there has been a bit of confusion over just what to include in a particular "streamlined" version intended for general consumption.

      This leads me to wonder if it might be a good idea for you to make up a brand new 2016 version with your own name on it, Scott, that shows all the pertinent "putative" dots and other markings that make up the complete story of the KRS--including coded information supposedly hard to understand or too detailed to include in a streamlined, "transrunified" version. Whatever.

      Anyway, Scott, I recommend that you work on developing a new and improved, more detailed version of the KRS's translation, to replace the one currently being used today--the one by Williams/Neilsen. (I guess if a runologist can dip-off into geology, a geologist can dip-off into runology, huh? Why not...something to stir peoples' souls.)

      Oh, and when you get to line 4, I sure would like to know what the carver's intention was for describing the two features on the commonly referred to "lake with two skerries." I have seen skerries, traps, shelters and various other words used...and interestingly, the lake I recently identified as the lake with two skerries has not only two rocky islands, but also two very distinctive peninsulas that curve inward. I wish the rune experts knew better than "???" what line 4 is saying!

      -Gunn

      Delete
    5. Gunn,

      I now recognize the clues within the inscription that are directly connected to a well-known and ancient allegorical story within the text. I'm currently working on it with certain Freemasons and the essential elements are falling into place. I’m confident the hidden story was intended only to be understood by those initiated into the same order. Back then it was the Cistercians/Knights Templar, today it is certain branch of Freemasonry.

      I don't think we should be taking the narrative literally. However, certain elements likely are factual and I’m trying to figure out which ones they are.

      I know this all sounds very murky, but I'm intentionally being obtuse until I'm ready to share the results. I think we're on the precipice of a major breakthrough.

      Once we have this all sorted out I will certainly publish it in my next book with the full translation.

      Delete
    6. Okay, I'm very curious to see what you're on to, but as you may know I'm a self-proclaimed "KRS Message Purist." The Date and Gral codes are plausible enough to fit within my paradigm, but I don't see much else at this point. Of course, I'm open-minded to anything that seems to reliably make sense.

      My own opinion is that the message on the KRS should be taken at face value, as though all the given details should be taken literally, and believed. So, I guess we do have a few differences of opinion, which is fine with me. It would be rare, indeed, for any two people to agree about everything!

      Being a message purist means that I must necessarily believe in the entire, detailed narration of the KRS party's misadventure, exactly as related by our trustworthy carver.

      But, it's certainly okay with me for anyone to search out deeper meanings and interpretations within the context of what I believe is an overriding, simple and true story-line. I hope you do find something else interesting, on top of everything else you've discovered. There are still plenty of questions that need to be answered, that's for sure!

      - Gunn

      Delete
  26. Scott
    In many ways I was surprised you had even gotten as far as you had with your series as these are traditionally taboo subjects. I watched with delight & thought maybe times are changing. But maybe not... I appreciate that you included the thought of others who did not agree. Same with this blog, you allow others who do not agree.
    Critical thinking and due diligence are important by- products of questioning "all academic experts." When the smear campaigns start it is time to pay attention. Something is probably about to be swept under the rug. Oops, think their broom broke...
    What fascinated me about the Templars was their apparent fight for freedom of thought, speech, religion, science. Changes in perception. And the fight still goes on. And its the 21st century.
    Here's to the good fight.
    Kathy

    ReplyDelete
  27. What is at stake here is "reputation" and "honesty", both of which Dr. Williams has forfeited because of his unprofessional behavior, actions and methods of research concerning the authenticity of the KRS.

    To use one's position to try to either deny, destroy or damage real information about the authenticity of the KRS should show one and all, both the lay person and those in acemdemia, that we are dealing with a person who doesn't deserve to be taken seriously any more, since he seems incapable of actually telling the TRUTH or wanting to find the TRUTH here.

    Such outrageous actions from such a professional should also make all of us now question any of his research results that he has put forth in the past now knowing that he will stoop to no level to hide, damage, destroy and deny valuable information to the public on such an important Medieval artifact as the KRS.

    Plus, to have Dr. Williams make "absolute statements" about there being no letter "X" being used for the letter "a" anywhere in manuscripts, or that there are no "Hooked Xs" found anywhere before the Larsson papers in 1883 or that the "G" rune (X) and the "O" rune, (diamond shaped rune w/ legs), as I like to call it, not being found together in any alphabet or anywhere after the 10th century, makes one like myself determined to prove him wrong and WE DID on all 3 accounts. His supposed superior attitude has, once again, proven to be his "achilles heel" here!

    So, once again, we must look at Dr. Williams as what he is; one who will seek to hide the TRUTH just because he thinks he knows it all. Frankly, he should be so ashamed of himself for his unprofessionalism here!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve,

      I know you had a lengthy, frustrating exchange with Williams in the past couple of months regarding the amazing treasure trove of recently published manuscripts containing hundreds of secretly coded alphabets I posted a blog about recently. I think people should know it was you, and Valdimar Samuelsson, who brought them to my attention and that you spent countless hours going through thousands of pages of documents to find all of the rare runic features you mention above.

      My main interest of course, were the Hooked X's, but you found many more important runic features that support the medieval origin for the Kensington Rune Stone and shared those discoveries with Professor Williams.

      My understanding is he essentially dismissed this important evidence as it flew in the face of his pre-determined conclusion it was a late 19th century hoax. Correct me if I'm wrong Steve, but I seem to recall you telling me the professor said to you he was concerned about his "scientific" reputation if new evidence came along and proved his conclusion was wrong. Am I recalling that correctly?

      Delete
  28. for those who have not seen this...the map to the Kensington Stone...

    https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.114955778580634.20460.114338978642314/944038625672341/?type=3

    https://www.facebook.com/Phippsburg-History-Center-114338978642314/?fref=nf


    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi.
    For the "Pirates and Templars"
    Doo you search in Castro Marim castle???? Look well at history...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      I just looked briefly at Castro Marim Castle. Marim surely is for Mary Magdalene disguised as Mother Mary. I'm sure there are some interesting tales that castle could tell.

      Delete
  30. Sometimes we have to speak out and this is one of those times…


    I was very surprised to see that Henrik Williams had posted on a blog saying that he disregarded the dots and other features that may very well be codes as having any importance in the translation of the KRS. Coming from the world’s leading Scandinavian Runologist, I find that telling.

    The KRS inscription is more than just Scandinavian runes and a Scandinavian Runologist cannot solve it solely with his runology. It would seem that it would be more productive for Henrik to work with other researchers from different disciplines and be a part of the solution rather than picking what fits his desires, ignoring other features, and proclaiming the KRS a 19th Century hoax.

    He also accuses Scott of being untruthful. The evidence is out there for everyone to see. Henrik asked me for the truth a few years back. I told him and he didn’t like my answer. The truth was no longer important.

    Scott is the one who has been consistently open and honest with me. He is a great friend to the Ohman Family and has treated us with respect. He has been a friend to me for many years and I don’t doubt Scott. He tells it like it is and it is honest! Academia could use more like Scott Wolter.

    Darwin Ohman

    ReplyDelete
  31. Scott, after my old brain started kickin' in this morning, I suddenly realized that we both believe wholeheartedly in medieval codes. We do need to look, specifically, for anything related to codes...and also, again, at sacred geometry. (Uh-oh.)

    Here's my flow of logic: You have found codes within the inscription of the KRS...and I have recently found an actual Norse code-stone out west a ways, by Appleton. If you will look at my website and check out the "code-stone pdf," you'll see another Scandinavian code in stone (using stoneholes), just as the KRS offers codes in stone.

    We have both found codes in stone here in Minnesota, which stem from medieval Europe. Bottom Line: Naysayers, don't think it so strange that medieval Scandinavians used codes. In fact, a unique and puzzling runic code was recently broken by a code-breaker in Europe. The Norse enjoyed using codes.

    Back to stoneholes. So, some Scandinavian group, probably well before the time of the KRS (1362) offered a coded message to the future, within a small cluster of stonehole rocks across from where a north/south river empties into another river...as though the landscape was surveyed and marked. (My ferrous-only metal detector hits on the same spot indicated by the code-stone.)

    So, yes, on second thought, I'm not only open-minded about Norse codes in rock, but I'm already a firm believer in this bizarre practice. Yes, Norse Codes are very real, just as real as the KRS is.

    Now, maybe we should be taking a closer look at the apparent sacred geometry you found at Runestone Hill, coded by use of stoneholes, also. I wonder if it's possible that the KRS was placed on the ground as a physical hook on a large geographical X, which was discover-able by de-coding sacred geometry used at Runestone Hill? You already know the answer.

    I, myself, have already found out, personally, that the Norse did, in fact, use stonehole rocks to encode a stone map showing where something is deeply buried on a lonely Minnesota ridge, only a half-hour drive from the well-known Whetstone River stonehole clusters and petroglyphs in nearby South Dakota.

    www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone

    - Gunn

    ReplyDelete
  32. Scott, here's some of my current thinking about Runestone Hill. I think it may have been marked-up with stonehole rocks, encircled with stonehole rocks, even before the KRS was put there. As far as sacred geometry, the design may have been laid out on the ground years before the KRS was left there, concealing something other than the KRS.

    For one thing, I don't think the KRS was originally buried, but rather left as an upright memorial sticking up out of the ground--where it stood for a number of years, before it toppled over or was toppled over on its face, where it became buried shallowly over the ensuing centuries.

    So, after the misadventure on the west bank of the lake with two skerries up north, the remaining 10 men paddled downstream about a dozen miles on the Chippewa River, then walked inland about 4 miles east to Runestone Hill--which I theorize may have already existed as a known, stonehole-marked-up geographical feature...that being a knoll, actually a very well described peninsula-island.

    I think maybe Runestone Hill pre-existed as a sort of inland mapping feature, like on a ley-line, for example. I think the survivors left the memorial KRS at Runestone Hill because they figured Scandinavians would be coming back to that very spot for some reason. What?

    So, KRS researchers may not need to wonder and worry about the survivors making all that noise chiseling out stoneholes, after all, because maybe the stonehole rocks were already in place years before the KRS party arrived there--and for another reason other than to encircle a runestone. In this scenario, maybe the KRS party of survivors adorned the pre-existing sacred geometric X laid out upon the ground--which they already knew about--with the KRS as the hook on the X!

    In this case, then, the KRS need not have been purposely buried...like as a purposely concealed land claim. I do, however, think the men were probably involved with attempting to claim land, unless they were more interested in furs. So, in this theory, the KRS as a memorial would represent involvement in land prospecting, but not necessarily involving a large, semi-continental land claim.

    Conversely, the medieval Norse code-stone I recently found southwest of Kensington seems to more definitely indicate large-scale surveying and land-claiming, based on the location being the scene of a south-running river discharging into the beginnings of the Minnesota River.

    Just some innocent speculations while I'm obsessing about these very real medieval Norse stoneholes. I hope you don't mind.

    - Gunn

    ReplyDelete
  33. Scott, any educated guess on why they refuse to share the results of the 3D imaging? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Troutman,

      The simple answer is anyone reviewing the papers and conclusions drawn by the Williams and Nielsen have no factual basis. This was all carefully crafted from the beginning to erase the work I did and reinvent the KRS in their image.

      The overriding question I have is if Williams believes the KRS has a 19th Century origin, why does he care so much that he would be party to such obvious academic fraud? The reason is simple; he knows damn well the KRS is genuine.

      Delete
  34. I'm sorry...I should have attempted a more thorough explanation.

    I basically see my recent finding of this medieval Norse Code-stone as a "miracle of discovery," wherein God is positioning Himself to receive glory for revealing hidden American history. How could it be otherwise? Luck? Like, Leif the Lucky?

    But, in this situation of narrowed footsteps within a vast and nearly empty prairie-land, the concept of luck would be spiritually counter-intuitive, wouldn't one think? On the other hand, couldn't a self-professed stonehole nut (a believer in the risen Christ) have been blessed by a miracle of discovery--by a miracle of stumbling upon a medieval Norse Code-stone, enabled by--of all things--stonehole rocks? I don't see why not.

    Anyway, Scott, hopefully time will tell what is buried on the lonely ridge, as we await the experts to act on my well-documented and well-explained discovery. For now the ground is frozen, awaiting a thawing from the academics, the scholars, those State of Minnesota officials currently in charge of our history--for we are talking about a miracle of discovery on State land. The government will call the shots on this one. Or will they?

    Maybe you can have some influence about this much-needed unearthing, Scott, through your professional connections.... (I'll switch to future email with you about this now.) Thanks for hearing me out about all this protracted mysteriousness over stoneholes...which were thought to be so mundane!

    - Gunn

    ReplyDelete
  35. This was just published within the last few hours in the Norwegian American Weekly. It explains to interested readers more about medieval Norse waterways in detail, and may go well with my previous discussions here on your peaceful blog.

    http://www.na-weekly.com/opinion/in-defense-of-the-kensington-runestone-waterways/

    Thanks for the indulgence, Scott...I'm over and out now. But I think this new in-depth waterway research may help us all in our relentless search for corroborative evidences, helping to prove that the KRS is genuine. (The facebook clicks are mounting up fast!)

    - Gunn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gunn,

      Now worries; I've been on the run for the past couple of days and haven't had time to respond. You're shaking the weeds trying flush something out and that's a good thing. People don't have to always be on the same page, we just need to be in the same book and we are.

      The KRS is immensely complicated and every time I think I have my head around it here comes another curve ball. I do think I finally have the right catcher's mit, and I'll soon be sharing the latest.

      I might actually have it this time; we'll see...

      Delete
  36. Scott, I am still analyzing the treasure trove of early colonial documents that had be lost for 285 years, but I found at Lambath Palace last April. One of the documents states that in pre-Columbian times Creek armies pushed all the way to the Atlantic Coast, but were driven back by whites living on the coast! Here is the link: http://peopleofonefire.com/one-lost-migration-legend-puts-white-men-on-the-south-atlantic-coast-before-columbus.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MountainLion,

      I suspect it was likely during Viking times (circa 1000) as they did not share a similar ideology which would lead to natural conflict with the indigenous people. I'll bet you'll find more historic gold in those documents!

      Delete
  37. http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=scientific_method

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous,

    This is actually pretty good and something Williams should have reviewed... Never mind, it wouldn't have made any difference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah....Williams.... But, I had another in mind when I posted.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      The other guy knows the difference, but simply chose to thumb his nose at the scientific method. This entire scam has nothing at all to do with legitimate science.

      Delete
    3. "Nothing at all to do with legitimate science." Couldn't have put it better myself, Scott.

      I don't really follow Nielsen or Williams, but I have read, listened to, or watched just about everything you've put out over the last 7-8 years.

      I think your physical study of the KRS is worth further discussion. But, let's face it, your hooked X, Templar, Jesus Bloodline speculation doesn't even make it past the second phase of the scientific method. Stick to what you know and leave the fiction to Dan Brown.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous,

      “But, let’s face it…” I’m not really sure what you mean by that, but the way I take it is you have an issue with the physical bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene for reasons of faith? That’s perfectly fine, but until you can present factual evidence to refute it, I stand firmly behind the work I’ve done to date. Attempting to dismiss the Jesus/MM physical bloodline with the "Dan Brown" arm wave certainly isn't exactly scientific method is it?

      Not sure what you mean by “second phase of the scientific method”, but you realize there is DNA from the Talpiot Tomb ossuaries right? I’m sure you know exactly what that means.

      In any case, I think we’ll just have to respectfully agree to disagree on that one.

      Delete
  39. any thoughts on the idea they may have "botched the scan"....

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dave,

    The scam is already botched as they have tried to summarily dismiss physical aspects of the inscription they have no right to do.

    No future credible researchers will accept this nonsense. So yes, the scam has been botched, but the bigger problem is the issue of the two scammer's credibility.

    Nielsen has already rendered himself irrelevant by flip-flopping on multiple conclusions we published together, based on a 3D imaging study he refuses to let anyone see, and for his unethical behavior with the Runestone Museum. Sadly, it's all over for Nielsen and his tainted legacy is now secure.

    Williams is another matter and I suspect this episode will be an albatross of damaged credibility forever hanging from his neck. He, of course, will dismiss all this with an arm wave as he apparently views himself to be above it all. This attitude will be easy to have being surrounded by like-minded scholars in the 'safe haven' of Sweden along with his agent in America, Loraine Jensen, telling him how wonderful he is.

    He's probably better off living in denial, but sooner or later this fiasco of fraud will come back to haunt him.

    ReplyDelete
  41. It sounds to me like maybe this scam of "runification" was uncovered as much or more than botched. Who, except a few, would have known about all this mischief of apparently trying to subjugate the dotted R, had not you, Scott, so elaborately and conspicuously laid it all out, in defense of both yourself and the KRS.

    As a result, Dr. Williams will need to lay low for a while. Right now there's no dark spot left for him to hide, unless perhaps it is in the former East Settlement of Greenland...but I don't think Ms. Jensen would adapt well to subsisting primarily on seal meat. "Salad please, Henrik!"

    As I like to point out once in a while, some would-be debunkers are fast becoming the ones representing fringe history.

    - Gunn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gunn,

      My biggest issue with this whole sordid affair is how these two (three actually) have the gall to think they can control the artifact’s authenticity and the history it represents. This is exactly what they tried to do with the Dotted R as well as manipulate at least two dozen other characters within the inscription. Fortunately, certain key institutions are aware of the situation and I suspect there will be fewer welcoming mats for the dear professor when he tries to spread his deceptive gospel here in the U.S.

      As for the debunkers, they are notoriously dishonest and deceptive in their rants, but insightful people can see through the ruse. They doggedly are protecting a paradigm, but as new science and mounting factual evidence comes in it makes their “beliefs” ever more untenable. Everyday important new discoveries are being reported and published making the positions they protect more like an open wound they keep on scratching. If we ignore the nonsensical and stick to the facts, eventually they will dry up, heal over, and finally fall off…

      Delete
    2. You do realize Scott, that this reads like propaganda rather than discourse. Until you can engage your critics intellectually without loaded language, ad hominem and non sequitur, your work will never be taken seriously. This entire blog post is nothing more than pure insult to a man who gave you a chance to be taken seriously. How have you repaid him? Seriously. No one with any legitimate credentials will ever choose to work with you should you continue to carry on in this manner.

      You are an entertainer with television credits. I do get that. You chose that path. But even that you jeopardize with what can only be described as a "rant" here, despite you characterizing critiques of your work as such above. At some point it is going to affect your other legitimate business interests, as I know no attorney who would dare put you on the stand for their case dealing with petrography if they were aware of the permanent written record you have left behind here on your blog and elsewhere which is ripe for voir dire challenging your credibility.

      As I write this, I do hope you don't see it as an attack; but rather advice from a friend who might be looking out for you. In that manner, I hope it resonates and I won't be upset should you not post it.

      Delete
    3. "Joe,"

      A friend who’s looking out for me? Please. A friend doesn't hide in the shadows and try to twist straightforward facts into some kind misdeed on my part. Help me understand what it is about this sordid academic behavior that you don't find offensive? I can assure you my clients and co-workers are well aware of my TV career and have fully supported it. As far as working with lawyers, it’s a daily thing for me. Either they haven’t gotten the memo yet, or they aren’t as offended as you seem to be.

      I completely agree that Williams will be insulted by this blog instead of remorseful as he should be. The reason is he simply doesn’t get it. The trio have committed academic fraud; plain and simple, and that you don’t seem to understand that is truly unfortunate.

      As far as a leaving a permanent record; that’s exactly what was intended by creating this blog. Instead of letting debunkers distort and deceive viewers about the context and conclusions we reach on the shows, it is important I put things into proper perspective and allow people to write in with questions or comments. “Go to the source” as it were, and let them have the exchange with me directly. This has been a wonderful blog in my opinion, and everyone from die-hard supporters to the nastiest trolls have been given an opportunity to express their views. I am proud of this blog and don’t regret one word I’ve written. As far as you thinking this blog will somehow hurt me professionally, I’m sorry you feel that way and couldn’t disagree more. Respectfully, of course.

      Delete
    4. Your trial testimony is limited to your petrography work, such as soundness of building materials, right? Have you made any such appearances lately? Are there any court cases currently on the docket where you're named as an expert witness expected to testify?

      Delete
    5. My trial testimony can range from issues involving cementitious-based materials like concrete, mortar, grout, etc., to aggregate and rock problems. It actually varies quite a bit. I have several cases on-going and give deposition and trial testimony all the time. Litigation cases are the bulk of what I do as a senior geologist/petrographer having done this type of work for as long as I have.

      Delete
    6. Again, are there any court cases currently active and open on the docket, awaiting trial where you're named as an expert witness expected to testify?

      Delete
    7. Why is that any of your business?

      Delete
  42. What everyone needs to realize is that you are really dealing in the realm of probability, not arithmetic. Without a functional time machine, very little in the interpretation of the distant past can be absolute facts . . . unless there is some form of specific scientific test, like percentage of Iron Oxide or something. No archival or archaeological research is finite. There is always a high probability of new facts being discovered that will change the interpretation of what everyone thought were all the facts. Lordamercy, I can't begin to tell you how many times that has happened to me. Almost every day I stumble across something that changes what I thought were the facts yesterday.

    Sometimes, that new fact radically changes the interpretation of the past . . . like the day I discovered that archaeologist Phillip White found bronze axes in an Early Woodland Period mound in NE Georgia, but didn't tell anyone because he feared losing his teaching position at Harvard or when archaeologist James Ford unearthed bronze weapons and tools on the Georgia Coast, but didn't tell anyone because he assumed that they belonged to late 16th century Spanish soldiers. Those particular facts changed my attitude toward Bronze Age explorers being in eastern North America from "probably poppycock" to a "definitely." Do you get my gist . . . there may be a third interpretation of the KRS that no one has thought about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mountainlion,

      In fairness to Professor Williams, in Swedish academia he's dealing with a mandate that the KRS is a hoax; period. He won't admit it of course, but I was there and witnessed it myself. Never in my life has I seen such abhorrent behavior and close-mindedness by academics. Early on I held out hope that Henrik would be different, but in the end, ego took over and led he and his friends into believing they were the ultimate authority which resulted in this disgraceful behavior.

      Delete
  43. I know this may seem like a redundant question ... but why are these institutions so deadset on people believing the lie that Columbus was here first? How does admitting the truth threaten them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J Moore,

      I believe it's a combination of things that collectively created the historical mess we currently have. However, the way of disseminating information is rapidly changing and it's harder for academia and other powers-that-be to control the flow of facts.

      We'll still be stuck with ego and controlling personalities I'm afraid, but in time the truth will rise to the surface. It always does eventually...

      Delete
  44. It's odd to me that you keep couching the argument that somehow your arguments are rejected because anthropology and linguistics academics are holding on to a paradigm. Just recently I read an article about a new archaeological discovery in New Foundland that confirmed a norse outpost. I am not arguing that paradigms don't exist, but I think they exist in the form of what questions are asked rather then what answers are permitted. If you had solid evidence then I believe you would be celebrated. Was there any archaeological work at the site of the rune stone? Any archaeological excavation in the vicinity? Validity aside, I wish there was evidence for a no shit Viking/Jewish/Egyptian site that predates Columbus in the continental US. Some kind of midden, remant house structure, something that is outside the realm of early 20th century objects that can be easily manipulated by individuals in unsecure excavations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      L'Ance Aux Meadows was discovered in the 1960's and has been well known since then. There is solid evidence with numerous pre-Columbian artifacts in N.A. and still academia turns a blind eye. You seem to be inferring the only way to have anything legitimate that's pre-Columbian is with an archaeological site? The KRS is a land claim and I wouldn't expect there to be a habitation site where it was discovered. Remember, an absence of evidence proves nothing.

      However, we have a perfectly good site excavation report of the burial mound where the Bat Creek Stone was found, yet the Smithsonian Institution still insists it was a fake ONLY after it was realized it was paleo-Hebrew circa 1970. This was 81 years after it was discovered. Everything was fine during that time and changed their minds after they realized what it really was. Shouldn't their first reaction have been of wanting to investigate the situation further instead of immediate dismissal? Sounds like the poster child example of institutional paradigm control to me.

      The Smithsonian has been lying to us the whole time and the Bat Creek Stone saga proves it.

      Delete
    2. "The KRS is a land claim and I wouldn't expect there to be a habitation site where it was discovered. Remember, an absence of evidence proves nothing."

      What land is it actually claiming? Seems rather vague for such purposes, doesn't it? And you do have to manipulate the language in a rather farfetched manner to even arrive at acquisition over exploration to get around a word that didn't exist in 1362. Instead the runes seems more focused on telling a tale, a perhaps a tall one at that.

      Confirming archeological evidence would of course bolster the claim for authenticity. Without it, you're left with only the stone itself, which is hardly convincing given the overwhelming evidence against it. Likewise your Bat Creek Stone, the language of which taken directly from contemporary sources.

      Crying conspiracy is also not evidence.

      Delete
    3. The land claim appears to be all the land, "...from Vinland (Eastern coastline) far to the west." This could be interpreted as the entire North American continent.

      There is no ambiguity in "acquisition business/taking up land" is there “Joe?” And yes, that word on line 2 did exist in 1362. I agree the message is rather, ambiguous isn't it? Maybe the message is mostly allegory and code meant only for those who were initiated to understand what the real message(s) are? Did that ever occur to you? "We were fishing one day..." seems awful trite when taken at face value. I don't think it means fishing for food at all since I’m sure they did that every day.

      I hate to break it to you "Joe", but there is no factual evidence consistent with the KRS being a late 19th Century hoax. And how can there be with the voluminous factual evidence in geology, language, runes, dialect, grammar and history that is consistent with the 14th Century? Heck, the Dotted R all by itself seals the deal once and for all.

      Please stop pretending you know anything about the Bat Creek Stone that was collected by the Smithsonian's own agents in a perfect archaeological context OK? It's embarrassing. If you want to stick your head in the sand about the conduct of the Smithsonian in the Bat Creek Stone situation that's up to you.

      Delete
    4. I'm kind of surprised that the issue of "going fishing" would come up, but since it has, and since I'm a self-professed KRS message purist, I'll enjoy explaining this one for the benefit of the pure message on the KRS.

      While onsite last year, talking with the property owner of the land consisting of the west bank of the newly-discovered "lake with two skerries," I asked him about the fishing in the obscure lake, and he told me that it was mostly pike in the lake...a relatively shallow lake ( only 12 ft., I think). Now, I would rather dine on walleye any day than pike!

      This will help explain why half of the men were away from camp fishing. Had they been fishing on the lake with two skerries, they too may have fallen victim...or they may have been able to assist their fallen comrades. They were away far enough that they apparently didn't hear any massacre sounds (disease theory aside). Anyway, knowing about the poor fishing where they were camped helps prove-out the message on the KRS, if one takes the inscription literally, as I do.

      It could be that the men were in the process of catching and drying fish for the lengthy journey back to Lake Superior, via the Minnesota River and on up the St. Croix, etc., about a two-week trip.

      Now, as far as the KRS being a large land claim, I personally don't see any direct evidence to support the theory. However, I do agree that the KRS party were apparently in the process of acquiring or taking up land...just on a smaller scale, perhaps, as seems to be the case out west a ways. There may be more to the KRS being a larger land claim than I'm aware of, but I don't see anything apparent about it within the inscription.

      But again, I do think that medieval "waterway surveying" and attempted land up-taking did occur farther west, even though it's hard to assess the scale of the would-be claim. Hopefully, though, whatever is buried in association with this probable Pomme de Terre River land claim will give up some specific answers...which may end up somehow relating to the Chippewa River and the KRS--just east of the aforementioned river several miles.

      - Gunn

      Delete
    5. Gunn

      I would be very careful about what parts of the inscription are to be taken literally. "We were fishing one day..." is the least likely thing to be taken literally in my humble opinion. I have reasons for saying this I will share in the near future.

      Delete
    6. The fraud that is the Bat Creek Stone was exposed long ago, and with the wealth of information out there confirming this, it is not I with my head in the sand. And as always, your KRS defense rests solely on proof by assertion and multiple other fallacious arguments including, but not limited to, circular reasoning, cherry-picking, hasty generalization and pure ad hominem in response to valid criticism. If your geological evidence is so sound, then I suggest you submit it to an accredited scientific geological periodical for publishing, rather than sell it here and on television. Entertaining, perhaps. Convincing? Well, let's just say it's always a pleasure chatting with you.

      Delete
    7. The evidence presented to support your beliefs about the Bat Creek Stone are underwhelming to say the least. However, you are free to believe what you want.

      As for the KRS, you are welcome to believe whatever you want there as well and live in denial of the facts proving it's authenticity (I rarely use the word "prove" unless the evidence is definitive as it is with the KRS). It's a free country.

      Till the next time "Joe."

      Delete
  45. The quickest way to make a mistake is to be close-minded like you described the Swedish academicians.

    As I said earlier, bronze tools have been found in Early Woodland mounds and iron axes have been found in Pre-Columbian, Mississippian Period mounds in Georgia. Medieval style iron forges have been found in North Carolina along with iron and bronze tools. Obviously, something was going on that is not in the orthodox history. People need to be open to new discoveries. Just because proof has not been found, does not mean that it will not be found in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Scott
    The newer Norse post that anonymous refers to could be the one in this scientific paper. Not Newfoundland. But maybe newly found land. More finds in the Artic.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gea.21497/full

    You'd probably find the crucible interesting, if you haven't already seen it.
    Data is now showing occupation over several hundred years.
    While not evidence for a presence farther south. It does challenge traditional accounts & with other archaeological finds is showing the Norse presence was NOT short-lived in Canada.

    Climate change saw a move to warmer places. Why go east? Why not south? Sure common sense lead these people to notice the climate gets warmer as one travels south just like back home. After epic open ocean journeys, following the land to the south would be child's play.
    We've been invading your warmer climates a long time. But you already know that... maybe the first snowbirds...haha
    Kathy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kathy,

      I took a quick scan of the paper and it's pretty clear this crucible and the remnant bronze particles within it was not work of indigenous people. The paper drew the obvious conclusion it the work of pre-Columbian Europeans.

      Your logic about these same people traveling south to warmer latitudes makes perfect sense and denial of the evidence already known is just plain silly. The Spirit Pond Rune Stones are dated to 1401-02 and are obviously genuine despite negative pleading by scholars who ignore the factual evidence.

      Despite being a proud Minnesotan, freezing one's fanny off for months on end is way over-rated...

      Delete
    2. Kathy and Scott, it makes perfect sense that the Greenlanders would have known about other Norsemen traveling round-about, heading south even past Hudson Bay occasionally...explorers, prospective fur traders, prospective land owners.

      Scott, you already know about the Norse evidences related to the Hudson Bay route down to Lake Traverse/Big Stone Lake area...this route has its own set of stonehole and metal objects, evidences to support the truth that Norsemen came down south to the MN region by way of the Hudson Bay, as well as west through the Great Lakes from the Atlantic Coast.

      If the Western Settlement Greenlanders actually did mysteriously disappeare a decade or two before the date of the KRS (1362), mostly because of the Mini Iceage, it seems logical to think the hundreds of Scandinavians may have migrated south to a known circular ocean-to-ocean waterway merging spot.

      Who knows, maybe the Whetstone River in nearby SD was stonehole-marked by Greenlanders rather than by monks--which is my current "best thinking."

      As you know, too, Scott and Kathy, the Whetstone River area isn't really that far away at all from the upper Missouri River, where the Mandans were established in the Dakotas for...well, many moons.

      -Gunn

      Delete
    3. Scott,
      Yes. Just plain silly.
      Dates of the stones that have been found your way would correlate to when the experts term the mini ice age that was most disastrous in northern countries. Livestock died. Harbours iced over. Northwest passage iced up. Move on or die.
      Sure those Viking/ Norse felt the same way about freezing their fannies off.

      It has always been those who went against the grain who made the greatest discoveries and changed scientific fact.
      Kathy

      Delete
    4. Gunn
      Personally I think these early explorers made it all the way to the west coast. That has had my attention for awhile now and maybe one day will have enough to lay my cards on the table. In the meantime the best evidence is out your way.
      Thinking I missed something here... but a monk could belong to any of these Norse groups by the 1100's.
      Kathy

      Delete
  47. Just wanted to let you know that the Purepeche People of Michoacan State, Mexico had entered the Bronze Age prior to the arrival of Columbus. As a result, the Aztecs were never able to conquer them and suffered horrific casualties when they did try to invade Michoacan. Also, the Apalache of North Georgia made weapons and tools out of a natural brass containing copper, zinc and gold. It was mined near where I live now. That has nothing to do with Runic, but you mentioned bronze in the New World. Want to keep y'all echewkated!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Yes, the ways of getting facts to the public are changing. The People of One Fire web site has had over 75,000 readers this month. We are becoming a threat. A state-recognized Cherokee tribe composed of white Indians, hired a lawyer to threaten to sue me, because I pointed out that their "Cherokee" museum had a Creek Indian name. LOL

    Seriously . . . unlike TV shows we can include technical images and cite specific references so there is not a whole lot the recalcitrant archaeologists in the Southeast can do, but sulk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MountainLion,

      You'd think the archaeologist's would be thrilled to hear the truth about Native cultures about whom they supposedly are the experts on. Oh yeah, being Native, you probably have a little more insight into your own culture than the academics.

      Delete
  49. I am still inclined to think that most of the Norse in North America came from the Viking colonies in SE Ireland and NW Scotland. We have multiple monastic journal entries from that era saying that they were regularly sailing to Witmannsland across the Atlantic and that they were ultimately driven out of the British Isles by King Edward (Hammer of the Scots.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi MountainLion, I'm now wondering about these earlier Viking colonies you're speaking of. Do you extend these colonies and influences forward out of the Viking age into the KRS age...about a quarter of a millennium? If so, this would make sense, since many believe there is a direct Scottish influence into the building of the Newport Tower (1400?), not far from where other "Hooked X" runestones were found (Maine).

      We see a strong Scandinavian attachment to these post-KRS East Coast activities, because of the continued use of runes...including the Hooked X. I guess this had to do with who the sailors were, and who may have accompanied the Norse sailors.

      In the case of the KRS, the inscription speaks about Norwegians and Swedes making the lengthy waterway journey; however, Scott has pointed out previously that others may have fit into this group of mid-Fourteenth century travelers, some possibly hailing from other nearby NW European regions...including areas where Templars had previously been persecuted. Scotland as a haven seems to fit in well with the idea of multiple regions being represented by some of these medieval excursions.

      MountainLion, I mentioned before about thinking the Whetstone River stonehole clusters might be related to "monastic" activity. I had thought about the possibility of monastic activity coming out of the archdiocese of Lund (southern Sweden), perhaps in the 12th century even, but maybe I should be considering SE Ireland or NW Scotland, too.

      Well, someone made the many stoneholes along S. Dakota's Whetstone River. If not "lost" Greenlanders, maybe monks...from who knows where!

      -Gunn

      Delete
  50. Sheesh Scott, just go ahead and submit your KRS work to an accredited GEOLOGY journal and avoid the soft sciences all together...sounds simple

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      It's already been academically and professionally peer reviewed, published, presented at geological conferences and multiple awards were presented for the geological research in the professional world.

      If that doesn't gain acceptance by academia nothing will.

      Delete
    2. Back on that peer review roundabout again? Not willing to traverse that terrain once again, I would focus upon your awards, if I may. Was that the Grand Award from the ACEC? Presented in 2007 at the Minnetonka Marriot? Did they also award their championship softball team at the same affair? There's also the Seven Wonders Award from the MSPE, also in 2007. As noted on your firm's website, yes? There were actually eight such awards given out that year due to a tie. Unfortunately, your firm did not receive any of them, instead settling for one of four less distinguished Merit Awards. I might advise you to correct that discrepancy, as ACEC bylaws certainly frown upon exaggerating one's credentials.

      Cheers,

      Lesley

      Delete
    3. Hey Scott,

      What exactly were the awards you given for your geology work on the KRS? I don't trust you as far as I can throw you, so I'd like to confirm this myself.

      Delete
    4. Lesley,

      There's nothing that needs to be corrected. We were given Grand Awards by both ACEC Minnesota and the Seven Wonders of Award for my KRS research in 2007.

      Apparently, you don't believe me. Do I need to post pictures of the trophy's and plagues I took home? Why do you come on this blog if my work is so beneath you?

      Delete
    5. My good man, the MSPE site from 2007 clearly shows your Kensington Rune Stone work being honored with a Merit Award. By chance could your coveted Seven Wonders Award be secured with one of your other endeavors honored by this prestigious organization?

      As for why I might frequent your blog, it should be most clear by now. To correct errors in fact and interpretation, of which there are many. Should my presence be no longer desired, you only have to show me the door and I will oblige.

      Cheers,

      Lesley

      Delete
    6. Lesley,

      We received an ACEC Merit Award at the National level; we were given a Grand Award at the state level. That our research was nationally recognized at all is a strong statement by the professional engineering community about the quality of the research we performed. There are no factual errors for you to correct my good man.

      What I have not heard you yet comment on is about the academic fraud perpetrated by one of your own. Is the silence acknowledgement we’ve actually made a valid point or are you going somehow excuse the behavior of Nielsen, Williams, and Jensen?

      Delete
    7. My dear chap, I was not correcting the nomenclature of your ACEC awards. If you truly need a walkthrough, then I will attempt another go at it. Your American Petrography site reads as follows-

      The Kensington Rune Stone (2007)

      ACEC – National Recognition Award

      ACEC – Grand Award

      MSPE – Seven Wonders of Engineering Award

      A brief stop at the 2007 version of the MSPE website reveals that you missed out on the Seven Wonders award that year, and instead settled for the Merit award. A pity, as I would have cheered you on had I known at the time. It's really that simple. Perhaps in your collection of such civic honors you have confused the titles. However, you do know what a fusspot I can be in the name of accuracy, and I would hope rumors of incorrigibility on your part would not extend to disregard of the rather obvious.

      As for academic fraud on the part of your past associations, I stand unconvinced at this juncture. Perhaps you are too sensitive when it come to differences of opinion. Present company excepted, of course.

      Cheers,

      Lesley

      Delete
    8. My Dear Lesley,

      I find it interesting that you chose to spend all this effort trying to clarify the awards I’ve received for my KRS research, yet seem decidedly less interested in discussing academic fraud that is the subject of this particular blog post. You summarily dismiss the facts with, “…I stand unconvinced at this juncture.” You do realize your attitude comes across as inconsistent to say the least?

      Can you please try and demonstrate a little credibility and tell us WHY you are “unconvinced.” This matter has nothing to do with differences in opinion, it is about acknowledgement of facts. Your academic colleague is guilty of manipulating fraudulently generated data to suite his obvious bias against the authenticity of the KRS.

      Delete
    9. Have we clarified the award bit? So you recognize the error and will amend your professional site accordingly? Gads, see how long that took. I can't imagine if I were to take the time to pick apart the rather untoward allegations you're making with this latest blog entry. Simply take a look at how you phrased this last note directed to me. You question my credibility, which can only be rehabilitated should I agree with you. You demand I must acknowledge your facts and accept fraudulent behavior on the part of those you rail against as a precondition to further discussion. What sort of challenge is that old man? One I don't wish to undertake as the futility of which has already been predetermined.

      Now I'm a bit knackered and have to give it a rest for a day.

      Cheers,

      Lesley

      Delete
    10. Lesley,

      The award "bit" never needed clarification, your position regarding the subject matter of the blog post is what is unclear. I've provided voluminous documentation to support the "untoward allegations" and yes, you must accept the facts as presented for they represent a true accounting of the events that occurred.

      Can we please stop quibbling about the awards you could care less about and hear what you have to say about the subject matter at hand? Please..?

      Delete
  51. Oh wow, what was the journal? I missed it?

    ReplyDelete
  52. I see where Alice Kehoe referenced "Lawrence Gardner"..WOW..That guy was a very popular UK speaker and author. Made for some great reading. Have a few of his books. I don't know how much of his work has been vindicated by all this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave,

      I haven't considered Sir Gardner's work in context with this work, but what I've read of his work I thought was pretty solid.

      Delete
  53. Sad ending to a good lead. The archaeologist who published the paper I posted was fired from her job at the Canadian Museum of Civilization supposedly for harassment. Locked out of her lab and access to the artifacts she uncovered & previous artifacts she was looking at with new eyes...At a time when many of our scientists in various fields in Canada were being muzzled by our previous government if they didn't tow the party line.
    But she did get a documentary out which was probably her downfall. Challenging conventional thought the Viking/ Norse presence in Canada was short lived. If anyone is interested:

    http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episodes/the-norse-an-arctic-mystery
    The upload is only available in Canada but does give a little background info. For US just google the title plus daily motion & should find the episode.
    Censorship is alive and well on both sides of the border.
    To clarify their paper does state earliest metalworking north of Mesoamerica.
    Kathy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kathy,

      I wonder if the skeptics will chime in and tell us how censorship is justified? I've experienced censorship form an organization I used to be a member of. NEARA refused to publish a positive review of my Hooked X book and they recently refused to publish my Hooked X/Tau Cross paper due to territorial issues with some of the old guard. On the other hand, The Midwest Epigraphic Society just published the paper in their latest journal. It's currently being reviewed for possible publication by two biblical scholars.

      This paper largely dealt with geological aspects of the crucible and looked pretty solid. Maybe that was the problem?

      Delete
    2. Scott
      Censorship and the manipulation of data. Doesn't surprise me at all that you are experiencing it as well. So I wish you all the best in what I consider intellectual bullying.
      Think you are right. The geological aspects are solid. Thus the problem begins. That might have been the last of her research grant. Well spent.30 year career destroyed. She was working in some really ugly environments to uncover these artifacts. One tough gal.
      On a side note, this museum now renamed Canadian Museum of History is currently running a Viking exhibit borrowed from Sweden & while the curator thought that the Canadian museum might add some of their own artifacts to the exhibit they have not.
      Good article on it
      http://ottawastart.com/king-lost-Viking-settlements-in-Canada/
      A link in it to genetic studies in Iceland has interesting implications to North America which was new to me but maybe not you or others.
      Kathy

      Delete
  54. Taking a break from planting the cabbages. I am one of those nerds, who watches Scandinavian Public Television documentaries on Saturday night. Don't ask me about my love life!

    At any rate, the government of Iceland has just completed a DNA analysis of all known skeletons of the earliest settlers on their island. Sixty percent of the women were from Ireland or Scotland. It's hard to call because the Scots moved from Ireland to Scotland about that time. The men were mostly Norse from the Faeroe Islands and other locations, where they had a bit of Celtic ancestry. Not many from Norway. After 1000 AD Native American mtDNA showed up in Iceland. Some Icelanders still carry it. They also found Native American DNA in SW Ireland and in northern Norway & Sweden. However, some of the NA mtDNA in Ireland and mainland Scandinavia arrived much earlier than 1000 AD. Now you figure that one out.

    Scott don't forget that you won Geologist of the Year in the Amicalola Creek community in 2012. Well, you were the only geologist to visit there in 2012, but it is something you can tell your grandchildren about with great pride. LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MountainLion,

      So, did the Natives paddle to over to Iceland or did the Icelanders sail over here and bring people back with them?

      Did I get a plaque I can show Lesley?

      Delete
  55. Oh . . . Iceland was absorbed by Norway in 1262 AD. Families began to leave the island. The greatest out-migration was in the Bubonic Plague hit in the 1300s. Anyone who could left Iceland, when word was received about Trondheim being almost depopulated by the plague. No one really knows where these people went . . . but North America would be a good bet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MountainLion, this could help explain why the West Settlement Greenlanders disappeared around the time they did. Besides the cooling climate and changing diet to mostly seal meat, and impending taxes, maybe they actively sought to escape the plague that hit Scandinavia around 1350 or so. The timing is very close.

      Yes, one must question whether these hundreds of "missing Greenlanders" may have chosen to go south, possibly to Hudson Bay and beyond, and to a specific place they had heard about. MountainLion, do you know anything about Green Throne, or the Graenaveldi?

      I'm just mildly speculating here that maybe these hundreds of people decided to come down to a place they had heard about...much as Vinland was known. Maybe instead of monks carving stoneholes for many miles along the Whetstone River in S. Dakota, the Greenlanders attempted to settle there...and, as others have speculated, maybe things didn't work out with the Native Americans, which eventually caused this large group of Scandinavians to escape into local indigenous tribes for continued existence in the harsh area...eventually becoming the "White Indians" known as Mandans--who had a curiously "European" style of living compared to other local American Indians.

      The very close geographical proximity must make one wonder, too, since the Whetstone River stonehole clusters and the Mandans both sprang up in the Dakotas.

      I'm just saying, maybe the threat of oncoming disease is what finally pulled the "missing" Scandinavians southward, to a land they had heard about, much as some Icelanders had attempted to escape the plague by leaving Iceland.

      Otherwise, the many medieval Scandinavian stonehole clusters along the Whetstone River may have been made my monks--and possibly much earlier than the mid-Fourteenth century, is my guess. For now, it's all speculation.

      - Gunn

      Delete
  56. Scott,
    I find you show "America Unearthed" very interesting, especially the episodes that look at whether or not Mediterranean cultures, or any old world culture, made it to America long before Columbus. Is there going to be a season 4 of "America Unearthed"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      I feel like I've said this a thousand times, but there are other networks looking at it and we should know something very soon. We were just getting to some of the best subject matter so I hope it pans out.

      Stay tuned...

      Delete
  57. The presumption in Iceland is that since the NA mtDNA beginning showing up right after Leif Erikson's voyage, that the Viking took NA women back to Iceland. In Ireland, it is still an enigma. When I was interviewed by Irish Public TV, the interviewer (an anthropologist) told me that there is a museum of Native American artifacts in County Kerry (SW Eire) and there are several documented cases of NA boats washing ashore with NA bodies in them.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Here is a geology question. Since I was not paid by the History Channel, you owe me seven years of slave labor.

    In the late 1500s, Spanish traders traveled to Copal (Track Rock terrace complex) to exchange European goods for gold and precious stones (rubies, sapphires, garnets and diamonds). There are a lot of rubies and garnets embedded in the rocks above the acropolis at Track Rock. One diamond was so large that he was able to sell it to the governor of Spanish Florida for 5,000 crowns, which is about $350,000 today.

    A commercial gem mine operated on the lower part of the site until the USFS seized the property.

    Here is my question. The terraces are built on the outer side of a collapsed caldera. Near the top of the rim, is what is labeled a "dormant fumarole." Could this hole down into the depths of the earth actually be a Kimberlite pipe? If so, that means that there still might be diamonds at the Track Rock terraces.

    Most people don't know that Georgia has a line of extinct volcanoes across it. One volcano is dormant. It last erupted in 1856. To show you how stupid the geology professors are here in Georgia, none of them knew it either. They are all from other parts of the country and have not bothered to learn our geological history. That's why I have the highest respect for a a geologist like you, who being in the private sector, is accountable for his work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MountainLion,

      I don't think the geology you describe is connected to Kimberlite pipes. It sounds like a series of periodically active volcanic calderas, but I don't know for sure. I suspect the gemstones are related to much older geological events.

      Sounds like the Track Rock region has other interesting aspects other than the history of humans! Maybe next time they'll let me in?

      Delete
  59. It's a small world after all. Even then. People back and forth. To and fro. Evidence of this all over the place.
    Road trip...road trip... Or should I say, ship trip...ship trip.
    DNA. Does that qualify as good enough science? lol
    Thanks for the expansion on the DNA studies MountainLion
    Kathy

    ReplyDelete
  60. Sounds like even more proof of "contact" in a much wider scenario. Is there any evidence of "women trading" or was this just a "snatch and run" operation. This DNA thing is really interesting. Do you have the link for the research or is this something you have privacy to and not yet released. Is there no mention of the "fishermen" of Bristol. Since this is now showing up in Ireland, what a mess, simply because the DNA can be dated by science.

    Also, I see there is heavy posting at Phippsburg History Center over the newest research by Patrick Shekleton on the use of Ptolemy navigation. He has obtained a 98.6% accuracy to the KS stone location (magic numbers - 8-22) surprise surprise surprise...OK, really this nails it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave,

      I know Patrick has been working on this for quite a while and I have no doubt the Cistercians/Templars who created the KRS were adept at long-range navigation using the stars, etc.

      I'm working on a different interpretation of the KRS numbers that appear to be another code related to certain Masonic ritual. Stay tuned as it's hanging together pretty well. Once I have it finalized I'll vet it through certain Masonic scholars and it they sign off on it; oh boy...

      I wonder what the debunkers will have to say about the DNA if it starts turning the ship in our direction?

      Delete
  61. Replies
    1. Me too. Yes please !
      Kathy

      Delete
  62. Scott,

    It's so ironic that academia will accuse you of not having your work peer reviewed, but then they go ahead and deny anyone else access to their own work. Nice!

    Thank you for what you do.. and keep fighting the good fight.

    "Nothing is more dangerous to a creature of illusion than clarity and light."
    -Ayn Rand

    John

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John,

      They know my work was peer reviewed; they are complaining because they want to make the rules on how it should be done. Truth is, peer review in the professional world is a much higher standard than academia as there is accountability and they simply don't like it.

      I'm really sorry they feel that way, but it's that attitude that has impeded progress.

      Delete
    2. Congratulations old man. You've done it. Finally, there is clear evidence of deception in the guise of scholarship within this discussion. Unfortunately, you are its perpetrator. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that when you equate what you deem to be professional peer review to academic peer review, it is an equivocation. And what is that, mind you? Perhaps you are unaware of what this actually means. Well then, let me define equivocation for you. It is the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, especially in order to mislead or hedge.

      Well done. Finally, some real shenanigans to be up in arms against. And no ambiguity in this regard. 100% equivocation on your part. Like it or not.

      Cheers,

      Lesley

      Delete
    3. Lesley,

      Does the word “hypocrite” mean anything to you? Your posts are nothing more than attempts to denigrate me as a way to distract the discussion from the point of this blog post; intentional fraud perpetrated by one of your own. Instead of having the integrity to address the issue head-on, you try incessantly to turn the discussion elsewhere.

      It is you who deserves congratulations my good man. Call me all the names you want, but much to your chagrin you cannot refute the facts put forth by myself and others that have conclusively proven the KRS to be a medieval artifact. In fact, it is the most important artifact ever discovered in North America IMHO. I should probably thank you for being an unabashed apologist and defender of academic fraud and thus providing supporting evidence that proves my point.

      Where do you want me to send your trophy?

      Delete
    4. Good sir, where did I call you names? Your equivocation is clearly obvious and uncontended. Your response was to call me a "hypocrite". Do you not see the malevolence you sow?

      Cheers,

      Lesley

      Delete
    5. Lesley,

      Why can't you stay on task? Did you carefully read the materials presented in this blog post and agree this behavior was inappropriate at least, and intentional fraud at worse? If you truly are an objective scholar with proper ethics as you want us to believe, then put your disdain for my work aside (we already know ad nausea what you think) and comment on the subject at hand.

      I know you can do it...

      Delete
    6. Given the choices at hand, that is agree with you a smidgen or agree with you full board, I choose neither. Though this deference may prompt your heart to ache, I will instead simply concur with Mr. Scales above rather that reiterate the blatant obvious.

      I do not know what possessed you to take this course, but I see it as defamation rather than argument. Petulance rather than disagreement. Sophism rather than scholarship. Insisting that I agree with you would only make me liable as well. Others may follow you, but you cannot count on me dear friend to give credence to a single word of it.

      There you have it. What you have asked for.

      Cheers,

      Lesley

      Delete
    7. Lesley,

      Of course you see this situation as defamation, or insubordination, or heresy, or anything other than what it is. Dear man, since you are unable to objectively address the issue at hand, and you’ve repeatedly expressed your opinions of how unscholarly you think I am, perhaps it’s time to move on to the debunkers blogs where you and “Joe” can have fun criticizing me and the KRS and dwell in sweet denial of the inconvenient facts.

      Doesn’t that sound like a lot more fun?

      Delete
    8. For the record, I have more fun here than on any "debunkers blogs". But please don't discourage Lesley from posting here. Though he only credits me with the "blatant obvious", his posts are my favorite reads here; and more often than not, express exactly what I'm thinking as well. In fact, you can probably credit him with seeing less of me, as I'm not one to pile on. That should make your day Scott, right?

      Delete
    9. “Joe,"

      I'm glad you're having fun, but I want to know when you're ready to discuss the facts. Do you think it is an ethical practice for Nielsen and Williams to deny the release of the 3D data they based their "change of heart" papers on? They are denying any peer review of the data that served as the basis for their work. Do you consider these actions ethical?

      It's a simple question; can you give us a simple answer?

      Delete
  63. Scott, Constitutionally, the USFS had no right to keep you or your crew out. A Washington, DC official of the USFS informed the idiots in Georgia of that fact by a letter. You were filming a documentary, which is classified as news, and therefore protected by the Bill of Rights - Freedom of the Press. The film crew and Latin American cast of an international program on the Mayas in Georgia, basically said "Screw the USFS - we're filming there. Let them try to stop us . . . and they did."

    Although interestingly enough the day before, when they were filming on a public row in the Nacoochee Valley, a truck load of neo-Nazi's showed up and tried to order the Latin American archeologists to leave, because the crew did have permission from the USFS to be there. At that point, I was ashamed to be an American.

    This confirms what I thought all along. Three USFS officials you dealt with are members of the Patriots, which the FBI classifies as a domestic terrorist organization. There is a Patriot training camp next to Track Rock Gap. I used to have fun scarring the Nazi's while they were on training exercises near the ruins. LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MountainLion,

      Actually, not granting us access made for better television and helped to serve the point of the show more effectively. However, I still would have like to have seen the site and the ruins which I hope to get another chance at some future point.

      Delete
  64. I am giving a tour of the ruins at Track Rock, Melilot and Etowah to some archaeologists from Mexico in about month. You are welcome to join us.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Gunn, I have been suspicious for some time that the Greenlanders or the Norse brought the Bubonic Plague with them, but Scott Wolter has still not perfected that time machine that he has been promising me.

    Here is the thing. The entire middle Mississippi Valley including Cahokia, Moundville in Alabama and Etowah in Georgia were abandoned about the same time - 1375 AD. Other smaller towns continued to thrive. It sure does look like the Bubonic Plaugue came to America.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MountainLion, maybe some Norsemen/women who had begun to mingle with American Indians in America didn't like the beginnings of an "Indian-like" lifestyle, and made their way back to "civilization," which may have been Iceland for some. With them maybe retreated some infants and children of mixed blood...hence the Native American DNA in Icelanders.

      As far as the plague in direct association with the KRS crew, I think that is wishful politically correct thinking. The early 14th century S. Dakota Crow Creek massacre is enough proof that the "red with blood" description is talking about blood from cutting and puncture wounds, not from disease.

      Also, we recall that the KRS tells about the men being camped together by the lake with two skerries. They had just made a two-week journey from the Duluth area, camping together at night, and they were together--presumably--previously from Vinland to Lake Superior. So, they were camped together for at least a moon or two. The plague wouldn't suddenly spring up where the men were camped by the lake with two skerries--killing the entire group not away fishing for the day, while sparing the entire group away fishing. No, the disease cannot possibly work that way, which is why, once again, researchers shouldn't deviate from the most reliable interpretation of the simple message...at least in this regard of what caused ten men to die.

      Just to be clear, I'm a message purist, but that doesn't preclude me from entertaining other co-existing theories that might go along with the inscription, like the existence of codes, for instance. But what is added that is not of apparent face value must be provable, such as Scott has done with the codes.

      Personally, I can't see the plague playing a part in the KRS tragedy. However, it's easy to see how other explorers and travelers may have brought disease with them...especially a large group like the Greenlanders.

      - Gunn

      Delete
    2. Gunn,

      I think you need to be very careful with interpreting the entire inscription literally. It was carved by a person who was initiated into the medieval mystery schools, which of course the Templar's and Cistercians were, so it's filled with layers of allegory and coded messages. Having recently been initiated myself I now see the inscription in an entirely different way.

      I was tipped off in one of the higher York Rite degrees and now think I finally understand what's going on. I'm currently researching the discoveries and writing it up. I'm also planning on giving my first lecture on this new discovery to a group of Freemasons this Saturday. If they agree with my interpretations, I will then go public with it.

      If it vets out, then I think I can say the KRS inscription is finally solved, but I don't believe I am the first. I can also say there isn't a non-initiated scholar in the world who had a chance of cracking the inscription without certain knowledge one can only understand without a thorough knowledge of the ancient Egyptian mysteries.

      I'm sure this sounds strange to some, but I'm confident people will grasp it as it has a basis in hard science.

      Stay tuned...

      Delete
  66. Off topic again.Oops. But not really. Early contact between continents. Scott you did an episode on Chinese walls. The Mound People is MountainLion's specialty. In 2006 I went to China before the Yangtzee river was completely flooded. Flying into Xian I was completely blown away by all the mounds from the air despite a blinding sandstorm. I was so excited. While others in our small group could only see hills,I saw man made earthen works which littered the countryside. Didn't realize Terra Cotta warriors come out of a huge mound/pyramid. First thing to greet me when walking into the museum was a pyramid model which looked straight out of Mesoamerica with the flat top. Pottery designs that to my untrained eye could have been Mayan if I wasn't sure what country I was in. Statues of the gods that were long eared. Only been one place where I've seen ears that long & that was on a very stately looking older native gentleman while waiting to go into Tulum.
    Googling when I got home found there was a deliberate effort to hide the mounds by planting trees on them. Official stance don't want to have artifacts raided like Egypt. Yet they have constructed a huge pyramid & sphinx at the mound where the terra cotta warriors were excavated. That's not really keeping it under wraps.
    People definitely crossing the Atlantic & Pacific.
    So to bring it back on track... Why a 1362 voyage is such an assault to peoples' belief system I just don't understand...
    Can't wait for your interpretation of the runestone from someone who has eyes that see.
    Kathy

    ReplyDelete
  67. Gunn,

    Your perspective is from the primitive indigenous societies in the north. Mass deaths from disease is a fact in the more southerly societies living in towns. Archaeologists just can't pinpoint exactly what disease killed them.

    Places like Cahokia could field armies of 5-7000 men in a matter of hours. They would have overwhelmed small bands of Norse, much quicker than the Skraelings in New England.

    There was a definite plague that wiped out hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle Mississippi River Basin, Black Warrior River Basin and possibly Etowah River Basin.

    Archaeologists would instantly recognize deaths from steel weapons. Skeletons of people killed by 16th century Spanish weapons have been identified along the route of De Soto.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Keep in mind that the town of Kusa in NW Georgia had 3,000+ houses. The Spanish counted them. That equals a core population of at least 12,000 people. Kusa also had seven suburban villages - each with about 500 people.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Yes, mound building was a common cultural tradition in Eastern Asia too. There are many, large burial mounds in Viet Nam and Indonesia.

    Also, in southern Scandinavia where I lived, mound building was a strong tradition during the Bronze Age and pre-Viking Iron Age. Our area was the center of a pre-Germanic Bronze Age civilization. What I thought was particular interesting was the Bronze Age burial mounds ringing Landskrona (where I lived) were almost identical in construction to the Adena Mounds in the Eastern USA.

    Now this fact will start Scott salivating. In the Bronze Age Museum in Landskrona were copper ingots (called "oxhide" shape) that are identical to the copper ingots traded by Indians in the Southeast. Also the copper and bronze age axes and wedges in that museum, were identical to those used by the Apalache in Georgia. The Early Bronze Age petroglyphs on boulders near the Oresund Channel there, are identical to those in SW Ireland and in the Georgia Mountain gold belt. You go figure!

    At that early point in my life, I started wondering if

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MountainLion, you bring up some interesting questions about the ten men who were killed, as I'm assuming they did not die of disease, since this would have been scientifically impossible, unless the twenty men were camped at all times in separate groups, which I seriously doubt. In other words, the men mingled together at close quarters for a long period of time before just the group not fishing all died together in one day...not at all possible.

      One other thing I forgot to mention is that the plague hit Scandinavia in the very early 1350's and apparently was not a threat a decade later, especially out on the fringes of far-away exploration.

      However, about a half-millennium later, the Mandan--right next door (west) of where the KRS was deposited, ceased to exist as a once-proud nation because of warfare and disease.

      You bring up another interesting question about the possibility of finding the remains of the ten men to discover precisely how they died. The factual story about the Erdahl Axe as told by H. Holand almost certainly points to where the men were camped, and where they died, to within yards. This vitally important medieval Norse artifact was found even before the KRS, very near a pool of water on the west bank of a lake with two skerries, an actual day's journey north from Runestone Hill.

      So, what happened to the bodies of the men? Any ideas? If possible, maybe a future determination could be made about precisely how certain victims died.

      This relatively tiny spot of undeveloped rural earth may yield further artifacts, which might be unearthed by professionals. I'm going to look the site over in about a month or so, ferrous-only metal detector in hand. From google-earth imagery, I can see big rocks down over the bank, on the shoreline of this once-elusive lake.

      By the way, information about verifying the finding of this lake (and therefore also verifying a part of the KRS's inscription) is now archived with the Minnesota Historical Society...not an easy task.) We may see even more clearly now that the KRS is absolutely genuine, without question.

      - Gunn

      Delete
    2. Gunn,

      Why would it be scientifically impossible for disease to decimate the native population in the mid-14th Century when it was raging in Europe and other places around the world? In fact, Native American Algonquin story-keepers have told me directly, "We know all about your people who came in the 1300’s because half of our people died when the white man brought sickness."

      And what if the "10 men red from blood and death" is simply allegory? What if it has nothing to do with actual events? The truth is we assume it’s chronicling real events, but it might not be. That is why we have to be very careful about what parts are to be taken literally. I’m confident some parts are simply allegory meant only to be understood by those who were initiated. Certainly the medieval Cistercians and Knights Templar were, so it's a near certainty it was intended for like-minded initiates to understand the deeper layers of information embedded within the inscription.

      Delete
    3. Peace, Scott. I was only referring to the KRS party of men, not other nearby or near-time parties of Scandinavian or other explorers, such as possibly with the Welsh or Irish down south, coming up the ole Miss. Or, who knows, maybe Knutsen's search party brought disease and disappeared. (I don't think so; only joking.)

      I'm just saying, according to the specific details of the KRS journey, the ten men grouped together for one day at the campsite while the others left for fishing could not possibly have all died from plague hitting them as an entire group while the other entire group escaped disease. I'm being logical about this. I've read where others years ago, too, mentioned about the possibility of disease, but this is without any basis of scientific support, in my humble opinion, given the specific circumstances. There is much more support that the ten men were ambushed and murdered--all political correctness aside.

      Scott, I don't doubt codes or the possibilities of allegories concerning the KRS. I'm just reiterating here that the Erdahl Axe helps prove that a struggle may have taken place on the west bank of this newly-discovered lake with two skerries...just as the inscription says if taken at face value. I don't mean to be rude here on your blog at all, but most people over the years have thought red with blood is referring to a massacre, not disease.

      Again, I don't doubt the existence of codes and possible allegory, but I don't see enough reason yet to believe other than the carver told the snap-shot of history like it really happened. It doesn't have to be either, or...I think the carver was smart enough to tell a complete, real-life event story while also including codes and such. We even know they were playful with using both runic and stonehole codes in stone.

      There can be layers of information-giving, of course...just think about the possibilities of sacred geometry being used at Runestone Park with stonehole rocks, as you pointed out in your "Hooked X" book. Surely, these have much to do with the KRS, as real or even allegorical significance. Maybe the KRS is hiding more information, yes, even as Runestone Hill may also be hiding more information...or something physical, even. The mysteries abound and surround us as we innocently speculate.

      Just so you and your Freemason friends know, I do believe in lost Templar treasure, possibly even existing here in far-inland America. Treasure was a symbol of power in medieval times.

      Don't worry, Scott, we are still in the same book, slightly different page, but kicking it around is sometimes how we learn new and important details. Anyway, thanks for hearing me out and allowing me to give my personal views here.

      - Gunn

      Delete
    4. Gunn,

      It's all good; I appreciate you taking the time to post and express your own views. It all helps generate discussion that could lead to something positive. At any rate, my main point is we have to be careful about the assumptions we make regarding the inscription.

      Delete
    5. I do think the Norse code-stone I found close to the SD border was probably carved during the period of the Crusades, which means I also believe the stoneholes and petroglyphs out west a ways predate the KRS. My theory is that the area where the previously discussed oceanic waterways converge, was most likely found and explored first, then other explorations such as the KRS location on the Chippewa River came later.

      So, in essence, I believe it is very possible, maybe even likely, that whatever the code-stone is indicating is buried near Appleton, may be connected to monks, and further, to the Catholic Church of the time...but again further to the warrior monks accompanying the other monks.

      I'm wondering about the early 12th century diocese, later archdiocese, of Lund, pretty much representing an area in Sweden where "KRS people" have already been looking, at particular runes, for instance.

      Anyway, Scott, Knights Templar treasure could have been buried to "temporarily" represent a waterway land claim where a north/south running river discharges into the beginnings of the MN River. I'm talking about a fairly early period during the Crusades...like maybe about 200 hundred years before the time of the KRS, and about 150 years before the Templars were abolished by the Church.

      Maybe ever since, there has been a scramble to find some of this Templar treasure, which has yet to be found. Maybe Wm Mann is right about said treasure being deposited in key strategic places in North America...places like where the code-stone indicates something is buried, for instance, or maybe a place like Runestone Hill, concealed with sacred stonehole geometry.

      I hope to push the MN State Archaeology authorities to act, so that we may possibly learn which medieval group of people surveyed and attempted to claim land so very far inside America's interior--possibly 300 years before the time of Columbus.

      - Gunn

      Delete
  70. Have you had a chance to look into the oak island stone, it does have a hooked x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown,

      I saw the episode and what did look like a Hooked X carved into that stone. However, I haven't had a chance to look into it yet. It will be on my "to do" the next time I get to Nova Scotia.

      Delete
  71. Y'all are aware that one of the few places where Yersinia pestis is still carried by rodents is in the southwestern US and Southern Plains? I have always wondered how indigenous rodents, who do not normally live among humans became exposed to the bacteria. It suggests that humans carried the disease from NW Europe to North America - or else Chinese explorers carried it to the Pacific Coast.

    ReplyDelete
  72. A thought on believing or not believing in things that can't be touched.

    Being a Rambling Wreck from Georgia Tech, I always "believed" that UFO's were a product of delusional minds. Then one starry night in the Shenandoah Valley I was walking down to the barn to check on a batch of newborn goat kids. I looked up and saw a very bright meteorite make a 90 degree turn and move at unimaginable speed horizontally to the skies of West Virginia. Must be a temperature inversion, I thought. Then I saw three smaller meteorites follow the exact same path as the first one. Then I saw the three lights chasing the bigger light back eastward an thousands of miles an hour. Then they came back and performed maneuvers as if in a dogfight. When the three lights got close enough to their prey they fired what appeared to be laser blasts. The big light emitted smoke and landed straight down on top of North Mountain. I could see blinking lights on the mountaintop. About two minutes later an even bigger light appeared over the crashed light. It fired large laser blasts at the three smaller lights. They almost instantaneously disappeared out into space. The big light seemed to pick up the disabled light and then they disappeared out into space. I knew that anyone that heard my story would think me crazy, so I resolved to keep my mouth shut.

    The next morning, I read in the Shenandoah County paper the exact description of what I had seen. Hundreds or thousands of people across a swath of Virginia had seen the same thing. The disabled craft had landed in the side yard of the County treasurer. He gave a detailed description of the saucer to the newspaper. The next day, all copies of the previous day's newspaper had disappeared, the editors pretended that they had never run such an article. The publisher and editor of the Woodbridge, VA newspaper had refused to do what they men in black told them to do. When they ran letters from readers the next day that described the dogfight, the two men were arrested and their printing press was ceased. They were held behind bars long enough for them to be bankrupt when they were released.

    Lesson learned . . . just because there is currently no proof that a certain event occurred, does not mean that it didn't occur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MountainLion,

      You are correct, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

      Delete
    2. Problem with that Mountain man. There should be plenty of evidence left behind in the scenario you described. "Thousands" of eye witness accounts, microfilm newspaper, interviews of the people that owned the paper, townspeople, and so on

      Delete
  73. Scott, as a hard science guy myself, you do realize the only thing you can actually say about your work on the KRS is that it is older then 200 hundred years old. The moment you start interpreting texts, carvings, and past peoples behaviors you are practicing soft science, or the very science you claim to dislike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      I never said I disliked soft science disciplines, it's certain people who abuse various aspects of the soft science that I don't like. History, language, runoloogy, anthropology, archaeology, etc., are wonderful disciplines when people don't abuse them for personal agendas.

      In the case of something like the Dotted R I would disagree. One can also apply scientific method to certain aspects of the runes, dialect, grammar, language, dating, etc., by documenting consistencies with a mid-14h Century origin or not. Logic is also firmly at play in a case like this and is certainly part of hard science.

      Many aspects of soft science disciplines can be used as factual evidence if it's applied in the proper way.

      Delete
    2. Hmmmm. Is there really any hard science then? At some point all data has to be interpreted whether it is presented as a graph, statistics, formula or ideas in a paper. All is just theory. Some better than others. Some stand the test of time. A lot don't. There's always an exception to the rule. Scientific facts are constantly changing and evolving. Quantum physics is showing us how little we really do know with the hard sciences. Most is not as it seems. Not even close. Not even sure there really is a truly controlled laboratory experiment as the quantum scientists will tell you the observer effects the outcome.
      A lot of scientific research is now bought and paid for by people with a specific agenda.
      It is up to each and every one of us to discern the facts as presented to us by anyone whether hard or soft science. What is the motivation and intention behind the data?
      Life does have that quirky,unexplainable behavior of throwing curve balls just to get each and every one of us to rethink all that we know and what is possible.
      Kathy

      Delete
  74. Ok, but even you would have to admit that your theories are built upon numerous interpretations from historical texts, coded runes, and interpretations of generalized human behavior. You speak in absolute terms about your research, rather then in probability. Your research is built upon so many chain of events that you have to understand that even if you believe these things occurred that they are built upon interpretations which cannot be verified in the manner in which u speak.

    I don't think you actually draw upon any specific archaeological evidence for the KRS? In an interview, you lament the fact that when people show you artifacts that have no provenience that you are forced to admit there's nothing you can say further about the object. I would take this a step a further and suggest that context is king. In other cases you seem so very willing to accept artifacts from the turn of the 19th century as valid across the board. But surely you recognize the problems with such an approach? A good many of these artifacts you hold as evidence come from poor provenience or have no provenience at all, and yet you accept them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      I don’t agree with pretty much anything you offer in the first paragraph of this post. You make vague references to what you think I do; can you be more specific?

      Yes, context is very important and the archaeological context of the discovery of the KRS has never been a question. So what’s the problem? What specific “other cases” of evidence with “poor or have no provenance” are you referring to that I have allegedly accepted? I can’t answer your questions when your accusations are so vague.

      Delete
  75. Hey No-birds, I want to learn more about runic! Leave Scot and the other runic experts alone and let them tell us what they know about this fascinating topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MountainLion,

      I told the No-birds to run along to the debunker blogs where they will be happy not addressing the inconvenient facts at hand that have indicted the academic process they hold so dear. Instead of an honest and frank discussion they choose instead to deflect and throw accusations as if I'm the one who committed the offense. Can you imagine what would happen if a student tried to pursue a thesis that supported the authenticity KRS and had an advisor like Lesley or "Joe?" Yikes! I thought the Dark Ages were over?

      In any case, I presented my latest KRS research for the first time Saturday night and it was very well received. I'm almost done writing it up and will submit it for peer review to at two scholarly Masonic bodies. The subject matter of this discovery isn't taught at any conventional scholarly institution so it wouldn't make any sense to them and explains why scholars struggled so mightily with the KRS inscription for the past 118 years. They had no idea what they were dealing with and even when they do find out they still won't know what to do unfortunately.

      I've said it before and will say it again; the "fakes" reveal themselves quickly while the real stuff just keeps hanging around. The KRS is the poster child of an artifact the scholars couldn't figure out so they tried to kill it. Unfortunately for them it simply won't die.

      There's a reason it won't die guys.

      Delete
    2. Mr. Lion,
      On a scholarly level, Scott does not qualify as an expert on runes, as he has absolutely no formal education in this rather complex field of study. On a professional level, though he might be regarded as an expert in the composition of building materials, should he try to testify as an expert in runes, at lets say in a court of law... he wouldn't be qualified.

      Delete
    3. "Joe",

      Since runes are an opinion-driven discipline and I spent five years learning from two of the most knowledgeable runic experts in the world, and made five trips to Sweden to investigate both Viking and medieval Age runic inscriptions, and published a 574-page book that was peer reviewed by four runic scholars, I beg to differ with "Joe's" opinion. I could easily testify as an expert without an academic degree, and certainly know enough about the KRS runes to be extremely dangerous.

      The truth is there are maybe a half dozen people in the world who understand the KRS runes in any kind of detail. However, the key to understanding the mysterious runes isn't something scholars have any access to. Even if they did, they wouldn't know what to do with that information. The reality is there isn't a scholar in the world, including my two runic mentors who went off the rails, who know anything about the mysterious KRS runes.

      What "Joe", and Lesley, and Henrik, and Nielsen have chosen to ignore is the Hooked X symbol has been proven to only be associated with certain medieval Templar/Cistercian orders and secret societies in the past 500 years. It has also been found in a First Century tomb in Jerusalem they have chosen to ignore while biblical scholars who are aware of the symbol have accepted it.

      With all due respect "Joe," I think I could testify as an expert on the KRS runes in a court of law quite effectively.

      Delete
    4. "With all due respect "Joe," I think I could testify as an expert on the KRS runes in a court of law quite effectively."

      You never have and never will; and I will bet you whatever you like should you prove me wrong.

      Delete
    5. You have me all wrong, my dear friend. I would be pleased as punch to advise a student in regard to proper reasoning, research and study required should they choose the most arduous task in attempting to make the argument for authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone for their proposed thesis. In fact, should you choose to return to university for the six or seven years of serious study necessary for such an undertaking, I would be honored to assist you when you are ready.

      Cheers,

      Lesley

      Delete
    6. Lesley,

      Are you suggesting you have the appropriate background to advise anyone on the geological aspects of the KRS? Do you have any background at all on medieval Scandinavian languages, runes, Templar codes, or Masonic allegorical messages to advise anyone about them? And do you understand the Hebrew mystical aspects of the initiated medieval Cistercian author who carved the inscription and be able to apply it? I highly doubt that for if you did we wouldn't reading the silly responses you offer here.

      Thanks for the kind offer my dear fellow, but neither you or Professor Williams are in any position to tackle this beast.

      Delete
    7. "Joe,"

      Never say never, you should know that. The last part of your comment was unintelligible?

      Can you, or Lesley, or any other skeptic give us anything factual to discuss? My God, all you do is criticize and dismiss and offer nothing in return. What evidence to you have the KRS is not genuine? What legitimate facts do you have to refute my geological work? What evidence do you have that Williams and Nielsen did not conspire to commit fraud?

      If you can do nothing but complain then by default, I win.

      Delete
  76. This new blog entry of yours makes me kind of chuckle.....not in a "your and idiot, Scott" kind of way, but in a "I pity you, Scott" kind of way.

    It seems to me like you have a hard time comprehending reality and your place in it.

    You post this long slanderous diatribe about how your feelings have been hurt because two people, each more knowledgeable than you in their respective fields, agreed with your findings at first, but then changed their minds later. Why would they have changed their minds? Well, you are Scott Wolter, and you're never wrong about areas of science that you have no formal training in, so it must be because they don't like you, they are jealous of you, they are stupid, they are academic criminals, or some combination of all of the above.

    It's interesting to me that you think Nielsen and Williams disagreeing with your conclusions is academic fraud, but when you discount decades of scholarship and true field work to find a place for your ridiculous Templar theories you believe you're somehow a champion of the truth.

    You're funny, Scott....and sad....and pitiful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      You’ve missed the point of the blog post; intentional perpetration of fraud. And yeah, I think ‘academic criminals’ is a perfect way to describe this sorry situation.

      I love how people like you, Lesley, and “Joe” come on here and tell us all how wrong I am about everything, yet never once address the facts involved in the situation at hand. Is this how it’s done in certain academic circles? I can appreciate your opinion about my Templar theories, but you’ve have offered nothing to refute them. Call them whatever you want, but the facts are still stand no matter how much you dislike them.

      I appreciate the insincere pity, but it isn’t necessary.

      Delete
  77. I can believe what you say about conventional academicians not being knowledgeable about your subject. The director of the of the public TV documentary on the movement of crops, ideas and peoples between the Americas (followup to your premier) had to pull in archaeologists from Mexico, Colombia and Peru in order to find someone other than me, who was knowledgeable about the Itza and Chontal Mayas. The Spanish language version of the show has already won several awards in Latin America.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Ladies and gentlemen,

    Like all researchers, Scott may or may not be right on all interpretations of the evidence, but he IS a runic scholar and unlike most self-proclaimed experts, he is Scandinavian and has studied the subject in Scandinavia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really Mr. Lion? Really??? Scott was born in Scandinavia, and that makes him an expert? And where did Scott study in Scandinavia? Have I missed a degree he obtained?

      What is certain... and here are "facts"... Professor Henrik Williams, the subject matter of the above diatribe, is truly Scandinavian and is a professor in Scandinavian Languages at Uppsala University in Sweden. He is a world renowned expert in his field that put in decades of true study, field research and edits credible academic publications. He is the real deal.

      Delete
    2. "Joe,"

      If Williams is the "real deal" then why did he perpetrate academic fraud? Why are you apologetic about this obvious scam by an academic who thinks he can control the history of this country by denouncing an important genuine artifact that has made him look silly? Just because he and his colleagues for the past century have never seen an inscription like it before and have never seen several of the symbols on the KRS it doesn’t prove it’s a hoax. It simply means they haven’t seen them before. What kind of scientific thinking is that?

      Why is it when many of these KRS symbols show up in Masonic documents (Larsson Papers) and secret society documents dating back to the 10th Century (Icelandic manuscripts), the “real deal” refuses to admit they existed all along just as the geology proved long ago? And what about the Hooked X symbol appearing not only multiple times in the medieval Icelandic manuscripts, but on the lid of the “Yeshua” ossuary in Jerusalem that’s two millennia old? There’s been nothing but silence from Sweden as if he’s closed his eyes so the evidence won’t exist. Are you going to dismiss these inconvenient facts and the lack of integrity of your friend because you have your eyes closed to “Joe?”

      The "diatribe" as you call it, is a presentation of factual documents that prove his has committed academic fraud. I wouldn't use such language if I hadn't already consulted legal counsel who advised me these facts overwhelming support the allegations. What color is the sky in your world “Joe.”

      Delete
  79. As someone who is thoroughly enjoying this discussion at no point have I seen anything from the no side to back their stance. No facts. No theories. No thought processes. Nothing. They want to tell me what I should think without giving any good reason I should think that.
    No. Scott may not have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but know he is a lot closer than many of the so called experts. To change that you will have to come up with some sort of thought process that makes sense other than because you say so. Give my intellect something to chew on. Have not seen proper reasoning, research or study expressed in words. Mindless rote.
    Kathy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kathy,

      The truth is they have nothing they can say or offer that would be the least bit intellectually challenging with regard to the KRS and there's a very good reason for it. There is voluminous factual evidence from multiple disciplines (geology, language, runes, dialect, grammar, dating, history, codes, allegory and Templar/Cistercian/Masonic symbolism) that is consistent with the 14th Century. The case is not only compelling, it's conclusive.

      This being the case, how could there be any factual evidence to support the contrary? It cannot exist. Therefore, all we're going to continue to get from the debunkers get is empty complaining and negative opinion because there are no facts to support their hoax beliefs.

      Delete
  80. Scott,

    Geology, language, runes, dialect, grammar, dating, history, codes, allegory and Templar/Cistercian/Masonic symbolism) that is consistent with 14th Century.

    That is what I would be fascinated to learn about . . . it's not in any immediately accessible references.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MountainLion,

      The geology, language, runes, dialect, grammar, dating, codes and some of the history can be found in my three books. "Compelling New Evidence" is the best place to start, then the Hooked X, then Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers.

      The newly discovered symbolism and allegory is something new that I will be publishing very soon and it's incredible. Stay tuned for a blog posting in the very near future.

      Delete
  81. Scott Wolter är norsk härkomst och har tagit flera omfattande tripes till Skandinavien för att studera dess kulturhistoria och runor. Han har ägnat en stor del av sitt liv åt att studera runor och är en mycket intellgent man. Att jag kan intyga att personligen,

    Nothing blows people's mind more than when a Creek Indian from Jawja speaks Swedish to them.

    Om du kan förstå vad jag skrev, så ska du hålla käft.

    ReplyDelete