Quoting Johnson, "My head is spinning with the multitude of “theories” currently being advanced under the guise of “factual”. I don’t have any problem with advancing one’s theory, but I still expect that something resembling a fact needs to be advanced in order to give any valid theory some credence. After reading the latest pontifications, I fully expected the next “theory” to maintain that space aliens came down to rural Minnesota and zapped a piece of greywacke with its inscriptions. I guess they must have done so to trick all the Scandinavians of the area into believing it was real.
Anyway, I digress. The common theme being presented is that “evidence” exists, so the rest of us rubes should pay attention. Maybe I shouldn’t opine on a legal basis for factual material, but I am going to do so anyway. Most of these theories lack an evidential background. In legal forums evidence must be supported as factually based. What has been asserted with regard to Masons, Freemasons, Swedish Monks, various non-existent stones, documents, and self-serving statements. When questioned on the evidentiary basis, the most common response is silence or the common refrain “look it up on the internet”. The internet is not the original source material, thus in my opinion and as a legal practitioner, such “evidence” would have no value."
In the interest of full disclosure, Johnson is a supporter of the authenticity of the artifact, but his point about the veracity of the factual evidence required to support ANY theory is 100% correct. This has been the primary argument behind my own research since I first laid eyes on the stone in July of 2000. I've pontificated, ad nausea, about the process of scientific method, collection of factual data, interpretations based on those facts, and then drawing conclusions that will stand up to scrutiny in a court of law, under oath. I'm sure I don't need to remind the regular readers of this blog about my three decades of operating a materials forensic laboratory performing what are essentially, autopsies on problem concrete and rock primarily in the construction industry. I have testified, under oath, dozens of times to my scientific findings and conclusions related to these cases, and understand what meets the criteria of factual evidence as well as any lawyer trying these cases.
What I thought I'd do is encourage those with an opinion or theory about the Kensington Rune Stone, or any other related artifact or site, to present their ideas and let's see how it stands up. I also encourage other researchers, be it from the professional or academic world, or from amateur researchers with questions about what constitutes factual evidence that meet acceptable criteria for acceptance in a legal case. In the end, we all want a consensus on the authenticity of the artifact that the academic process for the past 118 years has been unable to produce. Nearly everyone has an opinion about its authenticity, but do what they consider to be "facts" or "evidence" really meet the required standard to support their opinion?
One recent example of erroneous theory was offered by a geologist with a PhD. One would assume such a seemingly educated person would understand how they needed the appropriate facts to support their theory, but it turns out they did not. In this particular case, the person claimed the white calcite on the face side of the Kensington Rune Stone (and dozen or so runes carved into that area) would have dissolved away by exposure to acidic water if shallowly buried at Rune Stone Hill on the Ohman Farm. To be fair, my understanding is this person has not been a practicing professional geologist for many years so their "rock" skills don't appear to be that sharp and they clearly do not understand the known geological facts relating to the artifact that pertain to this theory. The glacial till where the Kensington Rune Stone was found is "limey" or has a higher than neutral pH (<7). This would quickly neutralize any acidic solution produced by the decomposition of the organic material and not attack the calcite. In fact, the relatively high pH conditions of the glacial till at Rune Stone Hill actually promotes the accumulation of secondary calcite as found on the bottom back end of the artifact. How a trained geologist with a PhD could make such a mistake is unclear. However, the obvious negative bias of this particular individual appears to have clouded their judgment. Clouded judgment in all academic disciplines due to various forms of personal bias have dogged the Kensington Rune Stone research to this day.
There are many who have accused me of being biased and to a certain degree this is true. I have been biased by the voluminous factual evidence primarily associated with the rock itself. I have always trusted what the rock has to say, not the flawed logic and unsupported assertions by individuals driven by one form of personal bias or another. I challenge readers to offer their specific theories, ideas, evidence, and facts and let's see if they hold up to scientific scrutiny. They don't have to be related to the stone itself or geology, it can be about who carved the stone, Olof Ohman, or anything else related to the artifact. Let's have some fun and see how you do!
The relatively coarse-grained, white, triangular-shaped calcite on the face side of the Kensington Rune Stone was deposited by hot hydrothermal solutions moving between fractures in the greywacke millions of years ago when the stone was still part of the bedrock. (Wolter, 2004)
The very fine-grained, white, calcite coatings on the bottom end of the back side of the Kensington Rune Stone were deposited by cool groundwater solutions when the artifact was within glacial till deposits after being deposited by glaciers roughly 10-12,000 years. (Wolter, 2000)
This granite glacial erratic boulder was deposited at what is now the Ohman Farm near Kensington, Minnesota, by a mile-thick sheet of glacial ice roughly 10-12,000 years ago. The limy glacial till deposits at the farm allowed relatively thick, white calcite coatings to develop on the surface of this and many other glacial boulders in the area including the Kensington Rune Stone. (Wolter, 2000)
These three pages are from Newton H Winchell's 76-page report he submitted to the Museum Committee of the Minnesota Historical Society, in April of 1910, entitled, "Report on the Kensington Rune Stone." On page 21 Winchell discusses his observations about the lack of weathering of the runes carved into the hydrothermal calcite on the face side and the secondary calcite on the bottom back end of the stone. This led him to conclude the stone had to have been buried immediately after being carved because he also concluded the artifact was genuine.
Newton H. Winchell wrote his emphatic opinion on the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone in this letter dated December 15, 1909.
This broken tombstone in Maine was one of the important monuments sampled and examined for the relative-age dating work I performed on the Kensington Rune Stone. Recently, a debunker inferred that I fabricated the 1815 death date of the individual marked by this monument. It clearly states the infant son of Abner and Hannah Lowell died that year. Since the name of the decedent isn't visible I used the name of his father for this monument sample who died many years later.
This pile of glacial cobbles and boulders were cleared from the fields for farming by Olof Ohman and his sons and sits next to the small pond roughly 100 yards due west of the Discovery site of the Kensington Rune Stone. I examined these stones for limestone and secondary calcite, with Darwin Ohman and Lloyd Flaaten, on June 15, 2016.
Very heavy secondary calcite deposits coat most of the surface on this glacial deposited granite cobble I found in the rock pile on the Ohman Farm. Roughly one-third of rocks in the pile had various quantities of secondary calcite deposits exactly like the calcite deposits on the back side of the Kensington Rune Stone.
Roughly 10% of the rocks in the pile were limestone and roughly one-third of the non-carbonate rocks had secondary calcite deposits like the granite cobble pictured here. The presence of intact limestone and extensive, heavy secondary calcite deposits is consistent with high pH conditions in the soil that produced these features present on glacial erratic stones, and the Kensington Rune Stone, at the Ohman Farm.
Your lawyers comment is completely irrelevant and ignores several authors who state that metaphor and allegory are extensively used in schemes such as the Kensington Rune. "One must emerge from the underworld to quest for the stone." I just published a short document yesterday that shows documented genealogy that suggests there is a great deal more at play. Could it be an "old" rune? Possibly. I don't totally discount that. But there is a huge weight of evidence that shows people at least knew about it and valued it for their own reasons. This lawyers point of view could just as easily be applied to a cache of middle eastern artifacts bought on the internet and being hidden to fool someone. Empirically there is no way to prove it either way including the view that the stone is older. This actually recently happened. My other reservations revolve around the mid to late nineteenth century Nourmbega movement that essentially tried to fake a Viking site in Boston. This group included family members of the Hill family from Alexandria Minnesota. So while there is no smoking gun either way it is still possible in my opinion that the stone is authentic but I am leaning towards not. My findings are similar to yours in other ways but just not with regard to the antiquity of the stone. At first i wanted to believe it was real etc. I don't think Mr. Ohman had anything to do with faking anything either. I think he was a victim of circumstance. There is a very famous person whose genealogy suggests some very surprising things. The first Grand master of the Minnesota KT is also involved in my opinion. All of these people had a fetish for building monuments like reproductions of Stonehenge and the Tower of the Winds as well. So you guys can rip this to shreds here if you want. YOu have a willing cadre of followers on the internet who will attach anyone viciously who disagrees with you in the most insulting and abusive manner so I am not going to spend anytime responding to this. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteGeomancy,
DeleteYour comments are a little confusing, but let me try and address a few of your points. First, you said, "But there is a huge weight of evidence that shows people at least knew about it and valued it for their own reasons". I assume you're talking about a group of people who knew about the KRS in modern times; do you mean before it's discovery? Second, can you be more specific about what you mean by, "weight of evidence?"
With regard to other fake sites allegedly perpetrated elsewhere, these are easily revealed by ensuring a clean change of custody and having the sites excavated by qualified people to ensure proper archaeological context. Unfortunately, artifacts that "just show up" cannot be used to prove anything. Without clean provenance and artifact doesn't meet the standards necessary to be accepted and can't be used as evidence to support an idea or thesis.
I think you and others are forgetting that science has already demonstrated the weathering of the KRS inscription is too old to be a modern hoax. I'm happy to entertain any geological questions, but so far both mine and Newton Winchell's findings have withstood all credible peer review. Until that changes, making the claim a modern Freemason carved the inscription, especially naming specific individuals is erroneous and, frankly, irresponsible. As a Freemason myself, I can assure you secretly creating something like the KRS (which runologically would be impossible in the late 19th Century) goes against everything we are taught in the rituals.
As far as my followers viciously attacking (you typed attach, but I assume you mean attack) anyone, can you tell me who these people are? If so, I would demand they refrain as I would never support that. I get that kind of crap all the time and don't appreciate it, so I won't allow that kind of behavior on my behalf.
This is my point about how futile it is to even respond. I can't post my entire book here. There is a great deal of suggestion that what I found is true. I began looking at all of this by examining my hometown of Chico California never suspecting it would lead me to Minnesota. In addition the KRS is but one of the places I talk about that also include many Tower of the Winds reproductions like the Newport Tower. Surprisingly recently after obtaining a telephoto lens I found the "Hooked X" and AVM symbols on a building here that I have been writing about for ten years. All of the art on the building is esoteric and Jacobite in Nature. All of this is associated with the Monastery of New Clairvaux here near Chico that includes an 12th century chapter house that was brought from Spain by the Hearst family. Some of the real makers marks there closely resemble the "Hooked X." With regard to the symbols on the KRS and X symbol these combined match the symbology of the original Chi Rho that includes the Auspice of Maria and the lower case omega symbol that resembles a fisherman's hook dangling from the X. This form of the Chi Rho is seen on many Merovingian coins that also show them dressed in Byzantine royal clothing....
DeleteGeomancy,
DeleteCan you share the specific evidence you've found that ties the creation of the KRS to a more modern time frame? I assume that's what you believe. If so, I'd like to know what has convinced you of that. We don't need to the entire back story, just the evidence relating to the artifact in Minnesota that is dated to 1362.
Scott: Why bother? The syntax is accurate for that time. There are areas of authentication that are far more reaching than supposed geological expertise. Anyone who knows Runic realizes the inscription is FOR REAL. CASE CLOSED! So let the geologists who know nothing about ancient languages preach their sermons of futility and think nothing of it.
DeleteHarry,
DeleteYou are correct that all of the runological and linguistic features of the inscription have been found in Scandinavia and are consistent with the 14th Century, not the 19th or 20th centuries.
However, I would still like to give Geomancy the opportunity to present his case. He hasn't done that so far, but he is welcome to and we'll consider it carefully.
How do you know that the glacier was a mile thick? Other studies (and sorry don't have exact resources as I remembered this from my post-secondary studies many years ago) anyways the North American glaciers have been found to be much more than one mile thick and those facts were based upon studies of the Grand Canyon and the Canadian Rocky Mountains and also the "hoo-doos" near Drumheller,AB. The remaining glaciers in Banff and Jasper/Lake Louise National Parks are more than a mile thick TODAY.The scientific evidence (I believe) tells us that the glaciers were MILES thick up to and over a millennia ago.This would have greatly affected the soils,sediments and geological "leftovers" (ie: boulders and other rocks).So why would it have been only a mile thick 10-12,000 years ago in THAT area? That much of a greenhouse warming effect didn't start to take place until we started to burn coal,gas,oil,etc. Have any of these boulders and the KRS been fully carbon-dated? And what about SEM to find any elements and bacteria that existed in the amounts of other rocks that are undoubtedly from 10-12,000 years ago?
ReplyDeleteErin,
DeleteActually, you are correct that continental glaciers in certain areas were more than a mile thick. In fact, during the maximum of the Laurentide ice centered over Hudson Bay, glaciologists estimate the ice was approximately three (3) miles thick! So thick and heavy that the weight of the ice actually pressed down on the crust of the earth and when the ice melted, the depression created filled with sea water creating Hudson Bay. Isostatic rebound of that crust has been on-going since the glaciers melted and the bay is continually shrinking in size to this day.
The lobes or tongues of ice that generally spread out southward from the Hudson Bay region into what is now Minnesota are estimated to have been roughly a mile thick based upon the quantity of debris left across the state that melted out in the form of alluvial outwash and melt-out till.
Carbon dating the rocks wouldn't tell us much as C-14 wouldn't work on anything older than about 50,000 years. We would need to employ other dating methods on the rocks. However, we can date organics build-up in post glacial environments to age date when the glaciers receded in those areas.
In addition this comment from this "lawyer" was directed at me. I think it is weak to question one's sources with out searching yourself to see if it is false. Do I have the time to post all my sources on Facebook for each "lawyer" who doubts what I am saying. No I don't. Finally I am very careful to state all my ideas as theories so if you don't belive it check into it yourself or buy the book that has the sources.I am supposed to hold this guys hand because he doesn't like what I'm saying no. There is so much I didn't even have time to post there as well. So far I have two books with over nine hundred pages that display a grand scheme of hoaxes and skullduggery. The KRS is part of that in my opinion (see only my opinion)This person's statement as usual distorts the truth and is misleading. You are used to that aren't you Scott? LOL.
ReplyDeleteGeomacy,
DeleteI haven't read the full exchange you've apparently had David Johnson, but it sounds like you haven't shared enough of your evidence to convince him? Why don't you start with just a couple points that have convinced you the KRS is modern?
My post here has nothing to do with you specifically. I've been dealing hoax claims for 16 years and have yet to see anything factual come forward to support any claim. They are usually rumors, ideas based on incorrect information, preconceived bias or unsupported opinion or speculation.
Geomancy,
DeleteI'm responding to the private email you sent so everyone can see my response. You talked about making genealogical connections to certain families, some well known to researchers and the public, that you suspect were knowledgeable about the pre-Columbian activities of the Templars in North America. You are quite right that many of these people that Alan Butler, my wife Janet, and I call the "Venus Families," were in tune with those early activities. Where we differ is you apparently believe they were responsible for placing the Kensington Rune Stone more recently in line with some larger plan.
While I haven't read the details of your research, I'm sure you've made some reasonable and likely very good connections with powerful and knowledgeable people. However, there are two problems with that thesis related to the KRS. First, the weathering of the inscription along with the language, runes, dialect, grammar and the dating are consistent with the 14th Century. Second, once contact and founding of the country had taken place, what purpose would be served to carve and bury a 14th Century land claim? I don't understand why anyone would do it? Am I missing something?
That thread is very interesting. Very knowledgeable people there with years and years of research. All of it important. I found it interesting there is not one shred of evidence that Ohman had any motives for doing it in the first place. That question has never been addressed by "credible scientists". Talk about ignoring evidence. Question one: "How does a farmer with zero formal education come up with this".
ReplyDeleteIf we are going to study this from a legal point of view (the only way as far as I'm concerned), we need to establish a credible motive and then we need to establish a time frame when he did it. The next question will be to establish "when and where did he learn of the Hooked X and the Dotted R"...hum, just musing here.
I think others haven't posted here because they have to get it right. Ignoring evidence doesn't cut it here. I find it just wrong they ignore the tree root. Also, the question of the "Hooked X" in Portugal. Nobody wants to touch that one but I will. The history there with the Templars is being 'ignored'. They just plain don't want to go there. And that is "ignoring" history. Its there....
DeleteAs far as the OP is concerned, no "historian" wants to be held accountable for this one. They know their on the hook....
Dave,
DeleteI don't mind if people get it wrong. I'd rather hear the thought process and examine to see what we can learn. What's frustrating is when people throw together a paper or a book based on poorly vetted evidence, or not vetted at all, it simply further muddies the already murky misconceptions about the artifact. When it's distilled down to the documentable facts, it's really pretty straightforward.
Truth is, historians have little if any documentation to work with about the activities of the pre-Columbian Templars in North America because they conducted in utmost secrecy. That's why we need to pay especially close attention to symbolism, allegory and code to make headway. It was their preferred mode of communication.
Dave,
DeleteI haven't read the thread and wonder why those people don't participate in my blog if they have questions about the Kensington Rune Stone. I would argue I have more knowledge of and access to the correct facts than anyone living today. I think part of the reason is anyone who believes it's a hoax will steer clear of me knowing they had better come armed with the facts and not speculation.
As far as motive, I think I addressed that many years ago; it's a land claim which makes a lot of sense giving what we know about the facts IMHO. There has never been any motive proven to support a modern hoax. Olof Ohman denied involvement his entire life and no one was ever able to prove he wasn't telling the truth. From the beginning I said if it was a hoax that he had to be involved. We now known that nobody living in the late 19th Century, and that includes all the living Freemason's at the time, could have carved that inscription.
Scott, have your turned your data over to credible, accredited, independent geologists and rune experts to validate your theories?
DeleteRaparee,
DeleteThe key word you used is "credible" independent geologists. The answer is yes, in the case of geologists and no, in the case of credible independent and open-minded rune experts because I have yet to find any. In fact, there are only a handful of runologists in the world with the necessary knowledge to understand medieval runes at all.
The reality is there isn't anyone capable of handling the KRS or Spirit Pond runic inscriptions because they are totally unique and require a mentality that understands they are looking at something that is the first of its kind. The arrogance of the scholars who have studied the inscriptions erroneously led them to think it was appropriate to dismiss something as a hoax when the truth was they simply had no clue what they were looking at and were (and still are) afraid to admit it.
Hi Scott. What you have said in your blog post at the start of this thread, and especially what you have quoted from David Johnson, I agree with very strongly. Thanks for this!
ReplyDeleteHi Terry,
DeleteI appreciate your taking the time to comment. One thing you have always been a strong advocate of, and especially now as NEARA (New England Antiquities Research Association) President, is making sure whatever research is presented at your conferences has been properly researched and supported by sound factual evidence.
This is especially important to maintain as the core of your membership is located in the northeastern coastal region of North America. Many would call this area "Vinland" where there are a multitude of mysterious artifacts and sites that tell a rich, previously unknown history of early trans-continental visitors stretching back thousands of years.
Speaking of factual evidence, many people know that Vinland is mentioned in the Kensington Rune Stone inscription, but very few are aware Vinland is also specially mentioned on the Spirit Pond Map Stone as being "takes two days" with an arrow pointing south. Two days south of the mouth of the Merrimac River at Spirit Pond puts one right in the Cape Cod/Narragansett Bay region. This is exactly where many researchers believe the Vinland referred to in the "Viking Sagas" is located.
I'm not nearly as educated as many posting here. But I have followed via reading & watching a lot about O. Ohman & the runestone. Maybe because my mind isn't muddle w expertise etc... that I can see clearly. So w my simplistic mind in comparison, I don't believe for a nano second that this man or the stone is a CCC! Concocted, contrived conspiracy. NO WAY! Not who he was, where he came from & the persona of people in his day!
ReplyDeleteArlene,
DeleteThe more you know about Olof Ohman, the more ridiculous the notion of him carving the KRS inscription becomes. If you look back at the early investigators of the KRS, supporters and doubters alike, the ones who took the time to meet and talk to him in person never believed that he created it. Supporters like Newton Winchell, who met three times with Ohman in 1910, and geologist/historian Warren Upham, was 50/50 on authenticity until he met Ohman in 1916. He then changed his mind to believing 100% it was genuine. Even professor George Flom, who was staunch detractor of the inscription after studying the language, met with Ohman in 1910 and said while the inscription was a forgery, he didn't believe Ohman created it.
My question is if Ohman didn't create it, who did?
I am a documented Cherokee Native and Founder of the Bat Creek Stone. Comparing the Kensington Rune stone site and the Bat Creek Burial Mound, they both had Tree roots that penetrated the sites. Very Similar in many ways, creating exposure to the relics and stones over a long period of time that created the deposits on the Bat Creek Stone that
ReplyDeleteallowed accurate dating being at the time of Burial. As a Tribe we support Scotts research and documentation on the Bat Creek Stone and on The Kensington Rune Stone. One thing we know for sure that Scott made very clear, if he had even the smallest evidence doubting the Bat Creek Authentication that he would have to document it as such.
The Kensington Rune Stone is just as Authentic as the Bat Creek Stone .
Anonymous,
DeleteThat's a very good point about both artifacts. John Emmert, the agent for the Smithsonian who discovered the Bat Creek Stone in 1889, wrote in his field notes that he encountered old growth tree roots above the artifacts and remains he discovered. He interviewed the landowner who said he had cut down the trees on the mound decades earlier and they were over 100 years old then.
This evidence, along with the C-14 dates of the wood found with the paleo-Hebrew inscribed stone dated to between 60-600 A.D. This evidence along with many other hard scientific facts prove beyond any doubt the Bat Creek Stone is authentic, yet the Smithsonian maintains to this day it is a hoax and blame their own agent, Emmert, for creating it.
This is shameful and the Smithsonian should be held accountable for lying to the world, just as the academics who have lied and continue to lie for the institution should be held accountable as well.
Thanks for bringing up this evidence that supports two of the most important historical artifacts ever discovered on this continent. Thanks also to the Eastern Band of Cherokee, and specifically tribal elder, Donald Rose, for supporting me in my successful quest to gain access to study the artifact and document new factual evidence that was consistent with authenticity. The Tribe deserves a lot of credit for their help and open-mindedness that early Europeans interacted with their ancestors. Some academics have called this idea "racist", yet the Eastern Band of Cherokee see it as learning more about their wise ancestors who likely taught those early visitors much about their culture and apparently, took them in as one (or more) of their own.
Hi Scott...glad to see the new blog heading. It's hard for me to get my mind around the fact that so many seemingly intelligent people discount the Kensington Runestone's authenticity as a 14th century pre-Columbus document. They have to be willing to ignore plenteous evidence circling around the KRS, and they also have to be willing to tarnish the reputations of good people. Frankly, I'm a bit tired and disgusted by the willingness of detractors to pursue the losing cause of disparaging one of America's grandest treasures. It should be in a place of greater National respect than where it is now--within a stone's throw of Big Ole. One thing we can agree on, Scott, I know, is that Big Ole (representing Vikings) had nothing to do with depositing the KRS near Kensington, since the Viking age was pretty much over by AD 1100, a quarter of a millennium before 1362, the date of the KRS.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't mind too much, I would like to question in this venue your theory that the KRS is a land claim, one of your core beliefs. I have several reasons for questioning whether the KRS was really a land claim. The primary reason is that I haven't seen much in the way of other examples of runestones being utilized as land claims. Another reason is that I don't quite see why Runestone Hill would've been chosen as a site to place a land claim. Although I believe it may be likely the KRS men were prospecting for land, I don't see enough reason to believe the KRS is anything but a memorial stone. On the other hand, we do have examples of memorial stones being offered to fallen comrades far from their Motherland.
A better place to place an attempted land claim would be in association with river-ways more suitably arranged by nature for such a purpose. Scott, I believe you are very close to being right about a land claim, but I think you are off by just one river west of the Chippewa River. Here's what the Pomme de Terre offers: it discharges into the MN River not far from where the Chippewa River (the KRS route to Runestone Hill) discharges into the MN River, but there is one big difference, that being the Pomme de Terre reaches farthest into the MN River watershed.
Of course, the MN River empties into the Mississippi River, and back the other way it stretches northward to Big Stone Lake, where one can travel upwards to Hudson Bay. So then, by placing a claim where the Norse Code-stone I recently discovered indicates something is buried, a huge land claim is made, from the Gulf of Mexico to Hudson Bay, but also a direct claim is made for the wonderful glaciated, boulder-strewn landscape encompassing the Pomme de Terre watershed, which nicely divides in half this proposed "Green Throne" area containing such a vast number of medieval Norse evidences...in the way of iron objects, petroglyphs and stoneholes in rocks.
Scandinavians were clever and self-amused by using codes in communicating with others back in the time-frame we're talking about. I contend that these same Old World Norse came to the MN and Dakota areas, offering their coding abilities to a future devotee (me) of--what else--but stoneholes. Some folks will call this karma, while I prefer to think of the situation as a "miracle of discovery" orchestrated by God Almighty.
We are all a bit quirky. Anyway, Scott, if your land claim theory recedes with time, I have this other one to replace it with...I think, with better evidence going for it.
By the way, I studied "evidence" in several classes on the way to getting my Bachelors in Criminal/Social Justice, and I like the idea of "legal evidence" in approaching the KRS. In my opinion, if put on trial, the KRS would be redeemed to National Status...no longer languishing in a dull and dumbfounded community. Thanks for the opportunity to express myself!
- Gunn
Gunn,
DeleteThe land claim thesis have proposed is clear and straightforward as presented on the stone, "...journey of acquisition/taking up land, from Vinland far to the west." The stone was carved and buried on the north-south continental divide of North America consistent with the land claim practice of the French and the Dutch on the 14th Century. Why they choose the exact spot that is now the Ohman Farm is unknown, but it served the land claim purpose just fine. There is multiple lines of factual evidence that support the land claim thesis and it passes the "smell test" for being logical in the grand scheme.
As far as it being a memorial, I once thought that was one of the reasons it was created as well. However, based on my recent discovery of the "Ritual Code," I no longer believe that to be the case. My paper detailing the discovery is currently being reviewed for publication by Masonic scholars and I will write a blog post detailing it once that process is completed.
Thank you, Scott. In my proposal, the purpose of acquiring or taking up land could have been attempted by the KRS party as representing a smaller entity than you propose, which could entail a smaller claim, more like those exhibited across the border along the Whetstone River. That site seems to possibly indicate a series of smaller plot-claims, if you will. I think the petroglyphs may have been used to claim specific areas with stonehole boundaries.
DeleteI think Runestone Hill was a sort of ley-line hub expressed as a known spot of land a certain distance up the Chippewa River--coincidentally, on a direct line between Duluth and the Whetstone River area. I think Runestone Hill had to do with inland mapping, and the people who left the memorial stone expected others to come back to this known spot. Just a guess, of course.
I think the continental divide may have more significance farther west...actually, closer to the Norse Code-stone I found last year. I was hoping you could possibly further the cause of discovering what's buried there, but so far it seems neither you nor your most ardent detractor possess the desire or "abilities" needed to finally turn history as we know it on its head. (A challenge, I suppose.)
- Gunn
Gunn,
DeleteSince we have no other evidence to suggest we shouldn't take the land claim statement on the KRS at face value, I see no need to try and create a different scenario. However, I have looked at the curious cluster of stone holes near Browns Valley and find them to be very interesting. Browns Valley is where the same continental dividing line as the KRS goes through and there certainly could be associated with the same party or perhaps a different Templar group who came through the area. I don't think there's any treasure associated with it, but there is another large piece of the KRS the carver split off prior to carving the inscription, so it has to be out there somewhere.
Maybe it's another buried land claim that when joined together with the KRS claims a larger tract of land than just, "From Vinland far to the west?"
I can't help but wonder how accurate the interpretation is concerning the change from "exploration" to acquiring or taking up something--we suppose land. The same goes for "skerries," which has also been interpreted as shelters, traps and maybe even something else. I can go for taking u land, although maybe it was acquiring or taking up an old, previously existing fur trade.
DeleteScott, the main reason I think the KRS may not be a land claim is because of its location, specifically, not near enough to a discharging waterway. On the other hand, my proposed medieval Norse Code-stone is located precisely where a far-reaching watershed river enters another river, establishing a firm connection between the two for surveying and land-prospecting purposes. The indications are that I may have discovered evidence of a very large attempted land claim, effectively joining together the Minnesota River watershed (and the Mississippi watershed) with the Red River watershed going north to Hudson Bay.
This also goes along with the idea that a huge waterway circle was recognized as completed near this area, which is the very reason for the many evidences along the Whetstone River just across the border in S. Dakota. This was recognized as being the connecting point, I believe...essentially, the area around Big Stone Lake.
The Norse Code-stone is located only about a half-hour drive from this area. Again, we can see from the abundance of evidence that there was an extreme interest in this region back in medieval times.
It could be that a runestone is buried there within the cluster of stonehole rocks, but I have my doubts. It would be a great surprise! But, I think it must be some kind of surveyor's marker, something made of metal, from medieval times...perhaps as early as AD 1100-1200. It could very well represent Knights Templar (back then, the Catholic Church, too, I suppose) interest in the region from back when they were extremely powerful and practically all-knowing when it came to mapping secrets, spies, etc. It may be that whatever is buried is fairly mundane, yet it may yield results that could be historical treasure, for the value added to American history up in this region.
Whatever it is buried deeply on the lonely ridge near Appleton, MN, its burial was shrewdly encoded within a small cluster of stonehole rocks, then a "backup" code-stone was made, showing in miniature the arrangement of stonehole rocks on the nearby ridge. The backup code-stone is located away from the ridgeline a few dozen paces, and I didn't find it until last year.
That helped explain a lot, because a late 1800's railroad surveying crew had made over thirty large stoneholes in the exact same spot, which really confused the situation for a while. Then I discovered online that the large, sometimes fancy star-shaped stoneholes were for securing tent poles against the wind...of all things.
There are five authentic, small-diameter medieval stonehole rocks involved with concealing something made of iron or steel, which could be a container for something else. For the skeptics, I have previously found examples of the rarer small-diameter stoneholes in both MN (Sauk Lake) and SD (near Wilmot).
Scott, thanks for helping me make this important new information available to your readers. I think the eventual unveiling of whatever was purposely buried within that cluster of stonehole rocks will end up explaining a lot more about the later-arriving Kensington Runestone.
- Gunn
Gunn,
DeleteWith all due respect what I see in your comments is exactly the kind of biased thinking when a person falls in love with their own thesis and consciously, or subconsciously, ignores or overlooks hard facts to bolster their own ideas. That you have doubts about the land claim thesis is a perfect example. What part of "acquisition business/taking up land" don't you get? I don't see how that can be interpreted any other way than a land claim.
You also doubt the KRS was buried amongst a series of boulders of with rounded triangular stone holes when it's a documented fact. Am I missing something here?
You have also over-reached with your Norse Code theory. You assume there is something buried amongst a series of stone hole boulders in a different location and that its metal from medieval times. You don't know that and to make an outright claim that it is, is irresponsible.
I know you are capable of doing a better job than that.
Scott, yes, you are missing a lot, not just something. What I'm saying is that I think it likely that the stonehole rocks at Runestone Park pre-existed the placing of the KRS there on Runestone Hill. Figuring out any sacred geometry to affix into rocks would take quite a while, plus I don't think the KRS party would make that much noise to chisel out that many stoneholes. I think even Valdimar may be open to Runestone Hill being a special, known spot, pre-existing the KRS, if I'm not mistaken.
DeleteScott, I hope you see that I'm saying the men could have been prospecting for land, but without leaving the KRS as a land claim. Their intention was given in the inscription on the KRS, if the interpretation is correct, but was that intention followed up? Did the men actually attempt to claim land via the KRS, or were they going to claim land, but their plans were fouled and they consequently left behind a memorial stone, not a runestone land claim?
Yes, the KRS was buried amongst stonehole rocks, as you say, Scott, but I'm saying the stonehole rocks easily may have pre-existed the placing of the KRS amongst them. See? No facts are being ignored by me, and what looks like bias on my part isn't really even bias when actual facts are considered.
I have certainly not overreached with my Norse Code theory, because there isn't a complete assumption on my part that something is buried, made of metal, within a cluster of stonehole rocks. The only part I'm taking the liberty of assuming is that whatever is buried is from medieval times. There is no doubt that something made of metal is buried there, and exactly where the Code-stone indicates. This part is fact-based. The only part which could be considered an overreach would be my attempt to attach it to medieval times, which I am guilty of doing.
However, I don't think it's irresponsible of me to have reached the conclusion I've reached, but I can understand why you don't like it. I can also understand why you don't like the idea that I found the mysterious Lake With Two Skerries, too, even though it helps to authenticate the message on the KRS. Holand himself said that if the lake were found, it would go a long way to proving the genuineness of the KRS. I did this, but it contradicts your Masonic interests, I guess, just as my own land claim with the recently found Norse Code-stone contradicts your land claim theory.
So, I can understand you being perturbed. Nevertheless, I think my "facts" and speculative renderings are easily as valid as yours are. No hard feelings, either. I'm always open to learning something new if it makes sense. I guess we differ somewhat on what makes sense, that's all...and anyway, so much ends up being in the interpretation of facts, and in the interpretation of "fringe" material, as well. Peace.
I think I've done better job than you're willing to give me credit for, but, yes, there's always room for improvement. And Runestone Friend, I wish upon you an insatiable curiosity about what is buried within that cluster of cluster of stonehole rocks dating back to medieval times!
Over-reach? We'll see, hopefully one day soon....
- Gunn
Gunn,
DeleteUnless you can provide some type of evidence for previous European activity at the KRS site all you have is baseless speculation. That the stone holes triangulate at the KRS discovery spot is a fact. Further, what possible concern would the makers of the holes have for noise? They were traveling with local Natives so who is going to be offended? That doesn't make sense?
The statement "We had a camp near 2 shelters" is almost certainly allegory and scholars cannot even agree that the word is "shelters", "skerries" or something else. The crossed "l" appears to be part of the Dating Code. Therefore the meaning of that word is in doubt. Therefore, I wouldn't be making any claims about "skerries" being anywhere until the word has been conclusively translated.
I'm not perturbed at all. I'm just trying to make sense of all this from a scientific method standpoint coupled with reasonable speculation. Incidentally, I think you should avoid commenting on the debunker's site as he is not a serious person and promotes hate, personal attacks, and dismissal of legitimate scientific inquiry. The best way to make that crap go away is to ignore it. Nothing productive of any sort happens there.
Just some friendly advice.
Scott, I don't propose this following comment as adversarial in any way, but I hope you might see that I can fairly return the opening comment in your last comment thusly: Scott, unless you provide some type of evidence for all of the apparent European medieval activity having been created at the same time at Runestone Park, by the KRS party, all you have is baseless speculation. See? What I'm saying is that there is no proof or factual evidence to draw some of the conclusions you've made, either. To be fair, we can both believe in the genuineness of the KRS, but each believing something different where there is no factual basis of proof. I'm talking right now, specifically, about whether or not stoneholes pre-existed at Runestone Hill before the KRS was put there. We each have a guess about it and that's all.
DeleteI don't dispute that the stoneholes at the KRS discovery spot can be triangulated. I don't know where you got that, since I took your beginning three lines of triangulation and ended up finding what for all intents and purposes looks like a cut-jewel design, with a large X in it. I have mentioned that I believe it is possible that the KRS party put the KRS on the ground on Runestone Hill as a hook on this proposed sacred geometric X.
Concerning noise, since I believe that ten men were really, actually massacred upstream a day's travel, at Davidson Lake, where the Erdahl Axe was found on the west bank in 1894, I also believe the surviving ten men got out of area fast, by descending the Chippewa River until they were even with Runestone Hill, at which point they hid their watercraft and walked four miles east. They were safely off the river-highway, but there was no reason to be careless about extra noise making a dozen or more stoneholes in rocks. Enough noise would be made just carving the runestone. A few days in relative safety at Runestone Hill might be just the thing they needed. Plus, they could make their memorial stone to the memories of their fallen comrades, with the hope that others would be coming back to this previously known site in the future. See, it can work this way, too.
If nothing else, I think people who have gotten to know me know that I've zeroed-in quite intensively in my search for understanding about stoneholes. So then, the stonehole rock cluster is not imaginary. I can easily distinguish the difference between stoneholes from medieval times and those from the late 1800's. The metal my metal detector hits on is buried within a cluster of medieval stonehole rocks. The location is perfectly suited for surveying land, using waterways, and the obvious evidence shows that surveying took place in the exact same location twice: once in medieval times, and again in the railroad-building days. Indeed, the spot is special for surveying--across time.
We know the Norse were playful with codes, so I don't see any problem with seeing the Code-stone as being left there on the ridge by a playful Scandinavian...if I may say so. I just don't think he thought it would take several hundred years before whatever it was he buried would be unearthed!
In my mind's eye, there is currently no better chance of finding something else authentically European and medieval up in this region than whatever is buried in association with the cluster of stonehole rocks overlooking these aforementioned strategic waterways near Appleton… and I’ll take help anywhere I can get it for a pre-approved, professional dig. Even an exploratory dig would do...one spot, straight down....
- Gunn
Hello, this question concerns Masonry which you brought into the KRS question. A few years ago, in my presence, you told of how you did not believe in any type of God, thus, you said, you could not be a Mason. Other than need, what changed?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
DeleteI don't recall ever saying that. Perhaps your memory is incorrect or maybe you have thrown this inappropriate suggestion out there out of need?
question concerning calcite on lower left KRS: and this is not to get into your personal issues with other geologists- you studied Winchell's field notes on the KRS-and many would like to study yours- what was Winchell's opinion of the inscription In the calcite area?
ReplyDeleteFirst, I have no personal issues with other geologists, there is one non-practicing geologist who has a problem with me for reasons I don’t understand and frankly, do not care. In any case, I have posted the three pertinent pages (19-21) from Winchell’s final report submitted to the Minnesota Historical Society in April, 1910, titled, “Report on the Kensington Rune Stone.” I find his observations very reasonable and consistent with observations I made on the calcite areas on the face side as well. What I find most compelling and consistent with the thesis I’ve had all along is he stated the only weathering scenario that would produce the current state of the carved characters in the hydrothermal calcite on the face side was for the inscription to have been buried immediately after it was carved in 1362 (Page 21, second paragraph).
DeleteAs for my research on the calcite areas on the stone, that peer reviewed work was published on pages 17-20. I'm on the same page with Winchell about the weathering of the runes carved into the hydrothermal calcite areas on the face side.
thank-you. This I could find on the net, but was interested in Winchell's Field Notes on this prior to the politics that went on to make the report.
DeletePolitics? Winchell was a brilliant scholar and a consummate professional, this is clearly evident in the balanced approach he took when reviewing other scholar's work relating to the KRS. The opinions expressed in his report were not influenced by politics. If anything, prevailing politics would have swayed him against the stone. That’s really a silly thing to even try to inject into the discussion.
DeleteAs far as the field notes go, they were made during his three trips to Kensington and there is nothing that specifically references the calcite other than a cursory description. The artifact was in St. Paul at the time of his visits in March and May of 1910, and to my knowledge no notes exist about his geological observations other than the handwritten draft of his final report. Regardless, what he wrote in the report was his final conclusion and both you, and the world needs to accept them.
Theodore Blegen, MN. historian, wrote about the KRS. Since his book is negative towards the KRS, should it be considered invalid reading material? Just as an aside, he was knighted into the Order of St. Olav- with it's Maltese star.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteI'm glad you brought Ted Blegen up as I've spent a lot time researching his research that led to his book published in 1968, "The Kensington Rune Stone: New Light on an Old Riddle." I met several of his relatives during that time and he was a good man, very bright, and did his best with the limited information about the inscription he had available to him at the time. We know a lot more now than any of the scholars doing the research up to that time.
What Blegen actually wrote in his book on page 123 was the following, "What matters is the sum total of the historical, runological, and archaeological evidence. The total of the runological and historical side is, in my judgment, conclusive. The inscription is a fake."
Those are his exact words and nowhere does he mention anything about Newton H. Winchell's geological work. This is inexcusable and mystifying at the same time as he knew all about it as he reproduced Winchell's entire field notebook with photos of the illustrations. Of course, to conclude the artifact is a hoax you have to ignore Winchell's geological work and emphatic conclusion the KRS was genuine.
To be fair, Professor Blegen was battling cancer and died before he fully completed his research, and if one read his conclusions carefully, he leaves the door open that it could genuine. However, it is his flawed opinion that much of the world refers to including the person who posted this comment.
That he was knighted into a chivalric order is interesting, but irrelevant to the authenticity question.
Scott. I think your naysayers have no idea about the Icelandic land-claim theory that was based on old Sumerian way where they use winter and summer sun down and up solstice bearings and holy distant of 216.000 or 432.000 feet. I had done recherche on the KRS site with the help of Judi Rudibusch and found places like tri-cairns, mounds and knolls on the other solstice end to support this land-claim theory around the KRS that was used by many early chieftain settlers coming to Iceland claiming land I call ringworld for their people around the year 1000AD.
ReplyDeleteI ask people to forget about the KRS and think more about that location. If KRS is forged why would they set it at that exact spot. I remember also in one of your books explain local on site drill holes matching with the spot where the stones was found. Anyway conciser the site not the stone and ask why that stone on that site.
Valdimar,
DeleteYou are quite right and I appreciate your reminding about this research you did such a great job on. For those interested in reading what I wrote about Valdimar's "Ring World" research relative to the KRS I refer you to my "Hooked X" book, pages 129-132.
If you have a link to any of your papers on your 'Ring World' research feel free to post a link here.
Valdimar, I think you are right about the Runestone Park area possibly having significance beyond the KRS, meaning (to me at least), there was medieval Norse interest in the spot previous to the KRS being left there. I have come to believe this, and I've also come to believe that the stoneholes encircling Runestone Hill were most likely chiseled out well before the KRS party arrived in the area.
DeleteI came to believe, also, that the memorial stone was left at the Kensington location because the men figured other Scandinavians would be coming back for some particular reason--whether the stone was originally buried, or not doesn't matter, in this regard.
I don't know your feelings about the possible use of "sacred geometry," but I think I may have found a "cut-jewel" design overlaying Runestone Park, which includes an X. Interestingly, in this scenario, it appears that the KRS may actually have been placed as a hook on the X laid out upon the ground, within this prospective sacred geometry.
However, the very real Norse Code-stone I recently found near the SD border doesn't use sacred geometry...it just uses a simple line design with a "missing spot" to show where something is buried. Valdimar, out of curiousity, have you ever seen a chunk of rock purposely cracked off from a stonehole and then placed in a significant spot, as part of an encoding? That's what I believe happened on the ridge overlooking where the Pomme de Terre River discharges into the MN River. My ferrous metal detector goes crazy on the precise spot indicated by the Norse Code-stone--and as an aging man, I'm not afraid to say that God is my witness to this.
One thing I have always been curious about is why there are three stonehole rocks embedded in the ground fairly close together (within several paces) on the knoll or portion of peninsula-ridgeline known as Skraeling Hill. I have read that ley-lines typically begin or end on knolls. I wonder if you might have any thoughts about Skraeling Hill, just a few hundred yards west of Runestone Hill? Perhaps there was more significance to Skraeling Hill back before the KRS was left at Runestone Hill, if the site pre-existed the runestone being left there.
I wonder also, Sir, if you know of any Icelandic or Scandinavian examples of anything being purposely hidden through the use of stoneholes in rocks. It seems like this may be the case here in America. Thank you, and thank you for sharing your important work with the world-at-large.
- Gunn
Gunn,
DeleteAmerican Fur Company Post-Fort Greene.
(1826), undetermined location
An American Fur Co. post located on the "River au Gris of the St. Peters", below Big Stone Lake.
http://www.northamericanforts.com/West/mn.html#greene
More at the Minnesota Historical Society- (see) Sibley Papers
p@
In an earlier reply, an individual asked a question about Mr. Winchell's field notes and where they might be found. Scott already answered that question, but I would like to point out for everyone's benefit that much of the early work on the KRS is available in publications that may be accessed online. One repository is at the Hathi Trust Digital Library (https://www.hathitrust.org/). Two effective text strings for searches are "Kensington Rune Stone" and "Winchell, Kensington Rune Stone." Good hunting!
ReplyDeletePatrick,
DeleteThis is a tremendous link and I am currently engrossed about reading about Newton's Winchell work as a founding member of the Academy of Science. I knew he was an accomplished scientist, but he was more impressive than even I realized.
Thanks for posting this link.
Y/W, Scott. Here is another useful link...it takes you to an online repository of digitally archived newspapers at the Library of Congress. I find it very interesting that Professor Winchell did not equivocate in his support of the KRS authenticity, as may be seen in the 02 Aug 1911 Willmar Tribune article (it is the last article at the bottom of the page when the page loads):
Deletehttp://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/search/pages/results/?state=&date1=1836&date2=1922&proxtext=kensington+rune+stone&dateFilterType=yearRange&rows=20&searchType=basic&x=0&y=0
Not related to Kensington Rune but Narragansett Bay Runestone. I know the translation, and it is Iberian with Phonecian influence. I also know what a hooked X is and it very simple. debonairb33@hotmail.com
ReplyDeleteUnknown,
DeleteIberian? Why would a party from the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) use Scandinavian runes and a secret Templar symbol (The Hooked X)? What time period do you think this was carved in and what evidence do you have to support this claim?
Theories vs Facts... With respect, I question the fairness of your challenge.
ReplyDelete1. You have repeatedly claimed that your KRS weathering research meets the criteria for argument in a court of law. I am not sure a court of law is where we should be arguing history, but for the sake of this conversation, let's say it is. If your weathering studies were presented in a court of law, the defense would have the opportunity to see, analyze, and critique your methods. The defense could call forth geologists of their own and unknown to you who have had the opportunity to review your work. You won't allow your weathering work to be opened to peer review, so we are unable to do that. Instead, all we have is your word that your methods are not flawed. You've told us in the past that other geologists have seen and agree with your work. Again, you ask us to take your word for it. You are not willing to provide the names or notes of the agreeing geologists. You may give us one; you may tell us that Winchell's work supports your own. But, if people take the time to actually read Winchell, Winchell himself stops way short of claiming the KRS is authentic.
2. When refuting the theories of others, you ask that their research be held to a higher standard than your own. You will ask for a level of proof that you yourself are unable or unwilling to provide. For instance, if a contributor writes in with a theory that includes a modern carving date for the KRS, you will dismiss it out of hand and tell us that you and Winchell have proven how old it is.
And around and around it will go.....
I offer a good-natured challenge of my own.... Open your work to REAL peer review. Put it out there into a forum you don't control. Submit it to a solid, reputable geological journal for publication. Let other experts in your field study it and discuss it. This would be the fastest, easiest way to get the real credit you may be deserving of. I say "may" because until you're willing to do something like this, all we have is your word.
If your weathering work is as valid as you claim, isn't it deserving of a much higher standard than that? If your weathering/dating technique is valid, you couldn't stop the academics from rallying to your side. You would be celebrated for developing such a useful technique that would have countless applications. Chapters in geology texts would be named after you. You could set the new standard for geology....all if you would just open your research to real peer review.
Bart
Bart,
DeleteFirst, you need to get your facts straight before posting. Let me enlighten you:
1. My weathering work was peer reviewed, in writing, by 6 geologists and material engineers.
2. My weathering study has been published in report form and published in my book, The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence." It's been out there for eleven years, have at it.
3. Winchell wrote the following: "The said stone is not a modern forgery and must be accepted as a genuine record of an exploration in Minnesota at the date stated in the inscription." I have posted the actual letter so you don't have to take my word for it.
3. You can dispense with the insincere and unfounded accusations toward me about my research. Any serious geologist interested in doing serious research has always been, and always will be welcome to review my work.
4. What you consider "real" peer review is simply a corrupted academic system that is horribly broken. I watched it unfold in Sweden and will not be party to a travesty like that again. You might want to read my post about the academic fraud perpetrated by Swedish scholar Henrik Williams and my former co-author Richard Nielsen as a recent example.
I've had more than my share of both positive and negative attention in my life and it's not the reason I do this research. All I can say to those who seek attention from the masses is, be careful what you wish for my friend.
1. You suggest that “Winchell himself stops way short of claiming the KRS is authentic.” The following newspaper article from 1911 strongly implies otherwise:
Delete“Friday’s Journal contained the following communication, supposedly from the pen of N.H. Winchell, Minnesota State Geologist:
“THE RUNESTONE IN NORWAY.
To the Editor of the Journal:
I read the ‘Special’ in last night’s Journal with much interest and very soon reached the conclusion that it was sent by some one who could give only an exparte opinion. Personal information concerning the temper of the ‘scientists’ who were present at the meeting in the University of Christiania, when the runestone was considered, gives quite a different impression of the result. Professor Hagstad, who spoke against the stone, like Professor B., is an old enemy of the stone, and attempted to justify his position, but exhibited such nonfamiliarity with the subject that the audience greeted his statements with hissing. Professor Koht thought the inscription must be genuine if the stone was in situ in 1890. The other professors would not express any opinion, although some of them had like Professors B and Hagstad, previously condemned the stone without investigation. If the remarks of Professor Hagstad, which were hissed by his own people, and the silence of all the other professors of the University of Christiana, can be interpreted, as the voice of Norway against the stone, as appears to be the opinion of the correspondent who sent the ‘special’ message to the Journal, it is plain that the scholars of Norway are not in good standing with the great audience which gathered at the university. It is best for the scholars of America to hesitate in forming their opinion of the scholars of Norway until they hear other than exparte reports. -N.H.W.
Minneapolis, July 28”
It was to be expected that this runestone would meet with the same skepticism in the old countries as it did first in America, and even more so on account of the tendency among the conceited scientists of the old world to regard anything from America as “humbug.” When such conservatives as Drs. Winchell and Upham of Minnesota could be convinced of the genuiness of the stone, the stone will yet survive the day of its vindication in the lands where its makers hailed from.”
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn89081022/1911-08-02/ed-1/seq-8/#date1=1836&index=17&rows=20&words=Kensington+rune+stone&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=kensington+rune+stone&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1
Wilmar Tribune; August 02, 1911
On another note:
The weathering study controversy on the KRS has persisted for well over a decade now. Why has no one in disagreement with Wolter’s results performed, or hired some capable of performing, an independent weathering study of the stone? Why is it that Wolter’s detractors are too timid to fund their own study?
You know, when your team is trailing in points in a basketball game you don’t walk over and ask the other team’s coach for his playbook – you go out and score more points on your own. So why is it the weathering study detractors keep asking for the playbook?
Patrick,
DeleteI applaud you for actually doing your homework before commenting. Winchell was not only a brilliant geologist, he was a wise man with a balanced perspective.
Bart is just like Professor Hagstad and all the other skeptics who speak first and then do nothing. Bart's mind is clearly made up, yet still tries to frame the argument in a way to try and make me look like I'm hiding something. This is not a serious inquiry and has been tried on me a hundred times and never furthers anything. The KRS is authentic Bart, and you and the other skeptics have to get used to it.
With regard to the basketball analogy, I've offered my playbook to the detractors for over a decade. The problem is they're too lazy to study it or come up with their own plays.
Scott,
DeleteI'm sorry you were offended by my earlier entry. I can't see where I'm being disrespectful or snarky. I'm simply telling you what I personally need from you so that I can be convinced of what you're trying to tell us about the KRS. I understand you've been attacked in the past, but that certainly isn't my intention. My interpretation of what Winchell said and what he meant and how it fits in with the opinion of other qualified professionals of Winchell's time is just different than yours.
What Winchell and his committee concluded was that the inscription seemed to be old, but they stopped short of claiming that the stone was authentic. Why? Because even though the inscription appeared to be old, the language on the stone did not. Plus, the provenance of the stone itself could not be proven.
At Winchell's time, it would have been reasonable to be suspicious of a hoax. Hoaxes were all the rage in the late 1800's and early 1900's. See Piltdown Man and anything P.T. Barnum had a hand in. If a hoaxer carved the stone, but didn't know enough about the language to make the dialect appropriate to the date on the stone; and if the runes were carved by a modern forger in a way to make them appear older, then it's reasonable to assume that forger COULD have gone further and possibly weathered the inscription artificially.
So, yes, Winchell said that the actual stone work seemed older, but his committee also recommended we take all aspects of the stone into account before we declare it genuine.
This is different than declaring the KRS to be a genuine medieval artifact.
Nobody wants the possibility of medieval Norsemen visiting the interior of North America 150 years before Columbus to be true more than me. And it may well be true. But, unless you can offer more than just your word on the validity of your methods, then the KRS can't be seen as proof of this European contact.
And, while Winchell may have been a great geologist, he was not infallible.....especially when it comes to judging the age of stone worked by man. He declared the Kansas Paleoliths authentic, but they were later proven to be a hoax.
Respectfully,
Bart
Bart,
DeleteLet’s be clear about the facts shall we? First, Winchell was indeed emphatic about his opinion the inscription was authentic. Second, the Museum Committee of the Historical Society reached the conclusion the KRS was genuine with the caveat that Scandinavian linguists weigh in on the details of the linguistics of the inscription. Three, the opinions of those scholars for the next 85 years have been proven to be wrong. In fact, all the runes, language, dialect, and grammar features within the inscription have been found to have existed in Medieval times.
You are correct the climate of skepticism at the time was high due to known recent fakes. However, that should have been irrelevant to the KRS investigation and that many soft scientists at the time allowed that bias to impact their judgment demonstrates their lack of objectivity and professionalism. It should have had no bearing on the facts that proved the KRS was not a fake. Further, your attempt to undermine Winchell’s credibility by interjecting a fake 2009 report by a conveniently deceased archaeologist who wants us believe he has a better understanding of the geological apects related to the lithic artifacts than an accomplished scholar like Winchell is laughable and pathetic. This is nothing more than a shameful attack on Winchell’s character that you would be wise to retract.
Sorry Bart, but I don’t believe you aren’t trying to be snarky or disingenuous in your comments. Call me skeptical, but you have to do a better job of showing impartiality to convince me.
Retract an attack on Winchell? First off, it wasn't an attack; I was pointing out one of a few mistakes Winchell made during his professional career.
DeleteIn fact, I can cite another...
In 1902 Winchell used his geological skills to grossly misdate human remains found near Lansing, Kansas by about 10,000 years or so.
At least one of Winchell's peers, the great William Henry Holmes (your readers are welcome to look him up; he was an absolute giant in his time), found Winchell's conclusions in these matters almost laughable.
I'm not saying Winchell wasn't a good geologist. I'm only saying that he was human and made mistakes.
My assessment is that even though Winchell supported the likelyhood that the KRS carving is old, it has been shown that he has made significant mistakes in similar matters throughout his career. He may be right when it comes to the KRS, but he may also be wrong. Citing Winchell's work to support your own in lieu of submitting your work for peer review isn't an acceptable substitute, and people who might not be familiar with how science works might find this information valuable.
I guess we've reached an impasse, Scott. We can disagree and still wish each other well.
Bart
Bart,
DeleteYou absolutely did try to undermine Winchell's credibility by citing a phony paper that questions his geological competence. In that paper the apparently fictitious author tries to claim that iron-oxide coatings on the artifacts were fraudulently put on by someone prior to 1914 and Winchell couldn't tell the difference, but this guy could? I'm sorry Bart, to believe that this supposed archaeologist understood natural iron-oxide deposition better than Winchell is laughable and you can't be serious about standing behind that.
Actually, Winchell was very perceptive in his time realizing human cultures in North America were much older than previously believed. You might remember that archaeology wasn’t even an official science at that time so to criticize his archaeological observations in 2016 is a little unfair don’t you think? Of course he was human, but that doesn’t justify marginalizing his conclusions about the authenticity of the KRS by trying to undermine his credibility. That one person disagreed with Winchell opinions doesn’t mean he was wrong. Do you agree this was the case or are you still going to equivocate on this point when the facts and reasonableness are clear?
The relative-age weathering work of Winchell, and my geological weathering work that independently verified his work, stands as the current conclusive evidence the KRS is genuine until independent scientific geological weathering research provides factual evidence that supports a different conclusion. It’s disappointing that you and other skeptics can’t accept that. You assert that Winchell made mistakes when you haven’t proven anything.
The truth is our impasse is due mainly to the fact you have already made up your mind and will never change it no matter how hard the science might be. It appears to me these questions are a personal thing with most skeptics. They don’t believe so they try to undermine the credibility, or demonize the person who stands in the way of their beliefs.
For me, the question of authenticity of any mysterious artifact should be a matter of evidence, not faith. We can agree to disagree Bart; thank you for commenting.
in your article on the Icelandic scripts and url to read more-one can see script work with ciphers much like the Larsson rune rows. With both being of a later date, what connection is there to the KRS?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
DeleteThe point is these coded runic alphabets date back many centuries, including the 14th Century and beyond, and many of the specific runes in them that the Scandinavian scholars for over a century said "never existed", in fact did exist and are found on the KRS, and the Spirit Pond and Narragansett Rune Stones. The Icelandic scripts have hundreds of coded alphabets that were hidden away for centuries and copied repeatedly over that time well into the 19th century.
This is yet another important discovery that shows the scholars were wrong about their assumptions regarding the Kensington inscription that when considered in context all the other factual evidence, also proves the KRS is a medieval document.
This is really an important discovery that was brought to my attention last year by researcher Steven DiMarzo. He also shared these recently published documents with Henrik Williams. professor of Scandinavian languages and runology at Uppsala University, and not only did he ignore them, he was hostile toward Steve for even bringing them to his attention.
This is modern Swedish academia at work folks...
Scott's weathering "autopsy" combined with the Dotted R Rune makes it an open and shut case. No one can fake something linguistically that hasn't been discovered yet.
ReplyDeleteI see one of the latest skeptic conspiracy theories is that it was a hoax perpetrated by the Freemasons. While I am glad that at least this latest theory leaves the Ohman family out of it (they have been harassed for way too long), blaming the Freemasons for a supposed hoax is as silly as saying "The aliens did it."
I approached the KRS with a completely open mind. I thought it was cool, but I wasn't fanatic about it being authentic. If the weathering and runic evidence wasn't so definitive, and there was compelling evidence that it was hoaxed, I wouldn't have a problem accepting that. What I find shocking--and quite telling--is that the skeptics desperately cling to their notions in spite of any evidence presented to them. They behave in the same way "true believers" are characterized. It's like if they stray from Canon, they are terrified of being excommunicated.
I'm disappointed in the state of Swedish Academe. My father's father went to Uppsala and I was always very proud of that. It's sad to see how hostile they are to evidence supporting opposing viewpoints.
Kim,
DeleteYou hit the nail on the head and thank you for simply stating exactly what the situation is. The truth is there is an small army of internet debunkers who distort and defame, and corrupt “Wiki” editors, like Doug Weller in England, who squat and sanitize factual evidence on their web pages about the true history of not just Kensington Rune Stone, but a host of other artifacts and sites.
It’s tremendously disappointing that some academics, like Henrik Williams, will stoop to committing academic fraud to protect a paradigm or further selfish interests. Why else would somebody stoop to such acts?
I name these people because there needs to be accountability for their unethical and arguably, criminal actions. The only way for that to happen is to call them out publically.
There are several examples of the Hooked X found in Icelandic Manuscripts dating back to 1700-1899, written by individuals in their own personal handwriting giving this symbol a "different" look but not negating its meaning. There are specific incidences where the Hooked X is used for the letter A, while there are several other incidences where the Hooked X or a version of it is used for other letters in different alphabets throughout this time frame. However, those specific alphabets where the Hooked X is used for the letter A are precise and without question, even though in the handwriting style of the author, which would be, in my estimation, harder to duplicate, as precisely as it is written here in these documents in their own penmanship, if tried to be chiseled into stone. Unfortunately, Henrik Williams stated that there were no uses of the letter X being substituted for the letter "A" anywhere in any manuscripts, nor was there ever found in any manuscripts the Hooked "X". Unfortunately, he has been proven wrong on both accounts here!
ReplyDeleteIn fact, in my research of these hundreds of Icelandic documents, I found over 120 examples where the Letter "X" was used for the letter "A" in these unique alphabets and ciphers used hundreds of years ago. So, in my opinion, it is not a stretch to believe at all that this knowledge of the Hooked X was known and used by those who knew its meaning, as evidenced here in the places here it was indeed used for the letter "A".
Steve,
DeleteDo you have any idea why Professor Williams wasn't interested in this important new data you discovered that sheds new light on the authenticity of the all five of the North American rune stones that have the Hooked X?
I am lost on this Hooked X, and how you wrote this blogspot- going at this like a court of law... You do have hooked x's from what Steve wrote- 1700-1899 from Iceland and the Larsson rune row-that is evidence-, statement sounded like this makes it a slam dunk for medieval. Has someone found manuscripts or pages written as the above, with a hooked X used for an "a" with runes? Yes?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
DeleteYes, there are several examples I have posted in the previous blog where the Hooked X symbol is being used to "a." There is also an example of the Hebrew alphabet with the Hooked X being used for "aleph."
In my opinion, he probably did not want to believe anyone could have proved his "absolute" statements that he made concerning the actual finding of examples of Hooked X in any document being used for the letter "A", as ever being possible or that there were any documents where the "X" was used for the letter "a" in the thousands of manuscripts out there that contained alphabets and ciphers. To date, there is at least 120 documents with alphabets/ciphers that show this in detail, where the letter "X" is substituted for the letter "A". When anyone, no matter how learned one is or what degree of education one may have, makes a statement of this kind, that person should be ready to be proved wrong or at least investigated through research, and he was shown to be wrong in both cases here!
ReplyDeletePlus, there is no doubt there is a profound disapproval of you and of the work you have done concerning all of this by Professor Williams and that adds to his resistance to accept any of this as being authentic or even real!
Looks like some people had nothing better to do all weekend. Looks like SOME scientific discussion interspersed with a lot of verbal diarrhea. Just saying, with all Christian kindness. Love your work Scott,and wish History channel would have been more agreeable. I understand some people's inclination to disapprove of your historical inquiry as displayed on tv, mostly because of the emotional and staged performance of the shows. But I understand your written words much more. I'm hoping for future discoveries in "Vinland" of pre-Columbian European and/or Asian visits and/or settlements to North America. I believe not everyone before our modern age of travel (after mid-1700's) were static in their location. There have always been nomadic and or marauding individuals, small groups, larger groups and ARMIES that have travelled long distances over the past thousands of years. I love history and learning of the past in verifiable ways.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
DeleteThe current History Channel is not compatible with the kind of shows we did on America Unearthed. However, I greatly appreciate the opportunity they gave me to share the research we were able to. I will be forever grateful.
Like them, we are going in a different direction and as I've always said, when one door close, another opens somewhere else. Stay tuned I hear a door opening...
as you read other's opinions on the KRS, what are your thoughts on Paul Stewarts ideas as to the KRS being placed where it was as to a geographical center using number usage?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteI haven't read Paul Stewert's book, but I have heard all about it. First, the KRS is not 1362 miles from the three major shorelines bordering North America. Second, I've said the KRS was placed in the geographic center of the continent as a land claim for over a decade. That its location is even close to 1362 is interesting, but even if it were it wouldn't prove any connection to the KRS. The inscription says, "Year 1362." Doesn't it make the most sense to take it at face value?
There are two other things that bother me about Stewart's work. The first is how he dismisses out of hand the geological weathering findings of Newton Winchell and myself, as well as the voluminous language, runes, dialect, grammar and dating evidence that is consistent with the 14th Century.
Second, I have a problem with his making accusations and naming people who cannot defend themselves, especially long-deceased Brother Freemasons. I can assure you creating something like the KRS inscription with the unique 14th Century features would be impossible for anyone in the late 19th Century. Does Stuart really expect us to believe a Freemason in Minnesota in the 1800's understood what the Dotted R was when not a single Scandinavian runological scholar in the world did?
Its hard to take his speculation seriously when he doesn't take seriously the hard scientific factual evidence that's already been done that stands in the way of his beliefs. I'm sure Paul is nice guy and all that, but his 19th Century thesis for the origin of the KRS is a big swing-and-a-miss IMHO.
Scott, along with astute others, I have come to see the Dotted R as one of the best proofs that the KRS is not a modern forgery. How, indeed, would Olof or any other person possibly accused of hoaxing the artifact even know of the existence of a Dotted R, since it was apparently only recently discovered as a viable rune variant...unless I am mistaken. The Dotted R rises like cream to take its place of honor as one of the most important proofs to date that the stone document is what it purports to be...and the skeptics must now better respect this authentic runestone telling us about a short sketch of medieval European exploration and, apparently, attempted land up-taking.
ReplyDeleteEnemies of the KRS should not brace themselves, but rather instead prepare to make amends with this most American relic of old, and begin to acknowledge that the KRS was, IN FACT, "un-hoaxable" in the late 1800's American midwest, since no one was aware of a Dotted R being used during the general time-period of the KRS's discovery.
Good work on that one, Scott!
By the way, I notice from your last "Winchell" letter post in the blog heading (way above) that he thought the mysterious Lake With Two Skerries was Pelican Lake. As you know, Holand thought this lake was Cormorant Lake way, way, far north. The lake I have identified as this mysterious lake referenced in the inscription on the KRS, Davidson Lake, not only has two rocky islands presently, but if the water level were only about two feet higher back when this lake emptied into a series of lakes leading to the Chippewa River back in 1362 (nearly the same as today), the smaller of the present-day islands would disappear and the largest island today would become two islands, side-by-side. Also very oddly present as features on this small lake are two distinctive curving peninsulas. Could these possibly be shelters? Anyway, on the west bank of this lake is where the Erdahl Axe was found, and this lake is, in fact, about a day's actual travel away from Runestone Park. Bingo.
I'm not sure why Winchell focused on Pelican Lake, but Holand focused on Lake Cormorant because of his ill-defined King Magnus/Paul Knutsen notions--in association with stoneholes found way up there. Every time he heard about a new iron artifact or a new stonehole, he tried to make that location fit in with an across-land attempt to find the Lost Greenlanders. I think Robert Johnson and his daughter Janey Westin went along on that mythical adventure, too--kind of like following Haley's Coment, in their misguided book a few years ago. But, at least they believe in the KRS.
As far as David Kruger's recent attempt to run down the KRS, as a "Local Boy Does Bad," in his fairly new book, I think he will experience eventual shame for being so willing to throw Alex's history treasure into that sleepy hamlet's gutter. That home boy hoped to make a profit by ridiculing the KRS, and the region/people of the KRS, but all he did is go on public record as being an enemy to his home State's greatest historical artifact. Eventually, these naysayers will become sheepish and quiet, as the truth about the KRS's genuineness becomes more and more accepted.
By the way, Scott, I'm heartened to hear you say that we should take the date of the KRS at face value, even when considering possible Masonic numerology attached to the date, if that be the case.
- Gunn
Mr. Wolter,
DeleteThe continuous clamoring to have your work peer reviewed is getting extremely tiresome. As a layman to the process, I can certainly understand your material be looked at by people with unbiased views, and the fact you don't let just anyone have access to your work is smart to say the least. From what has been written on your blog, I very much doubt your detractors would change their opinion even if the Lord Almighty came down and said the KRS was a true artifact!
In the face of that kind of obstruction, you have done everything possible to make sure your work is done to the highest standards. Unfortunately, with all the major institutions of higher learning and historical stewardship against you, I highly doubt your work will ever be given the serious scrutiny it deserves.
Dan Uhrich
Dan,
DeleteI'm not as pessimistic although I understand why you feel that way when you read some of the nasty posts on this and other blogs and realize how corrupt some people are in academia that we thought we could count on. That being said, there are a lot of bright, young, honest academics coming up that will put aside the bias of the past and look at the irrefutable facts that are finally now available.
The world is changing so fast that I'm confident we'll see full acceptance in my lifetime. Until that time I will make sure that anything I'm involved in regarding the KRS is done properly by qualified individuals. We owe that to history and to the Ohman Family.
At the core of your argument Scott is that all geologist, archaeologist, and linguist must come to you for the data. You claim you have 6 different reviews by geologists yet you refuse to allow free access. You should release all data instead of behaving like a tyrant
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
DeleteYou apparently haven't read the previous blogs where this has been discussed ad nausea. The work has been peer reviewed and published in report and book form.
Have at it.
Where are the written reviews published? In another blog post you have qualified who shall get access to those documents and who shall not...I think you use the term "only serious inquiring geologist may read"...what if all archaeological reports were restricted to "only serious archaeologists"..
DeleteIf your work has been peer reviewed, then how do we know if the reviews were satisfactory or unsatisfactory?
DeleteAnonymous,
Delete"What if" there weren't negative trolls and dishonest scholars out there who have tried anything and everything to cheat, lie, and distort the factual evidence pertaining to the KRS, and other pre-Columbian artifacts, and treated them truly scientifically with courtesy and respect?
If the world of archaeology is working so well, why is they can't get things as straightforward as the Bat Creek Stone and the Tucson Lead Artifacts right when they are from an archaeological standpoint classic no brainers? Apparently, archaeology needs to rethink the way they do business and be more careful about who has access to their work?
I'm afraid the utopian academic world you'd like to think exists, doesn't exist. Sorry, but until we have fewer dishonest trolls and academics in this arena I'm going to err on the side safety and make sure those weighing in on my work are serious and reliable scientific people.
Anonymous,
DeleteThe reason you know the reviews were satisfactory is because I went forward and published my final 76-page report and published the same findings in my 2006 book, "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence."
Do you really think as a licensed professional geologist I would publish something that didn't meet proper scientific standards of care, and meet proper professional and academic review?
If you answer is yes, then you are on the wrong blog.
The fact that there is evidence in Icelandic manuscripts that definitely show the Hooked X being used as the letter "a" dating back to the early 1700's is proof that this unique letter was used by those who knew what it meant. Of course, there are other instances in these manuscripts where the Hooked X was used for another letter, but the fact remains that there are several instances where the Hooked X was indeed used for the letter "A" and that speaks volumes about the authenticity of the KRS and other places where this special symbol has been found throughout North America!
ReplyDeleteRemember, many experts have stated that there are no manuscripts where the Hooked X can be found and that has been proven false beyond all doubt, as well as they have stated there are no manuscripts where the "X" and the symbol for the Letter "O" have been found or used in the same alphabet after the 10th century. WRONG AGAIN! Also, 120 times and beyond, the manuscripts have shown that the letter "X" has been used for the letter "A". Again, another fact having been proved to be right, even though thought never to have been accurate by supposed scholars of runic history, and who now have rethink their postions here! I hope!
No one wants to be disrespectful to any scholar regardless of what postion or attitudes they might have about the Hooked X, but all I ask is that they review the evidence before condemning Scott Wolter and before they think to highly of their own opinions about all that has been presented here!
Steve,
DeleteIn a case like this when new evidence comes forward that demands a previously held opinion must change does not automatically mean the scholar who must rethink a previous idea is stupid or a bad person. However, it does test the judgment and integrity of the scholar, in this case Swedish Professor Henrik Williams.
Williams is a very bright guy and I believe wants to do the right thing as long as he doesn't get himself into trouble in his homeland and especially at Uppsala University where he works. To be fair, it's not a level playing field and he was already punished in 2003 when wrote a paper, with Richard Nielsen, essentially saying the discovery I made of the two dots above the Hooked X ("a") in the word "har", which changed it from a modern Swedish word to an old Swedish word, meant that the KRS should be restudied. That's all he said, yet was punished for three years by the university with additional administrative duties.
Williams knows the KRS is genuine, but he has to be extremely careful or he could potentially lose his job if he steps out of line. This is one reason why I said Sweden has a mandate position that the KRS is hoax and that's it. I'm quite sure this was why he tried so hard to get a professor chair here in the U.S. for the past decade that was unsuccessful. I don't know why any university or donor in America would want to pony up a million or so dollars to bring Williams over here to study a bunch of "fake" rune stones. But I digress...
This is likely the reason he won't admit he was wrong or acknowledge the fine work you have done discovering these many examples of the Hooked X and other runes/symbols the professor didn't believe ever existed. As I've said many times, when an expert changes their opinion based on never-before-seen evidence, it doesn't mean they're stupid, it shows they are smart and being truly scientific. The wise ones know it's not about "being right", it's about getting the "right answer."
I'm quite sure you'll never get the acknowledgement from Williams that you deserve Steve, but your amazing discoveries will be acknowledged for their importance in due time. We just have to be patient.
In a post yesterday you said your paper "has not been peered reviewed". I think you intended "has now been peer reviewed".
ReplyDeleteJerry,
DeleteYou're quite right. Auto correct changed "now" to "not", here's the corrected comment I had for Gunn.
Gunn,
Both Winchell and Holand, along with Bob Johnson and Janey Westin all fell into the trap of taking certain parts of the KRS inscription literally not realizing most of the message is actually allegory. Unless one has been initiated themselves, and realized the carver was also initiated into the Egyptian and Hebrew mysteries, they would never understand that trying to find the supposed "camp" or the “ten men red with blood and death” are exercises in futility. My paper on the "Ritual Code" has now been peer reviewed and is scheduled for publication on June 18 in the Rocky Mountain Mason. At that time I'll post a blog with the paper and explain the details of which parts of the inscription are to be taken literally and which are not.
Kruger’s book is a whole lot about nothing. His academic analysis of the cultural impact of the KRS sheds zero new light on the artifact. I attended his lecture at the U of M with a couple of Ohman Family members who were not very impressed when I had to correct him a couple of times on basic facts he had wrong. Only his peers found his “cultural impact” findings interesting and it was inappropriate to smugly intertwine his findings around his obvious belief the stone is a fake. His book will quickly fade into obscurity like so many others who tried their best to forward their negative beliefs without any facts to support them.
Why shouldn’t we take the “Year 1362” date at face value when it has been demonstrated by the weathering and the inscription itself that are consistent with that time period? Incidentally, another KRS debunker has tried to use the numbers to try and make a modern Masonic connection. They added the individual numbers and came up with a total of 33. This actually is one way the carver cleverly used the numbers in the Kabalistic tradition. Unfortunately, this person got the number 33 by ignoring two of the numbers within the text. In fact, the first full paragraph of the inscription contains the following numbers: 8 + 22 = 30 + 2 (Shelters?) = 32 + 1 “…one day’s journey North from this stone.” = 33. This exact sequence of numbers follows the York Rite Select Master degree perfectly and serves as the basis for the Scottish Rite degrees which are a total of 32, plus the 33rd degree which is honorary. This is only one example of the voluminous evidence I present as part of the paper.
I also have to say I like your term “un-hoaxable” for the KRS because it really is true. No one in the world could have carved this inscription as the Dotted R has clearly proved.
Hi Steve, (and Scott, and Wm Mann). I'm most curious to know about the Hooked X being used as an "a" in the early 1700's. We know of the Hooked X being used as such in 1362 on the KRS and around 1400 or so in association with the East Coast runestones...then we see a variant of it at Rosslyn Chapel around 1450ish, and then it shows up in the Larsson Papers in the late 1800's.
ReplyDeleteYet, incredibly, I find online a summery comment as ignorant as this in a rundown of the KRS: "This runic script probably developed in the 18th and 19th century and it must have been familiar to the Swedish emigrant who carved the Kensington inscription in the 19th century."
I think some people are as desperate to miss-define the Hooked X and its extended place in history as some are to miss-define the Dotted R and its place in history. Though certain skeptics would prefer to think that the Hooked X has no connections to the Knights Templar, I think the variant Hooked X at Rosslyn Chapel helps to answer that question, without much doubt at all.
But unless I am mistaken, the Hooked X shows up in other sources, too, perhaps even at times symbolizing Christianity in general, besides specifically representing the Knights Templar/Freemasonry/Masons. Do you know whether or not this is correct? And, do you know the circumstances of the use of the Hooked X in the 1700's. I can't help but wonder what sort of entity or group would be using the Hooked X at this particular time, which could tell us more about the gap between the building of Rosslyn Chapel and the Larsson Papers.
As someone who believes wholeheartedly in the genuineness of the KRS, I wish to say that I do also believe it is very likely that the post-Templars may have been involved with more than one of the several expeditions that came far inland to Minnesota; but more importantly, I think the Templars were involved with explorations and surveying and land up-taking attempts in this region even before the placing of the KRS--back farther to a time when they were active Crusaders. In essence, I think it is likely that they had an interest and stake in this region well before the KRS came into play.
When I think about who may have created the Norse Code-stone I found last year, I think of either an end-of-Viking-age King, or the Catholic Church...by which I mean the Fighting Monks attached to the Church at the hip. There is one thing I'm very certain about in my mind, and that's that whoever it was that attempted to survey and take up land connected with the Norse Code-stone I found, that entity was quite powerful, powerful enough to believe in the future of a portion of landscape that would eventually become part of America...and from such a great distance away!
An aside to Wm Mann: I read your new book, with the forward by Scott. I would like to say: St. Anthony without God's permission, cannot reveal anything lost across the great divide. The thirsty will not be satisfied, until the Man on the Donkey comes along with water and wisdom and knowledge to satisfy their thirst. The meek will inherit the earth and what's buried in the earth will soon be revealed.
I can’t help fantasizing, believing even, that the Lord is going to show me Templar treasure...why not? Happy trails to us, as we move forward to spectacular day!
-Gunn Sinclair,
(Born on January 17th)
Scott,
ReplyDeleteYour readers and/or followers may or may not be aware that you have kindly accepted an invitation to participate in Andy White's "Forbidden Archaeology" class this fall at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC.
Andy has set up a "Go Fund Me" campaign to raise money to fund Scott's travel to Columbia as well as for hotel accommodations during his stay.
If anyone would like to know more and/or donate to this cause, you may do so at: https://www.gofundme.com/296qhtf8
Mike Morgan
Mike,
DeleteYou are correct and I look forward to sharing new information with Andy's students. Andy is known as a staunch skeptic about many of the subjects I have researched, but I give him a lot of credit for facilitating what I know will be an interesting and open exchange. I think both sides will learn from each other and by inviting me share my work and discussing it in a respectful and objective manner can only lead to a better understanding about controversial subject matter for everyone.
I think this could be a very positive, watershed moment and I appreciate any and all who wish to support it.
I found this attached article extremely interesting as it seems to back up much of what Scott has been claiming about Pre-Columbian exploration in North America. Now there is DNA evidence also! I just had to share this here.
ReplyDeletehttp://spangenhelm.com/norse-contact-native-americans-viking-age/
Browsing through Mann's new book some more, I noticed in Tenier's "painting of St. Anthony and St. Paul Fed by Ravens," that the X made by their crossed walking sticks has a human skull positioned as a potential hook of that X. Just above the X and skull is the statue of Christ hanging on the cross. The painting is divided in half darkness, half light.
ReplyDeleteCould these gentlemen be discussing the merits of Christianity with the Hooked X religion (Jesus Bloodline) added in, versus Christianity with Jesus as risen from the dead? Will they search for worldly treasure or spiritual treasure? Is the Templar treasure worth seeking out, or is all vanity when not connected to the risen Christ?
I believe, too, that there is Templar treasure to be discovered. But what, and when, will be the circumstances of its discovery? (Only the Man on the donkey knows....)
- Gunn
Gunn,
DeleteI can assure these people did NOT believe in a "risen" Christ. They knew Jesus/Yeshua was fully human as they had already been inside his family tomb in Talpiot. Di you ever stop to consider that maybe part of the "treasure" are his, and her, physical remains? According to the archaeologists who excavated tomb, two off ossuaries had been moved with some of the bones missing.
You can probably guess which two they reportedly were...
Scott, Christ was/is fully human, described as having the same temptations as all humans, and I honestly have never considered that part of any treasure would be His physical remains. My belief system doesn't even allow for a bizarre scene involving Christ's bones in a box, since I also believe many witnesses saw Him after His resurrection...several hundred people saw Him ascend into the sky. His physical body went straight up out of this world, so His bones are gone from earth in that conversion. We will all undergo this conversion, when our spirits are separated from our bodies.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a radical approach. Most Christians believe this, and I seriously question whether rank-and-file Crusaders thought their "cause to the death" involved a Savior's bones rather than a risen Savior. We need to remember that Christ was conceived immaculately, and this Model would not become carnal in the sense of sexual relations. He was conceived outside the usual manner of human conception, and He remained celibate, is my belief.
I don't necessary doubt that some in the Templar leadership may have believed in a Jesus Bloodline, but for anyone to do so would have been very awkward...pretending to be Christians, but living the lives of hypocrites, not believing in a risen Savior.
No hard feelings...just a vast difference of opinion on the subject.
- Gunn
Gunn,
DeleteThe Templar leadership didn't believe in the Yeshua/MM bloodline, it was reality. They were pretending to Roman Christian, but in reality were practicing true Christian values that had nothing to due with myths like immaculate conception. I know you believe this, but you can't apply beliefs to a real world historical or scientific investigation. Science and religion are mutually exclusive I'm afraid.
For us to have a productive discussion we have to decide are we talking about faith or real life. No disrespect intended, but I prefer real life.
Gunn-
DeleteBravo. Well put & I'm in total agreement. I love Scott to the proverbial moon and back. I respect his expertise as a geologist & undoubtedy trust his findings on the KRS etc... But as far as Christ /MM bloodline? Can't go there. I've conversed w Scott in regards to it but just can't wrap my head around that one. I listened, I heard but my beliefs are too rooted for me to venture outside my faith.
Kindly & many blessings to you for your defense in our "risen" Savior, Jesus!
Arlene
Hi Scott-
DeleteAs a scientist I can understand your difficulty at the crossroad of science & faith. You say reality is the Yeshua/MM bloodline. Gunn, myself believe that the reality is Christ was risen! No bones!
Respectfully
Arlene
Thank you, Arlene. Scott, I know you won't like hearing this, but I think it's highly improper to suggest that persons believing in the Jesus Bloodline were practicing true Christian values. Where does spirituality and salvation come in? What is the spiritual belief system if one believes in physical bones, but not in a risen Christ? Seriously. I say this because most Christians, including me, believe that speaking of a Jesus Bloodline is, in fact, slanderous to Jesus Himself, and in actuality, extremely sacrilegious.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Scott, one cannot really separate "real life" from faith. Many Christians across the globe experience "real life" in greater measure because of their faith. You won't like hearing this either, but you cannot put an "either/or" emphasis on the two, as though to split them. Living a Christian life can certainly be living a real life...and with God helping. We may receive blessings in this real life by believing in a very real, risen Savior.
I don't where you got the idea that science and religion are mutually exclusive. This is just not the case. For instance, I believe in God and I also believe that God put the world and earth on course to develop through the ages by means of evolution, which of course is science based. God created the earth, and geology and you, too, Scott--with a redeemable spirit.
My intentions are to wish you well, Scott, but I'm afraid for you because of what you and others have brought into the KRS discussion. However, I would like for God to have mercy on you since you're still learning. I choose to pray for you, still, and I envision you as a future Christian, believing in the full power of God the Father, through His immaculate Son, Jesus, for there is only one mediator between God and mankind, and that is through our risen Savior.
So then, we must be saved, and not through works--or through any proposed DNA, but by FAITH, lest anyone might boast of God's free salvation; yes, to all who will believe in Him and His "physically-risen" Son.
In the end, believing in Jesus' bones or in a personal bloodline--no matter how "holy," will not get one through the narrow gate, and for some reason, I don't think Knights Templar, en-mass, were so foolish with their "real lives."
Thanks for hearing me out. At least you now know one main reason why some of your theories associated with the KRS will continue to cause you to catch a lot of flak.
-Gunn
Gunn/Arlene,
DeleteI think we are going to have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one. I have no intention of trying to persuade either of you to accept the science and facts that conflict with your beliefs. For me to try and do so would be a waste of all of our time. The same is true for you to try and convince me. Incidentally, believing in a fully human Jesus, bones and all, doesn't have any bearing on the existence of Deity or God. One can believe in God and not believe in a "risen" Jesus. I hope this makes sense.
At this point, it also doesn't serve any purpose to interject faith into the KRS discussion with regard to the Templars. Their leadership believed they were direct bloodline ancestors of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and mine and others research on the Talpiot Tomb is consistent with that premise. I'm fully aware that many people reject my thesis on theological grounds. That's fine, but it is why science and faith indeed are mutually exclusive. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point as well.
In any case, it's all good.
Amen to that Scott. What a wonderful World it would be if men could do just that, as we do, agree to disagree! But I'm w you on this one Gunn! Your words immensely impress me. And Scott...you're an awesome man, a scientist who has taught me a great deal. My thirst for knowledge, of any kind, still tugs at my 65 yr old bones & I thank God for guys like u. And I'm thankful that thru Judy Johnson we became acquainted. But when it comes to faith...I will not waiver! There IS but ONE mediator between God & man, & it is, "I, Jesus Christ. No one gets to the Father but thru me. I am the Alpha, the Omega...the beginning, the end. That whomever believeth in me shall not perish but have eternal life!" I guess we'll all know the truth one day. And if u ask me, it'll be sooner than later. Now back to the issues central to this blog.....Have the Tucson Lead Artifacts ever been on display?
ReplyDeleteHave a great weekend, my fiends!
PS- OMG...."FRIENDS"....not fiends! Lol! That's too darn funny! Dang spellcheck!
ReplyDeleteI understand where you're coming from, but in the case of the Templars, it's pretty hard to separate the science of their history from the history of their faith. They go hand-in-hand, which is why the discussion could and should involve all aspects of the Templars, including their faith.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with you that one can believe in a physical, historical Jesus, and not believe in God. (Even the devils believe, and tremble.) But, honestly, I think the Templars not only believed in a physical Jesus, but also that He arose from the dead. Otherwise, there would be a glaring, missing element in their "Christian" theology.
I won't belabor the religious aspects, but they're difficult to separate out in a discussion of very religious people.
As an aside, I studied Tenier's painting of Saints Anthony and Paul being fed by ravens some more, and one thing that strikes me is that both men are sitting in the dark side of the art masterpiece. They are being fed by God out of the light side, though they are lost in darkness. We recall that God's people were fed manna on their journey of being lost for so very long.
In the painting, the Saints' walking sticks form an X, and at the upper right side is a human skull, which reminds one of the symbol of the skull and crossbones. But, this is all positioned in the darkness. Why? I think the answer is because the pursuit of a hooked X using a human skull (possibly signifying a bloodline, if you are correct) was then, and is now, considered by Christians, "Children of the Light, in the Light," to be a lost cause.
So, Tenier's artwork may be showing the difference between following after a dark and vain pursuit--that being a consideration of a Jesus Bloodline, and/or possible treasure...or, following a pursuit more suitable as a walk on the light side, which could be construed as meaning a more mentally and spiritually balanced life, with more happiness. Who wants to be lost in the darkness, anyway?
As for treasure, God knows exactly where everything is buried, and He is the boss of hidden treasure. God likes to hide important things and then have them unearthed in His own timing, and always, always, for His own glory. (But, it is an honor to search things out.)
- Gunn
Gunn,
DeleteCan we please move on from the theological pontifications? You've made it abundantly clear what your faith is. It's becoming boring and does nothing to further the discussion that is the subject of this blog post.
Thank you.
Using "we" to speak for science here is a little over the top. Your templer theory has no consensus to build a theory and to interchange yourself with science is far fetched. If you want consensus to build a theory than it is up to you to build consensus via peer reviewed journals and other consensus building methods. If your book has not reached the scientific community (which it clearly hasn't) than it is up to you pursue other methods in geology, anthropology, linguistics, and history...that is science!
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteApparently you haven't been staying current with my research. First, the various aspects related to the inscription were investigated and publish in my academic peer reviewed book, "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence." Second, two of my recent papers related to the KRS have been published in peer reviewed journals. My Hooked X/Tau Cross paper was published in April in the latest Midwest Epigraphic Society journal, and my Ritual Code paper was published last week in the Rocky Mountain Mason journal.
Lastly, if the soft-science academic peer reviewed journal process is so wonderful, then why is it that process has failed miserably in so many instances such as the KRS, the Bat Creek Stone and the Tucson Lead artifacts? These are scientific “lay-ups” yet the process you covet so dearly cannot reach the obvious correct conclusion. Without trying to passionately plead your case from the standpoint of your beliefs in the process, tell me specifically the facts as to why these artifacts are not genuine. I don’t want equivocations or an attempt to turn this back onto me, tell us the facts that academia has found that supports their belief these are modern.
Can you do that?
You may have noted my absence, for better or worse. My quandary in guarding my keystrokes is in how to respond to such a porky as above. When that response can only be that you sir are a liar, there is no more discussion. With that then,
DeleteCheers,
Lesley
My dear Lesley,
DeleteFor someone who thinks they are as clever as you obviously do, is calling me "a liar" is the best you can do?
Are you claiming that I'm lying about the peer-reviewed articles I've just had published? If so, then prove it.
With that then...
Wow...that's a pretty strong accusation. Lesley would you be willing to share the information you found that points to your statement that Scott lied? I'd be very interested in knowing what you found that supports such a blunt hit on Scott's reputation. I know there's some who disagree, as most scientists do on subjects, but I cannot remember when someone so blatantly attacked another's character. Thanx Arlene
DeleteArlene,
DeleteHistorically on this blog, Lesley has been quick to accuse, but slow to support his usually subtle personal slurs. While this is more brazen banter for Lesley, it's nothing more than a continuation of a systematic policy debunkers use when they cannot refute the facts. First, they attack the process with the old "peer-reviewed academic journal" B.S. When that fails, they then resort to personally attacking the credibility of the messenger.
Ol' Lesley is now circling the wagons to come up with a clever response. Although, I wouldn't be shocked if he punts this time as he now knows I actually had the cards after calling my bluff.
Time to deal a new hand Lesley, and hope for better cards next time.
Scott,
Delete"Scientific 'lay-ups'"??? The term you want is "Scientific slamdunks". BTW I showed this reply to a couple of friends and they said "Sure, send it." So by your standards, it's been peer-reviewed!
XOXOXO!
Gretchen,
DeleteSince the days of my doing slam-dunks are long past, I again metaphorically resort to what any knowledgeable basketball fan understands; "lay-ups" because they are much easier.
So, are there any other personal insults you care to hurl my way or is four in a row enough for one day? Sorry, I’m only publishing 3 of 4 to save you some embarrassment.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteHow many Hooked X's have been discovered to date in the United States? Do you consider them all to be related to each other or do they represent different things at each location? Do some appear to be older than others? I am new to this but I find it fascinating.
Anonymous,
DeleteThere are 5 rune stones in North America that incorporate the Hooked X symbol for “a.” The Kensington Rune Stone (KRS), the three Spirit Pond Rune Stones and the Narragansett Rune Stone. The factual evidence from multiple disciplines has conclusively proven the KRS and the Spirit Pond Rune Stones are authentic and self-dated to 1362 (KRS) and 1401-1402 on the SPRS.
The Narragansett Rune Stone is more complicated. The inscription carved into the multiple ton sized meta-graywacke glacial erratic boulder does showed advanced weathering. However, I have not been able to find suitable weathering control samples to perform any relative-age weathering studies to quantify the age of the carvings. Despite the claims of Henrik Williams about his doubts about the medieval age for the inscription, in reality he has no clue what the inscription says as it is likely a secret coded runic inscription we may never be able to decipher. By repeatedly ignoring the secret coded alphabets recently discovered in Iceland (see my earlier blog) and shared with professor Williams by Stephen DiMarzo, this shows a continuation of the mandate in Sweden to reject any evidence that might support authenticity.
While the presence of the Hooked X is strong evidence of its likely medieval origin, we still need to find open-minded and objective runic scholars to be able to definitively answer the authenticity question of the Narragansett inscription. Unfortunately, given the present state of academia in this and related disciplines that is not likely to happen in the near future.
"Unfortunately, given the present state of academia in this and related disciplines that is not likely to happen in the near future." That is unfortunate...sounds quite like our government these days. With that said, how do these 5 rune stone "Hooked X's" relate to the singular one you found at the site in Westfond, Ma? Does that change the meaning of it? Obviously it can't represent an "A" can it?
ReplyDeleteSo where does the singular Hooked X you found in Massachusetts at the knight stone fit in with these others? It isn't an "A" is it?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
DeleteI forgot to mention the Hooked X at Westford as it's so new I simply forgot. This Hooked X appears to stand alone as if an artist were signing their work. In this case the Westford Sword. In fact, the symbol stands alone very nicely as a symbolic representation of the ideology of the Monotheistic Dualism that I wrote about in my Hooked X book.
In this case, if that's what it is, it works perfectly as a stand alone symbol.
... so if an expert runologist disagrees with you (you not being an expert runologist), they are afraid, and closed-minded and ignorant... Could it be that your analysis of KRS is just wrong?
ReplyDeleteRaparee,
DeleteI've worked very closely for 5 years with Henrik Williams, Michael Barnes and Dick Nielsen, arguably the three top experts in the world, and would argue I understand the runes of the KRS as well as anyone else and were all in agreement about the 14th century consistency of the inscription in 2005. It wasn't until personal matters and money entered the picture that Nielsen and Williams suddenly changed their views. I would argue this doesn't mean neither me, or they, were wrong. I would argue that yet again, problems of the human condition, such as ego and control issues in this case, have plagued the experts who have weighed in on the KRS. You may want to read my earlier blog about the academic fraud committed by these two.
While it is possible I could be wrong, the overwhelming consistency of the facts from multiple disciplines all line up perfectly. Therefore, I am confident the KRS is authentic.
So there's a runestone that Williams doesn't understand because you assert it "might" be a code? You say you understand runes as well as anyone, but you don't actually read them or know Swedish, do I have that straight?
DeleteDid you ever give Nielsen's attorney the accounting of book profits he said you were legally obligated to provide? Do you post letters from your attorney on this site to give your side of the story?
You refer to "human nature" and so forth but you might as well say "the hectic pace of modern life". It gives the impression that you're trying to avoid saying something you've been advised by counsel might be libelous.
XOXOXO!
Hi Gretchen,
DeleteWell, aren’t you full of piss and vinegar on this Labor Day weekend? Let me be just as candid with my responses.
You have that right, Williams and his predecessors had no idea what they are dealing with and because of their arrogance, tried to make it go away saying essentially, “Since we can’t figure it out, it must be fake.” Yet here we are over a century later trying to clean up the mess Henrik and his pals made. As far as runes go, yes I can certainly read them. I don’t need to know Swedish; Williams and his cronies have translated it with reasonable accuracy. However, now he and Nielsen had the gall to think they can make certain physical features within the inscription magically appear, and others disappear based on an imaging study they refuse to share with anyone else. Their plan being so they could control the message and the discussion about authenticity. It was a cute little plan that went horribly wrong.
First, I don’t need to provide any information to Nielsen or his “attorney” since he never paid his half of the costs to produce the book in the first place. That amount was $37,500 that I paid for him. He promised to pay it back, but never did. Did it ever occur to you that Nielsen posted these bogus letters, written by a co-worker who ended up commiserating with me after I told him the truth about the situation, to try an cover up his own dishonesty? Let’s face it Gretchen, if there was anything to Dick’s claim he would have filed a legitimate lawsuit to recover any money he was truly owned. That never happened; is the reason obvious or do you need further explanation?
My dear Gretchen, both Williams and the now deceased Nielsen, knew exactly what they were doing and there is no grounds for a libel lawsuit since what I’ve published is 100% true. Williams’ meek response to my blog posting was to go whine on a dishonest debunker blog site that I’d bet you’re a regular contributor to. If there were grounds for a libel lawsuit I would have heard something by now. The silence is deafening don’t you think?
BTW; yes, I’m quite certain the inscription is largely allegory and code and I highly doubt Professor Williams has any clue about such Masonic matters.
Scott, you promised to do a blog about the article you did for Rocky Mountain Mason Magazine after it was released on June 18th. Is there a time period you have to wait for before you can post it to your blog?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
DeleteI just heard from the editor the article was published on the 21st. I was waiting for a hard copy, but now that I've received confirmation that it's out I'll go ahead a post a blog. Give me a day or two...
Scott,
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting the photograph of the monument that was included as part of the weathering studies of Maine grave markers. As there might be folks who are interested in your blog, but have no interest in others, it seems appropriate to show them the statement that you are responding to.
Mr. Harold Edwards wrote a comment dated 29 June 2016:
"On pages 38 to 46 in “The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence” (2006) Wolter publishes his study of the slate tombstones. He claims that he analyzed the tombstone for an Abner Lowell who died in 1815. From online genealogies it appears Abner Lowell died in 1858. These can be unreliable but the history of Kennebec County, Maine which contains the cemetery at Hallowell has him a prominent shipbuilder active from 1816-1825. Who knows the who, when, and where the samples attributed to Abner Lowell came from? Mr. Wolter’s work goes down hill from here."
I find it distasteful for Mr. Edwards to raise a point of argument using a reference from tombstone inscription as his literary sword. If Mr. Edwards was troubled that greatly by what appeared to be a discrepancy, then a discrete question in a private correspondence would have been able to answer his question. To use the symbol of a life lost, a child of only eighteen months of age, whose Mother grieved for him, as a weapon to cast aspersions on another is entirely undignified.
Scott, your use of the Abner Lowell's name as a placeholder for the child was respectful considering that the upper part of the monument was broken off and not available. In fact, your use of the father's name is a convention that one finds quite commonly when worn inscriptions and broken monuments prevent the determination of who is interred.
Had Mr. Edwards truly been concerned about the seeming incorrect attribution on your part of whose monument it was, he would, out of respect for the person that he was presumably nobly defending, do his absolute best in making a determination of whose monument you had studied. Yet, and after only a brief search to satisfy his conscience, Mr. Edwards took this young child’s grave marker and turned it into a weapon for his own bidding.
Mr. Edwards tells us that he found an Abner Lowell, found his tombstone, established that he was a prominent ship builder (which he was) and that he died in 1858 – yet couldn’t find any person connected to the fractured tombstone.
So Google this term: “Abner Lowell, Hallowell, died 1858” and in the FOURTH entry down (Margay-Leah-Roberge- User Trees) there is a genealogical record which provides sufficient detail to identify Greenliefe Lowell as the young child.
Furthermore, on page 451 of the Internet available book written by Delmar Rial Lowell titled “The Historic Genealogy of the Lowells of America from 1639 to 1899” one can find the record for Greenliefe Lowell, the ninth child of Abner (1769-1858) [241] and first wife Hannah (Sawyer) Lowell (1770-1822), “b. in Hallowell, Me. Feb., 1814, d. Aug., 1815.”
Let’s all let this young child, whose name was Greenliefe Lowell, have some peace.
Patrick,
DeleteThank you for adding some clarity to the mystery of this tombstone. I wondered at the time what the child’s name was, but saw many young deceased children in the Hallowell cemetery as it was all too common for families to lose young children at that time.
My Edwards comments were forwarded to me and I chose not to post them as they were nothing more than personal attacks against me and my KRS research. Mr. Edwards has no interest in getting the facts straight. If he did, he could have simply contacted me to clarify the situation with the Lowell tombstone. This is about a personal grudge he now is actively pursuing after not having any contact with me for almost thirteen years when he was an employee for a short time. This behavior is truly bizarre, sad, and a little creepy too.
If Mr. Edwards was interested in serious inquiry about my work on the KRS he could read my books and contact me here for clarification. His actions are intentionally designed to try and further cloud the already murky academic aspects of the artifact.
"This is about a personal grudge he now is actively pursuing after not having any contact with me for almost thirteen years when he was an employee for a short time. This behavior is truly bizarre, sad, and a little creepy too. "
DeleteScott, let's apply a little scientific method here. What's the common denominator in all the cases of people having problems with you?
XOXOXO!
Gretchen,
DeleteWhatever the reason is, don’t you find it strange that all these supposed smart people are so incensed with a lowly undergrad like me? Fact is, they haven’t been able to refute my scientific facts and have resorted to making up their own, and personally attack me to try and undermine my findings. I understand why Nielsen was so obsessed, and I also understand Williams’ desire to control anything related to runes, but Edwards’ actions are especially bizarre and creepy.
That's my best guess Gretchen; why don’t you tell us what you think? I'm sure this will be good...
I'm posting answers to questions about the KRS calcites here that were posted on another blog site so readers can refer to the above photographs of the calcite areas in question. A guy named Bart asked the following questions directed at me: "You claim that the soil where the KRS was found is on the basic side of the pH scale. Higher pH would neutralize acid produced in organic decomposition and would protect the calcite from being dissolved. Then you claim that the type of soil and its pH would actually allow calcite to accumulate on the surface of the KRS. You don't provide any references or even claim to have done any soil testing yourself. My question... If the soil on Runestone Hill would allow for calcite accumulation like you suggest, then why aren't any of the runes actually filled in and covered over by new calcite if this is the case? Why are the runes in the calcite just as clear as the runes in the rest of the stone? Certainly the face of the stone and the calcite would have weathered differently in any environment if left for 500 years?"
ReplyDeleteFirst Bart, I did test the near-surface soil at the KRS discovery site and it was indeed on the alkaline side of neutral. Second, the secondary calcite that has formed on the KRS is on the back side and likely took thousands of years to develop during post-glacial times. We simply don't know for sure. Remember, the KRS was found inscription side down so water percolating down and around the KRS likely wouldn't have come into contact with the inscription thereby explaining the lack of any secondary calcite anywhere on the face side. Third, the runes in the hydrothermal calcite are not as clear as those cut into the meta-graywacke. They show a minor amount of weathering as would be expected in that environment over roughly 500 years. Yes, the relative weathering of the hydrothermal calcite and the Meta-greywacke are different.
Lastly, I find it silly for you to put more weight on the comments of an anthropologist/archaeologist who is not an geologist, and who has spent zero time examining the artifact, than someone like me who has. Based on your history of commentary the reasons are simple; a predisposed negative opinion about the KRS and an apparent lack of respect for my expertise and past work.
Is there anything else Bart?
Judi/Bart,
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the question of secondary calcite and pH conditions in the soil at the Ohman Farm, I refer you to the photos I just added to the photo gallery. On June 15, 2016, I spent the day with Darwin Ohman and Lloyd Flaaten examining stone holes and studying the prevalence of limestone and secondary calcite deposits on glacial stones at the Ohman Farm. I spent considerable time looking at stones in the large rock pile next to the small pond roughly 100 yards west of the KRS discovery site. Darwin Ohman confirmed the rock pile was created by his grandfather, Olof Ohman, and his uncles over several decades during the annual chore of clearing glacial stones that continually are brought to the surface by frost action.
The net result of my examination is that roughly 10% of the rocks in the pile were limestone and roughly 33% of the other rocks (mostly granite and gneiss) contained minor to very heavy secondary calcite deposits. These deposits are identical to the secondary calcite deposits present on the back side of the Kensington Rune Stone.
The consistent presence of limestone and secondary calcite is in direct conflict with the erroneous claims of Professor Mike Michlovic of acidic soils conditions at the Ohman Farm. In fact, the opposite is true and the claim these conditions would cause hydrothermal calcite on the face side of the KRS to dissolve away if buried for 500 years has no basis in fact.
Judi (this is a response to questions made on another blog),
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question about why there are no secondary calcite deposits on the KRS runes when it seems the soil conditions at the Ohman Farm are ripe for their development. The short answer is wherever the original slab of rock was discovered by the KRS party, prior to the inscription being carved (presumably in the Kensington area), the position of the rock and local pH conditions were conducive only for secondary calcite to form on what is now the glacially striated back side of the stone (see above photo #2). Later, after the inscription was carved and, presumably, shallowly buried by the KRS party, the local soil conditions were not conducive for secondary calcite to form on the inscription side which was facing down, but did allow for minor chemical disintegration of the runes carved into the millions-of-years-old hydrothermal calcite (see above photo #1).
Calcite is arguably the easiest mineral to identify in the field. With a hardness of 3 out of 10 on the Mohs hardness scale, it can be easily scratched with a knife and bubbles violently when dilute hydrochloric (HCl) acid is applied.
In short, the physical conditions of the various aspects of the stone tells us what it has experienced over its geological and historical past with humans. Too often, people try apply what they believe the conditions were and then argue what should be present on the stone instead of letting the stone tell us what it has experienced. When those physical conditions are consistent with the environment(s) it is associated with then we can arrive at a defendable conclusion.
At some point we have to accept the facts as well as the implications that go along with them. I see a reticence on the part of many people with predisposed beliefs to accepting these facts and this is why I get frustrated with some of the comments I receive.
Scott:
ReplyDeleteThis is Bart. You have invited me here to further a conversation started on another website. Before I start, I want to say that I am not here to debunk anything. All I want is a better understanding of information pertaining to the KRS. I've always been the type of guy to ask "Why?". For me to be comfortable in my own knowledge, I need to understand how things work. So, in the civil discussion I hope that follows I will be referencing the work of others and probably asking you to further explain your own point of view. If you disagree with the people I reference, that is fine and welcomed as long as you explain where they have it wrong and how you have it correct. Please be patient with me. Rather than squeeze all my questions into one big chunk I'd like to take them more-or-less one at a time so we don't spin off subject. Here goes....
1. The runes carved in the calcite on the face of the KRS....
First a little build up so that readers of this blog can follow along. I know you're already familiar with this, so please bear with me, Scott.
In a 2010 research paper written by Michlovic that I stumbled across lately, the author believed the KRS was likely a hoax due in part to how fresh the runes carved in the calcite on the face appear to be. He claimed that the soil the KRS was found in would have been acidic. Why? Because, as the story goes, Runestone Hill was woodland being cleared for farming at the time the KRS was discovered. In fact, the KRS is believed to have been found wrapped in tree roots. This is important because high levels of vegetation and trees would mean that a high level of degrading organic material would be deposited over the area all year long. Constantly decomposing organic matter would infuse the soil with acid that in a geologically short time should theoretically dissolve the calcite on the face of the KRS and obscure or remove the runes carved there.
Michlovic soil tested different areas in Runestone Park. At the discovery site he found the soil to be on the basic side. At first glance, this appears to be the end of the dispute. But, consider this... Runestone Hill was cleared of vegetation more than 100 years ago now. Very little organic matter is deposited there now, and without dense growth, erosion has stripped away some of the top soil. This same researcher soil tested an area a short distance away from the discovery site inside the tree canopy cover and found this spot to have an acidic soil.
Michlovic then reviewed Newton Winchell's work. He found that Winchell was also uncomfortable with how fresh the calcite runes looked. Winchell thought they should have shown extreme weathering possibly to the point of destruction after being buried for 500 years. The KRS was discovered in 1898. Winchell first saw the stone in 1909 (I think). In the 10 years between its discovery and when Winchell first saw it the KRS had spent the majority of that time face down in Ohman's granary or as a footstep into the granary depending on which story is true. Either way, Winchell thought that the runes in the calcite were probably as fresh as the runes on the rest of the stone when it was discovered, and that whatever minor weathering was evident when he first inspected it was probably due to the stone's exposure as a doorstep.
Bart,
DeleteI appreciate your willingness to tone down the rhetoric and keep this civil. Letting us all know your identity is proper etiquette IMO and I appreciate that. First, the runes carved into the hydrothermal calcite are not “fresh.” They exhibit a relatively minor amount of disintegration making them somewhat harder to decipher. This was likely due to some exposure to periodic, mildly acidic groundwater while in the ground over the past 500-plus years. Keep in mind that the presence of the limy till below the relatively thin soil horizon in the Kensington area will neutralize the pH of meteoric water very quickly thus mitigating the corrosive aspects of acidic solutions that had been present as Michlovic suggests. The fact the disintegration of the hydrothermal calcite was very minor tells us the groundwater moving through the soil was not highly acidic in the near-surface environment.
Second, the presence of varying amounts of secondary calcite on a high percentage of glacial erratic rocks and boulders (and the KRS) is direct evidence the soil conditions on the Ohman Farm were dominantly on the alkaline side of neutral. Let’s make sure we have the facts straight about Winchell which Michlovic has confused. For clarity, I invite you and the readers to review the pages from Winchell’s report on the KRS calcite shown above. Newton Winchell was not at all uncomfortable with the minor degree of calcite weathering and concluded it was consistent with the artifact having been buried for over 500 years. This is the same conclusion I drew independently 90 years later.
In a 1949 interview that is easy to find on-line, Edward Ohman, clarified the question about the rumor and said the KRS was never used as a doorstep; it was kept inside the granary. This means the minor weathering of the calcite, and the mica, happened while it was in the ground. With regard to the discovery, there is nobody who has seriously questioned the veracity of the discovery as there were three first-hand witnesses present at the moment the stone was unearthed who have signed written affidavits or letters.
For Michlovic to draw the conclusion the KRS is a hoax based solely on intermittent pH tests is inappropriate at best and disingenuous at worst. To draw his conclusion required complete dismissal of the voluminous geological, runological, linguistic, dialectic and historical evidence. In my opinion, this is inappropriate behavior by a clearly bias university professor.
Questions:
ReplyDeleteA. If you, Scott Wolter, were asked to investigate the KRS for the first time, would Michlovic's and path of investigation seem logical to you?
B. I know you also performed some soil tests in Runestone Park. Did you test just the discovery site, or did you test a wooded area too? If not, why didn't you feel it necessary?
C. You offer photos of a pile of stones on the Ohman property, many of which are covered with calcite. You assert that this proves that calcite can form on the Ohman property, and so finding calcite on the KRS is actual evidence of authenticity . But, is this a valid comparison? Your comparison stones were cleared from bare farmland after frost heaves, and not from wooded areas. You've already proven that soil in the bare areas of the Ohman property can have a high pH and can promote calcite formation. But, the KRS was discovered in a wooded area. How do you rectify this?
D. If we assume that you are correct that the KRS was resting in basic soil for 500 years, then the runes still should not look fresh. Instead, the runes should be caked over by newer calcite. From what I can tell (not trying to put words in your mouth) you are saying that because the KRS was buried face down, any new calcite would have formed on the back and not on the face. Can't calcite form on any surface of a buried stone due to the unique properties of water and capillary action?
E. Newton Winchell... You have used Winchell's opinions as support for your won ideas about the weathering of the KRS. It seems like you disagree with him on this aspect. What did Winchell not take into consideration here?
Thanks for your invitation to come here, your trust in me not to be springing a trap, your open exchange of ideas, and your patience for my layman's understanding (misunderstanding?) of your professional field.
Bart,
DeleteA. No; my investigation would begin as it did by performing a detailed examination of the artifact first. That examination could have made additional investigation unnecessary, such as determining the inscription was modern. That didn't happen, so it was appropriate to take the next step.
Once I had a complete understanding of all the geological aspects, I would then go into the field and document the various aspects related to site such as the geology, geomorphology, climate, soil type, vegetation, history, etc., and see if that data was consistent with the physical aspects already documented. That would be my approach.
It appears Michlovic started with a conclusion, the KRS is a hoax, and then went looking for evidence to support it. His data is inconsistent with the physical aspects of the stone so his conclusion cannot be valid.
B. I tested the discovery site area only as it was the only site that was germane to the stone in my opinion.
C. First, we don't know what the vegetation types were or how heavy they were at the discovery site. It's an assumption you can't make because we simply don't know. However, let's assume it was heavy. Because runes carved into the hydrothermal calcite showed minor degradation, we can conclude that acidic conditions at the discovery site were not sufficient to cause more severe degradation. Remember, our baseline data is the stone.
D. Theoretically, secondary calcite in glacial deposits tend to form on the bottom sides of rocks, especially those with a rounded shape. That the secondary calcite is on the back side of the KRS that "up" when discovered in 1898, this indicates that calcite likely formed before it was split down and carved. Therefore, the pH conditions over the 500-plus years at the site where it was found must have been roughly neutral, but likely fluctuated slightly above and below neutral thus producing the slight chemical weathering of the face side calcite and a lack of secondary calcite build-up on the underside over that time.
E. I am in complete agreement with Winchell who concluded that because of the relative lack of disintegration of the face side hydrothermal calcite, the stone must have been buried for 500-plus years. Winchell's deduction was perfectly reasonable and was consistent with my own deductions based on the geological conditions of the stone.
I hope this answers your questions Bart and again, I apologize for any confusion. Please note, my criticism was directed at Michlovic's methodology in the previous post, not you.
Scott Wolter
ReplyDeleteWas any sacred geometry used in the area the spirit pond rune stone's were found ?
Jacob,
DeleteThat's a good question and my initial answer is I don't know. I haven't been to the site for several years and wasn't looking out for it at the time.