It has been over a year now since Dick passed away and Pat's questions prompted me to recall my days working with Nielsen and our joint discovery of what Dick and I decided to call, "The Grail Code." Followers of our work might recall in 2002 I generated a microscopic photo-library of the entire inscription of the Kensington Stone that led to my documenting numerous previously unnoticed punch marks and short strokes made by the carver after the inscription was carved. Dick and my analysis of these anomalies led to several discoveries including the so-called "Grail Code" first noticed by Nielsen who mentioned it to me.
Dick was quite proud of this discovery and made sure we included it in the introduction of our 2006 book. You can imagine my surprise when his 2009 paper was published where he unconvincingly tried to make the Grail Code marks disappear using a low resolution 3D images generated during a study performed on the KRS in 2008. Dick had grown impatient with me for reasons I still do not understand and appeared driven to undermine everything he and I had discovered together. Regardless, this article, and others he wrote based on this 3D study, did nothing to undermine anything but his own credibility and positive legacy of the good work he did during his over 30 years researching the artifact.
Nielsen asserts in the article that there was "staining" caused by a silicon rubber material used during the making of four casts of the artifact. These claims are false and have nothing to do with the physical modifications made by the carver. Nielsen claims there are man made dots present where there are none while at the same time claiming man made dots do not exist when clearly they do. The evidence he put forth was in the form of photographs of such low resolution it was beneath him to have offered them. Let's start with the first letter in the Grail Code.
Here again Nielsen offers a very low resolution image trying to argue away a clear and distinct punch mark on the end of the lower right leg of the "r" rune.
Not only are the man made punch marks clear and obvious within the yellow circles in the images I generated in 2002, but the high resolution 3D microscopic images of the punch marks I took in 2011 clearly show their existence.
Nielsen then offers over century-old photographs known to have been retouched as evidence to try and prove no man made marks exist when they obviously do.
Here again, microscopic photographs taken in 2002, and high resolution 3D microscopic images taken in 2011, clearly show the existence of man made marks added to the character by the medieval carver.
The question is no longer if these modifications to the runes exist, the question now is did the carver intentionally try to encode the word "GRAL/Grail" within the inscription. We cannot know with any certainty, but based on the related evidence I have presented in my three books that is consistent with the Kensington inscription having been carved by a Cistercian monk in the 14th Century it's very likely he did. One thing I can assure the readers of this blog, in 2004 Richard Nielsen believed this to be true because he was the one who first offered the idea to me and insisted it be included in our 2006 book. I want to be sure Dick gets credit for this discovery even though he tried unsuccessfully to back-peddle on it.