Monday, January 24, 2022

Testing the Root Leaching Scars on the Kensington Rune Stone

In the summer of 2018, I finally got the chance to test the white root leaching "scars" on the back side of the Kensington Rune Stone.  Because of conflicting personalities, and likely fear of the results, the board of directors at the Runestone Museum would not allow me access to the core sample for this testing I had taken from the back side of the stone as part of my initial investigation in 2000 .  I had tried for nearly a decade to get the core to test the root leaching scars to prove my hypothesis that contact of the roots from the Aspen tree that reportedly were tightly gripping the artifact when Olof Ohman and his two sons felled the tree back in 1898.

The refreshing change in attitude in the board members of the Museum and the open-minded new Museum Director were the main reasons I was finally able to test the stone.  The other reason was having the support of Hollywood actor, Peter Stormare and Elroy Balgaard, who were filming a television series called, Secrets of the Viking Stone.  I appeared in multiple episodes of the two-season, twelve episode series as the scientific "go to guy " expert and suggested testing the root leaching as part of the show.  I explained that if my hypothesis was right and we were able to prove the white scars were caused by roots from the tree Olof cut down, which numerous first-hand witnesses said ranged in age from 25-30 years, then it would prove he could not have been involved in creating the artifact since he first came to America 19 years earlier.  

Peter and Elroy loved the idea and we performed the testing at the Materials Evaluation and Engineering laboratory in Plymouth, Minnesota.  The testing went smoothly and the results were conclusive.  I wrote this report about the testing a few days after we performed the work and Peter asked me if I would wait to publish it until the episode aired several months later.  Frankly, I forgot about the report until the other day when a friend reminded me about it and I decided to publish it here first.  Enjoy the report and I look forward to hearing your thoughts and questions. 


Kensington Rune Stone Root Leaching Core Sample Testing

By Scott F. Wolter P.G.

August 2, 2018

Introduction

The Kensington Rune Stone is an artifact that was discovered in September of 1898 by a Swedish immigrant farmer named Olof Ohman on his property while clearing trees with his two oldest sons, Olof Jr., who was 12 years old at the time, and Edward, who was 10.  After cutting off the roots around the base of a 25-30-year-old Aspen tree, according to six eyewitnesses, they used a winch to bring the tree down.[1]  Still entangled within the root under the trunk was a 202-pound stone they discovered had a long inscription carved in Scandinavian runes.  Controversial from the start, the inscription has long been considered a hoax with many accusing Olof Ohman of creating it.  Some alleging he carved the inscription and placed it under the tree as part of a clever hoax.

Geological, runological and historical research has generated voluminous data consistent with the artifact being an authentic Fourteenth Century artifact has dramatically undermined the hoax theories.  The current testing was performed on the top portion of the core sample taken from the back side of the artifact and addresses the surmised root leaching believed to have produced the two white-colored, undulating and branching lineations present on the stone.  Scholars have said the lineations were produced by active roots that pulled elements from minerals in the rock as food for the then young tree.  The process reportedly involves an acid produced by the roots, and fungus in the soil that leaches and depletes the dark colored “pigment” elements, believed to be iron (Fe) and magnesium (Mg), thereby producing the white lineations where the roots were in contact with the stone. 

Methodology

Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) was performed at Materials Engineering and Evaluation Inc. to document the overall quantity of various elements on the surface of the core sample.  Four (4) locations were selected in the non-root leached (dark) areas and four (4) locations were selected in the root leached (white) areas.  The bulk elemental data at all eight (8) locations was collected and interpreted upon completion of the examination.

Background Information

In 2000, the Kensington Rune Stone was brought to the laboratory of America Petrographic Services, Inc., where as part of the geological investigation a 1-1/4-inch diameter core sample was obtained from the back side of the artifact.  The location of the core was chosen to include a joint fracture, a discontinuous crack and the white root leaching where it branched into two roots. 

Figure 1: Two, white, roughly parallel, undulating and branching lineations trend across the glacially striated surface and down the glacial side of the stone. (Wolter, 2000) 

Figure 2: Close-up of the area (circled in yellow) where the 1-1/2” dimeter core sample was obtained.  (Wolter, 2000)



Figures 3 & 4: The white colored branching root leaching can be seen on the top of the core sample prior to removal (left).  A side view of the core sample after extraction (right). (Wolter, 2000/2000)

Once the core sample was extracted, the top ½” was cut off and another cut was made perpendicular to the top of the core creating a cross-sectional view of the root leaching.  In cross-section, the white root leaching extended a maximum of 1.5 mm into the metagraywacke and tapered in depth closer to the edges of approximately ½” wide lineation on the surface. 

This confirms the white lineations are not a geological feature of the metagraywacke and were created by a chemical reaction that cause the color change starting at the surface and then propagating to the maximum 1.5 mm depth.


Figure 5: A cross-sectional view of the top of the core sample shows the white root-leaching extends a maximum depth of roughly 1.5 mm and shallows toward the edges. A yellowish fracture runs running sub-vertically from the top surface is unrelated to the white lineation (5X).  (Wolter, 2000)

It has long been believed the white lineations were created by contact with roots of the tree the artifact was entangled within.  Those roots were described by witnesses at the time as being 3” wide and flattened from prolonged contact with the stone.[2]  Plant physiologists and soil scientists explained the white lineations were created by the combination of a fungus present in the soil and acid produced by young roots actively leaching various elements as nutrients from the soil and rock as food for the tree.  As the tree grows, the root system expands and bark forms and the active part of the root moves on.  Based on the white root leaching scars present on the back side of the stone the bark began to form around the roots when they were one-half inch wide during the early life of the tree.

The reason the root leaching is believed to be connected to same tree Olof Ohman and his two sons discovered the artifact under, and not a tree at some time in the distant past, is due to the fact the pattern of the root leaching matches the first-hand witness testimony and the three sketches of the roots and the stone made by Olof Ohman, Sam Olson, and Olof Ohman Jr.


Figures 6 & 7: Olof Ohman made this sketch on December 9, 1909, (left) and his neighbor Sam Olson made his drawing in March of 1910 (right).  Both drawing show the main root of the tree extending straight down into the ground along the split side of the stone with the inscription side down.  The secondary roots are shown extending across the back side of the stone and then down the far side and match the white lineations still present on the back of the Kensington Rune Stone. (Minnesota Historical Society)

 Figure 8: Olof Ohman Jr. made this sketch in a letter to his brothers Arthur and John on April 2, 1957.  This sketch roughly matches and is consistent with the sketches his father and Sam Olson drew nearly half a century earlier. (Courtesy of the Ohman Family)

To generate scientific data to support the supposition of the white lineations present on the back side of the Kensington Rune Stone elemental analysis using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) on the top surface was performed by Ryan Haase at Materials Evaluation and Engineering, Inc., on July 30, 2018.  The analysis was performed on a total of eight (8) locations on the top surface of the core, four in the dark areas and numbered 1, 2, 7 and 8, and four in the white areas 3, 4, 5 and 6.  The Runestone Museum in Alexandria, Minnesota, was kind enough to make the core sample available for testing.

Figure 9: This picture is the top surface of the core sample on the platform placed into the scanning electron microscope (SEM) for analysis.  Elemental scans were performed in eight locations, four in the dark areas (1, 2, 7 and 8) and four in the white areas (3, 4, 5 and 6).

Test Results

The results of the scans produced the following elements present at all eight locations: carbon (C), oxygen (O), iron (Fe), sodium (Na), magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), chlorine (Cl), potassium (K), calcium (Ca) and titanium (Ti).  The elements that produce dark color within the minerals that make up the rock, such as biotite, hematite, magnetite and pyrite, are iron and magnesium.[3]  The overall scan shows a general trend of consistency in the relative quantities of all eleven elements.  However, close examination of the scans shows noticeable anomalies in the quantities of iron and magnesium.  According to plant physiologist Dr. Paul Syltie, Ph.D., “The soil releases its stored elements, from exchangeable and non-exchangeable sites on clay (micas) or organic matter, to root hairs or to microorganisms that extract the nutrients and move them to the roots.  …the micronutrients zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), iron (Fe) and magnesium (Mn) act in part as enzyme cofactors (to make enzymes work) …  Magnesium comprises the core of chlorophyll, the light energy trapping compound.”[4]  All four areas tested in the white areas had a lesser amount of iron and magnesium when compared to the four dark areas. 

Figure 10: The bulk elemental scan of location 1 shows the elements carbon (C), oxygen (O), iron (Fe), sodium (Na), magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), chlorine (Cl), potassium (K), calcium (Ca) and titanium (Ti). 

Figure 11: A composite of the bulk elemental scans of locations 1, 2, 3 and 4, show very similar quantities of the various elements.  Closer inspection of the iron and magnesium peaks show a noticeable trend.

Figure 12: A magnified view of the bulk elemental scans for iron (Fe) at locations 1, 2, 3 and 4, show a clear difference of a higher overall iron content in the dark locations verses the white (root leached) locations. 

Figure 13: A magnified view of the bulk elemental scans for magnesium (Mg) at locations 1, 2, 3 and 4, show a clear difference of a higher overall magnesium content in the dark locations verses the light locations.

Conclusions

These results are consistent with the thesis of the depletion of the “pigment” elements iron and magnesium due to chemical leaching of young roots in contact with the stone which produced the white, undulating and branching lineations on the back side of the Kensington Rune Stone.  Based on the testimony of multiple first-hand witnesses the average age of the tree was 25 to 30 years old.  Since the root leaching occurred during the early life of tree (less than five years), it proves the tree was in contact with stone for the full life of tree.  Therefore, since Olof Ohman didn’t immigrate to the United States until 1879, nineteen years prior to the discovery of the artifact in 1898, these test results serve as additional evidence that he could not have been involved in its creation.[5]

References

Syltie, Paul, Ph.D., How Soils Work: A Study into the God-Plane Mutualism of Soils and Crops, Paul Syltie, Ph.D., 2003.

Wolter, Scott F. and Richard Nielson, The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence, Lake Superior Agate Publishing, Chanhassen, Minnesota, 2006.


[1] Wolter/Nielsen, Pages 3-4, 2006.

[2] Wolter/Nielsen, Page 30, 2006.

[4] Syltie, Paul, Ph.D., Page 11, 2003.

[5] Wolter/Nielsen, Page 390, 2006.

Here are a couple of photographs of documents that give a little more context to this research.  


In February of 2003, I photographed this page from the notebook of Professor Newton H. Winchell who investigated the Kensington stone making three trips to the Ohman Farm in 1909-1910.  Winchell wrote down Ohman's description of the roots and their position around the stone, "Mrs. Ohman told my livery man that Ohman borrowed the school book after the stone was found for the purpose of deciphering the inscription.  Mr. Ohman said the main root of the tree was at the edge and went down nearly perpendicular, in that respect differing from Mr. Olson and his sketch.  I had a long talk with Mr. Ohman, and am impressed with his succinct candor and truthfulness of all his statements, and also I found he is a more intelligent man than I had supposed.  He gave me more of the details of the history of the stone than I had heard.  He had never heard of Holand till he called on him at Kensington.  Holand had no relations in the neighborhood and so far as I can find out is a stranger except since he took up with the stone." 


This newspaper article from the 1960's contains interesting recollections of the roots around stone from a first-hand witness named Clarence Larson. 


On the first page of his final 1909 report on the his examination of the Kensington Rune Stone, Professor of Geology at the University of Minnesota, Newton H. Winchell, wrote that he was not able to examine a thin section of the rock  to do a complete mineral identification and see metamorphic textures under polarized light necessary to accurately identify the rock as a metagraywacke.



 

Thursday, September 23, 2021

An "Academic" Hit Job on the Kensington Rune Stone

I resisted giving attention to this sad excuse for an "academic" paper, but because it made its way tangentially onto a cable television show causing confusion on the part of the public, I decided it needed to be addressed.  Let's be clear from the start, the motivation behind this paper is the fanatical "belief" of the author the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS) is a modern hoax.  The other motivation is what appears to be a deep-seated hatred of me personally, and professionally.  After a short stint working in my laboratory, this individual was relieved of his employment almost twenty years ago.  This individual also holds the distinction of being the only person I ever had to personally walk out the door of our business.

Now that I've provided a little context, let's look at just a few of the many problems with this paper.  The author purports to have earned a PhD in geology, but with so many factual errors, leaps in logic and flippant opinionated statements with no logical factual support it suggests it has been so long since this person did any actual geology, he must have forgotten basic geological principles.  There are so many problems with this paper it's hard to know where to begin, but one sentence in the abstract might be a good place to start.  The sixth sentence on line seven is refers to the geological makeup of the KRS, "This coating is consistent with stucco applied to the surface of the sandstone."

1. The rock is not sandstone, it is a Paleoproterozoic aged (1.85-2.1 billion years old) metagraywacke that originated in the Thomson Formation located in Carlton, Minnesota.  This rock name probably won't make sense to most people reading this, but in the world of geology it is a glaring sign the author doesn't understand the mineralogy and metamorphic textures so prevalent in this rock.  The difference is significant and a PhD geologist should know better.    



The face side of the Kensington Rune Stone contains the first nine lines of runic text and the naturally formed yellowish-white, triangular shaped hydrothermal calcite covers the surface of the lower left third of the stone (top).  Below is the intentionally split side containing the last three lines of text including the Pentadic date of 1362.  The "H" at the bottom end of the stone was carved by Hjalmar Holand in 1908, when he had possession of the stone.

2. Calling the hydrothermal calcite on the face side of the stone "stucco", and "applied" to the surface is mystifying.  The yellowish-white colored triangular shaped area in the lower-right third of the face side of the artifact is hydrothermal calcite deposited along a joint fracture when the stone was still part of the bedrock millions of years ago.  Arguing the obviously naturally formed calcite is somehow modern manmade plaster is absurd with no factual basis whatsoever.

Having operated a materials forensic laboratory examining primarily concrete, mortar, grout, stucco, and rock for the past 31 years, this claim is ludicrous.  Stucco contains  Portland cement and sand which is easily identifiable with the naked eye.  The author's inability to distinguish between the calcite deposited within a joint fracture millions of years ago, verses modern stucco reeks of an agenda verses incompetence.  Further, the word "applied" implies someone intentionally put a naturally formed mineralogical feature on the rock which is impossible.  Throughout the paper the author makes unsupported assertions as statements of fact when they simply are not.  It's like the "Big Lie" of the KRS skeptic arguments where the author repeats falsehoods so often he begins to believe them.  

3. On page 7 the assertion is made the stone was used as "stepping stone" by Olof Ohman, (spelled incorrectly in the paper as Olaf) when there are two direct sources that say the opposite.  The first was Olof Ohman. In 1909, Newton Winchell interviewed Olof Ohman, and wrote in his field notebook Ohman said the stone was stored "inside the shed" until the stone transferred custody to Hjalmar Holand in August of 1907 (Nielsen/Wolter, Page 237).  The second his son, Edward Ohman, who stated emphatically the stone "...was never used as a doorstep" in an interview with the Minnesota Historical Society in 1949.  Therefore, all subsequent assertions and conclusions made based on this erroneous assumption are invalid.  

This newspaper photograph shows Edward Ohman (left) being interviewed by Bergmann Richards about the discovery of the Kensington Rune Stone in 1898.  During the December 29, 1949 interview when asked about the stone being used as doorstep in front of the granary Ohman replied, "The story goes it was used as a doorstep, but it never was."  The author chose to ignore this fact to further erroneous arguments based on this decades old falsehood.

I should also point out one of the author's citations about what Winchell supposedly said about the stone serving as a "stepping stone", which Winchell never said, he attributes to the year 1915.  This is problematic as Professor Winchell died in 1914.  

The grave stone of Professor Newton H. Winchell in Lakewood Cemetery, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Winchell studied the Kensington Rune Stone from 1909-1910 and concluded, "...the said stone is not a modern forgery and must be accepted as a genuine record of exploration, in Minnesota, at the date stated in the inscription."

4. On page 9, the author seems to think it is appropriate for Professor Emeritus, Mike Michlovic, a harshly biased archaeologist who believes the KRS is a hoax, with no training in proper scientific method, mineralogy or petrology, to provide critical review of the geological weathering work performed by myself, a licensed professional geologist, and Professor Newton H. Winchell, the first State Geologist of Minnesota (1875-1900).  That's like asking a massage therapist to review the scientific work of a brain surgeon.   

5. The author also makes the claim on page 9, retired Professor of Geology, Paul Wieblen, "...have made detailed studies on it."  This is grossly misleading.  I was with Dr. Wieblen when he performed a single electron microprobe traverse on the core sample from the Rune Stone at the University of Minnesota to document its elemental composition.  That was all he did.  Dr. Wieblen never examined a thin section as claimed in the paper.  If the author is wrong about this simple fact, what other facts did he get wrong? 

6. The author's claim he examined a thin section of the KRS is simply a lie, and his write-up about its composition is pure fiction.  I maintained tight control of all samples taken from the KRS and only allowed senior petrographer, Gerard Moulzolf, and retired Professor Emeritus of Geology, Richard Ojakangas, to examine thin sections.  Frankly, I didn't trust the former employee to be competent or objective, and this paper has proven it was the right decision. 

7. The author's claim in the Introduction the inscription is not consistent with the 14th Century runic tradition is simply wrong.  All the words, runes, dialect, grammar, and dating within the inscription have been found to be consistent with the 14th Century.  Further, the author's bias is obvious in citing only critics whose outdated complaints have since all been proven wrong.    

8. Figure 4 on page 12 showing photographs portraying the similar appearance of modern stucco and the hydrothermal calcite on the face side of the KRS as some kind of proof they are the same is ridiculous.  It's like saying an image of Jesus on burnt toast proves he was the son of God.  The subsequent in-depth argument the hydrothermal calcite could somehow be modern stucco made with Portland cement is too silly to waste the reader's time on refuting.  

At this point, there are too many more problems with the rest of the paper to bother with.  It's simply dead on arrival.  

So why does it matter that the author decided to seemingly intentionally castrate himself professionally with a work of such poor quality?  The reason is word of this person's criticism of my work on the Kensington Rune Stone made its way into the season-ending cliffhanger episode of a cable television show on the Science Channel, in January of this year.  I appeared in 10 of 12 episodes of "Secrets of the Viking Stone" with hosts Elroy Balgaard, and Peter Stormare, who has appeared in many movies including the movie "Fargo." 

In the final minutes of the final episode of the cable television series, "Secrets of the Viking Stone", Peter Stormare (pictured here) and Elroy Balgaard, discuss the erroneous claim the Kensington Rune Stone was a hoax.  This cliffhanger finale intentionally left the audience with a mixed message about the authenticity of the stone.  It is hoped they will get an opportunity to set the record straight in the near future.

Throughout the series, Peter and Elroy would turn to me for historical facts and scientific information about the Kensington Rune Stone that proved it is a 14th Century artifact, carved and buried as a land claim, by the ideological descendants of the medieval Knights Templar order.  One of the guest experts on the show, and outspoken critic of the stone, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology, Mike Michlovic, recommended the producers of the show contact the author of the paper who did not respond to their inquiry for more information.  This was no surprise, since writing a hit piece for an archaeological journal no one will ever read, is different than defending your shoddy work on television for all the world to see.

The mistake by the producers of the show, was taking the risk of using the fraudulent claims as a cliffhanger, in the hope of getting another season of their show.  Their plan was to rectify the situation in future episodes, but unfortunately, the plan backfired.  In large part because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the show was not green-lit for a third season.  This means the last thing the audience heard was my geological work called into question without an opportunity to refute it.  So it goes in the TV business.      

Let me be clear, I welcome legitimate criticism of my scientific work and always have.  That is why my geological work on the Kensington Stone was peer reviewed by eight academic and professional peers prior to publishing my multiple reports, papers and books.  The professional and academic review process is vital to ensure competence in the work performed, and confidence in the conclusions reached.  More especially in a case like this that has large historical implications. 

This geological "hoax" report coming from a PhD would be laughable if it weren't so sad.  One can only conclude someone supposedly this "smart" was haunted by the dogmatic pursuit of a personal agenda.  What else would motivate someone to publish such poor work that can only be described as an academic "hit job" on the Kensington Rune Stone.  Perhaps the best way to understand how ridiculous this paper is, is the fact it was published in an archaeological journal, not a geological journal.  Archaeology is an opinion-driven discipline that loves to brag about its peer review process.  Where was the proper peer review of this abomination?  This guy wouldn't dare submit this nonsense to an accredited geological journal.  Personally, I think the University of Minnesota should revoke the PhD they granted to this guy for blatant incompetence and breach of professional ethics.      

Here is a link to the paper: 

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.academia.edu/45218145/The_Kensington_Runestone_Geological_Evidence_of_a_Hoax?fbclid=IwAR3GJJQffeFMqK4YqUvbnkf-WUGcCt9hTbafNiXzqcip6ExE6t7bPkFQ4jY&h=AT0KFGL32t9EuRBqEUlROiMC9-arblYwU1W8Ua9n7XTBTDEEM87S9o6TS9ZFfpSM2IgQw21jcpTdMiLbnhEX5nDKYOPvO6rY5MLQvIHzsiZGAj-2-aC01-Vkg93hL3i0Bsyginqn1w&__tn__=-UK-R&c[0]=AT3AOZN6HoPz1tle_XckRCHX0ywvR7d15rH0q921wxif-s5yfSzHhxPs5qkYLnGY4OVDbPPAVlBAMjZIfqwaDkghoSkYeWYl5bjzuQEq3pswyJDNlhISg-lxldTF4XztaZg4xEawyql7szRdBTvECSgCnUcpCaENeJiZPMvqML7DDwmvZ_mAF7E9V4X8o4ToljGlXcCqMgWo_GChMFGF

Saturday, September 11, 2021

The Cryptic Code at our Nation's Capital?

 While visiting our Nation's Capital to attend the 20th Anniversary reunion of people who worked at the Pentagon after the 9/11/2001 attacks, I walked around on the northeast side of the Capitol building and noticed something interesting about the columns on the east side.  At the entrances to the Senate and Congress chambers there were a total of 22 columns along the front of the buildings. The columns were arranged in two rows, 8 in the front and 14 in the back for a total of 22.  At that moment I suddenly realized these were numbers I had seen before. Almost exactly 2 years ago I published my book Cryptic Code of the Templar‘s in America: Origins of the Hooked X.  One of the most important discoveries I wrote about was what I call the Cryptic Code of the sacred numbers on the Kensington Rune Stone (8, 10, 12, 14 & 22) which turned out to be the exact same numbers in the Select Master ritual in the York Rite Cryptic Council degrees of Freemasonry.  At this Point, I would implore those interested in learning more about my previous findings about the Cryptic Code on the Kensington Rune Stone to read my previous blog post here: 

https://scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com/2016/07/kensington-rune-stone-inscription.html 


Could the same Cryptic Code numbers be here at the capital symbolically hidden within these beautiful columns?  It didn’t take long to figure out the answer was an emphatic, yes!  If we take a step back, we realize these sacred numbers are found within the ancient Hebrew mysticism of the Tree of Life. This tree is comprised of 10 spheres that create 22 paths for a total of 32 emanations with the hidden 11th sphere creating the 33rd emanation.  

Digging a little deeper into the Kabbalah we realize it is part of the spiritual journey people follow who embrace the Hebrew mystical tradition.  That journey includes taking note of human anatomy.  One of the things learned is that most humans have 32 vertebrae in our spinal column, with the 33rd bone and the highest level being the human skull.  When we look closer at the human skull, we learn it is comprised of 8 bones in the cranium, and 14 in the face for a total of 22 bones!

This knowledge serves as the basis for the Cryptic Code found on the Kensington Rune Stone, but is it really here at our Nation's beautiful Capitol building?  As I walked around the structure I noticed on the north and south sides of both Congress and the Senate wings, there are a total of 10 columns on each side and, 10 more columns on the south side of each wing. Could this be analogous to the two 10's within the Kensington Rune Stone inscription; “10 man read from blood and death”, and “10 men by the sea with our ships?”

At this point, we have the numbers 8, 10, 14 and 22, but what about the sacred number 12?  Keep in mind, if we add eight goths plus 22 Northman, we get 30.  The next number in the inscription is 2 for “2 shelters” which gives us a total of 32.  The next line in the rune stone inscription is “…one days journey north from this stone.”  Adding 1 to 32 gives us a total of 33.  Could these same numbers be here at the Capitol as well?  Sure enough they are.

It was then that I looked up at the Capitol dome and noticed the top level has 12 columns!  Why 12? The answer appears to be consistent with the cryptic code on the Kensington Rune Stone because there are a total of 12 lines of text, 9 on the face side plus 3 on the split side.  To complete the Cryptic Code sequence of numbers we still need a 3, or (2 + 1).  Upon reflection it seemed the three remaining pillars  could entail two possibilities, one symbolic, the other tangible.  

Could two pillars of our government represented in this building be the missing pieces?  It seemed the House and Senate could be the symbolic choices for the missing number 2.  

The other more tangible aspect involves the Capitol dome in this magnificent building.  There are two levels of pillars, 36 columns on the first level and 12 on the second level of columns near the top.  Could this be the symbolic number 2 in the Cryptic Code?

Everything seemed to be falling into place except for the last piece.  Where is that 33rd column that corresponds to the highest level of the Scottish Rite degrees, and the highest level of knowledge and enlightenment attained within the spiritual journal pursued through the Hebrew Kabbalah Tree of Life?  The answer was obvious and stands proudly at the top of the Capitol dome, the lone statue of Persephone, also called Freedom, the Sacred Feminine, who has forever been called "Wisdom."  She is that 33rd degree pillar at the symbolic pinnacle of our Nation’s Capitol.



Wednesday, December 2, 2020

Latest "Templar's in America" Research

I've been meaning to do this for a while now and with the Holidays upon us and Covid-19 giving everyone plenty of free time for reading, I wanted to make sure everyone interested in the latest Templar research was aware of our publications.  The vetting of the Cremona Document and the Sinclair/Wemyss journals are on-going and if definitively proven authentic, they would be the most important "Templars in America" documents in history.  Chapter 11 in my latest book, Cryptic Code of the Templars in America: Origins of the Hooked X Symbol, lays out the story of the Cremona Document in detail and sets the table for additional new documents and maps that have materialized since my book was published in September of 2019, and are currently being investigated. For those interested in personally signed copies of my own books or that of my wife, Janet, and her coauthor, Alan Butler's book, America: Nation of the Goddess: The Venus Families and the Founding of the United States,  I would direct you to our website at: www.hookedx.com. 

The latest in the Templar's in America series pulls everything together about the secret mission by the Templar's, they called "The Covenant," to found a sanctuary where they could live free from the tyranny of the monarchs of Europe and persecution of the Roman Catholic Church.  That sanctuary is now called the United States of America (Published in 2019).

The most informative background information for the Cremona Document was written by the person who was intimately involved in the research from the beginning of the modern chapter of the story which began in 1968.  That person is Donald Ruh.  Don has written his own book that chronicles important details of the story that as the last man standing only he would know.  It's filled with critical information and has hundreds of photographs.  


Donald Ruh holds a key in July of 2020, he was bequeathed by his lifelong friend, Dr. William Jackson, that reportedly opens a "cedar-lined box" with treasure buried in America during the Revolutionary War era.  The key along with a map, aerial photographs and a letter with instructions were all found inside a small wooden puzzle box left by Don's friend who died in 2000.  


You can order copies of Don's book at this link: https://www.lulu.com/search?adult_audience_rating=00&page=1&pageSize=10&q=The+Scrolls+of+Onteora 

Another incredible Templar story we are quietly vetting is the Sinclair/Wemyss journals.  This story, along with the Cremona Document, will completely rewrite the history of America and put new and accurate light on the Templars' true history and ideology academics thought they knew.  That vetting process is on-going as well and what is most exciting are the two completely independent documents, and the stories they tell, are beginning to dovetail providing confirming evidence that supports the authenticity of both sets of documents.  This is truly exciting! 

Diana Muir has published the first of twenty of the Sinclair/Wemyss journals that chronicles the first forty-one years of Earl Henry Sinclair's life including his first of three trips he took to the "Western lands."  Diana has extensive annotations that add important additional context to the entries and leave you begging for more that will be forthcoming in the near future.  The history revealed in the first book illuminates many important new facts about the fugitive Templars who escaped to Scotland and their relationship with the Scottish Clans who protected them.  This is a must-read for anyone who is hungry for the true story of what happened to medieval Knights Templar after the put-down of  the order in 1307.  The important beginnings of the story that would result in the founding of the United States of America will truly amaze you.

Diana's book can be purchased here: https://www.lulu.com/shop/diana-j-muir/the-lost-templar-journals-of-prince-henry-sinclair-book-1-1353-1395/paperback/product-24004958.html?page=1&pageSize=4 


Myself (far right), Diana Muir (stripped blue shirt), and my wife, Janet Wolter, (far left) meet with several Masonic brethren/researchers to discuss the Sinclair/Wemyss journals at the Scottish Rite Temple in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in March of 2017.

I'd be remiss if I didn't plug my own "Templar's in America" books, see below, and that of my wife, Janet Wolter and her co-author Alan Butler, all available at www.hookedx.com.  


The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence contains the factual evidence in multiple disciplines that definitively proved the authenticity of the artifact that was carved and buried as Templar land claim in 1362 (Published in 2005).


The Hooked X: Key to the Secret History of North America investigates the Templar symbols and codes hidden within the Kensington Rune Stone inscription.  I also investigate numerous other artifacts, sties and structures in North America the medieval Templars left hidden in plain sight (Published in 2009). 


Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers: The Mysteries of the Hooked X delves deeper into the mysteries of the Kensington Rune Stone, Newport Tower and many other artifacts considered fakes by academia, yet reveal even more about the hidden history of the cultures who visited North America long before Columbus (Published in 2013).


America, Nation of the Goddess: The Venus Families and the Founding of the United States follows the secretive families of the Templar lineage as they pursue Freedom from tyranny and oppression by the monarchs of Europe and the Church in planning their goal of establishing a 'New Jerusalem.'  The clues they left behind are numerous and are hidden in plain site using sacred geometry and symbolism, across the United States (Published in 2015).   

  

Thursday, April 9, 2020

Reminiscing About the "Geologic Dream Team"


One of the good things about the Coronavirus 19 quarantine is it has created a lot of free time for writing my next book.  It has also created time to do a little rearranging of my photo files and I decided to share some unpublished photos of the geologists who provided commentary, suggestions and later academic peer  review, when I first began my investigation in the geology of the Kensington Rune Stone in 2000.  When the artifact first came into the American Petrographic Services Inc. lab in July of 2000, I had never heard of the artifact before but quickly got up to speed on it's history. 

Since I had been referred by my former geology professors at the University of Minnesota-Duluth to do this work for the Runestone Museum on Alexandria, Minnesota, it only seemed appropriate to invite them in for a cursory look and to pick their brains for ideas on how to approach the investigation.  I already had a number of ideas and wanted to run them by my professors for their input.  On July 14, 2000, the six professors invited showed up along with then liaison for the Runestone Museum, Barry Hanson.  Professor's Emeritus, Dr. John Green, Dr. Richard Ojakangas, and my former adviser, Dr. Charles L. Matsch drove down together from Duluth and Dr. Ken Harris, Dr. Robert Johnson and Professor Emeritus, Dr. Paul Wieblen from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. 

The professors spent about 4 hours examining the geological features of the stone and the inscription offering comments and ideas of what might be interesting to look at more closely at during my examination and testing of the artifact.  At one point when we turned the stone over to look at the deep glacial striations and scratches on the back side, it was Dr. Paul Wieblen who first noticed the white-colored, branching lineations.  He pointed to the marks and said, "These features kind of look like roots."  I would eventually conclude they indeed were made by the very same roots of the tree under which Olof Ohman discovered the stone.

The "Geologic Dream Team" was extremely helpful and Dr. Richard Ojakangas, one of the top sedimentary petrologists in the world, offered to perform a mineralogical point count on one of the thin sections we made from the core sample taken from the back side of the artifact.  His point counts and my points counts were pretty much the same and we agreed the original slab of stone was a meta-graywacke that originated from the Animikie Basin in east-central Minnesota of Paleoproterozoic Age (1.85 to 2.1 billion years ago).

Upon completing my initial report, Dr's Green, Matsch and Ojakangas provided written peer reviews of my geological findings along with Professor Emeritus G.B. Morey, and geologist, Terry Swor.  All found the report to be accurate and thorough.  Looking back after these twenty years I want to thank all of these accomplished geologists for sharing their geological expertise and offering suggestions as well as their support.  It was Dr. Ojakangas' work and vast experience that led to the conclusion the rock was indigenous to Minnesota and not brought along by the Kensington party from the East Coast or Europe.  I remember Dick Ojakangas once told me a colleague said to him, "If you help Scott with the Kensington Rune Stone it could damage your reputation."  Dick said he smiled at him and said, "Thanks, but I'll take my chances." 

It was the geological weathering aspects of the inscription and split side that told me they were at least 200 years old from the day Olof pulled it from the ground in 1898.  This made a late Nineteenth Century hoax impossible and therefore, it had to be an authentic artifact.  The hard science speaks just as loud today as it did then.  It's time the world accepted this amazing stone for the vitally important historical artifacts that it is.   
   

Geologist, Scott Wolter looks at a computer monitor with a magnified image on the split side of the Kensington Rune Stone in July of 2000.


Dr. Paul Wieblen points to the white lineations on the back side of the Kensington Rune Stone and was the first to say they looked like markings left by roots.  L to R, Barry Hanson, Dr. Richard Ojakangas (with camera), Dr. Robert Johnson (behind Wieblen), Dr. John Green and Dr. Charles L. Matsch (bending over in front) look on as Wieblen explains the root leaching.  


L to R, Dr. Charles L. Matsch, Dr. Richard Ojakangas, and Dr. John Green examine the split side of the Kensington Rune Stone as then Runestone Museum Director, LuAnn Patton looks on.


L to R, Dr. Charles L. Matsch, Scott Wolter, Dr. John Green, and Barry Hanson look on as Dr. Richard Ojakangas looks a feature on the split side of the Kensington Rune Stone through a petrographic microscope.


Dr. Richard Ojakangas gets up close and personal with a carved character on the face side of the Kensington Rune Stone.


The Kensington Rune Stone was examined by a team of noted geologists at the American Petrographic Services Laboratory on July 14, 2000.  L to R, Dr. Richard Ojakangas (kneeling), Dr. John Green, Dr. Ken Harris, Gerard Moulzolf, Scott Wolter, Dr. Charles L. Matsch, Barry Hanson, Dr. Robert Johnson, and Dr. Paul Wieblen (kneeling).

Saturday, November 2, 2019

America Unearthed, Season 4, Episode 2: Alien Artifacts

"Alien Artifacts" was one of my favorite episodes of the season for a number of reasons.  Not the least of which was the incredible C-14 dates on the adhesive used to make some of the artifacts.  Those mind-boggling dates beg the obvious question: Are they really that old or did someone figure out a way to make a glue that dates to eight thousand years before present and older!  In pondering this question in the days after we filmed that final scene, I have come up with possible ways to make a glue that would date that far back and I hope to have the opportunity to test my idea.  Setting the artifacts might not be as old as the testing says, what if they really are that old?  If so, then we have to seriously consider the possibility that ancient cultures in MesoAmerica did interact with extraterrestrial beings as my friend Giorgio Tsoukalos of "Ancient Aliens" fame has been telling us for the past two decades.  I've never given the idea aliens visiting us from other planets a serious thought.  That is, until now...  I'm not ready to jump on the bandwagon yet, but until we get to the bottom of how old these artifacts really are, who made them, and if the obvious reference to aliens, spaceships and the interaction of apparent aliens with early native cultures, we must maintain an open mind to these possibilities.  Irronically, the week before the episode aired, curious articles like this one appeared on news feeds: https://www.yahoo.com/news/navy-ufos-reporting-guidelines-updated-202515828.html   Was this a coincidence, or something else?  What do you think about these artifacts possibly being many thousands of years old?


Brendon Harris (left), Brandon Bouley (middle) and Janey Klebe (right with flashlight), prepare to film a scene inside a large circular cave with numerous interesting carvings deep in the jungle near Veracruz, Mexico.   


Three "alien" artifacts the JAC Detectors showed me they said they found in the cave we explored in the jungle.  The one on the lower right was clearly a fake with the cleverly carved letters "UFO".  The one on the left has a phallic shape with amateur-looking carvings that included marks consistent with being made with a hand held rotary tool. 


Thankfully, this species was NOT poisonous!


Just east of Mexico City we drove by the active volcano spewing steam into the atmosphere as we made our way to Veracruz to meet with the JAC Detectors.


Mark Russell watches as I examine one of his alien artifacts in my laboratory for areas with glue to test for age using the Carbon-14 method.


The front side of the artifact tested.


The back side of the artifact tested.


Janet Wolter and executive producer of America Unearthed, Andy Awes, behind the scenes during filming of the "Alien Artifacts" lab scenes.


This artifact of an elongated head that looks like an aliens is covered with scenes that include spaceships,  planets, designs and numerous inlays of stone.  This glue used in this artifact was C-14 tested and the result was 8620 years before present.