Saturday, April 8, 2017

Correction Needed In Zena Halpern's New Templar Book

On page 218 of Zena Halpern's new book about her decade-long research about a secret Templar document titled, The Templar Mission to Oak Island and Beyond, there are two mistakes that directly involve me that need to be corrected.  Beneath the photograph of what the author calls a "Paleo-Hebrew Carving" she wrote the following, "Geologist Scott Wolter tested the rock at a university laboratory and concluded, based on the weathering, that this carving was at least "many centuries old.""

First, the stone was not examined in a university laboratory, it was examined in my materials forensic laboratory at American Petrographic Services, Inc., in St. Paul Minnesota, in 2006.  This error is minor compared to the second error that deals with her reporting of my conclusion.  I did not conclude the weathering of the inscription on this stone was "many centuries old" because I was unable to make such a statement based on the results of the analysis I performed.  In fact, on page three of my report titled, The Catskill Mountains Inscription, that was published in the Epigraphic Society of Occasional Papers (ESOP), Volume 25, I concluded the following, "It is quite clear that the inscription was carved into fresh rock below the weathered surface and those surfaces have since weathered. That weathering profile appears less developed than the original weathered surface indicating that the inscription is younger. The age of the weathering is unclear. However, it appears that the weathering of the inscription has taken many years to develop."

Let me be clear that the weathering of the inscription could, in fact, be many centuries old.  However, without a properly documented provenance of where this stone was discovered and the specific environmental conditions it was exposed to I cannot say with any certainty how old the weathering of carved grooves are.

The inscribed stone from the Catskill Mountains in the state of New York has six clearly visible characters carved into the surface and has approximate dimensions of 9 1/2” (237 mm) x 2 ¾” (69 mm) x 1 1/8” (28 mm) thick.

A small piece was cut off the stone and a thin section was made for microscopic review.

A thin section of the greywacke was reviewed and is comprised of mostly sub-angular to sub-rounded greywacke comprised of quartz, feldspar, lithic fragments with a fine-grained matrix of sericite and minor opaque minerals (cross polarized light 40X).

The average depth of the carved lines in the inscription is 1.5 mm.  The inscription was carved through the 0.5 mm thick previously existing weathered surface into fresh rock (10X).

A clearly defined, light colored weathering profile was observed at the surface to a depth of 0.5 mm (30X).

Sunday, March 5, 2017

Guest Blogger Musings About the Hooked X


The following post was submitted by Patrick Shekleton and in the interest of full disclosure I had no input into the content of this paper.  I simply reviewed it for appropriateness to be submitted on my blog.  Pat has obviously put in a lot of work into this infinitely complicated subject matter.  Reading it brought back many memories of my days working with Richard Nielsen and Henrik Williams on the language, runes, dialect and grammar of the North American runes stones that contain the Hooked X®.  Take your time and try to absorb the information that while dense, is very good and important research. 

Enjoy...

THE NORTH AMERICAN HOOKED X®

If one has an interest in the North American rune stones, then the Hooked X® character found on the Kensington Rune Stone (1898), Spirit Pond Rune Stones (1971), and the Narragansett Rune Stone (1984) represents an element of the broader discussion.

The Hooked X® form, along with its dotted (umlauted), macron (bar above), and double vowel (bar below) variant forms, have been identified as performing the basic linguistic function associated with the vowel, or vowel combinations, of -a, -æ, and -aa.

Table 1. A synopsis of transliterated words from the KRS and SPR inscriptions which contain the vowel form -a, -æ, and   -aa. This sample is illustrative of the variance one will find in the larger body of inscription transliterations with respect to the Hooked X® form (or variant).


Fig. 1  George T. Flom’s inventory of KRS rune forms as presented on page 26 in his 1910 address.


Fig. 2  Richard Nielsen and Scott Wolter’s inventory of KRS rune forms presented on page 64 of their 2006 published work.



Fig. 3  Barry J. Hanson’s inventory of KRS rune forms as presented on page B-3 in his 2002 published work.


Figs. 4 and 5. Richard Nielsen’s Spirit Pond Rune Stone usage cases for the a-rune as found on pp. 94-95 of his 1992 published work. [Cited text of Cleasby is available at https://archive.org/details/icelandicenglish00cleauoft]

SYMBOLIC INTERPRETATIONS OF HOOKED X®


The asserted symbolic meaning(s) of the Hooked X® form, whether found on runic carvings (KRS/SPR/NRS), within manuscripts (Cremona Document, Icelandic, etc.), or upon symbolic carvings (Westford Knight and Jesus Ossuary Lid), have proven to be as contentious as they are interesting.

 UNIQUE A-RUNE FORM, THE OPPONENTS POINT OF VIEW

Long before the present-day conversation on symbolic meanings of the Hooked X® commenced, the conversation revolved around the unique runic form of the a-rune and whether there were valid historical antecedents that might explain the lineage of the character form.

George Flom, a non-supporter of authenticity, remarked in his 1910 published work that the X with a hook form for -a and -æ were “from a different runic alphabet, and some suggest modern compromises with corresponding Latin letters.” Further on, he postulated that the X with a hook form on the KRS was analogous to the simple X form representing the vowel -a found on inscriptions in Dalarne region of Sweden around c. 1600. [5]

 In 2006, Nielsen and Wolter’s published work presented a case against the Darlecarlian Rune forms being the basis for the KRS inscription, despite the close parallel of its simple X form representing the -a vowel. [6]

Danish runologist Erik Moltke, a non-supporter of authenticity, wrote in 1949 (as cited by Swedish runologist Sven B. F. Jansson’s re-printed 1949 article contained within Barry J. Hanson’s 2002 book):

Around 1100 under influence from the Latin alphabet there came about a change in the runic alphabet, which from having had a content of 16 or 19 characters now acquired just as many as the Latin alphabet. Simultaneously a number of the runes were simplified. A [Younger Futhark], which in the alphabet of Viking times was crossed, i.e. consisted of a vertical primary stroke and a skew secondary stroke crossing the primary stroke, now became one-sided, i.e. the secondary stroke no longer crossed the primary stroke; the old Viking time form was retained but took the value æ …Look at the drawing of the Kensington Stone and see what an abortion it uses as an a-rune [Hooked X® symbol shown]. [7]     

 Moltke’s descriptive term of the a-rune form notwithstanding, he submits a fair treatment of how the Latin alphabet, and by implicit understanding, its characters and vowel combinations, were re-shaping the runic language in Scandinavia.

 UNIQUE A-RUNE FORM, THE PROPONENTS POINT OF VIEW

The Swedish lexicographer, Professor Hjalmar Lindroth, created some consternation in 1938 when his letter to Professor Richard Hennig was published. Again, we turn to Sven B. F. Jansson’s re-printed 1949 article contained within Barry J. Hanson’s 2002 book, this time citing Jansson directly:

Hjalmar Lindroth has of course in a frequently cited statement from 1938 asserted that the runologist “should not categorically insist on falsification, until he has been able to demonstrate the origin of the runic alphabet of the stones”. The statement shows that Lindroth in fact believed that the Kensington Stone’s “rune row” was a rune row in the true sense; that these symbols have been used in other inscriptions than the Kensington Stone and that they therefore in principle have the same character as e.g. that of the 16-character rune row. [author’s emphasis] [8]

 Jansson continued, creating the impression with this author that Lindroth espoused authenticity for the KRS:

This makes things worse. As regards his demand on the runologist that he is obliged to show where the mystical symbols have come from [which includes the a-rune form, one has the right to reply that any person with a normal imagination can make up an impressive number of symbols which runologists and others will in vain seek prototypes for - within existing rune rows. [9]

Jansson was replying to a dead man, a fellow native of Sweden - for Professor Hjalmar Lindroth had passed away two years prior. [10]

Ironically, this author’s initial impression from Jansson’s article that Lindroth espoused authenticity was mistaken – Lindroth, according to Hjalmar R. Holand, had a position of “strict neutrality” [11] regarding the authenticity of the KRS.

Professor William Thalbitzer, a Danish philologist whose educational background included Danish, English, and Latin studies at the University of Copenhagen prior to focusing on the Greenlandic language post-graduation [12], originally considered the KRS to be a fraud. Then Thalbitzer’s viewpoint shifted:

For a long time I, too, had considered the Kensington stone a fraud, and the late Prof. Finnur Jonsson and other Scandinavian runologists confirmed my view. However, from time to time certain fresh facts bearing on the matter have come to light, in archeology, runology, and philology, especially Prof. Axel Kock's later studies on medieval Swedish dialects. As new light is gradually being thrown on this amazing find from the West, I cannot but waver in my doubt and am forced to see the question from a new viewpoint. Not only Holand's books but my own investigations as well have set me thinking along new lines.2 I now maintain that this matter in its entirety is worthy of restudy ; it seems to me that, after all, the inscription may be authentic. [13]

One aspect of Thalbitzer’s investigation involved a paleographic comparison of the carved runic forms of the KRS (dated 1362) characters against the corresponding written character forms found in manuscripts in Sweden encompassing the 1164 to 1513 time-frame.



Fig. 6. Rune form table found in William Thalbitzer’s 1951 published work. The right-hand column inventory of majuscules and minuscules stemming from the 1164 to 1513 time period were collated and published in 1838. This 1838 work, Historie och Antikvitets-Akademien Handlingar, is not accessible online.


Fig. 7 Character specimens for the a-rune form.

Thalbitzer recognized that potential authenticity of inscribed character rune forms was not to be judged on the singular basis of the form having to be inscribed upon a medium such as stone, lead, or wood, but that a parallel form found within scribal manuscripts would suffice as being authentic proof for a unique rune form character. In simple terms, the absence of an inscribed runic character form in the Scandinavian runic inscription corpus did not disqualify a North American runic inscription with unique character forms from being authentic.

Nor did Thalbitzer state, or even suggest, that scribal character forms could only be considered valid if they were singularly found within the Scandinavian manuscript corpus [this author acknowledges that discovery of the scribal character forms within the aforementioned corpus eliminates questions revolving around cultural transmission].

Thalbitzer – and others - explicitly understood that the runic language was in flux by the 1300s, primarily due to the transmission of the more versatile Latin language via the introduction of Christianity. Other historical transmission paths include Viking/Norse travel to the Latin-speaking areas outside the Baltic and North Sea geographic area, the involvement of Scandinavian parties in the Crusades, and the increasing trade networks which involved, again, Latin-speaking agencies.

PRESENT-DAY INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCH ON THE UNIQUE A-RUNE FORM

Thalbitzer, and other researchers, were limited in their day to what historical material they could access. In today’s Internet-era, access – in terms of volume, speed, and ease - has expanded the corpus of archival materials that may be screened by researchers for a-rune character forms, or an analogous Latin character form. It has also placed an increased premium for researchers, especially those who find themselves outside the realm of their typical everyday existence, to be discriminating.

Simply finding an X with a hook is not sufficiently discriminating to assert that the symbol is comparable to the a-rune character form found on the North American rune stones. The character form must be used in the context of an -a, -ae, or -aa vowel, or suitably shown as a possible orthographic predecessor, and its form must be sufficiently unambiguous.   

Distinction must be made between hooks and tails on Xs predicated by the paleographic script-style. By design, Xs in Gothic script have tail hooks, so these Xs are not valid hits. Scribal flourishing sometimes places tail hooks on Xs, but this presentation is easy to distinguish because the word will fail the vowel test. Lastly, character forms must be screened to ensure that the dreaded “ink splotch” hooks do not gain admission.

At this point, it’s now a race between mind-numbing brain fatigue and your eyeballs bleeding – but Xs with hooks do “pop” on occasion. A previous blog post in December 2015 encapsulating Steve DiMarzo’s manuscript screening laid out some examples which satisfied the then-nascent entry criteria.

I am not trying to be “crafty” by stating “suitably shown as a possible orthographic predecessor.” We are simply using Thalbitzer’s investigative thread, his hunch, that perhaps the unique a-rune character had a Latin lineage concurrent or prior to surviving Scandinavian scribal records.  


Fig. 8. A pseudo-X with a hook form on a c. 1122 English manuscript map. The map’s descriptive labels are written in Latin. The hook is offset from the leg end. No other Xs on the map follow this form. The contemporaneous Latin spelling of this symbol represents an -æ. As the language matured and became more simplified the -æ abbreviated to the singular sound represented by -e. The pseudo-X with a hook form is a breviograph – a symbol that represents a scribal abbreviation for the Latin -æ spelling and sound. The -æ Latin dipthong originally was the Greek -ai dipthong. [Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts; British Library; http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=16645]


Fig. 9. A distinct X with a hook character form on a 1508 Italian cartographic product. The same map sheet contains normal Xs (absent the hook). The character form is, again, a breviograph. Cross-typing against a 1515 manuscript indicates that the breviograph was used either for the vowel -i, or the vowel combination -æ. No other Xs on this particular map folio follow this form.


Fig. 10. Two Xs with a hook character form on a 1508 Italian cartographic product. The same map sheet contains normal Xs (absent the hook). The character form is, again, a breviograph. Cross-typing against a 1515 manuscript indicates that the breviograph was used for the vowel/vowel combination -ia, -æ, or an -a. In medieval manuscripts dating back to 9th century, the Lunæ word had spelling derivatives of Luna and Lune.


Fig. 11. Two Xs with a hook character form on a 1508 Italian cartographic product. The same map sheet contains normal Xs (absent the hook). The character form is, again, a breviograph. A cross-typing against a 1515 manuscript indicates that the breviograph was used for the vowel/vowel combination -ia, -æ, or an -a. Sina is CHINA.


Fig. 12 Collated notes.

To more fully understand the significance of the X-like character forms on the c. 1122 and 1508 maps, I emailed a paleography expert. He graciously replied:

“I have had a look at the images you sent me. In my humble opinion, as you suggested, the X shape is simply the Latin ligature for the diphthong "ae" (fusion of bindings), in which the hook you mentioned is the medial "tongue" of the letter "e" which extends up to the top. And yes, the "ai" Greek ligature transitioned to the "ae" digraph in Latin.”

FINAL THOUGHTS

Was William Thalbitzer on the right path in suggesting that a possible source, or influence, for the unique a-rune character form might have migrated into the main of Scandinavia, rather than originating there?

Consider this:

-The written breviograph symbols on the c. 1122 English and 1508 Italian maps involve the vowel, or vowel combinations, of -a, -æ, -ea, -i, and -ia;

-The breviograph symbol form on the maps resemble the -a and -æ character forms found in Swedish manuscripts for more than four centuries (1164 to 1513); and

-The Hooked X® character forms of the KRS (1362) and SPR (1401/02) have been phonetically connected to the -a, -æ, and -aa vowel, or vowel combinations.
T
hat the Hooked X®, or its alternate, the X with a hook, is a unique character form is an understatement. I don’t specifically look for that character form, but if I am in an old manuscript – primarily researching geodesy and astronomy related topics – I keep an eye peeled for Arced-X (Spirit Pond Rune Stone) and Hooked X® symbols (KRS/SPR/NRS).

The initial find on the 1508 World Atlas was fortuitous, the additional four discoveries are attributed to the detailed screening done by Steve DiMarzo and David Ulrich.

Given the incredible paucity of the Hooked X® character form existent within surviving historical records, it begs the question as to how such a truly obscure symbol even found its way onto ANY of the North American rune stones?


Somehow it did, and considering that the only definitive Hooked X® character forms from the Medieval and early Middle Age eras have all been found beyond the borders of Sweden/Norway/Denmark, albeit the few that have been found to this point, it seems that some place other than Sweden was its point of origination. But where?

REFERENCES
Flom, George T. The Kensington rune-stone: an address by George T. Flom, delivered before the Illinois State Historical Society at its annual meeting, May 5-6, 1910 at Springfield, Illinois. Springfield: Phillips Bros., 1910. Retrieved February 2016 https://archive.org/details/kensingtonrunest00flom.
Hanson, Barry J. Kensington Runestone: A Defense of Olof Ohman, the Accused Forger. Maple, WI: Available from Archaeology ITM, 2002.
Holand, Hjalmar Rued. Norse Discoveries and Explorations in America, 982-1362; Leif Erikson to the Kensington Stone. New York: Dover Publications, 1969.
Nielsen, Richard. “The Spirit Pond Runestones of Maine: A Proposed Dating and Tentative Translation.” The Epigraphic Society of Occasional Papers, 21 (1992): 92-113.
Nielsen, Richard, and Scott F. Wolter. The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence. Place of Publication Not Identified: Lake Superior Agate Pub., 2006.

Schöner, Johann. Luculentissima quaedā terrae totius descriptio: cū multis vtilissimis cosmographiæ iniciis. Nouaq, & q̄ ante fuit verior Europæ nostræ formatio. Præterea, fluuiorū ... & gentium q̄plurimorū vetustissima nomina recentioribus admixta vocabulis .. Noribergæ: Impressum ī excusoria officina Ioannis Stuchssen, 1515. Retrieved December 2016 https://archive.org/details/luculentissimaqu00schn.
Stevenson, Edward Luther. Atlas of Portolan Charts. Facsimile of manuscript in British Museum. (Egerton Manuscript no. 2803.) Edited by Edward Luther Stevenson. New York, 1911. Retrieved December 2016 https://archive.org/details/atlasofportolanc00magg
Thalbitzer, William Carl. Two runic stones, from Greenland and Minnesota. City of Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1951. [No copyright restrictions] Retrieved July 2016 from https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/22869/SMC_116_Thalbitzer_1951_3_1-71.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
ENDNOTES
1. Flom, page 28, 1910.
2. Nielsen & Wolter, page 64, 2006.
3. Hanson, pages C1-C5, 2002.
4. Nielsen, pages 105-110, 1992.
5. Flom, page 21, 1910.
6. Nielsen and Wolter, page 91, 2006.
7. Hanson, page F-27, 2002.
8. Hanson, page F-26, 2002.
9. Ibid.
11. Holand, page 327, 1969 (original printing 1940).
13. Thalbitzer, page 4, 1951.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

The Templars Knew How to Calculate Longitude



The Newport Tower


In Hoc Signo Vinces Stone

The Narragansett Rune Stone

Cistercian Abbey Ruins in Cumberland, Rhode Island

The Westford Knight Bronze Statue

The Westford Boat Stone

The Tyngsboro Map Stone

The Lake Winnipesaukee Mystery Stone
 
 
 
 
Pat Shekleton passed along these pages of early notations of latitude AND longitude in degrees/minutes form from a manuscript dated to 1515.   https://archive.org/details/luculentissimaqu00schn 

 

As I was writing in my new book about possible connections with old mysterious artifacts and sites that have intrigued us for a long time, I stumbled upon something I think is very important. Bill Mann deserves credit for putting the "Templar Meridians" into my head in the first place and in his 2006 book pointed out the 72 degree meridian these points seem to be connected with. Check out what the Google Earth longitudes are for these things places: 

Newport Tower
(71.19 W)
In Hoc Signo Vinces Stone
(71.19 W)
Narragansett Rune Stone
(71.24 W)
Cistercian Monastery in Cumberland
(71.24 W)
Westford Knight & Hooked X
(71.26 W)
Westford Boat Stone
(71.28 W)
Tyngsboro Map Stone
(71.25 W)
America's Stonehenge
(71.12 W)
Mystery Stone at Lake Winnipesaukee
(71.19 W)
Old Quebec City
(71.12 W)

 

There is no way this can be a coincidence and since seven of the ten listed have been associated with medieval Templar activity in the North America there are three things this list all but proves. First, the seven items that have been hypothesized to be related to medieval Templar's are clearly connected to each other and provides strong support they are indeed Templar artifacts. Second, since the accuracy of the longitudinal locations are so good, the only logical conclusion is the Templar's who created them must have been able to calculate longitude. Third, knowledge of this important meridian appears to have been known in the distant past (America's Stonehenge) and was passed on within the Cistercian/Templar orders into modern times. Do you see it anyway else?

Sunday, December 4, 2016

Jerry Lutgen Decodes the "90-Foot Stone"

I've invited my friend and fellow Templar researcher, Jerry Lutgen, to offer a guest blog posting about his reading of the "90-foot Stone" cipher allegedly found on Oak Island.  This post was written in anticipation of Episode 4, of Season 4, of the Oak Island show on History Channel, where rumor has it the long missing stone will be rediscovered.  Jerry wanted to get his translation out before the show airs to see if he may have beaten them to the punch.  What do you think?

Decoding the “90 Foot Stone” and the “La Formule” Document

 

Jerry Lutgen

 

        December 4, 2016

 

Many readers of this blog may have seen a recent episode of The Curse of Oak Island during which a local researcher named Doug Crowell presented information relating to the so-called “90 foot stone.”  This stone, allegedly from the “Money Pit”, contains a coded inscription which has received a controversial reading of “forty feet below are two million pounds.”

 
 

During the program Crowell also presented the La Formule document which has come to be associated with Oak Island and the “90 foot stone.”  It appears that this document was first shown to the public by McGinnis family of Oak Island fame in their recent book “Oak Island Connection.”  In their book they explain that the La Formule document was of great importance to their brother Jim McGinnis who told them that this document was only part of a larger set of papers.


 

A quick examination of the document reveals two things.  First, it uses a superset of the symbols employed on the “90 foot stone.” Second, as hinted at by Jim McGinnis, this document appears to have been excised from a larger document in such a way that some words or letters are missing.

The reading cited above for the “90 foot stone” has been rejected by many Oak Island researchers.  Still I asked myself, what if that decoding is correct and can it be used to help in the decoding of the La Formule page.  It turns out that this reading of the “90 foot stone” is correct.  It says “forty feet below are two million pounds.”  We know this because it provides an unambiguous direct starting point that I was able to use in developing a substitution cipher that decodes the La Formule document into a very intriquing set of French text.  Here is the French text followed by a translation of the French into English.

 

La Formule

 

"Halte ne terrer pas creuser a

quarante pied avec a angle quarante

cinq degre la hampe a cinq cent

vignt deux pied a vous entre lec?

?reidor a un mille ….. soixante cinq pied

atteinte la chambre."

 

 

  The Formula

 

"Halt do burrow not dig at

forty feet with an angle forty

five degrees the shaft at five hundred

twenty two feet as you enter ???

?????? a thousand sixty five feet

reached the chamber."

 

Each line in the French and English text are broken at the same place as on the original La Formule document, as it comes to us.  Because this document has been somehow excised  from a larger document it means that some of the lines of the French text are incomplete.  In some cases this means that there are missing letters and in other cases it could even mean there are missing words.  In order to make better sense of what has been written I have taken the liberty of completing some of the beginning and ending words in a way that makes linquistic and contextual sense.   These additions are in blue.  You will see that at the end of line four and the beginning of line five I was unable to complete the missing French words.  I have done my best with this adding of letters to make sensible French words, but clearly this is a potential source of error.

I was aided in the process of fine tuning the cipher and translating the French into English by an experienced French translator.  Again we have done the best we can, but given the inherent vagaries of translating French from an unknown time and place as well as the potential for deciphering and editing errors in the original French we must accept that there may be problems with the resulting English.

There is one other bit of broken French text at the bottom of the document.  Someone has hand written in French:  “Vingt….La Valeur” which translates as “Twenty…..the Value.”

What is the document telling us?  Unsurprisingly, the document reads clumsily, as if in some places there are missing words  The first line is a bit confusing.  Is it instructing the reader of the document to stop burrowing and dig in another way?   In any event it clearly seems to be some kind of instructions to find a chamber.  Of course, our imaginations immediately turn to a chamber associated with Oak Island, perhaps even the Money Pit.

Questions?


 

 

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Oak Island 1179 Map


Last night on the season opening episode of History's "Oak Island" they showed an interesting map of what purports to be Nova Scotia that is dated in Roman Numbers in the upper right corner to 1179.  The person who brought the map to the production company's attention is a friend named Zena Halpern, who was featured in the show in a phone call.  Zena and I, and this map, go back about 10 years when Zena first brought it to my attention in late 2008.  What I'd like to do in this blog post is make clear a few facts about this map and be open to questions.   

Before going any further, people need to understand this map is clearly a copy drawn on modern paper that at best, likely dates back to the late 1700's.  Keep in mind this is a picture, or a copy, of the original.  It could also be a second or third generation of a copy of the original, we simply don't know.  This will no doubt lead skeptics to dismiss the map and it's obvious connection to the Knights Templar having been in North America over three hundred years before Columbus.

What first caught my attention were the two Hooked X's that appear on the map; one in the third X (Roman number 10) in the date in the upper right hand corner, and in the number 45 (XLV) just above the word "Nord" (North) on the center, right side of the map.  The important thing is these two Hooked X's on the map appeared before I published my book, The Hooked X: Key to the Secret History of North America, in 2009.  Prior to this, no one could have known of the direct connection I made of this symbol to the Knights Templar.  In the book, I proposed the Kensington Rune Stone, with 22 Hooked X's, was a land claim placed by a party of Knights Templar traveling with a least one highly initiated Cistercian monk who likely authored the inscription.  The presence of these two Hooked X's on this map, three years before my book was published, is powerful evidence consistent with a connection to the Templar's.

Another prominent feature of the map are numerous vertical lines, with Roman Numbers, that appear to indicate longitude.  Skeptics are sure to complain that longitude was unknown in 1179 and argue it can't be an authentic map.  I maintain the opposite could be true and the map appears to indicate that longitude was indeed known and was likely was part of secret knowledge known by the Templar's. 

Zena graciously allowed me to publish part of this map in my latest book, Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers: The Mysteries of the Hooked X.  Now that the complete map has been published on the show there is a lot more to talk about.  You can be sure the Lagina brothers, and Zena, will have more to say on upcoming episodes of the show.  There will also be more about Zena's research in her forthcoming book which should be published in the next six months.    


Sunday, November 13, 2016

Henrik Williams Still Doesn't Want To Get It

On November 1st, Swedish of Runology, Professor Henrik Williams, gave a presentation at the Minnesota History Center about Scandinavian Rune Stones and devoted a half hour or so to the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS).  As usual Professor Williams was noncommittal when asked by the audience about its authenticity.  He responded by saying he was 70/30 it was probably a hoax.  He then laid out a series of reasons that he believed supported its likely modern origin which were as follows:

1.There are no other rune stones in Europe that are like it.

2. There are no other messages like it on rune stones in Europe.

3. It's possible that relatives of Edward Larsson could have carved the inscription as they immigrated from the Dalcarlian region of Northern Sweden which has runes similar to the Kensington Rune Stone alphabet.

4. He believed it was likely the carver was inspired by the Chicago World's Fair "Vikings" Expedition of 1893.

To say this is weak evidence to support his opinion would be an understatement.  First, that there are no other rune stones like it is not evidence to support a modern origin.  Further, the same is true about his second reason.  The Kensington inscription and manuscript style of the message absolutely are unique and therefore, all the more rare and important.  To try to use these claims as evidence of forgery certainly isn't a scientific way of thinking at all and reeks of an agenda.  You'd think a one-of-a-kind medieval runic text would present an exciting opportunity to learn which a more clear thinking scholar would jump at.

Even a quick scan at the comparative table below that lists the Kensington and Dalacarlian runes proves Williams' third reason is sheer fantasy and begs the question why he would say something that he already knows isn't true?

Lastly, speculating that the 1893 World's Fair Exhibition somehow inspired a forger is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.  It also begs the question, why would somebody inspired by a "Viking" exhibition carve a stone with medieval runes instead of Viking Age runes? 

None of the reasons listed meet the bar as factual evidence against the stone, so why does Williams continue to say the Kensington Stone is probably a hoax when he knows it's 100% authentic?  This raises other questions as well.  Why does Williams continue to marginalize and ignore the geological weathering work myself and Newton H. Winchell performed on the artifact, work he is not qualified to comment on yet still does, that proved the Kensington Rune Stone is a medieval artifact?  Why does he continue to ignore the voluminous examples of the Hooked X, something he says is modern, in Icelandic manuscripts dating back several hundred years?  And why would he continue to ask for donations to pay for him to come to the United States and talk about all the "fake" rune stones we supposedly have here?  Does he really think we're that dumb?  Apparently so. 

The truth of the matter with the KRS inscription is it's a Templar/Masonic document that has nothing at all to do with the tradition of rune stones in Scandinavia.  Until Williams and the rest of the runologists stop trying to frame the discussion by trying to tell the KRS what it should be, instead of letting it tell them what it is, they have no chance of figuring it out.

I will give him credit for one thing.  That he hasn't completely closed the door on the authenticity is very telling.  After having worked with him for 5 years I know that he knows it's real, and by leaving open the possibility it could be genuine gives him plausible deniability should new evidence comes forward that even he can no longer explain away.  That new evidence is coming soon. Until it does, it's time for the History Center and the American Swedish Institute to wake up and hold this guy, and his personal representative, Loraine Jensen, accountable for their words and actions.  For those who missed it, I would ask you to read my February, 2016, blog posting where I detail the academic fraud Professor Williams, and the late Richard Nielsen, committed with the Kensington Rune Stone inscription.  It's a pretty good read and generated lots of discussion.  What do you think about all of this?      

 
On page 91 of my book, "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence", a table created by my now deceased co-author, Richard Nielsen, and peer reviewed by Professor Henrik Williams, has caption that says, "...the Kensington Rune Stone alphabet did not originate in Dalacarlia."    

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

The Sacred Numbers of 8 and 22

Many who have read my previous post about the Ritual Code were understandably confused.  It's not easy stuff to follow even if you are a Freemason who's gone through the York Rite degrees.  The reality of the message being filled with secret messages, codes, symbolism and allegory makes perfect sense only it was carved by a medieval Cistercian monk as the factual evidence has pointed to all along.  The problem for researchers and scholars is the Kensington Rune Stone suddenly appeared out of nowhere and completely out of context with regard to the understanding of the known history in 1898.  Those scholars have struggled mightily with the strange symbols and confusing message that has taken almost 120 years to begin to understand. 

However, as we now move closer to understanding what the anomalies mean, as well as a better understanding of the untold pre-Columbian history of North America, the Kensington Rune Stone is finally finding its true and rightful place.  It must now be accepted as a land claim put down by the medieval Templar's who embraced the ancient ideology of Monotheistic Dualism, to establish a "free state" where people can move, think, worship their God, and speak freely.  The rune stone was the beginning of the founding of the United States begun by the Templar's and then successfully completed by their direct ideological descendants; Freemasonry.

The mission to establish this free state was certainly considered a sacred act, or a "Covenant" if you will.  It was of utmost importance and demanded extreme secrecy and loyalty.  With all of this in mind, we (my wife Janet and Alan Butler) were thinking about the Ritual Code numbers again when something occurred to us.  In their new book, "America: Nation of the Goddess," Janet and Alan explained how our Founding Fathers used the megalithic yard to lay out the entire city of Washington, D.C.  The megalithic yard is a sacred, ancient measurement calculated using the movements of the planet Venus and a 366 degree circle verses 360 degrees, to consistently and accurately determine its length of 2.72 feet.  While discussing the relevance of the megalithic yard and the Kensington Rune Stone numbers, it dawned us to do a simple calculation; what happens when you divide 22 by 8?  The answer shook us to our core, 2.75 feet.  Even though it wasn't exactly the same it was close enough to make a reasonable connection and to wonder if the allegory and coded information was intended to acknowledge the presence of the Creator to guide and protect the vitally important land claim of the land the medieval Templar's likely viewed as their eventual sanctuary.  For those who would like to read more about how a certain group of Freemasons  calculated the megalithic yard in the late 19th Century in Washington, D.C., click here: http://www.nationofthegoddess.com/the-summerhouse.html

While pondering the significance of all this something else popped into my head that prompted me to pull out a tape measure and stretch it across the length of the full-sized cast I have of the artifact.  it measure 31 inches long...  


 
This recently discovered Icelandic Manuscript from, circa 1700, shows the numerical values of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet.  Notice the symbol of the first letter, “aleph,” is a Hooked X.  The symbol used for the “a” Sound on the Kensington Rune Stone is also a Hooked X. (Internet)
 
 
The Maltese cross worn by the medieval order of the Knights Templar has eight points, the Newport Tower sits on eight stone columns and the Hennepin Avenue Lutheran Methodist Church in Minneapolis incorporates octagonal architecture.  8 in Hebrew mysticism is considered the number of Deity.