The final resting place of the Narragansett Rune Stone in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, after it's unveiling at the dedication ceremony held on October 30, 2015. A secured gazebo will be constructed to enclose the artifact in the spring of 2016.
The interpretive signage that includes historical photos of the Narragansett Rune Stone.
Speaking on behalf of the nine elderly witnesses who signed written affidavits that helped preserve the integrity of the Narragansett Rune Stone, Peter Bruno gave an emotional and moving speech.
As the final speaker I made sure to
acknowledge the vital contributions of Detective Sheila Paquette, who tried
unsuccessfully to hide in the crowd, and Steve DiMarzo, who helped preserve the
integrity of the stone by finding the nine elderly witnesses who had seen the
inscription as early as 1945 and having them all sign written affidavits. (Photo
Courtesy of Tom Helmer)
This is a panoramic view of the Narragansett Rune Stone Dedication Ceremony held in North Kingstown on October 30, 2015. (Photo courtesy of Tim Cranston)
It was a
perfect October 30 day as an excited crowd gathered that would
eventually swell to roughly 150 people.
Janet and I arrived a couple hours before the ceremony and found the
Narragansett Rune Stone inscription right side up with the boulder it was
inscribed on perched at a 45 degree angle and partially buried below-grade with
fist-sized cobbles surrounding within the perimeter of a recently built wooden
fence. This certainly isn’t the final
structure scheduled to be constructed to protect the inscription from
weathering and secure it from vandalism.
That construction is planned for next spring, but as we stood looking at
the tarp-covered boulder with new landscaping and fencing I could help feeling
sense of relief and pride. Through the
efforts of many people, including nine brave now-elderly people who had signed
written affidavits attesting to having seeing the inscription prior to 1963,
when some clown claimed to have carved the inscription in hopes of seeing it
dismissed, the historic day I had long hoped for had arrived.
Familiar
faces began to trickle in and we greeted them with smiles, handshakes and
hugs. Rick Lynch and David Brody were
some of the first and we reminisced how far we had come since that Christmas
Party in 2011, at the home of one the residents of the Pojack Point
neighborhood where the stone was then located.
We were there to lobby support from the homeowners for their support in
getting the stone out of the water and to a more secure location. We knew that to have any chance of getting this done
we needed
the support of the local residents. The
words I spoke were barely out of my mouth when one of the residents angrily
piped up and said, “That stone belongs to me.
I can do anything I want. I could
take it out of the water tomorrow.”
Right then, I knew were in trouble.
When the
three of us first received word the stone was missing about six months later,
we all knew instantly who the prime suspect was. It took about year for Detective Sheila Paquette
and her colleagues to recover the stone that had been removed with heavy
equipment by the angry neighbor. It was
returned and temporarily stored at a secure indoor facility belonging to the
University of Rhode Island where it would reside for almost two years until it
was moved to its final resting place. It
was in that secure facility that Janet, researcher Jerry Lutgen, and I first saw the artifact since it had been stolen. It was also the first time I had a chance to
examine the clean inscription without the having to
brush away barnacles, seaweed and crabs crawling over it or having to wait for
low tide to even see it. At least twice
in the past I tried in vain to closely examine it as waves lapped over the
inscribed characters. This visit in
September of the 2014 was the one and only chance I’d have to carefully examine
not just the inscription, but the entire boulder to get a better sense of the
geological aspects and weathering which was more advanced than I originally
thought. It also gave Jerry a chance to
test his RTI (Reflective Transformational Imaging) technology.
As the
garage door slammed shut after completing our three-hour time scouring the
stone we knew the next time we’d see the stone was today. After the speeches and glad-handing was over, I took one last look and
noticed the three deep gouges made from the heavy equipment the neighbor used to
remove the stone from the water. On one hand
they were a tragic reminder of the damage that has been done by arrogance and
ignorance. However, the fresh-looking
gouges served as excellent control marks that by comparison, makes the inscription look as old
and weathered as it is. I couldn’t help
but smile at the irony of how the three gouges were symbolic of the contrasting views
of the controversy and how we should all look at them as an opportunity to make
lemonade out of three big lemons.
I would also like to comment on a recent article published by Professor Henrik Williams, a runologist at Uppsala University in Sweden. The paper can be read at the following link:
http://files.webb.uu.se/uploader/267/Narragansett%20Stone%20Report%203.1%20Williams%202014.pdf
While Professor Williams is a very bright man and certainly an accomplished runologist, he seems to be out of his element when dealing with the five mysterious runic inscriptions discovered in North America that include the Hooked X symbol, because they do not fit the standard runic record of Scandinavia. They are the Kensington Rune Stone, discovered in Minnesota in 1898, the three Spirit Pond Rune Stones, discovered together in Maine, in 1971, and the Narragansett Rune Stone first discovered in the early 1940s. In this attached article on the Narragansett Rune Stone Williams concludes, "It seems likely that it was carved sometime between the 1890s and the 1940s." This being based on the unsaid, but his apparent "belief" that the Hooked X symbol was copied from the Kensington Rune Stone and/or the Spirit Pond Rune Stones. There is no factual evidence for this assertion and indeed there is evidence that refutes it.
Williams' conclusion is both incorrect and irresponsible. The truth is the professor is carrying on the century-plus long tradition of many "soft science" scholars, both in Scandinavia and in North America, of claiming the North America rune stones with the Hooked X are of modern origin. While I applaud the professor for making the effort to personally examine these inscriptions, which linguists in the past have not bothered to do, the reality is he didn't need to travel to three states to see the artifacts because his area of expertise did not require it. The physical state of the weathering of the inscriptions is not something he was required to evaluate to render an opinion on authenticity since he is not qualified to do so. He could have stayed in his office and rendered the same erroneous conclusions by looking at photos of the inscriptions. The irresponsible mistake that Williams and other "soft science" scholars continue to make is they believe their opinion-driven disciplines are the only ones that can answer the question about the authenticity of these artifacts. Further, for over a century they have intentionally ignored the "hard" scientific evidence of geologists who have emphatically concluded the weathering of these inscriptions are centuries old.
I have known Professor Williams for 13 years and have personally presented the details of both my own and other geologist's scientific work performed on these artifacts. The facts are he has chosen to ignore these findings instead of working together to find the answers as to what the messages mean by figuring out who carved them, when, and why. This behavior is simply the latest example of the way many scholars (not all) have treated hard scientists whose factually supported conclusions have been at odds with their beliefs. This is not the way historical truth should be decided and it is not what the people who care about the truth about our history should accept. Shame on Williams for issuing another horribly flawed, and factually unsupported opinion that it at odds with hard science. The only way we are going to get the story straight is to demand certain scholars conduct themselves ethically and responsibly. What he should have concluded based on the lack of evidence presented in his paper is what too many soft science scholars seem incapable of saying, "I don't know." Logic dictates that if hard science data is generated that is conclusive about the age of weathering of inscriptions carved in stone, than there has to be an explanation that supports the conclusion that people of that time period were here and they carved the inscriptions with an intended message for others who could also understand them. Scholars of all pertinent disciplines should work side by side to comb the historic records to unlock the keys that will shed light on these early visitors to North America. I am confident that rapid progress could be made if only this collaborative effort could become a reality instead of the current ego posturing taking center stage.
Runologist's Conclusion about the Narragansett Rune Stone
I would also like to comment on a recent article published by Professor Henrik Williams, a runologist at Uppsala University in Sweden. The paper can be read at the following link:
http://files.webb.uu.se/uploader/267/Narragansett%20Stone%20Report%203.1%20Williams%202014.pdf
While Professor Williams is a very bright man and certainly an accomplished runologist, he seems to be out of his element when dealing with the five mysterious runic inscriptions discovered in North America that include the Hooked X symbol, because they do not fit the standard runic record of Scandinavia. They are the Kensington Rune Stone, discovered in Minnesota in 1898, the three Spirit Pond Rune Stones, discovered together in Maine, in 1971, and the Narragansett Rune Stone first discovered in the early 1940s. In this attached article on the Narragansett Rune Stone Williams concludes, "It seems likely that it was carved sometime between the 1890s and the 1940s." This being based on the unsaid, but his apparent "belief" that the Hooked X symbol was copied from the Kensington Rune Stone and/or the Spirit Pond Rune Stones. There is no factual evidence for this assertion and indeed there is evidence that refutes it.
Williams' conclusion is both incorrect and irresponsible. The truth is the professor is carrying on the century-plus long tradition of many "soft science" scholars, both in Scandinavia and in North America, of claiming the North America rune stones with the Hooked X are of modern origin. While I applaud the professor for making the effort to personally examine these inscriptions, which linguists in the past have not bothered to do, the reality is he didn't need to travel to three states to see the artifacts because his area of expertise did not require it. The physical state of the weathering of the inscriptions is not something he was required to evaluate to render an opinion on authenticity since he is not qualified to do so. He could have stayed in his office and rendered the same erroneous conclusions by looking at photos of the inscriptions. The irresponsible mistake that Williams and other "soft science" scholars continue to make is they believe their opinion-driven disciplines are the only ones that can answer the question about the authenticity of these artifacts. Further, for over a century they have intentionally ignored the "hard" scientific evidence of geologists who have emphatically concluded the weathering of these inscriptions are centuries old.
I have known Professor Williams for 13 years and have personally presented the details of both my own and other geologist's scientific work performed on these artifacts. The facts are he has chosen to ignore these findings instead of working together to find the answers as to what the messages mean by figuring out who carved them, when, and why. This behavior is simply the latest example of the way many scholars (not all) have treated hard scientists whose factually supported conclusions have been at odds with their beliefs. This is not the way historical truth should be decided and it is not what the people who care about the truth about our history should accept. Shame on Williams for issuing another horribly flawed, and factually unsupported opinion that it at odds with hard science. The only way we are going to get the story straight is to demand certain scholars conduct themselves ethically and responsibly. What he should have concluded based on the lack of evidence presented in his paper is what too many soft science scholars seem incapable of saying, "I don't know." Logic dictates that if hard science data is generated that is conclusive about the age of weathering of inscriptions carved in stone, than there has to be an explanation that supports the conclusion that people of that time period were here and they carved the inscriptions with an intended message for others who could also understand them. Scholars of all pertinent disciplines should work side by side to comb the historic records to unlock the keys that will shed light on these early visitors to North America. I am confident that rapid progress could be made if only this collaborative effort could become a reality instead of the current ego posturing taking center stage.
Well said Scott. I just found something I thought you would be interested in. An oak island researcher named Daniel Ronnstam just discovered a rock in nova scotia with an "X" carved on it (my mind wants to see a hook but I don't think there's one there) he has done sonor on the ground around it and found evidence of a possible vault. He believes it to be of Rosicrucian doing. Anyway I thought any newly discovered rock in north america with an X on it thought to come from the Rosicrucians would gain your interest. Here is a link to the article
ReplyDeletehttp://oakislandproject.com/wp/a/
Thanks for the blog updates I will continue to follow your work!
David from Knoxville,TN
David,
DeleteI'm glad you enjoyed the blog post. However, I'm not as optimistic about Oak Island as many other people are. I think there was something of importance there at one time, but it was moved centuries ago. Something would have been discovered by now. In any case, keep checking in. There's more good stuff coming.
What astounds me is that blokes will hear a story that begins with a pulley left on a tree limb above a circle of disturbed earth and conclude that a fantastic treasure had just been deposited rather than collected. What rubbish, that Oak Island affair truly is.
DeleteCheers,
Lesley
Scott, the boulder with the X that Daniel Ronnstam has posted on his web site is not on Oak Island, but inland in Lunenburg County. He was following some Oak Island related "lead" when he found it, but that could be a coincidence. It is an interesting carved X, but it looks like a fairly recent incision to me.
DeleteTerry,
DeleteIt's really hard to say much about the X carving without examining it in person. Road trip?
I totally agree about saying anything from photos. In fact, re. my comment about "recent", I just noticed that Daniel has traced a black line on the photo to show where the "X" is to be found. I didn't realize that black line was draw-in before. I thought it was the core of the carving. So scratch that remark about it appearing "recent". It actually looks old.
DeleteAnyway, feel free to discuss with Daniel, but he is keeping the location confidential. I haven't seen it either, and I don't know where it is, other than inland somewhere in Lunenburg County.
Terry,
DeleteThanks for your input; when I get the time I will follow up with Daniel.
Hi Scott, ...following your investigations about the templars and everything else, i can not believe no one has told you about the other tower in north kingstown, about three miles south of where the narragansett stone was found. I lived not one mile from pojac point on the other side of the greens river. This is why im so interested in all your work. Any way, if you want to know more about the north kingstown tower, maybe come see for yourself...ail me at robbingrover357@gmail.com. thank you for all your fasinating work, Robbin Grover
DeleteAs a lifelong North Kingstown resident, I'd like to thank you for bringing national attention to the Narragansett rune stone story. I had never heard of it until watching you on "Holy Grail in America." It's fascinating that this small state is home to two significant historical artifacts - the rune stone and the Newport Tower. I wonder what else is here that hasn't been discovered yet. One question - Why was the unnamed neighbor not held accountable for trying to deep six the stone? It seems like everyone knows his identity, but he hasn't been named in the press and, apparently, no charges were filed. Keep up the good work. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteNorth Kingstown resident,
ReplyDeleteThe unnamed neighbor was in fact named in the local newspapers at the time the stone was returned; his name is Tim Mellon. It turned out that Mr. Mellon's actions, though not intended to be helpful, in fact hastened the effort to remove it from the waters of the bay and get to a permanent location where it will be protected and preserved for future generations.
I'm not ready thank Mr. Mellon, but what started off as a disaster has ended well.
Yes, Scott, a good kind of irony there. Great blog post here. Dr. Williams is not doing justice to history with his dismissive approach.
ReplyDeleteTerry,
DeleteI know the professor quite well and the sad part is he knows better.
Yes! The professor Henrik knows better. I am your biggest fan when you rewrite true history.
DeleteNam E'tisoppo
This is a great on-going story. Thanks for the new coverage. The stone sure seems to possibly fit in with the Newport Tower period, even though dates for both aren't known, exactly.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what period of time the elder and younger runes merged temporarily, if that can be determined. Maybe this could account for two different eras of runes being represented, as Dr. Williams is saying.
Here's something I noticed. On the second line there is a hooked x and a rune that looks something like a capital F. I remember reading somewhere that the X or hooked x might have sometimes represented 10. Well, Mr. Wolter, I just noticed that if you add the F to the hooded x, we could possibly have a date. On the Kensington Rune Stone, at the end of the message, the last rune is a F representing the number 2. So, if we add 10 and 2 and we get 1200.
Maybe the stone is evidence of marking southern Vinland, which as you probably already know was casually mentioned and known about during that period around 1200. For instance, a priest is supposed to have visited Vinland much earlier than the date on the Kensington Rune Stone, according to Scandinavian historians.
I don't think Dr. Williams got it right, and now I see that he's planning to write a book to discredit America's rune stones. Maybe since he couldn't figure out the message on the Narragansett rock, it was convenient to just dismiss it. Obviously, there are some things he doesn't know yet. (Which seems to kind of put him on the fringe.)
Peyton
As things move this fall and winter with the continuing "Oak Island" story, I would think things are going to get even more vocal. I, for one, have no idea why all the pushback but then my career was not depended upon "false and suppressed" history......
DeleteI might add that it seems apparent he hasn't read the book by Kirsten A. Seaver - "The Frozen Echo". Written in 1999, it is to be reckoned with and it appears to me to be "ignored" by American historians (loosely applied). Although her book about the "Vinland Map" has been proved otherwise, at the time, the REAL science had not progressed to the point of being able to reconcile her findings. The map is now proved to be accurate.
DeleteIn the book "The Frozen Echo", she opens up the entire gamut of the exploration of N.A. She goes to great length to explain the Viking, Scots, English, Celtics, Scandinavian history of ocean travel. The FACT that is IGNORED by the historians is by 1200 A.D. the ships of the sea had closed upper decks. This was a quantum change in ship travel and building. The payloads became unheard of in those days and they had the "astrolabe".
This is also the book that Judi Rudebusch got the idea of the "stone holes" from.....
Dave,
DeleteI wouldn't hold my breath for any grand revelations on the Oak Island.
With regard to navigation, it was difficult for certain ships to navigate the Atlantic and make it to North America from Europe or any other continent for that matter.
Peyton,
ReplyDeleteInteresting you mention Williams is going to write a book discrediting American Rune Stones. I'm not at all surprised he has an agenda that certainly does not, and cannot include anything scientific for obvious reasons. With a clear-cut negative agenda his book is destined to quickly fall into the dustbin of history as have all other "soft science" academics who have written similar books in the past century.
He's simply too arrogant and stubborn to be objective or scientific. Oh well...
Scott,
ReplyDeleteWhen you went to North Kingstown, R.I. in Oct. did you get a chance to forensically investigate the Tiverton Rocks “called the Written Rocks of Tiverton” directly 10 miles East of Pojac Point across Narragansett Bay in Tiverton, R.I.? It might be related to the Narragansett Stone? It seems to have a depiction of a ship and the ship has a sail with a cross on it.
If you haven’t investigated the stone-maybe some of your bloggers might know more about the Written Rocks of Tiverton?
https://rifootprints.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/tivertonrocks.jpg
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI did not get a chance to review the Tiverton Written Rocks. However, I have looked at the In Hoc Signo Vinces Stone on the shore at Newport. It is carved into meta-greywacke as well and is extensively weathered and eroded.
Saw the show where you discovered the Narragansett Rune stone missing from its location. So nice to hear its been found & is now on display. Sorry I didnt know about the public dedication for this rune stone or I would have made a point to be there. I see I need to follow you a bit closer, Scott, to learn about future events such as this one.
ReplyDeleteI hope further measures to stop vandalism of the Narragansett Rune stone is completed as soon as is possible because this stone is an important part of American history & truly needs to be protected.
I've followed all your TV series with great interest & am glad to hear there is more coming in the future. I'm a big fan of your work.
Rosie,
DeleteThere is a plan to build a secured gazebo to enclose the stone to protect it from weathering and vandalism in the spring. The City of North Kingstown has really stepped up and deserve a lot of credit. Stay posted to the blog that I'll try to keep it fresh when something noteworthy comes up.
Scott,
DeleteWe visited the stone today. There is no gazebo or any other structure protecting this stone from the elements. I'm not convenienced this is the actual stone.
Anonymous,
DeleteI am in complete agreement with you that a structure needs to be completed to better protect and preserve the inscription for the future.
However, I can assure you that is the actual artifact you saw on display.
Kudos to all who are responsible for preserving this significant lithic piece of America's history.
ReplyDeleteJust received my email from Amazon about a "certain" book coming to me in about 2 weeks. Many many many kudos' to you, Janet and Alan....
ReplyDeleteI have some comments to make a little later regarding "soft science" and the Andy White blog....he has some definitions posted that I find somewhat provocative but then, I'm just a taxpayer...what would I know.
And this monument..its just the greatest. Wish I could have been there. One step at a time and things get done...
Dave,
DeleteJanet and Alan are getting excited about their book being released. It has some wonderful new information and amazing discoveries. You won't be disappointed.
Who's Andy White and what does he have to say that's relevant to this subject matter?
"Who's Andy White....?" Hopefully this blog post by Prof. White, if it indeed is true, will help you recall who he is. I do hope arrangements can be made for this event to come to fruition and look forward to reading reports from you both about the event.
Deletehttp://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/scott-wolter-has-agreed-to-participate-in-my-class
Mike Morgan
Mike,
DeleteI know who Andy White is; I just spaced it since I hadn't thought about his offer for a couple of months. He heard from somebody that I had forgotten and contacted me Monday. We had a good exchange and I'm looking forward to presenting to his students.
We are both looking forward to the presentation and discussion with his students. I applaud the Professor White for this innovative idea that I'm sure will result in a better understanding about these issues on everyone's part.
Scott, it looks like Mike Morgan and Joe Scales (with his friend John) are related to a hidden group barely known as "Anti-TreasureForce". I think Mike is actually Captain Morgan, and Joe and John are the same person representing the Commander of Anti-TreasureForce himself!
DeleteIf I were you, I wouldn't trust them, because collectively he wants to hurt you.
- Col. EP Sanders (special agent in the field)
TREASUREFORCE
Col EP Sanders,
DeleteI'm well aware of who Joe Scales is and based on what I've seen I'd categorize him as a dishonest Internet troll. Sorry Joe, but show me evidence to the contrary and I'll acknowledge it.
As far as the others debunkers go, I post about 10% of the comments they submit because they are unproductive, sarcastic to the subject matter, or are simply immature rants. Let's face it, this subject matter gets under the skin of many "true believers", on both sides, who ignore scientific method and defer to dogma.
I judge all comments on merit and relevance to the subject matter. If they make the cut I post them. If not, they get flushed.
I am not anti-treasure force. To be clear, I am anti-fraud. I no longer participate on this blog as it is not a level playing field as Mr. Wolter will not post accurate criticism of his methodology or credentials. In response to same, he resorts to ad hominem again and again. Like above when he calls me dishonest when he knows he cannot show that to be the case. If he could, he would appear on an unmoderated, uncensored blog for debate. This challenge he will never meet.
DeleteJoe,
DeleteI am also anti-fraud and if you would take the time to carefully poise the evidence I present related to certain mysterious artifacts with a truly open mind you'd see what I see. And please stop with the posturing, labeling, and personal attacks on my credentials. I've run a materials forensic laboratory for over 30 years and am certainly qualified and respected in my field. I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge and respect these facts.
I would also ask that you put aside the hostility and just write to the to me and the readers like a regular person. Prove me wrong that you are not a dishonest debunker by participating in civil discourse and when I answer a question with facts, please acknowledge them.
These are complicated and difficult problems we're trying to solve and we can't make any progress unless we start with mutual respect. Are you cool with that?
I acknowledge that you have demonstrated expertise in the structural soundness of building materials. That is not enough for me to recognize your conclusions as fact in regard to the weathering of runes carved in stone, when such work has been countered and questioned not only by other geologists, but those in various other academic fields that come into play. Your conclusions may be enough for you and the fans of your television show that participate on your blog. But when I see malevolent characterizations of people like Professor Henrik Williams in your rebuke, without substance to back them, you have to be called out on it. Like above, you personally attack the professor and then make it seem as if I am posturing, labeling and personally attacking you. Don't you see the folly in this tact? Believe it or not, I would be fascinated if it could be shown that others had ventured to our shores other than that which has been confirmed as a certainty. I still await proof of same, as demeaning your opposition does nothing to advance your cause. It is pure ad hominem, a logical fallacy.
DeleteHow you frame your arguments are fair play. When I had posted here before, I made a point of setting forth logical fallacies within your arguments. Fallacy doesn't mean I disagree with you. They are age old forms to argument that are the basis for all our knowledge. When you commit a logical fallacy, your conclusions are suspect as a matter of course. It's not a personal attack to expose them, nor is it a mater of agreeing to disagree. You recognize them and then work to better your arguments. Frustrated that this could not be done, I stopped posting here, as mutual respect goes both ways, and I took my displeasure elsewhere. But I thank you for your candor and perhaps I may visit more often so long as the name calling ceases to permeate your blog.
Joe,
DeleteLet's do this; why don't we wipe the slate clean and start over. But let's be clear about something. The geologists in Scandinavia do not count as credible, objective critics. If you want me to tell you why I will, but I think you already know why. Wieblen only did a single, cursory point count on the weathered top surface of the core; I stood there and watched him do it. That was whey he didn't see any mica. He did nothing else, so he doesn't qualify as one of your critical geologists. Other than Newton Winchell and W. O. Hotchkiss (State Geologist of Wisconsin) in 1910, there are no other geologists you can refer to that have looked at the KRS in any meaningful detail. Nor is there any valid criticism of my geological work.
With regard to Williams, he, Nielsen and myself worked closely together on the KRS for five years. That collaboration resulted in a number of important linguistic and runological discoveries that were consistent with authenticity. Most notably my documentation of the two dots (umlaut's) above the Hooked X in the word "har" that changed it from a modern Swedish word, to an Old Swedish word. Thus eliminating the one piece of linguistic evidence against the medieval origin of the inscription. This was an important discovery you may not even be aware of.
In 2006, a woman named Lorraine Jensen entered the picture and not coincidentally, Dick and Henrik's attitude toward me changed for the worse. To the point where Henrik Williams felt compelled to write letters to the Director of the Minnesota Geological Survey, the Director of the Minnesota Historical Society and the President of the University of Minnesota accusing me of unethical behavior that never happened. I was told directly by the individual's who received the letters this had happened. You can also talk to Darwin Ohman about this unfortunate chapter of the story for he was recruited by them to turn against me and refused.
I have pointed out the blatant disrespect Williams has shown for the scientific aspects of the five N. America rune stones with the Hooked X and it simply needs to stop. My criticisms of the professor are not unfounded and until he starts to conduct himself differently myself and others will continue hold him accountable.
I could care less what he thinks about me personally, but if he wants his opinions to be respected he has to acknowledge facts and hard science. Saying the Hooked X is a modern invention is simply false and he needs to own up to that and retract his statement this is why the Narragansett and Kensington Rune Stones are of modern origin.
Look, I'd prefer not to fight with him, you, or anyone else about the authenticity of the KRS. I would prefer to work together and know I could help Professor Williams, but we both have to put down the swords. I'm more than willing to do it because what hangs in the balance is much more important than any of the personal issues between us.
I'm actually a pretty easy guy to get along with.
Scott, what you had back in 2006 was apparently a run-in with one of anti-Treasureforce's earliest spies in the field. I would know. Current information suggests that she is a secret admirer of none other than one of your primary detractors, the Italiano Christopher Columbus protector and would-be debunker known in spy-circles as JC.
DeleteThat Woman apparently does not believe in the Kensington Rune Stone, seemingly the main point of contention between you and good ole amiable Joe here, Scott. I wonder if in some way That Woman thinks she's helping the local Scandinavian-American community by supporting JC and Henrik,and their like?
To end this short report: Personally, I think LJ's doing the community a disservice by supporting those who would deny America the truth about the fabulous Kensington Rune Stone!
Col. EP Sanders (Special Agent in the Field)
TREASUREFORCE
Col EP Sanders,
DeleteJensen is a fan of anyone who is critical of me. She knows I won't allow her to manipulate the KRS in an unfounded negative direction. Every time I show up at a lecture that she helped facilitate where a Scandinavian "scholar" is planning to pontificate about the KRS "hoax" her face instantly turns to a scowl the second she sees me.
She is solely responsible for the rift between Henrik, Dick Nielsen and me. There were no issues between us until she entered the picture. Their efforts have not been about these individuals helping any community or greater good. This has been about these people helping only themselves by trying to hijack and control the KRS discussion.
Thus is yet another sad chapter of "people problems" trumping truth in the history of the Kensington Rune Stone.
Yes, part of our function is to ferret out intrigues in dark shadows, if possible. It's a good thing you're not the conspiracy-paranoid type, Scott, or this could be worrisome for you. But, rest assured that we are on the case, and with enthusiasm.
DeleteWe here at Treasureforce Headquarters in Alexandria (not Egypt) have a thick portfolio bulging at the seams about the intricate relationship between local and overseas connections hooked up long ago to discredit the KRS. (This is NOT being funded by Norway or Sweden in any way, I'm glad to report.)
I agree that the KRS discussion should not be manipulated. We here at Treasureforce Hdqtrs are doing our best to out-maneuver our errant adversaries (primarily so-called academics), so that the discussion may remain free of unnecessary intrigues and encumbrances not worthy of a free and open society.
You should feel good to know--to the chagrin of leaders of anti-Treasureforce--that great strides are currently being made in proving the authenticity of the KRS, the TREASURE in this great adventure. To this end, we here at Hdqtrs thank you for your past service in this regard. We look forward to your future support of the wonderfully historic stone document known as the Kensington Rune Stone.
Col. Sanders (Agent in the Field)
TREASUREFORCE
This sort of thing from Mr. Sanders is how such discussions become degraded. Because we live in a free society, alternative viewpoints are allowed to be expressed by those who either honestly believe they are adding to the educational discussion, or even those with simply something to sell. When rejected, they cannot stomp their feet and take it as a declaration of war. That is not how intellectual discourse works. So please, spare us the fascist, militant lingo. There is no place for it in a rational discussion, it reflects poorly on our host and I seriously doubt anyone here believes you to be a military officer of any kind; which is highly offensive to those that actually served.
DeleteThat's Colonel Sanders to you, Private E-2 Scales. Discussions involving the KRS are being upgraded, not degraded, despite your stalking-like behavior of Scott, this blog host. In fact, Treasureforce Headquarters has a fairly thick portfolio built up on you, too, though most of the unpleasant information has been compiled only recently.
DeleteWe believe that you as "Joe Scales" are just another tired spinoff of someone we initially set our files up under as "Mister Hister Lister," which sounds like a reference to apocalyptic literature, but isn't. Hister is merely a reverse-tribute and recognition of the chaos and bad-will you continue to foment against Scott Wolter, in a rather pathological manner.
Your several other aliases from the past few years have been duly noted and cataloged within our extensive database, so that you are well known to this elite group, well known as a constant blog nuisance to the greater efforts of Treasureforce (and Scott Wolter) to promote the genuineness of the KRS.
For this reason, we must now seek to expose your affiliation with anti-Treasureforce in your efforts at pursuing Scott with your constant and persistent harassment under various tiresome assumed names. Treasureforce has noted that Scott has tried to patient with you as a gentleman host, to no avail. Because you have been a multiyear-harasser and internet stalker of Mr. Wolter, we feel that it is incumbent upon ourselves to simply expose you for what and who you have been to this blog: an unpleasant troll and stalker-harasser with too much idle time on his hands. This Kensington Rune Stone is real. Get over it and find something else to do, is our recommendation to you, Mister Lister.
Now get down and give me twenty. Make that fifty, for the Colonel!
Col. EP Sanders (Agent in the Field)
TREASUREFORCE GLOBAL
Funny you would consider me a stalker Mr. Sanders when it was you that dropped my name in this blog discussion thus bringing me back. I take it you have actually been following me around online to do so at other sites; which in my view makes you the stalker, keeping "files" and such. So now you are accusing me of being anyone from "John" to "Mister Lister". As I know for a certainty that you are wrong on both counts, that does not bode well for your credibility and I will not exchange insults with you on this site as it is discouraged by our host. Furthermore, as you fail on a purely intellectual level to even attempt a rational discussion with, this will be my last rebuke in your regard as I will not respond to you again.
DeleteAs for a push-up contest... you wouldn't win that either. You'll just have to trust me on that.
Joe/Col Sanders,
DeleteI think you've both made your points, so lets move on to discussion about the subject matter that I think we all agree is interesting and worthy of further inquiry.
Let me make one thing clear, I have no problem at all with skeptics like Joe, or any others who disagree with my research posting on this blog. All I ask is for posters to refrain from making unfounded claims and be respectful of the participants and readers of this blog. Any and all opinions are fine, I just ask that people offer them with some kind of factual support whenever possible.
We all get fired up at times during the debates, myself included, but if we try to keep the tone calm and respectful everybody wins in the end.
Thank you Mr. Wolter. A few questions now in regard to your blog post.
Delete1) What conclusive hard scientific studies were conducted in regard to determining that the Narragansett Rune Stone's carving was done centuries ago and what geologists or others from "hard" scientific disciplines were involved? Considering that the stone was underwater for much of the time, how did this play into any such determinations of age, and what disciplines would specialize in this regard? In which geological or other scientific periodicals can I find any such studies?
2) Who was responsible for the narrative on the placard surrounding the site? It seems that Professor Williams, who you call irresponsible, was cited/quoted on it as an authority figure, though somewhat out of context however, no?
3) Have you interpreted what the runes on the stone literally mean? Would you admit that "soft sciences" have more standing in this regard than geologists?
Joe,
Delete1. I don't remember anybody saying there was conclusive evidence of the inscription being hundreds of years old. However, based on previous thin section review of two samples obtained from the rock, together with the work I did a year ago last August when I examined the inscription for roughly three hours I was able to formulate an opinion. The weathering profile of the inscription in that environment is advanced and consistent with hundreds of years of weathering.
However, because we don't know exactly what it's exact position has been dating back many centuries relative to being in or out of the water it's impossible to say for sure how many hundreds of years.
2. I don't know who had ultimate responsibility for the wording on the interpretive display. If it had been up to me I wouldn't have included Williams' quote which I also see as out of context, but for different reasons. It comes across as sarcastic given he believes the inscription is modern. But then I know the professor personally and understand the context of why he said what he did.
3. I would agree the input from "soft sciences" could be helpful in the interpretation of the meaning of the inscription. Unfortunately, scholars like Williams do not understand the secret communication practices of the medieval monastic orders or that of Freemasonry and other secret societies. This was demonstrated by his snap and erroneous judgment about the meaning of the Larsson Rune Rows that include 19th Century secret Masonic coded alphabets, Masonic box codes and Pentadic numbers that date back many centuries.
He knows nothing about this subject matter, yet arrogantly still drew a conclusion about the authenticity KRS based solely on these papers. He has made the same mistake here with the Narragansett Rune Stone.
The Larrson papers simply showed that a contemporary source for the KRS runes existed during the time of discovery. It was a piece of a puzzle that inductively went further to balance the scale in favor of the KRS being a hoax, given numerous other questions posed by linguists concerning the historically anachronistic mishmash of symbols, numbers, case type and lettering. And remember, even though Winchell had his own impression that the KRS was legit, in the committee report he cosigned for the Minnesota Historical Society, it was left up to the Swedish linguists/rune experts for a final determination. If you transpose that to today, you'd be in Winchell's position leaning towards legitimacy, whereas Professor Williams would stand in for the linguistic/rune experts in maintaining that the burden of proof for authenticity has not been met. I know you're not happy with this, but perhaps more work needs to be done on your part in legitimizing your weathering methodology to the point where it can no longer be ignored by others in your field.
DeleteJoe,
DeleteNo, the Larsson Papers do not show a contemporary source for the KRS runes. The first reason is not all the mysterious runes on the KRS are found in the Larsson Rune Rows. This is a fact I'd appreciate that you would acknowledge. Second, they are located on two different continents separated by the Atlantic Ocean and until you can provide evidence that anyone in Minnesota in the late 19th Century had access to the Larsson Run Rows, along with some other source for the other runes not in those papers, your point has no merit.
Let's face it, you and the soft science academics approach the KRS question from a bias perspective with your minds already firmly made up. There is no objectivity to your arguments and therefore cannot be taken seriously. I came into this arena 15 years ago completely neutral and objective, and despite what some people think, I maintain that mentality in everything I investigate.
I have followed the evidence trail as any forensic investigator should, and along with the assistance of many other people, including Professor Williams for 5 years, have found all the answers to the questions about the KRS and it's medieval origin. On the contrary, naysayer's and debunkers have produced no evidence consistent with it being a hoax.
As far as my geological weathering work on the KRS goes, there is no need to investigate further as my work was scientifically sound, was peer reviewed and published in both written report and book form. Again, if you and other scholars were truly objective, you'd accept the work and realize the folly of these silly arguments against the linguistics, runes, dialect and grammar features of the inscription that have ALL been found to be medieval.
I know you're not going to like or accept what I've written here, but it further underscores the lack of balance and objectivity of yours and certain scholar's position on this matter.
May 1, 2002, in your letter to Professors Green, Matsch and Ojakangus, of the University of Minnesota Duluth you wrote specifically:
Delete"You are correct that the final word on the authenticity of the KRS has yet to be decided. You are also correct in saying that I personally want the stone to be real and I understand if there is a concern for my objectivity."
So it is not exactly the case that you were without bias. As for the Larsson papers, these were noted codes between Swedish tradesmen, and it is by no means a stretch that those that immigrated to Minnesota had access to them.
In regard to peer review, I believe you've already shown a disdain for this process right here in past blog subjects. If your work was featured in a peer reviewed academic journal, I would appreciate the cite for same. Otherwise, I don't believe we embrace the same definition of said process.
Please note I am saying this objectively, as it is your burden of proof to establish the authenticity of rune stones in America being century old markers of some sort. That you haven't yet convinced me does not mean I am not open to further argument or study on your part. I am also making my points quite cordially in compliance to your wishes (and my nature). I am not demonizing you and I certainly don't wish this discussion to go down that path. I am simply debating as you opened the topic accordingly.
Joe,
DeleteFirst, you have lied in saying that my written peer reviews were not available as you clearly have had access to them for some time. This reflects very poorly on your character my friend. Second, my personal feelings are one thing, my professional judgment is another. So no, there was no bias in my scientific work despite your intentionally miss-leading quote selection.
These comments were written before my trips to Sweden where all the questioned aspects of the inscription were found, so despite your misleading presentation of my written peer review comments. The final word has indeed been issued. Are you going to now admit that my geological work on the KRS was peer reviewed by academia? Of course not, because it exposes the lies you've perpetuated for years now that my work was never peer reviewed by academics.
Let's be clear about what I said, I have disdain for the soft science peer review process which has repeatedly shown to be horribly flawed. It is the professional scientific peer review process that is more trustworthy. You are correct that we don't embrace the same definition as the soft science peer review process, but then who cares what you think as you have reduced yourself to nothing more than a faceless, nameless, (as I now know Joes Scales is not your real name) Internet troll. Sorry “Joe,” you have demonstrated dishonesty, untrustworthiness, and have now closed "that" door.
It looks like the "Coronel" might have been right about you after all.
Pardon the interruption mate, but I don't quite get the distinction you are making in regard to peer review. Soft science peer review process? What is this exactly? Mr. Scales referred to peer reviewed academic journals which are written for all scientific disciplines. I could name at least a half dozen for geology in Europe alone. So if your work appeared in any such periodical, rather than have a row with Mr. Scales, simply set forth the publication to muffle his concerns. But here is where the fog sets in. You mention professional scientific peer review as more trustworthy. What do you mean by this? Certainly you don't mean as when a physician has his treatment regimen under review. Or a geological study for a construction project as seen by others in the field. You are putting forth a pioneering effort in what you refer to as archaeopetrography. You don't submit such a thing to your state licensing board for legitimacy.
DeleteForgive me if I'm being untoward as that is not my intention. If your work was published in one of the many geological periodicals, then that would render this discussion rather moot. If not however, and you still consider your work to be peer reviewed, I'm afraid you'll have to be more particular in description.
Cheers,
Lesley
Lesley,
DeleteThis is a point I've made many times. There are many differences between soft science (history, language, runology, anthropology, archaeology specifically) peer review in the arena of the controversial pre-Columbian artifacts and sites we discuss on the blog, and professional peer review of geologists and engineers.
In the professional world we are 'results driven' and required to reach a conclusion, in writing, after the testing and interpretation work has been completed. All papers and reports are peer reviewed prior to publishing and ready to be defended in a court of law under oath.
What I have seen in the academic world far too often is the inability to correctly analyze a forensic problem using proper scientific method and logic. The Kensington Rune Stone has been the poster child for this. The numerous academic papers published in peer reviewed journals have failed to come even close to answering many of the questions of the inscription myself and other amateur linguists have been able to answer. To be fair, we had a lot of help from Dick Nielsen and Professor Henrik Williams until they decided to go in a different direction.
IMHO the reason this happened of the past century was due primarily to arrogance, and simple laziness. The peer review process failed due largely to problems of the human condition that do not happen when you know the conclusions you publish have a very good chance of coming under scrutiny by high powered, well-paid lawyers looking for any and every opportunity to make you look bad.
It's a different world and I am quite confident we get the right answers a lot more often than academics for the simple reason there are serious ramifications for shoddy work. In a word, the fundamental difference is "accountability."
My dear chap, I've read on this very blog that you've never appeared as a court recognized expert on your rune stone research. Are you saying now that your theories concerning what you deem to be "archaeopetrography" have withstood legal scrutiny in a court of law? In the States, that would be pursuant to the Frye standard, which I'm sure you're familiar with. This standard actually is in concert with elements of peer review. It is not separate and distinct, or better. So the concern remains, if you are to claim that your scientific theories pertaining to archaeopetrography were "peer reviewed", you cannot rely upon a professional licensing standard to rewrite history, as that would clearly be an equivocation with this term of art.
DeleteCheers,
Lesley
Scott
DeleteIf you would indulge me, I’d like to ask ‘Joe’, or any of the other debunkers out there, to answer some questions for me.
We all know the history of how the Kensington Rune Stone was found, don’t we. That Olof Ohman in 1898 felled a tree and found KRS wrapped in the tree roots. This event was witnessed by Mr. Ohman’s two sons and there were something like a dozen neighbors who saw the stone wrapped in the tree roots, many of whom signed affidavits concerning the discovery. Shortly after its discovery the carving was noticed by one of Mr. Ohman’s sons and almost immediately the neighbors saw the carvings as well. In fact, only a couple of days after its discovery KRS was exhibited in a local store and stayed there several months.
We know, based on information given by those same neighbors, that the tree whose roots wrapped the stone was 25 to 30 years old. We know that there are markings on KRS consistent with it being wrapped in roots for an extended period of time. We also know that Olof Ohman only immigrated to the United States 19 years before he found KRS and only purchased that farm 6 years before its discovery. Meaning that when that tree was growing and starting to wrap its roots around KRS Olof Ohman was still in Europe and did not yet own that farm. All of this is pretty basic information that we all should know.
Now, Scott, help me out here a bit because you would know more about this then I would. Let’s assume that what Mr. Ohman actually found was a blank stone that he used to fake KRS. How much time would it have taken to carve a complex stone such as this? And how long would it take, using what methods were available at the time, to artificially age the stone so that the carving wouldn’t look modern but more ancient then it actually was? I doubt that he could have done this in the time available from KRS’s discovery to the time people, other than his family, saw the carved stone.
Now what I want to know from the debunkers is a time line, consistent with the facts listed above, explaining how the heck Olof Ohman could have faked KRS. Short of time travel, I don’t see how he could of done it, and we know that time travel can’t be a serious theory. I will not accept any sort of statement that says something like, he faked it and I don’t know or care how he did it, I just know he did. That’s a cop out and will be taken just as seriously as my time travel statement. Do you believe that everybody lied about KRS’s discovery? That was over a dozen people, were they all in on it with him? Do you believe that some of the facts listed above are incorrect and if you do, then what are the true facts and can you prove them?
Olof Ohman has been scapegoated for over a century by academia when they branded KRS a fake because he was the most convenient target. I doubt that academia offered much of a time line as to how he did it, and I doubt if any of you can either.
Irene
My dear Lesley,
DeleteWhat I am saying is that mine and others' research on the KRS could easily withstand scrutiny in a court of law. In fact, I have put out the challenge numerous times for the naysayers and the debunkers to have a mock trial. No one has accepted the challenge and I doubt anyone ever will because they simply have no factual evidence and therefore no case. The reason is obvious.
I'm not sure I understand your point Lesley? The KRS and other controversial artifacts and sites have so far been tried by the consensus of academic opinion based upon little or no facts. To be frank, this method has been a piss poor way of deciding what history is. The most glaring screw-up is the KRS. If tried in a court of law the outcome would be a slam dunk. The inevitable decision would initiate a massive re-write of history that is beginning to unfold before our eyes regardless.
Irene,
DeleteYou have nearly all the facts correct, except Ohman purchased his first of four parcels of property that eventually became his nearly 100 acre farm 9 years before he found the stone.
The fact of the matter is this, not even the top Scandinavian scholar in the world could have carved the KRS in 1898, but debunkers want us to believe that somehow Olof Ohman could have done it. And remember, the burden of proof is on the debunkers and non-believers to present facts, not a theory that Olof "could have" done this or that, or unfounded rumors like he "wanted to fool the experts." Silly ideas like these were designed to muddy the waters and create doubt. The problem is there is no basis for these claims and therefore would be inadmissible in a court of law.
"Joe" or whatever his or her real name is, is not open-minded nor objective so it does little good to try and have a fruitful discussion. As I stated earlier, arguing with debunkers is a waste of time that gives them credibility they don't deserve.
Forgive the colloquial on my part, as I do like to believe that we're having a go at the local pub while we do the back and forth. But as your conclusions are admittedly based upon the science of archaeopetrography, for the Frye standard to apply (where I believe it still does in Minnesota), your scientific testimony would only be accepted for legitimacy of the KRS if the science involved was generally accepted by the scientific community. The Daubert standard based on rules of evidence which superseded Frye in many states holds to a similar standard, and each weigh heavily whether or not the science was peer reviewed by academic standards. I'll reserve my opinion in this regard as I do not wish to suffer the same fate of Mr. Scales, to be beholden as a pariah for the tenor of disagreement. Though I do hope this brings clarity to my point.
DeleteCheers,
Lesley
Lesley,
DeleteAre you familiar with ASTM Standards? They serve as the backbone for the laboratory analysis we perform; specifically, ASTM C295 and elements of C856. As for Scales, there is a lengthy history there of incessant trolling and dishonesty on his part. You'll notice that he has gone silent?
In any case, I doubt you'll cross any ethical lines and I'm quite sure you can handle anything I can dish out. Is it my turn to buy a round or yours?
Hi Irene,
DeleteAffidavits can be considered as evidence, but just by the fact that they are sworn does not make them proof. So let's look into the particulars, shall we? Have you read these affidavits or are you going by second or third hand information? Do you realize they were signed over ten years after the fact? Do you know the character, mental fitness or age of those who supplied these affidavits? Do you know the particulars, as in how many witnessed the tree fall or how many showed up after the fact? Certainly when a witness later came forward to offer a refutation and claimed to have witnessed a confession of a hoax, he was quickly labeled a drunk and/or known liar by the proponents for authenticity. I suppose all those that swore in defense of Ohman were somehow more trustworthy? But again, what specifically did they see? I believe it was only one neighbor who swore to seeing the alleged matching root pattern on the back of the stone; and again, more than ten years after the fact. Just the time frame alone makes these accounts suspect, yet would it surprise you to learn that "hard" scientists dispute that the patterns on the back of the stone could be attributed to root growth and more likely were caused by running water over time? Mr. Wolter himself at one point deferred that he heard from another expert to verify to his liking how roots could leave such traces. Who was this expert? Did he actually examine the stone? Did he reduce his conclusions to writing? If these patterns were in fact not caused by roots, would that have you question authenticity Irene? Like it's all too convenient a tale?
These are the questions you should be asking Irene. Well, that and no actual expert in the field of study for ancient runes believes the carvings to be authentic for the date specified. But I digress...
Joe/Irene,
DeleteThis response is riddled with sheer nonsense and outright mistakes. First, it is incumbent on Joe to provide factual support for implying there are any legitimate reasons to question the veracity of the signed affidavits. No one has questioned them before and Joe has provided no reason to question they now.
Second, there are no "hard" scientists that have seriously offered up the "flowing water" hypothesis to produce the root leaching which is ridiculous and absurd. We have already discussed and dismissed this point in earlier posts, yet Joe continues to offer it as if it will eventually gain traction if he is persistent. This is dishonest argumentation yet again Joe.
Third, the person you refer to as a "witness" whose questionable credibility was confirmed was Walter Gran. He was not a witness to the discovery as he was four years old when Olof and his two sons discovered the stone. In any case, his father John Gran, was not a witness to the discovery and made up the hoax claim as he was known to be jealous of the notoriety and attention Ohman received which was likely the motivation for his story. There is a chapter in my "Compelling New Evidence" book about the so-called, "Death bed confession" that turned out to be a "he-said, he-said" story with nothing credible at its core.
Sorry Joe, your attempts to smear the truth to create doubt have no factual basis and Irene has no additional facts to consider. She has shown that she has the facts down just fine.
Your final comment about "actual experts" is also wrong and I don't believe for a second that you are ignorant of the fact there are many linguistic experts and scholars who believe the inscription is authentic. You are of course aware of Hjalmar Holand, Ove Berg, Rolf Nilsestuen, Dick Nielsen, linguist John Bengtsen and of course noted Cornell Professor of Linguistics, Robert Hall Jr., who wrote two books on the KRS inscription including his 1982 book, "The Kensington Rune Stone is Genuine."
Why you continue to get your facts so horribly wrong can only be because it is intentional. Come on Joe; you can do better than that.
I'll give you that others, including even Henrik Williams, left the door open for authenticity at one time, but then came the Larsson papers. That's when the sinking ship was abandoned, present company excluded. Note the date of Hall's book. As for Dick Nielsen, you really can't pick and choose what you like to hear from him without taking note of the entire picture. His opinions have changed when new evidence presented itself, as a reasonable mind would.
DeleteAgain, it is you that have the burden of proof for authenticity. It would be illogical to thrust that burden upon me. What I, and numerous others have done, is to critique your arguments for authenticity, for which you know I find lacking. Observers of course are free to disagree. But I'm not going to call you names or question your honesty, as it would violate your terms for peace to which I am abiding by. That you cannot hold to that same standard... well... I'll let others make of it what they will. I do however appreciate the opportunity to post on your blog and will take it as a sign of the better angels of our nature.
Joe,
DeleteAs I've stated many times, the Larsson Papers have proven the runes existed all along within secret societies. That you and Williams choose to ignore this fact is your choice, but it has undermined the professor's credibility and there is more that has recently come forward that has further put him on the spot to hopefully, put his bias aside and review the situation objectively.
As for Nielsen, his opinion has not changed about the authenticity of the KRS and despite our personal differences, he did some incredible work the Scandinavian scholars for the past century were too lazy to do. These were the words of Professor Williams BTW.
Mine and other's scientific work on the KRS stands on its own merit and has withstood serious scrutiny. Sorry Joe, because debunkers like you are not objective, intentionally try to miss-lead and miss-represent, and refuse to acknowledge the facts while hiding in the shadows, we just cannot take you seriously.
My questioning of your honesty and integrity was brought on by your behavior on this blog. Your entire approach has been to try and dishonor and discredit me personally and professionally. Your claims of innocent inquiry can also be judged by those who read this blog.
It's been fun...
It has been fun, though I suspect if we were to run into each other at Lesley's pub, you would defer payment of the tab to yours truly. However, I would like to respond to your take on the Larsson papers. What they proved to this generation's linguistic scholars was a probable contemporary source for the KRS runes, but I will be happy to entertain what evidence, if any, that you claim proves they were part of some nearly thousand year old secret society.
DeleteJoe,
DeleteI'm actually pretty generous and usually take care of more than my share of the bill; especially if the tab if for beer!
As far as the Larsson Papers being a contemporary source for SOME the KRS runes; the problem is the geological weathering work has proven that to be impossible. Please spare me an argument here since no one has been able to scientifically refute either mine or Winchell's work since you have already acknowledged it was peer reviewed. This being the case, logic demands that the runes had to have been held within at least one secret society for at least 536 years. This is not a possibility, it is a fact. In fact, the presence of the Hooked X on the Yeshua ossuary proves that a secret society has known of the symbol for over TWO millennia.
With my now in-depth knowledge of certain secret societies, I can assure you keeping things secret from the world, and from academia, is not that great a difficulty. The question has always been since the Hooked X is only found connected only to modern Freemasonry and the medieval Cistercians/Knights Templar, is there evidence for an historical connection between the two. The answer is a resounding "yes."
Further, I will be posting evidence found in newly published European manuscripts that contain dozens of "invisible" Masonic alphabets and symbols dating back to at least the 9th and 10th centuries. One character found repeatedly is the Hooked X.
I'm sure the debunkers will try to find a way to dismiss the new evidence about to be released, but it proves all along the Kensington Rune Stone was carved using secret symbols like the Hooked X were known only to a medieval order that had every reason to carve and bury a land claim in North American in cooperation with certain Native Americans tribes.
Not only are the Cistercians/Knights Templar the only candidates known to use these secret symbols, but they also had the means, ability, the strategic allies, and the ideological motivation to do so. Let's face it Joe, all the factual evidence is consistent and clear, at least for those who are objective and open to see it.
Seems to be rather busy since I last responded. But as to ASTM standards, I'm in a fog as to how they might apply to rewriting history. Perhaps if I had a bit of blinding to mix I could send them seventy-five dollars and join myself. Though as their standards are voluntary and disciplinary review nonexistent, at least I won't be hanged, drawn and quartered should I cock it up.
DeleteCheers,
Lesley
Lesley,
DeleteEven in the fog you apparently took the time to at least look up what ASTM standards are so at least you won't be quartered. The standards provide a guide to the procedures that should be followed when performing certain tests. The geologist, or petrographer as they are called in the forensic geologist business, has a certain amount of latitude as to what is to be sampled, where they are taken, and what is to be performed depending on the questions that are being asked.
Of course the whole process is "overseen" by the licensing aspect of the person performing the work that ensures proper protocol is followed. Of course, once the work is completed and reported, it is then reviewed by one or more colleagues depending on the project prior to being published.
ASTM can be confusing, but it might be helpful to read some of the standards to get a better feel for how they are used. For a real fun time, try reading C856, which includes the C295 and others. It's lengthy, but quite interesting if you can find a way to get into it.
I don't know where you go the idea they are applied voluntarily and disciplinary review is nonexistent? That couldn't be further from the case. ASTM testing is an absolute requirement in all aspects of the construction industry and laboratories like ours are routinely inspected, often on specific government projects, to ensure full compliance with these industry standards.
I take it the fog was responsible for the confusion on that last thought?
"Please spare me an argument here since no one has been able to scientifically refute either mine or Winchell's work since you have already acknowledged it was peer reviewed."
DeleteI have never seen any documentation that your work has been peer reviewed within the true academic meaning for same within the scientific community and I wholly dispute this point. I have also seen you take great liberties with what you claim to be a "hooked X" and what is actually an ornamental X in stretching your theories. An example of this was on the two part series finale for your television show when visiting a church I believe was in France. And again, Winchell in his committee report left the final word to the Swedish scholars who remain to this very day convinced the KRS was a modern day hoax. You cannot ignore that very salient fact if you are going to use him for support.
I am fully satisfied that we can agree to disagree. But I would ask in the future not to attribute your own beliefs as being accepted by me when I clearly dispute them.
"Joe,"
DeleteOf course you are going to dispute my peer reviewed work even though you posted a quote from one of the reviews. Can't you see the folly in the statements you make? Further, who cares what some faceless, nameless debunker thinks anyway? The truth is you haven't given me or the readers of this blog any reason to take your comments seriously.
You have your facts wrong yet again. Winchell did not leave the final conclusion to the Swedish scholars, the Museum Committee of the Minnesota Historical Society said they wanted to get additional input from the Scandinavian scholars; principally from those in Norway. Of course, at that time they had already been given a taste of the poor job that the American scholar, George Flom, had done on the KRS and mistakenly thought they'd get a better assessment from scholars across the Atlantic.
Like me, Winchell knew the truth could only be definitively known through the hard science of the geological aspects of the artifact. Interestingly, Winchell did study the linguistic aspects of the inscription and became proficient enough to know that Flom was far off in his assessment.
With regard to the new Hooked X examples discovered on the show, you are welcome to believe whatever you want "Joe." However, the authenticity isn't the KRS isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of evidence.
You can't have it both ways "Joe," at least not on this blog.
I must concede that I may have been overtaken by a spiriting exuberance last night when my beloved Black Cats took the pitch at Palace and scuttled off with a much needed victory forthwith. However, it did not detract from my understanding of the ASTM guidelines. After all, it seems to be rather a tin of red herring, as they certainly haven't certified your pioneering efforts in archaeopetrography. nor could they. At best you may allow that your ASTM guided standards of practice within the field of building materials is above board, but to advance an entire new terrain of advanced scientific study I'm afraid you are left with academic peer review from the scientific community old man. This of course does not preclude the marketing aspect, and with that I wish you much success.
DeleteCheers,
Lesley
Lesley,
DeleteGlad to hear your squad won; wish I could say the same about my Vikings who got pounded on Sunday by our hated rivals the Green Bay Packers.
As far as Archaeopetrography goes, I guess we have to start somewhere don't we? Trouble is, at this point academia hasn't a clue about these new field and laboratory geological investigative processes since I'm the first person to develop them to specifically attempt to pinpoint ages for manmade surfaces in rock. However, I'm willing to work with them.
I have certainly consulted with many academics in geology and my KRS work was reviewed by a half dozen academics, but we have a long way to go to developing this new science. Marketing is an important part of getting a message out and I've been very fortunate to have the opportunities I've had with television. I'd be a fool if I didn't take advantage don't you think Lesley?
Old man? Is 56 old to you Lesley?
Strange as it may seem, when stated, "old man" is generally in deference to someone younger than I. Note I did not refer to you as a "geezer", which might be more applicable in my circumstance.
DeleteCheers,
Lesley
Lesley,
DeleteMy apologies, I should be used to being referred to in elderly terms. My teammates with the Minneapolis Lumberjacks endearingly called me "Grandpa" for four years. I retired when I was 40 when one of my teammates was 18!
Uff da...
Congrats Everyone! You did it!!! Rock looks awesome, stopped by the next day and looked at this piece of history. 9 Pojac residents stood under oath , just like the original 9 templar knights.
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteVery apropos observation!
I am curious as to what natural processes would have protected the inscriptions on this stone of the erosion of tidal forces? I would have thought that the waves would have hastened the erosion rate of the inscriptions.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what news do you have about the continuation of your TV show? I miss the show!
Jenn,
DeleteThere is evidence in historical photos the stone was on the shore roughly a century ago where it may have been for centuries. Even photos from the 1980's show it on the shore and completely dry at low tide whereas since I've been visiting the stone it has always in or under the water. Hurricanes are known to be responsible for dramatically altering the shorelines of Narragansett Bay in the historic past.
So it appears the interaction with the waters of the bay is likely a recent phenomenon and it may have been out of the water for centures.
Interesting. Thank you. I look forward to more posts and your return to TV, hopefully, in the near future!
DeleteHey Scott, just curious....
ReplyDeleteWas the new location of the Narragansett Stone chosen with any alignments and/or Masonic symbolism in mind?
Thanks.
Lottie
Lottie,
DeleteThat's a good question, but to my knowledge the answer is no. However, across the street from it's present location is a tiny park with a roughly 30-foot tall stone obelisk in the center. It's a WWII memorial as I recall and that was where I wanted the Stone to be put. I also suggested some fun shadow play with the obelisk and the stone, but the city felt that park was too small and they're probably right.
Yes - it is a WW2 memorial with Obelisk which you see a lot..combining occult symbolism under the guise of war monuments. Its kinda cool how its hidden behind there now but with a nice waterview and larger park area. I definitely see why Wickford wanted it for tourism...Wickford also is the inspiration of the Witches of Eastwick...so its interesting the "ceremony" was before ALL SOULS DAY/Halloween. I really wish it would have been displayed at Goddard Park which makes way more sense and is a great waterfront park...and 3 towns all intersect over here as well. Scott you might find it interesting some believe the first Navy was formed in East Greenwich harbor right there too. Nathanial Greene birthplace right there near Pojac as well http://www.eastgreenwichri.com/AboutEastGreenwich/HistoryandBirthplaceoftheNavy/tabid/174/Default.aspx
DeleteGlad they were able to track it down and give it a proper display point for everybody to appreciate.
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDeleteI notice the instead of giving me the time line I requested you instead took one statement I wrote and tried to pick that apart. Affidavits are sworn to under penalty of perjury, they are a bit more serious than merely a witness statement, and would probably have been viewed as such by the neighbors who gave them. Can you answer all the questions you asked me concerning those affidavits, Joe? I suspect not. I don’t know about you but if I have something like 12 affidavits stating a fact and one alleged witness stating something otherwise, I’d probably believe the 12 affidavits rather than the sole person who states something different. Of course, if that one person is stating something you believe, then I guess you would accept their statement rather than those 12 affidavits. That may say something more about you then it does about me, or Scott for that matter. And as Scott has stated, no one has ever called into question the veracity of these affidavits before, why do it now. Is it because you can’t produce that time line I requested and want to muddy the waters so to speak?
You keep mentioning the Larrson Papers as it that’s the magic bullet that answers all the questions. It doesn’t really. In order to have faked KRS you would have had to know something about runes in general, old Swedish runes in particular, as well as knowledge of even older runes that the Linguistic Authorities of the time had no knowledge of and believed were made up. While it’s true some of those previously unknown runes were discovered as being genuine when the Larrson Papers surfaced in the 1990s, not all of those unknown rune were listed there. Others were discovered by Scott and his team in medieval grave sites contained in Medieval Churches in Scandinavia. In addition, one would have to be aware of the double dating method using the Easter Table coding. That’s a lot of information, some of which is a bit esoteric, for one carpenter/farmer with a limited formal education to know, don’t you think. In fact one of the first people to study the Larrson papers called it, and I’m probably paraphrasing here, ‘a Masonic code probably used by tradesmen in communication’. The key word here isn’t tradesmen, it’s Masonic, meaning the Freemasons, which means that the code in the Larrson Papers was used by Masons, they may very well have been tradesmen but they were first and foremost Masons. And the fact that the Linguistic Authorities at the time were totally unaware of the symbols contained in that code lends credence to the fact that it was a secret code. There is no evidence that Olof Ohman was ever a Mason and could have been aware of this secret code.
Joe, until you or another debunker can present a coherent time line using the facts as we know them for how Olof Ohman faked KRS I can’t take much of anything you say seriously. You can’t take one aspect of everything that surrounds KRS and like a dog with a bone worry it to death and claim you won the fight. You have to start at the beginning with its discovery and prove, with a time line, that Olof Ohman faked KRS and explain how he did it. I just don’t think you can do that. And as I’ve said before, if Olof Ohman didn’t fake KRS, and it’s still a fake, the question becomes, who did. Or is it just possible that KRS is actually genuine.
Irene
"Affidavits are sworn to under penalty of perjury"
DeleteNot all Irene. It depends on the wording, how they are used and whether they're submitted to a court of law. They are also not admitted into evidence in U.S. courts on their own. Made ten years after the fact would also question their reliability in any court action, as memories tend to fade or are open to suggestion. Just think about how many people have claimed to see Babe Ruth's famous called shot. Certainly more than tickets were available. But they may over time actually believe the details they are ascribing to; so they're not always being dishonest. But for outright lying, that is certainly common in any court or sworn action depending upon one's motivations; as there wouldn't be so many law suits in the first place without at least a great percentage of dishonesty coloring same. So the penalties of perjury on it its own does not appear to be a failsafe for honesty. As for the one after the fact witness that was defamed, I only offered that example to show that neither you nor Mr. Wolter give your other twelve the same amount of scrutiny.
Your other points above assume that an amateur, unstudied in ancient runes, can contradict what had been established by others more capable in the field in basing their conclusions; especially when venturing into unsound and unproven Templar/Masonic conspiracies. I take it that you would consider Mr. Wolter's opinions above Professor Williams when it comes to runes? In considering the folly of that, I would simply point out the errors in logic, fact and judgment contained in the America Unearthed episode in regard to the Mustang Mountain runes. Whereas Mr. Wolter concocted a wild, speculative and unsupported fantasy to show these runes were carved by a 12th century Englishman who then helped the native Americans construct cave dwellings, Professor Williams quite adeptly solved the mystery by finding the true modern source for the runes and exposing same.
But if fairy tales are more to your liking Irene, do enjoy them. You have a nice writing style yourself. Perhaps some of your own work is currently available?
"Joe,"
DeleteYou just don't get what I've repeatedly said about the secret alphabets used on the KRS being held within secret societies. Williams and his colleagues have zero knowledge about these alphabets so please stop with the intentionally dishonest framing of the argument. That being said, Williams have proven nothing with regard to the Mustang Mountain inscription except playing the sweet homer music you love to hear.
I highly doubt Irene is gullible enough to fall for you disingenuous and sarcastic comments, but I'll let her answer for herself.
Joe,
DeleteYou are again arguing minutia when you can’t argue anything else. I’ve been in the legal profession for over 30 years, trust me I know what affidavits are and how they can and can’t be used. And while I don’t know the forms used for affidavits in all 50 states, the ones I’ve seen are basically the same and they are sworn to and notarized. My point wasn’t to argue the law with you; it was to point out that giving an affidavit would have been viewed as more serious than giving a witness statement or an interview. What I can’t understand is why you would accept the word of someone who was retelling a story told to him over 40 years before about an event the occurred almost 30 years before that over the word of 12 people who gave affidavits only 10 years after the fact. If anyone’s mind was addled it would have been Gran’s, he would have been over 70 at the time, you think he may have been a bit senile or something at that point.
When you wrote: “Your other points above assume that an amateur, unstudied in ancient runes, can contradict what has been established by others more capable in the field in basing their conclusions” You are actually reading something into what I wrote that wasn’t there. My intent was to show how much someone would have needed to know in order to fake KRS and how someone with a limited formal education would have been unlikely to have had that knowledge. The only time I mentioned Scott Wolter was when I pointed out that he, and his team from about a decade ago, actually found the remaining previously unknown runes in a Scandinavian church. Tell me, is Wolter all you ever think about, is he consistently on your mind? If so, you have a problem, sir, get help.
I’m not too sure if I want to laugh or cry at your last paragraph, it sounds too much like something else that was said on another thread on this blog. Enough said about that except to say that comments of that sort are not welcome by me at all.
Irene
Irene,
Delete"Joe" refuses to acknowledge the established fact even Henrik Williams agrees is true; that Olof Ohman could not, and did not carve the KRS inscription. We now know that no one in the world in 1898 had the knowledge to carve it. That's just one of the reasons why I called you a liar "Joe", because you already know this yet still insist on trying to implicate Ohman.
With regard to yours or Peyton's earlier comments about past hoax theories of non-believers and debunkers, there have been many theories proposed. One involved Olof and some unknown accomplices who carved the inscription and then placed the stone within the roots of the 25-30 year old Aspen tree. Other's claim that Olof was the fall guy who discovered somebody else's' practical joke.
In the last few years there have been several new theories offered by people simply seeking attention that are so absurd they don't merit further mention.
Scott,
DeleteI’ve actually thought of both of the theories you posted, they are pretty obvious ones. The trouble with the idea of somehow inserting the stone into a preexisting root system is that you’d probably damage the root system. I’m not a botanist but I would assume that if you damaged the root system enough, you’d kill the tree. In any case, if the tree survived, the root system may not be as developed as it should be in a tree that age, and that, as well as the damaged roots, might be noticed when the tree was felled to expose the stone. Is it possible, yes, is it plausible, probably no.
The theory that Olof Ohman was a fall guy for someone else’s hoax would be the most likely explanation, assuming of course that you still insist that KRS is a hoax. The trouble with that theory is twofold. Why would someone perpetrate a hoax as complex as KRS and then just walk away and leave it? That doesn’t make sense, someone who creates a hoax wants to be there when the hoax is unveiled, they want to see the reactions of people, and they want to see if they were smart enough to fool everyone, especially the experts. Of course it’s possible that the person who created KRS, assuming it’s a fake, was prevented from springing the hoax themselves, they may have died for example.
But this doesn’t answer my second problem with this theory and that’s who could have had the knowledge to have faked KRS at the time period we are talking about. Depending upon your belief in Scott’s weathering study, we are talking about either the mid-1800s or the late 1600s at the latest. Scott, I don’t believe as you do that no one could have had that knowledge that early, I happen to think that maybe a Mason could have had it, but why would the Masons want to do something like this? And could a Mason had even have been in the area at either time frame? It makes no sense to me.
Joe strikes me as being someone who is very rigid in his beliefs, he can’t seem to accept new information, he just keeps trying to prove the same thing over and over again. I’m beginning to see why you had problems with him before.
Irene
Irene,
DeleteNeither theory works because the weathering of the inscription puts it back at least 200 years before 1898, but it's the content of the inscription that is consistent with 1362. A Freemason is lot more plausible than Olof Ohman, who was not a Mason. Problem is there wasn't a Freemason or linguist in the world who knew about the Dotted R or the Dotted Thorn runes in 1898.
"Joe" keeps incessantly beating the same old broken drum thinking eventually something resembling music might magically appear. It's amazing when you realize that some of the people who are supposed to be the brightest in our society can be so close-minded and dogmatic about their beliefs.
I've met many of them over the past 15-plus years and it's really disappointing.
Scott,
DeleteI’ll take your word for it that no one could have been aware of those two runes in 1898 or in 1689 either I assume. You’ve studied this in far more depth that I have, and probably for far longer too.
My problem with people like Joe is that they often have a total reliance of the authorities. What they don’t seem to realize is that, in many disciplines, the authorities are rarely progressive. They are often too conservative to think outside the box and it’s thinking outside the box that often times brings new information or a fresh way of looking at something. They just refuse to accept anything new. I mean, how long did it take them to accept that there was an actual Viking settlement in Newfoundland dating to 1000 AD/CE? So the thought of your idea of Templar voyages to North America in the 1300s probably would give them shudders. It’s too radical and revolutionary for it to be true; it just can’t be possible they claim. All the carved stones they call hoaxes and refuse to even deal with them. It’s a pity too because some of them are intelligent people, but they won’t open their minds to the possibility of other and newer ideas that are not accepted in their closed circle.
Irene
Irene,
ReplyDeleteWalter Gran was interviewed by my old friend Russell Fridley in January of 1970. Walter was recalling was his father told him in 1925. There are two important points I'd like to make. First, John Gran was never a first-hand witness and never signed a written affidavit to anything. Second, Joe made the point about witnesses memories years after the fact, etc. Walter Gran was a man known to have been unreliable in the community to put it mildly. He was recalling a conversation with his father 45 years later and his father was telling a story, that Ohman told Walter Gran was "all humbug", that allegedly took place 27 years prior to that.
I would put my money on the 12 witnesses who signed affidavits a decade after the discovery over two people with a known axe to grind against Olof Ohman many decades after the fact.
Joe won't present a coherent time-line for a hoax because the KRS is simply not a hoax.
Scott,
DeleteWhile I was somewhat familiar with the Gran story what I never realized, until reading your post, was that it was over 70 years from the finding of KRS before that the story came out. I find it incredible that people actually believe that story over those 12 affidavits; it just goes to show that people will believe what they want to believe. The Gran story is what is known as hearsay evidence, it’s a story told by someone recounting something told to them by someone else, and it’s also generally not admissible in court. In a court of law those affidavits would be given more weight than a story that is basically my daddy told me something a long time ago and now I’m telling it to you. While everyone directly involved in the finding of KRS is now deceased, those affidavits were sworn to under penalty of perjury, which may I remind everyone is a crime. I also find it ridiculous that someone would question the memory of people recalling events a decade after an event but accept, without question. the memory of someone recalling something told to them over 40 years before about an event that occurred almost 30 years before that. You just can’t have it both ways, can you?
I doubt that any of the debunkers can come up with a time line, and I don’t really expect them to either. All they seem to do is bring up the same points that have explained away over and over again. By the way, didn’t one of the Ohman sons actually draw the roots of the tree? I seem to remember seeing a picture of a drawing done by one of them but I don’t remember if the stone was in the picture of not. I suppose I could go look for it, it’s probably on line somewhere, but I’m just too lazy today to look anything up. In any case, Olof Ohman didn’t fake KRS; he couldn’t have for many reasons. And once you remove that possibility then the question remains if KRS is still a fake, then who faked it. And if the answer is that no one could have, then it has to be genuine artifact, doesn’t it.
Irene
PS Why don’t you have Janet’s book on your Hooked X web site? Am I going to have to order if from Barnes and Noble or Amazon when I’d much rather order it from you?
Irene,
ReplyDeleteActually, there were four drawings of the roots around the tree made by first-hand witnesses. The first was drawn by Olof Ohman, in a letter to Dr. Warren Upham, with the Minnesota Historical Society, on November 9, 1909. The second sketch was drawn by Ohman neighbor, Sam Olson, in Newton Winchell's field notebook, in March of 1910. The third was discovered in the Ohman Family documents in 2004. It was drawn by Olof Ohman Jr., in a letter to his brothers, Art and John, on April 2, 1957. The fourth was drawn by Arthur Ohman 1961. The interesting thing is all four sketches are essentially the same and match the root leaching pattern on the back of the stone.
I still find it incredible that any self-respecting geologist would reportedly claim the white, undulating and branching lineations could have been made by running water in a near-surface environment at the Ohman Farm. I don't think Joe was serious about that.
The reason Janet's book isn't on my site is because Janet doesn't have any books on-hand to sell yet. We put in an order today and should have them soon!
Scott
DeleteInteresting that all four sketches showed pretty much the same thing and that one of the earliest ones was made by someone outside of the Ohman family. While I knew about one, I didn’t realize that there were three other sketches.
Correct me if I’m wrong, you are the geologist not me, but wouldn’t water running over a stone for an extended period of time cause the stone to wear away rather than mark it? I’ve seen pictures of the back of the stone and I don’t remember seeing anything that looked like indentations in the stone. You’ve examined it, have you seen anything such as that? This running water theory doesn’t make any sense to me. In order to have that happen to the stone it would require some sort of underground stream but at the depth the stone was found that stream would have been too close to the surface of the ground not to have been noticeable. Of course, those who don’t believe that KRS is genuine will just claim that Olof Ohman found the stone with those marks already on it so it doesn’t matter if there was an underground stream or not. And those same people don’t believe that the stone was found wrapped in tree roots either not matter how much evidence there is that it was.
I guess I’ll just have to wait to get Janet’s book until you add it to your web site but please post something here when it becomes available there.
Of course, you could add it for pre-order when you know when those books will be delivered to you.
Irene
Irene,
DeleteYou are correct that running water would create an erosional feature such as a groove. However, this rock is much too hard and the amount of water necessary to carry enough sediment at that location to cause mechanical down-cutting... It's not plausible or possible.
Debunkers like Joe will never accept anything other than complete rejection of the authenticity of the artifact. He and others like him are clever in their argumentation, yet fail to produce any hard scientific facts and rely on bias, soft science scholars to carry their water criticizing the inscription when there is no longer anything to criticize. It's criminal in my opinion.
If you're interested in buying a signed copy; just send a check for $23 to her at P.O Box 14611 Mpls, MN 55414. You could be her first customer!
Scott,
DeleteJust as I thought, that running water theory, after looking at it closely, just doesn’t hold water. Pun intended.
What really bothers me about these debunkers is that they take one aspect of KRS and worry it to death, like a dog with a chew toy, ignoring everything else about it. It doesn’t matter if it’s the Larsson Papers or the affidavits or the running water theory, that one thing will prove that KRS is a fake they seem to claim. They never look at the entire picture starting with its discovery and try to show how Olof Ohman could have faked the stone to begin with. They seem to forget that KRS is a puzzle with many pieces and they all have to fit before the whole picture emerges.
I’m on vacation this week, which is why I’m so damned lazy, so nothing is getting in the mail this week, but if you don’t have anything posted on your web site by the end of the week I just may take your suggestion and mail Janet a check for the book. I’ll also tell her that you told me to do it.
Irene
From COMMENTS ON SCOTT WOLTER´S REPORT ON THE KENSINGTON STONE, DATED 2003.10.18 R. Löfvendahl, R. Kumpulainen, R., K. Dahlberg, L. Kitzler Ã…hfeldt, M. Johansson & C.-M. Mörth
Delete"The light streaks РWolter regards these (Figs. 12 and 13) as formed by mycorrhiza growing from the roots of the poplar tree that embraced the stone when it was found. He believes that the mycorrhiza of the roots excreted iron from the stone, giving the light colour of the lines. The specialists we consulted (Dr. R. Giesler, SLU Ume̴ and (collegues) are of the opinion that 100s of years of water contact would be needed to extract iron from the stone surface, to give the present pattern. It is obvious that ectomycorrhiza of many trees genera can extract nutrients
from bedrock surfaces (Rosling 2003:part 4, figs. 2-5). Ectomycorrhiza would form filiform, μm-thin mycelia, and not compact cm-wide zones as upon the KRS. Furthermore, iron is no important nutrient for the trees, in the same quantity as calcium, magnesium and potassium. The whitish lines will most probably be formed by prolonged contacts with channelled water, and not by ectomycorrhiza, that will be creeping over the surface with the root-tips, not remaining stationary in the same place for many years."
Care to provide expert opinion to counter same Irene, and not just... bootstrap speculation?
"Joe,"
DeleteI'm glad you posted these comments which border on the ridiculous. Runo is a competent geologist and the only one on that team who went out of his way to meet with me to examine the KRS for six hours without any of his colleagues present. He knew they were not objective with a mandate to say anything to try and refute my work. He agreed with every geological point and never once brought up something as silly as running water to produce the white root-leaching lineations.
I find it interesting that you do not accept the opinion of a knowledgeable PhD soil scientist like Paul Syltie, but you do want to accept this embarrassing submission from some guy named Giesler and "colleagues."
I've already to provided the expert opinion of Dr. Syltie that you are choosing to ignore.
Sorry Mr. Wolter, but I missed the written opinion from Dr. Paul Syltie in regard to his examination and conclusions in regard to the patterns on the back of the KRS. I would be happy to see it however, if you could just refer me to it.
DeleteI must say, I greatly appreciate that you posted my replies yesterday. Very fair minded of you. I don't however appreciate personal attacks from Irene in response to my arguments. Contributing to your blog is something I do when I have a bit of free time. Does ten or fifteen minutes a day make an obsession? Well, if so, she has added much more to this discussion in just a couple days than I have since its inception. So perhaps the rubber and glue argument would be apropos on my part in response to her maligning of my character and argumentum ad lapidem.
Please enjoy the Thanksgiving holiday with your friends and family, as I retire to mine.
"Joe,"
DeleteYou already know the opinion of Dr. Syltie is published in "Compelling New Evidence," but at this point I don't really care if you see it or not since you've exhibited pretty much nothing but unproductive and bias commentary. You've had a completely contrary attitude toward the KRS discussion regardless of what facts are presented. We know full well what you think so what's point of further engaging you?
Apparently, on one hand you call me "fair minded," but when it comes to my scientific work on the KRS you treat me like an incompetent fool who sees a conspiracy around every corner. I think you'll notice the commentary toward you will become more civil and respectful when you start treating people likewise.
I'll give you credit, this post is a step in the right direction, but you have a long way to go my friend.
Joe,
DeleteThere are several things I want to say and I hope you will give me the courtesy to read my entire post.
First of all, if you had read everything I’ve written in the past few days you would know that I’m on vacation this week and in a very lazy mood. While I generally don’t post all that often, weeks and months go by without me posting a thing, I have lots of free time on my hands this week and for some reason have spent a bit of it posting here. So much so that Scott’s probably tired of me by now.
Next, in your last paragraph you made a sarcastic innuendo that reminded me of comments made on an earlier thread on this blog. They were uncalled for, nasty and unsettling and posted by someone who did not sign their name but posted them as Anonymous. I briefly wondered if you were that same poster. While I did discount that fairly quickly, I still felt that I was again personally attacked and upset.
Now for what is probably your biggest beef: I wrote a paragraph in a post that you seemed to use to attack amateurs in general and Scott Wolter in particular and then went off on a tangent attacking an episode of American Unearthed. I sat there wondering where on earth all that came from. You are an intelligent man, how could you have misunderstood what I had written. My only mention of Scott Wolter was that he had found the remaining unknown runes used in KRS. The team I was alluding to was not the film crew he brought later to Gottland but rather Richard Nielsen and Henrik Williams who were still working with him at the time, and in fact pointed him in the direction of Gottland to begin with. While Nielsen and Williams were not present when Scott Wolter actually found the runes, they were part of the team at the time and I believe agreed with his conclusions.
Maybe you don’t like amateurs, Joe, but if the professionals can’t get off their butts and scour places that runes are known to be, such as Medieval Churches, and an amateur does and actually finds something, then I say score one for the amateur. Don’t you agree that professionals should be out there looking for information to add to their knowledge of a subject rather than waiting for it to be handed to them on a silver platter? I do, and in this case the professionals fell down on the job. But this is an old beef of mine and I digress.
I also paraphrased a quote in that paragraph; maybe you thought it was Scott Wolter’s opinion. It wasn’t, it was Professor Tryggve Skold who made that conclusion, although I’m sure Scott agrees with it. Maybe you had not heard of Professor Skold’s opinion of the Larsson Papers so were unfamiliar with the comment. It’s possible; one can’t know everything about a subject. One of the reasons why blogs such as this are so useful, they can add to your knowledge of a subject because others can give you information you don’t know. But again, I digress.
I’ve tried to be as clear as I can about what I wrote and why I didn’t understand why what I wrote would trigger the tirade it did. I still don’t understand it and probably drew a wrong conclusion.
However, I also understand that we all, on occasion, post something we regret later. Sometimes it’s because it’s late and we’re tired, sometimes it’s because we are upset and sometimes it’s a PUI. (Posting Under the Influence) While I’m not saying that happened in this case, it’s always a possibility. In any event, I’m offering you an apology for anything I posted that you found distasteful as long as you apologize to me in return. And we both should agree to not post anything that can be considered a personal attack in the future, OK.
Irene
Sounds reasonable to me Irene.
DeleteI only wanted to clarify whether or not Dr. Syltie actually examined the KRS and wrote a separate opinion letter, or if you used principles expressed within his other bodies of work to come to your own conclusions in referencing him.
DeleteAs for the problematic runes you mention, with the dots and such, I believe you're in a minority of one in regard to their medieval provenance. 3D imaging did not distinguish those dots from the random pock marks elsewhere on the stone, as they were not of a significant depth to conclude that they were intentionally made by whoever carved the runes.
“Joe,”
DeleteIt doesn’t matter what form Dr. Syltie’s comments were in because you wouldn’t accept them anyway.
The only 3D imaging work capable of distinguishing what marks were man made verses natural is the Keyence high resolution microscopic imaging technology. And please pretending you’re some kind of expert in distinguishing the difference because neither you nor the linguists who tried are capable of making such judgments. Referencing depth is evidence of your lack of knowledge and understanding of how to distinguish between a depression in stone that was intentionally made verses natural.
You might want to refrain from making declarative statements about things you know nothing about.
"It doesn’t matter what form Dr. Syltie’s comments were in because you wouldn’t accept them anyway."
DeleteYou are evading a direct inquiry in regard to an expert that you claim supports you. You often defend your positions arguing that in a court of law, (fill in the blank). Well, on this issue in a court of law, you would be found to be unresponsive to the question and a judge would compel you to answer truthfully.
Of course this is no court of law, and you as host not only control what is posted here by others, but how you care to portray your positions. I have asked you direct questions because I know from previous encounters that you will cherry-pick from others only positions that support you, whether or not the source actually agrees with you. I really do want to know what a PhD and the author of How Soils Work has to offer in regard to the KRS. I suppose I could write to him personally if you don't care to clarify my simple questioning in this regard, but I'll give you this last chance:
1) Did Dr. Syltie examine the KRS?
2) Did Dr. Syltie provide a report specifically in regard to the KRS?
3) Or did you take bits and pieces of his other work and apply it to your own theories?
“Joe,”
DeleteApparently, you didn’t read my last post. I don’t care what you think because I don’t consider you a serious person in this discussion. One good example why is you have the audacity to accuse me of cherry-picking positions that suit me. Go back and read the crap you’ve submitted and maybe you’ll understand why I’m done having serious dialogue with you.
Now that I’ve blown my "last chance," does this mean you’ll go away now?
Irene,
ReplyDeleteKey laugh track...
The reason the debunkers harp to death on any minor little point is because it's all they have. To look at the KRS honestly and objectively can only lead to one obvious conclusion which they apparently have taken a blood oath to reject. Whatever...
Enjoy your time off and order the book whenever you damn well feel like it.
Scott,
DeleteYou know that old expression about leaving them laughing …..
What I’m trying to do is to look at KRS as a mystery to be solved, a puzzle you piece together, and sometimes you look at that big picture, sometimes you look at only segments of it. But you always have to keep in mind that it’s a large puzzle with many pieces to put together.
My purpose for asking of the debunkers for a time line is really simple. We all know the story of how KRS was found; I don’t need to repeat it over again here. And that story, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t really questioned by anyone. If anyone can show that Olof Ohman faked KRS in a manner consistent with the facts as we know them and with a plausible explanation for how and when he did it we can than move on to other aspects of the mystery. If, however, no one can even come up with some sort of plausible explanation of how and when he faked KRS, again fitting it in with the accepted facts as we know them, then it becomes irrelevant if Olof Ohman had the knowledge to fake KRS since there is no plausible way he could have done so. If they believe that Olof Ohman and his entire family along with all his neighbors and their families lied about the finding of KRS, then they should say so and have done with it. And I seriously doubt that Olof Ohman and all his neighbors and all their families were in some sort of conspiracy about KRS, it just doesn’t make sense that all of them would be, there would have been too many people involved not to have something leak out for one thing.
I’ve said many times that I don’t believe that Olof Ohman faked KRS. So discussions about whether or not he could have had access to the Larsson Papers, or any other such nonsense, are all just background noise to me, interesting but still noise and unimportant in the big picture. So my question remains, if Olof Ohman didn’t fake KRS, and it’s still a fake, then who did and when? Or if no one could have, then don’t you have to consider the possibility that KRS might be a genuine medieval artifact?
Irene
Hi, I was just thinking about what a huge effort it would've taken to fake all the hooked x's in America at roughly the same time. It would've taken a conspiracy with a net wide enough to include Minnesota, Maine and Rhode Island, all coordinated to have been hoaxed together for maximum effect. Wow.
ReplyDeleteIs this what the deluded debunker's are trying to say--that all the hooked x's on all of America's runestones were made in "modern times" and based on the Larsson Papers, to-boot? Wow again. What a conspiracy!
That would've taken an Old World conspiracy meeting a New World conspiracy. So, the debunker's think all these hooked x's are faked, on an international scale, at about the same time period? Well, common sense says that the hooked x within the Larsson Papers goes back in time...how far, we don't know (for sure), but the secretive hooked x rune has to go back in time, and probably to a time well before it appeared in the Larsson Papers. So, debunkers, how far does this conspiracy to hoax all of these hooked x's go back?
It kind of looks to me like the debunkers themselves are the conspiracy freaks, when it comes to trying to impugn the known historical record of the hooked x in both Sweden and America. (We don't need to go all the way back to Egypt on this one.) So, there is a real record of the use of the hooked x in medieval times, leading up to another showing of it in the Larsson Papers. So, no, there was not a conspiratorial attempt to fool the world with a non-existent rune.
In my humble opinion, Dr. Williams should make room in his studies for the genuine hooked x on the genuine KRS. Otherwise, he is doomed to failure, pure and simple, because of a continuing lack of understanding. How much of this lack of understanding is purposeful, I can't say. But, it doesn't look good for him to be taking a prominent position in trying to debunk an historical American stone document that is, in fact, not debunk-able because of its authenticity.
Frankly, I think Dr. Williams and other would-be KRS and hooked x debunkers have a lot of catching up to do with the very real story of America's hooked x runestones. They should put their silly conspiracy ideas about the KRS and hooked x's behind them.
Peyton
Peyton,
DeleteHooked X’s aren’t just found in Europe in Sweden, they’ve also been found in at least one church in France, isn’t it, Scott, and in Roswell Chapel in Scotland. There could be more, but I doubt if anyone has had the time or money to go look for them all over Europe. And while ‘experts’ have questioned the Hooked Xs found in the United States, no one has ever questioned the authenticity of those found in Europe. So we know that the Hooked X symbol goes back at least as far as the Middle Ages, how much further it goes back, we don’t know. But you already knew all of this, didn’t you?
In any case, the conspiracy nuts would have us somehow believe that Olof Ohman faked KRS and for some reason used the Hooked X symbol. All the other carved stones were then copycat fakes and for some reason all those others hoaxes used the Hooked X symbol as well. All of which just doesn’t make sense to me. Why pick on that one symbol to carve into a faked rune stone, especially a symbol whose very validity was questioned until the 1990s when the Larsson Papers surfaced. Why not use a symbol that was accepted as a genuine rune by linguistics? After all, using a questionable rune on a stone you are faking would only make the authorities look all the harder at the stone and make it easier for them to declare it a hoax. Why take the chance, by using symbols that will be accepted as genuine by the authorities you’d have a better chance of the stone be accepted as genuine too.
Irene
PS Peyton, don’t tell anyone but the truth is that Scott Wolter has been running around with a time machine leaving Hooked Xs all over the place, I doubt we’ve even found all of them yet.
And on that note, I’d better get out of here for a bit and get some stuff done ….
Later
Pretty funny, Irene, but I like the clearly-obvious hooked x's like on the KRS, myself. Crisp and precise!
DeleteI enjoyed reading your earlier comments about affidavits and their value to the overall historical picture. This reminded me of recently coming across an article dealing with an affidavit that had accompanied a Scandinavian battle axe unearthed not far from the KRS (north a dozen or so miles). According to this article in the Norwegian American Weekly a few weeks ago, the battle axe was found several years even before the KRS was found.
An affidavit signed by an old widow and accompanying the medieval weapon does help to establish important provenance in the overall picture, I believe. Here is a link to the article, which is actually more about Hjalmar Holand and his life's work with the KRS.
(It's my understanding that a copy of a presentation on this subject and about finding "the lake with 2 skerries" has recently been cataloged into the Minnesota Historical Society's archive on the Kensington Rune Stone.)
http://www.na-weekly.com/opinion/hjalmar-holand-runestone-hero/
Peyton
Peyton
DeleteI’m glad someone around here appreciates my slightly warped sense of humor. A little levity now and again never hurts.
While affidavits can certainly help the provenance of an item they rarely help to authenticate it unless the affidavit was from the original owner, which certainly wouldn’t be the case here. Depending on how detailed the affidavit was it might tell you where an item was found, under what conditions it was found and the condition of the item itself when discovered, along with who found it and who owned it as of the date of the affidavit. If an item changes hands, having a series of affidavits will give you more information, such as the date the item changed hands, was it sold, and for how much, or was it a gift, and of course, who the new owner is. But all these affidavits do is give you a chain of custody from discovery to the last affidavit; it doesn’t really help to authenticate any item that was discovered, such as your axe. In the case of this axe, do you happen to know if an axe handle was found with it and preserved?, A wooden axe handle could be carbon dated for example but I doubt it was in this case since it probably didn’t survive. If you don’t have a handle, do you know if the metal axe head has been studied? By studying the metal itself we can find out the composition of the metal, what ore it was made from. We can find out how pure that ore was. So for example, with your axe head they may be able to determine that the ore used was too pure and had to be of a relativity modern origin since it doesn’t contain the impurities one would expect from a medieval weapon. Or that one of the ores used was generally not used in medieval Scandinavian weapons. There could be other tests of this type done as well. While I’m not saying that this would prove to be true in the case of your axe head, it’s the sort of thing one would need to do in order to actually authenticate an item such as this axe. If it were a painting, for example, other types of similar tests, such as on the canvas, paints and pigments would be done. And I’m certainly no expert about any of this by any means.
Interesting that they may have found the battle site mentioned in KRS. I wonder if anyone bothered to dig there to see if they could find any human remains or did the Smithsonian get them all and classify them as Native Americans?
Irene
Irene, that last sentence sounded kind of like another joke. No, the Smithsonian didn't get them and classify their bones!
DeleteAlthough the site of the encampment has apparently been found, some would question a massacre site in favor of a disease site--which I can't quite believe in myself since the Black Death was pretty much over for Scandinavians suffering from the 1348 European outbreak. The 20 men were apparently camped together a day's journey north of Rune Stone Hill, with half of them leaving to go fishing. Disease will not take one entire group and not touch the other, so I tend to believe that the men were brutally murdered, which is no surprise to the history of the area.
That was a good point you made about the relative value of affidavits when considering how close the witness is to the artifact. I've got some good news for you! I double-checked my source, which is the actual affidavit as was photographed and included in one of Holand's books, and it turns out that in the case of this Erdahl Axe, the widow Martha Davidson WAS the original owner of the axe, along with her husband, Julius. It was her husband who found the axe a foot and a half below the surface of the ground. In the affidavit, signed in 1928, she gave many details and concluded by attesting "The axe was in my possession until last summer when I loaned it to Mr. H. R. Holand."
It was in 1930 that Holand visited the exact spot where the axe was found under an old tree stump in 1894. But now we can see that he was blinded by the idea of an overland route to Rune Stone Hill from the north, not seeing the Chippewa River as the route to both Rune Stone Hill and to the lake with 2 skerries--where the axe was found on its west bank.
I guess we could look at the ODDS of finding this medieval Scandinavian artifact buried on the bank of an actual lake with 2 rocky islands, found about an actual day's journey north of Rune Stone Hill. In my view, it looks very much like a part of the "story" on the rune stone has come true, since it's unlikely old Mrs. Davidson--as an original owner of the axe--would lie; I would say, no more so than a dignified Olof Ohman!
So, I think there is a lot of power in Mrs. Davidson's affidavit, in this case giving the Erdahl Axe good provenance. But, as you said and I agree with you, we should know much more about the physical characteristics of this lovely old artifact, which does seem to be completely connected to the message of the KRS.
Peyton
Scott,
ReplyDeleteI would think about doing a show on the lost city of Norumbega. (Penobscot Narrows Bridge)
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWe talked about Norumbaga in the Newport Tower episode likely being referenced on old maps prior to "official' contact in the Northeast.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteIs it shocking to you that my high school history teacher has never heard of the knights Templar? We were recently talking in world history about the middle ages and I asked if we were going to talk about the templars. He said no he had never heard of them before.
Walker,
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that even a high school history teacher should know who the Knights Templar are? Mmmm? Maybe this is your opportunity to educate him?
Scott,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading several comments on this thread I’m surprised that there seems to be some much resistance to the idea of trying to date carvings in stone based on the weathering of the carvings and the stone itself. Doesn’t anyone walk around really old graveyards anymore? Not the big mega cemeteries in use today, but the really old ones connected to Churches, such as St Paul’s or Trinity Church in New York City, or town cemeteries or family ones contained on what was once the family farm. They are really interesting places just to wonder around in sometimes. I’ve been to more than a few of them and one thing I’ve noticed that that you can often tell the oldest part of the cemetery from the newest part just by the condition of the headstones. While it’s true that the type of stone used plays a part in the general condition of a headstone, some types of stone generally last longer than others, all of the carvings do show some weathering after time, and the older the headstone is, the more weathered it generally looks.
While I realize that you do more than this in testing a stone, Scott, I’m still surprised that no one tried to do this before, and why there seems to be some much controversy and resistance now. It seems pretty basic to me.
Irene
Irene,
DeleteDubunkers like "Joe" have no interest in a serious, honest discussion. He and others like him have only one position toward the KRS and other paradigm changing subjects, "No."
The tombstone study actually was about as straight-forward as it gets. Obviously, there were many details that needed to be considered, but once all the criteria has been identified, understood and accounted for, such as rock type, mineral size, sample locations, comparable environmental conditions, etc., the experiment became relatively simple and worked very well in the case of the Kensington Rune Stone.
Winchell did something similar, but without the aid of comparing the weathering of tombstones.
Scott,
DeleteThis shouldn’t have anything to do with KRS, either the science is good or it isn’t. You can believe in the science and still believe that KRS is a hoax, you just have to separate the two. But debunkers have to conflate the two, so if you are wrong about KRS, you must be wrong about the science. It shouldn’t be this way.
Anyone can see that carvings degrade with time; you can see it on tombstones or other carvings, that shouldn’t be all that hard to understand. And since tombstones are dated they are probably the best type of example to use for comparison, that shouldn’t be all that hard to understand that either. As long as you use a similar type of stone, which has been in similar types of weather conditions as the control sample, why shouldn’t you be able to date a carved stone that way? It doesn’t seem all that hard to me.
Is this new? Yes. Does it need more work in order to prefect it? All new disciplines do, so, yes. But that doesn’t mean it should be ignored and dismissed as hogwash. People need to be open minded enough to accept that fact that this is a new discipline, no matter what it was used to date in the past, it’s what it can be used to date in the future that matters.
Irene
The solution to this query is rather simple. Submit the research involved to a geological, peer reviewed, "hard science" publication and Bob's your uncle. Not to work over the proverbial deceased equine, but we've once again come to this quite obvious necessity. Science has always been open to innovation and new discovery.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Lesley
Lesley,
DeleteIt's already been peer reviewed by academic geological scholars and published in both book and report form.
Have at it.
I'm sorry mate, but we seem to be rather in a roundabout, and an anticlockwise one at that. I fear we'll not get past what I see to be an equivocation on your part in regard to a certain term of art for university. All is well however, and I look forward with great anticipation to your next blog topic for discussion.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Lesley
Hi Scott: I was watching your show last week about a cave that you cant get to and that the gov. is watching. Is it possible to fly one of the sophisticated drones into it??????
ReplyDeleteDon,
ReplyDeleteIt might be, but we could not get permission to do that. Flying anything below the rim is the big issue.
Thank you, Scott, for providing this public platform for discussing historical issues of importance. For your next blog heading, would you mind focusing in on just the short, actual message of the Kensington Rune Stone? I would like to see the inscription studied for its simplicity, and also for the history of various translations over the years, up to the most current acceptable rendition; I am curious about certain key words and their translations over the years. I think insights may arise out of a closer examination of what the KRS says, along the lines of common agreement if and when possible. Thank you for your consideration.
ReplyDeletePeyton
Peyton,
ReplyDeleteMy next blog is going to focus on a new discovery of manuscripts myself and others are currently researching that relate directly to the KRS, Narragansett and Spirit Pond Rune Stone inscriptions. It's an amazing new discovery that will provide the opportunity to discuss the KRS inscription which I will certainly be happy to address as well.
I think you and the other reading will be pleasantly surprised by what we've found.
Confessions for the hoaxes?
ReplyDeleteIf there were any I'd be happy to discuss them. Unfortunately for you there are none. And how could there be since they are all genuine.
ReplyDeleteSo my interest has been kicked up another notch. Also, as a side note from the latest from Alan and Janet and yourself, I'm wondering if there could be a discussion regarding the Tironensians. Your listing of 117 abbeys tells me they were far down the road of recognition and membership. I suspicious mind says there is WAY more to the story of this one. And they were real stonemasons...hummmm
ReplyDeleteDave,
DeleteYou are pretty perceptive dialing in on the Tironensians who absolutely were the elite of medieval "practical" stone masonry. The problem is they operated in extreme secrecy, but we do know they were connected to the Cistercians and led by another genius named Bernard.
Hi Dave. Did read these high hopes for the AVM before Wolter and his committee scrubbed it from the web:
Deletehttp://web.archive.org/web/20031230161341/http:/www.runestonemuseum.org/images/AVM%20Stone%20Article.pdf
Or are you still stuck on Wikipedia?
Anonymous "Joe",
DeleteWhere do you get your information this was “scrubbed” by anyone let alone me and my "committee?" Regardless, what’s wrong with this article? It lays out exactly what I said below, that we treated the inscription like it might be important until it could be studied in our lab.
Maybe you should go back and read your own article more carefully?
If you want Joe back so bad, why don't you go back to his three points above where he cornered you. I cornered you too, otherwise you'd print my request for your AVM report. You know, the one you allegedly came up with right at the same time when the ones perpetrating the hoax admitted to it. It's listed on your professional site that you did the work. Where is it? Playing fast and loose with muscovite and biotite again?
Delete"Joe",
DeleteWho said I want you back? You haven't cornered anybody on anything; least of all me. Actually, I'm glad you asked me about the AVM Stone report which I just went back and re-read after all these years. Pretty good work if I do say so myself and I'd be happy to send you a copy. Just send me an email with your name and address and I'll send it right away.
Of course, I'll have to confirm your real identity so it doesn't look like you'll be getting this report anytime soon does it "Joe?" And before you accuse me of being evasive or afraid of sharing the report, you do understand I have to get written permission to distribute this report since the Runestone Museum was our client on this work, but I don't think they will object.
Of course you do...
Mr. Wolter,
DeleteI can't say I disagree with the points made by your most recent anonymous fan and I do appreciate his or her kind words in my regard, but I can't speak for them either. However, I suppose it wasn't too hard to write a report declaring the AVM runestone to be a hoax after its makers confessed. So relevancy at this point would be rather moot.
So now you require your fans to identify themselves before placating them? Why don't you just take this board to Facebook if you don't wish to cater to anonymous posters? Perhaps that's because it might also discourage those that defend you anonymously as well? I for one would like to see them without their masks, though thinly veiled to begin with.
Your friend,
Joe Scales
Joe,
DeleteIn fact, it wasn't hard to write that report as the geology spoke loud and clear. In any case, that a confession came before I had completed my work and written my report does not suggest anything nefarious or unethical was going on. It's simply the way things worked out. It is your choice to believe that or not.
As I've said many times, I'm tired of dishonest argumentation by anonymous debunkers simply trying to muddle discussion by inserting their unsupported negative opinions and snide comments about the scientific work myself and others have done.
Unfortunately, because of this behavior the rules of the game are different for people like you until the behavior changes. All you have to do is act more politely, and scientific, and you'll be fine.
Like it or not that's the way it's going to be here.
Let me get this straight. You can't reveal your report without your client's permission. Which presupposes that you actually wrote it, and for it to be their property, you had to have billed them for it. And above you admit to Joe that you hadn't completed it or drafted it before the hoax was revealed. Cornered again.
DeleteAnonymous, "Joe" or whoever,
DeleteYes, you have it straight; I need permission to release the report, I did write a report, it is their property, I billed them, and it was not completed before the hoaxers admitted to their deed.
Voila! No need to escape from a corner I was never in is there?
It's really quite simple, I'm not going to release this report that I was hired to do without letting my client know where it's going. Maybe you do that in the academic world, but we don't do that in the professional world.
But then, you don't really care about my AVM Stone report do you? This is about trying to be a jerk which you are being quite successful at.
You'd be selling the AVM rune stone as genuine (as it was in your possession long enough without you expressing any doubts to its authenticity) if the hoaxers hadn't come forth and admitted what they'd done.
ReplyDeleteMr. Anonymous, or is this "Joe" again?
DeleteThere was a reason I did not issue an opinion about the AVM Stone back in 2001. It was because I had not completed the weathering investigation and was not going well for the people who discovered it who believed it was genuine. It was a very tense and delicate situation and did not issue any opinion until I had completed my work and until all the commotion had settled down.
The hoaxers did indeed come forward and confirmed the results of the testing I was completing at the same time. Because I said the weathering wasn’t old and agreed with the hoaxers, the people who discovered the artifact were embarrassed and angry. Never once did I ever say the AVM Stone was old or authentic. Why are you suggesting the contrary other than simply being you’re usual annoying anonymous self?
What else can you say? The results were the results.
so Mr. Anonymous, before posting, how come you didn't even read the "story" at Wiki......
Delete<<<>
Dave,
DeleteThe reason is because he is completely dishonest in his argumentation about this subject matter. His position is they are all fake and will say anything and everything to support those views no matter how factually untenable they are.
Yeah, there's only one guy named Joe that calls you out on your charade. He cleaned your clock by the way, so I can see why you asked him to leave. I doubt he'll come back either after you promised to play nice and did nothing other than insult him. Besides, it's useless to engage you intellectually. As for dishonesty, you only pointed out your concerns with the AVM after the fact, and list it on your professional website as if you had a hand in exposing it. There's dishonesty for ya. Before the hoax was made public, you had expressed rather high hopes for it as significant for your Kensington Rune Stone work. Didn't you? You did absolutely nothing to expose the hoax and would have been a willing accomplice had not the makers (who couldn't believe anyone could have taken it seriously in the first place) confessed. It was an obvious hoax and you dropped the ball.
DeleteAnonymous,
Delete"Joe" cleaned my clock huh? Just goes to show how delusional the debunker mentality can be. What I did with the AVM Stone was what I do in every case like this I investigate. I took no position and treated the artifact like it MIGHT be genuine until the testing is completed. In fact, the testing was not completed when the hoaxers came forward in spite of what you want to believe.
As it turned out, the AVM Stone test results were very important for the KRS because it served as a control sample of known origin that helped further establish the authenticity of the KRS. Why you think this was such a horrible event is puzzling, except you see it as an opportunity to try to disparage me and the KRS. Are you letting your personal feelings get in the way of your objectivity?
Swing and a miss yet again “Joe.”
Thanks Scott for everything you do for these pieces of history! We can't forget about them and need to discover more of our history on this planet!
ReplyDeleteRowan,
DeleteThanks for the kind words and you can be sure I will stay the course.
RE:
ReplyDelete"Scott WolterDecember 3, 2015 at 3:49 PM
Don,
It might be, but we could not get permission to do that. Flying anything below the rim is the big issue."
Scott,
Has a Freedom of Infomation Act
request been considered to obtain access?
Anonymous,
DeleteI haven't revisited the Grand Canyon project yet, but hope to in the near future. We'll let everyone know if and when we do.
Hi Scott, have you looked into Ted Turner being the man behind the Georgia Guidestones? He fits in every way. He has means, land in Georgia around area, has publicly spoke about population control, created CNN in Georgia in 1980 in June, just like the Guidestones. The Guidestones started their creation in June of 1979. Turner loves to keep things in a certain order and it makes sense. Has a historian I'm intrigued by your show. All the best lisa
ReplyDeleteLisa,
DeleteTed Turner's name has come up before as a possible RC Christian possibility. Unless he comes clean, which I highly doubt, I doubt we'll ever know for sure unfortunately.
Hello Scott Wolter,I think you have been too the Indian Mounds here in Macon,Ga. Have you seen pictures or visited "The Grotto"? If not I can send you some pictures of it's interesting stone construction.
ReplyDeleteHi John,
DeleteI'm not familiar with the "Grotto." You can send pictures to my email: swolter@amengtest.com
Found this on MSN and I’m happy I did. Well written article.
ReplyDeleteAaron,
DeleteI meant every word in the article and in each response. Our history is being suppressed by ignorance and arrogance. Artifacts like this need to preserved and protected. We need to get a shelter over it to protect it from weathering and vandalism. North Kingstown has done a great job so far, but they need to finish the job.
Good to hear the stone has been found and secured.
ReplyDeleteScott,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Joseph McGhee. I have a DNA mystery to relate in that I have trace of Native-American DNA which is unexplained. I had my DNA tested and it was determined that I am descended from the O'Neill line of northwest Ireland who were originally Viking settlers in Ireland by my DNA haplogroup: RM-222. My father and his family came to the USA in 1927. My maternal grandmother is from a German-American family who came to the USA in the 1850s and lived in New York City. All of the people in my family tree are traced to European Americans in Ireland, Scotland or southern Germany (Wuertemberg). So, how does a trace of Native-American DNA come in? Is this evidence of travel to the New World by Europeans in ancient times and return to Europe with Native-Americans? Or did so many Europeans travel to the New World that their DNA became part of mainstream Native-American DNA? -- Joseph M. McGhee
I am glad I take a wait and see attitude when it comes to ongoing research.
ReplyDeleteI am loving what is coming OUT of Oak Island and am certain the views of some if not many above regarding Oak Island have changed.
Just like this last s-election proves how corrupt those we consider leaders are more corrupt than ever imagined.