Figure 1. Swedish
Professor, Henrik Williams, and I posed for a photograph after a public debate he
moderated that Dick Nielsen and I participated in with Swedish scholars about recent discoveries concerning the Kensington
Rune Stone. The debate took place in Hudiksvall, Sweden, in February of
2004.
Figure 2. This is the first of forty pages of Professor Henrik Williams' written peer review of the runes and language chapter of the book I co-authored with Richard Nielsen titled, The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence. In 2005, the professor was in complete agreement the Dotted R on the Kensington Rune Stone proved runologically the artifact was of medieval origin. Williams' entire peer review can be seen here:
Figure 3. Page 218 of
our Compelling New Evidence book includes oversized runic fonts of the
modified characters on the first six lines I documented microscopically in
2002. These dots or short strokes were
added by the carver after carving the original inscription. Both Dick Nielsen and Henrik Williams
reviewed the physical modifications and agreed they existed when the book was published in
2006.
Figure 4. At a book release party for our book, The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence, at the Wolter home in November of 2005, Dick Nielsen (far left) explains our joint discovery of the Dating Code, Grail Code and the Dotted R to friends and family. Pictures of the characters modified by the medieval carver, that I photographed in 2002, were taped above the windows for Dick to use as visuals as he explained the discoveries. Specifically, pictures of the three Dotted R's can be seen above my head.
Figure 5. At book signings, Dick Nielsen occasionally dotted the "R" in his first name due to his great pride in the discovery that authenticated the Kensington Rune Stone all by itself.
Figure 6. This internal document was
generated by Runestone Museum board members immediately after Henrik Williams angrily
departed from the museum after Dick Nielsen had been denied access to see the
Kensington Rune Stone. Both had been warned, in writing, a
month prior that Nielsen would not be allowed to see the artifact after denying
the Museum access to the Kensington Rune Stone 3D imaging data they had allowed Nielsen to generate
in November of 2008.
Figure 7. There are at least 25 symbols in the transcription of the Kensington Rune Stone inscription that have been intentionally changed by Professor Henrik Williams and Richard Nielsen and then published on Dick Nielsen's personal website in May of 2010. Several physical aspects of the inscription, such as punch marks and short lines intentionally made by the carver, have been removed (14 circled in red) and others have been added that simply don't exist (11 circled in yellow). The alleged basis for these changes is the 2008 3D imaging data that to this day, Nielsen and Williams will not allow anyone else to review. A clean version of this document can be seen here: http://www.richardnielsen.org///PDFs/Inscription%20Panel.pdf
Figure 8. This photograph of the
notes made by Henrik Williams of the first three lines of the actual Kensington
Rune Stone was taken in November of 2003.
One can plainly see three of the four modified "Grail
Prayer" runes ("g", "r" and "l") were
observed and documented by the professor (circled in red). He and Nielsen apparently now believe these features don't
exist. The obvious question is why?
Figure 9. The top image in low angle reflected
light is of the word "waR" on line 6 of the Kensington Rune Stone
inscription. It has a
man-made, diamond shaped punch mark in the upper loop of the
"r" rune which is called a “Dotted R.”
Figure 10. Using the
Keyence 3D digital microscope, I mapped and measured the dimensions and depths
of the man-made depression in the upper loop of the “Dotted R" in line
six. It measured 555 microns in depth
and this extremely rare rune all by itself, proves runologically, the
Kensington Rune Stone is a genuine medieval artifact all by itself. Williams agreed with this conclusion in 2005,
yet has since changed his mind after trying to make this man-made punch mark, and many
other physical features on the artifact, go away. The question is: Why the sudden reversal and
attempt to remove these physical features from the historical record?
For those of you who are familiar with my work on the Kensington Rune Stone, you are well aware my opinion is the stone is a genuine medieval written record, carved in stone as a memorial and a land claim that also chronicles a journey made by ideological descendants of the Knights Templar and at least one Cistercian monk, to what is now Minnesota in 1362, as dated by the carver. The stone was discovered in 1898 wrapped in the tree roots by a Swedish immigrant farmer named Olof Ohman. I am one of two geologists, the other being Newton H. Winchell, to have studied the weathering of the inscription and declared it a genuine medieval artifact. Because the inscription is highly weathered, this makes it impossible for anyone in the settlement years of the late 19th Century to carved it as a hoax.
The primary subject of this blog is the publication of a transcription
of the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS) inscription by Professor Henrik Williams and
Richard Nielsen that intentionally omits certain man-made features previously
documented and adds others that are not present on the stone. Based on this flawed document, Professor Henrik
Williams and Richard Nielsen then published a series of papers with new
interpretations of various aspects of the inscription. Most notably they have “flip-flopped” from their
previously published interpretations saying now the "Dating Code," the "Grail
Code," and the "Dotted R" no longer exist. The
crux of the issue is there are physical features within two dozen carved
characters within the KRS inscription that Nielsen and Williams have
deceptively tried to remove from the historic record, and in other cases have
added features that simply don't exist.
The obvious question is why?
There are likely multiple reasons for this carefully crafted
plan to try and alter their acknowledgement of the physical characteristics of
the KRS inscription which they both previously agreed were present, but
apparently now are trying to make the "Dating Code" and the
"Grail Code" disappear from the historical record. You would have to ask them what purpose is
served by doing this, but I suspect it was for personal reasons and/or to
conform to some arbitrary academic standard.
In any case, the two codes were based on sound speculation that Dick
Nielsen and I proposed and published in our 2006 book, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence.
These two codes are relatively straightforward, and consistent within the
known context of the inscription; a medieval land claim and a memorial carved
by a Cistercian monk. We could certainly
be wrong, but the Dating and Grail codes account for all the modified runes and
Pentadic numbers as they must, if we are correct. However, the point of this posting is not to
argue the veracity of these two codes, it is to bring attention to the fact
that Nielsen and Williams have conspired to publish a document that effectively
erases these important codes they apparently no longer agree with.
Most disturbing of all is their claim the man-made dot in
the rare “Dotted R” rune on line six, which proves the KRS is a medieval
artifact all by itself, doesn’t exist. Reversing
their opinions as to what the physical marks on the stone imply is certainly their
prerogative, but to now deny the still physically present marks were ever there
is not. As a licensed professional geologist
with full knowledge of the physical aspects of the KRS inscription I cannot sit
idly by and tolerate two non-geologists make such physically impossible claims.
To fully understand and unravel this convoluted story one
has to go back to 2002 when I generated the first microscopic photo-library of
the entire KRS inscription using both high and low angle reflected light. I took a total of over 600 photographs and
created a separate folder for what I called, "odd runes" that I
discovered as I was taking pictures.
Several characters contained punch marks and short lines, both
adjacent to and within the already carved grooves of the inscription. As a geologist, my job was to simply document ALL
the man-made marks present on the surface of the stone. It was
upon detailed examination and study of these purposeful modifications to
certain characters, a number of important interpretations were made. In addition to the Dating and Grail Codes, a number of very important runological and linguistic
discoveries were also made by Nielsen and Williams which included,
"har",
the "Dotted R" and the "Dotted Thorn." It was Nielsen, in fact, who originally speculated these
marks were a Dating and Grail codes imbedded within the inscription by
the carver. While Williams fully acknowledged
the presence of the physical modifications, he did not endorse they were secret codes. I suspect this was due to his concern about
how he would be viewed by his ultra-conservative colleagues, but I don’t know
that for sure. However, Williams did agree
the Dotted R existed and proved the KRS was a medieval artifact. Regardless, Nielsen enthusiastically published
the codes in our Compelling New Evidence book in 2006. He also enthusiastically showed them in a
presentation he made to 30+ friends and Wolter family members at our book release
party.
After a series of events in 2006
that included personal difficulties between us, Nielson made an announcement to
me that our personal and professional relationship was over. The reality was he had “switched sides” and likely
hoped to be accepted into the academic community and by Williams, so he had to
renounce his belief in the KRS codes. It
has been well demonstrated that academicians like Williams, simply will not
accept there was pre-Columbian contact in North America by the
Cistercians/Templars, whom the codes clearly imply authored the stone.
Footnote: For those interested in reading more about the interpretations of these discoveries please read the following sources: The "Dating Code," pages 59-64 in Compelling New Evidence and pages 34-37 in The Hooked X: Secret History of North America; the "Grail Code," pages 62-67 in The Hooked X; the word "har", see Williams' discussion on page 536 in Compelling New Evidence; the "Dotted R," pages 49-58 in Compelling New Evidence and pages 31-33 in The Hooked X; the "Dotted Thorn," page C-1 in Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers: The Mysteries of the Hooked X.
The first step in the apparent plan to erase the record of
the codes, and the Dotted R, started when Nielsen approached the Runestone
Museum about having a low resolution 3D imaging study performed on the artifact
in 2008. He then submitted a contract
that gave himself exclusive access to the imaging data while at the same time denying
anyone else access including the Runestone Museum. Unfortunately, because of their misplaced
trust in Nielsen, the contract was not reviewed carefully enough by the museum
and they did not realize they would have no access to the data until it was too
late. Subsequently, this was why the
Museum denied Nielsen access during Henrik Williams’ visit to the museum in September
of 2010. Prior to that visit, Nielsen
and Williams had written a series of "academic" papers based on the 2008
3D imaging study that to this day, only Nielsen and Williams have been allowed
access to, and then published the papers on Nielsen's personal website. These papers tried to essentially “unacknowledge”
the physical modifications I had previously documented thereby making the codes
go away.
Most disturbing of all is they have tried to erase all three
Dotted R’s in the inscription that by themselves, prove the KRS is a medieval
artifact. In my opinion, these “scholars”
are trying to reverse all the important progress made in our study of the KRS,
in an apparent attempt to manipulate history.
Prior to Williams’ 2010 visit, they even tried to recruit the
grandson of the KRS discoverer, Darwin Ohman, into helping get Nielsen into the
museum. When Darwin reached out to the Museum attempting to help Nielsen gain admission, they responded with a list of demands he refused to comply to. These events prompted an angry email by Williams upon his return to Sweden. A copy of the original email sent to Darwin
can be read here:
One can see in the attached handwritten review of the KRS
runes and language chapter in our Compelling New Evidence book that
Professor Williams was in agreement the modified runes existed back in 2005, as
well as what the implications were for the Dotted R’s.
Williams himself said the man-made dot in the
Dotted R proved it was, "...a medieval artifact." For those
interested in reading several reviews of the manuscript which included three
linguists and runologists, Henrik Williams, Professor Michael Barnes and John
Bengston. The links are here:
Because of all this deception, I re-examined the physical
modifications on the KRS including the all-important Dotted R, using the latest
high resolution microscopic 3D imaging in 2011/2012. Based on these results it is my professional
opinion these physical features are definitely a man-made. A link to my report on the Dotted R
examination can be seen here:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wolter/3D+Imaging+Report+2-23-11.pdf
The overriding question is why did Williams and Nielsen
suddenly change their minds and set out to try to reverse their prior acknowledgement
of the physical marks using deceptive tactics veiled as academia? Instead of respectfully considering my report
on the high resolution 3-D imaging work performed on the Dotted R, Williams
wrote an angry response that summarily dismissed the factual evidence. Again the question is why?
By altering their opinions of previously-accepted man-made
markings on 25 characters, and by not sharing their 3D imaging “evidence” they
claim justifies these alterations, Nielsen and Williams open themselves up to
accusations that they are more concerned with “being right” than “getting it
right.” As the saying goes, everyone is
entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own
facts. The KRS deserves better,
especially from those who hold themselves out to be “experts in the field.” Although the true reason as to Henrik Williams’
alteration of his initial findings may never be known, his actions are all too
typical of what has occurred through academia whenever an unorthodox conclusion
is put forth.
For far too long, formal institutions have demanded
retractions from both individual researchers and tenured professors and the
like, whenever their conclusions have not conformed to an accepted historical
fact or theory. As a result, many
professional careers have been ruined, along with the lives of those
individuals and family members who unknowingly have been swept up into this
ever-increasing trap of non-conformity. This
behavior is exactly what I witnessed in my interactions with Swedish scholars
during my five trips to Sweden between 2003 and 2006. This is the exact opposite of what academic
institutions should be encouraging.
