Sunday, March 5, 2017

Guest Blogger Musings About the Hooked X

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fig. 12 Collated notes.

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

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


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

Consider this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  1. Thanks, Patrick, for all the exhaustive work you did on this subject of the Hooked X. It helps my perspective.

    This earlier mention of a particular Hooked X seems to be noteworthy again, as a very good clue source provided by Scott, also on his 12/28/2015 blog (as concerning the Hooked X perhaps originating somewhere besides Sweden):

    "This circa 6th century Anglo-Saxon brooch with eight symbols carved into the outer ring include a Hooked X at the 2:00 o'clock position. It was excavated next to a skull in Old Hunstanton, in Norfolk, England in 1900."

    Just for context, this would of course be before any Viking influences in England. But, would this use of the Hooked X on the brooch be outside of Scandinavian influence? Possibly, depending on where the brooch originated from, or if it was made locally. Here's one possibility:–Saxon
    Definition of Anglo–Saxon. 1 : a member of the Germanic peoples conquering England in the fifth century a.d. and forming the ruling class until the Norman conquest....

    So, perhaps the question can become, where did the Germanic peoples conquering England get the Hooked X, if it was in fact imported to England? (Again, unless the Hooked X on the brooch originated locally, or elsewhere besides from Germanic peoples.)

    I wonder what else may be known about this brooch which was brought to light in this venue earlier? Hopefully, it may have more clues or secrets to reveal about how the Hooked X came to be inscribed on it.

    - Gunn

    1. Gunn, thanks for leading the way on the comments on this posting! The brooch that you referenced is the Hunstanton Brooch. Visually it looks to be a Hooked X, but one school of thought believes the X represents the Anglo-Saxon “glyph” rune, which is the letter G. The branch has been interpreted as represent the letter I. The overall character construct has been interpreted to be a bind rune. Not all scholars are in agreement on the bind rune interpretation.
      A 5th century artifact, the Undley Bracteate, likewise has the basic X form, but this time there are branches extending from the lower right leg on three consecutive Xs. The X again represents the letter G of the Anglo-Saxon runic alphabet. On the first and third Xs the branches on the lower right leg represent the ligature Æ (“æsc” rune). The second X has a different style of branches on the lower right leg, these represent the letter O. All three of the Xs with branches are bind runes. This interpretation is broadly accepted as being correct.
      Is the Hunstanton Brooch X character equivalent to the Hooked X found on the North American rune stones? I think it is a pretty big stretch to go down that path. The issue revolves around how one could support that contention. Merely noting that it looks similar is not sufficient. I call items like this a one-stepper. The first step is the assertion, but where does the next step lead you?

    2. Pat/Gunn,

      “One-stepper” is as good a term as any for mysterious examples like these. The other important aspect in understanding what is, and what isn’t a “Templar” Hooked X is context. Obviously, the Hunstanton Brooch is too early to be connected to the Templar’s, and if it’s true they discovered the symbol carved into the lid of the “Jesus, son of Joseph” ossuary in the Talpiot tomb at the time of the First Crusade as I have suggested, then it’s probably something else.

      Each example has to be considered on a case by case basis to see if the facts fit.

    3. I was basically wondering what the context of the Hooked X on the brooch could be. Thanks, Patrick, for the additional information about Anglo-Saxon runes. So, I gather the Hooked X on the brooch is likely a letter character, but probably not Scandinavian, and not being used as a symbol of something else?

      I have recently learned that Scandinavian runes were often used individually as symbols of words or phrases, besides being used as runic letter characters, so I'm wondering whether the Hooked X on the brooch also may be symbolizing some Anglo-Saxon word or phrase, as a symbol, not unlike Scandinavian runes at times being used as symbols, such as with words and phrases.

      If so, I wonder what the symbol could mean on the brooch? Unless maybe its another kind of symbol, besides being used in conjunction with language communication in some unusual way.

      It seems like it might be useful to find out more about those other symbols/etchings on the brooch, to possibly learn more about the context. This wouldn't seem to matter so much, except that it is a very good, clear, crisp Hooked X. Any answers have to be good to know, in trying to determine the Hooked X's origin...or origins, since maybe two or more individual lines of Hooked X's ran together at different times and places, as letter characters and/or symbols unrelated to Templars.

      In other words, it seems possible that another European group may have been using the Hooked X, collaterally, but in a different place and manner than the prospective Templars...perhaps some other, temporary, Christian identity group. I can't help wondering how exclusively the Templars and post-Templars were using the Hooked X, though I agree that everything does seem to be pointing the most to Scandinavian-related post-Templars regarding America's prized "Hooked X" runestones.

      I put a lot of stock in the Larsson Papers as a most credible bridge between America's Hooked X runestones and our understanding of them as being connected to the post-Templars and the founding of our country, which, as everyone knows, is currently struggling to be great again....

      - Gunn

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

    Here's how:

    Get over it.

    1. Anonymous Troll,

      Oh please, trotting out the Larsson Papers only proves frauds like Michlovic and Williams were wrong the whole time is pathetic. This was put down a dozen years ago and proved the symbols scholars said never existed, including the Hooked X, existed all along and are ancient.

      Get over it.

    2. Anonymous,
      Dick Nielsen and Scott Wolter buried the Larsson Papers and its co-partner, the Månsta Yoke, eleven years past in their 2006 book The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence. Refer to pages 83-91 for the precise, methodological dissection of the Larsson Rune Row characters. After that, read pages 351-353 as they provide the detailed context to re-assess how your cited newspaper article from April 11, 2004 was birthed.

      Somewhere along the line, take the time to read this:

      Williams, Henrik. 2012. “The Kensington Rune Stone: Fact and Fiction.” The Swedish-American Historical Quarterly 43 (1): 3-22. Online version available at

      On page 19 you will find this:
      “This [the Larsson document] ties in nicely with the only other find with these runes that we know of, on a carrying-yoke from the province of Dalecarlia. It is dated with pentadic digits to 1907 and COULD have been inspired by the KRS [Endnote 39], but the Larsson runes from the 1880s PROBABLY mean that the inscription on the yoke is genuine.” [MY EMPHASIS]

      “Inspired by the KRS?” How about inspired by a newspaper article published about the KRS which showed “the a-rune without the hook or dots” (Nielsen & Wolter, page 89, 2006). Furthermore, if the Månsta Yoke was based off of the Larsson Rune Rows, then why didn’t the a-rune X reflect that form? And then there are issues with the pentadic numbers that Dick and Scott lay out in superb fashion.

      “Probably mean that the inscription is genuine.” What exactly does this mean? Henrik Williams is trying to construct arguments that support his contention that the Larsson Rune Row was the basis/model for the KRS being a 19th century hoax, so he proffers the Månsta Yoke as supporting evidence, teeter-totters by using the word “probably” and then closes his argument by asserting the Månsta Yoke inscription is genuine.

      Yeah, a genuine copy from a post-1898 newspaper article.

      In this 2012 paper, Williams made no attempt to rebut what Nielsen and Wolter had published six years previous on the Larsson Papers and the Månsta Yoke. William’s sum total effort at presenting a counter-argument to what Nielsen and Wolter had written, his valiant effort to resuscitate the dead and buried Larsson Papers and the Månsta Yoke, was this: 39.

      An endnote number. That’s it. If you can’t win an argument, the smart thing to do is to 39 it.

    3. Thanks for not calling me and others names Patrick like Scott does when challenged. Your take on the Yoke bears little consequence on the Larsson papers. The Yoke was deemed supportive as it came from the same province as the Larsson brothers, but of course not conclusive at it was dated 1907. There are no shenanigans going on there.

      The Larsson papers remain the best evidence for a contemporary source for the Kensington Rune Stone runes. That you ignore them completely in your paper and our host only tailspins into gibberish and insult when confronted with them tells the real story.

      Dick Nielsen refuted most of what Scott clings to when confronted with better evidence. That is why Henrik Williams respected him. Nielsen respected Henrik Williams because he had an open mind to more research when done competently and honestly. How they both felt about Scott was due to his shortcomings in these regards.

      Over it.

    4. Anonymous,

      What you fail to acknowledge is there is zero evidence the Larsson Papers are in any way connected to the KRS. Further, you, Henrik Williams and others apply confirmation bias with the Larsson Papers to support your firmly entrenched negative KRS opinions. Not once have you, Williams, and others bothered to acknowledge the Larsson rune rows represent a previously unknown, secret tradition that is hundreds of years old.

      On top of that you, Williams and others continue ignore the geological weathering work myself and Newton Winchell performed that makes the Larsson Papers connection to the KRS impossible.

      Citing the fraudulent 3D imaging study Nielsen, Williams and Jensen used as the basis for their attacks against me, and still refuse to share with anyone else going on nine years now, is shameful and hardly something you should be citing. But then, you already know this and are simply shilling for the other side.

      If you don’t want to be labeled a troll or a shill, then stop being one.

    5. "What you fail to acknowledge is there is zero evidence the Larsson Papers are in any way connected to the KRS."

      It is simply a probable contemporary source which makes more sense than wandering Templars and unknown codes which you have never been able to prove.

      "Further, you, Henrik Williams and others apply confirmation bias with the Larsson Papers to support your firmly entrenched negative KRS opinions."

      I do not believe you know what confirmation bias is and yet it makes up the entire basis of your work.

      "Not once have you, Williams, and others bothered to acknowledge the Larsson rune rows represent a previously unknown, secret tradition that is hundreds of years old."

      Because there is zero evidence to back up such a bold claim.

      "On top of that you, Williams and others continue ignore the geological weathering work myself and Newton Winchell performed that makes the Larsson Papers connection to the KRS impossible."

      And you continue to ignore the flaws pointed out by each and every qualified scientist alive today in both Winchell's work and your own.

      "Citing the fraudulent 3D imaging study Nielsen, Williams and Jensen used as the basis for their attacks against me, and still refuse to share with anyone else going on nine years now, is shameful and hardly something you should be citing. But then, you already know this and are simply shilling for the other side."

      I never cited any such thing. And please don't tell me what I know, as you don't even know what you don't know.

      "If you don’t want to be labeled a troll or a shill, then stop being one."

      If you don't want to be labeled as a poor scientist who has no expertise in runes and makes up nonsense to claim fleeting fame---

      Over it yet?

    6. Anonymous,

      There are a few things I do know, the first is you don’t have the courage or integrity to use your real identity, but at the same time want to be taken seriously as you refuse to address salient points while firing darts in the dark. Second, you’ve hitched your wagon to the wrong horses who have broken down and are now dying. Third, you clearly haven’t grasped the voluminous peer-reviewed evidence presented in three books and numerous papers that prove pre-Columbian Templar’s were indeed in North America. This includes first-hand Native American oral tradition about their Templar Brethren, or are they liars too?

      Remember Jack Nicholson’s famous line in, “A Few Good Men?” Think about that my faceless friend, because you and others like you can’t handle the truth, you are soon to be handed your asses.

      It's time to stop digging OK?

    7. If you are going to once again fraudulently claim peer review then cue the fat lady accordingly.

      I can't reason with a liar.

      You got anything Patrick?

    8. Anonymous,

      Liar? Here are the links to just some of the peer reviews I’m lying about:

      I'm sure you now feel silly and would like to apologize?

    9. Anonymous,
      Apologize for late in the day replies. All blogs are blocked by the network at work so chiming in has to work till the workday is over and I am home.

      The Yoke would have been best served had it never been connected to the Larsson Rune Row (LRR), but it was, so it was critically analyzed and it failed to pass muster. It should have not entered into any conversation after the 2006 book, yet it did. Can we agree to forgo any further discussion regarding it?

      I did not raise the topic of the LRR because that discussion topic didn’t fit the material/subject matter that I was writing about – which was that a few examples of the X with hook symbol were found in historical documents as a scribal abbreviation (breviograph) in the Latin language. I could not find these usage cases of the X with hook in any Medieval or modern era Latin etymology books nor in any document on the Internet, and the one paleography expert that I contacted had not seen that particular symbol.

      The breviographs on the map DID NOT have double dots (umlauts) above them, so there was no connection with second to last character on the LRR.

      The breviographs on the map DID resemble the first character on the LRR, in fact, they are all X’s with hooks – and they are used in at least two parallel fashions, the first being as the letter A and the second representing the -æ sequence of characters. Some transliterations point out that possible spellings for the words could have been an -æ sequence and sound dependent on whether the word was Icelandic, Swedish, or other.

      Aside from pointing out the breviographs, the only other significant concept contained in the paper was that perhaps, as Thalbitzer pointed out, the unique a-rune form might have been (possibly) derived from a Latin influence. This doesn’t mean that it was, but I had hoped maybe it would elicit a conversation.

      Richard Nielsen believed that the KRS was authentic. He never wavered, to the best of my understanding, in that regard. If I am wrong on that, please correct me, but if not, then irrespective of what transpired in the decade between 2006 and his passing in 2016, he always supported KRS authenticity.

    10. Patrick,

      With regard to the question about Dick Nielsen's opinion of the KRS; I can assure you he never wavered in his belief it was genuine during the time I worked him from 2000 into 2007. He was obsessed with the KRS and its authenticity and while he understood how important the geological work Winchell and I did was, he believed it was his own work on the language, runes, dialect and grammar of the inscription was what solved it.

      In fairness to Dick, he did some very good research and made many important discoveries relative to the inscription. Even Henrik Williams will agree that Dick was a diligent researcher who dug into the medieval diploma's to find the linguistic evidence other scholars found too cumbersome to bother with. He deserves credit for that work that helped prove the inscription is indeed medieval and authentic.

      In fact, I recall an interesting story Darwin Ohman shared about what Dick wanted his legacy with the stone to be during a conversation they had sometime after 2006. Maybe Darwin can share the details of that conversation?

    11. Patrick Sheckleton wrote:

      "Richard Nielsen believed that the KRS was authentic. He never wavered, to the best of my understanding, in that regard.”

      I also believe that to be true. Dick Nielsen and I had many KRS meetings up and into 2010. Somewhere in the 2007/2008 timeframe we were to meet with Paul Wieblen at the Geological Survey in St Paul. Dick and I were having lunch at a coffee shop next door and not unlike many of the open, frank conversation we had, I asked him how he would like to be remembered, in other words what would he like to leave for a legacy. After thinking for a bit he responded: “I would like to be remembered as the guy who solved the Kensington Rune Stone”.

      There is no doubt in my mind that Dick was a true believer in the KRS. I never witnessed him waver from that opinion in any of our conversations.

      Darwin Ohman

    12. Anonymous,

      Anyone reading these articles can see right through them. What you fail to reveal is these “Wolter bashing” articles are based on the fraudulent 3D study Nielsen (while living), and now Henrik Williams and Loraine Jensen refuse to share with anyone after almost 9 years. Add to that Nielsen’s deceptive publishing of his demand letters, written by a co-worker posing as his attorney, without posting my responses telling him to either write me check for the $37,500 he still owes or go fly a kite.

      The Yoke was clearly incorrectly copied from newspaper articles of the time as has been definitively proven. It has no relevance to the origin of the KRS. As I have already stated in this thread, there is zero evidence the Larsson Papers are in any way connected to the origin of the KRS inscription; ZERO. You also fail to acknowledge that besides it being impossible to carve the KRS using the Larsson Rune Rows, it indicates many (but not all) of the symbols scholars like Williams said never existed, in fact, did exist after all. To this day, Williams has never acknowledged that he and his colleagues for the past century were wrong about that point. I won't hold my breath he'll ever admit the symbols could have existed for centuries prior which has been proven to be the case. Talk about confirmation bias...

      Both Nielsen, Williams, and other scholars peer-reviewed all the KRS research and agreed to have their names published on the cover and in the book.

      These articles and letters were only posted after Nielsen failed to pay his debt and his girlfriend at the time, Loraine Jensen, convinced him he was the one who should get more credit.

      That's the truth about this website, but can you handle it?

      Step out of the shadows and have the courage to identify yourself. For all we know this is Loraine Jensen or Henrik Williams posting anonymously.

    13. The Shadow Knows,

      You crossed the credibility and decency line and now you are done. Until you start using your real identity you can stay in the shadows where you belong.

      That's gotta' be frustrating I'm sure.

    14. Anonymous,
      Forgive me for asking, for I might have simply overlooked it, but is there any content on the web site that indicates Richard Nielsen changed his position and points of argument from what he wrote in the 2006 book regarding either the Larsson Rune Row (LRR) or Manta Yoke?

      The blog posting was about X’s with hooks found on early 12th and early 16th century maps, one usage case on the latter explicitly representing the -a vowel in Latin. I posed a rhetorical question at the end of the posting and you brought in the Larsson Rune Row (LRR). No issue with that – recognizing that non-supporters of authenticity will tender it as evidence of a 19th century origination for the KRS et al. You cited a 2004 newspaper article. I then cited Nielsen and Wolter’s 2006 book which addressed both the LRR and Månsta Yoke. Why did the 2006 book discuss both of them in sequential order? Presumably because sometime prior they had somehow been linked together, likely because the Yoke was the only unambiguous inscription/scribal writing evidence from Sweden/Norway/Denmark (S/N/D) where the X had a clear usage case as the a-rune.

      Why did I keep the two items coupled? Because Henrik Williams tied them together in his 2012 paper: “This [the Larsson document] ties in nicely with the only other find with these runes that we know of, on a carrying-yoke from the province of Dalecarlia.”

      We each bantered once more, and then in today’s comment you conflate the LRR and Månta Yoke and assert that I brought the Yoke in as a red herring. Not an effective shift in your argumentative technique.

      If assertion A is supported by assertion B, then the counter-argument either focuses on A and B simultaneously, or A or B, separately. The Månta Yoke is the B assertion. So why is assertion B a red herring a mere five years after William’s coupled them together in 2012?

      The distinguishing feature of the Hooked X® on the North American rune stones is that it has a hook. The Månta Yoke X’s are absent a hook, yet William’s asserts that they support the LRR?

      The X’s with hooks on the 1508 Italian map, specifically the “Luna” and “Sina” usages, are closer in symbol form to the KRS/SPR/NRS than the 1907-dated Månta Yoke. Should the “Luna” and “Sina” cases be accepted as prima facie evidence to support an assertion that the Hooked X® might have originated outside of Scandinavia and at a date earlier than the 1883/1885 Larsson Papers?

      There was no “questionable manner” in what I wrote, nor is a mere comment that critiques Henrik’s presented argument in one specific paragraph going to “discredit” him. As stated before, Henrik wrote the article five years ago. Perhaps his point of view on this topic has shifted in the intervening years, perhaps not. I will gladly forgo any further critiques of Henrik’s 2012 paper, that is, unless you still take umbrage at what I wrote.

      Continued on Part II:

    15. Part II:

      Shifting gears here…but the positing of the LRR as proof of the 19th century origination of the KRS was, in my opinion, a serious tactical error. Finding an inscribed Hooked X® character no longer was the threshold, an X with a hook form within a manuscript, map, church calendar, etc. would suffice just as well.

      Furthermore, given that the Larsson Papers represents the sole “hit” of an X with a hook in the usage case of the vowel -a in S/N/D, if the same symbol is found with a similar usage case outside the aforesaid region AND WELL PRIOR TO THE LARSSON PAPERS, then the argument shifts to one of TRANSMISSION.

      Could the X with a hook have migrated INTO S/N/D prior to the KRS 1362 date? This is the line of reasoning that Thalbitzer wrote about, stating that the KRS should be afforded further study, and which I referenced in the blog posting.

      There are several academic papers in circulation on Academia dot edu on how place names and words flowed into S/N/W in the Medieval Era from regions around the Baltic. There are even article(s) available on the Internet which discuss how Scandinavian place names and words flowed into Iceland.

      Could the breviographs present on the 1508 Italian portolan map have existed in the 14th century (not implausible as we have the same breviograph form in the c. 1122 English map) and, if so, is there a historical record of a possible transmission route? From some earlier work:

      “The historical record is clear that magnetic surveying in the Baltic and Northern Regions began in the early 14th century. The 1879 book, “Meddelelser Om Gronland Udgivne Af Kommissionen for Videnskabelige Undersogelser I Gronland”,, on pp. 119-127, discussed the early surveying efforts of the Italians in the Baltic countries. In 1300, Italian priest Giovanni di Carignano drew a map which illustrated the results of the survey. Around 1320, a map by Venetian Pietro Vesconte depicted more information on the Baltic region as well as compass lines. By the middle of the 14th century, Catalan (Spain) surveyors began to frequent the region and, presumably, performed magnetic declination surveys. It was noted in the book that the Catalans “were quite [as] eager as the Italians [to record] the legends about the distant landscape [and] countries” (pp. 121-122).”

      Let’s return to the Månta Yoke that Henrik Williams cited in his 2012 paper as evidence to support the LRR, and by extension, his contention that the 19th century LRR was the basis for the KRS Hooked X®. If you wish, go ahead and keep supporting it as assertion B, taking heed that it has NO HOOK ON IT.

      If you do so, then the TRANSMISSION is going into “drive” and the second iteration of the 15th century GERMAN Cistercian-cipher X with a hook for the a-vowel and “prior to the Larsson Paper” ICELANDIC a-vowel are traveling out of the rest area into S/N/D.

      Don’t miscontrue what I am saying – the first iteration of the X with hook for the a-vowel had long ago driven to S/N/D by Michael Zalar, Scott Wolter, and Steve DiMarzo.

      The Internet archive scouring being done by folks today – it was the runologists in Scandinavia that opened the door for that.

    16. Patrick,

      Harold "shadow knows" won't grasp any of what you've written here because he doesn't understand it, but more importantly he doesn't care.

      He's here to harass and that's it. However, if he does make an attempt at a reasonable and intelligent response I'll post it. I doubt it though as the argument Williams made in 2012 is indefensible as you pointed out.

      Thanks for taking time to post such a well thought out comment.

    17. Harold Shadow Knows,

      “Dick Nielsen's site documenting numerous instances of questionable practices our host has undertaken to rewrite history. Between the papers by Nielsen and Williams, you'll see where Dick revised his support of our host.”

      Once again, you have skirted the issue that Richard Nielsen somehow changed his opinion about the authenticity of the KRS in his later years. He clearly did not. What his and Williams’ self-published, non-peer-reviewed articles amount to are a change in his opinion about me. The $37,500 debt and academic fraud notwithstanding, these articles were not about rescinding anything in our Compelling New Evidence book. They were about their criticism of me personally and my Hooked X book which they clearly did not want to understand.

      With regard to the Mustang Mountain inscription episode, your attempts to smear have missed the mark again. As I wrote in my Akhenaten book that you intentionally do not cite, I determined the inscription did not exhibit any weathering so was either modern, or could be old due to geological evidence the inscription was likely buried, possibly up to several hundred years ago. Unbeknownst to me, the production company contacted a runic expert, who offered the translation they then wrote the story around. Whether that expert was right or wrong I do not know. However, because of Williams’ continual efforts to try to discredit me at every turn (such as calling and berating academic institutions that invited me to give lectures) and his fraudulent efforts with Nielsen on the KRS inscription, I put a lot less faith in his objectivity and competence than you do.

      Please get your facts, your story, and your attitude straight and I may let you post comments again.

    18. You are a liar and a fraud Scott. You are also a coward by responding to me without posting links that prove you are a liar and a fraud.

      I understand your cowardice fully and do not wish to waste my time here where lies and fraudulent historical revisionism rule. Enjoy your minions of morons, as to follow you is a litmus test for imbecility. You deserve them and they deserve you.

    19. Harold Shadow Knows,

      Finally fell over the edge when you didn’t get your way. Gotta’ say, I knew it was coming.

      We appreciate your opinions of me, but without specifics to support your claims they ring a bit hollow. If attacking me is your best evidence for the KRS being a fraud, then I win easily.

      It was fun…

    20. Anonymous,
      I roughed out a reply to you in the rest area in West Virginia earlier this morning and by the time the convoy stopped just over the border in the next state, you had performed an act of self-immolation! Over a hyperlink? Really?

      If you were really crafty you would have used the secret tradesman code from the Manta Yoke and embedded it into your comment so that it spelled out the URL for the web site that we have all been to a dozen times or more anyways.

      I checked...there are two X's in the URL...and they don't have hooks...just like your Manta Yoke!!! You could have done it!!

    21. I saw the bad stories from bad man. Mr. Scott rewrites true history with what professors ignore. We will find treasure soon!

      Nam E'tisoppo

    22. Nam,

      The more ignorant people criticize what I do, the more I know we're on the right track. Stay tuned, the best is to come.

  3. This is great work, Patrick. Scott, I have long concurred with your conclusion that the Hooked X was sort of a "calling card" for a group of Templar/Cistercian-related explorers. How does Patrick's work fit in with this conclusion?

    1. In this regard, Scott, I've wondered whether the Hooked X was possibly used to symbolize "Christianity" in a general sense, maybe for certain periods of time, in certain areas. If so, this could somewhat confuse a more narrow view, such as your views, Scott, that the Hooked X goes back to the days of Jesus and even farther back, to ancient Egypt.

      I'm thinking maybe the Hooked X on the brooch was symbolic of something besides this long and ancient progression to 6th century England and beyond, concerning your Jesus Bloodline hypothesis. This might account for the Hooked X possibly symbolizing--perhaps at different times and places--connections with others besides Templars. There may be this confusion?

      I do personally believe, however, that Templars and/or post-Templars came to America, though I'm not that sure about when, or how early, or how many expeditions they made. I think it possible or even likely that Templars came to America earlier than previously thought, perhaps back when they were representing the Catholic Church. In this case, one could see how the later-arriving French might possibly be interested in "things" in this upper Midwest region other than the usual furs and land and American Indian souls.

      - Gunn

    2. David/Gunn,

      I'll combine my answer as both of your questions piggy-back a little bit. First, while the English broach does look like a Hooked X, it's not totally clear that's what it's intended 'meaning" was supposed to be. However, if it is a Hooked X that symbolized the ideology of Monotheistic Dualism, it could very well have been used by a 6th Century monk who was part of a faction of monotheists who were most likely part of the Merovingian lineages that understood the symbolism at that time.

      The Templars came to North America often during pre-Columbian times between the 12th and 15th Centuries, but it was on their own accord and had nothing to do with anything on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, it was quite the opposite.

      Be patient and soon this will all make more sense.

    3. Scott,

      Other than "mysterious stone objects" and cryptic symbolic writings, is there any physical evidence of Templars being in North America? If they were in NA from the 12th to 15th centuries, almost 300 plus years before the rest of Europe, there would certainly be artifacts, archaeological sites, etc.
      I was wondering if you could reference any archaeological excavations which have identified Templar material in situ (ie., buttons, tools, weapons, cookware, etc.) that date to this time period, within Native American sites (they certainly would have been trading), or other archaeological digs.

    4. Anonymous,

      First off, why exclude “mysterious” stone texts (KRS/SPRS/NRS) that point only to the Templar’s and their traditions? They serve as powerful factual evidence and in my view are conclusive.

      Second, the Newport Tower was clearly built by the Templars. Third, you seem to imply that only archaeology is an acceptable means of providing definitive proof. The problem with archaeology is because the fugitive Templar’s assimilated with Native American tribes, what would one expect to find that proves a European presence on an archaeological site? The fact is many items have already been found, such as the Norse penny in Maine, but were dismissed as “trade items.”

      What about the 32 Tucson Lead Artifacts that were found in a pristine archaeological context yet dismissed simply because they didn’t fit the narrative?

    5. Scott,

      I'm not trying to provoke. It seems as though a lot of research has been put into this by you and Patrick and I was just hoping you could supplement that research with archaeological evidence.

      If the mysterious stone texts point to Templars, they had to travel and carve those stones. Would there not be camps, garbage left over from those travels?

      If the Newport tower was built by Templars they would have built it using techniques, materials, and tools they know. Archaeological excavations at the site should produce leftover material dating from that time, broken tools, iron axes,discarded bones from meals, crockery, foundation trenches, etc. which date to that time period. I'm not too familiar with the site though so has such diagnostic material been identified there during excavations?

      The Templar's assimilated with Native American tribes, okay but that would not happen instantly. There would still be trade, iron would have been useful to both the Templars and Native Americans. I can't imagine the Templars arrived in NA and instantly shed any clothing, tools, weapons, any semblance of European technology. That would have taken time and if they were continuously visiting over 300 plus years every ship arriving would be carrying goods and materials. There should be contextual evidence of that. One single Penney is not evidence.

      Also, if the Templars 100% completely assimilated with Native American tribes, leaving no trace of of a European presence, discarding all valuables and, tools and items, then would they no longer be Templars?

      As to the Tucson lead artifacts, were they not proven fake when it was recognized that the messages on them were copied from contemporary texts?

    6. Anonymous,

      Yes, there would be camps, but their “garbage” would be the same as natives wouldn’t it; especially if they shared meals/rituals, etc.? I suspect most of these camps wouldn’t be distinguishable from a Native camp. It’s also possible campsites with telltale archaeological artifacts are out there, but haven’t yet been found or excavated.

      Several digs have been conducted at the Tower, but not directly under the sidewalk surrounding the structure. A brief salvage dig was done several years ago when they replaced the concrete that yielded a shell fragment with mortar attached that dated (C-14) to the mid-1400’s. This test result was quickly glossed over and while doesn’t conclusively prove the case, it begs that additional work be performed. Architecturally, it screams Knights Templar round church architecture they brought back from Jerusalem during the Crusades. The twin flue venting system in the second story fireplace is spot on medieval Scottish castle stonework. The current theory of it being a colonial windmill is silly, besides the lack of structural integrity for lateral wind shear forces, who would build a fireplace in a windmill filled with grain shells that could explode?

      I understand your point here and it might be as simple as the natives buried the weapons with the bodies when the Templar’s eventually died and we simply haven’t found them yet. Swords have been found, but unfortunately the archaeological context wasn’t preserved.

      Correct, they would be Native American within a generation or two, but the impact left on the native culture, especially in rituals, has been preserved. I’ve seen it.

      The Latin text on the Tucson artifacts has not been proven to have been copied; that’s a smokescreen. Their pristine archaeological context alone proves that’s impossible anyway. All other arguments are just rumor and conjecture with no hard facts.

    7. Scott,

      Thanks for responding.

      So in summary, other than a shell fragment attached to a piece of mortar, there is no archaeological evidence that you can reference to supplement the theory of Templar's being in North America.

      Also, please be careful stating Templars shaped and impacted Native American culture and rituals. That's quite a colonial viewpoint and Native American Bands would take issue with that.

    8. Don’t you consider the KRS to be an archaeological artifact? How about the Spirit Pond and Narragansett Rune Stones?

      You might want to read my latest book that includes my comparison of rituals of Native American and Masonic/Templar rituals. Also, while some Native American’s would likely take issue, others will acknowledge influences that went both ways. The Mi’kmaq being one of them, but don’t expect them to share their opinions with just anyone. You have to first earn their trust.

    9. Well I believe that's a circular argument which we probably won't agree on. I would require physical, contextual evidence of Templar artifacts in NA to begin to consider the KRS, Spirit Pond, and Narragansett Rune Stones as authentic archaeological artifacts. I am talking about the artifacts that early Templars/Europeans would have required on an everyday basis, the things they would have brought with them, the things that would have broke and simply discarded or reused, tools, iron, crockery, bottle glass, preserved wood, etc. I have never seen any evidence of those things, in the thousands and thousands of archaeological digs conducted across North America you can't provide one reference to those things ever being identified. And you will argue the other way, so no ground gained.

      As to the Mi'kmaq acknowledging influence that their culture and rituals were shaped by The Templars, can you provide an ethnographic report reference that states that and which the band and their elders have participated in and agreed upon?

    10. Anonymous,

      I would argue whatever may have already been found by archaeologists would have experienced the same close-mindedness I’ve heard from multiple academics about the KRS and other artifacts and sites they didn’t like. I also believe, as would have been the case with the Bat Creek Stone had the Smithsonian understood what it was at the time of discovery, that artifacts like these have been hidden, marginalized, and in some cases destroyed. It was only upon realizing the Bat Creek inscription was paleo-Hebrew in 1970, 81 years after excavation, the Smithsonian instantly branded it a fake. Sorry, they are liars and I don't trust them which begs the question; what else are they hiding from us they did recognize when it was discovered ?

      You can stop framing the argument implying only an ethnographic report is acceptable. Oral tradition is just as valid.

    11. You can argue that point all you want but it's simply not true. Regardless of your feelings of the Smithsonian, it does not represent or speak for many many universities, avocational groups, and consulting archaeologists conducting excavations everyday throughout NA. If an archaeologist finds European material from an excavation layer indicating occupation to the 1100s it would be quite the discovery, in fact something they could write papers about, publish a book, etc.

      And oral tradition is valid you are right, however it can't simply be "I heard", or someone "told me". It has to be backed up with quotes from elders, acceptable, appropriate, and respectable interviews conducted with the Band to be written as ethnographic evidence for your argument. Do you have that or can reference any?

    12. Anonymous,

      I don’t expect you accept what I know to be true in the case of the Bat Creek Stone. You might want to go back and read the blog exchange I had with the Smithsonian after one of our America Unearthed episodes and they’re ridiculous position statement they were forced to alter when confronted with inconvenient facts. You and I both know a discovery like this would not be handled in the professional way you suggest. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this point.

      Myself and several other people heard such stories at the Newport Tower two years ago. I recorded the conversation and will share it in due time. Stay tuned; there is new evidence coming soon to be shared the world will find very interesting on this front.

      Sorry to be so cryptic, but we’ve spent over 7 months vetting this new info and we’ll release it when it’s appropriate.

    13. I understand you have been vetting your information but please know that hearing a story at a tower in Newport is in no way earning the trust of the Mi'kmaq (as you stated earlier), or an acceptable oral tradition reference. It is also disrespectful and misleading to publish a "recorded conversation" of possible Mi'kmaq stories without the input and consent of the Mi'kmaq Grand Council and/or the input and consent of Elders from the numerous Mi'kmaq First Nations across eastern Canada and US.

    14. Anonymous,

      First, the recorded conversation at the Tower was with the chief of the Wampanoag Tribe, not the Mi'kmaq. It was in their territory where the Newport Tower was constructed.

      Second, anything we published regarding the oral history of any tribe will be done with their blessing.

      Thanks for your concern.

    15. Thank you.

      You may be answering this with your new evidence, but if the Templars were visiting the North American coast for about 300 plus years before other European nations, and assimilating with the Native American tribes, they would have been exposed to European diseases, why were they decimated by smallpox and other diseases when Europeans arrived?

    16. Anonymous,

      All I can tell you is after my lecture about the Kensington Rune Stone at the Atlantic Conference in 2007, a female Ojibwe story-keeper came up to me afterward and said, “We know all about your people who were here in the 1300’s.” More than a little surprised at the unsolicited comment I said, “You do? How do you know that?” She replied, “Because half our people died from the plague they brought with them.”

      I am still in contact with her and her husband who is a Mide' win shaman.

  4. ...."The arabic numeral system was in use and even an astrolabe with an arched X for forty"....

    ...."No way a voyage with that much clout didn't have the best mapping. The whole new world exploration may have been enabled by of the Cistercian connections in medieval Europe"....

    from David Radcliff (Saturday, July 23, 2011), "Truth is the most powerful of all"....

    We have waited a long time for a "navigator" to step up to the plate....there is no further doubt....the door was opened in the time of Plato....followed by the work of Ptolemy. Scott's "Hooked X" was the calling card and it is found and proven in the ancient manuscripts. It took a lot of "navigation" of the MMS's of the medieval written and preserved works. This is the work of individuals who saw through the fog of history, distortions and later written discrepancies, and marginalization of history for modern political expediency to tell a simple story. There is nothing simple about any of this.

    1. David,

      How right your are; the Kensington Rune Stone is the most challenging thing I've ever worked on and it took sixteen years to finally get to the bottom of it and I'm sure there's plenty I'm still missing.

      It was easy for skeptics to dismiss the artifact because they couldn't figure it out. Instead of admitting defeat, or simply saying they didn't know, they chose to try and save face by claiming it was a hoax and make it go away.

      The academic world is riddled with the names of "scholars" who were defeated by the medieval carver whose 650 year-old message has them stumped to this day.

      What's that old saying, "Nothing worthwhile comes easy."

    2. We haven't even got to the work of Robert Feather......and the "copper scroll".....and the thousand year (now 3 thousand year) history, re: your books and his. So the question is "does Pat's work go back as far as yours....Egypt does have a naval history that extends back to 3000 BC -- that's 5000 years ago.....interesting ... and the Medieval's knew about the zodiac and the precession. Since you and Pat have shown this work, then the reasoning is the "Hooked X" was part of this history....hummmmm

    3. Patrick,

      Thank you this informative post. The work you have shared in the last couple of years is simply amazing. You are into undeniable territory; something the “Academic Experts” collectively have been unable to do for years and you have done it on your own. I appreciate your tenacity and desire to look for evidence. Thank you again for the great work and thank you Scott for posting it.

      Great stuff, and only getting better. The goal line is right in front of us and Scott, there is no question you are taking it in! Darwin Ohman

    4. David, nice share. I had never seen this posting by David Radcliffe before, but he certainly got the outline dead to rights.

    5. Thanks, Darwin. There are a tremendous amount of folks who have invested their time and efforts in trying to better understand the KRS and the other North American rune stones. I am but just one of the few involved. I am thankful that most, but probably not all, have come to recognize that your Grandfather did not have a hand in crafting the KRS. I am also thankful that Judi Rudebusch sent me on that errand last spring to obtain copies of the archives of Waldo R. Wedel at the Smithsonian Museum, for contained within records, which I do not have permission to publish, are numerous examples of the unwarranted personal animus directed towards your Grandfather and the Ohman family - all of which have proven to be absolutely false. Reprehensible conduct by persons only seeking notoriety, not the facts. To his credit, Wedel paid them no heed, but when Danish runologist Erik Moltke published an article in 1951 stating that the j-rune was an French invention from the 16th century (since proven to be absolutely incorrect), and when Wedel's peers became aware of it in April 1953, the memos started arriving saying that the KRS should no longer be exhibited in the National Museum. Late in the archives, there is correspondence from Wedel that conveys his belief that the KRS authenticity question had not yet been settled. Darwin, maybe one day the KRS will make its way back to the Smithsonian.

  5. Scott,
    I have always wondered, have you ever researched the kensington runestone or any other stones while listening to the rolling stones while you were stoned?


    1. Andrew,

      Not that I recall... I'm either researching rocks or rocking out. I try not to mix the two.

    2. David,

      I wanted to jump in and say how much enjoy and respect Robert Feather's work with the Dead Sea Scrolls. I appreciate his pragmatic scientific work and logical analysis. He also brings a level of caring and sensitivity to the people involved that brings the right personal touch that shows he's grounded in his approach to his research.

      He's one of the good researchers of this sensitive historical subject matter I'd like to meet some day.

  6. Scott,
    I'm sure you're aware of this, but recently a knights Templar cave was discovered in Britain. I was looking at some of the pictures and noticed an MD inscribed on one of the cave walls. What did the Templars use MD for?

    1. Al,

      Yes, I'm very aware of the site that is clearly an underground ritual chamber. While the Templars did follow an ancient tradition of tunneling underground and performing rituals below grade, it's unclear if these caves were originally created by medieval Knights Templar.

      However, they certainly could have been and if I were a betting man I'd say it likely was.

  7. Hi again Patrick and Scott. So, by looking at and combining these two comments (below) from the blog heading, I'm under the impression that the Hooked X used on the KRS and the East Coast runestones (and on the 6th century Anglo-Saxon brooch) is in an entirely different category than the Hooked X used purely as a symbol, such as on the MA carved Knight and in Jerusalem. We're talking about the difference of using the Hooked X as a language character, or a symbol.

    On the Larsson Papers, it was apparently used as a language character rather than a symbol, also...although it was identified as representing a "secret" style of language communication.

    I just thought I should point out that we're dealing with two distinctive purposes for using the Hooked X, and they don't seem to necessarily jive in a comprehensible way; Scott, would you mind suggesting a way that these two diverse uses, or purposes, can jive--historically speaking, so that Egypt, the Jesus Bloodline, Jerusalem, the Knight in stone and all the American Hooked X runestones are conjoined? (The gaps and different purposes and how they relate to another are perplexing when considering some of your views.) Were the Templars or post-Templars (likely via a Swedish Cistercian monk) using the Hooked X on the American runestones for both language and symbolic purposes? Here's the two comments to hopefully better understand.

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

    "-The Hooked X® character forms of the KRS (1362) and SPR (1401/02) have been phonetically connected to the -a, -æ, and -aa vowel, or vowel combinations."

    Thanks again! - Gunn

    1. Gunn,

      The medieval Hooked X has dual meaning, one is practical and the other symbolic. The practical uses are as the "a" or "ae" sounds in language of inscriptions and for the number "10."

      The symbolic meaning in all cases is for the Templar/Cistercian/Freemasonic ideology of Monotheistic Dualism. That is why it can also be a stand-alone symbol representing an ideology as it the Hooked X at Rosslyn Chapel and on the "Jesus, son of Joseph" ossuary in the Talpiot tomb.

    2. Gunn, thanks for the well-laid out series of questions. Scott has answered the symbolic side of the equation. To the first comment of "Simply finding an X...", that is just some parameters of establishing a parameter for classifying X's with hooks that can be shown to be used in what Scott framed as a "practical" usage [language as well as for the number "10" (which I didn't remark upon in the blog posting)]. That classification parameter is applicable for usage cases which fall outside use as a vowel, or vowel combination.

      The second comment about the phonetic connection found on the KRS et al is just a wrap-up statement about the language usage cases. It speaks for itself.

      There are potentially going to be sub-levels to the classification. As a parallel example, on an mid-16th century map, there is a label which uses the letter X (no hook) as a scribal abbreviation for CHRIST. The X used in this manner had been so common by this point in time that it had shifted from the symbolic to an actual spelling usage. Check it out:

  8. Scott Wolters
    Where you able to decode the Narragansett rune stone, what does it say?
    Jake Dean

    1. Jacob,

      No, no one has been able to decode it yet. Not even the Scandinavian runic scholars who've examined it. Part of the problem is the runes used are a mixture of Viking Age and medieval runic symbols that don't spell out a cogent message. However, the presence of the Hooked X points to the Knights Templar and IMHO, most likely dates the inscription around 1400 which is contemporaneous with the most likely construction date for the Newport Tower across the bay.

      If so, then it's most likely each symbol represents a word or number and the inscription is a coded message only members of the same group or order could decode.

      Some runic scholars claim it's modern rather than admit they don't know what the message says. That always seems to be their fallback position when they can't figure something out. However, the weathering of the inscription could certainly be many hundreds of years old, so it remains a mystery at this point.

  9. Hi Mr. Wolter, just was wondering if the M hand sign stands for Masonry or Magdalene ? Or just even more information about it would be great would like to know more. Thanks

    1. Anonymous,

      I am currently finishing my latest book that delves deeply in the meaning of the "M" sign along with other hand gestures and symbolism in art. It should be ready this year and I promise it will be worth the wait.

      I will say it leans more toward the latter, but as you probably already know, symbols mean different things to different people. It all depends on your knowledge base and point of view.

      Stay tuned!

    2. Sounds good thanks for the information! Im a huge fan by the way! Especially when you had the show on the history channel. Thanks again looking forward to your new material!

  10. Hi Scott, I'm hoping you wouldn't mind addressing something that's been on my mind lately. It seems that there are portions of the Kensington Runestone inscription that are backed up with geology, specifically topographical information, that points to at least one portion of the message being true.

    I'm referring to the gully that formed over the centuries north of the Ohman house, revealing that the water around Runestone Hill was once contained in a basin, or moat-like environment before the ever-eroding gully left the water where it is today. The data presented by Winchell and Holand and others indicated strongly that Runestone Hill was, indeed, once an island (or penisula island) in appearance, in the distant past.

    I wish you wouldn't mind going into a bit of detail about which parts of the KRS message you might consider as accurate, and those you might consider as being essencially meaningless, with certain numbers taking precedence--if that is the case.

    As you know--and it's no secret, I consider myself a KRS message purist in the sense that I take the message at face value, just as though the inscriber were telling a simple story. I'm curious about whether or not there are particular parts that you can, and do, take literally? If so, would you mind going a bit into which parts might be true and still fit into your Masonic numbers paradigm?

    This isn't a trick question...I'm genuinely curious about how you presently look at the KRS message. Which parts are true and which parts aren't, according to your current viewpoint, if you don't mind sharing about it? Thanks.

    Patrick, do you have a personal view about the message on the KRS, insofar as taking it at face value or converting all or parts of it into Templar/Masonic code? I wondered if this discussion about the Hooked-X might allow for a slight side-trip into this discussion about the message...since it contains a number of Hooked-X's. If you would prefer to keep your views about the message to yourself, I will understand. Thanks again to you, too.

    - Gunn

  11. Actually, if someone would want to address the subject just a bit further, there is another portin of the KRS inscription that seems to be backed up with geological and topographical information, that being the place of encampment a day's journey north from Runestone Hill, as written about in the message.

    Hjalmar Holand began looking for the ill-fated camp 15 miles north of Runestone Hill and settled on a lake five times this distance...way too far, because of his coveted "across-country" Paul Knutsen search party conviction. However, Holand did say, "If this lake with the two skerries could be found, we would have promising corroboration of the truth of the inscription."

    I believe this is true, also, and I recently provided the Minnesota Historical Society a presentation that shows there is good reason to believe this lake is located an *actual* day's journey from Runestone Hill...where the Erdahl Axe was found in 1894, a foot and a half below a tree stump two feet across.

    If a hardy party were to hike 4 miles westward from Runestone Hill and then paddle upstream on the Chippewa River (the closest navigable river-highway) about a dozen miles, the party will arrive at a lake that the Chippewa River enters through at the bottom and re-emerges to continue on towards Brandon (where the "attending" Brandon Axe comes from).

    This lake just off the Chippewa River is the bottom of several lakes all more or less hooked together, draining from north to south in succession. The top or northernmost lake is Davidson Lake. The Erdahl Axe was found near a freshwater pool of water on the west bank of this Lake, which is relatively shallow, containing mostly pike.

    The kicker is that Davidson Lake has two islands, skerries, that can be seen from the slightly elevated west bank. If the lake depth was only a few feet higher several hundred years ago (because the natural drainage from lake-to-lake was likely less than now), the largest of the two islands now in appearance would have become two and the small island now there would disappear. Geologically speaking, we have a lake with 2 skerries, now, but the 2 skerries were likely accounted for differently back in 1362, when the water was likely higher.

    I realize this is more controversial than my first point, above, about the gully forming north of the Ohman farm, but it does seem to be another example where science, through geology, can help pin-point certain descriptions and events.

    I added this hoping someone may want to comment about the two examples side-by-side. I guess I could try to be more on topic by summing-up this way: it seems likely that the maker of the Hooked X's showing up on the KRS was camped at the ill-fated camp by Davidson Lake and later at Runestone Hill, which back in 1362 was an island--or more likely in my opinion, a peninsula-island, representing a defensive position.

    Thanks again for your indulgence, Scott, as I'm trying to better understand things. Happy Trails to you and Patrick, too.

    - Gunn

  12. Gunn,

    I recognize that many folks, including yourself, believe that the KRS inscription should be taken at face value, i.e. there are no allegorical components to it. What one reads is what one gets. Therefore, one is left with the tale of an exploration party of 8 Gotalanders and 22 Northmen who had two camps (shelters) one day north from where the KRS was found, who enjoyed fishing, and who returned home to find 10 explorers dead. Ten more were waiting with their ships 14 days distant.

    After 119 years of interpreting the inscription in a literal fashion, we have yet to find the camps, yet to find the graves where the ten dead men were buried, yet to figure out just how far “one day north” represents, and yet to find where the ships were located fourteen days distant. We have books and books and article after article speculating where all the above might be, but nothing conclusive has been presented. Fragmentary evidence (fire starters and some axe heads) is all that has been found.

    The inscription doesn’t even tell us who the explorers represented, e.g. the sovereign. This by itself is quite unusual for the time period for nations – at that point in history – were ruled by Kings and Queens and they, or their country, were almost always mentioned. Why is this element absent from the KRS inscription?

    We know that the exploration party went to Minnesota from Vinland – the area of the northeastern seaboard of the U.S. and Canada – for the inscription explicitly tells us that. We also can infer that the exploration party was only transitory for they mentioned that their ships, along with a smaller contingent of men, were at a point 14 days distant. In this go around, it seems that there was an intent to return to their ships and, rationally, return to their point of origin, which was Vinland. They inscribed it onto the stone.

    So why did they journey to the middle of America?

    One is forced to look at other journeys of exploration in that time period and ask what their over-arching intent were. Land claims, yes; establish trade in precious commodities, yes; a tourist trip to beautiful Minnesota to go fishing, NO! What precious commodities could be found in the area of the later-Ohman farm? Not much that I am aware of, and certainly not anything that could not be obtained further east and closer to Vinland.

    Break down every passage and sentence in the KRS inscription and ask the simple questions of “To whom was the inscription written for” and “Why was this element mentioned?”

    What was the value in detailing the number of Gotalanders and Northmen? Why did they make mention of a camp one day north…and then place the stone one day to the south? Why make mention of fishing one day? Why mention the 10 dead men and then not provide their names? What was the importance of saying they came from Vinland and then not make a claim for some agency or nation? Why mention two skerries (islands or camps) (it is hardly a feature that is scarce on the Minnesota landscape)? Why mention where the other men and ships were at…who was going to read the inscription?

    If the inscription was meant to be read by another party that was out in Minnesota, then why the superfluous mention of the details that are found on the inscription?

    If the inscription was intended for persons with the same group affiliation but who were not part of the same exploration party, why so many details? Why not just ask the Native Americans in the area? It was their land.

    If the inscription was intended to be read by someone later in time who was not part of the group that left the inscription, then why leave out the party attribution and why make mention of the fishing one day? Wouldn’t a simple inscription of “Kilroy was here” suffice?

    Why so many numbers in the KRS inscription? Did you ever send a postcard home from camp that contained that many numbers? I didn’t. Maybe you did.

    Have you ever written down a set of directions for someone? I bet you have. Lots of numbers and heading references. Instructions on how to go there and then return.

    Part 1

  13. Part 2

    I have no issue with folks believing that the KRS inscription is to be taken in absolute literal fashion. Have at it. Folks have approached it in that fashion for 119 years and have found satisfaction in that regard. It is not my place to say that particular approach is incorrect. The Spirit Pond Rune Stone inscription is absolutely literal – go read its many transliterations and you will likely come to that point of agreement.

    I view the KRS inscription as being allegorical. It isn’t that the inscription should not be read as being literal, but the information contained within the inscription is allegorical. The numbers – all of them - are a geodetic reference scheme. Every last one of them describes a part of a navigation scheme to get to the discovery location and then return to their point of origination. The phrases and words are chosen to form a construct that informs us of degrees, minutes, and direction. The red with blood and dead is metaphorical for the setting sun. Fishing is used metaphorically to “look” or “search”. Gotalanders and Northmen are initially used as metaphors for longitude and latitude, then secondarily used in a reversal scheme to mean the opposite.

    I don’t speak for Scott, but his Ritual Code follows the same interpretive strategy as described above – that the inscription is allegorical and is descriptive of movement (navigation) upon the landscape (geographic and geodetic). That Scott saw this aspect of the KRS inscription long before I came onto the scene is without question for his books and blog articles have a broad, underlying investigative thread of geodetic and geographic elements.

    What is remarkable about Scott’s Ritual Code is that he linked the numeric values found on the KRS with the most ancient elements of the present-day Freemasonry rites and their Templar antecedents tracing back to the Temple of Solomon. He anchored the numeric values to an origination point which precedes the 1362 date on the KRS.

    I know that this does not answer all the questions that you posed, but in the end, what you are inclined to research is what you feel is important. It is not my place to convince you that what I believe the KRS inscription represents is the actual intent of it, nor is it my place to heap scorn on your efforts and opine that what you are doing holds no value.

    What I will say is that folks who dismiss the rune stone research efforts with a summary wave of the hand – while it might satisfy their sense of inquisitiveness – does not satisfy mine. So the effort continues…

  14. Mr. Sheckleton,
    As a young girl pointed out when this interpretive farce first surfaced, Scott's numbers do not match the number sequence in any Freemason Rite unless you ignore some and re-sequence others. It is an insult to a knowing brethren familiar with the Rites to claim otherwise. Given also the fact that the numbers carved in the KRS do not reflect how they were legitimately notated in the 14th century, you clearly have a hoax in hand rather than some farfetched coded mystery.

    Do you have any formal education?

    1. Enough to spell my last name correctly, something that evades your intellectual abilities. It must be humiliating to trip and fall on your sword right out the gate, but that is what you have done. Next time, instead of tripping on that large bag of condescension that you carry, leave it on the sideline. This rune stone business need not be nasty, but it is. You should share with us your education - since that is really your intent in raising the question in the first place. The world waits to see what institution of higher learning awarded a degree to someone who 1) cannot read and 2) cannot spell.

    2. A typo? That's all you got? So that's a no on the formal education. You didn't have to answer though, as it was clearly a rhetorical question.

    3. Anonymous,

      You're in over your head so why not quit now before you're put on ice. Bring some facts, sound logic or something intelligent to further the discussion or run along with the young girl and go play on the swing.

  15. Outstanding Patrick! -- Darwin Ohman

  16. Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation, Patrick. As expected, we disagree on some things, but no two people agree about everything, and I view our different perspectives on some things as no problem, of course. I think I know better where Scott is coming from now, in a nutshell. I appreciate you taking the time to reveal some of what you think, also.

    I'm a bit inquisitive, myself, about your take on what the party's "discovery location" may have entailed, if you (or Scott) might have any notions about it:

    "The numbers – all of them - are a geodetic reference scheme. Every last one of them describes a part of a navigation scheme to get to the discovery location and then return to their point of origination.

    Patrick or Scott, any idea what they wanted at the discovery location? I kind of took it as meaning the expedition was for exploration and/or discovery, likely for land, but not that they were looking for something in a certain area or spot. Having said this, I've always had the idea that Runestone Hill pre-existed the 1362 party, as some sort of landmark that was marked-up with stoneholes earlier--for some reason.

    The prospect of "sacred geometry" using stonehole rocks at the park, as described in Scott's book the Hooked X, appeals to me, as possibly concealing something. (Such as with the proposed Norse Code-stone marking the discharge of the nearby Pomme de Terre River.) It's my feeling that the ten survivors thought Scandinavians would be coming back to Runestone Hill in the future (for some reason), hence their placing the memorial there.

    As an aside, I think the Runestone Hill site wouldn've made a great medieval defensive location, very moat-like, with a narrow approach along the west-leading ridgeline (which encompasses Skrael Hill, where there are 3 stonehole rocks, close together).

    I think the sconce I photographed several miles south of Glenwood, MN a few years ago may be a similar defensive position, high up on a rocky knoll. Both are about the same distance from the north/south-running Chippewa River, and both are on the east side. The sconce has a flat-faced triangular stone set high-up in a good, central view.

    Are the Masonic numbers something to do with a land claim, or possibly something else? I don't have any understanding of why land would be claimed from Runestone Hill, or from a prospective discovery location up the Chippewa River a day's travel. Thanks for the further indulgence.

    Here's a view of the proposed medieval defensive sconce, in case anyone is interested:

    PS: Hi Darwin. I just wanted to mention that Holand got an affidavit from Olaf, which should of course be believed. Much of my reasoning about the location of the lake with 2 skerries has to do with a affidavit, also arranged through Holand, in which old Mrs. Davidson (as an original land owner) told of finding the Erdahl Axe a foot and a half down, below a tree stump 2 feet across. Just to say that I believe Mrs. Davidson's affidavit as much as I do your Grandfather's. Everybody believes things slightly differently, but that's okay in the name of inquisitiveness! Best wishes to you as new information continues to unfold.

    - Gunn

  17. -Gunn

    on March 24, 2017 at 7:49 AM
    You asked for ideas for the "discovery location" of the KRS--
    “any idea what they wanted at the discovery location? I kind of took it as meaning the expedition was for exploration and/or discovery, likely for land, but not that they were looking for something in a certain area or spot. Having said this, I've always had the idea that Runestone Hill pre-existed the 1362 party, as some sort of landmark that was marked-up with stoneholes earlier--for some reason.”

    Could the KRS location been a landmark? A marker stone placed at the CROSSROAD- TO AND FROM important locations in North America.
    At the KRS site—Take a look at the azimuths of the (June/December Sunrise/Sunset), Easter Sunday in 1362 A.D. and the E/W Equinox(Sunrise/Sunset) and what the azimuths lead to. Dates of Easter Sunday c. 1362 A.D.

    at the KRS site c. 1362 A.D.
    90°/270° are the azimuths of the Equinoxes at (Sunrise/Sunset)
    305° is azimuth of the June Solstice/at Sunset
    70°28’ is azimuth of Sunrise on Easter Sunday April 17th 1362 A.D.
    251° the 1st Full Moon after the March Equinox (moon sets at azimuth of 251°) used for the dates of easter.
    The Easter date depends on the ecclesiastical approximation of the March equinox. In 325CE the Council of Nicaea decided that the Easter date would be the first Sunday after the first full moon occurring on or after the March equinox.
    125° is the azimuth of the Winter Solstice/Sunrise
    From the KRS-here is what the azimuths lead to——
    305° Leads to Start of the Red River.
    70° 28’ Leads to Duluth, MN
    125° Leads to the Chicago portage from Great Lakes to Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico.
    90°/270° Leads East to the Mackinaw Isthmus/West to 3 Rivers, MT(start of Missouri River)
    251° Leads to your top of your Bigstone Lake/bottom of Lake Traverse, MN/SD


    1. Pasadena/Gunn,

      While I remain open to other interpretations of the inscription, I think it's important we don't lose sight of what its primary purpose was; a land claim placed on the north-south continental divide in the geographic center of North America.

      Many have theorized it was a memorial to the ten dead men, but I believe my allegorical explanation is supported by the LACK of evidence; names. Because they are not named begs the question why not? For me, the answer is there are no 10 dead men.

      Just reiterating what I think are some important basic points.

    2. Scott,

      If it is indeed a land claim put there by Templars on the continental divide.... That means they would also have to have knowledge of, and mapped the western reaches of North America?

      Also how would they know the geographic center? Did they also map the entire Arctic archipelago in the north, all of Mexico to the south? Did they encounter and also inter-breed with the Aztek's as you claim they did with Native Americans along the east coast?

    3. Anonymous,

      Maybe they did map the entire continent which I have no problem with, or perhaps the natives they were traveling with told them it was the geographic center? They certainly would have known. However, at this time we do not know with certainly how they understood exactly where they were on the continent.

      The one thing we do know is Kensington is the geographic center, and that is where they place the land claim.

    4. Scott,

      You have no problem with believing that Templars mapped the entire continent of North America by the mid 1300s?! That is quite the "wave of a hand" at evidence and facts. The ONLY way your claim can make any sense is if they knew exactly the center of the continent (which modern geologists and geographers still debate), and therefore knew the exact dimensions of the continent north, south, east, west.

      Another point, as North America is an arbitrary geographic designation, how would they even know what the center of the thing they were claiming was? What would their land claim be the geographic center of to them?

      Also is not the geographic center of North America somewhere in North Dakota?

    5. Anonymous,

      You don't have to believe it, but I do. So what? The KRS was placed at the approximate geographic center of the continent. Nitpicking isn't furthering the discussion; the point has been made and it is accurate.

      It's time to move on.

  18. Thanks Scott and Pasadena. My take is that the center of North America is in a town called--of all things, Center, ND.

    This may move a hypothetical land claim position farther west. Since I like to study and concentrate on river highways, I think the Pomme de Terre River may be a better candidate for initiating a huge land claim, especially since the farthest north-reaching river in the Minnesota River Watershed is the Pomme de Terre River.

    As you know, I believe I have found a Norse Code-stone in this area, showing where something related to medieval surveying and land claiming is buried. The waters from the Pomme de Terre go all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, as do the waters of the Chippewa River, but the difference is which river reaches farthest into the MN River watershed, and which river is closer to the geographical center of North America?

    Scott, I think you genuinely have the right idea, but the idea needs to be moved a bit farther west. I say this out of respect to all the efforts you put into this subject. We may both be looking for the same thing.

    Back to the topic of Hooked-X. I'm beginning to see something. If it's true that the two men riding one horse at the Rosslyn Chapel are Templars, and if it's true that the Hooked-X in the Larsson Papers indicates a transition from post-Templars to Freemasons, then I think it's likely that America was not founded on Christianity...though on the concept of one God.

    I did a pretty thorough study of both Masonry and traditional Christian attitudes towards Masonry and found out that Masonry isn't considered a form of Christianity...which may not surprise you, Scott. There are large differences, since Masonry is considered an umbrella religion going back to earliest times, while Christianity allows for salvation only through Jesus...not through a kind of moral advancement.

    I'm only pointing out the extreme differences, so we may see the dimensions clearly: Masonry and Christianity are at odds. If the Hooked-X is representative of Templarism and Freemasonry, then it is not representative of Christianity. That Freemasons helped found a Christian Nation is not true, then. They helped create a Nation believing in God, but without believing in salvation only through Jesus. This is what we're dealing with while exploring the Hooked-X. Peace.

    - Gunn

    1. Scott, thinking it over last night, it looks to me like the post-Knights Templar probably turned against the Catholic Church and even Christianity over the Great French Insult in 1307. I can see how they would go underground and not trust Christianity.

      I like to think that the Templars were fighting for a Christian cause, though, during the Crusades.

      In other words, it looks like Masonic tradition developed and took over in secrecy, so that some of our Founding Fathers ended up helping to establish a "God Nation," though not a Christian Nation.

      It turned out, however, that this Freedom of Religion is what enabled Christianity to spread acrosss America like a warm blanket. It's making more sense to me now...except for the Jesus Bloodline ideology woven in. Thanks again for allowing me to speak about this.

      - Gunn

    2. The spread of Christianity across America was like a warm blanket? Are you forgetting the subjugation and genocide of Native Americans, oh and slavery?

    3. Gunn,

      I have to agree with Anonymous on the "warm blanket" comment. Roman Christianity was more like an infected blanket that intentionally spread hatred and persecution of the natives and those that didn't fall in line with the rules of the faith.

      They used the "Myth of Jesus" to manipulate and control as many as they could and still do. Sorry, can't agree with that one and I can assure you the Templar leadership wouldn't either.

  19. Scott/Gunn

    Could the KRS be both a Land Claim and Marker Stone?
    The source of the Mississippi River would be a very important for your KRS "LAND CLAIM" also the placement of the KRS at Runestone Hill would be very important as a "CROSSROADS MARKER." From the KRS on the Equinox go West/270° 71 miles to a spring near Velbon, SD. (at the head of "Coteau des Prairies Plateau") Did the people who placed the KRS at it's present location think the source if the Mississippi River was near Velbon, SD? One present day Geologist suggests so- Wendell Duffield.

    N45° 49' 32.7" W97° 22' 12.0" (source of Mississippi River near Velbon, SD.)
    N45° 48' 40.8" W95° 39' 38.0" (KRS)

    Could the "Coteau des Prairies Plateau" be the island the KRS was referring to?


    1. Pasadena, thanks for all your detailed input concerning the waterways and geography of the region. I have a few thoughts about what you have presented.

      First, I do think Runestone Hill was an acknowledged and marked-up peninsula-island well before the Kensington Runestone was put there. I think the site was chosen out because of two things: specific to the site, it is a good defensive position well away from the river-highway, and specific to the region, it is on the straight line between the upper Whetstone River and Duluth. (I'll explain below.)

      If one goes up the Chippewa River to a certain, predetermined latitude and then hikes a few miles east, one will come to Runestone Hill. This latitude pre-knowledge is likely how returning Scandinavians would have re-located the KRS on Runestone Hill. (Maybe the river was marked at this point, or has a particular feature to recall into memory.)

      In choosing out which river might be more significant to the Mississippi's origination, Pasadena, we have hit upon why so many evidences show up by the MN/SD border. I hypothesize that in medieval times, explorations were made and it was determined that to find the Mississipi River's origin, one was to branch off the MS River and follow the MN River westward and northward. In doing this, one will bypass the Chippewa and Pomme de Terre Rivers and keep going until coming to the bottom of Big Stone Lake. At this point, the Whetstone River at one time flowed down freely to empty a fews miles or so below the lake, in helping to form the beginning of the MN River. So then, medieval travelers may easily have considered the Whetstone River as the last river to follow in finding the MS River's source.

      I found myself searching for the beginning of the Whetstone River one day and came to its source spring. That same day a man and his Native American wife stopped by in a pickup and we talked things over. He wondered why I wasn't searching for the beginning of the Little MN River. I explained that the Little MN River was up above Big Stone Lake, so why would medieval travelers consider that the source of the MS River, rather than the last riverway? But the man sure made a good point in my head.

      There is a huge white rock marking the last spring-fed pond on the Whetstone River. This rock has had a slab cracked out of it by use of a stonehole and a "plug & feathers" device. The rock has a flat top. It is from this rock that one can draw a straight line to Duluth, with Runestone Hill being on the line. Is this coincidence? I don't think so.

      Even more remarkable is that the Pomme de Terre River is the farthest north-reaching river in the entire MN River watershed...and this includes both the Whetstone River and the Little MN River.

      Here it is, then: The Norse Code-stone I found only a few years ago is marking what the medieval Norsemen likely considered to be the farthest-reaching water that would end up at the Gulf of Mexico. Scott, I think this is your extremely huge land claim, or at least part of it.

      By the way, the Whetstone River now empties into the bottom of Big Stone Lake...something done almost a hundred years ago to help keep the lake level up.

      I also want to note that the Big Sioux River begins several miles away from this large white MARKER, and goes straight southward until it discharges into the Missouri River. This is near Sioux Rapids, IA, where other Norse-appearing stoneholes and oddities show up.

      This entire region was heavily explored by Europeans hundreds of years before the time of Columbus, and also hundreds of years before the later French showed up. It sure would be nice to be able to prove it.

      - Gunn

  20. Quite a lot of activity going on as I flew from California back to Maryland today. It is good to see that folks are still challenging themselves - and others - to discern possible reasons why the KRS was situated where it was found. It is a tough question to answer.

    For me, I started with the simple question of whether there was any intent for someone to navigate to/re-discover/find the KRS. A two-hundred pound rock with an inscription on it isn’t going to be a good claim of any type if someone can’t go back and find it.

    If one takes the affirmative position, then the next progression is to look for information on the KRS that supports such a contention.

    If one takes the negative position, that no intent existed for someone to navigate to/re-discover/find the KRS, then its placement on the landscape becomes entirely arbitrary, a momentary decision that led someone to say “Here.” If you ascribe to this notion, then the conversation is over. Speculation – no matter how objective - on an arbitrary placement holds no value. Every conclusion is merely a second layer of arbitrariness, anything is possibly yet nothing can be confirmed against a standard.

    For argument’s sake, let’s accept that there was an intent to navigate to/re-discover/find the KRS after it was first created.

    Let’s start with the fairly recent idea that the KRS was situated on the landscape in consonance with the “1362 mile radius to the approximate eastern/southern/western boundaries of the present-day U.S.” Arthur Faram initiated this idea in support of authenticity and Paul Stewart later latched onto it to claim the KRS is a late 19th century hoax. There are issues with both approaches, but the major one for me, specifically with Arthur’s, became “Where on the outer circumference of the circle does one begin to navigate from?” Arthur never adequately explained this – so his premise turned into something entirely arbitrary (although recent research has revealed answers to Arthur’s very preliminary premise). Paul’s 1362 mile radius circle was begat in a cigar-filled room of Cryptic Knights using #4 lead pencils drawing on a map of the U.S. – if you favor that concocted tale then there is some swampland in Florida for you to buy.

    Let’s consider the fall line premise for the placement of the KRS. Yes, the fall line is in relatively close proximity to where the KRS was found – approximately 40 miles offset – but how does one use that knowledge to re-discover the KRS? The fall line demarks the water drainage, either north or south, but its routing varies with the landscape rise and fall. My belief is that this is just too arbitrary of a geographical fix.

    Furthermore, one can hardly argue that the KRS placement location is tied to a major water drainage (river/creek/etc.). I might be wrong, but land claims/markers whose boundaries involved water drainage/river headwater as the basis for the claim either stated that fact or were placed on or quite near that geographical boundary. The KRS inscription does not use that type of language nor is the stone’s placement anywhere near the fall line or headwaters.

    I know that there is a consensus that the KRS placement is due to its proximity to the north-south fall line and, in the absence of any other plausible notion as to why it was located there on Olaf Ohman’s eventual farm, the fall line notion became generally accepted. I never liked it and always thought that it was just too arbitrary, but will accede that it was the best of many slim choices. But how does one re-discover an inscribed stone that is 40 miles offset from the fall line proper?

    Part 1

  21. Part 2

    Let’s look at the “middle of America” idea. Yes, the KRS is generally in the middle of the U.S. landmass when one looks at the east-west dimension. It isn’t as well situated when one looks at the north-south dimension.

    Scott has repeatedly been asked how the KRS came to be (generally) in the middle (longitudinally) of America. He consistently replies that it is – at least in the east-west dimension. Then, invariably, the follow-on question becomes “How did they know the entire span-wise dimension so as to be able to determine the east-west placement there on Ohman’s farm?” He replies that the knowledge could have been known. Then the daggers come out and they began to slice in Scott’s direction, as if he has made some type of egregious error in logic that undermines his entire body of work. After reading of it ten thousand times on his blog it becomes clear that Scott consistently says that it is possible and the skeptics always keep their daggers honed.

    Let’s be pragmatic, the entire “center of the U.S.” or “center of North America” argument is constructed on nothing more than quicksand always primed to catch anyone who even strays in that direction. There are several ways to define the “center” (longitude, latitude, longitude & latitude, landmass totality; all of which are variable dependent upon where one sets the endpoints latitudinally and longitudinally for any given analysis). By the very definition, any “center” argument is exceptionally arbitrary, therefore any speculation that the Templars (or whoever) knew any particular set of endpoints is fraught with danger. That being said, could someone have had an approximate knowledge of the dimension of North America? It is possible, but given that there are multiple analysis options to consider, how does one pinpoint the correct one?

    I subscribe that the KRS is a form of a land claim.

    In the absence of a clear cut “right of possession”, e.g. in the name of a sovereign, then the KRS must have other elements that denote an analogous concept. The Hooked X® is that analogous concept. Furthermore, I claim that the KRS does have geodetic information imbedded within its allegorical construct. There is actually precedent for this in the Medieval Era (see pp.89-90 in Wright, John Kirtland. The Geographical Lore of the Time of the Crusades: A Study in the History of Medieval Science and Tradition in Western Europe. New York: Dover Publications, 1965. [Digital version of 1925 edition available from])

    There is also geodetic information specific to the KRS discovery location imbedded with the inscription’s allegory. This is important as it supports the basic contention that there was an intent to navigate to/re-discover/find the KRS at a point in time after it was first placed at that geographic location.

    My two cents…

  22. Scott, it has been three weeks since you posted my submission. Aside from the typical nastiness of the ever Anonymous persons, no one has yet to dispute the research (or suggest how to refine the methodology) that Steve, Dave, and I did with regards to possible historical influences that could have shaped the character form of the Hooked X. Perhaps the work wasn't controversial enough. Perhaps it was boring and not informative. Perhaps your and Dick Nielsen's work on the Larsson Papers and Manta Yoke was done so well that Supernova Anonymous decided to violate #1 in "The Ten Commandmants of Logic" (Thou shall not attack the person's character, but the argument. (Ad hominem)) before he crisped out. Anyways, thanks for the learning experience with this blog stuff.

    1. In answer to your comment. I think 99% of people who read this are on a learning curve. If they have not followed your facebook information, then they really would have been caught with their pants down. The first thing they need to understand is "Ptolemaic" navigation......BOOM......oh, ouch. In reference to educational levels, lets start with the book by James E. Morrison - "The Astrolabe". Sounds to me as a good jump off point as any. But first, we have to make one (astrolabe) using "dark age" smeltering practices....And then we have to make the many are still with me on this....

  23. You attack someone above for a typo and ignore their points that:

    1) Scott's York Rite numbers do not match the KRS numbers unless you rearrange some and ignore others. This is easily seen if you actually check his source.

    2) The numbers as carved on the KRS were not in proper notation given the alleged time of the carving. True linguists understand this.

    Amateur sleuths with inadequate education who pick and choose what evidence to bolster their claims and what evidence to ignore that refutes them is not productive for seeking truth. This is not ad hominem. It is your suspect methodology and that of your host. There are numerous other points made that refute your speculation above Patrick. Claiming victory despite them is not victory. And it certainly is not valid history.

    Now spare me the insults. Please.

    1. Anonymous,
      Yep, I ignored their points (or your points if that was you). Here's why...if you want to engage in a discussion on relevant points, then state the case succinctly, cite references, and be very specific as to what you disagree with. Invest the time to detail what you feel is important to the discussion at hand, and you will receive in return a point of view other than yours. The opening sentence of the previous anonymous post earmarked it as a troll comment - not an attempt to engage in a reasonable conversation. The closing sentence merely bracketed the same intent. Furthermore, if you have a disagreement with Scott's Ritual Code, then address your comments to him specifically. I am not going to engage in a wide-ranging discussion on Scott's original work. That being said, I did mention in a comment that I found his Ritual Code to be informative. Why? Because it is a valid source for the number sequence of 8 and 22 - something that interests me in looking at the KRS from a geodetic basis. As for #2 above, if you feel the KRS numbers were of a form that doesn't correlate to the time period, then once again, be specific, cite your references, and make your case. Likewise, as your #2 is outside the subject matter that I did a guest post on, then you need to direct your question to Scott.

      Lastly, your closing paragraph once again reveals that you are nothing more than a troll. Broad generalizations, inherent bias, lack of specificity, and insertion of claims such as "victory" when no such claim is on the floor, unless you were the Anonymous who got wiped off the debate stage two weeks ago over the Manta Yoke issue.

      If you aren't that person (which you very likely are because you referenced ad hominem), and if you aren't the Joe Scales (which you very likely are) on the other blog site who uses a remarkably similar word construct, word choice, and prose style - and who also wrote in the last week that one must use the Anonymous moniker on this blog for protection - then we must be dealing with a set of triplets.

      Listen, for starters, don't ask rhetorical questions. If you want to figure out someone's education and you have their name - which you have mine - then do some Internet research. You didn't because the only reason you even broached education is because your clearly felt that YOUR education trumps most others. Your oft-stated intellectual superiority is not buttressed by your writing, your ambiguous arguments, and your scatter-shot presentation. Your only interest in participating on Scott's blog is to attention-seek - because no one pays you any heed on the basis of your ill-prepared and ill-mannered comments.

      "Now spare me the insults. Please." You insult yourself, dude. Get help, as in medical help. You need it.

    2. Anynomous,

      You do the same attention-seeking behavior on the other blog site, the only difference is that your point of view - primarily driven by your animus towards Scott - finds a more willing audience over there. You bring nothing to the table on this site, neither your name, coherent and detailed arguments, or a sense of conversational courtesy. We all recognize that you have a different outlook on authenticity of the rune stones. Listen, blog conversations will rarely, if ever, be the impetus for someone to change a belief or position that they had entering into the conversation. Being civil is far more important than rehabilitating the other side. Unfortunately, you dispense with civility early in the conversation and then we are left with your petulant behavior to deal with.

    3. As I suspected. Pure insult, deflection and now rampant speculation in regard to my identity. Our host's take on the York Rites comes to play because he falsified data to make his points. That you cite him as a major source for your work invalidates it. Any such references that I would bring to the table would not be allowed by our host as he refuses to show links that thoroughly discredit him.

      But as you were allowed space to speculate, please allow me. I would be willing to bet you're a military collector, and that much of your collection is hidden for only private viewing.

    4. Anonymous,

      I have falsified data? Prove it. Your only motive here is to try and discredit me by attempting to use bogus papers supported by supposed data that has never been made public isn’t worth posting and wasting the readers time. Your comments are classic troll behavior as Pat said. Please provide legitimate evidence from an objective source, with supporting data, or go back to the basement.

    5. Anonymous, thanks for today's edition of troll entertainment!

    6. Pat and all,

      Anonymous is on life support and unless he brings legitimate documentation to support his, quite frankly, hate filled claims he will no longer be allowed to post on this blog.

      You did it to yourself pal.

  24. The question was asked on one of the notes above...Why there. I think Scott and Pat and others have shown exactly why --- there. In my little corner there is a product that nobody (as far as I can tell) has talked about or even mentioned. And that is the world's largest pile of 95%+ blister copper. What better "physical" reason to be there. This copper was known all the way back to the shipwrecks of the Mediterranean in the ancient times.

  25. If by the the inscriptions on the Rune Stones you are referring to "Ogham Script", I have done particular research on the matter.

    Among other origins,Ogham Script is thought to be an ancient priestly script passed down through Egypt from the Tower of Babel. It's important to realize that the constellations of the Zodiac were at the center of ancient religions.

    Ogham, which means "To Divide", was identified as a Prophet of the Devine (sun),which was at the center of Divination and the foretelling of the stars.

    According to the Irish Tel-Dan, Ogham was the son of Danus, which means "Fiery Water", likely signifying the Milky Way.Danus is the river or constellation which flows out of the feet of Orion.

    By tradition, the Tel-Dan were identified as the Tribe of Israel, which developed in the north from earlier migrations from the time of the Bible, including what was thought to be the prophet Jeremiah.

    There are two Rune Stones in particular that I find interesting. I don't have the names right off hand.

    The first is called the Iargalon Stone. It is well known that the Vikings identified the American continent by this name. On the stone is thought to be inscribed the words" Precinct of the gods, of the Land Beyond the Sunset". The vikings called America Iargalon which means the "Land Beyond the Sunset"(Land of the Setting Sun)

    The other Rune Stones has the inscription "Place of the Great Cascade".

    According to my research, earlier knowledge of the Pacific Northwest, after the Asians had reoriented themselves in the Oregon Country, had made its way back into the old world, spreading west along with stories of a whole new world (Land). This resulted in the expression "Go West".

    After carefully study, I have determined that the Etymological definition of the name Oregon, originally called Ouregon, is the same as Iargalon.From early times Oregon was known as the Land of the Setting Sun. The ancient natives reoriented their beliefs and associated the area with stories of the Constellations. They associated the Columbia River, which was originally called Ouregon, with the Constellation Orion, particularly the 3 stars of Orions Belt, and the ancient volcanoes of the Great Cascade Mountain Range with the Titan Gods, which would have been of familiar terrain to their place of origin(vikings). The pioneers named a set if three mountains the "Three Sisters", a name which in the old world refered to Orions Belt. The story is about three brothers sailing up the river in a canoe, which is the same as Osiris(Sun)sailing through the heaven on Argo Navis. The Nile represented the Milky Way. So the name Oregon comes from the Constellation Orion/Argo which essentially share the same meaning.

    Such was the interest that our founding fathers had in Oregon, which had always been considered a fabled land. In fact the first use of the name unrecorded history revered to the "Mystical(Mythical)River of the West, the Native Americans called Ouregon". Mount Jefferson stands as a testimony to the vision of our founding fathers.

    1. Matt,

      I'm a little confused as to why you're injecting Ogham with rune stones? Ogham is quite different than runes although they converge to some degree in the ancient past. You are quite right the twelve primary constellations of the Zodiac placed a significant, if not dominant role in ancient's veneration of the heavenly bodies.

      I have no doubt there was knowledge of the west coast of North America much earlier than we are led to believe. I'm certain our Founding Fathers knew a great deal more than they let on.

    2. If you had ever actually read anything the Founding Fathers actually wrote, both publicly and privately, you would realize the disdain they would have had for the likes of you. These were men of the Enlightenment which represents the polar opposite of your sophistry.

    3. Anonymous,

      You words ring pretty hollow when you try to tell a Freemason what you think he knows about the Enlightenment principles of our Founding Fathers who were also Freemasons. Please do more research and come better prepared before posting nonsensical comments.

      Thank you.

    4. You've been a freemason for how long? A year or two? And you joined for what? To pretend to have access to secret knowledge? Give me a break. Please tell me what papers you've read written by the Founding Fathers themselves. And yes, there will be a quiz.

    5. Anonymous,

      My Masonic affiliations are none of your concern nor do I have to prove anything to you about my knowledge of the works of our Founding Fathers. Your comments are becoming combative and not furthering the discussion.

      You are done now.

    6. Scott,

      One thing I've never understood about your Templar/Freemason fully integrating with Native Americans then founding the country of USA theory. Why would a large number of tribes fight on the side of the British during the War of Independence? Surely they would have wanted to fight alongside their brethren and the founding fathers with whom they shared ideals with no?


    7. D,

      Not all tribes and not all people operate or believe the same things. Some were motivated by promise of wealth, keeping their land and help defeating enemies whether it was other whites or other natives. In fact, many did fight alongside their brethren, but it wasn't an all or nothing deal.

      Life doesn't work that way.

  26. Hi Scott, the Ogham Script of the Irish existed until the 10th century. Though hotly disputed, some like Barry Fell, who I believe translated the Iargalon Stone believe that the Vikings came over to America well before Columbus. Ogham Script developed over time. But you may have another name for these writings. The Iargalon Stone was interpreted using Ogham.

    I'm saying that Iargalon and Oregon share the same definition, which is "Land of the Setting Sun". I believe Oregon derives it's name from it's association with the Constellation Orion, which means " the Light which is to come", which is represented by the Setting Sun. But also the name Oregon shares the exact meaning as Argo, or Aragon, which carried Orion(sun) throughout the heavens.

    Also, the name America was used in the old German Bible for the term "King-dom (from/of)Heaven". The earliest pictographic representation for the Kingdom of Heaven was in the Setting Sun.

    This is why the cartographer Martin Waldseemuller, in his world map of 1507, applied the name America, with the inscription of a quote from the Roman Poet Virgil referring to America as the "Land Beyond the Stars"(Setting Sun).

    This means that America shares the exact same meaning as Oregon and Iargalon, which was the earliest name applied to the American Continent. History and exploration can prove that the Pacific Northwest held the highest interest of our founding fathers.

  27. Allow me to clarify that I believe that the stones that I mentioned were called Rune Stones, which were found on the east coast of America. I am in no way an expert, but have researched these things from the information that's out there.

  28. I see what you mean, the stones I mentioned are not Rune Stones. The stones are interesting although.I do believe that the name for America in general was associated with the Setting Sun, which held religious significance as it relates to the stars, particularly Orion. It carries over, that if ancient Egyptians came to America, and Osiris was called the "God of the Setting Sun", which was Orion, then America was the Land of Orion, or Oregon (O(oh!)Re (Ra/Sun) Gon (Descend)!)

    But I guess that's for another blog article.

  29. Scott, Patrick and Pasedena, I would like to emphasize something just one more time: If you draw a straight line between Duluth (end of westward sailing) and Wilmot (proposed upper reach of the MS River as possibly thought of in medieval times), the maker of the KRS placed the 1362 stone document on this line. Why, and how?

    I believe the answer is that Runestone Hill represents an "inland navigation" landmark between these other two landmarks. I propose that this was a way of designing inland mapping, to better know one's whereabouts. I also propose again that the KRS party thought fellow Scandinavians would be returning to this same site. Why, and how?

    Probably because these explorers already knew the location of Runestone Hill, and what it meant in terms of getting around on the smaller waterways, inland. Runestone Hill, I believe, was a "way station" of sorts, marked-up with stoneholes with a particular purpose in mind. Runestone Hill, back then a moat-like peninsula-island, presented a good, solid defensive position to camp at a respectable distance from the river-highway. No canoes would be in the area; any attack would have to come from the west, from the ridgeway on which sits another small knoll with three stonehole rocks close together.

    The area around Runestone Hill was and still is marked by many stoneholes in rocks. I don't know the significance of this, except to say that Runestone Hill is heavily marked-up. The stonehole rocks mean something besides marking-up Runestone Park as an inland marker of sorts. Maybe something was/is concealed there within the mysteriousness of the locale.

    It seems to me, also, that the maker of the KRS and his party may have had inland, safe "way stations" to camp at positioned all along the Chippewa River...defensive positions possily already made years earlier.

    I think the clearly defensive rock shelter sconce several miles east of the Chippewa River south of Glenwood, MN may be another pre-positioned defensive camping spot. Both the proposed place of the camp by Davidson Lake, and the proposed medieval sconce (with the "pyramid" rock) are each about a day's travel from Runestone Hill, going in opposite directions. Going another day's journey south from the rock sconce will bring travelers to the East Chippewa River near Benson. I can only wonder what might be found there.

    Nevertheless, one has to ask the question about the CHANCES of Runestone Hill and the KRS being on the straight line between two very obvious geographical locations--the large stonehole rock with the slab missing near Wilmot, possibly depicting the perceived beginning of the Mississippi River, and Duluth.

    (The slab, somewhat smaller than the KRS, may be worth looking for on location where it was removed from the stonehole MARKER rock several hundred years ago.)

    Thanks again for anyone's interest, and the space to speculate in peace.

    - Gunn

  30. I hope you don't mind if I add some more winter-weekend thoughts into the mix. It has to do with Hooked-X's, in a "circular" way.

    “Power moves in circles,” according to Black Elk.

    When first arriving deep within America's heartland from two different dwindling waterway directions originating from ocean sources, to the Place of Merging Waters (Dakotas/MN border area), Scandinavian explorers must have rejoiced upon realizing that a huge waterway circle had been joined together, completed; they must have quickly recognized and appreciated the potential added POWER of travel, commerce, missionary work, etc., which could result from knowing about this new and huge waterway circle—a circle which could take a medieval Scandinavian traveler far inland from one ocean beginning and deliver him far away, across land, to another…where the circle was then continued by ocean water travel itself.

    To MARK this recognized and appreciated merging of two dwindled-down waterways that began at ocean sources--one from Hudson Bay and the other from America's east coast via the Great Lakes (Vinland), chisels were taken to rocks to produce an abundance of stoneholes and also some petroglyphs. This reveals a clear Norse presence in the area, showing that efforts had been made to secure land there in that special location. It is no mere coincidence that the Whetstone River is heavily marked-up with Norse evidences, nor is it mere coincidence that the Pomme de Terre River nearby is marked with special Norse encoding, identifying the river that reaches the farthest north up into the MN River watershed.

    Lots of questions to consider: Who originally accomplished all this attempted long-distance land-claiming? Was it an obscure post-Viking Chieftain from Iceland, well before coldness began to set in and the Black Death wiped out so much of Scandinavia-Europe? Or, was the Catholic Church involved, with the assistance of Templars and Cistercian Monks? Or, conversely, were the Templars/Cistercians working by and for themselves in this region, without the Church's knowledge?

    What was the mission of the Kensington Runestone Party? What were they to acquire or perhaps re-acquire? Land? The fur trade? A missionary enterprise? All of the above…or, maybe something more treasure? If Runestone Hill and some of these other locales were marked-up well before 1362, then who's past chisel-work were the post-Templars and/or others seeking to redeem?

    I ask some of these questions because it seems to me that the KRS Party, being a maker of Hooked-X’s, were relative late-comers to the medieval scene up here, in context. Part of my belief system is that most of this region was explored and mapped-out well before the KRS’s Chippewa River was explored, being a distance away from the "oceanic waterway merging area" spoken of earlier.

    Maybe this portion of the inscription on Maine’s Spirit Pond Runestone (also bearing Hooked-X’s), has some meaning about this "circle” that was previously known to exist, and then perhaps re-recognized:

    "Bearded chief man
    Haakon discovered a circle by being able to sail toward
    the west on the lakes of the trade empire."

    Of course, this is mostly speculation, except for the many evidences set in the medieval Norse Sailing Ship petroglyph (with snakeheads at each end) to be seen near Copper Harbor, MI, jutting up into Lake Superior on the way to Duluth.

    - Gunn

    1. Gunn,

      I can tell you we know exactly who carved the KRS and why. That specific information will be forthcoming very soon and all the speculation will be over in that regard.

      Stay tuned.

  31. Okay, thanks a lot, Scott.

    Scott and Patrick, I think you might be interested in reading through at least parts of Chapter VII of this project from Jan. 2015. I wrote an email to help with the compilation of mason marks at Rosslyn Chapel. There seems to be a lot of good background information about Scotland and about free masons you may want to read about, going back hundreds of years before the building of the chapel. Maybe some of this will help in your new book. (But, it does seem odd that Daniel Wilson missed one of the most intriguing mason marks at the chapel.)

    Hello, I'd like to make a one-time correction to Chapter VII, of
    The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Archaeology and Prehistoric Annals of Scotland, by Daniel Wilson:

    Please note that the hooked X (with "diamond" added) mason mark is not shown in the row of proposed mason marks at Rosslyn Chapel, as shown in the project. Here is the mason mark missed:;article=137058

    Glad to help. - Bob Voyles

    - aka Gunn

    1. Gunn,

      I’m surprised Daniel Wilson missed the Hooked X with the lozenge; especially since there is more than one in the chapel?

    2. Yes, a form of the Hooked-X being missed at Rosslyn Chapel is pretty egregious, especially since it's that Hooked-X and the imagery of two men on horseback at the chapel that together help bridge the so-called "gap" between Knights Templar and the "American Hooked-X Runestones" and Freemasonry at the heart of the American Revolution--up to its existence today. (I wrote a follow-up email directly to the Project Gutenberg site.)

      Speaking of things being missed, I think something very important is likely being missed as readers--experts or otherwise--browse through your "Hooked X" book--which was my own introduction into the Kensington Runestone debate several years ago.

      On page 120 of your book is a photo of a "couch-sized glacial boulder" that "appears to have been intentionally quarried out to create a basin to hold water." There is a "milk-carton" sized stone protruding from the rock at one end.

      Scott, I know you theorized about this being a possible Cistercian altar of some kind, like for ritual bathing--and that may be so, but I tend to think it is a medieval Norse blacksmithing setup, with the basin for quenching hot iron, and the stone block to be used as an anvil. (I saw something similar to this within the ruins of a medieval Scandinavian structure; I tried to re-find the website, but I haven't been able to relocate it yet.)

      Just to say with all sincerity that if this odd, dished-out boulder with the anvil-like block had been found in Canada, such as near Newfoundland or near the St. Lawrence Seaway, the authorities...the professionals, would be all over it.

      But because it is found deep within America, there is not much interest...even though you have detailed many other Norse-appearing evidences in this same area.

      Well, I believe that one day, perhaps soon approaching, excited archaeologists will be besides themselves with so much to appreciate and consider in re-hashing our new American history...showing that the KRS is true and that Scandinavians were in this region HUNDREDS of years before the later French showed up. All it will take is a bit of new, solid evidence to get the snowball rolling...or even a fresh look at some of what is currently being overlooked and already available for scrutiny and study.

      As you well know, Scott, there is plenty of good, solid evidence to consider already, especially when taken collectively and corroboratively, but I guess something will need to wake the sleepers up!

      - Gunn

  32. Scott and Patrick, I've got a pretty good story to tell you about a new variety of Hooked-X I just found. Back on topic!!

    So, I was looking through some old newspaper clippings that the property owner of the Sauk Lake Altar Rock sent to me several months ago when I came close to purchasing the 5-acre parcel of land. This article is from the Sauk Centre Herald, dated from 2004, and it is entitled "Another slant on the Altar Rock."

    Well, there's a few accompanying pictures, and one is showing an antique "host-maker," which is placed over an open fire to bake eucharist-related bread sacraments, which are used by many Christian denominations, beside Catholics.

    The article is generally about how a man in the area thought two of these host-makers he bought at an antique shop might be medieval, though the one shown in the article is clearly not. I haven't seen a photo of the other one. The article says "...he is convinced the metal used in one of them at least is of such a vintage that it could have been brought to America by...Viking Catholics who said mass at the Altar Rock." Likely not.

    Anyway, of ten symbols etched into the iron plate, the bottom one shown is a small circle with what looked to me like a hook on the left side. But, the mold is made with a mirror-effect, so that the baked host produced comes out having the hook on the right side. I did more googling research and found something which may be a bit shocking to your sensitivities, which is pictured here:

    You will notice the "flail," which will show on the right side of a baked host. I think this must be the same mark that shows vaguely on the photo in the old newspaper article, though I can't be sure. I researched some more and found molds similar to the one on Ebay and in the old newspaper article--but without the 3-cord flail, only a plain X.

    I realize this flail is common to Egyptian symbols, but what is it doing on this X in a Christian setting? Is it meant to represent something like flailing grain-stalks? Or something else?

    Though the host maker pictured is dated 1881--a few years before the Larsson Papers, I don't know how one can determine if the host maker was meant for Catholics, or for one or more other Protestant denominations...but the baked host comes out looking a lot like a Hooked-X, with the difference being that the mark is a flail-like symbol on the outside of the X instead of a single mark made on the inside.

    I don't know what this all means, Gentlemen, except to say that it looks like Christians around the time of the Larsson Papers were eating small "Flailed-X" hosts that looked a lot like Hooked-X's.

    Could elements of Freemasonry and Christianity have been temporarily combined in some location? Probably not, but the thought is provocative. Anyway, I thought it would be good to add this new version of a "Hooked-X" or more properly called a "Flailed-X" into the mix--for whatever it will mean.


  33. Hello Scott, Patrick, and Pasadena,

    I would like to draw everyone's attention to something called a Pythagorean flute. Many of the Templar crosses appear to be four Pythagorean flutes all emanating from the same point. Apparent confirmation comes from many of them having a rose or more tellingly a five pointed star at the center point.

    I first brought the following idea to Scott's attention in another thread and only bring it up now due to something Patrick said about the Kensington inscription. I believe the M sign is actually referring to the constellation Scorpio. The same Scorpio used by Polynesian Navigators to determine South. On page 124 of his book "The Lost Colony of the Templars" author Steven Sora quotes an 18th century John Drummond as saying, "The Tribe of Dan, he said, was in Scorpio where the Sun dies and therefore the key to the underworld". The back of our dollar bill, according to Google Translate, clearly states He granted a new order of the ages Children of Dan". I've been watching Scorpio for several weeks due to it's apparent likeness to one of the birds on the Chequey armorial at Tomar in Portugal. The other bird being another constellation diagonal to it. Then the planet Mars entered the picture. The way the planet appeared to move back and forth looked like a bee pollinating a flower. More specifically a Lilly. This makes me think of the quote "Born under the Lily, I live under the rose". This Rose I believe is actually the five pointed star on the apparent map in the basement of Rosslyn Chapel. I believe the poster Jim Ragsdale was the closest when suggesting Newport Tower as being part of a five pointed star. Quite possibly part of an enormous Pythagorean flute.
    I've read where Ptolemy supposedly had the earth divided perfectly in half, down to the inch. Also some speculation that this was done intentionally to hide the Western Hemisphere. If one were to think of the earth as an apple and you cut the apple in half horizontally you get a five pointed star. I find it interesting that the names Batholomee,and Bartholomew show up. Bar equals son of, and the remaining "Tholomee(w)" sure appears to be Ptolemy.

    I have more to say but I don't have internet service and my time is up.

    Best regards to All,

    Anthony Warren

    1. LUTE...I meant Pythagoras's Lute.


      Anthony Warren

  34. Pasadena,

    I think you're onto something about the declination of the Sun. On January 17th one of the st. John's days when the Sun rises above Jerusalem it creates what I've heard called the Golden angle. To me it stands to reason the same angle would be achieved in the opposite direction on one of the other st. John's days. Interestingly if, you think of each beam of light as a pole and a Divine being holding both of them you get the figure of the man with two sticks. Most of these voyages I've read about all began on January 17th. Is there a way of starting with a known angle of light and following that angle or changes to it, in order to determine time, distance traveled or where you're at on the Earth???

    Anthony Warren

    1. Pasadena,

      January 17th is also known as
      Saint Roseline day.

      Anthony Warren

  35. Scott, you had asked in an earlier thread what Ogham Script has to do with Rune Stone's. The inscriptions using Ogham Script were written to designate these particular landmarks.

    1. Matthew,

      There's a lot of Ogham in this country and I'm sure they do mark important landmarks; likely both for natives and pre-Columbian visitors.

  36. I'm glad the subject came around to Ogham. I notice that Anthony has brought the subject up, too, in the more recent comment dated 4-28-2017, on a newer blog subject here.

    Good news, Scott and Patrick and all! As a result of finding myself very deficient in the study of Ogham, I decided to learn more about it...and ended up finding a Hooked-X embedded within a line of script. It seems to follow through to an early medieval Christian use, and apparently here in America. I just found a Hooked-X within a line-form of recognized Ogham, as seen here:

    Go down to Figure B and look about five rows up from the bottom, towards the left side. You will see a row of X's with varying forms attached to it, including one with a hook or mark directly on top of the right stem...but look closely and you will see a very real Hooked-X on the character next to it.

    Now scroll down to Figure O-1 and you will see this small Hooked-X in use...and by extrapolation, it appears to be very directly attached to "Christianity," which seems to be the main theme of the messages being studied, according to Mr. Fell.

    So, this would seem to be from a time approximately in line with the Anglo-Saxon Brooch discussed above, possibly. Whether this may be indicative of Christianity with the Brooch uncovered in England, I don't know, but the Irishmen (or Welch?) visiting America around the same time-period apparently used it (the Hooked-X) in a very Christian way, in a very Christian message.

    How this may or may not tie in with late-period medieval Hooked-X's, I'm not sure. It may be that the Hooked-X was picked up by later Templars as a Christian symbol and in a secretive way, and then it may be that the symbol was passed on to future Freemasons (post-Templars) here in America, whereupon it was carved into several well-known, authentic runestones, the Kensington Runestone being the most famous.

    Anyway, it's always fun finding a new Hooked-X!

    (By the way, that "Host" X symbol turned out to be of a flail and a spear...symbols associated with Christ's suffering and physical death.)

    - Gunn

  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

  39. Matthew,

    In response to your retracted comment, Yes, it is possible to make such calculations. Someone did it long before Ptolemy. If I remember correctly, Alexander the great used an eclipse to win a major battle. That's POWER!

    Anthony Warren

  40. Hello Scott,

    I've just now stumbled onto this blog by chance, while reviewing the available online information about the La Verendrye and (especially) Kensington stones. The latter has been an interest of mine for over 40 years. About 25 years ago I even spent a few months in the University of Cambridge library, doing research for a planned historical novel about the expedition that left the Kensington Stone. But then life got in the way and I never returned to the task.

    Anyway, I wanted to thank you for your book "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence" which I came across a few years back. Your painstaking research and exhaustive investigation of all available evidence were admirable. Most impressive to me was your incredibly thorough physical examination of the Stone itself, which confirmed (and greatly expanded upon) the findings of the expert geologist Newton H Winchell long ago, that the inscription on the Stone had clearly been carved hundreds of years before its discovery.

    Meaning that scientifically speaking the Stone is, perforce, an authentic artefact, regardless of how oddly-composed the message on it may be. I find it maddening that for 119 years the naysayers have mostly got their way, questioning the form and content of the inscription while ignoring the hard science that proves it to be genuine.

    I still think the story of the expedition could make a great novel - and film! (Someone did once write a book but it was no good.)

    Yours sincerely,
    Rolf Luchs

    1. Rolf,

      I appreciate your kind words and reasoned consideration of the facts. To be frank, of the thousands of forensic investigations I've performed over the past 32 years the KRS is one of the strongest and most straight-forward. Granted it was more complicated with multiple avenues to investigate, but in the end, there was a voluminous amount of evidence from multiple disciplines that were all consistent with authenticity.

      In fairness to the runic and linguistic scholars, since I have experienced the York Rite degrees and realized the initiated carver used allegory, code and symbolism within the inscription, uninitiated scholars had no chance of understanding the message and the other aspects imbedded within it. Their fundamental flaw was, and continues to be, in how they approached the investigation using flawed scientific method. Instead of taking an open-minded and neutral approach, they assumed from the start it was a Scandinavian style "rune stone" expecting it to conform to certain rules and conventions they were familiar with. In essence, for 119 years they have tried to tell the KRS what it was supposed to be, instead of letting the stone tell them what it is.

      Stay tuned for fresh new KRS evidence coming soon.

  41. Hello Scott,

    Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately it highlights those things where I have to part company with you - the other side of the coin.

    We agree that, geologically-speaking, the Kensington Stone must be a genuine mediaeval artefact. That to me is the key and scientifically inescapable conclusion that needs to be pointed out and proclaimed to the world. If just that one fact, on its own, were ever to be generally recognised and accepted as true, it would be revolutionary.

    It would open the floodgates for the whole field of pre-Columbian exploration of the Americas. To start with, the history books would all have to be rewritten. Academics would be able to research and write about these things openly, without fear of harming their careers. Most importantly, the legitimacy it brought would mean that resources - energy, expertise, money - would become available for officially-conducted archaeological and other investigations. It would be the dawn of a whole new era.

    So to me, when you stray from the hard science and start theorising about Templars, the Holy Grail, the York Rite degrees and other things unknown to the "uninitiated", you fatally undermine the very credibility you seek. Whether or not such esoteric interpretations hold water, the effect when you attach them to your more straightforward/acceptable geological and other investigations is that most people simply won't take you seriously. They'll throw out the baby with the bathwater, not bothering to even look at your geological and other findings because you're the guy who claims the Kensington Stone was a coded message left by Cistercian Templars.

    Yes it's easy for me to criticise, sitting here at my computer, never having done anything meaningful myself to advance our knowledge of the Stone. Whereas you have done a great deal - and again I thank you for it.

    Still: a major obstacle to official acceptance of the Kensington Stone has been the fringe ideas and theories that its supporters so often promote. Which makes the whole topic toxic to "serious" folk, driving away exactly those people you need to persuade, some of whom might listen if they felt it was safe to do so.

    Yours respectfully,
    Rolf Luchs

    1. Rolf,

      I don't understand why you and others believe that one area of investigation can undermine the credibility of another. That reaction is a human thing used by those who don't understand something. It's a fear driven reaction of the unknown. The fact is mine and Winchell's geological research stands or falls on it's own merit; period. The other aspects of my research are independent of the geology and need to stand or fall likewise.

      Labeling something "fringe" is an insult to the subject matter and the individual who makes the claim. I don't care what the "serious" people think because after interacting with them for over a decade. The only thing serious about them is their arrogance, close-mindedness and inability to admit what they don't understand.

      I can assure you the esoteric aspects of the KRS inscription are real and the only one capable of crafting such a message was a highly educated, and yes, initiated medieval member of the clergy. Who else but the Cistercians and fugitive Knights Templar had the knowledge, means, and motive to pull something off like the KRS? The historical facts are consistent with only them.

      It's the weight of the collective evidence from multiple disciplines that has conclusively proven the case. "Serious" scholars won't accept the truth because they botched the case through a combination of poor investigative methodology, lack of using proper logic and blanket dismissal of what they did not understand. Instead, they try to destroy what they don't understand so they don't end up looking stupid. It's been a travesty.

      I'm not trying to persuade anyone anymore Rolf, people will either accept the facts or they won't. You can lead a horse to water right?

      Serious scholars to need have the courage to step out of their comfort zone and be open to learning new things. I did it and it has opened a whole new world of understanding.

      Imagine what could happen?

    2. So much evidence for the Hooked X out there, yet there is not a single Runic computer font with a Hooked X character/glyph encoded in it. The Unicode code charts even make no mention of it. Why is there no runic font with a Hooked X, which is more real and less fictitious than those Tolkienian runes which are present in the most recent runic fonts (and in the code charts)? I hope Michael Everson of Evertype reads this.

    3. Leroy,

      The Scandinavian scholars don't know what to do what the Hooked X. It's real of course, but since they have no explanation for it within their world they simply ignore it and hope it goes away. It won't though...

    4. I mentioned Michael Everson from because he is the font designer who first proposed encoding the Runic alphabet into the Unicode Standard about two decades ago, and the one who also later proposed adding cryptogrammic and Tolkienian runes to the encoded alphabet. He is an Irishman -not a Scandinavian-, so I have faith he will examine the evidence in this blog, contact you perhaps for more evidence, and come up with a convincing Hooked-X rune proposal to the Unicode Consortium and have the rune assigned a codepoint that future fonts could use. (That way, the folks at the Old English Wikipedia would finally be able to write plain Runic text with the hooked X or "-æ" breviograph without having to embed GIF images into the text stream.)

      By the way, which Apple Macintosh font contains runes? (In Microsoft Windows, the font that contains runes is Segoe UI Historic.)

    5. And I thought an Irishman would be more willing to cooperate than a Scandinavian. Apparently, I was wrong about the font designer - he "politely" replied to me with a very extensive dismissal, citing hoaxes and Hebrew Alephs being confused for hooked-X breviographs. And at the same time, he defended his Tolkienian runes citing that because Tolkien used them in private correspondence, that was enough grounds for encoding them in spite of their fictitious origin. But the same can be said of fictional scripts rejected for encoding, like Klingon: I even believe more people have used Klingon in private correspondence than Tolkien used his own invented runes, yet Tolkien gets his runes encoded and Klingons their alphabet rejected. The Hooked X - regardless of whether it dates back to 1898 or several hundred years ago - is still older than the Tolkienian runes, and it was used by at least three individuals, and 3 > 1; it should have been proposed for encoding in spite of its controversy. (By comparison, the emoji symbols proposal dating back nearly a decade ago was just as controversial and, in spite of all discussions and debates, got encoded and that's why we have emoji today.)

      I would like to share with you, in private, the whole email thread I received from that non-supporter, because I am not sure if it would be appropriate to post it here in its entirety.

  42. In one episode of AU, Scott's guest said, "the 'Hooked X' means Freemasonry". Masonry is said to be synonymous with Geometry and Architecture. Within the architecture used by these people are astronomical alignments. The one I believe to have the most importance is what Alan Butler calls a "Rosebud Window". This RW captures both the light of Venus and the Sun on a certain day. These windows can be clearly seen from Rosslyn Chapel to Trinity Church. This leads me to believe the "Hooked X" could be a combination of the cross of the sun and the cross of Venus and the line they share. I'd love to know if a RW existed within the ambulatory of the Newport Tower.

    Anthony Warren