Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Proof Positive the Kensington Rune Stone is Medieval

While researching deeper into the Ritual Code within the Kensington Rune Stone inscription I discovered in early 2016, it led to another incredible discovery that by itself proves the medieval origin of the artifact.  Briefly, I discovered the first four symbolic numbers of 8, 22, 2 and 1, as they occur in sequence add up to 32, then 33, which equals the system of degrees within Scottish Rite Freemasonry.  These numbers are directly related to the Hebrew mysticism of the Kabbalah that traces the same numbering system to the number of bones and nerves in the spinal cord (32) with the skull, and brain within it, totaling 33.

The remaining numbers of 1, 10, 10, 14, relate to the Ten Commandments, the Enochian Legends, and the Isis/Osiris mysteries and the allegorical stories of the annual cycle of life on earth that every culture on the planet experiences.  In short, the Kensington inscription is largely allegorical with certain factual information peppered in for the initiated few to decipher.  The inscription was carved by a deeply initiated medieval monk who understood these alchemical teachings creating a brilliant message that included codes (Dating and Grail Codes) and important symbolism I have already published in my books.

What the initiated Cistercian monk also understood was the ancient and very sacred measuring system used by cultures dating back over 10,000 years that was calculated using the planet Venus: the Megalithic Yard.  British researcher, Alan Butler, wrote about his rediscovery of the megalithic yard in his groundbreaking book, City of the Goddess: Washington D.C.  Alan discovered that not only did ancient cultures build the world famous megalithic structures like Stonehenge in England, Newgrange in Ireland, the Great Pyramids at Giza in Egypt and other sites around the world, but the Founding Fathers of the United States built our capitol city in Washington D.C. using the same megalithic system.  

I have argued for nearly two decades that Freemasonry evolved from the medieval Knights Templar and most people know many of our Founding Fathers were Freemasons.  I maintain knowledge of the megalithic yard system of measurement was passed on to people like Thomas Jefferson, through Freemasonry, along with many other secrets directly from the Templars.  From there I used logic to try and determine if there was any other evidence on the Kensington Stone that might shed new light on who created it.  Sure enough, yet another connection to the Templars, and the initiated Cistercian monks who traveled with them, was there.

The megalithic yard is 2.72 feet in length.  If we multiple that length by 12 inches we get a total of 32.64 inches.  I asked Janet to take a length of string she had cut to that length and measure the length of the cast we own of the Kensington Stone, and it was about an inch short.  However, when she measured it diagonally across the face of the stone it was exactly one megalithic yard in length.  Keep in mind the carver was working with an irregular shaped slab of a glacial erratic, yet was still able to skillfully split the slab down to nearly the exact sacred dimensions he wanted.  As I have argued before, the primary purpose of the Kensington Rune Stone was to be a Templar land claim to establish a sanctuary where they could practice freedom of religion and freedom from the tyranny and oppression of the monarchs of Europe.  The Rune Stone was beginning of the founding of the United States and to ensure its protection the carver appears to have acknowledged Deity by using the sacred measuring system derived from the planet Venus; who to him and his Cistercian/Templar brethren was the physical manifestation of the Goddess in the heavens.  

   
Stonehenge in England is arguably the most famous megalithic structure in the world built using the megalithic yard over 5,000 years ago.


Newgrange in Ireland also dates back over 5,000 years and incorporates the megalithic measuring system.



The Great Pyramids of Egypt are believed to date back over 10,000 years and incorporate the megalithic yard.

The temple pyramid at Chichen Itza in Mexico had the megalithic yard used in its construction over 1,000 years ago.



When measured down the split side of the Kensington Rune Stone it measures just over an inch longer than a megalithic yard of 2.72 feet.



However, when measured diagonally across the face of the artifact that distance is exactly one megalithic yard, or 32.64 inches in length.  


The Thomson Formation of metagraywacke weathers into flat tabular slabs as can be seen along the banks of the St. Louis River, in Jay Cook State Park, a few miles south of Duluth, Minnesota.  The Kensington Rune Stone was carved into a large tabular slab of metagrawacke plucked by continental ice and carried to somewhere near the Ohman Farm roughly 10,000 years ago.


This diagram shows the Newport Tower conforms to the Megalithic Yard measuring system in its construction.  Since the Tower and the Kensington Rune Stone are connected through long-range alignments of the egg and notched keystones, it should be no surprise both artifacts were constructed by the medieval Cistercians and Knights Templar using the same ancient, and sacred, measuring system.  



This measuring stick with runic carvings was found in Norway and has a curious mixture of runic symbols including a reasonably close rendition of the Hooked X (Top left in upper photo).  The stick, and presumably the runic carvings, are believed to date to 1888 or before. 



On the back side of the stick is the runic alphabet that fairly closely matches the KRS alphabet.  Below is a Masonic box code that matches the runes and letters above. 

214 comments:

  1. Real Interesting Information , Thanks for sharing .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      It is interesting, and hard to refute. The numbers are the numbers.

      Delete
    2. Is there any validity to the theory that Henricus was the carver of the inscription?

      Dan Uhrich

      Delete
    3. Henricus was the name used by the bishop of Greenland at the time of the expedition . Read he scribed puzzle runestones/map stones. Read an article he was suspected of carving many of our NA runestones and was a member of the St. Clair voyages to NA. It was something I had never heard of before and wondered if it was actually a part of the lore or just another fringe theory.

      Dan Uhrich

      Delete
    4. Dan,

      Actually, we're pretty sure we know when the KRS party left, where they left from, and who may have carved the inscription way back in 1362. However, you will have to wait a little longer to find out. It'll be worth it.

      Delete
    5. Not the expansive answer I was hoping for. Ha!

      Delete
    6. Good things come to those who wait...

      Delete
  2. See if there is a dimension that equates to a value of 1.2 (14.4") or 1.72 (20.64") or 2.44 (29.28"). The 1.2 value would be on the bottom or top of the stone and the 2.44 would be on the left or right edge edge. Do a mini-triangle within the one that Janet has created with her diagonal rope line. Start at the same corner, run the rope, but measure the X, Y, and hypotenuse distances from the top of the stone (or the top of the inscription) down to the bottom of the inscription. Measure width of inscription by the vertical height of the inscription, see what the ratios return. Measure the X and Y of the side inscription, then take the front inscription X/Y dimension and run ratios. Do a permutation of this, use the X/Y of the front side face. The latitude delta between NT and KRS is 4.325, the longitude delta...use 24. Convert these geodetic units to minutes (17.3 & 96). Look for a side to front dimension ratio of 17.3:96.0. Maybe run some circle computations...since the MY dealt with circumference (from memory). Maybe the length of KRS equates to a diameter value, then the side edge would represent a latitude bracket. Lots of potential things to work...maybe something will pop, maybe nothing will pop. That the diagonal/hypotenuse returns the MY value is interesting...for it to be anything more than coincidental a secondary needs to be found. Nice post!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patrick,

      You seem pretty comfortable with the calculations you've proposed. Care to give them a whirl and get back to us with what you find?

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Hello Bro Neal; more Kensington Rune Stone info for you to ponder.

      Delete
    2. Thanks! You are re-discovering what we have forgotten through the centuries. Keep up the good work!

      Delete
    3. Bro Neal,

      This artifact is nothing short of amazing; the deeper I look into it, the more I find. Does anyone really believe anymore that a simple, honest late 19th century immigrant farmer could possibly have created this medieval masterpiece?

      It was a silly notion from the very beginning; such a shame.

      Delete
  4. I really don't see this at all. Look at the rock Scott, the rock does not lie. When you look at it you notice how crudely it is broken or formed to make it's shape. Do you really think someone produced it that way with the exactitude of measurement that you are claiming ? With jagged uneven edges ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      I really don’t see how you cannot see it, and of course the rock doesn’t lie. The stone is a masterpiece of minimalist stonework. The KRS party probably found the glacial erratic slab near the Ohman Farm that had been carried down by glacial ice after having plucked the metagraywacke from the bedrock in what is now the Jay Cooke State Park area.

      I’ve added a photo of the Thomson Formation graywacke along the St. Louis River in Jay Cook State Park to show the way the rock breaks up into large flat slabs.

      Yes, the carver was obviously highly skilled and able to create the accurate measurements by simply splitting off one side of the once-larger slab. It’s not a matter of believing it, it’s a simple matter of fact. Look at it!

      Delete
    2. Scott, could you tell me what fact you are alluding to ? The only fact that I see is that the measurement of 32.64 inches from the top left corner to a rounded bottom right edge. There is not even a defined corner on the bottom right. In fact the measurement does not even have a corner, with the string ending up an inch or so left of the defined right edge of the stone, and the fact the stone has no clearly defined bottom edge line tells me that you simply placed the string where you could force your predetermined length into the equation. What is known as confirmation bias.
      Also the megalithic yard is speculative itself, in that it has never been proven to be in real usage as yet. The idea that Templars used the megalithic yard is complete speculation as well.
      So we see your Title "Proof Positive the Kensington Rune Stone is "Medieval" Is not proof at all, but nothing more than speculation. Also of note is the fact that the usage of the "megalithic yard" speculatively comes from a time many thousands of years before the Medieval age and is not known to have been in use in the Medieval age (or at any time for that matter) I simply don't see any proof that you speak of.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,

      The length of the split side and the diagonal distance across the face side have a fixed length; these are facts, but then you already knew that. Please stop with the inane arguments and confirmation bias B.S. made simply to be contrary and argumentative. The truth is the length of the stone only needs to be close to symbolically represent the sacred measurement. In fact, I’m surprised it's as close as it is.

      Of course you don't see what I speak of because you don't want to. Take some time and read the attached graphic I just posted. Is it a coincidence the measurements in the Newport Tower, constructed in medieval times and is directly connected to the KRS and therefore was made by the same people, also conforms to the megalithic yard measuring system? The answer, of course, is no.

      Be advised your next comment will not be posted under "anonymous." Either be an adult and use your real name, and you'd better convince me, or don't bother.

      Delete
  5. So could the first measurement be 32+ one ???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon,

      I'm not following your question?

      Delete
  6. Just 2 more things, 1, is there any correlation between the measurements of the Kensington rune stone and the Jesus Ossuary?, 2, Scott, do you have an Instagram account?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon,

      The relative dimension of the Jesus ossuary and the Kensington Rune Stone are similar, but I don't know the exact dimensions of the ossuary. However, I bet it's close.

      I bet it's also close to the sacred dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant...

      Delete
  7. This may be a silly question but why did you multiply your megalithic yard by 12? Why would a more symbolic number like 10 not have been used?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff,

      Multiplying by 12 (inches) converts 2.72 from feet into total inches. It isn't related to anything symbolic, it's a simple conversion from feet into inches.

      Delete
    2. Got it. So you included the 32.64 inches part because it is between 32 and 33?

      Delete
    3. Jeff,

      No; I included it because it's the result of a straightforward mathematical calculation: 2.72 feet x 12 = 32.64 inches.

      Delete
  8. Sorry. Since you didn't just say you cut a string to 2.27 feet it felt like that 32.64 number maybe meant a bit more. Too many numbers in my head today! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff,

      No problem; I might not have been totally clear in my explanation. All good.

      Delete
  9. The KRS is not the only purported Pre-Columbian artifact in America that demonstrates correspondence to ancient units of metrology, the EGG on the NW interior wall of the Newport Tower has multiple ancient metrological values:

    -Vertical dimension of 20.625”, direct correspondence to Egyptian Royal Cubit (20.64”, or 1.72’);

    -Horizontal dimension of 12.0” (30.48 cm), direct correspondence to Megalithic Arc-Second (30.36 cm);

    -Ratio of Vertical:Horizontal dimension (20.625”/12.0”=1.71875), derived correspondence to Egyptian Royal Cubit (20.64”, or 1.72’);

    -Ratio of Summed Values: Horizontal dimension (32.625”/12.0”=2.71875), derived correspondence to Megalithic Yard (2.72’).
     
    The NT EGG (along with Red Granite Orb and Keystone Rock on the exterior of the NT) is physically situated within an azimuth range of 283.28° to 289.429°. The rhumb line azimuth from the NT to the KRS discovery location is 283.800°. The Equation of Time = Zero (EQoT=0) sunset azimuth in April 1362 was 283.63°. The April and August EQoT=0 sunset azimuths are used as a “boresight” to identify the NT to KRS azimuthal relationship.

    Lastly, the varying interior diameter values of the NT between its West (270°) and North North West (315°) points deconstruct - using the 2.72 MY value – to the longitude coordinate (in Medieval Era hours and minutes) of the KRS placement on the North American landscape.

    Patrick Shekleton posts via cell phone
     

    [Sources: Phippsburg History Center FB Page multiple postings]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      One of the takeaways from this comment is the Templars, who built the Newport Tower, also used the megalithic system of measurement that can be traced all the way back to the Egyptians; is that correct? If so, then the Newport Tower inner egg, and outer notched keystone topped with the red granite orb, alignment to the KRS site is yet more conclusive evidence of the medieval origin of both.

      I don't think John Dee had much to do with this. Oh that's right, he never set foot on the continent so that's out...

      Delete
    2. There are even more intersections related to the KRS and NT involving ancient metrology units. The KRS side inscription – which geodetically brings one back to Narragansett Bay from Minnesota – has value units that deconstruct into the Royal Cubit: https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.1407953305947535.1073741891.114338978642314/1453469591395906/?type=3&theater; https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.1407953305947535.1073741891.114338978642314/1453469838062548/?type=3&theater

      The KRS front inscription – which sets up the Alexandria, Egypt to KRS discovery location geodetic model – deconstructs into a Megalithic Yard value:
      https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.1407953305947535.1073741891.114338978642314/1453470194729179/?type=3&theater;

      Let’s be objective…is it reasonable to “find” ancient units of metrology in a 1) a hoax (KRS) and 2) a grist mill (NT)? It isn’t that just one random case was discovered on both the KRS and the NT, multiple cases are evident within both artifacts. The Royal Cubit was a known metrology unit in 1898 and ca. 1675, so one can’t make the case that they couldn’t be on either artifact. But then the question becomes, “What is the purpose of imbedding that information within the KRS and NT, given that they were a hoax and a grist mill, respectively.

      The Megalithic Yard (MY) elevates the intrigue to an entirely new level. Given that the MY was a recent re-discovery (ca. 1960s), how does one explain the presence of it on an ‘1898 discovered’ and a ‘ca. 1675 oldest surviving written record’ artifact? Skeptics will assert that it is merely coincidental, but the multiple findings, and the ACTUAL USE of the numeric values in a geodetic reference system (Alexandria -KRS-NT/NRS) destroys that line of argument. Numbers don’t lie.

      It would be unwise for skeptics to attack the number values that construct the Royal Cubit and Megalithic Yard evidence. Once they cross that threshold, they explicitly acknowledge that those values exist on the KRS and NT, and the ca. 1675 NT becomes the oldest proven-provenance artifact in the grouping. Then, by default – whether skeptics like it or not – the KRS rockets back to, at a minimum, ca. 1675. And since we are operating in a chutes and ladder paradigm, the KRS will march back to its inscribed 1362 date.

      Was it the Templars, as you ask? The NT is Scandinavian-influenced, and no one reaches the middle of North America without the support of Native Americans. The NT was a complex, and logistically-demanding structure to build. Again, it is almost certain that there were Norse involved, and entirely certain that Native Americans were involved. One has to believe that the interaction between Native Americans, Norse, and Templars was not based on exploitation, but of cooperation and accepted trust.

      The mathematics, astronomical and geodetic knowledge came across the Atlantic from Europe. There was a surge of impressive geodetic knowledge in Scandinavia dating from the late 12th century and extending forward in time. England, Scotland, and the Orkney Islands have historical structures that likewise demonstrate geodetic modeling that did not exist prior to the Crusades.

      At the end of the day, when everyone’s research comes in, then we have to look around the landscape and objectively rule out who DIDN’T have the knowledge and ability in the aforementioned areas. Of course, if an account comes to light that makes that filtering easier, then that has to be considered.

      John Dee never did come to America, but Jim Egan has always acknowledged that fact. Jim has always taken the position that it was John Dee’s design that was used for the NT. There is no dispute that John Dee was a brilliant polymath. He also was knowledgeable on cartography. Was he responsible for the NT – and given the intersections between the NT and KRS – was he also responsible for the KRS? Everyone can judge that scenario for themselves.

      Delete
    3. Patrick,

      Nice commentary and hard to argue with the logic you've presented. Your comments about the numbers are right on. The Templars certainly understood the numbers and their use in navigation, construction, and symbolically. Collectively, the factual evidence in both 14th and 19th Century history, geology, language, dialect, runes, grammar, the Dotted R, the Dating, Grail, and Ritual Codes, and now the megalithic yard make the case for the KRS being a medieval Templar artifact a "game, set, match" proposition.

      Along with that, since the long-range alignment with the Newport Tower has now been definitely proven, you know what that means...

      I'll get the first round Pat.

      Delete
  10. Scott,

    Dr. Alexander Thom actually "rediscovered" the Megalithic Yard in the 1960's. Alan has conclusively proven how to create the unit of measure, and how the measuring system works. Alan dropped a piano on the head of Academia when, he conclusively proved Washington DC was laid out using this unit of measure. Laid out using a measure which wasn't publicly rediscovered for almost 200 years. That's a BIG DEAL!

    Just wanted to help correct the facts before Troll Patrol shows up, and we never hear the end of it.

    Anthony Warren


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony,

      Yes, Alan Butler wrote about Alexander Thom and then went out and found it in Washington D.C. I have a feeling the megalithic yard is going to find it in other interesting places as well.

      I have one troll patrol comment I'll be loading in a minute. They just won't let go of their dogmatism no matter how deep in the weeds they wander.

      Delete
  11. How can you have an accurate diagonal measurement when the object you are measuring is not an evenly proportioned rectangle? Is this based on "if it were" a rectangle?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      Simply measure from top left corner to the bottom right corner. Don’t overthink it.

      Delete
  12. Happy Thanksgiving Scott,

    Is there any evidence of the tree being intentionally planted over the KRS? Could it have been found and the tree left to mark the location?

    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony,

      What we know about the tree is it was located in a set-aside 40 acre lot in the 1860's for incoming settlers to cut wood for sustenance. The Aspen tree was the new growth species that eye-witnesses estimate was roughly 30 years-old at the time of discovery of the KRS which is consistent with the overall late 1800's timeline.

      There is no evidence the tree was planted by anyone other than nature as Aspens trees still grow on the farmstead to this day.

      The stone was marked by the Templars using the rounded triangular stone holes that triangulate at the discovery site. The stone holes cut into glacial boulders were a much better permanent marker than a tree in 1362.

      Delete
    2. Scott,

      Patrick mentioned the tree was about 40 years old when it was taken down. Other than 40 being important to Venus, it would put the tree's birth around, or just before the Civil War. I was thinking about someone in the know locating the spot and marking it with a tree. Not going all the way back to 1362. Someone obviously knew about the KRS, or no one would have wanted to raise an obelisk on the spot.

      Anthony Warren

      Delete
    3. Anthony,

      In pages 1-5 of my "Compelling New Evidence" book Dick and I list all the known eye-witness statements and the average age estimates for the age of the tree are pretty consistent at 25-30 years. While it is not inconceivable that word of its location was passed down through the centuries through a secret society, I highly doubt the ten men who planned to erect a 204-foot tall obelisk were party to that knowledge. I think their inspiration for the obelisk was due to what they saw on the KRS that was symbolically related to aspects of Freemasonry.

      Delete
  13. Anthony, the tree age/size is a dead horse. Scott's referenced work provides a comprehensive overview of the tree/roots/stump. No one is age-shifting the tree. Siverts gave the largest age estimate of 40 years, Van Dyke gave it as 12 years. Both are outliers for age estimates. The diameter estimates are giving as 8-10 inches. Skeptics have had 119 years to replicate the asp tree growth above a stone similar in size to the KRS. To date, no one has done this simple experiment, or they have and never published the results, to demonstrate how many years it would take for an asp tree to reach 8-10 inches in growth diameter. With the tree seed planted above the similar stone they could then investigate the root growth over the stone. All this could be replicated, yet no one has done it. No modeling could ascertain how long it took for the asp seed to fall on top of the KRS and take root. No one can define the last wildfire that swept the area prior to tree re-generation that established the mature asp trees that then produced their seeds. This is why the tree size is a dead horse. Absent any data to rebut the multiple estimates of size and age, the tree age/size is nothing but an imagined point of argument for skeptics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pat,

      You might recall the Aspen trees we walked around near discovery site a few weeks ago with Darwin were about the same size as the tree that was over the stone. Those trees have been there since I've been involved which is over 18 years now. They are probably about 25-30 years old.

      There is no push back by skeptics about the tree because they have nothing to push back about. The tree roots also are consistent with the discovery story and the skeptics know that too. They have nothing to argue about except imaginary 19th Century figures that may have traveled to Minnesota at some point in their lives. That makes them the carver right...? Baseless claims like these are irresponsible at least and completely dishonest at worst.

      Delete
  14. I absolutely remember the visit to the Ohman farm with you and Darwin Ohman. Hearing the stories of the Ohman family, from Darwin, having you describe the investigation of the area that you and others did, and visiting the soon-to-be completed Visitor Center was a great experience. The stone hole configuration that you and Darwin pointed out fit the context of what many have written about. Seeing the location where Olaf Ohman and some of his sons spent their first winter on the property - in a crude shelter dug into the side of a hill - drove home the tough, and precarious, circumstances of living on land that had less than a generation before was the American frontier. You are correct about the current tree growth near the discovery location. I know this because all researchers today scout beforehand the area using aerial photographs...so the comparison that you state is not only valid, but may be seen by anyone who visits the site. Keep in mind that the North American rune stones, and especially the KRS, are difficult to reconcile with what we have been taught in school. The KRS is especially difficult to reconcile...how did an expedition make it all the way out to the middle of America and survive, and why did they go there? I know that you have affirmed that Native Americans were involved with any journey in North America - and I agree with that premise. Is there any other detail that could help explain the significance of the relationship between an expedition and Native Americans? Along this line, I am of the opinion that the route one would take is not important (Hudson Bay, Great Lakes, Mississippi River), but rather how would an expedition manage to gain acceptance across North America given that they would have had to transited across many tribal boundaries? Have your Native American brothers spoken with you on this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patrick,

      The native people have a lot to say once you've earned their trust. First and foremost, they refer to the medieval Templars who were here as their "blood brothers." I have spoken with several tribes who say essentially the same thing. I wrote about some of these exchanges and the ritual degrees they share in my "Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers" book for those interested in the details.

      How scholars could completely miss, and in some cases ignore, the Native American angle with the Templars is beyond mystifying. The dehumanizing of the indigenous people on this continent was a travesty we need to come to terms with if scholars ever want to learn the truth.

      I'll have a lot more to say about this in the coming days.

      Delete
    2. Scott, Patrick,

      Although you guys seem to believe that you have proven your claims through perceived measurements and geo-locational data, you both are missing the most simple, and important aspect of your claims.

      The absolute and complete lack of material culture in the archaeological record from the time period you are claiming Norse were present in the middle of North America.

      Please don't claim there wouldn't be any because they integrated with Native Americans. You have already claimed Templars were visiting North America since at least the 1100's. Therefore they would be bringing materials and tools with them, where is the 500+ years of material in the archaeological record?

      Also modern scholars do not ignore Native Americans, haven't fora while. Is is you who are debasing the complexity of cultures in North America by believing these "Templars" could come to North America and befriend all of the Native American groups throughout the continent.

      Regards,

      D

      Delete
    3. D,

      Let’s be clear what you mean by “…material culture in the archaeological record...” Another way of saying the same thing is when, ‘dateable artifacts are pulled from the ground” correct? You have just described the Kensington Rune Stone and the Spirit Pond Rune Stones. Why don’t they count? Their provenance is not in dispute and they contain a boatload of medieval history, yet they are consistently shit upon by academics who cannot solve their mysteries.

      The second point is there are multiple ways to establish historical truth. Archaeology is just one despite what many archaeologists want us to believe.

      Third is just because other evidence (besides the five North American rune stones and the Newport Tower to name the most obvious…) considered definitive by archaeologists hasn’t been found doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. As Native Americans have confirmed, complete assimilation of the Templars took place within a generation or less after contact. Therefore, undisputed material evidence from Europe would be virtually non-existent and whatever they had was buried with the individual upon their death. Until you find one of those graves it’s going to be slim pickings at best.

      Lastly, the cultural negative bias within academia towards pre-Columbian Templars in North America, most notably in archaeology, is a huge problem. The root of the problem, in my opinion, goes back to an intentionally incorrect historical narrative humanities disciplines’ students have been conditioned to believe. Combine this with a lack of understanding of proper scientific method and you have a huge mess. I see mistakes in their logic on a consistent basis. To say nothing of the blanket dismissal of hard scientific geological findings that trump subjective archaeological interpretations which is simply wrong.

      I personally know an archaeologist who lived with Native American tribes for decades, yet didn’t know they had their own secret societies. There was a reason I can assure you that. I have been in native sweat lodges and participated in the same degrees after earning their respect to hear the historical truths academics know nothing about. They know the Roman Catholic Church’s funding of the Smithsonian Institution in the 19th and early 20th centuries is largely responsible for the desecration of their burial mounds and sanitizing of preColumbian artifacts that tell the real story. They screwed up the Bat Creek Stone due to ignorance, but it revealed the Church/State sponsored cleansing of our true history by academia.

      Sorry D, but it’s simply the truth.

      Delete
    4. Scott,

      no not correct. Material culture in the archaeological record means when "dateable artifacts are pulled from the ground IN A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS WITH CONTEXT". Context is everything. A few carved rocks is not evidence of Templars, neither is a subjectively measured piece of yarn.

      Also, are you also not a product of academia?

      Regards,

      D

      Delete
    5. D,

      I agree that context is everything and as I said, there is no debate about the provenance or context of the KRS discovery. It wasn't the perfect scenario for sure, but it is well documented. Not every artifact is discovered in a perfect scientific archaeological context as you are well aware. This fact doesn't exclude, the rune stone in this case, from providing important and reliable scientific data.

      Please rein in the dismissive tone and keep it professional if that's what you want to do. The compilation of the historical context of 1362, specifically the recent suppression of the Templar order only a few decades prior, the oral tradition of numerous Native American tribes, and the specific details of various aspects of the lengthy inscription all point to only one logical group who had the means, technology and most importantly, the motivation to be the creators of this incredible artifact.

      I am a product of academia, but in a hard science discipline that has peer reviewed my work and found it meeting acceptable forensic geological standards that I have performed in my laboratory for nearly 33 years. What I find interesting are the academics that take issue with my work are those in the humanities disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, history, language, runology, and linguistics. They are in no position to evaluate my work, yet feel no hesitation to attack me personally to try and discredit my work.

      This are the facts my friend, distasteful as they may be to some.

      Delete
    6. Scott,

      Not trying to be dismissive, apologies.

      The problem is you are making extravagant claims. So yes, something would have to be in perfect scientific archaeological context to be able to re-write our entire understanding of the historical record. A record that has been built upon continuous research and updated through new archaeological and scientific discoveries.

      What I find interesting is that you claim experts in the "humanities discipline" are in no position to evaluate your work as you are an accepted forensic geologist within academia. But when you venture into the humanities field of study, you find that it's entirely okay for you to evaluate and dismiss their work, and feel no hesitation to try and discredit their understanding of the historical record?

      Regards,

      D

      Delete
    7. D,

      Apology accepted; all good.

      I'm confused as to why the Templars coming secretly, (for logical and justifiable reasons), to NA is somehow an extravagant claim? The is a subjective term applied to a previously unknown, or rather unacknowledged, fact of history. Native Americans to this day call them their "blood Brothers" and carry their blood in the veins. I'm quite sure if we are able to gain their trust this will become obvious through DNA testing. Keep in mind the Roman Catholic Church knows this history all too well and had/has every incentive to keep knowledge of their presence here suppressed. Did it ever occur to historians that part of the reason for the genocide and forced assimilation of Native Americans was the Church's desire to eliminate as many of the "witnesses", and bloodline descendants, of the Templars as possible?

      I understand this is a totally foreign concept to many historians, but if you stop and think about it objectively, it makes all the sense in the world. This is yet another reason why the Vatican refuses to open its archives; but I digress...

      With regard to calling out certain elements of Humanities scholars (not all mind you, some are very open minded and have embraced these ideas based on factual evidence such as the KRS), all I'm doing is trying to hold them to a minimum standard. My experience with some of these people has been disappointing in the least, and criminal at its worst. I have pointed out specific instances on my blog before where academics have outright lied to control the narrative.

      I don't want to delve too deeply into this negative arena, but I don't think I really have to argue this point do I? However, if you want specific examples I can provide them.

      At the end of the day I'm just trying to get to the truth about this story and there are forces within the Church and government that continue to make that goal extremely difficult. Academia has absolutely played a role in this tragedy and it must stop.

      There are some really smart academics out there doing good work, but internal pressure within some institutions to dissuade students from pursuing research on controversial artifacts must also stop because it's still happening.

      That's all.

      Delete
  15. Scott and Patrick,

    Thanks for the clarification. Didn't mean to beat the dead horse. As I was reading Patrick's links, a couple of thoughts regarding symbolic trees came to mind. I couldn't recall which type of tree the KRS was found under, or if it differed from surrounding trees. I'm certainly not dense enough to believe the tree was planted in 1362.

    The links provided by Patrick are absolutely AWESOME!!! Mad props on the work and my utmost respect from one man to another. I sincerely believe Patrick has solved some major historic puzzles. Patrick hasn't just fired a warning shot at Academia, he's essentially sunk their battleship.

    I can't help but think New(ark), New Jersey has something to do with the ease at which the Templars travelled. Especially if the priesthood of Newark met up with the priesthood of Calalus.
    I'd heard stories of astronomer priests traveling back and forth across the Atlantic. One of Scott's episodes of AU was the most recent. I've heard the same story several times but, haven't come across anything concrete to back it up.

    Judging by the asinine comments of the troll, he has never read any books by Alan Butler or Robin Heath.

    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony,

      My computer didn't like the link you sent in the previous post. Can you double check that one? Thanks!

      I knew you weren't suggesting the Aspen (some say it was a Poplar which is in the same family) tree over the KRS dated back to 1362, I just didn't want any readers to be confused. You have more than demonstrated ample intelligence and wisdom with reasoned and enlightened commentary.

      Patrick has brought his knowledge from a naval background and experience as a navigator that has helped broaden my own understanding of how the Templars secretly navigated the oceans, and over land, for centuries using higher order mathematics, geometry and astronomy. I was keenly aware of these abilities, but Patrick has shown me, and others, the specific details of the equations and applications that were nothing short of brilliant. Having a military mind he also understands that certain factions of academia have been, and still are, the enemies of historical truth. He understands their mentality, what their weaknesses are, and goes right for the throat with the facts as his ammo. I love that. That is why the trolls have been so quiet on here. Put simply, their single-minded negativity to the truth and obfuscation tactics are no match for irrefutable facts.

      The troll(s) haven't read anything that might even remotely broaden their minds in a spiritual or symbolic way. After all, if it wasn't peer-reviewed in an academic journal...

      Delete
    2. Trolls = The ones who see the idiocy of your fiction

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,

      I cast out the bait and this is the best you can do? If you don’t understand the subject matter, just say so. We'll be glad to help you.

      Delete
    4. Peer reviewed journal? Your "work" would fail on a middle school level. So I will ask you, are you a corrupt falsifier of history for personal gain or are you simply stupid. And I mean really, really, really, really stupid.

      Delete
    5. Oh poor Anonymous,

      Hit a nerve did we? When confronted with the truth about the failure of academia your only response is this? Surely you can be more creative than resorting to hate filled name-calling.

      I must be a little smart to get a coward like you to trip all over yourself. Why don't you try bringing something intelligent to the conversation, and while you're at it, come up out of the basement and reveal your identity. It would show a little thing called 'integrity' and having the courage to put your name behind your words.

      Delete
    6. I don't think there's any way of helping a troll with his head shoved that far up his backside. Not without a winch and a pry bar at least.

      Anthony Warren (My real name)

      Delete
  16. Scott,,,You have high praise for Patrick. Geometry is an exact science, when you bisect a square diagonally into two triangles each have 3 angles, 45 degrees, 45 degrees and 90 degrees, this is an indisputable fact. Two of the edges will also be exactly the same length, fact.
    In the graphic you added, how do you explain the deliberate falsification of the edge length values to come up with the latitude of the KRS ?????, It is nonsense !
    Will you publish this comment Scott?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      First, if you want your question to be taken seriously, you need to identify yourself and “Neil Dicksen” isn’t going to cut it.

      The reason has nothing to do with “falsification”, it has to do with it not being a perfect square. YOU assumed that what it was supposed to be, but I’ll let Patrick fill in the details…

      Delete
  17. Anonymous,
    Let’s start with the slide that I passed to Scott asking him if he would post it along with his work – which he did. The below listing gives the lineage of the slide that I provided Scott.

    Egg Slide #1
    https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.883503961725808.1073741861.114338978642314/1094643290611873/?type=3&theater
    Egg Slide #2
    https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.883503961725808.1073741861.114338978642314/1318686601540873/?type=3&theater
    Egg Slide #3
    https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.883503961725808.1073741861.114338978642314/1320478848028315/?type=3&theater
    Egg Slide #4
    https://www.facebook.com/114338978642314/photos/a.1473015636107968.1073741893.114338978642314/1489897857753079/?type=3&theater

    The nice graphic in the TDC of the slide is from Wikipedia. The graphic on the left, top of the slide is a screen capture from an online web application. This graphic shows the solution of a right triangle when one side is 1.72 (Royal Cubit) and 1.2 (remen). These values are bonified units of measure attested for in Ancient Egypt, and they were used for surveying. The derived value of 1.23 is simply the third side. The associative finding of 45.8 degrees for one angle tied into some previous work on the Range of the Obliquity of the Ecliptic (that work is likewise posted in several forms on the Phippsburg History Center FB page) and where the 45.8 degree value for latitude placement of the KRS clearly develops through a numerical reduction.

    I can understand your perception that something seems amiss with the two graphics that you mentioned – and which I had on the slide. I didn’t explain why those two graphics were there, so I will acknowledge that they caused you, and likely others, some confusion.

    The simplest answer is that instead of reworking the slide in its entirety, I merely added on the MY calculations and results. A better approach would have been to remove the two unneeded graphics and rework the slide so that it was a cleaner presentation.

    Falsification of data, and the grave implications that flow from that, is a serious matter. As your allegation is directed to me, since it was my slide, I will directly state that nothing was falsified. In fact, I load every historical posting that I do with the calculations, obtained values, and applications/methodologies that were employed. It makes for dull reading and cluttered presentations. Likewise, I cite and reference what I write in support of my postings.

    If you have any further questions, just ask!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just so that there are no misconceptions that someone might twist around down the road, when Scott mentions that I am a “navigator” understand that it is an economical way of describing my background. Not stated to mislead, but economical. In my Navy career, I was responsible for maintaining and repairing airborne navigation equipment. To that end, to perform system checkouts, one had to operate the equipment as the crew would. Big airplane, lots of navigation equipment. On the aviation side of the Navy, navigator titles designated Officer’s trained as Navigators. I was Enlisted.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Patrick, thank you for your reply. However, one square royal cubit has 4 equal sides of 1 remen, or approx. 1.2 feet (not always given as 1.2). Bisecting a square royal cubit can only give you 2 triangles with angles of 45, 45 and 90 degrees and must give you two equal lengths and a hypotenuse(royal cubit approx. 1.72 feet) This is factual, it is what it is. In your triangle calculation you have used 1.2 feet, 1.72 feet and then introduced a totally alien 45.8 degree latitude in the formula. Why ? Besides the fact that it's not even an angle, it makes your calculations faulty by making two different lengths for the sides of a square. This is impossible !!! It also gives you angles of 45.8 and 44.2 degrees, equally impossible when bisecting a square.
    From what I see, you have forced the 45.8 degree angle (??longitude) where it simply does not fit to enhance your theories of the KRS. The math is faulty and simply does not work. Perhaps you erred in using the approximations of 1.2 and 1.72 feet as exact dimensions ? If this is the case then I apologize for using the word falsification. The facts remain that a square is a square, a isosceles right triangle is a isosceles right triangle and the rules of geometry cannot be changed to prove a theory.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous,
    No issue with the square having equal sides of 1.2, that is what is depicted. No issue with four squares comprising it. The hypotenuse of a square having sides of 1.2 is 1.7 (not 1.72), and the angles are 45-45-90.

    We both realize that the Royal Cubit has been stated in terms of several values…1.72 is a rounded one typically used. Another value is 1.7142857 (Heath & Michell 2006: 9). If we use this value, change our setting to six significant digits, then our 1.2 actually becomes 1.21218.

    The MY value of 2.72 is likewise rounded. Another given value is 2.71542857 (Heath & Michell 2006: 34).

    Now, we could dance all day with the tiny variances that folks have given for the RC and MY and, at the end of the day, we will both reach the same conclusion…that the minor variances result in minor offsets at the end of the calculation stream. It is analogous to the variant values for the Earth’s circumference.

    You are correct, the 45.8 degree derived value is slop. Good catch!

    Here are the slop values (Edge A, Edge B, Edge C, Extended Edge B; Angle A, Angle B):
    1.2; 1.24098; 1.72628; 2.44098; 44.0382; 45.9618. I fully acknowledge that the last value is an angular degree, so I can’t use it as a latitude value, nor would I, but since I am looking for patterns this 0.1618 value in an absolutely speculative fashion represents degrees of latitude slop of 17.99km from target (16.79 km from discovery location).

    Let’s use 6 significant digits using our 1.21218/1.7142857/2.71542857 values. These results are: 1.21218; 1.21767; 1.71817; 2.42985; 44.8705; 45.1295. Again, absolutely speculative, but these angular values, if latitude, brackets the 8-22 darkness band in ca. 1400 running across Owl’s Head Mt.

    I can’t use the angular values in a latitude frame of reference unless I find a hard determinant that supports it, what I call a secondary. I don’t have that – and I may not find one.

    As you can see, no whipsawing of geometry…rounding errors…and no falsification. The slide was actually on the dimension ratios on the Egg itself – the imbedding of metrological unit values, but I appreciate the review.

    ReplyDelete
  21. D,

    Appreciated your post. Let's have a dialogue about the material culture topic. I propose we work together to set up some ground rules and assumptions...creating an expectation model of what potentially should be found. I know it would be informative for me. I have always been struck that opponents always cite "Where's the stuff" and proponents always say "What about X, Y, and Z?"...and then I never read about what would comprise a reasonable expectation of material culture. Perhaps we do this by location...say KRS location, SPR location, NT location. The type of material culture would be influenced by number of persons, extent of habitation, mode of travel, purpose of location, and likely quite a few more factors that others know about. Lots of folks, lots of inputs can flow into this. We can spreadsheet it out...and we can even have three columns: Opponents - Consensus - Proponents. We don't have to complete it in a day, or a week, or even a month, but we can all work together to craft GRA and consensus expectations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patrick/D,

      If I may interject for a moment... In the case of the KRS, the actual discovery site was almost surely not a habitation site. The stone was buried where it needed to be per the triangulation of the stone holes in glacial boulders that were fixed points.

      If one takes the, "We had a camp near two 'shelters'..." part of the inscription literally, which I don't, the habitation site was many miles away. Regardless, archaeology will not provide any useful information at that specific location.

      In 2001, I assisted Professor of Archaeology at University of Moorhead, Mike Michlovic, in the field for a phase 1 archaeological assessment of "Tick Island", which is roughly a quarter mile north from the KRS discovery site. We dug a half dozen test pits, sifted the dirt and found chert flakes along with partially charred deer bone with cut marks Mike and I agreed were man made. He quickly concluded they were Native American which was likely the case. However, I asked him how he would know if it was someone else like a member of the KRS party, adding they also knapped tools in Europe, killed and butchered deer, and then cooked the meat over fire. He hesitated and said, "There would be European artifacts in the discard pile." I then asked, "Like what? A sword, a shield or chain mail?" He didn't have an answer to my question.

      In 1976, an archaeological dig was performed under the direction of Christina Harrison, who I had the pleasure of meeting many years ago, and it yielded nothing related to the KRS.

      In the case of the Spirit Pond Rune Stones, there was a habitation site only a few hundred yards from the pond outlet stream where the artifacts were discovered by Walter Elliot in 1971. A piece of wooden floorboard yielded a C-14 date of circa 1400. The rune stones are self-dated to 1401-1402. There is another longhouse at the same site that has yet to be excavated that could yield additional data. Ed Lenik was the archaeologist who oversaw the excavations and I have also met him in 2004. He expressed interest in the site at the time we spoke, but not enough to pursue additional work. Recently, I've heard rumors that he no longer stands behind the 1400-era date, but have yet to hear his reason why.

      Just a little archaeological background info on the rune stones based on my personal experience.

      Delete
  22. Scott:

    Please take this in the spirit intended. Your caption says "When measured down the split side of the Kensington Rune Stone it measures just over an inch longer than a megalithic yard of 2.72 feet." Surely that should be "shorter" rather than "longer"?

    Also, for you or Patrick, what "higher mathematics" do you think the Templars had, that would give them an advantage in navigation. I am math literate so you can be specific.

    Robinson was publishing on the Freemasons as descendants of the Templars as early as the early 90s. I remember buying his books in hardback.

    Regards,

    E. Mealy El

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. E. Mealy El,
      Scott mentioned “higher order mathematics, geometry and astronomy.”

      For me today, when I hear higher-order mathematics, I associate that phrase with those math courses beyond the Calculus and DiffEq classes that I took. Courses that the really smart people needed for their degree.

      Relative to the Medieval Era, trigonometry was the upper threshold for mathematics. We know that the brilliant Arab and Persian polymaths of the latter half of the First Millenia had continued to develop its application and we know that the determination of the Qibla employed the use of quadratic equations. The connection of this concept to the geodetic hypothesis that I am working on is that the KRS is positioned on the landscape, fixed to a starting point of Alexandria, Egypt, on an 8 degree, 22 minute (series) rhumb line (which is 270 degree PLUS 8-22 (series)). It isn’t an exact intersection as that line falls slightly south of the KRS when it passes through the KRS longitude.

      One of the ground rules that I have used is that the mathematical, astronomical, and geodetic knowledge by which this geodetic information became attached to the KRS/SPR/NT had to be known by the late 14th century. We can’t argue a geodetic case using knowledge that wasn’t developed at that time.

      Regards, Patrick

      Delete
  23. E. Mealy El,

    No offense taken and you are quite right about the string. I meant the side of the rock was about an inch short, obviously not the string. I did not write that sentence very well; my bad.

    I was also quite impressed with Brother John J. Robinson's book, "Born In Blood", which presents the historical events leading up to and after the suppression of the Templar order. Even though many Masonic scholars are not convinced the Templars evolved into modern Freemasonry, I am thoroughly convinced that premise is true. Like many things, the evolution of Freemasonry is immensely complicated, but the Mide' win rituals of the Algonquin Native Americans, that they say are the same as the Templars, are the same as ours within the Craft. I'll have more to say on this topic in the future.

    You're up Pat!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks for the response Patrick,

    I don't really think we need to put a spreadsheet together, as I think a lot of that information already exists. You should research archaeological reports from excavations near the KRS location, SPR location, NT location. Look for archaeological sites that would be contemporary with the time period you believe Templars were there. You can look at European archaeological reports from the same time period to narrow down the types of artefacts you'd expect to find (ie. iron tools, ceramics, everyday items, etc.). If they were there then there would be evidence of those things, examples of trade. But we already know none of those things have been identified.

    Scott, as for the excavation at Tick Island. Mike is correct, Europeans were not knapping stone tools in the 1300's. You could also C-14 date the charred deer bone to get a better understanding of the time period for that site.

    Regards,

    D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. D,

      I didn't mean to suggest Europeans were knapping in the 1300's; you're right that they were not. What I wanted to know is what, specifically, would we find to indicate a European presence. If Templars, and the Cistercian monks with them, had assimilated with natives there wouldn't be trade items or, at best, very little to indicate their presence. The bottom line is archaeology has a lesser chance of finding convincing evidence in this case.

      With regard to the C-14 dating, even if the bones we found yielded a date of "1362" (I know lab dating doesn't work like that), it still wouldn't prove a Templar presence.

      At the end of the day, archaeology isn't going to be of much help with the KRS I'm afraid, and as self-serving as it may sound, the geological weathering work of Newton H. Winchell in 1909, and myself in the early 2000's, say the KRS is a medieval artifact.

      Keep in mind all the words, runes, dialect, grammar, and the Dotted R are consistent with medieval practice.

      Just saying...

      Delete
    2. D,
      All noted, and concur. Discriminating the time period is an absolute, so 1362 for the KRS, 1401/1402 for SPR, and then a comparable time frame for the NT (since I am connecting it to the KRS) is appropriate. Conversely, since the KRS and SPR are alleged to be 19th/20th century hoaxes, and we don’t want to shortcut the approach, we need to keep an eye out for cultural material discovered in close proximity to the KRS/SPR that identifies evidence of a hoax. But, as you already know, no material from the 19th/20th century has been found (for Spirit Pond, refer to Lenik’s Shellheap report, which was an attempt to see if any cultural material could be found to date the SP Amulet that had already been dug out of the shellheap; the KRS is more general, but we know that no material from the 19th/20th century was found).

      Someone always drops something, don’t they? Then again, as they say, the absence of something doesn’t prove the opposite, correct?

      Here is the why I touched upon expectations in my earlier reply. Ever since the KRS was discovered, folks have operated under the assumption that there was an initial party of 30 trooping across the landscape of Minnesota with another 10 persons were waiting at the ships, postulated to be a) Hudson Bay, b) Duluth, c) confluence of the rivers there in Minneapolis-St Paul. Ten of the initial party were found ‘red with blood and dead.’ Now…I stated assumption, but folks will assert that it is more than that because those are the words written on the inscription. It’s literal!

      On that basis, it is rational to form an expectation that some cultural material should be out there – somewhere – on the Minnesota landscape. Even I have to nod my head in agreement.

      But what if the KRS inscription is actually allegorical? My hypothesis is that the numbers relate to geodetic information. It is a hypothesis, not yet proven, and its genesis was not to provide an answer to the ‘lack of cultural material’ argument, rather, it was because I read the SPR inscription and wondered if its number/heading conventions were geographic coordinates. And then I looked at the KRS.

      In light of the above, then how large was the KRS party? The inscription no longer tells us.

      What was the purpose of the party? Was it just to place a marker? If so, then it needn’t be sizable. Number of persons, mode of travel, duration of stay, intent of the exploration – these factors, plus more, are contingent on the mission. Everything is scalable, up to maximum transportable, and down to “min crew.”

      Smaller numbers, shorter duration translates to less potential material culture. It’s linear.

      Regards, Patrick

      Delete
    3. D/Patrick,

      My only comment here is I am in total agreement that it would be great if indisputable cultural material were to be found in a pristine archaeological context in connection with the KRS and SPRS. That would be awesome! However, in these cases it is simply not true to insist archaeology is necessary to prove authenticity. It isn't.

      As I've said numerous times, geology alone has proven the authenticity of the KRS which is factually supported by all elements within the inscription being consistent with 14th Century practice. Further, the Templar/Cistercian historical connection is supported by NA oral stories.


      This is more than enough to prove the case. Academia has a huge opportunity if they would simply be open to it. I could be of great assistance if they want to reach out in a sincere manner.

      Delete
    4. "the geological weathering work of Newton H. Winchell in 1909"

      Where can I find this work? From what I read in the Minnesota Historical Society's report that Winchell's committee submitted, Winchell did not have enough faith in his science and deferred to the Swedish linguists. The Historical Society did just that, and determined that the Kensington Rune Stone was a modern creation. That is the truth. That is the historical record.


      S. Heine

      Delete
    5. S Heine,

      I am well aware of the historical record of the KRS as evidence by the book, “The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence”, that I co-authored with Richard Nielsen in 2006. Newton H. Winchell wrote detailed 76-page report, which is on file in the Minnesota Historical Society, where he concluded the KRS was a genuine medieval artifact. Specifically, in his summation letter written on December 15, 1909, (Page 413 of our book) he ended the letter with the following: “…the said stone is not a modern forgery and must be accepted as a genuine record of an exploration in Minnesota at the date stated in the inscription.”

      Winchell did indeed defer to the Swedish runologists and linguists regarding the authenticity of the inscription who then promptly dropped the ball not understanding the complex, one-of-a-kind inscription the world had never seen the likes of before or since. As is normal in science, voluminous new evidence in medieval linguistic, grammar, language, and runes has been learned and the fact is EVERYTHING in the KRS inscription has been found to be medieval and what was once thought be a hoax has been proven to be genuine just as Winchell said over a century ago. The magic bullet of authenticity, of course, is the Dotted R.

      That is the truth and these new facts are now part of the historical record.

      Delete
    6. Well Scott,

      good luck on this endeavour.

      However, if this narrative is what you truly believe...never mind all of the other extravagant claims that you have made...but that the Templars "completely assimilated" with Native Americans, then they were no longer Templars, and frankly this would no longer be your story to tell.

      Regards,

      D

      Delete
    7. Sadly, no accredited expert runologist or linguist would agree with your amateur sleuthing. A for effort though.


      All the best,
      S. Heine

      Delete
    8. D,

      It's not what I "believe", it's what the evidence says loud and clear.

      With regard to the Templars and assimilation, it wasn't a one time thing. They came over repeatedly over several centuries and one thing that makes the archaeology so difficult is they went out of their way to cover their tracks. The Church authorities (Jesuits) were hot on their trail looking to wipe them out over here too, but that's another story...

      Thanks for the civil discourse.

      Delete
    9. S. Heine,

      At some point they'll have to accept it because what I've shared here about the inscription it true. As far as the amateur comment goes, I spent six years (2000-2006) learning about medieval runes and language from three of the best in the world, Professors Michael Barnes, Henrik Williams and Richard Nielsen. I made five trips to Sweden during that time and examined literally hundreds of medieval and Viking era rune stones with these experts. I can assure you that while I am no expert, I am no amateur and know enough about this subject matter to be extremely dangerous.

      Thanks for taking the time to comment in a civil manner.

      Delete
    10. Thank you Scott. I appreciate the kind words.

      I do wish to further respond to something Patrick claims above.

      "Conversely, since the KRS and SPR are alleged to be 19th/20th century hoaxes, and we don’t want to shortcut the approach, we need to keep an eye out for cultural material discovered in close proximity to the KRS/SPR that identifies evidence of a hoax. But, as you already know, no material from the 19th/20th century has been found"

      This is simply not true in the case of the Kensington Rune Stone. Found in Ohman's possession were rune books and a scrap book with a clipping cut long before the discovery detailing a European instance where a rune stone was found buried under a tree entangled in its roots. There are also the Larsson Papers which show a contemporary source for the problematic runes, which trace back to an area of Sweden which Ohman was well familiar. There is also the written rendition of what was carved on the Kensington Rune Stone sent by Ohman and his associate in answer to an inquiry which portrayed how the runes should have been carved, rather than how they were actually carved with the unexpected difficulties and errors the job would entail. Ohman also had the tools on hand and was not unfamiliar with carving a rock.

      But I'm sure you're aware of all this evidence, yet find it unconvincing. Still, it is evidence of the potential hoax. Value it as you will.


      Thank you once again,
      S. Heine

      Delete
    11. E. Heine,

      I’m not sure where you got the information you put forth. Nearly all of it is factual incorrect or not in proper context. Let address each point:

      1. The two books found in the Ohman home; The Almquist book of Swedish Grammar, was given to Olof Ohman AFTER he found the rune stone, and Carl Rosander’s “The Well-Informed Schoolmaster”, does contain information about Viking age runes and a discussion about Old and Middle Swedish language. However, neither of these source could have been used by Ohman, or anyone else, to even come close to carving the KRS inscription. These books are non-starters.

      2. The Larsson Papers do not include all of the KRS symbols. Therefore, it could not be the source for the KRS inscription. Further, Swedish scholars claimed for over a century that several of the KRS symbols “Never existed.” However, the Larsson Rune Rows proved they were wrong. Predictably, instead of admitting they were wrong, they quickly claimed an immigrant could have used the rune rows to carve the inscription, which is patently false, and further, they have yet to provide any evidence to support such a claim. Again, a non-starter.

      3. The “Ohman Copy” of the inscription he sent to Swan Turnblad in December of 1898, is missing the word “with” and other important details. How could the guy who allegedly carved the inscription miss including one of the words to say nothing about umlauts, dots, and short strokes when he had the stone right in front of him at the time? Yet again, a non-starter.

      4. Olof Ohman was a carpenter by trade. That he had tools for cutting stone doesn’t prove anything I’m afraid.

      So no; none of this is evidence of a hoax as you can see. Many people have latched on these points, but when vetted out there is nothing there and Patrick's statement is completely valid.

      Delete
    12. I appreciate your take on the known facts as I put forth. Unfortunately, there is more circumstantial evidence of a hoax than there is any evidence of Templars having anything to do with the Kensington Rune Stone. But to address your points:

      1) Ohman was familiar with runes as any child schooled in his Swedish hometown would have been.

      2) The Larsson papers do contain the problematic runes. Your only claim otherwise is a dot over an R which others believe not to be intentionally made.

      3) I don't understand your take on this point. Please clarify. What was sent to Turnblad more accurately represented what was meant to be carved, like a rough draft, than what was actually carved, faults and all.

      4) Having tools to do the carving most certainly makes him more of a suspect than less of one.


      One point you did not address above, is don't you find it more than coincidental that Ohman had an article cut out from a Swedish source predating the finding of the Kensington Rune Stone that detailed a rune stone discovered more than a century before underneath a tree in Europe, within its roots? That he would have cut this out and pasted it in his scrapbook years before finding the Kensington Rune Stone and then by pure chance he finds another one across the ocean under his aspen tree. This doesn't make you the slightest bit suspicious?


      Thank you once again for the consideration,
      S. Heine

      Delete
    13. S. Heine,

      The fact is there is no circumstantial evidence that has any merit at all. Have you read my book with Richard Nielsen, “The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence?” If not, it is mandatory reading as all of these matters are addressed.

      1. So what? Every kid from Sweden understood what runes were, but as Ohman said, “…but I don’t know how to use them.”
      2. There are other symbols besides the Dotted R, which by itself proves the KRS is medieval, read my book and get educated on the facts about the Larsson Rune Rows.
      3. There were two copies of the inscription made; please read pages 6-9 in my book to get all the facts about these two copies.
      4. Every homesteading farmer back then, and today, had hammers and chisels as basic working tools. Farmers having these tools was standard equipment and isn’t suspicious at all. It's like a geologist having a rock hammer and a microscope or a medieval doctor having a stethoscope.

      I’m not aware of ever hearing about said article and if anyone would know about it, I would. Can you cite a source of this rumor?

      Delete
    14. I would read your book, but being familiar with the source material, my conclusions would differ from yours. And didn't Nielsen backtrack on certain issues you still hold dear?

      As for the source of the article, it's in Ohman's scrapbook which I believe is still on file with the Minnesota Historical Society. Surely you must have come across it. But hypothetically, if there was a clipping in Ohman's scrapbook that referenced a rune stone found in tree roots in Europe the century prior to his discovery in Kensington, and this inclusion predated that discovery, would this be compelling new evidence for you to reconsider?


      Best to you,
      S. Heine

      Delete
    15. S. Heine,

      The reason your conclusions would be different are simply due to the fact, as demonstrated by your comments, that your mind is made up and closed to anything contrary to your already ingrained beliefs.

      If you haven’t read our book then you cannot be familiar with the source material because much the material we published was new. Sadly, Nielsen allowed a woman and his ego to get in the way of his better judgment. That doesn’t diminish the good work he did and published in our book. However, the silly Wolter-bashing papers based on his fraudulent 2008 imaging study only served to tarnish his legacy.

      I don’t believe such an article exists as I would have seen it. Regardless, even if there was such an article it is proof of nothing. The geological evidence and conclusions drawn by Newton Winchell in 1909-1910, and myself in 2003, the Dotted R, and the historical evidence, both in Europe and North America, trump any unsubstantiated rumors and innuendos that, frankly, are beneath serious consideration.

      Delete
    16. "even if there was such an article it is proof of nothing"

      Are you certain that it is me that has their mind made up and closed to anything contrary to already ingrained beliefs? I say this most politely and respectfully, looking forward to your future revelations.


      Again, much thanks,
      S. Heine

      Delete
    17. Swedish runologist Henrik Williams has gone on record stating that Olaf Ohman was not the carver of the KRS. This is a dead horse, and it has been for some time. Keep in mind that Williams is inclined to believe that the KRS is a 19th century artifact...stating that, in his opinion the likelihood for medieval authenticity might be 30% while he gives a 70% likelihood that it is a 19th century creation. Fair enough, the man isn't setting his feet in wet concrete. That being said, Williams did a personal apology to Ohman family representatives and commented that Olaf Ohman was unjustly accused of crafting the KRS. I believe Williams' action took place after the Larsson Papers were found. An apology of that nature, given the historical circumstances of the KRS, is tendered on 100% conviction. I don't always agree with Professor Williams, but his apology to the Ohman family took guts and demonstrated grace and class. Not everyone who opposes KRS medieval authenticity is cognizant of what Professor Williams did, but here is your opportunity to become aware. Patrick writes

      Delete
    18. S. Heine,

      My mind has been convinced by factual evidence, not beliefs. We can agree to disagree about the KRS, but stay tuned as there is a lot more to come in the near future.

      It’ll be worth the wait.

      Delete
    19. S. Heine,
      In a previous post, Mr. D remarked “Material culture in the archaeological record means when "dateable artifacts are pulled from the ground IN A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS WITH CONTEXT". This a straightforward definition of material culture that should have broad acceptance. If you accept it, then the record is clear that not only has no medieval era MC been found in proximity to the KRS/SPR/NRS/NT, but neither has any more modern MC (the NT is asserted to be an exception if one accepts the Godfrey work on the NT).

      In your rebuttal argument you highlighted the following points:
      a) two books on runes
      b) a copy of the KRS runic inscription
      c) tools
      d) the Larsson Papers
      e) newspaper article of a rune stone entangled in roots

      Numerous researchers, including Scott, have shown that a) through d) are not progenitors for the KRS artifact. Case e) is somewhat mysterious as I can’t readily recollect reading of it. While you might not have the actual newspaper clipping that you describe, perhaps you can cite the specific URL or accessible document that mentions this particular material. Perhaps you visited the MHS and sighted this newspaper article first-hand.

      Your rebuttal argument actually is focused not on material culture, but on resources that a potential hoaxer would need to create a runic inscription. That previous researchers looked at potential evidentiary material in Olaf Ohman’s house and personal effects highlights the scrutiny that was performed, some unduly intrusive. Missing from this scrutiny, exemplified by the initial published (and now proven erroneous) conclusions, was a lack of objectivity.

      To the larger point that I wish to make, given that the researchers looked for evidentiary material with the KRS, one has to presume that a similar level of scrutiny was done wrt SPR/NRS/NT. Walter Elliot had no book of runes, newspaper clippings, etc. The inhabitants of Pojac Point (where the NRS was found) had no rune books or secret stashes of newspaper clippings. The family records of Benedict Arnold – which Jim Egan has perused extensively – makes no mention of the NT design, blueprints, bill of materials, cost, persons paid to construct the tower, etc. Arnold was a wealthy businessman and Governor of Rhode Island…certainly one would expect some documentary evidence of his constructing the NT. But there is none.

      Humans follow predictable patterns. Your rebuttal argument for “material culture” is actually an argument for what resources a hoaxer would need to carve a runic inscription (the KRS). Why do we not find any similar, asserted, resources for the SPR/NRS/NT?

      Delete
    20. Apples and oranges Patrick. You could argue that the Kensington Rune Stone was the source of at least the SPR and NRS hoaxes. As for Arnold's windmill, you can believe what you want. The lack of credible evidence for your convictions notwithstanding.


      Best wishes,
      S. Heine

      Delete
    21. One more thing Patrick, in addition to that last response to you. What you want to look for in Ohman's scrapbook with the Minnesota Historical Society is an article clipped from the December 13, 1867 Post och Inrikes Tidningar describing the carved stone found within the roots of a tree back in Vadstena, Sweden in 1612. Perhaps Scott missed this key evidence because it's in Swedish.

      Assuming you can find it one day, would it change your views if you knew that Ohman had the article in his scrapbook prior to discovering the Kensington Rune Stone? It's quite a coincidence, don't you think?


      All the best,
      S. Heine

      Delete
    22. S. Heine,

      Your complete lack of objectivity is astounding. Even if your newspaper evidence is true; you fail to see how utterly worthless it is in the face of hard scientific facts and the conclusive linguistic and runological evidence.

      It’s time to quit with this charade of nonsense.

      Delete
    23. "It’s time to quit with this charade of nonsense"

      Agreed. Science dictates that the runes carved in calcite would be illegible after only a few decades, whether the stone was buried or above ground. As for the linguistic and runological evidence, scholarly research continues to show modern sources for the Kensington Rune Stone runes. Magnus Källström's recent findings are up on the blog for the Swedish National Heritage Board which you can find at http://www.k-blogg.se/2017/11/26/haverorunor-nyckeln-till-kensingtonstenens-gata/. Enjoy!



      I look forward to your future extrapolations,
      S. Heine

      Delete
    24. S. Heine,

      I saw this article before and it is great news for the KRS. Even though the Hooked X on the stick isn’t the same with the horizontal foot added to the lower right leg. I only see a couple of other runes in the photo that are found on the KRS and they were commonly known in 1898 such as the “f” and “d” (thorn) runes. Other than those two, none of the other runes I can make out in the photos are found on the KRS. Not sure what the fuss is all about, but even something close to the Hooked X is significant and interesting.

      My understanding is the wooden stick is older than 1888, and if we assume the carvings are contemporaneous, then it predates the KRS and proves all along the Hooked X was not “invented” by a forger. But then, this is what I’ve been saying all along.

      As I wrote in a blog nearly two years ago, dozens of examples of the correct Hooked X symbol have been recently discovered in Iceland that date back to at least the 1500s, that were hidden away from the prying eyes of the Church. They were called “Invisible runes” that included some of the other mysterious symbols used on the KRS, but not all of them to be sure.

      Scholars and debunkers with their confirmation bias the KRS being a hoax, will somehow try to spin this discovery into a story that some mysterious immigrant brought this secret alphabets to Kensington and used them to carve the inscription. Is it possible? I guess. Is it plausible with any factual evidence to support such a claim? Absolutely not. Further, this most recent attempt to link any new discovery to a hoax is in direct conflict with the voluminous, hard scientific facts already known in geology, runology and history that are consistent with authenticity.

      It’s getting embarrassing for the opponents now… Just stop already.

      Delete
    25. S. Heine and all,

      Now that I have read the article I realize this is nothing more than the excited ramblings of a writer who has rediscovered an old newspaper article about a stick with runes carved on it he thinks proves the KRS is modern.

      What the author of the article conveniently omits to acknowledge is there is no indication whatsoever of WHEN the carvings were made on the stick. The stick could be hundreds of years old, but even if so, that says nothing about the age of the carvings. In fact, it appears readily obvious the alphabet was copied from the KRS alphabet sometime after 1899 when the first copies of the inscription were published in Scandinavia (February 28, 1899 in Svenska Amerikanska Posten). One obvious mistake in the 1899 article, and on the stick, is the "r"-rune is carved with a closed loop that meets the main horizontal stave in both. ALL of the KRS "r"-runes are open. The truth is in the factual details and the author of this articles missed the tell-tale evidence that blows his entire hoax theory to bits.

      Further, it's irresponsible, and frankly shameful, to try and accuse Ohman's neighbor, Andrew Anderson, of being a hoaxer well over a century after his death without one shred of evidence.

      This is a whole lot about nothing I’m afraid…

      Delete
    26. "and proves all along the Hooked X was not “invented” by a forger"

      No one has made such a claim since the discovery of the "hooked X" within the Larsson Papers, which memorializes a runic code used by Swedish tradesmen in the 19th century. If Källström is correct, that code may have been more prevalent, especially among Swedish children. Future Masons perhaps?


      All the best,
      S. Heine

      Delete
    27. S. Heine,

      Källström is not correct. He simply found something he thought was important and spouted off before doing any research beyond what he hoped would prove the KRS was a hoax. This article is an embarrassment.

      The coded runic alphabets in the Larsson Papers definitely appear to be related to a Masonic trade guild. What is astounding is why no scholar has ever bothered to consider that since Edward Larsson didn’t invent these alphabets, it means he got them from somewhere. The obvious answer is from within the Masonic order he was a member of, which then begs the question of where did the guild get them? The obvious answer is from a tradition that was passed down through the centuries eventually going back to the Templars. How can this obvious answer be beyond the intellectual capacity of Swedish scholars?

      Come on folks, this isn’t heavy lifting…

      Delete
    28. Patrick,

      "...if one accepts the Godfrey work on the NT"

      Why would you not accept the Godfrey work on the NT, regardless of what you believe about his conclusions the material culture recovered doesn't lie.

      Further, there have also been at least 2 other archaeological investigations into the Newport Tower (Barstad 2007, Heinemeir and Jungner 1994). Barstad and the Newport Tower Project recovered over 2,000 artifacts, most from the 18th and 19th centuries, a few possibly from the 17th.....nothing earlier. (http://www.chronognostic.org/pdf/tower_project_report_2007.pdf)

      Heinemeir, using C14 dating of the mortar, concludes "...a 95 percent confidence level that the tower was built between 1635 and 1698" (Heinemeir and Jungner 1994).

      To re-word Scott's quote, "Even if your astronomical alignment evidence is true; you fail to see how utterly worthless it is in the face of hard scientific facts...."

      You can't accept the concept of material culture and archaeology but then disregard it when it doesn't agree with you.

      Thanks for you time, regards,

      D

      Delete
    29. that previous post should have said "astrological alignment" not astronomical.

      Apologies

      D

      Delete
    30. D,

      Can you direct me to where I made that statement so I can see in what context I allegedly said it?

      You forget to point out that Jan Barstad’s crew found the remnants of two wooden posts roughly 16 feet off center from two of the columns suggesting a wooden ambulatory existed prior. They are collected a clump of mortar attached to a shell fragment that C-14 testing confirmed a date of circa 1450. It was a salvage dig with very limited time, but the no one seems to want to talk about the wooden post holes or the shell with the circa 1450 date.

      Delete
    31. Hey Scott,

      I was rewording your quote from earlier:

      "Your complete lack of objectivity is astounding. Even if your newspaper evidence is true; you fail to see how utterly worthless it is in the face of hard scientific facts and the conclusive linguistic and runological evidence."

      I shouldn't have put quotations around it as it wasn't a direct quote. Apologies

      D

      Delete
    32. D,

      No worries; we all make mistakes.

      Delete
    33. D, here are the references:

      -Lossing, Benson J. The Pictorial Fieldbook of the Revolution, Vol. 1. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1860. Retrieved November 2017 https://archive.org/details/pictorialfieldb00lossgoog
      -Mallery, Arlington H., Gardner C. Easton, and John Howieson. “The Newport Tower: Special Interim Report.” (1955). Available at the Library of Congress.
      -Means, Philip Ainsworth. Newport Tower. New York: Holt, 1942.
      -Pendery, Steven R. "The Newport Tower: Revisiting New England’s Fantastic Archeology." Archeological Report No. 25, Mississippi Department of Archives and History. Retrieved November 2017 https://www.academia.edu/8584648/The_Newport_Tower_Revisiting_New_Englands_Fantastic_Archaeology_1993_
      -Schoolcraft, Henry R. Archives of aboriginal knowledge. Containing all the original paper laid before Congress respecting the history, antiquities, language, ethnology, pictography, rites, superstitions, and mythology, of the Indian tribes of the United States. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1860. Retrieved November 2017 https://archive.org/details/archivesofaborig04scho
      -Weller, Doug. “The Newport Tower and the Plowden Petition.” The Skeptical Intelligencer, Vol. 7 (2004). Retrieved November 2017 https://www.academia.edu/1335526/THE_NEWPORT_TOWER_AND_THE_PLOWDEN_PETITION
      -Wick, Barthinius L. Did the Norsemen erect the Newport Round Tower. Cedar Rapids: Torch Press, 1911. Retrieved November 2017 https://archive.org/details/didnorsemenerect00wick.

      Delete
    34. S. Heine,
      Thanks for the resource, much appreciated! I see that the VikingAnswerLady wrote about this newspaper article, citing and expanding Fitzhugh’s and Ward’s 2000 published work (which cross-refenced the topic of the newspaper article to George Stephens’ 1884 published work). I also see where Holvik had a high regard for this particular clipping in the scrapbook – fantasizing that Olaf and his son found a blank stone in tangled in the roots of the asp tree, and inspired by the newspaper clipping, instantly set to work to inscribe the stone. I think we can both agree that Holvik’s leap to conclusion scenario is not altogether sound, but nothwithstanding that, the newspaper clipping is in the scrapbook. Fitzhugh and Ward did their best to blend fact with conspiratorial fiction, not altogether surprising since they relied extensively on Erik Wahlgren’s work. It is sad that they didn’t utilize Wahlgren’s pinnacle work of fiction on the North American rune stones, the 1982 published “American Runes: From Kensington to Spirit Pond”, where he deduced that the carver of the Spirit Pond Rune Stones was named Jack…and then he deduced that the graphics on the reverse side of the SPR Map Stone was a secret, iconographic code which he interpreted as a Native American female performing a sex act on Jack in a canoe. I think that sums up the contributions of Wahlgren, Fitzhugh, and Ward. Of course, Fitzhugh and Ward had to concoct a blander work of fiction, but just as speculative, involving our consummate prankster Gran and our neighborhood Minister Fogelblad. There is nothing quite as mesmerizing as reading speculative, and highly fictionalized, stories involving dead people. In fact, a Mr. Anderson, who I am sure has been dead for quite a long time now, just recently became the next unwitting victim in the KRS “who-dunnit” category. I do look forward to your further analysis on the scrapbook material. I know how I would approach it, and since you seem reasonable, I am sure that you have some valid ideas on how to do a thorough analysis.

      Best regards, Patrick

      Wahlgren, Erik. “American Runes: From Kensington to Spirit Pond.” The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 81, no. 2 (1982): 157-185.

      Delete
    35. "The coded runic alphabets in the Larsson Papers definitely appear to be related to a Masonic trade guild. What is astounding is why no scholar has ever bothered to consider that since Edward Larsson didn’t invent these alphabets, it means he got them from somewhere. The obvious answer is from within the Masonic order he was a member of, which then begs the question of where did the guild get them? The obvious answer is from a tradition that was passed down through the centuries eventually going back to the Templars. How can this obvious answer be beyond the intellectual capacity of Swedish scholars?"

      The short answer is because the above is sheer speculation. Edward Larsson was 16 years old when he wrote the notes that became known as "the Larsson Papers". He was a tailor, and I am not aware of any Masonic affiliation he had at the time. Above you speculate that the codes "appear related to a Masonic trade guild". From there you then affirmatively state that Larsson must have got them from a Masonic order of which he was a member. Then on to Templars.

      Do you have hard proof that Edward Larsson was indeed a member of a Masonic order at the age of 16, and if so, which order? You ask where else could Larsson have gotten the runes. Doesn't the fact that he was still a teenager give more credence to the notion put forth by Källström that they could have been used by Swedish children, and that is where he got them?


      A very intriguing discussion and I thank you for hearing this out,
      S. Heine

      Delete
    36. S. Heine, the Larsson Papers are interesting, but one aspect about them has never been approached in a critical fashion by the Swedish runologists, that being when each rune form entered into the historical record (inscribed or written). Skeptics and debunkers short-fused a rational study of the LRR by asserting secret runes/model for KRS without a timeline analysis of when, where, and why the graphemes were birthed. Which ones evolved from the Elder Futhark? Which ones flowed from Latin? Which ones resulted from a new letter added to the alphabet due to phonetic variations being codified? Which ones are regional in usage, and which ones saw widespread usage. Of course this longitudinal study has to consider runic graphemes from all geographic areas, including those outside Sweden. Find Patient Zero. It's a very basic approach, using basic methodology that all physical sciences use. Unfortunately, the LRR from the get go was assessed to form an argument conclusion rather than being assessed objectively for how runic graphemes came into use and how they evolved over time. PATRICK

      Delete
    37. S. Heine,

      The 'hard proof' are the alphabets and the Masonic box code written on two pages in his own hand. As a Freemason myself, I can assure you this is how traditions are passed on within the Craft. We have code books today and back in his time coded alphabets of all kinds were used within Masonic orders in Scandinavia. Unfortunately, the only way to definitively confirm his membership in a lodge is for another Freemason to investigate. Even then, Grand Lodges will only grant access to individual's Masonic records if the purpose of the inquiry is deemed legitimate and related to furthering the Craft in a positive manner.

      No, this is not something that was used by children, these are secret means of communication used by secret societies that Edward Larsson must have been a member of. Swedish Scholars have no chance of making a definitive determination unless they find something in his personal papers, such as a dues card or certificate, to prove a Masonic affiliation.

      You have to understand that membership in secret societies like Freemasonry, especially in Europe from the 19th Century and older, was deeply frowned upon by Church and State authorities (if they weren't secretly members themselves). Persecution of Freemasons continued in Europe right into the 20th Century.

      I’m not at all surprised these papers were hidden for so long, but there’s no way Edward Larsson invented these alphabets. Both secret “magic” runes and Masonic box codes are ancient, as well as the Hooked X which is definitely connected to the Knights Templar.

      It’s really shameful that Scandinavian scholars haven’t even to investigate this obvious avenue of investigation. Instead, like Källström does here, they desperately try to find anything and everything to maintain “the KRS is a hoax” narrative.

      All they have to do is ask for help.

      Sad…

      Delete
    38. "No, this is not something that was used by children, these are secret means of communication used by secret societies that Edward Larsson must have been a member of"

      Edward Larsson was a child at the time he committed his rune rows to paper. So being a member of a secret society at that time is rather farfetched. And didn't you maintain all this prior to your becoming a Freemason? So I don't see how you now being a mason somehow gives you more insight absent proof positive that Edward Larsson was a 16 year old Freemason. And if children were familiar with these runes, as is becoming more and more clear, inventing secret societies to explain them isn't verifiable by any means of inquiry. It is more akin to faith, than scholarship. And not meaning to be harsh, I write this in the spirit of discourse.

      In response to Patrick, certainly assumptions have been made in regard to Ohman's playful character. As they also have been made by those who deemed him to be a simple, honest farmer incapable of a hoax on this grand scale. As for the Larsson papers being the one true nail in the coffin of the Kensington Rune Stone's authenticity, it is simply more evidence against it. Its very existence answered one of the riddles posed long ago. That is, how might the carver have come up with the uncommon runes and could someone from Minnesota have access to them back in the 19th century. That someone like Källström is doing the work to trace the origins of the uncommon runes should be viewed as a very promising development given that academia as a whole reject the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone and view any further scholarship as wasted effort.


      All the best to both of you,
      S. Heine

      Delete
    39. S. Heine,

      First off, you don’t know how old Larsson was when he wrote these pages. Even if he was 16 years of age, it’s obvious from the writings on both pages he was highly educated and hardly the “child” you’re trying to make him out to be. Your response took none of my commentary into consideration and is simply single-minded push-back to try and support your deeply ingrained beliefs.
      Your comment about the Larsson Papers somehow being a nail in the coffin of the KRS is nonsense and reveals your true motives.

      Further, your comments are not harsh, they are dismissive and disrespectful. This isn’t discourse, this is a waste of time.

      Delete
    40. "Your comment about the Larsson Papers somehow being a nail in the coffin of the KRS is nonsense and reveals your true motives"

      That is not what I meant so please forgive me any offense you have taken. I was answering Patrick in response to his assertion that sceptics view the Larsson Papers as conclusive against authenticity. I was trying to convey to him that actually I didn't see the Larsson Papers as being that one true nail, but just another piece of the puzzle in answer to specific concerns raised by proponents of authenticity. Patrick was very polite in his response to me and I wished to continue our discussion cordially. That's all.

      This is your blog however, and if I upset you I most humbly apologize. I will consider our discussion closed.


      Many thanks,
      S. Heine

      Delete
    41. "S. Heine" I take it, means "Smart Ass". In my opinion, Richard Cranium would be more fitting. I'd tell you to go do yourself but, with your head up your backside, you already are and get enjoyment from it. Keep doing what you're doing.

      Anthony Warren



      Delete
    42. Scott,
      I had though that you were humoring Mr. Warren in allowing him to post his incoherent musings, but for the life of me I don't know why you would publish the above profane and somewhat crazed attack upon my person. Is this the sort of behavior that you condone here?


      Please clarify,
      S. Heine

      Delete
    43. S. Heine,
      The Larsson Papers stirred the pot when they were revealed back in the early 2000’s…and they still have a provoking effect in conversations today. Are they historical? Yes. Are they the nail? No. So we are in agreement there! From there, our views diverge to opposite sides of the spectrum, but two reasonable persons can look at the same set of facts and reach entirely different conclusions. The great thing about a blog is that it can bring persons with opposing viewpoints together in a conversation. I, like you, feel that Källström’s investigation is positive and, although I disagree with some of the conclusions that he spoke of, I applaud his effort. He admits in his article that he is relatively new to the KRS saga, so let’s see what, if any, adjustments he makes in his reasoning as time moves forward. I was involved with some other researchers over the last year to see if any Hooked X character forms might exist in other Medieval Era sources other than “in-stone” and “on-wood” runic inscriptions. We both realize, presumably, that the medieval corpus – especially since it is acknowledged that Latin had a shaping-effect on rune forms, words, and adjustment of the runic character set(s) – should include manuscript material as well. We focused our research in that area. You can peruse the results of that effort (starting with slide 11 in the album) here: https://www.facebook.com/pg/Phippsburg-History-Center-114338978642314/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1407902479285951. This evidence, IMHO, demonstrates that history is somewhat different than that seen through the Larsson Paper prism. You might also understand why I feel the longitudinal study on the LRR should have focused on when the character forms entered the Scandinavian inscribed/written corpus writ large. Knowledge is transmitted over time, sometimes it becomes lost or submerged and the subsequently re-emerges, other times it vanishes. That the LRR is a late 19th century manuscript is not in dispute, but where did all those unique rune forms first enter the historical record? A simple question, but one that hasn’t been done in the nearly 20 years since the public disclosure of the LRR. Lastly, of course our research on rune forms can encompass Medieval Era written manuscripts…given the LRR is written on paper!

      Delete
    44. S. Heine,

      First, if you saw the dozens and dozens of vile peronal attacks sent here attacking me that I don't post you'd feel differently. That said, if I had a choice between Anthony’s esoteric leaning ideas and your single-minded motive of, “Anything to prove the KRS is a hoax” arguments, I’ll take Anthony’s comments stuff.

      Seriously, how you can give any credence to the latest discovery of a runic alphabet carved into a stick that neither you, other debunkers, and the “scholars” in Scandinavia, bother to acknowledge the obvious elephant in the room. The fact is we don’t have a clue when the carvings were made which in a scientific investigation makes the stick completely worthless. But that doesn't stop debunkers, they simply ignore it.

      You lack of objectivity and refusal to acknowledge the hard facts is what I see on this blog all too often and doesn’t further the discussion. I’m sure you don’t realize it, or maybe you do, but if you go back and read your posts, many of them contain classic troll comments.

      Sorry pal, but it’s true.

      Delete
    45. "First, if you saw the dozens and dozens of vile peronal attacks sent here attacking me that I don't post you'd feel differently"

      I can't speak to what you do not publish. All I know is you published a vile personal attack upon my person by Mr. Warren. And why? For simply trying to have an intelligent discussion with you and Patrick. I have reviewed my posts, and though my language was direct at times, it was never meant to be offensive. Nevertheless, I offered an apology as this is your domain.

      As Patrick responded with the utmost in courtesy, I wish to thank him for the exchange we had. Unfortunately, Facebook is the devil and I cannot continue our conversation there.

      You have a lot of hostility Scott and if you expect those in academia to take you seriously, you can start by being a more gracious host to those who may disagree with you. Not only should you not allow your guests here to attack others, but you should not join in when the situation does not warrant such petulance.


      Adieu,
      S. Heine

      Delete
    46. S. Heine,

      I suppose you're right about not being able to comment on what you don't see. And as for Anthony's comments, you have made it know how you feel and I'm sure he'll read your words and if he feels the need to apologize, I'm sure he will.

      As for my hostility, you are right that I get frustrated with skeptics that continue to marginalize and dismiss my geological work with substantive rebuttals or factual evidence.

      In my last post, you had an opportunity to acknowledge a simple fact about the stick carvings, yet can't bring yourself to do it.

      Can you at least acknowledge the age of the carvings is an unknown and therefore renders the stick, and its runes, useless as a piece of evidence relevant to the KRS? Surely you see the logic?

      As for MOST of academia in the humanities disciplines, not all, I have no illusions they will ever take the KRS or my research seriously and you already know the reasons why and it has nothing to do with my personality traits. Let's wait and see what happens as I haven't even begun to play my best cards yet.

      Good luck to you and thanks for stopping by.

      Delete
    47. And you Scott, are you objective ? Did you use hard science when you looked at a photo of this peace of wood and declared it to irrelevant ? You stated :
      "In fact, it appears readily obvious the alphabet was copied from the KRS alphabet sometime after 1899 when the first copies of the inscription were published in Scandinavia (February 28, 1899 in Svenska Amerikanska Posten)."
      By looking at a photo you deduced its age ?
      The Svenska Amerikanska Posten newspaper was published in Minneapolis, Minnesota between 1885 and 1940, not in Scandinavia as you claimed, but you already knew that.
      http://www.mnhs.org/newspapers/swedishamerican/svenska-amerikanska-posten
      So explain again how someone copied the letters on It from the KRS.
      Looks to me that you have decided that since this measuring stick does not fit in your preconceived notions of history it isn't "hard science", even before it and the Runic history of the area has been studied and analyzed, you have decided it is not viable evidence.
      Is this what you call being objective ?

      Delete
    48. Whoever you are?

      Am I objective? I certainly try to be and believe in this case I was. Did I use hard science on the photo? No, I used hard science when examining the KRS. I used simple logic with the photos correctly concluding that no definitive conclusions can be drawn either way about the carvings because we don’t know when they were made and likely never will. That means as far as being useful evidence in making any determination relative to the authenticity of the KRS, this wooden stick is a non-starter, dead end, done.

      Having said that, I took the liberty of looking at the runic alphabet on the backside and concluded the incorrectly made “r”, and non-dotted “g” and "w” runes are the same as the Scandinavian newspaper (yes, I know it was published in Minnesota, even though I never claimed it was originally published it Scandinavia, but I see why you were confused with the way I wrote it. Copies made it over there and it was republished, but in any case…). The point is whoever carved the runes on the stick likely used the runes from picture in the article just like the person did who carved the Mansta Yoke in 1907. Sheer speculation of course, but like the yoke, this stick is useless when it comes to serious consideration relative to the KRS. Dead, done, objective, over.

      Did I miss anything?

      Delete
    49. So, you definitively claiming that the wood cannot be analyzed and dated, and that a comparison of the deterioration and aging from the carved surface to the uncarved surface will tell us nothing ? Are you now an expert in organic dating procedures ?
      "this wooden stick is a non-starter",,, sorry Scott it is exactly the opposite. It would appear to be the starting point for a new area of investigation, not only of the stick itself but of the runes themselves and their history and usages in this area of Scandinavia. Did not Anders Anderson (Olaf Ohmans good friend) come from this very area ? And is there not already evidence of Andersons complicity in the Krs being a fraud ?

      https://www.jstor.org/stable/4630258?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

      This was written by Rasmus B. Anderson a well respected man who was a professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison from 1867-1883 as well as the United States Ambassador to Denmark. Did he just make this up ? Also of note is the fact that Prof. Anderson was a huge proponent of the Vikings having come to America before Columbus, but still maintained that the Krs was a fake.( no confirmation bias)
      Now, as to this alleged Scandinavian newspaper article,,,,show me,,, give me evidence that this newspaper, that I doubt you have even seen, has the same letters as the measuring stick, show me the "incorrectly made “r”, and non-dotted “g” and "w” runes are the same as the Scandinavian newspaper".
      Show me,,, show me.

      Delete
    50. This thread will be over without your real name; and you better convince,

      Yes, you can certainly date the wood, but that tells you nothing about the age of the carvings. No, without knowing exactly what the weathering environment was for the life of the stick since it was carved, you have no chance of dating it. I don't need to be an expert in wood, it's basic science. Non-starter.

      No, Andrew Anderson has never been credibly implicated in any hoax theory except that he was the one who gave Ohman the Almquist AFTER the KRS was found. And how could he be involved in a hoax since there never was one.

      Rasmus Anderson was not highly respected by Newton Winchell, he was yet another academic Hell bent on proving a hoax. Every argument made in this article he wrote has been proven to be wrong by Nielsen and Williams. Sorry dude, another non-starter.

      As to the newspaper article, I published it my 2006 KRS book. I guess that means I have seen it doesn’t it? Go do the research yourself; it’ll mean more to you…

      Delete
    51. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    52. Anthony and all,

      I think we all need to take a step back, and take a breath. For any meaningful exchange to occur it has be in an atmosphere of civility and respect; myself included. I need to do a better job of vetting comments to ensure that supporters, and critics, conduct themselves appropriately and still be heard. Please, try and eliminate the name-calling, and as for "anonymous", your lease just got a lot shorter.



      Delete
  25. Patrick,

    Your interior photo of the NT showing the egg centered in the shot...That's one half of what I've come to call the Architectural Owl. Usually the eyes are circles but. I believe I've seen triangles before. Triangle or circle is irrelevant as there appears to be eyesockets within...a circle within a triangle certainly comes to mind, but still irrelevant. You show a few slides later...the key to completing the holy hooter. The Architectural Owl is made from two opposing arches. Think of the regular arch with another joining it upside down. Have you figured it out yet??? THE PARABOLIC ARC COMPLETES THE OWL. I wonder if 8 and 22 will play into the mathematical solution. THE EGG SITS ON THE BROW OF THE OWL.

    This Thanksgiving, I'm greatful for Jobs and Wasniac coming up with the idea for the pc while tripping on "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". For, this has lead to diverse minds coming together. Oh...and stealing the mouse from Xerox. Amen.

    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's cool, Anthony. You see an Owl, Scott sees Orphic symbolism, I scratch my head and wonder if the Ancient Greek cartographic representations of the Earth within an "egg" framework has a tie-in with the annual movement of the Sun from each solstice point (and related long-term to the obliquity of the ecliptic). The "egg" framework on the maps is actually a 2D depiction of the 3D depiction we find on globes that shows the Sun's movement over the year between the two Tropics.

      Delete
  26. My mind is so wound, I forgot to mention...When the union takes place, the egg should look more like an illuminated circle sitting on the brow/head of the Owl. Possibly looking like the Moon!


    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
  27. Search: Gothic Art Charles

    Take a look at the cover of the book "Gothic Art" by Victoria Charles

    This is the best way covey the idea for the architectural owl. On the cover photo, a Christian cross is in the same place as the egg on the Newport Tower. You'll have to save the picture to your computer and then zoom in to see the details. The same thing appears to happen or would happen when the parabolic arc and the arch meet. Thus completing the owl and possibly a union of Heaven and Earth.

    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
  28. If you've found the book cover, you'll notice a Christian cross in the same place as the egg in my proposed owl head. Combine the two and you get the Overton Stone symbol of a cross within an egg. If one were to hypothetically place a Christian cross over the egg in the NT, and my proposed alignment were to occur, the resulting illuminated circle would be quartered.

    Where the circles are on the book cover photo, the NT has triangles. These are the eyes of the owl. This same owl can be seen imprinted upon the landscape of DC. This owl appears to be holding an egg while a circle appears to be emerging from behind its head. As I'm writing right now, new things are coming to me. Especially in regards to the DC Owl. I may need to check my underwear for a solid gold brick. I'm having a Holy sh...! Moment. WOW...WOW...WOW!!! Alright. I'm going to have to stay on the train of thought, I came to focus upon. Thanks to Scott for confirming Caliche results ALMOST 100 YEARS OLD...I've been able to close a lot of tabs in my brain.

    The egg-shaped stone connection.

    Ear of corn = Spica

    Two overlapping compasses = XVM
    An AVM using two Latin letters and one Rune

    The "umlauted X" with the "Crescent" =

    THE NEWPORT TOWER FUNCTION YOU ARE SEEKING. THE "CRESCENT" ISN'T VENUS, IT'S NOT THE MOON...IT'S YOUR PARABOLIC ARC!

    The circle is what you turn the egg into and achieve Baalance.


    ○ This is a Zero and exactly what you've found. The symbol for Baal stands for NOTHING. I'm afraid the Zero was not independently invented by the Mayan in 4 AD. That part of the world was still essentially Western Carthage and was suffering from a Baal Priest infestation.

    THANK YOU PATRICK!!! You've helped me achieve a much deeper level of thought.
    Especially in regards to symbolism associated with what I call the familial astronomer priesthood and it's supreme hierarchy of what I call Time Priests. I'm feeling the urge to catch up on Alan Butler's books. I'm at least two behind.

    Thank you Scott for bringing diverse minds together on your blog. THIS IS AWESOME.
    .
    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
  29. The "X" in the umuted X is also two compasses. The "Teepee" is too and a great way to track the heavens/angles of light/capturing light.

    Amazing what our ancestors could do with two sticks, string, and a pendulum. With the two sticks/crook and flail being combined to make a compass usually held by the Pharoah/King, you'd need another Pharaoh/King two form another compass...could the two overlapping compasses represent the union of two Kingdoms/Familys/Priesthoods??? The resulting symbolism certainly let's you know that the mother's side was deemed more important. If the stories are true...we're essentially talking about the mitochondrial DNA of Nefertiti.

    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sorry. My mind is lit and I forgot to mention egg-shaped stone's yin yang looking symbol. It likely is a Ying Yang and the circle represents the balance achieved by the NT's function proposed by Patrick.

    If I'm wrong...I'm geeked to pieces over nothing but, it all fits.

    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
  31. Scott,
    The Great Pyramids of Giza are not over 10,000 years old. It is well documented that the first Pyramid was built around 2,500 BCE under the command of the Pharaoh Khufu. The other two Pyramids were built in later dynasties under different kings.
    Another thing, the problem with your theory about the Native American Genocide happening because the Catholic Church wanted to kill bloodline descendants and "witnesses" is that during the time that American Indians were being slaughtered, White Americans were prejudiced against Catholics because the majority of Americans were Protestant. They didn't like Irish or Italian immigrants because they were Catholic. So Catholics really didn't have power in America.
    I also have a question about the Ark of the Covenant: Since you think the Templars found it, if it's real, do you think the Ark can kill people when they touch it or is magical like the Bible says it is?

    Rik

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rik,

      The geological evidence presented by Dr. Robert Schoch has definitively proven the great Pyramids, and the Sphinx in Giza, are older than 10,000 years. The information you have is very outdated and I suggest you read up on his research which is very good.

      It was a complicated time in America during the period of Manifest Destiny to be sure. However, the Roman Catholic Church had plenty of influence and supported factions that benefited from the persecution of Native Americans. Eliminating the “witnesses” was one convenient aspect of the collateral damage that resulted.

      As far as the Ark goes, I have no idea if it can kill people if not handled properly. It is certainly part of Ark legend, but I have no idea if it’s true.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for that statement on the age of the pyramids. Unfortunately most television documentaries are still pushing the company line.

      Delete
    3. Scott, as a licensed geologist in the State of Minnesota, are you really telling us that the geological evidnece proves the Great Pyramid is 10,000 years old?

      It's more likely that the methods you use to date stone are inaccurate than it is that the Great Pyramid is 10,000 years old.

      Thei really calls into question how accurate your KRS dating study is. I mean, if you're willing to stake your professional reputation on a 7500 year variance in regards to the Great Pyramid, then how in the world can we believe your word that the carving KRS is exactly as old as you say it is?

      This is getting ridiculous.

      Delete
    4. Grimmy,

      I think you need to read the geological work of Dr. Robert Schoch. He is the Harvard Professor who conducted and published his research on the Sphinx and Great Pyramids about 15 years ago. This isn’t my work and it isn’t new.

      The rest of your comment doesn’t merit a response.

      Delete
    5. In all seriousness, Dr. Schoch's work on various ancient Egyptian structures is interesting, but his opinion falls under the category of "outlier". Why would you take this one person's results as definitive proof of the age of these structures while disregarding the opinions and results of hundreds of other researchers and scientific analyses? You don't even hedge your bets, Scott. You enthusiastically claim that he's right while everyone else is wrong.

      Isn't it more likely that Dr. Schoch didn't account for every weathering variable and how these variables may have interacted over the past thousands of years?

      Which is more accurate when trying to determine aging of man-made artifacts created within the last 10,000 years, carbon dating or geological weathering studies?
      I would say carbon dating. Carbon dating relies on one stable variable....the degradation of Carbon 14. Geological weathering studies rely on more than just how the stone surface appears compared to the stone core. To be accurate when dating relatively new artifacts with geological weathering studies you would literally need to know (not guess) what that surface had been exposed to or shielded from day to day over the course of hundreds or a few thousands of years. Common sense tells you that this just cannot be accurate for realitively short-term dating. Over tens of thousands or millions of years these variables become less important, but for the relatively short term....

      I agree that Schoch's work is important, but it is important in this sense..... It reveals a big gap between the dating results of two scientific disciplines, and we should figure out how to be more accurate with these disciplines to close that gap.

      Delete
    6. Grimmy,

      I don’t care if his work is considered an “Outlier” by those who disagree with him and I'm sure Robert doesn't either. Those who disagree are primarily archaeologists and Egyptologists whose theories, based largely on beliefs, are being blown to bits by his findings and they are pissed. Schoch’s geological research is solid and along with that he’s a very smart, careful, and considerate person. You might want to read about how he was treated by these people in an "academic" environment. It was shameful, but I'm not surprised.

      There is other evidence that supports his 10,000 year-plus thesis and I’m persuaded at the moment that he is right. Could new evidence come along to persuade me differently? Perhaps. But for now, I am very impressed with his research that is consistent with many other’s research at different ancient sites that are older than 10,000 years, such a Gobekli Tepe, and I’m sure there is much more to come.

      C-14 dating has its issues as I’m sure you are aware. It also only dates the material that is tested, and we have no idea if the samples taken are contemporaneous with the original construction date. Because of these variables and other true outliers, I find the geological work to be the most reliable. Call me bias, but that’s what I think.

      You are certainly free to disagree.

      Delete
    7. Scott,

      The real problem with carbon dating is it only works on once-living material, as you know, you just didn't explain it well. Hafnium/lutetium dating can tell you the age of some rock, but not when it was quarried, so that's out. To sum up, absent contemporaneous accounts, we are left with weathering studies to date the Sphinx. And I note that according to his website Schoch is a Boston University, not Harvard, professor.

      Best,

      Andre Kovac

      Delete
    8. Andre,

      There is other evidence such as Precession of the Equinoxes. Roughly 10,000 years ago Leo was the primary constellation of the Zodiac in the eastern sky on the spring equinox. The current head of the sphinx is a Pharaoh that was re-carved from the original. It is much smaller relative to the current body of the lion and less weathered (although is has been vadalized in recent centuries). The original head was that of a lion facing east to the constellation of Leo at the time it was created. This is evidence that corroborates Dr. Schoch's geological weathering work and proves the case definitively IMHO.

      Delete
    9. I'm pretty sure the Sphinx was a canine(dog) in its original form. Unfortunately, I'm not recalling sources.

      According to Robin Heath, the Great Pyramid has been dated to 2800 BCE using archaeoastronomy.

      Delete
    10. Well, 'I’m pretty sure…' it was a lion that would be consistent with the rest of the carving that’s still there. There's no evidence it was the head of dog.

      The weight of the geological and precession evidence is much more convincing to me. Just saying…

      Delete
    11. That is an interesting topic, dog or lion. I have always thought it was a dog, I see nothing distinctive that says lion, certainly no mane. I really don't see the Egyptians carving a male head on a female lion body. Scott, when you say consistent with the rest of the carving, what specifically do you refer to ? Interesting, anyway, I vote dog.

      Delete
    12. I explained why; the Egyptians keep very close track of the movements in the heavens for thousands of years and the tradition that continued makes it very clear the Sphinx was originally a lion staring the constellation of Leo.

      You are welcome to believe a dog if you wish.

      Delete
  32. So no "higher order mathematics".

    Okay, either I've gone crazy or my mind is blown. Let's see if I have this straight.

    Jesuit Time Priests authorized by the Pope in 1540 traveled to North America presumably using Templar navigational technology which only the Templars had to wipe out the interbred Templar descendants who would be indistinguishable from Indians at that point.

    What am I missing?

    Regards,

    E. Mealy El

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. E Mealy El,

      What’s missing is a respectful attitude that you may want to consider instead of being snarky.

      “Higher” order mathematics is a relative term isn’t it? If you look into Patrick Shekleton's research you'll see the knowledge the Templar's had in mathmatics, geometry and astronomy, much it is they learned from the Arabs, was pretty advanced.

      Actually, you’re pretty close. Sailing the seas was widespread by this time and certainly Jesuits had already been making their way to many continents aboard these ships by 1540. The Jesuits likely knew what the plan was and were looking to undermine the founding of a “Free Templar State” both in Europe and over here. You don’t have to believe it, but the evidence is pretty conclusive.

      Delete
  33. Um Scott, the Jesuit order was founded in 1540 !!! Sooo time travel ??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonynmous,

      The Church had priest agents prior to that date that were the exact same thing, but then you already knew that.

      Please stop being an, “I gotcha’ ya” A-hole OK?

      Delete
  34. Scott,

    I'm sorry I wasn't sufficiently respectful.

    Patrick specifically says that he's talking about mathematics that was commonly known in the 14th century. Manifest Destiny was in the 1840s.

    When and how did the Jesuits get the Templar navigation technology?

    Cistercians good, Jesuits bad? Is that the takeaway? I'm really struggling to make sense of this.

    Regards,

    E. Mealy El

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. E. Mealy El,

      I think you need to do a little reading to get background information on this very complicated subject matter. There is a lot of intrigue involved and it can be very confusing. I would start with Alan Butler’s book, “The Goddess, the Grail, and the Lodge.”

      Delete
  35. Scott,

    "Farmers having these tools was standard equipment and isn’t suspicious at all. It's like a geologist having a rock hammer and a microscope or a medieval doctor having a stethoscope."

    Unless the Templars acquired stethoscope technology in their travels, the stethoscope was invented in 1816.

    On another topic, are you committed to not fixing that caption?

    Regards,

    E. Mealy El

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. E. Mealy Idiot,

      You’re right about the stethoscope, I didn’t mean to put the word “medieval” in there but you got the point. The good news is you exposed yourself as a troll with your silly points of argument, condescending comments and fake name.

      Are you ready to admit that hammers and chisels are standard equipment on a farm then and now, or are you going back into the basement with your friends?

      Delete
    2. Scott,

      I took the name when I became a Muslim. If you have a problem with it, that's your problem not mine.

      I'm sorry I irritated you and I never said anything about hammers or chisels. You're imagining an argument that I'm not involved in.

      Regards,

      E. Mealy El

      Delete
    3. E. Mealy El,

      Your comments speak for themselves and when people start getting snarky or disrespectful I will address it. I have many Muslim friends and have no problem with your faith whatever it is. My comment was not directed at your faith; it was directed at what I assumed was your alias of a known 19th Century historical Muslim figure with the same name. Trolls that visit this blog often take what they think are clever aliases.

      If I am wrong about that then I apologize.

      Delete
    4. "Muslim"???...Really???...also has claimed to be a member of "Royal Academy of Surgeons" posting under another troll persona.

      Delete
    5. Simply not true. And to address Scott's concern I took the name for a reason. Is everyone named Muhammad a troll?

      Regards,

      E. Mealy El

      Delete
    6. E. Mealy E,

      I don't see the name Mohammad here, but even if that is the case it has nothing to do with questioning your comments. They speak for themselves and some come across, whether intentional or not, as condescending.

      Can I ask which caption you are referring to you think needs fixing? I don't know which one you are talking about?

      Delete
    7. Now this will sound condescending. Sometimes you bring it on yourself.

      Search this page for the word "caption".

      Regards,

      E. Mealy El

      Delete
    8. E. Mealy El,

      I don't know what you are talking about, and at this point I don't really care.

      Delete
  36. Some people just don't get the struggle to create a Free State. They think it all began with pilgrims arriving at the remains of a pre-existing colony. Where they happen upon a Native Man who supposedly spoke English. This man supposedly claimed to have been captured and taken as a slave to Europe. He then escaped and made his way back home. Glad he remembered where to go. Not to mention having a bilingual stranger accepted back into the tribe.

    The reason why it was successful and everyone wasn't massacred, was likely due to one initiated Man showing the proper signs. The Sign of the Widow likely being one. Vinland had descendants. When regular contact was interrupted, these people didn't just vanish. 1362 is when the seed was planted. The Free State came to fruition on July 4th 1776. When several planets were aligned, and being the traditional day for the Earth being it's furthest orbit from the Sun. I think it's now the 6th.

    What's so important about 1776??? It just so happens to be the sum total difference between the Megalithic and Mayan cycles of precession. So, when you punch the motto everyone claims to mean "New World Order" into Google Translate, you get "He granted a new order of Ages Children of Dan". Sounds like starting at zero to me.
    Dan is said to mean "Lord of All".

    You all also seem to forget people whow didn't conform were being burned alive.
    When these people knocked at you door, you couldn't just poke them in the chest and scream "GET OFF MY PORCH!". Not unless you wanted his zealot buddies to flog you, or bust out their matches. Accept my god, or he says it's ok to kill you and take your house, and land. What a message.

    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
  37. Patrick and Scott,

    I hope this doesn't get lost within the troll comments.

    Take a look at Patrick's FB posts. The umlauted X appears in "Computistic Manuscript of St. Emmeran 9th Century"

    In one marked "Figure 1, Horizon Alignments on the First Floor"
    You'll see what looks like the tepee. Don't see it...Turn it to the right. The tepee appears to be a symbol for the 4 days the equation can occur.

    Instead of "fishing" maybe cast a net

    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony,

      Like the Bible; most of these ancient texts include a good amount of allegorical information along with hard scientific info. I wouldn't doubt it in the least is there was astronomical data in this text as well.

      Delete
    2. Anthony, there comes a point when sometimes perceived symbolism takes on too much significance. Tepees on the interior wall of the NT is pushing the boundaries a bit too far. Where, in relative clocking degrees, is the "umlauted X" that you see, and what are the adjacent words? I will go back and look at it more closely.

      Delete
    3. Patrick,

      The small handheld device, I use to cruise the internet will not allow me a close enough examination of your photos to make out the text. I've had the ability to read for 40 years. During that time I've picked up upon certain patterns with regards to symbolism. Most symbols have multiple levels of meaning, however, they all appear to have an astronomical interpretation at their base level. Within the astronomy symbols is yet another layer of meaning. TIME
      These symbols deal with astronomy based cycles of Time. The most important symbols are the ones rarely seen. When one happens upon a new symbol, used in conjunction with several rarely seen symbols, which are all bunched together...Chances are, there's a commonality between them.

      If one sees a goddess holding corn, wheat, etc...Spica is always the correct answer. The Lion, Eagle, Ox /Bull, and Man is always the four fixed signs of the Zodiac. These symbols have been combined into Tetra morphs. Think Sphinx, Griffin, Minotaur.

      The X has astronomical interpretations but, the most important is Time and accurate timekeeping and measure. For instance, one can determine their latitude from the angles of the Solstices. (Uriel's Machine, Knight/Lomas) Follow the lines through forms an X. The shape of which will change as one moves North, or South of the equator. In the same book, one learns about "latitude lozenges" and the 8 x's on the lintel Sstone of Newgrange depicting the eight year cycle of Venus. Again we have an X marking the passage of time. With this extremely brief background of my reasoning, I now come to your ideas about the equation of time = 0. I'd never heard of this before, and I consider myself a very knowledgeable person. Think of the symbol used for multiplication. × = time(s) two crossed sticks
      Think of the symbol for division ÷ and keep in mind the two dots/circles as the white and black dot/circles on the Ying Yang. Night and day dualism.

      As I was readingand learning about the equation of time = 0 in Patrick's links, everything he said brought the symbols on the egg-shaped stone together. He even mentions the Ying Yang.

      The tepee is made of 4 sticks. Each one symbolizes an angle of light. In particular they symbolize the angles used for the equation of time. There are numerous precedents for my statement.

      The umlauted X

      ○ ○
      X

      Seems to be depicting the same idea. The circles are in the wrong spots to be either the Solstices, or the Equinoxes. Something else is at play. Again, as Patrick's words sunk in, it became apparent the two circles forming the Umlaut were representing the Sun on two separate days. When Patrick mentioned the Parabolic Arc, it all came together. The crescent above the Umlauted X made sense. Most everything on the egg-shaped stone seems related to the equation of time=0.

      Think of the Ying Yang as a mathematical problem to be solved and the umlauted X and Crescent as the solution.

      Ying Yang Umlauted X = ○

      Like an equation for BALANCE.

      What could be more important to two opposing forces?

      The tepee is made of 4 sticks representing the Sun's angle on 4 days through the year. The umlauted X takes two of these days for calculation. The parabolic arc is used to find the solution.

      Do you see the umlauted X made by the X across the circle, and the Umlaut made by what appears to be 2 representations of the Sun?

      Can you now see the tepee made by alignments. Look at how the lines cross as they enter the circle. Looks like the top of the tepee. In fact, 2 lines clearly define the triangular shape of the exterior.

      I realize I've probably left out some important details. That's what happens when your brain works faster than your fingers, or mouth.
      I'm more than willing to provide clarification of anything I've said. I'm here to learn.
      I wish, I had Patrick's mathematical ability. It would make it much easier to convey my ideas.

      Anthony Warren

      Delete
  38. D,
    Not a big thing on the "astronomical" vice "astrological" terminology. For the record, I don't dabble in what present-day folks consider as "astrology." I stay with astronomical phenomena, almost exclusively, the Sun's movement. I use the AR5 GIS and SolarCalc web applications that NOAA makes available as an online application. Other folks have to be able to, if they choose, perform the same calculations and obtain the same data that I use to support my assertions. I don't do astrology, but Nancy Reagan sure liked it! Regards, Patrick

    ReplyDelete
  39. Scott,

    How many of the hooked X's had Umlauts?
    The number has slipped my mind.

    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony,

      There are five that appear on lines 4 (had), 6 (after), 9 (Save), 10 (There are) and 11 (after).

      Delete
    2. Scott,

      If those are the words the umlauted X's appear in, they certainly sound mathematical, like instructions.

      Anthony Warren

      Delete
  40. The numbers of the lines add up to 40...the Venus connection. And pentagonal geometry. You've given me a lot to think about tonight at work. By the way, have you noticed the similarities between the temple pyramid of Chichen Itza and the Tepee on the egg shape mystery Stone? I bet you, you can do the equation of time equals zero there as well.

    Relit,

    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
  41. Work it, Anthony. What is it, Venus does 8 cycles for 5 of the Earth cycles?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patrick,

      Venus makes a pentagram, when viewed astronomically over from earth, over a period of 8 earth years. Interestingly, the same pentagram is formed over 13 Venetian years. The number 40 relates to the fact that the planet Venus returns to the exact same point in the sky, when viewed from earth, after 5 Venus 8-years cycles.

      What's 5 x 8?

      Delete
    2. Scott and Patrick,

      My brain was already past 8 X 5 = 40. The number of years it takes for the Venus cycle to repeat exactly. Alan's book, "Bronze Age Computer Disc" covers this quite well. I've been working 7 days a week and don't have time for my "incoherent musings" as the troll put it.

      Anthony Warren

      Delete
    3. Patrick,

      Do you see what I'm calling an Umlauted X?

      How about what I'm calling the tepee? I know it's not an actual tepee. One must think symbolically. Take the crook and flail for instance. Separately, you have two sticks. Combine them an you have a compass. Plus, by inserting the flail into the crook, you not only have a functioning compass, you've created the symbol of the Egyptian year. A triangle within a circle. The Northern priests appeared to use the square within a circle. They had winter to contend with.

      Anthony Warren

      Delete
  42. Scott: thank you for continuing your research. Once again, your work stimulates discussion, and I appreciate it. What makes me ill is when someone like Colavito can disparage your work. If he would dive into your efforts with an open mind, maybe he'd at least concede there is something to this. Please keep up the work, I, for one, appreciate it.

    Mike in NH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike,

      That guy is a paid debunker to help continue the flase narrative we all know is B.S. Best thing is to ignore blogs like that and eventually they will dry up and go away.

      I will continue to forge ahead and am looking forward to sharing the best yet to come!

      Delete
  43. Scott,

    Wow...Where to begin with my "incoherent musings". I have to give credit to the BRILLIANT minds of Alan Butler and Sir Patrick the Navigator. Here's why the Superman Symbol keeps popping up. I wish I could post pictures to give anyone reading this a visual, as I play this out in my mind. The "tepee" on the egg shaped Mystery Stone was the key. Scott, I'm sure you are familiar with Alan's Goddess Symbol and where it's placed. Everyone visualize with me...The Ellipse to Washington Circle...The Ellipse to Dupont Circle...The Ellipse to Logan Circle...and finally...The Ellipse to Mt Vernon Square. THE EQUATION OF TIME =○

    That's why Alan's Symbol is there and so important. The GODDESS BRINGS BALANCE.

    The Equation of time = 0 must've been extremely sacred to these people. If you can visualize what I'm saying...The Position of the OVAL Office takes on a whole new significance. What's really interesting...is the shape and position of a building located at Mount Vernon Square...From an the air, it sure looks like a Lion laying down...I mentioned this similarity to Alan several years back...The building's position in the symbol suggests it's LEO...and Leo is almost exactly on the Ecliptic...So...All we are missing is the snake...Time and Balance.

    I'll stop my incoherence now,


    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anthony; The Oval office was an add on built in 1909. It wasn't part of the design of Washington.
    Did the lay out of Washington stay the same after the Canadians burnt it down in 1814 ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And it was constructed on the recommendation of the Catholic, non-Mason chief of the WDC Fire Department after a White House fire.

      Delete
    2. Apologies, I misread. It was the Fire Marshall, not the Fire Chief.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/this-pumper-was-at-a-christmas-eve-white-house-fire-now-it-inspired-an-ornament/2016/04/01/95fb60b4-f734-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html?utm_term=.49ff94bb69bf

      http://www.americanheritage.com/content/%E2%80%99twas-was-night-christmas%E2%80%A6

      Inability to Google?

      Delete
    3. I can Google just fine as I'm sure our readers can, but it seems appropriate to cite the reference when you make claim. It’s a courtesy thing.

      Delete
    4. Whomever,

      Many Egyptian temples were taken down, and rebuilt in the exact same spot for realignment. Others were a work in progress. Often taking multiple generations to achieve.

      Read Patrick's words as he describes focusing his line from a large egg, through a smaller egg to pinpoint the location of the KRS. ALL 4 points, the 3 circles and one square, can be aligned with the Whitehouse. Truman had the place gutted and remodeled. So the "I gotcha" doesn't work.

      The article just mentions a fire. Not whom was in charge of repairs.
      Interestingly, 8 ft ticker tape, 22 year old artist...Did you notice the oval on the truck?

      Anthony Warren

      Delete
  45. Anthony, the snake is the serpent, the serpent is the dragon, the two are the obliquity, which is referenced in the zodiac as Draconis, which was the pole star previous to the present one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      Thank you. I was already aware of that. The Capital already represents Regulus. Why does this building at Mt Vernon Square look like a Lion? It even has a tail! Why have two different representations of Regulus. The Washington Monument represents Spica. See:
      "The Secret Architecture of Our Nation's Capital" David Ovason.

      I was referring to something representing the snake/serpent on the ground. There's a lot more going on at the Ellipse. For one part of it, think Oreo.

      Anthony Warren

      Delete
  46. Hi Scott, I was wondering if you could explain to me the difference between "Hard" and "soft" science. It seems to me that the bulk of your work regarding the Templars consists mainly of "soft" science, since there is no known real evidence to support it. i.e. The Templars existed prior to 1119 and beyond 1312, the Templars were master mariners and had advanced secret knowledge of mathamatics and science and that the Pope had groups of Jesuits hot on the heels of the Templars in pre-Columbian America.

    ReplyDelete
  47. So, no answer ? Do you not know the difference between hard and soft science ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you already know the difference.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      Don't you have better things to do with your time than be an on-line harasser? What a loser...

      Delete
  48. I am fascinated by your work Scott. I see you are on "What on Earth". It is interesting but America Unearthed was awesome! Please keep up the great work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert,

      Thanks for the kind words. I enjoyed the interviews with the "What on Earth" folks and hope you enjoy the shows. It was a lot of fun and you might see us again soon on something different. Stay tuned!

      Delete
    2. Which episode of What on Earth were you on? Was it the one with zombies and Hitler?

      Eric

      Delete
    3. Eric,

      That was a silly comment don't you think? Try to be an adult next time JA.

      Delete
    4. So you won't tell us which episode you're in? You're not ashamed of it, are you?

      Eric

      Delete
    5. Eric,

      Of course not; I was interviewed about several topics and have already appeared in at two episodes. I have no idea how many episodes I'm in or when they air. The bulk of my contributions have not aired yet. I just wait to see what they did like everyone else.

      Delete
    6. As a professional geologist, or an amateur historian?

      Eric

      Delete
    7. Eric,

      They wanted me for my juggling skills.

      Delete
  49. Hi Scott, Is it just coincidence that your Blog entry on Ponce de Leon came after they aired an episode with you that involved him and the fountain of youth, or had you been researching Ponce previous to this ?

    ReplyDelete
  50. the runes that were discovered after the stone like the dotted r is the final answer proving that the krs is real

    ReplyDelete