Thursday, January 4, 2018

Kensington Rune Stone Visitors Center is Officially Open


The Grand Opening of the Kensington Rune Stone Visitors Center at the Ohman Farm, in Kensington, Minnesota, was held on Wednesday, January 3, 2018.  It was minus 1 degree on clear and sunny day and I made the two-hour trip up from the Twin Cities with John Freeburg, and our driver, Darwin Ohman, grandson of the discoverer of the Kensington Rune Stone.  Darwin and I have made this drive to the farmstead many times over the years for many lectures, various meetings and of course to perform different areas of research.  Today's visit was to celebrate a milestone in the history of the artifact by finally having a modern interpretive and visitor's center where the artifact was first discovered in the fall of 1898.  In my view, the Kensington Rune Stone is the single most important historical artifact ever discovered on this continent that for all intents and purposes was the beginning of the founding of what would become the Untied States of America. 


It was a cold (minus 1 degree) and clear day when the Grand Opening of the Kensington Rune Stone Visitors Center at the Ohman Farm was held on January 3, 2018.

The three of us arrived early as the Director of Douglas County Parks who was responsible for the project, Brad Bonk, greeted us at the door with a big smile.  Darwin and I had met with Brad multiple times over the past two years offering information about the history of the family, and research on the artifact, as the project moved forward.  The building of steel framing, concrete and wood was simple and elegant with the east room dedicated to the story of the stone, the inscription, and runes in general.  One thing that especially pleased me was to see thee Hooked X in the interpretive displays.  Some people wanted the Hooked X and some of the other  controversial symbols eliminated from the displays, but fortunately, Brad and other consultants chose to keep the runic displays true to the symbols found on the artifact.


Inside the interpretive display room myself, John Freeburg, and Darwin Ohman stand behind a replica of the Kensington Rune stone. 

Shortly before 2:00 p.m., a steady stream of local politicians and media trickled in and at 2: p.m. sharp, the brief ribbon-cutting ceremony was underway.  Within less than 10 minutes, the bright red ribbon was cut and everyone was back inside.  After downing a hot cup of coffee and an hour or so of glad-handing, it was time to make the two-hour trek back home.  On the ride back, the three of us talked about not just how impressed we were with the facility, but how it was still only one positive step in a much longer journey.  For me, the highlight of the entire day was seeing the smile on Darwin Ohman's face knowing that exoneration of his grandfather's reputation was inching closer to universal acceptance. 


Director of Douglas County Parks Brad Bonk, and other dignitaries, prepare to cut the red ribbon at the ceremony in front of the new Visitors Center.


Brad Bond and Andrea Dwyer with the Alexandria Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce stand with ribbon cutting scissors in front of the new Visitors Center at the Ohman Farm, in Kensington, Minnesota. 

66 comments:

  1. Do any of the displays feature the overwhelming skepticism in regard to authenticity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course not silly, there is no credible pushback against the KRS inscription today. All the objections geologically, historically, linguistically, runologically, grammatically, and dialectically have all been addressed. The artifact has been proven to be medieval and it’s done.

      The only ones who object today are the dogmatic few who remain steadfast in their beliefs, despite the tidal wave of facts that have drown their faith it was a some kind of hoax. These people now look silly and have chosen self-exile to the shadows unwilling to show their faces.

      Sad isn’t it?

      Delete
    2. But none of your Templar stuff made the cut, no?

      Delete
    3. All in due time pal; the hoax B.S. is done and the truth about the Templars will come. Baby steps...

      Delete
    4. Courage. And I am looking forward to my next visit. My last visit was a few years ago when I digitally tried to photograph an older newspaper story on display. It was quite large and dufficult to read. Almost impossible to take it all in while standing. I need to go back to find it in aold hard drive to stitch it together to understand exactly what it meant.

      Delete
    5. I find it very telling that the only recognized, authentic norse artifact in north America is the Maine penny. Why is a small, crumbling coin considered authentic, when its provenance is just as vague as the krs?


      Dan Uhrich

      Delete
    6. Dan,

      The reason the establishment accepts the Maine Penny is because they have already explained it away as a "trade item" that made it's way to the site after contact. They've neutralized it to fit the paradigm and it is no longer a threat.

      Kinda hard to explain away the KRS as a later trade item so it must be a "hoax." You really can't make it up...

      Delete
    7. Mr. Wolter,

      As far as I've read, there are two major arguments promoted for the KRS as being a hoax.
      1. The dotted "R" is an accidental mark.
      2. The runes are not correct, even with discovery of the Larsen papers, which are considered junk because he was a Taylor.

      Your detractors constantly berate your belief, but expect others to have faith in theirs, which are just as flimsy as they say yours are. Hypocrisy anyone!

      Dan Uhrich

      Delete
    8. Even if the alleged dots over the R letters in question were intentional, their use would be grammatically incorrect given the context. Amateurs may posit otherwise, but not true experts in the field.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous,

      “Alleged” dots? Just stop right there; the dots are 100% man made both within and adjacent to several “r” runes are without any question present and have all been interpreted.

      Anonymous,

      The “true experts” you cite haven’t a clue what they are dealing with regarding the dots that are not related to grammar. Stating your opinion is fine, but you are totally off base on this one.

      Delete
    10. Dan,

      The detractors have no evidence to support their beliefs and are simply wrong on all accounts. The dotted R is the "magic bullet" that, runologically, definitively proves the authenticity of the KRS without a doubt. All the wishing and arguing in the world by detractors will not change that.

      It's time to get over it and accept the artifact for what it is.

      Delete
  2. This is really a beautiful visitor center and kudos to Douglas County in having the vision to make this happen. Truly deserving and so fitting to the KRS story.

    As for the Anonymous poster, why don't you identify who you are and present evidence to support your skepticism? I think Scott has answered it very well.
    Darwin Ohman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darwin, I know you have a personal stake in all this, but first you have to offer better proof that the anomaly known as the KRS is a legitimate 14th century work.

      Happy sledding.

      Delete
    2. Faceless,

      Darwin doesn’t have to offer anything. The case is already proven regardless of what you "believe." Besides, the opinion of a coward who complains but won’t identify themselves means nothing.

      Run along now…

      Delete
  3. What a site (sight) -- a little play on words... This is great, Scott and Janet and the Ohman family. A long time coming....cheers.

    What a beautiful and simple (open) building. The Cistercians would be proud.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,

      Simple, functional, and doesn't intrude on the beauty and serenity of the property at the park. The Cistercians and their Templar brethren would be proud; good call!

      Delete
  4. Great job Scott! It's been an up hill climb, proud to call you my friend. Lwp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LWP,

      This project had very little to do with me. It's a big win for the Ohman Family, the Kensington Rune Stone and for truth. Stay tuned, there's a lot more to come.

      Delete
    2. Great to hear Scott!
      I know the work you put in authenticating.
      Go Vikings!

      Delete
    3. Paul,

      Thanks for the kind words, but we're only getting started. Stay tuned.

      Purple pride!

      Delete
  5. January 3, 2017? I think you meant 2018. In first paragraph and under first picture.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello Scott
    Love ur work.
    A friend has an item i think u should take a look at sir, how can we reach you? Maybe we can send photos
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure; my email is swolter@amengtest.com

      Delete
  7. Is the hooked x have anything to do with genetics, like the xy gene or a regular x gene?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This idea has been proposed before and there could very well be something to it. Like all symbols in Freemasonry and Templarism, they have multiple meanings. This could be one of them.

      Delete
    2. Speaking of symbols, what do you think of the shot of a Cross of Lorraine ring at the end the Magnum P.I. credits?

      http://magnum-mania.com/Articles/The_Team_Ring.html

      Delete
    3. I think that Cross of Lorraine ring is very cool. Hard to know if it's a Catholic thing or if they are true initiates. Both will recognize and appreciate the symbol even if they interpret its meaning completely differently.

      Delete
  8. Scott very interesting. I recently watched Holy grail on History. I thought it fascinating you were able to tell the difference between the weathering, and the man cleaning out the grooves. No doubt the KRS is real and historic. Im starting to see more shows take notice of this and its just a matter of time the truth comes out, as well as the true identity of vineland. Great work! Great pictures

    ReplyDelete
  9. Scott, have you ever considered this?!?! The knights templar were undercover VIKINGS! Why would they slaughter Christians, Jews and Muslims on their way to the holy city? They were VIKINGS! They were poor, came from nothing, they shared the same war philosophies, they had giants beards, and wielded swords that would slice a man in half... when the templars got persecuted by Phillip, they took their SHIPS and disappeared! We know where they went, but how did they know the route? They were established in America long before 1307, as a matter of FACT, I know exactly where they lived SIDE BY SIDE with the natives!

    Look into what I'm saying, you will see! Your a smart guy, you'll figure it out!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of not all of the Scottish Templars had Nordic blood and had ancestors that were "Vikings" during that time. Did they also obtain knowledge from Norwegian royalty the Scottish earls regularly reported to? Of course they did. This is pretty basic information that makes scholars' eyes glaze over because it's so obvious. The Templars came to North America for centuries after the Vikings and because they didn't tell anyone, according to academia, it didn't happen.

      Unbelievable...

      Delete
  10. Scott:

    How much money did you and Janet donate to the funding of the visitor center?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grimmy,

      The money for the visitor’s center came from the state; there were no donations from anyone.

      Delete
  11. The KRS should be touted as the biggest discovery of our time. A pre-Columbian artifact in Minnesota should be making headlines. Has there been any official acceptance of the KRS by the Smithsonian Museum as of late?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown,

      I couldn’t agree more. However, despite the overwhelming factual evidence from multiple disciplines that have proven definitively the KRS is the most important medieval artifact ever found in North America, academia refuses to accept the fact they were flat-out wrong for the past 120 years. The Smithsonian Institution has been lying to us since it’s inception so we should not expect them to suddenly find an ethical backbone.

      The Kensington Rune Stone is just one of many controversial artifacts that demand a huge rewrite of the historical narrative. It will not come unless academia, and by extension the Smithsonian, are forced to do the right thing. It will happen when enough people speak up and demand the truth be told and threaten to stop making financial donations to the academic institutions where these idiots reside. The threat of possibly losing their tenure and/or funding for their pet projects will begin to slow, and eventually turn the ship around.

      The facts are in and the KRS case is solved. It is now a P.R. campaign to get the people to hold academia accountable and to do the right thing. This new Visitor’s Center is step in the right direction.

      Delete
  12. Scott,

    Even with your degree it's like you don't understand how academia works. The whole point of tenure is you don't lose tenure and colleges don't depend on donations. Harvard, for instance could admit everyone free forever and still have money left over for ballet or whatever. Now grants are another thing but you've got to be able to deliver something. I've been living on grants off and on since I was fifteen. And there was a lot of off time but it didn't change my behavior.

    Cheers,

    Andrew Napolitano (not the famous one)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,

      Come on man, surely you understand that money makes EVERYTHING go around in this world and academia is not immune to this reality. I think you and I will have to disagree on this point.

      If you have suggestions how to get certain academic elements to change their attitude I'm all ears.

      Delete
  13. Hi Scott. Though we acknowledge specific, mostly religeous differences in our take on the the KRS, I agree wholehearted with your well-put-together comment, above. It is, indeed, now a P. R. campaign.

    It might be interesting to some for me to point out that both the Minnesota Historical Society and the Smithsonian once were on the correct side of the KRS. It was only after "outside influences" came to confuse things--successfully--that the real truth was and still is being distorted.

    As you know, Scott, much of this stormy weather for the KRS came from overseas. One good example is the fellow who has hampered the KRS discussion on Wikipedia, in favor of giving a one-sided view of the KRS, America's wonderful artifact. They are all complicit in falsifying what should already by now be a truthful public record.

    I wanted to mention that the large, dished-out rock with the "milk carton" shaped attachment (worked) revealed in your Hooked X book looks to me like it may be a medieval quenching basin with attached anvil. If so, the "academian-comedians" should be jumping all over it. Maybe they would be interested in the fact that this odd relic of the past is surrounded by medieval Norse stoneholes, as well.

    I honestly wish you would go back and revisit some of these sites that caught many readers' interest, as local evidences of Norse explorations in the region. I personally believe one of the best evidences I've seen (photograph) is the deeply-carved and obviously very aged petroglyph of the medieval Scandinavian drinking horn by South Dakota's Whetstone River, where all these many other things you pointed out exists. In other words, I would like to see you possibly help with making some of these rare oddities connected to the KRS better known. Thanks.

    - Bob Voyles (Gunn)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Scoot I would like to thank for the education and the entertainment you have provided me over the years. Your research seems thorough and your hypothesies sound. I will continue to follow your research and share in your discoveries. Congrats to the Ohman family it has been a long time coming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vince,

      You are quite welcome and there is a lot more to come. I'm just thrilled for the Ohman Family, and the world, that things are going in the right direction as science is prevailing over dogma.

      Delete
  15. Scott , we need an Unearthed Canada edition.

    Would you have any information on like related subjects pertaining to New Brunswick Canada?

    Kind regards , love your work.

    Jamie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jamie,

      I would like to do a "World Unearthed" show that would definitely a look into the many interesting mysteries of Canada. We are working on the development of a new project, so stay tuned. I'll let everyone know when the time is right.

      Thank you for your support and kind words.

      Delete
    2. Disregard previous communication Scott.

      I have located your email address on hookedX and trust i may contact you via that email.

      I shall do so when the time is appropriate in hopes you may answer some questions I have on joining the order.

      I realize you are busy with other affairs , yet i keep my mind open in the pursuit of knowledge and hope you may find the time to be of some aid to what is hopefully a future brother.

      bless you and take care.

      Jamie

      Delete
    3. Jamie,

      Feel free to send me an email with your questions. I'll be happy to answer them.

      Delete
  16. My 19 year old daughter found you on demand with our cable service. After the first show, entire family hooked. Watched all 3 seasons . Hurry back. I'm an eastern star granddaughter of a 32 degree mason from Kentucky living in South Carolina daughter of the American revolution, rock collector!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Lynn,

      Glad you found us and enjoyed the show. We have a lot more great material to cover and we're hoping to bring it to the world soon.

      Stay tuned and thanks for taking the time to post a comment.

      Delete
  17. Anonymous,

    If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, I will not post any of your overly negative and unproductive comments unless you use your real name. That means you'll have to convince me of your true identity which may be difficult, and no, Niel Dicksen won't cut it.

    Having said this, the angry response paper written in a fit of rage you tried to post doesn't serve your arguments, or the professor's attempt to discredit the obviously man made dots throughout the KRS inscription by arrogantly claiming to be the ultimate authority. That hastily written letter came after I had published my microscopic 3D imaging study of the Dotted R that definitively proved the dot on line six, was 100% man made. The attempt to plead it wasn't was a bad idea given only a geologist is in the appropriate position to make that call...

    Of course, we all know why he did that. The fact that one small man made dot exists, proved the KRS is a medieval artifact all by itself. Pretty amazing don't you think? That, of course, put every soft science scholar that ever said the KRS was a hoax in a box they can never escape from.

    Speaking of dotted runes, just this week I examined a brand new runic inscription and you know what? It has a dotted R!

    While we're having so much fun with Dotted R's, this would be a good time to remind people of how the Ohman family felt about this whole Dotted R business you tried to portray out of context. I'm sure the readers of this blog will appreciate this take on the situation that still resonates today:
    http://www.kensingtonrunestone.us/Take_A_Stand.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  18. There is always some misdirection in everything that Henrik Williams writes on a North American rune stone. Let’s just cover some of the examples in the work that you always want to share the link for, but which Scott won’t post. Everyone today knows how to Google so finding a memo by Henrik Williams which discusses dotted runes is not altogether difficult. Here are some highlights from the memo:

    “Dotted -r runes have been thought to occur in a number of instances. Scott Wolter (2011, p. 5 and Figure 6 on p. 6) posits three, in norrmen (KRS line 1, second r), norr (line 5, second r), and war (line 6).” [Factual statement, but fails to note that the original and much more extensive dotted -r discussion took place in 2006 published work of Nielsen/Wolter. Nielsen and Wolter both supported the dotted -r conclusions they made in their published work. Of course, Williams is re-framing the dotted -r discussion in his memo to be solely the basis of Wolter’s assertions.]

    “But in the end, the call is within the domain of human science, not natural.”
    [Whatever… The starting point for the dotted -r and -b is whether there is a dot present in the rock. That is natural science. An opinion on the purpose of the dot can extend into the human science domain, but given that any dot may be etymologically correct, etymologically incorrect, a decoration, or a misplaced word separator within the date range for established context usage in the 12th to 16th centuries (all these cases were described in Nielsen/Wolter 2006), it means that the critical starting point in whether a dot is present. Williams does not dispute that there are dots present in the cases cited by Nielsen/Wolter.]

    “This may indicate that the KRS carver was more fond of decorative dots. It also means that if dotted -r or -b [thorn] runes WERE to be found on the KRS, they would NOT have to be interpreted as parallels to genuine medieval examples. Dotted -r runes on the KRS could be just ornamental (see below).”
    [Dotted runes were, in some cases, decorative marks. Two of seven dotted -r discoveries (six on Gotland, one in Bergen) were deemed to be decorative. Human Scientists quite often use the term “more fond” when discussing technical issues. It creates an environment of hot chocolate and a blazing fireplace where more intellectual exchange may occur.]

    “The KRS runographer uses an unusual procedure…punched the surface to produce guide points/marks…This is only a guess, however. Another alternative is that the punches were meant to be ornamental. However, I prefer the first explanation since the punches appear as true dots in some places, as “light” taps in other, but are mostly not found at all. This does not give an over-all decorative impression.”

    [The human science discipline encourages guessing – and Henrik Williams is doing exactly that in pointing out that he thinks/GUESSES that the dots in the -r’s are guide marks. (A) Williams guesses that the dots are guide marks, then (B) he likes HIS GUESS so much that he … (C) concludes that his guess takes precedence over the etymologically correct dotted -r in the word “war”.]

    In his 2011 paper, Wolter introduces the dotted thorn rune. This construct is historically supported (see Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: for the years 1847-1850 (Vol. 4); p. 363). Williams fails to address the dotted thorn rune – no discussion on its medieval use, number of existent examples, etc. Williams doesn’t even broach the subject except in broad, dismissive language.

    Listen, in the last decade Henrik Williams produced some non-scholarly, opinionated work that was poorly researched, poorly written, and poorly presented. In hindsight, I would venture that he might have chosen a different course – perhaps not. The present issue is that you cannot do research on your own to discriminate between what is objective and historically supportable and what fails to meet that standard. The fact that you keep shilling for Scott to post a link to Williams’ work is indicative of this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patrick,

      I appreciate your clarifying the points in the article hastily made by a person who was clearly frustrated and upset at that time. That's no excuse of course for this type of letter, and you are quite right to point out that both Nielsen and Williams, who both peer-reviewed the dotted runes sections of our book and agreed the dots were, 1. Intentionally man made, and 2. neither guide marks nor decorations. The “new” interpretations, IMHO, came only after both decided to undermine my research contributions in an effort to elevate their own theories on the authenticity of the KRS once I had been marginalized and discredited. Those efforts continue of course, as evidenced by the continual harassment by “Anonymous” who seems to have a penchant for carrying water for Henrik Williams, but as always, the facts and truth will carry the day!

      I have evidence to support my speculation. In November of 2014, I took a photo that I’ve added to today's posting that shows a several dots within the inscription that were added by Williams and Nielsen. However, in June of 2016, in an updated version of the inscription by Williams and Nielsen, the dots are now gone. What it demonstrates is their playing fast and loose with the inscription that appears to be able to change at their beckon whim.

      I suspect the reason Williams left out the Dotted “thorn” rune in the word "death" at the end of line eight, is because that was going to be the big new discovery, and subsequent justification, to pronounce the KRS authentic, but in the end decided against it. I could be wrong about this, but I don't think so. This would explain the extreme anger and subsequent dismissive attitude toward the KRS ever since.

      The irony in this whole Dotted “thorn” thing is, when I performed the 3D imaging work at the Runestone Museum, I asked then Museum Director, Julie Blank, which rune I should start with and she chose that rune. When I put the scope on it I could easily see where the carver tried to make a dot when a microfracture in the rock cracked and the chisel slid into a groove. The dot made by the carver had been there all along but nobody had noticed before; except maybe Williams. I had several other characters I wanted to examine, but did that one first out of courtesy for allowing us to perform this work.

      Delete
    2. I found it too Patrick, but you're not being fair in picking and choosing side remarks out of context. Williams gave a thoughtful take on the given probabilities. Ultimately, his point that even if the dotted R marks were intentional, they would not be a correct use of the medieval language, was ignored by your critique.

      I would be interested if Scott would directly answer this concern without insult.

      Mark

      Delete
    3. "Mark",

      First, the punch marks were clearly intentional; fact. Second, both you and Williams refuse to acknowledge that making the determination of whether a dot is manmade or natural is not his to make. It should be and has been made by a qualified geologist with the proper experience, and personal opinions aside, you both need to accept and respect that. Third, the three dotted R’s in the word “norrmen” (northmen), “norr” (north), and “war” (were), are used correctly as it was Nielsen and Williams in 2005, who brought up that all three instances were correct medieval usages on the KRS in the first place.

      No insult, just facts.

      Delete
  19. Scott, the 2014 photo is of a graphic made in 2010. Nielsen and Williams didn't shift their positions on the various dots on the runes until they produced a bevy of papers in the 2011 time frame. I point this out just so no one leaves with the wrong impression with respect to chronology. However, prior to 2011, exhibited by the graphic, both of them had accepted the position that the dots were, in fact, man-made. Which means that your assessment is not in error. Richard Nielsen has passed on. His early work on the North American rune stones was amazing, his latter work became contradictory and less focused. Henrik Williams...well...we are still waiting for him to actually publish something other than email memo-style and abbreviated reports. Appreciate the detailed response on your part...I say we move on to other things unless someone else wants to rehash this some more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patrick,

      As you know, I'm well aware of the position-shifting papers Williams and Nielsen published in 2011 trying to muddy the KRS waters to put it mildly. My point for posting the 2010 and 2014 KRS translation photos was to show how they, at first, acknowledged the Dotted "thorn" by publishing it before they could take credit for it. When they were unable to follow through on the "discovery" plan at the Runestone Museum, they decided to make it go away as proven by the translation they published in 2014.

      I have no doubt "Anonymous" will try to rush to their defense, but without a convincing identity that argument will never be heard. Sad...

      Delete
    2. "Mark",

      Two things; first, until you use your real name you won't see any of your negative posts. Second, I want to point out that while I appropriately deferred the interpretations of the linguistic and runological aspects man-made dots on the KRS to experts like Williams, he is not able to return the same respect with regard to the physical aspects of the stone by deferring to a geologist. Instead, he arrogantly states, "Ascertaining whether it is or not is primarily a job for the runologist, and it takes decades of experience to become a good field runologist."

      That statement is complete B.S. and is one example of why his judgment cannot trusted. That and the fact he first claimed the Dotted "thorn" on line 8 was man-made in 2010, and then decided it did not exist in 2014. I refer the reader to the photos that prove this point in my latest blog post.

      I look forward to your acknowledging these facts before trying to the change the subject as is your want to do.

      Delete
  20. Mark,

    You stated: "Williams gave a thoughtful take on the given probabilities. Ultimately, his point that even if the dotted R marks were intentional, they would not be a correct use of the medieval language, was ignored by your critique."

    The truth is that Williams did not give a thoughtful take on the topic matter. If he had, he would have described the seven examples of dotted -r's that Nielsen/Wolter cited in their book, breaking them down into the four categories.

    Since Williams couldn't be bothered with such trivial matters, I pulled the classification from Nielsen/Wolter and wrote them in my comments: "...but given that any dot may be etymologically correct, etymologically incorrect, a decoration, or a misplaced word separator within the date range for established context usage in the 12th to 16th centuries (all these cases were described in Nielsen/Wolter 2006)..."

    Then, as you wrote..."Ultimately, his [Williams'] point that even if the dotted R marks were intentional, they would not be a correct use of the medieval language."

    Wrong answer! In his argument Williams has to first classify which category the respective dotted -r's fall into AS COMPARED to the historical examples...but he doesn't do that. He just glosses over the classification and then gives us his opinion.

    Incorrect etymological use of a dotted -r is NOT a disqualifier for Medieval Era authenticity because we find incorrect etymological usage in proven provenance cases of dotted -r's.

    This being the case, Williams isn't even giving us an opinion (based objectively on classification)...he, the runic scholar, is giving us...nothing.

    But you bought it - hook, line, and sinker. Listen, when I hear or read of an argument present on either side, especially when dealing with runes, I pull out the books and read them. I want to understand WHY each side is presenting a particular line of reasoning or argument. I want to see if the counter-argument is sound. It wasn't until I began taking that approach that I realized something was terribly wrong coming out of Sweden. Find all his published works available on the Internet, print them out, and then begin to go through them, line by line. Identify what is presented as factual and what is an opinion. Then examine the information presented as facts. Cross-check the citations and references that are used. For every sentence ask why he wrote what he did. Go find the pattern...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patrick,

      What you have pointed out and "Mark" refuses to acknowledge, is Williams has conveniently forgotten what he said earlier that Nielsen and I published in our book. The big question is why did these two guys suddenly reverse themselves after the book was released? Did they suddenly realize they had goofed up after publishing subject matter they were passionate about and the world's experts on, or was something else going on?

      I think we know the answer.

      Delete
  21. Scott, we can surmise different scenarios, and since you are more connected to what happened re the KRS over the last twenty years, you can provide an angle most of us can't get to. The point about Henrik Williams' work, to someone who knows very little about runic inscriptions, characters, etc., is that he doesn't take the time to educate us along the way. He is a scholar and an educator. He can very easily present the information so we can better understand it and gain a broader appreciation for a language that has died. Yet, he doesn't take that approach. Instead we are relegated to read other material, from a variety of sources including other degree'd-runic scholars - just to understand why his argument is formulated in the manner that he presented and how he then reached the conclusion(s) that he did. Its a level of detail issue...all one has to do is use the Nielsen/Wolter published work in the KRS (extremely detailed) and then compare what Williams has written on the same runic subject matter. There is a stark contrast.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patrick,

      Anonymous refuses to play by the rules so his voice will not be heard. Put on your big boys pants and put your name behind your barbs OK? Otherwise, run along and play in the basement.

      Delete
  22. Dear Scott,
    We sure do miss your show!! By any chance have you been following the recent progress on Oak Island? Looks like the commonly accepted narrative of the history of the North American discovery can no longer be a story the public can adhere to.
    All the best,
    Jennifer, in PA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jennifer,

      I have been following the Oak Island show and while there it's pretty obvious by now there no treasure on the island, the Templar connections they have tried to make echo the thesis myself and others have put forth for the past nearly 20 years. The Templars did come to North America both before, and after their put-down in France in 1307. While here, they successfully interacted with the indigenous people they shared a common ideology with. The Kensington Rune Stone was the initial land claim the Templars put into the ground that eventually resulted in the founding of the Untied States of America by the ideological descendants of the Templars: modern day Freemasonry.

      While the Oak Island show isn't bringing forth any new ideas, it is very good to see the evidence that has been obvious all along, is finally beginning to take hold in the public psyche. That is a very good thing and if that's the only thing the Lagina Brothers actually ever discover, that would be more valuable than tangible treasure they could have ever found.

      Delete
  23. Well the Kensington Rune stone maybe the real thing.Look, there's a lot about the history of ancient America we don't know. Various peoples from Europe, and elsewhere may have come to the Aericas. I believe the Mandan Indians claimed they were descendants of white men or american traders or others who encountered them believed they had to be related to some Welsh prince and the men of his expedition, or vikings,etc. This was based on their psyhical looks. So the possibility of the Templars coming here could indeed be right. IF they find any treasure it will take time. Even for archeologists it takes time to find a discovery like King Tut's tomb, no matter how many times you have worked in that particular location.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      Since it is most likely the Mandan are in some way connected to the Kensington party that stayed and assimilated. I'll have more to say about that in the near future.

      The Templars weren't looking for treasure, they brought it with them from the Old World to use it to establish a new new world free from the tyranny of the monarchs of Europe and of course to escape the persecution of the Roman Catholic Church. It's a simple story really. One that makes sense, fits with the voluminous known facts, and is the only logical story that explains the curious anomalies (Newport Tower, KRS , NRS, SPRS, Overton Stone, Tucson Lead Artifacts, Bat Creek Stone, etc.) that have puzzled scholars for centuries.

      Lets be honest, the only reason they still haven't accepted is they don't fit the false narrative put forth and supported by the essentially the same forces the Templars escaped from. Big business and the Roman Catholic Church.

      Don't believe me? Look at who's running the country now.

      Delete
  24. Hi Scott,
    Longtime fan, observation offered:
    I'm a skeptical man. I have read voraciously since childhood, on history and sciences, primarily. I admit to human bias due to being male, Texan, Electronics Engineer, Veteran, etc. In that context, I still like to think that I can be objective and use logic, over emotion and wishful thinking. I have very little patience with BS and nearly the same position on those who can't realize their own idealism may blind them to real world context.

    The reason I frame my viewpoint is that I am often amazed at the arguments presented in analyzing runes, inscriptions, documents and other communications found and interpreted. Especially so when such analysis is done by professionals on obects from antiquity.

    I refer specifically to those historians who attack the validity of symbols and texts that do not pass every test of spelling, dialect, syntax, grammar, era, style, font and aroma. This always amazes me for one simple reason: How many current experts own writing of every kind can bear such idealistic scrutiny? If, for instance, a Viking expeditionary force were to explore anywhere and leave navigation, survey, religious or other symbols for any purpose, was their party expected to include a scholar with PERFECT academic credentials? Must they have NEVER failed to have perfect spelling, grammar, font, carving skills, etc. in order to be validated? Maybe they needed to also be psychic, so that they could predict how each and every possible translation by each and every jackass that might read their texts in the distant future would be interpreted.
    I would wager that many pompous, close minded "interpreters" read their own current incoming correspondence and query "What do you mean by that!?"
    Surely, if other experts and publishers grade their messages, notes and publications, they will all be FLAWLESS, with perfect fonts, penmanship, spelling, syntax, grammar, etc.
    It would be a shame if future analysts read something with some variant, including originality, that caused them to "prove" that the author was invalid, indeed, a hoax, or a joke.

    Perhaps those experts should be careful of their text trails. It would be a shame if their descendants one day "proved" that the expert never really existed.

    If I used hashtags a lot, perhaps I would offer " #getreal ".

    I enjoy your work and I take it seriously because you take evidence seriously and make allowance that you have beliefs, doubts and ideas of your own. You exhibit professional confidence, admitting human fallibility are humble enough to suit me.
    Thanks for reading another rant.
    Dean

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dean,

      I wish more people would take the time to type such a thoughtful and reasoned “rant.” The scholars you mention are people I have interacted with for years and struggled to understand their flawed arguments when trying to rectify something as enigmatic as the Kensington Rune Stone. They fail to see the most basic historical facts that do not take PhD to understand, such as admitting the ONLY plausible candidates that could have created the inscription in the center of the continent in 1362, were the Templars.

      Instead, for 120 years now they have brow-beaten the stone in a futile attempt of trying to tell the inscription what it’s supposed to be, instead of letting it tell them what it is. It all boils down to not following basic scientific methodology; in my humble opinion.

      Thanks for taking the time to comment.

      Delete
  25. Scott-

    The center looks GREAT. Before they dug did the county check for any important artifacts buried under the construction site? as in --; another RUNESTONE, encampment artifacts, burials, boulders with stone holes, tools, fishing gear etc?

    P@

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pasadena,

      To my knowledge, nothing of archaeological significance was found on the site of the new building. While anything is possible and anything there is digging we need to keep eyes open, the center is a fair distance from the discovery site of the KRS.

      Delete