tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post1770510438203527393..comments2024-03-23T03:47:03.187-07:00Comments on Scott Wolter Answers: Kensington Rune Stone Visitors Center is Officially OpenScott Wolterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16758613621836354475noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-4894801382896238262018-12-11T13:18:35.417-08:002018-12-11T13:18:35.417-08:00My cousin also mentioned the Dutch kept very good ...My cousin also mentioned the Dutch kept very good records and that is where she also searched.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13477748260954595076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-85698311333157254372018-12-11T13:13:55.321-08:002018-12-11T13:13:55.321-08:00I recently found out thru a first cousin's DNA...I recently found out thru a first cousin's DNA and Ancestry search that she is a descendant of the very wealthy Dutch ancestor settlers whom founded New Amsterdam (Now New York, New York) They later migrated to upstate (New York) and founded those towns to escape from the British. <br /><br />She also mentioned these Dutch ancestors of ours mostly came from Germany and France to Holland because of RELIGIOUS reasons and Dutchized their names. Sounded to me they were fleeing RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. <br /><br /> My cousin and I thru our grandmother may also be descendants of the people you mentioned. We are also descendants of Franklin Roosevelt and also descendants of his wife, Eleanor and Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy. It blows my mind. I am also Scandinavian (Swedish) on my dad's side. Our ancestors are from that part of the world you discussed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13477748260954595076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-54364597716321026032018-12-11T12:24:19.107-08:002018-12-11T12:24:19.107-08:00A KNIGHTS TEMPLAR CROSS artifact was found at Oak ...A KNIGHTS TEMPLAR CROSS artifact was found at Oak Island dig. It was originally thought this might be a KNIGHTS TEMPLAR ancient site.<br />https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2018/12/10Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13477748260954595076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-8180964751306050692018-12-11T12:20:31.317-08:002018-12-11T12:20:31.317-08:00Are you aware of the guy investigating "Oak I...Are you aware of the guy investigating "Oak Island" near Nova Scotia? He was on Coast to Coast the next night after you were. He mentioned artifacts: One of which was a KNIGHTS TEMPLAR CROSS. He original thought The KNIGHTS TEMPLAR were involved in this ancient site.....They keep digging deeper and deeper finding crazy things and still have not found the bottom of this hole on Oak Island. It is referred to the "Money Pit" ..... It seems to be booby trapped also. One theory is the "ARC OF THE COVENANT" MAY BE AT BOTTOM or a big load of treasure, etc. It is thought this hole with many unusual strange things was dug/built around 1300's. You can check it out on Coast to Coast page.....picture of a big hole in the ground at Oak Island. This may be connected to your sites and artifacts. Let us know if it is. God Bless and Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13477748260954595076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-89777904846439289502018-11-22T18:50:23.130-08:002018-11-22T18:50:23.130-08:00Anonymous,
The Kensington Rune Stone was given to...Anonymous,<br /><br />The Kensington Rune Stone was given to researcher, Hjalmar Holand, in August of 1907 for him to study with the condition he give it to the Norwegian Historical Society (there was no Norwegian Historical Society at the time; he meant MHS) upon completing his work. Instead, he offered it for sale to the Minnesota Historical Society for $5,000, which they voted not to purchase. In 1926, 10 businessmen, curiously all Freemasons, gave Holand $2,500 to reimburse him for expenses for research and created the Runestone Museum where it now resides.<br /><br />In my view, and in the view of many others, the artifact still legally belongs to the Ohman family. Scott Wolterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16758613621836354475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-33387342534599972902018-11-22T13:11:36.054-08:002018-11-22T13:11:36.054-08:00So do I have this right, the Ohman family no longe...So do I have this right, the Ohman family no longer have the rune stone and other items which were basically stolen from them ? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-32411183969868583862018-09-25T07:33:07.569-07:002018-09-25T07:33:07.569-07:00Hi Stephen,
The word is actually “Sklar.” There ...Hi Stephen,<br /><br />The word is actually “Sklar.” There is no “j” within the inscription; that was a misinterpretation by scholars confused about the short horizontal bar in the “l” rune. That is part of the "Dating Code” (along with the crossed “U” in “illu” in line 9 and the dotted Pentadic number “8” in line 1) for 1362. <br /><br />Further, I don’t believe that word represents a place; it likely represents a person, but that’s a discussion for another day. I am also convinced there are no “10 dead men.” I’m quite sure the phrase is related to the allegorical aspects of the KRS message. This would explain why scholars have struggled so mightily and remained silent over the past two and half years since I discovered and published the “Cryptic Code” (formally called “Ritual Code”) within the inscription. They would certainly have attacked me by now, but when cornered they retreat into the shadows hoping the facts will fade into obscurity.<br /><br />You might want to read my blog post of July 2, 2016, to get a better sense of what I’m talking about. Scott Wolterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16758613621836354475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-5343357370813755442018-09-24T07:41:39.094-07:002018-09-24T07:41:39.094-07:00As a matter of interest, has much work been done i...As a matter of interest, has much work been done in attempting to find the camp/burial site? I read that for a long time the interpretation of Skjar has meant looking for sites connected with 'rocky islets' or "skerries" but a new interpretation of the word Skelar - to be "shelter" or "shed" might be more accurate? But either way, the message in the rune clearly shows us that 'one day's journey north of where this stone was laid', (paraphrased) is the site of an attack and presumably the bodies of 10 men? I would be interested to know what your opinions are about the location of this site.<br />Kind Regards<br /><br />Stephen ShearmanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-51460144327752687352018-03-03T13:52:34.919-08:002018-03-03T13:52:34.919-08:00Pasadena,
To my knowledge, nothing of archaeologi...Pasadena,<br /><br />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. Scott Wolterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16758613621836354475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-32662525614111549262018-03-03T11:09:03.071-08:002018-03-03T11:09:03.071-08:00Scott-
The center looks GREAT. Before they dug d...Scott-<br /><br />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?<br /><br />P@Pasadena p@https://www.blogger.com/profile/17106665766976265087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-17095894943684519102018-02-26T13:31:02.206-08:002018-02-26T13:31:02.206-08:00Dean,
I wish more people would take the time to t...Dean,<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Thanks for taking the time to comment.Scott Wolterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16758613621836354475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-61330195906198250462018-02-23T07:10:00.696-08:002018-02-23T07:10:00.696-08:00Anonymous,
Since it is most likely the Mandan are...Anonymous,<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Don't believe me? Look at who's running the country now. Scott Wolterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16758613621836354475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-59723621214040778512018-02-23T02:36:49.373-08:002018-02-23T02:36:49.373-08:00Hi Scott,
Longtime fan, observation offered:
I'...Hi Scott,<br />Longtime fan, observation offered:<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br />I would wager that many pompous, close minded "interpreters" read their own current incoming correspondence and query "What do you mean by that!?"<br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />If I used hashtags a lot, perhaps I would offer " #getreal ".<br /><br />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.<br />Thanks for reading another rant.<br />Dean<br />Dean Tinneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-46380102003140626072018-02-22T07:38:36.427-08:002018-02-22T07:38:36.427-08:00Well the Kensington Rune stone maybe the real thin...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-34563841365338571942018-02-14T11:53:50.391-08:002018-02-14T11:53:50.391-08:00Jennifer,
I have been following the Oak Island sh...Jennifer,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. Scott Wolterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16758613621836354475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-68451257494263400532018-02-14T11:35:40.222-08:002018-02-14T11:35:40.222-08:00Dear Scott,
We sure do miss your show!! By any cha...Dear Scott,<br />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.<br />All the best,<br />Jennifer, in PAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-57503395881435850472018-02-14T08:12:35.692-08:002018-02-14T08:12:35.692-08:00Patrick,
Anonymous refuses to play by the rules s...Patrick,<br /><br />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.Scott Wolterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16758613621836354475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-56155840002317727462018-02-14T05:25:52.230-08:002018-02-14T05:25:52.230-08:00Scott, we can surmise different scenarios, and sin...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. Patrick Shekletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701337769317102986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-78301423614231805942018-02-13T22:02:19.840-08:002018-02-13T22:02:19.840-08:00Patrick,
What you have pointed out and "Mark...Patrick,<br /><br />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?<br /><br />I think we know the answer.Scott Wolterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16758613621836354475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-77088492568556171792018-02-13T19:23:25.565-08:002018-02-13T19:23:25.565-08:00Mark,
You stated: "Williams gave a thoughtf...Mark,<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)..."<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />This being the case, Williams isn't even giving us an opinion (based objectively on classification)...he, the runic scholar, is giving us...nothing. <br /><br />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... Patrick Shekletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701337769317102986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-58650654739900972402018-02-13T11:33:55.567-08:002018-02-13T11:33:55.567-08:00"Mark",
Two things; first, until you us..."Mark",<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I look forward to your acknowledging these facts before trying to the change the subject as is your want to do.Scott Wolterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16758613621836354475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-8024501061335550222018-02-12T10:01:15.459-08:002018-02-12T10:01:15.459-08:00"Mark",
First, the punch marks were cle..."Mark",<br /><br />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. <br /><br />No insult, just facts.Scott Wolterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16758613621836354475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-50358120924949889882018-02-12T07:56:05.149-08:002018-02-12T07:56:05.149-08:00I found it too Patrick, but you're not being f...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. <br /><br />I would be interested if Scott would directly answer this concern without insult. <br /><br />MarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-15112561673515434012018-02-09T19:40:21.550-08:002018-02-09T19:40:21.550-08:00Patrick,
As you know, I'm well aware of the p...Patrick,<br /><br />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. <br /><br />I have no doubt "Anonymous" will try to rush to their defense, but without a convincing identity that argument will never be heard. Sad... Scott Wolterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16758613621836354475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617813063932228103.post-5837542417783743772018-02-09T18:13:48.891-08:002018-02-09T18:13:48.891-08:00Scott, the 2014 photo is of a graphic made in 2010...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.<br /> Patrick Shekletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701337769317102986noreply@blogger.com