Re: a question for inger

From: IE.Johansson (ingerx_e.johanssonx_at_telia.com)
Date: 11/19/04 

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:16:41 GMT

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:obdrp011joqfuhjck2f1379135pce8t1qr@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:49:09 GMT, "Martin Reboul"
> <martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:q2jqp0lrj76r2mn40bag1p92mfvdurnj79@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:48:42 GMT, "Martin Reboul"
> >> <martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"David B" <tronospamchos@tesco.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:S%1nd.328$qh3.30@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> >> >> Inger E. Johansson wrote in message ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >the so called 'evidence' of David B holds NO value what so ever.
That's
> >> >> >neither any kind of evidence nor is it a valid theory since it's
based on
> >> >> >non-proven assumption of an existence of a fictiv person who should
have
> >> >> >been there and done a carving more than 150 years AFTER the
Kensington
> >> >> >runestone was carved. Thus David B continues to provide us with
'what if'
> >> >> >and complete fiction can't be used as 'evidence' what so ever.
That's
> >> >> >against all philosophic argumentation and I think we need to tell
him so.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unfortunately Inger still hasn't understood the difference between
> >> >> "evidence" and "proof". There is evidence, from Scott Wolter's
tests, that
> >> >> the stone was carved at least 200 years before 1898- but it will not
become
> >> >> anything like proof until his methodology is subjected to detailed
review.
> >> >> Also the evidence I cited- the "AVM" and the Larsson papers- was
> >> >> specifically related to the theory of Masonic involvement (as Martin
Reboul
> >> >> points out, not necessarily a "Masonic plot", but a forgery
involving at
> >> >> least one Freemason, and including an appeal to other Freemasons)
> >> >> not to the date of the KRS.
> >> >>
> >> >> That said, the Larsson papers, from the second half of the 19th
century,
> >> >> are the only other place where the pentadic numbers (adapted for
Arabic
> >> >> decimal notation) and nearly all the KRS runes appear together.
> >> >> The second half of the 19th century is the earliest period when both
> >> >> Swedish and Norwegian people together can absolutely be proven to
have
> >> >> spent time within an hour's walk of the KRS site.
> >> >> The tree in which the KRS was entangled was calculated to have been
about
> >> >> 40 years old in 1898.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wolter's tests are the only evidence, apart from the text of the
> >> >> inscription he has been testing, that the KRS might be older than
the
> >> >> second half of the 19th century. To become "proof" that the KRS is
what it
> >> >> claims to be, Wolter's evidence has to show beyond reasonable doubt
that
> >> >> a) artificial aging was not used on the inscription, and
> >> >> b) the inscription has been weathering since the14th century
> >> >>
> >> >> So far, he has achieved neither of those goals.
> >> >
> >> >Nicely summed up.
> >> >
> >> >Had the Larssen papers been dated any time *after* the discovery of
the KRS,
> >> >they would be easy to dismiss - they are not. I maintain that if they
are
> >> >genuine, the coincidence is so incredible remarkable, they weigh
heavily as
> >> >evidence, and so heavily I have little doubt the KRS is *not*
medieval.
> >>
> >> To do that you will have to show that the masonic/runic code used by
> >> Larssen originated some time later than the medieval period. Do you
> >> actually know when/where it came from?
> >
> >That would be the icing on the cake, but so far I have not discovered
where the
> >sugar is.
>
> While I have no confirmed this for myself, I am assured they have a
> respectable medieval heritage. **IF** that is correct, there is no
> reason why the KRS and the Larssen runes should not share a common
> ancestry.
>
> >
> >If you remember, before the Larrsen papers came to light, these were
generally
> >referred to as 'the KRS runes', and were thought to have been either an
old
> >medieval style that had been lost (by yeasayers) or a manufactured set
based
> >parttly on known old runes, with some extra ones 'manufactured' by the
the
> >hoaxer (by naysayers).
>
> That was a perfectly valid question in that virtualy none of the
> *experts* of the time claimed to be able to recognise them. In light
> of recent developments I have to put the emphasis on 'claimed'.
> >
> >My guess would be that they were adopted by Swedish Masons for use in
rituals
> >and so-on, to give them some appropriately 'individuality' when they
became
> >separated. That would of course be long after medieval times. Where they
came
> >from comes down to the same two possibities, either:
> >1) They were made up for the purpose, partly based on old runes.
> >2) They were copied from an old medieval source which has either been
lost, or
> >is kept carefully hidden for some reason.
>
> It's known.

only strawmen would try to make believe that he/she/they don't have to check
the references from 15th and 16th century which they have been presented.

> >
> >I think 2) is unlikely for several reasons. Firstly, I can see no reason
for
> >keeping mum for all these years, especially in view of what the existence
of
> >such a document would do for verifying the KRS, which would please them
greatly.
> >Secondly, such a thing would not be a 'Masonic secret', but a valuable
> >historical document, and Masons who are historians are just as keen about
> >history as anyone else. Most importantly, the KRS is now an embarrassment
to the
> >Craft (I have been told) and this would absolve the brotherhood of any
> >suspicion - it hasn't been done.
> >
> >On the other hand, 1) is far more likely, probably the work of someone
who was a
> >keen amateur historian, but needed more characters than the old, known
runic
> >alphabets provided, to deal with modern language and numerology (think
about
> >that one *very* carefully - check out the 'unknown' KRS runes!).
> >
> >I am hoping to get to the bottom of this, but obviously it is a matter of
great
> >sensitivity as well as a secret of tradition. I hope someone will
enlighten us
> >on this matter, but it will not be easy or quick.
> >
> >So far, there is no known medieval source, and I sincerely doubt there
ever will
> >be. There is however Larrsen....
> > Cheers
> > Martin
> >
> >PS I wonder if the discovery of the Larrsen papers might have anything to
do
> >with Wolter's apparent tardiness? He may well suddenly not be so keen to
commit
> >himself...
>

Definitely not. The Larsson papers has been shown to be of no value for
anyone but same linguists who still haven't looked into St Birgitta's
handwriting to find five of the words they still insist didn't exist in 14th
century.
The only one trying to press them forward are naysayers who still haven't
understood that you can't use a presumption as a fact nor can you use a
circleproof with a presumption that has two premisses needed to be true for
the presumption to be valid as an assumption in a thesis!
The two premisses which they avoid are:

* for the presumption of a forge to be plausible and able to be treated as a
valid assumption in a thesis you, a proof for that a scholar in 19th century
had skills and knowledge enough to fool 21st centuries technical forensic
and geochemists best instruments. As long as the naysayers haven't presented
that ONE single scholar no matter where in the world had skills and
knowledge which the best today can't find.

As Eric and others have told Martin and the naysayers many times: This isn't
the case.
This leads up to the simple fact - the 1st premiss needed to be true hasn't
been proven true.

* The forger must have had access not only to the papers of St Birgitta, not
only to the documents and diplomas from King Magnus Eriksson's court, but
also to the runes which aren't to be seen in the so called Larsson papers
but exist on KRS as well as on runecarvings from Greenland found in 1930's.
The later couldn't be known in 19th century. No one has even tried to
explain why the so called Larsson papers haven't got correct runes for KRS.
This would have been a necessarity for anyone who had wanted this premiss to
be anything but false/non valid

Since neither of the two premisses needed to be true can be treated as
anything but false. The presumption which the assumption in the circleproof
used by the naysayers who refer to the Larsson papers makes ALL they put
forward in valid. As Wolter and Nielsen said during seminars here in Sweden
and elsewhere, as written in papers where they have been interviewed: the
only thing the Larsson papers can be used for is to confirm that no one has
invented the runes. That's all folks.

Inger E

> I don't actually know but I can hazard the guess that you are quite
> wrong.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>

Quantcast