Re: Wolter claims secret code hidden in Kensington Runestone



Alan Crozier wrote:
>
> <m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1117084793.971367.150290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > Alan Crozier wrote:
> > (what is the point of a coded 1362 when that date appears in runes
> > > too?).
> >
> > Let me make a brief attempt here. The '1362' is inscribed on the side
> > of the stone, while the 'coded' date is on the front face. The
> > inscription on the face of the stone is in a rather different style
> > (seemingly an imitation of the runic memorial stones) than that on the
> > side, which is a fairly straightforward message.
> > It seems reasonable to assume that the side of the stone was inscribed
> > after the face, and possibly as an afterthought. The expedition may
> > have been delayed from leaving the campsite for a day or more, giving
> > time for the additional message to be put on the side.
> > If this is true the original message would not have been dated except
> > for the encoded date. It was only after the decision was made to add
> > the additional material on the side of the stone that it was decided to
> > add the date explicitly.
> >
> > There will now ensue a lot of yelling and screaming as to why or why
> > not this idea is to be ignored. I simply present this as a reasonable
> > response to the question.
>
> I find it a bit strained but I award you full marks for effort. But do you
> really believe Wolter's hypothesis? Surely it's possible to believe the KRS
> is genuine without believing in hidden Templar codes?


I would place the Templar Code claim at the same credibility level as
the Bible Code or the Da-Vinci code. I'm reliably told that there is
also a code in the book, Moby ***.

--
http://tinyurl.com/al225
http://tinyurl.com/alznw
.

Quantcast