Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press

"Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:429daa7f$0$78024$dbd41001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> IEJ wrote: q2hne.139092$dP1.489443@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>
> > "Per Rønne" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:1gxh791.eu802t98fs23N%spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Per Rønne wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Furthermore, it seems as if the stone has been handled in such a
> >>>> way that a scientific {as opposed to a scholarly} research of it is
> >>>> impossible. Quite convenient for possible fakers.
> >>
> >>> Again that cannot even be a "belief" as studies have in fact been
> >>> done on the stone and findings made of a MINIMUM age of the
> >>> inscription - no maximum has been stated so far.
> >>
> >> No minimum age either - other than one from the 1800s.
> >
> > Sorry Per Erik,
> > the absolute minimum age when the rune was carved has in geologic
> > testings been shown to be 1700 AD. Not younger you know.
>
> Maybe you can give us a source for that?

Scott Wolter, unpublished scientific data. It will appear in his forthcoming
book along with other scientific data, such as the decipherment of a Templar
code (certain dots on the stone spoke to him, saying "Pay attention to me",
just begging to be mapped on an Easter table).

Pehr Review is nowhere to be seen.

Alan

--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden


.