Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 04:06:39 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
>news:lv0ca1105nm0l1eka4u45d8st2hc73gbha@xxxxxxx:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 07:11:11 -0500, Tom McDonald
>> <tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> --- snip ----
>>
>>>> Before getting too up tight about a geologist getting involved
>>>> in these things it is necessary to bear in mind that the
>>>> professionals (archeologists,runologists, philologists,
>>>> linguists etc) have had more than a century head start and
>>>> found none of these new aspects. I think there is a case to be
>>>> made that Scott Wolters (and Nielsen) should be thanked, and
>>>> not criticised, for looking outside their original
>>>> professional spheres and making these new discoveries.
>>>
>>> There is no reason in the world why Wolters and Nielsen
>>> ought
>>>not be both praised and criticized for their work, in or out of
>>>their professional spheres. But one might profitably consider
>>>the case of Newton. He is a giant in several fields; but in
>>>other fields he was in the left corner. No one I know disputes
>>>his greatness; but that doesn't lend credibility to his weird
>>>ideas. (Think 'Templars' on a television news show :-))
>>
>> The Templar connection seems to be a matter of fact and there is
>> no point blaming the messenger. No matter how tenuous the
>> connection, that is all that is needed for a news show to get
>> all excited. I would rather wait until Wolter's and Nielsen
>> publish their own account before I jump to any conclusions.
>
>As a matter of fact the templar did not exist in 1362 and it is
>excessively unlikely that there were ex-Templar roaming around in
>Minnisota in 1362. If the stone makes evident that a Templar crafted
>the stone, the that is self-evident the stone IS a hoax.

I presume then you will make the same claim for the gravestones in
Gotland bearing the Templar crosses.

> Whereas a more conservative point might be made that one of the
>independent leaning peoples of gotlandia for whom the masons later
>borrowed some of the runes might have crafted the stone, or it was a
>later templar-o-phile




Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>> professional spheres and making these new discoveries. ... No matter how tenuous the ... As a matter of fact the templar did not exist in 1362 and it is ... the stone, the that is self-evident the stone IS a hoax. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>> The Templar connection seems to be a matter of fact and there is ... No matter how tenuous the ... >>the stone, the that is self-evident the stone IS a hoax. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>> The Templar connection seems to be a matter of fact and there is ... No matter how tenuous the ... >> the stone, the that is self-evident the stone IS a hoax. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>> The Templar connection seems to be a matter of fact and there is ... No matter how tenuous the ... >>the stone, the that is self-evident the stone IS a hoax. ... Templar crosses on gravestones? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone
    ... "Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... >>ideal preservation, so the lack of mica is easily explained without a need ... The stone has been handled and shipped around many different places, ... Its a matter of fact. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Quantcast