Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:14:25 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

--- snip ----

>>> Neither do I, but the known dots are clearly visible,
>>> while for some strange reason the 'important' dots
>>> are in normal circumstances invisible.
>
>> Not invisible, in the sense that they can be hard to see.
>> All that is required is that somebody seriously study the stone.
>
>And who do have you in mind?
>Who do you think was supposed to see
>and read the stone?
>If I see e.g. route sign, is it necessary to
>study it seriously for signs of secret
>nummerological clues?

You have to take into account that the fine detail has become
relatively obscured by the centuries of weathering to which it has
been exposed. In part the situation resembles that of the 17th century
english 's' which most people think was then represented by the long
version of the letter 'f'. I haven't got an example to show but if you
examine the old documents closely you will see that the horizontal bar
on the 'f' crosses the main stem of the letter but in the letter 's'
it is found only to the left of the main stem. Yet, the vast majority
of people have never noticed that. People tend not to notice the fine
detail unless they specifically look for it.

When I referred to somebody seriously studying the stone, I of course
referred to the scholars who have pronounced the runes to be fake and
the stone to be false on the basis of what now can be seen to be a
less than thorough examination. It is disappointing that it should
take more than a century for this to be done and that when it was done
it was done by a geologist of all people.

I take your point about the route sign but in this case we appear to
have a secret message disguised as a route sign (or something). There
may be truth in the message that they were engaged in a voyage of
(land?) acquisition but the KRS appears to be intended to do much more
than record that fact. The question is, what was its real purpose?
>
>> It is disappointing that it should take more than a century to happen.
>
>If the krs is genuine, then it is much longer then a century.

I was referring to the time since its discovery.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... >>>message is identical to the message plainly inscribed on the stone, ... >>>presumably available to anyone who could read the runes. ... it is amazing that someone could allege that the dots on the KRS ... >No. I'm arguing from the fact that the KRS was inspected by Holand ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... while for some strange reason the 'important' dots are in normal circumstances invisible. ... All that is required is that somebody seriously study the stone. ... If I see e.g. route sign, is it necessary to study it seriously for signs of secret nummerological clues? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... while for some strange reason the 'important' dots are in normal circumstances invisible. ... All that is required is that somebody seriously study the stone. ... If I see e.g. route sign, is it necessary to study it seriously for signs of secret nummerological clues? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Return Stonehenge says archdruid
    ... >> I think Ken is referring to the return of the Stone a few years back, ... >> which incidentally I have on camcorder as we witnessed it coming over ... Allan ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Return Stonehenge says archdruid
    ... >> I think Ken is referring to the return of the Stone a few years back, ... >> which incidentally I have on camcorder as we witnessed it coming over ... Allan ...
    (sci.anthropology)