Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:45:21 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

--- snip ----

>> Very simple. Many of the markings change the meaning of the runes and
>> for more than a century the runes have been discussed on the basis
>> that the marks are not there. Quite literally, nobody seems to have
>> seen them
>
>Which, considering that Nielsen, and Knirk, two "experts" have published
>material about the runes and their meaning, is an incredible statement.
>Mighty suspicious.

The fine detail in its weathered condition is definitely present on
the stone. The material published by all of the 'experts', including
Nielsen and Knirk, have in the past discussed the runes as though the
much of the fine detail was not present and the only reason is that
until Wolters closely examined the stone, nobody knew all the fine
detail that was there. Everybody has been working from inaccurate
transcriptions which have been assumed to be correct. I don't know
what is suspicious about that.



Eric Stevens

.