Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.


<m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1135341716.414812.104330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Steve Marcus wrote:
>> And the other logical quirk is this: the "secret" dots yield the date
>> 1362.
>> But that date is already carved on the stone. So what was the big secret
>> conveyed by the dots??
>
> The practice of double dating an inscription does appear to have been a
> practice in medieval time, as shown in Nielsen/Wolter (see my post on
> the Easter Table). If so then this would tend to confirm the KRS as a
> medieval document, a forger having no need to do so.

Sigh.... Is there nothing that these guys can't cook up? I'm certain that
they can even find examples of triple dating, etc. So what? The point is
that this newly discovered date is in a "code." Their theory is that is
obtained by plugging the dotted runes in to an Easter table, something that
not everyone would be familiar with or know how to use. Yet, the "coded"
message is identical to the message plainly inscribed on the stone,
presumably available to anyone who could read the runes. What in the world
would the point of doing that be? By using the dotted runes, were the
necessarily concealing the date from anyone not friendly to them? After
all, knowledge of the Easter Table doesn't necessrily make anyone an ally of
the inscribers.

Again, it is amazing that someone could allege that the dots on the KRS were
not observed previously. The stone had been repeatedly subjected to
examination by Holand and experts in Europe. The allegations that
runestones in North America bear "Easter Table" dates is not new, either.
See: http://www2.privatei.com/~bartjean/chap9.htm

I'll reserve judgement on the book until I read it. I expect to have a copy
in 4-6 weeks. But the logic of the situation that is being reported by
those who have read the book is beginning to have a bad smell. As does this
sort of thing:

http://wcco.com/specialreports/local_story_143121108.html

See also:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41564

for this: "When we plotted these three things we got a year: 1362," Wolter
said. "It was like, oh my God, is this an accident? Is this a coincidence? I
don't think so.

"We think, if it's the Templars, they confirmed the date which is on the
stone -- 1362 -- by using a code in the inscription."

But why would Templars come to America, carve this stone and code the date?
Particularly since by 1362, they had been wiped out _and their resources
given over to others_? See:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm and

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/KnightsT2_PersecutionandDestructionoftheTemplars.asp

short version of 2nd link:

http://tinyurl.com/cds8w

>
> Michael
>
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... >>> the Easter Table). ... >>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 ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... >> Steve Marcus wrote: ... >>> But that date is already carved on the stone. ... >> the Easter Table). ... By using the dotted runes, ...
    (sci.archaeology)