Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:58:54 +1300
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:24:33 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
>Steve Marcus wrote: w2Tqf.47769$4l5.28616@dukeread05,
>> <m_zalar wrote in
>>> 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
>>
>
>I like this contradiction:
> He [=Wolters] now believes the words on the stone
> may not be the record of the death of 10 men, but
> instead a secret code concealing the true purpose
> of the stone.
>
> "We think, if it's the Templars, they confirmed the
> date which is on the stone -- 1362 -- by using a
> code in the inscription."
>
>Using a secret code in a false inscription
>to confirm a part of the false inscription.
>What is missing is a pointer to the existence
>of a secret code and of course to the true
>nature of the inscription.
The pointers are there, on the stone.
>
>> 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
Peter, I hope you are not going to continue arguing on the basis of
news paper articles. There is much more to know about the KRS than
that.
Eric Stevens
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Steve Marcus
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Peter Alaca
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- References:
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: David B
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Daryl Krupa
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Steve Marcus
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Steve Marcus
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Steve Marcus
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Peter Alaca
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Prev by Date: Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Next by Date: Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Previous by thread: Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Next by thread: Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|