Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tpluq1d4n1bit3p0ufor0dv6elebb4kst8@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:35:51 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><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?
>
> It shows that there is precedent for embedding a hidden date in the
> text.
>
>>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.
>
> An obvious application of this technique would be to ensure (for
> example) that someone doesn't substitute another (stone) document for
> the original. Someone could, for example, carve another document with
> another message but still bearing the date 1362. Embedding an
> authentication code in the text would ensure that an attempted forgery
> of some kind would immediately be detected.

And heerrrreee we go, off to the races. Which "someone" would have
substituted another (stone) document for the original??? And why put 1362
in "clear" on the stone at all, if one was going to put the same date in
code as an authentification?

>>
>>Again, it is amazing that someone could allege that the dots on the KRS
>>were
>>not observed previously.
>
> Why should you be amazed when the facts show that this is what
> actually happened?
>
> Are you trying to argue from incredulity?

No. I'm arguing from the fact that the KRS was inspected by Holand
throughout the years that he was in possession of it, and he never produced
a transcription of the runes showing these dots. I'm also arguing that per
Blegen, the stone was exhibited in Europe (circa 1911, I believe), and shown
to various authorities on runes. No one saw those dots then. Was the
existence of the Easter Table and the manner of obtaining dates by plugging
in runes unknown in 1911??

>
>>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
>
> That is not what is claimed in the URL you have cited.

The URL shows that the issue of "Easter Table" dates on runestones is not a
new one. See Blegen for Holand's having taken the KRS to Europe and shown
it to experts their (who, by the way, universally derided it).
>>
>>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
>
> Arguement by innuendo?

No. Just reporting the facts. This business of Templars, secret codes,
newly discovered "dots" that have hidden meanings, has a bad smell. Period.
And as to arguments in general, are you proud of arguing that the 1362 date
is "coded" notwithstanding that it is clearly reproduced on the KRS "in the
clear" because a secret message was being left?? Are you proud of arguing
that the end of the Templars (quite literally the end, because they were
rounded up and killed, and their assests confiscated) did not occur
significantly prior to 1362??

>>
>>See also:
>>http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41564
>
> DEfinitely. You prefer to steer us to a page posted by someone who
> writes
>
> "An elaborate hoax, or real?
>
> There are some curiosities, but I'm no expert on runes."
>
> You could of course have taken us directly to the City of Kensington
> web page http://kensingtonmn.com/runestonepg.html but you had to get
> your little piece of innuendo in first.

Please learn how to read. The author of the website linked above isWm. P.
Holmen, not DJ Quinn, the author of a message board that contains the link.
I can't help it that Google discovered the link in Quinn's message, as
opposed to directly discovering the page itself. And please learn how to
argue. The linked site says what it says, and quite clearly supports that
Holand apparently didn't see any "dots" or the word separator that has now
been "found" to exist.

>>
>>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_?
>
> Not only 'why' but 'how'?

Exactly. How and why?
>
>>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
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>

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.
    ... >>>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.
    ... >>> for more than a century the runes have been discussed on the basis ... >>material about the runes and their meaning, ... > until Wolters closely examined the stone, ... And the other logical quirk is this: the "secret" dots yield the date 1362. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
    ... It was found on the Narragansett, Rhode Island inscription stone ... if the Larsson runes trace their roots to some ... inscription and in others discovered in North America (Spirit Pond, ... in this news group over the 'dotted-X'. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
    ... if the Larsson runes trace their roots to some ... Narragansett inscription stone, or the astrolab or Rosslyn chapel. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Spirit Pond, Maine
    ... >> runes which were curved and rounded. ... It is also a memorial stone, ... >> Indeed I find the dissimilarities between the KRS and runestones can ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading