Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:42:27 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote: pko0r19m892q6pm9f9u8f6ad9u30uilv4k@xxxxxxx,
>
>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:45:36 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens wrote: d0nuq11llevr23j91ram9ht01lvlpv5pg2@xxxxxxx,
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>>> You mean the dots? But I am not (yet)
>>> convinced of their existence, and I don't
>>> believe in the golden numbers cryptology
>>> and Templar stuff in relation to the KRS.
>
>> 'Belief'? What has belief got to do with it? Either it is there, or
>> it is not. It's like saying you don't believe in the theorem of
>> pythagorous.
>
>Well, the noun "belief" is composed of the letters
>B, E, F, I and L in lowercase and the 'e' is used twice.
>That is too much as coincidence, and since I have
>seen it used that way in religious circles, I suspect
> there is medieval Sedish bishop behind it.
>
>>> And what is that true story on the stone?
>
>>>>>> [snip more from Steve Marcus]
>>
>>>> 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.
>
>>> Why is that? Is it not true what Wolters said there?
>>> One thing is sure: I have no plans to order the book,
>>> so for the moment I appreciate every other source
>>> of information.
>
>> All I can say is that I am disappointed. Not by your decision to not
>> buy the book but by the ranking you give other sources of information.
>
>There is no ranking in "every other source".
>But I did you unjustice: I trust you more in
>reporting the findings then a a newspapaper.

I try to be impartial but I know very well that I am not.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KRS: Nielsen/Wolter - Goter
    ... >Eric Stevens wrote: 01o0r1pqs1d2mgvdtj2dl5hrstj0b3l6f1@xxxxxxx, ... The photos were taken in Dec 2003, when the stone was at ... There are a lot of dots between ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... >>Eric Stevens wrote: pko0r19m892q6pm9f9u8f6ad9u30uilv4k@xxxxxxx, ... >>> buy the book but by the ranking you give other sources of information. ... The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Quantcast