Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5kv0r1pqpc36k738qsu8d7r09tjv9ik5tl@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:49:58 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"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?
>
> A very good question.
>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>
> Yet, at least some of them are visible in early photographs.
>
>>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??
>
> I very much doubt it.

Why? Try googling "easter table" and searching within the results. You'll
discover easter tables and all manners of using them, go back a long, long
ways.

>>
>>>
>>>>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??
>
> I love the loaded language you use. It condemns you as appealing to
> emotion rather than logic. I wonder why? Is this the frustrated Perry
> Mason in you?

Who cares what you love?? Address the question. Are you proud of arguing
that the 1362 date is "coded" notwithstanding tht it is clearly reporduced
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??

Your refusal to answer condemns you just as surely as you would condemn
yourself by answering.

>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>
> But you can help it that you chose to cite something other than the
> page you actually wanted to refer us to.

I chose to cite the first link to an acceptable citation. Once again, you
are beginning to crank up your squink engine so that you don't have to deal
with facts and issues that are uncomfortable to your pre-favored outcome.

>
>> 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.
>
> Why should I take exception to that? That's what I've already quoted
> Nielsen and Wolter as saying.

And you don't think it just a bit strange that Holand, or any of the
European experts to whom he showed the stone, or any of the other experts
who were shown the stone prior to Wolter, saw things that Nielsen and Wolter
now claim to see?
>>
>>>>
>>>>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?
>
> ... and also when.

When, is easy. Since they were dead and gone long prior to 1362, I would
suggest that Templars could have arrived in America long prior to 1362, but
certainly not in are immediately prior to 1362.

>>>
>>>>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
>
>
>
> 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.
    ... Holand took the stone to Europe to have it examined by experts. ... Templars who had been wiped out (and that's quite literal, ... confiscated) about 50 years prior to 1362, managed to put together a voyage ... >>> Nielsen and Wolter as saying. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... >>>substituted another (stone) document for the original??? ... >>>No. I'm arguing from the fact that the KRS was inspected by Holand ... >not occur significantly prior to 1362?? ... >I chose to cite the first link to an acceptable citation. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Advice from Prez to Sonia Sontmayor
    ... voting on SC Justices since the early 1900s. ... It was never in stone ... anywhere prior to that. ...
    (soc.retirement)