Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:07:47 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
>"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.

Which is why I 'very much doubt' that " the existence of the Easter
Table and the manner of obtaining dates by plugging in runes unknown
in 1911"

I was answering the question that was actually asked.

>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.

Of what on earth do you think it condemns me? Even if I answered 'yes'
or 'no' to your ridiculous question, what is the significance?

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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.

Bull***. The first link is Google. Even if you don't know the URL of
the page you ended up with, Google will give you 3 links to the same
text. But you, with your usual impartial advocacy, had to refer us to
the site via a page with an implied put-down.
>
>>
>>> 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?

Rewrite that paragraph so that it says what I suspect you intended and
I might try answering it the way you wanted. Otherwise, my answer is
'no'.

>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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.

As you say, thats merely a suggestion.
>
>>>>
>>>>>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



Eric Stevens

.

Quantcast