Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:o2o6r115jd6a8kb3d4u37gpha8d7ula21h@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:10:04 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:ij06r15t2nrj9125otj3hve0vqlomkbfvd@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:04:52 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:k9h3r15smv89c7p9tucq6ide8ihci5c9b7@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:12:06 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>>>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:sqo0r1ho6s2mklsc40qm5jolh9pakifcr0@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:51:43 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Eric Stevens wrote: 4hluq1hmhf1d0volsoqp82uoup4urqnj7f@xxxxxxx,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "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??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That the date has not been tampered with. That the stone really is
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> stone carved by a presently unknown group for an unidentified
>>>>>>>>> purpose.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, that the visible date is the same as the alleged hidden date.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i.e. the message of the stone probably has not been tampered with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Logic, thy name is not Eric Stevens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Eric, concentrate: You carve the text of a message on a stone. You
>>>>>>then
>>>>>>carve a date on the stone. That date is "1362." You then encode a
>>>>>>secret
>>>>>>message on the stone, to wit, the date "1362" in code. I now come
>>>>>>along,
>>>>>>and totally unaware of your secretly encoded "1362", I change the text
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>the message on the stone. Later, a third party comes along, and
>>>>>>decodes
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>encoded "1362." How in hell does the third party know that the
>>>>>>message
>>>>>>on
>>>>>>the stone has not been tampered with by me???
>>>>>
>>>>> Changing the message is not much of a problem unless one of the runes
>>>>> used for coding the 1362 is changed. However, don't forget there are
>>>>> aother strange things buried in there including the computation of
>>>>> 'phi'. It's a bit like forging a bank note. You have to know what key
>>>>> details you have to accurately reproduce.
>>>>
>>>>But you haven't reported that Wolter/Nielsen have established that the
>>>>coded
>>>>runes are part of a key detail. Suppose that I change the "14 days
>>>>travel"
>>>>to "8" days travel, otherwise reproducing every rune and dot and word
>>>>divider on the stone?
>>>
>>> There are two points here. First, without going back and checking on
>>> the details, I can't tell you which characters are vital to what
>>> system of coding.
>>
>>Well, one reading and evaluating the Wolter/Nielsen book would be expected
>>to have taken note of that little detail.
>
> Why?

Because it's critical to the logic of the situation. Or don't you believe
that a hypothesis (particularly one that hasn't otherwise been established
by independent evidence) ought to be subjected to a test of whether or not
it's logical?

Thus, if one put forth observations regarding the speed of light and then
hypothesized that it could not not be exceeded, one might expect that the
hypothesis could be criticized as being counterintuitive and illogical. If
one supported the hypothesis by mathematical analysis that confirmed it, the
hypothesis would certainly be stronger.

Here, Wolter/Nielsen have put forth a hypothesis (at least insofar as you've
reported it) that appears to have serious logical flaws in it, and these
flaws exist at different levels. It seems to me that a reader approaching
their book with an open mind ought to be reading critically enough to
discern key data which ought to have been available to them to support their
hypothesis, and whether such data has been or has not been reported and
examined by them.

But that's just me. Feel free to claim that you have read the book less
than critically, but nevertheless feel comfortable defending the
Wolter/Nielsen hypotheses against all comers.

>
> I would expect that to occur in the 2nd pass, presuming that that was
> an aspect of immediate interest.
>

It's a key point. Therefore, by definition it is of immediate interest, and
should have been something that a critical, open minded reader looked at on
the first reading.

>>If characters that are not vital
>>to the system of coding could be changed to corrupt the message on the KRS
>>in a way that might be meaningful (changing a location or the length of a
>>journey, etc.) then it would seem that the theory advanced by
>>Wolter/Nielsen
>>doesn't stand up to simple logic analysis.
>>
>>But of course, you really are interested in accepting Wolter/Nielsen at
>>their word, rather than objectively analyzing both the book, and the
>>chances
>>of the KRS actually being real.
>
> My original article was the result of my first reading of the book. I
> posted it for information, not as a critical review.

And your subsequent posts? Lined up four-square behind Wolter/Nielsen.
Mind you, I understand that you are not not impartial in this matter.

>>
>>> Second, would a would-be faker recognise or even
>>> notise all the trivial detail which it was essential for him to copy?
>>> I don't know the answer.
>>>
>>So you don't know enough information to evaluate the Wolter/Nielsen
>>hypothesis, do you?
>
> Nobody does.

Then the purpose of their book would be ...? Would you think that
Wolter/Nielsen have enough information to evaluate (at least in the sense of
"support") their own hypothesis? Do you customarily agree with/defend a
hypothesis which you do not have enough information to evaluate??

>>
>>>>Do I, or don't I, faithfully reproduce the
>>>>(allegedly) encoded Easter Table date and the 'phi'? (Do't you mean
>>>>'pi'??)
>>>
>>> 'phi' the Golden Number 1.618033...
>>> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoldenRatio.html
>>
>>Thank you. I trust that I'll see that when I get to read the book.
>
> I expect you will, providing only that you read it with your eyes
> open.

I promise you that I shall read the book with my eyes, and mind,
considerably more open than yours appear to have been.
>
>>>>
>>>>Generically, have Wolter/Nielsen established that the coded material is
>>>>essential to the (very few) significant data appearing on the KRS? If
>>>>so,
>>>>you certainly have neglected to post that little tidbit of information.
>>>>
>>> You can find that out for yourself when your copy arrives.
>>
>>Undoubtedly. It also appears (per your comment above) that you have
>>neglected to read the book with sufficient concentration to be able to
>>answer the question yourself. That's okay; a book such as the one in
>>question might require several readings to analyze in depth.
>
> Now you are getting the point. You will understand better once you
> have read your copy.

Is the book that poorly written?

>
>>You would do
>>better for your own reputation if you refrained from being an unrestrained
>>cheerleader for the book until you in fact can answer key questions about
>>the material based upon actually knowing what the authors did, or did not,
>>write.
>
> When have I been a cheer leader for the book? I merely outlined the
> main arguments within the book.

You've been defending it against every question that someone has asked which
could result in a negative take on the hypothesis put forth in the book.
>From geology, to simple logic, to the invocation of the magic name
"Templars" about a half century after they had been victims of what amounts
to genocide. That sort of thing falls under my definition of
"cheerleading."

>
> Please be advised that you will have to sit an examination (via the
> news group) immediately after you have first given evidence that you
> have read the book.

Please be advised that the first time I post after reading the book, I will
be prepared to back the post up by pointing to what is in (or is absent
from) the book. I will not have an "AVM stone reaction."

>
>
>
> 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: Catching Up on Books
    ... of stuff, mostly junk reading, ... Dexter series, which I tried out because I love the ... only based itself on the first of Lindsay's novels. ... creating new characters and doing ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Catching Up on Books
    ... of stuff, mostly junk reading, ... Design, Dexter in the Dark ... only based itself on the first of Lindsay's novels. ... creating new characters and doing ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Little C Help Please
    ... characters to read, so it hapily goes on reading even when the buffer ... represent the size of the buffer, and stops reading before that number ... I think the OP's problem was not a space in the input, but a newline ... Dig the even newer still, yet more improved, sig! ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.apps)
  • Re: Little C Help Please
    ... characters to read, so it hapily goes on reading even when the buffer ... represent the size of the buffer, and stops reading before that number ... I think the OP's problem was not a space in the input, but a newline ... Dig the even newer still, yet more improved, sig! ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: Whats the weirdest human language?
    ... you learn to match up combinations of two or more characters to recognize a word so that you can then pronounce it. ... He gets the meaning from context and doesn't give a fig what the pronunciation is. ... it becomes a logic puzzle that bears very little resemblance to reading. ... Japanese and Chinese people have both told me that they do this constantly while reading, and they can't understand why Westerners have such a problem reading words that they can't say. ...
    (talk.origins)