Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.

On 29 Dec 2005 16:09:53 GMT, Sawfish <mtn@xxxxxx> wrote:

--- snip ---

>>>>If the tampering destroyed or corrupted the hidden message(s) that
>>>>would be evidence of tampering.
>>>
>>>>One possibility might be that form of the hidden messages may serve to
>>>>authenticate the identy of the group who carved the stone.
>>>
>>>You realize that all this talk of secret date codes, heretofore
>>>undetected/unrecognized marks, Templars, etc., makes the scenario where a
>>>mysterious person or persons planting a forged artifact seem eminently
>>>more plausible, right?
>
>>Mysterious persons, certainly. But why 'forged' when it might be the
>>genuine article?
>
>But that's my point, Eric! Why not forged by a suitor jilted by the 1899
>Princess of the Goter Day Festival in Kensington? It says, in secret code:
>"Brunhilde K. puts out."

Forged? So, its not the real thing. But what is the real thing?

>
>I've been away from this group for more than a year. It has only gotten
>stranger, more involuted, and, yes, delusional. Perhaps the word I'm
>looking for is "quixotic".
>
>Long ago I engaged in discussions here. I could care less about a visit in
>1362 by Scandinavians. What I was interested in was a skeptic attitutde
>towards everything, and a burden of proof and likilhood. It seemed to me
>that the debate was not whether the stone was genuine, but what
>constitutes acceptable supporting evidence. It was an exercise in
>epistemology, the way I saw it.

I go along with that. I feel much the same way. It's always pissed me
off that so many of the arguments against the authenticity of the KRS
a founded on solid speculation and nothing better. Mind you, some of
the arguments in favour of the KRS are no better but there are fewer
of them.

Fortunately, in the last year, a lot more facts have emerged with the
publication of the book by Wolter and Nielsen. I would rather deal
with what is actually known rather than what might be.
>
>Abominal snowman, my ass... Come over to the KRS discussion. We've got
>meaningful, purposely carved marks that no previous expert had noticed or
>commented upon before, *in over one hundred years of examination*, and
>guess what? These marks conform to a secret code, complete with a tamper
>key. There's some debate whether the key would actually work, or if
>there's any precedent for using such a key, but what the heck? I've got a
>lot of spare time on my hands...

Umm some of them have been noticed but no one has given thought to
their significance. In some respects the most significant marks are
those which establish the dotted 'R' runes. These are genuine 14th
century Gotland usage. I suppose you could call the marks establishing
the codes a bonus of some kind.
>
>Oh, yes. When we take these new marks into account, the previous
>translation is longer accurate--we think. What is it now? Who knows?
>That's the beauty of it...

Well two things it does not appear to be and those are a 19th century
forgery or the simple message from the past that everyone has thought
it to be for the last one hundred years.
>
>Of course, if you thought that the original story, as translated from the
>stone, of a bunch of Northerners running around in N central Minnesota,
>with no verifiable record of any contact anywhere between L'anse aux
>Meadows and Kensington, either in time or space, then this new scenario,
>with undetected marks, secret codes, and Templars--for god's sake!-- is
>at least one order of magnitude more remote. So if anyone buys this new
>scenario as plausible enough to take seriously, then let me never read
>where that same person thinks it implausible that someone would forge the
>stone, as a prank. Not if they wish to retain any semblance of
>intellectual integrity.

Before you proceed too far down that track you first have to deal with
the weathering of the surface of the stone.

>As to the stone, there's something very odd about it, all right. It's just
>that none of the theories yet presented seem supported well enough--and
>that includes the forgery in 1899 (or whenever--I forget and don't feel
>like looking it up). Certainly, secret Templar codes doesn't move in that
>direction.

Certainly the whole thing is bizarre.
>
>>>
>>>It makes even abductions by space aliens for purposes of interstellar
>>>procreation seem within the realm of reason.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT who said this ?
    ... Dewey not to reveal the evidence about Pearl Harbor? ... The excuse was that we didn't want the Japanese to know we had broken ... has charge or the most secret documents of the War and Navy ... codes, German as well as Japanese, but our main basis of informa- tion regarding Hitler's intentions in Europe is obtained from Baron Oshima's messages from Berlin reporting his interviews with Hitler ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • RE: Remove return codes at end of each line in document
    ... DISPLAY or not the return codes @ the end of each line in a doc as Graham ... codes so that no end-of-line mark exists. ... actually take these marks out of existence. ...
    (microsoft.public.word.docmanagement)
  • Re: How to get the plain text (without "||||||||||") from word ducment includes table?
    ... I have tried the Paragrph-By-Paragraph resolvent, ... I guess those additional marks might be defined ... cause in that those codes always be out ... >> number of characters retrieved from Range.Text doesnt equal to it that ...
    (microsoft.public.office.developer.com.add_ins)
  • Re: Computer Interface for VC2 Board
    ... These guys think they hold the secret of life and only have smart ass ... > codes and codes for a chipped VC2 board via computer? ...
    (rec.video.satellite.tvro)
  • Re: Can I ring my own landline phone? [Telecom]
    ... If there are new codes I don't know what they are. ... tedious if you need to tinker with adjustments (like the ringer ... such numbers secret? ... 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. ...
    (comp.dcom.telecom)