Re: Kensington runestone once again.

Horace LaBadie wrote:
In article <5kdjusF397u6U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Erik Hammerstad <egeha.is.all.you.need@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

David B wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

I thought the Larsson runes were the 'small variations known only to
members of your old Masonic Lodge'. What you seem to be suggesting is
that the runes of the KRS are (small?) variations of small variations
known only to members of your old Masonic Lodge.
The Larsson runes were a set known to members of the Masonic lodge with which the Larssons were connected. That does not mean that other Masonic lodges in Sweden used exactly the same set of runes for transliterating the modern Swedish alphabet.

AFAIK the only connection between the Larsson runes and the Freemasons is that professor Sköld who first commented on the Larsson papers, stated that he knew the cipher alphabet in the Larsson papers as the freemason ciphers. He gave no other freemason connection for the Larsson brothers. He cited another Swedish author who had written that the ciphers were those of common people. And then there were of course some obvious uninformed discussions in these groups.

So I'm curious, do you at all have any other evidence of your claimed Masonic lodge connections of the Larssons? If not, I suggest you forget it.

Wasn't the presence of the "pigpen cipher" also taken to be an indication of a Masonic connection?

That's the one, and according to Wikipedia, it was used by the freemasons in the 18th century. I see it as very tenuous just from that to assume a Larsson Masonic connection.
.