KRS - Possible news to come
Eric Stevens
David B
> http://www.echopress.com/article.cfm?Article_ID=27103
Intriguing- they're not exactly playing up the Ohman papers in the article
(and the views of the Ohman family over 100 years after the event aren't
what most people would call news). Still, if there's further evidence to
suggest that Olof Ohman had nothing to do with the making of the KRS,
there's a few Masonic-conspiracy theorists out here who'll be quite happy
:-)
David B.
Inger E Johansson
"David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:FgkTc.36$P91...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
Ohman had nothing to do with KRS making.
Haven't you got that by now.
Inger E
> :-)
>
>
> David B.
>
>
Martin Reboul
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
news:xYjTc.525$d5....@newsb.telia.net...
I've been trying to tell everyone hat for over a year - does nobody listen to us
Inger?
I can confirm that Inger is right, Olaf Ohman almost certainly did *not* make
the KRS!
He wasn't a Mason.
Cheers
Martin
zolota
"Martin Reboul" <mar...@spamfukreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4jyTc.590$Uj1...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
A Kinsman perhaps?
Z
Inger E Johansson
"zolota" <zol...@REMOVEshaw.ca> skrev i meddelandet
news:UDYTc.117962$M95.59245@pd7tw1no...
In 16th century????????
Well who knows if the former priest and bishop with access in 1490's-1510's
to document who sailed westward in 1520 did that and if he was a Kinsman?
Inger E
>
> Z
>
Tom McDonald
Martin Reboul
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote in message
news:10i0n4l...@corp.supernews.com...
I have seen the light!
I LOVE this...
"It only pertains to the people of the Book, the Israel race comprised of the
Anglo Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic and kindred folk. It does not apply
to the jews or the other races."
Dear me! However, it gets better....
"The truth is, God has always discriminated between the races. The Big Lie is
'God loves everybody'. It would behoove students of the Bible to find out who
God hates, whom He hath indignation forever. "
God never seemed to particularly favour the Christians in the Bible, they never
got so much as a mention in the index! Who are these people?
Cheers
Martin
Tom McDonald
Martin,
They are a sect of 'Christian Identity' folks. This bunch
appears to be legalistic, requiring their followers to adhere to
all the non-sacrificial laws of the Old Testament. For some
queer reason, they want to believe that Jews aren't decedents of
Israel or Judah; but the Kinsmen are.
If it goose steps like a Nazi, and 'Heil Hitler!'s like a Nazi,
it probably isn't the JDL.
--
Tom McDonald
Daryl Krupa
>
> > "Martin Reboul" <mar...@spamfukreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:4jyTc.590$Uj1...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
<snip>
> >>He wasn't a Mason.
> >
> > A Kinsman perhaps?
> Not *this* Kinsman, surely?
>
> http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/
No, maybe one of these guys:
http://www.wasagakin.ca/index.php?action=display&cat=3&v=12
A.l.
David Holiman
The ones who never got the word that God has an eternal
covenant with the Jewish people. The fact that the Jews
have been pulverized by every religion since the reign of
Ramses makes it even more believable. "God" has made the Jews
pay for their exalted status...in blood and exile.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Martin Reboul
"David Holiman" <dcho...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:4315ddc6.04081...@posting.google.com...
Yet they still seem to be doing so well? Some of them anywy...
Inger E Johansson
would you mind filling me in why you and David arrived at your conclusions
re. the Christians, the Bible and what those conclusions have to do with
subjectline around KRS?
Inger E
"Martin Reboul" <martin...@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:WYsWc.275$Vl4...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
Martin Reboul
> Martin,
> would you mind filling me in why you and David arrived at your conclusions
> re. the Christians, the Bible and what those conclusions have to do with
> subjectline around KRS?
Nothing Inger. I stated that Olaf Ohman almost certainly did not manufacture the
KRS. I thought you would agree with that statement?
Anything else was idle chit-chat about peripheral issues.
Do you wish to discuss the KRS? Personally, I think it was made in the 1890's as
a rather clever hoax. I have many good reasons to think that.
What do you think?
Cheers
Martin
ed4linda
At the forum on Aug 21, Wolter and Nielsen indicated that while the Swedish
academia has not come to total agreement, several researchers are agreeing
with Scott's physical testing results that the inscription was carved prior
to 1700. From Dick Nielsen's comments, the linguist's are beginning to
agree that the runes used in the Kensington inscription were available in
the 14th century.
The letters unveiled on Aug 21, and now on display in Kensington, question
whether H. R. Holand had any right of ownership to the stone. In addition,
members of the Ohman family (who knew Walter Gran) were interviewed in May
2004 and their taped comments about the Gran interviews suggest the
unreliabity of Gran as a witness. Other interviews were conducted Saturday
with several area citizens concerning their knowledge of the Ohman and Gran
families.
The Rune Stone returned from Sweden in March and is now on display at the
museum in Alexandria.
Doc Rock
Inger E Johansson
nice to read lines from your pen on net again. It's been a while. Comments
below.
"ed4linda" <ed4l...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:pfCdndN1r40...@comcast.com...
> I had this news from last weekend's conference:
>
> At the forum on Aug 21, Wolter and Nielsen indicated that while the
Swedish
> academia has not come to total agreement, several researchers are agreeing
> with Scott's physical testing results that the inscription was carved
prior
> to 1700. From Dick Nielsen's comments, the linguist's are beginning to
> agree that the runes used in the Kensington inscription were available in
> the 14th century.
To which I can add yesterday's comments from archaeologists I contacted.
Background: One of the researchers not named in Doc's text has asked me to
try to get more detailed information from Swedish and Norwegian excavation's
metallurgic analyses of artifacts.
I had same reaction from one archaeologist in Stockholm as well as one here
in Gothenburg. Why are you interested in the metal's composition - We
already KNOWS that they[the Scandinavians] were there[mid US]..... As I
wrote to the scholar who asked for help, it would have been nice had the
archaeologists who knows written an article about what and why they know it.
As for the runetext on KRS, I think it's time to present one piece of
information which not been put on the table before. One of the returners
from Ivar Bardson's and Paul Knutson's voyage were a young sailor from a
parish on the border between Helsingland and Uppland. As late as in 1960's
the Church document noting his return in 1364 still existed in it's origin
place. There are three different information's given of it's present
location. All correct according to Swedish Antiquaric organisation. Some say
it was forwarded to Statens Historiska Museum. Some to the Riksarkiv. Most
say that it's among the Church documents waiting to be registered digital in
Långsele where almost all Swedish Church documents found have been sent the
last 10 years. I don't know myself but I know one scholar who aim to go for
the information during Fall-winter to come.
>
> The letters unveiled on Aug 21, and now on display in Kensington, question
> whether H. R. Holand had any right of ownership to the stone. In
addition,
> members of the Ohman family (who knew Walter Gran) were interviewed in May
> 2004 and their taped comments about the Gran interviews suggest the
> unreliabity of Gran as a witness. Other interviews were conducted
Saturday
> with several area citizens concerning their knowledge of the Ohman and
Gran
> families.
>
> The Rune Stone returned from Sweden in March and is now on display at the
> museum in Alexandria.
>
> Doc Rock
Inger E
Martin Reboul
"ed4linda" <ed4l...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pfCdndN1r40...@comcast.com...
> I had this news from last weekend's conference:
>
> At the forum on Aug 21, Wolter and Nielsen indicated that while the Swedish
> academia has not come to total agreement, several researchers are agreeing
> with Scott's physical testing results that the inscription was carved prior
> to 1700. From Dick Nielsen's comments, the linguist's are beginning to
> agree that the runes used in the Kensington inscription were available in
> the 14th century.
And in the 19th it seems?
Inger E Johansson
"Martin Reboul" <martin...@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> skrev i meddelandet
Well Martin you missed that the stone DEFINITLEY can be said to be older
than 1700.
Inger E
>
Martin Reboul
Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that the stone is considerably older than that.
It's what someone carved on it in the late 19th century that interests me. *Why*
they carved it is even more interesting... were you enlightened, you might
encompass the sublime cleverness of it - and realise why I can say no more than
that.
Cheers
Martin
Inger E Johansson
you missed it completely - we are not talking about the stone's age, we[Doc
Ed, I and many others] are telling you that the runecarvings on the stone
was definitely done before 1700 AD.
Btw you also missed the smoking gun for the so called Larsson papers, well
you and several Linguists done same mistake so you aren't alone.
Neither of you have taken yourself time to read Olaus Magnus brother's
documentation of the runes still in use in late 15th early 16th century have
you?
You know Olaus Magnus don't you? Since you try so hard to make believe you
know at least something about Swedish and Norwegian texts from Medieval and
Modern Age I presume you can read this Norwegian url:
http://www.ub.uit.no/fag/historie/olaus.htm
Oh it's an English summery in the end.
In his own work Olaus Magnus had notes about runes,
but it was his brother's documentation from Hälsingland and Uppland which
those who claim that there isn't any documentation for some of the 'runes'
between KRS stone's 1362 and Larsson's paper - well there was and there is.
As usual when one mistake like the one you and the Linguists happen there
are other mistakes made..... the runes existed in the Guild's in the
Medieval Age - you know we did have those here in Sweden as well and the so
funnily called secret - runes were in use in the Guilds where they were
documented by Olaus Magnus brother.... as well as by others.
Inger E
a.spencer3
You seem to be avoiding me, Inger, so sorry for popping in here, whenever I
can see you.
Those details re a British king contacting Rome, please?
Surreyman
Inger E Johansson
a) if you have something to add to the KRS discussion, please do so.
b) you are everything but patient - You have to wait for my answer, as I
told you many times before, until I have time to look for it OR you have to
take yourself time to go back 6-7 years in the discussions - there I gave
the answer inside an article of mine which I forwarded to the groups.
Inger E
a.spencer3
I'm not trying to trick you here - I have until now defended your word
against your attackers, expecting you to keep to it.
By all means give me the reference of 6 or 7 years ago and I will happily go
to it. I by no means want to take you away from your very important work -
but isn't providing your information a part of this?
Surreyman
Inger E Johansson
things can happen that change the possibility to do this or that. 3 stroke
for persons I know within two days of my answer and a lot of other things
totally changed my possibilities to take time. I have told you so. THIS is
the third and finaly time I tell you - you have two choices those below
nothing else. Since you are one of those who abused me in the past I see no
reason to include you in my prioritylisting.
Inger E
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:pKiXc.41$HB6...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
a.spencer3
> a.spencer3,
> things can happen that change the possibility to do this or that. 3 stroke
> for persons I know within two days of my answer and a lot of other things
> totally changed my possibilities to take time. I have told you so. THIS is
> the third and finaly time I tell you - you have two choices those below
> nothing else. Since you are one of those who abused me in the past I see
no
> reason to include you in my prioritylisting.
>
>
When did I abuse you?
Surreyman
Hyperoglyphe
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:aEhXc.34$Pr...@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
Oh that's easy Surreyman. It is "King" Lucius that "wrote" to Rome.
From the POV of a lurker, the hard part is trying to work out from this
never ending thread, which Kensington rock is under consideration. KRS or
AVM?
Dave
David B
<412dc31a$0$22827$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>...
>>
>> Surreyman
>
>Oh that's easy Surreyman. It is "King" Lucius that "wrote" to Rome.
Hyperoglyphe; can you confirm that the first request from a British ruler
to Rome about Christian teaching was around AD64-67, rather than AD164-167?
>From the POV of a lurker, the hard part is trying to work out from this
>never ending thread, which Kensington rock is under consideration. KRS or
>AVM?
KRS. The pro-authenticity lobby tend to prefer not to mention the AVM
stone.
David B.
Martin Reboul
This thread has developed into a sort of "cheese shop" sketch, a la Monty
Python.
Most amusing...
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
"David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:gKkXc.530$Jn6...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
All Very Masonic?
scooby750
I KNEW IF I STAYED AROUND LONG ENOUGH I WOULD FIND SOMETHING OUT!!!!
Hey David thanks for bringing up the AVM I did not even know about that one
( silly me) ok you did not bring it up I think Hyperoglyph mentioned it ,
but you replyed :)
Any way found some interesting reading on it..Now just need to put my eyes
on the paper, but wanted to say thanks I can follow this KRS discussion a
little more closely now.
Bruce
Martin Reboul
"scooby750" <scoo...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:53pXc.105699$Lj.74201@fed1read03...
I think you'll find 'AVM' is actually the key!
Alan Crozier
news:5ApXc.217$Pr6...@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>
<snip>
> > Hey David thanks for bringing up the AVM I did not even know about that
one
> > ( silly me) ok you did not bring it up I think Hyperoglyph mentioned it
,
> > but you replyed :)
> > Any way found some interesting reading on it..Now just need to put my
eyes
> > on the paper, but wanted to say thanks I can follow this KRS discussion
a
> > little more closely now.
> > Bruce
>
> I think you'll find 'AVM' is actually the key!
Now if only we could find the lock!
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Martyn Harrison
when I was Inventing Usenet! Do your homework and THEN you can talk about the
1878 discussion on Runes that this was PROVED in.
NOT agreeing with me on this is ILLEGAL under Dataprotektionesque BUREAU I had
that OFFICIAL in the back of my Yet to be Published PAPERS and he said you were
DEFINATELY going to PRISON unless you AGREE the KRS is genuine and VIKINGS Are
in charge of the EARTH.
Apparently on date Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:26:39 GMT, "a.spencer3"
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> said:
Alan Crozier
"Martyn Harrison" <nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite> wrote in message
news:9dbsi0t2d4116ki29...@4ax.com...
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1997/50.html
Now Martin, I defy you to report me for abuse for moving your post and thus
totally distorting your message.
By the way, you still haven't told me the names of the lawyers you spoke to.
Do they really exist?
Good morning!
Inger E Johansson
According to A Viklund at the Datainspektion you haven't been given
permission to change a message of mine. Nor have you asked if you are
allowed to. You have asked him if you are allowed to quote and write inside
a message. That's definitely not the same as what you are doing below.
According to Officials at the Goverment as well as lawer I have spoken to
re. copyrights YOU have committed a crime the minuit you move my text and my
name- you have no right to do so and no one else have the rights either.
Top-postcorrecting as you call it is destroying and changing a message. The
minuit you moved part of my text to a place inside a message I answered to
but where I hadn't placed it - that minuit you deliberately changed my
message content and you have also deliberately moved my text from it's
context to a place you have chosen - not I. Then you try to make believe
that I have said this and that as a response to part x resp part y.
That's not so - I have sent a full top-posting because any other way of
writing wouldn't and couldn't be correct due to the thing I wrote.
Stop pretending that you have been allowed to move my text INTO an earlier
text to a place of your choice for you to answer to. THAT's not allowed at
all.
You are abusing my rights and you aren't respecting my personal integrity.
That's not what you are allowed to do.
It's enough that you have abused me and stalked me the last years - stop
this idiotic behavior of yours.
Inger E
"Alan Crozier" <alan.not...@telia.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:2RqXc.1596$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
Andrew Chaplin
>
> Now Martin, I defy you to report me for abuse for moving your post and thus
> totally distorting your message.
> By the way, you still haven't told me the names of the lawyers you spoke to.
> Do they really exist?
Dewey, Cheetham and Howe.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Tom McDonald
So I take if you will not provide the information you said
you'd provide to Surreyman? Or even provide a message ID to
where you wrote it before?
Or are you going to use your normal tactic of blowing up all
over the place on side issues, hoping no one will notice you
aren't following through on your promise?
I, too, am waiting for some things you said you'd send me a
month or two ago. But I, unlike Surreyman, have despaired of
ever seeing electron one of that.
Tom McDonald
Hyperoglyphe
> <412dc31a$0$22827$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>...
> >
> >"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Those details re a British king contacting Rome, please?
> >>
> >> Surreyman
> >
> >Oh that's easy Surreyman. It is "King" Lucius that "wrote" to Rome.
>
> Hyperoglyphe; can you confirm that the first request from a British ruler
> to Rome about Christian teaching was around AD64-67, rather than
AD164-167?
Yes. You have probably not heard of the Papal Bull, Diplomicus Sardonicus.
I can dig up a reference after I walk the dog.
>
> >From the POV of a lurker, the hard part is trying to work out from this
> >never ending thread, which Kensington rock is under consideration. KRS or
> >AVM?
>
> KRS. The pro-authenticity lobby tend to prefer not to mention the AVM
> stone.
My apologies to them. And to you: I am "smiley" impaired/\.
Dave
Martin Reboul
"Tony Smith" <adolphu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0dmib03...@news.individual.net...
> Alan Crozier wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1997/50.html
> >
> > Now Martin, I defy you to report me for abuse for moving your post
> > and thus totally distorting your message.
> > By the way, you still haven't told me the names of the lawyers you
> > spoke to. Do they really exist?
> >
No, Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne for me, everytime...
Martin Reboul
"Andrew Chaplin" <abch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:412E5416...@yourfinger.rogers.com...
> Alan Crozier wrote:
> >
> > Now Martin, I defy you to report me for abuse for moving your post and thus
> > totally distorting your message.
> > By the way, you still haven't told me the names of the lawyers you spoke to.
> > Do they really exist?
>
> Dewey, Cheetham and Howe.
As I said before, my solicitors are the well known and highly attested firm of
Sue, Grabbit and Runne, who have defended Private Eye for years....
Alan Crozier
spoke to. You seem only to know my man Viklund. It's not fair of you to use
the man I named without naming your own.
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
news:GhsXc.101886$dP1.3...@newsc.telia.net...
Hyperoglyphe
"Hyperoglyphe" <hypero...@schlockmail.com> wrote in message
news:412e61f6$0$22832$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Well, I have walked the dog.
As a wise person once said. "I would have loved to mail You a copy of my
copy, but since I don´t have a scanner of my own I need help of a friend and
unfortunatly cause to personal circumstances this hasn´t been possible to
see her since You began asking for the MS. I try to mail it as soon as it is
possible, but can´t do it today nor tomorrow..."
And to support the theorum the Libor Pontificalis was edited by the Masons
to have "67" read "167", I have been told by a confidential professorial
diplomicus who has seen the original in a vault, there is the certain
knowlege they also erased part of "Brittanio", leaving "Brittio" and
confusing many a historian archaeologist misled as to the location being
Mespotamia and the date being "167". Their simple technique for the date
change was brilliant: a fly was squashed between the pages. As evidence of
this, see: Emigration from Southern Norway to England during the Anglo-Saxon
Migration Age. © Johansson Inger, Göteborg 1999
"... One way of looking at this can be to look for Christian customs before
the
"official" Christianise of Scandinavia. Over a period from apr. 50 AD to
150 AD the older forms of Christianity was spread over the Roman Empire.
The new religion wasn't accepted, never the less the first martyrs in
Gallien died for Christianity in 167 AD are mentioned in sources(note 5).
This happened the same year the Britonic king Lucius, if we are to believe
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, sent a letter to Pope Eleutherius in order to
receive help to be converted to Christianity.(note 6). Christian churches
was built in Roman England in for example Hinton St Mary (Dorset),
Lullingstone (Kent) and St Martin´s i Canterbury... "
Quite obvious, really.
Dave
Alan Crozier
news:GhsXc.101886$dP1.3...@newsc.telia.net...
> Alan,
> According to A Viklund at the Datainspektion you haven't been given
> permission to change a message of mine. Nor have you asked if you are
> allowed to. You have asked him if you are allowed to quote and write
inside
> a message. That's definitely not the same as what you are doing below.
By the way, Inger, I hope you told A Viklund the *whole* story, including
the bit about your attitude to copyright and plagiarism in other cases. If
not, I can send him a reference to the incident when you quoted another
person's website and then claimed that you had written it yourself. Your
obvious and self-contradictory lies on that occasion will show Viklund what
kind of person he is dealing with.
> According to Officials at the Goverment as well as lawer I have spoken to
Without names and addresses your claim is worthless bluff.
Michael Zalar
> >From the POV of a lurker, the hard part is trying to work out from this
> >never ending thread, which Kensington rock is under consideration. KRS or
> >AVM?
>
> KRS. The pro-authenticity lobby tend to prefer not to mention the AVM
> stone.
>
>
> David B.
The AVM stone, which had been subject to outdoor, above ground
weathering for some 19 years before it was discovered, still showed
signs of the iron oxidation process at work (essetnially rust) when it
was examined. The KRS, which has been in a protected environment
since its finding (either inside of Ohman's shed for the first 9
years, or in the hands of one or another party looking to preserve the
stone since that time) shows a completion of the iron oxidation (the
exposed iron has rusted away).
If you want ot mention the AVM stone (a hoax perpetrated by supposed
scholars, and quite easily disproved) those facts should be kept in
mind. While this has not been the subject of in depth examination,
this does suggest that the KRS inscription was at least 19 years old
at the time it was found.
Michael
David B
Michael Zalar wrote in message ...
>
>The AVM stone, which had been subject to outdoor, above ground
>weathering for some 19 years before it was discovered, still showed
>signs of the iron oxidation process at work (essetnially rust) when it
>was examined. The KRS, which has been in a protected environment
>since its finding (either inside of Ohman's shed for the first 9
>years, or in the hands of one or another party looking to preserve the
>stone since that time) shows a completion of the iron oxidation (the
>exposed iron has rusted away).
>If you want ot mention the AVM stone (a hoax perpetrated by supposed
>scholars, and quite easily disproved) those facts should be kept in
>mind. While this has not been the subject of in depth examination,
>this does suggest that the KRS inscription was at least 19 years old
>at the time it was found.
Thanks Michael- needless to say I'm always happy to read support for my
theory :-)
David B.
David B
<412ec362$0$22831$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>...
>
>see: Emigration from Southern Norway to England during the Anglo-Saxon
>Migration Age. © Johansson Inger, Göteborg 1999
Do you happen to know the ISBN for that?
David B.
Martyn Harrison
Apparently on date Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:06:46 GMT, "Inger E Johansson"
<inger_e....@notelia.com> said:
Doug Weller
Doug Weller
A Viklund of course doesn't seem to understand what Usenet is. And from
recent past history of Inger reporting events occurring on Usenet, what she
told him will only have a slight resemblance to what has actually happened,
and her report of what he said is likely to differ from what he actually
said.
She also made claims about Telia's policy which I believe is something she
made up. She is unable to quote from any TOS of Telia, and I doubt very
much that they will enforce some sort of almost certainly nonexistent
non-written policy.
Doug
Doug Weller
Following up on myself, I found this quote by her in the thread:
* Since I almost always give you the exact book, edition and mostly the
* name of the translater and so on I think I fulfill all the
* information needed. But, I can't due to the copyright-law here in
* Sweden without a risk give any quotations referring to a thing on the
* net - we aren't allowed to give names of now living people in a
* discussion group or on my own homepage, if the same person haven't
* allowed us to or have been referred to by some other person, in which
* case I can comment of the thing other written. That's our law and how
* rediculus that might seem that Sweden of all countries have
* interpreted an EU-law this way I can't do anything about it.
* Those are the circumstances why I usually tell people to contact me
* directly, the law don't forbid me or anyone else to send personal
* messages with quotations and name given of now living people - that's
* the difference.
* Thus is also the reason why I don't have my D-essay on a homepage -
* how incredible it may seem I can't "put" words in the mouth of the
* Scholar who have used the same words in a Diss. or an Essay I am only
* allowed to give you my transcribtion of the same words and direct you
* to the place where you can find the same words in a bigger sentense.
* Only this morning I read that one case of "name" -word combination
* have been up and brought to trial - convicted..... One other case
* where a person referred to a person was told to come up to trial.....
* I guess you might understand why I in some messages have written that
* I find the US-constitution better than the Swedish and that doesn't
* mean that I don't think Sweden to be democratic - Sweden is better
* than most but even the sun have its dark spots....
Inger, do you still stand by what you have written above? Can you really
not discuss what your politicians are saying on Usenet or mailing lists?
Or quote from someone's article?
Doug
Inger E Johansson
"David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:%PFXc.869$Xs1...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
David B,
Michael's answer definitely ruined your theory - you forgot that there is
definitive proof that the runes were carved before 1700.
Inger E
>
>
Inger E Johansson
That was a translation into English from an article of mine.
The article was a summery from a pre-study to my D-essay.
Inger E
>
>
> David B.
>
>
Martin Reboul
"Michael Zalar" <m_z...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a458909b.0408...@posting.google.com...
> "David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:<gKkXc.530$Jn6...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>...
>
> > >From the POV of a lurker, the hard part is trying to work out from this
> > >never ending thread, which Kensington rock is under consideration. KRS or
> > >AVM?
> >
> > KRS. The pro-authenticity lobby tend to prefer not to mention the AVM
> > stone.
> >
> >
> > David B.
>
> The AVM stone, which had been subject to outdoor, above ground
> weathering for some 19 years before it was discovered, still showed
> signs of the iron oxidation process at work (essetnially rust) when it
> was examined. The KRS, which has been in a protected environment
> since its finding (either inside of Ohman's shed for the first 9
> years, or in the hands of one or another party looking to preserve the
> stone since that time) shows a completion of the iron oxidation (the
> exposed iron has rusted away).
You have overlooked the fact that the KRS has undercone extensive cleaning with
chemical agents (whilst in the care of the museum), and may well have sat in
pubbles of horse urine and goodness knows what else while Ohman was using it as
an anvil for straightening nails and a stepping stone.
They are not made from exactly the same rock and were not carved with exactly
the same tools - the whole business is thus entirely irrelevant. A quick scrob
with spirits of salts (which the KRS may well have undergone, nobody knows),
would achieve such oxidation in minutes.
> If you want ot mention the AVM stone (a hoax perpetrated by supposed
> scholars, and quite easily disproved) those facts should be kept in
> mind. While this has not been the subject of in depth examination,
> this does suggest that the KRS inscription was at least 19 years old
> at the time it was found.
I don't agree I'm afraid Michael. No amount of 'in-depth investigation' of this
matter will prove or disprove anything - the KRS has been scrubbed, washed with
who knows what and even the inscription sharpened up, that is a matter of
record. As such, any such examination must be considered irrelevant, null and
void.
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
There is? Now, how come I missed this? Please do tell us Inger!
Eric Stevens
[Just a note for the unwary: Martin Reboul is quite certain he knows
the origin of the KRS but has only given hints and never spelled it
out in full detail. In the early days of his entry into this
discussion I repeatedly asked him for EVIDENCE to support his
hypothesis (it doesn't yet justify being called a theory) and he has
consistently failed to produce any. Instead, he produces clouds of
speculation such as the above. It is known that the stone has been
cleaned with oil and later with ether. As far as I know there is
nothing to establish that it "has undercone extensive cleaning with
chemical agents" while in the care of the museum or anyone else. The
"quick scrub with spirits of salts" is a speculative fantasy of
Martin's own hypothetical creation. It is a pity he has already made
up his mind on the basis of a plot with less real-world credibility
than that of the Lord of the Rings.]
>
>> If you want ot mention the AVM stone (a hoax perpetrated by supposed
>> scholars, and quite easily disproved) those facts should be kept in
>> mind. While this has not been the subject of in depth examination,
>> this does suggest that the KRS inscription was at least 19 years old
>> at the time it was found.
>
>I don't agree I'm afraid Michael. No amount of 'in-depth investigation' of this
>matter will prove or disprove anything - the KRS has been scrubbed, washed with
>who knows what and even the inscription sharpened up, that is a matter of
>record.
It is grossly misleading to describe the inscription as being
'sharpened up'. What happened was that the inscription was cleaned out
with the point of a nail. This did remove a lot of the original
surface material lying within the grooves but in no way did it totally
reform the inscription. A considerable quantity of the original
surface remained undisturbed within the grooves of the inscription.
This residue is more than adequate for the purposes of technical
examinations.
>As such, any such examination must be considered irrelevant, null and
>void.
Wishful thinking. More than enough remains to enable the credibility
of your own hypothesis to be critically examined.
Eric Stevens
Martin Reboul
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ihavi0d2j220hnif6...@4ax.com...
These are all good points Eric, but the fact remains that the entire history of
the KRS (since its discovery) is not known.
For instance, Olaf Ohman was no archaeologist (not a criticism), he pulled it
from the ground and carted it home.... no doubt he cleaned it up himself. Does
anyone know how? No.
Others, quite a few, including scientists and archaeologists, examined it
afterwards - did they clean it or tinker? We don't know. I read that the
inscription had been pencilled to make it clearer, had been scraped out and
'sharpened up' at some point - were these people telling the truth, did this
happen, if so how, when and by who? We don't really know.
It lay in Olaf's yard for several years, allegedly used by him as an anvil for
straightening nails, and as a step. Under what conditions (i.e. acid, alkali,
face up, face down, inside, outside, near a fire perhaps... or in a puddle of
urine even - we don't know.
We don't know what happened after Holand picked it up (after it knocked around
Olaf's farm for 8 or 9 years) - I daresay he cleaned it up a bit... but we don't
know.
We do know about some subsequent cleanings... but about all the things that have
been done to it? I hardly need write it again.
The only point I'm trying to make is that as we don't know all these things, any
analysis of erosion and chemical change must either take every possibility into
account, or be considered irrelevant and unreliable. Can anyone assure me that
Olaf didn't pour some spirits of salts over te thing to clean it up (great
stuff, works a treat - he'd have had some). I don't think they can.
That doesn't even mention the additional possibility (probability IMHO) that
whoever made the thing, 'weathered' it by artificial means to give it an aged
appearance - if it was a hoax, that stands to reason. Altogether, I stand byy my
assertion that the stone has been compromised due to these uncertainties, and
AFAIK, nobody can reliably put an age on the carvings because of that.
We just don't know.... all we should realise is that we can't tell! I claim no
more - on that point anyway. It isn't the most important one however...
Cheers
Martin
Inger E Johansson
"Martin Reboul" <martin...@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:kIQXc.2546$ZC5...@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
Sorry Martin, you missed the last 6 month developmentes especially the
documents that have been found and read in US. Your assumptions is on very
very lose ground with thin air under - they aren't valid at all.
>
> For instance, Olaf Ohman was no archaeologist (not a criticism), he pulled
it
> from the ground and carted it home.... no doubt he cleaned it up himself.
Does
> anyone know how? No.
YES we know - you would have known to had you read Barry Hanson's excellent
work you would at least had a hint - Had you had access to other
documentation you would have known exactly what he did and didn't do.
>
<snip the rest> = No comments on idiotic fantasy novel stuff.
Inger E
Inger E Johansson
"Martin Reboul" <martin...@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> skrev i meddelandet
Now you are trying to change what's been told in Helsingland as well as 21st
this month in the meeting. Sadly for you it's well documented to say the
least. That and the analyses.
But of course neither was you there nor have you that type of contacts to
know. Had you had you would have known. Now you will have to wait till it's
in the journals and papers.
Inger E
>
David B
No; there is definitive proof that the runes show the sort of deterioration
patterns that are found in roughly-similar stones carved before 1700, which
is not the same thing, given that a forger would, as Martin Reboul has
correctly pointed out, inevitably have applied some sort of artificial
ageing, and given that on my theory, the KRS was then subject to natural
processes in shallow burial for over 30 years. Martin is also right to
highlight the Masonic connection- with the discovery of the Larsson papers,
there are now two very clear pieces of evidence pointing in that direction.
David B.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Which direction? Have I missed something??
Eric Stevens
Inger E Johansson
no you haven't missed anything David B has missed a lot.
He obviously missed that the Larsson papers value has been reduced to zero -
and never will be able to rise again. First of all their value was obscure
to start with - even those who put them forward said that they must have
been copied from something - WELL what they didn't do was checking said Mr
Larsson's background. You see the rune lines of 'his' existed in his
homeyard exactly when the so called specialist Linguist say they didn't.
Actually they were written down in late 15th century and edited mid 16th.
That edited work only exists in one single copy here in Sweden - but the
interesting thing is that they existed in guilds in Sweden in the time
between - same false written type as Larsson had. Observe that neither the
rune lines of Larsson nor the 16th century editon had same text as exists on
KRS stone.
Larsson's paper has no value what so ever to do with KRS stone. AND what's
worse for David B and Martin is that they missed to do their homework - the
person they are trying to nail never made it to Kensington area before the
stone was found. No matter what story he might have tried to tell he is
documented to be in a jail the time they dream of.
Both David B and Martin also missed that we know exactly what happened to
the stone after it was found. But they aren't trusted with that information
as it seems.
Inger E
David B.
>>highlight the Masonic connection- with the discovery of the Larsson
papers,
>>there are now two very clear pieces of evidence pointing in that
direction.
>
>Which direction? Have I missed something??
The direction of masonic involvement in the creation of the KRS. When I
first did my little website on the Stone last year, I suggested that if it
was a fake, the inclusion of the "AVM" in the standard Roman alphabet would
alert any chance finder that this was probably not a native American
artifact. What I did not then know was that "AVM" has particular
significance for Freemasons.
The Larsson papers contain in addition to the Runic futhark and alphabet,
the Masonic "pigpen" code alphabet; and most significantly, Larsson's
description of the latter makes it clear that he has learned it in a
Masonic context. It is likely that he learned the runes from the same
source, and that others in 19th century Sweden did as well, but avoided the
temptation to keep notes on these Craft mysteries.
The actual context of "AVM" on the KRS is right before the request to
"preserve from harm". Note that the text does not actually specify what or
who is to be preserved. Most readers would assume that the alleged 14th
century wanderers were asking for their own preservation, but a
Scandinavian freemason, alerted by the "AVM", would be at liberty to
interpret the phrase as a brother's request to preserve the stone itself.
And of course, the Larsson papers and their Masonic context perfectly
illustrate another point I made last year- that absence of evidence of
KRS-style runes being known in the 19th century was not proof of the
absence of such knowledge. Not all knowledge is freely shared.
David B.
Hyperoglyphe
ISBN 0 19 554015 8.
Dave
Eric Stevens
Maybe I should have joined the craft after all? :-)
It all fits together very neatly in this respect but ...
Even in 1362 the carver of the stone could have been a Freemason (or
one of Fremasonry's predecessors) so this doesn't really serve to date
the stone.
Why preserve the stone from harm?
AVM is a recognised abbreviation for 'ave Maria' so the latin
alternative cannot be excluded.
Even the theosophical site http://www.artesmagicae.com/Rays.htm
recognises both the masonic connection AND the use of the term as a
latin abbreviation.
So what is established by a possible masonic connection? Particularly
what is established in the light of what appears to be an emerging
agreement that the stone was carved before 1700?
Its an interesting idea but what is there to actually support it?
Eric Stevens
Inger E Johansson
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:gsp2j0l2h082h327h...@4ax.com...
Not to mention that we know that one young sailor who returned in 1364 had
been a member of a Guild before he signed up/was enrolled. Not to mention
that one of the Nobleman also were.
>
> Why preserve the stone from harm?
>
> AVM is a recognised abbreviation for 'ave Maria' so the latin
> alternative cannot be excluded.
and that abbrevation wasn't known from any text readable in 19th century.
BUT
'AV' is known as an abbrevation of 'Ave" as noted by Finnur Jónsson in:
Interpretation of the Runic inscriptions from Herjolfsnes; København,
1924, Essay(page 274-290) in Meddelelser om Grønland, ISSN 0025-6676 ; 67:2
,
where 'AV' is an abbrevation for 'Ave' shown to have been used on a runic
inscription found in Herjolfsnes. Same runic inscription as well as most of
the other analysed rune inscription from Herjolfsnes was made in the time
Ivar Bardson made his first two visits to Greenland and the inscriptions are
belived to have been made by the priest. In 1340's Ivar Bardson wasn't only
a representative for the Bishop in Bergen but he was the priest who
performed service in Herjolfsnes.
I guess that specific detail which I told about in articles(Plural) from
1997 to 2002 must have been missed by David B and Martin.
As for 'M' as an abbrevation for 'Maria' I sent the group an article in 1997
showing that 'M' was used in 14th century. Especially in circles around St
Birgitta.
That's not all:
as one of our best scholars of History showed not so many years ago -
'fraeelse'/'fraeaelse' 'af illum' was a phrase used in Sweden during the
Black Death of the time.....
Once again several Linguists have shown that they either aren't familiar
with ALL documents from 1340's to 1367,
or that they have read to many to remember all details.... chose which you
want. Doesn't matter because the documents of the times still exist to be
read of those who are interested.
Not to mention that we here in Sweden among the so called 'förnämliga
handlingar' from 1542-1630 had documents listed which were written by or to
persons living in 'Americana'. I would love to know which Swedish(!?) areas
in America you naysayers will accept Swedes and Norwegian to have settled in
1542. OBSERVE we aren't talking about Spanish areas and/or Spanish people -
they were catagolized under 'hispanic' terriories.... I know which town(!)
and area we are talking about but to that I will return under an other
subject-line.
>
> Even the theosophical site http://www.artesmagicae.com/Rays.htm
> recognises both the masonic connection AND the use of the term as a
> latin abbreviation.
correct. What's been forgotten by so many(?) is that Nicholas of Lynn not
only were a Grey Friar but also a member of a Masonic Guild.
>
> So what is established by a possible masonic connection? Particularly
> what is established in the light of what appears to be an emerging
> agreement that the stone was carved before 1700?
The Kensington runestone was carved before 1700 AD.
The only remaining question before it can be said 100% to be genuine is if
we can exclude a Danish priest who travelled via Greenland in 1521, and
noted that there still were non-natives living there btw, to the Dania Nova
area. The priest had full knowledge of the 1354-1363 voyage. One of his own
relatives had been on board and was among those who were said to have stayed
behind. He was also known as a forger and he was among those travelling on
the Danish ship to retake 'lost territores'.
Apart from him there is no other plausible 'forger' between 1362 and 1898.
>
> Its an interesting idea but what is there to actually support it?
Nothing. What the distingueshed(?) gentlemen David B and Martin have
forgotten is that the runelines which the so called Larsson papers show,
including the incorrect runes(letters) were documented to be used in
Helsingland/Uppland area as late as around 1500.....
the edited book can't have been used by a Swedish scholar. It was edited in
a small edition in Rome and as far as our excellent Libris show it's very
very rare here in Scandinavia. Observe that none of the disputed runes are
to be found in the Larsson papers nor in the edited work but only on runic
inscription from Greenland.....
Not to mention that words that some Linguists still believes not to have
existed in 14th century can be found in St Birgitta papers and in Vadstena
Brevarium....
Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Tom McDonald
<snip>
>
> correct. What's been forgotten by so many(?) is that Nicholas of Lynn not
> only were a Grey Friar but also a member of a Masonic Guild.
Inger,
Are you saying that Nicholas of Lynn (I'm assuming you're
talking about the one who was involved in travels westward) was
a working stone mason himself? If so, how do you know that. If
not, how do you say that he belonged to a Masonic Guild in the
14th century?
<snip>
--
Tom McDonald
Inger E Johansson
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:10j328r...@corp.supernews.com...
> Inger E Johansson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > correct. What's been forgotten by so many(?) is that Nicholas of Lynn
not
> > only were a Grey Friar but also a member of a Masonic Guild.
>
> Inger,
>
> Are you saying that Nicholas of Lynn (I'm assuming you're
> talking about the one who was involved in travels westward) was
> a working stone mason himself?
He belonged to a Guild as many Grey Friars did after 1300.
If so, how do you know that. If
> not, how do you say that he belonged to a Masonic Guild in the
> 14th century?
From oral and written documentation.
We have discussed this in the past. Don't you remember?
Inger E
>
> <snip>
> --
> Tom McDonald
Eric Stevens
<tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>Inger E Johansson wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> correct. What's been forgotten by so many(?) is that Nicholas of Lynn not
>> only were a Grey Friar but also a member of a Masonic Guild.
>
>Inger,
>
> Are you saying that Nicholas of Lynn (I'm assuming you're
>talking about the one who was involved in travels westward) was
>a working stone mason himself?
Come, come Tom!
Stone Masons and Free masons are two entirely different things.
> If so, how do you know that. If
>not, how do you say that he belonged to a Masonic Guild in the
>14th century?
>
><snip>
Eric Stevens
David B
>
>one of Fremasonry's predecessors) so this doesn't really serve to date
>the stone.
No, as I indicated in the last sentence of my previous message, it serves
more to undate it; to remove a reason for excluding the 19th century.
>Why preserve the stone from harm?
If my theory is correct, it was intended to serve a locally important
political purpose (for which, happily, it never had to be used).
>AVM is a recognised abbreviation for 'ave Maria' so the latin
>alternative cannot be excluded.
>
>Even the theosophical site http://www.artesmagicae.com/Rays.htm
>recognises both the masonic connection AND the use of the term as a
>latin abbreviation.
As I understand it, Masons themselves accept that interpretation of "AVM"-
so there's no point in attempting to exclude it.
>So what is established by a possible masonic connection? Particularly
>what is established in the light of what appears to be an emerging
>agreement that the stone was carved before 1700?
The Masonic connection works (and works best) within a 19th century
context. The runes (and the pentadic number dating too) were then known by
at least one Scandinavian Freemason, and therefore quite possibly by many.
The "AVM" formula has historically been of special significance to
Freemasons.
As for the pre-1700 claim, my question about the extent to which the Wolter
testing made allowance for deliberate "ageing" still stands. My theory
assumes, based on the tree-root evidence, that the KRS was buried for over
30 years, in addition to the fake weathering it would have been given by
its creators- that's quite a lot of time for natural processes to hide any
clumsiness by the presumed fakers.
>Its an interesting idea but what is there to actually support it?
The Masonic connection is a plausible conclusion based on the "AVM" and the
Larsson papers. The fact that the Larsson papers seem to be the only 19th
century record of a KRS-style runerow and place-significant use of pentadic
numbers suggests that the information was supposed to be secret
(specifically, given the inclusion of the "pigppen" code, a Masonic
secret). Sometimes conspiracy theories are based on real conspiracies...
http://homepages.tesco.net/~trochos/krs1.htm
David B.
David B
>
What's been forgotten by some is that the Oxford mathematician Nicholas of
Lynn was not a Grey Friar.
David B.
Inger E Johansson
What you missed over the years is that there existed two Nicholas of Lynn
one born when the first were active. You can find the first one in
shipsdocuments and harborpapers for Lynn look for the owner of the ships
that traded walruse-skinn and ivory via Orkney. The later one was not from
Lynn he was as you said an Oxford mathematician but he was born when the
first one traded.... you missed a lot by not doing a careful background
study or is it because you weren't here in 1996-97? We discussed it once
again in 1999 resp 2001.
>
>
> David B.
>
>
a.spencer3
But when did I abuse you?
Please supply text, or this could become libellous.
Surreyman
Inger E Johansson
> Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
> >
> >Even in 1362 the carver of the stone could have been a Freemason (or
> >one of Fremasonry's predecessors) so this doesn't really serve to date
> >the stone.
>
> No, as I indicated in the last sentence of my previous message, it serves
> more to undate it; to remove a reason for excluding the 19th century.
On the contrary - it DOES exclude your assumption 100%. You missed the
simple fact that the runelines of Larsson was documented as existing among
Guild members in Helsingland and Uppland around 1500!
Thus you do have the same false written runed documented as having existed
at least up to 1550 AD inside the Guilds as a secret code which the Larsson
propagandistic Linguists have started their circleproof by assuming that it
didn't exist in Medieval Age. It's on that and on that only the distingushed
Professors of Linguistic leans in their so called 'proof' for Larsson
paper's importance. That's the one and only proof they have tried to put
forward in articles for their assumption that the Larsson papers's runes -
their theory that the Guild's didn't have secret language in the Medieval
Age. As proven by myself as well as by Eric S the Guilds had secret language
and as shown with ref given that theory falls down to value zero when one
single contra-fact is shown to exist.
>
> >Why preserve the stone from harm?
>
> If my theory is correct, it was intended to serve a locally important
> political purpose (for which, happily, it never had to be used).
Your theory isn't a theory since a theory needs full acrebi to be put
forward - you presented an assumption which many times have been proven
non-valid.
>
> >AVM is a recognised abbreviation for 'ave Maria' so the latin
> >alternative cannot be excluded.
> >
> >Even the theosophical site http://www.artesmagicae.com/Rays.htm
> >recognises both the masonic connection AND the use of the term as a
> >latin abbreviation.
>
> As I understand it, Masons themselves accept that interpretation of "AVM"-
> so there's no point in attempting to exclude it.
But what you doesn't seem to know is that it wasn't known to be an
abbrevation by Linguists on Masons before Jónson in 1924 published his work
about the runes from Herjolfsnes. Thus what Masons today accept or don't
accept isn't valid in the Kensington Runestone case!!!!
>
> >So what is established by a possible masonic connection? Particularly
> >what is established in the light of what appears to be an emerging
> >agreement that the stone was carved before 1700?
>
> The Masonic connection works (and works best) within a 19th century
> context. The runes (and the pentadic number dating too) were then known by
> at least one Scandinavian Freemason, and therefore quite possibly by many.
On the contrary the pentadic numbers were documented in Medieval Age
documented from 15th century to 1840's thus you can't use the pentadic
numbers to date any runescript let alone a runescript found in 1898 in
Minnesota. Mind you - contrary to you as it seems - I have checked ALL
Swedes who moved within the border of those day's Minnesota. NO ONE
belonging to the Masons did make it to Kensington - the person some tried to
put forward who moved to US and participated in the war between the North
and the South, well he is in document shown to have tried to desert and was
put in prison. The closest he got to Kensington was 500 km before 1898.
> The "AVM" formula has historically been of special significance to
> Freemasons.
No not before 1920's in Sweden. But it was a historically significance to
the groups around St Birgitta of Vadstena and her relatives as well as to
the Greenlanders!!!!!
>
> As for the pre-1700 claim, my question about the extent to which the
Wolter
> testing made allowance for deliberate "ageing" still stands. My theory
> assumes, based on the tree-root evidence, that the KRS was buried for over
> 30 years, in addition to the fake weathering it would have been given by
> its creators- that's quite a lot of time for natural processes to hide any
> clumsiness by the presumed fakers.
Your theory isn't a theory you can't use unproven assumptions for proving a
theory when the so called theory starts from the unproven assumption. Hasn't
you learn anyting about arguments, contra-arguments and premisses needed for
a logic semantic analyse of if an assumption can be used for a theory. I
thought that you had it in the ordinary school or at least in high school.
Did you miss that lesson????????
>
> >Its an interesting idea but what is there to actually support it?
>
> The Masonic connection is a plausible conclusion based on the "AVM" and
the
> Larsson papers. The fact that the Larsson papers seem to be the only 19th
> century record of a KRS-style runerow and place-significant use of
pentadic
> numbers suggests that the information was supposed to be secret
> (specifically, given the inclusion of the "pigppen" code, a Masonic
> secret). Sometimes conspiracy theories are based on real conspiracies...
In other words you lean to an assumption which is proven false using an
other assumption which isn't proven as proof of the first assumption being
plausible. Good God, you aren't a real scholar of History or Philosophy
that's for sure.
>
> http://homepages.tesco.net/~trochos/krs1.htm
Never seen so much dravel/drivel in all my life. Grow up and learn how to
present valid arguments!
Inger E
>
> David B.
>
>
Inger E Johansson
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 02:42:02 -0500, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>
> >Inger E Johansson wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>
> >> correct. What's been forgotten by so many(?) is that Nicholas of Lynn
not
> >> only were a Grey Friar but also a member of a Masonic Guild.
> >
> >Inger,
> >
> > Are you saying that Nicholas of Lynn (I'm assuming you're
> >talking about the one who was involved in travels westward) was
> >a working stone mason himself?
>
> Come, come Tom!
>
> Stone Masons and Free masons are two entirely different things.
Of course he must know that. Mustn't he?
Inger E
Doug Weller
And despite my asking, not once did you provide a specific document one
could find at Lynn. I've enquired with the people in Kings Lynn who deal
with the archives and they know of nothing that sounds like what you claim
exists.
Doug
Steve Marcus
This is a lie by Inger, pure and simple. She will never post the names, and
the source(s) for those names.
>
> >
> > Why preserve the stone from harm?
> >
> > AVM is a recognised abbreviation for 'ave Maria' so the latin
> > alternative cannot be excluded.
>
> and that abbrevation wasn't known from any text readable in 19th century.
This is directly contradicted by a proponent of the authenticity of the
Kensington Runestone, by the name of Dr. Richard Neilsen. See:
http://www.byu.edu/sasslink/pdf/krs.pdf
at pages 26 and 27, as well as Appendix C.
Inger is just spewing forth lies that she has created on the spot.
Maybe. Maybe not.
> The only remaining question before it can be said 100% to be genuine is if
> we can exclude a Danish priest who travelled via Greenland in 1521, and
> noted that there still were non-natives living there btw, to the Dania
Nova
> area. The priest had full knowledge of the 1354-1363 voyage. One of his
own
> relatives had been on board and was among those who were said to have
stayed
> behind. He was also known as a forger and he was among those travelling on
> the Danish ship to retake 'lost territores'.
What is this priest's name? What source(s) describe(s) this priest?
Inger is just making this crap up as she goes along.
> Apart from him there is no other plausible 'forger' between 1362 and 1898.
One does not need to know the name(s) of the forger(s) to determine that a
forgery is a forgery. I thought you knew logic, Inger. I guess not. You
must have majored in lying.
> >
> > Its an interesting idea but what is there to actually support it?
>
> Nothing. What the distingueshed(?) gentlemen David B and Martin have
> forgotten is that the runelines which the so called Larsson papers show,
> including the incorrect runes(letters) were documented to be used in
> Helsingland/Uppland area as late as around 1500.....
What the you have forgotten, Inger, you little idiot, is that the logic of
the matter is whether or not there was knowledge of the runes used on the
KRS that was available in the 19th century. Whether or not such knowledge
was available in the 1500's is immaterial to the fact that this knowledge
was in fact available in the 19th century. Hence, the argument that the KRS
could not have been created in the 19th century because the runes appearing
on the KRS were "not known" or "without precedent" in the 19th century has
been rebutted.
> the edited book can't have been used by a Swedish scholar. It was edited
in
> a small edition in Rome and as far as our excellent Libris show it's very
> very rare here in Scandinavia.
Swedish scholars weren't permitted to visit Rome and/or to use books that
were edited there???
> Observe that none of the disputed runes are
> to be found in the Larsson papers nor in the edited work but only on runic
> inscription from Greenland.....
An out and out lie. The disputed runes are clearly "found in the Larsson
papers."
> Not to mention that words that some Linguists still believes not to have
> existed in 14th century can be found in St Birgitta papers and in Vadstena
> Brevarium....
"Some linguists" implies less than all.
I cannot believe that you have the gall to create posts filled with such
clearly invented crap, and illogic, Inger. You are evidently not only a
liar, you are a shameless liar, and clearly are no scholar.
>
> Inger E
> >
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
> >
> >
> > Eric Stevens
> >
>
>
Steve Marcus
And you missed the simple fact that the existence of particular runes in
1500 is irrelevant to the matter.
The whole point of "when did the runes on the KRS exist" was that they were
purportedly "unknown" in the 19th century when the KRS was found. It turns
out that the Larsson runes demonstrate that they were in fact "known" in the
19th century, and so could have been used in the 19th century to create the
KRS.
That the runes were known in 1500 does not conclusively establish that the
KRS was created in 1500, any more than the existence of the runes in 1885
means that the KRS was definitely created then.
But I thought that you were a "scholar", Inger. How come you don't
understand this extremely simple application of logic? And why do you
persist in blowing smoke about it? All that the Larsson papers demonstrate
is that it was *not* impossible that the KRS could have been created in the
19th century. On the other hand, there are still runes for which there is
no 14th century precedent.
> >
> > >Why preserve the stone from harm?
> >
> > If my theory is correct, it was intended to serve a locally important
> > political purpose (for which, happily, it never had to be used).
>
> Your theory isn't a theory since a theory needs full acrebi to be put
> forward - you presented an assumption which many times have been proven
> non-valid.
You are totally unqualified to establish whether anyone's theory is correct
or not. You wouldn't understand logic if it bit you on the arse. Neither
would you understand anything to do with science.
> >
> > >AVM is a recognised abbreviation for 'ave Maria' so the latin
> > >alternative cannot be excluded.
> > >
> > >Even the theosophical site http://www.artesmagicae.com/Rays.htm
> > >recognises both the masonic connection AND the use of the term as a
> > >latin abbreviation.
> >
> > As I understand it, Masons themselves accept that interpretation of
"AVM"-
> > so there's no point in attempting to exclude it.
>
> But what you doesn't seem to know is that it wasn't known to be an
> abbrevation by Linguists on Masons before Jónson in 1924 published his
work
> about the runes from Herjolfsnes. Thus what Masons today accept or don't
> accept isn't valid in the Kensington Runestone case!!!!
This point is contradicted by Dr. Richard Neilsen.
> >
> > >So what is established by a possible masonic connection? Particularly
> > >what is established in the light of what appears to be an emerging
> > >agreement that the stone was carved before 1700?
> >
> > The Masonic connection works (and works best) within a 19th century
> > context. The runes (and the pentadic number dating too) were then known
by
> > at least one Scandinavian Freemason, and therefore quite possibly by
many.
>
> On the contrary the pentadic numbers were documented in Medieval Age
> documented from 15th century to 1840's thus you can't use the pentadic
> numbers to date any runescript let alone a runescript found in 1898 in
> Minnesota.
You are truly an idiot. No one is using these things to date the manuscript
to the 1840's. People are simply pointing out that the availability of this
knowledge in the 1840's means that the KRS could have been created then,
contrary to the arguments originally put forth by proponents of the
authenticity of the KRS who argued that this knowledge was not available in
the 19th century, and so the stone could not have been created in the 19th
century.
> Mind you - contrary to you as it seems - I have checked ALL
> Swedes who moved within the border of those day's Minnesota.
An out and out lie. You've checked nothing. If you've checked them all,
give us their names, and the sources you used in the checking.
> NO ONE
> belonging to the Masons did make it to Kensington - the person some tried
to
> put forward who moved to US and participated in the war between the North
> and the South, well he is in document shown to have tried to desert and
was
> put in prison. The closest he got to Kensington was 500 km before 1898.
Another Inger fable.
>
> > The "AVM" formula has historically been of special significance to
> > Freemasons.
>
> No not before 1920's in Sweden. But it was a historically significance to
> the groups around St Birgitta of Vadstena and her relatives as well as to
> the Greenlanders!!!!!
> >
> > As for the pre-1700 claim, my question about the extent to which the
> Wolter
> > testing made allowance for deliberate "ageing" still stands. My theory
> > assumes, based on the tree-root evidence, that the KRS was buried for
over
> > 30 years, in addition to the fake weathering it would have been given by
> > its creators- that's quite a lot of time for natural processes to hide
any
> > clumsiness by the presumed fakers.
>
> Your theory isn't a theory you can't use unproven assumptions for proving
a
> theory when the so called theory starts from the unproven assumption.
Hasn't
> you learn anyting about arguments, contra-arguments and premisses needed
for
> a logic semantic analyse of if an assumption can be used for a theory. I
> thought that you had it in the ordinary school or at least in high school.
> Did you miss that lesson????????
Theories are always created based upon assumptions. Often, such assumptions
are not necessarily true. For example, ever hear of the Theory of
Relativity? It was created on the assumption that energy and matter are two
sides of the same coin. At the time it was created, it was based upon
several assumptions, that were only later established as being true.
But, as you are no scholar, you wouldn't know that, would you?
> >
> > >Its an interesting idea but what is there to actually support it?
> >
> > The Masonic connection is a plausible conclusion based on the "AVM" and
> the
> > Larsson papers. The fact that the Larsson papers seem to be the only
19th
> > century record of a KRS-style runerow and place-significant use of
> pentadic
> > numbers suggests that the information was supposed to be secret
> > (specifically, given the inclusion of the "pigppen" code, a Masonic
> > secret). Sometimes conspiracy theories are based on real conspiracies...
>
> In other words you lean to an assumption which is proven false using an
> other assumption which isn't proven as proof of the first assumption being
> plausible. Good God, you aren't a real scholar of History or Philosophy
> that's for sure.
> >
> > http://homepages.tesco.net/~trochos/krs1.htm
>
> Never seen so much dravel/drivel in all my life. Grow up and learn how to
> present valid arguments!
That explains all of the spelling and grammatical errors in your posts. You
don't read what you write! Try it sometime; what you write is in the
dictionary as an example of drivel.
>
> Inger E
> >
> > David B.
Martin Reboul
Swedish Rite....
Inger E Johansson
you are dreamers, that's ok. But why are you so anti-Swedes that you
deliberately accuse Swedes of conspiracy in KRS question.
You better learn once and for all - the runes have been proven not once, not
twice but three times to be older than 1700 AD.
You also better accept that we do know what happened to the stone from the
day it was found under the roots.
You also better learn more about Scandinvian History both in 14th century as
well as earlier and later before you abuse Swedes the way you do by
presenting your fantasy tales against KRS!
Give up and accept that KRS definitely was carved before 1700 AD.
Inger E
"Martin Reboul" <martin...@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:dymYc.80$x%6....@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
Martin Reboul
> Martin and David B,
> you are dreamers, that's ok.
No Inger, we are enlightened. Do you know what that means?
> But why are you so anti-Swedes that you
> deliberately accuse Swedes of conspiracy in KRS question.
Where did you get this idea from? I can only speak for myself, but I am
certainly not 'Anti-Swedish', and take exception to you making such outrageous
statements! Some of my best friends are Swedish - and two ex-girlfriends.
> You better learn once and for all - the runes have been proven not once, not
> twice but three times to be older than 1700 AD.
> You also better accept that we do know what happened to the stone from the
> day it was found under the roots.
Yes, but we know how it got there and when it was made!
> You also better learn more about Scandinvian History both in 14th century as
> well as earlier and later before you abuse Swedes the way you do by
> presenting your fantasy tales against KRS!
Am I to understand from this that you consider any doubts cast on the KRS as a
14thC artefact as an insult to Sweden and the Swedes? If so, I think you may
find some of your fellow countrymen disagree somewhat strongly Inger!
> Give up and accept that KRS definitely was carved before 1700 AD.
I'm afraid I can't do that, as it wasn't. It was carved and produced almost two
centuries after 1700, as you are going to find out - soon.
Cheers
Martin
Tom McDonald
> "Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> skrev i meddelandet
> news:10j328r...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Inger E Johansson wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>correct. What's been forgotten by so many(?) is that Nicholas of Lynn
>
> not
>
>>>only were a Grey Friar but also a member of a Masonic Guild.
>>
>>Inger,
>>
>>Are you saying that Nicholas of Lynn (I'm assuming you're
>>talking about the one who was involved in travels westward) was
>>a working stone mason himself?
>
>
> He belonged to a Guild as many Grey Friars did after 1300.
Inger,
That doesn't answer the question I asked. I asked if he was a
*working stone mason*, not whether he belonged to such a guild.
There is a difference (or would be somewhat after his time).
Did he actually work using tools to cut and work stone? Simple
question, I'd think.
<snip>
--
Tom McDonald
Philip Deitiker
news:10j4ac7...@corp.supernews.com:
> That doesn't answer the question I asked. I asked if
> he was a
> *working stone mason*, not whether he belonged to such a
> guild.
> There is a difference (or would be somewhat after his
> time).
> Did he actually work using tools to cut and work stone?
> Simple question, I'd think.
Of course he did, he built the NewPort Tower, also the Mayan
Pyramids, as well as the Incan high palaces. Geeze, where have
you been? The question you should ask is whether he did this
before or after he discovered the screaming green pygmies one
the magnetic endpost at the north pole.
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Martyn Harrison
<dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> said:
>On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 05:24:00 GMT, Alan Crozier wrote:
>
>> "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> top-posted in message
>> news:GhsXc.101886$dP1.3...@newsc.telia.net...
>>> Alan,
>>> According to A Viklund at the Datainspektion you haven't been given
>>> permission to change a message of mine. Nor have you asked if you are
>>> allowed to. You have asked him if you are allowed to quote and write
>> inside
>>> a message. That's definitely not the same as what you are doing below.
>>
>> By the way, Inger, I hope you told A Viklund the *whole* story, including
>> the bit about your attitude to copyright and plagiarism in other cases. If
>> not, I can send him a reference to the incident when you quoted another
>> person's website and then claimed that you had written it yourself. Your
>> obvious and self-contradictory lies on that occasion will show Viklund what
>> kind of person he is dealing with.
>>
>>> According to Officials at the Goverment as well as lawer I have spoken to
>>
>> Without names and addresses your claim is worthless bluff.
>>
>> Good morning!
>>
>A Viklund of course doesn't seem to understand what Usenet is. And from
>recent past history of Inger reporting events occurring on Usenet, what she
>told him will only have a slight resemblance to what has actually happened,
>and her report of what he said is likely to differ from what he actually
>said.
>
>She also made claims about Telia's policy which I believe is something she
>made up. She is unable to quote from any TOS of Telia, and I doubt very
>much that they will enforce some sort of almost certainly nonexistent
>non-written policy.
It's also rather unlikely that A Viklund will prosecute anyone for "changing"
my post, on the strength of Inger accusing Alan of changing it from what she
wrote, after he accused Martin of threatening legal action.
If it happens, I want to sell popcorn. And accuse Martin of slaughtering the
Picts, of course, in an unjustified outburst from the gallery (although I doubt
anyone there will get the joke. Not entirely sure this particular Ingerism has
been fully appreciated either, just yet.)
Inger E Johansson
"Martin Reboul" <martin...@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> skrev i meddelandet
>
> "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
> news:eQmYc.1837$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
> > Martin and David B,
> > you are dreamers, that's ok.
>
> No Inger, we are enlightened. Do you know what that means?
I know what it means but you don't seem to be aware of what it takes to be
that. You are dreamers and wannebees.
>
> > But why are you so anti-Swedes that you
> > deliberately accuse Swedes of conspiracy in KRS question.
>
> Where did you get this idea from? I can only speak for myself, but I am
> certainly not 'Anti-Swedish', and take exception to you making such
outrageous
> statements! Some of my best friends are Swedish - and two ex-girlfriends.
That doesn't say anything - you are accusing Swedes of forgery which is
impossible because that you are accusing them of is an impossibility given
ALL circumstances and facts, not to mention that you totally have missed
that there is a context for the Kensington runestone - not only by
documents, not only because Paul Knutsson and Ivar Bardson was there but a
full context that have come to light the last 2 years thanks to a lot of
scholars analyses, excavations and more.
>
> > You better learn once and for all - the runes have been proven not once,
not
> > twice but three times to be older than 1700 AD.
> > You also better accept that we do know what happened to the stone from
the
> > day it was found under the roots.
>
> Yes, but we know how it got there and when it was made!
NO you don't. It was either made in 1362 AD or in 1522. NOTHING ELSE IS
POSSIBLE.
>
>
> > You also better learn more about Scandinvian History both in 14th
century as
> > well as earlier and later before you abuse Swedes the way you do by
> > presenting your fantasy tales against KRS!
>
> Am I to understand from this that you consider any doubts cast on the KRS
as a
> 14thC artefact as an insult to Sweden and the Swedes? If so, I think you
may
> find some of your fellow countrymen disagree somewhat strongly Inger!
Only those who have to stay by their old bet and some linguists - not any
others. You simply don't know anything do you. What you naysayers and funny
linguists showing lack of knowledge(not my words but words of several
scholars of History who before they saw the stone with their own eyes
doubted it, but don't doubt it's pre 1700 AD age any more) have managed to
do is rising an uproar against prejudges from naysaying scholars. I take it
you didn't know that the first C/D Essay in Archaeology which show new view
and thoughts here in Sweden re. KRS probably being from 14th century has
been put forward and past.
But of course you missed a lot when facts around KRS are presented. So why
am I surprised.
>
>
> > Give up and accept that KRS definitely was carved before 1700 AD.
>
> I'm afraid I can't do that, as it wasn't. It was carved and produced
almost two
> centuries after 1700, as you are going to find out - soon.
Well it wasn't made in 19th century. Sadly for you I have had access to the
lists of stone mason workers from 1850 on forward - that was an easy job
checking them against those who moved westward. The first some of your funny
contacts put forward, yes I heard the story, was a person who never show
knowledge how to handle a stone mason's tool at all - the documents of his
'work' is today in a relative of mine's booksleves.
The latest who has been put forward never made it to Kensington - o we know
well of the story he told back home..... he wasn't known to tell so much
truth .... you should have checked better.
Not to mention the artifacts proving that Paul Knutson and Ivar Bardson as
well as other Swedes and Norwegians and the artifact proving that Nicholas
of Lynn the Grey Friar was there in 14th century, yes Nicholas of Lynn was a
Grey Friar but you haven't solved the puzzle who he was have you.......
You Martin and those who are your fellows, You are in for a really big
surprise which also includes much more than you ever could dream of.
Good Night Sweet Dreams,
but tell your friends to learn how to present a theory, with arguments and
contra-arguments and by all - that a circle-proof can't prove anything but
the stupitidy of the person who believes it valid.
Inger E
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
Inger E Johansson
you don't get it do you. Never said which mason Nicholas of Lynn belonged
to - never said I should tell you either. What I hinted was where you could
find him.
Inger E
Doug Weller
And that's all you have provided over a number of years, hints. Claims
that there are unspecified documents are not scholarly -- no akrebi there.
Doug
Doug Weller
A search Inger Nicholas Lynn Mason turns up Inger's post in this thread,
ditto when you replace Mason with Freemason, masonic or guild.
What have I missed?
Doug
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
If AVM and the runes were recognisable to Freemasons, and if some of
the early sholastic opponents of the KRS were Freemasons, it might
help explain their immediate rejection of the KRS as a fraud and their
apparent poor scholarship evidenced by their apparent failure to
identify the precedents for the runes of the KRS. Also, if your
hypothesis is correct, it serves to identify a number of Freemasons in
these news groups who have been arguing over the authenticity of the
KRS for some years. :-)
Eric Stevens
Martin Reboul
>
> "Martin Reboul" <martin...@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> skrev i meddelandet
> news:ianYc.84$x%6....@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
> > news:eQmYc.1837$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
> > > Martin and David B,
> > > you are dreamers, that's ok.
> >
> > No Inger, we are enlightened. Do you know what that means?
>
> I know what it means but you don't seem to be aware of what it takes to be
> that. You are dreamers and wannebees.
> >
> > > But why are you so anti-Swedes that you
> > > deliberately accuse Swedes of conspiracy in KRS question.
> >
> > Where did you get this idea from? I can only speak for myself, but I am
> > certainly not 'Anti-Swedish', and take exception to you making such
> outrageous
> > statements! Some of my best friends are Swedish - and two ex-girlfriends.
>
> That doesn't say anything - you are accusing Swedes of forgery which is
> impossible because that you are accusing them of is an impossibility given
> ALL circumstances and facts, not to mention that you totally have missed
> that there is a context for the Kensington runestone - not only by
> documents, not only because Paul Knutsson and Ivar Bardson was there but a
> full context that have come to light the last 2 years thanks to a lot of
> scholars analyses, excavations and more.
If you'd ever bothered to read anything I have written Inger, you would know
that I suspect the KRS was a joke played ON the Swedes, not by them! I think you
will probably find the culprits either nest door (in a country you nearly went
to war with in the first decade of the C20, or maybe to the south, a short boat
journety...
> > You better learn once and for all - the runes have been proven not once,
> not
> > > twice but three times to be older than 1700 AD.
> > > You also better accept that we do know what happened to the stone from
> the
> > > day it was found under the roots.
> >
> > Yes, but we know how it got there and when it was made!
>
> NO you don't. It was either made in 1362 AD or in 1522. NOTHING ELSE IS
> POSSIBLE.
That is a very, very bold statement Inger. I admire your courage and
determination, but have again to laugh at your foolishness and blinkered outlook
on this matter.
> > > You also better learn more about Scandinvian History both in 14th
> century as
> > > well as earlier and later before you abuse Swedes the way you do by
> > > presenting your fantasy tales against KRS!
> >
> > Am I to understand from this that you consider any doubts cast on the KRS
> as a
> > 14thC artefact as an insult to Sweden and the Swedes? If so, I think you
> may
> > find some of your fellow countrymen disagree somewhat strongly Inger!
>
> Only those who have to stay by their old bet and some linguists - not any
> others. You simply don't know anything do you.
IIRC, from the very start of this discussion, I pointed out very clearly that I
am not and have never claimed to be 'a linguist'...?
> What you naysayers and funny
> linguists showing lack of knowledge(not my words but words of several
> scholars of History who before they saw the stone with their own eyes
> doubted it, but don't doubt it's pre 1700 AD age any more) have managed to
> do is rising an uproar against prejudges from naysaying scholars. I take it
> you didn't know that the first C/D Essay in Archaeology which show new view
> and thoughts here in Sweden re. KRS probably being from 14th century has
> been put forward and past.
> But of course you missed a lot when facts around KRS are presented. So why
> am I surprised.
No Inger, I overlooked a lot of irrelevant twaddle, and ignored a whole
freighter full of red herrings. I have always tried to address and examine the
essential heart of the matter, which, unfortunately for you, can only lead to
one conclusion.
> > > Give up and accept that KRS definitely was carved before 1700 AD.
> >
> > I'm afraid I can't do that, as it wasn't. It was carved and produced
> almost two
> > centuries after 1700, as you are going to find out - soon.
>
> Well it wasn't made in 19th century. Sadly for you I have had access to the
> lists of stone mason workers from 1850 on forward - that was an easy job
> checking them against those who moved westward.
Sigh.... do I have to point out yet again that anybody with a small amount of
artistic flair and the ability to use a hammer and chisel, could easily carve
such a thing? I suppose I do....
Compare the crudity of the carving and the style of it ( like a Victorian
gravestone inscription) with real, genuine runestones of the early medieval
period. Something you clearly don't appreciate is that the 'living rock' meant
something to Norsemen - they followed the countours and convolutions of the
natural surface, rather than dressing them into a nice flat oblong. Look and you
will see!
> The first some of your funny
> contacts put forward, yes I heard the story, was a person who never show
> knowledge how to handle a stone mason's tool at all - the documents of his
> 'work' is today in a relative of mine's booksleves.
> The latest who has been put forward never made it to Kensington - o we know
> well of the story he told back home..... he wasn't known to tell so much
> truth .... you should have checked better.
No need. I can carve a far better runestone than that were I to have the
inclination - believe me! I am neither registered as a stone-mason, sculptor or
'runesmith' either - but I have been all three, and can be so whenever I choose
to be. Get a hammer and chisel and try it!
> Not to mention the artifacts proving that Paul Knutson and Ivar Bardson as
> well as other Swedes and Norwegians and the artifact proving that Nicholas
> of Lynn the Grey Friar was there in 14th century, yes Nicholas of Lynn was a
> Grey Friar but you haven't solved the puzzle who he was have you.......
I don't care what colour he was, or if he ever existed. He is entirely
irrelevant to the KRS.
> You Martin and those who are your fellows, You are in for a really big
> surprise which also includes much more than you ever could dream of.
We shall see... however, I'm afraid you are in for an absolute nightmare.
> Good Night Sweet Dreams,
> but tell your friends to learn how to present a theory, with arguments and
> contra-arguments and by all - that a circle-proof can't prove anything but
> the stupitidy of the person who believes it valid.
Well, you are the expert sweetie....
Cheers
Martin
Inger E Johansson
the only joker in this question is and always have been you and the other
naysayer. You see you missed a lot.
A) the runes of the stone were carved before 1700 AD, no matter what
theories you try to put up.
B) No one, no mason or any other group in 19th century had full information
about the runes - nor about the correct words for 14th century. You see same
false written runes in Larson's text as in the runes written down in 1500
and short there after in Helsingland and Uppland - PLEASE OBSERVE THAT
CORRECT RUNES AS WELL AS ALL OTHER DETAILS WASN'T KNOWN TO HAVE EXISTED IN
1300's. NOT KNOWN TO HAVE EXISTED THEN, NEITHER BY SCHOLARS NOR BY MASONS
BEFORE 1924.
-ALSO PLEASE OBSERVE THAT IT WASN'T POSSIBLE, AS I HAVE TOLD YOU MANY TIMES
BUT YOU SIMPLY IGNORE OR TRY TO MAKE FUN OF - yes I have had enough of your
fantasy tales in this question and now I am really really angry - THE WORD'S
USED ON KRS WAS USED IN DOCUMENTS FROM 1342 - 1367 . THOSE DIPLOMAS AND
CHURCH DOCUMENTS WEREN'T ABLE TO BE READ BETWEEN 1697 and MID 20th century.
YES I HAVE CHECKED AND THE DIPLOMAS I REFER TO WASN'T TO BE FOUND IN ANY
COPY-BOOK AT ALL.
C) You missed that we can prove which waterways were used and that one of
the artifacts found only exists in one single identical exemplar. The other
one was found in late 20th century on island Aaland.
D) You also missed as has David B and your 'friends' that I do know a lot
more about Stone Masons then you ever will be able to learn. Way? Not only
have I written an Academic Essay about it but due to my Grandfather's
position and work we in our family inherited more documents regarding this
then been edited or collected anywhere. You lose you know as soon as you try
to put forward a 'what if' assumptions the way you do.
Inger E
Tom McDonald
Johansson,
What do you mean, '...which mason Nicholas of Lynn belonged
to'? That's unintelligible. If you mean, '...which _guild_
Nicholas of Lynn belonged to', then you might be closer to
right. But the term 'guild' is not identical to the term
'mason'. Clarify.
From my reading, in the 14th century to be a mason meant that
you actually used tools to cut and shape stone. There don't
seem to have been any members of the masons' guilds at that time
who weren't 'operational' masons.
By all means, keep your secrets. You're good at that. You're
not good at backing up what you write. So go ahead and pretend
that Nicholas of Lynn was a member of a masonic guild, but
wasn't an operational mason. Some folks might believe you.
Eric seemed to in an earlier reply to me; but Eric, unlike you,
actually looks into things and can admit it if he's wrong. You
could learn from him.
BTW, please keep your hints locked behind your teeth. If all
you can do is tease on a public ng, then shutting up would be
better. You abuse and insult the rest of us when you do that.
--
Tom McDonald
Tom McDonald
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 02:42:02 -0500, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Inger E Johansson wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>correct. What's been forgotten by so many(?) is that Nicholas of Lynn not
>>>only were a Grey Friar but also a member of a Masonic Guild.
>>
>>Inger,
>>
>> Are you saying that Nicholas of Lynn (I'm assuming you're
>>talking about the one who was involved in travels westward) was
>>a working stone mason himself?
>
>
> Come, come Tom!
>
> Stone Masons and Free masons are two entirely different things.
>
Come, come Eric!
Do you think the situation in the last couple of hundred years
was the same as it was in the 14th century? Look up 'free
masons' for that time period. If you find there a bunch of guys
with funny hats, tiny little pretty aprons and a penchant for
arcane Egyptian lore, then perhaps you are right.
>
>>If so, how do you know that. If
>>not, how do you say that he belonged to a Masonic Guild in the
>>14th century?
>>
>><snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
--
Tom McDonald
Inger E Johansson
did you or didn't you look up the diplomas I have sent over the years
dealing with trade to Lynn, London and Bristol from Orkney? If you did, try
to remember what I wrote. If you didn't please look for Nicholas of Lynn, a
bit different spelling sometimes but you will learn who he really was if you
follow those documents.
And I don't abuse and insult when defending myself and my rights not to have
to accept your or anyone else's insults. To defend oneself isn't abuse. To
call for respect not to have one's text destroyed by insulting persons
moving parts to where they believe it should be - that's not abuse on the
contrary that's my rights.
Inger E
Tom McDonald
> Tom,
> did you or didn't you look up the diplomas I have sent over the years
> dealing with trade to Lynn, London and Bristol from Orkney? If you did, try
> to remember what I wrote. If you didn't please look for Nicholas of Lynn, a
> bit different spelling sometimes but you will learn who he really was if you
> follow those documents.
Johansson,
I take that as an admission that you have not the first clue as
to what being a mason meant in the 14th century. I don't give a
flying poot about the rest of the stuff about N o L at this
point. I was reacting solely to your statement:
"What's been forgotten by so many(?) is that Nicholas of Lynn
not only were a Grey Friar but also a member of a Masonic Guild."
From my reading, masonic guilds in the 14th century were not
fraternal orders open to many; they were craft guilds, open to
practicing stonemasons only. I asked you to back up this
specific claim, and you reply with abusive and unhelpful
'hints'. Either put up or shut up, Inger. Was N o L a
practicing stone mason (in addition to being a friar and a
merchant ship owner)? That's all I want from you.
>
> And I don't abuse and insult when defending myself and my rights not to have
> to accept your or anyone else's insults. To defend oneself isn't abuse. To
> call for respect not to have one's text destroyed by insulting persons
> moving parts to where they believe it should be - that's not abuse on the
> contrary that's my rights.
Blow it out your ear, Inger. I don't have to accept your
insults, either. Bugger your hints and your telling me to read
every single manuscript written in the European middle age when
I ask you a simple question. Answer or don't answer, but don't
pretend to have answered when all you've done is use one of your
50 ways to avoid your responsibility.
--
Tom McDonald
Eric Stevens
<tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 02:42:02 -0500, Tom McDonald
>> <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Inger E Johansson wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>correct. What's been forgotten by so many(?) is that Nicholas of Lynn not
>>>>only were a Grey Friar but also a member of a Masonic Guild.
>>>
>>>Inger,
>>>
>>> Are you saying that Nicholas of Lynn (I'm assuming you're
>>>talking about the one who was involved in travels westward) was
>>>a working stone mason himself?
>>
>>
>> Come, come Tom!
>>
>> Stone Masons and Free masons are two entirely different things.
>>
>
> Come, come Eric!
>
> Do you think the situation in the last couple of hundred years
>was the same as it was in the 14th century? Look up 'free
>masons' for that time period. If you find there a bunch of guys
>with funny hats, tiny little pretty aprons and a penchant for
>arcane Egyptian lore, then perhaps you are right.
Hmmm ...
Apart from that, Freemasons or their predecessors weren't necessarily
building cathedrals and castles either. There is much mystery,
mysticism and misdirection about the beginnings of Freemasonry and
while some sources e.g.
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0014860.html
http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/yasha.html do cite the
relatively recent evolution from the guild of working masons, others
claim Freemasonry has links to the Templars, Illuminati, Rosicrucians
etc. with roots going back to the Temple of Solomon. I'm not sure that
there is any single answer and even if there was, nobody now knows
which one it is.
See also http://avalon.gargoyles-fans.org/castle/magic/illuminati.html
http://www.greyfriars51.fsnet.co.uk/scottishtemplars.htm
This last is probably the most relevant to Inger's thesis "that
Nicholas of Lynn not only were a Grey Friar but also a member of a
Masonic Guild".
>
>>
>>>If so, how do you know that. If
>>>not, how do you say that he belonged to a Masonic Guild in the
>>>14th century?
>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Paul Murray
> Martin,
> the only joker in this question is and always have been you and the other
> naysayer. You see you missed a lot.
> A) the runes of the stone were carved before 1700 AD, no matter what
> theories you try to put up.
> B) No one, no mason or any other group in 19th century had full information
> about the runes - nor about the correct words for 14th century. You see same
> false written runes in Larson's text as in the runes written down in 1500
> and short there after in Helsingland and Uppland - PLEASE OBSERVE THAT
> CORRECT RUNES AS WELL AS ALL OTHER DETAILS WASN'T KNOWN TO HAVE EXISTED IN
> 1300's. NOT KNOWN TO HAVE EXISTED THEN, NEITHER BY SCHOLARS NOR BY MASONS
> BEFORE 1924.
>
> -ALSO PLEASE OBSERVE THAT IT WASN'T POSSIBLE, AS I HAVE TOLD YOU MANY TIMES
> BUT YOU SIMPLY IGNORE OR TRY TO MAKE FUN OF - yes I have had enough of your
> fantasy tales in this question and now I am really really angry - THE WORD'S
> USED ON KRS WAS USED IN DOCUMENTS FROM 1342 - 1367 . THOSE DIPLOMAS AND
> CHURCH DOCUMENTS WEREN'T ABLE TO BE READ BETWEEN 1697 and MID 20th century.
> YES I HAVE CHECKED AND THE DIPLOMAS I REFER TO WASN'T TO BE FOUND IN ANY
> COPY-BOOK AT ALL.
I think she's going to blow!
Tom McDonald
That's interesting, but I was more intrigued by this from your
second link, from a Brother in the United Grand Lodge of
England. In the section entitled 'ORIGINS', I found this:
"Today we use as our own laws(*9) the same ancient charges and
regulations that applied to operative masons *as far back as the
late 14th century*. This transition theory visualizes a
situation where the operative working masons involved in the
building, say, of an ancient (*10) cathedral invited non-masons
to their ceremonies. These would be men of the clergy and
finance who were directly involved in the building. Civics and
other members of the community may have also been invited to
participate at the festive boards, which are known to have been
held by the working masons in their Lodges." [Emphasis added.]
This is the root of my question. If, as this says, the posited
transition from a strictly operative stonemason's guild to a
somewhat more inclusive organization occurred in the late 14th
century, where is the evidence that Nickie was one of the first
invited in? It seems unlikely, on current evidence, that he
would have been a stone mason himself; and I would find it odd
to think he would have been asked early on, as his activities
don't seem much related to church-building, but to navigation.
In any case, Inger made the claim, and is not willing to back
it up. Nothing new. But it is interesting to research around
her stinky little 'hints'.
<snip>
--
Tom McDonald
Tom McDonald
MY EYES! MY EYES!
--
Tom McDonald
George
> Inger E Johansson wrote in message ...
> >
>
> Lynn was not a Grey Friar.
>
>