Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
Eric Stevens
that despite its faults, I'm impressed.
The book is structured and has both a bibliography and an index,
although I expect that both could be strengthened. It's apparent that
the book first set out to be a defense of Ohman as forger but it has
expanded to much more than that. The structure show signs of strain
from the way the text has rapidly expanded over the months preceding
publication.
My first reaction is that the information which emerges falls under
the following main headings:
1. Wolters has photographed the runes in unprecedented detail and in
the process has shown that the common understanding of the nature
of some of the runes is wrong. Some of the runes are almost
unprecedented.
2. Nielsen has established that the use of the rare runes was largely
confined to the region of 14th century Gotland.
3. The discovery that some of the runes are not as has been commonly
assumed means that previous interpretations of the inscription
will have to be discarded. Possible new interpretations require
that the stone be reassessed.
4. While newly discovered marks on the stone can be interpreted as
phonetic modifications of the rune, others have no such obvious
meaning. Wolters and Nielsen have hypothesised that the marks are
intended to draw attention to the particular runes and on that
basis have tried substituting the marked runes in the runic
Easter table. This produces the date 1362 in confirmation of date
inscribed on the stone. The details of this are given in the
book and at first sight the extraction of a second 1362 appears
to be valid.
5. Wolters and Nielsen also claim that apparently marked runes can
be used to derive a close (to 5 decimal figures) approximation to
the Golden Number phi. They have given the details of this also
but the derivation is more obscure and I have not yet tried to
confirm it.
6. On the basis of the numerology, Wolters and Nielsen have proposed
that the inscription on the KRS is linked to the Knights Templar
or a group linked to that body. I expect this to be highly
contentious but my recent reading suggests the Templars were into
this kind of thing and it brings into striking prominence Martin
Reboul's suggestion of April 2004 that, based on the use of the
letters AVM, the KRS was an elaborate 'masonic joke'. See
http://tinyurl.com/7alsr It may be that the insertion of AVM was
indeed a marker of the true nature of the stone for initiates, in
which case whoever carved it would be surprised to learn that its
origin was still recognised 642 years later. In any case, the use
of embedded codes reminds me of some of the techniques used to
validitate the authenticity of letters of credit in mediaeval
times.
7. The book lists an enormous amount of correspondence which has
never previously seen the light of day. It throws fresh light
into the relationship between Ohman and Holand. It also makes it
plain that many well known scholars who have dealt with the KRS
in the past have had the clearly stated objective of finding
evidence to prove the stone a fake. In one case, there is
evidence that the opportunity was deliberately ignored to
interview a newly discovered vital witness to the discovery of
the KRS (Willie Sarsland) before he died.
8. Wolters touches on the examination of the weathering of tombstones
but other than stating the broad results he goes into no great
detail.
In my humble opinion, this book is a 'must have' for anyone who
seriously wants to get the bottom of almost any aspect of the story of
the KRS.
Eric Stevens
Roge
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:j90fq19m72a41rqeq...@4ax.com...
> I've just finished my first pass through the book and I have to say
> that despite its faults, I'm impressed.
Mr Stevens is known to be impressed by a lot of things which others find
not impressive and boring
Further comment below
see also my,prior, AVM =A Viking Message and more recent
Big Druid post.
AVM also occurs on the Brit £2 coin with St Pauls for those interested
Roge
Peter Alaca
> I've just finished my first pass through the book and I have to say
> that despite its faults, I'm impressed.
> [...]
> My first reaction is that the information which emerges falls under
> the following main headings:
>
> 1. Wolters has photographed the runes in unprecedented detail and in
> the process has shown that the common understanding of the nature
> of some of the runes is wrong. Some of the runes are almost
> unprecedented.
Does that mean they are unique?
> 2. [...]
> 3. [...]
> 4. [...]
> 5. Wolters and Nielsen also claim that apparently marked runes can
> be used to derive a close (to 5 decimal figures) approximation to
> the Golden Number phi. They have given the details of this also
> but the derivation is more obscure and I have not yet tried to
> confirm it.
And what use has phi on a runestone like the krs?
> 6. On the basis of the numerology, Wolters and Nielsen have proposed
> that the inscription on the KRS is linked to the Knights Templar
> or a group linked to that body.
[...]
> In any case, the use of embedded codes reminds me of some
> of the techniques used to validitate the authenticity of letters
> of
> credit in mediaeval times.
But why on the krs?
I distrust everything that relies on numerological arguments
> 7. [...]
> 8. [...]
> In my humble opinion, this book is a 'must have' for anyone who
> seriously wants to get the bottom of almost any aspect of the story of
> the KRS.
I think the story _on_ the runestone is more important.
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
Steve Marcus
Thanks for posting your comments. I will reserve detailed comment until
after I've read the book, which is currently on order from the publisher via
Borders.
I do not, however, that it is somewhat amusing that the authors now claim
that the runes require possible new interpretation; I thought that Dr.
Nielsen had been "definitive" in his response 2001 response to Dr. Knirk.
The importation of the Templars into the picture, following the success of
nonsense such as the DaVinci Code which relied on exaggerating and
distorting the roles of the Templars and the Priory of Sion also does not
bode to well for the scholarship in the book. The "Golden Number of Pi"????
Oh boy.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
Lisbeth Andersson
<....>
>
> 4. While newly discovered marks on the stone can be interpreted
> as
> phonetic modifications of the rune, others have no such
> obvious meaning. Wolters and Nielsen have hypothesised that
> the marks are intended to draw attention to the particular
> runes and on that basis have tried substituting the marked
> runes in the runic Easter table. This produces the date 1362
> in confirmation of date inscribed on the stone. The details
> of this are given in the book and at first sight the
> extraction of a second 1362 appears to be valid.
>
<....>
Does he explain why anybody who cut the runes extemely deep (a couple
of centimeters, around 1/2 inch - unless my memory fails me) would
decide to add almost invisible information to indicate phonetic
modification or something else they wanted to draw attention to?
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
What we know is not nearly as interesting as how we know it.
David B
>
>1. Wolters has photographed the runes in unprecedented detail and in
> the process has shown that the common understanding of the nature
> of some of the runes is wrong. Some of the runes are almost
> unprecedented.
Has Wolter established that the newly-discovered aspects of the runes are
contemporary with the making of the runes as previously understood?
>8. Wolters touches on the examination of the weathering of tombstones
> but other than stating the broad results he goes into no great
> detail.
That alone makes the book not worth buying for me. Until I see convincing
evidence that the aging of the runes could not be partly artificial, I'd
have to say that all the rest of the, no doubt fascinating, arguments are
only as relevant to real medieval history as The Da Vinci Code.
David B.
Tom McDonald
> I've just finished my first pass through the book and I have to say
> that despite its faults, I'm impressed.
I'm not that far yet. However, I, too, think the book has value
for anyone interested in the KRS. For one thing, it brings the
state-of-play up to date. As you note below, it also has a great
deal of new (meaning not previously available) material, and some
insights from Wolter's and Nielsen's work that seem useful.
> The book is structured and has both a bibliography and an index,
> although I expect that both could be strengthened. It's apparent that
> the book first set out to be a defense of Ohman as forger but it has
> expanded to much more than that.
Yes. I could have wished that the vindication of Ohman not have
been so clearly the, or one of the, primary purposes of the book.
There has been so much passion about the KRS, passion that has
oft-times led to slanting the research or the conclusions of
other works, that I was hoping for a more dispassionate
exploration of the stone and the language.
Still, I do understand the pull such vindication has on folks
such as the authors, who have had intimate contact with Ohman's
living relatives. I suspect their relief at reading the book has
been immense.
> The structure show signs of strain
> from the way the text has rapidly expanded over the months preceding
> publication.
Yup. One of the reasons I wish the material had been presented
in two (or perhaps three) separate books. Although there are
probably practical concerns that would make publishing three
books difficult.
What he included is useful. I would have liked a great deal more
detail.
> In my humble opinion, this book is a 'must have' for anyone who
> seriously wants to get the bottom of almost any aspect of the story of
> the KRS.
I agree. It's not without its flaws, some potentially serious.
For example, Wolter sees the Knutson rune rows as evidence for
the authenticity of the stone, and in no way as an argument for
possible forgery. This seems to me to betray a bit of blinkered
thinking and bias; but it's not a bad thing that he presented
that slant on the argument.
However, the work is useful if only for the newly discovered
correspondence, the new work on the stone itself, and the new
linguistic investigations. As a reference to have at one's elbow
when the inevitable KRS threads re-appear, and as a handy summary
of the KRS to date, it's unbeatable.
I will have to read it more systematically, though.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: j90fq19m72a41rqeq...@4ax.com,
>
>> I've just finished my first pass through the book and I have to say
>> that despite its faults, I'm impressed.
>> [...]
>
>> My first reaction is that the information which emerges falls under
>> the following main headings:
>>
>> 1. Wolters has photographed the runes in unprecedented detail and in
>> the process has shown that the common understanding of the nature
>> of some of the runes is wrong. Some of the runes are almost
>> unprecedented.
>
>Does that mean they are unique?
I can't give you a definite answer without going back and analysing
the arguments but, yes, one or two may still be. There are others,
like the use of the hooked X, of which there are only three known
examples. One is the KRS, another is one of the Spirit Pond runestones
and the third is the signature of Cristopher Columbus
http://www.grecoreport.com/images/Columbus_signature.jpg
>
>> 2. [...]
>> 3. [...]
>> 4. [...]
>> 5. Wolters and Nielsen also claim that apparently marked runes can
>> be used to derive a close (to 5 decimal figures) approximation to
>> the Golden Number phi. They have given the details of this also
>> but the derivation is more obscure and I have not yet tried to
>> confirm it.
>
>And what use has phi on a runestone like the krs?
The fact that it is embedded in the text may serve to authentic the
document in some way.
>
>> 6. On the basis of the numerology, Wolters and Nielsen have proposed
>> that the inscription on the KRS is linked to the Knights Templar
>> or a group linked to that body.
>[...]
>> In any case, the use of embedded codes reminds me of some
>> of the techniques used to validitate the authenticity of letters
>> of
>> credit in mediaeval times.
>
>But why on the krs?
>I distrust everything that relies on numerological arguments
I'm a little cautious about this one too but, if it is there, then it
is there. In fact, the book demonstrates that it is there in three
places in the KRS, including the date 1362.
http://goldennumber.net/fibonser.htm explains the nature and the
methodology of the Fibonacci series and how it is used to derive phi.
Other number series also converge to a solution for phi, including the
series 1,2,3,6... which is a rearranged 1362. This may be mere
coincidence but if it is deliberate it raises the question of whether
the 1362 is an actual date or merely an authentication code.
>
>> 7. [...]
>> 8. [...]
>
>> In my humble opinion, this book is a 'must have' for anyone who
>> seriously wants to get the bottom of almost any aspect of the story of
>> the KRS.
>
>I think the story _on_ the runestone is more important.
But what is the story? The common understanding has been overturned
even if only by the identification of the details of the runes.
Apart from that, Scott wolter's work seems to have established the age
of the KRS as being +2 centuries at the time of discovery. That too is
important.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<lis...@bredband.net> wrote:
>
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
>news:j90fq19m72a41rqeq...@4ax.com:
>
><....>
>
>>
>> 4. While newly discovered marks on the stone can be interpreted
>> as
>> phonetic modifications of the rune, others have no such
>> obvious meaning. Wolters and Nielsen have hypothesised that
>> the marks are intended to draw attention to the particular
>> runes and on that basis have tried substituting the marked
>> runes in the runic Easter table. This produces the date 1362
>> in confirmation of date inscribed on the stone. The details
>> of this are given in the book and at first sight the
>> extraction of a second 1362 appears to be valid.
>>
>
><....>
>
>
>Does he explain why anybody who cut the runes extemely deep (a couple
>of centimeters, around 1/2 inch - unless my memory fails me) would
>decide to add almost invisible information to indicate phonetic
>modification or something else they wanted to draw attention to?
>
I think your memory has failed you. None of the photographs of the
runes that I have seen show them as being more than a few millimetres
deep. The depths of the dots and dashes are commensurate with their
size. This makes the small details difficult to distinguish from from
the coarse texture of the stone, particularly after several centuries
of weathering. Detailed images of all of the runes are available on
CD-ROM from (I think) the Runestone Museum.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
>>
>>1. Wolters has photographed the runes in unprecedented detail and in
>> the process has shown that the common understanding of the nature
>> of some of the runes is wrong. Some of the runes are almost
>> unprecedented.
>
>Has Wolter established that the newly-discovered aspects of the runes are
>contemporary with the making of the runes as previously understood?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but (probably) Nielsen has
established that the newly identified runes are consistent with the
usage of 14th century Gotland and only with 14th century Gotland.
>
>>8. Wolters touches on the examination of the weathering of tombstones
>> but other than stating the broad results he goes into no great
>> detail.
>
>That alone makes the book not worth buying for me. Until I see convincing
>evidence that the aging of the runes could not be partly artificial, I'd
>have to say that all the rest of the, no doubt fascinating, arguments are
>only as relevant to real medieval history as The Da Vinci Code.
I'm not quite sure where, but Wolters somewhere states in his book
that artificial aging of the surface of the stone can be excluded. As
you know, I made enquiries of geo-technical experts about this some
years ago and reached the same conclusion. I know you (and others)
like the idea of artificial aging but until you can come up with a
mechanism which will withstand the close examination of an expert
armed with all the tools of modern science, I don't think the idea
will fly. Merely leaving it out in the weather or burying it in horse
shit is not enough. :-)
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> I've just finished my first pass through the book and I have to say
>> that despite its faults, I'm impressed.
>
> I'm not that far yet. However, I, too, think the book has value
>for anyone interested in the KRS. For one thing, it brings the
>state-of-play up to date. As you note below, it also has a great
>deal of new (meaning not previously available) material, and some
>insights from Wolter's and Nielsen's work that seem useful.
>
>> The book is structured and has both a bibliography and an index,
>> although I expect that both could be strengthened. It's apparent that
>> the book first set out to be a defense of Ohman as forger but it has
>> expanded to much more than that.
>
> Yes. I could have wished that the vindication of Ohman not have
>been so clearly the, or one of the, primary purposes of the book.
I think it was the original purpose of the book. The book just grew
from there as other things emerged.
I don't think he sees it quite like that. The Larsonn (I think that's
what you meant) rune rows were originally seen as the prior source
from the the 'forged' KRS was copied. Wolter (actually Nielsen) has
strongly pointed out that the Larsonn runes establish a precedent for
the KRS runes which previously was denied by all the experts. In fact,
it seems that there are some apparent mistakes in the Larsonn runes
which suggest they have been copied from earlier runescripts. I don't
altogether follow that argument in that it was once claimed that some
of the more uncommon runes of the KRS were also mistakes. In any case,
the point is that the Larsonn runes are not quite the same as the
runes of the KRS. I'm happy to leave that argument to the runologists.
>
> However, the work is useful if only for the newly discovered
>correspondence, the new work on the stone itself, and the new
>linguistic investigations. As a reference to have at one's elbow
>when the inevitable KRS threads re-appear, and as a handy summary
>of the KRS to date, it's unbeatable.
>
> I will have to read it more systematically, though.
Eric Stevens
e.johansson@telia.com I E_Johansson
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:h4rgq1lo5lt0sjseh...@4ax.com...
The Larsson runes can be found in one of Olaus Magnus brother's Rune
Alphapeths from Helsingland.
Inger E
Lisbeth Andersson
>
>
>>Does he explain why anybody who cut the runes extemely deep (a
couple
>>of centimeters, around 1/2 inch - unless my memory fails me)
would
>>decide to add almost invisible information to indicate phonetic
>>modification or something else they wanted to draw attention to?
>>
>I think your memory has failed you. None of the photographs of the
>runes that I have seen show them as being more than a few
millimetres
>deep. The depths of the dots and dashes are commensurate with
their
>size. This makes the small details difficult to distinguish from
from
>the coarse texture of the stone, particularly after several
centuries
>of weathering. Detailed images of all of the runes are available
on
>CD-ROM from (I think) the Runestone Museum.
That depends on what you mean by "a few". I didn't bring a tape
measure when I met the stone "personally" when it was in the
neighbourhood, and I wouldn't have gotten close enough to use it if
I had, but those runes are cut deeply. The photographs I have seen
does not do them justice. Do Nielsen and Wolters actually mention
any depth of the runes? They really should - and if it is less than
10 milimeters I'll have a talk with my doctor about my failing
memory; if it is less than 5 milimeters I'll start asking who is
lying. (I'm starting to see conspiracy theories - do you think the
museum substituted a copy?) If they don't mention any depths I'll
consider *that significant. There is no way any dots who were cut
as deep as the runes could have remained hidden for over a century,
and they could not have weathered away without some very obvious
damage to the text.
The second thing that surprised me about the stone was how small it
was in real "life."
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
Eric Stevens
I've never seen the stone. I've never seen any measurements quoted for
the depth of the runes. I can only go by the appearance in the
photographs. I will try and find out.
Can anyone who has actually seen the stone help?
>
>The second thing that surprised me about the stone was how small it
>was in real "life."
>
>
>
>Lisbeth.
>
>
>----
>The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
>
>*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
>
Eric Stevens
JerryT
Eric Stevens
>http://www.historiska.se/activities/press_03/pressbild/PMkensington/KensingtonDSCF0715.jpg
>
Thanks Jerry.
I have to say that there is nothing there that looks to me like 1/2"
(12.5mm).
Eric Stevens
David B
>
>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:09:51 GMT, "David B" <tronos...@tesco.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>contemporary with the making of the runes as previously understood?
>
>I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but (probably) Nielsen has
>established that the newly identified runes are consistent with the
>usage of 14th century Gotland and only with 14th century Gotland.
See below
>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>
>>>8. Wolters touches on the examination of the weathering of tombstones
>>> but other than stating the broad results he goes into no great
>>> detail.
>>
>>That alone makes the book not worth buying for me. Until I see convincing
>>evidence that the aging of the runes could not be partly artificial, I'd
>>have to say that all the rest of the, no doubt fascinating, arguments are
>>only as relevant to real medieval history as The Da Vinci Code.
>
>I'm not quite sure where, but Wolters somewhere states in his book
>that artificial aging of the surface of the stone can be excluded. As
>you know, I made enquiries of geo-technical experts about this some
>years ago and reached the same conclusion. I know you (and others)
>like the idea of artificial aging but until you can come up with a
>mechanism which will withstand the close examination of an expert
>armed with all the tools of modern science, I don't think the idea
>will fly.
But that's exactly why your point (8) makes the book such a letdown for me.
If Wolter had presented a convincing explanation of _how_ his examination
of the KRS ruled out artificial weathering to disguise freshly-exposed
mica, I'd have been interested. This also brings me back to the dating of
the "newly-discovered aspects of the runes" (by which I meant the
additional marks which changed the interpretation of some runes). If those
marks cannot _physically_ be proved to be of the same era as the previously
known carving, then they must be treated with great suspicion.
David B.
Peter Alaca
But still I think Lisbeth has a point.
How is it possible that any dot that
deep was not noticed before?
e.johansson@telia.com I E_Johansson
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@6125.nn> skrev i meddelandet
news:43a91e60$0$9697$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Eric Stevens wrote: jv5iq1t67d59sbg6g...@4ax.com,
>
> > On 21 Dec 2005 00:12:18 -0800, "JerryT" <cg...@post.utfors.se> wrote:
> >
> >>
http://www.historiska.se/activities/press_03/pressbild/PMkensington/Kensingt
onDSCF0715.jpg
> >>
> >
> > Thanks Jerry.
> >
> > I have to say that there is nothing there that looks to me like 1/2"
> > (12.5mm).
>
> But still I think Lisbeth has a point.
> How is it possible that any dot that
> deep was not noticed before?
Well it can be seen on the early photos if you place them in Paintshop Pro 7
and use the equipment there.
But it might be due to same reason as some rock carvings at Vitlycke, deep
but eroded, wasn't seen directly until they started to look closer in
darkness letting the light fall from different angles. Could be, couldn't
it?
Inger E
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" skrev
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> "JerryT" wrote:
>>>
>>>>
> http://www.historiska.se/activities/press_03/pressbild/PMkensington/Kensingt
onDSCF0715.jpg
>>> I have to say that there is nothing there that looks to me like 1/2"
>>> (12.5mm).
>> But still I think Lisbeth has a point.
>> How is it possible that any dot that
>> deep was not noticed before?
> Well it can be seen on the early photos if you place them in
> Paintshop Pro 7 and use the equipment there.
> But it might be due to same reason as some rock carvings at Vitlycke,
> deep but eroded, wasn't seen directly until they started to look
> closer in darkness letting the light fall from different angles.
> Could be, couldn't it?
Sure, but why are there after such a long time only
invisible dots and not invisible runes on the krs?
And enhancing the contrast in a picture of a stone
(I use Photohop btw) reveals anything you like to see.
e.johansson@telia.com I E_Johansson
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@6125.nn> skrev i meddelandet
Don't think that dots normally are as deep as the lines in runes. anyhow the
one I have seen haven't been. That might be one reason. And they certainly
aren't made with same angle to get the dot.
Inger E
Peter Alaca
Jerry's photo shows very clear that the dots
are at least as deep as the lines.
--
p.a.
Erik Hammerstad
I really care.
e.johansson@telia.com I E_Johansson
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@6125.nn> skrev i meddelandet
NOW.... I am not sure if you ever carved or chiseled your name on stone,
thus I am not sure if you can or can't relate to what I am about to say. Ok
I give it a try. Due to my grandfather's and his father's as well as
father-in-law's work as superiors in charge of two of Bohuslän's major
export-harbor's Stone Masons, father and his brothers learnt how to handle
right equipment for Stone Mason, 'cutting' 'splitting' 'finishing' from what
we call 'raw-stone'= stone after it's 'taken' from cliff, one way or an
other. One of the traditions among Stone Mason workers were to carve either
their names, symbols or .... in one case runes. I will return to the later
incident since that one is more than funny comparing with the KRS treatmeant
among scholars.... Anyhow I and my older cousins were taught to do this by
my grandfather and by one of my uncles who worked for the Stone Mason
company. Now my name hasn't always been 'Johansson' and there are dots above
letters in my name before I married.
If one looks at my name carved in granite the dot that originally were less
deep than the carved letters.(I and many other finds it difficult to do
regular dots) those dots today looks as if they were deeper than the carved
letters. They weren't originally. I am not sure but due to seeing water
being 'collected' in the dots I guess that the erosion might have made them
deeper. As I said, I am not sure but when it's freezing and water 'stands'
in a dot but runs of the carved parts - water always try to come as close to
ground as it can - that might cause the erosion.
The funny runescript. Well in 1941 one of grandfather's subordinate works
got angry on Hitler..... he carved 'dj.... Hitler' using old secret runes.
That would have been fine if someone in 1960's or 70's with no knowledge of
the background what so ever hadn't taken a photo of the runescipt and since
the name of the hill where it was carved was the same as one of the more
'wellknown' in Tanums parish, someone made a mistake and in a book, English
btw, written that the runescript was found on the other hill...... and that
none of the Runelogists been able to 'read' the runes but the carving 'must'
be from Viking Age......
Inger E
>
>
>
Peter Alaca
Neither do I, but the known dots are clearly visible,
while for some strange reason the 'important' dots
are in normal circumstances invisible.
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" skrev
>> I E_Johansson wrote:
>>> "Peter Alaca"skrev
>>> >>>> I E_Johansson wrote:
>>>>> "Peter Alaca" skrev
>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>> "JerryT" wrote:
>>>>>>> I have to say that there is nothing there that
>>>>>>> looks to me like 1/2" (12.5mm).
>>>>>> But still I think Lisbeth has a point.
>>>>>> How is it possible that any dot that
>>>>>> deep was not noticed before?
>>>>> Well it can be seen on the early photos if you place them in
>>>>> Paintshop Pro 7 and use the equipment there.
>>>>> But it might be due to same reason as some rock carvings at
>>>>> Vitlycke, deep but eroded, wasn't seen directly until they started
>>>>> to look closer in darkness letting the light fall from different
>>>>> angles. Could be, couldn't it?
>>>> Sure, but why are there after such a long time only
>>>> invisible dots and not invisible runes on the krs?
>>>> And enhancing the contrast in a picture of a stone
>>>> (I use Photohop btw) reveals anything you like to see.
>>> Don't think that dots normally are as deep as the lines in runes.
>>> anyhow the one I have seen haven't been. That might be one reason.
>>> And they certainly aren't made with same angle to get the dot.
>> Jerry's photo shows very clear that the dots
>> are at least as deep as the lines.
> NOW.... I am not sure if you ever carved or chiseled your name on
> stone, thus I am not sure if you can or can't relate to what I am
> about to say. Ok I give it a try. Due to my grandfather's and his
> father's as well as father-in-law's work as superiors in charge of
> two of Bohuslän's major export-harbor's Stone Masons, father and his
> brothers learnt how to handle right equipment for Stone Mason,
> 'cutting' 'splitting' 'finishing' from what we call 'raw-stone'=
> stone after it's 'taken' from cliff, one way or an other. One of the
> traditions among Stone Mason workers were to carve either their
> names, symbols or .... in one case runes. I will return to the later
> incident since that one is more than funny comparing with the KRS
> treatmeant among scholars.... Anyhow I and my older cousins were
> taught to do this by my grandfather and by one of my uncles who
> worked for the Stone Mason company. Now my name hasn't always
> been 'Johansson' and there are dots above letters in my name before
> I married.
Jönsson
> If one looks at my name carved in granite the dot that originally
> were less deep than the carved letters.(I and many other finds it
> difficult to do regular dots) those dots today looks as if they were
> deeper than the carved letters. They weren't originally. I am not
> sure but due to seeing water being 'collected' in the dots I guess
> that the erosion might have made them deeper. As I said, I am not
> sure but when it's freezing and water 'stands' in a dot but runs of
> the carved parts - water always try to come as close to ground as it
> can - that might cause the erosion.
> [...]
That is possible, but then only on standing stones.
But I am not sure if they then become deeper or wider.
In the last case there must be some flaking on the surface
around the dot, leaving a shallow pit.
But that can not explain the invisibility of the new 'dots'.
Why are just that 'important' 'dots' not deepend or expanded?
Eric Stevens
wrote:
He does explain enough of the process of weathering of the mica which
he was examining to give you an idea of the complexity of faking the
weathering. It's not just the question of loss of mica: the mica
exfoliates in the process of natural weathering and any accelerated
weathering process would have to produce similar exfoliation. There is
more. For example mica also leaves iron stains when it first weathers
and these iron stains also weather away. Your fake weathering would
have to not only weather the mica in a way indistinguishable from
natural weathering but it would have to weather away the iron stains
in a way indistinguishable from natural weathering.
It would be extraordinary if any would-be forger of the past knew (in
the past) enough about the weathering of the particular greywacke to
be able to fool a determined expert armed with the knowledge and
technology of the present. Without intending to be rude, you certainly
couldn't get away with it even now.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Information has come to me from a number of sources, including
(indirectly) Scott Wolter. I still don't have a definitive answer to
the question of the depth of the inscription but in general the
situation appears to be:
Fact: The punch marks that occur within the lines are deeper and were
added after the specific character was carved. The punch marks made
outside the lines of the characters are shallower than the carved
lines.
The one exception is the relatively deep punch that occurs between the
legs of the dotted R in the word NorR on line 5. Specific
measurements of the different depths were not made.
Speculation: The punch marks could certainly have been added at a
later date. However, most of the punch marks are clearly visible in
the photographs taken by John Steward in March of 1899 (see color
section pages C11 and C12 of the Nielsen/Wolter book). This suggests
the punch marks were likely made at the time the inscription was
originally carved. Nielsen and Wolter believe most of the
punched/stroked characters comprise a "grail prayer" for the 10 dead
men (both Arabic 10's are shallowly punched within the opposing loops,
but not on the carved lines of the character, apparently singling them
out). The punches in the 10's, and the dotted R in the word vaR on
line 6, were intentionally made shallow, outside the lines, so as not
to destroy the small plateau of rock the punches occur on. The small
plateau of rock, in the upper loop of the second R in the word
NorRmen, on line 1, spalled away when the carver tried to add a punch
for a palatal R (see page 29 in the book). If Nielsen-Wolter are
correct that the carver was from Gotland, then his/her experience
would have been with the relatively soft limestone and sandstone grave
slabs observed throughout the island. The KRS metagraywacke is
much harder and more brittle, and based on the spalling in the first
dotted R in NorRmen, and the large scale spall in the "Oh shoot" area
on line 2, it took time for the carver to become comfortable with this
different rock type. The carver apparently realized the need for less
force for the punches outside the lines in the characters carved after
the problems experienced on lines 1 and 2.
Eric Stevens
e.johansson@telia.com I E_Johansson
If someone like a good image of the stone in early 1900's please send me a
line. I got it 8 years ago. I will not be on net between 10.00 tomorrow
local time and late 28th so either you send it soon or you will have to wait
until 29th to have it.
Inger E
e.johansson@telia.com I E_Johansson
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@6125.nn> skrev i meddelandet
Not in the photo images I have. See comments in an other article.
Inger E
Daryl Krupa
Hokay, "Flame On!"
< ... ,just kidding ... >
You don't need to break oput the welding glasses
to read what I've written below, because I have no intention of
trying to imitate The Human Torch.
I.e., please don't take what i've written below as
an attempt to flame you.
It's just fairly-well-natured banter, okay, please?
No offense meant, I promise.
And I hope that your cats are still ageing gracefully, out of the
weather.
< ... okay, that was a stupid pun, i admit ... >
Eric Stevens wrote:
> "David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> "David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >>>Eric Stevens wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>8. Wolters touches on the examination of the weathering of tombstones
> >>>> but other than stating the broad results he goes into no great
> >>>> detail.
> >>>
> >>>That alone makes the book not worth buying for me.
> >>>Until I see convincing evidence that the aging of the runes
> >>>could not be partly artificial, I'd have to say that all the rest of
> >>>the, no doubt fascinating, arguments are
> >>>only as relevant to real medieval history as The Da Vinci Code.
I must second those opinions.
The lack of convincing arguments buttressed by reference to
observations
of weathering is very disappointing; all else is mere opinion.
> >>I'm not quite sure where, but Wolters somewhere states in his book
> >>that artificial aging of the surface of the stone can be excluded. As
> >>you know, I made enquiries of geo-technical experts about this some
> >>years ago and reached the same conclusion. I know you (and others)
> >>like the idea of artificial aging but until you can come up with a
> >>mechanism which will withstand the close examination of an expert
> >>armed with all the tools of modern science, I don't think the idea
> >>will fly.
But your requirement for proof just gets back to the old
"Show that what you say is true" / "No, you show that what I say
is _not_ true, and if you can't then that means that what I say is
true"
altercation that can just as easily be applied to psychopathic ranting
as to
the speculations of materials engineers.
To that I must respond that if you want ask me to show that the KRS
was artificially weathered, I must in return ask you to show that the
KRS
was _not_ artificially weathered.
"Automatic gain-saying of what the other person says is not an
argument."
- Col. Graham Chapman (deceased)
> >But that's exactly why your point (8) makes the book such a letdown for me.
> >If Wolter had presented a convincing explanation of _how_ his examination
> >of the KRS ruled out artificial weathering to disguise freshly-exposed
> >mica, I'd have been interested. This also brings me back to the dating of
> >the "newly-discovered aspects of the runes" (by which I meant the
> >additional marks which changed the interpretation of some runes). If those
> >marks cannot _physically_ be proved to be of the same era as the previously
> >known carving, then they must be treated with great suspicion.
Indeed, if the only evidence of their age is that they are older than
a
photograph dated to 1899, then that does not mean that they were
created at the same time as was the inscription.
That sort of dating control does not rule out the possibility that
they were
created at the same time as the runes were cleaned out, after the
discovery.
And if they are visible in an 1899 photo, why would Wolters, et al.
say that
they were previously undiscovered?
"It is a puzzlement."
- Gilbert O'Sullivan (extent of animality unknown)
> He does explain enough of the process of weathering of the mica which
> he was examining to give you an idea of the complexity of faking the
> weathering. It's not just the question of loss of mica: the mica
> exfoliates in the process of natural weathering and any accelerated
> weathering process would have to produce similar exfoliation.
Fine. So, how long does it take natural weathering processes to
create the sort of exfoliation that has been observed?
Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
If that timeline can't be determined, then weathering cannot be used
to determine the age of the KRS.
And yet, the matter is not as simple as that, even.
Riddle me this:
Once the surface has been aritificially mechanically weathered,
how much time is required to produce the observed weathering effects
using only "natural" forces?
Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
After the surface has been artificially chemically weathered,
how much time is required to produce the observed weathering effects
using only "natural" forces?
Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
Both these artificial weathering processes have been known to have
occurred. It has not been shown the observed weathering occurred
prior to the application of the known artificial weathering processes,
so
it has not been shown that the observed weathering is the result of
purely natural forces, so the problem for Wolter, et al. is to show
that
the observed weathering was not "faked".
The onus is upon them to show that
processes that are known to have occurred are
less likely agents of creation of
the observed physical character of the KRS than
processes that have not been demonstrated to have occurred.
As an analogy, if I am told that the lines in my face are
the result of many centuries of exposure to cosmic radiation,
I must retort that my tobacco habit is a much-more-likely
explanation, and that the onus is on the cosmic-ray enthusiast to
prove me wrong, _not the other way 'round_.
> There is more. For example mica also leaves iron stains when it first weathers
> and these iron stains also weather away. Your fake weathering would
> have to not only weather the mica in a way indistinguishable from
> natural weathering but it would have to weather away the iron stains
> in a way indistinguishable from natural weathering.
No, the requirement would be to not have any iron-staining remaining
after the artificial weathering process.
To satisfy that requirement, one need only weather the mica
in such as way as to not leave any iron-staining at all.
There is no need to remove iron-staining if it never existed.
The above requirement does not stand as being a necessary proof,
unless it is shown that suchiron-staining is the necessary outcome of
any and all possible artificial weathering processes.
Rather, it is more in the nature of a false analogy.
Another analogy is an argument that because
cosmic rays produce unstable nuclei that
naturally become stable again over centuries, then in order to
reproduce the wrinkling effects of cosmic rays by smoking tobacco,
I must somehow render those atomic nuclei stable again within
the half-century iclaim as my lifespan. My retort is that
my atomic nuclei have never been unstable, so there was
never any need to restabilise them in order to create wrinkling effects
by smoking tobacco that are indistinguishable from the effects of
centuries of exposure to cosmic rays.
> It would be extraordinary if any would-be forger of the past knew
> (in the past) enough about the weathering of the particular greywacke
> to be able to fool a determined expert armed with the knowledge and
> technology of the present. Without intending to be rude, you certainly
> couldn't get away with it even now.
And I must retort that you have not proven that
I could not get away with it now.
A major requirement of your gedanken-experiment is the existence of
an expert on artificial weathering of metagreywacke
found in the Minnesota area.
You have not demonstrated the existence of such a creature, or
how such a creature might come into existence today, though
there are some indications that onesuch may have existed
late in the penultimate century.
I would retort that the most likely explanation of the existence of
such anexpert is that it has displayed unprecedented longevity
sufficient to allow it to survive from the presumed time of artificial
weathering of the KRS by such an expert up to the present day.
No other qualified candidate has yet appeared, so
the onus is upon you to demonstrate that an as-unyet-unheard-of
more-recently-nascent expert is more likely.
i'm not trying to be obstreperous, as i hope you realise,
but i hope that i have shown you that some of the
"prove that I's wrong" arguments are not sufficient responses to
those asking for proof of as-yet-unfounded claims.
Thank you for reviewing Wolter's book for me.
I am now secure in the reasonable supposition that
Wolter has no convincing arguments to present
regarding using weathering to securely date
the inscription on the KRS.
If he had such, he would present them,
Shirley.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Erik Hammerstad wrote: 40tj5mF...@individual.net,
Not invisible, in the sense that they can be hard to see.
All that is required is that somebody seriously study the stone. It is
disappointing that it should take more than a century to happen.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
I've just received an answer from Scott Wolter, as follows:
" The cuts range in depth from approximately 1.0 to 1.5 mm (1/16" to
1/12"). Nearly all are closest to 1 mm. The deepest cuts would be
the punch marks made for the word separators that are up to 1.5 mm
deep. These are all estimates since I don't have access to the
stone right now, but I do have a fiberglass cast and it's pretty
darn close."
--- snip ----
Eric Stevens
prd
news:1135217182....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by
"Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com> . . . :
> "Automatic gain-saying of what the other person says is not an
> argument."
> - Col. Graham Chapman (deceased)
Wasn't he on monte python?
>> >But that's exactly why your point (8) makes the book such a
>> >letdown for me. If Wolter had presented a convincing
>> >explanation of _how_ his examination of the KRS ruled out
>> >artificial weathering to disguise freshly-exposed mica, I'd
>> >have been interested. This also brings me back to the dating
>> >of the "newly-discovered aspects of the runes" (by which I
>> >meant the additional marks which changed the interpretation of
>> >some runes). If those marks cannot _physically_ be proved to
>> >be of the same era as the previously known carving, then they
>> >must be treated with great suspicion.
>
> Indeed, if the only evidence of their age is that they are
> older than
> a
> photograph dated to 1899, then that does not mean that they were
> created at the same time as was the inscription.
> That sort of dating control does not rule out the possibility
> that
> they were
> created at the same time as the runes were cleaned out, after
> the discovery.
> And if they are visible in an 1899 photo, why would Wolters,
> et al.
> say that
> they were previously undiscovered?
Good point, shall we invite Wolters here to duke it out? :^).
> "It is a puzzlement."
> - Gilbert O'Sullivan (extent of animality unknown)
>> faking the weathering. It's not just the question of loss of
>> mica: the mica exfoliates in the process of natural weathering
>> and any accelerated weathering process would have to produce
>> similar exfoliation.
>
> Fine. So, how long does it take natural weathering processes
> to
> create the sort of exfoliation that has been observed?
> Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
> If that timeline can't be determined, then weathering cannot
> be used
The issue of the stone being a barn door or out house step stone, if
even only for a year might have rapidly weather the stone.
> to determine the age of the KRS.
> And yet, the matter is not as simple as that, even.
> Riddle me this:
> Once the surface has been aritificially mechanically
> weathered,
> how much time is required to produce the observed weathering
> effects using only "natural" forces?
> Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
> After the surface has been artificially chemically weathered,
> how much time is required to produce the observed weathering
> effects using only "natural" forces?
There is not such thing as a weathering constant, weathering can be
slow in a cave or very fast if it sits under and eve or a over hang
where water can splash and stand for long periods.
I'de like to see the book and review, though I have an ethically
delimna in buying a book which is put forth with hype that will aid
in its selling, which will probably be refuted, but is out their long
enough to make it sell. If someone wants to send me a copy I will
accept it.
(I am still waiting for my free copy of The Comanches, ROFL).
prd
news:h33kq1hsn2ru771cv...@4ax.com by Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> . . . :
> are up to 1.5 mm deep. These are all estimates since I don't
> have access to the stone right now, but I do have a
> fiberglass cast and it's pretty darn close."
Did he break his arm while measuring it? :^).
Seppo Renfors
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> I've just finished my first pass through the book and I have to say
> that despite its faults, I'm impressed.
>
> The book is structured and has both a bibliography and an index,
> although I expect that both could be strengthened. It's apparent that
> the book first set out to be a defense of Ohman as forger
I presume you intended to say "defence of Ohman against allegations of
forgery", not defending the claim that Ohman IS the forger as you
said.
[snip remainder of the spin]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
>
> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
> news:j90fq19m72a41rqeq...@4ax.com:
>
> <....>
>
> >
> > 4. While newly discovered marks on the stone can be interpreted
> > as
> > phonetic modifications of the rune, others have no such
> > obvious meaning. Wolters and Nielsen have hypothesised that
> > the marks are intended to draw attention to the particular
> > runes and on that basis have tried substituting the marked
> > runes in the runic Easter table. This produces the date 1362
> > in confirmation of date inscribed on the stone. The details
> > of this are given in the book and at first sight the
> > extraction of a second 1362 appears to be valid.
> >
>
> <....>
>
> Does he explain why anybody who cut the runes extemely deep (a couple
> of centimeters, around 1/2 inch - unless my memory fails me)
It fails you badly in a respect you didn't expect - a "1/2 inch" = 12
mm = 1.2 cm.
> would
> decide to add almost invisible information to indicate phonetic
> modification or something else they wanted to draw attention to?
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I didn't say he gives no arguments, (whether convincing or otherwise).
He does give arguments and summarises his work on the weathering. He
also gives a few micrographs. He explains why he has concluded that
the inscription was more than 2 centuries old at the time of finding.
The reason I said 'no great detail' is that I have a copy of his
earlier article on the weathering and know how much more detail there
is to give..
>
>> >>I'm not quite sure where, but Wolters somewhere states in his book
>> >>that artificial aging of the surface of the stone can be excluded. As
>> >>you know, I made enquiries of geo-technical experts about this some
>> >>years ago and reached the same conclusion. I know you (and others)
>> >>like the idea of artificial aging but until you can come up with a
>> >>mechanism which will withstand the close examination of an expert
>> >>armed with all the tools of modern science, I don't think the idea
>> >>will fly.
>
> But your requirement for proof just gets back to the old
>"Show that what you say is true" / "No, you show that what I say
>is _not_ true, and if you can't then that means that what I say is
>true"
>altercation that can just as easily be applied to psychopathic ranting
>as to
>the speculations of materials engineers.
I would have thought that in a 'sci' group of any kind it would long
ago have been accepted that you can never prove that something is
true. All you can do is post a hypothesis and show that it is
consistent with what is known. It is ridiculous for the opposition to
ask that the proponent 'prove' that something is true. When all the
facts are known its up to the opposition to falsify the argument.
> To that I must respond that if you want ask me to show that the KRS
>was artificially weathered, I must in return ask you to show that the
>KRS
>was _not_ artificially weathered.
Which is a waste of time as you should know.
>
> "Automatic gain-saying of what the other person says is not an
>argument."
>- Col. Graham Chapman (deceased)
Then why employ the method.
>
>> >But that's exactly why your point (8) makes the book such a letdown for me.
>> >If Wolter had presented a convincing explanation of _how_ his examination
>> >of the KRS ruled out artificial weathering to disguise freshly-exposed
>> >mica, I'd have been interested. This also brings me back to the dating of
>> >the "newly-discovered aspects of the runes" (by which I meant the
>> >additional marks which changed the interpretation of some runes). If those
>> >marks cannot _physically_ be proved to be of the same era as the previously
>> >known carving, then they must be treated with great suspicion.
>
> Indeed, if the only evidence of their age is that they are older than
>a photograph dated to 1899, then that does not mean that they were
>created at the same time as was the inscription.
> That sort of dating control does not rule out the possibility that
>they were created at the same time as the runes were cleaned out,
>after the discovery.
The 'cleaning out' marks are readily distinguishable so it may be
possible to show that the various newly identified markings predate
the cleaning.
As far as the general weathering of the markings is concerned, that is
a matter which can be resolved by further examination.
> And if they are visible in an 1899 photo, why would Wolters, et al.
>say that they were previously undiscovered?
Very simple. Many of the markings change the meaning of the runes and
for more than a century the runes have been discussed on the basis
that the marks are not there. Quite literally, nobody seems to have
seen them
>
> "It is a puzzlement."
>- Gilbert O'Sullivan (extent of animality unknown)
>
>> He does explain enough of the process of weathering of the mica which
>> he was examining to give you an idea of the complexity of faking the
>> weathering. It's not just the question of loss of mica: the mica
>> exfoliates in the process of natural weathering and any accelerated
>> weathering process would have to produce similar exfoliation.
>
> Fine. So, how long does it take natural weathering processes to
>create the sort of exfoliation that has been observed?
> Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
> If that timeline can't be determined, then weathering cannot be used
>to determine the age of the KRS.
Oh but it can. Wolters has examined weathering of similar mica on
tombstones of an average of 200 years. Their mica has weathered,
started to exfoliate and deposit rust stains around them. In the case
of the KRS the mica and rust stains have almost entirely gone. Clearly
the KRS is much more weathered than the tombstones. Wolters has not
attempted to extraoplate the tombstone weathering to estimate the age
of the KRS weathering. All he is prepared to say is that the KRS
weathering is more than 200 years.
>
> And yet, the matter is not as simple as that, even.
> Riddle me this:
> Once the surface has been aritificially mechanically weathered,
>how much time is required to produce the observed weathering effects
>using only "natural" forces?
> Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
You are starting to both fantasize and speculate about something you
literally know nothing about. I say that you know nothing about it for
the simple reason that to my knowledge you have seen virtually none of
the micrographs etc of the KRS. You are asking me to engage in a
hypothetical argument about unspecified material. Apart from that, I'm
not a geologist/geochemist and am not qualified to carry out a
specialist discussion on the subject with you.
> After the surface has been artificially chemically weathered,
>how much time is required to produce the observed weathering effects
>using only "natural" forces?
> Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
> Both these artificial weathering processes have been known to have
>occurred. It has not been shown the observed weathering occurred
>prior to the application of the known artificial weathering processes,
>so
>it has not been shown that the observed weathering is the result of
>purely natural forces, so the problem for Wolter, et al. is to show
>that
>the observed weathering was not "faked".
You are jumping to conclusions. What artificial weathering is known to
have occurred? Is this your generic term for the various attempts at
cleaning of the surface?
> The onus is upon them to show that
>processes that are known to have occurred are
>less likely agents of creation of
>the observed physical character of the KRS than
>processes that have not been demonstrated to have occurred.
Hang on a minute. You know something about these things yourself. Why
can't you explain how the various processes may have accelerated the
weathering of the surface of the KRS?
>
> As an analogy, if I am told that the lines in my face are
>the result of many centuries of exposure to cosmic radiation,
>I must retort that my tobacco habit is a much-more-likely
>explanation, and that the onus is on the cosmic-ray enthusiast to
>prove me wrong, _not the other way 'round_.
>
>> There is more. For example mica also leaves iron stains when it first weathers
>> and these iron stains also weather away. Your fake weathering would
>> have to not only weather the mica in a way indistinguishable from
>> natural weathering but it would have to weather away the iron stains
>> in a way indistinguishable from natural weathering.
>
> No, the requirement would be to not have any iron-staining remaining
>after the artificial weathering process.
> To satisfy that requirement, one need only weather the mica
>in such as way as to not leave any iron-staining at all.
> There is no need to remove iron-staining if it never existed.
> The above requirement does not stand as being a necessary proof,
>unless it is shown that suchiron-staining is the necessary outcome of
>any and all possible artificial weathering processes.
> Rather, it is more in the nature of a false analogy.
It's not a false analogy but I take your point that the iron stain
eventually disappears. But by then a pronounced weathering crust has
formed and this too has to be faked. I know that Wolters remarked
about the crust somewhere in the book. How do you propse to do that?
Bear in mind the artificial crust has to be indistinguishable from a
natural crust under an electron microscope with EDX and all the other
fancy tools.
It seems to me that you are raising entirely speculative objections to
technical conclusions without ever having looked at any details of the
argument. That you have at this early stage said that you are not
interested in learning more (by buying the book) gives due weight to
your arguments.
>
> Thank you for reviewing Wolter's book for me.
> I am now secure in the reasonable supposition that
>Wolter has no convincing arguments to present
>regarding using weathering to securely date
>the inscription on the KRS.
I'm glad you think I've confirmed that you were right. Life would be
easy if we could all reach valid conclusions without going to the
trouble of first obtaining the facts.
>
>If he had such, he would present them,
>Shirley.
>
Shirley?
Eric Stevens
Thomas Zahr
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:21:34 +0100, "Peter Alaca"
> <P.A...@6125.nn> wrote:
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>> j90fq19m72a41rqeq...@4ax.com,
...
>>> 5. Wolters and Nielsen also claim that apparently marked
>>> runes can
>>> be used to derive a close (to 5 decimal figures)
>>> approximation to the Golden Number phi. They have
>>> given the details of this also but the derivation is
>>> more obscure and I have not yet tried to confirm it.
>> And what use has phi on a runestone like the krs?
> The fact that it is embedded in the text may serve to
> authentic the document in some way.
Why would anybody want to put pi on the KRS? What is the
supposed function? Did the carvers think they would not get
home?
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<what a waste>
Lisbeth Andersson
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:53:59 +1300, Eric Stevens
> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:54:37 +0000, Lisbeth Andersson
>><lis...@bredband.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
>>>news:bbqgq194sbuchqcuf...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>Does he explain why anybody who cut the runes extemely deep (a
>>>couple
>>>>>of centimeters, around 1/2 inch - unless my memory fails me)
>>>would
>>>>>decide to add almost invisible information to indicate
>>>>>phonetic modification or something else they wanted to draw
>>>>>attention to?
>>>>>
>>>
<.....>
>>
>>I've never seen the stone. I've never seen any measurements
>>quoted for the depth of the runes. I can only go by the
>>appearance in the photographs. I will try and find out.
>
> I've just received an answer from Scott Wolter, as follows:
>
> " The cuts range in depth from approximately 1.0 to 1.5 mm (1/16"
> to
> 1/12"). Nearly all are closest to 1 mm. The deepest cuts
> would be the punch marks made for the word separators that are
> up to 1.5 mm deep. These are all estimates since I don't have
> access to the stone right now, but I do have a fiberglass cast
> and it's pretty darn close."
>
That definitely is *not the stone that was exhibited at the
Historical Museum in Stockholm a few years back. I hope they did
not pay a fortune for the transport and insurance.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
David B
>
>It would be extraordinary if any would-be forger of the past knew (in
>the past) enough about the weathering of the particular greywacke to
>be able to fool a determined expert armed with the knowledge and
>technology of the present. Without intending to be rude, you certainly
>couldn't get away with it even now.
That's probably true if the determined expert has some idea of how and when
the artificial weathering might have been done, otherwise it would be
necesary to test for every plausible artificial weathering scenario, making
allowances for an extended period of natural weathering after the alleged
fakery. Rather than go down the same road as Daryl Krupa, I'm simply going
to ask if anybody can dig up any references for the detection of
pre-20th-century fake weathering of micaceous stone.
David B.
prd
news:d6yqf.49689$uR....@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net by "David B"
<tronos...@tesco.net> . . . :
Haven't we been through all of this before, in great detail.
My position is that if it was used as a barn door step, even for a
year all mica analysis would be useless. The basic problem is that
there are uncertainties created de post facto. If the Ohmans knew
that they did not forge the stone, why in the crap did they not place
it in some type of felt protection.
Steve Marcus
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:kadkq1ln9tee5ucpm...@4ax.com...
Which, considering that Nielsen, and Knirk, two "experts" have published
material about the runes and their meaning, is an incredible statement.
Mighty suspicious.
>>
>> "It is a puzzlement."
>>- Gilbert O'Sullivan (extent of animality unknown)
>>
>>> He does explain enough of the process of weathering of the mica which
>>> he was examining to give you an idea of the complexity of faking the
>>> weathering. It's not just the question of loss of mica: the mica
>>> exfoliates in the process of natural weathering and any accelerated
>>> weathering process would have to produce similar exfoliation.
>>
>> Fine. So, how long does it take natural weathering processes to
>>create the sort of exfoliation that has been observed?
>> Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
>> If that timeline can't be determined, then weathering cannot be used
>>to determine the age of the KRS.
>
> Oh but it can. Wolters has examined weathering of similar mica on
> tombstones of an average of 200 years. Their mica has weathered,
> started to exfoliate and deposit rust stains around them. In the case
> of the KRS the mica and rust stains have almost entirely gone. Clearly
> the KRS is much more weathered than the tombstones. Wolters has not
> attempted to extraoplate the tombstone weathering to estimate the age
> of the KRS weathering. All he is prepared to say is that the KRS
> weathering is more than 200 years.
And if artificial weathering never produced rust stains??
>>
>> And yet, the matter is not as simple as that, even.
>> Riddle me this:
>> Once the surface has been aritificially mechanically weathered,
>>how much time is required to produce the observed weathering effects
>>using only "natural" forces?
>> Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
>
> You are starting to both fantasize and speculate about something you
> literally know nothing about. I say that you know nothing about it for
> the simple reason that to my knowledge you have seen virtually none of
> the micrographs etc of the KRS. You are asking me to engage in a
> hypothetical argument about unspecified material. Apart from that, I'm
> not a geologist/geochemist and am not qualified to carry out a
> specialist discussion on the subject with you.
Yet you feel qualified enough in geology to apparently accept Wolter's work
without question. One would think that you would have been cured of that
sort of thing after being schooled accepting work such as Enterline's
"transfer mechanism" for getting anatase on the Vinland Map (and for that
matter McCulloch's work in general), but no, you keep chugging along.
>
>> After the surface has been artificially chemically weathered,
>>how much time is required to produce the observed weathering effects
>>using only "natural" forces?
>> Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
>> Both these artificial weathering processes have been known to have
>>occurred. It has not been shown the observed weathering occurred
>>prior to the application of the known artificial weathering processes,
>>so
>>it has not been shown that the observed weathering is the result of
>>purely natural forces, so the problem for Wolter, et al. is to show
>>that
>>the observed weathering was not "faked".
>
> You are jumping to conclusions. What artificial weathering is known to
> have occurred? Is this your generic term for the various attempts at
> cleaning of the surface?
Artificial weathering either has occurred, or it hasn't. Natural weathering
has either occurred or it hasn't. You are prepared to accept Wolter's work
hook, line and sinker, after having written "... I'm not a
geologist/geochemist and am not qualified to carry out a specialist
discussion on the subject with you." Your (in)famous skeptical approach
seems to have been tossed onto the trash heap.
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
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>> Erik Hammerstad wrote:
>>> Peter Alaca wrote:
>>>> I E_Johansson wrote:
>>>>>> I E_Johansson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "JerryT" wrote:
http://www.historiska.se/activities/press_03/pressbild/PMkensington/KensingtonDSCF0715.jpg
>>>>>>>>> I have to say that there is nothing there that looks to me
>>>>>>>>> like 1/2" (12.5mm).
>>>>>>>> But still I think Lisbeth has a point.
>>>>>>>> How is it possible that any dot that
>>>>>>>> deep was not noticed before?
>>>>>>> Well it can be seen on the early photos if you place them in
>>>>>>> Paintshop Pro 7 and use the equipment there.
>>>>>>> But it might be due to same reason as some rock carvings at
>>>>>>> Vitlycke, deep but eroded, wasn't seen directly until they
>>>>>>> started to look closer in darkness letting the light fall from
>>>>>>> different angles. Could be, couldn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, but why are there after such a long time only
>>>>>> invisible dots and not invisible runes on the krs?
>>>>>> And enhancing the contrast in a picture of a stone
>>>>>> (I use Photohop btw) reveals anything you like to see.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't think that dots normally are as deep as the lines in runes.
>>>>> anyhow the one I have seen haven't been. That might be one reason.
>>>>> And they certainly aren't made with same angle to get the dot.
>>>> Jerry's photo shows very clear that the dots
>>>> are at least as deep as the lines.
>>> IIRC Wolters and Nielsen claim to have found _new_ dots, not that
>>> I really care.
>> Neither do I, but the known dots are clearly visible,
>> while for some strange reason the 'important' dots
>> are in normal circumstances invisible.
> Not invisible, in the sense that they can be hard to see.
> All that is required is that somebody seriously study the stone.
And who do have you in mind?
Who do you think was supposed to see
and read the stone?
If I see e.g. route sign, is it necessary to
study it seriously for signs of secret
nummerological clues?
> It is disappointing that it should take more than a century to happen.
If the krs is genuine, then it is much longer then a century.
Eric Stevens
Not Pi = 3.1417 but Phi = the Golden Number = 1.61803.
Why they should want to embed this in the KRS is a matter of
speculation but it seems that they did in several places. Wolter and
Nielsen's current theory is that it was there to enable the
enlightened to authenticate the document, if document is the right
word for the KRS. This is part of the Templar link as the Templars
were known to be into such things.
I don't know whether or not the carvers expected to get home but it
may be that they expected the KRS to be found by others. Hence the
need for authentication. A bit like the security code on the back of a
credit card.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--- snip ----
>>> Neither do I, but the known dots are clearly visible,
>>> while for some strange reason the 'important' dots
>>> are in normal circumstances invisible.
>
>> Not invisible, in the sense that they can be hard to see.
>> All that is required is that somebody seriously study the stone.
>
>And who do have you in mind?
>Who do you think was supposed to see
>and read the stone?
>If I see e.g. route sign, is it necessary to
>study it seriously for signs of secret
>nummerological clues?
You have to take into account that the fine detail has become
relatively obscured by the centuries of weathering to which it has
been exposed. In part the situation resembles that of the 17th century
english 's' which most people think was then represented by the long
version of the letter 'f'. I haven't got an example to show but if you
examine the old documents closely you will see that the horizontal bar
on the 'f' crosses the main stem of the letter but in the letter 's'
it is found only to the left of the main stem. Yet, the vast majority
of people have never noticed that. People tend not to notice the fine
detail unless they specifically look for it.
When I referred to somebody seriously studying the stone, I of course
referred to the scholars who have pronounced the runes to be fake and
the stone to be false on the basis of what now can be seen to be a
less than thorough examination. It is disappointing that it should
take more than a century for this to be done and that when it was done
it was done by a geologist of all people.
I take your point about the route sign but in this case we appear to
have a secret message disguised as a route sign (or something). There
may be truth in the message that they were engaged in a voyage of
(land?) acquisition but the KRS appears to be intended to do much more
than record that fact. The question is, what was its real purpose?
>
>> It is disappointing that it should take more than a century to happen.
>
>If the krs is genuine, then it is much longer then a century.
I was referring to the time since its discovery.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
--- snip ----
>> Very simple. Many of the markings change the meaning of the runes and
>> for more than a century the runes have been discussed on the basis
>> that the marks are not there. Quite literally, nobody seems to have
>> seen them
>
>Which, considering that Nielsen, and Knirk, two "experts" have published
>material about the runes and their meaning, is an incredible statement.
>Mighty suspicious.
The fine detail in its weathered condition is definitely present on
the stone. The material published by all of the 'experts', including
Nielsen and Knirk, have in the past discussed the runes as though the
much of the fine detail was not present and the only reason is that
until Wolters closely examined the stone, nobody knew all the fine
detail that was there. Everybody has been working from inaccurate
transcriptions which have been assumed to be correct. I don't know
what is suspicious about that.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
My impression is that there is a shortage of information about the
weathering of micaseous stone, let alone information about the fake
weathering of micaceous stone.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
The stone was never used as a doorstep but was kept under cover in a
shed. This is made clear by the statements of the older surviving
members of the Ohman family quoted in the book.
Eric Stevens
prd
news:632mq1d1ap3cdfk2t...@4ax.com by Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> . . . :
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:16:27 GMT, prd <X_he...@address.net>
I don't believe that testimony has a degree of confidence greater
than 96%, neither should you.
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>
> --- snip ----
>
>>>> Neither do I, but the known dots are clearly visible,
>>>> while for some strange reason the 'important' dots
>>>> are in normal circumstances invisible.
>>
>>> Not invisible, in the sense that they can be hard to see.
>>> All that is required is that somebody seriously study the stone.
>>
>> And who do have you in mind?
>> Who do you think was supposed to see
>> and read the stone?
>> If I see e.g. route sign, is it necessary to
>> study it seriously for signs of secret
>> nummerological clues?
>
> You have to take into account that the fine detail has become
> relatively obscured by the centuries of weathering to which it has
> been exposed. In part the situation resembles that of the 17th century
> english 's' which most people think was then represented by the long
> version of the letter 'f'. I haven't got an example to show but if you
> examine the old documents closely you will see that the horizontal bar
> on the 'f' crosses the main stem of the letter but in the letter 's'
> it is found only to the left of the main stem.
(That is not an English speciality)
> Yet, the vast majority of people have never noticed that.
> People tend not to notice the fine detail unless they specifically
> look for it.
Yes, but where is the need to look for it?
> When I referred to somebody seriously studying the stone, I of course
> referred to the scholars who have pronounced the runes to be fake and
> the stone to be false on the basis of what now can be seen to be a
> less than thorough examination. It is disappointing that it should
> take more than a century for this to be done and that when it was done
> it was done by a geologist of all people.
>
> I take your point about the route sign but in this case we appear to
> have a secret message disguised as a route sign (or something). There
> may be truth in the message that they were engaged in a voyage of
> (land?) acquisition but the KRS appears to be intended to do much more
> than record that fact. The question is, what was its real purpose?
But a secret code only makes sense if you
expect a passer-by with special knowledge,
and the desire to look for codes on a straight
forward looking carved stone
>>> It is disappointing that it should take more than a century to
>>> happen.
>> If the krs is genuine, then it is much longer then a century.
>
> I was referring to the time since its discovery.
I know, but my point is that it needs special
techniques and numerological knowledeg
to find the secret dots.
And I distrust the argument of erosion, because
that means _selective_ erosion.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: el0mq15plk10edff7...@4ax.com,
Ordinarily one uses context to help decide the nature of a word. But
in a document whose meaning is obscure it is important to establish
whether a word is 'fit' or 'sit' (or where spelling is optional
'fense' or 'sense') etc. I am surprised that for over a hundred years
nobody examined in detail the text of the stone over which they were
arguing.
>
>> When I referred to somebody seriously studying the stone, I of course
>> referred to the scholars who have pronounced the runes to be fake and
>> the stone to be false on the basis of what now can be seen to be a
>> less than thorough examination. It is disappointing that it should
>> take more than a century for this to be done and that when it was done
>> it was done by a geologist of all people.
>>
>> I take your point about the route sign but in this case we appear to
>> have a secret message disguised as a route sign (or something). There
>> may be truth in the message that they were engaged in a voyage of
>> (land?) acquisition but the KRS appears to be intended to do much more
>> than record that fact. The question is, what was its real purpose?
>
>But a secret code only makes sense if you
>expect a passer-by with special knowledge,
>and the desire to look for codes on a straight
>forward looking carved stone
I agree. So the question is, what was the true purpose of the KRS? As
may people have pointed out, it does not make sense for someone to
spend two days banging away with a hammer and chisel to record the
fact that their party has just been attacked. Maybe that isn't why the
KRS was carved at all.
>>>> It is disappointing that it should take more than a century to
>>>> happen.
>
>>> If the krs is genuine, then it is much longer then a century.
>>
>> I was referring to the time since its discovery.
>
>I know, but my point is that it needs special
>techniques and numerological knowledeg
>to find the secret dots.
Apart from the fact that the dot's weren't secret, you have it the
wrong way round. It was the discovery of the dots (and dashes) which
led to the numerology as a possible explanation of their presence. I
imagine nobody was more surprised than Nielsen and Wolters when they
were found to fit.
>And I distrust the argument of erosion, because
>that means _selective_ erosion.
There is no suggestion of selective erosion. I'm not sure where you
get that idea from.
I would like to continue this discussion but I am shutting down in a
few minutes and am going to be away until the 26th.
Eric Stevens
prd
news:43ab0f92$0$43156$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl by "Peter Alaca"
<P.A...@6125.nn> . . . :
> Eric Stevens wrote: el0mq15plk10edff7...@4ax.com,
>> represented by the long version of the letter 'f'. I haven't
>> got an example to show but if you examine the old documents
>> closely you will see that the horizontal bar on the 'f' crosses
>> the main stem of the letter but in the letter 's' it is found
>> only to the left of the main stem.
>
> (That is not an English speciality)
>
>> Yet, the vast majority of people have never noticed that.
I noticed it, every single frecking document of certain period don't
know how to draw and S. Its annoying.
>> People tend not to notice the fine detail unless they
>> specifically look for it.
I do.
> Yes, but where is the need to look for it?
Other Masons?
Eric Stevens
>>>My position is that if it was used as a barn door step, even for
>>>a year all mica analysis would be useless. The basic problem is
>>>that there are uncertainties created de post facto. If the
>>>Ohmans knew that they did not forge the stone, why in the crap
>>>did they not place it in some type of felt protection.
>>
>> The stone was never used as a doorstep but was kept under cover
>> in a shed. This is made clear by the statements of the older
>> surviving members of the Ohman family quoted in the book.
>
>I don't believe that testimony has a degree of confidence greater
>than 96%, neither should you.
>
Why? How do you arrive at that figure?
Are you suggesting the stone has the same properties as Schrodinger's
cat?
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
Yes they are. They are invisible and have
a secret meaning.
> you have it the wrong way round. It was the discovery of the dots
> (and dashes)
> which led to the numerology as a possible explanation of their
> presence. I imagine nobody was more surprised than Nielsen
> and Wolters when they were found to fit.
But nj both case yopu need that secret knowledge
>> And I distrust the argument of erosion, because
>> that means _selective_ erosion.
> There is no suggestion of selective erosion. I'm not sure where you
> get that idea from.
Well, the 'critical' are 'invissible' and the
normal ones are not.
If that is not selective, is it coincidence?
>
> I would like to continue this discussion but I am shutting down in a
> few minutes and am going to be away until the 26th.
Enyoy yourself
Eric Stevens
wrote:
They are not invisible but inconspicuous and after centuries of
weathering, even more so. Nevertheless they are(still) there for
anyone who cares to look. It was not necessary to look any harder for
them than it was for someone to closely examine the runes to establish
their exact form.
In some cases the marks have a secret meaning but in others they
merely change the form of the rune - such as to the pallated 'R' rune
of which there are a number of examples in Gotland.
>
>> you have it the wrong way round. It was the discovery of the dots
>> (and dashes)
>> which led to the numerology as a possible explanation of their
>> presence. I imagine nobody was more surprised than Nielsen
>> and Wolters when they were found to fit.
>
>But nj both case yopu need that secret knowledge
True. The significance of the marking of some of the runes needed
either secret knowledge as you describe it, or persistent curiousity
as Wolters and Nielsen demonstrated.
>
>>> And I distrust the argument of erosion, because
>>> that means _selective_ erosion.
>
>> There is no suggestion of selective erosion. I'm not sure where you
>> get that idea from.
>
>Well, the 'critical' are 'invissible' and the
>normal ones are not.
>If that is not selective, is it coincidence?
I think you have misunderstood. All fine detail has been obscured by
weathering in a totally non-selective way. This has led people to
misread some of the runes and to fail to note other runes seem to have
been specially marked.
>
>>
>> I would like to continue this discussion but I am shutting down in a
>> few minutes and am going to be away until the 26th.
>
>Enyoy yourself
This time is for real. My wife is nearly packed. Shutdown is in five
minutes ...
Have a good Christmas everyone.
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
Are you claiming, in all seriousness, that until Wolter studied the KRS, not
a single expert was working from an accurate transcription? I find that
very difficult to believe, given that the stone was in the the possession of
Holand for a long time, and he took it to Europe circa 1911 or so. Nobody
inspected the stone closely enough to see the dots that Wolter say?
Suuurreee.
And the other logical quirk is this: the "secret" dots yield the date 1362.
But that date is already carved on the stone. So what was the big secret
conveyed by the dots??
Daryl Krupa
prd wrote:
> In sci.archaeology message
> news:1135217182....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by
> "Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com> . . . :
>
> > "Automatic gain-saying of what the other person says is not an
> > argument."
> > - Col. Graham Chapman (deceased)
>
> Wasn't he on monte python?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python
<quote>
They experimented with ending segments by cutting abruptly to
another scene or animation, walking offstage, addressing the camera,
or introducing a totally unrelated event or character. A classic
example
of this approach was the use of Chapman's "Colonel" character,
who walked into several sketches and ordered them to be stopped
because they were "too silly."
<unquote>
http://www.geocities.com/zatapatiqueflysheep/chapman/gcsp.htm
<snip>
> > And if they are visible in an 1899 photo, why would Wolters,
> > et al.
> > say that
> > they were previously undiscovered?
>
> Good point, shall we invite Wolters here to duke it out? :^).
Nah; the photo was mentioned by Eric, but I'm not sure
that it was also cited by Wolter.
<snip>
> > So, how long does it take natural weathering processes
> > to create the sort of exfoliation that has been observed?
> > Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
> > If that timeline can't be determined, then weathering cannot
> > be used
>
> The issue of the stone being a barn door or out house step stone, if
> even only for a year might have rapidly weather the stone.
That is another complication, but I was trying to limit the
discussion to purely natural weathering prior to discovery and
intentional artificial weathering.
> > to determine the age of the KRS.
> > And yet, the matter is not as simple as that, even.
> > Riddle me this:
> > Once the surface has been aritificially mechanically
> > weathered,
> > how much time is required to produce the observed weathering
> > effects using only "natural" forces?
> > Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
> > After the surface has been artificially chemically weathered,
> > how much time is required to produce the observed weathering
> > effects using only "natural" forces?
>
> There is not such thing as a weathering constant, weathering can be
> slow in a cave or very fast if it sits under and eve or a over hang
> where water can splash and stand for long periods.
Exactly.
Even if the history of the KRS inscription were known re:
amount of time exposed to the air and amount of time face
down in the ground, we don't know what weathering coefficients
we should apply to that history.
The main point is that the rates of weathering of the material
being examined have not been determined, whether that weathering
is by natural or artificial means.
The rate might well change through time, and might well be different
at different stages of the weathering process.
Until the rates of weathering at various stages in the process are
established, one can not use extent or character of weathering
as a dating tool.
<snip>
-
Daryl Krupa
m_z...@hotmail.com
Daryl Krupa wrote:
> Exactly.
> Even if the history of the KRS inscription were known re:
> amount of time exposed to the air and amount of time face
> down in the ground, we don't know what weathering coefficients
> we should apply to that history.
> The main point is that the rates of weathering of the material
> being examined have not been determined, whether that weathering
> is by natural or artificial means.
> The rate might well change through time, and might well be different
> at different stages of the weathering process.
> Until the rates of weathering at various stages in the process are
> established, one can not use extent or character of weathering
> as a dating tool.
>
In no case whatsoever? If one were to find a stone on the ground with
a thick patina throughout, would you be able to say (with a straight
face) that the stone could have been broken off from its parent the day
previously, and picked up the patina in a single day?
m_z...@hotmail.com
Steve Marcus wrote:
> And the other logical quirk is this: the "secret" dots yield the date 1362.
> But that date is already carved on the stone. So what was the big secret
> conveyed by the dots??
The practice of double dating an inscription does appear to have been a
practice in medieval time, as shown in Nielsen/Wolter (see my post on
the Easter Table). If so then this would tend to confirm the KRS as a
medieval document, a forger having no need to do so.
Michael
Steve Marcus
<m_z...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135337891.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
How is your analogy relevant to giving the stone a more or less accurate
dating?
However, if I identified the stone as being of a particular type (for
example, granite), I could, of course, then find some stones made of a
different type (for example slate) that has inscribed dates.
Notwithstanding that the slate had been put to a known and particular use
not while the granite is not _known_ to have been similarly used, I could
then use the inscriptions on the slate to accurately date the granite stone.
:) Suuurrreee I could.
Steve Marcus
<m_z...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135341716.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sigh.... Is there nothing that these guys can't cook up? I'm certain that
they can even find examples of triple dating, etc. So what? The point is
that this newly discovered date is in a "code." Their theory is that is
obtained by plugging the dotted runes in to an Easter table, something that
not everyone would be familiar with or know how to use. Yet, the "coded"
message is identical to the message plainly inscribed on the stone,
presumably available to anyone who could read the runes. What in the world
would the point of doing that be? By using the dotted runes, were the
necessarily concealing the date from anyone not friendly to them? After
all, knowledge of the Easter Table doesn't necessrily make anyone an ally of
the inscribers.
Again, it is amazing that someone could allege that the dots on the KRS were
not observed previously. The stone had been repeatedly subjected to
examination by Holand and experts in Europe. The allegations that
runestones in North America bear "Easter Table" dates is not new, either.
See: http://www2.privatei.com/~bartjean/chap9.htm
I'll reserve judgement on the book until I read it. I expect to have a copy
in 4-6 weeks. But the logic of the situation that is being reported by
those who have read the book is beginning to have a bad smell. As does this
sort of thing:
http://wcco.com/specialreports/local_story_143121108.html
See also:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41564
for this: "When we plotted these three things we got a year: 1362," Wolter
said. "It was like, oh my God, is this an accident? Is this a coincidence? I
don't think so.
"We think, if it's the Templars, they confirmed the date which is on the
stone -- 1362 -- by using a code in the inscription."
But why would Templars come to America, carve this stone and code the date?
Particularly since by 1362, they had been wiped out _and their resources
given over to others_? See:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm and
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/KnightsT2_PersecutionandDestructionoftheTemplars.asp
short version of 2nd link:
>
> Michael
Peter Alaca
> <m_zalar wrote in
>> Steve Marcus wrote:
I like this contradiction:
He [=Wolters] now believes the words on the stone
may not be the record of the death of 10 men, but
instead a secret code concealing the true purpose
of the stone.
"We think, if it's the Templars, they confirmed the
date which is on the stone -- 1362 -- by using a
code in the inscription."
Using a secret code in a false inscription
to confirm a part of the false inscription.
What is missing is a pointer to the existence
of a secret code and of course to the true
nature of the inscription.
> See also:
> http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41564
>
> for this: "When we plotted these three things we got a year: 1362,"
> Wolter said. "It was like, oh my God, is this an accident? Is this a
> coincidence? I don't think so.
>
> "We think, if it's the Templars, they confirmed the date which is on
> the stone -- 1362 -- by using a code in the inscription."
>
> But why would Templars come to America, carve this stone and code the
> date? Particularly since by 1362, they had been wiped out _and their
> resources given over to others_? See:
>
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm and
>
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/KnightsT2_PersecutionandDestructionoftheTemplars.asp
>
> short version of 2nd link:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cds8w
Daryl Krupa
m_z...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Daryl Krupa wrote:
<snip>
> > Until the rates of weathering at various stages in the process are
> > established, one can not use extent or character of weathering
> > as a dating tool.
>
> In no case whatsoever?
Michael:
I was not clear in my wording.
I should hve written
> > Until the rates of weathering at various stages in
a particular weathering process
> > are established, one can not use extent or character of
that particular sort of weathering
> > as a
useful
> > dating tool.
> If one were to find a stone on the ground with
> a thick patina throughout, would you be able to say
> (with a straight face) that the stone could have been
> broken off from its parent the day previously, and
> picked up the patina in a single day?
No, I would not be able to say that.
But I would not be able to say that it was
of any particular age, or
that it was older or younger than a particular age,
except by reference to information indicating
the maximum age of un-patinised stones
and
the maximum and minimum ages of sem-patinised stones
and
the minimum age of a fully-patinised stone.
the patina is unlikely to have been born yesterday.
One way to do that might be to note extent or intensity of
patination of other similar stones in gravel deposits nearby of
different known ages and different degrees of patination that are
uniform within any one particular gravel deposit;
that would allow me to say that
if the stone in question had formerly been emplaced in
one of those gravel deposits, then the extent or intensity of
patination would seem to indicate that it would have lain in
a particular gravel deposit
(or a set of gravel deposits of different ages with similar patination)
for an amount of time matching the age of that gravel deposit
(or matching the range of ages of that set of gravel deposits),
and so a correlation of degree of patinisation of
a particular type of stone with age might be proposed.
If patination varies in a particular gravel deposit, then one
must consider the possibility that already-partially-patinised stones
from an older deposit had been eroded from an older deposit and
re-emplaced in a younger deposit, to then increase its patination
as it lay within the new deposit.
If one supposed that to be the case, then one might be able to
get some idea of changes of the rate of patination through
the duration of the patinisation process, which might allow one to
refine one's ability to date a particular stone by examining its degree
of patinisation, but before one could use that refined correlation,
one would have to do sedimentological investigation of the various
gravel deposits in the area to attempt to prove the hypothesis that
more-patinised stones were indeed re-worked from older deposits nearby.
All this information would only be useful for a particular area,
unless one were able to cross-correlate degree of patinisation of
similar stones from distant deposits of known ages.
If the same sort of stone in a distant deposit
of similar age to one of the first set of deposits
were found to have a different degree of patinisation than
similar stones in the original deposit, then
one would have falsified a hypothesis that
the correlation of patination and age derived from
study of the original set of deposits
was not universally applicable.
Such future disproof is always possible, so
one could never consider that
a correlation between patination and age
derived from study of the original set of deposits
was undeniably universally applicable, and so
any application of that correlation factor to other deposits
would always have to be tentative, dependent upon
a repeat application of the original correlation process to
the new set of deposits.
Until that reference information has been gathered,
all that one can confidently say is that
the patina on the stone in question is
unlikely to have been born yesterday.
The surface of the KRS is weathered.
That weathering took an unknown amount of time to be accomplished.
That weathering was the result of an unknown set of processes.
That weathering has an unknown history.
Ergo, we do not know what is the relation between
the weathering of the KRS and its history, and so
we cannot (yet) use the weathering of the KRS to establish its age.
Our ignorance on this subject is not absolute, though;
we do know that the weathering probably post-dates
the onset of widespread Northern Hemisphere glaciation
in the late Tertiary period.
The necessary background studies have not been done.
They have been attempted for "desert varnish", and
the results have been disappointing.
I do not expect that the necessary background studies on
the weathering of Minnesota-area metagreywacke
will be done in the near future.
Therefore, I dismiss the reliability of
application of an age to the KRS
based upon the nature of the weathering of the KRS.
Such an application is speculation, not proof.
-
Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
> > But your requirement for proof just gets back to the old
> >"Show that what you say is true" / "No, you show that what I say
> >is _not_ true, and if you can't then that means that what I say is
> >true"
> >altercation that can just as easily be applied to psychopathic ranting
> >as to
> >the speculations of materials engineers.
>
> I would have thought that in a 'sci' group of any kind it would long
> ago have been accepted that you can never prove that something is
> true. All you can do is post a hypothesis and show that it is
> consistent with what is known. It is ridiculous for the opposition to
> ask that the proponent 'prove' that something is true. When all the
> facts are known its up to the opposition to falsify the argument.
I agree with what you say about 'proof of a hypothesis'.
But I did not use the word 'proof', but rather the less-restrictive
word
'show'.
All that I would expect would be a convincing demonstration
that what one claims is probably true.
It the response to a request for such a demonstration ('showing')
is a counter-request for a demonstration falsifying one's claims,
then no-one is further ahead than when the initial claim was made.
The notion that the inscription on the KRS can be said to be
dated to a certain set of range of ages
based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics
still has only the status of an un-tested hypothesis.
That notion is speculation, nothing more, until
work has been presented demonstrating that
that notion is probably a reliable interpretation of reality.
That work has not been presented, therefore
the probability that
that notion is a reliable interpretation of reality
is unknown.
The value of that notion is unknown.
It needs more work before it can be taken seriously.
> > To that I must respond that if you want ask me to show that the KRS
> >was artificially weathered, I must in return ask you to show that the
> >KRS
> >was _not_ artificially weathered.
>
> Which is a waste of time as you should know.
No, it is a necessary requirement in a test of the reliability of
the notion that
the inscription on the KRS can be said to be
dated to a certain set of range of ages
based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics.
That notion assumes that the weathering on the KRS
is not due to any other agent than natural weathering processes.
Un-natural weathering processes are known to have been applied
to the KRS.
Therefore the notion that
the inscription on the KRS can be said to be
dated to a certain set of range of ages
based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics
is not reliable until those un-natural weathering processes can
be excluded as agents of the weathering on the KRS.
One must limit the variables under consideration;
the complex of multiple factors and multiple possible histories
of the KRS cannot be un-ravelled by ignoring part of the problem.
> > "Automatic gain-saying of what the other person says is not an
> >argument."
> >- Col. Graham Chapman (deceased)
>
> Then why employ the method.
I don't know for sure, but it has been used in the past as
an attempt to deflect annoying or dangerous criticism.
> >> >But that's exactly why your point (8) makes the book such a letdown for me.
> >> >If Wolter had presented a convincing explanation of _how_ his examination
> >> >of the KRS ruled out artificial weathering to disguise freshly-exposed
> >> >mica, I'd have been interested. This also brings me back to the dating of
> >> >the "newly-discovered aspects of the runes" (by which I meant the
> >> >additional marks which changed the interpretation of some runes). If those
> >> >marks cannot _physically_ be proved to be of the same era as the previously
> >> >known carving, then they must be treated with great suspicion.
> >
> > Indeed, if the only evidence of their age is that they are older than
> >a photograph dated to 1899, then that does not mean that they were
> >created at the same time as was the inscription.
> > That sort of dating control does not rule out the possibility that
> >they were created at the same time as the runes were cleaned out,
> >after the discovery.
>
> The 'cleaning out' marks are readily distinguishable so it may be
> possible to show that the various newly identified markings predate
> the cleaning.
Yes (and equally possible to show that they postdate the cleaning),
but it might not be possible to show
by how much time they pre-date the cleaning.
> As far as the general weathering of the markings is concerned, that is
> a matter which can be resolved by further examination.
<ahem> I would rather say 'might be resolved' by further examination.
The problem might also be insoluble.
> > And if they are visible in an 1899 photo, why would Wolters, et al.
> >say that they were previously undiscovered?
>
> Very simple. Many of the markings change the meaning of the runes and
> for more than a century the runes have been discussed on the basis
> that the marks are not there. Quite literally, nobody seems to have
> seen them
Hmmmm ... yet more lack of dating control of
alterations to the surface of the KRS ...
given the fairly-large number or persons strongly interested in
their examinations of the surface of the KRS, I do not consider
this supposedly universal ignorance to be a condition to be accepted
without further demonstration of the reasons for such
surprisingly universal ignorance.
> > "It is a puzzlement."
> >- Gilbert O'Sullivan (extent of animality unknown)
> >
> >> He does explain enough of the process of weathering of the mica which
> >> he was examining to give you an idea of the complexity of faking the
> >> weathering. It's not just the question of loss of mica: the mica
> >> exfoliates in the process of natural weathering and any accelerated
> >> weathering process would have to produce similar exfoliation.
> >
> > Fine. So, how long does it take natural weathering processes to
> >create the sort of exfoliation that has been observed?
> > Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
> > If that timeline can't be determined, then weathering cannot be used
> >to determine the age of the KRS.
>
> Oh but it can. Wolters has examined weathering of similar
... but not necessarily identical or usefully comparable ...
> mica
... of one of the various and several types and sub-types of mica ...
> on
... dissimilar ...
> tombstones
... from far, far away in a different weathering environment ...
> of an
... unweighted ...
> average of 200 years
... with an unknown statistical error range ...
> . Their mica has weathered,
> started to exfoliate and deposit rust stains around them. In the case
> of the KRS the mica and rust stains have almost entirely gone.
'Gone' implies former existence.
In the unique case of the KRS, one can only say that such stains are
not in evidence.
I believe that there is a legal principle regarding assuming facts
not in evidence ...
> Clearly
> the KRS is much more weathered than the tombstones. Wolters has not
> attempted to extraoplate the tombstone weathering to estimate the age
> of the KRS weathering. All he is prepared to say is that the KRS
> weathering is more than 200 years.
No, that is exactly an estimate of the age of the KRS weathering.
Wolter has estimated that the age of the KRS weathering is
more than 200 years.
If I take my car to a mechanic and he says that repair will cost
more than 200 dollars, then he has just given me
an estimate of the cost of the repair.
If he says that the repair will take
more than 2 weeks, then he has just given me
an estimate of the age of its stay in the repair shop.
If he says that he has not changed the oil in my car for
more than two years, then he has just given an estimate of
the age of the oil in my car.
Woilter has exactly extrapolated from
his tombstone-weathering-examination conclusions
to estimate the age of the KRS.
I am confused as to the meaning of the words 'estimate' and
'extrapolate',
as used above.
> > And yet, the matter is not as simple as that, even.
> > Riddle me this:
> > Once the surface has been aritificially mechanically weathered,
> >how much time is required to produce the observed weathering effects
> >using only "natural" forces?
> > Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
>
> You are starting to both fantasize and speculate about something you
> literally know nothing about. I say that you know nothing about it for
> the simple reason that to my knowledge you have seen virtually none of
> the micrographs etc of the KRS. You are asking me to engage in a
> hypothetical argument about unspecified material. Apart from that, I'm
> not a geologist/geochemist and am not qualified to carry out a
> specialist discussion on the subject with you.
I'm not asking for that.
I'm just trying to point out some of the
variables of unknown quantity that have to be investigated
before the notion that
the inscription on the KRS can be said to be
dated to a certain set of range of ages
based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics
can be accepted as a reliable interpretation of reality.
Absent such investigation,
the probability that
that notion is a reliable interpretation of reality
is unknown.
Nobody is an authority on this subject.
Wolter's assertions
cannot be accepted as a reliable interpretation of reality
until he has established himself as an authority on this subject.
As he has only done some preliminary investigations,
Wolter's assertions
cannot yet be accepted as a reliable interpretation of reality.
> > After the surface has been artificially chemically weathered,
> >how much time is required to produce the observed weathering effects
> >using only "natural" forces?
> > Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
> > Both these artificial weathering processes have been known to have
> >occurred. It has not been shown the observed weathering occurred
> >prior to the application of the known artificial weathering processes,
> >so
> >it has not been shown that the observed weathering is the result of
> >purely natural forces, so the problem for Wolter, et al. is to show
> >that
> >the observed weathering was not "faked".
>
> You are jumping to conclusions. What artificial weathering is known to
> have occurred? Is this your generic term for the various attempts at
> cleaning of the surface?
Yes, the cleaning of the surface, both chemically and mechanically,
along with exposure to other materials not found in the area before
European settlement. (E.g., the excreta of domesicated animals
originating in Europe.)
> > The onus is upon them to show that
> >processes that are known to have occurred are
> >less likely agents of creation of
> >the observed physical character of the KRS than
> >processes that have not been demonstrated to have occurred.
>
> Hang on a minute. You know something about these things yourself.
> Why can't you explain how the various processes may have
> accelerated the weathering of the surface of the KRS?
I didn't say that I couldn't explain that.
But I don't need to:
the purpose of the application of
some of the artificial weathering processes to the KRS was to
remove material on the surface of the KRS
and change the appearance of the surface of the KRS.
I.e., the purpose of the appplication of
some of the artificial weathering processes to the KRS was to
artificially weather the surface.
The extent and character of the weathering effects of
some of the artificial weathering processes to the KRS
must be excluded before
the extent and character of the natural weathering effects
can be determined.
What is being examined is the summmary effect of
a complex set of weathering variables, some definitely
artificial, some natural, and some (natural or artificial)
with only a possible, unproven, effect upon the KRS.
The examination of the weathering of the KRS must be
limited to single variables, or small sets of variables,
hoping to eliminate some of them from consideration, before
general conclusions as to the age of the inscription on the KRS
based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics
can be confidently attempted.
> > As an analogy, if I am told that the lines in my face are
> >the result of many centuries of exposure to cosmic radiation,
> >I must retort that my tobacco habit is a much-more-likely
> >explanation, and that the onus is on the cosmic-ray enthusiast to
> >prove me wrong, _not the other way 'round_.
> >
> >> There is more. For example mica also leaves iron stains when it first weathers
> >> and these iron stains also weather away. Your fake weathering would
> >> have to not only weather the mica in a way indistinguishable from
> >> natural weathering but it would have to weather away the iron stains
> >> in a way indistinguishable from natural weathering.
> >
> > No, the requirement would be to not have any iron-staining remaining
> >after the artificial weathering process.
> > To satisfy that requirement, one need only weather the mica
> >in such as way as to not leave any iron-staining at all.
> > There is no need to remove iron-staining if it never existed.
> > The above requirement does not stand as being a necessary proof,
> >unless it is shown that such iron-staining is the necessary outcome of
> >any and all possible artificial weathering processes.
> > Rather, it is more in the nature of a false analogy.
>
> It's not a false analogy but I take your point that the iron stain
> eventually disappears. But by then a pronounced weathering crust has
> formed and this too has to be faked. I know that Wolters remarked
> about the crust somewhere in the book. How do you propse to do that?
I'm not sure, but then "a pronounced weathering crust" is not
a detailed description,
so I'm at a loss as to speculate on how to produce it.
But then, we go back to the old problem of relating such
a weathering crust to the inscription:
so far as I know, it has not been demonstrated that
the grooves of the inscription have developed such a weathering crust,
rather than simply having been carved into such a crust.
If the grooves of the inscription have developed such a weathering
crust,
then they are older than such a weathering crust.
If the grooves of the inscription were simply carved into such a
crust,
then they are younger than such a weathering crust.
How much older or younger the grooves of the inscription would be
would not be determined by a determination of the age of such a crust,
_unless one assumes that the formation of the grooves and
the initiation of formation of the crust were contemporaneous_,
in which case
the grooves of the inscription would be the same age as such as crust.
As near as I can tell, this is what Wolter has assumed, but
I have not seen a specific statement of that assumption,
so I can't be sure about that.
It does seem to me that Wolter is assuming that
the carving of the inscription is contemporaneous with
the creation of the surface into which they were carved,
which would mean that the inscription is as old as
the weathering of the surface into which they were carved, but as
that contemporaneity has not been proven,
an estimate of the age of the weathering of
the surface into which the inscription was carved
does not necessarily date the inscription, other than to
give a maximum age for the inscription.
Ergo, unless it can be shown that
the inscription is of the same age as
the surface into which it was carved, then
Wolter's estimate of more-than-200-years
for the surface into which it was carved only tells us that
the inscription is less-than-more-than-200-years old,
which isn't a useful estimate to me.
> Bear in mind the artificial crust has to be indistinguishable from a
> natural crust under an electron microscope with EDX and all the other
> fancy tools.
Taking that as a given, has it been shown that
such a pronounced weathering crust exists
under the grooves of the inscription?
Also, has it been shown that the crust is different on
the various faces of the stone,
e.g.. the rough backside vs. the planar frontside,
such that it relects the different durations of weathering of
presumably thousands-of-years-old rough surfaces
vs. presumably anthropogenic smooth surfaces?
I.e., when Wolter refers to "a pronounced weathering crust",
is he referring to a uniform crust over all the surface of the KRS
(easier to fake),
or is he referring to only part of the surface of the KRS
(more difficult to fake differing degrees of pronouncement of
weathering),
and if so,
which part of the surface, or which part of the crust, or which crust?
And what, exactly, is meant by "pronounced"? Would that be
deep, thick, colourful, sharp, rugose, glossy, or just
more-than-something-else?
"A pronounced weathering crust" is not nearly specific enough a
description, given the obvious heterogeneity of the surface of the KRS.
I can't really comment on it intelligently.
<snip a bit about cosmic rays and un-named experts>
> > i'm not trying to be obstreperous, as i hope you realise,
> >but i hope that i have shown you that some of the
> >"prove that I's wrong" arguments are not sufficient responses to
> >those asking for proof of as-yet-unfounded claims.
>
> It seems to me that you are raising entirely speculative objections to
> technical conclusions without ever having looked at any details of the
> argument. That you have at this early stage said that you are not
> interested in learning more (by buying the book) gives due weight to
> your arguments.
I said that I was not not interested in reading the book based on
your comments on the depth and detail of the arguments therein
re: weathering analysis.
I had thought, from what you had initially reported at the beginning
of this thread, that there was not much detail to consider, or at any
rate, that little new information had been presented.
Most of my objections are related to weaknesses of the arguments I
have seen so far,
(I don't mean your own arguments, Eric, which I find to be cogent and
consistent)
inasmuch as they do not take into account several complications and
inconveniences.
The arguments that I have seen so far are too simplistic to
allow one to presume that the notions that they support confidently
reflect reality.
> > Thank you for reviewing Wolter's book for me.
> > I am now secure in the reasonable supposition that
> >Wolter has no convincing arguments to present
> >regarding using weathering to securely date
> >the inscription on the KRS.
>
> I'm glad you think I've confirmed that you were right. Life would be
> easy if we could all reach valid conclusions without going to the
> trouble of first obtaining the facts.
Yahbut, Yahbut, I still haven't seen that there has been an effort to
narrow down the problem of relating observations of weathering of
[whatever] to the KRS inscription itself.
As near as I can tell, investigations are still in the preliminary
stages, and I await a progress report. I don't see any mention of
progress. So I think that it's reasonable to avoid putting out my money
for more-of-the-same.
What I'd really like to see is publication of results in somebody
else's venue;
a professional journal would be acceptable.
> >If he had such, he would present them,
> >Shirley.
> >
> Shirley?
Okay, I'll stop calling you, Shirley ... <G>, <g>-<g>-<g> <g> .
Really, I'm sorry if I caused you consternation,
Daryl
prd
news:1135411468.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com by
"Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com> . . . :
> Really, I'm sorry if I caused you consternation,
Eric needs a little, he hasn't been getting his fair share lately
Inger and Seppo have been hogging it all up.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
Not sure?
Daryl, you haven't the foggiest idea.
You have never read the book.
In fact, the book does not merely cite but actually uses the
photographs taken by Seward in 1899.
Which is, no doubt, precisely the reason why Wolters would say no more
than older than 2 centuries. Wolters has deliberately not attempted to
provide arrive at a date from which the man-made cuts have been
weathering.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--- snip ----
> Therefore, I dismiss the reliability of
>application of an age to the KRS
>based upon the nature of the weathering of the KRS.
> Such an application is speculation, not proof.
But nobody has attempted to apply an age to the KRS. Surely you know
that by now?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:vl1mq1p4jn5dlska9...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:45:21 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> --- snip ----
>>
>>>> Very simple. Many of the markings change the meaning of the runes and
>>>> for more than a century the runes have been discussed on the basis
>>>> that the marks are not there. Quite literally, nobody seems to have
>>>> seen them
>>>
>>>Which, considering that Nielsen, and Knirk, two "experts" have published
>>>material about the runes and their meaning, is an incredible statement.
>>>Mighty suspicious.
>>
>> The fine detail in its weathered condition is definitely present on
>> the stone. The material published by all of the 'experts', including
>> Nielsen and Knirk, have in the past discussed the runes as though the
>> much of the fine detail was not present and the only reason is that
>> until Wolters closely examined the stone, nobody knew all the fine
>> detail that was there. Everybody has been working from inaccurate
>> transcriptions which have been assumed to be correct. I don't know
>> what is suspicious about that.
>
>Are you claiming, in all seriousness, that until Wolter studied the KRS, not
>a single expert was working from an accurate transcription?
Yes.
>I find that
>very difficult to believe, given that the stone was in the the possession of
>Holand for a long time, and he took it to Europe circa 1911 or so. Nobody
>inspected the stone closely enough to see the dots that Wolter say?
It seems that way. Nobody else has recognised the use of the palletal
R, even though it is present. That seems in itself to indicate
something.
>Suuurreee.
>
>And the other logical quirk is this: the "secret" dots yield the date 1362.
>But that date is already carved on the stone. So what was the big secret
>conveyed by the dots??
That the date has not been tampered with. That the stone really is the
stone carved by a presently unknown group for an unidentified purpose.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
><m_z...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1135341716.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Steve Marcus wrote:
>>> And the other logical quirk is this: the "secret" dots yield the date
>>> 1362.
>>> But that date is already carved on the stone. So what was the big secret
>>> conveyed by the dots??
>>
>> The practice of double dating an inscription does appear to have been a
>> practice in medieval time, as shown in Nielsen/Wolter (see my post on
>> the Easter Table). If so then this would tend to confirm the KRS as a
>> medieval document, a forger having no need to do so.
>
>Sigh.... Is there nothing that these guys can't cook up? I'm certain that
>they can even find examples of triple dating, etc. So what?
It shows that there is precedent for embedding a hidden date in the
text.
>The point is
>that this newly discovered date is in a "code." Their theory is that is
>obtained by plugging the dotted runes in to an Easter table, something that
>not everyone would be familiar with or know how to use. Yet, the "coded"
>message is identical to the message plainly inscribed on the stone,
>presumably available to anyone who could read the runes. What in the world
>would the point of doing that be? By using the dotted runes, were the
>necessarily concealing the date from anyone not friendly to them? After
>all, knowledge of the Easter Table doesn't necessrily make anyone an ally of
>the inscribers.
An obvious application of this technique would be to ensure (for
example) that someone doesn't substitute another (stone) document for
the original. Someone could, for example, carve another document with
another message but still bearing the date 1362. Embedding an
authentication code in the text would ensure that an attempted forgery
of some kind would immediately be detected.
>
>Again, it is amazing that someone could allege that the dots on the KRS were
>not observed previously.
Why should you be amazed when the facts show that this is what
actually happened?
Are you trying to argue from incredulity?
>The stone had been repeatedly subjected to
>examination by Holand and experts in Europe. The allegations that
>runestones in North America bear "Easter Table" dates is not new, either.
>See: http://www2.privatei.com/~bartjean/chap9.htm
That is not what is claimed in the URL you have cited.
>
>I'll reserve judgement on the book until I read it. I expect to have a copy
>in 4-6 weeks. But the logic of the situation that is being reported by
>those who have read the book is beginning to have a bad smell. As does this
>sort of thing:
>
>http://wcco.com/specialreports/local_story_143121108.html
Arguement by innuendo?
>
>See also:
>http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41564
DEfinitely. You prefer to steer us to a page posted by someone who
writes
"An elaborate hoax, or real?
There are some curiosities, but I'm no expert on runes."
You could of course have taken us directly to the City of Kensington
web page http://kensingtonmn.com/runestonepg.html but you had to get
your little piece of innuendo in first.
>
>for this: "When we plotted these three things we got a year: 1362," Wolter
>said. "It was like, oh my God, is this an accident? Is this a coincidence? I
>don't think so.
>
>"We think, if it's the Templars, they confirmed the date which is on the
>stone -- 1362 -- by using a code in the inscription."
>
>But why would Templars come to America, carve this stone and code the date?
>Particularly since by 1362, they had been wiped out _and their resources
>given over to others_?
Not only 'why' but 'how'?
>See:
>
>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm and
>
>http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/KnightsT2_PersecutionandDestructionoftheTemplars.asp
>
>short version of 2nd link:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/cds8w
>
>>
>> Michael
>>
>Steve
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Steve Marcus wrote: w2Tqf.47769$4l5.28616@dukeread05,
The pointers are there, on the stone.
>
>> See also:
>> http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41564
>>
>> for this: "When we plotted these three things we got a year: 1362,"
>> Wolter said. "It was like, oh my God, is this an accident? Is this a
>> coincidence? I don't think so.
>>
>> "We think, if it's the Templars, they confirmed the date which is on
>> the stone -- 1362 -- by using a code in the inscription."
>>
>> But why would Templars come to America, carve this stone and code the
>> date? Particularly since by 1362, they had been wiped out _and their
>> resources given over to others_? See:
>>
>> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm and
>>
>> http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/KnightsT2_PersecutionandDestructionoftheTemplars.asp
>>
>> short version of 2nd link:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/cds8w
Peter, I hope you are not going to continue arguing on the basis of
news paper articles. There is much more to know about the KRS than
that.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
The thesis is that it was more than 200 years old when found. That
thesis is not untested in that there is a myriad of gravestone
observations which seem to bear this out.
> That notion is speculation, nothing more, until
>work has been presented demonstrating that
>that notion is probably a reliable interpretation of reality.
The report is around. I have a copy.
> That work has not been presented, therefore
>the probability that
>that notion is a reliable interpretation of reality
>is unknown.
> The value of that notion is unknown.
> It needs more work before it can be taken seriously.
>
>> > To that I must respond that if you want ask me to show that the KRS
>> >was artificially weathered, I must in return ask you to show that the
>> >KRS
>> >was _not_ artificially weathered.
>>
>> Which is a waste of time as you should know.
>
> No, it is a necessary requirement in a test of the reliability of
>the notion that
>the inscription on the KRS can be said to be
>dated to a certain set of range of ages
>based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics.
>
> That notion assumes that the weathering on the KRS
>is not due to any other agent than natural weathering processes.
> Un-natural weathering processes are known to have been applied
>to the KRS.
That's twice that this statement has been made in this news group. Are
you merely helping to start another canard running or do you have
knowledge and evidence of unnatural weathering processes which have
been applied to the KRS?
> Therefore the notion that
>the inscription on the KRS can be said to be
>dated to a certain set of range of ages
>based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics
You are slowly coming into line with Scott Wolter.
>
>is not reliable until those un-natural weathering processes can
>be excluded as agents of the weathering on the KRS.
What are these mysterious unnatural weathering processes?
---- snip -----
At this point I realised just how much more there is to this article.
I'm not going to bother going through it dealing with it snip by snip.
The truth of the matter is that you don't know anything worth a damn
about the work of Wolter and Nielsen but that won't stop you writing
screeds of speculative criticism. I prefer to deal with people who
actually know what it is they are talking about.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
You mean the dots? But I am not (yet)
convinced of their existence, and I don't
believe in the golden numbers cryptology
and Templar stuff in relation to the KRS.
And what is that true story on the stone?
>>> [snip more from Steve Marcus]
:
> Peter, I hope you are not going to continue arguing
> on the basis of news paper articles. There is much
> more to know about the KRS than that.
Why is that? Is it not true what Wolters said there?
One thing is sure: I have no plans to order the book,
so for the moment I appreciate every other source
of information.
Peter Alaca
> "Steve Marcus" wrote:
[...]
>> And the other logical quirk is this: the "secret" dots yield the
>> date 1362. But that date is already carved on the stone. So what
>> was the big secret conveyed by the dots??
>
> That the date has not been tampered with. That the stone really is the
> stone carved by a presently unknown group for an unidentified purpose.
No, that the visible date is the same as the alleged hidden date.
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
'Belief'? What has belief got to do with it? Either it is there, or
it is not. It's like saying you don't believe in the theorem of
pythagorous.
>
>And what is that true story on the stone?
>
>>>> [snip more from Steve Marcus]
>:
>> Peter, I hope you are not going to continue arguing
>> on the basis of news paper articles. There is much
>> more to know about the KRS than that.
>
>Why is that? Is it not true what Wolters said there?
>One thing is sure: I have no plans to order the book,
>so for the moment I appreciate every other source
>of information.
All I can say is that I am disappointed. Not by your decision to not
buy the book but by the ranking you give other sources of information.
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
Those last links (and arguments) aren't Peter's. They're mine. And the
fact that the Templars had been wiped out as an organization (both
physically and economically) well prior to 1362 is an established fact that
can be found in any number of history texts. To argue that a coded message
was _left_ for Templars (by Templars) is a bit over-the-top.
>
> Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: 4hluq1hmhf1d0vols...@4ax.com,
i.e. the message of the stone probably has not been tampered with.
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
And heerrrreee we go, off to the races. Which "someone" would have
substituted another (stone) document for the original??? And why put 1362
in "clear" on the stone at all, if one was going to put the same date in
code as an authentification?
>>
>>Again, it is amazing that someone could allege that the dots on the KRS
>>were
>>not observed previously.
>
> Why should you be amazed when the facts show that this is what
> actually happened?
>
> Are you trying to argue from incredulity?
No. I'm arguing from the fact that the KRS was inspected by Holand
throughout the years that he was in possession of it, and he never produced
a transcription of the runes showing these dots. I'm also arguing that per
Blegen, the stone was exhibited in Europe (circa 1911, I believe), and shown
to various authorities on runes. No one saw those dots then. Was the
existence of the Easter Table and the manner of obtaining dates by plugging
in runes unknown in 1911??
>
>>The stone had been repeatedly subjected to
>>examination by Holand and experts in Europe. The allegations that
>>runestones in North America bear "Easter Table" dates is not new, either.
>>See: http://www2.privatei.com/~bartjean/chap9.htm
>
> That is not what is claimed in the URL you have cited.
The URL shows that the issue of "Easter Table" dates on runestones is not a
new one. See Blegen for Holand's having taken the KRS to Europe and shown
it to experts their (who, by the way, universally derided it).
>>
>>I'll reserve judgement on the book until I read it. I expect to have a
>>copy
>>in 4-6 weeks. But the logic of the situation that is being reported by
>>those who have read the book is beginning to have a bad smell. As does
>>this
>>sort of thing:
>>
>>http://wcco.com/specialreports/local_story_143121108.html
>
> Arguement by innuendo?
No. Just reporting the facts. This business of Templars, secret codes,
newly discovered "dots" that have hidden meanings, has a bad smell. Period.
And as to arguments in general, are you proud of arguing that the 1362 date
is "coded" notwithstanding that it is clearly reproduced on the KRS "in the
clear" because a secret message was being left?? Are you proud of arguing
that the end of the Templars (quite literally the end, because they were
rounded up and killed, and their assests confiscated) did not occur
significantly prior to 1362??
>>
>>See also:
>>http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41564
>
> DEfinitely. You prefer to steer us to a page posted by someone who
> writes
>
> "An elaborate hoax, or real?
>
> There are some curiosities, but I'm no expert on runes."
>
> You could of course have taken us directly to the City of Kensington
> web page http://kensingtonmn.com/runestonepg.html but you had to get
> your little piece of innuendo in first.
Please learn how to read. The author of the website linked above isWm. P.
Holmen, not DJ Quinn, the author of a message board that contains the link.
I can't help it that Google discovered the link in Quinn's message, as
opposed to directly discovering the page itself. And please learn how to
argue. The linked site says what it says, and quite clearly supports that
Holand apparently didn't see any "dots" or the word separator that has now
been "found" to exist.
>>
>>for this: "When we plotted these three things we got a year: 1362,"
>>Wolter
>>said. "It was like, oh my God, is this an accident? Is this a coincidence?
>>I
>>don't think so.
>>
>>"We think, if it's the Templars, they confirmed the date which is on the
>>stone -- 1362 -- by using a code in the inscription."
>>
>>But why would Templars come to America, carve this stone and code the
>>date?
>>Particularly since by 1362, they had been wiped out _and their resources
>>given over to others_?
>
> Not only 'why' but 'how'?
Exactly. How and why?
>
>>See:
>>
>>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm and
>>
>>http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/KnightsT2_PersecutionandDestructionoftheTemplars.asp
>>
>>short version of 2nd link:
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/cds8w
>>
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>Steve
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve
Steve Marcus
Assuming this is so, then why bother carving 1362 (or, for that matter, any
date) "in the clear"?? Logic just isn't your strong suit, is it?
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" wrote
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> "Steve Marcus" wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> And the other logical quirk is this: the "secret" dots yield the
>>>> date 1362. But that date is already carved on the stone. So what
>>>> was the big secret conveyed by the dots??
>>> That the date has not been tampered with. That the stone really is
>>> the stone carved by a presently unknown group for an unidentified
>>> purpose.
>> No, that the visible date is the same as the alleged hidden date.
> i.e. the message of the stone probably has not been tampered with.
Or that the alleged hidden date is fraudulent,
or that both are fraudulent.
In short again: the visible date is the same
as the alleged hidden date.
--
Peter Alaca
Well, the noun "belief" is composed of the letters
B, E, F, I and L in lowercase and the 'e' is used twice.
That is too much as coincidence, and since I have
seen it used that way in religious circles, I suspect
there is medieval Sedish bishop behind it.
>> And what is that true story on the stone?
>>>>> [snip more from Steve Marcus]
>
>>> Peter, I hope you are not going to continue arguing
>>> on the basis of news paper articles. There is much
>>> more to know about the KRS than that.
>> Why is that? Is it not true what Wolters said there?
>> One thing is sure: I have no plans to order the book,
>> so for the moment I appreciate every other source
>> of information.
> All I can say is that I am disappointed. Not by your decision to not
> buy the book but by the ranking you give other sources of information.
There is no ranking in "every other source".
But I did you unjustice: I trust you more in
reporting the findings then a a newspapaper.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I try to be impartial but I know very well that I am not.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Peter, I hope you are not going to continue arguing on the basis of
>> news paper articles. There is much more to know about the KRS than
>> that.
>>
>>
>
>Those last links (and arguments) aren't Peter's. They're mine. And the
>fact that the Templars had been wiped out as an organization (both
>physically and economically) well prior to 1362 is an established fact that
>can be found in any number of history texts. To argue that a coded message
>was _left_ for Templars (by Templars) is a bit over-the-top.
"I like this contradiction ... etc" were Peter's.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
A very good question.
>
>>>
>>>Again, it is amazing that someone could allege that the dots on the KRS
>>>were
>>>not observed previously.
>>
>> Why should you be amazed when the facts show that this is what
>> actually happened?
>>
>> Are you trying to argue from incredulity?
>
>No. I'm arguing from the fact that the KRS was inspected by Holand
>throughout the years that he was in possession of it, and he never produced
>a transcription of the runes showing these dots.
Yet, at least some of them are visible in early photographs.
>I'm also arguing that per
>Blegen, the stone was exhibited in Europe (circa 1911, I believe), and shown
>to various authorities on runes. No one saw those dots then. Was the
>existence of the Easter Table and the manner of obtaining dates by plugging
>in runes unknown in 1911??
I very much doubt it.
>
>>
>>>The stone had been repeatedly subjected to
>>>examination by Holand and experts in Europe. The allegations that
>>>runestones in North America bear "Easter Table" dates is not new, either.
>>>See: http://www2.privatei.com/~bartjean/chap9.htm
>>
>> That is not what is claimed in the URL you have cited.
>
>The URL shows that the issue of "Easter Table" dates on runestones is not a
>new one. See Blegen for Holand's having taken the KRS to Europe and shown
>it to experts their (who, by the way, universally derided it).
>>>
>>>I'll reserve judgement on the book until I read it. I expect to have a
>>>copy
>>>in 4-6 weeks. But the logic of the situation that is being reported by
>>>those who have read the book is beginning to have a bad smell. As does
>>>this
>>>sort of thing:
>>>
>>>http://wcco.com/specialreports/local_story_143121108.html
>>
>> Arguement by innuendo?
>
>No. Just reporting the facts. This business of Templars, secret codes,
>newly discovered "dots" that have hidden meanings, has a bad smell. Period.
>And as to arguments in general, are you proud of arguing that the 1362 date
>is "coded" notwithstanding that it is clearly reproduced on the KRS "in the
>clear" because a secret message was being left?? Are you proud of arguing
>that the end of the Templars (quite literally the end, because they were
>rounded up and killed, and their assests confiscated) did not occur
>significantly prior to 1362??
I love the loaded language you use. It condemns you as appealing to
emotion rather than logic. I wonder why? Is this the frustrated Perry
Mason in you?
>
>>>
>>>See also:
>>>http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41564
>>
>> DEfinitely. You prefer to steer us to a page posted by someone who
>> writes
>>
>> "An elaborate hoax, or real?
>>
>> There are some curiosities, but I'm no expert on runes."
>>
>> You could of course have taken us directly to the City of Kensington
>> web page http://kensingtonmn.com/runestonepg.html but you had to get
>> your little piece of innuendo in first.
>
>Please learn how to read. The author of the website linked above isWm. P.
>Holmen, not DJ Quinn, the author of a message board that contains the link.
>I can't help it that Google discovered the link in Quinn's message, as
>opposed to directly discovering the page itself.
But you can help it that you chose to cite something other than the
page you actually wanted to refer us to.
> And please learn how to
>argue. The linked site says what it says, and quite clearly supports that
>Holand apparently didn't see any "dots" or the word separator that has now
>been "found" to exist.
Why should I take exception to that? That's what I've already quoted
Nielsen and Wolter as saying.
>
>>>
>>>for this: "When we plotted these three things we got a year: 1362,"
>>>Wolter
>>>said. "It was like, oh my God, is this an accident? Is this a coincidence?
>>>I
>>>don't think so.
>>>
>>>"We think, if it's the Templars, they confirmed the date which is on the
>>>stone -- 1362 -- by using a code in the inscription."
>>>
>>>But why would Templars come to America, carve this stone and code the
>>>date?
>>>Particularly since by 1362, they had been wiped out _and their resources
>>>given over to others_?
>>
>> Not only 'why' but 'how'?
>
>Exactly. How and why?
... and also when.
>>
>>>See:
>>>
>>>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm and
>>>
>>>http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/KnightsT2_PersecutionandDestructionoftheTemplars.asp
>>>
>>>short version of 2nd link:
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/cds8w
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Stevens
>>
>
>Steve
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: sqo0r1ho6s2mklsc4...@4ax.com,
>> "Peter Alaca" wrote
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> "Steve Marcus" wrote:
>
>>> [...]
>
>>>>> And the other logical quirk is this: the "secret" dots yield the
>>>>> date 1362. But that date is already carved on the stone. So what
>>>>> was the big secret conveyed by the dots??
>
>>>> That the date has not been tampered with. That the stone really is
>>>> the stone carved by a presently unknown group for an unidentified
>>>> purpose.
>
>>> No, that the visible date is the same as the alleged hidden date.
>
>> i.e. the message of the stone probably has not been tampered with.
>
>Or that the alleged hidden date is fraudulent,
>or that both are fraudulent.
That's a possibility if the date 1362 had to be picked to fit in with
the coding leading to 1362 in the Easter Table.
>
>In short again: the visible date is the same
>as the alleged hidden date.
That may be what is being relied upon to confirm that the message is
free from tampering.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
You have obviously missed my point. If someone wanted to make a fake
KRS and were unaware of the hidden date code it would be missing or
wrong in the copy. But heaven knows why someone should want to
authenticate a slab of stone.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
> "Steve Marcus" wrote:
>> Assuming this is so, then why bother carving 1362 (or, for that
>> matter, any date) "in the clear"?? Logic just isn't your strong
>> suit, is it?
> You have obviously missed my point. If someone wanted to make a fake
> KRS and were unaware of the hidden date code it would be missing or
> wrong in the copy.
Wrong. If it is a true copy, the "code" is also copied.
No copy without code, unless the code is invisible,
in which case there is no code.
> But heaven knows why someone should want to
> authenticate a slab of stone.
Daryl Krupa
No, I don't know that.
I have read a report by Winchell that was devoted to
an attempt to apply an age to the KRS,
based on observations of
the nature of the weathering of the KRS.
That was the first attempt.
Wolter's aaplication of an age of
more-than-200-years
based on observations of
the nature of the weathering of the KRS
is just the latest such attempt.
Others have attempted to apply and age to the KRS based on
times of usage of certain rune forms.
I can't imagine why you would say that
"nobody has attempted to apply an age to the KRS".
-
Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
Eric Stevens wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2005 19:41:02 -0800, "Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >prd wrote:
> >> In sci.archaeology message
> >> news:1135217182....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by
> >> "Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com> . . . :
> ><snip>
> >> > And if they are visible in an 1899 photo, why would Wolters,
> >> > et al.
> >> > say that
> >> > they were previously undiscovered?
> >>
> >> Good point, shall we invite Wolters here to duke it out? :^).
> >
> > Nah; the photo was mentioned by Eric, but I'm not sure
> >that it was also cited by Wolter.
>
> Not sure?
>
> Daryl, you haven't the foggiest idea.
> You have never read the book.
That is correct.
I can only go by what others have written re: the book's contents.
I did not remember clearly whether or not you had indicated
that such photos were in Wolter's latest book.
> In fact, the book does not merely cite but actually uses the
> photographs taken by Seward in 1899.
Thanks for telling me that.
> ><snip>
> > Until the rates of weathering at various stages in the process are
> >established, one can not use extent or character of weathering
> >as a dating tool.
>
> Which is, no doubt, precisely the reason why Wolters would say no more
> than older than 2 centuries. Wolters has deliberately not attempted to
> provide arrive at a date from which the man-made cuts have been
> weathering.
Wolter has attempted to provide a range of dates for the age of
the man-made cuts, viz. more-than-200-years-older-than
some unknown datum.
That is dating the KRS, using
the extent or character of weathering
as a dating tool.
He still has not shown that his data from slate tombstones
near the Atlantic coast are directly applicable to
the extent or character of weathering on the KRS.
He has not shown that he has information re:
the rate of weathering experienced by the KRS, nor has he shown
that a reliable extrapolation re: rate of weathering can be made re:
rate of weathering on the KRS at different times in the past,
in different conditions, in different physical situations.
Nor has he shown that the weathering on the KRS is due solely to
non-anthropogenic causes, which he heeds to do if his basal data
is related solely to non-anthropogenic causes, before he can apply
his basal data related solely to non-anthropogenic causes to
the extent or character of weathering on the KRS, given that
anthropogenic causes of weathering are known
to have affected the extent or character of weathering on the KRS.
He has a unique artifact, the KRS; because of its uniqueness there
are few comparable items whose extent or character of weathering
that might be examined in order to provide reliable basal
weathering-rate data.
He has examined other rocks known to be inscribed at certain dates,
carved from different material, in a different location, with different
weathering histories, in a different climate, with a different history
of anthropogenic weathering factors.
He has not shown that the information that he derived from those
tombstones in Maine is directly applicable to the KRS.
There are embedded and unproven assumptions in his argument.
He has not constructed a clear, cogent, and cohesive line of argument
re: his dating of the inscription on the KRS, from what I have read.
Certain weaknesses in the argument have been glossed-over or ignored
or not noticed.
His dating of more-than-200-years-old for some part of the KRS
does not convince me that he has accurately dated the inscription
on the KRS, because he has not demonstrated that the aging of
slate tombstones in Maine is the same as the aging of
a metagreywacke monument in or on a hill in Minnesota, and
has not demonstrated that such aging is equally applicable to
the inscription as to
the surface(s) of the KRS into which it was (they were) carved.
-
Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
Peter Alaca wrote:
<snip>
> Is it not true what Wolters said there?
> One thing is sure: I have no plans to order the book,
> so for the moment I appreciate every other source
> of information.
Peter and others:
Could we please do the subject of our discussion the favour of
spelling his name correctly?
There is no "Wolters" associated with an investigation of the KRS.
"Scott Wolter- President ... "
http://www.ampetrographic.com/profile.asp
-
Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
Eric Stevens wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2005 00:04:28 -0800, "Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> On 21 Dec 2005 18:06:22 -0800, "Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> ><snip>
> > The notion that the inscription on the KRS can be said to be
> >dated to a certain set of range of ages
> >based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics
> >still has only the status of an un-tested hypothesis.
>
> The thesis is that it was more than 200 years old when found. That
> thesis is not untested in that there is a myriad of gravestone
> observations which seem to bear this out.
Yes: "seem to". That the seeming is
an accurate representation of reality
has not been tested.
And "myriad" is an exaggeration:
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/myriad.html
> > That notion is speculation, nothing more, until
> >work has been presented demonstrating that
> >that notion is probably a reliable interpretation of reality.
>
> The report is around. I have a copy.
It must be demonstrated that there is an unbroken chain of
logical argument supporting the notion that
observations of
slate tombstones
possibly quarried from bedrock
standing upright for the entirely of their weathering history
near the Atlantic coast
are directly applicable to
a metagreywacke monument
with a complex history of glacial erosion and transportation
found face-down in the dirt with
an otherwise unknown weathering history
in the centre of the continent.
There are also at least three different categories of
weathered surfaces on the KRS, which presumably were
created at different times, separated by as many as
several dozen thousands of years.
I have not seen a clear explanation of how
the ages of those different surfaces
are related to each other.
Winchell, for example, recognised
the variability in character and extent of weathering of
different surfaces on the KRS, and based
a relative-dating age estimation on
the different characters and extents of weathering of
those different surfaces on the KRS.
I have not yet seen an attempt by Wolter to allow for
differential weathering of those different surfaces on the KRS in
his attempt to apply weathering observations of
slate tombstones in Maine.
The report may well exist.
A convincing argument has not been shown to exist.
<snip>
> > That notion assumes that the weathering on the KRS
> >is not due to any other agent than natural weathering processes.
> > Un-natural weathering processes are known to have been applied
> >to the KRS.
>
> That's twice that this statement has been made in this news group. Are
> you merely helping to start another canard running or do you have
> knowledge and evidence of unnatural weathering processes which have
> been applied to the KRS?
No, but rather Yes: the attempts at cleaning the KRS form one
well-known category of un-natural weathering processes that are
known to have been applied to the KRS
> > Therefore the notion that
> >the inscription on the KRS can be said to be
> >dated to a certain set of range of ages
> >based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics
>
> You are slowly coming into line with Scott Wolter.
In what sense?
> >is not reliable until those un-natural weathering processes can
> >be excluded as agents of the weathering on the KRS.
>
> What are these mysterious unnatural weathering processes?
Described above.
Nothing much mysterious about the occurrence of their application,
but
their exact nature (other than, perhaps the application of kinetic
energy
through the medium of a sharp iron stick) are not well-known.
To be convincing in his argument re: the applicability of
information derived from observation of slate tombstones in Maine
to the age of the KRS, he must show that
the same processes were operating in each case, and that
no other processes had a significant effect on
the extent or character of weathering on various surfaces on the KRS.
That has not been done.
Wolter's argument may be a homolog of comparing apples and oranges,
or of comparing Apples and Windows-based machines.
Or maybe not. I await an argument re: the applicability of
observation of slate tombstones in Maine to the age of the KRS.
> ---- snip -----
>
> At this point I realised just how much more there is to this article.
> I'm not going to bother going through it dealing with it snip by snip.
> The truth of the matter is that you don't know anything worth a damn
> about the work of Wolter and Nielsen but that won't stop you writing
> screeds of speculative criticism. I prefer to deal with people who
> actually know what it is they are talking about.
And whose fault is that, at base?
Wolter has not freely presented his scientific arguments.
If his meaning is obscure, then that's his fault for not
publishing fully in an open venue.
-
Daryl Krupa
prd
news:1135653694.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com by
Its older than the Olman farm, it could have been place in 1858 to
1862, although the reasoning is a bit strange, because it was buried
under 6 inches of dirt, a tree, and face down. Odds are it was place
there for the purpose of creating a charade. Some people have claimed
it was a Masonic Hoax, Hoax attempt, maybe the planter took an arrow
in the back and became tree fertilizer.
I have a problem with the provenance after it was discovered,
several accounts conflict some say it looked newly carved, others
claim it look 80 years old. Buried face down for 40 years and who
knows how that specifically might affect the weathering process.
I think it could be as little as 80 years old at that time of its
discovery, being planted in 1820 or so. Again, I accept a neutral
stance until a better attempt is made to prove or disprove the
authenticity of the stone. I would like to see some scientific study
done that is peer reviewed and presented in a respectable journals.
m_z...@hotmail.com
prd wrote:
> I have a problem with the provenance after it was discovered,
> several accounts conflict some say it looked newly carved, others
> claim it look 80 years old.
This was covered 95 years ago. The reason the inscription looked
"newly carved" was because the runes had been scraped out (probably
with a nail) within a month or two after the discovery (please see
Winchell, 1910). Wolter calls this the retooled area, and it affects,
IIRC about 90 % of the inscription, but there are areas that are
untouched - I believe this includes some complete runes on the side of
the inscription.
Peter Alaca
1135654120.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
That's fair. I try to remember it, but Wolters
without a 's' is unusual to me.
--
p.a.
Steve Marcus
?? What the heck are you going on about??
Here's the link to the original post: http://tinyurl.com/7wztd
Please come back when you can tell your headquarters from your hindquarters.
Steve Marcus
Why? Try googling "easter table" and searching within the results. You'll
discover easter tables and all manners of using them, go back a long, long
ways.
Who cares what you love?? Address the question. Are you proud of arguing
that the 1362 date is "coded" notwithstanding tht it is clearly reporduced
on the KRS "in the clear" because a secret message was being left? Are you
proud of arguing that the end of the Templars (quite literally the end,
because they were rounded up and killed, and their assests confiscated) did
not occur significantly prior to 1362??
Your refusal to answer condemns you just as surely as you would condemn
yourself by answering.
>>
>>>>
>>>>See also:
>>>>http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41564
>>>
>>> DEfinitely. You prefer to steer us to a page posted by someone who
>>> writes
>>>
>>> "An elaborate hoax, or real?
>>>
>>> There are some curiosities, but I'm no expert on runes."
>>>
>>> You could of course have taken us directly to the City of Kensington
>>> web page http://kensingtonmn.com/runestonepg.html but you had to get
>>> your little piece of innuendo in first.
>>
>>Please learn how to read. The author of the website linked above isWm. P.
>>Holmen, not DJ Quinn, the author of a message board that contains the
>>link.
>>I can't help it that Google discovered the link in Quinn's message, as
>>opposed to directly discovering the page itself.
>
> But you can help it that you chose to cite something other than the
> page you actually wanted to refer us to.
I chose to cite the first link to an acceptable citation. Once again, you
are beginning to crank up your squink engine so that you don't have to deal
with facts and issues that are uncomfortable to your pre-favored outcome.
>
>> And please learn how to
>>argue. The linked site says what it says, and quite clearly supports that
>>Holand apparently didn't see any "dots" or the word separator that has now
>>been "found" to exist.
>
> Why should I take exception to that? That's what I've already quoted
> Nielsen and Wolter as saying.
And you don't think it just a bit strange that Holand, or any of the
European experts to whom he showed the stone, or any of the other experts
who were shown the stone prior to Wolter, saw things that Nielsen and Wolter
now claim to see?
>>
>>>>
>>>>for this: "When we plotted these three things we got a year: 1362,"
>>>>Wolter
>>>>said. "It was like, oh my God, is this an accident? Is this a
>>>>coincidence?
>>>>I
>>>>don't think so.
>>>>
>>>>"We think, if it's the Templars, they confirmed the date which is on the
>>>>stone -- 1362 -- by using a code in the inscription."
>>>>
>>>>But why would Templars come to America, carve this stone and code the
>>>>date?
>>>>Particularly since by 1362, they had been wiped out _and their resources
>>>>given over to others_?
>>>
>>> Not only 'why' but 'how'?
>>
>>Exactly. How and why?
>
> ... and also when.
When, is easy. Since they were dead and gone long prior to 1362, I would
suggest that Templars could have arrived in America long prior to 1362, but
certainly not in are immediately prior to 1362.
>>>
>>>>See:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm and
>>>>
>>>>http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/KnightsT2_PersecutionandDestructionoftheTemplars.asp
>>>>
>>>>short version of 2nd link:
>>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/cds8w
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric Stevens
>>>
>>
>>Steve
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve
Steve Marcus
Thanks for disqualifying yourself as an objective commentator on this issue.
Steve Marcus
Logic, thy name is not Eric Stevens.
Eric, concentrate: You carve the text of a message on a stone. You then
carve a date on the stone. That date is "1362." You then encode a secret
message on the stone, to wit, the date "1362" in code. I now come along,
and totally unaware of your secretly encoded "1362", I change the text of
the message on the stone. Later, a third party comes along, and decodes the
encoded "1362." How in hell does the third party know that the message on
the stone has not been tampered with by me???
Steve Marcus
Moreover, why couldn't someone change the runic text, without disturbing any
of the dots, so that the text says something other than what it says. The
encoded message would remain the same, but it surely wouldn't tell anyone
that the runic text had been changed.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I guess its a question of interpretation. Based on Google, you have
been posting since 12 November 2001. That means you are more than 4
years old. I would not interpret that as meaning that were *aged* 4
years old.
Eric Stevens