Scott Wolter Gives New Interview, Suggests Second Kensington Runestone Exists

3/25/2020

Scott Wolter did another interview, this time with biophysicist and pyramid conspiracy theorist John DeSalvo on the Science and Paranormal Hour radio show. DeSalvo appeared on an episode of America Unearthed and claims to have lost half his listeners as a result. That’s neither here nor there, nor is the fact that I can’t stand his voice. He sounds like a midcentury children’s show clown, and for me it was like listening to fingernails on chalkboard. His habit of shouting all of his questions made it still worse, his effusive praise of Wolter notwithstanding. (Even Wolter noted that DeSalvo was blowing smoke up his ass.)

As with all of his interviews, Wolter rehearses his Kensington Runestone work and how it led him to his extreme pseudohistory ideas. This includes his familiar attacks on scholars and skeptics for doubting his work. The KRS discussion took up nearly a third of the program. Perhaps most ridiculously, Wolter asserts that his Templar conspiracy was both a deep hidden truth and also “the easiest” trail of evidence to discover. He offers a silly claim that the AVM abbreviation on the KRS isn’t a Catholic abbreviation but rather “aum,” which he alleges is the meditative chant of “Eastern religions.” Wolter asserts that the Templars used “plausible deniability” to hide their claims in plain sight—claims they buried in the ground thousands of miles from anyone who would get the vapors from reading them. Seems sort of pointless, really. But if there is anything we can learn from Templar conspiracies, it’s that the Templars enjoyed wasting lots of time and effort on pointless codes no one would ever have seen or read except those who already knew what they said before they got there to read them.

After this, Wolter repeats his assertion that America’s Founding Fathers “weren’t just Freemasons, they were Knights Templar as well. They just didn’t tell anybody.” Then how does Wolter know? There is no evidence whatsoever for Templar affiliation among the Founding generation, not in their writings nor in their records. The Knights Templar were disbanded in the early 1300s, and the Masonic Knights Templar (basically, a fan club for the OG Templars) were not revived until the late 1700s, not active in the United States until the 1800s. Wolter provides no evidence for his claim but asserts that Americans need to understand the “real” history of the United States, which he attributes to a Templar-Masonic neo-pagan equalitarian movement—which is, of course, why America was founded with slavery written into its founding document and Indian genocide and removal was among the newly independent country’s first major policy goals, advocated by many Masonic members of the founding generation.

Wolter suggests that there is a missing second Kensington Runestone made from the other half of the stone slab from which the original was carved. There is no evidence for one.

After letting that hang out there without any follow-up, Wolter asserts that he will “come out again soon” with new claims and new online content, and he adds another attack on skeptics, claiming that they won’t engage with Wolter’s “evidence” but instead prefer to attack Wolter’s personality.

A large chunk of the back half of the hour involved a discussion of Scott Wolter’s concrete analysis work. Wolter states that he is scheduled to travel to Virginia today (Wednesday) to meet with the state’s Department of Transportation about geological work.

Another chunk rehearses Wolter’s beliefs about the Newport Tower as a Templar church with astronomical alignments, rather than as a windmill, which the historical record informs us it was. He repeats the assertion that the Cambridge Round Church is an “exact replica” of the Newport Tower, though it is not. The Cambridge church is round because it was inspired by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and it is no more similar to the Newport Tower than other round churches, like the Imperial Cathedral at Aachen—which is to say any rotunda on pillars has a similar shape. A near-exact replica of the Newport Tower does exist—but it’s a windmill in England, so naturally it is ignored. Wolter tells a long story about why he spends his birthday at the Newport Tower each year, and how the Tower is now a fringe history pilgrimage site for believers in occult astronomy.

All in all, this was a familiar interview that only occasionally offered something new.

107 Comments

Doc Rock

3/25/2020 09:16:55 am

The novelty song "They're Coming to Take Me Away" should be playing in the background when he does a broadcast like this.

When someone tries to make an argument with no evidence and no logic to it, then people have to go ad hom to stay amused.

Jim

3/25/2020 10:22:23 am

Did you notice how Wolter has rewritten the history of the infamous and ridiculous lightbox on the egg stone ?
He says he found out about it from a fellow named "my friend David" and pretends he (Wolter) was the one who discovered that the sunlight illuminates the egg at exactly 9 am on Dec 21.
He is trying to steal credit from Jim Egan, what a lowlife !
He also adds in a made up ghostly story complete with a disappearing woman to hook in the paranormal aspect. (Dr.John DeSalvos Science & Paranormal)

He completely leaves out Jim Egan who has been harping on about the egg since 2000, presumably because Egan's theory of John Dee building the tower completely conflicts with Wolters equally nonsensical Templar crap.

Jim Egan:

" in the winter of 2000, I was photographing Penhallow’s discovery that sunlight passes through two of the three windows in the Tower.,,,,,,,,,,,,,At around 9:00 AM, I noticed that egg-shaped rock being illuminated by a box of light shining through the south window.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Scott saw my photographs at the slide show I presented at the Newport Tower symposium ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,He asked if he could use the pictures for his book on the "Hooked X." I refused,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I told him when the event would happen, and where he should stand, and he was free to take his own pictures, which he did."

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/jim-egan-comments-on-america-unearthed-and-the-newport-tower

Kent

3/25/2020 01:21:22 pm

Sigh. You're giving Egan credit he did not claim.

"Much of my work is based on the pioneering research done by William Penhallow, Professor Emeritus in Astronomy and Physics from the University of Rhode Island. In the early 1990s, he found numerous astronomical alignments in the Tower, and as a professional photographer, I photo-documented what he had predicted in his published papers."

"I showed Scott Wolter all these alignments and not only did he “borrow” some of them to support his Templar Thesis, he botched a wonderful opportunity to share the depth of Penhallow’s amazing discoveries on National TV."

Jim

3/25/2020 03:48:18 pm

In your hurry to criticize every comment I make you seem to leave logic, common sense and your reading comprehension at the door.

Jim Egan:

"At around 9:00 AM, I noticed that egg-shaped rock being illuminated by a box of light shining through the south window."

What part of "I noticed" did you not understand ?

Kent

3/25/2020 04:23:50 pm

"as a professional photographer, I photo-documented what he had predicted in his published papers."

THAT part.

"When I went to New York I noticed that the Statue of Liberty is hyooge!"

Same same.

Now you're pulling a Joe Scales, implying that I'm persecuting you. I won't ask why you are so touchy. Your demons are your own and I respect that.

Jim

3/25/2020 06:32:08 pm

Oh for Petes sake, you read this part:

"as a professional photographer, I photo-documented what he had predicted in his published papers."

But ignored this part:

" However, I told him when the event would happen, and where he should stand, and he was free to take his own pictures, which he did. And in the book, he courteously credits me with the discovery."

"he courteously credits me with the discovery."

"he courteously credits me with the discovery."

"he courteously credits me with the discovery."

Go away.

Kent

3/25/2020 09:10:40 pm

Sigh. I'm not entirely sure what you're on about, but now you're citing Wolter as a source?

There are two "he" 's here.
Wolter: "he [Wolter] courteously credits me with the discovery."

Jim: "He ... pretends he (Wolter) was the one who discovered that the sunlight illuminates the egg at exactly 9 am on Dec 21."

So which of the two ways would you like to have it?

Penhallow: "as a professional photographer, I photo-documented what he [Penhallow] had predicted in his published papers."

You haven't identified the "friend David" so I treat that as a red herring.

If this is the hill you want to metaphorically die on, fine, but I think your "Go away" is a bit harsh under the new system.

American Negrodamus

3/25/2020 10:55:21 pm

Is there a citation which demonstrates that Penhallow "discovered" the significance of the egg-shaped stone? All I have seen thus far is reference to Penhallow making predictions without identifying what he was predicting, or is there is a difference between what Penhallow predicted and what Egan discovered or documented on his own?

Someone can predict something but it may be left to others to discover and document the proof that the prediction was correct.

Jim

3/26/2020 12:00:25 am

You're good at criticizing but you're not good at backing up your criticisms. That's a pity. I'll continue to call you out on what I deem to be nonsense. Have a blessed day.

Jim

3/26/2020 10:50:35 am

American Negrodamus, Jim Egan discovered the egg illumination.
Kent is just arguing for the sake of argument.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2256495654586229

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Wd1EDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT160&lpg=PT160&dq=Jim+Egan+egg+illumination&source=bl&ots=VEBJsBe1_k&sig=ACfU3U2A9I8Fl8Xg7TbnEvD1G451D1iDiA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_v8_MprjoAhWHVc0KHfj7A8gQ6AEwBHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=Jim%20Egan%20egg%20illumination&f=false

William Smith

3/31/2020 09:07:17 am

Kent - You are dead on, and In 2008 I was with William Penhallow at the Newport Tower when I attended the NEARA anual conference. When William Penhallow took a few of us to show the sun light cast its light at mid-day through the window and on the ground it did not reach the level he identified to the crowd and I was the one in the crowd that told him it would not reach the 8 foot mark north of the tower until dec.21st. when the sun was at its lowest position in the sky. Jim Eagan or Scott Wolter or any other members did not show in this small group of about 12 people. I have a friend who filed a complaint against Mr. Egan and his friends for using a ladder to mark and deface what he thought were construction aids by the builder. He did mention that Wolter and his group were their also. I do recall Wolter had to replace a tomb stone in a grave yard in Maine. In his defense I guess we all have broken the law at times, However if you are aware of destruction of public property and do not report it, You also are breaking the law. I want to make it clear which I have on this site before I feel the KRS is authentic.

Paul

3/25/2020 07:05:00 pm

This is funny, you all are arguing who stole stupid from stupid. Wolter's friend David is likely David Brody. More than enough stupid to go around there and going back in time.

Jason, at least you should get a government check for, what, 2-3 thousand. That should help with your repairs situation, I would hope.

Paul

3/25/2020 12:28:42 pm

I would bet a dollar to a donut that the other half of the KRS is in a foundation, chimney or a wall on or near Ohman’s farmsite.
Must be a slow pseudo day in the neighborhood.

Kent

3/25/2020 04:16:08 pm

The concept of a buried land claim has always puzzled me. But that's Wolter's story and I'll stick to it: Templars and Cistercians found some of their buddies dead, sat down long enough to carve a stone and bury it (and by one account drill stone holes) then skedaddled and started impregnating the autochthonous lady people. Goddess worshippers traveling sans Goddesses. Like the Hollister motorcycle rally.

It's not Wolter's personality, rather his insanity that I find off-putting.

UFO Phil does it much better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqWPCsNke24&list=PLJ6TuqJm6zBzkPLCfWVTVcUYTFRfYu1cw&index=2

Doc Rock

3/27/2020 10:43:41 pm

If I am an explorer moving eastward across prime territory and come across a visible land claim marker from a rival power I have three options:

1.Say okey dokey and turn around and head back.

2.Move the thing a couple days further east and place it in a spot that looks a lot like the spot where it originally was.

3.Toss the thing in the nearest river and say "marker, what marker?"

That's why in the present land surveyors set permanent markers at the four corners of newly surveyed land with big iron rods set below the ground. Otherwise farmer bob next door slips out at night and moves any above ground makers so that he adds another 4 rows of corn to his south 40.

No endorsement of fringe claims, just noting a certain logic to keeping markers concealed as a hole card if it comes to that.

Kent

3/28/2020 04:16:03 pm

I think you made a typo there. You're moving eastward and you take the land marker with you ? Seems like that would expand someone else's territory? Better to just break it, bury it, or throw it in the water.

Anyway the KRS is supposedly a land claim, not a land marker.

My memory is fuzzy on this but it's my recollection that Wolter says the KRS is basically a claim to "all the land". I would think a land claim should say what it's claiming. To say that the KRS does not is an understatement.

Iron rods in the ground are all well and good, unless someone's trying to kill you while you're looking for them. History teaches us that people often kill over land.

How'd that land claim thing work out Scott? It's like saying we're living in the Catholic States of America because John Kennedy's Eternal Flame. Still not a Masonic country, much less a Templar country.

Doc Rock

3/28/2020 09:36:58 pm

If i am moving eastward from French territory and encounter an English claim marker then I would assume that moving said marker further east from whence I came would result in more French territory behind me. If I am following you correctly.

As for everything else, as I noted, I wasn't commenting in support of Wolteresque lunacy. So all that stuff is irrelevant. I was simply noting that I could understand the logic of hiding a claim or boundary marker in some circumstances. With about a dozen different european powers jockeying for territory over the course of almost 500 years, often without the benefit of GPS, there isn't really a standard formula for looking at how things were done when it comes to making claims or articulating boundaries.

Jim

3/29/2020 12:16:37 am

Wouldn't the the whole exercise be pointless from the get go ?
The Templar order never had the right nor been given any sort of authority to create their own country ever, by anyone. Not to mention the Templars had been dissolved by the Pope in 1312, 50 years before the date on the KRS
Even if the KRS was authentic (which it wasn't) why would anyone abide by such a ridiculous claim ?
Land claims were on behalf of Monarchs no ?
Can the Boy Scouts just carve a rock and claim their own Country ?

The whole thing is silly.

Kent

3/29/2020 01:21:55 am

I think I better understand what you were saying, but if you were moving east from French territory to English territory.... why carry it? Did any ever exist? Is there any history of such "land markers" or "land claims" being used in colonial times?

And a land claim and a land marker seem to be two different things. But the extra work of transporting either one of them seems like a puzzle to me. When it comes down to it just shoot people instead of bowing down before their land marker.

Doc Rock

3/29/2020 03:21:22 pm

The Bienville de Celeron expedition down the Ohio river in 1749 buried several lead plates at various points along their route to lay claim to what was then hotly contested territory between Great Britain and France. At one point he also attached another marker to a tree. So, both visible and hidden markers were in use. That is discussed in Galbreath's book: Expedition of Celeron to the Ohio country in Illinois which I believe is based on a translation of the journal kept by Celeron. Makes sense to me since any visible lead marker would probably have been stolen and melted down to make musket balls by the first Shawnee Indian that wandered by.

Another internet article that discusses the Celeron expedition claims that the use of buried markers in this fashion went back to Europe of the Middle Ages but didn't provide any supporting documentation.

No idea how common or not this practice was. I was simply noting that there could be a certain logic to using hidden markers in instances where they were used.

Kent

3/29/2020 04:28:56 pm

Ah! Okay, thanks for the reference. If you've read the book you can enlighten us on whether anyone dug up the buried markers or found the unburied ones.

Still, buried markers depend on someone knowing their secret location and the KRS clearly failed in this regard. It also failed in that its text didn't claim or even demarcate land. But wait, the Templars could calculate longitude!

When it comes to claiming land, Mao had an insight: "All power flows from the barrel of a gun."

Doc Rock

3/29/2020 09:36:11 pm

I haven't dug around much on the topic except to confirm that I wasn't confusing the Celeron expedition with another one during roughly the same time that is supposed to have left a marker that I think turned out to be a hoax.

One article says that one of the Celeron lead plates has been found. Another said that one of the plates was dug up and given to the British not long after it was buried and that two other plates were found in the 19th century.

Kent

3/25/2020 04:44:16 pm

DeSalvo is indeed difficult to listen to. Public radio, what are you gonna do? Don't misunderstand, I really mean "Public radio, you need to pull this show."

Good to know that Wolter is the world's foremost expert on agates. The court system would beg to differ.

I'm Cub Scouting on through this interview but the host is really as advertised an idiot.

Baron Mnuchin Syndrome

3/25/2020 06:14:32 pm

DeSalvo is famed for his masterpiece book Power Crystals:

"This book examines quartz crystals, crystal skulls and Dropa discs, providing instructions for their use in scrying, meditation and Enochian language, including communication with angels."

Another quality research product brought to you by Inner Traditions publishing.

Bill

3/26/2020 02:09:48 pm

"DeSalvo is indeed difficult to listen to. "

Beyond my stamina. I made it about 3 minutes in and had to bail before my ears started bleeding.

All I could think of was how accurate the "clown voice" comparison fit.

Joe Scales

3/26/2020 11:16:44 am

"Wolter suggests that there is a missing second Kensington Runestone made from the other half of the stone slab from which the original was carved."

Time to start knocking over some trees, eh?

An Anonymous Nerd

3/26/2020 01:59:24 pm

I wonder how may such rune stones he thinks there are.

I wonder how many court cases have been won or lost on the basis of his word.

I guess I can hope that he's one of those guys who's decent in his area but trash anyplace else.

-An Anonymous Nerd

Jim

3/26/2020 04:30:24 pm

One has to wonder how many (if any) people actually use him as an expert witness anymore.
It seems to me it would be a piece of cake for any opposing lawyer to successfully blow up his credibility.

An Anonymous Nerd

3/27/2020 11:02:56 am

I tend to think that what's admitted in courtrooms and what's not admitted is kind of up for grabs. So while I'd love to think that his credibility is so shot that he's just fucked on this stuff? It also might be up for grabs like anything else in court.

-An Anonymous Nerd

Harold Edwards

3/27/2020 11:28:24 am

In a perverse sort of way, Scott Wolter may be right:

The Kensington Stone was “discovered” by Olof Ohman in 1898. Ohman owned a farm about 3 miles northwest of Kensington Minnesota. Its runic inscription self-dates to 1362. This inscription was quickly declared a fake by linguistic experts in Minnesota, Illinois, and Norway in 1899, and the artifact was forgotten. In August of 1907 a traveling salesman, Hjalmar Rued Holand took the stone from Ohman and began a life-long crusade to rehabilitate the linguistic evidence to prove the artifact genuine. In 1928 Holand sold the artifact to some men in Alexandria, Minnesota where it now resides at the Runestone Museum.

The inscription is written in runes used in rural areas of Sweden during the 19th Century except for the phrase AVM which is written in Latin letters. Holand interpreted these to be the abbreviation for “Ave Maria” or “Ave Virgo Maria.” However there are no known examples of that sequence of letters used for that purpose during the Middle Ages. Older versions of the Latin alphabet had no letter ‘U,” and “V” was used for that purpose.

In 1939 a scrapbook owned by Ohman was loaned by his widow, Karin Ohman, to John Holvik, a professor at Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota. It contained clippings from Swedish Language newspapers over a 60 year period. Holvik published a short article in the college newspaper, The Concordian, on Decmeber 10, 1948 in which he noted that one of the clippings ended with the salutation “AUM!!!”.

That clipping was from an article on the front page of the Svenska Amarikanaren for January 1, 1891, and titled “Mastaren Siddhartha Buddha” [Master Siddhartha Buddha]. Obviously, Oolf Ohman knew of “AUM” before he “discovered” the inscription in 1898.

Patrick

3/28/2020 03:47:09 pm

AVM. Holand led out the gate with a meaning of Ave Virgo Maria. The issue is that this phrasing – despite the centuries old veneration of Mary - didn’t come about until after the 1362 date on the stone.

AUM. Wolter contends that it is an “esoteric” symbol which “was an important concept that was symbolic of a female Deity to the Venus Families and the Templars, referent to Mary Magdalene. My eyes glaze over because esoteric automatically means that the line of argument is flawed.

Harold is supportive of the AUM word (not acronym), the notion originally posited by J.A. Holvik, then subsequently discussed by Wahlgren and Blegen. Holvik contended that the AVM (acronym) on the stone was actually AUM (word) Given that AUM was one of two possibilities for the letter combination, his contention has a 50% chance of being correct. Continuing, Holvik linked the AUM (word) to Hinduism and then pointed out a scrapbook clipping possessed by the heirs of Olaf Ohman. Holvik then asserted that the idea for the 50% potential AUM word was derived from the scrapbook clipping, strengthening Holvik’s contention that Ohman hoaxed the rune stone.

It was a cagey argument, one that could neither be proven or disproven with absolute certainty. Was the AVM carved on the KRS actually AUM? No one will ever know. 50%-50%. That will never change. Of course, skeptics of the 1362 date on the KRS never move on from this specific argument.

Books, magazines, and newspapers contained articles on a huge variety of topics – most of which were written about with varying degrees of accuracy. That a story pertaining to Buddhism contained the AUM word isn’t suprising. That Ohman clipped the article and it found its way into the scrapbook isn’t suprising. Blegen remarked that Wahlgren had noted other clipped articles in the scrapbook on topics such as “ancient religion” and “Atlantis.”

The runic inscribed KRS is composed primarily of Scandinavian word forms along with some English loan words. Aside from the assertion from Holvik, has anyone ever mentioned that there are any word forms from Asia? No. The Inscribed AVM could be AUM (50% likelihood), but the word AUM with the Eastern religion meaning of “Supreme Power” is quite a departure from the rest of the inscription’s context.

If you don’t think that AUM might be a bit problematic, that is fine with me. I am not here to change what you believe.

Back to AVM. As mentioned before, those letters representing Ave Virgo Maria do not mesh well with 1362.

VM, as one interpretation, could be the historically substantiated ‘Virgines Mater.’ This phrase is found in the 1100s, if not earlier. It was a common and widespread pairing of words.

Alma Mater, whose initials would produce a letter combination of AM, referent to the Virgin Mary, was in Christian liturgical usage in the 14th century. Earlier, a 12th century antiphon dedicated to the Virgin Mary titled the “Alma Redemptoris Mater” was written. This antiphon is one of the four main Marian antiphons still in use in the Roman Catholic liturgy.

The AVM on the KRS isn’t fixed to Ave Virgo Maria anymore than AUM is fixed to, well, actually being AUM (only a 50% possibility, at best). An acronym of just AM, for “Alma Mater”, is historically supportable to the 124th century. The acronym form AM would connote the same meaning, the offering of alms to the Virgin Mother for the warding off of evil. The additional V, perhaps done as a space filler as only inscribing AM at the end of line 8 would leave a lengthy gap to the end of the line , doesn’t turn Alma Virgines Mater into Ave Virgo Maria.

We’ll never know with certainty.

William Smith

3/29/2020 04:36:41 pm

Patrick _ I just have to ask about the one part of the stupid show when Wolter was viewing the oval stone he claimed to align with the KRS (which it does not) and this woman approached and ask what he was doing and he replied that he would use his gate key to unlock the gate so he could take her inside the protective fence to show her the goddess of Venus oval stone, but when he looked back she was gone.
My only concern about his statement is just under who's authority does he have the key to a protected site in a public local park that requires a letter of intent approved in advance. He stated the year was 2007, however it likely was 2008 at the NEARA convention when only Jan Barstad had clearance to research in the tower.
I wonder if this type of activity forced the taxpayers to build a new protective fence because future visitors to the site have been observed using a step ladder to enter.

Leif

3/29/2020 08:14:19 pm

Of course, the correct interpretation of 'AVM' is of consequence only if the KRS is genuine. It almost certainly is not. The runes match Edward Larsson's 1885 futhark, not anything from the middle ages. The numerals are likewise in a modern form. The language is modern Swedish. The most probable explanation for the KRS is that it is a private joke that got out of hand.

But at least the KRS tells a good story. Wolter and DeSalvo would do better to spin a less boring yarn.

By the way, there is a second runestone near Kensington MN– the AVM stone discovered in 2001. Jason Colavito has previously told the story of this in his post 'The Strange Case of the AVM Rune Stone Hoax' (1/6/2015). Among the gullible are (drum roll please)... Scott Wolter.

Jim

3/29/2020 08:47:22 pm

An interesting question given Wolter's well documented proclivity to trespass and his "rules don't apply to me" state of mind.

MarkG

3/27/2020 12:11:08 pm

Another runestone? Of course there is. Wolter must be jealous of that sweet sweet Prometheus cash being thrown at COOI and want to start digging up farm yards in Minnesota. I can almost hear Robert Clotworthy's voice saying, "There is a farm...in central Minnesota."

Sven Grosspizzle

3/28/2020 02:25:55 pm

I think that Kensington Stone fatigue has set in with many people. Wolter has milked it dry. Teasing people with the possibility of a second stone that is going to turn up any time now is a good way to slap some new paint on an old falling down barn.

Patrick

3/30/2020 07:30:39 am

William,
Stop with the trolling. No one – except you - could give two hoots about Wolter’s recounting of having a key to access the fence gate at the Tower back in 2007.

Jim

3/30/2020 12:23:16 pm

Actually Patrick, Wolter fabricated part of the story already, trying to claim credit for for himself and "David" for the discovery when we know Jim Egan discovered it and shared this information and also previously showed Wolter his photos documenting the lightbox on the egg.
You can't trust Walter to tell the truth, it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't have a key at all and trespassed in this instance.

You yourself were party to Wolters trespassing and subsequent vandalizing of the Overton Stone in Nova Scotia.

Also Wolter had one of his accomplices pose as a hunter and intentionally trespass when he was specifically denied access to private land in the America Unearthed episode "Chamber Hunting".

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-america-unearthed-s01e08-chamber-hunting

In short, people do give two hoots about Wolters nefarious exploits and repeated instances of trespassing.

Kent

3/30/2020 01:40:54 pm

Patrick,

Please stop doing the #MeToo by accusing people of trolling. William in this case raises a valid concern. Wolter has a history of doing things that are at best unauthorized including damaging the KRS on two occasions: the making of the mold and the unauthorized boring of the back. Also he has demonstrated a tendency to chip off stone samples without the owner's permission.

Patrick

3/30/2020 07:53:39 am

Sven,
Agree with the fatigue re the KRS. The second stone doesn't exist. End of that story. It's an inane remark made on a radio show.

Patrick

3/30/2020 11:08:18 am

Leif,
Nice reply, thx. As long as there are two sides to an argument, the “AVM” will never have a “correct” interpretation. One side will continue to insist that it is “AUM” or the Ave Virgo Maria interpretation of “AVM.’ The other side will say it is Alma Mater with “Virginis” inserted as a filler. Neither side can discredit the other side’s arguments, so “AVM” goes into the neutralized category.

The correct interpretation of AVM has consequence for both sides, if genuine (if that is established) then the AvM (Alma Mater) suffices; if a hoax (if that is established) then Ave Virgo Maria or AUM suffices.

A similar neutralization holds for the pentadic numerals. The issue with them is their positional placement (alternate is ordering) in a base-10 notation (the 22, 14, and 1362 usage.) The 2 (in the 22) and the 1 (in the 14) are ordered in the TENS positional placement. The 1 and 3 (in the 1362) expands this ordering placement to 1000s and 100s.

Those who hold the belief that the KRS is not a 14th century artifact cite the decimal ordering of the pentadic values as a disqualifier – as you did. The counter-argument is that decimal ordering of value forms, regardless of whether the forms are pentadic, Hindu-Arabic, etc., existed in the 14th century (and prior). The value form is actually irrelevant, each pentadic symbol has a corollary Hindu-Arabic value. It is the decimal ordering that the arguments revolve around.

Holand discussed this in his 1940 published work, reprinted in 1969: Holand, Hjalmar Rued. Norse Discoveries and Explorations in America, 982-1362; Leif Erikson to the Kensington Stone. New York: Dover Publications, 1969.

On page 181, citing MS. Upplands-lagen, he notes the textual [decimal] ordering: “This letter is given after the birth of our Lord one thousand, two hundred, ninety and six years.”

On pgs. 181-182, in discussing the 1320 “Hauksbok”, which preserved the “Algorismus” computus, Holand quotes P.A. Munch (Munch was a Norwegian scholar who specialized in, among others, ethnography and linguistics): “After Hauk Erlendsson’s time [d. 1334], in the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Arabic numerals are frequently found in Norwegian and Icelandic codexes, partly as chapter numbers in the margin, partly also as dates and sums. There are several indications that Arabic numerals were regularly (stadigen) used in working out accounts, but in the finished documents there have been inserted the different figures in Roman numerals.”{8]

Holand provides additional corollary examples of dates written in Sweden using Hindu-Arabic notation, whose value symbols have decimal ordering (as we all know), from the 14th century.

The decimal ordering of pentadic symbol values was removed as a disqualifier for the KRS having a 14th century origin eighty years ago.

The thing with the KRS is that everyone takes a single element of the stone…and then they leapfrog immediately to whether the element supports a 14th century or modern origin. To the hoax believer, everything is “modern.” The real question on every element is “Was it used, or could it have been developed in the 14th century?” The decimal ordering of the pentadic symbol values absolutely could have developed in the 14th century. The pentadic symbol values existed and the decimal ordering patterning, albeit in other numerical symbol forms, was in use.

Jim

3/30/2020 12:35:55 pm

Hjalmar Holland was as full of crap as Walter is.

Kent

3/30/2020 03:23:10 pm

What would be probative would be citing even one example of pentadic numerals used in the format discussed before 1362. Absent that, "It *could* happen" is not a strong argument.

How one gets from "AVM" to "AvM" to "Alma Mater" is, I think, a postergenic puzzle.

I think "AUM" is probably a Theosophical error. “ॐ” (U+0950) or ओम if you will is clearly Ong or Om. The dot at the top is a nasal sound and the vowel is clearly "O". Indic languages have a separate vowel sign for "U". None of this to say that the same error couldn't have been made in 1362.

Is this a Unicode Hooked X? “𝒳” (U+1D4B3)

Leif

3/30/2020 10:41:43 pm

Dear Patrick,

Been 20 or 30 years since I read Holand's book. As I recall, he made lavish claims of Old Norse settlement and exploration in North America based on fragmentary and extremely questionable evidence. I quite admired the man's dedication. His historical judgment less so.

But if I rephrase what Holand says, it's something like: 'It doesn't matter if no one used pentimal numerals in the middle ages, the numbers are base 10 so we'll call it genuine.'

Suppose the Kensington Stone was written in Egyptian hieroglyphs. By similar logic, Holand might have said something like: 'It doesn't matter if no one used hieroglyphs in the middle ages, the underlying language is Scandinavian so we'll call it genuine.'

I'm reminded of something the linguist Einar Haugen said about the Spirit Pond runestones: 'It's amazing how they always forget their grammar once they cross the ocean.'

Patrick

3/30/2020 04:39:26 pm

In general, 99% of what Jim and Kent comment on wrt Wolter on this blog is invention, speculation, or misinformation.

Case 1: Wolter’s involvement with the NT, the alignments, and the Egg illumination is fully detailed in Chapters 34 and 35 of his 2009 published book. You guys are too lazy to go the original source to get your facts, so you hurl half-baked facts across the room at each other.

Case 2: William Smith loves to hurl about that Wolter did a) an unauthorized extraction of a core sample from the backside of the KRS and b) an unauthorized mold of the KRS – both of which “damaged” the KRS. The core sample removal was approved by the Runestone Museum, no damage. The mold of the KRS was approved, the material was sample tested on the back side of the stone to assess how it would release and if any damage would result. The initial testing results were that the process would not cause any damage to the faces with the inscription. When the final molding was done, the release agent did not work as advertised and the result was that the KRS became stained. The expectation of a clean release with no adverse effects (i.e. staining) was not realized. That is damage. Not intentional, but damage, nonetheless.

Furthermore, all of you conspiracy-theory, rumor mongering, gossiping whores fail to cite that the KRS sustained some damage prior to Wolter when just before WWII R.H. Landon coated the KRS “with engine oil and then scrubbed [it] with ether, a powerful solvent. There was no intention to damage the KRS, merely to “clean” it, but the result was a change in state…the remove of the weathering and patination on the surface and the observation that “the cuts were as fresh as if they had been made the day before.”

Case 3: The purported Overton Stone trespass that Jim is fixated on. Yep, I was there with Scott. Yep, he picked up some samples of the stone from the ground that had naturally spalled off. He held his hand out and showed them to me. I believe that he mentioned that he had already obtained a small chip sample from the back side of the rock outcropping, as well. I wasn’t close attention - the area was filled with rock cobbles and vines and my son was having difficulty finding his footing…so I was focusing on Ben.

Every post that Jason does about Wolter is another opportunity for you gossiping whores to invent more shit, and cast more nefarious aspersions on Wolter. You couldn’t care less if what you are saying has any truth, because being truthful isn’t your goal. Your hope is that others might actually believe your invented bullshit – and some might. That you disagree with Wolter is fine, but have enough class to actually research what you write about – because it is abundantly apparent that you don’t.

Paul

3/30/2020 09:04:12 pm

Sir, when you can present actual science and actual historical facts that provide a basis that the KRS is other than a 19th century fabrication, at that time someone might, just might, attempt to enter into reasonable discourse with you. Until that time, your fantasies are just that, fantasy and not worth the time of day.

William Smith

3/30/2020 10:14:03 pm

Patrick - Your statement that us gossiping whores are inventing shit to cast more nefarious aspirations on Wolter but you are the one that brought the 1,2 &3 Cases up.
case 1- The light path from the south window to the oval egg at the western arch on Wolter's Dec . birth day when Jim Eagan filmed it may be a fact, however his book states it was Easter at 9:00 in the am. In the bull shit movie he stated he had a key and if I recall he stated the mystery woman event was in 2007. I do not think Egan was in his self made museum in 2007. In 2008 The late Dick Nelson told him that he was speculating and later confirmed the line of light would miss the KRS in MN. by over 500 miles. I also advised him that the light from the south window would have to travel through the floor to light up the lower half of the egg stone.
His first claim was that the Easter star would be in alignment at 9:00 am on Easter with the oval egg.
case 2 - You are dead on in case 2 - Wolter did not know what he was doing when he made more than one casting. He admitted he changed the surface color when the Archaeologist ask. As for the core hole and authority to coat the mold surface it came for the museum rep. that was with Wolter. Their is no Letter of intent on file prior to the removal that requires the approval of the board. For that matter I fought that Wolter has any letter of intent to support his activities. I have visited the KRS, Newport Tower, Kansas City stone and Heaver Oklahoma stone and all require a letter of intent or written property owner permission by law in all states mentioned.
case 3 I have never been their, however I did see the Oak Island group their on the TV show along with Archeologist who was President of NEARA. I bet they had a letter of intent approved by the property owner or curator if state or providence law in Canada.
If you were their with Wolter and his wife as shown in the pictures just who owns the site and I am sure you have an approved intent letter.
As a person who defends his friends you should stop letting your alligator mouth get ahead of your humming bird ass when you say I said, he said or you said.

William Smith

3/31/2020 11:53:52 am

Were you with eagan and the other 4 people at the Newport Tower when a local person ask why the group was damaging the marks on a stone he had photos of that had he felt had man made marks and the group was changing the surface marks before making a foil copy of the finish. He filed a complaint and has photos of the before and after. It must have had an effect because they replaced the security fence the following year at a taxpayer cost of over $10,000. (Your statement that us gossiping whores are inventing shit to cast more nefarious aspirations on Wolter) is bad enough, however calling me or others a troll is a good example of your lack of knowledge.

Patrick

3/31/2020 07:51:05 am

Dear Leif,

Thanks for the thoughful reply. I too admire Holand’s dedication while at the same time acknowledging that some of his historical judgements have not tested well. You are quite correct in recounting the wildly exaggerated claims of Norse settlement and exploration. The Knutson expedition, mooring points, stone holes, discussion on some of the presumed Viking artifacts in the Midwest, and the Newport Tower being a defensive church all fall into this category. He also over-reached on some of the grammar and spelling cases wrt the KRS. What Holand did do very well is that he cited his sources – and not just within his published works. In a 1950 type-written letter that Holand sent to Dr. Waldo R. Wedel of the Smithsonian there were thirty-two detailed footnotes. You can find this in the Wedel archives at the Smithsonian.

Haugen’s observation was on point.

William Thalbitzer, during his investigation on the Kingittorsuaq Rune Stone, postulated that the inscription contained a decimal-ordered pentimal symbol date of 1314. Discussion of this probative example pre-dating the 1362 KRS may be found on [Pgs. 12-13] and [Pg. 21, Footnote 26] within this Smithsonian Institution special publication:

Thalbitzer, William Carl. Two runic stones, from Greenland and Minnesota. City of Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1951. [No copyright restrictions] Retrieved July 2016 from https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/22869/SMC_116_Thalbitzer_1951_3_1-71.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Jim

3/31/2020 01:33:51 pm

pos·tu·late
suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

You pseudos sure do put a lot of stock on people who "postulate" on things that are out of their area of expertise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thalbitzer

"William C. Thalbitzer (February 5, 1873 in Helsingør – September 18, 1958 in Usserød) was a Danish philologist and professor of Eskimo studies at the University of Copenhagen. He studied Danish, English and Latin at the university,"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingittorsuaq_Runestone#Undeciphered_Runes

"The stone has been dated to the Middle Ages. The Catholic Encyclopedia states the date as April 25, 1135. William Thalbitzer dates the stone to 1314 using pentadic numerals.[citation needed] Others have dated the stone between 1250 and 1333.[1] However, as the historian Finn Gad has pointed out, the date given on the stone can be interpreted in various ways. As such, it cannot, as previously thought, be taken as evidence for the three hunters named on the stone in this region.[2]

The last part of the runic inscription is not transcribed as it is composed of unknown characters; some believe that they are meaningless, while others believe that it contains a secret message.[1] "

Kent

3/31/2020 02:47:38 pm

Patrick:

So, so wrong. So very wrong. First, "postulating" doesn't mean that the thing exists. Thalbitzer not only doesn't "postulate" on pp. 12-13, he just has a lot of sentences ending in question marks. So no.

The only thing he "postulates" is that something means "A.D." So light years away from "probative".

Indeed, on p. 20, discussing the KRS he says ("says" not "postulates"):

"But it is true that they have not been found on any other runic stone in the world. The case is unique--just as unusual as the placing of the date at the end of the inscription."

That one little word there "unique" means you're wrong. Thanks for bringing this source to my attention.

Go thou and say "whore" no more.

Leif

3/31/2020 07:53:03 pm

Dear Patrick:

Thank you for your kind response and the William Thalbitzer reference. Will enjoy reading it in detail.

I’m not sure the Thalbitzer paper (published by the Smithsonian Institution in 1951) really points to use of pentimal numerals on the Kingittorsuaq runestone. But perhaps I’m missing something. If I’m missing something, please let me know.

The Kingittorsuaq runestone was found was found in 1824 on Kingittorsuaq Island, Greenland. Authorities agree it is from the middle ages. The meaning of the first two symbols on the stone are ambiguous, as are the six runes. The remaining runes translate to: ‘Erlingur the son of Sigvat and Bjarni Þorðar's son and Eindriði Oddr's son, the washingday (Saturday) before Rogation Day, raised this mound and rode...’ Rogation day is a church holiday that occurs shortly before Ascension Day (40 days after Easter).

Discussion: On page 8, Thalbitzer discusses a theory that the final six runes could be transcribed Roman numerals. On page 12 he discusses a theory that the initial runes could encode a date. Neither, however uses decimal notation.

On page 21 footnote 26, Thalbitzer cites medieval examples of decimal notation in Norse manuscripts, but insofar as I can tell, these are not pentimal numerals. And on pages 19 and 20, Thalbitzer reprints Holand’s examples of pentimal numerals, which come from the 1500s or later.

Again, I could be missing something. But what Thalbitzer says about the Kingittorsuaq runestone is fascinating. Kingittorsuaq Island is very far from the Norse colonies of Greenland, and it strains credibility that the Norse would visit it that early in the season. Thalbitzer states (p 8)

‘According to the old calendars and other Catholic sources it refers to the 25th of April, a time of year when the sea between the skerries in northern Greenland is always frozen over. Thus any possibility for the three men wintering there to escape home in their vessel must have been excluded. They were obviously badly in need of help and eagerly awaiting the breaking up of the ice, which never takes place until the end of June or the beginning of July. The miserable men then must have erected the cairns, partly as signals to draw the attention of their countrymen in the south to their whereabouts and partly as an account of their expedition to be left behind if they were to perish. The cairn with the runic inscription on the small stone, then, was erected by the men as a possibly posthumous bit of information for those who missed them and perhaps would search for them.’

It seems quite likely the runestone was created to let loved ones know what happened to a lost hunting expedition. In that case, why would a year be necessary?

[For Jim: William Thalbitzer’s scholarship should not be dismissed simply because he is writing outside his field. Base judgment on his evidence. This paper seems to a good reviewing some research on the philology related to the KSR. Thalbitzer advocates giving it a second look, but unlike Holand he appears agnostic concerning the authenticity of the stone. (Even so, the knowledge we have gained in the last 70 years does not support a medieval date for the KSR.)]

______________________________________________

Now for the relevant quotes. From p. 8:

‘The two first-mentioned interpreters termed them "initial ornaments." In the case of the final signs, the six secret runes in (c) (fig. I ; pp. 7 and 54 f.), both Rask and Finn Magnusen, although with some doubts, would read an indication of a year as if they were LATIN LETTERS (MCXXXV) [emphasis mine], an otherwise unknown phenomenon on our early rune stones. On the other hand, this feature, a date in connection with a communication, might very well be expected on a stone like this, which does not belong with the commonest kind of runic stones such as tombstones, but may rather be compared to the calendar statements, diplomas, and other dated documents of the time, where a year is generally given at the top, more rarely at the end. As this inscription, like most diplomas, states a day-the Saturday before "gangdag"-there would be reason to expect a year, too. Without this the dating would be rather absurd. Finn Magnusen gives his opinion as to the exact meaning of the statement of the day.’

From page 12: ‘A most remarkable feature is the first rune, which has been interpreted as an e (ellikr-ellingr), this e here having been made into a dotted rune, i.e., provided with two internal clearly separated dots, ø (see fig. I), but not repeated later in the inscription. Might it not be possible that the expert, perhaps learned, rune carver by this means wanted to denote a special variant of e, perhaps ø or a diphthong ey or øy? 13

OLSEN MAKES MUCH OF THE TWO DOTS [emphasis mine], being of the opinion that the rune carver wanted in this way to characterize the

Jim

4/1/2020 12:07:44 am

Leif,

"For Jim: William Thalbitzer’s scholarship should not be dismissed simply because he is writing outside his field."

Certainly, my point is that I think more weight should be given to the experts speaking within their area of expertise.
I don't know how many times I have read that "scholars" have been divided on whether it is real or not and the early debates often seemed to come down to Thalbitzer and Robert Hall being the ones favoring authenticity.
Both were outside their area of expertise.
I will take the opinions of the experts over the opinions of the amateurs every day of the week.

Who ya gonna believe Scott Wolter or Henrik Williams ?

Patrick

4/1/2020 10:07:32 am

Dear Leif,
I appreciate the well-written reply. As always, it forces me to go back and re-read and re-evaluate what has been written, in this case, what Thalbitzer wrote. He mentions that the last six forms might be a date, but the interpretation is not settled, by any means.

Reading Thalbitzer’s published work is fascinating. His style of writing is very objective and without hyperbole, and he moves from point to point in a very easy-going fashion. On some topics which he knows are controversial or will not be universally accepted, he steps cautiously while still presenting his point. He knows the difficulty runic inscriptions present and he acknowledges that there is a variance from other experts as to what the precise meaning is.

Richard Nielsen and David Johnson did some further research on the Kingittorsuaq runestone and distributed their findings via the Internet in a 2012 copyrighted article. This may be accessed here:

https://websites.godaddy.com/blob/65151a46-8ee3-453c-83d3-7b1077c69c9e/downloads/1bj2vaeoa_741648.pdf?11085f3c

Nielsen presented a variety of conclusions in this work. Two are pertinent to the current discussion:

“It is shown that date of 1314 derives from the use of the Medieval Perpetual Calendar. Twig runes in Arabic placement stand on the Kingigtorssuaq Inscription. One was that the 13 and 14 values in the Kingittorsuag Runestone.” (Nielsen 2012: 9)

Nielsen, as his article progressed, began to examine the Arabic placement (read decimal) significance of the Kingittorsuaq stone as it related to the KRS. Eventually Nielsen concluded:

“Thus the evidence for the numbers on the KRS is neither against a medieval solution or a modern provenance for the KRS. No longer can these numbers be used as proof that the KRS is modern, but that does not prove that the KRS is medieval. Unambiguous evidence must be found for proving a medieval provenance of the KRS.” (Nielsen 2012: 28)

A safe conclusion.

Jim

4/1/2020 11:31:41 am

Hooked Xs, Arabic Numerals and Bonafide expert.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.k-blogg.se%2F2019%2F05%2F30%2Ffler-kensingtonrunor-i-hassela%2F

Was Olof Oh man being completely honest when he said:

"Every school boy, and every Norwegian knows something about runes, but not so how to use them"

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.k-blogg.se%2F2018%2F03%2F05%2Fvarfloden-1879-en-ovantad-ledtrad-till-kensingtonstenens-runor%2F

Leif

4/1/2020 07:04:06 pm

Dear Patrick,

Had some time to go over Dr. Richard Nielsen’s article this morning. We stand corrected about the medieval usage of pentadic numerals, as Dr. Nielsen presents two examples– one from Nürnberg dated 1398, and one from den Hague, dated to the late 14th century. In the middle ages, Den Hague had considerable trade with the north, so Scandinavian exposure is a real possibility.

Nevertheless, we’re skeptical regarding Dr. Nielsen’s argument. First it’s not unambiguous that the two initial runes of the Kingigtorssuaq stone refer to a year. Second, even if the Kingigtorssuaq runestone shows a date, we’re skeptical that it validates the KRS.

Regarding Dr. Nielsen’s first argument: his interpretation of the two initial runes as a date is based on the symbols themselves, use of the Medieval Perpetual Calendar, and the rune count between interpunkts (the word dividers). While the symbols could logically be interpreted as ‘13’ and ‘14’, Nielsen doesn’t present any other runic writings which use these symbols as numerals. A perpetual calendar is a table which allows you to tell things like what day of the week Christmas will fall on for any given year. Why makes Nielsen think a hunting party at the edge of the world would use it to encode a year? Does he think the carver carried one in his back pocket? Or he was an idiot-savant, perhaps? Apparently, Nielsen also presumes that a medieval Greenlander would also use rune count to record a year. Where has this been done elsewhere? Why does he believe this?

It’s important to remember Thalbitzer’s observation: any medieval Norseman on Kingigtorssuaq Island on a spring day is going to be in serious trouble, and the inscription could be inform to tell loved ones of the party’s fate. Therefore, it’s not much of a stretch to believe that the runes could include magic– with food running out and thaw still two months away, magic may be the only hope left.

A written year is less certain, because no year is necessarily. The families knew when missing party disappeared. As Thalberg points out, it’s rare for a runestone to record the year. Nielsen argues that the rune carver used an entirely unique system to encode the year. Why didn’t he just write something like ‘Anno domni’? Also, Nielsen wants us to associate the ‘13’ and ‘14’ symbols, but look at the way the lines of text as staggered photo of the stone. It appears that the carver carved the first line in its entirety, then moved to the second. But if the carver intended a year, would he not have carved ‘1314’ all at once? Even if ‘1314’ didn’t appear on a single line, one would him to stack the symbols.

So Nielsen’s interpretation appears to be a real stretch, which the context argues against. The Kingigtorssuaq runestone is a genuine artifact, but its also an out-of-place artifact. We have only this as an example of pentadic-like numerals the middle ages in the Norse world. Not only is it the earliest known example of pentadic numerals, it just happens to come from an island half way up the coast of Greenland. And the carver just happens to have a working knowledge of perpetual calendars. What are the chances?
We agree the signs seem to carry some meaning, but Nielsen’s ‘unambiguous’ interpretation is in reality no more than a guess.

__________________________
When Nielsen relates this to the KRS, the chain of logic stretches to the breaking point. The Kingigtorssuaq and KRS carvers used different sets of symbols. The KRS symbols uses Arabic place value, but the Kingigtorssuaq inscription cannot.
Nielsen’s logic involves guesswork, a complex chain of logic, and a number of unknowns. Why oh why does Nielsen believe his evidence demonstrates the KRS dating could be medieval? The KRS numerals closely resemble those on Edward Larsson’s 19th century manuscript. We know which explanation William of Occam would prefer.
Leif
PS> On the late Richard Nielsen’s website (richardnielsen.org), I found the following in a review of Scott Wolter’s ‘The Hooked X: Key to the Secret History of North’ (by Henrick Williams).
‘Richard Nielsen is to be credited with giving new life to the research on the KRS. Beginning in the 1980’s he started questioning the many statements made by runologists and philologists about the impossibility of certain words in its inscription. He embarked on a very laborious journey of searching for parallel forms in genuine medieval Scandinavian documents and he came up with a flood of candidates, although these were taken from documents spanning many centuries and the far extremes of Scandinavian speaking territory.

It is a fact that most of Nielsen’s suggested parallels turned out not to be valid, but the ones that really did show

Patrick

4/2/2020 08:13:38 am

Dear Leif,

We both acknowledge that pentadic notation was present in the 14th century. The notation was used in various countries throughout Europe and was known by several different names.

Carla Cucina, in her 2011 work “Traces of Runic Lore in Italy: The Wooden Calendar 'Book' in Bologna and Its Medieval Connections”, wrote: “Moreover, apart from Roman capitals and runes, other (epi)graphic systems were known and widely used both in Scandinavia and in Southern Europe: for example, the so-called “Continental ciphers” and the “English pentadic notes”, which both referred to a counting system based on the number five, and both prove to be of some relevance to our present case.” (Cucina 2011: 115)

The three variants of pentadic notation (“Continental ciphers,” “English pentadic notes,” and “runic numerals”) were utilized within “Golden Year” calendars.

Karlheinz Schaldach, an expert in the field of ancient astronomy and sundials, remarked that the various forms of pentadic notation were used throughout Europe between the 14th and 17th centuries (Schaldach unk: 1).

Nils Lithberg (1883-1934), as related by Sam Owen Jansson (1906-1985), Jansson having finished Lithberg’s uncompleted work on runic calendars and their notations in 1953, remarked: “On the other hand Lithberg points out that the series of golden numbers on certain groups of Rune-staffs are so archaic in their arrangement that they must be modelled on calendars that were made in a time when the canonic series of golden numbers was not yet fully evolved, i. e. from the 9th to the 11th centuries. It is possible that the year of 364 days as we know it from Iceland and which the Lapps had borrowed from their Scandinavian neighbours has left traces in the arrangement of the golden numbers of certain Rune-staffs. Among these the boardlike ones of Dalecarlia are especially worth mentioning. These circumstances must be regarded as evidence of the remote age of the Runic Calendar.

Cucina, Carla. “Traces of Runic Lore in Italy: The Wooden Calendar 'Book' in Bologna and Its Medieval Connections.” Classiconorroena 29 (2011), pp. 95-181. Retrieved January 2019 http://www.tria.unina.it/index.php/Classnorr/article/view/716

Jansson, Sam Owen. “Runstavsproblem.” Retrieved January 2019
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=20&ved=2ahUKEwjGt4qapdnfAhUCTN8KHctHDf04ChAWMAl6BAgCEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.lub.lu.se%2Frig%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F8665%2F7802%2F&usg=AOvVaw2k28PbWwpaLk5UqWNopZzC

Schaldach, Karlheinz. “…und fünffa da das unter krumm Zahlen am Strich: eine vergessene Zahlenschreibweise.” Retrieved January 2019 https://www.academia.edu/4722164/_..._und_f%C3%BCnffa_da_das_unter_krumm_Zahlen_am_Strich_-_eine_vergessene_Zahlenschreibweise

David King, who has collaborated with Mr. Schaldach, pointed out the pentadic usage in this work (see pg. 322):
King, David A. The Ciphers of the Monks: A Forgotten Number-notation of the Middle Ages. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 2001. Partial extracts of King’s 2001 book are accessible on Google Books.

Patrick

4/2/2020 08:48:00 am

Dear Leif,
I would agree with you that the symbols at the beginning of Row 1 and 2 “could logically be interpreted as ‘13’ and ’14.’” This interpretation would then extend that the symbol represents a decimal notation.

Of course, there are alternate possibilities. The only one that I have found is that the meaning of the symbols are “unknown.” Perhaps, but the ‘13’ and ‘14’ interpretation is fairly easy to see (as you remark).

As for the 13 and 14 representing a year, Thalbitzer knew that this was problematic. You detailed the issues in your last reply…and they are all good critiques.

The idiot savant and William of Occam references, in addition to making me laugh, made clear that Dr. Nielsen’s effort to support the Year 1314 was really stretching things. I concede on that point.
-----------
What are your thoughts on the pentadic symbols within the LRR document? Does the last symbol represent zero, or ten?

Patrick

4/2/2020 09:04:44 am

Dear Leif,
One of your earlier replies was cut off at the end. You wrote:
"OLSEN MAKES MUCH OF THE TWO DOTS [emphasis mine], being of the opinion that the rune carver wanted in this way to characterize the"

I would be interested in the point you were going to make wrt this particular item.

Jim

4/2/2020 11:50:49 am

Patrick sez:

"We both acknowledge that pentadic notation was present in the 14th century. The notation was used in various countries throughout Europe and was known by several different names.

Carla Cucina, in her 2011 work “Traces of Runic Lore in Italy: The Wooden Calendar 'Book' in Bologna and Its Medieval Connections”, wrote: “Moreover, apart from Roman capitals and runes, other (epi)graphic systems were known and widely used both in Scandinavia and in Southern Europe: for example, the so-called “Continental ciphers” and the “English pentadic notes”, which both referred to a counting system based on the number five, and both prove to be of some relevance to our present case.” (Cucina 2011: 115) "

Sure Patrick, but you are up to your old tricks of giving incomplete cherry picked information to make something sound like it is supporting your position when it does not !

The “Continental ciphers” was:
"(dated after 1690), but later thought rather to be a wooden copy of a printed lunar calendar, possibly derived from a 16th century German psalm-book"

https://www.academia.edu/23765862/Traces_of_Runic_Lore_in_Italy_The_Wooden_Calendar_Book_in_Bologna_and_Its_Medieval_Connections_in_Classiconorroena_29_2011_pp._95-181

Can you actually find anything in Cucina's lecture that supports pentadic number usage a date as early as 1362 ?

And no, I haven't bothered to read all the lecture.
I have already wasted enough of my life in previous debates with you searching for and and reading obscure texts that you misrepresent and rarely provide a a link to.

Kent

4/2/2020 02:05:44 pm

I'm going to give a rare hat tip to Jim. Patrick, in addition to being longwinded, hasn't addressed the fact that the stuff he said about Thalbitzer's publication was simply wrong. TBE, To Be Expected.

Not looking at sources he provides turns out to be a good approach because he misrepresents them.

Leif

4/2/2020 06:42:56 pm

Dear Patrick,
Sorry, we’re going to have to bring this thread to an end. Spring has come here on the Oregon Coast, and, more to the point, we’ve gotten over the bug (not Corona) that has plagued us for the last five weeks. So we will be working outside, and on less pleasurable things like taxes.

--> To your query about the two dots, We were merely highlighting Thalbitzer’s references to dating the Kingittorsuaq runestone. For some reason, the comment got truncated.

--> Patrick: ‘I would agree with you that the symbols at the beginning of Row 1 and 2 “could logically be interpreted as ‘13’ and ’14.’” This interpretation would then extend that the symbol represents a decimal notation.’

In decimal notation, value is represented by position within a sequence of symbols: 142, 1420, 1042, and 1402 represent different values. Because the 13 and 14 on the Kingittorsuaq runestone do not appear in conjunction, a decimal notation is not possible.

____________________________
I’ll enjoy your references at leisure. But will respond with something different– why I’m fascinated with the KRS even though I believe it is a 19th century forgery.

The KRS is also an issue– like sports– where everyone can have his own opinion and– unlike politics– everyone should be expected to maintain a civil composure.

The KRS illuminates a time not long after settlement on the northern prairie, and points to a carver with an erudite sense of humor. There is mystery: who was the joker and why didn’t he ever fess up? How many Scandinavians in ‘Vesterheim’ were familiar with runes, and how did they know about them?

We admire eccentrics, those dedicate their lives to romantic, dubious, and wildly impractical notions. (For some reason this seems to be a Norwegian thing, which Ibsen explored in ‘Peer Gynt’.) Hjalmar Holand and Thor Heyerdahl certainly fit this mold. Helge Ingstad provides a rare case of a treasure hunter who found real treasure, but we might fairly credit Holand for promoting an interest in rune writing and medieval languages. And Heyerdahl’s big idea– that prehistoric man made lengthy overseas voyages– holds water better than most of the craft he sailed in.

This brings us to Scott Wolter, quoted in a Minnesota monthly article titled ‘Runestone cowboy’: ‘The Templar stuff, of course, is speculation. I think I’m right—I know I’m right—I just can’t prove it yet.’ No serious researcher would be naive enough to actually admit this, though what otherwise distinguishes a serious researcher may not be so clear.

We admire eccentrics, but hucksters less so. We might even find a charlatan enjoyable, but not one who lies for profit. How does one identify a huckster? We propose one method, which though not inclusive will suffice in this case.

In political discussion there is the ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’ fallacy. Basically, the first debater who mentions Hitler loses the argument, because it demonstrates he has run out of reasonable thought. By the same token, we propose the ‘Reductio ad Templarum’ fallacy. Our prime example, of course, is the subject of Mr. Colavito’s above review.

Kent

4/3/2020 02:43:49 am

I find the concept that "No serious researcher would be naive enough to actually admit" that they can't prove something baffling.

Jim

4/3/2020 09:45:55 am

Context is everything !

Leif never said: "that they can't prove something baffling."
You said that.

Leif said:

"I think I’m right—I know I’m right—I just can’t prove it yet.’ No serious researcher would be naive enough to actually admit this,"

Capisce ?

Kent

4/3/2020 03:44:06 pm

I never said that.

I find the concept that "No serious researcher would be naive enough to actually admit"

that they can't prove something

baffling.

I find it baffling.

Stay in your motherloving lane, won't you?

Leif

4/4/2020 08:52:50 pm

Dear Kent:
Rain, and perhaps some mysterious force of nature, brings me back to this page.

A serious researcher starts with evidence, not a predetermined conclusion. Wolter puts the cart before the horse.
________________
Previously I mentioned Jason Colavito’s 11/29/2017 blog: Swedish Scholar Finds New Evidence that the Kensington Runestone Uses 19th Century Runes

I can attest that Google translation for the article JC links to is fairly accurate– you’ll only miss one or two sentences, which are not critical. The article provides strong evidence that knowledge of the futhark (runic alphabet) used in the KRS was widespread (though perhaps not common) in 19th century Sweden.

And consider the following from Sprunger, David A. ‘Mystery and obsession: J. A. Holvik and the Kensington runestone’. Minnesota history, The Minnesota historical society , Fall 2000.
‘In 1899 J. P. Hedberg, a Kensington merchant, had first brought the Runestone to the general public’s attention by sending a copy of the inscription to a Swedish American newspaper in Minneapolis. That letter had been presumed lost, but in the fall of 1949 Holvik discovered the misplaced sketch in the archives of the Minnesota Historical Society. In comparing the actual inscription on the stone to the copy, Holvik noticed several discrepancies. It would not be unusual for someone copying an unfamiliar text to make mistakes, but some of these changes maintained the inscription’s grammatical and stylistic forms. Holvik thus concluded either that Hedberg understood runes better than he let on (although his cover letter had innocently suggested that they were Greek) or that the so-called copy was actually a rough draft the rune carvers had used.’

Holvik comes across as a fanatic and makes claims the evidence doesn’t support, but the kind of errors he identified are strong evidence the copyist understood the KSR– meaning someone in the vicinity of Kensington had the ability to forge the it.

And finally, consider the following:
The Dialect of the Kensington Stone. Staffan Fridell and Mats G. Larsson. In: Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies, ISSN 1892-0950, E-ISSN 2003-296X, Vol. 8, p. 163-166
http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1333700&dswid=2027

In this paper, the authors argue that the language of the KSR is consistent with a dialect spoken in rural Sweden in the 19th century. Based on this, they hazard a guess as to who the forger might be.

Taken as a whole, the lexical and grammatological evidence shows that 19th Swedish settlers in Minnesota had the knowledge to create the stone.

You aren't helping him

3/30/2020 07:20:01 pm

Wolter is a buffoon and behaves like one in the face of even polite, objective criticism or any attempt to drill down on the nonsense that he proposes. The comments section of his blog is ample proof of that. He is viewed as a fraud and a joke by the vast majority of professional scholars in the fields where he presumes to claim expertise. Lost in court in the infamous agate case and tried to spin a coffee mug into an honorary grad degree. A constant stream of amateurish stupidity on AU that can easily be picked apart. You just look as looney as he does when you try to claim some moral high ground here.

In the case of number 3 you acknowledged that you weren't paying attention to what he was doing. That doesn't really instill confidence in your defense of him now does it?

Jim

3/30/2020 07:57:51 pm

"Case 3: The purported Overton Stone trespass that Jim is fixated on. Yep, I was there with Scott. Yep, he picked up some samples of the stone from the ground that had naturally spalled off. He held his hand out and showed them to me. I believe that he mentioned that he had already obtained a small chip sample from the back side of the rock outcropping, as well. I wasn’t close attention - the area was filled with rock cobbles and vines and my son was having difficulty finding his footing…so I was focusing on Ben."

1 - Did you or did you not trespass on posted land without the owners permission ?

2 - Did Wolter without any permission whatsoever abscond with samples of the Overton stone which he believes to be of highly important historical value ?

Wolter:

"My goals for the investigation were to document the rock type which is a strongly foliated mica schist, obtain a rock sample from the back side of the boulder for laboratory analysis of the mineralogy to try,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Fortunately, I was successful in all getting everything I hoped to accomplish on this trip done"

http://scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com/2017/09/a-preliminary-investigation-into.html

Some tidbits of Nova Scotia Law , (page 13) :

No person shall carry out explorations or make excavations on any land in the Province, including land covered with water, for the purpose of seeking archaeological resources without a Heritage Research Permit (Archaeology)

No Person shall
(a) knowingly destroy, desecrate, deface or alter archaeological resources whether designated or not ;
(b)
excavate or otherwise alter an archaeological site or remove any objects from an archaeological site unless he is the holder of a Heritage Research Permit (Archaeology). R.S., c. 438, s.
12
A permit issued under this Act does not authorize the permit holder to enter upon lands or remove heritage objects therefrom without the consent of the owner or person entitled to grant consent. R.S., c. 438, s. 9.(a)

https://cch.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/inline/documents/archaeologicalreconnaissancea.pdf

Patrick:
"In general, 99% of what Jim and Kent comment on wrt Wolter on this blog is invention, speculation, or misinformation."

This is BS and you Know it, 100% of what I said is accurate.
You can make light of it, but it is true and you know it.

Patrick

3/31/2020 02:29:29 pm

William asks:
“Were you with eagan and the other 4 people at the Newport Tower when a local person ask why the group was damaging the marks on a stone he had photos of that had he felt had man made marks and the group was changing the surface marks before making a foil copy of the finish.”

Your story, William. Another example of a CTRMGWS. We all know this because you have told a similar story for the last 5+ years on FB, and probably on this blog, about your favorite Templar researcher. The only variation in this particular re-telling is your feigned question of whether I was involved. You aren’t tolling me, Polly, you’re actually trolling the commenters on the blog as to whether they can remember the oft-written previous version of your story.

William Smith

3/31/2020 03:32:25 pm

Patrick - I suggest you take closer look at your files on me in order to make your point in order to get the names, story and dates to match. Polly in 2008 was NEARA presadent of NEARA N.Y. Chapter. She was with myself and Patrica Wilson (Certified Architect in N.Y. we were allowed to work at the tower by Jan Barstad as long as she was at the site and we stayed in the guide lines of her permit and letter of intent to perform archaeology for the Newport Historical Society. We measured well over 100 measurements at the tower of which were more in confirmation of prior researchers work. The critical search was to establish the standard unit of measure as 37.25 in/English Yard. which 3 prior engineers had established. This measure was the standard ELL used in Portugal, Denmark and Scotland. The second establishment was to confirm the height of the floor on the second level. This was established by measuring from the ground base of each column to the top of each column beam pocket and adding 2 in. for the floor its self. This also determined the north south floor beam was lower than three beams that went east west. Unlike Jim Eagans work of beam construction. I am sure you are familiar with the builders triangle mark at the top of the tower 17 degrees west of true north that dates the tower to the late 1400s and confirmed with Jan Barstad's 3 carbon dates from her 2008 dig. You are correct in that many on this site have had many negative comments about my research, however in most cases they never accused me as a troll. The local person that you are classifying as a Templar researcher, I will not name, however If you wish to know ask Jim Eagan. For your TROLLING ears the sun light does not go through the wooden floor to light up the wooden floor. Have Egan put a floor in the tower and take another photo. Their were no Templars in the tower from the UK, The Templars were gone in 1308, The builders of the tower were from Portugal and Denmark. Tell your team captain a hooked X has been found in Cajon Pass, San Bernardino Ca. The hook is on the bottom of the Right compass leg to show true north was east and the magnetic north was west on the dial making it negative or declination E. Just like the Newport Tower it dates to 1472 built to smoke cod fish.

Kent

3/31/2020 06:08:26 pm

This is wonderful. It reminds me of my friend's red-faced parents shouting at each other over Budweisers at a cheap kitchen table. Ah, memories!

Now we've got east is west and west is east and north is down and south is over there.

"true north was east"
Don't know what planet that works on but it doesn't work here.

"and the magnetic north was west"
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "No".

And cod-fishing off San Berdoo! Will wonders never cease?

To sum up

KRS: fake. (Wolter saying it's real is sufficient proof for any rational person.)
Newport Tower: built by British colonists. Not a church, not a smokehouse, not a "defensive tower".

Captain Hindgrinder

4/1/2020 12:59:45 pm

Portugese and Danish people sailed around the world to deep trawl for cod off of California in 1472?

Jim

4/1/2020 03:19:03 pm

Ya, that was right after the Templars completed the Panama canal so they could sail their Viking ships up to the desert near Sedona Arizona.

William Smith

3/31/2020 08:09:15 pm

Kent - Thanks for your notes and response. The only part that is not clear is your sum up. Yes true north was east on early Portuguese maps.
The east and west is the point at the end of the compass needle as it relates to true north. left of zero is west and right of zero is east.
The large black stone above the south window in the Newport Tower was the compass that made the needle that allowed the builder to locate the triangle builders mark 17 degrees west of true north to match the magnetic declination in 1472.
The magnetic north points in the true north on 4 isometric pole lines on the earth. In 1472 the KRS was on this line and the Newport Tower was on the 17 degree W compass reading which is 1110 east of the KRS pole line. Be sure and not use me in any of Wolter's bull shit coming out of Patricks mouth.

Kent

3/31/2020 11:56:12 pm

I knew this moment would come.

William:

A large stone in a building is NOT a compass.

You've gone on and on and on and on about declination before and it's tiresome and you fail to understand that you need people on the ground at the time to document it. You have no idea what the declination was in 1362 in Minnesota.

Under the new standards I really have to restrain myself, but I find your use of the word "shit" offensive.

William Smith

4/1/2020 04:30:51 pm

Kent and all - I will attempt to address the feedback from you experts without using profanity.
The Drake expedition for England in the early 1500s was the first to sail north on the west era coast of the USA. He was not cod fishing , he was looking for a water rout to China. He was well aware of the use of the compass and magnetic declination to establish an estimate of longitude. The rock carving in California looks like a measurement of declination of 4 degrees E.
The magnetic Declination at the Newport Tower is marked by the builder by two stones at the top of the tower. One is white located on a true north south line and one is black located 17 degrees west of the true north mark. On the compass dial the needle would point to the west 17 degrees which would be in the negative direction.
The black stone in the upper south window sill was the builders aid in alignment of his signature mark. One of two problems exist, you are to dumb to read my post or I am to dumb to make them clear for you to read.
Last I will explain how you date the tower or the KRS by mag. Dec.
The tower has a mark at the top that has with stood all the years of powder explosions and other claims you wish to make that did not change its position or color. It is a small triangle stone pointing up and dark in color. The dark stone is west of a white triangle stone that marks true north. They are 17 degrees apart.
Kent stated their was no way I could determine the magnetic declination so I will tell you 3 ways any researcher could measure the 17 degrees.
1- Make a 360 degree movie of the tower with a hand held camera by walking around taking 66 photos and transfer these into a computer program that produces a finished product that can show all details of radial location because it has a built in compass.
1- Use a simple transit that when set at a vertical 45 degree angle and is located a distance north of the two marks by the same height as the object, just read the distance in degrees from the whit to the black stone. It will read 17 degrees.
3- Make a compass with a non magnetic needle like the needle found at the tower in 1948 by Godfrey dig and place it on the lower south window sill center below the black magnetic rock at the top of the window upper sill and mark a location at the top of the tower that agrees with your compass reading, then place your builders mark exactly between your measured mark and the small true north white stone in order to make the center of the tower the compass needle pivot point. Before you leave compare your lines of interest to the markings in stone on the top of the bottom window sill.
To make a statement that magnetic declination of the tower can not determine it's age is false. Magnatie (miss-spelled on purpose) Natural stones establish their magnetism at their original location site. This is why you must use magnetite from the local site to be measured in your compass in that the lodestone compass has a non-magnetic needle. Compasses today have a magnetic needle that has to be set to the declination setting of your final destination.

Kent

4/1/2020 07:53:39 pm

You want to cover this ground again? Okay.

A large stone in a building is NOT a compass.

You've gone on and on and on and on about declination before and it's tiresome and you fail to understand that you need people on the ground at the time to document it. You have no idea what the declination was in 1362 in Minnesota, or 1372 in Rhode Island.

It sounds very much like you don't understand how compasses in particular and magnetism in general work.

"[H]e was looking for a water rout to China."

Uh, yeah, well, the thing is, NO. The water route to China had been known for centuries and Drake never went to China.

Kent

4/1/2020 09:18:33 pm

"This is why you must use magnetite from the local site to be measured in your compass in that the lodestone compass has a non-magnetic needle."

So in order to use a compass you have to navigate your way to the location at which you want to use the compass so you can collect local stone out of which to make a compass. And that compass will not be usable in any other location. Do you see how that defeats the purpose of a compass?

Paul

4/1/2020 06:47:29 pm

To reiterate what Kent said, a magnetic rock permanently fixed in a building does not a compass make. Also, where are you getting your information relating to lines of declination for the 14th century? NOAA has a model going back to the 1590’s that shows the magnetic lines of declination changing from east-west to north-south over the eastern United States from 1590’s to current. Was not a mere shift of a few degrees but about a 90 degree shift. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Where are other references for magnetic declination for the years to which you refer?

Jim

4/1/2020 08:18:12 pm

Paul, this stuff has been covered over and over and over with William, he refuses to listen to reason. (just so you know what you are getting into)

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/swedish-scholar-finds-new-evidence-that-the-kensington-runestone-uses-19th-century-runes

https://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/calcite-weathering-and-the-age-of-the-kensington-rune-stone-inscription-lightning-post

Kent

4/3/2020 04:07:15 pm

"the latter" of three things? Moving on...

Answer me these questions three, Mr. Smith:

How does magnetite which may or may not be magnetized make a non-magnetic needle point in a specific direction?

You're simply typytypytyping a long demonstration of the fact that you don't understand compasses in particular or magnetism in general.

"magnetite(sp-miss on purpose)" You even fail to misspell "magnetite" on purpose. Not sure what your intention is there but based on the evidence I don't care.

Whitespace whitespace whitespace. Learn it, know it, live it.

Jim

4/3/2020 05:25:58 pm

"How does magnetite which may or may not be magnetized make a non-magnetic needle point in a specific direction?"

Madre de Dios, brace yourselves for a long winded explanation of the "lodestone compass".

William Smith

4/3/2020 10:11:25 am

Kent - Their are three types of people on this site, The type that listen before they talk, and the type that talk before they listen, and last the type that thinks they listen but talks without understanding the message. When all done all will make judge on the message. On this blog most agree that SW is person who is the latter. About 80% of all discussions relate to S.W. in a neg. or pos.posture.
I attempt to listen to all who can support their findings. I also judge the credibility of the presenter and give credit where due. SW is not my pick as a good credible person because of his fabrication of stories without facts.
Kent , Patrick, Harold and Jim as well as others in this conversation fall into one of the three categories.
Magnetic declination in 1472 could only be determined by collecting magnetite(sp-miss on purpose) from the local area at that date when the reading was observed. The intent to collect this was to place markers on land by drilling holes in local rocks to use the magnetic material for reading that location on the earth at that time and could be converted to longitude position on a latitude line.
Local magnatite will rotate a nonmagnetic needle to the magnetic north at the time and date measured.
The local black stone above the south window will rotate a nonmagnetic needle ( like the one found in the 1948 Godfrey dig) to magnetic north of 14 degrees W or todays reading at that location. By using a magnetic declination calculator and entering the Latitude and longitude and date of 2020 you will get the actual dec. reading of today. If you stay with the same latitude and move east until you get a reading of 17 degrees you will find it is about 600 miles east in the Atlantic. This distance does not provide a date until you check all the dates from today back to 1590 or limits of the calculator, by recording all the readings you will see gains and losses which can be converted to (rate of change over time) It is like going back one foot and then going forward. This will determine a date of 1472 and match the 3 carbon dates made by mortar study in the 2008 Archaeology by Jan Barstad.
The KRS can be measured by the same elements of the process by measuring its current location (which has evidence of triangle holes for magnetite collection in the local area for placement of the stone) which will date to 1472.
The date on the KRS is carved as 1362, however the detail marks of the 3 & 6 are modified from his per-scribe marks for carving. The 3 has a forth horizontal scribed line that was not cut which would make it a four. The rune 6 was a 7 before the scribe mark was removed as indicated by the surface chip void below the location of the first line below the P. The change in date does not agree with Wolter's BS or the 1898 date the forgers use.
It does agree with the mechanical wear line indicating the stone stood upright for at least 250 years before it fell on its face by natural exposure to a man made standing stone. It also agrees with the author who carved it and the Kings of Denmark and Portugal who sponsored the expeditions of 1362 and 1472.
Most of the listeners before talking have read this data in an ongoing research report of 2018 published on this site and copyrighted in order to protect the trolls from giving information to the likes of SW and buddies.
We will be updating our ( THOR) work soon to provide the carvers name and other rune stones under current study.
Just as I take serious comments from Jim and Harold, I take the other and all comments as a gain in research. If you have proof of any of my comments on this site I would appreciate your input otherwise keep your attack on the messenger to yourself and understand the message. I have been 42 years studying these sites and have heard and listened to all categories of research, If you want to address me like Wolter does thats ok because my motivation is the proof of find.

Paul

4/3/2020 12:03:03 pm

Magnetite takes on the magnetic field of its environment when it is formed, not when it is collected.
Where did you dream up extra scribe lines on the KRS numbers?
Why the hell would anyone pack holes in rock with magnetite to determine magnetic declination? That is just plain stupid.
Where is the peer reviewed documentation for Jan Barstad?
Thanks for the laugh. You make my head hurt.

Paul

4/3/2020 12:53:30 pm

Paul, Jan Barstad ia a botanist and leader of the Chronognostic Research Society, who somehow talked the city of Newport into allowing her to do archeological digs etc. at the Newport tower.
Most of the Chronognostic Research Society's web content (junk) has dissappeared from the internet it would seem. It never was credible.

Barstad hired (for 1 dig) pro archeologists whose results confirmed a Colonial date.
Barstad wanted the results to show an older pre-Columbus date so she buried the report and stiffed the archeologists of their fees.

Nothing from Jan Barstad and the Chronognostic Research Society has any credibility.

William Smith

4/4/2020 12:44:49 am

Paul - You seem to express your wisdom about magnetite and the Barstad research. You could be wrong, Magnetite has the magnetic declination where and when it was found. In nature the declination will change. The magnetic stones in the Newport Tower will read about 14 degrees west today just like a compass made from the same local magnetite, however a compass from England that reads about 2 degrees west with local magnetite will be 12 degrees off if you maintained the same latitude. Columbus was 940 miles south of his latitude when he hit land because he did not understand his compass at home in Spain needed to be adjusted to his destination declination. If you are flying a plane or in a boat and head east for Newport by a compass you must set your heading 14 deg. W of true north.
A piece of magnaitite hung on a string will point the same magnetic north as a standard compass or a stone filled with magnate. I have all set up which point in the same magnetic north direction as the declination is at my home.
A compass needle without the magnetic point will just be a free floating needle. If you hang a nonmagnetic needle above a magnetic stone it will point to the magnetic north produced in the stone. The magnetic field in the stone will always point to the magnetic field at its location.
During the age of discovery the ship clock was not available to provide the time of day, however the sun at mid day is always the same time to use its shadow to locate true north on the compass dial. By keeping the true north aligned with the sun shadow at its shortest length. in a compass with the stone holding magnetite the compass needle will read on the dial the declination at your location. This will change each day, however if you had set your compass to 14 degrees declination W. and you maintained a latitude of 41 degrees you would end up in Newport. If you wanted to confirm a specific declination line at a common latitude you would use magnetite from your location destination. In the age of discovery these lines were called pole lines.
Jan Barstad worked two years at Newport, The first was to measure the tower, the second was to work outside the tower because the exterior area where she predicted post holes would exist that supported the atrium built around the tower. In her second year she found the post holes at 3 Ells from the radial off of each column. At the bottom of the south east she found a magnetic stone that had burn marks like it was fired and worked by man. This stone was test at an Arizona university and if I recall it was 24% magnetite and local to the Newport area. Her report as well as her late carbon dates of mortar indicated late 1400. If you go to the web site and see her detail report please tell me where you find she is not qualified and destroyed her material which is still open to the public today. I will say she did not have the power of Scott Wolter because he has a key and when she was their very few were allowed to work inside the tower, however sh let myself, Polly Midgley and Patricia Wilson work long enough to obtain about 100 measurements and photos inside the tower. If you can not point to the facts that contradict her work you should retract your deformation statements. She is way above the Scott Wolter Templar theory.

William Smith

4/4/2020 01:08:45 am

YOU- Magnetite takes on the magnetic field of its environment when it is formed, not when it is collected.

Me- wrong - its field is when it was formed, its declination changes over time as its field moves east.

You -Where did you dream up extra scribe lines on the KRS numbers?

Me - The number 3 has a scribed tool tracing below the third horizontal bar which makes it a 4 if the carver completed his tracing, however he chose to leave it a 3, the P with one bar was modified by removing the upper tracing area where the upper bar was intended and he used the single lower bar to change the 7 to a six. Just look at the 6 and compare it to other 6 carvings . or look at it with a 3 D camera and see the small area where the chip removes the shallow scrub line.

You - Why the hell would anyone pack holes in rock with magnetite to determine magnetic declination? That is just plain stupid.

Me - To read magnetic declination on a common gage with true north and record this location so they could find it again just like you do with a modern day way point on a fish finder.

You - Where is the peer reviewed documentation for Jan Barstad

Me - She is not a publisher and her finds are in her report to the people that hired her expertise. They paid her for her service I am sure.

You - Thanks for the laugh. You make my head hurt.

Me - Take an aspirin

Jim

4/3/2020 12:54:16 pm

OOPs, the above post is mine.

Kent

4/3/2020 07:02:51 pm

Have you looked into the Alias Manager app? Joshing of course, you provide a valuable service looking things up in the dictionary or Wikipedia five or six hours later. It's almost ... baffling.

Kent

4/3/2020 10:19:20 pm

For the record that was meant as good natured banter, not an attack. Give it time.

William Smith

4/3/2020 08:41:00 pm

The Jan Barstad site is active and has a lot of data from her two digs at the Newport Tower -http://www.chronognostic.org/daily_logs.php?id
Magnetite - Will always read magnetic north at the location where nature deposited in is true. It will change readings of declination when over time the iron molten core of the earth moves east. This movement is slow and changes at different latitudes because the line is isometric and will actually go west instead of east at times.
When you are given the latitude and longitude of any specific location like The Newport Tower or the KRS. and at that location you were given the declination at the time of construction you can confirm the construction date and location by using the current magnetic declination by entering the location and current declination then adjust the date. If your age is older than 1590 you have to locate the declination degree by using google earth on a latitude line that locates the degree of declination you are looking for. This takes many readings and two computers to speed up the search. When you find the declination the same as the identified location it is a point on that latitude that existed when that line was under the subject being dated. If your date is prior to 1590 you will mark your 2020 and 1590 at the two locations on that line. When you have the 2020 point and the 1590 point on the line you determine the rate of declination by using time and distance between your known points and use distance to the subject and rate established between the known points to estimate the time and distance from a common rate on the same line.
rock containing magnetite will point a non magnetic needle to magnetic north at that location. A rock from that rock will change magnetic declination as you move to another location in which it will read the new location current declination. If this rock is turned into the north point on a needle it will do the same.
The only way to read declination at an unknown site is to find true north by the light or shadow of the mid-day sun. If you set your compass north O reading in a true north direction you're east or west declination will be read from zero to the compass needle.
A non magnetic needle held under the magnetite stone in the south window will point today to 28 degrees on the north tower top. In that the south window is on the south wall and not in the center you divide the 28 degrees by 2 to simulate the center of the tower and locate the black triangle builders and date mark at the top of the tower. The change in declination is 3 degrees which can happen in some cases in just a few years, however to match the 17 degrees will take many years.
You can put local powder magnetite into a holding stone like The Mystery Stone of New Hampshire and mount it below a north south sun dial with a fixed scale on the compass toward true north at zero and read the nonmagnetic needle in the compass at magnetic declination reading of that site.

Kent

4/3/2020 10:36:04 pm

Oh William,

How does magnetite which may or may not be magnetized make a non-magnetic needle point in a specific direction?

You're simply repeatedly typytypytyping over and over a long demonstration of the fact that you don't understand compasses in particular or magnetism in general.

"magnetite(sp-miss on purpose)" You even fail to misspell "magnetite" on purpose. Not sure what your intention is there but based on the evidence I don't care.

Whitespace whitespace whitespace. Learn it, know it, live it.

You mention 42 years. That is also Anthony Warren's magic "reading 2 to 5 books a day, every day" number. Joe Scales has never mentioned that so I believe the three of you are in league and probably the same person.

"A non magnetic needle"? What the actual eff William Smith? That's just the sort on non-magnetic racist nonsense that brought slavery to North America.

Paul

4/4/2020 10:53:46 am

Rocks do not change magnetic properties as magnetic declination changes. Why do you think labs use sophisticated and expensive devices to study these properties? And you claim that you can do the same with a needle? Yeah, right. Also, why would anyone want to lug around a ten pound piece of crap when they could float a magnetized needle and get the same result? And whatever you may believe, there are no reliable c14 samples that place the nt older than the 17th century. As for the KRS, you may want to get better glasses, you seem to be the only one seeing extra scribe lines. You do not have to bother replying, I am done on this thread.

Paul

4/3/2020 11:33:48 pm

Unfortunately there is not any carbon dating information on the website that you cite.
Declination change over time is not a linear function so your method is baloney.
As for anything else you say, much the same.

William Smith

4/4/2020 11:59:56 am

ALL - The following may be of interest to address my claims from 42 years of research and findings to date by a group of team researchers called THOR (the hunters of Ohio rock). I admit I use this site as a form of peer review because of Jasons ability to sort fact from BS.
Magnatite - Natural form in rock displays local declination. this changes as the isometric line moves toward the east, however its movement can be erratic because of the position of the curve slope position relating to the site location.
Magnetite - stone removed from its natural location will produce an external field that will always indicate the magnetic north of the new location.
Magnetic powder - Can be obtained by drilling into a stone that contains iron (relish or dark in color and can be identified if a standard compass is held next to it to show if it has magnetite before drilling). This powder is separated from the non-magnetic material by attracting to the non-magnetic drill or chisel making the powder a stronger magnet by increasing the % of magnetite in the sample. Before electronic magnets were produced the powder was a material that activated the non-magnetic needle in the lodestone compass (A lodestone can be viewed at the museum in N.H. Called The Mystery Stone N.H., also a natural Lodestone can be viewed in a small museum in Bermuda which was donated by Sir Admiral Summers in 1608) The THOR team has made copies and tested all of these items for accuracy.
Magnetite in todays compass - It is located at the tip of the needle and a manufactured replacement for the actual magnetite, however it also produces a field that will turn a non-magnetic needle if the non-magnetic need is held in the field above the standard compass. The magnetic stone in the south window of the Newport Tower will only show magnetic north by holding non-magnetic needle on a string directly below the stone which will point to 14 degrees west.
In 1472 the non-magnetic needle was positioned above the and in the field of the Mystery stone of N.H. (The double size hole in the Mystery stone allowed a iron rod the size of the small hole to pull through the stone and deposit the powder in the large hole area, called loading the stone) The outside of the stone is a pictorial explanation of the carvers findings on his voyage to and from the KRS.
C Carbon dating of the Newport Tower - Yes Jan Barstad has closed her site however the small red letters will open the Newport Tower two years of research and provide links needed to review the 1993 dating by Jorgen Siemansen, which can be also found on page 29 of Jim Eagans English B>S> story . http://www.newporttowermuseum.com/resources/1-The-History-of-the-John-Dee-Tower.pdf
I know for the most part people on this site are trolls, however I am not concerned with information I post because in most cases it is classified as BS. It does sort in many cases fact from fiction and provide the true researchers a link in their work. I will close by directing the interested researchers to my email (wmsmithrock@yahoo.com)
To see if you are interested in our current work. and some past confirmations which will be made public on this site just show your ID when you post that proves your motive. The one rule is we learn from all, and do not judge their theories. A few examples of our work.
1- we (THOR) has translated the only rune stone in America called The Kansas City Slater Rune Stone that is on file with the state of Mo. as a early industrial site dating 1888 or after.
2- The Heavener, Oklahoma large of three area stones has been translated to read (GNOMONDIAL) in English a mid day sun dial.
Soil core samples at the site are not accurate enough to support the 1472 date different than the 1362, however the declination drift does support the declination isometric line 65 miles west of the KRS stone where another cluster of triangle stone holes (mooring stones) named by Steve Hilgren.
3- It will take to much time to identify all of our past and ongoing work, however I will leave you with a couple tools you can use to identify parts of the 5W's of your interest in the true history of the Americas.
The carver of the KRS in 1472 was John Scolvus.
( 9) rune stones he carved in the new world are being translated by the THOR team of which are bread crumbs showing many new sites and camps where he and crew visited. All of which have the stone hole for gathering magnetite for recording the declination to place on a map in order to make a land claim or set your compass to in order to return. When John went to the KRS site he found it did not agree with the 1362 location because the declination had drifted 65 miles east. His original date on the KRS was to be 1472, however between his tracing and finish he changed the land claim to the earlier date. The two kings that supported the building of the tower and placement of the Vinland markers had mothers that were sisters and were privy to the Pal Knutson 1362 search for the

Jim

4/4/2020 06:13:10 pm

"Magnatite - Natural form in rock displays local declination.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"

NO !!!! NO,,,, MOST MAGNETITE IS NOT MAGNETIC !!!!!!!

"Magnetite - stone removed from its natural location will produce an external field that will always indicate the magnetic north of the new location."

NO !!!! NO,,,, MOST MAGNETITE IS NOT MAGNETIC !!!!!!!

"Magnetic powder - Can be obtained by drilling into a stone,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, powder a stronger magnet by increasing the % of magnetite in the sample. Before electronic magnets ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

NO !!!! NO,,,, MOST MAGNETITE IS NOT MAGNETIC !!!!!!!

"Magnetite in todays compass - It is located at the tip of the needle and a manufactured replacement for the actual magnetite, however it also produces a field that will turn a non-magnetic needle if the non-magnetic need is held in the field above the standard compass."

NO !!!! NO,,,, MOST MAGNETITE IS NOT MAGNETIC !!!!!!!

"The magnetic stone in the south window of the Newport Tower will only show magnetic north by holding non-magnetic needle on a string directly below the stone which will point to 14 degrees,,,,,,,,,,

NO, NO, NO !!!!!!!!!

All the rest,,,,

NO, NO, NO !!!

Kent

4/4/2020 08:20:20 pm

I think the word you're looking for is "magnetized" as in

"Most magnetite is not magnetized."

Jim

4/4/2020 11:53:58 am

Jan Barstad is a prime example of why archaeological digs should be left to the professionals.
She screwed up the her data and conclusions so bad, choosing to erroneously force her preconceived pre-Columbian pseudo history into biased conclusions that Wolter, Patrick, William and a host of other pseudos try to use this obvious crap to claim proof of a pre-Columbian construction of the Tower and a nonsensical Templar chancel and/or ambulatory.

Jan Barstad's "postholes":

Her amateur dig (which she didn't even show up for) found, upon excavation, two roundish patches of soil that were a different hue or color than the surrounding material.
That's it, that is all we know !
Barstad apparently had this soil tested to prove they were the remains of posts.
Much like the report and results of the pro archaeologists were buried because they didn't agree with Barstad"s preconceived conclusion, it has been what ? 12 years, since she had this soil tested, where are the results ?
Why did they not see the light of day ? Well we know why.

This is why it should be left to the pros. This data, given to actual archaeologists and scientists may contain real info that could help to uncover real history. Instead it is seemingly intentionally disappeared because it does not support pseudo history.
This is horrible, almost criminal and should never have happened.

Her apples to oranges comparison that supposedly supports this is a comparison of the stained soil (which is claimed to be caused by the posts decaying) to a real dig where the archaeologists found different coloration on the surface which located a fort's pole palisade.
The different coloration the archaeologists found was caused by the builders of the fort digging a trench to insert the palisades poles in, it was not made by wood decaying but rather simply from excavating the existing soil.

If you William are buddies with Barstad you should implore her to release the testing data to real archaeologists or the City of Newport, so that real science can happen.

http://www.chronognostic.org/daily_logs.php?id=6

". *It should be noted that the posts were no longer wooden posts as such but stains?strong discolorations?remaining after the wood had rotted away in the wet, acid soil; the same sort of discoloration has been found at other archaeological sites such as Jamestown, Virginia, where a double line of 4-inch-round discolorations indicated to the archaeologists that a stockade had been placed in a very particular orientation."

NOT !

https://historicjamestowne.org/archaeology/map-of-discoveries/palisades/

William Smith

4/4/2020 09:26:19 pm

Jim - I guess the THOR group has been going the wrong way which I will advise them by posting your expertise advanced knowledge. And to think all the academics are wrong. I guess the sun comes up in the south and sets in the north on all our early Portuguese maps.https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&channel=mac_bm&sxsrf=ALeKk00uPlPjzPtcw40LK-_DdUo0CufwDQ%3A1586049297895&source=hp&ei=ETGJXvGHNILHtQbtk4aQBg&q=is+magnatite+magnetic&oq=is+magnatite+magnetic&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIECAAQDTIGCAAQFhAeMgUIABDNAjIFCAAQzQI6BQgAEIMBOgIIADoECCMQJzoFCAAQkQI6BAgAEEM6BAgAEAo6CAgAEAgQDRAeSjMIFxIvMGcxMDlnMTQ2ZzE3NmcxNDNnMTEzZzk1Zzk5ZzEwMWcxMDhnMTEzZzExMGcxMDZKHQgYEhkwZzFnMWcxZzFnMWcxZzFnMWcxZzVnNWczUKYhWI9qYKV_aAFwAHgAgAGnAYgBtxKSAQUxMC4xMpgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwix1PqHjtDoAhWCY80KHe2JAWIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5

Paul

4/5/2020 12:11:43 am

William, curious about something. Your book came out a few years ago. Barry Fell is listed as one of the authors. Barry Fell died in, what, 1994? Did you channel Mr. Fell? Are you paying Mr. Fell’s spirit royalties? Inquiring minds would like to know.

William Smith

4/5/2020 09:13:25 am

Paul - My paper came out 2 years ago as a ongoing research to give credit to those in the THOR (The Hunters of Ohio Rock) credit protection for their input to the group. I thank you for reading the paper which I posted some time back.
The late Barry Fell passed in 1986, he was a THOR member in 1977 as a supporter. The three pages are in the paper showing some of our correspondence long before the web. He is the one that indicated the Ohio Rock was a sun dial. You will see his word GNOMON on the dial drawing. This is the key word that allowed the THOR group to identify what the carver of the Heavener Oklahoma translation rune stone translated to. GNOMONDIAL or in English a mid day sun dial. Mr Fell sent me a lot of material in the 5 years after the finding of the stone. We broke contact because my company sent me to Canton Ohio. Mr Fell and I did not agree on all issues about the Ohio Rock, however we never used personal attacks like many on this site. If Berry Fell was hear today he would be amazed at the legend he left for others to follow. I was a member of the Ohio Epographic Society centered in Columbus for years after Fell passed because his work was the foundation of that research group.
I could have gave you a simple answer as 1986 death, yes we channeled for5 years, YES I am paying royalties to Mr Fell by taking on you critics like he would. I do not know who is the worst when researching for the facts Scott Wolter or his attackers on this site. (even a blind hog will find an acorn now and then).
Like Fell told me in his last letter that is not in the paper. (Follow your wisdom and stay the corse). I will close with my response. I have followed the corse and the end of the tunnel is in sight. The magnetic declination of the Newport Tower of 17 degrees has been confirmed by the hard ongoing work of the THOR team. It is recorded on the Narangansent rune stone and translated to read the 7 and 2 runes as follows (Longitude Declination is 15 plus 1 &1 , second lineDeclenation west longitude. in English 17 degrees west of true north.

Jim

4/5/2020 11:44:34 am

Barry Fell was a professor of invertebrate zoology.

A friend says Barry Fell is full of crap, and he should know as he grows the biggest potatoes I have ever seen.

Case closed.

Paul

4/5/2020 09:59:42 am

Interesting that you channeled Fell for 5 years, three years before his death. You sir, present nonsensical musings and expect rational people to believe by your assertions. I do believe your blind pig quote are your personal words to live by, the only problem is that once you find an acorn, you don’t know that it is real, much less what to do with it. By the way, you did a nice job of fabricating a hollowed out rock.

William Smith

4/5/2020 11:38:03 am

Paul - You are correct about the death date of Barry Fell, My last contact with him was when my work was transferred, in 1982 which is the 5 years (1977 to 1982),
Your comment prior to name calling was appreciated, Your character assignation after your comment is proof you are not worthy of future comments.
Thanks for the date correction. Your accusation that I carved the Ohio Rock is deformation of character and I will refuse to respond to your stupidity.

Archie Bunker

4/5/2020 12:33:18 pm

" Your accusation that I carved the Ohio Rock is deformation of character and I will refuse to respond to your stupidity."

Paul

4/5/2020 02:22:35 pm

What do you really have? The answer is nothing besides a few artifacts without any certain provenance. No specific writings or documentation that actually attest to their origin. No credible, verifiable supporting artifacts. No oral stories other than the ones made up. Wolter, you and the rest, just fabricated stories that don’t even mesh. All the names you mention are not even credible sources, even your beloved Barry Fell. Even wonder about your co-author who is/was a high school science teacher but who can not seem to explain simple magnetic theory to you. Often times pure fiction is even used as a reference source. I do believe in the freedom of expression and not in book burning, but much of this pseudo writing should not be given the time of day. It should be kept out of the hands of students except as an example how NOT to reason. You know why you can only interest uncritical people who had no interest in history in school is because actual, real science and history types do not have a New York second for your sort of tripe.

Doc Rock

4/6/2020 04:04:33 pm

The issue of unprovenienced artifacts is a major quandry even when professionals are trying to deal with these materials.But when it comes to amateurs saying that "Somebody found this Roman coin two counties over" or "Some guy says that his grandpappy found this medieval broadsword somewhere up north of here in the summer of 58" it generally just turns into silliness when they are trying to push a fringe agenda.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.