Scott Wolter Releases "Peer-Reviewed" Masonic Article Claiming Rune Stone Contains Secret Masonic Code

7/3/2016

I appeared yesterday on the Free Thought Prophet podcast to discuss the ancient astronaut theory. I assumed I would just post the podcast and have that as my holiday weekend blog post. Then Scott Wolter started another dumpster fire with his newest claims. So, let me first post my podcast appearance, and then we can discuss Wolter’s newest Masonic malpractice.

Scott Wolter still hasn’t learned much about self-marketing. Studies have found that information posted online at the beginning of the week receives more hits that information posted at the tail end. Saturdays are the worst. Saturdays on a holiday weekend are about as low as you can go. Naturally, Wolter chose last night, a Saturday before the July 4 holiday, to release his latest opus, an article he wrote for a Masonic magazine about a secret code he claims to have found within the Kensington Rune Stone.

The new code is pretty much exactly what I imagined it would be when Wolter hinted at it in public appearances and when I read a discussion of it in a review of a speech that he gave to a Masonic organization. And he is still just as clueless as always.

The gist of the argument is that the numbers used in the Kensington Rune Stone’s (KRS) inscription, putatively carved in 1362, are actually references to the Cryptic Degrees of York Rite Masonry. To understand this, we must first review the inscription’s text:

8 Götalanders and 22 Northmen on an exploring (or acquisition) expedition from Vinland west. We camped by 2 skerries one day’s journey north from this stone. We were a-fishing one day; after we came home we found 10 men red with blood and dead. A.V.M. (= Ave Maria) Save from evil.

(There) are 10 men by the sea (or lake) to look after our ships 14 days’ journey from this island (or peninsula). Year 1362. (adapted from trans. George T. Flom)

Thus, Wolter believes that the “8 Götalanders and 22 Northmen” who had two boats in the KRS inscription refer to the numbers from this sentence in the ritual recited during the Cryptic Degrees: “There were employed on the other eight Arches, twenty-two men from Gebal, a city of Phoenicia, together with Ahishar and Adoniram, all of whom were well skilled in the arts and sciences generally, but particularly in sculpture.” Eight arches = 8 Götalanders, 22 men from Gebal = 22 Northmen, and the two sculptors = two boats.

As I mentioned in the past, even if we give Wolter the benefit of the doubt that the numbers do reflect Masonic rites, this is much stronger evidence that the stone was faked by Freemasons than it is support for the idea that proto-Masons had secretly developed Masonic allegories 300 or more years before the founding of Masonry and traveled to America to carve them on a stone in a secret code that they buried so that it would never be seen. Wolter’s only argument against this is his own geological examination of the KRS, which he used to conclude that it was medieval. To date, very few outside the fringe support his dating.

But since I’ve covered this before, I’d like to focus on the interpretive material Wolter included at the end of his numerological discourse.

Wolter now believes that that KRS cannot be read literally and the inscription must be viewed symbolically. But if it is not literal, then why does the supposed cover story exist on a stone no one was supposed to see? If the Cryptic Rites were secret, why not just carve the numbers no one would know and leave them at that? Conspiracy! But if it is wrong to read what the text says, how are we to know who really wrote it? Secret codes! The code—which only has life because Wolter didn’t want to believe the inscription really referred to Norsemen when it could support an imaginary conspiracy theory—works only if we follow Wolter in assuming that it is connected to Templars and Cistercians and Freemasons and whatever. But prima facie there is nothing to suggest this except for the small hook on the end of the X-shaped rune for the letter A, which he has never proved to have been used by Cistercians or Templars except by special pleading. The argument grows more circular with each revision, but now Wolter’s first conspiracy, that this was a Norse-Templar land claim, has been replaced with a bigger conspiracy, that the Norse and Götalanders in the inscription are fictions by the guardians of the Jesus Bloodline, based on yet another groundless conspiracy. The Jesus Bloodline hoax emerged from a stew of Gallic pride and secularism from the pen of Louis Martin in 1887 and somehow grew to ridiculous proportions.

Wolter now believes that the elements of the “story” told on the KRS are actually directions to where medieval proto-Masons hid their Secret Vault among the Native Americans—and it’s based on longitude, which wasn’t accurately measured until the 1700s! Now there is a secret science of longitude added in as well! According to Wolter, the “14 days’ journey” recorded on the stone represents 14 degrees of longitude, according to a code that only Wolter can see. (There is no objective criterion used to equate days with degrees of longitude.) “14 degrees longitude west [of Runestone Hill] must put you in the territory of the Native American tribe that upon receiving the proper passwords, handshakes, and signs of recognition, will then lead the worthy party to the Secret Vault.” Yeah, that clearly follows from the text of the stone. The “Secret Vault” is a Masonic allegory involving truth and death, but is sometimes mixed up with the myth of Enoch’s antediluvian wisdom, deposited underground on golden plates, a faint echo of the original pillars of wisdom myth it descends from through a number of corruptions. Quite nice, by the way, of Native Americans to serve in the clichéd “magical Negro” role and provide wisdom and guidance for the white people seeking ancient truths. Don’t they get to be Secret Vault initiates and take over the world, too? I mean, it is right there in their backyard.

Oh, and the 14 days are also the 14 chunks of the dead Osiris and the 14 stations of the cross and represent resurrection promised to Masons who have special access to the core of the Egyptian Mysteries taught when the Pyramids were young.

In addition, Wolter now believes that the KRS code has identified for him the person who has made the “land claim” to all of North America using this stone. (And what good is a land claim that no one can read except people who already believe it? Details!) He claims that 22 Hooked X® symbols on the stone prove that Jesus is the claimant, with the AVM referring to his “wife” Mary Magdalene. Thus, when the stone says that the speaker went fishing, it really refers to the “Fisher King” and acquiring land for the Bloodline of Jesus. Never mind that the Fisher King of Grail lore seems to derive from Celtic stories of Bran the Blessed; for Wolter the Fisher King is Jesus because Jesus had a fish symbol and was wounded. (He got this from Ralph Ellis, and the claim is popular in fringe Grail literature where it is tied up in Mary Magdalene and Holy Bloodline myths.)

I have always argued that since I believe the Kensington party were the ideological and likely bloodline descendants of the Templar’s (sic) who were put down by the King of France and the Pope in 1307, the claim would not have been made in the name of any king, monarch, or the Pope. However, in light of this new Ritual Code evidence, I am forced to admit that I was wrong. It appears the land claim was indeed made in the name of a king. In this case, it was their ancestral and ideological Grand Master, the Fisher King. As if to emphasize the point, there are twenty-two Hooked X’s, as found on the lid of the “Jesus, son of Joseph” ossuary from the Talpiot tomb, emblazoned throughout the inscription.

So Wolter uses fringe conspiracies to imagine that the Hooked X® is a symbol of the Jesus Bloodline, and then uses that symbol to invent a Masonic-Bloodline code to declare the Jesus Spawn™ to be the rightful Grail Kings of America. There is some irony in this since Pierre Plantard, the man who brought Louis Martin’s Holy Bloodline theory into modern times, did so in order to create fictitious proof that he was the rightful Jesus Spawn™ king of France. Now we have a competing king-in-waiting for America, too, whoever the Last Bloodline Scion might be (cough... Sinclair family... cough).

Weirdly enough, Wolter recognizes that the Scandinavian-Americans who most likely actually hoaxed the stone were Freemasons who had the knowledge to “recognize” (= fake) the inscription, yet he can’t imagine a single reason why Scandinavian-American Freemasons might fake a stone that celebrated Scandinavian adventurers and contained Masonic symbols. Indeed, he even claims that the Masonic symbolism eliminates the idea of Scandinavian-American hoaxers acting out of ethnic pride, even though it would actually enhance the argument for modern fakery.

In the end, the whole house of cards stands on Wolter’s geological dating of the stone, which is not supported by most archaeologists, geologists, or runologists. And even then, if the stone were somehow medieval, there is no evidence outside of evidence-free fringe theories about Jesus to imagine that it says anything other than its plain meaning. Wolter’s claims are so baroque—several competing symbols and codes layered atop geospatial symbolism—that they are simply impossible to credit, given that virtually none of the symbolism and coding is attested on any other object of its alleged age. Wolter even says that the KRS served as the “founding” of the United States as the “New Jerusalem” of Revelation, all in the name of goddess-worshipping medieval progressives!

Now there’s a fine thought for your Independence Day holiday—a modern twist on the “ethnic pride” argument Wolter rejected for hoaxing. He is now unconsciously re-creating the KRS as a symbol of American nationalism and a deep connection to his preferred ancient heritage of Masonry, feminism, and liberalism. Happy Fourth of July, everyone!

87 Comments

Nope, wrong...

7/3/2016 08:48:01 am

>>>Pierre Plantard, the man who brought Louis Martin’s Holy Bloodline theory into modern times<<<

Is there any evidence that Plantard ever heard of Louis Martin?

7/3/2016 08:51:06 am

Quoting Pierre Plantard:

"I admit that ‘The Sacred Enigma’ [French title of Holy Blood, Holy Grail] is a good book, but one must say that there is a part that owes more to fiction than to fact, especially in the part that deals with the lineage of Jesus. How can you prove a lineage of four centuries from Jesus to the Merovingians? I have never put myself forward as a descendant of Jesus Christ".

France-Inter radio interview, 18 February 1982

Jason Colavito link

7/3/2016 08:57:06 am

Yes, he said that after the hoax fell apart, though for his purposes it was only necessary to "prove" himself a Merovingian heir, regardless of their origins.

7/3/2016 09:39:14 am

The split between Plantard and the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail was evident when later in "Messianic Legacy" there was an attempt to merge the story of the Priory of Sion with Guardian Assurance Company,

Plantard concocted the document "Une Enquête du Prieuré de Sion" in 1984 that was completely ignored in "Messianic Legacy" (1986).

7/3/2016 09:47:22 am

Jason, since your main thought is that much of this comes back to Louis Martin, have you done an in depth research of the man, his possible numerous? fraternal memberships? "if" the KRS is shown someday to be a more modern invention, the word "hoax" might not be correct- but more as a exercise of a group of Scandinavian decent involved in a fraternal organization.

David Bradbury

7/3/2016 10:19:50 am

Although Louis Martin was certainly connected with Freemasonry, like many anti-Catholics in 19th century France, that does not mean that either he or his Mary Magdalene theory were connected with Freemasonry in Scandinavia / Scandinavian communities in the USA. Even the letters AVM on the Kensington rune stone do not require a Christian "Ave Virgo Maria" interpretation in a Masonic context.

Joe Scales

7/3/2016 11:45:46 am

Wolter's latest moronic assault on logic is simply a fringe ploy to convert his KRS fame into a treasure hunt show; which would explain his recent co-mingling with the likes of Pulitzer/Philjaw. He seems to be paying attention to his critics here as well, using academic buzzwords, of course both incorrectly and disingenuously, to fool his idiotic target audience. I nearly spit out my coffee reading the following:

"Winchell’s conclusion was independently replicated by the author who by comparing the weathering with dated slate tombstones, concluded the weathering of the rune stone inscription was older than 200 years from the time of the discovery."

This was rather unintentionally revealing, as Wolter isn't replicating studies, experiments or methodology... he's replicating "conclusions". And this brings us back to Wolter's continued lie that his work is "peer-reviewed". I would ask anyone that is as offended as I am in this regard to take the time to write Ben Williams at the Rocky Mountain Mason, a publication of articles of interest for Freemasons. Please let him know that Scott Wolter has declared his publication to be a peer-reviewed journal for the purposes of self-promotion. You might further add that Scott Wolter is also asserting that the secret knowledge he has obtained from his short stint as a Freemason has elevated him, by his own account, above scholars in disciplines he has never pursued on a legitimate level.

ben@rockymountainmason.com

Hopefully such pleas will not fall upon deaf ears.

flip

7/3/2016 02:20:58 pm

One thing has been bugging me with the KRS. If someone were to put a stone in a field as a land claim, I'd imagine it would be a helluva lot bigger than the KRS. First, because then you'd see it from afar and be more likely to notice it. But secondly and more importantly, a larger stone would be far more intimidating and more likely to scare people off. There would be no one from your party to enforce the claim, so whatever you leave behind better be damn impressive. On this basis alone you could conclude that the stone is a fraud, simply because no one would take the darn thing seriously as a land claim: just knock the little thing down, smash it to bits, act like it was never there, then raise a house or two and tell the returning party to please f** off. But that's much harder to do when your land claim is something more impressive, on the scale of say, Stonehenge...

Which brings me to a question: was it ever common for people to make land claims in this manner? All I can think of is people putting up flags on the moon and similar, and even then only as a purely symbolic act.

7/3/2016 02:31:22 pm

As I understand it, during the 1600s and 1700s French explorers would bury lead plates as proof that they had reached a spot and claimed it in the name of the king. Pierre Joseph Céloron de Blainville buried some here in America, and I believe one of them survives. I am not aware of medieval cultures using such a technique.

David Krein

7/3/2016 10:13:58 pm

I believe in Ireland (Celtic) there are medieval rock land claims, but they all have the Cross with ornate etchings, but no symbols or rune graphics of any kind.
But this is still being debated as to its validity and as to what the actual intent of the designer was.

7/4/2016 02:06:29 am

Ooh, thanks Jason and David. I did not know that. I'll have to read more about it, sounds fascinating. - What were the size of the plates, do you know?

Terry J. Deveau link

7/6/2016 12:16:53 pm

La Verendrye is also known to have buried such a lead plate.

http://www.southdakotamagazine.com/verendrye-plate

7/4/2016 01:21:05 am

The whole land claim issue was a leap of faith from the word "opdagelsefärd", which originally was translated as a journey of discovery, not an "acquisition journey". The problem was, such a word had modern roots and you wouldn't find it back in 1362. That's why most in the know believed it to be a hoax from the get go. To get around this issue, and get from "discovery" to "acquisition", you basically have to believe the carver made a spelling mistake. Though it is possible, it isn't probable; and that's been the knock on this thing all along. For authenticity to be possible, there has to be a perfect storm of events. And unlikely events at that.

Tom Rent

7/3/2016 02:52:31 pm

Jason, 3 years ago an explanation for the late 1800s origin of the KRS was presented to you via the Paul Stewart book "The Enigmatist." It was this book that first identified the Cryptic Rite Masonic origin of the KRS, not Wolter. Sadly, you dismissed Paul's research and it didn't appear you read his whole book or attempted to understand the "odd" behavior of this late 1800s Cryptic Rite group. Also, do you know that recently Paul has found the same KRS number sequence in the text of the "fake" 1885 Beale Papers? The KRS, the other American Runestones, and the Beale papers are very likely the work of the same Cryptic Rite Masons of the period as discovered by Stewart. I think you owe Paul an apology as he was the first to truly crack these old mysteries. Paul and others have also pointed out that the KRS was subjected to 5 mold-making sessions, in 1938, 1941, 1948, 1965, and 2003. It's very likely acidic cleansers were used to clean the stone each time as well as to remove the stubborn mold release chemicals. It turns out acidic cleansers dissolve biotitie mica, the mineral Wolter used as the basis for determining the KRS's inscription age. There is no evidence that he ever took into account the artificial weathering impacts of these deep acidic cleanings, therefore the scientific "200+ year" age conclusion can't be drawn. The "cap" on this whole thing is that if one takes a map of the USA in the late 1800s, and draw a 1362 mile radius circle centered on Kensington MN, it touches the furthestmost border points of the USA in Washington State, Maine, and in Texas. The Minnesota Cryptics placed this "secret" stone in about 1880 to memorialize the "Masonic" founding and foundation of the USA .... "in the center of the USA." The 1362 on the KRS was a mile number, not a year. Pretty clever. The KRS wasn't a fake, but was an ingeniously designed "secret" Cryptic Rite masonic artifact from the late 1800s.

John

7/3/2016 08:58:01 pm

"The 1362 on the KRS was a mile number, not a year. Pretty clever. The KRS wasn't a fake, but was an ingeniously designed "secret" Cryptic Rite masonic artifact from the late 1800s."

That would mean that it is a fake then. The claim made by those who believe that the stone is authentic, is that it was carved in 1362 or at least within the same century. hypothetically speaking, if Masons did in fact carve the stone during the 1800s, that would mean that it is not an authentic medieval rune stone. That would make it an authentic hoax created by Freemasons if anything. Thats it.

Paul

7/4/2016 02:48:52 am

It's definitely a fake. I think the point Tom is making is that it wasn't done by a bunch of yokels as a joke or a hoax for a laugh. If you take any flat map of the US prior to 1898 (when the stone was found) and place a protractor's needle on the site of the KRS, expand the pencil leg outward, to either the eastern tip of Maine, the southern tip of Texas, or the western tip of Washington, and then complete your circle you'll note that it it hits the other two remaining points perfectly- producing a ring around the US- yes, at 1362 miles too...with miles being key, as the definition of the mile post-dates 1362.

Gunn

7/3/2016 04:07:18 pm

Wolter has now publicly dismissed the message on the KRS as being untrue, in favor of his own speculations. This is troubling to me, since I've always considered myself to be a "message purist."

Equally troubling to me is his seemingly eager willingness to dismiss my suggestion that a portion of the KRS has recently been proven to be true, regarding the campsite's location referred to on the KRS. With resolution and deliberation, I recently located a lake fitting the exact description mentioned on the runestone, which is Davidson Lake, up off a chain or succession of lakes, directly off the Chippewa River a day's journey from Runestone Hill.

Scott does not want to accept the fact that the Eardahl Axe has provenance. An affidavit accompanies the discovery, an affidavit from old Mrs. Davidson, an original pioneer owner of the spot of land where the medieval Scandinavian axe was found in 1894--even before the KRS was found. Her husband found it about 18" down, ironically, within the roots of a tree-stump two feet in diameter.

Through clues from one of H. Holand's old books, and plat research and google-earth, I was able to locate the exact finding spot of the Erdahl axe. It was found on the slightly elevated west bank area of Davidson Lake, which has two skerries, very near a pool of spring water...which is still there. In other words, a portion of the message has been proven out...plus the nearly pristine Brandon Axe came to light after a Native American gave it to an original pioneer land owner. Brandon is only several miles away from Erdahl, and together, the two axes suggest that the massacre described on the KRS was true: one axe was buried like a time-capsule over time, and the other was gathered up by Native Americans after the massacre, and managed to stay above ground.

Wolter knows that I gave a presentation in Kensington last year about my discovery of the "lake with two skerries," and I think he knows, too, that my research and presentation was received into the KRS archives at the Minnesota Historical Society (admittedly, after some prodding to stay current with new developments).

I don't see how Wolter can any longer be considered a friend of the KRS, since he has made attempts to strip it of its true, simple-story-line message...in favor of trying to insert all manner of symbolism and numerology into the message, in essence attempting to substitute the story-line given with another one only speculated about--mostly by just him.

And now, I have personally experienced him dismissing the whole "lake with two skerries" portion of the inscription--which has recently been found to be true--with nonsense about the King Fisher and his bloodline!

May we all have pity on the Kensington Runestone during this holiday celebration....

7/3/2016 04:24:25 pm

I'm just flabbergasted wwhat he is trying to get away with.

" The forensic scientist in me is forced to take to notice of the voluminous factual evidence that already existed that led me to conclude the Kensington Rune Stone was a genuine fourteenth century land claim. As a newly initiated Freemason who has witnessed and participated in the higher degrees of both the Scottish Rite and the York Rite Mysteries, I see the unmistakable allegorical story of the Old Testament Masonic legend of the Royal Arch screaming off the rune stone’s text. When linked with the same Royal Arch symbolism and the allegorical resurrection story so beautifully on display on the Winter Solstice in the Newport Tower in Rhode Island, it becomes an undeniable fact the two are contemporaneous and must have been created by a group of people who embraced the same ideology and knowledge."

I mean, this kind of stuff only works in oratories where the audience already forgot the beginning when he comes to the end.
I see alot of the same BS in IT, just string along buzzwords with good feeling words and confuse your audience while (trying) to give them a good feeling that someone knows their technology.

Will

7/3/2016 07:06:24 pm

I saw this pop up on Wolter's site last night. I can't imagine how anyone really can buy into these sorts of wacky tales.

1. So I am not an expert in the history of Transatlantic crossings or anything, but I didn't think that back in 1362 it was just something to do for a weeks vacation as an easy cruise. It was probably dangerous and scary as hell. It's not like those ships were motorized, so one wrong gust of wind and oops--you aren't going to where you planned to.

2. Unless I am completely mistaken about what type of boats these guys were cruising in, the boats were not huge cargo vessels. Dudes had to be traveling light -- hoping to stop off and get stuff as they needed it from known outposts along the way or by collecting stuff by stopping for a bit.

3. From the Atlantic Ocean to Minnesota is freaking far -- like 3000 kilometers far. On today's highways it would take an automobile 30ish hours to go from the ocean to MN. That is with street signs, and GPS apps knowing the entire route before even leaving.

4. I am not saying Steps #1-3 couldn't have happened. These guys were probably pretty bad dudes and maybe could have pulled it off -- and it no doubt would have been a feat/achievement for them. It's at Step #5 where it starts sounding stupid.

5. So after beating the odds and surviving Steps #1-3, one said badass stops and thinks: "Yeah, we just you know blazed through unknown territory and might be running low and supplies and maybe want to start thinking about turning around." To that another guy says, "Nah, lets find a 200lb rock, and waste some time carving a message that nobody will really understand (unless they are a member of a secret society that has not been formed yet, and even so, only to the people who are furthest vesting in said secret society that hasn't been formed yet) as a land claim."

6. After spending all of that time exploring and carving stones, said Norsement retreat back to their homelands, carefully covering their tracks along the way so that evidence of said travel would be lost to history, and then never telling anyone about it again.

In sum, it just sounds stupid -- and really, even if I got some of the above wrong, does it make any more sense not matter what details are plugged in?

Dan

7/4/2016 12:54:24 am

These arguments about the absurdly impractical logistical probabilities of KRS and similar fringe claims generally fall of deaf ears with the lunatics. I tweeted at Wolter about the silliness of the "copper heist" in real practical terms and he responded by calling me a name and blocking me. Logic and simple pragmatic arguments are real kryptonite to guys like Wolter.

I guarantee that if you posted those 6 points on Wolter's blog, it would get filtered -- he'd never allow something that so easily exposed his silliness for what it is.

7/4/2016 11:54:48 am

Wolter will allow counter-arguments on his blog, but only up to a point. That point is usually when he's cornered, where he'll resort to calling you names or placing you in some imagined conspiracy against him. But he's been taken apart there before, with only his inflated ego having him believe he'd come out on top on the discussion; and he'll tell you he won to boot.

7/4/2016 02:48:33 am

Yeah, that's why I questioned the size of the stone above. If you'd done an amazing feat like that, crossed oceans and found a huge new continent, wouldn't you put up a sign a little more elaborate than the KRS? You'd think that sort of achievement would warrant a little more flamboyance. At least with L'anse Aux Meadows you have settlement evidence and a saga written about the trip. But the KRS party are supposed to have returned from this 'first' trip without having it recorded anywhere nor left anything behind but this stone (and apparently didn't return for it either)? It's beyond silly to pin hopes on this one artifact with no other evidence forthcoming, especially given the many issues of provenance, language, etc.

7/4/2016 11:50:42 am

"3. From the Atlantic Ocean to Minnesota is freaking far -- like 3000 kilometers far."

With Niagara Falls in the mix as well.

7/5/2016 10:54:02 am

He let it run, but then dismissed it as not serious. I responded with some more logical arguments but I'm certain he's filtering that one especially since I used words like myopic, delusional and conspiratorial.

7/3/2016 08:03:36 pm

Has Olaf Ohman and the Runestone Museum shown any awareness of this article and Scott's theories of this? And what have they said about it, if they are aware of Scott's theories?

7/3/2016 08:24:35 pm

Edit: Darwin Ohman

Only Me

7/3/2016 08:17:17 pm

After reading the article and the comments, I can come to only one conclusion: Wolter has plunged headfirst into the rabbit hole, and he ain't coming back.

7/3/2016 08:27:25 pm

He's been down the rabbit hole for a long time Only Me. I personally find the Oreo cookie conspiracy one of the major moments that proved that Scott is as crazy as I thought he was.

7/3/2016 08:27:58 pm

Note, too, that the whole reason Wolter thought that the stone was a land claim--the translation of the text saying that the Norse were on an "acquisition" journey--is somehow still operative despite his new declaration that none of the words should be taken at face value! His baroque codes within codes accidentally purged his own "evidence" for a land claim!

7/3/2016 11:04:11 pm

I think Wolter wants to keep the land claim theory portion of his take on the message, while injecting his numerology and allegory. Apparently, he doesn't dismiss all the words on the KRS, and chooses to keep those still favorable to his land claim ideas...which I take exception to.

The geographical location of the KRS and Runestone Hill isn't exactly favorable to a medieval land claim theory, when one thinks of claiming land by use of surveyed waterways, as was usually the case, such as in Iceland. Why place a land claim stone by the Chippewa River? There is no good reason I can think of. However, just west a few miles is the Pomme de Terre River, which does actually reach farthest north into the Minnesota River watershed. We see that the MN River empties into the MS River...so that something placed at where the Pomme de Terre empties into the MN River makes more sense for surveying and attempting to make a large land claim. (May I suggest one more time that--ironically--the Norse Code-stone I found recently probably has to do with medieval Norse surveying and attempted land up-taking?)

One thing Wolter is missing is that runestones weren't generally used as land claims, but rather as memorial stones--just what the KRS appears to be, on the surface (literally). The fact that the KRS was found buried shallowly supports the idea that it had been erect, above ground, for a portion of its centuries-old existence on Runestone Hill. Also, the fairly recent translation talking about "acquisition" shouldn't automatically apply to taking up land...it could have been a former fur trade in the region, or even something formerly hidden. In Wolter's would-be translation, he includes "land" in "acquisition," to support his erroneous land claim theory.

As with my recent discovery of the "lake with two skerries," I have gotten no support from him over my other recent discovery of what I believe is an authentic "Norse Code-stone," which I contend was purposely designed to conceal something made of metal related to real, actual medieval Norse waterway surveying and attempted land up-taking. I can pretty easily imagine that the discovery of this other probable land claim may not set well with Scott, especially since its location for a large land claim makes more sense than the KRS's location.

In my opinion, his land claim theory associated with the KRS has no merit, so he should just toss that out of his imagined KRS message, too, to make more room for his other far-fetched nonsense and schemes. As a self-proclaimed defender of the KRS, I no longer support Wolter in his association with the Kensington Runestone. Some others of us who believe in its authenticity may hope for a fairly quick return to dignity.

And, if I might possibly have anything to do with it, the KRS and its simple-but-true message will refuse to be so blatantly hijacked.

7/3/2016 08:46:11 pm

Just ran across this group on Facebook that support Wolter's work:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/287262734058/?fref=nf

B L

7/6/2016 10:37:16 am

The Kensington Runestone Supporters page on Facebook is NOT a Scott Wolter fan club. It is simply a group of people with shared interest in the KRS. Most argue the authenticity of the stone, some support Wolters work, but skeptics are welcome too. It is a discussion forum.

7/3/2016 09:08:58 pm

Scott recently posted a reply on his blog about the "peer reviews" of his work:

"Anonymous July 3, 2016 at 3:31 PM

Hey scott, can you list the names of the geologists that have peer reviewed your work? And the names of the masons who peer reviewed this latest?

Scott Wolter July 3, 2016 at 4:24 PM

Anonymous,

Funny you should ask that question as just today I found where I had put those written reviews of my geological work that I hadn't seen in a few years. Because a certain debunker decided to call my alma mater about my honorary Master's degree given out of sympathy by my now retired (and deceased) professors, I won't be giving out the names of the ones who are still living. That call prompted my elderly professors to become anxious and worried upon being asked questions by university officials about what they had done for me so long ago. If the debunker had simply asked, I would have explained the context of the degree I was given. Instead, he only aim was to seize an opportunity to try and disparage my research by trying to disparage me. This is why I treat people who exhibit the similar mentality and lack of integrity on this blog with little patience.

There were five geologists who peer-reviewed my work, four were academics (including G.B. Morey and Charles L. Matsch) and one was a licensed professional (Terrance Swor). I had forgotten there were two rounds of written reviews with three of the academics providing very detailed and thoughtful reviews. At some point in the future when I am confident the two retired professors will not be harassed, I will reveal their identities and their written reviews. You can thank the increasingly hostile environment of skeptics and debunkers for my being overly-protective of the privacy and dignity of these individuals.

As for the Freemason academics who reviewed my recently published paper, other than editor Ben Williams, I don’t know the identities of the individuals who reviewed my paper. Perhaps you should contact Ben Williams to find out who they were?"

7/3/2016 09:13:55 pm

I never called anyone. I checked the published list of awarded honorary degrees and wrote a paragraph or two three years ago saying he wasn't on the list. Wolter then admitted that he didn't have one, sometime after which his professor got the vapors. It couldn't have been my doing since I didn't call the school, and I didn't ask for an investigation of any kind. Others did ask them to look into it, but it was neither my doing nor at my instigation.

The irony is that if Wolter had simply not made a huge deal out of it for months on end, the observation would have faded away, like the fake degrees claimed by Sean David Morton and other fringe figures. He brings it on himself with his self-dramatizing claims.

7/3/2016 10:04:36 pm

And also his complete fabrications as well Jason. I also remembered a reply I made a while back when you made that post where Scott claimed you were "manipulating the internet":

John 6/7/2015 15:12:08
@ Only Me

I actually posted the discussion you referenced in a few links on the bottom of the page. What stuck out to me was that in one the posts Wolter actually named the people who he claimed "peer reviewed" him. It's funny cause after looking up their names I ended up finding an article back in 2001 that said that some of them were his professors. They are the following:

John Green
Paul Wieblen
Richard Ojakangas
Charles L. Matsch

4 out of the 8 people that Scott Wolter said peer reviewed him were his own professors! That's why he never had it published.

Also note that the last name I posted, Professor Charles Matsch, is the same Professor, that Scott Wolter named on his blog, as having giving him his sympathetic "Honuary Masters" coffee.

Here is the article that showed up on my search if anyone is interested:

http://www.d.umn.edu/publications/bridge/201/alumnpro.html"

That's odd since I realized I wrote that he said he was peer reviewed by "8 people" and in this post he says he was peer reviewed by "5 people."

7/3/2016 10:08:32 pm

And in the following post I pasted the following exchange that occurred on his blog:

"John 6/8/2015 11:52:24

Wolter's latest episode on his blog:

" CarlJune 8, 2015 at 11:46 AM
Hi Scott,

Are you aware of a man named Tom McDonald?

-- Carl.


Scott WolterJune 8, 2015 at 11:55 AM
Carl,

The name kind of rings a bell, but not specifically at the moment.


Carl June 8, 2015 at 12:39 PM
Scott,

Can you clarify if the following email posted in the link, is in fact one that he claims you sent to him:

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2006-02/msg00091.html

-- Carl


Scott WolterJune 8, 2015 at 1:02 PM
Carl,

Now I remember Tom McDonald, and yes that email looks to be the one I wrote at the time. I now know where you are going with your seemingly innocent postings Carl/Rich/or whoever you are. Of the people on that list, Paul Wieblen and G.B. Morey did not submit written reviews of my geological work. They promised to, but we instead discussed the findings personally at the Minnesota Geological Survey and Paul was the only one who didn't completely agree. His objections were philosophical with regard to methodology and he offered nothing specific to refute or contradict my work.

G.B. Morey was very intrigued and thought we had done proper work. He was also in the midst of writing a biography of Newton Winchell as he was impressed with his geological work on the KRS and everything else about the man.

All of the others who reviewed my geological work did so in writing.


CarlJune 8, 2015 at 3:05 PM
Where can someone find their written reviews?"

7/3/2016 10:15:27 pm

"Of the people on that list, Paul Wieblen and G.B. Morey did not submit written reviews of my geological work. They promised to, but we instead discussed the findings personally at the Minnesota Geological Survey and Paul was the only one who didn't completely agree. His objections were philosophical with regard to methodology and he offered nothing specific to refute or contradict my work."

That's odd cause in his reply made recently Scott said the following:

"There were five geologists who peer-reviewed my work, four were academics (including G.B. Morey and Charles L. Matsch) and one was a licensed professional (Terrance Swor). I had forgotten there were two rounds of written reviews with three of the academics providing very detailed and thoughtful reviews. At some point in the future when I am confident the two retired professors will not be harassed, I will reveal their identities and their written reviews. You can thank the increasingly hostile environment of skeptics and debunkers for my being overly-protective of the privacy and dignity of these individuals."

Is there a reason why he mentioned Professor Matsch and not Professor Wieblen? Hmmm I wonder why...

http://www.richardnielsen.org//PDFs/Weiblen%20(2001)%201%20to%2045,%20Appendices%201%20and%203%208MB.pdf

http://www.richardnielsen.org//PDFs/Runestone%20Museum%20Rpt%20062608.pdf

7/3/2016 10:28:58 pm

I apologize to Jason yet again for filling up his comments section, so I just want to put one more piece of info. For those that are interested these are the people who we know for sure "peer reviewed" Scott Wolter's work:

John Green
Paul Wieblen
Richard Ojakangas
Charles L. Matsch
Glenn B. Morey
Terrance E. Swor

And once again here is a letter Scott wrote to his professors in regards to his review, which I am now certain that he does NOT want anyone to see for some reason:

http://www.richardnielsen.org//PDFs/The%203%20UMD%20Prof%20review%20of%20the%20KRS%20geology%20report%20to%20the%20RSM%20in%20May%202002..pdf

7/4/2016 12:08:12 am

Here is post made on a forum in 2006 in regards to e-mail correspondence Wolter had in regards to his peer review:

“From: Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:32:11 -0800

Scott Wolter has asked that this email be posted here to help us
understand what sort of peer review his geological study of the
KRS received. It is from an email relating to his current work on
the Spirit Pond stones. Except for removing identifying
information about the original email's recipient and other
personal information, I haven't altered Wolter's email in any way:

“From: Wolter, Scott Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:37 AM Subject: Spirit Pond Investigation &
Peer Review

Dear -- -- ,

I thought I would drop you both a note with a couple of points
to consider during your discussions about our proposal to
perform a forensic investigation of the Spirit Pond rune
stones. The first point is relative to --'s comment
about an apparent lack of peer review of the geologic work we
performed and reported in our book. The fact of the matter of
is that my report has been peer reviewed, in writing, by eight
senior geologists and geological engineers. These individuals
are Professor emeritus John Green, Professor emeritus Charles
L. Matsch, Professor Richard Ojakangas, Professor emeritus *G.
B. Morey, Professor emeritus *Paul Wieblen , Dr. Bryant Mather
(now deceased), geological engineer Terrance Swor P.E. and
Senior ACI International Fellow, Richard Stehly P.E. I have
also presented my geological findings at the American
Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) National
Conference in Lake Tahoe, Nevada, in 2002, and have been asked
to teach a half day short course on the KRS at the 2006 AIPG
National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, this fall. Our
local AIPG chapter is hosting the event and I am on the
planning committee. Perhaps -- would like to attend the
Convention?

I should also add that when we took the KRS to Sweden in
October of 2003, the Swedish government assembled a scientific
testing team, headed by Runo Löfvendahl, to examine the KRS
using "Popper's Falsification Principal" in an attempt to find
an alternate explanation to my geologic findings. They were
unable to do so. You can read about that investigation, which
was a rather poor effort in my opinion, on pages 301, 317-318,
321-322, 326, 343-345, 361-364, 373-374.

At the end of the day, my findings are published in the book
you now have that anyone in the world can review, including
--. I encourage him to do so and respectfully request
that he puts his comments in writing. I should also mention
that as a licensed professional geologist in the State of
Minnesota (#30024) I am held accountable for all work that I
perform by the geoscientists licensing board for the State of
Minnesota. It is mandatory that I am objective and unbiased
in my geologic investigations. I take this very seriously and
only write opinions that I believe I have the data to support.
I am frequently called to testify as an expert witness and
have won many cases with far less geologic evidence than we
have documented on the KRS. Keep in mind that I had never
heard of the KRS when I was first approached to perform this
work. I was convinced by my geologic findings that the
inscription was old before I ever met Dick Nielsen, or learned
that geologist Newton Winchell had worked on the KRS
previously. He concluded in 1910 that the KRS was genuine.

I realize that Birgitta Wallace is a personal friend of yours
--, and personally, I like Birgitta and found her to be
very gracious during our visit in April of 2004 (see pages
353-355). However, she has been allowed to accuse Olof Ohman
of carving the KRS inscription without one shred of credible
evidence, and apparently without any fear of professional or
legal retribution. She has not backed up any of her claims
regarding the KRS with supportable facts. Where was the peer
review of her work? What kind of accountability is someone
like Birgitta Wallace held to in her profession? It appears
that her title and reputation has afforded her an implied
credibility that needs no oversight. She has certainly not
presented evidence to prove the KRS is modern, and I don't
believe she or Einar Haugen have made a credible case to
support their assertions that the Spirit Pond RS's are fake
either. For that matter, where was the peer review of Einar
Haugen? His fundamental error of incorrectly dating the
Spirit Pond rune stones to the year 1010, threw his entire
analysis of the inscriptions off from the very beginning. In
fairness to him, he wasn't aware of the medieval dating
practices using the Easter Table used to date the Spirit Pond
(1401 and 1402 A.D.), the KRS (1362 A.D.) and the
Kingigtorssuag (1314 A.D.) inscriptions.

In fairness to all investigators of these artifacts in the
past, none of them had access to the voluminous new source
information that has only become av

7/4/2016 12:09:19 am

In fairness to all investigators of these artifacts in the
past, none of them had access to the voluminous new source
information that has only become available in the last couple
decades. Specifically, the most relevant documents being the
middle to late 14th century diplomas and the hundreds of
medieval runic inscriptions on Gotland. These documents bear
directly on the language, grammar, runes, and dialect on all
four rune stones. The third volume of the "Gotlands
Runinskrifter", which contain critical evidence relative the
KRS (and Spirit Pond), was only published on the internet in
2004! See the following link:

http://ariadne.uio.no/runenews/nor_2003/snaedalms.htm

Dick and I are currently preparing a new paper on the Spirit
Pond inscriptions which certainly do have many similarities to
the KRS. However, your stones have many significant
differences. Before we can finalize this report, there needs
to be a microscopic digital photo-library of the inscriptions
generated to accurately document exactly what is carved on
those stones. It was this important procedure that led to the
accurate documentation and evaluation of aspects of the KRS
inscription that were previously unknown.

We look forward to working with you on this exciting project.
--

Respectfully,

Scott Wolter P.G.

Minnesota License # 30024

Geologist/Petrographer/President

American Petrographic Services

St. Paul, Minnesota 55114””

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2006-02/msg00091.html

* "Of the people on that list, Paul Wieblen and G.B. Morey did not submit written reviews of my geological work. They promised to, but we instead discussed the findings personally at the Minnesota Geological Survey and Paul was the only one who didn't completely agree. His objections were philosophical with regard to methodology and he offered nothing specific to refute or contradict my work." — Scott Wolter

http://scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-templar-families-and-sheep.html

7/4/2016 02:05:06 pm

Wolter states in his lectures that the KRS has been in the hands of museums and thus has not been exposed to any other weathering factors. I'm sure he knows the KRS was cleaned multiple times for mold making, in 1938, 1941, 1948, 1965, and 2003, and likely heavy acidic cleaners were used to prepare the stone and to remove the mold release each time. It's well known biotite mica easily dissolve in acidic solutions. If the peer reviewers/professors were not informed about these 5 mold-making sessions where unnatural weathering occurred prior to their reviews, then their reviews are invalid.

7/4/2016 02:13:03 pm

@ Tom Rent

I am very aware of that Tom. But don't tell that to me tell that to Wolter and his professors who are still alive that "peer reviewed" him. Just know he will ask you "if you are who you say you are" and that your not just a "nasty debunker."

7/3/2016 10:55:53 pm

"Anonymous July 3, 2016 at 5:10 PM

What an odd peer review process, that one has to hide identity in order to protect them from...questions? As a part of the review, this is why you select your harshest critiques and most competent scholars to review your work. I would advise you ton redo this study in a more professional manner, one where you select scholars who can face the music,...however if your new study held up to scrutiny than you would of crossed a significant hurdle, building a geologic consensus that the rock was old would be the first place to start...

Signing off, a good buddy of yours, (old and grey as I know you are ;))

Scott Wolter July 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM

Anonymous,

If the situation had been handled appropriately by the debunker in the first place we wouldn't be here. Both men are well into their eighties and their written reviews will eventually serve the purpose intended. They've made it abundantly clear they don't want to be harassed anymore and left alone. I'm sure you understand why I want to respect their wishes...?

I appreciate your suggestions, but the situation is what it is. Although I beg to differ that you would select the "harshest" critiques; I would think seeking the most knowledgeable and balanced critiques would be the most appropriate, but then we can agree to disagree can't we? One of the harshest critics of my geology recently overstepped his bounds by inferring I had intentionally fudged the date of the Abner Lowell tombstone in my weathering study and it turned out the critic was wrong. This mistake, made in his apparent haste to discredit me, only served to discredit himself and his bizarre critique. The geological consensus is already in place so you would be wise to accept it. BTW, we already know the rock is old, it's the age of the inscription that we are talking about.

If you are "a (old and grey) good buddy" of mine then you should be happy to reveal your identity right? Or is there another reason why you prefer to creep around in the shadows?"

7/4/2016 12:48:13 am

"If I had been honest from the start and handled the situation appropriately..."

Fixed that for you, Scott. You're welcome.

Most "knowledgeable and balanced critiques" and "harshest" are not mutually exclusive.

"One of the harshest critics of my geology recently overstepped his bounds by inferring I had intentionally fudged the date of the Abner Lowell tombstone in my weathering study and it turned out the critic was wrong."

No, he actually pointed out Mr. Lowell died over 40 years later, based on public records, so the tombstone wasn't Mr. Lowell's. After this, you, Scott, revealed the tombstone belonged to Mr. Lowell's SON. You screwed up.

"The geological consensus is already in place so you would be wise to accept it. BTW, we already know the rock is old, it's the age of the inscription that we are talking about."

A consensus of one? How does that work, Scott? While you're at it, maybe you should address the facts Tom Rent brought up: The KRS had been chemically cleaned and molded multiple times, which would artificially age the inscription.

7/4/2016 01:02:37 am

And don't forget that by the time the fifth mold was made (which was commissioned by Wolter himself) his unorthodox method and lack of preparation caused it to be permanently discolored. A state which Professor Paul Wieblen and Darwin Ohman themselves said could hinder any future investigations of the stone in future investigations.

7/4/2016 01:02:45 am

If you're going to waste time trying to argue with Wolter on his blog, you might as well just come right out with the crux of the issue.... and say: "Liar, liar, pants on fire..."

7/4/2016 01:07:13 am

Joe, Unlike Wolter, we should not resort to such childish behavior because it brings us down to his level.

7/4/2016 01:28:14 am

You are arguing with a liar on his own turf John. I would spare you the futility of it.

Patrick

7/4/2016 10:04:03 am

Scott Wolter didn't "screw up" with regards to one of the monuments in Maine that he used as part of his weathering study. He clearly stated that the date on the monument was 1815 - which is the critical element that established the age of the monument (within a year or two as sometimes a monument could not be made until an artisan visited the area). Scott provided traceability back to the monument by providing Abner Lowell's name, which, as anyone knows who researches genealogy, is a better linkage than using the mother's name of Hannah. Harold Edwards - within the last few weeks - used what he felt was an inaccuracy on Scott's part to infer that other aspects of his research were faulty, as evidenced by Edwards statement at the end of the paragraph "Who knows the who, when, and where the samples attributed to Abner Lowell came from?"

Perhaps Mr. Edwards was not aware, or had not made the connection, that the 1815 tombstone was missing the actual name of the decedent. Perhaps Scott had not specifically stated that in his report written many years ago. Regardless of either of the above, had Mr. Edwards finished his genealogical tracing for Abner Lowell, he would have run across the clear fact that the monument was for Abner's young son, Greenliefe.

The contention that Scott's identification of the monument as Abner Lowell's has no bearing on the results of his weathering study. The fact that Scott identified the monument as Abner Lowell's was justified considering it was the best information available on the partial monument.

There is no broader conspiracy or intent to deceive on this issue...a broken monument which resulted in a traceable name being used vice the actual name. Nothing nefarious here.

7/4/2016 12:05:02 pm

Patrick,
The confusion of the name on the tombstone was due to Wolter's careless documentation in the first place and the natural inferences made from it. If this is the only "gotcha" Wolter can come up with to counter the numerous other allegations against him from Harold Edwards, it's more a smoke screen than validation.

What about Wolter altering of evidence to fit his scheme? What about his use of technical terminology out of its rightful place? What about his refusal to consider evidence contrary to his conclusions? Wolters sloppy documentation is but a symptom of the real issue at hand. His scientific incompetence.

Harold Edwards

8/7/2016 11:51:59 am

Wolter's misidentifying the tombstone as belonging to Abner Lowell is unexcusable. He should have given the explanation (that he now gives) that it's identity was unknown or belonged to one of the children when he wrote his paper in 2003 and the chapter in the book in 2006. I have a DVD of his photo's from this study that was given to the Runestone Museum. Initially he labeled a photo of the Lowell tombstone as "unknown" on 11/1/02. Later he labelled it as "Lowell."

Paul Stewart

7/4/2016 02:36:53 am

At a minimum, what is beyond odd about the KRS, and why most researchers find it to be a fake, is not only that it was found in Minnesota, but because with a date of 1362, the stone was clearly carved in the medieval period, not the Viking age, as is depicted at the KRS museum. 200 years makes a big difference. By 1364, the first recorded use of a firearm would occur in Europe, and cannon had already been in use for decades. This was not the era of longships, raids and Norse colonization but rather the age of the heavier klinker-style merchant ships of the Hanseatic League and the period of the Northern Crusades against the heathen Lithuanians. The short story on the KRS is clearly at odds with its era. The people it references are Gotar and Northmen, however the territory of Gotaland had long been merged with Sweden, thus the reference could only refer to the island of Gotland, which again was not a Viking stronghold in 1362 but one of primary hubs of the Hanseatic League (the island's treasury would be sacked in 1361 by Valdamar IV of Denmark). Why too, would a Gotlandic priest use runes found in Dalecarlia? And why would Gotlanders sail west, past Iceland, Greenland and Vinland, when there is no evidence they ever went farther west than England (and that practice too had stopped by the 1100s)?
As for Wolter, he has essentially stolen the basic template of my theory without crediting me; that the stone was created by not just Freemasons, but Cryptic Masons, because there are indeed 1:1 parallels on the KRS to allegory found in those degrees. I made this point over 3 years ago...but unlike Wolter I came to the conclusion that the stone MUST be fake because of it. Unlike the rest of Freemasonry, the Cryptic degrees are essentially American. Both were brought to the US by Europeans, but there is no evidence of either being worked in Europe, although material found in the Select Master degree can be found in the Royal Arch. The earliest recorded conferrarals of the Select comes from South Carolina in the 1780s, while the Royal Master degree appears to have emanated via New York and was first conferred in 1810. Neither degree was accepted as necessary or required by York or Scottish Rite, and both were relegated to side degree status until they were made "official" in 1880 via the creation of the Cryptic General Grand Council in Detroit. Now the degrees are part of the York system. Wolter is saying what he sees on the KRS is material which can be found in the Select degree but is also material which predates the degree by millenia... so the connection isn't actually Masonic...but he also makes the point that the stone's inscription is allegorical as well, which is a Masonic practice. So, all of it begs the question: why would a medieval Gotlandic Catholic priest sail thousands of miles to the west, hike to the center of the North American continent, in order to leave a pre-Masonic, yet allegorical story- and do so by using Dalecarlian runes?
Some of Wolters evidence to support his theory that the stone is authentic comes from his belief that there are dotted Rs on the KRS. Actually, only one R has a dot, but to say this constitutes evidence is ridiculous. The dot is a clearly a centering punch; a simple device used by artists to center text (I've been a professional artist for over 3 decades), in the days before word processors. Proof of this claim is easy: the front face of the KRS has 9 lines, meaning the 5th line (4 above and 4 below), is its center line. This 5th line had 23 characters, meaning the 12th character (11 to its left and 11 to its right) is the center character of the front face...and what character is that? Yes, it's the R with the dot between its legs. There are no dotted Rs on the KRS.

7/4/2016 10:16:39 am

Paul, I have your book here and am interested to know where you cited Hiram Abiff's passage “There were employed on the other eight arches, twenty-two men from Gebal, a city of Phoenicia…” Thanks!

7/5/2016 01:16:57 am

Patrick- I don't cite Hiram Abiff, nor do I cite the elements in the degrees themselves whatsoever in my original book. It was something however I was intending to include on my re-write however- but again, not in support of the stone being authentic nor in the same manner as Wolter. What I did claim however, is that the formal birth of the Cryptic degrees in 1880 as recognized degrees at all, provided the necessary impetus to have produced the KRS.

7/4/2016 10:45:30 am

"Kensington Rune Stone Inscription Finally Solved!"

Wolter's words.

Paul, I'm supposing these could be your words, too. This makes me uncomfortable with your approach, as with Wolter, because you both approach the message as needing to be solved! To those thousands of us who believe the KRS is genuine, the message does not need to be solved. It only needs to be believed, at simple face value.

And, it may not matter so much about the KRS being misrepresented as though coming from the Viking Age, since I think it is likely that several expeditions came into this general region, stretching back during the Crusades and probably coming close in time to the end of the Viking Age. I'm saying that the many evidences related to medieval Norse exploration west of Kensington, close to the SD border, probably relate to an earlier era than the KRS comes from. I think the KRS party were late-comer's from Vinland, but I also think earlier expeditions came down from Hudson Bay.

It makes sense that the first area to be explored thoroughly would be the area where it was first recognized that two ocean source waterways merged...that would be the Lake Traverse/Big Stone Lake are, including the heavily stonehole-marked-up Whetstone River area of SD, right across the border from MN. It makes sense that explorations farther away from the border area would come later...hence the Chippewa River being assessed later in the medieval Norse picture here in this region.

But Paul, if your basic premise about the KRS representing Masonic interests is about the same as Wolter's new viewpoint, then your input about the KRS doesn't seem very valid, either. Of course this is coming from someone who believes wholeheartedly that the KRS is authentic to 1362--just as it says.

The bottom line here seems to be that you, too, want to replace a simple story-line with an absurd interpretation based on numerology. An honest question here, Paul, if you don't mind: How do you feel about apparently encouraging Wolter in a part of his newfound nonsense?

7/5/2016 01:44:44 am

My viewpoint is not based upon numerology. Numerology is the belief that the future can be pre-determined based upon the interpretation of numbers. Masons believe something quite different. Their basic tenet is that the God-head does not speak to us using human-created language, because these languages are fallible and open to misinterpretation. Only numbers provide constants. 2 + 2 = 4 everywhere throughout the universe, This is why the symbols of Masonry are the T-square and Compass. These are measuring devices to produce straight lines and circles- the results of which are mathematical in nature.
I do not believe the stone's "message" needs to be solved, in as much as it's simply not authentic, but I also don't believe it was produced by Ohman and a cadre of Swedish hucksters out to make a joke. It's a fake yes, but not a joke. It actually has a purpose, albeit not what it appears on its face.
I know you would like to believe the KRS is authentic, but to do so requires the KRS to defy literally everything we know about the medieval period of Northern Europe. There is not a single documented piece of evidence at all which places Swedish or Gotlandic Vikings farther west than England during the Viking Age, and this only gets less so as we get into the medieval period. Swedes were always an eastward-looking people. By the 1200s, they were involved in expanding into Finland, Karelia and Estonia, and were at constant war with Novgorod. They never looked west other than to merge their kingdoms with the Norwegians. They were never sailing on voyages of discovery to the west of Vinland even in the Viking period. Nor for that matter were the Norwegians. Remember, Iceland was founded by Norwegian and Faroese Vikings. Greenland was founded by Icelanders, and Vinland by Greenlanders. Noticing a trend?
By 1362, the primary economic machine in the Baltic were the merchant ships of Hanseatic League- not Viking longships. The Avignon popes were running the Church, Valdemar IV had recently sacked the Hanseatic treasury on Gotland, a volcano on Iceland had blown, a holy war had been declared on the pagan Lithuanians, and the effects of the Black Death were still being felt throughout Europe. The populations of both Greenland and Iceland were not expanding, and areas west of Greenland were not looked upon as a viable by the Norse or their later descendants.

7/5/2016 12:12:01 pm

Paul, I think your take on history is off, especially concerning explorations by Scandinavians westward. You make it sound like it's a sure thing they didn't come here, even though there is a specific, defined region up here where the evidences are nearly boundless. Of course, the problem is that de-bunkers and skeptics can't seem to involve these many other evidences within a true picture of history up here. Occasionally, one of these so-called evidences may not be what it seemed at first to be, but overall, the many petroglyphs and iron objects and stoneholes tell a story of medieval Norse exploration. This cannot so easily be dismissed.

Most of these corroborative evidences go along with the KRS, in that they relate to various eras of the late middle ages. The KRS is not an anomaly to this region, as I think many of these other evidences relate to a slightly earlier period of a few hundred years leading up to the placement of the memorial KRS.

I would rather look at the factual "coincidence" of a medieval Scandinavian axe being found next to a lake with two skerries a day's journey from Runestone Hill (as detailed on the KRS) than consider your alternative, dealing with a mere coincidence of numbers. Excuse me for saying so, but mine might be considered a more scientific approach, while your's (and Wolter's) may be considered cherry-picking numbers. There is substance to one approach and not enough substance to the other...which is another reason why Wolter's own history with the KRS will continue to be in decline. His eager use of Dan Brown leftovers was bad enough, but his infusion of the so-called Jesus bloodline and the Sacred Feminine onto both Templars and the KRS is rather deplorable--yet, he tries to evade Christian spirituality in the overall picture.

By now intertwining all this previous nonsense with this new Masonic numbers "coincidence," he has destroyed any credibility he had remaining. And, yes, what he is currently, actively doing seems even worse now that we know he absorbed much of his new material from someone else, apparently without even giving proper acknowledgement.

Paul, if your work ends up helping along his eventual detachment from the KRS, then God-speed those cherry-picked Masonic numbers....

7/4/2016 12:14:29 pm

"As for Wolter, he has essentially stolen the basic template of my theory without crediting me; that the stone was created by not just Freemasons, but Cryptic Masons, because there are indeed 1:1 parallels on the KRS to allegory found in those degrees. I made this point over 3 years ago...but unlike Wolter I came to the conclusion that the stone MUST be fake because of it.'

This is nothing new for Wolter, taking evidence against his claims and twisting it to support them. With each instance his theories become more convoluted and farfetched. When the Larsson Papers came about, anyone with any credibility jumped ship with the modern source for the problematic runes being found. Wolter, at first seemingly befuddled, now includes said papers as evidence for his Templar/Masonic speculations. He openly cites them as if they support him.

7/5/2016 02:08:59 am

Joe- What is bizarre about this supposed Templar connection to Freemasonry is that it has not been accepted by even Masons themselves for over 240 years. This connection was originally created by a Germanic Masonic group called the "Rite of Strict Observance" in the 1740s, however at the Council of Wilhelmsbad, held in 1782, the RofSO was asked to prove this connection. They couldn't and the connection was dismissed, The RofSO, now stripped of their higher degrees, died out within years. Remnants of it still exist in Swedish Rite Masonry.
Today, the Templar degrees are simply not connected whatsoever to the actual Templar knights. Masons who pursue the degrees must profess to be Christian, and view the Templars as the archetypal examples of chivalry. This is clearly at odds with the actual Templars, who were burned at the stake for not being Christians.

Shane Sullivan

7/4/2016 01:19:12 pm

A Gotlandic Catholic priest would never do those things, but an imaginary Goddess-worshipping Templar Freemason Bloodline Guardian sure would!

7/4/2016 01:20:07 pm

Terrific interview, Jason.

7/4/2016 01:56:29 pm

Well I just had an interesting reply from Scott on his blog:

"John July 4, 2016 at 10:21 AM

Scott you can't say that all eight of the reviews are in written form, when you distinctly posted this reply on your "The Templar Families and Sheep" blog post:

"Of the people on that list, Paul Wieblen and G.B. Morey did not submit written reviews of my geological work. They promised to, but we instead discussed the findings personally at the Minnesota Geological Survey and Paul was the only one who didn't completely agree. His objections were philosophical with regard to methodology and he offered nothing specific to refute or contradict my work." — Scott Wolter

http://scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-templar-families-and-sheep.html

You yourself Scott said that not only did Professors Wieblen and Morey not submit written forms, but what ultimately happen was a discussion between the both of them. You even went so far to admit that Wieblen didn't agree with your methods and conclusion as well. So there are in fact only 6 written reviews on record, and this fact came from your own words.

Scott Wolter July 4, 2016 at 10:38 AM

John,

You are correct that I said that, but I was wrong. I had forgotten until I saw the file yesterday that G.B. Morey, in fact, did submit a written peer review. I apologize, I was wrong.

Paul Wieblen did not submit a written review as he did not review my work in any detail. I know that Paul did submit a report praising Winchell, but he only performed one microprobe traverse on the glacial surface of the core sample. I was there when he did it. Some skeptics have tried to make an issue of the fact he didn't document any biotite on that surface during his traverse. That would be expected on the glacial surface wouldn't it? Wieblen and I didn't agree that the exact elemental composition of the KRS biotite was important with regard to weathering. I argued it didn't matter as the removal of surficial KRS biotite and other micas was a mechanical process, not a chemical process.

We're still at 8 written reviews including those by material scientists Richard Nielsen and Richard Stehly. I think "only six" written reviews is pretty damn good!

Nice try John, and what's your last name BTW? I don't think you were ever a ball player were you?"

7/4/2016 03:49:20 pm

Mr. Wolter is a liar. Dr. Wieblen analyzed the fresh interior of the core taken from the back of the artifact and not the weathered surface. That is self-evident from reading his report which can be found on Richard Nielsen's web site here:

http://www.richardnielsen.org//PDFs/Weiblen%20(2001)%201%20to%2045,%20Appendices%201%20and%203%208MB.pdf

I do not believe Wolter was present when Dr. Wieblen performed his microprobe work. I have known Dr. Wieblen since 1977. He was one of my professors and on my Ph.D. thesis committee. I just had an email from him about two weeks ago. I have never heard him say anything good about that sociopath Scott Wolter. Sociopath is my word. These misrepresentations by Wolter are blatant violations of the Minnesota rules of ethics governing licensed P.G.s. Under the rules he is not permitted to lie about any material facts nor disparage other geologists. He needs to have his license revoked. He is a disgrace to the profession.

7/4/2016 04:13:01 pm

Harold,

Has Dr. Wieblen spoke of his thoughts on the Kensington Rune Stone recently, due to the most recent research done on it since his earlier reports? Because Wolter has constantly spoke of the fact, that while Dr. Wieblen disagreed with him on his methods, he has constantly said that he still did agree with him on his conclusions. Wolter has also made the claim that because of the information Jason released about his credentials that his retired professors are uncomfortable with having to be questioned about it and feel anxious. He implied Dr. Wieblen to be one of them. Has Dr. Wieblen been open about his feelings towards Scott's credentials, and has he been willing to speak about it? I apologize for bothering you or your former professor but I have read Dr. Wieblen's reports on both the original report, and his report on the staining of the KRS following the 2003 molding, and I find his perspective to be very important on this entire situation.

7/4/2016 04:38:49 pm

I have emailed Dr. Weiblen (sorry for the misspelling) about Wolter's blog. Dr. Weiblen has never been one of Wolter's professors. He taught at the Minneapolis campus of the University of Minnesota where I did my graduate work. Nor was Dr. Morey who was part of the Minnesota Geological Survey, part of the U of M in Minneapolis. The other professors that Wolter mentions were at the Duluth campus where Wolter went to school. Wolter has a B.S. in geology from the Duluth campus and nothing else. His record with the licensing board is public and anyone can get a copy. There are some other things I can share in a few days. Hopefully I will get a response from Weiblen by then. As to the age of the KRS, I believe he still thinks that geology cannot conclusively prove its age one way or the other. I do not share that opinion, but when I told him of my work on the calcite layer about 18 months ago, he said I might be on to something. Dr. Weiblen has never ever given any opinion that geology proved that the KRS was made in 1362. Of course when he became involved with Wolter in 2000 he had hoped of better things from Wolter. Like everyone else, he was bitterly disappointed. Dr. Richard Nielsen recently explained it this way: Dealing with Wolter is like shaking hands with a man who has tar on his hand. When you pull away, you have tar on your hand. Wolter has swindled tens of thousands of dollars from Nielsen. Dr. Nielsen has never received a dime in royalties from the book he authored with Wolter. I had the sad duty to tell Dr. Nielsen that Wolter failed to register the copyright with the Copyright Office in Washington so they have lost the rights to statutory damages and legal fees. Wolter failed to register his other books except the first edition of his agate book as well. Wolter is a putz.

7/4/2016 05:12:27 pm

Harold,

Thank you for the information yet again. One of the things I find odd though is how Scott always tries to twist the truth on what happened between him and Richard Nielson. This information is public knowledge and Nielson himself released documents that proved so. It especially boggles my mind considering how this misinformation affected the relationship between Dr. Nielson as well as Dr. Williams with Darwin Ohman. I'm not sure how Scott has been able to manipulate Darwin for so long, considering his foray into Mason conspiracy land, but they have been taken for a ride thats for sure.

8/7/2016 11:43:54 am

I had a meeting yesterday with Dr. Paul Weiblen. He said he had no recollection of Scott Wolter being present when Weiblen did his microprobe analysis. Sorry for the long delay in my post. I had planned the meeting with Paul for the past several weeks. Paul had been one of my professors when I was a graduate student.

Also just after the time I last wrote here, Dr. Richard Nielsen passed away. Dick and Paul were personal friends. I had first met Dick back in 2003 when he was working with Wolter on the KRS and I was an employee at Wolter’s American Petrographic Services. Dick had funded--through the Runestone Museum Foundation in Alexandria--the $10,000 Wolter was paid for his 2001 report on the KRS. It is unpublished, but a copy has been placed with Minnesota Historical Society. If you are interested, you can obtain one from them. It is probably Wolter’s best work on the artifact. I believe much of the actual work was done by his staff at APS. It contains good pre-staining color photographs of the artifact. It is too bad it is not readily available.

The next time I saw Dick was when he made a presentation at the Minnesota Geological Survey on the laser scanning of the KRS in 2008. He was there promoting laser scanning as an analytical tool. I had been emailing Dick over the last year and in the last few weeks of his life we were talking at length over the phone. He was planning a trip to Minnesota this month. Dick was still vibrant and had a full slate of planned work. He had kept an open mind on KRS issues. He will be sorely missed.

Yesterday, Weiblen’s son George was also visiting his father. Dr. George Weiblen is now a professor at the University of Minnesota in the Department of Plant Biology and has been made interim scientific director at the University’s Bell Museum of Natural History. George was sitting next to his father while he was talking to him during brunch. George’s young son was fidgeting as he stood between his father’s legs. The boy is about 10 years old. I did not catch his name, but he is only a little younger than the 13 George was when I last saw George in person back around 1980!

Carpe Diem.

7/4/2016 05:10:59 pm

Joe Scales,

Scott is not involved, per se, with any "gotcha" moment on the tombstone confusion. I did a post on Scott's page clarifying the identity of the decedent on the grave marker. I do Maine-related research so I know first-hand some of the difficulty in making proper identification. No smoke screen stuff, either.

Since I have you on the line, and you are a long-time participant in the weathering study conversation, why is it that you, or others collectively, have not ponied up the $$ just to have your own scientific evaluation performed on the KRS? With the seeming large number of folks who get quite animated over Wolter's weathering study, it seems that a cost sharing effort would be a relatively painless way to go. Do your own study, have it peer reviewed by the best geologists in the U.S., and if the re-evaluation results are absolutely conclusive that the inscription shows little to no weathering effects that can support an age of 200+ years, then all of us can move on and argue about other things.

I am not trying to poke anyone in the eye, but it has been sixteen years since the first weathering study. If folks disagree with the conclusions of the first study, and it is clear that plenty do, then why not commission a second study? Science takes that approach all the time to ensure the most accurate results are obtained.

As it stands now, I don't believe there have been any formal weathering studies done subsequent to Scott's 2000 one, right?

Folks can state their opposition to Scott's work all day long on an Internet blog, it will take a published work based on a new study to change what history will record. To date, I daresay that only two people have submitted official findings on the KRS weathering, they being Professor N. H. Winchell and Scott Wolter - both of them Geologists. Both studies were reviewed, Winchell's by the Wisconsin State Geologist, William Hotchkiss, and Scott's by a variety of persons that you all are very aware of (with the exception of two names).

History may footnote that there were objections to Scott's findings, but if there is no other weathering study conducted, there will only be two studies left on the field of battle. Both of those studies concluded that the weathering on the KRS was indicative of an origin of at least 200 years prior to 1898.

I know this reply will raise the ire of those folks who 1) dispute Scott's weathering study or 2) just have a general dislike of any and all things that Scott might do. There will more than likely be some really nasty replies. But in the end, without a weathering study of your own that rebuts both Winchell's and Wolter's conclusions, you folks are holding a bag of air.

You need to put an actual soldier on the field of battle - which is a weathering study of your own. Oratory soldiers don't cut the mustard.

7/4/2016 05:37:47 pm

Wolter's work was not peer reviewed. He released copies showing everyone who was sent a draft copy of his book, in which they wrote suggestions and corrections on their respective drafts. This is NOT peer review; that is called editing.

It was a futile exercise anyway, as he completely ignored the advice given to him. As to your suggestion of funding an independent study, why should anyone do so? We don't have the obligation to prove Scott wrong; he has the burden to prove he's right. That's how it works.

7/4/2016 05:44:17 pm

Plus most serious geologists view the KRS as a hoax and have not done other studies on the stone because of that. Also Only Me, I don't know if you remember this, but there is the letter that Scott sent to just a few of his professors following the so called "peer review":

http://www.richardnielsen.org//PDFs/The%203%20UMD%20Prof%20review%20of%20the%20KRS%20geology%20report%20to%20the%20RSM%20in%20May%202002..pdf

7/4/2016 06:20:14 pm

I remember reading that before.

One other thing about having an independent study done: exactly how would that be done, since the mold made of it per Scott's request, left the stone severely stained?

7/4/2016 08:53:23 pm

Patrick,
From the very first sentence above, you argue disingenuously. Wolter did indeed spring from your defense into the realm of "gotcha" with his follow up. As for why I don't commission a weathering study... that is wholly ridiculous. If you read Winchell's committee report, you'll see despite his personal beliefs (where he was swayed by Holland's translation of Ohman's account, and left very little geological record of any findings) he left the final word on authenticity to the Swedish linguists. They didn't bite, so the Minnesota Historical Society didn't either.

Forget the science. Wolter fails on basic logic which I've pointed out ad nauseam for over a year now. That's why his work could never withstand common sense, let alone peer review if it even got that far. His work is riddled with confirmation bias and his talking points consist of proof by assertion. It doesn't take a weathering study to dispute him. It takes Logic 101. Look into it yourself. It might be helpful.

Now be gone minion...

7/5/2016 12:44:45 pm

What would you have “geologists” do? The Kensington Rune Stone is unweathered. Period. Go to Wikipedia and download a high resolution of image of it taken in 1910 here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Kensington-runestone_flom-1910.jpg

Look at the front face in the right hand image. The last three lines of the text begin in the calcite layer. They are as sharp and crisp as the day they were carved.

The Kensington Rune Stone is unweathered. Any geologist with experience in rock weathering will tell you this. Winchell himself thought so! Here is what he said as part of an address before the Minnesota Historical Society on December 13, 1909: “I might say, at the outset, that the perfect preservation and the freshness of the angles and all the cutting of the characters that constitute the record on this stone appeared to be an objection to its alleged age. On first examination the impression was made on my mind that it was too lately inscribed. That impression remains, but I have to admit that I have not any experience of the duration of such cutting on such a stone.”

Scientists in general and geologists in particular are not some high priests in a temple with occult knowledge of nature. Go see for yourself. Go to your local cemeteries and look at the marble tombstones–the white ones. See how the edges of the letters in the inscriptions are rounded after only one hundred years of weathering. The Kensington Rune Stone’s inscription in the calcite layer is as sharp and crisp as the day it was carved. After 536 years it should be gone.

What would you have “geologists” do? You want an expensive, time consuming study to show that the artifact is unweathered? Most geologists are busy trying to understand climate change, finding dwindling natural resources, trying to understand how our universe works. You want more from them? The Swedish panel of geologists who vetted Wolter’s 2003 paper found it wanting. They had no duty to prove the artifact was a fake. Their charge was to evaluate Wolter’s work. In Dr. Runo Löfvendahl’s final view on the dating of the KRS by geology he noted, “…Neither his [Wolter] investigations nor our own impressions can date the inscription. As you can see, we don't have enough material or results to write a reasonable paper.” That is the dilemma most serious scientists face including myself. The artifact is unweathered and proving a negative is an arduous task.

If you want a paper on the geology of the Kensington Rune Stone that “proves” the artifact is unweathered it has already been done and is readily available. Read Michael G. Michlovic’s 2010 study, “Geology and the Age of the Kensington Inscription,” The Minnesota Archaeologist, vol 68, pp. 139-160. You can download a copy here:

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/66623810/geology-age-kensington-inscription

You will need to get access through your local public library.

On page 158, Michlovic concludes: “Geology proves neither that the Kensington inscription is authentic, nor that it is older than the nineteenth century.”

7/4/2016 05:26:35 pm

"Mindy McCarthy July 3, 2016 at 5:07 PM

Interesting stuff Scott. Have the Runestone Museum and Ohman family seen this research yet? I would love to know their commentary on this information, and how important it is to the research and history of the KRS.


Scott Wolter July 3, 2016 at 5:40 PM

Hi Mindy,

Four members of the Ohman Family heard me present this research a couple of months ago at a Masonic function and I think they found it interesting. Maybe one of them will chime in with their thoughts.

The Runestone Museum had not seen the research yet.

Personally, I think this could be the most important discovery since the geological work I performed in 2000-2003 that validated Winchell's work in 1910, and the discovery of the Dotted R and the word "har" in 2003. What this gives us is a glimpse into the medieval carver's mind. There's no doubt the odds of the numbers matching so perfectly eliminates any possibility of coincidence, so it's vitally important to carefully consider what the message does, and doesn't say.

I'm now convinced the message was crafted long before the stone was selected by the party and split down to its final shape. The number 14 is especially interesting given its association with the age-old "resurrection" story and the apparent distance to the territory of the guardians of the Secret Vault. If the SV can be located, the authenticity of the not just the KRS, but the Templar's original claiming of the land that would become the United States will be validated once and for all.

Anonymous July 4, 2016 at 11:45 AM

Mindy, my name is Darwin Ohman, grandson of Olof Ohman and first I must say that I am proud to be a friend of Scott and Janet Wolter. Yes the Ohman family is excited about this new information.

I have known Scott since 2004 and have found his knowledge and abilities to be amazing. His diligence in researching information and open mindedness has clearly put him miles ahead of the pack in KRS knowledge. He has done more to set the facts straight on the KRS than anyone in the last 118 years. I truly enjoy time with Scott and we have done a fair amount of research together. It is always productive, interesting, and especially a learning experience for me.

There is a lot of discussion here on peer review. My suggestion to the debunkers and those who can only talk about peer review would be to listen to what Scott has to say and do their own research. If academic peer review were the main focus, little would get done. For someone interested in the KRS, it is exciting times and I welcome and look forward to Scott's work! In the last couple of years things have really come together. He is truly a friend of the Ohman family and I appreciate his honesty with me. He does want to know the truth as do I.

Darwin Ohman

Darwin Ohman"

7/5/2016 01:54:17 am

"The number 14 is especially interesting given its association with the age-old "resurrection" story and the apparent distance to the territory of the guardians of the Secret Vault. If the SV can be located, the authenticity of the not just the KRS, but the Templar's original claiming of the land that would become the United States will be validated once and for all."

I'm beginning to doubt that Wolter actually is a Mason, for he should know that the "Secret Vault" mentioned in the Cryptic Degrees is not a physical place. Its an allegorical message. "Cryptic" is in reference specifically to this "vault", which is one's own tomb, and Cryptic Rite concerns itself with death and resurrection of all men. This idea that its a physical place with buried treasure is absurd.

7/5/2016 02:04:59 am

It is absurd considering the fact that he treats the message on the KRS as being an allegorical message created by Freemasons, in yet he treats the "Secret Vault" allegory as being real. The hypocrisy and lack of logic even within Wolter's own twisted brand of "logic" is beyond words.

7/5/2016 10:20:46 am

Wolter is transitioning his fringe theories into another treasure hunt, most likely to get back on television. He's going to jump on the Oak Island phenomenon (or better put, hoax) for his next pitch. He's been setting it up for some time now. He's going to say that treasure on Oak Island was removed by his allegorious band of Cistercian/Templar/Masons and taken to some vault out west, where if you find the right Native Americans and know the secret handshake, you're on to the next level of the hunt. Yup, the KRS is now a treasure map, and the Wolter/Pulitzer team are gonna milk it for all it's worth.

Mike Morgan

7/5/2016 02:29:01 pm

Joe, LOL. You may have discovered the "truth": "Wolter is transitioning his fringe theories into another treasure hunt, most likely to get back on television."

Pulitzer patents his "ideated" inventions and Wolter likes to trademark letters of the alphabet, but doesn't copyright his books. Throw a monkey wrench into the mix by beating them to the punch. Copyright, Trademark, and apply for a patent for the concept as your "intellectual property". :>)

Richard Muth

7/6/2016 07:28:29 am

For various reasons, I have not yet chimed into a discussion here, but for some reason this morning I felt a need to respond to this one small bit among the vast amount of Masonic misinformation I read over and over in these comments -- primarily from the likes of T M. Although far too many Masons don't understand the history and background of much of their fraternity, most outsiders are even more misguided. However, it is also true that much of the "deeper meaning" is, intentionally or not, able to be interpreted in various ways. Additionally, many Masonic writers have expressed many different ideas about those meanings and their origins, and many of them are highly speculative. There is no single Masonic authority, although there are quite a few good Masonic Scholars who, like Jason, attempt to sort through the speculation vs the known facts.

The idea of the Secret Vault being allegorical is certainly true, but like much of our ritual, it ALSO refers to an actual physical place. That place contained some "treasures," but not of the type treasure hunters are typically seeking. Its physical location is also clearly established in the ritual, and not really open to interpretation. As to references to resurrection, well, in the US at least, none of the rituals of the Cryptic degrees, (nor any other outside of the Order of the Temple in Commandery) have any reference to resurrection. It is a common misunderstanding that the story of Hiram Abif involves his resurrection, but looking at the whole story clearly indicates that this is not so at all --- his body was "raised" to be reinterred, not reanimated. The degree that most concerns itself with the Secret Vault is accurately described at http://www.yorkrite.com/degrees/ thus: Select Master
A Degree emphasizing the lessons of devotion and zeal. The Degree centers on the construction and furnishing of a Secret Vault beneath the Sanctum Sanctorum of the Temple, and the deposition of those secrets pertaining to the Craft by the three ancient Grand Masters of the Craft. This Degree bridges the events surrounding the concealment and loss of the Ineffable Word and the events leading to the recover of the Word in the Royal Arch Degree. The presiding body is a Council, and the presiding officer is a Master (titled Illustrious).

I find it amazing that Wolter would have received such deep insight into the ritual immediately upon receiving the degrees. As one who has gone through them, conferred them and studied them, it is apparent to me that he has read them, or others' commentaries on them, probably well before he received them, and I have no doubt that his reasons for joining the fraternity (and he certainly did join) were primarily so he could promote himself as an insider who was told all the "secrets." It is a great shame that he gets an audience among his new brethren because of his supposed "insights" from one of their own. I sincerely hope they will soon catch on that his ideas are wilder than those proposed by other speculators over the years, but, alas, too many simply want to believe certain things despite the known facts. Unfounded Templar origin myths have been popular among Freemasons for over 200 years, and similarly, the KRS mythos is also very popular among many in Wolter's home area. He will continue to find an audience as long as he tells them what they want to hear. Such is life...

JJR

7/6/2016 10:03:16 am

I suspect Mr. Muth is correct when he suggests that Wolter had already formed an opinion regarding the content of the Cryptic Degrees (as well as an idea of what he planned to shoehorn into them) long before he ever actually witnessed them. This is an all too frequent problem with candidates for the Masonic degrees, at every level.

Mr. Wolter is, in fact, an almost comically accurate example of the stereotype. Candidate brimming with preconceived notions and solidified beliefs about what they are going to encounter in Masonry? Check. Product of a rapid-fire degree festival where accelerated ascension to "rank" is valued over the traditional measured progression? Check. Proclivity towards holding forth publicly on a subject which he has only scant months prior sworn to keep private? Check. Ask any Mason in any jurisdiction if they've encountered a Brother like this and I wager they'll be able to point to more than one example. I know I can.

Wolter, however, is a little different from your average Over-Eager and Under-Educated new Brother. He has a financial incentive rolled into the mix that attaches a deeply rotten multiplier to a problem that shouldn't be more than a mild irritant to his local Masonic Brethren. Joe Scales has hit the nail on the head with his theory that, unless television and film producers have by some chance managed to collectively grow a brain, we'll soon see this splashed across some third-rate cable channel in the form of a quixotic treasure hunt.

Kal

7/4/2016 06:29:13 pm

Several bloggers, not just those who knew of Colavito, have contacted the universities Scott Wolter attended. This makes SW mad as they could find out he is full of it.

Is that blogger really Darwin? That would be interesting if true.

My cousin professor at Duluth U. has not heard of SW getting an honorary masters, but maybe it was before her.

I'm sure the museum just finds the stone an interesting artifact, and there are lots of other supposed important stones and other markers there. Even if it's not genuine, and it isn't, it's an interesting piece of colonial history of MN.

Yep, SW, it's fake. Ohman knows if is too. He just wants to sell his fame, and there is nothing wrong with that. You betchya. Just when you make money off make up stories, it rubs people wrong, is all.

The stone is a tourist fake from the 1800s.

You messed it up weathering it and making it look older, SW.

Also no, you had editors, not peer review, as someone said.

Peer review is a bigger deal but only in the academia you claim to dislike for conspiracies, SW.

So is it a land claim or a marker? Who cares! It's a fake.

Yah.

Americanegro

5/26/2017 02:51:30 pm

"My cousin professor at Duluth U. has not heard of SW getting an honorary masters, but maybe it was before her."

That's easily explained. He never got an honorary Masters Degree. Someone brought him a cappucino and made a joke about it and bang! Onto the resume it went.

It should also be noted that Wolter misrepresents Winchell's conclusions to make it seem Winchell agrees with him. Winchell does not.

7/4/2016 06:30:08 pm

Oh and to be clear, Darwin is not my cousin.

7/5/2016 04:15:12 pm

Also, I thought Wolter basically ruined the KRS with silicone or something. Who peer reviewed that part?

7/5/2016 04:39:37 pm

Dupont?

7/6/2016 10:30:21 am

To understand the genesis of Wolter's disillusionment--the beginnings of his attachment to weird ideas leading away from a simple KRS message, one must realize that there is also much disillusionment and attachment of weird ideas to the Hooked X itself...but mostly by Wolter himself.

For some of those perceived to be on the fringe, such as myself, it is not difficult to see that those responsible for the "Hooked X runestones" may possibly be descended from POST-Templar factions. I happen to believe that the so-called Maine runestones containing Hooked X's and the Narragansett inscription containing a Hooked X, are as genuine as the KRS, and that they all belong in the same general time-frame. This also goes for the Newport Tower, strongly suggesting Swedish defensive/church architecture.

There are vague hints that the Hooked X was connected with Rosslyn Chapel and with secretive, early Freemasonry, through the Larsson Papers, but I haven't seen any evidence that Post-Templars were the only group to use the Hooked X. I've read in research that other Christians may have used the symbol as well, the character being recognized for representing Christianity, not necessarily as representing Post-Templars, exclusively.

So then, historically speaking, there may be some validity to the Hooked X being used by Christians, including Post-Templars, during the second half of the 14th century. Since I believe the KRS is genuine, I must also believe the Hooked X'es on it are just as genuine, and they should be as fully accounted for as possible...not dismissed because of being so despicably used by one person for his own agenda.

We see how the Hooked X has been bloodied and badgered and made to look like a fool, when it should be looked at as a valid clue to the KRS's true past. The Hooked X now needs to be redeemed as that valuable clue about the KRS's creator. Together, the KRS's carver and the KRS need to be stripped of the foulness which was being attached to them.

It is not right, historically speaking, that a probable Christian creator of the KRS should be made to look like a depraved anti-Christian, not even believing in Christ's divinity.

Wolter does not want spirituality to be a part of the KRS, instead, only wanting physical bones and nonsensical Dan Brown bloodlines. He has gathered up dogma going back to ancient Egypt and incorporated that and Sacred Feminine ideas and Jesus bones in a box idea and wrapped everything up in Hooked X sailcloth and brought them to far-inland America. But, that was all taken and borrowed from here and there and made up.

So, the KRS has been suffering not only from Big Ole nonsense for too many years, locally, but also from Scott Wolter's increasingly bizarre nonsense, and on a national scale.

May some dignity now finally be restored to our earliest American document? All we need to do is trust its simple message as being 100% true...a very refreshing approach.

dan jerry

7/26/2018 01:04:18 am

Welcome to brotherhood Illuminati where you can become
rich famous and popular and your life story we be change
totally my name is Dan Jerry I am here to share my
testimony on how I join the great brotherhood Illuminati
and my life story was change immediately . I was very poor
no job and I has no money to even feed and take care of my
family I was confuse in life I don’t know what to do I try all
my possible best to get money but no one work out for me
each day I share tears, I was just looking out my family no
money to take care of them until one day I decided to join
the great Illuminati , I come across them in the internet I
never believe I said let me try I email them.all what they
said we happen in my life just started it was like a dream to
me they really change my story totally . They give me the
sum of $1,200,000 and many thing. through the Illuminati I
was able to become rich, and have many industry on my
own and become famous and popular in my country , today
me and my family is living happily and I am the most
happiest man here is the opportunity for you to join the
Illuminati and become rich and famous in life and be like
other people and you life we be change totally.If you are
interested in joining the great brotherhood Illuminati.then
contact him +2348106618681 or for more information +1(705)8062021
email:illuminatibrotherpowerful@gmail.com or you need my assistance
email:danjerry04@gmail.com...