Arguing the Kensington Rune Stone in "Forbidden Archaeology:" A Brief Update

7/27/2016

I'm happy to announce that I have a new (albeit still preliminary at this point) structure for the portion of my upcoming Forbidden Archaeology course in which we will be discussing the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS). As I've written before, Fobidden Archaeology (ANTH 291 for prospective students at USC) is intended first and foremost to be an exercise in critical thinking, logic, and the evidence-based methods we can employ to discriminate credible from non-credible statements about the human past. Scott Wolter's departure from the schedule doesn't mean that we're not going to talk about the KRS: the origins and meaning of the stone continue to be the focus of a multi-leveled debate that can be used to illustrate the scientific process. I'm hoping that the guests I've now lined up will help my students work through the main points of that debate and experience how scientific methods can be used to frame critical questions and develop testable expectations material evidence related to the past.

Because of South Carolina law (I was required to settle on texts for the course some time ago), I'm locked into using Wolter's Hooked X book. We'll use that book and other sources to understand arguments supporting the claim that the KRS is a genuine medieval artifact dating to 1362. Each guest that I've invited will address a different aspect of that claim.

The Geology and Age of the Kensington Rune Stone

Dr. Harold Edwards will be joining the class (via Skype) to discuss the geology of the KRS as it relates to interpretations of the age of the inscription. Edwards, a professional geologist who works in Minnesota, is currently preparing a paper on the geology of the KRS. He has written lengthy critiques of Wolter's conclusions about the weathering of the KRS on Jason Colavito's blog (e.g., here), and has made comments on my blog in the past. Edwards does not accept the KRS as a medieval artifact on the basis of its geology.

The Runes

Dr. Henrik Williams will be talking to the class (via Skype) about the linguistics of the KRS. Williams is an expert in Germanic runes who has made extensive study of the KRS inscription. You can see a brief interview with Williams in this podcast from the Minnesota Historical Society. Williams does not accept the KRS as a medieval artifact on the basis of its runology.

The Kensington Rune Stone as a Modern Masonic Creation

Finally, Paul Stewart will speak to the class about his ideas of who created the KRS and why. In his 2013 book The Enigmatist, Stewart argued that the KRS was neither a genuine medieval artifact nor an intentional hoax, concluding that it was probably created by Freemasons in the 1800's (perhaps by the Cryptic Rite in 1880). I'm hoping that Stewart will be able to visit the class in person.

While the fine details of scheduling these three guests remain to be worked out, I anticipate that the KRS discussion will happen sometime in early November. Ideally, these guests would be able to interact with my class in the order listed above: geology, runology, and the "third way" interpretation offered by Stewart. I'm planning on helping my students be as prepared as possible to ask Edwards, Williams, and Stewart the toughest questions that they can, probably designating some of them to take Wolter's positions on whatever issues are raised. I want my students to learn how to arm themselves with questions and facts and how to engage with those questions and facts in ways that are constructive, productive, and fun. While I don't yet know how successful I'll be in doing that, I think all signs point to this class being a good ride. Stay tuned.

29 Comments

Bob Jase

7/27/2016 10:33:07 am

Why couldn't this class have been held at CCSC back in '74?

Jonathan Feinstein

7/27/2016 11:30:56 am

We had something along the same lines about that time at CWRU although at the time we were mostly focused on the claims of Erich von Daniken. Andy's class looks to have a lot more grist to grind through. Too bad I cannot enroll for this class.

Thomas Schroeder

7/27/2016 02:22:21 pm

Interesting to hear about the SC law that requires you to select texts far ahead of the course and then stick to them. I hope there are some loopholes you can safely exploit.

Andy White

7/27/2016 02:40:30 pm

I just went to look for the actual law, and I'm not 100% sure it's actually on the books yet. I was told I had to submit my book choices by April 4 this time around. My first semester here, I was told that the early dates for submitting book choices were "in anticipation" of an upcoming state law. Either way, this time around the course will require purchase of the three books I discussed in an earlier post. I try to keep student costs down by utilizing resources freely available online as much as possible.

Joe Scales

7/28/2016 07:23:43 am

The drawback is that Wolter might actually see some profit from this. Heck of a lineup though, for your class. No wonder Wolter turned tail and ran. He would have been the piñata; easily cracked, but devoid of anything inside.

Andy White

7/28/2016 07:54:00 am

These guests are instead of Wolter -- I had to restructure in his absence. The key ideas and claims (and counter-claims) about the KRS remain the same whether he's involved or not, so the examination of those ideas and claims will go on regardless. The class is going to focus on evidence rather than personal conflicts. I'm not teaching third grade!

Joe Scales

7/28/2016 08:26:17 am

Then Wolter, the courageous sports hero he is, should relish the opportunity to face off against his bitter rivals. Those he bashes relentlessly on his blog and in his talk. Of course the only personal conflicts are brought to the table by Wolter himself, as it is his only line of attack once his logic is revealed as flawed, his scientific methodology suspect and his grasp on history exposed as pure fantasy.

B L

7/28/2016 12:15:52 pm

Andy, will there be any way to audit this class online or follow along somehow? I'm very interested in the information, but am not able to enroll.

Killbuck

7/28/2016 06:00:55 pm

Is there only one true champion of KRS authenticity? With his decision not to champion his cause, where are the others who like Wolter can see the obvious?

That darn Smithsonian conspiracy must be so onerous, so threatening and all powerful, that everyone, everyone but one, has been silenced, cowered into fear or spirited off in dark sedans at 3am.

Every history heretic fears the knock on the door at night.

Oh but not Wolter. He alone has the grit and courage to face down the dark forces of orthodoxy. He alone has faced down the pointy pencils of academia's henchmen. .

With such fortitude he surely could face down a few students.

Ah, but you underestimate him again! They must be a Smithsonian Death Squad and Wolter can congratulate himself for seeing it and foiling their nefarious, diabolical and eee-vil plans by heroically avoiding their dark grip.

He's so brave.

Andy White

7/29/2016 07:15:18 pm

I'm going to start a new website to help organize the course and to make student work available. I'll announce that once it's up and running, and we'll build on it throughout the semester (that's the plan, anyway).

Gunn link

7/28/2016 11:06:17 pm

Hi Andy. Unfortunately, your upcoming class is heavily unbalanced in favor of the KRS not being an authentic stone document from the 14th century.

Also, Scott would not have represented the KRS as a "KRS message purist," which still would have left the KRS without any defense from someone who believes it is genuine and that a truthful message or story was given by the carver.

Wolter does not believe the message, and I refute most of what he offers, except for the KRS being authentic, and except for some information in his Hooked X book tying regional Norse evidences to the KRS. That information I found very compelling and valuable. But Wolter is wrong about solving the inscription...there is no solving of the inscription, if the inscription is true.

Andy, I'm not sure what I would be able to offer your class, but I just thought it might be good to point out that so far your panel of guests are all unanimous in that the KRS is not what it claims to be. This does not seem like a good way to begin class.

I'm willing to get on the other side of the teeter-totter if you'd like my involvement. I can weigh a lot if required. I believe the KRS is true and that (so far) you and your scheduled guests are unjustifiably bold in assuming it is not.

I supplied an enormous amount of esoteric stonehole knowledge in your last blog...for whatever good it seems to have done.

I think it would be fair to assume that no final verdict is in yet about the KRS (though there is in my own mind), as many thousands interested in the subject are on each side of the issue. Right now, as it is, your upcoming class seems doomed for failure, due to an eerie imbalance of the necessary impartiality it will need to come across as fair and balanced in any way.

If no seasoned defender of the KRS comes forward (there is none), I will try to fill those shoes without busting the seams. For my credentials, I recently found the elusive and mysterious "Lake With Two Skerries," and my presentation proving so was received into the Minnesota Historical Society's KRS archives.

I was also the first to specify the Chippewa River as being the waterway source for the KRS party to reach both the Runestone Hill area and the ill-fated campsite a day's journey north. Davidson Lake is situated at the north end of several lakes running together, connected off the Chippewa River. A medieval Swedish battle axe was discovered buried on the west bank of this lake back in 1894, I believe marking the area of the campsite and massacre told about in the inscription.

Again, Wolter would have been just another guest giving an opinion that the KRS isn't what it says it is...not a very good defender at all, especially if the inscription is true, which I believe it is.

killbuck

7/29/2016 11:02:34 am

' which still would have left the KRS without any defense from someone who believes it is genuine ..."

But isn't that who Wolter is? Does he not say he has evidence of it's authenticity? Why not present it? Why does he need a designated class supporter if his evidence is to be objectively evaluated?

Mark L

7/30/2016 12:49:29 am

Gunn, what professional qualifications do you have?

Cort Lindahl link

7/29/2016 10:31:25 am

If you want to know the truth of the KRS then see my book "The Geographic Mysteries of Sir Francis Bacon." No Bacon did not leave it but people from Virginia who were first families and lived in Alexandria Minnesota likely did it. This includes the Hill family who owned the Great Northern Railroad and built the Maryhill Stonehenge in Washington and Peace Arch on the Border of the U.S, and Canada. The Hill's and even members of Poe's extended family owned the RR and imbued gnostic and mystery school info at their train stations similar to the hoopla we see about the Denver Airport today minus the underground bases (lol).The Hill's also intermarried w/ the Lewis and Eaton families. Eaton's are a Mayflower family that in Ireland are Stewarts. The Eaton's are behind the International Peace Garden that in turn exposes a link between the Douglas family, Swedish counts of Hamilton and the first governor of Virginia George Hamilton (not tanmaster lol). The KRS is coincidentally on the border of Rupert's Land or the original claim controlled by the Hamilton's and Douglas'. This inlcludes the KRS marking the southern border of Rupert's Land. The Archer Reliquary found in Jamestown has symbols very similar to the ones in question on the KRS. Genealogy lets us follow the Hill's from Jamestown and Williamsburg to Minnesota. Would be happy to contribute to your class if you would like. What has also been uncovered is the obvious influence of the Society of the Cincinnati in this. The Hill's are descendant of Lawrence Washington and Meriwether Lewis. Later we see the Beale, Hill, and many others first families having a huge interest in Gold Rush California for many reasons where they established the New Age mysteries of Mt. Shasta in a similar play to what had been done in Minnesota. Its all about the stones gang. Its all a play by Jacobites and the Cavalier families from England and Scotland and not centrally Masonic IMO. These men were all Order of the Bath.

Denise

7/29/2016 11:58:50 am

But why runic lettering?????

Cort link

7/29/2016 12:10:35 pm

I repeat the Swedish Counts of Hamilton. Lord Selkirk owned the Hudson's Bay Co. His cousins were from Sweden. They went there after the first Jacobite rising in 1715 and married into the Swedish Royal family. Lord Selkirk (Douglas) went to Sweden and brought Swedish shepherds and military personnel to the Red River Colony. Prior to this the connections between the first governor of Virginia George Hamilton a.k.a. the Earl of Orkney were also considered Norwegian royalty at times. So there are runes in Scotland, England, and Ireland as well people. The KRS marks the boundary or border of the Hudson's Bay Company and subsequently the Red River Colony. Later the descendants of Lawrence Washington come to Alexandria and Minneapolis. The KRS is located in Douglas County Minnesota named for Stephen Douglas a contemporary of Lincoln's. Stephen Douglas is directly related to Benedict Arnold Sr. and Jr. the said builders of the Newport Tower whose octagonal form "points to" the KRS every day of the year not just on 9:30 on the solstice as supposed. This is just the tip of the iceberg I am telling you here. Thank you.

Andy White

7/29/2016 12:08:03 pm

There still seem to be some misunderstandings about the purpose and structure of this course, so I'm going to try one more time to clarify.

The course is not about who dislikes who, or about having some kind of fake "trial" about an artifact after which we vote on its authenticity. The course is not about me arguing with people or about getting people to insult each other.

The class IS about teaching students how to use logic, evidence, and research to evaluate competing claims about the past and communicate about those evaluations. At one level, ideas in the real world are connected to those who promote them. On another level (a more important level, I would argue) ideas and claims can be evaluated independently of those source. That's fundamental to sound science. Science attempts to falsify using facts and evidence. As long as there's a way to do that, it doesn't much matter where the idea comes from.

I hope to teach my students, through exposing them to well-presented arguments and asking them to do their best to pick those arguments apart, some skills that I think are critically absent from many treatments of the human past. It will be their job, not mine, to ask "how do you know that?" and "what about this point?" My job is to teach them how to do that and provide interesting topics to think about. The KRS qualifies. It's a great subject to explore from different perspectives.

If you don't like your ideas being exposed to scrutiny, and you don't like being challenged, this is not a course you should agree to participate in. Sorry, but special shelter has no place in science.

This comment is addressed to no-one in particular. I'm typing on my phone and just wanted to throw in another two cents. I'm always interesting in hearing from people interested in participating, and I'll do my best to find roles for those that are genuinely interested in having some good, vigorous interactions.

Killbuck

7/29/2016 06:56:26 pm

Trying to find the Like button.

Undisclosed

7/29/2016 03:57:39 pm

I am glad that Andy, yet again, reiterated what the design of his class is - which is to examine topics that challenge his students to use critical thinking. The KRS is merely a vehicle by which the Professor is going to move the conversation forward. In the big scheme of things, it matters little that Mr. Wolter backed out and the selected replacement is someone who does not support the KRS being authentic. In the same vein, it likewise matters little that all the presenters lined up for the course similarly do not support authenticity. What this means is that, in order to balance the intellectual conversation, Andy will challenge his students to be the skeptic to the skeptics themselves - which means their rhetorical arguments will be shaped from the authenticity viewpoint. What a great perspective to shape learning! Let there be no doubt - it will be a lively class. The goal is not whether the students, at the end, judge that the KRS is authentic or not, rather it is the opportunity for them to delve into a topic that has over a century of claims/counter-claims attached to - plenty of material so they can hone their critical thinking skills for future endeavors. Let's all keep the ill-tempered back and forth contained to the other blogs and let the Professor teach his course.

Denise

7/29/2016 04:56:01 pm

I get what Andy is doing and I commend him on a very creative way to this type of course, keeping it interesting, topical, and challenging. I wish I could attend.

My best professors were like that, bringing abstracts into the real world and using real life situations.

One of my favorite history professors relayed to us a tale from his time in school when he was translating ancient Assyrian text. My professor wrote: "heap of dung", his professor looked at it and replied:"you know they said pile of sh%+, so say it". Miss that guy.

Keep up the good work Andy. :-)

Bill Wagner

7/30/2016 10:41:14 am

Of what conceivable relevance are Gunn's "professional qualifications" (or lack thereof) to his information being factual and his reasoning sound ?
Religions are matters of faith and operate on the basis of ordination and hierarchy (this unfortunately includes "science-ism"); the last time I checked, actual science answers to no one, nor does it require the imprimatur of a (secular) ecclesiastical establishment in order for its discoveries to be deemed valid.
At the end of the day, facts are facts, whether articulated by someone piled higher and deeper or the town drunk.

nomuse

7/31/2016 09:43:36 am

Efficiency. There are only so many hours in the day. If an engineer says, "I have tested..." then there is a (testable) presumption they used accepted standard methodologies, you can see if they are capable of properly applying them, and have a record of doing so, and all of this discussion can use a streamlined set of agreed-upon terms.

Contrast this to the same claim from a self-taught person.

I agree that the ideas themselves should be agnostic, but the process in drilling down to the actual idea (and whatever supporting evidence there may be for it) is much more difficult when that idea comes from outside a field.

Gunn

7/31/2016 09:54:31 am

Thank you, Bill, your comments mean a lot to me, since support is so very difficult to find as a perceived fringe person. However, I don't mind defending myself by saying that someone on the cusp of truth shouldn't be perceived as being fringe. Anyway, I hope no one took my comments, above, as combative in any way. My intent was merely to point out a glaring imbalance of potential input and persuasion, and that Wolter's input would not have helped the cause of the KRS, as a defender. This is "personalities, aside," yes, good idea.

Papers and degrees also aside, the proof of science and scholarship in, indeed, in the factual findings. In this regard, I am "merely" self-taught, but I've spent countless hours on the internet and in the field, amassing critical information relevant to the study of the KRS. I have stated right from the beginning several years ago that I'm a "message purist" concerning the inscription. I think this is what most local people want, instead of dismissing the KRS message as not true...for whatever reason.

I would participate in a classroom discussion of the KRS only if I thought my input was appreciated, and not immediately "dissed" because of an assumed lack of credentials. I have seen this tendency to question me over a perceived lack of academic credentials appear here and there, which is, of course, always unfair, when it should be more about seeking out and unveiling history truth, without so very much regard for purely academic credentials--or a lack thereof. I have credibility, and that's what matters.

Andy White

7/31/2016 05:53:51 pm

I agree that facts and evidence are ultimately the most important thing. I have no firsthand experience with the "stone holes." The first thing that comes to mind when I read "there are modern ones and Norse ones and you can tell them apart" is "prove it!" First I would like to see a statistical distribution of shape/size that showed the presence of two more-or-less clear clusters or modes (I.e. demonstrating that there are different classes of stone holes). Then I'd like to see an independent basis for assigning those classes to two different time periods: where are the well-dated examples that give us confidence that some of the holes in North America are (or could be) Norse? Only after those two steps would it make sense one to start interpreting the patterns of stone holes. Maybe some of this information is out there- I honestly don't know. Gunn, you'll remember that one of the first questions I asked you was about having a dataset containing information on the intrinsic qualifies of stone holes and/or their locations.

Gunn link

7/31/2016 06:58:30 pm

Hi Andy, I think we are on the same page about necessary facts and evidence. I do not wish in any way to skirt around these requirements.

Andy, I don't have a current database of information set up, but I will assure you that one of your students can have at hand all the information you would like to see, via a database the student could even possibly help set up. The information you desire is already at hand, including photos, but I don't have it all together in a concise database. I could use some help in doing this, and I agree that it would be useful and even critical to understanding the intrinsic qualities of these not-now-so-mysterious stoneholes.

I would like you to know that I feel that I have already provided the basis of information you want, concerning stoneholes, but unfortunately the information is somewhat scattered in different places, including your blog, on my website, and in various other places.

But, I think I have for now, at least, pretty clearly demonstrated the differences between medieval stoneholes and modern stoneholes, and I've given examples, including photos. In my article for the Norwegian American several months ago, I clearly explained what medieval stoneholes are. I have actual photos showing the small-diameter medieval stoneholes on location, where other normal sized medieval stoneholes are also present.

Skraal Hill near Runestone Hill has three medieval stonehole rocks in a cluster a few paces apart. I have photos of a cluster of stoneholes near Wilmot, which includes one of the rare small-diameter ones. There are stonehole clusters galore all along the Whetstone River, with accompanying Scandinavian-appearing petroglyphs. Conversely, I have photos of the remarkable find of over thirty large, machine-made stoneholes at the same location where the code-stone exists...which brings me to the most important information anyone could know to support what I am saying: The very reason for the existence of all these Norse evidences, including stoneholes, in this region.

This Norse stonehole Code-stone exists where it does because it is marking the river reaching farthest up into the MN River watershed, very near the place where a huge waterway circle is completed. Why are all these evidences in the remote, far inland location they are in? Because early exploring Scandinavians found out that two dwindling waterways beginning at ocean sources met here, by Big Stone Lake and Lake Traverse. A quick check of a map will enable anyone to see what I'm saying is true. In other words, I have adequately explained why these stoneholes are where they are. This place where the dwindling waterways came together was recognized as special, as seen by the carving up of land (clusters of stoneholes) along the Whetstone River and in other areas, too.

I would like to help in your upcoming class, Andy, but I would like to experience a reasonable sentiment of open-mindedness about the possibility of medieval Norse expeditions into America's hinterland going into it. Thanks for your patience.

Gunn

7/31/2016 10:29:29 pm

I'm going to be gone for several days on a trip perhaps somehow related to the KRS. I came across something extremely interesting while reading another book I recently ordered by H. Holand, and the new mystery for us is over the possibility that a large rock bearing medieval Norse runes can be relocated in North Dakota, not far from Bismarck...submerged in the Missouri River.

I first found out about this obscure rock only a few months ago, while reading Holand's 1946 Book entitled, "America 1355 - 1364." The story about the rock comes from eyewitnesses from a group in 1894, and from another group in 1934, during low water events before dams changed things.

The story is told in Appendix B of the book, in a sub-title called "A Submerged Inscription." The rock's existence is reported in the "North Dakota Guide Book," from which the following citation (given by Holand) is taken:

"Below Stanton is DEAPOLIS (caps in original), marked by a single grain elevator, all that remains of another of the towns that sprang up along the Missouri, flourished, and declined with the steamboat trade...Old residents tell the story that in the summer of 1894 the river at Deapolis was extremely low, exposing a huge boulder in the center of the stream. An interested group made their way to the stone, and found it carved with peculiar markings they were unable to decipher. Before leaving, they added the date of their visit to the inscription. Forty years later, the river stage was again low enough to bring the stone above water, and a second party visited it, and found the same undecipherable markings, as well as the carving of the 1894 party."

Holand cites several reasons why he thinks this is a rock bearing Norse runes. One reason is because the Mandan were located in the exact same area the rock is located, and another reason is that Holand thinks the Verendrye stone came from that area, too, a small stone thought to have had runes carved into it. The local people indicated that the message inscription was carved, which would indicate an iron chisel.

I did some exploring using google-earth and found out that the rock described is almost certainly still in the water, just upstream a bit from where old Deapolis was situated by the railroad track and river. A friend did a data search and found out that the water is currently being controlled at around only seven or eight feet high, which means that the rock should be fairly accessible from the close-by boat launch, which can be seen from a sky-view, also. My friend and I are even now embarking on a trip up there to check it out, using modern equipment.

I have a screen-shot where the rock shows up very clearly. I'll let you know if we find anything.

Gunn

8/6/2016 12:55:32 pm

I just want to add a post-script to my trip, which I just got back from.

The spot of white in the google-earth image must have been a long-term deadhead sticking out the water when low, as repeated passing with sonar did not find a large rock.

However, an "anomaly" was discovered submerged in 17 feet of water even more directly across from the former site of both a Mandan village and the old vanished town of Deapolis. The boat pilot I hired is somewhat familiar with the bottom of the MO River in this area and was surprised to see what appears to be a large rock, perhaps 3 or 4 feet high by several feet long, on a ledge near the main channel, which is currently about 22 feet deep in the spot. (I was wrong earlier in stating the river was being held at 7 or 8 feet, based on a friend's wrong "statistical" input.)

I have come to realize that a severe "50-year" drought could easily have uncovered the large rock, exposing it to a possible Norse carver in medieval times, and then also to two groups in modern times...in 1894 and in 1934. I intend to do some research of the '34 drought.

It is possible that the river was only several feet deep during severe droughts, leaving the large rock in a foot or two of water, with the shrunken river flowing in the adjacent channel, perhaps only several feet deep. The difference between the height of the rock sitting at 17 feet and being 3 or feet tall, and the surface of the water is now about 13 or 14 feet, but during severe drought conditions, the rock may have sitting on a ledge in only one or two feet of water, with the channel running about 5 feet deep. This could also make the rock appear to be in the middle of the river, which was reported.

I plan to add a page soon to my personal website, showing some good photos, including one depicting radar results on a depth-finder screen showing an image of what is most likely a large rock. The river was riled by the wind and we were unable to get any good "fish-finder" camera images of the rock, so next time better weather and camera techniques will need to be applied to the situation.

While onsite, I found and photographed former ground-level evidences of both a Mandan village (already known about) and old Deapolis, both on the same site on the cliff overlooking where the rock possibly bearing Norse runes is now submerged in 17 feet of water.

(The rock's GPS has been noted and another future road trip will most likely be planned. What summer fun in spectacular North Dakota!)

Gunn link

8/8/2016 10:02:45 pm

Hi Andy, I've added a page to my website, with some good photos, trying to continue on drawing this possible connection between a "sojourning" medieval Norse party and the beginnings of the Mandan Nation...the possible connection arriving via a submerged rock.

This may be considered as as possibly relating to the Kensington Runestone, for your class, since we're talking about a possible medieval Norse expedition having taken place in ND not far at all as the crow flies from the many medieval Norse evidences in nearby SD and MN.

The early Kensington Runestone researcher, Hjalmar R. Holand focused on this possible connection, too, concentrating on the mysterious submerged boulder bearing carved markings...message unknown. Apparently, he drew a connection, too, to the so-called "Verendrye Runestone," thought to have been found and removed from the Minot area, to end up in obscurity.

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id41.html

Ed Tillman

8/31/2022 03:25:57 am

This stone is something to behold. For about 130 years it has stirred up debaits and emotions. I myself was turned on to it in 1986. But before that a teacher in my 9th grade history class in 69-70 talk about how America got its name. She stated that there was a rock on the east coast that had carvings on it. Some believed it was carved by the Vikings and some believed it to say Amerikas.She had family contacts in that area and said its has been known by the locals for as long as some can remember. I don't recall where she said the rock was found but I believe it to be the Narragansett Rune Stone NRS. The script is wrote out to give a Futhark short story doing so it automaticily created an anagram. However there are a few issues here. First the area beforethe first rune appears to have been an atempt to erase a possible asterisk-star this was possibly done by Mr. Brown when he was a child possibly didn't think it belong there. Second, the 2nd rune is not an "H" or "G" its a symbol for the star Venus AKA Merika and gives us the missing vowel to spell out its own name "E".3rd the rune for "O" was used for the story tell and was used in this lands name "Omerika" the "O" was drop when the name was change to "Amerikas".The 4th is the inverted "L" I don't believe so. This is a late Swedish and Noregion rune for "K" the angle arm was lowered to create a bind rune with "R" that is found in New Port Tower. Now we have the spelling for Amerikas in its anigram from. And that possible asterisk-star I believe it was to symbolize the star or comet Swift-Tuttle of 1362. The reason I brought this up is that its connected to the Kensington and the V'erendry rune stones KRS & VRS. By way of the Hooked X and date. The X will be referred to as the Sacred X by me.
And a geographical reading found in NRS that leads to the location of where VRS was found in South Dakota.What we know about this stone comes from Peter Kalm a Sweish scientist that Pierre the one that found it,shared his story with. The one item that I found very interesting was its size.
About 5x13x5 if one looks at the bottom of the KRS from photos one can possibly see it to be a match.
Now its my belief that these stones had a mark-up a copy so it could be edit and I think the VRS mark-up is the Spirit Pond Rune Stone SPRS and the VRS was Possibly carved on all four sides. And just like the NRS it too has geographical readinds in it that leads to where the KRS was place. Just like the VRS the KRS was also found and moved
These two stones was to mark the geographical center of the nothern half of the westeren hemisphere. The VRS mark center longitude between 30W to 170W this was changed about 1360 after Nicholas of Lynn was comissioned to survey the north land between 1330-1360. After Greenland,Iceland,English Isis and others fell under the Icelandic Geographical Tready of 1300.Prior to this it was 24 deg W. The KRS mark the center latitude from pole to equator at the closes highest place 45deg 4 min N. The prior center longitude was 94deg W and 40 deg N at a place called Adem-ondi-Ahman AOA by the Mormons. Thats right they was involved heavily and their population was mostly Moors. The AOA stones set north of Independence Mo. a place Joseph Smith Jr called the center of Zion. It is also the place where the Indepedence Rune Stone IRS is found.And I don't believe it was carved in 1888 it to gives the location to VRS and the AOA. And I believe it was carved in 1205 Nov.3rd Wednesday I believe Joseph Smith JR was told where to find this stone that mark Zion by Moroni.
All these stones are connected to each other. And for the first time it all makes sence. This wave of refugees came after the 1187 fall of Jerusalem not the 607 BC fall.

Arguing the Kensington Rune Stone in "Forbidden Archaeology:" A Brief Update

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories